Surrounding Neighbors File Appeal Against 315 West Ponce Project
Decatur Metro | April 25, 2013 | 12:14 pmAccording to Patch, residents of 335 West Ponce de Leon Ave and in the surrounding neighborhood have filed separate but identical appeals against the 315 West Ponce de Leon Ave mixed use development project approval process, which was officially announced by Carter yesterday and was approved by the DDA in December. The appeal also questions the changes made to the zoning ordinance by the City Commission in December 2012.
The Notice of Appeal posted on Patch details the following concerns:
-
The Zoning Administrator failed to follow the procedures established in the acceptable ordinance for providing public notice.
-
The Zoning Administrator failed to consistently apply the relevant requirements and standards for the Downtown Multiple Dwelling developments and developments in the Special Pedestrian Area to the development proposal.
-
The Zoning Administrator has not addressed applicable ordinances, which require variance approval by the Zoning Board of Appeal
-
Revised ordinances relating to Downtown Multiple Dwellings and C-2 zoned districts passed by the City Commission, December 3, 2012, conflict with wording and intent with multiple ordinances currently in effect.
-
Noncompliance with zoning code procedures for due process re: the change to Ordinance O-08-Z-11
You can read the detailed arguments behind these concerns over in the full notice of appeal. But here also is the conclusion:
There are numerous errors on the part of the Zoning Administrator in making decisions, determinations and recommendations to the DDA that the project as proposed for 315 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue is “Zoning compliant.” The DDA Resolution, being based on incorrect information should be set aside. A legal determination needs to be made as to the applicability of the revised code, ostensibly adopted on December 3, 2012, and the status of the existing DMD use with conditions for this property. The project could conceivably proceed under Ordinance #O-08-Z-11.
Patch also posted part of a letter that DeKalb County Commissioner (and 335 resident) Kathie Gannon wrote to 335 residents this week, which said in part…
We simply want the City to follow rules that have been vetted in public. We want the residents who are living in or will be living in these downtown multiple dwelling areas to have some protections from intrusions like massive exposed parking decks. We want those who live next to this area to have an understanding of the rules. We also want our elected official to be accountable to the voters either by participating in these approval processes, not turning it over to the developers and the development staff. Ideally, the city [will] undertake the creation of a comprehensive plan for the downtown multiple dwelling area so residents, current and future will know what to expect.”
Did they hire Good Growth’s DeKalb’s lawyers?
+1
Just what I was thinking.
Can someone explain this to me?
“We want the residents who are living in or will be living in these downtown multiple dwelling areas to have some protections from intrusions like massive exposed parking decks.”
How is a parking deck an intrusion, and why do the residents of multistory dwelling adjacent to it need protection from it? I can see how the nearby residents might consider it a visual or aesthetic intrusion, but the residents themselves?
I like the idea of a comprehensive plan. Traffic. Traffic. Traffic. and Parking. But stick to the real arguments about process and zoning (most of their appeal) and not these ill-defined aesthetic arguments. They can be negotiating points for compromise, but not points for legal arguments.
“Decatur: In favor of development unless its IMBY*”
* exception if Trader Joe’s involved
Re: the 335 W. Ponce folks. Is it really fair to call them NIMBYs when they don’t have yards, back or otherwise?
A NIMBY is someone with an exaggerated understanding of what constitutes their actual, own backyard.
What I want to know is, what is a BANANA? (in the context of this conversation)
BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
not a fan of trader joes so I’ll probably appeal that one 😉
Oh thank you. I have been looking for a kindred spirit.
If the suggestion is that the middle of the block is not the appropriate place to put parking in a walkable, urban context — prioritizing buildings and commerce and people on foot over auto storage — then I respectfully disagree.
Parking has defined that property for decades. It’s time to correct that.
This whole appeal is flaky and just doesn’t make any sense. Sorry.
The parking deck is shared for the new residents and the existing office tenants – that is a progressive step, not seen often in Atlanta urban development. As DrB has pointed out elsewhere, there are details that could be addressed on that to help shine a light, but in general, this parking plan seems solid. You have put a current surface/asphalt parking lot to good use, created more downtown residents, not impacted parking for nearby workers or residents, used resources wisely (one parking deck for three uses – office, residential, retail), need I go on? The only issue with this deck seems to be that a DeKalb Commissioner and local journalist might have to look at it out their windows, before they walk to their cars that are parked . . . wait for it. . . in their own parking deck. Sorry, the “greater good” trumps that.
Blah Blah Blah. Sour grapes. They bought a house next to this property knowing damn well this could happen; they are just upset that it is now happening. I don’t blame them for being upset, but I do blame them for this nonsense.
I didn’t read all the appeal, so might be missing some subtle nuances here. Given that caveat, allow me to attempt to summarize the position:
‘I bought a place near the heart of downtown Decatur next to a really old, horrendous looking bank building with no windows and a huge asphalt parking lot. I don’t want a development next to me because 1. it is a change and I don’t like change, 2. I didn’t consider that there could be further development that may or may not improve the value of my purchase either though changing/obstructing my views, adding additional foot and car traffic or 3. binging lots more hipsters to town.
I cant think of a more efficient parking plan than to find something that is used primarily by residents at night and commuters/shoppers during the day. Like it or not, people drive to places – even in our eminently walkable town…
Gotta admit, I’m on the side of the 335 folks given your third argument.
How many hipsters does it take to change a light bulb? It’s an obscure number – you’ve probably never heard of it.
How do you drown a hipster? In the mainstream.
If a tree falls in the forest and their is no one there to hear it, will a hipster buy the soundtrack?
Only on vinyl….
How did the hipster burn his tongue? He drank his coffee before it was cool…
I like to fart in a room of hipsters and watch them fight over who heard it first.
I tried to LOL but I couldn’t because my jeans are too tight.
Nice one J_T and Walrus
teehee
Hipsters by default also have to like jokes making fun of hipsters.
Chad, at what age does one cease to be an aging hipster?
I am very tired of a select few barking so loudly! This is a good development, in the right location with the right uses. This team has changed and changed to try to make people happy who will never be truly happy untill that parking lot is a green lawn or some stupid eco-friendly garden that only makes organic vegetables. People need to understand that this site will get developed some day if not by this team maybe the next or even the next but some day they will have a building and a parking deck behind their houses! Get over it! It is good for the community and will provided affordable housing and jobs for the economy! I say we need to start thinking happy thoughts and move on from this debate! hey the sky is blue and the sun is out lets all skip up the to the Brickstore and have a cold one!
That’s right Brad, an asphalt parking lot is a much more appealing view than a well-designed, landscaped building. Glad you finally got the point.
I guess I teed you up just right golfball…
I’ll be here all week, try the veal.
People still eat veal?
I say tear it down and build a Super WalMart!! (unless we can get Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s).
Nah, they can just put one of those mini-Walmarts in the retail space, like the one planned for Georgia Tech. And don’t forget Family Dollar!
“A people should know when they’re conquered”
– Quintus
NIMBY this, BANANA that, blah, blah, blah. All I know is that you people have gotten this song stuck in my head and I can’t get it out. Bah!
As one of the many people in he neighborhood who have voiced concern over this project and attended meetings, I can tell you it is not a “few” that are compaining. Its is a very large number.
No one that I have ever spoken to at any of these meetings is against the development in principle. They all want to see the pacel developed. They just want it done in a way that addresses the concerns of the adjoining neighbors with respect to traffic, parking and and visual impact. The DDA has incorporated these concerns into their resolution, ordering the city to address these before a building permit is issued. So, the strawman argument that the neighboring landowners want a parking lot instead of a development is simply false.
The sole means of egress for all cars exiting this property will be Ponce de Leon Place. There is no exit onto W. Ponce. All exiting traffic travelling to the north or east (Buckhead, Perimeter, Emory) will most likely drive through the adjoining neighborhood. Since the adoining exiting streets onto Commerce and Scott have been blocked off, it is landlocked and the traffic cannot be disbursed efficiently. Residents have proposed a right turn only onto Ponce Place and an additional exit onto W. Ponce. Carter has agreed to this and wants to do it. For some reason, Amanda Thompson of the city won’t agree. At the DDA meeting, the board ordered that the city to study these additional exits and traffic plan and meet with neighbors to discuss. So far, neither the city or Carter has done so.
I am not really engaged in the appeal because I am not an adjacent landowner, but the parties appealing are reasonable people who are appealing because the city and developer are not addressing codified concerns, to wit:
Decatur Ordinance 10.18.2:
3. Parking–Vehicular parking for the proposed development shall be underground and effectively screened by retail or residential space or by landscape treatment. Parked vehicles shall be sreened from view of the public right of way;
4.Ingress and egress–The proposed points of vehicular ingress and egress must complement or improve existing traffic patterns and provide a safe and convenient access for bicyclist and pedestrians.
The proposed development fails these two code provisions from the perspective of these residents. The existing traffic patterns will not be improved by directing 1000 cars a day through Ponce Place and Wilton.
People have a right to challenge this even if you don’t like it. You may think it is NIMBY, and maybe it is, but ask yourself if you would want 1000 cars a day on your residential street when the arterial streets (Montgomery, Oakland, Beaumont) have been made dead ends by the city over decades. Even Ponce Place has a no Left turn from Clairmont between 7-9 am to restrict driving to this very office building.
I understand that some of you will still label folks like Kathie Gannon a “Good Growth Dekalb” gadfly, along with everyone else in the neighborhood who wants the development to be downsized. That’s not reality, so maybe this will give you some perspective. If the city and developer work with the neighbors, these differences can probably be resolved. So far, they have not done so.
This explanation is helpful. I was hoping for that.
+1.
I missed the ingress/egress part when reading the ordinances. There is no way, as structured, that the development “complements or improves” existing traffic patterns. At least until they present a plan showing such. This is my major gripe with the project, and I hope they come up with a plan that takes the traffic aspects seriously. And while I don’t live on Ponce Place or Fairview, I hope their streets are protected. Yes they bought houses adjacent to commercial property, but they also should not be expected to endure traffic by an ill-suited plan of shunting all ingress/egress to Ponce Place.
These are all solvable problems.
Some might dismiss the traffic as a non-issue and point to other developments. Yet the Artisan, Decatur Renaissance, Town Square all have parking decks with ingress/egress on two different streets (each), and either one or both entrances front higher capacity roads than Ponce Place. Plus that stretch of Ponce (partially because of road striping and the 2 left turn lanes to Commerce) lends itself to congestion from Dancing Goals up to CVS – those complexities don’t exist near the entrances to the other parking garages.
+1!!! Thank you so much for your reasoned response and getting to the heart of the matter.
+1
Thanks for the articulate explanation of the issues.
As I understand the residents’ main concern, it’s that instead of a “wrapped” parking deck as the other condos (including 335) have, it’s the fact that this is an exposed deck. I tend to think that these neighbors expected development, but thought that it would be similar to the other condos along Ponce, including their own, in that respect. Many of these neighbors (in the condos and in houses too) will be looking directly at something like 7 levels of cars. I don’t think that’s the case with any of the other developments–residents looking out their windows directly into a multi-level parking deck. Any of these neighbors can correct me if I’m wrong.
I can’t decide, were I resident with a view of the proposed parking garage, if I’d rather look at the garage or if I’d rather have apt. balconies there. Seems like there would be less people looking in my back yard/condo balcony if it were parking v.s wrapped apts. Has there been any discussion of what the landscaping requirement for the parking means? Will there be planters off of each level of the parking deck? If there could be cascading plantings there, that would look much better and help with air quality.
I also agree that entry/exit from such a big project should be from two different streets.
You’re right on the money! Also, I’m a little unclear as to why the developer had to do a traffic study back in 2008, yet that’s null and void now that the development is back on the table? I feel not only for the 335 residents who have to look at this parking monstrosity, but the residents along Ponce Place and Wilton who will see a huge increase in the number of cars cutting through to Clairmont (assuming W. Ponce will be a complete disaster as a result!)
I guess Commissioner Gannon would rather see a Wal Mart on this property (like the one she supported for Suburban Plaza) instead of a smart, well designed mixed use development like this one.
Marty–Why are you are saying that about Kathie Gannon? Please see my comment above. It’s my understanding that the neighbors are concerned not about the redevelopment per se, but about the type of parking deck.
The parking deck is just another red herring that opponents are using to try to kill the project. If its not the parking deck then it is something else. That is the history of this entire episode that goes back 5 years now.
Your facts are wrong. She did not support Wal-Mart. The matter never came before the Board of Commissioners.
I believe this version is light-years better than the pre-recession one…but I think it can by improved without going overboard. I also believe that there is merit to holding the folks responsible for following our ordinances, accountable to those ordinances. I am more of a spirit of the law vs. letter of the law type, and I the spirit of these ordinances is being underserved. I feel that some of our City leaders/staff fail to make astute decisions & assessments when a big developer is in the room (seem to fear offending them in some way). Resident input has been helpful/vital in keeping some miserable projects from going ahead after preliminary “looks fine to me” assessments by City staff. I am not a fan of frivolous lawsuits. But I am not a fan of ignoring our fellow residents…or worse, using bullying and name-calling to try to diminish the merits of their case. We are (should be) better than that. Let’s keep it civil!
Ignoring our fellow residents? What in the world are you talking about?
The City underwent a year-long visioning process where 1,500 Decatur residents participated in roundtables to develop a 10 year plan. One of the major goals that came out of that process was that Decatur needed to develop housing alternatives in order to encourage age and income diversity and particularly that we needed higher density housing in the downtown core to fill this need and to help the city’s tax base. Folks living in higher density condos and apartments downtown are less likely to use as many city services (i.e., schools) as single family houses in Decatur and the downtown core has available space, is conducive to a walking lifestyle and has access to public transit and other amenities
Following the roundtables, the Zoning Task Force spent a year seeking input from the public to refine the zoning code. One of their goals was how to develop such high density residential projects so as to not negatively effect surrounding residential neighborhoods. After months of debate and input from, including neighbors of the 315 building, they came to a consensus on how to best do that and that is how the code is currently designed.
So, the City has a choice. We can either ignore over 2 years of visioning and input put together by a broad spectrum of the community. Or, we can bow to the will of a few neighbors who have never wanted that property developed in any way and a County Commissioner who purchased a condo overlooking a asphalt parking lot and who, apparently, never thought it would be developed.
The reality of this entire debate is that we are hamstrung by long past decisions (likely good ideas at the time) of allowing 315 W Ponce to get built. And the builder has to work around that.
There would be much less debate if the builder would demo the building and start from scratch. Not cost effective and never going to happen, but I can dream?
Reading this thread, I’m learning more about the concerns–specifically, the traffic pattern entering and exiting the deck, and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. As I try to learn about this, it troubles me when people write in to bash those who are voicing concerns. I don’t see this as a classic case of NIMBY. Nor do I see this as a group of people who are opposed to development saying density is bad.
People like Marty and WB seem fond of setting up straw men in this discussion to further their own points about density and NIMBYism and whatever they feel justified in spouting off about. The reality is that the majority of the neighbors of the 315 development A) knew and accepted that it (or something like it) was coming and B) have been supportive of the current development, only asking that a few reasonable caveats be addressed (and for the most part they have so far). Up until this latest volley I would have even included Kathie Gannon in that group, but she appears to have gone a bit off the reservation.
Regardless, some folks, apparently frustrated that Decatur is not Kennesaw, find any consideration or even voicing of those kinds of concerns deeply offensive.