Loading...
Item 7A Parking Analysis and Consultant's Reviews BURY na,h, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 221 West Sixth Street Suite 600,Austin TX 78701-3411 S}antec October 20, 2016 File: 198110111 Attention: Mr. Carl Schwab RREAF Real Estate & Note Acquisitions 4245 North Central Expressway Suite 420 Dallas, Texas 75205 Dear Mr. Schwab, Reference: White Chapel Village Delta Hotel Shared Parking Study This letter is in response to your request for a parking study analyzing shared parking between uses. The proposed White Chapel Village Delta Hotel will have surface parking with 337 parking spaces. The White Chapel Village will consist of various land-uses including, hotel, restaurants, and conference center development. In order to determine the sufficiency of the proposed surface parking in meeting the parking demand generated by White Chapel Village, full capacity of each land use was considered for the parking analysis. Site Description The proposed site is located on the southeast corner of White Chapel Boulevard and the SH 114 eastbound frontage road, north of Highland Street.The site location is shown in Figure 1. Design with community in mind (3 October 20,2016 Mr.Schwab Page 2 of 5 Reference: White Chapel Village Delta Hotel Shared Parking Study Figure 1: Site Map Y Legend: +� ►f Project Site Nkc Aerial Image Source: Google Earth The White Chapel Village will consist of various land-uses including, hotel, restaurants, and conference center development. Table 1 outlines the various land-uses with their respective square-footage. Design with community in mind (I October 20,2016 Mr.Schwab Page 3 of 5 Reference: White Chapel Village Delta Hotel Shared Parking Study TABLE 1 - REQUIRED PARKING PER LAND USE (WITHOUT SHARED PARKING) ITE Parking Site Land Use Code Density Unit Ratio Required Hotel 310 240 rooms I/ Room 240 White Chapel I/ 100 Sq. Village Restaurant/Bar 932 7,476 Sq. Ft. Ft. 75 Conference Center 1 595 1 540 1 Seats I 1/3 seats 180 11 Total Parking Required (Prior to Adjustments) 495 Per the City of Southlake Off-Street Parking Section 35,495 total parking spaces are required per the various land-uses as shown within Table 1. Shared Parking Analysis The shared parking analysis for the White Chapel Village was completed following the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Guideline for Shared Parking as well as the Institute of Transportation (ITE) Parking Generation Handbook. The ITE handbook was utilized to determine time of day distribution as seen in Table 2. Based on the time of day distribution, the peak demand hour was determined to be between 9-10 am. The ULI handbook accounts for non-captive parking as well as driver ratios as part of the adjustment factors. For the purposes of this analysis, the restaurant land-use was assumed to have an 85%non-captive adjustment and the conference center was assumed to have a 25%non-captive adjustment based upon professional judgement and experience. Moreover, the driver ratio was assumed to be 1000. Upon understanding the various adjustment factors, the required parking without shared parking was adjusted by the above mentioned factors to obtain the total required parking for shared parking. The adjustment factors as well as the shared parking requirement can be seen within Table 3. Design with community in mind » Rc \/{ \ \ » \ \ \ % / c \ / \ / Q \ 2 ° ¥ p \ > « co ) p � < « oza 2® 2 / ® « § r < » ° © £ ® \ \ / / % \ 7 \ y = ¥ oo © / E ± « z \ 2 « \ KR / - \ 2@ � 'ocN 0 F m § 0 m � � m cN \ % r / 442 + 2 "~ � q k \ � � \ » / � � C) - � � \ » \ r \ » \ \ ~ ¥ � El II / � \ % \ 2 } B © /2 \/ / \ �q > gc14 L,) �=o < = r4 � m [/ < / r / = o \ ° - ° ^ ® ° � ° ^ � ^ ° ^ k ® olo 'o > ¥ _ % \ z \ cN\ \ \ o \ � ■ oo o / z / c \ EDko It C4 cN LU r LO \ 2 } kc14 � ] \ 2 0 cL% \ ■ % / o )g _ § j / \ o L 2 > / j \ f 2 - o o § f c f % kc14 LO \ § ƒ U < f { \ k \ @j \ Lo C / / U \ 0 C /{ 7 6 / / � § \ E ® b = . 7 } \ \ LU - k 0 / / 2 ~ ° < \ (I October 20,2016 Mr.Schwab Page 5 of 5 Reference: White Chapel Village Shared Parking Study TABLE 3 - ADJUSTED SHARED PARKING REQUIREMENTS Peak Hour Adjusted Unadjusted Adjustment Non Peak Hour Land Uses Demand 9:00 AM Captive Driver Ratio Demand Hotel 240 209 1000 1000 209 Restaurant/Bar 75 57 85% 1000 49 Conference Center 180 180 25% 1000 45 Total Required Parking 495 Shared Parking Required 303 Spaces w/o Shared Parking As seen in Table 3 above, the restaurant is estimated have an 85% non-captive adjustment factor and the conference center will have a 25% non-captive adjustment factor. A large proportion of patrons of the conference center are anticipated to lodge at the hotel and dine at the on-site restaurant, and therefore justifying the 25% non-captive adjustment factor. Upon the completion of the analysis, it was found that by sharing parking between uses, the White Chapel Village Delta Hotel will need to provide 303 parking spaces to accommodate the peak parking period of at 9:00 am. Currently,the development is providing 337 parking spaces;therefore, the development is over parked by 34 spaces and no additional parking spaces are required for the White Chapel Village Delta Hotel. We appreciate your office's review of this document and look forward to working with you. If you should have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us at 512.328.0011. Regards, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. /�A W& 40-" Nicola Gheno, P.E., PTOE Civil Engineer Phone:512.328.001 1 Fax:512.328.0325 Nicola.gheno@stantec.com Design with community in mind V:\1981\active\198110111\Traffic\4.00 Reports and Documents\4.01 Engineering Reports\2016-10-17 Schwab.docx/ks Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Stantec 221 West Sixth Street Suite 600,Austin TX 78701-3411 October 20, 2016 File: 198110111 Attention: John Denholm III, P.E., PTOE Project Manager Lee Engineering 3030 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1660 Dallas, Texas 75234 Dear Mr. Denholm, Reference: Comment Response White Chapel Village Delta Hotel Parking Study Review Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas This is our response to comments received from your office on September 30, 2016. We have reviewed these comments and respond in the following manner: Action Comments 6. The 'time of day' distribution used for the hotel land use (ITE code 310) does not appear to come from the ITE Parking Generation Manual.The hourly distribution for the hotel land use does not appear reasonable as Oho of the hotel parking was shown in use throughout the overnight hours. Please update this distribution to match the data presented In the Parking Generation Manual, or indicate where the data was obtained. The time of day distribution for hotel land use has been updated to match the ITE Parking Generation Manual for hotel land use. 7. The time of day distribution for the 10,810 square feet of meeting space does not appear reasonable as no vehicles are assumed to be parked after 5:00 PM. An evening event for the space should be accommodated. The time of day distribution for the convention center land use has been updated to match the ULI Shared Parking Manual for convention center land use. 8. According to the study, City code requires a total of 370 parking spaces. City code does not include a conference center land use. Although the study does not specifically state the land use utilized,lt appears that the"lodge or fraternal organization"land use was used Instead of"community center' or"meeting rooms and places of public assembly." • If the "community center" use in the City code were utilized instead,424 parking Design with community in rninu October 20,2016 Ms. Barton-Holmes Page 2 of 3 Reference: Comment Response spaces would be required. This land use has been utilized by other hotel development parking studies previously submitted to the City. • The "meeting rooms and places of public assembly" parking requirement Is given in terms of number of seats rather than square footage. Industry data Indicates that a 6,000 square foot room could seat 400 people in a banquet configuration which would require 133 spaces according to City code. The total required for the site would then be 448 spaces. The proposed site has 10,810 square feet of meeting space with an unknown mix of room and seating configurations which would likely further increase the code required parking. • More Information about the proposed meeting space is required in order to evaluate the amount of parking necessary to-accommodate the use. The parking ratio has been changed to a seating ratio which provides a seating capacity that is consistent other developments with similar land uses that have recently been approved and developed within the area. 9. The report Indicates that the non-captive adjustments (85%for restaurant and conference center) and driver ratio (1000) utilized came from the shared parking methodology developed by the Urban Land Institute. However, these appear to be assumptions loosely based on the ULI methodology. Please further indicate how these were obtained or assumed. The non-captive adjustment and driver ratio are methodology taken from the ULI Shared Parking Manual and are based on engineering judgement. 10. The shared parking analysis presented does not take into account the interaction of other land uses within the development such as the planned office buildings and retail spaces. These uses should be included in the analysis. As this time, the land uses currently presented are the only uses that are currently planned to be built. It is the developer's intent to complete an additional shared parking study as further land uses are intended to be developed and constructed. Design with community in mind V:\1981\active\198110111\Traffic\4.00 Reports and Documents\4.07 Comment Response\20161020_Denholm.docx/ks (3 October 20,2016 Ms. Barton-Holmes Page 3 of 3 Reference: Comment Response Please contact our office should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. /��W& ow'eto Nicola Gheno, P.E., PTOE Civil Engineer Phone:512.328.0011 Fax:512.328.0325 Nicola.Gheno@stantec.com Design with community in mind V:\1981\active\19811011 1\Traffic\4.00 Reports and Documents\4.07 Comment Response\20161020_Denholm.docx/ks ARIZONA TEXAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA 7L1EEF.nanEE:nnc November 2, 2016 Steven Anderson, P.E. City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 320 Southlake,Texas 76092 Re: White Chapel Village Delta Hotel Parking Study Review Dear Mr. Anderson: Per your request, we have completed a review of the updated parking study for the proposed White Chapel Village Delta Hotel,to be located on the southeast corner of the intersection of White Chapel Boulevard and the SH 114 eastbound frontage road in Southlake, Texas. The parking study was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.,and dated October 20,2016. Also included in the materials for review was a concept development plan from Merriman Associates dated October 24, 2016. Comments are numbered for ease of reference and the numbering does not imply any ranking. We have divided our comments into two categories—Informational Comments are those that require no action by the City or the applicant. Action Comments are those that require a response or action by the City or applicant. We offer the following comments on the submitted study. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS(REQUIRE NO ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT) 1. The text of the study indicates that the land use is a hotel with associated meeting/conference facilities and a restaurant. The hotel will include 240 rooms and 7,476 square feet of restaurant space. The study did not state the amount of meeting or conference space. The study indicates that the site is currently planned to include 337 parking spaces. 2. The 'time of day' distribution from the ITE Parking Generation Manual utilized was for a "family restaurant" (high-turnover sit-down, ITE code 932) on a weekday,which appears reasonable. While the"restaurant with bar or lounge" may be more applicable,the"family restaurant"appears to have a more conservative distribution. 3. The study utilized a base rate of 1.0 space per room for the hotel. ULI Shared Parking provides a higher base parking rate (1.18 to 1.25 spaces per room)for hotel and for a conference center within a hotel (30 spaces per 1,000 square feet). Use of the ULI rates would result in peak parking requirements higher than the proposed number of spaces. 4. As a secondary check, Lee Engineering generated parking demand using ITE Parking Generation for a 240-room hotel along with 7,476 square feet of restaurant space. Meeting space was assumed to be included within the hotel, as ITE does not provide parking data for this land use separately. This 3030 LBJ Freeway,Suite 1660, Dallas,TX 75234 (972)248-3006 office (972)248-3855 fax I www.leeengineering.com Page 1 of 4 demand calculation along with a shared parking adjustment results in an average weekend demand of 335 spaces and an 85 t" percentile demand of 427 spaces. 5. Our previous comment regarding the 'time of day' distribution used for the hotel land use has been adequately addressed. ACTION COMMENTS(REQUIRE RESPONSE OR ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT) 6. Previously the study stated 10,810 square feet of meeting space was proposed within the planned hotel. The study no longer details how many square feet of meeting space is included in the proposed hotel. Please cite the planned square footage of meeting space within the hotel that was used in the updated analysis. 7. The concept development plan included in the 2016-10-24 Delta Southlake Center S-P-2 Zoning Submittal depicts the proposed Delta Hotel Development as well as the following buildings and uses: • Two (2)five (5) story office buildings with retail and parking below grade. • One (1) six(6) story office building. • A three (3) story parking garage with retail space. • A separate retail space. • It is important to recognize that the uses shown in the latest concept plan are more intense than the uses analyzed in the traffic impact analysis submitted and reviewed previously for the White Chapel Village Site. The TIA should be updated to reflect the latest plan. 8. The Concept Development Plan indicates that no cross access is planned to the adjoining medical center property along either the eastern or southern property lines. • The site plan that accompanied the traffic impact analysis included cross access in at least one location. • Shared access to the medical developments to the east and Highland Street to the south are suggested to provide for safer and more efficient flow of traffic accessing both properties. 9. While not part of the subject property, no information about the size and intensity of the adjoining medical developments was contained on the Concept Development Plan page. We are unable to determine at this time if the shown medical uses match those that were accounted for in the original traffic studies for the Forest Park Medical Development. 10. The operating status of the existing hospital on the property to the east is unclear in the submitted traffic impact analysis for the White Chapel Village development. It is possible that the hospital may have been operating at lower levels or may have already ceased operations when the background counts were collected for the traffic impact analysis. It is unlikely that a fully operational hospital has been adequately accounted for in the original White Chapel Village TIA. 11. The planned medical office building towers and structure parking on the medical site to the east was not accounted for in the background traffic for the White Chapel Village Traffic Impact analysis. The City should consider requiring the TIA to be updated in order to provide an analysis that accounts for planned allowed medical-office uses in the vicinity. LE inanisine Page 2 of 4 12. Previously we had commented that "The time of day distribution for the 10,810 square feet of meeting space does not appear reasonable as no vehicles are assumed to be parked after 5:00 PM. An evening event for the space should be accommodated." The applicant revised the study to use ULI Shared Parking demand percentages for a conference center resulting in 50%of the conference center parking demand during the 6 PM hour, 30%from 7 PM to 9 PM and 10%during the 9:00 PM hour. • Lee Engineering still maintains that an evening event for the space should be accommodated. Based on a review of Delta hotel meeting and space planning information on the Marriott/Delta hotel websites, weddings are desired events for the other locations in the Delta brand. Lee Engineering believes an evening event,that fully utilizes the largest ballroom, such as a wedding, should be accommodated by the site. • Notably, Shared Parking contains hourly time-of-day factors for Conference/Banquet facilities within a Hotel as well as the Convention use. While the study applied Convention though it would appear that Conference/Banquet is more appropriate during the evening hours as demand is shown as 100%from 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM. • Previously Lee Engineering had commented that "The proposed site has 10,810 square feet of meeting space with an unknown mix of room and seating configurations which would likely further increase the code required parking. More information about the proposed meeting space is required in order to evaluate the amount of parking necessary to accommodate the use." The parking study no longer includes the total square footage of meeting space, no breakdown or other detailing of the planned space is provided, and the study simply states that 540 seats are available in the conference center. Additionally, in a comment response document, the applicant states that: "The parking ratio has been changed to a seating ratio which provides a seating capacity that is consistent other developments with similar land uses that have recently been approved and developed within the area." Because the size of the meeting space has been removed,the reasonableness of the selected number of seats and seating ratio cannot be assessed. The seating ratio should be based on the planned hotel configuration, or on similar Delta Hotel facilities. • Based on the information in the study,the Conference/Banquet use is more appropriate than Convention. Convention use is applicable to hotel space that can accommodate 1,000 persons or more. The study suggests only 540 persons can be accommodated in the meeting spaces. 13. Lee Engineering previously commented that the 85% non-captive adjustments for restaurant and conference center"appear to be assumptions loosely based on the ULI methodology. Please further indicate how these were obtained or assumed." • Engineering judgement was cited in the comment response document as the basis for the assumed non-captive adjustments. Sufficient evidence of the reasonableness of the original 85%percent assumption for the conference center was not provided. • Furthermore,the non-captive adjustment for conference center was changed from 85% in the initial study to 25%in the study being reviewed. i. The study included minimal justification for the reduction from 85% to 25% concluding that "a large proportion of patrons of the conference center are anticipated to lodge at the hotel and dine at the on-site restaurant, therefore justifying the 25% non-captive adjustment factor." This change in the non- captive ratio reduces the site's estimated parking needs by over 100 spaces and does not appear to be a reasonable assumption. LE inanisine Page 3 of 4 ii. The 25% used in the study is applicable to Convention uses within a Hotel, This site does not appear to be similar to the Convention use based on the information presented in the study that only 540 seats are present in the meeting spaces. iii. Shared Parking recommends that a 60% non-captive rate be considered the starting point for the conference/banquet use and shows a range from 60%-70% for the meeting space associated with various hotel types. iv. Additionally,when you consider the 540 persons attending the meeting space,a 25% non-captive rate would suggest that 405 people are staying in the 240 rooms at the hotel. This would be an average of almost 1.7 persons per room, far higher than the average of 1.2 persons per room presented in Shared Parking. 14. Previously Lee Engineering commented that "the shared parking analysis presented does not take into account the interaction of other land uses within the development such as the planned office buildings and retail spaces. These uses should be included in the analysis." • The applicant's comment response indicates that "As this time, the land uses currently presented are the only uses that are currently planned to be built. It is the developer's intent to complete an additional shared parking study as furtheriand uses are intended to be developed and constructed." • Lee Engineering requested the parking analysis incorporate the entire development and not just the Hotel site because Lee Engineering is of the opinion that the Hotel portion of the site is underparked and that a shared parking analysis for the entire development may indicate otherwise suitable operations. 15. The parking study submitted does not sufficiently support the need for only 337 parking spaces as proposed. If you have any questions, please contact me at (972) 248-3006. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services and are available to address any additional comments or concerns. Sincerely, ire John Denholm III, P.E., PTOE Project Manager Lee Engineering TSPE Firm F-450 LRE manEsinc Page 4 of 4