Not so MM: DQ, Tree Prep, and Building a Mammoth
Decatur Metro | February 28, 2014 | 2:29 pm
- Barn Razing: Red-roofed Dairy Queen, vernacular landmark, to be bulldozed in Decatur [ArtsATL]
- Tree advocates prepare for March 3rd City Commission Work Session [Decaturish]
- DeKalb budget adds new police, firefighters [WABE]
- Streetcar construction at the intersection of Marietta and Broad Street in 1901 [Atlanta History Center]
- Decatur Minute gets a new look [The Decatur Minute]
- The Mammoth Cometh [NY Times Magazine]
Photo courtesy of Brad
Related Posts:
-
April 17, 2015 MM: Record Store Day Includes Dogfish Head, a Classic Car, and Tulip Shaped Street Furniture (2)
-
April 21, 2015 MM: Poll Shows Gwinnett Favors MARTA, Bike Registration, and Art Festivals & the Local Arist (4)
-
April 23, 2015 MM: City Considering Purchasing Boys & Girls Club Site, Unique Sewage Recycling, and U.S. Migration (22)
To the 87% or so of us opposed to the tree ordinance, you need to read what Trees Decatur is advocating. In most respects, their suggestions are much worse that the proposed tree ordinance. It actually requires one to obtain their neighbor’s consent to remove a boundary tree. There is a prohibition on removing trees below 35% canopy (the ordinance only said 25). The residential “exemption” is hollow as many, if not most, tree removals coincide with expansions of existing homes by current homeowners. You have to add 5% to your project cost just to preserve a tree. Looney tunes.
Perhaps Decaturish should not omit the more offensive suggestions and/or provide a link to their site. treesdecatur dot org
But, looks like we are going to have to mobilize again. Trees Decatur will certainly show up in force.
Why are members being encouraged to attend and voice their opinion? I thought there wasn’t any public comment at work sessions.
That is correct. There will not be any public comment at this work session either.
If you haven’t already, please check out this petition which voices general concerns with the originally proposed ordinance, and consider signing- just be sure to sign only if you are a City of Decatur resident or property owner.
http://www.change.org/petitions/city-commissioners-of-the-city-of-decatur-ga-draft-a-new-tree-ordinance-proposal-for-the-city-of-decatur-ga
I hope that the Commission sets up some form of public brainstorming on the various ways we can enhance our canopy without going to some of the more drastic measures of the current ordinance or some of what Trees Decatur is now proposing…
Hi Dawg Fan,
87%, where is that from??
Regarding the 35%, it is 35% of existing trees, so in other words you can remove up to 65% of your trees for construction. Typically those trees would be in the setback so have no impact on construction. I advocated for 50%, because removing more looks a lot like a clear cut with a few trees around the ediges. The 5% of project cost is only if there is a healthy tree that is being impacted by construction and you must mitigate (arborist visit, root pruning, build on piers, water schedule, etc.) to protect the root zone. If mitigatin exceeds 5% the tree may be removed. If there is no mitigation clause, large trees are removed because they are inconvenient. To read more about why existing healthy trees are worth 5% go to http://thegrove.americangrove.org/profiles/blogs/healthyurbantrees#.UxSAxNgo4cA
By tying project cost to mitigation, it scales the fee to the size of the project. In Atlanta these are referred to prescription fees and can range in cost from $0 to $20K for a single tree and there is no cap of 5%.
Hi Dawg Fan,
87%, where is that from??
Regarding the 35%, it is 35% of existing trees, so in other words you can remove up to 65% of your trees for construction. Typically those trees would be in the setback so have no impact on construction. I advocated for 50%, because removing more looks a lot like a clear cut with a few trees around the ediges. The 5% of project cost is only if there is a healthy tree that is being impacted by construction and you must mitigate (arborist visit, root pruning, build on piers, water schedule, etc.) to protect the root zone. If mitigatin exceeds 5% the tree may be removed. If there is no mitigation clause, large trees are removed because they are inconvenient. To read more about why existing healthy trees are worth 5% go to http://thegrove.americangrove.org/profiles/blogs/healthyurbantrees#.UxSAxNgo4cA
By tying project cost to mitigation, it scales the fee to the size of the project. In Atlanta these are referred to prescription fees and range in cost from [comment] to K for a single tree. Alternatively, the trees is removed, which is neither ideal for the owner, or neighborhood.
Treesrock- I don’t really agree the fee is truly based on impact of project in this scenario- to me the fee seems much more related to where trees are on a lot. If a lot has its trees concentrated more towards the middle of the lot rather than conveniently on the side of a lot, that property owner pays a huge penalty to further develop that lot, a pentalty that isn’t equally applied to others developing their lots (or people not doing any projects on their lots)… The tree canopy is a group benefit, and the expense of maintaining and achieving that benefit should be more equally spread among community members. Plus, Decatur is already extremely expensive- this 5% penalty seems like we are just ensuring that only the very wealthy are going to be able to develop many lots in town.
“Alternatively, the trees is removed, which is neither ideal for the owner, or neighborhood”
This is why we are NEVER going to agree. You should have absolutely zero say is what is ideal for an owner (except of course on your own lot). You simply don’t get to make that determination.
87% is a close approximation (or perhaps slighly exaggerated in my mind) of the percentage of people opposing the tree ordinance on the city’s website. It wasn’t even close. You are in a very small (albeit vocal) minority.
And your estimates are so off base, they are almost insulting. Your illustration of fees is up to $1k, which is 5% of $20k. Additions typically start in the $75k range, so additional project cost of $3,750 per tree on a minimal expansion. If you are building a $750k house, that fee is $37,500 to save an effing tree. For $2,000, you could plant 5 or 10 trees and have a much more positive impact on the long term health of the canopy. Do you realize there is absolutely no science, no math, nothing to back up the claim in that article? Trees being worth 5% is your opinion. It isn’t one I or the majority of CoD residents share.
Do you people understand how hard it is for me to agree so vehemently with DawgFan, like you tree-taxing, property rights taking away folks are making me do now?!?
DawgFan’s quite often right about the things that get discussed on here. You just need to go on and make peace with your feelings, my friend! :0)
So, according to the DQ article, the family that runs it was about to buy it, but someone from the city asked them not to, and then the property was sold which prevented them from buying into the new development, as they had agreed to with the then owners.
Though maybe there were no bad intentions, I’m disappointed with the city for influencing the DQ folks to make this decision, when presumably they would have known that something could change and leave DQ on the outside looking in, which is what happened.
Disappointed is not the word I would use if that account is true. To interfere with a private sale that leaves a local business owner in the lurch like this and then to know basically say “sorry, we can’t get involved in a private negotiation or transaction” is flat out horrible. I would like to hear more from the city about whether this is true and, if not, what their side of the story is.
“At the time that this parcel was being assembled, we believe that the developers buying this site would have outbid any offer Mr. Momin could have afforded on this parcel,” Menne said. “He did not have a lease at the time and his landlord was actively negotiating with the developers.”
hmmmmmmm, something seems fishy here
Yeah, I want to know more too. Because the initial response from them was that the DQ folks would not have been able to buy the property anyway, but according to this article it was all but a done deal. It sounds to me like the developer was going to walk away and that’s why the city interfered.
Instead of Bridgegate, Decatur will have Dairy Queengate. Open Records Request!
On a side note, I can’t believe that dude is 68 years old! Apparently Botox is no longer the fountain of youth, it’s all about the ice cream.
I read it the same way. Looks like the City is actually the bad guy here.
If the account in the article is true, it appears that this is a very clear example of an inappropriate relationship between the city staff and commercial developers. I suspect that it would not be an isolated incident of inappropriate behavior. Buddy Cianci certainly brought profitable development and a higher tax base to the struggling city of Providence but he went to jail for stepping over the line. It might behoove others to examine his mistakes.
I’d like to offer a different view.
A lot of news is shared here about long-range planning, especially regarding downtown master plans. Those plans call for increased density in the central business district, with single-use properties being transformed into multi-story mixed-use buildings.
The article does not offer a source or quote or any direct evidence that the developer called Lyn. Maybe they did. Or maybe Lyn was just working the plan that had been in front of her for years. The original developer is not the same one today. The original developer and the Momins came to an agreement. It stinks that their agreement got caught up in the Great Recession. You would hope that a new developer would honor that agreement, but they are under no such obligation. People will always tell their story to get maximum sympathy and I do not begrudge the Momins for telling theirs. But the city can’t say much more here than “we hope to come to the best deal possible.” Any apologetic language from officials will look like backtracking and any contradiction of the Momin account will look like piling on, so their commenting here is really a no-win situation.
I hope the Momins can get a space in the new development. But to say that Lyn and the city are “bad guys” because they perhaps tried to get the best product for the city as a whole – a development that all of our planning over the past 20+ years have pointed to as something we want – is a gross oversimplification of the issue.
I should say “original developer partnership” since it looks like Cypress was a partner in the first deal and is now the sole developer. If you sign an agreement though, you need to be aware that changes can happen, even a seemingly minor one.
And here are some renderings, but I can’t find a site plan:
http://atlanta.curbed.com/archives/2013/01/29/trinity-triangle.php
I think that rendering predates the crash. I don’t believe the current plan has a standalone building at the corner. Not positive though.
Rival,
I agree with much of what you say, but I don’t agree that if the city more precisely explained the events that occurred (including whether or not the developer planned to bid up the property) people here would perceive that as “piling on” (at least reasonable people wouldn’t, maybe the people driven by sentimentality and nostalgia would).
The ideal scenario now would be for the Momin’s to be compensated for downtime and then reopen in the new development. Hopefully the City is helping to facilitate that.
Just curious, but why should they be compensated for their downtime? They failed to secure a lease for their premises and had to vacate. It happens every day for a variety of reasons, and the (former) tenants aren’t entitled to compensation unless they are able to negotiate a buyout of their lease. Further, they don’t have a non-compete (that I am aware of) and are free to open a new store at a nearby location.
Not saying they should be; I don’t know all the details. But I would hope that they somehow are (which is why I used the word “ideal”).
And, as to your comment below, so what if the reaction would be different for CFA? Actions have consequences, and CFA has for years donated to groups actively seeking to deny civil rights to homosexuals, who are a significant part of the population here, regardless of whatever the particular franchise does here. That said, CFA has reportedly reduced their contributions to such groups to essentially zero, so credit where credit is due.
BUT, if the city really did intervene to prevent a sale that could have gone through with the Momins buying the property, then the city DOES bear some responsibility and a duty to help them now. Is there a legal obligation? No. But there’s certainly an ethical one. As much as they bend over backward for these out of town developers, you’d think they could expend a little more effort to help long time business owners they had a hand in screwing over.
Weren’t the Momins free to ignore the city’s request and proceed with the purchase? The level of intervention is very important here. If it was merely a request, wasn’t the Downtown Development Authority doing its job and working to maximize the use of the site?
Let me add that I can’t help to think that if CFA sat on that property, the public sentiment would be very different.
That’s why I keep saying “if”. I don’t know the details and the details are important. But it’s also true that a “request” from the government is different from a request from a private citizen. Even if they were legally free to ignore the request, it’s still reasonable to think they didn’t really feel free to do so, like when a police officer stops you on the street and starts asking questions that you know you legally don’t have to answer but just know that refusing to do so could have potentially adverse consequeces.
You may be onto something as it relates to perceptions but it’s important to note that, as best I can tell, the “request” came out of the Economic Development office. Whether or not we agree with any particular development effort, we have to remember that we as residents fund the city’s economic development / Downtown Development Authority efforts and charge them with the task of maximizing Decatur’s financial returns to pay for things like infrastructure, services and schools.
In short, the ability to “deal” is what we’re paying them for.
Thus, in any city (not just here), I would expect them to steer the deal towards the greatest possible win-win. In this case, I think/hope the deal that will emerge is what brianc and DawgFan have already alluded to: an equitable means by which the Momins can reopen in the newly developed space. We get tax-positive revenue, housing options for seniors and young professionals who don’t want single family homes, and greater pedestrian value along the Twains-to-Tracks stretch, but still get to keep the DQ and the wonderful Momin family, who everyone agrees are one of Decatur’s greatest community assets. Hate to see that silly building go, but this isn’t a single-issue consideration.
Believe me, I’m on that side too. I certainly have no desire to see that property remain as it is; there’s nothing special or valuable about the building other than the fact that most of the ones like it are gone. But I hope DQ can return because they seem like nice people, and their business does add some balance to an increasingly expensive mix of restaurants here.
Exactly. The developers may be from out of town but they are, presumably, familiar with their business. One component of that business is that retail mix is important and, done right, can add up to value greater than the sum of its parts.
Anyone who digs even remotely into this issue will see the level of passionate support we have for the Momin’s and their operation. To go for a couple more bucks a square foot in rent or some other lease arrangement at the expense of a sure-fire community draw would reveal short-term myopic stupidity of the highest order.
Possible, sure. But I’m holding on to the assumption that successful people are reasonably intelligent. They don’t need to personally feel our DQ-devotion. They just need to recognize it.
Very interesting piece and a rare glimpse.
Has anyone seen recent plans for the Trinity Triangle development? I saw a design years ago, then more recently heard the plans had been revised, but don’t recall ever seeing anything specific.
Maybe the developer has carte blanche to work within certain boundaries, but it seems odd that the bulldozers are apparently standing in wait, but I for one am not clear exactly what the latest concept is. Did I just miss something?
Perhaps the developer is hoping for out of sight, out of mind- which I don’t think will work in this case.
I believe you can get a demolition permit and be allowed certain site work without having approved architectural plans.