Columbus, Georgia

COUNCIL REFERRALS

CLERK OF COUNCIL





Referrals- January 13, 2004



ST. MARY?S ROAD REZONING PROJECT:



In response to Councilor Turner Pugh?s request, I have enclosed a verbatim

transcript of the discussion at the January 6th Council meeting as it relates

to a gated community for the proposed St. Mary?s Road project.







_______________________

Tiny B. Washington, CMC

Clerk of Council

January 15, 2004









Clifton Fay - The next zoning item we?ve got for tonight is rezoning

approximately 23 acres located along the south side of St. Mary?s Road, south

of Northstar Drive from an R-2 to R-3A. It?s a Legacy Real Estate Advisors

petition. All right, the petitioner is here. Is there any opposition here

tonight on the Northstar petition? Sorry, St. Mary?s Road?



-There?s one gentleman over there.



Clifton Fay ? All right, we?ll let the petitioner go first then we?ll call up

any opposition. Okay, if you would please give me your name and address, sir.



Lance Cutsforth - Yes sir. Mr. Mayor, Members of Council: my name is Lance

Cutsforth; I live at 1222 Monroe Avenue which is Midtown Columbus. The reason

that we?re here this evening is to bring before the council the results of

approximately 2 ? years worth of effort and working with the neighbors in the

St. Mary?s Rd. area to develop a comprehensive development plan for this 23

acres. If I could, I?d like to briefly go over the history of this tract.

(Pointing to a map) As you can see right here outlined in green, there is

approximately 63 acres. That 63 acres was bought by Ted Freeman and his

daughter approximately 25 years ago. Mr. Freeman has obviously been a

stakeholder in the community during those 25 years. Originally we developed a

concept of approximately 450 apartments on this 63 acres, an A-O zoning, 300

Apartments in phase one with 150 apartments in phase two. The benefits that we

saw were: one, we allowed for a good transition, we have existing R-4 property

to the west. We?ve got a GA Power substation, to the North. We?ve got a church

to the east and overall we thought it allowed for a good transition between uh,

in commercial on the North side of St. Mary?s Rd. We believe that it provided

for a good transition between those built up areas and the single family back

behind. We were originally providing for two points of entry: One at the

intersection of Northstar Dr. and St. Mary?s Rd. and the other on Streator Dr.

Our proposal was a market rate product on par with some of the upper end

apartment complexes on the north side of town, our focus being military members

wanting to live in close proximity to Fort Benning. We were offering it as a

gated community and we anticipated a $20 million-dollar to $30 million-dollar

investment in Columbus south. We met with neighbors to hear their concerns.

We contacted neighbors in Quail Creek and Dawson Estates, those that were in

proximity and some of the initial concerns that were raised: one was that the

A-O zoning, there was concern that it could be used for some other use other

than apartments. The second was traffic that would be generated by the

apartment complex that would go back through Quail Creek and Dawson Estate

Subdivision through that second entrance. The other concern was proximity of

the apartment complex to housing and the perception of apartment dwellers and

the perception of the negative impact that they would have on the existing

neighborhoods. So we revised our plan and with that revision we came up with a

total of 300 units on the 63 acres. We reduced our zoning from A-O to an R-4,

same benefits of a gated community, market rate apartments, and the $20

million-dollar investment. But as compromises we offered, as you can see from

here (pointing to a sketch), a single point of entry that would allow of the

apartment dwellers to exit on to St. Mary?s Rd. at Northstar. We offered a

fence around the whole perimeter of the grounds to keep there from being

pedestrian traffic into the subdivision or from the subdivision into the

apartment complex. And we offered a 100 Ft., undisturbed buffer around the

complete perimeter of the property, and that, we were intending to put into the

Greenspace easement and it would remain undisturbed from that point forward.

Again further meetings with the neighbors and we had quite a few. Prevalent,

again, was the perception of apartment dwellers. Traffic concerns were raised

not by the neighbors in Quail Creek and Dawson Estates, but neighbors further

east down St. Mary?s Rd. with the amount of traffic that would be put on to St.

Mary?s Rd. In some of our meetings, we had some unfortunate tensions develop

between some of the neighbors and the investors that we had on board at the

time. So, based on that in February of 2002, we tabled our discussions and we

went back in for some re-organization of our development and investor group.

In August of 2003 we further revised our plan, which called for R-4 zoning of

240 apartments on 33 acres. Similar benefits, market rate apartments, gated

community, approximately an $18 million-dollar investment. The compromises

that we offered was that the balance of the land (the other 30 acres), would be

developed under the current R-2 zoning to provide a buffer and transition space

between these apartments and the existing neighborhoods and we still allowed

the single point of entry to St. Mary?s Rd. for the apartments and in

connection with the existing neighborhoods for the balance of the R-2 land.

Again, Neighborhood concerns were still the same: the perception of apartment

dwellers, traffic concerns for those who live further east on St. Mary?s Rd.,

and ultimately what came out of that decision was the desire for stakeholders

and property owners. The existing property owners, when we met with them, said

if you can develop a plan where we have people who have invested interest in

this community who will become property owners, we will support your plan.

From there ensued, meetings with some of the neighborhood leaders and the

stakeholders, we met again later in August and again in September (in the

indicated support for a plan that had home ownership), some of those leaders

included gentlemen like Mr. Luke Roach, Mr. Otis Redmond, Mr. Sherman Williams,

Mr. Kenneth Harold, and I believe some of those men are present here today and

I?m sure will speak on behalf of the project. So what we are offering as our

current proposal is taking into account the feedback from neighbors, we are

requesting an R-3A zoning, to allow us to build 40 townhouses and 40 single

family homes on 23 acres and further condition that none of the detached homes

will have zero lot lines. Some considerations for members of council: first is

the spirit of compromise that we?ve worked under. We?ve had multiple meetings

and integration of feedback from neighbors and neighborhood leaders. We are

looking at an R-3A rezoning on 23 acres versus our original request for an A-O

zoning on 63 acres. We are looking to place 80 units on 23 acres, and all of

those owned by individual homeowners versus 450 units on forty percent of the

land stays in its current zoning of R-2, and that?s property that surrounds on

all three sides. We have transitioned lately from apartments to a landowner

development and we have agreed to disallow the zero lot lines on the detached

homes per the recommendation of the Planning & Advisory Council. The second

point is density. Under optimal land conditions, over 80 units could be

developed under the current zoning. Under an R-2 you can get approximately 4

units per acre. So, although the requested zoning is classified as medium

density residential, and denied by the city planning because it was not in

compliance with the old comprehensive plan, our total units do not exceed the

maximum total units that are allowed under the current R-2 zoning, so the

intent of the comprehensive plan is being maintained. Third point of

consideration is traffic. We need the townhouses to support the construction

of the street to St. Mary?s Rd. and ultimately reduce the traffic being pushed

back through the existing neighborhood. If you?ll look at our plan, you can

see that we?ve got a significant amount of roadway that has no units on either

side of it, so essentially we?re getting no yield from that construction and

the cost of that road, approximately $300,000.00, needs to be carried

somewhere. By being able to emplace the townhouses, we?re able to amortize the

cost of that road over the cost of the development. The alternative,

unfortunately would be if the land was left under it?s existing zoning, there?s

no way to afford being able to create that connector road and all of the units

that would be developed on this site would be pushed back up? the traffic from

those units would be pushed back up through the Quail Creek and Dawson Estates

subdivision. The other advantage when it comes to the traffic consideration is

that fewer trips are generated by townhouses than detached homes. So,

ultimately that means a lesser impact on the overall traffic as opposed to the

construction of single-family? detached, single-family dwellings. As I said

before, the traffic from this total 63 acres is split. The 80 single-family

homes that we?re building will empty onto St. Mary?s Rd. at Northstar

intersection with the balance of the other subdivisions that Mr. Freeman is

building going through the existing neighborhood. The next point of

consideration is home ownership. With this plan we are able to offer a

diversity of housing product over the 63 acres. We ask that our townhouses

will start at $85,000.00, our detached homes will start at $115,000.00 and the

homes that Mr. Freeman will be responsible for in his developments on the

remaining 40 acres will and their larger lots will start above $120,000.00.

The final Consideration is looking at the bigger picture. If we assume medium

price of $100,000.00 per single family dwelling that we build, townhouses being

included in that, this project represents an $8 million-dollar investment in

Columbus South. And combined with Mr. Freeman?s efforts, that number easily

doubles. The additional homeowners in South Columbus help create more buying

power to attract business to Columbus South. The transition from the existing

apartments, the power substation, the church to townhouses to smaller single

family to larger single family makes good planning sense. Another point of

consideration is that starting in 2005, RCI will be implemented at Fort

Benning, which calls for the demolition and replacement of a thousand housing

units and the renovation of three thousand housing units. During the time of

renovation, the demand for housing in close proximity to Fort Benning will

increase. We will also be going through another base realignment and closure

in 2005. Fort Benning will likely benefit from the realignment as it did last

time. Fort Benning?s future partnership is focused on adding new missions and

organizations to Fort Benning. And all of the new families that will be coming

to Fort Benning as a result, will need housing in the community. So, in

conclusion, what I?d like to offer is a summary. First is the extensive

compromise and assimilation of neighborhood input over this 2-? year journey.

We?ve used the limited tools we have available to address these traffic issues

of neighbors. We?ve completely changed? (There was a break in the tape)

We?re providing a diversity of housing products with multiple price points, we

are catalyzing a significant investment in Columbus South, we?re offering a

planned, defined community, and we?re positioning ourselves to help families of

Fort Benning with housing options. And one point that I would also like to add

is that we were approved by PAC unanimously. Obviously there was a good reason

we had a unanimous approval.

Mr. Mayor, with your permission, I?ll conclude.



Clifton Fay - Okay, any other questions of the petitioner? If not, we?ll let

anyone else who wants to be heard in favor. Anybody want to be heard in

favor? (Someone raised their hand) Come on up, sir. If you would, give me

your name and address.



Mayor Poydasheff - Are you in favor sir?



Man - I?m in favor.



Mayor Poydasheff - Alright.



Myrtis Roach, Jr. - My name is Myrtis Roach, Jr. I?ve lived in Dawson Estates

for approximately 35 years. I?ve been working with the? maybe in contention

with the developer the past couple of years, based on the fact that they were

trying to develop an apartment complex in our neighborhood, which we did not

want. On many occasions we?ve met with him, we?ve had discussions with him,

and we?ve even petitioned council previously to block the petitions? uh, the

apartments, rather and with the understanding that we?re not going to stop this

development until you build a wider road on St. Mary?s Rd. and we can?t stop

him from developing the property under it?s current authorization. And if it

is developed as it is currently zoned, then it would have greater impact on our

community that?s what he is proposing. We have to recognize, and we can?t

cause him to build $200,000.00 - $500,000.00 dollar homes on the property that

he is developing. Then we came up with a? with a realization that perhaps if

we got what we wanted, than we could give him what he wanted. And there are

still some people who are opposed to that idea. They don?t want anything to be

built, and some don?t want anything built until Fort Benning opens up the end

of St. Mary?s Rd., they don?t want it built until St. Mary?s is widened?



Mayor Poydasheff - Let me interrupt for just a second as a matter of record.

The opening of St. Mary?s Rd., back to Fort Benning is highly problematical I

can tell you that I doubt that will happen.



Mr. Roach - Surely. Okay, with those things before, some behind us and having

to contend with, we met at our last meeting and decided that that perhaps the

best thing we could do would be to go with the plan that would give the

greatest amount of benefit to the community and the least amount of impact on

the environment. We did not want to see the traffic of that development dumped

into the current neighborhood; we prefer to see it go up St. Mary?s Rd. and the

other neighborhood. The only way that he could develop a road to St. Mary?s

Rd. was with the current plan. Then we said that we would be in agreement with

him, so we stand for his development.



Mayor Poydasheff - Thank you sir. Would you ask the proponent to remove that?

Mr. Cutsworth I don?t think we?re going to need that easel.



Ted Freeman - My name is Ted Freeman I?ve been here before and I?ve heard all

the different versions of what could be done and should be done. And I?m not

going to bore you with all those facts again, but I?d like to see the land

developed and I think this is a good compromise, and I would like to show you a

little bit of what I?m doing on the other side to compliment this. We just

recently finished developing a small subdivision at Mt. Vernon Estates in

Section Three. We have 16 lots. We have good size lots, and they?re just

about ready to be built on. We?re in the process of getting a permit to do an

extension of Quail Creek the same way and there?s 40 acres left in the tract

after these 23 come off that I plan to develop into two or three sections as

they sell and hope to upgrade more than say, $125,000.00, but something up

above that in the way of priced housing. The one reason is, it?s hard to

develop the piece that he?s talking about. The 23 acres is approximately 700

feet from St. Mary?s Rd., past the power line, past the church, and past the

substation, before you can build a house. And all of you know what roads

costs. You can?t build a 700-foot road with no houses on it and expect to make

any money developing it. If he gets down there and goes around the lake, it?s

a beautiful lake, about 2 ?, 3-acre lake. It backs up to huckleberry hill

apartments. They?re using that side of the lake as a place for picnicking and

cooking out and all. What we would like to see is to develop the other side,

the eastside and the north side of the lake in similar fashion, not with

apartments, but with townhomes. Now there?s been some questions from some of

you councilor?s: What happens if you build the things and they won?t sell, then

you?re going to rent them and you?ve got apartments again? Well what the plan

is, and we?ve talked about this, is to build a few and see if they sell. If

they do, we continue, if they don?t we stop. But in the meantime we?ve got a

road now that can be paid for by some of the income these per sale. Also, at

the same time, there is still some area around the lake, up above that that can

be developed into single-family houses. Now I?m not interested in this

development other that to sell the land. I?ve got a sales contract with him to

sell the land I?m through with it. But I think the compromise we?re making

here is the about the best thing I?ve seen. I don?t blame these people for not

wanting apartments built in there. I?ve seen apartments devaluate the

neighborhood many times. But I?ve had experience in the last few weeks with

the neighbors up in Quail Creek and Mt. Vernon Estates since we?ve been working

out there on these two little subdivisions, and you?ve talked about Columbus

South, and let?s do something in Columbus South. This is a chance to develop

this whole piece of property. Its about 63 acres, its one of the largest

chunks of property in that neighborhood. There hasn?t been a house built out

there in over 25 years. Now if we want to do something about South Columbus or

Columbus South, lets start this ball rolling. If the townhouses don?t sell,

they?ll be stopped, you won?t have 40 of them sitting down there, I guarantee

you. He ain?t gonna put them down there if he can?t sell them, and they may

not sell, but all you?re doing is giving him the opportunity to try, and I

think if you say no, then you?re saying you don?t want anything built there.

And if that?s what you say, that little lake is probably gonna stay there and

be a watershed lake for a long time. I just hope you?ll consider, let?s take a

step forward. And I?ll do everything I can to help him on the upper end trying

to upgrade the neighborhood of Quail Creek and Mt. Vernon Estates. And we?ve

got some people here today that live there and I think they?re going to speak

in a few minutes and I hope you?ll listen to them. Now, are there any

questions I can answer for you?



Mayor Poydasheff - Councilor Suber?



Councilor Suber - Now, you?re saying to upgrade Mt. Vernon and Quail Creek,

what do you mean by that?



Ted Freeman - I mean not go in ? It?s zone R-2 now. If you go in with R-2, you

can build with 60-foot lots most of your houses probably wouldn?t be over

$125,000.00 dollars. The lots I?ve developed are 75-foot lots and they are big

enough to build a house of a $150,000.00 - $160,000.00 dollars, and that?s what

we are encouraging.



Councilor Suber - But you?re starting off at $120,000.00 dollars?



Ted Freeman - No, I?ll have to correct. I think Lance mentioned $120,000.00

dollars, but that?s not my idea.



Councilor Suber - But his single-family homes are only going to be around

$115,000.00.



Ted Freeman - Well, now he said that, but that?s the ones that are down there

in the R-3A.



Councilor Suber - Well now how far is that from your development?



Ted Freeman - It?s down toward the lake, below ours, but it?s in the same

neighborhood, yes.



Councilor Suber - So, what does that do for the people who are buying your

homes versus the ones that are buying his. As far as the property value of it

is concerned.



Ted Freeman - What?s going to happen, is it?s going to gradually work down,

your high priced houses in Quail Creek and Mt. Vernon Estates. The next ones

are the two subdivisions out there developing now. It will step down again to

something he?s going to build around his townhomes.



Councilor Suber - But, well would you not agree, and you and I discussed this

the other day. The concern is R-2 rezoning that if you are going to build R-1A

type lots, would it not be better for the neighborhood to go ahead and build

R-1A lot on R-2 property because you asked for more money and to me it would be

a contiguous area in dealing with the Quail Creek property and Mt. Vernon

property.



Ted Freeman - Well, you and I discussed that. I think the price of the lots

are going to make the people pay, are going to build a bigger house.



Councilor Suber - Well, I understand, but not after you?re right next to the

homes that he?s planning on building.



Ted Freeman - Well, it?s a choice. I can go in on 60-foot lots right now,

right against Quail Creek.



Councilor Suber - I understand. And you and I talked about that, too.



Ted Freeman - And I can do that, and not even ask you.



Councilor Suber - I understand. I agree.



Ted Freeman - And the reason I didn?t come to another rezoning, there?s another

baffle to go through. I said let me show you what I can do. I went up there

and developed the lots. I haven?t sold a single lot. I got $500,000.00

dollars worth of lots sitting up there right now. I don?t know if I can sell

them, or not. But I?m going to tell you this; I?ve taken that step. And I

think you need to take a step.



Mayor Poydasheff- Are you through Councilor Suber?



Councilor Suber - Yes.



Mayor Poydasheff - Councilor Pugh?



Councilor Pugh - Mr. Freeman and also to Lance, you know you say if we deny

this rezoning, then it means that we don?t want anything built in South

Columbus. I live in Dawson Estates, I have lived in Dawson Estates off and on

since 1966, since 1968 and I take pride in my neighborhood and when I hear

people say the traffic won?t have an impact on Dawson Estates, it will have an

impact on Dawson Estates right now, every morning I come out to go to work and

you see people lined up, because if you?re trying to go left, there?s no

traffic light and because there is an elementary school out there and people

are trying to that school in the mornings, it?s causing traffic to back up.

And I do have to be concerned also about the people who live up past that

development and the impact of the traffic it will have on them and when you

talk about, Lance talk about pushing the traffic out on St. Mary?s Rd., it will

have an impact on everybody who lives out there, and who has lived out there

forever, and who takes pride and ownership in living out there. And I say the

same thing to this rezoning as I say to the other ones, you can talk about

condos or apartments, but when it gets to a point at some point in time that

you have to stop them from festering the neighborhoods because if they build

condos and they don?t sell, and I look at some of the condos that some other

developers have built in the community and they didn?t sell, people don?t buy

them, they end up renting them. And they?ll do the same thing for this one.

There?s no difference in a condo or an apartment when you rent it. And we want

nice, single family dwellings in out neighborhoods, too. And to say that just

because we don?t approve the rezoning and say that we?re against building in

Sough Columbus or the developing in South Columbus, I take offense to that.

I?ve lived In South Columbus all my life. And I?m 50 something years old.



Ted Freeman - Well I don?t mean to say that it doesn?t affect you traffic wise,

it does. Cause when you put traffic on St. Mary?s Rd., if it ain?t but three

cars, it?s that three many more. But would you rather have what you?ve got

there now, when you came from your house and go in to St. Mary?s Rd., you have

to turn right into traffic and it?s very busy there in the morning, I?m sure.



Councilor Pugh - It?s extremely busy and when you get somebody there who?s

trying to turn left, it takes even that much longer.



Ted Freeman - But wouldn?t you be better there with a cross there, straight

across with a traffic light? Wouldn?t that help you get out?



Councilor Pugh - It possibly would, but I can have that same traffic light,

that same cross with single-family houses across that street. Where they built

single-family houses right on the other side of that church.



Ted Freeman - You?re right, but then you find me somebody that?ll build

single-family houses that?ll put a 700-foot road in, I?ll be glad to sell them

the land. But I can?t do it.



Councilor Pugh - Well see it?s all about profit to you, but to me it?s about

neighborhood.



Ted Freeman - Well yes, you?re right, but profit is what you?re going to have

to make if you?re going to be in the development business or the construction

business, it?s the facts of life. You and I probably aren?t going to agree,

but you know, you also have to think you?re saying you have no other way out.

You can go out Steam Mill Rd, if you have to.



Mayor Poydasheff - Councilor McDaniel?



Councilor McDaniel - I only want to ask the planning division, Will? Is Will

here?



Mayor Poydasheff - Mr. Johnson?



Councilor McDaniel - Or either Richard.



Mayor Poydasheff - Maybe the City Manager.



Councilor McDaniel - The City Manager: The? If I noticed that you recommended

denial, but if you?re not going to build something like this, what are you

going to build out there? If it doesn?t meet the comprehensive plan?



City Manager - The reason we recommended the denial is because it does not meet

the comprehensive plan.



Councilor McDaniel - But what would you build out there? With the

comprehensive plan?



City Manager - Well R-2, R-3. But not R-3A.



Councilor McDaniel - But he?s telling you that you can?t develop it because of

the expense. I?m just trying to get some information, you know, I?m not

disagreeing with my friend over there because I understand the situation, but

I?m just trying to figure out what you could build out there.



City Manager - From a comprehensive plan point of view, you could build R-2,

R-3, but the, that is the guidance that the planning committee has is to stick

adhere strictly to the comprehensive plan, which this council has approved.



Councilor McDaniel - Well the property owner said they had another meeting and

they would agree to the R-3A.



City Manager - And of course, the council has the prerogative of changing that

if they so desire, but again, I don?t think it?s appropriate for the staff to

deviate from the comprehensive plan.



Councilor McDaniel - Let me say this, and I?m not, I?ve been knowing Ted

Freeman for 50 years, I guess, a long time, we go back a long way and I?ve been

knowing him for years, but I don?t believe Ted Freeman, personally, would do

anything to harm a neighborhood or any development because he?s not that kind

of person, he?s a good person, and he?s very, very conciseness of what he?s

doing and he?s, the only thing he?s trying to do, and I can understand that, if

you?ve got a piece of property sitting there and you?re paying taxes on it and

everything else, why not develop it, but he?s trying to develop it for the best

he can use for that neighborhood out there, but I can understand, really, you

know I, we go through this all the time, but the man has got to do something

with his property, and it could be worse, I don?t think anybody is going to

develop R-2 out there with the road like he said. I believe what he says, I?ve

been knowing him too long, and he ain?t going to mislead you.



Ted Freeman - Well, I?ve actually had builders to go look at it and tried to

sell it to build R-2. And, I?ve had no takers and it?s been a long time, and

we?ve owned this thing, my daughter and I have owned it for 20, 25 years. Some

of it, part of it was bought at a later date. But way back when Bob Carter was

living, he planned to build apartments around that lake, because he had

apartments on the other side of the lake. The apartments were built on the

other side of the lake and they?re still there. And if he had lived, I?m

pretty sure somewhere down the line he would?ve come to you and said hey, we

need to go around the lake with apartments. But I?ll agree that I?d rather

have townhomes than apartments. And Evelyn?s got a point if you sell a

townhome, and somebody moves out of town, like an Army man and has to get

transferred, he may rent that place. But he also may rent a single-family

house. He?s either going to rent it or he?s going to sell it. As far as us

building them and selling them to an investor that?s going to own a whole

building, then that?s the same thing as apartments. One owner owns a whole

building, maybe 8 units, but that?s not what we?re trying to do. We?re trying

to sell these things to individuals. I keep saying that somebody may want to

rent one four years from now. I keep saying that.



Mayor Poydasheff - Is that it Councilor McDaniel?



Councilor McDaniel - Yes.