Part 5: Minimum parking requirements
As is often the case in planning policy, there has been a lot of discussion about parking rules in the draft Zoning By-law.
In this draft, City staff are recommending no minimum parking rates citywide. That’s a shift from the current Zoning By-law – especially in the suburban area – where a minimum 1.0 spaces per unit is usually required.
Our current Zoning By-laws are a bit of a mess when it comes to parking. Minimum parking required is usually determined by building use and building form, but the rules often contradict and work against more important goals, especially affordability. The cost of building a parking spot can be tens of thousands of dollars, which gets passed on to new buyers or tenants – whether they need the parking spot(s) or not.
A very small example of where these rules don’t make sense: stacked townhomes in suburban Ottawa require 1.2 parking spaces per unit, whereas back-to-back townhomes require 1.0 parking spaces per unit. This is regardless of their size or number of bedrooms or any other factor that might suggest a higher level of car ownership, or neighbourhood walkability scores. Nobody knows why these rates were set differently.
Most cities (including Ottawa) have carried over parking requirements from one by-law update to another, without examining whether the underlying assumptions make sense. A lot of the planning standards for parking minimums stem from engineering guidelines in the 1970s. So we’re making decisions on parking today that are based on travel patterns (and planning objectives) from 50 years ago.
Many cities in North America have eliminated minimum parking requirements, including Edmonton. The idea is to have the market decide the right number of parking spaces. In other words, let developers decide how much parking will be needed by the new residents, in the context of their neighbourhood.
For apartments, there would still be requirements for visitor parking and delivery parking. The City would also need to update its on-street parking rules. There might even be a need for a parking permit system for some neighbourhoods, to better manage street parking.
Overall, I’m supportive of this change. It would remove a layer of regulation and allow the market to decide what’s the appropriate number of parking spaces. In suburban Stittsville, most builders will still voluntarily provide one, two or more spaces for cars because buyers will demand this, although car ownership continues to decline. But if there’s a development aimed at seniors, or lower income residents, or another demographic that doesn’t necessarily need all those parking spots, they’ll be able to save on that cost and make the housing more affordable.
Vehicle ownership in Stittsville, 2011 versus 2022. Comparing 2011 to 2022, we’re seeing a big reduction in the percentage of households with two or more vehicles, and a big increase in the share of households with only one vehicle. The data also shows that 31% of apartment dwellers in Stittsville do not own a vehicle. More info here…
Your feedback
I’m interested to hear from Stittsville residents about your comments and questions on this proposed parking policy. Contact me at glen.gower@ottawa.ca. You can also email newzoning@ottawa.ca to reach City planners who are working on this project.
Continue to Part 6: New zoning language and definitions
Series index
- Part 1: The big picture
- Part 2: A look at neighbourhood zones in Stittsville
- Part 3: Stittsville’s “hubs and corridors”
- Part 4: Transition for high-rise buildings on Hazeldean
- Part 5: Minimum parking requirements (this post)
- Part 6: New zoning language and definitions