Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planned Development Winslow Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission rejects revised Winslow Park PD amendment after staff warns it departs original new‑urbanist plan
Summary
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of a D.R. Horton‑led amendment to the Winslow Park planned development, citing design drift, reduced housing mix and missing neighborhood commercial components.
The Athens‑Clarke County Planning Commission on April 3 recommended denial of an amendment that would have added 125 housing units to the existing Winslow Park planned development and replaced the project’s previously adopted pattern book with the builder’s standard product.
Staff opposition: Planning staff said the proposal departs from the PD’s original new‑urbanist principles — reductions in housing variety, clustering of like housing types into separate “pods” rather than mixing types, fewer central civic spaces, substitution of alleys for public streets at scale and flatter, less nuanced architecture. The staff report argued the changes reduce long‑term community value and that the added density did not justify the requested waivers.
Project and waivers: The developer sought approval to modify the binding plan for a site already entitled for 800 units by adding 125 units (bringing the total to 925). The submission included six requested waivers; staff recommended support of one waiver, conditional support of three, and opposed two.
Applicant view: The developer’s representative said the revised project would provide a range of housing types at lower prices and that infrastructure and site constraints made the proposed design appropriate. He argued the project would support transit and add tree canopy and pocket green spaces.
Commission deliberations and vote: Commissioners expressed concern about “design drift” from the original concept and the scale and configuration of alleyways and courtyards. Multiple commissioners said the project reduced mixed‑use and neighborhood center elements originally envisioned. After discussion, the commission voted unanimously to recommend denial to the Mayor and Commission.
Next steps: The developer can revise and resubmit or appeal. Staff suggested that any future amendment should better preserve the original PD’s mixed‑use elements and distribute housing types more evenly across the site.
