A 21-unit gated residential project is proposed to replace a half-dozen houses on Glenridge Drive in Sandy Springs. A preliminary community meeting is slated for July 11.

A plan of the proposed Glenridge Drive development, with Glenridge running along the map’s bottom and Glenairy Drive to the left, from a city filing.

The project, proposed by Betancourt Communities, covers 6045 to 6105 Glenridge, between Glenairy Drive and the Apostles Church along Hammond Drive. A project filing appears to show a townhome layout, but does not say whether the units would be rentals or ownership. The company did not have immediate comment.

The neighborhood recently opposed a plan to turn the nearby church into senior rental housing, causing the developer to withdraw. During that controversy, several Glenridge residents said they had buyout offers from developers and worried about a “domino effect” on the street. One alternative to the senior home suggested by some residents and city Planning Commission members as more suitable was townhomes.

The Betancourt project requires rezoning for higher-density residential use. The community meeting will be held July 11, 6 p.m., at Mount Vernon Presbyterian Church, 471 Mount Vernon Highway NE.

John Ruch

John Ruch is an Atlanta-based journalist. Previously, he was Managing Editor of Reporter Newspapers.

7 replies on “21-unit residential project planned for Sandy Springs’ Glenridge Drive”

  1. Maybe the city will now make a request to the Ga DOT to make Glenridge Drive an interstate. It will require an interstate to meet the vehicle capacity on Glenridge Drive with all of the MASSIVE projects soon to come online. When will this madness stop?

  2. Putting 21 homes in place of 6 homes does not in any way reduce traffic in Sandy Springs. Where you once had 6 (or 12 cars including spouses) gong to and fro, you will now have 21 (or 42 cars counting spouses) going to and fro. Basic common sense. More density in Sandy Springs ruins the area and doesn’t help us out. Maybe allow 8 to 10 homes at most where you put homes side by side on main road or have homes back up to main road since lots are larges. There is no law that says that homes should turn to cluster homes then to apts then to office then to skyscrapers.

  3. “A project filing appears to show a townhome layout, but does not say whether the units would be rentals or ownership. The company did not have immediate comment.”

    Well… this tells the story.
    Sleazy smarmy, glad-handing politicos conspiring with sleazy, glad-handing developers to do the deal in the dark.

  4. The density story here is really a question of how much a developer pays for the property he buys to develop. When he overpays he expects the city to bail him out w/ rezoning so he can justify the price he paid for the land.

    Had the developer paid a reasonable price for the land he could make an acceptable profit w/ new single family residences. It is not the city’s responsibility to assure the developers’ profits, and the city has to establish that fact.

  5. David Bailey —

    I wanted to piggyback on your comment re: the developer sale price. One need look no further than this exact same type of deal that was assembled at Austin Place or the Pulte Terrace Townhomes just 0.4 miles south of this proposed development these past two years.

    Any wise developer assembles all the owners via a contingency contract, where the purchase is contingent on the city council approval of the rezoning. (And if the developer didn’t do it this way then it’s an amateur/first-time developer we have on our hands, and as you said it’s not the city’s responsibility to bail out idiot cart-before-the-horse land purchase decisions.)

    If the city council does not approve the 300% greater density, then the developer simply goes back to the combined owners and will ask them to lower the land purchase price since the developer can’t make as much with fewer units. It’s important to note that all but I believe one of these houses being sold are either empty or rentals (original owners passed, kids own it now, etc…stuff like that).

    And as for the commenter “C’s” remark re: “There is no law that says that homes should turn to cluster homes then to apts then to office then to skyscrapers.” — that’s the best comment I’ve read in months. C for Mayor!

  6. Even if i was mayor, it takes many votes to approve these higher density projects and the mayor alone cannot stop them as they can be out-voted by planning committee and by rest of council who can green-light projects such as parking garages with apts attached to them. Whoever heard of that concept? And they are everywhere including huge project at Hammond/Roswell. City hall was to be a govt bldg plus land for outdoor amphitheatre and then apts on parking garages get added to mix. same as braves stadium- a ballpark morphs to a real estate development (apts on a garage with a ballpark thrown in). All these projects are approved partially under mantra that it brings in money. Why not just turn the entire suburbs into midtown/buckhead then with devevlopment everwhere? And then we’ll have so much tax money.

Comments are closed.