Marietta council to consider 84-foot downtown building Wednesday

May 9—The Marietta City Council Wednesday will consider Bridger Properties' proposal to construct an 84-foot-tall residential building downtown.

The 1.25-acre site of the proposed building, 25 Polk Street, is just west of the pedestrian bridge which spans the railroad tracks, and north of the Marietta Square Market food hall.

Bridger, an Atlanta-based developer which owns more than four acres of downtown real estate, does not need a rezoning to move forward with the project. But it does need a certificate of approval from the council for new construction, due to the property being within the downtown historic district.

The mayor and council are tasked with considering the building's appearance, not its use as apartments or condominiums.

"You have to look at this and say, 'Does that match the historic nature of downtown, yes or no,'" city attorney Doug Haynie told the council at a Monday night work session.

The Historic Board of Review, which advises the council on applications for building changes within Marietta's downtown historic district, voted 6-3 last week to recommend denial of the design.

Bridger's plans call for a seven-story building — five stories of residences above two stories of parking. The building would have 135 units and replace a surface parking lot.

Before the council met Monday, Bridger asked the city to delay the public hearing on the matter until July. Councilman Joseph Goldstein, whose family is one of the largest property owners in downtown Marietta, sought to accommodate that request. But his motion to table failed 3-4, so the council will hear the proposal Wednesday.

At last week's historic board meeting, residents weighed in on the design, with mixed reactions.

Criticism was directed at the proposed building's height and size and its proximity to the historic Root House. In recent months, residents and council members have also associated apartments with unwanted density, transiency, crime and blight.

On the other hand, supporters of the project say the building would be a shot in the arm to downtown's economy. They argue the city needs more high-quality apartments, which can house young professionals and empty nesters.

Request to delay

At the work season, Haynie said he and City Manager Bill Bruton had spoken with Bridger's lawyers, who requested a two-month delay.

Asked by Councilwoman Cheryl Richardson why Bridger wanted a postponement, Haynie said there was no one reason cited, "other than to address issues."

"If they're going to spend the 60 days to try to work with people, to get to something to fit what the (historic board) rules require, that's a good use of 60 days," Richardson said. "If they're going to use it to take vacation and navel-gaze, we might as well just do this now."

Mayor Steve "Thunder" Tumlin was open to the possibility of postponing, depending on how Bridger used its time.

"To me that's the only proper thing to do, is to consider this appeal and send it back ... If they're coming back with the same old plan and just want 60 days of lobbying, I don't think it's in the public interest," Tumlin said.

Haynie said that at Wednesday's meeting, the council could approve the design or deny it. Another option would be to send it back to the historic board for revisions. Or, the council could keep the issue in its realm and seek revisions.

At the start of the Bridger discussion, Goldstein made a personal disclosure on the record, as he often does. Goldstein disclosed that his father, Philip, had cross access easements with the Eubanks family, who formerly owned Bridger's downtown holdings. When Bridger purchased the properties, it "acquired the responsibilities and interests in the cross access easements," Goldstein said.

Later in the meeting, Goldstein moved to accept Bridger's request and delay the hearing until July. Councilman Johnny Walker took issue with Goldstein's involvement.

"I don't believe you should be voting on this," Walker told him. "I think it's a total conflict. And if you vote on this, your family could possibly gain millions of dollars."

"Amen," added Councilman Grif Chalfant.

Goldstein did not respond to Walker.

Goldstein, M. Carlyle Kent and Andre Sims voted in favor of the postponement. They were overruled by Walker, Chalfant, Richardson and Andy Morris.

Specter of a suit

The possibility that the city and Bridger will end up in court loomed large over Monday's discussion.

Haynie said a court reporter will likely be present at Wednesday's meeting to take down everything that's said.

Bridger has submitted a constitutional challenge to the city's code.

At last week's historic board meeting, Joseph Atkins, the board's attorney, told board members that such a challenge was standard in land use cases.

"They have to do that in order to preserve their appeal rights," Atkins said.

On Monday, Haynie said Bridger was challenging several city ordinances.

"They're challenging the time limits, they're saying you all have talked among yourselves and you've predetermined it ... (that) the (historic board) district is not valid," he said. "They're challenging everything that they can come up with."

If a suit is filed, Haynie said, "the challenge will say that there's too much discretion here; I will disagree with that totally."

Kent was concerned that if the issue ended up in litigation, the city, if unsuccessful, would lose any control over the building design.

Haynie, however, said Cobb Superior Court rules require mediation for every case.

"The judges want to know that every settlement possibility has been discussed and worked through," he said.

Court-mediated negotiation over the building could produce a design the council can live with.

"I would be representing the city," Haynie said. "I'm not going to settle a case unless you thoroughly agree."

The council also discussed the city's legal justification to deny the design.

Guidelines for the historic district say new construction "should be compatible with surrounding buildings in terms of form, scale, height, mass, proportion, fenestration and roof shape," Haynie said.

They also state that new commercial construction "should be two stories in height or within 15% of the adjacent buildings," he added.

Rusty Roth, the city's director of development services, said apartments are considered commercial buildings.

Per Roth, Bridger has argued its building's height would be within 15% of the height of the Marietta Station offices.

The offices, though, are across the railroad tracks from the site.

"That's not adjacent," Richardson said. "Adjacent is the food market. Or it's the Root House. It is not Marietta Station."

The historic district guidelines, Roth noted, are only guidelines, not laws. And they conflict with the zoning rules, which allow height up to 85 feet.

"So there's a significant conflict there," Roth said.

Chalfant asked Haynie whether the council could "totally hang our hat" on the historic district guidelines. Haynie thinks they can.

The council will meet Wednesday at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 205 Lawrence St.