Applicant for rezoning of Mableton Parkway property withdraws request

Punky Pooh, LLC. withdrew its request for the rezoning of an irregularly shaped parcel of land that runs between Mableton Parkway and  Glore Circle.  The applicant had wanted to change the parcel from its current R-20 single-family residential zoning to Fee Simple Townhouse (FST). The addresses of the property are 5678 Mableton Parkway, and 725 and 727 Glore Circle.

Charles Robertson, the attorney for the developer, told the Courier prior to the hearing that the company could not meet the conditions put forward by the Mableton Improvement Coalition and make a profit on the venture.

Carried over from May hearing

He had made similar comments at the commission’s May hearing, when he said, “We’ve had, frankly, some frustrating… some successful, and some frustrating meetings with representatives from the community, with nearby and contiguous neighbors who have expressed to us their enthusiasm and support for the property.  We have met with and spoken with some people who have interest in the community overall, who have been more demanding in what they expect this project to produce and approve, and economically we are concerned.  We had some room to operate on this but with a real estate environment and the property that’s available to us, and the expectations on the property, some of the things that we have been asked to try to incorporate into this by community activists, we’re stuck.”

[epq-quote align=”align-left”]We had some room to operate on this but with a real estate environment and the property that’s available to us, and the expectations on the property, some of the things that we have been asked to try to incorporate into this by community activists, we’re stuck. — Charles Robertson[/epq-quote]

At that same May hearing Robin Meyer of the Mableton Improvement Coalition, speaking in opposition to approval, said, “The single biggest thing we need here is a standard site plan that includes the dimensions of the property and the dimensions of the building, (and) draws in the required buffers.”  She said that by her arithmetic it would be impossible to determine the placement and dimensions of the buildings from the drawings as they were presented. “I’m afraid we would still have to recommend that you certainly not approve this project at this point.  In all honesty, perhaps a continuance is a good idea to see if there can be made a conventional drawing like we see on all other residential buildings.  In all honesty, since that drawing has not been forthcoming, in all the time that this project has been underway, almost 45 days since we first saw this drawing, I am not very hopeful it will be.”

[epq-quote align=”align-left”]In all honesty, perhaps a continuance is a good idea to see if there can be made a conventional drawing like we see on all other residential buildings — Robin Meyer of MIC[/epq-quote]

She said the impact on the neighborhood would be impossible to determine from the drawings as presented.  She said that development would be very visible, and the drawings of the townhouses weren’t adequate for determining how the finished project would look.

The Planning Commission agreed and postponed the case until the July hearing to allow the applicant to present a new site plan.

The commission accepted the withdrawal “without prejudice,” which means the applicant can resubmit at a later date if it so chooses.