The City of Chamblee Design Review Board on Oct. 10, 2025 voted 3‑0 to recommend approval—with conditions—for PZ2088, a proposed mixed‑use development on roughly 7.26 acres bounded by Broad Street, Peachtree Road, Ingersoll Rand Drive and Urbandale Drive. The applicant, Greystar, described a project that would build approximately 340 residential units in two multifamily buildings (reported square footage 352,165 and 62,184), about 29,010 square feet of retail, a seven‑level parking garage with 599 spaces and a publicly accessible town green.

The board’s actions moved the proposal forward to city council with three explicit recommendations: deny variance 48 (painted brick on Building 200) and waive the applicant’s request to keep overhead utilities in place (waivers 11 and 12); and require that the design for Urbandale/Ingersoll Rand (variance 39) be revised “as closely as possible” to the Downtown Chamblee PUD pattern‑book requirement that that segment be a shared street. The recommendation passed on a 3‑0 voice vote.

Why it matters: the project is one of the largest development applications the board has reviewed recently, carries multiple variances and waivers, and would reshape a block adjacent to City Hall and the planned rail‑trail. The board’s conditions specifically target materials and streetscape treatments that affect the public face of the development and future maintenance/utility costs for the city.

What the project would include
The applicant described the site as eight parcels totaling 7.26 acres. Staff and the applicant presented these key figures to the board: two multifamily buildings (listed areas 352,165 sq. ft. and 62,184 sq. ft.), a seven‑level parking deck wrapped by residential units with 599 parking spaces, four retail/commercial buildings totaling about 29,010 sq. ft., and roughly 2.76 acres of open space of which about 2.01 acres would be publicly accessible. Staff reported an impervious area of 5.51 acres (76.1%). The application included 64 variances and 12 waivers; staff asked the board not to read all variance items into the record.

Design and operations discussion
Applicant representatives framed the plan as a place‑making project intended to activate a central town green and surrounding retail. TR Clausen, representing Greystar, said the team’s aim was long‑term community building: “One of our core objectives is to build community,” he told the board during the applicant presentation.

Board members questioned several practical logistics: curb and gutter versus shared (flush) street design, loading and trash logistics, fenestration and future tenant build‑outs, retaining walls to meet existing grade changes, and parking assumptions. Jared McKinnon, a civil engineer for the project, described requirements from fire code and stormwater as drivers of several design choices: “The international fire code, appendix d, requires 26 foot fire lanes for this tall of, multifamily building,” he said, explaining why the proposed travel lanes are 13 feet each (two 13‑foot lanes = 26 feet).

Shared‑street debate and board direction
Board member Eileen Delatory raised a central concern about the character and safety of the proposed drives on Urbandale/Ingersoll Rand and Broad Street, saying she would not support widening travel lanes to 13 feet in an area intended to be pedestrian‑oriented: “I would not support widening these lanes to 13 feet, wide,” she said. The applicant and civil engineer replied that the lane widths were driven by the fire marshal’s apparatus requirements and by existing stormwater infrastructure, and that curb inlets were needed to channel runoff.

After discussion the board voted to condition variance 39 so the applicant must revise the design “as closely as possible” to the Downtown Chamblee PUD pattern book Chapter 3 SS‑60 shared‑street standards for the segment identified in the regulating plan. Staff clarified that following the pattern book would obviate the need for certain variances tied specifically to shared‑street configuration, though some lane‑width relief might still be necessary because of fire‑access requirements.

Material, utilities and trash conditions
The board specifically recommended denial of variance 48, which would have allowed painted brick on the public‑facing portion of Building 200; the board asked that a non‑painted brick face be used on façades abutting public streets, the rail trail or the park. Separately, a board member moved to deny waivers 11 and 12, which would allow existing overhead power poles and utility lines to remain rather than being relocated underground; the motion to deny those waivers passed. The applicant explained those waivers were requested largely for cost and coordination reasons, including anticipated coordination with Georgia Power and the U.S. Postal Service.

On trash and deliveries the applicant said retail trash would be consolidated along Irwindale Drive and handled through a conditioned trash room with a compactor; Greystar said it had engaged a consultant to model restaurant waste and intended tenant lease language to standardize trash handling and pick‑up hours. The board pressed the applicant for commitments to tenant rules and legal easements so shared trash facilities would function if buildings are sold separately in the future.

Loading, retaining walls and fenestration
Staff flagged a PUD requirement that loading structures and bays be screened and not visible from the rail trail or public streets; staff took a cautious interpretation where a roll‑up dock door could be considered visible, and asked the applicant to be prepared to further address screening. On site grading, the applicant described retaining walls up to roughly 4 feet tall (split into two walls and a planter between them) to manage an 8‑foot grade change near the retail buildings.

Parking and residential density
The applicant said there is no minimum required parking for the site under current zoning; Greystar reported providing 599 garage spaces and estimating a typical utilization rate of roughly 1.35 spaces per residential unit for comparable mixed‑use projects. The applicant estimated the residential population at buildout in the high hundreds; the design team gave a workshop estimate of several hundred residents but did not provide a precise final figure for the record.

Board action and next steps
The DRB made a motion to approve staff’s recommendations with the conditions described above; the motion passed on a 3‑0 vote (Josh Ward, Eileen Delatory, Christine Simonton voting yes; no opposition, no abstentions). The board’s recommendation and the application will move to city council for final action, and staff told the applicant to expect follow‑up deadlines for revised materials and any additional variance fee if new variances are requested.

Context and history
Staff said the site has prior DCI (development of community impact) approvals for phased town center development (zoning cases cited in the presentation: PZ 20 19 5 6 1 and PZ 20 26 14) but that no land‑disturbance permits were pulled and those DCI approvals expired in 2022. The applicant is now pursuing a new consolidated DCI application (PZ2088) with concurrent variance and waiver requests.

The board asked the applicant to provide revised drawings that respond to the shared‑street condition, clarify screening for loading areas, confirm trash and tenant servicing protocols, and supply any material changes that would affect pending variances before the packet goes to council.