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