Loading...
Resopnse Letter0� Stantec November 11, 2016 File: 1 981 101 1 1 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 221 West Sixth Street Suite 600, Austin TX 78701-3411 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 November 2, 2016. We have reviewed these comments and respond in the following manner: Action Comments 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. The equivalent square footage for the Ballroom and Meeting Space have been provided as footnote references within the memorandum. 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. A meeting with the City and Lee Engineering to discuss the outcome of updating the TIA for the purposes of improvements related to the hotel is requested. Design with community in mind November 11, 2016 Mr. Denholm III, P.E., PTOE Page 2 of 5 Reference: Comment Response 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. We will provide (2) easements on the eastern side of our property line for future connection to the medical development. 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. The a visual of the adjoining medical development was included based on staff request but detailed information regarding the size and intensity of the adjoining medical developments are not available at this time. 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. Per email scoping exchange between Josh Smith and John Denholm on April 2, 2015, the full capacity of the eastern hospital was not discussed as background development or suggested additional traffic to be included with the 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. Per email scoping exchange between Josh Smith and John Denholm on April 2, 2015, the Forest Park Medical Development was not discussed as background development or suggested additional traffic to be included with the TIA. 12. Previously we had commented that "The time of day distribution for the 10,810 square Design with community in mind V:\ 1981 \active\ 1981 101 1 1 \Traffic\6.00 Files out\ 1981 \2016-1 1 -1 1 \20161 11 1 _denholm.docx/ks November 11, 2016 Mr. Denholm III, P.E., PTOE Page 3 of 5 Reference: Comment Response 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. Design with community in mind V:\1 981 \active\ 1981 101 1 1 \Traffic\6.00 Files out\ 1981 \2016-1 1 -1 1 \20161 11 1 _denholm.docx/ks November 11, 2016 Mr. Denholm III, P.E., PTOE Page 4 of 5 Reference: Comment Response The Parking Study has been updated to reflect the intended usage to the space as it relates to Ballroom versus Meeting Space. Each space has been broken down by square footage and seating based on planned hotel configuration. The time of day distribution has been updated to include the Conference/Banquet as listed by the ULI Shared Parking Manual. 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. n. 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. ui. 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. An update to the non -captive adjustments and rational have been included within the revised memorandum. 14. Previously Lee Engineering commented that "the shared parking analysis presented does Design with community in mind V:\1 981 \active\ 1981 101 1 1 \Traffic\6.00 Files out\ 1981 \2016-1 1 -1 1 \20161 11 1 _denholm.docx/ks November 11, 2016 Mr. Denholm III, P.E., PTOE Page 5 of 5 Reference: Comment Response not take into account the interaction of other land uses within the development such as the planned office buildings and retail spaces. These usesshould be included in the analysis." • The applicant's comment response indicates that "At this time, the land uses currently presented are the only uses that are currently plonned 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. • 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. Please contact our office should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. / R, I M, 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\ 1981 101 1 1 \Traffic\6.00 Files out\ 1981 \2016-1 1 -1 1 \20161 11 1 _denholm.docx/ks