NPU-B outlines objections to land-use, zoning changes for Lindbergh plan in letter to City Council

To contact us Click HERE
The land-use and zoning changes requested for the proposed controversial21-acre “big box” development for the Lindbergh Center area of south Buckheadare on the agenda for the Atlanta City Council’s meeting this coming Monday at1 p.m. in City Council Chambers at City Hall.

On Sept. 14, a letter was sent from Neighborhood Planning Unit-B to themembers of the Atlanta City Council, which was forwarded to BuckheadView byLivable Buckhead Executive Director Denise Starling, who stated, “This is thebest communication about the concerns over the proposed Lindbergh developmentthat I have seen.”

NPU-B Development &Transportation
Committee Chair Andrea Bennett

The cover letter from NPU-B Development & Transportation CommitteeChair Andrea Bennett, who also was the author of the attached main letter tocouncil, urged council members to read carefully before casting their votes onMonday the reasons set forth in the NPU-B’s letter urging denial ofZ-11-19/CDP-11-06.
It also points out that the items related to the requested land-use andzoning changes for the proposed “big box” development on Piedmont Road, betweenMorosgo Drive and Lindbergh Drive will come before the full City Council onMonday without recommendations from the Zoning and Community Development/HumanResources committees.  “For the reasons setforth in our letter, NPU-B urges denial,” Bennett wrote in her cover letter. “Thislegislation would be a significant step backward for our city.  NPU-Burges the council to stick to its guns and uphold the current 2011 CDP andSPI-15 zoning regulations by voting to deny the legislation.”  
The following is thetext of Bennett’s main Sept. 14 letter to members of the Atlanta City Council.
Re:Z-11-19 and CDP-11-06         “I am writing on behalfof NPU-B to urge denial of the above two pieces of legislation.   “At the outset I want toemphasize that NPU-B is neither anti-development nor anti Walmart. To thecontrary, NPU-B favors redevelopment of the parcel in question, but believes stronglythat any redevelopment must comply with the city’s long range plan asestablished in the CDP and SPI-15.  Ourposition is based not on the tenant but the failure to meet land use and zoningrequirements. 
“In enacting SPI-15 backin 2001, the Council stated:  “The intentof the council in establishing SPI-15 Lindbergh Transit Station Area SpecialPublic Interest District as a zoning district is to…enhance and protect theLindbergh Transit Station area as a model for retrofitting an existingautomobile-oriented commercial strip into a transit and pedestrian orientedmixed-use and multifamily urban neighborhood.”

This map of the Lindbergh area where the development is proposed to go
was prepared by Gordon Certain of the North Buckhead Civic Association
and includes the last site plan for the development that NPU-B has seen.
The plan reportedly has since been changed to reduce the surface parking
to 200 or so spaces with another 200 or so in a parking deck. 

“The present applicant,a shopping center developer, seeks to overturn both the land use and zoning inorder to construct a very large (4.2 acre) surface parking lot and an adjacentone-story big box (3.7 acre) superstore.
“NPU-B recommends denialfor three specific reasons:
“1.The applicant has not provided any factual basis to support a land use change. “In fact, real world conditionsstrongly suggest that such action would not be justified. For example:
• “The applicant has notdone a traffic study, but claims its project is pedestrian and transit oriented. However, under industry standardguidelines, a superstore of this size would generate 10,541 daily auto trips.
• “The developer hassuggested there is no market for multi-family residential at this site.  In reality, the occupancy rate for apartmentsin this area is 95.8 percent.
• “The developercontends it is not feasible to put parking underneath the store.  That is directly contradicted by the Walmartanchored center it is developing in Denver, where parking is placed underneaththe store.
• “According toWalmart’s website, supercenters employ 300 people, not 600 as suggested by thedeveloper.
• ”The applicant hasasserted there is no grocery store in this area.  However, there is a Target Fresh Groceryapproximately 300 feet away.  Within 1.5 milesthere is a Kroger, a Trader Joe’s, a Whole Foods and 2 Publix stores.  There is also an abundance of vacant retailstores and other undeveloped tracts that are designated for retail use. 
“2.The proposed use is incompatible with SPI-15’s mandates for transit- andpedestrian-oriented development.

This photo was taken the last time the attorney for the developers
presented the development plans to the NPU-B in June of this year. 

“The largest singlecomponent of this proposal is a surface parking lot of approximately 4.2 acres.  This directly contravenes Subsection 8 of theSPI which mandates that any re-development within SPI-15 must “provide parkingin an unobtrusive manner.” 
“Large surface lots arespecifically deplored in the city’s long term plan for Lindbergh. In the 2011CDP, the Planning Department stated as follows:
““Over time [the city's]built environment gave way to suburban-style, automobile-oriented stripshopping centers, the creation of large Super blocks, large parking lotsabutting streets, buildings with blank walls, and isolated residentialsubdivisions and gated communities as a result of zoning regulations thatplaced the emphasis on the automobile and separation of land uses. The resulthas been a breakdown in pedestrian-scaled streets and the urban fabric and characterof the City. This type of development does not support a livable character or ahuman scale within commercial and residential districts.”  (p. 314).
“Simply stated,Lindbergh is not the place for a huge, suburban surface parking lot.
“3.Throwing out the CDP and the requirements of SPI-15 profoundly undermines the planningprocess and community participation.

This site plan for the proposed development was the last one presented to
NPU-B for consideration and shows the 150,000-square-foot big box
Walmart store at top left in brown and a 7-acre parking lot in front of it.
Any new plan has not been sent to NPU-B nor is it available online, 

 “A new wave of Americans – young and old -- isflocking to cities because they want communities that offer more than thesuburban experience.  Yet nothingtypifies that suburban experience more than the big box superstore sitting in ahuge parking lot.   “SPI-15 reflects a hugeinvestment in planning and seeks to capitalize on the unique transitinfrastructure at Lindbergh.  The site inquestion is adjacent to MARTA’s Red Line, Gold Line, the coming CliftonCorridor line to Emory, and the Betline. It is also the nexus for 6 bus lines.“It would be tragic towaste this opportunity to create a truly transit-oriented, pedestrian friendlydistrict here by placing a multi-acre surface lot in the middle of things.
“The harm has alreadybeen addressed by many prominent stakeholders:
“The Atlanta RegionalCommission says “this proposal does not appear to support the City of Atlanta's2011 Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) or MARTA TOD Guidelines.” 
“MARTA states, “Theproposed project is heavily automobile oriented and suburban in style.”
“The Chair of Congressfor a New Urbanism puts it even more bluntly: “(We) are gravely concerned aboutthe proposal and the precedent it could set. … It is with this in mind that webelieve the Lindbergh proposal would represent a step backwards if approved. Whatconcerns us more is the precedent that this disregard for the sound planningwould represent…Following on the heels of a drawn out rezoning for LindberghCity Center, the 2001 TSADS and ensuing SPI 15 were created to avoid futurebattles and proactively plan for Lindbergh as a model transit-orienteddevelopment.  With this history in mind,we ask you to carefully consider the negative ramifications for both theLindbergh area and Atlanta’s public planning process if the rezoning and CDPamendments are approved, which we believe represent an unsettling deviationfrom the vision of the TSADS, an assault on good urbanism, and a disregard forthe public process and the public trust.”
“In addition, over 500citizens have individually set out their comments in opposition to thisproposal.
“And while the Beltlinehas not yet weighed in, this development would literally be in their backyard.  An auto-oriented, suburban style big box isanathema to the Beltline’s goal of establishing new transit and pedestrian connectivitythroughout the city.
“Finally, the integrityand meaning of the entire planning process and the NPU system would be profoundlycalled into question if a single developer is allowed to override years of planning,community involvement, the city’s long range plans as expressed in the CDP andin Special Public Interest Districts such as SPI-15.
“If the land use andzoning requirements of SPI-15 can be dispensed with without the presentation ofany factual data, what is to prevent the next developer from making the same contentionelsewhere in the city?    “NPU-B is made up ofsome of the city’s most active and fastest growing neighborhoods. Ourpopulation in 2010 had grown to 47,292. We include Lindbergh/Morosgo, Lenox, Brookhaven,Buckhead Forest, Pine Hills, Buckhead Village, East Chastain Park, PeachtreePark, Garden Hills, Peachtree Heights East, Ridgedale Park, Peachtree HeightsWest, South Tuxedo Park, North Buckhead and Peachtree Hills.   “Not surprisingly, weare joined in opposition to this proposal by our neighbor, NPU-F, whichincludes the 23,641 residents of Atkins Park, Lindridge/Martin Manor, Morningside/LenoxPark, Piedmont Heights and Virginia Highland.   “People all over Atlantaare working hard to make our communities more livable, walkable andsustainable.  We also want to ensure thatthe City of Atlanta does not fall behind its peers around the country andinternationally.  In today’s world peopleare drawn to urban environments that are known for their progressive goals andthe ability to make themselves unique. They seek the human scale and the qualities and diversity that make aplace special and identifiable.   “We fully appreciatethat living in a big city requires give and take.  I know that you on the council are alwaysstriving to find the right balance of interests.
“In this case, NPU-Bstrongly urges the Council to deny this application.  It’s not what the city set out to do allthose years ago.  And it’s far from thebest we can do now.  Our process is at stake,as is our future development. “