HomeMy WebLinkAboutTandem Parking May 27, 20131
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: May 27, 2013
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Planning Department 2013 Business Plan directed staff to prepare a report on tandem and off-
street parking in Maple Ridge, based on concerns with tandem parking in multi-family (townhouse)
developments in the District. This was triggered by several recent townhouse development
applications proposing all or a significant percentage of the units with tandem parking. Tandem
parking is currently permitted in a few single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential District) zone. Given that recent discussion has noted concerns with tandem parking in
townhouse projects, the focus of this report is on tandem and off-street parking in the RM-1
(Townhouse Residential District) zone.
Townhouse units with tandem parking are a fairly common form of housing in many jurisdictions
within the region. Typically the tandem parking arrangement results in a taller, narrower unit with a
minimal driveway apron in front of the tandem garage. The perception is that tandem townhouse
units typically sell for less, than the units with a double car garage and it is often a preferred option
with developers to maximize the unit yield. Staff discussions with some of the private sector
stakeholders suggest that tandem units are more affordable, however, there is no concrete evidence
that tandem units sell for less in the market. General discussions with staff from other jurisdictions
and the private sector stakeholders indicated that while there is a general perception of overall
acceptance of tandem townhouse units in the market, there are concerns with a 100% tandem
townhouse developments across the region.
This report focuses on the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and includes the following:
Review of the existing regulations for tandem and off-street parking and loading regulations;
Review of tandem parking regulations in other jurisdictions within the region;
Identification of concerns/issues with tandem parking;
Review of scenarios/ options for the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone with graphic
examples of each scenario;
Review of the recommended option for tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the “Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper” dated May 27, 2013 be received for
information and discussion.
BACKGROUND:
The Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 permits tandem parking in
specific single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone.
Tandem Parking has not been a concern in single family zones where the roads meet the municipal
standards and the driveways may be wider. In some cases, there is parking along the streets as well.
4.2
2
However within the townhouse zone it appears to be a concern. The District has seen a steady rise in
townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units.
DISCUSSION:
A) Review of the existing tandem and Off- Street Parking and Loading regulations:
The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw provides for tandem parking in certain single family zones,
duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. The bylaw reads:
PART IV, Section 4.1(iii)(b)(iv), of Maple Ridge off-Street Parking & Loading Bylaw No. 4350-
1990, “the RS-1 (one Family Urban Residential) zone, RS-1a (One Family Amenity
Residential) zone, RS-1b (One Family Urban Residential- Medium Density) zone, R-1
(Residential District) zone, RT-1 (Two Family Urban Residential) zone and RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential District) zone, may have obstructed access where the primary parking space is a
carport or garage and the obstruction is an intervening parking space”.
Out of the above noted zones, the RS-1, RS-1b, R-1 and RT-1 are single family or duplex zones. Each
of the above mentioned zones require a minimum of two parking spaces per unit and an additional
parking space for a permitted Accessory Residential use such as a Home Occupation, Secondary
Suite or Detached Garden Suite (if permitted in the zone). For the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential
District) zone, two spaces per unit plus a 0.2 space per unit for visitors is required.
It is important to note that out of all the available multi-family zones in the District, only the RM-1
(Townhouse Residential District) zone permits tandem parking.
B) Review of tandem parking regulations in other jurisdictions within the region:
The following identifies the tandem regulations used in other municipalities within the region
(Appendix A):
i. City of Pitt Meadows: allows tandem parking in the townhouse zone. The townhouse zone
requires a ratio of 1.75 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors.
ii. City of Port Coquitlam: does not have tandem parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw,
but permits it on a site by site basis. Recently their Council has expressed concerns with
tandem parking in the townhouse zones and the City staff has been encouraging a
balanced proportion of double and tandem garages on a project by project basis.
iii. City of Coquitlam: does not have tandem parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw, but
permits it on a site by site basis. In most cases, tandem spaces may be provided as extra
spaces and are not included in the parking calculations. They are sometimes proposed in
addition to the minimum parking spaces required in the zone, as a marketing tool.
iv. Township of Langley: permits tandem parking in the townhouse zone but requires a
higher ratio i.e. in the townhouse zone, units with tandem parking garages require a ratio
of 2.5 spaces per unit instead of 2.0 spaces per unit for a double garage unit. The
Township requires a Restrictive Covenant on the tandem space, to discourage
conversion of it to a habitable space. The bylaw is silent on permitting tandem parking in
any other zones.
3
v. City of Burnaby: does not permit tandem parking except for specific projects on site by
site basis through a Comprehensive Development zoning. It forms a part of specific site
design with a Restrictive Covenant registered on title to ensure that the tandem space is
not converted in to a habitable space. The required minimum parking ratio for ground-
oriented townhouse zones is 1.75 spaces per unit (including 0.25 spaces per unit for
visitor parking) except for a specific zone permitted in the business district where it is
reduced to 1.0 space per unit. These ratios are much lower parking ratios than Maple
Ridge and other jurisdictions and tandem parking is in general discouraged.
vi. Corporation of Delta: permits tandem parking in single family zones, duplex zone, strata
house and townhouse zones. There are more than one townhouse zones with varying
densities from 25 to 40 units per net hectare, depending on the specific zone. Visitor
parking ratio is similar to Maple Ridge’s requirements.
vii. City of Abbotsford: permits tandem parking in single family and townhouse residential
zones. The townhouse residential use is required to provide two spaces per unit, of which
one is located in a garage or under-ground parking and 20% of the total parking is
required to be for visitors, which is same as the Maple Ridge’s requirements.
viii. District of Mission: permits tandem parking for ground-oriented townhouse zones, but
with a restriction on the percentage of tandem units in two zones. These zones permit up
to 50% tandem units which are limited to internal units only. The densities vary in the
three townhouse zones they offer and parking ratios are comparable to the District’s
requirements.
ix. City of Richmond: has four sub-zones with the townhouse form and tandem parking is
permitted within certain geographical locations in site-specific zones. These zones are
permitted in the city centre and other busy areas that have fairly good connectivity by
public transit. Standard minimum lengths and widths of the parking spaces are specified
and densities vary in the various townhouse zones. It is interesting to note that the
amenity space is expressed as a floor space ratio of 0.1.
x. City of Surrey: permits tandem parking in ground oriented multiple unit residential use
with a greater apron length on the driveway. The bylaw states “In a tandem parking
arrangement where the second vehicle is parked outside a garage in the driveway a
minimum length of 6.0 metres (19.7 feet) shall be provided for each parking space”.
The City has recently been dealing with enforcement issues with tandem parking in
Clayton Heights area. The tandem spaces have become living spaces and there are
renters with cars on the same site.
City of Surrey has some additional regulations with respect to tandem parking permitted
in the ground-oriented multiple unit residential zones, such as: restrictions on location of
tandem parking spaces on an arterial road; restriction that both the tandem spaces be
enclosed and attached to the unit; requirement that both tandem spaces be held by the
same owner and that tandem parking is not permitted for units located within 6.0 metres
from lot entrances/exits.
In reviewing other municipal parking bylaws it is clear that approaches vary by community with some
not permitting tandem parking, some permitting tandem parking on a project by project basis, some
permitting tandem parking by requiring a higher parking ratio or limiting the amount of tandem;
requiring additional common amenity area and/or driveway aprons. Discussion with some of the
staff from other municipalities confirms that several jurisdictions are expressing concerns over 100%
tandem unit developments.
4
C) Identification of concerns/issues with tandem parking:
The following section of the report notes the issues and preferences relating to tandem parking, that
were identified through research and consultation with developers, architects, Building and Fire
departments. The issues have been organized into the following categories:
i. BC Building Code requirements:
Often the tandem or double parking garages on townhouse sites are built to meet the minimum B.C.
Building Code requirements for width, depth and height. A driveway apron is the area in front of a
tandem garage. It may or may not be adequate to park one vehicle. Under the bylaw, the RM-1
(Townhouse Residential District) zone does not require the driveway apron length to accommodate a
parking space. If it is not adequate to park one vehicle, this may result in individual vehicles possibly
encroaching into the 6.0 metre wide strata road.
ii. Unit sizes, architectural design and streetscape:
Townhouse units with a tandem garage are typically narrower (12.5 to 15 feet wide) and taller (3 or
3.5 storey) in form. The architectural form for tandem and double garage units differ significantly,
one being a two storey massing while the other with tandem parking is a taller, narrow three-storey
massing. The tandem units offer a denser, compact, taller form. The townhouse form is often
envisioned and encouraged as a transition between single family and apartment building forms. A
100% tandem development maximizes on the density or the unit count on site which can at times be
at the expense of creating interesting, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. A combination of tandem
and double garage units have greater potential to create an interesting streetscape with staggered
units and inter-linking green spaces. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous
façade. Smaller blocks of units create well-articulated facades separated with green buffers in
between the blocks that promote natural light, ventilation and views.
iii. Restrictive Covenant on the tandem space; enforcement of tandem spaces and visitor
parking spaces:
The Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department respond to formal written complaints seeking
enforcement. However, they cannot enforce parking regulations on strata property. The District
prefers the Strata Councils to try to resolve their own parking disputes. Units with a tandem garage
often lose a parking space due to conversion into a habitable area, after the owner moves in.
Complaints are received by the District about the lack of parking on site and in the streets, after this
happens. Sometimes the visitor parking stalls are used by residents or cars are parked within the 6.0
metre wide strata road. In such instances, Strata Councils are responsible for enforcing parking on
the property; however they are not always successful. For the District it becomes a safety concern,
yet enforcement is a challenge.
Long-term preservation of tandem parking space cannot necessarily be secured through the use of a
Restrictive Covenant. A covenant however, can be informative to the unit owners but the District
would be required to undertake enforcement and/or legal action. However, the District is under no
obligation to enforce such a covenant even if in place.
5
D) ANALYSIS:
Review of scenarios/options for the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone with graphic
examples of each scenario:
As explained earlier the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone permits a townhouse
development with ground-oriented units that have 100% tandem parking spaces. The density
permitted is a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.6 times the net lot area, with an additional 50m2 per unit
basement habitable space. To review the impact of tandem parking spaces on a townhouse
development, several factors need to be considered. Some important factors are: density (floor
space ratio), usable open space, common activity area, setbacks, size of the block of units, driveway
apron length, on-site parking for residents and visitors. The graphic examples attached as
appendices help to illustrate the potential impacts of tandem parking along with recommended
measures to minimize impacts.
For the purpose of this review, four categories were analysed for the various scenarios:
a) A townhouse development with 100% tandem parking spaces (currently permitted);
b) A townhouse development with up to a maximum of 70% tandem parking spaces;
c) A townhouse development with up to a maximum of 50% tandem parking spaces;
d) A townhouse development with no tandem parking spaces (100% double garages).
To assist in this review graphic illustrations have been provided utilizing some fixed and variable
elements. These have been applied to a hypothetical piece of land. It should be noted that for
simplification purpose, the development site is assumed to be a flat, one acre rectangular shaped
piece of land with road frontage on one side.
The following fixed elements included are:
1) Lot Size: 4047 m2 (1 acre or 43562.97 ft2)
2) FSR: 0.6 (50 m2 extra for habitable basement area per unit)
3) Unit sizes: 2 bedroom =1000 ft2 and 3 bedroom=1500 ft2 (50% of each type)
4) Setbacks: 7.5 m from all property lines
5) Parking: 2 spaces per unit (residential) and 0.2 spaces per unit (visitor)
6) 6.0 m wide strata road (no parking along strata road)
7) Max lot coverage: 40%
8) Units in one block: 2 minimum and 6 maximum (2-6 units)
Some variable elements that could have a potential impact on addressing previously identified
concerns with tandem parking are:
1) Percentage (%) of tandem parking spaces on site
2) Usable Open Space Area for units with tandem parking spaces
3) Common Activity Area for units with tandem parking spaces
4) Visitor parking ratio for units with tandem parking spaces
5) Driveway apron length for units with tandem parking spaces
6) Setback variances
A total of 18 scenarios were considered in the review of tandem parking; however, one scenario
clearly resulted in a reasonable mix of tandem and double wide units, maximization of green
6
space/useable open space and a well-articulated, livable design, while maintaining a viable unit yield
(refer to item i on page 7).
Concern has been expressed with the 100% tandem parking (i.e. category a), which is what is
currently permitted. In reality no tandem parking (i.e. category d) is not realistic, as most
developments prefer to maximize on the number of units on site. Therefore, a mix of tandem and
double wide parking scenarios are explored in greater detail (Appendix C-J). In each of the four
scenarios, one variable was introduced to see the overall impact (see Appendix C-J). It was evident
that introducing one variable in each of the scenarios did not help mitigate the potential impacts of
units with tandem parking spaces. However, when three variables such as requiring a driveway
apron, increasing the useable open space and limiting the amount of tandem parking, the overall
improvements to the site design were clearly visible.
Included below is an illustration of 100% units with tandem parking spaces, as permitted today.
7
It is clear in the site plan above, 21 units can be achieved on a one acre parcel. It is important to
note that this scenario maximizes the unit count, density, gross floor area and provides minimal
articulation to the streetscape for the residents. The required useable open space and common
activity area are met by including all the setback areas and not permitting any setback reductions via
a Development Variance Permit.
i) Scenario 2E: maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces with a driveway apron
of 5.5 metres required for units with tandem spaces; usable open space increased by 15
m2 per unit and all the other regulations in the RM-1 zone permitted currently.
The graphic example above shows 65% of the units have tandem garages. It is clear in the site plan
above that, by introducing a requirement that permits a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking
spaces and by requiring a driveway apron length of 5.5 metres only for units with tandem parking
8
spaces, and by increasing the usable open space by 15m2 per unit only for units with tandem
parking spaces, 17 to 18 units can be achieved on a one acre parcel.
The following can be inferred from scenario 2E above:
A combination of the three variables i.e. driveway apron requirement for units with tandem
parking spaces; proportionate increase in the usable open space for units with tandem
parking spaces and permitting up to a maximum of 70% of the total number of units to have
tandem parking spaces; the density is not significantly compromised, yet a more
architecturally attractive development may be achieved.
Note that setback variances have not been shown.
It should be noted that with setback variances the unit yields are very similar to those achieved
under the current bylaw (refer to Appendix K). It is clear from Appendix K that when setback
variances are granted for scenario 2E, three more units can be achieved, increasing the unit count to
20 (instead of 17 units in scenario 2E above).
E) PREFERRED APPROACH:
Based on the above analysis it is clear that limiting the amount of tandem parking, and offsetting it
with other requirements results in a development that can achieve densities similar to the current
bylaw (with variances) and at the same time address the on-site congestion, form, streetscape, and
parking concerns.
Recognizing that each site is different and that the Development Community prefers flexibility, it is
recommended that staff prepare amending bylaws that will limit the amount of tandem parking as
stated below:
A maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces may be permitted with the following required
for each unit having tandem parking spaces, except in the Town Centre Area:
Block size not to exceed six attached units;
Driveway apron length of 5.5 metres; and
Usable open space of 65 m2 for each three bedroom or bigger units and 50m2 for each two
bedroom or smaller units.
Note that 100% tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone would still be
permitted in the Town Centre Area, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing
form.
It is important to note that setback variances would be considered on a site specific basis and are
subject to Council approval.
Should Council wish to explore the above noted changes to the bylaws, the following resolution
would provide staff with direction to prepare the required amending bylaws:
That Council direct staff to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1(Townhouse Residential
District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, as described in Section E of the
“Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper” dated May 27, 2013.
9
CONCLUSION:
Tandem parking has been permitted in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and a few
others single family zones as mentioned in this report. For most of the single family zones that
permit tandem parking, it has not been a concern due to wider road standards and longer driveway
apron lengths. The biggest impact is seen in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone that is
serviced by a 6.0 metre wide strata road and there is no requirement for a driveway apron. It is
important to maintain the primary intention of the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, which
is to provide for a low-density multi-family housing option.
A review of other jurisdictions shows that there are similar concerns about developments with 100%
units that have a tandem parking arrangement on site. There needs to be a functional balance of
both; tandem and double garage units, to achieve a financially feasible, safe and good quality
development. The recommended option (scenario 2E) has been discussed in section E of the report.
“original signed by Rasika Acharya”
____________________________________________________
Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP
Planner
“original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM, Public Works & Development Services
“original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Regional review- matrix showing tandem regulations in other jurisdictions;
Appendix B – Scenario Comparison Chart
Appendix C – Scenario 2A
Appendix D – Scenario 2B
Appendix E – Scenario 2C
Appendix F – Scenario 2D
Appendix G – Scenario 3A
Appendix H – Scenario 3B
Appendix I – Scenario 3C
Appendix J – Scenario 3D
Appendix K – Scenario 2F
Regional Overview- tandem parking regulations in various jurisdictionsMUNICIPALITY TANDEM PARKING LOT COVERAGE DENSITYRESIDENT PARKING RATIO VISITOR PARKING REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACEPERMITTEDPER UNIT GROSS FLOOR AREAPitt Meadows yes40% 0.55 FSR1.75 per unit0.220% of the total gross floor areaPort Coquitlam No (project basis)1 unit/220 m2 of lot area1.5 -2BR unit/2.0-3BR unit0.2CoquitlamNo (project basis)45% 0.9 FSR1.0 -studio unit/ 1.5- 2BR unit0.237m2 per unit plus 5m2 per unit amenity areaTownship of Langley yes30% 1 unit/ 335 m2 of lot area (or 30 UPNH) 2.0 per unit (2.5/unit if tandem)0.246m2-2BR, 28 m2-2BR, 19m2-1BR, 9m2-studioBurnabyNo (project basis)40% 1 unit/ 334.4 m2 of lot area1.75 per unit (incl 0.25 for visitor)0.2546m2 per unitDeltayesN/A 40 PPNH (min fl areas of units defined) 2.0 per unit0.250m2-2BR, 27.5 m2-2BR, 19m2-1BR & studioAbbotsfordyes40% 60 UPNH2.0 per unit (incl 20% visitor)20% of residential parking 15m2 per unit (excluding balconies)Missionyes (up to 50%)50% 52 UPNH and 0.6 FSR2.0 per unit0.250 m2 per unit=outdoorRichmondyes40% 0.6 FSR (0.1 additional for Ame- space) 2.0 per unit0.20.1 FSR for amenity spaceSurreyyes45% 0.6 FSR and 37 UPNH 2.0 per unit (reduced by 20% in the0.2 (reduced by 20% in outdoor=3.0 m2 per unitSurrey City Centre area)the Surrey City Centre area) indoor-3.0 m2 per unitNote: It is important to note that some jurisdictions such as Richmond, Surrey, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Mission and Abbotsford have moret han one townhouse zones to allow for varyingdensity and housing form within various geographical locations within their jurisdictions. Based on the location, the parking ratios may vary for each of these zones.APPENDIX A
SCENARIO COMPARISON CHART- APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
Usable Open
Space
ROAD6m10m
20D 19C 18C 16C
15D
14C
13D
9C
10D
11C
12D
7C
8C
5A4B3B2B1B
6B
17C
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 2A - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:579 m2 = 6,236 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 70 %Driveway Area:173 m2 = 1,860 sq ft
% of double stall to units 30 %Site Coverage:1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,972 m2 750 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage:14.3 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:4.3 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:18.6 %
Building Site Coverage:28.3 %40.0 %
7.5.Scenario 2A - 70% tandem units as the RM-1 zone permits today
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:1.0m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture!Page 12 of 34
APPENDIX C
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:579 m2 = 6,236 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 70 %Driveway Area:173 m2 = 1,860 sq ft
% of double stall to units 30 %Site Coverage:1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,972 m2 850 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 200 m2 200 m2 Road Site Coverage:14.3 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:4.3 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:18.6 %
Building Site Coverage:28.3 %40.0 %
Usable Open
Space
ROAD6m10m
20D 19C 18C 16C
15D
14C
13D
9C
10D
11C
12D
7C
8C
5A4B3B2B1B
6B
17C
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 2B - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
7.6.Scenario 2B - 70% tandem units with increased UOS & CAA
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:50 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 35 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:10 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:1.0m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture!Page 13 of 34
APPENDIX D
Usable Open
Space
ROAD6m10m
20D 19C 18C 16C
15D
14D
13D
9C
10C
11C
12C
7C
8C
5A4B3B2B1B
6B
17D
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 2C - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:674 m2 = 7,250 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 70 %Driveway Area:165 m2 = 1,777 sq ft
% of double stall to units 30 %Site Coverage:1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,893 m2 750 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage:16.6 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.5 10 stalls 10 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:4.1 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:20.7 %
Building Site Coverage:28.3 %40.0 %
7.7.Scenario 2C - 70% tandem units with increased visitor parking ratio
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.5 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:1.0m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture!Page 14 of 34
APPENDIX E
Usable Open
Space
12C
11C
5C 6C
7C
8C
9C
10C
3D2D1D
6mROAD17m4D
14C
13C18B17B16B15B19BFront Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 2D - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 19 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 9 Units GFA 2,183 m2 = 23,500 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:554 m2 = 5,967 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 74 %Driveway Area:416 m2 = 4,482 sq ft
% of double stall to units 26 %Site Coverage:1,083 m2 = 11,654 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,699 m2 705 m2 Unit / Ha:46.95
Common Activity Area 95 m2 95 m2 Road Site Coverage:13.7 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 5 stalls 3.8 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:10.3 %
FSR:0.539 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:24.0 %
Building Site Coverage:26.8 %40.0 %
7.8.Scenario 2D - 70% tandem units with increased apron length
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:5.5m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture!Page 15 of 34
APPENDIX F
ROAD6m10m
Usable Open
Space
3B2B1B
11A
4B 5B
12A13A
14A
15A16D17D18D19D
7C
6C
8C
9C
10C20D
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 3A - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:581 m2 = 6,253 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 50 %Driveway Area:188 m2 = 2,019 sq ft
% of double stall to units 50 %Site Coverage:1,125 m2 = 12,110 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,993 m2 750 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage:14.4 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:4.6 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:19.0 %
Building Site Coverage:27.8 %40.0 %
7.13.Scenario 3A - 50% tandem units as the RM-1 zone permits today
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:1.0m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture!Page 20 of 34
APPENDIX G
ROAD6m10m
Usable Open
Space
3B2B1B
11A
4B 5B
12A13A
14A
15A16D17D18D19D
7C
6C
8C
9C
10C20D
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 3B - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:581 m2 = 6,253 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 50 %Driveway Area:188 m2 = 2,019 sq ft
% of double stall to units 50 %Site Coverage:1,125 m2 = 12,110 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,993 m2 850 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 200 m2 200 m2 Road Site Coverage:14.4 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:4.6 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:19.0 %
Building Site Coverage:27.8 %40.0 %
7.14.Scenario 3B - 50% tandem units with increased UOS & CAA
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:50 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 35 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:10 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:1.0m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture!Page 21 of 34
APPENDIX H
ROAD6m10m
Usable Open
Space
3B2B1B
11A
4B 5B
12A13A
14A
15A16D17D18D19D
7C
6C
8C
9C
10C20D
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 3C - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:718 m2 = 7,731 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 50 %Driveway Area:205 m2 = 2,205 sq ft
% of double stall to units 50 %Site Coverage:1,125 m2 = 12,110 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,819 m2 750 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage:17.7 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.5 10 stalls 10 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:5.1 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:22.8 %
Building Site Coverage:27.8 %40.0 %
7.15.Scenario 3C - 50% tandem units with increased visitor parking ratio
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.5 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:1.0m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture!Page 22 of 34
APPENDIX I
Usable Open
Space
3B2B1B 4B
13D14D15D16D17D 12C 11C 10C 9C 8A
7A6A5A
ROAD6m17m
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 3D - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 17 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 9 Units GFA 1,997 m2 = 21,500 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 8 Units Road Area:438 m2 = 4,713 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 53 %Driveway Area:437 m2 = 4,707 sq ft
% of double stall to units 47 %Site Coverage:969 m2 = 10,427 sq ft
Usable Open Space 2,016 m2 645 m2 Unit / Ha:42.008
Common Activity Area 85 m2 85 m2 Road Site Coverage:10.8 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 3.4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:10.8 %
FSR:0.494 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:21.6 %
Building Site Coverage:23.9 %40.0 %
7.16.Scenario 3D - 50% tandem units with increased apron length
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:5.5m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture!Page 23 of 34
APPENDIX J
ROAD
Usable Open
Space
17m6m11D
17A
2B1B
19B
18B
13D
10C9C8C
12D
7C6C
15D 14D
5C
20B
4C3C
16CFront Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
6m4.5m
6m6m75m
53.96mScenario 2F - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:635 m2 = 6,831 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 70 %Driveway Area:331 m2 = 3,560 sq ft
% of double stall to units 30 %Site Coverage:1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,703 m2 1150 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage:15.7 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:8.2 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:23.9 %
Building Site Coverage:28.3 %40.0 %
7.11.Scenario 2F - 70% tandem units with variances
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:65 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 50 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit Visitor parking complies with setbacks
5)Driveway Apron:5.5m unit driveway, tandem garage only
6)Variances:Front Yard Setback 4.5m, all other setbacks 6.0m
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture!Page 18 of 34
APPENDIX K