Zoning Review Board - Regular Meeting

Okay.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This meeting will now come to order. At this time, may I ask you to please silence or turn off your cell phones and other electronic devices. This is a regular meeting of the zoning review board of the city of Atlanta. My name is Sherry McGoy, chair of the board for tonight's meeting. This is a nine-member board appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council. This board hears applications for rezoning and special use permits. At this time, I would like to introduce you to the members of the board. To my immediate right is Mr. Walter Slayton, Vice Chair of the Zoning Review Board. Other members of the Zoning Review Board present this evening are Ms. Carla Pennyman, Ms. Lauren Welsh, Mr. Jim Cheeks, and Mr. Kenny Hill. Members of the staff present tonight are Ms. Kiata Holmes and Ms. Angela Blatch. The applications will be heard in the order listed on the printed agenda. I would like to acquaint you with some of the rules and procedures for the conduct of this meeting which have been adopted by this board. The applicants will be allowed a total of 10 minutes to present their cases. Since the burden of proof is upon the applicants to convince the board that the application should be approved, they may choose to reserve some of that time for rebuttal following an opponent's presentation. The opposition, likewise, will be permitted a total of 10 minutes to present their opposition. It will behoove you to organize yourselves so that those who wish to speak may do so in the 10 minutes provided. The opposition is not permitted rebuttal time. Ms. Carla Pennyman will be keeping track of the time and will inform you periodically of the time remaining for your presentation. If you wish to address the board tonight, please sign in on the sign-in sheet at the podium. Please lean into the microphone to be heard. Before making your remarks, please state your name and address. This meeting is being recorded. Therefore, it is very important that you speak directly into the microphone. The board will take two votes on each application. The first vote is on the findings of fact as presented by the staff. The second vote is for approval or denial of the application. It is the second vote that determines the board's recommendation to the city council. At the time of this hearing, each application has been regularly filed with the Office of Zoning and Development, which prepares the proposed ordinance for each application. The proposed ordinance has had its first reading by the city council and has been referred to this board for a public hearing. Next, the zoning committee of the city council votes on the proposed ordinance. Then the full council votes to adopt or deny the proposed ordinance. Finally, the mayor has eight days to approve or veto the ordinance. The Office of Zoning and Development has reviewed each application in conjunction with various affected agencies and departments, as well as with respect to the adopted comprehensive development plan as required by the city charter. The staff recommendations, findings of fact, and conclusions are here before us in written form. Further, each application has been regularly posted, regularly advertised, and notices mailed as required by the zoning ordinance. Comments from the Department of Public Works, the Atlanta School Board, and the County Health Department have been requested. The board must consider each application legally valid and is required to make a recommendation on each application. The rules of the council permit no demonstrations of any kind within the council chambers. Please refrain from any applause or dialogue during or after presentations. All remarks should be addressed to the board. Please show the same respect to the person speaking that you would expect to receive yourself. The applications heard tonight will be considered by the Zoning Committee on August 24th, 2026, and by the Atlanta City Council on September 8th, 2026. I will now entertain a motion to adopt tonight's agenda.

Madam Chair, I move that this board adopts tonight's agenda with the exception that we move the following cases to the front of the agenda for consideration of a possible deferral, filing, or continuance. Z-26-30-24 Cleveland Avenue SE to be filed. Z-2636, 1834 Braeburn Circle Southeast for a six-day deferral until October 2026. Z-2637, 686 Highland Avenue Southeast to be filed. Z-2645, 2341 Glen Drive Southeast to be filed. Is there a second? Second.

It's been moved and properly seconded that we accept tonight's agenda with the exception of the applications that will be moved to the front of the agenda for consideration for possible deferral, continuance, or filing. Are there any questions or comments from the board? Okay, hearing none, all in favor of adopting tonight's agenda, please say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes. Oh, abstain. Motion passes, acknowledging one abstention. Let me remind you again to please ensure that your phones and other electronic devices have been turned off or silenced. Ms. Holmes, would you please read the cases for possible deferral and filing?

Z2630, an ordinance by Councilmember Antonio Lewis to waive Part 3 Land Development Code, Part 16 Zoning Chapter 11 of the City of Atlanta Code of Ordinances so as to allow an automobile service station at 24 Cleveland Avenue Southeast within 1,500 feet of an existing automobile service station and for other purposes in PUZ Council District 12. Z2636, an ordinance by Zoning Committee to rezone from multifamily residential conditional to multifamily residential conditional for a major site plan amendment and a change of conditions for property located at 1834 Braben Circle Southeast, fronting 50 feet on the north side of Braben Circle, beginning at a point on the north side of the 50-foot right-of-way known as Braben Circle in the southwest corner of Lot 22, said point being 750 feet east from the intersection of Braben Circle and Clifton Road. Depth varies. Area 6.906 acres. Landlot 174, 15th District of Cab County, Georgia. Owner, Wellbund Development, LLC. Applicant, Harold Buckley, Jr., NPUW, Council District 5. Z2637 in ordinance by zoning committee to rezone from two-family residential belt line overlay to commercial service district belt line overlay for property located at 686 Highland Avenue Northeast, running 94 feet on the north side of Highland Avenue, commencing at the intersection of the northerly right-of-way of Highland Avenue and the easterly right-of-way of Sampson Street and leave The said eastly right-of-way of Samson Street and run along the said northerly right-of-way of Highland Avenue to a point. Said point also been the point of beginning. Depth approximately 150 feet. Area 0.3 acres. Landlot 19-14. Bishop Fulton County, Georgia. Owner Chris Carter. Applicant Chris Jackson. NPUM. Council District 2. Thank you, Ms. Holmes. Is there anyone present in opposition?

Oh, is there one more?

Oh, I'm sorry. Z2645, an ordinance by Councilmember Lynne Bakhtiari to zone property located at 2341 South East Atlanta, Georgia, 30316 to the R4 single-family residential zoning district and for other purposes, NPUW, Council District 5.

Thank you. Is there anyone present in opposition to any of the cases being considered for deferral or filing? Okay, hearing none, I will entertain motions.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-30, I move that this board defer taking action on this case to be filed. Second.

Motion has been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed, nay. Aye. Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-36, I move that this board defer taking action on this case until a 60-day deferral until October 2026.

Second. Motion has been made. Properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay.

Aye.

Abstain.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-37, I move this board defer to action to be filed. Second.

Motion has been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-45, I move that this board defer to action for this case to be filed. Second.

Motion has been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay.

Aye.

Motion passes. May we have the next application, please, Ms. Holmes.

Z2638, ordinance by zoning committee to rezone from planned development mixed-use beltline overlay and community business district beltline overlay to mixed residential commercial beltline overlay for property located at 774-784, also known as 782 Ponce de Leon Place. 790, 794, also known as 798 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Ponce de Leon Avenue, and 730 Bonaventure Avenue, also known as 732 Bonaventure Avenue, fronting 328 feet on the north side of Ponce de Leon Avenue, beginning at a magnail found at the intersection formed by the northerly right-of-way of Ponce de Leon Avenue and the westerly right-of-way of Bonaventure Avenue, and proceeding thence along the northerly right-of-way of Ponce de Leon Avenue. Depth varies, area 1.75788 acres, landlocked 1714 District, Folsom County, Georgia. Owners, SEI Ponce, LLC, SEA 73, LLC, and SEA 175, LLC. Applicant, SEI Ponce, LLC, NPUF, Council District 2. Thank you, Ms. Holmes. Please state your name and address and proceed.

That doesn't sound like it.

Try it again. Hello. It's not close enough. There we go. Good evening, members of the board. My name is Jessica Hill. My business address is 600 Peachtree Street, and I represent the applicant and property owner, Sea Lake Enterprises. I'm joined tonight by various members of the project team, including the property ownership our architect and our civil engineer and also our traffic engineer who's going to speak to you as well. Seal Lake has owned the majority of this property for over 60 years. It's about 1.75 acres located at the corner of Bonaventure. It has frontage on Bonaventure, Maiden Lane, and Ponce de Leon Avenue. and has historically been used for a variety of different commercial uses. There is one residential use on the property today. It is zoned predominantly C1. The far western most portion of the property is one lot that was zoned PDMU a few years ago as part of a development that Portman Holdings was proposing. So that's why the zoning request that's before you is to go from C1 and PDMU to MRC3 with several conditions. We are proposing a development that will include up to 375 multifamily units. Those will be rental with about 10,000 square feet of sidewalk level commercial and then obviously a parking structure to support the proposal. Just looking at a color-rendered version of the ground floor plan, you've got Ponce on the bottom here, Bonaventure Avenue on your right, and Maiden Lane on the north. This is the southern edge of the Virginia Highland neighborhood, and we spent quite a bit of time working with Virginia Highland with their planning committee as well as with the neighborhood at large to address concerns that were raised predominantly around traffic. What you see here in orange is the retail and amenity area at the bottom level. We have two curb cuts proposed, one on Ponce de Leon Avenue, one on Maiden Lane. The project originally had a curb cut proposed on Bonaventure instead, and the resounding thing that we heard from the neighborhood was, please don't do that to us. Bonaventure, at most times, is backed up due to the stop condition there. So the site plan that you see proposes curb cuts on these two locations. Show rendering of the project. Here's a bird's eye rendering of the project. You've got Ponce de Leon here. This is Bonaventure on the corner. You can see the development here. And then we've ghosted in the Portman development, which is approved next door at the same height and massing as the proposal. You will find a variety of conditions in your packet. Most of them were originally negotiated for the adjacent development. What we did with the Virginia Highlands group was work through which ones apply to this site and then presented them to the staff. The only condition that we have a concern with is staff condition number four. which requires a write-in, write-out on ponds if there is a variation granted. And I'm going to let our traffic engineer speak to the traffic study that was prepared for this project and tell you a little bit more about why we would like that condition removed. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Anna Eisenman. Do I need to give my address? 955 Juniper Street, Unit 2132, Atlanta, Georgia. I'm a traffic engineer with Kimley Horn. I prepared a traffic impact study in response to some neighborhood concerns and questions about traffic and the impact to the broader neighborhood. We know that on a state route like Ponce de Leon Avenue, the most likely permitted condition will be a right in, right out, because that is GDOT's preferred intersection alternative on a state route. However, in this specific location, we do have a two-way left turn lane that allows left turn access today to the five driveways that we would be reducing to one. I talked to Megan Wilson at GDOT and had a preliminary conversation with her to ask if it would be possible to do a left turn at this location to respond to citizen concerns, neighbor concerns, about extra circulation in the neighborhood if they wouldn't be able to directly access from the primary arterial state route. And she said it's a possibility they have to see the permit before they can respond for GDOT. I think queuing was another concern along that 2A left turn lane based on the traffic volumes that we collected this year. and projected future volumes for the development, we project one car or fewer queued to make that left onto Bonaventure or into the site driveway. A car takes up about 25 feet when we consider queuing design. We have 300 feet along that frontage. There should not be any issues with queuing.

Thanks, Ana. And we're happy to answer any questions. We'll reserve any time for rebuttal, although I'm not sure if there's anybody here for us. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this application? Okay. Hearing none, back to the applicant. Is there any other additional comments you would like to make?

The only other point of clarification, and again, this is with respect to the traffic study, but the traffic study that you have was prepared in May at the request of the Virginia Highland neighborhood. Again, when we met with the broader neighborhood back in February, we were asked to prepare a traffic study. to address what the impact would be on Virginia Highlands specifically. And Ms. Eisenman's study was intended to identify what kind of the worst case scenario would be if there was only a right in, right out, which is why that was what was studied. Obviously, if there is a left-in allowed, which is what we would ask for, then that could improve the traffic on the Virginia Highland streets. But we didn't want to put that in a study and then have the community come back and say, well, if you can't get that, why does your study say this? So I just wanted to give a little background around why the study refers to are right in, right out. I will also note that having this curb cut on Ponce de Leon Avenue is something that requires relief during the special administrative permit process. The City Office of Zoning and Development has the authority to grant that or not. And so to the extent that this condition was removed, the staff still has the authority to modify, restrict, deny that variation at a later date. We just would like it to be pushed to a later conversation when maybe there's more information about the traffic available.

Thank you Thank you We will now enter deliberation questions or comments from the board Any thoughts about the curb cut I Was trying to look having a little difficulty here is there's a

a ped signal. I don't know if it's a hawk signal, but there's a pedestrian crossing in the middle of Ponce. I'm trying to figure out where exactly that is in proximity to the turn in and turn out of this site plan.

So the pedestrian signal, I might need to point.

The pedestrian crossing is an offset crosswalk, and it's located on the far west edge of the property. The proposed driveway is closer to the center. There's about 75 feet of storage in case there are three cars. But we, 95th percentile queue, so 95% of the time you have one car or less.

Okay, that was the question I had about it. Ms. Holmes, I know that staff recommended the right turn only. Would you care to elaborate as to why you thought that was the most effective approach?

Sure. When staff was evaluating this application during our agenda review, We are in conversation with our land planning coworkers, and the request was made at that time because of the traffic that is on the Ponce de Leon corridor. And so while Ms. Hill is correct that during the SAP process, the administrative variation would be considered, we in the office have tried to look at projects holistically and not delay making decisions. And this was a direct request of a member of the land planning team.

Any other questions or comments? I think I'm inclined to go with the staff recommendation. Anything else? OK. I'm prepared to hear a motion.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-38, I move that this board accepts the staff's finding of fact. Second.

It's just been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Motion passes. Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-38, I move that this board send forth a recommendation of approval with the conditions found on page five and six of the case found on the date of August the 6th, 2026. Second. Oh, the staff report. Staff report, I'm sorry. Staff report dated August the 6th, 2026. Second.

Motion has been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes.

Next case, please, Ms. Holmes. Z-2639, an ordinance by Zone and Committee to rezone from single-family residential Beltline Overlay to community business district Beltline Overlay for property located at 1298 Donnelly Avenue Southwest, fronting 50 feet on the south side of Donnelly Avenue, beginning at a nail found on the southwestly right-of-way of Donnelly Avenue, said point being 48.67 feet southeastly from its intersection with the southerly right-of-way of Allegheny Street. Depth 150 feet, area 0.172 acres, landlot 139, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. owner Deshalla Jones, applicant Jamila Brown, NPUT, Council District 10.

Please go ahead and state your name and address and proceed. Good afternoon. Jamila Brown, 570 Piedmont Ave, Northeast, Atlanta, Georgia, 30308. This is a request for a rezone from residential to commercial. We understand that The community around is already commercial, so this is a simple request. This is a controversy because of what's going there. I just want the panel to know that we have met with the NPU on multiple occasions, and the franchisee and the owner and their council is working with the community to come up with a community agreement that the neighborhood would be comfortable with. I just wanted to add that.

That's all.

OK, is that all your comments?

That's all my comments.

OK, go ahead. Have a seat. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of this application? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? OK, hearing none, we will enter deliberation. Questions or comments from the board? I'm not sure everyone is aware there have been additional conditions that were proposed by the neighborhood that staff has provided. And does anyone have any thoughts about that? Mr. Cheeks? Okay, I'm prepared to hear a motion.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-39, I move that this board accepts the staff's finding effect. Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-39, I move that this board send forth a recommendation of approval. Second.

Motion's been made.

Condition? I thought we had additional conditions.

Oh, with conditions. No, the... This one does not have a condition. Let's go back a second. Back into deliberation. The neighborhood proposed conditions, staff report does not have conditions. Gotcha.

Okay. Go ahead. You can give me the review. Yeah. Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-39, I recommend that this board send forth a recommendation of approval. Second.

Motion has been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay.

Aye.

Motion passes. Next case, please, Ms. Holmes.

Z-26-42, an ordinance by Councilmember Liliani-Bactiari to zone properties located the 1801, 1816, 1819, 1820, 1824, 1828, 1832, and 1836 2nd Avenue, Decatur, Georgia, and 560 Fayetteville Road and 562 Fayetteville Road, Atlanta, Georgia, to the Community Business District, 596, 600, 604, and 755 Fayetteville Road to the single-family residential, and 735... Fayetteville Road to the ONI Industrial Office Institutional Zoning Districts upon annexation into the corporate limits of the City of Atlanta and for other purposes. NPUO, Council District 5. Madam Chair, I'll be speaking to this paper. The properties to be annexed are south of the City of Atlanta limits with frontage on 2nd Avenue and Fayetteville Road in unincorporated DeKalb County. The parcels are near the City of Atlanta's Eastlake Neighborhood and NPUO, Council District 5. The properties comprise 15 parcels. The eastern part of the annexation area is situated next to the city of Atlanta in unincorporated DeKalb County. All properties proposed for annexation have frontages on 2nd Avenue or Fayetteville Road, and the properties are improved with non-residential uses such as a place of worship and a school. The intent of the City of Atlanta R4 single-family residential district is to provide for the protection of existing single-family communities and the development of new communities on lots of medium size at a density of not more than one dwelling unit per 9,000 square feet. Similarly, the intent of the R75 residential medium lot zoning district in DeKalb County is to provide for the protection of neighborhoods within the county where lots have a minimum area of 10,000 square feet and to provide for compatible infill development in neighborhoods. The intent of the Atlanta C-1 Community Business District is to provide for medium-intensity retail and service activities in areas already committed to development of this character. Similarly, the C-1 Local Commercial District in DeKalb County is to provide convenient local retail shopping and service areas within the county for our residents to provide for oriented needs outside of the neighborhood center, town center, and regional center character areas. And lastly, the intent of the City of Atlanta's ONI Office Institutional District is to provide office, institutional, and residential development with accessory supporting services but without general commercial development. And similarly, the intent in DeKalb County is to provide convenient areas within the county for the location of office and institutional uses which are necessary for the residents and business and professional practitioners within the county. As no new development is proposed in connection with this annexation, the availability of other land already zoned for the proposed use is not applicable. However, because annexation into the City of Atlanta requires the assignment of zoning, the City must designate an appropriate zoning classification at the time of annexation. The proposed zonings, C1, ONI, and R4, are aligned with the zoning dishes in DeKalb County and land use patterns, thereby maintaining the existing balance of land uses. The uses permitted under the proposed zoning will positively contribute to the character of the surrounding neighborhoods as they are substantially similar to those most currently allowed and already present under DeKalb County zoning regulations. Staff's recommendation is approval.

Thank you, Ms. Holmes. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in support of this application? Yes, in support. And remember to state your name and address before you begin.

Ma'am, my home address is 2807 Hedgewood Drive, Atlanta, Georgia, 30311. This is a, most of this property, our community, Atlanta Mosque, Atlanta Masjid, has owned half this property for 50 years, and then we began to acquire other property. We are trying to develop the whole neighborhood community. And the city line runs through the property, but most of the property is unincorporated, DeKalb County. So it makes it very difficult to try to do the development we want to do in these two different designations. So we prefer to be bringing everything into the city of Atlanta. We've met with the city on several occasions. They have been very supportive of that. We've also informed DeKalb County of our intention, and I can't say they have been supportive of it, but they understand. So I think that's it, basically.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of the application? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the application? Okay, hearing none, we will enter deliberation. Questions or comments from the board? Okay, I'm prepared to hear a motion.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-42, I move that this board accepts the staff's finding of fact.

Second.

Motion's been made and probably seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-42, I move that this board send forth a recommendation of approval.

Second. Second.

Motion has been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed, nay. Aye.

Motion passes. Next case, please, Ms. Holmes. Z2643, an ordinance by zoning committee designating the Peachtree Circle Historic District located in Landlot 105 of the 17th District of Fulton County, Georgia, to the overlay zoning designation of Historic District pursuant to Chapter 20 of the zoning ordinance of the City of Atlanta, rezoning from single-family and single-family landmark building or site, to Single-Family Historic District and Single-Family Landmark Builder Site Historic District, amending the official zoning map, adopting Chapter 20W of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta, repealing conflicting laws and for other purposes. NPUE, Council District 6.

Thank you, Ms. Holmes. Please state your name and address and proceed.

Madam Chair, members of the Board, I'm Robert Reed. I am part of the Office of Design in the Department of City Planning. I am the head of the Historic Preservation Studio, and we are the applicant in this case. Earlier action taken by the Urban Design Commission. So The cities make thousands of land use decisions over time and most respond to the needs of the moment, but occasionally community is asked to make a different kind of decision, a decision about the physical qualities a city deserves, qualities of a city deserve to endure for generations. Historic district designation is one of those. It is one of zoning's highest purposes. Every zoning regulation represents a community judgment that certain private decisions have public consequences. Setbacks protect light and air, height limits preserve neighborhood scale, tree and storm water regulations protect environmental resources. Historic district regulations serve that same public purpose. They recognize that certain streets, buildings, and neighborhoods possess a significance that extends beyond individual ownership because they contribute to the character, identity, and welfare of the entire city. Peachtree Circle is one of those places. There are moments in history when circumstance, vision, and opportunity come together to create something that simply could not be replicated today. Atlanta itself was born of such a convergence. The westward expansion of a young nation, the advent of the railroads, the unique geography of bridges and water, that determined where this city would grow. Peachtree Circle represents another of those moments when nationally significant planning ideas, exceptional landscape design, distinguished architecture, and visionary development combined to create one of Atlanta's most recognizable streets. To understand where we are going as a city, we must first understand how we arrived here. Historic designation is one of those ways we preserve that understanding. Beginning last December, proponents sponsored two public meetings to discuss this proposal. The city then conducted two additional public meetings where residents shared concerns, suggestions, and ideas. Those conversations produced meaningful refinements to the proposed regulations. Most recently, the Ansley Park Zoning Committee conducted its own public hearing recommending additional refinements, and the Ansley Park Civic Association Board affirmed the committee's findings, as did NPUE. Those recommendations have likewise been incorporated into the proposal before you tonight. This has been a deliberate and deliberative process with multiple opportunities for public participation. A clear majority of property owners who have expressed an opinion to the Historic Preservation Studio are in support of this designation. Those materials are also included in your package, every email and petition we received. Everyone who has participated in this discussion, including those who oppose designation, has demonstrated something important. They love Peachtree Circle. The question before this board is not whether Peachtree Circle is special. The question is whether Atlanta's zoning ordinance should recognize and protect the public value of one of Atlanta's defining residential landscapes. Tonight, you are not simply considering another zoning case. You are deciding whether one of Atlanta's most important historic places should receive the same thoughtful stewardship that our zoning ordinance already provides to so many other public interests. You are deciding whether, sorry, for that reason, we respectfully ask for your recommendation in support of the Peachtree Circle Historic District. I'll reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of the application at this time? Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition at this time?

Hello, my name is John Jordan and I live at 48 Peachtree Circle, Atlanta, Georgia, 30309. I'm speaking against the proposed historic district and asking that you not accept this overlay proposal. The main reason I'm going to speak tonight is there simply is not overwhelming support for this. It's amongst the residents of the proposed district. It is contested and the numbers prove it. The city's own count puts this at around 52% of the impacted properties being in favor. We've identified over 42% of people that have said they are not in favor. There are some folks who have chosen not to participate for whatever reason. But I think you should... look at that 52% and understand what's underneath it. Of that 52%, 10 of the properties in favor are inside of one structure. This is a condo apartment within the proposed district. And I'm not proposing that those people should not have a say in this. But it is different when they do not currently have the ability to redevelop their own property, change the facade, because they are part of an HOA. It is simply different than the other parts the other parcels that are weighing in. And I would ask you to consider that. Second, Wynn Park, a property owned by the city, is also in the city's numbers. I'm not certain why that was included, but I'm not certain why this city has a vote in this in a park that isn't going to change. When you adjust the numbers for that, the support for the city falls below 50%. In fact, it's around 45, giving the condominium one vote and giving one park no vote and removing them from the denominator. So I would just ask you seriously consider the level of support for this.

Hello. My name is Drew Gandy. I live at 158 Peachtree Circle, and I'm one of the properties directly impacted by this proposed designation. I think it's worth pointing out two corrections. One, they showed the Maryland condo building that's not actually on Peachtree Circle. It's on 17th Street. And they showed the Randolph Lucas Jones House, which was a house at the intersection of Lindbergh and Peachtree that was moved to Peachtree Circle after another house was demolished about 20 years ago. So they're using homes that have actually been moved to the street or not on the street as indicative of what's on that street. I'm here to ask the board for a 60 day continuance of any of this decision on this matter so that I can obtain at my own expense an independent appraisal report on the actual impact that this designation would have on our property values. When I asked the Department of City Planning how this designation would impact property values on our street, Mr. Reid directed me to the Fulton County tax records. Respectfully, that data does not answer the question. Tax records tell you what a property is worth today under current zoning, not what happens to that value once a regulatory restriction is layered onto one street while every comparable home nearby remains unrestricted. This afternoon, Mr. Reid sent me an unpublished analysis of historical city of Atlanta neighborhoods versus unrestricted neighborhoods. But again, that is not the issue here. There is actually a published peer-reviewed research showing that while showing that while a whole neighborhood historic designation can increase property values, applying the same designation to just a subset of a neighborhood tends to decrease that value. And I'm aware of only two instances of a single street or sub-designation in the city of Atlanta. The first is Baltimore Block, a commercial block converted from abandoned townhomes into office spaces next to Emory Midtown. Not comparable. And Sunset Avenue, home to Dr. Martin Luther King, Manor Jackson, and Julian Bond, which is a street of national and international civil rights significance. Peachtree Circle has no comparable historic value. Fulton County records show our street's total appraised value is $159,272,800. Every indication is that our values will decline as buyers choose unrestricted alternatives nearby. Even a conservative 5% decline is a cumulative $8 million loss of value and also loss of tax basis for the city. This proposal sets a dangerous precedent for the erosion of the city's tax bases and other neighborhoods where single street historic designations may be implemented in the future. Before taking a step that could cost the city millions in tax revenue, that impact should be studied. It is not. That's why I'm requesting 60 days to obtain this appraisal report from an independent appraiser who I'll make available at the next session, at the continued hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like speak in opposition?

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the ZRB, my name is Michael Hanlon. I'm a former member of the board of the Ansel Park Civic Association, and I will not reiterate the points I made in the submission I filed with the ZRB yesterday and focus on two points, specifically how the APCA's action in this. I was a board member both in 2025 when the board adopted its neighborhood plan and until last Wednesday when the board adopted the resolution that accepts the recommendation of the zoning committee. The point I want to make is that our neighborhood conservation plan does not support historic designation. In fact, it does the exact opposite. First of all, by its clear and explicit wording that I reproduced in my letter to you. And secondly, if that were not enough, and I was quite shocked to hear my colleagues on the board say that, no, in fact, this conservation study does support historic designation. I admit there's a sentence in there somewhere that says that. But I'd like to read to you from the minutes of that meeting that are publicly available on our website. for all to read. And so when it gets to the point, and the discussion focused on the study recommendation UD5, there was also some discussion focusing on the references to Ansley Park's inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and that attempts to pursue historic designation for the neighborhood had not passed. Mr. Brown, the APCA board president, emphasized that those references were included to expressly convey that the conservation plan's purpose was limited to working with existing zoning code regulations for the neighborhood and not a disguised attempt at reintroducing the constraints of historic designation on Ansley Park residents. There was some disagreement on One of the recommendations, and ultimately the board approved the plan on that basis. Both myself and the previous speaker, John Jordan, who was also a board member at the time, the only reason we supported that plan was expressly to not find ourselves in the situation where we are today. That is the first point I will make. And the second point I will make, coming to the recommendation very briefly, is that the resolution that was adopted by the board is very carefully worded. It does not say, supporting of historic designation, it does not say, this is a great idea for the neighborhood. What it specifically says is that we accept the recommendation of the zoning committee. And the entire point of that was for the board to say, well, the zoning committee came to its conclusion. It seems to have done its job and therefore we will accept that recommendation, but it doesn't go any further than that. It should not be interpreted as anything broader than that. Other than that, I refer back to the materials I've already filed. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. How much time remains for that?

Oh, pardon me. I should just add that I sent a copy of the minutes to the NPU website as I realized I hadn't included my original submissions. My apologies.

Okay. Thank you. How much time remains for the opposition? 2.17? 3.17 remains for the opposition. Okay.

Hello, board. My name is Deja Carter. I live at 21 Peachtree Circle. and in one of the homes that would be impacted by this decision. My neighbors made some great points. I will not belabor those in the time that we have left. I'll just mention two that haven't come up yet. The first is the precedent that we would be setting here if you acknowledge Peachtree Circle as a historic district. I think in all of the references that I have emailed to you, in 2022, the entire neighborhood had an opportunity to become a historic district, and that was summarily rejected. If you select Peachtree Circle, it gives the opportunity one street at a time for the neighborhood to be designated as a historic district, which was not requested or required at that time. Creates a patchwork of inconsistent regulation, and it is not in the board's best interest, I think, to have that. The second point that I want to call out is there's an uneven and disproportionate burden on specific homeowners. Peachtree Circle is a street with mixed-error homes, and the regulations would apply unevenly. There would be a greater financial burden on the homes that are newer, including my own, who still have to apply to some of the designations. Mr. Reid is going to tell you that our designations are lighter because we are newer. That is true. If some significant thing happens to my home, I can either rebuild exactly as it is. I think we all know what happens when we try to match something that once was. Or I have the option of rebuilding in the historic era. I bought a home built in 2006. I do not want one that reflects an era of historic designation. That's not, it's just not what I wanted. And I think that the requirements on those types of homes are unfair. The last point is that So I guess I'll end with saying that this is a permanent uneven and financially burdensome designation being advanced without clear community support, as Mr. Jordan noted. Our own numbers via the zoning board who did approve indicated 50% more opposition than support. However, members of the zoning board themselves were personally vested in this, and that is my personal opinion of why they approved it and why the APCA board across the board supported it as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? And how much time remains for the opposition now? 56 seconds.

I can be very brief. My name is Henry LaPierre. I live at 175 Peachtree Circle in one of the affected homes. Just to build off the discussion before, While we've had a process to revise the regulations once the city became involved, we've never had an opportunity to contest the actual borders or involve our neighbors about why we selected just this part of our larger neighborhood. The historic character of our neighborhood extends through all of it. They show the entire map of the Olmstead area. They selected one street. And there's some curious inclusions, including that condominium and the park, which seem to predispose a certain conclusion to this process. The net effect, whether that was intentional or not, is to disenfranchise those of us that oppose and cannot give us an opportunity to have an opinion about where those boundaries lie and how they affect us and the larger neighborhood. This is a discussion that needs to happen for all the neighbors in this neighborhood, not to leave a few of us handling the responsibilities for ourselves. I'll leave you with that. Thank you.

Thank you. That's time for the opposition. How much time remains for the applicant? or actually for those in support, the city's the applicant. Four minutes 15, 4.58 remains. You can't provide additional materials.

So Mr. Gandy had mentioned a study and fortunately we were able to track that study down and our team who is doing this ongoing study that found no significant difference between neighborhoods, his contention of course is about streets, but I'll ask you to sort of think about the designated neighborhoods in the city, Inman Park, Grant Park, call your heights, and the surrounding neighborhoods. And if you see substantial differences in values there where the designated neighborhood is less value than the neighborhood just outside, that's a similar sort of comparison. I think we can all sort of see that one. That said, the The report itself, the study that was cited, even in its findings, the authors described the designation as having a negative effect, but they also expressly stated that the result is such that we cannot even exclude the possibility that the delta is zero and that the estimated effect had a confidence level of only 40.5%. So some serious considerations around that study. The other points, just to be clear, the City Parks Department and Wind Park is supportive of this designation. They believe that the historic materials in the park are something to be preserved and they appreciate our interaction with them. And so to the degree that we count that as support, we do so. I think the math on the level of support was a bit of a stretch, so I'm just going to leave that one to be what it is. And then the question of property rights and values, I think that we... I've sort of spoken to the value piece of this as well, but the property rights in particular, the idea that every home is privately owned is substantial. And this is a very light touch regulation. We are really focusing on simply the preservation of the facades in particular and their relationship to the streets. I think some of the pictures you've seen where the houses have been demolished and the lots have been scraped sort of speaks to what the changes can happen around such teardowns and that we have the opportunity to say that some of these buildings and their relationship to the street and relationship to the landscape are A true public interest and that's our opportunity here and what I'm gonna leave you with tonight And then I will leave for the rest of my time for someone to come up for some of the additional supporters to come up How much time is left?

210 remains All right

Hello, everybody. I'm Joan Lyman, and I reside at 116 Peachtree Circle. In all the conversations that have been happening about hardship and reconstruction and if there's issues for your home, my home was finished in 1915. It was acquired by a family that lived there for over 75 years, and that was Daniel Rich and his family. When I purchased it in 09, my inspection report was 400 pages. My bank pulled out of it and had to buy it for cash. I am still in the middle of the renovation and restoration of that property. Even now, with the historic district and the conditions it's going to put on us, I still feel enlightened and hopeful and very supportive that I will get through this report of 400 pages. I'm halfway through. I have another 200 pages of problems. But in no way does interim controls affect or inhibit the cost of doing it as well as the value of my home in the future. I just hope you will consider this because our property on Peachtree Circle is a place that those before us thought of leaving something of historic value and we'd like to continue that. Thank you for your time.

102 remains.

David Yokeley Mitchell, 327 St. Paul Avenue, Southeast Atlanta, Georgia, 30312. One of the homes that was exhibited here was the Randolph Lucas Jones home. It already is a local landmark. It's been landmarked. This committee did this about a year ago. It's already shown the significance. All we're doing is asking you to build upon what is already an established, contributing, significant component of the city of Atlanta. You're making Atlanta great with this vote. You're doing something that's going to change and impact people for the few generations to come. We ask you to be very thoughtful of this and beseech you to allow this to move forward. As the executive director of the Atlanta Preservation Center, I can assure you that historic properties, historic homes only continue to go up in value, and I can assure you that, and I'd be happy to provide information at a later date. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Twenty-eight seconds remaining. Is there any additional comments that anyone would like to make in support of the application?

to wrap up the 28 seconds. I think you can understand the sort of passion that the proponents of this have and that their work for many years, and this past year in particular, has been substantial to sort of garner the support that we have. And so please do refer to some of those supporting emails and petitions. Thank you.

Thanks, sir. We will enter deliberation now. Questions or comments from the board?

I had a couple questions or thoughts. First of all, isn't Atkins Park in Virginia Highland, wouldn't that be another example of a single street in a neighborhood that has a historic designation when the neighborhood does not?

In Virginia Highlands, first the Bonaventure Somerset designation was in place. Then Bonaventure Somerset was wrapped into Another historic district that I can't remember. Plumsea Highland. Plumsea Highland. Historic designation, or historic district, I'm sorry. Historic district.

OK, but Atkins, I thought maybe.

Atkins Park is separate, and it is a NC district.

My other question was, I don't know if you have this history, Ms. Holmes, but when the full neighborhood came before the city, Well, actually, I'm sorry. Maybe the full neighborhood didn't come before the city because it wasn't able to get past. Do you have any of the history that you could provide about the larger neighborhood?

Ansley Park has attempted historic designation at least two times, I believe, since I have been at the city, and I do believe they have attempted it one time prior to that. So at least three times Ansley Park as a full neighborhood has attempted to become a historic district, and each time that has failed.

And do you have an idea as to what the kind of general vote percentages were? I mean, were we looking at kind of 50-50, or was it generally way against? I do not know.

I'm just curious.

And Ms. Freeze, is Ms. Freeze here tonight? Jennifer Freeze? Yes. She's not. And she was the person who was leading the last effort in Ansley Park, and she could probably speak to the specifics of those.

There are a couple people in the audience who are raising their hands as if they could speak. I know we're in executive session, so we're not really allowed to get feedback from individuals. I appreciate it. Some of y'all probably do have some history in that, but... I'm personally torn on this. I live in Candler Park, and I have watched our neighborhood try many, many times to go through historic district designation, and it never succeeds because, in my personal opinion, decades ago, I think there was a little bit more community connection to the neighborhood and a little less private property values, which is why neighborhoods like Gimmon Park were able to get it through many moons ago, but Candler Park still can't and probably never will. I think there's real value with homes like this for historic district designation, but I'm a little concerned about the street-by-street approach. Ms. Holmes, does anybody on staff have any concerns about that kind of approach, or do you think that's actually the best way to go when a full neighborhood can't get it?

I don't think it's a street-to-street approach. I think that Randolph Lucas inspired the persons who live on Peach Street Circle to consider this. I don't think that this will mean that the overall Ansley Park will then consider a historic designation. It has failed twice before, and so I don't have any confidence that Ansley Park will become a historic district. I believe that the folks on Peachtree Circle have made a decision, and it is before you all tonight.

Any other questions or comments? Mr. Reid. Can you explain, I mean, I've read in the documents that were provided, give some high level discussion on what the requirements will actually mean for homeowners.

Certainly. So as I mentioned in the presentation, the focus is on the public realm. So the importance is, of course, the historic buildings themselves and their relationship to the street. Peachtree Circle features the Olmsteadian design where it's a variable setbacks. And so currently what we're seeing is that houses will be torn down, moved to the allowed setback of the underlying zoning, and interrupt the sort of pattern of the street. So that's one of the things that this ordinance would address, this regulation would address. So the setbacks become assigned to your neighboring properties. And also the sort of sense of scale and relationship to the existing buildings, those are important elements as well. The front facades are, would remain in place. They would be required to be part of any sort of redevelopment. But basically rear additions would be allowed up to sort of 20 feet from the front facade. So theoretically, you would be able to reconstruct the house from that point back. And even on the front facades, you would be allowed to update the windows and change doors and whatnot. generally speaking, inside of a compatible renovation or a compatible addition that follows the style of the house. And then on new houses, the neighborhood, as part of the zoning committee, made some recommendations that we have the styles of the houses, the styles of the period of significance, be the sort of basis of that, but that new houses would need to be compatible with those if a house were to be lost. And also, you know, non-contributing houses are also allowed to be demolished still. And so there is a substantial number of contributing houses, which is the beauty of this neighborhood, but the non-contributing houses would be demolished. Generally speaking, they would have to follow their existing footprint or they would have to meet the requirements of the new regulations. And we did address the sort of conditions of what a the various conditions of if there's a catastrophic loss of a A CONTRIBUTING HOUSE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW BASICALLY THE SAME STYLE THAT YOU HAD, BUT NONCONTRIBUTING HOUSES HAVE THE OPTION TO BUILD BACK WHAT THEY HAD OR TO FOLLOW THE NEW HOUSE REGULATIONS.

SO A NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE WOULD NOT NEED A TYPE 4 OR WAS IT TYPE 4 APPLICATION?

CORRECT. A REDEVELOPMENT OF A NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF A TYPE 3 DEVELOPMENT.

Anything else? Okay, I'm prepared to hear a motion.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-40, I'm sorry, Z-26-43, I recommend that this board accepts the staff's finding of fact. Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed, nay. Aye. Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-43, I recommend that this board send forth a recommendation of approval.

Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes.

U-2610, an ordinance by zoning committee for a special use permit for commercial recreation pursuant to Section 1618I-007 for property located at 3035 Peachtree Road, 305 Peachtree Road NE, No. 235, and 3027 Bowling Way NE. Fronting 100.6 feet on the south side of Buckhead Avenue, commencing at a scribe set at the intersection of the north right-of-way line of Buckhead Avenue and the easterly right-of-way of Peachtree Road. Depth 146.53 feet. Area 0.94 acres. Landlot 9917 Bishop Fulton County, GA. Owner and applicant, JPPF Buckhead Village LLP. Care of Ana Maria Means Dentist, US LLP, NPUB Council District 7.

Is there anyone here who would like to speak in support of this application? And please state your name and address.

Good evening, Chair and members of the board. My name is Alexis Cromartie. I am an attorney at Denton's USLLP, located at 303 Peachtree Street, Northeast, Atlanta, Georgia, 30308. I am here on behalf of the applicant, Jamestown Properties, specifically JPPF Buckhead Village LP. in support of the application for a special use permit for commercial recreation at 3035 Peachtree Road. 3035 Peachtree Road is located within the Buckhead Village District, which is a mixed-use development owned and operated by Jamestown Properties. The applicant seeks a special use permit for the use itself within an existing building. This is not a rezoning and not a new development. The use here is to operate a commercial recreational facility, specifically a full-service gym within 42,432 square feet of interior space and 3,182 square feet of exterior terrace. The gym will occupy space above the existing sidewalk-level retail uses in the same portion of the development as the existing Spanx headquarters near Rolex and Carmel restaurant. The facility will include exercise studios for yoga, Pilates, and cycling. Excuse me. an open gym for strength training and cardio, an accessory fitness terrace, a spa, a cafe and juice bar, a member lounge and locker rooms. Importantly, there will be no basketball courts, no tennis courts, no swimming pools or other sports courts. No new structures will be built. This use is completely contained within the existing building, fitting seamlessly into the established mix of retail, office, and dining uses already operating in the district. The property is located on the east side of Peachtree Road between Buckhead Avenue and Farr Road. It's zoned SPI 9, SA 1. The Buckhead Village development has operated here for over a decade and received its SAP in 2012. Vehicles will use existing curb cuts on Peachtree Road and Buckhead Avenue. We project approximately 250 vehicular trips a day, and we also anticipate that area residents will walk or use alternative transportation. No road improvements are necessary. The development includes 760 existing parking spaces in the adjacent parking structure, which is more than adequate to serve this use. The majority of activity occurs indoors. The exterior terrace includes rubber flooring, turf, and planters and is generally not visible from the street. We do not anticipate any additional noise, glare, or light impact. The gym will be open from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. Monday through Friday and 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends and holidays. The fitness terrace will open at 7 a.m. daily. There will be approximately 65 employees on rotation seven days a week. We presented this application to neighborhood planning unit B and received unanimous approval. The community recognizes that this is an appropriate commercial use within an existing mixed use development. This application adds an appropriate low-impact commercial use to an established mixed-use development with existing infrastructure, parking, and access already in place. It is consistent with the character of Buckhead Village neighborhood. On behalf of Jamestown Properties, we respectfully ask that this board approve the special use permit for an indefinite period of time. Given the tenant's substantial investment in this project and significant capital outlay required, an indefinite SUP would provide the necessary stability for the tenant to commit to the project and ensure its long-term success. I will also note that when we presented to the NPU and the DRC, neither had any concerns regarding our request for an indefinite SUP. We understand that the staff's recommendation is for an SUP for a term of 20 years. We respectfully request that the board consider an indefinite permit. However, if you are not inclined to do so, then we respectfully request that you follow the staff's recommendation and keep the duration of the SUP tied to the lease term for the tenant in this application, which is a 20 year lease term. And I reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak in support of the application at this time? And is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the application? Would the applicant like to make additional comments? Oh, would you like to speak in opposition?

I'm here to speak in opposition of it. Okay. If I'm not mistaken.

Sir, could you give your name and your address, please?

My name is Peter Blum. You need to speak directly into the microphone. Sorry.

Excuse me. Peter Blum, B-O-U-M. Address, and then you can proceed. Two addresses, 1828 Mount Perrin and an apartment building two or 92 West Paces Ferry. Okay, go ahead. For one thing,

You're going to need to speak into the microphone instead of looking at the slides.

For one thing, just to put it on the record, I sold the property to RH, to Restoration Hardware, and owned the adjacent property. And I've got some questions that I don't understand. First question is, if they put this, how did they get back and forth into their building? Because they tied it up once before. If not this property, it was right there. And the traffic is pretty, it's pretty busy all the time because that's supposed to be a private road, but if you notice, The traffic light at Peachtree and the private road, it only lasts I think about 17 or 18 seconds. And it's, I just want some questions answered. And I wanna know why they could not do that in the property that they have and how this is gonna benefit the city and not hurt, there's too many people that have to come through this private road. The St. Regis is already worried about it. I think it's fair to say that so are others. There's an apartment building there. I know they're worried. And it may sound pretty simple about putting a swimming pool in. How do they walk over to, how do people go to it, get in there? And do they just cross the street? Is there a way to get across the street without traffic coming in? And I have some real concerns about it.

OK. Do you have additional comments?

I'm hopeful that they're planning on, I think I saw it, they're planning on expanding and doing more to their building. Is there no way they couldn't do this in connection with the expansion as opposed to doing something across the street where it's a private road? And is there a way to do it without adding burdens to people for that private road? How are they gonna get across the street? How is it gonna be done? I mean, I've dealt with restoration for about 17 years, and I can understand their desire to upgrade or to expand, but I think they could probably do the same thing with enough money without going across the street and putting in what was up on the monitor earlier. I'm against that. And I think there will be everybody that, I believe the St. Regis will be against it. I believe 92 West Paces Ferry will be against it. And I think it's something that should not pass. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

We don't ask questions at this point. This is your opportunity to make your comments. So if you have made your comments, have a seat. And if there's anybody else in opposition, they can proceed. Thank you. OK. Thanks. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to this application? OK. Is there anyone who would like to speak in support in the time remaining?

Sorry, good evening again. We have John Morse here from Jamestown Properties to speak about the property.

He can address the concerns.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you, John Morse. 3035 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, Georgia, 30305. I appreciate the comments we've heard here tonight. I believe there may be some confusion on the actual site. I believe the site that is being referenced is actually across the street at 3030 Peachtree Road. And that private drive that was discussed that goes behind St. Regis and that development is actually across the street and not part of the development that we are speaking to. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in support of the application? OK. We will enter deliberation. Questions or comments from the board? OK. Hearing none, we will prepare to hear a motion.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number U-26-10, I move that this board accept the staff's findings.

Before we go with that, so the staff recommendation is actually 10 years in the staff report. They are amenable to 20 years. That was the, but they were, I don't believe, staff could, Ms. Holmes, could you respond to the query about an unlimited duration that was raised by the applicant in the applicant's comments?

Staff is not supportive of indefinite duration. Staff is normally not supportive of indefinite duration for a first-time special use permit. We have been amenable, however, to tying the special use permit duration or limitation that we support to the lease terms. And in this case, the lease term is 20 years. And we are amenable to a 20-year duration.

Okay. So any concerns about changing the condition to a 20-year limitation versus 10?

That makes sense.

Okay. And any interest in doing an indefinite term?

I don't think so. I wouldn't.

Now I think we're ready for a motion.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z dash, I'm sorry, case number U dash 26 dash 10, I move that this board accept this file as finding a fact.

Second.

A motion has been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number U-26-10, I move that this board send forth a recommendation of approval with the change to the condition two that, I'm sorry, condition number one, that that permit be valid for a condition of 20 years to match the length term of the term of the lease. And also number two, stay as noted on the staff report dated August the 6th, 2026.

And that would be 20 years from the date of adoption by the city council.

So to clarify on point one of the staff condition to allow for the permit to be valid for 20 years, valid from the date of adoption of the city.

Second. Motion has been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes. Okay. Next, are you going to read the two cases together then? The next two cases? And then we'll consider them individually.

I was just about to say that. Z2607, an ordinance by zoning committee to rezone from heavy industrial Upper West Side overlay to mix with residential commercial Upper West Side overlay for property located at 1116, 1166, 1130, 1184. Logan, circle 1196, 1250, 1264, 1274, 1284, 1294. 1314, 1330, and 1346 Logan Circle, and 1325, 35 Chattahoochee Avenue, 1389 Chattahoochee Avenue, 1355, 1379, 1391, and 1395 Chattahoochee Avenue Northwest, from an approximate 1,033 feet on the east side of Chattahoochee Avenue, beginning in an iron pin found at the intersection of the easterly right-of-way of Chattahoochee Avenue and the southerly right-of-way of the southerly portion of Logan Circle. Depth varies, area 23.35 acres, land loss 192 and 193, 17th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Owners, SEI Logan, CHAT, LLC, Sea League Enterprises, LLC, SEI CW2, LLC, and Sea League Logan, LLC. Applicant, SEI Logan, CHAT, LLC, NPUD, Council District 9. Z-2608, an ordinance by his own committee to rezone from heavy industrial Upper West Side Overlay to mix residential commercial Upper West Side Overlay for property located at 1405-1417 Chattahoochee Avenue and 1119 Logan Circle, 1149-1159 Logan Circle, 1177-1209, 1223-1225, 1301-1305, 1311... In 1369, Logan Circle Northwest, fronted approximately 450 feet on the east side of Chattahoochee Avenue. Northwest beginning at an iron pin found at the intersection of the southerly right-of-way of the northerly portion of Logan Circle with the easterly right-of-way of Chattahoochee Avenue. Depth varies. Area of 13.36 acres. Land lots 192 and 193. 17th District of Folsom County, Georgia. Owner and applicant, S.E.I. Logan Chet, LLC, NPUD, Council District 9.

Please go ahead and proceed. Good evening again, members of the board. My name is Jessica Hill. My business address is 600 Peachtree Street. And again, I represent Seelig Enterprises, who is both the applicant and the property owner. And in this case, they have owned this property for about 75 years, so a little bit longer vintage on this property. Also still joined tonight by representatives from Seelig, the architecture group, as well as our civil engineer. And I've got a Nice aerial board to orient you on where we are. So for those that are familiar with the existing works development, this is Chattahoochee on this aerial here. You've got the railroad Underwood Hills on Planwright. This is the existing works development here. What we're talking about in these two applications is a little bit over 36 acres that's immediately adjacent to the existing works development. So it's these buildings that front along Chattahoochee. And the reason that you have two applications before you instead of one is because the property loops around like this and has the public right-of-way of Logan Circle that makes a U. And because this inner portion isn't contiguous to the outer portion, we had to do two applications. All of the property is zoned. I-2 heavy industrial has been for quite some time. It's all on the Upper West Side overlay. We are asking to go to MRC-3, and there are some conditions associated with that. I know in briefing there was a question about or a comment about why we're choosing MRC3. And the reason is because of the way that the density works out. All of these parcels are separate right now. And candidly, probably some of them will continue to be separate in the future. And so when you start, when you look at the density on the overall, it's significantly below MRC3. But when you start looking at individual parcels, we start creeping up into densities that are above that. And I'm happy to answer any questions on that. From a development scope perspective, on the outer loop area, which is the first application, Z2607, that is going to be all non-residential development. It's about 900,000 square feet. That's either existing proposed for adaptive reuse There's a variety of kind of office, flex, event, parking. There's actually an existing parking structure located here today that will remain. A new office building. That's what's proposed along the outer loop. And the impetus for the zoning was really the inner loop portion where Similar to the works phase one, they want to incorporate a multifamily development. And so if you're looking at this plan close to the Chattahoochee frontage, this building you see in yellow is a proposed multifamily building. And the thought is to provide for one multifamily building with adaptive reuse in the middle and then the potential to have a second multifamily building down the road if market conditions and, you know, demand supports it. And overall, that's about a million and a half square feet total of development in here. Overall, the two applications together are 2.35 million square feet in total development. And again, that's over 36 acres. We worked with Underwood Hills and NPUD, both recommended approval. They did recommend more conditions that are in your staff report. Specifically, they had a condition asking for support for a to not oppose a proposed shuttle to the extent that they wanted to propose that. And I think staff was not comfortable with that being in the conditions. There was a condition about providing Underwood Hills a copy of our SAP application. This is in the Upper West Side overlay, so they're going to get a copy anyway. But again, I think that staff found that to be duplicative. And then the only other condition that is not included in the staff's recommendation, the neighborhood included a site plan condition as opposed to the density condition. So the condition, let's see what condition it ended up being. Condition number four, which talks about the aggregate floor area ratio of the properties shall not exceed a certain amount. Rather than having a site plan condition, and Ms. Holmes can speak to this, her concern was having to administer 800 site plan amendments, minor site plan amendments over the course of the time. And so the proposal instead was instead of having a site plan condition, why don't we have a density condition? Because really a lot of the concerns, and you can see this reflected in the conditions, a lot of the concerns from the community were we don't want to be the next 14th and Howell Mill. We don't want all these high-rise buildings. That's why you see the height limit. That's why you see You know the limitation so I think the updated condition will be better for staff to administer and I think meets the spirit of what was requested but You know in full disclosure. They are that those are the differences We would ask that you support this application both applications obviously vote on them separately another thing I should mention for those that are familiar with this area the Woodall Trail comes through here and and actually goes through the site and connects up through the Silver Comet connector. So it really makes this site a great location for a more mixed use, less industrial scope. And then just one other thing. It was mentioned in the briefing what the uses are today. The uses that are there today are uses like showrooms, offices. There's an event area. There's some storage for furniture places. But it's not a manufacturing industrial scope of use that's there today. Some of it's vacant. Um, so with that, I'll reserve any time for rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh, is there anyone else who would like to speak in support at this time? And is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? Okay. And does the applicant have any additional comments to make at this time? Um, so we will enter deliberation. I've got a question, uh, think thinking about this further. Um, the aggregate, um, far across the properties. So the zoning would be across individual properties. But to me, it seems like the aggregate far is really conditioned on having a common owner. Because if ownership, you know, if parcels were sold off, how do you enforce an aggregate far across the properties when They're not potentially under the same owner.

Via a unified development plan, which I'm sure Ms. Hill will be applying for when she goes through the SAP process.

Ah, okay. Thank you. That makes sense. Okay. Other questions or comments? Okay. I'm prepared to hear a motion then. Okay.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-07, I move that this board accepts the staff's finding of fact.

Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-07, I move that this board send forth a recommendation of approval with conditions as found on page 5 of the staff report dated August 6, 2026. Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-08, I move that this board accept the staff's finding of fact. Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Madam Chair, with respect to case number Z-26-08, I move that this board send forth a recommendation of approval with the conditions found on page five of the staff report dated August the 6th, 2026. Second.

Motion's been made and properly seconded. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Aye. Motion passes. And can I get a motion?

Motion to adjourn.

Thank you. Everybody's waiting.