No preview available
Item 6A and 6B Parking Analysis and Consultant's Reviews BURY now Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 221 West Sixth Street Suite 600,Austin TX 78701-3411 Stantec November 11, 2016 File: 1 981 101 1 1 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 5 November 11,2016 Mr.Schwab Page 2 of 6 Reference: White Chapel Village Delta Hotel Shared Parking Study Figure 1: Site Map fir Jll Countryside ( Highland St. .i Legend: !��' ❑ Project Site 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 density and seating capacity. TABLE 1 - REQUIRED PARKING PER LAND USE (WITHOUT SHARED PARKING) ITE Parking Site Land Use Code Density Unit Ratio Required Hotel 310 240 rooms 1/ Room 240 White Chapel Restaurant/Barg 932 290 Seats 1/ 3 seats 96 Village BallroomB - 407 Seats 1/ 3 Seats 136 Meeting Spaces - 90 Seats 1 1/ 3 seats 30 Total Parking Required (Prior to Adjustments) 502 ^The Restaurant/Bar will have 4,400 sf of dining space excluding the kitchen space or approximately 290 seats based on a maximum 15 sf per occupant ratio B The Ballroom will have 6,100 sf or approximately 407 seats based on a maximum 15 sf per occupant ratio c The Meeting Space will have 1,350 sf or approximately 90 seats based on a maximum 15 sf per occupant ratio Bl,c The 3,360 sf Pre Function is considered ancillary use to Ballroom and Meeting Space Design with community in mind �i November 11, 2016 Mr.Schwab Page 3 of 6 Reference: White Chapel Village Delta Hotel Shared Parking Study Per the City of Southlake Off-Street Parking Section 35, 502 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 and ULI 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 pm. 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. The Ballroom was assumed to have a 50% non- captive adjustment which is consistent with the Westin Parking Study results. While the Westin study, provided a 50% non-captive adjustment for both Restaurant and Conference/Meeting Space, a more conservative approach to include an 85% non-captive adjustment for Restaurant and 50% non-captive adjustment for the Ballroom was utilized for the White Chapel Village. ULI suggests that for meeting spaces contained within a hotel below 20 sf per guestroom is considered incidental to the hotel and does not create significant parking demand. The White Chapel Village is providing meeting space that is approximately 5.6 sf per guestroom which is below the 20 sf recommended breaking point. As a conservative approach, the Meeting Space was assumed to have a 25%non- captive adjustment based on the intended usage to be a hotel small conference which is consistent with the Cambria Hotel Parking Study results which also utilized a 25% non-captive adjustment. In addition, the driver ratio was assumed to be 100%for all land uses. 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 \ ^ \ » R ° R ° C14» i »\ \ « \\ \ \ \ \ » \ \ \ R oc) — / p % r \ % \ c _) r < <o m % \ 2/ c \ % \ c § r < < r ■ < / % 2 / 2 \ 9 \ % $ _ ® - - \ \ \ / R / ) (Y0 LD ) ® \ \ \ ( 4 \ oo0 C04 % / > % o / = / o = m § « = am E / ± / r / y / g / g $ � _ ® - q E \ \ \ \ $ / g/ gt ^ \ KLU G \ & / m / R / 2 \ KG / $ / a / = r _ g r < co < - / / k / 2 / ° / ° » 2 B 0 f r e e r k 3 2 R\ 2 \ e / m \ ~ - ■ = 2 ® ® K © \ - \ z > « / p & © _ \ \ \ «^ / o / o u \ o \ z e = r o 45 0 L \ o g > g = g = 2 _ a > o o / 4 / o / o / o & ® a LU r ) \ ao %0 § � A cL \ & 0 0 2a s / \ \- Q 2 CL \° 66 f \ o o ƒ \ .04 g . 0 \ \ § 2 a 2j . \ / 2 � ; w % - / ) / \ 2 5 \ / \ \ d p 2 f/ 7 0 / \ ) \ LU 2 0 \ CL 2 < \ �i November 11, 2016 Mr.Schwab Page 5 of 6 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 PM Captive Driver Ratio Demand Hotel 240 204 1000 1000 204 Restaurant/Bar 96 60 850 1000 52 Ballroom 136 136 500 1000 68 Meeting Space 30 30 250 1000 8 Total Required Parking 502 Shared Parking Required 332 Spaces w/o Shared Parking As seen in Table 3 above, the Restaurant is estimated have an 85% non-captive adjustment factor the Ballroom will have a 50% non-captive adjustment factor, and the Meeting Space will have a 25% non-captive adjustment factor which has been which have been discussed previously within this memorandum. 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 332 parking spaces to accommodate the peak parking period of at 9:00 pm. Currently,the development is providing 337 parking spaces;therefore, the development is over parked by 5 spaces and no additional parking spaces are required for the White Chapel Village Delta Hotel. In addition to the dedicated off-street parking, three valet plan options for the site have been provided to allow up to 28 additional parking spaces for events occurring during the peak hour and to accommodate the overflow parking during special events. Design with community in mind V:\1981\active\19811011 1\Traffic\4.00 Reports and Documents\4.01 Engineering Reports\2016-1 1-11 Schwab.docx/ks November 11, 2016 Mr.Schwab Page 6 of 6 Reference: White Chapel Village Delta Hotel Shared Parking Study 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. P Nicola Gheno, P.E., PTOE """'...... °'°... v NICOLA GHENO Civil Engineer �••-•••...•.•••............. Phone:512.328.001 1 Pf�. 117180 :�A Fax:512.328.0325 �qPA Nicola.gheno@stantec.com �RSNA ��yG /I I/2 )t4 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Stantec 221 West Sixth Street Suite 600,Austin TX 78701-3411 November 11, 2016 File: 1981 101 1 1 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 �i 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\19811 0111\Traffic\6.00 Files out\1981\2016-11-11\20161111_denholm.docx/ks �i 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 500 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:\1981\active\19811 0111\Traffic\6.00 Files out\1981\2016-11-11\20161111_denholm.docx/ks �i 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. 1. 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. I 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. 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:\1981\active\19811 0111\Traffic\6.00 Files out\1981\2016-11-11\20161111_denholm.docx/ks �i 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 tocomplete an additional shared parking studyas 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. 61i w& opo 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\6.00 Files out\1981\2016-11-11\20161111_denholm.docx/ks ARIZONA TEXAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA Lig inonrirc:vinc November 14, 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#3 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 November 11, 2016 along with a comment response letter dated November 11, 2016. Also included in the materials for review was Phase I Valet Diagram by Cole Design Group This letter supplements previous review correspondence and updates specific items listed below. Other comments in previous reviews pertaining to the traffic impact analysis or the parking study that have not been modified by the content of this review or by the applicants submittals remain in effect. 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. i INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS(REQUIRE NO ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT) 1, The text of the study indicates that the land uses within the development consist of a hotel with associated meeting/conference facilities and a restaurant. The sizes and descriptions of the uses have changed from the prior submittals. The hotel will include 240 rooms and a now is described as having a 290 seat restaurant/bar consisting of 4,400 square feet of dining space excluding the kitchen areas. The study describes the site as having a 6,100 square foot ballroom with approximately 407 seats as well as 1,350 square feet of meeting space with approximately 90 seats. Pre-function space of 3,360 square feet is described as being an ancillary use to the ballroom and meeting space and was not included in parking calculations. 3030 L8J Freeway,Suite 1660, Dallas,TX 75234 (972) 248-3006 office (972)248-3855 fax I www.leeengineering.com Page 1 of 3 2. The study indicates that the site is currently planned to include 337 parking spaces and that "three valet plan options have been provided to allow up to 28 additional parking spaces for events occurring during the peak hour and to accommodate the overflow parking during special events." 3. Previously we had commented that "The time of day distribution for the 10,810 square feet of meeting space does not appear reasonable". This has been corrected. 4. The study utilized a base parking demand rate of 1.0 space per room for the hotel based on City Code. ULI Shared Parking provides a higher base parking rate (1.18 to 1.25 spaces per room) for hotel and for a conference/banquet use within a hotel (30 spaces per 1,000 square feet). Use of the ULI parking demand rates would likely result in peak parking demand exceeding the proposed number of spaces. 5. As a secondary check, Lee Engineering generated parking demand using ITE Parking Generation for a 240-room hotel along with a 290 seat restaurant space. All meeting and banquet space was assumed to be included within the hotel, as ITE Parking Generation does not provide parking data for this land use separately. The use of seats in the latest iteration of the study increases the projected parking demand associated with the restaurant/bar component of the site. The parking demand calculation along with a shared parking adjustment results in an average weekend demand of 350 spaces and an 85`r' percentile demand of 483 spaces. ACTION COMMENTS(REQUIRE RESPONSE OR ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT 6. It is the opinion of Lee Engineering that the latest parking study submitted does not sufficiently support the request for only 337 parking spaces as proposed. 7. The response memorandum indicates that two easements to provide points of cross access to the east will be provided by the development. • We agree that cross access should be provided to the adjacent medical developments to the east. • It is unclear if cross access will impact the proposed number of parking spaces for the development. 8. Lee Engineering does not believe the non-captive adjustments for the Ballroom or Meeting Space components are reasonable. • The 25%used in the study for meeting space is applicable to convention uses within a Hotel. Convention uses can accommodated more than 1,000 attendees. This banquet and meeting space does not have sufficient capacity to be a convention space. LCC imci icisi IC Page 2 of 3 • 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. The rates used in the study should be in this range, not the 50%and 25%currently presented in the study. • Additionally, the application of the captive/non-captive ratios to the number of seats at the restaurant, the ballroom, and the meeting space, suggest that 299 people would be staying in the 240 rooms at the hotel. 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, John Denholm III, P.E., PTOE Project Manager Lee Engineering TBPE Firm F-450 LCC Cncinra:nne Page 3 of 3