3121 and 3125 peidmont road fourth visit
Description: 3121 Piedmont Road project involves full reconstruction, 300 sq.ft horizontal increase in area to build over the “well area” on the north. The plan includes the excavation of the basement level to convert to underground parking adding an additional 12 parking spaces. New façade, materials and vertical egress elements are part of the plans. The existing building will be converted to a multi-tenant boutique retail and professional services mix on the ground level floor and upper floor. Site renovation will consist of a reconfigured parking plan, new curb, gutters, sidewalks, circulation improvements and full landscaping.
Click the image below to download all documents.
Applicant: Robb McKerrow – Restaurant Development, Rafi Jooma – Property Owner, Hakim Hillard – Zoning Attorney, April Ingraham – Permitting Advisor
SAP#: SAP-23-075 & 076 Fourth Visit
Variation Requested: None
Prior reviews of the proposed plan included three major concerns the applicant was asked to address prior to the committee taking action: curb cut on Martina, lot consolidation due to connecting bridge, value of renovation exceeding trigger for additional requirements
Recommendations Regarding Variations: None
Additional Recommendations:
Curb Cut on Martina: The applicant indicated that they have had conversations with Ann Herd at the City of Atlanta that resulted in her noting the driveway was permitted during the mid 1980’s. The applicant submitted an open records request for the documentation and was advised it would take 6 to 8 weeks for the documentation to be provided from the Atlanta History Center. The committee requested the case file number be provided to Sally Silver so she could get the documentation more expeditiously to assist the applicant. The applicant requested Ann Heard provide the information regarding the case number to Ms. Silver. Ms. Heard in turn instructed the applicant to follow up with Rovella Smith. The committee has yet to receive the case number to assist the applicant in expediting the request from the Atlanta History Center.
The applicant also indicated they had met with Atlanta DOT and received a supportive response. The applicant provided this email communication to the committee after the meeting as requested.
Recommendation: The email received from Juan Rodriguez does not indicate support for the project as stated. Several recommendations are made that do not appear to have been addressed on the plans submitted. The recommendations from the email are included in below.
ATLDOT initial comments.
- Obtain Georgia DOT comments and permits required for all work within Piedmont Rd Right of Way (ROW) state route GA-237.
- We highly recommend removing the curb cut proposed in Piedmont Rd before submitting it to GDOT review they will require 100 feet from Martina Dr. For sure this will help in the review process and provide the additional parking space where the driveway is.
Martina Drive comments
- Please use the driveway apron on both curb cuts proposed according to the City of Atlanta (COA) TR-B_DR005, this provides a smooth transition at the same elevation when crossing the apron. No ADA curb ramps are required on the COA standard apron.
- The minimum width required for the sidewalk is 5 feet please correct this.
- Relocate the directional signage enter and exit signs inside your property, do not place them in the ROW.
- Relocate the handicapped parking 7 and 8 where the 9 and 10 are these are to close the principal entrance and we want to avoid delays on the public road by unpredictable movement by the driveway, this will be required.
- The standard detail that applies to your road 1. driveway apron TR-B_DR005 2. sidewalk uses TR-B_SW003 3. Curb and gutter TR-B_CG001. 4. Stop bar and stop sign R1-1 4. ADA curb ramp according to COA includes the detectable panel.
- Provide and refresh the crosswalk and stop bar located at the intersection with Piedmont Rd.
- For the second driveway proposed, use the COA standard driveway apron, and remove the control access gates, the swing proposed is a hazard to the pedestrian and delays to the public road. Refer Sec. 30-1205. – Parking facility reservoirs; required.
(a) In facilities where attendants, ticket dispensers or other devices are used to regulate or control entering vehicles, the reservoir shall be located between the street right-of-way and the point of control. Each vehicle space in the reservoir shall be 22 feet long and ten feet wide and, in addition, enough space shall be provided for turning and maneuvering.
- Label the existing signs and the new ones for the official review later.
- ATLDOT will not allow the installation of any trees near the driveway interception or ADA curb ramp that can block the sight distance. Security will not be waived in public areas. Provide a sight distance study for the proposed connection to the public road and relocate any obstruction as a result of the report. The other trees shall be limbed up a minimum of 7 feet at the time of installation (IN PERPETUALLY) to keep buffer zones clear at the triangle’s sight distance. Check with the Arborist’s Department and include the note in the plans.
- Martina Drive is not in good condition after the concrete pad according to Google map, ATLDOT required resurfacing and restriping for the street where the utility cuts are proposed – refer to City of Atlanta Public Right of Way Manual Section 3.12 – https://www.atlantaga.gov/home/showdocument?id=57736&t=638071324347532031
- For additional guidance visit https://atldot.atlantaga.gov/design-resources
- Consult the ATLDOT ROW Manual for additional information and requirements about performing work in the City of Atlanta (COA) ROW. The manual can be found at https://app.apply4.com/uploads/instance_document/file/832/COAROWManual_2ndEdition_DE.pdf
Jason Kendall with the adjacent Peachtree Park Civic association noted concerns with traffic impacts to Martina resulting from drivers stacking to access the deck. Applicant Rafi Jooma indicated that the parking would be primarily employees and valet to minimize disruption and traffic impacts.
Consolidated Lots: During the conversation, it was discovered that the City Planning staff have already approved SAP- 075 for the 3121 lot. This was done without official comment from the DRC which is a violation of the process and major concern for the DRC representatives.
The applicant has eliminated the connections between the two properties to eliminate the need to consolidate the properties. The committee recommended the applicant ensure the fenestration on the adjacent sides of the two lots be considered for compliance with requirements with fire code.
The applicant has reconfigured the rear stairwell to enclose it within the building. The area below grade does not trigger any code requirements.
The two buildings will be sharing parking which is not a concern with common ownership, but should one of the properties change hands, a shared parking agreement will need to be put into place.
Valuation of Improvements: (Sec 16-18I.010) Due to concerns that the proposed improvements will trigger additional code compliance, the applicant met with staff from the office of zoning and the office of buildings. Direction provided in the meeting was provided by follow- up email from Tshaka Warren. This email (1.26.24 from Tshaka Warren) was to the DRC for inclusion in the case documentation and is excerpted below.
Good afternoon.
In the meeting, Anne and Al Nisa indicated that that an official analysis of any potential non-conformity could not be made until a formal building permit had been applied for. Al Nisa may speak to any clarity that you needed about impact fees, but at this point we will need to move forward with the SAP review under the assumption that the proposed changes do not result in creating further non-conformity. You will need to do your own estimate of the project costs during the SAP phase to determine if you are comfortable enough to move forward with the current design of the project. The relevant code section for the non-conformity is found here:
I reviewed the uploaded plans, and it appears that there is still a floating walkway connection between the two buildings, which as we previously indicated will not be allowed to cross property lines. You will need to make a decision to consolidate or replace the site in a manner that results in this feature not crossing a property line, or eliminate/redesign that feature so that it is conforming. We will need a confirmation of what your intention is for this along with new plans if you change the design, before presenting again at the next DRC for their official comments.
The stated city position is that the valuation will be completed when the building permits are issued. In light of this position, the DRC requests the office of zoning and development seek notification from the office of buildings upon completion of the valuation and communicate that back to the DRC. If the renovation cost exceeds 60% of the valuation prior to renovation, the development will required to meet all exempted code requirements and also required to revisit the DRC.
Neighborhood Civic Association Concerns:
Noise: Jason Kendall reiterated concerns over the rooftop patios on the back of the development adjacent to single family residences. The committee agrees with this concern and recommends the applicant be restricted from amplified outdoor sound and also required to construct glass walls around the patio in an effort to create a sound barrier.
The Development Review Committee does not find the project to be consistent with the Statement of Intent for this district and does expect to continue working with the applicant to reach a satisfactory resolution.
