Neil Norton sends in a few pics and writes…

The five trees are dawn redwoods. FYI, during a recent tree survey the compensatory value for the five trees was $37,992. The structural or compensatory value of the trees was based on methods from the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (1992). Compensatory value, which is based on the replacement cost of a similar tree, is used for monetary settlement for damage or death of plants through litigation, insurance claims of direct payment, and loss of property value for income tax deduction.

The five redwoods would be taken down if the developer of the 315 West Ponce “Decatur Court” property were to construct the proposed two-story retail building along West Ponce.  The plan still hasn’t been before any of Decatur’s boards or commissions.  Last we heard, the developer was “talking with the neighborhood” about the plan.

A couple other close-up shots of the trees after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

Lain points out that the city has just posted a ton of documentation on the 315 W. Ponce development on its website. We’re talking application letters, site plans, design studies, traffic studies, parking studies and working group minutes [all pdfs] It’s like Christmas in July!

For those who haven’t seen these before (like myself), its going to take some time to go through it all. I took a cursory glance at everything and the traffic study especially is quite detailed and therefore very long (38 pages).

I don’t have many observations thus far, except that the buildings look like they will have a nice upscale appearance if the design plans are any indication (Mongomery/W.Ponce) and the site does look kind of cramped. But I guess that can’t be helped with a 10 story pre-existing office tower. Also, from first glance, I’d almost say that Fairview residents might endure greater adverse effect than those on Montgomery that we’re always discussing. A 3-story brownstone across the street seems like a much nicer alternative than a (5 story?) parking deck behind the backyard. But that’s always the hazard of buying next to C-2, I guess.

Lain also reports that at the DDA meeting this morning “the board passed a resolution to approve the project and noted their desire for a parking and traffic contingency plan (in case the shared parking doesn’t work out), research on performance bonds, and approval of the building materials and landscaping designs.” So Scott, at a minimum you were on the same track as the DDA with the parking contingency idea, or perhaps they just flat out took your advice! Either way…great suggestion.

Alright everyone…take a look and lets hear some observations. I’ll certainly be chiming in once I finish the 38 page traffic study.

From the AJC…

Officials with Atlanta-based Day Capital Partners said they are exploring the possibility of building a retail strip and a multi-family housing development at the parking lot of a 10-story office building the company purchased in late October.

Planning is in the early stages, officials say, but the redevelopment might include a hotel. The company plans to keep the 43-year-old office tower, Decatur Court, which is about 90 percent leased.

So…does this qualify as commercial development next to R60 zoning, even though the little bungalows to the northside of Decatur Court sit across the street? If so, I wonder what Jim Baskett thinks about this, since he’s mentioned regulating commercial next to R60 often during his reelection campaign. Regardless, I think the folks that live on Montgomery St. will be wary of this idea. Yes, Decatur Court is one of the tallest buildings in town, but hopefully the city won’t let Day Capital build an 80 foot hotel to its rear. We’ve already dealt with that issue over in Old Decatur.

On the other hand, I do think the city could benefit from a nicer hotel. Thoughts?

Hattip: InDecatur