Decatur City Commissioners Make MAK HPC and Clairemont Development Decisions
Decatur Metro | November 8, 2011
Decatur’s City Commission meeting last night was a surprising package of the abnormal.
First, many city commissioners showed open frustration over a completed MAK Historic District new construction home, which had multiple elements not approved by the Preservation commission that had “slipped through the cracks” and had been constructed. After being denied by the HPC, because it didn’t follow the agreed upon specs, the home owner appealed to the city commission. Many of the commissioners stated they hoped city staff would “close the holes” in the design review process and make sure that things did not escalate to this level again. Mayor Bill Floyd stated that he believed this was a “staff mistake” and could not penalize the homeowner, forcing him to remove a metal deck from his backyard and take out double-columns on his porch, because of gaps in the system. The commission reversed the HPC’s decision to denying the Certificate of Occupancy.
Secondly, the city commission unanimously voted down the long-debated 1004 Clairemont Road subdivision project, which was originally approved by the Planning Commission in March 2010 with 14 conditions (see page 75 of meeting materials). The development of the old Cliff Valley School property has a storied history among residents in the area, who strongly disproved of an original plan back in the mid-2000s of the construction of a traditional subdivision, complete with cul-de-sac on large lot that was originally compiled by a school that never was able to undertake its planned expansion.
Following the collapse of the real estate market in the late-2000s, the primary financial investor in the property, Howie Turner, took ownership from the developer. As stated at the meeting by his representive, Mr. Turner spent the next couple years trying to work with the community, city and his associates to come up with a solution where the property could be more densely developed than the single-family home that sits alone on the lot currently, proposing everything from student housing (in response to concerns about burdens on the school system) to selling the land to the adjacent Sunrise retirement community. In the end, the settled upon plan was a slightly tweaked version submitted by an area resident who suggested placing seven homes at the rear of the property with a shared courtyard. (see the sketch above) That plan was approved with conditions by the planning commission back in March 2010.
Residents at the meeting speaking out about the project were clearly divided based on residency. Those in favor of the project were mainly residents of Clairemont Road, who wanted the “eye-sore” property cleaned up, while those opposed were residents of the Westchester neighborhood, who were mainly concerned about flooding during heavy rain. (In fact, the property referenced time and again during the meeting was 237 Westchester Drive, which the city recently applied for a FEMA grant to purchase the flood-prone property.)
At first it seemed like the commission might approve the development, as Commissioner Baskett began to discuss conditions that would still need to be met for final approval. However, the discussion then took an abrupt turn, led by Commissioners Cunningham and then by Baskett himself, who said they could not support approval of a project with so many unmet conditions. Commissioner Cunningham also went so far to state that the developer had “showed his hand” by not keeping up the existing property over the years he has owned it. The remaining three commissioners seemed more on the fence in casting their vote, with the Mayor stating quite clearly at one point that he “might vote for this project tonight”. However, in the end, all five commissioners voted in support of a resolution brought up by Baskett and seconded by Cunningham to deny the development.
As the Mayor noted near the close of last night’s conversation, the denial last night would not be a win for Westchester residents, who would continue experience flooding problems with flooding. And it certainly was not a win for Clairemont residents who were hoping for a cleaned up lot.
Looks like it was a no-win/no-win vote.
Latest from Decaturish
We don’t want a cul-de-sac subdivision, give us something else. Oh, you’ve given us something else? Well, we don’t want that either.
Those who cannot articulate what they want, in the context of what can reasonably be delivered, are destined instead to get what they deserve. In this case, the rotting shell of house.
Lose/lose indeed.
NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard
BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything
Which do we have here?
You might say we have a seven home PUD proposed for a single R-60 residential lot with out proper access proposed without any stormwater engineering solutions in an area that has already been subjected to flooding and a history of developers cutting and pasting pre-existing developments into the survey because they fit laying in the middle of a Historic District.
That is a bit of a stretch. How many acres is this “single lot”?
I agree the stormwater must be addressed though. But, the irony is, unless this property is developed, nothing will ever be done about the flooding.
At least one commissioner implied last night that they wanted it to stay as is…only fixed up.
Who?
Also curious to know more about the MAK situation.
I’d rather not say before I go back and confirm that was the intention of the comment. It wasn’t stated bluntly.
The MAK situation was really quite odd. The commissioners were obviously irritated that they had to rule on design decisions, with many of them blaming staff for the misstep, while simultaneously making it crystal clear that they were placing no blame on the HPC.
However, earlier in the presentation, Decatur’s HPC Coordinator Regina Brewer detailed how the usual process for design review goes (they go out and check out the property after it’s been framed out, and then go back after work is complete to verify everything) and how it was followed in this case.
So, when all the commissioners started getting up in arms about “holes in the process” and whatnot, I was honestly a little confused. 150 COAs had been successfully monitored using this method and the first time one doesn’t, we deem there are holes in the process?
The staff seemed resigned to take it on the chin, but Peggy Merriss did make one comment at the end of the meeting, after many commissioners absolved the HPC of blame. However, I’d need to go back and look at the video again to make sure I understood where she was coming from before I summarize it.
Honestly, my impression was that the commission was really annoyed that they were getting dragged into the politically dangerous waters of HPC review and didn’t want to force this guy to tear down his metal deck and blaming the process was the best way to approach it. Personally, I’m just not quite sure that was the only problem. Sure there can be confusion when going thru design review, but why is this the first instance in a long time, if the city followed it’s normal process?
I was there last night as well. I was there with the scouts from Troop 175 who were present as part of their work for their Citizenship in the Community merit badge. I had no idea what was on the agenda and other than witnessing the first part of the meeting (through the MAK appeal) have no part in the process – no dog in the fight as it were one way or another.
This was a surperising and enlightening meeting. I was surprised that the Mayor would not let the Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission speak – so only one side of the argument was presented. Did the homeowner request a variance? Was it rejected? WHY was it rejected? Noneof these questions were asked or seemed to intersest the commissioners.
THEY appointed the HPC, the HPC works on behalf of the CIty, one would think thatt he commissioners would want to know what THEIR carefully selected commission thought of the situation – aparently not.
Based on the one-sided inforamtion presented, I think the finala outcome was correct. I don’t know if I would think that way if both sides had been presented though.
I also found it interesting/amusing/sad (take your pick) that Peggy stated that the only basis that the commisioners had to find for the homeowner was if they first found that the HPC exceeded or abused their (HPC’s) authority. The commisioners soundly rejejected the views of the HPC, overturned their decision regarding the columns and metal deck, then had it entered into the minutes that the HPC did what they were supposed to do.
If they (the HPC) did as they were supposed to do, then the HPC did not exceed or abuse their authority and therefore there was no basis to overturn the HPC’s decision.
If the commisionsers wanted to fix the system they should look to themselves first and follow the rule of law instead of tryiong to gerrymander the situation for their desired outcome on a particular situation.
What they needed to do was:
1) Hear from the HPC Chairman
2) Dertermine if a variance had been rejected, on what grounds it was rejected.
3)If the HPC variance was rejected for a reason that exceeded the authority of the HPC or because of an abuse of their authority then a finding for the homeowner would be a appropriate
4)Explain to the HPC where they exceeded or abused their authority so that this does not have to come up again.
As it stands, the commissioners demonstrated that they don’t really want to come out and take a clear stand. They neither supported nor rebuked the HPC and took the feel good, milk-toast, easy way out – which does not mean that the outcome for the homeowner was incorrect but instead that it was arrived at for completley the wrong reasons.
Chicken Little politics at its finest.
I certainly hope this isn’t the case. The commissioner’s job is to evaluate the proposal objectively, and not vote based on his personal preferences. If hewants it fixed up, he should buy it and do so.
Or how about the city, the county, and the DOT get together and solve the flooding problems in Westchester/Scott Blvd. before anything else is built?
Now that would be a reasonable approach to actually getting somewhere, rather than simply towing the party line of NO all the time. I like it.
I think the engineers have already figured out the solution, but noone likes the answer.
Indeed. The cheapest solution is to buy 247 Westchester. The million dollar solution is to fix the storm water system in that area.
This particular site cannot be developed under R-60 subdivision standards without an approved Planned Unit Development Site Plan. The property does not have a standard R-60 road right of way from Clairemont Road. The PUD plan requests a private drive which creates further non conforming standards on the adjacent properties which are part of a historic district. The development, as it has been submitted multiple times, is the definition of shoe horn infill development.
I thank Mayor Floyd, the City Commissioners and particularly Commissioner Baskett, for reminding developers that the purpose of a planned unit development is to allow creativity and design flexibility which benefits all of the surrounding shareholders as well as the developer. I do not think this site plan met this benchmark and I applaud their vote..
[edited]
What would embody “creativity and design flexibility” to you? What would meet that benchmark? All I hear is you not wanting big, new houses on that property.
Sorry DM. That wasn’t intended to be directed at anyone, but I see why one might interpret it that way.
“All I hear is you not wanting big, new houses on that property.”
How is that all you “hear” from NOLA’s comment. Your comment seems to be the one devoid of content.
My comment was edited and, as a result, my point is much less clear. DM didn’t like where I was heading.
So what was wrong with the residence that was on the property in the first place that makes it incumbent on any part of the City to make allowances? Anything? Other than someone seeing a possible opportunity to ‘create more value’ (for themselves) after Cliff Valley’s plans fell through? Does this ‘eyesore’ currently meet all codes? If not, why is the City not enforcing existing codes to have the property maintained? Just asking. Density and access are legitimate issues. I live nowhere near this, but Clairmont is already difficult in that area, as I suspect anyone living on the south side of the Clairmont/Scott intersection would attest.
I seriously don’t know, but I thought the reason Cliff Valley left was because the neighborhood did not want a school there?
Don’t forget the only reason this site has more acreage than average is they bought the back yard(s) of adjacent property with the express purpose of making a cul-de-sac neighborhood. I know their are many examples of these in Decatur and Dekalb is rife with these developments. Some neighbors want no development, some want something better than a falling down neglected house, some want the flooding issue fixed. I feel for the developer because he is caught in a no-win situation. However, until the flooding is fixed and some kind of a less dense plan is developed, he seems to be stuck. Traffic already stinks right there during rush hour, too. For now, it seems to be unofficial green space.
I ultimately agreed with Cunningham’s comment about the property not being maintained. Just my speculation, but I believe that it has been neglected to leverage community support for the redevelopment.
And another thing, I heard some pretty reasonable objections besides the drainage issues being mentioned here.
aargghhh, not a backyard metal deck and double columns! No, not here!
Run for your lives!
Oh, *sob, sob* the humanity!
As was stated in the meeting, it wasn’t the presence of the deck or the columns that was the issue. It was the fact that they were not part of the approved plan.
To the person who commented on the proposed development and took the opportunity to deliver a pointless paean to single-family-home-ownership while irrelevantly denigrating apartment and condo dwellers: thanks for making this first-time meeting attender feel welcome. (And by the way, this “rootless” resident spends thousands a year in Decatur while also commuting to Atlanta daily).
Any thoughts about the viability of a personal care home at 1004 Clairmont? Eariier in the year I was searching for a small homey medical care facility for my mother. I never found one and have considered opening my own. I happened upon this home and thought it was a perfect location with its proximity to Emory and Dekalb Medical.