Annexation Series: Visions of More Urban Norcross

Updated Oct. 19, 2011

This is part of Norcross Patch’s five-part series about the potential annexation of an area roughly along Mitchell Road, east of Buford Highway up to I-85, into the City of Norcross. We'll re-run the series this week, in preparation for the Nov. 8 vote. We've already looked at and . In later days we'll cover the bottom line for home owners and crime. 

Imagine a morning routine that includes unchaining a bike, riding along a greenway to a transit station, then zoning out while someone else drives you to work on a train. Most don’t connect that vision with Atlanta, much less Norcross.

But city officials and other stakeholders see the annexation of the Mitchell Road corridor, a measure that will be put up for a vote on Nov. 8 for residents of the area, as a strategic step toward a more livable, and, in some ways more urban, Norcross. The long-term vision includes a light rail stop on Brook Hollow Parkway--just south of Mitchell Road, in the area being considered for annexation--and mixed-use, high-rise development along I-85.

With the recent inclusion of an I-85 transit corridor on the list of projects for the Transportation Investment Act, a one-penny tax that could revolutionize Atlanta's transportation future, that vision may be more probable--even if it is far off. 

Rounding Off the Edges
When driving down Mitchell Road, it is hard to picture the aerial view, but adding the area to the city makes an aesthetically pleasing square. “If you take everything else away and just look at it, there’s just a natural boundary there. Logic just speaks to the fact that it should become a part of the city,” says Norcross Mayor Bucky Johnson.

The idea that the area is an island, forgotten by the county and untouchable by the city, is a popular argument. 

Mixed-use Visions
The Atlanta Regional Commission sponsored the Norcross Activity Center Livable Centers Initiative study in 2008, which looked closely at the area being considered with a longer field of vision. (The “activity center” includes roughly all of the area being considered for annexation as well as some parts of the current city limits. The Activity Center LCI’s boundaries are I-85, Norcross Tucker Road, Buford Highway and Beaver Ruin Road—basically the Mitchell Road corridor and the southern part of the current city limits.)  

Especially interesting are the LCI’s findings for the portion of the area along I-85: “Focused along the I-85 corridor, the vision here is noticeably more amenable to density. Commercial and residential responses favor images in some cases over ten stories. The clear caveat, however, was a preference that higher-density development be part of a mixed-use model,” the study states.

A short answer questionaire was given out as a part of the study, revealing public support for buildings between two and seven stories high along Buford Highway and buildings between eight and twelve stories high along I-85.

The Norcross 2030 Plan also points to a reinvestment and redevelopment of the area because of its strategic transportation role, among other reasons. A four-tiered approach is recommended that could include up to 20-story buildings in the highest-density area.

“I have to say that as a planner, I’m for it,” said Chris McCrary, Community Development Director and City Planner for the City of Norcross. “I’ve adopted a comprehensive plan. I've got a direction of where I need to go to implement it,” he said.

McCrary says the vision is definitely more urban, with "multi-modal transportation" and the possibility of more greenspace in addition to the high-density zoning. 

Gwinnett County does have its own Comprehensive Plan--including its own future development map (pictured). The two ideas differ mostly in scale. The Norcross plan also includes mixed-use building, while the Gwinnett map does not. 

If the annexation goes through, city officials said they will need to update the planning maps to reflect the new reality. 

Light Rail Transformations
The question of if and when light rail would come to Norcross is central to the planning of the area.

In 2008, the Gwinnett Place CID and Gwinnett Village CID sponsored a study to look at the feasibility of light rail coming to Gwinnett, an idea that has taken many recent leaps forward, included being included on the Gwinnett list of transportation projects to be considered as part of the 12-year, one percent sales tax referendum that could come before voters in 2012.

The early plans show a transit stop directly in the proposed annex area, which could have dramatic potential for what happens with the land—changing it from ageing homes to 10 story high-rise mixed use that caters to young urbanite commuters.

Mayor Pro Tem Ross Kaul says it is not a matter of if light rail is coming, it is a matter of when. “It might not happen in 2012, but when it happens, the people should have control,” he says. He cites the ARC’s projection that Atlanta will house 8.5 million people soon. “Mass transit has to pick that up at a given time,” he said.

“Even if it doesn’t happen when I’m here, at least we can say we moved the vision forward,” says McCrary. 

Reality Check
Questions of how this type of reinvestment can work have complicated answers, at best. "Municipalities can only do so much," says McCrary, pointing to the "quality of life" changes that Norcross could make to encourage development, like beautification projects, better sidewalks, much-needed green spaces and upgraded public works. "We fix things like that and developers want to come in," he said.   

“We’ve got land downtown that still needs to be developed—we’ve got vacant spots downtown,” said Richard Kay, a longtime City of Norcross resident, at the public input meeting last November. By his reasoning, the city should be concentrating on what it has before worrying about what might be.

Editor's Note: Norcross Patch said that the annexation vote was split 3-2 in an earlier article. In a Feb. 7 vote and discussion on the issue, the council was split 3-2, with David McLeroy and Craig Newton voting against annexation. In a Special Meeting on Feb. 21, the council approved the Resolution for Annexation 4-0, sending a bill to the state House.