136-home Gwinnett rezoning hits roadblock over density, neighborhood character

Opponents argued the proposal would place a much denser development inside an area surrounded largely by detached single-family neighborhoods. One opposition exhibit compared the surrounding neighborhood, described as about 0.71 homes per acre, with the proposed project at 7.65 homes per acre, calling the development roughly 10 times denser than the existing neighborhood.

Residents also raised concerns about Jordan Drive itself, describing it as narrow and lacking shoulders, striping and sidewalks. Opponents said the project could add roughly 1,200 vehicle trips to an already constrained road network and argued the proposed road realignment would shift traffic through the community.

The applicant pushed back, saying a traffic study had been submitted with the application and that the development would improve an unsafe intersection at Jordan Drive and Gloster Road at the developer's cost.

According to the applicant, the current intersection meets Gloster Road at a steep angle, limiting visibility and creating a dangerous turning movement. The proposed development would realign Jordan Drive to meet Gloster Road at a 90-degree angle and add turn-lane improvements, including a southbound left-turn lane and a dedicated northbound right-turn lane on Gloster Road.

The applicant also said traffic-calming measures could be added as conditions.

But Planning Commission concerns went beyond traffic.

During commissioner discussion, one commissioner said the townhome portion of the project was the main driver of the density and raised concerns that the plan would split the existing community into two different development patterns.

The commissioner said the proposal would change "half the neighborhood" while leaving the other half in its current form, creating a break in character between older homes and the new development. The commissioner also noted that some existing homes would go from facing neighbors across the street to looking at the rear of new houses.

The applicant responded that Gwinnett’s planning policies call for more housing variety and that the county's R-IF zoning district was created for this kind of infill situation. The applicant argued that when property owners are ready to sell or redevelop land, the county’s land-use policies give staff a framework for allowing additional housing types in appropriate locations.

The applicant also said a privacy fence could be added, along with setbacks and landscaping, to address concerns about existing homes facing the rear of new houses.

Asked directly whether the project was intended for rental or for-sale housing, the applicant said the development team wanted to keep flexibility and “leave it to the market.” The applicant said the likely vision was a one-owner community rather than selling the homes to separate groups of property owners.

The Planning Commission recommended denial 8-0.