Comments on: Planning Commission Tables Zoning Change Proposal for Candler Park Market Development

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:54:31 +0000

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.

By: JoeBlow

JoeBlow — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:05:30 +0000

Informative post, Ian, but remember that paragraph breaks are your friend!

By: JC

JC — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:44:12 +0000

Awesome. Tell your friend to patent that right now!

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 00:16:16 +0000

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.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:12:29 +0000

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.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:52:40 +0000

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.

By: John Gault

John Gault — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:40:54 +0000

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.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:23:01 +0000

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?