Economic Development Roundtable Issue One: Parking Minimums

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.

            

Candelas

 I used to live on the outskirts of Arvada, Colorado.  Our small neighborhood of single-family homes was surrounded on three sides by expansive farmlands. Trails and open space areas were within walking and biking distance. The grocery store, high school, and bank weren’t far either; just a quick five-minute car drive.  It was the perfect little enclave, a close community with easy access to everything important. It even included a tiny park.

               My family no longer lives on the outskirts of Arvada, even though we have remained in the same house for over two decades. What has moved is the city, expanding outward in an alarming display of backwards thinking and archaic logic.

The pastoral landscapes I loved are gone, replaced by wide roads that twist and meander through new neighborhoods like rivers of black asphalt. The homes all exhibit similar characteristics—features that developers believe are essential to fulfilling the “American Dream.”  They are expansive displays of opulence: multi-car garages, wide driveways, and two-story heights. Multiple bedrooms, bathrooms, and activity rooms are abundant in the floor plans. All homes are single-family in design.

With every planning commission approval of such projects, part of me whimpers, disappointed that opportunity after opportunity is missed to create something new.

Change is needed in this suburban community, which is why I was elated when I heard of Candelas back in 2011. In an undeveloped tract of land on the western edge of Arvada was the location for a master-planned community. Their website touted Candelas as  something different: a community that prided itself on sustainability, walkability, and mixed-use zoning. It was to have several town centers, complete with pedestrian promenades and apartments above shops. Instead of just offering single-family homes, Candelas would offer an array of different housing options and styles, including condominiums, townhomes, and apartments. Open space would be abundant, and trails would connect the town centers to parks and the Rocky Mountains. Offices would be incorporated too, so commutes to and from work would be a quick bike ride or walk.

Candelas was to be the largest building expansion in Arvada’s history. I hoped other Colorado mixed-use projects, like Broomfield’s Arista and Lakewood’s Belmar neighborhoods, would be envious.

In the past, as evident by the continuous approval of new single-family neighborhoods, Arvada and its City Council had been stuck in the mentality that the only way to get people into the city, and to establish a decent tax base, was to build houses. They saw no need to attract businesses or industry through improved connectivity between commercial and residential areas. This emphasis on single-family residential had been a disservice to the community. It promoted unhealthy lifestyle choices, and priced younger buyers and less fortunate ones out of the market.  With the development of Candelas, I thought there would be a transformation. I wanted to believe in Candelas’ slogan: “Life Wide Open.” I yearned for stronger community connections, better health, and more concern for the environment.

So far, Candelas has not met my expectations.

Further delving into the design of the project, it’s evident that it was intended for the automobile and the old way of living. While marketed as mixed-use, a majority of the land is platted for single-family homes; fifteen hundred, to be exact. Floor plans range in size from 2,000 square feet, all the way up to 5,000 square feet.

The developers have even made modifications to the project to convert designated higher density housing into lower density single-family units. They claim nobody wants apartments and condos. Yet, they can’t back up their facts with evidence, unable to cite anything but “the market” driving single-family sales. In just the past few months, several zones with signs designating opportunity for mixed-use, office, and multi-family residential have come down, too, replaced by ones offering land as “pad sites.” Still, the developer reassures the public that there is still plenty of opportunity for a blend of housing options in Candelas, despite their continuous requests for modifications to the master plan.

I’m skeptical.  

The project also relies heavily on a conceptual plan to build a tolled highway that connects the communities surrounding Denver. Proponents of the six-lane Jeffersonian Parkway claim that the highway will reduce sprawl by concentrating building projects alongside it. If the highway isn’t built, the developer has threatened to remove the town center elements of the project and replace them with strip malls. If there’s no visibility from the highway, they say it will be too costly to build such amenities. So far, there have been no discussions on alternative transportation options, like improving the bussing system in the area, or expanding nearby county roads to include bicycle lanes to broaden Candelas’ connectivity with the rest of Arvada and the Denver Metro Area.

I encourage development. Populations grow and evolve; the only constant in the environment is change. What I don’t accept is the idea that the “American Dream” is to have a house with a white picket fence in a quiet neighborhood for your wife and two children, and a large car to drive you to and from work and everywhere in between. That’s no longer relevant. The vision has evolved into something better. It no longer focuses on the quality of one’s possessions; it focuses on experiences. The way we live and the places we live in need to transform with that new dream.  

I have watched in dismay as sprawl consumed the landscapes I cherished growing up. People are starting to listen now. City Council has approved the development of two large apartment complexes, and has passed an ordinance streamlining the litigation process for multifamily construction defect laws. All of this has been done in anticipation of the Gold Line light rail stations coming in 2016. Yet, there is still much to do, and I will continue to advocate for smarter development, and smarter ways of living.  

With my eyes open to the real Candelas, I see that their motto doesn’t align with my vision of smart growth as much as I’d hoped, but that doesn’t mean I will be silent and resign to the status quo. There’s always opportunity to bring forth positive change in the community, and it starts with the citizens. I hope you, dear reader, will join me.