Facilitator, Larry Emmelhainz

Athens Regional Medical Center: Ed Graham, Carl Nichols, Jack Drew, Helen Mills

Citizens for Healthy Neighborhoods: Jim Hawkins, Gwen O’Looney, David Lynn, Amy Andrews, Clint McCrory

At-large: Diane Adams, Stuart Thomas, Tal DuVall, Keith Oelke, Dick Field

Athens-Clarke County: Bruce Lonnee, Planning Department

Assisting: Elaine Cook, Wayne Hill, Tom Lawrence, Richard Hinman, Jr. and Dee Beard, Hinman Architecture Group

Observers: Carole Holmes; Jan Neubauer; Ed Dye; John Barrow; Julian Franklin; Sue Custance; J. Shawn Durham, Athens Banner-Herald

Absent: Al Stone, ARMC

This was the fourth meeting of the advisory committee. Larry Emmelhainz, facilitator, recapped the rules of order for the meetings: only one person speaks at a time, no side conversations, be respectful of everyone, listen to understand, speak to be un derstood, raise hand and be recognized before speaking, be patient, keep questions brief, to the point, with no speeches. He asked that members submit the dates they are not available for the next month to Elaine Cook so that further meetings can be sched uled if necessary. On the agenda for the meeting were a review of the alternative expansion plans, a traffic report from Clint McCrory and Ed Graham, and a report from Gwen O’Looney on ARMC’s impact on the neighborhoods. Richard Hinman, Jr. and Dee Beaird of the Hinman Architecture Group were in attendance to gain input on the architectural design of the medical building in the five-year plan.

Tom Lawrence brought overlays of the five alternative plans that were reviewed and desirable aspects incorporated by ARMC in the draft plan which was adopted in January of 1999. One of the plans included expansion across Prince Avenue--from the current Athens Women’s Clinic office building to the former Georgia Natural Gas building (now Smith’s Pharmacy). The remaining four plans showed expansion only on the south side of Prince Avenue, similar to the adopted plan, although with slightly varying border s and a rearrangement of surface lots, parking decks, and medical buildings.

Mr. Lawrence proceeded to list the positives and negatives of each plan.

Plan One: North Alternative
Positives: Using commercially-zoned land; land is in a different drainage basin.
Negatives: Prince Avenue is a barrier; there are connectivity issues; this plan does not
address stormwater issues on the main hospital campus; utilities must cross Prince; pedestrian bridge necessary.

Plan Two: South Alternative
Positives: Stormwater detention pond addresses runoff problems; all new buildings located between Sylvan, King, and Pine Needle; core of new buildings supports campus plan; extension of Pine Needle.
Negatives: Development not visible from main entrance on Prince, negative traffic impact on neighborhoods; Deck A is distant from hospital.

Plan Three: Southwest Alternative
Positives: Adds exposure on Prince and main entrance of hospital; less land
acquisition to the south; vehicular connection from Oglethorpe to King
Avenue.
Negatives: Isolates neighborhood; length of parking structure; medical buildings III
and IV are distant from main hospital.

Plan Four: West Alternative
Positives: Increased visibility on Prince; no parking decks south of Pine Needle; hospital traffic isolated from neighborhood.
Negatives: Massive parking deck; displacement of outpatient surgery center; distance of medical building to hospital core.

Plan Five: Density Alternative
Positives: Vertical expansion of main building and parking structure minimizing land acquisition; pedestrian access maximized.
Negatives: Complex "way-finding" (patients locating destination); density approach not as aesthetic, difficulties of construction on existing facilities--disruption of services, etc.

Discussion followed the presentations.

CHN asked how high ARMC considered going in the fifth plan to which Mr. Lawrence replied that initially, they had planned seven to eight stories, but after speaking with the fire chief, who cited problems with fire access and with Mr. Hill, who cited l ogistical problems, they backed down to six stories.

An at-large member asked if the alternative plans were developed at the same time, or if one was esented, rejected, and another developed. Mr. Lawrence answered that the alternative plans were developed jointly. The question was asked if all alternativ es plans contained similar facilities and parking to which Mr. Lawrence replied they did. He also noted that the plans were shared with the Program and Facilities Committee of Athens Regional Medical Center. A preliminary draft plan was shared with offici als of the Athens-Clarke County government.

CHN remarked that a positive noted in Plan Three was high visibility, yet Plan One has greater visibility on Prince. Mr. Lawrence agreed, but explained they were trying to highlight distinctive characteristics of each plan and reduce redundancies. CHN noted that a positive feature of Plan Five is the way in which medical buildings are contiguous to the parking facilities, actually adjoining each other.

CHN asked if any thought was given to developing the physician’s parking lot on the corner of Talmadge and Prince and the patient parking lot on the corner of King and Prince. Mr. Lawrence remarked that visibility of the main hospital building would be blocked and the convenience of close parking would be lost. He felt the main entrance needed to be maintained for "way-finding."

CHN remarked that they were glad to see the negatives acknowledged, for example, the unattractive length of the parking deck. It was noted, however, that this distance is maintained in the plan adopted by ARMC.

An at-large member asked if there were plans to use the apartment buildings on Georgia Avenue in Plans One and Two.

ARMC noted that rock was found when the parking decks and physician’s lot were constructed and this was considered a problem in crossing Prince Avenue, as well.

An at-large member asked why the stormwater drainage area was only on one plan, to which Mr. Lawrence replied that stormwater management plans are off the table. He stated that the city asked ARMC to address that issue initially which is why it was inc orporated into the draft plan, but it was dropped from the plan when residents objected to the detention pond. At this time, Mr. Lawrence reminded the group that ARMC had previously withdrawn support of expansion on the east side of King Avenue and stormw ater retention area for the region.

An at-large member asked why Plan One was rejected. Mr. Lawrence cited two reasons: land cost and the difficulty of moving people, goods, and services across Prince. CHN asked what the land costs were. ARMC said they remembered the figure was between $ 1 and $2 million for two parcels of land. They also noted that, in addition to land cost, there was the additional cost of developing through rock. ARMC also stated that there is a ravine at the back of the commercial land on Prince that would have to be filled in. CHN suggested that instead of filling up the hole, the topography of the land could be used in developing it.

CHN asked what was the fair market value of the parcels cited by ARMC. Mr. Nichols and/or Ms. Adams, as Realtors, agreed to research that information by using comparable to determine the fair market value. CHN then asked if the hospital ever considered using eminent domain for commercial land acquisition, to which ARMC replied no, because there were other problems with crossing Prince Avenue such as the connectivity issues, including medical and logistical support.

CHN remarked that when you consider the cost of the building plans in this design, about 50 million, four million would not be excessive for the cost of property. ARMC responded that they never seriously pursued the property across Prince Avenue. ARMC looked at the old gas company building, but did not pursue it and cited operational efficiency as a priority which affects the cost of the services they provide.

An at-large member asked if there was a priority list made, ranking all of the plans, and how the eventual adopted plan decided upon. ARMC distributed a handout, "Principles of the Plan," which was distributed to committee members.

An at-large member asked that if building and land costs could be amortized over time, what would be the operating costs that are a problem, since the buildings in Plan One are actually closer to the main hospital building. ARMC responded that there ar e numerous services that must cross the road, maintenance, and that trucks continually crossing Prince and making deliveries are a problem.

ARMC asked how high a bridge that spanned Prince Avenue would have to be. The architects said it would have to be a minimum of 16 feet high. To the question of which was better, a bridge or a tunnel, the architects said a bridge was easier to build and maintain than a tunnel and that it is harder to waterproof a tunnel. An at-large member felt another concern would be bridge use in emergencies.

CHN asked the architects if, in their opinion, one could sacrifice convenience of these buildings for the value of preserving a neighborhood and how these considerations were weighted. The architects responded that they couldn’t answer that question.

CHN asked if the architects could give a comparison of the public hospital vs. private hospital approach to building and land acquisition, to which they responded that they have no real answer for that, as they have only worked with public hospitals.

An at-large member stated they understood that DOT would be a problem with the bridge across Prince. CHN responses to this question included that they had spoken with an engineer in the Gainesville DOT office who thought a bridge is a good idea and cou ld be done; a bridge at Johns Hopkins Hospital that is a two-story span with visitors on one level and service and staff access on the other seems to be effective; and a bridge would have to be a clear span across Prince, which would seem to support movin g the buildings closer to the street, maybe with storefronts on the first level.

CHN asked if it was possible to exceed six stories and house support services rather than patients in the higher floors. ARMC responded that it was inappropriate to put anyone at risk with insufficient fire services and that staff must be kept safe, to o.

CHN asked what the size of the medical buildings in Plan One were. ARMC responded that they were of a similar size to MB1--100,000 square feet with four to five stories. CHN asked if patient access across Prince Avenue was an issue or if patients would usually need to visit only one building. CHN noted that parking and medical services are connected with each other on Plan One showing growth north of Prince. ARMC responded that normally patients would not need to visit more than one building and it wou ld be staff and service delivery that would have to access both sides of Prince Avenue which would compound travel time.

Mr. Lawrence noted that the program is not set for other buildings, and that in developing a plan such as this, ARMC needs flexibility to develop as needs and medical services change.

ARMC noted that there had been a lot of conversation about Plan One and asked members to name the positives of the plan. CHN responded that it disperses traffic and parking garages; targets some deteriorated, blighted property; focuses traffic on Princ e Avenue rather than residential streets; splits the water issues; uses land that is already zoned commercial; and makes in unnecessary to tear down homes.

ARMC stated they had never really considered property north of Prince and were asked if they could enumerate the problems with using that property. ARMC responded that cost and operational efficiency was the issue that eliminated it, but they would tak e another look at the property north of Prince.

REPORT FROM CLINT MCCRORY AND ED GRAHAM REGARDING TRAFFIC
Clint McCrory and Ed Graham met separately with David Clark, ACC traffic engineer, and Jordan, Jones, and Goulding (JJ&G) staff who did the traffic study for ARMC.

CHN had asked at the previous meeting if the traffic data used in the plan was current. JJ&G responded that their method was to use 1996 data with 1997 updates from the ACC government, then estimate how the expansion of the hospital would affect th e traffic on the surrounding streets. The methodology is explained in detail in the plan book. It used information on where employees live, where patients live, used assigned "nodes" to each, then estimated inflow to each, times, etc.

Mr. Clark said he needs the current figures that JJ&G had complied to analyze the traffic study. JJ&G stated they needed ARMC’s permission to release those figures. Ed Graham asked that the board move on that request. ARMC said there would be n o problem in releasing them and they did not know ACC did not have that data.

According to Mr. Clark, ACC traffic engineer, the decisions which will affect traffic in the area include shift changes of hospital employees, positioning of entrances and parking decks, and traffic-calming measures.

According to Mr. Clark, the city does not have plans to either widen or change the designation of Prince, King, and Ogelthorpe Avenues. CHN noted that the average daily traffic county on King has actually decreased in the last ten years and that rework ing of the "problem" intersection at King, Holman, and Sunset in the hospital’s traffic plan may actually serve to increase traffic on King.

There are ways to try to mitigate the traffic in the neighborhoods, using traffic calming devices such as humps, diverters, one-way turns, and roundabouts. Ben Williams of JJ&G felt that most neighborhoods do not find them effective or pleasant. JJ &G noted that although Prince Avenue is no longer a major state road due to the by-pass, it is their opinion that permission is required from DOT for changes to the intersection, building bridges or tunnels, etc.

Mr. Clark said he would be available to attend a future meeting. The committee wanted his input regarding neighborhood traffic management, ways to plan traffic-calming devices, and information on the county’s long-range plan for "park and ride" facilit ies located near the by-pass.

CHN asked if one of the strategies in the ACC land use plan regarding traffic was to actually inhibit vehicular convenience rather than widen roads to increase speed and convenience. ACC planning staff said the land use plan and its development emphasi zed increased pedestrian use, attempting to improve aesthetics instead of only looking at moving traffic faster and noted that the city has considered making parts of Prince Avenue into a boulevard with a vegetative median.

ARMC asked if the traffic planners looked at emergency access. Presenters noted that it shouldn’t be assumed that emergency vehicles will use the same entrance as all other traffic. It was asked if the entrances on the plan being presented were the one s that JJ&G recommended and the group affirmed their interest in having Mr. Clark join the discussion.

CHN asked if ARMC had determined if the parking lots in the five-year plan could be reduced or eliminated, to which ARMC said they have determined that they need 228-248 spaces for the lot that is planned between MB1 and King Avenue (originally 252 spa ces) and 45 spaces in the lot by the cancer center (originally 100 spaces). There are currently 247 spaces in the paved lot on which MB1 will be built.

CHN asked if ARMC would provide the staging plan for parking and noted that there are still many spaces not in use in the deck. ARMC responded that the employees who are parking in the paved lot will move to the parking deck when MB1 is begun and will take all surplus spaces there. ARMC said there are no extra spaces and will provide a staging plan for parking at the next meeting.

See attached report, "How Athens Regional Medical Center Negatively Impacts Surrounding Neighborhoods."

Ms. O’Looney stated that although she had written the report, it was developed from discussions with CHN representatives.

CHN noted that the uncertainty of people in the neighborhoods surrounding the hospital is the biggest negative effect. People question whether they should buy homes here or whether they should continue to fix up their homes.

ARMC said, and it was noted the minutes reflected that, they had asked what the daily effect the hospital has on the surrounding neighborhoods--not just the negatives, but the positives of the hospital as well. A CHN member said they have enjoyed the h ospital as a neighbor--walking the grounds, eating in the cafeteria, etc., but all that would be negated if ARMC removed them as a neighbor.

CHN noted that the left turn lanes on King Avenue in the hospital’s plans are a significant problem. It will take front yards. The houses are solidly constructed but it would put them too near the street. All the plans have major parking on King Avenue and that is a real problem.

ARMC used the analogy that you can’t build or repair a house if you don’t know what the problems are. We need to know the problems for the community as a whole. We are starting to get answers. We will hear from Mr. Fregonese, ACC planning consultant, o n August 4 and then start making plans on August 9.

ARMC asked for the community’s input on MB1 architecture. Richard Hinman, Jr. and Dee Beaird, from the Hinman Architecture Group were introduced. CHN cited concerns about the buildings four to five story height next to single story residences, and the compatibility of the hospital’s modern architectural style adjacent to "cottage-type" residences. A CHN member remarked that the height was not a problem personally and encouraged density. Another CHN member said that lowering the height of the buildi ngs was preferred. An at-large member suggested that the building be transitional between the main campus style and the neighborhoods.

The archtects asked the committee’s preference as regard the use of glass and other materials.
They also asked for examples of architecture around Athens that the committee liked. The Lyndon House Arts Center addition was named and a CHN member remarked on the attractiveness of the newly-constructed Georgia Public Health Building in Atlanta. It inc orporated glass, metal, and wood in a unique style that was contemporary but not radical. The JJ&G building on Milledge was also cited as an attractive example. CHN suggested that the building retain a "human scale" and not be imposing or austere, but open to people. CHN noted that red brick was certainly characteristic of the neighborhood, but that building something in a Georgian-style imitation was not desirable. The Athens Women’s Clinic was cited as an example. CHN asked if there were examples of the architect’s previous projects. Mr. Hinman gave his website address: www. hinmanarchitects.com. Mr. Lawrence suggested the committee bring pictures of architectural examples they liked to the next meeting.

CHN asked if the location of the building is fixed, to which ARMC responded that it was. ARMC stated that the location was not at issue now but the appearance and type was. ARMC reminded the committee that ingress and egress to MB1 was an issue.

CHN was concerned that the timing of the ARMC boards’ regularly-scheduled meetings would not allow for significant feedback to the committee before its adjournment. ARMC said they would bring feedback from the board to the August 9 meeting and also sai d that a called meeting of the boards is a possibility for that purpose.

The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 4, 7:00 p.m. at the ACC Planning Department, 120 Dougherty Street. John Fregonese will present the principles of the ACC land use plan.