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.

Walked past the 315 W. Ponce office tower today and saw construction crews cutting large holes, which I assume will be windows, into the first floor, Ponce Pl. elevation of the building. A peek inside looked like a basement.

I wonder what they will be showing off through those windows. [UPDATE: Cherie gives us the answer in the comments section]

The preservationist in me cringes, while the realist recognizes that it is a pretty unfriendly building from the sidewalk. I better get used to it. It’s just the first of many changes to this site over the coming monthsyears.

Playing a little catch up today after spending a whirlwind weekend in NYC.

Anyhow, in case you hadn’t yet noticed, April’s Decatur Focus is out and gives us the most detailed update on the 315 W. Ponce development we’ve seen recently.

In summary, the article states that the developer has removed all curb-cuts (entrances/exits) along Montgomery St and has limited the height along Montgomery to 3-stories in the 90-feet closest to the street (in keeping with current zoning) and transitions up to 5 stories close to the existing office building. Also the idea of a hotel along Ponce has been scraped (due to neighborhood concerns) and more residential has been proposed in its place.

The parking deck and traffic flow continue to be the most contentious issues between the developer and residents.  The article states that the city is commissioning its own traffic study to see how the neighborhood would be impacted.  I still haven’t received word on where the original traffic study, produced by the neighborhood, came from.

I’m still most curious about how this 5-story development will look ascetically next to the 10-story office tower, but I seem to be the only one.  I don’t think I’ll be able to judge that until actual plans become publicly available.

The neighborhood group is holding a informational meeting this evening at 220 Fairview Ave at 7:30p regarding the potential development at 315 W. Ponce.

A note from organizer Cherie Long gives details…

The meeting is in the backyard where there will be a projector and laptop as well as handouts.  There are many tables and plenty of room. If you have a folding sport chair please bring it if you can.

the intent of tonight’s meeting is multifold:

1. to share information and research which has been gathered by individuals in the neighborhood

2. to discuss issues with the development which include shared parking, density and mass, impact etc.

3. to propose a decision making process for presenting information to residents and city officials