Public Hearing: YES ☒ NO ☐ Department: Planning & Sustainability
SUBJECT:
Title
Commission District(s): 1 and 7
Application of Urbanvue Apartments c/o Battle Law, P.C. to rezone properties from O-I (Office-Institutional) zoning district to MR-1 (Medium Density Residential-1) zoning district to allow a townhome community. at 3003 Chamblee-Tucker Road; 2936 Mercer University Drive.
Body
PETITION NO: D2-2026-0139 Z-26-1247923
PROPOSED USE: A townhome community.
LOCATION: 3003 Chamblee-Tucker Road; 2936 Mercer University Dr., Chamblee, GA 30341
PARCEL NO. : 18 283 04 001; 18 266 05 014
INFO. CONTACT: Andrea Folgherait, Sr. Planner
PHONE NUMBER: 404-371-2155
PURPOSE:
Application of Urbanvue Apartments c/o Battle Law, P.C. to rezone properties from O-I (Office-Institutional) zoning district to MR-1 (Medium Density Residential-1) zoning district to allow a townhome community.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommended Action
COMMUNITY COUNCIL: (June 2026) Approval with Condition(s). Feb. 2026) Approval with a condition.
PLANNING COMMISSION: (July 7, 2026) Approval w/Conditions. (March 3, 2026) Full-cycle deferral.
PLANNING STAFF: (08.13.2026 BOC) Denial_08.03.2026. (March 2026) Two-Cycle Deferral.
STAFF ANALYSIS: The Applicant is requesting a rezone from O-I (Office-Institutional) zoning district to MR-1 (Medium Density Residential-1) zoning district to develop a forty-one (41) unit townhome community (7.25 units/acre). In 2023, the applicant sought a Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) to redevelop an existing office building into a multifamily residential apartment building with newly constructed townhomes consisting of fifty (50) units in total. Due to market conditions, the applicant is now seeking the current proposal (attached townhomes) requiring a rezoning. The subject property is located within the Regional Center (RC) Character Area, which encourages higher intensity, walkable, mixed-use development through an interconnected street and pedestrian network. Although the proposal specifies a live-work unit(s), the development consists predominantly of attached townhomes and does not achieve the urban form envisioned for a RC. As an infill redevelopment site, the proposal should reinforce the existing and planned street and pedestrian network. However, the development is oriented towards an internal stub street system, rather than a more integrated extension of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposal does not capitalize on its adjacency to the planned North Fork Peachtree Creek Greenway by establishing active frontages or orienting development toward this future public amenity. Staff acknowledges the site's physical constraints, including a stream buffer along the western property line and a required thirty-foot (30) transitional buffer adjacent to the R-100 zoning district to the east. The proposal appears to meet the dimensional standards of the MR-1 district in accordance with Section 2.11.2 (Dimensional Requirements), and the revised Conceptual Site Plan dated May 7, 2026, addresses a few Staff comments, including modifications to the hammerhead turnaround. However, compliance with the dimensional standards alone does not satisfy the purpose and intent of the MR-1 district. The revised site plan remains substantially similar to the previous submittal and continues to function as a conventional residential subdivision rather than the interconnected, development pattern envisioned by the district. As proposed, the development does not appear to advance the district's objectives of providing a mix of residential forms, supporting multimodal connectivity, and integrating with surrounding development. While the proposal generally satisfies the dimensional requirements of the MR-1 zoning district, Staff finds that it does not fully implement the purpose and intent of the MR-1 zoning district or the RC Character Area. As proposed, the requested rezoning is not consistent with the applicable rezone criteria of Section 27-7.4.5, particularly with respect to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan (RC), suitability in relation to surrounding development, and changing conditions affecting the area (7.4.5 A, B, E). Therefore, Staff recommends ”Denial”.
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE: (July 7, 2026) Approval with two (2) Conditions 7-1-0. Motion was made by Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Patton for approval with the following conditions: 1) There be a 25% rental cap, per Community Council District 1 recommendation; and 2) An opaque fence shall be added in the rear of the property. Commissioner West opposed. Pending. (March 3, 2026) Full-Cycle Deferral 7-0-0. Motion was made by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Moore for a full-cycle deferral, per Staff recommendation.
COMMUNITY COUNCIL VOTE/RECOMMENDATION: (June 2026) Approval with a condition (5-0-0) that the development allows no more than 25% rental units.