Parking Standards Background Study Draft Final Report Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan
Town of Newmarket October 14, 2016
Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Executive Summary Introduction The Town of Newmarket Urban Centres Secondary Plan area is envisioned to be an integrated, compact, complete and vibrant community. It will be sensitively integrated with adjacent neighbourhoods and will focus on higher density development that facilitates increased active transportation and public transit usage. To achieve these goals, a review of the parking standards and management practices within the Urban Centres and Growth Areas is required to support the development of an area specific Zoning By-law. This report includes a background review of standard practices amongst other municipalities in Southern Ontario, as well as select municipalities from the United States, to provide the Town with an understanding of a variety of innovative approaches to parking requirements. Findings Residential Parking Rates There are two general residential land uses permitted within the Secondary Plan area and this includes multiple dwelling unit buildings and townhouses. Multiple dwelling unit buildings include freehold and condominium apartments. Townhouses include standard and stacked townhouses (including freehold and condominium), and they may be located on either public or private roads. One set of parking rates is recommended for multiple dwelling unit buildings, and another set of rates is recommended for all forms of townhouses. The recommendation for multiple dwelling unit buildings is based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The recommended parking rates are provided in Table ES-1 and these rates apply to the entire Secondary Plan area. Table ES-1: Recommended Residential Parking Rates
Town of Newmarket Recommended Residential Parking Rates for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Area
Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings 1 Minimum Maximum RGI Units (spaces per unit based on # bedrooms) Bachelor 0.70/unit 0.85/unit One Bedroom 0.80/unit 1.00/unit Two Bedrooms 0.90/unit 1.10/unit 50% reduction to Three Bedrooms (or more) 1.10/unit 1.30/unit minimum Townhouse Dwellings and Minimum Maximum (spaces per unit) maximum rates Townhouses 1.0/unit 1.2/unit Residential Visitor Parking Requirements Minimum Maximum (Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings or Townhouses) Same as Visitor 0.15/unit 0.15/unit Non-RGI 1. RGI = Rent-Geared-to-Income and includes affordable housing, cooperative housing, and subsidized housing.
October 14, 2016 | i Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Non-Residential Parking Rates The recommended parking rates in this section apply to all non-residential land uses permitted within the Secondary Plan area. Maximum parking supplies will be calculated by factoring the minimum parking requirements. The recommended non-residential parking rates are provided in Table ES-2. Table ES-2: Recommended Non-Residential Parking Rates Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law Recommended Secondary Plan Area
2010-40 Rates Land Use General Rates Minimum Maximum School, 2 spaces per classroom plus an additional 10% 1 space per classroom plus an 2x the Elementary of the total parking requirement to be dedicated additional 10% of the total minimum to visitor parking parking requirement to be School, 3 spaces per classroom plus an additional 10% dedicated to visitor parking Secondary of the total parking requirement to be dedicated to visitor parking School, Post 1 space per 100 m2 GFA used for instructional 1 space per 200 m2 GFA used 3x the Secondary and/or academic purposes for instructional and/or minimum academic purposes Commercial 1 space per 20 m2 of GFA 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA 2x the School minimum Day Cares 2 spaces per classroom plus 1 spaces per classroom plus 2x the 1 space for every 4 children licensed capacity 1 space for every 6 children minimum licensed capacity Group Homes, Greater of 2 spaces or 1 space per staff 2 spaces 2x the Special Needs member on duty minimum Housing Places of 1 parking space per 9 m2 of the aggregate GFA No change recommended. 2x the Worship of the nave, public hall, banquet hall or other General rates will continue to minimum community/multi-use hall used as a place of apply. assembly Libraries 1 space per 10 m2 of GFA 1 space per 20 m2 of GFA 2x the Community / 1 parking space per 14 m2 of GFA dedicated to minimum Recreation indoor facilities for use by the public plus the Centres aggregate of: • 30 spaces per ball field • 30 spaces per soccer field • 4 spaces per tennis court Retail, 1 parking space per 9 m2 of GFA with a 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA 2x the Food/Grocery minimum of 5 spaces minimum Retail, Other 1 parking space per 18 m2 of NFA Restaurants 1 parking space per 9 m2 of GFA dedicated to 1 space per 100 m2 of GFA, 5x the public use, excluding any porch, veranda and/or excluding any porch, veranda minimum patio dedicated as seasonal servicing areas. and/or patio dedicated as seasonal servicing areas. Office 1 parking space per 27 m2 of NFA 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA 2x the (Business) minimum Office (Medical), 1 parking space per 17 m2 of NFA Medical Research Hotels The aggregate of: The aggregate of: 3x the • 1 space per guest room • 1 space per guest room minimum • 1 space per every 2 guest rooms over 20 • 1 space per 10 m2 of GFA • 1 space per 4.5 m2 of GFA dedicated to dedicated to administrative, administrative, banquet and meeting facilities banquet and meeting facilities Long-Term Care 0.5 parking space per dwelling unit or rooming 0.25 parking space per 2x the Facilities unit plus 1 space per 100 m2 of GFA used for dwelling unit or rooming unit minimum medical, health or personal services plus 1 space per 200 m2 of GFA used for medical, health or personal services
October 14, 2016 | ii Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law Recommended Secondary Plan Area
2010-40 Rates Land Use General Rates Minimum Maximum Home Where the area occupied by the home Based on residential land use n/a Occupation occupation exceeds 24 m2, 1 parking space requirement. Those visiting the shall be required for every 9 m2 above the 24 practitioner within the Home m2 of the dwelling unit used for the home Occupation can use visitor occupation parking. Cinemas, 1 parking space per 9 m2 of floor area 1 space per 20 m2 of GFA 2x the Arcades, dedicated to public use minimum Indoor Games Adult 1 parking space per 7.5 m2 of GFA Entertainment, Night Clubs Art Gallery, 1 space per 50 m2 of GFA 1 space per 100 m2 of GFA 2x the Museum minimum GFA = Gross Floor Area NFA = Net Floor Area m2 = square metres
Reduced Parking Based on Proximity to Transit The recommended parking rates outlined above will be applicable to the entire Secondary Plan area. However, because the area is planned to be highly transit oriented, reductions reflecting the accessibility to transit are also recommended. These reductions will be applied to both the minimum and maximum parking supplies calculated using the above rates. There are two GO Stations located within the Secondary Plan area: Newmarket GO Rail Station and Newmarket Bus Terminal. The proposed reductions apply to proximity to both of these stations. We recommend that the reductions be applied as follows: A 30% reduction in parking requirements, may be applied to both the minimum and maximum calculated parking supplies, for residential and non-residential land uses where it is demonstrated that: 1. The proposed development main entrance is within 500m walking distance of either the GO Rail Station or Bus Terminal main entrances; and, 2. Adequate Travel Demand Management infrastructure and programs will be in place to the satisfaction of reviewing agencies, in accordance with Town’s Urban Centres Secondary Plan policies and York Region Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Applications. The door-to-door walking distances will be determined on a case-by-case basis since they are dependent on site location and site design. It is noted that the additional reduction opportunity (no. 2) applies to GO Rail or bus terminal proximity since these locations, combined with Viva service throughout the Secondary Plan area, provide residents with transit options for both longer and shorter trips, and thus the potential for residents to not own a car is much higher in these locations. Recommended Approach to Shared Parking It is recommended that the current approach to shared parking contained within the existing Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 be carried over to the Secondary Plan area Zoning By-law. This approach is an industry standard throughout Canada and the United States. It is based on first principle methodology but eliminates the need for proxy studies to determine time-of-day utilization
October 14, 2016 | iii Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report as well as peak parking demand. This methodology can be applied to shared parking supplies serving multiple (more than 2) land uses with different parking characteristics. For non-standard land uses such as Park-‘N’-Rides and transit stations that may share parking supplies with other land uses, the shared parking approach should be applied using first principle methods and informed through closely working with transit agencies since the parking demand characteristics of these land uses depend on many factors and vary considerably depending on the location. The first principle shared parking approach and final recommendations for these land uses would be provided to the Town in the form of a Parking Study as requested based on the Town’s discretion. It will be up to the Town to determine when a land use does not fit into the general land use definitions within the shared parking formulas. Recommended Approach to Bonusing Bonusing refers to leniency with respect to height and density requirements awarded to a developer in return for providing a public benefit. As per the Secondary Plan, an applicant within the Secondary Plan area may elect to request increases in the Permitted Maximum Heights and/or Permitted Maximum FSIs up to, but not exceeding the Discretionary Maximum Heights or Discretionary Maximum FSIs With Bonusing without an amendment to this Plan in exchange for providing structured parking for vehicles where a significant portion of the parking is to be transferred to a public authority for use as public parking. We further recommend that the Town apply the following criteria to qualify for bonusing: 1. A minimum of 20 public parking spaces must be provided; and 2. At a minimum, 10% of the public parking that is provided shall be dedicated car-share spaces, to a maximum of 6 spaces. This will encourage developers to engage car-share providers in introducing car-share into the Town of Newmarket. Furthermore, it will ensure that parking is in a reasonably accessible area, otherwise car-share providers may not be interested. Finally, it ensures that the parking supply will be large enough to provide at least 2 car-share spaces, which is further incentive to car-share providers. Cash-in-Lieu of Parking Spaces The Town’s current Zoning By-law already permits cash-in-lieu of parking spaces, and cash-in-lieu should continue to be a provision within the Secondary Plan area. As a starting point, the fee structure can be based on the current fee structure used within the Town. The need and potential for cash-in-lieu will be come clearer as the Secondary Plan develops and parking needs are balanced with transit accessibility in addition to the bonusing provisions. Carpool Parking for Employment Uses Carpool spaces are an important initiative towards transit oriented development as well as reducing the parking supplies for employment uses. The recommended approach involves dedicating a portion of the required parking supply for an employment use towards carpool spaces as opposed to providing reductions to the parking supply. The recommended approach is as follows: Carpool spaces must be provided at a minimum rate of: 1. 5% of the total required parking supply for any employment uses, or 2. 2 spaces.
October 14, 2016 | iv Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
This will ensure that carpool is being provided for all employment uses and will encourage participation in SmartCommute, otherwise the spaces will go unused. Carpool spaces should be located closest to the building entrances, signed, and enforced. Only accessible spaces would be prioritized over carpool spaces in terms of location. Car-Share Parking Car-Share is an important consideration within a Transit Oriented Development area because it encourages those who do not own personal vehicles to live and work in those areas. Many who participate in car-share programs do not rely on vehicles to go to work, but may occasionally need a vehicle for personal use or employment purposes. We recommend that reductions to residential parking supplies be awarded to developers for providing car-share as follows: For any apartment (freehold or condominium) development, the minimum parking requirement should be reduced by up to 3 parking spaces for each dedicated car-share stall. The limit on this parking reduction is calculated as the greater of: 4 * (total number of units / 60), rounded down to the nearest whole number; or 1 space. The provision of car-share in a public parking structure through the bonusing provision could also leverage this policy towards reducing the resident parking supply for new developments. As with the bonusing provision, this will further encourage developers to engage car-share providers. Car-share can be provided at employment uses and this should be investigated as part of the Transportation Demand Management Plan for new developments, if the anticipated tenants would benefit from this service as determined on a case-by-case basis. However, since car-share at employment uses has less of an impact on day-to-day mode choice, we do not recommend reductions to the overall parking supply for the provision of car-share at employment uses. Parking Management and Governance within the Secondary Plan Area Consistent with Section 9.3.6.1 of the Secondary Plan, the potential role for a municipal parking authority has been assessed. It is recommended that the Town maintain internal municipal operation of public parking within the Secondary Plan area. Section 9.3.6.1 of the Secondary Plan also states that the Town may prepare a public parking strategy and outlines several criteria that encourage the parking district approach. Internal municipal operation is the ideal approach to meeting these goals and applying the parking district approach because it will allow the Town the greatest control over the size and location of public parking structures, to capitalize on shared parking opportunities. The parking districts approach also complements cash-in-lieu. The Town would also be responsible for residential parking permits for on-street parking. The Town should maintain all control over the approach to parking so that the visions and goals are met, and any public feedback is dealt with and addressed directly rather than through a third party. Outsourcing management to a third party should only be considered when the parking infrastructure demand and needs within the Secondary Plan area have stabilized and economy of scale justifies the transition. Additionally, it is recommended that all public parking be paid and that the fees be determined through further economic analysis. The fees will be determined based on target rates of 85% occupancy. It is further recommended that the Town have one single entity manage enforcement of
October 14, 2016 | v Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report parking spaces including carpool spaces, car-share spaces, electric vehicle spaces, accessible spaces, and on-street permit parking.
Transportation Demand Management As per the direction of the Secondary Plan, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has been incorporated into the recommended parking requirements for the Secondary Plan area through inclusion of the following policies and initiatives: a) preferential parking for carpool vehicles in non-residential developments; b) provision for car share opportunities in major residential developments; c) reduced parking requirements reflecting proximity to transit; d) bonusing incentives for provision of public parking with car-share; e) cash-in-lieu of parking spaces for the provision of public parking; f) application of shared parking formulas for public parking structures and joint development; g) transit incentive programs, including subsidized transit fares; h) secure indoor bicycle parking and showers in conjunction with major office and commercial uses, institutional and civic uses; i) provision for bicycle parking in close proximity to building entrances and transit stations; and, j) incorporating paid parking requirements with non-residential development. It is also recommended, as per direction provided by the Secondary Plan as well as York Region’s Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Applications, that the Town request TDM plans to be incorporated into transportation impact studies and parking studies for all new developments. Although some incentive can be given to the developer within the Zoning By-law, it is often the developer or employers responsibility to leverage these incentives and ensure they are being applied to new developments. Requiring TDM plans to be provided will ensure that potential TDM opportunities are being considered and implemented whenever possible. When it can be demonstrated that TDM initiatives are adequate, and when the development is within close proximity to transit, further reductions to the parking supplies will be permitted. The Town may further encourage developers and employers to consider SmartCommute, green or electric vehicle parking, carpool parking, dedicated carpool pick-up areas, and bicycle parking in excess of the minimum requirements, be provided as part of TDM initiatives for new developments.
October 14, 2016 | vi Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Contents
Executive Summary ...... i 1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Policy Review & Need for Revised Parking Rates ...... 1 2.1 York Region Transportation Master Plan ...... 1 2.2 Urban Centre Secondary Plan ...... 3 2.2.1 Parking ...... 3 2.2.2 Bonusing ...... 4 2.2.3 Transportation Demand Management ...... 4 2.3 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) ...... 5 3 Secondary Plan Parking Rates ...... 5 3.1 Existing Parking Policy for the Town’s Urban Centres ...... 6 3.2 Definition of Intensification Zones / Growth Areas ...... 7 3.2.1 Canada ...... 7 3.2.2 United States ...... 8 3.2.3 Recommendation ...... 10 3.3 Application of Maximum Parking Rates ...... 10 3.3.1 Recommendation ...... 12 3.4 Residential Parking Rates ...... 12 3.4.1 Permitted Residential Land Uses ...... 12 3.4.2 Vehicles per Household in Newmarket ...... 13 3.4.3 Townhouse Dwelling Rates ...... 14 3.4.3.1 Recommended Townhouse Dwelling Rates ...... 14 3.4.4 Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings Background Review ...... 14 3.4.4.1 Recommended Approach to Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Rates ...... 15 3.4.5 Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Market Trends ...... 16 3.4.5.1 GTA Trends ...... 16 3.4.5.2 Newmarket Trends ...... 17 3.4.5.3 Parking Demand Rates from Development Applications ...... 18 3.4.6 Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Bedrooms per Unit Rates Review ...... 20 3.4.7 Recommended Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Parking Rates ...... 20 3.4.8 Recommended Rent-Geared-to-Income Rates ...... 21 3.4.9 Visitor Parking Rates (Residential Land Uses) ...... 21 3.4.9.1 Recommendation ...... 22 3.5 Non-Residential Land Uses ...... 22 3.5.1 Permitted Non-Residential Land Uses ...... 22 3.5.2 Non-residential Parking Rate Review ...... 24 3.5.3 Recommended Non-residential Parking Rates ...... 25
October 14, 2016 | vii Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
3.5.4 Blending of Land Uses ...... 26 3.5.5 Gross Floor Area vs. Net Floor Area ...... 26 3.5.6 Employee & Staffing Based Rates ...... 27 3.5.7 Mandatory Minimums & Waving of Minimums ...... 27 4 Transit Proximity Reductions...... 28 4.1 Recommendations for Transit Proximity Reductions ...... 30 5 Shared Parking Policies ...... 30 5.1 Existing Policy (Town of Newmarket) ...... 31 5.2 Policies from Other Canadian Municipalities...... 34 5.3 Shared Parking Formula Percentages ...... 35 5.4 Policies from Municipalities in the United States ...... 36 5.5 Recommended Approach to Shared Parking...... 37 6 Joint Development / Public Parking & Bonusing Provisions ...... 37 6.1 Bonusing and Incentives to Developers ...... 37 6.1.1 Recommended Approach to Bonusing ...... 39 6.2 Joint Development with Respect to Bonusing Provisions ...... 40 7 Cash-in-Lieu for Parking Deficits ...... 40 7.1 Application of Policies ...... 40 7.2 Fees ...... 41 7.3 Challenges ...... 42 7.4 Recommendations ...... 43 8 Carpooling & Car-Share ...... 43 8.1 Existing Carpool & Car-Share within the Town of Newmarket...... 44 8.2 Carpool Policies ...... 44 8.2.1 Canada ...... 44 8.2.2 United States ...... 46 8.2.3 Recommendations ...... 47 8.3 Car-Share Policies ...... 47 8.3.1 Existing Programs in the GTA ...... 47 8.3.2 Car-Share in Canada ...... 48 8.3.3 Car-Share in the United States ...... 49 8.3.4 Recommendation ...... 50 9 Parking Management Approaches ...... 50 9.1 Internal Management and Outsourcing ...... 50 9.1.1 Self-Operation ...... 51 9.1.2 Outsourced Management Contract ...... 51 9.1.3 Outsourced Concession Agreement ...... 51 9.2 Governance Model Structures ...... 51 9.3 Recommendations ...... 52
October 14, 2016 | viii Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
10 Transportation Demand Management ...... 53 10.1 Recommendations ...... 53
Tables
Table 1: Municipal Parking Standards Reviewed ...... 6 Table 2: Growth Areas / Intensification Zones by Municipality ...... 7 Table 3: Application of Maximum Parking Rates ...... 11 Table 4: Residential Land Use Comparison (Zoning By-law 2010-40 vs. Secondary Plan) ...... 12 Table 5: Vehicles per Household ...... 13 Table 6: Parking Rates Based on # Bedrooms & Tenure (Rented vs. Owned) ...... 15 Table 7: Recent Development Applications ...... 18 Table 8: Observed Tenant Parking Demand ...... 19 Table 9: Minimum Parking Requirements (Apartment Dwellings based on Number of Bedrooms) ...... 20 Table 10: Recommended Parking Rates by Unit Type (Condominiums & Rental Apartments) ...... 21 Table 11: Non-Residential Land Use Comparison (Zoning By-law 2010-40 vs. Secondary Plan Permissions) ...... 23 Table 12: Current and Recommended Non-Residential Parking Rates ...... 25 Table 13: Shared Parking Policies in Other Jurisdictions ...... 34 Table 14: Construction Cost of a Structured Parking Space ...... 41 Table 15: Carpool Policies in Other Jurisdictions ...... 44 Table 16: Carpool Policies in the United States...... 46 Table 17: Car-Share Policies in Other Jurisdictions Zoning By-laws...... 48 Table 18: Car-Share Policies in the United States ...... 49
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Urban Growth Centres Secondary Plan Area and Character Areas ...... 9 Exhibit 2: GTA Condominium Market Trend by Unit Type ...... 17 Exhibit 3: Newmarket Bus Terminal (taken directly from the Metrolinx Mobility Hub Study) ...... 29 Exhibit 4: Newmarket GO Rail Station (taken directly from the Metrolinx Mobility Hub Study) ...... 29 Exhibit 5: Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 Shared Parking Tables ...... 33
Appendices
Appendix A: Residential Parking Rates Comparison Appendix B: 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey Auto-Ownership Appendix C: Non-Residential Parking Rates Comparison Appendix D: Intensification Area Parking Rate Reductions Appendix E: Shared Parking Percentages Comparison
October 14, 2016 | ix Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
This page is intentionally left blank.
October 14, 2016 | x Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
1 Introduction
This report documents the findings of the draft parking standard background study in support of the development of an Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area in the Town of Newmarket. This report summarizes the following tasks: Task #1: Background Review of Reduced Parking Requirement Policies in Other Jurisdictions Task #2: Review Bedrooms per Unit Parking Policies Task #3: Policies for Shared Parking Task #4: Joint Development and Bonusing Task #5: Recommend Policy for Cash-in-Lieu Task #6: Carpooling and Car-Sharing Spaces Task #7: Governance Models The findings for the above tasks were summarized in three working papers which were submitted to the Town for review and comment. This draft report consolidates the three working papers and incorporates all comments received. 2 Policy Review & Need for Revised Parking Rates
In developing the parking standards for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area we have referenced the Urban Centres Secondary Plan as well as the York Region Transportation Master Plan, and from these documents we have extracted the relevant planning policies and visions which have helped to guide the development of this area specific Zoning By-law. The Secondary Plan area is envisioned to be highly transit accessible and will be supported by York Region Transit, Metrolinx GO Transit and the VivaNext Rapidway corridor along Yonge Street and Davis Drive. This Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is reflected in the policies outlined in the following sections. 2.1 York Region Transportation Master Plan The York Region Transportation Master Plan (July 2016) (the “TMP”) has several objectives outlined to help guide the development of the Region to meet the future vision and goals. Objectives Objective 1 of the TMP is To Create a World Class Transit System. Objective 2 is to Develop a Road Network Fit for the Future. Objective 3 is to Integrate Active Transportation in Urban Areas, and Objective 5 is to Make the Last Mile Work. These objectives directly impact the design, character, functionality, and approach to development within the Secondary Plan Area with respect to parking management, because without good transit, active transportation networks, and appropriate first and last mile experiences, automobile use will continue to be the primary mode of travel. To meet these objectives, parking must be carefully managed.
October 14, 2016 | 1 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Although all objectives will be important to consider within the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area, Objective 5 goals as outlined below are vital: 1. Provide safe and convenient walking/cycling opportunities to mobility hubs 2. Manage parking supply and demand with innovation, pricing and technology 3. Support transit-oriented development 4. Embrace emerging technologies and the sharing economy to improve convenience and mobility 5. Educate and encourage the public on their mobility options through strategies, programs and incentives that support non-auto travel Policies The TMP continues to outline policy areas which rely on the above objectives. Policy Area 2 is Corridor Evolution. Over time and as thresholds are met (such as transit availability), general purpose traffic lanes will be repurposed to use as HOV/Transit lanes or reserved bus lanes such as those in the VivaNext network along Yonge Street and Davis Drive. Policy Area 3 is Commuter Parking Management. This policy directly impacts the Secondary Plan Area and the key outcome of this strategy is to lower the number of auto trips accessing and parking at key destinations in urban centres. This policy ties in with Objectives 1, 3, and 5 noted above, as well as Policies 2 and 5. The TMP states that “Commuter Parking Management will require the Region to partner with other agencies and the private sector to conduct further study to inform the strategy”. The TMP does acknowledge that parking management is primarily governed by the local municipalities through zoning by-laws, secondary plans, and official plans, but with the understanding that Regional levels of influence are important to achieving these initiatives. Regional influence plays a role in Park ‘N’ Ride lots, carpool parking lots, on-street parking on Regional roads (although this will not be permitted on Yonge Street or Davis Drive), and guiding growth to intensification areas to help encourage transit-oriented development by leveraging both public and private resources. YRT/Viva currently has seven Park ‘N’ Ride facilities in York Region, however, none of them are in the Town of Newmarket. A Park ‘N’ Ride Implementation Plan will help inform on locations and pricing strategies for new lots. Finally, Policy Area 5 is Boulevard Jurisdiction. With respect to the above this refers to provision of continuous sidewalks or multi-use trails which form part of the active transportation network which in turn directly impacts the first and last mile of the trip, upon which a good parking management system is highly contingent.
October 14, 2016 | 2 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
2.2 Urban Centre Secondary Plan The Newmarket Urban Centres Secondary Plan (June 23, 2014) further details and outlines initiatives and policies appropriate for the Secondary Plan area.
2.2.1 Parking With respect to Parking Management, the Urban Centres Secondary Plan outlines the following key points that strongly influence parking policies: i. The Town will establish minimum and maximum parking requirements for the Urban Centres in the Zoning By-law. Parking requirements will seek to encourage a shift toward non-auto modes of transportation. ii. Parking facilities shall be designed to accommodate bicycle parking as well as reserved spaces for drivers of car-share or car pool vehicles and electric cars. iii. Shared parking is encouraged between adjacent developments, where feasible. iv. Surface parking is discouraged in accordance with Policy 7.3.12(i). Parking in the form of above or below-ground parking structures is preferred. v. All non-residential parking, particularly at major employment locations, is encouraged to implement charged parking. vi. All commercial, office, institutional, mixed use and multi-unit residential buildings, excluding townhouses and stacked townhouses, shall include secure bicycle parking and storage facilities, preferably indoors. vii. The implementing by-law shall establish minimum requirements for bicycle parking. Major office developments and major institutional employers shall be encouraged to include change rooms, showers and lockers for bicycle commuters. viii. On-street parking will not be permitted along Yonge Street or Davis Drive. In addition to the above policies, the following Public Parking Strategy is outlined: The Town shall monitor the need for public parking in the Urban Centres and may prepare a public parking strategy that considers: a) the amount of parking required to support planned commercial, entertainment and institutional uses; b) the amount of on-street parking that can be provided to support planned commercial, entertainment and institutional uses; c) the amount of office parking that could be made available through shared parking arrangements to the public in the evenings and on weekends; d) appropriate locations and sizes for off-street public parking facilities; e) the potential role for a municipal parking authority; and f) appropriate cash-in-lieu of parking amounts for development in the Urban Centres, in accordance with Policy 4.2.7 of the Newmarket Official Plan, including any special conditions wherein reductions in cash-in-lieu requirements would be considered.
October 14, 2016 | 3 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
2.2.2 Bonusing Bonusing refers to leniency with respect to design requirements, awarded by the Municipality to the developer, in return for a public benefit provided by the developer. As excerpted directly from the Secondary Plan: The applicant may elect to request increases in the Permitted Maximum Heights and/or Permitted Maximum FSIs up to, but not exceeding the Discretionary Maximum Heights or Discretionary Maximum FSIs With Bonusing, without an amendment to this Plan in exchange for the provision of one or more of the following public benefits, or cash in lieu of such benefits. The following public benefits are beyond what would otherwise be required to be provided by this Plan, the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act or any other legislative requirement: e) structured parking for vehicles where a significant portion of the parking is to be transferred to a public authority for use as public parking; Bonusing requests would require a Bonusing Justification Report to justify the increase in height or FSI with respect to the public benefit being provided (in this case public parking).
2.2.3 Transportation Demand Management The Secondary Plan outlines the following approach to Transportation Demand Management: a) All non-residential development in the Urban Centres and all residential development in the Urban Centres proposing 10 or more residential units shall be required to prepare a Transportation Demand Management Strategy as part of its Traffic Impact Report. The TDM strategy will describe actions intended to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips, alternative parking standards, minimize parking, and promote transit use, cycling, car and bike sharing, carpooling, and other measures. b) TDM strategies should be designed to decrease single occupancy vehicle use, reduce peak period demands, especially discretionary trips in the afternoon peak period, promote active transportation and transit use, and to increase vehicle occupancy during peak periods and should include, but not be limited to: i. provision for car share opportunities in major residential developments; ii. secure indoor bicycle parking and showers in conjunction with major office and commercial uses, institutional and civic uses; iii. preferential parking for carpool vehicles in non-residential developments; iv. provision for bicycle parking in close proximity to building entrances and transit stations; v. transit incentive programs, including subsidized transit fares; and, vi. incorporating paid parking requirements with non-residential development.
October 14, 2016 | 4 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
2.3 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) The AODA outlines accessibility requirements for Ontario, including guidelines for parking, such as parking space dimensions. The Secondary Plan Parking Zoning By-law will at a minimum conform to the Standard's Accessible Parking requirements (O. Reg. 191/11 Part IV.I 80.32-80.38)1. The recommended approaches contained in this report conform to all the applicable AODA requirements. 3 Secondary Plan Parking Rates
Each municipality throughout Southern Ontario has its own set of Zoning By-laws relating to off- street parking requirements for residential and non-residential uses. In many cases these by-laws were developed at a time when automobile use was at its highest usage rate, resulting in ample supply of automobile parking as well as land use and built form patterns that encourage automobile travel and result in urban sprawl. In the past ten years however, provincial legislation identified “Urban Growth Centres” across the Greater Toronto Area, and has mandated municipalities to increase population and employment density within these areas with transit-oriented development that promotes sustainable travel by walking, cycling and transit, and combinations of these modes of travel. In response, municipalities across the GTA have developed new policies allowing for less parking within their Urban Growth Centres and other growth areas, and an understanding of the policies implemented in other jurisdictions will provide critical input into the Town’s Zoning By-law for its own Urban Growth Centre and the rest of the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Area. Thus, a review of residential parking requirements for other municipalities in the GTA, Ontario, and select municipalities in the United States, was completed to provide input into the Town of Newmarket’s Parking Standards Background Study. The municipalities reviewed are summarized in Table 1. The review included current Zoning By-laws, as well as other parking standard reviews.
1 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/110191#BK132
October 14, 2016 | 5 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Table 1: Municipal Parking Standards Reviewed Municipality Zoning By-law / Ordinance / Municipal Code Canada Town of Newmarket By-law 2010-40 City of Markham By-law 28-97, By-law 2004-196 (Markham Centre) City of Toronto By-law 569-2013 City of Mississauga By-law 0225-2007 City of Brampton By-law 270-2004 Town of Oakville By-law 2014-014 Town of Richmond Hill Richmond Hill Parking Strategy (June 2010) City of Hamilton By-law 05-200 City of Vaughan By-law 1-88, Review of Parking Standards Contained Within the City of Vaughan’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law (March 2010) City of Ottawa By-law 2008-250 United States Stockton, California Stockton Municipal Code Salem, Oregon Salem Revised Code, 2009 Eugene, Oregon Eugene Code, 1971 Pasadena, California Ordinance 7000 Huntington Beach, California Ordinance 4088 Chicago, Illinois Municipal Code of Chicago, current as of March 16, 2016 While the parking policies of a number of municipalities were reviewed, the municipalities in southern York Region including Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Markham, are most comparable to the Town of Newmarket in terms of character and existing transportation and planning policy framework. Like Newmarket, each of these has an identified Urban Growth Centre and is connected in the planned VivaNext Rapid Transit Network. A set of municipalities from the United States were also reviewed to provide the Town with an understanding of a variety of innovative approaches to parking requirements. 3.1 Existing Parking Policy for the Town’s Urban Centres The Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 currently identifies the following rates and reductions applicable to Urban Centre Zones and the Historic Downtown Urban Centre Zone: For apartment buildings, general rate of 1.5 spaces per unit, reduced to 1.0 space per unit. For non-residential buildings, a blanket 5% reduction to parking spaces is applied. All other residential land use types remain as per general parking rates. The following sections will explore the application of parking policies in other jurisdictions including: Definition of intensification zones or growth areas to provide variance in parking rates Application of maximum parking rates Residential parking rates: o Apartment / condominium land use definitions o Other residential land uses o Visitor parking requirements Non-residential parking rates
October 14, 2016 | 6 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
3.2 Definition of Intensification Zones / Growth Areas Most municipalities identify intensification areas to some degree within their Zoning by-law which provides the ability to apply reduced standards for parking requirements. A summary of zone types is summarized in Table 2. General areas are not listed. Table 2: Growth Areas / Intensification Zones by Municipality Municipality Intensification Zones Canada Town of Newmarket 1. Urban Centre Zones 2. Downtown Historic Urban Centre Zone City of Markham Markham Centre (Zoning Bylaw 2004-196) City of Toronto 1. Policy Area 1 (Downtown Core) 2. Policy Area 2 (Yonge-Eglinton) 3. Policy Area 3 (Subway Corridors) 4. Policy Area 4 (Avenues) City of Mississauga 1. CC1 – City Centre – Retail Core Commercial 2. CC2 – City Centre – Mixed Use 3. CC3 – City Centre – Mixed Use Transition Area 4. CC4 – City Centre – Mixed Use 5. CCOS – City Centre – Open Space City of Brampton None Town of Oakville Growth Areas Town of Richmond Hill 1. Downtown Local Centre and Key Development Areas (KDAs) Parking Review 2. Richmond Hill Regional Centres 3. Rapid Transit Corridors City of Hamilton Downtown Zones City of Vaughan Vaughan Metropolitan Centre City of Vaughan 1. Higher Order Transit Hubs (incl. Vaughan Metropolitan Centre) Review of 2. Local Centres Parking Standards 3. Primary Centres/Primary Intensification Areas City of Ottawa 1. Area A – Central 2. Area B – Inner City Area United States Stockton, California Parking Assessment Districts Salem, Oregon 1. Central Salem Development Program (CSDP) Area 2. Downtown Parking District Eugene, Oregon 1. Nodal Development Overlay Zone 2. Other Special Area Zones 3. C-1 zones Pasadena, California 1. Parking Assessment Districts 2. Central District Transit-Oriented Area (or within ¼ mile of light rail station) Huntington Beach, None California Chicago, Illinois Transit Oriented Development (“Transit-Served Locations”)
3.2.1 Canada As mentioned, the intensification zones above do not include the general rates applicable to non- intensification areas within each municipality but it is worth noting that the City of Ottawa is the only municipality that differentiates between two general zones: ‘Suburban’ and ‘Rural’.
October 14, 2016 | 7 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
The Town of Richmond Hill currently has site specific Zoning By-laws for intensification areas but these are likely to be replaced with the recommendations from the Richmond Hill Parking Strategy report, which will result in general rates plus rates for three types of intensification areas. A similar situation is occurring in the City of Vaughan where the current Zoning By-law only specifies reduced rates for the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, but the Draft Review of Parking Standards recommends a further zoning breakdown into three intensification areas. The Vaughan Metropolitan Area is contained within the Higher Order Transit Hubs zone type. The City of Brampton is the only municipality that does not have any reduced rates for intensification areas. The City of Toronto designates four intensification zones, referred to as Policy Areas. Policy Area 1, defined within the boundaries of the downtown core area, has the lowest parking requirements while Policy Area 4 which covers the “Avenues” defined in the City’s Official Plan has the highest parking requirements (aside from the general rates referred to in the By-law as ‘all other areas of the City’). The Town of Newmarket does identify Urban Centre Zones, but without any great detail in terms of how this reduces parking requirements. As mentioned previously, only apartment style dwelling units have reduced parking requirements, while non-residential uses have a blanket reduction of only 5% compared to the general rates. The Urban Centres Secondary Plan has six ‘Character Areas’ which means that there is potential to either create one general rate for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area, to create separate reductions for each Character Area, or to follow the lead of the other municipalities reviewed and to have reductions based on proximity to transit. These character areas are identified in the Secondary Plan and in Exhibit 1.
3.2.2 United States In the United States parking reductions for growth areas is dealt with in a greater variety of ways. In the Cities of Stockton and Pasadena Parking Assessment Districts are developed which allow developments to be exempt from the parking requirements if they participate in a parking assessment for the construction and design of public parking facilities. A similar approach is leveraged in the City of Salem. This means that the public parking is shared and more efficiently used. In Salem, parking is only required on-site for uses falling under Household Living. Eugene applies percentage reductions to the parking requirements for established zones, which includes the Nodal Development Overlay Zone (50% reduction) and the Other Special Area Zones (25% reduction). In C1 zones, if the parking requirement is calculated to be less than 8 spaces, then no parking is required. Chicago allows a 50% reduction for residential land uses within “1,320 feet (400m) of a CTA or METRA rail station entrance or within 2,640 feet (800m) of a CTA or METRA rail station entrance when the subject building is located along a pedestrian street or a pedestrian retail street. The minimum off-street automobile parking ratios for residential uses may be further reduced by up to 100 percent from the otherwise applicable standards if the project is reviewed and approved as a special use.” Similarly, a reduction up to 100% is allowed for non-residential uses within the same distance from rail stations. These reductions are contingent on bicycle parking being provided. Percentage reductions are applied to the parking requirement calculated using the general rates, or are in addition to any already reduced standards for the downtown core.
October 14, 2016 | 8 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Exhibit 1: Urban Growth Centres Secondary Plan Area and Character Areas
October 14, 2016 | 9 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Pasadena also allows reductions for the Central District Transit-Oriented Area, or within ¼ mile (400m) of a light rail station. Percentage reductions are applied to the general parking rates for non- residential uses, and separate rates are provided for residential uses.
3.2.3 Recommendation The Urban Centres Secondary Plan Area is relatively uniform with respect to proximity to rapid transit along the VivaNext Rapidway corridor, although the Rapidway does not currently continue north of Davis Drive or west of Yonge Street. Considering the presence of two GO stations (one rail and one for buses) within the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area, we do recommend reduced rates reflecting the availability of both transit services. Instead of preparing a separate set of rates to be used for developments in proximity to transit, we recommend the percentage approach. Using this method, after the parking requirements are calculated using the general rates, a percentage is then applied to the requirement, and the result is taken as the parking requirement. This approach is more simplistic and allows for more flexibility in the zoning by-law in terms of additional percentage reductions which could be applied to reflect other Transportation Demand Management initiatives. The actual percentage reductions and proximity thresholds will be explored in following sections (see Section 4). 3.3 Application of Maximum Parking Rates One of the primary goals of customized parking rates for intensification areas and growth areas is to discourage vehicular trips and to encourage transit use or forms of active transportation. One way of accomplishing this is to require less parking be provided, reflecting the accessibility of public transit and lower auto ownership. However, only imposing reduced minimums still allows developers to potentially oversupply parking, which encourages people to drive. As a result, many municipalities are enforcing maximum parking rates. These maximum ratios may be applicable to both residential and non-residential land uses. In some cases this results in a range of rates which the developer may gear towards a specific development depending on market characteristics, goals and expectations, while in others the maximum parking rate may be equal to the minimum. Typically, maximums are not applied to general zones. The Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law states that the parking supplies may not exceed the minimum parking requirements, which essentially means that the minimum rate is the maximum rate. Table 3 summarizes the municipalities which are enforcing maximum parking rates, including specific areas.
October 14, 2016 | 10 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Table 3: Application of Maximum Parking Rates Municipality Intensification Zones MAXIMUM? Canada Town of Newmarket 1. Urban Centre Zones 1 2. Downtown Historic Urban Centre Zone 1 City of Markham 1. Markham Centre (Zoning Bylaw 2004-196) x City of Toronto 1. Policy Area 1 2 2. Policy Area 2 2 3. Policy Area 3 2 4. Policy Area 4 2 City of Mississauga 1. CC1 – City Centre – Retail Core Commercial x 2. CC2 – City Centre – Mixed Use x 3. CC3 – City Centre – Mixed Use Transition Area x 4. CC4 – City Centre – Mixed Use x 5. CCOS – City Centre – Open Space x City of Brampton None x Town of Oakville 1. Growth Areas x Town of Richmond Hill 1. Downtown Local Centre and Key Development Areas Parking Review 2. Richmond Hill Regional Centres 3. Rapid Transit Corridors 3 City of Hamilton 1. Downtown Zones x City of Vaughan 1. Vaughan Metropolitan Centre City of Vaughan 1. Higher Order Transit Hubs Review of 2. Local Centres 4 Parking Standards 3. Primary Centres/Primary Intensification Areas 4 City of Ottawa 1. Area A – Central 5 2. Area B – Inner City Area 5
United States Stockton, California Parking Assessment Districts x Salem, Oregon 1. Central Salem Development Program (CSDP) Area 6 2. Downtown Parking District Eugene, Oregon 1. Nodal Development Overlay Zone 2. Other Special Area Zones 7 3. C-1 zones Pasadena, California 1. Parking Assessment Districts x 2. Central District Transit-Oriented Area (or within ¼ mile of 8 light rail station) Huntington Beach, None x California Chicago, Illinois Transit Oriented Development (“Transit-Served Locations”) 9 1. Maximums equal to the minimum rates 2. Maximums apply to only some land uses depending on the land use and the Policy Area 3. Maximums apply to development within 400m walking distance of rapid transit stop or GO Rail 4. Maximums apply to surface parking lots only 5. Maximums apply to specific land uses within 600m of rapid transit stations (maximum walking distance of 800m) 6. Maximums are 2.5 times the minimum (when 20 spaces or less required) and 1.75 times the minimum otherwise 7. Maximum is 125% of the minimums with some exceptions 8. Maximum is equal to the minimum, but may exceed the minimum requirement under some conditions 9. Maximums only apply within the Downtown Zoning Districts, which can include Transit-Served Locations. Separate rates are provided.
October 14, 2016 | 11 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
All of the most comprehensive Zoning By-laws as well as the Parking Standard Reviews for the City of Vaughan and the Town of Richmond Hill impose maximums.
3.3.1 Recommendation Within the Secondary Plan area maximum parking rates should be implemented. Minimum and maximum rates should result in a range of possible parking supplies because this results in flexibility in design and the ability for developers to gear a development towards market expectations. The actual range in minimum and maximum rates will be explored in following sections. 3.4 Residential Parking Rates The following sections provide commentary and recommendations based on the observed comparisons for condominium and rental apartment land uses, other residential land uses, as well as visitor parking. For a detailed comparison of residential parking requirements for all jurisdictions reviewed, see Appendix A.
3.4.1 Permitted Residential Land Uses There are two general residential land uses permitted within the Secondary Plan area and this includes multiple dwelling unit buildings and townhouses. Multiple dwelling unit buildings include apartments (freehold and condominium). Townhouses include standard and stacked townhouses (freehold and condominium), and they may be located on either public or private roads. The Secondary Plan does not identify duplex, triplex, or quadruplex as permitted uses. Rent-geared-to- income residences will be permitted within the Secondary Plan area. Home Occupation rates are explored under Section 3.5 in addition to Group Homes and Special Needs Facilities. For clarity when comparing land uses within Zoning By-law 2010-40, we have extracted the table contained within Section 5.3.1 showing residential parking rates and indicate how they would relate to the Secondary Plan area below in Table 4. Table 4: Residential Land Use Comparison (Zoning By-law 2010-40 vs. Secondary Plan) Zoning By-law 2010-40 Land Uses Applicability to Secondary Plan Area… Accessory Dwelling Unit Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 A Mixed Use Building containing Up to 3 Dwelling Units Refer to Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings Dwelling, Detached Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Dwelling, Link Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Dwelling, Semi-Detached Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Dwelling, Duplex Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Dwelling, Triplex Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Dwelling, Quadruplex, Fourplex or Maisonette Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Dwelling, Townhouse or Stacked Townhouse on Private Road Refer to Townhouses Dwelling, Townhouse or Stacked Townhouse on Public Road Refer to Townhouses Parcel of Tied Land Development Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Apartment Building Refer to Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings Bed and Breakfast Establishment Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Dormitory Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Group Home, Halfway House Refer to Group Homes, Special Needs Housing Refer to applicable residential use: Multiple Home Occupation Dwelling Unit Buildings or Townhouses Special Needs Facility Refer to Group Homes, Special Needs Housing
October 14, 2016 | 12 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
3.4.2 Vehicles per Household in Newmarket Data from the 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) was reviewed to determine the current auto-ownership within the Town of Newmarket. The TTS is a travel survey of households within the GTA that collects information pertaining to travel characteristics which include origin-destination patterns as well as trip modes and other household information that is relevant to transportation planning. We have reviewed auto-ownership based on number of persons per household. Table 5 below summarizes the breakdown of households in Newmarket based on auto-ownership. This summary is independent of persons per household and does not take into account transit accessibility or any other factors such as dwelling type. Two queries were performed: one for the entire Town, and one for the zones surrounding Newmarket GO Rail Station. Because of the zone system used by TTS, the sub-area selected surrounding the GO Rail Station is at the centre of 4 irregular-shaped zones, each of which is roughly 1.0 km tall and 1.5 km wide. Therefore the query represents an area that is approximately 2.0 km by 3.0 km and centered on the GO Rail Station. Zones are typically sized and shaped to account for road network fabric, neighbourhood character, and accessibility in terms of travel patterns and transit use. The results show a pattern in terms of auto-ownership which we believe could be more prominent if it was possible to narrow the query down to a smaller radius reflective of acceptable walking distances. Table 5: Vehicles per Household Vehicles per Town of Surrounding Notes:
Household Newmarket 1 Newmarket GO 2 1. There are approximately 28,000 households in the 0 8% 17% Town, and 96% of these households have 5 or fewer persons per household. This summary only 1 32% 41% reflects the top 96% of households with 5 or fewer 2 46% 36% persons. 3 10% 5% 2. Zones 2611,2621,2620,2613 4 3% 1% Total 100% 100% Detailed queries provided in Appendix B. This information does clearly indicate that in Newmarket, 78% of households have 1 or 2 vehicles. Thus a mixed rate between 1.0 space per unit and 2.0 spaces per unit would generally serve most existing developments. These results also very closely match the current Newmarket Zoning By-law requirements which are generally 2.0 spaces per unit or 1.5 spaces per unit for residential land uses. The summary above also shows a trend towards lower auto-ownership as a result of proximity to the GO Rail Station. By narrowing the query down to only 4 zones surrounding the Newmarket GO station (approximately 6,500 households) we do see a significant shift in auto-ownership. Compared to 8% of households with no vehicles in Newmarket, the zones surrounding the GO station have 17% of households with no vehicles. Compared to 32% of households with 1 vehicle, the zones surrounding Newmarket GO have a higher proportion of single vehicle households at 41%. Finally, the number of 2 vehicle households surrounding Newmarket GO is 36% compared to 46% in the remainder of Newmarket. This clearly shows a relationship between auto-ownership and proximity to transit, and the results appear to be much closer to the current reduced Zoning By-law requirement of 1.0 space per unit in Urban Centres, although it is important to remember that this is a mixed rate and does not take into account dwelling type or number of bedrooms.
October 14, 2016 | 13 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Looking at the query data in more detail (see detailed queries in Appendix B) a distinct pattern emerges in terms of vehicle ownership. Out of the households located near the GO Rail Station: Auto ownership is most impacted by one person and two person households because they represent 64% of households. Approximately one half of those households will have one vehicle. Approximately one quarter of those households will have zero vehicles. Approximately one quarter of those households will have two vehicles. On average the result is one vehicle per household.
Based on the trend of reduced auto-ownership near the Newmarket GO station within the Secondary Plan area, improved transit availability in addition to parking management would encourage residents with lower auto-ownership to move in. This review of TTS data generally confirms the current mixed rates being used in the Zoning By-law are reflective of the needs of current developments. More importantly, it indicates that within the Secondary Plan area, the initiatives and policies that will guide transit-oriented development justify further reductions.
3.4.3 Townhouse Dwelling Rates Townhouse developments have consistent parking rates for general areas and growth areas throughout the reviewed municipalities, and for all variations of townhouses including stacked townhouses. The Town of Newmarket currently does not have reduced townhouse rates for growth areas. Standard resident parking rates for townhouses is 2.0 spaces per unit for general areas, and 1.0 space per unit in growth areas. For some townhouses there will be a visitor parking requirement and this typically applies to townhouses on private roads or with shared parking supplies (this is explored in Section 3.4.8). Only the current Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law differentiates between public and private roads by reducing the general area resident rate from 2.0 spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces per unit. In the City of Toronto the requirement is 1.0 space per unit regardless of the Policy Area.
3.4.3.1 Recommended Townhouse Dwelling Rates We recommend that the minimum resident parking rate for all townhouse dwellings be 1.0 space per unit. This is consistent with the current resident parking rate for apartments in urban centres within Newmarket. We further recommend that a maximum be imposed that is 1.2 times (20%) greater than the minimum requirement, resulting in a maximum rate of 1.2 spaces per unit. This range of minimum and maximum parking rates is consistent with those found in other municipalities.
3.4.4 Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings Background Review Each municipality has a unique character and structure which may justify the defining of separate land uses catered to the specific parking needs of those uses. For example, the City of Mississauga differentiates between Condominium Apartments and Rental Apartments. By contrast, the City of Toronto only has one comparable land use type called “Apartment Building” and it applies to both rented and owned units. There is a clear trend towards basing parking rates on variables that are indicators of income, and thus the likelihood of vehicle ownership. The two primary variables are the number of bedrooms per unit, and to some extent rental versus owned units. Currently in the Town of Newmarket Zoning By-
October 14, 2016 | 14 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report law 2010-40 there is no difference between rental or owned units, and there is no separation of rates based on number of bedrooms. Table 6 summarizes the municipalities that currently – or may in the near future based on their parking standard reviews – provide rates for units based on the number of bedrooms for multi-family residences. Also shown are the municipalities that separate rates based on tenure (rented versus owned). For rates based on bedrooms, 5 out of the 9 Canadian jurisdictions that we examined have parking policies which distinguish as such. Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Richmond Hill and Vaughan are the 5 that do while Markham, Oakville, Hamilton, and Ottawa do not. Oakville does consider the size of the unit, but the rates are based on gross floor area. Only two rates are provided and the threshold is 75m2. Two out of the three most comparable jurisdictions in Richmond Hill and Vaughan do provide for these policies. Rates based on tenure are only identified in 2 out of 9 municipalities and for the Richmond Hill Parking Review. A similar trend is found in the United States where only 2 out of 6 have rates for units based on number of bedrooms, and none of the municipalities reviewed differentiate based on tenure. Table 6: Parking Rates Based on # Bedrooms & Tenure (Rented vs. Owned) Rate Based on Different Rates Based on # Bedrooms? Tenure (Rented/Owned) Municipality General Growth General Growth Rates Areas Rates Areas Canada Town of Newmarket x x x x City of Markham x x x x City of Toronto x x City of Mississauga x x City of Brampton - - Town of Oakville x x x x Town of Richmond Hill Parking Review City of Hamilton x x x x City of Vaughan x x x City of Vaughan x x Review of Parking Standards City of Ottawa x x x x United States Stockton, California x x x x Salem, Oregon x x x x Eugene, Oregon x x Pasadena, California x x x x Huntington Beach, California x x Chicago, Illinois x x x x
3.4.4.1 Recommended Approach to Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Rates It is recommended that the Town use bedrooms per unit parking policies because there is very strong data suggesting that auto-ownership is directly related to this metric. However, we do not recommend separating rates based on tenure. As previously mentioned, we recommend that
October 14, 2016 | 15 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report apartments, freehold or condominiums, be referred to globally as multiple dwelling unit buildings, and rates based on tenure are not recommended for several reasons. Part of the argument against doing so is based on the fact that many units that are owned are actually being rented, and determining the split during the development proposal phase is extremely difficult. Furthermore, studies have shown that the difference in auto-ownership between someone who owns a condo and lives in it, versus someone who rents a similar condo, are negligible. The difference is much more pronounced in market rentals, rent-geared-to-income units, coops, and subsidized units. These dwelling types will also be permitted within the Secondary Plan area and the parking needs will be accommodated within the range of minimum and maximum rates provided and allows for the developer to design their parking supplies accordingly. If a developer believes that the parking requirements are too onerous based on their specific development proposal, then a parking study for the purposes of a minor variance application can be performed to justify a reduced parking supply. The rates that will be recommended for the Secondary Plan area are going to be fairly aggressive in terms of discouraging auto-ownership, and as we have previously mentioned, the minimum and maximum ranges should generally account for ranges in tenure. Parking rates (by number of bedrooms) are explored in Section 3.4.5. Ideally, parking should not be bundled with units, for all residential developments.
3.4.5 Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Market Trends As identified previously in the discussion on residential parking rates for multiple dwelling unit buildings and seen in Appendix A, many municipalities already have parking rates which vary depending on the number of bedrooms per unit, or are moving towards this type of policy. The advantages of this are that the bedroom based rates capture more realistic needs of each dwelling unit, but the disadvantage is the complexity of the calculation, the extent of research that goes into developing these individual rates, and the difficulty in verifying the appropriateness of the rates after the development is built and occupied (on a bedroom per unit basis). Some municipalities go into further detail by providing two separate rates based on tenure, i.e. whether the units are rented or owned. The advantage of this is that developments can be catered to the market goals or expectations, but this may not always be the most appropriate approach. These models are geared towards bundled parking which operates under the assumption that households with more bedrooms or higher incomes will want to or need to own more vehicles. The following sections will explore market trends both GTA-wide and looking at recent development applications in the Town, review policies in other jurisdictions, and ultimately recommend parking rates based on bedrooms per unit and tenure.
3.4.5.1 GTA Trends The Town of Newmarket currently applies mixed rates to the ‘Apartment Building’ land use2, and the primary disadvantage to this approach is that it is dependent on having a uniform unit mix of both
2 The definition of ‘Dwelling, Apartment Building’ from Zoning By-law 2010-40 is as follows: Means a building containing 4 or more dwelling units which are rented or owned by the occupants and which have a common entrance from the street level and the occupants of which have the right to use in common, hallways, stairs, and/or elevators and yards but does not include any other dwelling defined herein.
October 14, 2016 | 16 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report large and small units. However, market trends appear to be indicating a trend towards smaller unit sizes. According to a 2012 study completed by RealNet (www.realnet.ca) across the GTA, 1 bedroom and 1 bedroom plus den condos consisted of only 42% of new openings in 2004, but in 2012 that percentage increased to 65%. A graph illustrating the GTA market trends in unit mix is provided in Exhibit 2. The changing trend towards smaller unit sizes combined with transit availability is in part driving the need to revise the Town’s current parking rates.
Source: https://informedadvantage.wordpress.c om/2012/05/17/gta-new-condos- openings-by-unit-type/ Exhibit 2: GTA Condominium Market Trend by Unit Type
3.4.5.2 Newmarket Trends Looking more specifically at the Town’s own market trends, a number of recent development applications in the Town and the details of their parking provisions were reviewed. Table 7 provides a summary of these development applications and documents the parking requirements identified in the application with respect to meeting the zoning by-law minimum requirements. All of the applications are located within the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area. It is important to note that these developments may have sought reduced parking but did not or have not yet received approval. However, this does provide some indication of the current market demand within the Town.
October 14, 2016 | 17 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Table 7: Recent Development Applications Development Type Parking Supply 212 Davis Drive 225 apartment units Reduction approved 180 Main Street 150 condominium apartment units Reduction sought “Clock Tower” 1,138 m2 ground floor commercial 17645 Yonge Street 21 storey apartment, retirement Reduction approved “Slessor Square” residence, medical use. 17150 Yonge Street York Region Annex Building Meets requirements 16635 Yonge Street Shoppers Drug Mart Meets requirements 17365 Yonge Street 12&14 storey apartment Meets requirements 345 & 351 Davis Drive Back-to-back stacked townhouses Reduction approved A reduction in the parking requirements was approved for the mixed use development at 17645 Yonge Street, 212 Davis Drive, and 345-351 Davis Drive, while a reduction is currently being sought for another residential development. The remaining three developments met the zoning by-law requirements – one of which is residential while the other two are non-residential. Overall, 4 out of 7 of these development applications have sought parking rate reductions. In terms of residential developments (including mixed use), the 4 out of 5 sought parking reductions. A review of the specific parking requirements sought in these applications can provide guidance on the likely market demand for parking when considering reducing current requirements, and thus the actual revealed parking rate based on the development application. These developments are studied in further detail in the following section.
3.4.5.3 Parking Demand Rates from Development Applications For the first two developments listed in Table 7, parking studies were prepared to justify the reduced parking supplies which would fall short of the zoning by-law requirements. These studies included proxy surveys at existing residential developments, mostly located within the Town of Newmarket. The studies were used to generate parking rates for comparison with the Urban Centre Zone’s rates. Since the Newmarket Zoning By-law does not consider unit mix, it is easy to directly compare the current parking rate requirement to the observed mixed rate which does not take into account unit sizes. For the development at 212 Davis Drive, the parking study entitled Parking and Site Plan Review – 212 Davis Drive – Town of Newmarket (Cole Engineering, November 27, 2014), concluded that the proposed mixed parking rate of 0.98 spaces per unit (of which 0.10 spaces per unit are for visitors) would be justified. This was based on surveys at eight proxy locations, with the peak resident parking demand rate ranging from 0.50 spaces per unit to 0.89 spaces per unit, with an average of 0.70 spaces per unit in observed demand. The supply rate provided for Urban Centre Zones would be 1.25 spaces per unit (of which 0.25 spaces per unit are for visitors). Overall, this development is seeking a 22% reduction from the already reduced requirements for Urban Centre Zones. The tenant parking supply rate would be reduced by only 12%. An earlier memorandum for the same development entitled Parking Survey (October 23, 2014) included proxy surveys at a greater number of similar developments – 14 in total, 3 of which were condominium type, while the remainder were rentals. The observed resident demand ranged between 0.56 spaces per unit to 1.23 spaces per unit, with an average demand of 0.82 spaces per unit. Although the observed parking demand rates exceeded the Urban Centre Zones requirement of 1.00 spaces per unit (resident) at 3 locations, the average was well below the current requirement,
October 14, 2016 | 18 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report and 79% (11/14) of the observed demand rates were below the current zoning by-law requirement. Furthermore, 4 of the locations surveyed were part of a larger apartment complex, and the higher demand at two of the buildings (1.23 and 1.22 spaces per unit) may be offset by much lower demand (0.64 and 0.84 spaces per unit) at the adjacent buildings, if the parking supplies are shared. This research concludes that: There is an opportunity to reduce parking requirements below those outlined in the current zoning by-law for Urban Centres Subsidized/social housing apartment types require the lowest parking rates Rental apartment parking demand tends to be slightly lower than condominium apartments The surveys did not capture peak visitor parking demand since the surveys were performed during the night hours when resident demand was the highest and visitor parking demand was the lowest. Table 8 summarizes observed parking demand rates from the above sources. Table 8: Observed Tenant Parking Demand Provided Parking Observed Demand (spaces / unit) Address Tenure (spaces / unit) Mixed Market RGI 250 Davis Drive 1.79 1.23 Non-RGI 260 Davis Drive 0.84 0.64 Non-RGI 250+260 Davis Drive 1.26 0.90 Non-RGI 270 Davis Drive 1.46 1.22 Non-RGI 684 Queen Street 1.22 0.86 Non-RGI 25 Lorne Avenue 1.07 0.81 Non-RGI 26 Lorne Avenue 1.07 0.83 Non-RGI 27 & 19 Huron Heights 1.08 1.04 Non-RGI 795 Davis Drive 1.03 0.77 Non-RGI 31 Huron Heights 1.28 0.67 Non-RGI 35 & 41 Huron Heights 0.97 0.56 Non-RGI 75 Huron Heights 0.80 0.62 Non-RGI 77 Huron Heights 0.80 0.67 Non-RGI 280 Davis Drive 1.24 0.84 RGI Permitted 400 Crossland Gate 1.32 0.73 RGI Permitted 615 Fernbank Road 1.04 0.52 0.90 0.27 60% RGI, 34% Senior 349/351 Crowder Blvd 1.05 0.58 0.98 0.24 55% RGI, 58% Senior 25 Deverill Crescent 1.09 0.59 0.88 0.30 50% RGI, 17% Senior 145 Essex Avenue 1.34 0.93 1.04 0.81 50% RGI, 29% Senior 2185 Major Mackenzie Dr 1.00 0.38 0.38 62% RGI, 100% Senior
Summary Data Sources: RGI vs 1. Parking Survey Memorandum (Town of Metric Non-RGI RGI Newmarket, October 23, 2014) Non-RGI Minimum 0.56 0.24 43% 2. Parking and Site Plan Review Update and Maximum 1.22 0.81 66% Response to Comments 212 Davis Drive Proposed Residential Development Town of Average 0.84 0.40 48% Newmarket (Cole Engineering, November 27, 85th Percentile 1.02 0.55 54% 2014) Not all of the parking studies were performed in the Town of Newmarket. Based on the available information we have separated the data by rent-geared-to-income (RGI) developments and non- RGI. RGI is permitted at the two buildings located at 280 Davis Drive and 400 Crossland Gate, but the actual split between RGI and non-RGI is unclear. Based on the observed demand it appears that the units are non-RGI in majority and for that reason we have combined them with the non-RGI developments. For the last 5 developments shown, the split between RGI and non-RGI was available and the demand was counted separately as well. The RGI developments are shaded in
October 14, 2016 | 19 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report yellow, while the non-RGI developments are shaded in green. It is important to note that these rates are mixed (do not directly reflect the unit mixture in terms of bedrooms per unit). What we have found is that the average and 85th percentile parking demand mixed rates are 0.84 space per unit and 1.02 spaces per unit, respectively, for non-RGI units. For RGI units however the average and 85th percentile rates are 0.40 spaces per unit and 0.55 spaces per unit, respectively. This represents approximately 50% of the demand observed for non-RGI units. A similar trend is seen when comparing the minimum and maximum, with RGI producing rates that are 43% and 66% of non-RGI demand, respectively. This data indicates that RGI units, including affordable housing, subsidized housing, and cooperative housing, does warrant application of lower rates at about half the rate of non-RGI housing units.
3.4.6 Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Bedrooms per Unit Rates Review The Town of Newmarket’s apartment parking rates compared to Town of Richmond Hill and City of Vaughan’s, including variations by number of bedrooms, are summarized in Table 9. As seen in Table 9, reductions in parking requirements for Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings can be achieved by varying parking requirements by number of bedrooms and this is defined in the City of Vaughan’s current by-law and was identified in the Town of Richmond Hill Parking Strategy (endorsed by Council in December 2010 in principle). This strategy is also applied in a number of other jurisdictions in the GTA including the City of Toronto, Mississauga, and Brampton. Table 9: Minimum Parking Requirements (Apartment Dwellings based on Number of Bedrooms) Town of Newmarket Town of Richmond Hill City of Vaughan Zoning By-law 2010-40 Parking Strategy By-law 1-88 General Urban Rest of Regional General Land Use Land Use Land Use VMC Rates Centre RH Centre Rates Apartment Apartment 1.50/unit
Bachelor 1.00/unit 0.80/unit Bachelor 0.70/unit One Bed 1.25/unit 0.90/unit One Bed 0.70/unit Apartment 1.50/unit 1.0/unit Two Bed 1.50/unit 1.00/unit Two Bed 0.90/unit Three Three 1.75/unit 1.20/unit 1.00/unit Bed+ Bed+ Visitor 0.25/unit 0.25/unit Visitor 0.25/unit 0.15/unit Visitor 0.15/unit
3.4.7 Recommended Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Parking Rates As identified previously in the review of residential parking rates in other jurisdictions, bedrooms per unit can be used to justify lower parking rates. Based upon the rates identified by both Richmond Hill and Vaughan as well as considering the market demand identified in the previous section and auto-ownership within Newmarket, a set of rates has been developed for the Town based upon bedrooms per unit. However, a key consideration for the Secondary Plan area is that the Town would like to see bedroom per unit rates that generally reflect the current Urban Centre mixed rate of 1.0 space per unit. Knowing that one bedroom and one bedroom plus den units are beginning to dominate the markets, the rates that are applied to these units will have a greater impact on the final parking supply in terms of the mixed rate.
October 14, 2016 | 20 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
The recommended bedrooms per unit rates for the Town, including minimums and maximums, are summarized in Table 10. Similar to the recommendations for townhouses, the maximum rates are approximately 1.2 times (20%) higher than the minimum rates. With one bedroom units dominating the market, the resulting mixed supply rates will be generally between 0.8 spaces per unit and 1.0 space per unit. We recommend that the Town encourage developers to unbundle parking so that those who rely on, own, or expect to have multiple vehicles, aren’t encouraged to move into the Secondary Plan Area. The recommended rates shown below would apply to both owned and rented units (parking requirements are independent of tenure). Table 10: Recommended Parking Rates by Unit Type (Condominiums & Rental Apartments) Town Of Newmarket Recommended Parking Rates for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Area # Bedrooms Minimum Maximum Bachelor 0.70/unit 0.85/unit One Bedroom 0.80/unit 1.00/unit Two Bedroom 0.90/unit 1.10/unit Three Bedroom (or more) 1.10/unit 1.30/unit Visitor (see Section 3.4.9 below) 0.15/unit 0.15/unit
3.4.8 Recommended Rent-Geared-to-Income Rates Based on the results of our review in Table 8, we recommend that parking for RGI units be reflective of the lower auto-ownership. The minimum and maximum rates for Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings outlined in Table 10 should be multiplied by a factor of 0.5 and these reduced rates should be applied to the targeted or anticipated mixture of RGI units within a building. The parking requirements for RGI townhouse units would similarly be multiplied by a factor of 0.5. Based on the parking demand in the buildings at 280 Davis Drive and 400 Crossland Gate, it appears that the mixture of RGI versus non-RGI may be difficult to determine prior to development, since both these buildings allow for applications for either RGI or market rentals. It will be up to the City’s discretion to allow for the application of these reduced rates and to how many units they may be applied, depending on if the City believes the demand for RGI units can be filled. However, based on the buildings for which the split of RGI versus non-RGI was known, it appears that 50:50 splits are common at least for the developments for which data was available. Visitor parking requirements would remain unchanged for RGI units when compared to non-RGI.
3.4.9 Visitor Parking Rates (Residential Land Uses) Visitor parking requirements are fairly consistent throughout all the municipalities reviewed, as well as for the different housing types. Visitor parking rates typically range between 0.15 spaces per unit to 0.25 spaces per unit, and are completely independent of the unit sizes. Visitor parking is required for all multiple dwelling unit building developments regardless of if they are rented or owned, and the visitor parking rates are typically the same for both types of tenure. The Cities of Toronto and Pasadena are the only municipalities that have visitor rates below 0.15 spaces per unit, and in Toronto these lower rates (0.10 spaces per unit) only apply to Policy Areas 1,
October 14, 2016 | 21 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
2, and 3. Huntington Beach has the highest guest parking requirement for multi-family dwellings at 0.5 spaces per unit. Chicago and Salem do not identify visitor parking requirements.
3.4.9.1 Recommendation We recommend that the Town continue to require visitor parking to be provided for the same land uses that are identified in the current Zoning By-law and permitted in the Secondary Plan area. This includes Townhouses and Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings. We recommend that the visitor parking rate applicable to these developments be 0.15 spaces per unit as a minimum and maximum. The ranges imposed on the resident parking component will allow for flexibility in design. 3.5 Non-Residential Land Uses
3.5.1 Permitted Non-Residential Land Uses The following non-residential land uses are permitted within the Secondary Plan area: 1. Institutional a. Schools & Educational Facilities b. Day Cares c. Group Homes d. Places of Worship e. Long-term Care Facilities f. Special Needs Housing g. Medical Facilities (Including Medical Offices and Research Facilities) 2. Community a. Libraries b. Community / Recreation Centres c. Arts and Cultural Establishments (undefined) 3. Commercial a. Retail Stores b. Restaurants c. Offices (Business and Civic Facilities) d. Hotels 4. Places of Entertainment a. Cinemas b. Adult Entertainment and Night Clubs c. Arcades and Indoor Games 5. Home-Based Live-Work units (Home Occupation)
We have included Special Needs Housing, Long-term Care Facilities and Home Occupation in this category because the parking requirements are based on staffing or patron needs. For clarity when comparing land uses within Zoning By-law 2010-40, we have extracted the table contained within
October 14, 2016 | 22 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Section 5.3.2 showing non-residential parking rates and indicate how they would relate to the Secondary Plan area below in Table 11. Table 11: Non-Residential Land Use Comparison (Zoning By-law 2010-40 vs. Secondary Plan Permissions) Zoning By-law 2010-40 Land Uses Applicability to Secondary Plan Area… Accessory Retail Sales Outlet Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Art Gallery, Museum Land use is addressed Banquet Facility Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Commercial Athletic Centre, Community Centre, Refer to Community / Recreation Centres Outdoor Recreation Facility, Sports Arena Commercial School Land use is addressed Convenience Store Refer to Retail Day Nursery Land use is addressed Dry Cleaning Depot, Laundromat Refer to Retail Financial Institution Refer to Retail Funeral Home Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Garden Centre Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Golf Course Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Hospital Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Hotel Land use is addressed Institutional Day Centre Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Library Land use is addressed Local Shopping Centre Refer to Retail Long Term Care Facility Land use is addressed Manufacturing, Manufacturing (Light) Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Medical Clinic, Medical Office Building, Refer to Office Medical or Dental Laboratories Medical Practitioner (sole) Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Motor Vehicle Repair Facility, Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Motor Vehicle Body Shop Motor Vehicle Service Shop Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Motor Vehicle Service Station Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Nightclub Land use is addressed Passenger Transportation Terminal Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Office, Accessory Office Refer to Office Personal Service Shop Refer to Retail Place of Entertainment Refer to Cinemas, Arcades, Indoor Games Place of Worship Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Private Club Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Restaurant Land use is addressed Retail (Food/Grocery/Supermarket), Retail (other) Refer to Retail Retail Warehouse Store Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 School, Elementary Land use is addressed School, Secondary Land use is addressed School, Post Secondary Land use is addressed Service or Repair Shop Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Shopping Mall, Regional (Upper Canada Mall) Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Studio Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Transportation Depot Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Veterinary Clinic, Veterinary Hospital, Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40 Domestic Animal Care Facility Warehouse and Storage Uses Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40
October 14, 2016 | 23 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
3.5.2 Non-residential Parking Rate Review To develop appropriate non-residential rates for the Secondary Plan area, the non-residential rates from other municipalities were reviewed for both general areas and intensification areas. The general area rates are fairly consistent with those found in Newmarket (see Appendix C). We found that intensification area rate reductions are generally between 20% and 65% when compared to the rates that apply to general areas. These conversion rates differ by municipality. Within the City of Toronto, the Policy Area rates are reduced by greater amounts when compared to the rates for ‘All Other Areas of the City’, with reductions typically between 30% and 90%, and an average reduction of 60% for Policy Area 4 which we believe is most comparable to the Secondary Plan area. The reductions for Policy Areas vary more than those seen in other municipalities, and also vary more by use. Within the Town of Richmond Hill Parking Strategy, the growth area rates are consistently reduced by approximately 20% to 30% when compared to the rates for the ‘rest of Richmond Hill’. The City of Hamilton reduces the rates for ‘Downtown Zones’ by approximately 40% for offices and hotels, and by 68% for medical clinics. Finally, the City of Vaughan Draft Review of Parking Standards reduces the general rates by 20% to 30% for ‘Local Centres’ and ‘Primary Centres’, but the reduction for ‘Higher Order Transit Hubs‘ – which we believe is most comparable to the Secondary Plan area – typically ranges from 30% to 50% and again this varies by use. Some specific land uses differed from the others. For instance, restaurants had the highest reductions with a 73% reduction in Richmond Hill, and a 100% reduction (to 0 spaces minimum) in the City of Toronto. This is logical in transit oriented development areas where restaurants will serve the local population. Within Ontario and Canada the trend is to provide different rates for growth areas, while in the United States percentage reductions are applied globally to any permitted use. In Eugene, Oregon, the parking requirements for ‘Nodal Development Overlay Zones’ is reduced by 50%, and in other ‘Special Area Zones’ the reduction is 25%. Pasadena also permits a 25% blanket reduction in the ‘Central District Transit-Oriented Area’. These percent reductions area summarized in Appendix D by intensification area and by land use for the municipalities discussed above. In contrast, the current Newmarket Zoning By-law only applies a 5% reduction for Urban Centres.
October 14, 2016 | 24 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
3.5.3 Recommended Non-residential Parking Rates The current general rates from the Newmarket Zoning By-law were taken as the base rates and are summarized in Table 12 along with the recommended Urban Centre parking rates. Table 12: Current and Recommended Non-Residential Parking Rates Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law Recommended Secondary Plan Area
2010-40 Rates Land Use General Rates Minimum Maximum School, 2 spaces per classroom plus an additional 10% 1 space per classroom plus an 2x the Elementary of the total parking requirement to be dedicated additional 10% of the total minimum to visitor parking parking requirement to be School, 3 spaces per classroom plus an additional 10% dedicated to visitor parking Secondary of the total parking requirement to be dedicated to visitor parking School, Post 1 space per 100 m2 GFA used for instructional 1 space per 200 m2 GFA used 3x the Secondary and/or academic purposes for instructional and/or minimum academic purposes Commercial 1 space per 20 m2 of GFA 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA 2x the School minimum Day Cares 2 spaces per classroom plus 1 spaces per classroom plus 2x the 1 space for every 4 children licensed capacity 1 space for every 6 children minimum licensed capacity Group Homes, Greater of 2 spaces or 1 space per staff 2 spaces 2x the Special Needs member on duty minimum Housing Places of 1 parking space per 9 m2 of the aggregate GFA No change recommended. 2x the Worship of the nave, public hall, banquet hall or other General rates will continue to minimum community/multi-use hall used as a place of apply. assembly Libraries 1 space per 10 m2 of GFA 1 space per 20 m2 of GFA 2x the Community / 1 parking space per 14 m2 of GFA dedicated to minimum Recreation indoor facilities for use by the public plus the Centres aggregate of: • 30 spaces per ball field • 30 spaces per soccer field • 4 spaces per tennis court Retail, 1 parking space per 9 m2 of GFA with a 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA 2x the Food/Grocery minimum of 5 spaces minimum Retail, Other 1 parking space per 18 m2 of NFA Restaurants 1 parking space per 9 m2 of GFA dedicated to 1 space per 100 m2 of GFA, 5x the public use, excluding any porch, veranda and/or excluding any porch, veranda minimum patio dedicated as seasonal servicing areas. and/or patio dedicated as seasonal servicing areas. Office 1 parking space per 27 m2 of NFA 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA 2x the (Business) minimum Office (Medical), 1 parking space per 17 m2 of NFA Medical Research Hotels The aggregate of: The aggregate of: 3x the • 1 space per guest room • 1 space per guest room minimum • 1 space per every 2 guest rooms over 20 • 1 space per 10 m2 of GFA • 1 space per 4.5 m2 of GFA dedicated to dedicated to administrative, administrative, banquet and meeting facilities banquet and meeting facilities Long-Term Care 0.5 parking space per dwelling unit or rooming 0.25 parking space per 2x the Facilities unit plus 1 space per 100 m2 of GFA used for dwelling unit or rooming unit minimum medical, health or personal services plus 1 space per 200 m2 of GFA used for medical, health or personal services
October 14, 2016 | 25 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law Recommended Secondary Plan Area
2010-40 Rates Land Use General Rates Minimum Maximum Home Where the area occupied by the home Based on residential land use n/a Occupation occupation exceeds 24 m2, 1 parking space requirement. Those visiting the shall be required for every 9 m2 above the 24 practitioner within the Home m2 of the dwelling unit used for the home Occupation can use visitor occupation parking. Cinemas, 1 parking space per 9 m2 of floor area 1 space per 20 m2 of GFA 2x the Arcades, dedicated to public use minimum Indoor Games Adult 1 parking space per 7.5 m2 of GFA Entertainment, Night Clubs Art Gallery, 1 space per 50 m2 of GFA 1 space per 100 m2 of GFA 2x the Museum minimum GFA = Gross Floor Area NFA = Net Floor Area m2 = square metres
Considering the vision for the Secondary Plan area to be progressive and ahead of the curve in terms of parking management and discouraging auto-centric travel, we have applied 50% reductions to most non-residential uses when compared to the general rates which is consistent with the more aggressive reductions we found in other municipalities. It is recommended that the maximum permitted parking supply will be calculated by factoring the minimum requirement, rather than calculating by using a separate set of rates. For land uses that have a higher variation in parking demand depending on development specific needs, such as places of worship and hotels, we have recommended higher maximum factors. The recommended factors are also informed by reviews of other municipalities and our experience with these land uses.
3.5.4 Blending of Land Uses Land uses that are similar in nature or are often combined in developments, have been blended together. For example, Group Homes and Special Needs Facilities have the same rates within the current Zoning By-law and are therefore now combined. Elementary and Secondary Schools have been combined. Libraries and Community Centres had somewhat comparable rates and are also constructed together, and for this reason we have combined these land uses. Medical and Business Offices have been combined as well. However, because undersupplying parking for Medical Offices could negatively impact patients and visitors, we used the Medical Office rate as the basis for this joining. Finally, Cinemas, Arcades, and Indoor Games are now blended with Adult Entertainment and Night Clubs since the current rates are fairly similar. Within the Secondary Plan area we further recommend blending of general retail and grocery retail land uses since it is expected that grocery stores will be purposed to serve the local area rather than the larger regional areas. In non-growth areas however, grocery retail would generally generate parking demand at higher rates.
3.5.5 Gross Floor Area vs. Net Floor Area Throughout our background research we have found that, in general, parking rates for most land uses rely on gross floor area (GFA), however, some land uses instead rely on the net floor areas (NFA). This is most important when determining parking requirements for land uses that have large
October 14, 2016 | 26 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report areas that do not generate parking demand, such as hallways in shopping centres. However, the definition and calculation of the net floor areas can be convoluted and onerous. As a rule of thumb, for most land uses such as offices, net floor area is typically 90% of the gross floor area. When generating rates for the Secondary Plan area we have taken this into account when converting rates from NFA to GFA.
3.5.6 Employee & Staffing Based Rates When floor areas are not the base unit within the parking rate, employees or staffing is occasionally used. Employee and staffing needs can vary within the same development over time and can most definitely differ between locations. For this reason we have removed rates based on staffing where possible without extensive research. This specifically affected the Group Home and Special Needs Housing land uses where parking was required at a minimum of 2 spaces or 1 space per staff member, whichever is greater. Within the City of Toronto and the City of Mississauga group homes require only 2 spaces. We have removed the consideration of staffing and recommend only 2 spaces per group home as a minimum, but with an allowable increase to 4 spaces maximum.
3.5.7 Mandatory Minimums & Waving of Minimums Within the current Zoning By-law, some land uses have mandatory minimums, such as the Group Home and Special Needs Housing land uses which require at least 2 spaces, or the Retail (Food and Grocery) land use where a minimum of 5 spaces must be provided.
Our recommendation is to eliminate this requirement for Retail land uses entirely. Furthermore, if a retail land use or a restaurant land use has a gross floor area of 200 SM or less, we recommend that no parking be required. This will encourage smaller stores serving the local population to enter the Secondary Plan area.
With the provision of public parking in the secondary plan area and the targeted high density development, we anticipate that most trips to smaller retail stores and restaurants will be walk-ins, and any driving trips can be accommodated in public parking lots. The 200 SM threshold is also used within the City of Toronto for ‘all other areas of the City’ while for the same land uses a minimum of 0 spaces are required within Policy Areas. This would also wave the minimum parking space requirement for most convenience style stores that serve the local neighbourhood and should generate a majority of non-vehicle trips.
October 14, 2016 | 27 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
4 Transit Proximity Reductions
As was previously discussed in Section 3.2, some jurisdictions have reduced parking requirements for developments that are located within a specified distance from rapid transit. Chicago allows a 50% reduction for residential land uses within “400m of a CTA or METRA rail station entrance or within 800m of a CTA or METRA rail station entrance when the subject building is located along a pedestrian street or a pedestrian retail street.” Similarly, a reduction up to 100% is allowed for non- residential uses within the same distance from rail stations but is contingent on bicycle parking being provided for the non-residential uses at a rate of one bicycle parking space for each vehicle parking space not provided. We have already demonstrated that transit proximity does have a significant impact on auto- ownership within the Town of Newmarket (see Section 3.4.2). Within the Secondary Plan Area are two GO Transit stations: 1. Newmarket Bus Terminal – Identified as an Anchor Hub by Metrolinx and referred to as Newmarket Centre, the centre of which is taken as the intersection of Yonge Street and Davis Drive. 2. Newmarket GO Rail Station – Identified as a Gateway Hub by Metrolinx and referred to as Newmarket GO, the centre of which is at the intersection of the Barrie GO Line and Davis Drive. Located on the Barrie GO Line. Details of for both of these hubs are shown in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 as excerpted directly from the Metrolinx Mobility Hub Profiles3. The study areas outlined in the Mobility Hub Studies by Metrolinx are an 800 metres radius surrounding the hubs, presumably because this is the anticipated catchment area and area of significant influence with respect to mode splits. The standard distance used to determine if a development falls within a higher order transit station catchment area can vary but is often based on walking distances. This distance may be measured as a straight-line, or can be determined by the actual door-to-platform walking distance. The standard walking distances are between 400 metres and 600 metres. The Secondary Plan Area contains the Viva Rapidway along Yonge Street south of Davis Drive, and Davis Drive east of Yonge Street. The Rapidway will eventually be extended north of Davis Drive. Considering that access to the Rapidway will be relatively consistent throughout the Secondary Plan area, we recommend that transit proximity reductions only take into account proximity to the major transit stations, being the Newmarket Bus Terminal and GO Rail Station. Further, it is noted that the additional reduction applies to GO Rail or bus terminal proximity since these locations, combined with Viva service throughout the Secondary Plan area, provide residents with transit options for both longer and shorter trips, and thus the potential for residents to not own a car is much higher in these locations.
3 http://www.metrolinx.com/mobilityhubs/en/map/mobility_hubs_map/MHP_NewmarketCentre.pdf http://www.metrolinx.com/mobilityhubs/en/map/mobility_hubs_map/MHP_NewmarketGO.pdf
October 14, 2016 | 28 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Exhibit 3: Newmarket Bus Terminal (taken directly from the Metrolinx Mobility Hub Study)
Exhibit 4: Newmarket GO Rail Station (taken directly from the Metrolinx Mobility Hub Study)
October 14, 2016 | 29 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
4.1 Recommendations for Transit Proximity Reductions We recommend that the reductions be applied as follows: A 30% reduction in parking requirements, may be applied to both the minimum and maximum calculated parking supplies, for residential and non-residential land uses where it is demonstrated that: 1. The proposed development main entrance is within 500m walking distance of either the GO Rail Station or Bus Terminal main entrances; and, 2. Adequate Travel Demand Management infrastructure and programs will be in place to the satisfaction of reviewing agencies, in accordance with Town’s Urban Centres Secondary Plan policies and York Region Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Applications. The 500m door-to-door walking distance is taken from the Secondary Plan which defines ‘Major Transit Station Areas’ as being within a 10 minute walk4 and is supported by background research and industry standards. Walking distances will differ depending on site location and site design and should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Additional parking reductions such as those resulting from the provision of car-share spaces may be awarded on top of the transit proximity reductions. Neither reduction would apply to RGI units. 5 Shared Parking Policies
Shared parking policies present an opportunity to limit the amount of parking provided within a contained mixed-use site, by monopolizing on the offset time difference in peak demand characteristics for different land uses. Shared parking can be applied to larger areas (multiple sites), in contrast to individual sites, but there are challenges to this, such as the potential need for enforcement and increased walking distances. As an example, theatres and restaurants cannot have shared parking since they have similar peak demand times (evening). Enough parking to accommodate the cumulative peak demand for both uses would be required, and there would be little benefit (with respect to parking) to combine these two land use types on the same site. Alternatively, cinema and office uses experience peak demand at different times (daytime and evening), and thus parking supply can be limited to either a portion of the peak demand generated by each use, or the maximum demand generated by either use. Shared parking policies typically separate the day into three periods (i.e. morning, midday, and evening) and assign a percentage to each period reflecting a portion of the peak parking demand for that land use. These percentages are then applied to the parking requirement calculated based on the parking rates for each land use, and the sum is taken as the shared parking requirement for that period. Although this is often referred to as a formula, it is a simple sum of demand for each use
4 Major Transit Station Areas (definition from Secondary Plan) – The area including and around any existing or planned higher-order transit station within a settlement area, or the area including and around a major bus depot in an urban core. Station areas generally are defined as the area within an approximate 500 metre radius of a transit station, representing about a 10-minute walk.
October 14, 2016 | 30 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report during each time period. The main inputs are the peak parking requirement for that use based on the by-law requirement, and the percentage of that peak demand for each period. In the United States, shared parking is often referred to as joint parking, not to be confused with joint development. Cooperative parking is another approach used in some municipalities such as Chicago which is similar to shared parking. It allows for reduced parking in a multi-tenant parking lot. The benefit to the municipality is a reduced number of curb cuts and driveways. Shared parking policies should be leveraged in all areas regardless of if they are intensification areas or suburban areas. These policies maximize development potential of a site, reduce the size of parking areas and structures, and allow the developer some flexibility and options when selecting the land uses and tenants. Shared parking can also be leveraged at park-and-rides or at transit hubs where commuter parking demand peaks at different times from uses within the same plaza. For example, a theatre and a commuter parking lot would likely benefit from a shared parking supply, as seen at Richmond Hill Centre / Langstaff GO Station. 5.1 Existing Policy (Town of Newmarket) The Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 includes shared parking formulas and criteria which determine how they may be applied. Applicable developments must be mixed use, which includes the following land uses: a) Non-office uses in an office or medical office building or group of such buildings on the same lot; b) Office or medical office space in a building or group of buildings on the same lot primarily occupied by retail users; c) A building or group of buildings on the same lot containing a mix of office or medical office, commercial uses and dwelling units; and, d) Non-residential uses in an apartment building. The requirements state that all parking spaces must be available to all users (there may not be any dedicated spaces). Newmarket also takes into account shared parking on weekends, specifically on Saturdays, since parking demand characteristics can differ from weekdays in terms of demand profiles throughout the day. It is assumed that parking demand on Sundays will be lower regardless of the use, and Sunday demand would therefore be covered on weekdays or Saturdays. Newmarket does not identify a separate set of shared parking formulas for Urban Centres. The shared parking tables are provided in Exhibit 5. Shared parking is separated into 4 periods for both weekdays and Saturdays: morning, noon, afternoon, and evening, but does not specify exactly when these periods occur. The lowest percentage is 10%. This suggests that there is some provision for non-peak parking demand even when uses should theoretically have no demand. For example, offices have 10% parking supply requirement during evenings on weekdays and all day on Saturdays, and this may account for cleaning staff, those working overtime, or for those working non-standard hours.
October 14, 2016 | 31 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
To determine the shared parking requirement for a mixed use development: 1. Calculate the parking requirement for each use as if these uses were free-standing buildings; 2. Multiply each use by the percent of the peak period for each time period contained in the following table; 3. Total each peak column for weekday and weekend; and 4. The highest figure obtained from all time periods shall become the required parking for the mixed use. This shared parking formula approach is essentially a first principle approach, but instead of determining the percentages of peak demand, and the actual peak demand through surveys, this information is directly provided in the Zoning By-law in the form of parking rates and shared parking percentages. The first principle approach simply acquires this information through proxy surveys or some other development specific analysis, and could result in smaller parking supplies than would be justified using the Zoning By-law provisions.
October 14, 2016 | 32 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Exhibit 5: Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 Shared Parking Tables
October 14, 2016 | 33 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
5.2 Policies from Other Canadian Municipalities Shared parking policies from other municipalities within Ontario are summarized in Table 13. Table 13: Shared Parking Policies in Other Jurisdictions Shared # # Uses / Municipality Saturday? Parking? Periods Groupings Town of Newmarket 4 6 City of Markham x 3 9 City of Toronto x 3 all City of Mississauga 4 5 City of Brampton x 31 6 Town of Oakville 2 - - - Town of Richmond Hill Parking Review x 4 5 City of Hamilton x - - - City of Vaughan 4 4 or 73 City of Vaughan Parking Standards Review 4 7 City of Ottawa 4 6 1) Noon is identified as a separate period but no “percent of peak period” is provided. 2) Blended rates are used in place of shared parking formulas. 3) Separate shared parking formulas are provided for different zones. Within the City of Toronto the zoning by-law indicates that shared parking is only applicable to Policy Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4. This suggests that in all other areas of the City, shared parking formulas do not apply. There is no consideration of Saturday requirements and the by-law only considers 3 periods. Shared parking percentages are provided for all uses, unlike most other municipalities which only provide percentages for groupings of land uses. The City of Mississauga shared parking policies are nearly identical to the current Town of Newmarket in terms of structure and language used in the by-law. The City of Markham has a simplified version of the shared parking formula that does not take into account Saturday requirements and only has 3 periods, and does not go into the same detail as Newmarket and Mississauga in defining what constitutes a mixed use development. The City of Brampton shared parking formulas only apply to the Central Area and cover only 3 periods during weekdays. The City of Ottawa also adopts the 4 period approach and includes a separate Saturday consideration. Overall there are 6 land uses or groupings. The Town of Richmond Hill Parking Strategy does recommend shared parking formulas for four periods but does not take into account Saturdays. The Town of Oakville takes a non-standard approach towards mixed-use developments and their parking requirements by application of blended rates. Blended rates are reduced rates, and are directly applied to the developments total area rather than relying on the base rates and then applying reductions. This approach requires careful consideration of the amount gross floor area occupied by each use so as to ensure a good mixture within the site that lends itself to shared parking. The Town of Oakville is unique in this approach based on our review. The City of Vaughan Zoning By-law 1-88 considers shared parking for both the Corporate Centre Zone as well as the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre. Four periods are considered in addition to weekdays and Saturdays. This by-law differentiates between 4 land uses or groupings for the Corporate Centre Zone, versus 7 land uses or zones within the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre.
October 14, 2016 | 34 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
The City of Vaughan Review of Parking Standards maintains the approach within Zoning By-law 1- 88 for the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, with one exception – the theatre requirement for Saturday evenings is 100% rather than 80% within the current By-law. Overall the trend appears to provide rates for four separate periods throughout the day and to take into consideration weekdays and Saturdays. Shared parking formulas apply reductions to the base rates and then the sum of the minimum for each land use during a specified period is taken as the minimum parking requirement. The maximum calculated for each period is then taken as the shared parking requirement. 5.3 Shared Parking Formula Percentages Theoretically there is potential for intensification areas to have different shared parking needs compared to general areas, and this may be due to uses in intensification areas being open later, earlier, or even 24 hours per day. As previously mentioned, only the City of Vaughan By-law 1-88 takes this approach, but the Parking Review Strategy recommends only one set of shared parking formula percentages and it likely that this recommendation will be adopted. For all of the other municipalities that were reviewed, shared parking is not linked to growth areas and the same percentages are therefore applied to all areas. This review therefore summarizes the current Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 shared parking percentages as well as those from other municipalities in Ontario. The City of Newmarket is already advanced in this respect because of the consideration of Saturday parking demand trends. Detailed shared parking percentages for all municipalities listed in Table 13 are provided in Appendix E, with the exception of the Town of Oakville, since blended rates are not being recommended for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area, and Hamilton where shared parking is not considered. Generally there is a high degree of consistency between the reviewed municipalities with respect to key land uses and the percentages applied to them for different periods. For example, offices require 100% of their parking supply during the weekday morning peak period for all municipalities. During the noon peak period the requirement is 90% across the board. During the afternoon peak the range is between 95% and 100% with the exception of City of Toronto which requires 60%. Finally, during the evening peak periods the range is between 10% and 15%, with the exception of the City of Toronto which requires 0%. Although there is a high degree of consistency, some of the differences may be attributed to the definition of peak period times (i.e. the afternoon and evening peak periods in the City of Toronto may begin later than in other municipalities, which would explain the lower percentages of peak demand). Some municipalities do not explicitly define when these periods occur, but that issue would be entirely resolved by approaching shared parking using first principles. For other land uses the percentages vary more and are more evenly distributed, as is the case with restaurants and residential visitor parking where the ranges are 20% to 100%, and 10% to 80%, respectively, during the weekday AM peak period. The large variation in percentages does raise the question of if this approach is reliable and if one set of numbers can be reasonably applied to a myriad of development types and locations. If there is doubt, a parking study based on first principles should be requested.
October 14, 2016 | 35 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
5.4 Policies from Municipalities in the United States Shared parking ordinance from municipalities within the United States were also reviewed and were selected based on comparable population sizes or accessibility to transit, as well as based on the degree of modernization of the municipal code and by-laws. The selected municipalities are as follows: 1. Stockton, California 2. Salem, Oregon 3. Eugene, Oregon 4. Pasadena, California 5. Huntington Beach, California 6. Chicago, Illinois In contrast to Canadian municipalities, the above municipalities do not dictate shared parking opportunities by providing percentages for specific land use types and peak periods and then applying them in a formula. Rather, the opportunity for shared parking (or “Joint Use Parking Facilities”) has high level requirements in terms of eligibility (i.e. types of uses, distance to parking facility, legal contracts between operators), and the application of shared parking is then approved if the applicant can demonstrate that the different uses will not have overlapping demand, or to exactly what extent the demands will overlap. This is typically determined through a Parking Study. An excerpt from the Huntington Beach Zoning Code represents the typical wording: “The Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in the total number of required spaces as part of the entitlement for the use or uses, or by conditional use permit when no other entitlement is required, when the applicant can demonstrate that the various uses have divergent needs in terms of daytime versus nighttime hours or weekday versus weekend hours.” The advantage of this approach is that the shared parking areas will be tuned towards the proposed land uses based on the Parking Study findings and research. This approach also requires much less effort in developing the approach to parking standards compared to the shared parking formula approach which requires research into applicable shared parking percentages for each land use and period. The disadvantage is the additional time and effort required to perform the parking studies on the applicant’s side, as well as the reviewing process on the part of the municipality. The ease of application of shared parking formulas would encourage developers to reduce parking, whereas Parking Studies present an additional hurdle to gain approval on the reduced parking supply. All of the above listed municipalities follow this model. The City of Pasadena also indicates that the Zoning Administrator may utilize the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking methodology as a guide in reviewing the shared parking proposal submitted by the applicant. With the exception of the City of Toronto which provides percentages for all uses, shared parking formulas typically do not cover all uses which means that the percentages applied may not be absolutely accurate in terms of the time-of-day demand experienced for the proposed use. A parking study based on first principles would more frequently produce more accurate results for a wider range of land uses and characteristics.
October 14, 2016 | 36 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
5.5 Recommended Approach to Shared Parking We recommend that the Town maintain the current structure and application of the shared parking formulas and carry them over into the Secondary Plan area. The formulas are designed to be able to take into account any number of uses and account for all days of the week. This approach is the most versatile in determining the needs of a parking lot serving multiple shared uses with different characteristics. We believe that this approach is ideal for application within the Secondary Plan Area and will be most important when the Town investigates the needs of public parking facilities focused on ‘parking districts’ or greater catchment areas than specific development applications. The shared parking formula approach can also be expanded and integrated into parking studies that consider non-standard uses that can also benefit greatly from shared parking. As we have previously mentioned, park-and-ride and transit station parking supplies are non-standard uses and moreover it is very difficult to apply general shared parking percentages or peak parking rates to their needs, given the uniqueness of each park-and-ride and each transit facility. Therefore, we further recommended that when non-standard uses are being considered for shared parking, that the first principle approach be applied, and the Town request parking studies. 6 Joint Development / Public Parking & Bonusing Provisions
With respect to the bonusing provision of the Town of Newmarket Urban Centres Secondary Plan, developers may request increases in the Permitted Maximum Heights and/or Permitted Maximum FSIs (alternatively referred to as FAR – Floor Area Ratio) up to, but not exceeding the Discretionary Maximum Heights or Discretionary Maximum FSIs with bonusing, without an amendment to the Plan in exchange for the provision of a public benefit. With respect to parking, this benefit would include structured parking for vehicles where a significant portion of the parking is to be transferred to a public authority for use as public parking (see Section 2.2.2). The following analysis examines the use of such provisions in other jurisdictions, and recommendations and guidelines for specific increases to density and/or height with respect to amount of private versus public parking provided will be identified. 6.1 Bonusing and Incentives to Developers The most common form of bonusing is provided when affordable low income residential units are included in a development. The developer may request leniency with regard to development requirements (i.e. greater height or density) and would then be granted the opportunity to build higher or to adjust the building density, which can afford them some flexibility in design. We have also found examples of bonusing resulting in an expedited permitting and review processes5. There are a number of possible bonuses that may be granted to the developer.
5 https://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/planning/unified_development_ordinance/pdf/ipa_incentive_zoning.pdf
October 14, 2016 | 37 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Since bonusing is provided when there is a public benefit, many other forms of public benefit can be proposed, including public parks and open space over and above the required amount, institutional uses such as schools, street and road network connectivity improvements, art and community facilities, green (LEED) developments etc., or any combination of these benefits. Bonusing for providing public parking is also an option and we have found examples of this in California. In one example case study6, the bonusing allowed for an increase in the number of housing units from 26 to 60. The public benefit included 10 affordable units, a public plaza, and 57 public parking spaces. In this example – and as is the case with many bonusing examples – it is difficult to determine how the benefit-bonus relationship was agreed upon. The process of coming to an agreement can be time consuming, and should ideally involve public input. Since the goal is to provide a public benefit, public consultation is important and includes a qualitative aspect that can complicate the process. The Secondary Plan outlines what is contemplated as a public benefit and the exact wording is as follows: The applicant may elect to request increases in the Permitted Maximum Heights and/or Permitted Maximum FSIs up to, but not exceeding the Discretionary Maximum Heights or Discretionary Maximum FSIs With Bonusing, without an amendment to this Plan in exchange for t he provision of one or more of the following public benefits, or cash in lieu of such benefits. The following public benefits are beyond what would otherwise be required to be provided by this Plan, the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act or any other legislative requirement: a) cultural facilities, such as a performing arts centre, amphitheatre or museum; b) special park or recreational facilities and improvements identified by the Town as desirable for the area but which are beyond those required by this Plan, the Planning Act, or the Town’s standard levels of service; c) public amenities within identified environmental open spaces, including but not limited to permanent pathways, recreational trails and bridges, including contribution toward the Town’s Active Transportation Network; d) public art, where the contribution to public art i s greater than the contribution requirements of this Plan; e) structured parking for vehicles where a significant portion of the parking is to be transferred to a public authority for use as public parking; f) streetscape, gateway features, pedestrian mews and open space design enhancements that are beyond those required by this Plan, the Planning Act, or the Town’s standard levels of service; g) private roads that are to remain accessible to the public; h) h) upgrades to and/or provision of community facilities such as community centres, including seniors and youth facilities and other social services; i) other community facilities identified by the Town as desirable for the Urban Centres;
6 http://www.greenbelt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/public-benefits-bonus-policy-brief.pdf
October 14, 2016 | 38 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
j) inclusion of energy or water conservation measures beyond those required by this Plan or by any other applicable plan; k) affordable housing units beyond those required by this Plan or by the York Region Official Plan; l) provision of rental housing which is guaranteed to remain as rental for a period of not less than 20 years; and m) provision for social housing that is affordable to those below the 40th percentile in household income. Determining the relationship between benefit and bonus is a difficult task and is often rooted in economic analysis but the final result can be somewhat divergent. We have found some illustrative examples of how public parking can be converted into a bonus to the developer, but the concept will differ for each municipality. For example, one illustrative relationship would be that one square foot of bonus floor area could be allowed for every square foot of public parking provided, above the minimum required by the Ordinance up to maximum bonus of 2.0 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 7. This quantitative relationship may not be appreciable to the public or the developer, and after consulting all parties it may be adjusted. In some municipalities the bonus purposely outweighs the benefit when the program begins, and the purpose of this is to encourage developer buy-in. After the program stabilizes, the benefit-bonus ratio is recalibrated to favour the public benefit.
6.1.1 Recommended Approach to Bonusing The Secondary Plan already outlines the general approach to bonusing for the provision of structured public parking. The additional height of building FSI that would be granted for a given number of parking spaces would be outlined in the Bonusing Justification Report. This report would provide some rationale behind the trade-off of developer- and public-benefit. Since the bonusing would be granted for provision of public parking, we recommend that the following two criteria be applied to any of these public parking structures: 1. A minimum of 20 public parking spaces must be provided; and 2. At a minimum, 10% of the public parking that is provided shall be dedicated car-share spaces, to a maximum of 6 spaces. This will encourage developers to engage car-share providers in introducing car-share into the Town of Newmarket. Furthermore, it will ensure that parking is in a reasonably accessible area, otherwise car-share providers may not be interested. Finally, it ensures that the parking supply will be large enough to provide at least 2 car-share spaces, which is further incentive to car-share providers.
7 https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Zoning/Community-Benefits-Issues.pdf
October 14, 2016 | 39 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
6.2 Joint Development with Respect to Bonusing Provisions Joint development is an approach in the transit oriented development toolbox that typically refers to projects that directly link transit availability to development in such a way that transit is the primary mode of travel used to access that development. There is typically an agreement between a transit agency and private developer(s). For example, placing offices within walking distance of transit stations will encourage a high transit mode share by employees, particularly if parking is not oversupplied or underpriced. These developments are often mixed-use as well, which can further increase transit use, synergy between the uses, and shared parking opportunities. This would be most appropriate for Newmarket GO Station due to the current and anticipated mode split as well as the amount of potentially developable land. The current parking lot is surface only and could be converted to structured parking to free up land for other uses. Instead of providing private (and typically free) parking for these developments, shared paid public parking is a preferred solution. Parking is often provided at a lesser rate than would be required by each use using shared parking principles where a transit station is one of the shared uses. Joint development allows for more efficient use of the parking supplies through shared parking and also encourages transit use8. Cash-out for parking spaces by employees would not be possible in Joint Parking unless the employees are having their parking paid by the employer. Determining the size of the joint parking structure would be calculated using shared parking formulas and first principle methodology. The Mobility Hub Study would be used to help inform on the peak transit demand and when it would occur, while for the other uses the necessary information such as peak demand and shared parking percentages could be taken from the Zoning By-law. 7 Cash-in-Lieu for Parking Deficits 7.1 Application of Policies Cash-in-lieu is a program which offers developers the option of paying a fee to the municipality to cover the cost of building public parking supplies that are intended to offset a parking supply deficit within the developer’s non-residential development. These programs were initially created when developers were in positions where they physically (or feasibly) could not fit any additional parking spaces into their site, regardless of if they expected there would be demand for those spaces or not. Over time, the programs in some municipalities evolved from a solution to a problem, to a method by which developers could mold their site design. For example, if they did not believe the additional parking would be needed because the parking requirements were too high, and the space could be replaced by some other amenity that would be a selling point, then they would decide if the cost for not meeting the by-law requirement was worthwhile. This of course would be highly dependent on the cost associated with the deficit. Some municipalities purposely make cash-in-lieu fees high to discourage developers from doing this.
8 http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/dallasbrief3.pdf
October 14, 2016 | 40 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
In some municipalities such as the City of Toronto, the cash-in-lieu program has been come under extensive scrutiny largely because it is difficult to trace where the money has gone9. Some have requested audits of the program and there have been discussions of ending it altogether. In other places such as the City of Ottawa, the program has been abolished10. Cash-in-lieu does provide great opportunities to create shared parking supplies that are public and therefore accessible by anyone. This avoids the issues of underutilized parking supplies on private lots when there is parking demand being generated by other nearby uses. For this reason there is a movement towards providing shared or joint parking supplies that do not preclude anyone from parking in them. One method municipalities are using to ensure that the cash-in-lieu fees are actually being used to fund public infrastructure and to ensure that infrastructure actually serves the developments that pay the fees, is building the structures before the developments are built. Then, when cash-in-lieu fees are collected, they are used to pay off the structure debt and the fees are also more accurately calculated since the cost of the structure is known. This approach requires some planning since it isn’t exactly known how large the structure must be (how many spaces) or where it should be located to serve the eventual development that follows. However, cash-in-lieu fees may not always be applied to parking infrastructure. Putting the money towards public transit infrastructure as a method of reducing parking demand is also a viable use of cash-in-lieu. 7.2 Fees A simplified method in determining the cash-in-lieu fees is based on an economic analysis of the lands surrounding the development to determine the total cost of structured parking (above or below grade), and then by dividing that by the number of anticipated spaces. This is dependent on land acquisition costs, the size of the actual parking spaces, as well as other factors depending on the detail into which the fee development process has undergone. In many cases the resulting public parking infrastructure does not provide parking at a one-to-one ratio in terms of recovered deficit, but the tradeoff is that the parking spaces are more efficiently used. Table 14 summarizes the range of fees from other major municipalities within the United States11. Table 14: Construction Cost of a Structured Parking Space Structure Type Minimum Maximum Average Above Ground $22,390 $38,190 $31,600 Below Ground $34,240 $63,210 $44,770 Note: Construction fees have been converted from USD to CAD Within the Town of Newmarket the current fee structure for cash-in-lieu is $40,000 per below grade parking stall and $26,000 per above grade structured parking stall. In the City of Toronto there are three categories used to determine cash-in-lieu of parking fees12:
9 http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-35032.pdf 10 http://ottawa.ca/en/development-application-review-process-0/cash-lieu-parking 11 The High Cost of Minimum Parking Requirements, Donald Shoup, 2014
October 14, 2016 | 41 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
This formula begins to take into account land value only for uses greater than 400 square metres. Small and medium sized developments do not require as onerous a process. The purpose of this is to encourage use of the payment-in-lieu system, rather than proceeding to the Committee of Adjustment. The base cost of $5,000 is based on the City of Toronto Parking Authority’s estimated cost of construction of a surface parking stall. The City of Mississauga takes into account development size and also has categories depending on the type of development, but applies fixed rates that differ depending on the area. These fixed rates assume a 50% discount to the developer for the cost of constructing the public parking structure13. The City of Vaughan uses the following formula14:
The formulas used by many municipalities are fairly consistent in that they take into account the following variables: construction costs, land cost, area of parking spaces, number of parking spaces, and share of contribution toward total cost. For structured parking the land cost is divided by the number of levels within the structure. 7.3 Challenges There are some challenges with a cash-in-lieu system that have been raised since the program established itself and stabilized globally. The most common issues are: 1. Determining the cash-in-lieu fees and structure (i.e. should fees be determined on a case by case basis, or should there be fixed fees for regions/areas). 2. Ensuring the money is actually used to fund public infrastructure. 3. Determining whether or not the program is truly necessary (if no minimums are imposed, then cash-in-lieu becomes an invalid concept).
12 http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2004/agendas/council/cc040720/plt5rpt/cl011.pdf 13 https://www.vaughan.ca/council/minutes_agendas/Communications/WS%200416_13_C9.pdf 14 https://www.vaughan.ca/council/minutes_agendas/Extracts/17ws0416_13ex_1.pdf
October 14, 2016 | 42 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
4. Ensuring the public infrastructure is actually located near the developments which paid the cash-in-lieu fees and that they are intended to serve. The City of Calgary practices mandatory cash-in-lieu of parking and only permits developers to provide a maximum of 50% of the required parking on-site15. This forces the developer to pay cash- in-lieu to help fund the construction of public parking structures within the downtown core. This approach has the benefits of guaranteeing that shared public parking will be constructed throughout the downtown area, but has the disadvantage of making parking availability scarce for those who need to drive because transit is not keeping up with demand. As a reaction to this, Calgary is considering ending the cash-in-lieu program, specifically the 50% requirement16. 7.4 Recommendations Cash-in-lieu should remain an option for developers within the Secondary Plan area. We recommend that the initial fee structure be based on the current practices within the Town ($40,000 per below grade parking stall and $26,000 per above grade structured parking stall). However, considering the aggressiveness of the recommended rates within the Secondary Plan area it is not expected that cash-in-lieu will be frequently leveraged by developers during the program infancy. The cash-in-lieu fees can be adjusted to encourage or discourage developers from taking this approach as the amount of interest from developers becomes clearer and as the demand for public parking facilities also becomes clearer. 8 Carpooling & Car-Share
Carpool spaces and car-share spaces are becoming increasingly prevalent in the GTA, but primarily in Toronto. Carpooling has many benefits, and these include reduced / shared costs of car ownership and maintenance, time travel saving through the use of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes where provided, reduced traffic demand, and finally reduced parking demand. Carpool parking spaces are typically applied at employment uses which attract multiple passengers destined to the same location, on a consistent basis. Car-share is an initiative where a vehicle is used by multiple drivers on an as-needed basis and when availability permits. Car-share can be provided by third party companies such as ZipCar or Car2Go. Car-share typically does not exist in areas where driving and parking has been historically prioritized. To make car-share a viable approach, then it is prudent to deemphasize the need for vehicle ownership and use as the primary mode of travel. The process must begin with progressive changes to the urban structure and increased transit availability. Car-share spaces are typically provided at commuter parking lots such as at GO stations, TTC stations, and at residential developments, and allow travelers to use the car-share vehicles for the first or last leg of their trip. Car-sharing initiatives result in more efficient use of the transportation system by reducing latent parking demand (ownership) and unused spaces.
15 http://www.boma.ca/it-is-way-past-time-to-re-think-calgarys-downtown-parking/ 16 http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Strategy/Downtown-Parking-Strategy.aspx
October 14, 2016 | 43 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
8.1 Existing Carpool & Car-Share within the Town of Newmarket Currently, the Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 requires that carpool spaces be provided for office and manufacturing/industrial uses. The spaces must be included in the provided parking supply, but results in an overall reduction in the total number of parking spaces at a rate of one fewer general spaces for each carpool space provided. For a building with a gross floor area of 3,000 m2 or more, carpool spaces must be provided at the following rates:
There are currently no car-share provisions within the Town of Newmarket and car-share has yet to be introduced. Car-share is typically provided in locations well-served by transit as car share users tend to not own a vehicle and rely on transit for most travel. For this reason, car-share has yet to expand to more suburban areas. However, we later investigated through our review of other jurisdictions the appropriateness of this initiative for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area. 8.2 Carpool Policies
8.2.1 Canada Carpool policies from other municipalities within Ontario are summarized in Table 15. Table 15: Carpool Policies in Other Jurisdictions Municipality Carpool? Notes Town of Newmarket Applicable to Office and Manufacturing/Industrial uses City of Markham x City of Toronto x City of Mississauga x City of Brampton x Town of Oakville x Town of Richmond Hill High level recommendations to implement through the zoning Parking Review by-law. Details not provided on actual implementation. City of Hamilton x City of Vaughan x City of Vaughan Parking Recommended for implementation in the zoning by-law. Standards Review Actual reductions are not discussed. City of Ottawa x The Town of Newmarket is the only municipality out of the Canadian municipalities reviewed that currently includes requirements for carpool spaces within the zoning by-law and that has clearly defined reductions to the overall supply resulting from mandatory provision of carpool spaces. The Town of Richmond Hill Parking Review includes recommendations to implement carpool requirements but does not provide details on the amount of parking that would be required or if reductions would be applied to the overall parking supply, or required as part of the supply.
October 14, 2016 | 44 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
The City of Vaughan Review of Parking Standards suggests some rates at which carpool could be provided and recommended implementation initially on a case by case basis, allowing staff to test their application prior to formally adopting within the zoning by-law. The recommendation is that for office uses, industrial uses, and institutional uses (with the exception of places of worship) with more than 20 parking spaces, 5 spaces or 5% of the parking spaces on site, whichever is less, should be reserved for carpool use. The recommendations continue to say that these spaces should be clearly signed and located closest to the building entrance, although not closer than mobility disabled or customer-reserved parking space. Typically, signage for carpool spaces is included as a requirement at the site plan stage and on-going enforcement is at the responsibility of the land owner. Reductions to the parking supply as a result of providing carpool spaces are not outlined nor explicitly discussed. The City of Vaughan Review of Parking Standards also recommends that at commuter lots, 5% of the parking spaces be registered as carpool with enforcement overseen by the transit authority. This could be a general guideline or implemented in the zoning by-law, recognizing that there are issues related to the estimation of ridership and parking requirements, which cannot be tied to a zoning by- law process. Within the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA) a program called SmartCommute exists which is a partnership between the City of Toronto and Metrolinx. Newmarket is currently an active participant in SmartCommute17. Smart Commute aims to promote carpooling with the goal of reducing congestion and helping employers by providing incentives to both employers and employees. The Smart Commute website includes a tool that coordinates carpooling for participating employers depending on where they live and work. Other Smart Commute services listed on the Smart Commute website include18: Site assessments and surveys to understand employee commute behaviour Customized action plans to encourage employees to explore and try out smart travel options Tools to facilitate change including: o Exclusive carpool ride-matching programs o Emergency Ride Home programs o Discounted transit pass programs o Telework programs and flexible work arrangements o Walking and cycling programs o Fun events and promotions o Savings calculator The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario also provides carpool spaces at park and ride commuter lots which are not supervised. They are located at major highway junctions throughout the GTHA and some lots are served by transit19.
17 http://smartcommute.ca/central-york/ 18 http://smartcommute.ca/scarborough/programs-services/carpool-zone/ 19 http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/trip/carpool_lots.shtml
October 14, 2016 | 45 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
8.2.2 United States Carpool parking ordinance from municipalities within the United States were also reviewed. The selected municipalities are summarized in Table 16. Table 16: Carpool Policies in the United States Carpool Municipality Requirements? Stockton, California Salem, Oregon Eugene, Oregon Pasadena, California Huntington Beach, California Chicago, Illinois x Within the City of Stockton, only guidelines for the location of car pool spaces are provided rather than identifying minimum requirements or specific replacement of general parking space requirements. These guidelines generally state that car pool spaces should be located near entrances. With respect to carpool and vanpool parking, the City of Salem states that “new developments with 60 or more required off-street parking spaces, and falling within the Public Services and Industrial use classifications, and the Business and Professional Services use category, shall designate a minimum of 5 percent of their total off-street parking spaces for carpool or vanpool parking.” Beyond that the ordinance also indicates that carpool spaces shall be located nearest the building entrance used by employees, but no closer than disabled parking spaces. The City of Eugene code states that for carpool and vanpool parking “New commercial and employment and industrial developments with 20 or more employee parking spaces shall designate at least 5 percent of the employee parking spaces for carpool or vanpool parking” with the same location guidelines mentioned above. The City of Pasadena Zoning Code states that “a minimum of 10 percent of the employee parking spaces shall be reserved for and designated as preferential parking for carpool and vanpool vehicles” and also indicates that carpool parking must be located as near the entrance as possible. The City of Huntington Beach zoning code provides percentages for different land uses which represent the amount of the total parking supply that must be designated as carpool. Uses included are: Office Professional (13%), Hospital and Medical/Dental Office (9%), Industrial/Warehouse (14%), Commercial/Retail (5%), and Hotel (1 space per 2 employees). For larger developments, 1% of the total number of carpool spaces must be designated vanpool. A review of the City of Chicago’s parking standards did not show any specific requirements or policies with respect to carpool parking. Generally the requirements for carpool spaces are between 5% and 14% of the total required parking supply. Maximums were not outlined. In addition to carpool spaces, most municipalities also discussed vanpool. Huntington Beach was the only municipality that had a sub-requirement for vanpool spaces. In contrast to the current practice within Newmarket, none of the municipalities in the United States offer a reduction in the total parking supply requirement for providing carpool spaces.
October 14, 2016 | 46 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
8.2.3 Recommendations Include carpool spaces as percentage of the overall required number of parking spaces, and include guidance on the location of the carpool spaces so that they are conveniently located near entrances but with priority given to accessible parking spaces. We recommend that the requirement be outlined as follows: Carpool spaces must be provided at a minimum rate of: 1. 5% of the total required parking supply for any employment uses, or 2. 2 spaces. 8.3 Car-Share Policies
8.3.1 Existing Programs in the GTA As previously mentioned, car-share initiatives are mostly implemented in urban environments where personal vehicle ownership is not desired or feasible for many users due to the prioritization of other modes of travel. We have reviewed the locations of current car-share facilities within the GTHA for the following three car-share companies: Zipcar, Car2go, and Enterprise CarShare20. None of the three companies have public car-share vehicles located north of Highway 407 except for Zipcar services at the Richmond Hill GO station. The furthest removed facilities within southern Ontario are for Zipcar and are located within the City of Burlington and the City of Hamilton. The distance between existing car-share facilities is much less than the distance between any of the current facilities and the Town of Newmarket. It is expected that car-share companies would prefer to have a comprehensive linked network of facilities to provide its users with more flexibility and choice. As York Region continues to grow and develop in the future, particularly within its Urban Growth Centres and along its VIVA Rapid Transit network, the possibly for Car Share program implementation from Toronto into, Southern York Region, and eventually into Newmarket certainly exists. CommunityCarShare is a program which began in the City of Hamilton in 1998 and has expanded to include Kitchener-Waterloo, St. Catharines, and London. The program currently has more than 60 vehicles and more than 1900 members and is an alternative to ZipCar but with more coverage within the Hamilton area. A similar program geared towards students called StudentCarShare also operates in the Hamilton area. The success of these programs shows that car-share programs can begin independent of third-party providers. The mobility and flexibility that Car Share provides would certainly benefit Town residents, and as such developing parking policies supportive of car share program implementation should be considered at this time.
20 https://www.enterprisecarshare.ca/ca/en/programs/retail/toronto.html http://www.zipcar.ca/ https://www.car2go.com/CA/en/toronto/
October 14, 2016 | 47 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Despite the fact that car share programs do not yet exist in the Town of Newmarket, we recommend developing parking policies that are supportive of the eventual implementation of programs within the Town. The policies would not only detail the number of required car-share policies but would also dictate the location of the space. Car-share must always be located in publicly accessible areas, and marketed and signed so that people are aware of their presence. They should also have prioritized locations near entrances to buildings or parking areas so that they are most easily accessible.
8.3.2 Car-Share in Canada Car-share policies from other municipalities within Canada are summarized in Table 17. Table 17: Car-Share Policies in Other Jurisdictions Zoning By-laws Car-Share Municipality Requirements? Town of Newmarket x City of Markham x City of Toronto x City of Mississauga x City of Brampton x Town of Oakville x Town of Richmond Hill Parking Review City of Hamilton x City of Vaughan x City of Vaughan Parking Standards Review City of Ottawa x From our research we have found that only the Town of Richmond Hill Parking Review and the City of Vaughan Parking Standards Review take into consideration car-share despite the fact that neither are served by car-share programs. The Town of Richmond Hill Parking Review recommendations are high level and provide only the statements that car-share is a valuable initiative that should be used by the Town. The City of Vaughan Parking Standards Review provides more concrete recommendations that are directly based on the City of Toronto Parking Standards Review: Examination of Potential Options and Impacts of Car Share Programs on Parking Standards (IBI Group, March 2009)21. The City of Toronto Car-Share Study provided actual guidance on the parking reductions that should be applied to multi-family dwellings, as follows: For any apartment or condominium development, the minimum parking requirement should be reduced by up to 4 parking spaces for each dedicated car share stall. The limit on this parking reduction is calculated as the greater of: 4 * (total number of units / 60), rounded down to the nearest whole number; or 1 space. This recommendation is based on extensive research within the City of Toronto as well as the United States and elsewhere in Canada. However, it is worth noting that while these findings have not been formally introduced into the current Toronto zoning by-law we understand that the City does permit
21 http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/city_planning/zoning__environment/files/pdf/car_share_2009-04-02.pdf
October 14, 2016 | 48 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report car share parking space reductions. The current practice continues to rely on a negotiated approach based on the above formula. The recommended reduction of 4 spaces appears to be conservative according to the study findings and research into previous work done on car-share. The City of Toronto Car-Share Study was prepared in 2009 and references the City of Vancouver zoning by-law, which at the time allowed for a reduction of 3 parking spaces per car-share space provided in new multi-family dwelling unit developments. However, a review of the current Vancouver Zoning By-law 6059 does not outline car-share reductions for residential developments. A more recent study entitled The Metro Vancouver Car Share Study (November 2014)22 concluded that reductions in parking requirements should take into account two more considerations: current demand for car-share, and on-site plus on-street car-share availability. The City of Vancouver permits car-share vehicles to park on all-streets including residential permit streets whether signed or not23. The study also suggests that unbundling of parking spaces could be linked to the provision of car-share.
8.3.3 Car-Share in the United States Car-share parking ordinance from municipalities within the United States were also reviewed. The selected municipalities are summarized in Table 18. It is noted that the selected municipalities were reviewed for other parking standard aspects as part of this Parking Standards Background Study. San Francisco was added as we determined that this City did identify provisions for car share parking in its zoning code. Other municipalities who have implemented policies include Seattle and Boston, but for the purposes of this memorandum only comparisons to San Francisco’s parking policies are provided given that the City of Toronto’s approach appears to be reasonable for the Town of Newmarket. Table 18: Car-Share Policies in the United States Car-Share Municipality Requirements Included? Stockton, California x Salem, Oregon x Eugene, Oregon x Pasadena, California x Huntington Beach, California x Chicago, Illinois x San Francisco, California
Despite there being a large amount of research into the ability of car-share programs to reduce vehicle ownership, there is little direction within zoning code and ordinance. However, the City of San Francisco is one municipality with comprehensive requirements for car-share spaces24. The number of required car-share spaces is determined based on ranges of total units. For instance, for
22 http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/MetroVancouverCarShareStudyTechnicalReport.pdf http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/1507_PPE_MV_Car_Share_Study_14Oct20HR.pdf 23 http://former.vancouver.ca/bylaws/2849c.PDF#page=21 24 http://sf-planning.org/car-share-requirements-and-guidelines
October 14, 2016 | 49 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report residential developments comprised of between 0 and 49 spaces, no car share spaces are required. However, between 50 units and 200 units, 1 car share space is required. Beyond 200 units, 2 spaces are required, plus 1 space for every 200 dwelling units over 200. They also dictate the number of optional car-share spaces beyond those required25. As this policy makes car share a requirement based on the number of residential units, this structure may not be applicable to the Town of Newmarket until car share programs are implemented in the Town. The benefits of revising car share parking policy to a similar structure should be explored at a later time when car share programs are already in place.
8.3.4 Recommendation We recommend a similar approach to car-share developed within the City of Toronto Car-Share Study be applied to new developments in the Secondary Plan area as follows: For any apartment (freehold or condominium) development, the minimum parking requirement should be reduced by up to 3 parking spaces for each dedicated car-share stall. The limit on this parking reduction is calculated as the greater of: 4 * (total number of units / 60), rounded down to the nearest whole number; or 1 space. The provision of car-share in a public parking structure through the bonusing provision could also leverage this policy towards reducing the resident parking supply for new developments. The calculation of the limit on the number of car-share spaces would not include RGI units. 9 Parking Management Approaches
In this section we review different approaches to parking management to help the Town determine which is most appropriate for public parking within the Urban Centre Secondary Plan area. 9.1 Internal Management and Outsourcing There are three major management styles that the Town can consider for management of public parking within the Urban Centre Secondary Plan area26: Self-Operation – Responsibility is maintained within the Town. Management Contract – A private management firm would handle day-to-day operations through contract. The firm may be paid a fixed fee or a percentage of gross revenue and is reimbursed for all operating costs. Concession Agreement – A private management firm is fully responsible for operating parking and is paid a fixed amount of a percentage of gross revenue.
25 http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/1.5/166/ 26 https://durhamnc.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/3508
October 14, 2016 | 50 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Each of the above management styles has advantages and disadvantages and selecting the most appropriate style depends on the municipality and the focus area.
9.1.1 Self-Operation Self-operation has the advantage of maintaining full control within the Town which leads to uniformity across all infrastructures in terms of both aesthetics and management (enforcement and payment fees/methods). However, with this comes full accountability in a legal sense as well as the responsibility of addressing complaints. The Town must also be prepared to have internal knowledge and a staff compliment. Compared to outsourced management this might cost more because municipal staff typically are paid at higher rates and require training.
9.1.2 Outsourced Management Contract Management Contracts have the advantage of maintaining some responsibility within the Town such that the Town continues to dictate parking fees and customer service policies. The hired operator would provide parking services according to a contract outlined by the Town. The operator is paid in lump sum or as a percentage of total net revenue, but must report back to the Town on a consistent basis to ensure operations are meeting goals. This approach requires some internal investment by the Town to support the auditing process. This approach still requires some staff investment by the owner (Town) primarily to guide the operator and to perform audits. Costs are also reduced in management contracts because the bulk of the work is being outsourced.
9.1.3 Outsourced Concession Agreement This hands-off approach transfers all responsibility to a third party operator. This approach relinquishes all effort on the part of the owner, but along with the reduced administrative load the Town would lose control over parking fees, customer relations, and it may not meet the goals of the Town. This approach is best suited to airports or other non-municipal organizations26. 9.2 Governance Model Structures In mature municipalities the organizational structures often evolved to be horizontally distributed and fragmented such that separate entities were responsible for different aspects of parking management. For example, the police would be responsible for enforcement of on-street parking spaces while a separate authority, possibly under the umbrella of a parking authority, could be responsible for off-street enforcement, and permitting might be controlled by a separate city department with only loose ties to enforcement. This structure is a natural evolution as parking technology, needs, and infrastructure changed over time, but under current circumstances is inefficient and lacks cohesion in terms of vision and goals. A number of parking governance models exist and they all share one common characteristic. Ideally the organization of a parking management system should be vertically structured in such a way that there is one major overseeing body or entity that accounts for and is responsible for all aspects of parking management including, but not limited to, on-street and off-street parking spaces, permitting, and enforcement. A number of parking governance models exist and the most common ones include:
October 14, 2016 | 51 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Municipal Operation – Operations are internally managed. Requires internal knowledge and staff compliment and skills to effectively operate. Parking Authority – There is a president or director and a board of members (stakeholders) who engage a private parking management firm for day-to-day work. Business Improvement Area (BIA) – Allows a pre-existing BIA to contract out parking management. Revenues are then used to further improve the BIA. Parking District – Similar to a BIA. Can be run by an internal department or a director and board that engage a private parking management firm. Applies to a defined area. The above management styles represent self-operation and outsourced management contracts, or can be a hybrid of the two to varying degrees and this can be catered to the needs of the Town based on the Towns vision and goals and parking management status quo. Development of the parking standards for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area offers an opportunity to create a new vertically structured governance model that oversees and is responsible for all aspects of parking with a top-down approach. When operated properly, this can create a much more efficient system from the providers’ perspective which will result in less overhead, more revenue, and a user friendly experience. 9.3 Recommendations Consistent with Section 9.6.3.1 of the Secondary Plan, the potential role of a municipal parking authority has been assessed. We recommend that the Town maintain internal municipal operation of public parking in the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area. Given the size of the area and the resources that would be needed, this management style would seem most beneficial because it allows the Town full control of how parking is managed. If the Town eventually expands the Secondary Plan area or identifies other intensification areas, then outsourcing could be worthwhile, but given the current size and the fact that the program will only be in infancy, it seems financially prudent to manage it internally. Due to economy of scale, outsourcing only becomes efficient for larger municipal public parking supplies. If and when the Town decides to outsource, there will already be a good foundation upon which a third party private management firm can continue. All public parking facilities should be paid to discourage people from driving. Enforcement of payments as well as for those parking where they are not permitted (i.e. accessible spaces, car- share spaces, carpool spaces, or electric vehicle parking spaces), would be handled by the same entity. Pricing would be determined through an in depth economic analysis that would have a goal of 85% occupancy at all times. This would be achievable for public parking supplies surrounded by mixed uses. The same authority would manage both on- and off-street public parking. This would further require that fees be applied to on-street public parking permits and potentially administrated through a permitting process. Section 9.3.6.1 of the Secondary Plan states that the Town may prepare a public parking strategy that considers the following aspects relevant to the parking district approach, including: a) the amount of parking required to support planned commercial, entertainment and institutional uses; b) the amount of office parking that could be made available through shared parking arrangements to the public in the evenings and on weekends;
October 14, 2016 | 52 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
c) appropriate locations and sizes for off-street public parking facilities; and d) the potential role for a municipal parking authority. Internal municipal operation is the ideal approach to meeting these goals and applying the parking district approach because it will allow the Town the greatest control over the size and location of public parking structures to capitalize on shared parking opportunities. Parking districts also complement cash-in-lieu policies and can most directly leverage the funding. 10 Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the reduction of vehicle demand through policies or initiatives that directly reduce auto-demand or reallocate demand. For example, carpooling is a TDM initiative because it reduces the number of vehicles on the roadway, whereas flex hours is another TDM approach that reduces the impact of vehicles on the roadway by having lesser peak demand. As per the direction of the Secondary Plan, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has been incorporated into the recommended parking requirements for the Secondary Plan area through inclusion of the following policies and initiatives: a) preferential parking for carpool vehicles in non-residential developments; b) provision for car share opportunities in major residential developments; c) reduced parking requirements reflecting proximity to transit; d) bonusing incentives for provision of public parking with car-share; e) cash-in-lieu of parking spaces for the provision of public parking; f) application of shared parking formulas for public parking structures and joint development; g) transit incentive programs, including subsidized transit fares; h) secure indoor bicycle parking and showers in conjunction with major office and commercial uses, institutional and civic uses; i) provision for bicycle parking in close proximity to building entrances and transit stations; and, j) incorporating paid parking requirements with non-residential development. 10.1 Recommendations It is also recommended, as per direction provided by the Secondary Plan as well as York Region’s Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Applications, that the Town request TDM plans to be incorporated into transportation impact studies and parking studies for all new developments. Although some incentive can be given to the developer within the Zoning By-law, it is often the developer or employers responsibility to leverage these incentives and ensure they are being applied to new developments. Requiring TDM plans to be provided will ensure that potential TDM opportunities are being considered and implemented whenever possible. When it can be demonstrated that TDM initiatives are adequate, and when the development is within close proximity to transit, further reductions to the parking supplies will be permitted.
October 14, 2016 | 53 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
The Town may further encourage developers and employers to consider SmartCommute, electric vehicle parking, dedicated carpool pick-up areas, and bicycle parking in excess of the minimum requirements, be provided as part of TDM initiatives for new developments. Having carpool and car-share parking as a requirement in the Zoning By-Law is one method of ensuring that TDM is being employed, but it is often the developer responsibility to take extra steps towards TDM and this can be encouraged by the Town by requesting that TDM plans be incorporated into new developments through the transportation impact or parking studies, consistent with Policy 9.3.5 (iv) which outlines TDM strategies. Participation in SmartCommute, providing transit passes to employees or having a cash-out program for employees who do not want a parking space, are all options for employers and developers. Bicycle parking requirements within the current Zoning By-law should be carried forward to the Secondary Plan area. The Town may consider suggesting that developers provide additional bicycle parking within their TDM plans, in excess of the minimum requirements, in addition to shower and change facilities or indoor secured bicycle parking areas. Designated waiting and prioritized parking areas for shared mobility and ride-share programs can also be part of the site design process and this will further encourage people to participate in carpooling. Electric vehicle charging stations may also be considered as part of TDM plans.
October 14, 2016 | 54 Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Appendix A Residential Parking Rates Comparison
October 14, 2016 Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix A
Residential MINIMUM Parking Requirements
Town of Newmarket City of Markham City of Toronto City of Mississauga City of Brampton Town of Oakville Town of Richmond Hill Zoning By-law 2010-40 By-law 28-97 Zoning By-law 569-2013 Zoning By-law 0225-2007 Zoning By-law 270-2004 Zoning By-law 2014-014 Parking Strategy
Markham Centre Land Use General Rates Urban Centre Rates Land Use General Rates Zoning By-law 2004- Land Use General Rates PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 Land Use General Rates CC1-CC4 Zones Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates Growth Areas Land Use Rest of RH KDA Region Centre Rapid Transit 196
Apartment 1.50/unit 1.00/unitApartment/ 1.25/unit 1.00/unit Apartment Condo Apartment 1.00/unit Condo Apartment Apartment Condo Apartment Building 0.25/unit visitor 0.25/unit visitorCondo Apartment 0.25/unit visitor 0.20/unit visitor Building Building 0.15/unit vis Building Dwelling Bach. ≤ 45 sm 0.80/unit 0.30/unit 0.60/unit 0.60/unit 0.70/unit Bachelor 1.00/unit Bachelor 1.25/unit Unit < 75 sm 1.00/unit 1.00/unit Bachelor 1.00/unit 0.80/unit 0.80/unit 0.90/unit Bach. > 45 sm 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit All Others 1.50/unit 1.25/unit One Bed 0.90/unit 0.50/unit 0.70/unit 0.70/unit 0.80/unit One Bed 1.25/unit One Bed 1.25/unit One Bed 1.25/unit 0.90/unit 0.90/unit 1.00/unit Two Bed 1.00/unit 0.80/unit 0.90/unit 0.90/unit 0.90/unit Two Bed 1.40/unit Two Bed 1.40/unit Two Bed 1.50/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.20/unit Three Bed 1.20/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.10/unit Three Bed 1.75/unit Three Bed 1.75/unit Three Bed+ 1.75/unit 1.20/unit 1.20/unit 1.50/unit Visitor 0.20/unit 0.10/unit 0.10/unit 0.10/unit 0.15/unit Visitor 0.20/unit Visitor 0.25/unit Visitor 25% of total 20% of total Visitor 0.25/unit 0.15/unit 0.15/unit 0.15/unit Rental Apartment Rental Apartment Rental Apartment Building Building Bachelor 1.00/unit Bachelor 1.03/unit Bachelor 0.90/unit 0.75/unit 0.60/unit 0.75/unit One Bed 1.18/unit One Bed 1.21/unit One Bed 1.10/unit 0.85/unit 0.75/unit 0.85/unit Two Bed 1.36/unit Two Bed 1.41/unit Two Bed 1.35/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit Three Bed 1.50/unit Three Bed 1.53/unit Three Bed+ 1.50/unit 1.20/unit 1.20/unit 1.20/unit Visitor 0.20/unit Visitor 0.20/unit Visitor 0.25/unit 0.15/unit 0.15/unit 0.15/unit Condo Horizontal Bachelor 1.10/unit One Bed 1.10/unit Two Bed 1.50/unit Three Bed 1.75/unit Four Bed 2.00/unit Visitor 0.25/unit Horizontal Rental Rental Townhouse without a private Townhouse garage and driveway Bachelor 1.10/unit One Bed 1.10/unit Two Bed 1.25/unit Two Bed 1.30/unit Three Bed 1.41/unit Three Bed 1.46/unit Four Bed 1.95/unit Four Bed 2.00/unit Visitor 0.25/unit Visitor 0.25/unit Condo 2.00/unit 2.05/unit res Condo Townhouse Townhouse 0.25/unit vis 0.25/unit vis Townhouse on 1.50/unit resident Townhouse on 2.00/unit resident Townhouse on 2.00/unit 2.00/unit res 1.00/unit res 1.00/unit res 1.00/unit res Condo Townhouse Private Road 0.25/unit visitor Private Street 0.25/unit visitor Private Road 0.25/unit vis 0.25/unit vis 0.15/unit vis 0.15/unit vis 0.15/unit vis
Stacked TH on 1.50/unit resident 2.00/unit res 1.00/unit res 1.00/unit res 1.00/unit res Block Townhouse Private Road 0.25/unit visitor 0.25/unit vis 0.15/unit vis 0.15/unit vis 0.15/unit vis Townhouse on 2.00/unit resident Townhouse on 2.00/unit resident 2.00/unit 1.00/unit 2.00/unit Street Min 2 spaces 2.00/unit resident 1.50/unit res 2.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit Townhouse Street Townhouse Townhouse Street Townhouse Public Road 0.25/unit visitor Public Street Townhouse 25% of total 20% of total vis Stacked TH on 2.00/unit resident Stacked 1.50/unit resident 1.25/unit res Public Road 0.25/unit visitor Townhouse 25% of total 20% of total vis
C:\Users\abeausol\Desktop\Appendix A _ Residential Parking Rates Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix A
Residential MAXIMUM Parking Requirements
Town of Newmarket City of Markham City of Toronto City of Mississauga City of Brampton Town of Oakville Town of Richmond Hill Zoning By-law 2010-40 By-law 28-97 Zoning By-law 569-2013 Zoning By-law 0225-2007 Zoning By-law 270-2004 Zoning By-law 2014-014 Parking Strategy
Markham Centre Land Use General Rates Urban Centre Rates Land Use General Rates Zoning By-law 2004- Land Use General Rates PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 Land Use General Rates CC1-CC4 Zones Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates Growth Areas Land Use Rest of RH KDA Region Centre Rapid Transit 196
Apartment Apartment/ Apartment Condo Apartment Condo Apartment Apartment Condo Apartment Building Condo Apartment Building Building Building Dwelling Bach. ≤ 45 sm 0.40/unit 0.90/unit 0.90/unit 1.00/unit Bachelor Bachelor Unit < 75 sm Bachelor 1.00/unit 0.85/unit 1.10/unit Bach. > 45 sm 1.20/unit 1.30/unit 1.30/unit 1.30/unit All Others One BedMaximums not 0.70/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.20/unit One Bed One Bed One Bed 1.10/unit 1.00/unit 1.25/unit Two Bedimposed 1.20/unit 1.30/unit 1.30/unit 1.30/unit Two Bed Two Bed Two Bed 1.25/unit 1.10/unit 1.50/unit Three Bed 1.50/unit 1.50/unit 1.50/unit 1.60/unit Three Bed Three Bed Three Bed+ 1.50/unit 1.30/unit 1.85/unit Visitor Maximums not imposed Visitor Visitor Visitor Visitor 0.20/unit 0.17/unit 0.20/unit Rental Apartment Rental Apartment Rental Apartment Building Building Bachelor Bachelor Bachelor 0.90/unit 0.70/unit 0.90/unit One Bed One Bed One Bed 1.05/unit 0.85/unit 1.05/unit Two Bed Two Bed Two Bed 1.25/unit 1.10/unit 1.25/unit Three Bed Three Bed Three Bed+ 1.50/unit 1.30/unit 1.50/unit Visitor Visitor Visitor 0.20/unit 0.17/unit 0.20/unit Condo Horizontal Bachelor One Bed Two Bed Three Bed The provided parking Four Bed Maximums not spaces shall not Maximums not Maximums not Maximums not Visitor Maximums not imposed Maximums not imposed imposed exceed the minimum imposed imposed imposed Horizontal Rental requirements Rental Townhouse Townhouse without a private Bachelor garage and dwy One Bed Two Bed Two Bed Three Bed Three Bed Four Bed Four Bed Visitor Visitor Condo Condo Townhouse Townhouse Townhouse on Townhouse on Townhouse on 2.00/unit res 2.00/unit res 2.00/unit res Condo Townhouse Private Road Private Street Private Road 0.20/unit vis 0.20/unit vis 0.20/unit vis
Stacked TH on 1.25/unit res 1.10/unit res 1.25/unit res Block Townhouse Private Road 0.20/unit vis 0.17/unit vis 0.20/unit vis Townhouse on Townhouse on Maximums not imposed Street 2.00/unit 2.00/unit 2.00/unit Townhouse Street Townhouse Townhouse Street Townhouse Public Road Public Street Townhouse Stacked TH on Stacked Public Road Townhouse
C:\Users\abeausol\Desktop\Appendix A _ Residential Parking Rates Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix A
Residential MINIMUM Parking Requirements
City of Hamilton City of Vaughan City of Vaughan City of Ottawa Pasadena, California Huntington Beach, Stockton Municipal Code Salem Revised Code 2009 Eugene Code, 1971 Chicago Municipal Code Zoning By-law 05-200 By-law 1-88 Draft Review of Parking Standards By-law 2008-250 Ordinance 7000 California Ord. 4088
Transit Transit Metropolitan General Higher Order Local Primary General CSDP General Oriented General General Oriented Land Use General Rates Downtown Zone Land Use General Rates Land Use Land Use Central Inner City Suburbs Rural Land Use General Rates Downtown Land Use Land Use Land Use General Rates Land Use Land Use Centre Rates Transit Hubs Centres Centres Rates Area Rates Development Rates Rates Development Areas Areas 1.50/unit Multiple Apartment Building Multifamily 1.50/unit resident 1.00/unit resMultifamily 1.50/unit 1.00/unitMultifamily 1.00/unit 2.0/unit > 650 sf 1.5/unit > 650 sfMultifamily Multi-Unit 1.0/unit 50% to 100% Apartment Multifamily Family West of Rideau none Dwelling 0.25/unit visitor Dwelling Dwelling 1.0/unit < 650 sf 1.0/unit < 650 sf Dwelling reduction Dwelling Bachelor 0.70/unit Bachelor 0.90/unit 0.70/unit 0.80/unit 0.85/unit East of Rideau 0.25/unit 0.10 / unit visitor 0.10 / unit visitor Studio 1.0/unit < 600m from RT 0.50/unit 0.50/unit 0.50/unit 1 bed 1.0/unit One Bed 0.70/unit One Bed 0.90/unit 0.70/unit 0.80/unit 0.85/unit Other 0.50/unit 1.20/unit 1.00/unit 2 bed 2.0/unit Two Bed 0.90/unit Two Bed 1.10/unit 0.90/unit 1.00/unit 0.95/unit Visitor (1st 12 units) none none 0.20/unit 0.20/unit 3 bed + 2.5/unit W of Rideau: none Three Bed 1.00/unit Three Bed 1.20/unit 1.00/unit 1.10/unit 1.15/unit Visitor (next 300) 0.20/unit 0.20/unit 0.20/unit Guest 0.5/unit East of, 0.1/unit Visitor 0.25/unit 0.15/unit Visitor 0.20/unit 0.15/unit 0.20/unit 0.20/unit Visitor (remaining) none none 0.20/unit 0.20/unit Dwelling in Same Bldg as Other Uses West of Rideau none East of Rideau 0.50/unit < 600m from RT 0.50/unit 0.50/unit 0.50/unit Other 0.50/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit Visitor (1st 12 units) none none 0.20/unit 0.20/unit W of Rideau: none Visitor (remaining) 0.20/unit 0.20/unit 0.20/unit East of, 0.1/unit
Townhouse 2.00/unit Townhouse 2.0/unit 50% to 100% Townhouse reduction < 600m from RT 0.75/unit 0.75/unit 0.75/unit 0.75/unit Other 0.75/unit 0.75/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit Visitor < 12 units none none 0.20/unit 0.20/unit Visitor > 11 units 0.10/unit 0.10/unit 0.20/unit 0.20/unit Stacked Dwelling Street 1.00/unit 1.00/unitStreet 2.00/unit resident 1.00/unitStreet 2.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit West of Rideau none Townhouse Townhouse 0.25/unit visitor Townhouse East of Rideau 0.25/unit < 600m from RT 0.50/unit 0.50/unit 0.50/unit Other 0.50/unit 1.20/unit 1.00/unit Visitor first 12 units none none 0.20/unit 0.20/unit W of Rideau: none Visitor Remaining units 0.20/unit 0.20/unit 0.20/unit East of, 0.1/unit
C:\Users\abeausol\Desktop\Appendix A _ Residential Parking Rates Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix A
Residential MAXIMUM Parking Requirements
City of Hamilton City of Vaughan City of Vaughan City of Ottawa Pasadena, California Huntington Beach, Stockton Municipal Code Salem Revised Code 2009 Eugene Code, 1971 Chicago Municipal Code Zoning By-law 05-200 By-law 1-88 Draft Review of Parking Standards By-law 2008-250 Ordinance 7000 California Ord. 4088
Transit Transit Metropolitan General Higher Order Local Primary General CSDP General Oriented General General Oriented Land Use General Rates Downtown Zone Land Use General Rates Land Use Land Use Central Inner City Suburbs Rural Land Use General Rates Downtown Land Use Land Use Land Use General Rates Land Use Land Use Centre Rates Transit Hubs Centres Centres Rates Area Rates Development Rates Rates Development Areas Areas Multiple Apartment Building Multifamily Multifamily 2.50x min if < 20 spaces Multifamily 1.75/unit > 650 sfMultifamily Multi-Unit Apartment Maximums not imposed Multifamily Maximums not Family Dwelling Dwelling 1.75x min if < 20 spaces Dwelling 1.25/unit < 650 sf Dwelling Dwelling imposed Bachelor 1.00/unit Bachelor 1.00/unit 1.20/unit 1.20/unit No maximum Studio 1.50/unit 1.75/unit 1 bed (incl visitor) One Bed 1.00/unit One Bed 1.00/unit 1.20/unit 1.20/unit (incl visitor) 2 bed Maximums Maximums Two Bed 1.30/unit Two Bed 1.30/unit 1.40/unit 1.40/unit 3 bed + not imposed not imposed Only applies to Only applies to uses within 600m of rapid Three Bed 1.70/unit Three Bed 1.50/unit 1.70/unit 1.70/unit uses within 600m Guest transit. of rapid transit. Visitor No maximum Visitor 0.15/unit 0.20/unit 0.20/unit Dwelling in Same Bldg as Other Uses
Maximums not imposed Maximums not Maximums not imposed on Maximums not imposed imposed residential uses
Townhouse Maximums not imposed Townhouse Townhouse < 600m from RT Other Visitor < 12 units Visitor > 11 units
Stacked Dwelling Maximums not imposed Street Street No maximum Street Maximums not imposed West of Rideau Townhouse Townhouse Townhouse East of Rideau < 600m from RT Other Visitor first 12 units Visitor Remaining units
C:\Users\abeausol\Desktop\Appendix A _ Residential Parking Rates Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Appendix B 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (Auto Ownership)
October 14, 2016 Sun Aug 28 2016 14:55:49 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) - Run Time: 416ms Cross Tabulation Query Form - Household - 2011 Row: No. of persons in household - n_person Column: No. of vehicles in household - n_vehicle Filters: Planning district of household - pd_hhld In 27 Household 2011 Table: VEHICLES IN HOUSEHOLD 0 vehicles 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 vehicles 5 vehicles 6 vehicles 1 1664 2973 236 78 0 0 0 4951 17% 2 335 3250 4886 337 63 0 0 8871 31% 96% of households have 3 87 1586 2840 1006 243 81 0 5843 21% between 1 and 5 people # 4 127 774 3594 724 330 20 19 5588 20% PERSONS 5 43 268 1165 561 122 21 0 2180 8% IN 6 20 130 274 208 67 20 0 719 3% HOUSE- 7 0 0 96 45 0 23 0 164 1% HOLD 8 0 0 18 42 0 0 0 60 0% 9 0 0 18 21 0 0 0 39 0% 11 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 19 0% 8% 32% 46% 10% 3% 0% 0% 28434 100% of the top 96% of households, 46% have 2 vehicles, 32% have 1 vehicle, 10% have 3 vehicles, and only 3% have 4 vehicles. 8% of households have no vehicles
VEHICLES IN HOUSEHOLD 0 vehicles 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 vehicles 5 vehicles 6 vehicles 1 34% 60% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% 100% 2 4% 37% 55% 4% 1% 0% 0% 100% 3 1% 27% 49% 17% 4% 1% 0% 100% # 4 2% 14% 64% 13% 6% 0% 0% 100% PERSONS 5 2% 12% 53% 26% 6% 1% 0% 100% IN 6 3% 18% 38% 29% 9% 3% 0% 100% HOUSE- 7 0% 0% 59% 27% 0% 14% 0% 100% HOLD 8 0% 0% 30% 70% 0% 0% 0% 100% 9 0% 0% 46% 54% 0% 0% 0% 100% 11 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
1+2 14% 45% 37% 3% 0% 0% 0% 100% Sun Aug 28 2016 16:16:54 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) - Run Time: 544ms Cross Tabulation Query Form - Household - 2011 Row: No. of persons in household - n_person Column: No. of vehicles in household - n_vehicle Filters: 2006 GTA zone of household - gta06_hhld In 2611,2621,2620,2613 Household 2011 Table: VEHICLES IN HOUSEHOLD 0 vehicles 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 vehicles 5 vehicles 1 792 867 86 0 0 0 1745 26% # 2 129 1030 1262 37 0 0 2458 37% 98% of households have PERSONS 3 66 430 449 124 0 21 1090 17% between 1 and 5 people IN 4 108 168 495 87 66 0 924 14% HOUSE- 5 0 104 63 68 23 0 258 4% HOLD 6 0 69 42 0 0 0 111 17% 41% 36% 5% 1% 0% 6586
VEHICLES IN HOUSEHOLD 0 vehicles 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 vehicles 5 vehicles 1 45% 50% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100% # 2 5% 42% 51% 2% 0% 0% 100% PERSONS 3 6% 39% 41% 11% 0% 2% 100% IN 4 12% 18% 54% 9% 7% 0% 100% HOUSE- 5 0% 40% 24% 26% 9% 0% 100% HOLD 6 0% 62% 38% 0% 0% 0% 100%
1+2 22% 45% 32% 1% 0% 0% 100%
All of Newmarket Near GO Rail Station The majority of households with one person in them generally have one vehicle, and a slightly smaller portion has zero vehicles, but this represents the vast majority of one person households.
One Person Households
The majority of households with two people in them generally have two vehicles, and a slightly smaller portion has one vehicle.
Two Person Households
The majority of households with three people in them generally have two vehicles, and a slightly smaller portion has one or three vehicles.
Three Person Households
The majority of households with four people in them generally have two vehicles, and a slightly smaller portion has one, three, or four vehicles.
Four Person Households
Since approximately 37% of the households in Newmarket that are located near the GO Rail Station have two people, followed by 26% with one person, 17% with three people, and 14% with four people, it is the one-person and two-person households that will largely dictate parking requirements in the Secondary Plan area since they represent 64% of the households with this level of transit accessibility. ½ of the households will have one vehicle. ¼ of the households will have zero vehicles. ¼ of the households will have two vehicles. On average the result is one vehicle per household. One & Two Person Households
Other important notes:
In the zones near the GO Rail Station, the proportion of households with zero vehicles is consistently larger in proportion, and grows larger with the higher number of persons per household. In all cases except for one person households, two vehicle households maintain the greatest share. The number of vehicles per household is only loosely tied to the number of persons per household, which is in directly tied to the number of bedrooms.
The number of households with five or six persons is relatively small and does not represent a significant sample size, especially considering that this data has itself already been extrapolated.
Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Appendix C Non-Residential Parking Rates Comparison
October 14, 2016 Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix C
Non-Residential MINIMUM Parking Requirements
Town of Newmarket City of Markham City of Toronto Zoning By-law 2010-40 By-law 28-97 Zoning By-law 569-2013
Urban Land Use General Rates Centre Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 Rates
2 spaces per classroom plus an additional 10% of the total parking School, Elementary School, Elementary 1 space / classroom requirement to be dedicated to visitor parking 0.15 spaces / 100 1.00 spaces / 100 Public School 1.5 space / 100 SM GFA 0.50 spaces / 100 SM GFA 3 spaces per classroom plus an SM GFA SM GFA additional 10% of the total parking School, Secondary School, Secondary 4 spaces / classroom requirement to be dedicated to visitor parking
1 space per 100 SM GFA used for 5 space / classroom plus School, Post Post Secondary 1.0 space / 100 instructional and/or academic University or College 1 space per 6 seats in an 2.0 spaces / 100 SM GFA 0.1 spaces / 100 SM GFA Secondary School SM GFA purposes assembly area
2 spaces per classroom plus 1.5 spaces per classroom Day Care 1 space for every 4 children licensed Day Nursery plus 1 space per 5 Day Nursery 1.00 spaces / 100 SM GFA 0.40 spaces / 100 SM GFA capacity children
Greater of 2 spaces or 1 space per staff Group Home Group Home Minimum of 2 space member on duty
1 parking space per 9 SM of the Greater of: 1 space / 4 Fixed Seating: 9 / Fixed Seating: 15 / aggregate GFA of the nave, public hall, persons of sorship area Fixed Seating: 23 / 100 SM GFA 100 SM GFA 100 SM GFA Fixed Seating: 18 / 100 SM GFA Places of Worship banquet hall or other Places of Worship capacity, or 1 space per 9 Places of Worship Variable Seating: 27 / 100 SM GFA Variable Seating: Variable Seating: Variable Seating: 22 / 100 SM GFA community/multi-use hall used as a SM NFA of the worship 11 / 100 SM GFA 18 / 100 SM GFA place of assembly area
Library 1 space per 10 SM of GFA Library 1 space / 40 SM NFA Library 1.3 spaces / 100 SM GFA 0.5 spaces / 100 SM GFA
1 parking space per 14 SM of GFA dedicated to indoor facilities for use by Community / the public plus the aggregate of: 1 parking space per 40 Community Centre Recreation Use 3.0 spaces / 100 SM GFA 0.5 spaces / 100 SM GFA Recreation Centre • 30 spaces per all field SM of NFA • 30 spaces per soccer field • 4 spaces per tennis court
Retail - 2.5 for each 100 SM of GFA. 1 parking space per 9 SM of GFA with a - Food/Grocery Supermarket 1 space / 20 SM NFA Grocery Store - If GFA < 200 SM then no parking 1.0 space / 100 SM of GFA minimum of 5 spaces Store/Supermarket needed
(i) if the GFA is > 200 SM and < 10,000 SM, at a minimum rate of 1.5 for each 100 SM of GFA; and With NFA < 6,000 SM: 1 (ii) if the GFA is 10,000 SM or more space / 30 SM NFA but < 20,000 SM, at a minimum rate Retail 1 parking space per 18 SM of net floor Retail Store Retail Store of 3.0 for each 100 SM of GFA; and 1.0 for each 100 SM of GFA - All other retail uses area With NFA > 6,000 SM: 1 (iii) if the GFA is 20,000 SM or more, 5% reduction space / 20 SM NFA at a minimum rate of 6.0 for each versus general 100 SM of GFA; and rates (D) if the GFA on a lot is 200 SM or less, no parking space is required.
(i) where the GFA < 200 SM, 0 1 parking space per 9 SM of GFA spaces; dedicated to public use, excluding any Eating (ii) where the GFA > 200 SM and < Restaurant Restaurant 1 space / 9 SM NFA 0 spaces porch, veranda and/or patio dedicated Establishment 500 SM, 3.0 / 100 SM GFA; and as seasonal servicing areas. (iii) where the GFA > 500 SM, 5.0 / 100 SM GFA
Office 1 parking space per 27 SM of net floor 0.35 for each 100 Business Office 1 pspace / 30 SM NFA Office 1.5 for each 100 SM of GFA 1.0 for each 100 SM of GFA Accessory Office area SM of GFA
1 parking space per 17 SM of net floor 0.30 / 100 SM of 1.0 / 100 SM of Medical Office Medical Office 1 space / 20 SM NFA Medical Office 3.0 for each 100 SM of GFA 1.5 / 100 SM of GFA area GFA GFA
The aggregate of: • 1 space per guest room 0.85 spaces per suite • 1 space per every 2 guest rooms over plus 1 space / 10 SM NFA Hotel 20 Hotel Hotel 1.0 spaces / guest room 0.2 spaces / 100 SM GFA devoted to assembly • 1 space per 4.5 SM of GFA dedicated uses to administrative, banquet and meeting facilities
Special Needs Greater of 2 spaces or 1 space per staff Facility member on duty Where the area occupied by the home occupation exceeds 24 SM, 1 parking Home-Based space shall be required for every 9 SM Live-Work Units above the 24 SM of the dwelling unit used for the home occupation
C:\Users\abeausol\Desktop\Appendix C _ Non-Residential Parking Rates Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix C
Non-Residential MAXIMUM Parking Requirements
Town of Newmarket City of Markham City of Toronto Zoning By-law 2010-40 By-law 28-97 Zoning By-law 569-2013
Urban Land Use General Rates Centre Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 Rates
Maximums not imposed The provided Maximums not imposed School, Elementary parking spaces School, Elementary shall not exceed 0.3 spaces / 100 2.00 spaces / 100 Public School No maximum 1 spaces / 100 SM GFA the minimum SM GFA SM GFA School, Secondary requirements School, Secondary
School, Post Post Secondary University or College No maximums Secondary School
Day Care Day Nursery Day Nursery No maximums 0.80 spaces / 100 SM GFA
Group Home Group Home No maximums
Fixed Seating: Fixed Seating: 23 / 18 / 100 SM GFA 100 SM GFA Fixed Seating: 29 / 100 SM GFA Places of Worship Places of Worship Places of Worship No maximums Variable Seating: Variable Seating: Variable Seating: 33 / 100 SM GFA 22 / 100 SM GFA 27 / 100 SM GFA
Library Library Library No maximums
Community / Community Centre Recreation Use No maximum 1.3 spaces / 100 SM GFA Recreation Centre
Retail - Food/Grocery Supermarket Grocery Store No maximum 4.5 space / 100 SM of GFA Store/Supermarket
Retail 3.5 for each 100 Retail Store Retail Store No maximum 4 for each 100 SM of GFA - All other retail uses SM of GFA
Eating 3.5 for each 100 4 for each 100 SM Restaurant Restaurant No maximum 5 for each 100 SM of GFA Establishment SM of GFA of GFA
Office 0.8 for each 100 1.4 for each 100 Business Office Office No maximum 2 for each 100 SM of GFA Accessory Office SM of GFA SM of GFA
3.5 / 100 SM of Medical Office Medical Office Medical Office No maximum 3 / 100 SM of GFA 6 / 100 SM of GFA GFA
Hotel Hotel Hotel No maximum 1 spaces / 100 SM GFA
Special Needs Facility Home-Based Live-Work Units
C:\Users\abeausol\Desktop\Appendix C _ Non-Residential Parking Rates Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix C
Non-Residential MINIMUM Parking Requirements
City of Mississauga City of Brampton Town of Oakville Town of Richmond Hill Zoning By-law 0225-2007 Zoning By-law 270-2004 Zoning By-law 2014-014 Parking Strategy
Rapid Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates Land Use Rest of RH KDA Region Centre Transit Corridors
parking space for each 100 1.0 space per 100 m2 GFA - non-residential For elementary schools, 1.5 Public School up to square metres. gross floor area (excluding School, 2 spaces per 1.4 spaces per 1.6 spaces per (excluding portables) plus 1.0 spaces per School, Elementary per classroom, Primary School Grade 8 portables) plus 1 parking Elementary classroom classroom classroom portable classroom not including any portables space for each portable classroom 1.5 spaces for each 100 1.5 spaces per 100 m2 GFA - non-residential For secondary schools, 4.0 per Public School after square metres gross floor area (excluding 4 spaces per 2.8 spaces per 3.2 spaces per (excluding portables) plus 1.0 spaces per School, Secondary School, Secondary classroom, Secondary School Grade 9 portables) plus 1 parking classroom classroom classroom portable classroom not including any portables space for each portable classroom
1.1 spaces per 100 m2 GFA - non-residential School, Post College/University used for academic purposes; plus 0.15 spaces No minimum Secondary per resident student and/or staff
Greater of 1 Greater of 1 1 parking space for each employee plus 1 space per 5 Greater of 1 space per 7 space per 6 Day Care 2.5 spaces per 100m2 GFA Day Nursery parking space for each 10 Day Care 1.0 per 40.0 m2 net floor area Day Care children or 1 children or 0.7 space per children or 0.8 children capacity space per employee space per employee employee Group Home 2 spaces 1 parking space for every 4 seats or for each 2 1.0 space per 4.5 seats for permanent fixed metres of bench space seating (1); plus 27.1 spaces for any non-fixed in the place of worship – main worship area, a) 1.0 per 5 persons capacity moveable seating per 100 m2 GFA - non- or 1 parking space for for the place of Place of Religious residential, all in the worship area or 27.1 spaces each 5 square metres of place of worship – worship area of worship; plus, 6.4 spaces / 5.1 spaces / 100 Place of Worship Place of Worship Places of Worship 4.8 spaces / 100 SM GFA Assembly for all non-fixed moveable seating per 100 m2 net worship area when b) 1.0 per 22.0 m2 net floor 100 SM GFA SM GFA GFA - non-residential, in the worship area or there is open floor seating. area for any additional 10.0 spaces per 100 m2 GFA - non-residential, Areas intended for the use of a permitted accessory assembly area whichever is greater residential unit do not require additional parking Library 3.2 spaces per 100 m2 GFA Library 1 space / 44 SM GFA Library 1.0 per 28.0 m2 net floor area
5 spaces per 3.5 spaces per 5 spaces per court plus 3.2 court plus 2.2 court plus 3.2 Community Centre 4.5 spaces per 100 m2 GFA Recreation Use Depends on specific use Community Centre 1.0 per 22.0 m2 net floor area Recreation Centre spaces per 100 spaces per spaces per 100 m2 100 m2 m2
1 parking space for each 17 square metres of Supermarket gross commercial floor area or portion thereof
4.3 spaces / 100 4 spaces / 100 SM GFA 1 parking space for each 19 square metres of Retail - Neighbourhood SM GFA 5 spaces / 100 Retail Store 5.4 spaces per 100 m2 GFA Retail gross commercial floor Retail Store 1.0 per 18.0 m2 net floor area SM GFA area or portion thereof Retail - Regional 3 spaces / 100 3 spaces / 100 SM GFA SM GFA
Dining Room or Convenience Restaurant: 1 parking space for each 6.25 square metres of gross commercial floor 11 spaces / 100 Restaurant 16.0 spaces per 100 m2 GFA Restaurant area or portion thereof Restaurant 1.0 per 10.0 m2 net floor area Restaurant 3 spaces / 100 SM GFA SM GFA Take-Out Restaurant: 1 parking space for each 16.7 square metres of gross commercial floor area or portion thereof
1 parking space for each 25 square metres of 3.2 spaces per Office 3.2 spaces per 100 m2 GFA Office gross Office 1.0 per 35.0 m2 net floor area Office 2.0 spaces per 100 SM GFA 100 SM GFA commercial floor area or portion thereof
a) For the first 60% of the net floor area on the lot occupied by medical offices, 1.0 per 35.0 5 spaces for 1 parking space m2 net floor area 4 spaces for first first 3.5 spaces for first for each 12 square metres of gross b) Where medical offices Medical Offices and practitioner plus Medical Office 6.5 spaces per 100 m2 GFA Medical Office Medical Office practitioner practitioner plus 2.1 for each commercial floor area or portion occupy greater than Clinics 2.4 for each plus 3 for each additional thereof 60% of the net floor area of additional additional the building, 1.0 per 18.0 m2 net floor area for the entire building 1 parking space for each 2 bedrooms plus 1 0.8 space per guest room; plus 10.0 spaces per parking space for 100 m2 GFA - non-residential used for public use each 10 square metres of gross commercial areas including meeting rooms, conference floor area or portion rooms, recreational facilities, dining and lounge a) 1.0 per lodging unit; plus, 1 space per 0.80 spaces per thereof devoted to public use including Overnight areas and other commercial facilities, but b) 1.0 per 30.0 m2 net floor unit plus 10 0.75 spaces per unit plus 7.5 unit plus 8 per Hotel meeting rooms, conference Hotel Hotel Accommodation excluding bedrooms, kitchens, laundry rooms, area outside of a per 100 m2 for per 100 m2 for public areas 100 m2 for public rooms, recreational facilities, dining, lounge washrooms, lobbies, hallways, elevators, lodging unit public areas areas and tavern areas but stairways and recreational facilities directly excluding bedrooms, washrooms, lobbies, related to the function of the overnight hallways, elevators, and accommodation stairways Long-term Long-term Care 0.33/bed 0.25/bed Care
C:\Users\abeausol\Desktop\Appendix C _ Non-Residential Parking Rates Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix C
Non-Residential MAXIMUM Parking Requirements
City of Mississauga City of Brampton Town of Oakville Town of Richmond Hill Zoning By-law 0225-2007 Zoning By-law 270-2004 Zoning By-law 2014-014 Parking Strategy
Rapid Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates Land Use Rest of RH KDA Region Centre Transit Corridors
Maximums not imposed Maximums not imposed Maximums not imposed Maximums not Public School up to 1.5 spaces per 2 spaces per School, Elementary School, Elementary Primary School imposed Grade 8 classroom classroom
Public School after 3.1 spaces per 4 spaces per School, Secondary School, Secondary Secondary School Grade 9 classroom classroom
School, Post College/University Secondary
Greater of 1 Greater of 1 Greater of 1 space space per 6 space per 6.5 per 1 children or 1 Day Care Day Nursery Day Care Day Care children or 0.9 children or 0.8 space per space per space per employee employee employee Group Home
Place of Religious 6 spaces / 100 5.3 spaces / 6.4 spaces / 100 Place of Worship Place of Worship Places of Worship Assembly SM GFA 100 SM GFA SM GFA
Library Library Library 3.9 spaces per 6.3 spaces per court plus 2.4 court plus 4 Community Centre Recreation Use Community Centre Recreation Centre spaces per 100 spaces per 100 m2 m2
Supermarket
5 spaces / 100 4.4 spaces / 5.4 spaces / 100 SM GFA 100 SM GFA Retail - Neighbourhood SM GFA Retail Store Retail Retail Store Retail - Regional 3.75 spaces / 100 3.75 spaces / 3.3 spaces / SM GFA 100 SM GFA 100 SM GFA
3.75 spaces / 3.3 spaces / 3.75 spaces / 100 Restaurant Restaurant Restaurant Restaurant 100 SM GFA 100 SM GFA SM GFA
2.5 spaces per 2.2 spaces per 2.5 spaces per Office Office Office Office 100 SM GFA 100 SM GFA 100 SM GFA 4.4 spaces for 3.9 spaces for 5 spaces for first first first practitioner plus 3 Medical Offices and practitioner practitioner Medical Office Medical Office Medical Office for each Clinics plus 2.6 for plus 2.3 for additional each each practitoner additional additional 0.85 spaces 0.9 spaces per 1 spaces per unit per unit plus Overnight unit plus 9 per plus 10 per 100 Hotel Hotel Hotel 8.5 per 100 Accommodation 100 m2 for m2 for public m2 for public public areas areas areas Long-term Long-term Care Care
C:\Users\abeausol\Desktop\Appendix C _ Non-Residential Parking Rates Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix C
Non-Residential MINIMUM Parking Requirements
City of Hamilton City of Vaughan City of Vaughan City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 05-200 By-law 1-88 Draft Review of Parking Standards By-law 2008-250
Metropolitan General Higher Order Local Primary Land Use General Rates Downtown Zones Land Use General Rates Land Use Land Use Central Inner City Suburbs Rural Centre Rates Transit Hubs Centres Centres
1. Secondary 1 parking spaces 1.5 parking spaces per 1.25 space / 1.25 space / school - 2.5 per 1. Secondary school - 3 per Elementary School 1.25 for each classroom. Elementary School per each Elementary School 1.5 / classroom 1 / classroom each classroom classroom classroom classroom classroom (includes classroom (includes portables) School None portables) 2. All other schools - 1.5 per 1 parking spaces 3 for each classroom plus 1 for each 7 seat capacity in an 4.0 parking spaces per 1.25 space / 1.25 space / 2. All other classroom (includes Secondary School Secondary School per each Secondary School 1.5 / classroom 1 / classroom auditorium, theatre or stadium each classroom classroom classroom schools - 1.5 portables) classroom per 5 for each classroom plus 1 for every 7 seat capacity in an 4/ classroom 2.5/classroom + 2.5/classroom 3/classroom plus 3/classroom plus auditorium, theatre or stadium or 5 spaces for every classroom plus 1/ 6 seats Post Secondary 1.0 / 7 seats plus 1/7 seats in 1/7 seats in an 1/7 seats in an 1 per 100m2 of gross floor University / College plus 1 space for each 23 square metres of the gross floor area Post Secondary School in an Post Secondary 0.75 per 100m2 of gross floor area School auditorium or an auditorium or auditorium or auditorium or area which accommodates the auditorium, theatre or stadium, auditorium or theatre theatre theatre theatre whichever results in greater requirement. theatre i. 1 for each 125.0 square metres of gross floor area which accommodates such use. 1.5 parking spaces per 0.75/ Day Nursery Day Nursery Day Nursery 1/Employee 0.75 / employee 0.85 / employee 0.85 / employee Day Care None 2 per 100m2 of gross floor area ii. Notwithstanding i. above, no parking shall be required where a employee employee Day Nursery is located within an Education Establishment.
1 space / staff + 1 space / Group Home 2 residents
Fixed Seating: 23/ 100 m2 GFA Place of Worship: 9/ 100 m2 GFA of 9 spaces / 100 SM of worship 15/ 100 m2 GFA 18/ 100 m2 GFA 1 for every 10 square metres of Permanent Seating worship area GFA area of worship area of worship area gross floor area, inclusive of a 10 per 100m2 of gross floor area of assembly Place of Worship Place of Worship Place of Worship None basement or cellar, to 13/ 100 m2 GFA area Variable: 34/ 100 m2 GFA 22/ 100 m2 GFA 26/ 100 m2 GFA accommodate such use. Place of Worship: of 13 spaces / 100 of worship of worship area of worship area Variable Seating worship area SM GFA area
3.5 parking spaces per 100 1.0 space / 100 Public Library Public Library 2.0/100m2 GFA 1.0/100m2 GFA 1.5/100m2 GFA 1.5/100m2 GFA Library None 2.5 per 100 m² of gross floor area sq.m GFA SM GFA
1.0 parking space for each three (3) persons 1.0 space / 100 Community Community Centre Community Centre 2.0/100m2 GFA 1.0/100m2 GFA 1.5/100m2 GFA 1.5/100m2 GFA None 4 per 100m2 of gross floor area comprised in the designed SM GFA Centre maximum capacity
2.5 per 100m2 6.0 parking spaces per 100 2.5 parking spaces Supermarket (standalone) 4.5 spaces per 2.5 spaces per 3.4 per 100m2 of gross floor Supermarket 3.0 spaces per 100 SM GFA Retail Food Store None of sq.m GFA per 100 sq.m GFA >1000 SM 100 SM GFA 100 SM GFA area gross floor area
Total GFA of all buildings <=5000m2, 3.5 <=5000m2, <=5000m2, <=5000m2, greater than space / 100 SM 2 space / 100 SM 3 space / 100 SM 3 space / 100 SM 1 for each 20.0 square metres of 5,000m2: 2 spaces GFA GFA GFA GFA 2.5 per 100m2 6.0 parking spaces per 100 3.4 per 100m2 of gross floor Retail gross floor area which Retail Store / 100 SM GFA Retail / Shopping Centre Retail Store None of sq.m GFA area accommodates such use. otherwise otherwise otherwise otherwise gross floor area Otherwise 2.5 4.5 space / 100 2.5 space / 100 3 space / 100 SM 3 space / 100 SM spaces / 100 SM SM GFA SM GFA GFA GFA GFA
i) 3 for first 50m2 1 for each 8.0 square metres of 1.0 parking space for each of gross floor area which four (4) persons gross floor area accommodates such use. Eating comprised in the designed 6.0 parking spaces 10 space / 100 6 space / 100 SM 8 space / 100 SM 8 space / 100 SM plus 10 per 10 per 100m2 of gross floor Restaurant ii) Establishment, maximum capacity or Eating Establishment Restaurant None per 100 sq.m GFA SM GFA GFA GFA GFA 100m2 of gross area Notwithstanding i) above, where Convenience 20.0 parking spaces per floor area over there are no seats provided for 100 sq.m GFA, 50m2 of gross dining purposes, a minimum 3 whichever is greater floor area spaces shall be required.
3.5 parking spaces per 100 1 for each 50 square metres sq.m. 0.75 per 100m2 1 for each 30 square metres of of gross floor area in excess of GFA devoted to office 1.5 spaces / 100 3.0 spaces per 1.5 spaces per 2 per 100m2 of 2.4 per 100m2 of gross floor Office Office Building Office Building 2.0 spaces per 100 SM GFA Office of gross floor gross floor area 450 square metres, which uses plus SM GFA 100 SM GFA 100 SM GFA gross floor area area area accommodates such use. the requirement for any other use
1 for each 50 square metres 0.75 per 100m2 1 for each 16 square metres of of gross floor area in excess of 2.5 spaces / 100 4.5 spaces per 2.5 spaces per Medical Clinic Medical Office Medical Services 3.0 spaces per 100 SM GFA Medical Facility of gross floor 4 per 100m2 of gross floor area gross floor area 450 square metres, which SM GFA 100 SM GFA 100 SM GFA area accommodates such use
1 per guest unit for up to 40 1.0 parking space for each guest 0.5 per 100m2 bedroom plus the 0.75 spaces / units, and 1 per Hotel 1 per guest room 0.6 per guest room Hotel Hotel 0.9/bedroom 0.75/bedroom 0.85/bedroom 0.85/bedroom Hotel of gross floor 1 per guest unit requirements for any bedroom 6 area other use guest units over 40 guest units
Long-term Care Residential Care Facility 1.00/3 persons 1.00/3 persons 0.50/bed 0.20/bed res Facility
1 in addition to 2.0 parking spaces in residential Home Occupation addition to residential Home Occupation requirements requirements (can be tandem)
C:\Users\abeausol\Desktop\Appendix C _ Non-Residential Parking Rates Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix C
Non-Residential MAXIMUM Parking Requirements
City of Hamilton City of Vaughan City of Vaughan City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 05-200 By-law 1-88 Draft Review of Parking Standards By-law 2008-250
Metropolitan General Higher Order Local Primary Land Use General Rates Downtown Zones Land Use General Rates Land Use Land Use Central Inner City Suburbs Rural Centre Rates Transit Hubs Centres Centres
Maximums not imposed Maximums not imposed Maximums not Maximums only apply to uses within 600m walking distance of rapid Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School imposed No maximums transit. Applicable to the following uses: Apartment Buildsings, Hospitals, Medical Faciltiies, Offices, Post Secondary Schools, School Research and Development Centres, Retail Stores, and Shopping Secondary School Secondary School Secondary School No maximums Centres.
Post Secondary No maximum University / College Post Secondary School No maximums Post Secondary School
Day Nursery Day Nursery Day Nursery No maximums Day Care
Group Home
Fixed Seating: 18/ 100 m2 GFA Place of Worship: 18 spaces / 100 of 23/ 100 m2 GFA 29/ 100 m2 GFA Permanent Seating SM GFA worship area of worship area of worship area Place of Worship Place of Worship Place of Worship Variable: 26/ 100 m2 GFA 34/ 100 m2 GFA 43/ 100 m2 GFA Place of Worship: 26 spaces / 100 of of worship area of worship area Variable Seating SM GFA worship area Public Library Public Library No maximums Library
No maximum Community Community Centre Community Centre No maximums Centre
4 parking spaces Supermarket (standalone) 4 spaces per 100 Supermarket 4.5 spaces per 100 SM GFA Retail Food Store per 100 sq.m GFA >1000 SM SM GFA
<=5000m2, <=5000m2, 4 space / 100 SM 4.5 space / 100 SM GFA (surface GFA parking) 4 spaces / 100 SM Retail Retail Store Retail / Shopping Centre Retail Store GFA otherwise otherwise 4 space / 100 SM 4.5 space / 100 SM GFA GFA (surface parking)
10 parking spaces 10 space / 100 Restaurant Restaurant Eating Establishment No maximum Restaurant per 100 sq.m GFA SM GFA
2.5 spaces / 100 2.5 spaces per 3.0 spaces per 100 SM GFA (surface Office Office Building Office Building Office SM GFA 100 SM GFA parking)
4 spaces / 100 SM 4 spaces per 100 Medical Clinic Medical Office Medical Services 4.5 spaces per 100 SM GFA Medical Facility GFA SM GFA
Hotel Hotel Hotel No maximums Hotel No maximum
Long-term Care Residential Care Facility Facility Home Occupation Home Occupation
C:\Users\abeausol\Desktop\Appendix C _ Non-Residential Parking Rates Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Appendix D % Reductions for Growth Areas vs General Areas
October 14, 2016 Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix D
Intensification Area Parking Rate Reductions (Compared to General Rates) Intensification Area Parking Rate Reductions (Compared to General Rates)
City of Toronto Town of Richmond Hill City of Hamilton City of Vaughan Zoning By-law 569-2013 Parking Strategy Zoning By-law 05-200 Draft Review of Parking Standards Rapid Higher Order PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 KDA Region Centre Transit Downtown Zones General General Rates Rest of RH General Rates Transit Hubs Land Use % Reduction % Reduction % Reduction % Reduction Land Use % Reduction % Reduction Corridors Land Use % Reduction Land Use Rates (Minimums) (Minimums) (Minimums) % Reduction vs. General Rate vs. General Rate vs. General Rate vs. General Rate vs. Rest of RH vs. Rest of RH % Reduction vs. General Rates (Minimums) vs. General Rates vs. Rest of RH
2 spaces per Primary School 30% 20% Elementary School none Elementary School 1.5 / classroom 33% classroom Public School 1.5 space / 100 SM GFA 90% 67% 33% 4 spaces per Secondary School 30% 20% Secondary School none Secondary School 1.5 / classroom 33% classroom 4/ classroom plus 1/ 6 seats 38% based on Post Secondary 2.0 spaces / 100 SM GFA 95% 50% University / College none Post Secondary School in an classrooms and 14% School auditorium or based on seating theatre Greater of 1 space per 5 Day Nursery 1.00 spaces / 100 SM GFA 60% Day Care children or 1 30% 20% Day Nursery none Day Nursery 1 / employee 25% space per employee Group Home Minimum of 2 space
23/ 100 m2 GFA Place of Worship: of worship Fixed Seating: 61% Fixed Seating: 35% Permanent Seating Fixed Seating: 61% Fixed Seating: 22% area Fixed Seating: 23 / 100 SM GFA 6.4 spaces / 100 Places of Worship Places of Worship 25% 20% Place of Worship none Variable Seating: 27 / 100 SM GFA Variable Seating: Variable Seating: SM GFA Variable Seating: Variable Seating: 19% 34/ 100 m2 GFA 59% 33% Place of Worship: 62% of worship Variable Seating area
Library 1.3 spaces / 100 SM GFA 62% Public Library 2.0/100m2 GFA 50%
5 spaces per court plus 3.2 Recreation Use 3.0 spaces / 100 SM GFA 83% Recreation Centre 30% none Community Centre 2.0/100m2 GFA 50% spaces per 100 m2 - 2.5 for each 100 SM of GFA. Supermarket (standalone) 4.5 spaces per Grocery Store - If GFA < 200 SM then no parking 60% 44% >1000 SM 100 SM GFA needed
(i) if the GFA is > 200 SM and < 10,000 SM, at a minimum rate of 1.5 for each 100 SM of GFA; and <=5000m2, 3.5 Retail - (ii) if the GFA is 10,000 SM or more space / 100 SM Retail - Neighbourhood Neighbourhood: but < 20,000 SM, at a minimum rate 33% to 83% depending on size (GFA) Retail - Neighbourhood: 20% GFA 5 spaces / 100 14% Retail Store of 3.0 for each 100 SM of GFA; and Retail none Retail / Shopping Centre 43% SM GFA (iii) if the GFA is 20,000 SM or more, The greater the retail area, the greater the reduction. Retail - Regional: 40% otherwise Retail - Regional Retail - Regional: at a minimum rate of 6.0 for each 4.5 space / 100 40% 100 SM of GFA; and SM GFA (D) if the GFA on a lot is 200 SM or less, no parking space is required.
(i) where the GFA < 200 SM, 0 spaces; 100% reduction Eating (ii) where the GFA > 200 SM and < 11 spaces / 100 10 space / 100 Restaurant 73% Restaurant none Eating Establishment 40% Establishment 500 SM, 3.0 / 100 SM GFA; and SM GFA SM GFA 0 spaces minimum (iii) where the GFA > 500 SM, 5.0 / 100 SM GFA
40% 3.2 spaces per 1 for each 30 square metres of 3.0 spaces per Office 1.5 for each 100 SM of GFA 77% 33% Office 38% Office for the area in excess of 450 Office Building 50% 100 SM GFA gross floor area 100 SM GFA square metres, which accommodates such use. 68% 5 spaces for first Medical Offices and practitioner plus 1 for each 16 square metres of 4.5 spaces per Medical Office 3.0 for each 100 SM of GFA 90% 67% 50% 30% 20% Medical Clinic for the area in excess of 450 Medical Services 44% Clinics 3 for each gross floor area 100 SM GFA square metres, which additional accommodates such use. c:\pwworking\pitt\d1849268\Appendix D - %Reductions for Growth Areas.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report
Appendix E Shared Parking Percentages Comparison
October 14, 2016 Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix E
SHARED PARKING - Percentage of Peak Parking Demand (Weekday) City of Vaughan City of Toronto City of Mississauga City of Brampton City of Vaughan City of Vaughan City of Newmarket City of Markham Town of Richmond Hill By-law 1-88 City of Ottawa General Land Use Groupings Zoning By-law 569- Zoning By-law 0225- Zoning By-law 270- By-law 1-88 Draft Review of AVERAGE MIN MAX By-law 2010-40 By-law 28-97 Parking Strategy Vaughan Metropolitan By-law 2008-250 2013 2007 2004 Corporate Centre Zone Parking Standards Centre Zone MORNING
Business Office 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Medical Office 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Retail 80% 50% 20% 80% 80% 80% 65% 65% 65% 75% 66% 20% 80%
Restaurant / Eating Establishment 20% 100% 20% 20% 30% 20% 20% 20% 30% 31% 20% 100%
Overnight Accommodation / Hotel 70% 80% 80% 70% 70% 74% 70% 80%
Residential - Resident 90% 100% 90% 80% 80% 88% 80% 100%
Residential - Visitor 20% 10% 20% 80% 20% 80% 80% 80% 50% 49% 10% 80%
Library 25% 30% 28% 25% 30%
Entertainment 0% 0% 0% 0%
Theatre / Cinema 0% 25% 0% 10% 10% 40% 14% 0% 40%
Assembly Hall 10% 25% 70% 35% 10% 70%
Banquet Hall 20% 25% 70% 38% 20% 70%
Commercial Fitness Centre 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
Industrial Use 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Recreational Establishment 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
Bank / Financial 20% 80% 50% 20% 80%
Institutional / Education 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NOON
Business Office 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
Medical Office 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
Retail 90% 90% 95% 90% 90% 90% 80% 89% 80% 95%
Restaurant / Eating Establishment 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 99% 90% 100%
Overnight Accommodation / Hotel 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%
Residential - Resident 65% 65% 55% 62% 55% 65%
Residential - Visitor 20% 20% 20% 55% 55% 55% 50% 39% 20% 55%
Library
Entertainment 20% 20% 20% 20%
Theatre / Cinema 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%
Assembly Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%
Banquet Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%
Commercial Fitness Centre
Industrial Use
Recreational Establishment
Bank / Financial 100% 100% 100% 100%
Institutional / Education 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
LEGEND
Lower Percentage Results in lower parking requirements
Mid Range
Higher Percentage Results in higher parking requirements Other municipalities do not provide percentages for shared parking, No Difference / Comparison or there is no difference between municipalities.
c:\pwworking\pitt\d1837774\Appendix E _ Shared Parking Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix E
SHARED PARKING - Percentage of Peak Parking Demand (Weekday) City of Vaughan City of Toronto City of Mississauga City of Brampton City of Vaughan City of Vaughan City of Newmarket City of Markham Town of Richmond Hill By-law 1-88 City of Ottawa General Land Use Groupings Zoning By-law 569- Zoning By-law 0225- Zoning By-law 270- By-law 1-88 Draft Review of AVERAGE MIN MAX By-law 2010-40 By-law 28-97 Parking Strategy Vaughan Metropolitan By-law 2008-250 2013 2007 2004 Corporate Centre Zone Parking Standards Centre Zone AFTERNOON
Business Office 95% 95% 60% 95% 95% 100% 95% 95% 95% 100% 93% 60% 100%
Medical Office 95% 100% 95% 95% 100% 95% 95% 95% 100% 97% 95% 100%
Retail 90% 100% 100% 90% 100% 90% 80% 80% 80% 85% 90% 80% 100%
Restaurant / Eating Establishment 30% 100% 30% 60% 50% 30% 30% 30% 60% 47% 30% 100%
Overnight Accommodation / Hotel 70% 75% 75% 70% 70% 72% 70% 75%
Residential - Resident 90% 100% 90% 80% 80% 88% 80% 100%
Residential - Visitor 60% 35% 60% 80% 60% 80% 80% 80% 75% 68% 35% 80%
Library 100% 30% 65% 30% 100%
Entertainment 60% 60% 60% 60%
Theatre / Cinema 50% 50% 0% 40% 40% 60% 40% 0% 60%
Assembly Hall 25% 50% 70% 48% 25% 70%
Banquet Hall 50% 50% 70% 57% 50% 70%
Commercial Fitness Centre 80% 100% 90% 80% 100%
Industrial Use 95% 100% 98% 95% 100%
Recreational Establishment 80% 100% 90% 80% 100%
Bank / Financial 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Institutional / Education 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% EVENING
Business Office 10% 10% 0% 10% 15% 10% 10% 10% 10% 15% 10% 0% 15%
Medical Office 10% 50% 10% 15% 10% 10% 10% 10% 15% 16% 10% 50%
Retail 90% 100% 100% 90% 50% 90% 100% 100% 100% 75% 90% 50% 100%
Restaurant / Eating Establishment 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Overnight Accommodation / Hotel 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Residential - Resident 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Residential - Visitor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Library 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Entertainment 100% 100% 100% 100%
Theatre / Cinema 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 85% 91% 80% 100%
Assembly Hall 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Banquet Hall 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Commercial Fitness Centre 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Industrial Use 10% 0% 5% 0% 10%
Recreational Establishment 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Bank / Financial 50% 10% 30% 10% 50%
Institutional / Education 50% 20% 20% 30% 20% 50%
LEGEND
Lower Percentage Results in lower parking requirements
Mid Range
Higher Percentage Results in higher parking requirements Other municipalities do not provide percentages for shared parking, No Difference / Comparison or there is no difference between municipalities.
c:\pwworking\pitt\d1837774\Appendix E _ Shared Parking Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix E
SHARED PARKING - Percentage of Peak Parking Demand (Saturday) City of Vaughan City of Toronto City of Mississauga City of Brampton City of Vaughan City of Vaughan City of Newmarket City of Markham Town of Richmond Hill By-law 1-88 City of Ottawa General Land Use Groupings Zoning By-law 569- Zoning By-law 0225- Zoning By-law 270- By-law 1-88 Draft Review of AVERAGE MIN MAX By-law 2010-40 By-law 28-97 Parking Strategy Vaughan Metropolitan By-law 2008-250 2013 2007 2004 Corporate Centre Zone Parking Standards Centre Zone MORNING
Business Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 20% 12% 10% 20%
Medical Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 20% 12% 10% 20%
Retail 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 60% 77% 60% 80%
Restaurant / Eating Establishment 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 30% 22% 20% 30%
Overnight Accommodation / Hotel 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%
Residential - Resident 90% 90% 100% 93% 90% 100%
Residential - Visitor 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 73% 20% 100%
Library
Entertainment
Theatre / Cinema 10% 10% 40% 20% 10% 40%
Assembly Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%
Banquet Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%
Commercial Fitness Centre
Industrial Use
Recreational Establishment
Bank / Financial 80% 80% 80% 80%
Institutional / Education 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% NOON
Business Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 20% 12% 10% 20%
Medical Office 100% 10% 10% 10% 10% 20% 27% 10% 100%
Retail 100% 100% 85% 85% 85% 90% 91% 85% 100%
Restaurant / Eating Establishment 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 97% 80% 100%
Overnight Accommodation / Hotel 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%
Residential - Resident 65% 65% 100% 77% 65% 100%
Residential - Visitor 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 73% 20% 100%
Library
Entertainment
Theatre / Cinema 50% 50% 70% 57% 50% 70%
Assembly Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%
Banquet Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%
Commercial Fitness Centre
Industrial Use
Recreational Establishment
Bank / Financial 100% 100% 100% 100%
Institutional / Education 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
LEGEND
Lower Percentage Results in lower parking requirements
Mid Range
Higher Percentage Results in higher parking requirements Other municipalities do not provide percentages for shared parking, No Difference / Comparison or there is no difference between municipalities.
c:\pwworking\pitt\d1837774\Appendix E _ Shared Parking Comparison.xlsx Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study Appendix E
SHARED PARKING - Percentage of Peak Parking Demand (Saturday) City of Vaughan City of Toronto City of Mississauga City of Brampton City of Vaughan City of Vaughan City of Newmarket City of Markham Town of Richmond Hill By-law 1-88 City of Ottawa General Land Use Groupings Zoning By-law 569- Zoning By-law 0225- Zoning By-law 270- By-law 1-88 Draft Review of AVERAGE MIN MAX By-law 2010-40 By-law 28-97 Parking Strategy Vaughan Metropolitan By-law 2008-250 2013 2007 2004 Corporate Centre Zone Parking Standards Centre Zone AFTERNOON
Business Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Medical Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Retail 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Restaurant / Eating Establishment 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Overnight Accommodation / Hotel 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%
Residential - Resident 90% 90% 100% 93% 90% 100%
Residential - Visitor 60% 60% 100% 100% 100% 100% 87% 60% 100%
Library
Entertainment
Theatre / Cinema 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
Assembly Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%
Banquet Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%
Commercial Fitness Centre
Industrial Use
Recreational Establishment
Bank / Financial 60% 60% 60% 60%
Institutional / Education 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% EVENING
Business Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 9% 5% 10%
Medical Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 9% 5% 10%
Retail 70% 70% 40% 40% 40% 50% 52% 40% 70%
Restaurant / Eating Establishment 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Overnight Accommodation / Hotel 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Residential - Resident 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Residential - Visitor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Library
Entertainment
Theatre / Cinema 80% 100% 100% 93% 80% 100%
Assembly Hall 100% 100% 100% 100%
Banquet Hall 100% 100% 100% 100%
Commercial Fitness Centre
Industrial Use
Recreational Establishment
Bank / Financial 10% 10% 10% 10%
Institutional / Education 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
LEGEND
Lower Percentage Results in lower parking requirements
Mid Range
Higher Percentage Results in higher parking requirements Other municipalities do not provide percentages for shared parking, No Difference / Comparison or there is no difference between municipalities.
c:\pwworking\pitt\d1837774\Appendix E _ Shared Parking Comparison.xlsx