Decatur Zoning Board Rejects Complaints about 315 West Ponce Development
Decatur Metro | May 15, 2013I’m a bit late to this game, but Patch reported yesterday that after a 5 hour meeting on Monday, the Zoning Board of Appeals rejected all complaints filed from residents living around 315 West Ponce that procedures were not properly followed during neighborhood discussions surrounding the mixed-use development of that property.
Patch editor Ralph Ellis reports that “Unless residents take the next step and file a lawsuit, the decision clears the way for the developer, Carter, to build 235 apartments, 10,000 square feet of retail space and a seven-story parking garage in the asphalt parking lot behind the office tower at West Ponce and Ponce de Leon Place.”
All this controversy could have been avoided If the developer would agree to build an underground parking deck connected to a Trader Joe’s via tunnel with a moving sidewalk and complimentary craft beer stations.
It’s the little things that make projects like this work.
Maybe… but you give a mouse a craft beer, he’s gonna want a free artisanal doughnut…
Hah! I just read that book to my kid.
+!
LOL. In my head, I have images of a little mouse hopping from Ale Yeah! to Revolution, along a moving sidewalk, of course.
To further go off on a tangent, parking in front of that strip, whether store-side or track-side, is near-suicidal. People fly down W. College at 40 to 50mph.
Which is not a criticism of the parking so much as it is of College Avenue and why the context-illiterate DOT feels the need to classify, design and maintain what is obviously the street at the edge of a neighborhood as a state highway.
The transportation tax was poised to fund a complete streets makeover for College but, alas, it was not to be.
Great news way to go zoing and city officials. This will be a great project for the city!
Decatur is already 80% residential. Why do they need more?? Just for a measly $500k in tax revenue? More residential = higher cost of services for the city. The city needs more NON-residential development, which actually generates revenue, instead of costing the city more money. And the city is fooling themselves if they don’t think there will be an impact on the CSD. Desperate parents in the who can’t get their kids into that Atlanta or DeKalb charter school will rent apartments for the 30030 zip and there’s their ticket in. Not a lot of foresight on the city’s part from a number of aspects; the ridiculous parking allowance is a whole post in itself. .
“Decatur is already 80% residential. Why do they need more??”
Because more people want to live here?
yeah, more people who have kids that want IN to CSD want to live here, you’re absolutely right.
If residential development isn’t planned with the schools in mind, we are going to lose the schools. Some teachers are already afraid the reasons CSD is good- such small class sizes, good about resources per child – are already compromised.
We also need to remember to keep demanding the state reinvest in public schools- the amount that state funding has gone down over the last decade, even pre-recession, has had a big impact on class size.
First we need some elected officials that actually give a damn about governing the state.
This will be a mixed-use development, which by its very nature includes non-residential components. It is a good, urban-oriented development.
Generally speaking, a city can’t have a vision (such as the redevelopment of underperforming surface parking) requiring private investment and risk to become real, while artificially manipulating the marketplace at the same time by preventing private interests from meeting demand. For many reasons, detailed extensively during the Strategic Planning process, Decatur is not a high-demand market for office space. That’s just the reality. So if we insist developers build office, no one will build anything.
I realize some may find this scenario perfectly fine, if not preferred, but Decatur, as a matter of policy, works to attract development to our downtown core. Right now, the hole in the market is with rental apartments, so that’s what gets proposed.
If you want to prevent downtown residential, or downtown development altogether, you’ll need to change city efforts at the policy level, recognizing that the policies now in place are tied to the Strategic Plan.
Good.
Personally, I’m rooting for the opponents to file a lawsuit to delay the project and for Carter to then release a statement saying that it’s unfortunate because it made Trader Joe’s back out of the secret deal they had to open a mini-market on the ground floor.
Just build a skyscraper there. Why the need to grow like mad? I sense a big issue with schools, charm, and feel in 10yrs…what’s the long term goal of the city managers?
I think Scott covered it well above. If you participated in the Strategic Plan, good for you. If you didn’t, then, just like not voting, your voice is diminished.
Thanks Steve. Interesting perspective.
I’m one of the vast majority of Decatur residents who did not participate in the SP but I did show up when the commission voted and expressed my opinion the the strategic planning process was rigged from the start and a bad idea for this town. The whole point of this kind of government planning is knowing the outcome you want and manipulating the process to achieve it. And so I resent your suggestion that “Na na nah na nah! You can’t cry now cuz you didn’t play by our rules.” I applaud those residents who want to have a say about development in their neighborhood and would encourage them to fight like hell to get the best deal they can. And I also hope that when its all over with, we can still respect and say hello to each other, not on this blog, where most of you hide behind aliases, but in our churches, schools and neighborhoods.
The “vast majority” may not have participated, but the total participation, approaching 2000, represented a larger proportion of the population that most other exercises of the kind.
I’m interested in what evidence you have that the outcome was “rigged”, especially if you weren’t there and didn’t see the process.
I resent the allegation of “rigged.” And I resent the alligator.
+1
I do think it is, well, despicable, that you would come on here and accuse the city of “manipulating the process.” If you have proof of this, bring it. Otherwise, that is just an outright terrible accusation. You don’t have to like the process – although I believe that would put you in the vast minority – but to throw around words like “rigged” is inflammatory, contemptible and counter productive.
If I recall from a previous post, Mr. Billingsley participated in the 2000 roundtable/strategic planning process. In his group was one or more obnoxious lefty(s) who dominated the conversation and, if I’m recalling correctly, were not reigned in by the moderator.
I’ve no excuses for this experience and freely acknowledge that such exchanges don’t provide meaningful, consensus-derived input to work from. But that said, as a community that regularly participates in the broader, civic conversation, we’ve learned a lot about how to orchestrate the process more effectively to yield better data. The 2010 process demonstrated this throughout the hundreds, if not thousands, of hours freely volunteered by people who were presented a forum to influence policy and who chose to take advantage of it.
If this one experience that Chris has previously described is the whole of his rationale for why the process is in some way illegitimate, then I think it’s a position on pretty shaky ground. But if there’s additional evidence of sufficient weight to contradict what so many Decaturites experienced in 2010, I’d love to hear it.
Chris, as a planning consultant, I’ve participated in dozens of strategic planning sessions around the State of Georgia. I’ve seen very few cases where those in charge of the process were trying to manipulate a particular result. Ask any public official you know. The one thing they can all agree on is that no one ever knows what the public will say. So if they were inclined towards driving a particular vision for their community, an open forum for the public to express their views is the worst idea imaginable.
In addition, most communities fall well short of Decatur’s strategic planning process. No other community in the state could get that many people to participate in a process that was pro-active, as opposed to re-active.
Now, I do not agree that anyone has forfeited their right to fight for or against any particular development, especially one that affects their immediate neighborhood, simply because they didn’t join a Decatur round table. But neither does the strategic plan, or city officials, or Georgia’s legal code.
I think the issue here is not whether the 315 parking deck should be a deal killer because it hinders the views of those adjacent to it, but whether Decatur’s downtown should get more dense development. I’d be pissed if I had to look at that parking deck out my bedroom window, but I also recognize that the city’s been on an urbanization path since the mid-1990s. This development is a continuation of that trend, not some new idea. It may have been supported by strategic plan participants, but it’s also been supported by every Decatur elected official since the Olympics came to Atlanta. I can’t recall of anyone being removed from office because they supported a more densely developed downtown (but definitely tell me if I’m wrong on that one). So why would those in office, on the zoning review board, or employed by the city, do so now?
Hi Chris,
Sorry you are being flamed in this forum.
To the extent that the process was set up as a free for all to identify all the new trinkets and toys that the populace “wants” without accountability as to the costs or priorities for these same trinkets and toys;
To the extent that the basic premise of the meetings was that we needed the City to take a bigger role in our individual personal lives;
To the extent that none of the discussion involved reducing any aspect of city government or involvement in our personal lives or the identification of existing city rules and policies that might be removed or relaxed for the betterment of the community;
To the extent that there are those in the city government who are already using the populace’s affection for a particular item of interest as justification for the need for additional city rule making on that same topic;
Chris is right.
Meh. If Chris doesn’t want to get flamed, he shouldn’t say things that are inflammatory. And accusing city leaders of “rigging” a process to achieve a predetermined outcome and “manipulating” it (without anything to back up those charges) is inflammatory. None of the items on your “to the extent” list show that Chris was right in those charges, and that was what he said in that post. They’re totally irrelevant to what he said.
Mr. B, you have disappointed me. Not by speaking up here, but rather by letting one bad experience lead to a decision not to participate in the community process, political as it may be. I would hope you of all, a gov’t teacher, would be a champion of citizens participating as much as possible, so that all types of voices are heard, regardless of the frustration felt by those in the minority. While I think the way we draw political lines is idiotic (I won’t quite say rigged), I will continue to push for my state-government minority voice to be heard, as I was encouraged by my most inspirational teacher (a gov’t teacher).
Yes, replacing vast surface parking lots with midrise mixed use buildings in a walkable format with retail at the sidewalks is really bad for a city’s charm and feel. Not. This is going to help the charm and feel of that parcel. Plus will help to support the downtown retail, ensuring its continued charm and fuzzy feelings. I’d say the long term goal is building a downtown that can persevere over the decades. Fields of asphalt don’t help in that regard. High functioning mixed use buildings do. (As for the schools, the idea is that smallish apartments won’t attract too many kids).
“(As for the schools, the idea is that smallish apartments won’t attract too many kids).”
Past surveys have shown that the current apartments and condos have very few students in CSD. I know of only one family (there may be others) in the Artisan who have kids in CSD. The schools are growing, but not because of the apartments and condos.
The past surveys about who lives in apartments and condos may not be correct anymore. I know of a family with two boys who just bought at the Artisan so that they can go to the high school. My mother lives at Town Square and three families with children have just moved in for their kids to start next year. On my floor alone (17-ish units per floor), there are four families with kids who either are, or will be, attending Decatur schools. We moved to Decatur in 1999, my daughter has attended Decatur schools since pre-K and we have spent our time here in both condos and houses. Anecdotal evidence is, of course, not an official survey, but there may be a shift in who is living in Decatur’s apartments and condos. It may not be just young couples without children and retirees.
As Decatur becomes more of an urban-walkable-center-kind-of-town with great public parks & rec department, children in condos and apartments may become more common. Not all of us dream of our children growing up in a house, nor can we all afford that dream, if it exists. Apartments or condos (even small ones) in a great school district will attract families (even small ones) with children.
OK, but should the city really be in the business of halting certain kinds of developments because they may, or may not, bring children? Every home that’s torn down with 2 beds, and rebuilt as a 5 bed, could in theory bring another couple/3/4 of children that weren’t there before. I’d say children occupying the new larger homes, could possibly add more children in the long run, than condos. Even if there’s 10 kids from a condo building, how many are going to be added through the tear downs? It’s impossible to say really. But these buildings have big tax revenue, big expensive houses have bigger tax revenue, both are good for the city’s bottom line. If the schools are,and will be busting at the seams through the addition of new children, that needs to be appropriately addressed, but halting development doesn’t seem to be a responsible answer to solving the school’s problems.
Yes.
+1
I live in the Artisan. There are likely no more 10 CSD kids in the entire complex. Less than 0.1 kids per household,
Yes the mix of households who choose condo living is changing. We simply wanted a simpler life and were tired of almost 20 years of all those headaches that go with owning a house. I suspect there will be more like us, but only a handful.
This whole “oh crap people w kids are moving into condos” that sometimes pops up here is way out of proportion. The average # of “influx children” per $ of single family home sale is still likely an order of magnitude higher (if not more) than the the same figure per condo sale. I bet public housing contributes way more kids to the school system enrollment, If one still insists on fretting, consider every single upsized 4br rennovation or new construction if you want to see where the new kids are living.
Modulo a moratorium on building permits, the issues faced by CSD on enrollment are not going to be solved by worrying about where the kids come from. That is much less controllable than some seem to think.
Actually, the developer is constructing the apartments in such a way that they will be easily converted into three+ bedroom condos. The developers have also expressed that they will sell the development in 5-7 years and the plan (as they have stated in several meetings) is to turn these apartments into condos eventually. So, The boon of relatively “child-free” rental property in Decatur will be short lived. At some point in the not-so-distant future, this development will impact the school system. By now, I’m kind of indifferent to the development: I can see the harm, I can see some good, and I will see it directly from my backyard. But to say it won’t impact schools at some point is not correct.
To say this it will definitely impact the schools is also not correct, because you can’t know for sure. It might. The trend nationally is that far fewer kids live in multifamily units compared to single family – whether they are renters or owners. You can tell me 37 reasons why Decatur will buck the trend, but it still takes bucking the trend, which is never a given. And, also, apartment developers build apartment buildings to sell them eventually. That’s part of their business model. Sometimes they sell them off one at a time as condos, but more often they sell the whole complex to other real estate companies, often REITs, that like to hold on to the apartments as rental for the income stream. So, again, to make a definitive statement that these WILL be condos, and they WILL attract a bunch of rug rats is not a sure thing. The only thing we know is that, in the short term, they WILL be rental, and WILL LIKELY attract fewer kids than 250 single family homes would, likely far fewer.
Time will tell…
The long term goals of the city managers were developed by the residents of this town in the 2010 Strategic Planning process. This development fits right in with the results of the plan.
I do remember the giant surface parking lot where the Artisan now stands as being very, very charming.
They’d boot your car, but they’d do it with a smile.
I can’t wait to see this parcel improved and the existing building out of site. It is currently such an eyesore. Please let this same type of development happen to the BofA parcel, Trinity Triangle, and the Maloof Building site.
Man, I wish when I saw your screen name that the first thing I could think of wasn’t “DJs communicate, to the masses!”
Sex and violent classes. Now our children grow up prisoners. All their life- radio listeners.
+1
Re kids in condos/townhouses/cluster homes: In my experience, that number is rising. My kids used to have only one or two friends in multifamily dwellings, now many. I believe that CSD has informal info from their residency data that supports this anecdotal observation. That doesn’t necessarily change the equation on the approval of downtown condo buildings. No question that large condo/apartment buildings have less children per square inch than do single family detached homes. But they have more than does a parking lot. So CSD has to figure in this trend towards families with children living in multifamily dwellings. The reasons appear to be multifactorial–general cultural trend, split families, single parenthood, desirability of CSD schools compared to other metro systems, limited supply of move-in condition housing in the under $350,000 price range, walkability/lifestyle of Decatur, upkeep cost, and my favorite…………..avoidance of yardwork!
In terms of which condos will attract children and which won’t, IMHO, the funkier (aka innovative, stylish, nouveau, modern) ones with a loft style or concrete walls that do not go to the ceiling, will attract less families because it’s harder to get children to sleep if lights and noise in the common areas aren’t walled off. The ones that are apartment or townhouse style are particularly attractive to single working parents who have less time for home/yard upkeep anyway, never mind the cheaper price tag.
The solution here is to mandate a minimum funkiness quotient for all new downtown condo and apartment developments, as measured by ceiling height, exposed ductwork and naked concrete walls, track lighting, etc.
Ha! Perhaps some interior finishing regs that require hard edges, steep stairs without railings, and other features immune to childproofing.
Clowns. That’s the ticket. Most small children are terrified of clowns. Hire clowns as security guards for multifamily dwellings and the families with children will be fleeing them.
I’m in my 40s, and I’m terrified of clowns.
I find this clown flaming completely unacceptable.
I’ll never be quite comfortable with what Decatur has become. Some of the things about it are positive; but I can’t help but wax nostalgic about growing up here where there was less of an economic gap between the people who could afford to live in the city and those in the surrounding areas. As I was walking to lunch yesterday, I was weirded out by the feeling I got watching all of the people (mostly white) with their kids on the square relaxing on a workday juxtaposed with the people walking to and from the MARTA station (mostly people of color). It didn’t use to feel that way to me. I guess it was bound to happen. My family was taxed out of the city almost a decade ago.
Yeah, I sympathize with this too–I think Decatur is great, and overall I’m really happy with the changes I’ve seen in the past 10 years, but I wouldn’t want it to become an exclusively upper-middle-class/upper-class enclave. When I go to my kids’ schools, I’m glad to see that they’re still somewhat diverse, both socio-economically and racially, and I’d like to see that continue.
The key here, even though it goes against the grain of the concerns expressed by people above about CSD enrollments and the tax base, is to preserve a variety of housing stock, with some of it affordable to lower-middle-class and working-class families. I think that the ship has basically sailed with single-family homes here–as the smaller and unrehabbed houses that less-affluent long-time residents are sold, more-affluent people are buying them up and rehabbing them (or doing tear-downs), and I don’t see any easy way to reverse that trend. But we can try to preserve apartment complexes–not them get torn down and replaced by upper-income houses, as happened with the aborted townhouse development on Oakview and 4th Ave., and maybe do set-asides for some lower-incoming housing in new developments too.
I agree. But let’s go back to the Stategic Plan. One major goal was to preserve economic diversity and provide greater choices in housing to accommodate this.
Projects like the one at 315 Ponce will allow more people to live in Decatur who cannot afford a $500,000 single family house. This is exactly the kind if project and result the citizens had in mind when they participated in the strategic plan. My very group talked about this very issue!