[0:13] Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

[0:15] This meeting will now come to order at this time.

[0:17] May I ask you to please silence

[0:19] or turn off your cell phones and other electronic devices?

[0:22] This is a regular meeting of designing Review

[0:24] board of the City of Atlanta. My name is Sherry McCoy.

[0:26] Chair of the board for tonight's meeting.

[0:28] This is a nine member board appointed by the mayor

[0:31] and confirmed by the City council.

[0:33] This board hears applications

[0:34] for rezoning and special use permits.

[0:38] At this time, I would like to introduce you to the members of the board.

[0:40] To my immediate right is Mr.

[0:42] Walter Slayton, vice chair of the Zoning Review Board.

[0:44] Other members of the Zoning Review

[0:47] Board present this evening are Miss Karla Penniman, Miss Lauren Welch, Mr.

[0:50] Jim Cheeks, and Mr. Kenny Hill.

[0:52] Members of the staff present

[0:54] tonight are Miss Quita Holmes and Miss Angela Black.

[0:59] The applications will be heard in

[1:01] the order listed on the printed agenda.

[1:03] I would like to acquaint you

[1:04] with some of the rules and procedures

[1:05] for the conduct of this meeting,

[1:06] which have been adopted by this board.

[1:08] The applicants will be allowed

[1:09] a total of ten minutes to present their cases.

[1:12] Since the burden of proof is upon

[1:13] the applicants to convince support,

[1:15] the application should be approved,

[1:17] they may choose to reserve some of that time

[1:18] for rebuttal following independence presentation.

[1:21] The opposition likewise will be permitted

[1:24] a total of ten minutes to present their opposition.

[1:26] It will behoove you to organize yourselves

[1:28] so that those who wish to speak may do so

[1:30] in the ten minutes, provided the opposition is not permitted.

[1:33] Rebuttal time.

[1:34] Miss Karla Penniman will be keeping

[1:36] track of the time, and will inform me

[1:38] periodically of the time remaining for your presentation.

[1:41] If you wish to speak,

[1:43] if you wish to address the board tonight, please

[1:44] sign in in the sign in sheet at the podium.

[1:47] Please lean into the microphone to be heard. Before

[1:49] making your remarks, please state your name and address.

[1:53] This meeting is being recorded.

[1:54] Therefore, it is very important

[1:55] that you speak directly into the microphone.

[1:57] The board will take two votes on each application.

[1:59] The first vote is on the findings of fact

[2:01] as presented by the staff.

[2:03] The second vote is for approval or denial of the application.

[2:07] It is the second vote that determines the board's recommendation

[2:08] to the City Council at the time of this hearing.

[2:11] Each application has been regularly

[2:12] filed with the Office of Zoning and Development,

[2:14] which prepares the proposed ordinance for each application.

[2:17] The proposed ordinance has had its first

[2:20] reading by the City Council, and has been referred

[2:22] to this board for a public hearing.

[2:24] Next is Zoning Committee of the City Council

[2:26] votes on the proposed ordinance.

[2:28] Then the full council votes

[2:29] to adopt or deny the proposed ordinance.

[2:31] Finally, the mayor has eight days

[2:33] to approve or veto the ordinance.

[2:35] The Office of Zoning and Development

[2:36] has reviewed each application in conjunction

[2:38] with various affected agencies and departments,

[2:40] as well as with respect to the adopted

[2:42] Comprehensive Development Plan as required by the City Charter.

[2:45] The staff recommendations, findings of fact

[2:47] and conclusions are here before us in written form.

[2:50] Further, each application has been regularly posted,

[2:53] regularly advertised and notices

[2:55] mailed as required by the zoning ordinance.

[2:57] Comments from the Department of Public Works,

[2:59] the Atlantic School Board and the County Health Department

[3:01] have been requested.

[3:02] The board must consider each application

[3:04] legally valid and is required

[3:06] to make a recommendation on each application.

[3:08] The rules of the Council permit

[3:10] no demonstrations of any kind within the Council chambers.

[3:15] Please refrain from any applause or dialog during or after presentations.

[3:18] All remarks should be addressed to the board.

[3:20] Please show the same respect to the person

[3:21] speaking that you would expect to receive yourself.

[3:24] The applications heard tonight will be considered

[3:26] by the Zoning Committee on August 24th, 2026,

[3:30] and by the Atlantic City Council on September 8th, 2026.

[3:33] I will now entertain a motion to adopt tonight's agenda.

[3:37] Madam chair, I move that this board adopts tonight's

[3:40] agenda, with the exception

[3:42] that we move the following cases to the front of the agenda

[3:45] for consideration of a possible deferral filing or continuance.

[3:50] Z Dash 26, 3024

[3:52] Cleveland Avenue Southeast to be filed

[3:55] Z 2636 1834 Braeburn Circle

[4:00] southeast for a 60 day deferral until October 2026.

[4:05] Z Dash 2637

[4:08] 686 Highland Avenue Southeast to be filed.

[4:12] Z Dash 2645

[4:15] 2341 Glenn Drive, southeast to be filed.

[4:21] Is there a second?

[4:24] Second.

[4:25] It's been moved and properly seconded

[4:27] that we accept tonight's agenda, with the exception of the applications

[4:29] that will be moved to the front of the agenda

[4:30] for consideration for possible deferral, continuance of filing.

[4:34] Are there any questions or comments from the board?

[4:37] Okay. Hearing none.

[4:39] All in favor of adopting

[4:40] tonight's agenda, please I and opposed.

[4:42] Nay, a motion passes.

[4:44] Oh, abstain.

[4:46] Motion passes.

[4:48] Acknowledging one abstention.

[4:50] Let me remind you again to please

[4:53] ensure that your phones and other electronic devices

[4:56] have been turned off. Or silence to.

[4:58] Miss Holmes, would you please read the cases

[5:00] for possible deferral and filing

[5:03] Z 2630 an ordinance by Councilmember

[5:06] Antonio Lewis to waive part three Land Development Code.

[5:08] Part 16 zoning.

[5:09] Chapter 11 of the City

[5:10] of Atlanta Code of Ordinances

[5:13] so as to allow an automobile service station service station at 24 Cleveland

[5:16] Avenue Southeast within 1500 feet of an existing automobile

[5:18] service station, and for other purposes in

[5:20] Council District 12, Z 2636, and ordinance by the Committee

[5:24] to rezone from multifamily residential conditional

[5:26] to multi-family residential conditional

[5:28] for a major site plan amendment and a change of conditions

[5:30] for property located at 1834 Braeburn Circle, southeast

[5:33] fronting 50ft on the north side of Braves Circle,

[5:36] beginning at a point on the north side of the 50ft right of way known as Braving

[5:38] Circle in the southwest corner of lot 22,

[5:40] said point being 750ft east from the intersection

[5:43] of Braeburn Circle and Clifton Road.

[5:45] Depth varies. Area 6.906 acres.

[5:47] Land lot one 7415 Fisher, DeKalb County, Georgia.

[5:50] Owner Welborn development LLC applicant Harold Buckley Jr, MP,

[5:54] Council District five 2637.

[5:57] Ordinance Committee to rezone from two family

[5:58] Residential Beltline overlay to commercial service issues.

[6:01] Felt like overlay for property located at 686 Highland Avenue

[6:04] Northeast, fronting 94ft on the north

[6:05] side of Highland Avenue, commencing at an

[6:07] at the intersection of the north

[6:09] right of way of Highland Avenue and the easterly

[6:10] right of way of Sampson Street, and leave the said

[6:13] easterly right of way of Samsung

[6:14] Street, and run along the said northerly

[6:15] right of way of Highland Avenue to a point

[6:17] set point also been the point of beginning

[6:19] approximately 150ft area 0.3 acres.

[6:22] In 1914, Bishop Fulton County, Georgia owner Chris

[6:25] Carter, applicant.

[6:26] Chris Jackson, MPU, Council, District two.

[6:29] Thank you, Miss Holmes.

[6:30] Is there anyone present in opposition?

[6:32] Is there one more?

[6:34] Oh, sorry. 2645 and my Councilmember Bakhtiari is on property

[6:37] located at 2341 Drive Southeast Atlanta, Georgia,

[6:40] through 316 of the hour for Single family

[6:42] residential zoning district for the purposes of

[6:45] Council District five.

[6:46] Thank you.

[6:48] Is there anyone present in

[6:49] opposition to any of the cases being considered

[6:51] for deferral or filing?

[6:55] Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain motions.

[7:00] Madam chair, with respect

[7:02] to case number 2630, I move to this board, defer

[7:06] taking action on this case to be filed.

[7:10] Second motions been made and probably seconded.

[7:13] All in favor say aye.

[7:14] Opposed? Nay, I motion passes.

[7:18] Madam chair, with respect to case number Z 2636,

[7:22] I move that this board defer taking action on this case

[7:26] till a 60 day deferral until October 2026.

[7:30] Second motions been made. Properly seconded.

[7:33] All in favor, say aye. Opposed. Nay.

[7:35] Abstain.

[7:41] Madam chair, with the two case number Z 2637, I move this board.

[7:46] Defer to action to be filed,

[7:49] second motions been made and properly seconded.

[7:51] All in favor, say aye and opposed.

[7:53] May I mention passes?

[7:56] Madam chair, with respect to case number Z 2645, I move

[8:00] that this board director action for this case to be filed.

[8:04] Second, she's been made and properly seconded.

[8:06] All in favor say aye and opposed.

[8:08] Nay, a motion passes.

[8:10] May we have the next application, please?

[8:12] Miss Z 2638 Ordinance by Zoning Committee to rezone

[8:16] from planned development, mixed use Beltline overlay and community

[8:18] business district overlay to mix residential

[8:20] commercial building overlay for prophecy located at 774784,

[8:24] also known as 782 Ponce Leon Place seven 9794,

[8:29] also known as 798, possibly on Avenue,

[8:31] possibly on Avenue, and 731

[8:34] Adventure Avenue, also known as 732 Bonaventure Avenue,

[8:37] fronting 328ft on the north side of Ponce

[8:39] Leon Avenue, beginning at a nail found at the intersection

[8:42] formed by the northerly right of way of Ponce

[8:44] Leon Avenue

[8:46] and the westerly right of way of Bonaventure Avenue, and proceeding thence

[8:47] along the north right of Way of Ponce Leon Avenue.

[8:50] Death varies. Area 1.75788 acres. Land lot 1714.

[8:53] District and County, Georgia.

[8:55] Owners SDI Ponce LLC, SC 73 LLC and 175 LLC.

[9:00] Applicant S.I.

[9:01] Ponce LLC in Council District two.

[9:07] Thank you miss.

[9:08] Please state your name and address and proceed.

[9:12] Members of the board just.

[9:16] Might sound like it.

[9:17] Try it again. Hello.

[9:19] There we go. Just not close enough.

[9:20] There we go.

[9:21] Good evening, members of the board.

[9:22] My name is Jessica Hill.

[9:25] My business address is 600 Peachtree Street, and I represent the applicant

[9:27] and property owner, Seelig Enterprises.

[9:30] I'm joined tonight by various members of the project team,

[9:33] including the property ownership,

[9:35] our architect and our civil engineer, and also

[9:38] our traffic engineer who's going to speak to you as well.

[9:41] Seelig has owned the majority of this property

[9:42] for over 60 years.

[9:44] It's about 1.75 acres.

[9:46] Located at the corner of Bonaventure

[9:49] has frontage on Bonaventure,

[9:50] Maiden Lane and Ponce de Leon Avenue and has historically

[9:54] been used for a variety of different commercial uses.

[9:57] There is one residential use on the property.

[9:59] Today.

[10:00] It is zones, predominantly C-1.

[10:03] At the far western most portion of the property is one lot

[10:07] that was zoned PDM a few years ago

[10:10] as part of a development that Portman Holdings was proposing.

[10:13] So that's why the zoning request that's before you is to go

[10:16] from C-1 and PDM to MRC

[10:20] three with several conditions.

[10:23] We are proposing a development that will include up to 375

[10:27] multifamily units.

[10:28] Those will be rental

[10:30] with about 10,000ft of sidewalk level commercial

[10:33] and then obviously a parking str

[10:41] Just looking at a color

[10:43] rendered version of the ground floor plan,

[10:44] you've got Pontes on the bottom here,

[10:46] Bonaventure Avenue on your right and Maiden Lane on the north.

[10:51] This is the southern edge of the Virginia

[10:53] Highland neighborhood,

[10:54] and we spent quite a bit of time working with Virginia

[10:57] Highland, with their planning committee,

[10:58] as well as with the neighborhood at large, to address concerns

[11:01] that were raised predominantly around traffic.

[11:04] What you see here in orange is the retail and amenity area.

[11:07] At the bottom level, we have two curb cuts proposed,

[11:11] one on Ponce de Leon Avenue, one on Maiden Lane.

[11:15] The project originally

[11:16] had a curb cut proposed on Bonaventure instead,

[11:19] and the resounding thing that we heard

[11:20] from the neighborhood was, please don't do that to us.

[11:24] Bonaventure at most times is backed up

[11:26] due to the stock condition there.

[11:27] So the site plan that you see proposes curb

[11:31] cuts on these two locations.

[11:39] Show rendering of the project.

[11:41] Here's a bird's eye rendering of the project.

[11:43] You've got Ponce de Leon here.

[11:45] This is Bonaventure on the corner.

[11:46] You can see the development here.

[11:48] And then we've ghosted in the

[11:50] Portman development, which is approved next door

[11:52] at the same height and massing as the proposal.

[11:58] You will find a variety of conditions in your packet.

[12:01] Most of them were originally negotiated for the adjacent development.

[12:05] What we did with the Virginia Highlands Group was work through

[12:08] which ones applied to this site,

[12:10] and then presented them to the staff.

[12:13] The only condition that we have a concern with is staff condition number four,

[12:19] which requires

[12:21] a write in right out on Ponce if there is a variation.

[12:24] Granted, and I'm going to let

[12:25] our traffic engineer

[12:26] speak to the traffic study

[12:27] that was prepared for this project

[12:30] and tell you a little bit more about why we would like that condition removed.

[12:32] Thank you.

[12:38] Hello, I'm Anna Eisenman.

[12:40] I join you to give my address.

[12:43] 955 Juniper Street, unit 2132.

[12:45] Atlanta, Georgia I'm a traffic engineer with Kinley Horn.

[12:49] I prepared a traffic impact study

[12:51] in response to some neighborhood

[12:52] concerns and questions about traffic

[12:54] and the impact of the broader neighborhood.

[12:56] We know that on a state route like Ponce de Leon Avenue,

[12:59] the most likely permitted condition

[13:01] will be a right and right out, because that is God's

[13:03] preferred intersection alternative on a state route.

[13:07] However, in this Pacific location, we do have a two way

[13:10] left turn lane that allows left

[13:13] turn access today to the five driveways that we would be reducing to one.

[13:16] I talked to Megan Wilson at gDot

[13:20] and how to preliminary conversation with her, to ask

[13:23] if it would be possible to do a left

[13:25] turn at this location to respond to citizen concerns, neighbor

[13:29] concerns about extra circulation in the neighborhood

[13:33] if they wouldn't be able to directly access

[13:34] from the primary arterial state route.

[13:37] And she said it's a possibility they have to see the permit

[13:41] before they can respond.

[13:43] For Dot,

[13:44] I think queuing was another concern along that to a left

[13:49] turn lane, based on the traffic volumes that we collected this year

[13:52] and projected future volumes for the development, we project

[13:56] one car or fewer queued to make that left

[13:59] onto Bonaventure or into the site driveway.

[14:04] A car takes up about 25ft.

[14:06] When we consider queuing design.

[14:07] We have 300ft along that frontage.

[14:10] There should not be any issues with queuing.

[14:19] And we're happy to answer any questions.

[14:20] We'll reserve any time for rebuttal,

[14:21] although I'm not sure if there's anybody here for us.

[14:23] Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

[14:27] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition

[14:29] to this application?

[14:33] Okay. Hearing none, we back to the applicant.

[14:35] Is there any other additional comments

[14:36] you would like to make?

[14:39] The only other point of clarification, and again

[14:42] this is with respect to the traffic study,

[14:43] but the traffic study that you have

[14:45] was prepared in May

[14:46] at the request of the Virginia Highland neighborhood.

[14:50] Again, when we met with the broader

[14:52] neighborhood back in February,

[14:53] we were asked to prepare a traffic study to address

[14:56] what the impact would be on Virginia Highlands specifically.

[15:00] And Miss Eisenman study was intended to identify

[15:05] what kind of the worst case scenario would be

[15:07] if there was only a right in right out,

[15:09] which is why that was what was studied.

[15:12] Obviously, if there is a left in allowed,

[15:14] which is what we would ask for,

[15:16] then that could improve the traffic

[15:19] on the Virginia Highland Street.

[15:20] But we didn't want to put that in a study

[15:22] and then have the community come back and say,

[15:24] well, if you can't get that, why does your study say this?

[15:27] So I just wanted to give a little background around

[15:29] why the study refers to a right and right out.

[15:33] I will also note that having this curb cut on Ponce de

[15:37] Leon Avenue

[15:38] is something that requires relief during the special

[15:40] administrative permit process,

[15:42] the City Office of Zoning and Development

[15:44] has the authority to grant that or not.

[15:47] And so to the extent that this condition was removed,

[15:50] the staff still has the authority

[15:52] to modify, restrict, deny that variation at a later date.

[15:57] We just would like it to be pushed

[15:59] to a later conversation when maybe there's

[16:00] more information about the traffic available. Thank you.

[16:05] Thank you.

[16:07] We will now enter deliberation questions or comments from the board.

[16:11] Any thoughts about the curb cut?

[16:19] I was trying to look.

[16:21] Having a little difficulty here is there's a

[16:25] a PED signal.

[16:26] I don't know if it's a hawk signal,

[16:28] but there's a pedestrian crossing in the middle of ponds,

[16:31] and I'm trying to figure out where

[16:32] exactly that is in proximity to the turn in

[16:35] and turn out of this site plan.

[16:41] So the pedestrian signal. Yes.

[16:43] I might need to wait.

[16:45] The pedestrian crossing is an offset crosswalk,

[16:48] and it's located on the far west edge of the property.

[16:51] The proposed driveway is closer to the center.

[16:54] There's about 75ft of storage

[16:58] in case there are three cars, but we 95th percentile cuz.

[17:03] So 95% of the time you have one car or less.

[17:06] Okay, that's that was the question I had about.

[17:14] Miss Holmes. I know that staff recommended the right turn only.

[17:17] Would you care to elaborate as to why you thought

[17:19] that was the most effective approach?

[17:22] Sure. When staff was evaluating this application

[17:25] during our agenda review, we have we are in

[17:29] conversation with our land planning coworkers in.

[17:32] The request was made at that time because of the

[17:35] the traffic that is on the possibly on corridor.

[17:38] And so while Miss Hill is correct

[17:41] that during the SAP process,

[17:42] the administrative variation would be considered, we in

[17:46] the office have tried to look at projects

[17:49] holistically and not delay making decisions.

[17:53] And this is a direct request

[17:54] of a member of the land planning team.

[17:57] Okay.

[18:01] Any other questions or comments?

[18:03] I think I'm inclined to go with the staff recommendation.

[18:08] Anything else?

[18:09] Okay.

[18:10] I'm prepared to hear a motion.

[18:15] Madam chair, with respect to case number

[18:18] Z 2638, I move that this board accepts the stats.

[18:24] Finding a fact.

[18:25] Second motion made it properly.

[18:28] Seconded. All in favor, say aye.

[18:29] Nay. A motion passes.

[18:32] Madam chair, with respect to case number Z 2638,

[18:37] I move that this board

[18:38] send forth a recommendation of approval with the conditions

[18:42] found on page five and six of the case

[18:48] found on the date of August 6th, 2026.

[18:52] Second o the staff report.

[18:55] Staff report. I'm sorry.

[18:57] Staff report dated August 6th, 2026.

[19:00] Second motions been made and properly seconded.

[19:03] All in favor, say aye.

[19:04] Opposed. Nay, a motion passes.

[19:07] Next case. Business homes Z 2639.

[19:10] An ordinance by the Committee to rezone from single family

[19:12] residential Beltline overlay to community businesses.

[19:15] Beltline overlay for property

[19:16] located at 1298 Donley Avenue, Southwest, fronting 50ft

[19:20] on the south side of Donley Avenue.

[19:21] Beginning at a nail found on the southwest

[19:23] right of way of Donley Avenue.

[19:24] Set point being 48.67ft southeast from its intersection

[19:28] with the right of way of Allegheny Street, 150ft.

[19:31] Area 0.172 acres. Land lot.

[19:33] 139 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia.

[19:36] Owner D Jones.

[19:37] Applicant Jamila Brown.

[19:38] Input Council district ten.

[19:41] Please go ahead and set your name and address and proceed.

[19:45] Good afternoon. Jamila Brown 570 Piedmont Ave, Northeast Elena, Georgia 30308.

[19:51] This is a request for a rezone from residential to commercial.

[19:56] We understand that the community around is already commercial.

[20:02] So this is a simple request.

[20:05] But this is a controversy because of what's going there.

[20:08] I just want the panel to know that we have met with the NPU

[20:13] on multiple occasions in the franchisee, and the owner

[20:18] and their in their council is working with the community

[20:20] to come up with a community agreement

[20:22] that the neighborhood would be comfortable with.

[20:24] I just wanted to add that that's all.

[20:29] Okay. Is that all your comments?

[20:32] Okay. Go ahead. Have a seat.

[20:33] Is there anyone else who would like to speak

[20:35] in support of this application?

[20:37] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition?

[20:41] Okay. Hearing none, we will enter deliberation

[20:44] questions or comments from the board,

[20:47] so I'm not sure everyone is aware.

[20:51] There have been additional

[20:52] conditions that were proposed by the neighborhood.

[20:56] That staff has provided,

[20:59] and have any thoughts about that?

[21:04] Okay.

[21:19] Okay. I'm prepared to hear a motion.

[21:21] Madam chair, with respect to case

[21:23] number Z 2639,

[21:26] I move that this board accepts the staff training effect.

[21:31] Second motion has been made and properly seconded.

[21:33] All in favor, say aye.

[21:34] Opposed? Nay.

[21:37] Motion passes.

[21:38] Madam chair, with respect to case number Z

[21:41] 2639, I move to this board.

[21:44] Send forth a recommendation of approval.

[21:48] Second motion has been. Oh,

[21:53] I thought we had additional conditions.

[21:54] With conditions? No.

[21:58] The the.

[22:02] Let's go back a second.

[22:03] Back into deliberation. The

[22:07] neighborhood.

[22:07] Proposed conditions.

[22:09] Staff report does not have conditions.

[22:13] Okay.

[22:14] To repeat. Yes.

[22:17] Madam chair, to speak to case

[22:19] number Z 2639, I recommend that this board send

[22:24] forth a recommendation of approval.

[22:27] Second motion has been made and properly seconded.

[22:30] All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Nay.

[22:32] All right.

[22:32] Motion passes.

[22:34] Next case, please, is 2642.

[22:37] An ordinance by Councilmember Lillian Bakhtiari

[22:39] to his own properties located in 1801, 18 1618

[22:43] 1918, 20, 1824, 1828,

[22:46] 1832 and 1836 second Avenue, Decatur, Georgia and 560

[22:50] Fayetteville Road and 562 Fayetteville Road, Atlanta,

[22:53] Georgia to the community Business District.

[22:55] 596, 600 and 604 and 755 Ville Road,

[22:59] to the single family residential and 735 Fayetteville

[23:03] Road to the Honor Industrial Office.

[23:05] Institutional zoning districts.

[23:07] Upon annexation into the corporate limits

[23:09] of the City of Atlanta and other purposes.

[23:10] MPO Council District five.

[23:12] Madam chair, I'll be speaking to this paper.

[23:15] The properties to the properties to be annexed

[23:17] are south of the City of Atlanta limits,

[23:19] with frontage on Second Avenue and Fayetteville

[23:21] Road in unincorporated DeKalb County.

[23:23] The parcels are near the city of Atlanta.

[23:25] Eastlake neighborhood in Council District five.

[23:28] The properties comprise 101.

[23:31] I'm Sorry comprise 15 parcels.

[23:33] The eastern part of the area is situated

[23:36] next to the city of Atlanta in unincorporated Kalb County.

[23:38] All properties proposed for annexation

[23:40] have frontages on Second Avenue or Fayetteville Road,

[23:43] and the properties are improved with non residential uses

[23:45] such as a place of worship and a school.

[23:50] The. The intent to

[23:52] the intent of the City of Atlanta are for single family

[23:55] residential district is to provide for the protection

[23:57] of existing single family communities

[23:58] and the development

[23:59] of new communities on lots of medium size

[24:01] and a density of not more than one dwelling

[24:03] unit per square feet, one dwelling unit per 9000ft.

[24:07] Similarly, the intent of the 75 residential medium lot zoning

[24:10] district in DeKalb County is to provide for the protection

[24:13] of neighborhoods within the county

[24:14] where lots of a minimum area of 10,000ft, and to provide

[24:17] for compatible infill development in neighborhoods.

[24:21] The intent of the Atlanta

[24:22] C1 Community Business District is provide

[24:24] for medium intensity retail and service

[24:25] activities, and in areas are already committed

[24:28] to development of this character.

[24:29] Similarly, the C1 local commercial district

[24:32] in DeKalb County is to provide convenient local retail,

[24:35] shopping and service areas within the county

[24:37] for our residents to provide for oriented

[24:39] needs outside of the neighborhood center, town

[24:41] center, and regional center character areas.

[24:44] And lastly,

[24:44] the intent of the City of Atlanta Oni

[24:47] Office Institutional District

[24:48] is to provide office, institutional

[24:50] and residential development with assessed

[24:52] supporting services but without general commercial

[24:54] development and similarly, the intent of county is provide

[24:58] convenient areas within the county

[24:59] for the location of office

[25:00] and institutional uses

[25:01] which are necessary for the residents and business

[25:03] and professional practitioners within the county.

[25:09] As no new development is proposed in connection

[25:11] with this annexation, the availability of other land

[25:14] already zoned for the proposed use is not applicable,

[25:16] however, because annexation into the city

[25:18] of Atlanta requires the assignment of zoning,

[25:20] the city must designate an appropriate

[25:22] zoning classification at the time of annexation.

[25:24] The proposed zoning C1, oh, and I

[25:28] and R4 are in

[25:31] line with its own indigenous indi kalb counties in the cab

[25:34] county, and land use patterns

[25:35] thereby maintain the existing balance of land usage.

[25:38] The use is permitted under the proposed

[25:40] will positively contribute to the character

[25:42] of the surrounding neighborhoods, as they are

[25:43] substantially similar to those most currently allowed

[25:46] and already present under DeKalb County Zoning Regulations.

[25:49] Staff recommendation is approval.

[25:53] Thank you, Miss Holmes. Is there anyone here who would like to speak

[25:54] in support of this application?

[25:59] Yes, in support.

[26:01] And remember to state your name and address before you begin.

[26:05] Elamin.

[26:07] My home address is 2807.

[26:09] Heads would drive.

[26:10] Atlanta, Georgia 30311.

[26:16] This is a most of this property.

[26:18] Our community. Lana mosque.

[26:20] Lana has owned half this property for 50 years.

[26:24] And then we began to acquire other property.

[26:29] We were trying to develop

[26:32] the whole neighborhood community.

[26:34] And the city line runs through the property.

[26:38] But most of the property is unincorporated DeKalb County,

[26:42] so it makes it very difficult to try to do the development

[26:46] we want to do in these two different

[26:50] designations. So we

[26:52] prefer to be bring everything into the city of Atlanta.

[26:56] And we've met with the city on several occasions, and

[27:01] they have been very supportive of that.

[27:04] We've also informed DeKalb County of our intention, and

[27:09] I can't say they have been

[27:10] supportive of it, but they understand.

[27:13] Okay. So I think that's it basically.

[27:16] Okay. Thank you.

[27:18] Is there anyone else who would like to speak

[27:19] in support of the application?

[27:22] Is there anyone who would like

[27:23] to speak in opposition to the application?

[27:27] Okay. Hearing none, we will enter deliberation

[27:28] questions or comments from the board.

[27:31] Okay. I'm prepared to hear a motion.

[27:33] Madam chair, with respect to case number 26 stands 42.

[27:38] I move that this board of stars

[27:40] finding effect second motions been made and probably seconded.

[27:44] All in favor, say aye. Opposed?

[27:46] Motion passes.

[27:48] Madam chair, with respect to case number Z 2642,

[27:52] I moved the sports in forth a recommendation of approval.

[27:56] Second motions been made properly seconded.

[27:59] All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed. Nay.

[28:02] Motion passes.

[28:03] Next case, please, miss Holmes Z 2643 and Ordinance

[28:06] by Zoning Committee designating the Peachtree Circle

[28:09] Historic District, located in land lot 105 of the 17th district,

[28:12] Georgia, to the Overlays on Designation

[28:14] of Historic District pursuant to chapter 20 of the Zoning

[28:17] Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

[28:18] Rezoning from single family and single family.

[28:21] Landmark building site to single family historic district

[28:25] in single family landmark building or site Historic district

[28:26] amending the official zoning map.

[28:27] Adopting chapter 21 of the Zoning

[28:30] Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

[28:31] Repealing conflicting laws and for other purposes.

[28:33] MP Council, District six.

[28:36] Thank you, Miss Holmes.

[28:37] Please state your name and address and proceed.

[28:40] Madam chair, members of the board, I'm Robert Reed.

[28:42] I am part of the Office of Design in the Department

[28:47] of City Planning. I am the head of the Historic Preservation Studio,

[28:50] and we are the applicant in this case.

[28:52] Earlier action taken by the Urban Design Commission.

[28:57] So the cities make a thousands of land use decisions

[29:03] over over time, and most respond to the needs of the moment.

[29:07] But occasionally community is asked to make a different

[29:09] kind of decision, a decision about the physical quantity,

[29:12] physical qualities a city deserves.

[29:17] Qualities of a city deserve to endure for generations.

[29:20] Historic district designation is one of those.

[29:24] It is one of zoning highest purposes.

[29:26] Every zoning regulation represents a community judgment

[29:29] that certain private decisions have public consequences.

[29:33] Setbacks protect light and air

[29:35] height limits, preserve neighborhood scale tree

[29:38] and stormwater regulations, protect environmental resources.

[29:42] Historic district regulations serve that same public purpose.

[29:47] They recognize that certain streets,

[29:49] buildings, and neighborhoods possess a significant

[29:51] that extends beyond

[29:52] individual ownership because they contribute

[29:55] to the character, identity, and welfare of the entire city.

[29:59] Peachtree circle is one of those places.

[30:01] There are moments in history when circumstances,

[30:03] circumstance, vision and opportunity

[30:05] come together to create something that

[30:07] simply could not be replicated today.

[30:09] Atlanta itself was born of such a convergence

[30:12] the westward expansion of a young nation,

[30:14] the advent of the railroads,

[30:16] the unique geography of bridges, bridges, and water

[30:20] that determined where this city would grow.

[30:23] Peachtree circle represents another of those moments

[30:25] when nationally significant planning ideas,

[30:29] exceptional landscape design, distinguished architecture,

[30:32] and visionary development combined

[30:34] to create one of Atlanta's most recognizable streets.

[30:37] To understand where we are going as a city,

[30:39] we must first understand how we arrived here.

[30:42] Historic designation is one of those ways

[30:45] we preserve that understanding.

[30:48] Beginning last December, proponents sponsored

[30:50] two public meetings to discuss this proposal.

[30:54] The city then conducted two additional public meetings

[30:56] where residents shared concerns, suggestions, and ideas.

[31:00] Those conversations

[31:01] produced meaningful refinements to the proposed regulations.

[31:05] Most recently, the Park Zoning Committee conducted its own

[31:09] public hearing recommending additional refinements,

[31:12] and the annually Park Civic Board.

[31:14] Civic Civic Association

[31:16] board affirmed the committee's findings, as did MPU.

[31:20] Those recommendations have likewise

[31:21] been incorporated into the proposal before you tonight.

[31:25] This has been a deliberate and deliberative process

[31:27] with multiple opportunities for public participation.

[31:31] A clear majority of property owners who have expressed

[31:34] an opinion to the Historic Preservation Studio

[31:39] are in support of this designation.

[31:43] Those materials are also included in your package

[31:45] every email and petition we received.

[31:49] Everyone who is participating in this

[31:52] in this discussion, including those

[31:53] who oppose designation, has demonstrated

[31:55] something important they love Peachtree Circle.

[31:59] The question before this board is not

[32:00] whether Peachtree Circle is special.

[32:02] The question is whether Atlanta's

[32:04] zoning ordinance should recognize

[32:06] and protect the public value

[32:08] of one of Atlanta's defining residential landscapes.

[32:12] Tonight, you are not simply considering another zoning case.

[32:15] You are deciding whether one of Atlanta's most important

[32:17] historic places should receive the same thoughtful stewardship

[32:21] that our zoning ordinance

[32:22] already provides to so many other public interests.

[32:26] You are deciding whether.

[32:30] All right. For that reason, we respectfully ask your

[32:32] for your recommendation to in support of the Peachtree

[32:34] Circle Historic District.

[32:36] I'll reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.

[32:38] Thank you sir.

[32:40] Is there anyone else who would like to speak

[32:41] in support of the application at this time?

[32:46] The Robert support?

[32:48] Nope. Nope.

[32:49] You need it. Okay.

[32:51] I want all the rebuttal time.

[32:53] Okay.

[32:54] Is there anyone who would like

[32:55] to speak in opposition at this time?

[33:04] Hello. My name is John Jordan and I live at 48

[33:06] Peachtree Circle, Atlanta, Georgia.

[33:07] 30309.

[33:09] I'm speaking against the proposed

[33:11] historic district and asking that you not accept this overlay proposal.

[33:16] The main reason I'm going to speak tonight is there simply is not overwhelming support for this.

[33:19] It's amongst the residents

[33:21] of the district, of the proposed district.

[33:22] It's it is contested in the numbers. Prove it.

[33:25] The city's own count puts it, puts this at around

[33:28] 52% of the impacted properties being in favor.

[33:32] We've identified over

[33:33] 42% of people that have said they are not in favor.

[33:37] There are some folks who have chosen

[33:38] not to participate for whatever reason,

[33:41] but I think you should look at that

[33:44] 52% and understand what's underneath it.

[33:48] Of that 52%, ten of the properties

[33:51] in favor are inside of one structure.

[33:54] This is a condo apartment

[33:56] within the within the proposed district.

[33:57] And I'm not proposing that those people

[33:59] should not have a say in this, but it is different when they do

[34:02] not currently have the ability to redevelop their own property,

[34:06] change the facade because they are part of an HOA.

[34:09] It is simply different than the other

[34:12] than the other parts of the other parcels that are weighing in.

[34:14] And I would ask you to consider that second wind park,

[34:18] a property owned by the city, is also in the city's numbers.

[34:22] Not certain why that was included,

[34:24] but I'm not certain why this city has a vote in this

[34:27] in a park that isn't going to change

[34:31] when you adjust the numbers for that,

[34:32] the support for the city falls below 50%.

[34:35] In fact, it's around 45,

[34:38] giving the condominium one vote and giving one part

[34:40] no vote and removing them from the denominator.

[34:42] So I would just ask you seriously consider the

[34:45] level of support for this.

[34:53] Hello, my name is Andy.

[34:55] I live at 158 Peachtree Circle, and I'm one of the properties

[34:59] directly impacted by this proposed designation.

[35:03] I think it's worth pointing out to corrections.

[35:05] One, they showed the Maryland condo building

[35:09] that's not actually on Peachtree Circle.

[35:11] It's on 17th Street, and they showed the Randolph

[35:14] Lucas Jones house, which was a house

[35:16] at the intersection of Lindbergh and Peachtree

[35:20] that was moved to Peachtree Circle

[35:22] after another house was demolished about 20 years ago.

[35:25] So they're using homes that have actually been moved

[35:29] to the street or are not on the street

[35:31] as indicative of what's on that street.

[35:36] I'm here to ask the board for a 60 day continuance

[35:39] of any of this decision on this matter,

[35:41] so that I can obtain, at my own expense,

[35:44] an independent appraisal report on the actual impact

[35:48] this designation would have on our property values.

[35:52] When I asked the Department of City Planning

[35:54] how this designation would impact

[35:56] property values on our street, Mr.

[35:58] Reed directed me to the Fulton County tax records.

[36:01] Respectfully, that data does not answer the question.

[36:06] Tax records tell you what a property is worth today

[36:10] on a current zoning, not what happens that value.

[36:13] Once a regulatory restriction is layered onto one street

[36:17] while every comparable home nearby remains unrestricted.

[36:22] This afternoon, Mr.

[36:23] Reed sent me an unpublished analysis

[36:26] of historical city of Atlanta neighborhoods

[36:30] versus unrestricted

[36:35] neighborhoods. But again, that is not the issue here.

[36:38] There is actually a published, peer

[36:41] reviewed research showing that while

[36:46] showing that while a whole neighborhood

[36:48] historic designation can increase property values,

[36:52] applying the same designation to just a subset

[36:54] of a neighborhood tends to decrease that value.

[36:58] And I'm aware of only two instances of a single street

[37:02] or sub designation in the city of the City of Atlanta.

[37:06] The first is Baltimore Block,

[37:09] a commercial block converted from abandoned townhomes

[37:11] into office spaces next to Emory Midtown.

[37:15] Not comparable.

[37:16] And Sunset

[37:17] Avenue, home to Doctor

[37:18] Martin Luther King Manor, Jackson and Julian Bond,

[37:21] which is a street of national and international civil rights.

[37:25] Significance.

[37:27] Peachtree circle has no comparable historic value.

[37:32] Fulton County records show our streets total appraised value is $159,272,800.

[37:39] Every indication is that our values will decline

[37:42] as buyers choose unrestricted alternatives nearby.

[37:46] Even a conservative 5% decline is a cumulative

[37:49] $8 million loss of value, and also loss of tax bases

[37:54] for the city.

[37:57] This proposal, such a dangerous precedent for the erosion of the city's

[37:59] tax bases and other neighborhoods

[38:02] where single street historic designations may be implemented in the future

[38:05] before taking a step that could cost the city

[38:07] millions in tax revenue, that impact should be studied.

[38:11] It is not.

[38:13] That's why I'm requesting 60 days to obtain

[38:15] this appraisal report from an independent appraiser,

[38:20] who will make available at the next session

[38:23] at the continuing hearing.

[38:25] Thank you.

[38:27] Thank you sir.

[38:28] Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition?

[38:36] Thank you.

[38:37] Ladies and gentlemen of the XB.

[38:41] My name is Michael Hanlon. I'm a former member of the board of the Park Civic Association,

[38:45] and I will not reiterate the points I made

[38:47] in the submission I filed with the Derby yesterday.

[38:52] And focus on two points.

[38:53] Specifically how the APCs action

[38:56] in this we.

[39:00] I was a board member both in 2025

[39:04] when the board adopted

[39:05] its neighborhood plan, and until last Wednesday,

[39:09] when the board adopted the resolution that

[39:13] accepts the recommendation of the zoning committee.

[39:17] And the point I want to make

[39:20] is that our neighborhood conservation

[39:21] plan does not support historic designation.

[39:24] In fact, it does the exact opposite.

[39:27] First of all, by its clear and explicit

[39:31] wording that every produced in my letter to you.

[39:34] And secondly, if that were not enough,

[39:36] and I was quite shocked to hear my colleagues on the board

[39:39] say that no, in fact, this conservation study does

[39:43] support historic designation. Admit

[39:45] there's a sentence in there somewhere that says that.

[39:47] But I'd like to read to you from the minutes of that meeting

[39:51] that are publicly available on our website for all to read.

[39:55] And so when it gets to the point and the discussion

[39:59] focused on the study recommendation five,

[40:01] there was also some discussion focusing on the references

[40:04] to Ansley Park's inclusion in the National Register

[40:07] of Historic Places, and that attempts to pursue

[40:10] historic designation for the neighborhood had not passed.

[40:13] Mr. Brown, the APC board president, emphasized

[40:17] that those references were included expressly convey

[40:21] that the

[40:23] plans purpose was limited to working with existing

[40:26] zoning code regulations for the neighborhood,

[40:29] and not a disguised attempt at reintroducing the constraints

[40:32] of historic designation on Ansley Park residents.

[40:37] There was some disagreement

[40:38] on one of the recommendations,

[40:42] and ultimately the board approved the plan.

[40:45] On that basis, both myself and the previous speaker,

[40:49] John Jordan, who is also a board member at the time.

[40:52] The only reason we supported this was

[40:54] that plan was expressly to not find ourselves

[40:58] in the situation where we are today.

[41:00] That is the first point I will make

[41:02] and the second point I will make.

[41:03] Coming to the recommendation very briefly,

[41:06] is that the recommendation, or rather

[41:08] the resolution that was adopted by the board,

[41:10] is very carefully worded.

[41:12] It does not say

[41:13] supporting of historic designation is does not say

[41:16] this is a great idea for the neighborhood.

[41:18] What it specifically says is that

[41:22] we accept the recommendation of the zoning committee,

[41:26] and the entire point of that was for the board to say, well,

[41:33] the zoning committee came to its conclusion.

[41:35] It seems to have done its job, and therefore

[41:39] we will accept that recommendation.

[41:41] But it doesn't go any further than that.

[41:43] It should not be interpreted as anything broader than that.

[41:47] Other than that, I refer back to the materials

[41:49] I've already filed and I thank you for your time.

[41:53] Thank you sir.

[41:55] How much time remains for that?

[41:56] I should just add that I sent a copy of the minutes

[42:00] to the NPU website, as I realized I hadn't included

[42:04] my original submissions. My apologies. Okay.

[42:06] Thank you. How much time remains for the opposition?

[42:09] Two 1703 17 remains for the opposition.

[42:13] Okay.

[42:17] Hello, my name is Deja Carter.

[42:19] I live at 21 Peachtree Circle, and in one of the homes

[42:23] that would be impacted by this decision,

[42:26] my neighbors made some great points.

[42:27] I will not be labor those in the time that we have left.

[42:30] I'll just mention two that haven't come up yet.

[42:33] The first is the precedent that we would be setting here.

[42:36] If you acknowledge Peachtree Circle as a historic district,

[42:39] I think in all of the references that I have emailed to you

[42:43] in 2022, the entire neighborhood had an opportunity

[42:46] to become a historic district, and that was summarily rejected.

[42:50] If you select Peachtree Circle, it gives the opportunity,

[42:54] one street at a time, for the neighborhood

[42:56] to be designated as a historic district,

[42:58] which was not requested or required at that time,

[43:02] creates a patchwork of inconsistent regulation,

[43:05] and it is not in the board's best interest,

[43:09] I think, to have that.

[43:10] The second point that I want to call out

[43:14] is there's an uneven and disproportionate burden

[43:17] on specific homeowners.

[43:18] Peachtree circle is a street with mixed error homes,

[43:23] and the regulations would apply unevenly.

[43:26] There would be a greater financial burden on the homes

[43:28] that are newer, including my own,

[43:30] who still have to apply to some of the designations.

[43:36] Mr. Reed is going to tell you that our designations

[43:38] are lighter because we are newer.

[43:39] That is true.

[43:40] If some significant

[43:42] thing happens to my home, I can either rebuild

[43:45] exactly as it is.

[43:46] I think we all know what happens

[43:48] when we try to match something that was once was, or

[43:51] I have the option of rebuilding in the historic era.

[43:55] I bought a home built in 2006.

[43:57] I do not want one that reflects an era of historic designation.

[44:01] That's not.

[44:02] It's just not what I wanted.

[44:03] And I think that the

[44:05] requirements on those types of homes are unfair. The.

[44:12] The last point is that.

[44:18] So I guess I'll end with saying that it

[44:20] that this is a permanent,

[44:22] uneven and financially burdensome designation

[44:25] being advanced without clear community support. As Mr.

[44:27] Jordan noted, our own numbers via the zoning board

[44:31] who did approve, indicated 50% more opposition than support.

[44:35] However, members of the zoning board themselves

[44:38] were personally vested in this, and that is my personal opinion

[44:41] of why they approved it and why the APC board

[44:44] across the board supported it as well.

[44:46] Thank you,

[44:48] thank you.

[44:50] Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition?

[44:57] And how much time remains for the opposition?

[44:59] Now, 56 seconds can be very brief.

[45:05] My name is Henry Lapeer. I live at 175 Peace Circle and one of the affected homes.

[45:08] Just to build off the discussion before,

[45:12] while we've had a process to

[45:14] revise the regulations once the city became involved,

[45:19] we've never had an opportunity to contest the actual borders

[45:22] or involve our neighbors about why we selected

[45:24] just this part of our larger neighborhood.

[45:27] The historic character neighborhood extends through all of it.

[45:28] They show the entire map of the Olmsted.

[45:30] They selected one street,

[45:32] and there's some curious inclusions,

[45:33] including that condominium

[45:34] in the park, which seemed to predispose

[45:36] a certain conclusion to this process.

[45:38] The net effect, whether that was intentional

[45:40] or not, is to disenfranchize those of us that oppose

[45:42] and cannot give us an opportunity

[45:43] to have an opinion about where those boundaries lie

[45:46] and how they affect us and the larger neighborhood.

[45:48] This is a discussion that needs to happen

[45:50] for all the neighbors in this neighborhood.

[45:53] Not to leave us, a few of us handling the responsibilities for ourselves.

[45:56] I'll leave you with that. Thank you.

[45:58] Thank you.

[45:59] That's time for the opposition.

[46:04] How much time remains for the applicant?

[46:07] Or actually for those in support?

[46:09] The city is the applicant.

[46:11] Four minutes, 15 for 458 remains.

[46:18] You can't provide

[46:19] additional materials.

[46:32] Mr. Gandhi had

[46:34] mentioned a study, and fortunately, we were able to

[46:37] track that study down.

[46:38] And and our team who does

[46:42] these is doing this ongoing study that found no significant

[46:47] difference between neighborhoods.

[46:49] His contingent, of course, is about streets.

[46:51] But I'll ask you to sort of think about the

[46:53] the designated neighborhoods in the city, in the park,

[46:58] Grant Park, you know, Collier Heights and the surrounding neighborhoods.

[47:01] And if you

[47:02] if you see

[47:03] substantial differences in values

[47:05] there, where the neighborhood, the designated neighborhood

[47:08] is less value than the neighborhood

[47:10] just outside, that's a similar sort of comparison.

[47:12] I think we can all sort of see that one.

[47:14] That said, the

[47:17] the report itself, the the

[47:19] study that was cited, even in its

[47:24] findings, the authors describe the

[47:27] designation as having a negative effect,

[47:28] but they also expressly stated

[47:30] that the result is such that we cannot even

[47:33] exclude the possibility that the delta is zero,

[47:35] and that the estimated effect

[47:37] had a confidence level of only 40.5%.

[47:40] So some serious considerations around that study.

[47:45] The other points, just to be clear,

[47:48] the city parks department in Wind Park

[47:50] is supportive of this designation.

[47:51] They believe that the the historic materials in the park

[47:55] are something to be preserved,

[47:56] and they appreciate our interaction with them.

[47:59] And so to the degree that we count that as support,

[48:02] we we do so.

[48:05] I think the math on the

[48:07] the level of support was a bit of a stretch.

[48:10] So I'm just going to leave that one to be what it is.

[48:13] And then the question of

[48:17] property rights and

[48:19] values, I think that we

[48:24] you know, I've sort of spoken to the value piece of this as well.

[48:25] But the the property rights in particular, the, the idea that

[48:30] that every home is privately owned is substantial.

[48:34] And there's this is a very light touch regulation.

[48:38] We are very

[48:40] we are really focusing on simply

[48:42] the preservation of of the facades in particular

[48:44] and their relationship to the streets.

[48:46] I think some of the pictures you've seen where the houses

[48:49] have been demolished and the lots have been scraped,

[48:53] sort of speaks to what the changes can happen

[48:56] around such teardowns, and that we have the opportunity

[49:01] to say that this some of these buildings are,

[49:06] and their relationship to the street and relationships to the landscape are

[49:09] are a true public interest.

[49:11] And that's our opportunity here.

[49:13] And what I'm going to leave you with tonight,

[49:14] and then I will leave for the rest of my time

[49:17] for someone to come up

[49:18] for some of the additional supporters to come up.

[49:21] How much time is left?

[49:24] 210 remains.

[49:29] David go first and then Miss Lyman.

[49:31] All right.

[49:36] Hello, everybody. I'm Joan Lyman, and I reside at 116 Peachtree Circle.

[49:40] And all the conversations that have been happening

[49:42] about hardship and reconstruction.

[49:44] And if there's issues for your home.

[49:46] My home was finished in 1915.

[49:49] It was acquired by a family that lived there for over 75 years.

[49:53] And that was Daniel Rich and his family.

[49:56] When I purchased it at no.

[49:58] Nine, my inspection report was 400 pages.

[50:02] My bank pulled out of it and had to buy it for cash.

[50:04] I am still in the middle of the renovation

[50:07] and restoration of that property.

[50:09] Even now, with the historic district

[50:11] and the conditions that's going to put on is,

[50:13] I still feel enlightened and hopeful and very supportive

[50:18] that I will get through this, this report of 400 pages.

[50:23] I'm halfway through. I have another 200 pages of problems, but in no way does

[50:27] interim controls affect or inhibit

[50:30] the the cost of doing it, as well as the value of my home

[50:35] in the future. I just hope you will consider this, because our property

[50:39] on Peachtree Circle is a place that those before us

[50:44] thought of leaving something of historic value, and we'd like to continue that.

[50:47] Thank you for your time.

[50:49] Thank you. And 1 or 2 remains.

[50:55] David Mitchell, 327 Saint Paul Avenue, southeast Atlanta, Georgia 32312.

[50:59] One of the homes that was exhibited

[51:00] here was the Randolph Lucas Jones home.

[51:02] It already is a local landmark. It's been landmarked.

[51:04] This committee did this about a year ago.

[51:06] It's already shown the significance.

[51:08] All we're doing is asking you to build upon

[51:09] what is already established, contributing

[51:11] significant component of the city of Atlanta.

[51:13] You're making it landed right with this vote.

[51:15] You're doing something that's going to change

[51:16] and impact people for the generations to come.

[51:18] We ask you to be very thoughtful of this

[51:20] and beseech you to allow this move forward.

[51:22] As the Executive Director, Atlanta Preservation Center,

[51:24] I can assure you that historic properties,

[51:26] historic homes only continue to go up in value.

[51:30] And I can assure you that. Am I happy to provide information at a later date?

[51:31] Thank you very much. Thank you.

[51:34] Anytime. We.

[51:37] 28 seconds remaining, is there any additional comments

[51:40] that we would like to make in support of the application?

[51:46] Wrap up the 28 seconds.

[51:47] I think you can understand

[51:48] the sort of passion that the proponents of this have,

[51:51] and that their work for many years

[51:55] in this past year in particular, has been substantial to

[51:58] to guard the support that we have.

[52:00] And so please do refer to some of those supporting emails and

[52:06] petitions. Thank you.

[52:08] Thank you sir.

[52:12] We will enter deliberation now.

[52:14] Questions or comments from the board.

[52:17] I had a couple of questions.

[52:20] Our thoughts. First of all, isn't Atkins Park in Virginia Highland?

[52:24] Wouldn't that be another example

[52:25] of a single street in a neighborhood

[52:27] that has a historic designation when the neighborhood does not?

[52:32] In Virginia Highlands first, the Bonaventure, Somerset

[52:36] designation was in place, then

[52:39] Bonaventure, Somerset was wrapped into

[52:44] another historic district that I can't remember.

[52:47] Plenty Highland

[52:50] Historic historic designation or historic district?

[52:53] I'm sorry, Historic district.

[52:55] Okay, but Atkins, I thought maybe his park is separate

[52:59] and it is a in C district.

[53:03] Okay,

[53:05] my other question was,

[53:07] I don't know if you have this history, Miss Homeless, but

[53:10] when the full neighborhood came before the city.

[53:16] Well, actually, I'm sorry. Maybe the full neighborhood didn't come before the city

[53:17] because it wasn't able to get past.

[53:18] Do you have any of the history that you could provide about

[53:21] the park has attempted.

[53:23] Ansley Park has attempted historic designation

[53:26] at least two times, I believe,

[53:29] since I have been in the city, and I do believe

[53:31] they have attempted at one time prior to that.

[53:34] So at least three times.

[53:35] Ainslie Park as a full neighborhood

[53:38] has attempted to become a historic district and each time that has failed.

[53:41] Do you have an idea as to what the kind of general

[53:45] vote percentages were?

[53:46] I mean, what are we looking at kind of 5050?

[53:48] Or was it generally way. No, no.

[53:53] And Miss Freezes is Miss Freeze here tonight Jennifer.

[53:55] Freeze. She's not.

[53:58] And she was the person who was leading the last effort in Ansley Park.

[54:01] And she could probably speak to the specifics of those.

[54:03] There are a couple of people in the audience

[54:05] who are raising their hands as if they could speak.

[54:06] I know we are an executive session,

[54:07] so we're not really allowed to get feedback

[54:09] from individuals, I appreciate it.

[54:11] Some of y'all probably do have some history in that, but.

[54:18] I'm personally torn this.

[54:21] I live in Candler Park and I have watched our neighborhood

[54:23] try many, many times to go through

[54:24] historic district designation.

[54:26] And it never succeeds because in my personal opinion,

[54:31] decades ago, I think there was a little bit more community connection

[54:33] to the neighborhood and a little less

[54:35] private property values,

[54:37] which is why neighborhoods like Inman Park

[54:38] were able to get it through many moons ago.

[54:40] But Candler Park still can't and probably never will.

[54:44] I think there's real value with homes like this

[54:46] for historic district designation,

[54:48] but I'm a little concerned about the street street approach.

[54:52] I miss homes, as anybody on staff

[54:54] have any concerns about that kind of approach.

[54:57] Or do you think that's actually the best way to go when a full name?

[54:58] I don't think it's a street to street,

[55:00] a street to street approach.

[55:01] I think that Randolph Lucas inspired the persons

[55:06] who live on Peachtree Circle to consider this.

[55:09] I don't think that this will mean that

[55:11] the overall Ansley Park will then consider

[55:15] a historic designation.

[55:16] It has failed twice before,

[55:18] and so I don't have any confidence

[55:20] that Ansley Park will become a historic district.

[55:22] I believe that the folks on

[55:23] Peachtree Circle have made a decision.

[55:25] And it is before you all tonight.

[55:31] Any other questions or comments?

[55:33] Mr. Reed, can you explain?

[55:36] I mean, I've read in the documents

[55:39] that were provided, give some high level discussion

[55:43] on what the requirements will actually mean for homeowners.

[55:49] Certainly. So the the as I mentioned in the presentation,

[55:50] the the focus is on the public realm.

[55:52] So the importance is, of course, the historic buildings

[55:56] and their relationship to the street as they are.

[56:00] Peachtree circle is features

[56:03] that Olmsted and design where it's a variable setbacks.

[56:06] And so currently what we're seeing is that

[56:09] houses will be torn down, move to the allowed setback

[56:13] of the underlying zoning and interrupt the sort of

[56:16] pattern of the street. So that's one of the things that this

[56:20] ordinance would address, this regulation would address.

[56:23] So the setbacks become assigned to your neighboring properties,

[56:29] and also the sort of sense of scale and relationship to the existing buildings.

[56:32] Those are important elements as well.

[56:34] The front facades are would remain in place.

[56:38] They would be required to be part of the

[56:41] of any sort of redevelopment.

[56:43] But the basically rear additions would be allowed up

[56:47] to sort of 20ft from the front facade.

[56:51] So theoretically you would be able to reconstruct the house from that point back.

[56:55] And even on the front facades, you would be allowed to update

[56:58] the windows and change doors and whatnot.

[57:01] Generally speaking, inside of a compatible renovation

[57:04] or a compatible addition that follows the

[57:07] the style of the house and then new houses. A

[57:12] we the the neighborhood as part of the zoning committee

[57:15] made some recommendations that we have the styles

[57:18] of the houses of styles of the period of significance

[57:22] be the sort of basis of that, but that new houses

[57:24] would need to be compatible with those

[57:26] if a house were to be lost.

[57:30] And also, you know, noncontributing houses

[57:32] are also allowed to be demolished still.

[57:35] And so there is

[57:37] a substantial number of contributing houses,

[57:38] which is the beauty of this neighborhood.

[57:40] But the noncontributing houses would allow to be demolished.

[57:45] Generally speaking, they would have to follow their existing footprint, or they would have to

[57:48] meet the requirements of the new regulations.

[57:50] And we did address the sort of conditions of what a

[57:54] the various conditions.

[57:55] If there's a catastrophic loss of a

[57:59] contributing house, you would have to follow those

[58:01] that basically the same style that you had,

[58:03] but not contributing houses have the option to build back

[58:05] what they had to follow the new house regulations.

[58:10] So a noncontributing structure would not need a type four.

[58:14] Or was it a type four application?

[58:16] Correct.

[58:19] Would it be? It would be a redevelopment

[58:20] of a of a Noncontributing structure would be

[58:24] considered as part of a type three, type

[58:27] three development.

[58:35] Okay. I'm prepared to hear a motion.

[58:38] Madam chair, with respect to case number

[58:41] Z 26 dash 40.

[58:46] I'm sorry.

[58:47] Three Z 2643

[58:52] I recommend that this board accept the state's finding fact.

[58:55] Second motion been made and properly seconded.

[58:58] All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay.

[59:00] Motion passes.

[59:02] Madam chair, with respect to case number Z 2643,

[59:07] I recommend that this board setting forth a recommendation

[59:10] of approval, second motion been made and properly seconded.

[59:14] All have ever say in opposed nay a motion passes

[59:20] you 2610 an ordinance by Zoning Committee for a Special Use Permit

[59:22] for Commercial Recreation pursuant to section 1618 I007

[59:27] for property located at 3035 Peachtree Road,

[59:30] 305ft Tree Road, northeast number 235 and 3027

[59:33] Bowling Way northeast fronting 100.6ft

[59:36] on the south side of Buckhead Avenue,

[59:37] commencing at a scribe

[59:39] set at the intersection of the north right of way

[59:40] line of Buckhead Avenue and the easterly

[59:42] right of way of Peachtree Road.

[59:44] Deadline 46.53ft.

[59:46] Area .94 acres.

[59:47] Land lot 9917, Bishop County, Georgia.

[59:50] Owner and applicant J.P.

[59:52] Buckhead Village LLP.

[59:55] Care of Ana Maria means dentist, US, LLP, NPB Council District seven.

[1:00:00] This is anyone here who would like to speak

[1:00:02] in support of this application.

[1:00:03] And please state your name and address.

[1:00:08] Good evening, chair and members of the board.

[1:00:10] My name is Alexis Cromartie.

[1:00:11] I am an attorney at Dentons US LLP, located at 303

[1:00:16] Peachtree Street Northeast, Atlanta, Georgia 30308I

[1:00:22] am here on behalf of the applicant, Jamestown Properties, specifically J.P.

[1:00:26] Buckhead Village, L.P., in support of the application

[1:00:29] for a special use permit

[1:00:30] for commercial recreation at 3035 Peachtree Road.

[1:00:34] 3035 Peachtree Road is located within the Buckhead

[1:00:37] Village district, which is a mixed use development

[1:00:40] owned and operated by Jamestown Properties.

[1:00:43] The applicant seeks a special

[1:00:45] use permit for the use itself within an existing building.

[1:00:48] This is not a rezoning and not a new development.

[1:00:51] The use here is to operate a commercial

[1:00:53] recreational facility, specifically a full service gym,

[1:00:57] within 42,432ft of

[1:01:01] of interior space and 3182ft of exterior terrace.

[1:01:08] The gym will occupy space above the existing sidewalk level.

[1:01:12] Retail uses.

[1:01:13] In the same portion of

[1:01:14] the development as the existing Spanx headquarters near

[1:01:18] Rolex and Carmel Restaurant.

[1:01:21] The facility will include

[1:01:23] exercise studios for yoga, pilates, and cycling.

[1:01:29] Excuse me,

[1:01:30] an open gym for strength training and cardio,

[1:01:33] an accessory, fitness terrace, a spa,

[1:01:37] a cafe and juice bar, a member lounge and locker rooms.

[1:01:41] Importantly, there will be no basketball courts, no tennis

[1:01:44] courts, no swimming pools or other sports courts.

[1:01:47] No new structures will be built.

[1:01:49] This use is completely contained within the existing building,

[1:01:54] fitting seamlessly into the established mix of retail,

[1:01:57] office and dining uses already operating in the district.

[1:02:01] The property is located

[1:02:03] on the east side of Peachtree Road

[1:02:04] between Buckhead Avenue and Far Road.

[1:02:07] It's zoned Spy nine SA1.

[1:02:10] The Buckhead Village development has operated here

[1:02:12] for over a decade and received its SAP in 2012.

[1:02:17] Vehicles will use existing curb cuts on Peachtree Road

[1:02:20] and Buckhead Avenue.

[1:02:21] We project approximately 250 vehicular trips a day,

[1:02:25] and we also anticipate that area residents will walk

[1:02:28] or use alternative transportation.

[1:02:30] No road improvements are necessary.

[1:02:33] The development includes 760 existing parking spaces

[1:02:37] in the adjacent parking structure,

[1:02:39] which is more than adequate to serve this use.

[1:02:41] The majority of activity occurs indoors.

[1:02:44] The exterior terrace includes rubber flooring, turf

[1:02:47] and planters, and is generally not visible from the street.

[1:02:51] We do not anticipate any additional noise,

[1:02:54] glare or light impact.

[1:02:56] The gym will be open from 5 a.m.

[1:02:58] to 11 p.m.

[1:02:59] Monday through Friday, and 7 a.m.

[1:03:01] to 9 p.m. on weekends and holidays.

[1:03:04] The Fitness Terrace will open at 7 a.m.

[1:03:07] daily. There will be approximately 65 employees on rotation

[1:03:10] seven days a week.

[1:03:11] We presented this application to Neighborhood

[1:03:15] Planning Unit B and received unanimous approval.

[1:03:18] The community recognizes that this is an appropriate

[1:03:20] commercial use within an existing mixed use development.

[1:03:24] This application adds an appropriate,

[1:03:26] low impact commercial use to an established mixed

[1:03:29] use development, with existing infrastructure,

[1:03:31] parking and access already in place.

[1:03:34] It is consistent with the character

[1:03:36] of Buckhead Village neighborhood.

[1:03:38] On behalf of Jamestown Properties, we respectfully ask

[1:03:41] that this board approved the Special Use Permit

[1:03:44] for an indefinite period of time.

[1:03:48] Given the tenants substantial investment

[1:03:50] in this project and significant capital outlay required,

[1:03:56] excuse me in a definite Sup

[1:03:58] would provide the necessary stability

[1:04:01] for the tenant to commit to the project and ensure its long term success.

[1:04:04] I will also note that when we presented to the MPU

[1:04:07] and the DRC, neither had any concerns

[1:04:11] regarding our request for an indefinite Sup.

[1:04:16] We understand that the staff recommendation

[1:04:18] is for an Sup for a term of 20 years.

[1:04:23] We respectfully request

[1:04:25] that the board consider an indefinite permit.

[1:04:27] However, if you are not inclined to do

[1:04:30] so, then we respectfully request that you follow

[1:04:33] the staff's recommendation and keep the duration of the Sup

[1:04:37] tied to the lease term for the tenant.

[1:04:39] In this application,

[1:04:41] which is a 20 year lease term, and I reserve

[1:04:43] the remainder of my time for rebuttal.

[1:04:45] Thank you, thank you.

[1:04:47] Is there anyone who would like to speak

[1:04:48] in support of the application at this time?

[1:04:50] And is there anyone who would like to speak in

[1:04:52] opposition to the application

[1:04:56] with the applicant? Like to make additional comments?

[1:04:57] Oh, would you like to speak in opposition?

[1:05:02] I'm here to speak in opposition of it.

[1:05:05] Okay.

[1:05:06] If I'm not mistaken, sir, could you give your name

[1:05:09] and your address, please?

[1:05:10] My name is Peter Bloom.

[1:05:12] You need to speak directly into the microphone.

[1:05:14] Sorry. Excuse me.

[1:05:15] Peter Bloom. Pom.

[1:05:21] Address, and then you can proceed.

[1:05:23] Two addresses, 1828 Mount Perrin. And.

[1:05:30] An apartment building.

[1:05:33] Two off 92 West Paces Ferry.

[1:05:38] Okay.

[1:05:38] Go ahead.

[1:05:42] For one thing,

[1:05:44] you you're going to need to speak into the microphone

[1:05:47] instead of looking at the at the slides.

[1:05:50] One thing, just to put it on the record,

[1:05:54] I sold the property to RH

[1:05:58] to Restoration Hardware

[1:06:01] and only adjacent property.

[1:06:06] And I've got some questions that I don't understand.

[1:06:12] First question is

[1:06:15] if they put this,

[1:06:16] how did they get back and forth into their building

[1:06:20] because they tied up tied it up once before?

[1:06:23] If not this property, it was right there.

[1:06:26] And the traffic is pretty, pretty.

[1:06:33] It's pretty busy all the time

[1:06:35] because that's supposed to be a private road.

[1:06:39] But it's if you notice

[1:06:42] the traffic light at Peachtree and the private road,

[1:06:46] it only lasts, I think about 17 or

[1:06:49] 18 seconds, and

[1:06:52] it's.

[1:06:57] I just want some questions

[1:06:58] answered. And.

[1:07:04] I want to know why they could not do that

[1:07:07] in the property that they have

[1:07:10] and how this is going to benefit.

[1:07:15] The city and not hurt.

[1:07:20] There's too many people

[1:07:23] that have to come through this private road.

[1:07:26] The Saint Regis is already worried about it.

[1:07:31] I think it's fair to say that

[1:07:34] so are others.

[1:07:39] There's an apartment building there.

[1:07:41] I know they're worried, and.

[1:07:45] It may sound pretty simple about

[1:07:47] putting a swimming pool in.

[1:07:50] How do they walk over to how does how do people go to it?

[1:07:54] Get in there? And

[1:07:58] did they just cross the street?

[1:08:00] Is there a way to get across the street

[1:08:02] without traffic coming in? And.

[1:08:09] I have some real concerns about it.

[1:08:19] Do you have additional comments?

[1:08:29] I'm hopeful that they're planning on.

[1:08:31] I think I saw it, they're planning on expanding

[1:08:33] and doing more to their building.

[1:08:37] Is there no way they couldn't do this

[1:08:39] in connection with the expansion,

[1:08:42] as opposed to doing something across the street

[1:08:46] where it's a private road, and is there a way to do it

[1:08:51] without adding burdens to people for that private road?

[1:08:55] How are they going to get across the street?

[1:08:59] What's what is the

[1:09:01] how is it going to be done?

[1:09:08] I mean, I think.

[1:09:11] I mean, I've dealt

[1:09:13] with restoration for.

[1:09:18] About 17 years and.

[1:09:23] I can understand

[1:09:24] their desire to upgrade or to expand,

[1:09:28] but I think

[1:09:31] they could

[1:09:33] they could probably do the same thing with enough money

[1:09:36] without going across the street and putting putting in

[1:09:41] what was up on the monitor earlier.

[1:09:44] I'm against that, and I think there will be

[1:09:48] everybody that I believe the Saint Regis will be against it.

[1:09:52] I believe 92 West Pace's Ferry will be against it.

[1:09:56] And I think it's it's something that should not pass.

[1:10:07] Do you have any questions?

[1:10:08] I'm happy to answer them.

[1:10:09] We don't ask questions at this point.

[1:10:11] This is your opportunity to make your comments.

[1:10:13] So if you have made your comments, have a seat.

[1:10:16] And if there's anybody else in opposition, they can proceed.

[1:10:20] Thank you. Okay, thanks.

[1:10:23] Is there anyone else who would like

[1:10:24] to speak in opposition to this application?

[1:10:30] Okay.

[1:10:31] Is there anyone who would like to speak in support

[1:10:33] in the time remaining?

[1:10:39] Sorry. Good evening again.

[1:10:40] We have John Morris here

[1:10:41] from Jamestown Properties to speak about the property.

[1:10:45] He can address the concerns.

[1:10:47] Thank you. Yeah.

[1:10:49] Thank you.

[1:10:49] John Moores,

[1:10:51] 3035 Peachtree Road, Lana, Georgia, 30305.

[1:10:56] I appreciate the comments we've heard here tonight.

[1:10:58] I believe there might be some confusion on the actual site.

[1:11:04] Believe the site that is being referenced is actually across the street

[1:11:06] at 3030 Peachtree Road, and that private drive

[1:11:11] that was discussed that goes behind Saint Regis,

[1:11:14] and that development is actually across the street

[1:11:17] and not part of the development that we are speaking to.

[1:11:21] Thank you.

[1:11:22] Thank you.

[1:11:24] Is there anyone else you would like to speak

[1:11:26] in support of the application?

[1:11:29] Okay. We will enter deliberation questions

[1:11:30] or comments from the board.

[1:11:34] Okay. Hearing none, we will prepare to hear a motion.

[1:11:38] Madam chair, with the two case number,

[1:11:41] you dash 2610.

[1:11:44] I move that this board accept the stats finding the

[1:11:48] before we go with that.

[1:11:49] So the staff recommendation is actually ten years

[1:11:54] in the staff report they are amenable to 20 years.

[1:11:59] That was the.

[1:12:02] But they were I don't believe staff could miss homes.

[1:12:07] Could you respond to the query about an unlimited duration

[1:12:12] that was raised by the applicant in the applicant's comments?

[1:12:16] Staff is not supportive of indefinite duration.

[1:12:19] Staff is normally not supportive of an indefinite duration

[1:12:22] for a first time special use permit.

[1:12:24] We have been amenable, however, to tying

[1:12:27] the special use permit duration or limitation that we

[1:12:32] support to the lease terms, and in this case,

[1:12:35] lease term is 20 years and we are amenable to attend

[1:12:38] a 20 year duration. Okay.

[1:12:40] So any concerns about.

[1:12:45] Changing the condition to a 20 year limitation versus ten.

[1:12:48] That makes sense.

[1:12:50] Okay. And any interest in doing an indefinite term?

[1:12:54] I don't think so.

[1:12:56] No, I think we're ready for a motion.

[1:13:00] Madam chair, with respect to case number Z.

[1:13:04] Dash.

[1:13:05] I'm sorry, case number you 2610.

[1:13:09] I moved to this board.

[1:13:10] Acceptance five finding a fact.

[1:13:12] Second, the motion been made and properly seconded.

[1:13:15] All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Nay.

[1:13:17] All right, mission passes.

[1:13:19] Madam chair, with respect to case number, you dash 2610.

[1:13:24] I move that this board sent forth a recommendation of a

[1:13:28] of approval with the change

[1:13:31] to the condition to that.

[1:13:35] I'm sorry. Condition number one that that permit be valid for

[1:13:40] condition of 20 years

[1:13:42] to match the length term of the term of the lease.

[1:13:46] And also, number two, stay as noted on the staff

[1:13:49] report dated August 6th, 2026.

[1:13:54] And that would be 20 years from the date of

[1:13:55] adoption by the City Council.

[1:14:01] To clarify on point

[1:14:02] one of the staff condition

[1:14:04] to allow for the permit to be valid for 20 years, valid

[1:14:08] from the date of adoption of the city.

[1:14:12] Second motion has been made properly seconded.

[1:14:14] All the favor. Say aye. Opposed. Nay.

[1:14:16] Motion passes.

[1:14:18] Okay. Next.

[1:14:20] Are you going to read the two cases together?

[1:14:22] Then the next few cases

[1:14:24] and then we'll consider them individually.

[1:14:27] I was just about to say that

[1:14:29] Z 20 607 and ordinance by Zoning Committee

[1:14:32] to rezone from heavy industrial

[1:14:33] Upper West Side overlay to mix of the general commercial

[1:14:35] Upper West side overlay for property located at 1116

[1:14:39] 1166 1130 1184

[1:14:42] Logan Circle, 1196

[1:14:44] 1250, 1264, 1274, 1284,

[1:14:48] 1294, 1314 1330 and 1346

[1:14:52] Logan Circle and 13 2535 Chattahoochee Avenue.

[1:14:55] 1389 Chattahoochee Avenue.

[1:14:57] 1355 1379 1391 in 1395, Chattahoochee ABA North-West

[1:15:02] front in approximately 1033ft on the east side of Chattahoochee

[1:15:04] Avenue, beginning in an iron pan

[1:15:06] found at the intersection of the easterly right

[1:15:08] of way of Chattahoochee Avenue and the southerly right of way

[1:15:10] of of the southerly portion of Logan Circle.

[1:15:12] Deb ferries area 23.35 acres.

[1:15:15] Land 102 and one 9317 Fulton County, Georgia owners

[1:15:19] say Logan Chat LLC see The Enterprises LLC, six

[1:15:24] two LLC and Click Logan LLC applicant SC Logan Chat, LLC

[1:15:28] input Council District nine Z 20 608 in order

[1:15:33] Committee to rezone from Heavy Industrial Upper West Side

[1:15:35] Overlay to mixed commercial Upper West Side overlay for

[1:15:38] property located at 1405 1417

[1:15:44] Chattahoochee Avenue in 1119 Logan Circle.

[1:15:47] 1149 1159 Logan Circle, 1177 1209,

[1:15:51] 1223, 1225, 1301, 1305 1311.

[1:15:59] In 1369, Logan Circle northwest

[1:16:02] fronted approximately 450ft on the east side of Chattahoochee

[1:16:04] Avenue northwest, beginning in an iron pin

[1:16:06] found at the intersection of the right of way

[1:16:08] of the northerly portion of Logan Circle,

[1:16:10] with the easterly right of way of Chattahoochee Avenue.

[1:16:12] Deb varies area of 13.36 acres.

[1:16:14] Limits 192 and one 9317 Fulton County, Georgia owner

[1:16:18] and applicant CI Logan Chat LLC in Council

[1:16:21] District nine.

[1:16:25] 1325 1333.

[1:16:29] Please go ahead and proceed.

[1:16:31] Good evening again, members of the board.

[1:16:33] My name is Jessica Hill.

[1:16:34] My business address is 600 Peachtree Street.

[1:16:37] And again, I represent Seelig Enterprises, who is both the applicant

[1:16:40] and the property owner.

[1:16:42] And in this case, they have owned this property

[1:16:44] for about 75 years.

[1:16:45] So a little bit longer vintage on this property

[1:16:48] also still joined tonight by representatives from Seelig,

[1:16:51] the architecture group, as well as our civil engineer.

[1:16:54] And I've got a

[1:16:57] a nice aerial board to orient you on where we are.

[1:17:00] So for those that are familiar

[1:17:01] with the existing works development,

[1:17:03] this is Chattahoochee on this aerial here.

[1:17:05] You've got the railroad Underwood Hills on plan right.

[1:17:09] This is the existing works development here.

[1:17:11] What we're talking about in these two

[1:17:13] applications is a little bit over 36 acres.

[1:17:15] That's immediately to the existing works development.

[1:17:19] So it's these buildings that front along Chattahoochee.

[1:17:24] And the reason that you have two applications before you instead of one

[1:17:27] is because the property loops around like this

[1:17:30] and has the public right of way of Logan Circle that makes a you.

[1:17:33] And because this inner portion isn't

[1:17:35] contiguous to the outer portion, we had to do two applications.

[1:17:39] All of the property is zoned I too heavy industrial has been

[1:17:42] for quite some time.

[1:17:43] It's all on the Upper West Side overlay.

[1:17:46] We are asking to go to MRC three

[1:17:49] and there are some conditions associated with that.

[1:17:52] I know in briefing there was a question

[1:17:54] about or a comment about why we're choosing MRC three,

[1:17:58] and the reason is because of the way that the density

[1:18:02] works out. All of these parcels are separate right

[1:18:03] now, and candidly, probably

[1:18:05] some of them will continue to be separate in the future.

[1:18:07] And so when you start,

[1:18:08] when you look at the density on the overall,

[1:18:11] it's significantly below MRC three.

[1:18:14] But when you start looking at individual parcels,

[1:18:16] we start creeping up into into densities that are above that.

[1:18:20] And I'm happy to answer any questions on that

[1:18:22] from a development scope perspective.

[1:18:24] On the outer loop area, which is the first application

[1:18:27] Z 2607 that is going to be all nonresidential development.

[1:18:33] It's about 900,000ft.

[1:18:34] That's either existing proposed for adaptive reuse.

[1:18:40] There's a variety of kind of office flex event parking.

[1:18:44] There's actually an existing parking structure

[1:18:45] located here today that will remain a new office building.

[1:18:49] That's what's proposed along the outer loop.

[1:18:52] And the impetus for

[1:18:53] the zoning was really the inner loop portion where

[1:18:56] similar to the works phase one,

[1:18:58] they want to incorporate a multi-family development.

[1:19:01] And so if you're looking at this plan

[1:19:03] close to the Chattahoochee frontage, this building

[1:19:06] you see in yellow as a proposed multifamily building,

[1:19:08] and the thought is to provide for one multifamily building

[1:19:12] with adaptive reuse in the middle

[1:19:14] and then the potential to have a second

[1:19:16] multifamily building down the road

[1:19:18] if if market conditions and demand supports it.

[1:19:22] And overall, that's it's about 1,000,000.5ft

[1:19:26] total of development in here.

[1:19:28] Overall, the two applications together are 2.3 5,000,000ft

[1:19:32] in total development.

[1:19:33] And again, that's over 36 acres.

[1:19:36] We worked with Underwood

[1:19:38] Hills and MPD both recommended approval.

[1:19:41] They did recommend

[1:19:42] more conditions that are in your staff report.

[1:19:45] Specifically, they had a condition

[1:19:48] asking for support for a

[1:19:50] or to not oppose a proposed shuttle

[1:19:52] to the extent that they wanted to propose that.

[1:19:55] And I think staff was not comfortable with that being in the conditions.

[1:19:58] There was a condition about providing Underwood

[1:20:01] Hills a copy of our SAP application.

[1:20:03] This is in the Upper West Side overlay.

[1:20:05] So it's they're going to get a copy anyway.

[1:20:07] But again, I think that staff found that to be duplicative.

[1:20:11] And then the only other condition

[1:20:12] that is not included in the staffs recommendation,

[1:20:16] the neighborhood included a site plan condition as opposed to

[1:20:20] the density condition.

[1:20:21] So the condition.

[1:20:23] Let's see what condition ended up being condition number four,

[1:20:27] which talks about the aggregate floor

[1:20:29] area ratio of the properties,

[1:20:30] shall not exceed a certain amount.

[1:20:32] Rather than having a site plan condition.

[1:20:34] And Miss Holmes can speak to this, her concern was having

[1:20:38] to administer 800 site plan amendments,

[1:20:42] minor site plan amendments over the course of the time,

[1:20:45] and so the proposal instead

[1:20:47] was instead of having a site

[1:20:48] plan condition, why don't we have a density condition?

[1:20:52] Because really a lot of the concerns

[1:20:53] and you can see this reflected in the conditions.

[1:20:56] A lot of the concerns from the community were we don't want to be the next 14th

[1:21:00] and how mill we don't want all these high rise buildings.

[1:21:03] That's why you see the height limit.

[1:21:04] That's why you see the limitation.

[1:21:07] So I think the updated condition will be better

[1:21:10] for staff to administer,

[1:21:12] and I think meets the spirit of what was requested.

[1:21:14] But, you know, in full disclosure, they are that

[1:21:17] those are the differences.

[1:21:18] We would ask that you support this application.

[1:21:21] Both applications obviously vote on them separately.

[1:21:24] Another thing I should mention, for those that are familiar

[1:21:27] with this area, the Woodall Trail comes through here

[1:21:29] and actually goes through the site and connects up

[1:21:31] through the Silver Comet connector.

[1:21:33] So it really makes this site a great location

[1:21:36] for a more mixed use, less industrial scope.

[1:21:40] And then just one other thing.

[1:21:42] It was mentioned in the briefing what the uses are today.

[1:21:46] The uses that are there today are uses like showrooms,

[1:21:49] offices.

[1:21:49] There's an event area,

[1:21:51] there's some storage for furniture places,

[1:21:54] but it's not a manufacturing industrial scope of use

[1:21:57] that's there today. Some of its vacant.

[1:22:00] So with that I'll reserve any time for rebuttal.

[1:22:02] Thank you, thank you.

[1:22:04] Is there anyone else who would like to speak

[1:22:06] in support at this time?

[1:22:08] And is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition?

[1:22:13] Okay. And does the applicant

[1:22:15] have any additional comments to make at this time?

[1:22:19] So we will enter deliberation?

[1:22:20] I've got a question.

[1:22:22] I think thinking about this further,

[1:22:25] the aggregate

[1:22:28] far across the properties.

[1:22:31] So the zoning would be across individual properties.

[1:22:37] But to me it seems like the aggregate far

[1:22:41] is really conditioned on having a common owner,

[1:22:44] because if ownership,

[1:22:48] you know, if parcels were sold off,

[1:22:51] how do you enforce an aggregate far across the properties

[1:22:55] when they're not potentially under the same owner

[1:22:59] via unified Development Plan, which I'm sure

[1:23:02] he'll will be applying for

[1:23:03] when she goes to the SAP process, are okay.

[1:23:06] Thank you. That makes sense. Okay.

[1:23:10] Other other questions or comments?

[1:23:14] Okay. I'm prepared to hear a motion then.

[1:23:17] Madam chair, with respect to

[1:23:18] case number Z 20 607,

[1:23:22] I move that this board acceptance finding a fact.

[1:23:26] Second motions been made properly seconded.

[1:23:29] All in favor, say aye. Opposed.

[1:23:31] Motion passes.

[1:23:33] Madam chair, with respect to case number

[1:23:35] Z 20 607, I move that this board send forth

[1:23:39] a recommendation of approval with conditions

[1:23:42] as found on page

[1:23:46] five of the staff report

[1:23:48] dated August 6th, 2026.

[1:23:51] Second motions been made and properly second day.

[1:23:53] Of all in favor, say aye. Opposed.

[1:23:54] Nay, a motion passes,

[1:23:58] madam chair, with respect to case number Z 20 608,

[1:24:02] I move that its borders after finding a fact.

[1:24:05] Second

[1:24:07] mesh has been made and probably seconded.

[1:24:08] All in favor, say aye. Opposed? Nay.

[1:24:10] A motion passes, Madam Chair, with the two case

[1:24:14] number Z 20 608.

[1:24:17] I move that this board center for the recommendation

[1:24:19] of approval with the conditions found on page five of the staff

[1:24:23] report dated August 6th, 2026.

[1:24:27] Second motions been made and properly seconded.

[1:24:30] All in favor say aye and opposed.

[1:24:32] Nay, a motion passes.

[1:24:38] And can I get a motion?

[1:24:43] Motion to adjourn.

[1:24:45] Thank you. And.

Zoning Review Board Meeting

Transcript