UDO Draft Documents Now Available for Review Online
Decatur Metro | July 21, 2014Deanne notes this update to the Decatur Next post regarding the Unified Development Ordinance draft…
DIG IN
The following DRAFT FILES, as of July 21, 2014, are now available for your review:
Summary of Major Changes
A quick-read overview of where significant changes occur in the draft ordinance. (.pdf)Clarification Notes for High-Performance / Green Building
Details re: community input that any proposed green regulations focus primarily on new development rather than on more typical household improvements, renovations or upgrades. (.pdf)Draft Articles 1 through 12 of the Unified Development Code, plus Appendix
The full draft, as of July 21, 2014. (16.9mb .pdf)
Certainly make sure to check out the summary of major changes if nothing else. Note – first and foremost! – the draft ordinance makes changes to Decatur’s animals ordinance, so you can now raise pot-bellied pigs and pigmy goats – but you can only have a total of two!
What post isn’t improved by a picture of a pot-bellied pig? This photo courtesy of momboleum via Flickr
I didn’t see the proposed zoning map which is to accompany the UDO itself- is it posted somewhere else on the City’s website? The new proposal is supposed to mark out some of the new zoning districts…
Also, note that the summary of changes shows a proposal that renovations which improve the appraised value of the building by more than 50% will be subject to mandaotry green building codes. There is a 12 month roll out period for residential application, but get prepared for your big reno/addition to cost a lot more in a year+ time. I wonder of people identifying the desire for green building codes in the strategic plan realized it would be mandatory for residential for big renos vs. a carrot/incentive-based approach to increase green buildings. I sure wish the City used more carrots than the hammer approach that seems to be preferred lately…
If your only tool is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail…
Conversely, once you determine that you wish to hammer something, you quickly decide that a carrot is a poor choice of tools.
It’ll work out for the city. I’m sure that the one-percenters we sell our house to as a teardown will pay enough more in taxes to cover their five kids entering the school system, while this formerly revenue-positive, childless couple in a small house laughs our butts off in a nice new place just outside the city limits…
Just outside of which city limits? (taking the mid-long view)
“Decatur”. Though Asheville is sounding nicer and nicer.
Go “just outside Decatur” and you may eventually find yourself “just inside Lake Tucker [or wherever]“.
You may want to re-think Asheville. Its wonderful foodie culture & lovely crunchy-hippie-artsy vibe notwithstanding, it’s economy is still moribund. It’s also way too dependent upon the tourism industry to make it a safe bet even for professional transplants (such as lawyers, doctors, etc.).
Plus, there’s the ice & snow thing (which I know wouldn’t bother you, but is the biggest bugaboo for tropical folk like me)…
My understanding (and I’ve been somewhat involved, but not deeply vis-a-vis zoning updates) is that the changes to zoning in the UDO are permissive, not prescriptive. That is, the code would allow someone to petition for a change in zoning to R50 or the “cottage lot” (whatever they’re calling it) but not actively change property that’s not been petitioned for change.
Re. green building, the assertion that meeting the standards would cost “a lot more” is just flat wrong. The majority of what needs to be done to meet the National Green Building Standard (NGBS), which is what is being proposed, is attention to detail (e.g., making sure insulation is installed per manufacturer’s instructions). There may be some incremental costs, but it’s on the order of a couple of thousand of dollars for any project that would be in the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars.
People who took advantage of the DecaturWISE program (where average project cost was $9,500, 2-5x more than the incremental cost for meeting NGBS) saved on average $900 annually in utility bills. Roll the project cost into a 30-year mortgage, as many people will do with a significant renovation, and you end up paying ~$600 more/year for $900/year savings, leaving $300/year in your pocket. The cash flow obviously looks better if the initial cost is lower, as it would likely be with NGBS as the standard.
KC, thanks for weighing in on this. I think it would be helpful if some concrete examples of the green building costs could be provided to residents. The threshold for this requirement to kick in is an increase of more than 50% of the property’s value, so that likely means renos of at least $125-150,000. Your cost example seemed to be for a smaller reno that likely wouldn’t be subject to the rule; if we use the $9,500 decatur-wise number for cost here, that’s a potential 8% cost increase for a $125k reno– not insubstantial. Also, if you finance that $9.5k over 30 years, that equals $7,900 in additional interest at today’s rates. For new builds, I suspect the cost is at least this much percent increase, but I’d really like a builder to weigh in.
Now, if your estimate of only a couple thousand for renos over $100k holds true, then the increase in cost of 3-4% seems somewhat more reasonable, but still not insubstantial- which is why we need examples of real cost. And for the record, I’m coming at this as somone who would likely want to buy earthcraft/do green reno anyway– I just think we all need to look at real numbers and decide whether we want to make this mandatory or create some incentives instead (I favor the latter). Incentives could be a discount of 1% or 0.5% off City taxes for a 3-5 year period, or something along those lines (I’m sure there are other potential incentives).
The city is working up examples of numbers working with some local contractors & green building specialists, and what I’ve seen is an increase of $2-5k to meet NGBS for new construction. This includes things like the third-party certification fee and slightly more efficient HVAC than currently required by code. I suspect it’d be less for smaller-scale renos. Like anything related to construction, though, you can find examples of “green” costing way more or way less. I still take issue with the statement that green building costs “a lot more”. It just ain’t so.
FWIW, on the carrot vs. stick debate, I like incentives, too. However, the city has pretty steadfastly maintained that they don’t want to do anything that reduces revenue (whether our tax dollars really constitute “revenue” is a whole ‘nother conversation). So the idea of offering a break on taxes or permitting fees for green building – which I’ve floated a number of times over the past 5 years or so – isn’t likely to go anywhere. They’d probably entertain things like expedited permitting, but that’s not a huge benefit since my understanding is that the city’s already pretty good about turning around permits (unlike our neighbor to the west).
Sounds like, in your view, $5k is not “a lot.” I’m guessing many people would disagree.
Using macarolina’s example above, if the city would limit an increase in assessment for a short period of time, that wouldn’t result in a decrease in current revenue; it would only delay the increase. For example, if you added $100k in value to your home, but the city’s assessment only increases by $95k (or $75k or $50k) for 3 years, the city’s revenue actually goes up until the limit expires, just not the full amount. So, the city could offer a carrot while increasing revenue.
Of course there are 2 obvious problems: (1) our commissioners collectively will never be able to get their head around this and (2) DeKalb isn’t always prompt in re-assessing post-renovation.
My understanding the whole house would have to be retrofitted to meet the GA Energy Code. Replacement windows & exterior wall insulation in existing walls is not cheap.& 9′ or greater walls have purlins, so it’s a bit difficult to insulate without stripping walls. Sounds great on paper but the cost of renovation will be prohibitive & a market will die. I believe the numbers you quote apply to new construction, not retrofit. BTW, I’m a renovation contractor in Decatur. I do this all the time. You won’t be able to afford the costs of a 50% or greater renovation of a 1900′s era house.
Having stopped at stormwater, my thoughts so far are:
1) Application of the proposed lot coverage tiers seems inconsistent to me, e.g. a 6,923 sq ft lot has the same max coverage allowed as a 9,000 sq ft lot due to percentage. Anything 9,000 to 9,136 in the top tier actually has less allowance than all lots from 8,123 to 8,999. (Lot Coverage, slide 15). Some may call it nitpicking, but inconsistency can lead to problems.
2) If an R-50 lot is minimum of 5,000 sq ft (50 x 100), why is an R-60 a minimum of 9,000 sq ft when the width and depth minimums (60 x 120) equal 7,200 sq ft? (slide 36)
3) I’d be very wary about granting a conservation easement (Open Space, slide 54) given that I would be legally required to maintain the space at my expense (finable by the city), while not receiving a form of monetary compensation, as is customary.
4) Since the UDO also addresses public property, can anyone explain how street lamps along sidewalks fit into site lighting? (slide 177). I’m a firm believer that we need a lot more of it.
5) Where’s the tree species list? (slide 203) What is the city going to do with the interest from the tree escrow funds? (slide 208) Where’s the tree ordinance-related fee schedule? (slide 209) Where is the list of minimum distance requirements for newly-planted trees, e.g. at least X ft from a house, driveway, power lines, etc? That list basically shows most wouldn’t even be able to plant any trees anywhere.
Apologies for the repeated post from another thread, but since this one is fresher, it is important to alert neighbors to the strength of the Historic Preservation component of this UDO, which is buried near the end in the “Administration” section way back in Section 11. In response to Ms. Thompson’s emphasis on another thread earlier this week that “The UDO does not create any new historic districts,” it is overly directive in helping the HPC do that down the road.
While it may be true that the UDO does not directly create any new historic districts, it appears from the extensive wording in section 11 “Administration” that it is intended to empower (at worst) or at least facilitate (at best) the Historic Preservation Commission and the UDO Administrator to do so. Here is why:
Section 11.2.6.A.1 MANDATES that the HPC” conduct a survey.” This has already been done, so why do it again and with what frequency? Annually? The mandate encourages and promotes a special interest group (HPC) to conduct research that will serve its own interest – more local historic districts and more control. The wording implies that they should conduct the survey as often as it takes to finally conclude that everything is Decatur is historic or contributing.
THEN in 11.2.6.A.2 – it explicitly empowers the HPC to recommend and practically directs that they do so: “….SHALL present to the CIty Commission recommendations for historic districts and properties.” This directive wording of “SHALL” should be changed to “MAY,” otherwise it implies that they must regularly present recommendations for local historic districts that residents may not want. (It seems to me that over the past decade most residents in the Southwest quadrant have made it abundantly clear that they “do not want.”) This wording would only encourage a continuous and contentious process of survey, recommend, regroup, survey, tweak and try again.
Another issue with section 11.2.6.D.1.a (p11-28) Application for Designation. Please remove the wording that provides that a historical society may apply to the preservation commission for designation of a neighborhood. Please make that section considerably more restrictive that ONLY THE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OR GROUP OF PROPERTY OWNERS MAY APPLY.
I cannot emphasize this strongly enough: ONLY the residents of a proposed district should be able to request and vote on that district becoming designated as historic! Finally, designation of a historic district should only be approved by a 2/3 majority in a referendum and not by a vote of the City Commission. This concentrates too much power over your property with five people, who just recently rejected the wishes of their constituents and passed the tree ordinance.
If a person or group wants to consider an area historic, let them. It’s mostly subjective opinion anyway. But don’t allow them to impose their views by regulating them upon private citizens and our property.
I agree, but actually it’s worse as it can also just apply to individual houses they want to designate “historic” under city code section 58-63. Establishing a historic district requires enough “contributing” houses to justify the district designation, however to designate individual houses:
“D. Requirements for Adopting a Designation Ordinance (slide 344)
1. Application for Designation
Designations may be proposed by the City Commission, the Preservation Commission, or:
b. For Historic Properties
For historic properties a historical society, neighborhood association or property owner may apply to the Preservation Commission for designation.”
If you don’t agree? Tough. If the designation application is accepted by the Preservation Committee, the Interim Controls come into effect, stating:
“In order to prohibit demolition during the nomination and designation process, any property nominated individually or as part of an Historic District shall be protected and regulated as if it had already been designated by the City Commission.” (slide 345)
Under Exceptions (b), if you, the owner, want to make a “material change” during that period, you have to apply for a certificate of appropriateness. “Review of such application shall be made as if the designation ordinance was already in effect.” (slide 346)
Good luck defeating the preservationists (and City Hall friends) if it starts, or selling or renovating your house as you see fit. No thank you.
I think this is in here so that the City can help homeowners qualify for state historic preservation tax credits for certain large historic renovations. A homeowner outside of one of the already designated historic areas can still qualify for the tax credit if their individual home is designated as historic. I think the City can make this purpose clear by stating that any action taken pursuant to this section would only be at the request and/or consent of the homeowner.
How about this beauty (related to your #5)?
11.2.6.D.4 (p 345) The simple act of “nominating” (by anyone, at anytime) imposes a demolition moratorium on a property or within a district BEFORE the designation has been approved. In other words, a property owner is subject to the whims of external parties, before the ordinance is in place. The logic and infingement on property rights is ridiculous. It takes away due process from the homeowner, giving it to and external party. While there would be no historic designation ordinance in place, yet the homeowner is subject to it’s an yet unapproved restrictions. If the City didn’t have intentions of creating new historic districts, why would they be giving this Interim Controls to preservationists? Is it because the preservationists are entitled to “due process” of preventing changes to property that is not theirs?
11.2.6.D.4. Interim Controls
In order to prohibit demolition during the
nomination and designation process, any
property nominated individually or as part
of an Historic District shall be protected and
regulated as if it had already been designated
by the City Commission. This protection and
regulation shall begin when the nomination
process is initiated and continues until the City
Commission has made a final decision on the
designation. If the designation is approved, the
protection and regulation continues, however, if
the designation is not approved the protection
and regulation is discontinued.
So if ANYBODY THINKS my home is historic, they can unilaterally establish a moratorium against demolition or renovation until the city commission and Historic Preservation Committee weigh in.
Geez… I can imagine so many ways how this might be abused to take away a homeowner’s property rights… I really find this offensive.
Chill out, man. Nobody will abuse this, I promise. And I’m sure the Board of Commissioners and City Manager will pinkie promise that as well. This is Decatur. Did you hear me? DECATUR. We are all lovely, wonderful neighbors who would never even think to use something as beautiful as historic preservation laws to nefarious ends against our other lovely, wonderful neighbors.
YES! The word ANYBODY may sound like an exageration, but there are many scenarios in which someone you don’t even know might want to designate your property, thereby stealing your rights.
Simplest and most plausible scenario:
A neighbor who is an existing member of any number of Decatur, Atlanta or GA area historical societies would like to see say, Oakhurst, become a historic district.
That person shares view with rest of preservation-oriented folks at next meeting or even over email. They all agree that it would be a worthy cause to “preserve” Oakhurst.
All it takes is a nomination from them, not the HPC, or you, the homeowner, to trigger the moratorium.
Meanwhile, all this happens without them talking to you or your neighbors – they just like the nice way that your house and street looks and think it should stay that way forever.
Other possible cases can occur: I’m your neighbor and I don’t want you to do that addition. I join (or create?) ABC “historical society” and get them to request that your house be nominated as historic. BAM! Immediate trigger of moratorium. I may not prevail, but at least I’ve delayed your reno by 60 – 90 days.
Yep. For non-historic district properties, the proposal states:
“11.2.10 Demolition Permit
The UDO Administrator shall have the authority to delay demolition outside of the Historic District for a period not to exceed 90 days in order to provide notice to the community, allowing investigation into alternative opportunities for the preservation of the residential structure.” (slide 354)
Why would the community investigate “alternative opportunities” on my property? Are they paying the property taxes? Is the city going to compensate me for lost time or pay for the alternative opportunities?
Separately, can anyone explain to me what this statement is supposed to mean, specifically the “not purely financial” part?
“11.2.9 Administrative Adjustment
B. Criteria for Approval
The UDO Administrator must consider the following when approving a request for an adjustment:
1. There are clear and compelling reasons that are not purely financial why the required standard cannot be met;” (slide 353)
I guess I was overly optimistic in thinking this provision was only a benefit to the property owner. Again, let’s put real numbers on delaying a demo permit for 90 days: most tear downs are going for $300-325,000. If a purchaser puts down 20%, the monthly mortgage at today’s rates is about $1,300- multiplied by 3 months is almost $4,000. Then add in the cost of living elsewhere for 3 months longer, we’re talking well over $10,000 cost for a protester or aggressive city administrator activating the 90 day moratorium. Some might think this is ok for developers (even though it contributes to increasing prices), but what about a private resident who just wants to build their own personal residence? These are real costs.
Exactly. The mortgage would actually be a bit higher with taxes and slightly higher current interest rates. Regardless, when calculating delays, don’t forget the added-on cost and time associated with redeveloping the site after demolition. The proposal states that:
“11.2.10 Demolition Permit
D. Application
1. Postdemolition Plan
The UDO Administrator shall not grant a permit for demolition without reviewing at the same time the post-demolition plan for the site.” (slide 354)
Also, after the Approval Process section, some may claim it’s poorly-worded, but I’m not sure what they mean in the Appeals section:
“F. Appeals
A demolition permit may be appealed to the County Superior Court in the manner provided by law for appeals from conviction for City ordinance violations.” (slide 354)
Yay! Goats! Can you littler train them? Not much outdoor space at my townhouse. Think the neighbors will mind if I keep him on the deck?
1) Stormwater management (slide 221): How does this apply to renovations or changing / replacing impervious surface? It feels like I’m missing something. Also, why are responsibilities and decision power being shifted from the City Engineer to the City Manager?
2) High Performance Building Standards (slide 302): I also request multiple real world examples itemized by cost. Upon initial research, a balanced ventilation system would be the go-to here due to climate and humidity and, it seems, is the most expensive. Regarding applicability, I guess they mean appraised value, but the proposal’s language should clarify whether it is 50% of appraised value or market value, as there is a difference.
3) The UDO Administrator would wield a lot of power and influence. Is the UDO Administrator the City Manager or a new position?
4) Is the Greenspace Commission a new creation or under an existing commission? (slide 324) I can’t find anything about it on the city website or online.
5) Are the proposed demolition permit regulations new or replacing an existing version? (slide 354) The 90 day delay provision seems like a potential opportunity for abuse by those in the anti-development / preserve-it-no-matter-what crowd.
I can’t believe I read the whole thing.
I am guessing your eyes are sore from looking at the screen for so long. Good work, Peter, and good questions.
Peter, Eric (and others),
Thank you for reading the whole UDO and I appreciate your comments. I wanted to respond to some of the questions that have been posed so far.
1. Historic Districts
The language that you cited related to the creation of local historic districts are the exact same regulations that we have today. They are taken from the state model ordinance which is the enabling legislation for historic preservation at the municipal level for places like Decatur that did not have historic preservation prior to the 1970′s. Check out Ch. 58 of the current City Code for those rules. You may still disagree with the regulations, but just know that they are in place today.
2. The city tends to change titles of jobs over time for example from “City Engineer” to “Senior Engineer” or “Development Director” to “Planning Director.” In order to create flexibility we have taken an approach of removing some titles and replacing them with “City Manager or his/her designee.” City staff is still considering multiple ways to approach this issue. Job title generally change more frequently than ordinances.
3. The UDO Administrator is not a new position. It will likely be a combination different city employees depending on which aspect of the code is under consideration.
4. The Greenspace Commission was created as a requirement of the State to receive greenspace grant funding in the early 2000′s. That role is now filled by the Environmental Sustainability Board. Ch. 42 Environment in the current City Code contains the Greenspace Commission.
5. Please continue to offer your suggestions on the demolition delay proposal. What we heard from the public is that they would like to know when demolitions are going to occur and would like an opportunity to save structures if they could be saved. Unless a property is in a local historic district, the city cannot prevent demolition.
6. Please submit specific examples to decaturnext.com of new construction or renovations that we can prepare costs comparisons for the green building requirements. The city wants to preserve historic structures and the green codes should not cause the removal of historic windows, plaster etc. for compliance. If they do, we will amend the proposal. The value of a house is based on a fair market appraisal OR the assessed value and it is the applicant’s choice to submit either number.
7. For stormwater – in general – on a single family lot you are limited to 4,058 square feet of new impervious surface to remain exempt from detention requirements.
Thanks,
Amanda Thompson
Planning Director