Planning Board Reluctantly Approves City Council’s Attack on Walkability

These homes at Osage and Central were built under the small lot exemption. Image: Google Maps
These homes at Osage and Central were built under the small lot exemption. Image: Google Maps

The Denver Planning Board voted for an amendment to the zoning code Wednesday that would raise housing costs and feed the city’s car addiction by forcing home developers to build parking where it was not required before. The board was in a difficult position, since a vote against the amendment would also extend a moratorium on car-free development imposed by the council last year to drag on even longer.

Other cities, meanwhile, are moving in the opposite direction on parking policy. Buffalo, for instance, no longer requires developers to build any private car storage. In 2015, Minneapolis eliminated parking minimums for housing along good transit corridors.

These cities are getting rid of parking requirements for good reasons. Off-street parking takes up a lot of space, reducing the square footage that can be used for housing. It also costs a lot to construct — $18,000 to $26,000 per stall in Denver — driving up the costs of renting or buying a home. Studies have shown that off-street parking increases traffic. It causes development to be spread farther apart and interrupts sidewalks with curb cuts, making city neighborhoods less walkable.

But last year Denver’s elected officials buckled under pressure from a small group of residents tormented by the idea of new people moving in and using “their” car storage spots on publicly owned streets. After some people objected to the construction of new homes without parking on small lots (6,250 square feet or less) in walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods, City Council imposed a moratorium on what had been a completely legal practice.

City Council Member Albus Brooks formed a task force to reach a compromise on new standards, holding up new housing projects for the time being. The task force came up with a complicated set of rules that require parking for small-lot buildings taller than three stories within walking distance of transit stops. On lots farther away from transit, the parking requirements apply above two stories.

Wednesday’s Planning Board vote cleared the way for City Council approval in March. But the proposed changes have angered Denverites who want the city to get serious about tackling its housing shortage.

“This board, which is supposed to be about planning, looking to the future, not trying to look to the past — or even the present — should do your job by creating a situation which makes Denver better,” said Baker resident Adrian Brown. “I rise in opposition to the proposed language because I believe, that if asked, we would’ve said ‘Do the reverse. Ban parking for all of these lots.'”

Meanwhile, the factions who want to force the construction of more parking remain dissatisfied as always.

“There’s nothing being asked of the developer for these projects,” said Bob Hickman of the Humboldt Street Neighborhood Association. “It’s almost as if the language is written as an entitlement.”

The entire fight, however, revolves around Hickman’s entitlement to store his private property on public streets for free.

The Planning Board voted for the amendment, but did so reluctantly, asking City Council not to increase parking requirements any further on small lots.

“For those places where transit works best, in central, well connected locations, this compromise is a step back by requiring more parking,” said Planning Board member Joel Noble. “It’s doing what very few cities… are doing — adding more parking requirements. They’re rolling them back.”

  • garbanzito

    the tiny lots are a special case, with some very outlying results the original zoning didn’t anticipate; i’m looking forward to an amendment to the amendment which will support a demand management approach — rather than just increasing frustration among the car storage crowd, reward developers who create incentives to forgo car ownership

  • JZ71

    There needs to be some common ground. One space per bedroom is too much. Building 30 units with no parking is too little. And everything is affected by the availability of non-vehicular options – what works in Baker or Cap Hill probably won’t work in Hilltop or Stapleton. Denver’s a big and diverse city – one solution will never, ever, be the “right” answer for every situation!

    • Funktapus

      Why does parking even need to be coupled to housing in urban areas? Private parking should be profitable if people actually want and need it. If you need parking, build parking garages. If you need housing, build housing.

      • neroden

        I’m not sure why Soviet-style central planning — under the name of “zoning” — is so in fashion in the housing markets. Indeed, if we abolished zoning, the market *would* provide parking…and housing…

      • JZ71

        Because the “market” is imperfect, as are Denver’s transit options. Zoning protects the rest of the city from the stupidity and/or outright greed by individual property owners. Given how NIMBY most residents are about increasing density for housing, imagine how they’d react to proposals to build multi-story, private, for-profit structures for “storage”, be it for vehicles or household items, “in urban areas”?!

    • Paul Davidson

      This is an important point. No one is saying all developments need parking, hence Councilman Clarks proposed reduction. But there does need to be a middle ground here. And they need to give something back in exchange…ground floor activation, for example. In its current and proposed form, it lacks balance. There is a middle ground.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Today’s Headlines

|
CO Politics Pastes Highway Lobby Talking Points Against “Vast” Multimodal Transport Tax The Colfax-Federal Cloverleaf — A Scar and Barrier for West Siders (Confluence) January A-Line Ridership Lowest on Record (Denverite) DenPo Reader: Transport Tax Should Be About Adding Value, Not Congestion New Brighton Boulevard May Get New Name (Westword) Trump’s $6 Billion Cut to […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Council Extends Freeze on Car-Free Homes, Makes Toothless Gesture to Curb Car Dependence (DenPo) “Fatal Crash Sentences Rarely Feel Strong Enough for Grieving Families” (9News) As Crashes Mount at Deadly 5th and Lincoln Intersection, Public Waits for Traffic Light (Fox31) Public Feedback on Broadway Bike Lane Is Lacking (9News) Parking Requirements Incentivize “Big, Boxy” Buildings […]