Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines immediate sale of riverfront parcel; ordinance fails after split vote
Summary
A proposed ordinance to sell 3989 Lorna Road to Cahaba Landing developers for redevelopment was defeated after a roll-call vote. Developers presented a plan emphasizing a riverfront community hub; opponents and some council members said they needed more time and information.
The Hoover City Council voted down an ordinance seeking to declare property at 3989 Lorna Road unneeded for municipal purposes and to authorize a real-estate sales agreement with Cahaba Landing Development LLC.
City Attorney Greg Knighton and staff summarized the city's history with the parcel and the proposed purchase-sale terms, and representatives from the development team described plans that would mix food-and-beverage tenants, light retail and a central green space adjacent to the Cahaba River.
Hunter Strickler, a local developer and Hoover resident, said the team viewed the site as an opportunity "to create a unique community hub for the entrance to the Riverchase community" anchored by food-and-beverage tenants, light retail and co-working space. Strickler said his team had local ties and intends to coordinate the upper parcel's development with the city's plan to retain the lower parcel for recreational river access.
Knighton said the city originally purchased the property with the intent that the lower parcel remain city-owned and support river access, while the upper parcel could accommodate commercial activity such as food-and-beverage or kayaking-related uses. The proposed purchase-sale agreement would have required the purchaser to deposit $10,000 earnest money, conduct up to 270 days of due diligence, and complete closing within 30 days after the due-diligence period.
During public comment, resident Jean Smith asked about the legal authority for selling municipal property and whether the sale must be handled by auction under state law. Staff responded that an auction is not required in this case and that an appraisal will be performed as part of the purchase process.
Councilors conducted a roll-call vote after seeking unanimous-consent to suspend the rules for immediate consideration. The roll call recorded multiple votes: Councilor Sweeney voted no; Councilor Driver voted no; Councilor McClinton voted yes; Councilor Posey voted yes. With two recorded yes votes and two recorded no votes (two other members were not recorded in the excerpt as voting in the affirmative), the item failed to pass "for immediate consideration" and thus the ordinance did not advance that night.
City staff said the purchase-sale agreement would proceed through the normal due-diligence and appraisal steps if the developer returns the item later; the developers indicated they would accept a delay if the council preferred more time for review.
