315 Opposition Goes After Trinity Triangle
Decatur Metro | October 8, 2008Has the 315 West Ponce opposition has gone underground?
Inspired by a strange, cryptic note in the October Focus regarding the tabling of a slight revision of the Trinity Triangle project that would preserve the current Dairy Queen building, I asked the city to provide me with the minutes for that meeting (since they are not yet posted online).
In them, you see a number of residents stand up and ask a lot of strangely familiar questions and make a lot of familiar requests…asking for more parking at the site, a traffic study, and questioning the “purpose of lifecycle housing”. A closer look at their addresses (2 on Oakland, 1 on Fairview, 2 on Ponce Place) and there is little doubt that the neighborhood opposition to 315 West Ponce (I’m hesitant to call them “Livable Growth” because I know the neighborhood is a bit fractured) has broadened its critique to the entire city.
And let’s be clear…this is their right. However, I am very concerned that a few residents are attempting to quietly erect roadblocks on development projects in our city and no one else knows about it.
So this is your fair warning. There is a vocal opposition in the city that doesn’t like the path Decatur has been taking in terms of mid-rise development. It questions density, not enough parking and (apparently) lifecycle housing. And its not just about 315 West Ponce anymore…its about all future development and the future of our city.
If you want to voice a different or concurring opinion on Trinity Triangle, the proposal will be brought up again at tomorrow night’s Planning Commission Meeting at City Hall at 7:30p. I’m sure the opposition will again be in attendence.
But just know that this is bigger than just Trinity Triangle or 315.
The full minutes for the meeting are posted after the jump.
Minutes
Decatur Planning Commission
Decatur City Hall
September 4, 2008
7:30 p.m.
Present: Jeff Hendrick, Fleur Hartmann, Hutch Moore, Tony Powers, Jack Rhodes, Jimmy Smith, Bill Waugh
Mr. Hendrick called the meeting to order and explained the procedure for the meeting. He stated that the recommendation of the Planning Commission would be presented to the City Commission at their meeting on Monday, September 15, 2008. He announced that there was only one item on the agenda.
1. Cypress Cityville at Decatur, LP has required approval of a downtown multiple-dwelling and a density increase for life cycle dwellings for the property at 233-253 East Trinity Place and 233 East Howard Avenue.
Nic Whittaker, Cypress Realty, stated that his firm had taken full ownership of the property and was ready to move forward with developing a mixed use apartment development. He stated that his firm had conducted a market study to determine what product would work best in Decatur and had reconfigured the layout of the building to improve circulation and reduce construction costs.
Mike Sherburne stated that he was the architect for the project and would give an overview of the proposed development. He stated that they would like to build 210 one and two bedroom apartment units utilizing the lifecycle housing density bonus. He stated that the project would have a structured parking garage, live/work units, and 11,000 square feet of commercial use on the ground floor. He stated that there would be another restaurant in addition to the Dairy Queen.
In response to a question from Ms. Hartmann, Mr. Sherburne stated that the area around the Dairy Queen would be a pedestrian plaza.
In response to a question from Mr. Powers, Mr. Whittaker stated that they had moved the location of the parking garage from the center of the site to the rear to allow for building of double loaded corridors and more retail space on East Trinity Place. He stated that they would screen the rear of the garage so that the commercial tenants facing Church Street would not have a blank wall facing them.
In response to a question from Mr. Hendrick, Mr. Sherburne stated that the Dairy Queen would be renovated to create a “retro” look and that an outdoor dining area would be added. He stated that because the live/work units were facing the Dairy Queen and the pedestrian plaza, they did not want to put a road through that part of the site.
Mr. Powers stated that he had seen several “retro” style Dairy Queens on Highway A1A in Florida that were attractive.
In response to a question from Ms. Hartmann, Ms. Thompson stated that the applicant’s site plan reflected the proposed improvements for that intersection in the Decatur Community Transportation Plan.
In response to a question from Mr. Smith, Ms. Thompson stated that left turns from South Candler onto West Howard Avenue would be prevented due to poor visibility and the use of the Path by schoolchildren. She stated that drivers would still be able to turn left on West Howard by the high school as well as from East College onto East Trinity.
In response to a question from Mr. Moore, Mr. Whittaker stated that all the units would be rental properties. He stated that there would be two restaurants (including the Dairy Queen), two retail spaces, and four live/work spaces in the project.
In response to a question from Mr. Hendrick, Mr. Whittaker stated that they would be relocating one existing sewer line and upsizing the existing stormwater pipes.
Mr. Hendrick asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the request.
Lyn Menne, Downtown Decatur Development Authority (DDA), stated that the DDA had worked on this project for a long a time and that the revised plan was better than the plan that had been approved in 2006. She stated that the DDA supported keeping the Dairy Queen in its current location and renovating it. She stated that they would like to continue to work with the developer to provide additional parking closer to the Dairy Queen and to further refine the design of the building. She stated that the DDA supported a total of two restaurants for the project.
Paul Spitzer, 304 Oakland Street, stated that he wanted to know how the applicant would provide security in the parking garage and if they had prepared a traffic impact study. He stated that Decatur did not need anymore cars.
Mr. Whittaker stated that the upper levels of the parking deck would be resident only and would require a card to access them. He stated that there would be access to the parking deck from East Trinity and West Howard Avenue.
Ms. Thompson stated that this project did not require a traffic study and that there was a previously approved plan for this site. She stated that the applicant was amending a previously approved plan. She stated that the city had transportation improvements planned for this area that would encourage walking and bicycling, while still allowing vehicular through movement.
Kay Fulmer, 331 Ponce de Leon Place, stated that she did not understand the purpose of lifecycle housing.
Ms. Thompson stated that the lifecycle housing ordinance was designed to provide housing for residents at all stages in their life from new college graduates to retired adults. She stated that the rental rate for the lifecycle units would be based on 80% of the area median income for Atlanta, which was $50,000. She stated that 21 of the apartment units must be rented to households making less than $50,000 a year. She stated that the city worked in partnership with the Decatur Housing Authority to administer the lifecycle housing program.
Christine Bean, 313 Oakland Street, stated that she did not understand how the lifecycle units would be distributed.
Ms. Thompson stated that the applicant would work with the Development Department and the Decatur Housing Authority to ensure that the lifecycle units varied in size and location.
Steve Saunders, 142 Fairview Avenue, stated that the design of the project did not fit in with the Old Decatur historic district. He stated that the building should also be LEED certified. He stated that he did not like the design or choice of building materials. He stated that he supported providing additional parking for the Dairy Queen.
Wardell Castle, 331 Ponce de Leon Place, stated that there should be a traffic study and the building should have a more historic design.
Mr. Sherburne stated that when he was designing the building he focused on creating a classical form with a podium and coursing on the second floor to create an inviting pedestrian environment. He stated that he used brick detailing and a mix of materials to keep the overall scale of the building down.
John Blakesly, 124 Fairview Avenue, stated that he was an amputee and would prefer that the Dairy Queen have at least one handicap space closer to the entrance than what was currently proposed in the parking garage.
Dawn Billingsley, West Ponce de Leon Avenue, stated that the applicant should have to present a revised plan addressing the issues that had been raised before the Planning Commission made a recommendation.
Mr. Hendrick asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the request.
Mary Karwoski, 119 Barry Street, stated that she was not in opposition, but wanted to ensure that the required parking was provided. She stated that she was not opposed to the density or height of the structure. She stated that the site should provide easy access to the Dairy Queen and parking for the Depeaux.
In response to several questions, Ms. Thompson stated that the proposed project exceeded the city’s parking requirements.
In response to a question form Ms. Karwoski, Mr. Sherburne stated that the garage did have a drop off area that could be used for valet parking.
In response to a question from Mr. Smith and Ms. Powers, Ms. Menne stated that the DDA would like to work with the applicant to develop some parking spaces on-street closer to the Dairy Queen and consider creating a one-way street where the parking lot is now. She stated that there were several challenges working with Dairy Queen International and that was one reason why it was left as a separate building.
Mr. Whittaker stated that he appreciated everyone’s comments and that the biggest issue seemed to be parking. He stated that they would provide solutions for providing parking closer to the Dairy Queen. He stated that they would continue to refine the architecture of the building with the DDA. He stated that they already had a plan approved for this site, but felt that this proposal was better for the city than the previously approved plan.
Mr. Rhodes stated that the applicant should provide additional parking for the Dairy Queen and he could not make a decision until that issue was addressed. He stated that he also wanted to see a traffic study.
Mr. Powers stated that he supported additional parking for the Dairy Queen.
In response to a question from Mr. Moore, Ms. Thompson stated that the applicant could apply for a building permit at any time for the previously approved plan that had a drive through.
Mr. Hendrick stated that he would like to see how the Dairy Queen would be remodeled and he was concerned that it would look like an ugly mistake on the corner of a new development. He stated that he would also like to see how the parking spaces in the garage were going to be assigned by land use.
Mr. Waugh stated that there was more pressure to approve the previous development because the Relax Inn had not yet been demolished.
Ms. Hartmann stated that she would like to ensure that there would not be a conflict between the Fire Station 1 driveway and the entrance to the parking garage. She stated that she would also like to see the planned transportation improvements.
In response to a question form Mr. Hendrick, Ms. Menne stated that the DDA always continues to work with applicants to refine the design of the building.
On a motion by Mr. Rhodes, second by Mr. Smith, and all voting “aye,” the Planning Commission tabled the item to the October 7, 2008 meeting.
I agree that the City Staff and the residents, business owners, etc… have done a great job with how the City has developed over time….and I trust the City Staff / Commission / Boards to look out for us…these whistle blowers serve a purpose but the City should stand on what goals were set and allow these developers who have the right to build projects move forward…sure listen and get input from people, that is the way Decatur has always been, get new ideas and make the project better…but don’t let some group dictate how we move forward….or let some group side line a project b/c they want everything under the sun…then you get developers who avoid your community b/c you’re hard to work with and it cost a lot of money to get anything moving forward. It’s a balance and i think the City has done a very good job looking out for us and allowing things to happen to make our community attractive to businesses and developers. Decatur is a popular place…that’s great…i remember a time when it was not…let’s keep our Decatur characteristics but also mature and grow.
Thanks, 2996. It’s refreshing to hear from someone who recognizes how much we, as a community, have benefited from the city’s stewardship of the Town Center and Strategic plans. You make a great point on the nature of citizen contribution: When you have a well-articulated vision for growth, as Decatur does, citizens should put their energy towards making proposed projects *stronger.* Not towards making them disappear.
Standing in the way of our *collective* goals is not serving the greater community. It’s serving yourself.
DecaturMetro–you are right. The folks speaking at this meeting in opposition to the Trinity Triangle development are the same folks opposing the current development plans for the 315 W. Ponce property. IMHO, yes the city should consider residents desires, but the Trinity Triangle is not in a residential area, and ANY development will look better than what is there now (or what was there before–Relax Inn). Both eyesores, so a new building, in any style, will be an improvement!
Hear Hear!
I have a feeling that these “Livable Growth” people are getting a little too big for their britches.
Livable Growth’s motto should be something like the old George Wallace quote “No development now, no development tommorow, no development forever!” Both of their backwards thinking ideology, and strange fondness for the 1950’s and 1960’s (in Livable Growth’s case fondness for 1950’s and ’60’s growth and development patters), is actually quite similar if you think about it.
Let’s now be clear, this is not a “livable growth” group … this is a no growth group … unless we’re talking about single family, residential development.
No growth now, no growth tommorow, no growth forever!
I’m all for the strategic growth of Decatur. Key word-strategic. Given the current state of economy–foreclosures, bankruptcy and going out of business sales–it would be wise for leadership to rethink the growth plans in that light. I haven’t read details of triange plans yet. But IMHO–Decatur needs more green space and bike lanes.
BTW–this is my very first blog entry ever anywhere so be gentle on the newbie.
No problem, Ntizi. Any punches will be graciously pulled prior to impact.
Fun aside, I would encourage you, if you haven’t already, to read the city’s Strategic Plan, or “Comp Plan.” Comp Plans are community-driven policy guides that every community must file with the state of Georgia. Though strict compliance with these plans is not a legal requirement, I would argue that the degree to which our leadership has consistently worked towards the goals set forth in ours is one of the things that makes us better, not worse, than most other communities. It is the cornerstone of trust because it provides the necessary level of assurance that our government’s decisions will not be arbitrary. The vast majority of community conflict nationwide arises from an absence of this kind of trust.
Within the Strategic Plan — and in many actions taken by the Commission — you will find both green space and bike lanes represented, and both have active initiatives currently underway towards their advancement. So don’t feel like it has to be an either/or situation. City’s work best when they pursue quality of life initiatives (such as those you’ve identified) *in tandem* with their economic development policy.
Personally, I think the strategic value of Decatur’s growth policies is clear: In a time, as you say, of bankruptcies and dried up financing, we continue to make progress towards our growth goals. Not only do we still have developer interest, we have it *on our own terms.* They’re willing to put up *their* money to further *our plan.*
You can’t pull that off without being strategic. As Justin Wilson would say, “I garontee!”
I guess time stands still and circumstances never change. So the plan was writ and so it shall be, world without end.
I believe given the economic outlook filling the space we have would be more important then focusing on growth issues. Decatur and the country at large are entering into a whole new phase of retrenchment economically. What you don’t want is a half built eyesore in your town when a developers financing runs out half way through a project. Or they come to the city hat in hand needing a bond issuance to finish their project. Sort of like what the the gov did for the investment banks.
David, Comp Plans look about 20 years out and are required to be updated every ten. Our current Comp Plan was adopted in 1995, drawing in large part from the Town Center Plan adopted in the 80s. It was then augmented with 2000’s Strategic Plan initiative, and then updated, as required by law, in 2005.
That’s basically revisiting our growth strategies every five years or so. Hardly sounds written in stone.
Having been here a fairly long time, I see plenty of evidence of how the growth we planned for has subsequently improved our standing and quality of life. That’s my perspective. What is your evidence for abandoned projects or developer’s with their hat out?
Please provide evidence of half-built buildings. Otherwise I’m going to put it back in my closet with all the other boogey-men.
Seriously, lets try to stay on topic.
Why growth for growth’s sake? We have so many vacant units as it is. Why rental? Rental has a way of deteriorating (along with the quality of its renters) over a span of 10-20 years. It is typically less well built than are condominiums destined for ownership and tends to hold residents with little or no long term stake in their community.
I’m all for growth, but I want to see the type of growth that makes Decatur more desirable long term rather than the kind of growth that makes a quick buck today but drags the city down in a few years. It does not serve Decatur well to get into the landlord business.
Downtown: “I’m all for growth, but I want to see the type of growth that makes Decatur more desirable long term rather than the kind of growth that makes a quick buck today but drags the city down in a few years.”
Hey, Downtown, can you define what you see as the type of growth that will be more desirable? How does it differ from some of the projects currently in the pipeline?
Thanks.
downtown, I’m not comfortable with being the judge of “the quality” of anyone.
And I think we’ve made plenty of arguments over the many months (lower taxes, greater diversity, less car dependence to name a few) detailing our reasons for promoting controlled/smart growth and density. So please don’t say we’re blindly promoting “Growth for growth’s sake”. And if there is such a thing as “growth for growth’s sake” there must also be something termed “no growth for no growth’s sake”.
Your other assertions seem to be predicated on the belief that the city is erecting these buildings themselves. Obviously this is not the case. The land is owned by developers with their own plans and ideas. The city is tasked with following the city’s Strategic Plan and encouraging developers to work within those boundaries. There are lots of uglier things that have never been built thanks to the city’s intervention, but of course we never give them credit for that.
“Please provide evidence of half-built buildings. Otherwise I’m going to put it back in my closet with all the other boogey-men.
Seriously, lets try to stay on topic.”
I’m sure the banking folks would have said the same thing about their bailout before it happened.
If they need a variance, which means government help in one way or another, let them prove they aren’t going to need our money somewhere down the road. If not let the bulldozers roll.
I’m also not sure how a government that has a budget shortfall can justify spending more money to convince the residents they represent that they need a project they don’t want. The mind boggles.
I think that in a way this smacks of cowardice on the cities part in that they don’t want to be the bad guy. Instead they can say, “See, an expert, a real live expert says we need this so our hands are tied.
I think I’ll start printing up the lyrics to Kumbyaaa now. Let the healing begin.
The expert’s not here to say we need anything. He’s here to help a bunch of babies play nice in the sandbox. The situation just happens to be complicated because one of the babies also owns the sandbox.
OK, that’s still not evidence, just an assumed correlation.
Also, I will continue to push back every time you assert that Decatur’s residents “don’t want” the project. You and a vocal opposition don’t want it…but 80% of residents in the citizen survey say they are happy with the direction the city is taking.
And also, how did a thread on Trinity turn into one about 315 again? I assume everyone’s OK with the opposition quietly trying to prevent projects without engaging in discourse? Am I the only one really bothered by this way of doing things?
I have been a landlord for a long time. I can tell you that there is a difference in the quality of renters that is very easy to quantify and has little to do with their walk of life. Is the tenant taking care of their property? Are they paying rent on time? Are they habitually transient? Are they interested in the good of the neighborhood and willing to spend a little time and/or resources on improving it… or are they along for a free ride? Do they speed through our communities? Do they abide by the law and the rules of their rental complex? Do they disturb other tenants?
Now, as apartments and rental properties get older and more run down (which happens to large, typically cheaply built rental properties quickly) … they tend to attract a larger percentage of tenants who don’t give a rip. Tenants who give a rip and who have a rental history that allows them to be picky will take the time to find a higher quality rental property (often for the same rental rate as the more run down property).
Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. I am talking about trends not absolutes.
BTW, my measure of the quality of a tenant has absolutely nothing to do with the income level, race, religion, sex, family structure, creed, etc. of the tenant. I have had relatively wealthy tenants who were terrible and subsidized tenants who were wonderful. It only has to do with whether they are willing to abide by the rules of their community and are willing to be engaged members of that community. I have just noted time and time again in my business that the newer and more high quality the rental property is, the more likely that the inhabitant of that property will give a rip. As the rental property slides, so do the tenants.
Decatur is looking at adding A LOT of rental to the city inventory in its downtown developments.. I know that they aren’t going to be landlords in the traditional sense..(I was speaking figuratively – sorry no one got that) but they will be more in the landlord business in a sense as we begin to see a large number of residents who are shorter term and typically not as engaged in their community. Of course, the annexation will add a large number of additional apartments which may multiply exponentially as Suburban Plaza and the Devry property are redeveloped.
We could possibly get to a stage in 10-20 years where the number of renters in the city approaches the number of owners. We could also easily get to a stage where Decatur is saturated with run down apartment complexes that are declining rapidly in value as they demand more and more from city services. It appears that many in our city think that’s OK. As a landlord of 20 years, I disagree.
Why not have some apartments.. but more condominiums? We can still offer affordable condominiums that would attract a diverse group of citizens. Why not attract citizens of all walks of life who have a greater stake in our community because they are invested in it for the long haul?
“The expert’s not here to say we need anything.”
I think you need to read his columns again.
You may not agree with the opinions of the “315 Opposition” but these people are long time residents of Decatur who are passionate about their position and have given much time and effort to their cause. I don’t think they should be criticzed for expressing their views.
comments to related topics have criticized them because they only spoke out against the project in their own backyard – that made them NIMBY . Now some are speaking out in regards to another project not in their backyard and that is bad, too . These people spoke at a public meeting giving their names and addresses for the record. I don’t see how that qualifies as a quiet effort that no one knows about.
There seems to be lots of disdain for the 315 opposition but where was the other side when it counted ? The ZBA meeting room was packed full yet only 2 private citizens spoke in favor of the 315 proposal and/or shared parking .
Decatur Metro , I agree with you on this – now is the time to tell City officials your vision for future development in Decatur. the process is simple – if you think the 315 Ponce project ( or any other proposed project ) is good for the city and you want it to happen – show up and speak out . You can write or email but speaking up at the meetings makes the greatest impact.
Don’t let these faciliated meetings be nothing but angry exchanges between the development team and those against any high density plan. Make time to participate and bring some new voices to the discussion.
You make some good points, Fifi, but I think you’re missing the biggest one. Engaging a community to achieve and document a collective vision is a huge undertaking, but it’s one Decatur took on and then, subsequently, embraced as the basis for our ongoing decision-making.
The benefit of doing so is that it relieves residents of having to be constantly vigilant. I don’t know about you but I know very few people with the time to consistently attend city meetings, and even fewer with the desire or patience to have to fight over every new issue because all decisions are reactive and arbitrary.
I don’t think there’s actually disdain for the opponents, but there is a level of weariness. Especially now, in light of the Trinity Triangle project, their efforts come across as a small number of people trying to derail a vision created and adopted by a large number of people.
I would prefer apartments because of tow main reasons. One apartments do contribute more to the tax base than condos because they do not get a homestead exemption. Second they typically do not add a substantial amount of students to the school system. We have seen a number of condo projects built recently but not many apartments. Condos can go downhill just as easy as apartments. When work is needed on a condo project it is much harder for those residents to raise the money for the work than a single landlord.
I think a truly independent mediator wouldn’t have a published opinion on an issue they’re trying to mediate.
The condo developments, at least the ones we have right now, have not added significantly to the school population. I seem to recall that the number is less than 20 students.
Also regarding the apartment argument…downtown, you take a huge leap from a town that today has a comparatively low % of apartments, to a city that is besieged by theoretical apartments that have been built on huge properties currently outside the city limits that aren’t even zoned residential. That doesn’t sound all that inevitable to me.
I agree with Keith…condos can also go downhill too. As a relatively recent renter that did give a flip, I would have jumped at the chance to rent in Decatur…instead we ended up with all the rich execs in temporary housing due to work over at Gables Rock Springs.
Fifi…good points. I’m more than happy to get back on topic. I agree that everyone has a right to their own opinion, but after a brief foray into the online world at the start of this debate, most of the opposition has gone “underground”. They don’t want to discuss it with us anymore, even though I think we had a relatively civil discourse going.
So when I figured out that the opposition was not just voicing displeasure to the Planning Commission, but like with 315, trying to erect roadblocks by questioning things like lifecycle housing, I was unnerved by the fact that I had found another example of a small group of opposition passing up the public discourse. And that’s obviously their right, as I’ve already said…but I am obviously a big proponent of discussion…like the one we’re having right now.
Metro… things get rezoned all the time. It is not a huge deal to rezone a bunch of commercial property to make it high density residential/commercial. Also, I didn’t say inevitable. I said “possible.” I get the feeling that you are so “unnerved” by this issue that you are getting a bit unreasonable. You do not seem to be so much a proponent of “discourse” as you are a proponent of your own views.
Has it occurred to you that it might be a valid viewpoint to question “things like life cycle housing?” You or I may not agree with that viewpoint, but is questioning life cycle housing as a means to higher density “erecting a roadblock” just because you don’t agree with it? Also, perhaps this “small group of opposition” represents a much larger group of citizens who are not at this point (for political reasons or otherwise) willing to speak up about where they want Decatur to go. If so many folks are for high density development/ annexation, etc., why don’t you see them at the meetings? Maybe they will start showing up in the future en masse. If so… great… democracy works. If not… well, then maybe our leaders need to reconsider their direction. Times change, cities change, circumstances change.
Dagnabbit! Okay, class, will everyone please take out their Strategic Plan and turn to page 57. Got it? Great. Now, consult Task Number 2, where it specifically recommends that the Relax Inn property be redeveloped with an affordable component.
Got that? See, in 2000, the people of Decatur who are interested in the future of the community came together — in discourse — to spell out our priorities and goals. We collectively gave the city a directive — try to get the Relax Inn redeveloped with an affordable component — and they subsequently did as we asked. Now, after the project has *already been approved* and was simply seeking some basic design change approvals, a small collection of folks consider it an appropriate time to begin questioning the initiative.
Given such 11th hour maneuvers against something that’s been a participatory public process for almost a decade, do I question the motives and methods of what’s going on? How could you not?
How can one be a proponent of discourse without being a proponent of their own views? If you’re saying I’m inflexible in my views, then I suggest reading back over the last 12 months to see how many times I’ve adjusted my view on things based on substantive conversations.
Perhaps there are valid reasons to oppose life-cycle housing, but no one here has brought them to my attention. Now’s the chance! Let’s hear ‘em! As Scott mentioned, its the timing and the method I take issue with…not the fact that there is opposition.
In terms of the opposition speaking for the silent majority, we don’t have to guess…just open up the Citizen Survey and find me the proof that the majority is dissatisfied with the city’s direction.
To start us off I’d like to point out that the #4 thing that was deemed “poor” on the survey was “availability of affordable quality housing”.
Well, I didnt’ fill out the survey. How many citizens did? I don’t think that the survey can be considered reliable necessarily. Also, the citizens weren’t questioned on this issue specifically.. … just on the “direction” of things. I think the city has been well managed up to this point. Most folks apparently agree with me if you look at the survey and consider it realiable.
I don’t think that most folks are given the big picture of the future though, and there is the possiblity that the city could take high density development too far. We want to be a community of neighbors with walkable schools and shops, yet we continue to add high density developments that promote droves of relative strangers and streets clogged with cars.
How about a survey that asks citizens how many additional high density developments they would like to see downtown? How many in the proposed annexation areas? What percentage of these should be rental? That would be a more accurate survey. To presume that just because citizens were happy with past city management means that they will be happy with doing the same thing in the future when circumstances change is illogical.
Asking citizens how many additional high density developments is what’s illogical because it implies that the building itself is the goal. That is wrong. The building is simply a means to an end.
What the people of Decatur seem to want — at least according to the many who’ve participated in visioning and surveying — is reduced taxes, greater opportunities for our service professionals (teachers, cops, firemen, baristas, shop owners, etc.) to live among us rather than just serve us, and growth that does not impose a financial burden on our infrastructure and institutions.
Downtown residential development is the primary tool we’ve utilized to get there. Residents there put considerably more tax dollars into the system than they take out in city services. They typically have few or no children to put in the school system. They contribute greatly to community precisely because they are *not the same* as those in our single family neighborhoods. They’re skewed younger, bringing more vitality, and older, bringing greater time to volunteer.
I’m not saying you have to be a fan of the tool but, if you’re not, the burden’s on you to show another way to accomplish the same goals. You see “droves of relative strangers and streets clogged with cars” but the reality is that we’re more inclusive and welcoming of all folks now than we’ve been in a long time and traffic counts at all our key intersections are down.
Maybe you just need to change the lens you’re looking through.
“Well, I didnt’ fill out the survey. How many citizens did? I don’t think that the survey can be considered reliable necessarily.”
The surveys were done by an outside professional organization experienced in surveys of this type. Households were randomly sampled (I didn’t get one) and 468 households were returned. The statistical confidence factor is 95%. If you want all the details on both the 2006 and 2008 results, go to http://www.decaturga.com/cgs_citysvcs_citizensurvey.aspx
In a turnout of about 30 people at the commission meeting, the writer is saying that there is a conspiracy of 5, known also to be interested in the 315 project.
Now that is a piece of paranoia if I’ve ever seen one.
Could just as easily say that more Decatur folks are paying attention to what is going on.
You’d be paranoid too if everyone was out to get you!
I come from a Seattle neighborhood where everything I needed was within about a 5 block radius. This includes library, movie theater, any manner of retail, coffee shops, grocery stores, drug store, etc… I now live here in a downtown Decatur condo with my husband and two daughters. We try to do all our shopping within walking distance if at all possible. In many ways this neighborhood resembles my old one in Seattle, but we still have a lot of work to do. In order to support and have a viable downtown shopping district, it is of vital importance to have high density housing downtown in close proximity to the shops. These residents are the people who are the merchants’ bread and butter. I say this because of my experience in Seattle living in a vibrant, high density neighborhood that survived and thrived due to the very fact of its high density. Yes, sometimes it was hard to find parking. I dealt with it because I usually didn’t need to drive anywhere, and it was worth the hassle to live in such a cool place. When I hear people complain about parking in Decatur, I feel incredulous. I have never seen such a plethora of parking options in such a small space! If anything, we need less parking! Lots of cool stuff could go in its place.
Jennifer, do you have a dedicated parking space that comes with your condo?
I wonder what would happen if everyone in the adjacent neighborhood concerned about losing their favorite parking space on the street to a newbie renter just built themselves a driveway -and therefore guaranteed parking space – on their own property?
It would do several things:
1) shift the financial burden of building adequate parking spaces from the rental unit developer to the neighboring residents, if the development parking projections are wrong.
2) increase the amount of impervious surface per lot by anywhere from 200-400 square feet per parking space.
The office building is 120,00 square feet and the zoning ordnance requires 1 space per 200 square feet of building area. That’s 600 spaces.
The rental development will be 220 units. That’s another 220 spaces, minimum, not counting two bedroom units.
That’s 820 spaces. The proposal is to build space for 450 spaces.
That’s a difference of 370 spaces.
What if the study that the proposes 450 spaces is wrong by say half and 180 street spaces are claimed by renters and driveways are poured to take their place?
180 times (an average of) 300 square feet of parking pad is 540,000 square feet of impervious surface sending storm water into the storm system in Decatur which is mostly creeks and such.
On a typical rainy day, let’s say an inch of rain has fallen. That means an additional 2,000 gallons water enters the surface runoff where, previously it had a chance to soak into the ground.
In Georgia it rains 45″ in an average year, so the total of annual runoff would be 90,000 gallons of runoff added each year.
Whatever number of rental/business office parking spaces are built, the development runoff will be detained on site and released slowly.
Dude, you gotta go back and read all the old 315 Ponce threads. The parking stats have already been debated to death.
Taxus, being serious for a moment and going back to your previous comment, if you deem me “paranoid” for being concerned that 5 people tabled a project that’s a component agreed upon in the 2000 Strategic Plan then so be it. Let me know if I get to pass judgment on your statements too.
From your data-filled response to Jennifer, it sounds like you know quite a bit about water run-off. But how about instead of paving everyone’s front yard, we just enforce strict resident parking rules with hefty fines and boots?
Scott Dude, why don’t you have a nice nap and come back when you’re not so cranky.
Mr Metro
<<>>
Are you asking for some kind of permission? That’s very thoughtful, but quite unnecessary.
Strict rules…Hefty fines and boots… That should be a good revenue generator and keep our taxes low. Good thought!
Ironic that you’re suggesting tougher rules to counteract possible ill-effects of shared parking, which is a ‘rule breaker’ kind of concept . Dang if that ain’t somethin’!
I don’t think stricter parking enforcement would lower taxes – don’t stretch the point.
Well, okay, Taxus. I just figured you’d appreciate learning something. For example, you based your water absorption argument in large part on the requirement for one parking space per 200 sq ft of office. Only problem is, if you’d read the old threads you’d know that the requirement is one space per *400* sq ft, and the required total of office parking is half what you thought.
Then the rest of your calculations wouldn’t be wrong and people might seem less cranky and take them more seriously.
Also might want to take a look at Scott’s parking contingency plan idea from back in May, which is an actual solution as opposed to doomsday calls for covering front yards in asphalt.
Mr Metro
You said:
…which is an actual solution as opposed to doomsday calls for covering front yards in asphalt.
Where is the data for that?
Should I change my name to “formerly newbie” as I’m no longer new to the discussion? I tried others…not happy with those either tho.
anyhoo…I wonder if a lot of the animosity to new development comes from a suburban mentatlity? Just throwing it out there. I say this cause, typically, in the suburbs there is a diminishing return to development. ie you buy a house in a typical suburb in Cobb/Gwinnett/Forsyth one can be content, until new development shows up, as it inevitably does. The woods in your backyard are now another sprawled out development to add traffic on the streets to the new poorly built strip-mall (due to accelerated depreciation our govt decided was a good idea 70 years ago) that just opened up. Development is far from a good thing in that environment.
That being said, in an urban environment (such as Decatur), the returns can be quite nice. ie 315, or Trinity will add vitality to currently barren landscapes (parking lot and rubble). they will add diversity through new residents and shops, and be generally a greener move as it will add population near transit (as opposed to putting people out in the burbs or further from transit). Traffic does not seem to be adversely affected either (in fact, as Decatur has denseified traffic has decreased). Something to keep in mind.
I am not in the “cater to the car” camp.
of course, as the economy tanks, we may all find ourselves beyond thunderdome…and this all just becomes a moot point.
Mr. Scott
I stand corrected. I’m always open to learning new things on a daily basis.
From the City Development Standards:
“…14. Government and business offices; office buildings: One space per 400 square feet of gross floor area.”
This must come as quite a relief to developers who are used to 200 sf requirement in many jurisdictions.
The difference then is 70 spaces discounting all 2 bedroom units proposed. Or, in other words, at the rate of $25,000/parking deck space, a savings of $1.7 million to the developer.
Just curious, and as a measure of reality, has anyone looked to see how many vacant spaces are available at the Ice House Loft (rental units) parking deck between the hours of 8 & 5?