Decatur To Unveil Initial Cottage Court Plans This Thursday
Decatur Metro | May 2, 2016 | 10:13 am
The city’s Communication’s Specialist Renae Madison sends along this announcement…
Collaborative neighborhood design process concludes with community-wide open house.
For three days in early May, city staff, assisted by planner/architect Bruce Tolar, will work together with surrounding neighbors to develop designs for the city’s cottage court demonstration project at 230 Commerce Drive. On Thursday, May 5, from 7-8pm, interested Decatur residents are invited to attend an open house at 104 Sycamore Place to see what they’ve come up with.
Working to balance city housing goals, market viability, and the input of adjacent property owners, the collaborative process will include daily opportunities for neighborhood review and comment, which will then inform continued design work the next day. By Thursday the 5th, a workable plan — one viable for market developers — is expected for review by the community.
Though cottage courts have been allowed since passage of the Unified Development Ordinance in early 2015, local builders have been reluctant to veer from the dependable single family homes they’re accustomed to. So in response to extensive resident requests for action on housing affordability — via 2010’s Strategic Plan, the Lifelong Community Advisory Board, and the recently completed Better Together initiative — Decatur is pursuing this as an opportunity to explore a more affordable, neighborhood-friendly alternative to large-format single-family infill.
In doing so, the city hopes to demonstrate unmet demand for cottage homes sized roughly 700 to 1,200 square feet, and to identify and address any regulatory barriers that might be preventing the development of similar projects by others.
Per-unit pricing will be dependent on the emerging design, though something around $250,000 is sought. Compliance with the Old Decatur local historic district will be required. The target property was purchased by the city in December, 2015.
Example of Cottage Court photo courtesy of Decatur Next via The Tiny Life
“unmet demand” for smaller and cheaper or not, developers are going to build in whatever results in the greatest profits. Right now, that’s building the biggest thing they can cram into a 10,000 square foot lot and pouring on the high-end amenities and finishes, as fast as possible, and having it under contract by the time the landscaping crew shows up. Seems to be a pretty reliable, repeatable process. It’s not lack of demand or regulatory barriers that make this concept unattractive to developers, it’s the fact that they’d rather keep building and selling the higher margin large/luxury houses they’ve gotten so efficient at churning out.
This is an excellent idea and I am very glad the city is taking this initiative.
Love the idea. Don’t suppose there is any chance of a modern(ist) design?
This is a boondoggle. The City should not be in the housing business. Decatur is a small town that needs to use its resources efficiently, not pet projects for hired city managers so they can get recognition in industry publications. If the city bought the land, it should be used for a park or greenspace.
This is a less efficient use of land then townhomes or mid-rise buildings that could otherwise be built here. When land gets more expensive, build up. If the issue is price, there are existing smaller units in this price range already in condos on Ponce.
The only way that more cottage courts will be built in the future is if the city passes ordinances that restrict certain areas to cottage court developments – a terrible heavy handed government approach.
Real Estate has a term for the highest and best use of a property. I’m afraid this isn’t it, otherwise it wouldn’t be a government doing it.
“The only way that more cottage courts will be built in the future is if the city passes ordinances that restrict certain areas to cottage court developments – a terrible heavy handed government approach.”
How would passing such an ordinance be different than the rigid current zoning ordinance that exists throughout the city? Zoning is a restrictive form of land use control, so how would zoning some areas for cottage courts be terribly “heavy handed?”
No zoning exists for college courts now. Where are they going to change the zoning? Why? – because that’s what a non-elected official wants in order to shape the city.
I agree the other restrictions you cite are heavy handed as well. Lot coverage restrictions, tree coverage ordinances and the like restrict the supply of housing. This benefits existing homeowners as the supply of housing is reduced, thereby increasing the price of housing. The detriment is also reduced density and walkability.
Hearing that Decatur builders are really excited about this idea. $250K for a teardown is a bargain! And 75% lot coverage — cha-ching!
Another way to do this for towns with a goal of more affordable housing is to create a Community Land Trust for affordable housing- the city owns the land, the housing units are built at an affordable cost, and the homeowner only buys the house instead of land/house (Trust retains the land ownership). Usually there are income limits, and many times a system of profit sharing on any profit from any future sale of the home by the landowner. The city’s share of the profit goes back into the community land trust money pot for future land purchases. This seems a more viable option for Decatur than wishful thinking developers into doing like projects– 1) King T hit it exactly in that Developers can do these but aren’t maxing out their current profit opportunity so won’t, 2) if the community owns the land, the affordability goes even deeper for the homeowners and 3) the affordability requirements can be built into the deed so the affordable space is preserved long term. This would be ideal for senior housing, with priority for current City residents, or city/school workforce housing. Lots of communities do this.
Just because others do it doesn’t mean it is a good idea.
In NYC, the program of rent controls creates a distribution of rents that looks like a two-hump camel. Those who are fortunate to have rent controls are in the cheap half, the rest in the pricey half. Without restrictions, it is a hump closer to a normal distribution. This is the distinction: the government intervention creates winners and losers, the losers effectively paying over market rate and the winners under market rate.
A day late and a dime short. Too bad that the city didn’t work with developers on some thoughtful development. Next downturn – will be interesting to see what happens to these too big to keep homes now around town.
I agree that it’s too late, but I’m not sure if developers would have worked with the city to make affordable housing. I think if the city wanted to preserve affordability, we should have put a halt to teardowns. We had plenty of cute cottages in Decatur that have been replaced by big homes.
Exactly. We didn’t have the political will to do this. Tear downs get to the root of a lot of current issues, including school overcrowding and the real estate bubble being created in the city.
We have a 1948, 1150 sq ft 2 bed/1 bath. We wanted to do a small reno to make it a 3/2. The city said no dice. We could tear it down and build a $1,000,000 house or keep it as is. Anything in between made no economic sense. So we are selling. The city loses two 40-somethings, three dogs and a cat. How many school age kids do you think will be in the resulting McMansion. Bad planning. We’ll be laughing at you from unincorporated DeKalb…
I’m curious why the city said no to your expansion plans. Was it an impervious surface/lot coverage limit issue? Too many trees would be taken down? Problems with the shape or size of the lot?
We added on a decade ago and the city worked with us on our plans. I hear there have been lots of changes and that they are much more difficult to deal with now.
Floodplain issue. Any serious reno will require bringing it into full compliance with current rules. That would about double the cost of the modest reno we’d like to do and it would put us immediately underwater on what we put into it versus the new value. On the other hand, if you tear it down and build from scratch, there’s less added cost with good design and planning. But you’d need to make at least a $700,000 or so house to make the numbers make sense and we just don’t need that big of a house. So, easy decision…
…burn it down and take the insurance money?
Thought about that. But apparently once you say something like that out loud, the insurance company is extra suspicious and tries to deny coverage! Anyway, I doubt that we could burn it down if we tried. Only one wall inside the house is wood and drywall. The rest is cinder block, poured concrete and plaster.
Given your area and the vintage of the house, there’s probably plenty of asbestos in there too. So agree that fire is unlikely to solve your problem, even if you attached a bunch of kites attached to keys on your roof during lightning storms.
JT, sorry the hear the moving news. Over the years, I’ve enjoyed reading your comments and believe we met several times, maybe the MLK Service Project. Decatur will lose a valuable part of our community when you and your family leave but at least you should get top dollar for your property. Whether you sell to youngsters seeking our school system or old geezers looking for a tax haven, the almost obscene profit you will get for selling will buy a lot more outside the city limits. May I suggest Tucker? Growing up in Decatur, I always looked down on this town but now in my older age, Tucker and Smoke Rise is looking pretty damn good. It may not have all the chi-chi appeal of Decatur but I’m betting that Tucker will become an economic powerhouse in the near future and that neighborhoods like Smoke Rise will increase greatly in value. Well, that’s what I’m hoping anyway.
I recall when I bought my house on the old dirt road and was told by many, “Decatur is going downhill…Glenlake Park is dangerous…The school system is heading in the wrong direction…etc. But I took a chance on a sad looking house overlooking the park. Carl Renfroe, the retired superintendent of schools and by then a real estate agent, told me “Chris, you won’t go wrong buying this house. It could be one of the best decisions you will ever make.” Funny thing is that a few years later, when I told Dr. Renfroe that I was getting married to a Decatur girl I had known since first grade through high school, he said almost the same thing. “Chris, you’ll never go wrong marrying a Decatur girl. It could be one of the best decisions you will ever make. He was right of course. Dr. Renfroe has been slandered a great deal over the past few years but in my opinion, he and Dr. Vee Simmons probably did more to stabilize Decatur during the turbulent Sixties and Seventies than anyone else. But that’s another story. Back to your original post.
When I bought my house in 81, it had not been lived in for many years. I was told by Frank Calloway, the long time executor of the property, that it was built in the early twentieth century as a shotgun. It was part of a small black community originally on the outskirts of Decatur but annexed into the city during the 1920s. Mr. Calloway told me he helped put a roof on the house during the Great Depression and was paid $1 per day. He also said that all the homes in this community had wells and outhouses. Eventually a bathroom and kitchen were added but when I bought it, the house was relatively unchanged since the 1950s.
I was not married at the time so I started renovating the house on my own. I never thought about getting permits and no one ever bothered me about the work I was doing. When I brought my beautiful bride to be over she told me, “If you want to marry me well, do something about this kitchen and bathroom”. Our contractors for the kitchen and bathroom renovation, and later a screened in porch, got permits from the city but if was a fairly easy process. City inspectors came by, made a few suggestions (which the contractors disagreed with but did anyway) and the work was done quickly. And our house looks pretty much like when we bought it. Mr. Calloway, and the the last owner of the house Mr. Abraham Giddings, who owned a restaurant in the old black business district near downtown Decatur, would have an easy time recognizing the place. We have enjoyed living in a little piece of Decatur history.
But as you have discovered, it is almost impossible to renovate a small Decatur house nowadays. The new United Development Ordinance requires too many upgrades so it makes more sense to either tear down and start over or just move on. Unfortunately this is what you and many others have decided to do.
Anyway best of luck. And if you know of anyone that might be interested in the last remaining home of old black Decatur, on a one lane Civil War era dirt road, with a great view of Glenlake Park and the Decatur Cemetery, within walking/biking distance of Walmart, Whole Foods, L.A. Fitness, and plenty of great restaurants and bars, have them send a letter addressed to “Mr. B. Old Dirt Road. Decatur.
Oh, warn them not to include “Christop, I will buy your house for CASH MONEY…” Seen that scam for years.
$250,000 is affordable? Maybe to some people.
And for 700-1200 sq ft!
How is this affordable? That is a price per square foot closer to the existing condos in downtown (e.g. an 1100sf 2BR/2BA unit at Decatur Renaissance). And for that same price range ($250K), there are many older townhome developments in/near downtown for much more sf than that. Yes you get a standalone home vs shared walls, but much more?
Affordable (to me) means less than current market, and more than public housing. This price point seems more on par with the current market.
This is just wrong on so many levels.
Additional “unmet demands”:
— Google stock at $5/share
— Porsche 911 for $15,000
— Gold for $20/ounce
— House overlooking Golden Gate bridge for $250k
Oh the market failures!
I hate that beer brewed right in the city limits costs $6 a pint. Only the wealthy can afford to get tooty-eyed in Decatur.
Drinkers of the world unite!
Cottage court allows 75% lot coverage on residential lots which typically only allows 40%. It will result in more impervious. The City of Houston has discovered that stormwater damage has resulted in over $400 a square foot in damage per capita. Have fun with that Decatur when we get our big rain event, you cannot build enough detention to overcome a 100 year storm. Moreover, detention has a 50 year life span, is typically maintained improperly and installed improperly. And the City calls itself sustainable. I like the idea of cottage court but not at the expense of an increase in lot coverage.
What is the current impervious limit on townhomes? Arguably you get more sqft of living space per sqft of land in a townhome vs a single story cottage.
All of you critics need to go to the meeting.
The meeting most of the criticism seems to be about happened long ago when the City asked the Commission to buy the property.
I’m really not clear why a City needs to show developers how to develop. From what I can tell, they are pretty good at it.
Will do!
Also, this does not compute. How do you get 75% lot coverage and 45% tree canopy coverage (or whatever the tree ordinance is right now)?