Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Gaines School Planned Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planned development for 69 townhomes, 10 ADUs proposed on Gaines School Road draws public concern over traffic, density and stormwater

2693964 · March 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A planned development proposal for 450–460 Gaines School Road would add 69 fee‑simple townhomes, 10 accessory dwelling units and nearly 10,000 sq ft of commercial space on about eight acres; Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions but residents raised safety, traffic-signal, density and stormwater concerns.

Developers proposing a planned development called Cedar Ridge on 450 and 460 Gaines School Road presented a plan for 69 fee‑simple townhomes, 10 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and roughly 10,000 square feet of commercial space on about eight acres at a March 18 meeting of the Athens‑Clarke County Commission.

Bruce from the Planning Department outlined the application: the project requests a future‑land‑use amendment (Main Street Business across the site), a rezone to RM‑2 mixed‑density residential with a planned development overlay and related special‑use approvals for parts of the Gainesville Road corridor and the airport overlay. The applicant asked for six development waivers; staff and the Planning Commission recommended four of the waivers and denied two (notably a waiver for front porch orientation and a waiver of the 25% fenestration requirement facing the street).

The plan proposes an internal street extension (Woody Lane) connecting to Gainesville Road, on‑street parking and a 10‑foot multi‑use path along Gainesville Road in lieu of the standard five‑foot sidewalk. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the future‑land‑use change and the rezone with four conditions: correct required easements and utility locations to public‑utility standards; meet Transportation and Public Works conditions related to stormwater; install the 10‑foot multi‑use trail to TPW standards; and prohibit a short list of commercial uses proffered by the applicant (vehicle repair, gasoline sales, drive‑thrus, hostels, vehicle repair for gas‑powered vehicles and nursing homes).

The county and the applicant discussed stormwater at length. Planning staff said this part of the corridor predates modern stormwater infrastructure and that the project team proposed two options: (1) obtain an easement and pipe runoff behind downhill neighbors to outfall into the creek, or (2) over‑detain on site and release less post‑development runoff than the current pre‑development flows. The project engineer and landscape architect said they have committed to a traffic study and, if it is not ready at the next hearing, would request a continuance.

Several residents and technical speakers urged additional conditions or a tablement. Kenneth Portier, president of the Cedar Creek Civic Association, and other neighbors described the proposal as substantially denser than surrounding neighborhoods (they cited about 12 units per acre compared with lower densities nearby), raised concerns about building setbacks and tree canopy loss, and urged a signal at the proposed Woody Lane/Ponderosa intersection. Martha Davis, a nurse and former chief nursing officer at the University health center, said traffic controls were a public‑health issue given schools and the early‑learning center on the corridor and urged a traffic signal if the development proceeds. Scott Haines, the landscape architect working with the applicant, said sewer extension will provide benefits to neighbors on failing septic systems and framed stormwater work as a net benefit compared with existing conditions.

Commissioners asked staff to supply additional details before a final vote, specifically more documentation on the airport overlay determination (several commissioners asked why a proposed public library site had earlier been rejected under the airport overlay while this project was now being recommended), the traffic‑warrants analysis for a signal at Woody Lane/Ponderosa, and more modeling on stormwater mitigation plans and easement status. Multiple commissioners said they were open to the concept of additional infill housing but wanted clearer answers on traffic, stormwater and setbacks before approving a final binding plan.

Planning Commission recommendations and the applicant’s proffers are on record; the county commission did not take a final vote on the planned development in the March 18 transcript and the item will return with additional technical information and possible continuance requests.