Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Senior apartments proposed for Dunwoody’s Georgetown community on Old Spring House Lane

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBI-y4L26n4

Walton Communities plans to build a 120-unit, four-story senior apartment complex in Dunwoody’s Georgetown community.

Representatives of the apartment company described the Legacy at Georgetown project to members of the Dunwoody Homeowners Association on March 2 during the organization’s monthly board meeting.

The project will be presented to Dunwoody’s community council on March 13, to the city’s planning commission in April and to Dunwoody City Council in May.

If approved, work on the project could begin next year and the complex could open in 2016, company representatives said.

The apartments, to be located on 3.4 acres at Old Spring House Lane and Chamblee-Dunwoody Road, would be limited to occupants aged 55 and older, Walton Communities development manager Matthew L. Teague told DHA members.

The complex would be located behind the existing Waffle House on Chamblee-Dunwoody and would help connect nearby neighbors to the Georgetown Shopping Center, Walton Communities representatives said.

 Dunwoody Reporter

16 comments:

Chip said...

Just an observation. The City has touted the purchase of the PVC farm and Project Renaissance as a successful means of limiting hi-density and multi-family (read: apartments for everybody)residents in Dunwoody.

Now it seems that a high-density, multi-family (read: independent living aparments) residence for high-income older folks is getting rave reviews. Other than the lack of school age children (the age limit on the property is 55+) what's the difference between one apartment complex and another?

Bob Lundsten said...

Greg,
Duh, NO KIDS! That is one difference.
55+ living usually means higher end build outs as the folks moving in are downsizing. They want and demand a higher end quality than a lot of the transitional apartments in the immediate area.
While other apartment complexes often end up with multiple roommate leases where young residents share the high rents that this area demands, 55+ crowds usually avoids that as well.
The availability of this type of 55+ living is a critical in satisfying the demand that seniors are putting on the system that allows them to age in place.
They have the option to live in a community where they have roots.
Finally for the 55+ crowd to be able to walk to Kroger, Starbucks, Goldberg’s, Vino Venue, and other small local retailers is exactly what is needed for a true walkable community.
Next DHA meeting, you bring your own chips and I will bring the onion dip.

Chip said...

Farmer Bob:

Okay, all that is granted (and you restate the obvious). But, in your own instructions to us neophytes in matters of zoning, you have constantly and consistently talked about equal treatment.

Excepting the children's impact on schools, almost every other amenity you mention is useful to any multi-family, high-density apartment complex.

I believe (for example) that a young family with small kids that for economic reasons have to rent versus own would also benefit from the walkable amenities you've highlighted. The utility of these services is not limited only to 55+ seniors.

Additionally, "age in place" living may also be accomplished with low-rise, cluster homes rather than high-density multi family units. (Or so future plans for the 19+acres across Shallowford Road would suggest)

The "equal treatment" question would ask, if someone wanted to build high-end, multi-family apartments in Dunwoody without the age-restrictions, would you be in favor of that, as well?

(I don't presume to know your answer; that's why I'm asking.)

Chip

GaryRayBetz said...

Hopefully before I'm placed in the Old Spring House Lane Home for the Superannuated by ungrateful progeny, Georgia will have had the good sense to legalize recreational marijuana by then, thus enabling me to venture from Vino Venue to the next door Kannabis Kiosk, light up a big fatty and discuss bygone local politics with retired Mayor Davis whilst he gulps down a growler or two or three, and while Councilman Heneghan downs a pint or two. Yep, that'd be me, ethereally "aging in place".

Kerry de Vallette said...

Greg - let me ask you - under your "equal treatment" provision - would you be happy with a multi-family stick built apartment on your street, or within in your neighborhood? I don't presume to know the answer either, hence the question.

Max said...

Neighboring Chamblee changed their Building Code similarly to what Dunwoody proposes, to guide apartment developments.

The economic net effect is that the apartments cost more to build, thus require higher rents to yield investment return. The higher rents MAY equate to 'better' tenants, but Dunwoody definitely ends up with a higher grade build-out.

The economics behind apartment development financing are steeped in IRS tax abatement used by large, sophisticated investors. Here are some links:

Shows how Georgia encourages Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC):
http://www.dca.state.ga.us/housing/housingdevelopment/programs/housingTaxCredit.asp

LIHTC Basics:
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/training/web/lihtc/basics

Investors fund the initial build-out, then usually sell the project to owners that manage the project.

Whether you love 'em or loathe 'em, apartments make investors a lot of dough. That dynamic doesn't change if you make 'em out of bricks, sticks, or Kellog's KICK's....



Chip said...

Looks like King John is posting madly on the weekends, so this has really slipped out of sight....

Max, you should know that you and Farmer Bob have drawn opposite conclusions based on the Chamblee experience. I don't know enough to comment, other than to note that you've expressed the opposite of what Bob L. asserts is true.

Unlike Mr. DeVallette who always wants to personalize something (including trying to guess my true identity), my general question concerned the hypothetical situation wherein the purported developer of the Dunwoody "forest" along Vermak decided that the small southern portion of the property separated by the creek might be more amenable to high-density housing to help float the project. What would the response be?

Kerry de Vallette said...

Greg - Bob, I and others know that Chip Bagman and you are one in the same. Deny or not, I care not. Interesting how you like to accuse one of "personalizing" when they disagree with you rather than discuss or defend your thoughts on their merits and using your real name. But we've had this conversation before.

And why avoid answering the question - how does Greg define "equal treatment"? And would you want a high density multi-family residential development on your street or in your subdivision?

Chip said...

What you and Bob L. "know" or "think you know" isn't germane to this point.

Why don't you just answer simple questions, simply put: Is there (or should there be) a difference in treatment for high-quality, high-density multi-family housing based exclusively on age? And, why should this be so?

The issues of location are secondary to this first-pass of questions. You can try to "personalize" it as a NIMBY problem, you can try to demonize it as "class struggle" as you did at SDOC, why heck, you may even try to paint it with "the race card" at some point....all meaningless unless you answer it, first.

Why don't you just stand up, stay on point, and give a straight answer? And, maybe Farmer Bob can reply, too, since the question was originally asked of him, before you started this distracting line of thought.

Kerry de Vallette said...

Greg - what's the correct/fair/balanced ratio of multifamily housing units to single family homes for a City the size of Dunwoody - for a city of 12 square miles and existing infrastructure? What's fair? Who says what fair is? Who determines what "equal treatment" means? Who determines what "balanced" is and what data is used to make that determination. Are all those definitions carved in stone, or are they subject to the winds of the economy/market and politics? Bottom line answer - each potential project lives or dies on its own merits at the time they arise and go through the then established vetting process.

See there. No attempt, as you suggest, to introduce "class struggles", NIMBY, or any other socio economic labels as you so desperately appear to want to introduce into this conversation. But I suspect that anyone who disagrees with "Chip" will be made aware of just how wrong they are about that too.

Now it's your turn. Tell us Chip, tell us. What's the right answer?

Chip said...

Wow! Puffery at its finest, Mr DeV!!! And you accused me of bombast! Did you actually say anything with all those words, except to deny the concept of Master Planning and zoning? Your approach leads to a pied or piecemeal zoning map!!

Equal treatment means that, if two developers come before Dunwoody, one with a plan for 55+ housing, and the other for multi-family housing, each should be treated fairly. Given the previous issues with apartments in Dunwoody, and the City's action in buying up development land to EXCLUDE the building of apartments (publicly stated by the CM, the Mayor, and one or more Council members at various times) one has to ask, when and if this senior center proposal comes before the appropriate city board, should it receive preferential treatment or be dismissed out-of-hand under the "we don't want any more apartments in Dunwoody" maxim.

My position is, if you let senior apartments in, you'd better be prepared to let multi-family units in, too!

From the beginning, I only asked for an opinion on this from an experienced and thoughtful citizen Farmer Bob. Instead, I got your vain attempts at self-importance.

First, you personalized it with the NIMBY question. Then, you switched blogs to try to besmirch the question by linking it with "socio-economic" inequalities, now you throw in"free market theory" in the municipal setting, which you clearly do not understand.

All of this to try to confuse the issue and paint me out as the recalcitrant.

Kerry de Vallette said...

Greg - "my approach"? Hardly. It is the reality of the world we live in. I didn't design the process! How many times does a member of each version of "the council" talk about the Master Plan to defend one of their decisions, only to turn around and re-prioritize what projects get money and attention because they think its the "right thing to do". Where was addressing the extension of Dunwoody Park to Ashford Dunwoody Road in the original Master Plan? Something like 27th.

Then in 2011, on the eve of the general election the then version 1.1 of Council spent $1.46M cash, which was the equivalent to about 8% of the annual budget, to buy the parcel on N. Peachtree. Why? Ultimately to make the city more liveable by someday having the land to connect N. Peachtree Rd all the way to Ashford Dunwoody Road via the Peachford Road/Dunwoody Road/Old Spring House Lane connector. Does anyone think a road that has traffic dead end into Ashford Dunwoody Road and essentially Perimeter Mall is going to be resolve traffic flow in the Georgetown area? Sure lets add 200, 300, 500 or more families on Old Spring House Lane. That makes sense. But it will happen. Why? The owner of that land has a right to use it to its maximum value provided by the then zoning code, or what they can argue in a re-zoning. AKA best and brightest attorneys and deep pockets looking for weak zoning laws, previous variances to cite, and "sympathetic" politicians. It isn't fair. Sorry.

That's the real world Greg. And what I just described is what Bob Lundsten, myself, Herb Sprague, Bill Robinson, and dozens of others lived with daily as our second full time jobs. And was probably the singular driving force behind the DHA in the late 70's, 80s and 90s. While having a much stronger zoning code in place now helps, it still comes down to the above and the vigilance of the DHA. Government will always usurp power especially when left unattended, or under attended.

Finally to your statement of, "Instead, I got your vain attempts at self-importance." So, by answering your question you characterize that as an act of self importance. Seriously dude, that's laughable. I am quite comfortable and content in knowing what is important to me and who matters to me. I've never deluded myself into thinking I am anything other than one voice and one opinion of many many out there. I'll leave it at that.

Chip said...

Sorry, was there an answer to the question I posed in all of that? Or, did you feel you had to recite your c.v. just to read about yourself in print? Inquiring minds are "just sayin'"

Why don't you go troll another blog post for awhile, you've about killed this one.

Kerry de Vallette said...

Greg - what part of that answer couldn't you digest, or did you forget the question in all of your personal attacks? Its all laid it out there. I figured with your multiple degrees in engineering you'd be able to comprehend the facts. Apparently not.

How about you answering the question now? And for you to call someone a troll....laughable.

Chip said...

From 1st post and 3rd post...I copied the following:

The "equal treatment" question would ask, if someone wanted to build high-end, multi-family apartments in Dunwoody without the age-restrictions, would you be in favor of that, as well?

That was the only question that was asked. All the bull-hockey you threw out, trying to show off with your purported knowledge of zoning rules, government influence, free market forces driving pied zoning regulations, your twenty years plus of civic activism on the part of Dunwoody, ad nauseum....you never once answered that simple question....

Oh, by the way, I did answer the question...March 10, 2014 7:52 PM.

Troll on, troll on...tra la la la la...

Rathbone Home said...

Wow! This is a great idea. Your generosity is inspiring. I love the support of the senior apartment world!