Comments on: Interim C-2/R-60 Transitional Buffer Ordinance Goes Before Commission

By: Hagus

Hagus — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:34:06 +0000

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?

By: G.G.

G.G. — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:36:33 +0000

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.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:37:33 +0000

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?

By: Nancy

Nancy — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:20:20 +0000

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.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:07:50 +0000

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

By: G.G.

G.G. — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:52:43 +0000

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.

By: Decatur Metro

Decatur Metro — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:39:21 +0000

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?

By: David

David — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:54:15 +0000