TOWN OF WHITBY REPORT R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T - - PDF document

TOWN OF WHITBY REPORT

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N R E P O R T

REPORT TO: Planning and Development Committee REPORT NO: PL 81-09 DATE OF MEETING: September 8, 2009 FILE NO(S): Z-04-08 PREPARED BY: Planning/Public Works Joint Report LOCATION: Town of Whitby REPORT TITLE/SUBJECT: Parking Study to Review and Update Zoning Standards and Provisions Presentation of Consultant's Final Recommendations 1.0 RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Planning/Public Works Joint Report Item No. PL 81-09 summarizing the consultant's findings and final recommendations regarding the Parking Study be received for information; and, 2. That the consultant's final report be referred back to staff for a subsequent report to the Planning and Development Committee outlining recommendations for amendments to the Town’s Zoning By-laws. 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to allow the Parking Study consultant to present a summary of the final report and recommendations resulting from the study process. The consultant’s recommendations are outlined in the Executive Summary included in this report as Attachment #1. The areas addressed include the following:  Development of New Town-Wide Parking Standards  Accessible Parking Requirements  Commercial and Recreational Vehicle Parking in Residential Areas  Design Related Standards and Guidelines The results of the study will provide the information necessary to update the parking standards and provisions in the Town's Zoning By-laws.

Report to: Planning and Development Committee Report No.: PL 81-09 Page 2 of 10 3.0 ORIGIN: In December 2007, Council retained MMM Group Limited (MMM) to undertake a Parking Study and make recommendations to update the Town's Zoning By-law parking standards and provisions. The Project Manager for MMM is Ms. Geri Kozorys- Smith, a professional planner with 31 years experience in the planning and parking field. 4.0 BACKGROUND: The Study was administered through a Technical Steering Committee (TSC) made up

• f staff from various departments. The consultant's Work Plan involved the following

activities: Activity 1: Project Initiation Meeting (Meeting No. 1) Activity 2: Familiarization with Background Material Activity 3: Consultation (Round 1) Activity 4: Surveys of Other Municipalities Activity 5: Interim Findings/Steering Committee Meeting (Meeting No. 2) Activity 6: Analysis of Survey of Other Municipalities Activity 7: Resident Interviews Activity 8: Parking Utilization Surveys Activity 9: Parking Survey Summary Activity 10: Background Study Report Activity 11: Steering Committee Meeting (Meeting No. 3) Activity 12: Assessment of Parking Standards Activity 13: Options Report/Steering Committee Meeting (Meeting No. 4) Activity 14: Consultation (Round II) Activity 15: Draft Report Activity 16: Steering Committee Meeting (Meeting No. 5) Activity 17: Consideration of Input Received/Final Options Report Activity 18: Final Presentation This Work Plan provided a systematic methodology to ensure that the basic study components of Background and Analysis, Options and Alternatives and finally Recommendations were covered in the study process. Activities 1 through 18 will be complete upon the consultant's presentation of the study findings and final recommendations to the Planning and Development Committee. Due to the length of the Parking Study final report, it is not attached to this report, however the document may be reviewed in the Planning Department.

Report to: Planning and Development Committee Report No.: PL 81-09 Page 3 of 10 5.0 DISCUSSION/OPTIONS: The last comprehensive amendment related to parking standards and provisions in the Town’s Zoning By-laws was in 1981. Since then the Town has reviewed and implemented specific parking standards incrementally over the years to address issues and accommodate changing requirements. As a result, there are different definitions, standards and provisions related to parking for various land uses across the Town. The purpose of the Study was to examine the off-street parking standards for all land

• uses. The Study investigated specific issues like the parking of commercial and

recreational vehicles in residential areas. The Study also examined certain design standards such as parking space size, parking space size within private garages in low and medium density ground related dwellings, driveway and aisle widths, and the setback between a garage and the lot line. The objective is to implement a consistent and contemporary updated set of parking standards and provisions throughout the Town. 6.0 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS/PLAN: Notice of the subject meeting was advertised in the newspaper, posted on the Town's website and a direct mailing to interested parties and stakeholders was also undertaken. Public and stakeholder communication was an integral part of the Study process. The first round of public and stakeholder consultation (Activity 3) occurred on February 21, 2008 as part of the information gathering phase of the Study. The stakeholders’ group included representatives from School Boards, Whitby Chamber of Commerce, Accessibility Advisory Committee, BILD, Durham Region Homebuilders Association, active developers/builders (eg. Liza Homes, Sorbara/Tribute Holdings) and local recreational groups (eg. Whitby Iroquois Soccer). Attachment #2 to this report reflects the input received at the Stakeholders’ Meeting. Attachment #3 outlines the input received at the Public Meeting. The next round of public consultation (Activity 14) occurred on November 24, 2008. This involved an Open House and Public Meeting format with the consultant presenting a summary of the analysis to date and draft recommendations of the Study in order to receive Planning and Development Committee comment and further public input. Attachment #4 to this report outlines the consultant’s notes from the meeting. Attachment #5 is an extract related to the Parking Study from the minutes of the Planning and Development Committee for the November 24, 2008 meeting.

Report to: Planning and Development Committee Report No.: PL 81-09 Page 4 of 10 7.0 CONSIDERATIONS: A. PUBLIC Since the notice of the Open House and Public Meeting held on November 24, 2008, a number of written submissions from the public have been received. These submissions predominantly deal with the pros and cons of the parking of commercial and recreational vehicles in residential areas. A brief summary of the comments from the correspondence is outlined below. Attachment #6(a) – David Harries, 17 Wetherburn Drive  long time Town resident who moved to Williamsburg subdivision in the Rossland Road and Country Lane area in 2003; no initial parking issues  currently experiencing day and/or evening on-street parking due to residents’ lack of ability to park vehicles in private garages because garage is used for storage, tenant parking related to accessory apartments, lack of adequate driveway parking space  parking situation adversely influences streetscape appearance, and poses a potential safety issue  need consistent diligent tagging program Attachment #6(b) – Elizabeth Croft, 10 Fabrizio Court  complaint about a large boat parked next door and hopes the study will address this issue Attachment #6(c)(i) & (ii) – Terence Abreo, 112 Gartshore Drive  complaint about a 7.62m (25 ft) motor home parked on the curb at 110 Gartshore Drive every weekend in the summer  the truck/van parked in the driveway pose a safety issue  complaint about a pop-up trailer parked at 114 Gartshore Drive too close to property line; should be a minimum 2m setback to property line  pop-up trailers should not be allowed to be open for more than 1 day and only parked for 3 months in summer not 6 months 

• nly recreational vehicles that fit in a garage should be allowed to park on a

driveway  there should be a height limit on recreational vehicles similar to the height limit proposed for commercial vehicles  motor homes should not be allowed to park on a driveway since they are generally the same height as commercial vehicles that are proposed to be prohibited due to height  the size of these recreational vehicles adjacent to our property are a safety issue

Report to: Planning and Development Committee Report No.: PL 81-09 Page 5 of 10 Attachment #6(d) – Anne Beers, 6 Jubilee Court  supports permitting parking of commercial vehicles subject to equitable and fair provisions  enforcement should be consistent not just on a complaint basis  commercial vehicles that are the same size as personal passenger vehicles

• n adjacent properties should have the same right to park on the driveway

 the 2m setback restriction from the curb for commercial vehicles is inequitable when the same restriction does not apply to personal passenger vehicles  the lack of a recommended height restriction on recreational vehicles is inconsistent when compared to the height restriction proposed for commercial vehicles  there should be no height restriction on commercial vehicles or alternatively there should be a setback to the curb for recreational, commercial and passenger vehicles over a certain height limit in order to be equitable and address safety concerns 

• ur commercial trailer at 2.5m in height won’t be allowed yet recreational

vehicles (eg. motor homes and customized passenger vehicles (eg. trucks and vans) that are as high or higher will be permitted; this situation isn’t fair especially since these vehicles can cause the same safety/visibility concerns Attachment #6(e) –  wants restrictions on commercial vehicle parking in residential areas due to safety and visibility issues  noise and fumes from commercial vehicles are additional reasons for moving these types of vehicles from residential areas Attachment #6(f) – Tom Sullivan, 16 Robmar Street  complaint about commercial vehicle (Tree Care Ltd.) parking at 38 Robmar Street  noise, fumes and safety related matters  residential area should not be subjected to this type of commercial operation – especially if equipment isn’t owned by owners of the property  5th wheel large trailer is also parked on this adjacent property Attachment #6(g) – Nicole McKenzie, 66 Sandford Crescent  loopholes and inconsistencies need to be addressed concerning commercial vehicle parking in residential areas  definition of commercial vehicle related to “limited” advertising is problematic  targeted enforcement is unfair  proposed height limit of 2.2m for commercial vehicles is too low  garage sizes can barely accommodate passenger vehicles therefore proposing to require that one of the two permitted commercial vehicles be parked in the garage is likely not possible

A resident of Twin Streams Road

Report to: Planning and Development Committee Report No.: PL 81-09 Page 6 of 10  unfair to regulate the setback of commercial vehicles from the curb for safety reasons and not apply the same restriction to non-commercial vehicles of the same size Attachment #6(h) – Ron Martin, 22 Inglewood Place  complaint about the excessive parking situation at the group home at 23 Inglewood Place  consistently 4 or more vehicles parked at or on the street related to this property  the staffing demands at this facility cause it to operate more as an institution than as a residential property  constant on-street parking is dangerous around this property

• Mr. Martin’s correspondence was referred by Town Council to the Public Works

Department for report. This report will be to the Operations Committee. B. FINANCIAL N/A C. IMPACT ON & INPUT FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS/SOURCES Subsequent to the November 24, 2008 Open House and Public Meeting, correspondence was sent in January 2009 to the members of the Stakeholders Committee requesting any input to the consultant’s draft recommendations. A brief summary of the comments received is outlined below. Attachment #7(a)(i) & (ii) – Durham District School Board  suggests that if the parking standard is based on the number of students, the basis should be changed from “planned maximum sustained enrolment” to “permanent school capacity”  18 (72%) of the 25 elementary schools existing or currently under construction did not meet the proposed standard; the shortfall ranges from 8 to 38 parking spaces 

• nly 1 of the 4 secondary schools did not meet the proposed standard

 satisfying the proposed standards on existing sites would be a financial burden, could eliminate other capital projects and would reduce available play space  if the proposed standards are approved, future school sites will have to be larger  any increased parking standard may influence the Education Development Charge

Report to: Planning and Development Committee Report No.: PL 81-09 Page 7 of 10  examples of the implications of the proposed standards on existing schools: School Existing Parking Spaces Proposed Parking Spaces Difference Bellwood 48 58 10

• Col. J.E. Farewell

53 82 29 Glen Dhu 76 90 14 Attachment #7(b) – Durham Catholic District School Board  the draft recommended parking standards are excessive  6 (60%) of the 10 existing elementary schools did not meet the proposed parking standard; the shortfall ranges from 10 to 37 parking spaces  1 of the 2 secondary schools did not meet the proposed standard  issues with the new standard include loss of play space, need for increased school site size, potential for increased traffic congestion, increased capital cost  DCDSB regularly exceeds the current 1.5 spaces per classroom for elementary schools  the reduction of the fifth year at the secondary school level has decreased parking demand Attachment #7(c) – Accessibility Advisory Committee  the Committee supports the proposed standards  greater attention must be paid during site planning to situate accessible parking spaces to minimize travel distance and traffic flow crossing Attachment 7(d) – Building Industry and Land Development Corporation (BILD)  increasing parking standards runs contrary to Provincial initiatives for higher density development and less dependence on the automobile  the parking standard for apartment buildings should be reduced from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1.25 spaces per unit  support the recommended parking space size of 2.7m by 5.8m  proposed parking space width within a private garage of 2.9m – 3.0m is satisfactory  proposed parking space depth within a private garage of 6.5m is excessive and will influence house design; parking space depth should not exceed 6.0m  proposed parking space width for a double car garage of 5.6m is excessive and will have major implications on floor plan design; suggest a standard of 5.17m  proposed increase in the setback from the garage to the street line from 5.5m to 6.0m will not provide any real improvements to existing parking issues; the

Report to: Planning and Development Committee Report No.: PL 81-09 Page 8 of 10 increase will not allow for tandem parking on the side of the street with a sidewalk and decreases flexibility in house design options  with increasing density the Town will have to consider on-street permit parking in certain circumstances in the future D. CORPORATE AND/OR DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Strive for balanced, attractive and environmentally responsible development. 8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Council authorized undertaking a Parking Study with the objective of making recommendations to update the Town’s Zoning By-law parking standards and

• provisions. The consultant has completed a final report with recommendations.

The next steps to achieving the objective of amending the parking standards and provisions of the Town’s Zoning By-law include the following:  Planning and Development Committee meeting to consider a staff report outlining, in more detail, the amendments recommended to the Town’s Zoning By-laws. This report would request authorization to proceed to a statutory Public Meeting. Tentative schedule is October 19, 2009  Planning and Development Committee hosting the statutory Public Meeting to enable the public and interested stakeholders to comment on the recommendations to amend the parking standards and provision of the Zoning By-

• laws. This report will be a recommendation report. Tentative schedule is

November 30, 2009  Town Council meeting to adopt Zoning By-law amendments. Tentative schedule is December 14, 2009 9.0 ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1: Consultant's Executive Summary Including Final Recommendations Attachment #2: Consultant’s Notes from Stakeholders Meeting on February 21, 2008 Attachment #3: Consultant’s Notes from Public Meeting on February 21, 2008 Attachment #4: Consultant’s Notes from Public Meeting on November 24, 2008

Report to: Planning and Development Committee Report No.: PL 81-09 Page 9 of 10 Attachment #5: Planning & Development Committee Minutes from Public Meeting on November 24, 2008 Attachment #6(a): Correspondence from David Harries, 17 Wetherburn Drive Attachment #6(b): Correspondence from Elizabeth Croft, 10 Fabrizio Court Attachment #6(c)(i) & (ii): Correspondence from Terence Abreo, 112 Gartshore Drive Attachment #6(d): Correspondence from Anne Beers, 6 Jubilee Court Attachment #6(e): Correspondence from Attachment #6(f): Correspondence from Tom Sullivan, 16 Robmar Street Attachment #6(g): Correspondence from Nicole McKenzie, 66 Sandford Crescent Attachment #6(h): Correspondence from Ron Martin, 22 Inglewood Place Attachment #7(a)(i) & (ii): Correspondence from Durham District School Board Attachment #7(b): Correspondence from Durham Catholic District School Board Attachment #7(c): Correspondence from Accessibility Advisory Committee Attachment #7(d): Correspondence from BILD

A resident of Twin Streams Road

Report to: Planning and Development Committee Report No.: PL 81-09 Page 10 of 10 For further information contact: Bruce Hunt, Ext. 2271 ___________________________________________ Robert B. Short, Director of Planning, Ext. 4309 ___________________________________________ Suzanne Beale, Director of Public Works, Ext. 4311 ___________________________________________ Robert Petrie, Chief Administrative Officer, Ext. 2211

A resident of Twin Streams Road A resident of Twin Streams Road