Planning Commission Tables Zoning Change Proposal for Candler Park Market Development
Decatur Metro | October 10, 2012 | 9:54 amAt last night’s meeting, the Decatur Planning Commission decided to table the proposed zoning change of a piece of property along West College Ave (from residential to commercial) that would allow for the construction of a local grocery, operated by the owners of the Candler Park Market.
The ruling was tabled because the Commission was concerned that the plan included some parking within 30′ of the street, which is not allowed according to a provision in the zoning code. The city’s regular staff member who supports the Planning Commission, Planning Director Amanda Thompson, was out of town and Asst. City Manager Lyn Menne couldn’t speak to the city’s position on this issue, thus the tabling.
Prior to the decision to table the proposal, property owner Pete Whitlock presented the project and was assisted by his architect, who presented the land plan and the architectural renderings, and the owner/operator of the Candler Park Market.
No residents spoke in support of the project, but the two adjacent neighbors and a resident of Olympic Place spoke in opposition. They cited many concerns including flooding, impact on trees, the rear setback of the proposed market, the degree of alcohol sales and their appropriateness for the neighborhood, and the proposed scale of the development. (Mr. Whitlock followed up on this last point and mentioned that the proposed development constituted less square footage overall than what historically existed on the property.)
For those interested in supporting or opposing this project in the future, the Planning Commission is scheduled to take up this zoning change again next month at the November 13th meeting.
I am trying to think of a commercial establishment in the city of Decatur which has on-site parking, where all of said parking is more than 30′ from the street. I can’t think of one. Am I misunderstanding this or is it truly puzzling?
I’m with you. The property on the next block has parking directly adjacent to the street. Was this grandfathered in prior to this ordinance taking effect?
Hell, most of the commercial buildings are within 30′ of a street. How is it possible to have onsite parking and comply with this requirement?
DM, are you sure this isn’t a typo? Maybe it should be 10′ or something. Right down the street at Ale Yeah, the parking is immediately adjacent to the street (which admittedly is dangerous, especially when you park between 2 minivans and cant see a thing backing out).
I believe that’s what was said. The Ale Yeah! strip was most certainly grandfathered in.
I assume you achieve this requirement by putting parking behind the building. I’ll try to find the provision in the code, but I can’t promise anything.
The parking lot at Sapori, the spaces next to Oakhurst market, the spaces in front of Kavarna, etc. etc. Lots of spaces around town are within 30’…I don’t get it.
As someone from the neighborhood, I didn’t realize there would be opposition present – a lot of us thought it was a done deal. Looks like we may need to rally some support at the next meeting.
How long have all those parking lots been there?
A long time – they’d be grandfathered.
I simply can’t understand – the neighbors would rather have a dilapidated hunk of old commercial strip next to them, which surely hampers surrounding property values, rather than thriving, good looking businesses next to them? Ok fine. But our city leaders must take into account that the redevelopment of this property is good for the entire community. Please don’t let the squeaky wheel de-rail this redevelopment.
NIMBYs
Isn’t there a store dedicated to sell nothing but beer just down the road? How is selling alcohol in Decatur inappropriate for the neighborhood?
especially when the alcohol sales are not for on-site consumption. Are they worried about winos buying expensive organic wine and drinking it in the parking lot? Doesn’t the Citgo that is a half mile away sell Boone’s Farm for $2 a bottle?
Agreed – this is so ridiculous – I wonder if the 2 adjacent neighbors have ever been to the current place. They obviously don’t know the history of the market and how it has done nothing but improve over the years – and how this new place would most definitely be a great addition to that corner especially considering what it looks like now.
I wonder what the church thinks about this.
I was asked to, please, not cut through the church parking lot with my purchases from Ale Yeah!
It’s not as if I was drinking said purchases as I walked, but apparently the presence of the six pack was offensive. Live and learn…
Perhaps all of this online support for the project will translate to a resident actually speaking out in favor of the project at the next meeting, as evidently there was no such support at the recent one. I may be on that list myself after I do a bit more research on the matter. It would be nice not to have to hop in the car to go to Kroger every time I need an item or two.
The site is multiple parcels. It appears the lot in question is 712 college ave and that the remainder is already zoned commercial. 712 is a 46×150 lot next to the house on college.
I am in agreement with most folks about re-development. But let’s remember that these kinds of decisions stay with us a long, long time. Being reasonable and slow now may pay dividends 20 years from now.
I suggest that the people who support this show up at the next Planning Commission meeting AND SPEAK UP so as to not let the opponents be the only people participating in the discussion!
OK, not sure where to put this. Go to the meeting materials HERE…
http://www.decaturga.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3683
Then go to page 3 of the PDF (page 2 of the staff report) and read item #9. The Planning Commission decided that they needed clarification on this point from Ms. Thompson before proceeding as I understood it.
This is just the kind of development that we need in Decatur. When we moved here, we came very close to buying a house in Candler Park (although the price was scary) because of things like the market. Having something like this nearby would be a huge boon to the area. Moreover, part of the argument about parking illustrates I think the problem that we have in approaching many development decisions. In some ways, places like this, properly located, need not create a huge increase in traffic. I’d walk to it.
I’ve considered biking to Ale Yeah, but I haven’t really hit upon the ideal way to tote a growler home.
I will try to attend the meeting the next time this is brought up. I wish something like this would go in at the corner of Candler and College although that location is pretty terrible given the difficulty of *any* parking.
http://www.etsy.com/listing/107352718/bike-beer-growler-holder-cover-carrier
Not sure how to post a link here, but here’s an idea. My friend biked through the Pacific NW with a similar one and refilled the growler everyday.
Awesome. Tell your friend to patent that right now!
Bottom line attend the meeting and show our support…
If they built on the existing portion of the lot that is zoned commercial I do not believe they would need this zoning change. The portion of the lot zoned commercial is 167’x143′. They are trying to add the residential lot that is 46’x150′ so they can build more (712 w. college ave). I am for the idea of the development but am not sure they should rezone that lot. I have not seen the specific plans so its hard to form an opinion without knowing how much SF they intend to build. Are the plans somewhere out on the internet so people can make an informed opinion?
A market with alcohol should be built just a few houses down from a school and a city playground, especially on a big road that is a major commuter thoroughfare.
It is different than Ale Yeah, which sells products that, while it is an addictive drug, the narrow range and cost of those products discourages consumption near the site. I don’t shop there, so I’m not favoring that place at all.
A market, which sells more kinds of alcohol–specifically CHEAPER alcohol–plus food and the narcotic nicotine, lends itself more to consumption near the store.
I’d be in favor of it if there were mandatory Multi-year prison sentences for public drunkenness. That and a police cruiser parked outside 24/7.
I really hope that you are being sarcastic, because if not, your comments are disturbing. Do you have any data to back up your statements? I’m guessing probably not because they sound like uninformed stereotypes. Maybe you should simply suggest that the city ban all people that would purchase “cheaper alcohol” and “narcotic nicotine” that way you’d be a little more open about what your objective seems to be.
Won’t somebody please think of the children?!?!?!?!?
So I won’t be seeing you at the beer festival? Bummer.
I support the market. It’s a lot better use of that piece of land than what is currently (not) happening. Our neighborhood has needed a market ever since the demise of the store where Thinking Man is now (although it smelled so bad by the end it was hard to even go in there).
Not clear from the post if what seems like the most negative impact was raised before the Planning Commission: The proposed parking lot is located 20 ft from the Mead Rd. house. The Dad/homeowner who lives there spoke at the Oct. 1 Commission Meeting and presented the neighbors’ petition. (Mom, toddler, and infant were at the meeting too.) His main worry is the pub coming in and late hours use of the parking lot. Will its hours be similar to those of U Joint and Thinking Man’s Tavern? He pointed out that, unlike those businesses, there’s just a short distance between this pub and where the residential area begins. None of us would want to put up with car doors slamming and loud talking right outside our windows every night. It’s really not fair to expect the immediate neighbors to just suck it up at the prospect of an R60 property being rezoned to C-1, including a parking lot with extended hours. (It’s worth a mention that since pubs aren’t specified under 7.8.2. Permitted principal and accessory uses, had the pub been proposed as the new building in this application, the neighbors could’ve made a good case for a denial.) Sure hope the Planning Folks will ensure that the nearby residents are taken into account– like make it a condition for the business owners to abide by noise ordinance hours for entire property, including parking lot, when setting hours of operation.
So, just curious … why do folks seem to think that there aren’t any residential homes near Thinking Man’s? My neighborhood backs up to Atlanta Ave. and Thinking Man’s; at least 3 houses are within 30 ft. or so of the pub (one of which is my house) and yes, we hear all of the annoying sounds (we owned the home before the pub opened as well). But I still, for one, support the development. To me, close proximity to markets, restaurants and pubs is a perk about living in the city (except for the rats, of course:-)).
It’s convenient to those arguing against this development to ignore the fact that many people all over town put up with things they’d as soon do without, in exchange for the benefits and advantages of living in an URBAN environment.
Exactly. You think I like living near all these dang kids? And worse, their parents, with their constant whining about school start times and vacation dates!
Actually the homes from thinking man tavern are about 60 ft depending on the angle, and you have a street and fence in between. From what I have heard, the neighbors are asking for the 30 ft. requirement between commercial and residential property and sufficient barriers. They are not receiving that 30 ft due to an argument that an alleyway exists and so private property does not dirctly contact commercial, however the alleyway is privatesly owned so that the commercial development own half of the alley and the R-60 owns the other half, so in that sense they do touch and the code is not clear on this matter
Deanne – I’m not sure what was presented, but the lot next to the MEad house is commercially zoned already.
The variance is for the lot between the current building and the house on College, which is currently zoned residential.
I agree that neighbors can/should be concerned about the noise/debauchery, but the Mead house was always next to a commerical site. Caveat Emptor applies here.
I remember the first time I heard the train horn when looking at buying our house in that area. It was LOUD! But ultimately we decided we could live with it.
Agree. And with regard to the lot on College, it has long been obvious that property no longer has value as a residential site, otherwise there would be a new house sitting on it by now. Rezoning it for absorption into the commercial tract might not have been formally proposed before–I can’t remember whether or not that was part of the last attempt to develop the Mead/College corner–but as a concept, it should not come as a shock to anybody, least of all the neighbors on College.
Apparently the R-60 lot was tied in to the commercial property in the sale (all sold as one package according to the developer). I do not know if the R-60 lot would have been sold on it’s own to allow a house to be built there. It is confusing, and I do not know who the seller of all the land is, a bank possibly?
A bank did own it. The land was assembled for future development that never came. That had more to do with who owned then demand in the area.
In the meeting on Tuesday the Mead neighbors indicated that the city zoning officials had been contacted prior to purchasing their home, and when questioned as to the likelihood of a bar being put on the C-1 property, the city zoning official said it would not happen if the immediate neighbors did not want it. It seems there is some confusion in the zoning office. However it does bring up the idea that the C-1 designation may be too generalized. If residential neighborhoods and commercialized zones are to get along, perhaps a new zoning designation should be made for businesses that are going to have later hours (after 10 or 11pm)? That would designate more daytime businesses (which you could have right next to residential areas) from more nighttime businesses (which could be located in the middle of commercialized areas) so residences could be kept family friendly. You can hate the kids, but according to the many realtors I know, it is the Decatur schools that make Decatur such a top destination to live. (No offense in any way to Decatur businesses, I enjoy all you provide) but an excellent school system is very hard to find in any city environment, and good schools drive property values (this occurs across the country). The point is, if our residential areas become too ubanized and not family friendly, what will that do to the school system (and this can actually occur over just a few years), and later down the road to property values? I am thinking long term here.
The pub is a non-issue that this one neighbor doesn’t seem to get. The pub already meets all of the requirements for a commercial district. They can open as soon as they get a license.
The only issue here is whether to rezone the neighboring lot into commercial which is where the grocery would go. So complaints about living next to a pub is a red herring at best.
I don’t get it.
This poster (Deanne) is completely confusing the issues before the planning commission. One thing has nothing to do with the other. The Pub is going in and there is nothing anyone can do about it and that’s not what the commission is considering. The land was (is) zoned correctly and the land owners and pub operators have every right to put a business of this type in this spot.
What is before the planning commission is a proposal to rezone the plot of land on College from residential to commercial. The purpose is to put in a market. Based on what I’ve seen in other places, markets don’t have loud music, people taking, etc. Plus, the market hours will likely be much different then a bar or restaurant.
The neighbors opposing the rezoning for the market, in my opinion, are doing so only out of spite because they can’t fight the pub. Sounds kind of childish to me.
Actually, if you were at the planning meeting on Tuesday you would know that the opponents to the market only spoke about the market. It was the planning commission board that made the point it is all one project, and in a sense this is true since it is all owned by the same developers and there is a shared parking lot for the market, and existing building. The parking lot is what is causing a lot of the controversy as it is the size and location of the parking that is not currently meeting zoning requirements (and it is specifically the parking lot not meeting zoning requirements that caused the project to be postponed). If there was no market, the parking lot would not be the size and location it is currently. Also all of the proposed blueprints by the developers tie the market, existing building with included restaurant, and parking lot together and have been presented by the developers as one project. I believe one of the developers said the blueprints regarding the parking would be altered if the re-zoning does not go through. So Diane is actually correct and she does know what she is talking about.
Something to keep in mind is one of the strategic goals of Decatur is to have small commercial centers including restaurants/pubs put in throughout Decatur in residential areas to act as gathering areas. If the R-60 lot is converted to commercial, it sets a precedence of allowing this to happen all over Decatur. Empty R-60 lots, or old houses can be torn down and restaurants/groceries put up in residential areas. The neighbors on College bought land next to R-60 property, both the value of their houses and the ability to sell their houses decreases if it is next to a business which will have large trucks loading supplies late at night verses being next to a home. The city codes also seem to not be followed (albeit the codes are confusing) and the current proposed plan has more entryways than are allowed into the parking lot, and they are not following the 30 ft. required in the rear of the property nor the 30 ft. before the parking lot from the street. They also do not have 8ft. fences and /or dense vegetation betweeen residential and commercial (only a few sparcely spaced trees which does not qualify as a sufficient barrier for sound between residential and commercial). Also when you include the surface parking lot and proposed structures, there is a lot more building on this area than in the past, bringing up concerns about flooding to an already very flooded area. It makes sense to want this area to be developed responsibly and to give plent of space (at least 30ft. and appropriate barriers) between commercial and residential as this can be done all over Decatur; that is the plan according to the strategic goals. If I imagine this occurring next to my home, I would not be pleased. I think a lot of thought and caution should be given to converting R-60 to commercial. It also should be pointed out that the city tried very hard a few years ago to have the Candler Park market occulpy this exact space but they were not interested (they could have torn down the existing building in poor shape and put in the market, then there would have been plenty of room for the 30ft space and barriers between commercial and residential. The builders could still build a home on the R-60 propety in question and sell it, but they would not make nearly the amount of money as renting a building for a market. Also once the land is converted to C-1, there is nothing stopping the builders from tearing everythilng down and putting in whatever they want if the current businesses don’t do well. The price of all land in Decatur is going up primarily due to the success of the schools. It is good to remember that even though this corner has been empty, no matter what it will not remain that way due to the lack of land in Decatur and the high demand. the owners of the property are making a very significant profit from this. The question is, is it right to jam everything in and tell immediate neighbors which will be significantly affected by this tough for you, we are not going to abide by the 30 ft spaces and barriers all around the commercial area? We do have to remember, if the R-60 property is changed to C-1, it does set a precedent for building in the rest of Decatur, and would you be happy with this occurring next to your? Some people may be fine with it, but many wouldn’t be. It also should be noted that people from all 4 homes b ordering gthe area spoke against it, all of them saying they are happy the existing C-1 land is being developed, but that it needs to be developed in a more responsible way so as to not impact them so significantly due to sound, lack of appropriate barriers, overdevelopment causing flooding, etc. And that they have all spoken with the developers and their concerns are still being ignored. Other neighbors also were present but did not speak. The two neighbors on College also said for years they have been trying to get DOT to fix the flooding (which apparently makes the intersection very dangerous) and it still has not been done. It seems there are several issues to carefully consider other than that having a market in that spot would be nice.
Informative post, Ian, but remember that paragraph breaks are your friend!