Council to hear from citizens on proposal to scrap commercial parking minimums

Article content

A proposal that could remove minimum parking requirements for commercial real-estate developments goes to a public hearing at Calgary city council Monday.

Currently, developers have to provide a certain number of parking stalls in accordance with city bylaws. The proposal would remove that requirement for commercial projects, but not for houses, apartments or secondary suites.

It’s a topic that has long been the subject of debate among city builders, with some arguing parking minimums are a heavy-handed, unnecessary and often expensive hurdle for developers, while others express concerns that eliminating the requirement could lead to a shortage of parking that could spill onto residential streets.

Ward 7 Coun. Jeromy Farkas sees merit to both sides of the issue and said he’s looking forward to hearing from Calgarians Monday to form his opinion as to whether parking minimums should be scrapped.

“I don’t think the city should dictate to businesses how much parking they need. This needlessly increases their cost. It’s another form of red tape,” Farkas said.

“(But) if you further reduce the onus on the developer to provide adequate parking, it’s going to put more and more cost and burden on everyday residents who have a very reasonable expectation to be able to park in front of their own homes.”

If Calgary went through with the proposal, the city would become only the second Canadian municipality to do away with parking minimums. In June, Edmonton’s council approved a similar change for not only commercial developments but also for residential projects.

Local real-estate developer Chris Ollenberger with Quantum Place said that while minimum parking bylaws may have made sense when the bylaw was introduced more than a decade ago, an update is long overdue.

“I think it will really help to lower the cost of business in a lot of ways and it’ll probably lead to a more pedestrian-friendly environment in many circumstances as well, where you’re not dedicated so much space to a storage of private vehicles,” Ollenberger said.

Ollenberger added he expects developers will still factor in an adequate amount of parking as dictated by market demand, but removing parking minimums would allow more flexibility in that planning.

City administration also supports the proposal, citing benefits in its report to council including notes that it would support “more active, vibrant, walkable places” and allow for “reduced motor vehicle usage and more efficient use of land.”

Farkas sees the proposal as one that must be looked at alongside another that would see some Calgarians have to pay for residential parking permits. He said he would be happy to see more alternative transit use but said he worried the city was going too far with policies that may impact drivers.

“I think the way the pendulum has swung a bit too much here, in the way of anti-car policy,” he said. “In certain areas, it’s fine to accept that less people will require parking. If you’re immediately adjacent to a major train line, more people will choose to commute by transit than to drive. But the reality is that this is an automobile-centric city.”

Ollenberger said he expects parking overflow to residential areas to be “a nuisance issue at worst,” with most developers taking local parking needs into consideration.

jherring@postmedia.com

Twitter: @jasonfherring