Loganville DDA prepares for facelift

City close to seeking developer for downtown

A rendering included in the agenda packet for Wednesday’s meeting of the Loganville Downtown Development Authority shows Pecan Street views of a redevelopment scenario for tracts at 4436 Pecan Street and 254 Main Street that are seen as key to the redevelopment of downtown Loganville. Rendering courtesy of Loganville DDA

The Loganville Downtown Development Authority, which has taken to calling itself the real estate arm of the mayor and city council — who appoint authority members — could be a little more than two weeks away from approving a request for qualifications seeking developers or similarly qualified individuals or entities to redevelop 254 Main Street.

Seen as a first step in revitalizing downtown Loganville, the redevelopment of 254 Main Street, a 0.47-acre city-owned tract that now hosts a parking lot, a playground, some green space and a recently installed sign proclaiming “Welcome to Downtown Loganville,” had languished for months, along with the future of an adjacent 0.91-acre city-owned tract at 4436 Pecan Street, as the DDA dithered over how to respond to city council overtures urging some action on one or both of the tracts.

Finally, late last year, the city council provided the DDA with a synopsis of its preferred vision for the 1.38 acres of downtown property. That vison called broadly for one, or possibly both, of the tracts, to be reimagined as a “thoughtfully designed infill redevelopment project that injects excitement into our downtown core and promotes prosperity for generations to come at 254 Main Street.”

The council’s vision also noted that the city “is receptive to incorporating the lot at 4436 Pecan Street into the project as well if the overall vision and plan meet with the long-term goals and vision of the downtown core of the City of Loganville.”

Subsequently, the council and the DDA signed an intergovernmental agreement clearly outlining the authority’s power to market and sell one or both properties to the RFQ respondent that, in the DDA’s judgment, offers the best vision for the two downtown tracts.

The council must, however, approve any sale of the property.

The DDA has greater latitude than would guide the city council in selling the property, because it is not bound, as the council would be, to accepting the highest bid for the acreage. The DDA will instead be guided by its judgment as to which potential purchaser will bring the greatest value, in line with the city’s and the DDA’s vision for the property, regardless of the purchase price.

In the wake of the execution of the IGA, the DDA has developed a bifurcated approach to the RFQ it could issue later this month.

On the one hand, the DDA has been considering a loosely worded RFQ that would give prospective developers a free rein in meeting the city’s vision for one or both downtown tracts.

On the other hand, the authority has been looking at the possibility of issuing an RFQ tightly describing the city’s preferences for development of the land.

Tara Argo, a downtown business owner who chairs the DDA, said following the group’s March 4 meeting that the authority was not yet ready to release either a loosely worded or a tightly controlled RFQ for public consumption.

A final decision on an RFQ could come at the DDA’s March 21 meeting, set for 6:30 p.m. in the council chambers in Loganville City Hall at 4303 Lawrenceville Road, just a couple of blocks from 254 Main Street.

The RFQ won’t be revealed, however, until Loganville’s city attorney has reviewed it prior to any DDA vote, Argo said.

There were, though, some heavy hints available at the DDA’s March 4 meeting as to the final shape of an RFQ, including some renderings of what at least some DDA members envision regarding how an RFQ might translate into actual bricks and mortar on the downtown tracts.

A broad guide to how the RFQ might be formulated was included in the agenda packet for the authority’s March 4 meeting. The packet noted that downtown revitalization is envisioned to produce “high-quality, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development.”

More concretely speaking, the agenda packet indicated a DDA preference for two- or three-story structures along Main and Pecan streets, with a “restaurant-ready corner space with integrated courtyard opportunity” and a “rooftop terrace opportunity.”

Additionally, the packet indicated a DDA expectation that architecture for the redevelopment of 254 Main and 4436 Pecan Street “should reflect a timeless Main Street aesthetic, utilizing quality masonry materials, articulated storefront bays (a facade treatment that breaks up monotonous straight walls), vertically proportioned windows, and defined rooflines.”

The packet also suggested how the DDA will evaluate RFQ submissions, noting that “relevant experience,” “financial capacity” and a “proposed development timeline” will be considered in the authority’s evaluation of submission.

The packet included some renderings, diagrams and maps to illustrate a transformation of the Main Street and Pecan Street parcels. One rendering, incorporating both parcels, shows a two-story brick structure with a ground-floor restaurant and a rooftop terrace, combined with a row of attached single-story retail spaces accented by wide expanses of glass.

Beyond those revelations, authority members sent some clear signals at their March 4 meeting that their likely preference for an RFQ will be a detailed approach rather than a more open-ended solicitation.

“I do not think we are going to want to use the simple one, because we are a very opinionated city,” Argo told her authority colleagues.

Terry Parsons, a new DDA member, suggested that taking an in-depth approach to the RFQ could still attract a wide range of responses from which the DDA could make a final choice of developer for the beginning of a downtown revitalization effort.