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I agreed we should not forge ahead with approvals based on out of date ordinances but legislation by variance is not the way to go on such an important component of city planning .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.

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?

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.

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.