Zoning Task Force Open House Tonight
Scott | September 5, 2012Decatur’s Zoning (Ordinance Update) Task Force (ZOUTF!) holds an open house tonight at City Hall, 7-9pm, to present its latest working ideas. On the program: encouraging accessory dwellings and managing transitions between downtown commercial and residential neighborhoods.
Residents will have opportunity to review and comment on displays spelling out the specifics, and provide guidance on some key questions.
Here’s a small taste. While the Strategic Plan calls for easier backyard cottage, garage apartment and in-law suite options for homeowners, the task force has looked closely at the particulars — and how such units can be regulated to maximize benefit across the board for owners, neighbors and the community overall. One issue is “bulk.” Currently, accessory structures are limited to 25’ high, but have no limitations to how they’re configured. Some communities address this by limiting the height of the sidewall, which reduces the visual bulk but has no meaningful impact on the useable space inside.
What do you think? Would Decatur benefit from something like this?
Latest from Decaturish
“but has no meaningful impact on the useable space inside”
True. If you’re 4′ tall.
Otherwise your full standing height sq. ft. is cut by 40%.
Note the 16′ limit allows for a 5′ interior wall rather than 4′. With the roof slope, that means a 6′ person could stand upright about 18″ from the wall, so it’s more a consideration in furniture placement than it is in actual living space. But it’s definitely an issue to consider.
I think zoning is appropriate for things that touch other people – water runoff, traffic, density, and so forth. The old “your rights end where my nose begins.” When a jurisdiction dictates aesthetic decisions, however, I think they go too far. I don’t see how this is anything other than aesthetic, and, therefore, not the city’s business.
+1000
So you’re OK with a mobile home next door to you?
Not even close to the same thing.
The proposal being discussed is only on the table b/c some individual or small group of people subjectively decided that the latter looks less “bulky” (and the same people decided bulky looks bad). Although many are very nice, I think colonial style homes look bulky. Does that mean my neighbor shouldn’t be able to build one?
Besides, if you adopt an ordinance pigeon holing garage designs, they are all going to look identical. Since the builders in Oakhurst have apparently limited all of the new construction to no more than 3 floorplans (bungalow style; 4 columns out front with bases larger than the tops; detached garage, etc), people are going to start thinking they got lost and ended up in Suwanee based on the uniformity of the structures.
Actually, there are quite a few great modular designs in modern architecture. They’re less common in the US, but worth looking into.
And, as long as it met public safety concerns and other legitimate state concerns, a mobile home wouldn’t bother me. Really. Our neighbors decorate with beer cans, and that’s fine with me. And I LOVE that pink fence with all the mirrors.
Just for argument’s sake, mobile homes and modular homes aren’t the same thing.
The pink fence with the mirrors is one of the things about the neighborhood that charmed me into moving here.
The real Nelliebelle used to bark at that every time she walked by. Back before she was too old to walk
I agree that the City should not be regulating aesthetic choices, but I disagree that visual bulk falls into that category. The bulk and mass of a building, along with how it’s sited on the lot, determine whether or not it is in scale with its surroundings. You can build a bungalow that is identical to its neighbors in size and design, but if it sits up much higher, or if it’s a different distance from the street, then it interrupts the flow of the streetscape. But you can build something in a totally different style and if it’s consistent in terms of mass and siting, then it doesn’t detract in the same way. An accessory building that is very bulky can create a feeling of being loomed over which a neighbor might understandably find objectionable. But if the same space is designed in a way that is not so massive visually, I would think that would be preferable.
I find some things my neighbors do to be “objectionable”. But, that doesn’t mean I get to control what they do on their property.
Further, please show me something objective that supports the claim that one plan is bulkier than the other or that bulky is bad. These are personal preferences, and this is no different that telling your neighbor what color to paint their house.
One more point: what is more looming? My neighbor on one side who tore down his old one story ranch and built a three story McMansion or my other neighbor who added an “accessory building” a/k/a garage in the back corner of his property, but left his old house intact?
At the end of the day, all zoning is subjective. It just comes to where we draw the line. I prefer less restrictions, which is one of the reasons I will never live in a community with an HOA.
“Bulky” can be quantified. Whether you like it or not is totally subjective. But how it affects air and light is objective. IMO, multi-story houses are not categorically evil (regardless of the questionable trim choices). But I think on small lots, e.g., like most of the residential lots in Oakhurst, there should be sliding height limits tied to horizontal clearance. (And I think there are, now.) That is, you should not be able to get setback variance AND build very tall — that is what makes houses loom over their neighbors.
Obviously, thinking people can agree about the meaning of “aesthetic,” but, looking at your post, I see terms like “in scale,” “flow of the streetscape,” and “massive visually.” If not aesthetic judgements, then what are these things? It all gets down to feel, mood, and impression…these are indeed aesthetic, and highly subjective. Now, you might be right, and a city might have business regulating these things. From my perspective, though, it’s a slippery slope, and one I hope the city doesn’t go further down.
I was thinking of “aesthetic” as referring to things like color and architectural style, but I understand what you’re saying. I don’t mean to get bogged down in a definition of “aesthetic.” My main point is that IMO someone should be allowed to build whatever they want to as long as it is in harmony with it’s surroundings in a spatial sense. It can be made of glass or poured concrete or unpeeled logs, with any kind of roof the owner chooses, in whatever colors, etc. But it needs to be a consistent distance from the sidewalk with what’s around it; have the main entry threshold at a height consistent with neighbors on either side; be either tall or broad but not both, unless your lot is big enough that you won’t be jam up against the line and looming over neighbors (that is, can’t be too close to next house if you’re also going to loom 1-2 stories higher).
You’re right. Height requirements do address blocked light and air flow, and these are non-aesthetic issues.
In this particular case, though, it looks more like aesthetics; the buildings are just as high. They’re addressing “visual bulk,” with, in my mind, the operative word being “visual.”
But these are tricky lines to draw, and I see your point.
Regulating the flow of air and light on adjacent properties was one of the original purposes of zoning. Reducing the allowable maximum height of that wall will make an appreciable difference to the neighbors. This is not purely about design.
Does anyone know what the monstrosity across from the high school is–and how that fits into no infill?
http://www.lightroom.tv/projects/architecture_residential/lightroom2/lightroom2.html
Please don’t threadjack. That’s what FFAF is for!
Oh, O. Where have you been?
It’s a multi-story outhouse.
Enabler.
You are one to talk
Guilty as charged.
I am currently have a detached garage with a bonus room on the 2nd level. My own looks closer to option 1 in this example but I have also done others that look like option 2 as well. Both really do not look that much different once they are built and in place they carry about the same mass or bulk as noted in this example. As others reference it is more of an aesthetic decision and should not be regulated by the city (in my opinion). Decatur has a huge amount of control already over private property rights. Just wait until one of you wants to build one of these and your detention pond and engineering cost more than the actual construction. You think I am kidding but I know several home owners dealing with that right now. I say that the overall idea of allowing the detached dwellings is great. I also say that this is a good topic for the community to discuss but be careful who has the power to make the final decisions. Far too many private property rights have been taken these days. Understanding the overall impacts of this is important. Just because the zoning department will allow this you may have far greater limitations that currently exist with the storm water ordinances to allow it to actually happen.
Agree. The storm water ordinances need to be revisited too, IMO.
The city knows it needs to revisit & update its stormwater ordinance. The Environmental Sustainability Board has been working on recommendations over the past 1+ year based on feedback from homeowners & developers, and will likely present the recommendations to the city in the next 6-8 months.
Among other things, the recommendations cover updating stormwater calculations to account for different materials’ permeability (right now things like gravel fall into an “impermeable” category for the purposes of calculations), and allowing for greater flexibility in managing stormwater. The ordinance right now drives builders to put retention on individual lots to meet the requirements, which is ultimately not sustainable (in either the environmental or economic sense of the word). We have been exploring things like green infrastructure (rain gardens, etc.) and regional detention, and hope that they can be accommodated in an updated ordinance.
That is great. I agree with what you’ve written KC and think there needs to be some flexibility in the law, especially since the costs of detention are so high.
Do these detention ponds pose mosquito risks? I honestly have no idea.
I don’t want Atlanta being the next Dallas. Over a couple dozen deaths, I believe.
They’re covered, either with a deck or completely underground. They generally don’t have mosquitoes because they’re dry except for a period of time after it rains.
Not entirely true. The cost to bury a detention pond is 2-4X the cost of having one exposed (around $25k), and there is no qualification that an exposed detention pond be covered. It just has to be there. That does not even take into consideration the extra homeowner’s insurance required to cover potential personal injury due to said required detention pond. I could go on and on….but I have better things to do than bang my head against a wall.
The ability to have accesory units on property helps with several goals of the strategic plan, including affordability (the accessory unit can be rented to someone who could not otherwise afford a larger rental, and the property owner gets rental income, helping them afford their expensive Decatur property and taxes), plus diversity & aging in place (accesory unit used as caretaker apt. for elderly or disabled). I think these two goals are of such import that they should be the guiding factor in the decision making, not design. I think we should be making accesory buildings easier rather than harder to do.
re design, I would think sight lines from within the structure would be of more importance to the neighboring owner than a sloped vs square roof. I’m looking forward to checking out the alternatives presented tonight, and giving feedback. I hope others join in as well.
I also wonder how many current city lots, with current home structures, would even qualify to build an accessory unit– under today’s rules and under the various proposals. With the 40% limit on building, I’m thinking not many. Again, I want these to be easier to build, not more difficult.
As a matter of fairness and open government, I don’t think public officials or members of public boards should be commenting anonymously on matters upon which they decide. For example, I have reason to believe that a member of the city planning board and/or zoning task force frequently comments on Decatur Metro without disclosing his/her identity and role in the process. I don’t think that’s fair. I’m not against this individual commenting in this forum, because this individual seems to be well informed. But I don’t think this individual, or any other individual who serves in an elected office or public policy making position, should cloak her/his identity in this process.
I disagree. It’s a local blog operated by a city resident who is not (I believe) on the task force, not an official government site. If they want to remain anonymous, I’m fine with that. I’m interested in hearing all sides of the argmument, and if they are more comfortable writing under a pseudonym, that’s also fine with me.
Yes, it is a private local blog, but it has also become a major source of community information, just like a local newspaper. I don’t think it’s fair for public officials to influence public opinion without identifying themselves. Would you want Dr. Edwards commenting about school issues without identifying herself?
Also, what if this board member stands to make money from decisions he/she makes or advocates? That makes a difference to me.
Yes, if Dr. Edwards commented anonymously, I’m OK with that, too. And if a board member stands to make money, they should have been better vetted when the task force was set up. It’s not this blog’s purpose to determine that. The fact it’s a “major source of community information” is irrelevant. It’s still just a private local blog.
Silence Dogood agrees with you.
What does “fair” have to do with it?
I do have to agree with Diane on this though I rarely agree with her on this topic. If ANY public official is commenting and influencing public opinion on the topic, it does seem ethically fishy if s/he does not disclose identity. If Phyllis Edwards or Kyle Williams are commenting on the best lawncare service or J_T’s latest escapade in the holding cell, then who cares what names they use? But if the same people are commenting on issues directly related to their posts, then I don’t see how it can be ethical.
If someone commenting in a forum like this is able to muster sufficient eloquence, erudition, wit and/or charm to make a convincing argument about something, why does it matter who they are? So long as they are not in a position to benefit in some material way from a particular disposition of a public issue, so what? (And as somebody already pointed out, if they are in such a position, then that’s a whole different issue.) I truly don’t understand why this is perceived as a problem.
So you would really think it would be okay, for example, Phyllis Edwards, to post really positive things on here about her policies and how great she is without disclosing she was Phyllis Edwards? Sorry, but I feel like that sort of thing is unethical behavior in a public servant – or anyone really. It does not matter if they materially benefit. They benefit by having the ability to anonymously lobby and and influence opinion as a neutral party. People jumped all over the Chick fil a PR person for “anonymously’ defending in social media. Surely we can hold public servants to the same level of accountability.
Yes, I do think that would be OK. There is no requirement for anyone participating in discussions here to be “neutral.” Public servants promote themselves and their own policies and positions all the time. They also engage proxies to do it for them, under all kinds of assumed and implied identities. This is not an official proceeding, it’s just people yakking around the stove at the virtual general store. If I read something here that persuades me to favor a particular policy or position, what difference does it make who made the argument? BTW, I don’t consider that CFA’s attempt to use FB to defend itself was an ethical breach. It was just clumsy and inept.
IMO it would constitute an ethical violation if someone sitting on one of the commissions somehow used DM to pressure their fellow commissioners to vote in a way that would materially benefit himself or herself. But that would be an extremely roundabout way of pursuing their goal, and I can’t figure out how it would work. Decatur politics doesn’t work that way — there are more brains and more backbones engaged than that.
I honestly can’t get my head around that. Of course public officials advocate for their positions, but they do it with transparency. Our systems of governance at all levels are predicated at least in theory on transparency and public participation. If an elected or appointed official is hiding behind an anonymous screen name to rally support around an issue that s/he is invested in as a public official and to push an agenda in which s/he is part of the power structure, then that violates our trust in that official and our assumed right to transparency in the process. It’s flat out unethical. It does not matter if it is Decatur or DC.
If you agree to take on a public role, then you must also agree to give up certain levels of anonymity and conduct yourself in a manner that is above reproach. Dawgfan’s post is actually right on.
And by the way, this is not a “private blog” or a general store where people are taking face to face and know each other. As long as you play nice, anyone can post here. It delivers news and issues to the public at large. It’s basically a micro-newspaper and is treated as such by the public. An anonymous public official posting on here about issues without disclosing his role in a decision-making process is engaging in unethical behavior.
” It’s basically a micro-newspaper and is treated as such by the public. ” — No, it’s not, and anybody who treats it as such does so at their own risk. anybody can say anything they want here, as long as they aren’t rude or malicious. There is no fact-checking, there is no investigative reporting, there is no formal separation between fact and opinion. DM basically aggregates stuff he picks up from a variety of sources and the rest of us add to it.
“There is no fact-checking, there is no investigative reporting, there is no formal separation between fact and opinion”
Same can be said for AJC.
Again I disagree. First of all, much of what you get in a newspaper is collected from other sources and is an aggregate or collection from various sources, not original reporting. I have done press for a nonprofit for 11 years and I can’t tell you how many times I have seen a reporter’s byline slapped on what is basically my press release, word for word. The AP and other newswires provide another chunk of content. Small town newspapers are often nothing but aggregate content. And anything you read, you believe at your own risk.
I have no idea whether it is legally permitted for elected officials to post anonymously on blogs. Outside of the legal issues, it seems murky. How do you define the obligation of elected officials to reveal themselves on blogs? When are they allowed to post anonymously and when must they reveal their name? What about their spouses and relatives? Close friends? I know for a fact that spouses of certain local elected officials and leaders post here anonymously about issues related to official business. It seems a bit odd sometimes, maybe even a little deceptive………..or maybe not deceptive enough since if we can tell who they are. But doesn’t everyone deserve the opportunity for anonymity on a blog? Anonymity isn’t just about accountability for one’s statements but also about staying protected from all the world wide web nuts out there.
I agree with both you and DTR that public officials deserve anonymity on a blog, but only up the point where they are commenting on the area in which they work. If a member of the zoning board wants to anonymously criticize Pinewood’s name and/or logo or bitch about the menu of the 19th mexican restaurant opening in the CoD, have at it. But, if they are using thier superior knowledge and non-public information to influence the conversation and/or public opinion, they are crossing an ethical line. Public officials owe a duty to the public. They don’t have to identify themselves specifically, but they should inform us of where they work, or on what task force they sit. The best course of action would probably be to not comment on their respective areas – they can maintain their anonymity and not approach/cross ethical boundaries.
I’m fairly sure I’m gonna regret this, but I can’t seem to stop myself…
(1) What do you mean by “non-public information”? The proceedings of the Decatur city task forces — made up of volunteers, BTW — are all open to the public. What in the world are you talking about?
(2) Shouldn’t “superior knowledge” be one of the things that DOES influence public opinion? Are you saying you’d prefer to have public opinion swayed by ignorance and misinformation?
You aren’t gonna regret it, I promise. Fair questions.
If a public official or member of a task force has information that has not been made public, that information should not be used by those individuals without disclosing how they came about it. Public officials and volunteers on a task force have agendas, some of which are self-serving, and if they are using this information to further their agenda, they should disclose who they are so we can evaluate the context and the source. Further, without any way to proper vet the info or the source, these individuals could only use the half of the information that supports their argument. Yes, it may become public at a later date or at the next meeting, but the info shouldn’t be used prior to it becoming public to sway public opinion.
Yes, superior knowledge, in the abstract, should be used to make decisions. But, superior knowledge is a legal term of art, and often implies that an indiviudal is using superior knowledge to exert undue influence or manipulate. That, IMHO, is not an acceptable tactic for public officials. The info and the source should be properly vetted, and transparency is a must. The decisions of public officials and recommendations of task forces impact us all.
Let me add that motive or intent is key here. If a member of a task force is just saying “Hey, BTW, this new study says X”, that is more acceptable so long as they are providing the entire picture (although I think there are proper channels for this info to be made public). But, if he/she is using info to further their agenda, that is problematic and highly unethical.
And since that is always going to be a fuzzy line, a public official has an obligation to err on the side of ethical behavior and transparency.
I agree with DawgFan completely here. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Are we talking about an actual instance of someone on a commission or board revealing privileged information in order to steer a discussion here? Or is this a hypothetical discussion about something that could happen? Because frankly, I don’t see how that person would benefit, ultimately. For one thing, their fellow board/commission members who presumably were going to potentially vote another way, wouldn’t be too happy with their having subverted the process in that nefarious manner. Furthermore, for all that it’s entertaining and often informative, I don’t see DM as being all THAT significant when it comes to influencing public opinion in ways that have direct consequences. I also don’t consider DM discussions to offer a representative sample of public opinion. This is a very skewed, self-selected sub-sub-sample of the community; and the proportion of regular readers that actually comment regularly and so comprise whatever is reflected, is smaller still, I suspect.
So, while at an extremely abstract level, I may agree in part with what you’re saying, I can’t get excited about it. This seems to me to really be about Diane’s ongoing discomfort with anonymous posting.
Just an FYI, I learn more about the happenings in Decatur from this site than anywhere else, and I don’t think I am alone in that regard. Noone can (assuming they wanted to) attend every meeting, read every zoning notice or “Opening Soon” sign, etc.. Many people, at least in part, come here to get informed, and, speaking only for myself, that includes hearing both sides of the argument. At times, I try (albeit generally unsucessfully) to persuade people on given subjects.
So, there are a lot of people here who are actively seeking out information about their community and who want to contribute to the conversation. Those are the types of people who are more likely to vote and/or get involved in their community. So, I think you are underrating the signifigance of the conversations on DM or similar sites. Plus, the anonymity (except for public officials) allows people to say what they really think, and that adds a lot to the conversation. Many, if not most, of the posts here are just fun banter. But, some of it is serious (with banter and snark mixed in as an added bonus).
Hold your horses, everybody. I think we either need to get some duct tape around this horse before beating the carcass any more, or else DM needs to just please cue up any of the numerous previous dialogues we’ve had about this.
We’ve had this conversation before? Where the heck was I? Does this mean everybody knows that you REALLY are the smalltown girl livin’ in a lonely world???
Ah, jeez, now you’ve done it, this is gonna be worse than that last go-round with the Bee Gees. I will come down to Twain’s and get Spencer to point you out to me, and I will kick you in the shin.
I just can’t help myself sometimes. Fortunately, Spencer likely only knows me by a different nickname. However, more than a few of the Trackside regulars know all too well who J_T is. Of course, if you venture there and fortuitously ask someone who doesn’t read DM, you may end up assaulting the guy who owns Parker’s instead
The other nickname is “really gassy drunk guy on the corner stool”.
What a stupid, stupid comment. How the hell would that be specific and unique enough to distinguish between people at Trackside?
I am so not going to mail you your present now.
Thanks Diane. I agree with you. My experience with some board and or committee members is that they are pushing an agenda. It’s one thing for them to do this during a government meeting. This is not illegal or unethical. But to promote a cause anonymously on a blog creates an impression that an idea may have more support than it does. I am not opposed to government officials or employees expressing their views but this should not be done anonymously unless the person clearly identifies their position and point of view.
But to tell you the truth, I don’t loose any sleep over who does what on Decatur Metro. I have used DM to promote my views and causes. And I have always suspected that many of the posters are really part of the multiple personalities of Mr. Decatur Metro.
Decatur Metro.
I’m really Mayor Floyd!
(Just kidding, mayor, I’m nowhere near tall and handsome enough!)
I couldn’t tell if you were being serious or funny, but I’d be pretty surprised if DM posted comments using an alias. Now some of the other regulars around here…
I am curious about how people who have such dwellings feel about them…. Is the unit over the garage ever used? Or do guests just cram in the main house anyway? Does it just become another storage room? How has it impacted appraisal.
I dont’ think this is threadjacking because it’s about such dwellings…. ??