Planning commission forwards Hughes Circle senior-housing rezoning, development plan to City Council after 5-2 negative recommendation

At its February 2025 meeting, the Homewood Planning Commission voted 5-2 to forward to City Council a rezoning application (RZ25‑02‑01) and a final development plan (FD25‑02‑02) from Cadre Engineering and Ferris Properties for 101–109 Hughes Circle, a project that would combine nine existing residential lots into one parcel and build a three‑story assisted‑living/memory‑care building plus 24 independent‑living cottages.

The vote came after presentations by the applicant team and about an hour of public comment in which nearby residents raised concerns about tree canopy loss, traffic and safety on Old Montgomery Highway and Lakeshore, stormwater runoff, parking, potential increases in emergency medical calls and the precedent that rezoning could set for other Neighborhood Preservation District (NPD) parcels. Commissioners Henninger and Roberts voted in favor; Commissioners Gulas, Andress, Armstead, Rispinto and Wilcutt voted against. Commissioners expressed that the Planning Commission is advisory and the City Council is the ultimate decision maker.

Why it matters: the site sits inside a Neighborhood Preservation District surrounded on several sides by higher‑intensity uses along Lakeshore. Neighbors and the applicant disagree over whether the proposed PR‑2 zoning and the planned development would be compatible with the NPD’s stated goal to preserve historic neighborhood patterns. Because the Planning Commission is advisory, the council will hold a second public hearing and make the final zoning decision.

Project and developer claims The applicant described the plan as a locally designed and operated senior community. Bridal Hatcher of Cadre Engineering identified the project scope: combining 101–109 Hughes Circle into one lot, vacating Hughes Circle by future resurvey, constructing a three‑story assisted‑living/memory‑care building and a cluster of single‑story cottages that the applicant described as independent living for mostly couples.

John Chapman of Ferris Properties, the applicant/developer, and representatives from KPS Group (architect) and Atlas Senior Living (operator) said the development would be locally built and managed. The applicant cited a third‑party market study by Senior Market Research Associates that, in the applicant’s summary, found within a five‑mile radius roughly 780 independent living units, 278 assisted‑living units and 76 memory‑care units, with occupancy rates the applicant described at about 90–93 percent. The applicant also said the nine parcels currently have a combined assessed value of about $4,100,000 and estimated the completed project could multiply that assessed value by roughly 10–15 times.

Project numbers presented by the applicant (as stated at the meeting) - Assisted‑living/memory‑care building: up to 94 total potential occupants. - Independent cottages: 24 units. - Total on‑site parking shown: 100 spaces across the property. - Maximum employees on site at a peak shift: 28 employees. - Typical care‑associate shift pattern described by the operator: 6 a.m., 2 p.m., 10 p.m.; dining shifts cited as 5 a.m. and 1 p.m. - Applicant’s tree replacement plan: 24 trees per acre, described as 153 new trees for the development (plan-level figure; final tree survey and grading not completed). - PR‑2 requirements noted by the applicant: 10–12 foot landscape buffer standard (applicant said the project provides a larger green setback of roughly 30–50 feet in places) and maximum building coverage of 35% (applicant said the project is below that limit).

Traffic, access and emergency access The applicant said a preliminary traffic study by Skipper (Schipler) Consulting used industry trip‑generation tables and estimated peak vehicle trips at roughly 12–15 in and 12–15 out during the morning and afternoon peak hours, which the applicant summarized as approximately one vehicle every 3–5 minutes during peak periods. The applicant said shift scheduling could be adjusted to reduce overlap with school commute peaks and that some deliveries and support service trips are included in the study’s trip totals but cannot be disaggregated by resident vs. staff vs. service vehicle.

Access: the applicant presented a primary driveway on Old Montgomery Highway (Old 31) close to Lakeshore and said a second access would be either a gated emergency only entrance on Old 31 or a recorded perpetual easement across the adjacent First Baptist Church parking lot; the fire department requested a second point of fire access and the applicant said the second access would be provided either via the gated Old 31 entrance or via the church easement if that easement can be recorded.

Stormwater and site design The applicant stated stormwater detention would be underground and designed to meet Homewood’s quantity and quality standards, with detention invert elevations described as higher than the adjacent river to limit river backflow. The applicant said the site plan provides additional green setback and native species landscaping intended for year‑round screening.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns Multiple speakers from Ashley Circle, Ashley Drive and nearby condominiums opposed the rezoning and plan. Key concerns raised by neighbors included: - Neighborhood preservation and master‑plan compatibility: neighbors cited the Homewood Master Plan and argued the Neighborhood Preservation District exists to preserve single‑family character and increase owner‑occupied housing; they said the proposed development would be rental/operated housing and therefore inconsistent with those goals. - Tree canopy and environment: neighbors said the plan would remove most trees in rear yards and substantially reduce the urban canopy; multiple speakers noted the neighborhood lost trees in recent tornado damage and expressed concern about further canopy loss. - Traffic and pedestrian safety: neighbors said Old Montgomery Highway and Lakeshore are narrow and congested, particularly during Homewood High School drop‑off and pickup; they expressed concern about staff shift changes, deliveries and emergency vehicle movements near school traffic. - Services and EMS calls: neighbors referenced national reporting about increased 911 calls from assisted‑living facilities and asked how often EMS calls are expected; the applicant’s operator estimated historical averages at about four to five EMS responses per week at similarly sized properties. - Precedent and property values: neighbors argued approval could set a rezoning precedent for other isolated NPD parcels and said some families hold properties by long family covenant; they also raised concerns about property value impacts.

Votes and next steps The Planning Commission made two separate motions and voted on each item. For RZ25‑02‑01 (rezoning from Neighborhood Preservation District/MPD to PR‑2) the commission voted 5 no, 2 yes; the commission recorded a negative recommendation and referred the case to City Council. For FD25‑02‑02 (final development plan) the commission voted with the same 5‑2 split and likewise forwarded the item to City Council with a negative recommendation. The commission chair and staff reiterated that the City Council is the ultimate decision maker and that property owners within 500 feet will receive notice of the council hearing.

Evidence and public record The application materials in the staff packet include the applicant’s site plan, preliminary grading and landscape plans, the Skipper consulting trip‑generation memo, a summary of the Senior Market Research Associates housing study (applicant summary), and the applicant’s tree‑replacement schedule. The applicant and staff said a final tree survey and final grading plan have not been completed; the applicant said tree saving will be evaluated during final grading and permitting.

What’s next Because the Planning Commission is advisory the cases will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. City staff said property owners within 500 feet of the site will be notified of the hearing date and time and that the council will make the final determination on zoning and the plan.