Commissioners hear plan for 218 North Avenue rezone as developer pledges help relocating RV residents

Athens‑Clarke County planning staff and developers described a proposed rezone of 218 North Avenue from CN (commercial neighborhood) to RM‑3 on Jan. 23 as a detailed infill plan that would convert a family‑held vacant lot into multiple residential buildings and a central clubhouse.

Planning Director Bruce Lonnie said the parcel is shown as Main Street business on the future‑land‑use map, and both the existing CN and the proposed RM‑3 designations are compatible with that future land use. The applicant’s concept shows eight structures totaling 228 bedrooms across the site, a clubhouse amenity and roughly 218 surface parking spaces; the Planning Commission found the architecture and massing appropriate and recommended approval subject to a condition that the “architectural design intent” (massing, scale, materials and general fenestration) be binding.

Developer Chase Lawrence, who said he and his company have worked on multiple local projects and intend to keep a local team for construction and management, told the commission he believes the project can attract a broad mix of renters — students, young professionals and retirees — and that his team is working with the current property owner to assist the roughly dozen people currently living in recreational vehicles on the site to relocate. “We're already working with [residents] to help relocate,” Lawrence said. He said he and the property owner are offering transition support and a “grace period” for relocation.

Architect Brett Nave (Studio B and A Architects) described the design intent as a cluster of buildings with varied sizes and front porches, a landscaping plan that would improve the North Avenue corridor, and stepped building masses to transition toward adjacent single‑family neighborhoods. Lonnie said Planning staff and the Planning Commission supported making the architect’s design intent binding in order to preserve the design quality shown in the submission; the applicant requested some flexibility to move building positions because the site's steep, step‑like topography has not yet been fully engineered for final grading and stormwater.

Commissioners pressed several recurring policy and neighborhood concerns during the discussion. Commissioner Taylor asked how the influx of additional multifamily units will affect the local housing market and whether the new supply reduces the pressure on single‑family neighborhoods occupied by student renters; staff said the county is developing occupancy tracking methods but currently relies in part on voluntary data from property owners and proxy measures such as water service usage. Commissioner Wright, Mayor and other commissioners asked whether the project should be a planned development (PD) or a straight rezone and whether the Planning Commission’s recommended condition would be enforceable if a different developer bought the property after the rezoning.

Several commissioners raised the status of the existing RV occupants. Commissioner Thornton and Commissioner Link both said they had been in contact with the property owner and the developer and that relocation assistance is underway; Thornton said the county and local partners were exploring relocation options. Lonnie said RVs parked on private lots can be stored on prepared surfaces but cannot be issued building permits as dwellings; relocating people living in RVs remains a separate social‑service and housing challenge.

Commissioner Wright asked legal staff to clarify the practical difference between a straight rezone and a planned development, and whether the Planning Commission’s condition worded to make architectural intent binding could be enforced if a new owner attempted a different layout. Lonnie and the applicant said a straight rezone does not require a binding site plan, which gives the owner more flexibility in future layout; staff noted the architectural condition borrows language used in historic‑preservation reviews and can be enforced for measurable elements such as massing, scale and material palette, while placement shifts tied to engineering would be confined to minor administrative change procedures.

The item will come back to the mayor and commission for a final vote; staff told commissioners the Planning Commission’s condition would be administered during plan review and Certificate of Appropriateness (where applicable) processes and that staff will seek attorney input on precise enforcement language if the commission requests it.