Council rezones 1784 West Taylor Ave. to R‑3 for six‑unit infill project; height variance denied

East Point’s City Council on Oct. 20 approved rezoning for a small multifamily redevelopment at 1784 West Taylor Avenue, but declined a requested variance to increase maximum building height.

Staff presented case P2025RZ002‑08 and said the applicant, Timothy (Muffy) Charlton, seeks rezoning from R‑1A (urban residential) to R‑3 (multifamily residential) to develop six dwelling units on a lot roughly 0.38 acres in size. Planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with four conditions: facade articulation to reduce perceived mass next to lower residences; driveway design and coordination with the city engineer to minimize local traffic impacts; substantial conformance to the submitted site plan subject to staff approval; and installation of a minimum landscape buffer with evergreen plantings along property lines adjoining single‑family homes. The Planning Commission also asked that the applicant go through the city’s infill ordinance process.

Staff said the application requested two concurrent variances: to reduce the side yard setback (staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval) and to increase the maximum building height to 45 feet (staff and Planning Commission recommended denial of the height variance). The ordinance approved by council included the rezoning with the listed conditions and explicitly denied the height‑increase variance; the side‑yard setback variance was approved as part of that action.

The applicant, Timothy Charlton, told council he bought the property in December (year stated as after study of local plans) and said he plans to live in one of the units. During discussion he described the proposed units as three‑bedroom, roughly 2,500‑square‑foot townhome‑style dwellings with three full bathrooms (two ensuite), a one‑car garage and other home features; he said sales in nearby Santa Park recent comparable new homes averaged about $425,000 to $440,000. The applicant said the denied height variance would not prevent the proposed project; he told council the design can be adjusted to fit the approved 40‑foot maximum.

Councilmember Shropshire moved to add a condition to prohibit renting out individual bedrooms in the proposed units. That motion failed on a roll‑call vote (the council recorded the votes; the motion did not pass). The council then voted to waive first reading and afterward adopted the ordinance rezoning the property to R‑3 with the four staff conditions and denial of the height variance. The final vote to adopt the ordinance passed on roll call (recorded in the meeting minutes).

The ordinance requires the applicant to comply with the infill provisions identified by staff and to coordinate driveway and landscape mitigation with the city engineer. Staff noted that the future land‑use map designates the parcel as a redevelopment neighborhood; maximum densities and additional standards from the MARTA LCI plan could inform future development intensity. Councilmembers asked about unit sizes, price points, and whether the denied height variance would materially change the proposal; the applicant said he could proceed under the 40‑foot limit.

The council’s approval includes conditions intended to reduce compatibility impacts with neighboring single‑family homes. The denial of the height variance means the project must comply with the existing 40‑foot maximum unless the applicant later seeks a separate appeal and variance process.