Zoning Board Tables 315 W. Ponce Variance
August 12, 2008 | 9:00 amAt least 125 residents crammed themselves into the confines of the city hall meeting room last night to hear and respond to 315 developers application for a parking variance. When asked about contingency planning and theoretical conditions, the representitives for the developer seemed flexible. They agreed to small conditions proposed by the board (like including Flexcar in the parking lot, dedicated parking for scooters) and even one large one (that the owner would have to reapply for a variance if the property was ever converted to condos – due to dedicated parking concerns).
After hearing the plans and arguments of JLB thru the owner, architect, and traffic and parking consultants, the massive crowd was asked to respond.
Only 4 folks stood up in favor of the development, even though murmurings within the crowd seemed to be rather mixed, and of those only one lived in the affected area.
It wasn’t until 10-10:30p that chair Mark Burnette asked to hear the opposition. It didn’t take long to see where this meeting was going…other than late into the night. Local resident Jeff Davis stood and argued that a. the applicant’s application was not complete b. that the board didn’t have the authority to approve a parking variance because the city code doesn’t identify shared parking between residential and office according to 8.1.5) and c. that the proceedings were invalid because they weren’t conducted in precisely the correct way. (Chair Burnette took particular exception to this final point) Everyone still in the room, not privy to the strategy of the neighborhood beforehand, now saw it clearly through sleepy eyes.
Go after the legality of the “concept” of shared parking and stall the process.
Davis then called up a Livable Growth-retained parking consultant, who argued that the developer’s parking estimates were much too low according to a different “national” calculation.
After that rather tense back-and-forth, residents of the neighborhood started speaking up…Pat Davis reiterated Jeff Davis’ statements that the board could not grant a variance for something that the city had not approved (the concept of “shared parking”). She also noted that Livable Growth’s petition had received over 1,000 signatures. It was 11:30p when Steven Saunders approached the commission with a cardboard and Styrofoam model of the property…and I realized I wouldn’t make it to the end. There were lots of residents itching to speak after waiting patiently through the first few opponents. So I left…defeated by lots of questions and concerns and an 8:30p start-time.
So how do I know the issue was tabled? Because Creative Loafing’s Thomas Wheatley has a stronger constitution than I…plus he gets paid. Not only did he stay ’til the end, but he also wrote about it on Fresh Loaf…all before 3am! It’s a definite read to hear how things turned out, plus he got to hear DeKalb Commissioner Kathy Gannon (a 335 W. Ponce resident) express her concerns about the development. I had seen her at the back of the room…but wasn’t sure if she would speak up.
So the issue is tabled and I’m unclear of next steps. If anyone would like to fill me in, I would greatly appreciate it. If not, I’m sure Wheatley can fill us in when he wakes up.
I’m pasting my comments from the other thread, since they seem to make a little more sense here:
Overall, a reasoned consideration by the Zoning Board. A few highlights, from my perspective:
1. From the “Everyone But Me / There’s Not Enough Irony in Public Meetings Anymore” file, the relevant portion of the meeting began with board chair Mark Burnette sternly setting some necessary procedural rules to ensure he “wasn’t there until 3 in the morning”, then almost immediately thereafter launching into a tiresome series of product-specific detail questions largely irrelevant to the parking issue on the table. Chewed up a good 15 minutes but, hey, now we know who’s in charge, don’t we?
2. The weak link on the developer’s side was clearly their parking consultant, who apparently doesn’t read Decatur Metro. Despite a good couple of months of active discussion on this site, and the bottom line reality that a large part of neighboring anxiety stems from perceptions that shared parking is an unproven fad, he repeatedly framed his remarks around shared parking being a “growing trend” — as though the decision would be rendered according to the cool factor — rather than demonstrating proof of concept and re-emphasizing the potential benefits to both town and neighbors that could result from shared parking to make any necessary trade-offs palatable.
3. Livable Growth Decatur’s suggestion that 636 parking spaces are necessary was reminiscent of the sprawl-friendly, Alpharetta-based zoning “expert” hired by neighbors to dispute the project proposed for Howard/Hillyer (a big fan of landscape berms and walls to separate grossly incompatible uses such as a home and a coffee shop). I don’t dispute that some folks have expertise in creating the Windward Parkways of the world but I fail to see their relevance to a compact, mixed use and walkable town such as Decatur.
4. As for Kristin Allin’s comments, I guess she’s concerned that Cakes & Ale could go from always full to always fuller. Still scratching my head on that one, given that their location is the very embodiment of what’s possible when parking is not the *sole driver* (pun intended!) of development decisions.
5. There’s a good risk here of chewing off the nose to spite the face. The developer showed some studies of how the buildings will morph if the deck needs to be increased. The results, from a form-perspective, were universally inferior in terms of demonstrating respectful and humane consideration of shared neighborhood spaces. (I am not avoiding the subject that they could always do fewer units; just looking at what’s permissible.)
6. The board was right to table the issue. You can’t have a five hour, semi-contentious meeting and assume an easy decision is possible. Further study and consideration of related initiatives and factors is necessary. Though it makes me wonder if the developer will still go before the Planning Commission in September.
Community is messy business. Ain’t no way around it.
Scott
I don’t get out of bed for less than $10,000 a day. I kid. Great meeting.
Tom:
That’s cheap…Faye Dunaway charges at LEAST $40K! Thanks for the report on the meeting….rest now.
No rest for the wicked. Thanks, Jim. If I overlooked anything, please chime in and let me know. There was a lot of ground to cover in that meeting but some really interesting points raised.
[...] Decaturite at DecaturMetro adds some good details about the evening, including some of the specific citizen concerns. He also notes [...]
For all its inclusionary tolerance and progressive ideals, public meetings are making Decatur to look like a bunch of self-absorbed, know-it-all, Bolsheviks. How can anyone hire an “expert” who says that 636 spaces are needed? Dumb. And this was even topped by [ed: item removed...no name calling] who is listening to way too much AM radio. What’s next citing the Federalist Papers to object to an average-sized real estate development? Like much of the opposition, most objections are absurd and damaging to legitimate oppositionPlease read this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/town_hall_meeting_gives
before speaking.
Why is growth always good? I mean other than for tax purposes. Why not have metropolitan areas that are not developed to their maximum densities?
If an area like Decatur wants to stay a small town and not grow into condo canyon why is that wrong?
Money can’t buy everything and one of the things it can’t buy is a sense of place. Something Decatur has in spades. If we continue with these anonymous could be anywhere condo/apartment developments we’re going to loose the very things that makes this place a great place to live. If the city needs more money raise taxes. Let them that can’t afford it move.
Shared parking is just another way for developers to shoehorn bigger projects into smaller spaces and then cry progress. Well folks you may get these people out of their cars when gas is 20/ gallon. Maybe. You’ll probably end up with about half again as many cars. Does the developer care? Nope he doesn’t have to live there.
Another shibboleth is work force housing. Work force housing never works. Cabbage town is workforce housing. Having staff live at your house is work force housing. Economic class is to much embedded in our psyche for most utopian plans like this to work. I’d like to know when in the history of the world rich folks really wanted to live next to poor folks. Not that I can remember.
I really believe Decatur is dense enough thank you very much and there’s not much that’s going to change my mind on it. I think alot of folks are coming to that same conclusion. Time for a change of direction in Decatur I think. Slow to no growth.
Or we could change the Decatur logo to show a 10 story mixed use development towering over the single story church, home and school.
If the city needs more money raise taxes. Let them that can’t afford it move.
Wow … just wow. So much with keeping Decatur’s “sense of place” where our elderly neighbors are welcomed and lower and middle class people can afford to live, and where our service workers, city employees, teachers, firefighers, and police can afford to live. Just raise taxes to drive these “undesirables” out. Shameful.
I guess you don’t share the same values as I do, but having this kind of economic and racial diversity in our town is one of the things that makes Decatur “a great place to live.” If you want to live in a low density city where only rich people live, then I would suggest Alpharetta, Johns Creek or anywhere in Forsyth County. I’m sure they would welcome with your values. You could even build a little house where the staff that works at your house can live.
By the way, the buildings facing Montgomery St. are shorter in height that the maximum height a single family house could be on that street (35 ft). 10 stroy buildings are not allowed anywhere in Decatur, so cut the hyperbole.
Growth is just a reflection of desirability and demand. If you don’t care for it, there are plenty of dying towns in the Rust Belt that would be happy to fill you in on all the pleasures of disinvestment.
Demand, together with zoning, drives property cost. Cost then determines what needs to get built. If you want to stop new development, downzone the area.
Of course, that drastically reduces the value of each holder’s property, so good luck with that.
Slow to no growth?
Hmmmm….I don’t know. Perhaps the firefighters and police that commute ridiculous distances (higher gas use) in the bay area (from what I have read here, some posters’ on this blog FAVORITE place in the world) due to draconian “environmentalist” regulations on ANY growth would have something to add to this “dialogue”.
If everyone in Decatur would like to see property value increase, we should adopt a no growth policy. Then some people would be dying to move here.
And to be honest, it’s one of the reasons that I moved to Decatur. From research, I realized that the most expensive places to live in the world are 1) Liberal and 2) those cities that make it impossible to add any housing without strangling developers into submission (ie….giving up). Intolerant as well.
Ugggghhhhhh….
Used to live in San Francisco so I can tell you it’s been like that for a long time. People will build the kind of community they want whether you like it or not. Decatur is right on the cusp right now. If we’re not careful it’ll end up being a lot more mall than ternative.
Bill, I’m sure there’s a developer that needs a lobbyist somewhere in Georgia so I wouldn’t be so quick to stop the hyperbole.
“Mall than ternative”
brilliant….I love it
David:
Why is growth always good? — obviously its not, just look at Gwinnett county. That being said, this project IS livable growth (little irony with the website that is against it!). It adds people near transit in a walkable community, instead of somewhere else where housing would be built in a auto dependent greenfield.
If an area like Decatur wants to stay a small town and not grow into condo canyon why is that wrong? — Decatur will NEVER be a condo canyon, just not the space, that is just not a valid argument AT ALL. You seem afraid Decatur will become New York City when it could never reach the realm of a Madison Wisconsin (beautiful city by the way…)
Money can’t buy everything and one of the things it can’t buy is a sense of place. Something Decatur has in spades. — Money cant buy a sense of place, but neither can parking lots and strip malls. Decatur has a great sense of space, in the RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods, but DOWNTOWN Decatur, IMHO is nice, but far from great and generally lacking save the square area. It pales in comparison to Athens GA, Charlottesville VA, Madison WI, Boulder Co, Corvallis OR etc etc. What Decatur has going for it, more than the whole of Gwinnett, is POTENTIAL. It could be that great. But its not going to get there by preserving parking lots and strip malls.
Shared parking is just another way for developers to shoehorn bigger projects into smaller spaces and then cry progress. — Read the regs…this project could be MUCH bigger. If the developer was as evil as you think, and developing what is allowed AS OF RIGHT, you’d be wishing for a project like the one proposed!! Shared parking is sustainable design, smart design, livable growth.
Another shibboleth is work force housing. Work force housing never works. — How do you expect your teachers, police, fire, and other govt workers to live that need to live in the city and often required to? Who else is going to help you get off your high horse??
I really believe Decatur is dense enough thank you very much and there’s not much that’s going to change my mind on it. — technically Decatur is far from its density of its heyday. by thousands. The city can handle more people without neighborhoods being adversly affected.
Or we could change the Decatur logo to show a 10 story mixed use development towering over the single story church, home and school—bit of a stretch, dont think 10 stories are allowed anymore…but if you dont like that, how bout a parking lot instead, or a strip mall?
David, as another poster mentioned you really seem like you would love the true burbs. City/Town/Hamlet living does not seem for you. Just my observation, please correct me if I am wrong. Johns Creek would be lovely for you.
—By the way, that livalbe Growth website really seems to be a guise for NIMBY (at least with its first project attack). nothing really mentioned about green design or living (they mention environmental quality, but what does that mean to them, what is the Modus operandi? no growth under the guise of green?), nothing on LEED or encourging walking rather than driving (or at least emphisising making the choice available)
Love the little green leaves next to the logo though…makes it lagit!
Newbie,
In this particular case – the more people who use public transportation or walk the more prime time parking the development will require. The only way that you can logically determine otherwise would be to assume that people will be giving up their cars completely when they move here or that they won’t have a car to begin with. The real crux of the problem here is actually a much lager problem of Atlanta as a whole – most people here will need to or choose to own cars.
I own one ( I got my car in 2002 and just hit 14,000 miles- fyi ), I’m willing to bet you own one and that most of the people reading this blog own one – there is actually (gasp) a difference between being an infrequent car user and having NO car at all.
I would like to see a nice development here – but much like being asked if I would prefer the milk chocolate covered dog poo or the white chocolate covered dog poo – I’m asking, why do I have to eat poo at all? It sounds like you think we need to accept this entire project as is or we are simply NIMBY idiots. I think we can do better than the current proposal and pardon me if I think that the protection of the existing neighborhood is just as important as the owner/developers need to turn a tidy profit here.
We need to make some decisions as a city about how to handle the C2 / R-60 issues – the problem is not going to go away.
I have lived in Decatur since 1985 and I have seen a lot of change in that time – you seem to think that Decatur is not currently that great – I could not disagree more. I’d simply like to keep some semblance of the small little slice of an intown neighborhood that I decided to call home some 22 years ago.
It also sounds like your ideal would be to fill 4 or 5 dumpsters with my current 1920′s bungalow and replace it with a nice 3 story LEED certified mcmansion – exactly which one of us would be better suited to John’s Creek life? I think the absolute beauty of Decatur is our ability remain a nice little community of smaller houses with a charming City Square – all right in the middle of the suburban sprawl hell we call Atlanta.
It would probably be cheaper to subsidize housing that already exits then to add more housing for the folks that need by law to live here which by the way doesn’t include teachers.
Buzz words do not good design make. The way it works is this. Residential property close to commercial zones is always in danger of losing it’s value as a residential area as pressure from commercial properties starts to encroach. Same thing happens as roads get busier. One mans meat etc. Some folks don’t like it much. I’m one of them. I’ve seen a lot of city planning du jour fail to adequately address the real needs of the population. Not because developers are evil but because your best interests are not usually high on their list of priorities.
I’m sorry but being a mixed use condo development doesn’t make you green. Maybe if they made it energy efficient by covering the building with solar cells or having no parking at all they might be taking a step in the right direction.
But what they’re proposing is just more crap. It’s a strip mall with condos on top and a concrete parking lot. So you get everything you don’t want tied up in a nice ugly package. How green! How unique!
Stacy
The parking proposal is not bottomed out as you seem to think, look at the parking lot now, it is NEVER full, any time of day. Just like every other parking lot in suburbia it is designed OVER capasity. Remember they added a 10 percent contingency as well. There is no need for that much parking (600 or so spaces), it is a waist of maney and space. But if you would rather look at a 6 story deck, by all mean have at it. But I would rather not.
It also sounds like your ideal would be to fill 4 or 5 dumpsters with my current 1920’s bungalow and replace it with a nice 3 story LEED certified mcmansion — WOW, putting words in my mouth eh? read my post, I said the best part of Decatur is the RESIDENTIAL areas. They are great, and I’m dissappointed you didnt properly read my post and I have to reiterate myslef. What I did say is downtown needs work. Maintaining the suburban strip mall, sea o’ parking design of downtown Decatur is neither sustainable nor attractive.
I think the absolute beauty of Decatur is our ability remain a nice little community of smaller houses with a charming City Square — This is exactly what I said in my previous post, if you would read it, but the reality is that there is a donut of parking and strip malls between these two areas.
David and Stacy — this area I just spoke of, would you like to keep it? Within the realms of reality (green space happening there is just as likely as you giving up your house for a park) what would you like to see there? There are economic forces that you dont seem to be aware of.
Should we then take the areas you seem to hold dear -
–this projects parking lot
–the CVS strip mall
–the parking lot on the bend of Commerce dr by Artisian
–the parking lot behind the wine store
–the parking lot at taco mac
–the parking deck across from crecent moon
–the parking deck on Church st katty corner to the doc office
–the parking lot behind that
–the parking lot for the building at Commerce and Clairemont
–the McDonalds
–the parking lots at the end of Hunter alley and Hunter St.
–the parking in front of and behind the Kroger strip
–the parking lot at the bend of Commerce by the Cemetery
–the parking lot next to Johnnys pizza
–the parking lot across from Johnnys pizza
–the Chick fil a on Trinity
–the parking at Trinity and McDonough
–the parking that fonts all of Trinity
–the parking at Trinity and Commerce
–the parking deck across form this parking lot
–the parking lot at Trinity and Swanton way
–all the parking associated with public housing
–the plethora of small parking lots on Ponce…
and put these on the national register of historic places?
these bullet points I just described are suburbia. This is Decatur downtown. Under a no growth policy they would remain…forever. This is the Decatur you are fighting for (outside the obviously beautiful square which i think we all agree is great). This is the Decatur I think needs to change. As I said in previous posts, the beauty of Decatur is the framework to be a great city (with already existing great neighborhoods, as I must reitierate apparently). Something that is rare in metro Atlanta.
David
I’m sorry but being a mixed use condo development doesn’t make you green.—read what LEED certification is and come back with this statement. Educate yourself.
looking up LEED online:
–Development Density and Community connectivity
–alternative transportation (everything from bikes to low emitting and fuel efficient cars)
–Protect and restore habitat
–maxiize open space
–minimse heat island effect
–light pollution reduction
–water efficient landscaping
–water use reduction
–onsite renewable energy
–green power
–buidling reuse
–recycled content
–using renewable materials
–indoor chemical and pollutant souce control
this is just a fraction of what a developer has to do to get LEED, which is why I think its important. There is no such thing as a LEED surface parking lot (that I’m aware of)
The way it works is this. Residential property close to commercial zones is always in danger of losing it’s value as a residential area as pressure from commercial properties starts to encroach.—really? again, a bit of a stretch and blanket statement really. The homes, right next to retail on Peachtree, have done nothing but go UP in value due to location.
Example
–the homes by the hopital, Collier Rd area (when I was looking for houseing I saw 1800 sq ft homes going for 500k, right behind the hospital…40′s ranch style)
–Virginia Higlands-homes right next to retail…still there
–Emory Village-they are redoing it and tearing down…NO houses
–there are a ton of examples both in Atlanta and around the country where they DONT tear out neighborhoods….I really dont know why this is a real concern of yours.
But what they’re proposing is just more crap. It’s a strip mall with condos on top and a concrete parking lot. –really? crap? I just cant understand how you think a parking lot is better, that space is never going to be green space (economic reality), so you would rather have a parking lot? Residential over commerical is how people have lived for thousands of years. It is a model of development that is proven…but you call it crap?
David, as Newbie points out, your statement about residential near commercial is patently absurd. People, these days, want to live near stores, restaurants, etc. that they can walk to. Look at areas that are holding their value in today’s tough real estate market and high gas prices.
Again, if you want to live in a sea of parking lots, where only upper middle class to rich people live, is low density with strict residential/commercial boundaries that makes a place unwalkable, I really do suggest Alpharetta, Forsyth County or any number of other places where development patterns fit this.
I agree, Decatur is not for everbody. Whether it is the urban living in downtown Decatur or it is living on the same block with a family whose per capita income might be a fourth of yours, such as is the case in many streets in Oakhurst.
But it is what it is. If you don’t like it, move.
David,
I don’t agree with everything newbie says, but I have to agree with many points he/she makes.
And the more I think about it, the more my previous post about property values going sky high in “liberal” areas rings true.
Does “Livable Growth” really promote Livable Growth? There have to be people who would be interested in moving into a town like Decatur. It was interesting to me that Livable Growth adopted a “techniciality” legal approach to their presentation at the zoning board meeting. More death by a thousand cuts, I assume.
Although, I don’t know how much apartments contribute to the tax base. Are these all rentals we are talking about here? Or are they going to be condos?
I guess it all comes down to this….Why would it be bad to build on a parking lot, bring more people downtown, help out Decatur businesses and bring more interesting people into our community?
And if traffic becomes a little excessive, we can just get the committe to adopt a resolution to change the time in between all traffic light changes from every five hours to once a minute
Bill and Left Wing, I fear you’re making the mistake of requesting *realistic* alternatives to what’s on the table now. Such pragmatism doesn’t get very far when dealing with people who prefer a “when you wish upon a star” approach to growth and development.
I think 315 should become a big pile of pudding with horsies inside!
seriously? pudding with horsies inside? come on.
obviously it needs to be ice cream with puppies inside!
Read some literature about normal growth patterns in cities and then come back and tell about the patent absudity of my statements. You will find that generally what I say is true. There’s a reason why zoning exists. Where all those parking lots are now used to be houses for folks to live in. Don’t believe me look at the pictures. Now we go back to housing. Maybe we should have thought about it a little more before we tore it all down.
Would it be bad to build there? Probably not but it’s what they’re going to build there that makes all the difference. There were a lot of people at that meeting the other night who seem not to care for it either.
Oh and newbie, just because we did things for a long time doesn’t make them right. Human sacrifice was pretty popular I recall.
ignorantia delinda est
Personally, I would not mind a nice breakfast at the Southern Star.
The real disconnect here must be the perspective of people who have been in Decatur a long time and those who have not – more than half of the items you listed are quite new and I actually would prefer what was there before. With a few exceptions I actually liked this city when I moved here. For the record, my favorite redevelopment was the old PECO camping dealership on the corner of Ponce and Northern – that was a serious improvement without changing underlying building.
I’d like to see a more reasonable proposal given that this project would have more people than the entire residential neighborhood it is going to be slap up against.
So I guess, in the end I would rather have nothing and wait for the right project than to build something that seems to me is going to absolutely *depend* on the surrounding neighborhood being able to absorb some overflow parking.
We do have a great deal of parking here in the city – the questions I have for you is why are the people we try to bring in to Decatur not using it? Take a look at Fairview any night of the week that taqueria del sol is open – their customers line the residential streets because people are LAZY and they would rather break the law and park up a neighborhood than to walk two blocks to get their $3 tacos (I much preferred being able to gas up at that location myself) – that is the reality that this neighborhood is about to face. We can’t fight human nature. you say we have plenty of parking and I’m saying we may as well have none if people are not going to use it – because the end result is exactly the same.
I have no problem with the Artisan or the 335 building whatsoever. Do we honestly have to blindly accept everything that is put in front of us?
I’ll ask again (since these seem to be the items in my last post that you did not directly address) Do you own a car? How many cars are in your household? (We have three people of driving age in my home and we have 2 cars). And do you think that having people with cars walking and using public transportation more frequently creates more of a demand for daily parking, or less?
HA!
Seriously, when we get down to brass tacks and vanilla flavored puppy pudding pops
I just don’t see an issue here. I don’t care what “study” someone wants to commission to say otherwise “says”.
I mean, if we could just turn that parking lot into a park (which I am SURE Livable Growth would agree to), I could have 5 places to take my kid to go swing within throwing distance!
newbie -
Your comments seem to indicate that LEED certified buildings are somehow an option for this project . What leads ( pardon the pun ) you to that conclusion ? I have been following the details of the 315 Ponce project from the start. Never once have I heard the developer’s team mentioned anything about LEED certification .
During the ZBA meeting, the architect was asked about the landscape buffer between the parking deck and the residential backyards on Fairview. He said he didn’t know anything about the size, type, etc of the trees planned for that space only that there would be trees. No one else from the development team spoke up to offer more info. They know there will be granite counter tops. They know what rent they will charge. I guess environmental/landscape issues are not at the top of their priority list…..
As far as the 315 Ponce parking lot , you are correct that it is not full these days . Before it became a paid lot, on weekdays, it was 75% full on a regular basis. Since the lot became paid parking , the amount of non resident on street parking along Fairview, Ponce Place and Montgomery has increased and the CVS lot is now constantly full.
25 business owners signed a petition presented at the ZBA meeting stating that Decatur should address current parking issues along the Ponce corridor before approving shared parking for the 315 Ponce project.
Yes Decatur has all the parking lots you list above but the reality is most people do not park in those lots. Why ? they don’t want to pay for parking, they don’t feel safe parking in a deck, they don’t want to walk more than a few steps to their destination, they don’t know about the other parking lots ? Whatever the reason(s), it is the nearby residents and business owners who must deal with the complaints and the congestion – not the developer of the 315 Ponce project.
Decatur needs a comprehensive parking management plan – not shared parking standards established piecemeal through zoning variances. City officials should not be approving shared parking arrangements based solely on recommendations of parking experts/studies commissioned the developer or by a neighborhood group . At the ZBA meeting, the developer’s parking consultant mentioned that he recently worked on establishing new parking ordinances for the City of Savannah . Decatur should follow Savannah’s example and divise a city wide strategy for parking management based on recommendations made by independent expets using un biased data.
The Community Transportation recommends allowing shared parking accompanied by specific parking management plans that address enforcement issues and parking contingency plans . It also calls for city requirments that each new commercial project present detailed parking management information as part of the approval process for shared parking proposals.
As yet, none of this has been put into actual ordinances so the 315 Ponce developer is not required to address these issues. At the ZBA meeting , members of the 315 Ponce development team and Lyn Menne of DDA stated that parking managment issues and parking contingency/ enforcement plans for the project are under discussion but not yet actually determined.
It may be true that a few of the 315 Ponce neighbors are against the entier concept of shared parking . However, I believe the majority of the opposition simply wants to see the City address shared parking and parking management/enforcement on a comprehensive basis before approving a project of this size. If formulation of a comprehensive parking plan can be fast tracked by the City commission and updated parking ordinances are put in place in the near future, this project might be able to proceed after a short delay without the need for a parking variance .
Newbie, many who oppose 315 Ponce do share your concerns about sustainable development and environmental protection. They also want to make sure all the open questions are answered and any flaws in the plan are exposed and discussed before anything is approved. After approval is granted , the community has little leverage to bring about fine tuning for things not working as the developer has promised.
Oh and you might want to take a look at this too
http://nreionline.com/brokernews/greenbuildingnews/news/insurance_liability_issues_0808/
fifi – Thank you.
Stacy:
The real disconnect here must be the perspective of people who have been in Decatur a long time and those who have not—I think you are right here, folks who have been here forever tend to not want change…fear it. How could one like change when all they know is the destruction of historic homes where public housing is now, or Commerce dr, that was once single family homes (that road did not historically exist!)?? As I am young and new i see the POTENTIAL however. I see the tragic loss of homes sad, but as an OPPORTUNITY today. I see and understand the mistakes of the 60′s and 70′s and say “lets not do that again!” lets not tear down our neighborhoods, our historic core, and lets create memorable spaces where once destroyed.
as an older resident, i imagine it is probably hard to see beyond the past.
I’d like to see a more reasonable proposal given that this project would have more people than the entire residential neighborhood it is going to be slap up against.—personally I hate that its not going to be condo…but what I hate more is the parking lot. And i dont think 3 story residental is “slapped” up agenst 1 and 2 story homes. I do think the 10 story monstrosity is “slapped” though, and it would be nice to cover some of it up. just my opinion.
the questions I have for you is why are the people we try to bring in to Decatur not using it?—obviously you would have to ask the people, but my guess is that the parking is not labeled well. I have yet to notice a municiple deck siganage. Decatur truly has a poorly planned parking stratigy.
Do we honestly have to blindly accept everything that is put in front of us? of course not, if they were proposing the 10 story high rise today, i’d be fighting it tooth and nail. I just happen to not mind this project. difference of opinion.
To answer your question, yes I have two cars, and I am a car person and would love to have more. would I be afraid of loosing my on street parking space (i park on street)…no. It comes down to who do you believe basically. Do you believe code—that gives us things such as half empty parking lots like at Publix and such, or do you believe the newer shared parking concept. I choose to believe in shared parking concept. But basically it comes down to “who do you believe”…
yes, people park at taquera del sol in the neighborhood. its an urban environment, its happens. does it adversly affect the neighborhood, probably not. But not my street, so cant say.
David:
Read some literature about normal growth patterns in cities and then come back and tell about the patent absudity of my statements. You will find that generally what I say is true. There’s a reason why zoning exists.—zoning caused a lot of the problems we have. I am interested in the books you are reading.
Oh and newbie, just because we did things for a long time doesn’t make them right. Human sacrifice was pretty popular I recall.—your argument here is diluted.
fifi-
this is from a previous thread on parking and where my LEED rant stems from. I understand it is not involved with this project, its just what I would rather fight for rather than parking….
There does need to be a city wide scale parking plan for decatur, municiple lots need to be better identified and some sort of education process for the citizens on parking downtown implimented. If Montana Grill has to put a sign to tell people where to park, obviously people in the city have a poor understanding of how an urban environment works. Decatur should not be suburban, you don’t park outside the shop/resturant like you do at Publix.
My only concern in waiting for this to happen, as government tends to go, would be that we could be waiting for years and years for them to get it together. Does that mean we should continue to design parking as we have been? Should this project have a 6 story parking deck instead of the proposed three (I think)?
As of right, if the developer is forced to produce the parking per code the deck would be much larger and in reality never never full. It would be a waist of money for the developer (money that could be used for green development such as LEED certification, I’d rather citizens fight for that over increasing parking), an eyesore for the residents (at least at 35′ – 40′ trees would quickly cover the deck for residents backing up to the it, at 70′ it would take quite a bit longer…if never able to visually block the deck), and generally just poor design (it would look awful, IMHO, to see 3 levels of empty parking deck popping up behind the 3 story residential portion off Montgomery.)
fifi
During the ZBA meeting, the architect was asked about the landscape buffer between the parking deck and the residential backyards on Fairview. He said he didn’t know anything about the size, type, etc of the trees planned for that space only that there would be trees. No one else from the development team spoke up to offer more info. They know there will be granite counter tops. They know what rent they will charge. I guess environmental/landscape issues are not at the top of their priority list…..
landscape is usually one of the last things to go through in the plans approval process and could easily be addressed as a contingincy for approval. leyland cypress would quickly cover up the deck.
newbie -
Perhaps you can think a bit more about how you would feel if the Taqueria parking issue WAS on your street. Try hard to envision it. Unless you can say 100% that you wouldn’t be bothered by a large increase of non resident on street parking hitting your street, then you might want to be a bit more open to the concerns of the people on Fairview, Montgomery and Ponce Place. We all need to realize that these easier seem much more clear cut when it is not cars on our street or a 3 story apartment building view outside our front window.
Also, I don’t believe the residents wanting ZBA to enforce the parking code on the 315 Ponce project really want a 10 story parking deck. A widely palatble solution might be fewer units that would allow full code compliance within a deck of the currently proposed size. Filling less of that parcel with units could lead to more opportunities for green space pockets creating a more memorable and more sustainable space.
I’m laughing at the argument that people don’t use the plentiful existing parking options in Decatur, so we should force the 315 developers to add more parking.
fifi-
Also, I don’t believe the residents wanting ZBA to enforce the parking code on the 315 Ponce project really want a 10 story parking deck. A widely palatble solution might be fewer units that would allow full code compliance within a deck of the currently proposed size. Filling less of that parcel with units could lead to more opportunities for green space pockets creating a more memorable and more sustainable space.
I’m fine with that! But again, would rather have it as drawn though over the parking lot that currently exists. What scares me, is that, as of right the developer could put in another strip mall…then you’ll watch property values plummet! it seems like some residents would rather have a strip mall over this project as drawn.
As I said, i do park on the street, sometimes in front of my house, sometimes my neighbors house, but I understand this is an urban environment. guranteed parking can be found in cobb county. Its just not a concern of mine. if I have to walk further it just doesnt bother me. As i see it, most people have driveways anyways. I could understand if there was a handicaped person who didnt have a driveway, maybe the city could gurantee a street spot for them…not sure if that situation exists though.
I do appreshate the dialogue of all this. It is important to see both sides, and make a case.
I’m laughing at the argument that people don’t use the plentiful existing parking options in Decatur, so we should force the 315 developers to add more parking.
david-
good article…doesnt really say “dont build LEED!!”
just says “get properly insured!!”
This is pretty good too. The discussion at the end is very illuminating
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/10/26/leed/
David, I might be missing your point but, as best I can tell, you’re advocating that:
1. We should not pursue something — even if it’s necessary — if it is hard.
2. We should let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Seems kind of defeatist.
again, good article. THis complaint i found funny.
The USGBC’s fees for registration range from $750 to $3,750, and certification runs from $1,500 to $7,500, depending on the size of the building. But the big costs come in the form of energy modeling, commissioning, and other requirements of certification; these can run into the tens of thousands of dollars, according to architects and developers.
10′s of thousands of dollars! wow! in most projects that’s barely a drop in the bucket.
as the article implys LEED is not perfect (its a new process), but taken as a whole a LEED building is quite a bit more sustainable and environmentally friendly than a non LEED building.
There are actually quite a few people in this neighborhood who do not have a driveway (I’m one of them).
My personal opinion is that if the owner had not overpaid for this property right before the condo market became a bit questionable we would be seeing condominiums (possibly even town homes fronting montgmery ) and number of units and parking driven more by marketability than the owner/developers need to squeeze out every ounce of profit at the expense of the surrounding neighborhood.
It’s not our responsibility (or that of the City of Decatur) to make sure these guys can make up for what I consider to be a poor business decision on their part.
And just to be clear, this is my own personal opinion here :
I’d like to see something around 150 units, I’m fine with the idea of shared parking but I think we need a bit more margin for error. I’d like to see 3 story brick townhomes along Montgomery with the garden units gradually moving up to the current office building and a better designed lot – in closer proximity to all the residential units (those guys living in the ponce facing units are going to have quite a hike in the current plan).
If they can’t make a profit with something like this – I think they simply overpaid for the property and that is their problem – not ours.
Maybe I’m just a dreamer, but that does not sound all that “puppies in the pudding pops” to me.
Stacy-
I’d like to see something around 150 units, I’m fine with the idea of shared parking but I think we need a bit more margin for error. I’d like to see 3 story brick townhomes along Montgomery with the garden units gradually moving up to the current office building and a better designed lot – in closer proximity to all the residential units
no disagreement there!
Maybe Stacy is right!
The developer probably overpaid for the space. I was wondering why they weren’t going to be apartments and not condos.
Perhaps we should just let the lot sit there unless they say they will build condos instead of apartments.
Also, how do apartments contribute to the tax base?
I’m sure property taxes are rolled into the rental cost. then whatever they spend in town.
not sure though.
Yeah, newbie is right. Regardless of who it is (one or multiple owners), the property owner still has to pay property taxes on it. So tax is part of the amount it costs the owner to maintain the property…which is then theoretically passed on to the renter.
See, the spending in town is a tricky one – as far as a tax benefit of people spending money in the city, I think the majority of that winds up with Dekalb County.
And before anyone misinterprets what I just said – I WANT people to come here and support our local businesses – I’m simply saying that from my understanding of how this works the City of Decatur does not reap a huge financial benefit from sales tax revenue.
Stacy, what you’d like to see is completely reasonable from a context standpoint. So now we would need to look at the tradeoffs necessary (and there are always tradeoffs) to make it work.
For example, you can’t act like the developer’s need to be profitable is inconsequential. If he’s legally entitled to build a particular density — and the cost of his land was determined by that entitlement — it’s more your problem than his. So, fewer units would need to be viable financially, which means they’d need to be higher end. This would require confirmation that there’s currently sufficient demand in that range (not so certain, given the market).
On the flipside, fewer but fancier units would also take steps towards making Decatur even more an enclave of affluence than it already is. This may be preferable to some but it’s not one of the city’s goals. While $1,400 a month rent is less than ideal from an affordability standpoint, it beats mortgages starting above $2,500.
I’m not saying we have to pursue affordability. I’m saying it’s one of the city’s active goals. That’s a political reality that would need to be addressed.
If you could clear these hurdles I’d be fully behind your proposal. My experience tells me they’re too significant — which is why the project is designed the way it is — but I’d love to be proven wrong.
Stacy and all: Stacy is correct. If you look at the City budget, you will see that sales taxes are a very small amount ($ 260,000 out of $ 18M) of the total revenue, notwithstanding the continuing battle over the SPLOST.
newbie – [municiple lots need to be better identified] – Decatur does not have Municipal lots. There is street parking, which is “municipal”, private lots and the County parking deck.
Yep, rentals are hot right now cause mortgage money is pretty tight. In case you hadn’t noticed. These guys came in on tail end of the boom. Real estate is like stocks, a last sucker game before the end of each cycle.
I’m not saying Leed is bad, just that you need to understand what it can and can’t do.
Most of these things come with a lot of unintended consequences.
Like shifting the demographics of an area so that certain groups of people can retain political power. You ignore these kind of things at your peril.
Apartment dwellers usually don’t have quite the same commitment to place as owners do. All you have to do is look around Dekalb to see the problems that large groups of renters can cause. Head over to godekalb.com if you want an ongoing discussion of the problem and who really benefits from it. Usually those friends of whoevers in power in county gov right now.
Maybe we should have a law that the developer must occupy a unit of the complex with their family for a couple of years. Bet they don’t live in a condo now.
ignorantia delinda est
The parking facility behind the conference center is municipal. And I believe the city only has a couple payments to go before we own it free and clear!
Scott,
I’d love to see a greater cost mix than the current proposal myself. I’d like to see at least some more affordable units that would allow some of the teachers, police officers and firemen that this city has/needs actually be able to afford to LIVE in the city they work in.
I don’t see their need to be profitable as inconsequential – but I don’t think any of have a way to know what kind of profit margin we are talking about here. At the end of the day they have speculated on the value of this property and I hope they build something nice and make a decent profit. But if they have overpaid and backed themselves into a corner – should we simply give in and grant any variance they request for whatever they may need to do to make up for that bad decision ? ( I know this is a huge oversimplification of a much larger issue).
Perhaps JLB is the wrong developer here and Day needs to keep looking (possibly for someone actually in the business of building condos – not apartments). Perhaps we need to reconsider the Hotel/residential option – with such a close proximity to Marta people could come right into the City with no car, conduct business in Decatur (or Emory) and contribute to the local businesses. Oddly – of all the things proposed I think a Hotel would be the most likely to draw people without cars – yet it was the first thing tabled by JLB.
I do think that if the current owner paid a reasonable price for the property that the things I am proposing could still make them a profit and would be a huge benefit to our city as a whole. I don’t think the current proposal is even close to the best we can do – and just like all those mistakes of the 60′s and 70′s… someone thought they seemed like a great idea at the time. I just want to be sure that whatever we do here is the very best we can do – because we wont be able to undo it, and at 41 – I’m hoping to be around more than long enough to reap the benefits! (and thank you again for the CSA suggestion – we absolutely love it).
if the owner & developer wanted a strip mall here , they could do it now without all this zoning and planning hoopla. they want residential because it is more prohfitable than a another strip mall . they want apartments because condo financing is virtually unavilable right now. plus the developer can turn around and flip it to an apartment investment / managment group just as soon as it is built and leased.
one thing that is frustrating to me is the way both the developer and the city have acted like they are doing us all a favor by not building some solely commercial space. that isn’t a favor – it is a profitability issue for them – they can make more money with residential. if in fact a strip mall or another office building was equal in profitability, construction would be well underway already.
this developer has built a number of other apartment projects. this is the only one with shared parking. if he had experience with shared parking or with sustainable growth projects in general , I might be more willing to trust his proformas. it was not comforting to hear the project’s parking consultant refer to shared parking as a “hot trend” and “the next big thing” during the ZBA meeting. as far as the management of this type of parking arrangement , Decatur will be their guinea pig. if things don’t go as planned, the City will have little recourse.
As Scott has said previously, that parking consultant totally blew his argument about shared parking by simply classifying it as the “next big thing” and not using data to back up his point. We’re not that easily persuaded. Plus we would rather start a trend than follow one.
Isn’t that the same guy that when asked about Zipcar said “yes Zipcar would be a good thing for Decatur!”…not knowing we already have the highest Zipcar use in the city.
Geez dude…do your homework!
I agree…they did not do a very good job on their homework.
side question…do you suppose the mayor/commission read blogs like this? Obviously the public meeting is the most important part of the process, but I wonder if they pay attention to these things?…The developer should read some of these, they could get a better uderstanding of the neighborhoods concerns, and probably suck it in a little better than an “up on the podium” situation.
post #51!…i wanted 50.
I always thought Bill Floyds blog would be a good place for this sort discussion.
Or maybe Menne should start a city blog.
Oh and developer homework usually doesn’t consist of knowing anything about the neighborhood that doesn’t directly affect the bottom line. There’s always been a big disconnect there. I just hope they’ll think it’s too much trouble and sell the prop. At least that will buy us some time. I mean what else haven’t they done their homework on?
As far as being NIMBYs are concerned there are some things you really don’t want in your back yard. Buzz words are easy to throw around. When you ask what they mean by it sometimes you find out you really don’t like something that sounded so good when it was being sold to you.
Defining your terms is the hardest part of any argument. Just ask Socrates.
Ignorantia delinda est
Newbie…from what I hear from various sources, many of them are frequent readers. You might have noticed that Lyn comments occasionally, as does Linda Harris. Even Peggy Merriss has chimed in a few times. And pretty quickly too…within hours…which seems to indicate they’re watching pretty closely. In regards to the commission, its a bit of a sticky situation for them to comment on a site like this, but you might note that this site is the only one linked to on the Mayor’s blog.
David…for someone that would prefer a different venue, you sure do comment a lot.
There are lots of issues involved with the city starting its own blog (in the traditional sense). For one thing, they would have to be very careful about what they said. Also if they allowed comments, I think they might have an issue with people going off on them…and then if they were blocked…just think about the rant that would occur! ‘The city is trying to silence me! Blah Blah…”
That’s why I believe that privately “owned” blogs work best for all involved. I run it by my rules. Don’t like ‘em, go somewhere else. And ultimately public demand decides whether the site succeeds or fails. Over the months as viewership has grown, the city has learned pretty quickly how to work with me and use my viewership to their benefit.
All that said…I’ve heard that the city will be making some kind of foray into the digital space in the coming months. It won’t be anything like a traditional blog, but will attempt to use the internet to float issues and gauge public opinion. So look out for that.
I guess you could call the Conference Center parking “municipal”, but although it is owned by the City, it is operated by a contractor.
Isn’t that the case with most municipal lots? I always figured cities typically outsource such things.
I’ve been following with varied levels of interest both this post and its comments. What strikes me as odd is how so many are quick to call my neighborhood a bunch of NIMBYs who are afraid of change and not thinking progressively enough. Oh, if only we would just open our eyes and see the light! Out with our old fogey ways and in with the new enlightened level of understanding that orange is the new pink! If only you’d have used an oil slick and smokestack instead of green leaves on your logo it would reflect your true intentions!
Y’know, it’s easy to read a blog article that lazily labels important legal concerns brought before a legally binding proceeding by concerned attorneys as just another stall tactic. Ignore the fact at least two of the individuals ON THE BOARD are attorneys and those individuals also concurred that they needed to consult the City Attorney’s office for guidance. Did anyone ever consider the effect of what if they actually denied the variance and it wasn’t legally binding? Do we want to waste our tax dollars defending the City in a lawsuit? What if they approved it with conditions that the developer provide affordable housing alternatives and have no restaurants, only to have it vacated later after the building was half-built. Yah, you just go ahead and unring that bell.
These things are important because whatever they build is here for a long time. That office tower was built over 40 years ago. It’ll probably be here for another 20. Or 40. Or more. We only get one bite at the apple, and it needs to be done right and it needs to be done well. And since no one else is going to step up and force the issue, the burden falls on us, the people who will be living here next door to it 20 years from now. Or 40 years from now.
Do you HONESTLY believe that Day Partners, who paid 16 million dollars for a parking lot, a few endanged trees, and a 1960s office tower, and JLB partners who has already sunk at least a quarter of a million dollars into this project if they’ve dropped a dime, both of whom have an expectation of at least 2 years to build, is going to be crying and upset over a few months delay? If they’re truly upset, and I’m betting they probably are at least somewhat bent if I had to gauge by their reactions Monday ni- err Tuesday morning, it sounded to me like it was because they were following the City’s guidance in these matter and it wasn’t as much a slam dunk as they might have believed.
And you know what? I don’t rightly care if they are pissed off. If this is done right and in a way that adds to our City and our neighborhood — and by proxy to their development — they’ll have a much better product to market and we’ll have a much better City to live in. If it takes more time and REAL honest study (and not that flimsy crap they tried to pass off as parking numbers, for example) to get it right, then I’m all for that. Shared parking that doesn’t have enough spots to share is FAIL — but hey – at least it’s progressive FAIL. Any other alternative is ultimately a lose-lose-lose situation for pretty much everyone.
Between the overall meeting the other night, subsequent comments on this blog, and the “pro” comments from a man who was supportive with stipulation that more bike racks were necessary and a young man who was perfectly willing to accept a building “B” 10′ off his eastern balcony all in the name of being in a “livable” community, I am forced to conclude there can be only ONE explanation for this mass insanity: L-O-V-E.
Like star-struck teenagers on a fresh, moonlight Fall night, many folks who keep echoing how this development embodies life well lived in Decatur are in love… in love with a concept. They’re romancing a vision of high density sugarplums and titillating livable-workable-walkable zip-car lined streets.
They’re all sitting in the bar alone in the smoke-free environment nursing their watered-down drink, reminiscing about great times had in Lower Manhattan and how great it would be to live on the set of Bladerunner when a development walks up to them and says “Hey, baby!” It’s not their usual parking lot, but kinda cute, modern, decent height plane, and some nice shadows. Sure, it’s 220 units and can’t park all its cars, but it’s been a while and they need /something/! No “10″ but good enough, so they’re ready to take it back to their place and see what happens. Beer goggles make for a long car-free walk back to bar where they parked scooter…
When you’re in love, you don’t really know for sure whether it will truly work until you’re living together a while. Only then you find out he leaves the toilet seat up, or she dries her bras on the shower rail or — or whatever it is that they do that really gets to you and makes your life miserable.. and you realize “I made a mistake.” Only with 315, the only divorce option involves dynamite and a long jail term. We can’t get this marriage annulled — once it’s done, it’s done, so it is imperative we get it right from the start.
Now, before you go gettin’ all pouty on me and think that I don’t understand or share that lovely vision, I actually do. Many of us do! Even the ones you decry as NIMBYs… the environmental lawyers, the landscape architects, the real-estate appraisers, the construction managers, the architects, the politicians, the stay at home moms and even the computer geeks. I heard it Monday night. They care about Decatur and want to see this done the Decatur Way™. Overall, the majority were saying in one form or another that they do not think that this particular project is the right one to have and to hold, for ever’n'ever, till closing do we part, and that the developer and the City can do better.
I know many folks left the variance hearing early, and that’s a shame. There were some excellent concerns voiced and many questions left unanswered. Almost everyone on the “I oppose” side said that they agree with the /idea/ of shared parking, the /idea/ of high density residential. Folks who abut 315 said they bought their house fully expecting development to happen there. I heard that there was no contingency plan for parking (I guess it’ll be the auxillary “lot” on Oakland Street?). I heard that there were not many design alternatives considered, the “range” of dwelling units was 220. I heard that we lack true, meaningful data on social and environmental impacts to make an informed decision, and we have little confidence in what data we HAVE been given to date. And even the ZBA admitted that they didn’t have enough specific information to understand what exactly they were being asked to vary!
If disputing notion that this development is The One™ means that we look like NIMBYs thru some of our fellow Decaturite’s beer goggles, then I guess thats the cross we must bear. I guess it’s a lot easier to sit around and poke fun at the website and call us NIMBYs than ask “Is this REALLY the best we can do here…?” I know how 1000+ homeowners, 25 nearby business owners, and 5 ZBA members have answered that question.
Ease up, Baron. There’s a simple reason for the NIMBY characterization. It’s because folks paying attention have been inundated with countless details of what the neighborhood is *against* but — and this may not be your intention — I’m having a helluva time finding a collective opinion for what you’re *for*.
You support shared parking, in theory. You support mixed use, in theory. What I’d welcome, and I’m sure others would too, is an articulation of what you’d like to see instead of the current proposal. Not you personally — we’ve had plenty of those — but what your organization would put its stamp of approval on.
How many units and in what price points? How many parking spaces? What kind of frontages? Where on the parcel do you want to see it? Mixed use? If so, where and how intense?
What you’re experiencing on this blog is a lot of fatigue. People are getting tired of a process that doesn’t seem to be accomplishing anything productive (in either direction) and it’s exhausting.
We already know what the developer wants to do. If you could say what you — all of you — are for in contrast, maybe more people would see your efforts as productive.
Baron, when Jeff Davis stands up and states that the ZBA’s improper operation nullifies all of its decisions, that sounds like an effort to stall to me. Sorry. And hey it’s worked for Old Decatur in regards to Hillyer so far, so can I fault you? No. Was I a little lazy? Yes. But you kept me up late the night before.
In response to the NIMBY label (which I don’t believe I’ve used)…if and when I see all of the people at Monday’s meeting packing the commission room for a shared parking concept no where near any neighborhood, I will apologize for ever thinking that five letter acronym. Now, obviously there are many folks that have posted here that live in the neighborhood and either want the development or would at least be ok with it with conditions. Shades of gray. But there are also others that just hate the idea of this development because its near their homes, but know the negative connotation attached to a NIMBY and so instead they show a great concern in a shared parking concept.
In truth, I’m not in love with the development either. That Ponce building drives me nuts…and don’t get me started on the elevated walkway! But what bothers me even more are people that talk out of both sides of their mouth. (and just so we’re clear I’m not talking about you. We’ve had some good discussions in the past and I really value your POV.)
Never said I didn’t like the venue I just think that in the modern age with flying cars and mixed use developments everywhere having the direct ear of our elected officials might be a good idea.
Don’t want the independent blogs to go anywhere. We have the tools, we have the technology so why not.
Plus I like to run my mouth. Makes me feel good.
Ignorantia delinda est
It’s coming. Look for an announcement about flying cars and a direct ear to elected officials tomorrow.
ok…maybe they’re just Zap cars….
I think that “Baron” may have gone off the deep end with that comment if you were able to read it all.
The thing that strikes me, Baron and others who are opposed to this project, is that you like to say that the developers parking numbers are a sham, but your parking consultant said that 650-something parking spaces would be required for this development. That is an even bigger sham. Are you assuming that everyone who ever used the building over the course of a 365 day year are going to all suddenly want to park at once? What about the 364 days when you have a 1/4th full wasted parking garage?
Does anyone have insight into how the Artisan project was reflected in the community before it broke ground?
To me, it seems a perfect semblance of high density housing and a great building as well.
Bill,
As a registered Democrat, I could not agree more with you more. Except if you were reading off a teleprompter, like our savior. Then I would really believe you.
Just kidding…..
Seriously folks, I happen to think that if this project was located just off commerce and Church, we wouldn’t hear anything about it….
I refer to my post above.
Leftie do you really like the Artisan? Looks like every other developer modern building I’ve ever seen. Right down to the chain restaurant and the empty storefronts in the basement. Nothing architecturally interesting at all. Unless you just like fake stucco over styrofoam. Actually I do like the weight- watchers balconies. Some people will believe and or buy/anything.
What are you comparing it to? The courthouse?
ignorantia delinda est
315 delinda est
Basta!
Oh come on!
Have you been to Atlantic Station?
Now that is ugly. I happen to think that the Artisan isn’t fantastic, but it’s not bad. Put anything in brick and I am happy in this day and age.
Why is it the end of the world if someone–not a resident– parks on your street?
A nonresident park on my street? This would never be tolerated in Cobb or Gwinnett. Oh but wait . . . Decatur is city living. Comes with the territory.
I think of all HDSF buildings that come to mind, 335 is my favorite so far. I don’t /mind/ the Artisan, but I really prefer the look of the 335 W. Ponce building. The area that I really don’t like much is the space past Church Street on Ponce heading east out of town. Every time I go to the Farmer’s Market or otherwise drive thru there, I’m buzzin’ down the street in my Beetle feeling like Luke Skywalker in that Star Wars scene where he’s flying the tie fighter in the big chasm on the Death Star… Maybe one day there’ll be an open sewer grate in front of the gas station or something to truly complete the image.
Parker, it’s not the end of the world if someone parks on the street in front of your house. Or even, say, two people park there. Or your neighbors have a party one night. Or it’s Beach Party weekend, or 4th of July fireworks night. Or someone is having their fence re-done and need to move their cars out of the back yard and onto the street. That’s, as the razor man above said, city living and comes with the territory. It’s but a fleeting annoyance that is also part of just being a good neighbor: live and let live.
But it totally sucks when your street is parked up with cars every day. And it really stinks when you don’t even have a driveway and have to park on the street. Nothing sucks worse than coming home from a day’s work and having to vulche for a parking spot by your home.
If you want a good example of the special kind of hell that this can be, pop up Fairview Avenue one evening when restaurants are in full swing.
And that doesn’t even cover how some people are utterly inconsiderate and park in front of your driveway, or pop into your driveway for a quick turnabout nearly missing you and your child while yammering away on a cellular phone… That kind of thing can happen regardless, but it tends to happen more often when the street parking is nearly full. And we can’t forget the disgusting cigarette butts and trash … that same inconsiderate mindset also seems to fancy trashing someone else’s street over trashing their own neighborhoods. More cars means a higher likelihood of self-important behavior.
Decaturite – Hillyer is similar to 315 (and a few other propertiess in Oakhurst, too) in that it is commercial-abutting-residential (“C-2 next to R-60″) zoning. As I understand it, Hillyer was approved for development but the crappy real-estate market took them out. Hillyer pointed out – and the City took note – that C-2/R-60 issue was a situation requiring special handling, but unfortunately we find ourselves in the same position again with 315. I am, however, heartened by some of the closing comments of members of the zoning board that this issue needs to be addressed by the City.
I’m not sure I’d characterize the Hillyer situation as having “worked” for anyone – it seemed like a lose-all-the-way-around situation to me, but I can see what you’re saying. As for your comments about folks standing up to fight ugly problems elsewhere in the City, I can tell you that in the past year or two, I’ve observed a shift in more and more of my neighbors. After a variance hearing almost exactly a year ago, I was walking back from the hearing with my friend and neighbor who said to me “I’m tired of the McMansioning of our neighborhoods. We need to do something. I need to do something. I’m going to get more involved in development process so that we can keep this from happening.” As luck would have it, 2 or 3 weeks later the opportunity to participate in the 315 focus group came up and she was all over it. Thankfully, several others like her answered that same call, and got involved. Decatur is already known for its community involvement and protective ordinances, but house after house is being thrown in the dumpster and I think people are really getting tired of what’s happening here. And they’re stepping up … I believe — and hope very much — that what you’re seeing with 315 is only the first of what will be neighbors working with neighbors to ensure that we have responsible and livable development here. We didn’t get 1000 signatures from the 207 homes in our little area, they came from all over the City. People clearly get the importance of doing this the right way and are concerned about what happens if it goes wrong. If we don’t step up and help each other make things better, who will? A real-estate investor? A developer? The City?
As for your concerns that there are some people who will use anything they can to stop the development, all I can say is that those people are not typical of the folks I’ve interacted with on this project. I won’t sit here and type to you that those people don’t exist, but I am also troubled by how some folks have so readily got out their widest brush and painted us all nice shade of NIMBY. It’s like saying that because I’m overweight, all of my neighbors must be lazy, unhealthy slobs who can’t waddle past bag of Cheetos without emptying it. It’s patently untrue and just, well, wrong to generalize people like that.
I am sorry if you took my statements to imply that you’ve called us NIMBY. Your coverage of this issue has been and continues to be instrumental in keeping people in the loop on what is a very complicated issue. I really appreciate your comments about our conversations — I’ve enjoyed reading DM as well, it’s a great community resource and I appreciate all the time you put into it – we all have our day jobs, too, afterall
.
[but house after house is being thrown in the dumpster]
Where is this happening in Decatur?
The following post on Terminal Station should be required reading for all who are interested in the 335 discussion.
http://terminal-station.blogspot.com/2008/08/mechanics-of-shared-parking.html
“…neighbors working with neighbors to ensure that we have responsible and livable development here.”
In theory, that sounds nothing but good, Baron. But as one of those Decatur neighbors — and sorry to belabor the point but everyone seems to be sidestepping it — it would be very helpful to better understand your group’s alternate vision for the 315 property. I think it’s clear in everyone’s mind that you’re against what’s on the table and that you want something responsible and livable and, being right next door, that seems reasonable. But we need to progress beyond adjectives like “responsible” or “livable” and get down to the brass tacks of what the heck those words actually mean to your group.
I’d love to be persuaded that your vision for the property is the better deal for Decatur, but I don’t know what that vision is. What does LGD want to see there instead? What uses; what density; what form; what height?
Without a vision of your own, you can’t find fault with folks drawing the conclusion that nothing will ever be good enough. Even more disparaging than a NIMBY characterization is the latest versions — BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.
Can you step in and get us back on track? Just tell us what you guys want to see. Thanks.
Excellent analysis Scott.
I have also been scratching my head wondering what “responsible”, “sustainable”(the NEW buzz word for EVERYTHING green. My house is sustainable and it was built in 1925!), and “livable” actually mean.
All of those words seem to be a circuitous way of saying everything, yet not showing anything.
If you want a good example of the special kind of hell that this can be, pop up Fairview Avenue one evening when restaurants are in full swing.
I’ve actually done this the last couple of weekends and didn’t notice that parking on the residential streets was much of a problem. If it is, show me the evidence. How many citations have been issued for parking in a residential zone?
David, if you really think that the Artisian is such a bad building then you really are a BANANA! That is an extremely appropriate building for that property, replaced a weedy parking lot that was there before, helps connect the core part of downtown around the square with the west part of downtown to make it more walkable. But I guess for you and your neighbors, you would have rather seen a surface parking lot remain there, just in case someone might park on your street for 30 minutes while they run into Mellow Mushroom!
Baron, no worries…we’re all friends here.
But if your friend really is tired of McMansions, it seems like putting together a historic district nomination would be a more appropriate use of time than fighting a new development that covers a parking lot. (Unless their displeasure comes from destroying the 315 landscaping out front…which is what I take issue with, even though few others do)
Suzie,
I agreee with you. I just do not understand, for the life of me, how someone can see that building, which replaced a freaking parking lot, and say, “That was dumb.”
I mean, would it suit your standards if it was built out of Marble?
Guys, I would suggest taking David with a grain of salt sometimes…he even admits that he likes to hear himself talk.
A quick sudy of architecture for about the last 50 years would show you how completely ordinary that building really is. It is designed to do one thing, maximize the building footprint on its lot while conforming with then current zoning.
They could have built something that fit perfectly in the style of Decatur but instead we got a building straight out of midtown. Go look at Silk on Peachtree. What imagination. What a sense of place.
I wouldn’t mind marble but then the city admin would have had to go to china again so they could make sure they got the right price.
I’ll be very surprised if that building makes for 10 years without a major facelift or other repairs that will cause an assessment none of the current owners are even willing to think about.
These walkable centers are great but you’re going to have to pay more for all the stuff you buy there because the distribution of the goods to more stores is going to increase transportation costs. In addition you lose the economies of scale the big box grocery stores have. Nothing comes without a price. Maybe you don’t drive but the trucks still have bring your fairmarket coffee to you. Does anybody really bother to really think these things through or do they just take the easy way out with buzz words and ad hominum attacks. Some people will believe anything.
Hey whats a college education really worth these days?
Ignorantia delinde est
Basta