Technical Proposal for. Bicycle Network and Priority List. Preliminary Recommendations

Transcription

1 Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C) Technical Proposal for WORKING PAPER NO.5 Bicycle Network and Priority List Preliminary Recommendations Proposal # July October 30, Prepared by Boulevard Transportation Submitted to the Corporation of the City of Victoria # Goldstream Avenue Victoria BC CANADA V9B 2X5 t

2 CONTENTS 1. Overview Parking Supply Rates, General Defined Geographic Areas Parking Supply Maximums Cash in-lieu of Parking Shared Parking Parking Supply Rates, Residential Multi-Residential Minimum Parking Supply Rates (Multi-Residential) Affordable Housing + Supportive Housing Visitor Parking Transit Proximity Residential Other Parking Supply Rates, Commercial Office Personal & Financial Services Food + Beverage Services Retail Hotel Parking Supply Rates, Other Uses Institutional Industrial Off-Street Parking Design Standards Facility Design Space Dimensions Transportation Demand Management Off-Street Bicycle Parking Carshare Specialty Vehicles Barrier Free Parking Off-Street Loading Electric Vehicles Bylaw Format + Readability Reorganization of the Bylaw Building Classes Appendix A: Summary of Recommended Bylaw Changes

3 1. Overview The City of Victoria is undertaking a comprehensive review of the off-street parking regulations contained in Schedule C of the Zoning Regulation Bylaw. The review seeks to better align parking regulations with the policies and objectives of the Official Community Plan (OCP), and bring the minimum parking supply rates required in Schedule C consistent with actual parking demand. The project included an extensive data collection process along with observations of local parking demand for a range of uses across the City including the downtown area. The project also included a review of best practices related to the provision, physical design and management of off-street parking. Ultimately, the resulting outcomes of this project are as follows: An amendment to the Zoning Regulation Bylaw to introduce a more user-friendly and readable format; Updated parking supply ratios, technical design standards for vehicular and bicycle parking areas (e.g., stall dimensions, surface materials, landscaping, loading, access, visitor parking and lighting); A better understanding of actual parking demand for a range of uses through the City; A reduction in parking variances thereby improving the overall development applicable review process; and Better support for affordable housing and healthier communities. Working Paper no.5 is the last of five working papers that will be prepared during the review process. It is a summary of preliminary recommendations for the Schedule C bylaw revision, and is based on conclusions drawn in each of the four previous Working Papers. A table is included in Appendix A summarizing the recommended removals and revisions to the current Schedule C document. The detailed rationale and recommendations are presented in this Working Paper, organized as follows: Recommended minimum vehicle parking supply rates for select land uses, considered broadly as Multi-Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Institutional; Recommended minimum supply requirements and design requirements for specialty forms of parking such as bicycle parking, barrier free parking, off-street loading, and electric vehicles; 1

4 Consideration of opportunities to ensure efficient use of off-street parking supplies through a cash in-lieu of parking mechanism, parking supply maximum, and shared parking provisions; Opportunities to require transportation demand management (TDM) measures through development regulations, such as carshare and bicycle provisions; and Recommended regulatory document layout, organization, language and land use classifications. 2

5 2. Parking Supply Rates, General 2.1. Defined Geographic Areas Some representative communities 1 set required off-street parking supply rates based on geographic location. Rates are often lower (or exempt) in downtown or urban areas because of demonstrated lower parking demand, land scarcity, and a desire to increase density, encourage sustainable modes of transportation, and make small-scale commercial businesses more viable. Analysis of Victoria s multi-residential sites (approximately 125 sites consisting of 6,000 units) concluded that parking demand among site within the OCP defined Core Area is consistently lower than those outside the Core Area. Accordingly, minimum parking supply rates should be lower for the Core Area as compared to non-core Area sites, and a geographic distinction is needed to allow for this variation in the minimum requirement. Similarly, policy directions in the OCP suggest that there will be increased development, improved transportation options and increased access to services in Large Urban Villages and Town Centres identified in the OCP, suggesting that lower parking supply rates are desirable in those areas as compared to the remainder of the City. The approach of using the Core Areas defined in the OCP as representative of the Downtown Area and the Large Urban Villages (but not Small Urban Villages) and Town Centres as representative of Villages / Centres received general support in conversations with City staff, the project Advisory Group, and through the Focus Groups. Recommendations: 1. Identify geographic locations in Schedule C to allow for differentiation of parking regulations based on location or context as shown in Figure 1; 2. Geographic locations should be based on the OCP and identify the following: a. Downtown Area (within one of the Core Areas as defined by the OCP); and b. Village / Centre (within a Large Urban Village or Town Centre as defined by the OCP). 3. Geographic locations in Schedule C may be updated from time-to-time to reflect future changes in planning policy or the OCP. 1 Working Paper no.2 Bylaw Comparison + Best Practices presented a summary of best practices of off-street parking regulations in other communities deemed to be representative to Victoria. Representative communities were determined based on their approximate size, population, and related characteristics such as housing density and transit availability. The population of the Capital Region (~360,000) is considered a more representative measure of size, given the City s place as the heart of the Capital Region. The representative communities included Fredericton, Hamilton, Kelowna, Kitchener, London (Ontario), Ottawa, Peterborough, Regina, Saskatoon, Windsor, and Winnipeg. 3

6 FIGURE 1. PROPOSED GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR SCHEDULE C 4

7 2.2. Parking Supply Maximums Development regulations typically specify minimum parking supply rates to ensure that sufficient parking is provided, but parking maximums may also be put in place to ensure that parking supply is not excessive. Establishing a maximum may be particularly important in a downtown or urban area where available land is scarce and there is a desire to encourage non-vehicular travel. Limiting parking supply is in line with the City s OCP land management and development goals and policy objectives to increase land use density, create a compact urban form, and concentrate half of the City s new population growth into the Urban Core by The comprehensive review of representative communities concluded that only a few have established parking maximums, and generally only the largest Canadian municipalities (Exceptions: Whitehorse, Vernon, Kelowna, Fredericton). Maximums are most commonly expressed as a percentage above the minimum parking supply rate (typically 125% of the minimum), limited only to sites within a downtown area or within a defined proximity of higherorder public transit, and applied to only certain land uses (commonly multi-residential or downtown commercial). A more detailed account of parking supply maximums from other communities is provided in Working Paper no.2, Section 7.3. The concept of a parking maximum was tested through conversations with the project Advisory Group, Focus Groups, and City staff. It was generally concluded that a maximum would be an effective means to protect against big box style commercial land uses if this was an issue the City was facing. However, the City is largely built out and with land use regulations in-place to prevent big box development, and parking supply maximums were not considered necessary. Recommendation: Parking supply maximums are not to be included in Schedule C at this time. Consideration may be given to supply maximums in future. 5

8 2.3. Cash in-lieu of Parking The Local Government Act (LGA) permits British Columbia municipalities to establish regulations within their development regulations that allows a prospective developer to pay cash in-lieu of required parking spaces. Municipalities use different terms for this process; some call it cash in-lieu while others call it payment in-lieu. Cash in-lieu of parking is at the land developer s discretion, and is typically pursued where private off-street parking is not needed or is difficult to accommodate on-site. Per the LGA, all monies received must be placed in a reserve fund for the purposes of providing: a) New and existing off-street parking spaces, or b) Transportation infrastructure that supports walking, bicycling, public transit or other alternative forms of transportation. All monies received must be credited to the reserve fund, and the municipality is required to annually report on how much was received in the reserve fund, the expenditures, the balance at the start and end of the applicable year, and the projected timeline for future projects to be funded from the reserve funds. 2 The City does not currently accept cash in-lieu of parking. A Focus Group meeting was hosted specifically to discuss a potential cash in-lieu policy with key stakeholders 3, as well as phone conversations held with Planning staff in other municipalities in the Capital Region with cash in-lieu regulations in-place. Through these conversations, as well as the review of cash in-lieu regulations in other communities (see Working Paper no.2, Section 7.1), the following issues would need to be resolved through a more comprehensive process: The over-arching intent of the cash in-lieu policy will need to be defined before key decisions can be made on cost, geographic locations and/or land uses, and reserve fund spending. The per-space cash in-lieu rate should be set so as to allow the City to provide the corresponding infrastructure in-lieu of the off-street parking space. If the intent is to provide public parking, then the rate should be set consistent with the per-space cost of a parking space with consideration of variability between structured and surface parking costs and varied land costs in different areas of the City. If the intent is to provide alternative transportation infrastructure (i.e., sidewalks, cycling facilities, bus stops), the rate should be set based on the estimated cost to provide a defined quantity of 2 BC Local Government Act. Available online at: 3 A focus group on cash in-lieu of parking was held on July 19, 2016 with the following stakeholder organizations: Urban Development Institute, Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, Town of Sidney, City of Victoria Parking Services, City of Victoria staff, and Watt Consulting Group (the consulting team). 6

9 infrastructure (i.e., 200m of sidewalk, as an example). Infrastructure costs should be defined and articulated in policy as the basis of the cash in-lieu rate. The per-space rate should be tested to ensure it is appropriate for the development community. The rate would need to reflect market conditions and be designed in such a way to not discourage development. In addition to defining the per-space cost, a number of conditions of the regulation should be considered with respect to the overall intent of the policy, as follows: How much of the total parking requirement may be substituted as cash in-lieu? Will cash in-lieu be accepted City-wide or restricted only to defined areas? Will cash in-lieu be limited only to sites within a defined distance to an existing public parking facility? Will cash in-lieu be limited only to renovations (to allow flexibility for existing sites)? Concern was expressed that monies could be collected to off-set an issue (i.e., reduced parking resulting on pressure on nearby public parking, but then not used in a location that directly addresses the resulting issue. The City should not commit to spending monies in the vicinity of the site where it was collected (particularly where provision of public parking is not realistic, or investment in non-vehicular infrastructure is unnecessary). The Schedule C review is leading toward reducing minimum parking supply rates to better reflect actual parking demand. By reducing supply rates, the potential to receive cash in-lieu contributions is reduced. The review process is proceeding on the assumption that cash in-lieu will not be pursued at this time and that minimum parking rates should, as possible, be revised to reflect expected parking demand. Consideration may be given to artificially raising minimum supply rates if cash in-lieu is pursued in future as a means to increase possible contributions. A cash in-lieu regulation would add an administrative burden on the City s Planning and Finance departments that should be planned for in advance of adopting such regulation. Recommendation: A study should be conducted to determine whether cash in-lieu will be pursued, giving consideration to the concerns / criteria listed above. 7

10 2.4. Shared Parking Shared parking refers to a scenario where two or more land uses share a single parking supply. The concept is successful where compatible land uses experience peak parking demand at different times of day, allowing for one land use to utilize the unoccupied parking supply of the other use during its off-peak period, and vice versa. Where successful, the total number of spaces needed to satisfy the combined peak parking demand of both land uses is reduced from what it would otherwise be in an un-shared scenario. Only a small number of communities were found to have shared parking regulations. Most allow only sharing among uses on a single property and limit the total reduction (typically no more than 25%). A more detailed account of shared parking provisions in other communities is provided in Working Paper no.2, Section 7.2. While consistent with objectives to make parking supply reflect parking demand and make efficient use of parking resources, shared parking provisions present the following challenges: 1. The City has limited control over parking management approaches once development approval has been granted. This could lead to a development receiving approval for reduced parking supply in a shared parking scenario, and a property owner or strata corporation subsequently altering parking management approaches, thereby affecting the ability of site parkers to share on-site parking per the intent of the regulation. 2. Developments receiving approval for reduced parking supply due to shared parking could experience a significant challenge meeting future parking requirements if they sought rezoning for a change in land use that was not eligible for the same shared parking reduction. Despite the benefits, shared parking provisions are not recommended at this time. Conversations with the Advisory Committee and Focus Groups did not reveal strong interest in a possible shared parking provision. Further, City staff have expressed concern with the longterm implications of development receiving shared parking reductions, consistent with the challenges presented above. Recommendation: Shared parking provisions are not to be included in Schedule C. 8

11 3. Parking Supply Rates, Residential 3.1. Multi-Residential Minimum parking supply rates currently contained in Schedule C for multi-residential land uses are summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1. EXISTING MINIMUM PARKING SUPPLY RATES, MULTI-RESIDENTIAL USES Building Class Buildings converted to multiple dwellings in zones other than a multiple dwelling zone; both for rental and strata buildings Buildings containing residential use in the CA-3, CA-4 and CA-5 Buildings containing residential use in the C1-CR Zone Buildings containing senior citizens residences located in the area bounded by Cook Street on the east, Pembroke Street on the north, the Inner Harbour on the west, and the extension of Belleville Street to Fairfield Road on the south Multiple Dwellings (a) located in a R3-1 Zone (b) located in a R3-2 Zone (c) located in zones other than R3-1 and R3-2 Those Multiple Dwellings Subject to Strata Title Ownership (a) located in a R3-1 Zone (b) located in a R3-2 Zone (c) located in zones other than R3-1 and R3-2 Rental attached dwelling Condominium attached dwelling Number of Parking Spaces 0.8 space per dwelling unit for any building containing more than 3 dwelling units 1.0 space per dwelling unit for any building containing 3 dwelling units 0.7 space per dwelling unit 1 space per dwelling unit 0.35 space per senior citizens unit 1.1 space per dwelling unit 1.3 space per dwelling unit 1.3 space per dwelling unit 1.2 space per dwelling unit 1.4 space per dwelling unit 1.4 space per dwelling unit 1.4 space per dwelling unit 1.5 space per dwelling unit 9

12 3.2. Minimum Parking Supply Rates (Multi-Residential) Recommended minimum parking supply rates for multi-residential uses are identified in Table 2 and Table 3. Discussion and rationale for the recommended rates is provided in the following sections. TABLE 2. RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PARKING SUPPLY RATES, CONDOMINIUM Downtown Area Villages / Centres All Other Areas Bachelor 0.65 spaces / unit 0.70 spaces / unit 0.85 spaces / unit One-Bedroom 0.80 spaces / unit 0.85 spaces / unit 1.00 spaces / unit Two-Bedroom 1.20 spaces / unit 1.30 spaces / unit 1.45 spaces / unit Three-Bedroom 1.40 spaces / unit 1.50 spaces / unit 1.70 spaces / unit TABLE 3. RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PARKING SUPPLY RATES, APARTMENT Downtown Area Villages / Centres All Other Areas Bachelor 0.5 spaces / unit 0.6 spaces / unit 0.75 spaces / unit One-Bedroom 0.60 spaces / unit 0.70 spaces / unit 0.90 spaces / unit Two-Bedroom 1.00 spaces / unit 1.10 spaces / unit 1.30 spaces / unit Three-Bedroom 1.20 spaces / unit 1.30 spaces / unit 1.50 spaces / unit Multi-residential parking demand is influenced by housing tenure, geographic location, and number of bedrooms. Each adjustment factor is considered in the following sections as the basis for customized minimum supply rates that better address actual parking demand. 10

13 Housing Tenure There is a strong correlation between vehicle ownership and housing tenure. Working Paper no.3 concluded that vehicle ownership among surveyed sites in Victoria is, on average, 50% higher among condominium units than apartment units. Research from Metro Vancouver, and the City of Toronto also found significant variation, with parking demand rates among condominium exceeding those among apartments by 35% to 53%. Existing parking requirements consider housing tenure, however, the ratio difference between apartment rental and condominium are less (typically 0.1 spaces per unit less in Apartment) than what was concluded through this study. The 85 th percentile parking demand for apartment rental was factored up to generate the lowest recommended parking supply rate of 0.5 spaces per unit. An approximately 35% increase was applied (with exceptions) to apartment rental rates to generate recommended condominium rates, which generally support the 85 th percentile rates calculated for condominium. Rates were adjusted to reflect rates in representative bylaws and comprehensive studies. Geographic Location Sites located in the Downtown Area or in Villages / Centres are expected to have a lower parking demand than the remainder of the City due to the areas increased access to transportation options and services. This is supported by directions in the OCP that suggests development will be focused in Large Urban Villages/Town Centres. This correlation is evident in results from local data for apartment rentals contained in Working Paper No. 3, however, this correlation was not the case for strata condominium sites where lowest demand was seen downtown, and highest demand was seen in the Large Urban Villages/Town Centers. This is likely a result of new developments in these areas that are at a higher cost, which has an impact on parking demand. Approximately 20% of communities (9) reviewed in Working Paper No. 2 were found to differentiate parking requirements by location or land use designation. Recommended minimum parking supply rates are primarily derived from the vehicle ownership data summarized in Working Paper no.3. Both the Downtown Area and remainder of City rates are generally consistent with the 85 th percentile of average vehicle ownership. Recommended rates for the Villages / Centre areas is reduced from the vehicle ownership information and more reflective of the City s policy directions for these areas. 11

14 Number of Bedrooms A variety of research sources conclude that a multi-residential unit with more bedrooms (i.e., two bedrooms) will - on average - experience higher parking than a unit with fewer bedrooms (i.e., one bedroom or Bachelor). It was concluded in Working Paper no.2 that approximately 25% (14 total) of communities reviewed have varying minimum parking supply requirements based on the number of bedrooms. Parking demand could not be reasonably assessed by number of bedrooms or unit size for a large sample of local multi-residential sites. A small number of sites were reviewed and the average parking demand by number of bedrooms was cross-compared to ratios in two comprehensive studies completed elsewhere. 4 The relative ratios concluded in the study from King County, Washington were found to more closely represent the distribution among the small sample of sites from Victoria. The relative ratios are as follows: One-bedroom units have a 20% higher demand than bachelor units; Two-bedroom units have a 60% higher demand than one-bedroom units; and Three-bedroom units have a 15% higher demand than two-bedroom units. Recommended minimum parking supply rates (refer to Table 2 and Table 3) were developed to reflect these ratios. Defining the minimum supply requirement by number of bedrooms creates a scenario where a development proposal could include, for example, a one-bedroom unit that includes one bedroom and other accessory rooms (i.e., den, media room, etc.) that are not identified as bedrooms in order to achieve a lower parking requirement. To address this, consideration was given to expressing minimum supply rates by number of bedrooms and maximum floor area as a means to ensure regulations control both the number of bedrooms and overall floor area. However, expressing the regulation in this format proved too cumbersome and not easily interpreted. The recommended approach is to put appropriate definitions in-place to ensure what constitutes a bedroom can be regulated. This requires that Bachelor and Bedroom are defined in the Zoning Bylaw, as follows: Bachelor - A dwelling unit where the area intended for sleeping, living, and cooking are combined into a single room. The dwelling has one habitable room. 4 The Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study is available online at The King County Metro Right Size Parking Model Code is available online at: 12

15 Bedroom - A room in a dwelling unit that by its design and location may be used for sleeping, and any room designated as a den, library, sewing room, or media room and is designated as such on a building permit application. Recommendations: 1. Required minimum parking supply rates for multi-residential uses should be expressed with unique rates for the following variables: a. Location Downtown Area, Village / Centre, Other (per Figure 1); b. Tenure Condominium (strata owned), Apartment (market rental); and c. Size Bachelor, One-Bedroom, Two-Bedroom, and Three-Bedroom (subject to identified definition). 2. Recommended minimum parking supply rates are contained in Table 2 and Table Define Bachelor and Bedroom in the Zoning Bylaw. Alternative: 1. Consideration may be given to varying the multi-residential required minimum supply rates to vary only by tenure and location (i.e., no consideration of number of bedrooms) if the City is concerned over possible challenges regulating the number of bedrooms in a given unit, in which case minimum supply rates should be as shown in Table 4. TABLE 4. ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM PARKING SUPPLY RATES Downtown Area Villages / Centres All Other Areas Condominium Apartment Rental

16 3.3. Affordable Housing + Supportive Housing Affordable Housing and Supportive Housing is widely understood to experience lower parking demand as compared to general multi-residential uses. Parking regulations for Affordable Housing and Supportive Housing are considered in the following sections. Appropriate off-street parking regulations are particularly vital as the City has invested considerable effort in recent years encouraging affordable housing, and it is widely understood that excessive parking requirements add to housing cost. Affordable Housing Affordable Housing is defined in the Official Community Plan as: Housing that falls within the financial means of a household living in either market or nonmarket dwellings. Total costs for rent or mortgage plus taxes (including a 10% down payment), insurance and utilities should equal 30% or less of a household s annual income. 5 While the above definition is appropriate for policy, an operational definition of affordable housing for inclusion in development regulations should clarify the following: Specified affordable housing rates apply to multi-residential housing forms; Specified affordable housing rates apply to purpose-built affordable housing provided by the non-profit and government sectors; and A mechanism must be in-place to ensure affordability in perpetuity. The first priority listed in the Strategic Direction 1 list of the Victoria Housing Strategy 6 is reduce parking requirements and consider parking innovations that support affordable housing projects. Vehicle ownership data for representative existing affordable housing multi-residential sites in Victoria identify a demand rate of 0.49 vehicles per unit (residents only). This is significantly less than the average rate among condominium (strata owned) sites of 0.73 vehicles per unit and approximately equal to the average rate among apartment (market rental) sites. As concluded in Working Paper no.3, the average rate among affordable sites is assumed to account for a higher proportion of larger multi-residential and townhouse units, and would likely be lower if isolated to account for smaller units. The affordable bachelor unit rate, for example, 5 City of Victoria. (2012). Official Community Plan. Appendix 2: Glossary of Terms. 6 City of Victoria. (2016). Victoria Housing Strategy. 14

17 was estimated at 0.25 vehicles per unit when factored using the known bachelor to 2-bedroom ratio. Working Paper No.2 identified nine communities with minimum parking supply requirements for affordable housing that are unique from general multi-residential rates, with affordable housing rates being an average of 30% lower than general multi-residential rates. A focus group was held on the topic of affordable housing and parking. 7 Focus group participants explained how a blanket rate for affordable housing sites may not be appropriate given the full spectrum (and diversity) of affordable housing needs. The participants explained how the minimum supply rates for a new affordable housing use in Schedule C should differentiate by unit size (e.g., less than 500 sq. ft.) and overall housing type, recognizing that the parking demand needs of those living in smaller units may be completely different from those living in larger units. Recommendations: 1. Develop a definition for Affordable Housing in development regulations that clarifies regulations apply only to multi-residential housing forms, housing provided by non-profit and government sectors, and where affordability is ensured in perpetuity; and 2. Minimum parking supply rates for Affordable Housing uses should be as follows: a. 0.3 spaces per unit less than 50 m 2 ; and b. 0.5 spaces per unit 50 m 2 and greater. Supportive Housing Supportive Housing is defined in the Official Community Plan as: Transitional housing with on-site staffing that targets people living with mental illness and/or substance addiction. Residency is often limited (1 3 years), with the goal of transition to more permanent housing. Support services can be provided through outreach or on-site. 8 The City does not have a minimum parking supply rate for Supportive Housing, but does have a supply rate for Community Care Facility. The Bylaw s definition of the term is consistent with the 7 A focus group on affordable housing and parking was held on July 25, 2016 with the following stakeholder organizations: Capital Regional District, M akola Development Services, Greater Victoria Housing Society, Pacifica Housing Advisory Association, City of Victoria staff, van Hemert & Company, and Watt Consulting Group (the consulting team). 8 City of Victoria. (2012). Official Community Plan, Appendix 2: Glossary of Terms. 15

18 Community Care and Assisted Living Act. 9 It is therefore preferred to combine the terms in Schedule C to eliminate uncertainty in understanding and regulating this building class. The current Schedule C minimum supply rate for Community Care Facilities is 1 space per 5 beds. Minimum supply rates elsewhere range from one space per 1 to 8 bedrooms. 10 No other municipalities require parking for Supportive Housing / Community Care uses based on floor area, as is the preferred approach for Schedule C. In the absence of any empirical parking demand data and suitable minimum supply rates from other communities, it is recommended that the minimum supply rate for Supportive Housing and Community Care Facility uses is consistent with the Hospital rate. This is an approach taken by a number of other communities. This rate is intended to account for parking demand attributed to all site user groups (i.e., residents/patients, staff, visitors). Recommendations: 1. Supportive Housing and Community Care Facility should be defined as a building class; and 2. The required minimum parking supply rate for Supportive Housing and/or Community Care Facility should be one space per 80m² Visitor Parking The required visitor parking supply is currently set at not less than 10% of the total number of parking spaces (per Section 7.2g). Most commonly this equates to visitor parking spaces per unit, but may be as low as 0.07 spaces per unit where conditions allow for reduced multi-residential parking rates (i.e., where multi-residential uses are included in commercial zones). The method of expressing the visitor requirement results in variation in the visitor parking supply and should be altered to create a more consistent supply rate. A visitor parking demand rate of 0.08 to 0.10 vehicles per unit (85 th percentile) was concluded in Working Paper no.3 based on observations at 16 multi-residential sites in Victoria. Observed local rates are consistent with visitor parking demand rates found in the Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study. This suggests that a rate of 0.1 spaces per unit (or one visitor space 9 "Community care facility" means a premises or part of a premises (a) in which a person provides care to 3 or more persons who are not related by blood or marriage to the person and includes any other premises or part of a premises that, in the opinion of the medical health officer, is used in conjunction with the community care facility for the purpose of providing care, or (b) designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to be a community care facility; Community Care and Assisted Living Act, [SBC 2002] CHAPTER The City of Vancouver, for example, requires 4 beds per space for a Community Care facility. Other examples found in Michael Davidson and Fay Dolnick, Parking Standards (2002), American Planning Association. 16

19 per 10 units) would meet or slightly exceed typical visitor parking demand, and is an appropriate visitor parking supply rate for Schedule C. This rate was generally supported when discussed with the Advisory Group and during a Focus Group meeting on multi-residential parking. The proposed rate is less than the most common rate under the current requirement, but actually exceeds the current rate where residential is provided in commercial zones. This is also less than the common requirement of 0.2 visitor spaces per unit in other municipalities. 11 Results of the visitor parking observations suggest that visitor parking demand is lower in Apartments as compared to Condominiums. This finding was reiterated in a Focus Group session where participants also concluded that visitor parking needs are less at Apartment sites. However, the review of off-street parking regulations in over 50 other Canadian communities concluded that no other community differentiates visitor parking supply rates among Apartments and Condominium uses. Further, providing a distinction between the two would add complexity in interpreting Schedule C. It is recommended that the supply rate of 0.1 spaces per unit is applied across all multi-residential uses. The City may give consideration to establishing unique required visitor parking supply rates at a later date. It was also found that the current design requirement for demarcating visitor parking spaces is vague and subject to misinterpretation. The intent of this requirement should be brought forward in the updated Schedule C, but with more descriptive terminology that requires paint markings and/or signage to demarcate visitor parking spaces. Recommendations: 1. The visitor parking supply rate should be expressed as a stand-alone rate that is independent of the overall multi-residential requirement; 2. The minimum visitor parking supply rate should be 0.1 spaces per unit for multiresidential land uses (including Affordable Housing); and 3. Schedule C should be updated to include a requirement that each visitor space shall include a paint marking and/or sign identifying it as Visitor Parking Transit Proximity Of the 50 bylaws reviewed from communities around Canada, 11 (22%) allowed for reduced parking supply for sites within a defined proximity to public transit. The magnitude of the reduction, applicable land uses, and the defined distance to transit varied among communities. 11 Metro Vancouver. (2012). Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study, Table 31 pg. 50. Available online at: 17

20 Parking demand analysis among multi-residential sites in Victoria concluded that proximity to transit does not influence resident parking demand see Working Paper no.3, Section However, numerous sources support reduced parking rates for multi-residential sites with close proximity to high-quality transit service, as follows: 1. The Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study reported that residential parking demand is 15% lower near TransLink s Frequent Transit Network. 2. Through a phone conversation with BC Transit, it was learned that the agency would be supportive of a 10% parking reduction in new developments if they are built on or adjacent to the region s Frequent Transit Network Participants at the focus group on multi-residential parking supply rates expressed their support for a parking reduction based on proximity to the City s Frequent Transit Corridors (see below). The participants explained how such a provision can incentivize and prioritize development along Frequent Transit Corridors. 4. The City s OCP contains a specific policy to support the maintenance and implementation of BC Transit s Victoria Region 25 Year Transit Future Plan, including rapid and frequent transit service on the corridors shown in Map 5 of the document 13. Specifically, the OCP directs the City to encourage residential and employment growth to concentrate in the Urban Core, Large Urban Villages, Town Centre and employment areas along Frequent Transit Corridors. Rather than apply to all transit routes, it is recommended that a reduction is considered only for transit corridors where transit service provides medium to high density land use corridors with convenient, reliable, and frequent transit service all day long. In order to be frequent, service must be 15-minutes or better from 7:00am to 10:00pm, seven days per week 14. The following variables were considered in establishing the recommended parking reduction for transit proximity: 1. Existing or Future Service Levels Consideration was given to whether frequent transit service levels must be achieved currently for a site to be entitled to a reduction or whether all corridors identified in the OCP as achieving frequent transit service levels by 2035 should be entitled to the 12 Phone conversation held with BC Transit Senior Transit Planner on June 23, City of Victoria. (2012). Official Community Plan, pg 57, Map 5. Available online at: 14 Frequent transit service criteria based on the definition provided in the Official Community Plan, pg 259 and BC Transit s Transit Future Plan, pg 5 18

21 reduction. The OCP directs the City to encourage residential and employment growth to concentrate in the Urban Core, Large Urban Villages, Town Centres and employment areas along rapid and Frequent Transit Corridors. Concentrating density along defined Frequent Transit Corridors will help build transit ridership and justify increased service along these corridors, helping the City build toward its transit future plan. For these reasons it is recommended that the transit proximity reduction is offered to those sites within proximity to the Frequent Transit Corridors defined in the OCP. Defined corridors are identified in Figure 2 showing areas within 200m of each corridor. The implication of offering reduced parking supply on corridors that do not yet provide frequent transit service is that the resulting parking supplies may be insufficient until frequent service is provided. There is also potential that some of the planned Frequent Transit Corridors take longer than 25-years to offer frequent service or never reach frequent service levels, in which case those sites would have reduced parking supply without access to frequent transit service. 19

22 FIGURE 2. AREAS WITHIN 200m OF FREQUENT TRANSIT SERVICE (by 2035) 20

23 Current schedules were assessed in order to determine which corridors identified as Frequent Transit by Map 5 of Victoria s Official Community Plan (OCP) currently meet the frequent service threshold of 15-minutes or better from 7:00am to 10:00pm, seven days a week. Sunday schedules were used as the basis for the assessment, Sunday having the lowest frequency of service. One stop was selected from each corridor identified on OCP Map 5 as Frequent Transit. This includes Bay Street, Craigflower Road, Douglas Street, Esquimalt Road, Fairfield Road, Fort Street, Foul Bay Road, Gorge Road, Hillside Avenue, Johnson Street, Pandora Avenue, Quadra Street, Shelbourne Street, Tyee Road, and Yates Street. Each stop s Sunday schedule was reviewed to determine gaps in service greater than 15 minutes between busses. Busses did not have to be of the same route, however, they did have to travel along the corridor for multiple stops. The assessment concluded that no corridor currently meets the frequent service threshold of 15-minutes or better from 7:00am to 10:00pm, seven days a week. However, eight corridors almost meet the threshold with less than ten service gaps typically occurring at the beginning and the end of day Douglas Street, Esquimalt Road, Foul Bay Road, Fort Street, Johnson Street, Quadra Street, Shelbourne Street, and Yates Street. See Table 5. TABLE 5. FREQUENT SERVICE CORRIDORS AND SERVICE GAPS Corridor Frequent Service Threshold Met? Yes Almost 15 No Number of Service Gaps Bay Street 18 Craigflower Road 25 Douglas Street* 2 Esquimalt Road 5 Fairfield Road 28 Fort Street 3 Foul Bay Road 5 Gorge Road 32 Hillside Avenue 42 Johnson Street 7 Pandora Avenue 12 Quadra Street 6 Shelbourne Street 5 Tyee Road 9 Yates Street 2 15 Corridors almost meeting Frequent Service thresholds are defined as those with fewer than 10 service gaps 21

24 2. Distance / Proximity Threshold Consideration was given through this process to granting the reduction for sites on, within 200m, or within 400m of a Frequent Transit Corridor. Ultimately sites within 200m of a Frequent Transit Corridor are recommended for the reduction. 400m is the commonly referenced threshold for acceptable walking distance, although it was concluded that 400m would cover much of the City and would not properly reward those sites closest to the corridor. Sites located on a Frequent Transit Corridor may still be up to 200m from the nearest bus stop (BC Transit s recommended bus stop spacing is m in Urban Areas 16 ), suggesting that they have similar proximity as those sites within a 200m catchment area of the corridor. 3. Applicable Land Uses Mode choice among residential land uses (and residents) is more directly influenced by the availability of frequent transit service for commuting and non-commuting purposes than it is among employment-related land uses. It is recommended, accordingly, that the parking reduction is applied only to multi-residential uses within proximity to Frequent Transit Corridors. Recommendations: 1. Required minimum parking supply should be reduced by 10% for multi-residential sites within 200m of a future Rapid or Frequent Transit Corridor. 2. A map should be included directly in Schedule C defining the Frequent Transit Corridors (similar to Figure 2). Alternatives: Consideration could be given to varying the above recommendations as follows: 1. The City could choose to not include the 10% reduction for transit proximity because no corridors actually met the frequent service threshold currently. In future, the City could choose to include this regulation when/once corridors meet the threshold, and should continue to monitor service levels from time-to-time to determine if new corridors meet the threshold in future. 2. The transit proximity provision could be expanded to include employment-type land uses (i.e., Office, Retail, Institutions). 16 Spacing criteria from BC Transit s Infrastructure Design Guidelines, Table 3.1, pg 15 22

25 3.6. Residential Other Single Detached Dwelling The current required parking supply rate for single detached dwellings ( single family dwellings in Schedule C) is 1.0 space per unit. The review of rates in 51 Canadian municipalities concluded that approximately 60% of municipalities require 2.0 spaces per unit and that the remainder require 1.0 spaces per unit. Interestingly, nearly all Western Canadian municipalities require 2.0 space per unit, where 1.0 spaces per unit is more common in Eastern Canada. Further detail is available in Working Paper no. 2, Section 2.1. Parking demand data was not collected specifically for single detached dwellings in Victoria. Research from other communities suggests that parking demand is generally between 1.5 and 2.25 vehicles per single detached dwelling. Demand rates would likely vary by location and would increase where secondary suites are present. This suggests that under the City s current minimum supply rate (1.0 spaces per unit), a single detached dwelling can be expected to fail to accommodate approximately one vehicle per the current regulation. Despite the regulation, single detached dwellings commonly include a garage / carport and/or a driveway with combined capacity for two or more vehicles. However, it is not always the case that there is sufficient off-street parking and parking behavior is such that a portion of residents and visitors will choose to park on-street when possible, regardless of the availability of off-street parking. Resident Parking Only ( RPO ) restrictions have been extended into certain residential areas to deter non-resident vehicles from parking in these areas generally adjacent major employment areas (i.e., downtown, Jubilee Hospital, Hillside Mall, BC Museum / James Bay, etc.). This suggests, as confirmed with City staff, that issues around neighbourhood parking are typically attributed to employee vehicles in residential areas and not resident or visitor vehicles. If a minimum supply rate were put in-place that better reflects expected parking demand (i.e., 2.0 spaces per unit), a significant portion of the City s single detached dwellings would be legally non-conforming. This would pose significant challenges if a future development permit or rezoning was sought on these properties. 23

26 A brief exercise was undertaken to understand the hypothetical on-street parking capacity in Victoria s residential neighbourhoods using the following parameters: 1. Single dwelling lots are commonly 15m in Victoria, consistent with the predominant zoning in-place (R1-B, Single-Family Dwelling and R-2, Two-Family Dwelling) 17 ; 2. The City s Highway Access Bylaw, Schedule B clarifies that driveway crossings are a maximum of 4.5m wide 18 ; and 3. The City s Zoning Bylaw, Schedule C clarifies that a 0-degree (i.e., parallel) parking spaces is 6.4m long. Given the above design parameters, a single detached dwelling lot considered in isolation cannot accommodate any vehicles on-street if the driveway is located in the centre of the lot. If off-set by 1.5m or more, one vehicle may be parked on-street. When more than one single detached dwelling lot is present, one vehicle may be parked on-street by straddling the shared side property line. This allows for on-street parking capacity that is one less than the number of single detached dwelling units on a given block (Note: this hypothetical scenario does not consider loss of on-street parking capacity due to fire hydrants, bus stops and other conditions where on-street would be restricted). Given the lack of issue with resident vehicle on-street and the challenges associated with creating non-conforming uses, it is recommended that the current minimum supply rate of 1.0 spaces per single detached dwelling remains. The key implication to the City is that future single detached dwellings will contribute vehicles to nearby on-street parking supplies if developed per the minimum supply rate. Recommendation: Retain the existing minimum parking supply rate (1.0 space per unit). 17 Refer to City of Victoria Zoning Bylaw Part b and Part c 18 The Highway Access Bylaw allows for driveways as narrow as 3.5m 24

27 Townhouses The designated land use townhouse is not currently included in Schedule C, however, with increasing higher density development throughout the City, a townhouse use is recommended to be included in revised Schedule C. As per the Zoning Regulation Bylaw, a townhouse is treated as an attached dwelling, defined as follows: A building used or designed as three or more self-contained dwellings units, each having direct access to the outside at grade level, where no dwelling unit is wholly or partly above another dwelling unit. Parking demand data was not collected specifically for townhouse dwellings in Victoria. However, a number of other communities in the Capital Regional District include a minimum parking supply rate for these dwellings. The communities of Central Saanich, Colwood, and View Royal require 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit whereas Esquimalt, Langford, and Saanich require 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The minimum supply rate for townhouse dwellings among the representative communities ranges from as low as 1 parking space per unit (Hamilton, Kitchener, Regina, and London) to as high as 2 parking spaces per unit in Saskatoon, depending on the location of the townhouse. Moreover, in many cases, the rate for townhouses in these communities is identical to the rate for single-detached dwellings, suggesting that these uses have similar parking demand patterns. The analysis and conclusions for the implications of on-street parking for singledetached dwellings (see Section 3.6.1) also apply for townhouses. Accordingly, a minimum parking supply rate of 1.0 spaces per unit is recommended for townhouse uses. Tandem parking refers to a scenario where two parking spaces are arranged such that the first space utilizes the second space for access/egress and, as such, any vehicle parked in the first space is land locked while a vehicle is also parked in the second space. A tandem arrangement results in a more efficient use of space due to less space dedicated to maneuvering, but is generally only successful where both spaces are used by the same household. Assuming the recommended Townhouse rate is implemented (1.0 spaces per unit), tandem parking is not appropriate. Recommendation: The required minimum parking supply rate for townhouses should be the same as for singledetached dwellings space per unit. 25