New Townhomes Coming to Church Street
Decatur Metro | November 10, 2015 | 4:35 pm
Chris sent in a picture of a new sign announcing six new townhomes called “The Park at Decatur Square” on Church Street just south of Forkner Drive.
The Park at Decatur Square’s website describes the project thusly…
The Park at Decatur Square is an exclusive, new development of six luxury townhomes.
Meticulously-designed exteriors offer both classic and modern details that honor the character and historic nature of the surrounding community. Each home offers a unique and thoughtful design with timeless color schemes and materials.
Spacious interiors offer nearly 3,300 square feet of living space, one of the largest new construction townhomes available in the Decatur area. Our standard plan layout offers up to four bedrooms and is customizable to include a double master bedroom option on the upper level.
Rendering courtesy of The Park at Decatur Square
Meanwhile, another developer, St. Clair Holdings, is proposing to put 33 townhomes (45′ in height) on four lots formerly occupied by single family homes near the corner of Church & Forkner. In order to do so, they want to remove over 100 trees, do extensive grading, and have only resident parking on the site (i.e., no guest parking). At this time, the City is carefully reviewing the proposal. More to come on this.
Density is good and so is very limited parking. If these are problems for people please remember that you are in a city.
Yes, who needs trees when we can have more buildings.
I think the concern about lack of guest parking on site is that guests will park in nearby neighborhoods.
people can just put bikes in front of their house if they don’t want outsiders parking there.
Our streets are public and anyone can park in front of my house. I would say that only Ponce De Leon Ct. is maxed out on street parking. This sounds like a gripe that people in Cobb County would have. Is that what Decatur has become?
Yes.
OK, now THAT was funny for some reason. Things are back to normal.
I think one of the neighborhood’s main concerns (and a concern shared by many other Decatur residents) is the developer’s attempt to squeeze 33 disproportionately tall townhouses on lots that previously held 4 homes. That plus the loss of so many healthy, mature trees and the danger posed by cars parking on a relatively narrow street near a busy intersection — one that will only get busier once the “new” Suburban Plaza becomes fully operational.
Density is a good thing, but not necessarily in neighborhoods and not when the schools are already overcrowded. While apartments in the square do not impact schools as much as we fear they would, townhomes seem much more likely to attract families and developments like these will be a net loss to the city.
Did the Decatur Square move and no one told me?
This is closer to WalMart than the square, maybe they should rename it the Park at Walmart Square.
This made me giggle! At least they didn’t use the term “Plantation” or “Manor”. I love it when developments try to stroke the bourgeois egos of buyers.
Architecturally does this make any sense?
I am so sick of seeing all these Townhomes being built. Decatur use to be a nice quaint town, now it’s looking more and more like Atlanta.
“Decatur use to be a nice quaint town, now it’s looking more and more like Atlanta.”
And it will keep growing and stop being a nice town unless something is done to slow the growth.
The city counsel keeps saying the market will determine the growth but with new codes and ordinances growth can be contained.
“The Park at Decatur Square”
Does a hastily planted row of Leyland Cypress constitute a “park” under the new UDO? There isn’t a single part of that name that is an accurate descriptor of this project. It’s neither a park, nor at the Decatur Square. Might as well go for broke and call it “The Meadows at Willy’s Ravine” or something.
Maybe we are reading it wrong. Recast “park” as an imperative verb. Like this: “There’s no guest parking here, pal. Park at Decatur Square.”
Guy drives off, confused.
Thanks Nick.
On Church Street where Billy and Alex Play School was for many years.
My guess is that in a very short time, the tiny houses on Church Street will be bought up for something like this.
So I have to wonder, has the plan for turning Church Street into a two lane road with bike paths actually spurred more high end development and is this what the commission staff hoped for all along?
Do you remember a few years ago when the city published something about preservation? All the chi-chi neighborhoods were praised but the Church Street Corridor was described as not worthy of preservation status (or something similar). That’s not true. There’s the old 1895 Church Street Bridge, the Clyde Davison Kindergarten Shed, the Abraham Giddings House, most likely the last remaining black built home in a (segregated) black neighborhood and of course Norris Street, which has changed very little since that rascal Sherman came through in 1864. But if all of this area is redeveloped, I hope the homeowners get top dollar for their property, including myself. My neighborhood may nor be worth preserving but we own it.
If they are going to keep building I wish they would come and buy up The Decatur Square Condo’s right by Glenlake Park. They are run down and need to be gone.
“That rascal Sherman,” good stuff there Mr. B.
Mr. B, odd that you seem to be in favor of putting Church street under Preservation status, which would effectively take away property owners’ rights and hand them over to the city government.
Chris, the city zoning plan has Church street divided into to 4 zones and all but 1121 Church Street are either commercial or high density or multiple family residential. The city plan has been for the last 15 plus years to change Church street into condo/ apartment street. I for one hate it when I see the older homes torn down and condos build. One convoluted savings grace for new construction are the two Mc-Mansions built 951 at least they are single family stand alone homes.
A few years ago we stopped the encroachment of commercial down Church when the new owner of 941 applied to change the property to commercial from high density single family. Thirty two Church street residents signed a petition that was presented to a zoning board meeting and prevailed to keep the property from becoming commercial. If you want to stop the growth or slow Church street from changing the residents need to unite and present their opinion to the city government otherwise like you said in a few years the history and little houses will vanish.
Ponce to 921 Church is general commercial
921 to 1023 zoned high density single family residential
1121 single family residential R60, This is the only Church street address zoned R60
1215 and both sides of Norris Multiple family residential
Glen lake commons to the city limits High density single family
It was the owner of 933 Church St who applied for the commercial zoning change.
Josh, you are correct it was 933 also 1121 while shown on the Decatur zoning map R60 this may actually be Glen Lake Park
http://decaturga.com/home/showdocument?id=488
Well, 33 townhomes could equal 66 more kids in the schools. Don’t think that this would have passed w/ former City Commission, but maybe this is why Bill Floyd campaigned so hard for the pro development candidates this time around.
The city commission doesn’t rule on development submissions that meet the terms of their zoning. Not saying this one does (but it is a HDSF zone, correct?) but, should it prove to, they would just be issued their permits. How does any particular commissioner’s stand on development, pro or con, change anything?
You’re correct, Scott. The 4 lots my neighbors and I assumed were single family residential were rezoned years ago to HDSF (now called R-17). As far as one or two voices on the City Commission being pro development or not having an impact on this particular project, I agree that probably doesn’t matter. What I think does matter is having thoughtful people on the Commission who don’t assume more high density development is always a good thing for Decatur. Not saying that’s the prevailing view on the Commission or not. I don’t really know. I just think the more voices we have that give equal weight to trees, clean air, green spaces, and residential neighborhoods (vs. this type of development) is a good thing.
Steve, what is your definition of residential neighborhoods? a stand alone house with yard? Not everyone wants a yard, and I think townhomes are a good option for many. Also, do you think development standards should be R-60 for major arteries into Decatur? To me, Church, Scott, Commerce etc. are perfect locations for the townhouse kind of developments, so long as they adequately provide for their resident/guest parking and aren’t over or are very close to the height limitations of immediately adjacent R-60 single family housing.
Mac – Not sure I’ve ever come up with a working definition of “residential.” Good question. I guess what comes to mind is an area of homes, yards (big or small), trees, grass, sidewalks, and people. The proposed 33 townhomes on Forkner at the Church St. intersection are going to be 40′ high, towering over all the homes adjacent to the properties along Old Decatur Circle (per the developer’s plans) and one across the street on Forkner — with zero guest parking in the plans. Some of the units will be only 10′ from neighboring backyards. And the developer wants to meet much of the tree canopy requirements by putting some $$ in the tree bank, i.e., they won’t replant most of the 100 trees they plant to remove.
The 6 town houses called The Park at Decatur Square and the four lots near the corner of Church & Forkner for the 33 new units are both in the HDSF zone. I do not think the city commission can do anything about the development of either but the plan could be turned down based on the proposed parking with no guest parking spaces possibly by the zoning board on the 33 unit development.