Fireworks at the planning commission
This is an interesting story because, quite frankly, you don't hear a whole of exciting comments coming out of a planning commission meeting. Mazelle Graham wants to transform her two existing lots along Boulevard into three smaller ones and then, presumably, either sell them or develop those lots.
Graham argues - somewhat correctly I feel it must be noted - that if you are going to establish a greenbelt around the edges of the community, then you need to be able to encourage more high-density development in town, which she feels she's trying to do.
Members of the commission disagreed, and their concern appears to be they fear it could lead to a slew of rezonings and development in that neighborhood which would completely change its appearance and feel.
I think those are real concerns, so don't misunderstand me, but I think Graham has a point. We want to preserve our greenbelt, and as a result, we have to start considering how best to encourage high-density development.
Now, whether or not this development is the appropriate one, who knows. But it does seem to me that it's easy for some folks to say things like 'we need to increase our density to preserve our greenspace ... just don't do it in my neighborhood.'
It's going to have to go somewhere. Again, Boulevard may not be the best place for that, but I think Crissy Marlowe made the most sense in this whole thing by calling for a more thorough and comprehensive neighborhood planning system. She recommended neighborhood planning units, which is a good suggestion ... though it may have the inadvertant effect of resulting in the same mindset I just mentioned.
Graham argues - somewhat correctly I feel it must be noted - that if you are going to establish a greenbelt around the edges of the community, then you need to be able to encourage more high-density development in town, which she feels she's trying to do.
Members of the commission disagreed, and their concern appears to be they fear it could lead to a slew of rezonings and development in that neighborhood which would completely change its appearance and feel.
I think those are real concerns, so don't misunderstand me, but I think Graham has a point. We want to preserve our greenbelt, and as a result, we have to start considering how best to encourage high-density development.
Now, whether or not this development is the appropriate one, who knows. But it does seem to me that it's easy for some folks to say things like 'we need to increase our density to preserve our greenspace ... just don't do it in my neighborhood.'
It's going to have to go somewhere. Again, Boulevard may not be the best place for that, but I think Crissy Marlowe made the most sense in this whole thing by calling for a more thorough and comprehensive neighborhood planning system. She recommended neighborhood planning units, which is a good suggestion ... though it may have the inadvertant effect of resulting in the same mindset I just mentioned.
posted by Jmac at 10:21 AM
20 Comments:
As I recall, this has pretty much been the big sticking point in the attempts to create a transferable development rights program. Everyone wants to be one of the "sending areas" where additional development is forbidden, but nobody wants to be one of the "receiving areas" that absorb the development that would have occurred in the sending areas. In the same way that the greenbelt doesn't work unless you allow additonal density somewhere, the TDR program won't get off of the ground until someone is willing to identify the areas where additional density is desired and will be encouraged.
This problem is really interesting and really confusing at the same time. One planning commissioner remarked that they should support consistency. Now that leads to the question, what did the Mayor and Commission intend when they zoned the area? The zoning does not fit that block because most of the lots -- not a few but MOST -- on that block and many on nearby blocks are non-conforming. That makes a case for improper or illegal zoning, unless the plan is really to bring the area into conformance over a long period of time, in which case the consistency idea should be followed.
However, hoping to bring the area into conformance over time would be problematic. I remarked to Kelly Girtz and Dick Field that it could mean that dwellings could never be replaced, and Dick pointed out that could force the county to pay compensation to the lot owner.
Here is what is interesting about "density." Dick pointed out to me and Kelly that the term refers to desnity of people, not dwellings. Graham's proposal would not increase density because she wanted to convert the two-family dwelling on Wynburn into a one-family dwelling; the additional dwelling would replace the second unit there.
If the idea is to bring the block into conformance, that is a real problem since the lots are non-conforming. It is unlikely that neighbors will ever buy adjacent lots after a dwelling is destroyed or demolished and then recombine the lots.
Again, what was the M&C's purpose behind zoning an area RS-15 when it is mostly non-conforming?
That's true, rich, but there are areas that are somewhat logical for becoming sending areas. There are many challenges in upzoning existing areas that come into play and are also part of why we don't yet have TDRs. One is that traditionally we screwed poor people -- and are still doing it to a large extent. But I don't think there's a lack of places to designate -- fairly -- as sending areas. There's simply a lack of political will to take that step.
Along those same lines, Adrian, that block is non-conforming, as is most of Athens, because previous planning commissions made inconsistent decisions. It will take a decade or more or consistent, legally-defensible decisionmaking before that issue is resolved.
I'm troubled by this discussion. The problem here for me is that I don't as an in-town homeowner want to see my neighborhood or any other sacrificed for someone else's profit. And that gets to the ultimate issue that I see -- I don't believe that inappropriate density is good for Athens long-term. Appropriate density, yes, and well-located, logical density, fine, but relatively random upzoning, block-breaking multifamily projects (like you see on Hill Street), etc., are terrible for us. And that is what we get when we are not deliberate in our plans and consistent in their application.
And that gets to the ultimate issue that I see -- I don't believe that inappropriate density is good for Athens long-term. Appropriate density, yes, and well-located, logical density, fine, but relatively random upzoning, block-breaking multifamily projects (like you see on Hill Street), etc., are terrible for us. And that is what we get when we are not deliberate in our plans and consistent in their application.
Well, yes ... but what would you deem 'appropriate?' It seems to me that you're falling into the very trap that I warned about earlier which is 'yeah it's fine to talk about density, but let's just not do it near me.' You yourself said that you had real concerns - legitimate ones I must point out - about seeing that type of development come to your neighborhood.
However, most plans I've seen and most discussions I've heard calling for these higher density developments to be closer to our downtown areas. I mean, I think we'd agree that sticking them way out somewhere around Atlanta Highway wouldn't make much sense, would it?
how many of you were actually at this meeting?
I'm not saying that the points made are not valid and interesting. All I'm saying is that the report of this meeting may or may not have accurately depicted that statements and/or positions.
I was not at the meeting. I've been at lots of meetings that have been written up in the ABH and wondered...we're they at the same meeting that I attended? It's very "dangerous" to pick a side based on the reporting of a meeting that you did not attend. I have no idea whether it was accurately reported but I'd never rely on quotes or reports of positions as reported by only one source.
Receiving zones are a sticking point with TDRs - nobody doubts that and it's not "news" in the sense that it should be taken as an issue never previously addressed. It's been addressed since the very first day! TDRs won't work if there aren't receiving zones - duh! Like nobody has ever thought about that?!
Like most people, I don't have the answer but the question is certainly not a new issue to anybody who has been involved with this on any level. If the receiving zones don't do anything to mitigate sprawl then the whole thing is just a waste of everyone's time. "Not sprawl" basically means "in town" so, here we are.
In-fill is great up to a point but I think we've got to stop thinking in terms of houses (single family dwellings) and start thinking vertically - attractive apartments on multi-stories above street-level retail spaces. Of course, we've got the problems of being way, way, way overbuilt in both single-family houses and apartments.
The market is currently saturated with all types of housing. Affordardable housing will be market driven at some point. When? I don't know but, it's got to be coming in this new "buyer's market". There are folks who make their living almost exclusively by building more living spaces. There were folks that up until a hundred years or so made their livings with horses and carriages, too.
My point is this - we've got too much available living space in Athens. The values will stagnate or go down a bit for a few years. That gives us time to work on TDRs because very few new living spaces will be profitable to build in the short term. Let's take advantage of this temporary glut in the market and get the TDR stuff worked out before the next building boom hits us.
For folks who are in the business of building new living spaces, well, the party is over and it's not just in Athens - it's pretty much everywhere except maybe in the "Katrina areas".
I don't think any of us were suggesting that these issues won't crop up or haven't been thought about by folks in government, but rather I think we're openly discussing about these very real concerns (which even some of these posters have the exact same concerns). In fact, I think much of this discussion has been either about the general theories surrounding TDRs or drawn from Adrian's personal experience with these properties. The article just served as the starting point for this whole thing.
My point is this - we've got too much available living space in Athens. The values will stagnate or go down a bit for a few years. That gives us time to work on TDRs because very few new living spaces will be profitable to build in the short term. Let's take advantage of this temporary glut in the market and get the TDR stuff worked out before the next building boom hits us.
This is where I have real questions about how practical that thinking is, and I mean that in the gentlest way possible. But consider the end of this story ... the market should be slowing down drastically, but we all still see condos and neighborhoods going up rapidly and none of them are less than $200,000.
Is the market somewhat saturated? I agree. However, for some reason it hasn't deterred folks from wanting to develop the next, great new property, and the folks who live in these dwellings move from relatively new ones into even newer ones ... living their previous residence empty. It's almost nomadic.
I don't have any personal experience with those properties. I was discussing what I learned at the meeting.
You're missing my point, JMac. Which is that sending areas are logical and closely located to downtown. They're also not generally in established single-family neighborhoods.
As regards the best interests of the neighborhoods, appropriate density in a single-family neighborhood isn't an apartment complex like Whistlebury. It's single-family housing with mixed use as a transitional buffer for commercial areas.
As regards the best interests of Athens, all of the following are desperately important to the long-term viability of Athens:
1. green space
2. viable in-town single -family neighborhoods which protect neighborhood quality regardless of socioeconomic status
3. preservation of historic resources.
4. Properly located, well-sited density
5. Logical, viable transportations systems, which encourage a variety of uses.
6. A good mixture of commercial, single- and multi-family housing, schools, etc.
We have a) a surprising amount of undeveloped in-town property and b) pockets of largely renter-occupied single-family housing which is not historic -- these are the most logical places to make sending zones.
Wow, apparently I touched a nerve or something without intending to. No need to be so touchy Al! I was just trying to point out the parallels between the Boulevard case and the TDR situation. There are very similar dynamics at work. I don't think that I in any way implied that I had "breaking news". However, I do admit that I am rather pessimistic about the TDR program simply because it seems that everyone wants to be a sending area and the whole NIMBY phenomena leads to a situation where a large number of people may embrace the program, but it never becomes a reality because nobody wants to be a receiving area.
Disclaimer: Submitted for the sake of discussion and not intended in any way as a criticism of anyone
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm not touchy at you, rich,. The problem for me here is that this isn't a novel concept. In fact, it comes up every time a neighborhood wants to oppose inappropriate upzoning, which in my 'hood is at least annually. IMHO, my 'hood can fend for itself -- lots of other 'hoods can't, though, and as a result they're being degraded. This is a problem for Athens because it goes to the heart of the city's future. What is Athens without viable, vibrant neighborhoods?
More importantly, though, we as a city have better options.
Two things Nicki ...
1. Re: first comment ... I see your point now.
2. Re: latest comment ... since I gather you're not a huge fan of TDRs, what are some of these better options you'd like to see us pursue?
I actually like TDRs. I don't get why we don't just go ahead and make some decisions about where we designate sending and receiving zones. Alternatively, we could make a conscious decision to upzone some of the areas I described into higher-density classifications. But that wouldn't address the issue of comparatively dense development in the AR zone.
Also, it bears noting that in many of the existing single-family areas there is some potential for mixed-use projects which include a higher density of housing. Add that to our undeveloped land and I guess what I'm saying is that our existing scheme does allow for some appropriate increase in density. I can't imagine what we'd do to encourage that other than stick to our guns with regard to spot zoning -- 'cause as we all know precedent rules all, and our current precedent based on 20some years of laissez-faire zoning is that a lot of developers and whatnot test or local land use laws by effectively playing chicken with the ACC government. But at some point developers should adjust to the legal conditions and begin to think about developing where the community wants development.
(As an example, the belt around the Greenway is logical. So is the segment of mid-century housing between ARMC and the loop.)
"the segment of mid-century housing between ARMC and the loop"
Nicki, where do you mean, exactly? The neighborhood in the immediate shadow of ARMC (Talmadge Heights (aka "the King Avenue Area, i.s. the non-Cobbham side)) is predominantly single-family now, although there's a substantial number of renters there. Are you talking about the other side of Hawthorne?
Darren
"think about developing where the community wants development."
Exactly. A good TDR program will not be limited to *where* we want development, but should also encompass *what* kind of development the community is asking for. The glut of vacant, new condos that are not selling, and the frantic pace more are being built tells me the community is NOT asking for more $250K condos. Natural selection will only weed out the developers that have pushed that on us after the fact . . .
I totally agree with Al's assessment of the housing situation in Clarke, and it's only gonna get worse.
David
You know, I've long argued for a mixed-use plan for the Naval School property - primarily focusing on MCG and social service providers - but wouldn't that be a pretty decent location to consider too?
Yes, JMac, that would be. Especially since you could preserve green space and historic resources and upzone most of the rest of it and end up with a good product and a ready-made neighborhood with plenty of assets nearby.
And Darren, not sure what it's called -- "Far Boulevard," maybe. Across Prince and beyond Yonah. The area where almost all of the on-Prince houses have already been turned to commercial and nearly everything off Prince is low-quality, non-historic, and rental. That whole Sunset Drive area (the Prince end) is also ripe for intelligent redevelopment, and all those areas are a) already well constructed from an infrastructure perspective, b) close in enough and well-enough located near resources to be walkable and viable. Also, on Prince would be good -- eventually I assume the surface lots will go vertical -- but with what?
Finally, Dave, I agree -- but I'm not aware of any mechanism that allows us to designate what kind of development we get other than building codes and generalized zoning.
Thanks for the clarification, Nicki. I agree that those areas (or most of) would be good targets. Speaking of those, isn't part of the VFW property on Sunset where they're looking to put that "acute care" healthcare facility?
Darren
Post a Comment
<< Home