Councilman Shook Weighs in on Lindbergh 'Big Box'

Howard Shook, District 7 Councilman, told the Buckhead Council of Neighborhoods Thursday night he has yet to hear how the controversial development violates the much discussed SPI-15.

District 7 Atlanta City Councilman Howard Shook spoke to the Buckhead Council of Neighborhoods (BCN) on Thursday night to give an update on the Lindbergh "Big Box" saga. He also took time explain his stance on the issue after .

Because of a lack of quorum, the recent hearing of the council's zoning committee, the next step in the long process, was rescheduled for the morning of Aug. 20 — the same day the full council is set to meet.

"I'm going to continue to ask my colleagues to hold it there in committee for further discussion. The applicant has said they are fine with that," Shook said.

Shook explained that what . want to do is take a 21 acre portion of a much larger area governed by a law called SPI-15, currently designated for high density residential only, and turn it into mixed use that is slightly less than half retail. The retail would include a large anchor unit, widely believed to be a Walmart and smaller retail stores. Slightly more than half of the square footage would remain residential and include a 3 acre, $8 million dollar park as well as part of a concession by Fuqua.

"," Shook said. "I've been oblivious until now of the wild and wacky world of all that."

Discussion then ensued about the crime generated by the Walmart on Howell Mill Road. Shook said that any development coming in would cause an increase in some kind of crime because there is currently nothing there. The area is hardly pristine now, he said, in terms of crime. 

"You don't want to be walking around there."

While many opponents cite a violation of SPI-15 as the main reason the development shouldn't be allowed, Shook explained that SPI-15 does not place the limitations that those opposed to the development think it does. He said that while he does not support the development, his duty is to decide whether or not it meets the requirements of SPI-15.

"It [SPI-15] is its not what people thought they were writing," he said. "It is weak," he said.

Questions such as, are there too many big box retailers too close together, should the parking be decked and should the uses be stacked are not addressed by SPI-15, Shook said. 

"A lot of people assume those kinds of protections are in the SPI…none of them are."

While Shook said he has received countless emails in opposition to the development, he has yet to hear from anyone, including board members, how it specifically violates SPI-15.

"I need somebody to do something other than assume somebody else is going to explain how this fails SPI-15," he said. "My heart sank a little bit when the lone nay vote admitted publicly that he thinks it meets the criteria. When that gets into court, stuff like that is just devastating."

The parking lot that seems to be the focal point of much of the opposition even meets the requirements of SPI-15, Shook said. SPI-15 defines the parking to be capped at 3.7 spaces per 1000 square feet of retail, which the development adheres to.

"You want mixed use so you can walk, which is what this development represents," he said. 

While Shook said the development, as has been presented, is mixed use, made clear with documentation that its listed intent is commercial. She and others at the meeting expressed concern over this discrepancy.

"I find it interesting that everybody says that they meet the requirements of the SPI-15 district," Rawlings said. "If indeed they met the requirements, they wouldn't need a rezoning."

"I'm going by what has been presented," Shook said in response. "I am aware that there is a back door issue that needs to be locked up to make sure that somehow this doesn't end up being totally commercial, which I have committed to do."

Rawlings asked Shook point blank if he would vote in opposition if he was presented with a list of how the development violates SPI-15.

"If you show me facts, I will follow you around all day long," Shook replied.

BCN Chairman Jim King told Shook he is worried about the precedent that would be set if the rezoning takes place and questioned why Shook hasn't asked for help to find more votes in opposition to the development.

"The neighborhoods want you to vote no," King said. "It is your district. I think they [other council members] will respect you if you represent your neighborhoods. I've seen you vote many times on principal before on other issues and I think this is an issue to the neighborhoods that is a matter of principal."

"With well contracted developers and their attorneys, and an administration that would love to see us start crawling out of our depression, I don't have a monopoly on the outcome of this," Shook said.

He went on to explain that council members are going to be told that the development meets the legal criteria as asserted by the planning department, ZRB and some neighborhood members - even ones that don't like the project. 

"They are going to listen to me, some more than others, although there will be some that, the more they become aware with Buckhead's displeasure with the project, the more enticing it will become to vote for it," he explained.

"It is zoned residential and they want to change it to commercial. That doesn't seem like people are acting in good faith with whatever SPI-15 is, however weak it is," King said. "If that is what the agreement was, that it be residential, the City is not acting in good faith on that. That is the way it comes across and i think that is what is rubbing everybody wrong."

King and others at the meeting, including NPU-B's Andrea Bennet agreed that a logical step toward fighting the development would be to get the land use changed. 

Until August 20, Shook said he is eagerly awaiting more information from those opposed to the project that he will be able to act on. 

"The more people that talk about it, I honestly feel like some kind of consensus will begin to emerge," he said. "I'm in listening mode. What i am trying to do right now is engage the public and have you tell me what it is you like and don't like about the project." 

Kathleen Moriarty August 13, 2012 at 03:39 PM
Your comment "turn it into mixed use that is slightly less than half retail. " is very misleadin. Yes, in terms of built out and occupied square footage, the retail is slightly less than half- but in terms of area - which would include the Walmart Sea parking lot - it is closer to 2/3. You are using the same misleading metrics that the planning dep't uses to mask the reality of these hideous developments. Kathleen Moriarty
Colleen Nevitt August 16, 2012 at 01:51 AM
Walmart=groceries is like saying Marta=limousine. Sure, Walmart HAS groceries but ewwww. I certainly think most Lindberghites would agree a Wholefood / organic approach fits nicely. Just go look at how busy the Lavista location is. A nice park for all these wonderful kids and pets lots of us have is sorely needed. There is not one park in safe walking distance of our neighborhood. Btw, has anyone seen the "guests" a Walmart is accustom to attracting? Atlanta metro-sexuals will need to remove and wash ttheir eyeballs to get rid of that image! Seriously, Lindbergh is not a "big box" area and certainly those of us who live here must understand this. The person who said" desperate times call for desperate actions" I bet never set foot in a Walmart. Or better yet, had one in their front yard!
Aaron Portier August 20, 2012 at 06:11 PM
I believe there was a small grocery store near the Taco Mac on Main I think is the street. If we need groceries so bad why did that place close? Walmart is disgusting look at brookhaven who made the Residential commercial thing work there is no Walmart in that area for a reason. I want to know who are the goverment officials who are allowing this and who are stopping it once I find out I will make sure they never see public office again.
Bryan January 15, 2013 at 07:04 PM
This is what an urban Walmart should look like: http://exmiami.org/threads/midtown-miami-walmart-renderings-released.10/
Tim January 16, 2013 at 07:02 PM
Interesting that Councilman Shook recently voted against gay marriage support saying that he must vote according to what his constituants want (questionable in that case) but is not voting for what his constituants want in this case. Hmmm...


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »