Town of Ajax. Residential Parking Review. June Ajax Planning & Development Services

Transcription

1 Town of Ajax Residential Parking Review June 2006 Ajax Planning & Development Services

2 Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND Purpose and Issues POLICY AND REGULATORY CONTEXT Official Plan Context Zoning By-law Other Zoning By-laws Town of Ajax Traffic By-law On-Street Parking Comments Received to On-Street Permit Parking Staff Response to On-Street Permit Parking Current Engineering Standards CURRENT SITUATION Factors Affecting Residential Parking Supply Demographics and Growth Minor Variance Applications By-law Complaints RECOMMENDED APPROACHES Overall Approach Public Response Transportation Advisory Committee Response Development Community Response Town s Response TRANSITION CONCLUSION... 44

3 ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT APPENDIX APPENDIX

4 1. BACKGROUND This report provides suggestions designed to reconcile some of the competing demands that have been placed upon residential front yards and private garages in recent years. In particular, the Town is currently reviewing the manner by which residential parking is being provided for within its new and already well-established communities. Town staff have heard on many occasions, either within the context of public input on new development applications, or through public commentary on road improvements, that the public perceives a lack of residential parking within their community. On September 27, 2004, Ajax Council passed a resolution directing staff to review the Town s minimum lot frontage and parking requirements for freehold dwelling units. The residential parking issues extend beyond one of simply lot frontage for freehold dwellings, but rather speaks to a broader issue of other zoning standards, on-street visitor parking, width of road allowances and the ability to accommodate parking and the storage needs of homeowners. The urban design approach for all new developments within the Town of Ajax places a great degree of value on the relationship between the building and the street. In order to ensure that our streets are pedestrian oriented public spaces, neighbouring buildings are encouraged to approach the street. Porches, windows, pedestrian entries, and a high degree of articulation are provided in order to ensure that the pedestrian experience is a positive one. This approach is one that has been implemented in all of our new residential developments and with a great degree of success. By taking this approach, the traditional dominant role of the automobile in terms of its spatial needs in new developments has been challenged. On many fronts, the Town s approach has been to limit the visual dominance of garage doors and paved surfaces on private residential lots, while accentuating the residential aspect, including ensuring that livable areas are provided next to public spaces, and providing for eyes on the street through better public surveillance. Within this context, there are the traditional demands of the motoring (commuting) public within Ajax. This report highlights the fact that the accommodation of vehicles is land intensive, and becomes magnified on lots when areas and frontages are reduced. It is further magnified as house sizes increase. The contemporary design for subdivisions with reduced frontages and rights-of-way, continued growth in the number of drivers per household and the subletting of portions of single residential dwellings have further contributed to residential parking conflicts and perceived shortfalls. This report suggests a balance between the public s reasonable expectation to park conveniently in proximity to their home and an equally reasonable expectation to have a suitably landscaped and well designed neighbourhood. An information report was approved by General Government Committee on November 24, 2005, and was circulated to the development community, the Urban Development Institute - Durham Chapter, the Greater Toronto Home Builders Page 4 of 26

5 Association, the Town of Ajax Transportation Advisory Committee. The report was also posted on the Town s website for public review and comment. A public open house was held on January 18, 2006 and a separate meeting was held with the development community on February 7, A variety of forums was used to advertise the public consultation including the Ajax News Advertiser and the Town s website. The deadline to submit comments was on January 31, 2006 but the deadline was extended to the beginning of March, Staff have reviewed the comments from the developers and their responses are included as an attachment. The report identifies the issue, a suggested approach, the comments received and then provides a staff recommendation. Page 5 of 26

6 1.1 Purpose and Issues The purpose of this report is to provide recommendations that will improve the supply of both on-street and off-street parking without unduly compromising residential streetscapes or urban design objectives. The report includes the developer s comments to the suggested approaches and staff s response to the developer s comments and final recommendations. As part of this report, the following issues are discussed: 1. The Town s zoning by-law does not require parking on certain driveways to accommodate at least two vehicles. For example: a) A driveway in the R1-E and R1-F zones (i.e metre and 9.0 metre lots) are permitted to have a driveway to a maximum width of 5.0 metre. However, a lot with a 9.0 metre frontage in the R2-A zone only permits a 3.0 metre driveway. b) The maximum driveway width for street townhouses is 3.0 metres. Little or no potential exists to widen the driveway to create an additional parking space without obliterating the landscaped front yard. 2. When curb cuts are performed in order to widen a driveway, it can have the effect of potentially eliminating the related on-street parking space in front of the house. 3. Often, garages are only of a size that can accommodate a small vehicle. However, in many cases it is not possible to park a large vehicle and use the garage for needed storage. 4. Due to the existence of smaller lots and wider driveways, the supply of on-street parking can be reduced. This is particularly true when driveways are not paired for smaller lots. 5. A poor streetscape results when the majority or the entire front yard is parked upon. 6. The Town s experience with rear lanes has been based on an inadequate separation distance between the garage door and the travelled portion of the lane. An appropriate setback from the garage to the rear lane would improve the ability to accommodate snow storage and would provide better sight lines from parked vehicles wishing to leave the garage. c) Not all residential lots can physically accommodate a driveway width of 5.0 metres to accommodate two vehicles parked side-byside. Page 6 of 26

7 2. POLICY AND REGULATORY CONTEXT 2.1 Official Plan Context The Ajax Official Plan is based on several fundamental principles to help direct growth and development as well as manage change. The Town recognizes its growth potential and the importance of efficiently using land and infrastructure within the Urban Area Boundary. The Town promotes the concepts of compact urban form and ensures that residential areas are balanced, attractive, accessible and safe. Ajax has adopted development standards which attempt to make the most efficient use of land, where road allowances are reduced and houses are located closer to the street. This philosophy contributes to a pedestrian-friendly community and an inviting streetscape, thereby reducing the visibility of the garage and the vehicle. The philosophy is also based on an understanding that the design of new neighbourhoods should not be dominated by private garages, but rather a balance should be struck between the residential eyes on the street and the practical parking and storage needs of homeowners. In doing so, choices have been made for planning for pedestrian-oriented communities by building houses closer to the street and reducing right-of-way widths. Ajax may be considered by some as a bedroom community with many of its residents having at least two vehicles per household and driving to work outside of Ajax. It is anticipated that this driving habit will change as the Town s employment lands become fully developed. However, it is likely that there will still be a preponderance of residents travelling outside of the community to their workplace. Town residents are very much dependent on the vehicle as their primary form of transportation. They require parking spaces to accommodate their vehicles yet at the same time require space within the garage for storage purposes. 2.2 Zoning By-law The current standards for residential development within the Town of Ajax Zoning By-law are premised on a residential model of a dwelling unit attached to a garage, which are accessed by a private driveway in the front yard leading to the street. This by and large represents the model for new residential dwellings in Town, be it single-detached, semidetached or townhouse dwellings. When the consolidated Zoning By-law was approved on July 14, 2003, the minimum number of parking spaces required for single-detached, semi-detached and street townhouses remained the same as the Town s previous parent zoning by-laws at two spaces per unit (one parking space in the garage and one parking space on the driveway). For an accessory apartment, a minimum of one parking space is required in addition to the requirements of the dwelling unit. In addition, standards are in place for minimum side yards, maximum front yard building setbacks and maximum driveway widths, which vary by zone category. Page 7 of 26

8 The Town s former Zoning By-law (35-77) established a minimum front yard landscaping requirement of 35% and that such landscaping could not include driveways or parking spaces. This requirement was in the new By-law due to problems with enforceability. Consequently, new standards replaced this provision that now regulate driveway and garage widths. The intent behind the new standard is to ensure that a certain amount of the front yard is landscaped, that front yards of residential properties are not dominated with parking and that the standards are clear and easy to understand. Appendix 1 summarizes the current zone standards in Zoning By-law that are applicable to Residential zones. A maximum width for driveways was placed in the zoning standards as a way to ensure that front yards would not be dominated by driveways with parked vehicles. In all the applicable residential zones with private driveways, the maximum width of the driveway is not more than 60% of the lot frontage. A maximum garage width was also placed in the zoning standards to ensure that garages are no more than 50% of the lot frontage and to ensure that garages would not dominate the streetscape. An amendment was passed to the By-law in June 2004 such that the maximum width of a driveway shall not exceed the exterior dimensions of the private garage. This amendment was brought forward in recognition that when driveways are paved, they are normally done so to the exterior limits of the garage, and not the interior limits, which would have otherwise been required in the previous by-law provision. This action marginally increased the amount of permitted pavement in the front yard. Currently, there are provisions in the R1-E and R1-F zones, where, on 10.4 and 9.0 metre lots respectively, the driveway can be widened to a maximum 5.0 metres. However, a driveway in a R2-A zone (9.0 metre frontage) is not permitted to be widened to 5.0 metres even though the setbacks are similar to a R1-F zone. The Zoning by-law does not have any provisions for storage space; however, the definition of private garage includes a provision that includes the storage of household wares or materials incidental to the residential occupancy and which is fully enclosed and roofed. However, in practical terms, these two uses for the garage compete Other Zoning By-laws A review of 14 other area municipalities was conducted to examine their residential parking standards. In general, the parking standards in other municipalities are similar to Ajax, where two parking spaces per unit are required. However, Aurora and Clarington require a minimum of two parking spaces on the driveway. The garage is not considered a parking space in recognition that residents often use their garage as storage. In Vaughan, a minimum of three parking spaces is required, often two parking spaces on the driveway and one in the garage. Page 8 of 26

9 Many municipalities have landscaping requirements such that a minimum of 50% of the front yard is to be landscaped open space. Parking of a vehicle is not permitted on landscaped open space. The Town of Markham is currently conducting a study to identify a strategy to manage their residential front yard parking issues. They are encountering concerns about the widths of driveways on residential lots and the impacts of front yard parking on the character of a dwelling and on the neighbourhood. Markham brought forward a report to their Council in late August 2005 for discussion and will be bringing forward a final report in early Markham s preliminary recommendations include the following: iii) Expansion of the on-street overnight parking program Markham currently has overnight permit parking on certain streets in Cornell, Thornhill and Angus Glen. Staff are considering expanding the program in other neighbourhoods to alleviate some of the parking concerns. I) Refinements to by-law provisions Markham staff have concluded that regulating driveway width is to link it to the garage door opening. Their findings include that two vehicles can park beside each other on a 3.94 metre wide driveway if the vehicles face in opposite direction and the passenger doors are next to each other. ii) Enforcement With the refined zoning provisions, Markham s Enforcement Division will be able to expand their enforcement program and take a proactive approach. They are recommending a two month period for public awareness/education campaign about the concerns of widened driveways. Page 9 of 26

10 2.3 Town of Ajax Traffic By-law The Town of Ajax Traffic By-law (5-2004) regulates vehicular traffic on highways, private and municipal property, and prohibits the injuring or fouling of highways and bridges, and the obstruction of ditches and culverts. Section 9 (Parking Offences) indicates the following: 9.1 No Person shall on any Highway Park any Vehicle: (a) (I) (j) (k) in front of or within 1 metre of a driveway or private roadway or so as to obstruct vehicles in the use of a driveway or private roadway; for a period in excess of 3 hours unless otherwise indicated by Official Signs; on or over any Boulevard; and between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Parking on or over any boulevard is contrary to Zoning By-law wherein Section 5.4 ii) states that where the garage is permitted to be located closer than 6.0 metres to a lot line, required parking spaces may include part of the public street or road to a maximum distance of 3.0 metres but shall not include any part of the sidewalk or travelled section of the public street or road. Page 10 of 26

11 2.4 On-Street Parking As noted above, on-street parking is limited to 3 hours unless otherwise posted. Parking is prohibited on residential streets overnight between 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. In Ajax, the current purpose for on-street parking is to provide a parking space for visitors which is not to be used on a permanent basis. Although residential draft plans of subdivision are required to illustrate the on-street parking layout, there is no requirement as to the number of on-street parking spaces that are to be provided. Further, the Town does not have a system where residents can apply for a permit to park their vehicle on a street overnight. On-street parking has not been selected in Ajax for the following reasons: I) By-law Services does not have the resources or staff to enforce a permit system; ii) iii) When vehicles are parked on the street, it is more difficult for snow plows to manoeuver around vehicles to clear snow; and It is more difficult for emergency vehicles to drive on a local street when there are vehicles parked on both sides of the road. However, there are some municipalities that offer a permit system to allow for vehicles to be parked on the street overnight. For example, residents in Clarington can apply for a permit to park on the street overnight except during the winter months. Permit parking is permitted on all municipal streets (unless otherwise posted), which according to Clarington staff is working well. The cost of the permit is $11.50 per week or $40.25 per month. Markham allows for permit parking in Cornell, Thornhill and Angus Glen. Cornell consists of a mix of large and small lot single-detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and townhouses, all serviced by rear lanes. Parking is only permitted on one side of the street. The cost of the permit is st as follows: $20/month for the 1 permit, $35/month for the 2 rd permit and $50/month for the 3. The permit system is in place in part of Thornhill where there is an apartment building across the street from single-detached dwellings. The permit system was implemented to control the overflow of parking on the street from the apartment building. The cost of the permit is $70/month for vehicles registered to the apartment building and $50/month for vehicles registered to the single-detached dwellings. Angus Glen has a pilot program for the permit system until May Similar to Cornell, parking is permitted on one side of the street only. The pilot program is taking place in areas where there are townhouses with rear lanes. The cost of the permit is tied to the number of vehicles registered to the house: - 1 permit: no charge if there is one extra vehicle st registered to your house than permitted parking spaces (e.g. 3 vehicles are registered to your house but there are only 2 parking spaces on the lot, then the 3 rd vehicle can obtain a permit with no charge); nd Page 11 of 26

12 nd - 2 permit: $20/month; and, rd - 3 permit: $50/month. However, there is separate cost if a resident wants to park on the street. For example, if the driveway can only accommodate one vehicle and the garage is used for storage purposes. The cost of the permit is $35/month for the 1 st nd permit and $50/month for the 2 permit Comments Received to On-Street Permit Parking The development community suggests that the Town institute an on-street permit parking program as an immediate way to resolve some of the parking issues. On-street permit parking was a suggested recommendation by the developers as a consideration to resolve some of the parking issues. On-street permit parking would deal with the current parking issues today, whereas the suggested approaches in the report would resolve future parking issues. In general, in other municipalities, overnight parking is permitted on one side of the street and during the winter months, the parking on one side of the street would alternate to allow for snow clearing. They suggest providing permit parking on one side of the street within a prescribed period of time and alternate the sides where vehicles can be parked. They also suggest that the Town could charge a fee for the permit and the revenue from the permits would help offset the cost of administering the program Staff Response to On-Street Permit Parking Staff do not have a unified position on this issue. Although permit parking would resolve a number of issues regarding parking supply, there are difficulties that would be encountered at the operational level, as follows: - currently, there are insufficient staff resources to implement and enforce the program; - operational difficulties pertaining to snow clearing could be encountered; and - the current fleet of five vehicles may not negotiate turns in a number of subdivisions if on-street parking is provided. There are other non-operational concerns with on-street parking as follows: - during the winter months, snowbanks may encroach onto the travelled portion of the roadway; - complaints from neighbours regarding safety and aesthetics; - the potential of visibility problems existing from their driveways; and - obstruction of access to residential driveways. However, the suggestion that a test pilot project for on-street permit parking in a specific neighbourhood does have merit from a planning perspective. The Town of Markham initiated a pilot project in three of their neighbourhoods and has successfully provided overnight parking solutions for residents in those areas. Markham will be expanding and enhancing the Page 12 of 26

13 Town s on-street permit parking program. As part of their strategy for on-street permit parking, they are proposing to retain an external consultant with expertise and knowledge in permit parking to work with staff to develop and prepare an operating procedure and policies for on-street permit parking to be applied on a Town-wide basis. Staff suggests that a further study take place to determine whether on-street permit parking should be pursued. Such further study would need to take into account the following recommendations: - whether a pilot project warrants consideration; - potential candidate areas for such a project; - financial, administrative and staffing implications for such a project; - the community s desire to institute such a program; and - service-level implications. The study should also discuss the evaluation of streets to determine which streets would be feasible for on-street permit parking, whether on-street parking should be on one-side of the street or on both sides, the space between driveways, proximity to intersections, traffic volumes, and potential sight line obstructions. Page 13 of 26

14 2.5 Current Engineering Standards The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) produced a manual called the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads which is used as a guide when reviewing draft plans of subdivision, since there are no standard requirements for on - street residential parking. The Town also has its own standards which are applied to draft plans of subdivision. The following provides a sample of these items. I) For local streets, the pavement width is generally 8.5 metres. ii) iii) iv) Although there are no minimum requirements for onstreet parking staff attempt to maximize the number of on-street parking spaces based on the lot type. Staff will ensure that residents can turn into and out of their driveway safely with vehicles parked on the street, whether a vehicle is parked on one side of the street or on both. The review of street fixtures such as a fire hydrants within a road allowance affects the location and availability of on-street parking opportunities. Page 14 of 26

15 3. CURRENT SITUATION 3.1 Factors Affecting Residential Parking Supply A number of factors can affect the supply of residential parking within any given community in Ajax which include the following: I) the amount of parking that is available in the garage, is affected by virtue its width, its length, or the amount of space that is being consumed by storage; vi) vii) Town of Ajax Residential Parking Review the occupancy of recreational vehicles (such as snowmobiles, boats, campers, etc.) can affect remaining on-site parking spaces; and the expectations of new home purchasers are to maximize the amount of house available, but they are being built on smaller lots with smaller garages. ii) iii) iv) the amount of parking that is available on the driveway is affected by its width or its length; the amount of parking that is available on the street for visitors, is affected by the number and width of driveways that intersect the street, the location of fire hydrants, traffic control devices and traffic calming measures; the occupancy of the dwelling, either by virtue of the number of drivers in the household or the existence of a basement apartment, can affect the number of vehicles on a lot; v) the amount of on-street parking available may be reduced at certain times of the year in order to account for snow clearing. The number of visitors parking on the street can also increase during holiday season; Page 15 of 26

16 3.2 Demographics and Growth According to Statistics Canada, in 2001 the Town had an estimated population of 73,753 with 23,200 households. Since 2001, the Town has issued approximately 5,148 (as of the end of September 2005) building permits which would equate to approximately 15,000 additional persons. This additional population growth has taken place almost entirely within newly developing areas of Ajax. The following summarizes Ajax s demographics and trends as it relates to residential parking. I) The Town primarily consists of couples with young children. Approximately 40% of the population is in the year age range. The second most dominant age group are children ranging in age between newborns to 15. iv) By the time teenagers in Ajax reach the age between 16 and 18, more than half of them (55%) possess a driver s licence. The number of young adults in Ajax who are between the ages of 19 and 24 that possess a driver s licence increases to 83%. Approximately 90% of Ajax residents 25 years and older possess a driver s license. v) The primary mode of transportation for Ajax residents is the vehicle. Over 85% of the trips are made by the vehicle, while 8% are by transit (either local transit or GO rail), and 6% walk. vi) There are more residents in Ajax who work in Toronto (43%) than Ajax residents who work in the Durham Region (40%). About 8% of Ajax residents work in York Region. Of the Ajax residents who are employed, 79% of Ajax residents have free parking at the workplace. ii) iii) The majority of households (78%) live either in a single-detached or semi-detached dwelling, 14% live in an apartment, and 8% live in a townhouse. Approximately 74% of all households have at least two members or more in the household that possess a driver s license. Twenty-three percent have one member and 3% have no members in the household that possess a driver s license. These statistics correlate with the findings that 14% of all households have more than 2 vehicles, 49% have 2 vehicles, 33% have 1 vehicle and 4% have no vehicle. The foregoing data reveal that Ajax is a municipality that is currently dominated by single-detached and semi-detached dwellings with young families and two vehicles per household. This is a demographic reality which needs to be accounted for in terms of parking requirements. Page 16 of 26

17 3.3 Minor Variance Applications During the past five years, there were approximately 320 minor variance applications submitted to the Town of which 107 were related to residential parking. In 2004, there were 98 minor variance applications, of which 62 of the applications were related to residential parking. Of the foregoing 62 applications, only four applications were denied by the Committee of Adjustment. That year there were approximately 50 requests for curb cuts as well. From the foregoing, staff have witnessed additional time being dedicated to the review of driveway widenings. Of the foregoing 107 minor variance applications that were submitted in the last five years, 16 were related to driveway widenings, 26 were related to front yard setbacks and 65 were related to garages. Of the 16 minor variances related to driveway widenings, more than half were in the R2-A zone, scattered throughout the Town (see Attachment 1). The majority of minor variances related to garages occurred in the R1-E zone as shown in Attachment 3. These variances occurred in two particular subdivisions: Nottingham (Williamson Drive and Westney Road North) and Castlefields (Rossland Road East, east of Audley Road North). In these instances, a zoning by-law amendment was approved to allow 11.3 m lot frontages in the R1-E zone, but the R1-E zone only permitted a single car garage. The developer applied for a minor variance to permit a double car garage where a single car garage should otherwise have been permitted. 3.4 By-law Complaints According to By-law Services, there were 646 parking complaints received in 2004 and 640 complaints received as of the end of October Although a breakdown of the type of parking complaint is not provided, many are in relation to residential parking in newly developing areas. Of the 26 minor variances related to front yard setbacks as shown in Attachment 2, they occurred in various zones including R1-B, R1-D, R1-E and R3 in various areas throughout the Town. The other two-thirds of the minor variances requested either an increase or reduction to the front yard setback for reasons including the addition of a porch. Page 17 of 26

18 4. RECOMMENDED APPROACHES Staff have recommended the following approaches to address the issues related to residential parking. Each issue was identified followed by a suggested approach and rationale for the approach. Following each suggested approach is the comments received on the suggested approach and staff s response and final recommendation. 4.1 Overall Approach At issue is the notion that there is insufficient parking space on the driveway to accommodate at least two vehicles. The parking standard requirement of a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces per detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, linked villa dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, street townhouse dwelling, and triplex shall be maintained. This allows for 1 vehicle to be parked in the garage and 1 vehicle on the driveway. Although the lot is designed to accommodate 2 vehicles, staff have identified the following issues: I) Currently a driveway in the R2-A zone is not permitted to widen to 5.0 metre even though it has the same frontage as the R1-F zone; ii) Residents find it inconvenient to move vehicles if they are parked in tandem either in the case of 1 vehicle in the garage and 1 vehicle on the driveway or 2 vehicles parked in tandem on the driveway; iii) iv) The garage is used for storage space, thus eliminating a potential parking space; At least half of Ajax residents have at least 2 or more vehicles per household; and v) Staff are sensitive to the notion that in general, not more than 50% of the front of the lot should be occupied by parking in order to maintain as much landscaped open space as possible. Site specific evaluations can still occur through the minor variance process. 4.2 Public Response Although staff have reviewed complaints onsite-specific matters, there has been very little response from the public in terms of this study. One member of the public attended the Public Open House and submitted a written response as follows: - garages are not large enough to fit an average sized vehicle; - garages being used for storage rather than a parking space; - narrow streets make it difficult for emergency vehicles to go through when there are vehicles parked on both sides of the street (for example, Nottingham community); and - lack of on-street parking, partly as a result of legal or illegal curb cuts. Page 18 of 26

19 4.3 Transportation Advisory Committee Response The Residential Parking Review was discussed at the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting in March Overall, TAC supported the initiative and agreed that it represents an important issue. In general, TAC had the following comments: - parking in the front yard appears to be dominating the streetscape; - too many townhouses being built on small lots with insufficient parking; - people should not be able to park vehicles on both sides of the street because it interferes with emergency vehicles; and - the rear yards are not large enough for a shed and space for the children to play in. 4.4 Development Community Response Developers along with their architects attended the public open house and a separate developers meeting on February 7, One additional developer attended the developers meeting. Four written responses were received from the development community. Overall, the development community appears to recognize the residential parking issues in Ajax and note that other municipalities are encountering similar issues. They are concerned about the potential implications that the study could have on the contemporary design of subdivisions, including product design, lot size, density, and affordability. One of their main concerns is with regard to minimum garage sizes. In particular, the minimum garage length of 6.5 metres and the minimum area of 23 square metres. The concern is that the increase in the garage size will compromise the interior layout and function of the space. The developers were also concerned with the suggested minimum setback of 10.0 metres from the Front Lot Line to the garage to accommodate two vehicles parked in tandem. They noted that not only will this have an impact on the streetscape but the interior space in the dwelling unit. As noted earlier, the development community suggests that the Town consider on-street permit parking to alleviate some of its parking issues. They note that on-street permit parking has been implemented in several other municipalities and appears to be working well, and would generate revenue for the Town and would also address the current parking issues. Further, the development community had great concern with the transition between the old and new regulations and how the final recommendations would affect their developments. It was strongly stated that the new requirements or amendments should not apply to draft approved or registered plans of subdivision. Draft approved units are sold to home buyers based on the existing setbacks and approved model designs. If the draft approved units are to be modified to conform with any proposed amendments, there could be severe consequences for the builders and developers, and may result in loss of units that have already been sold. Page 19 of 26

20 4.5 Town s Response The Town has provided ample opportunity for the public and the development community to comment on the suggested approaches in the Residential Parking Review. Staff appreciates the comments received from the public, TAC and the development community, and has taken the comments into consideration when preparing the final recommendations. This report is intended to account for the development realities currently underway in Ajax. After reviewing the suggested approaches and comments, some of the suggested approaches were agreed upon, some were modified and one was removed. The following section identifies the issue, the original suggested approach, comments in response to the suggested approach, and staff s response. Page 20 of 26

21 Issue 1.a): Driveway Widths in the R2-A Zone In Zoning By-law , a driveway in the R1-E and R1-F zones are permitted to a maximum width of 5.0 metres. This 5.0 metre maximum is not permitted in the R2-A zone. widen the driveway to a maximum of 5.0 metres to accommodate two vehicles to be parked side-by-side. Staff Recommendation: Suggested Approach: It is suggested that a driveway widening be permitted to a maximum of 5.0 metres for 9.0 metre and 10.4 metre lot frontages. Rationale: For lots in the R1-E, R1-F and R2-A zones, driveways can be widened from 3.0 metres to 5.0 metres to accommodate 2 vehicles on a driveway and 1 in the garage. Driveways in a R1-E, R1-F and R2-A are the only zones where the maximum driveway width exceeds the width of the maximum garage width. In the other zones, the maximum driveway width is the same as the maximum garage width. Figure 1: Two vehicles parked side-by-side on a 5.0 metre driveway. Comments Received: There were no comments in regards to this suggested approach. Staff Commentary / Recommendation: It is staff s recommendation that Zoning By-law be amended to permit 9.0 metre and 10.4 metre lot frontages to Page 21 of 26

22 Issue 1.b): Street Townhouses For street townhouse lots, the maximum driveway width is 3.0 metres. There is no potential to widen the driveway to create an additional parking space, since space is required on the lots for street lighting, hydrants, street trees, and landscaping. Current Situation Suggested Approach: It was initially suggested that two vehicles could be parked in tandem for street townhouses. In order to accomplish this, one suggestion was that for dwellings in a R2-A and R3 zone, the Minimum Setback from Front Lot Line to the garage could be amended to 10.0 metre in order to allow 2 vehicles to be parked in tandem. It was suggested that this not apply to street townhouses with rear lanes or street townhouses with a lot frontage of 9.0 metres. Street townhouses with a lot frontage of 9.0 metres permit the driveway widening to a maximum of 5.0 metres. Rationale: Figure 2: Street townhouses on Dooley Crescent where the vehicles are parked over the sidewalk or overhanging on the street. For new and existing street townhouses in a R2-A and R3 zone with 6.0 metre lot frontages, the maximum driveway width would remain at 3.0 metres. Street townhouse lots with frontages of 6.0 metres would require 2 vehicles to be parked in tandem on either the side with a sidewalk or without a sidewalk. To accommodate 2 vehicles parked in tandem, the driveway length would have to be at least 10.0 metres. Comments Received: There were concerns with the minimum setback of 10.0 metres from the Front Lot Line to the garage for dwellings in a R2-A and R3 zone. The 10.0 metre setback from the Front Lot Line to the garage is attainable on the side of the street where there is no sidewalk. The development community has indicated that under Section 5.4 of Zoning By-law , a Page 22 of 26

23 required parking space may include part of the Town Boulevard to a maximum of 3.0 metres as long as it does not include the sidewalk or the travelled section of the public street. Thus, the setback of 10.0 metres would include 7.0 metres of the owner s property and 3.0 metres of the Town Boulevard. The development community notes that the 10.0 metre setback on the side of the street where there is a sidewalk would have an impact on the footprint of the dwelling. This setback would create garages that would be recessed from the front doors. They suggested relocating the sidewalk adjacent to the curb allowing the proposed 10.0 metre setback be reduced to 6.5 metres. Another suggestion that has been offered is to increase the lot depth from 30 metres to approximately 34 metres, in order to allow for the greater setbacks. Staff Commentary / Recommendation: There are a number of issues/complaints that pertain to conventional private parking on 6.0 metre lots, while maintaining a positive building/street relationship, particularly on shallow lots. Firstly, since the frontages for these lots are narrow, it is not possible to provide an on-street parking space in front of these lots. Secondly, it would not be appropriate to widen driveways and further reduce the amount of landscaping in the front yard. Thirdly, the lengthening of driveways to the amount suggested could introduce further difficulties by allowing for the potential proliferation of vehicles on the fronts of houses with the houses distant from the street, which is not favourable from a design perspective. One solution that has been desired and implemented successfully in Ajax is with the double-fronted or rear accessed units. In this development format, the garage is located behind the dwelling. Amenity space is provided between the garage and the rear of the dwelling. The area in front of these dwellings is free of driveways, and is therefore fully available for temporary parking for visitors. Staff would encourage this development format for lots less than 7.0 metres in width, in order to allow for on-street parking for these unit types. It is also possible to have smaller unit types facing singleloaded (service) roads in new subdivisions. This would allow for on-street parking in front of these units, on the opposite side of the service road. However, in terms of the proposed suggestions by the development community, they suggest relocating the sidewalk adjacent to the curb. This would have several impacts including the following: - there would be no space for snow storage; and - it would interfere with the placement of utilities (e.g. fire hydrant, bell pedestal, utility box). Therefore, this suggestion is not preferred. Page 23 of 26

24 Figure 3: Dual frontage townhouses on Alford Lane. Figure 4: Opposite frontage of townhouses on Alford Lane. Page 24 of 26

25 Issue 1.c): Physical Inability to Accommodate a Wider Driveway Current Situation Not all residential dwellings are designed to accommodate a minimum driveway width of 5.0 metres so as to accommodate two vehicles parked side-by-side. There are residential dwellings where the driveway may not be able to be widened to 5.0 metres in the R1-E, R1-F and R2-A zones (9.0 metre and 10.4 metre lot frontages) for the following reasons: I) The garage is recessed or the front porch projects, and there is insufficient space to accommodate a vehicle between the front porch and the sidewalk. ii) Driveway widenings can impact on street tree placement and other utilities in the boulevard. Figure 5: A driveway widening would be difficult with the existing porch and location of the fire hydrant. Suggested Approach: It is possible to amend the Zoning By-law such that dwellings in the R1-E, R1-F and R2-A zones would be required to be designed to permit a maximum driveway width of 5.0 metres to accommodate 2 vehicles to be parked side-by-side. However, by mandating this requirement, the potential for otherwise positive house designs including projecting porches, box, etc. could be precluded. Page 25 of 26

26 Rationale: A driveway in the R1-E, R1-F and R2-A zones (9.0 metre and 10.4 metre lot frontages) may be 3.0 metres, but since the maximum permitted driveway width is 5.0 metres, nothing would obstruct the resident from widening their driveway to 5.0 metres. The only zones that would not permit a driveway width of 5.0 metres or greater would be the R2-B and R3 zones, where the driveway widths would remain at 3.0 metres (since their lot frontage is generally 6.0 metres). Comments Received: There was concern with dwellings in the R1-E, R1-F and R2-A zones that would be required to be designed to permit a maximum driveway width of 5.0 metres. The concern is that if the driveway width can be widened to 5.0 metres, this would require a wider curb cut, thus eliminating an on-street parking space. The front landscaped area would also be reduced and the hard surface would increase, thus creating an unaesthetic streetscape. driveway portion would only be widened to 5.0 metres and the Town boulevard would remain unwidened, thus protecting the on-street parking space. Staff recommend that for new developments proposed within the R1-E, R1-F, and R2-A zones (9.0 metre and 10.4 metre lot frontages) that the design of dwellings take into account a potential future maximum driveway width of 5.0 metres. This recommendation should be included as a design guideline. Although this recommendation only deals with future proposals, it does not deal with the dwellings that cannot physically widen their driveways. To address the current situation, on-street parking should be considered for further review. Staff Commentary / Recommendation: As mentioned earlier in the rationale, this suggestion would only apply to future residential developments since not all dwellings have the physical ability to widen the driveway to 5.0 metres because of the location of the porch or street furniture. In response to the development community s comment, a driveway widening can be done without a curb cut. The Page 26 of 26