It was standing room only at the Fairhope Planning Commission Monday night, as citizens came in large numbers to voice their opposition to a proposed amendment to the Fly Creek Planned Unit Development with the commission ultimately voting to approve the amendment despite the public’s objections.

The amendment centered around a  change developers asked for that would add new high density residential development in that area near US Highway 98 and Parker Road.

Planning Director Jonathan Smith told the commission and crowd that the Fly Creek PUD consists of approximately 214 acres and that it had initially been approved by the planning commission back in Oct. 2006.

“The portion that has been requested to be modified in this application is approximately 39 and four-sixths acres, which is situated around Publix and Fly Creek along that portion of the property,” Smith said. “The remaining 175 acres are to remain as a previously approved PUD, which is predominantly single residential.”

The potential change to the PUD would bring around 240 apartment units and 90 flat/townhomes to the amended area, but Smith said the density changes proposed in the amendment would be about the same as when the project was initially approved.

This proposed amendment to the PUD came following a December meeting where the commission voted 5-4 to deny a previous amendment after concerns that the population density might be a strain on the city’s resources.

Stuart Speed, a representative from the Leaf River Group (developers of the property), said they had listened to citizens concerns after the December rejection and hoped the city and its citizens would be open to what they were wanting to do.

“What we’re proposing to build doesn’t exist on the Eastern Shore today,” Speed said. “The national residential model has changed since the economic downturn in 2008 and more people are wanting to rent than own, hence the changes we are seeking to the PUD.”

Speed said the tenants the developer would seek if the proposal was approved would be mainly Baby Boomers, retirees and Millenials and that there would be fewer units that would be considered “family” units.

“No everyone can afford a several hundred thousand dollar home,” Speed said, “so do you want Fairhope to be a town where the cost of access is several hundred thousand dollars?”

Several in the crowd yelled back “Yes” to Speed’s question.

Speed said bringing a new apartment complex to the area would be Fairhope’s first new apartments in 24 years, when Arbor Gates was built.

“However, our apartments will be higher quality and higher rent,” Speed said, adding that the average monthly rent for the units would cost anywhere from $1,000 to $1,600 per month. “We realize that Fairhope is a special community and we’re not trying to take away from that. We’re trying to make the special community more sustainable.”

Speed showed a presentation with similar projects that had been built in areas like Savannah and Franklin, Tenn., but local residents seemed unimpressed and had further questions for Speed and the planning commission.

More than 25 to 30 people had signed up to speak before the meeting, and each one took their opportunity to make their concerns heard.

“They say ‘We’ll be here for the long haul,’ but I don’t buy that as an absolute for a moment,” Mike Perkins said. “Just look around Fairhope at some of the subdivisions that were sunk when the developers pulled out and other developers came in and built lower quality houses. There’s no guarantee that they will be around here for the long haul.”

Perkins said he was on the original committee that helped delve into this PUD 10 years ago and said he felt like all the work that was done back then was done for nothing, as now the developers are coming back in to change the PUD and do whatever they want with the property.

“We worked hard to create this plan and now they want to change it,” Perkins said, “and there’s nothing now that will stop them again from changing it in the future whenever they want to. If they want to change it, cancel the current PUD and start over.”

Leonard Nelson, a resident of nearby Sandy Ford, told the commission he didn’t think there was anyone who lived near the proposed development that was in support of the amendment.

“Good developments enhance the community and bad developments detract from it,” Nelson said, “and in my opinion, I really don’t see what putting all of these apartments on the back end of Parker Road does anything to enhance Fairhope.”

Other speakers questioned how raising the population density in the area could cause problems for vital city services like police and fire, while others were still wary that the developers might not follow through on all of their promises.

After all of the public comments, the commission voted 8-1 to recommend the amendment to the PUD, with commission member Hollie MacKellar casting the lone vote against the proposal.

Following the vote, citizens said they felt that while they were given a chance to speak, their voices weren’t really heard.

“It is discouraging because even after all of the public comments against it, those of us from Rock Creek, Sandy Ford and the surrounding neighborhoods feel like we’re being ignored, that we’re not really a part of Fairhope,” Lynn Maser said. “We are Fairhope as much as anyone else, and we’re a much larger voting group than 2 percent.”

Maser said she and others weren’t surprised by the planning commission’s actions and they are moving forward to try to talk with city council members about the plan.

“We’ll be working with and talking to the council to figure out what we can do next,” Maser said. “We’re by no means done in terms of trying to stop this from happening.”

The Fairhope City Council will take up the commission’s recommendation at an upcoming meeting.