I have been reviewing the latest draft of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the City of Dunwoody and in reviewing this document you must
remember that this is just the first half of the process as the City of
Dunwoody plans to update its Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) whereby the
two documents will work hand in hand guiding development opportunities. The two
processes are complementary since the Comprehensive Plan sets the vision and
policy, while the UDO implements both. Coordinating
both will streamline the process, but we currently have only half the story as
the implementation direction is still to be seen.
The UDO update will aim to simplify and streamline the
development process to make it easier for users (developers) to understand and
for City staff to administer. The process will begin with assessing existing
codes from both technical and policy perspectives, followed by removing
conflicts to make the document internally consistent and easier to administer, thereby
creating a modern and user-friendly document.
As I review the city’s current GIS zoning map, I see
hundreds of prior zoning agreements on the books that this community fought
hard to implement, and will this Unified Development Ordinance now sweep all of
those agreements away whereby they never existed?
For example, I have been requesting the development of single level condos
(owner occupied multi-unit residential) for years and they have been discussed
from time to time but I believe the last completed condo was the tall Manhattan
building over by Target prior to cityhood. This comprehensive land use plan does not
mention owner occupied anywhere in the document and I believe this is an
important aspect of zoning that if left out will negatively impact this
community for many years.
Cities all around us (Sandy Springs on Hammond & Chamblee / Brookhaven on
Peachtree Industrial) have built thousands of apartments that we already have. These rental units serve a different demographic
whereby I want our current seniors who have a huge house on a half-acre lot to
be able to sell and buy a smaller single level unit so that they can age in
place and the big house can turn over to a young family who can add vibrancy to
the community. Condos would allow the
golden handcuffs to be removed from the seniors, it would open housing stock, refreshing
the tax rolls and it would be a win / win for the entire community. The comprehensive land use document says
nothing of this single level owner occupied housing need and I am disappointed
in that aspect.
This plan pushes density and in fill at every turn and in my analysis of the first draft of the comp plan I said it looks like the document is taking the decision making away from Council. Someone must have read my blog because this
version rectifies that by stating that the Unified Development Ordinance may
have other use standards to be applied.
What those are and what control Council will be given to stop a development
that the Comp Plan says is appropriate, is still to be seen. Based on the Comp Plan and the Unified
Development Ordinance needing to be worked hand in hand; it is my opinion that
Council should not approve one document ahead of the other; therefore both documents
need to be vetted together and voted upon only after a through community discussion. Based on the original timeline presented in July 2024, the plan is to approve the Comp Plan in July / August of 2025 and only then start the development of the Unified Development Ordinance with it's approval slated for August / September of 2026. I think this needs to be done as one project whereby we approve both halves at the same time.
Some of the things I question as I look at the document, first
are the Character Areas. Are they appropriate, sized correctly with the correct
allowances for zoning and what would these changes allow that might have
unintended consequences? There are 12 character
areas whereby every inch of the city falls into one of these areas but I
believe several (Brook Run Park / DeKalb Water Works) areas can be deleted as
they are merely placeholders of land that will not be developed and if any of
those parcels hit the market they should be forced to follow the underlining
zoning of Suburban Neighborhood.
Civic Campus character area should also be deleted but for
two different reasons. First the Georgia
State property is controlled by another governmental entity and if they wanted
to develop the property with new buildings or even dorms, the city would have
limited control no matter what our comp plan says. If rezoned as currently planned and the state
wanted to sell off a corner of the property for Multi-Unit apartments, they
could. If the character area of civic
campus wasn’t there the new owner of that property would have to follow the
policies outlined in Suburban Neighborhood.
The same goes for the Marcus Jewish Community Center (MJCC), the current
zoning is R-100 therefore they should stay in Suburban Neighborhood and if they
want zoning changes up to four stories tall, they should be forced to go though
the same process as everyone else whereby high-density housing is not automatically
allowed.
Peachtree Boulevard character area has several huge apartment
complexes that are currently prime for redevelopment, and I see that the
various parcels are owned by businesses in New York, Indiana and Georgia. The proposed allowances in this area is to
allow up to 10 stories of residential as well as possible commercial multi-use complex. A blanket allowance of 10 story residential might
entice the landowners of making a huge investment but could our infrastructure
handle those additional residents and required services?
Georgetown East comprises of the huge 100-acre apartment
complex at North Peachtree & 285 and the First Baptist property, and it
allows up to 5 story buildings and the only thing not recommended on those
parcels is single family residential. Looking
at the map, First Baptist owns the parking lot on the North side Peachford and
that property would currently fall into Georgetown West which has lower density
and slightly different uses.
Something that might make more sense is to have one character
area for both Peachtree Boulevard and the Apartment complex on North Peachtree. Both of those properties abut single family
residential and need transitional buffers and height step-downs near those
uses. The thought of Ten stories of
height seems excessive for both areas and that might need to be reduced. If the idea of a consolidated large
multi-unit area gained traction, I might suggest deleting the Georgetown East
area and only having one consolidated Georgetown Character area with lower heights.
At the same time, I would take the First
Baptist property and the property north of there up to Brook Run, between the
creek & North Peachtree and place that area into Suburban Neighborhoods.
Dunwoody Village has areas in the transition zone that are
prime for commercial redevelopment up to three stories high, but those properties
also abut single family residential with little buffer available for spacing or
stepping down. The village core zoning
allows mixed use (stores on the bottom and four stories of multi-unit’s) with
lots of language of protecting the neighbors.
Winters Chapel also has two sections, core and transitional with
3 or 4 stories depending on the area. The
area lists the cemetery, several small commercial areas and a residential area
dominated by power lines. I would be
happy to see upgraded facilities all around but based on the layout and boundary
lines, the Walmart property is not in Dunwoody (as we only have a segment of
the parking lot.)
Jett Ferry is several small commercial areas with light
office with a maximum height allowed of only three stories, so don’t expect
much to change there unless the market forces and the owner of a large property
decides to clear the land and put in a denser mixed use project.
Ashford has a large apartment complex, City Hall, other
larger office complexes and Dunwoody Baptist Church; future zoning would only
allow up to four stories but I could see some requests coming in soon to modify
large office properties into residential.
The devil is always in the details.
The final character area is Perimeter Center with two
different areas, the core which includes the Mall, Ashford Dunwoody as well as
the West side and then the transition area abutting single family homes in the
north and east that have stepped down zoning.
Density looks to be encouraged in the core of Perimeter with Multi-Unit
Residential being allowed up to 16 stories whereby the transitional area has a
maximum of six stories. The City Council
has only approved several multi-unit rental developments in the last 16 years because
they each had something special about what was being offered, be it a high-rise
unit in the State Farm complex or it being limited to senior housing.
I still have grave concerns that the Comp Plan together with
the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), yet to be written, will take the final
approval responsibility out of the discretion of the Council whereby we will be
forced to follow a matrix that might be development / density friendly. The city council has never approved a cookie
cutter apartment complex because we (or maybe just I) believe the Perimeter
Area already fills that apartment need and that long-term owner-occupied units
better serve the viability of the city.
Something I already mentioned that I will need clarified is,
“Will the Comp Plan and new Unified Development Ordinance completely erase all
previse zoning decisions on the books?”
For example, High Street, the new development across the street from the
Dunwoody Marta Station was zoned by DeKalb County prior to cityhood with hard
fought negotiations with the Dunwoody Homeowners Association for 1,500
apartments, 1,500 condos, 400 hotel rooms and a bunch of office & retail. Those figures are on the books today and High
Street would need to come before Council to change that mix if desired. Again, the devil will be in the details, but
I wonder if the UDO passes (granted we haven’t seen it yet) could High Street
then modify their plans to build 3,000 apartments and scrap the condo requirements? Time will tell.
Another item that jumped out to me was the idea around “Neighborhood
Transition Opportunities Policy” found on page 80 whereby if a main thoroughfare
was within a quarter of mile from a Commercial Node; the residences in that area
could be automatically converted to higher density products like town-homes, senior / assisted
living. This needs a thorough review
before possible approval as I see numerous issues on both the policy and the implementation guidelines being presented.
The draft of the 2025-45 Direction Dunwoody Comprehensive
Plan will be presented to the Dunwoody Planning Commission during a Special
Called Meeting at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, June 18, at Dunwoody City Hall. The
meeting will include public comment.
If the Comprehensive Land Use Plan needs to be approved prior to the UDO implementation rules are laid out, the question before the community is this; does this draft Comp Plan with automatic density upgrades and infill match the values and desires of the community?
Is this what we really want? I have concerns on proposed density, lack of controls on rental vs owner occupied, the removal of previous zoning agreements, the intrusion on the single family neighborhoods being forced to accept transitional housing. Not knowing the controls that the UDO might allow, I would be forced to take the Comp Plan at face value and I'm just not sure if it is appropriate?
