Interim C-2/R-60 Transitional Buffer Ordinance Goes Before Commission
Decatur Metro | February 17, 2009Also on the docket tonight, the Decatur city commission is set to vote on an interim transitional buffer between residential and commercial properties that would increase the setback from 10 to 30 feet and decrease the height-limiting plane angle from 60 to 45 degrees. It also transfers the authority of giving parking variances from the ZBA to the city commission.
This ordinance (along with one for new mixed use zoning) went before the planning commission a few days back and the minutes from the meeting are particularly interesting – hello concerned resident Kathy Gannon! While the buffer ordinance was approved by the planning commission, the mixed use zoning was tabled to investigate adding a grandfather clause, increasing building heights by 4′ feet to a 54′ max in the village sub-area, and increasing the allowable retail floor area to 8,000 ft to accommodate a grocery store.
Latest from Decaturish
After reading the planning commission minutes, the anti-development zealots will be out in force tonight, folks.
So if you care about smart growth, Decatur, you should go to the city commission meeting tonight.
If you care more about creating places that are walkable with a mix of uses, putting people ahead of places to put your cars, and a vibrant Decatur, you should to to the meeting tonight.
Otherwise, people who don’t care about anything other than their suburban quarter of an acre and their convenient parking spot will be making the most noise, and that is how decisions will get made.
I couldn’t find the minutes on the city website. Can someone offer a link? Also a primer on what’s at stake. Why the change? Who wants it and why?
Apparently there’s a major development project in the works, and it would be helpful to know what that project is and not simply about these abstract code changes. Who wants to put a grocery store where? Was the specific project (or projects) discussed last night?
“…increasing the allowable retail floor area to 8,000 ft to accommodate a grocery store.” An 8,000 square foot grocery store – that’s funny. OK, who is the zoning code writer who is gunning for a show biz writting gig?
Why is zoning code technical non-English goobly-gook? eg. “interim transitional buffer, height-limiting plane angle, C-2/R-60″ WTF? It takes a regular person hours of homework to figure out what this stuff means.
Judd, the planning minutes are a part of the additional materials from last night’s commission meeting. Flip through the 45 or so pages and you’ll find it.
Which change are you referring to? The change to the transitional buffer ordinance is a result of projects like 315 W. Ponce and Hillyer Road, of C-2 next to R-60. It essentially increases the distance between residential and commercial and decreases the slope that the commercial property can rise from its 3 story max at the edge of the property (adjacent to residential) to the interior of the site from 60 degrees to 45 degrees.
As for the “mixed use” zoning, we’ve been told that this new form of zoning, is designed to be used only on huge properties that the city wishes to redevelop such as the Avondale parking lot on E College, DeVry or Suburban Plaza. Obviously DeVry and Suburban are not pressing, since they aren’t currently within the city limits, and as for the Avondale LCI, I believe I heard that MARTA all but killed that for the time being. Something about wanting more high-end apartments or something. But the LCI itself has been complete for quite a while and can be found here.
The grocery store thing sounds like a pipe dream to me, and expanding the square footage to 8,000 just on the off-chance that a grocery store might come in, sounds like a recipe for other big-boxes. But I’m not all that clear on it either. Maybe the city or Scott could weigh in…
8000 square feet isn’t exactly Big Box.
Yeah sorry, “big box” was probably not the correct way of putting it. My concern would be that we would up the sq footage for a grocery store, and end up with a bunch of other 8,000 stores that collectively were too big for functional and well-planned “mixed-use”.
The minutes don’t suggest an increase to 8,000 to accommodate a grocery; they say the ordinance’s current proposed *cap of 8,000* is too small to accommodate one and that the issue needs to be addressed.
Going with a number larger than 8,000 isn’t the only way to do so. They could keep the 8K cap and add grocery stores up to some particular size as a recommended allowable use with variance. That would address DM’s concerns about by-right overscaled retail killing the walkable, mixed use intent.
Nancy, you need to look around at these meetings more. The people who’ve been attending the 315/Hillyer meetings come from close-in Decatur neighborhoods, most with lots that are 50′ X 200′, a not quarter-acre. They like their close-in, walkable neighborhoods–that’s what they’re trying to protect.
I’m worried about what has happened to the city’s process for making these decisions about our future. Public meetings were held in October to get citizen input on 315, and the facilitator put out a report, but that input was ignored by the City Commission.
The Planning Commission suggested several changes to the latest proposed ordinances, but from what I hear, the Planning Commission’s recommendations were not even presented to the CC last night, much less considered. The consultant was hired–again–to do what it had been hired to do a year ago. Are folks really happy with the way this stuff is being handled?
No
G.G. please be more specific…what did the city commission ignore in Otis White’s recommendations? What changes did the planning commission suggest and to which ordinance? And who is the consultant you’re talking about in the second to last sentence?
Urban Collage is the consultant. In areas where C-2 is next to R-60 or R-85, the Planning Commission recommended that the building height be limited to 60 feet, but the CC stayed with the staff recommendation of 80 feet. The Artisan is 80 feet tall, but not next to R-60.
When R-60 or 85 is across the street, the PC recommended setback of 30 feet to be measured from the curb of the commercial property. The CC went with half of the street right of way measured from the center of the street, a significant difference.
The CC also did not go with the PC’s recommendation of no commercial curb cuts on streets facing R-60 and R-85, and they did not approve making retail face away from residential areas.
The Planning C seemed to think R-60 and R-85 needed more transition from C-2. The City C voted to allow C-2 to have the highest buildings in the city with greatest residential density to sit next to one-story cottages. There are good places in Decatur for tall, dense buildings, but next to R-60/85 is not one of them.
Of course, the CC doesn’t have to follow what the Planning Commission recommends. What worries me are the reports that the CC on Tuesday didn’t even discuss the PC recommendations.
I understand that the City needs to grow AND that existing residents need and deserve thoughtful planning by the City so that all needs – those of homeowners, developers and business owners – can be balanced.
The Hillyer project turned into a train wreck because the City did not foresee or properly plan for the impending conflict of interest between a commercial property owners and residents. After that embarassing disaster, the City should have been pro-active in trying to avoid another similar drama by putting measures in place which would mitigate most negative effects of dense commercial development on adjacent properties. The City chose not to act. Only now, after the fact, is the City reacting to another mess.
Progressive communities
Nancy, you need to look around at these meetings more. The people who’ve been attending the 315/Hillyer meetings come from close-in Decatur neighborhoods, most with lots that are 50′ X 200′, a not quarter-acre.
I’m sorry, GG, but a 50X200 lot is about a 1/4th of an acre (43,500 sq ft in an acre – 50×200 is 10,000 square feet) and most of the lots over behind 315 are somewhat larger than that. The fact is that most of the north side of Decatur is fairly typical 1920’s and 1940’s-1950’s post war suburban development.
Help me understand what exact lot size has to do with anything.
GG, do you think the Planning Commission serves any real purpose in the city? It sounds as though their lips are moving and the City Commission can’t hear a word they’re saying. Why?
Don, I agree with both your posts–that the City Commission ignored for many years the problems that came up with Hillyer and then 315, and that the CC also seemed to ignore the function of the Planning Commission at this last CC meeting. Why? I don’t know. Perhaps the commissioners would claim “message fatigue.” I’m told by several folks who were at the meeting that one commissioner said he “didn’t feel like tackling” some of the issues presented. ????
I don’t think lot size has anything to do with the real questions here that affect all of us, in condos, apartments or houses. It’s just interesting to see the digs that some “smart growth” folks have made toward other citizens who’ve spoken out.
Nancy,
Is it “smart growth” to rebuild the twin towers 10′ from a single family residence in the City of Decatur? If you think no then how high is too high? I don’t understand your point of view?