315 W. Ponce Developer Requests Variances To Build Retail Along Ponce
Decatur Metro | July 22, 2010A sign out in front of the 315 West Ponce de Leon Ave. office building – aka Decatur Court – announces three upcoming city meetings to consider a parking variance for the site.
The last time the developer – Easlan Capital – requested a parking variance for this site to build multi-family residential at the rear of the site and retail along West Ponce de Leon Ave, it resulted months of negotiation between the surrounding neighborhood, the developer, and the city. In the course of negotiations, the retail building facing West Ponce was dropped to appease neighborhood worries that a retail building would result in more parking along residential streets and increased traffic through the neighborhood. The plan for the apartments in the rear and a parking deck were ultimately approved by the city commission on December 15th, 2008.
The whole process was covered extensively on this site back then.
Now it looks like the developer is looking to bring back the retail portion of their plan and needs a variance of 59 parking spaces (401 vs. 459) to move ahead with construction. The developer’s letter requesting the variance says that the new building would have 9,000 square feet of restaurant and 7,900 square feet of retail space. The building would comply with the 35 foot height restriction of the site and give restaurants the option of rooftop dining.
The letter to the city employs the same argument that was used back in 2008 in requesting the variance: basically that the retail/restaurant building and the existing office building require the greatest number of parking spaces at different times of day – the retail/restaurant in the evening, office during the day. Therefore, parking space would theoretically be shared resulting in a need for fewer total spots.
As for next steps: There are four upcoming meetings regarding this potential development.
The Zoning Board of Appeals gets the honor of deciding on the approval/denial of the parking ordinance. The meeting is actually the first of the four meetings – Monday, August 9th. Their decision on the parking variance is final. The parking variance ISN’T reviewed by the city commission.
The Planning Commission meets on Tuesday, August 10th and the City Commission meets on Monday, August 16th to review the new building in relation to the ordinance specifically created for this site’s development. The Decatur Downtown Development Authority also meets on Friday, August 13th and makes a recommendation to the city commission.
Why can’t I picture this building, DM? What’s it next to?
It’s the former Wachovia/First National Bank building at the corner of Ponce Place and W Ponce, one block past the CVS.
Thanks, guys. After viewing the picture, I see why I blocked it out. I am confused, though; would this building go bye bye or still remain as part of a revitalized facade?
I like this building. But that’s neither here nor there.
The office building isn’t going anywhere. The current approved plan allows for a separate apartment building and a parking deck to be built over the rear parking lot.
The proposed retail building would also be separate from the office building and sit on top of the little manicured pocket park that currently sits on West Ponce.
I don’t necessarily like this style of architecture (again, my whole argument on how we let our own taste influence our sense of what is right or wrong aesthetically – especially me!) but I do love how these white block buildings photograph against a clear blue sky. 246 Sycamore photographs the same.
wait, I’m confused…the current plan calls for ancillary buildings and parking deck but nothing about the actual building that’s there now? Is it vacant or are there still some offices in there?
No mention of the boutique hotel that was once included in this plan, huh? Woe is me.
im all for botique hotels in downtown decatur. i mean the holiday inn isn’t really fancy and the only other two hotels i know in decatur city limits are the super 8/decatur inn or whatever they are on church.
I am 100% for adding a botique hotel or something like a hilton garden inn inside the city limits
I agree. There aren’t really any good options in the city. The Holiday Inn is run down and overpriced. The Super 8 is just shady.
I worked at the Holiday Inn for 6 months in 1989 or 90. It was my first jobs with actual grown up co-workers. Don’t think I have been in there since
What gives you confidence that 5-10 years from now a boutique hotel would be any better run or more desirable than the Holiday Inn?
Once upon a time the Holiday and Conference Center were touted as just what Decatur needed because there were no ” nice” places to stay within the city limits. Doesn’t seem to have work out that way. A new boutique hotel wouldn’t be city owned of course, city and residents would have no control over it. Could easily go the way of the Holiday Inn or become “shady” like the Church St. motels .
This is true, there are no guarantees.
Off the top of my head, when the Holiday Inn and Conference Center was built, Decatur certainly was not a destination spot that it now is for dining and shopping, street ambience, etc. That situation has changed significantly. Folks visiting Emory/Emory Health alone could fill a lot of those rooms and ride CLIFF to campus. Much cheaper than Emory Conference Center. But Holiday Inn is like stepping back into 1982. YUCK!
But Decatur still is lacking the convention center/performing arts complex that means medium to large meetings that can bring 200-300 or more folks in Decatur probably don’t. I imagine many smaller companies would have annual/regional/etc. type meetings in Decatur, as employees could fly into Harsfield, take MARTA to Decatur, and walk to their hotel JUST LIKE BIG CITIES.
It’s the missing piece (convention center/boutique hotel).
What will happen to those great big majestic trees? I can’t tell if they stay with this plan.
As we learned the last time 315 Ponce was featured here, the perfectly cone-shaped reddish trees are Dawn Redwoods, which are an ancient fir, originally from China, imported here from Japan, deciduous rather than evergreen. They are beautiful and should be preserved, no matter what happens.
Here’s the post regarding the dawn redwoods and the potential Ponce building.
http://www.decaturmetro.com/2008/07/30/315-west-ponce-dawn-redwoods-in-jeopardy/
All of the trees will have to be removed, I think. The root damage from new construction will be too devatating for them to survive. I think they are listed with Trees Atlanta as very large and rare specimens.
We need a tree ordinance. Screw the skateborders. Gimme trees!
Speaking of skateboarders, I’ve perceived an increase in skaters around the square. Skate or die, indeed.
OK. STOP the madness. Let’s fill up the retail space that’s empty fronting Ponce, (empty Tastings, etc. buildings) then figure out if we need more retail. Secondly, let’s sell the houses in our neighborhoods, the empty condos that we have, so to create a demand and then build–the market is still way too soft right now to do this. We are in the middle of the tear down in public housing that will supposedly put more housing, etc. on this area …of course, no one listens to the cranky one in the crowd ….
If only all of the properties and developments that you mention were owned and operated by a single entity.
True, not owned by a single entity but the City does have a bit of control in choosing to approve or deny variance requests.
So Decatur’s various boards and commissions should approve/deny variances based on what they each predict the economic health of the city to be?
Man, that’s a slippery slope.
I’m not sure ZBA members, Planning Commission members or even City Commission members are equipped to be deeming such things.
But hey, more power to them if they can predict the future! Oh wait, you just pointed out that predicting the future is not possible in your reply to the hotel thread. Hmmm…
Don’t know what you mean about predicting the future. I was just pointing out that the City does have some leverage to influence the direction and rate of growth through the zoning limitations. I thought Cranky was saying ( and I agree) we need to be more cautious with exceptions to ordinances to give the city a chance to absorb and react to the growth it has experienced over the last 15 years. This is needed precisely because we can’t predict the future. No way to go back if we over develop and pass the tipping point to balance growth and quality of life .
As far as the hotel – not about predicting the future but about learning from the past – the Holiday Inn situation. People spoke about that Holiday Inn with the same excitement I hear now surrounding the concept of a “boutique” hotel.
I don’t see an upscale hotel making sense . Yeah it would be nice for the Book Festival to have a posh place for their guests and families of some Decaturites might stay there once or twice a year when they visit. But 365 days a year would there REALLY be enough clientele to support an upscale hotel? If not it would soon become just like the much maligned places we have now.
I completely disagree.
A small, upscale hotel would serve a huge niche here if done right. The Holiday Inn serves its function but a botique hotel would go after a completely different market. The Holiday Inn is perfectly fine, but there is nothing unique about it. And it has been good for Decatur, but it is time to take it to the next level.
Between stuff going on in Decatur, Emory/CDC, downtown conventioners, its access to MARTA for big events in Atlanta. Hell, it’s proximity to the Brick Store and all of the other great restaurants in Decatur would make it a foodie destination hotel for travelers.
It really has the potential to make Decatur a destination kind of place. While it is a nice place to have weddings and family reunions and shelter government employees visiting the county seat, the Holiday Inn was never going to make us a destination. But a nice, small boutique hotel could.
Hell, it’s proximity to the Brick Store and all of the other great restaurants in Decatur would make it a foodie destination hotel for travelers.
___________
I love BS too, but it’s not a food destination. It’s a great bar, but if I am traveling and want Atlanta’s best food, it’s not on the list. Nor is Leon’s.
Cakes & Ale, yes. But that’s one restaurant. Hardly a food destination.
Re hotel: I think something a little nicer and with much better facility management and responsiveness to patrons would do a lot better than the current Holiday Inn; whether that’s enough to be sustainable in this economy, I don’t know. I would be putting up relatives regularly there, folks that I love but drive me crazy when they are underfoot all the time, “You know, it gets so crowded at the house and our bathroom is SO antiquated and you all deserve some real rest and the Hotel Decatur is just right around the corner so we thought you all would be so much more comfortable there, but you’ll be over to the house all the time…..” But my mother, grandmother, and work friends have had multiple stays there that are examples of how poor the facilities and service can be at the Holiday Inn–smells, mold, noise, broken fixtures, poor food etc. And the Holiday Inn Select, University Inn, Emory Inn, Emory Conference Center are all just far enough that it’s not plausible to bill them as annexes to our house. I know that CDC and Emory have tried having some of their regular smaller conferences there many times and given up in despair. And a really good hotel restaurant can be self-sustaining, drawing community patrons as well as guests.
So I think that a moderately upscale hotel with excellent service and dining and reasonably managed facilities for small conferences, weddings, community events etc. would be really appreciated in Decatur. Whether it would also be economically viable, I don’t know.
Hi,
On the hotel thread: There is a bed and breakfast on Garden Lane. It’s nice and the best part is, it “feels like home” for your relatives, and doesn’t have the smells of the Holiday Inn.
We used the Sycamore House on Sycamore for years, but the owners put the house on the market, so don’t know if another B and B went in, or it reverted back to private residence. So sad!
Also, I would recommend the Holiday Inn EXPRESS, which is behind Publix. My parents stayed there also a while back, and had an agreeable experience.
I’m not going to argue the hotel point. That’s all speculation.
But using the ZBA to limit growth inside the city limits does seem like a dangerous proposition.
First off, using a parking variance will really only limit dense growth…so anything with enough parking (strip malls, etc) would still be allowed full reign. That seems like a negative, all be it inadvertent, side effect.
As for “predicting the future”, when you say “allow the city to absorb growth”, you are inadvertently asserting that there’s someone out there you will know the point when this period of absorption is complete and we can continue on our merry path of denser development? That sounds to me a little like pulling out of the stock market when the market is down and then missing the uptick later on.
In terms of “no way to go back”, I could make the same argument in reverse. If we stifle these developers now, they may never come back when we finally deem it appropriate.
If the City Commission would get off its rear ends and pass a parking ordinance for our downtown that is based on the way it looks and operates now instead of the way it looked and operated in the 1960’s, then the ZBA wouldn’t have to make these decisions about parking ordinances. Right now the code requires sprawling strip centers, not the kind of development we want to see in Decatur.
I agree, Cranky. Make it stop.
My thoughts EXACTLY! While this will be operated by another developer (not CARTEL Properties, thank goodness!!) we already have a glut of empty restaurant and retail space in Decatur- why do we need to allow more?? I’m all for good development and I know this site is ripe for it, but a development like this is just not needed right now. I’ll be attending the meeting, and rallying the troops…
LowPo,
You DO realize don’t you that they are not asking for your or the city’s permision to build more retail – they can do that by right.
What they are asking for is a variance on the amount of parking to be dedicated to that use.
The city can grant or deny the parking variance and that may or may not affect their decision to build the retail space but if they choose to build, there is nothing you or I or the city can do to stop them.
Skeptic – Yes I understand that, thank you for that clarification. Regardless if they get the parking variance or not, looking long-term (because that’s what good planning does), why do you think this retail/restaurant space will be any different than those existing spaces of comparable size that surround it that sit EMPTY along W. Ponce? That’s not benefiting anyone’s property values. Yes, it’s zoned Commercial. No, there’s nothing that we can do to stop someone from developing on their property. But we need to consider these things as a community before blanketed acceptance of a variance that could pave the way for more signs that say “AVAILABLE”.
I see your Tastings and Signature Sketchiness and raise you the 340 building across the street. That building was almost completely empty not 6 months ago and now only has a single vacancy.
Then there’s the Delta Community Credit Union going in next door. And Blue Elephant down the street.
And that’s just stuff that’s recently filled in the holes around 315 West Ponce, so I fail to see where all these vacancies are.
And at what point should the community ALLOW property owners to start building again? Is there a magic vacancy number?
LowPo,
It’s simple really. I’m not doing the planning. The developer is. He is taking the risk, he will get the reward or lack thereof. While we all hope that if he builds, his space will be leased (along with the other empty spaces in Decatur), it is not our place to try to force him to build or not build.
I appreciate the intellectual aspect of debating the long term growth (or lack thereof) and what if any we might want the City to do to encourage growth in particular areas; I find too often the conversation devolves into this specific person or developer should be forced to do that specific thing as if the Zoning and Building Codes are being invented on the fly by the whim of the populace.
If the developer is asking for a variance (as this one is), I think it is legitimate to for the City to consider asking for something back in exchange for granting the variance. The developer could decide to accept the City’s terms or reject them. If he rejects them, then he must comply witht he rules and regulations currently in force, but other than that, he can build what he wants, when he wants, where he wants as a matter of right without regard to whether the rest of us agree with him or not.
Why not make this building mixed-use if they are already going to build apartments behind?
Vote Cranky!
rooftop dining sounds great!
I hope you will be walking or biking every time you dine.
Thank you.
I walk, carpool and drive when going to Decatur restaurants. When I carpool and drive, I always find a spot to park- free or paid, but never in a neighborhood. I agree with your later posts on this thread that the city needs to enforce neighborhood parking in areas near commercial activity -ie preserved for people who live on those streets. Other cities do it without problem, and it is even a money maker for some (my college days in Berkeley can attest to that).
I think you are better served to get what you want – preservation of your street parking for residential use)-if you focus your lobbying on that, vs. trying to limit dense development with urban type parking allowances. Seems like a lot more people in Decatur would support residential parking restrictions than suburban parking requirements.
I don’t see the parking question should be the limiting factor here. When I walk around the town in the evening, the parking lot is always 95+% empty, so there’s plenty of space for parking during evening hours for restaurants. (If I remember correctly, it’s since they started enforcing paid parking there.) I admit to never being around during day “business hours” to know how full the lot gets then, though.
(and yes, I would walk to dinner there, if it were built, just like every other downtown restaurant now, but I agree that filling up current empty storefronts would be better if possible, but no way to force that).
Keep in mind that the 95% empty lot will be gone when the apartments are built .
mcmillend you are thinking in exactly the terms hoped by the developer. In previous public meetings, neighbors voiced concerns about parking taking into account the entire site. Now that the residential is approved , they are trying again for a variance with just the retail. Looking at the existing space , it is easy to forget that site will also have around 150 apartments .If those units were built and occupied right now, you might have a different feeling about the parking question.
I agree that obviously there will be less spaces there with the apartments, but you’re saying the apartments would use the current shrunken lot, and not have a specific area to park? from the previous discussions, there’s plan for a parking deck as part of the plan with the apartments, so though I’m guessing there would be less parking spots–which again, isn’t utilized at all in the evening–it doesn’t matter to me if it’s 200 empty parking spots or 150…
I’m not joking that in the evening, occasionally there are one or two cars parked in the lot, but many nights, there are no cars in the entire lot. Maybe it’s entirely full during the day, I don’t know.
And (for example) the Artisan lot just two blocks down has “public parking” sections that are almost all empty in the evening. There is plenty of parking in downtown in the evening without that lot–since it isn’t used now. The real issue with people parking in adjacent neighborhoods is people not wanting to pay for parking (in decks like the Artisan one, etc, and I’m guessing the planned parking deck here would be, too).
I guess I have no interest in making it easier for cars in downtown–all for more walking, more density. I’m not trying to say that I think this plan is good or bad, but the parking seems like a silly argument
As I see it the main parking problem is the City’s unwillingness to update the parking ordinances and develop and implement a proper enforcement plan.
I am against they way our parking plan is being designed by variance. We need a consistent, comprehensive way to deal with parking issues and we need to stand behind it with enforcement.
newbie thinks the approved 315 project is a lesser plan than the original . I agree. I live in the near by neighborhood and initially I was open to the project. I had misgivings about the “shared parking ” plan but tried to keep an open mind. I attended meetings with developers and city officials. I spoke privately with city officials. The party line was that the proposed parking would be adequate – no over flow parking on our residential streets. I asked repeatably about enforcement plans to back up this promise. The silence was deafening.
It is absolutely true that we have excess parking in this city. Excess PAID parking. Atlantans love their cars(SUVs, trucks) and do not want to pay for parking . We need ordinances and an enforcement strategy that encourage (force) people to use the paid parking spaces around town. ( I see this including some sort city run of trolley to ferry people to and from paid parking lots.)Those who choose to drive cars instead of walking, biking or taking public transport should pay for that choice.
I don’t think the default should be free parking on the streets of our residential neighborhoods.
I entirely echo your setiment that we need to be not encouraging people parking in the neighborhoods, and we need to find a way to have people park in the lots instead. Definitely, like you said, Atlantans obsession with driving everywhere is at the heart of the problem. There is also plenty of free parking in the city proper (in the evening at least, if you know where to look for it), so people need to either find that, or use pay lots.
The city seems well on the way to updating the ordinance, so I don’t know where there’s “unwillingness”. They’ve said pretty plainly that they’ll do it after they have guidance from the new strategic plan. Would you rather they did it prior to that? Oh and the parking study that’s already complete.
I agree that the ordinance needs updating and piece-mealing it isn’t the optimal solution. However, I think we expect different outcomes from that process. And I’m not sure that less paid parking is the answer. I think it’s more about pricing accordingly, so street spots are the most expensive and decks are slightly cheaper. Stuff further out even cheaper.
What I can’t work my way through is your foundational argument about “growth”. The thing that seems to tie much of the parking variance opposition together is this “too much growth” argument. Aside from being a nice problem to have, I don’t see how we continue to build a walkable, vibrant downtown without more growth. I also don’t know how we continue to be “diverse” – a key goal out of the strategic plan” without becoming more dense.
The status quo is a high residential tax burden and a sorta rebuilt (after urban renewal) downtown.
Good points, DM. However, I am skeptical that the city commission will actually have the courage to update and improve the parking ordinance. It’s opening a can of worms and the NIMBY’S that live on the edges of downtown will come out in force to oppose anything that they percieve will add to the density of downtown.
The City Commission knows what they need to do without a strategic plan. It’s been almost 2 years since the 315 W. Ponce shared parking proposal and not one thing has been done to actually try to pass an ordinance. They just used the strategic plan to delay actually having to make any decisions.
Prove me wrong City Commission.
I loooooove how parking is still considered an issue…a vast majority of this town IS parking. There’s surface parking/decks littered ALL OVER this town. That just drives me crazy.
How do all those midwestern and new england towns survive without the plethora of parking we provide.
as someone who walks through this area all the time I can note that the lot is empty at night…like mcmillend said…one or two cars at best. When I walk through at 9 or 10 am…its maybe….big maybe…half full. There’s a really nice new mustang that likes to hang out by itself in the unused portion there that I want
anyhoo…at the end of it I kinda think we got a lesser project than what was initally proposed a year or so ago. The old one had more residential above and fully enclosed the street wall (except for the parking entrance, but still had residential above).
What might be nice, to save the trees if that becomes an issue, would be to leave the two larger units on that end as openspace, which could allow the new end unit to spill into the space while leaving the vista to the building from the corner open (might help appease DM who likes the view of the building too ) To make it viable for the developer allow a little higher density and mixed use. if that makes sence…
They never quit do they? If you can’t make money without a freakin’ variance don’t buy the property!
Are they told under the table that they will be able to get a variance easily? Is this why they buy?
Sure let’s have some more empty space in downtown sounds good to me.
I wonder how secure the 315 building is. What do the investors owe on it? What is their occupancy rate? Do they even have financing to complete new construction on the site? I would ask the same questions about their other Wachovia property in Decatur, the former Decatur Federal building.
Times are tough all over.
Ok, I’m really confused. I haven’t been here long, so I don’t know the rules. But am I interpreting this correctly: the developer has to ask permission to install FEWER parking spaces? I thought there’s been pretty much universal agreement for decades now that one of the biggest problems in this area is the fact that everyone feels entitled to drive everywhere. Shouldn’t we ENCOURAGE developers to build fewer spaces? Parking lots are ugly and a huge waste of space, plus they encourage people to drive to their destination. There’s a MARTA station just a couple blocks away. If people really feel the need to drive, there are plenty of paid lots. What’s the problem here?
The city I came from certainly didn’t have any nonsense rules like this. It worked fine. People walked, rode bikes, took transit, or parked nearby and paid for the privilege.
I don’t have a strong opinion either way about this development (because I live in Oakhurst :-)), but I wouldn’t mind seeing some fun new businesses in Decatur (and I wouldn’t mind their taxes either). I do have a couple of quick things to mention, though.
1. There are some good businesses in that office tower – it’s quite nice inside.
2. If I drive into Decatur proper for a restaurant, I never seem to have trouble parking for free in restaurant lots or next to a parking meter (worst case scenario is that I park for free in the big white courthouse parking deck, which is free in the evenings and only ever has about 3 cars in the whole deck at night!).
3. If you want a nice small (and quiet) place for your relatives to stay then they could always stay at Agnes Scott. They’d have to come over to your house for breakfast (or they’d have to prepare their own breakfast in the kitchen), but it is lovely inside and LEED certified too. Here’s the link:
http://www.resnexus.com/resnexus/book/select.aspx?&ID=1325&ResID=1761
4. If you want to hold an event for 200-300 people, Agnes Scott could also be a good venue for that too. The events office say they can comfortably hold events for 50-500 people. Here’s that link:
http://www.agnesscott.edu/about/eventrentals/meeting-space-rentals.aspx
Hope that answers some of the comments brought up above
Thanks for the info about the Agnes Scott Alumnae House. I never knew about this!