section 2

Town of Ajax Residential Parking Review

Issue 2: Curb Cuts

Staff Commentary / Recommendation:

In certain cases, on-street parking spaces can be eliminated when a curb cut is performed.

It is agreed that specific design details for this proposal be developed, in order that widenings are provided which do not adversely affect the streetscape. The suggestion to establish curb cut maximums for each zoning category is to ensure that on-street parking spaces are protected.

The widening of the driveway and the curb cut may reduce the opportunity for on-street parking for smaller lots (in particular in a R1-E, R1-F and R2-A zone). If the on-street parking space between the driveways cannot accommodate a vehicle to be parked leaving a 1.0 m clearance of the driveways, then the parking space does not comply with Town provisions. Suggested Approach: It is suggested that curb cut maximums be established for each zoning category. Rationale: By establishing curb cut maximums, on-street parking spaces can be protected. Depending on the situation, the curb cut may create a narrow driveway entrance but protect the onstreet parking space. A person backing out the vehicle on a narrow driveway entrance would have to manoeuver the vehicle so that it does not jump the curb.

Figure 6: A driveway widening without the curb cut.

Staff recommend establishing curb cut maximums for each zoning category as shown in the table below.

Comments Received: A comment was made that the report did not fully consider the option to include wider driveways with narrower curb cuts. There is a need to develop specific design details.

Page 1 of 24

Town of Ajax Residential Parking Review R1-A

R1-B

R1-C

R1-D

R1-E

R1-F

R2-A

R2-B

R3

Maximum Driveway Width

7.5 m

6.1 m

5.6 m

5.6 m

5.0 m

5.0 m

5.0 m

3.0 m

3.0 m

Maximum Curb Cut

7.5 m

6.1 m

5.6 m

5.0 m

5.0 m

4.0 m

4.0 m

3.0 m

3.0 m

Page 2 of 24


Issue 3: Garage Size

Suggested Approach:

In many cases, garage sizes are insufficient to park a large vehicle or are insufficient to provide for storage and park a small vehicle.

Staff suggest an increase to the size of the garage in recognition that a portion of the garage is used for storage. The parking space within a private garage could be increased such that the minimum interior width is 3.1 metres and the minimum interior length shall increase from 5.7 metres to 6.5 metres. The original suggestion was that the maximum garage width for a R1-E, R1-F, R2-A, R2-B and R3 zone would be 3.3 metres and the minimum area of the garage would be 23 square metres.

According to the Zoning By-law, “all required parking spaces within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 2.7 metres and a minimum length of 5.7 metres free of any obstructions.” In the R1-E, R1-F, R2-A, R2-B and R3 zones, the maximum garage width is 3.0 metres. Thus, the garage width may vary from 2.7 metres to 3.0 metres. There is no maximum garage length. For example, in some residential areas (e.g. Woolf Crescent, Hulley Crescent), the garage meets the standards in the Zoning By-law such that the garage width is between 2.7 metres and 3.0 metres. However, this garage width standard is in inadequate to park a vehicle, or a vehicle can be parked in the garage but residents encounter the following challenges: I)

there is insufficient room to open the doors of the vehicle; or

ii)

the vehicle can be parked in the garage but there is no room for storage (e.g. lawn mower, bicycles, etc.).

The minimum area of the garage would allow a vehicle to be parked in the garage to allow both sides of the vehicle doors to open, while leaving space for storage. Rationale: Staff measured the width of a mini-van with both the driver and passenger doors open (not fully swung open) at approximately 3.05 metres wide. Thus in order for a vehicle to park in the garage, be able to open the doors, and provide space to get out of the vehicle, the interior width of the garage should be at least 3.1 metres. Comments Received: The development community had serious concern with staff’s suggestion of increasing the size of the garage. The increase in the garage size, in particular, the minimum interior length and the minimum area of the garage, would create

Page 3 of 24


considerable compromises to the interior layout and function of the interior space. The garage size would reduce the amount of liveable space behind the garage, change the elevation and size of the units and second floor space would need to increase to match the increase on the first floor. They note that to meet the minimum garage area of 23 square metres, a garage width of 3.1 metres would require a minimum garage length of 7.42 metres and a garage width of 3.3 metres would require a minimum garage length of 7.0 metres. On a lot depth of 25 metres, approximately 3.95 metres would remain on the liveable space behind the garage. In order to make the space behind the garage functional, the footprint of the dwelling would need to be extended, thus reducing the size of the rear yard. They claim that about 15% of the housing units would be lost as a result of the increase in lot frontage leading to lower densities, more land would be consumed, and leads to higher prices, which has an impact on affordability. Given that there are minimum requirements for both width and length, it should not be necessary to have a minimum area requirement for the garage.

a)

Based on a dual frontage street townhouse with a 6.0 metre lot frontage, increases in garage size would reduce the outdoor amenity space and increase the lot coverage. They suggest the following to resolve the situation: -

-

b)

Based on a semi-detached dwelling with a 7.925 metre lot frontage, the increase in the garage size would have an impact on the kitchen and the possible elimination of the breakfast area. The foyer, dining room, and family/living room would also be compromised. To resolve this situation, the following is suggested: -

In response to staff’s suggestion on increasing the garage size, they suggest that an accessory structure within the rear yard to accommodate storage or using a combination of an accessory structure, the garage and basement for storage.

c)

On-street parking has also been suggested, as discussed earlier, as this has been implemented in other municipalities.

Page 4 of 24

increasing the lot depth by 1.4 metres such that the lot depth would be 26.4 metres; and increasing the lot frontage by 0.7 metres such that the lot frontage would be 8.625 metres.

Based on a single-detached dwelling with a lot frontage of 9.2 metres, the increase in the garage size would also have an impact on the function of the internal space. The following is suggested: -

Other suggestions have also been offered with respect to various dwelling types.

increasing the lot depth by 1.4 metres such that the minimum lot depth would be increased to 26.4 metres; and increasing the lot frontage by 0.5 metres such that the lot frontage would be at least 6.5 metres.

increasing the lot depth by 1.4 metres such that the lot depth would be 26.4 metres; and


-

increasing the lot frontage by 0.5 metres such that the lot frontage would be 9.7 metres.

The garage dimensions shall permit a step not higher than 20.0 centimetres and not deeper than 25.0 centimetres to encroach into the edge of the required parking space.

Staff Commentary / Recommendation: It is observed that the alteration to the interior garage dimensions has the greatest effect on smaller lots with shallow lot depths, (i.e., single car garages on various lots with shallow depths). Staff reviewed the comments of the development community and acknowledge that the suggested garage size dimensions would have an impact on the internal space of such dwellings. However, the minimum garage size requirements are insufficient to park a large vehicle or to provide for meaningful storage and park a small vehicle. The suggestion of building an accessory structure (i.e., a shed) is fair. However, due to the small sizes of certain lots, there are cases where homes have been built to the maximum permitted lot coverage. The resident could apply for a minor variance, which involves a $500 fee, to exceed the maximum lot coverage to allow for the shed, which in turn would reduce the amount of rear yard amenity area and could affect on-site drainage. In order to ensure that a garage has adequate space to park a vehicle and for some storage, staff have recommended the following: -

With the foregoing provisions implemented, there is no need to institute a minimum area requirement. In general, there is a group of products that deal with different setback requirements. Staff have reviewed the scenarios in regards to the various dwelling types. The suggested garage size appears to mainly affect the shallow lot products on narrow lots, where the increase in the garage length would have an impact on the internal space. As indicated earlier, the foregoing changes will result in the need for the development community to reevaluate smaller lot house designs. In particular, the use of “shallow” lot types for narrower lots (i.e., less than 9.0 metres) should be reconsidered. In order to provide the necessary flexibility for product designs on these lots, future lot depths below 27.5 metres should be discouraged. As noted earlier, it is further recommended that lot frontages less than 7.0 metres be permitted on the basis that they are lane-based or doublefronted. This will ensure that on-street parking spaces are provided and the streetscape will not be dominated with driveways.

Minimum garage width: 3.1 metres, Maximum garage width for R1-E, R1-F, R2-A, R2-B and R3: 3.3 metres, and Minimum interior length: 6.5 metres. Page 5 of 24


Issue 4: Pairing of Driveways

Suggested Approach:

The supply of on-street parking is adversely affected when the driveways are not paired for lots 11.9 metres or less.

It is suggested that the pairing of driveways be required to protect on-street parking and to maximize landscaped areas.

Currently, there are no regulations on the pairing of driveways in the Zoning By-law or in the Town’s Engineering Standards, but are often required as conditions of draft approved plans of subdivision.

Staff suggest adding a provision to the Zoning By-law to state that the pairing of driveways shall be required for lot frontages that are 11.9 metres or less.

When driveways are not paired, in particular for lots 11.9 metres or less, the opportunity for on-street parking is reduced. For example, larger vehicles would require at least 7.0 metres in order for it to be parked legally with the 1.0 metre clearance of both driveways. Appendix 2 shows an example of vehicle lengths and widths by make and model. The length of a vehicle (such as a sedan and mini-van) ranges from about 4.0 metres to 5.0 metres. The length of pick-up trucks are generally greater than 5.0 metres and would require an onstreet parking space with a length greater than 7.0 metres.

The following diagrams illustrate the pairing and unpairing of driveways for 9 metre, 11.3 metre and 11.9 metre lots as well as unpairing of driveways for 14.6 metre lots. A 5.0 metre vehicle was used as an example as an on-street parking space in all the diagrams. The lines inside or outside the vehicle indicate the measurement of the on-street parking space with the 1.0 metre clearance from the driveways already taken into consideration.

Page 6 of 24


As shown in Diagram A, the driveways are not paired on a 9.0 metre frontage and the driveways have been widened to 5.0 metres, which leaves about 4.0 metres between the two driveways. The space between the driveways is not sufficient to legally park a vehicle.

In Diagram B, the driveways are paired on a 9.0 metre frontage and the driveways have been widened to 5.0 metres. The space between the paired driveways is approximately 6.2 metres, which provides room to legally park a small vehicle up to 4.2 metres in length.

Unpairing of driveways on a 9.0 metre lot frontage

Pairing of driveways on a 9.0 metre lot frontage

Page 7 of 24


In Diagram C, the driveways are not paired on a 11.3 metre lot frontage and the driveways have been widened to 5.6 metres, leaving about 3.8 metres between the two driveways. There is room to park a subcompact vehicle such as a Chevrolet Aveo Hatchback.

In Diagram D, the driveways have been paired on a 11.3 metre frontage and the driveways have been widened to 5.6 metres. The space between the paired driveways is about 7.7 metres, which provides adequate room to park a vehicle.


Pairing of driveways on a 11.3 metre lot frontage

Page 8 of 24


In Diagram E, the driveways are not paired on a 11.9 metre lot frontage and the driveways have been widened to 5.6 metres, leaving about 3.8 metres between the two driveways. There is room to park a subcompact vehicle such as a Chevrolet Aveo Hatchback.

In Diagram F, the driveways have been paired on a 11.9 metre frontage and the driveways have been widened to 5.6 metres. The space between the paired driveways is about 8.8 metres, which provides adequate room to park a vehicle and potentially two compact vehicles.


Pairing of driveways on a 11.9 metre lot frontage.

Page 9 of 24


In Diagram G, the driveways are not paired on a 14.6 metre lot frontage and the driveways have been widened to the permitted maximum width of 5.6 metres. The space between the driveways is approximately 7.0 metres, providing sufficient space to park a vehicle. The pairing of driveways on a 14.6 metre lot is not recommended since the unpairing of driveways provides adequate on-street parking. Also, the pairing of driveways in this situation would not be conducive from a streetscape and urban design perspective.

Page 10 of 24



Comments Received: There are situations where it may not be possible or appropriate to pair driveways such as when the street has an upward 3% road grade, when there is an odd number of lots in a row, corner lots, and lots with rear yard catch basins leading to a street. The comment was also made that pairing of driveways limits the ability to have a variety in design. It is possible where there are paired and unpaired driveways with alternating the placement of utility poles and pedestals to maximize on-street parking and street planting. Therefore, it has been suggested that driveway pairing is not a requirement in the Zoning By-law. Staff Commentary / Recommendation: Staff acknowledge the difficulty or inability to pair driveways but also recognize the importance of having paired driveways to protect on-street parking and to maximize landscaped areas. Staff therefore recommend that the pairing of driveways for lot frontages that are 11.9 metres represent a draft plan condition for future draft plans of subdivisions, and be instituted through red-line revisions to existing draft plans or as engineering drawings are reviewed.

Page 11 of 24


Issue 5: Parking on the Front Yard Currently, there are no restrictions in the Zoning By-law to prevent residents from parking their vehicle over the soft landscaped portion of their front yard. Suggested Approach Staff suggest protecting the landscaped portion of the front yard from vehicle parking by adding a provision in the Zoning By-law to state that in any Residential Zone, the parking of a vehicle(s) in the front yard shall be restricted to within the limits of the permitted driveway width. Rationale This amendment would prohibit parking on the lawn or over the unpaved portion of a front yard. It would restrict residents to park only within the permitted driveway width. Comments Received: There were no comments in regards to this suggestion. Staff Commentary / Recommendation: Zoning By-law 95-2003 shall be amended to state that in any Residential Zone, the parking of a vehicle(s) in the front yard shall be restricted to the limits of the permitted driveway width.

Page 12 of 24


Issue 6: Rear Lanes

Current Situation

Currently inadequate setbacks have been provided from the garage door to the travelled portion of the rear lane. This has adversely affected the ability to accommodate snow storage and sight lines. Currently, there are insufficient standards pertaining to the distance between the garage door and the lane for street townhouses with a detached garage accessed by a rear lane. The current permitted setback is 0.6 metres and has been permitted by Exception. This poses the following concerns: I)

ii)

Figure 8: Example of a rear lane in Ajax with insufficient space between the garage door and the lane.

The minimal setback provides a minimal sight line if a vehicle is backing out of the garage. The back of the vehicle will be on the lane before the driver can see whether there are any obstructions such as another vehicle passing by; and

Suggested Approach:

The setback does not provide for adequate space for snow storage, thereby requiring the snow plows to remove the snow from the rear lane to another location where the snow can be dumped (if there is a location where the snow can be dumped).

Provide additional setbacks from the garage to a rear lane to accommodate snow storage, appropriate view to lanes and an additional parking space. The Zoning By-law should include a provision to ensure that there is a minimum distance of 3.0 metres between the garage and the lane.

Page 13 of 24


Rationale: Staff Commentary / Recommendation: If there is a minimum distance of 3.0 metres between the garage and the rear lane, it provides space for snow storage and a driver backing a vehicle out of the garage will be able to see if there are any obstructions before turning onto the lane. The 3.0 metres also provides space for a vehicle to be parked in front of the garage, creating a third parking space. Comments Received:

Staff acknowledge the importance of establishing a setback between the face of the garage and the travelled portion of the rear lane. Staff agrees with the developers in that with rear lane garages, it gets the vehicles off the principal street, providing for an aesthetic streetscape. Taking the comments into consideration and measuring the width of a standard vehicle with door swings, staff are prepared to recommend a minimum setback of 2.6 metres between the face of the garage door and the travelled portion of the rear lane.

The development community recognize the rationale for the additional setback from the garage; however, they consider that the additional area for the parking of a vehicle parallel to the lane, in front of the garage is contrary to the other two objectives of providing space for snow storage and sight lines. The parking of a vehicle in the rear lane may hinder the sight line of a vehicle backing out of the garage and reduce the space for snow storage. They note that dwellings with rear lane garages consume more land although it does get the garages off the principal street. They suggest that the setback should be measured from the curb of the lane way to the garage and that the setback should be within 1.5 metres to 2.6 metres. Rear lanes allow opportunities to introduce a greater supply of visitor parking adjacent to the front yard on the principal street. Coupled with a potential approach to allow on-street permit parking, it creates additional parking and offsets land consumption.

Page 14 of 24


5.

TRANSITION

Staff on this basis recommend that the transition component be issue-specific , that is, the transition will vary for each recommendation as listed below.

Key to the implementation of these recommendations are those provisions which deal with the transition from the existing regime to the proposed.

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

Comments Received: The development community has voiced its concern with the transition phase and how it would affect their developments. They recommend that new zoning provisions apply to those plans remaining to be draft approved and not apply to draft approved or registered plans of subdivision. Draft approved units are sold to home buyers based on the existing setbacks and approved model designs. Thus, if the draft approved units are to conform to the proposed amendments, there would be severe consequences for the builders and developers, and may result in loss of units that have already been sold.

Staff are recommending that Zoning By-law 95-2003 be amended to permit 9.0 metre and 10.4 metre lot frontages to widen the driveway to a maximum of 5.0 metres. This recommendation would apply Town wide and would be effective once the amendment to the Zoning By-law is approved. Issue 1. b) Street Townhouses Staff are recommending that street townhouse with lot frontages of less than 7.0 metres be lane-based or doublefronted. This recommendation would be a draft plan condition and would represent a requirement for new developments.

Staff Commentary / Recommendation: Due to the varied nature of the proposed recommendations, a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is not being suggested. Rather, there are certain recommendations at that should be placed within the zoning by-law, while some are best placed as conditions of draft approval for future plans of subdivision, while others still represent ‘better practices’ that should be implemented when new developments are being considered.

Issue 1. c) Physical Inability to Accommodate a Wider Driveway Staff are recommending that for new developments proposed within the R1-E, R1-F, and R2-A zones (9.0 and 10.4 metre lot frontages) are designed to take into account a potential future maximum driveway width of 5.0 metres. This recommendation should be included in the Urban Design Guidelines.

Page 15 of 24


Issue 2: Curb Cuts

Issue 4: Pairing of Driveways

Staff are recommending that curb cut maximums be established for each zoning category.

Staff are recommending that the pairing of driveways for lot frontages that are 11.9 metres or less represent a draft plan condition for new plans of subdivision, or where existing draft plans are red-line revised.

In terms of implementation, curb cuts would be examined as driveway widening applications are considered. For example, an applicant may apply for a driveway widening without doing a curb cut.

Issue 5: Parking on the Front Yard Staff are recommending that an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw be required to ensure that in any Residential zone, the parking of a vehicle(s) in the front yard shall be restricted to the limits of the permitted driveway width.

Issue 3: Garage Size Staff are recommending that the following standards be applied to garage sizes: Minimum interior width: 3.1 metres, Maximum garage width for R1-E, R1-F, R2-A, R2-B and R3: 3.3 metres, and Minimum interior length: 6.5 metres.

This recommendation would apply Town wide and would be effective once the amendment to the Zoning By-law is approved. Issue 6: Rear Lanes

The garage dimensions shall permit a step not higher than 20.0 centimetres and not deeper than 25.0 centimetres to encroach into the edge of the required parking space. An amendment to the Zoning By-law is required to implement the new garage size standards and would be implemented as new developments are approved. This amendment would apply to new dwellings that have not been already draft approved.

Staff are recommending that a minimum setback of 2.6 metres between the face of the garage and the travelled portion of the rear lane. This recommendation would be considered as applications are under review. Issue 7: On-Street Permit Parking Staff suggests that a further study take place with regard to onstreet permit parking. Such further study would need to take into account the following recommendations: whether a pilot project warrants consideration; potential candidate areas for such a project;

Page 16 of 24


-

financial, administrative and staffing implications for such a project; the community’s desire to institute such a program; and service-level implications.

Page 17 of 24


6.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the current residential parking situation in Ajax, staff have identified and analysed various issues. Staff have consulted with the development community and have summarized their comments in this report. Staff have provided a response to the comments received and provided a final recommendation as well as how the transition would apply to each recommendation. The final recommendations should address the residents’ concerns as well as the number of minor variances related to residential parking. The final recommendations in this report attempt to achieve a balance between providing sufficient parking space on the driveway and providing an equally reasonable expectation to have a suitably landscaped and well designed neighbourhood.

Page 18 of 24


ATTACHMENT 1

Page 19 of 24


ATTACHMENT 2

Page 20 of 24


ATTACHMENT 3

Page 21 of 24


APPENDIX 1 Zone Standards Table Applicable to Residential Zones Permitted Dwelling Type

Minimum Lot Frontage

Maximum Driveway Width

Maximum Garage Width

R1-A

Detached Dwelling

20 m

7.5 m

7.5 m

R1-B

Detached Dwelling

15 m

6.1 m

6.1 m

R1-C

Detached Dwelling

14.6 m

5.6 m

5.6 m

R1-D

Detached Dwelling

11.9 m

5.6 m

5.6 m

R1-E

Detached Dwelling

10.4 m

5.0 m

3.0 m

R1-F

Detached & Semi-Detached Dwelling

9m

5.0 m

3.0 m

R2-A

Detached & Semi-Detached Dwelling

9m

5.0 m

3.0 m

R2-B

Semi-Detached Dwelling & Street Townhouse

6m

3.0 m

3.0 m

R3

Duplex, Triplex, Double Duplex, Linked Villa, Street Townhouse

6m

3.0 m

3.0 m

RM4

Multiple Attached, Apartment Dwelling

37 m

-

-

RM5

Multiple Attached Dwelling, Senior Citizens’ Apartment

30 m

-

-

RM6

Maisonette, Multiple Attached Dwelling

30 m

-

-

P Paaggee 2222 ooff 2244


APPENDIX 2 Example of Vehicle Lengths and Widths Vehicle Model

Type of Vehicle

Length (m )

W idth (m )

Buick Rendezvous

SUV

4.738

1.871

Cadillac Escalade

SUV

5.052

2.004

Chevrolet Aveo

Hatch

3.881

1.671

Chevrolet Impala

Sedan

5.08

1.854

Chrysler Intrepid

Sedan

5.175

1.898

Chrysler 300M

Sedan

5.023

1.89

Dodge Grand Caravan

Van

5.093

1.997

Ford Explorer

SUV

4.813

1.832

Station wagon

5.022

1.854

Hatch

4.27

1.699

Ford Freestar

Van

5.105

1.946

GMC Envoy

Van

4.866

1.897

Sedan

4.455

1.715

Honda CR-V

SUV

4.537

1.782

Honda Odyssey

Van

5.11

1.92

Hummer H2

SUV

4.82

2.063

Ford Taurus Ford Focus ZX3

Honda Civic Sedan


Town of Ajax Residential Parking Review Mercedes Smart Car

2.5

1.515

Nissan Maxima

Sedan

4.915

1.821

Pontiac Sunfire

Sedan

4.653

1.725

Pontiac Grand Prix

Sedan

5.038

1.875

Toyota Echo

Hatch

3.733

1.66

Toyota Corolla

Sedan

4.53

1.7

Toyota Camry

Sedan

4.805

1.795

Volkswagen Beetle

Hatch

4.091

1.724

Example of Pick-Up Truck Length and Widths Vehicle Model

Length (m )

W idth (m )

Dodge Dakota Club Cab

5.463

1.819

Dodge Ram Reg Cab

5.275

2.029

Ford F-150 Regular Cab

5.372

2.004

GMC Sierra Reg Cab

5.784

1.994

Toyota Tundra Access Cab

5.525

1.91

Source: Automobile Length Width: Canadian International Autoshow Official Program: A Car Guide Publication, February 2004
