Denver residents catch a break on parking exemption overhaul

Some days, keeping up with Denver city government’s views of car ownership can make us feel like we’re taking crazy pills. But — thankfully — sanity prevailed among council members in last week’s reform of the city’s off-street parking exemption.

What a strange fight it was. Urbanists and city planners hoped to allow builders of micro apartments to either completely forgo providing off-street parking, or provide precious little of it. On the other side were residents who knew what that would mean in the really real world: extra cars competing for places to park on already clogged streets in Denver’s most-loved neighborhoods.

That this dispute took months to settle speaks volumes about the depths of the passions over such issues.

As The Denver Post’s Jon Murray reported, the battle started after developers of multistory micro-apartment buildings sought to exploit a parking exemption put in place in 2005 that was meant to help spur small-business development on small lots along East Colfax Avenue. In 2010, the city looped in other mixed-used areas across the city.

The lots at issue are 6,250 square feet or less. The original idea was to help small businesses and avoid bigger projects that combined lots.

Then came word that developers were planning a pair of five-story micro-apartment buildings with up to 108 units. Using the exemption, developers originally planned to skip any off-site parking amenities. What’s more, other such developments were in the works — until neighbors balked. The argument, of course, was that occupants wouldn’t need cars, because of Denver’s transit options and bicycle lanes.

After neighbors rightly argued that many of the new apartments’ occupants and their guests would, in fact, also use cars, the City Council declared a moratorium on the exemption and reviewed the situation.

We fully supported the moratorium, even though we also see the value of a multi-modal approach. As we noted at the time, one reason streets are congested is due to the fact that people are circling in search for places to park. Or as Councilman Jolon Clark put it, certain neighborhoods could see “row after row of 16 units with no parking” in the place of current shops or single-family homes, adding: “That is something that will dramatically change the feel of that community.”

Last week the council approved a scaled-down parking exemption that requires at least some off-street parking (over, by the way, the continued objections of city planners, who supported less-strict requirements). The new rules allow developers of future projects to avoid putting in parking spaces for housing or offices for the first story, or on the first two floors as long as the site is within a quarter-mile of a bus line or a half-mile of a rail station. Past that, normal parking ratio requirements are to be honored.

Council members were wise to take action. Maybe when self-driving-car rentals supplant ownership, current parking requirements won’t make sense anymore. But that reality isn’t here yet, and the vast majority of residents own cars. They’ve got to put them somewhere, even if they do live in tiny spaces.

Denver City Council approves scale-back of parking exemption

By Jon Murray

BY Erica Meltzer

Denverite,

PUBLISHED May 1 2016

t’s a step that Council President Albus Brooks said moves Denver backwards but that proponents said responds to important concerns of their constituents.

The issue is the small lot parking exemption, a component of Denver’s zoning code that allowed developers in certain mixed-use zones to skip the parking when they develop lots that are 6,250 square feet or smaller.

There’s a moratorium in place on using that exemption, and there were two proposals on the table. One, supported by Brooks, would have exempted parking for the first three stories if a project was close to transit and for the first two stories if it were farther from transit. The other, pushed by Councilman Jolon Clark, would require parking after the first two stories for projects close to transit and after the first story further out. Both proposals maintain the full exemption for existing buildings, even if they are being redeveloped for a new use.

The Denver City Council voted 7-6 Monday to advance Clark’s proposal. A public hearing and final vote is scheduled for May 1.

The discussion on this question has dragged out over many months, requiring the moratorium to be extended past its original expiration date. It divided community activists who think parking requirements drive up the cost of housing and mean building for cars rather than people and those who think that developers are profiting while long-time residents are suffering the impacts of new congestion

Clark’s District 7 includes South Pearl Street, where new commercial development has caused parking to spill into the surrounding neighborhoods.

Councilman Rafael Espinoza noted that the majority of the small lots in the city that would be subject to the exemption are in his district in northwest Denver and in Clark’s district in south Denver.

“I would encourage my colleagues to respect that two-thirds of these parcels lie within my district and Councilman Clark’s district, and it’s our constituents who are vocalizing concerns,” he said.

Brooks’ district, which includes downtown and Five Points, has most of the rest of the affected parcels.

The yes votes on Clark’s proposal were Clark, Espinoza, Paul Kashmann, Wayne New, Debbie Ortega, Kevin Flynn and a clearly torn Paul Lopez who initially passed and then broke the tie.

The no votes were Brooks, Chris Herndon, Stacie Gilmore, Mary Beth Susman, Kendra Black and Robin Kniech.

READ MORE HERE

“Science Deniers” on City Council Drag Denver Backward By Requiring More Parking

By David Sachs May 2, 2017

PUBLISHED BY DENVER STREETS BLOG

The Denver City Council voted 9 to 2 Monday to mandate more parking on small lots, fueling higher housing costs and more traffic. The decision ended a nine-month saga in which the council caved completely to residents who insist that city policy should prioritize their ability to park for free on the street in front of their homes, not broader public goals like affordability and walkability.

In policy circles, there is no serious dispute that parking mandates exert upward pressure on housing costs and undercut walkability. Those are the conclusions reached by the Obama administration, the Sightline Institute, and the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, among others.

Just try telling the City Council members who last night tried to knock down the arguments against parking minimums, citing only their own strawmen.

“This isn’t an issue about affordability, folks,” said City Councilman Paul Lopez, who voted for the bill. “Seattle, Portland… they still have an affordable housing crisis… This exemption has been around for 6.5 years. You think that’s made a dent in our affordable housing crisis? It hasn’t.”

But no one has ever claimed that the absence of parking minimums on a fraction of Denver’s lots is a cure-all for affordability. The argument against imposing new parking minimums is that they will make the current housing problem worse by forcing construction costs upward — that’s what happens when you start mandating parking stalls that each cost $26,000 to build.

City Councilman Rafael Espinoza, meanwhile, asserted that “the rental market isn’t being driven by parking.” He’s right — but again, no one is claiming otherwise. What is driving the market is the scarcity of homes relative to the number of people who want to live here. And requiring parking spaces on constrained lots of 6,250 square feet or less makes it physically and financially more difficult to meet that demand.

READ MORE HERE