U/B-2
CITY OF VANCOUVER
M E M O R A N D U M
From: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date: July 18, 1995
Refer File: 5553
To: VANCOUVER CITY COUNCIL
Subject: BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(AMENDMENTS TO PARKING AND BUILDING BY-LAWS)
еееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееее
Council at its meeting on May 16, 1995, considered a Policy Report dated May 3, 1995,
concerning bicycle parking requirements.
At that time the report was referred to a Public Information Meeting on July 11, 1995,
to provide an opportunity for the public to address Council concerning the proposed
amendments to the Parking and Building By-laws. Final decision on the proposed
amendments was intended to be made on July 18, 1995; however Council at that time
deferred consideration to July 25, 1995.
The following items are before Council for consideration:
- U/B-2 Policy Report dated May 3, 1995, from the General Manager of
Engineering Services;
- U/B-2(i) Minutes of the Public Information Meeting of July 11, 1995;
- U/B-2(ii) Memorandum dated July 12, 1995, from the General Manager of
Engineering Services outlining bicycle parking options.
CITY CLERK
DSalmon:as
CITY OF VANCOUVER
M E M O R A N D U M
From: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date: July 4, 1995
Refer File: 3062
To: VANCOUVER CITY COUNCIL
Subject: BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
(AMENDMENTS TO PARKING AND BUILDING BY-LAWS)
еееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееее
The Bicycle Advisory Committee at its meeting on June 21, 1995, when
considering bicycle parking amendments to the Parking and Building By-laws
made particular reference to items 1-10 and a-d contained on pages 2-4 of the
Policy Report dated May 3, 1995, regarding this matter.
The Committee noted many facilities that work are already at capacity with
line-ups for showers. Also, the recommended amendments would decrease the
standard from 1.5 to 1.25 bicycle parking spaces for typical market units, as
well as not requiring showers in offices of less than 150 employees. It was
further noted removing the need for fitting bicycle compounds with reinforcing
bars was not a major cost saving item and provided less security for bicycles
as well, especially if attendants leave for lunch, etc., or cyclists work
late.
The Committee agreed items 1, 6 and 8 in the above noted report do not address
security, capacity or personal safety issues adequately and are not acceptable
options, especially taking into consideration CityPlan and Safer City Task
Force recommendations.
...2/After lengthy discussion, the Committee
RESOLVED
THAT the Bicycle Advisory Committee supports the proposed
amendments to the Parking and Building By-laws as contained in the
Policy Report dated May 3, 1995, regarding bicycle parking
requirements, with the exception of:
Amount of bicycle parking spaces (Class A) - The standards
for non-residential uses can be reduced by approximately
one-third from those proposed at Public Hearing, reflecting
a mode share of about 2.5 to 3% rather tan 3 to 4%.
Residential standards also can be reduced, reflecting that
some residents (e.g. those with very expensive bikes) could
rely on in-suite storage regardless of the facilities
provided. For typical market units, the modified standard
of 1.25 bicycle spaces per unit is suggested, compared with
1.5 spaces per unit standard presented at the Public Hearing
and in effect in the current guidelines under which several
buildings have been approved. (Item 1)
Exception of reinforcing bar requirement - The regulation
could be revised to remove the need for fitting bicycle
compounds with reinforcing bars provided that the compound
were within direct sight of a parking attendant. The
attendant would have to be present regularly at least on
weekdays during normal office hours. Should employment of a
parking attendant be discontinued, then the owner would be
obligated to add reinforcing bars. (Item 6)
Threshold for requiring showers - The standard can be
revised such that shower and change room requirements were
not triggered until a minimum of six (versus four in the by-
law proposed at the Public Hearing) Class A bicycle spaces
were required. This means that a typical office of less
than 150 employees would not be required to provide showers,
etc. While this would reduce costs for many mid-sized
developments, it also means that a number of cyclists would
not be provided for in such projects. (*Item 8)
(*NOTE FROM CLERK: Attached is a letter dated July 2, 1995, from
the Chair of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, providing additional
information on this item.)
...3/AND FURTHER THAT additional study be done on the following:
Maximum number of bicycles per enclosed parking area - The
standard can be revised to permit up to 40, rather than 20,
bikes to be parked within a locked enclosure. Bicycle rooms
and compounds up to the larger size were observed by staff
and reported to be secure. (Item 2)
Location of bicycle parking - The regulation can be revised
to permit bicycle parking to be more than one level below
grade provided that an elevator were supplied offering
convenient access to the outside for cyclists. This would
allow builders to make better use of floor space and reduce
costs, while slightly inconveniencing cyclists and other
building occupants. (Item 3)
Location of bicycle lockers - the regulation can be revised
to permit placement of bicycle lockers at the head of a car
parking stall. The requirement of an adequate access aisle
would, of course remain. This may assist, for example, in
cases where a standard-sized car stall can be converted to a
combination small car stall and bicycle space. (Item 4)
"John Whistler"
John Whistler, Chair
Bicycle Advisory Committee
DSalmon:as
Attachment.