Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears senior‑housing rezoning for Oglethorp Avenue amid financing and height concerns
Summary
Developers seeking to dissolve a 2022 plan development and rezone 1165 Oglethorp Avenue to RM1 presented a senior‑housing concept; developers said rising interest rates made the original PD financially unviable, they will pursue LIHTC and inclusionary requirements, and offered conditions (AMI tiers, 55+ covenant, setbacks). Commissioners requested geotechnical and sewer clarifications; LITC scoring was discussed.
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The commission heard a two‑part request to dissolve an existing plan development and rezone 1165 Oglethorp Avenue from Commercial Neighborhood to RM1. Planning staff described the proposal as a non‑binding concept for a single multifamily structure with 22 one‑bedroom and 34 two‑bedroom units, targeted to seniors (55+), and noted partial compatibility with future land use but flagged infrastructure and spot‑zoning concerns.
David Ellison spoke for the development partnership (Piedmont Housing and Athens Land Trust) and said the original PD from 2022 is not financially viable because interest‑rate market conditions changed; the partnership intends to pursue low‑income housing tax credits and to abide by inclusionary‑housing rules. Ellison asked to clarify AMI language for conditions (applicant proposes a mix at 50%, 60% and 70% AMI rather than a single 80% AMI floor noted by planning). He also said the developer would seek to reduce building height from three stories to two to address neighbor height concerns and would expand landscape buffering while keeping a landscape wall and 10‑ft vegetative area as proposed.
Commissioners raised questions about whether the project won or lost LIHTC points in the recent GI award (staff and applicants said GI announced awards the previous day and the outcome reduced certainty), possible rock/geotechnical constraints at the site, interconnection/second‑driveway needs for emergency access, sewer capacity and possible underground sewer work, and enforceability of conditions. Staff explained that if the commission adopts conditions in ordinance form they can run with the land and require annual reporting to ensure compliance. Several commissioners voiced support for senior affordable housing but requested follow‑up on geology, sewer capacity, and precise wording for AMI/covenant conditions before a final vote.
