Loading...
APPLICATION URS l2004536.00000 December 29, 2004 I '".'! ! , LU i JW.. 4 {~C I : ---- -~-,-~--J P~~,1J',I~,'(; A"'D ZON:r-;C; C~PT Mr. Ed Breese Principal Planner Planning and Zoning Division City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 Re: Boynton Beach Mall- Muvico Addition - File number: MSPM 05-001 Dear Mr. Breese, Enclosed herewith are three copies of a Shared Parking Analysis for the above referenced project. This analysis has been prepared in response to the City's "1st Review Comments", no. 91. We are submitting this document separate from our overall response in order to give the City time to review it, if possible, prior to the February 1, 2005 Technical Review Committee meeting. It will also be included with our formal response in accordance with the instructions provided in the City's December 28, 2004 review memorandum. In reviewing this document please note that the final total number of parking spaces may change slightly as we formulate our response to comments. This will occur based on the potential addition of a few landscape islands or modification of other site features. However, I anticipate the result will be the same. Also, by now you will have received the NOPC application so that will answer one of the other questions. We looked at all possible ways to avoid the DR! process, but the language in the existing Development Order does make it necessary. URS Corporation 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa. FL 33607-1462 Tel: 813.286.1711 Fax: 813.287.8591 URS Please feel free to contact me at any time with additional comments or questions and thanks again for the early release of the City's review comments. Sincerely, URS Corporation Southern ~' 1)}~'///' ,'-' " , " r ''L, ,_ ------- .! _ <.-i..CL6. f.. __~_--1.---t:...."<<,- '---.) Thomas A Marsicano, AICP Vice President Development and Planning Services CC: John Albright, Simon Bill Ranek, Simon Andrea Horne, Simon Bill Boose, Esq. URS ,F TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM BOYNTON BEACH MALL - MUVICO ADDITION \ SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS \; ,\ JAN - 4 ~'_v,; "'"'-' ~.'..,-; . \ ~ . -...-_.._~......,...,----..._~.._,"._-~ ~~- p~_~lfd'J\NG !\~~D Zl!I~~f)T ! i _J 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 (GF A) 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 1,032,125 sq. ft. GLA of retail space. The Muvico theater adds back 79,500 sq. ft. for a new total of 1,111,625 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.IO., H.13., H16.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 (ULI) data. II. METHODOLOGY The methodologies employed herein are based on the following ULI publications: . Shared Parking, 1983 . Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, 1999 1 URS ',,-<. -~ ;c 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 CI 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 1,032,125 Sq. Ft. GLA . Theater (Cinema) component is 79,500 sq. ft. GF A 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 C1, 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 IOOO sq. ft. GLA CINEMA - 0.1275 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 x1032.125 = 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 C1)/Peak Value(Exhibit C2) = spaces Shared Parking Calculation: RETAIL - 4.5 xl 032.125 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.13. 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 Parking Requirements for Shopping 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 IOOO 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: 1,032,125 +79,500 = 1,111,625 sq. ft x 4.5 spaces/IOOO = 5,002.31 or 5003 spaces Under this methodology, the total number of spaces required, including a 10% 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.13. 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 (IOO) 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 12 spaces. While Analysis Two is not technically a shared parking analysis it is useful in that it presents similar results (after inclusion of the 1 0% 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 J averet Street ........ ~ IIIII 01 s:: Ul o ~ ~ ~ !. THEATER ......... ..... NOT INCLUDED : \ I NOT INCLUDED NOT INCLUDED ~nn~~ Avenue - r PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT N.T.S. + RetailjCommerical Multi-Screen Theater Parking Spaces URS SIMON BOYNTON BEACH MALL 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 OPEN SPACE ""=" NOT INCLUDED 1,032,125 Sq. Ft. GLA 79,500 Sq. Ft. GLA 3,650 Seats 5,491 801 NORTH CONGRESS AVENUE BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33426 EXHIBIT 1 62 Boynton Beach Code uses,- including storage rooms, maintenance and mechanical rooms, offices, lounges, restrooms, lobbies, basementS, mezzanines, and hallways. 8. Where several principal uses exist in one Structure or on one lot, parking space requirements shall be computed separately for each principal use, unless stated otherwise in paragraph 16 of this subsection. Where parking spaces are required in paragraph 16 for each of several principal uses that commOnly occur tosether, this is done for the pwpose of clarification only, and shall not lilIlit d1e application of the requirement contained in this paRsrapb. 9. A uSe. shall. be~oasidered a principal U$e, for the purposes of this subsection. if it could '. exist. separately. frooiall other uses in the same structure or on d1e same lot. and would by itself geDenle significant parking demand. . 10. Where a use is I~ in a shoppinS cemert office building, Qr office.retail complex, the ~ space requirement for the shopping center. ofticebuilding, or oftice.retai,l complex in which it is located shall apply; except that where a d1eater is located in a shopping center the parkinS space requirement for theatensball apply for d1e seaangor gross floor area of the theater. , 11. Where several principal uses exist in one building or pan of a building, and the floor area of each principal use cannot be clearly delineated, the parking space requirement for the use requiring the greatest number of parking spaces sbaIl apply. 12. Where a use is DOt listed below, parking space requirementS sba11 be determined by. the City Commission after review and reconunendation by the planning and development board. 13. Puking spaces required 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 park:ing 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 peak hour/peak 2001 5-16 season parking demand based on statistical data furnished by the Urban Land Institute or an equivalent traffic engineeri.Dg or land planning aDd design orgartization. Quantitative evidence may also include. where appropriate, field studies aod traffic counts prepared by a traffic consultant .experienced in the preparation of parking studies. In addition, a minimum buffer of ten (10) percent shall be provided to ensure that a sufficient number of parnn, spaces are available at the peak hour/peak season of parking demand. Calcu1ation of said buffer shall be based on the totalnumbet of parm.,spaces' detettt1i.Ded to be required at d1e peakhdut/peak season of parking demand. Evidence for joint allocation of required .patting space shaJJ be submitted to fhe technical review board, and 'approval of jOint allocation of required park:ii1g spaces'slWl be made bydle' City Commission, after review and recommendations by the planning and development board. 14. Where the number of requited parking spaces as computed includes a fraction. the number of required parkin&SP"c:eS ShaUbe the computed number rounded to the I1ext higbest whole number. IS. There . shall be provided off-street handicapped parking spacescol'lSistent with Chapter 23, Anicle U.K of the Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations at the time of the e~tion of. any StructUre or the enlargement of , any structure. .,,, " 16. Except as provided in Subsection 1.(4) below, there shall' be provided, at the time of the erection of any Structure or establishmeotof any use, a number . of off. street parking spaces in accordance with the following minimum requirements. and subject to paragraphs 1 through IS of this subsection. Where a structure or use is enlarged or increased in capacity by any means, including a change in building. occupancy which requires the provision of additional p~king spaces, or a change in' use to ore which requires additional parkins spaces, the minimum number of parldng spaces' shall' be computed by applying these requirementS to the entire structure or u~. a. Dwellings. lodging and other buildings for habitation: . . . (1) Single-family and duplex dwellings: Two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. (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 efficiency and/or one-bedroom apartment. (4) Dormitories: One (1) parking space per rooming unit. (5)- Rooming and boarding houses: One (1) parking space per rooming unit. (6) Hotels, apartment hotels, motels, apartment motels, and time-sharing hotels and motels: One and one-quarter (1.25) parking spaces per 'bedroom. Ai (7) 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) parking space per four (4) seats in the auditorium, but not less than one (1) parking space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area fOt the auditorium, plus required parking spaces for any other principal uses, including offices, classrooms, meeting rooms, recreation facilities and dwelliIigs. (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 per one hundred (100) 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. 2001 S-16 Zoning 63 c. Government, institutional, and educational uses: (1) Governmentandgovernment- owned or -operated uses: Parking requirements for like or similar uses in the private 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 area. (4) Day care centers and nursery schools: One (1) parking space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area, plus adequate provision for a convenient drop-off area adjacent to the building 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 per one 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 (50) square feet of classroom area, plus one (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of floor area occupied by laboratories or shops, plus required space for any other principal uses, including offices, hbraries, auditoriums, and recreation facilities. (8) Specialized instruction, including dance, art, and self-defense instruction: One (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. d. Retail services, restaurants, and offices: 64 Boynton Beach Code (1) Restaurants, bars, cocktail lounges, dance halls, and all other eating or drinking 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) square feet of gross leasable flooLarea. _ _ _. (4) Retail gasoline sales, retail . automotive parts and/or accessories sales, and automotive repairs, including major repairs, but exclu.ding automotive paint and body shops: One (1) park:4tg space per two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gr~ss floor area. :;} i~. :f: ) (5) Bakeries: One (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. (6) Florists and retail sales floor area of greenhouses: One (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area.. (7) Grocery stores and food stores: One (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. (8) Automobile, truck, motorcycle, trailer, and recreation vehicle sales or rental: One (1) 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 establishments: One (1) parking space per two h\l,ndred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area, plus required parking spaces for outdoor storage or display of goods for sale or for rent. (10) Outdoor storage or display of goods for sale or for rent, -except boats: One (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 rent. (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 establishments 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 commerc.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 commercial zones: One (1) parking space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area (for printing, engraving, or publishing located in industrial or PID zones, see (1)(4)). (16) Funeral homes: One (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. (17) Kennels and animal hospitals: One (1) parking space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area, including area of outdoor kennels. (18) Financial institutiODS 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. IE Illll r FUIIETEIMIIIIIIG SIA PAIKIIIG The survey 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 survey, a methodology was developed to detennine parking de. mand for the conditions typically found in a mixed-use development. 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 METHODOLOGY The methodology involves four basic steps that may be applied, with appropriate background infonnation, to an existing or proposed project. Exhibit 2S 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 refine 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: IIIITIAL 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 @ STEP Am> TASK NUMBERS CD 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 of land 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 infonnation 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: ADJUSTMEIIT FBI PEAK PAIKlIIG 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 sub tasks 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." 1: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 exlubit 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 Restauranb10unge 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. G LA 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 fI November 100 80 80 50 100 85 80 100 40 I 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. Adjustment for Mode of'ITansportation 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 where 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 SUlVeyS 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: AWYSIS If IOURlY ACCUMULAnl. 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 Residelltw Reside.- ConferellCe eo.ve.. Office ReWl Restaurant Ciaenu. (....CBD) ti.U ICBD) Guest Room Restmrut/LouDge Roo.. tioa Aru -- Hour of Day W.ekd.ly s.tarday Weekd.ly Saturday Weekd.ly s.tard.ly DaJIy Weekd.ly S"arday DaJIy W.ekd.ly s.tard.ly Weekday s.tard.ly DaJIy DaJIy 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 45 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 45 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 45 100 100 4:00 p.mo 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 85 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- scribed 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 Df SRAREI PIRKIIIC 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 described above should be used for week- day and Saturday conditions to"test for the controlling value. SAMPLE USE IF THE MOHOIOlOGY The following sample situation has been devised to demonstrate the use of the recommended methodology. 1. Objective: Th 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 SO 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 ~ i ~ I ~ i ij I i 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 G LA 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: 10.0c 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 survey 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. To 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 contribution 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 summer. Based on an inspection, however, the relative contribution of retail parking demand to total project parking demand during December (compared with that of hotel parking demand during the summer) is much larger. The peak parking demand at the entire development will therefore most likely occur on a weekday in De- cember. 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 -7- 3.0) = 870 spaces Retail: 2.42 x 300 x (3.7 -7- 3.8) = 707 spaces Hotel rooms: 0.54 x 500 x (0.5 -7- 1.0) = 135 spaces Hotel restaurant: 6.98 x 5 x (7.2 -7- 12.0) = 21 spaces Hotel conference rooms: 0.38 x 200 x (0.5 -7- 0.5) = 76 spaces 870 + 707 + 135 + 21 + 76 = 1,809 total spaces. Because the proposed development will be in a downtown area, 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. Exlu'bits 29, 30,31, and 32 indicate the results for projects 10, 14, . 16, and 17, respectively. The fmdings 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 10. 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- 18This calculation represents the weighted average between the restaurant and hotel guest factors for December, as 50 percent of patrons are guests. 1; t i 1: CB g 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. t; 11 I: ~ i { t .~ i ~ i {! EXHIBIT Cl HOURLY PARKING DEMAND RATIOS-DEFAULT VALUES Hotel Restaurant! Conven. Office Restaurant Residential Guest Lonnge" Con. tion Retail Cinema Spaces per Rooms Spaces per ference Areaa Spaces per Spaces per Dwelling Unit" Roomsa 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 Non.CBD per Room Ft. GLA Spaces per 1,000 t , per Seat Sq. Ft. " Week- Week. Week- Week. Week. CBD Week- Week. t~ t Hour of Day day Sat. day Sat.- Sat." day Sat. day Sat. day Sat. Daily day Sat. day Sat. Daily Daily I 2.0 2.0 f- 6:00 a.m. 0.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 r 7:00 a.m. 0.6 0.1 Oc3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.87 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.70 2.0 2.0 i 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 !f 10:00 a.m. 3.0 0.4 2.6 1.8 2.2 4.0 1.5 0.68 0.74 0$5 0.45 0.40 2.0 2.0 0.5 30 I 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 0.4 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 I 4;00 p.m. 2.3 0.2 3.3 3.6 4.6 10.0 9.0 0.15 0.20 Oc66 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 Oc77 0$1 0.90 0.60 0.60 7.0 6.0 0.5 30 if ~ 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 i: 7;00 p.m. 0.2 0.1 3.4 2.4 3.1 20.0 19.0 0.20 0.25 0.94 Oc87 0.94 0.75 0.80 10.0 9.5 0.5 30 ~ 8:00 p.m. 10.0 10.0 0.5 30 ~ 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 Wi 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 Oc96 0.99 1.00 1.00 9.0 9.5 0.2 10 ~ Ii 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 I 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 I Percent auto usage 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 80 80 100 100 100 100 I 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 2cO 2,0 aRepresents nonguest parking demand, assuming 50 percent of restaurant patrons and 100 percent of conference and convention attendees are nonguests. Conference and I convention demands indicated are upper bounds, which are rarely achieved. "At one auto per dwelling unit. <For less than 400,000 sq. ft. GLA. dFor more than 600,000 sq. ft. GLA. r EXHIBIT C2 MONTHLY VARIATION IN PEAK PARKING DEMAND RATIOS- DEFAULT VALUES (PERCENT OF PEAK MONTH) Hotel 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 7S 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 ! ~ i,"~ )' ; c.....-) U'\L:IJL/\ ,. ,Pi~OPEF?TY OF EiWiiNr-r--i)IW~ ~rJr-~lr -~l\l'hl oJvltlivES LI BRARY 1 t, I (i. /:'1\"J. 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 significantly 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 travel to the center - Treatment of employee parking during shopping peaks - Size of the center. Adjustment factors for these variables will be discussed later i~ 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 entitled 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 I-~~~~~e,~~~,!!!~~~rtai,;,.~.!.nt. ~_'l~.!. Cin~m~ ~e~~ ~~~~~~;~<r_w<._,.~.,t~._.~.,~~~~,~-,~,~---~~,~=-1~~"_._,---=..._~-,__ Less than 400,000 ~ 4.0 4,0 Shared parkingd 400,000-599,999 I 4.0-4.5 4.0-4.5 Shared parkingd i sliding scalec sliding scalec 600,000 and over i 4.5 4.5 Shared parkingd a Parked cars per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable areac 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 footagec 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, entenainment, 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 proponionally 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 published in 19%. It stated that only 39 percent of vehicles on the road were considered compact. Dimensions 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 ~~ Squ~re Fee~~~_~~L~~f?~s Less than 400,000 400,000-599,999 600,000-1,499,999 1,500,000-2,500,000 Total 49 15 96 9 169 Parking Ratio (Parking Spaces per 1.000 Square Feet of Occupied GLA) Supply Demand ~~____~,*,~!l'_ 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. i L Parking Ratio (Parking Spaces per , 1.000 Square Feet of Occupied GLA) S~~1!!~!~~~<.2~.,~~~~~~^.~~1t",<'c";~'"'.",,l::.~~,':I?!?];i:~=,':::~:::::J!?:rS;i':~:::":.::: Less than 400,000 400.000-599,999 600,000 and over 'f ~ I 4,0 q i 4.0-5.0 (sliding scale) 4.0 4.0 4.0-4.5 (sliding scale) 4.5 Note: See Table 1 explanation of sliding scalec Ioc . PROJECT NAME: Boynton Beach Mall . LOCATION: PCN: I FILE NO.: MPMD 05-007 II TYPE OF APPLICATION: I AGENT/CONTACT PERSON: OWNER: JCP Associates, LTD. Thomas Marsciano, AICP ADDRESS: 115 W. Washington Street URS Corporation Southern, Inc. Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 ADDRESS: 7650 West Courtney Campbell F~:317-685-7255 Causeway Tampa, FL 33607-1462 PHONE: 317-263-7953 F~: - 813-287-8591 PHONE: 813-286-1711 SUBMITTAL / RESUBMITT AL 12/04/05 1 ST REVIEW COMMENTS DUE: 1/13/05 PUBLIC NOTICE: TRC MEETING: 1/25/05 LAND DEVELOPMENT SIGNS POSTED (SITE PLANS): PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2/22/05 MEETING: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD CITY COMMISSION MEETING: 3/1/05 COMMENTS: S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Beach Ma]]\MPMD 05-007\2004 PROJECT TRACKING INFO.doc