Trip Galloway, attorney for the residents of Chester Road, speaks at the May 1 special meeting of the Mountain Brook City Council. Photo by Solomon Crenshaw Jr.
A special meeting of the Mountain Brook City Council on May 1 did not yet settle the question of rezoning the Shades Valley Presbyterian Church property for a planned unit development.
But, the three hour session did allow voices to be heard that were not at the prior gathering when developers largely made their case for building condominiums and townhouses on the property.
Opposition to the development continues to be its access to Chester Road, a “Mayberry-esque” cul-de-sac that in 71 years was only open to through traffic on Wednesdays and Sundays when the church had service.
“It just doesn’t get better than Chester Road,” said Elizabeth Coleman, who grew up on the street with her single mother and moved back there as an adult. “It’s a hidden gem.”
Trip Galloway, attorney for Chester Road residents, said their voices were heard this time.
“I feel that it was by the fact there wasn't a vote and there was a very sincere analysis by the council as to why they were not voting tonight, that they needed to consider things,” Galloway said. “I couldn't ask for a more unbiased and fair assessment by my government.
“I hope ultimately they will reach a decision that my people will support,” the attorney said. “We're not there, but I thought tonight was a fair treatment for both sides. We'll see where we go from here.”
Some time was taken in the development team presenting changes to its original plan.
Charlie Beavers, attorney for the developers, said his side had made its case.
“There are a few changes that we're going to make that were pointed out in this hearing, like the location of the trash area and the wall,” Beavers said. “We will go to work and get that change made and submitted.”
The initial plan had a 14-unit condominium building with a parking deck underneath it directly behind the two residences on Chester Road.
“Residents have said they thought we should move the density west to the building on the western end and lower the density and do townhomes behind them,” Beavers said, “so that's exactly what this developer did.”
Much of the discussion was from residents, only one of whom spoke in favor of the development. That person spoke about him and his wife downsizing from their current residence and moving “closer to the village.”
“This looks to be an excellent project,” Richard Pizitz said to the council. “I hope you pass this proposal.”
Generally, residents said the developer had not made concessions in keeping with the wishes of residents.
Councilman Billy Pritchard expressed disappointment that the developer had not made more concessions. He said his concern is the character of the neighborhood, citing an alternative access to the development that did not include Chester Road.
“I was hopeful that after the last meeting … an alternative plan maybe could get traction,” Pritchard said. “I would hope that if we continue this that there's an opportunity for further change.”
Principal developer Margi Ingram said she hopes an agreement comes soon.
“I hope that it's imminent that we could get something that would be very good to go forward and get our development for the city underway,” Ingram said, “so that these people that need this type of housing could move and get on with their lives.”
