The URL can be used to link to this page

REVIEW COMMENTS 7.B.I BOYNTON BEACH MALL NOPC #5 (MPMD 05-007) MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM NO. PZ OS-029 FROM: Chair and Members Planning and Development Board Michael Rump(lQe/ Planning and Zoning Director Ed Breese ~ Principal Planner TO: THROUGH: DATE: February 7, 200S Boynton Beach Mall - DRIA OS-002/MPMD OS-007 NOPC #S SUBJECT: NATURE OF REQUEST Thomas Marsicano, Vice President of URS Corporation Southern, Inc., agent for Simon Property Group, Inc., property owner, has submitted a notice of proposed change (NOPC) to the previously approved development order for the Boynton Beach Mall. The development order, approved in Palm Beach County by resolution R-74-343 on May 7, 1974, was last amended on July 7, 1998 by resolution R98-123. The proposed amendment to the DRI provides for the conversion of 169,S10 existing leasable square feet of retail space to a 79,SOO square foot multi-screen movie theater with 3,6S0 seats. Essentially, the existing 169,S10 square foot Macy's department store would be demolished with 17,S28 square foot of new retail space being constructed at the former Macy's mall entrance, and a 79,SOO square foot, 3,6S0 seat, multi-screen movie theater constructed adjacent to the new retail space. The Boynton Beach Mall is located approximately 900 feet west of the intersection of Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map). The majority of the mall property is zoned C-3, Community Commercial; however the northwest corner is zoned Recreation with an overlay requiring preservation. BACKGROUND An amendment to a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) is first and foremost governed by Florida Statutes Chapter 380.06 (19) - Substantial Deviations. The applicant has submitted a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) in accordance with the statutory requirements. The NOPC is reviewed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and the City. The DCA and the TCRPC are reviewing the proposed NOPC and will provide comments following the procedures outlined in Chapter 380.06 (19). The City's Land Development Regulations Chapter 1.S, Sec. 4.3A requires a preliminary review by the Planning and Development Board of an amendment to a DRI. Chapter 380.06 F.S. requires that the local governing body hold a public hearing to review and approve the NOPC. Boynton Beach Mall - DRIA t. J02/MPMD 05-007 Memorandum No. PZ 05-029 The City Commission is required to determine whether the proposed change to the Boynton Beach Mall DRI is or is not a substantial deviation as defined in Chapter 380.06 (19). If it is determined that the requested change is a substantial deviation then further review will be required pursuant to the statutory requirements. If the City Commission determines that the proposed change is not a substantial deviation then they may take action to approve or deny the requested change. The original DRI Development Order adopted a Master Plan for the Boynton Beach Mall. The proposed Amendment #5 reduces the amount of leasable retail space through the removal of Macy's department store and the addition of new retail space and Movie Theater. Therefore the review of the DRI amendment also constitutes a review of the change to the Master Plan for the Mall. In addition to the state statutes, staff has reviewed the Master Plan in accordance with Land Development Regulations Chapter 3, Master Plan Approval. First review comments were generated and the Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed the Master Plan change on January 31,2005. ANAL YSIS Notice of Proposed Chanae (NOPC) - Substantial Deviation The criteria for determining if a proposed change to a DRI is a substantial deviation are outlined in Chapter 380.06 (19). In reviewing the statute section, staff determined that none of the criteria apply to the proposed change for the Boynton Beach Mall. As part of the NOPC application the applicant is to complete a "Substantial Deviation Determination Chart". The applicant has provided an updated chart. Amendment #5 involves the addition of the 3,650 seat multi-screen movie theater under the heading of "Attraction/Recreation", while reducing the gross leasable square footage under the heading of "Wholesale, Retail, and Service". The traffic consultant for the applicant, URS Corporation, Inc., concludes that the simultaneous increases and decreases in allowable intensities associated with NOPC #5 results in reductions in the number of A.M. Peak Hour trips by 59 and P.M. Peak Hour trips by 31. However, the proposed daily trips are projected to increase from the vested 34,968 to 36,005 trips daily, an increase of 1,037 total trips. As of the release of this staff report, the City has not received a final response from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering regarding the proposal's compliance with the Traffic Performance Standards. Conclusion The proposed changes delineated in Amendment #5 are determined not to be a substantial deviation per Chapter 380.06 (19) of the Florida Statutes. The applicant has provided the Substantial Deviation Table and a traffic study, to provide clear and convincing evidence of a non-substantial deviation finding. This determination is subject to satisfying the condition of approval regarding compliance with Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards. Master Plan Modification The proposal submitted for the NOPC modifies the approved Master Plan for the Boynton Beach Mall DR!. There is only one (1) change proposed in the amendment to the DRI Master Plan. The request is for the conversion of 169,510 existing leasable square feet of retail space 2 Boynton Beach Mall - DRIA Cr. .I02/MPMD 05-007 Memorandum No. PZ 05-029 to a 79,500 square foot multi-screen movie theater with 3,650 seats and the addition of 17,528 square feet of new retail space, both in the vicinity of the former Macy's mall entrance. As previously noted, the traffic consultant for the applicant, URS Corporation, Inc., concludes that the simultaneous increases and decreases in allowable intensities associated with NOPC #5 results in reductions in the number of A.M. Peak Hour trips by 59 and P.M. Peak Hour trips by 31. However, the proposed daily trips are projected to increase from the vested 34,968 to 36,005 trips daily, an increase of 1,037 total trips. The Boynton Beach Mall DRI has been amended 4 times over the years, which is not unusual for a DRI of this type. The Florida Statute governing the DRI process, Chapter 380.06(19), provides for and anticipates amendments stating "There are a variety of reasons why a developer may wish to propose changes to an approved development of regional impact, including changed market conditions". The proposed change to the Master Plan was analyzed from two perspectives. The first is the potential for creating additional regional or local impacts. The second is the consistency and compatibility of the proposed changes with the regulations and policies adopted by the City through the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations and other applicable studies such as the Visions 20/20 plan. Impacts Reqional A development has gone through the DRI process because the projected impacts are considered regional in nature. Any change to that development must be analyzed to determine if the changes proposed create additional impacts above and beyond what was originally identified and mitigated. In the case of the Boynton Beach Mall DRI the major issue is whether there will be an increase in traffic resulting from the interchanging of retail space for a multi- screen theater. A cursory review of the traffic study was conducted by staff during the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process. Additionally, the applicant has transmitted the traffic study to the Palm Beach County Traffic Division for their customary review and approval. Based on the TRC review of the Master Plan, including the traffic study, no additional regional impacts are evident. The traffic consultant for the applicant, URS Corporation, Inc., concludes that the simultaneous increases and decreases in allowable intensities associated with NOPC #5 results in reductions in the number of A.M. Peak Hour trips by 59 and P.M. Peak Hour trips by 31. However, the proposed daily trips are projected to increase from the vested 34,968 to 36,005 trips daily, an increase of 1,037 total trips. With the information presented and available at this time, the proposed reduction in the number of trips associated with the mall during the times of highest traffic volume (morning and evening rush hours) results in a reduced impact associated with this amendment to the DRI. The increase in the average daily trips associated with the Mall (1,037 trips) produces less than a 3% increase over a 24-hour period. Additionally, based upon the most recent daily traffic counts (2003) in the vicinity of the Mall on Old Boynton Road (22,301) and Congress Avenue (45,068), the additional 1 ,037 trips represent increases of 0.5% and 0.2% respectively. As of the release of this staff report, the City has not received a final response from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering regarding the proposal's compliance with the Traffic Performance Standards. 3 Boynton Beach Mall - DRIA <A. .J02/MPMD 05-007 Memorandum No. PZ 05-029 The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) limit their reviews of the amendment to regional issues. Staff has not yet received a formal written response from DCA, however TCRPC has responded that the proposed changes will not create additional regional impacts, they would just like certain contradictions regarding square footage cleaned up prior to City adoption of the development order. Since Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering raised the same issue of confusing/contradictory language regarding the resulting building square footages, the applicant has developed substitute language for review by each entity. Local The focus of the substantial deviation determination is regional impacts. The development order for the DRI is a local order and the approval of any requested change is within the jurisdiction of the City. As such, the City's main focus is local issues and impacts. There were no significant local issues identified by the TRC members at this time. The Utilities Department has indicated that any unforeseen impacts to the water and sewer systems and related levels of service will be borne by the developer. The Traffic Impact Analysis submitted with the request for amendment indicates that there will be a minimal increase in total daily trips (1,037), while at the same time the proposed amendment results in reductions in the number of A.M. Peak Hour trips by 59 and P.M. Peak Hour trips by 31. Any improvements in turning movements and signalization, if deemed necessary, can be evaluated and addressed at the Technical Site Plan stage. Drainage will also be reviewed in detail as part of the Technical Site Plan approvals, and must satisfy all requirements of the City and local drainage permitting authorities. Consistency and Compatibility with City Policies The change proposed by the applicant does not present any issues that are contrary to City policies. Conclusion As indicated herein, the impacts of the proposed DRI amendment on the utility systems, roadways and public facilities are either within the existing capacities or additional provisions will be required of the developer to ensure that levels of service standards are not compromised. The proposed amendment is consistent with City policies and appears compatible with surrounding land uses. RECOMMENDATIONS Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 380.06(19) Substantial Deviations, the applicant has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed change is not a substantial deviation requiring additional development of regional impact review. Therefore, staff recommends approval of DRIA 05-002 subject to the Conditions of Approval attached in Exhibit "C". Regarding the proposed modifications to the Boynton Beach Mall Master Plan, staff recommends approval of request for Master Plan Modification to allow for the conversion of 169,510 existing leasable square feet of retail space to a 79,500 square foot multi-screen movie theater with 3,650 seats, through the elimination of the existing 169,510 square foot Macy's 4 Boynton Beach Mall - DRIA 4. J02/MPMD 05-007 Memorandum No. PZ 05-029 department store, addition of 17,528 square feet of new retail space and addition of the multi- screen movie theater, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached in Exhibit "C". S:IPLANNINGISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSIBB Mall 2005 AMEND #5+ MPMDlDRIA 05-0021STAFF REPORT #5.DOC 5 B',lNTON BEACH MAb::. LOCATION MAP ~ LVi ~ I~'~~~ ~ 2J ~ ~ ~7( ::I GJjTO III ~ 14 I I I III 111 I III I II Jjl I I I 1\ II I I I II ..Jill I I I I I III J -Ii! ~ I' I II 11l1-ill I I IU.l_, II I U -, I I~ I I I II L1 Ll I I BOYNTON C.16 MAL U I I II 1\ I II I I I I 1\ II []J111111J.J I--- OJ I Kl'h L't I "Ie- e- rn~ i~1- ~= t- []JrIIIl_.I,.I,.I,L;1 i r- I I e- OJ~LU-, Ill: : HEE~ L-l-JIII I : I I I II II : I I r 11 fliT -LL ~ I- ~ I I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 'I ~ ~ ~ 'l/~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ! L-~ :z: u r--- ! r-----, ~ I ~ _liiiID arrrn ill I1IUr1 E V LOM~ ;:arrmrnrnrrn J ~ arrm~~ C L-JP" ~rnrrnmmill1ffi I ! I --:J h cQ=J ~OYNTO~ BEACUU .. \In I illlllllll II1I I I I 1,100 550 ~ ho ~ ,~ C :J [ .r- '--- L c:~ ~I r 8 l l ~ I II o Exhibit A '-- ( ,-J t ~ ; rr:1:nl.o:l ! T ILl ~n~ - ~~ .-- I r \ II I J ~ 1,100 Feet N ^ D\JDYNTlJ"'It,t,CH DP29\DVG\SITE-200-C-3.JNCi 01/28/05 10.32 EXHIBIT B 00,,",0:::0 iD~~sa:::o ~ ~ ~ "'O:E:'tIClU: 0:::0 CI ~ Z O~(..of~'" ~ ~ ~~ I -< CI CI g 51~lnCO I ~ CI c~ ~ CI ~d ~ :n g ~"'N1;~ 0 0 fl~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i~~~ ~ ~lf?:~ . ~ZGl"" ~ ~ ::-vo~lrio ~r. ~ " co- o ~ /';~ ~\1~~ ~ r~~l~" ..- " e ~ > " In 0 ~~~~ ,~ ~ ~-< ~~-"g~ .. .. > ~ gj > ! ~ ~ In 1n0 ~,~~ a a ~~~ a~ 1;b ~ a iii$ Gl ~ Z >: 0 .... 8 . :::oCD~~~ ~~ E 51 "'~ .O~O2 81n" In ~ " ~ 0 "'In ~goz~ ~--Pi\? ~ .. In 0 0.. ~ ~g~a" sf: g " ~ (!; ~ ~ .. ../'; . !"1J;;QJ-v :~;:li5 ~ 0 Gl Gl ~ Jl ~ EGl ~~,=~a 0 >oz!~ 0", ~ -< " a ~ ;" In Gl Gl ~~ ... " ,.,~~ i ~ :!z/';S1'l l'lP 0 " t g o " .. ~~;g. 0 ~~8 0 . ;:l 0 > ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 6'"~~~ c: ...'" 0'1 g ill :::oO(ll ~ ~ Gl 0 ~ 0 a-;".I-vOz ,,' '" o ~Z.o . n " c: ~- 0 ~ :I:::J: . -> 0 > ~ ill 0 ..~~~~ '" ~~~~;1 3 ~ co ~8 ~ S " ~ c: Z Cl "I ~~6~ 0 ill z " ~ -~ ~ ~g Z o~ 0 00 . t - ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~II~ .- r ~I'" "1-----'" '" OJ oggS .'" .. - '" " 1-" co " ~ ~fJ_g~~~ '" g " - " " "" .. " In 6~~z .. ~ ~ g; ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~Eg~~~ ~ -z '" ! 8~ ~~~~ " '" ... S '" .. Gl ~ . III . , ~ 1;:!J-to Gl '" !i1 ~a.=~ ~ . ~ .. ... ~ ~~on " ~"r ..... " S ~ s ~ ;li " J I l I BOYNTON BEACH MALL S I I I ~ ~ I- ~ 801 NORTH CONGRESS AVENUE SIMON URS S!!I~ BOYNTON BEACH, Fl33426 ~ ! ! ! N_CilyC- URS CaopomIon Soulhom -I . IlS W. W......... Sow 7ISOW"Coumoy~~ o , MASTER PlAN 1adioaapoIlo,1N46204 i T-. Florld03380' (813) 288-1711 I a/JtIS . ....-1IIt 1~1 .. 317.636.1600 ~_No.OOOOOOO2 "'- - UM .. IG. 1200453&.00000 ... " EXHIBIT "e" Conditions of Approval Project name: Boynton Beach Mall File number: MPMD 05-007 Reference: 2nd review plans identified as a Master Plan Modification with a January 24,2005 Planning & Zoning d ki ate stamp mar ng. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- General Comments: None PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic Comments: None UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (19)(e) 5.a. and (19)(e) 5.c. the application for a Conditions of Approval 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT proposed change is presumed to be a substantial deviation. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. 2. Provide notice of concurrency (Traffic Performance Standards Review) from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering. ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Beach Mall\MPMD 05-007\COA.doc "" 1st REVIEW COMMENTS Master Plan Modification Project name: Boynton Beach Mall File number: MPMD 05-007 Reference: 1 streview plans identified as a Master Plan Modification with a January 4,2005 Planning and Zoning Department date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS - General Comments: NONE PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic Comments: NONE ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: NONE UTILITIES Comments: NONE FIRE Comments: NONE POLICE Comments: NONE BUILDING DIVISION Comments: NONE PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: NONE FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST Comments: NONE PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (19)(e) 5.a. and (19)(e) 5.c. the application for a proposed change is presumed to be a substantial deviation. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. 1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS 01/31/05 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 2. Provide notice of concurrency (Traffic Performance Standards Review) from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering. 3. The NOPC form and The Substantial Deviation Determination Chart both indicate the number of seats of the Muvico Theater to be 3,650, while the Traffic Study indicates the number of seats to be 3,800. Please resolve and indicate which number is correct. 4. Our files indicate the last DRI Annual Report for the Boynton Beach Mall to be July of 2000. Please submit an updated Report. 5. The "Revised Master Plan" (Exhibit "C") should be updated to reflect earlier staff comments. You have sent us the necessary full-size versions of the Master Plan that satisfied our previous comments. A reduced version of this drawing should be utilized as Exhibit "C". Additionally, at time of the TRC meeting, please provide two (2) 8.5" x 11" and two (2) 11" x 17" drawings for the files, plus a disk or electronic version for power point presentation purposes. MWR/sc S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Beach Mall\MPMD 05-007\1ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc -~~ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT BUILDING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 05-005 TO: Ed Breese Principal Planner FROM: Timothy K. Large ~) TRC Member/Build~ DATE: January 6, 2005 SUBJECT: Project - Boynton Beach Mall File No. - MPMD 05-007 The Building Division has no issues with this above noted master plan modification. tkl:bf S:\Development\Building\ TRC\ TRC 2005\Boynton Beach Mall Page 1 of 1 / mo{?t} J:~1:~,,<). /"0 ~J ';) , DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 05-004 FROM: Ed Breese, Principal Planner, Planning and Zoning Laurinda Logan, P.E., Senior Engineer ~ ,'- January 11, 2005 J Review Comments " Master Plan Modification - 1 st Review Boynton Beach Mall File No. MPMD 05-007 TO: DATE: RE: The above referenced Site Plans, received on January 4, 2005, was reviewed for Public Works, Engineering, and Utilities against the requirements outlined in the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. Following are our comments with the appropriate Code and land Development Regulations (lOR) referenced. PUBLIC WORKS - GENERAL No comments at this time. PUBLIC WORKS - TRAFFIC 1. Provide a notice of concurrency (Traffic Performance Standards Review) from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering. ENGINEERING No comments at this time. UTILITIES No comments at this time. lUck Cc: Jeffrey R. Livergood, P.E., Director, Public Works (via e-mail) Peter V. Mazzella, Deputy Utility Director, Utilities H. David Kelley, Jr., P.E./ P.S.M., City Engineer, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail) Glenda Hall, Maintenance Supervisor, Public Works/Forestry & Grounds Division Larry Quinn, Solid Waste Manager, Public Works/Solid Waste Kenneth Hall, Engineering Plans Analyst, Public Works/Engineering (via e-mail) File S:\Engineering\Kribs\Boynton Beach Mall, Master Plan Mod. 1st Review.doc Coale, Sherie / From: Sent: To: Subject: Project: Boynton Beach Mall File No: MPMD 05-007 Rivers, Jody Tuesday, January 04, 2005 12:54 PM Breese, Ed; Coale, Sherie Site Plan Review - Boynton Beach Mall Recreation and Parks has no comments. J ody Rivers 1 TRC Memorandum Page 1 of 1/ Coale, Sherie From: Hallahan, Kevin Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11 :35 AM To: Breese, Ed Cc: Coale, Sherie Subject: Boynton Beach Mall / MPMD 05-007 Planning Memorandum: Forester / Environmentalist To: Ed Breese, Principal Planner From: Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester / Environmentalist Subject: Boynton Beach Mall Master Plan Modification-l st Review MPMD 05-007 (Macy's to Muvico) Date: January 11, 2005 I have no comments on the Master Plan Modification request. Kjh File 1/11/2005 ~/ CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Breese, Principal Planner DATE: January 13, 2005 FILE: MPMD 05-007 FROM: Off. John Huntington Police Department CPTED Practitioner SUBJECT: Boynton Beach Mall REFERENCES: Site Plan ENCLOSURES: I have viewed the above building plans and have the following comments: No Comment. ~ PLANNING AND ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: Sherie Coale, Senior Office Assistant FROM: Ed Breese, Principal Planner DATE: January 12, 2005 SUBJECT: Boynton Beach Mall NOPC # 5 (DRIA 05-002/ MPMD 05-007) Please include the following comments in the TRC reVIew of the above-mentioned proj ect: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (19)(e) 5.a. and (19)(e) S.c. the application for a proposed change is presumed to be a substantial deviation. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. 2. Provide notice of concurrency (Traffic Performance Standards Review) from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering. 3. The NOPC form and The Substantial Deviation Determination Chart both indicate the number of seats of the Muvico Theater to be 3,650, while the Traffic Study indicates the number of seats to be 3,800. Please resolve and indicate which number is correct. 4. Our files indicate the last DRI Annual Report for the Boynton Beach Mall to be July of2000. Please submit an updated Report. 5. The "Revised Master Plan" (Exhibit "C") should be updated to reflect earlier staff comments. You have sent us the necessary full-size versions of the Master Plan that satisfied our previous comments. A reduced version of this drawing should be utilized as Exhibit "C", Additionally, at time of the TRC meeting, please provide two (2) 8.5" x 11" and two (2) 11" x l7" drawings for the files, plus a disk or electronic version for power point presentation purposes. f\A A S rEr:< CopY 1 st REVIEW COMMENTS Master Plan Modification Project name: Boynton Beach Mall File number: MPMD 05-007 Reference: 1 streview plans identified as a Master Plan Modification with a January 4.2005 Planning and Zoning Department date stamp marking DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS - General Comments: NONE PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic Comments: NONE ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: NONE UTILITIES Comments: NONE FIRE Comments: NONE POLICE Comments: NONE BUILDING DIVISION Comments: NONE PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: NONE FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST Comments: NONE PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (19)(e) 5.a. and (19)(e) 5.c. the application for a / proposed change is presumed to be a substantial deviation. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. " , 1ST REVIEW COMMENTS 01/31/05 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 2. Provide notice of concurrency (Traffic Performance Standards Review) from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering. / 3. The NOPC form and The Substantial Deviation Determination Chart both indicate the number of seats of the Muvico Theater to be 3,650, while the / Traffic Study indicates the number of seats to be 3,800. Please resolve and indicate which number is correct. 4. Our files indicate the last DR! Annual Report for the Boynton Beach Mall to / be July of 2000. Please submit an updated Report. 5. The "Revised Master Plan" (Exhibit "C") should be updated to reflect earlier staff comments. You have sent us the necessary full-size versions of the Master Plan that satisfied our previous comments. A reduced version of / this drawing should be utilized as Exhibit "C". Additionally, at time of the TRC meeting, please provide two (2) 8.5" x 11" and two (2) 11" x 17" drawings for the files, plus a disk or electronic version for power point presentation purposes. MWR/sc S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Beach Mall\MPMD 05-007\1ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc '-'1 st REVIEW COMMENTS""' Master Plan Modification Project name: Boynton Beach Mall Pile number: MPMD 05-007 Reference: 1 st review plans identified as a Master Plan Modification with a January 4, 2005 Planning and Zoning Department date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS - General Comments: NONE PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic Comments: NONE ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: NONE UTILITIES Comments: NONE FIRE Comments: NONE POLICE Comments: NONE BUILDING DIVISION Comments: NONE PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: NONE FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST Comments: NONE PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: T:\Simon\Boynton Beach Mall\-Master Plan Modification 1st Review Comments 2-3-05.doc ~Master Plan Modification 1st Review Comments 2-3-05 02/03/05 2 DEPARTMENTS 1. Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (l9)(e) 5.a. and (l9)(e) S.C. the application for a proposed change IS presumed to be a substantial deviation. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The transportation analysis included with the DRI Notice of Proposed Change application demonstrates that the proposed development will result in fewer PM Peak Hour and daily trips than the previously approved project. Maximum Square footage has been reduced from 1,244,449 sf GLA to 1,154,439 sf GLA. The currently proposed site plan including the Muvico theater and minor retail addition likewise reduces existing square footage from 1,184,045 sf GLA to 1,111,563 sf GLA. Thus, both the current proposed site plan and maximum entitlement requested under the DRI amendment are below previously approved levels. Further, all new development occurs within areas previously developed as mall building or parking areas. As a result, no new or increased environmental impacts are anticipated. It is our opinion that these facts provided the required "clear and convincing evidence" and are sufficient to rebut the presumption of substantial deviation in accordance with statutory requirements. 2. Provide notice of concurrency (Traffic Performance Standards Review) from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering. The traffic study has been forwarded to Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering for their review in accordance with the County's Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. 3. The NOPC form and the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart both indicate the number of seats of the Muvico Theater to be 3,650, while the Traffic Study indicates the number of seats to be 3,800. Please resolve and indicate which number is correct. The correct number of seats for the Muvico theater is approximately 3650. The higher figure in the traffic study was not revised as the study was completed prior to the reduction in the number of seats. The difference in traffic based on the PM Peak Hour trip generation rate (0.08 trips per seat) is 12 trips. This would equate to differences of one or two trips on the various network links included in the study. 4. Our files indicate the last DRI Annual Report for the Boynton Beach Mall to be July of2000. Please submit an updated Report. A current DRI annual report has been provided under separate cover. 5. The "Revised master Plan" (Exhibit "C") should be updated to reflect earlier staff comments. You have sent us the necessary full-size versions of the Master Plan that satisfied our previous comments. A reduced version of INCLUDE REJbC 1 .'^ ~Master Plan Modification 1st Review Comments 2-3-05 02/03/05 3 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT this drawing should be utilized as Exhibit "C:. Additionally, at time of the TRC meeting, please provide two (2) 8.5" x 11" and two (2) 11" x IT' drawings for the files, plus a disk or electronic version for power point presentation purposes. The requested plans are included with this response to comments. MWR/sc S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Beach Mall\Boynton Beach-Muvico Theatre\1ST REVIEW COMMENTS.doc I)'BOYNTONBEACH DP29'DVG'SITE-200-C-3.Jl'o/G 01/29/05 1003<. OONO:::U ~~?n~~ ~ ~ ~ tJ)O=e'tlVl~ g~~~g G'" I 6 i ~ ~ % "''' ~ 6 0~~~~~ !'"~ ~ ~ ~ "Ie 6 6 ~ ~ ~ Qi I ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ '" H ~ ~ "'." 0 '" "s ~ ~ ~ ~ -,,0 V)Or"lO;U ~ ~ CJlF. ~~ ~: fTl'tlO"'TJfTl 'tl~~'tl '" :::S6Q~~o ~ '" ~8 .,;~~~'" ~ oi::' teO ~IDO~ a Xi:::<~:O:i '" '" '" x \: '" '" '" 0 ~~~~ " ~ "'0 g2-"Q~ ~b \: ~ \: '!i \: " ~ ~ '~ '" ~CXlO'" ~~~ g~ ~ -" ..." ~ i7l~ ~~~~~ IOz 0 0 ~'" ~ ~ > ~>: ~ ~ "'8 ~~p; '" '" ~~ OJ ~ 0 [;: "'''' ~goZ~ " ~ " ~Q~~~ '" ~ '" 0" a '" Om " ~ " z ~ !(J > ~ 0 '" " " "" _ f;;tD" ~~;l5 ~az~~ 0'" ~ ;:l a a '" ~~ l:i~;=~8 0", ~ ~ 0 5\'" " '" ",0 1'i '" m < fTl~~ 0 aZf)r"li.n o' ~ ~ '" ~ 0 do",J:"tI '" ~ ~ >- " -~ 5~~~~ ~~~!'" 0 0 ztDo08 ~CI 0 a ~ ~ 0 S e ~~~~~ 0 ."" a i!j g e ~ ~- ~~~~~ :J:' ;$jUl :J:J:~ . .'" ~ '" i!j 0 '" 0 'i .;'~~~CI \: => '" i CD ,"0 ~ 8 0 0 ,,0 ~i::~i7l e ~ ~ "I ~~~~ i!j z -'" " % o~ NOi::O 0 ... 00 . :J:fTlC ill~ II CD oS ~n~~ II il ... - ~ ~~ '" ~ <'" ogg8 ~I-----" 0> .. ~ ~~ '" ... ~ 1- ~ ~ o O)NOt.lOlN '" " ",0 ~ ~ ,,~ " $II ~!'JP!'J:"o '" -% ~~~z .. 0> * ~ "0 u.i.n ~ " U1"om...,Jo a ~ oe 0 '" '" "'0 .. ~ O~8Nt8 ~ F 0" -c"> .. "0 p~ :~~8 '" "1 g~.=~ ... ... rn~o~ ... " " '" .. ~ .. 0 ~o~; 0 ~ ~ ~~ 0 "''' 0 " J I :\~ I I m m , >< ~ _a g ::c 8~ ~ OJ ~ ~ ::j ~: () ~ ! I ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ BOYNTON BEACH MALL 801 NORTH CONGRESS AVENUE BOYNTON BEACH, Fl33426 URS SIMON URS CorporatIon Southern 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607 (813) 286-1711 Engineering Business No. 00000oo2 National City Center lIS W. Wuhington Stmct Inmanopo"" IN 46204 317.636.1600 MASTER PLAN . 8 22/3/Ot.l.'--lIlCj-31 1/31 ~ - - ~ TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM -OO"--"-'~-~--:-:::--::---;l-"" ... I'.~' ." . , ; I. 1;- I '.' o r;=~;UU5 , .. -.-.....--_f PLANNINC MID ZONING DU'T URS BOYNTON BEACH MALL - MUVICO ADDITION SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS FILE COpy I. INTRODUCTION The following analysis has been prepared to assess the potential number of parking spaces required to satisfy the parking requirements for the proposed Muvico theater at Boynton Beach Mall. In order to accommodate the theater addition the existing Macy's store with 169,000 sq. ft. Gross Leasable Area (GLA) will be demolished. The new 3,650 seat Muvico theater building with 79,000 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area (GFA) will be constructed on a portion of the former Macy' s site as shown in Exhibit 1. As a result of the demolition of the Macy's building the existing mall will be reduced in size from 1,184,045 sq. ft. GLA to 1,032,l25 sq. ft. GLA of retail space. The Muvico theater adds back 79,500 sq. ft. for a new total of l,lll,625 sq. ft.GLA. The net result is a reduction in the overall project size of 72,420 sq. ft. GLA The shared parking analysis presented herein examines the overall parking requirements for the redevelopment project based on the provisions of the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Code (Code) zoning chapter at Paragraph H., OFF-STREET PARKING. The specific provisions include sub-paragraphs H.I0., H.13., HI6.b.(2), and H.16.d.(2). Copies of the applicable LDC sections are included in Appendix A. Sub-paragraph H.13. sets forth the required methods to be used in this Shared Parking Analysis. The following analysis will examine shared parking based on two methodologies as provided for in the Code which states, in part, "Quantitative evidence shall include estimates of peak hour/peak season parking demand based on statistical data furnished by the Urban Land Institute or an equivalent traffic engineering or land planning and design organization. Both of the methodologies utilized herein are based on Urban Land Institute (ULl) data. II. METHODOLOGY The methodologies employed herein are based on the following ULl publications: · Shared Parking, 1983 . Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, 1999 1 URS A. Analysis One - Based on Shared Parking, 1983 This analysis is based on the four step "Methodology for Determining Shared Parking" as set forth in the referenced publication. A copy of the applicable section and related default value tables are included in Appendix B. For this analysis, the default value for retail peak hourly parking demand in Table Cl will be 4.5. This is based on the current ULI standard of 4.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. GLA as referenced in the 1999 ULI publication Parking Requirements For Shopping Centers. Applicable excerpts from this publication are also included in Appendix B. This is the only adjustment to the ULI methodology on default values utilized herein. The purpose of the analysis is to find the highest combined peak season/peak hour parking demand for the project based on the included uses; retail and cinema. In this case, because the retail component is substantially larger than the cinema use, the retail peak in December will control. The analysis procedure is then as follows: Step 1. Initial Project Review Parameters · Retail component is l,032,125 Sq. Ft. GLA · Theater (Cinema) component is 79,500 sq. ft. GFA with 3,650 seats Discussion: At this initial step the methodology assumes adjustments will be made for "captive market" and factored into the process. The only adjustment of this type will be for the 15% of theater patrons who are assumed to be already at the mall for other or additional purposes such as shopping, meals before or after a movie, or mall employees viewing a movie before or after work. This adjustment follows in Step 2. which also includes the seasonal adjustment. Step 2. Adjustment For Peak Parking Factor · Peak parking based on the data in Exhibits C 1 and C2 in Appendix B occur on a Saturday in December at 2:00 p.m. At that time the largest component of the project, 1,032,125 sq. ft. of retail, will be at 100% of peak demand. The only adjustment necessary for retail is the updated 4.5 value discussed above. · The cinema component will be at 50 % of peak demand in December. In addition, it is assumed that 15% of theater demand represents "captive market" demand as discussed above. Thus, the peak demand factor from Exhibit Cl, 0.30 spaces per seat, is adjusted as follows: . 0.30xO.50 x 0.85 = 0.1275 2 URS Where: 0.30 - peak demand factor for cinema 0.50 - peak season adjustment 0.85 - adjustment for 15% captive market · Adjusted Peak Parking Demand Ratios for a Saturday in December: RETAIL - 4.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. GLA CINEMA - 0.l275 spaces per seat Discussion: There is no adjustment for mode of transportation included in this analysis. Although the mall is served by PalmTran, all trips are assumed to be by private auto. Step 3. Analysis of Hourly Accumulation · RETAIL - 4.5 x1032.l25 = 4644.56 or 4,645 spaces · CINEMA - 0.1275 x 3,650 = 466 · Gross number of spaces: 4645 + 466 = 5111 spaces Discussion: This step is intended to determine the hourly accumulation of parking for each land use on a weekday or weekend. By inspection of the data in Appendix B, Exhibit 28, it can be determined that use of a Saturday in December at 2:00 PM will produce the highest combined peak parking demand. Step 4. Estimate of Shared Parking As indicated above, it has been determined when the highest combined peak demand will occur. Thus, a detailed hour by hour analysis is not required. The shared parking estimate for each land use is based on the following formula: Adjusted Peak Ratio X Floor Area X 2:00 p.m. value(Exhibit Cl)/Peak Value(Exhibit C2) = spaces Shared Parking Calculation: RETAIL - 4.5 x1032.125 x 4.5/4.5 = 4,645 spaces CINEMA - 0.1275 x 3,650 x 0.2/0.3 = 310.27 or 311 spaces TOTAL REQUIRED: 4,645 + 311 = 4,956 spaces Discussion: The above total, 4,956 spaces is the total number of spaces required based on the Shared Parking methodology. However, the Code requires that if the provisions of Sub-paragraph H.B. are employed an additional buffer of 10% must be added to the 3 URS total. This would bring the Code Required total number of spaces to 5452. The proposed plan with 5491 spaces exceeds the maximum required by 39 spaces. B. Analysis Two - Based on Parkine Requirements for Shoppine Centers, 1999 This analysis is based on the latest available ULI data. It simply indicates that the retail peak parking ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. GLA is appropriate for use at shopping centers over 600,000 square feet where the overall percentage of GLA in Restaurant, Entertainment, and/or Cinema is less than 10%. If the percentage is between 11 and 20 percent the 4.5/1000 ratio is applicable, but for each percent above 10%, a linear increase of 0.30 spaces per 1,000 square feet should be added. The total square footage for restaurants/cinema at Boynton Beach Mall will not exceed 10%. Based on this criteria, the total number of parking spaces required would be: l,032,125 +79,500 = l,111,625 sq. ft x 4.5 spaces/lOOO = 5,002.31 or 5003 spaces Under this methodology, the total number of spaces required, including a lO% buffer would be 5,503. However, the total spaces provided, 5491, would provide an excess of 488 spaces or 12 spaces short of the maximum required. III. Summary Based on the above Analysis One, the proposed development plan for Boynton Beach Mall will provide a sufficient number of parking spaces to accommodate the proposed Muvico theater addition in accordance with the requirements of the Code including the 10% buffer requirement of sub-paragraph H.l3. Parking spaces available for theater use total 846 or only 67 less than the 913 maximum required based on a ratio of one space per 4 seats. Thus, the "shared parking" may be characterized as limited and involving less than 100 spaces. Further, the actual number of spaces available exceeds the minimum requirement of "not less than one (1) parking space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area" as set forth in sub-paragraph H.16. b.(2). Under this criteria a minimum of 795 spaces would be required for the Muvico theater. Analysis Two on the other hand falls short of meeting all of the Code requirements by l2 spaces. While Analysis Two is not technically a shared parking analysis it is useful in that it presents similar results (after inclusion of the lO% buffer) and serves as a check as to the reasonableness of the results of Analysis One. Finally, the results of this analysis coupled with the Code required buffer results in a buffer of nearly 500 spaces over the calculated number of spaces required. As such, it should be considered a conservative estimate of the actual parking demand at Boynton Beach Mall following the Muvico Theater expansion. 4 Javeret Street I ~I f [ ~ -,~ lIII! OPEN SPACE "'=" -=- -=- NOT INCLUDED NOT INCLUDED NOT INCLUDED NOT INCLUDED - CnnPTe!lf:1iI Avenue - - r PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT N.T.S. ~ + RetailjCommerical Multi-Screen Theater 1,032,125 Sq. Ft. GLA 79,500 Sq. Ft. GLA 3,650 Seats 5,491 Parking Spaces URS SIMON URS Corporation Southern 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607 (813) 286-1711 Engineering Business No. 00000002 National City Center 115 W. Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 317.636.1600 BOYNTON BEACH MALL 801 NORTH CONGRESS AVENUE BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33426 EXHIBIT 1 62 Boynton Beach Code , ' uses.- including storage rooms, mainteliance and ~hanical rooms, offices, lounges, restrooms, lobbies, basementS, mezzanines, and hallways. 13. Pukiaa spaces ~Ued in thiS ordinance for one use or structure may be allocated in pan or in Whole for the required parking spaces of . another use or structure if quantitative evidence is provided . showing that parking demand for the different uses or Structures would OCCur on different days of the week or at different hours. Quantitative 'evidence shall include estimates for peat hour/peak 2001 S-16 season par~g demand based on statistical data furnisbed lly die Urban Land Institute or an equivalent traffic . engineeriiig ot lilid planning aDd design or*ariization. Quantitativeevidcnce may also include, wbere appropriat.e~. fietdstudies IDd traffic counts prepared. by i traffic CQusuJtant.expetiei1ced hi the -preparation of parting studies. In addition, a minimum buffet of ten(lO)petcent shall be provided 10 eusure that a sufficient nWI1ber of parkina. spaces are available It the peat.bour/peat season of parking demand. CaJcuJatioa of said buffefshall be based on thetoca1number o(~spates:detetn1iDeato be required. It the peatbdut/peat seasoQ' dfparting demand. .. EV~DCe (or joint aJ)qcation of required ,p~ Space'sbaJ1' be .subBuUC4 to the recbnica1 . rev~w 'boird~ _ and 'approvU ot ,idint'allocatlOD of required PUtinI SpICCs"-ilWl be -riWfe by 'die . City COmmis$iQn. after review and recommendations by the pl.anriin,'lnd development bOard. 14. Where the number of requUed parking spaces u computed includes a fraction. tile number of re<tuuedparkmJsp_"~~$IW]be the cOmputed Dumber rounded to dicnexfbigbest'Whole n~r. IS. There -shall be provided off-street handicapped patting spacCs~ol1sistent with Chapter 23, Article II.K of the Boynton Beacb Land Oev~lopmenl Regulations at the time of the erection of _ any strUcture or the enlargeineritofany .structure. . ",.'-., .'-' 16. Except as provided in Subsection 1.(4) below, there Sliall'beprovided, at. the time of the erection of inY$UuctUrc'ot estabUshmel1tofany use, 'a'iiutnbet' of oft-street partmg spaces in. accordance with the fOllOwing minitnutUreqUiremeots'i and subject to par_graphs 1 throUgh .Sof-thls subsection. Where a structure or use is enJarged or increased in capacity . by any. means. iiiCIUdiiig I...cbange in building' occupancy wbich requires me provision of additional parting spaces. ora change in" use .to or 'e wbicb requires . additioDil .. parting . spaces, the' minimum nW'I16er of pattiDg spaces';' Shall - be. computed by applying. these requitementS. to the en~ structure or use. . v;,", a. Dwellings, lodging and other buildings for habitation: l;'{ :'i;{,," .....'...'......'...'.. : ~~: i': i"' i;; ,if .,. . .. Zoning 6j (1) Single-family and duplex c. Government, institutional, and dwellings: Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. educational uses: (2) Two or more bedroom apartments: Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. . (3) One-bedroom and efficiency apartments: One and one half (1.5) parking spaces per dwelling unit for each efficiencYand/or one-bedroom apartment. (4) Donnitories: One (1) parking space per rooming unit. (5)- Rooming and boarding houses: One '(1) parking space per rooming unit. I.J.... . (6) Hotels, apartment hotels, motels~' apartment motels, and time-sharing hotels and motels: One and one-quarter (1.25) parking spaces per bedroom. .~ 1(1) Hospitals: Two and one-half ~(2.5) parking spaces per bed. (8) Nursing homes, convalescent homes, and sanitariums: One (1) parking space per three (3) beds. b. Assembly: (1) Churches, temples, and other places of worship: One (1) parkingspaee per four (4) seats in the auditorium, but not less than one (1) parking space per one hundred (100) square feet of . grosstloor area fotthe auditorium, plus required parking spaces for any other principal uses , including offices, classrooms, meeting rooms, recreation facUities and dWenmgi. (2) Theaters, auditoriums, meeting rooms, and other places of assembly: One (1) parking space per four (4) seats, but not less than one (1) parking space perone hwidred (100) square feet of gross floor area. (1) Government and government- owned or -operated uses: Parking requirements for . like or similar uses in the p~vate sector shall apply. (2) Community centers: One (1) parking space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. . (3) Libraries and museums: One (1) parking space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor &rea. (4). Day care centers and nursery . schools: One (l) parking space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area, plus adCquate provision fora convenient drop-off area adjacent to the buildiIig providing unobstructed ingress and egress; (5) Elementary and junior high . schools: One (1) parking space per five hundred (500) square feet of classroom floor area, including floor area of shops. (6) Secondary schools and high schools: One (1) parking space perone hundred (100) square feet of classroom floor area, plus one (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of floor area occupied by shops. (7) Colleges, universities,. seminaries, and technical or vocational schools.: One (1) parking Space per fifty (SO) square feet of classroom area:, plus one (1) parking space per two hundred (200) Square feet of floor aru'occupied by . laboritOri~ or shops, plus required space. for any other principal uses, including officeS, libraries, auditoriums, and recreation facilities. . (8) . Specialized instruction, including dance, art, and self-defense instruction: One (1) parIcing.space per two hundred (200) Square feet of gross floor area. (3) Clubs, lodges and fraternal organizations: One (1) parking spaCe per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. offices: 2001 S-16 d. Retail services, restaurantS, and 64 Boynton Beach Code (1) Restau~ts, bars, cocktail lounges, dance halls, and all other eating or drinlcing establishments: One (1) parking space per two and one-half (2.5) seats, but not less than one (1) parking space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. (2) Shopping centers: One (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross leasable floor area. (3) Office-retail complexes: One (1) parking space per two hundred (200) ~e feet of gross leasable floo!,_~. __ . . ... (4) Retail gasoline sales. retail . automoQve parts and/or accessories sales. and autolllotive repairs. including major repairs. but excluping .automotive paint and body shops: One (1) park\rg space per two hundred fIfty (250) square feet of gr'?SS floor area. .~ 'c" (5) Bakeries: One (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. (6) Florists and retail sales floor area of gr~nhouses: One (1) parking space per two . hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area.. (7) GrOCery stor~. and food stores: One (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. (8) Automobile. truck. motorcycle.. trailer. and ~rcation vciuclesales or rental: One (i) parking space per fIve hundred (500) . square feet of gross floor area. plus required parking .spaces for outdoor storage or display of goods for sale or for rent. - (9) Small equipment and tool rental establislunents:One (1) parkipg space per two hundred fIfty (250) square feet of gross floor area. plus required parking spaces' for olitdoor storage or display of goods for sale or for rent. (10) Outdoor storage or display of goods for sale or for rent. -except boats: ODe (1) parking space per fIve thousand (5.000) square feet of paved or unpaved outdoor area used for the storage or display of goods for sale or for relit. - '" (11) Boat sales or rental: One (1) parking space per fIve hundred (500) square feet of gross-floor area. plus one (1) parking space per ten thousand (10.000) square feet of paved or unpaved' outdoor area used for the storage or display of boats for sale or for rent. (12) Retail establislunents not listed elsewhere:- One (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. (13) Personal. professional. and business services not listed elsewhere. including testing. repairing; and servicing: One (1) parking space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area. (14) Laundromats or dry-cleaning pick-up stations. and laundry or dry-cleaning plants located in conunerc.ial zones: One (1). parking space per tWo hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area (for laundry or, dry-Cleaning plants located in industrial or PID zones. see (f)(3)). (15) Printing. engraving. or publishing located in conunercial zones: One (1) parking space per three hundred (300) square feet of gr~s floor area (for: printing. engraving. or publishing located in ind1,lstrial or PID zones. see (f)(4)). (16) Funeral homes: One (1) . parking space per .two hundred. (200) square fectof gross floor area. (17) Kennels and animal hospitals: One (1) parking space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross fl9(>r area. including area of outdoor kennels. . (18) Financial institutions and serviceS: One (1) parking space per two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. (19) Medical and dental clinics. offices. and office buildings: One (1). parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. The SUlVey results demonstrated that a reduction in the number of parked vehicles occurs as a result of shared parking. The data were suffi- ciently consistent to indicate that a quantitative basis for estimating the demand for shared parking does exist. Based upon the findings of the SUlVey, a methodology was developed to determine parking de- mand for the conditions typically found in a mixed-use d~el~pment. This. methodology is universal in its ap- plication and fleXIble enough to incorporate adjust- ment factors as necessary to suit specific policies, programs, and market conditions. THE METHOIOUCT The methodology involves four basic steps that may be applied, with appropriate background information, to an existing or proposed project. Exlnbit 25 illus. trates the organization and flow of work. The basic flow of work begins with a review of the development plan and proceeds through the four steps (and sub- tasks) to an estimate of demand for shared peak park- ing. In support of these activities, input from other analyses may be added. They could include an addi. tional data base to refme or modify unit parking fac- tors or other. characteristics and market analyses. The methodology is designed to be sequential, but it can be used in an iterative fashion to test the impact of alternative development plans, assumptions, or policies. STEP I: INITIAl PROJECT REVIEW An analysis of shared parking deals with more de. tailed issues and relationships than traditional analy- ses of parking demand. Knowledge of the site and intended land use therefore becomes more important. In addition to square footage or other measurements 43 EXHIBIT 25 SHARED PARKING METHODOLOGY Ii @ STEP AND TASK NUMBERS of land use, it is necessary to describe both the physi. cal and anticipated functional relationships between the land uses. While the physical relationships con- cern the basic physical layout and organization of facilities-for example, vertical or horizontal projects, distances between land uses, surrounding uses, prox- imity to transportation and other parking facilities- functional relationships concern the intended charac- ter and type ofland uses and how the project will work. For example, in a project that includes retail, hotel, and office space, retail facilities may be clearly ori- ented to hotel guests, office workers, or other "captive persons," or to external shoppers. Early in the plan- ning process for a development, the information de- scribing relationships between land uses may not be available. If not, a set of assumptions and/or alterna- tive development scenarios should be identified for the 44 analysis. A checklist of questions dealing with these assumptions is as follows: · What is the square footage by use (or number Qf hotel rooms and theater seats)? · If a hotel is included, will banquet rooms and con- vention facilities be available? · If meeting rooms and convention facilities are pro- vided, what are the intended concept for programs and the intended audience? · What is the assumed market support for any retail or entertainment space? · If a cinema is included, how many theaters will it have? What type of programs will be scheduled? What are the assumptions regarding show times? · If residential space is included, will any parking constraints be observed (reserved parking, for example)? STEP 2: ADJUSTMEIT FOB PEAK PARKIlle FACTOR This step produces an appropriate set of peak park- ing demand factors. They represent the number of parking spaces needed per unit of land use or other parameter. Th determine the factors, the following subtasks are necessary. Verification of Land Use and Selection of Parking Parameters. The land uses described for the project in step 1 define the specific set of peak parking factors needed for the analysis of parking demand. The pa- rameter for each factor should be verified. Generally, square feet of floor space or rooms or dwelling units would be used; however, other variables might be more appropriate for certain unique activities. Specifically, the following information must be verified: · Verify that occupied GLA is to be used, including or excluding common areas. · Convert convention facilities to equivalent square feet if capacity per person is used in the building program (15 square feet per person may be used if another density factor is not available). Selection of Parking Factors. A preliminary value should be selected or determined for the set of peak parking factors. Information could be drawn from three sources: (1) parking factors suggested by the study (see exhibit 26), (2) validated experience of the developer or other local authorities, or (3) new park- ing field surveys. It is essential to know what season or time of year and mode of travel are represented in the specific source for factors. This information should be described in terms of month of year (by land use) and approximate percent of nonauto use (that is, percent of person-trips made by modes other than auto). Adjustment for Season. For demand analyses, all parking factors need to reflect the same "design con- dition." 'J.Ypica1ly, the 30th highest hour has been used for highway projects. Similarly, for development analy- ses, the appropriate design period must be selected; that is, the peak season for each land use must be determined, based on developer's data, another source, or study results (see exlnbit 27). However, because the design month frequently is different for each land use in a multiuse development, trial and error may be required to determine which month produces the maximum aggregate parking de- mand. The intent of the exercise is to recognize the "aggregate effects" of seasonality. This concept is the same as that used to determine the impact of daily peaks. Using the quantity for each land use, test calcula- tions (parking demand factor multiplied by floor space) are made to identify the controlling land use. On this basis, a design month can be selected. Each EXHIBIT 26 REPRESENTATIVE PEAK PARKING DEMAND FACTORS Land Use Office Retail (400,000 sq. ft.) Retail (600,000 sq. ft.) Restaurant Cinema Residential Hotel Guest room Restaurant/lounge Conference rooms Convention area Unit Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA Parking spaces per seat Parking spaces per dwelling unita Weekday 3.00 3.80 3.80 20.00 0.25 1.00 Saturday 0.50 4.00 5.00 20.00 0.30 1.00 Parking spaces per room Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA Parking spaces per seatc Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLAc 1.25b 10.00 0.50 30.00 1.2Sb 10.00 0.50 30.00 aPer one auto owned per dwelling unit. bFactored up to 100 percent auto use from the 80 percent auto use indicated in exhibit 13. cUsed by nonguests; the given rates thus are upper bounds, which are very rarely achieved. 45 EXHIBIT 27 REPRESENTATIVE MONTHLY VARIATIONS AS PERCENTAGE OF PEAK MONTH Hotel Hotel Rooms Rooms Hotel Hotel Month Office Retail Restaurant Cinema Residential Weekday Saturday Conference Convention January 100% 65% 80% 90% 100% 90% 65% 100% 20% February 100 65 75 70 100 90 70 100 40 March 100 70 90 50 100 95 80 100 80 April 100 70 90 70 100 95 85 100 80 May 100 70 95 70 100 95 85 100 100 June 100 75 100 100 100 100 90 100 100 July 100 75 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 August 100 75 85 70 100 100 100 100 50 September 100 75 80 80 100 95 90 100 70 October 100 75 80 70 100 95 90 100 70 ~ November 100 80 80 50 100 85 80 100 40 ~ -. December 100 100 90 50 100 85 65 100 20 _ " parking factor is then adjusted to the same month. For example, if December is selected as the design month for a mixed-use project, the retail factor would be the normal peak, but the hotel factor would be factored to a value less than its seasonal peak. Adjustmentfor Mode of'l}-ansportation Used. Just as the parking demand factors must be adjusted to the same season, they must also be adjusted to reflect the mode of transportation used. The recommended ap- proach is a twofold change. First, available peak park- ing demand factors are adjusted upward to reflect 100 percent auto use. Second, these parking factors for 100 percent auto use are adjusted downward to reflect the expected conditions at the development project being analyzed. For the typical suburban project wh~re transit is not available, the second modification is not needed. However, for downtown projects in ur- ban areas where transit may be used for 10 to 60 percent of the trips, this correction is significant. The source for data about transportation modes may be specific transportation surveys or transporta- tion data available from planning studies for the urban area. The latter choice requires an assessment of the information's applicability to a specific site. Adjustment for Captive Market. This adjustment is optional because the effects of a captive market are 46 difficult to identify. Without this adjustment, the de- mand estimate for shared parking would probably be too conservative. The existence of the captive patron relationship is identified by surveys of employees, visitors, and pa- trons as well as by parking surveys. Captive markets could be large enough to significantly lower parking demand. The data might indicate a widely ranging relationship that may not be predictable, however. They might be analyzed in a "what if' sense to test the possible impacts. Assuming a representative value of captive market support could reduce parking factors for retail or entertainment uses. An alternative would be to undertake a specific market analysis. This analy- sis would include a site-specific assessment of the potential for captive market support. STEP 3: IWYSIS If IOUIlY ICC.llAnal This step produces an estimate of hourly parking accumulations for each land use during a typical weekday or weekend day (Saturday). The results of this step identify the shape of hourly accumulation curves for five basic land uses. The curves were rea- sonably consistent for a wide range of surveyed sites EXHIBIT 28 REPRESENTATIVE HOURLY ACCUMULATION BY PERCENTAGE OF PEAK HOUR Hotel R.......w Reside.. c..f...._ c-.. 0IIic:e RetalJ "otaurut Cille..... 1_.cBDI tW ItBD) GUCH Roo. ........ulILoo"", - tioo Aau -- H..... cl DAJ Week'" SotarUJ Week.., s.tvdq Week.., Sot....., Daily Wee!tdaf Sotllldq Daily Week.., Salar'" Wee!tdaf Sot...., Daily Daily 6:00 a.m. 3% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 20% 20% 7:00 a.m. 20 20% 8% 3% 2% 2% 87 95 95 85 70 20 20 8:00 a.m. 63 60 18 10 5 3 79 88 90 65 60 20 20 50% 50% 9:00 a.m. 93 80 42 30 10 6 73 81 87 55 50 20 20 100 100 10:00 a.m. 100 80 68 4S 20 8 68 74 85 45 40 20 20 100 100 11:00 a.m. 100 100 87 73 30 10 59 71 85 35 35 30 30 100 100 12:00 Noon 90 100 97 85 50 30 30% 60 71 85 30 30 50 30 100 100 1:00 p.m. 90 80 100 95 70 45 70 59 70 85 30 30 70 45 100 100 2:00 p.m. 97 60 97 100 60 4S 70 60 71 85 35 35 60 45 100 100 3:00 p.m. 93 40 95 100 60 45 70 61 73 85 35 40 55 4S 100 100 4:00 p.m. 77 40 87 90 50 45 70 66 75 87 45 50 50 45 100 100 5:00 p.m. 47 20 79 75 70 60 70 77 81 90 60 60 70 60 100 100 6:00 p.m. 23 20 82 65 .90 90 80 85 85 92 70 70 90 90 100 100 7:00 p.m. 7 20 89 60 100 95 90 94 87 94 75 80 100 95 100 100 8:00 p.m. 7 20 87 55 100 100 . 100 96 92 96 90 90 100 100 100 100 9:00 p.m. 3 61 40 100 100 100 98 95 98 95 95 100 100 100 100 10:00 p.m. 3 32 38 90 95 100 99 96 99 100 100 90 95 50 50 11:00 p.m. 13 13 70 85 80 100 98 100 100 100 70 8S 12:00 Mid. 50 70. 70 100 100 100 100 100 50 70 night involving office, regional retail, and residential facili- ties (see exhibit 28). Nonroom-related hotel activities and entertainment uses varied significantly, however. If site-specific data are not available for these two land uses, survey results could be used. Accumulation curves are then estimated for each land use, based on the selected hourly values de- scn"bed in terms of the percent of maximum design-day parking demand expected at every hour during the day. The parking demand factor (step 2) multiplied by . quantity of land use (step 1) produces an estimate of peak parking demand. This value multiplied by each hourly percentage produces an estimate of parking demand for every land use component by hour of day. STEP 4: ESTIMATE If SIAIO PUKlNC The hourly parking demand for each land use is merged to estimate overall shared parking demand for a proposed project. This step is simply the hour-by- hour addition of parking demand for each use to esti- mate the aggregate accumulation. As noted previously, the method descn"bed above should be used for week- day and Saturday conditions to}est for the controlling value. SAMPU ISE If THE METHODOllGY The following sample situation has been devised to demonstrate the use of the recommended methodology. 1. Objective: 1b estimate the peak parking require- ments for a proposed mixed-use development. 2. Plan: The proposed development has the following components: · Office = 400,000 square feet GLA · Retail = 300,000 square feet GLA · Hotel = 500 rooms plus 5,000 square feet of restaurant and conference facilities with 200-seat capacity. 3. Location: The project will be located in the down- town of a medium-size urban community whose regional population is approximately 1.5 million. 4. Mode split:17 Based on surveys conducted at exist- ing developments in the downtown, it is estimated that 75 percent of employees and patrons and 50 percent of hotel guests will use autos. The number of persons per auto is assumed to be typical (1.2 for employees, 1.8 for patrons, 1.4 for hotel guests). 17"Mode split" refers to the percentage of people at a site who use a particular mode of transportation, with the total of all modes equaling 100 percent. 47 j ! i 5. Captive market: Based upon regional market sur- veys, it is estimated that 15 percent of all retail patrons will be office employees within the develop- ment. It is also estimated that 50 percent of the hotel restaurant patronage will be generated out- side the development. The unadjusted peak parking demand ratios (see Appendix C) for the component land uses are as follows: . Weekday Office: 3.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA Retail: 3.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA Hotel rooms: 1.25 spaces per room Hotel restaurant: 10.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA Hotel conference rooms: 0.5 space per seat . Saturday Office: 0.5 parking space per 1,000 square feet GLA Retail: 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA Hotel rooms: 1.25 spaces per room Hotel restaurant: 10.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA Hotel conference rooms: 0.5 space per seat. Factoring each ratio by the estimated percentage of auto use yields the following adjusted ratios: . . Weekday Office: 3.0 x 0.75 = 2.25 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA Retail: 3.8 x 0.75 = 2.85 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA Hotel rooms: 1.25 x 0.50 = 0.63 space per room Hotel restaurant: 10.0 x 0.75 = 7.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA Hotel conference rooms: 0.5 x 0.75 = 0.38 space per seat . Saturday Office: 0.5 x 0.75 = 0.38 parking space per 1,000 square feet GLA Retail: 4.0 x 0.75 = 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA Hotel rooms: 1.25 x 0.50 = 0.63 space per room Hotel restaurant: 10.0' x 0.75 = 7.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA Hotel conference rooms: 0.5 x 0.75 = 0.38 space per seat. The ratio for retail parking demand also should be factored for market synergy for a weekday, when office employees are present: 48 Retail (weekday): 2.85 x (1- 0.15) = 2.42 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA. The smvey data on the captive market in this instance do not estimate the possible synergistic effect result- ing from hotel guests' patronage of the retail facilities. Th be conservative, therefore, this effect is assumed to be negligible. However, the unadjusted demand ratio for the hotel restaurant (10 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA) already is based on a typical 50 percent patronage by nonguests. Another very conservative assumption is that the hotel conference facilities are fully used by nonguests. . Next, the ratios for each component land use need to be factored according to the month of the year during which the overall peak parking accumulation would be greatest. In some instances, the peak month for a weekday may not be the same as the peak month for a Saturday. In that case, only by trial and error can the condition (that is, combination of day and month) for peak parking demand be determined. In this instance, however, a tedious trial-and-error analysis can be avoided by an inspection of the relative size of each component land use and the relative differences in peak daily and monthly demands. Based on the monthly values in Appendix C, the contnbution of the hotel components to overall park- ing demand remains the same on a weekday and a Saturday of a given month. Thus, for a given month, the condition for overall peak parking demand de- pends only upon the relative size of the retail and office components. Since the office component is large rela- tive to the retail component, it is most likely that the peak condition will occur on a weekday rather than on . a Saturday. The monthly office demand will remain constant, the monthly retail demand will peak during December, and the monthly hotel components will peak during the summet: Based on an inspection, however, the relative contnbution of retail parking demand to total project parking demand during December (compared with that of hotel parking demand during the summer) is much larget: The peak parking demand at the entire development will therefore most likely occur on a weekday in De- cembet: The peak parking demand may then be esti- mated by conducting an hourly parking accumulation analysis using the following weekday ratios, adjusted to the month of December: Office: 2.25 x 1.00 = 2.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA Retail: 2.42 x 1.00 = 2.42 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA Hotel rooms: 0.63 x 0.85 = 0.54 space per room Hotel restaurant: 7.5 x 0.93 = 6.98 spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA18 Hotel conference rooms: 0.38 x 1.00 = 0.38 space per seat. An hourly parking accumulation analysis, using the above ratios and the hourly values from Appendix C, reveals that the peak accumulation for the combined land uses would be 1,809 cars, occurring at 2:00 p.m. This result is revealed only by calculating the ac- cumulation for each hour of the day. The calculation for 2 :00 p.m. would be as follows: Adjusted Peak Ratio x Floor Area x 2:00 p.m. Value (Appendix C)/Peak Value (Appendix C) For each land use, the calculations are as follows: Office: 2.25 x 400 x (2.9 -:- 3.0) = 870 Spaces Retail: 2.42 x 300 x (3.7 -:- 3.8) = 707 spaces Hotel rooms: 0.54 x 500 x (0.5 -:- 1.0) = 135 spaces Hotel restaurant: 6.98 x 5 x (7.2 -:- 12.0) = 21 spaces Hotel conference rooms: 0.38 x 200 x (0.5 -:- 0.5) = 76 spaces 870 + 707 + 135 + 21 + 76 = 1,809 total spaces. Because the proposed development will be in a downtown a,rea, this weekday parking demand of 1,809 cars must be assessed relative to the existing surpluses and deficiencies in the supply of parking spaces within walking distance of the development. As an additional demonstration of the use of this method, four of the test cases included in exhibit 24 have been selected for refined analysis. Exhibits 29,. 30,31, and 32 indicate the results for projects 10, 14, 16, and 17, respectively. The findings indicate refined estimates of peak parking demand, including any as- sumptions used concerning the adjustments for sea- son, mode of transportation, or captive market. Project 1 O. By adjusting the restaurant to the Octo- ber seasonal factor, and by using a 50 percent captive portion for the hotel restaurant and 50 percent hotel occupancy for the day (indicated by survey data), the shared parking estimate is 638 spaces. This number compares closely to actual parking. Further, this anal- 11lThis calculation represents the weighted average between the restaurant and hotel guest factors for December; as 50 percent of patrons are guests. ysis assumes that the conference facilities were not being significantly used on the day of the analysis. Project 14. By adjusting the restaurant use to an October condition, using the captive market relation- ship of 10 percent for the restaurant (based on the surveys), and selecting an office factor of 2.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the estimated demand would be 1,776 spaces. This number is reasonably comparable to the actual count, but the analysis suggests that further surveys of the project are needed. The use of a lower peak factor needs further verification. It is pos- sible that some of the demand may use off-site parking. Project 16. By reflecting a seasonal factor for the retail use (75 percent for July) and using a 50 percent captive market factor for the restaurant, the estimate of shared parking is 600 spaces, which agrees with observed counts. The captive factor seems reasonable, given the isolated nature of the project. Project 17. By reflecting a small but significant use by transportation other than auto (11 to 12 percent) for the three uses (as indicated by the survey) and a seasonal adjustment for the cinema (to December), and by expecting 1.50 persons per car for retail space, the shared parking estimate is 3,054 spaces, which compares closely to the actual count. These comparisons indicate that the method can produce parking demand estimates that replicate ex- isting conditions. Clearly, detailed data are needed. However, rationalization based on sound assumptions can be used to develop the estimates as well. The simplicity of the methodology allows parametric anal- ysis to test wide variations in input data. ~ r. t ~ J EXHIBIT Cl HOURLY PARKING DEMAND RATIOS-DEFAULT VALUES Hotel \ Restaurant! Conven. ~ Office RestalU'al1t Residential Guest LollDge" Con. tion ~ ~ Spaces per Retail Spaces per Cinema Spaces per Rooms S~es per ference Areaa f. Dwelling Unitb Roomsa ti 1,000 Sq. Spaces per 1,000 1,000 Sq. Spaces Spaces 1,000 Sq. Spaces ~ Ft.GLA Sq. Ft. GLA Ft.GLA per Seat Noo-cBD per Room Ft. GLA Spaces per 1,000 t Week. Week. Week. Week. Week. CBD Week. Week. per Seat Sq. Ft. I -- Hour of Day day Sat. day Sat.. Sat.. day Sat. day Sat. day Sat. Daily day Sat. day Sat. Daily Daily (i:00 a.m. 0.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 2.0 2.0 7:00 a.m. 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.87 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.70 2.0 2.0 8:00 a.m. 1.9 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.79 0.88 0.90 0.65 0.60 2.0 2.0 0.2 10 9:00 a.m. 2.8 0.4 1.6 1.2 1.5 2.0 1.0 0.73 0.81 0.87 0.55 0.50 2.0 2.0 0.5 30 10:00 a.m. 3.0 0.4 2.6 1.8 2.2 4.0 1.5 0.68 0.74 0.85 OA5 0.40 2.0 2.0 0.5 30 11:00 a.m. 3.0 0.5 3.3 2.9 3.7 6.0 2.0 0.59 0.71 0.85 0.35 0.35 3.0 3.0 0.5 30 12:00 Noon 2.7 0.5 3.7 3.4 4.2 10.0 6.0 0.10 0.10 0.60 0.71 0.85 0.30 0.30 5.0 3.0 0.5 30 1:00 p.m. 2.7 OA 3.8 3.8 4.7 14.0 9.0 0.15 0.20 0.59 0.70 0.85 0.30 0.30 7.0 4.5 0.5 30 2:00 p.m. 2.9 0.3 3.7 4.0 5.0 12.0 9.0 0.15 0.20 0.60 0.71 0.85 0.35 0.35 6.0 4.5 0.5 30 3:00 p.m. 2.8 0.2 3.6 4.0 5.0 12.0 9.0 0.15 0.20 0.61 0.73 0.85 0.35 0.40 5.5 4.5 0.5 30 4:00 p.m. 2.3 0.2 3.3 3.(i 4.6 10.0 9.0 0.15 0.20 0.66 0.75 0.87 0.45 0.50 5.0 4.5 0.5 30 5:00 p.m. 1.4 0.1 3.0 3.0 3.8- 14.0 12.0 0.15 0.20 0.77 0.81 0.90 0.60 0.60 7.0 6.0 0.5 30 6:00 p.m. 0.7 0.1 3.1 2.6 3.2 18.0 18.0 0.20 0.25 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.70 0.70 9.0 9.0 0.5 30 7:00-p.m. 0.2 0.1 3.4 2.4 3.1 20.0 19.0 0.20 0.25 0.94 0.87 0.94 0.75 0.80 10.0 9.5 0.5 30 8:00 p.m. 0.2 0.1 3.3 2.2 2.8 20.0 20.0 0.25 0.30 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.90 0.90 10.0 10.0 0.5 30 9:00 p.m. 0.1 2.3 1.6 2.1 20.0 20.0 0.25 0.30 0.98 0.95 0.98 0.95 0.95 10.0 10.0 0.5 30 10:00 p.m. 0.1 1.2 1.5 1.9 18.0 19.0 0.25 0.30 0.99 0.96 0.99 1.00 1.00 9.0 9.5 0.2 10 11:00 p.m. 0.5 0.5 0.5 14.0 17.0 0.20 0.25 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.0 8.5 12:00 Midnight 10.0 14.0 0.15 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.0 7.0 Peak parking ratio 3.0 0.5 3.8 4.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 0.25 0.30 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 10.0 0.5 30 Percent auto usage 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 80 80 100 100 100 100 Average persons/auto 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 NA NA NA 1.4 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 aRepresents nonguest parking demand. assuming SO percent of restaurant patrons and 100 percent of conference and convention attendees are nonguests. Conference and convention demands indicated are upper bounds, which are rarely achieved. bAt one auto per dwelling .unit. oFor less than 400,000 sq. fl GI.A. dFor more than 600.000 sq. ft. GLA. EXHIBIT C2 ~ ~ MONTHLY VARIATION IN PEAK PARKING DEMAND RATIOS- I DEFAULT VALUES (PERCENT OF PEAK MONTH) f Hotel Rooms Hotel Hotel I ~ Month Office Retail Restaurant Cinema Residential Weekday Saturday Conference Convention r f January 100 65 80 90 100 90 65 100 20 February 100 65 75 70 100 90 70 100 40 March 100 70 90 50 100 95 80 100 80 April 100 70 90 70 100 95 85 100 80 May 100 70 95 70 100 95 85 100 100 June 100 75 100 100 100 100 90 100 100 July 100 75 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 August 100 75 85 70 100 100 100 100 50 September 100 75 80 80 100 95 90 100 70 October 100 75 80 70 100 95 90 100 70 November 100 80 80 50 100 85 80 100 40 December 100 100 90 50 100 85 65 100 20 86 '-'f/C:'.' -- '. PROPEHTY OF i1'\LlI~tR EI~GJNr:f:'DIN{\ "r.'ENC J......IIl. \J uvl ES If.le. LI BRARY I 'I This report presents a set of base recommendations for parking supply based on center size and makeup. An analysis of the survey data shows that these independent variables do not significandy affect the required park- ing supply: - Geographic area - Urban versus suburban setting - Large city versus small city. On the other hand, the amount of parking needed at a shopping center is affected by these variables: - Proportion of restaurant, cinema, and entertainment land uses - Percent of nonauto ttavd to the center - Treatment of employee parking during shopping peaks - Size of the center. Adjustment factors for these variables will be discussed later in the report. Parking Ratio Recommendations Table 1 shows the recommended num- ber of parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA). The table located in Appendix A pro- vides a comprehensive matrix of rec- ommended ratios. This recommended provision of parking spaces will pro- vide the typical shopping center with sufficient parking to serve the parking needs of customers and employees at the 20th busiest hour of the year. Moreover, these recommended ratios provide for a surplus of parking spaces during all but 19 hours of the more than 3,000 hours per year during which a shopping center is open. Dur- ing 19 hours of each year, which are typically distributed over four peak shopping days, some patrons will not be able to find vacant spaces when they first enter the center. The recom- mended parking ratios are applicable for centers in which retail shops occu- py at least 80 percent of the GLA. The recommended parking ratios in Table 1 exclude centers in which 20 percent or more of occupied GLA is composed of restaurants, enter- tainment, and/or cinema space. The appropriate number of spaces for these centers should be deter- mined using methodology such as that described in the Urban Land Institute's 1983 publication entided Shared Parking. It defines shared parking as "parking spaces that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment." Also, the data analyzed in this study suggest that for neighborhood and community centers, the recommended ratio may be as low as 3.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA provided Percen e of GLA In Restaurant. Entertainment, and/or CInema S ce 0-10% 11-20%b >20% 4.0 4.0 Shared parkingd 4.0-4.5 4.0-4.5 Shared parkingd sliding scalec sliding scalec 4.5 4.5 Shared parkingd Less than 400,000 400,000-599,999 600,000 and over a Parked cars per 1.000 square feet of gross leasable area. b for each percent above 10 percent, a linear increase of 0.03 spaces per 1,000 square feet should be calculated. c Recommended parking ratio increases/decreases proportionally with center's square footage. d Shared parking is defined as parking spaces that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. that additional spaces are available for restaurants, entertainment, and/or cin- ema use. However, because of limited parking data from these centers, the recommended parking ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet from the 1980 study should still be used. As shown in Table 1, when restaurants, entertainment, and cinema space com- bine to equal 11 to 20 percent of the total GLA., a linear increase of 0.03 spaces per 1,000 square feet for each percent above 10 percent should be cal- culated. For instance, a 300,000-square- foot center in which restaurants, enter- tainment, and cinema space account for 14 percent of the total GLA. would require 4.12 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. Base level: 4.0 (Spaces) + 4% excess restaurant, entertainment, cinema x .03 = ,12 Estimated ratio: 4.12 For recommended ratios with a sliding scale, the parking ratio increases or de- creases proportionally with the center's square footage. For example, a 500,000- square-foot center with restaurant, enter- tainment, and cinema space constituting 10 percent or less of the total GLA. would require 4.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet (halfway between the 400,000- and 599,999-square-foot ratios). Method of Travel The method of travel influences park- ing demand at a center. Employees or customers who arrive by modes of transportation other than private auto- mobile reduce the demand for parking. The parking ratio recommendations contained in this report are for centers that are primarily auto dependent, with minimal walk-in or transit use. Employee Parking Requirements Parking demand for employees contin- ues to account for approximately 20 percent of the total parking demand during the peak period. Thus, centers that require employees to park off site during the peak season could see up to a 20 percent reduction in the parking demand. However, this adjustment should be utilized with caution since centers with uncontrolled free parking often have difficulty completely enforc- ing employee parking. Parking Supply Ratios It is important in recommending park- ing ratios to determine the current park- ing supply. A series of parking supply ratios was calculated for centers with parking accumulation counts based on the number of parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. As seen in Table 2, the park- ing supply exceeded demand for the survey period for all center sizes. There- fore, parking demand during the design hour was not constricted by the avail- ability of parking. Parking Space Design In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a trend toward smaller vehicle sizes. As stated in the 1980 Parking Req- uirements for Shopping Centers, the expectation was "that by 1990, most automobiles (60 to 95 percent) in use nationwide would be compacts." However, according to the National Parking Association (NPA), vehicles became increasingly larger in the 1990s. This trend has accelerated with the increased sales of sport utility vehicles. The NPA's last report that detailed trends in car size was publishOO in 19%. It stated that only 39 percent of vehicles on the road were considered compact. Dimensiom of Parking, published by ULI, provides historical automobile sales data by size of vehicle. Given the declining number of compact vehicles, a one-size-fits-all ("universal" stall) parking space design is recommended. Center Size (GLA In Square Feet) Less than 400,000 400,000-599,999 600,000-1,499,999 1,500,000-2,500,000 Total Number of Responses 49 15 96 9 169 Parking Ratio (Parking Spaces per 1,000 Square Feet of OccUpied GLA) Suppl Demand 5.8 5.6 5.8 4.7 3.7 4.0 4.5 3.8 A Comparison of 1980 and 1998 Studies The recommended parking ratios for centers under 400,000 square feet are consistent in the 1980 and the 1998 studies. However, larger centers require lower parking ratios today than those rec- ommended in 1980. This is particularly evident in centers with 600,000 square feet or more. Table 3 compares the find- ings of the 1980 and 1998 studies. ~~~~~:{~~t::Y;~r~ ~~~t?~{~~i:l"'0';r:~'~;~fi;';~:?J~f~m:~,;,:';o~~ 'f~:?::~tF :~:;,'::~:~~, ~\'>r,r?~>,~; ';:~Si:(:1~ I:;;', ;;;:~,FJ,4, ,,",;("h"J!/\j;I,'!,~I~t"fd ?;I~MI~!~ ,t;Jn'~'n" ,t J;Jil ,;IH'~ r d~;. .,!q!JcH'i'J rf' :.,l ,~';F:;;'\" 1-\'1J;'!J....l1~'.;J~;.:"*'.:-:.;!%~~f"",:"..~:'~ ~~n~',rr': ::t.fi'::.y\"".:#-I~>:'':':~J.r~3~~"; :. ~~"'.."...~.-:;".' _,~;,;'_"':J:V '-\. ~'.;;:'~',.....)~1:,'A" Parking Ratio (Parking Spaces per 1,000 Square Feet of Occupied GLA) , 1980 Stud 1998 Stud f.~i~~~ ~u~~!!........,~._ Less than 400,000 400,000-599,999 600,000 and over 4.0 4.0 4.0-5.0 (sliding scale) 4.0 4.0-4.5 (sliding scale) 4.5 Note: See Table 1 explanation of sliding scale,