Item 6E and 6F - Southlake Town Square Shared Parking Analysis Final Base Report June 2 2015
1
5
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN
SQUARE
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
Prepared for:
Cooper and Stebbins
JUNE 2015
June 2, 2015
Mr. Frank Bliss
President
Cooper and Stebbins
1256 Main Street, Suite 240
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re: Shared Parking Analysis
Southlake Town Square
Walker Project 25-1860.00
Dear Mr. Bliss:
We are pleased to present our findings relating to the referenced project. The attached
report contains our analysis, conclusions, and assumptions. We ask that you carefully review
this report to fully understand the program assumptions. We recognize the dynamic nature of
the development process and are prepared to continue working with you as the process
unfolds.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to work with you on this project.
Sincerely,
WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS
Chad Snyder
Senior Parking Consultant
2525 Bay Area Blvd, Suite 400
Houston, Texas 77058
Office: 281-280-0068
Fax: 281-280-0373
www.walkerparking.com
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ i
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Project Location.................................................................................................................................. 2
Project Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 3
PARKING SUPPLY ....................................................................................................................................... 3
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE AND SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ............................ 3
SHARED PARKING METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 5
Background ......................................................................................................................................... 5
ULI/Walker Shared Parking Methodology ....................................................................................... 6
Base Parking Ratios ............................................................................................................................ 6
Drive Ratio (Transportation Mode Split) ........................................................................................... 7
Non-Captive Adjustment .................................................................................................................. 7
Presence Factors ................................................................................................................................ 8
Time of Day Adjustment .................................................................................................................... 8
Time of Year Adjustment ................................................................................................................... 8
Effective Supply .................................................................................................................................. 9
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 10
Town Square Based Model ............................................................................................................. 10
Base Parking Ratios .......................................................................................................................... 11
Peak Parking Demand ..................................................................................................................... 12
BLOCK-BASED SHARED PARKING APPROACH .................................................................................... 14
Walking Distances ............................................................................................................................ 15
Parking Management Plan ................................................................................................................... 29
Employee Parking Strategies .......................................................................................................... 29
On-site Parking Management Strategies ...................................................................................... 31
Technology Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 31
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 31
SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................................... 32
Task 1 Data Collection and Research ........................................................................................... 32
Task 2 Shared Parking Analysis ........................................................................................................ 32
Task 3 Deliverables ........................................................................................................................... 33
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Parking Supply ............................................................................................................................ 3
Table 2: City of Southlake DT Shared Parking Requirements .............................................................. 4
Table 3: City of Southlake Full Shared Parking Reduction .................................................................. 5
Table 4: Land Uses and Square Footages ........................................................................................... 10
Table 5: Base Parking Ratios .................................................................................................................. 11
Table 6: Peak Hour Demand Projections – Weekday ........................................................................ 12
Table 7: Peak Hour Demand Projections – Weekend ....................................................................... 13
Table 8: Walking Distance Level of Service ........................................................................................ 15
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
Table 9: Land Uses and Square Footage ............................................................................................ 17
Table 10: Distribution of Weekday Demand by Block ....................................................................... 18
Table 11: Distribution of Weekend Demand by Block ....................................................................... 22
Figure 1: Site Location/Plan ..................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Block-Based Master Plan ....................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3: Weekday Zone Based Parking Map .................................................................................... 19
Figure 4: Weekend Zone Based Parking Map .................................................................................... 23
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cooper and Stebbins (C&S) and the City of Southlake (the “City”) requested that Walker
Parking Consultants (“Walker”) perform a shared parking study of Southlake Town Square, an
over 1.4M SF mixed use project located in Southlake, Texas. Our research has shown that the
current parking system has adequate spaces within Town Square, in the locations where it is
needed:
· Utilizing the City of Southlake parking requirements per Section 37 (“DT” Downtown
District) of the Zoning Ordinance, the allowable shared parking requirement is 4,851
spaces. This is inclusive of the 221 spaces allotted per the Parking Garage Property
Operating Agreement, dated March 29, 2005. The result is a parking surplus of 484±
spaces (9.1%).
· Utilizing the City of Southlake parking requirements per Section 35 (Off-Street Parking
Calculations) of the Zoning Ordinance in conjunction with Section 37 (“DT” Downtown
District), the allowable shared parking requirement is 4,067 spaces. This is inclusive of the
221 spaces allotted per the Parking Garage Property Operating Agreement, dated
March 29, 2005. The result is a parking surplus of 1,268± spaces (23.7%).
· Utilizing the Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking Methodology the peak hour, day, and
month are expected to occur at 1 PM on a Weekday in December with 3,735 cars
parked. Southlake Town Square provides 5,335± spaces on-site in surface lots, on-street
and structured parking, indicating a parking surplus of 1,600± spaces (30.0%).
The Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking research performed cases studies on locations
such as the Block at Orange, Irving Spectrum Center, Reston Town Center, and Easton Town
Center where a mix of similar uses to Southlake Town Square were analyzed and compared to
the methodology utilized within this report. It is important to note that no developments are the
same, ranging from the type of uses, demographics, and operations. The ULI approach
provides the guidelines to understanding and projecting the parking demands based upon
sound research and theory.
Given the successfulness of Town Square, the lack of a comprehensive parking plan between
the public and private parking facilities could limit the perceived convenience of this parking
supply from a visitor perspective. We have detailed a variety of strategies that can be
employed to enhance the availability of convenience parking for visitors while providing easily
accessible parking fields for project employees and other longer term parking users, and some
examples of other projects in which such strategies have been successfully employed.
The Town Square Master Plan shows that significant development remains within the project.
C&S has stated that the current surplus is part of a long term strategy to facilitate this future
development, and has requested that Walker update this study periodically as new
development is added to Town Square. Some of these developments will add new parking
fields (such as the recently completed Trader Joe’s), while others will reduce surface parking
and add new demand (such as the pending development of a new building in Block 2). Over
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
ii
time, we can expect the current surplus to reduce. However with proper management there
should continue to be more than ample parking in the future as Town Square is developed
out.
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
1
INTRODUCTION
This section of the report discusses the background for this study, the mutually agreed-upon
scope of services, and a brief history of the project and area.
BACKGROUND
Southlake Town Square is a 125 acre mixed-use downtown development located in Southlake,
Texas, a suburb of Dallas and Fort Worth located 3 miles west of DFW International Airport, with
a 2015 population of over 28,000 people. C&S is the project’s developer and master planner.
Planning began in 1995. The first phase comprising 250,000 SF of retail and office space
opened in March, 1999. Periodically expanded since that time, Town Square currently
comprises over 1.4M SF of mixed use improvements.
The property which is the subject of this study includes over 1.1M SF of retail shops, restaurants,
offices, the City/County Town Hall, a U.S. Post Office, a bank, a Trader Joe’s specialty grocery
store, a 248 room Hilton Hotel, and a 14 screen Harkin’s Theater. Town Square also includes a
City Department of Public Safety headquarters, 43 single family Brownstone residences and
25+/- acres of undeveloped land which are not a part of this study (a part of which is currently
in development with the next phase of residential Brownstones). Over the next 20 years, C&S
projects that new development under the master plan may expand Town Square’s building
area to 3.0M SF or more.
Retail Properties of America, Inc. (“RPAI”) is the largest building owner and property landlord,
and manages operations and leasing of Town Square’s existing retail, restaurant and office
space. C&S, RPAI and the City work together to review and evaluate shared public/private
challenges and opportunities. Pursuant to these discussions, C&S engaged Walker to perform
a shared parking analysis of Town Square’s parking facilities existing at April, 2015. The purpose
of this study is to provide parking supply and demand analysis and projections to assist C&S,
the City and RPAI in enhancing current parking utilization and coordinating future planning
efforts.
Current parking is provided by a mix of on-street, off-street and structured parking. The on-
street parking and 1,588 structured parking spaces in the East (Block 4) and West (Block 3)
garages are controlled and enforced by the City of Southlake. The off-street spaces and a 2-
level parking structure adjacent to the Trader Joe’s are controlled and enforced by RPAI.
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
2
PROJECT LOCATION
Southlake Town Square is located on approximately 125 acres in Southlake, Texas. The project
is bounded by State Highway 114 (“SH 114”) to the north, North Carroll Avenue to the west and
Southlake Boulevard (FM 1709) to the south. The following figure illustrates the location of Town
Square as well of the project area which is the subject of this study.
Figure 1: Site Location/Plan
Source: Google Maps & Southlake Town Square
PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
Walker considered all current tenants in the project. However to allow for the natural
evolution of ongoing leasing efforts:
· All retail parking demand is based upon non-specific uses and operators.
· Restaurant parking demand is based upon most reasonable breakout by type (and not
for instance, if current peak is morning or night-time only).
Parking requirements per the Southlake Zoning Ordinance were calculated based on the 10%
shared parking reduction contained in Chapter 37 of the Ordinance, except as otherwise
noted:
· Chapter 35 allows for up to a 50% reduction for certain shared uses. We have shown
this for comparison purposes only.
· 221 spaces are contracted to the City and County in support of Town Hall.
· Harkins Theaters parks at a ratio of 1 space per every 4 seats, per their Lease.
· The Southlake Hilton parks at a ratio of 1 space per room, per the Zoning Ordinance
and the Second Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and
Easements for Southlake Town Square dated effective as of October 18, 2006, recorded
October 25, 2006 in Volume 16844, Page 91 and Instrument No. D206334031 of the Real
Property Records of Tarrant County, Texas (the “Declaration”) (the “CREs”).
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
3
PARKING SUPPLY
The parking supply for the entire development is approximately 5,335 spaces. All demand
projections and requirements will be compared to this static supply. The secured area behind
the post office has not been included as part of the supply as it cannot be shared.
Table 1: Parking Supply
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE AND SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Southlake Town Square is governed by Section 37 (DT Downtown District) of the Southlake
Zoning Ordinance that provides for a 10% shared reduction across the entire development.
The following table takes the 10% DT shared reduction with the following noted:
· 221 spaces are contracted to the City and County in support of Town Hall.
· Harkins Theaters parks at a ratio of 1 space per every 4 seats, per their Lease (a 25%
shared parking reduction).
· The Southlake Hilton parks at a ratio of 1 space per room, per the Zoning Ordinance
and the CREs.
On-Street
Surface
Lot Garage
Total
Supply
Block 1 43 361 404
Block 2 74 357 431
Block 3 66 254 841 1,161
Block 4 87 210 747 1,044
Block 5 39 321 360
Block 6, 7, 8 104 104
Block 10 61 111 172
Block 12 (w/ Hotel) 186 157 343
Block 13 46 46
Block 14 74 91 165
Block 17 40 349 389
Block 18 35 262 297
Block 22 5 187 192
Block 23 5 222 227
Total 865 2,882 1,588 5,335
Distribution of Parking by Block
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
4
Table 2: City of Southlake DT Shared Parking Reduction
Source: City of Southlake and Walker Parking
The result is a parking requirement of 4,851 spaces. The result is a parking surplus of 484± spaces
(9.1%) for Southlake Town Square.
The general parking regulations for the City of Southlake are found within Section 35 of the
Southlake Zoning Ordinance – Off-street Parking Requirements. Section 35.2(a) provides for the
ability to share some parking in instances such as we find at Town Square:
“Up to 50 percent of the parking spaces required for theaters, public
auditoriums, bowling alleys, dance halls, night clubs, or cafes, and up to 100% of
the parking required for a church or school auditorium may be provided and
used jointly by banks, offices, retail stores, repair shops, services establishments
and similar uses not normally open, used or operated during the same hours,
provided, however, that a written agreement thereto is properly executed and
filed as specified below (in Section 35.2(b)).”
As shown below, if the full 50% reduction for sharing of parking between the theater,
restaurants, retail shops and offices were approved, the parking requirement would be
lowered to 4,067 spaces, providing a surplus of 1,268 spaces. While an overall reduction could
be approved with a change to the DT Downtown District parking provisions of Section 37 of
the Zoning Ordinance, lowering the requirements for Town Hall, the Hotel and Movie Theater
would require separate approvals from the owners and operators of those facilities.
Land Use Quantity
Base
Ratio Units
Unadj
Pkg Sp
Permitted
Adj Adj Reqt
Community Shopping 417,050 5.00 /ksf GLA 2,085 90% 1877 Employee
Specialty Grocery 13,832 5.00 /ksf GLA 69 90% 62 Employee
Fine/Casual Dining 78,543 10.00 /ksf GLA 785 90% 707 Employee
Family Restaurant 13,689 10.00 /ksf GLA 137 90% 123 Employee
Fast Casual/Fast Food 3,794 10.00 /ksf GLA 38 90% 34 Employee
Cineplex 3,208 4.00 /seat 802 100% 802 Employee
Health Club 13,127 5.00 /ksf GLA 66 90% 59 Employee
Hotel-Business 248 1.00 /room 248 90% 223
Meeting/Banquet (20-50 sq ft/key) 15,000 2.50 /ksf GLA 38 90% 34 Employee /room 0 0
Office Community (Visitors/Bldg Staff) 201,306 3.33 /k sf GFA 670 90% 603 Tenant Employees
Medical/Dental Office 13,801 6.67 /ksf GFA 92 90% 83
Employee
Bank (Drive In Branch) 7,810 3.33 /ksf GFA 26 90% 23 Employee
Total Demand 5,056 4,630
Town Hall Parking Requirement 221 221
Total Supply 5,335 5,335
Surplus/(Deficit)58 484
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
5
Table 2 below shows current parking requirements per the DT Downtown District, with a
comparison to parking utilizing the full benefits of shared parking reduction under Section 35.2
of the Zoning Ordinance. Assuming Town Hall, the Hotel and Movie Theater retain their current
parking requirements, the overall shared parking reduction would be approximately 24%.
Table 3: City of Southlake Full Shared Parking Reduction
Source: City of Southlake and Walker Parking
SHARED PARKING METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND
This section of the report addresses the parking demand for the project. The principles
supporting this part of the analysis stem from the concept of shared parking, an industry wide
accepted practice used in mixed use developments and commercial districts. The Urban
Land Institute first published Shared Parking in 1983. This publication explains the concept of
shared parking and describes the use of a model to forecast peak parking conditions for
mixed-use developments, and/or urban settings. Walker led the team that researched and
authored Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, published in 2005. Although Walker led the efforts;
participants ranged from all facets of planning, development and the International Council of
Shopping Centers (ICSC).
Land Use Quantity
Base
Ratio Units
Unadj
Pkg Sp
Permitted
Adj Adj Reqt
Community Shopping 417,050 5.00 /ksf GLA 2,085 90% 1877 Employee
Specialty Grocery 13,832 5.00 /ksf GLA 69 90% 62 Employee
Fine/Casual Dining 78,543 10.00 /ksf GLA 785 50% 393 Employee
Family Restaurant 13,689 10.00 /ksf GLA 137 50% 69 Employee
Fast Casual/Fast Food 3,794 10.00 /ksf GLA 38 50% 19 Employee
Cineplex 3,208 4.00 /seat 802 50% 401 Employee
Health Club 13,127 5.00 /ksf GLA 66 90% 59 Employee
Hotel-Business 248 1.00 /room 248 90% 223
Meeting/Banquet (20-50 sq ft/key) 15,000 2.50 /ksf GLA 38 90% 34 Employee /room 0 0
Office Community (Visitors/Bldg Staff) 201,306 3.33 /ksf GFA 670 90% 603 Tenant Employees
Medical/Dental Office 13,801 6.67 /ksf GFA 92 90% 83
Employee
Bank (Drive In Branch) 7,810 3.33 /ksf GFA 26 90% 23 Employee
Total Demand 5,056 3,846
Town Hall Parking Requirement 221 221
Total Supply 5,335 5,335
Surplus/(Deficit)58 1,268
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
6
ULI/WALKER SHARED PARKING METHODOLOGY
Shared parking is the use of a parking area to serve two or more individual land uses without
conflict or encroachment. The ability to share parking spaces is the result of the following two
conditions:
1. Variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, by day, or by season at the
individual land uses, and
2. Relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same
auto trip.
The key goal of a shared parking analysis is to find the balance between providing adequate
parking to support a development from a commercial and operational standpoint, while
minimizing the negative aspects of excessive land area or resources devoted to parking. In
general, a shared parking analysis considers the types, quantities and user groups of land uses
for a development, as well as site- and market-specific characteristics. The ultimate goal of a
shared parking analysis is to find the peak period, or design day condition; according to ULI's
Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, "A design day or design hour is one that recurs frequently enough
to justify providing spaces for that level of parking activity.”
Allowing multiple land uses and entities to share parking spaces has prevented gross over-
parking and facilitated the creation of many popular real estate developments, whose
combinations of office, residential, retail, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment districts
synergistically use shared parking to enhance environmental vitality and economic viability.
Traditional downtowns in large and small cities alike have smartly used shared parking to help
create more compact, walkable environments to drive better place making and stronger,
more sustainable economic outcomes. Shared parking principles offer multiple benefits to a
community, not the least of which is a lesser environmental impact from the reduction in
impervious coverage and the “sea of parking” associated with overbuilding of parking in
support of many traditional developments, as well as the ability to create a more desirable mix
of uses at one location.
BASE PARKING RATIOS
To begin a shared parking analysis we first start with the type and quantity of land use to be
analyzed. Each land use has a specific metric considered by the parking industry to be a
reliable measure of parking demand for that use. For retail, that metric is square footage (gross
leasable area or GLA); for hotels, that metric is the number of rooms, etc. The parking
demand is divided by the quantity of each metric to generate a parking ratio for each land
use based on that metric (i.e. for retail, the ratio is presented as “spaces per thousand square
feet of gross leasable area”; for hotel, the ratio is presented as “spaces per room”).
This ratio, called the base parking ratio, is the result of industry research of stand-alone
“cornfield1” sites or on empirical data when available for an existing site. When multiplied by
the given quantity for a land use in a proposed development, the base parking ratio is
1 A “cornfield” development is defined as a site that cannot be easily reached through transit and does not have
neighboring land uses where demand from one use would overflow to the adjacent site. Particularly in the
Midwest, these are commonly located in less densely developed areas that may have been rural in nature.
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
7
considered to produce the peak parking that the land use would require. Shared Parking, 2nd
Edition, 2005 uses the 85th percentile of peak-hour observations for recommended parking
ratios, unless otherwise noted. The reason for this is to not overbuild to satisfy the peak of the
peak uses and create a financial hardship for the development.
For a mixed-use site, this calculation (quantity multiplied by base parking ratio) provides the
projected maximum amount of parking needed for the site without consideration to the
dynamics of the site and market, and interplay between activity levels for each land use. The
adjustments associated with site and market dynamics are found in the subsequent steps of a
shared parking analysis.
DRIVE RATIO (TRANSPORTATION MODE SPLIT)
The drive ratio represents a reduction in anticipated spaces needed to account for
employees and visitors arriving to the site by means other than a single-occupant, motorized
vehicle. These other means include mass transit, carpooling/vanpooling, drop offs, bicycling,
or walking from locations outside of the development site, etc. Walker utilizes market and site
specific data sources to generate assumptions for a drive ratio reduction. Market data is
generally available from the U.S. Census. These data may be used to support reductions in
parking. Site specific analysis is also needed to confirm that transit is available and that other
means (bicycle and walking) are also feasible.
For this analysis, given the lack of regional mass transit (other than area hotel shuttles, Uber
and taxis), and to err on the side of being conservative, we have assumed that 98%-100% of
customers and 95-100% employees are arriving to the site via automobile and requiring a
parking space. The remaining percentages are assumed to arrive by other means including
by carpool, bus, shuttle, taxicab or Uber, on bicycle or on foot, or dropped off by a driver who
does not stay at the property.
NON-CAPTIVE ADJUSTMENT
The non-captive ratio is the second factor modified when tailoring a shared parking model.
“Captive market” is borrowed from market researchers to describe people who are already
present at certain times of the day. In a shared parking analysis, the term “captive market”
reflects the adjustment of parking needs and vehicular trip generation rates due to interaction
among land-uses internal to the site. Traditionally, a non-captive adjustment is used to fine-
tune the parking requirements for restaurants and retail shops patronized by employees of
adjacent office buildings, or by other persons, generally long-term parkers, already counted as
being parked for the day (including residents and their guests).
Generally, non-captive parking considerations for any mixed-use development take into
account that some visitors to a specific land use may already be parked or have arrived at
the site to visit multiple land uses on the site, such as when an office worker visits a restaurant
within the same development. A shared parking analysis assumes some percentage of
patrons at one business (restaurant) may be employees of another business (office) located in
the same development. This is referred to as the “effects of a captive market,” as some of the
restaurant’s patrons are already parking at the site to work; therefore, they contribute only
once to the number of peak hour spaces utilizing the development’s parking supply. In other
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
8
words, with shared parking, the parking demand ratio for individual land uses can be
corrected downward in proportion to the captive market support of the neighboring land
uses.
When applying a non-captive adjustment, it is important to distinguish between sequential
and simultaneous visits. An example of a sequential visit occurs when a party sees a movie at
the theater and then dines at a restaurant afterwards. A theater and restaurant visit were
sequenced together, representing a longer length of stay than would otherwise have taken
place if the same party only caught a movie or only dined at a restaurant. The increased
length of stay does not warrant a reduction in parking demand. Those occasions where
simultaneous visits occur, warrant a reduction in parking demand. For example, if an office
employee eats lunch at one of the restaurants, then the analysis counts the office employee’s
automobile one time and not twice. The office employee’s parking demand is associated
with the office as the primary generator and not the restaurant. The restaurant parking
demand calculation excludes the office employee’s vehicle.
PRESENCE FACTORS
Presence is the last factor applied to user group parking demand in a shared parking model; it
is expressed as a percentage of potential demand modified for time of day and time of year.
Considering that parking demand for each land use peaks at different times, generally,
shared parking results in fewer parking spaces being recommended than would be the case
were the land uses considered separately.
TIME OF DAY ADJUSTMENT
The parking demand for any given land use varies throughout the day. Restaurants, for
example, typically show peaks around the lunch hour and a larger peak during the evening.
Restaurants are divided into several categories in the model that have different time of day
peaks. Fine/Casual dining generally peaks in the evening and has a greater bar presence.
Family style are restaurants that are generally busier at breakfast and lunch. It is important that
a vibrant mixed-use environment have a combination of these and allocated accordingly
throughout the site to facilitate the shared use concept. These hourly adjustments are based
on hourly parking accumulation data with the same source as the base parking ratios.
The model evaluates parking demand for each land use from 6 AM to 12 midnight on
weekdays and weekends for every month of the year. An additional analysis of the last week
of December is included and considered as the “thirteenth month.” Special analysis is
required during this unique period due to different parking demand patterns typical of the first
three weeks of December. Environments that typically see this as their peak are traditionally
malls where retail uses are the primary establishment.
TIME OF YEAR ADJUSTMENT
Seasonality usually has varied effects on the parking generation at mixed-use sites because
land uses and quantity mixes vary from one development to the next. Both restaurant and
retail parking demand exhibit strong seasonal peaks at similar times, so many mixed-use
developments with a strong retail component peak based on the combination of these two
uses. An example of time of year adjustments includes the increased business of health clubs
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
9
in January or greater movie attendance in the “thirteenth month,” in the last week of
December. Town Square has other festivals or seasonal events that create large peaks in the
parking environment such as: Art in the Square (last weekend of April), Independence Day
Fireworks (July 3), Oktoberfest (late September/early October weekend), and Home for the
Holidays (Thanksgiving to New Year’s). However, the shared parking approach is designed to
design to the 85th percentile, not the peak. Therefore these events have not been included in
the analysis of the parking demand at this time.
EFFECTIVE SUPPLY
It is an accepted principle in the parking industry that a parking facility or system cannot
operate efficiently when it is filled to capacity. Some empty spaces should be available at all
times to provide for more efficient circulation, and so that motorists do not spend excessive
time looking for the one or two remaining spaces in a large facility or area. It is also
recognized that if a parking system is planned to meet demand exactly, there will inevitably
be parking shortages due to imparked vehicles, repairs or other obstructions, and minor
construction. Therefore, in evaluating the ability of a parking supply to meet demand, and in
planning the size of future parking facilities, we use the “effective” supply rather than the full
supply.
The effective supply is the supply that is realistically usable by patrons or employees, usually 5-
10% smaller than the actual “full” supply depending on the space type and for whom those
spaces are designed to serve. For example in facilities dominated by employees, the
effective supply factor is lower (5% reduction) as drivers are familiar with the facility by virtue of
parking in it most or all weekdays, whereas a facility at a retail center would have a higher
effective supply factor (10%-15% reductions) due to a higher proportion of drivers who may not
be familiar with the facility. The shared parking model projections are for the number of
spaces that are necessary to accommodate demand and the effective supply cushion is
included in the base parking ratios.
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
10
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
TOWN SQUARE BASE MODEL
Walker modeled a scenario based on the quantity and mix of land uses provided by C&S and
RPAI. This scenario represents a current build-out of the site. To be conservative, the following
projections assume 100% lease-up and occupancy of all proposed buildings.
Table 4: Land Uses and Square Footage
Source: C&S, RPAI for commercial tenant roster and City of Southlake for Town Hall Breakdown
Land Use Quantity
Community Shopping 417,050 GLA
Employee
Specialty Grocery 13,832 GLA
Employee
Fine/Casual Dining 78,543 GLA
Employee
Family Restaurant 13,689 GLA
Employee
Fast Casual/Fast Food 3,794 GLA
Employee
Cineplex 3,208 seats
Employee
Health Club 13,127 GLA
Employee
Town Hall Meeting Space 8,071 GLA
Employee
Hotel-Business 248 rooms
Meeting/Banquet (20-50 sq ft/key) 15,000 GLA
Employee 248 rooms
Office Community (Visitors/Bldg Staff)240,736 GFA
Tenant Employees
Town Hall Library 10,000 GFA
Employee
Medical/Dental Office 13,801 GFA
Employee
Bank (Drive In Branch) 7,810 GFA
Employee
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
11
BASE PARKING RATIOS
For each use, a weekday and weekend base parking ratio for visitors and employees is
determined. Most of the base ratios used in this analysis originated from the 2005 Second
Edition of Shared Parking or Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generations, and
the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) in determining the appropriate ratios to
be used in the shared parking model. These ratios are based on significant primary data
collection and have been thoroughly vetted by a panel of consultants, prior to publication of
Shared Parking. In a few of cases, Walker also developed its own ratios because these were
not included in Shared Parking or other industry publications. These exceptions include base
parking ratios for hotel meeting room employee demand, and both visitor and employee
ratios for the spa. Walker applied its experience and seasoned judgment in developing these
ratios. The following table illustrates the base ratios used in the analysis.
Table 5: Base Parking Ratios
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015
Spaces required per unit land use
Land Use Visitor Employee Visitor Employee Unit Source Weekday Weekend
Community Shopping 2.90 0.70 3.20 0.80 /ksf GLA 1 3.60 4.00
Specialty Grocery 3.50 0.60 3.70 0.50 /ksf GLA 5 4.10 4.20
Fine/Casual Dining 15.25 2.75 17.00 3.00 /ksf GLA 3 18.00 20.00
Family Restaurant 9.00 1.50 12.75 2.25 /ksf GLA 3 10.50 15.00
Fast Casual/Fast Food 12.75 2.25 12.00 2.00 /ksf GLA 3 15.00 14.00
Cineplex 0.19 0.01 0.26 0.01 /seat 3 0.20 0.27
Health Club 6.60 0.40 5.50 0.25 /ksf GLA 3 7.00 5.75
Town Hall Meeting Space 5.50 5.50 /ksf GLA 3 5.50 5.50
Hotel-Business 1.00 0.25 0.90 0.18 /room 3 1.25 1.08
Restaurant/Lounge 10.00 10.00 /ksf GLA 3 10.00 10.00
Meeting/Banquet (20-50 sq ft/key) 30.00 30.00 /ksf GLA 3 30.00 30.00
Office Community (Visitors/Bldg Staff) 0.24 3.06 0.02 0.31 /ksf GFA 3 3.30 0.33
Town Hall Library 3.25 0.25 3.25 0.25 /ksf GFA 2 3.50 3.50
Medical/Dental Office 3.00 1.50 0.02 0.31 /ksf GFA 3 4.50 0.33
Bank (Drive In Branch) 3.00 1.60 3.00 1.60 /ksf GFA 3 4.60 4.60
Sources
1. Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers , Second Edition. Washington DC: ULI-The Urban Land Institute, 1999
2. Parking Generation, Third Edition. Washington DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004
3. Shared Parking, Second Edition. Washington DC: ULI-The Urban Land Institute, 2005
5. Walker Parking Consultants Experience and Database
Weekday Weekend Total
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
12
PEAK PARKING DEMAND
The peak hour for Southlake Town Square is projected to occur at 1:00 p.m. on a December
weekday. The projected peak hour demand for the uses at the development (i.e. the busiest
hour of the busiest weekday of the year) based on shared parking, drive ratios, and captive
ratios, is 3,735± spaces. Parking demand accumulations for the busiest hour of the busiest
weekday and weekend of the year are presented in the following two tables.
Table 6: Peak Hour Demand Projections – Weekday
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015
The table above reflects the culmination of the shared parking analysis. Retail is the primary
driver, followed by restaurant use and employees.
Demand
Unadj Month Adj Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio December
Land Use Demand December 1:00 PM Daytime Daytime 1:00 PM
Community Shopping 1,209 100% 100% 95% 98% 1,131
Employee 292 100% 100% 100% 96% 280
Specialty Grocery 48 95% 85% 90% 98% 34
Employee 8 100% 100% 100% 96% 8
Fine/Casual Dining 1,198 100% 75% 87% 98% 770
Employee 216 100% 90% 100% 96% 187
Family Restaurant 123 100% 90% 87% 98% 95
Employee 21 100% 100% 100% 96% 20
Fast Casual/Fast Food 48 100% 100% 87% 98% 41
Employee 9 100% 95% 100% 96% 8
Cineplex 610 23% 45% 95% 98% 59
Employee 32 50% 60% 100% 96% 9
Health Club 87 90% 70% 94% 98% 51
Employee 5 100% 75% 100% 96% 4
Town Hall Meeting Space 44 60% 100% 100% 98% 26
Employee 0 70% 100% 100% 96% 0
Hotel-Business 248 67% 55% 100% 66% 60
Meeting/Banquet (20-50 sq ft/key) 450 100% 65% 60% 75% 132
Employee 62 100% 100% 100% 96% 60
Office Community (Visitors/Bldg Staff) 58 100% 45% 100%98% 26
Tenant Employees 737 100% 90% 100% 96% 637
Town Hall Library 33 100% 45% 100% 98% 15
Employee 3 100% 100% 100% 96% 3
Medical/Dental Office 41 100% 90% 100% 98% 36
Employee 21 100% 100% 100% 96% 20
Bank (Drive In Branch) 23 100% 50% 95% 98% 11
Employee 12 100% 100% 100% 96% 12
Total Parking Spaces Required 5,638 3,735
Weekday
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
13
Table 7: Peak Hour Demand Projections – Weekend
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015
The weekend demand is driven by restaurant and cinema use, with restaurant and hotel
meeting space being engaged.
Demand
Unadj Month Adj Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio December
Land Use Demand December 8:00 PM Evening Evening 8:00 PM
Community Shopping 1,335 100% 65% 91% 100% 792
Employee 334 100% 75% 100% 97% 243
Specialty Grocery 51 95% 25% 86% 100% 10
Employee 7 100% 30% 100% 97% 2
Fine/Casual Dining 1,335 100% 100% 94% 100% 1,253
Employee 236 100% 100% 100% 97% 229
Family Restaurant 175 100% 65% 94% 100% 107
Employee 31 100% 95% 100% 97% 29
Fast Casual/Fast Food 46 100% 50% 94% 100% 22
Employee 8 100% 60% 100% 97% 5
Cineplex 834 67% 100% 85% 100% 475
Employee 32 80% 100% 100% 97% 25
Health Club 72 90% 30% 98% 100% 19
Employee 3 100% 50% 100% 97% 1
Town Hall Meeting Space 44 60% 30% 100% 100% 8
Employee 0 70% 20% 100% 100% 0
Hotel-Business 223 67% 80% 100% 77% 92
Meeting/Banquet (20-50 sq ft/key) 450 100% 100% 70% 75% 236
Employee 45 100% 55% 100% 97% 24
Office Community (Visitors/Bldg Staff) 6 100% 0% 100% 100% 0
Tenant Employees 74 100% 0% 100% 100% 0
Town Hall Library 3 100% 0% 100% 100% 0
Employee 0 100% 0% 100% 100% 0
Medical/Dental Office 0 100% 0% 100% 100% 0
Employee 4 100% 0% 100% 100% 0
Bank (Drive In Branch) 23 100% 0% 91% 100% 0
Employee 12 100% 0% 100% 100% 0
Total Parking Spaces Required 5,383 3,572
Shared Parking Demand Weekend
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
14
BLOCK-BASED SHARED PARKING APPROACH
The map below is a more detailed map which identifies the Block-Based approach. The
approach breaks Southlake Town Square into predefined blocks, as platted. The development
of the blocks for the parking analysis allows for a micro level approach to analyze the demand
of the uses and parking within the blocks. A more accurate understanding of parking surpluses
and deficits can be obtained through this method.
Figure 2: Block-Based Master Plan
Source: Cooper and Stebbins & Walker Parking Consultants, 2015
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
15
WALKING DISTANCES
Every trip involving driving and parking begins and ends with a pedestrian movement.
Typically the more popular the destination, the greater the walk that is required. In this case,
Southlake Town Square is a very popular destination for locals and people on vacation.
Walker has done extensive research on walking distances and how far parkers can reasonably
be expected to walk. The question is largely one of level of service. Meanign the degree of
user comfort that you are willing to provide your customers, visitors, and employees.
Customers and visitors are require a higher level of service and usually should be required to
walk less and therefore be within the LOS A-B range. Employees and other long-term parkers
(with the exception of residents) can be provided with a lower level of service and be
expected to walk greater distances, and therefore can within a B to C range. A summary of
our general findings regarding walking distances is shown in the table below.
Table 8: Walking Distance Level of Service
Source: Parking Structures 3rd Edition, 2001.
With the above published criteria being
established, the overall design of Town Square
does not lend itself to the prototypical walking
distance recommendations identified above.
The pedestrian friendly environment adds an
element that the chart cannot address. These
standardized Levels of Service were created
for more typical developments such as a mall
or shopping center with large surface parking
fields that the pedestrian must traverse a get to
the destination.
The presence of large sidewalks, trees,
awnings, benches and storefront retains the
pedestrians’ interest more effectively. This creates a more walkable environment. Therefore, in
a typical environment the general walking distances are within a LOS A-B range. But the
environment created by Town Square negates the distances and allows for a greater user
LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
Maximum Walking Distance
Within Parking Facilities
Surface Lot 350 700 1,050 1,400
Structure 300 600 900 1,200
From Parking to Destination
Climate Controlled 1,000 2,400 3,800 5,200
Outdoors, covered 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Outdoors, uncovered 400 800 1,200 1,600
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
16
acceptance for waking from their vehicle to their destination. More analysis will need to be
conducted to confirm a correlation between the Town Square and the chart above.
The majority of the parking supply, located within Blocks 3 and 4, is located roughly in the
center of the site, minimizing walking distances to the other blocks. Peripheral blocks provide
additional “convenience” parking for customers and some employees. The following tables
reflect the potential distribution of spaces to the demands by Block.
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
17
Table 9: Land Uses and Square Footage
Source: C&S, RPAI for commercial tenant roster and City of Southlake for Town Hall Breakdown
Phase/Zone: Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5
Block 6,
7, 8 Block 10
Block 12
(w/ Hotel) Block 13 Block 14 Block 17 Block 18 Block 22 Block 23 Total
Community Shopping 36,004 46,997 104,599 78,267 45,383 30,613 10,363 43,258 16,166 5,400 417,050
Specialty Grocery 13,832 13,832
Fine/Casual Dining 12,592 12,985 0 3,152 5,784 4,820 7,647 23,569 1,994 6,000 78,543
Family Restaurant 4,223 2,330 5,643 1,493 13,689
Fast Casual/Fast Food 2,138 1,656 3,794
Cineplex 3,208 3,208
Health Club 13,127 13,127
Town Hall Meeting Space 8,071 8,071
Hotel-Business 248 248
Meeting/Banquet (20-50 sq ft/key)15,000 15,000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 248
Office Community (Visitors/Bldg Staff) 26,376 24,930 54,118 49,152 27,495 39,430 19,236 240,736
Town Hall Library 10,000 10,000
Medical/Dental Office 13,801 13,801
Bank (Drive In Branch)7,810 7,810
Total 79,195 87,050 161,047 150,015 105,621 57,501 36,926 15,248 18,010 70,035 0 0 46,862 11,400 839,156
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
18
Table 10: Distribution of Weekday Demand by Block
Source: Walker Parking
The table above is the peak weekday parking demand. The demand requirements are compared to the available parking supply in
the block. As illustrated above, not every block will have sufficient parking to meet the 85th percentile peak demand. Therefore the
December
1:00 PM Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5
Block 6,
7, 8 Block 10
Block 12
(w/ Hotel) Block 13 Block 14 Block 17 Block 18 Block 22 Block 23 Total
Community Shopping 98 127 284 212 123 0 83 0 28 117 0 0 44 15 1,131
Employee 23 32 70 53 30 0 21 0 7 29 0 0 11 4 280
Specialty Grocery 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
Employee 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Fine/Casual Dining 123 127 0 31 57 0 47 0 75 231 0 0 20 59 770
Employee 30 31 0 8 14 0 11 0 18 56 0 0 5 14 187
Family Restaurant 30 0 16 39 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95
Employee 7 0 3 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
Fast Casual/Fast Food 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 41
Employee 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8
Cineplex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 59
Employee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 9
Health Club 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51
Employee 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Town Hall Meeting Space 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
Employee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hotel-Business 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
Meeting/Banquet (20-50 sq ft/key)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 132
Employee 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
Office Community (Visitors/Bldg Staff)3 3 6 5 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 26
Tenant Employees 70 66 143 130 73 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 637
Town Hall Library 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
Employee 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Medical/Dental Office 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36
Employee 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
Bank (Drive In Branch) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 11
Employee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12
Total Demand 444 414 522 542 397 152 174 192 128 501 0 0 177 92 3,735
Planned Supply 404 431 1,161 1,044 360 104 172 343 46 165 389 297 192 227 5,335
Surplus/(Deficit) by Block (40) 17 639 502 (37) (48) (2) 151 (82) (336) 389 297 15 135 1,600
Surplus/(Deficit) by Zone 350 1501100
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
19
zone based approach can be used to help facilitate the sharing of the spaces. The figure below provides a graphical illustration of the
zone approach used in the table above.
Figure 3: Weekday Zone Based Parking Map
Source: Walker Parking
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
22
Table 11: Distribution of Weekend Demand by Block
Source: Walker Parking
The table above is the peak weekend parking demand. The demand requirements are compared to the available parking supply in
the block. As illustrated above, not every block will have sufficient parking to meet the 85th percentile peak demand. Therefore the
zone based approach can be used to help facilitate the sharing of the spaces. The figure below provides a graphical illustration of the
December
8:00 PM Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5
Block 6,
7, 8 Block 10
Block 12 (w/
Hotel) Block 13 Block 14 Block 17 Block 18 Block 22 Block 23 Total
Community Shopping 68 89 199 149 86 0 58 0 20 82 0 0 31 10 792
Employee 22 27 61 46 26 0 18 0 6 25 0 0 9 3 243
Specialty Grocery 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Employee 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Fine/Casual Dining 201 207 0 50 92 0 77 0 122 376 0 0 32 96 1253
Employee 37 38 0 9 17 0 14 0 22 69 0 0 6 17 229
Family Restaurant 33 0 18 44 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107
Employee 9 0 5 12 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
Fast Casual/Fast Food 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 22
Employee 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5
Cineplex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 475 0 0 0 0 475
Employee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 25
Health Club 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
Employee 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Town Hall Meeting Space 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Employee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hotel-Business 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 92
Meeting/Banquet (20-50 sq ft/key) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 236 0 0 0 0 0 0 236
Employee 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
Office Community (Visitors/Bldg Staff)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tenant Employees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Town Hall Library 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Employee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medical/Dental Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Employee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bank (Drive In Branch) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Employee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Demand 394 376 283 310 253 8 182 328 170 1,052 0 0 90 126 3,572
Planned Supply 404 431 1,161 544 360 104 172 343 46 665 389 297 192 227 5,335
Surplus/(Deficit) 10 55 878 234 107 96 (10) 15 (124) (387) 389 297 102 101 1,763
Surplus/(Deficit) by Zone 1261 299 203
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
23
zone approach used in the table above. It is noted that the East Garage spaces have been shifted to allow for the increased
demands in the deficient zones.
Figure 4: Weekend Zone Based Parking Map
Source: Walker Parking
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
29
PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
A parking management plan for the site can assist with the goal that visitor and short-term
spaces are available for those user groups while all spaces throughout the system are
efficiently utilized. It is our understanding that there is not a holistic parking management plan
for Southlake Town Square, other than the general provisions of Zoning and the CREs. On-
street parking and the centralized East (Block 4) and West (Block 3) parking garages are
owned, operated and enforced by the City. The majority of off-street surface lot spaces and
the Trader Joe’s structured parking garage are owned, operated and enforced by RPAI (the
Southlake Hilton also owns 2 surface lots, which are shared with the project per the CREs.)
There is a parking surplus on the 85th percentile demand day. However the lack of a
comprehensive parking plan between the public and private parking facilities could limit the
perceived convenience of this parking supply from a visitor perspective. We have detailed
below a variety of strategies that can be employed to enhance the availability of
convenience parking for visitors while providing easily accessible parking fields for project
employees and other longer term parking users.
The Town Square Master Plan shows that significant development remains within the project.
C&S has stated that the current surplus is part of a long term strategy to facilitate this future
development, and has requested that Walker update this study periodically as new
development is added to Town Square. Some of these developments will add new parking
fields (such as the recently completed Trader Joe’s), while others will reduce surface parking
and add new demand (such as the pending development of a new building in Block 2). Over
time, we can expect the current surplus to reduce. However with a coordinated parking
management plan there should be more than ample parking now and into the future as Town
Square continues to develop new buildings and districts.
EMPLOYEE PARKING STRATEGIES
Currently employees of the retail, restaurant, office, hotel and other uses as well as Town Hall
employees are required to park in specific areas. In surface lots, there is a blue line
established by RPAI, which they enforce pursuant to the terms of individual leases. In the East
and West parking garages, employees are not allowed to park on the first two levels. The City
enforces these garages as well on-street parking areas. The CREs for Town Square generally
address shared parking, but lack specifics as to enforcement.
During our observations, there were a large number of vehicles not in complince with the
employee parking requirements. For example, at 9:00 am on a weekday there were 100
vehicles on the ground level of the garages, as well as many other cars parked on public
streets. This was before the great majority of retail and restaurant establishments were open.
As result, the top 2 levels of the East and West garages – which have been designated for
employyee parking – are consistently underutilized. Other employees were observed parking
on-street, or in the parking lots directly behind the buildings (not behind the blue line).
A holistic Public/Private employee parking plan would help to coordinate common rules and
enforcement mechanisms. Strategies could include:
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
30
· Tenant Meetings and Communication. The new parking plan should be
communicated to all tenants and businesses in writing. An inaugural meeting can help
to focus attention on the issue, and address questions. Following that, regular tenant
meetings (say, 2 times per year) with all commercial tenants will continue to educate,
reinforce and encourage employee parking within the appropriate locations. While
RPAI has the primary Landlord/Tenant relationship with most businesses in Town Square,
it may help to have C&S and the City attend these meetings when parking
management is a topic, to reinforce the system-wide nature of the parking
management plan. Non-RPAI tenants such as the Southlake Hilton should be included
in these parking oriented communications and meetings.
· Employee Parking Incentives. Some projects Incentivize employees to park in the
appropriate locations. For example, some locations are having success utilizing the
fitness trackers and counting steps to not only achieve the fitness goal but a way to
incentive.
· Employee Parking Penalties. Both “carrot and stick” policies are often required to
incentivize parkers to park in the appropriate spaces. Enforcement capabilities
attached with some form of punishment such as fines may be necessary, to the extent
provided for in the applicable lease, CREs, or similar governance documents. Other
enforcements options such as booting or towing could be considered. The opertating
entaties should get together to discuss options similar to these.
· Morning Monitoring. If necessary, City and/or RPAI staff can be deployed in the
mornings upon the arrival of employees to block off short-term/customer spaces
needed later in the day and to direct employees to designated employee parking
area.
· Designated Short-Term Parking. To promote parking on the 3rd and 4th floors of the
central garages (or in certain on-street areas), the City could designate convenience
parking (e.g., on 1st level) as “short term” parking. Given that many customers make
multiple visits on one trip to Town Square (e.g. for restaurants, shopping, services and
perhaps a movie), the duration of these “short term” spaces should be carefully
considered. Some projects might limit parking in these areas to 2 hours or less; others
perhaps longer. A caveat here is that where such parking is conveniently located to
the employee base, employees can trick the system by regularly moving their cars (as
has been observed in the industry). This approach requires gourly enforcement as well,
which relates back to operation costs.
ON-SITE PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
The establishment of a parking management operation on site, using City and/or RPAI
employees, would help to monitor parking, enforce management policies, and interact with
the public in order to help drivers find parking spaces and have a positive customer
experience within the parking system. Frequent monitoring of vehicles in convenience and
short term spaces at various times throughout the day when parking challenges arise (e.g.,
when employees arrive or during heavier shopping/dining periods) can help improve the
perception that customer spaces are always available.
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
31
TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIES
· Wayfinding. The City of Southlake has begun the process of installing as many as 23
wayfinding signs that help direct visitors to the centralized parking garages. These and
other wayfinding strategies can help maximize the use of available parking.
· Parking Guidance Systems. Various technologies can be employed to indicate where
available parking spaces can be found, how many spaces are available and, ideally,
lead drivers directly to those spaces. One logical location would be the monitoring of
the parking garage and dynamic display of parking spaces available there (either in
total or more specifically by floor or indiviual space) and potentially at other locations
within the Square.
· Parking Meters. Parking Meters are used in many urban areas to manage short term
parking and prevent long term loss of spaces (e.g., by employee parking). However
the perception of paid parking can also lead to loss of customer trips, particularly in the
suburbabs where parking is typically free.
· Employee License Plate Monitoring. Gathering license plate and vehicle information for
all employees can assist with montoring of prime spaces. Currently, some Univesities are
utilizing this approach to parking mamangement enabling them to go to a gateless
system. The issue with relating to this enviroment is that there is no parking revenues to
help offset the equipment and operting costs.
· The integration of parking applications with iphone and android based devices. This will
need to have a facility count system or single space giudance component.
CONCLUSION
The Walker shared parking study for Southlake Town Square has shown that the current parking
system has more than adequate spaces within the current 1.4M SF project, in the locations
where it is needed:
· Utilizing the City of Southlake parking requirements per Chapter 37 of the Zoning
Ordinance, the parking requirement is 4,851 (inclusive of the 221 Town Hall spaces)
spaces, indicating a parking surplus of 484± spaces (9.1%).
· Utilizing the Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking Methodology, the parking demand is
3,735 spaces. Using this methodology Town Square currently has a parking surplus of
1,600± spaces (30%).
The lack of a comprehensive parking plan between the public and private parking facilities
could limit the perceived convenience of this parking supply from a visitor perspective. A
variety of strategies can be employed to enhance the availability of convenience parking for
visitors while providing easily accessible parking fields for project employees and other longer
term parking users.
The Town Square Master Plan shows that significant development remains within the project.
C&S has stated that it will engage Walker to update this study periodically as new
development is added to Town Square. With proper management of the parking program,
there should be more than ample parking in the future as Southlake Town Square is developed
out.
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
32
SCOPE OF SERVICES
TASK1: DATA COLLECTION AND RESEARCH
1.1. Meeting with Cooper and Stebbins, City of Southlake and RPAI representatives, and
other appropriate project team members to finalize project parameters, obtain
relevant information and discuss project plans and program data.
1.2. Obtain and review current and proposed program data including:
· Tenant roster for the center, including square footage breakdown;
· Information regarding vacant or leased, but unoccupied space in the center;
· Lease abstracts that detail any parking provisions by tenant (e.g., Harkins Theater);
· Any agreements with others who are not center tenants (N/A).
1.3. Obtain and review current City of Southlake off-street parking requirements.
1.4. Perform a parking inventory of the existing parking facilities serving the center.
1.5. Perform parking occupancy counts on a typical Thursday and Saturday for the parking
facilities. Exact count periods and duration will be based on discussions with the client
during project kick-off.
1.6. Make general observations for traffic and parking patterns of patrons and employees
when applicable.
1.7. Obtain means of transportation statistics to/from work data, and other relevant
transportation statistics for the City of Southlake from local data and the US Census
Bureau database.
TASK 2: SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
2.1. Calculate minimum parking requirements for the proposed development based on City
of Southlake off-street parking requirements, for defined development scenarios.
2.2. Utilize the Walker/Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Model (SPM) to seasonally
adjust the data collected in Task 1.5 to reflect peak parking demand, at full occupancy
of the Square on weekdays and weekends for each month of the year.
2.3. Project future parking demand for defined development scenarios, based on the
program data (Task 1.2), occupancy counts (Task 1.5), and means of transportation
data (Task 1.6). Future parking demand will be based on the provided proposed
program data and will assume full occupancy of the center.
2.4. Utilize the parking demand model to form a parking accumulation model, by hour, for
the site, for the projected peak weekday and weekend of the year.
2.5. Compare project parking demand accumulation to documented parking inventory to
identify any projected shortfalls in parking supply.
2.6. Investigate opportunities for increasing parking capacity and managing peak parking
demand through restriping, if applicable
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
SOUTHLAKE TOWN SQUARE
JUNE 2015
33
2.7. Recommend parking locations for specific user groups based upon walking distances. [
TASK 3: DELIVERABLES
3.1. Walker will provide weekly updates on progress of study to Cooper and Stebbins.
3.2. Prepare a draft letter report detailing Task 1 and Task 2, as well as findings and
recommendations. The letter report will be suitably documented with appropriate text,
tabular, graphic and appendix materials. The draft parking study will be submitted to
Cooper and Stebbins and City of Southlake for review. The draft report will be provided
as a PDF document.
3.3. Obtain from Cooper and Stebbins one (1) set of consolidated comments related to the
draft report.
3.4. Conduct a conference call to discuss comments/questions and Walker responses, if
necessary.
3.5. Revise the draft letter report based on appropriate changes in response to comments
and discussion during the draft report conference call.
3.6. Deliver a final letter report to Cooper and Stebbins, the City of Southlake and RPAI in
PDF format. Hard copies of the report will be provided if requested.
1