The Denver City Council on Monday night is set to settle — or at least tone down — a classic urban battle.
City officials have said they want to encourage people to drive less in favor of other modes of transportation, including biking and mass transit. But one policy that does just that — by exempting small lotsin mixed-use zoning districtsfrom having to provide off-street parking — spurred projects that wary of worsening street-parking crunches.
Here’s a look atwhat may occur when the council meets at 5:30 p.m. in the City and County Building. Before the final vote, themeeting is set to include a public hearing on the parking exemption change.
How it started:The off-street parking exemption applies to lots of 6,250 square feet or less in mixed-use districts. When created in 2005, initially for the East Colfax Avenue corridor, itwas intended to encourage small-scale reuse or redevelopment while discouragingthecombining of lots for big projects.The city expanded its availability to a range of mixed-use zoning areas during the citywide rezoningin 2010.
But amidDenver’s redevelopment boom, developers have begun eyeing smaller lots with grand plans. Acouple planned projects have ruffled feathers — including one that callsfora pair of five-story micro-apartment buildings, together containing 108 units, on side-by-side small lots on Humboldt Street, south of East 16th Avenue.No on-site parking wasplanned, but the developers more recently for tenants.
Muddled battlelines:Under pressure from neighbors of the projects, the council in August reacted by approving on the further use of the parking exemption, giving memberstime tosearch for consensus to scale it back. Now that time is almost up.
The has pitted some neighborhood activists against urbanists, tuggingat council members from multiple directions. Several who want to encourage moreuse of mass transit and biking also have voiced sympathy for the neighbors of the big budding projects.
The proposal:After months of debate, the council has hammered out a change that would blunt the parking exemption’s effects forfuture developments. Butdisagreements linger, and few council members or advocatessee the proposed solution as perfect.
As amended by Councilman Jolon Clark of south Denver, the measure would allow the full exemption from providingon-site parking only for housing or offices inthe first story of a new structure — or onthe first two floors if the property is close enough to a frequent bus line or rail station.
Floors above those thresholdswould be subject tocity parking ratio requirements that vary dependingon the building’s use. Existing structures, and expansions of them, still would be fully exempt from providing parking.
The controversy:Council members and some advocates have split over just how much to water down the parking exemption. City planners say less than 1 percent of land parcels in Denver are eligible for it.About two-thirds of those are within“transit sheds” that would qualify for theproposal’shigher exemption, meaning they’re located within a half-mile ofrail stations or a quarter-mile ofhigh-frequency bus routes.
Critics of changing the exemption say requiring some parking could make redevelopment more expensive — resulting in higher apartment rents — or more difficult, given the small size of lots. But others dispute those points.
Council history:With a 7-6 vote in early April, Clark and several colleagues overruled a compromise that had been worked out by council president Albus Brooks and several members of a task force that met late last year. That earlier version proposed a slightly less drastic scale-back. It would have exempted the first two stories of new buildingsfrom standard parking requirements, or the first three stories onlots near transit.
What to watch: The public hearing, set for the end of the meeting, could draw plenty of supporters and critics. It’s unclear whetherthe current Clark faction proposal will split council members, winning narrow passage — or whether those who resisted his changeearlier will coalesce around it.
“I would guess there are a few who will say this went too far,” Clark said Friday.
Down the road:Ultimately, Clark, Brooks and several other council members agree thatthey want city planning and public works officials to work out .
City officials have begun researching ideas other cities have used in that vein, and Clark says the city could begin pursuing new programs in the coming year.
