Parking Standards Background Study Draft Final Report · Draft Final Report Area-Specific Zoning...

Parking Standards Background Study

Draft Final Report

Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the

Urban Centres Secondary Plan

Town of Newmarket

October 14, 2016

Town of Newmarket | Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Parking Standards Background Study Draft Report

October 14, 2016 | i

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Town of Newmarket Urban Centres Secondary Plan area is envisioned to be an integrated,

compact, complete and vibrant community. It will be sensitively integrated with adjacent

neighbourhoods and will focus on higher density development that facilitates increased active

transportation and public transit usage.

To achieve these goals, a review of the parking standards and management practices within the

Urban Centres and Growth Areas is required to support the development of an area specific Zoning

By-law. This report includes a background review of standard practices amongst other municipalities

in Southern Ontario, as well as select municipalities from the United States, to provide the Town with

an understanding of a variety of innovative approaches to parking requirements.

Findings

Residential Parking Rates

There are two general residential land uses permitted within the Secondary Plan area and this

includes multiple dwelling unit buildings and townhouses. Multiple dwelling unit buildings include

freehold and condominium apartments. Townhouses include standard and stacked townhouses

(including freehold and condominium), and they may be located on either public or private roads.

One set of parking rates is recommended for multiple dwelling unit buildings, and another set of

rates is recommended for all forms of townhouses. The recommendation for multiple dwelling unit

buildings is based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The recommended parking rates are

provided in Table ES-1 and these rates apply to the entire Secondary Plan area.

Table ES-1: Recommended Residential Parking Rates

Town of Newmarket Recommended Residential Parking Rates for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Area

Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings (spaces per unit based on # bedrooms)

Minimum Maximum RGI Units1

Bachelor 0.70/unit 0.85/unit

50% reduction to

minimum and

maximum rates

One Bedroom 0.80/unit 1.00/unit

Two Bedrooms 0.90/unit 1.10/unit

Three Bedrooms (or more) 1.10/unit 1.30/unit

Townhouse Dwellings (spaces per unit)

Minimum Maximum

Townhouses 1.0/unit 1.2/unit

Residential Visitor Parking Requirements (Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings or Townhouses)

Minimum Maximum

Visitor 0.15/unit 0.15/unit Same as Non-RGI

1. RGI = Rent-Geared-to-Income and includes affordable housing, cooperative housing, and subsidized housing.


October 14, 2016 | ii

Non-Residential Parking Rates

The recommended parking rates in this section apply to all non-residential land uses permitted within

the Secondary Plan area. Maximum parking supplies will be calculated by factoring the minimum

parking requirements. The recommended non-residential parking rates are provided in Table ES-2.

Table ES-2: Recommended Non-Residential Parking Rates

Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40

Recommended Secondary Plan Area Rates

Land Use General Rates Minimum Maximum

School, Elementary

2 spaces per classroom plus an additional 10% of the total parking requirement to be dedicated to visitor parking

1 space per classroom plus an additional 10% of the total parking requirement to be dedicated to visitor parking

2x the minimum

School, Secondary


School, Post Secondary

1 space per 100 m2 GFA used for instructional and/or academic purposes


3x the minimum

Commercial School

1 space per 20 m2 of GFA 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA 2x the minimum

Day Cares 2 spaces per classroom plus 1 space for every 4 children licensed capacity

1 spaces per classroom plus 1 space for every 6 children licensed capacity

2x the minimum

Group Homes, Special Needs Housing

Greater of 2 spaces or 1 space per staff member on duty

2 spaces 2x the minimum

Places of Worship

1 parking space per 9 m2 of the aggregate GFA of the nave, public hall, banquet hall or other community/multi-use hall used as a place of assembly

No change recommended. General rates will continue to apply.

2x the minimum

Libraries 1 space per 10 m2 of GFA 1 space per 20 m2 of GFA 2x the minimum Community /

Recreation Centres

1 parking space per 14 m2 of GFA dedicated to indoor facilities for use by the public plus the aggregate of: • 30 spaces per ball field • 30 spaces per soccer field • 4 spaces per tennis court

Retail, Food/Grocery

1 parking space per 9 m2 of GFA with a minimum of 5 spaces

1 space per 40 m2 of GFA 2x the minimum

Retail, Other 1 parking space per 18 m2 of NFA

Restaurants 1 parking space per 9 m2 of GFA dedicated to public use, excluding any porch, veranda and/or patio dedicated as seasonal servicing areas.

1 space per 100 m2 of GFA, excluding any porch, veranda and/or patio dedicated as seasonal servicing areas.

5x the minimum

Office (Business)

1 parking space per 27 m2 of NFA 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA 2x the minimum

Office (Medical), Medical Research

1 parking space per 17 m2 of NFA

Hotels The aggregate of: • 1 space per guest room • 1 space per every 2 guest rooms over 20 • 1 space per 4.5 m2 of GFA dedicated to administrative, banquet and meeting facilities

The aggregate of: • 1 space per guest room • 1 space per 10 m2 of GFA dedicated to administrative, banquet and meeting facilities

3x the minimum

Long-Term Care Facilities

0.5 parking space per dwelling unit or rooming unit plus 1 space per 100 m2 of GFA used for medical, health or personal services


2x the minimum


October 14, 2016 | iii




Home Occupation

Where the area occupied by the home occupation exceeds 24 m2, 1 parking space shall be required for every 9 m2 above the 24 m2 of the dwelling unit used for the home occupation

Based on residential land use requirement. Those visiting the practitioner within the Home Occupation can use visitor parking.

n/a

Cinemas, Arcades, Indoor Games

1 parking space per 9 m2 of floor area dedicated to public use


Adult Entertainment, Night Clubs

1 parking space per 7.5 m2 of GFA

Art Gallery, Museum


GFA = Gross Floor Area NFA = Net Floor Area m2 = square metres

Reduced Parking Based on Proximity to Transit

The recommended parking rates outlined above will be applicable to the entire Secondary Plan area.

However, because the area is planned to be highly transit oriented, reductions reflecting the

accessibility to transit are also recommended. These reductions will be applied to both the minimum

and maximum parking supplies calculated using the above rates.

There are two GO Stations located within the Secondary Plan area: Newmarket GO Rail Station and

Newmarket Bus Terminal. The proposed reductions apply to proximity to both of these stations.

We recommend that the reductions be applied as follows:

A 30% reduction in parking requirements, may be applied to both the minimum and

maximum calculated parking supplies, for residential and non-residential land uses

where it is demonstrated that:

1. The proposed development main entrance is within 500m walking distance of either

the GO Rail Station or Bus Terminal main entrances; and,

2. Adequate Travel Demand Management infrastructure and programs will be in place

to the satisfaction of reviewing agencies, in accordance with Town’s Urban Centres

Secondary Plan policies and York Region Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development

Applications.

The door-to-door walking distances will be determined on a case-by-case basis since they are

dependent on site location and site design. It is noted that the additional reduction opportunity (no. 2)

applies to GO Rail or bus terminal proximity since these locations, combined with Viva service

throughout the Secondary Plan area, provide residents with transit options for both longer and

shorter trips, and thus the potential for residents to not own a car is much higher in these locations.

Recommended Approach to Shared Parking

It is recommended that the current approach to shared parking contained within the existing Town of

Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 be carried over to the Secondary Plan area Zoning By-law. This

approach is an industry standard throughout Canada and the United States. It is based on first

principle methodology but eliminates the need for proxy studies to determine time-of-day utilization


October 14, 2016 | iv

as well as peak parking demand. This methodology can be applied to shared parking supplies

serving multiple (more than 2) land uses with different parking characteristics.

For non-standard land uses such as Park-‘N’-Rides and transit stations that may share parking

supplies with other land uses, the shared parking approach should be applied using first principle

methods and informed through closely working with transit agencies since the parking demand

characteristics of these land uses depend on many factors and vary considerably depending on the

location.

The first principle shared parking approach and final recommendations for these land uses would be

provided to the Town in the form of a Parking Study as requested based on the Town’s discretion. It

will be up to the Town to determine when a land use does not fit into the general land use definitions

within the shared parking formulas.

Recommended Approach to Bonusing

Bonusing refers to leniency with respect to height and density requirements awarded to a developer

in return for providing a public benefit. As per the Secondary Plan, an applicant within the Secondary

Plan area may elect to request increases in the Permitted Maximum Heights and/or Permitted

Maximum FSIs up to, but not exceeding the Discretionary Maximum Heights or Discretionary

Maximum FSIs With Bonusing without an amendment to this Plan in exchange for providing

structured parking for vehicles where a significant portion of the parking is to be transferred to a

public authority for use as public parking.

We further recommend that the Town apply the following criteria to qualify for bonusing:

1. A minimum of 20 public parking spaces must be provided; and

2. At a minimum, 10% of the public parking that is provided shall be dedicated car-share

spaces, to a maximum of 6 spaces.

This will encourage developers to engage car-share providers in introducing car-share into the Town

of Newmarket. Furthermore, it will ensure that parking is in a reasonably accessible area, otherwise

car-share providers may not be interested. Finally, it ensures that the parking supply will be large

enough to provide at least 2 car-share spaces, which is further incentive to car-share providers.

Cash-in-Lieu of Parking Spaces

The Town’s current Zoning By-law already permits cash-in-lieu of parking spaces, and cash-in-lieu

should continue to be a provision within the Secondary Plan area. As a starting point, the fee

structure can be based on the current fee structure used within the Town. The need and potential for

cash-in-lieu will be come clearer as the Secondary Plan develops and parking needs are balanced

with transit accessibility in addition to the bonusing provisions.

Carpool Parking for Employment Uses

Carpool spaces are an important initiative towards transit oriented development as well as reducing

the parking supplies for employment uses. The recommended approach involves dedicating a

portion of the required parking supply for an employment use towards carpool spaces as opposed to

providing reductions to the parking supply. The recommended approach is as follows:

Carpool spaces must be provided at a minimum rate of:

1. 5% of the total required parking supply for any employment uses, or

2. 2 spaces.


October 14, 2016 | v

This will ensure that carpool is being provided for all employment uses and will encourage

participation in SmartCommute, otherwise the spaces will go unused. Carpool spaces should be

located closest to the building entrances, signed, and enforced. Only accessible spaces would be

prioritized over carpool spaces in terms of location.

Car-Share Parking

Car-Share is an important consideration within a Transit Oriented Development area because it

encourages those who do not own personal vehicles to live and work in those areas. Many who

participate in car-share programs do not rely on vehicles to go to work, but may occasionally need a

vehicle for personal use or employment purposes. We recommend that reductions to residential

parking supplies be awarded to developers for providing car-share as follows:

For any apartment (freehold or condominium) development, the minimum parking

requirement should be reduced by up to 3 parking spaces for each dedicated car-share stall.

The limit on this parking reduction is calculated as the greater of:

4 * (total number of units / 60), rounded down to the nearest whole number; or

1 space.

The provision of car-share in a public parking structure through the bonusing provision could also

leverage this policy towards reducing the resident parking supply for new developments. As with the

bonusing provision, this will further encourage developers to engage car-share providers.

Car-share can be provided at employment uses and this should be investigated as part of the

Transportation Demand Management Plan for new developments, if the anticipated tenants would

benefit from this service as determined on a case-by-case basis. However, since car-share at

employment uses has less of an impact on day-to-day mode choice, we do not recommend

reductions to the overall parking supply for the provision of car-share at employment uses.

Parking Management and Governance within the Secondary Plan Area

Consistent with Section 9.3.6.1 of the Secondary Plan, the potential role for a municipal parking

authority has been assessed. It is recommended that the Town maintain internal municipal

operation of public parking within the Secondary Plan area.

Section 9.3.6.1 of the Secondary Plan also states that the Town may prepare a public parking

strategy and outlines several criteria that encourage the parking district approach. Internal

municipal operation is the ideal approach to meeting these goals and applying the parking district

approach because it will allow the Town the greatest control over the size and location of public

parking structures, to capitalize on shared parking opportunities. The parking districts approach also

complements cash-in-lieu.

The Town would also be responsible for residential parking permits for on-street parking. The Town

should maintain all control over the approach to parking so that the visions and goals are met, and

any public feedback is dealt with and addressed directly rather than through a third party.

Outsourcing management to a third party should only be considered when the parking infrastructure

demand and needs within the Secondary Plan area have stabilized and economy of scale justifies

the transition.

Additionally, it is recommended that all public parking be paid and that the fees be determined

through further economic analysis. The fees will be determined based on target rates of 85%

occupancy. It is further recommended that the Town have one single entity manage enforcement of


October 14, 2016 | vi

parking spaces including carpool spaces, car-share spaces, electric vehicle spaces, accessible

spaces, and on-street permit parking.

Transportation Demand Management

As per the direction of the Secondary Plan, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has been

incorporated into the recommended parking requirements for the Secondary Plan area through

inclusion of the following policies and initiatives:

a) preferential parking for carpool vehicles in non-residential developments;

b) provision for car share opportunities in major residential developments;

c) reduced parking requirements reflecting proximity to transit;

d) bonusing incentives for provision of public parking with car-share;

e) cash-in-lieu of parking spaces for the provision of public parking;

f) application of shared parking formulas for public parking structures and joint development;

g) transit incentive programs, including subsidized transit fares;

h) secure indoor bicycle parking and showers in conjunction with major office and commercial

uses, institutional and civic uses;

i) provision for bicycle parking in close proximity to building entrances and transit stations; and,

j) incorporating paid parking requirements with non-residential development.

It is also recommended, as per direction provided by the Secondary Plan as well as York Region’s

Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Applications, that the Town request TDM plans to be

incorporated into transportation impact studies and parking studies for all new developments.

Although some incentive can be given to the developer within the Zoning By-law, it is often the

developer or employers responsibility to leverage these incentives and ensure they are being

applied to new developments. Requiring TDM plans to be provided will ensure that potential TDM

opportunities are being considered and implemented whenever possible. When it can be

demonstrated that TDM initiatives are adequate, and when the development is within close proximity

to transit, further reductions to the parking supplies will be permitted.

The Town may further encourage developers and employers to consider SmartCommute, green or

electric vehicle parking, carpool parking, dedicated carpool pick-up areas, and bicycle parking in

excess of the minimum requirements, be provided as part of TDM initiatives for new developments.


October 14, 2016 | vii

Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Policy Review & Need for Revised Parking Rates .............................................................................. 1

2.1 York Region Transportation Master Plan .................................................................................. 1

2.2 Urban Centre Secondary Plan .................................................................................................. 3

2.2.1 Parking ......................................................................................................................... 3

2.2.2 Bonusing ...................................................................................................................... 4

2.2.3 Transportation Demand Management ......................................................................... 4

2.3 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) ........................................................... 5

3 Secondary Plan Parking Rates ........................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Existing Parking Policy for the Town’s Urban Centres .............................................................. 6

3.2 Definition of Intensification Zones / Growth Areas .................................................................... 7

3.2.1 Canada ......................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.2 United States ................................................................................................................ 8

3.2.3 Recommendation ....................................................................................................... 10

3.3 Application of Maximum Parking Rates .................................................................................. 10

3.3.1 Recommendation ....................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Residential Parking Rates ....................................................................................................... 12

3.4.1 Permitted Residential Land Uses ............................................................................... 12

3.4.2 Vehicles per Household in Newmarket ...................................................................... 13

3.4.3 Townhouse Dwelling Rates ........................................................................................ 14

3.4.3.1 Recommended Townhouse Dwelling Rates ......................................................... 14

3.4.4 Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings Background Review ................................................ 14

3.4.4.1 Recommended Approach to Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Rates ...................... 15

3.4.5 Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Market Trends ........................................................... 16

3.4.5.1 GTA Trends ........................................................................................................... 16

3.4.5.2 Newmarket Trends ................................................................................................ 17

3.4.5.3 Parking Demand Rates from Development Applications ...................................... 18

3.4.6 Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Bedrooms per Unit Rates Review ............................ 20

3.4.7 Recommended Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Parking Rates .................................. 20

3.4.8 Recommended Rent-Geared-to-Income Rates ......................................................... 21

3.4.9 Visitor Parking Rates (Residential Land Uses) .......................................................... 21

3.4.9.1 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 22

3.5 Non-Residential Land Uses .................................................................................................... 22

3.5.1 Permitted Non-Residential Land Uses ....................................................................... 22

3.5.2 Non-residential Parking Rate Review ........................................................................ 24

3.5.3 Recommended Non-residential Parking Rates .......................................................... 25


October 14, 2016 | viii

3.5.4 Blending of Land Uses ............................................................................................... 26

3.5.5 Gross Floor Area vs. Net Floor Area .......................................................................... 26

3.5.6 Employee & Staffing Based Rates ............................................................................. 27

3.5.7 Mandatory Minimums & Waving of Minimums ........................................................... 27

4 Transit Proximity Reductions............................................................................................................. 28

4.1 Recommendations for Transit Proximity Reductions .............................................................. 30

5 Shared Parking Policies .................................................................................................................... 30

5.1 Existing Policy (Town of Newmarket) ...................................................................................... 31

5.2 Policies from Other Canadian Municipalities........................................................................... 34

5.3 Shared Parking Formula Percentages .................................................................................... 35

5.4 Policies from Municipalities in the United States .................................................................... 36

5.5 Recommended Approach to Shared Parking.......................................................................... 37

6 Joint Development / Public Parking & Bonusing Provisions ............................................................. 37

6.1 Bonusing and Incentives to Developers .................................................................................. 37

6.1.1 Recommended Approach to Bonusing ...................................................................... 39

6.2 Joint Development with Respect to Bonusing Provisions ....................................................... 40

7 Cash-in-Lieu for Parking Deficits ....................................................................................................... 40

7.1 Application of Policies ............................................................................................................. 40

7.2 Fees ......................................................................................................................................... 41

7.3 Challenges .............................................................................................................................. 42

7.4 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 43

8 Carpooling & Car-Share .................................................................................................................... 43

8.1 Existing Carpool & Car-Share within the Town of Newmarket................................................ 44

8.2 Carpool Policies ...................................................................................................................... 44

8.2.1 Canada ....................................................................................................................... 44

8.2.2 United States .............................................................................................................. 46

8.2.3 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 47

8.3 Car-Share Policies .................................................................................................................. 47

8.3.1 Existing Programs in the GTA .................................................................................... 47

8.3.2 Car-Share in Canada ................................................................................................. 48

8.3.3 Car-Share in the United States .................................................................................. 49

8.3.4 Recommendation ....................................................................................................... 50

9 Parking Management Approaches .................................................................................................... 50

9.1 Internal Management and Outsourcing ................................................................................... 50

9.1.1 Self-Operation ............................................................................................................ 51

9.1.2 Outsourced Management Contract ............................................................................ 51

9.1.3 Outsourced Concession Agreement .......................................................................... 51

9.2 Governance Model Structures ................................................................................................ 51



October 14, 2016 | ix

10 Transportation Demand Management .............................................................................................. 53


Tables

Table 1: Municipal Parking Standards Reviewed ......................................................................................... 6

Table 2: Growth Areas / Intensification Zones by Municipality ..................................................................... 7

Table 3: Application of Maximum Parking Rates ........................................................................................ 11

Table 4: Residential Land Use Comparison (Zoning By-law 2010-40 vs. Secondary Plan) ...................... 12

Table 5: Vehicles per Household ................................................................................................................ 13

Table 6: Parking Rates Based on # Bedrooms & Tenure (Rented vs. Owned) .......................................... 15

Table 7: Recent Development Applications ................................................................................................ 18

Table 8: Observed Tenant Parking Demand .............................................................................................. 19

Table 9: Minimum Parking Requirements (Apartment Dwellings based on Number of Bedrooms) ........... 20

Table 10: Recommended Parking Rates by Unit Type (Condominiums & Rental Apartments) ................. 21

Table 11: Non-Residential Land Use Comparison (Zoning By-law 2010-40 vs. Secondary Plan Permissions) .................................................................................................................................. 23

Table 12: Current and Recommended Non-Residential Parking Rates ..................................................... 25

Table 13: Shared Parking Policies in Other Jurisdictions ........................................................................... 34

Table 14: Construction Cost of a Structured Parking Space ...................................................................... 41

Table 15: Carpool Policies in Other Jurisdictions ....................................................................................... 44

Table 16: Carpool Policies in the United States.......................................................................................... 46

Table 17: Car-Share Policies in Other Jurisdictions Zoning By-laws.......................................................... 48

Table 18: Car-Share Policies in the United States ..................................................................................... 49

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Urban Growth Centres Secondary Plan Area and Character Areas ............................................. 9

Exhibit 2: GTA Condominium Market Trend by Unit Type .......................................................................... 17

Exhibit 3: Newmarket Bus Terminal (taken directly from the Metrolinx Mobility Hub Study) ...................... 29

Exhibit 4: Newmarket GO Rail Station (taken directly from the Metrolinx Mobility Hub Study) .................. 29

Exhibit 5: Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 Shared Parking Tables ...................................................... 33

Appendices

Appendix A: Residential Parking Rates Comparison

Appendix B: 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey Auto-Ownership

Appendix C: Non-Residential Parking Rates Comparison

Appendix D: Intensification Area Parking Rate Reductions

Appendix E: Shared Parking Percentages Comparison


October 14, 2016 | x

This page is intentionally left blank.


October 14, 2016 | 1

1 Introduction

This report documents the findings of the draft parking standard background study in support of the

development of an Area-Specific Zoning By-law for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area in the

Town of Newmarket. This report summarizes the following tasks:

Task #1: Background Review of Reduced Parking Requirement Policies in Other Jurisdictions

Task #2: Review Bedrooms per Unit Parking Policies

Task #3: Policies for Shared Parking

Task #4: Joint Development and Bonusing

Task #5: Recommend Policy for Cash-in-Lieu

Task #6: Carpooling and Car-Sharing Spaces

Task #7: Governance Models

The findings for the above tasks were summarized in three working papers which were submitted to

the Town for review and comment. This draft report consolidates the three working papers and

incorporates all comments received.

2 Policy Review & Need for Revised Parking Rates

In developing the parking standards for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area we have referenced

the Urban Centres Secondary Plan as well as the York Region Transportation Master Plan, and from

these documents we have extracted the relevant planning policies and visions which have helped to

guide the development of this area specific Zoning By-law.

The Secondary Plan area is envisioned to be highly transit accessible and will be supported by York

Region Transit, Metrolinx GO Transit and the VivaNext Rapidway corridor along Yonge Street and

Davis Drive. This Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is reflected in the policies outlined in the

following sections.

2.1 York Region Transportation Master Plan

The York Region Transportation Master Plan (July 2016) (the “TMP”) has several objectives outlined

to help guide the development of the Region to meet the future vision and goals.

Objectives

Objective 1 of the TMP is To Create a World Class Transit System. Objective 2 is to Develop a

Road Network Fit for the Future. Objective 3 is to Integrate Active Transportation in Urban

Areas, and Objective 5 is to Make the Last Mile Work. These objectives directly impact the design,

character, functionality, and approach to development within the Secondary Plan Area with respect

to parking management, because without good transit, active transportation networks, and

appropriate first and last mile experiences, automobile use will continue to be the primary mode of

travel. To meet these objectives, parking must be carefully managed.


October 14, 2016 | 2

Although all objectives will be important to consider within the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area,

Objective 5 goals as outlined below are vital:

1. Provide safe and convenient walking/cycling opportunities to mobility hubs

2. Manage parking supply and demand with innovation, pricing and technology

3. Support transit-oriented development

4. Embrace emerging technologies and the sharing economy to improve convenience and

mobility

5. Educate and encourage the public on their mobility options through strategies, programs and

incentives that support non-auto travel

Policies

The TMP continues to outline policy areas which rely on the above objectives. Policy Area 2 is

Corridor Evolution. Over time and as thresholds are met (such as transit availability), general

purpose traffic lanes will be repurposed to use as HOV/Transit lanes or reserved bus lanes such as

those in the VivaNext network along Yonge Street and Davis Drive.

Policy Area 3 is Commuter Parking Management. This policy directly impacts the Secondary Plan

Area and the key outcome of this strategy is to lower the number of auto trips accessing and parking

at key destinations in urban centres. This policy ties in with Objectives 1, 3, and 5 noted above, as

well as Policies 2 and 5. The TMP states that “Commuter Parking Management will require the

Region to partner with other agencies and the private sector to conduct further study to inform the

strategy”.

The TMP does acknowledge that parking management is primarily governed by the local

municipalities through zoning by-laws, secondary plans, and official plans, but with the

understanding that Regional levels of influence are important to achieving these initiatives. Regional

influence plays a role in Park ‘N’ Ride lots, carpool parking lots, on-street parking on Regional roads

(although this will not be permitted on Yonge Street or Davis Drive), and guiding growth to

intensification areas to help encourage transit-oriented development by leveraging both public and

private resources.

YRT/Viva currently has seven Park ‘N’ Ride facilities in York Region, however, none of them are in

the Town of Newmarket. A Park ‘N’ Ride Implementation Plan will help inform on locations and

pricing strategies for new lots.

Finally, Policy Area 5 is Boulevard Jurisdiction. With respect to the above this refers to provision of

continuous sidewalks or multi-use trails which form part of the active transportation network which in

turn directly impacts the first and last mile of the trip, upon which a good parking management

system is highly contingent.


October 14, 2016 | 3

2.2 Urban Centre Secondary Plan

The Newmarket Urban Centres Secondary Plan (June 23, 2014) further details and outlines

initiatives and policies appropriate for the Secondary Plan area.

2.2.1 Parking

With respect to Parking Management, the Urban Centres Secondary Plan outlines the following key

points that strongly influence parking policies:

i. The Town will establish minimum and maximum parking requirements for the Urban Centres

in the Zoning By-law. Parking requirements will seek to encourage a shift toward non-auto

modes of transportation.

ii. Parking facilities shall be designed to accommodate bicycle parking as well as reserved

spaces for drivers of car-share or car pool vehicles and electric cars.

iii. Shared parking is encouraged between adjacent developments, where feasible.

iv. Surface parking is discouraged in accordance with Policy 7.3.12(i). Parking in the form of

above or below-ground parking structures is preferred.

v. All non-residential parking, particularly at major employment locations, is encouraged to

implement charged parking.

vi. All commercial, office, institutional, mixed use and multi-unit residential buildings, excluding

townhouses and stacked townhouses, shall include secure bicycle parking and storage

facilities, preferably indoors.

vii. The implementing by-law shall establish minimum requirements for bicycle parking. Major

office developments and major institutional employers shall be encouraged to include

change rooms, showers and lockers for bicycle commuters.

viii. On-street parking will not be permitted along Yonge Street or Davis Drive.

In addition to the above policies, the following Public Parking Strategy is outlined:

The Town shall monitor the need for public parking in the Urban Centres and may prepare a

public parking strategy that considers:

a) the amount of parking required to support planned commercial, entertainment and

institutional uses;

b) the amount of on-street parking that can be provided to support planned commercial,

entertainment and institutional uses;

c) the amount of office parking that could be made available through shared parking

arrangements to the public in the evenings and on weekends;

d) appropriate locations and sizes for off-street public parking facilities;

e) the potential role for a municipal parking authority; and

f) appropriate cash-in-lieu of parking amounts for development in the Urban Centres, in

accordance with Policy 4.2.7 of the Newmarket Official Plan, including any special conditions

wherein reductions in cash-in-lieu requirements would be considered.


October 14, 2016 | 4

2.2.2 Bonusing

Bonusing refers to leniency with respect to design requirements, awarded by the Municipality to the

developer, in return for a public benefit provided by the developer. As excerpted directly from the

Secondary Plan:

The applicant may elect to request increases in the Permitted Maximum Heights and/or

Permitted Maximum FSIs up to, but not exceeding the Discretionary Maximum Heights or

Discretionary Maximum FSIs With Bonusing, without an amendment to this Plan in exchange for

the provision of one or more of the following public benefits, or cash in lieu of such benefits. The

following public benefits are beyond what would otherwise be required to be provided by this

Plan, the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act or any other legislative requirement:

e) structured parking for vehicles where a significant portion of the parking is to be

transferred to a public authority for use as public parking;

Bonusing requests would require a Bonusing Justification Report to justify the increase in height or

FSI with respect to the public benefit being provided (in this case public parking).

2.2.3 Transportation Demand Management

The Secondary Plan outlines the following approach to Transportation Demand Management:

a) All non-residential development in the Urban Centres and all residential development in the

Urban Centres proposing 10 or more residential units shall be required to prepare a

Transportation Demand Management Strategy as part of its Traffic Impact Report. The TDM

strategy will describe actions intended to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips,

alternative parking standards, minimize parking, and promote transit use, cycling, car and

bike sharing, carpooling, and other measures.

b) TDM strategies should be designed to decrease single occupancy vehicle use, reduce peak

period demands, especially discretionary trips in the afternoon peak period, promote active

transportation and transit use, and to increase vehicle occupancy during peak periods and

should include, but not be limited to:

i. provision for car share opportunities in major residential developments;

ii. secure indoor bicycle parking and showers in conjunction with major office and

commercial uses, institutional and civic uses;

iii. preferential parking for carpool vehicles in non-residential developments;

iv. provision for bicycle parking in close proximity to building entrances and transit

stations;

v. transit incentive programs, including subsidized transit fares; and,

vi. incorporating paid parking requirements with non-residential development.


October 14, 2016 | 5

2.3 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)

The AODA outlines accessibility requirements for Ontario, including guidelines for parking, such as

parking space dimensions. The Secondary Plan Parking Zoning By-law will at a minimum conform to

the Standard's Accessible Parking requirements (O. Reg. 191/11 Part IV.I 80.32-80.38)1. The

recommended approaches contained in this report conform to all the applicable AODA requirements.

3 Secondary Plan Parking Rates

Each municipality throughout Southern Ontario has its own set of Zoning By-laws relating to off-

street parking requirements for residential and non-residential uses. In many cases these by-laws

were developed at a time when automobile use was at its highest usage rate, resulting in ample

supply of automobile parking as well as land use and built form patterns that encourage automobile

travel and result in urban sprawl.

In the past ten years however, provincial legislation identified “Urban Growth Centres” across the

Greater Toronto Area, and has mandated municipalities to increase population and employment

density within these areas with transit-oriented development that promotes sustainable travel by

walking, cycling and transit, and combinations of these modes of travel. In response, municipalities

across the GTA have developed new policies allowing for less parking within their Urban Growth

Centres and other growth areas, and an understanding of the policies implemented in other

jurisdictions will provide critical input into the Town’s Zoning By-law for its own Urban Growth Centre

and the rest of the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Area.

Thus, a review of residential parking requirements for other municipalities in the GTA, Ontario, and

select municipalities in the United States, was completed to provide input into the Town of

Newmarket’s Parking Standards Background Study. The municipalities reviewed are summarized in

Table 1. The review included current Zoning By-laws, as well as other parking standard reviews.

1 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/110191#BK132

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/110191#BK132


October 14, 2016 | 6

Table 1: Municipal Parking Standards Reviewed

Municipality Zoning By-law / Ordinance / Municipal Code

Canada

Town of Newmarket By-law 2010-40

City of Markham By-law 28-97, By-law 2004-196 (Markham Centre)

City of Toronto By-law 569-2013

City of Mississauga By-law 0225-2007

City of Brampton By-law 270-2004

Town of Oakville By-law 2014-014

Town of Richmond Hill Richmond Hill Parking Strategy (June 2010)

City of Hamilton By-law 05-200

City of Vaughan By-law 1-88, Review of Parking Standards Contained Within the City of Vaughan’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law (March 2010)

City of Ottawa By-law 2008-250

United States

Stockton, California Stockton Municipal Code

Salem, Oregon Salem Revised Code, 2009

Eugene, Oregon Eugene Code, 1971

Pasadena, California Ordinance 7000

Huntington Beach, California Ordinance 4088

Chicago, Illinois Municipal Code of Chicago, current as of March 16, 2016

While the parking policies of a number of municipalities were reviewed, the municipalities in southern

York Region including Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Markham, are most comparable to the Town of

Newmarket in terms of character and existing transportation and planning policy framework. Like

Newmarket, each of these has an identified Urban Growth Centre and is connected in the planned

VivaNext Rapid Transit Network. A set of municipalities from the United States were also reviewed

to provide the Town with an understanding of a variety of innovative approaches to parking

requirements.

3.1 Existing Parking Policy for the Town’s Urban Centres

The Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 currently identifies the following rates and

reductions applicable to Urban Centre Zones and the Historic Downtown Urban Centre Zone:

For apartment buildings, general rate of 1.5 spaces per unit, reduced to 1.0 space per unit.

For non-residential buildings, a blanket 5% reduction to parking spaces is applied.

All other residential land use types remain as per general parking rates.

The following sections will explore the application of parking policies in other jurisdictions including:

Definition of intensification zones or growth areas to provide variance in parking rates

Application of maximum parking rates

Residential parking rates:

o Apartment / condominium land use definitions

o Other residential land uses

o Visitor parking requirements

Non-residential parking rates


October 14, 2016 | 7

3.2 Definition of Intensification Zones / Growth Areas

Most municipalities identify intensification areas to some degree within their Zoning by-law which

provides the ability to apply reduced standards for parking requirements. A summary of zone types

is summarized in Table 2. General areas are not listed.

Table 2: Growth Areas / Intensification Zones by Municipality

Municipality Intensification Zones

Canada

Town of Newmarket 1. Urban Centre Zones 2. Downtown Historic Urban Centre Zone

City of Markham Markham Centre (Zoning Bylaw 2004-196)

City of Toronto 1. Policy Area 1 (Downtown Core) 2. Policy Area 2 (Yonge-Eglinton) 3. Policy Area 3 (Subway Corridors) 4. Policy Area 4 (Avenues)

City of Mississauga 1. CC1 – City Centre – Retail Core Commercial 2. CC2 – City Centre – Mixed Use 3. CC3 – City Centre – Mixed Use Transition Area 4. CC4 – City Centre – Mixed Use 5. CCOS – City Centre – Open Space

City of Brampton None

Town of Oakville Growth Areas

Town of Richmond Hill Parking Review

1. Downtown Local Centre and Key Development Areas (KDAs) 2. Richmond Hill Regional Centres 3. Rapid Transit Corridors

City of Hamilton Downtown Zones

City of Vaughan Vaughan Metropolitan Centre

City of Vaughan Review of Parking Standards

1. Higher Order Transit Hubs (incl. Vaughan Metropolitan Centre) 2. Local Centres 3. Primary Centres/Primary Intensification Areas

City of Ottawa 1. Area A – Central 2. Area B – Inner City Area

United States

Stockton, California Parking Assessment Districts

Salem, Oregon 1. Central Salem Development Program (CSDP) Area 2. Downtown Parking District

Eugene, Oregon 1. Nodal Development Overlay Zone 2. Other Special Area Zones 3. C-1 zones

Pasadena, California 1. Parking Assessment Districts 2. Central District Transit-Oriented Area (or within ¼ mile of light rail station)

Huntington Beach, California

None

Chicago, Illinois Transit Oriented Development (“Transit-Served Locations”)

3.2.1 Canada

As mentioned, the intensification zones above do not include the general rates applicable to non-

intensification areas within each municipality but it is worth noting that the City of Ottawa is the only

municipality that differentiates between two general zones: ‘Suburban’ and ‘Rural’.


October 14, 2016 | 8

The Town of Richmond Hill currently has site specific Zoning By-laws for intensification areas but

these are likely to be replaced with the recommendations from the Richmond Hill Parking Strategy

report, which will result in general rates plus rates for three types of intensification areas.

A similar situation is occurring in the City of Vaughan where the current Zoning By-law only specifies

reduced rates for the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, but the Draft Review of Parking Standards

recommends a further zoning breakdown into three intensification areas. The Vaughan Metropolitan

Area is contained within the Higher Order Transit Hubs zone type.

The City of Brampton is the only municipality that does not have any reduced rates for intensification

areas.

The City of Toronto designates four intensification zones, referred to as Policy Areas. Policy Area 1,

defined within the boundaries of the downtown core area, has the lowest parking requirements while

Policy Area 4 which covers the “Avenues” defined in the City’s Official Plan has the highest parking

requirements (aside from the general rates referred to in the By-law as ‘all other areas of the City’).

The Town of Newmarket does identify Urban Centre Zones, but without any great detail in terms of

how this reduces parking requirements. As mentioned previously, only apartment style dwelling units

have reduced parking requirements, while non-residential uses have a blanket reduction of only 5%

compared to the general rates.

The Urban Centres Secondary Plan has six ‘Character Areas’ which means that there is potential to

either create one general rate for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area, to create separate

reductions for each Character Area, or to follow the lead of the other municipalities reviewed and to

have reductions based on proximity to transit. These character areas are identified in the Secondary

Plan and in Exhibit 1.

3.2.2 United States

In the United States parking reductions for growth areas is dealt with in a greater variety of ways. In

the Cities of Stockton and Pasadena Parking Assessment Districts are developed which allow

developments to be exempt from the parking requirements if they participate in a parking

assessment for the construction and design of public parking facilities. A similar approach is

leveraged in the City of Salem. This means that the public parking is shared and more efficiently

used. In Salem, parking is only required on-site for uses falling under Household Living.

Eugene applies percentage reductions to the parking requirements for established zones, which

includes the Nodal Development Overlay Zone (50% reduction) and the Other Special Area Zones

(25% reduction). In C1 zones, if the parking requirement is calculated to be less than 8 spaces, then

no parking is required.

Chicago allows a 50% reduction for residential land uses within “1,320 feet (400m) of a CTA or

METRA rail station entrance or within 2,640 feet (800m) of a CTA or METRA rail station entrance

when the subject building is located along a pedestrian street or a pedestrian retail street. The

minimum off-street automobile parking ratios for residential uses may be further reduced by up to

100 percent from the otherwise applicable standards if the project is reviewed and approved as a

special use.” Similarly, a reduction up to 100% is allowed for non-residential uses within the same

distance from rail stations. These reductions are contingent on bicycle parking being provided.

Percentage reductions are applied to the parking requirement calculated using the general rates, or

are in addition to any already reduced standards for the downtown core.


October 14, 2016 | 9

Exhibit 1: Urban Growth Centres Secondary Plan Area and Character Areas


October 14, 2016 | 10

Pasadena also allows reductions for the Central District Transit-Oriented Area, or within ¼ mile

(400m) of a light rail station. Percentage reductions are applied to the general parking rates for non-

residential uses, and separate rates are provided for residential uses.

3.2.3 Recommendation

The Urban Centres Secondary Plan Area is relatively uniform with respect to proximity to rapid

transit along the VivaNext Rapidway corridor, although the Rapidway does not currently continue

north of Davis Drive or west of Yonge Street. Considering the presence of two GO stations (one rail

and one for buses) within the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area, we do recommend reduced rates

reflecting the availability of both transit services.

Instead of preparing a separate set of rates to be used for developments in proximity to transit, we

recommend the percentage approach. Using this method, after the parking requirements are

calculated using the general rates, a percentage is then applied to the requirement, and the result is

taken as the parking requirement.

This approach is more simplistic and allows for more flexibility in the zoning by-law in terms of

additional percentage reductions which could be applied to reflect other Transportation Demand

Management initiatives. The actual percentage reductions and proximity thresholds will be explored

in following sections (see Section 4).

3.3 Application of Maximum Parking Rates

One of the primary goals of customized parking rates for intensification areas and growth areas is to

discourage vehicular trips and to encourage transit use or forms of active transportation. One way of

accomplishing this is to require less parking be provided, reflecting the accessibility of public transit

and lower auto ownership.

However, only imposing reduced minimums still allows developers to potentially oversupply parking,

which encourages people to drive. As a result, many municipalities are enforcing maximum parking

rates. These maximum ratios may be applicable to both residential and non-residential land uses.

In some cases this results in a range of rates which the developer may gear towards a specific

development depending on market characteristics, goals and expectations, while in others the

maximum parking rate may be equal to the minimum. Typically, maximums are not applied to

general zones. The Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law states that the parking supplies may not

exceed the minimum parking requirements, which essentially means that the minimum rate is the

maximum rate.

Table 3 summarizes the municipalities which are enforcing maximum parking rates, including

specific areas.


October 14, 2016 | 11

Table 3: Application of Maximum Parking Rates

Municipality Intensification Zones MAXIMUM?

Canada

Town of Newmarket 1. Urban Centre Zones 2. Downtown Historic Urban Centre Zone

1

1

City of Markham 1. Markham Centre (Zoning Bylaw 2004-196) x

City of Toronto 1. Policy Area 1 2. Policy Area 2 3. Policy Area 3 4. Policy Area 4

2

2

2

2

City of Mississauga 1. CC1 – City Centre – Retail Core Commercial 2. CC2 – City Centre – Mixed Use 3. CC3 – City Centre – Mixed Use Transition Area 4. CC4 – City Centre – Mixed Use 5. CCOS – City Centre – Open Space

x x x x x

City of Brampton None x

Town of Oakville 1. Growth Areas x


1. Downtown Local Centre and Key Development Areas 2. Richmond Hill Regional Centres 3. Rapid Transit Corridors

3

City of Hamilton 1. Downtown Zones x

City of Vaughan 1. Vaughan Metropolitan Centre


1. Higher Order Transit Hubs 2. Local Centres 3. Primary Centres/Primary Intensification Areas

4

4

City of Ottawa 1. Area A – Central 2. Area B – Inner City Area

5

5

United States

Stockton, California Parking Assessment Districts x

Salem, Oregon 1. Central Salem Development Program (CSDP) Area 2. Downtown Parking District

6

Eugene, Oregon 1. Nodal Development Overlay Zone 2. Other Special Area Zones 3. C-1 zones

7

Pasadena, California 1. Parking Assessment Districts 2. Central District Transit-Oriented Area (or within ¼ mile of light rail station)

x

8


None x

Chicago, Illinois Transit Oriented Development (“Transit-Served Locations”) 9

1. Maximums equal to the minimum rates

2. Maximums apply to only some land uses depending on the land use and the Policy Area

3. Maximums apply to development within 400m walking distance of rapid transit stop or GO Rail

4. Maximums apply to surface parking lots only

5. Maximums apply to specific land uses within 600m of rapid transit stations (maximum walking distance of 800m)

6. Maximums are 2.5 times the minimum (when 20 spaces or less required) and 1.75 times the minimum otherwise

7. Maximum is 125% of the minimums with some exceptions

8. Maximum is equal to the minimum, but may exceed the minimum requirement under some conditions

9. Maximums only apply within the Downtown Zoning Districts, which can include Transit-Served Locations.

Separate rates are provided.


October 14, 2016 | 12

All of the most comprehensive Zoning By-laws as well as the Parking Standard Reviews for the City

of Vaughan and the Town of Richmond Hill impose maximums.


Within the Secondary Plan area maximum parking rates should be implemented. Minimum and

maximum rates should result in a range of possible parking supplies because this results in flexibility

in design and the ability for developers to gear a development towards market expectations. The

actual range in minimum and maximum rates will be explored in following sections.

3.4 Residential Parking Rates

The following sections provide commentary and recommendations based on the observed

comparisons for condominium and rental apartment land uses, other residential land uses, as well

as visitor parking. For a detailed comparison of residential parking requirements for all jurisdictions

reviewed, see Appendix A.

3.4.1 Permitted Residential Land Uses

There are two general residential land uses permitted within the Secondary Plan area and this

includes multiple dwelling unit buildings and townhouses. Multiple dwelling unit buildings include

apartments (freehold and condominium). Townhouses include standard and stacked townhouses

(freehold and condominium), and they may be located on either public or private roads. The

Secondary Plan does not identify duplex, triplex, or quadruplex as permitted uses. Rent-geared-to-

income residences will be permitted within the Secondary Plan area.

Home Occupation rates are explored under Section 3.5 in addition to Group Homes and Special

Needs Facilities. For clarity when comparing land uses within Zoning By-law 2010-40, we have

extracted the table contained within Section 5.3.1 showing residential parking rates and indicate how

they would relate to the Secondary Plan area below in Table 4.

Table 4: Residential Land Use Comparison (Zoning By-law 2010-40 vs. Secondary Plan)

Zoning By-law 2010-40 Land Uses Applicability to Secondary Plan Area…

Accessory Dwelling Unit Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

A Mixed Use Building containing Up to 3 Dwelling Units Refer to Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings

Dwelling, Detached Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Dwelling, Link Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Dwelling, Semi-Detached Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Dwelling, Duplex Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Dwelling, Triplex Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Dwelling, Quadruplex, Fourplex or Maisonette Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Dwelling, Townhouse or Stacked Townhouse on Private Road Refer to Townhouses

Dwelling, Townhouse or Stacked Townhouse on Public Road Refer to Townhouses

Parcel of Tied Land Development Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Apartment Building Refer to Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings

Bed and Breakfast Establishment Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Dormitory Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Group Home, Halfway House Refer to Group Homes, Special Needs Housing

Home Occupation Refer to applicable residential use: Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings or Townhouses

Special Needs Facility Refer to Group Homes, Special Needs Housing


October 14, 2016 | 13

3.4.2 Vehicles per Household in Newmarket

Data from the 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) was reviewed to determine the current

auto-ownership within the Town of Newmarket. The TTS is a travel survey of households within the

GTA that collects information pertaining to travel characteristics which include origin-destination

patterns as well as trip modes and other household information that is relevant to transportation

planning. We have reviewed auto-ownership based on number of persons per household.

Table 5 below summarizes the breakdown of households in Newmarket based on auto-ownership.

This summary is independent of persons per household and does not take into account transit

accessibility or any other factors such as dwelling type. Two queries were performed: one for the

entire Town, and one for the zones surrounding Newmarket GO Rail Station. Because of the zone

system used by TTS, the sub-area selected surrounding the GO Rail Station is at the centre of 4

irregular-shaped zones, each of which is roughly 1.0 km tall and 1.5 km wide. Therefore the query

represents an area that is approximately 2.0 km by 3.0 km and centered on the GO Rail Station.

Zones are typically sized and shaped to account for road network fabric, neighbourhood character,

and accessibility in terms of travel patterns and transit use. The results show a pattern in terms of

auto-ownership which we believe could be more prominent if it was possible to narrow the query

down to a smaller radius reflective of acceptable walking distances.

Table 5: Vehicles per Household

Vehicles per Household

Town of Newmarket

1 Surrounding

Newmarket GO 2

Notes:

1. There are approximately 28,000 households in the Town, and 96% of these households have 5 or fewer persons per household. This summary only reflects the top 96% of households with 5 or fewer persons.

2. Zones 2611,2621,2620,2613

0 8% 17%

1 32% 41%

2 46% 36%

3 10% 5%

4 3% 1%

Total 100% 100% Detailed queries provided in Appendix B.

This information does clearly indicate that in Newmarket, 78% of households have 1 or 2 vehicles.

Thus a mixed rate between 1.0 space per unit and 2.0 spaces per unit would generally serve most

existing developments. These results also very closely match the current Newmarket Zoning By-law

requirements which are generally 2.0 spaces per unit or 1.5 spaces per unit for residential land uses.

The summary above also shows a trend towards lower auto-ownership as a result of proximity to the

GO Rail Station. By narrowing the query down to only 4 zones surrounding the Newmarket GO

station (approximately 6,500 households) we do see a significant shift in auto-ownership. Compared

to 8% of households with no vehicles in Newmarket, the zones surrounding the GO station have

17% of households with no vehicles. Compared to 32% of households with 1 vehicle, the zones

surrounding Newmarket GO have a higher proportion of single vehicle households at 41%. Finally,

the number of 2 vehicle households surrounding Newmarket GO is 36% compared to 46% in the

remainder of Newmarket. This clearly shows a relationship between auto-ownership and proximity to

transit, and the results appear to be much closer to the current reduced Zoning By-law requirement

of 1.0 space per unit in Urban Centres, although it is important to remember that this is a mixed rate

and does not take into account dwelling type or number of bedrooms.


October 14, 2016 | 14

Looking at the query data in more detail (see detailed queries in Appendix B) a distinct pattern emerges in terms of vehicle ownership. Out of the households located near the GO Rail Station:

Auto ownership is most impacted by one person and two person households because they

represent 64% of households.

Approximately one half of those households will have one vehicle.

Approximately one quarter of those households will have zero vehicles.

Approximately one quarter of those households will have two vehicles.

On average the result is one vehicle per household.

Based on the trend of reduced auto-ownership near the Newmarket GO station within the Secondary

Plan area, improved transit availability in addition to parking management would encourage

residents with lower auto-ownership to move in. This review of TTS data generally confirms the

current mixed rates being used in the Zoning By-law are reflective of the needs of current

developments. More importantly, it indicates that within the Secondary Plan area, the initiatives and

policies that will guide transit-oriented development justify further reductions.

3.4.3 Townhouse Dwelling Rates

Townhouse developments have consistent parking rates for general areas and growth areas

throughout the reviewed municipalities, and for all variations of townhouses including stacked

townhouses. The Town of Newmarket currently does not have reduced townhouse rates for growth

areas.

Standard resident parking rates for townhouses is 2.0 spaces per unit for general areas, and 1.0

space per unit in growth areas. For some townhouses there will be a visitor parking requirement and

this typically applies to townhouses on private roads or with shared parking supplies (this is explored

in Section 3.4.8). Only the current Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law differentiates between public

and private roads by reducing the general area resident rate from 2.0 spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces

per unit. In the City of Toronto the requirement is 1.0 space per unit regardless of the Policy Area.

3.4.3.1 Recommended Townhouse Dwelling Rates

We recommend that the minimum resident parking rate for all townhouse dwellings be 1.0 space per

unit. This is consistent with the current resident parking rate for apartments in urban centres within

Newmarket. We further recommend that a maximum be imposed that is 1.2 times (20%) greater

than the minimum requirement, resulting in a maximum rate of 1.2 spaces per unit. This range of

minimum and maximum parking rates is consistent with those found in other municipalities.

3.4.4 Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings Background Review

Each municipality has a unique character and structure which may justify the defining of separate

land uses catered to the specific parking needs of those uses. For example, the City of Mississauga

differentiates between Condominium Apartments and Rental Apartments. By contrast, the City of

Toronto only has one comparable land use type called “Apartment Building” and it applies to both

rented and owned units.

There is a clear trend towards basing parking rates on variables that are indicators of income, and

thus the likelihood of vehicle ownership. The two primary variables are the number of bedrooms per

unit, and to some extent rental versus owned units. Currently in the Town of Newmarket Zoning By-


October 14, 2016 | 15

law 2010-40 there is no difference between rental or owned units, and there is no separation of rates

based on number of bedrooms.

Table 6 summarizes the municipalities that currently – or may in the near future based on their

parking standard reviews – provide rates for units based on the number of bedrooms for multi-family

residences. Also shown are the municipalities that separate rates based on tenure (rented versus

owned).

For rates based on bedrooms, 5 out of the 9 Canadian jurisdictions that we examined have parking

policies which distinguish as such. Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Richmond Hill and Vaughan are

the 5 that do while Markham, Oakville, Hamilton, and Ottawa do not. Oakville does consider the size

of the unit, but the rates are based on gross floor area. Only two rates are provided and the

threshold is 75m2. Two out of the three most comparable jurisdictions in Richmond Hill and Vaughan

do provide for these policies. Rates based on tenure are only identified in 2 out of 9 municipalities

and for the Richmond Hill Parking Review.

A similar trend is found in the United States where only 2 out of 6 have rates for units based on

number of bedrooms, and none of the municipalities reviewed differentiate based on tenure.

Table 6: Parking Rates Based on # Bedrooms & Tenure (Rented vs. Owned)

Municipality

Rate Based on # Bedrooms?

Different Rates Based on Tenure (Rented/Owned)

General Rates

Growth Areas

General Rates

Growth Areas

Canada

Town of Newmarket x x x x

City of Markham x x x x

City of Toronto x x

City of Mississauga

x x

City of Brampton - -

Town of Oakville x

x x x


City of Hamilton x x x x

City of Vaughan x x x


x x

City of Ottawa x x x x

United States

Stockton, California x x x x

Salem, Oregon x x x x

Eugene, Oregon x x

Pasadena, California x x x x

Huntington Beach, California x x

Chicago, Illinois x x x x

3.4.4.1 Recommended Approach to Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Rates

It is recommended that the Town use bedrooms per unit parking policies because there is very

strong data suggesting that auto-ownership is directly related to this metric. However, we do not

recommend separating rates based on tenure. As previously mentioned, we recommend that


October 14, 2016 | 16

apartments, freehold or condominiums, be referred to globally as multiple dwelling unit buildings,

and rates based on tenure are not recommended for several reasons.

Part of the argument against doing so is based on the fact that many units that are owned are

actually being rented, and determining the split during the development proposal phase is extremely

difficult. Furthermore, studies have shown that the difference in auto-ownership between someone

who owns a condo and lives in it, versus someone who rents a similar condo, are negligible. The

difference is much more pronounced in market rentals, rent-geared-to-income units, coops, and

subsidized units. These dwelling types will also be permitted within the Secondary Plan area and the

parking needs will be accommodated within the range of minimum and maximum rates provided and

allows for the developer to design their parking supplies accordingly.

If a developer believes that the parking requirements are too onerous based on their specific

development proposal, then a parking study for the purposes of a minor variance application can be

performed to justify a reduced parking supply. The rates that will be recommended for the

Secondary Plan area are going to be fairly aggressive in terms of discouraging auto-ownership, and

as we have previously mentioned, the minimum and maximum ranges should generally account for

ranges in tenure. Parking rates (by number of bedrooms) are explored in Section 3.4.5. Ideally,

parking should not be bundled with units, for all residential developments.

3.4.5 Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Market Trends

As identified previously in the discussion on residential parking rates for multiple dwelling unit

buildings and seen in Appendix A, many municipalities already have parking rates which vary

depending on the number of bedrooms per unit, or are moving towards this type of policy. The

advantages of this are that the bedroom based rates capture more realistic needs of each dwelling

unit, but the disadvantage is the complexity of the calculation, the extent of research that goes into

developing these individual rates, and the difficulty in verifying the appropriateness of the rates after

the development is built and occupied (on a bedroom per unit basis).

Some municipalities go into further detail by providing two separate rates based on tenure, i.e.

whether the units are rented or owned. The advantage of this is that developments can be catered to

the market goals or expectations, but this may not always be the most appropriate approach. These

models are geared towards bundled parking which operates under the assumption that households

with more bedrooms or higher incomes will want to or need to own more vehicles.

The following sections will explore market trends both GTA-wide and looking at recent development

applications in the Town, review policies in other jurisdictions, and ultimately recommend parking

rates based on bedrooms per unit and tenure.

3.4.5.1 GTA Trends

The Town of Newmarket currently applies mixed rates to the ‘Apartment Building’ land use2, and the

primary disadvantage to this approach is that it is dependent on having a uniform unit mix of both

2 The definition of ‘Dwelling, Apartment Building’ from Zoning By-law 2010-40 is as follows: Means a building containing 4 or more dwelling units which are rented or owned by the occupants and which have a common entrance from the street level and the occupants of which have the right to use in common, hallways, stairs, and/or elevators and yards but does not include any other dwelling defined herein.


October 14, 2016 | 17

large and small units. However, market trends appear to be indicating a trend towards smaller unit

sizes. According to a 2012 study completed by RealNet (www.realnet.ca) across the GTA, 1

bedroom and 1 bedroom plus den condos consisted of only 42% of new openings in 2004, but in

2012 that percentage increased to 65%.

A graph illustrating the GTA market trends in unit mix is provided in Exhibit 2. The changing trend

towards smaller unit sizes combined with transit availability is in part driving the need to revise the

Town’s current parking rates.

Source:

https://informedadvantage.wordpress.c

om/2012/05/17/gta-new-condos-

openings-by-unit-type/

Exhibit 2: GTA Condominium Market Trend by Unit Type

3.4.5.2 Newmarket Trends

Looking more specifically at the Town’s own market trends, a number of recent development

applications in the Town and the details of their parking provisions were reviewed. Table 7 provides

a summary of these development applications and documents the parking requirements identified in

the application with respect to meeting the zoning by-law minimum requirements. All of the

applications are located within the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area.

It is important to note that these developments may have sought reduced parking but did not or have

not yet received approval. However, this does provide some indication of the current market demand

within the Town.

https://informedadvantage.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/gta-new-condos-openings-by-unit-type/




October 14, 2016 | 18

Table 7: Recent Development Applications

Development Type Parking Supply

212 Davis Drive 225 apartment units Reduction approved

180 Main Street “Clock Tower”

150 condominium apartment units 1,138 m

2 ground floor commercial

Reduction sought

17645 Yonge Street “Slessor Square”

21 storey apartment, retirement residence, medical use.

Reduction approved

17150 Yonge Street York Region Annex Building Meets requirements

16635 Yonge Street Shoppers Drug Mart Meets requirements

17365 Yonge Street 12&14 storey apartment Meets requirements

345 & 351 Davis Drive Back-to-back stacked townhouses Reduction approved

A reduction in the parking requirements was approved for the mixed use development at 17645

Yonge Street, 212 Davis Drive, and 345-351 Davis Drive, while a reduction is currently being sought

for another residential development. The remaining three developments met the zoning by-law

requirements – one of which is residential while the other two are non-residential. Overall, 4 out of 7

of these development applications have sought parking rate reductions. In terms of residential

developments (including mixed use), the 4 out of 5 sought parking reductions.

A review of the specific parking requirements sought in these applications can provide guidance on

the likely market demand for parking when considering reducing current requirements, and thus the

actual revealed parking rate based on the development application. These developments are studied

in further detail in the following section.

3.4.5.3 Parking Demand Rates from Development Applications

For the first two developments listed in Table 7, parking studies were prepared to justify the reduced

parking supplies which would fall short of the zoning by-law requirements. These studies included

proxy surveys at existing residential developments, mostly located within the Town of Newmarket.

The studies were used to generate parking rates for comparison with the Urban Centre Zone’s rates.

Since the Newmarket Zoning By-law does not consider unit mix, it is easy to directly compare the

current parking rate requirement to the observed mixed rate which does not take into account unit

sizes.

For the development at 212 Davis Drive, the parking study entitled Parking and Site Plan Review –

212 Davis Drive – Town of Newmarket (Cole Engineering, November 27, 2014), concluded that the

proposed mixed parking rate of 0.98 spaces per unit (of which 0.10 spaces per unit are for visitors)

would be justified. This was based on surveys at eight proxy locations, with the peak resident

parking demand rate ranging from 0.50 spaces per unit to 0.89 spaces per unit, with an average of

0.70 spaces per unit in observed demand. The supply rate provided for Urban Centre Zones would

be 1.25 spaces per unit (of which 0.25 spaces per unit are for visitors). Overall, this development is

seeking a 22% reduction from the already reduced requirements for Urban Centre Zones. The

tenant parking supply rate would be reduced by only 12%.

An earlier memorandum for the same development entitled Parking Survey (October 23, 2014)

included proxy surveys at a greater number of similar developments – 14 in total, 3 of which were

condominium type, while the remainder were rentals. The observed resident demand ranged

between 0.56 spaces per unit to 1.23 spaces per unit, with an average demand of 0.82 spaces per

unit. Although the observed parking demand rates exceeded the Urban Centre Zones requirement of

1.00 spaces per unit (resident) at 3 locations, the average was well below the current requirement,


October 14, 2016 | 19

and 79% (11/14) of the observed demand rates were below the current zoning by-law requirement.

Furthermore, 4 of the locations surveyed were part of a larger apartment complex, and the higher

demand at two of the buildings (1.23 and 1.22 spaces per unit) may be offset by much lower

demand (0.64 and 0.84 spaces per unit) at the adjacent buildings, if the parking supplies are shared.

This research concludes that:

There is an opportunity to reduce parking requirements below those outlined in the current

zoning by-law for Urban Centres

Subsidized/social housing apartment types require the lowest parking rates

Rental apartment parking demand tends to be slightly lower than condominium apartments

The surveys did not capture peak visitor parking demand since the surveys were performed during

the night hours when resident demand was the highest and visitor parking demand was the lowest.

Table 8 summarizes observed parking demand rates from the above sources.

Table 8: Observed Tenant Parking Demand

Address Provided Parking

(spaces / unit) Observed Demand (spaces / unit)

Tenure Mixed Market RGI

250 Davis Drive

1.79 1.23 Non-RGI

260 Davis Drive

0.84 0.64 Non-RGI

250+260 Davis Drive

1.26 0.90 Non-RGI

270 Davis Drive

1.46 1.22 Non-RGI

684 Queen Street 1.22 0.86 Non-RGI

25 Lorne Avenue 1.07 0.81 Non-RGI

26 Lorne Avenue 1.07 0.83 Non-RGI

27 & 19 Huron Heights 1.08 1.04 Non-RGI

795 Davis Drive 1.03 0.77 Non-RGI

31 Huron Heights 1.28 0.67 Non-RGI

35 & 41 Huron Heights 0.97 0.56 Non-RGI



280 Davis Drive 1.24 0.84 RGI Permitted

400 Crossland Gate 1.32 0.73 RGI Permitted

615 Fernbank Road 1.04 0.52 0.90 0.27 60% RGI, 34% Senior

349/351 Crowder Blvd 1.05 0.58 0.98 0.24 55% RGI, 58% Senior

25 Deverill Crescent 1.09 0.59 0.88 0.30 50% RGI, 17% Senior

145 Essex Avenue 1.34 0.93 1.04 0.81 50% RGI, 29% Senior

2185 Major Mackenzie Dr 1.00 0.38 0.38 62% RGI, 100% Senior

Summary Data Sources: 1. Parking Survey Memorandum (Town of Newmarket, October 23, 2014) 2. Parking and Site Plan Review Update and Response to Comments 212 Davis Drive Proposed Residential Development Town of Newmarket (Cole Engineering, November 27, 2014)

Metric Non-RGI RGI RGI vs

Non-RGI

Minimum 0.56 0.24 43%

Maximum 1.22 0.81 66%

Average 0.84 0.40 48%

85th

Percentile 1.02 0.55 54%

Not all of the parking studies were performed in the Town of Newmarket. Based on the available

information we have separated the data by rent-geared-to-income (RGI) developments and non-

RGI. RGI is permitted at the two buildings located at 280 Davis Drive and 400 Crossland Gate, but

the actual split between RGI and non-RGI is unclear. Based on the observed demand it appears that

the units are non-RGI in majority and for that reason we have combined them with the non-RGI

developments. For the last 5 developments shown, the split between RGI and non-RGI was

available and the demand was counted separately as well. The RGI developments are shaded in


October 14, 2016 | 20

yellow, while the non-RGI developments are shaded in green. It is important to note that these rates

are mixed (do not directly reflect the unit mixture in terms of bedrooms per unit).

What we have found is that the average and 85th percentile parking demand mixed rates are 0.84

space per unit and 1.02 spaces per unit, respectively, for non-RGI units. For RGI units however the

average and 85th percentile rates are 0.40 spaces per unit and 0.55 spaces per unit, respectively.

This represents approximately 50% of the demand observed for non-RGI units. A similar trend is

seen when comparing the minimum and maximum, with RGI producing rates that are 43% and 66%

of non-RGI demand, respectively.

This data indicates that RGI units, including affordable housing, subsidized housing, and cooperative

housing, does warrant application of lower rates at about half the rate of non-RGI housing units.

3.4.6 Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Bedrooms per Unit Rates Review

The Town of Newmarket’s apartment parking rates compared to Town of Richmond Hill and City of

Vaughan’s, including variations by number of bedrooms, are summarized in Table 9.

As seen in Table 9, reductions in parking requirements for Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings can be

achieved by varying parking requirements by number of bedrooms and this is defined in the City of

Vaughan’s current by-law and was identified in the Town of Richmond Hill Parking Strategy

(endorsed by Council in December 2010 in principle). This strategy is also applied in a number of

other jurisdictions in the GTA including the City of Toronto, Mississauga, and Brampton.

Table 9: Minimum Parking Requirements (Apartment Dwellings based on Number of Bedrooms)


Town of Richmond Hill Parking Strategy

City of Vaughan By-law 1-88

Land Use General Rates

Urban Centre

Land Use Rest of RH

Regional Centre


VMC

Apartment 1.50/unit 1.0/unit

Apartment Apartment 1.50/unit

Bachelor 1.00/unit 0.80/unit Bachelor 0.70/unit

One Bed 1.25/unit 0.90/unit One Bed 0.70/unit

Two Bed 1.50/unit 1.00/unit Two Bed 0.90/unit

Three Bed+

1.75/unit 1.20/unit Three Bed+

1.00/unit

Visitor 0.25/unit 0.25/unit Visitor 0.25/unit 0.15/unit Visitor 0.15/unit

3.4.7 Recommended Multiple Dwelling Unit Building Parking Rates

As identified previously in the review of residential parking rates in other jurisdictions, bedrooms per

unit can be used to justify lower parking rates.

Based upon the rates identified by both Richmond Hill and Vaughan as well as considering the

market demand identified in the previous section and auto-ownership within Newmarket, a set of

rates has been developed for the Town based upon bedrooms per unit. However, a key

consideration for the Secondary Plan area is that the Town would like to see bedroom per unit rates

that generally reflect the current Urban Centre mixed rate of 1.0 space per unit. Knowing that one

bedroom and one bedroom plus den units are beginning to dominate the markets, the rates that are

applied to these units will have a greater impact on the final parking supply in terms of the mixed

rate.


October 14, 2016 | 21

The recommended bedrooms per unit rates for the Town, including minimums and maximums, are

summarized in Table 10. Similar to the recommendations for townhouses, the maximum rates are

approximately 1.2 times (20%) higher than the minimum rates. With one bedroom units dominating

the market, the resulting mixed supply rates will be generally between 0.8 spaces per unit and

1.0 space per unit. We recommend that the Town encourage developers to unbundle parking so that

those who rely on, own, or expect to have multiple vehicles, aren’t encouraged to move into the

Secondary Plan Area. The recommended rates shown below would apply to both owned and rented

units (parking requirements are independent of tenure).

Table 10: Recommended Parking Rates by Unit Type (Condominiums & Rental Apartments)

Town Of Newmarket Recommended Parking Rates for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan Area

# Bedrooms Minimum Maximum

Bachelor 0.70/unit 0.85/unit

One Bedroom 0.80/unit 1.00/unit

Two Bedroom 0.90/unit 1.10/unit

Three Bedroom (or more) 1.10/unit 1.30/unit

Visitor (see Section 3.4.9 below) 0.15/unit 0.15/unit

3.4.8 Recommended Rent-Geared-to-Income Rates

Based on the results of our review in Table 8, we recommend that parking for RGI units be reflective

of the lower auto-ownership. The minimum and maximum rates for Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings

outlined in Table 10 should be multiplied by a factor of 0.5 and these reduced rates should be

applied to the targeted or anticipated mixture of RGI units within a building. The parking

requirements for RGI townhouse units would similarly be multiplied by a factor of 0.5.

Based on the parking demand in the buildings at 280 Davis Drive and 400 Crossland Gate, it

appears that the mixture of RGI versus non-RGI may be difficult to determine prior to development,

since both these buildings allow for applications for either RGI or market rentals. It will be up to the

City’s discretion to allow for the application of these reduced rates and to how many units they may

be applied, depending on if the City believes the demand for RGI units can be filled. However, based

on the buildings for which the split of RGI versus non-RGI was known, it appears that 50:50 splits

are common at least for the developments for which data was available.

Visitor parking requirements would remain unchanged for RGI units when compared to non-RGI.

3.4.9 Visitor Parking Rates (Residential Land Uses)

Visitor parking requirements are fairly consistent throughout all the municipalities reviewed, as well

as for the different housing types. Visitor parking rates typically range between 0.15 spaces per unit

to 0.25 spaces per unit, and are completely independent of the unit sizes. Visitor parking is required

for all multiple dwelling unit building developments regardless of if they are rented or owned, and the

visitor parking rates are typically the same for both types of tenure.

The Cities of Toronto and Pasadena are the only municipalities that have visitor rates below 0.15

spaces per unit, and in Toronto these lower rates (0.10 spaces per unit) only apply to Policy Areas 1,


October 14, 2016 | 22

2, and 3. Huntington Beach has the highest guest parking requirement for multi-family dwellings at

0.5 spaces per unit. Chicago and Salem do not identify visitor parking requirements.

3.4.9.1 Recommendation

We recommend that the Town continue to require visitor parking to be provided for the same land

uses that are identified in the current Zoning By-law and permitted in the Secondary Plan area. This

includes Townhouses and Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings. We recommend that the visitor parking

rate applicable to these developments be 0.15 spaces per unit as a minimum and maximum. The

ranges imposed on the resident parking component will allow for flexibility in design.

3.5 Non-Residential Land Uses

3.5.1 Permitted Non-Residential Land Uses

The following non-residential land uses are permitted within the Secondary Plan area:

1. Institutional

a. Schools & Educational Facilities

b. Day Cares

c. Group Homes

d. Places of Worship

e. Long-term Care Facilities

f. Special Needs Housing

g. Medical Facilities (Including Medical Offices and Research Facilities)

2. Community

a. Libraries

b. Community / Recreation Centres

c. Arts and Cultural Establishments (undefined)

3. Commercial

a. Retail Stores

b. Restaurants

c. Offices (Business and Civic Facilities)

d. Hotels

4. Places of Entertainment

a. Cinemas

b. Adult Entertainment and Night Clubs

c. Arcades and Indoor Games

5. Home-Based Live-Work units (Home Occupation)

We have included Special Needs Housing, Long-term Care Facilities and Home Occupation in this

category because the parking requirements are based on staffing or patron needs. For clarity when

comparing land uses within Zoning By-law 2010-40, we have extracted the table contained within


October 14, 2016 | 23

Section 5.3.2 showing non-residential parking rates and indicate how they would relate to the

Secondary Plan area below in Table 11.

Table 11: Non-Residential Land Use Comparison (Zoning By-law 2010-40 vs. Secondary Plan Permissions)

Zoning By-law 2010-40 Land Uses Applicability to Secondary Plan Area…

Accessory Retail Sales Outlet Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Art Gallery, Museum Land use is addressed

Banquet Facility Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Commercial Athletic Centre, Community Centre, Outdoor Recreation Facility, Sports Arena

Refer to Community / Recreation Centres

Commercial School Land use is addressed

Convenience Store Refer to Retail

Day Nursery Land use is addressed

Dry Cleaning Depot, Laundromat Refer to Retail

Financial Institution Refer to Retail

Funeral Home Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Garden Centre Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Golf Course Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Hospital Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Hotel Land use is addressed

Institutional Day Centre Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Library Land use is addressed

Local Shopping Centre Refer to Retail

Long Term Care Facility Land use is addressed

Manufacturing, Manufacturing (Light) Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Medical Clinic, Medical Office Building, Medical or Dental Laboratories

Refer to Office

Medical Practitioner (sole) Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Motor Vehicle Repair Facility, Motor Vehicle Body Shop

Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Motor Vehicle Service Shop Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Motor Vehicle Service Station Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Nightclub Land use is addressed

Passenger Transportation Terminal Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Office, Accessory Office Refer to Office

Personal Service Shop Refer to Retail

Place of Entertainment Refer to Cinemas, Arcades, Indoor Games

Place of Worship Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Private Club Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Restaurant Land use is addressed

Retail (Food/Grocery/Supermarket), Retail (other) Refer to Retail

Retail Warehouse Store Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

School, Elementary Land use is addressed

School, Secondary Land use is addressed

School, Post Secondary Land use is addressed

Service or Repair Shop Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Shopping Mall, Regional (Upper Canada Mall) Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Studio Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Transportation Depot Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Veterinary Clinic, Veterinary Hospital, Domestic Animal Care Facility

Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40

Warehouse and Storage Uses Refer to Zoning By-law 2010-40


October 14, 2016 | 24

3.5.2 Non-residential Parking Rate Review

To develop appropriate non-residential rates for the Secondary Plan area, the non-residential rates

from other municipalities were reviewed for both general areas and intensification areas. The

general area rates are fairly consistent with those found in Newmarket (see Appendix C).

We found that intensification area rate reductions are generally between 20% and 65% when

compared to the rates that apply to general areas. These conversion rates differ by municipality.

Within the City of Toronto, the Policy Area rates are reduced by greater amounts when compared to

the rates for ‘All Other Areas of the City’, with reductions typically between 30% and 90%, and an

average reduction of 60% for Policy Area 4 which we believe is most comparable to the Secondary

Plan area. The reductions for Policy Areas vary more than those seen in other municipalities, and

also vary more by use.

Within the Town of Richmond Hill Parking Strategy, the growth area rates are consistently reduced

by approximately 20% to 30% when compared to the rates for the ‘rest of Richmond Hill’. The City of

Hamilton reduces the rates for ‘Downtown Zones’ by approximately 40% for offices and hotels, and

by 68% for medical clinics.

Finally, the City of Vaughan Draft Review of Parking Standards reduces the general rates by 20% to

30% for ‘Local Centres’ and ‘Primary Centres’, but the reduction for ‘Higher Order Transit Hubs‘ –

which we believe is most comparable to the Secondary Plan area – typically ranges from 30% to

50% and again this varies by use.

Some specific land uses differed from the others. For instance, restaurants had the highest

reductions with a 73% reduction in Richmond Hill, and a 100% reduction (to 0 spaces minimum) in

the City of Toronto. This is logical in transit oriented development areas where restaurants will serve

the local population.

Within Ontario and Canada the trend is to provide different rates for growth areas, while in the

United States percentage reductions are applied globally to any permitted use.

In Eugene, Oregon, the parking requirements for ‘Nodal Development Overlay Zones’ is reduced by

50%, and in other ‘Special Area Zones’ the reduction is 25%. Pasadena also permits a 25% blanket

reduction in the ‘Central District Transit-Oriented Area’.

These percent reductions area summarized in Appendix D by intensification area and by land use

for the municipalities discussed above.

In contrast, the current Newmarket Zoning By-law only applies a 5% reduction for Urban Centres.


October 14, 2016 | 25

3.5.3 Recommended Non-residential Parking Rates

The current general rates from the Newmarket Zoning By-law were taken as the base rates and are

summarized in Table 12 along with the recommended Urban Centre parking rates.

Table 12: Current and Recommended Non-Residential Parking Rates




School, Elementary


1 space per classroom plus an additional 10% of the total parking requirement to be dedicated to visitor parking

2x the minimum

School, Secondary


School, Post Secondary



3x the minimum

Commercial School


Day Cares 2 spaces per classroom plus 1 space for every 4 children licensed capacity

1 spaces per classroom plus 1 space for every 6 children licensed capacity

2x the minimum

Group Homes, Special Needs Housing

Greater of 2 spaces or 1 space per staff member on duty

2 spaces 2x the minimum

Places of Worship

1 parking space per 9 m2 of the aggregate GFA of the nave, public hall, banquet hall or other community/multi-use hall used as a place of assembly

No change recommended. General rates will continue to apply.

2x the minimum

Libraries 1 space per 10 m2 of GFA 1 space per 20 m2 of GFA 2x the minimum Community /

Recreation Centres

1 parking space per 14 m2 of GFA dedicated to indoor facilities for use by the public plus the aggregate of: • 30 spaces per ball field • 30 spaces per soccer field • 4 spaces per tennis court

Retail, Food/Grocery

1 parking space per 9 m2 of GFA with a minimum of 5 spaces


Retail, Other 1 parking space per 18 m2 of NFA

Restaurants 1 parking space per 9 m2 of GFA dedicated to public use, excluding any porch, veranda and/or patio dedicated as seasonal servicing areas.

1 space per 100 m2 of GFA, excluding any porch, veranda and/or patio dedicated as seasonal servicing areas.

5x the minimum

Office (Business)

1 parking space per 27 m2 of NFA 1 space per 40 m2 of GFA 2x the minimum

Office (Medical), Medical Research

1 parking space per 17 m2 of NFA

Hotels The aggregate of: • 1 space per guest room • 1 space per every 2 guest rooms over 20 • 1 space per 4.5 m2 of GFA dedicated to administrative, banquet and meeting facilities

The aggregate of: • 1 space per guest room • 1 space per 10 m2 of GFA dedicated to administrative, banquet and meeting facilities

3x the minimum

Long-Term Care Facilities



2x the minimum


October 14, 2016 | 26




Home Occupation

Where the area occupied by the home occupation exceeds 24 m2, 1 parking space shall be required for every 9 m2 above the 24 m2 of the dwelling unit used for the home occupation

Based on residential land use requirement. Those visiting the practitioner within the Home Occupation can use visitor parking.

n/a

Cinemas, Arcades, Indoor Games

1 parking space per 9 m2 of floor area dedicated to public use


Adult Entertainment, Night Clubs

1 parking space per 7.5 m2 of GFA

Art Gallery, Museum


GFA = Gross Floor Area NFA = Net Floor Area m2 = square metres

Considering the vision for the Secondary Plan area to be progressive and ahead of the curve in

terms of parking management and discouraging auto-centric travel, we have applied 50% reductions

to most non-residential uses when compared to the general rates which is consistent with the more

aggressive reductions we found in other municipalities.

It is recommended that the maximum permitted parking supply will be calculated by factoring the

minimum requirement, rather than calculating by using a separate set of rates. For land uses that

have a higher variation in parking demand depending on development specific needs, such as

places of worship and hotels, we have recommended higher maximum factors. The recommended

factors are also informed by reviews of other municipalities and our experience with these land uses.

3.5.4 Blending of Land Uses

Land uses that are similar in nature or are often combined in developments, have been blended

together. For example, Group Homes and Special Needs Facilities have the same rates within the

current Zoning By-law and are therefore now combined. Elementary and Secondary Schools have

been combined. Libraries and Community Centres had somewhat comparable rates and are also

constructed together, and for this reason we have combined these land uses. Medical and Business

Offices have been combined as well. However, because undersupplying parking for Medical Offices

could negatively impact patients and visitors, we used the Medical Office rate as the basis for this

joining. Finally, Cinemas, Arcades, and Indoor Games are now blended with Adult Entertainment

and Night Clubs since the current rates are fairly similar.

Within the Secondary Plan area we further recommend blending of general retail and grocery retail

land uses since it is expected that grocery stores will be purposed to serve the local area rather than

the larger regional areas. In non-growth areas however, grocery retail would generally generate

parking demand at higher rates.

3.5.5 Gross Floor Area vs. Net Floor Area

Throughout our background research we have found that, in general, parking rates for most land

uses rely on gross floor area (GFA), however, some land uses instead rely on the net floor areas

(NFA). This is most important when determining parking requirements for land uses that have large


October 14, 2016 | 27

areas that do not generate parking demand, such as hallways in shopping centres. However, the

definition and calculation of the net floor areas can be convoluted and onerous. As a rule of thumb,

for most land uses such as offices, net floor area is typically 90% of the gross floor area. When

generating rates for the Secondary Plan area we have taken this into account when converting rates

from NFA to GFA.

3.5.6 Employee & Staffing Based Rates

When floor areas are not the base unit within the parking rate, employees or staffing is occasionally

used. Employee and staffing needs can vary within the same development over time and can most

definitely differ between locations. For this reason we have removed rates based on staffing where

possible without extensive research. This specifically affected the Group Home and Special Needs

Housing land uses where parking was required at a minimum of 2 spaces or 1 space per staff

member, whichever is greater. Within the City of Toronto and the City of Mississauga group homes

require only 2 spaces. We have removed the consideration of staffing and recommend only 2

spaces per group home as a minimum, but with an allowable increase to 4 spaces maximum.

3.5.7 Mandatory Minimums & Waving of Minimums

Within the current Zoning By-law, some land uses have mandatory minimums, such as the Group

Home and Special Needs Housing land uses which require at least 2 spaces, or the Retail (Food

and Grocery) land use where a minimum of 5 spaces must be provided.

Our recommendation is to eliminate this requirement for Retail land uses entirely. Furthermore, if a

retail land use or a restaurant land use has a gross floor area of 200 SM or less, we recommend that

no parking be required. This will encourage smaller stores serving the local population to enter the

Secondary Plan area.

With the provision of public parking in the secondary plan area and the targeted high density

development, we anticipate that most trips to smaller retail stores and restaurants will be walk-ins,

and any driving trips can be accommodated in public parking lots. The 200 SM threshold is also

used within the City of Toronto for ‘all other areas of the City’ while for the same land uses a

minimum of 0 spaces are required within Policy Areas. This would also wave the minimum parking

space requirement for most convenience style stores that serve the local neighbourhood and should

generate a majority of non-vehicle trips.


October 14, 2016 | 28

4 Transit Proximity Reductions

As was previously discussed in Section 3.2, some jurisdictions have reduced parking requirements

for developments that are located within a specified distance from rapid transit. Chicago allows a

50% reduction for residential land uses within “400m of a CTA or METRA rail station entrance or

within 800m of a CTA or METRA rail station entrance when the subject building is located along a

pedestrian street or a pedestrian retail street.” Similarly, a reduction up to 100% is allowed for non-

residential uses within the same distance from rail stations but is contingent on bicycle parking being

provided for the non-residential uses at a rate of one bicycle parking space for each vehicle parking

space not provided.

We have already demonstrated that transit proximity does have a significant impact on auto-

ownership within the Town of Newmarket (see Section 3.4.2). Within the Secondary Plan Area are

two GO Transit stations:

1. Newmarket Bus Terminal – Identified as an Anchor Hub by Metrolinx and referred to as

Newmarket Centre, the centre of which is taken as the intersection of Yonge Street and

Davis Drive.

2. Newmarket GO Rail Station – Identified as a Gateway Hub by Metrolinx and referred to as

Newmarket GO, the centre of which is at the intersection of the Barrie GO Line and Davis

Drive. Located on the Barrie GO Line.

Details of for both of these hubs are shown in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 as excerpted directly from the

Metrolinx Mobility Hub Profiles3. The study areas outlined in the Mobility Hub Studies by Metrolinx

are an 800 metres radius surrounding the hubs, presumably because this is the anticipated

catchment area and area of significant influence with respect to mode splits. The standard distance

used to determine if a development falls within a higher order transit station catchment area can vary

but is often based on walking distances. This distance may be measured as a straight-line, or can be

determined by the actual door-to-platform walking distance. The standard walking distances are

between 400 metres and 600 metres.

The Secondary Plan Area contains the Viva Rapidway along Yonge Street south of Davis Drive, and

Davis Drive east of Yonge Street. The Rapidway will eventually be extended north of Davis Drive.

Considering that access to the Rapidway will be relatively consistent throughout the Secondary Plan

area, we recommend that transit proximity reductions only take into account proximity to the major

transit stations, being the Newmarket Bus Terminal and GO Rail Station. Further, it is noted that the

additional reduction applies to GO Rail or bus terminal proximity since these locations, combined

with Viva service throughout the Secondary Plan area, provide residents with transit options for both

longer and shorter trips, and thus the potential for residents to not own a car is much higher in these

locations.

3 http://www.metrolinx.com/mobilityhubs/en/map/mobility_hubs_map/MHP_NewmarketCentre.pdf

http://www.metrolinx.com/mobilityhubs/en/map/mobility_hubs_map/MHP_NewmarketGO.pdf

http://www.metrolinx.com/mobilityhubs/en/map/mobility_hubs_map/MHP_NewmarketCentre.pdf

http://www.metrolinx.com/mobilityhubs/en/map/mobility_hubs_map/MHP_NewmarketGO.pdf


October 14, 2016 | 29

Exhibit 3: Newmarket Bus Terminal (taken directly from the Metrolinx Mobility Hub Study)

Exhibit 4: Newmarket GO Rail Station (taken directly from the Metrolinx Mobility Hub Study)


October 14, 2016 | 30

4.1 Recommendations for Transit Proximity Reductions

We recommend that the reductions be applied as follows:

A 30% reduction in parking requirements, may be applied to both the minimum and

maximum calculated parking supplies, for residential and non-residential land uses

where it is demonstrated that:

1. The proposed development main entrance is within 500m walking distance of either

the GO Rail Station or Bus Terminal main entrances; and,

2. Adequate Travel Demand Management infrastructure and programs will be in place

to the satisfaction of reviewing agencies, in accordance with Town’s Urban Centres

Secondary Plan policies and York Region Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development

Applications.

The 500m door-to-door walking distance is taken from the Secondary Plan which defines ‘Major

Transit Station Areas’ as being within a 10 minute walk4 and is supported by background research

and industry standards. Walking distances will differ depending on site location and site design and

should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Additional parking reductions such as those resulting from the provision of car-share spaces may be

awarded on top of the transit proximity reductions. Neither reduction would apply to RGI units.

5 Shared Parking Policies

Shared parking policies present an opportunity to limit the amount of parking provided within a

contained mixed-use site, by monopolizing on the offset time difference in peak demand

characteristics for different land uses. Shared parking can be applied to larger areas (multiple sites),

in contrast to individual sites, but there are challenges to this, such as the potential need for

enforcement and increased walking distances.

As an example, theatres and restaurants cannot have shared parking since they have similar peak

demand times (evening). Enough parking to accommodate the cumulative peak demand for both

uses would be required, and there would be little benefit (with respect to parking) to combine these

two land use types on the same site. Alternatively, cinema and office uses experience peak demand

at different times (daytime and evening), and thus parking supply can be limited to either a portion of

the peak demand generated by each use, or the maximum demand generated by either use.

Shared parking policies typically separate the day into three periods (i.e. morning, midday, and

evening) and assign a percentage to each period reflecting a portion of the peak parking demand for

that land use. These percentages are then applied to the parking requirement calculated based on

the parking rates for each land use, and the sum is taken as the shared parking requirement for that

period. Although this is often referred to as a formula, it is a simple sum of demand for each use

4 Major Transit Station Areas (definition from Secondary Plan) – The area including and around any existing or planned higher-order transit station within a settlement area, or the area including and around a major bus depot in an urban core. Station areas generally are defined as the area within an approximate 500 metre radius of a transit station, representing about a 10-minute walk.


October 14, 2016 | 31

during each time period. The main inputs are the peak parking requirement for that use based on the

by-law requirement, and the percentage of that peak demand for each period.

In the United States, shared parking is often referred to as joint parking, not to be confused with joint

development. Cooperative parking is another approach used in some municipalities such as Chicago

which is similar to shared parking. It allows for reduced parking in a multi-tenant parking lot. The

benefit to the municipality is a reduced number of curb cuts and driveways.

Shared parking policies should be leveraged in all areas regardless of if they are intensification

areas or suburban areas. These policies maximize development potential of a site, reduce the size

of parking areas and structures, and allow the developer some flexibility and options when selecting

the land uses and tenants.

Shared parking can also be leveraged at park-and-rides or at transit hubs where commuter parking

demand peaks at different times from uses within the same plaza. For example, a theatre and a

commuter parking lot would likely benefit from a shared parking supply, as seen at Richmond Hill

Centre / Langstaff GO Station.

5.1 Existing Policy (Town of Newmarket)

The Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 includes shared parking formulas and criteria which

determine how they may be applied. Applicable developments must be mixed use, which includes

the following land uses:

a) Non-office uses in an office or medical office building or group of such buildings on the same

lot;

b) Office or medical office space in a building or group of buildings on the same lot primarily

occupied by retail users;

c) A building or group of buildings on the same lot containing a mix of office or medical office,

commercial uses and dwelling units; and,

d) Non-residential uses in an apartment building.

The requirements state that all parking spaces must be available to all users (there may not be any

dedicated spaces). Newmarket also takes into account shared parking on weekends, specifically on

Saturdays, since parking demand characteristics can differ from weekdays in terms of demand

profiles throughout the day. It is assumed that parking demand on Sundays will be lower regardless

of the use, and Sunday demand would therefore be covered on weekdays or Saturdays. Newmarket

does not identify a separate set of shared parking formulas for Urban Centres. The shared parking

tables are provided in Exhibit 5.

Shared parking is separated into 4 periods for both weekdays and Saturdays: morning, noon,

afternoon, and evening, but does not specify exactly when these periods occur. The lowest

percentage is 10%. This suggests that there is some provision for non-peak parking demand even

when uses should theoretically have no demand. For example, offices have 10% parking supply

requirement during evenings on weekdays and all day on Saturdays, and this may account for

cleaning staff, those working overtime, or for those working non-standard hours.


October 14, 2016 | 32

To determine the shared parking requirement for a mixed use development:

1. Calculate the parking requirement for each use as if these uses were free-standing buildings;

2. Multiply each use by the percent of the peak period for each time period contained in the

following table;

3. Total each peak column for weekday and weekend; and

4. The highest figure obtained from all time periods shall become the required parking for the

mixed use.

This shared parking formula approach is essentially a first principle approach, but instead of

determining the percentages of peak demand, and the actual peak demand through surveys, this

information is directly provided in the Zoning By-law in the form of parking rates and shared parking

percentages. The first principle approach simply acquires this information through proxy surveys or

some other development specific analysis, and could result in smaller parking supplies than would

be justified using the Zoning By-law provisions.


October 14, 2016 | 33

Exhibit 5: Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 Shared Parking Tables


October 14, 2016 | 34

5.2 Policies from Other Canadian Municipalities

Shared parking policies from other municipalities within Ontario are summarized in Table 13.

Table 13: Shared Parking Policies in Other Jurisdictions

Municipality Shared

Parking? Saturday?

# Periods

# Uses / Groupings

Town of Newmarket

4 6

City of Markham x 3 9

City of Toronto x 3 all

City of Mississauga 4 5

City of Brampton x 31

6

Town of Oakville 2

- - -


x 4 5

City of Hamilton x - - -

City of Vaughan 4 4 or 73

City of Vaughan Parking Standards Review

4 7

City of Ottawa

4 6

1) Noon is identified as a separate period but no “percent of peak period” is provided. 2) Blended rates are used in place of shared parking formulas. 3) Separate shared parking formulas are provided for different zones.

Within the City of Toronto the zoning by-law indicates that shared parking is only applicable to Policy

Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4. This suggests that in all other areas of the City, shared parking formulas do not

apply. There is no consideration of Saturday requirements and the by-law only considers 3 periods.

Shared parking percentages are provided for all uses, unlike most other municipalities which only

provide percentages for groupings of land uses.

The City of Mississauga shared parking policies are nearly identical to the current Town of

Newmarket in terms of structure and language used in the by-law.

The City of Markham has a simplified version of the shared parking formula that does not take into

account Saturday requirements and only has 3 periods, and does not go into the same detail as

Newmarket and Mississauga in defining what constitutes a mixed use development.

The City of Brampton shared parking formulas only apply to the Central Area and cover only 3

periods during weekdays. The City of Ottawa also adopts the 4 period approach and includes a

separate Saturday consideration. Overall there are 6 land uses or groupings. The Town of Richmond

Hill Parking Strategy does recommend shared parking formulas for four periods but does not take

into account Saturdays.

The Town of Oakville takes a non-standard approach towards mixed-use developments and their

parking requirements by application of blended rates. Blended rates are reduced rates, and are

directly applied to the developments total area rather than relying on the base rates and then

applying reductions. This approach requires careful consideration of the amount gross floor area

occupied by each use so as to ensure a good mixture within the site that lends itself to shared

parking. The Town of Oakville is unique in this approach based on our review.

The City of Vaughan Zoning By-law 1-88 considers shared parking for both the Corporate Centre

Zone as well as the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre. Four periods are considered in addition to

weekdays and Saturdays. This by-law differentiates between 4 land uses or groupings for the

Corporate Centre Zone, versus 7 land uses or zones within the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre.


October 14, 2016 | 35

The City of Vaughan Review of Parking Standards maintains the approach within Zoning By-law 1-

88 for the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, with one exception – the theatre requirement for Saturday

evenings is 100% rather than 80% within the current By-law.

Overall the trend appears to provide rates for four separate periods throughout the day and to take

into consideration weekdays and Saturdays. Shared parking formulas apply reductions to the base

rates and then the sum of the minimum for each land use during a specified period is taken as the

minimum parking requirement. The maximum calculated for each period is then taken as the shared

parking requirement.

5.3 Shared Parking Formula Percentages

Theoretically there is potential for intensification areas to have different shared parking needs

compared to general areas, and this may be due to uses in intensification areas being open later,

earlier, or even 24 hours per day. As previously mentioned, only the City of Vaughan By-law 1-88

takes this approach, but the Parking Review Strategy recommends only one set of shared parking

formula percentages and it likely that this recommendation will be adopted. For all of the other

municipalities that were reviewed, shared parking is not linked to growth areas and the same

percentages are therefore applied to all areas.

This review therefore summarizes the current Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 shared

parking percentages as well as those from other municipalities in Ontario. The City of Newmarket is

already advanced in this respect because of the consideration of Saturday parking demand trends.

Detailed shared parking percentages for all municipalities listed in Table 13 are provided in

Appendix E, with the exception of the Town of Oakville, since blended rates are not being

recommended for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area, and Hamilton where shared parking is

not considered.

Generally there is a high degree of consistency between the reviewed municipalities with respect to

key land uses and the percentages applied to them for different periods. For example, offices require

100% of their parking supply during the weekday morning peak period for all municipalities. During

the noon peak period the requirement is 90% across the board. During the afternoon peak the range

is between 95% and 100% with the exception of City of Toronto which requires 60%. Finally, during

the evening peak periods the range is between 10% and 15%, with the exception of the City of

Toronto which requires 0%.

Although there is a high degree of consistency, some of the differences may be attributed to the

definition of peak period times (i.e. the afternoon and evening peak periods in the City of Toronto

may begin later than in other municipalities, which would explain the lower percentages of peak

demand). Some municipalities do not explicitly define when these periods occur, but that issue

would be entirely resolved by approaching shared parking using first principles.

For other land uses the percentages vary more and are more evenly distributed, as is the case with

restaurants and residential visitor parking where the ranges are 20% to 100%, and 10% to 80%,

respectively, during the weekday AM peak period. The large variation in percentages does raise the

question of if this approach is reliable and if one set of numbers can be reasonably applied to a

myriad of development types and locations. If there is doubt, a parking study based on first principles

should be requested.


October 14, 2016 | 36

5.4 Policies from Municipalities in the United States

Shared parking ordinance from municipalities within the United States were also reviewed and were

selected based on comparable population sizes or accessibility to transit, as well as based on the

degree of modernization of the municipal code and by-laws. The selected municipalities are as

follows:

1. Stockton, California

2. Salem, Oregon

3. Eugene, Oregon

4. Pasadena, California

5. Huntington Beach, California

6. Chicago, Illinois

In contrast to Canadian municipalities, the above municipalities do not dictate shared parking

opportunities by providing percentages for specific land use types and peak periods and then

applying them in a formula. Rather, the opportunity for shared parking (or “Joint Use Parking

Facilities”) has high level requirements in terms of eligibility (i.e. types of uses, distance to parking

facility, legal contracts between operators), and the application of shared parking is then approved if

the applicant can demonstrate that the different uses will not have overlapping demand, or to exactly

what extent the demands will overlap. This is typically determined through a Parking Study.

An excerpt from the Huntington Beach Zoning Code represents the typical wording:

“The Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator may grant a reduction in the total number of

required spaces as part of the entitlement for the use or uses, or by conditional use permit when no

other entitlement is required, when the applicant can demonstrate that the various uses have

divergent needs in terms of daytime versus nighttime hours or weekday versus weekend hours.”

The advantage of this approach is that the shared parking areas will be tuned towards the proposed

land uses based on the Parking Study findings and research. This approach also requires much less

effort in developing the approach to parking standards compared to the shared parking formula

approach which requires research into applicable shared parking percentages for each land use and

period.

The disadvantage is the additional time and effort required to perform the parking studies on the

applicant’s side, as well as the reviewing process on the part of the municipality. The ease of

application of shared parking formulas would encourage developers to reduce parking, whereas

Parking Studies present an additional hurdle to gain approval on the reduced parking supply.

All of the above listed municipalities follow this model. The City of Pasadena also indicates that the

Zoning Administrator may utilize the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking methodology as a

guide in reviewing the shared parking proposal submitted by the applicant.

With the exception of the City of Toronto which provides percentages for all uses, shared parking

formulas typically do not cover all uses which means that the percentages applied may not be

absolutely accurate in terms of the time-of-day demand experienced for the proposed use. A parking

study based on first principles would more frequently produce more accurate results for a wider

range of land uses and characteristics.


October 14, 2016 | 37

5.5 Recommended Approach to Shared Parking

We recommend that the Town maintain the current structure and application of the shared parking

formulas and carry them over into the Secondary Plan area. The formulas are designed to be able to

take into account any number of uses and account for all days of the week. This approach is the

most versatile in determining the needs of a parking lot serving multiple shared uses with different

characteristics.

We believe that this approach is ideal for application within the Secondary Plan Area and will be

most important when the Town investigates the needs of public parking facilities focused on ‘parking

districts’ or greater catchment areas than specific development applications.

The shared parking formula approach can also be expanded and integrated into parking studies that

consider non-standard uses that can also benefit greatly from shared parking. As we have previously

mentioned, park-and-ride and transit station parking supplies are non-standard uses and moreover it

is very difficult to apply general shared parking percentages or peak parking rates to their needs,

given the uniqueness of each park-and-ride and each transit facility. Therefore, we further

recommended that when non-standard uses are being considered for shared parking, that the first

principle approach be applied, and the Town request parking studies.

6 Joint Development / Public Parking & Bonusing Provisions

With respect to the bonusing provision of the Town of Newmarket Urban Centres Secondary Plan,

developers may request increases in the Permitted Maximum Heights and/or Permitted Maximum

FSIs (alternatively referred to as FAR – Floor Area Ratio) up to, but not exceeding the Discretionary

Maximum Heights or Discretionary Maximum FSIs with bonusing, without an amendment to the Plan

in exchange for the provision of a public benefit. With respect to parking, this benefit would include

structured parking for vehicles where a significant portion of the parking is to be transferred to a

public authority for use as public parking (see Section 2.2.2).

The following analysis examines the use of such provisions in other jurisdictions, and

recommendations and guidelines for specific increases to density and/or height with respect to

amount of private versus public parking provided will be identified.

6.1 Bonusing and Incentives to Developers

The most common form of bonusing is provided when affordable low income residential units are

included in a development. The developer may request leniency with regard to development

requirements (i.e. greater height or density) and would then be granted the opportunity to build

higher or to adjust the building density, which can afford them some flexibility in design. We have

also found examples of bonusing resulting in an expedited permitting and review processes5. There

are a number of possible bonuses that may be granted to the developer.

5 https://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/planning/unified_development_ordinance/pdf/ipa_incentive_zoning.pdf

https://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/planning/unified_development_ordinance/pdf/ipa_incentive_zoning.pdf


October 14, 2016 | 38

Since bonusing is provided when there is a public benefit, many other forms of public benefit can be

proposed, including public parks and open space over and above the required amount, institutional

uses such as schools, street and road network connectivity improvements, art and community

facilities, green (LEED) developments etc., or any combination of these benefits.

Bonusing for providing public parking is also an option and we have found examples of this in

California. In one example case study6, the bonusing allowed for an increase in the number of

housing units from 26 to 60. The public benefit included 10 affordable units, a public plaza, and 57

public parking spaces. In this example – and as is the case with many bonusing examples – it is

difficult to determine how the benefit-bonus relationship was agreed upon. The process of coming to

an agreement can be time consuming, and should ideally involve public input. Since the goal is to

provide a public benefit, public consultation is important and includes a qualitative aspect that can

complicate the process.

The Secondary Plan outlines what is contemplated as a public benefit and the exact wording is as

follows:

The applicant may elect to request increases in the Permitted Maximum Heights and/or

Permitted Maximum FSIs up to, but not exceeding the Discretionary Maximum Heights or

Discretionary Maximum FSIs With Bonusing, without an amendment to this Plan in exchange for

t he provision of one or more of the following public benefits, or cash in lieu of such benefits. The

following public benefits are beyond what would otherwise be required to be provided by this

Plan, the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act or any other legislative requirement:

a) cultural facilities, such as a performing arts centre, amphitheatre or museum;

b) special park or recreational facilities and improvements identified by the Town as desirable

for the area but which are beyond those required by this Plan, the Planning Act, or the

Town’s standard levels of service;

c) public amenities within identified environmental open spaces, including but not limited to

permanent pathways, recreational trails and bridges, including contribution toward the

Town’s Active Transportation Network;

d) public art, where the contribution to public art i s greater than the contribution requirements

of this Plan;

e) structured parking for vehicles where a significant portion of the parking is to be

transferred to a public authority for use as public parking;

f) streetscape, gateway features, pedestrian mews and open space design enhancements that

are beyond those required by this Plan, the Planning Act, or the Town’s standard levels of

service;

g) private roads that are to remain accessible to the public;

h) h) upgrades to and/or provision of community facilities such as community centres, including

seniors and youth facilities and other social services;

i) other community facilities identified by the Town as desirable for the Urban Centres;

6 http://www.greenbelt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/public-benefits-bonus-policy-brief.pdf

http://www.greenbelt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/public-benefits-bonus-policy-brief.pdf


October 14, 2016 | 39

j) inclusion of energy or water conservation measures beyond those required by this Plan or by

any other applicable plan;

k) affordable housing units beyond those required by this Plan or by the York Region Official

Plan;

l) provision of rental housing which is guaranteed to remain as rental for a period of not less

than 20 years; and

m) provision for social housing that is affordable to those below the 40th percentile in household

income.

Determining the relationship between benefit and bonus is a difficult task and is often rooted in

economic analysis but the final result can be somewhat divergent. We have found some illustrative

examples of how public parking can be converted into a bonus to the developer, but the concept will

differ for each municipality.

For example, one illustrative relationship would be that one square foot of bonus floor area could be

allowed for every square foot of public parking provided, above the minimum required by the

Ordinance up to maximum bonus of 2.0 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 7. This quantitative relationship may

not be appreciable to the public or the developer, and after consulting all parties it may be adjusted.

In some municipalities the bonus purposely outweighs the benefit when the program begins, and the

purpose of this is to encourage developer buy-in. After the program stabilizes, the benefit-bonus

ratio is recalibrated to favour the public benefit.

6.1.1 Recommended Approach to Bonusing

The Secondary Plan already outlines the general approach to bonusing for the provision of

structured public parking. The additional height of building FSI that would be granted for a given

number of parking spaces would be outlined in the Bonusing Justification Report. This report would

provide some rationale behind the trade-off of developer- and public-benefit.

Since the bonusing would be granted for provision of public parking, we recommend that the

following two criteria be applied to any of these public parking structures:

1. A minimum of 20 public parking spaces must be provided; and

2. At a minimum, 10% of the public parking that is provided shall be dedicated car-share

spaces, to a maximum of 6 spaces.

This will encourage developers to engage car-share providers in introducing car-share into the Town

of Newmarket. Furthermore, it will ensure that parking is in a reasonably accessible area, otherwise

car-share providers may not be interested. Finally, it ensures that the parking supply will be large

enough to provide at least 2 car-share spaces, which is further incentive to car-share providers.

7 https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Zoning/Community-Benefits-Issues.pdf

https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Zoning/Community-Benefits-Issues.pdf


October 14, 2016 | 40

6.2 Joint Development with Respect to Bonusing Provisions

Joint development is an approach in the transit oriented development toolbox that typically refers to

projects that directly link transit availability to development in such a way that transit is the primary

mode of travel used to access that development. There is typically an agreement between a transit

agency and private developer(s). For example, placing offices within walking distance of transit

stations will encourage a high transit mode share by employees, particularly if parking is not

oversupplied or underpriced. These developments are often mixed-use as well, which can further

increase transit use, synergy between the uses, and shared parking opportunities.

This would be most appropriate for Newmarket GO Station due to the current and anticipated mode

split as well as the amount of potentially developable land. The current parking lot is surface only

and could be converted to structured parking to free up land for other uses.

Instead of providing private (and typically free) parking for these developments, shared paid public

parking is a preferred solution. Parking is often provided at a lesser rate than would be required by

each use using shared parking principles where a transit station is one of the shared uses. Joint

development allows for more efficient use of the parking supplies through shared parking and also

encourages transit use8. Cash-out for parking spaces by employees would not be possible in Joint

Parking unless the employees are having their parking paid by the employer.

Determining the size of the joint parking structure would be calculated using shared parking formulas

and first principle methodology. The Mobility Hub Study would be used to help inform on the peak

transit demand and when it would occur, while for the other uses the necessary information such as

peak demand and shared parking percentages could be taken from the Zoning By-law.

7 Cash-in-Lieu for Parking Deficits

7.1 Application of Policies

Cash-in-lieu is a program which offers developers the option of paying a fee to the municipality to

cover the cost of building public parking supplies that are intended to offset a parking supply deficit

within the developer’s non-residential development. These programs were initially created when

developers were in positions where they physically (or feasibly) could not fit any additional parking

spaces into their site, regardless of if they expected there would be demand for those spaces or not.

Over time, the programs in some municipalities evolved from a solution to a problem, to a method by

which developers could mold their site design. For example, if they did not believe the additional

parking would be needed because the parking requirements were too high, and the space could be

replaced by some other amenity that would be a selling point, then they would decide if the cost for

not meeting the by-law requirement was worthwhile. This of course would be highly dependent on

the cost associated with the deficit. Some municipalities purposely make cash-in-lieu fees high to

discourage developers from doing this.

8 http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/dallasbrief3.pdf

http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/dallasbrief3.pdf


October 14, 2016 | 41

In some municipalities such as the City of Toronto, the cash-in-lieu program has been come under

extensive scrutiny largely because it is difficult to trace where the money has gone9. Some have

requested audits of the program and there have been discussions of ending it altogether. In other

places such as the City of Ottawa, the program has been abolished10

.

Cash-in-lieu does provide great opportunities to create shared parking supplies that are public and

therefore accessible by anyone. This avoids the issues of underutilized parking supplies on private

lots when there is parking demand being generated by other nearby uses. For this reason there is a

movement towards providing shared or joint parking supplies that do not preclude anyone from

parking in them.

One method municipalities are using to ensure that the cash-in-lieu fees are actually being used to

fund public infrastructure and to ensure that infrastructure actually serves the developments that pay

the fees, is building the structures before the developments are built. Then, when cash-in-lieu fees

are collected, they are used to pay off the structure debt and the fees are also more accurately

calculated since the cost of the structure is known. This approach requires some planning since it

isn’t exactly known how large the structure must be (how many spaces) or where it should be

located to serve the eventual development that follows.

However, cash-in-lieu fees may not always be applied to parking infrastructure. Putting the money

towards public transit infrastructure as a method of reducing parking demand is also a viable use of

cash-in-lieu.

7.2 Fees

A simplified method in determining the cash-in-lieu fees is based on an economic analysis of the

lands surrounding the development to determine the total cost of structured parking (above or below

grade), and then by dividing that by the number of anticipated spaces. This is dependent on land

acquisition costs, the size of the actual parking spaces, as well as other factors depending on the

detail into which the fee development process has undergone. In many cases the resulting public

parking infrastructure does not provide parking at a one-to-one ratio in terms of recovered deficit, but

the tradeoff is that the parking spaces are more efficiently used.

Table 14 summarizes the range of fees from other major municipalities within the United States11

.

Table 14: Construction Cost of a Structured Parking Space

Structure Type Minimum Maximum Average

Above Ground $22,390 $38,190 $31,600

Below Ground $34,240 $63,210 $44,770 Note: Construction fees have been converted from USD to CAD

Within the Town of Newmarket the current fee structure for cash-in-lieu is $40,000 per below grade

parking stall and $26,000 per above grade structured parking stall. In the City of Toronto there are

three categories used to determine cash-in-lieu of parking fees12

:

9 http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-35032.pdf

10 http://ottawa.ca/en/development-application-review-process-0/cash-lieu-parking

11 The High Cost of Minimum Parking Requirements, Donald Shoup, 2014

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-35032.pdf

http://ottawa.ca/en/development-application-review-process-0/cash-lieu-parking


October 14, 2016 | 42

This formula begins to take into account land value only for uses greater than 400 square metres.

Small and medium sized developments do not require as onerous a process. The purpose of this is

to encourage use of the payment-in-lieu system, rather than proceeding to the Committee of

Adjustment. The base cost of $5,000 is based on the City of Toronto Parking Authority’s estimated

cost of construction of a surface parking stall.

The City of Mississauga takes into account development size and also has categories depending on

the type of development, but applies fixed rates that differ depending on the area. These fixed rates

assume a 50% discount to the developer for the cost of constructing the public parking structure13

.

The City of Vaughan uses the following formula14

:

The formulas used by many municipalities are fairly consistent in that they take into account the

following variables: construction costs, land cost, area of parking spaces, number of parking spaces,

and share of contribution toward total cost. For structured parking the land cost is divided by the

number of levels within the structure.

7.3 Challenges

There are some challenges with a cash-in-lieu system that have been raised since the program

established itself and stabilized globally. The most common issues are:

1. Determining the cash-in-lieu fees and structure (i.e. should fees be determined on a case by

case basis, or should there be fixed fees for regions/areas).

2. Ensuring the money is actually used to fund public infrastructure.

3. Determining whether or not the program is truly necessary (if no minimums are imposed,

then cash-in-lieu becomes an invalid concept).

12

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2004/agendas/council/cc040720/plt5rpt/cl011.pdf

13 https://www.vaughan.ca/council/minutes_agendas/Communications/WS%200416_13_C9.pdf

14 https://www.vaughan.ca/council/minutes_agendas/Extracts/17ws0416_13ex_1.pdf

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2004/agendas/council/cc040720/plt5rpt/cl011.pdf

https://www.vaughan.ca/council/minutes_agendas/Communications/WS%200416_13_C9.pdf

https://www.vaughan.ca/council/minutes_agendas/Extracts/17ws0416_13ex_1.pdf


October 14, 2016 | 43

4. Ensuring the public infrastructure is actually located near the developments which paid the

cash-in-lieu fees and that they are intended to serve.

The City of Calgary practices mandatory cash-in-lieu of parking and only permits developers to

provide a maximum of 50% of the required parking on-site15

. This forces the developer to pay cash-

in-lieu to help fund the construction of public parking structures within the downtown core. This

approach has the benefits of guaranteeing that shared public parking will be constructed throughout

the downtown area, but has the disadvantage of making parking availability scarce for those who

need to drive because transit is not keeping up with demand. As a reaction to this, Calgary is

considering ending the cash-in-lieu program, specifically the 50% requirement16

.

7.4 Recommendations

Cash-in-lieu should remain an option for developers within the Secondary Plan area. We

recommend that the initial fee structure be based on the current practices within the Town ($40,000

per below grade parking stall and $26,000 per above grade structured parking stall).

However, considering the aggressiveness of the recommended rates within the Secondary Plan

area it is not expected that cash-in-lieu will be frequently leveraged by developers during the

program infancy. The cash-in-lieu fees can be adjusted to encourage or discourage developers from

taking this approach as the amount of interest from developers becomes clearer and as the demand

for public parking facilities also becomes clearer.

8 Carpooling & Car-Share

Carpool spaces and car-share spaces are becoming increasingly prevalent in the GTA, but primarily

in Toronto. Carpooling has many benefits, and these include reduced / shared costs of car

ownership and maintenance, time travel saving through the use of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)

lanes where provided, reduced traffic demand, and finally reduced parking demand. Carpool

parking spaces are typically applied at employment uses which attract multiple passengers destined

to the same location, on a consistent basis.

Car-share is an initiative where a vehicle is used by multiple drivers on an as-needed basis and

when availability permits. Car-share can be provided by third party companies such as ZipCar or

Car2Go. Car-share typically does not exist in areas where driving and parking has been historically

prioritized. To make car-share a viable approach, then it is prudent to deemphasize the need for

vehicle ownership and use as the primary mode of travel. The process must begin with progressive

changes to the urban structure and increased transit availability.

Car-share spaces are typically provided at commuter parking lots such as at GO stations, TTC

stations, and at residential developments, and allow travelers to use the car-share vehicles for the

first or last leg of their trip. Car-sharing initiatives result in more efficient use of the transportation

system by reducing latent parking demand (ownership) and unused spaces.

15

http://www.boma.ca/it-is-way-past-time-to-re-think-calgarys-downtown-parking/

16 http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Strategy/Downtown-Parking-Strategy.aspx

http://www.boma.ca/it-is-way-past-time-to-re-think-calgarys-downtown-parking/

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TP/Pages/Strategy/Downtown-Parking-Strategy.aspx


October 14, 2016 | 44

8.1 Existing Carpool & Car-Share within the Town of Newmarket

Currently, the Town of Newmarket Zoning By-law 2010-40 requires that carpool spaces be provided

for office and manufacturing/industrial uses. The spaces must be included in the provided parking

supply, but results in an overall reduction in the total number of parking spaces at a rate of one fewer

general spaces for each carpool space provided. For a building with a gross floor area of 3,000 m2 or

more, carpool spaces must be provided at the following rates:

There are currently no car-share provisions within the Town of Newmarket and car-share has yet to

be introduced. Car-share is typically provided in locations well-served by transit as car share users

tend to not own a vehicle and rely on transit for most travel. For this reason, car-share has yet to

expand to more suburban areas. However, we later investigated through our review of other

jurisdictions the appropriateness of this initiative for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area.

8.2 Carpool Policies

8.2.1 Canada

Carpool policies from other municipalities within Ontario are summarized in Table 15.

Table 15: Carpool Policies in Other Jurisdictions

Municipality Carpool? Notes

Town of Newmarket

Applicable to Office and Manufacturing/Industrial uses

City of Markham x

City of Toronto x

City of Mississauga x

City of Brampton x

Town of Oakville x


High level recommendations to implement through the zoning

by-law. Details not provided on actual implementation.

City of Hamilton x

City of Vaughan x


Recommended for implementation in the zoning by-law.

Actual reductions are not discussed.

City of Ottawa x

The Town of Newmarket is the only municipality out of the Canadian municipalities reviewed that

currently includes requirements for carpool spaces within the zoning by-law and that has clearly

defined reductions to the overall supply resulting from mandatory provision of carpool spaces.

The Town of Richmond Hill Parking Review includes recommendations to implement carpool

requirements but does not provide details on the amount of parking that would be required or if

reductions would be applied to the overall parking supply, or required as part of the supply.


October 14, 2016 | 45

The City of Vaughan Review of Parking Standards suggests some rates at which carpool could be

provided and recommended implementation initially on a case by case basis, allowing staff to test

their application prior to formally adopting within the zoning by-law. The recommendation is that for

office uses, industrial uses, and institutional uses (with the exception of places of worship) with more

than 20 parking spaces, 5 spaces or 5% of the parking spaces on site, whichever is less, should be

reserved for carpool use. The recommendations continue to say that these spaces should be clearly

signed and located closest to the building entrance, although not closer than mobility disabled or

customer-reserved parking space. Typically, signage for carpool spaces is included as a

requirement at the site plan stage and on-going enforcement is at the responsibility of the land

owner. Reductions to the parking supply as a result of providing carpool spaces are not outlined nor

explicitly discussed.

The City of Vaughan Review of Parking Standards also recommends that at commuter lots, 5% of

the parking spaces be registered as carpool with enforcement overseen by the transit authority. This

could be a general guideline or implemented in the zoning by-law, recognizing that there are issues

related to the estimation of ridership and parking requirements, which cannot be tied to a zoning by-

law process.

Within the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA) a program called SmartCommute exists which is

a partnership between the City of Toronto and Metrolinx. Newmarket is currently an active

participant in SmartCommute17

. Smart Commute aims to promote carpooling with the goal of

reducing congestion and helping employers by providing incentives to both employers and

employees. The Smart Commute website includes a tool that coordinates carpooling for participating

employers depending on where they live and work. Other Smart Commute services listed on the

Smart Commute website include18

:

Site assessments and surveys to understand employee commute behaviour

Customized action plans to encourage employees to explore and try out smart travel options

Tools to facilitate change including:

o Exclusive carpool ride-matching programs

o Emergency Ride Home programs

o Discounted transit pass programs

o Telework programs and flexible work arrangements

o Walking and cycling programs

o Fun events and promotions

o Savings calculator

The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario also provides carpool spaces at park and ride commuter

lots which are not supervised. They are located at major highway junctions throughout the GTHA

and some lots are served by transit19

.

17

http://smartcommute.ca/central-york/

18 http://smartcommute.ca/scarborough/programs-services/carpool-zone/

19 http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/trip/carpool_lots.shtml

http://smartcommute.ca/central-york/

http://smartcommute.ca/scarborough/programs-services/carpool-zone/

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/traveller/trip/carpool_lots.shtml


October 14, 2016 | 46

8.2.2 United States

Carpool parking ordinance from municipalities within the United States were also reviewed. The

selected municipalities are summarized in Table 16.

Table 16: Carpool Policies in the United States

Municipality Carpool

Requirements?

Stockton, California

Salem, Oregon

Eugene, Oregon

Pasadena, California


Chicago, Illinois x

Within the City of Stockton, only guidelines for the location of car pool spaces are provided rather

than identifying minimum requirements or specific replacement of general parking space

requirements. These guidelines generally state that car pool spaces should be located near

entrances.

With respect to carpool and vanpool parking, the City of Salem states that “new developments with

60 or more required off-street parking spaces, and falling within the Public Services and Industrial

use classifications, and the Business and Professional Services use category, shall designate a

minimum of 5 percent of their total off-street parking spaces for carpool or vanpool parking.” Beyond

that the ordinance also indicates that carpool spaces shall be located nearest the building entrance

used by employees, but no closer than disabled parking spaces.

The City of Eugene code states that for carpool and vanpool parking “New commercial and

employment and industrial developments with 20 or more employee parking spaces shall designate

at least 5 percent of the employee parking spaces for carpool or vanpool parking” with the same

location guidelines mentioned above.

The City of Pasadena Zoning Code states that “a minimum of 10 percent of the employee parking

spaces shall be reserved for and designated as preferential parking for carpool and vanpool

vehicles” and also indicates that carpool parking must be located as near the entrance as possible.

The City of Huntington Beach zoning code provides percentages for different land uses which

represent the amount of the total parking supply that must be designated as carpool. Uses included

are: Office Professional (13%), Hospital and Medical/Dental Office (9%), Industrial/Warehouse

(14%), Commercial/Retail (5%), and Hotel (1 space per 2 employees). For larger developments, 1%

of the total number of carpool spaces must be designated vanpool.

A review of the City of Chicago’s parking standards did not show any specific requirements or

policies with respect to carpool parking.

Generally the requirements for carpool spaces are between 5% and 14% of the total required

parking supply. Maximums were not outlined. In addition to carpool spaces, most municipalities also

discussed vanpool. Huntington Beach was the only municipality that had a sub-requirement for

vanpool spaces. In contrast to the current practice within Newmarket, none of the municipalities in

the United States offer a reduction in the total parking supply requirement for providing carpool

spaces.


October 14, 2016 | 47

8.2.3 Recommendations

Include carpool spaces as percentage of the overall required number of parking spaces, and include

guidance on the location of the carpool spaces so that they are conveniently located near entrances

but with priority given to accessible parking spaces. We recommend that the requirement be outlined

as follows:

Carpool spaces must be provided at a minimum rate of:

1. 5% of the total required parking supply for any employment uses, or

2. 2 spaces.

8.3 Car-Share Policies

8.3.1 Existing Programs in the GTA

As previously mentioned, car-share initiatives are mostly implemented in urban environments where

personal vehicle ownership is not desired or feasible for many users due to the prioritization of other

modes of travel. We have reviewed the locations of current car-share facilities within the GTHA for

the following three car-share companies: Zipcar, Car2go, and Enterprise CarShare20

. None of the

three companies have public car-share vehicles located north of Highway 407 except for Zipcar

services at the Richmond Hill GO station. The furthest removed facilities within southern Ontario are

for Zipcar and are located within the City of Burlington and the City of Hamilton. The distance

between existing car-share facilities is much less than the distance between any of the current

facilities and the Town of Newmarket.

It is expected that car-share companies would prefer to have a comprehensive linked network of

facilities to provide its users with more flexibility and choice. As York Region continues to grow and

develop in the future, particularly within its Urban Growth Centres and along its VIVA Rapid Transit

network, the possibly for Car Share program implementation from Toronto into, Southern York

Region, and eventually into Newmarket certainly exists.

CommunityCarShare is a program which began in the City of Hamilton in 1998 and has expanded to

include Kitchener-Waterloo, St. Catharines, and London. The program currently has more than 60

vehicles and more than 1900 members and is an alternative to ZipCar but with more coverage within

the Hamilton area. A similar program geared towards students called StudentCarShare also

operates in the Hamilton area. The success of these programs shows that car-share programs can

begin independent of third-party providers.

The mobility and flexibility that Car Share provides would certainly benefit Town residents, and as

such developing parking policies supportive of car share program implementation should be

considered at this time.

20

https://www.enterprisecarshare.ca/ca/en/programs/retail/toronto.html

http://www.zipcar.ca/

https://www.car2go.com/CA/en/toronto/

https://www.enterprisecarshare.ca/ca/en/programs/retail/toronto.html

http://www.zipcar.ca/

https://www.car2go.com/CA/en/toronto/


October 14, 2016 | 48

Despite the fact that car share programs do not yet exist in the Town of Newmarket, we recommend

developing parking policies that are supportive of the eventual implementation of programs within

the Town. The policies would not only detail the number of required car-share policies but would also

dictate the location of the space. Car-share must always be located in publicly accessible areas, and

marketed and signed so that people are aware of their presence. They should also have prioritized

locations near entrances to buildings or parking areas so that they are most easily accessible.

8.3.2 Car-Share in Canada

Car-share policies from other municipalities within Canada are summarized in Table 17.

Table 17: Car-Share Policies in Other Jurisdictions Zoning By-laws

Municipality Car-Share

Requirements?

Town of Newmarket x

City of Markham x

City of Toronto x

City of Mississauga x

City of Brampton x

Town of Oakville x


City of Hamilton x

City of Vaughan x


City of Ottawa x

From our research we have found that only the Town of Richmond Hill Parking Review and the City

of Vaughan Parking Standards Review take into consideration car-share despite the fact that neither

are served by car-share programs. The Town of Richmond Hill Parking Review recommendations

are high level and provide only the statements that car-share is a valuable initiative that should be

used by the Town. The City of Vaughan Parking Standards Review provides more concrete

recommendations that are directly based on the City of Toronto Parking Standards Review:

Examination of Potential Options and Impacts of Car Share Programs on Parking Standards (IBI

Group, March 2009)21

.

The City of Toronto Car-Share Study provided actual guidance on the parking reductions that should

be applied to multi-family dwellings, as follows:

For any apartment or condominium development, the minimum parking requirement should

be reduced by up to 4 parking spaces for each dedicated car share stall. The limit on this

parking reduction is calculated as the greater of:


1 space.

This recommendation is based on extensive research within the City of Toronto as well as the United

States and elsewhere in Canada. However, it is worth noting that while these findings have not been

formally introduced into the current Toronto zoning by-law we understand that the City does permit

21

http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/city_planning/zoning__environment/files/pdf/car_share_2009-04-02.pdf

http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/city_planning/zoning__environment/files/pdf/car_share_2009-04-02.pdf


October 14, 2016 | 49

car share parking space reductions. The current practice continues to rely on a negotiated approach

based on the above formula. The recommended reduction of 4 spaces appears to be conservative

according to the study findings and research into previous work done on car-share.

The City of Toronto Car-Share Study was prepared in 2009 and references the City of Vancouver

zoning by-law, which at the time allowed for a reduction of 3 parking spaces per car-share space

provided in new multi-family dwelling unit developments. However, a review of the current

Vancouver Zoning By-law 6059 does not outline car-share reductions for residential developments.

A more recent study entitled The Metro Vancouver Car Share Study (November 2014)22

concluded

that reductions in parking requirements should take into account two more considerations: current

demand for car-share, and on-site plus on-street car-share availability. The City of Vancouver

permits car-share vehicles to park on all-streets including residential permit streets whether signed

or not23

. The study also suggests that unbundling of parking spaces could be linked to the provision

of car-share.

8.3.3 Car-Share in the United States

Car-share parking ordinance from municipalities within the United States were also reviewed. The

selected municipalities are summarized in Table 18. It is noted that the selected municipalities were

reviewed for other parking standard aspects as part of this Parking Standards Background Study.

San Francisco was added as we determined that this City did identify provisions for car share

parking in its zoning code. Other municipalities who have implemented policies include Seattle and

Boston, but for the purposes of this memorandum only comparisons to San Francisco’s parking

policies are provided given that the City of Toronto’s approach appears to be reasonable for the

Town of Newmarket.

Table 18: Car-Share Policies in the United States

Municipality Car-Share

Requirements Included?

Stockton, California x

Salem, Oregon x

Eugene, Oregon x

Pasadena, California x

Huntington Beach, California x

Chicago, Illinois x

San Francisco, California

Despite there being a large amount of research into the ability of car-share programs to reduce

vehicle ownership, there is little direction within zoning code and ordinance. However, the City of

San Francisco is one municipality with comprehensive requirements for car-share spaces24

. The

number of required car-share spaces is determined based on ranges of total units. For instance, for

22

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/MetroVancouverCarShareStudyTechnicalReport.pdf

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/1507_PPE_MV_Car_Share_Study_14Oct20HR.pdf

23 http://former.vancouver.ca/bylaws/2849c.PDF#page=21

24 http://sf-planning.org/car-share-requirements-and-guidelines

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/MetroVancouverCarShareStudyTechnicalReport.pdf

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/1507_PPE_MV_Car_Share_Study_14Oct20HR.pdf

http://former.vancouver.ca/bylaws/2849c.PDF#page=21

http://sf-planning.org/car-share-requirements-and-guidelines


October 14, 2016 | 50

residential developments comprised of between 0 and 49 spaces, no car share spaces are required.

However, between 50 units and 200 units, 1 car share space is required. Beyond 200 units, 2

spaces are required, plus 1 space for every 200 dwelling units over 200. They also dictate the

number of optional car-share spaces beyond those required25

.

As this policy makes car share a requirement based on the number of residential units, this structure

may not be applicable to the Town of Newmarket until car share programs are implemented in the

Town. The benefits of revising car share parking policy to a similar structure should be explored at a

later time when car share programs are already in place.


We recommend a similar approach to car-share developed within the City of Toronto Car-Share

Study be applied to new developments in the Secondary Plan area as follows:

For any apartment (freehold or condominium) development, the minimum parking

requirement should be reduced by up to 3 parking spaces for each dedicated car-share stall.

The limit on this parking reduction is calculated as the greater of:


1 space.

The provision of car-share in a public parking structure through the bonusing provision could also

leverage this policy towards reducing the resident parking supply for new developments. The

calculation of the limit on the number of car-share spaces would not include RGI units.

9 Parking Management Approaches

In this section we review different approaches to parking management to help the Town determine

which is most appropriate for public parking within the Urban Centre Secondary Plan area.

9.1 Internal Management and Outsourcing

There are three major management styles that the Town can consider for management of public

parking within the Urban Centre Secondary Plan area26

:

Self-Operation – Responsibility is maintained within the Town.

Management Contract – A private management firm would handle day-to-day operations

through contract. The firm may be paid a fixed fee or a percentage of gross revenue and is

reimbursed for all operating costs.

Concession Agreement – A private management firm is fully responsible for operating

parking and is paid a fixed amount of a percentage of gross revenue.

25

http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/1.5/166/

26 https://durhamnc.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/3508

http://planning.sanfranciscocode.org/1.5/166/

https://durhamnc.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/3508


October 14, 2016 | 51

Each of the above management styles has advantages and disadvantages and selecting the most

appropriate style depends on the municipality and the focus area.

9.1.1 Self-Operation

Self-operation has the advantage of maintaining full control within the Town which leads to uniformity

across all infrastructures in terms of both aesthetics and management (enforcement and payment

fees/methods). However, with this comes full accountability in a legal sense as well as the

responsibility of addressing complaints. The Town must also be prepared to have internal knowledge

and a staff compliment. Compared to outsourced management this might cost more because

municipal staff typically are paid at higher rates and require training.

9.1.2 Outsourced Management Contract

Management Contracts have the advantage of maintaining some responsibility within the Town such

that the Town continues to dictate parking fees and customer service policies. The hired operator

would provide parking services according to a contract outlined by the Town. The operator is paid in

lump sum or as a percentage of total net revenue, but must report back to the Town on a consistent

basis to ensure operations are meeting goals. This approach requires some internal investment by

the Town to support the auditing process.

This approach still requires some staff investment by the owner (Town) primarily to guide the

operator and to perform audits. Costs are also reduced in management contracts because the bulk

of the work is being outsourced.

9.1.3 Outsourced Concession Agreement

This hands-off approach transfers all responsibility to a third party operator. This approach

relinquishes all effort on the part of the owner, but along with the reduced administrative load the

Town would lose control over parking fees, customer relations, and it may not meet the goals of the

Town. This approach is best suited to airports or other non-municipal organizations26

.

9.2 Governance Model Structures

In mature municipalities the organizational structures often evolved to be horizontally distributed and

fragmented such that separate entities were responsible for different aspects of parking

management. For example, the police would be responsible for enforcement of on-street parking

spaces while a separate authority, possibly under the umbrella of a parking authority, could be

responsible for off-street enforcement, and permitting might be controlled by a separate city

department with only loose ties to enforcement. This structure is a natural evolution as parking

technology, needs, and infrastructure changed over time, but under current circumstances is

inefficient and lacks cohesion in terms of vision and goals.

A number of parking governance models exist and they all share one common characteristic. Ideally

the organization of a parking management system should be vertically structured in such a way that

there is one major overseeing body or entity that accounts for and is responsible for all aspects of

parking management including, but not limited to, on-street and off-street parking spaces, permitting,

and enforcement. A number of parking governance models exist and the most common ones

include:


October 14, 2016 | 52

Municipal Operation – Operations are internally managed. Requires internal knowledge

and staff compliment and skills to effectively operate.

Parking Authority – There is a president or director and a board of members (stakeholders)

who engage a private parking management firm for day-to-day work.

Business Improvement Area (BIA) – Allows a pre-existing BIA to contract out parking

management. Revenues are then used to further improve the BIA.

Parking District – Similar to a BIA. Can be run by an internal department or a director and

board that engage a private parking management firm. Applies to a defined area.

The above management styles represent self-operation and outsourced management contracts, or

can be a hybrid of the two to varying degrees and this can be catered to the needs of the Town

based on the Towns vision and goals and parking management status quo.

Development of the parking standards for the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area offers an

opportunity to create a new vertically structured governance model that oversees and is responsible

for all aspects of parking with a top-down approach. When operated properly, this can create a much

more efficient system from the providers’ perspective which will result in less overhead, more

revenue, and a user friendly experience.

9.3 Recommendations

Consistent with Section 9.6.3.1 of the Secondary Plan, the potential role of a municipal parking

authority has been assessed. We recommend that the Town maintain internal municipal operation

of public parking in the Urban Centres Secondary Plan area. Given the size of the area and the

resources that would be needed, this management style would seem most beneficial because it

allows the Town full control of how parking is managed. If the Town eventually expands the

Secondary Plan area or identifies other intensification areas, then outsourcing could be worthwhile,

but given the current size and the fact that the program will only be in infancy, it seems financially

prudent to manage it internally. Due to economy of scale, outsourcing only becomes efficient for

larger municipal public parking supplies. If and when the Town decides to outsource, there will

already be a good foundation upon which a third party private management firm can continue.

All public parking facilities should be paid to discourage people from driving. Enforcement of

payments as well as for those parking where they are not permitted (i.e. accessible spaces, car-

share spaces, carpool spaces, or electric vehicle parking spaces), would be handled by the same

entity. Pricing would be determined through an in depth economic analysis that would have a goal of

85% occupancy at all times. This would be achievable for public parking supplies surrounded by

mixed uses. The same authority would manage both on- and off-street public parking. This would

further require that fees be applied to on-street public parking permits and potentially administrated

through a permitting process.

Section 9.3.6.1 of the Secondary Plan states that the Town may prepare a public parking strategy

that considers the following aspects relevant to the parking district approach, including:

a) the amount of parking required to support planned commercial, entertainment and

institutional uses;

b) the amount of office parking that could be made available through shared parking

arrangements to the public in the evenings and on weekends;


October 14, 2016 | 53

c) appropriate locations and sizes for off-street public parking facilities; and

d) the potential role for a municipal parking authority.

Internal municipal operation is the ideal approach to meeting these goals and applying the parking

district approach because it will allow the Town the greatest control over the size and location of

public parking structures to capitalize on shared parking opportunities. Parking districts also

complement cash-in-lieu policies and can most directly leverage the funding.

10 Transportation Demand Management

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is the reduction of vehicle demand through policies or

initiatives that directly reduce auto-demand or reallocate demand. For example, carpooling is a TDM

initiative because it reduces the number of vehicles on the roadway, whereas flex hours is another

TDM approach that reduces the impact of vehicles on the roadway by having lesser peak demand.

As per the direction of the Secondary Plan, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) has been

incorporated into the recommended parking requirements for the Secondary Plan area through

inclusion of the following policies and initiatives:

a) preferential parking for carpool vehicles in non-residential developments;

b) provision for car share opportunities in major residential developments;

c) reduced parking requirements reflecting proximity to transit;

d) bonusing incentives for provision of public parking with car-share;

e) cash-in-lieu of parking spaces for the provision of public parking;

f) application of shared parking formulas for public parking structures and joint development;

g) transit incentive programs, including subsidized transit fares;

h) secure indoor bicycle parking and showers in conjunction with major office and commercial

uses, institutional and civic uses;

i) provision for bicycle parking in close proximity to building entrances and transit stations; and,

j) incorporating paid parking requirements with non-residential development.

10.1 Recommendations

It is also recommended, as per direction provided by the Secondary Plan as well as York Region’s

Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Applications, that the Town request TDM plans to be

incorporated into transportation impact studies and parking studies for all new developments.

Although some incentive can be given to the developer within the Zoning By-law, it is often the

developer or employers responsibility to leverage these incentives and ensure they are being

applied to new developments. Requiring TDM plans to be provided will ensure that potential TDM

opportunities are being considered and implemented whenever possible. When it can be

demonstrated that TDM initiatives are adequate, and when the development is within close proximity

to transit, further reductions to the parking supplies will be permitted.


October 14, 2016 | 54

The Town may further encourage developers and employers to consider SmartCommute, electric

vehicle parking, dedicated carpool pick-up areas, and bicycle parking in excess of the minimum

requirements, be provided as part of TDM initiatives for new developments.

Having carpool and car-share parking as a requirement in the Zoning By-Law is one method of

ensuring that TDM is being employed, but it is often the developer responsibility to take extra steps

towards TDM and this can be encouraged by the Town by requesting that TDM plans be

incorporated into new developments through the transportation impact or parking studies, consistent

with Policy 9.3.5 (iv) which outlines TDM strategies. Participation in SmartCommute, providing transit

passes to employees or having a cash-out program for employees who do not want a parking space,

are all options for employers and developers.

Bicycle parking requirements within the current Zoning By-law should be carried forward to the

Secondary Plan area. The Town may consider suggesting that developers provide additional bicycle

parking within their TDM plans, in excess of the minimum requirements, in addition to shower and

change facilities or indoor secured bicycle parking areas.

Designated waiting and prioritized parking areas for shared mobility and ride-share programs can

also be part of the site design process and this will further encourage people to participate in

carpooling. Electric vehicle charging stations may also be considered as part of TDM plans.


October 14, 2016

Appendix A

Residential Parking Rates Comparison

Town of Newmarket | Parking Standards Background Study

Appendix A

Land Use General Rates Urban Centre Rates Land Use General Rates

Markham Centre

Zoning By-law 2004-

196

Land Use General Rates PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 Land Use General Rates CC1-CC4 Zones Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates Growth Areas Land Use Rest of RH KDA Region Centre Rapid Transit

1.50/unit 1.00/unit 1.25/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit

0.25/unit visitor 0.25/unit visitor 0.25/unit visitor 0.20/unit visitor 0.15/unit vis

Bach. ≤ 45 sm 0.80/unit 0.30/unit 0.60/unit 0.60/unit 0.70/unit Bachelor 1.00/unit Bachelor 1.25/unit Unit < 75 sm 1.00/unit 1.00/unit Bachelor 1.00/unit 0.80/unit 0.80/unit 0.90/unit

Bach. > 45 sm 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit All Others 1.50/unit 1.25/unit

One Bed 0.90/unit 0.50/unit 0.70/unit 0.70/unit 0.80/unit One Bed 1.25/unit One Bed 1.25/unit One Bed 1.25/unit 0.90/unit 0.90/unit 1.00/unit

Two Bed 1.00/unit 0.80/unit 0.90/unit 0.90/unit 0.90/unit Two Bed 1.40/unit Two Bed 1.40/unit Two Bed 1.50/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.20/unit

Three Bed 1.20/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.10/unit Three Bed 1.75/unit Three Bed 1.75/unit Three Bed+ 1.75/unit 1.20/unit 1.20/unit 1.50/unit

Visitor 0.20/unit 0.10/unit 0.10/unit 0.10/unit 0.15/unit Visitor 0.20/unit Visitor 0.25/unit Visitor 25% of total 20% of total Visitor 0.25/unit 0.15/unit 0.15/unit 0.15/unit

Rental Apartment

Building

Rental Apartment

BuildingRental Apartment

Bachelor 1.00/unit Bachelor 1.03/unit Bachelor 0.90/unit 0.75/unit 0.60/unit 0.75/unit

One Bed 1.18/unit One Bed 1.21/unit One Bed 1.10/unit 0.85/unit 0.75/unit 0.85/unit

Two Bed 1.36/unit Two Bed 1.41/unit Two Bed 1.35/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit

Three Bed 1.50/unit Three Bed 1.53/unit Three Bed+ 1.50/unit 1.20/unit 1.20/unit 1.20/unit

Visitor 0.20/unit Visitor 0.20/unit Visitor 0.25/unit 0.15/unit 0.15/unit 0.15/unit

Condo Horizontal

Bachelor 1.10/unit

One Bed 1.10/unit

Two Bed 1.50/unit

Three Bed 1.75/unit

Four Bed 2.00/unit

Visitor 0.25/unit

Horizontal Rental

Townhouse

Bachelor 1.10/unit

One Bed 1.10/unit

Two Bed 1.25/unit Two Bed 1.30/unit

Three Bed 1.41/unit Three Bed 1.46/unit

Four Bed 1.95/unit Four Bed 2.00/unit

Visitor 0.25/unit Visitor 0.25/unit

2.00/unit 2.05/unit res

0.25/unit vis 0.25/unit vis

1.50/unit resident 2.00/unit resident 2.00/unit 2.00/unit res 1.00/unit res 1.00/unit res 1.00/unit res

0.25/unit visitor 0.25/unit visitor 0.25/unit vis 0.25/unit vis 0.15/unit vis 0.15/unit vis 0.15/unit vis

1.50/unit resident 2.00/unit res 1.00/unit res 1.00/unit res 1.00/unit res

0.25/unit visitor 0.25/unit vis 0.15/unit vis 0.15/unit vis 0.15/unit vis

2.00/unit resident 2.00/unit resident 2.00/unit 2.00/unit Min 2 spaces 2.00/unit resident 1.50/unit res 2.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit

0.25/unit visitor 25% of total 20% of total vis

2.00/unit resident 1.50/unit resident 1.25/unit res

0.25/unit visitor 25% of total 20% of total vis

Residential MINIMUM Parking Requirements

Rental Townhouse without a private

garage and driveway

Apartment

Dwelling

Town of Oakville

Zoning By-law 2014-014

Town of Richmond Hill

Parking Strategy

Stacked TH on

Public Road

Stacked

Townhouse

Townhouse on

Public StreetTownhouse

Street

Townhouse

1.00/unit

Town of Newmarket


City of Brampton


Condo Apartment

Building

City of Toronto


Apartment

Building

City of Markham

By-law 28-97

Condo Apartment

Building

City of Mississauga


Apartment/

Condo Apartment

Stacked TH on

Private Road

Townhouse on

Private Street

Apartment

Building

Street Townhouse

Condo Townhouse

Block Townhouse

Townhouse on

Private Road

Condo

Townhouse

Townhouse on

Private Road

Condo Apartment

TownhouseStreet TownhouseTownhouse on

Public Road

Condo Townhouse

C:\Users\abeausol\Desktop\Appendix A _ Residential Parking Rates Comparison.xlsx


Appendix A

Land Use General Rates Urban Centre Rates Land Use General Rates

Markham Centre

Zoning By-law 2004-

196

Land Use General Rates PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 Land Use General Rates CC1-CC4 Zones Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates Growth Areas Land Use Rest of RH KDA Region Centre Rapid Transit

Bach. ≤ 45 sm 0.40/unit 0.90/unit 0.90/unit 1.00/unit Bachelor Bachelor Unit < 75 sm Bachelor 1.00/unit 0.85/unit 1.10/unit

Bach. > 45 sm 1.20/unit 1.30/unit 1.30/unit 1.30/unit All Others

One Bed 0.70/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.20/unit One Bed One Bed One Bed 1.10/unit 1.00/unit 1.25/unit

Two Bed 1.20/unit 1.30/unit 1.30/unit 1.30/unit Two Bed Two Bed Two Bed 1.25/unit 1.10/unit 1.50/unit

Three Bed 1.50/unit 1.50/unit 1.50/unit 1.60/unit Three Bed Three Bed Three Bed+ 1.50/unit 1.30/unit 1.85/unit

Visitor Visitor Visitor Visitor Visitor 0.20/unit 0.17/unit 0.20/unit

Rental Apartment

Building

Rental Apartment

BuildingRental Apartment

Bachelor Bachelor Bachelor 0.90/unit 0.70/unit 0.90/unit

One Bed One Bed One Bed 1.05/unit 0.85/unit 1.05/unit

Two Bed Two Bed Two Bed 1.25/unit 1.10/unit 1.25/unit

Three Bed Three Bed Three Bed+ 1.50/unit 1.30/unit 1.50/unit

Visitor Visitor Visitor 0.20/unit 0.17/unit 0.20/unit

Condo Horizontal

Bachelor

One Bed

Two Bed

Three Bed

Four Bed

Visitor

Horizontal Rental

Townhouse

Bachelor

One Bed

Two Bed Two Bed

Three Bed Three Bed

Four Bed Four Bed

Visitor Visitor

2.00/unit res 2.00/unit res 2.00/unit res

0.20/unit vis 0.20/unit vis 0.20/unit vis

1.25/unit res 1.10/unit res 1.25/unit res

0.20/unit vis 0.17/unit vis 0.20/unit vis

2.00/unit 2.00/unit 2.00/unit

Apartment

Building

Apartment/

Condo Apartment

Apartment

Building

Town of Newmarket


City of Markham

By-law 28-97

City of Toronto


City of Mississauga


City of Brampton


Town of Oakville



Parking Strategy

Condo Apartment

Building

Condo Apartment

Building

Apartment

Dwelling

Maximums not

imposed

Stacked TH on

Private Road

Condo

TownhouseCondo Townhouse

Townhouse on

Public Road

Townhouse on

Public StreetTownhouse Street Townhouse

Street

TownhouseTownhouse Street Townhouse

Townhouse on

Private Road

Townhouse on

Private Street

Townhouse on

Private RoadCondo Townhouse

Maximums not

imposed

The provided parking

spaces shall not

exceed the minimum

requirements

Maximums not

imposed

Maximums not imposed

Maximums not

imposed

Residential MAXIMUM Parking Requirements



Rental Townhouse

without a private

garage and dwy

Maximums not

imposedMaximums not imposed

Block Townhouse

Condo Apartment

Stacked TH on

Public Road

Stacked

Townhouse



Appendix A

Land Use General Rates Downtown Zone Land Use General RatesMetropolitan

CentreLand Use

General

Rates

Higher Order

Transit Hubs

Local

Centres

Primary

CentresLand Use Central Inner City Suburbs Rural Land Use General Rates Downtown Land Use

General

Rates

CSDP

AreaLand Use

General

RatesLand Use General Rates

Transit

Oriented

Development

Areas

Land UseGeneral

RatesLand Use

General

Rates

Transit

Oriented

Development

Areas

1.50/unit Apartment Building 1.50/unit resident 1.00/unit res 1.50/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 2.0/unit > 650 sf 1.5/unit > 650 sf Multi-Unit 1.0/unit

West of Rideau none 0.25/unit visitor 1.0/unit < 650 sf 1.0/unit < 650 sf

Bachelor 0.70/unit Bachelor 0.90/unit 0.70/unit 0.80/unit 0.85/unit East of Rideau 0.25/unit 0.10 / unit visitor 0.10 / unit visitor Studio 1.0/unit

< 600m from RT 0.50/unit 0.50/unit 0.50/unit 1 bed 1.0/unit

One Bed 0.70/unit One Bed 0.90/unit 0.70/unit 0.80/unit 0.85/unit Other 0.50/unit 1.20/unit 1.00/unit 2 bed 2.0/unit

Two Bed 0.90/unit Two Bed 1.10/unit 0.90/unit 1.00/unit 0.95/unit Visitor (1st 12 units) none none 0.20/unit 0.20/unit 3 bed + 2.5/unit

Three Bed 1.00/unit Three Bed 1.20/unit 1.00/unit 1.10/unit 1.15/unit Visitor (next 300)W of Rideau: none

East of, 0.1/unit0.20/unit 0.20/unit 0.20/unit Guest 0.5/unit

Visitor 0.25/unit 0.15/unit Visitor 0.20/unit 0.15/unit 0.20/unit 0.20/unit Visitor (remaining) none none 0.20/unit 0.20/unit

Dwelling in Same

Bldg as Other Uses

West of Rideau none

East of Rideau 0.50/unit

< 600m from RT 0.50/unit 0.50/unit 0.50/unit

Other 0.50/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit

Visitor (1st 12 units) none none 0.20/unit 0.20/unit

Visitor (remaining)W of Rideau: none

East of, 0.1/unit0.20/unit 0.20/unit 0.20/unit

Townhouse 2.00/unit Townhouse 2.0/unit

< 600m from RT 0.75/unit 0.75/unit 0.75/unit 0.75/unit

Other 0.75/unit 0.75/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit

Visitor < 12 units none none 0.20/unit 0.20/unit

Visitor > 11 units 0.10/unit 0.10/unit 0.20/unit 0.20/unit

1.00/unit 1.00/unit 2.00/unit resident 1.00/unit 2.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit 1.00/unit West of Rideau none

0.25/unit visitor East of Rideau 0.25/unit

< 600m from RT 0.50/unit 0.50/unit 0.50/unit

Other 0.50/unit 1.20/unit 1.00/unit

Visitor first 12 units none none 0.20/unit 0.20/unit

Visitor Remaining unitsW of Rideau: none

East of, 0.1/unit0.20/unit 0.20/unit 0.20/unit

Residential MINIMUM Parking Requirements

Huntington Beach,

California Ord. 4088Chicago Municipal CodeStockton Municipal Code Salem Revised Code 2009 Eugene Code, 1971


Ordinance 7000

City of Hamilton


Stacked Dwelling

City of Ottawa

By-law 2008-250

Multiple

Family

Street

Townhouse

City of Vaughan

Draft Review of Parking Standards

Townhouse

Apartment

City of Vaughan

By-law 1-88

Street

Townhouse

Street

Townhouse

Multifamily

Dwelling

50% to 100%

reduction

50% to 100%

reduction

Multifamily

Dwelling

Multifamily

Dwelling

Multifamily

DwellingMultifamily

Dwelling



Appendix A

Land Use General Rates Downtown Zone Land Use General RatesMetropolitan

CentreLand Use

General

Rates

Higher Order

Transit Hubs

Local

Centres

Primary

CentresLand Use Central Inner City Suburbs Rural Land Use General Rates Downtown Land Use

General

Rates

CSDP

AreaLand Use

General

RatesLand Use General Rates

Transit

Oriented

Development

Areas

Land UseGeneral

RatesLand Use

General

Rates

Transit

Oriented

Development

Areas

Apartment Building 1.75/unit > 650 sf Multi-Unit

1.25/unit < 650 sf

Bachelor 1.00/unit Bachelor 1.00/unit 1.20/unit 1.20/unit No maximum Studio

1 bed

One Bed 1.00/unit One Bed 1.00/unit 1.20/unit 1.20/unit 2 bed

Two Bed 1.30/unit Two Bed 1.30/unit 1.40/unit 1.40/unit 3 bed +

Three Bed 1.70/unit Three Bed 1.50/unit 1.70/unit 1.70/unit Guest

Visitor No maximum Visitor 0.15/unit 0.20/unit 0.20/unit

Dwelling in Same

Bldg as Other Uses

Townhouse Townhouse

< 600m from RT

Other

Visitor < 12 units

Visitor > 11 units

No maximum West of Rideau

East of Rideau

< 600m from RT

Other

Visitor first 12 units

Visitor Remaining units


Multifamily

Dwelling

Maximums not

imposed

Multifamily

Dwelling

Maximums

not imposed

Multifamily

Dwelling

2.50x min if < 20 spaces

1.75x min if < 20 spaces

Multifamily

Dwelling

Maximums

not imposed

on

residential

uses


1.50/unit

(incl visitor)

Only applies to

uses within 600m

of rapid transit.

1.75/unit

(incl visitor)

Only applies to uses within 600m of rapid

transit.

Multifamily

DwellingMaximums not imposed


Huntington Beach,

California Ord. 4088Chicago Municipal CodeStockton Municipal Code Salem Revised Code 2009 Eugene Code, 1971


Ordinance 7000

City of Vaughan


City of Ottawa

By-law 2008-250

City of Hamilton


City of Vaughan

By-law 1-88

ApartmentMultiple

Family

Maximums not

imposedMaximums not imposed

Stacked Dwelling

Townhouse

Residential MAXIMUM Parking Requirements

Maximums

not imposed

Maximums not imposedStreet

Townhouse

Street

Townhouse

Street

Townhouse



October 14, 2016

Appendix B

2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey

(Auto Ownership)

Sun Aug 28 2016 14:55:49 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) - Run Time: 416msCross Tabulation Query Form - Household - 2011Row: No. of persons in household - n_personColumn: No. of vehicles in household - n_vehicleFilters:Planning district of household - pd_hhld In 27Household 2011 Table: 0 vehicles 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 vehicles 5 vehicles 6 vehicles1 1664 2973 236 78 0 0 0 4951 17%2 335 3250 4886 337 63 0 0 8871 31%3 87 1586 2840 1006 243 81 0 5843 21%4 127 774 3594 724 330 20 19 5588 20%5 43 268 1165 561 122 21 0 2180 8%6 20 130 274 208 67 20 0 719 3%7 0 0 96 45 0 23 0 164 1%8 0 0 18 42 0 0 0 60 0%9 0 0 18 21 0 0 0 39 0%11 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 19 0%

8% 32% 46% 10% 3% 0% 0% 28434 100%

0 vehicles 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 vehicles 5 vehicles 6 vehicles1 34% 60% 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% 100%2 4% 37% 55% 4% 1% 0% 0% 100%3 1% 27% 49% 17% 4% 1% 0% 100%4 2% 14% 64% 13% 6% 0% 0% 100%5 2% 12% 53% 26% 6% 1% 0% 100%6 3% 18% 38% 29% 9% 3% 0% 100%7 0% 0% 59% 27% 0% 14% 0% 100%8 0% 0% 30% 70% 0% 0% 0% 100%9 0% 0% 46% 54% 0% 0% 0% 100%11 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%

1+2 14% 45% 37% 3% 0% 0% 0% 100%

VEHICLES IN HOUSEHOLD

#

PERSONS

IN

HOUSE-

HOLD


#

PERSONS

IN

HOUSE-

HOLD

96% of households have

between 1 and 5 people

of the top 96% of households, 46% have 2 vehicles, 32% have 1 vehicle, 10% have 3 vehicles, and only

3% have 4 vehicles.

8% of households have no vehicles

Sun Aug 28 2016 16:16:54 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) - Run Time: 544msCross Tabulation Query Form - Household - 2011Row: No. of persons in household - n_personColumn: No. of vehicles in household - n_vehicleFilters:2006 GTA zone of household - gta06_hhld In 2611,2621,2620,2613Household 2011 Table: 0 vehicles 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 vehicles 5 vehicles1 792 867 86 0 0 0 1745 26%2 129 1030 1262 37 0 0 2458 37%3 66 430 449 124 0 21 1090 17%4 108 168 495 87 66 0 924 14%5 0 104 63 68 23 0 258 4%6 0 69 42 0 0 0 111

17% 41% 36% 5% 1% 0% 6586

0 vehicles 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 vehicles 4 vehicles 5 vehicles1 45% 50% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100%2 5% 42% 51% 2% 0% 0% 100%3 6% 39% 41% 11% 0% 2% 100%4 12% 18% 54% 9% 7% 0% 100%5 0% 40% 24% 26% 9% 0% 100%6 0% 62% 38% 0% 0% 0% 100%

1+2 22% 45% 32% 1% 0% 0% 100%



#

PERSONS

IN

HOUSE-

HOLD

#

PERSONS

IN

HOUSE-

HOLD

98% of households have

between 1 and 5 people

All of Newmarket Near GO Rail Station

The majority of households with one person in them generally have one vehicle, and a slightly smaller portion has zero vehicles, but this represents the vast majority of one person households.

One Person Households

The majority of households with two people in them generally have two vehicles, and a slightly smaller portion has one vehicle.

Two Person Households

The majority of households with three people in them generally have two vehicles, and a slightly smaller portion has one or three vehicles.

Three Person Households

The majority of households with four people in them generally have two vehicles, and a slightly smaller portion has one, three, or four vehicles.

Four Person Households

Since approximately 37% of the households in Newmarket that are located near the GO Rail Station have two people, followed by 26% with one person, 17% with three people, and 14% with four people, it is the one-person and two-person households that will largely dictate parking requirements in the Secondary Plan area since they represent 64% of the households with this level of transit accessibility.

½ of the households will have one vehicle.

¼ of the households will have zero vehicles.

¼ of the households will have two vehicles.

On average the result is one vehicle per household.

One & Two Person Households

Other important notes:

In the zones near the GO Rail Station, the proportion of households with zero vehicles is consistently larger in proportion, and grows larger

with the higher number of persons per household.

In all cases except for one person households, two vehicle households maintain the greatest share.

The number of vehicles per household is only loosely tied to the number of persons per household, which is in directly tied to the number of

bedrooms.

The number of households with five or six persons is relatively small and does not represent a significant sample size, especially considering that

this data has itself already been extrapolated.


October 14, 2016

Appendix C

Non-Residential Parking Rates Comparison


Appendix C


Urban

Centre

Rates

Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4

School, Elementary

2 spaces per classroom plus an

additional 10% of the total parking

requirement to be dedicated to visitor

parking

School, Elementary 1 space / classroom

School, Secondary

3 spaces per classroom plus an

additional 10% of the total parking

requirement to be dedicated to visitor

parking

School, Secondary 4 spaces / classroom

School, Post

Secondary

1 space per 100 SM GFA used for

instructional and/or academic

purposes

University or College

5 space / classroom plus

1 space per 6 seats in an

assembly area

Post Secondary

School2.0 spaces / 100 SM GFA

1.0 space / 100

SM GFA

Day Care

2 spaces per classroom plus

1 space for every 4 children licensed

capacity

Day Nursery

1.5 spaces per classroom

plus 1 space per 5

children

Day Nursery 1.00 spaces / 100 SM GFA

Group HomeGreater of 2 spaces or 1 space per staff

member on dutyGroup Home

Places of Worship

1 parking space per 9 SM of the

aggregate GFA of the nave, public hall,

banquet hall or other

community/multi-use hall used as a

place of assembly

Places of Worship

Greater of: 1 space / 4

persons of sorship area

capacity, or 1 space per 9

SM NFA of the worship

area

Places of WorshipFixed Seating: 23 / 100 SM GFA

Variable Seating: 27 / 100 SM GFA

Fixed Seating: 9 /

100 SM GFA

Variable Seating:

11 / 100 SM GFA

Fixed Seating: 15 /

100 SM GFA

Variable Seating:

18 / 100 SM GFA

Library 1 space per 10 SM of GFA Library 1 space / 40 SM NFA Library 1.3 spaces / 100 SM GFA

Community /

Recreation Centre

1 parking space per 14 SM of GFA

dedicated to indoor facilities for use by

the public plus the aggregate of:

• 30 spaces per all field

• 30 spaces per soccer field

• 4 spaces per tennis court

Community Centre1 parking space per 40

SM of NFARecreation Use 3.0 spaces / 100 SM GFA

Retail

- Food/Grocery

Store/Supermarket

1 parking space per 9 SM of GFA with a

minimum of 5 spacesSupermarket 1 space / 20 SM NFA Grocery Store

- 2.5 for each 100 SM of GFA.

- If GFA < 200 SM then no parking

needed

Retail

- All other retail uses

1 parking space per 18 SM of net floor

areaRetail Store

With NFA < 6,000 SM: 1

space / 30 SM NFA

With NFA > 6,000 SM: 1

space / 20 SM NFA

Retail Store

(i) if the GFA is > 200 SM and <

10,000 SM, at a minimum rate of 1.5

for each 100 SM of GFA; and

(ii) if the GFA is 10,000 SM or more

but < 20,000 SM, at a minimum rate

of 3.0 for each 100 SM of GFA; and

(iii) if the GFA is 20,000 SM or more,

at a minimum rate of 6.0 for each

100 SM of GFA; and

(D) if the GFA on a lot is 200 SM or

less, no parking space is required.

Restaurant

1 parking space per 9 SM of GFA

dedicated to public use, excluding any

porch, veranda and/or patio dedicated

as seasonal servicing areas.

Restaurant 1 space / 9 SM NFAEating

Establishment

(i) where the GFA < 200 SM, 0

spaces;

(ii) where the GFA > 200 SM and <

500 SM, 3.0 / 100 SM GFA; and

(iii) where the GFA > 500 SM, 5.0 /

100 SM GFA

Office

Accessory Office

1 parking space per 27 SM of net floor

areaBusiness Office 1 pspace / 30 SM NFA Office 1.5 for each 100 SM of GFA

0.35 for each 100

SM of GFA

Medical Office 1 parking space per 17 SM of net floor

areaMedical Office 1 space / 20 SM NFA Medical Office 3.0 for each 100 SM of GFA

0.30 / 100 SM of

GFA

1.0 / 100 SM of

GFA

Hotel

The aggregate of:

• 1 space per guest room

• 1 space per every 2 guest rooms over

20

• 1 space per 4.5 SM of GFA dedicated

to administrative, banquet and

meeting facilities

Hotel

0.85 spaces per suite

plus 1 space / 10 SM NFA

devoted to assembly

uses

Hotel 1.0 spaces / guest room

Special Needs

Facility

Greater of 2 spaces or 1 space per staff

member on duty

Home-Based

Live-Work Units

Where the area occupied by the home

occupation exceeds 24 SM, 1 parking

space shall be required for every 9 SM

above the 24 SM of the dwelling unit

used for the home occupation

0.2 spaces / 100 SM GFA

5% reduction

versus general

rates

1.5 / 100 SM of GFA


Public School 1.5 space / 100 SM GFA0.15 spaces / 100

SM GFA

1.00 spaces / 100

SM GFA0.50 spaces / 100 SM GFA


Minimum of 2 space

Fixed Seating: 18 / 100 SM GFA



Non-Residential MINIMUM Parking Requirements

1.0 space / 100 SM of GFA


1.0 for each 100 SM of GFA

1.0 for each 100 SM of GFA

Town of Newmarket


City of Markham

By-law 28-97

City of Toronto


0 spaces

C:\Users\abeausol\Desktop\Appendix C _ Non-Residential Parking Rates Comparison.xlsx


Appendix C


Urban

Centre

Rates

Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4

School, Elementary School, Elementary

School, Secondary School, Secondary

School, Post

SecondaryUniversity or College

Post Secondary

School

Day Care Day Nursery Day Nursery No maximums

Group Home Group Home

Places of Worship Places of Worship Places of Worship No maximums

Fixed Seating:

18 / 100 SM GFA

Variable Seating:

22 / 100 SM GFA

Fixed Seating: 23 /

100 SM GFA

Variable Seating:

27 / 100 SM GFA

Library Library Library

Community /

Recreation CentreCommunity Centre Recreation Use No maximum

Retail

- Food/Grocery

Store/Supermarket

Supermarket Grocery Store No maximum

Retail

- All other retail usesRetail Store Retail Store No maximum

3.5 for each 100

SM of GFA

Restaurant RestaurantEating

EstablishmentNo maximum

3.5 for each 100

SM of GFA

4 for each 100 SM

of GFA

Office

Accessory OfficeBusiness Office Office No maximum

0.8 for each 100

SM of GFA

1.4 for each 100

SM of GFA

Medical Office Medical Office Medical Office No maximum 3 / 100 SM of GFA3.5 / 100 SM of

GFA

Hotel Hotel Hotel No maximum

Special Needs

Facility

Home-Based

Live-Work Units

Non-Residential MAXIMUM Parking Requirements

1 spaces / 100 SM GFA

Maximums not imposed Maximums not imposed

No maximums

No maximums

4 for each 100 SM of GFA



6 / 100 SM of GFA


4.5 space / 100 SM of GFA


No maximums

Fixed Seating: 29 / 100 SM GFA


The provided

parking spaces

shall not exceed

the minimum

requirements

Public School No maximum0.3 spaces / 100

SM GFA1 spaces / 100 SM GFA

2.00 spaces / 100

SM GFA

Town of Newmarket


City of Markham

By-law 28-97

City of Toronto




Appendix C

Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates Land Use Rest of RH KDA Region Centre

Rapid

Transit

Corridors

Public School up to

Grade 8

1.0 space per 100 m2 GFA - non-residential

(excluding portables) plus 1.0 spaces per

portable classroom

School, Elementary

parking space for each 100

square metres. gross floor area (excluding

portables) plus 1 parking

space for each portable classroom

School,

Elementary

For elementary schools, 1.5

per classroom,

not including any portables

Primary School2 spaces per

classroom

1.4 spaces per

classroom

1.6 spaces per

classroom

Public School after

Grade 9

1.5 spaces per 100 m2 GFA - non-residential

(excluding portables) plus 1.0 spaces per

portable classroom

School, Secondary

1.5 spaces for each 100

square metres gross floor area (excluding

portables) plus 1 parking

space for each portable classroom

School, Secondary

For secondary schools, 4.0 per

classroom,

not including any portables

Secondary School4 spaces per

classroom

2.8 spaces per

classroom

3.2 spaces per

classroom

College/University

1.1 spaces per 100 m2 GFA - non-residential

used for academic purposes; plus 0.15 spaces

per resident student and/or staff

School, Post

SecondaryNo minimum

Day Care 2.5 spaces per 100m2 GFA Day Nursery

1 parking space for each employee plus 1

parking space for each 10

children capacity

Day Care 1.0 per 40.0 m2 net floor area Day Care

Greater of 1

space per 5

children or 1

space per

employee

Greater of 1

space per 6

children or 0.8

space per

employee

Group Home 2 spaces

Place of Religious

Assembly

1.0 space per 4.5 seats for permanent fixed

seating (1); plus 27.1 spaces for any non-fixed

moveable seating per 100 m2 GFA - non-

residential, all in the worship area or 27.1 spaces

for all non-fixed moveable seating per 100 m2

GFA - non-residential, in the worship area or

10.0 spaces per 100 m2 GFA - non-residential,

whichever is greater

Place of Worship

1 parking space for every 4 seats or for each 2

metres of bench space

in the place of worship – main worship area,

or 1 parking space for

each 5 square metres of place of worship –

net worship area when

there is open floor seating.

Areas intended for the use of a permitted

residential unit do not

require additional parking

Place of Worship

a) 1.0 per 5 persons capacity

for the place of

worship area of worship; plus,

b) 1.0 per 22.0 m2 net floor

area for any additional

accessory assembly area

Places of Worship6.4 spaces /

100 SM GFA

5.1 spaces / 100

SM GFA

Library 3.2 spaces per 100 m2 GFA Library 1 space / 44 SM GFA Library 1.0 per 28.0 m2 net floor area

Community Centre 4.5 spaces per 100 m2 GFA Recreation Use Depends on specific use Community Centre 1.0 per 22.0 m2 net floor area Recreation Centre

5 spaces per

court plus 3.2

spaces per 100

m2

3.5 spaces per

court plus 2.2

spaces per

100 m2

5 spaces per

court plus 3.2

spaces per 100

m2

Supermarket

1 parking space for each 17 square metres of

gross commercial floor

area or portion thereof

Retail Store 5.4 spaces per 100 m2 GFA Retail


gross commercial floor


Retail Store 1.0 per 18.0 m2 net floor area

Retail - Neighbourhood

Retail - Regional

5 spaces / 100

SM GFA

4.3 spaces / 100

SM GFA

3 spaces / 100

SM GFA

Restaurant 16.0 spaces per 100 m2 GFA Restaurant

Dining Room or Convenience Restaurant: 1

parking space for each

6.25 square metres of gross commercial floor


Take-Out Restaurant: 1 parking space for each

16.7 square metres of

gross commercial floor area or portion thereof

Restaurant 1.0 per 10.0 m2 net floor area Restaurant11 spaces / 100

SM GFA

Office 3.2 spaces per 100 m2 GFA Office


gross

commercial floor area or portion thereof

Office 1.0 per 35.0 m2 net floor area Office3.2 spaces per

100 SM GFA

Medical Office 6.5 spaces per 100 m2 GFA Medical Office

1 parking space

for each 12 square metres of gross

commercial floor area or portion

thereof

Medical Office

a) For the first 60% of the net

floor area on the

lot occupied by medical

offices, 1.0 per 35.0

m2 net floor area

b) Where medical offices

occupy greater than

60% of the net floor area of

the building,

1.0 per 18.0 m2 net floor area

for the entire

building

Medical Offices and

Clinics

5 spaces for

first

practitioner

plus 3 for each

additional

4 spaces for first

practitioner plus

2.4 for each

additional

Overnight

Accommodation

0.8 space per guest room; plus 10.0 spaces per

100 m2 GFA - non-residential used for public use

areas including meeting rooms, conference

rooms, recreational facilities, dining and lounge

areas and other commercial facilities, but

excluding bedrooms, kitchens, laundry rooms,

washrooms, lobbies, hallways, elevators,

stairways and recreational facilities directly

related to the function of the overnight

accommodation

Hotel

1 parking space for each 2 bedrooms plus 1

parking space for

each 10 square metres of gross commercial

floor area or portion

thereof devoted to public use including

meeting rooms, conference

rooms, recreational facilities, dining, lounge

and tavern areas but

excluding bedrooms, washrooms, lobbies,

hallways, elevators, and

stairways

Hotel

a) 1.0 per lodging unit; plus,

b) 1.0 per 30.0 m2 net floor

area outside of a

lodging unit

Hotel

1 space per

unit plus 10

per 100 m2 for

public areas

0.80 spaces per

unit plus 8 per

100 m2 for public

areas

Long-term Care 0.33/bedLong-term

Care0.25/bed


0.75 spaces per unit plus 7.5

per 100 m2 for public areas

Town of Oakville


City of Mississauga



Parking Strategy

Greater of 1 space per 7

children or 0.7 space per

employee


City of Brampton


3.5 spaces for first

practitioner plus 2.1 for each

additional

2.0 spaces per 100 SM GFA






Appendix C

Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates Land Use General Rates Land Use Rest of RH KDA Region Centre

Rapid

Transit

Corridors

Public School up to

Grade 8 School, Elementary School, Elementary Primary School

1.5 spaces per

classroom

2 spaces per

classroom

Public School after

Grade 9 School, Secondary School, Secondary Secondary School

3.1 spaces per

classroom

4 spaces per

classroom

College/UniversitySchool, Post

Secondary

Day Care Day Nursery Day Care Day Care

Greater of 1

space per 6

children or 0.9

space per

employee

Greater of 1

space per 6.5

children or 0.8

space per

employee

Greater of 1 space

per 1 children or 1

space per

employee

Group Home

Place of Religious

AssemblyPlace of Worship Place of Worship Places of Worship

6 spaces / 100

SM GFA

5.3 spaces /

100 SM GFA

6.4 spaces / 100

SM GFA

Library Library Library

Community Centre Recreation Use Community Centre Recreation Centre

3.9 spaces per

court plus 2.4

spaces per 100

m2

6.3 spaces per

court plus 4

spaces per 100

m2

Supermarket

Retail Store Retail Retail Store


Retail - Regional

5 spaces / 100

SM GFA

3.75 spaces /

100 SM GFA

4.4 spaces /

100 SM GFA

3.3 spaces /

100 SM GFA

5.4 spaces / 100

SM GFA

3.75 spaces / 100

SM GFA

Restaurant Restaurant Restaurant Restaurant3.75 spaces /

100 SM GFA

3.3 spaces /

100 SM GFA

3.75 spaces / 100

SM GFA

Office Office Office Office2.5 spaces per

100 SM GFA

2.2 spaces per

100 SM GFA

2.5 spaces per

100 SM GFA

Medical Office Medical Office Medical OfficeMedical Offices and

Clinics

4.4 spaces for

first

practitioner

plus 2.6 for

each

additional

3.9 spaces for

first

practitioner

plus 2.3 for

each

additional

5 spaces for first

practitioner plus 3

for each

additional

practitoner

Overnight

AccommodationHotel Hotel Hotel

0.9 spaces per

unit plus 9 per

100 m2 for

public areas

0.85 spaces

per unit plus

8.5 per 100

m2 for public

areas

1 spaces per unit

plus 10 per 100

m2 for public

areas

Long-term CareLong-term

Care


Maximums not imposed Maximums not imposed Maximums not imposed Maximums not

imposed

City of Mississauga


City of Brampton


Town of Oakville



Parking Strategy



Appendix C

Land Use General Rates Downtown Zones Land Use General RatesMetropolitan

CentreLand Use

General

Rates

Higher Order

Transit Hubs

Local

Centres

Primary

CentresLand Use Central Inner City Suburbs Rural

Elementary School Elementary School1.5 parking spaces per

each classroom

1 parking spaces

per each

classroom

Elementary School 1.5 / classroom 1 / classroom1.25 space /

classroom

1.25 space /

classroom

Secondary School Secondary School4.0 parking spaces per

each classroom

1 parking spaces

per each

classroom

Secondary School 1.5 / classroom 1 / classroom1.25 space /

classroom

1.25 space /

classroom

University / CollegePost Secondary

School

2.5/classroom +

1.0 / 7 seats

auditorium or

theatre

Post Secondary School

4/ classroom

plus 1/ 6 seats

in an

auditorium or

theatre

2.5/classroom

plus 1/7 seats in

an auditorium or

theatre

3/classroom plus

1/7 seats in an

auditorium or

theatre

3/classroom plus

1/7 seats in an

auditorium or

theatre

Post Secondary

Day Nursery Day Nursery 1.5 parking spaces per

employee

0.75/

employeeDay Nursery 1/Employee 0.75 / employee 0.85 / employee 0.85 / employee Day Care None

Group Home1 space / staff + 1 space /

2 residents

Place of Worship

1 for every 10 square metres of

gross floor area, inclusive of a

basement or cellar, to

accommodate such use.

Place of Worship

Fixed Seating:

9 spaces / 100 SM

GFA

Variable:

13 spaces / 100

SM GFA

Place of Worship:

Permanent Seating

Place of Worship:

Variable Seating

23/ 100 m2 GFA

of worship

area

34/ 100 m2 GFA

of worship

area

9/ 100 m2 GFA of

worship area

13/ 100 m2 GFA

of

worship area

15/ 100 m2 GFA

of worship area

22/ 100 m2 GFA

of worship area

18/ 100 m2 GFA

of worship area

26/ 100 m2 GFA

of worship area

Place of Worship None

Public Library3.5 parking spaces per 100

sq.m GFA

1.0 space / 100

SM GFAPublic Library 2.0/100m2 GFA 1.0/100m2 GFA 1.5/100m2 GFA 1.5/100m2 GFA Library None

Community Centre

1.0 parking space for each

three (3) persons

comprised in the designed

maximum capacity

1.0 space / 100

SM GFACommunity Centre 2.0/100m2 GFA 1.0/100m2 GFA 1.5/100m2 GFA 1.5/100m2 GFA

Community

CentreNone

Supermarket6.0 parking spaces per 100

sq.m GFA

2.5 parking spaces

per 100 sq.m GFA

Supermarket (standalone)

>1000 SM

4.5 spaces per

100 SM GFA

2.5 spaces per

100 SM GFARetail Food Store None

2.5 per 100m2

of

gross floor area

Retail

1 for each 20.0 square metres of

gross floor area which

accommodates such use.

Retail Store6.0 parking spaces per 100

sq.m GFA

Total GFA of all

buildings

greater than

5,000m2: 2 spaces

/ 100 SM GFA

Otherwise 2.5

spaces / 100 SM

GFA

Retail / Shopping Centre

<=5000m2, 3.5

space / 100 SM

GFA

otherwise

4.5 space / 100

SM GFA

<=5000m2,

2 space / 100 SM

GFA

otherwise

2.5 space / 100

SM GFA

<=5000m2,

3 space / 100 SM

GFA

otherwise

3 space / 100 SM

GFA

<=5000m2,

3 space / 100 SM

GFA

otherwise

3 space / 100 SM

GFA

Retail Store None

2.5 per 100m2

of

gross floor area

Restaurant

i)

1 for each 8.0 square metres of

gross floor area which


ii)

Notwithstanding i) above, where

there are no seats provided for

dining purposes, a minimum 3

spaces shall be required.

Eating

Establishment,

Convenience


four (4) persons

comprised in the designed

maximum capacity or

20.0 parking spaces per

100 sq.m GFA,

whichever is greater

6.0 parking spaces

per 100 sq.m GFAEating Establishment

10 space / 100

SM GFA

6 space / 100 SM

GFA

8 space / 100 SM

GFA

8 space / 100 SM

GFARestaurant None

3 for first 50m2

of

gross floor area

plus 10 per

100m2 of gross

floor area over

50m2 of gross

floor area

Office1 for each 30 square metres of

gross floor area

1 for each 50 square metres

of gross floor area in excess of

450 square metres, which


Office Building

3.5 parking spaces per 100

sq.m.

GFA devoted to office

uses plus

the requirement for any

other use

1.5 spaces / 100

SM GFAOffice Building

3.0 spaces per

100 SM GFA

1.5 spaces per

100 SM GFAOffice

0.75 per 100m2

of gross floor

area

2 per 100m2 of

gross floor area

Medical Clinic1 for each 16 square metres of

gross floor area

1 for each 50 square metres

of gross floor area in excess of

450 square metres, which

accommodates such use

Medical Office2.5 spaces / 100

SM GFAMedical Services

4.5 spaces per

100 SM GFA

2.5 spaces per

100 SM GFAMedical Facility

0.75 per 100m2

of gross floor

area

Hotel 1 per guest room 0.6 per guest room Hotel


bedroom plus the

requirements for any

other use

0.75 spaces /

bedroomHotel 0.9/bedroom 0.75/bedroom 0.85/bedroom 0.85/bedroom Hotel

0.5 per 100m2

of gross floor

area

1 per guest unit

for up to 40

guest

units, and 1 per

6

guest units

over

40 guest units

Residential Care Facility 1.00/3 persons 1.00/3 personsLong-term Care

Facility0.50/bed 0.20/bed res

Home Occupation

2.0 parking spaces in

addition to residential

requirements

Home Occupation

1 in addition to

residential

requirements

(can be

tandem)


City of Ottawa

By-law 2008-250

City of Vaughan


City of Vaughan

By-law 1-88

City of Hamilton


i. 1 for each 125.0 square metres of gross floor area which


ii. Notwithstanding i. above, no parking shall be required where a

Day Nursery is located within an Education Establishment.

1.25 for each classroom.

3 for each classroom plus 1 for each 7 seat capacity in an

auditorium, theatre or stadium

5 for each classroom plus 1 for every 7 seat capacity in an

auditorium, theatre or stadium or 5 spaces for every classroom

plus 1 space for each 23 square metres of the gross floor area

which accommodates the auditorium, theatre or stadium,

whichever results in greater requirement.

2 per 100m2 of gross floor area




1 per guest unit

2.5 per 100 m² of gross floor area

10 per 100m2 of gross floor area of assembly

area

0.75 per 100m2 of gross floor area1 per 100m2 of gross floor

area

10 per 100m2 of gross floor

area

3.4 per 100m2 of gross floor

area


area


area


School None

1. Secondary

school - 2.5 per

classroom

(includes

portables)

2. All other

schools - 1.5

per

1. Secondary school - 3 per

classroom (includes

portables)

2. All other schools - 1.5 per

classroom (includes

portables)




Appendix C

Land Use General Rates Downtown Zones Land Use General RatesMetropolitan

CentreLand Use

General

Rates

Higher Order

Transit Hubs

Local

Centres

Primary

CentresLand Use Central Inner City Suburbs Rural

Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School

Secondary School Secondary School Secondary School

University / CollegePost Secondary

SchoolPost Secondary School Post Secondary

Day Nursery Day Nursery Day Nursery Day Care

Group Home

Place of Worship Place of Worship

Fixed Seating:

18 spaces / 100

SM GFA

Variable:

26 spaces / 100

SM GFA

Place of Worship:

Permanent Seating

Place of Worship:

Variable Seating

18/ 100 m2 GFA

of

worship area

26/ 100 m2 GFA

of

worship area

23/ 100 m2 GFA

of worship area

34/ 100 m2 GFA

of worship area

29/ 100 m2 GFA

of worship area

43/ 100 m2 GFA

of worship area

Place of Worship

Public Library Public Library Library

Community Centre Community CentreCommunity

Centre

Supermarket4 parking spaces

per 100 sq.m GFA


>1000 SM

4 spaces per 100

SM GFARetail Food Store

Retail Retail Store4 spaces / 100 SM

GFARetail / Shopping Centre

<=5000m2,

4 space / 100 SM

GFA

otherwise

4 space / 100 SM

GFA

Retail Store

Restaurant Restaurant10 parking spaces

per 100 sq.m GFAEating Establishment

10 space / 100

SM GFARestaurant

Office Office Building2.5 spaces / 100

SM GFAOffice Building

2.5 spaces per

100 SM GFAOffice

Medical Clinic Medical Office4 spaces / 100 SM

GFAMedical Services

4 spaces per 100

SM GFAMedical Facility

Hotel Hotel Hotel Hotel

Residential Care FacilityLong-term Care

Facility

Home Occupation Home Occupation


No maximum

Maximums not

imposed

<=5000m2,

4.5 space / 100 SM GFA (surface

parking)

otherwise

4.5 space / 100 SM GFA

(surface parking)

No maximum

No maximums

No maximums

No maximums

No maximums

No maximums

No maximums

3.0 spaces per 100 SM GFA (surface

parking)


Maximums not imposed Maximums not imposed


No maximum

Maximums only apply to uses within 600m walking distance of rapid

transit. Applicable to the following uses: Apartment Buildsings,

Hospitals, Medical Faciltiies, Offices, Post Secondary Schools,

Research and Development Centres, Retail Stores, and Shopping

Centres.

No maximum

No maximums

City of Vaughan


City of Ottawa

By-law 2008-250

School

City of Hamilton


City of Vaughan

By-law 1-88



October 14, 2016

Appendix D

% Reductions for Growth Areas vs General Areas


Appendix D

Land UseGeneral Rates

(Minimums)

PA1

% Reduction

vs. General Rate

PA2

% Reduction

vs. General Rate

PA3

% Reduction

vs. General Rate

PA4

% Reduction

vs. General Rate

Land UseRest of RH

(Minimums)

KDA

% Reduction

vs. Rest of RH

Region Centre

% Reduction

vs. Rest of RH

Rapid

Transit

Corridors

% Reduction

vs. Rest of RH

Land UseGeneral Rates

(Minimums)

Downtown Zones

% Reduction

vs. General Rates

Land Use

General

Rates

(Minimums)

Higher Order

Transit Hubs

% Reduction

vs. General Rates

Primary School2 spaces per

classroom30% 20% Elementary School Elementary School 1.5 / classroom 33%

Secondary School4 spaces per

classroom30% 20% Secondary School Secondary School 1.5 / classroom 33%

Post Secondary

School2.0 spaces / 100 SM GFA 50% University / College Post Secondary School

4/ classroom

plus 1/ 6 seats

in an

auditorium or

theatre

38% based on

classrooms and 14%

based on seating

Day Nursery 1.00 spaces / 100 SM GFA Day Care

Greater of 1

space per 5

children or 1

space per

employee

20% Day Nursery Day Nursery 1 / employee 25%

Group Home

Places of WorshipFixed Seating: 23 / 100 SM GFA


Fixed Seating: 61%

Variable Seating:

59%

Fixed Seating: 35%

Variable Seating:

33%

Places of Worship6.4 spaces / 100

SM GFA20% Place of Worship none

Place of Worship:

Permanent Seating

Place of Worship:

Variable Seating

23/ 100 m2 GFA

of worship

area

34/ 100 m2 GFA

of worship

area

Fixed Seating: 61%

Variable Seating:

62%

Library 1.3 spaces / 100 SM GFA Public Library 2.0/100m2 GFA 50%

Recreation Use 3.0 spaces / 100 SM GFA Recreation Centre

5 spaces per

court plus 3.2

spaces per 100

m2

30% none Community Centre 2.0/100m2 GFA 50%

Grocery Store

- 2.5 for each 100 SM of GFA.

- If GFA < 200 SM then no parking

needed


>1000 SM

4.5 spaces per

100 SM GFA44%

Retail Store

(i) if the GFA is > 200 SM and <

10,000 SM, at a minimum rate of 1.5

for each 100 SM of GFA; and

(ii) if the GFA is 10,000 SM or more

but < 20,000 SM, at a minimum rate

of 3.0 for each 100 SM of GFA; and

(iii) if the GFA is 20,000 SM or more,

at a minimum rate of 6.0 for each

100 SM of GFA; and

(D) if the GFA on a lot is 200 SM or

less, no parking space is required.


Retail - Regional

5 spaces / 100

SM GFA

Retail -

Neighbourhood:

14%

Retail - Regional:

40%

Retail none Retail / Shopping Centre

<=5000m2, 3.5

space / 100 SM

GFA

otherwise

4.5 space / 100

SM GFA

43%

Eating

Establishment

(i) where the GFA < 200 SM, 0

spaces;

(ii) where the GFA > 200 SM and <

500 SM, 3.0 / 100 SM GFA; and

(iii) where the GFA > 500 SM, 5.0 /

100 SM GFA

Restaurant11 spaces / 100

SM GFARestaurant none Eating Establishment

10 space / 100

SM GFA40%

Office 1.5 for each 100 SM of GFA 77% Office3.2 spaces per

100 SM GFAOffice

1 for each 30 square metres of

gross floor area

40%

for the area in excess of 450

square metres, which


Office Building3.0 spaces per

100 SM GFA50%

Medical Office 3.0 for each 100 SM of GFA 90% 67%Medical Offices and

Clinics

5 spaces for first

practitioner plus

3 for each

additional

20% Medical Clinic1 for each 16 square metres of

gross floor area

68%

for the area in excess of 450

square metres, which


Medical Services4.5 spaces per

100 SM GFA44%

Retail - Neighbourhood: 20%

Retail - Regional: 40%

73%

50% 30%

38%

Intensification Area Parking Rate Reductions (Compared to General Rates)

33%

33% to 83% depending on size (GFA)

The greater the retail area, the greater the reduction.

City of Toronto


100% reduction

0 spaces minimum

60%

83%

95%

Public School 1.5 space / 100 SM GFA 90% 33%67%

60%

Minimum of 2 space

Fixed Seating: 22%

Variable Seating: 19%

City of Vaughan


Intensification Area Parking Rate Reductions (Compared to General Rates)


Parking Strategy

City of Hamilton


62%

30%

25%

none

none

none

none

c:\pwworking\pitt\d1849268\Appendix D - %Reductions for Growth Areas.xlsx


October 14, 2016

Appendix E

Shared Parking Percentages Comparison


Appendix E

General Land Use GroupingsCity of Newmarket

By-law 2010-40

City of Markham

By-law 28-97

City of Toronto

Zoning By-law 569-

2013

City of Mississauga

Zoning By-law 0225-

2007

City of Brampton

Zoning By-law 270-

2004


Parking Strategy

City of Vaughan

By-law 1-88

Corporate Centre Zone

City of Vaughan

By-law 1-88

Vaughan Metropolitan

Centre Zone

City of Vaughan

Draft Review of

Parking Standards

City of Ottawa

By-law 2008-250AVERAGE MIN MAX

Business Office 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Medical Office 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Retail 80% 50% 20% 80% 80% 80% 65% 65% 65% 75% 66% 20% 80%

Restaurant / Eating Establishment 20% 100% 20% 20% 30% 20% 20% 20% 30% 31% 20% 100%

Overnight Accommodation / Hotel 70% 80% 80% 70% 70% 74% 70% 80%

Residential - Resident 90% 100% 90% 80% 80% 88% 80% 100%

Residential - Visitor 20% 10% 20% 80% 20% 80% 80% 80% 50% 49% 10% 80%

Library 25% 30% 28% 25% 30%

Entertainment 0% 0% 0% 0%

Theatre / Cinema 0% 25% 0% 10% 10% 40% 14% 0% 40%

Assembly Hall 10% 25% 70% 35% 10% 70%

Banquet Hall 20% 25% 70% 38% 20% 70%

Commercial Fitness Centre 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

Industrial Use 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Recreational Establishment 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

Bank / Financial 20% 80% 50% 20% 80%

Institutional / Education 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Business Office 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Medical Office 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Retail 90% 90% 95% 90% 90% 90% 80% 89% 80% 95%

Restaurant / Eating Establishment 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 99% 90% 100%

Overnight Accommodation / Hotel 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

Residential - Resident 65% 65% 55% 62% 55% 65%

Residential - Visitor 20% 20% 20% 55% 55% 55% 50% 39% 20% 55%

Library


Theatre / Cinema 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%

Assembly Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%

Banquet Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%

Commercial Fitness Centre

Industrial Use

Recreational Establishment

Bank / Financial 100% 100% 100% 100%

Institutional / Education 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

LEGEND

Lower Percentage Results in lower parking requirements

Mid Range

Higher Percentage Results in higher parking requirements

No Difference / ComparisonOther municipalities do not provide percentages for shared parking,

or there is no difference between municipalities.

SHARED PARKING - Percentage of Peak Parking Demand (Weekday)

MORNING

NOON

c:\pwworking\pitt\d1837774\Appendix E _ Shared Parking Comparison.xlsx


Appendix E


By-law 2010-40

City of Markham

By-law 28-97

City of Toronto

Zoning By-law 569-

2013

City of Mississauga

Zoning By-law 0225-

2007

City of Brampton

Zoning By-law 270-

2004


Parking Strategy

City of Vaughan

By-law 1-88


City of Vaughan

By-law 1-88


Centre Zone

City of Vaughan

Draft Review of

Parking Standards

City of Ottawa


Business Office 95% 95% 60% 95% 95% 100% 95% 95% 95% 100% 93% 60% 100%

Medical Office 95% 100% 95% 95% 100% 95% 95% 95% 100% 97% 95% 100%

Retail 90% 100% 100% 90% 100% 90% 80% 80% 80% 85% 90% 80% 100%





Library 100% 30% 65% 30% 100%


Theatre / Cinema 50% 50% 0% 40% 40% 60% 40% 0% 60%

Assembly Hall 25% 50% 70% 48% 25% 70%

Banquet Hall 50% 50% 70% 57% 50% 70%


Industrial Use 95% 100% 98% 95% 100%


Bank / Financial 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Business Office 10% 10% 0% 10% 15% 10% 10% 10% 10% 15% 10% 0% 15%

Medical Office 10% 50% 10% 15% 10% 10% 10% 10% 15% 16% 10% 50%

Retail 90% 100% 100% 90% 50% 90% 100% 100% 100% 75% 90% 50% 100%





Library 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Entertainment 100% 100% 100% 100%

Theatre / Cinema 100% 100% 100% 80% 80% 85% 91% 80% 100%

Assembly Hall 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Banquet Hall 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


Industrial Use 10% 0% 5% 0% 10%


Bank / Financial 50% 10% 30% 10% 50%


LEGEND


Mid Range




SHARED PARKING - Percentage of Peak Parking Demand (Weekday)

AFTERNOON

EVENING



Appendix E


By-law 2010-40

City of Markham

By-law 28-97

City of Toronto

Zoning By-law 569-

2013

City of Mississauga

Zoning By-law 0225-

2007

City of Brampton

Zoning By-law 270-

2004


Parking Strategy

City of Vaughan

By-law 1-88


City of Vaughan

By-law 1-88


Centre Zone

City of Vaughan

Draft Review of

Parking Standards

City of Ottawa


Business Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 20% 12% 10% 20%

Medical Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 20% 12% 10% 20%

Retail 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 60% 77% 60% 80%

Restaurant / Eating Establishment 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 30% 22% 20% 30%



Residential - Visitor 20% 20% 100% 100% 100% 100% 73% 20% 100%

Library

Entertainment

Theatre / Cinema 10% 10% 40% 20% 10% 40%


Banquet Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%


Industrial Use


Bank / Financial 80% 80% 80% 80%


Business Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 20% 12% 10% 20%

Medical Office 100% 10% 10% 10% 10% 20% 27% 10% 100%

Retail 100% 100% 85% 85% 85% 90% 91% 85% 100%





Library

Entertainment

Theatre / Cinema 50% 50% 70% 57% 50% 70%


Banquet Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%


Industrial Use


Bank / Financial 100% 100% 100% 100%


LEGEND


Mid Range




SHARED PARKING - Percentage of Peak Parking Demand (Saturday)

MORNING

NOON



Appendix E


By-law 2010-40

City of Markham

By-law 28-97

City of Toronto

Zoning By-law 569-

2013

City of Mississauga

Zoning By-law 0225-

2007

City of Brampton

Zoning By-law 270-

2004


Parking Strategy

City of Vaughan

By-law 1-88


City of Vaughan

By-law 1-88


Centre Zone

City of Vaughan

Draft Review of

Parking Standards

City of Ottawa


Business Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Medical Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Retail 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%





Library

Entertainment

Theatre / Cinema 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%


Banquet Hall 70% 70% 70% 70%


Industrial Use




Business Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 9% 5% 10%

Medical Office 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 9% 5% 10%

Retail 70% 70% 40% 40% 40% 50% 52% 40% 70%





Library

Entertainment

Theatre / Cinema 80% 100% 100% 93% 80% 100%

Assembly Hall 100% 100% 100% 100%

Banquet Hall 100% 100% 100% 100%


Industrial Use




LEGEND


Mid Range




SHARED PARKING - Percentage of Peak Parking Demand (Saturday)

AFTERNOON

EVENING


Parking Standards Background Study Draft Final Report · Draft Final Report Area-Specific Zoning...

Documents

Transcript of Parking Standards Background Study Draft Final Report · Draft Final Report Area-Specific Zoning...