Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Broad Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers seek broad flexibilities in proposed Broad Street redevelopment; staff backs many variances, some remain denied
Summary
Developers for the 3525 Broad Street project asked the Chamblee City Council to approve multiple variances and waivers to the PUD regulating plan; staff revised several earlier denials to recommendations of approval after applicants supplied detailed design clarifications. The debate centered on facade materials, roof forms, utility burial timing and safety-oriented site design.
Developers behind the proposed 3525 Broad Street redevelopment asked the Chamblee City Council to approve a package of variances and waivers to a previously adopted PUD, and staff told the council that applicant revisions supplied on Dec. 2 changed many earlier recommendations.
At the start of the presentation, Matt Adams, Planning and Development Director, said staff now recommends approval of a long list of variances that were previously recommended for denial, while continuing to recommend denial for a narrower set of requests that staff believes would undermine pedestrian streetscape or public safety elements.
Josh Sachs, the project’s multifamily architect, and Eric Bethany, the retail architect, outlined the team’s rationale for the remaining requests. They said some deviations stem from building program needs and block-scale design choices rather than standard single-building assumptions in the PUD. On materials and massing they argued the project achieves the PUD’s “core intent” — varied facades, broken-down massing and active ground-floor frontages — even where cladding differs from precise PUD text. “We are satisfying the core intent of this section,” Sachs said, describing varied window types, differing two‑story and one‑story volumes and alternate brick selections.
The team also requested flexibility on rooftop and canopy materials for one interior retail building and sought permission to use fiber cement for historically inspired shop-front details. For the central Building 300, the team proposed an asymmetrical gable to shelter rooftop terraces and create a strong visual backdrop for a town green.
On utilities, the developers offered a financial contribution — $204,000 — toward burying existing overhead lines along Urbandale Drive but asked that execution not be tied to final certificates of occupancy because federal- and utility-agency approvals can slow schedules. The team said they will support burial but sought phasing and staff help to manage coordination.
Council members probed details including fire access, parking circulation, the feasibility of burying utilities and whether proposed material substitutions preserve pedestrian character. Several members said they liked the latest iteration of the interior access road and the team’s pedestrian-first treatment (diverse ground treatments, crossings, landscaping and bollards) but expressed continuing concern about waivers that could diminish streetscape or safety.
Staff reiterated which variances it now supports and which it still recommends denying; some denials remain because requests would conflict with streetscape or pedestrian-oriented requirements or create safety issues. The council did not take a final vote at the work session; the matter is expected to return for a formal action at the upcoming meeting when additional materials and any final conditions will be considered.
