As Developer Readies 315 W. Ponce Plans, Tensions Remain High
Decatur Metro | February 27, 2008 | 11:26 pmTensions remain high among residents of the Clairemont-Great Lakes Neighborhood as neighborhood representatives prepare to see the developer’s first proposals for 315 W. Ponce on March 5th. I for one, can’t wait to see them, because I’m having a heck of a time picturing graduated 80′ development around the massive existing office building.
As part of the informal agreement between the neighborhood and the Downtown Development Authority, Assistant City Manager Lyn Menne has provided a thorough synopsis of events and facts presented up until this point. The DecaturResidents.com website has it posted in full here.
Regardless of the “city slant”, Lyn’s summation gives a lot of info we had yet to receive. Here are a couple observations I have at first glance.
- The analysis references the C2 zoning code that calls for a graduated setback and height limits when dealing with commercial property that is adjacent to R60. I’m not sure if property across the street is technically considered adjacent under law (it doesn’t specify), but it sounds like the developer and DDA are willing to work within its guidelines.
- It sounds like this project will have to go before the city commission for approval because of its residential element. I’m assuming that should give concerned citizens an opportunity to voice their opinions. Let me know if I’m wrong.
- The project admits its targeting singles and “Dinks”. Maybe renting apartments will fill vacancies faster than the 1 bedroom condos at the Renaissance. But don’t forget the other new apartments going in a Trinity Triangle. This won’t be the only show in town.
Relations already seem strained between the neighborhood and the city. A note to local residents from the neighborhood group claims a general “lack of regard” from the city about the neighborhood’s concerns and notes a comment from Lyn about not buying next to C2 if they didn’t want to deal with issues such as this. The neighborhood group also believes that the DDA wants the maximum number of units built at the site regardless of what it takes.
Ultimately I think its a positive development to hear that the neighborhood has some influence on how this private land is being developed. It may not be a perfect working relationship and the neighborhood certainly won’t get everything it wants (I’m really at a loss in terms of the cut through traffic argument. I’m not sure anything can be done.), but any resident input will ultimately be better than none.
Also, we need to remember that city employees aren’t the same as elected officials. When the time comes, if you make enough noise, the city commission is much more likely to sit up and listen. They sure did regarding the Oakhurst Historic District.
Related Posts:
-
April 27, 2015 Check Out the Latest Avondale MARTA Station Development Site Plan (1)
-
April 20, 2015 Planning Commission Tables Oakhurst Dog Park Subdivision Request One More Time (4)
-
April 19, 2015 City Commission To Decide on Drive-Thru Juice Bar After Planning Commission Recommends Denial (21)
Thanks for the latest info. This project looks to be a great case study in urban design and development issues. Some immediate ones come to mind:
> The legal parameters for C2 property, as well as the requirements for transitioning to adjacent residential, have been on the books for six or seven years. There’s been nothing secretive about them and certainly there’s been sufficient opportunity for the neighborhood to approach the city proactively and say “These regs are insufficient to address the needs of this parcel. We need to tighten them before the prospect of development arises.” Why wait until now, when it makes the issue so much more emotional? I can’t believe there’s anyone in the neighborhood who reasonably thought that property would stay a parking lot forever.
> The report said the developer is considering about 30% fewer residential units than are allowed under code, yet the neighborhood group is inflaming the rhetoric with words like “cram.” If a 30% reduction is not seen at least somewhat favorably, one gets the idea that the only outcome that would ultimately be embraced is one of no development at all. If that’s the case, this whole process will devolve into an endless series of concessions and compromises, rather than a proactive effort to work together in support of good design and placemaking that serves desires and rights on both sides of the equation.
> The requirement for a public hearing to secure approval to include the residential component is being presented as an opportunity to “shut ‘er down.” What’s not being said is that the developer could build exactly the same size development and fill it with office space by right, without any hearing at all. Office space, incidentally, generates 7 times as many daily car trips as residential. Is this what the neighborhood wants?
Finally, lest someone accuse me of being a shill for the developer, let me state unequivocally: I am not. The developer has not presented any initial design approaches yet. When they do, they may very well be worthy of scorn and, if so, I’ll be right there with the neighborhood to dish it out. Instead, my focus is on favorable outcomes through collaborative design and a mutual extension of good will. A win-win for all concerned. And believe me, if the tactic is a NIMBY war, that’s not gonna happen.
SD
Wow Scott, that is such an awesome response. Rather than adding anything of value to what you’ve already said, I’d like to say that (a) I live next door to the proposed development, (b) I am not a developer, and (c) everyone should read your response one more time.
Thanks, Scott, for injecting a bit of reason into an emotional issue. I live on Fairview Ave. The parking lot abuts my back yard, so I feel I have a bit more at stake than others in the neighborhood. Like you I realize that this property will be developed, and the development will not be small. I think it is in our best interest to try to work with developers until given a reason to do otherwise.
One small clarification to my previous message, lest I be accused of the same sort of rhetoric I’m arguing against. “… generates seven times as many daily car trips as residential” should have read “up to seven times …”. Seven is the upper end; two or three is the lower end. However, the lower end is more likely in markets where transportation alternatives are more commonly used (NYC, DC, etc.).
Just consider a 1,000 sf office with 4 or 5 employees vs. a 1,000 sf condo with 1 or 2 occupants and it starts to make sense. Not only is it more drivers per square foot, it’s ones who essentially all arrive between 7 and 9 and all depart between 4 and 6. While these timeframe concentrations don’t necessarily exacerbate the *quantity* problem, they do exacerbate the *perception* of the problem which, for most folks, might as well be the same thing.
At the end of the day, residential gives you at the very least half as many cars coming and going during peak periods. So it’s clearly worth consideration if traffic is an issue (which it certainly seems to be here).
to shed some realistic light on the notion of office vs. residential: it is specious BS – don’t belive it.
the reality of this matter is that the decatur office rental market won’t support the high price of high-rise office development and the market will support the proposed residential cram-in. if the threat of office development (and higher its increased traffic) is being used to sway the reality of this issue, then thoughtful people will be suckers.
if office was viable, then the developer would be building office, not residential. don’t be a rube.
No one actually suggested the idea is viable. It was just part of the rhetoric generated at one point by neighboring residents because they believed office generated less traffic than residential. Traffic, density and parking are their big issues.
to fairly access this issue, i think it would be benefical to omit lessons and lectures about unfeasible hypotheticals – like the hypothetical traffic generated by hypothetical office building that has no chance of being developed. the issue here is not between high-rise office or high-rise residential – and to suggest so is misleading.
and by the way, with the change in the credit and real estate markets since this development was conceived, it is likely that this development may go away. based on JLB’s web site and a google search, JLB seems to be a new company launch at an unfortunate time and they don’t seem to have built very much.