Macon County commissioners press designers to rework Phase 1A park plan after floodplain, parking concerns

Macon County commissioners heard detailed construction and hydraulic findings on the proposed Phase 1A recreation improvements — including six tennis courts, multiple pickleball courts, a restroom pavilion and a pedestrian bridge — and asked designers to revisit the plans before advertising for construction bids.

Engineers from McGill Associates said hydraulic modeling tied to a proposed pedestrian bridge required moving the restroom/pavilion away from the originally shown central location to avoid raising floodplain elevations. Mike Norris of McGill said the restroom would need to be elevated roughly five feet to meet flood protection requirements; that elevation, combined with the bridge abutments, produced a modeled ‘‘rise’’ that imperiled a no‑rise permit outcome and risked encroaching on adjacent properties.

Why it matters: moving the restroom changed the master‑plan layout and several commissioners said the revised plan diverged noticeably from the concept the public had seen. Commissioners also raised practical concerns about bus access, spectator areas, parking and future expansion for pickleball.The board did not approve advertisement for construction bids at the meeting and directed staff and the consultant to explore alternatives.

Design and permitting details Mike Norris said the project team had progressed to construction‑ready documents for court surfacing and the restroom pavilion. Hydraulic analysis for the pedestrian bridge — intended to let visitors park on the recreation center side and walk across to courts — showed that the combination of bridge abutments and a centrally sited restroom would produce floodplain impacts the project could not clear with a standard ‘‘no‑rise’’ permit. ‘‘We had to shift the building further back toward higher ground in order to achieve that no rise,’’ Norris told commissioners.

Norris said the bridge itself is not included in the Phase 1A construction package; the bridge would require separate final engineering and permitting. He also said parking improvements were intentionally left for a later phase and that the current Phase 1A documents show the existing parking area rather than a fully expanded lot.

Board concerns: parking, buses, visual design Multiple commissioners warned that parking as shown in the revised plan would be constrained for school events and tournaments and flagged the difficulty of maneuvering school buses into the lower parking area. One commissioner said, ‘‘Can you imagine driving a bus down that hill in that parking lot? There’s very little parking in that parking lot.’’ Commissioners asked whether parking improvements and a bus loop could be phased to reduce dependence on the bridge.

Several commissioners also urged the consultant to restore some of the original concept’s aesthetic elements — seating/bleachers, a central plaza, and visual separation between tennis and pickleball courts — through landscaping and minor layout changes. Norris proposed adding a planting buffer and plaza/improvements near the pavilion to ‘‘soften’’ the courts cluster.

Next steps Commissioners asked the design team to: (1) run alternate hydraulic and layout models (including a no‑bridge option) to test whether a concept closer to the public plan is feasible; (2) show a version with the bridge removed; and (3) model parking improvements as a likely Phase 1B follow‑on so the board can gauge construction costs before advertising. The board did not direct staff to proceed to advertisement and agreed designers should return with revised options.

Speakers who commented publicly at the item included: Mike Norris (McGill Associates), Seth Adams (McGill/consultant), and multiple commissioners (Young, Shields, Breeden, Braden/Bridal, Cheryl, Antoine).