City of Decatur and Development Authority Look to Build Cottage Court Development Along Commerce Drive
Decatur Metro | December 7, 2015 | 9:42 am
For those of you who poured over the Unified Development Ordinance when it was under-review a while back, you may recall the “cottage court” building type. It consists of “5-9 detached dwelling units organized around a shared internal courtyard.” as stated in the UDO description above.
Well, no private developer has decided of their own accord to build a cottage court under the new ordinance yet, so the city is looking to do it themselves, with the help of the Decatur Development Authority at 230 Commerce Drive (MAP) to prove the type’s desirability. Of late, there’s been a “For Sale” sign on the property that sits on the northside of the curve on Commerce Drive close to the intersection with East College Ave. (Street view below)
Here’s City Manager Peggy Merriss’ letter to the Decatur City Commission as they prepare for tonight’s vote on an intergovernmental agreement between the two bodies.
The purpose of this memorandum is to request consideration of an Intergovernmental Contract between the Decatur City Commission and the Decatur Development Authority to facilitate development of a Cottage Court pilot project adjacent to the downtown commercial district. A Cottage Court is a development of smaller single family homes that share common green space in order to provide a more affordable housing option for young professionals, empty nesters and service-sector employees in a targeted income range (typically 80% of median household income). The Cottage Court type is one of the new affordable housing options made available by the recently adopted Unified Development Ordinance and specifically addresses Principle D, Goal 15 “Expand the Variety of High Quality Housing Options to Meet the Needs of a Diverse Community” of the 2010 Strategic Plan.
In order to encourage private sector developers to consider Cottage Court development options, the Decatur Development Authority will facilitate the development of a pilot project to prove that a market exists for smaller house options in the City of Decatur. Parcel of land within walking distance of downtown Decatur has been identified that would be a great site for this first project. It is an area that provides a good transition between an R-60 Residential zoning district and commercially zoned property and is located between an existing Single Family Planned Unit Development and a High Density Single Family Residential development. The property is included in the Old Depot Historic District which would require design approval by the Decatur Historic Preservation Commission.
The Decatur Development Authority voted to approve the proposed intergovernmental agreement at a called meeting of the Authority on December 4, 2015. The Authority supports the development of a Cottage Court to encourage the private sector to consider smaller housing options within the City. The Authority would work with a designer to create a site plan and architectural design options in cooperation with the Historic Preservation Commission and the neighborhood and would solicit proposals to develop this prototype project.
Approval of the Intergovernmental Contract is recommended.
“a pilot project to prove that a market exists for smaller house options in the City of Decatur”.
The demand for smaller and less expensive homes might exist, but when developers can sell houses for $250+/sf, there isn’t much incentive to do anything about it. Unless they’ve got a parcel that for whatever reason (zoning, typography, etc) just does not lend itself well to throwing up a couple of the standard-issue ~3,000SF box+porch models . . . it’s hard to make a business case for pursuing a less-profitable arrangement.
So the city adopts an ordinance and developers don’t jump on the opportunity to utilize that ordinance.
Why the hurry by the city to take up a role they have no great expertise or experience with?
If developers, who are risking their own funds and build on speculation as their business model do not see an reward sufficient to the risk and expense, why does the city (Peggy Merris) feel that they know better than the professionals in that industry to the extent that it is warranted to use PUBLIC FUNDS on SPECULATION.
If Ms Merris is wrong in her assessment, who takes the loss?
If it happens that Ms. Merris knows more and is a better judge of the market than private developers, let her put her funds at risk and reap the rewards of she is correct and risk the loss of she is not.
The City has no business in entering a speculative venture such as this for the s ated purpose of proving that a market exists.
If the assessment is wrong then the taxpayers (myself included) take the loss. I’m perfectly okay with this. First, because I strongly doubt there will be a significant financial loss. It defies logic to think that these houses won’t sell in Decatur’s current housing market. Marketing these towards those who can’t afford to buy the near-million dollar homes in my neighborhood is as close to a guarantee you can have for selling a house in Decatur. And second, because letting developers guide the city’s affordable housing programs is not a plausible scenario, as you rightly pointed out. This development is just as much about providing affordable housing options as it is anything else. I just hope they take it one step further, and insist on an income cap for buyers.
JC
I appreciate your thoughtful reply to my message, but please don’t misconstrue my words.
I did not state anywhere that I believed that developers should guide an affordable housing program by this city or any other.
The fact that developers do not wish to take advantage of a particular ordinance is not a reason for the city to demonstrate to those developers that the city in general and Ms Merris in particular know better.
/Melrose Place reference/
Well played. +1 for you.
Speaking of ordinances, I support a new one requiring steel and/or masonry construction for all buildings four stories and taller. These multi-story wood frame buildings are going to look like crap in short order.
As to the issue at hand, I agree with JC.
I agree with the construction methodology comment – Arlo and 215 W ponce will not age well.
I find it very frustrating that our city commission fails in its key duty – oversight of city management. The mayor and commissioners seem like a rubber stamp. The city manager and her staff embark on a number of studies, projects and plans that seem to come from their own personal agendas or the vocal minorities “the activistocracy”
I disagree with you and JC. The city should not be using taxpayer money speculatively for the cottage courts. Effectively, the outcome is going to be a “lottery” with five winners who get the cottages for below market value since they happen to have a lower income at the time.
Ironically enough, it is very hard to see how these cottages as rendered can possibly comply with the tree ordinance.
Housing affordability should be addressed on two fronts: allowing increased supply through density and fewer restrictions like the tree ordinance. The new homes may not be initially affordable, but they will put downward pricing on existing housing stock. Increased development restrictions serve to reduce housing supply and drive up prices.
I agree. This has boondoggle written all over it. The only thing it will “prove” is the futility of the city of Decatur in trying to engage in private sector investment with tax dollars instead of sticking to its mission of making sure the basic services are provided.
We have already wasted $100,000 in tax dollars to generate a “plan” which consists of platitudes and slogans.
The taxpayers are being screwed. Its time for the city leaders to tell people “no” instead of throwing money at projects that will fail so that they can avoid being called names by activists.
I hope both of voted in the election last month.
Isn’t this essentially saying there is a market failure? Isn’t that where governments, and especially development authorities, are designed to step in? What’s the point in having a development authority, then?
The housing authority has a mandate to supply low-income housing, but there is still a gap in the “affordable” spectrum. As this release points out, the Strategic Plan states that community wants to expand the choice of housing. This might be one way to do it.
Looking forward to hearing more about it and reserving judgement until then.
What is the market failure? You can’t buy a house where you want to live so the government has to step in and subsidize the home purchase for you? There are properties in the Decatur Housing Authority for elderly and lower income. What’s wrong with those? There are plenty of more affordable properties 1-2 MARTA stops away. Why is there a fundamental right to live where you want to live and then get the taxpayers to subsidize your house if you can’t afford it? If that’s the case, then I want to live on Park Avenue. The taxpayers of NY should subsidize a house for me to live in there because I want it.
We constantly hear that Decatur has too many non-taxable properties and that they need to develop existing properties to be revenue producing. We are trying to annex commercial property to pay the whole in our budget for the schools.
Now, the city wants to spend taxpayer money to buy property and develop it when private developers say it will not be profitable. It’s insanity. Our representatives need to be fiscally prudent. They are being pushed into bad policy decisions that are contradictory to what they preach is fiscally necessary.
“Why is there a fundamental right to live where you want to live and then get the taxpayers to subsidize your house if you can’t afford it?”
There isn’t.
You seem pretty upset about this. Take it to the commission. They’re saying it comes from your strategic plan.
Hot (well, maybe lukewarmly) on the heels of the Downtown Development Authority’s rousing success with the Callaway property (along with the “affordable” and aesthetic successes of the stick-frame apartment building boom)!
Can’t wait to see some development group initially offer a vision of a Shining Cottage Court on the Curve and later claim they can’t deliver what they originally promised because of the topography of the property.
Fool City Commission once, shame on … (well, you know the rest).