In approving a scaled-down parking exemption for small lots that now mandates some on-site spaces, the Denver City Council on Monday sided with advocates who pleaded for relief in parking-scarce neighborhoods over the objections of the city’s own planning staff.
Several council members have said they want to see the city stake out broader strategies for dealing with transportation and parking challenges in some of the city’s oldest neighborhoods, where street parking is at a premium.
But the council has moved with urgency since last summer to water down the existing blanket parking exemption under pressure from some constituents. That once little-used policy, originally intended to encourage small-scale reuse or redevelopment, attracted opposition based on in-the-works projects that aim to squeeze in dozens of micro-apartments — as many as 108 on side-by-side lots — without providing on-site parking. Those projects will be grandfathered under the new zoning policy.
The council approved the revisions 9-2, with President Albus Brooks and member Mary Beth Susman voting no.
Since 2010, the parking exemption has applied citywide to a small portion of lots that are 6,250 square feet or less — typically 50 feet wide by 125 feet deep — and are in mixed-use zoning districts. Think Colfax Avenue, Broadway, South Pearl Street and West 32nd Avenue.
Under the change, new buildings would get the full exemption from providing on-site parking only for housing or offices in the first story, or on the first two floors if the property is within a quarter-mile of a frequent bus line or a half-mile of a rail station.
Stark divisions were on display during a public hearing during which about 20 people spoke. That reflected months of debate among council members, who disagreed on just how much to change the exemption.
“I’ll begin by stating a simple truth: If council votes to increase parking minimums, it is voting to increase housing costs,” John Riecke, a Denver urbanism advocate, testified during the hearing. “Whether affordable, market late or luxury, there will be fewer housing units on small lots — and they will be more expensive.”
Led by Jolon Clark of south Denver, the council voted 7-6 last month to scale the proposed new rules back even more than the Denver Planning Board, the Department of Community Planning and Development were willing to endorse. The board and city planners backed an earlier proposal by Brooks, who led a task force on the issue.
But he adds, about revised parking exemption: "I'll be supporting this sausage."
— Jon Murray (@JonMurray) May 2, 2017
“We recognize this is a compromise,” testified Gertie Grant of the West Washington Park Neighborhood Association, which supported Clark’s change. “It’s not what everybody wants, but it’s a whole heck of a lot better than what we had before.”
Above the new thresholds of one or two floors, developers would have to provide on-site spaces according to city parking ratio requirements that vary depending on the building’s use. Clark pointed out that Brooks’ earlier version in many cases would have required some on-site parking, too, although it was generally less.
Susman adds that with research showing parking minimums' negative effects on urban reality, those who want them are like "science-deniers"
— Jon Murray (@JonMurray) May 2, 2017
Concerns voiced by senior city planner Jeff Hirt and some speakers during Monday’s hearing centered on the effect of requiring more parking when the city’s stated goals include getting more people to bike, take transit or otherwise get out of cars. Planners also worry the stricter rule will encourage developers simply to consolidate adjacent lots to build even larger projects.
"$1300 for 400 square feet — are these really affordable?" asks @PaulLopez5280 rhetorically, about micro-apartments that are going up.
— Jon Murray (@JonMurray) May 2, 2017
But Clark and most council members stood firm, arguing that while imperfect, the new provisions would provide some protection for neighborhoods.
Among them is a rule that requires notification of neighbors when a development is proposed that would take advantage of the revised parking exemption.
However, public input would have no impact on the resulting parking requirements, a reality that led the planning department to oppose that part of the proposal as well.
