CONTACTS 
|
FRIEND OF LAVISTA PARK
|
DOCUMENTS
may open pdf files
|
|
|
Home > Leaf Talk > Neighborhood > Zoning and Redevelopment > Proposed Development: Cheshire Bridge at Lindbergh
Leaf Talk
Proposed Development: Cheshire Bridge at Lindbergh
Started September 7, 2011 @ 11:16pm by Gene Schmidt - Zoning Emeritus
 |
Post Message |
Gene Schmidt - Zoning Emeritus
Posts: 162 |
|
|
| Proposed Development: Cheshire Bridge at Lindbergh | September 7, 2011 @ 11:16pm | The developer Crim & Associates, presented their proposal for rezoning the southwest corner of Lindbergh/Cheshire Bridge to the Lindridge/Martin Manor neighborhood. They are represented by attorney Carl Westmoreland.
This would include the entire commercial block with the BP, Varsity Junior, Precision Tune, Sunny's, and Bliss. The request would combine several commercial categories into the mixed use MRC-2. The plan presented was very simplistic and does not meet a few of the requirements of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance. They are showing 4 individual buildings on the site with a huge amount of parking. They expect a Pharmacy (rumored to be Walgreen's) of 14,800sf to take the corner at Lindbergh. A bank of 2700sf to take the corner at Alco (this use has triple drive thru shown illegally along Alco, so location will likely change). Retail of 5250sf (3 tenants) is shown between these two. Another retail building of 4200sf is shown facing Lindbergh where Varsity is now. All are shown as not to exceed 30' height. All buildings are brought right up to property line on street per current code with parking in back (except parking between buildings on Cheshire Bridge). This code was meant to unify the street frontage with a more urban character, but with individual buildings doesn't have the same effect.
They show parking requirement of 134 spaces, but are proposing 182 spaces. They indicated that they have not provided for required site trees, storm water, or manuvering; so that number should be reduced. They show 4 entrances; one on Cheshire Bridge, 2 on Alco, and one on Lindbergh.
LMMNA is asking for the following changes: remove one curbcut on Alco, provide for right turn lane on Lindbergh to south on Cheshire Bridge (hopefully GDOT will take advantage), move dumpsters from the residences on the west side of the property, add fence there, list of restricted business types, reduce parking by 50 cars, move illegal drive thru.
Since the plan was not correct, it was not voted on by the neighborhood, but LMMNA executive board was authorized to vote on it with inclusion of Melante home owners. When revised, it will go next to NPU-F with LMMNA vote, for review. If approved, work is scheduled for spring 2012, current tenants have already been advised of this.
It's unfortunate that a more ambitious plan wasn't pursued with a better mix of uses. Hopefully this disjointed proposal will be an asset to the neighborhood. |
|
|
|
Last Edit: September 7, 2011 @ 11:22pm by Gene Schmidt - Zoning Emeritus | |
|
|
|
| |
Gene Schmidt - Zoning Emeritus
Posts: 162 |
|
|
| Waiting for Revision | September 16, 2011 @ 8:35am | It appears that application is withdrawn and will be reviewed next month (OCT.).
Zoning Review Board October 6 or 13, 2011 6:00 P.M.
Z-11-0202280,2306 and 2320 Cheshire Bridge Road
1085 and 1075 Lindbergh DriveApplicant, Crim & Associates, Inc. seeks to rezone properties from MRC-2 and NC-4 to MRC-2.
Withdrawn by Applicant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| Vote for Denial | October 6, 2011 @ 8:08pm | The Lindridge Martin Manor Neighborhood Association voted to DENY the application for rezoning at its October General Assembly Meeting on Oct. 5.
There were too many unresolved questions and the neighborhood assn. did not feel comfortable with the answers they were getting from the developer. The project had been scaled way back to only include the corner property where the BP and former Varisty Jr. are located for a "retail" development (i.e. drug store).
The next meeting about this issue will be at the NPU-F meeting on Oct. 17. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| Deferral | October 22, 2011 @ 12:02am | | The developer has asked for a deferal until December to rehear their proposal. It is possible that the scaled-back version will not need a rezoning, in which case this would not come back before the neighborhood or the NPU. However, the developer has left open the door for a possible rezoning request, pending a reworking of their plans. |
|
|
|
Last Edit: October 22, 2011 @ 12:02am by Henry Batten | |
|
|
|
|
|
