[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.