This 'parking issue' is really out of hand. Is no one willing to walk a few blocks? Every once and while, someone on this post wants to make a reference to Savannah, well, if you've ever hung out at city market or bay street in sav, then you know that you have 3 choices: Drive around looking for a parking spot nearby (not guaranteed), park 4 or 5 blocks away and walk, park 4 or 5 blocks away and sit in a cab for an eternity. I choose to walk. 5 points has those same options now, and it's agreed that adding more will result in more congestion, but really, park a few blocks away and take the time to walk around 5 points. You may just find something/somewhere that's even better than your intended destination. You can't accidentally walk into a cool looking venue when your driving around LOOKING for a parking spot.
Yes. The parking issue is completely out of hand, and these requirements for so much parking are the biggest drivers for demolition. In my opinion, i don't think that a neighborhood can be both historic and comply with the ridiculous suburban parking ethos at the same time
I agree. The parking argument is weak. It is not hard to find parking in the area. Do we really want to start adding parking lots all over the place. Look how that worked for downtown. We don't need to always bow to the automobile.
No one, including RAP is arguing for more parking lots. We are arguing for compliance with our Overlay, and advocating for what our community expects (which we know from workshops throughout the overlay development and surveys and focus groups we've conducted). Our position is that if you cannot meet parking requirements in the Overlay, which in this case are 19 onsite spaces--a 75% discount from the regular code--then you need to give in other areas. We believe the building as designed is too large for its site and that block. Ideally it would be set back on both Margaret and Oak, especially to come no further forward than Mossfire. RAP's preference would be for a two-story restaurant/whatever with a roof top dining area. We worked on the Overlay for 2 years. We thought it through. For example, in the commercial character areas (Avondale Shopps, Park and King) the Overlay requires no parking for contributing historic structures. It also states that if you tear down a non-contributing structure in these areas and build another structure no larger than the previous one, you do not have to add parking. The Overlay is much friendlier to development than the regular code. But those parking requirements are there for a reason and that reason is to control development from be larger than the community wants. They like the human scale of the existing built environment. You may disagree with us, but we genuinely want this to be a great project and we believe our recommendations would make it better.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. I think people are looking at the parking situation and not understanding that parking requirements were but one piece in a larger chess match aimed at securing the feel and historic fabric of the neighborhood. You cannot analyze that one consideration in a vacuum, or else the larger picture doesn't make sense.
However, looking at the proposal, I do feel that the highest and best use of that very small triangle-shaped lot may very well be building out to the lot lines. There isn't much room to have any meaningful setbacks but still have the space be commercially viable, that lot is tiny. I am not sure what else they could do, unless the only type of restaurant they were planning on running was a hot dog cart.
But with that said, the proposed design is awful. They are essentially constructing a self-contained walled fortress with no pedestrian/street-level interaction whatsoever. If the proposal included glass walls, some kind or architectural open space (like the Bremer Brace building) then I'd probably be in favor of it. But as it stands, it probably is not appropriate for the location.
Just my $0.02 anyway.
