Town of Ajax Residential Parking Review · concepts of compact urban form and ensures that ... philosophy contributes to a pedestrian-friendly community ... Town of Ajax Residential

Town of Ajax

Residential Parking Review

June 2006

Ajax Planning & Development Services

Table of Contents

1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.1 Purpose and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2. POLICY AND REGULATORY CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.1 Official Plan Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2 Zoning By-law 95-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.2.1 Other Zoning By-laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.3 Town of Ajax Traffic By-law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.4 On-Street Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4.1 Comments Received to On-Street Permit Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.4.2 Staff Response to On-Street Permit Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.5 Current Engineering Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3. CURRENT SITUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.1 Factors Affecting Residential Parking Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2 Demographics and Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.3 Minor Variance Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173.4 By-law Complaints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4. RECOMMENDED APPROACHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.1 Overall Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.2 Public Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.3 Transportation Advisory Committee Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.4 Development Community Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.5 Town’s Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5. TRANSITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

ATTACHMENT 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

ATTACHMENT 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

ATTACHMENT 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

APPENDIX 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

APPENDIX 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Town of Ajax Residential Parking Review

Page 4 of 26

1. BACKGROUND

This report provides suggestions designed to reconcile someof the competing demands that have been placed uponresidential front yards and private garages in recent years. Inparticular, the Town is currently reviewing the manner bywhich residential parking is being provided for within its newand already well-established communities. Town staff haveheard on many occasions, either within the context of publicinput on new development applications, or through publiccommentary on road improvements, that the public perceivesa lack of residential parking within their community.

On September 27, 2004, Ajax Council passed a resolutiondirecting staff to review the Town’s minimum lot frontage andparking requirements for freehold dwelling units.

The residential parking issues extend beyond one of simply lotfrontage for freehold dwellings, but rather speaks to a broaderissue of other zoning standards, on-street visitor parking, widthof road allowances and the ability to accommodate parkingand the storage needs of homeowners.

The urban design approach for all new developments withinthe Town of Ajax places a great degree of value on therelationship between the building and the street. In order toensure that our streets are pedestrian oriented public spaces,neighbouring buildings are encouraged to approach the street. Porches, windows, pedestrian entries, and a high degree ofarticulation are provided in order to ensure that the pedestrianexperience is a positive one. This approach is one that hasbeen implemented in all of our new residential developments

and with a great degree of success. By taking this approach,the traditional dominant role of the automobile in terms of itsspatial needs in new developments has been challenged. Onmany fronts, the Town’s approach has been to limit the visualdominance of garage doors and paved surfaces on privateresidential lots, while accentuating the “residential” aspect,including ensuring that livable areas are provided next topublic spaces, and providing for eyes on the street throughbetter public surveillance.

Within this context, there are the traditional demands of themotoring (commuting) public within Ajax. This reporthighlights the fact that the accommodation of vehicles is landintensive, and becomes magnified on lots when areas andfrontages are reduced. It is further magnified as house sizesincrease.

The contemporary design for subdivisions with reducedfrontages and rights-of-way, continued growth in the number ofdrivers per household and the subletting of portions of singleresidential dwellings have further contributed to residentialparking conflicts and perceived shortfalls.

This report suggests a balance between the public’sreasonable expectation to park conveniently in proximity totheir home and an equally reasonable expectation to have asuitably landscaped and well designed neighbourhood.

An information report was approved by General GovernmentCommittee on November 24, 2005, and was circulated to thedevelopment community, the Urban Development Institute -Durham Chapter, the Greater Toronto Home Builders


Page 5 of 26

Association, the Town of Ajax Transportation AdvisoryCommittee. The report was also posted on the Town’swebsite for public review and comment.

A public open house was held on January 18, 2006 and aseparate meeting was held with the development communityon February 7, 2006. A variety of forums was used toadvertise the public consultation including the Ajax NewsAdvertiser and the Town’s website. The deadline to submitcomments was on January 31, 2006 but the deadline wasextended to the beginning of March, 2006.

Staff have reviewed the comments from the developers andtheir responses are included as an attachment. The reportidentifies the issue, a suggested approach, the commentsreceived and then provides a staff recommendation.


Page 6 of 26

1.1 Purpose and Issues

The purpose of this report is to provide recommendations thatwill improve the supply of both on-street and off-street parkingwithout unduly compromising residential streetscapes orurban design objectives. The report includes the developer’scomments to the suggested approaches and staff’s responseto the developer’s comments and final recommendations.

As part of this report, the following issues are discussed:

1. The Town’s zoning by-law does not require parking oncertain driveways to accommodate at least twovehicles. For example:

a) A driveway in the R1-E and R1-F zones (i.e.10.4 metre and 9.0 metre lots) are permitted tohave a driveway to a maximum width of 5.0metre. However, a lot with a 9.0 metre frontagein the R2-A zone only permits a 3.0 metredriveway.

b) The maximum driveway width for streettownhouses is 3.0 metres. Little or no potentialexists to widen the driveway to create anadditional parking space without obliterating thelandscaped front yard.

c) Not all residential lots can physicallyaccommodate a driveway width of 5.0 metres toaccommodate two vehicles parked side-by-side.

2. When curb cuts are performed in order to widen adriveway, it can have the effect of potentiallyeliminating the related on-street parking space in frontof the house.

3. Often, garages are only of a size that canaccommodate a small vehicle. However, in manycases it is not possible to park a large vehicle and usethe garage for needed storage.

4. Due to the existence of smaller lots and widerdriveways, the supply of on-street parking can bereduced. This is particularly true when driveways arenot paired for smaller lots.

5. A poor streetscape results when the majority or theentire front yard is parked upon.

6. The Town’s experience with rear lanes has been basedon an inadequate separation distance between thegarage door and the travelled portion of the lane. Anappropriate setback from the garage to the rear lanewould improve the ability to accommodate snowstorage and would provide better sight lines fromparked vehicles wishing to leave the garage.


Page 7 of 26

2. POLICY AND REGULATORY CONTEXT

2.1 Official Plan Context

The Ajax Official Plan is based on several fundamentalprinciples to help direct growth and development as well asmanage change. The Town recognizes its growth potentialand the importance of efficiently using land and infrastructurewithin the Urban Area Boundary. The Town promotes theconcepts of compact urban form and ensures that residentialareas are balanced, attractive, accessible and safe.

Ajax has adopted development standards which attempt tomake the most efficient use of land, where road allowancesare reduced and houses are located closer to the street. Thisphilosophy contributes to a pedestrian-friendly community andan inviting streetscape, thereby reducing the visibility of thegarage and the vehicle. The philosophy is also based on anunderstanding that the design of new neighbourhoods shouldnot be dominated by private garages, but rather a balanceshould be struck between the residential “eyes on the street”and the practical parking and storage needs of homeowners.

In doing so, choices have been made for planning forpedestrian-oriented communities by building houses closer tothe street and reducing right-of-way widths.

Ajax may be considered by some as a “bedroom community”with many of its residents having at least two vehicles perhousehold and driving to work outside of Ajax. It is anticipatedthat this driving habit will change as the Town’s employmentlands become fully developed. However, it is likely that there

will still be a preponderance of residents travelling outside ofthe community to their workplace.

Town residents are very much dependent on the vehicle astheir primary form of transportation. They require parkingspaces to accommodate their vehicles yet at the same timerequire space within the garage for storage purposes.

2.2 Zoning By-law 95-2003

The current standards for residential development within theTown of Ajax Zoning By-law 95-2003 are premised on aresidential model of a dwelling unit attached to a garage, whichare accessed by a private driveway in the front yard leading tothe street. This by and large represents the model for newresidential dwellings in Town, be it single-detached, semi-detached or townhouse dwellings.

When the consolidated Zoning By-law 95-2003 was approvedon July 14, 2003, the minimum number of parking spacesrequired for single-detached, semi-detached and streettownhouses remained the same as the Town’s previous parentzoning by-laws at two spaces per unit (one parking space inthe garage and one parking space on the driveway). For anaccessory apartment, a minimum of one parking space isrequired in addition to the requirements of the dwelling unit.

In addition, standards are in place for minimum side yards,maximum front yard building setbacks and maximum drivewaywidths, which vary by zone category.


Page 8 of 26

The Town’s former Zoning By-law (35-77) established aminimum front yard landscaping requirement of 35% and thatsuch landscaping could not include driveways or parkingspaces. This requirement was in the new By-law due toproblems with enforceability. Consequently, new standardsreplaced this provision that now regulate driveway and garagewidths. The intent behind the new standard is to ensure that acertain amount of the front yard is landscaped, that front yardsof residential properties are not dominated with parking andthat the standards are clear and easy to understand.

Appendix 1 summarizes the current zone standards in ZoningBy-law 95-2003 that are applicable to Residential zones.

A maximum width for driveways was placed in the zoningstandards as a way to ensure that front yards would not bedominated by driveways with parked vehicles. In all theapplicable residential zones with private driveways, themaximum width of the driveway is not more than 60% of the lotfrontage.

A maximum garage width was also placed in the zoningstandards to ensure that garages are no more than 50% of thelot frontage and to ensure that garages would not dominate thestreetscape.

An amendment was passed to the By-law in June 2004 suchthat the maximum width of a driveway shall not exceed theexterior dimensions of the private garage. This amendmentwas brought forward in recognition that when driveways arepaved, they are normally done so to the exterior limits of thegarage, and not the interior limits, which would have otherwise

been required in the previous by-law provision. This actionmarginally increased the amount of permitted pavement in thefront yard.

Currently, there are provisions in the R1-E and R1-F zones,where, on 10.4 and 9.0 metre lots respectively, the drivewaycan be widened to a maximum 5.0 metres. However, adriveway in a R2-A zone (9.0 metre frontage) is not permittedto be widened to 5.0 metres even though the setbacks aresimilar to a R1-F zone.

The Zoning by-law does not have any provisions for storagespace; however, the definition of “private garage” includes aprovision that includes the storage of household wares ormaterials incidental to the residential occupancy and which isfully enclosed and roofed. However, in practical terms, thesetwo uses for the garage compete.

2.2.1 Other Zoning By-laws

A review of 14 other area municipalities was conducted toexamine their residential parking standards.

In general, the parking standards in other municipalities aresimilar to Ajax, where two parking spaces per unit arerequired. However, Aurora and Clarington require a minimumof two parking spaces on the driveway. The garage is notconsidered a parking space in recognition that residents oftenuse their garage as storage. In Vaughan, a minimum of threeparking spaces is required, often two parking spaces on thedriveway and one in the garage.


Page 9 of 26

Many municipalities have landscaping requirements such thata minimum of 50% of the front yard is to be landscaped openspace. Parking of a vehicle is not permitted on landscapedopen space.

The Town of Markham is currently conducting a study toidentify a strategy to manage their residential front yardparking issues. They are encountering concerns about thewidths of driveways on residential lots and the impacts of frontyard parking on the character of a dwelling and on theneighbourhood. Markham brought forward a report to theirCouncil in late August 2005 for discussion and will be bringingforward a final report in early 2006. Markham’s preliminaryrecommendations include the following:

I) Refinements to by-law provisions

Markham staff have concluded that regulating driveway widthis to link it to the garage door opening. Their findings includethat two vehicles can park beside each other on a 3.94 metrewide driveway if the vehicles face in opposite direction and thepassenger doors are next to each other.

ii) Enforcement

With the refined zoning provisions, Markham’s EnforcementDivision will be able to expand their enforcement program andtake a proactive approach. They are recommending a twomonth period for public awareness/education campaign aboutthe concerns of widened driveways.

iii) Expansion of the on-street overnight parking program

Markham currently has overnight permit parking on certainstreets in Cornell, Thornhill and Angus Glen. Staff areconsidering expanding the program in other neighbourhoodsto alleviate some of the parking concerns.


Page 10 of 26

2.3 Town of Ajax Traffic By-law

The Town of Ajax Traffic By-law (5-2004) regulates vehiculartraffic on highways, private and municipal property, andprohibits the injuring or fouling of highways and bridges, andthe obstruction of ditches and culverts. Section 9 (ParkingOffences) indicates the following:

9.1 No Person shall on any Highway Park any Vehicle:

(a) in front of or within 1 metre of a driveway orprivate roadway or so as to obstruct vehicles inthe use of a driveway or private roadway;

(I) for a period in excess of 3 hours unlessotherwise indicated by Official Signs;

(j) on or over any Boulevard; and

(k) between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.

Parking on or over any boulevard is contrary to Zoning By-law95-2003 wherein Section 5.4 ii) states that “where the garageis permitted to be located closer than 6.0 metres to a lot line,required parking spaces may include part of the public streetor road to a maximum distance of 3.0 metres but shall notinclude any part of the sidewalk or travelled section of thepublic street or road.


Page 11 of 26

2.4 On-Street Parking

As noted above, on-street parking is limited to 3 hours unlessotherwise posted. Parking is prohibited on residential streetsovernight between 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.

In Ajax, the current purpose for on-street parking is to providea parking space for visitors which is not to be used on apermanent basis. Although residential draft plans ofsubdivision are required to illustrate the on-street parkinglayout, there is no requirement as to the number of on-streetparking spaces that are to be provided. Further, the Towndoes not have a system where residents can apply for a permitto park their vehicle on a street overnight. On-street parkinghas not been selected in Ajax for the following reasons:

I) By-law Services does not have the resources or staff toenforce a permit system;

ii) When vehicles are parked on the street, it is moredifficult for snow plows to manoeuver around vehiclesto clear snow; and

iii) It is more difficult for emergency vehicles to drive on alocal street when there are vehicles parked on bothsides of the road.

However, there are some municipalities that offer a permitsystem to allow for vehicles to be parked on the streetovernight. For example, residents in Clarington can apply fora permit to park on the street overnight except during thewinter months. Permit parking is permitted on all municipal

streets (unless otherwise posted), which according toClarington staff is working well. The cost of the permit is$11.50 per week or $40.25 per month.

Markham allows for permit parking in Cornell, Thornhill andAngus Glen. Cornell consists of a mix of large and small lotsingle-detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings andtownhouses, all serviced by rear lanes. Parking is onlypermitted on one side of the street. The cost of the permit isas follows: $20/month for the 1 permit, $35/month for the 2st nd

permit and $50/month for the 3 .rd

The permit system is in place in part of Thornhill where there isan apartment building across the street from single-detacheddwellings. The permit system was implemented to control theoverflow of parking on the street from the apartment building. The cost of the permit is $70/month for vehicles registered tothe apartment building and $50/month for vehicles registeredto the single-detached dwellings.

Angus Glen has a pilot program for the permit system untilMay 2006. Similar to Cornell, parking is permitted on one sideof the street only. The pilot program is taking place in areaswhere there are townhouses with rear lanes. The cost of thepermit is tied to the number of vehicles registered to thehouse:

- 1 permit: no charge if there is one extra vehiclest

registered to your house than permitted parking spaces(e.g. 3 vehicles are registered to your house but thereare only 2 parking spaces on the lot, then the 3rd

vehicle can obtain a permit with no charge);


Page 12 of 26

- 2 permit: $20/month; and,nd

- 3 permit: $50/month. rd

However, there is separate cost if a resident wants to park onthe street. For example, if the driveway can onlyaccommodate one vehicle and the garage is used for storagepurposes. The cost of the permit is $35/month for the 1st

permit and $50/month for the 2 permit.nd

2.4.1 Comments Received to On-Street Permit Parking

The development community suggests that the Town institutean on-street permit parking program as an immediate way toresolve some of the parking issues. On-street permit parkingwas a suggested recommendation by the developers as aconsideration to resolve some of the parking issues. On-streetpermit parking would deal with the current parking issuestoday, whereas the suggested approaches in the report wouldresolve future parking issues. In general, in othermunicipalities, overnight parking is permitted on one side ofthe street and during the winter months, the parking on oneside of the street would alternate to allow for snow clearing. They suggest providing permit parking on one side of thestreet within a prescribed period of time and alternate thesides where vehicles can be parked. They also suggest thatthe Town could charge a fee for the permit and the revenuefrom the permits would help offset the cost of administeringthe program.

2.4.2 Staff Response to On-Street Permit Parking

Staff do not have a unified position on this issue. Althoughpermit parking would resolve a number of issues regardingparking supply, there are difficulties that would be encounteredat the operational level, as follows:

- currently, there are insufficient staff resources toimplement and enforce the program;

- operational difficulties pertaining to snow clearing couldbe encountered; and

- the current fleet of five vehicles may not negotiate turnsin a number of subdivisions if on-street parking isprovided.

There are other non-operational concerns with on-streetparking as follows:

- during the winter months, snowbanks may encroachonto the travelled portion of the roadway;

- complaints from neighbours regarding safety andaesthetics;

- the potential of visibility problems existing from theirdriveways; and

- obstruction of access to residential driveways.

However, the suggestion that a test pilot project for on-streetpermit parking in a specific neighbourhood does have meritfrom a planning perspective. The Town of Markham initiated apilot project in three of their neighbourhoods and hassuccessfully provided overnight parking solutions for residentsin those areas. Markham will be expanding and enhancing the


Page 13 of 26

Town’s on-street permit parking program. As part of theirstrategy for on-street permit parking, they are proposing toretain an external consultant with expertise and knowledge inpermit parking to work with staff to develop and prepare anoperating procedure and policies for on-street permit parkingto be applied on a Town-wide basis.

Staff suggests that a further study take place to determinewhether on-street permit parking should be pursued. Suchfurther study would need to take into account the followingrecommendations:

- whether a pilot project warrants consideration;- potential candidate areas for such a project;- financial, administrative and staffing implications for

such a project;- the community’s desire to institute such a program;

and- service-level implications.

The study should also discuss the evaluation of streets todetermine which streets would be feasible for on-street permitparking, whether on-street parking should be on one-side ofthe street or on both sides, the space between driveways,proximity to intersections, traffic volumes, and potential sightline obstructions.


Page 14 of 26

2.5 Current Engineering Standards

The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) produced amanual called the “Geometric Design Guide for CanadianRoads” which is used as a guide when reviewing draft plans ofsubdivision, since there are no standard requirements for on -street residential parking.

The Town also has its own standards which are applied todraft plans of subdivision. The following provides a sample ofthese items.

I) For local streets, the pavement width is generally 8.5metres.

ii) Although there are no minimum requirements for on-street parking staff attempt to maximize the number ofon-street parking spaces based on the lot type.

iii) Staff will ensure that residents can turn into and out oftheir driveway safely with vehicles parked on the street,whether a vehicle is parked on one side of the street oron both.

iv) The review of street fixtures such as a fire hydrantswithin a road allowance affects the location andavailability of on-street parking opportunities.


Page 15 of 26

3. CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Factors Affecting Residential Parking Supply

A number of factors can affect the supply of residential parkingwithin any given community in Ajax which include thefollowing:

I) the amount of parking that is available in the garage, isaffected by virtue its width, its length, or the amount ofspace that is being consumed by storage;

ii) the amount of parking that is available on the drivewayis affected by its width or its length;

iii) the amount of parking that is available on the street forvisitors, is affected by the number and width ofdriveways that intersect the street, the location of firehydrants, traffic control devices and traffic calmingmeasures;

iv) the occupancy of the dwelling, either by virtue of thenumber of drivers in the household or the existence ofa basement apartment, can affect the number ofvehicles on a lot;

v) the amount of on-street parking available may bereduced at certain times of the year in order to accountfor snow clearing. The number of visitors parking onthe street can also increase during holiday season;

vi) the occupancy of recreational vehicles (such assnowmobiles, boats, campers, etc.) can affectremaining on-site parking spaces; and

vii) the expectations of new home purchasers are tomaximize the amount of house available, but they arebeing built on smaller lots with smaller garages.


Page 16 of 26

3.2 Demographics and Growth

According to Statistics Canada, in 2001 the Town had anestimated population of 73,753 with 23,200 households. Since2001, the Town has issued approximately 5,148 (as of the endof September 2005) building permits which would equate toapproximately 15,000 additional persons. This additionalpopulation growth has taken place almost entirely within newlydeveloping areas of Ajax.

The following summarizes Ajax’s demographics and trends asit relates to residential parking.

I) The Town primarily consists of couples with youngchildren. Approximately 40% of the population is in the30-40 year age range. The second most dominant agegroup are children ranging in age between newborns to15.

ii) The majority of households (78%) live either in asingle-detached or semi-detached dwelling, 14% live inan apartment, and 8% live in a townhouse.

iii) Approximately 74% of all households have at least twomembers or more in the household that possess adriver’s license. Twenty-three percent have onemember and 3% have no members in the householdthat possess a driver’s license. These statisticscorrelate with the findings that 14% of all householdshave more than 2 vehicles, 49% have 2 vehicles, 33%have 1 vehicle and 4% have no vehicle.

iv) By the time teenagers in Ajax reach the age between16 and 18, more than half of them (55%) possess adriver’s licence. The number of young adults in Ajaxwho are between the ages of 19 and 24 that possess adriver’s licence increases to 83%. Approximately 90%of Ajax residents 25 years and older possess a driver’slicense.

v) The primary mode of transportation for Ajax residentsis the vehicle. Over 85% of the trips are made by thevehicle, while 8% are by transit (either local transit orGO rail), and 6% walk.

vi) There are more residents in Ajax who work in Toronto(43%) than Ajax residents who work in the DurhamRegion (40%). About 8% of Ajax residents work inYork Region. Of the Ajax residents who are employed,79% of Ajax residents have free parking at theworkplace.

The foregoing data reveal that Ajax is a municipality that iscurrently dominated by single-detached and semi-detacheddwellings with young families and two vehicles per household.This is a demographic reality which needs to be accounted forin terms of parking requirements.


Page 17 of 26

3.3 Minor Variance Applications

During the past five years, there were approximately 320minor variance applications submitted to the Town of which107 were related to residential parking.

In 2004, there were 98 minor variance applications, of which62 of the applications were related to residential parking. Ofthe foregoing 62 applications, only four applications weredenied by the Committee of Adjustment.

That year there were approximately 50 requests for curb cutsas well. From the foregoing, staff have witnessed additionaltime being dedicated to the review of driveway widenings.

Of the foregoing 107 minor variance applications that weresubmitted in the last five years, 16 were related to drivewaywidenings, 26 were related to front yard setbacks and 65 wererelated to garages.

Of the 16 minor variances related to driveway widenings, morethan half were in the R2-A zone, scattered throughout theTown (see Attachment 1).

Of the 26 minor variances related to front yard setbacks asshown in Attachment 2, they occurred in various zonesincluding R1-B, R1-D, R1-E and R3 in various areasthroughout the Town. The other two-thirds of the minor variances requested eitheran increase or reduction to the front yard setback for reasonsincluding the addition of a porch.

The majority of minor variances related to garages occurred inthe R1-E zone as shown in Attachment 3. These variancesoccurred in two particular subdivisions: Nottingham(Williamson Drive and Westney Road North) and Castlefields(Rossland Road East, east of Audley Road North). In theseinstances, a zoning by-law amendment was approved to allow11.3 m lot frontages in the R1-E zone, but the R1-E zone onlypermitted a single car garage. The developer applied for aminor variance to permit a double car garage where a singlecar garage should otherwise have been permitted.

3.4 By-law Complaints

According to By-law Services, there were 646 parkingcomplaints received in 2004 and 640 complaints received asof the end of October 2005.

Although a breakdown of the type of parking complaint is notprovided, many are in relation to residential parking in newlydeveloping areas.


Page 18 of 26

4. RECOMMENDED APPROACHES

Staff have recommended the following approaches to addressthe issues related to residential parking. Each issue wasidentified followed by a suggested approach and rationale forthe approach. Following each suggested approach is thecomments received on the suggested approach and staff’sresponse and final recommendation.

4.1 Overall Approach

At issue is the notion that there is insufficient parking space onthe driveway to accommodate at least two vehicles.

The parking standard requirement of a minimum of 2 off-streetparking spaces per detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, linkedvilla dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, street townhousedwelling, and triplex shall be maintained. This allows for 1vehicle to be parked in the garage and 1 vehicle on thedriveway. Although the lot is designed to accommodate 2vehicles, staff have identified the following issues:

I) Currently a driveway in the R2-A zone is not permittedto widen to 5.0 metre even though it has the samefrontage as the R1-F zone;

ii) Residents find it inconvenient to move vehicles if theyare parked in tandem either in the case of 1 vehicle inthe garage and 1 vehicle on the driveway or 2 vehiclesparked in tandem on the driveway;

iii) The garage is used for storage space, thus eliminatinga potential parking space;

iv) At least half of Ajax residents have at least 2 or morevehicles per household; and

v) Staff are sensitive to the notion that in general, notmore than 50% of the front of the lot should beoccupied by parking in order to maintain as muchlandscaped open space as possible. Site specificevaluations can still occur through the minor varianceprocess.

4.2 Public Response

Although staff have reviewed complaints onsite-specificmatters, there has been very little response from the public interms of this study. One member of the public attended thePublic Open House and submitted a written response asfollows:

- garages are not large enough to fit an average sizedvehicle;

- garages being used for storage rather than a parkingspace;

- narrow streets make it difficult for emergency vehiclesto go through when there are vehicles parked on bothsides of the street (for example, Nottinghamcommunity); and

- lack of on-street parking, partly as a result of legal orillegal curb cuts.


Page 19 of 26

4.3 Transportation Advisory Committee Response

The Residential Parking Review was discussed at theTransportation Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting in March2006. Overall, TAC supported the initiative and agreed that itrepresents an important issue. In general, TAC had thefollowing comments:

- parking in the front yard appears to be dominating thestreetscape;

- too many townhouses being built on small lots withinsufficient parking;

- people should not be able to park vehicles on bothsides of the street because it interferes with emergencyvehicles; and

- the rear yards are not large enough for a shed andspace for the children to play in.

4.4 Development Community Response

Developers along with their architects attended the publicopen house and a separate developers’ meeting on February7, 2006. One additional developer attended the developers’meeting. Four written responses were received from thedevelopment community.

Overall, the development community appears to recognize theresidential parking issues in Ajax and note that othermunicipalities are encountering similar issues. They areconcerned about the potential implications that the study couldhave on the contemporary design of subdivisions, includingproduct design, lot size, density, and affordability.

One of their main concerns is with regard to minimum garagesizes. In particular, the minimum garage length of 6.5 metresand the minimum area of 23 square metres. The concern isthat the increase in the garage size will compromise theinterior layout and function of the space.

The developers were also concerned with the suggestedminimum setback of 10.0 metres from the Front Lot Line to thegarage to accommodate two vehicles parked in tandem. Theynoted that not only will this have an impact on the streetscapebut the interior space in the dwelling unit.

As noted earlier, the development community suggests thatthe Town consider on-street permit parking to alleviate someof its parking issues. They note that on-street permit parkinghas been implemented in several other municipalities andappears to be working well, and would generate revenue forthe Town and would also address the current parking issues.

Further, the development community had great concern withthe transition between the old and new regulations and howthe final recommendations would affect their developments. Itwas strongly stated that the new requirements or amendmentsshould not apply to draft approved or registered plans ofsubdivision. Draft approved units are sold to home buyersbased on the existing setbacks and approved model designs. If the draft approved units are to be modified to conform withany proposed amendments, there could be severeconsequences for the builders and developers, and may resultin loss of units that have already been sold.


Page 20 of 26

4.5 Town’s Response

The Town has provided ample opportunity for the public andthe development community to comment on the suggestedapproaches in the Residential Parking Review. Staffappreciates the comments received from the public, TAC andthe development community, and has taken the comments intoconsideration when preparing the final recommendations. This report is intended to account for the development realitiescurrently underway in Ajax. After reviewing the suggestedapproaches and comments, some of the suggestedapproaches were agreed upon , some were modified and onewas removed.

The following section identifies the issue, the originalsuggested approach, comments in response to the suggestedapproach, and staff’s response.


Page 21 of 26

Issue 1.a): Driveway Widths in the R2-A Zone

In Zoning By-law 95-2003, a driveway in the R1-E and R1-Fzones are permitted to a maximum width of 5.0 metres. This5.0 metre maximum is not permitted in the R2-A zone.

Suggested Approach:

It is suggested that a driveway widening be permitted to amaximum of 5.0 metres for 9.0 metre and 10.4 metre lotfrontages.

Rationale:

For lots in the R1-E, R1-F and R2-A zones, driveways can bewidened from 3.0 metres to 5.0 metres to accommodate 2vehicles on a driveway and 1 in the garage. Driveways in aR1-E, R1-F and R2-A are the only zones where the maximumdriveway width exceeds the width of the maximum garagewidth. In the other zones, the maximum driveway width is thesame as the maximum garage width.

Comments Received:

There were no comments in regards to this suggestedapproach.

Staff Commentary / Recommendation:

It is staff’s recommendation that Zoning By-law 95-2003 beamended to permit 9.0 metre and 10.4 metre lot frontages to

widen the driveway to a maximum of 5.0 metres toaccommodate two vehicles to be parked side-by-side.

Staff Recommendation:

Figure 1: Two vehicles parked side-by-side on a 5.0

metre driveway.


Page 22 of 26

Issue 1.b): Street Townhouses

For street townhouse lots, the maximum driveway width is 3.0metres. There is no potential to widen the driveway to createan additional parking space, since space is required on thelots for street lighting, hydrants, street trees, and landscaping.

Suggested Approach:

It was initially suggested that two vehicles could be parked intandem for street townhouses.

In order to accomplish this, one suggestion was that fordwellings in a R2-A and R3 zone, the Minimum Setback fromFront Lot Line to the garage could be amended to 10.0 metrein order to allow 2 vehicles to be parked in tandem. It wassuggested that this not apply to street townhouses with rearlanes or street townhouses with a lot frontage of 9.0 metres. Street townhouses with a lot frontage of 9.0 metres permit thedriveway widening to a maximum of 5.0 metres.

Rationale:

For new and existing street townhouses in a R2-A and R3zone with 6.0 metre lot frontages, the maximum drivewaywidth would remain at 3.0 metres. Street townhouse lots withfrontages of 6.0 metres would require 2 vehicles to be parkedin tandem on either the side with a sidewalk or without asidewalk. To accommodate 2 vehicles parked in tandem, thedriveway length would have to be at least 10.0 metres.

Comments Received:

There were concerns with the minimum setback of 10.0metres from the Front Lot Line to the garage for dwellings in aR2-A and R3 zone. The 10.0 metre setback from the Front LotLine to the garage is attainable on the side of the street wherethere is no sidewalk. The development community hasindicated that under Section 5.4 of Zoning By-law 95-2003, a

Current Situation

Figure 2: Street townhouses on Dooley Crescent

where the vehicles are parked over the sidewalk or

overhanging on the street.


Page 23 of 26

required parking space may include part of the TownBoulevard to a maximum of 3.0 metres as long as it does notinclude the sidewalk or the travelled section of the publicstreet. Thus, the setback of 10.0 metres would include 7.0metres of the owner’s property and 3.0 metres of the TownBoulevard.

The development community notes that the 10.0 metresetback on the side of the street where there is a sidewalkwould have an impact on the footprint of the dwelling. Thissetback would create garages that would be recessed from thefront doors.

They suggested relocating the sidewalk adjacent to the curballowing the proposed 10.0 metre setback be reduced to 6.5metres.

Another suggestion that has been offered is to increase the lotdepth from 30 metres to approximately 34 metres, in order toallow for the greater setbacks.


There are a number of issues/complaints that pertain toconventional private parking on 6.0 metre lots, whilemaintaining a positive building/street relationship, particularlyon shallow lots. Firstly, since the frontages for these lots arenarrow, it is not possible to provide an on-street parking spacein front of these lots. Secondly, it would not be appropriate towiden driveways and further reduce the amount of landscapingin the front yard. Thirdly, the lengthening of driveways to theamount suggested could introduce further difficulties by

allowing for the potential proliferation of vehicles on the frontsof houses with the houses distant from the street, which is notfavourable from a design perspective.

One solution that has been desired and implementedsuccessfully in Ajax is with the ‘double-fronted’ or rearaccessed units. In this development format, the garage islocated behind the dwelling. Amenity space is providedbetween the garage and the rear of the dwelling. The area infront of these dwellings is free of driveways, and is thereforefully available for temporary parking for visitors. Staff wouldencourage this development format for lots less than 7.0metres in width, in order to allow for on-street parking for theseunit types.

It is also possible to have smaller unit types facing single-loaded (service) roads in new subdivisions. This would allowfor on-street parking in front of these units, on the oppositeside of the service road.

However, in terms of the proposed suggestions by thedevelopment community, they suggest relocating the sidewalkadjacent to the curb. This would have several impactsincluding the following:

- there would be no space for snow storage; and- it would interfere with the placement of utilities (e.g. fire

hydrant, bell pedestal, utility box).

Therefore, this suggestion is not preferred.


Page 24 of 26

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

Lane.


Page 25 of 26

Issue 1.c): Physical Inability to Accommodate a WiderDriveway

Not all residential dwellings are designed to accommodate aminimum driveway width of 5.0 metres so as to accommodatetwo vehicles parked side-by-side.

There are residential dwellings where the driveway may not beable to be widened to 5.0 metres in the R1-E, R1-F and R2-Azones (9.0 metre and 10.4 metre lot frontages) for thefollowing reasons:

I) The garage is recessed or the front porch projects, andthere is insufficient space to accommodate a vehiclebetween the front porch and the sidewalk.

ii) Driveway widenings can impact on street treeplacement and other utilities in the boulevard.

Suggested Approach:

It is possible to amend the Zoning By-law such that dwellingsin the R1-E, R1-F and R2-A zones would be required to bedesigned to permit a maximum driveway width of 5.0 metres toaccommodate 2 vehicles to be parked side-by-side.

However, by mandating this requirement, the potential forotherwise positive house designs including projecting porches,box, etc. could be precluded.

Current Situation

Figure 5: A driveway widening would be difficult with

the existing porch and location of the fire hydrant.


Page 26 of 26

Rationale:

A driveway in the R1-E, R1-F and R2-A zones (9.0 metre and10.4 metre lot frontages) may be 3.0 metres, but since themaximum permitted driveway width is 5.0 metres, nothingwould obstruct the resident from widening their driveway to 5.0metres.

The only zones that would not permit a driveway width of 5.0metres or greater would be the R2-B and R3 zones, where thedriveway widths would remain at 3.0 metres (since their lotfrontage is generally 6.0 metres).

Comments Received:

There was concern with dwellings in the R1-E, R1-F and R2-Azones that would be required to be designed to permit amaximum driveway width of 5.0 metres. The concern is that ifthe driveway width can be widened to 5.0 metres, this wouldrequire a wider curb cut, thus eliminating an on-street parkingspace. The front landscaped area would also be reduced andthe hard surface would increase, thus creating an unaesthetic streetscape.


As mentioned earlier in the rationale, this suggestion wouldonly apply to future residential developments since not alldwellings have the physical ability to widen the driveway to 5.0metres because of the location of the porch or street furniture. In response to the development community’s comment, adriveway widening can be done without a curb cut. The

driveway portion would only be widened to 5.0 metres and theTown boulevard would remain unwidened, thus protecting theon-street parking space.

Staff recommend that for new developments proposed withinthe R1-E, R1-F, and R2-A zones (9.0 metre and 10.4 metre lotfrontages) that the design of dwellings take into account apotential future maximum driveway width of 5.0 metres. Thisrecommendation should be included as a design guideline.

Although this recommendation only deals with futureproposals, it does not deal with the dwellings that cannotphysically widen their driveways. To address the currentsituation, on-street parking should be considered for furtherreview.

Documents

Town of Ajax Residential Parking Review · concepts of compact urban form and ensures that ... philosophy contributes to a pedestrian-friendly community ... Town of Ajax Residential