Smart-growth guru and frequent commenter, Scott, recently got in touch with parking expert Todd Litman about the 315 W. Ponce controversy.  After agreeing that an 18% reduction in parking is adequate for the development, Litman suggests a compromise that protects both the neighborhood and lets the developer build fewer parking spots at the outset.

“…you can probably have no trouble with an 18% reduction from the conventional standard in that situation, since it has many factors that tend to reduce parking demands, including density, land use mix, transit proximity, good walkability, and lower-income demographics.

I suggest that you develop a contingency-based parking management plan, which identifies various parking management strategies that can be implemented as needed. For example, the plan might specify how parking will be shared, regulated, and priced (including cashing out and unbundling), plus carshare services available on site, and the development of an overflow parking plan. The plan can also specify how regulations will be enforced (for example, applying “resident only” restrictions on nearby streets) and problems monitored (for example, with a complaint line to the city parking department). The plan can include some additional strategies that will be implemented if needed (for example, if the city receives more than a dozen complaints of overflow parking on nearby streets), such as arrangements to use nearby off-site spaces (such as renting some parking spaces at a nearby church), new regulations, higher fees, improved bicycle parking facilities, creation of a transportation management association, improved enforcement, or even construction of additional structured parking). This plan can be enforced with a legal agreement or a bond.

This type of contingency-based planning reduces the need to predict exactly how many parking spaces will be needed. Most likely, few of these additional strategies will actually be needed, but it reduces the pressure on developers if they are able to say specifically how any future parking problems will be addressed.”

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.  I wonder if any of the involved parties (neighborhood/city/developers) would get behind such a plan.