FULL PACKET_2009-05-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WALKER Mark Pfeifer Ma 1, 2009 ~,~r~k::ra~ ~_~t~wit,~r~ts ~ Page 5 Although the interplay of land uses can reduce overall parking demand, it should be noted that there are limits imposed by the proximity of land uses to each other and to the supply of parking spaces. While "shared parking" by definition capitalizes on different demand periods for a combination of land uses, it is illogical to assume that a hotel (with peak evening demand) can share with an office building (with peak daytime demand), if the two entities are located too far apart. In addition, human behavior, such as limits to the distance users will walk from a parking facility to their final destination, also restricts shared parking opportunities. The Walker shared parking model used in this analysis is based on the Urban Land Institute and International Council of Shopping Center's Shared Parking' publication that Fehr and Peers used in their earlier analysis. Walker led a team of consultants in writing the updated Shared Parking, Second Edition published in 2005, which is acknowledged as the most up-to~ate parking demand model. The model is designed to project the parking needs of a mixed-use development from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight on a typical weekday and on Saturday for every month of the year. PARKING DEMAND RATES In their analysis, Fehr and Peers used the parking ratios recommended by ULI in the 2005 shared parking report in every particular, except the driving ratio. They assumed that 80% of the employees at the proposed Marriott Hotel will drive. The Walker analysis also uses the recommended ratios, with the exception of that used for Conference and Banquet space. In our analyses, absent more specific information, Walker assumes that 60% of visitors to conference space are not guests at the hotel on a weekday, and that 70% are not guests on a weekend. Absent more specific information, Walker also assumes that 75% of the visitors from outside the hotel will be driving (or conversely that 25% will not drive). The results of the parking demand analysis, using these shared parking model assumptions are shown below in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1: Proposed Marriott Hotel Weekday Peak Parking Demand Demand Weekday Month Adj Pk Hr Adj Non Captive Drive Ratio Jun Quantity Base Rate Units Jun 9:00 PM Evening Evening 9:00 PM Hotel-Business 185 1.00 /room 100% 85% 100% 100% 157 Em to ee 185 0.25 /room 100% 20% 100% 80% 8 Su tots Customer Guest Spaces 198 Subtotal Employee Spaces 8 Total Parking Spaces 206 Sou-ce: Walker P~rk,ng Consultants Sh~~red Pc,rk~ng Model Shared Parking, Second Edition, 2005, The Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C. 75B-255