Fate of Student Housing Development Near KSU Remains Uncertain

MARIETTA — On Tuesday, the Cobb Planning Commission sent a proposed five-story student housing development near Kennesaw State University to the Board of Commissioners without issuing a recommendation.

The commission initially voted 3-2 to hold the request until August, with Chairman Stephen Vault and Commissioner Fred Beloin voting no.

That vote came after the board split over a motion to deny the request, with Vault and commissioners David Anderson and Michael Hughes voting no.

Eventually, Commissioner Christine Lindstrom, who represents the area where the tower is proposed, made a motion for reconsideration and the commission voted to advance the proposal with no recommendation in a 5-0 vote. The measure now goes before the Cobb Board of Commissioners on July 16.

Both Lindstrom and Beloin have opposed the tower since the measure was first proposed.

Athens-based developer Landmark Properties is proposing a 55-foot building with 191 units and 762 bedrooms at 112 Townpark Drive, adjacent to the exit ramp at Interstate 575 and Chastain Road.

The gated building would include a parking deck with 665 parking spaces and a rooftop pool and amenity area.

The developer is seeking both a rezoning and a special land-use permit to build the tower.

Like last month’s commission meeting, much of the debate over the proposal centered on the need for student housing in the area and the potential for increased traffic from the development.

Parks Huff, the attorney representing Landmark, said the building would be a much needed opportunity to support Kennesaw State University’s diminishing graduation rates by making it easier for students to be more involved in campus activities.

KSU is the third largest university in Georgia with an enrollment of about 45,000 students.

Huff said students deserve a place where they can live, work, play and learn.

“It’s a powerful argument to say, not in my backyard, but it also can be misused when your backyard is literally a seven-story hotel and multiple restaurants,” Huff said.

The tower would replace an effectively vacant office building on Townpark Drive.

Robin Grajeda, the homeowner association treasurer for nearby Townpark Village Townhomes, noted Townpark Drive was never meant to handle large amounts of traffic.

According to the Cobb Department of Transportation, the project would increase traffic by resulting in an additional 2,250 trips per day. At peak travel times, there would be an additional 70 vehicles in the morning and 210 vehicles in the afternoon.

Lindstrom added that this traffic count only considers student residents and not other factors like food delivery services, visitors and more.

Huff addressed concerns about traffic by stating the property would offer a private shuttle service that runs approximately 30 to 40 students to campus every 15 to 20 minutes. In addition to the shuttle, Huff said students could also choose to walk to campus or to a nearby bus stop.

“The developer’s proposed shuttle will only take students to the east parking deck… Students whose classes are closer to (other parts of the campus, the west or the north) are going to drive,” Grajeda said.

Tullan Avard, executive director of the Bells Ferry Civic Association, believed that the proposed tower would also result in rapidly accelerating rental prices and increased pressure on the cost of other student housing in the area.

“In many cases, student debt load is as much about housing costs as it is about tuition… Purpose-built student housing is not affordable housing,” Avard said. “We do not solve the problem of students renting houses in residential neighborhoods as this tends to be the cheapest option for students.”

Avard and Beloin both commented on how approving the requests would create a precedent and allow more high-density student housing in the future, negatively impacting the area.

Those in opposition also believed the proposed development would result in increased crime, like underage drinking, as well as noise pollution from the building’s rooftop pool and amenity area.

Avard expressed concern that those effects could lower surrounding property values.

Huff said that the opposition’s concerns about safety and crime should not be enough to deny and that doing so would be “silly.”

“Our students aren’t criminals… these are college students who are trying to better their education,” Huff said. “Why are we not allowing them to live in a place where they can enjoy life and get to campus.”

Beloin said while the area does need a transformation, especially since some of the nearby office buildings in the area have filed for bankruptcy, approval of the tower would not be a responsible or intelligent solution.

While Lindstrom said she believes it’s a “very, very nice project,” she said it is too big and not appropriate for that particular parcel.

Instead, she suggested that the development group look for property around Big Shanty Road, where there are already several student housing complexes.

Hughes was unable to support Lindstrom’s motion to deny the request because he said he was not sold 100% on either argument and thought moving the development to Big Shanty would create an even bigger problem, as students would be further away from campus and traffic would still be a major concern.

Anderson also cited the many logical inconsistencies as his reason for rejecting the motion with Vault agreeing he was torn, but believed the students had been unfairly villainized by the opposition.