Planning commission recommends denial of Hanover/Meta plan to convert Windward Park parcel to 315 rental units, citing loss of office and parking shortfall

The Alpharetta Planning Commission on Nov. 6 recommended denial of a master‑plan amendment (MP‑25‑08), conditional use (CU‑25‑13) and multiple variances (V‑25‑17) proposed for Pod 66 of Windward Park. The applicants — the Hanover Company (development) in coordination with Meta (property owner) — requested amendments to allow a five‑story, 315‑unit for‑rent apartment building in place of a previously entitled 134‑unit for‑sale condominium building, reduce on‑site office and retail square footage, and obtain variances related to balcony sizing, first‑floor ceiling height, parking count and distance from units to off‑street parking. After extensive staff presentation, applicant testimony and public comments both for and against, the commission voted unanimously to recommend denial and forwarded the matter to City Council (staff‑identified council date: Dec. 1, 2025).

Staff presentation and recommendation Staff summarized the proposal and the changes from earlier entitlements (2015 and 2023). The request would increase residential units in Pod 66, reduce total office entitlement from roughly 500,000 sq ft under earlier plans to about 252,000 sq ft under the applicant’s materials, and shift retail/service square footage. Staff highlighted several issues: the requested parking reduction (from 685 required spaces to 580 proposed, a 105‑space deficit), a proposed reduction in first‑floor minimum ceiling height from 14 feet to 12 feet for some leasing/amenity areas, and an increase in the maximum allowed pedestrian walking distance from units to assigned parking (code: 400 ft; applicant’s plan would measure up to about 900 ft along pedestrian walkways). Staff also noted city housing guidance that aims for at least 68% owner‑occupied housing and cited a June 2022 rental housing study recommending a target of roughly 116 for‑rent entitlements per year; staff recommended denial but provided 17 possible conditions were the commission to consider approval, including a condition that 119,000 sq ft of office be developed concurrently with the 315 rental units and a staff suggestion delaying a certificate of occupancy for the rental building until 2030.

Applicant case and mitigation proposals Hanover representatives (attorney Den Webb, regional development partner Adam Harbin, and associate Blake Upchurch) and Meta representative Rob Kinchelow argued the Windward Park site has been largely undeveloped for two decades despite several entitlements and that market changes — including a weaker suburban office market and the rise of Avalon as a competing mixed‑use center — meant office has not materialized. Hanover said a high‑quality rental product could catalyze the broader plan by providing residents, street activation and a neighborhood grocery; the team committed to reserving at least 3,000 sq ft within the proposed retail for a neighborhood grocer and showed architectural elevations and a sky‑bridge connection to a proposed parking deck.

On parking, Hanover presented company experience from other Metro‑Atlanta projects showing average observed parking demand of 1.34 spaces per unit and said comparable projects have never required more than 1.5 spaces per unit. Hanover asked for a 1.7 spaces‑per‑unit ratio for the proposed 315 units and offered mitigation measures if actual demand exceeded projections: a post‑stabilization parking audit, the possibility of valet/stacked parking solutions, and the ability to use excess spaces in the shared deck for future office development. Hanover also asked that the commission remove or relax concurrency requirements for office construction, which the applicant said have constrained development at the site for years.

Public comment and commission deliberation A Windward resident (Kelly Martin) spoke in favor, saying neighbors want activity and amenities on the underused site and expressed support for higher‑end apartments and a grocery; another resident (Tom Miller) opposed the request, arguing the site should attract office headquarters and that the plan would make the site predominantly residential rather than mixed‑use and economic‑generating. Commissioners asked detailed questions about previous entitlements, the applicant’s redline changes to staff conditions that removed concurrency commitments, the adequacy of walkable connectivity to parking, and the reason for a 315‑unit ask rather than smaller entitlements previously proposed.

Vote and rationale During deliberations commissioners repeatedly cited the city’s housing balance goals, the large reduction in office square footage compared with earlier entitlements, the parking deficit (105 spaces), and the absence of a firm commitment to build office concurrently as key reasons for disagreement. A motion to recommend denial of MP‑25‑08 / CU‑25‑13 / V‑25‑17 was made, seconded and carried unanimously. The commission’s recommendation and staff materials will proceed to City Council for final action on the staff‑listed date (Dec. 1, 2025).

Clarifying details: Pod 66 area = 47.65 acres; project proposes 315 rental units (proposed mix: ~56% one‑bedroom, ~41% two‑bedroom, ~3% three‑bedroom), shared parking deck proposed with 580 spaces (code required 685 for the rental building alone under staff calculation), proposed retail includes a 3,790‑sq‑ft corner space and Hanover’s commitment to reserve 3,000 sq ft for a neighborhood grocer in the building’s retail shell. Staff noted possible school‑enrollment impact ranges provided by the applicant (very broad range reported in staff packet), and staff recommended delaying certificate of occupancy until 2030 if approval were granted to help align with city housing targets.

Speakers quoted: “This is the only development or mixed use development in the city of Alpharetta without multifamily,” attorney Den Webb said in support. Kathy Cook (staff) said, “High density housing should be tied to office space where jobs exist and are created,” and staff concluded the proposal reduced anticipated jobs by cutting office entitlement roughly in half.

Outcome: Planning Commission recommended denial (unanimous); forwarded to City Council for final decision on staff‑listed date.