The 315 W. Ponce Petition
Decatur Metro | July 9, 2008Get ready everyone…cause it sounds like the 315 W. Ponce developers are going to the planning commission for approval in August. This date is based on rumblings that I’ve personally heard and from a recent note by Wardell on the Oakhurst Message Board.
That same note also asks (with a few too many CAPS in my opinion) residents to sign a petition that opposes the current development plan for the site. 34 people have signed the online version thus far.
Here it is in full…
We the undersigned hereby petition the Decatur City Commission, the Decatur Planning Commission, and the Decatur Zoning Board of Appeals as follows:
1) That the current proposed development of dwelling units abutting and adjacent to this R-60 neighborhood not be permitted on this C-2 Site.
2) That any other residential development on this site be approved only if it will not have adverse effects on the density, traffic, public services, or schools of the existing R-60 site.
3) That any development be required to meet all current zoning requirements as to parking for this site.
So I guess this means the neighborhood isn’t really working on a compromise, huh?
And I have just one question at the moment about this petition…how does one measure and/or determine any potential “adverse effects”? I think there are lots of assumptions being made here that have yet to be proven.
For those new to this issue, I highly recommend this post to get up to speed on the arguments of both sides.
Latest from Decaturish
This is a beatifully written and insightful blog. Thanks for pointing out that the ambiguity “adverse effects” is nothing other than just a way to say “we have no intention of negotiating.” More candor would be refreshing.
Hello,
As one of the residents of the nearby neighborhood, and as one of the folks who worked on the content of the flyers and petition, I would like to offer some perspective that seems to be missing from both this post and the historical one to which you refer.
decaturmetro and many commenters continue to state that the neighborhood is not interested in a compromise with the developers and this is simply and completely untrue. Several members of our neighborhood (known informally as “the Focus Group”) have been participating in a series of meetings which included representatives from the City as well as both the property owner (Day Capital Partners) and the developer (JLB Partners). Residents participated because they believed that through these discussions, the 3 parties could arrive at a result that worked well for everyone.
The development as proposed is NOT allowed under existing law. Everyone knows that there are extenuating circumstances and that is why there is an exceptions process. The normal process for getting an exception — and that is what we’re talking about here – the developers are asking for both special permission and a variance from two government bodies – is to file 30 days in advance with the City, plant a sign in their yard, and then parties show up the respective meeting and make their case before the City. A decision is rendered — a decision which can only be appealed in Superior Court.
That is the official process and it is the only process that is legally required. It ought to be pretty obvious from reading that, though, that it is in everyone’s interest – the City’s, the developers, and the residents – to try to come up with a workable solution before the official process begins. And that was a driving factor behind having the focus group meetings.
The sad reality is, however, that the biggest issues were never really on the table for discussion and compromise. At the last focus group meeting, residents /again/ raised their concerns that the density was too high, there did not seem to be adequate parking, and that they were VERY concerned about the impact of traffic in an already high-traffic area. The response from the developers was an (incorrect, by the way) almost patronizing lecture about sales revenue in Decatur and the response that they could not talk to /us/ (their emphasis) about those issues. In short, they were simply unwilling to “back off” of the existing numbers. Even more discrete, individual attempts by some neighbors to meet with the developers and work something out were completely rebuked — the meetings were pushed off and eventually just outright cancelled.
Common sense says you try for the best but you also must plan for the worst. The reality is that the process for this ultimately lands in City Hall. While we recognize and appreciate that there was at least some effort to work toward a livable arrangement, but there is also a sense that the ultimately the process has been analogous to choosing the paint colors on a car with square wheels.
While you or others may find some of the messages posted here or to e-mail lists to be annoying, please understand that they are the result of one person trying to do what they believe to be the right thing. When it was first was announced that 315 had been purchased, a very nice and well-intentioned post sent to our neighborhood mailing list suggested that it be turned into a city park. My point is that Decatur is a vibrant city home to a diverse array of individuals. While there are always extremes — and I am sure you have examples of this in Oakhurst as well — the majority of the individuals have approached this process with an open mind, a willingness to negotiate, and respect for their neighbors. All that I ask is that you and other posters give us the benefit of the doubt and offer us the same.
Baron, I certainly apologize if my post came off like I wasn’t respecting the opinion of the neighborhood. But please take note that I have defended folks on your side of the fence in the past when things got heated in a previous post (linked above).
However of late, I’ve been slightly put off by the way the neighborhood has approached this issue. Over the past couple months, the “livable growth” folks have been using I would almost call “questionable tactics” to promote their issue. When Oakhurst had TVs stolen, it was pointed out that more residents as a result of the 315 project would mean less police to monitor Oakhurst’s streets. When the school system brought a trailer into Winonna Park Elementary, 315 neighborhood residents promoted the idea that the school system could never adapt to a larger population. This really bugged me because it didn’t seem entirely fair to anyone. To claim that Decatur can’t adjust to any increase in population seems a bold statement with little to back it up. But I apologize if I was a little snarky…I try to keep that to a minimum on this site.
My question to you is “what defines TOO dense”? Is it reasonable to expect a project to scale back based on that non-specific statement? For the developer there is obviously a price point they need to reach to justify having bought the property. So I know what the developer wants (to make money)…but I’m unclear as to what the neighborhood is ultimately after. They say they want concessions, but then I read things like this petition and it reads more like a flat-out “no”.
What the neighborhood appears to want, at least from my vantage point, is to maintain their quality of life by preventing two potential problems: overflow parking on their streets, and increases in neighborhood traffic. Both of these could be effectively accomplished through a variety of creative contingency approaches — such as increased enforcement of the existing neighborhood parking district or new regulations on the cut-through use of neighborhood streets — but, instead, the neighborhood chose to address these problems through an insistence on fewer units and greater parking. In other words, their position in the negotiation with the developer was essentially “We demand that you spend more money in terms of infrastructure and make less money in terms of units.”
Is anyone surprised the developer was unwilling to negotiate on these terms?
From the very beginning, the neighborhood could have said, “Show us how you’ll prevent these two things we’re concerned about and back it up with enforceable documentation” and this whole antagonistic mess would have disappeared. Its failure to do so leads one to wonder if there’s a larger, unspoken agenda at play.
Decaturite,
Please don’t take this short comment on what is a very complicated situation to be snarky in any way but there is no way for any of us to control what our neighbors think, feel, post on the internet (or include in their sig. files) – Wardell does not run nor does he in any way speak for Livable Growth.
Scott,
we currently have the 335 building as well as the Artisan within spitting distance of our small neighborhood (with no objections that I am aware of) – so to impy that we simply object blindly to density is unfair.
This would be the first high density directly next to a residential neighborhood (that is already having parking/traffic problems)in the City. This would also be the first shared parking between commercial/residential/retail in the City – so while we may be making some assumptions about what might go wrong, the developers are also making assumptions about who will be living in this development, how many cars they will own and how often they will drive them – what happens when this thing is already built and some of their assumptions turn out to be wrong?
I have looked at the parking and traffic studies and remain unconvinced that they have taken some very logical possibilities into account. Suppose a large number of the residents were Emory students with cars who take public transport during the week or the business population of the current office building were to change significantly?
When we say “we have these concerns” and there seems to be no motivation at all on the part of the developer to address them – what should we do? Should we simply sit back and let the developer built whatever works best for him and if any mess is created just hope that the City will be able to deal with it after the fact?
In answer to the question how much is too much – there would be more apartments at 315 W. Ponce than the number of apartments, single family homes and condos in the surrounding neighborhood combined. As much as I’d like to think some kind of “residents only” parking solution could be put into place if problems were to arise when it comes right down to it the people living there will be residents and these, as well as other potential problems should be considered and addressed before this development is allowed to move forward.
We won’t be able to fix this AFTER the fact.
Stacy, I think you need to reread my post. I’m the last one to suggest wishful thinking on anyone’s part. What I said is that you need to identify the things you’re concerned about (are there others beyond overflow parking and cut through traffic?) and ensure that *enforceable* contingency plans are in place to prevent them.
From an outside perspective, it seems the neighborhood is focusing on the *how* instead of on the *what*. It shouldn’t matter how the developer addresses your issues, so long as they do.
So, if you’re able to work with the developer to ensure any potential negative outcomes are prevented and/or managed to your satisfaction, I don’t see how the number of units matters. What’s the difference between 50 units, 100 units, or 220 units if, at the end of the day, you’re getting what you want?
Nothing would thrill me more than for that neighborhood to be spared parking hassles and crazy speeders cutting through. That’s why I don’t get why your focus is on numbers instead of desired outcomes.
Hey, no sweat. I remember when you stepped up to keep things at a reasonable level, and I was very impressed with your response. And appreciative as well, because no one wants to read a blog full of stuff that “crosses the line” — that’s why we have Jerry Springer!
The basic premise behind Livable Growth is to eventually raise community awareness of the impact of the various growth initiatives going on in our City and to ultimately raise the level of public debate about what constitutes positive development that enhances our community and maintains a sense of livable balance. Developments like Hillyer and now 315, where you have commercial development abutting residential homes, are examples (but by no means the only examples) where I believe the City needs strong and positive residential input and guidance at each step of the process to maintain the balance that has makes Decatur such an attractive and wonderful place to live.
Sometimes, someone sees an idea and gets really excited about it, and decides to be an advocate for it. I saw the postings you refer to as being “questionable tactics,” and I was as surprised and bugged by them as you were. I made my personal concerns about the postings known to various parties at that time. Unfortunately, you can’t control the actions of others and this is just sadly one of those times. I want to assure you that the comments do not reflect the values of Livable Growth. I don’t feel they represent the sentiments of my neighbors, either.
I think your question as “TOO dense?” speaks directly to the kind of discussions that would have been nice to have, but instead were answered with “I can’t discuss that with you.” And, while the developer certainly should be able to make money (that’s why investors buy properties like this, right?), that right must balanced against the impact to the existing neighborhood. The City and neighborhood should not be forced to shoulder undue burdens because a developer made a bad/unlucky/poorly-timed business decision, either.
I understand what you are saying about the petition reading more like a flat-out “no,” but please remember that the petition is an arm of the formal process. While the informal process allowed for back-and-forth give and take negotiations; now that the developers have filed, the formal one is now in play and the decision will be to either approve, table, or reject what has been filed. The petition simply matches that structure.
It is also not really viable option to do a “mad-libs” style petition: “That the (noun) have no adverse effect on (noun), (noun), and (noun), and be comprised of no more than (number) units with (number) parking spaces.” Though, I suppose it would be nevertheless quite funny.
Thanks for the comments Stacy…much appreciated.
In regards to who speaks for the neighborhood, I’ve heard a couple active voices make these assertions, Wardell was only one of them. Both have participated in what I described above. As such, it comes off like a coordinated effort. If they don’t speak for you, then why didn’t Livable Growth distance itself earlier?
Baron…thanks for the clarification. It sounds like we all agree that the neighborhood’s voice should be a key component of this process…we just have different opinions on the best way to go about it. I understand the strong arm approach certainly. I just personally think that you run the danger of getting the developer so irritated that they will refuse any and all changes unless forced. Then its up to the city to mandate provisions. I would rather have the developer and neighborhood work things out on their own (with something like a contingency plan), but it sounds like we’re already beyond that at this point if all conversations have stopped as you reported above.
Oh how I wish for the good old days when there was nothing to do in downtown Decatur and plenty of parking. A vibrant downtown breads parking issues. Parking is an issue and the path of least resistance may take folks to the neighborhood streets. Rarely have I found the parking deck full (its free in the evening and on weekends). But, it is creepy dark and slasher film setting like.
A question was posed about what was too dense. When the density reaches a level that you occupancy rates go down or your condo inventory is so high it lowers property values – then you have too much density.
This development and its features could tip the scale to the negative for our existing resident/property owners. It could also mean our statistics indicate we have too much space available and are therefore viewed less desirable. It is the charge of our city commission to make sure these things to not occur.
However, the zoning board of appeals is the only resident commission that does not have their decisions go before the City Commission. They have the power to make decisions that do not necessarily have the interest of the citizens in mind.