East Point’s Planning Commission held a public hearing on a rezoning application from Francys Krouter of ATYP LLC seeking to rezone property owned by 334 LLC from Residential Limited (RL) to an institutional/education designation and to obtain a special‑use permit to operate a personal care home.

The request drew multiple public speakers and commissioners’ questions about architecture, parking, neighborhood character and required permits. The commission and staff referenced development regulations (Section 04 2.0) and a zoning rule identified in the hearing as Section 7.7.5; the transcript also refers to the case as P245 / PZ45 (variously styled P245U and PZ45‑U in the record).

Why it matters: the property sits within an otherwise suburban residential area, and neighbors and commissioners pressed whether converting existing buildings and adding accessory structures for multi‑generational or congregate living would change traffic, parking demand and the area’s character.

During the hearing, the applicant’s team described plans to reuse existing structures on the site and to provide multi‑generational living and “personal care” uses; they said the project would include accessory structures and interior renovations rather than wholesale new construction. Multiple residents spoke in opposition or with concerns, emphasizing potential impacts on traffic, noise and the visual scale of new or expanded structures adjacent to single‑family homes. Planning commissioners repeatedly asked the applicant to clarify architectural design details, parking counts and how existing accessory structures would be used.

Planning staff and speakers referenced several procedural and code points. Commissioners noted the applicant would need separate building and permit approvals and must confirm setbacks, parking and other site‑specific requirements referenced during the hearing. The transcript includes repeated references to compliance with development regulations and to a code citation described as Section T‑12 / 7.7.5; commissioners also asked applicants to provide documentation confirming required separations and permits prior to final approval.

The property owner was identified in the hearing as 334 LLC and the applicant as Francys Krouter of ATYP LLC. A project manager present introduced himself as Shawn and said he was handling project management for the proposal; multiple residents and other neighbors also addressed the commission during the public comment portion.

No formal vote or final decision is recorded in the provided transcript. Commissioners closed the public comment portion after presentations and questions; the hearing record indicates the application remains subject to permitting and code confirmations before any approval could be finalized.

Next steps noted during the hearing included submission of detailed permit applications and documentation to demonstrate compliance with parking, setback and use‑specific standards; the commission and staff indicated that those materials would be required before any building permits or occupancy for the proposed personal care use could be granted.