Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Warehouse Roosevelt topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated public hearing on proposed 195,000 sq ft Roosevelt Highway warehouse; council keeps decision for March
Summary
KMT Partners’ proposal to rezone several parcels on Roosevelt Highway for a 195,000‑square‑foot light industrial warehouse prompted a lengthy Feb. 25 public hearing marked by residents’ safety and traffic concerns; council deferred final action for additional analysis.
A public hearing on Feb. 25 drew more than a dozen residents and speakers after KMT Partners sought to rezone several parcels along Roosevelt Highway to M‑1 (light industrial) for a proposed 195,000‑square‑foot warehouse/distribution facility.
The applicant, Greg Bowler of KMT Partners, said the site is consistent with the city’s industrial corridors and the Future Land Use Map’s industrial designation; he told council the project would create roughly 150–200 jobs and increase annual tax revenues materially for the site. The applicant said a preliminary traffic and signal‑warrant analysis will be completed and that, although traffic volumes alone did not meet a signal warrant, crash history on Roosevelt Highway did support consideration of a traffic signal; the applicant said he would work with the city and GDOT to pursue a signal at the intersection with South Fulton Parkway.
More than a dozen residents and community leaders opposed the rezoning. Speakers repeatedly cited public‑safety concerns at the Roosevelt Highway / South Fulton Parkway intersection, railroad crossings that can delay traffic, proximity of single‑family homes and apartments within 1,000 feet of the site, stormwater and stream buffer impacts for upstream Lake Royale, and the effect of more heavy trucks on neighborhood quality of life. Several speakers asked council to deny or slow rezoning until traffic signal funding and stormwater mitigation are confirmed.
Planning staff noted the applicant removed a concurrent variance request during the process and recommended approval; the Planning Commission had recommended approval. The hearing included back‑and‑forth about whether developer outreach had reached all affected districts; the applicant said he conducted a public participation meeting, followed by an in‑person meeting at Welcome All Park to address concerns and that notices were mailed to addresses within a one‑mile radius per city procedure.
Council did not vote that night on the rezoning; the item was announced for final action at the March meeting so councilmembers could review the updated traffic analysis, additional public feedback and any recommended conditions.
Ending: The council kept the matter open and scheduled final action at the March 19/25 meeting (applicant to provide finalized traffic warrant report and staff to follow up on notices and stormwater/stream buffer questions).
