C I T Y O F a T L a N

Home , Atlanta Student Movement, History of Atlanta

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

KEISHA LANCE BOTTOMS DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING TIM KEANE MAYOR 55 Trinity Avenue, S.W. SUITE 3350 – ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-0308 Commissioner 404-330-6145 – FAX: 404-658-7491 www.atlantaga.gov KEVIN BACON, AIA, AICP Director, Office of Design

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 389 Hopkins St.

APPLICATION: CA2-20-255

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: West End Historic District Other Zoning: R-4A / Beltline.

Date of Construction: Vacant

Property Location: West block face of Hopkins St., north of Greenwich St., south of the Sells Ave.

Contributing (Y/N)?: N/A. Building Type / Architectural form/style: Infill.

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: New Construction of a SFR.

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: N/A.

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20 and Sec. 16-20G

Deferred Application (Y/N)?: Yes. Deferred 03/10/2021. Updated text in Underlined Italics.

Previous Applications/Known Issues: In May of 2020, Staff was alerted to concerns that the house was being built taller than was approved by the Commission and other issues with the as built design not matching the design approved by the Commission. In an investigation of the situation, Staff discovered that the height comparison provided by the Applicant was inaccurate, leading to the Commission approving a height range which was 10’ taller than the tallest historic home on the block face. Other inaccuracies in the construction, including an as built first floor height which exceeded the allowable maximum by 2 feet, were also discovered. At the September 23, 2020 public hearing, the Commission denied application CA3-20-254 for a variance to increase the allowable height and foundation height. Staff will include the analysis of this review for the record but will remove the recommended actions to avoid confusion. At the 03/10/2021 meeting the Commission denied application CA3-21-063 for a variance to increase the allowable height. Staff will include the analysis of this review for the record but will remove the recommended actions to avoid confusion.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION CA3-20-255: Approval with conditions.

CA2-20-255 for 389 Hopkins St. March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 6

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Sec. 16-20 & Sec. 16-20G of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

CA3-21-063 The requested variance is to increase the allowable height from a maximum of 17’ as measured from grade to the midpoint of the roof to 19’ as measured from grade to the midpoint of the roof.

There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape or topography; The Applicant cites a sewer line that is directly behind the footprint of the current home which restricts the buildable area of the lot.

The application of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship; The Applicant states that the application of the Zoning Ordinance would require them to design and build a one story home that is smaller than the current proposal.

Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; The Applicant states again that the buildable area of the lot is limited.

Staff finds that the criteria for granting a variance have not been met and that the Applicant has not established that building a smaller one-story home would constitute an unnecessary hardship given that the regulations are intended to produce homes that are compatible with the massing of the historic homes on the subject block face. Staff also finds that opportunity for the development of additional square footage exists in the rear of the property through the allowances for Accessory Dwelling Units under the R-4A zoning even taking into account the smaller buildable area resulting from the sewer easements.

CA3-20-254 – Variance The requested variance is to allow an increase in the allowable height from a maximum of 17’ as measured from grade at the front façade to the midpoint of the roof to 23’ as measured from grade to the midpoint of the roof, and to allow an increase in the allowable first floor height from 1’6” to 3’ 6”.

There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape or topography; The Applicant cites the existence of two storm sewer easements that severely restrict the site as the extraordinary and exceptional condition on the lot.

The application of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship; The Applicant states that the regulations as proposed would require a 1 story home to be built. Staff finds that this assessment is inaccurate as the regulations speak to the maximum CA2-20-255 for 389 Hopkins St. March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 6

height of the house and not the number of stories. Staff also finds that the horizontal constraints of the lot do not require a first floor height which exceeds the maximum on the block face. Staff finds that there are several creative design solutions which could allow for a home with more than one story that meets the height requirements as well as all other requirements of the West End Historic District zoning regulations. Staff further finds that this argument does not tie to the first criterion, as the hardship on the property are horizontal site constraints which do not require the structure or first floor height to be built taller than would otherwise be permitted.

Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; The Applicant again cites the limitations of the buildable area of the lot. While there may be some limitations on the buildable area, staff finds that site constraints do not require a structure or first floor height to be built taller than otherwise allowed as there are multiple design solutions that could be used to address the issues.

Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta. The Applicant states that the granting of the requested variances would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta. Staff disagrees with this statement as the compatibility rule is intended to protect the public good by ensuring that new development conforms to, and does not detract from, to the character of the historic structures on the block.

Staff finds that the Applicant has not satisfied the variance criteria. While the lot constraints do constitute a hardship for horizontal expansion, Staff finds that the hardship does not directly relate to the project requiring an increased building or first floor height over what would otherwise be allowed. As such, Staff does not support the variance request.

CA2-20-255 – Revisions to previously approved plans Given Staff’s recommendations to the variance requests, Staff finds that major redesign and reconstruction would be required for the property to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff additionally finds that this process could result in a design which is largely different from the one previously approved by the Commission which was based on the incorrect comparison analysis provided by the Applicant. As such, Staff recommends a deferral of the application to allow the Applicant time to re-design the project to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

Due to the number and nature of the revisions from the original design proposed, Staff will address each revision independently in separate sections. Staff would note for the benefit of both the Applicant and Commission that the revisions proposed both attempt to meet and at the same time violate portions of the West End Historic District (WEHD) zoning regulations. Of notable concern to Staff is the revised roof form which does not emulate any of the historic roof forms on the block face. Additionally, Staff has concerns regarding the methods of addressing the violations such as the foundation height reduction. These issues will be specifically identified in Staff’s analysis below.

Height The Applicant has revised their drawing to show a structure of compliant height. Staff finds that this revision meets both the District regulations and the Commission’s decision to deny the variance application to meet the height requirements of the WEHD zoning regulations.

CA2-20-255 for 389 Hopkins St. March 24, 2021 Page 4 of 6

The Applicant has revised their design and the height as measured from grade to the midpoint of the roof is now 19’. As such, Staff recommends the height of the structure meet the District regulations.

Per the revised plan set received for the 03/24/2021 public hearing, the height of the structure from grade to midpoint has been revised to 17’. As such, Staff finds this recommendation has been met.

Foundation and First Floor Height The Applicant has lowered their first floor height to 10”. Per the Applicant’s comparison analysis the range of comparable structures contain first floor heights between 1’ 6” and 2’ 8”. As such, Staff finds the first floor height above grade does not meet the District regulations. Staff recommends the first floor elevation be revised to meet the District regulations.

The plans have been revised to show a 24” first floor elevation. Staff finds this recommendation has been met.

The revised plan set received for the 03/24/2021 meeting show the first floor height lowered to 1’ 6”. Staff would note that per the earlier analysis, this first floor height would meet the compatibility rule.

The revised plans note “Lowered foundation height” but no information has been given to detail how the new foundation height will be achieved. Staff has concerns that the intent of the project is to alter the grade of the site to accommodate the existing foundation without properly altering the foundation to a compliant height. Staff recommends the Applicant detail how the foundation height issue will be addressed. Staff further recommends that the grade of the site not be altered to address the foundation height issues.

The Applicant has provided explanation that the house will be temporarily raised and the foundation will be cut to conform to the zoning regulations. No grading to accommodate a shorter first floor elevation will occur. Staff finds that these responses meet the recommendation.

Roof pitch and shape The Commission’s original approval required the proposed structure to contain a roof pitch of 10 in 12. The proposed structure contains several roof pitches associated with the primary roof planes which range from 14 in 12 and 4 in 12. Staff finds that the proposed roof pitch does not meet the standard set by the comparable properties on the block face.

The Applicant has revised the roof shape to show a clipped or chamfered gable on the front façade. The predominate roof shape on the block face is a front facing gable. Staff finds no evidence to support the use of a clipped or chamfered gable on the front façade of the subject property.

In looking at the proposed revisions, it is clear that the second floor and roof structure of the as-built structure will be removed in order to accommodate the proposed non-compliant roof design. Staff finds that the removal of the as built roof is an opportunity to bring the second floor and roof of the structure into full compliance with the District regulations. As such, Staff recommends the roof shape be revised to meet the District regulations. Staff further recommends the roof pitch be revised to show a 10 in 12 primary roof pitch.

The revised drawings show a structure with a front facing gable with a 10:12 pitch which is compatible with the block face per the Applicant’s compatibility comparisons. Staff finds these recommendations have been met. CA2-20-255 for 389 Hopkins St. March 24, 2021 Page 5 of 6

The revised plan set for the 03/24/2021 review states that the pitch of the structure is 10:12. However, Staff’s measurements are showing the pitch of the structure at 8:12. Staff recommends the roof pitch be 10:12.

Front Steps The front porch steps have been removed from the plans. Staff finds that this is likely an oversight given that the structure would require at least one step to overcome the elevation gain of the front porch relative to grade. As the majority of original porches on the block face contain front porch steps, the WEDH zoning regulations require that steps be put on the proposed structure. In reviewing the as built structure against the approved designs, Staff noted that the as built structure contained steps that were much wider than the Commission approved. As such, Staff recommends the front porch contain steps meeting the design and dimensions of the original front porch steps on the block face.

The revised plans show front porch steps meeting the design and dimensions of the original front porch steps on the block face per the Applicant’s compatibility comparisons. Staff finds this recommendation has been met.

Trim In the review of the as built structure against the Commission’s approved plans, Staff noted several issues related to the trim on the structure associated with the foundation and windows. With regards to the windows, Staff found that the applicant had installed windows with the stock brickmold and then installed trim around the brickmold. A piece of trim had also been added to the bottom of the window. Staff recommends that the Applicant detail how they will resolve the window trim issues present on the as built structure when constructing the new structure.

The Applicant has provided a response stating that the bottom window trim and brickmold trim will be removed, and that flat trim will be added to the windows compatible with the style of trim on original structures on the block face per the compatibility comparisons they have provided. Staff finds this recommendation has been met.

In their original approval, the Commission asked that corner boards be added to the side facades in order to break up the massing of the structure. These corner boards are missing from both the as built structure and the revised drawings. As such, Staff recommends that the corner boards required by the Commission in their original approval be added to the structure.

The revised plans show corner boards have been added to the side facades of the structure per the Commission’s previous approval. Staff finds this recommendation has been met.

Overall design In conclusion, Staff wanted to note the significant departures from the zoning regulations which are represented by the current revised proposal, the most notable of which being the proposed non- compliant roof shape and pitch. Staff would strongly recommend the Applicant consider methods of addressing the as built zoning violations that also meet the entirety of the WEHD zoning regulations.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION CA2-20-255: Approval with the following conditions: 1. The roof pitch shall be 10:12, per Sec. 16-20G.006(7)(d); and, 2. Staff shall review and if appropriate, approve the final plans and documentation.

CA2-20-255 for 389 Hopkins St. March 24, 2021 Page 6 of 6

cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 1070 White Oak

APPLICATION: CA2-21-048

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 since February 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Oakland City Historic District Other Zoning: R-4A/Beltline

Date of Construction: 1920

Property Location: West of Peeples Street and East of Lee Street

Contributing (Y/N): Yes, Building Type / Architectural form/style: Folk Victorian

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission:

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Interior

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20M

Deferred Application (Y/N): No

Previous Applications/Known Issues: Stop Work Order was placed on 12/20/20 working out of scope of approved work.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions.

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance Chapter 20, Chapter 20M of the City of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance. CA2-21-048 for 1070 White Oak March 24, 2021

New Comments in Red

PURVIEW COMPATIBILITY STANDARD The Compatibility rule will govern this body of work and read as such “where quantifiable (i.e. building height, setback, etc.), the element or building characteristic in question shall be no less than the smallest such element or building characteristic of buildings or site layouts in that block face that characterizes such like contributing buildings and shall be internally consistent with the historic design of the structure and shall be no greater than the greatest such element or building characteristic of buildings or site layouts in that block face that characterizes such like contributing buildings or site layouts and shall be internally consistent with the historic design of the structure. Where not quantifiable (roof form, architectural trim, etc.), the element or building characteristic in question shall be compatible with that which predominates in such like contributing structures on that block face and shall be internally consistent with the historic design of the structure.”

A Stop Work was placed on this property for working outside of allowable scope of work. Research shows the house had two entries indicating a duplex. As of March 2020, the house still had two entries. From the renderings provided by the Applicant, the house is now shown with one entry.

ALTERATIONS The following alterations will be addressed in this report: Siding repair, removing the ramp, replacing the concrete columns, replacing the railings, replacing the front door, replacing the house shingles, updating the walkway and repairing the rear deck.

Windows The Applicant has indicated that the existing windows will remain. From a 2007 photo, it appears the window were one-over-one with wood frames. The Applicant have shown the existing windows as one-over-one with lite divides and what appears to be wood frames. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Siding The Applicant proposes to repair and paint the board and batten siding that is on the house now. Board and batten siding are prohibited in the District. Staff recommends all the siding be replaced with smooth-face cementitious with a 4 to 6-inch reveal.

Applicant has indicated that all siding will be changed to smooth-face cementitious with a 6- inch exposure. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Ramp Currently there is ramp on the front of house that is not original. Staff proposes to remove the ramp. Staff is not concerned about this proposal.

Concrete columns The existing columns are not original to the house, the Applicant requests to replace the concrete columns with new ones. Staff is not concerned with the replacement. However, the demonstrated columns for replacement is void of description. Columns installation is defined by the compatibility CA2-21-048 for 1070 White Oak March 24, 2021 standard of what dominates on the blockface for a porch construction. Staff recommends the Applicant replace the columns with columns that are predominated on the blockface.

The Applicant states, the existing concrete columns will be replaced with 9-inch square wood columns, with column caps and bases. Staff is not concerned with proposal.

Railings The Applicant proposes to replace the deck railings that are currently on the porch. Staff recommended the railings be no higher the bottom sill on the front window, be a two-part butt head construction and if there is a need to comply to code, it be done with a simple plain extension.

The Applicant has indicated the porch railings will be a simple two-part head and butt construction. We can hold the porch railings to no higher than the bottom of the front window since the drop to grade is less than 30 inches. (Over 30 inches code would require a 3’ high guard.) Staff is not concerned with this proposal. However, Staff still recommends the Applicant install a plan extension to meet.

Replace front Door The proposed front door is a smooth fiberglass door with lite divides at the top. District Regulations states that, “The size and type of exterior doors. Notwithstanding the compatibility rule, exterior doors shall be wood panel or fixed glass panel in wood frame.” Staff recommends that the Applicant comply with the District Regulations regarding the replacement of door stated above.

The door will be a wood panel or fixed glass panel. Staff is not concern with this proposal.

Steps The Applicant has not mentioned the repair of the front steps. From photos, the steps need repair. Staff recommends the Applicant repair in-kind the concrete steps.

The Applicant states the steps will be replaced in-kind.

Shingles The proposed roof material will be asphalt shingles. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Foundation From photos it appears as if the board and batten siding has extended to the foundation in certain areas on the foundation. This is prohibited. District regulations states, “Above-grade foundation materials. Notwithstanding the compatibility rule, foundations shall constitute a distinct building design element and shall contrast with the primary façade's exterior material and exposed concrete or concrete masonry unit (CMU) foundation walls are prohibited as a finished surface.” Staff recommends the board and batten siding be removed from the foundation and the foundation be concrete.

The Applicant states that the board and batten material on the foundations will be removed from the left and right-side elevations and will be replaced with a stucco finish on framing CA2-21-048 for 1070 White Oak March 24, 2021 below a trim board to contrast the main façade material. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Rear Deck The Applicant proposes to repair the existing deck as needed. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Walkway There is an existing walkway from the house to the sidewalk. Staff recommends that walkway be repaired in-kind.

The Applicant states the walkway will be repaired in-kind. Staff is not concern with this proposal.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.

1. To meet code the railing shall be constructed with a simple plain extension, per Sec.16- 20M.013(2)(i) and 2. Staff shall review and, if appropriate, approve the final plans. cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 2602 Godfrey Drive

APPLICATION: CA2-21-090

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 deferred since March 10, 2021 ______

FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Collier Heights Historic District Other Zoning: R-4

Date of Construction: 1950

Property Location: West of Hutton PL and East of Hamilton E. Holmes Dr.

Contributing (Y/N)? Yes, Building Type / Architectural form/style: American Small

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission:

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Interior work

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20Q.

Deferred Application (Y/N)? No

Previous Applications/Known Issues: 12/31/2019 a Stop work order was placed stating interior renovation and mechanical and plumbing work.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions

CA2-21-090 for 2602 Godfrey March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 3

The following alterations are set for this proposal: Windows, front awnings, front porch.

Roof/Documentation The Applicant has not accurately drawn the roof on the house either on the existing or proposing elevation. While the Applicant has reflected a hip roof, it has not reflected the vent at the top. Staff recommends the Applicant drawn the correct roof so there is not confusion.

ALTERATIONS Windows On the front façade, the Applicant has drawn one of the windows on the left side incorrectly. From research it appears the original windows to be grid windows, one window larger than the far-left window. The Applicant is not showing the larger window as accurate. On the proposed elevation, the Applicant also does not show the larger window. Staff recommends, the Applicant show the larger window.

As stated, the original windows appear to be grid windows, however the Applicant is proposing one one-over one windows. This alteration is not permitted. District Regulations requires original windows be retained. If the original windows cannot be retained, the replacement must match the original. Additionally, the Applicant has proposed all vinyl windows on the entire house. The Applicant has not provided any photos the viability of the windows to show why the original windows needed replacing. Staff has two recommendations. The first is to provide photos of the existing windows to demonstrate viability. The second recommendation is the Applicant remove the one one-over-one window and return it back to a grid pattern to match what was there originally.

The Applicant has not provided photos to determine the side windows viability. Staff recommends the Applicant provide photos of the side windows to establish viability. If the windows are not viable, the replacement windows need to match the existing windows in-kind.

Awnings Research shows awning on the front and sides windows on the left side of the house. These awnings are a defining feature for house built during this time period. Staff recommends the Applicant awning be retained or replaced in-kind.

Porch/Door/Stairs The Applicant proposes to remove what appears to be a non-original enclosure of the front porch. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

The Applicant also proposes a craftsman style door on the front. Staff recommends the door to be reflective of a door from the time period from 1950 to 1960’s.

On the proposed plans, the Applicant have not shown appropriate stairs which would have been indicative on the American Small. Instead, the Applicant indicates a small porch with railings. Staff recommends, the Applicant the show the concrete stairs on house, which appear to be far right. Additionally, the railings on the house would have been thin iron railings with a two-part construction. Staff recommends that railing be thin iron railings with a two-part constitution that would have been indicative of that time period.

CA2-21-090 for 2602 Godfrey March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 3

Painted Brick The Applicant has shown that the brick has been painted. This is a violation with the District regulations. Staff recommend the Applicant remove the paint in a manner that will damage the brink. Sandblasting is not permitted.

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance Chapter 20 and Chapter 20I of the City of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions.

1. The Applicant shall correct the existing plan to reflect an accurate roof with vents per, Sec.16-20Q (001); 2. On the front left elevation, the larger window shall be shown, per Sec.16-20Q.006(2)(a)(b); 3. The Applicant shall remove the one-over-one vinyl windows on the front and install grid pattern windows to match the original windows per, Sec.16-20.006(2)(a)(b) 4. The Applicant shall provide photos of the side windows to help determine viability. If windows are not viable, they to be replaced in-kind per, Sec.16-20Q.006(2)(a)(b); 5. The awnings shall be retained or replaced in-kind to retain the historic significance per, Sec. 16-20Q.006(3)(b); 6. The appropriate door shall be installed that is reflective of a door from 1950-1960 per, Sec. 16-20Q.006(2) 7. The railings shall be thin iron railings with a two-part construction reflective of what would have on this house per, Sec. 16-20Q.006(10)(b) 8. The painted shall be removed from the brick in a way that will not damage the brick. Sandblasting is not permitted per, Se.16-20Q.001 and 9. Staff shall review and if appropriate, approve the final plans and documentation.

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 916 Hill St.

APPLICATION: CA2-21-096

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Grant Park Historic District (Subarea 1) Other Zoning: R-5 / Beltline.

Date of Construction: 1930

Property Location: East block face of Hill St. north of the Kendrick St. intersection.

Contributing (Y/N)?: Yes. Building Type / Architectural form/style: Duplex

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Alterations to the front façade.

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: N/A

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20 & Sec. 16-20K

Deferred Application (Y/N)?: Yes. Deferred March 10, 2021. Updated text in Italics.

Previous Applications/Known Issues: The subject property received a Stop Work Order in December of 2020 for work completed without proper review by the Commission and without proper permits from the Office of Buildings.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.

CA2-21-096 for 916 Hill St. March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 4

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Sec. 16-20 & Sec. 16-20K of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

In the Grant Park Historic District, only alterations to the front façade are subject to a review by the Commission. As such, Staff’s comments will focus on site work in the front yard and alterations to the front façade and front porch.

Front façade In comparing the front façade to the archival photographs of the property, Staff notes two major changes to the front façade. Firstly, the doors which were originally oriented to the outside corners of the front façade have been moved to the middle of the front façade. Secondly, the original double grouped windows have been removed and replaced with vinyl windows situated towards the outside of the new front doors. Staff finds that the front façade configuration is a part of the architectural character of the structure, and recommends that the front doors be moved back to their original locations. Staff further recommends the vinyl windows be removed and replaced with unclad wood 6 over 6 windows installed in the same location and spacing as the original windows.

Staff retains this recommendation.

From the photographs provided, it appears that the previously existing siding was removed and replaced with cement siding. While the siding shown in the inventory photographs does not appear historic, the proper review was not preformed before the product was removed. Further, the common installation practice for non-historic siding materials is often to install the product over the original siding. As Staff was not able to preform this review before the work was completed, historic materials may have been lost in the process. Regardless, Staff finds that cement siding does not reinforce the architectural character of the structure. As such, Staff recommends the siding on the front façade be removed and replaced with wood siding with a 4” reveal.

Staff retains this recommendation.

The front doors have also been replaced with fiberglass doors. While Staff cannot determine if the doors in the inventory photographs are the original doors, Staff finds that the District regulations would require the new doors to be wood containing a rectangular lite pattern meeting the compatibility rule. As such, Staff recommends the front doors be removed and replaced with new front doors meeting the District regulations.

Staff retains this recommendation.

Porch Several alterations to the front porch have occurred as part of the illegal work. Firstly, the original brick front porch foundation was removed and replaced with cmu block. Staff recommends the CMU block be removed from the front porch foundation and replaced with brick matching the original. The original brick columns were also removed and replaced with wood columns. Staff recommends the wood columns be removed and replaced with brick columns matching the dimensions and style of the original brick columns.

Staff retains this recommendation.

From the photographs, it appears that the front porch floor has been replaced. Staff recommends that any porch flooring be comprised of a 1x4 tongue and groove flooring installed perpendicular to the front façade. Lastly, the front porch railing has been removed. Staff finds that the porch railing shown in the inventory photographs was not original to the structure. As such, Staff recommends a new rail comprised of a two part butt jointed top and bottom rail be installed with the top rail placed no higher than the bottom sill of the original front porch windows. Staff further recommends that any additional rail height needed to meet life CA2-21-096 for 916 Hill St. March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 4 safety code be achieved through a simple plane extension.

Staff retains this recommendation.

Site Work The photographs provided by the Applicant show several areas of site work which appear to be recent. However, no site plan has been provided for review. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant provide an existing and proposed site plan which shows both the condition of the lot before work began, and the improvements completed by the Applicant including the retaining wall on the north property line, the new driveway, and any changes to the front walk.

A site plan showing the new driveway and retaining wall has been received. Staff finds this recommendation has been met.

From the photographs submitted by the Applicant, it appears that a driveway was poured that is both wider than 10’ and which terminates in the front yard. The District regulations prohibit driveways wider than 10’ and parking in the front yard. As such, Staff recommends the illegally installed driveway be removed and replaced with a driveway that extends 20’ past the front façade of the structure.

The site plan shows that a new driveway has been installed which contains a parking area in front of the home. The driveway itself extends only to the point where the front façade begins. The Applicant notes their intent to extend the driveway on the left side of the home and install a second driveway on the right side of the home. The District regulations would require both driveways to extend 20’ past the front façade of the home. Additionally, there is a general zoning requirement for R-5 zoned properties that driveways cannot take up more than 1/3 of the front yard area. Based on the site plan provided, Staff finds that the front yard is approximately 1805 sf. Therefore a compliant driveway could take up no more than 602 sf. The current proposal would result in the driveway configuration taking up 720 sf of the front yard area. As such, Staff finds that a reduction in the driveways will be required. With this information, Staff finds that the only way two driveways could be installed would be if they were poured in a tire ribbon design with each ribbon being no wider than 2 feet and located so that they are separated five feet on center. As such, Staff wiothdraws the previous recommendation and recommends the existing driveway and parking area be removed. Staff further recommends that any new driveways extend 20 feet past the front façade of the structure and be ribbon strip in design with each ribbon no wider than 2 feet and located so that they are separated 5 feet off center.

The Applicant is also proposing a new cobblestone walkway. The walkway does not appear to extend to the sidewalk as required by the District regulations. As such, Staff recommends the walkway be configured so that it extends directly from the front steps to the walkway.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:

1. The front doors shall be moved back to their original locations, per Sec. 16020K.007(2)(D)(1); 2. The vinyl windows shall be removed and replaced with unclad wood 6 over 6 windows installed in the same location and spacing as the original windows, per Sec. 16020K.007(2)(D)(1); 3. The siding on the front façade shall be removed and replaced with wood siding with a 4” reveal, per Sec. 16020K.007(2)(D)(1); 4. The front doors shall be removed and replaced with new front doors meeting the District regulations, per Sec. 16020K.007(2)(D)(1); 5. The CMU block shall be removed from the front porch foundation and replaced with brick matching the original, per Sec. 16020K.007(2)(D)(1); 6. The wood columns shall be removed and replaced with brick columns matching the dimensions and style of the original brick columns, per Sec. 16020K.007(2)(D)(1); CA2-21-096 for 916 Hill St. March 24, 2021 Page 4 of 4

7. Any porch flooring shall be comprised of a 1x4 tongue and groove flooring installed perpendicular to the front façade, per Sec. 16020K.007(2)(D)(1); 8. A new rail comprised of a two part butt jointed top and bottom rail shall be installed with the top rail placed no higher than the bottom sill of the original front porch windows, per Sec. 16020K.007(2)(D)(1); 9. Any additional rail height needed to meet life safety code shall be achieved through a simple plane extension, per Sec. 16020K.007(2)(D)(1); 10. The existing driveway and parking area shall be removed, per Sec. 16-20K..007(1)(D); 11. Any new driveways shall extend 20 feet past the front façade of the structure and shall be ribbon strip in design with each ribbon no wider than 2 feet and located so that they are separated 5 feet off center, per Sec. 16-20K..007(1)(D); and, 12. Staff shall review and if appropriate approve the final plans and documentation.

cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 1079 Arlington

APPLICATION: CA2-21-111

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Oakland City Historic District Other Zoning: R-4A/Beltline

Date of Construction: 1920

Property Location: West of Lee Street and East of Larosa

Contributing (Y/N): Yes, Building Type / Architectural form/style: Bungalow

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Alterations

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Interior

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20M

Deferred Application (Y/N): No

Previous Applications/Known Issues: Approval with Conditions.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Stop work placed February 2021— working without a permit. There is an existing BB for site work issued in 2020 that is shown in this packet but is not included in this proposal.

CA2-21-111 for 1079 Arlington March 24, 2021

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance Chapter 20, Chapter 20M of the City of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance.

ALTERATIONS Porch Elements (railings) The Applicant installed porch railings on the existing porch. From photos provided the railings are installed as deck railings and installed incorrectly. Since there are not appropriate railings, Staff recommend the railings be no higher than the bottom of the front window sill, any need to meet code, be done with a simple plan extension. Additionally, Staff recommend the railings be a two- part with a head-butt construction.

Front door While the Applicant doesn’t propose changes to the front door, the submitted plans illustrates what appears to be a glass door with framing and the photos shows a Craftsman style door. District Regulations requires the door either be wood paneled or fixed glass with a wood frame. Staff recommend the Applicant abide by the District Regulations and clearly which door will be installed on the house.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.

1. The railings shall be no higher than the bottom of the front window sill, any need to meet building code shall be done with a simple plan extension, per Sec.16-20M.001; 2. The railings shall be a two-part with a head-butt construction, per Sec.16-20M.001; 3. The door shall be wood paneled or fixed fix glass panel in a wood frame, per Sec. 16- 20M.013(2)(r) (5) and 4. Staff shall review and, if appropriate, approve the final plans. cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director . ADDRESS: 1047 White Oak Ave.

APPLICATION: CA2-21-132

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Oakland City Historic District Other Zoning: R-4A / Beltline.

Date of Construction: 1920

Property Location: North block face of White Oak Ave., east of the Peeples St. intersection.

Contributing (Y/N)?: Yes.

Building Type / Architectural form/style: Craftsman Bungalow

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Alterations and rear addition

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Site work

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20M

Deferred Application (Y/N)?: No.

Previous Applications/Known Issues: The subject property received a Stop Work Order in 2020 for working with expired permits for interior work. Another Stop Work Order was issued in 2021 for alterations on the exterior of the structure without proper review by the Commission.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.

CA2-21-132 for 1047 White Oak Ave. March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 3

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20M of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

The District regulations contain both quantitative and qualitative requirements for new construction. If an item is not discussed below, Staff found that the related requirements were met.

Painting of unpainted brick The previously unpainted brick has been painted as part of the work exceeding the scopes approved under previous permits. While the Applicant has submitted photographs of painted brick houses in the District, Staff would note that the problem with painting the brick structure is not a compatibility comparison issue but a damage to historic building materials issue. When historic brick is painted, a seal is created on the exterior of the brick which prevents the shedding and absorption of moisture. This condition leads to damage such as spalling, failing mortar, and other structural integrity issues for the historic brick. As such, Staff cannot support the request to keep the structure painted. Staff recommends the paint be removed from the brick using the gentlest means necessary. Staff further recommends that sandblasting not be used to remove any paint from the structure.

Windows In comparing the Applicant’s photographs against the district photographic inventory and publicly accessible street view photography, Staff finds that the windows on the front and side façades have been replaced. Additionally, one window on the east façade has been removed to accommodate a closet. As the original windows are no longer on-site Staff finds that a review of the appropriateness of the replacement is not possible. However, Staff does find that the existing windows, which appear to be vinyl and contain grid between glass lite divisions, are not compatible with the character of the existing structure. As such, Staff recommends all improperly replaced windows on the front and side facades be replaced with unclad wood windows with a four over one lite pattern. If simulated divided lites are used, Staff recommends the muntins be integral to the sash and permanently affixed to the exterior of the glass.

Concerning the window removed on the east side façade, the District regulations do not permit the blocking of original window openings. As such, Staff recommends a window matching the size and shape of the original be installed in the same location as the window removed from the east side façade.

Site work From the photographs provided, it appears that site work has occurred on the property. Additionally, the Applicant has noted fence work on the property that was not included in the previous permit. As such, a site plan will be required for the permit to be updated to include this work. While the review of site work is not subject to a review by the Commission, a review by the Office of Design Staff and compliance with the District regulations is still required. As such, Staff recommends a site plan containing lot coverage information, the location, height, and materials of the proposed fence, and the layout of all site work such as paving on the property be submitted to Staff for a review to ensure compliance with the Historic District regulations.

CA2-21-132 for 1047 White Oak Ave. March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 3

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. The paint shall be removed from the brick using the gentlest means necessary, per Sec. 16- 20M.017(1); 2. Sandblasting shall not be used to remove any paint from the structure, per Sec. 16- 20M.017(1); 3. All improperly replaced windows on the front and side facades shall be replaced with unclad wood windows with a four over one lite pattern, per Sec. 16-20M.017(1); 4. If simulated divided lites are used, the muntins shall be integral to the sash and permanently affixed to the exterior of the glass, per Sec. 16-20M.017(1); 5. A window matching the size and shape of the original shall be installed in the same location as the window removed from the east side façade, per Sec. 16-20M.017(1); 6. Staff shall review and if appropriate, approve the final plans and documentation, per Sec. 16-20M.017(1); 7. A site plan containing lot coverage information, the location, height, and materials of the proposed fence, and the layout of all site work such as paving on the property shall be submitted to Staff for a review to ensure compliance with the Historic District regulations, per Sec. 16-20M.017(1); and, 8. Staff shall review and if appropriate, approve the final plans and documentation. cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 1151 Arlington Ave.

APPLICATION: CA3-20-035

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Oakland City Historic District Other Zoning: R-4A / Beltline

Date of Construction: Vacant

Property Location: North block face of Arlington Ave., west of the Peeples St. intersection.

Contributing (Y/N)?: n/a.

Building Type / Architectural form/style: infill

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: New Construction

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: N/A.

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20 & Sec. 16-20M

Deferred Application (Y/N)?: Yes. Deferred February 24, 2021. Updated text in bold italics.

Previous Applications/Known Issues:

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Deferral.

CA3-21-035 for 1151 Arlington Ave. February 10, 2021 Page 2 of 5

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Sec. 16-20 & Sec. 16-20M of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

Comparison Analysis The Applicant has provided an incomplete comparison analysis. Firstly, the Applicant has included structures that are not on the same block face as the subject property. Further, several measurements and comparisons which are required by the zoning ordinance have not been included. And lastly, the analysis does not include all of the historic structures on the block face. Due to the inaccuracies and lack of information provided, Staff finds that a complete review of the project will not be possible at this time. However, Staff will detail the specific issues with the comparison analysis in the following sections.

Staff recommends the Applicant submit a comparison analysis that only includes historic structures on the north block face of Arlington Ave, between the intersections of Oakland Dr. an Peeples St. Staff further notes that the block face contains several non-historic structures from which comparisons cannot be made. These properties all contain front facing gables and are predominately duplexes built in 2004 before the District was designated.

The Applicant has provided a comparison analysis that only includes one property on the block face. The District regulations require may of the measurements to be taken from at least two historic properties (tallest, shortest, closest to the street, furthest from the street). Additionally, many of the required measurements are missing from the analysis. Staff will detail these omitted items below. Staff would also recommend that the Applicant provide more than one comparable property for review.

The Applicant has provided two structures for comparison analysis. Staff finds this recommendation has been met.

Development Controls The Applicant has not provided measurements for the front and side yard setbacks per the District regulations. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant provide comparison information for the allowable front and side yard setbacks.

The updated comparison analysis does not contain front and side yard setbacks. As such, Staff retains this recommendation. Staff further recommends that the Applicant provide a revised site plan for the new design of the structure.

The updated comparison analysis is still missing information on the front and side yard setbacks of the comparable properties.

Architectural Standards Per the District regulations, the height of a new structure is based on the compatibility rule. Given the issues with the comparison analysis, Staff finds that there is not enough information at this time to review the proposed height of the structure. Staff recommends the Applicant include the measurements of all historic structures on the subject block face.

CA3-21-035 for 1151 Arlington Ave. February 10, 2021 Page 3 of 5

The Applicant has provided information showing that one of the structures on the block face is 16’ high. The proposed structure will be 16’ high to match this height. Staff finds this recommendation has been met.

The updated comparison analysis states that both the structure at 1147 Arlington and 1181 Arlington are both 22’ high, and that the proposed structure will be 22’ high to match. Updated elevations have not been provided to show this change. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant provide updated elevations showing any proposed height change.

Based on a visual inspection of publicly available street view photography, Staff finds that the structures at 1147 and 1181 Arlington appear to be two different sizes, with 1147 Arlington being taller and containing a steeper roof pitch than 1181 Arlington. Staff recommends the Applicant clarify their method of measuring the height of the properties at 1147 and 1181 Arlington Ave. Staff further recommends the Applicant confirm the heights of both 1147 and 1181 Arlington Ave.

Per the District regulations, the first floor elevation above grade is subject to the compatibility rule. Staff recommends the Applicant provide comparison information for the first floor elevation height.

The Applicant has not provided information on the allowable first floor height. As such, Staff retains this recommendation.

The Applicant has provided a comparison analysis for the first floor height, However, the measurements appear to be taken from the side elevation of 1147 and 1181 Arlington Pl. The comparable property at 1181 Arlington Pl. has a foundation that barely rises above the grade on the front façade, yet the Applicant states the structure has a first floor elevation of three feet above grade on the front façade. As this information is empirically incorrect, Staff retains the recommendation, but would clarify that the Applicant provide compatibility comparisons for the allowable first floor height taken from grade at the front façade.

Due to the issues with the comparison analysis, a review of the proposed roof pitch is not possible at this time. However, a visual analysis of the historic properties shows the predominate historic roof forms to be shallow pitched side gabled roofs. As such, Staff recommends the roof form be changed to meet the form of the comparable properties on the block face.

The proposed roof form has been changed to match the overall design of the structure at 1147 Arlington Ave. Staff finds this recommendation has been met.

The District regulations require the design and size of front porches to be based on the compatibility rule. Staff finds that none of the comparable properties on the block face contain a full width front porch. Staff further finds that only front stoops appear on the block face. As such, Staff recommends the front porch be changed to a front stoop matching the design of historic front stoops on the block face.

The revised plans show a front stoop being installed instead of a full width porch. As such, Staff finds this recommendation has been met.

CA3-21-035 for 1151 Arlington Ave. February 10, 2021 Page 4 of 5

The District regulations require the massing of the structure to be based on the compatibility rule. Staff recommends the Applicant provide comparison analysis for the proposed building width.

Staff retains this recommendation.

As no updated comparison information for the building width has been provided, Staff retains this recommendation.

Per the District regulations, the fenestration on the side facades is subject to the compatibility rule. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant provide compatibility information for the proposed fenestration on the side façades.

Staff retains this recommendation.

Based on the publicly available street view photography, Staff has no concerns with the proposed side fenestration.

Window and door casing and width is also based on the compatibility rule. As no information has been provided for this element, Staff recommends the Applicant provide comparison information for the proposed window and door casing width and depths.

Staff retains this recommendation.

As the updated comparison analysis did not include information for the proposed window and door casing width and depths, Staff retains this recommendation.

Staff recommends the proposed cement siding be smooth faced.

Staff retains this recommendation.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral to allow the Applicant time to address the following: 1. The Applicant shall submit a comparison analysis that only includes historic structures on the north block face of Arlington Ave, between the intersections of Oakland Dr. an Peeples St., per Sec. 16-20M.005; 2. The Applicant shall provide comparison information for the allowable front and side yard setbacks, per Sec. 16-20M.012; 3. The Applicant provide a revised site plan for the new design of the structure; 4. The Applicant shall provide updated elevations showing any proposed height change; 5. The Applicant shall clarify their method of measuring the height of the properties at 1147 and 1181 Arlington Ave., per Sec. 16-20M.013(2)(g); 6. The Applicant shall confirm the heights of both 1147 and 1181 Arlington Ave, per Sec. 16-20M.013(2)(g); 7. The Applicant shall provide compatibility comparisons for the allowable first floor height taken from grade at the front façade, per Sec. 16-20M.013(2)(h); 8. The Applicant shall provide comparison analysis for the proposed building width, per Sec. 16-20M.013(2)(g); CA3-21-035 for 1151 Arlington Ave. February 10, 2021 Page 5 of 5

9. The Applicant shall provide comparison information for the proposed window and door casing width and depths, per Sec. 16-20M.013(2)(o); 10. The proposed cement siding shall be smooth faced, per Sec. 16-20M.013(2)(q); and, 11. Staff shall review and if appropriate, approve the final plans and documentation.

cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 240 N. Highland

APPLICATION: CA3-21-045

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______

FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Inman Park Historic District (subarea 3) Other Zoning: I-2/Beltline Railroad Corridor

Date of Construction: 1890’s

Property Location: West of Glen Iris and East of Elizabeth Street

Contributing (Y/N)? Yes, Building Type / Architectural form/style: Commercial/Railroad Depot

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Addition

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Interior

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20L.

Deferred Application (Y/N)? No

Previous Applications/Known Issues: The proposed work will need an SAP as well as a review by the AtlDot.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Deferral to the April 14, 2020 UDC Meeting.

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance Chapter 28 and Chapter 20l of the City of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance. CA3-21-041 for 240 N. Highland March 24, 2021 pg. 3

COMPATIBILITY STANDARD The intent of the Mayor and Council in establishing the regulations of the Inman Park Historic District is to ensure that alterations to existing structures, and new construction, in Subarea 1 and alterations to existing contributing structures in Subarea 2 and Subarea 3 are compatible with the historic design, scale, and general character of the entire district as it existed in 1945, of the contributing structures in each subarea, and of the contributing structures in the immediately adjacent environment of a particular block face; and further, to ensure that lot platting in Subarea 1 is compatible with the historic platting pattern of Subarea 1 and of a particular block face as it existed in 1945.

Where quantifiable (i.e. building height, setback, etc.), the element or building characteristics in question shall be no less than the smallest such element or building characteristics of buildings or site layouts in that block face that characterizes such like contributing buildings and shall be internally consistent with the historic design of the structure and shall be no greater than the greatest such element or building characteristics of buildings or site layouts in that block face that characterizes such like contributing buildings or site layouts and shall be internally consistent with the historic design of the structure.

Where not quantifiable (roof form, architectural trim, etc.) it shall be compatible with that which predominates in contributing structures on that block face and shall be internally consistent with the historic design of the structure. SCOPE OF WORK ADDITION The Applicant proposes interior renovations to an existing 4,934 sf restaurant, previously Parish Restaurant. Each floor is 2,467 sf. In doing so, the Applicant proposes a 1,000 sf extension to the patio that will create what is being called by the Applicant a “Painted Park”. Painted Park is adjunct to the Beltline.

The purview of the Urban Design Commission is to review the architectural changes that are proposed to the building and elements of the Iman Park historic regulations that pertains to this project. Other matters, such as egress and ingress will be addressed in detail by the SPI team who will speak on the Beltline overlay and make sure those are being met along with the parking minimums being satisfied so that the Beltline corridor is interfaced correctly. Staff notes, the Historic Preservation review is not a standalone review and will coordinate with the SPI team to support an overall design that is viable to the community, the City and the Applicant. That is our central goal. It is our understanding the SAP review has just begun.

REVIEW Architectural The Applicant proposes the addition on the existing brick building to have pre-fab metal cladding and fixed glass with a stone fire pit and wood trellis. Staff is not concerned with the different material as a distinction for the addition or the addition not being historic in design. District regulations states, “the new work may be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” However, Staff is concerned with such a modern approach for the addition in this blockface. Research of the surrounding buildings on the blockface shows structures that use metal cladding and brick but few have pre-fab glass window walls. This being a qualifiable element, that requires compatibility of the blockface, per the District regulations, CA3-21-041 for 240 N. Highland March 24, 2021 pg. 3

Staff recommends the Applicant consider a redesign of the addition to have less glass or glass that is integrated in a manner that is complementary to the historic front.

Security Gates and Crosswalk The Applicant proposes the installation of two security gates that will be controlled by the residents of Grinnell Loft. Staff find this proposal problematic and possibly can create a space that is dangerous for pedestrians. Pedestrians and car drivers will have to navigate who has the right-of- way whether the gates are there or not. Additionally, the security gates could create a potential back log of cars at the entrance thus creating safety concerns for all pedestrians even those that are not in the crosswalk. District regulations requires commercial nodes to be developed in a manner that is pedestrian-oriented and be a space that serves the neighborhoods as well as facilitate safe and convenient pedestrian circulation while minimizing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. Staff recommends the Applicant address these conflicts through a new thought out design that possibly can be discovered in the parking facility regulations of the City section 30-1205.

Noise The noise limitation standards for Inman Park is governed by The Atlanta Noise Ordinance, Atlanta Code section 74-129. In the Painted Park, the proposed game area and bar area have a high probability of creating significant noises that are addressed in the Code; noises such as mechanical sound making devices, human produced sounds, commercial advertising and party noise. Additionally, the Code states the time limitations on noises. The Applicant has not addressed the noise concern. Staff recommends the Applicant addresses noise concerns through the proposal.

20 Feet Buffer Inman Park District regulations states that “Properties adjacent to the railroad, shall have a minimum of a 20 feet continuous buffer adjacent to the railroad corridor. Said buffer may not be required to exceed 20 percent of the total property area and shall be completely landscaped except for trails, paved walkways, benches and other such recreational features as approved by the director of the bureau of planning.” This railroad corridor is the Atlanta Beltline. The site plan indicates the Applicant has met this requirement.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferred to the April 14, 2021 UDC Meeting to allow for requested new designs.

1. The Applicant shall consider a redesign of the addition to have less glass or glass that is integrated in a manner that is complementary to the historic front, per Sec. 16- 20L.005(1)(d); 2. Staff recommends the Applicant address these conflicts through a new thought out design that possibly can be discovered in the parking facility regulations of the City section 30- 1205, per Sec.16-20L.008(1)(c)(h); 3. The Applicant shall address the noise concerns through the proposal, per Sec.16- 20L.008(19) and 4. Staff shall review and if appropriate approve the final plans.

cc: Applicant CA3-21-041 for 240 N. Highland March 24, 2021 pg. 3

Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director . ADDRESS: 2708 Oldknow Dr.

APPLICATION: CA3-21-049

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Collier Heights Historic District Other Zoning: R-4.

Date of Construction: 1960

Property Location: South block face of Oldknow Dr., west of the Hamilton E. Holmes Dr. intersection.

Contributing (Y/N)?: Yes.

Building Type / Architectural form/style: Minimal Traditional Cottage

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Addition and alterations

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: N/a

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20Q

Deferred Application (Y/N)?: Yes. Deferred March 10, 2021.

Previous Applications/Known Issues:

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.

CA3-21-049 for 2708 Oldknow Dr. March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 3

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20Q of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

The District regulations have quantitative and qualitative requirements related to alterations and additions. If an item is not discussed below, Staff found the related requirement was met.

Site plan The District regulations require that the rear yard setbacks of additions conform to the compatibility rule. No comparison information has been received to show the allowable setback range for this addition. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant submit compatibility information for the proposed rear yard setback. Staff further recommends the rear yard setback meet the District regulations.

Alterations In reviewing the proposed elevations against the proposed floorplans, Staff finds that the drawings are not internally consistent, specifically with regards to window placement. As such, Staff recommends the plans be re-drawn to be internally consistent.

A new window is proposed for the left side façade of the structure. Staff has no concerns with the additional window but recommends that any new window material meet the District regulations.

In reviewing the plans provided, Staff finds that the existing/proposed elevations do not accurately reflect the existing conditions on the side façades or do not describe the full scope of work proposed. The proposed elevations omit two windows on the rear corner of the right-side façade. Per the District regulations, original window openings are not permitted to be enclosed. As such, Staff recommends all window openings on the right-side façade be retained.

Given the issues with the painting of unpainted masonry in the District, Staff recommends that the unpainted brick and masonry on the front façade not be painted.

The application notes the installation of new doors, but the areas of work are not called out on the plans. Staff recommends the Applicant clarify the scope of work for the proposed window and door replacement. Staff further recommends that the Applicant provide detailed photographs that have been keyed to a floorplan for each window and door proposed for replacement. Staff further recommends that only those doors and windows which Staff has determined are not original or beyond repair be replaced with new windows or doors meeting the District regulations. Lastly, Staff recommends any windows or doors that staff has determined are original or repairable be retained and repaired in-kind.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Approval with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit compatibility information for the proposed rear yard setback, per Sec. 16-20Q.006(1)(b); 2. The rear yard setback shall meet the District regulations, per Sec. 16-20Q.006(1)(b); 3. The plans shall be re-drawn to be internally consistent; 4. Any new window material shall meet the District regulations, per Sec. 16-20Q.006(2); 5. All window openings on the right-side façade shall be retained, per Sec. 16-20Q.006(2); 6. The unpainted brick and masonry on the front façade shall not be painted, per Sec. 16- 20Q.005(1)(b)(vii); CA3-21-049 for 2708 Oldknow Dr. March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 3

7. The Applicant shall provide detailed photographs that have been keyed to a floorplan for each window and door proposed for replacement, per Sec. 16-20Q.006(2); 8. Only those doors and windows which Staff has determined are not original or beyond repair shall be replaced with new windows or doors meeting the District regulations, per Sec. 16- 20Q.006(2); 9. Any windows or doors that staff has determined are original or repairable shall be retained and repaired in-kind, per Sec. 16-20Q.006(2); and, 10. Staff shall review and if appropriate, approve the final plans and documentation.

cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESSES: 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE

APPLICATIONS: 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue: • CA3-21-066 - alterations, additions, new construction of accessory structures, and site work

• CA3-21-070 - variance to reduce the west side yard setback from 30' (required) to 22.5' (proposed)

• CA4PH-21-068 - demolition of an accessory structure due to a threat to public health and safety

1715 South Ponce de Leon Avenue: • CA3-21-067 - alterations, additions, new construction of accessory structures, and site work

• CA3-21-071 – variance to reduce the Clifton Rd. front yard setback from 50' (required) to 22.5' (proposed), and to reduce the east side yard setback from 30' (required) to 5' (proposed)

• CA4PH-21-069 - demolition of an accessory structure due to a threat to public health and safety

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021

CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 17

FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Druid Hills Landmark District Other Zoning: None

Date of Construction: #1715 – reconstructed after 2010, #1723 – 1920s

Property Location: South Ponce de Leon Avenue corridor, southeastern corner with Clifton Road

Contributing (Y/N)?: #1715: house–yes, garage–yes; #1723: house–yes, outbuilding - yes.

Building Type / Architectural form/style: Revival.

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: All demolitions, site work, exterior alterations, additions, and new construction.

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Interior renovations to existing contributing buildings and interiors of proposed new construction.

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20B Deferred Application (Y/N)?: Yes – from the February 24, 2021 and March 10, 2021 Commission meetings.

Previous Applications/Known Issues: #1715 – house reconstructed per Landmark District standards and previous Commission conditional approval.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION:

1715 South Ponce de Leon Avenue: CA3-21-067 (General Design Review) – Deferral.

CA3-21-071 (Variance) – Approval with conditions.

CA4PH-21-069 (Demolition) – Approval with conditions.

1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue: CA3-21-066 (General Design Review) – Deferral.

CA3-21-070 – (Variance) - Denial without prejudice, variance not needed with revised design.

CA4PH-21-068 (Demolition) – Approval with conditions.

CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 17

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Sec. 16- 20B.

Property Configuration and Characteristics: The project involves two properties that each currently contain contributing buildings (see below). While shown on the Dekalb County tax records as one property, the City of Atlanta official plat records show the two-property configuration, which is configuration that will be used for the Staff’s and Commission’s review. The western property (#1715) is the corner lot with 125 ft. of frontage along South Ponce de Leon Avenue and approximately 381 ft. of frontage along Clifton Road on its west side. The eastern lot (#1723) has 110 ft. of frontage along South Ponce de Leon Avenue and is approximately 565 ft. deep with its rear property one abutting the side property line of a house that faces Hardendorf Avenue. Further, #1723 appears to have a slight overlap with the terminus end of the Hardendorf Avenue right -of-way of approximately 10-12 ft.

Each property contains a dominant principal, two-story, brick historic house and secondary, accessory / outbuildings: #1715 has a one-story, wood frame garage that faces Clifton Road and #1723 has a one- story, wood frame outbuilding / apartment. The current vehicle access to #1715’s garage is via Clifton Road and to #1723 is via a driveway from South Ponce de Leon Avenue.

The houses are situated on the crest of small hill that generally spans both lots, with both lots sloping down from the house sides but mostly to the north (towards South Ponce de Leon Avenue) and to the south (rear) yards. The #1715 lot also slopes down to Clifton Road. At the rear of both lots are clusters of trees with their front and side yards generally have open lawns with fewer trees.

#1715 and #1723 - Approach to Review and Comments: The project consists of multiple, interrelated actions on both properties. The Staff finds that assessing all those actions individually (partly because the actions have their own criteria) but linked through a larger analysis that is described in one Staff Report will provide the best review possible. As such, the Staff will address the demolition requests (CA4PH-21-068 and 069), variance requests (CA3-21-070 and 071) and the general design work (CA3-21-066 and 067) with an individual section for each action for each property within this Staff Report.

Given the preliminary nature of the submitted plans for the design work (the alterations, additions, new construction and site work – CA3-21-066 and 067), the Staff comments in the Staff Report will focus on the most significant concerns it has about those aspects of the proposed project as it is currently developed. If a regulatory topic is not noted in this Staff Report, it can be assumed that at this stage of the design of the project and the Staff’s corresponding design analysis, it is not a substantial concern of the Staff at this time. However, any future changes to the project design will require new / additional Staff analysis which will include revised, new or different comments then those noted in this Staff Report.

Regarding permitted uses, the District regulations allow for multiple living units on a single property, either in one building or in multiple buildings, within certain parameters. The District regulations also allow for multiple units in an existing, contributing house (even when new buildings with new units will be added to the property as well) as long as the new individual units’ sizes meet the District regulations. This allowance by the District regulations is not dependent on the building having had units existed in the past. CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 4 of 17

Lastly, the District regulations base several requirements on the use of a property and in the case of residential properties, the proposed number of residential units on each property.

#1715 is proposed to have two residential units (one each in the two proposed buildings – House B (existing) and C (proposed)), making it a “two-family” property for the purposes of review under the Landmark District regulations. In the revised submission, the Applicant has clarified that #1723 is proposed to have six (6) residential units as follows: four (4) in House A (existing), one (1) in House D (proposed), and one (1) in the Pool House (proposed). The Staff would note that it is the existence of separate kitchens that determine the number of residential units in any given building. With House A, it is the Staff’s understanding that there will be one (1) main, larger unit and then three (3) smaller units for guests and visitors. House D and the Pool House will each have one (1) unit as they each have one kitchen. As such, for the purposes of review under the Landmark District regulations #123 shall be considered a “multi-family property”.

#1715 – Clifton Road and Interior Sideyard Setback Reductions - Variances (CA3-21-071): In the Applicant’s revised analysis, they note that the required side yard setbacks were created after House B and nearby houses were built (which established the built pattern on this lot and nearby lots) and as such don’t reinforce that historic built pattern. They also state that the required side yard setbacks would create a very small, and essentially unusable, build site. They further note that the required setbacks would reduce the possibility of investment in the property, thereby extending the “controversy” between the property’s prior owner and the surrounding area / neighbors. In addition, they include extensive analysis in the revised submission related to the intent and purpose of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Druid Hills Landmark District, the unnecessary hardship that would be created by the requirements, consistency with previous Commission variance decisions, and the context in which the property sites.

The Staff finds that the Applicant’s argument about the sequence of the establishment of the setbacks vs. the existing buildings, while chronologically accurate, does not reflect the nature of the District’s setbacks. The District setbacks are not generic setbacks established for a generic zoning district in the City of Atlanta. They are specific to the District and in this case specific to this particular set of blocks. However, the Staff would agree that in this case if all the required setbacks were applied as written, a very small build site would be created on the property – a property on which additional residential units are permitted to be built by the District regulations.

While the Staff appreciates and otherwise generally agrees with the Applicant’s more comprehensive information and analysis supporting the variance request, it would note that variances are requests to deviate from an established requirement due to specific, particular, peculiar, and unanticipated circumstances that create an unnecessary hardship. As such, the Staff finds that only the minimal deviation required to respond to otherwise alleviate that hardship is warranted to return the property to a reasonable development scenario and otherwise accommodate a compatible addition or new construction. The Staff would note that one of the ways to minimize the deviation would be to reduce footprint and/or size of the addition to House B and the footprint and/or size of House C.

The Staff finds that the most likely alteration to achieve this state for the addition to House B is to reshape the proposed footprint to extent further north towards House B, making the house longer and thinner. (The Staff does not support reshaping house by extending it to the south, thereby encroaching into the required rear hard setback.) However, the Staff finds that likely no amount of thinning and CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 5 of 17 extending of the footprint would permit a compatible house to be built and meaningfully reduce the amount of the requested setback reductions. Further, such an extension would create additional concerns with the configuration of and movement within the parking court area and move the mass of House C closer to House B increasing concerns the Staff has about the visual relationship between House B and House C. In conclusion, the Staff finds that the variances criteria have been met for the setback reductions requested for #1715.

It would appear, though, from the site plan that a smaller section of the addition to House B extends part the requested 25 ft. setback line, even with the allowance for eaves and other such house components. The Staff would recommend for #1715 the Applicant confirm that the addition to House B meets the requested reduction in the front yard setback along Clifton Road.

#1715 - Demolition of Accessory Structure / Garage (CA4PH-21-069) In this section of the Staff Report, if a specific criterion is not listed below, the Staff finds that the Applicant’s submission has sufficiently responded to and thus met that specific criteria.

In the Applicant’s revised submission, they argue that the threat to public health and safety criteria for demolition are mutually exclusive from the criteria for a lack of reasonable economic return and this the financial information requested by the Staff is not applicable. However, the Staff would note that Section 16-20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii), which is one of the criteria for granting a demolition for a threat to public health and safety, states “Demonstrate that the costs associated with rectifying the threat would create a condition whereby the investments in the project are incapable of earning a reasonable economic return as described in subsection (d)(2)b below.” – Section (d)(2)(b) is the criteria for a lack of reasonable economic return.

Criteria #1 – Taking into account the additional materials in the revised submission, it is now clear to the Staff that the structure is in imminent danger of collapse or creates a threat to the public health and safety.

Criteria #3.b.i – The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the garage itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the garage. The Staff would recommend for #1715 the Applicant provide the amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, between the current and past owners or provide a rationale / documentation as to why this information is not obtainable.

Criteria #3.b.ii - The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the garage itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the garage. The Staff would recommend for #1715 the Applicant provide the annual gross and net income, if any, from the property for the previous three (3) years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, during the same period or the specific reason for not being able to provide this information or provide a rationale / documentation as to why this information is not obtainable.

Criteria #3.b.iii - The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the garage itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the garage. The Staff would recommend for #1715 the Applicant provide the remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property and annual debt service, if any, during the prior three (3) years or the specific reason for not CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 6 of 17 being able to provide this information or provide a rationale / documentation as to why this information is not obtainable.

Criteria #4 - The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the garage itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the garage. The Staff would recommend that for #1715 the Applicant provide the real estate taxes for the previous four (4) years and assessed value of the property according to the two (2) most recent assessed valuations.

Criteria #5 - The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the garage itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the garage. The Staff would recommend that for #1715 the Applicant provide all appraisals obtained within the previous two (2) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the property.

Criteria #6 - The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the garage itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the garage. The Staff would recommend that for #1715 the Applicant provide the fair market value of the property (in its protected status as a designated building or site) at the time the application is filed.

Criteria #10.c - The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the garage itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the garage. The Staff would recommend that for #1715 the Applicant provide the estimated market value of the property in the current condition; after completion of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal of the garage and in the case of a proposed demolition, after renovation of the existing property for continued use.

#1715 – General Design Review of House B, House B Addition and House C (CA3-21-067):

Allowed Uses, Density, and Required Parking The Landmark District regulations allow for single-family, two-family, and multi-family uses on individual properties in the Ponce de Leon Avenue subarea, both in existing and added / separate buildings, under certain parameters. In this application, the revised submission confirms that the existing historic house (House B) will contain one living unit. One additional living unit will be added to #1715 in House C (for a total of two – one each in House B and C). #1715 meets the minimum lot size of a two-family property and the on-site parking requirements.

Regarding the density, the Landmark District regulations do not have the traditional floor area ratio (FAR) limitations that you might find in other City zoning districts. In the case of a “two-family” properties (#1715), there is no traditional FAR limitation, other than the effective FAR constraints placed on the property due to the minimum lot size, setbacks, height limitations, and most importantly the architectural compatibility requirements. The revised submission includes a detailed breakdown of the square footage by level for the existing (House B) and proposed (House C) buildings.

Lot Coverage For #1715, the lot coverage is fixed in the Landmark District regulations and the proposal meets those limitations.

CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 7 of 17

Site Plan Comments: • The District regulations prohibit construction of single-family dwellings and other buildings on slopes above a certain threshold. Though noted in the accompanying project narrative, the Staff would recommend for #1715 the site plan include calculations (in ratios) for the addition to House B and for House C confirming their compliance with the slope limitations for addition to and constructing single-family units in those locations. • The District regulations prohibit parking within 50 ft. of a public right-of-way. The Staff has consistently concluded that paved areas in front of garages does not constitute off-street parking if it is required for turning movements to get in and out of the garages themselves. It would appear that there is excess paving contained within the parking court not necessary for maneuvering a vehicle in/out of the garages. The Staff would recommend for #1715 the Applicant document compliance with the distance of parking from Clifton Road through graphically showing that all of the parking court between Houses B and C is required for turning movements and that such turning movement requirements do not allow for the reduction in the footprint of the parking court or the “sharing” of the parking court between House B and C. • Regarding the parking court as design feature, the Staff has previously noted its concern about its design and configuration, including the attempt to conceal it by a large retaining wall along Clifton Road and the significant excavation of the grade that would have to occur to conceal it. In the revised submission, the revised site sections and House B and House C elevations shows that significantly less exaction will be required to create the parking court. It appears that the retaining walls back (interior) of the parking court will be a few feet tall and the wall at the front (Clifton Road side) will only be a partial retaining wall and otherwise just a general wall. The Staff is still concerned (even with the support of the setback variance along Clifton Road) about the presence of the remaining wall along Clifton Road which would otherwise be in the required front yard. The Staff would add that this wall visually connects House B and House C, reducing the visual separation of the two houses. The Staff would recommend that for #1715 the wall in front of the parking court be reduced in height and completely concealed with dense, evergreen vegetation that will be the same height at its maturity as the height of the lowered wall. • The Staff would recommend for #1715 the Applicant document compliance with the District regulations for all fencing and retaining walls on the property with the District regulations. • The Staff finds that tree removal and replacement plan appear to meet the basic City of Atlanta Tree Ordinance requirements and the Landmark District requirement of “tree-for-tree” replacement requirement. Regarding the overall loss of trees, it would still appear from the revised site plan that at least one tree removal could be avoided along the east property line (the interior side lot line) if the retaining wall aligned with the portion of the parking court for House B were eliminated. This would reinforce the retention of the natural grade in that location which is possible now that the parking spot that was in that location has been eliminated and would not appear to harm the utility or access to the first floor space of House B. The Staff would recommend for #1715 that the retaining wall along the interior side yard are redesigned to reduce the loss of trees on the property. • Additional information was provided in the revised submission stormwater management facilities on the property. While not a specific requirement of the Landmark District, the Staff was concerned that if there are significant changes necessary for these facilities (size, location, outfalls, etc.) to comply with other City of Atlanta requirements, those changes could adversely affect the site plan features that are specifically related to the requirements of the Landmark District. It would appear to the staff that any changes that might be required to the stormwater management facility would note adversely affect compliance with the District regulations.

CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 8 of 17

Architectural Comments: • House B - The Staff assumes there will be some work on the exterior of House B and as such, the Staff would recommend for #1715 renovation notes for House B should be added to the plans. • Regarding the addition to House B, the Staff was concerned that the addition would overwhelm the existing house (given its relatively small size within its two-story massing), that its roof form was too complicated. Given the clearly delineation of the existing and proposed portions of the house, the Staff finds that the proposed addition will not overwhelm the existing house and otherwise be compatible with the existing house with several additional revisions to the design. First, to reduce the complexities of the roof form, the Staff would recommend for #1715, the main east-west roof the addition include a gable on both ends.

However, the Staff is still concerned about the inclusion of what appears to be a roof top terrace on the addition and the mostly glass access structure. While there are numerous examples of terraces and similar spaces on lower levels of houses in the District, the Staff is not aware of any example with such a terrace within the main, highest roof form of a house or a similar mostly glass access structure. The Staff would recommend for #1715 the roof top terrace element be eliminated from the design.

• House C – On properties within the District with additional buildings (with living units or not), the additional buildings (also known as outbuildings or accessory buildings) are generally smaller (either in height and/or footprint) then the main, historic house. Historically, these outbuildings / accessory buildings provided support functions to the main historic house and as such did not need to be as large as the main historic house. Further, their architecture often reflected their secondary status through the use of simplified or reduced ornamentation or less complicated architectural elements.

While containing slightly less square footage then House B, House C still does not appear as an accessory, secondary or supporting building to the main historic building on the property, which is House B. The footprint of House C still appears similar to House B, its length (as seen along Clifton Road) is similar, and its relative height (taking into account the slightly higher grade it sits on), is essentially equal to House B. Further, these equivalencies are not to the original (rebuilt House B), but rather House B with its substantial addition, especially as viewed from Clifton Road.

Further, given its visibility from Clifton Road, the House C house will appear as a regularly size house very close to Clifton Road, very close to House B, and will be as close to Clifton Road as House B. House C will not appear secondary to House B.

In addition, the Staff still is concerned about the architectural composition of the house. The house includes a large, asymmetrical gable most indicative of a Tudor Style house, but also includes large corner coins, a rounded gable vent, and a curved header to the front door that are more closely associated with various Classical Revival styles.

Lastly, the Staff still concerned about the inclusion of what appears to be a roof top terrace on the house and the mostly glass access structure. While there are numerous examples of terraces and similar spaces on lower levels of houses in the District, the Staff is not aware of any example with such a terrace within the main, highest roof form of a house or a similar mostly glass access structure.

CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 9 of 17

The Staff would recommend for #1715, the height and/or footprint of House C be reduced, both actually and as perceived from Clifton Road, to reinforce its secondary status to House B; the roof top terrace element shall be removed from the design and the overall design shall include a revised architectural composition to better reflect internal consistency to the Tudor Style established by the main roof form.

#1723 – West Sideyard Setback Reduction - Variance (CA3-21-070): In the revised submission, the addition to House A and House D have been designed to eliminate the need for the reduction in the side yard setback. The Staff would recommend that for #1723, the side yard setback variance request is denied without prejudice.

#1723 - Demolition of Apartment / Accessory Structure (CA4PH-21-068): In this section of the Staff Report, if a specific criterion is not listed below, the Staff finds that the Applicant’s submission has sufficiently responded to and thus met that specific criteria.

Criteria #1 – Taking into account the additional materials in the revised submission in the revised submission, it is now clear to the Staff that the structure is in imminent danger of collapse or creates a threat to the public health and safety.

Criteria #3.b.i – The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the outbuilding / apartment itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the outbuilding / apartment. The Staff would recommend for #1723 the Applicant provide the amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, between the current and past owners or provide a rationale / documentation as to why this information is not obtainable.

Criteria #3.b.ii - The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the outbuilding / apartment itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the outbuilding / apartment. The Staff would recommend for #1723 the Applicant provide itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, during the same period or the specific reason for not being able to provide this information or provide a rationale / documentation as to why this information is not obtainable.

Criteria #3.b.iii - The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the outbuilding / apartment itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the outbuilding / apartment. The Staff would recommend for #1723 the Applicant provide the remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property and annual debt service, if any, during the prior three (3) years or the specific reason for not being able to provide this information or provide a rationale / documentation as to why this information is not obtainable. CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 10 of 17

Criteria #4 - The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the outbuilding / apartment itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the outbuilding / apartment. The Staff would recommend for #1723 the Applicant provide the real estate taxes for the previous four (4) years and assessed value of the property according to the two (2) most recent assessed valuations.

Criteria #5 - The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the outbuilding / apartment itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the outbuilding / apartment. The Staff would recommend for #1723 the Applicant provide all appraisals obtained within the previous two (2) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the property.

Criteria #6 - The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the outbuilding / apartment itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the outbuilding / apartment. The Staff would recommend for #1723 the Applicant provide the fair market value of the property (in its protected status as a designated building or site) at the time the application is filed.

Criteria #10.c - The Applicant has interpreted this criteria to be specific only to the outbuilding / apartment itself, while in fact it refers to the property, inclusive of the outbuilding / apartment. The Staff would recommend for #1723 the Applicant provide the estimated market value of the property in the current condition; after completion of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal of the outbuilding / apartment and in the case of a proposed demolition, after renovation of the existing property for continued use.

#1723 – General Design Review of House A, House A Addition and House D (CA3-21-066):

Allowed Uses, Density, and Required Parking: The Landmark District regulations allow for single-family, two-family, and multi-family uses on individual properties in the Ponce de Leon Avenue subarea, both in existing and added / separate buildings, under certain parameters.

In the revised submission, the Applicant has clarified that #1723 is proposed to have six (6) residential units as follows: four (4) in House A (existing), one (1) in House D (proposed), and one (1) in the Pool House (proposed). The Staff would note that it is the existence of separate kitchens that determine the number of residential units. With House A, it is the Staff’s understanding that there will be one (1) main, larger unit and then three (3) smaller units for guests and visitors. House D and the Pool House will each have one (1) unit as they each have one kitchen. As such, for the purposes of review under the Landmark District regulations #123 shall be considered a “multi-family property”.

#1723 meets the minimum lot size per unit requirement for a multi-family property and the on-site parking requirements.

Regarding the density, the Landmark District regulations do not have the traditional floor area ratio (FAR) limitations that you might find in other City zoning districts. In the case of a “multi-family” property (like #1723), the minimum lot size per unit and the minimum unit size within existing buildings act as proxies for a traditional FAR limitation, as well as the setbacks, height limitations, and architectural compatibility requirements.

CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 11 of 17

Further having an accurate measurement of the proposed, total square footage is important as can be seen below in the “Lot Coverage” section of this Staff Report. The revised submission includes a detailed breakdown of the square footage by level.

Lot Coverage: For #1723 , the Landmark District regulations refer to the Land Use Intensity (LUI) Table of the Residential General zoning district (RG) which doesn’t calculate lot coverage per se, but does have total and usable open space requirements which do define lot coverage in a different fashion by requiring minimum amounts of open space (total and usable). Further, the floor area ratio (FAR) that would be applied to the chart is not prescribed by the Landmark District regulations (see above), but rather calculated based on the number of units and the size of the units allowed by the District regulations in relation to the net lot area (see above). For that reason, having an accurate calculation of the proposed, total floor area for #1723 is important to ensure accurate open space calculations.

The LUI Table requires that all calculations related to it be done using gross lot area. Therefore to calculate the effective FAR the total residential square footage proposed would be divided by the gross lot area to determine the resulting effective FAR. That FAR is then found on the LUI chart, which then determines the required total open space of the gross lot area and usable open space of the gross lot area. The zoning chart currently shows a gross lot area of 75,055 sq. ft. with total residential square footage of 16,619 sq. ft. (per the top table in the upper right-hand portion of the sheet.) This would result in an effective FAR of .25 when using the net lot area and .221 when using gross lot area. Using the required .221 (incorporating the gross lot area) hat would correspond Sector 1 of the LUI table with the .230 level (“rounding up” is required). The total space and usable open space requirements noted in the zoning analysis chart appear to correspond to a slightly different level within Sector 1. The Staff would recommend for #1723, the Applicant confirm that their lot coverage and open space calculations take into account the correct calculation method.

vehicle. In the revised submission, the permeability of the main driveway and the areas in front of the garage of House A and House D has been increased through the use of alternative paving materials. Lastly, the Staff is concerned that there is an additional parking space (beyond the two required spaces) for Pool House (which is significant) and at the northeast corner of House D. Given the overall interest in reducing the “footprint” of the added features to the property (for the reasons noted elsewhere in this Staff Report), the Staff would recommend for #1723 that the additional parking space for the Pool House and House D be eliminated from the proposal. • A passing area is still included along the existing driveway in front of House A to allow two cars to fit side by side going to and from the parking areas in the rear. The Staff’s concern about this passing area is its size – both its width (more than 10 ft. wide) and length (more than 30 ft. long). The Staff finds that this is significantly more than what would be required to allow for the temporary and quick movement of two cars past each other. Further, it would appear to impact the structural root zone of a tree in the front yard. The Staff would recommend for #1723 the passing area in front of House A be significantly reduced in size. • The accompanying project narrative notes and the site plan shows that there will be fencing and retaining walls at various locations around the property and the Staff assumes that there will be a fence around the proposed pool (required by the public health code). Further, it is the Staff’s understanding that portions of the retaining wall at the front property line will required repair / rebuilding. Few details are provided about the fencing or retaining wall designs and rebuilding. The Staff would recommend for #1723, the Applicant document compliance of the fencing and retaining walls with the District regulations and the rebuilding / repair technique for the front property line retaining wall. • Additional information was provided in the revised submission stormwater management facilities on the property. While not a specific requirement of the Landmark District, the Staff was concerned that if there are significant changes necessary for these facilities (size, location, outfalls, etc.) to comply with other City of Atlanta requirements, those changes could adversely affect the site plan features that are specifically related to the requirements of the Landmark District. It would appear to the staff that any changes that might be required to the stormwater management facility would note adversely affect compliance with the District regulations. • The project narrative and the site plan describe the rebuilding of the front porch / patio stairs, which the Staff agrees do need rebuilding. However, it appears that the new design is substantively different than the existing stairs in two ways. The existing stairs have fewer risers and not as wide stairs coming off the front entrance landing, a smaller landing area / walkway at the bottom of the front porch / patio stairs, and a small set of stairs from the walkway / landing area to the driveway. In the proposed design, there are more stairs off of the front landing area, wider stairs, a wider lower landing, and no second set of stairs at the driveway. The Staff would recommend for #1723, the front porch / patio stairs, walkway and site stairs are the same as the existing respective elements.

Architectural Comments: • House A - While the accompanying project description notes that House A will remain as is and/or be preserved, the Staff would assume there will be some work on the exterior of House A and as such, the Staff would recommend for #1723 renovation notes for House A should be added to the plans.

Regarding the addition to House A, the revised submission the western edge of the addition has been pulled back to be east of the western most projection of the existing house. This will allow the addition to fit “behind” the house and be less visible form the South Ponce de Leon vantage CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 13 of 17

point. Further, the “window wall” along the west façade has been broken up with pilasters or similar.

However, the Staff is still concerned about the inclusion of what appears to be a roof top terrace on the addition and a mostly glass access structure. While there are numerous examples of terraces and similar spaces on lower levels of houses in the District, the Staff is not aware of any example with such a terrace within the main, highest roof form of a house and a mostly glass access structure.

The Staff would recommend for #1723 the addition to House A not include the roof top terrace level.

• House D – On properties within the District with additional buildings (with living units or not), the additional buildings (also known as outbuildings or accessory buildings) are generally smaller (either in height and/or footprint) then the main, historic house. Historically, these outbuildings / accessory buildings provided support functions to the main historic house and as such did not need to be as large as the main historic house. Further, their architecture often reflected their secondary status through the use of simplified or reduced ornamentation or less complicated architectural elements.

While containing less square footage then House A, House D does not appear as an accessory secondary or supporting building to the main historic building on the property – House A. The length of House D appears similar to House A, and its absolute height (taking into account into any differences in grade), is essentially equal to House A. Further, these equivalencies are not to the original House A, but rather House A with its substantial addition.

Further, the Staff is still concerned about the inclusion of what appears to be a roof top terrace on the house and a mostly glass access structure. While there are numerous examples of terraces and similar spaces on lower levels of houses in the District, the Staff is not aware of any example with such a terrace within the main, highest roof form of a house and a mostly glass access structure.

The Staff would recommend for #1723 the footprint and/or height of House D be reduced, both actually and as perceived from Hardendorf Avenue, to reinforce its secondary status to House A; and the roof top terrace element be eliminated from the design.

• Pool House – The Staff finds that generally speaking the size and scale of the proposed Pool House is in keeping with a secondary, outbuilding on the property. However, it is still concerned about its overall length, which is about 2/3 the length of House A (with its addition) and House D, as well as almost as long as House C on #1715; and the relatively complex façade / roof design on its eastern side. Both of these characteristics counteract its secondary, outbuilding status on the property. The Staff would recommend for #1723 the Pool House’s length be reduced and the complexity of its eastern façade and roof be simplified.

#1715 and #1723 - Summary Comments: While the Staff agrees that adding living units to each of these properties is possible (as has been done in the past in compliance with the District regulations with other Ponce de Leon Corridor properties), it must be done in a manner that is compatible with the District and emphasizes the overall, historic composition of each property – that of large, primary/dominant historic house set within an identifiable CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 14 of 17 landscape/green space; secondary, smaller structures set within open space/green spaces; and paving / hardscape indicative of a single-family property.

As noted in this Staff Report, the Staff finds that there are still outstanding issues with this proposal that need to be addressed, including: • Additional background information supporting the demolition of the accessory structures on both properties; • the amount and location dedicated to parking and vehicle movement on both properties; • the potential loss of trees on both properties; • the compatibility of the architectural components of the proposed additions to House A and B; • the heigh, footprint, and architectural relationship of the proposed houses (House C and D) to the respective existing, primary historic houses (House A and B) on their same property; • the height, footprint, and architectural components of Houses C and D; and • the length and architectural composition of the Pool House.

1715 SOUTH PONCE DE LEON AVENUE:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions, as follows:

CA3-21-071 - Clifton Road and Interior Sideyard Setback Reductions: 1. The Applicant shall confirm that the addition to House B meets the requested reduction in the front yard setback along Clifton Road, per Section 16-20B.004(6)(a).

CA4PH-21-069 - Demolition of Accessory Structure / Garage: 1. The Applicant shall provide the amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, between the current and past owners or provide a rationale / documentation as to why this information is not obtainable, per Section 16- 20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h); 2. The Applicant shall provide the annual gross and net income, if any, from the property for the previous three (3) years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, during the same period or the specific reason for not being able to provide this information or provide a rationale / documentation as to why this information is not obtainable, per Section 16- 20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h); 3. The Applicant shall provide the remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property and annual debt service, if any, during the prior three (3) years or the specific reason for not being able to provide this information or provide a rationale / documentation as to why this information is not obtainable, per Section 16-20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h); 4. The Applicant shall provide the real estate taxes for the previous four (4) years and assessed value of the property according to the two (2) most recent assessed valuations, per Section 16- 20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h); 5. The Applicant shall provide all appraisals obtained within the previous two (2) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the property, per Section 16-20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h); CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 15 of 17

6. The Applicant shall provide the fair market value of the property (in its protected status as a designated building or site) at the time the application is filed, per Section 16-20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h); and 7. The Applicant shall provide the estimated market value of the property in the current condition; after completion of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal of the garage and in the case of a proposed demolition, after renovation of the existing property for continued use, per Section 16-20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral to allow time for the Applicant to address the following concerns:

CA3-21-067 - General Design Review of House B, House B Addition and House C: 1. The site plan shall include calculations (in ratios) for the addition to House B and for House C confirming their compliance with the slope limitations for addition to and constructing single- family units in those locations, per Section 16-20B.004(5), per Section 16-20B.003(5); 2. The Applicant document compliance with the distance of parking from Clifton Road through graphically showing that all of the parking court between Houses B and C is required for turning movements and that such turning movement requirements do not allow for the reduction in the footprint of the parking court or the “sharing” of the parking court between House B and C, per Section 16-20B.003(3); 3. The wall in front of the parking court be reduced in height and completely concealed with dense, evergreen vegetation that will be the same height at its maturity as the height of the lowered wall, per Section 16-20B.003(1) and (6); 4. The Applicant shall document compliance with the District regulations for all fencing and retaining walls on the property with the District regulations, per Section 16-20B.003(7); 5. The retaining wall along the interior side yard shall be redesigned to reduce the loss of trees on the property, per Section 16-20B.003(1) and (6); 6. The renovation notes for House B shall be added to the plans, per Section 16-20B.003(1) and (6); 7. The main east-west roof of the addition shall include a gable on both ends, per Section 16- 20B.003(1) and (6); 8. The addition to House B shall not include the roof top terrace level, per Section 16-20B.003(1) and (6); 9. The height and/or footprint of House C shall be reduced, both actually and as perceived from Clifton Road, to reinforce its secondary status to House B; the roof top terrace element shall be removed from the design and the overall design shall include a revised architectural composition to better reflect internal consistency to the Tudor Style established by the main roof form, per Section 16-20B.003(1) and (6); and 10. The Applicant shall submit any revised materials to the Staff at least size (6) days prior to the meeting to which this application is deferred.

CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 16 of 17

1723 SOUTH PONCE DE LEON AVENUE:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial without prejudice:

CA3-21-070 -West Sideyard Setback Reduction:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions, as follows:

CA4PH-21-068 - Demolition of Apartment / Accessory Structure: 1. The Applicant shall provide the amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, between the current and past owners or provide a rationale / documentation as to why this information is not obtainable, per Section 16- 20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h); 2. The Applicant shall provide itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, during the same period or the specific reason for not being able to provide this information or provide a rationale / documentation as to why this information is not obtainable, per Section 16- 20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h); 3. The Applicant shall provide the remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property and annual debt service, if any, during the prior three (3) years or the specific reason for not being able to provide this information or provide a rationale / documentation as to why this information is not obtainable, per Section 16-20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h); 4. The Applicant shall provide the real estate taxes for the previous four (4) years and assessed value of the property according to the two (2) most recent assessed valuations, per Section 16- 20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h); 5. The Applicant shall provide all appraisals obtained within the previous two (2) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the property, per Section 16-20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h); 6. The Applicant shall provide the fair market value of the property (in its protected status as a designated building or site) at the time the application is filed, per Section 16-20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h); and 7. The Applicant shall provide the estimated market value of the property in the current condition; after completion of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal of the outbuilding / apartment and in the case of a proposed demolition, after renovation of the existing property for continued use, per Section 16-20.008(d)(2)(a)(iii) and 16-20B.003(2)(h).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral to allow time for the Applicant to address the following concerns:

CA3-21-066 - General Design Review of House A, House A Addition and House D: 1. The Applicant shall confirm that their lot coverage and open space calculations take into account the correct calculation method, per Section 16-20B.004(5); 2. The site plan shall include calculations (in ratios) for the addition to House A and for House D confirming their compliance with the slope limitations for addition to and constructing single- family units in those locations and for the Pool House, which has its own slope limitations, per Section 16-20B.003(5); CA3-21-066, 067, 068, 069, 070, and 071 – 1715 and 1723 South Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE March 24, 2021 Page 17 of 17

3. The Applicant shall document compliance with the distance of parking from the side property line through graphically showing that all the paved areas (solid or “grass crete” adjacent to Houses A and D is required for turning movements, per Section 16-20B.003(3); 4. Revisions to the retaining wall for House D shall be incorporated to reduce the loss of trees on the property, per Section 16-20B.003(7); 5. The additional parking space for the Pool House and House D shall be eliminated from the proposal, per Section 16-20B.003(1) and (6); 6. The passing area in front of House A shall be significantly reduced in size, per Section 16- 20B.003(1) and (6); 7. The Applicant document compliance of the fencing and retaining walls with the District regulations and the rebuilding / repair technique for the front property line retaining wall, per Section 16-20B.003(7), and Section 16-20B.003(1) and (6); 8. The front porch / patio stairs, walkway and site stairs shall be the same as the existing respective elements, per Section 16-20B.003(1) and (6); 9. Renovation notes for House A shall be added to the plans, per Section 16-20B.003(1) and (6); 10. The addition to House A shall not include the roof top terrace level, per Section 16-20B.003(1) and (6); 11. The footprint and/or height of House D shall be reduced, both actually and as perceived from Hardendorf Avenue, to reinforce its secondary status to House A; and the roof top terrace element shall be eliminated from the design, per Section 16-20B.003(1) and (6); 12. The Pool House’s length shall be reduced and the complexity of its eastern façade and roof shall be simplified, per Section 16-20B.003(1) and (6); and 13. The Applicant shall submit any revised materials to the Staff at least size (6) days prior to the meeting to which this application is deferred.

Cc: File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 733 Bonnie Brae

APPLICATION: CA3-12-102

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 since March 10, 2021 ______

FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Adair Park Historic District (Subarea 1) Other Zoning: R-4A/Beltline

Date of Construction: 1920

Property Location: West of Tift and East of Allene

Contributing (Y/N)? Yes, Building Type / Architectural form/style: Fork Victorian

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission:

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: N/A

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20I.

Deferred Application (Y/N)? No

Previous Applications/Known Issues: N/A

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION:

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance Chapter 20 and Chapter 20I of the City of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance. CA3-21-102 for 733 Bonnie Brae March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 3

COMPATIBILITY STANDARD The compatibility rule is a method of ensuring that alterations to existing structures and the design of proposed new construction are sensitive to and sympathetic toward existing elements of design, proportions, scale, massing, materials, and general character of the contributing buildings in the immediately adjacent environment of the block face. To permit flexibility, many regulations are made subject to the compatibility rule, which states: "The elements in question (roof form, architectural trim, etc.) shall match that which predominates on the contributing buildings of the same block face, or where quantifiable (i.e., buildings height and width as measured at front façade, floor height, lot dimensions, etc.), shall be no smaller than the smallest or larger than the largest such dimension of the contributing buildings of the same block face." Those elements to which the compatibility rule applies are specified in these regulations by reference to "compatibility rule."

DOCUMENTATION On the proposed plans, the Applicant has not shown the front roofline to be accurate. Photos show the exposed brackets on the roof. The Applicant has not shown all these brackets. But it is essential these brackets are depicted accurately. As well the Applicant has not shown on the plans intricate detail such as corner boards that defines the house. Staff recommends that on the plans, the Applicant depicts all brackets on the roof line and all the details so they will not be loss in the repair of the house.

ADDITION The Applicant proposes an addition that will extend the house on the left side of the existing house to create a master suite. The addition will not supersede any of the setback: side or rear. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Roof The addition roofline will meet with the existing. The same shingle material will be used for the new roof. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Window and Fenestration Photos provided by the Applicant show the windows to be original, wood 9 over one wood trim. The windows are shown correctly on the proposed plans, yet the Applicant has indicated that these windows do not open. Staff recommends that if windows cannot be repaired in-kind the Applicant must replaced the windows to mimic the original exactly.

On the right-side elevation, the Applicant proposes to install a small window that will mimic the small window on the existing left side elevation. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Siding The Applicant proposes to remove install the wood siding to match the existing. Staff is not concern with this proposal. Staff does recommend the there is a divide of a corner board to distinguish the old from the new.

CA3-21-102 for 733 Bonnie Brae March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 3

ALTERATIONS: Siding The Applicant will remove the vinyl siding that is currently on the existing structure and replace it will wood siding. Staff is not concerned with this proposal. Staff does recommend the reveal be 4 to 6 inches.

Driveway The Applicant has indicated a new drive. Photo shows a driveway in broken up. Staff recommends the new drive way be not exceed a width of ten feet not including the flare at the street and the design and materials be subject to the compatible to what is on the blockface.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions.

1. The Applicant shall depict all brackets on the roof line per, Sec.16-20L.001; 2. The shall be divide of a corner board between the old and new addition to distinguish the old from the new per, Sec. 16-20L.001; 3. The new drive way shall not exceed a width of ten feet not including the flare at the street and the design and materials be subject to the compatible to what is on the blockface per, Sec.16-20L,006(4) and 4. Staff shall review and, if appropriate, approve the final plans.

cc: Applicant Neighborhood

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 853 Lake Ave

APPLICATION: CA3-21-106

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______

FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Inman Park Historic District (subarea 1) Other Zoning:

Date of Construction: 1920

Property Location: East of Hale and West of W. Ashland Ave. and Brickwork Cir.

Contributing (Y/N)? Yes, Building Type / Architectural form/style:

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Addition

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Interior

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20L.

Deferred Application (Y/N)? No

Previous Applications/Known Issues: N/A

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Approve

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance Chapter 28 and Chapter 20l of the City of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance. COMPATIBILITY STANDARD SCOPE OF WORK CA3-21-041 for 240 N. Highland March 24, 2021 pg. 3

ADDITION The Applicant proposes a 170-sf rear addition by removing an existing deck and extending the house out. This addition be seen from a public-right-away. While this addition can be seen from the public right way, it is not increasing the footprint of the house. The roof line will not be intrusive. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Windows The Applicant proposes a small window on the rear elevation. Staff is not concerned with this window.

Siding The proposed siding will match the existing siding. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Door The existing door will be used. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Roof Material The proposed roof material is rolled asphalt to match what was at the front. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.

cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 432 Cherokee Avenue

APPLICATION: CA3-21-112 (Variance)

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______

FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Grant Park Historic District Other Zoning: R-5

Date of Construction: 1902

Property Location: Sits in the block of Glenwood Avenue, SE

Contributing (Y/N)? Yes, Building Type / Architectural form/style: Queen Anne

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission Exterior,

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Interior

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20K.

Deferred Application (Y/N)? No

Previous Applications/Known Issues: N/A

SUMMARY CONCLUSION: Approval

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance Chapter 20 and Chapter 20I of the City of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance.

CA3-21-112 for 432 Cherokee March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 3

VARIANCE APPLICATION The Applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 7 to 4 feet to construct an accessory structure.

The Applicant have addressed the following four criteria:

 There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape or topography;

 The application of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship;

 Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and

 Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

APPLICANT ANSWERS

Extra Ordinary and Exceptional The Applicant states, “432 Cherokee Avenue is an existing conforming corner lot, zoned R-5, located on the southeast corner of Cherokee Avenue and Glenwood Avenue. The property has 84.88 feet of frontage on Cherokee and 125 feet of frontage on Glenwood creating a rectangular parcel with 10,584 SF of land area. It is developed with a two-story frame dwelling located in the middle of the lot. The fact it is a corner lot is an extraordinary and exceptional condition pertaining to the property as it limits the location where an accessory structure may be placed and not project in front of the main dwelling.”

Unnecessary Hardship The Applicant explains “Application of the Zoning Ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship by preventing construction of a typical improvement found on properties zoned for single- family use. Furthermore, the existing lot has less land area than when the property was originally platted. Research of Sanborn maps indicates there was a detached carriage house on the original property in the southeast corner of the lot and, what is now 451Glenwood Avenue was originally a part of the subject property. It is in this location of the current lot configuration that the detached accessory structure is to be constructed. The detached 2-story garage would not only allow the property owner a location to store their vehicle but also store items out of the site of neighbors. Considering the current environmental conditions related to COVID-19 more individuals are working from home and the proposed office on the second floor would improve the ability of the property owner to continue to work from home. The property would still meet all other setback requirements, the lot coverage allowed for R-5 properties and the accessory structure would be under 30% of the size of the main structure. The reduction in the rear yard setback from 7 feet to 4 feet will allow for maintenance of the façade of the accessory structure and meet building separation from the adjoining property on the east. It should not be necessary to enforce this hardship to protect the public good.”

CA3-21-112 for 432 Cherokee March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 3

Peculiar to the property The Applicant states, “The size of the subject property is peculiar to the particular piece of property.”

Substantial Detriment The Applicant states, “The proposed detached 2-story accessory structure would not impose upon the adequate light and/or air on adjacent properties. Furthermore, the request would not pose a potential impediment on emergency accessor threats to health and fire safety because the property has the room for the proposed improvement. The request allows for a detached accessory structure which would improve and reinforce the stability of the surrounding neighborhood. Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.”

STAFF RESPONSE The Applicant has provided enough evidence to grant the variance. The proposed location is the only suitable location for the accessory structure unless the Applicant is going to remove several trees, which is not desirable. Staff agrees with the variance request.

cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 432 Cherokee Avenue

APPLICATION: CA3-21-114

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______

FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Grant Park Historic District Other Zoning: R-5

Date of Construction: 1902

Property Location: Between Glenwood Avenues

Contributing (Y/N)? Yes, Building Type / Architectural form/style: Queen Anne

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission Additions and Alterations.

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Interior

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20K.

Deferred Application (Y/N)? No

Previous Applications/Known Issues: N/A

SUMMARY CONCLUSION: Approval

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance Chapter 20 and Chapter 20I of the City of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance.

CA3-21-113 for 432 Cherokee March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 3

SCOPE The Applicant proposes to update the existing structure with the construction of a two-story addition on the rear of the house removing the existing porch to allow for a master suite. An accessory structure is also proposed to be constructed in the rear of the property with a 4 feet setback. A variance request has been requested for the 4ft rear setback from 7 ft.

ADDITION Roof The proposed roof line is hipped with a new ridge and valley that tucks under the exiting slope. Staff is not concerned with proposal.

Siding The proposed siding is cementitious siding with a 6-inch reveal. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Window One over one windows with trim are proposed for the addition to match the existing windows on the house. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Foundation Staff is not concerned with the proposed foundation.

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE The proposed accessory structure is a garage with an upstairs office. The total square footage of the accessory structure is 588. There is an additional 208 square footage of stairs and driveway area associated with the accessory structure. The Applicant requests to allow for a closer rear setback, the Accessory Structure is position to where it will exceed the side setbacks.

Staff does suggest the Applicant check to make sure the accessory structure is not more than 25% of the lot coverage which is a Zoning requirement.

ALTERATIONS Windows The existing window and window trim appear to be in good condition. The Applicant has not proposed any replacement on the existing windows. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Front Stair The Applicant proposes to restore in-kind the stair and cheek walls on the front stair. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Porch The balusters porch railings appear to be constructed as a two-part head butt construction. The Applicant proposes to restore in-king these railings. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

General Repairs The Applicant proposes a series of general repairs: shingle replacement, soffit and facia repair in- kind. Staff is not concern with this proposal.

CA3-21-113 for 432 Cherokee March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 3

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval

cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 648 Gillette

APPLICATION: CA3-21-119

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______

FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Adair Park Historic District (Subarea 1) Other Zoning: R-4A/Beltline

Date of Construction: 1920

Property Location: West of Oakhill and East of Metropolitan

Contributing (Y/N)? Yes, Building Type / Architectural form/style: Minimal Traditional

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission:

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Interior work

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20I.

Deferred Application (Y/N)? No

Previous Applications/Known Issues: N/A

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance Chapter 20 and Chapter 20I of the City of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance.

CA3-21-119 for 648 Gillette March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 3

DOCUMENTATION The Applicant has provided a proposed site plan however, it does not include the FAR information that is required. Staff recommends the Applicant submit a proposed site plan that will include the setbacks and FAR information.

The position of the chimney on the plan is not accurate. It is center of the small gable roof. Staff recommends the chimney be shown in the correct position the plan.

Additionally, the front façade is not depicting the exposed rafters. Staff recommends the rafters be placed on the plans on the front façade.

Lastly, the front stoop area with steps and railings are not shown on the plans. Staff recommends the Applicant reflect the stoop area with steps and railings correctly on the plans.

ADDITION The Applicant propose to add a 315 ft addition to the existing house to allow for a master suite. From the site plan, the Applicant will not exceed any of the setbacks. The proposed roofline will meet the existing and will not extend beyond it. Staff would suggest the Applicant tuck the propose roofline under the existing a slight bit, although it is not required. Staff is not concerned with the proposed addition.

The Applicant only proposes an addition and has indicated no work will be done on the front or side of the existing structure.

Siding The Applicant has not indicated what siding material will be used for the addition. District regulations permit horizontal smooth-face cementitious siding. While the addition is not in the public-right-away, Staff suggests the siding on addition be horizontal smooth-face cementitious.

Windows The windows on the front façade and sides on the plans are not a true reflection of the existing windows. The existing windows are six over one wood windows with wood trim and various sizes. Staff recommends the Applicant depict the accurate windows on the front and side façade so that there will no confusion regarding the windows. Regarding the windows on addition the Applicant proposes two new ones. Staff is not concerned with rear windows for they will not be seen from the public-right-away.

Foundation The existing foundation appears to be concrete. The Applicant has not specified the foundation material. Since the addition is in the rear, Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

CA3-21-119 for 648 Gillette March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 3

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

1) The proposed site plan shall include the setbacks and FAR information per, Sec.16-20I.001; 2) The chimney shall be reflected accurately on the plans, per Sec.16-20I.001 3) The rafters shall be depicted on the plans to show accurate drawings, per Sec.16-20I.001; 4) The front stoop, steps and railings are to be depicted correctly on the plans and 5) Staff shall review and if appropriate, approve the final plans and documentation.

cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 1130 Alta Ave.

APPLICATION: CA3-21-128 & 129

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Inman Park Historic District (Subarea 1) Other Zoning: R-5 / Beltline.

Date of Construction: 1910

Property Location: North block face of Alta Ave., east of the Haralson Ave. intersection.

Contributing (Y/N)?: Yes.

Building Type / Architectural form/style: Queen Anne Cottage

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Rear/side additions and Variance.

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: N/A

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20L

Deferred Application (Y/N)?: No.

Previous Applications/Known Issues: N/A

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION CA3-21-129: Deferral SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION CA3-21-128: Deferral

CA3-21-128 & 129 for 1130 Alta Ave. March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 3

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20L of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

CA3-21-129 – Variance Request The requested variance is to reduce the east side yard setback from 14’ (required) to 8’ 10” (proposed.

There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape or topography; The Applicant cites the topography of the site, particularly the steep negative grade change that occurs from south to north on the site.

The application of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta to this particular piece of property would create an unnecessary hardship; The Applicant states that the zoning regulations are burdensome to the property and gives examples of factors that would mitigate the impact of the proposed addition on the public right of way. However, no evidence that the zoning regulations create an unnecessary hardship has been given.

Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; The Applicant again cites the grade change from south to north on the property.

Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or impair the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta. The Applicant cites the topography of the site, the preservation of open space between the subject property and the neighboring property at 1124 Alta Ave., the existence of similar additions on neighboring properties, and the conformity of the project with the R-5 underlying zoning regulations as evidence that the granting of the proposed variance would not cause detriment to the public good or impair the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance.

Staff finds that the Applicant has not shown how the request meets the criteria for granting a variance. While Staff acknowledges the existence of topographic changes that could mitigate the granting of a variance, no evidence has been received which speaks to the hardship on the site which would prevent an addition from being built in an otherwise compliant location and with otherwise compliant side yard setbacks. As such, Staff recommends that the Applicant submit evidence showing that a hardship exists on the site which would prevent an otherwise compliant addition containing compliant side yard setbacks from being built.

Staff would also note for the benefit of the Applicant that the R-5 underlying zoning requirements for both setbacks and floor area do not apply in the Inman Park Historic District.

CA3-21-128 – Rear and side additions The Applicant is proposing a rear addition and a side addition to the existing structure. Given the recommendation regarding the setback variance for the proposed side addition, Staff will not comment on the design of that portion of the project at this time.

Per the District regulations, rear yard setbacks of additions are subject to the compatibility rule. No information detailing the allowable rear yard setback range on the block face has been received as CA3-21-128 & 129 for 1130 Alta Ave. March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 3 part of this application. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant submit compatibility information for the proposed rear yard setback.

The Applicant’s plans note that the rear addition would not be visible from the public right of way. However, Staff finds that portions of both side façades of the rear addition would be visible to someone standing on the sidewalk in the areas directly between the principal structure and both neighboring structures.

Concerning the rear addition, Staff finds that the design proposed generally conforms to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. However, Staff recommends the proposed foundation material be brick to match the foundation on the existing structure.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION CA3-21-129: Deferral to allow the Applicant time to respond to the following concerns: 1. The Applicant shall submit evidence showing that a hardship exists on the site which would prevent an otherwise compliant addition containing compliant side yard setbacks from being built.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION CA3-21-128: Deferral to allow the Applicant time to respond to the following concerns: 1. The proposed foundation material shall be brick to match the foundation on the existing structure, per Sec. 16-20L.007(1)(q)(viii); and, 2. All updated plans and materials shall be submitted no less than 8 days before the deferred meeting date.

cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 979 Dimmock Ave.

APPLICATION: CA3-21-130

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Oakland City Historic District Other Zoning: R-4A / Beltline.

Date of Construction: Vacant

Property Location: North block face of Dimmock St., west of the Lee St. intersection.

Contributing (Y/N)?: N/A

Building Type / Architectural form/style: Infill

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: New Construction

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: N/A

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20M

Deferred Application (Y/N)?: No.

Previous Applications/Known Issues: N/A

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION CA3-21-130: Approval with conditions.

CA3-21-130 for 979 Dimmock Ave. March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 3

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20M of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

The District regulations contain both quantitative and qualitative requirements for new construction. If an item is not discussed below, Staff found that the related requirements were met.

Compatibility comparisons The Applicant has submitted a partial comparison analysis which includes both contributing and non- contributing structures on the block face. As the comparisons are required to be taken only from historic structures, the measurements for 987 and 991 Dimmock Ave cannot be used.

Several of the comparisons required for review have not been received. Staff will note the specific project elements that do not have the required comparisons in the analysis below.

Development controls While the project appears to use the underlying zoning for the setback requirements, Staff finds that the proposal meets the District zoning requirements which supersede the underlying zoning requirements.

The Applicant is proposing a 10’ wide driveway to the west of the principal structure. The District regulations require driveways to extend 20’ past the front façade of the structure. Staff measures the proposed driveway as only extending 11’ past the front façade of the structure. As such, Staff recommends the proposed driveway be redrawn to extend 20’ past the front façade of the proposed structure.

Architectural controls Per the District regulations, a new 6’ wide hex stamped sidewalk is required to be installed at the front of the property. Staff recommends that a compliant sidewalk be added to the site plan.

Per the District regulations, the form and pitch of the primary roof is subject to the compatibility rule. While Staff finds that the front facing gable roof is compliant, no information detailing the allowable roof pitch has been provided. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant submit compatibility information detailing the allowable roof pitch.

Per the District regulations, the massing of new construction is subject to the compatibility rule. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant provide information detailing the allowable building width.

Per the District regulations the height of the first floor of the front façade above grade is subject to the compatibility rule. The proposed structure has a first-floor height of three feet. No compatibility information has been provided to show the allowable first floor height. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant submit compatibility information detailing the allowable first floor height of the proposed structure.

Per the District regulations, the design of porch railing is subject to the compatibility rule. The extant historic porch rails consist of but jointed balusters with two-part top and bottom rails. The proposal appears to show a baluster sandwiched between two pieces of trim with a two-part top rail. Staff recommends the proposed porch rails be changed to meet the District regulations.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. The proposed driveway shall be redrawn to extend 20’ past the front façade of the proposed structure, per Sec. 16-20M.012(4)(a); 2. A compliant sidewalk shall be added to the site plan, per Sec. 16-20M.013(1)(c); 3. The Applicant shall submit compatibility information detailing the allowable roof pitch, per Sec. 16- 20M.013(1)(f); 4. The Applicant shall provide information detailing the allowable building width, per Sec. 16- CA3-21-130 for 979 Dimmock Ave. March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 3

20M.013(1)(g); 5. The Applicant shall submit compatibility information detailing the allowable first floor height of the proposed structure, per Sec. 16-20M.013(1)(h); 6. The proposed porch rails shall be changed to meet the District regulations, per Sec. 16- 20M.013(1)(i); and, 7. Staff shall review and if appropriate, approve the final plans and documentation. cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director . ADDRESS: 1062 White Oak Ave.

APPLICATION: CA3-21-131

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Oakland City Historic District Other Zoning: R-4A / Beltline.

Date of Construction: 1930

Property Location: South block face of White Oak Ave., east of the Peeples St. intersection.

Contributing (Y/N)?: Yes.

Building Type / Architectural form/style: Craftsman Bungalow

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Alterations and rear addition

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Site work

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20M

Deferred Application (Y/N)?: No.

Previous Applications/Known Issues: N/A

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.

CA3-21-131 for 1062 White Oak Ave. March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 3

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20M of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

The District regulations contain both quantitative and qualitative requirements for new construction. If an item is not discussed below, Staff found that the related requirements were met.

Windows The Applicant is proposing the removal and replacement of the existing 9 over 1 windows with new 1 over 1 wood windows. While the Applicant has stated that the windows are not historic, Staff finds that they are consistent with the 1930’s period of construction. Further, as no detailed photography has been provided, Staff cannot support the replacement of the existing windows. The Applicant has stated that the windows are experiencing common issues for historic windows and lists broken sash chords, lack of a weathertight seal, and the inoperability of some windows likely due to deferred maintenance and wood expansion/contraction. Staff would note that these issues are repairable and are expected issues for windows of this time and that repairs with continued routine maintenance should render windows experiencing these issues operable. Energy efficiency concerns in a historic home can be addressed through ensuring the attic is properly insulated along with the use of interior storm windows and will create a condition which is comparable to modern standards without the loss of historic materials.

In addition to replacing the existing windows, the Applicant also proposes the reconfiguration and re-sizing of windows on the side façades of the structure. The District regulations require that replacement windows, when approved, match the original windows in size and shape. As such, Staff cannot support the resizing of the windows on the side façades.

Staff recommends the Applicant submit detailed photographs for each window proposed for replacement that have been keyed to a floorplan. Staff further recommends only those windows which Staff has identified are beyond the point where repair is possible be replaced with wood windows matching the lite pattern of the original. Staff further recommends that those windows which Staff has identified as original and repairable in condition be retained and repaired. If simulated divided lites are used on any replacement window, Staff recommends the muntins be integral to the sash and permanently affixed to the exterior of the glass. Lastly, Staff recommends the plans be re-drawn to show the windows on the side façades retaining their original size and shape.

Rear addition In general Staff finds the rear addition appropriate in design for inclusion on the historic home. Staff does recommend the existing rear corner boards be retained in place to indicate the original dimensions of the home for future interpretation.

Site work While sitework is not subject to a review by the Commission, it is still subject to a review by the Office of Design Staff. The Applicant is proposing the replacement of an existing driveway which terminates in the front yard. The District regulations require driveways to extend 20 feet past the front façade of the principal structure. Compliance with this regulation is not possible due to a mature tree which blocks the path a compliant driveway would take. However, this by itself does not relieve the requirements that a new driveway comply with the zoning regulations. As such, the Applicant has two options with how to proceed. They can either leave the existing driveway in place, or apply for a variance from the Commission to allow parking in the front yard where CA3-21-131 for 1062 White Oak Ave. March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 3 otherwise prohibited. Staff would note that variances to allow the preservation of mature trees is one of the alternate criteria for granting a variance allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. As such, Staff recommends that the driveway replacement be removed from the plans or that the Applicant apply for a variance to allow parking in the front yard where otherwise prohibited.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit detailed photographs for each window proposed for replacement that have been keyed to a floorplan, per Sec. 16-20M.017(1); 2. Only those windows which Staff has identified are beyond the point where repair is possible may be replaced with wood windows matching the lite pattern of the original, per Sec. 16- 20M.017(1); 3. Those windows which Staff has identified as original and repairable in condition shall be retained and repaired, per Sec. 16-20M.017(1); 4. If simulated divided lites are used on any replacement window, the muntins shall be integral to the sash and permanently affixed to the exterior of the glass, per Sec. 16-20M.017(1); 5. The plans shall be re-drawn to show the windows on the side façades retaining their original size and shape, per Sec. 16-20M.017(1); 6. The existing rear corner boards shall be retained in place to indicate the original dimensions of the home for future interpretation, per Sec. 16-20M.017(1); 7. The driveway replacement shall be removed from the plans or the Applicant shall apply for a variance to allow parking in the front yard where otherwise prohibited, per Sec. 16- 20M.012(4)(a); and, 8. Staff shall review and if appropriate, approve the final plans and documentation. cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director . ADDRESS: 215 Estoria St.

APPLICATION: CA3-21-133

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Cabbagetown Landmark District (Subarea 3) Other Zoning: Beltline.

Date of Construction: 1920

Property Location: West block face of Estoria St., south of the Mollie St. intersection.

Contributing (Y/N)?: Yes.

Building Type / Architectural form/style: Victorian Cottage

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Alterations and rear addition

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: n/A

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20A

Deferred Application (Y/N)?: No.

Previous Applications/Known Issues:

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Deferral.

CA3-21-133 for 215 Estoria St. March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 2

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20A of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

The District regulations contain both quantitative and qualitative requirements for new construction. If an item is not discussed below, Staff found that the related requirements were met.

Compatibility comparisons The Applicant has submitted several non-comparable properties for this review. Per the District regulations, only historic structures of like-use and architectural style on the same block face can be used for comparisons. As such, only the subject property and the property at 209 Estoria St. can be used for comparisons.

Rear addition The proposed addition conforms to the side yard setbacks of the existing structure. The rear yard setback of additions is subject to the compatibility rule. No comparison analysis has been received to show that the rear yard setback conforms to the range established by the subject property and the property at 209 Estoria St. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant provide compatibility information for the proposed rear yard setback.

Alterations To accommodate a new bedroom on the second floor, a new window is proposed in the front facing gable. Staff has no general concerns with this window, but does find that the windows should conform to the style of the existing windows on the home. As such, Staff recommends all new second story windows be two over two matching the style of the existing windows. Staff further recommends any simulated divided lites be integral to the sash and permanently affixed to the exterior of the glass.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral to allow the applicant time to address the following: 1. The Applicant shall provide compatibility information for the proposed rear yard setback, per Sec. 16-20A.006(9); 2. All new second story windows shall be two over two matching the style of the existing windows, per Sec. 16-20A.006(14)(e); 3. Any simulated divided lites shall be integral to the sash and permanently affixed to the exterior of the glass, per Sec. 16-20A.006(14)(e); and, 4. Staff shall review and if appropriate, approve the final plans and documentation. cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 991 Peeples Street

APPLICATION: CA3-21-057

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 deferred since February 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Oakland City Historic District Other Zoning: R-4A/Beltline

Date of Construction: New Construction

Property Location: West of Dimmock and East of Sparks

Contributing (Y/N): No Building Type / Architectural form/style: New Construction

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Exterior of the new construction

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Interior

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20M

Deferred Application (Y/N): No

Previous Applications/Known Issues: N/A

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance Chapter 20, Chapter 20M of the City of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance.

CA3-21-057for 991 Peeples Street March 24, 2021

NEW CONSTRUCTION The Applicant proposes a 2751 ft house which will include a basement.

Comparisons The Applicant has provided 9 comparisons for review: 983 Peeples, 985 Peeples, 989 Peeples, 995 Peeples, 999 Peeples, 1005 Peeples, 1009 Peeples, 1013 Peeples, 1017 Peeples,

Height and Pitch The Applicant has proposed a height of 19’-9 ¾” feet for the new construction. Staff is not concern with this proposal, this height fits into the range of 14.8’ to 25.4’. The 6/12 pitch the Applicant proposes complies. The lowest pitch is 4/12 and the highest is 7/12. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Roof form The proposed roof form will be a hip roof with a shallow gable shed roof over the porch. The prevailing roof form from the comparable houses is a hip roof with a shallow shed roof. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Siding The proposed siding is smooth face cementitious with a 6” reveal. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Windows The proposed windows are single hung 2/8 x 5/2 wood windows with 5x4 top, side and bottom trim. and single hung 2/6 x 3/6 wood window with 5/4 x 4 top, side and bottom trim. The predominate window is a single hung wood window. Staff is not concern with this proposal.

Porch The Applicant proposes a full porch, front facing wood steps with raiser, wood columns with 5/4 cap and 36’ high porch railings. The District regulation states that “the compatibility rule shall apply to the design and size of front porches, and the placement and orientation of front steps. Front porches shall contain roofs, balustrades, columns, steps, and other features as determined by the compatibility rule. Front porches may extend up to ten feet into the required front yard. All front porch steps shall have closed risers and ends.” Most of the comparable houses demonstrate a full porch, many with wood steps and raisers and many with concrete steps and raiser. Staff is not CA3-21-057for 991 Peeples Street March 24, 2021 concerned with the proposed porch. Staff does recommend the railings be constructed differently. Staff recommends the railings be a two-part top to bottom construction. The height should be no higher than the front window sill and any needed extension for safety code shall be achieved through a simple plain extension

Door The Applicant proposes six-panel fiber glass door. Staff recommends it be framed in wood to meet the District regulations.

Foundation The Applicant has 8” concrete foundation wall with stucco skim coat. The proposed foundation meets the District requirement for foundation. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Sidewalk The side walk is not clearly marked on the site plan. District regulation requires a sidewalk and states that “the sidewalk shall be the same width as the sidewalk on abutting properties or it shall be the width otherwise required by city ordinance, whichever is greater. If no sidewalk exists in the block, the new sidewalk shall not be less than six-feet wide. The compatibility rule shall apply to sidewalks paving materials. If no sidewalk paving material predominates in the block, the sidewalk shall be constructed of the historically accurate material for that block, either hexagonal pavers, concrete inlaid with hexagonal imprint, or brick.” Staff recommends clarify on the site plan the sidewalk and abided by the District regulations governing the construction of sidewalk as stated.

Walkway District regulations requires a walkway to be established between the sidewalk and the front porch. The Applicant has shown on the site plan a proposed sidewalk. Staff is not concerned with this proposal.

Driveway On the Applicant’s site plan, there is shared driveway. Staff is not concerned with this.

Deck The Applicant proposes a two-story deck that will not extend beyond the main structure, nor will it exceed the setbacks or rear setback. Staff is don’t concern with this proposal.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions

1. The Applicant shall abide by the Compatibility standard for the pitch of the house, per Sec.16-20M.013(2)(m); 2. The rails shall be a two-part top to bottom construction for the rails and use a simple plain extension to meet code per Sec.16-20M.013(2)(i); 3. The Applicant shall clearly identify the sidewalk on the site plan and abide by the District regulations for the design and construction, per Sec.16-20M.013(2)(c) and 4. Staff shall review and, if appropriate, approve the final plans. cc: Applicant Neighborhood CA3-21-057for 991 Peeples Street March 24, 2021

File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING KEISHA LANCE BOTTOMS TIM KEANE MAYOR 55 Trinity Avenue, S.W. SUITE 3350 – ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-0308 Commissioner 404-330-6145 – FAX: 404-658-7491 www.atlantaga.gov KEVIN BACON, AIA, AICP Director, Office of Design

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 293 Ormond St.

APPLICATION: CA4PH-20-177

MEETING DATE: August 12, 2020 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: Grant Park Historic District (Subarea 1) Other Zoning: R-5 / Beltline.

Date of Construction:

Property Location: South block face of Ormond St., east of the Hill St. intersection, and west of the Grant St. intersection.

Contributing (Y/N)?: Yes Building Type / Architectural form/style:

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: revision to previously approved plans for a second story addition to the rear of the structure.

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: Façades that do not face the public street.

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20 & Sec. 16-20K Deferred Application (Y/N)?: No

Previous Applications/Known Issues: The Commission previously reviewed and approved CA3-17-203 & 206 for a variance and rear addition and CA2-18-088 for revisions to previously approved plans. In July of 2019 Staff received notification from neighbors that the structure was being demolished without proper permits and a Stop Work order was issued by the Office of Buildings. The property was then sold to a new owner who is presenting the current application to remedy the demo without permits and apply for the review of a new single family home. SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION CA4PH-20-177: Approval. SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION CA3-20-178: Approval with conditions.

CA4PH-177 and CA3-20-178 for 293 Ormond St Aug. 5, 2020 Page 2 of 6

CA4PH-20-177

Staff Response to the Application Submitted

1. Demonstrate through independent analysis and supporting information that a major and imminent threat to public safety exists.

The Applicant states that the property’s condition has been reported to them by neighbors. The Applicant also cites the demolished nature of the property and the Stop Work Order for the illegal demolition done by a previous owner. Given that the demolition has already occurred without approval by the Commission, Staff finds that further analysis is moot as the majority of the structure is no longer on site.

2. Present all reasonable alternatives for rectifying the threat and analysis of all such alternatives.

The Applicant has stated their desire to clean the property and salvage all useable building materials for re-use on a new structure at the site.

3. Demonstrate that the costs associated with rectifying the threat would create a condition whereby the investments in the project are incapable of earning a reasonable economic return. This finding shall be made by considering, and the applicant shall submit to the Commission evidence establishing, each of the following factors:

a) The applicant’s knowledge of the landmark designation at the time of acquisition, or whether the property was designated subsequent to acquisition.

The Applicant has stated they are aware of the historic designation and the current zoning on the property. They have stated that the zoning pre-dates their ownership of the property.

b) The current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to the following:

(1) The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between the owner of record or applicant and the person from whom the property was purchased.

The Applicant states the property was purchased on 12/27/2019 for $250,000.00 from CDO Enterprises LLC, with whom the Applicant has no relationship.

(2) The annual gross and net income, if any, from the property for the previous three (3) years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous three (3) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, during the same period.

The Applicant has stated that this criterion is not applicable to the subject property. Given the structure’s demolished state, Staff agrees with this assessment.

(3) Remaining balance on any mortgage of other financing secured by the property and annual debt service, if any, during the prior three (3)years..

CA4PH-177 and CA3-20-178 for 293 Ormond St Aug. 5, 2020 Page 3 of 6

The Applicant states that the current mortgage is $202,200.00 with an annual debt service of $18,703.44.

4. Real estate taxes for the previous four (4) years and assessed value of the property according to the two (2) most recent assessed valuations.

2019 Atlanta $3,555.35 County $1,161.67 2018 Atlanta $3,472.36 County $1,169.41 2017 Atlanta $2,695.96 County $880.16 2016 Atlanta $3,300.43 County $1,083.27 2015 Atlanta $3,301.43 County $1,093.39

2019 Assessment: $114,800.00 2018 Assessment: $112,120.00

5. All appraisals obtained within the previous two (2) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the property.

The Applicant has provided an appraisal of the property at $250,000.00 in as is condition .

6. The fair market value of the property immediately prior to its designation and the fair market value of the property (in its protected status as a designated building or site) at the time the application is filed.

The Applicant has stated that the property at the time of acquisition and at the time of application is $250,000.00. Based on the length of time the property ahs been designated, Staff finds that the criterion asking for fair market value at the time of acquisition is not applicable to the situation.

7. Form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for-profit or not-for- profit corporation, limited partnership, joint venture, or both.

The Applicant has stated that the property is owned through an LLC.

8. Any state or federal tax returns on or relating to the property for the past two (2) years.

According to the Applicant, there are not tax records available. Given the short length of time that the Applicant has owned the property, Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable to the present situation

9. That the property is not marketable or able to be sold, considered in relation to any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked, and offers received, if any, within the previous two (2) years. Including testimony and relevant documents regarding:

The Applicant has stated that the property is not for sale and has not been listed for sale. Per the appraisal, the subject property is only marketable for the land price.

a) Any real estate broker or firm engaged to sell or lease the property.

CA4PH-177 and CA3-20-178 for 293 Ormond St Aug. 5, 2020 Page 4 of 6

The Applicant has stated that the property is not for sale and has not been listed for sale. Per the appraisal, the subject property is only marketable for the land price.

b) Reasonableness of the price or rent sought by the applicant.

The Applicant has stated that the property is not for sale and has not been listed for sale. Per the appraisal, the subject property is only marketable for the land price.

c) Any advertisement placed for the sale or rent of the property.

The Applicant has stated that the property is not for sale and has not been listed for sale. Per the appraisal, the subject property is only marketable for the land price.

10. The infeasibility of alternative uses that can earn a reasonable economic return for the property as considered in relation to the following:

a) A report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation.

The Applicant has attached an engineer’s letter which confirms the level of demolition and the foundation’s ability to support a new structure.

b) Estimate of the cost of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal, and an estimate of any additional cost that would be incurred to comply with the recommendation and decision of the commission concerning the appropriateness of the proposed alterations.

The Applicant has provided an estimate of demolition and new construction at approximately $225,000.00. Staff would note that rehabilitation of the existing structure is not applicable to this situation due to the level of demolition.

c) Estimated market value of the property in the current condition; after completion of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal; and, in the case of a proposed demolition, after renovation of the existing property for continued use.

The Applicant cites the current value at $250,000.00 based on the estimates provided for purchase and estimates the cost of new construction at $745,000.00. Staff would note again the non-applicability of renovations due to the level of demolition.

d) In the case of a proposed demolition, the testimony of an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or other real estate professional experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure on the property.

The Applicant cites their Engineer’s letter which speaks to the condition of the foundation, the only structural element remaining of the historic structure, for re-use.

e) The infeasibility of new construction around, above, or below the existing protected building or site, and the infeasibility of a transfer of development rights, including an assessment of the monetary value that could be derived from such a transfer, pursuant to section 16-28.023 of the Code of Ordinances.

CA4PH-177 and CA3-20-178 for 293 Ormond St Aug. 5, 2020 Page 5 of 6

The Applicant has stated the R-5 zoning and historic district zoning would allow for up to a two family structure at this property. As stated before, Staff finds that the level of demolition on the site render rehabilitation moot.

11. Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through federal, state, city, or private programs.

The Applicant has responded that economic incentives are not applicable to this situation. While the determination of eligibility for economic incentives are interpreted by the State Historic Preservation Office, the level of demolition could prevent the structure from qualifying for economic incentives.

12. Also, please provide photographs of the existing conditions of the building, both exterior and interior.

The Applicant has provided photographs of the exterior of the structure.

Comment on Application Materials by the Bureau of Buildings One of the requirements of the Type IV Certificate of Appropriateness process is for the Office of Buildings to comment on the application materials via a written report. Staff has submitted a request to the Office of Buildings to inspect the property and produce a report regarding this property. When the inspection and report are complete, Staff will include the report in the file for future reference.

Overall Comments Based on the pictures and testimony provided, Staff finds that the existing building has been demolished. Staff defines a major and imminent threat to public health and safety as a situation where a building is in immediate threat of collapsing and causing harm to people on the public ROW. As the structure was not subjected to the proper review, it is unclear whether there were structural issues with the historic structure which would have necessitated the demolition of the structure over a less intrusive means of addressing the problems. However, given that the work has already rendered the structure to be unsound, Staff finds that reviewing alternatives to the work which has already been completed would be unproductive. Based on the photographs and testimonies provided, Staff finds that the property constitutes an imminent threat to public health and safety.

Given that the appropriate review was not completed on the structure, Staff recommends the Applicant submit an inventory of all historic building materials still on site. Staff further recommends all historic building materials which Staff has determined are feasible for re-use be used on the new structure in their original locations. Lastly, Staff recommends that any new structure match the design of the original with any new space being provided through rear “additions” and dormers on the side roof planes.

CA3-20-178 The applicant is proposing a new single family structure which will match the street facing design of the previously existing single family structure. In general, Staff has no concerns with the proposed street facing façade. Staff would recommend that the Applicant confirm that the pitch of the proposed roof would match the pitch of the previously existing roof. Staff would further recommend the new construction comply with all conditions of CA4PH-20-177.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION CA4PH-20-177: Approval with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit an inventory of all historic building materials still on site; CA4PH-177 and CA3-20-178 for 293 Ormond St Aug. 5, 2020 Page 6 of 6

2. All historic building materials which Staff has determined are feasible for re-use shall be used on the new structure in their original locations; 3. Any new structure shall match the design of the original with any new space being provided through rear “additions” and dormers on the side roof planes; and, 4. Staff shall review and if appropriate, approve the final plans and documentation.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION CA3-20-178: Approval with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall confirm that the pitch of the proposed roof would match the pitch of the previously existing roof; and, 2. The new construction shall comply with all conditions of CA4PH-20-177.

cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director . ADDRESS: 731 Lawton St.

APPLICATION: CA4PH-21-091 & CA3-21-092

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: West End Historic District Other Zoning: R-4A / Beltline.

Date of Construction: 1920

Property Location: West block face of Lawton St., north of the Mathews St. intersection.

Contributing (Y/N)?: Yes.

Building Type / Architectural form/style: Queen Anne Cottage.

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Partial demolition and new construction.

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: n/A

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20G

Deferred Application (Y/N)?: Yes. Deferred March 10, 2021.

Previous Applications/Known Issues:

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Deferral.

CA4PH-21-091 and CA3-21-092 for 731 Lawton St. March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 6

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 16-20G of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

CA4PH-21-091 - Staff Response

1. Demonstrate through independent analysis and supporting information that a major and imminent threat to public safety exists.

The Applicant has not submitted a report by an architect or engineer showing that a major or imminent threat to public health and safety exists. A report from Washington Design Group has been submitted which speaks to the demolition of the foundation and footings, but Staff finds that this information does not satisfy the criterion. The Applicant has also submitted analysis from the Office of Code Compliance’s In-Rem review board which provides financial calculations showing that the structure is 1000% deteriorated. However, Staff would note that these calculations are based on the cost of the work as a proportion of the value of the structure in its current condition and does not assess the structure’s threat to public health and safety. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant demonstrate through independent analysis and supporting information that a major and imminent threat to public safety exists.

2. Present all reasonable alternatives for rectifying the threat and analysis of all such alternatives.

The Applicant has not provided documentation showing reasonable alternatives to demolition. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant submit documentation showing all reasonable alternatives for rectifying the threat to public health and safety, and their analysis of all such alternatives.

a) The applicant’s knowledge of the landmark designation at the time of acquisition, or whether the property was designated subsequent to acquisition.

The Applicant has stated that they were not aware of the historic designation on the property at the time of designation.

b) The current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to the following:

The Applicant has stated that the property was purchased from Jan Bromfield in January of 2020. No information relating to the purchase price of the home has been received. Staff recommends the Applicant provide information relating to the purchase price of the home. The Applicant has also not stated their relationship, if any, with Jan Bromfield. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant describe their relationship with the seller of the home, if any existed.

CA4PH-21-091 and CA3-21-092 for 731 Lawton St. March 24, 2021 Page 3 of 6

The Applicant states that there has been no operating expenses, income, or debt service during their period of ownership which is less than 3 years.

(3) Remaining balance on any mortgage of other financing secured by the property and annual debt service, if any, during the prior three (3)years..

The Applicant has stated that the property was purchased for cash and no debt currently exists on the property.

4. Real estate taxes for the previous four (4) years and assessed value of the property according to the two (2) most recent assessed valuations.

The Applicant has not provided a response to the criteria requesting real estate taxes on the property for the past 4 years. However, this information is publicly available, and Staff has found the following information:

2017 $130.59 2018 $1,210.11 2019 $613.73 2020 $1,579.64

The following assessed values were provided by the Applicant:

2018 Assessed value- $152,200.00 2019 Assessed value- $96,400.00

5. All appraisals obtained within the previous two (2) years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing or ownership of the property.

The Applicant has stated there were no appraisals completed on the property in the previous 2 years.

The Applicant has stated the fair market value of the property is $51,210.00 but has not provided evidence showing this to be the case. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant provide documentation of the estimated fair market value of the property.

7. Form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for-profit or not-for- profit corporation, limited partnership, joint venture, or both.

The Applicant has stated that the property ownership type is a sole-proprietorship.

8. Any state or federal tax returns on or relating to the property for the past two (2) years.

According to the Applicant, there are not tax records available.

9. That the property if not marketable or able to be sold, considered in relation to any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked, and offers received, if any, within the previous two (2) years. Including testimony and relevant documents regarding:

CA4PH-21-091 and CA3-21-092 for 731 Lawton St. March 24, 2021 Page 4 of 6

a) Any real estate broker or firm engaged to sell or lease the property.

According to the applicant, this question does not apply.

b) Reasonableness of the price or rent sought by the applicant.

According to the Applicant the property is not for rent or for sale.

c) Any advertisement placed for the sale or rent of the property.

According to the Applicant, no advertisements have been placed and the property has not been listed for sale.

10. The infeasibility of alternative uses that can earn a reasonable economic return for the property as considered in relation to the following:

a) A report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation.

The Applicant has not provided a response to this criterion. Staff recommends the Applicant provide a report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation.

Per the Applicant’s response, the estimated cost to demolish the property would be between $20,000.00 and $30,000.00 but no supporting documentation has been received. No information relating to the cost of new construction has been received. The Applicant states that that the costs for rehabilitation would be between $350,000.00 and $450,000.00 more than if the structure were in good condition, but no supporting documentation has been received to show this. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant submit documentation that shows the estimate of the cost of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal, and an estimate of any additional cost that would be incurred to comply with the recommendation and decision of the commission concerning the appropriateness of the proposed alterations.

The Applicant states the market value of the property in its current condition is $51,210.00. While no documentation has been submitted to support this market analysis, Staff has recommended elsewhere that this information be provided. No information relating to the estimated market value of the property after rehabilitation, or demolition/ new construction has been provided. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant submit information showing the estimated market value of the property after completion of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal, and, after renovation of the existing property for continued use.

CA4PH-21-091 and CA3-21-092 for 731 Lawton St. March 24, 2021 Page 5 of 6

The Applicant has not provided a response to this criterion. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant submit testimony of an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or other real estate professional experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure on the property.

Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable to the subject property as it is intended for individually designated properties which may contain more land/space for such activity to occur whereas the subject property is a single-family residential structure on a small lot.

11. Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through federal, state, city, or private programs.

The Applicant has not submitted a response to this criterion. As such, Staff recommends the Applicant submit information from their research into Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through federal, state, city, or private programs.

12. Also, please provide photographs of the existing conditions of the building, both exterior and interior.

The Applicant has provided interior and exterior photographs.

Overall Comments Based on the pictures and documentation provided by the Applicant, Staff finds that the existing building is in a state of disrepair. Staff defines a major and imminent threat to public health and safety as a situation where a building is in immediate threat of collapsing and causing harm to people on the public ROW. Based on the information submitted, Staff finds a major and imminent threat has not been proven and that there is not enough information at this time to establish that demolition is the only method available to address the issues on the property. Additionally, Staff finds that the information received to date does not speak to some of the key criteria of the Type IV process, namely that demolition is not the first and only solution to address the issues with the property and site. This burden of proof requires an Applicant to provide detailed information from their due diligence on the property including testimony of architects or engineers familiar with rehabilitation of historic homes and documentation of the alternatives to demolition. As noted earlier in the report, the Office of Code Compliance’s assessment of the deterioration of the structure is a purely financial analysis and does not negate the need for the documentation listed in the Type IV criterion. Likewise, a finding by the In-Rem review board does not negate the need for a property to consider the demolition of a historic structure as an option of last resort after all other remedies have been exhausted or determined to be infeasible.

CA4PH-21-091 and CA3-21-092 for 731 Lawton St. March 24, 2021 Page 6 of 6

CA3-21-092 Given Staff’s recommendation for the demolition request, Staff will not comment on the design of the new construction at this time.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION CA4PH-21-091: Deferral to allow the applicant time to address the following: 1. The Applicant shall demonstrate through independent analysis and supporting information that a major and imminent threat to public safety exists; 2. The Applicant shall submit documentation showing all reasonable alternatives for rectifying the threat to public health and safety, and their analysis of all such alternatives; 3. The Applicant shall provide information relating to the purchase price of the home; 4. The Applicant shall describe their relationship with the seller of the home, if any existed; 5. The Applicant shall provide documentation of the estimated fair market value of the property; 6. The Applicant shall provide a report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation; 7. The Applicant shall submit information showing the estimated market value of the property after completion of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal, and, after renovation of the existing property for continued use; 8. The Applicant shall submit testimony of an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or other real estate professional experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure on the property; 9. The Applicant shall submit information from their research into Economic incentives and/or funding available to the applicant through federal, state, city, or private programs; and, 10. All updated materials shall be submitted no less than 8 days before the deferred meeting date.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION CA3-21-092: Deferral.

cc: Applicant Neighborhood File ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

KEISHA LANCE 55 TRINITY AVENUE, S.W. SUITE 3350 - ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-0308 TIM KEANE BOTTOMS 404-330-6145 - FAX: 404-658-7491 Commissioner MAYOR www.atlantaga.gov KEVIN BACON, AIA, AICP Director, Office of Design

Designation Report for Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS)

In Accordance with Section 16-20.005(d) of the City of Atlanta Code of Ordinances

Street Address: 556 John Wesley Dobbs Avenue NE

Application Number: N-21-022 / D-21-022

Proposed Category of Designation: Landmark Building / Site (LBS)

Zoning Categories at Time of Designation: R-5 / Beltline Zoning Overlay

District: 14 Land Lot: 46 County: Fulton

Designation Report Sections: 1. Eligibility Criteria 2. Minimum Findings 3. Physical Description of the Property 4. Period of Significance 5. Neighborhood Context 6. Occupancy / Use of the Property 7. History and Narrative Statement of Significance 8. Bibliography 9. Contributing / Non-Contributing Structures 10. Potential for Transfer of Development Rights and Economic Incentives 11. General Boundary Description 12. Boundary Justification 13. General Plat Map 14. Exhibits and Photographs 15. Appendix

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 1 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION 1. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

As more fully described in this Designation Report, the Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) meets the following criteria for a Landmark Building / Site (LBS), as defined in Section 16-20.004(b)(2)(a):

Group I - Historic Significance: Three (3) total criteria - if qualifying under this group alone, at least one (1) criterion must be met. The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site meets three (3) criteria:

(1) The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site is associated with the work of person(s) of exceptionally high significance to the city, the state and the nation: Bishop Fuller Sr., Bishop Fuller Jr., Ruby Doris Smith Robinson, John Lewis, and Stokely Carmichael, who resided in the home at various stages of their influential lives: a. The Fuller-Freedom house was originally built by Bishop Fuller Sr., founder of the Fire Baptized Holiness (FBH) Church in 1928. The home was his family’s primary residence until 1960. Bishop Fuller Sr. and Jr. were associated with the establishment of hundreds of FBH churches across the United States and the Fuller Normal Industrial Institute in Atlanta that later moved to South Carolina. Through their leadership they established religious and educational resources for the Atlanta black community and the extended congregation community of the FBH church. b. Ruby Doris Smith Robinson resided in the home off and on after serving her jail sentence for her participation in the 1961 Freedom Rides. From 1963-1966, she served as assistant secretary to James Formant of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), performing duties such as bookkeeping, organizing the 1964 Freedom Summer campaign and directing SNCC’s Sojourner Truth Motor Fleet. She became the first woman executive secretary of SNCC in 1966. c. Congressman John Lewis often stayed in the home during his time as chairman of SNCC between 1963-1965.1 d. Social Activist and Black Panther leader Stokely Carmichael also resided in the home during his time as SNCC chairman between 1965-1966. The legacy of the Fuller Family, Ruby Doris Smith Robinson, John Lewis, and Stokely Carmichael extends beyond the City of Atlanta and the State of Georgia. All of them exemplify the common goal of black equality and prosperity.

(2) The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site is associated with an extremely important historical trend and events of local, state, and national significance: a historic pattern in the City of Atlanta’s growth and the Civil Rights Movement. The Fuller-Freedom House highlights the growth of a rising middle and elite class of black leaders in Atlanta in the early decades after Reconstruction and during the early 20th century, its residential growth along Auburn Avenue and in the Old Fourth Ward. The Fuller-Freedom House marks a particularly significant example in the City of Atlanta for its involvement with a volunteer organization - SNCC - in the National Civil Rights Movement.

1 Tom Houck, interview with CBS46 news, February 14, 2020 ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 2 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site is also associated with an extremely important historical trend and event of local significance: the development of stylistic homes for middle and upper income residents associated with prominent religious leaders in the black community. New construction in the late 1910’s and throughout the 1920s established patterns of vernacular building types that were built across Atlanta. In the prominent black neighborhoods of the Old Fourth Ward and Sweet Auburn, a block of two- story homes along Houston Street (now John Wesley Dobbs Avenue) between Howell Street and Randolph Street, became known as “Bishop’s Row”.

(3) The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site is associated with an extremely important social group in the history of the city and the state: the black community in the City of Atlanta and Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). The black community played a critical role in the development of the City of Atlanta in the 1900s -1970s, particularly around Auburn Avenue, the westside Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) that make up the Atlanta University Center, and the neighborhoods in northeast Atlanta around Auburn Avenue and the neighborhoods in southwest Atlanta. This community is an integral part of the City’s social and cultural landscape, and helped create the City’s reputation as a diverse and inclusive urban area. The city’s demographic landscape was visible through the built environment as they expanded throughout the 20th century, including the black community’s development of its own physical and cultural landscape.

Developed during the era of racial segregation, black Atlantans established the foundations for a thriving community. In the aftermath of the Atlanta “Race Riot” of 1906, the black community concentrated on the promotion of prosperity, education, and religious faith. Socially, the community established a hierarchy of authority, paying respect to all religious leaders and scholars. In the era of Reconstruction and Jim Crow, Atlanta was seen as the “Black Mecca of the South”. A city of opportunities, Atlanta’s population growth and design highlights the social and political trends of the first half of the 20th century.

As the demographic patterns in the city began to change in the early 1950s, the social history of Atlanta began to expand outside of its previously segregated areas. With the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, new generations of families contributed to the narrative of the city’s ongoing history. One of the most prominent groups in this era was the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) - an organization composed of college-aged volunteers. SNCC contributed to the historic prominence of Atlanta and its “headquarter” status during the Civil Rights Movement.

Group II- Architectural Significance: Eleven (11) total criteria - if qualifying under this group alone, at least five (5) criteria must be met. The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) meets three (3) criteria:

(1) The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site clearly dominates and is strongly associated with the streetscape along John Wesley Dobbs Avenue and the urban landscape in Atlanta’s Old Fourth Ward neighborhood. The Fuller-

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 3 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION Freedom House occupies a highly visible location along the significant and well-known “Bishop’s Row”. It is across the street from the David T. Howard Middle School and two doors down from the original residence of John Wesley Dobbs, the African- American political leader of Atlanta that coined the term ‘Sweet Auburn’.

(10)The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site has virtually all the character- defining elements of its type and design intact, considering both its 1928 original construction and its 1960-1970s interior adoption into unit apartments. The current property owners have recently reversed many of the previous interior alterations to reflect the site’s original appearance with slight cosmetic upgrades to the exterior, including painting the brick, adding decorative light fixtures, and replacing the windows, though using the historic light pattern. Architecturally, the defining features of the Italian Renaissance style are still intact and clearly visible: wide, overhanging eaves; arched first level wooden windows; and a symmetrical front façade.

(11)The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site’s original site orientation is maintained. The buildings and associated features have not been moved or altered from their original orientation facing John Wesley Dobbs Avenue. The 1928 South facing façade is still accessible to the public sidewalk and its relationship to the public right-of-way is unchanged.

Group III - Cultural Significance: Three (3) total criteria - if qualifying under this group alone, at least one (1) criterion must be met, as well as least three (3) criteria from Groups I and II. The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) meets two (2) criteria:

(1) The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site has served as a focus of activity, a gathering spot, and a specific point of reference in the urban fabric of the city, particularly by its association with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee’s (SNCC) use of the property as a boarding house - known by SNCC veterans as a ‘Freedom House’. The house was used to provide temporary boarding for volunteers and SNCC workers in between project campaigns across the South and in between local protests or arrests when students from other cities and states needed a place to stay. The house was a welcoming spot for people to sleep, eat, and collectively gather in times of leisure and for meetings to discuss campaign strategies.

(3 )The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site exemplifies a building or site which clearly conveys a sense of time and place and about which one has an exceptionally good ability to interpret the historic character of the resource. It is one of the few remaining original structures along this portion of John Wesley Dobbs Avenue and is situated directly across from the David T. Howard Middle School and in between two modern three-story houses. The Fuller-Freedom House clearly represents historic fabric from the past. Visually the house’s size and architectural style stand out among the newly constructed masonry, geometric, contemporary homes. The historic features and character of the home are visible to pedestrians and show a period of time in the history of the street and within the Historic Old Fourth Ward.

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 4 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION 2. MINIMUM FINDINGS

The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) meets the specific criteria referenced in Section #1 of this report (“Eligibility Criteria”). Further, as more fully described in this Designation Report, the Fuller Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) also meets the “minimum criteria” for a Landmark Building / Site (LBS) as set out in Section 16-20.004(b)(1) of the Code of Ordinances of the City as follows:

Section 16-20.004(b)(1): The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site possesses an integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, taking into account the integrity of the cumulative physical changes that occurred during the entire period of significance: 1928 to 1966.

Section 16-20.004(b)(1)(a) – (c): a. The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, particularly for its association with: the national Civil Rights Movement, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the black community in the City of Atlanta, and the creation of the significant streetscape – known as “Bishop’s Row” - in the City of Atlanta. b. The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, particularly: Joseph S. Flipper, Bishop Fuller Sr., Bishop Fuller Jr., Ruby Doris Smith Robinson, John Lewis, and Stokely Carmichael. c. The Freedom House Landmark Building / Site embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, particularly in its original residential form.

3. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY

Summary Description: a. Date of construction and source(s) used to determine date: January 28, 1928 (City of Atlanta Building Permit)

b. Date(s) of significant/major exterior alterations and/or additions: - Date of Construction -1928 - Date of alterations – 1960s-1980s, 2004, 2015

The Fuller-Freedom House was constructed for single-family residential use in 1928. The house has remained as a residential space used for single family, boarding house, and multi-family/rental unit housing. The current two-story brick (painted white) home reflects an Italian Renaissance Revival architectural style, including: a low-pitched hipped roof, wide overhanging eaves supported by large simple brackets, and rounded arches over the first story windows. The Italian Renaissance style is found in the early 20th century throughout the country. Primarily a style for architect-designed landmarks in major metropolitan areas prior to World War I, vernacular interpretations spread widely

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 5 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION with the perfection of masonry and other techniques - most of these interpretive versions date from the 1920s.2

Changes have occurred to the principal building over time. These changes are itemized below with the known dates or period of the change:

1. Returned home to original use as a single-family home (2015-2018)3 a. Painted the exterior brick b. Repoured the concrete porch and front steps to the house, kept the same pattern. c. Replaced the wooden windows along the North, West, and East facades. Replaced with modern metal windows of the same pattern and style. d. Removed the upper deck leading to the second floor at the North (rear) façade of the house. 2. Apartments (1970s-1990s)4 a. Upstairs kitchen added 3. Porte Cochere on West façade removed (by the 1990s)

In the rear northwest corner of the property there is a two-car garage. The garage has been renovated over the years but was constructed in the same year as the house. The garage is 24 feet by 23 feet in size with exterior stone walls, a gable roof, and a concrete slab floor on the first level. The interior of the second level has been converted into a modern living space that is rented. A wooden deck has been added to access the upstairs living space.

There are also two, contemporary, non-historic sheds on the property.

A driveway occupies the western portion of the site, leading to the two-story garage. The property is surrounded by various types of fencing, with a historic retaining wall along the street frontage.

Principal House Architectural Description - Present Day:

Overall Description:

All facades have a running bond brick pattern. All exterior walls are painted a cream, white color with grey painted accents. Three-over-one, metal, single hung windows consistent with the historic type and style of the house are on all facades and replaced the original wood windows. The current window type and style are original to the design of the house. The window sizes slightly vary across the facades and floor levels. The two large arched windows on the south facing façade are original. The house has a green slate hipped roof and two small dormer windows centered above the main eave line. Large overhanging eaves and decorative grey painted brackets are seen along the roofline of the house.

2 McAlester, Virginia, and A. Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses: the Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2018. 3 Cori Honore, email to Alicia Guzman, January 28, 2021 4 Atlanta City directories ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 6 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION South Façade:

The south facade of the Fuller-Freedom House is the front of the home visible from the public sidewalk. The front façade has symmetrical features with a rounded arch entrance above the front door and two, full-height, arched, grey-painted wooden frame windows on either side. The house is accessible from John Wesley Dobbs Avenue by concrete stairs ascending to the concrete front porch / patio.. The patio area on either side of the front porch consists of an open concrete slab. The front porch / patio has a black wrought iron railing with brick columns at the corners and at the top of the porch stairs. The entry area is accentuated by wooden columns (mounted on top of the brick porch railing columns) that support a second level balcony above the front door. Mounted on the sides of the front door are decorative metal light fixtures. On the east side of the south facade there is a single side door that enters into the house’s east wing extension which was historically used as a sunroom, The original stone wall runs along the perimeter of the front yard along the sidewalk and up the driveway. The stone wall has two courses of brick with taller supporting columns on the corners of the yard and at the sidewalk’s step entrance that connects the base of the black iron fence.

The second level balcony is approximately 10 feet by 10 feet with wood support beams and a black iron railing. A black door leads onto the balcony on the second level of the home, which is flanked by decorative scones.

West Façade:

The west façade is visible from the driveway of the property. The façade has eleven windows, three of which go into the basement level of the home. Two of the basement windows have a single awning latch. Visible ghost marks show the previous porte cochere arched roofline that was original to the house and accessed through the driveway. Most bricks under the previously existing porte cochere have been replaced and painted over.

North Façade:

The north façade is the rear of the house. There are four windows on the second floor and one on the first floor, with a small contemporary wooden deck that leads to a back door. Historically there was a 9 foot by 13 foot screened-in deck, with a second level deck above accessible through an additional back door at the rear of the house.5 Slight ghost marks of the second story deck and door opening are still visible. The door at the second level has since been converted to a window.

East Façade:

The east façade is less visible due to its proximity to the boundary line of the property and the neighboring house along a fence line. There are two small wing extensions with lower hipped roofs and overhanging eaves. The wing on the southeast corner of the house (closest to the front façade) is accessible through the front patio door described in the South Facade section. The second extension is less visible and smaller

5 Betty Fuller, Interview with Alicia Guzman, January 2021 ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 7 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION in dimension, with two windows - one facing north and one facing east. This facade contains the home’s HVAC, water, and electrical systems.

4. PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE

The period of significance for the Fuller-Freedom House extends from the construction of the original house to its use as the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) Freedom House: 1928-1966.

5. NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY & CONTEXT

National and Local Significance:

Located along the north/northeast boundary of the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Register of Historic Places Historic District, the land where the house currently resides was previously owned and developed by Bishop Joseph S. Flipper in the first quarter of the 20th century6. In a 1911 Sanborn Map, the street now known as John Wesley Dobbs Avenue, was named Houston Street7. The map shows a row of two-story vernacular houses primarily along the north side of the street, with a single empty lot that would later be the site of the Fuller-Freedom house.8 The residential homes on this street have been recognized for their architectural integrity as contributing to the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Register Historic District. In a National Register of Historic Places amendment in 2000 updating the Historic District, the area was described as follows:

After the Atlanta fire of 1917, there was a considerable amount of rebuilding and new construction around the late 1910’s and throughout the 1920s. Established patterns of vernacular building types continued to be built across Atlanta. In the prominent black site of the city, a block of two-story homes along John Wesley Dobbs Avenue between Howell and Randolph Streets has been identified as Bishop’s Row. Primarily for the presence of two African Methodist Episcopal (A.M.E) church bishops. The row of dwellings are outstanding examples of house types typical of black neighborhoods in the south. 9

In the early half of the 1900s, Atlanta and Auburn Avenue grew to be known as “The Black Mecca of the South”. In the aftermath of the Civil War, as the south embarked on Reconstruction and then entered the Jim Crow era, many former enslaved people were working to establish a new life for themselves. By the 1880s, as Atlanta was rebuilding and rebranding itself as a regional economic hub, racial tensions between black and white southerners increased, including over job competition. At the same time, a group of Black businessmen began to rise in Atlanta. While Jim Crow laws were enforcing segregation, its constrictions also precipitated/necessitated the growth of social networks

6 MLK Historic District NRHP- contributing map 7 Sanborn Map-1911 8 Ibid 9 NRHP contributing buildings survey ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 8 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION and economic opportunities for black communities due to the lack of options, geographically and culturally, within the larger Atlanta community.

By 1905, the geographic lines of neighborhoods and business associated with black and white Atlantans had been clearly drawn. As the black elite continued to establish their presence in the City, the more threatened white supremacist and the white general public felt. In a conscious effort to disenfranchise the black community, a violent mob erupted in Atlanta on September 22, 1906. The mob was triggered by recent inflammatory newspaper reports of alleged assaults on local white women accusing unidentified black men as the perpetrators. A “militia” of white men targeted and destroyed black-owned businesses and assaulted hundreds of black citizens, leaving three men beaten to death. The attacks continued for two days before the violence stopped. In the aftermath of the damage, Atlanta’s black community and economy were forced to begin rebuilding their community again. The 1906 riot, also referred to as the 1906 Massacre, had a profound effect on many leaders in the community. For many it gave a new legitimacy to more aggressive tactics of achieving racial justice and prosperity.10

By the 1910s and 1920s, as black businesses recovered and re-stimulated Atlanta’s economy, there was a particular focus of activity east of Downtown Atlanta along Auburn Avenue and nearby streets. Labeled by the civil and political leaders as “Sweet Auburn'' (a term coined by John Wesley Dobbs), this area was the site of businesses, neighborhoods, churches, and general prosperity for the black community.

Bishops Row:

North and east of Auburn Avenue was a growing residential area, then Houston Street, a preferred location for many prominent black families, including local bishops and religious leaders. As a result, this portion of the neighborhood became known as “Bishops Row”, and was heavily developed by distinguished educator and religious leader, Bishop Joseph S. Flipper in the first half of the 20th century.11

Along Houston Street, across from the residential homes on the north side of the street, was David T. Howard Elementary School which opened in 1923. The school transitioned into a high school in 1948 before becoming the middle school it is today. The school, like the area around it, is recognized for its historic significance within the black community. The school was named for David T. Howard, a former enslaved person, who owned Atlanta's largest black-owned undertaking business and founded its first African American owned bank. He was a noted philanthropist, particularly focused on educating children. In his lifetime he donated thousands of dollars for underprivileged children to be educated, supported Tuskegee University, and donated the 7.5-acre campus for the elementary school which was named after him. The school has many prominent alumni such as City of Atlanta Mayor Maynard H. Jackson and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

10 Mixon, Gregory; Atlanta Race Riot of 1906 https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history- archaeology/atlanta-race-riot-1906 11 Fulton County Deed records ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 9 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION Bishop Joseph S. Flipper:

Among the leaders associated with Bishops Row was Bishop Joseph S. Flipper, who owned multiple properties in Fulton county. Joseph Simeon Flipper was born on February 22, 1859 in Atlanta Georgia. In 1867, he attended grammar school at the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church, and later attended Storrs School, the predecessor of Atlanta University. In 1876 he briefly moved to Thomaston, Georgia to begin his professional teaching career and there he joined the St. Thomas African Methodist Episcopal Church. In 1880, Flipper became an ordained minister and by 1882 he was an ordained deacon and elected secretary of the Georgia Ministries Conference, an esteemed conference that meets every four years to elect officials in the church to higher ranking positions and responsibilities.

Flipper served roughly 12 years at three different churches across the state of Georgia, including Atlanta’s Big Bethel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church on Auburn Avenue. Bishop Flipper’s passion for education and religion was noticed throughout the communities in which he worked. In 1903, Bishop Flipper became the dean of the Theological Department at Morris Brown College, and by 1904, he became the president of the university. While president he enrolled the largest number of students in the school’s history and erected Flipper Hall, the boys' dormitory on campus. He later established the Central Park Normal and Industrial Institute in Savannah Georgia, and bought ten acres of ground for Payne College at Cuthbert, Georgia, to unite all the schools into one system under the Morris Brown University name.12

Throughout his life, Bishop Flipper continued to expand his leadership role within the church and the community. In 1908 he became the thirty-third Bishop with the AME church and presiding Bishop of the Sixth Episcopal District comprising the State of Georgia.13 In his role as a religious leader, he continued his mission to provide the community with economic and educational opportunities. Bishop Flipper was among the first generation of financially elite black businessmen in Atlanta. In his lifetime he used his resources to purchase over a dozen properties in the 14th District of Fulton County for the community and to rent, purchase, or build homes in the area.14

In an extension of his work, he was able to establish the funds for the foundation of his own church. The Flipper Temple AME church was established on January 4, 1920 on Fair Street, in southwest Atlanta. In its early years, Flipper worked to expand his congregation but shortly after the church's opening, it was destroyed by a fire.15 By 1927, a new church was constructed and the AME congregation was able to move forward and continue their worship services throughout the 20th century and maintain their services today.

Bishop Joseph Flipper is an early example of the prominence and influence many of the black religious leaders along ‘Bishop Row’ had in the Atlanta community. In his lifetime he was chair of the Episcopal Committee and was a member of the Financial Board. His goals in life were to spread the work of his religion and help steer his

12 Jack Hadley Black History Museum- Flipper Biography 13 Flipper Temple AME Church-History website 14 Fulton County Deed Records 15 Ibid ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 10 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION community towards economic autonomy. The Martin Luther King, Jr. National Register Historic District is notably significant for its association with the Civil Rights Movement and its leaders, but is also associated with equally notable trends and figures that helped shape the physical and social landscape of Atlanta in the first half of the 20th century, including Bishop Joseph S. Flipper.

6. OCCUPANCY / USE OF THE PROPERTY

a. Residential (1928-present)

● Cori Honore and Family (2015- present) – Fulton County Tax Assessors (FCTA) ● David McLean (2002-2015) – FCTA ● Dwayne Williams (2000- 2002) – FCTA ● Tyrone Johnson (1999- 2000) – FCTA ● Ralph C Reynolds J David Mclean (1998 - 2000) – FCTA ● Ralph C. Reynolds Jr. (1989 - 1998) -- FCTA ● Hattie Carr (1984-1987) Atlanta City Directory (CD) ● Evelyn Coates (1983) - CD ● Tommy Moton (1980-1981) – CD ● Irma Dell Jefferson (1978-1979) – CD ● Mrs. Alean Gaither, Annie P. Cooper, M L Denson, Essie M. Turner, Ter. Louise Jones (1976-1977) – CD ● Mrs. Shirley L. Harris, Alean Gaither, Annie P. Cooper, M L Denson, Essie M. Turner, Ter. Louise Jones (1974-1975) – CD ● Mrs. Shirley L. Harris & Mrs. Alean Gaither (1972-1973) – CD ● Robby R. Gaither (1970-1972) -- CD ● Denson Morrie Lee (1969-1972) -- CD ● Vacant (1968) – CD ● Helen Helms J. (1967) -- CD ● Yoder Delmar (1965-1966) -- CD ● Scintillas Fuller (1960-1963) – CD ● Fuller Family (1928-1960) – CD ● Joseph S. Flipper (1920) – landowner

7. HISTORY AND NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The Fuller-Freedom House is historically significant for its association with the development of the early to mid-20th century Atlanta black community. The historic association is tied to a street corridor – Bishop’s Row - that facilitated social interactions among prominent religious and community leaders. The house is a unique representation of the local rising black middle class and black elite religious leaders.

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 11 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION The Fuller Family Legacy (1928- 1960):

Atlanta’s landscape of black owned businesses continued to expand throughout the first half of the 20th century. Like Bishop Flipper, many other religious figures maintained a leadership role in the black community, such as Bishop William Edward Fuller. Unlike the native Atlantan Bishop Flipper, Bishop William Edward Fuller, Sr., was born on January 29, 1875, in Mountville, South Carolina. The son of the sharecroppers George and Martha Fuller, he became an orphan at a young age and was raised by his aunt. His opportunity for an education was limited to three months out of the year due to his family’s obligations to tend the fields of sharecropping.16 However, from an early age he saw the power of education through preaching.

In 1892 he joined the New Hope African Methodist Episcopal Church where he received his license to preach the following year. In 1895 Bishop Fuller married his first wife, Martha Wright. As he continued to pursue his religious passions, Bishop Fuller devoted himself to organizing African American congregations for the Fire-Baptized Holiness Association. Within two years he helped establish more than 50 congregations in South Carolina and north Georgia within this association. During this time, he worked on a plantation doing manual labor from sunup to sundown for 25 cents and a small ration of food to provide for his family. He later moved his family to Abbeville, South Carolina where he found work on the Harverson College campus. The president of the college, Dr. Amos, befriended Bishop Fuller and taught him how to fully read and study the bible. Once Bishop Fuller completed his work at the campus, he continued his religious journey. His reputation as a dynamic preacher spurred an estimated five hundred conversions among church visitors. Bishop Fuller was widely known in the black community for preaching the “blood, fire, and dynamite gospel.”17

Bishop Fuller married his second wife, Emma Clare Wright, on March 10, 1910 after the passing of his first wife in 1905. Bishop Fuller and Emma Fuller had seven children together and eventually settled their family in Georgia, though throughout the first 20 years of the 20th century, Bishop Fuller moved in and out of Georgia to establish his churches. Bishop Fuller first purchased a home for his family along Randolph Street, and lived in that home for roughly nine years. In 1927 they purchased the then empty lot from Bishop Fuller at 556 Houston Street, now known as 556 John Wesley Dobbs Avenue, NE. There they built the two-story brick home that stands today and maintained their permanent residence. The house remained in the Fuller family until 1960.

In his lifetime, Bishop Fuller Sr. was recognized for his dedication to the church and his community, and was considered as a statesman, educator, and a dynamic preacher.18 In addition to his success in establishing Fire Baptized Holiness churches across the United States, he was the founder, organizer, and president of the Fuller Normal and Industrial Institute in Atlanta, Georgia. The school opened its doors in 1912 and moved to Toccoa, Georgia the following year. The school remained in Georgia for roughly 11 years before Bishop Fuller moved the Fuller Normal and Industrial Institute to Greenville, South Carolina in 1923.

16 Betty Fuller, interview with Alicia Guzman, January 2021 17 Church Pamphlet 18 William Edward Fuller Jr. (1921-2007) - Find A Grave ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 12 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION Under Bishop Fuller’s leadership, the Greenville campus grew to include twelve acres of land and is currently used as a private Christian elementary school. The campus includes the Caroline Williams Phelps Administration Building, and Emma Wright Fuller Hall which served as academic classroom building and was named in honor of his second late wife. Bishop Fuller was recognized by locals and members of his congregation as a respected and powerful leader, reflected by his inclusion in the inner circle of church bishops and leaders along Bishop’s Row and in the surrounding area. There his children grew up with many other church leader’s children, including his younger children attending school with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.19 Bishop Fuller lived out his life in Atlanta, before his passing in 1958.

Bishop Fuller’s legacy continued through his children. His son Bishop William E. Fuller Jr. (the third child of the Bishop William Edward Fuller, Sr. and Emma Wright Fuller) was born January 19, 1921 in Toccoa, Georgia, but shortly after his birth the family moved to Atlanta, spending his childhood years at 556 John Wesley Dobbs Avenue. As a young child he was inspired by his father’s work in ministry and was often found preaching the funerals of dead chickens, cats, and dogs20. He started his childhood education at Old Morris Brown College for kindergarten before he attended the David T. Howard Elementary School and later a private institution, Laboratory High School. As a child, Fuller Jr. along with many of his siblings would travel with their father along the east coast to visit the growing church establishments.

In the fall of 1937, Bishop Fuller Jr. entered Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1941. In the following fall he was employed as a teacher at Orange County Training High School in Chapel Hill, NC, and was later appointed Head of the Departments of Social Studies and English. After completing a year at the Orange County Training High School, he was offered a position as a part-time instructor in sociology and anthropology at his alma mater, Lincoln University. This opportunity allowed him to work toward his Masters degree at the University of Pennsylvania while simultaneously training in the Theological Seminary at Lincoln University.

In 1946, he completed his studies at the Seminary and received the Master of Arts degree, while during that same year he was appointed to the position of Dean of the Mississippi Industrial College in Holly Springs, Mississippi. Shortly after his appointment as Dean, he was asked to preach at a church seeking a pastor. During Bishop Fuller Jr.’s first year of preaching, he was able to connect with the community and increase church membership.21 The community members and officers were so impressed, he was asked to fill the position of pastor of The First Baptist Church in Starksville, Mississippi. He later attended Temple University where he received a Bachelor of Sacred Theology and a Master of Sacred Theology. After years of studying and preaching he eventually returned to Lincoln University where he received his Doctor of Divinity.

When Bishop Fuller, Sr.'s health began to decline, Fuller Jr. resigned from his pastoral position in Mississippi and moved his family to Atlanta to assist him in his father’s ministry. Upon the death of the Senior Bishop Fuller, he was appointed to carry on the

19 Betty Fuller Taylor, Interview with Alicia Guzman, January 2021 20 William Edward Fuller Jr. (1921-2007) - Find A Grave 21 Church biography pamphlet ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 13 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION work of his father in the Fire Baptized Holiness (FBH) Church of God of the Americas and to succeed his father as President of Fuller Normal School in Greenville, SC. He also took on oversight of the First Episcopal Diocese, compromising the following districts: New England, New York, New Jersey, Charleston, South Carolina, Columbia, Florida, Canada, England, and Kingston, Jamaica. He was chairman of the Executive Council of the FBH Church General Board of Finance, Department of Religious Education, Publication Board, and the Foreign Mission Board. As the senior Bishop, he established the Department of Religious Education, the Junior Missionary Department, and the Ministers' Retreat for all the FBH churches.

Under his leadership, two additional buildings were added to the campus of Fuller Normal School and the two existing buildings were completely renovated. As a visionary leader, he worked to transition Fuller Normal School into Fuller Normal Advanced Technology Charter School and give back to his community. He also served on the Board of Directors of the Citizens Trust Bank. Bishop Fuller Jr. was awarded the Order of the Palmetto, the highest honor given to a South Carolina citizen.

Bishop Fuller Sr. laid the foundation for his followers to grow from and Bishop Fuller Jr. continued his father’s legacy in practice and in spirit through his dedication to the sanctity of the community and providing opportunities for black prosperity.

Bishop Fuller, Sr. Church Timeline:

1899- New Zion (Abbeville, SC) 1903- St. Paul (Greenwood, SC) 1904- St. Peter (Greenville, SC) & Zion Temple (Thomasville, NC) 1905- Mt. Zion (Seneca, SC) & Mt. Zion (Greer, SC) 1906- Michell’s Chapel (Gafney, SC) Bethel (Spartanburg, SC) Daniel’s Tabernacle (Royston, GA) 1907- Gethsamane (Gainesville, GA) & Cappadocia (Asheville, NC) 1908- New Zion (Greenville, SC) & Mt. Moriah (Knoxville, TN) 1909- Zion Tabernacle (Hogue Street- Atlanta, GA) 1910- Apostle (Columbia, SC) & Mt. Sinai (Toccoa, GA) 1910- The first Sunday School Convention held in Greenville, SC at New Zion Fire Baptized Holiness Church 1911- Marks’ Chapel (Harriman, TN) & Bethel (Chattanooga, TN) 1914- Tired Stone Fire Baptized Holiness Church (Washington D.C) & St. Lilly (Atlanta, GA) 1915- Raines Tabernacle (Macon, GA) 1916- Mount Zion & Saint Peter (Philadelphia, PA) 1917- Mount Olive (New York, NY) 1922- The General Council changes the name of the general church from the Colored Fire Baptized Holiness Church to The Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God. 1924- Mt. Olive (Youngstown, OH); Antioch (Cincinnati, OH); St. James (Detroit, Michigan) 1943- Fuller’s Memorial Tabernacle (Atlanta, GA) ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 14 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION The Fuller-Freedom House is historically significant as a site representative of a national social movement addressing issues of suppression, systemic racism, and voter registration restrictions against black Americans that was primarily led by young adults during the house’s association with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) (1960 - 1966).

History of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC):

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was established on April 17, 1960 at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina. A meeting of Southern student protest leaders and Northern supporters was sponsored by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The coordinating committee was composed of representatives from the Southern states and the District of Columbia with its purpose to organize activities, analyze the status of the civil rights movement and map plans for future projects and protests. In the wake of the 1960 Greensboro sit-in, Ella Baker, then director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), organized the first meeting of what became SNCC. Baker was concerned that the SCLC was out of touch with younger black citizens who wanted the movement to make faster progress. She encouraged SNCC to look beyond integration to broader social change and to view King’s principle of nonviolence more as a political tactic than a way of life. The SNCC organization was established as a self-directed group of young, dedicated activists and gave younger black citizens more of a voice in the Civil Rights Movement.

The organization located its headquarters in Atlanta on Raymond Street between Morris Brown College and Atlanta University, which became known as the ‘Atlanta Office’. The office was set up to help ‘organize the organizers’ and to publish The Student Voice, a weekly newspaper that discussed the politics, protests, upcoming events, and any local or national headlines that were directed to the cause. The Atlanta Office was used to help sustain the field staff, providing them with the tools and information they needed to conduct work out in the field. The office and surrounding community exposed volunteers to nonviolence training, as well as general social and political education.

Everything the SNCC National Office in Atlanta did was in service to the field workers and their project efforts across state lines. As the nature and leadership of SNCC’s work changed over time, the character of the National Office changed as well. What remained constant was the central role the SNCC National Office played within the organization’s national campaign efforts, including sending workers into communities that were historically dismissed and demonized. By 1963, SNCC had morphed from a coordinating body for college-based protest groups into managing full-time organizers who invested in voter registration campaigns throughout the South, resulting in SNCC having more voter registration workers on the ground than any other civil rights organization22.

22 SNCC Digital Gateway ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 15 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION SNCC Initiatives:

SNCC was the only youth-led national civil rights organization in the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement.23 As young people in their late teens and early 20’s, SNCC workers referred to themselves as a “band of brothers and sisters, a circle of trust,” reflecting how much they depended on each other in dangerous situations.24 The culture they created helped them survive in the field and in turn that culture was partly shaped by the nature of the dangerous human rights work in which they were involved. They chose to leave school and to travel deep into local communities in heavily suppressed rural areas of the South, working closely with local activists to organize those at the bottom of the economic ladder. As the fight for desegregation, voter registration rights, and social freedom pushed forward throughout the 1950 and 60s, the Civil Rights Movement birthed the various campaigns and associated names like ‘Freedom Fighters’, ‘Freedom Riders’ and ‘Freedom Singers’. Following the trend of freedom-themed names, SNCC and SCLC formally established the “Freedom Summer’ campaign and ‘Freedom School ‘efforts, while also informally establishing ‘Freedom Houses’.

Freedom Summer, also known as the Freedom Summer Project or the Mississippi Summer Project, was launched in June 1964 as a volunteer effort to register as many black voters / citizens as possible in Mississippi, who until then had been restricted from voting since the turn of the century due to voter registration barriers created through local legislation. The project set up dozens of Freedom Schools, Freedom Houses, and community centers in small towns throughout Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas to aid the local black population.25

Freedom Schools were temporary, alternative, and free schools for black Americans mostly in the South. They were originally part of a nationwide effort to organize Black Americans to achieve social, political and economic equality in the United States. SNCC sought to empower the people who were most marginalized by white supremacy and as such offered a bottom-up approach to organizing political and educational resources for the marginalized voters. Education was an essential part of SNCC’s voter registration efforts, as Southern states historically used complicated voter registration exams and literacy tests to prevent Black citizens from voting. SNCC held workshops, organized a variety of literacy courses, and even created comic books to raise people’s confidence and provide political education that would help them register to vote.

In the spring of 1964, SNCC created the Freedom School curriculum, rooted in the lives of young Black Mississippians but whose curriculum was designed by a committee of educators from around the country. Broken up into two parts – the “Citizenship Curriculum” and the “Guide to Negro History” – the curriculum was designed to help students examine their personal experiences with racial discrimination and understand their broader context in Mississippi’s closed society.26 For Black Mississippians, the schools were the first time they had been encouraged to think and act politically, as well as to explore their creative impulses. Freedom School students read books and poetry by

23 Ibid. SNCC culture 24 Ibid. 25 History.com Editors. “Freedom Summer.” History.com. 26 SNCC digital gateway ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 16 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION Black authors and listened to stories of Black resistance in past times, inspiring many Freedom School students to join the Civil Rights Movement and express their liberties.

The Fuller-Freedom House is historically significant as a site of social interaction (1963 - 1966).

Freedom Houses:

Freedom Houses were used as residential “hostels” for SNCC workers and volunteers and given their development and use, were primarily found in more rural areas across the south. As SNCC organizers continued their campaigns into South Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, more Freedom Houses and Freedom Centers began to pop up.27 Through active communication from the SNCC headquarters in Atlanta, leaders and volunteers of the movement were able to travel out of state and connect with locals at various Freedom Houses. These houses were used to provide temporary housing for volunteers and SNCC workers in between project campaigns across the South, as well as in between local protests and arrests when students from other cities and states needed a place to stay.

The Fuller-Freedom House was one of only two freedom houses in Atlanta. The Fuller-Freedom House was directly associated with SNCC, while the other house, located at an angle behind the Fuller-Freedom House on Johnson Avenue (since demolished to make way for the John Lewis Freedom Parkway) was directly associated with the SCLC. In general, the organizations’ houses were friendly with each other and often spent evenings socializing together. The central concept of the Freedom Houses was to provide a collective gathering space of leisure. In creating this designated space, SNCC culture strengthened among its peers as the house provided a place of safety and a sense of community for the volunteers that embarked in dangerous missions fighting for the common causes of the Civil Rights Movement.28

The Fuller-Freedom House is historically significant for its association with people of exceptionally high significance to the city, the state and the nation: John Lewis, Stokely Carmichael and Ruby Doris Robinson.

Congressman John Lewis:

John Lewis was a founding member of the SNCC organization, and in 1963 he was elected as chairman of SNCC and became known as one of the "Big Six" leaders who organized the March on Washington.29 In 1964, Lewis was on the front lines of the SNCC Freedom Summer campaign, coordinating SNCC's efforts for voter registration projects and the Freedom Schools. At the young age of 24 years old, Lewis led the organization and engaged large numbers of college age activists to aid in the national campaign, traveling the country encouraging students to spend their summer break trying to help people vote in Mississippi. Lewis also organized some of the voter registration efforts during the 1965 Selma voting rights campaign and became nationally known during his prominent role in the Selma to Montgomery marches. On March 7, 1965,

27 Ibid. 28 TJ Johnson, telephone conversation with Alicia Guzman, January 15, 2021 29 SNCC digital gateway ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 17 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION known as "Bloody Sunday'', Lewis and fellow activist Hosea Williams led over 600 marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama and were met with brutal opposition.

Throughout his time as chairman, Lewis spent several nights in the Fuller-Freedom House for organizational meetings and for times of rest and socialization.30 In 1966 Lewis was replaced by Stokely Carmichael as chairman of SNCC because at this point, many in SNCC felt Lewis’s commitment to nonviolent direct action and mass protests was out of step with SNCC’s growing militant action strategy / philosophy.

Stokely Carmichael:

Stokely Carmichael was also a prominent organizer in the Civil Rights Movement in the United States and the global Pan-African Movement. Carmichael was born in Trinidad but came to the United States as a child and grew up in Harlem. After high school he started at Howard University where he originally believed that the civil rights cause was “something that adults did.”31 After witnessing and attending local sit-ins, the movement convinced him that young people could and should do something about the violence and racism that saturated the United States. Carmichael was one of the original SNCC freedom riders of 1961 and at 19-years-old, Carmichael was one of the youngest persons to participate in that effort. He served 53 days in Mississippi’s Parchman Penitentiary for his role in that effort.32 After his release from Parchman, Carmichael returned to Howard University and would return to the Mississippi Delta every summer to work with SNCC.

By 1964 he became a major voting rights activist in Mississippi and Alabama after being personally mentored by Ella Baker during his time with SNCC and at the Atlanta Office. Throughout his early involvement with SNCC, Carmichael witnessed the efforts and results of nonviolent protests preached by prominent leaders in the movement like Dr. King, John Lewis, James Farmer Jr., and Phillip Randolph. While Carmichael respected the nonviolent approach of the movement, he and his fellow Freedom Fighters began to discuss new more assertive tactics for the movement. Like many in the field, he has been subjected to violence and dangerous situations that were in response to nonviolent protests. Carmichael’s beliefs and strategies differed from the then chairman John Lewis, and in the spring of 1966, Carmichael ran against Lewis for the coveted SNCC Chairman position. After a successful election, Stokely began to impose his ‘Black Power’ ideology on his fellow SNCC members.33 This popularized term characterizes the new tactics and goals he intended on introducing to the SNCC workers.

Black self-reliance and the use of violence as a means of self-defense were his preferred approaches when white supremacist opponents reacted forcefully to nonviolent protesters. Carmichael considered nonviolence a tactic, but not a fundamental principle and this philosophy ultimately separated him from other Civil Rights leaders like John Lewis and Dr. King. Carmichael was Chairman of SNCC until 1967, when he was succeeded by H. Rap Brown. During his brief time as Chairman, he also lived in the

30 Tom Houck, telephone conversation with Alicia Guzman, January 15, 2021 31 SNCC Digital Gateway- Stokely Carmichael Bio 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 18 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION Fuller-Freedom House, and was the last SNCC chairman to do so.34 In his career he became a key leader in the development of the Black Power movement - a movement that has maintained its presence and vigilance throughout the 20th century.

Ruby Doris Smith Robinson:

From 1960-1967, Ruby Doris Smith Robinson was connected to SNNC: attending the organizational meeting in 1960, participating in sit-ins in 1961, serving as a field representative and chapter organizer through the years, serving as assistant secretary from 1963-1966, and serving as executive secretary in 1966.

Robinson was a native Atlantan, raised in Atlanta’s black middle class neighborhood of Summerhill and earned a bachelor’s degree from Spelman College in 1965. Her exposure to racial discrimination in her city, the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott, and the Greensboro, North Carolina sit-ins in February 1960 all influenced her to become involved in the Civil Rights Movement. Robinson was among the many in attendance at the mass meeting for college students at Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina where SNCC was founded in 1960. From SNCC’s origins, Robinson was designated a SNCC field representative and assisted in organizing chapters in Charleston, South Carolina; Nashville, Tennessee; and McComb, Mississippi.

In February 1961, four SNCC leaders—J. Charles Jones, Diane Nash, Charles Sherrod, and 18-year-old Robinson—traveled to Rock Hill, South Carolina to participate in city wide sit-in demonstrations. In a show of solidarity with local demonstrators, Robinson’s group initiated a “Jail-No-Bail” sit-in tactic. This phase of the protests led to 30-day jail sentences for Robinson and hundreds of other participants. Robinson continued her activism by participating in the 1961 Freedom Rides and for her involvement, she served a 45-day jail term at Parchman Penitentiary, alongside Lewis and Carmichael, where prison guards brutalized her and the other activists. Despite her constant beatings and jail sentences she continued to fight for the cause. After serving her time she returned to Atlanta where she lived off and on in the Freedom House.

After the establishment of SNCC, and under the guidance of Ella Baker, the organization rapidly grew to a full-fledged working organization. With its rapid growth in memberships and project efforts, internal structures were put in place to manage the daily functions, resulting in the prominent role in the Atlanta Office of the executive secretary who was in charge of all forms of communication. James Forman was the executive secretary of SNCC from 1961 to 1966 and played a significant role in the Freedom Rides, the Albany movement, the Birmingham campaign, and the Selma to Montgomery marches. Throughout his time as executive secretary he worked closely with Charles McDrew, John Lewis, and Stokely Carmichael.

She served as assistant secretary to James Forman from 1963-1966, performing duties such as bookkeeping, organizing the 1964 Freedom Summer campaign and directing SNCC’s Sojourner Truth Motor Fleet. He stepped down as executive secretary in early 1966 and was succeeded by Ruby Doris Smith Robinson.

34 Tom Houck, Interview with CBS46 News, February 14, 2020 ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 19 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION In 1967 Robinson was diagnosed with terminal cancer and passed away in October of the same year at the age of twenty-five. Her legacy lives on with the SNCC organization and in the memories of many SNCC veterans. Robinson’s dedication and resilience for the movement is undeniable among her peers. Once described as “a tower of strength” by Stokely Carmichael himself, she is considered a prominent figure for the SNCC organization35. Her legacy lives on through those that knew her and her living relatives today.

35 SNCC Digital Gateway ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) - Page 20 of 66

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary

African American visual arts collection, VIS 68, Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. https://ahc.galileo.usg.edu/repositories/2/resources/2791 Accessed October 24, 2020

Atlanta Daily World (1932-2003); Jan 24, 1958; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Atlanta Daily World. page 4.

Betty Fuller Taylor, interviewed by Alicia Guzman, January 2021.

“Box 19, Folder 6, Document 29,” Ivan Allen Digital Archive, accessed November 5, 2020, http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/items/show/8502.

CBS46 News Atlanta. “Freedom House.” CBS46 News Atlanta. Accessed February 1, 2021. https://www.cbs46.com/.

Center for Documentary Studies, SNCC Critical Oral Histories Conference, July 2016, Duke University.

Dr. Glen Eskew, telephone conversation with Alicia Guzman, January 13, 2021.

Ellis, Trey. “King In the Wilderness.” Kunhardt Film Foundation, 2016. https://www.kunhardtfilmfoundation.org/film-interviews/king-in-the-wilderness.

“Founding of SNCC.” SNCC Digital Gateway, July 14, 2020. https://snccdigital.org/events/founding-of-sncc/.

Fulton County Deed Records. Grantor - Grantee book collection, 1900-2020

Gene Roberts, “Black Power Idea Long in Planning,” New York Times, August 5, 1966.

Hebert , Dick. “12 Negroes Jailed After Picket Fight .” Atlanta Journal Constitution . August 19, 1966.

Ivan Allen Digital Collection: http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/

J.T Johnson, telephone conversation with Alicia Guzman, January 15, 2021.

Julian Bond, Vol. 1, “Opening Plenary,” SNCC 50th Anniversary Conference, Produced by Natalie Bullock Brown, 2010, California Newsreel.

Letter to editor by Ivanhoe Donaldson to New York Times, October 1966, Folder 252253-061-0855, SNCC Papers, ProQuest History Vault.

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 21 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION Maurer, John B. Volunteers on Porch of Freedom House in Holly Springs, Mississippi; July 1964, July 1964.

“Meeting Minutes from the SNCC Steering Committee Meeting; November 27, 1960 .” content.wisconsinhistory.org Accessed December 4, 2020. https://content.wisconsinhistory.org/digital/collection/p15932coll2/id/64458.

One of sixteen digital videocassette tapes documenting the 13 April 2000 conference, "We Who Believe in Freedom Cannot Rest: Ella J. Baker ('Miss Baker') and the Birth of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee," held at Shaw University, in Raleigh, NC. The conference celebrated the organization's 40th anniversary, https://archives.lib.duke.edu/catalog/snccanniversarytapes , David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University

Sales, Ruby, Interviewee, Joseph Mosnier, and U.S Civil Rights History Project. Ruby Nell Sales oral history interview conducted by Joseph Mosnier in Atlanta, Georgia. 2011. Pdf. https://www.loc.gov/item/2015669106/.

Sanborn Map Company. "Insurance maps, Atlanta, Georgia, 1911” University of Georgia Libraries Map Collection, Athens, Ga., presented in the Digital Library of Georgia. November 5, 2020. https://dlg.usg.edu/record/dlg_sanb_atlanta- 1911#item.

SNCC Digital Gateway. Accessed January 23, 2021. https://snccdigital.org/.

“SNCC Record, ‘Atlanta, 1964’ John Lewis; Paul Simon's ‘Graceland.’” Brown Media Archive Collection: physical object: SNCC Record, "Atlanta, 1964" John Lewis; Paul Simon's "Graceland" [spch-comm_0045], 1964. https://bmac.libs.uga.edu/pawtucket2/index.php/Detail/objects/31075.

Tom Houck, telephone conversation with Alicia Guzman, January 15, 2021.

Wisconsin Historical Society, Creator, Title, Image ID. Viewed online at https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Image/IM23666

Secondary

Alexander, Estrelda. Black Fire: One Hundred Years of African American Pentecostalism. Downers Grove , IL: IVP Academic, 2011.

Atlanta Daily World. “60 Years Ago: Students Launched Sit-In Movement.” Atlanta Daily World, February 4, 2020. https://atlantadailyworld.com/2020/02/03/60-years-ago- students-launched-sit-in-movement/.

“Church History.” Flipper Temple AME Church. Accessed January 22, 2021. https://www.flippertempleame.com/about-us/church-history/.

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 22 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION “Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas, Incorporated.” FBH Church Official Site. https://www.fbhchurch.org/index.html.

GRADY-WILLIS, Winston A. "Black Power in the South : Urban Protest and Neighborhood Activism in Atlanta, Georgia, 1966-1969." Présence Africaine, Nouvelle Série, no. 161/162 (2000): 328-44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24352105.

Grant, Donald L., and Jonathan Grant. The Way It Was in the South: the Black Experience in Georgia. Athens, GA, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2001.

History.com Editors. “Freedom Summer.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, October 29, 2009. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/freedom-summer.

McAlester, Virginia, and A. Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses: the Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2018.

Monteith, Sharon. SNCC's Stories: the African American Freedom Movement in the Civil Rights South. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 2020.

WALMSLEY, MARK JOSEPH. "Tell It Like It Isn't: SNCC and the Media, 1960–1965." Journal of American Studies 48, no. 1 (2014): 291-308. Accessed October 29, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24485570

Wesley Hogan, Many Minds One Heart SNCC’s Dream for a New America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007).

“William Edward Fuller Jr. (1921-2007) - Find A...” Find a Grave. Accessed January 22, 2021. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/22622810/william-edward-fuller.

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 23 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

9. CONTRIBUTING / NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES

a. Contributing Structures: The principal, two-story house, including all its exterior features and components and the two story two car garage on the northwest corner of the property.

b. Non-Contributing Structures: Two wooden shed units on the east side of the garage along the fence line of the property and the contemporary fencing along the property lines.

10. POTENTIAL FOR TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC INCENTIVES

In addition to other economic incentives administered by the State of Georgia that may apply to the proposed Landmark Building / Site (including the Rehabilitated Historic Property Tax Abatement Program, Federal Income Tax Credit Program, and the State Income Tax Credit Program), the Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site could be potentially eligible for the following City economic incentives:

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Section 16-28.023 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlanta.

11. GENERAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION

The boundary of the proposed Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) at 556 John Wesley Dobbs Avenue is generally described as follows:

Beginning on the north side of John Wesley Dobbs Avenue (formerly Houston Street) 195.2 feet east from the northeast corner of John Wesley Dobbs Avenue and Howell Street, thence east along the north side of John Wesley Dobbs Avenue 48.8 feet to the line of property formerly owned by Nellie C. Hamilton 341.8 feet west from the northwest corner of John Wesley Dobbs Avenue and Randolph Street. Thence north along the west line of property formerly owned by Nellie C. Hamilton 155.7 to a 10-foot alley; thence west along the south side of the alley 48.8 feet to the line of former property owner J.S Flipper. South along the east line of the property formerly owned by J.S. Flipper 155.7 feet to John Wesley Dobbs Avenue to the point beginning at the property known as No. 556 John Wesley Dobbs Avenue according to the present system of numbering houses in the City of Atlanta. Area is approximately 0.1721 acres.36

36 City of Atlanta Land Lot 46, District 14 property description ______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 24 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

12. BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION

The proposed boundary of the designation is the current property boundary containing the extant buildings, including all exterior features of those buildings and any site features, such as retaining walls, fences, and various paving. This boundary generally aligns with the boundary of the property during its period of significance.

13. GENERAL PLAT MAP

FULLER-FREEDOM HOUSE LANDMARK BUILDING / SITE (LBS) - 556 JOHN WESLEY DOBBS AVENUE, NE PIN: 14 004600061108 Land Lot: 46 District: 14th City Council: 2 NPU: M

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 25 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

Heavy black line represents the boundary of the proposed Landmark Building / Site (LBS) designation.

14. EXHIBITS AND PHOTOGRAPHS a. Martin Luther King Jr. National Register Historic District Map Boundaries

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 26 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

b. 1911 Atlanta Sanborn Fire Insurance Map

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 27 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

c. City of Atlanta Building Permit from 1928

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 28 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 29 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION d. 1924 Atlanta Sanborn Fire Insurance Map

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 30 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION e. Google Satellite View

f. 556 John Wesley Dobbs Ave. NE (Fuller-Freedom House)

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 31 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION g. South facing Façade (Front)

h. Original Stone Wall

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 32 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION i. West facing façade with ghost marks from a previous side porte cochere

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 33 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION j. Ghost marks from previous side door, now a basement window (West façade)

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 34 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION k. Original coal latch door to basement furnace (west façade)

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 35 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION l. Northwest view

m. Ghost marks to original second story porch (North façade, rear)

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 36 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION n. East façade

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 37 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION o. East façade of sunroom with eaves and visible brackets

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 38 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION p. Brick chimney on Southeast façade

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 39 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION q. Southeast view of chimney and roofline

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 40 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION r. Original door knocker engraved with Bishop W.E. Fuller’s name and address

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 41 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

s. Photo of Bishop Fuller Sr. in 1928 while the house is being constructed

a. b.

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 42 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION t. Fuller-Freedom House in 2000, porte cochere ghost marks more visible on west façade

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 43 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION u. East façade view, picture taken facing south on John Wesley Dobbs Ave (late 1990s-early 2000s)

v. Houses in 2021 on John Wesley Dobbs Ave. photo taken facing north

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 44 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION x. David T. Howard Middle School located across the street from the Fuller- Freedom house

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 45 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION y. Flipper Temple AME church – 580 Atlanta Student Movement Blvd.

z. Bishop William E. Fuller Sr.

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 46 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION aa. Bishop William E. Fuller Jr.

bb. (left to right) Emma Wright Fuller, Bishop Fuller Sr., and Scintilla Fuller graduating from Morris Brown college. Bishop Fuller received an Honorary Doctorate.

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 47 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION cc. (left to right) Betty Fuller Taylor, Emma Wright Fuller, Scintilla Fuller inside the home’s music room.

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 48 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION dd. Betty Fuller Taylor, daughter of Bishop Fuller Sr.

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 49 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION ee. Fuller’s Memorial Tabernacle- 269 Fairburn Rd. NW, Atlanta, GA

ff. St. Peter Fire Baptized Holiness Church- 400 Arthur St SW, Atlanta, GA 30310

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 50 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION gg. Zion Tabernacle- 64 Hogue Street, Atlanta, GA

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 51 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION hh. SNCC flyer- 1961

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 52 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

ii. John Lewis biography page as Chairman of SNCC 1963

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 53 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION jj. SNCC Freedom House in Mississippi during the 1964 Freedom Summer

kk. SNCC Freedom House and Center in Mitchellville, Arkansas

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 54 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION ll. Ruby Doris Smith Robinson

mm. Stokely Carmichael

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 55 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

15. APPENDIX a. Atlanta Journal Constitution- July 26, 1922

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 56 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

b. Atlanta Journal Constitution- April, 1910

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 57 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

c. Atlanta Journal Constitution- February 13, 1916

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 58 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

d. Atlanta Journal Constitution- October 11, 1944

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 59 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

e. Atlanta Journal Constitution- August 19, 1966. 556 John Wesley Dobbs Ave. Identified as SNCC Freedom house. (2 pages)

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 60 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 61 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 62 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION f. Atlanta Journal Constitution- November 3, 1968

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 63 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 64 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION g. SNCC plaque outside of the plot of land where the SNCC headquarter once stood at 6 Raymond Street

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 65 of 66

ATTACHMENT “A” TO THE NOMINATION RESOLUTION h. Raymond Street renamed SNCC Way

______Designation Report: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) Page 66 of 66

ATTACHMENT “B” TO REZONING LEGISLATION

TIM KEANE KEISHA LANCE C I T Y O F A T L A N T A COMMISSIONER BOTTOMS DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING MAYOR 55 TRINITY AVENUE, S.W. SUITE 3350 – ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 404-330-6145 – FAX: 404-658-7491 Kevin Bacon, AIA, AICP http://www.atlantaga.gov/Government/Planning.aspx Director Office of Design

Atlanta Urban Design Commission Nomination Resolution: Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site

Property Address: 556 John Wesley Dobb Avenue, NE

Application Number: N-21-022 / D-21-022

Proposed Designation: Landmark Building / Site (LBS)

Zoning Categories at time of Nomination / Designation: R-5 / Beltline Zoning Overlay

District: 14 Land Lot(s): 46

Fulton County, City of Atlanta

Whereas, the Executive Director of the Atlanta Urban Design Commission (the “Commission”) initiated the nomination process by mailing the appropriate Notice of Intent to Nominate to the property owner of the Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) and publishing a notice pursuant to Subsection (b) of the City of Atlanta Code of Ordinances, Section 16-20.005; and

Whereas, the Executive Director caused to be conducted research regarding this proposed nomination and has compiled a written designation report stating the findings and recommendations regarding the historic, architectural and cultural significance of said nomination pursuant to Subsection (d) of said code section, which report, Attachment “A", is attached to this resolution and is hereby incorporated by this reference; and

Whereas, a public hearing was held on March 24, 2021 by this Commission to consider said nomination after appropriate public notice was provided as required by Subsection (e) of said code section; and

Whereas, this Commission has reviewed and considered said designation report as well as all other testimony, documentation and other evidence presented to it, including the testimony of all interested members of the public and the property owner pursuant to Subsection (e) of said code section.

Fuller-Freedom House LBS (N-21-022 / D-21-022) – Nomination Resolution - 3/24/2021 - Page 1 of 2

ATTACHMENT “B” TO REZONING LEGISLATION

Now therefore be it resolved by the Urban Design Commission of the City of Atlanta as follows:

Section 1. That the designation report caused to be prepared by the Executive Director of the Commission, as well as all submitted written materials, and all the testimony heard at the March 24, 2021 public hearing, is hereby adopted by this Commission and shall constitute the Findings of Fact upon which this nomination is based.

Section 2. That the Commission hereby determines that said Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS), a general plat map of which delineating all its boundaries is contained within Attachment “A”, and hereby incorporated by this reference, is architecturally, historically, and culturally significant.

Section 3. The Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) is generally located in Land Lot 46 of the 14th District of Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia.

Section 4. That the Commission further determines that said Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) to be eligible for designation to the category of Landmark Building / Site (LBS), as meeting, at a minimum, the eligibility criteria set forth in Section 16-20.004(b)(1), specifically including subsections a., b., and c. of this code section.

Section 5. That the Commission hereby further determines that said Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) meets the criteria set forth in Section 16-20.004(b)(2)(a), specifically including those criteria in the following groups: Group I (1), (2), and (3); Group II (1), (10), and (11); and Group III (1) and (3).

Section 6. That the Commission, having determined that said Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) meets or exceeds the criteria as set forth herein, hereby nominates the Fuller- Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS) to the category of Landmark Building / Site (LBS) pursuant to Section 16-20.005(e)(3).

Section 7. That the Commission hereby directs the Executive Director to transmit this resolution including all supporting documentation to the Chair of the Zoning Committee of the Atlanta City Council, to the Commissioner of the Department of City Planning, and to notify by first class mail the property owner of said Fuller-Freedom House Landmark Building / Site (LBS).

Approved by and nominated by the Atlanta Urban Design Commission on March 24, 2021.

______Desmond Johnson, Chair Date Atlanta Urban Design Commission

______Douglas H. R. Young, Secretary and Director Date Atlanta Urban Design Commission

Fuller-Freedom House LBS (N-21-022 / D-21-022) – Nomination Resolution - 3/24/2021 - Page 2 of 2

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 5th Street

APPLICATION: RC-21-115

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______

FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: N/A Other Zoning: SPI-16

Date of Construction: N/A

Property Location: William Street to Myrtle Street

Contributing (Y/N)? N/A Building Type / Architectural form/style: Streetscape

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Streetscape

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: N/A

Relevant Code Sections: N/A

Deferred Application (Y/N)? No

Previous Applications/Known Issues: N/A

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Confirm the delivery of comments at the meeting.

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Chapter 20 of the City of Atlanta Zoning Ordinance. RC-21-115 for 5th Street March 24, 2021

PROPOSAL This proposal is a complete streetscape improvement project on 5th Street that will run from William Street to Myrtle Street. This work will improve the bike facility, introduce a mid-block crossing at Tech-Square, repairing the sidewalks and curbs along the corridor and repaving the street.

Bike facility The current bike facility will be improved to make it more visible and provide more room for bikers to ride safely. And it appears this will continue along the entire corridor. Staff could not determine if the bright color with be a fixture throughout the bike lane. If it does not, it would be good for the Applicant to explore the possibly to do so.

Mid-block Crossing at Tech Square The mid-block crossing allows for clear understanding of pedestrian safety. And should let the car driver understand something is approaching. However, Staff would recommend signage coming upon the crossing letting the driver know he or she is approaching the crossing. Likewise, on the sidewalks letting the pedestrian know they are approaching the crossing and to proceed with caution.

Sidewalk and Curbs The Applicant states the ADA accessibility in one section cannot be maintain therefore no work will be done in that area. Staff deems ADA accessibility is always paramount so applauds the Applicant for recognizing its importance.

In general Staff finds that the proposed improvements would result in a more comfortable pedestrian experience and would encourage the use of cycling and a safer walking experience for people. Staff would suggest that the Applicant detail the maintenance and care program that will be implemented for the new street trees including identifying the party that will be responsible for their care.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm the delivery of comments at the meeting. cc: Applicant Neighborhood File

C I T Y O F A T L A N T A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atlanta Urban Design Commission

FROM: Doug Young, Executive Director

ADDRESS: 833 Memorial Dr. (F.H. Ross & Co. Laundry Warehouse)

APPLICATION: RC-21-123

MEETING DATE: March 24, 2021 ______FINDINGS OF FACT:

Historic Zoning: N/A Other Zoning: MRC-3-C / Beltline.

Date of Construction: 1949, Additions built in 1967, 1971, 1992, and 2018.

Property Location: South block face of Memorial dr., west of the Chester Ave. intersection.

Contributing (Y/N)?: N/A

Building Type / Architectural form/style: Streamline Moderne

Project Components Subject to Review by the Commission: Nomination for National Register listing.

Project Components NOT Subject to Review by the Commission: N/A

Relevant Code Sections: Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 6-4043

Deferred Application (Y/N)?: No.

Previous Applications/Known Issues: N/A

SUMMARY CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION: Confirm the delivery of comments at the meeting.

RC-21-123 for 833 Memorial Dr. March 10, 2021 Page 2 of 2

CONCLUSIONS: The following conclusions pertinent to this request are in accordance with Sec. 16-20, & Sec. 6-4043 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Atlanta.

The current proposal before the Commission for comment is the nomination of the F.H. Ross & Co. Laundry Warehouse, also known as the Atlanta Dairies to the National Register of Historic Places.

The Applicant states that the building was originally used as a laundry warehouse but was later converted to a dairy processing plant. The structure retains much of its original architectural features including the common bond brick, stone coping at the parapet wall, several window and door openings, as well as the overall footprint of the principal building. Several of the alterations to the structure dating to the period that the structure was converted to a dairy processing operation are still extant such as the half-gallon vitamin D milk carton signage. On the western façade, several openings were punched into the brick at regular intervals, likely to accommodate the removal of processing equipment when the dairy operations were vacated. The structure has also sustained damage from the 2008 tornado which required the replacement of much of the roof structure. However, the structure retains much of its original character. As the area immediately surrounding the structure experiences rapid changes to a mix of residential and commercial uses, the retention of the subject property tells the story of the areas light industrial past. Staff agrees with the Applicant’s assessment of the historical significance of the building and supports the proposed nomination.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Confirm the delivery of comments at the meeting.

cc: Applicant Neighborhood File