Edmonton (Alta.) - 1973 - Parking study_part i_standards (1973-07)

SD LIBRARY

T050687011973

2828

PAFtKING-STUDY ,.ptsiAr t,ITG2.

T EDMONTON -PLA:L_____

1,1

PARKING 1111 Dy 4800.9a „44 .E3 DEPARTMENT E373 1973 EDMONTON

Igki-

6 t

6

PARKING

STUDY

PART I STANDARDS

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONTON MAY, 1973

(Revised July, 1973)

11

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS Page

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter I

Chapter II

Chapter III

Chapter IV

Chapter V

A Summary B Recommendations

vi

INTRODUCTION

1

A B C D

1 1 2 3

Authority for Study Need for Study Implementation of Revised Standards Definitions

RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS

5

A One and Two Family Dwellings B Apartment Buildings and Terraced Dwellings 1. Need for Change 2. Typical Zoning Requirements and Suggested Planning Standards 3. Factors Influencing the Parking Demand a. Tenant Demand b. Visitor and Recreation Vehicle Parking 4. Methodology of Determining Recommended Standards

5 6 7 7 8 8 11 12

COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS

17

A Business, Administrative and Professional Offices and Banks B Retail Shops and Personal Service Shops 1. Shopping Centers (over 10,000 sq. ft.)

2. Retail Shops and Personal Service Shops (under 10,000 sq. ft.)

C Equipment and Repair Shops D Eating Establishments E Cocktail Bars and Beer Parlours F Motels and Hotels, Including Motor Hotels

17 19 20 21 22 23 23 24

PARKING STANDARDS FOR AUDITORIUMS

26

A Public Assembly Auditoriums, etc.

B Churches C Funeral Homes

26 28 29

PARKING STANDARDS FOR SCHOOLS

30

A Schools

30

111

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

(Continued) Page

Chapter VI

PARKING STANDARDS FOR HOSPITAL AND SIMILAR USES

32

A Hospitals, Sanatoriums, Convalescent Homes or Similar Uses B Homes for the Aged

32

INDUSTRIAL PARKING STANDARDS

35

A Industrial Developments 1.Need for Change 2. Typical Zoning Requirements and Suggested Planning Standards 3. Conclusion

35 35 36

Appendix A

Recommended Parking Standards

37

Appendix B

Map of Core, Central, Intermediate and Outer Areas

42

Appendix C

Table 3 and 4 - Percentage of Each Type of Apartment Unit by Area

43

Appendix D

Parking Standards and Recommendations Supported by the Municipal Planning Commission

44

Chapter VII

33

36

iv

LIST OF GRAPHS AND TABLES

Page

List of Graphs Graph 1

Average Number of Cars per Dwelling Unit By Type of High-Rise Apartment Unit and Area

9

Graph 2

Average Number of Cars per Dwelling Unit By Type of Walk-Up Apartment Unit and Area

9

Graph 3

Percentage of Each Type of High-Rise Apartment Unit By Area

10

Graph 4

Percentage of Each Type of Walk-Up Apartment Unit By Area

10

Table 1

Average Number of Cars Per Occupied Dwelling Unit

By Type of High-Rise Apartment Unit and Area

14

Table 2

Average Number of Cars Per Occupied Dwelling Unit

By Type of Walk-Up Apartment Unit and Area

14

Table 3

Percentage of Each Type of High-Rise Apartment Unit By Area

43

Table 4

Percentage of Each Type of Walk-Up Apartment Unit By Area

43

List of Tables

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is the purpose of this report to analyze the parking demand for all types of development in the city and to recommend alternate parking standards to those presently being required, where the need is justified. The problem is recognizable by inordinate quantities of onstreet parking in some areas and the overcrowding of available off-street facilities in other areas. Consequently, this study was initiated in response to the following motion in Council by Alderman Cavanagh: "That the parking requirements for all residential, commercial and industrial developments be reviewed, and the Planning Department bring back a report and a recommendation to the first Council meeting in January, 1973."

Subsequently, on January 8th, 1973, Council received as information a progress report indicating that the study would be completed by June 1973 and a more extensive report with recommendations submitted at that time.

If a fixed route transportation system, such as rapid transit, is adopted then the general proposition should be to enforce a maximum limit on the amount of parking made available in the downtown area where there is an effort being made to create an efficient and pleasant pedestrian environment. On the other hand, in the less dense peripheral and intermediary areas of the city where the car is the most feasible, efficient and flexible means of movement, the minimum amount of parking required should be such that it is able to accommodate all vehicles in such a manner as to encourage a comfortable and visually pleasing environment. However, if a more random route system, such as freeways, were adopted the amount of parking necessary in the central area would increase substantially over what would be necessary if public transportation were encouraged.

At present, approximately 23% of the people entering the city center each day come by public transportation, thereby reducing the relative quantity of parking necessary in this area. An additional reduction of the quantity necessary is brought about by the density and proximity of the various uses in the central area and the occurrence of differing peak periods of parking demands by differing uses. Therefore the opportunity for the shared use of common parking facilities is available.

The Planning Department is examining the concept of a Parking Authority as a result of the nature of these factors, the deteriorative affect that uncontrolled parking can have on the quality of the downtown environment and the following motion in Council by Alderman Olsen: "That the City of Edmonton establish a policy whereby development proposals that do not provide adequate on-site parking may be permitted subject to the developer paying a per stall levy into an off-street parking fund."

vi The parking demand in the central area can then be evaluated on the basis of the central area as a single entity and the necessary parking facilities can thereby be appropriately located, controlled and integrated into an overall plan for the central area. A Parking Authority may also function in other areas of the city, such as on commercial strips, where it is inappropriate to require on-site parking for each individual development and where consolidated parking facilities may be more practical.

The central area and the commercial strips are presently under the Land Use Classification Guide rather than the Zoning Bylaw. The Development Officer therefore has a significant degree of discretion to vary the parking standards in these areas. However, this discretion is not extensive enough to allow a per stall levy to be paid by developers in lieu of providing parking, nor require centralized or concentrated parking facilities in appropriate locations.

The parking standards for residential developments, particularly multiple-family residences, have been found to be inadequate, as much in the method of determining the quantity of parking necessary as in the actual quantity required. Consequently, the parking standards recommended by this report consider not only tenant demands, but also the demand for visitor parking spaces and area for the storage of recreation vehicles. As well, the recommended parking standards have an indirect consideration for locational factors, something the present parking standard does not account for.

Similar to the parking standards for residential developments, commercial, industrial, auditorium and school parking standards were also found to be inadequate in terms of the quantity of parking required. Improved standards are therefore recommended.

B Recommendations The recommendations of this report are fourfold: 1. It is recommended that the parking standards of the Zoning Bylaw, Section 12, Subsection 14 (Parking Schedule), be amended on the basis of the recommendations contained within Appendix "A" of this report

IL.

2. It is recommended that Section 12, Subsection 12 (c) of the Zoning Bylaw (Access to Spaces), be amended according to the recommendation contained within Appendix "A" of this report.

3. It is recommended that Section 12, Subsection 12 (0 of the Zoning Bylaw (Different Uses of the Same Site), be amended according to the recommendation contained within Appendix "A" of this report.

40

4. It is recommended that Section 2 of the Zoning Bylaw (Definitions), be amended according to the recommendation contained within Appendix "A" of this report.

These recommendations, if approved, should ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities for all types of development, in all areas of the city where the provision of parking is deemed necessary and practical.

The accumulation of the automobile in inappropriate locations would then be discouraged and the quality of the urban environment improved.

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A Authority for Study In response to the motion in Council, October 10th, 1972, made

by Alderman Cavanagh, the City of Edmonton Planning Department has undertaken a review and evaluation of the parking regulations as they presently exist in the Zoning Bylaw and Land Use Classification Guide. Alderman Cavanagh's motion reads as follows: "That the parking requirements for all residential, commercial and industrial developments be reviewed, and the Planning Department bring back a report and a recommendation to the first Council meeting in January, 1973."

Subsequently, on January 8th, 1973, Council received as information a progress report indicating that the study would be completed by June,1973,and a more extensive report with recommendations submitted at that time.

On March 26, 1973, Alderman Olsen made a motion: "That the City of Edmonton establish a policy whereby development proposals that do not provide adequate on-site parking may be permitted subject to the developer paying a per stall levy into an off-street parking fund."

This was referred to the Utilities and Engineering Committee on a subsequent motion by Alderman Fallow. This committee then recommended to Council, at its meeting of April 9, 1973: "That this item be referred to the Planning Department for consideration as it is directly related to studies presently being conducted by this Department."

The Planning Department is presently considering this latter motion in an examination of the functions of a Parking Authority.

B Need for Study The need to provide adequate parking facilities in such a manner as to encourage a comfortable and visually pleasing urban environment is extremely important in our present day and age where the automobile is the most feasible, efficient and flexible means of movement in areas outside of the city center. Inordinate quantities of on-street parking in some areas and the overcrowding of available off-street facilities in other areas are obvious indications of the inadequacy of present parTing standards. With the exception of parking requirements for senior citizens homes, the parking standards for the City of Edmonton

2

have not been reviewed and evaluated since 1961. In the light of these factors the importance and necessity of the parking study and this resulting report can be appreciated.

It is obvious that the amount of parking required depends on the type of development. it is also true that when cities reach a considerable ' size, such as Edmonton, parking requirements will vary in relation to the area of the city in which the development is located. This is especially apparent when we consider the central core area of the city and the factors that affect the parking demand in this area. The availability and use of public transportation and the occurence of differing peak periods of parking demand make possible the joint use of common parking facilities, reducing the overall demand for parking in this area.

The various factors that influence parking in the central core area and on commercial strips, and the special and unique nature of these areas, necessitates a well co-ordinated and controlled approach to parking. The control of the quantity of parking, the location of the parking facilities and the rate structure in off-street parking sites is critical in the central core area. The amount of parking provided in this area should be minimal such that the use of public transportation is encouraged and the central core area no longer caters to the congesting and the pollution creating automobile, but rather is oriented and conducive to a pedestrian environment.

C Implementation of Revised Standards The parking standards recommended in this report are to be administered in the same manner as those which they are intended to replace.

In areas of the City such as commercial strips and the central core area where the full complement of on-site parking may not be appropriate, Development Control will continue to be applicable. These areas are presently under the Land Use Classification Guide, rather than the Zoning Bylaw, and therefore are subject to a significant degree of discretionary authority to vary the provisions of the Parking Schedule as set out in the Zoning Bylaw. This then provides the opportunity of using the Development Officer's discretion to reduce the parking required where the applicant can demonstrate that the parking standard is not applicable to his project.

The parking standards recommended in this report do not necessarily have to be applied in these areas where it is inappropriate. This of course is not the ideal solution to the parking problem in these areas, but rather remains an interim means of dealing with the problem until such time as a Parking Authority can be established to deal with the situation in the appropriate manner. Development Control does not facilitate the co-ordination and integration of concentrated parking facilities into a central area plan.

Although the parking standards recommended in this report are intended to be the minimum parking requirement necessary for each of the various types of developments, occasionally, due to the complementary nature of two uses, it may be reasonable to allow the sharing of a common parking facility. Where two uses on the same site or within the same development generate different peak periods of parking demand that do not overlap it

3

is feasible to share the same parking area. It is consequently the recommendation of this report that the Zoning Bylaw, Section 12, Subsection 12 (0 (Different Uses on the Same Site) be amended such that there is adequate provision for the accommodation of this situation.

This section should then read as follows: (0 Different Uses of the Same Site In the case of the multiple use of a site the Development Officer shall calculate the parking required for each individual use and this shall be deemed to be the required parking for the site; unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that there is a complementary or overlapping use of the parking facilities which would warrant a reduction in the parking requirements.

Consideration of the increased site area necessary for the provision of a larger quantity of parking in residential developments gave birth to the recommendation that tandem parking spaces should be allowed. The maximum number of tandem parking spaces will be equivalent to the number of 3 bedroom or larger dwelling units in the development. (Tandem parking means two spaces, one behind the other).

Consequently Section 12, Subsection 12 (c) of the Zoning Bylaw (Access to Spaces) should be amended to read as follows: (c) Access to Spaces Adequate access to and exit from individual spaces is to be provided at all times by means of unobstructed manoeuvring aisles and to the satisfaction of the Development Officer except where otherwise indicated in this bylaw.

D Definitions Throughout this report the core area and central area of the city are referred to. Their street boundaries are: Core Area

Railway tracks on the north, 97 Street on the east, 97 Avenue on the south and, 105 Street on the west.

Central Area

Railway tracks on the north, 93 Street on the east, River on the south and, 111 Street on the east.

In chapter two, Residential Parking Standards, the phrases intermediate area and outer area are also used. As a result of the boundary that separates the intermediate area and outer area being described along the edges of enumeration areas it is described on a map in appendix "B" as are the boundaries of the central area and core area.

4

The phrase "tandem parking" is used to describe the possible arrangement of a certain number of parking spaces in residential developments. A definition of "tandem parking" should then be included in Section 2 of the Zoning Bylaw (Definitions).

CHAPTER II RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS

Due to the variation in the complexity and purpose of the various types of residential developments now being constructed one all encompassing parking standard is not feasible either in terms of the quantity of parking required or in the means of designating the requirement. The residential categories to which parking standards are applied have then been expanded from the present single category that requires one parking space per dwelling unit.

A One and Two Family Dwellings Recommendation: One and two family dwellings

1 parking or garage space per dwelling unit plus provision shall be made for 1 additional space on the site, with suitable access and this additional space may be in tandem.

In the instance of one and two family dwellings the parking standard need only be one parking or garage space per dwelling unit to be provided at the time of construction of the dwelling. Provision for additional space with suitable access must be made available on the lot for future parking requirements (such as a second car or recreation vehicle) although this space does not have to be developed at the time of construction of the dwelling unit. It is realized that many people living in either of these types of developments will own more than one vehicle. However, due to most of these developments being privately owned and having a relatively small amount of site coverage the owner has ample private space available to use as storage space for recreation vehicles or additional cars. There is always the opportunity available for the resident to increase parking or storage space as the individual need arises.

The parking standards recommended in the following sources correspond to the parking standard recommended above. Wilbur Smith and Associates indicate that typical zoning requirements range from 1 to 2 spaces per dwelling unit, that there is a parking space need of .5 to 2.2 spaces per dwelling unit and consequently suggest a planning standard of 1 to 2 spaces per dwelling unit for single family residences.' Baker and Funaro recommend 1.5 to 2 spaces per dwelling unit for a private house2 while the United States Highway Research Board recommends 2 spaces per dwelling unit for single family residences.3

'Smith, Wilbur and Associates, Parking in the City Center, New Haven, Connecticut, 1965, Page 65.

2Baker, Geoffrey and Bruno Funaro, Parking, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, Page 105.

3Highway Research Board Special Report No. 125, Parking Principles, 1971, by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Page 39.

6

The instance of cars consistently being stored on the street does not appear to be a routine occurrence in single family dwelling areas. Two reasons for this not being a problem are: (1) the Highway Traffic Act prohibits the on-street parking of vehicles for more than 72 hours and (2) our climatic conditions are such that four to five months of the year an off-street parking space may have to be provided such that the vehicle can be kept operative if it is to be used regularly.

Due to the nature of most of the traffic arteries bordering properties that accommodate one and two family dwellings and the relatively low density of these areas, on-street visitor parking can easily be accommodated with no inconvenience to other residents or obstruction to traffic flow. It is normally the nature of these streets that they are not busy main arteries with any concentrated traffic flow. Where the street is more of a major thoroughfare and therefore sustains a relatively constant flow of traffic, additional access lanes are normally provided which are separated by a boulevard from the main street.

B Apartment Buildings and Terraced Dwellings Recommendation: Apartment buildings and terraced dwellings

.5 parking spaces per bachelor dwelling unit, 1 parking space per 1 bedroom dwelling unit, 1.5 parking spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling unit, 2 parking spaces per 3 bedroom or larger dwelling unit. (The Development Officer may accept tandem parking spaces of a number that is equivalent to the number of 3 bedroom or larger dwelling units.)

Of the total number of parking spaces required 1 space per every 7 dwelling units must be assigned to guest parking, readily available to an entrance of the building to be served, and must be clearly identified as guest parking.

These parking standards shall be the requirement for all apartment buildings and terraced dwellings unless in the case of housing which involves a government subsidy in rental, interest

7

rates, or mortgages, where the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Municipal Planning Commission that these standards are not applicable to his project.

1.Need for Change Parking as it is presently required, on a 100% basis, is not sufficient to accommodate the demand in apartment buildings and terraced dwellings in all areas of the City. A parking standard for these developments must consider visitor parking and the storage of recreation vehicles as well as tenant parking. Congested streets and back lanes resulting from excessive off-site or on-street parking in some areas adjacent to apartment buildings are evidence of the inadequacy of the present parking standard for these developments.

In a city as large as Edmonton the amount of parking required for apartments and terraced dwellings tends to vary in relation to their location but consideration for this factor is not incorporated into the present parking standard.

Discussions with various developers who have been involved in the development of multiple-family complexes in Edmonton indicated general agreement with all of the above. The consensus of opinion is that to provide adequate parking facilities the present minimum of 1 space per dwelling unit must be exceeded. Suggested adequate parking requirements ranged from 115% to 125% for developments away from the center of the city and lesser standards for development near the core. It was also indicated that some developers are presently providing more parking than the present minimum requirement, up to a maximum of 125%.

2. Typical Zoning Requirements and Suggested Planning Standards A survey of residential parking standards presently required in other cities indicates quite a variety of actual parking requirements and means of designating them. These range from cities such as Calgary4 Saskatoon5 and Chicago6 plat require only I space per dwelling unit, to cities such as Vancouver and Regina8 that require parking space on the basis of the number of square feet of floor area in each development, with a minimum of 1 stall per dwelling unit. Winnipeg's parking requirements increase in proportion to the number of dwelling units in a development,

4City of Calgary Development Control Bylaw No. 8600.

5City of Saskatoon Zoning Bylaw 4637.

6Brierley, John, Parking of Motor Vehicles, C.R. Books Ltd., London, 1962, Page 237.

7City of Vancouver Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 3575.

8City of Regina Zoning Bylaw 4306.

8 with lto 50 dwelling units requiring 1 parking space per dwelling unit, and 201 or more requiring 115% per number of dwelling units. In addition to this, for multiple-family dwellings containing 50 or more dwelling units, 5% of the required parking spaces are to be assigned to guest parking,readily available to an entrance of the building to be served.'

The City of Saanich presently requires between 1.5 to 2 spaces per dwelling unit depending upon the type of development.1° A statistical study carried out by the City of Costa Mesa Planning Department in California investigated the relationship between apartment unit size and parking demand. It was determined that a positive relationship exists between the number of bedrooms in an apartment unit and the number of cars owned or used by the occupants. The following City ordinance resulted: Bedrooms/Unit

Required Spaces

1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms Guest parking

1.5 spaces 1.8 spaces 2.0 spaces 1 space/10 dwelling units"

Studies that have been completed and published by various sources indicate parking standards similar to those recommended by this report.

Wilbur Smith and Associates indicate typical zoning requirements of 0.4 to 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit, an indicated parking space need of 0.3 to 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit, and a suggested planning standard of 0.7 to 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit for apartment house developments.12 Baker and Funaro recommend 1.25 to 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit for apartments.13 The United States Highway Research Board suggest that multiple-family developments should provide 1 space per dwelling unit for efficiency suites, 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for 1 and 2 beRoom suites, and 2 spaces per dwelling unit for 3 or more bedroom suites.

Whatever the variety of standards and means of ascribing them to developments, the indication is obvious. One space pr dwelling unit is not adequate, neither in terms of the quantity of parking required nor the method in which it is required of various developments in various areas.

3 Factors Influencing the Parking Demand a. Tenant Demand Location in the city, availability and efficiency of public transit, apartment size, rent and the income of the tenant are all factors which directly or indirectly influence the parking demand per dwelling unit for apartment developments. Studies have shown a strong correlation between

9City of Winnipeg Zoning Bylaw 10City of Saanich Bylaw 3366 11City of Saanich Planning Department, Apartment Survey, Page 19 12Smith, Wilbur and Associates, Parking in the City Center, New Haven, ,Connecticut, 1965, Page 65.

13Baker, Geoffrey and Bruno Funaro, Parking, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, Page 105.

14Highway Research Board Special Report No. 125, Parking Principles, 1971, by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Page 39.

9 household income and car ownership; the higher the income the more cars per apartment unit.15 Similarly and directly connected to this fact is the greater incidence of cars per dwelling unit as rents increase, and also as the size of the dwelling unit increases.16 The proposition that the number of cars per dwelling unit increases as income and the size of the dwelling unit increases is the situation in most cases. However, exceptions that must be considered are housing projects that have government subsidized rent, interest rates or mortgages. These developments, commonly referred to as public housing and limited dividend housing, are typically composed of larger dwelling units, in terms of the number of bedrooms, while the income level of the tenants is below average.

Therefore, in terms of the size of the dwelling units, the number of cars per dwelling unit is below average.

Geographic location in the city and the availability of public transit are interrelated in their effect on the parking demand.

It has been found that the number of cars per apartment unit decreases closer to the center of the city. People without cars seem to be attracted to more central locations, one reason being that the central area is served by the most efficient and accessible public transit in the city. As well, residential development in this area is in close proximity to the center of commercial and business activity, and therefore to the largest employment, entertainment and shopping area In the city.

Al/GE. NO OF CARS PER Dv/La UNIT BY *

Al/GE. NO OF CARS PER OWL 6. UNIT By *

TYPE OF HIGH-RISE APT. UNIT 8 AREA

TYPE OF WALK-UP APT UNIT 8 AREA

1.7 y_

1.7

1.6

/05

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.2

_

1.1 1.0

** it

3B

.9 _

AVGE. °FALL y. )0L*

.8

DWEL L ING UNIT

/VO. O F CARSPERDWELL ING UN /r

1.4

OWL6. UN1*

/.2 /./ 38/ .9 .8

.7

*4****

.7

.6

•

.6

.5

f,-

/ •

B/R

+,

.5

.4

.4

.3

BAC11. •

LA„g.g ..„?.4*Xs

.3

.2

?!..!c

.2 ./

1 CORE

GRAPH 1

/.4 1.3

I

•

•

•

•

I

I CENTRAL INTERNED. OUTER AREA OF CITY

GRAPH 2

CORE

CENTRAL IltITERMEa AREA OF CITY

*Compiled from 1972 Edmonton Civic Census Data 15City of Toronto Planning Board, Report on the Residential Parking Survey, 1966, Page 3.

16ibid, Page 3.

OUTEA

10

An analysis of the 1972 Civic Census data shows that the above is in fact the situation in Edmonton. The number of cars per dwelling unit increases for all types of units as one moves from the core to the outer areas (see graphs 1 and 2).

Not only do the number of cars per dwelling unit increase but so do the number of bedrooms per suite. As one moves from the core through the central and intermediate areas to the outer areas the relative number of bachelor suites declines while the number of two and three bedroom and larger suites increases. (see graphs 3 and 4). This trend is consistent for both high-rise and walk-up apartment buildings.

PERCENTAGE OF EACH TYPE OF

PERCENTAGE OF EACH TYPE OF *

HIGH-RISE APT UNIT BY AREA

WALK-UP APT UNIT BY AREA

60

60 CI)

/8/R 50

6

50

ij 40

40

PE RCEN TAGEOF TOTAL

30 ,BACH

20 B/R

I0

PE

RCENT AGE O F TO TAL

'ZS 30

20

/0

-- • ;R

136/R GRAPH 3

CORE

CENTRAL IN TERMED. OUTER AREA OF CITY

CORE

GRAPH 4

CENTRAL IN TERMED. AREA Of CITY

*Compiled from 1972 Edmonton Civic Census Data

Increases in car ownership are unlikely to create a material increase in the demand for tenant parking in existing apartment buildings.

As buildings age, the conversion of large units to smaller units, their attraction for households with lower incomes and paying lower rents, improvements in public transportation and similar characteristics appear to lower parking demand. This may be expected to offset any general increase in car ownership and make the parking provided when the building was new, adequate for foreseeable periods of time.

OUTER

11

The findings of this parking study have indicated that there is certainly a lack of parking required for a number of types of multiple family development in certain areas of the city. Yet the sum of the additional parking spaces that should be required is less than one would expect from observing the congestion and what appears to be overflow adjacent to many apartment complexes in Edmonton. It is the suggestion of this report that the management and design of the parking facilities and their availability to tenants as well as visitors are important factors in the efficient use of minimally adequate parking facilities.

In many apartment complexes a fee is charged per parking space, in addition to the regular rent. In a number of cases apartment residents give up their parking space in the summer when it is not necessary to use a plug-in or protect a vehicle from the winter elements. The tenants thereby save money for one half of the year by parking on the street, or in the visitor parking area, if it is provided. The alternative of including rent for a parking space in the rent of the suite, as opposed to being separate, would tend to penalize or at least be unfair to those who do not own cars and be an advantage to those who own two cars. b. Visitor and Recreation Vehicle Parking Two other factors that must be considered when determining an adequate parking standard for multiple family residential developments are the provision of visitor parking and area for the storage of recreation vehicles such as tent trailers, snowmobiles, etc. This is in addition to parking for tenant cars. Studies that have been completed in Toronto indicate a peak visitor parking demand from 12.5% to 25% of the number of dwelling units in the development.17 The weekend and particularly Saturday evening is when the visitor parking demand is the greatest.

The one Toronto study indicates a peak period visitor parking demand of 16.5% in the center of the city yet only a 12.5% demand outside of the central area.

The assignment of parking spaces to specific tenants is not a recommended practice as it produces an inefficient use of vacant stalls. With the proper number of parking spaces being provided for each multiple family development, and these not being assigned to individual tenants, the opportunity would then be present to permit visitors to use spaces vacated by residents who are away from their apartments. This type of situation of course, may initiate alternate complications in limiting tenant parking to those who have paid for it and also security problems in allowing strangers access to private parking garages. A practical and functional solution then, and the recommendation of this report is that a specific amount of parking (1 stall for every 7 dwelling units) be designated specifically for visitor parking and be located such that it is convenient to visitors.

These parking spaces cannot be rented or used by tenants and this shall be posted and enforced.

17 ibid, Page 3 and Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board and Apartment Parking Requirements in Metropolitan Toronto, December, 1968, Pages 35, and 36.

12

The number of recreation vehicles that will necessitate storage space in apartment complexes is slightly more difficult to determine. In Alberta the number of recreation vehicles owned, including snowmobiles, campers, pick up campers, and tent trailers, is equivalent to approximately 25% of the total number of households Ln the province. Similarly figures obtained from the Alberta Bureau of Statistics indicate 38,637 trailers, and snow vehicles registered in Edmonton. This is approximately 27.6% of the 139,889 dwelling units in the city in 1971.

It would be unreasonable to require 25% to 27% extra parking spaces for recreation vehicles in addition to tenant and visitor parking for two reasons. Firstly, it is reasonable to assume that the number of recreation vehicles per dwelling unit is greater for single family dwellings than it is for apartment units. In apartments one typically finds more single people and less families. However, one must consider that the number of families will increase as the apartment units have an increased number of bedrooms, as one moves from the core to the outer areas of the city. Secondly, because of cost the number of recreation vehicles that are stored in apartment parking lots, is probably less than the number owned by the tenants in these apartment units. The alternative solution to on-site storage of these vehicles is storage on commercial lots. An apartment survey completed by the Saanich Planning Department substantiates these assumptions in that it indicated the number of households having "other vehicles" to be: 13% in Row houses, 5% in Garden Apartments and 6% in Medium Density Apartments, an average of 7% for the total survey. 18 Consequently, in addition to the number of parking spaces required for tenant parking, an additional number of spaces equivalent to 20 - 30% of the number of dwelling units should be included in the parking standard for visitor parking and the storage of recreation vehicles. This range is based on 7.5 - 14% for recreation vehicle storage and 12.5 - 16% for visitor parking.

Because of the functional and administrative difficulties of visitor parking not being separated or at least distinguishable from tenant parking, 1 parking space per every 7 dwelling units should be assigned to guest parking and should be designated as such and readily avnileble to an entrance of the building to be served. One (1) per 7 dwelling units is equivalent to 14.3% of the number of dwelling units, an amount within the range that has been shown to be in demand for visitor parking.

4 Methodology of Determining Recommended Standards The parking standard, as it presently exists, describes one standard for all areas of the city and for all forms of residential development. This contradicts the variation in parking demand by area and by type that is shown in the 1972 Civic Census data that has been analyzed, (see table 1 and 2). The demand increases further from the center of the city and also as the number of bedrooms

18City of Saanich Planning Department, Apartment Survey, Page 12, Table 11.

13

per dwelling unit increases. A logical solution to ascribing a parking standard would be to require parking in relation to the location and to the number of bedrooms. In proportion with the demand this woule mean a lesser requirement for bachelor suites and a progressively greater requirement for one, two and three bedroom suites, together with a progressively greater requirement further from the center. Thus, as we move from the core to the outer areas of the city the number of parking stalls required per development increases as a result of the location, and also because the number of bedrooms per unit increases towards the outer areas. Therefore, the ideal parking regulations would require that parking be provided in relation to both the type of suite and to the location. However, this would require a delineation of the areas of the City for which the requirements would differ. Designating specific parking requirements for specific areas would involve a complex system of varying the parking standards for the same zoning categories in different areas. It would also necessitate an evaluation of numerous criteria each time an area was zoned in order to determine the applicable parking standard. This method would then be time consuming, difficult to administer and less consistent in its application than the method recommeded in this report. The recommendation is that the required parking be based on the type of suite, i.e.: the suite mix, for each development. It was felt that this method was preferable to the other alternative of defining parking standards by area. The analysis has shown that this will to a large extent accomplish the objective of requiring more parking for areas further from the core, by virtue of the fact that the number of bedrooms per suite increases with distance from the core.

The parking standards recommended are based on an analysis of 1972 Edmonton Civic Census data collected for high-rise and walk-up apartment developments. However, the data for high-rise apartments was used to calculate the recommended parking standards for two reasons.

Specifically: 1. The figures collected for high-rise apartment developments in Edmonton correspond reasonably closely to figures collected for all types of apartment development in the City of Toronto.

2. Due to the nature of the method of retrieving the information from the Civic Census file, the data for walk-up apartments is not reliable for some areas of the city.

This data originally included a number of residential developments other than walk-up apartments. These included senior citizens homes and college and hospital residences that have been adjusted for as much as possible.

However, this data still includes boarding houses, rooming houses and the like, making it somewhat unrepresentative of walk-up apartment developments, particularly in the central and core areas.

The parking standard that should be required for each type of dwelling unit for apartment building in Edmonton will have to consider three factors: tenant demand, visitor parking and recreation vehicle storage.

14 TABLE 1 AVERAGE NUMBER OF CARS PER OCCUPIED DWELLING UNIT BY TYPE OF HIGH-RISE APARTMENT UNIT AND AREA

BACHELOR

ONE BEDROOM

TWO BEDROOM

THREE BEDROOM OR LARGER

TOTAL OF ALL SUITES

No. No. Av.Car No. No. Av.Car No. No. Av.Car No. No. Av.Car No. No. Av.Ca Cars Ste. /Suite Cars Ste. /Suite Cars Ste. /Suite Cars Ste. /Suite Cars Ste. /Suit' CORE ENTRAL -NTERMEDIATE OUTER

82 220

.37

352 511

.68

161 171

.94

6

7

47 124

.37

269

396

.67

235 198 1.18

6

6

271 578

.46

1809 2327

.77

45

.56

423 461

.92

529 451 1.17

425 967

.44

2853 3695

.77

2426 2220 1.09

25

LTY TOTAL

1501 1400 1.07 151 105 77

46

240 164

.85

601 909

.66

557

724

.77

1.43 3732 4410

.85

1.0

1.67 1054 1003 1.05 1.46

5944 7046

.84

TABLE 2 AVERAGE NUMBER OF CARS PER OCCUPIED DWELLING UNIT BY TYPE OF WALK-UP APARTMENT UNIT AND AREA

BACHELOR

ONE BEDROOM

TWO BEDROOM

THREE BEDROOM OR LARGER

TOTAL OF ALL SUITES

No. No. Av.Car No. No. Av.Car No. No. Av.Car No. No. Av.Car No. No. Av.Ca Cars Ste. /Suite Cars Ste. /Suite Cars Ste. /Suite Cars Ste. /Suite Cars Ste. /Suiti CORE

48

221

.22

70

274 .26

,ENTRAL

49

517

.09

175

337 1081

.31

3946

OUTER

540 1233

.44

4908 6330 .78 5405 5507

.98 1747 1481

kATY TOTAL

974 3052

.32

9099 13410 .68

.95 1990 1718 1.16 19763 26274

ATERMEDIATE

6

21

.29

0

838 .21

87 137

.64

9

5968 .66

2202 2429

.91

234

7700 8094

3 0 10

124

519

.24

.90

320 1502 .21

224 1.04

6719 9702 .69

1.18 12600 14551 .87 .75

15

The tenant demand is equal to the average number of cars per each type of dwelling unit. These figures have been determined from the 1972 Edmonton Civic Census data, (see Table 1). For each type of dwelling unit the average number of cars per dwelling unit varies depending on the area of the city for which it is calculated.

Therefore, in order to develop one parking standard for one type of dwelling unit that can be applied to all areas in the city, it is most representative to use the average number of cars per dwelling unit for the total of all the areas in the city. The figures that have been used to represent the tenant demand for each type of dwelling unit are shown in example 1.

Example 1

Type of Dwelling Unit

Tenant Demand Av. No. of Cars/ Dwelling Unit*

Additional Requirement Visitor & Recreation Vehicles

Recommended Parking Standards .5

Bachelor

.44

.06

1 Bedroom

.77

.23

1

2 Bedroom

1.09

.41

1.5

3 Bedroom or Larger

1.46

.54

2

*based on Table 1, City Total.

When additional space for visitor parking and the storage of recreation vehicles are considered in addition to tenant parking demands (as discussed in subsection 3b above) the recommended parking standards expressed in example 1 result.

Upon examination of the difference between the recommended parking standard and the tenant demand (ay. number of cars/dwelling unit) it is apparent that the recommended additional requirement for visitor parking and storage of recreation vehicles varies depending on the type of dwelling unit. This is justifiable for two reasons.

1. The application of the recommended parking standards together as a unit determine the total amount of parking that should be required for a development. Each individual standard for each type of dwelling unit may not be completely representative of the demand for that specific type of dwelling unit, but in combination with the other standards the total amount of parking required is representative of the total demand for a particular apartment building in a particular area.

2. From Table 1 it can be seen that the average number of cars per dwelling unit for the city total is in some instances more than what is the actual tenant demand and in others less, depending on the area of the city. In the case of bachelor and one bedroom dwelling units the number of dwelling units for which the actual

16

tenant demand (calculated) is below what is the average for the city is greater than the number for which the actual tenant demand is above the city average. Consequently, to adjust for that, a smaller additional requirement for visitor and recreation vehicles has been added to the tenant demand. Conversely, for two and three bedroom dwelling units the number of dwelling units for which the actual tenant demand (calculated) is above what is the average for the city is greater than the number for which the actual tenant demand is below the city average. Therefore, to adjust for that, a larger additional requirement for visitor and recreation vehicles has been added to the tenant demand.

Example 2 relates the recommended parking standards that have been determined (see Example 1) to an average or typical 100 dwelling unit high-rise and walk-up apartment building (see appendix A, Tables 3 and 4) in each of the core, central, intermediate and outer areas of the city. The figures shown represent the average total amount of parking that would be required to be provided for a 100 suite high-rise and a 100 suite walk-up apartment in each of the four areas of the city.

Example 2 High-Rise Core

98.5

Walk-Up 82.5

Central

111

Intermedite

110

109

Outer

126

125.5

88.5

CHAPTER III COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS

To require adequate parking facilities for all commercial developments in all areas of the city one standard cannot be consistently applied throughout the whole city for any one development. Due to the nature of the factors that influence parking in the core area of the city, such as the availability of public transportation, this region must be considered independently and an adjusted schedule of parking standards required here. Consequently, the approach of Development Control is an appropriate method of copying with this situation as it allows the Development Officer a certain amount of discretion in terms of relaxing the parking standards. The Land Use Classification Guide is also the present method of control in commercial strip areas where a full complement of on-site parking in compliance with the Parking Schedule, is not necessarily appropriate.

The application of discretion by the Development Officer has functional limitations. The core area and commercial strips are affected by such special influences that the above mentioned method of implementation of parking standards is not the ultimate solution. As a result, the Planning Department has undertaken an investigation of establishing a Parking Authority as this is believed to be the most viable instrument for dealing with parking in the core area and on commercial strips.

As a result of the individual nature of the core area and commercial strips the parking standards recommended in this report are not necessarily valid for these areas of the city but rather for all developments in other locations. It is submitted that the parking standards that can be required as a minimum for all other areas of the city can be slightly higher than what they would be if they applied to the central area. This provides for a more adequate and realistic parking standard in the areas where these recommended parking standards apply.

A Business, Administrative and Professional Offices and Banks Recommendation: Business, administrative and professional offices and banks.

3.2 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the building, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

The present parking standard for the above type of development being 1 stall per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area is much less than adequate.

It is realized that it is not absolutely necessary nor economically feasible to provide parking facilities for every employee of a development and that the number of parking spaces that should be provided will depend on the nature of the business, its location in the city and the availability of public

18

transportation. The parking standard that is required then, should be a minimum requirement yet one that optimally can provide for all necessary parking. Parking facilities are necessitated by employees that use their cars during working hours, employees that have no other available means of transportation to work other than the car, and executive and customer demands.

As employees are the largest parking generators in business, administrative and professional offices and banks, there are two basic factors that must be considered in determining an appropriate parking standard. These are the parking space demand per employee and the number of employees per 1,000 square feet of floor area in the building. Studies have been completed in other cities where a number of suburban office buildings were examined and a parking demand of 0.6 spaces per employee was found to be required. On an area basis this study indicated that peak parking accumulation was about 2.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area and 3.2 per 1,000 square feet of usable area.1 Another study completed in Los Angeles indicated that for offic! buildings the number of employees per 1,000 square feet equalled five.

Considering this factor and a demand of 0.6 spaces per employee, a parking space ratio of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet be required to meet the demand for parking.

A number of other studies have indicated a similar demand for parking space. "A study of 19 suburban office buildings found the generation to be 3.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 4.1 per 1,000 square feet of net office space. These were small buildings, having 1,800 to 21,000 square feet of office space, and were served by little or no public transit."3 "Studies at another suburban building with 100,000 square feet of usable office space found that peak demands were 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet for gross area and 3.9 spaces for usable area. "4 A special report by the Highway Research Board in the United States examined a number of studies and situations consequently recommending a minimum basic standard of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.5 It is stated that this standard is intended to reflect generally the best (but not necessarily the highest requirements) of past and current practices.

There are a number of cities that have similar parking requirements to the 3.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area that is recommended for Edmonton. Examples of some of these cities are: Chicago with a parking standard of 1 space per 400 square feet of gross floor area6 (2.5 per 1,000 square feet) and the City of Saanich with a parking standard of 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area7 (3.3 per 1,000 square feet).

'Highway Research Board Special Report No. 125, Parking Principles, 1971, by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Page 22.

2ibid, Page 19.

3ibid, Page 23.

4ibid, Page 22.

5ibid, Page 22.

6Brierley, John, Parking of Motor Vehicles, C.R. Books Limited, London 1962 Page 237.

7City of Saanich Bylaw 3366.

19

John Brierly, in his book Parking of Motor Vehicles indicates that the American Zoning Ordinance recommends 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area8 (5 per 1,000 square feet). Similarly, Geoffrey Baker and Bruno Funaro, in their book Parking, recommend 1 space per 200 square feet, (5 per 1,000 square feet), for cities with a car ownership rate of less than 3 people per car and 1 space per 400 square feet (2.5 per 1,000 square feet) for cities with more than 3 people per car.9 These authors state "... our two classes may be considered as the upper and lower limits of reasonable demand, and each community can then choose its own level of requirement. 1110 Studies that have been undertaken in other cities and the resulting parking standards that have been recommended can be used as a strong indication of what parking standards should be required in Edmonton.

This report recognizes that no parking standard is going to be absolutely suitable for all business, administrative and professional offices and banks and that each development will be affected by the influence of certain immediate locational factors, such as proximity to public transportation. However, a parking standard of 3.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area is recommended as a minimum requirement that will provide for adequate on-site vehicular parking outside of the central core of the city.

B Retail Shops and Personal Service Shops Recommendation: Retail shops and personal service shops with a gross floor area of: 10,000 square feet or less

4.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the building, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

more than 10,000 square feet

5.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

8Brierley, op. cit., Page 237.

9Baker, Geoffrey and Bruno Funaro, Parking, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, Page 105.

10ibid, Page 104.

20

Retail and personal shops are presently being provided in a number of different types of developments. These facilities are found in shopping centres where 97% of the customers arrive by automobile, and some of these services are found on the main floor of apartment buildings where most of the patronage is walk in traffic, therefore generating less need for parking facilities. This type of facility is also located on commercial strips and on individual isolated sites. The location of retail shops and personal service shops as well as the type, size and number of other facilities that are incorporated into the same development or adjacent developments will influence the customer drawing potential, the length of time the customers will be there and how they come. All these factors affect the quantity of parking that will be necessary.

Although it is unreasonable to attempt to define a specific standard for each type of retail or service use in conjunction with each of the various development situations, this category can be broken into two subsections to which minimum but adequate parking standards can be ascribed. One parking standard should be applied to shopping centres and a somewhat lower standard to individual retail shops or personal service shops that are located on isolated sites, commercial strips or in developments of 10,000 square feet of gross floor area or less. The purpose of a variance in the parking requirements for these two different types of development situations is attributed to a higher rate of car use and a longer average time spent in the patronage of a shopping centre, and the general lack of a large establishment that acts as a principal drawing attraction on commercial strips and especially in isolated locations.

(1) Shopping Centres (Retail shops and personal service shops where the gross floor area of the development is greater than 10,000 square feet).

The present parking standard of 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area used for retail business purposes, for retail shops and personal service shops is substantially inadequate. This is apparent from the provision of a greater quantity of parking being made available in Edmonton by the two newest shopping centers, Londonderry Mall and Southgate. These two shopping centers have provided 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet.

Shopping centers are generally typified by very few patrons arriving by public transportation, a relatively long time parked (50 80 minutes) and the presence of a large prime drawing attraction such as a supermarket or a department store. "A study of 23 centers of community to regional size found an average of only 3 percent of the persons arrived by public transit."1 The finding of this study and others that were reviewed by the authors of the Parking Principle "are not intended to imply that future centers should not be designed for improved transit access and internal transport of people. They do show, however, that the automobile is overwhelmingly the typical method of travel to shopping centers. "2

'Highway Research Board Special Report No. 125, Parking Principles, 1971 by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Page 19.

2ibid, Page 20.

21

Research that has been carried out for the Urban Land Institute at 270 centers in North America found a need for 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leaseable area.3 Canada Safeway Ltd. has indicated that an approximate parking standard for their stores is 6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This is based on a ratio of 1:3 between total building area and parking area and will vary depending on the location of the store and the nature of the development in which the store is situated.

It is the recommendation of this report that a parking standard of 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area should be required in all retail shops and personal service shops with more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. This parking standard shall be required in all cases unless the developer can demonstrate to the Development Officer that the total amount of parking is not necessary by reason of there being a substantial portion of the gross floor area of the development that is public space or mall area. This area may then be excluded when calculating the quantity of parking for the development. Although this parking standard may not handle the maximum potential parking demand of these facilities on some of the busiest days of the year, it is estimated that this requirement will meet the demand of 85 to 90% of the maximum potential demand.

The economic feasibility of catering to the absolute peak condition is questionable.

(2) Retail Shops and Personal Service Shops (Gross floor area of the development is less than 10,000 square feet).

Although the parking standard that should be required for this type of development is less than that for shopping centers, the present parking requirement of 1 per 500 square feet of floor area used for retail purposes is also inadequate. These developments typically have a lower customer generating potential and a shorter patronage time than shopping centers due to the common lack of a large attraction such as a department store or a large super market. It is then the recommendation of this report that a parking standard of 4.5 parking spaces be required per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the above developments with a total gross floor area of less than 10,000 square feet.

This recommended parking standard is based on studies that have been completed in other cities and the resulting recommended parking requirements, the parking standards presently being used in other cities, and the results of a survey conducted by the City of Edmonton Planning Department that indicates the number of parking spaces presently being provided in small retail developments. Although the United States Highway Research Board recommends 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area,4 and this is slightly lower than the parking standard suggested in this report, Geoffrey Baker and Bruno Funaro recommend between 6.6 and 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet.5 The Ty of Regina varies its parking requirements between 3.3 and 12.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of

3ibid, Page 20.

4ibid, Page 39.

5Baker, Geoffrey and Bruno Funaro, Parking, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York.

6City of Regina Zoning Bylaw 4306.

22

usable area depending on the floor area of the development while the City of Saanich requires 1 parking space per 150 square feet of gross floor area (6.6 per 1,000 square feet gross floor area) for all retail stores and service establishments.7 There is apparently quite a range of parking standards that are recommended and presently required for this type of development, however, the parking standard that is recommended for Edmonton is based on a local evaluation as well as the consideration of other cities parking standards and study recommendations. The Planning Department completed a survey of nine commercial developments ranging in size from 1 to 6 stores and located in various areas of the city. This examination, although rather cursory, can be interpreted as being very indicative of the quantity of parking that the development industry is providing in commercial developments that are smaller than 10,000 square feet. All the developments that were examined are of post 1970 construction, are typified by the presence of a convenience food store and are providing an average of 2.25 parking spaces per 500 square feet of gross floor area (4.5 per 1,000 square feet).

Every development, with the exception of one, provided between 1.7 and 2.8 spaces per 500 square feet of gross floor area (3.4 and 5.6 per 1,000 square feet) thus indicating a rather consistent provision of parking facilities well in excess of the present required minimum.

C Equipment and Repair Shops Recommendation: Equipment and repair shops

4.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the building, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

Equipment and repair shops are, in terms of their parking demand, similar to retail shops and personal service shops. Although this type of development may have a slightly lower customer generating potential, due to the nature of its business, the number of employees will be slightly greater. An examination of parking regulations for a number of cities indicated that the parking standards required for this type of development are either not designated separately from retail shops and personal service shops or, if they are described separately the parking standard required is identical. It is therefore the recommendation of this report that the parking standard for equipment and repair shops be exactly the same as that required for retail and personal service shops. This being 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area,unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

7City of Saanich Bylaw 3366.

23

The present parking standard of 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area used for business purposes or to the satisfaction of the Director is not only inadequate in terms of the quantity of parking that it requires but it also necessitates that the Development Officer determine what portion of the development is to be used for business purposes and then calculate the square footage of this area. The purpose of expressing the parking standard that is recommended in gross square feet of floor area is to enable a less complex and a more equitable method of evaluating development proposals at the time of their submission to the Planning Department.

D Eating Establishments Recommendation: Eating establishments

1 per 4 seats.

Eating establishments, meaning all types of restaurants, dining lounges, and banquet rooms should be required to provide parking on the basis of the above minimum standard rather than the existing inadequate standard of 1 space per 10 seats. The Alberta Liquor Control Board has found 1 space per 4 seats to be an adequate parking standard for beverage rooms and cocktail lounges. As the function and customer generating potential of eating establishments is quite similar to beverage rooms and cocktail lounges it is suggested that the same standard will be applicable to this type of development.

As with a number of other commercial facilities that have been discussed there is a wide range of parking standards presently being required by a number of different cities. Two recommended parking standards that are similar to the one suggested in this report are the United States Highway Research Board Special Report No. 125 recommendation of a minimum of 0.3 parking spaces per seat (1 per 3.3 seats)1 and Geoffrey Baker's and Bruno Funaro's recommendation of between 1 and 2 spaces per every 3 seats .2

E Cocktail Bars and Beer Parlours Recommendation: Cocktail Bars and Beer Parlours

1 per 4 seats.

This category also includes any establishment, such as a cabaret, that serves liquor as one of its main functions. The Alberta Liquor Control Board is presently and has been in the past encouraging the development industry to provide 1 parking space per 4 seats in this type of establishment. Through the experience of the Alberta Liquor Control Board this standard has proven to be an adequate minimum in combination with the parking required for various other uses of a hotel complex.

1 Highway Research Board Special Report No. 125, Parking Principles, 1971 by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Page 30., Table 3.2 2Baker, Geoffrey and Bruno Funaro, Parking, Reinhold Publishing Corporation New York, Page 105.

24

It is therefore the recommendation of this report that the City of Edmonton require 1 parking space per 4 seats in Cocktail Bars and Beer Parlours. In the absence of the seating capacity being indicated the maximum number of seats possible in these facilities can be determined on the basis of 1 seat per 12.5 square feet of floor space in beverage rooms and cabarets and 1 seat per 15 square feet of floor space in cocktail lounges. These are also standards recommended by the Alberta Liquor Control Board.

Two cities that are requiring parking standards for cocktail lounges and beer parlours that are reasonably similar to the parking standard recommended in this report are Calgary and Saanich. The City of Calgary presently requires 1 parking space per 3 seats' and the City of Saanich requires 1 space per 60 square feet (approximat%ly 1 per 4 4.8 seats) open to the public within the area so licensed.4

F Motels and Hotels, Including Motor Hotels Recommendation: Hotels, including motor hotels

1 space per guest room.

Motels

1 space per dwelling or sleeping unit. (No change).

Although motels are one of the few uses in the Parking Schedule that are presently required to provide adequate parking, hotels are not.

It is realized that the need for parking spaces in hotel complexes varies greatly depending on the location of the development and the clientel that it caters to. An example here is the downtown hotel that caters to conventions, etc. and consequently accommodates numerous out of town customers that arrive by a means of transportation other than private vehicle, as opposed to other hotels that cater to the driving customer. This would indicate a lower parking requirement for hotels in the center of the city In terms of the number of stalls per room. However, the parking standards for banquet rooms, cocktail lounges, dining lounges and beverage rooms would still be required to provide a reasonably high standard of parking as the customers that use these facilities are often the local driving public.

Although a number of cities require parking space for employees In addition to parking per room, it is the submission of this report that adequate space for employee vehicles will be provided within the total parking facilities provided for all the combined uses of the hotel complex.

Determining parking requirements on an employee basis is a difficult procedure at the time the proposed development plans are checked and it is therefore not a very efficient process.

1City of Calgary Development Control Bylaw No. 8600, Part Two - Rules Respecting the Use of Land.

2City of Saanich Zoning Bylaw 3366.

25

The Alberta Liquor Control Board evaluates the parking need in hotel complexes on the basis of: 1 parking space per guest room, plus 1 parking space per 4 seats in the beverage room, plus 50% of the aggregate of the above two, plus 1 parking space per 10 seats in the banquet rooms, plus 1 parking space per 10 seats in the dining lounge, plus 1 parking space per 4 seats in the cocktail lounge.

It is the submission of this report that by deleting the requirement of 50% of the aggregate of the parking spaces required for the guest rooms and the beverage room and increasing the parking requirement for the banquet rooms and dining lounge (as discussed under D above) adequate parking would still be provided for all facilities as well as the employees.

The process for evaluating and examining the development plans to determine the parking requirement would also be less complex and more directly related to the uses in the development.

Parking standards similar to those recommended in this report have been suggested in various sources as well as there being numerous cities that are presently enforcing a similar parking standard. The United States Highway Research Board Special Report No. 125 recommends 1 space per rentable room plus 0.5 spaces per employee' while Geoffrey Baker and Bruno Funaro recommend 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit or residential Similar hotels and .33 to 0.5 spaces per unit for downtown hotels. standards are used by Regina with 1 space per 375 square feet of gross floor area or 1 space per room or suite for hire plus 1 per 3 employees whichever is lesser.3 Saskatoon requires 1 space per room for motels and hotels4 while Saanich requires 1 space per dwelling unit, sleeping unit or tourist accommodation space plus 1 space per 2 employees.5 In summary then, it is the recommendation of this report that each hotel and motel be required to provide 1 space per dwelling or sleeping unit plus additional parking spaces for lounges, banauet rooms, etc. as required by the Zoning Bylaw for these types of facilities.

'Highway Research Board Special Report No. 125, Parking Principles, 1971, by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Page 39.

2Baker, Geoffrey and Bruno Funaro, Parking, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, Page 105.

3City of Regina Zoning Bylaw 4306.

4City of Saskatoon Zoning Bylaw 4637.

5City of Saanich Bylaw 3366.

CHAPTER IV PARKING STANDARDS FOR AUDITORIUMS

A Public Assembly Auditoriums, including Theatres, Convention Halls, Gymnasiums, Race Tracks, Exhibition Halls, Labour Temples, Lodge Halls, Private Clubs, Ball Parks and Other Sports Arenas and Other Recreational or Amusement Places.

Recommendation: Public assembly auditoriums including theatres, convention halls, gymnasiums, race tracks, exhibition halls, labour temples, lodge halls, private clubs, ball parks and other sports arenas and other recreational or amusement places.

1 per 3.5 seating spaces for public, or 1 per 35 square feet used by the patrons, whichever is greater, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

The inadequacy of the present parking standard (1 per 10 seats) for these types of developments is exhibited by the overflow of parking facilities at a number of theatres in the city. There are two basic factors that must be examined in order to develop a parking standard that will alleviate this problem source in future developments of the above mentioned types. The first factor that must be considered is the percentage of the attending population that arrives by private automobile as opposed to other means of transportation, and the second is the number of people per private vehicle.

The Traffic Division of the City of Edmonton Engineering Department conducted surveys in March, 1965 to ascertain the number of persons arriving per vehicle and the method of arrival for evening entertainment at the Northern Alberta Jubilee Auditorium and the Edmonton Exhibition Grounds. Although "the information has recognizable limits, ... it can be used for a rough guide to establish parking requirements for similar future developments."

When the Jubilee Auditorium was surveyed 94% of those attending arrived by private vehicle with an average of 3.3 patrons per vehicle.

The Edmonton Exhibition Grounds were surveyed on two different nights.

On the first evening, when the attractions included a rodeo and curling, 91% of the patrons arrived by private vehicle with an average of 3.15 people per vehicle. The second night that the Exhibition Grounds was surveyed, when the attractions included bingo and curling, only 59% of the patrons arrived by car with an average of 2.2 people per vehicle.

It should be noted that on this second evening when the bingo game occurred the attendance by taxi was slightly lower (0.6%) than on the first night of the survey while attendance by means of the bus was only slightly higher (3.7%). There was however, a very significant difference in the attendance by "other" means such as walking or those who parked outside

27

of the lot and walked in. This means of attendance increased 28.9% over the first evening of the survey. As a result of the study the recommendation of the Traffic Division of the Engineering Department was "that a minimum figure of 3.5 persons per vehicle be used in planning parking facilities for a coliseum or similar type of building."

There have been a number of similar studies done in the United States that indicate similar findings. These studies show that automobile trips to football games involve approximately 3.5 perons per car while there are only 2.5 persons per car at baseball games.1 Studies done on the travel mode of auditorium patrons at Keil Auditorium in St. Louis support the findings of the Edmonton Engineering Department Survey again. These surveys indicated a slight variance in the mode of transportation used to attend the auditorium, depending on the type of event, 2 but for all events listed private vehicles are used 80% to 90% of the time.

Although there are a large number of cities that still require parking facilities in the range of 1 space for every 8 to 10 seats or 1 space for every 100 square feet, most surveys that have been completed indicate that those standards are quite inadequate. A report by the Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control suggested a parking standard of .25 spaces per seat (1 per 4 seats) for auditoriums and stadiums.3 Atter the review of a number of studies the Highway Research Board in the United States produced a special report in 1971 that recommended a minimum parking requirement (1 0.3 spaces per seat (1 per 3.3 seats) for auditoriums and theatres.

Similar parking standards are also recommended by Geoffrey Baker and Bruno Funaro in their book entitled Parking. Their recommendation for theatres or auditoriums is I space for every 4 seats for cities with more than 3 persons per car and 1 space for every 2 seats for cities with less than 3 persons per car.5 Considering the results of the various reports and studies that have been discussed and particularly the results of the City of Edmonton Engineering Department survey, it is the recommendation of this report that: Public assembly auditoriums including theatres, convention halls, gymnasiums, race tracks, exhibition halls, labour temples, lodge halls, private clubs, ball parks and other sports arenas and other recreational or amusement places be required to provide a minimum of 1 parking space per 3.5 seating spaces for the public or 1 per 35 square feet used by the patrons, whichever is greater; unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project. A condition under which the reduction of parking facilities 'would be reasonable is the inclusion of a rapid transit terminal in an auditorium or coliseum complex.

This would result in a reduced demand for proximate parking facilities, thereby reducing the total amount of parking required for such a development.

'Highway Research Board Special Report No. 125, Parking Principles, 1971 by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Page 26.

2ibid, Page 26, Table 2.22 3ibid, Page 27, Table 2.23 4ibid, Page 39, Table 3.2 5Baker, Geoffrey and Bruno Funaro, Parking, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, Page 105.

28

B Churches Recommendation: Churches

1 per 5 seating spaces ,unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

The present parking requirement for churches is substantially less than for any other type of assembly facility in Edmonton. Consequently the quantity of on-site parking that is being provided is inadequate.

On-street parking and the use of parking facilities of adjacent developments are often the solution to this parking demand. However, all churches are not located such that this opportunity is available. Moreover, churches do not only operate on Sunday mornings when parking facilities in adjacent developments are not being used, but they operate on week days and in the evenings when these parking facilities are often occupied.

There is quite a wide range of parking standards required for this type of development by various cities in Canada. These include Calgary with a parking standard that is equally as inadequate as Edmontons at 1 space per 15 seats and Winnipeg and Sault Ste. Marie with a much more reasonable parking standard of 1 space per 5 seats. A special report produced by the United States Highway Research Board suggests that "a typical urban demand for two morning services and Sunday School is 0.3 space per seat (1 per 3.3 seats)“1 Similarly Geoffrey Baker and Bruno Funaro in their book entitled Parking recommend between 1 and 2 spaces per 3 seats.2 These last two recommended parking standards appear to be slightly high as indicated by the fact that none of the cities contacted presently require this much parking. It is no doubt reasonable to assume that the average number of people per car is greater for those who attend church than for those who attend sporting events or theatres and the like, this being a function of more people attending church as families.

It is consequently the recommendation of this report that churches be required to provide a minimum of 1 parking space per 5 seating spaces unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project. Churches are one land use where the peak demand for parking space does not continuously coincide with the peak parking demands of other land uses. The phrase "unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project� is therefore included. This will allow the Development Officer to approve an application where the required quantity of on-site parking will not be provided but where the applicant can demonstrate that additional parking space will be available on an appropriate adjacent site. The parking demand for this space, by other developments, must not coincide with the peak parking demand of the church.

' Highway

Research Board Special Report No. 125, Parking Principles, 1971 by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Page 38.

2Baker, Geoffrey and Bruno Funaro, Parking, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, Page 105.

29

C Funeral Homes Recommendation: Funeral Homes

1 per 5 seats for persons attending services plus 1 space per funeral home vehicle.

Similar to churches, funeral homes are not required to provide adequate parking facilities at present. However, unlike churches the parking generated at these establishments cannot be accommodated in adjacent parking facilities that belong to other developments such as commercial or business complexes. Funeral homes generally hold services during the day when nearby commercial developments and office facilities are also operating and consequently making use of their parking facilities. In addition to the need for on-site parking space for guests there is additional space required for funeral home vehicles.

Although a number of cities require less parking for funeral homes than what is recommended in this report, most cities do require the same parking standard for funeral homes and churches. Winnipeg is an example of one city that requires 1 space per 5 seats while Sault Ste. Marie requires 1 space per 40 square feet of floor area of public area (approximately 1 per 3.2 seats based on 1 seat per 12.5 square feet) plus 1 space per funeral home vehicle. Similarly the recommendation of this report is that a minimum of 1 space per 5 seats plus 1 space per funeral home vehicle be required in Edmonton.

CHAPTER V PARKING STANDARDS FOR SCHOOLS

A Schools Recommendation: Public or Private Elementary and Junior High Schools

1 space for each classroom.

Public or Private Senior High Schools which DO NOT include an auditorium, gymnasium or swimming pool

1 space for each classroom plus 1 space for every 33 students.

Public or Private Senior High Schools which DO include an auditorium, gymnasium or swimming pool either (i), (ii) or (iii) shall apply, whichever is greatest

(i)1 space for each classroom plus 1 space for every 33 students Or

(ii)1 space per 3.5 seating spaces used for assembly in an auditorium, gymnasium or swimming pool. or (iii) 1 space per 35 square feet used for assembly in an auditorium, gymnasium or swimming pool, whichever is greatest.

The present parking standard for Edmonton schools is as follows: Public or private elementary, junior and senior high schools

1 per two employees. If a Senior High School includes an auditorium, gymnasium or swimming pool available to the public, add 1 per 100 square feet used for assembly.

This is inadequate from two points of view. One, it is not specifically related to the different school functions that demand parking facilities.

The after hours use of schools is becoming popular in Edmonton and the activities are typically taking place in the school auditoriums, gymnasiums and swimming pools. Certainly parking facilities are necessary to accommodate the people patronizing activities in these facilities. However, this required parking does not have to be in addition to the parking necessitated by daytime use of the schools, but rather the total amount of parking required should accommodate the number of automobiles generated by the greatest potential use of the building. The parking standard recommended by this report considers the possibility of schools being used for complementary purposes and is therefore flexible in its requirements rather than additive.

31

The second area where the present standard is deficient is in the quantity of parking required. To date there has been considerable discretion used in requiring parking for schools. There are a number of schools which include an auditorium, gymnasium or swimming pool that have not provided the total amount of required parking. However, they have provided more parking than 1 space per two employees. An example is Archbishop O'Leary High School with a total permanent staff of 95 and a gymnasium with an area of 9,000 square feet. The present parking standard requires that this school provide 138 parking stalls when the gymnasium space is included, yet there are only 76 off-street parking stalls. This is still greater than 1 space per 2 employees.

Figures obtained from the Edmonton Public Schools and the Edmonton Separate Schools indicate that there is a total staff in those schools of 4,700 and 1,891 respectively. In the Separate Schools there are 1,800 parking spaces while the Public Schools have rented 2,600 to staff. This certainly indicates a demand of more than 1 space per two employees. A parking standard of 1 space per classroom would be more appropriate. Parking calculated on this basis would accommodate teaching, secretarial and custodial staff as it is assumed that the number of teachers using a car to get to school will be less than the number of classrooms in the school.

Senior High Schools present an additional demand for parking facilities in that there are students who drive to school. It is difficult to estimate the number of students who bring,cars to senior high schools but it is suggested by the Edmonton Separate Schools Properties Superintendent that this figure amounts to approximately 3% of the enrollment. This figure appears to be only slightly low in light of what other cities are requiring. Saskatoon requires 1 space for each classroom plus 1 space for every 20 students; or 1 space for every teacher, employee and administrator, plus 1 space for each 20 students, whichever is greater.' Winnipeg is another city that specifically requires parking space for students, in addition to faculty and employees.

For Senior High Schools Winnipeg requires 1 space for each 2 faculty members plus 1 space for each 4 employees plus 1 space for each 10 students.2 The United States Highway Research Board recommends 0.2 parking spaces per students (1 per 5 students) plus 1 per staff member for Senior High Schools.3 In summary, the parking standards recommended by this report provide for a more flexible means of reviewing the potential parking demand for schools and requires the provision of parking facilities in relation to the uses creating the greatest demand.

'City of Saskatoon Zoning Bylaw 4637 2City of Winnipeg Zoning Bylaw.

31lighway Research Board Special Report No. 125, Parking Principles, 1971 by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Page 39.

CHAPTER VI PARKING STANDARDS FOR HOSPITALS AND SIMILAR USES

A Hospitals, Sanatoriums, Convalescent Homes or Similar Uses Recommendation: Hospitals, Sanatoriums, Convalescent Homes or Similar Uses

I parking space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. (No Change).

Although congested parking facilities in a number of hospital complexes in the city would appear to indicate an inadequate parking standard, this is not necessarily the case. Rather the amount of parking that is provided in some of the older hospitals that have additions built on and have changed in the number of beds and services offered, is far less than what would be required if the facility was constructed today.

An example is the Edmonton General Hospital which has a gross floor area of 412,822 square feet. According to the present parking standard in Section 12, Subsection 14 of the Zoning Bylaw this facility should be providing 413 parking spaces. In actual fact there are only 186 off-street parking spaces provided. Of these, 116 spaces are located within the same block that the hospital is situated on while the remaining 70 parking spaces are located on the block directly south. An additional 60 on-site parking spaces are presently being planned. The inadequacy of these facilities is obvious when it is realized that there are 559 beds in this hospital, 63 bassinets and approximately 1,200 employees.

The range of services offered by a hospital tends to vary with the type of hospital and its size. As hospitals increase in size the services offered per bed also increase as does the number of employees per bed. In addition to the basic services there are options such as teaching and research programs that may have little relationship to the number of beds provided. Similarly, the availability of on-site residences, nearby off-site residences and public transportation all affect the parking demand within the hospital site.

Consequently any parking standard required for hospitals, as with many other land uses, must be a minimum standard. Basing this parking requirement on the number of square feet in the building as is presently done, is a more practical method than basing it on the number of beds in the hospital for many of the reasons described above.

There is quite a wide range of parking standards required for hospitals in other cities both in terms of the quantity of parking required and the methods used to determine the quantity that is necessary. Saskatoon requires 1 space per 3 beds plus I space per 4 employees,1 Calgary I space per 4 patient beds plus 1 space per 4 employees plus 1 per staff doctor and regular attending doctors,2 and Vancouver, 1 space per 1,000 square feet of

'City of Saskatoon Zoning Bylaw 4637.

2City of Calgary Development Control Bylaw No. 8600.

33

gross floor area.3 Wilbur Smith and Associates indicate that typical zoning requirements range from .25 to 1.4 parking spaces per bed, while indicated parking space needs range from .60 to 1.4 parking spaces per bed. They then suggest a planning standard of 1.0 to 1.4 spaces per bed.4 The United States Highway Research Board recommends a similar parking standard of 1.2 spaces per bed based on a peak hour demand that took into consideration the number of doctors, employees and visitors.5 In comparison with the above Edmonton's present parking requirement for this type of facility (1 per 1,000 square feet gross floor area) works out to approximately .70 spaces per bed on an average for nine of Edmonton's hospitals. For the larger hospitals the number of parking spaces required per bed was slightly greater and the smaller ones it was less.

Even though this parking standard is slightly lower than those recommended by the United States Highway Research Board and Wilbur Smith and Associates it is an adequate minimum for the City of Edmonton.

B Homes for the Aged, Recommendation: Homes for the Aged (individual unit projects)

1 parking space per 4 units or such as the Municipal Planning Commission may approve. (No Change).

Homes for the Aged (lodge-type accommodation)

1 parking space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or such as the Municipal Planning Commission may approve.

(No Change).

As the Planning Department reviewed the parking requirements for senior citizens developments in 1971, and as the Edmonton City Council passed the above parking standards in April of 1971, and as these standards have proven to be realistic and an adequate requirement since that time, it is the recommendation of this report that these standards remain as the parking requirement for Homes for the Aged.

When the Planning Department reviewed the parking for senior citizens developments it was felt that with the increasing number of these projects being designed for individual unit accommodation, it is difficult and unrealistic to provide parking on a gross floor area basis rather than a unit basis. The parking requirements for individual unit projects when based on a gross floor area calculation, may be somewhat high especially in subsidized projects when the income level of the residents may be low.

3City of Vancouver Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 3575.

4Smith, Wilbur and Associates, Parking in the City Center, New Haven, Connecticut, 1965, Page 65.

5Highway Research Board Special Report No. 125, Parking Principles, 1971, by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Page 39.

34

The need for resident and visitor parking will vary according to the location and the type of tenant in the project. However, all individual unit projects should provide a minimum of 25% parking provision, a figure which is supported by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Greater Edmonton Foundation, and that it be to the Municipal Planning Commission's discretion to lower this figure.

35

CHAPTER VI INDUSTRIAL PARKING STANDARDS

A Industrial Parking Standards Recommendation: Manufacturing and Industrial Plants, Warehousing, Wholesale and Storage buildings and yards, Servicing and Repair establishments, Research Laboratories and Public Utility Buildings

1 parking space per 3 employees on a maximum working shift but not less than 5 spaces per tenant or establishment.

1. Need for Change There are two major forms of industrial developments. The first one is the multiple tenancy developments that are built on speculation.

It is for these developments that parking legislation is most necessary as these buildings are generally not sold, rented or leased to the tenants until after the development is approved and often constructed. The number of stalls that will be needed in these developments cannot be determined by the number of people that will be employed by the firm, as the nature of the industry is not known. The quantity of parking that should be made available must therefore be determined by considering additional factors other than the number of employees.

In M-2 and M-3 Industrial Districts there is no maximum site coverage except as required by front, rear and side yard set back regulations. In M-1 Industrial Districts the site cw/erage maximum is 60%. It is therefore conceivable that in M-2 and M-3 Industrial Districts the development could cover the whole site. Therefore, there would be no site area left over for parking except as is specifically required in the Parking Schedule of the Zoning Bylaw.

The second form of industrial development is the development that is built for a specific company and purpose, such as a national firm.

With these developments there appears to be very little problem in terms of making provision for adequate parking. The larger national companies especially, are concerned with the image and appearance of their developments and normally provide more than the minimum parking facilities that are required. Some of the smaller firms may not be as enthusiastic about exceeding the minimum requirements because of the economics involved.

However, the number of parking stalls required can be determined in that the nature of the industry is known and therefore the potential number of employees.

Requiring parking stalls in relation to the number of people employed in the industrial development, as the city presently does, rather than in relation to the number of square feet of the development is one method of specifying the parking standards. Even though the number of employees will not necessarily be fully determined until the industry is operational, a preliminary estimation of this provides a more accurate

36

means of evaluation than square feet of gross floor space. The nature of the industry determines the number of employees and visitors and therefore the number of stalls required. The number of employees and visitors is not necessarily related to the size of the industrial development.

One conceivable problem with requiring parking stalls in relation to the number of employees could occur when a development changes to a different type of industrial use. This situation occurs more frequently in the multiple tenancy developments than in developments constructed specifically for one firm. Therefore it is the recommendation of this report that there be an absolute minimum number of parking spaces set at 5 spaces per tenant. This should provide adequate employee and customer parking in multiple tenancy developments that are built on speculation.

2. Typical Zoning Requirements and Suggested Planning Standards The present parking standard for industrial developments in Edmonton (1 per 4 employees, provided however, that this standard may be varied by the Director) is less stringent than many of the standards required in other cities that have been surveyed. Calgary requires 1 space per 3 employees with a minimum of 5 spaces,1 Winnipeg 1 for every 1,000 square feet of floor area or 1 for every 3 employees but not less than 1 per 1,500 square feet of gross floor space, or 1 per 3 employees but not less than 1 per 3,000 square feet of gross floor space, depending Wilbur Smith and Associates suggest on the specific industrial use. a planning standard of .33 to .0 parking spaces per employee (1 per 3 employees - 1 per 2 employees).

The highest parking standard is recommended by the United States Highway Research Board after a review of studies that have been completed and an evaluation of present parking standards. This is .6 spaces per employee (3 per 5 employees).5 3. Conclusion The existing parking standards in other cities and the studies and articles that have been reviewed indicate that 1 parking space per 3 employees is an adequate and reasonable minimum requirement for industrail developments. As explained earlier, for multiple tenancy developments built on speculation it is impossible to determine precisely the number of employees at the time the development is approved and therefore the amount of parling required. Consequently, it is recommended that a minimum of 5 parking spaces be required for each tenant that will be accommodated in the development.

'City of Calgary Development Control Bylaw No. 8600.

2City of Winnipeg Zoning Bylaw.

3City of Regina Zoning Bylaw 4306.

4Smith, Wilbur and Associates, Parking in the City Center, New Haven, Connecticut, 1965, Page 65.

5Highway Research Board Special Report No. 125, Parking Principles, 1971, by the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., Page 39.

37 APPENDIX A Recommended Parking Standards

Recommendation 1

Section 12 (14) Parking Schedule When any new development takes place or when any existing development is, in the opinion of the Director, substantiallY enlarged or increased in capacity then provision shall be made in any district defined in this Bylaw, in accordance with the following standards:

Use of Building or Site

Minimum number of Parking or Garage Spaces Required

RESIDENTIAL /One and two family dwellings

1 parking or garage space per dwelling unit plus provision shall be made for 1 additional space on the site, with suitable access and this additional space may be in tandem.

Apartment Buildings and Terraced Dwellings

.5 parking spaces per bachelor dwelling unit, 1 parking space per 1 bedroom dwelling unit, 1.5 parking spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling unit, 2 parking spaces per 3 bedroom dwelling unit or larger.

(The Development Officer may accept tandem parking spaces of a number that is equivalent to the number of 3 bedroom or larger dwelling units).

Of the total number of parking spaces required 1 space per every 7 dwelling units must be assigned to guest parking, readily available to an entrance of the building to be served, and must be clearly identified as guest parking.

38

Use of Building or Site

Minimum number of Parking or Garage Spaces Required These parking standards shall be the requirement for all apartment buildings and terraced dwellings unless, in the case of housing which involves a government subsidy in rental, interest rates, or mortgages, where the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Municipal Planning Commission that these standards are not applicable to his project.

;/Lodging House, Fraternity Houses

1 per 2 beds. (No Change).

COMMERCIAL L'/Business, administrative and professional offices and banks

3.2 per 1,000 square feet gross floor area in the building unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

Retail shops and personal service shops with a gross floor area of: /10,000 square feet or less

more than 10,000 square feet

Equipment and repair shops

4.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the building, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

5.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the building, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

4.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the building, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

39

Use of Building or Site

Minimum number of Parking or Garage Spaces Required

"Eating Establishments

1 per 4 seats

../Cocktail Bars

1 per 4 seats

. Beer Parlours

I per 4 seats

including Motor Hotels Motels

1 per guest room 1 per dwelling or sleeping unit. (No Change).

AUDITORIUMS 1/Public assembly auditoriums including theatres, convention halls, gymnasiums, race tracks, exhibition halls, labour temples, lodge halls, private clubs, ball parks and other sports arenas and other recreational or amusement places.

1 per 3.5 seating spaces for the public, or 1 per 35 square feet used by the patrons, whichever is greater, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

Churches

1 per 5 seating spaces unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

Funeral Homes

1 per 5 seats for persons attending services plus 1 space per funeral home vehicle.

SCHOOLS j Public or Private Elementary and Junior High Schools Public or Private Senior High Schools which DO NOT include an auditorium, gymnasium or swimming pool.

Public or Private Senior High Schools which DO include an auditorium, gymnasium or swimming pool, either (i) or (ii) or (iii) shall apply, whichever is greatest.

I space for each classroom.

1 space for each classroom plus 1 space for every 33 students.

(i) 1 space for each classroom plus I space for every 33 students Or

(ii) I space per 3.5 seating spaces used for assembly in an auditorium gymnasium or swimming pool

40

Use of Building or Site

Minimum number of Parking or Garage Spaces Required

SCHOOLS (continued) Or

(iii) 1 space per 35 square feet used for assembly in an auditorium, gymnasium or swimming pool, whichever is greatest Colleges, business or commercial or technical schools

1 per 10 seats, plus auditorium requirements where applicable.

(No Change).

HOSPITALS AND SIMILAR USES ' Hospitals, sanatoriums, convalescent homes or similar uses.

1 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. (No Change).

' Homes for the Aged (individual unit projects)

1 per 4 units or such ratio or number as the Municipal Planning Commission may approve. (No Change)

Homes for the Aged (lodge-type accommodation)

1 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or such ratio as the Municipal Planning Commission may approve. (No Change).

INDUSTRIAL Manufacturing and Industrial Plants, Warehousing, Wholesale and Storage buildings and yards, Servicing and Repair establishments, Research Laboratories and Public Utility Buildings

1 per 3 employees on a maximum working shift but not less than 5 spaces per tenant or establishment.

41

Recommendation 2 It is recommended that Section 12, Subsection 12 (c) of the Zoning Bylaw (Access to Spaces), be amended to read as follows: (c) Access to Spaces Adequate access to and exit from individual spaces is to be provided at all times by means of unobstructed manoeuvring aisles and to the satisfaction of the Development Officer except where otherwise indicated in this bylaw.

Recommendation 3 It is recommended that Section 12, Subsection 12 (0 of the Zoning Bylaw (Different Uses on the Same Site), be amended to read as follows: (0 Different Uses of the Same Site In the case of the multiple use of a site the Development Officer shall calculate the parking required for each individual use and this shall be deemed to be the required parking for the site; unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that there is a complementary or overlapping use of the parking facilities which would warrant a reduction in the parking requirements.

Recommendation 4 It is recommended that Section 2 of the Zoning Bylaw (Definitions) be amended such that the following definition is added: "tandem parking" means two spaces, one behind the other.

" 411 J

6 .tI 3 '-:k

101

5

en!,

101

7

R. ▪

k -• I

1 •I * I

129 AVE

, L. 4.

- - - ._ ------- r 31: 3 73/e . .

2 ;70 1;41.

I ... k 0 1 • 4 . z i 5 i 4 ' 5 11 1I•, 6 :: : 74 , , I ! , I . . # ......L.L.44•...“•...... l'•,

4

0i I I

3

2 E

El

:k

j

\,42 4 , 5 I ',;, kk • I :k ., .

I .

1 1 ...:

67

2

1 k.

3 ' ) i4 ". 2 • k 63 ,2 0 44 114 0,1 , . \ 4 A,' 'Zs% II 3 °: • 6 :

G

1

.1

.

/

, .4

APPENDIX B

1r-

1

•

imaDmIii•ENII•6•11•0•61.11nmemAIM••

N

:

iI I.*

BOUNDARIES OF THE CORE, CENTRAL, INTERMEDIATE AND

59

-•2:

"

1

0

5

4

1

1

.• s

. .. k I 3_k1/ , ,.., I 1 c k 3 '2 , 4.1.

I 0, xi 2 to ..2.,. 1 1 ; 4 it

53 i j 1 . t ____1,_ . 4 ..t .% ik o, ..,, .4 al 5 I r

I

52

11 1 ED 1 0912 . . , , ....... : ,

Al 0.

1,_

, 1,1; ::,111 2 ;•.:,1 3 ,1 il, 2 j 1 : 2 1,h 1 ,, .› , .., 6 i--__: ,4 .4 ir _ .:1..' i I' 1"36 !i 1 ,..

3 Z

i '

• , _i .`i'l ..,......r...A.A. .._T.1 :1.,.......••••• I ..1 I 14 2 4k l'" 1 4% 3

1 1

5,0•4".1' ' '''' , 'I....

4

5

: 4

'°5 6 4 ; 5 ; 6 I 1

r

1 111 AvE 1

1

..ot

i

• .. • ".. 2. ma.% ...

,. ...'... 0'.9‘ _

—_.

2 4° •,-„-•

`ts

e' •

• •••

lSS

-,

1 •

,E ' 3 di

2

I2

62.0‘4

9.

▪

2

%

z .P.

5

,

°‘;%., 43

3

--r. 3 ; 4 ‘:2 2 7,1, 4 : ,,..!..•.1.0.7.:r.f...L.—•17. ......291 3 gt 4 •1 ; 2 ,

6

,

‘r.,.

1

'

,

.0• ..•

Os

109A AVE% _ _ .. ...

4E9

I

i

4

' \ ,,,...,

_

1

2

1

..

.1

MS1111211MAIMM=IMIIM2MC=MaNJI

,

04:t.1; 6 # .0

I

I 3 AVE 12

3

6

OUTER AREAS OF EDMONTON

:

40

1

.%

sTo

_%

L _7 29 i f,,.5•`"" 6 ..-61r4 ‘1 10t AV;1

1:01:C) 2c

%.

5

1

, ...„„ . s

5

6 4'

E

102 AVE

8

1

.40,L

••

•

2., \ 1 ..v..;y4.—.—L" — -t-7. tn38 -# ------II' I

DOE a...

sa

NORTH

3 Ik, 2 i % . ‘ .0.• ..-...1 „1-, 4 i.9e..*Z 2 .5 .7., r:- - - ' 364 ri, t \.2 , „.....3_-_, g ; 1 3 - / 4 --. .--1. .,...1, ,i iI- --' , ' 5 10 . , 20: 5 • r....•r...1......1m•ilim.._ I -- , • -e; 0 04 :.;, 7 t.: 8 '.-, 9 10 I- __v.__ 6 :*6 5 •"„ • 4 ,_ _ _ 2 2 ...

%MCKENZ IE

E.;

922. AVE.. '1115

4

4

• tE.

.

.

4

2 3

...• .-../......•••••••••

10

•

8

#

! ; 1 10 11 --""t

II ,:"

!

I.1 s

/1•12 •

I

r 3

1 AD

k

'ft.,. 2 '..I ."rv' . 2 4C 01

AvE

•1 e.

4

0.7

%...,.,

L

•

°L.

I•

.•;

I I

ig, .

V

AvE sin 73 AVE

a-a J. 1 .

41;":? '. ,.

, 4- o 'I

2

3 kIV',

Core

65 AVE

i

I

12

I

15

.... #1.

"../..9

I

a

s

4

5

1-

1 I,

in

I I

•

1

Intermediate

I .

I I

Central

I-

I+ 0

'IV 8 1-...—•—•—•...— —....- ..„...,,,....•:71Ativ so I

1 1491 1: E l l •MI•MONLIIMIlr.••• ■•• i W"IT"Up 5). , 4

i 6: , "'" ..

2

........

4

I

19 . ! 5 3 " 4 1-71=v= -li: " L / I

PR

•

1

51 AVE

5

c

1 , ' NO 67 AVE

I

.5/

, . '.

•

L

1

I' .0

2

— 0...J.--r .-------6....•6 , — TATs7r • — —.T. —......._......_ 1 k 1 3 !

5 • 'ke, • ' 0 70 • -- — • , 5, !

----it.- „,C" g 6 ' 7 I.1 1

- 1 A.,.

41; ........... --4

•A

65 Vol

-

•

4

I

„, .

N

.1i t

AV

1

. 67 AVE

'ini

! vi

::'''' ''

' 1 7 I.

I

tT1

217

r_ -11.......!..0.4Mm..... . .4.......”...4... . .

74"I'I%— i .

1.1.m :: I

j6

4

to

. 1-

5

%

5

1

el - - ..-_..ftiplirlemamml.T:Ter.mal

5

ii..

........................

.

1

1 0 %. .

0

7 6 .v

I'

7A AVE

"-

i

.

17E- 1- - - 1

1 A

76 AVE

4,

#04

....la. 9"440

I

2 ;, .

I ,.._____,., 1 :: k,:... 4 ti 3 li

78 AVE

I

C

9

-

6, 11 8 I 1.

1 1 1E13 AVE WM=2M2M2 V MM2M2MiaM.VMEMM= Me2M211“MA 82 AVE F 1 8 • _ :17,

5

1

•

I

2 4

6

4

*2t

1

1

:

92

04;° to,

<4.

i •

AVE

%

Pauli.

Outer

43

APPENDIX C TABLE 3 PERCENTAGE OF EACH TYPE OF HIGH-RISE APARTMENT UNIT BY AREA

BACHELOR

ONE BEDROOM

TWO BEDROOM

THREE BEDROOM OR LARGER

CORE

24%

56%

19%

.007%

CENTRAL

17%

55%

27%

.008%

INTERMEDIATE

13%

53%

32%

.023%

5%

46%

45%

5.000%

OUTER

TABLE 4 PERCENTAGE OF EACH TYPE OF WALK-UP APARTMENT UNIT BY AREA

BACHELOR

ONE BEDROOM

TWO BEDROOM

THREE BEDROOM OR LARGER

CORE

43%

53%

4%

.6%

CENTRAL

34%

56%

9%

.7%

INTERMEDIATE

11%

62%

25%

2.3%

9%

44%

38%

10.2%

OUTER

44 APPENDIX D PARKING STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUPPORTED

BY THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION

NOTE: The underlined portions of the Appendix represent the changes made by the Municipal Planning Commission.

Recommendation 1

Section 12 (14) Parking Schedule When any new development takes place or when any existing development is, in the opinion of the Director, substantially enlarged or increased in capacity then provision shall be made in any district defined in this Bylaw, in accordance with the following standards:

Use of Building or Site

Minimum number of Parking or Garage Spaces Required

RESIDENTIAL One and two family dwellings

1 parking or garage space per dwelling unit plus provision shall be made for 1 additional space on the site, with suitable access and this additional space may be in tandem.

Apartment Buildings and Terraced Dwellings

.5 parking spaces per bachelor dwelling unit, 1 parking space per 1 bedroom dwelling unit, 1.5 parking spaces per 2 bedroom dwelling unit, 2 parking spaces per 3 bedroom dwelling unit or larger.

(The Development Officer may accept tandem parking spaces of a number that is equivalent to the number of 3 bedroom or larger dwelling units).

Of the total number of parking spaces required 1 space per every 7 dwelling units must be assigned to guest parking, readily available to an entrance of the building to be served, and must be clearly identified as guest parking.

45

Use of Building or Site

Minimum number of Parking or Garage Spaces Required These parking standards shall be the requirement for all apartment buildings and terraced dwellings unless, in the case of housing which involves a government subsidy in rental, interest rates, or mortgages, where the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Municipal Planning Commission that these standards are not applicable to his project.

Lodging House, Fraternity Houses

1 per 2 beds. (No Change).

COMMERCIAL Business, administrative and professional offices and banks

3.2 per 1,000 square feet gross floor area in the building unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

Retail shops and personal service shops with a gross floor area of: 10,000 square feet or less

4.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the building, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

more than 10,000 square feet

5.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the building, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

Equipment and repair shops

4.5 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in the building, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

46

Use of Building or Site

Minimum number of Parking or Garage Spaces Required

Eating Establishments

1 per 4 seats

Cocktail Bars

1 per 4 seats

Beer Parlours

1 per 4 seats

Hotels, including Motor Hotels

1 per guest room

Motels

1 per dwelling or sleeping unit. (No Change).

AUDITORIUMS Public assembly auditoriums including theatres, convention halls, gymnasiums, race tracks, exhibition halls, labour temples, lodge halls, private clubs, ball parks and other sports arenas and other recreational or amusement places.

1 per 3.5 seating spaces for the public, or 1 per 35 square feet used by the patrons, whichever is greater, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

Churches

1 per 15 seating spaces

Funeral Homes

1 per 5 seats for persons attending services plus 1 space per funeral home vehicle.

(The Development Officer may allow any suitable arrangement of the required parking spaces without the normally required provision of manoeuvring aisles.)

SCHOOLS Public or Private Elementary and Junior High Schools

1 space for each classroom.

Public or Private Senior High Schools which DO NOT include an auditorium, gymnasium or swimming pool.

I space for each classroom plus 1 space for every 33 students.

47

Use of Building or Site

Minimum number of Parking or Garage Spaces Required

SCHOOLS (continued) Public or Private Senior High Schools which DO include an auditorium, gymnasium or swimming pool, either (i) or (ii) or (iii) shall apply, whichever is greatest.

(i) 1 space for each classroom plus 1 space for every 33 students Or

(ii) 1 space per 3.5 seating spaces used for assembly in an auditorium gymnasium or swimming pool or (iii) 1 space per 35 square feet used for assembly in an auditorium, gymnasium or swimming pool, whichever is greatest

Colleges, universities, business or commercial or technical schools

1 per 10 seats, plus auditorium requirements where applicable.

(No Change).

HOSPITALS AND SIMILAR USES Hospitals, sanatoriums, convalescent homes or similar uses.

1 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. (No Change).

Homes for the Aged (individual unit projects)

1 per 4 units or such ratio or number as the Municipal Planning Commission may approve. (No Change)

Homes for the Aged (lodge-type accommodation)

1 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or such ratio as the Municipal Planning Commission may approve. (No Change).

INDUSTRIAL Manufacturing and Industrial Plants, Warehousing, Wholesale and Storage buildings and yards, Servicing and Repair establishments, Research Laboratories and Public Utility Buildings

1 per 3 employees on a maximum working shift but not less than 5 spaces per tenant or establishment unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that this standard is not applicable to his project.

48

Recommendation 2 It is recommended that Section 12, Subsection 12 (c) of the Zoning Bylaw (Access to Spaces), be amended to read as follows: (c) Access to Spaces Adequate access to and exit from individual parking spaces is to be provided at all times by means of unobstructed manoeuvring aisles and to the satisfaction of the Development Officer except where otherwise indicated in this bylaw.

Recommendation 3 It is recommended that Section 12, Subsection 12 (0 of the Zoning Bylaw (Different Uses on the Same Site), be amended to read as follows: (f) Different Uses of the Same Site In the case of the multiple use of a site the Development Officer shall calculate the parking required for each individual use and this shall be deemed to be the required parking for the site, unless the applicant can otherwise demonstrate to the Development Officer that there is a complementary or overlapping use of the parking facilities which would warrant a reduction in the parking requirements.

Recommendation 4 It is recommended that Section 2 of the Zoning Bylaw (Definitions) be amended such that the following definition is added: "tandem parking" means two spaces, one behind the other with one point of access to the manouevring aisle.

This report was prepared in the Zoning Branch, Edmonton Planning Department by J. Low, Planner, under the supervision of C. Sorensen, Planner, and J. Masterton, Director of Zoning.