At least 125 residents crammed themselves into the confines of the city hall meeting room last night to hear and respond to 315 developers application for a parking variance. When asked about contingency planning and theoretical conditions, the representitives for the developer seemed flexible. They agreed to small conditions proposed by the board (like including Flexcar in the parking lot, dedicated parking for scooters) and even one large one (that the owner would have to reapply for a variance if the property was ever converted to condos – due to dedicated parking concerns).

After hearing the plans and arguments of JLB thru the owner, architect, and traffic and parking consultants, the massive crowd was asked to respond.

Only 4 folks stood up in favor of the development, even though murmurings within the crowd seemed to be rather mixed, and of those only one lived in the affected area.

It wasn’t until 10-10:30p that chair Mark Burnette asked to hear the opposition. It didn’t take long to see where this meeting was going…other than late into the night. Local resident Jeff Davis stood and argued that a. the applicant’s application was not complete b. that the board didn’t have the authority to approve a parking variance because the city code doesn’t identify shared parking between residential and office according to 8.1.5) and c. that the proceedings were invalid because they weren’t conducted in precisely the correct way. (Chair Burnette took particular exception to this final point) Everyone still in the room, not privy to the strategy of the neighborhood beforehand, now saw it clearly through sleepy eyes.

Go after the legality of the “concept” of shared parking and stall the process.

Davis then called up a Livable Growth-retained parking consultant, who argued that the developer’s parking estimates were much too low according to a different “national” calculation.

After that rather tense back-and-forth, residents of the neighborhood started speaking up…Pat Davis reiterated Jeff Davis’ statements that the board could not grant a variance for something that the city had not approved (the concept of “shared parking”). She also noted that Livable Growth’s petition had received over 1,000 signatures. It was 11:30p when Steven Saunders approached the commission with a cardboard and Styrofoam model of the property…and I realized I wouldn’t make it to the end. There were lots of residents itching to speak after waiting patiently through the first few opponents. So I left…defeated by lots of questions and concerns and an 8:30p start-time.

So how do I know the issue was tabled? Because Creative Loafing’s Thomas Wheatley has a stronger constitution than I…plus he gets paid. Not only did he stay ’til the end, but he also wrote about it on Fresh Loaf…all before 3am! It’s a definite read to hear how things turned out, plus he got to hear DeKalb Commissioner Kathy Gannon (a 335 W. Ponce resident) express her concerns about the development. I had seen her at the back of the room…but wasn’t sure if she would speak up.

So the issue is tabled and I’m unclear of next steps. If anyone would like to fill me in, I would greatly appreciate it. If not, I’m sure Wheatley can fill us in when he wakes up.

From LivableGrowth.org…

The developer, JLB Partners, has requested that their appearance before the Planning Commission be deferred until after the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to their application for variance. This means that they will appear at the NEXT Planning Commission meeting in September. The calendar of events for 315 West Ponce has been updated and the letter requesting the deferral is posted in the development’s files section.

This means that the next CRITICAL meeting date for this project will be:

August 11, 7:30pm – Zoning Board of Appeals (City Hall, 509 North McDonough)

Trees As Seen in Winter - From Google Street View

Cherie has forwarded along a note from a landscape architect in the neighborhood who has contacted three separate arborists in regards to the four unique (and massive) Dawn Redwoods on the 315 W. Ponce property. The verdict seems to be that the 12 1/2 foot distance between the Redwoods and Building “B”, which fronts Ponce, isn’t enough and would eventually kill the trees.

Here’s the resident’s note followed by an arborist’s letter in the continuation….

Dear Commissioners,

In reviewing the documents for the proposed project located at 315 West Ponce de Leon Avenue, it has come to my attention that the 5 Dawn Redwood trees, located along the front plain of the existing Wachovia building, are in jeopardy as a result of the proposed nearby construction. As a Landscape Architect, I am familiar with basic protection measures which are recommended to insure long term survivability of trees in construction zones.

It is my understanding that the City is of the strong opinion that these 5 specimen trees are not to be damaged or killed. As recently as the July DDA meeting, the developer stated that the trees were safe. This is in doubt.My first hope is that the trees will be saved. Short of that goal, I want for the fate of the trees to be known up front.The proposed front building, Building “B”, is designed to be sited 12 1/2′ from the centerline of the tree trunks. My concern about this placement led me to meet with three certified arborists, all independent from one another, to learn their opinions about the survivability of these trees. The following report expresses the professional opinion of one of the arborists, saying that the trees will be severely compromised by construction and will not survive. Please read the report and let me know if you have any questions.Not included at this time are the other arborists’ analyses; however, their conclusions coincide with those of Mr. Morris.

Sincerely, [ed: Name has been withheld]

You’ll find the arborist’s letter after the jump…

Hmm…this is troubling…and it seems that at least one member of the city commission agrees. Commissioner Baskett replied to the landscape architect’s original note expressing his concern.

Personally I’ve never quite bought on to the idea of Building “B” anyway. While the rear building only covers a parking lot, building “B” replaces probably the best example of the modernist landscape in the town…and that includes those Redwoods.

Also, I still can’t picture building “B” not looking sort of cramped in front of the massive office building.

Should be interesting to see how this new wrench works its way thru the gears of the political system.

Stay tuned!

Read the rest of this entry »

…but it doesn’t seem all that dense in comparison.

Asst. City Manager Lyn Menne has crunched a lot of numbers for us and compares the 315 W. Ponce project with other well-known past Decatur condos in terms of scale and density.

• 335 W. Ponce – 70 units- This site is exactly one acre. Density is 70 units per acre and abuts the R-60 zone.

• Artisan Phase I – 77 units – Phase I and II are both located on the same 1.9 acre tract. This tract was zoned for 70/acre, and with the 20% density bonus for affordable units the total approved unit count was 162 which works out to about 85 units per acre with the density bonus. The demand for larger units resulted in smaller units being combined so the final product is about 77 units instead of 105 units in Phase I and about 50 units in Phase II instead of 57 bringing the total to 127. The final density of the project as developed is around 67 units per acre. While the number of units did decrease, the size and scale of the building remained unchanged.

• Artisan Phase II – 50 units – Same as above

• Decatur Renaissance – 168 units – Harold A. Dawson/Lane developed this 2.67 acre site. The City calculated the site including the existing office building and parking deck associated because it was considered one site — similar situation to the 315 W. Ponce project. It works out to 63 units per acre. The height variance was important to us because it was so close to the out of scale office building and we wanted to blend the height difference to help “hide” the earlier grandfathered structure. Because it fronted Ponce we had the ability to encourage the taller structure.

• Townsquare Condos – 105 units – Developed by Ultima Properties with 105 units on 1.9 acres. As built, it is 58 units per acre but the property is zoned for 70 units per acre. This project was originally approved for more units and therefore a higher density but they ended up combining some smaller units into larger units to respond to market demand so the unit count went down to 105. While the total unit count went down, the size/scale of the building remained the same.

• Although the 315 W. Ponce site is zoned for 70 units per acre, the developer isn’t close to that density. The site is 4.9 acres so the project is actually closer to 44 units per acre making it less dense than every example above.

Geez…I didn’t realize the site was so much larger than the Artisan’s!  But if I think back to that large, grassy, fenced parking lot…it actually begins to make sense.

But there’s not much new info if you frequent this site. You can read it here.

Or to see the stock Christmastime pic of Decatur that the AJC attached to this story, click here!

Get ready everyone…cause it sounds like the 315 W. Ponce developers are going to the planning commission for approval in August. This date is based on rumblings that I’ve personally heard and from a recent note by Wardell on the Oakhurst Message Board.

That same note also asks (with a few too many CAPS in my opinion) residents to sign a petition that opposes the current development plan for the site. 34 people have signed the online version thus far.

Here it is in full…

We the undersigned hereby petition the Decatur City Commission, the Decatur Planning Commission, and the Decatur Zoning Board of Appeals as follows:

1) That the current proposed development of dwelling units abutting and adjacent to this R-60 neighborhood not be permitted on this C-2 Site.

2) That any other residential development on this site be approved only if it will not have adverse effects on the density, traffic, public services, or schools of the existing R-60 site.

3) That any development be required to meet all current zoning requirements as to parking for this site.

So I guess this means the neighborhood isn’t really working on a compromise, huh?

And I have just one question at the moment about this petition…how does one measure and/or determine any potential “adverse effects”? I think there are lots of assumptions being made here that have yet to be proven.

For those new to this issue, I highly recommend this post to get up to speed on the arguments of both sides.

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.