Parking Needs Assessment in support of Committee of ... · Tedesco Engineering (Tedesco Ventures...

21 Bradwick Drive, Unit 1, Vaughan

Parking Needs Assessment in support of

Committee of AdjustmentApplication for parking variance

Prepared by: Tedesco Engineering

May 2012Revised May 28, 2012

Prepared for: 1329165 ONTARIO LTD

S I T E

providel

DATE STAMP

providel

Typewritten Text

MAY 28, 2012

providel

Typewritten Text

providel

Typewritten Text

providel

ADDENDUM

providel

Typewritten Text

#26

providel

Typewritten Text

Tedesco Engineering (Tedesco Ventures Inc.)

21 Bradwick Drive, Unit #1, Vaughan / 1329165 ONTARIO LTD

Assessment of parking needs in support of Committee of Adjustment application for parking variance

1

215 Morrish Road, Suite 101, Toronto, M1C 1E9 Phone: 416 822-0153 Email: [email protected]

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Vaughan Development / Transportation Engineering Attention: Ms. Nadia Porukova Copy To: Alex Boros, Architect – agent for applicant From: Michael A. Tedesco, P.Eng Date: Thursday, May 24, 2012 Updated: Monday, May 28, 2012 with changes shown in italics Subject: 21 Bradwick Drive, Unit #1, Vaughan 1329165 ONTARIO LTD Assessment of parking needs in support of Committee of Adjustment application for parking variance 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study purpose / Issues overview – Zoning bylaw would require 4 more

parking spaces for 208.1 m2 GFA internal (mezzanine level) addition. This report summarizes Tedesco Engineering’s assessment of the combined parking needs of a 20-unit industrial (condominium tenure) building located in the Langstaff Road – Dufferin Street area of the Town of Vaughan. The site location is shown in Exhibits #1A (aerial) and #1B (closer aerial view). “Street-views” of the subject site are shown in Exhibit #2. The applicant owns Unit #1 of the subject building. The location of Unit #1 is shown in the site plan schematic presented in Exhibit #3. The need for a variance in the parking arises from a 208.1 m2 internal (mezzanine level) addition that was constructed in the past within Unit #1. That additional floor area increased the overall GFA of the entire building from 4,328.8 m2 to 4,536.9 m2. The current zoning Bylaw parking standard requires provision of 2.0 parking spaces for every 100 m2 of GFA. Based upon current parking standards, the change in floor area would result in an increase in the required parking from 87 spaces to 91 parking spaces – an increase of 4 stalls. Given that the parking supply shown in Exhibit #3 is only 64 stalls, the subject industrial building was constructed at a time when parking standards for such uses were (presumably) lower.

Tedesco Engineering May 2012

EXHIBIT #1A21 Bradwick Drive, Vaughan Parking C of A

SITE CONTEXT

S I T E


EXHIBIT #1B21 Bradwick Drive, Vaughan Parking C of A

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF SITE BLOCK

SITE BLOCK

Nor

th R

iver

med

e R

oad

Bradwick Drive


EXHIBIT #221 Bradwick Drive, Vaughan Parking C of A

STREET VIEWS

Looking south east from Bradwick at site driveway

Looking north west from North Rivermede

At south end looking west from North Rivermede

Looking south west from Bradwick Drive & North Rivermede

Unit 1


EXHIBIT #321 Bradwick Drive, Vaughan Parking C of A

SITE PLAN

N

Note; Site plan shows only 64 parking spaces, whereas 80 parking spaces exist in 2012




2

1.2 No variance is required if the ability to accommodate up to 19 parking

spaces “internally” conforms to municipality’s definition of parking spaces. Alternatively, given that each unit, except Unit #2, has a roll-up door at the back which could accommodate at least one vehicle inside each unit and/or at least 1 vehicle outside in front of the door, then the 64 spaces shown on the original site plan, plus the 19 “internal” and/or rear undesignated parking spaces would have increased the total supply to 83 spaces – just 4 spaces fewer than required today. Finally, as a result of restriping and/or reconfiguring the original parking layout, there are currently 80 parking spaces – 18 located along the north side of the subject building / 53 located along the east (front) side of the building / 9 located along the south side of the building. As shown in Exhibit #4A (photograph), the west side of the subject building is an open area that accommodates traffic circulation and loading activity for both the subject building and for similar industrial buildings to the west. The area also (informally) accommodates some of the site-generated parking demand. Exhibit #4B shows how two vehicles could be readily accommodated in undesignated parking spaces behind Unit #1. When the existing supply of 80 parking spaces plus the 19 “internal” parking spaces are considered, then the total supply would be 99 parking spaces, which more than complies with the Zoning Bylaw requirement. In reviewing this submission, transportation staff of the City is asked to firstly consider whether the ability to accommodate 19 parking spaces internally conforms to the municipality’s definition of a parking space. If so, then no variance is required. 1.3 Given the existing documented parking supply of 80 spaces, a variance for

only 11 spaces is “technically” required, not 27 spaces as originally sought Taking a worst case position that the ability to accommodate up to 19 vehicles internally will not be recognized towards satisfying the provision of zoning bylaw-required parking, Tedesco Engineering has assessed the ability of the existing 80 parking spaces to accommodate parking demands generated by the (existing) increased floor area of 4,536.9 m2. As stated above, that floor area would have required the provision of 91 parking spaces to achieve compliance with the Zoning Bylaw. In that context, a variance for only 11 parking spaces is technically required, whereas the original variance application for 27 parking spaces (91 minus 64) is still sought. Even though there are 80 parking spaces today, the sufficiency of the original 64 spaces is assessed given that the original variance application was for 27 spaces based upon this original supply. The additional 16 parking spaces are regarded as extra to accommodate any worst case demand.


EXHIBIT #4A21 Bradwick Drive, Vaughan Parking C of A

PHOTOGRAPH LOOKING SOUTH FROM REAR OF UNIT 1


EXHIBIT #4B21 Bradwick Drive, Vaughan Parking C of A

PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING PARKING AT REAR AND INTERNAL STORAGE AREAS

Denture Manufacturing Denture Storage

Plumbing Storage




3

2. PARKING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 2.1 7 “spot” parking counts were undertaken between April 16 and May 2, 2012

– 5 mid-mornings and 2 mid-afternoons In an April 4, 2012 memorandum to the Committee of Adjustment, the Vaughan Development / Transportation Engineering department required the owner to “provide a detailed parking study including analysis of at least two similar facilities and (that) the survey should be done during the busy periods”. A copy of that memorandum is reproduced in Attachment #1 to this memorandum. In discussions with senior transportation staff of Vaughan, the requirement to survey two other similar facilities was waived given that the subject property already exists and is operational, whereas the need to study “similar facilities” is typically necessary only when a subject development is proposed and has not as yet been constructed. With regard to when to count, Tedesco Engineering undertook to count site-generated total parking demand on various days of the week and at various times of the day / mid-morning and mid-afternoon over a number of days. As documented later in this memorandum, a total of 7 spot counts were undertaken – 5 mid-mornings plus 2 mid-afternoons – during the two week period of Monday, April 16 to Wednesday, May 2, 2012. 2.2 Observed parking demand varied between 41 and 47 spaces occupied mid-

morning and between only 31 and 41 spaces occupied mid-afternoon As shown in Exhibit #5, parking demand occupying designated parking spaces was observed to range between 41 and 47 spaces during mid-mornings and only 31 to 41 spaces mid-afternoon. At the busiest time, 47 of the 80 parking spaces (59 percent) were occupied. Because the morning was observed to be the busier time period, only two counts were undertaken in the afternoon, whereas a total of five spot counts were undertaken mid-morning. When parking demand accommodated in non-designated parking spaces is taken into consideration, maximum observed parking demand was 53 vehicles – 46 in designated parking spaces plus 7 vehicles elsewhere on-site. If all such (53 space) demand was to have been accommodated in the 80 designated parking spaces, then 66 percent of the available parking would have been occupied,

EXHIBIT #521 Bradwick Drive, VaughanParking usage log summary

Monday Friday Friday Tuesday Friday Monday WednesdayCapacity 16/04/2012 20/04/2012 20/04/2012 24/04/2012 27/04/2012 30/04/2012 02/05/2012

V Time --> 11:00 AM 10:37 AM 2:25 PM 2:07 PM 10:59 AM 11:00 AM 10:19 AM

North side parking 18 Occupied 16 16 13 14 15 16 1389% 89% 72% 78% 83% 89% 72%

Vacant 2 2 5 4 3 2 5

East side parking 53 Occupied 26 24 15 23 22 28 3149% 45% 28% 43% 42% 53% 58%

Vacant 27 29 38 30 31 25 22

South side parking 9 Occupied 3 5 3 4 4 3 233% 56% 33% 44% 44% 33% 22%

Vacant 6 4 6 5 5 6 7

Total parking space use 80 Occupied 45 45 31 41 41 47 4656% 56% 39% 51% 51% 59% 58%

Vacant 35 35 49 39 39 33 34

West side open area Occupied 3 3 0 0 5 4 7

Total demand 80 48 48 31 41 46 51 5360% 60% 39% 51% 58% 64% 66%

Tedesco EngineeringMay 2012




4

leaving 34 percent (27 spaces) vacant during the busiest time observed. Providing for a 20 percent margin of safety in the forecast would increase Tedesco Engineering’s worst case demand from 53 to 64 spaces (53 x 1.2), which matches the 64 parking space “technical” supply. 2.3 Denture manufacturing business in subject Unit #1 generates parking

demand for 4-6 vehicles. Plumbing business generates demand for 2 more parking spaces.

Two businesses – a denture manufacturer and a plumbing business -- operate within Unit #1, which has a total floor area of 431 m2 – 223 m2 on the ground floor plus the subject addition of 208 m2 that was constructed on a mezzanine level within the otherwise high-ceiling unit. The owners of the two businesses are related. In order to ascertain parking demand generated by Unit #1, Tedesco Engineering visited the site and ascertained from the owner / applicant of the plumbing business how many employees there are / how many employees drive and require long term (all day) parking / how much short term pick-up and delivery activity there is / etc. Tedesco Engineering was advised of the following:

i) A dental / denture manufacturing business is located within Unit # 1 and currently accommodates 7 employees – 4 who drive plus 3 who do not. Additionally, the husband and wife owners of the denture business, who each have a vehicle, come and go periodically, but are rarely there at the same time. Employee-generated parking demand of the denture manufacturing business, therefore, is typically 4 vehicles, occasionally 5 and rarely 6.

ii) The plumbing business, which is also presently located within Unit #1,

typically generates parking demand for 2 vehicles consisting of the owner (applicant) plus his daughter. Occasionally the plumbing business owner’s wife is there, but she typically gets a ride from her other daughter who is also the owner of the denture business. The presence of the plumber’s wife, therefore, does not generate any additional parking demand.

The present combined plumbing-denture business Unit #1 employee-generated parking demand, therefore, is typically 6, occasionally 7 and rarely 8.




5

2.4 The Unit #1 combined parking demand for the denture and plumbing

businesses of 6-8 vehicles is consistent with the “proportionate allocation” to Unit #1 of the 80 on-site designated parking spaces

The present Unit #1 employee-generated parking demand of 6 to 8 vehicles (established above) compares with a Zoning By-law parking requirement for the 431 m2 total floor area for Unit #1 of 9 spaces (431 / 100 x 2 = 8.62 spaces). Finally, considering that there are only 80 designated parking spaces on site rather than the 91 required by the zoning by-law, then Unit #1’s proportionate share of those 80 spaces would be approximately 8 spaces. (Calculated as follows: 8.62 x 80 / 91 = 7.57 spaces.) The 8 parking space allocation for Unit #1 of the 80 designated parking spaces on site, therefore, is consistent with employee-generated demand for 6 (typically) to 8 (rarely) parking spaces. 2.5 Pick-up and deliveries: 7 plumbing vans pick up supplies at rear (rollup

door) and park / load in undesignated open area before 7:00 am. Denture deliveries vehicle uses 1 additional parking space

Plumbing business: Exhibit #4B shows how two vehicles could be accommodated in regulation sized (but not designated) parking spaces at the rear of Unit #1’s roll up doorS1. It also shows the interior of the plumbing supply storage area inside the rollup door. The plumbing business has a total of 7 vans on the road, which the drivers take home at night. Every morning between 6:30 and 7:00 am all 7 vans come to pick up plumbing supplies – a time when parking demand elsewhere on site is minimal. They park at the rear and access the plumbing supplies through the roll up door Plumbing vans are then typically on the road all day, and very rarely come in to pick up additional supplies after 7:00 am.

1 Given that Unit #1 has two roll-up doors (one in front of parked vehicles in Exhibit #4B plus one on the left side of the picture), while Unit #2 has none, it would be a fair presumption that the original Unit #1 and Unit #2 were configured the same as Unit #19 and #20 are presently – each with a rollup door -- then reconfigured as shown in Exhibit #3 with Unit #1 having two rollup doors and Unit #2 having none. With this interpretation, then there would have been 20 “internal” parking spaces and the original 64 spaces plus 20 would have totaled 84 parking spaces – just 3 less than required today. The current configuration of Units #1 and #2 is how it was approximately 13 years ago when the applicant purchased Unit #1.




6

From a parking demand standpoint, the 7 vans of the plumbing business have no impact upon the availability of the 80 designated parking spaces. Denture manufacturing business: Delivery to the site of supplies is occasional and occurs at the rear through the (side) roll-up door of Unit #1. There is no impact on designated parking due to denture business supplies deliveries. The manufactured dentures themselves are delivered 1-2 times per week using the business’s red minivan owned by the denture business. Historically, that vehicle was used by an employee who drove it home at night. Presently, however, it remains on-site and parked, including overnight. As such, the denture business generates demand for one additional parking space, which increases the Unit#1-generated parking demand from the denture and plumbing businesses to between 7 (typical) and 9 parking spaces (rarely). 2.6 Plumbing business relocating to Unit #17. Vacated floor area is to be used for

denture business additional storage. Parking demand generated by Unit #1 will then decrease by two vehicles; i.e., to between 5-7 spaces

Subsequent to applying for a parking variance, the owner of Unit #1 purchased Unit #16 and will move there on June 28, 2012. Unit #16 has 3 parking spaces allocated to it. Such a move will result in a net reduction in demand of 2 parking spaces generated by Unit #1, lowering its parking demand to between 5 (typical) and 7 (rarely). I am advised that the vacated floor area of Unit #1 is intended to be used to provide additional needed storage for the denture business. Hence, Unit #1-generated parking demand is not expected to later increase. 2.7 Overall site-generated parking demand will decrease by 2 spaces as a result

of Unit #16 current owners leaving I am advised that the “Allegra Kitchens” design business that currently operates within Unit #16 generates parking demand (typically) for two vehicles. Furthermore, one of the two vehicles is apparently parked there continuously. Rarely do retail customers attend their facility. On rare occasions the owners have a third vehicle parked. Demand counted by Tedesco Engineering over the last part of April 2012 included both the Unit #1 plumbing business-generated parking demand as well as the Unit #16 kitchen design-generated parking demand. Since the Unit #16 kitchen design business will be moving off-site, then its parking demand will disappear.




7

The end result will be a net reduction in parking demand of 2 spaces for the entire site owing to the Kitchen design business moving. 2.8 Other industrial units on-site generate less than their proportionate share of

parking Elsewhere on the subject site there are examples of uses in other units that generate very little parking relative to their GFA. I am advised of the following: A) Unit #4-5-6 -- Door business Employee parking of only 2-3 parking spaces plus people coming and going to pick up doors. Parking demand is relatively modest for three units in total. B) Unit #7-8 – Manufacturing / storage / tool and die business Employee 2 spaces, but 1 usually not there C) Unit ##11-12-13-14 -- Toothbrush manufacturer Automated manufacturing system. Employee (owner) parking for just 2 vehicles.




8

3.0 TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY 3.1 21 Bradwick Drive is directly served by TTC (Keele) Route 107B The subject site enjoys bus transit service via the Toronto Transit Commission’s Keele Street Route 107B, which provides service from Keele Street along Rivermede and North Rivermede Roads. A transit stop for this service is located close to the site at North Rivermede and Bradwick N. The availability of transit service contributes to businesses on the subject site being able to employee staff that is not auto-dependent. As a result, the site can readily accommodate its parking demands well within its parking supply. As shown below, the subject site is also proximate to transit service along Highway 7. S I T E




9

4. CONCLUSIONS / RECOMENDATIONS 4.1 The approximately 4-stall increase in parking demand that arose from the

subject 208 m2 floor area addition was readily accommodated on the subject site, As such; the impact of the increased parking demand is minor and the variance should be granted

Tedesco Engineering measured the overall site-generated parking demand of a 20-unit industrial building located at 21 Bradwick Drive in Vaughan. “Spot count” measurements were taken a total of seven times over an approximately two week period in later April / early May, 2012. Five of the counts were taken mid-morning, and two were taken mid afternoon. The morning was busier. Photographs documenting the parking demand on the busiest day – Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 10:19 am – are presented in Attachment #2. Additionally, Tedesco Engineering assessed in detail the employee and delivery-generated parking demands of the subject Unit #1, which presently accommodates both a denture manufacturing business and a plumbing business; Conclusions of the analyses are:

i) The site actually has 80 designated (painted) parking spaces today, whereas the original site plan submitted with the Committee of Adjustment application suggested there are only 64 spaces. The additional 16 parking spaces, however, should be regarded as a “buffer” to accommodate any parking demand that might exceed the 64 parking space “technical” supply.

ii) As documented in Section 1.1, the addition of 208 m2 of GFA inside of Unit

#1 increased the zoning by-law requirement for parking from 87 to 91 parking spaces – an increase of 4 spaces – based upon current requirements of 2.0 spaces per 100 m2.

iii) With the provision of 80 ‘designated” parking spaces today, a parking

variance for only 11 spaces would be “technically” required, whereas the original application before the Committee of Adjustment seeks a variance for 27 spaces based upon the original parking supply of only 64 spaces and original variance application for 27 spaces.

iv) If the existing 20 units with 80 parking spaces were considered to be “legal-

non-conforming uses”, then it would only be necessary to seek a variance for the four parking space increase resulting from the 208 m2 increase in floor area. I am advised, however, that because parking for the entire property is a ‘common area condominium element”, that approach could not be taken.




10

v) It is also Tedesco Engineering’s opinion that an additional 20 parking spaces

exist “theoretically” inside each unit behind the “rollup” type doors at the rear of each unit. Alternatively, at least one additional car can be accommodated immediately outside each rollup door. In light of this, Tedesco Engineering requests the Vaughan Development / Transportation Engineering department to consider whether such “unpainted” parking spaces can be counted to satisfy requirements of the zoning by-law. If so, then the site would currently provide at least 100 parking spaces and it would comply with the requirements of the zoning by-law. As a result, no variance would be required.

vi) If the “extra’ 20 parking spaces are not able to be counted towards satisfying

zoning bylaw parking requirements, then the variance for 27 spaces can be justified based upon the following findings:

vii) The demand for parking generated by the entire 20 units was observed to be

between a low of 31 parked vehicles (mid-afternoon) and a high of 53 parked vehicles (mid-morning). Relative to the designated supply of 80 parking spaces, the highest observed demand of 53 vehicles would use only 66 percent of the parking, leaving 27 spaces (34 percent) vacant. It should be noted that the 53 parked vehicles included 7 vehicles parked on-site in undesignated spaces.

viii) Providing for a 20 percent margin of safety in the forecast would increase

Tedesco Engineering’s worst case demand from 53 to 64 spaces (53 x 1.2), which matches the 64 parking space “technical” supply.

ix) As documented in Sections 2.3 to 2.5, parking demand generated by the

denture manufacturing and plumbing businesses that currently operate in Unit #1 generate a combined demand of between 7 vehicles (typical) and 9 vehicles (rarely).

x) When the plumbing business relocates to Unit #16 on June 28, 2012, Unit #1-

gerneated demand will drop to between 5 (typical) and 7 (rarely.), which is within the 8 parking space proportional allocation for Unit #1 of the 80 space supply.

xi) As well, overall parking demand for the entire site will drop by about 2

vehicles when the current “Allegra Kitchens” moves out of Unit #16, thereby reducing the highest demand to 51 spaces and the “worst case” demand with a 20 percent buffer (51 x 1.2) to 61 spaces, which is three less than the 64 space original supply against which the variance is being measured.




11

xii) It is Tedesco Engineering’s opinion, based upon the findings of this comprehensive parking study that: A) the approximately 4 stall increase in parking demand that arose from the subject 208 m2 floor area addition was readily accommodated on the subject site, B) the original supply of 64 parking spaces would have been adequate, and C) the additional 16 parking spaces that exist today provide a further buffer to accommodate and excess parking demand., As such; the impact of the increase in parking demand is minor and the variance should be granted.

* * * * * If municipal staff have any questions regarding this Study, they are encouraged to contact Tedesco Engineering directly by phone or email. Yours truly Tedesco Engineering (Tedesco Ventures Inc.)

Michael A. Tedesco, P.Eng President




12

ATTACHMENT #1 Memorandum from Development / Transportation Engineering requiring parking study

N:\00 Electronic Documents\Building Comments\A095 12 Engineering comments.doc

DATE: April 4, 2012

TO: Todd Coles, Committee of Adjustment FROM: Nadia Porukova, Development/Transportation Engineering MEETING DATE: April 19, 2012 OWNER: 1329465 Ontario Ltd. FILE(S): Minor Variance Application A095/12

Location: 21 Bradwick Drive Proposal: 1. To permit a total of 64 parking spaces (1.41 parking spaces per

100m2 of GFA) Comments: The Owner shall provide a detailed parking study including

analysis of at least two similar facilities and the survey should be done during the busy periods.

The Development/Transportation Engineering requests adjournment of Minor Variance Application A095/12, until such time that the Owner submits the detailed parking study and the parking study is reviewed and approved by the Development/Transportation Engineering Department.

Condition(s): None.

RECEIVED

April 11, 2012 VAUGHAN COMMITTEE

OF ADJUSTMENT




13

ATTACHMENT #2 Wednesday, May 2, 2012 10:19 AM Photographs of peak site-generated parking demand of 53 parked vehicles 46 parked in the 80 designated parking spaces plus 7 parked elsewhere on-site

13 of 18

Note: Camera date / time out by 12 hoursPictures show: May 1, 2012 at 22:19 (pm), but should have beenMay 2, 2012 at 10:19 (am)

31 of 53

2 of 9

Elsewhere on site:

7 parked in non-designated spaces

Date post:	15-Feb-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyenphuc
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times