3630 Peachtree Road – Second Submittal
Description: The applicant team including representatives from Wilson Irby and Brock, Kimley Horn, Perkins and Will provided the committee with an introduction to their proposed new development including a 256 key hotel, 85 residential units and approximately 15,000sf of conference center space. The applicant indicated their intention to pursue LEED certification and possible WELL certification.
Second visit: The program has been scaled back to address previous concerns raised by the committee. The meeting space has been reduced to approximately 9,000sf and eliminating the junior ballroom, the board room and one meeting room. The hotel remains 256 keys and the 85 residential units remain. The height of the building as proposed is 336’6”. No new parking in proposed with the development.
Click the image below to download all documents.
Applicant: Emmye Montagne, Kimley Horn, Harold Buckley Wilson, Irby & Brock
SAP#: Second Visit
Committee Feedback: The committee expressed concerns about the traffic impacts resulting from the development – specifically regarding the intersection of Peachtree and Peachtree Dunwoody Roads and requests a traffic study be conducted and presented at the next meeting. Such traffic study should take the event space into consideration and analyze peak time impacts associated with events.
Second Visit: John Walker with Kimley Horn provided a high level overview of the parking study findings. He noted the study had been conducted using pre COVID 19 traffic volumes and had been presented to Sally Silver and Matt Tigh at the Atlanta DOT. Walker noted there is not significant impact from the development. He further noted that concerns with the left turn from Peachtree to Peachtree Dunwoody could be addressed with signal timing and did not require additional storage capacity in the left turn lane. He noted a 1.8% increase to the traffic volume projected to come into the roundabout currently under design at Wieuca Road and Phipps Boulevard and that the study had been provided to the CID. Committee members expressed continued concerns and a desire for the applicant provide the full traffic study to the committee.
Committee Feedback: The committee expressed concerns about the proposal’s reliance on the existing parking on the site which is understood to be over-committed with the current program onsite. The applicant indicated a parking study is underway. The committee would like to see the results of that study.
Second Visit: Jeffrey Elsey with Kimley Horn reviewed the high level findings associated with the parking analysis. He noted that the counts have been conducted using pre-COVID-19 parking counts. He indicated that there would be ample supply on site with the 600 available spaces combined with efficiencies that have been achieved by changes to the development program (reduction of conference center and residential), modifications to the design to minimize impacts to the existing parking structure, and a shared parking approach with surrounding development.
Mark Elliot challenged the committee’s request to provide an executed shared parking agreement saying this is not an official policy of the committee and that it is too early in the development to secure such an agreement. The committee indicated that while not a stated policy, requirement of these agreements is a regular practice where parking is a concern – particularly in SPI-9.
Committee Feedback: The committee expressed concerns about the impact of the traffic generated by the proposed development on the multimillion-dollar roundabout at Wieuca Road and Phipps Boulevard. This project is being built by the City and the Buckhead Community Improvement District and is currently at 60% engineering. Traffic analysis used for the roundabout engineering does not anticipate a development of this magnitude on this site.
Second Visit: John Walker noted a 1.8% increase to the traffic volume projected to come into the roundabout currently under design at Wieuca Road and Phipps Boulevard and that the study had been provided to the Buckhead Community Improvement District.
Committee Feedback: The committee expressed concerns and general confusion as to how the proposal was achievable given the prior PDOC conditions and allowances and current SPI-12 requirements. The applicant described an approach that appears to try to take advantage of both rather than traveling under one. We understand that selecting elements of both in the same application is not permissible. The committee recommends these questions be vetted by the City and clear guidance provided to the DRC prior to further DRC review.
Second Visit: Harold Buckley, the applicant, indicated that they have reached out to the City’s legal department regarding the questions raised by the committee and noted that these are two separate paths and comments on the design should not be held pending legal guidance. The committee indicated disagreement given the magnitude of the use decision on the overall project design. Christian Olteanu with the City indicated a desire to have the applicant submit all documentation to the City formally prior to the DRC further reviewing the case.
Variation Requested: Unknown
The Development Committee does expect to see this applicant again prior to providing official comments.
