The votes on the fate ofthe retail center—officially listed on the City Council agenda for Monday asCDP-11-06 and Z-11-19—have met with massive opposition from throughout thecity, even though it is a Buckhead issue, and just might affect fund-raisingand the election of council members who support the issues when they come upfor re-election, according to sources.
 |
| This aerial map of the area where the retail center would be developed shows its relationship to other major developments in the area. It was created by Gordon Certain of the North Buckhead Civic Association and includes the former site plan for the Sembler/Fuqua development. The new site plan has not really been made public. It was just recently revised. |
The City Council meetingMonday is at 1 p.m. at City Hall, 55 Trinity Avenue in downtown Atlanta.
Buckhead Dist. 8Councilwoman Yolanda Adrean at a meeting of the Buckhead Council ofNeighborhoods Thursday night urged Buckhead residents to come to the councilmeeting and have their positions heard. The problem is that the public is notallowed to speak about zoning issues during the public comment period of thecouncil meeting. That has to be done at the Zoning Committee meetings.
 |
| Dist. 8 City Councilwoman Yolanda Adrean |
BuckheadView counts atleast five, all of which represent and live in Buckhead who should be expectedto support their Buckhead constituents.
Other members of CityCouncil who might be expected to consider voting in line with the wishes ofBuckhead residents would be Councilman at large H. Lamar Willis, whoundoubtedly gets much of his campaign funding from Buckhead, and CouncilPresident Ceasar C. Mitchell, who will not likely have a vote but earns most ofhis income through his law office located in Buckhead.
 |
| Dist. 9 Councilwoman Felicia Moore |
 |
| Dist. 7 City Councilman Howard Shook |
Their NPUs alsosupported the APAB resolution Saturday related to the Buckhead development,largely because there is a concern that if the adopted CDP and Special PublicInterest area zonings are ignored by City Council, then they lose control overplanning and development in any area of the city.
Richard Rauh, the APABrepresentative from NPU-B told Buckhead View “The vote was solidly unanimouswith NPU delegates endorsing it from all over town. There was no dissent,none.” He said there was a quorum of 13 of the 25 NPUs at the meeting andvoting, which he called “a good representation on any Saturday” at the APABmeetings.
“It was a solid citywideconsensus,” he added
 |
| The site plan above was the last one seen by NPU-B and rejected because of the 150,000 square foot Walmart store (top left in brown color) and 7 acres of surface parking lot in front of it. This plan apparently has been changed, but NPU=B and the Buckhead neighborhoods have not seen the new site plan and it is apparently not available online for viewing. The members of City Council apparently do have copies of the new plan. |
“The plan, I think, leaves a lot to be desired,”Adrean said. But she said a new site plan for the development does show lesssurface parking area, which was one of the major points of contention withNPU-B with the earlier plan.
The site plan by Lawrenceville-based Haines,Gipson and Associates shows space for multifamily residences but Adrean said noresidential developer has signed onto the project. Substantial changes weremade to the site plan after denial by the Neighborhood Planning Unit B, but thatbody has not seen the new site plan, Adrean said.
“I was not sent a revised site plan,” BuckheadView was told by NPU-Bchair Sally Silver. “I have seen the proposed park design worked out withthe Parks Department,” which apparently now includes a playground.
 |
| NPU-B chair Sally Silver |
Silver said, “Revised plans do not have to come back through the NPU,only amendments to the re-zoning application. This particular case has noapplication as it originated with the Zoning Committee of Council via AaronWatson's introduction in 2011,” she added.
Adreanpointed out that the stakes are high related to this Council decision. “If they lose this vote,” she said about developersSembler and Fuqua, as well as Walmart, “there will be a lawsuit.”
It will be interesting to see how the members of City Council react tothe resolution sent to them by APAB, since 13 of the NPUs that represent theircouncil districts all approved the resolution on Saturday with no dissentingvotes.
The introduction to the APAB resolution reads: A Resolution by the Atlanta PlanningAdvisory Board advising the Atlanta City Council to uphold provisions of SPI-15in its current form and to REJECT proposed legislation CDP-11-06 and Z-11-19(SPI-15 Lindbergh Retail Center) that has been forwarded to Council by bothCouncil's CD/HR and Zoning Committees without recommendation.
The resolution pointsout that APAB is the citizen body consisting of delegates representing the 25NPUs of the city “established by the Atlanta City Charter to be advisory oncitywide issues of planning and other public policy governmental matters to thosecharged with legislative and administrative functions in city government.”
 |
| City Council President Ceasar Mitchell. Will he influence the vote of City Council? |
The resolution statesthat APAB, along with various NPUs and others,” has for more than a decadeworked in concert with and support of the Department of Planning, Developmentand Neighborhood Conservation of the city of Atlanta as it designed with care,academic best practice and community consent the forward-looking Special PublicInterest Districts including that of (SPI-15) Lindbergh Transit Station Area.”
 |
| Dist. 6 Councilman Alex Wan, is chair of Council's Zoning Committee and vice chair of Community Development/Human Relations committee, both heard the issue. |
APAB pointed out thatdenial of CDP-11-06 and Z-11-19 will preserve the intent of SPI-15 and sustain itspromise for an improved future for the Lindbergh Transit Station Area withregard to reduced traffic congestion by continuing its future development as atransit-oriented residential
APAB said approval ofCDP-11-06 and Z-11-19 ”is likely to undermine and perhaps destroy forever any potentialfor the Lindbergh Transit Station Area to fulfill its visionary potential.”
It further points outthat NPUs citywide, in addition to NPU-F and NPU-B, “recognize the potential for detrimentalconsequences of dismantlement of SPIs in their own areas and the effective abandonmentof years of citizen involvement that were devoted to crafting of those SPIs.”
(NPU-B also sent a letter to City Council members outlining is objections to both the land use and zoning changes for the proposed development. For that story, click here,)
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder