Tonight – 315 W. Ponce Parking Variance Considered
August 11, 2008 | 9:10 am
The Zoning Board of Appeals will consider the variance for shared parking of the 315 West Ponce developer tonight at 7:30p in the city hall meeting room. A big turnout is expected.
The application for the parking variance is posted on the Livable Growth website. In it, the developer asserts that the shared parking idea is in response to the neighborhood’s concerns about the mass and scale of the project. As seen above, the parking deck currently sits near the property line of Fairview residents with a green buffer between them.
Needless to say, this should be a very interesting meeting. Aside from expected tensions between the developer and residents that want a larger deck (either because of neighborhood parking concerns or because they simply want to prevent the development), it will be interesting to see how unified the neighborhood is on this project. Also, how will Fairview residents react to the prospect of a larger parking deck? How many residents outside the neighborhood will weigh in?
This is the first of three upcoming meetings concerning this hotly debated development. If the variance is approved, the project is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on Thursday, Sept. 4th and before the City Commission on Monday, Sept 15th.
Let the games begin.
The neighbors should be careful what they wish for. Tonight’s variance request has nothing to do with whether the building should be in stucco or brick, whether they should be apartments, condos, single family houses, a public park, or even whether it ultimately should be built. The ultimate decision of whether the project goes forward will be by the planning commission and the city commission.
The decision tonight is about whether Decatur should embrace the concept of shared parking, which, to my mind at least, makes a lot of sense in a city like Decatur with limited land, ample options for walking and public transit, large (already existing) public parking facilities, mixed uses in an urban environment, and a town that strives to be clean, green, and yes, livable.
Yes, the question tonight is about whether we want to be a town where cars and parking lots come first, or a town that embraces smart ways to accommodate people and parking, promote walking and alternative means of getting around, not just for the 315 project, but for development in Decatur moving forward.
The zoning board really only has 2 choices tonight. Embrace the concept of shared parking, such as to limit the number of unused parking spaces a development has, or require the developer to build a larger parking structure, that will encourage more cars and more traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods and will ultimately be a taller parking structure that will hurt the views of surrounding residents and cause more sound and light pollution for the surrounding neighbors. (Side note: Speaking of parking, I was downtown several times this weekend and found plenty of street parking in and around the 315 W. Ponce and CVS shopping center area. As a matter of fact, hardly anyone was using the street parking on Ponce Place).
If the zoning board rejects the concept of shared parking tonight, I really do believe that Decatur has turned its back on the downtown plan developed 20 years ago and which has so successfully turned around this city.
There will be plenty of opportunity to reject the apartments proposed to be built at 315 W. Ponce. As I said earlier, that decision ultimately rests with the city commission. But, please, don’t cause the city to reject a good idea when it comes to parking requirements for deveopment moving forward.
[...] diligent Decaturite over at DecaturMetro reminds us the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals will review the requested parking variance proposed by [...]
Suzie- I’m not sure there are that many more opportunities.
It would be very difficult for the planning or city commission to reject the project just because people don’t like it. Unless some new information surfaces (like the building is on an ancient Indian burial mound or something), the parking variance is the opposition’s best shot. Other than that, the developer seems content to work within the existing zoning ordinances.
As for arguing against the development based on the goals of the 2000 strategic plan to maintain the city’s “small town” feel, that’s really open to a lot of interpretation and isn’t a legal document. As such, its a much weaker argument…and I think both sides know it.
It would be very difficult for the planning or city commission to reject the project just because people don’t like it.
Decaturite, I generally think that you are on target with most things, but you are way off base here. The city commission’s decision on whether to approve the development or not (the planning commission simply makes a non-binding recommendation to the city) will be a political decision. Our city commissioners are good people who make, for the most part, sound decisions on behalf of Decatur, however, they are politicians as well and are generally not interested in making decisions that will make voters upset.
For every issue I’ve ever been involved with the city commission, their decisions are heavily influenced by public opinion. I don’t believe this one will be any different. At the very least residents, by pressuring the city commission, can get improvements to the project, such as building materials, which have been discussed at length on this blog. In fact, that is why the city code requires a review of a development like this by the planning commission and city commission.
But don’t just believe me. Look at Decatur City Code on the standards for approval for uses permitted after a hearing by the Planning Commission and City Commission:
1. Is the proposed use suitable in view of the use and development of adjacent and nearby property?
2. Does the proposed use adversely affect the existing use or usability of adjacent or nearby property?
3. Does the proposed use result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities or other public facilities?
4. Are there other existing or changing conditions which, because of their impact on the public health, safety, morality and general welfare of the community, give supporting grounds for either approval or disapproval of the proposed use?
5. The proposed use may be approved subject to such conditions as may be imposed in order to mitigate impacts which may be expected without the imposition of conditions, and may be regulated in the same manner as provided in section 13.5, conditional zoning.
Sounds like a complete review and “open to a lot of interpretation” to me.
Anyway, if the zoning board rejects shared parking tonight, it doesn’t “reject the project,” it simply means the developers have to build a bigger parking lot.
great…MORE parking…at least with the current plan parking would be hidden behind the proposed building.
LOVE car dependent atlanta…just love it.
BLLLLLAAAAAaaaaaa….
(not reacting to Bill’s statment at the end – didnt get a since if he thinks it need more or not – , just general reaction to the percieved parking needs by residents…
Thanks for the response Bill. Gotta say I didn’t honestly know that the actual code was so vague when dealing with approval. Thanks for providing the wording.
Yumm…this crow is delicious…
okay, I’m going to put my stupid hat on and ask what does “this crow is delicious” mean?
havn’t heard that saying before.
Newbie,
I clearly prefer the shared parking concept. I think that there is plenty of parking not only for that project, but within a 2 block radius to accommodate all of the parking needs of that area.
Newbie, you “eat crow” when you admit that you were wrong
Glad to hear that! I agree there is pleanty of parking in and around town. way to much in fact (in relation to surface parking to building ratio)
Parking seems to be the biggest issue for sure, not just with this project, but in general. The city just needs to make the decks more visible to the general public to quelch the idea there is not enough. I have seen in many cities decks that have digital readouts of how many spaces are availabe in a particlar deck, so you knew before you got in. And they were clearly labeled as city decks that charged by the half hour. 40 cents a half hour isnt too bad for dinner or shopping downtown to me!
sorry…off topic, parking just bugs me. and Decatur’s got a lot of it.
Live in the area and all for the new development–Decatur as a whole needs this and that is what the commission must consider!
thanks decaturite…i shall relinguish my stupid hat now.
who wants it???!
Thomas Wheatley at the Loaf covered last night’s proceedings:
http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/freshloaf/2008/08/12/315-w-ponce-project-tabled-by-zoning-board/
Sounds like the meeting was “packed” with opponents, who held forth until 1:30 AM.
I am utterly dumbfounded at the Cakes & Ale owner’s claim that parking is already an issue. Just unbelievable.
Shared parking involves more than simply building fewer parking spaces. Successful shared parking must be supported by active parking management strategies and detailed contingency plans addressing enforcement of parking and traffic ordinances. ( the need for such management plans is noted in the parking section of the City’s Transportation Plan )
Opinions of parking experts differ about how shared parking can/should be accomplished. Many municipalities across the country have enacted shared parking plans. Those plans vary based on the specific traffic dynamics , geography and demographics of the location.
Decatur needs a comprehensive plan for parking . Parking ordinances must be updated to regulate not only the number of spaces required for various uses but also set standards for oversight of parking management. New ordinances should be based on data from independent studies focused on the specific realities of Decatur.
I am a proponent of shared parking in Decatur however I oppose the parking variance application for the 315 Ponce project. I want to see parking issues addressed on a citywide scale – not one parcel at a time through variances .
I encourage all who read this board and support shared parking to contact City Commissioners . Ask that they fast track efforts to establish a comprehensive parking management plan defined through updated ordinances.
There does need to be a city wide scale parking plan for decatur, municiple lots need to be better identified and some sort of education process for the citizens on parking downtown implimented. If Montana Grill has to put a sign to tell people where to park, obviously people in the city have a poor understanding of how an urban environment works. Decatur should not be suburban, you don’t park outside the shop/resturant like you do at Publix.
My only concern in waiting for this to happen, as government tends to go, would be that we could be waiting for years and years for them to get it together. Does that mean we should continue to design parking as we have been? Should this project have a 6 story parking deck instead of the proposed three (I think)?
As of right, if the developer is forced to produce the parking per code the deck would be much larger and in reality never never full. It would be a waist of money for the developer (money that could be used for green development such as LEED certification, I’d rather citizens fight for that over increasing parking), an eyesore for the residents (at least at 35′ – 40′ trees would quickly cover the deck for residents backing up to the it, at 70′ it would take quite a bit longer…if never able to visually block the deck), and generally just poor design (it would look awful, IMHO, to see 3 levels of empty parking deck popping up behind the 3 story residential portion off Montgomery.)
Did anyone in support of the project show up? Or do they stay quiet and just blog on the internet for fear of being lynched?
I spoke on behalf of the shared parking, newbie, and I live in 335 W. Ponce.
It was a little terrifying. And I’m sure I didn’t make too many friends …especially those folks who were half-yelling into the mic or pounding on the table in opposition to the plan. Though most were restrained, it was tense. I spoke briefly and only at the end did I hear some hushed jeering.
I didn’t enjoy taking sides, but I do give the developer more credit than most of the neighborhood does. Shared parking is the best solution for this particular development (which I do like), and while I understand the fear of the neighborhood regarding traffic, shared parking is an efficient solution, especially in a mixed used development so close to transit.
That said, I’m happy with the decision of the board. I believe strongly in shared parking and think that there’s a need for updated parking plans for decks and lots–new and old–in Decatur. If further study and guidance will encourage a shared parking plan for the city, then I’m all for it.
you are braver than I
newbie
I share your concern that we could wait for years to get a comprehensive plan. That is why I encourage everyone to stand up and be heard by the City Commission. They need to get the message loud and clear that we want city wide parking issues dealt with on a legislative basis now rather than later. .
After the above mentioned Hillyer/Howard conflict, the City put money in the budget to support a task force to study zoning changes needed to deal with C2 next to R60. No one acted on making it happen and now here we are once again facing similar strife. All of us must take some blame – City Commission, City staff and citizens for not pushing forward on this difficult issue.
Decatur’s overall stance on shared parking should not be skewed by the brouhaha over 315 Ponce. Many citizens spoke last night in opposition to 315 Ponce – only a handful said they were against the general concept of shared parking . Many more expressed support for or at least interest in the concept if it is carried out in a carefully considered way
I agreed we should not forge ahead with approvals based on out of date ordinances but legislation by variance is not the way to go on such an important component of city planning . Perhaps the developer can delay 6 – 8 months while Decatur puts together a comprehensive parking management plan. The developer’s parking consultant mentioned last night that he worked for Savannah during development of their City parking plan. I am sure he would agree on the importance of careful, comprehensive planning.
Newbie , I love your point about the parking deck cost savings being used for other beneficial things . In fact one speaker for the opposition last night made a similar observation. His calculations estimated the developer will save $3 million dollars by building a smaller parking deck. The speaker posed the question -”What enhancements to the greater good is the developer offering the citizens of Decatur in exchange for a variance worth $3 million ? ” The developer’s attorney did not address that question in his rebuttal comments.