Skip to content

Council moves to put C-122 into legislation

Banff politicians have taken the first step toward getting around a development appeal board ruling that effectively quashed a controversial parking policy aimed at triggering more construction of rental apartments. On Monday (Dec.

Banff politicians have taken the first step toward getting around a development appeal board ruling that effectively quashed a controversial parking policy aimed at triggering more construction of rental apartments.

On Monday (Dec. 19), council gave first reading to put the provisions of policy C-122 – which allow for reductions in onsite parking in apartment buildings under certain criteria, such as proximity to transit – directly into the Land Use Bylaw (LUB). A public hearing is set for Jan. 23.

At the same time, council is also keen to look at options for a residential parking pass system to deal with an onslaught of opposition from people concerned about traffic and parking chaos in their neighbourhoods.

“We’ve heard numerous times from residents living in close proximity to the commercial accommodation district and the downtown core around parking spillover from hotels and restaurants in their neighbourhoods,” said Councillor Grant Canning.

“I think those specific concerns are valid and certainly they’re worth looking at.”

C-122 aims to encourage development of rental apartment housing to help deal with the town’s ongoing housing shortfall by lowering developers’ costs when it comes to building onsite parking.

However, earlier this month, the development appeal board turfed out a development permit for a 25-unit apartment complex in the 400 block of Marten Street that took advantage of the policy by reducing required onsite parking from 27 to 18 spots.

The quasi-judicial board found a 33 per cent reduction in required parking failed to meet the variance test of the LUB and Incorporation agreement, and warned the Town of Banff against continuing to blindly apply the policy.

Banff’s affordable housing project on Deer Lane has the green light to proceed from the municipal planning commission, but several appeals have been filed, including one that questions C-122.

“The decision of the development appeal board now calls into question the validity of the policy and how the policy should be applied, if at all,” said Randall McKay, Banff’s planning and development manager during Monday’s council meeting.

“There are a number of pending projects and the need for us to seek direction from council and seek clarity from council is imperative. The sooner we get that, the better off I think we are.”

Marty von Neudegg, who has filed an appeal against certain aspects of the approval of the Deer Lane project, said he is not opposed to the intent of C-122, but it fails in the effect it causes to surrounding neighbourhoods as projects scale up in size.

“My real concern is that this council has chosen to ignore significant public input and concerns, as is evidenced by the almost petulant speed of this proposed amendment,” he said.

“They are choosing to subvert the variance process which has worked well since incorporation, and they clearly have their minds made up.”

While council is required to have a public hearing, von Neudegg said it is clear that many councillors have no real interest in actually hearing that input.

“That type of political malfeasance is something that this council will have to deal with as they push this change forward,” he said. “The art of good governance is in finding a solution through a rigorous process, not in shouting, ‘It’s my way or no way’ as some on council like to do.”

Jason Moberg, one of the appellants of the Marten Street case, said C-122 has been used to justify construction with reduced stalls at all cost, and that’s why it’s been improperly applied and expanded.

“Council should consider distancing themselves from a mess that will likely attract the attention of Parks Canada and the federal government,” he said.

Moberg said as badly as council wants to see Deer Lane go ahead, by putting C-122 into the bylaw, C-122 parking reductions no longer require a variance and, therefore, are no longer subject to the discretion of the MPC and DAB.

“This systematically ignores existing on-street parking conditions and encourages all new developments to seek a lower 0.6 stall per unit standard unchallenged, which is too high a price to pay to see the Deer Lane project happen,” he said.

Meanwhile, Canning said he wants a report from administration by the end of the first quarter in 2017 outlining potential options for a resident park pass system within the townsite.

“I’ve intentionally not been specific as to where it could potentially be implemented, potential timeframe for implementation, or the budget, but I’d like to see administration come up with some options and we can have the discussion and debate at that point,” he said.

“We certainly need to continue to discuss much larger town-wide transportation goals, with clarity around the need for paid parking, bike lanes, increased transit and intercept lots etcetera, but I don’t see this particular issue to be contingent upon those other issues.”

Coun. Stavros Karlos voted against Canning’s motion for a report on a residential park pass system, saying he would only consider something like that if paid parking comes into effect.

“Residents who do not use free public parking are currently being charged for free public parking though their taxes, and so identifying one area without identifying the other area is counterintuitive,” he said. “It is, in fact, outrageous that people are getting it for free.”


Rocky Mountain Outlook

About the Author: Rocky Mountain Outlook

The Rocky Mountain Outlook is Bow Valley's No. 1 source for local news and events.
Read more



Comments

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks