Brandon Figliolino
PUAD 6600 Economic
Development
Issue Roundtable #1: Parking Minimums in Olde Town Arvada
January 29, 2018
On
January 22, 2018, the Arvada City Council rejected a preliminary development
plan for a mixed-use apartment building.
The 9-acre site currently sits unoccupied; it was once a parking lot
managed by RTD that is no longer in use. If approved, the apartment complex
would have created an additional 250 residences for the city. Despite the
recommendation for approval by city staff, City Council nixed the plan on a 4-3
vote (Fortier, 2018).
According
to city staff, the project, which was to be developed by Trammell Crow, would
have had large economic benefits for the city.
Located just south of the Olde Town Historic District, the luxury
apartments would have provided revenues that would “far exceed” the value of
the land the city’s urban renewal authority (AURA) sold to the developer
(Fortier, 2018). Because of its
proximity to several major commercial hubs, the apartment complex would have
afforded residents quick access to many shops and restaurants; the sales taxes
generated by those purchases would have gone to the city.
One
reason the preliminary development plan was rejected was due to citizen
concerns over parking (Fortier, 2018).
Trammell Crow planned to offer less on-site parking than what was
required in the city’s land development code.
Residents feared that by not offering adequate parking, residents would
take up valuable spaces in Olde Town and surrounding neighborhoods,
inconveniencing others who live near the project. From an economics standpoint, they could
argue that if residents of the apartment building took up parking spaces in the
commercial areas, it could discourage others who don’t live within walking distance
from shopping or dining in the area. If
that were the case, the city might lose out on sales tax revenues, and
businesses potential customers.
Regardless
of the concerns of neighbors, Trammell Crow made the right decision to reduce
parking in the project for many reasons.
First, the land they own is relatively small. By reducing the number of parking spaces, and
instead increasing the number of units they could sell, Trammell Crow maximized
the property’s potential for generating revenue. While they could, and most likely would,
charge residents a fee to park their car, that fee would be nominal compared to
the amount of money they could collect on renting additional units. Not only does reduced parking benefit
Trammell Crow, it also benefits the city by increasing the number of residents
who could live, work, play, and shop in the city. Since they are within walking distance of
Olde Town, they most likely would not need a car to participate in Olde Town’s
economy.
Second,
since the project is close to a developing transit corridor, the reduced
parking would help incentivize multimodal transportation. Not only would it help foster wellness and
active living, encouraging residents to walk, bus, and bike reduces congestion
on the roadways. This would make commuting
easier for city residents who are not close to transit lines and need to use
their cars to travel.
By
rejecting the Trammell Crow development, the Arvada City Council is rejecting
alternative transportation and encouraging car ownership. Instead of acting as vanguards for innovative
thinking, they are sticking with the status quo—the antiquated land development
code. If a new project is proposed, it
will most likely have more parking.
Adding more parking spaces will reduce the number of units available,
lowering their profits. It will also
encourage car ownership, which will increase congestion caused by vehicles, and
hurt RTD’s revenues from increased bus and commuter rail trips. While the residents will believe they won
they may end up losing, in terms of economic development.
To
better promote the benefits of reduced parking requirements, city staff, AURA,
and the developers of future projects should engage with the public more. Performing extensive outreach in the neighborhoods
will help those unfamiliar with economic development better grasp the benefits
of such a policy. With that knowledge,
they may be less likely to voice concerns, sparing innovative projects from
being shelved.
Fortier, S. (2018) “Council
votes down Olde Town Residences development plan.” Arvada Press. Jan. 23, 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment