COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES:
JULY 12, 1999, 6:00 P.M.

Present:
Facilitator, Larry Emmelhainz
Athens Regional Medical Center
Ed Graham, Carl Nichols, Jack Drew, Al Stone

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

At-large
Diane Adams, Stuart Thomas

Athens-Clarke County
John Stockbridge, Planning Director

Assisting
Sally Speed, Elaine Cook, Wayne Hill, Tom Lawrence, Gary Phelps

Observers
Carole Holmes; Sue Custance; J. Shawn Durham, Athens Banner-Herald

At-large committee: Tal DuVall, Keith Oelke, (one other member as yet unnamed)

ARMC: Helen Mills

This was the third meeting of the advisory committee, the first two meetings being tours of Athens Regional Medical Center (ARMC) and the neighborhoods adjacent to it. Larry Emmelhainz, ARMC facilitator, began the meeting with some rules of order for this and future meetings. He asked that only person speak at a time, there be no side conversations, members be respectful of each other, those wishing to speak raise their hands, and observers remain silent.

Tom Lawrence began the discussion with a presentation of the 5, 10, and 20 year plans for ARMC. He stated the five-year plan addressed immediate needs, the 10-year plan addressed mid-term needs, and the 20-year plan addressed long-range growth estimates. Major elements of the five-year plan include an approximately 110,000 square foot medical building behind the current midwifery services, a cancer care center at the Sylvan Road triangle, and an expansion of the emergency room facilities. Ten-year elements include a connector street between Pine Needle Road and Oglethorpe Avenue, two medical services buildings, clinical expansion on the South Tower, two more levels to the parking deck and two more floors above the emergency room. Twenty-year elements include a fourth medical services building, and expansion of the North and South Tower to the Physician's Imaging Center. To implement this plan, the hospital would have to acquire all the residential property bounded by and on the interior of King Avenue, Belvoir Heights, and Talmadge Drive. ARMC contacted Athens-Clarke County (ACC) to solicit input. ACC asked ARMC to address stormwater and traffic management issues in the plan. Mr. Lawrence cited programmatic needs and the need to service a growing and aging population in the 15-county area that ARMC services.

Ms. O'Looney referred to an April 28 letter she sent to Carl Nichols in which she outlined ways the ARMC growth plan could be compatible with the recently-developed Athens-Clarke County land use plan: plan with the neighborhoods; use the Urban Village concept, target depreciated and available OIB properties, employ traffic-calming techniques, shuttle employees to parking, utilize urban water management solutions, return residential properties to the neighborhoods, and create a legacy of pride and partnership by working with neighbors and the community to create a win-win situation.

Mr. McCrory cited the advantages of the area's diversity--not only in structures, but in population, as is customary with in-town neighborhoods. The homes in the area provide safety and aesthetics--two elements that the hospital has stated they desire. Acquiring property from homeowners creates instability in the market and in the lives of the people that live there. He questioned the need for expansion to be centralized only, and criticized the absence of alternatives in the plan, particularly on the north side of Prince Avenue. Parking accommodations for the plan are emblematic of the increased traffic which will accompany expansion of this size. The parking deck proposed for King Avenue is of a size equivalent to the new University of Georgia North Parking Deck and the existing parking deck is to be expanded to hold 4,000 cars with a 1,000 square foot wall sitting over the neighborhood which already suffers from parking deck noise and bright lights.

Positive aspects of the hospital that residents recognize are preservation of homes on Prince Avenue and the adaptive reuse of the Talmadge House to incorporate the outpatient surgery center, low-intensity lighting on the exterior of the hospital grounds, the residential scale of the Physician's Imaging Center, and the attractiveness and maintenance of hospital grounds.

The size of the expansion and concentration of buildings will lead to obvious engineering problems in stormwater and traffic management. The current plan employs access to the hospital via two residential streets, King Avenue, a 24 foot street with a 30 mph speed limit and Oglethorpe, which is 30 feet wide with a 35 mph speed limit. The increased number of automobiles also affects Prince, Pine Needle, and Talmadge. In order to handle the increased traffic on King, ARMC suggests it be widened 12 feet, land which would be taken from homeowner's yards. There will be increased pressure for commercial development. Oglethorpe Avenue, while it may not have to be widened, still presents the same concerns of increased pressure for commercial development with mixed-use residential and OI use. Preservation battles will be ongoing. What appears to be narrow about the ARMC plan is that it thinks of Prince as a commuter road. They do not want to decrease the capacity of cars. The concern should be to develop the area as a neighborhood center. What we see is the opposing ideas of a quick commute vs. a viable neighborhood center. On the internal streets, the increased traffic through Pine Needle and Talmadge will make it less safe, and a much less pleasant place to live.

Mr. Lynn distributed a handout summarizing Citizens for Healthy Neighborhoods' (CHN) requests concerning the five year plan. Recommended was the return of residential properties outside of the five-year plan owned by the hospital and 250 King Avenue which is in the five-year plan. The area is a viable neighborhood and should be returned to single-family use.

He cited the Athens-Clarke County land use plan and the values inherent in the plan to limit further expansion, by not going any farther south than 250 King Avenue. He suggested the move of Medical Building One (MB1) to the triangle, where Medical Building Two (MB2) was to be located. He encouraged ARMC to make an effort to blend the building into the neighborhood. At its current five-story height located adjacent to residential homes, its appearance is incompatible.

Rather than introduce 250 parking spaces on King that is in the future proposed as a parking deck, he suggested expanding the existing parking deck. According to the ratios given in the EDAW plan, the cancer center only requires 10 parking spaces versus the 100 spaces currently proposed. The current location of the center is not within the provisions of the land use plan (the triangle is recommended for single-family use) and he suggested the relocation of the cancer center to an area closer to other hospital buildings.

Discussion followed the presentations.

To ARMC's question asking what the neighborhood is objecting to with regard to designated parking at MB1, CHN responded that in place of a massive parking deck which is planned to replace the surface lot in the five-year plan, the residents would like to see fewer spaces and no curb cuts on King Avenue. CHN urged ARMC to direct traffic away from the residential streets and towards its main entrance on Prince Avenue.

CHN questioned whether the traffic data being used by Jordan, Jones, and Goulding to develop the 20-year plan was the most current available. They also cited questions to ARMC that had been posed by David Clark, ACC traffic engineer, that have as yet not been answered. ARMC stated they see King Avenue as a transportation corridor for the city; they cited Oglethorpe Avenue which reflects the development in the western part of the county. Mr. Graham of ARMC and Mr. McCrory of CHN agreed to meet with David Clark and Jordan, Jones, and Goulding to research the traffic issues and report back to the larger group.

In response to CHN's question asking if the hospital would make special accommodations for their staff parking such as shuttle parking, ARMC responded that logistics, cost, and staff morale prevent this. To ARMC's statement that there is no other major employer who shuttles their employees, CHN cited the University of Georgia's example of a pedestrian-oriented internal campus which relies on shuttle busses to transport staff and students.

CHN cited references to alternative avenues of growth in ARMC's adopted plan and asked if these could be presented to the committee. Mr. Lawrence said there were overlays available and he will make a presentation of the alternate plans at the next meeting.

In response to ARMC's question of why the area between Sylvan and Talmadge is not shown as hospital or government use on the ACC land use plan, the ACC planning director stated that the land use plan is not a zoning map, but rather a reflection of generalized areas based on recommended use. The plan looks at use, not ownership.

An at-large committee member asked if it was the attempt of ARMC to have only one campus. ARMC stated it owns 20+ acres in Madison County behind Northeast Georgia Health Services, 7-8 acres in Watkinsville and 8 acres on the eastside. ARMC also owns land in Stonebridge where it wants to build a continuous care facility. Specific to the five year plan, ARMC stated that outpatient services and potential for all inpatient services were the only options to remain on campus while other growth is phased to other property locations.

In response to CHN's query as to why the decision was made to remain on a contiguous campus and, if other options were considered, what would they be, ARMC responded that the decisions were based on patient convenience, family convenience, clinical needs, safety and maintenance. The hospital is looking at ways to use people in close support and to make it more efficient.

In response to why the physician's parking lot at the corner of Talmadge and Prince could not be used for development, ARMC said that the physician's use the lot for a number of reasons: parking, rounds, recording and documenting and it is provided as a courtesy and to accommodate their quick access to patients.

CHN asked what ARMC can do to protect the neighborhoods that surround the hospital and if the neighborhoods were considered when growth plans were determined. ARMC responded that the focus in designing the 20 year plans was on patient safety and convenience.

An at-large member stated that the people issues had not been addressed well, which resulted in a plan which pits the neighborhoods against the hospital. There is a lot of uncertainty of not knowing about planned acquisitions. There is a need to settle the hospital plans so that fears can be allayed. The viability of the neighborhood should be addressed in the plan.

ARMC cited concerns that the current owners/landlords of some neighborhood homes were not maintaining the properties. They felt that the hospital could be a better steward of the area. CHN responded that rental property does not always equal neglected property. They cited the potential historic designation of King Avenue, the high resale value, and the damaging instability caused by both ARMC's previous unpublished plans and their recently-published future growth plans. CHN asked for a definitive statement from ARMC on their 20-year boundaries. ARMC responded that they were determining to answer that request with the meetings in progress and that their ultimate goal is to have boundaries set.

ARMC asked what daily effect the hospital has on the surrounding neighborhoods. CHN will present that report at the next meeting.

An at-large member asked what the limits are of going vertical. ARMC responded that they cannot exceed fire access guidelines which is six floors above ground.

An at-large committee member questioned how the hospital can accurately speculate on the needs of this facility over 20 years based on radical changes in technology that are sure to occur to which ARMC responded that the purpose of the growth plan is to determine boundaries, rather than specific services.

CHN asked for the space allocation of MB1. ARMC stated that it is currently rated at 78% clinical space and 20% administrative space. Meeting rooms in the building will be used as clinical support. In response to CHN's question of why the home health office which needs no patient access is housed on campus, ARMC stated that the office is only a small component and needs to be close to the hospital to coordinate with the doctors.

CHN asked for a prospectus on MB1 and cited concerns about it's aesthetics, size, and transitioning of the five-story office building to the adjacent single story residences. CHN stated the desire for the hospital to make a human-scale presence, citing the five-year plan's deep cut into the neighborhood. CHN asked if ARMC would consider building on Prince Avenue with the first floor of mixed-use shops rented out to the businesses. ARMC stated that the medical buildings need to be close to the hospital with adjacent parking. They further stated that there is no money to expand the parking deck at this point, although it is planned in the future. CHN also asked if a relocation of MB1 to the location slated for MB2 was possible. ARMC stated that both buildings are needed, although the services located in MB2 are not determined yet.

When questioned why there was so much parking for MB1, ARMC stated that rehabilitation and oncology patients who have suffered a stroke, are in wheelchairs, or are weak from cancer need parking as close to the building as possible. CHN cited concerns that the two surface parking lots in the five-year plan were place holders for future parking decks and the need for this much parking should be reevaluated. ARMC will research the minimum parking needs for MB1 and will report on those figures at a future date.

The agenda was set for the next meeting to include: a traffic report from Messrs. McCrory and Graham, ARMC's alternative plans, and a report from CHN on ARMC's impact on the neighborhoods.

It was requested that David Clark attend a future meeting. Tom Lawrence had a conflict and the meeting was rescheduled from July 27 to July 26 at 6:30 p.m., Athens-Clarke County Planning Department, 120 Dougherty Street. Elaine Cook will be collecting available meeting dates from committee members to possibly schedule further meetings. John Fregonese, ACC land use plan consultant, was contacted by John Stockbridge and has confirmed he can meet with the committee on Wednesday, August 4 at 7:00 p.m. This meeting will be in addition to the meeting already scheduled for August 9 and 23.