NPU F rejects Beltline proposal for 10th and Monroe
November 17, 2009 at 9:26 pm by Thomas Wheatley in News
NEIN Residents raised powerful pink slips to show opposition to Beltline's plan for Northeast Atlanta
After months of heated meetings, sitdowns and redesigns, Neighborhood Planning Unit F members on Monday night hoisted pink Post-It notes of disapproval in the air and voted overwhelmingly to reject the Beltline’s proposed vision for Northeast Atlanta.
Armed with legal opinions, mocked-up photos and fact sheets, residents of Morningside, Piedmont Heights and Virginia-Highland packed the Hillside Facility on Monroe Drive to exercise their Maynard-given right and weigh in on the hot-button issue.
In doing so, residents joined several other neighborhood associations in opposition to the plan. Monday night’s final vote tallied 99-7, with four residents abstaining. Beltline officials were visibly discouraged.
While the entire planning segment that stretches from Ansley Mall to Ponce de Leon Avenue was up for consideration, the focus, as it has been for months, was on the dysfunctional intersection of 10th Street and Monroe Drive — or more specifically, what Beltline officials had proposed for the triangle-shaped property to its north.
As proposed by Beltline planners, future developers would be allowed to build as high as eight stories at the corner that calls Piedmont Park a neighbor. Adjacent developments could be no taller than four stories on the property. It’s a far cry from Gwinnett County developer Wayne Mason’s 2006 plan to erect twin towers taller than 30 stories at the same location — and half the height Beltline officials had originally proposed. But it still didn’t meet residents’ approval.
Beltline planners’ idea: Allow mixed-use buildings at an intersection that could equally serves pedestrians, motorists and the project’s transit component, and voila, you’d have a nearby smart-growth village and a grand gateway befitting the city’s most iconic greenspace. The proposed four- and eight-story allowances, Beltline officials said, could help make the project more competitive for federal transit funding and pay for greenspace, trails and intersection improvements at 10th and Monroe and throughout the project area. (One possibility bandied about was converting the gravel lot next to Park Tavern — referred to by one planner as a “five-acre eyesore”— into greenspace and relocating parking underground.)
Fred Yalouris, the project’s design director, said project planners thought the concept offered the greatest benefit to “the community, project and city as a whole.”
“We felt it was a really, really good design that could set the tone for development that will happen [in that area] one way or the other,” Yalouris said. “And raise the bar at the same time.”
But residents — who stressed that their opposition wasn’t a vote against the Beltline as a whole, just the proposal — felt differently. They said the proposed vision would contradict previously approved plans to preserve the property as open space, contribute to congestion along Monroe Drive, and encroach upon adjacent residential neighborhoods. In doing so, residents argued, the vision Beltline officials said was needed to help make the $2.8 billion project a reality would violate one of its own aims: to enhance and preserve existing single-family neighborhoods. What’s more, residents feared the changes would allow developers to take advantage of a legal loophole and possibly construct even taller buildings.
The plan now moves to the Atlanta City Council Community Development/Human Resources Committee, which is expected to take up the issue in December. Whereas previous Beltline plans have sailed through council, the segment in question comes with fierce opposition. (Piedmont Heights, Virginia-Highland and Midtown neighborhood associations have all expressed concerns about the concept. NPU E also gave the proposal a thumbs down.) Some community members hope council will tap the brakes on the proposal and wait out the lame ducks at City Hall. Liz Coyle and Alex Wan, candidates for City Council District 6, are both in favor of letting the next administration and council vote on the issue.
Political hopefuls, obviously aware that likely voters in one of the city’s most politically active districts would be on hand, were smart to make an appearance. Both Wan and Coyle were in attendance. City Council President candidates Clair Muller and Ceasar Mitchell were shaking hands. Amir Farokhi, who’s facing Aaron Watson in a runoff for the Post 2 At-Large seat being vacated by Norwood, also attended the meeting.
One thing to keep in mind: Should council take residents’ concerns into consideration and fail to approve the plan, the Northeast portion of the Beltline might be without the framework — i.e. new street grids, intersection improvements — that the city will expect future development to follow. It’d be a first thus far for the project. Don’t know how that will all shake out just yet.
(Photo by Thomas Wheatley. That’s not my hand.)
November 17th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
That intersection is a nightmare for pedestrians, and really for cyclists and drivers too. The Beltline proposal is actually a great development plan for that area whether or not the Beltline happens.
The sad thing is that there has been so much bad, ugly, and inappropriate development in the City that neighborhoods get even NIMBYier than usual at the mention of density and redevelopment. Can’t the City just drop the Beltline plan and start working to redevelop areas that actually WANT the effort?
Are any of these candidates in attendance actually innovative enough to think outside the Beltline box? Granted, that’s not the role of the district-specific city councilperson, but the at-large and president positions – and especially the mayor! – should start thinking beyond the Beltline. If neighborhoods don’t want the whole package, what’s the use?
November 17th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Alex Wan is clearly opposed to the Beltline Subarea 6 Master Plan proposal, and is supporting the neighborhoods. And he is doing so for the right reasons. Liz Coyle is belatedly claiming she is against the proposal, but she did absolutely nothing while on the ABI Board to avoid the train wreck that the Master Plan process has become for Subarea 6. Is this one of the few times in Atlanta’s history when the suck-up to the establishment (read: Liz Coyle) is beaten by the candidate who supports the residents and the voters (read: Alex Coyle)?
November 18th, 2009 at 8:18 am
What baffles me about SubArea 6 and the associated NPU is their lack of understanding, not only about density, but about the viability of transit. Somehow they imagine a light rail transit line to magically appear despite the fact that no one will be riding it because they have voted down the possibility of anyone doing so. There needs to be a certain amount of density to justify building transit. Atlanta is far from that and further attempts to squash reasonable development will only make it less likely that the BeltLine ever gets built. There selfishness and blindly protective nature are stifling the future of the city.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:28 am
One of the biggest charges leveled at anyone in an intown neighborhood is that they want to change it into a suburb. It’s my impression that the majority of people against a lot of the beltline issues seem to want all the cars off the road, not buildings taller than a single family residence, and a pleasant little train rolling through green fields. Sounds an awful lot like that is a suburb vision to me.
If you want the beltline then someone is going to have to pay for it. If you don’t want it then just say so and lest stop wasting time and money.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:31 am
BO: Your confusion is apparent. What makes for successful mass transit it having origin and destination points. Taking a train to work, or an event, or to shop. The corner of Tenth and Monroe is about the only destination currently on the Beltline. What are needed are origination points: Shops, homes, offices, etc. in other parts of Atlanta so people can get from those places to the areas around 10th and Monroe. It would be foolish–but so Atlanta–to take the one destination on the Beltline and muck it up with development that only causes congestion and destroys the qualities that make it attractive. Atlanta should look at creating incentives and fostering development in other locations around the Beltline (especially in areas that have not prospered over the years). This is the only way the Beltline will ever work.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:09 am
First of all, the Beltline is a terrible solution for the transit problem in this city. We already have origins and destinations that are sorely underserved by transit, and they are not along the Beltline. There is not enough density along the BL to support transit (not enough demand), so we have to build density to create the demand, but the neighborhoods are against density, so we argue about it for a few years and nothing happens. Now, creating density is not such a bad thing, but we are dealing with neighborhs that an alternate universe could have just as easily been Glenn Beck Tea Partiers. These people are nuts. The NIMBYs who would really like to live on cul-de-sacs in the middle of a city. They drive little smart cars as though they are just SO concerned with global warming and yet they would have people drive an extra mile out of their way to avoid driving in front of their houses. They have created dead zones where hookers and crack heads hang out, but oh boy did they get rid of that aweful “cut-through traffic.”
The Beltline will make a great trail, but the transit will never come. We need a real transit strategy in this city and we need to change all of the street that lead to the precious single-family neighborhoods into cul-de-sacs. Yes, ALL of them. Once the idiots are trapped in their own paradise, the rest of us can go on living in a CITY, and maybe even enjoy a little progress.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:30 am
It’s funny – at present the Beltline has been planned as a development corridor in which the proposed light-rail transit would be the last component added, supposedly due to cost and construction issues. Now, if people are bitching and moaning about the Beltline now, just wait till they build all those fancy condos and shops (with tons of parking decks, I might add) and then the future residents/tenants in those buildings fight any public transit being added because it’ll be ‘too noisy.’ Classic. The way things are working out right now, the Beltline is the definition of ‘ass-backwards.’
November 18th, 2009 at 10:02 am
“converting the gravel lot next to Park Tavern… into greenspace and relocating parking underground.”
Oh lord, here we go again. Putting “underground” and “parking” in the same sentence gets midtown’s collective panties in a bunch.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Ah, Atlanta — the city of suburbs.
And so the NE section of the Beltline continues to look more and more like a backyard benefit for the few who are lucky enough to live up against it in their detached houses.
Yes, how nice it will be for me to walk down the Beltline path and see, what…the backyards of the houses bordering it? The rear ends of car-dependent, suburban-style strip malls like Ansley Mall and Midtown Promenade?
The Beltline organization is basically building a nice new amenity for the well-off home owners of NE Atlanta while conveniently increasing the re-sale values of their homes. The rich get richer and the poor get the picture.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Concerned Citizen: Your willful ignorance is apparent. If you think Beltline plans only call for new development in the Northeast quadrant, you are seriously mistaken. Plans call for new development (aka “shops, homes, offices, etc.”) in other parts of Atlanta, creating more destinations.
The problem of the NIMBY is that NIMBYs are not against concepts like dense, walkable neighborhoods. They just want it somewhere else. If you were genuinely and honestly in favor of the concept, then you would be in favor of it in your own neighborhood.
The only destination (quality that makes the place attractive) at that corner is Piedmont Park. The surrounding developments could also be turned into origins and destinations with new developments that are more friendly to pedestrians and cyclists.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Joe: The Beltline originally promised development throughout Atlanta. One bond has been issued and another is about to be issued. And ALL the money has gone and will go into the Northeast. Let me repeat that: ALL the money has gone and will go into the Northeast. Are you trying to get people to adopt the “trickle-down” theory? Spend a boatload of tax dollars in the area of the City least in need of government largess and after that a miracle occurs and investment money will trickle down to the SE and SW? It has never happened before. Why think it will happen this time? Let’s invest our tax dollars and plant some seeds in areas of the City that have been bypassed by economic development. Encourage and support development throughout the Beltline, as was promised. Then transit on the Beltline may become viable.
As for whatever you are trying to say about NIMBYs, that nonsense is what one throws out when one has nothing sensible to say.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:06 am
P.S. Joe: Not that it matters, but I live in a dense, walkable neighborhood.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Increased density does not always equal smart growth. In a city famous for its beautiful intown neighborhoods, it makes no sense to allow Atlanta Beltline Inc. to dump high density on top of those vibrant neighborhoods that are dense already. VAHI and Midtown are already walkable communities so starting the dense Beltline plan on the edge of Piedmont Park and in the backyards of people’s homes is just stupid. Putting that density at the corner of Monroe and Piedmont makes alot more sense, as does putting it in Beltline neighborhoods that need the growth. The NIMBYs in NE Atlanta aren’t NIMBYs, we are just asking for responsible development.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:57 am
That’s it. I’m leaving. I want to live in a real city, not a suburb. 8 stories is high density? Get real. And tell the single-family homes behind 905 Juniper that their home values have plummeted because of that new 8-story mixed-use development. That’s a great example of what would be built on the park if this plan were passed.
This issue is nothing more than NIMBYs who don’t want to loose their ‘view’ of Piedmont Park from their backyards. Tell them to buy the land, then! And quite spending my tax dollars to ensure that their private property still has direct access to Piedmont Park!
November 18th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Cookie cutter, did you read the post? The Beltline plan isn’t proposing to add highrises to the Virginia and N. Highland intersection. This proposal discussed at the NPU F meeting was for increased development at the 10th and Monroe intersection, which is very low in density, not pedestrian friendly, dangerous for cyclists, full of street-facing commercial parking lots, and a generally ugly and poorly-planned transition between the very lovely Midtown, Virginia-Highland, and Morningside neighborhoods.
With or without the Beltline, this intersection needs a major makeover, but it will never happen as long as those neighborhood residents get crazed with fear that any sort of change to their ugliest and most unfinished areas will result in some sort of insane mini-Atlantic Station.
The new sidewalks and fences around the backside of Grady HS are just a taste of what a full scale re-planning of that intersection could look like.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“stop the cookie cutter mentality” This post is the very definition of NIMBY. You don’t get to determine how the city will develop for the next 50 years just because you have patch of grass behind your house.
The Beltline plan is appropriate and much needed for the awful, unattractive corner of our bordering the park.
Urbanism on this corner and anywhere else in this city is not only needed but it will IMPROVE the quality of life of the very people against it. It will improve property values, the appearance and the desirability of the neighborhood. This is essentially bringing a Virginia Highland-like district to within walking distance of your home!
People live in such places all over the world! Get over yourselves and your selfish desire to have no change come to your little (ugly) slice of heaven.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Amen to that, Robin. My family and I are weary of waiting for Atlanta to develop the kind of truly pedestrian-friendly, compact urban neighborhoods that we’ve experienced when visiting other large cities.
Progress has been made and there are some great walkable spots, but they’re too spread apart and MARTA doesn’t do a good job of connecting them for people who want to be less car-dependent. I tried to live without a car for a year in ViHi and was disappointed — narrow, crumbling sidewalks, no MARTA train station, winding bus routes and dangerous pedestrian crossings on Ponce made it too difficult.
We’ve been shopping around and have a list of places where we could move. Sucks though — I’m a native and I’ve never lived anywhere else but Atlanta. I’m just not sure we’ll see the kind of urban livability we want here soon enough for us to enjoy it. I’d love for the Beltline to disprove my pessimism, but I’m losing hope.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
robin
905 Juniper is a great example of a well done urban 8-story building next to single family homes and somehow the nearby single-family homes haven’t sunk into a black hole.
The fact of the matter is that there is ALREADY commercial development in this area and all of it is UGLY. There is ALREADY an 10-story building in the same area.
Someone made the point and I agree that Atlanta has seen so much bad development that its understandable that some people are against new development but this plan is about urbanism – something this city DESPERATELY needs wherever its possible to build it.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Concerned Citizen,
The part of the Beltline trail that has already been built is in the SW quadrant.
There’s also a groundbreaking on December 11th for the 2nd mile, also in the SW quadrant.
So when you say things like: “ALL the money has gone and will go into the Northeast,” it’s not really based in reality.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Would the urbanism boosters on here please tell us why Buckhead along Peachtree and Piedmont with their high density are also so congested? That’s what you want to do along Monroe next, right?
How about put your stuff where your mouth is. Put up condos with no parking spaces,that don’t add to traffic. See how many takers your new urbanism really gets in spots where there’s no MARTA line in an easy walk. Truth is there’s little demand for the urbanism built so far in midtown, is there?
November 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Hey, here’s some big Beltline news! The Atlanta Development Authority is selling off right of first dibs to Beltline fans who want to ride on the inaugural light rail train trip! Yep, you can be first to ride the light rails for only $50. Just go to the ADA offices this Friday at 8 a.m., hand the receptionist $50 and you’ll get a certificate of authenticity plus a free Beltline train engineer’s cap thrown in. Choo choo!
November 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
If there is one thing I could change about the discussion of development issues in this city, it would be to introduce a two-word phrase: medium density.
So often these issues are discussed as if there were only two options: low-density single-family residences, and high-density 40 story towers. Well, we shot down the latter, thankfully, as Mason’s idea had no place in that area. I think one should be able to have a reasoned argument over an 8-story building on that spot; I’m not sure which side I’d come down on. But surely 4-story buildings are medium-density, and entirely appropriate for that intersection. It would be a big improvement over the crummy strip mall spaces there now.
To get an idea about what medium-density development along the Beltline can and should look like, visit Glenwood Park. We should have a dozen versions of Glenwood Park (each with its own character) threaded along the Beltline. By the way, Glenwood Park is a long way from the Northeast quadrant, so let’s have no more of this myth that all the Beltline related development is on the north side.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
One point not addressed by the comments is that the BeltLine’s process leading to the proposed Master Plan was terribly flawed. Citizen input was throttled and ignored. The organizers of the sessions had their minds made up prior to even beginning, and they clumsily navigated their way to their pre-ordained result. Whether one wants green space, single-family, or mid-rise, all should agree that genuine community engagement is essential to the success of the BeltLine. The BeltLine honchos need to understand that they are not the only ones with ideas or a vision for Atlanta and the BeltLine. Some humility and listening on their part would go a long way to producing better results. For that matter, getting rid of Fred Yalouris, EDAW, Nate Conable, and Jonathan Lewis would contribute mightily to crafting a Master Plan that truly serves the needs of the overall community.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:58 am
cityzen
There is a difference between density and urbanism. Urbanism IS NOT about density, its about walkability. Buckhead is just dense sprawl. Most of the development there was built with ONLY the automobile in mind.
If a neighborhood is walkable it can have any range of density’s and still be desirable. The fact of the matter is that the most desirable parts of the city, with the exception of Buckhead, are its most urban parts – L5P, Va-HI, EAV, Farlie-Poplar, Midtown.
As far as congestion is concerned, anyone in the city or metro can drive on Monroe Drive. Its not restricted to those living in the neighborhood. Because YOU LIVE IN A CITY, there is likely to be congestion with or without this Beltline plan. The only choice we have is traffic with an attractive walkable area bordering our most popular park or traffic with the ugly crap thats there now.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:58 am
what morons. they need to just completely pull out of the NE. you can’t reason with these people.
November 20th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Monroe is going to be a main artery of anyone living on the east side anyways. Why not try to improve some of the terrible traffic that already exist by allowing people the option of mass trasit. DC is perfect example of the way that Atlanta should model its transit issues. Keep the older neighborhoods in tact but just put pockets of development around these neighborhoods. The inman park village is a pretty good example.
A second thought, isn’t the reason that they want to develop that area first due to the fact that the land is worth alot more… so more tax revenue. Its alot easier to sell someone a condo next to piedmont park than in SE Atlanta
November 20th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
I live in District 6 and support the Beltline. Unfortunately, my choices for the district seat are 2 people who kowtow to the NPU wackos. If the NPUs aren’t led by more visionary people instead of NIMBY’ers the Beltline is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
@Intown Lib, Wayne Mason thanks you very much for your blind support of whatever the Beltline has decided to be today. The only emerald necklace anyone has seen is the one he gave his wife last Xmas out of the $40mm profit he turned. Gotta pay for that somehow – let’s see, how bout some condos down another side of the city’s best park?
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:50 am
There is so much misinformation about the opposition to the plans for 10th & Monroe and the Subarea 6 Master Plan. For purposes of the supposed traffic analysis that was done for Subarea 6, ABI assumed that 4,889 units would be built between Ansley Mall and the Home Depot shopping center. ABI has also stated that this will DOUBLE the density of Subarea 6. The plan calls for a 15 story building at Ansley Mall surrounded by 5 – 9 story buildings, 5 – 9 story buildings at Amsterdam Mall, 1 – 4 stories at the Midtown Fit stip mall at 10th & Monroe, and 5 – 9 stories at Midtown Promenade (Trader Joes and the movie theater) and the Home Depot shopping center. And of course, 8 stories on Piedmont Park at 10th & Monroe and 4 story buildings on land that is zoned single family that is directly behind single family homes. It is crazy to say that the development at 10th & Monroe is needed for the BeltLine given the high amount of density proposed all around that area from Amsterdam Mall to directly across the street from that corner! This is not a NIMBY issue. The Redevelopment Plan, which was voted on by City Council to create the BeltLine TAD, calls for this land to be open space. Furthermore, it says that development within 150 feet of single family homes should be limited to 5 stories. Thus, the plan for 8 stories at 10th & Monroe violates the specific provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for open space and the general height guidelines in the plan. In addition, it goes against the 4 story limit for development on the Midtown side of Piedmont Park. Another disingenuous argument is that development is needed on the Park side of 10th & Monroe to support traffic and intersection improvements at this corner. Why can’t the development that’s proposed on the other side of 10th & Monroe (across from the Park), and all of othe other development proposed for Subarea 6, fund these improvement?
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
This topic is being treated as if it’s a game of Sim City rather than a real discussion about real neighborhoods populated by real people who are very familiar with the SubArea 6 plan and its impacts. The general topic of “development” had very little to do with what motivated the citizens at the NPU-F meeting. I’m sorry the writers who are characterizing the NPU as “anti-Beltline” or “nimbies” weren’t able to attend, hear, and consider the arguments. After hearing them they might still favor the SubArea 6 plan, but at least we’d be talking about the specific points that animated the discussion and drove the 99-7 vote, to wit: the land use changes that Atlanta Beltline Inc. (ABI) is insisting on will – in the opinion of multiple real estate lawyers – open wide the door for future land use changes of existing R-4 single-family houses further north along Monroe and Cresthill. To make it clear that such changes are not an abstraction, the assembly of the properties north to Cresthill and on the south side of that street heading west to the Park – is almost complete and – lest there be any lingering doubts of the intent of the assembly – the developer was present at the meting and outlined his view that tearing those homes down and replacing with them with 4-8 story condos would represent “the crown jewel of the Beltline.”
Nor – if that occurs – is it clear why similar results could not occur further north on Monroe.
ABI’s response: “We’re not proposing that. We’re not asking that those areas’ land use be changed or rezoned.” Right; they’re not, but as several lawyers pointed out, the the tenets of the Georgia Supreme Court decision in TAP v. Atlanta (2202) in a remarkably similar case in Buckhead give the developer a lot of reasons – several million dollars of them, it appears – to believe that his land assembly will yield results.
(You may read the decision at: http://www.nbca.org/TAPAssociatesDecision.htm)
ABI’s response to this: nada, nil, nuttin’. The usually voluble ABI spokesmen Fred Yaloris and Jonathan Lewis declined to comment.
There are a plethora of opinions about other SubArea features in this and every other group – traffic along Monroe is a big concern, since it’s already quite congested – but what dominated the discussion and drove the vote (at the Midtown Neighborhood Association, NPU-E, the Virginia-Highland Civic Association, and NPU-F) was not new condos along the Beltline but the very real prospect of the loss of old single-family housing in areas that Atlanta Beltline Inc. specifically promised – in writing – would stay that way.
The resolution at all those groups specifically supported the original Beltline vision and promises and noted the significant ways that this plan fails to achieve them.
I will see if we can post the maps and documents that were available to the crowd on the NPU-F web site. Again, one might read them and still think the plan is fine, but at least you’ll know what your neighbors were thinking. And it’s not to kill the Beltline.
Jack White
NPU-F
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:16 pm
VaHi and Mr. White: Your comments are well-thought out. The question is not whether some of us like 8 stories or 4 stories or single family or park space. The questions are what is the best long-term land use plan, what are the impacts on the neighborhoods, what are the promises of the BeltLine, and how does the community have a say in what is going on. Atlanta Beltline Inc. has been trying to ram this through for reasons only they can understand, and the reasons sure do not make sense to the scores of people who diligently attended the planning meetings and discussed the issues and ideas. This is just how Atlanta Beltline refused to engage the community and tried to ram through ill-advised projects throughout other parts of the city including Tanyard Creek and the West End trail.