315 Goes Before City Commission Tonight
Decatur Metro | December 15, 2008After over a year of debate and controversy, the 315 W. Ponce development goes before the city commission for final approval tonight at 7:30p, after being OKed by the Planning Commission last Thursday.
In recent weeks, the developer has made considerable concessions to the neighborhood, reducing the number of total units in the complex by eliminating the proposed building along West Ponce. And though its hard to gauge an overall neighborhood reaction, it sounds like a majority of those at the forefront are relatively satisfied with the current plan. From Livable Growth…
While the project seems headed in the right direction, there are still alternations that can and should be made (implementing traffic calming, creating a site plan for the whole property, anticipating future parking needs).
Personally, I’ve learned a great deal about the complexities of Decatur development from this project. Looking back, I’ve written around 40-50 posts regarding 315 in one form or another since November 2007. Its been an interesting debate and one I hope we can all learn from. With all the inherent issues built up around “C-2 zoning next to R-60″, now is the time to be preemptive with the remaining examples of C-2/R-60 left within the city limits.
Where are they? I guess that’s the subject of another post.
Latest from Decaturish
Hillyer Ct. was a C2-R60, which is where the issue of overlay zoning was first broached and everyone agreed to address it. 315 is the second one to hit, and I believe there are a couple of them over in Oakhurst near the telco facility and somewhere else. I sure hope that we can get some solid overlay zoning in place so that no one else has to go thru this extensive a rigamarole again…
I believe everything in Oakhurst (the village and West College) are governed by C1, neighborhood commercial zoning, which caps heights at 35′.
I think Scott is correct.
There are 35 conditions that go along with the 315 approval. You can find them on pages 23-25 of the “materials” for tonight’s meeting.
I don’t think Hillyer is as big of a problem now that the approved development is dead, right? The historic district guidelines would make it a lot harder to get anything over two-stories approved by the HPC. From the zoning map…it looks like the only other potential issue (sorry Baron) would be the other retail locations along West Ponce…specifically the surprisingly large Taqueria lot.
You could do overlay zoning…or you could simply support a downtown historic district.
I still think a boutique hotel would be a better fit…
Is this proposal better than the previous?
Newbie — If you’re talking about what the neighbors want then probably yes — though it’s debatable depending on what you value. If you’re talking about the goals of the city, then that’s a big no. It’s worse.
The DDA, whose job it is to implement our Strategic Plan, was pretty explicit in their support when they said, “Whereas the Downtown Development Authority strongly regrets the loss of retail on W. Ponce de Leon Avenue and the construction of excess parking as required by current zoning standards…”
For the folks city wide, not just those next door, who participated in the drafting of our Strategic Plan, knowing that we started out with something that met the vision and have now reduced it to something partially regrettable, that’s a bitter pill.
yeah, that’s what I was implying, kinda rhetorical…is the neighborhood happy (not all thats for sure). Personally I think its a loss for what could have been for the fabric of the city…
If it were up to me, and I HAD to choose between the Ponce facing and Montgomery facing developments, I would pic Ponce all day long. That could have been an interesting mixed use facade to Ponce. Personally, though, I’d rather have both.
oh well, sounds like in the end it was all about parking…all hail the car!
So here’s a question. Could the Ponce side be developed in the future once the neighborhood realized that they have a half empty parking deck in their backyard?
Yes Newbie. They’re talking about it in the meeting right now. The commission included a condition that made sure that if that front parcel was ever developed, the property owner would have to come back before the commission for approval.
Since a lot of the newer mixed use space in Decatur is empty I can’t imagine why anyone would want more.
The issue of the “plan” needs to be addressed soon. It may have served us well in the past may need to be amended going forward. Like right now!
The DDA would turn Decatur into a mall with very little ternative if they had their way. You can see that by the deals that have already been done.
Replace the plan with reality! Change the goals of the city to reflect that reality! Really? Really!
david, I don’t know how long your history is in Decatur, but without the DDA, we would still have the parking lots and second-rate buildings we had 20 years ago.
The overall plan philosophy was formulated 25 years ago and has been largely followed. It was not detailed street-by-street, building-by-building, but represented strategy. Decatur is unique in the metro area and has become a national model as a live-work-play livable community.
The economy goes through good times and bad; we happen to be in a dip right now, but the empty spaces will be filled over time. I’d rather have smaller retail spaces be empty right now than big boxes be empty, which is what is happening more and more in the mall-centric suburbs.
David, where exactly is this unused mixed use space?
And is this another call for your “no growth” strategic plan?
If the “evil” DDA was tearing down parts of historic downtown and putting up high-rises I would be the first to agree that something was off. In fact, I think we need to do more to protect historic commercial downtown. But I really don’t understand the resistance to filling in empty parking lots and trying to reverse some of the mistakes of the 1960s.
I was curious about that myself. Passing through downtown this morning, I noticed that the new or newish Town Center condos, Renaissance and Artisan each have one unleased retail space, while 335 Ponce is full. Meanwhile, the older but rehabbed building across from 335 has one empty space and the older stock building on the west side of Church between Ponce and Commerce is totally vacant.
Which is all to say that there doesn’t appear to be any anecdotal connection between building age and occupancy.
I’m afraid that after the holidays you’re going to see a lot more empty retail spaces. Dresscodes is closing and who knows who else.
Check the turnover rate in newer mixed use spaces. Also the occupancy rates in the residential parts. If you can find the info.
The DDA isn’t evil. They’re just trying to replace the mistakes of the sixties with the mistakes of the oughts. They seem to think that places like Atlantic Station are a good idea.
Hey these are the same folks who brought you the new Marta station.
Sorry I just had to.
DM
Your characterization of Davids comment, ‘evil DDA’ is pure cynicism.
What you really mean is that DDA is god and that because David says something you disagree with, he is by association, evil.
The problem is, many of these zoning issues were longstanding and everyone ignored them, until it came knocking on their backdoors (SEE Hillyer for an example) The city has a longstanding plan, and it behooves everyone to take a look at it. DDA is NOT evil at all. The incredible growth of this city has alot to do with their foresight. Wish we could have all seen the bad economic conditions and braced ourselves a little better, but that’s not really the DDA’s job. Merchants fail all the time.
P.S. Hindsight on the MARTA station, and ditto on the dreadful “directional” signs. But no one is perfect.
DDA has done a great job with the development of this city over the last 15 years. No question about that . Still I find it find it odd that DDA regrets that a project needed to be revamped to fit into current zoning standards.
As Steve says, the Strategic Planning initiative began more 20 years ago.
Why didn’t DDA, the City Commission and all the others who participated in the drafting of the Strategic Plan work to update the zoning standard to reflect the Strategic Plan ?
If they had, the neighborhood group would have had far less leverage to derail the original 315 Ponce proposal. Scott, that is the really bitter pill.
I couldn’t agree more, Fifi. Our zoning regs are the DNA of what our town will grow to look like. Without a doubt, the Strategic Plan has certain goals and objectives that are not effectively supported from a regulatory perspective (and, in some cases, are flat out in opposition to them).
To their credit, the Selig CVS strip experience was such a debacle, the city did make some significant changes to the code at the time. I can tell you from personal experience working with cities around the country on zoning-related issues that we’re well ahead of most in terms of recognizing and addressing the “form follows zoning” problem. But I agree that we haven’t traveled far enough.
Developers follow the path of least resistance. Make it easier for them to build what you want (by empowering it through code) than to build what you don’t want and they’ll do so. There were no winners in this particular instance.
for the sake of argument, if this project was presented, as it is now, in the first place, would it have been fought so hard for/against by everyone? I’m not sure, on its own, its really going against the vision of the stratigic plan with its current site layout (pretending that the Ponce side was never available).
Dont get me wront, I’m not thrilled about the end result of this, just wondering…
That’s right, newbie. As the DDA noted in their recommendation, the current proposal does support the vision. What went against the vision are the concessions that were made. Meaning, if measuring against the Strategic Plan, the project is not as supportive as it could have been.
It may reach it’s full potential at some point in the future, though, so baby steps may be just fine.
I know you guys are upset about loosing the front building, regardless of how it would relate to the massive office building towering behind it, but “nobody wins”? Really?
After a whole year of animosity, the two groups actually came to a compromise. Both were flexible! The neighborhood got the number of units reduced by a substantial amount and got guarantees of “real brick and stucco”…is that a loss? You may believe that Decatur needs greater density to support a downtown core, but is the edge of a residential area really the place to do it?
I’m cool with putting retail in an ugly parking deck, but in front of a 1960s office tower? We’re always talking about relation of the building of the street. What about the relation of buildings with each other on the lot?
DM, you’re either missing my point or projecting a different point on me. I never said I had any problem with scaling back the density in that location. I’ve also said ad nauseam that the two sides had to work together.
They did, and they found a compromise all could live with. I’m happy for them. But a compromise, while effective, is not the same as a win.
You’re talking about your personal aesthetics, and that’s fine, but that’s not what I’m talking about. When I talk about a “win,” I’m talking about the opposite of concessions. I’m talking about increased value for everyone. For the developer in the form of greater returns; for the neighborhood in the form of complementary design (which is not the same as materials) and increased walkable conveniences (with the requisite controls in place on parking and traffic); and for the greater community in the form of a more viable commercial Main Street by removing the gaps in our retail streetscape.
I never said this was a loss. I echoed what the DDA said: That some of the concessions were unfortunate as they relate to the city’s goals. Is that unreasonable?
Decatur decided to become just another suburb today. Unfortunate.
Gus- Please explain…
Yeah, I didn’t think there was an issue with a less dense plan, but I was just making sure. Its been a long day.
And I guess my only argument is “what about the office building?” If complementary design is important in relation to the neighborhood, why isn’t it important in relation to the current building?
But I guess the current building isn’t in line with the Strategic Plan, so its essentially SOL.
Yeah, Gus, please explain. Name a suburb that has a vibrant, identifiable downtown area. Name a suburb that has responsive, community based police and fire service. Name a suburb that has a elected officials that solicit input for over a year, finishing up at 11:30 at night, on a subject. Name a suburb that has a small, award-winning school system with a high level of community and parental involvement. I could go on, but you get the point. Don’t name other cities, now, (i.e. Marietta, Lawrenceville), only suburbs.
Understood, DM, but not as it relates to being SOL. It’s just not an either/or proposition. My position — having worked with a large pool of architects and designers all around the country and having watched them do enormously creative things in stitching together disparate components into a cohesive whole — is that it’s simply a design challenge.
A really interesting, complementary building could be built on the Ponce side of the tower and work really well. Or a really bad building could be put there that looks ridiculous. That will come down to how hard we as a community push the design issue and how well the developer understands the marketing value of cohesion. But, either way, we’ll eliminate the gaps in our streetscape which, whatever your aesthetic preferences, is proven to improve walkabililty and, with it, retail viability.
Like all things, it will come down to the execution. But that shouldn’t stop us from focusing on desired results.
Gaps in the street scape? Dear lord! How about some light getting to the street.
What insane town planning requires no gaps in the street scape.
The plan needs to go! We don’t need a wall of condos to make a town center.
How do you prove you that you improve walkability? A survey? People won’t walk past a place without a building to comfort them?
Please stop this nonsense now.
David, Streets in generall, especially in a city/town situation should help make a community…that is something parking lots do not do. They should make it easy for people to interact, the best ones will make it easy to meet and greet other people. It should be a desirable place to be. This is, typically, not a parking lot situation.
A street should be safe. The activity surrounding a 330 Ponce type environment helps create this safety through numbers and “eyes on the stree”. The patrons spilling into the street as they do at Tastings in the summer. Alone in a dark parking lot does not, nor does crossing the dead zone in front of 315.
A nice street should allow one to participate either through enteraction or just people watching. Benches downtown allow this. Parking lots dont accomplish this.
A street should also be remembered. Parking lots are rarely remembered as something special.
Do we want parking lots and unmemorable streets to represent Decatur?
This isnt rocket science, its town planning 101.
Jeez, David, if “town planning” is too Ivory Tower for you, then forget about all that and just look at Decatur during its previous heyday. You’ll notice that the most desirable retail was all concentrated and continuous because it’s better for retailers to get critical mass and it’s better for shoppers on foot. Then look at what happened to our street life when a lot of those storefront buildings were demolished for parking.
All this is about is restoring something that worked, and has worked for centuries in virtually every city and town ever. What could possibly be more basic than that?
The 315 frontage on Ponce isn’t a parking lot. It’s an integral part of the building as designed. The parking lot is in the back.
Go to New York. Look at the Seagrams building. You’ll see exactly the same sort transition from sidewalk to tower.
There doesn’t have to be this wall of 3 to 4 story buildings pressed right up to the sidewalk to make a townscape. In fact there should be some relief from the wall effect every so often. The only reason for that is to maximize profits.
The original buildings in downtown Decatur except right around courthouse square were similar to Virginia Highlands. Mostly one or two story.
The canyon effect is a bad idea in my view and I don’t care what Peds thinks about it.
I really don’t want Decatur to look like Midtown. Walls of mixed use won’t be remembered fondly either I’m afraid.
To be clear, I’m not talking about height here. I’m talking about what happens at the sidewalk. Both the Eurasia strip and the Sawicki’s strip are good examples of one story downtown buildings that contribute to continuous retail. Condos and number of stories is a totally different discussion.
If you’re suggesting that Mies van der Rohe’s midcentury modernist vision, no matter how valid it is artistically, is a good model to emulate for a southern town of 20,000 people, have at it. We’ll just have to disagree on that one.
We as a community, as a result of our residents input to the developers, planning commission, and city commmission, chose parking lots over people. We chose a place to put our cars over walkability and the use of transit. We chose to retain a “dead zone” on our main street, instead of continuing street life to connect West Ponce and East Ponce. We chose to rest on our laurels, disregard our city’s downtown plan that has worked well for us for the past 20 years, to satisfy NIMBY’s who want to maintain their suburban lifestyle over the greater good of the city.
We will look back on this day in 5 years as the day Decatur decided to change and become just like every other suburb, not the neat, progressive little place that it is now. We’ve turned our back on who we are. We are still a great place now, but mark my words, the decisions we are making today will change us … and not for the better.
Name one developer that’s going to build a single story building anywhere in Decatur. Now you see the problem. Ain’t going to happen. So what we’ll get are these four story light blockers. So when you talk about the street you’re also talking about height too as regards any new construction.
The Seagrams building allusion was to address the dark scary parking lot issue from newbie. But there are plenty of ways to address town design that don’t include the wall o’ retail concept. They’re just more expensive. And they don’t seem to fit into the all powerful plan.
The last thing 315 needs in front of it is a wall o’ retail.
Oh and btw what does constitute real stucco. I grew up in Florida in a real stucco house and have never seen that kind of construction here in the last 30 years.
I don’t think grout over Tyvek counts.
Bring on the Decatur Historic District.
Scott, I guess my issue was really with that initial design along W. Ponce. It did very little to “work with” the office building behind it. A better design was certainly possible…though that still doesn’t totally appease the preservationist in me.
And while everyone was putting pressure on the rear building, I felt like no one had any sort of concerns about the Ponce building. The urbanists were just happy it was there and the neighborhood only cared about it in terms of the amount of cars it would produce.
If it comes up again, at least then the community will be able to argue that building on its own merits, instead of having to take part in two very different building battles simultaneously.
Gus, doomsday scenario eh? I can’t really agree with you on that one, because you won’t find that sort of NIMBY support in many other places around town simply because there are so few C-2 next to R60 remaining. IF we saw a huge cry against the Trinity Triangle project (which sits amidst commercial) you might be onto something. And while there was a small group of 315ers that gave hints of trying to delay Trinity too…its support paled in comparison to 315.
David, it did happen. The parking lot infill with Cook’s Warehouse and the bank is one story new construction. I agree that the current value of land downtown makes it an unlikely model in most cases, but don’t suggest it’s impossible.
The CVS and that whole development isnt that old either is it?
Oh, Lord. Here we go again. Anti-development people latching onto the idea of a historic district. I’m all for historic districts, when used appropriately and not just to stop development.
The remaining historic buildings around the Square definately deserve protection as historic. The Old Courthhouse (and the grounds surrounding it?)itself is already protected as historic. Newer properties, but not historic buildings, surrounding these historic buildings should be within a historic district so that if they are ever demolished they would have to conform to the district’s standards.
But do empty parking lots 3-4 blocks away from the historic square deserve historic district protection, or is it just a way to stop development?
Just a way to stop crap development. You know make them build something that might be around as long as the buildings on the square and be as aesthetically pleasing as well.
Sorry if that offends your sense of progress.
I still wonder what constitutes real stucco. In my book if you slap your hand against it and it sounds like a drum it ain’t real stucco.
Was shooting at house recently that cost about 4 million. The whole outside railing was foam with a thin layer of concrete sprayed over it to look like a stone balustrade. Sad.
Real stucco is a cement-like, lime and sand mixture applied by hand — in successive applications — over a masonry base. No styrofoam, no chicken wire mesh, no wallboard.
Historically, the masonry base was local stone but these days it’s often cinder block, which yields similar results in terms of strength, appearance and permanence.
Is that what they have to put on the upper story exteriors at 315? Of so where is this delineated in the commission decision?
Sorry if I’m not doing my research.
I wonder if Baron might know…I’ll shoot him a note and point him to your question David.
No worries. In my opinion, if that’s not what they get, then they’re being taken. The documents detailing the agreement between the developer and the neighborhood say “true stucco.” That ain’t EIFS.
The real stucco vs EIFS debate is predicated on the past, failed use of EIFS at the ground contact level. In the past, the material was often specified below finished grade, thus inviting termites to find a path into the substrate behind the EIFS foam and substrate into the wood framing. It was a disaster and many lawsuits occured because of it.
Today, building codes require that EIFS must be held above the grade level.
The stucco in 315 is several stories above grade and therefore it doesn’t matter whether it is REAL stucco or EIFS.
In my opinion, EIFS would be better because has a higher R value which is actually GREENER than REAL STUCCO.
Real stucco is cheaper to apply and that is why the developer has proposed this material. SURPRISE!
Scott, I could call you out for overextending your intelligence on this subject, but I’m not, because you mean well. And that’s all that matters on this blog, right DM?
It’s not stucco per se it’s what you put it over. Stucco is just an exterior coating.
All I know is if you get water behind EFIS, which almost always happens over time, you’ve got a problem. If you get water on CBS not so much.
CBS has a good R value too. And things like hail don’t punch right through it.
Plus EFIS looks cheap, cheap, cheap.
Who’s talking green, taxus? I don’t need to be called out because all I said is how to make real stucco. That’s not overextending anything.
If real stucco is what the neighbors negotiated, than EIFS doesn’t meet the terms. No matter how big of a fan you are. What’s so complicated about that?
Here’s an interesting article for your perusal
http://ezinearticles.com/?EIFS—How-Synthetic-Stucco-Can-Cause-Huge-Damage-to-Homes-Across-America&id=1664217
I’m new to this discussion. Could someone please summarize the development and it’s pros and cons? Will these be rental apartments? If so, what price level? Thanks.