NPU-E Meets Tuesday; Loring Heights Buildings to be Removed

The July Neighborhood Planning Unit-E meeting is set for Tuesday at Peachtree Christian Church located at 1580 Peachtree Street. NPU-E serves Midtown, Ansley Park, Atlantic Station, Home Park, Georgia Tech and West Midtown.

The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and the public is invited to attend. The volunteer board of elected community leaders make recommendations to the city on voting issues including zoning and permit applications.

Here are some of the items on tonight’s agenda:

Special events and outdoor festivals to be discussed and voted on for approval

Event Name

Proposed Location

Proposed Event Date

Pure Heat Community Festival

Midtown (Piedmont Park)

September 2, 2012

Park Tavern Fall Festival

Midtown (Piedmont Park)

August 18, 2012

The Atlanta Street Food Festival

Midtown (Piedmont Park)

July 14, 2012

Susan Komen Atlanta 3-day Festival

Midtown, Ansley Park

October 19 – 21, 2012

Firefly Run Atlanta Festival

Midtown (Piedmont Park)

October 6, 2012

Brave Soldier Challenge Festival

Midtown (Piedmont Park)

August 11, 2012

2012 Walk for Farm Animals Festival

Midtown (Piedmont Park)

October 20,2012

Atlanta Bar-B-Q Festival

Atlantic Station

September 11-15, 2012

Walk it Off – Communities in Motion Festival

Midtown (Piedmont Park)

September 29, 2012

Go for Gaucher Assembly

Midtown (Piedmont Park)

September 8, 2012

License Review Board

Name of Applicant

Type of Business

Name of Business

Property Address

Request

D. Hutchinson Innovation

Restaurant

SP5

264 19th Street

(Atlantic Station)

Change of Ownership

Mehwood N. Sohani

Gas Station

Shell Food Mart

486 Ponce De Leon

(Midtown)

Change of Ownership

Nantharadee Niyomkul

Restaurant

Tuk Tuk

1745 Peachtree St

(Brookwood Civic & Brookwood Hills)

Change of Agent

Kyung Roh

Restaurant

Kiri

931 Monroe Dr

(Midtown)

New Business

Stephen Stark

Hotel

GA Tech Hotel & Conference Center

800 Spring St NW

(Midtown & GA Tech)

Change of Agent

Emah Ghulam Mohammed Vaid

Restaurant & Bar

Fins & Fins Basement Bar

84 12th St

(Midtown)

Change of Ownershi

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS

V-12-066 Applicant, William Verhey, seeks a variance from regulations to reduce the east side yard setback from 7 ft. (required) to 3  ft., reduce the rear yard setback from 15ft. (required) to 12ft., and increase the total maximum lot coverage allowed from 50% (required) to 57.7% to allow for a two-story addition to an existing single-family house. Applicant seeks no other variance at this time.

30 Camden Rd

(Brookwood Hills)

N/A

V-12-087 Applicant, David Ogram, seeks a variance from zoning regulations to reduce the required front yard setback from 35 ft. (required) to 22ft and reduce the north side yard setback from 7 ft. (required) to 1.4 ft. to allow for a two-story room addition and a detached garage addition to an existing single family house. Applicant seeks no other variance at this time.

150 Huntington Road

(Brookwood Hills)

08/02/12

U-12-16 Applicant, Bonnie Dean, seeks a Special Use Permit (SUP) to add approximately 35 outdoor patio seats to Suite 30, (This is NPU-F, but Ansley Mall is within 300 feet of NPU-E. NPU-E can review and comment only.)

1544 Piedmont Rd

(Ansley Park)

N/A

One item that’s not on the agenda but could draw some discussion Tuesday surrounds the future demolition of a pair of buildings on Bishop Street in the Loring Heights neighborhood.

Because the structures are the subject of “constant break-ins by homeless people” and are “a liability to the property owners and an eyesore to the City,” the owners, Tingue, Brown & Co., wish to take down the aging structures located at 507 Bishop near the 17th Street intersection.

The buildings, which are 21,095 square feet and 14,090 square feet respectively, are on a 4-acre lot where Warehouse Framers, Inc., was once located. The owners desire to remove them in order to make the property more appealing to potential buyers.

On its Special Administrative Permit (SAP), the applicant, Planners & Engineers Collaborative, requested a waiver of a pair of variation requirements regarding sidewalks and trees on the property:

This will be a vertical demolition only with the building slabs, asphalt drive and parking lots to remain. However, the owner plans to install a barricade along the single entrance to the property to prevent any unauthorized vehicular access to the property. The SAP plan shows the 5’ street furniture/tree-planting zone with a 6’ sidewalk that will be installed once the property is developed at a future date. The owner Tingue Brown & Co. does not plan to build back any building at this time.

1. Variation #1 - We wish to waive the requirement of the 6’ sidewalk.

Justification - Due to the existing configuration and location of utilities (two power poles, two street lights and a fire hydrant) and large existing trees whose root Zones will be disturbed with any sidewalk installation especially considering the topography.

2. Variation #2 - We wish to waive the installation of new trees along the property frontage to the east of the entry drive.

Justification - There are large existing trees along the property frontage and we do not want to disturb their root Zone with the installation of new trees.

However, while the Loring Heights Neighborhood Association supports the removal of the buildings, it is opposed to the variance requests because it does “not believe that future development of this site should be decided with regards to overlay requirements prior to actual plans being submitted for rezoning or building permit."

Loring Heights Neighborhood Association President Ron Grunwald explained such in a recent letter to the City’s Office of Planning:

Karl Smith-Davids

Office of Planning

City of Atlanta

55 Trinity Avenue Suite 3350

Atlanta, GA 30303

Re: Loring Heights Neighborhood Association Comments for SAP 12-76

507 Bishop Street Atlanta. GA 30318

Dear Karl:

We have reviewed the application and have comments regarding the two administrative variances being applied for as follows:

Administrative Variance Request #1 – Waive Requirement for 6’ Sidewalk

• We object to this precedence being set for the redevelopment of Bishop Street. This is one of the first rezonings here and the approved conditional site plan from Rezoning Case 08-O 0309 shows both the 6’ sidewalk and 5’ street furniture zone as required by the beltline Overlay Zoning. Those developers saw no hardship in providing this.

• This application is for demolition only and not for redevelopment. If the site is developed in accordance with the site plan from 08-O-0309 or a different redevelopment plan is proposed, how, at this time, can the owner’s and applicant say how the site would be redeveloped? Perhaps the topography would be changed through grading the site for the new development and the trees may not be incorporated in the development.

• Until a redevelopment plan and permit for the site is pursued, this condition should not be waived for current land configuration and topography – it is premature and the applicant is simply demolishing the building and trying to make the property more profitable for marketing. This is not in the spirit of the Overlay Zoning for the Beltline.

• We do support the notion that at this time, neither the sidewalk or street furniture zone should be required to be installed for the demolition but that this condition should be retained for any future development.

Administrative Variance Request #2 – Waive installation of frontage trees along Bishop

• Again, this should not be waived for the site because only a demolition permit is being applied for and,  in the future, the existing trees may be removed.

• We do support the applicant in not adhering to requirement to install either the 6 ‘ sidewalk or the 5’ street furniture zone until they or others apply for a Building Permit.

We greatly appreciate the owner’s willingness to tear down this severely dilapidated structure but we do not believe that future development of this site should be decided with regards to overlay requirements prior to actual plans being submitted for rezoning or building permit. In fact, one could argue that this variance request is a change to the site plan specific rezoning and therefore should be heard in a public forum.

Sincerely,

Ron Grunwald

NPU-E Representative