Of course I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that there’s sufficient parking downtown to take on THIS project. When the parking deck is full, do you really expect the residents to drive several blocks and pay to park in the public parking spaces? Wouldn’t it just be logical for them to seek parking that is closer and free, i.e. ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS as customers of the businesses along Ponce Avenue are already doing?

Don’t get me wrong, most of us want this parking lot developed. However the scale of 220 apartments that abut and are adjacent to R-60 is just too much for this neighborhood to sit quietly by and accept. It’s also been an issue for a long time that the City has done nothing about. So that’s why we are in this fight.

Also it is my understanding that variances should only be granted based on hardship or extreme extenuating circumstances. To me, granting a variance of 124 parking spaces so that the Wachovia parking lot can be developed doesn’t fall under that guideline.

Wardell, I don’t think your “no granting variances” argument flies particularly when it comes to density and parking.

As Scott so eloquently stated, our codes were developed in an era when the car was king and zoning codes were designed so that everyone would have a parking place and no one was expected to park and walk. That is not downtown Decatur anymore, not to mention that there is already plenty of existing parking in downtown Decatur to take on this project.

If you want to “accept whatever code allows” then take a look at Memorial Drive or Candler Road where you see giant underused parking lots and aging strip shopping centers. How well did that work out?

Maybe the code needs to be changed to accommodate new planning ideas and $4 gasoline, but that should not stop us from granting reasonable exceptions to the code from time to time when warranted. If the strict zoning code (whatever it says) had to be followed to the letter of the law everytime that would severely limit creativity on the part of developers and individual property owners and stop some good development. That is not the city that I want to live in!

And regarding “due process,” I am sure that your troops will be out and will be allowed to speak when hearings on this project will be heard. You will get a voice.

You should remember, however, that if you want the developer to just “follow the code” they could just smack another office building back there without much city approval or public input. It has been shown that an office complex generates far more traffic than housing and the commuters who work there during the day would have very little investment in our city. I’d rather see people living there who could contribute to Decatur.

I know the 220 is your sticking point and applaud you for at least being clear in what this issue is. But I have to say, and this includes my experiences professionally as well, the parking standards in our current code were lifted directly from regulations designed for auto dominated environments. The developer is asking for an 18% reduction off the required spaces and, in a mixed-use, walkable town with multiple mobility options, that number is not only reasonable, it’s a little tame.

Thanks for an enjoyable volley.
SD

We’ve worked with the developer as much as possible. We’ve had several meetings with him and his architects. In those meetings have seen parking experts and traffic experts. All bases have been covered in that sense.

Ever since the first meeting, we’ve said 220 is too many; primarily because this site is abuts and is adjacent to R-60. Common sense tells us that, not statistics. In our last meeting he stated he cannot budge off that 220 number. Therefore at this point we agree to disagree.

Trust me, we’ve EACH tried to be accomodating to the other party. Quite honestly, and I am speaking for myself personally, what the architect has proposed is about the best that anyone could expect. However I don’t care if the development is gold-plated. 220 in that parking lot which abuts and is adjacent to R-60 doesn’t fly.

Wardell

We really have no idea why the hotel idea was abandoned. I doubt seriously if it was because we “whined” about it. These are businessmen who make decisions based on profit margins. If our “whining”, as you call it which I am mature enough to not take offense at really did any good, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion today.

Wardell

Bill, I’d be willing to accept whatever code allows. If the code needs to be changed, let’s do it through due process and public input. Not by granting variances.

Next Scott,

Scott, thank you for raising intelligent and thoughtful counterpoints. I admit, on the face they appear to have basis. Here are my counter-counterpoints:

For your #1, The parking variance is an issue. It’s a HUGE variance being sought, not just a handful of spaces.

For your #2, I fall back to the adage that a person can drown in a lake that averages 3 inches of water. OK, so it’s been shown that in some cases that residential/commercial shared parking works… on “average”. Certainly there’s no guarantee it will. What if it doesn’t? Who suffers? The neighborhood does. Then there’s traffic. For shared parking to work, that means most of the residents have to leave the parking deck during morning and return in the evening. How are they going to be FORCED to not cut through neighborhood streets to get to work, school, etc? It simply cannot and will not be done.

3) This site abuts and is adjacent to R-60. Other developments such as The Artisan don’t apply.

4) I have no statistics to prove this. I have just been told that there are plenty of people in the Artisan are Decatur residents who wanted to give up the hassles of yard work. Besides, really, who would really want to move out of Decatur!!!

5) If we have extra capacity in schools, then why are the latest reports showing Decatur schools at, near or over capacity? Why aren’t we using this extra capacity?

6) I am a huge supporter of affordable housing. That’s not the issue here. WIthout going into some confidential details, let me just say that when it comes to emergency service personnel, the issue is supply and demand.

Finally, I appreciate both of your responses to my post. Obviously this is an important issue and I welcome a healthy discourse on the subject.

Thanks to you both
Wardell

-Rus

The main arguments that neighborhood opponents cite are parking and traffic, and that has very little to do with historic preservation, unless the city were to propose turning Ponce Pl into a thoroughfare.

THough I could be described as a “preservationist”, I am generally in favor of the 315 W. Ponce plan (as much as I can be without seeing any concrete plans) as long as it maintains the 3 story step-back from Montgomery (which it does due to zoning laws). But yes, I AM concerned about the office tower. The fact that they’ve cut windows on the ATM side of the tower makes me cringe a bit, though I concede it because the developer isn’t tearing the building down. Also, I’m very skeptical about plans to build around and in front of the building. That front facade landscaping is essential to the style of the building (have you noticed that the benches echo the shape of the covered walkway? Ultimately, I guess I’m in favor the development of the parking lot only.

Many people will think I’m nuts for wanting to preserve something which many see as an out-of-place 10-story office tower, but I’m cool with it. Aesthetic tastes change with each passing year, so we can’t discriminate about what we deem “nice” now vs. in 1960.

Those are the things any preservationist would be concerned with. What I hear from the neighborhood is a very different song.