The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCAP 2012-03-12 Item 2A - Attachment J - Parking Demand AnalysisSource: Tukwila Website Tukwila RIVERTON MIXED USE PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS March 6, 2012 F:,ezhr .a,:crwsiT 5- 1..IGAR i JTE . Jake Traffic Engineering, Inc. Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE, President 2614 39th Ave SW - Seattle, WA 98116 - 2503 Tel. 206.762.1978 - Cell 206.799.5692 E -mail iaketraffic @comcast.net FIE ake Traffic Engineering, Inc . Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE President 2614 39th Ave SW — Seattle, WA 98116 — 2503 Tel. 206.162.1918 - Cell 206.799.5692 E -mail jaketraffic @comcast.net ,�. AMI Brie Camp RIVERTON 3723 S. 12 Tukwila, W ell, Leed AP EVELOPMENT LLC th Street 98168 Re: Riv: rton Mixed Use - Tukwila Par ing Demand Analysis Dear Ms. C : mpbell, March 6, 2012 We have pr -pared this Peak Parking Demand Analysis for the proposed Riverton Mixed Use project in T kwila. The project proposes to provide the following: ➢ 23 nit apartment ➢ 3,0 0 sf commercial space (envisioned uses include a small cafe and office) The proposed project is located at 12909 East Marginal Way in the City of Tukwila. Access to the site is v a a driveway off of East Marginal Way South. The proposed project proposes to provide 51 parking stalls; 39 parking stalls will be on the site and 12 parking stalls will be adjacent to the site. An aerial of the site obtained from King County IMap is depicted to the right. This report s prepared to identify the peak parking demand for the proposed poject per City requireme is and Institute of Transporta ion Engineers (ITE) data. The eak parking demand is conducted or the apartment peak and comm rcial peaks. The summ recommen ations are on page 4 of this repo ry, conclusions and Figure 1 is : vicinity map of the proposed project. A preliminary site plan is depicted on Figure 2. V,Engimer..p -P'gen FBI \2012007 - Rmerwn Dev.topmem SM1Ugert Archaec1ure • Iuk N \PZ.RmgDemanaLellerRnerlon.aoc COLOR COPY ONLY JTE, Inc. Brie Camp TURNER S March 6, 2 Page -2- ell, Leed AP ECIAL PROJECTS 12 EXISTING E VIRONMENT Pro ect Site The project site is presently developed with a single family dwelling. The existing building would be r:moved to make way for the proposed development. Street S st m The prima streets within the study areas and their functional classifications Tukwila Ordinance 1616 are as follows: > SR 99 • E. arginal Way S. > S. 33rd St. > S. 30th St. Transit Se ices The map t• the right is the pertinent section of e Metro Transit System Map depicting t ansit service in the site vicinity. Metro Transit Routes #124 on SR - 99 about 1/4 m le away and 154 provides service on East Marginal Way. Further information on these routes can be found on the Met -o Transit website (http://transit.metrokc.gov/). PARKING IMPACT ANALYSIS The Rivertdn Development project will provide 51 spaces will to the nort l parking spaces; 39 parking be on the site and 12 parking stalls will of the site. Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Minor Arterial Collector City of Tukwila The City of ACCESS, A project. M parking. > 23 > 1, > 2 > To be on East Marginal Way S. adjacent and ukwila Zoning Code Chapter 18.56 PARKING AREAS, VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN D RELATED IMPROVEMENTS provides the Zoning parking requirements for the review of the City Zoning Code indicates that the project requires the following units residential 00 sf cafe (800 sf useable) 00 sf office 46 stalls (2 per unit) 8 stalls (10 per 1,000 sf useable sf) 6 stalls (3 per 1,000 sf) 60 stalls \\Enyneer7e\c \-Project Filee\2012 007 - Rover. Development • 5hugart Mchhecture • Tukwila \ParkingDemandLelterRlvenondac COLOR COPY ONLY Brie Camp TURNER SP March 6, 2 Page -3- The parkin parking pe and the co residential Tukwila Zo provides a I have prep parking dat the late nig 1100 and t ITE Peak P JTE, Inc. II, Leed AP CIAL PROJECTS 12 demand per TZC for the above identified uses is noted at 60 stalls; however the ks at different times during the day; the residential peaks late at night /early AM mercial uses in the daytime. Additionally, the City's parking requirement for the omponent is much higher than researched parking data suggests. ing Code Section 18.56.140 Administrative Variance from Parking Standards echanism to obtain a variance from the required parking standards. red an Excel spreadsheet noting the envisioned uses with City and National included with the time of peak noted. The residential component peaks during t /early AM time period (1200 - 0400), the Office component peaks at 1000 - e Cafe is expected to peak from 1200 to 1300. rkin The Institut- of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, 4th Edition identifies the time of the peak period and percentage of the peak period. The proposed project provides apartment and office uses. The parking rate, peak period, percentage of peak period and percentage during other uses peak periods for the above mentioned lands uses are identified in the table below: USE (LUC) ITE Parking Rate 850 Peak Period Percentage of Peak Period Percentage during other uses peak Apartment (221) 1.61 spaces per dwelling unit 0000 - 0400 100% 65 %/65% Office Building (701) 2.98 spaces per 1,000 sf 1000 - 1100 100% 10 %/90% Restaurant (932) 6.37 spaces 1200 - 1300 100% 10 %/85% The peak p am). Data Accounting percentage percentage eriod for the Apartment occurred during 0000 - 0400 hours (12:00 am - 4:00 shows no percentages for the other uses during the Apartment peak period. for janitorial staff and other off hour maintenance I applied a 10% parking during the Apartment peak for the office and restaurant use. In addition no ITE s were noted for the Apartment during the other uses Peak Parking period (1000 - 1100 an 1200 - 1300). A percentage of 64% is identified during the 0800 time period; 65% is used for the analysis. Attached i the appendix are pertinent sections noted above. Peak Parki : durin_ Peak Period Peak parki g demand occurs at different times pending the use. Residential peaks occur at night and mmercial office and Cafe uses during the day. The Riverton Development \ \Engmeee2a \c\-Propel Flies \2012.00! • RwefOn Development- Shugart Nchaectu.e • Tukwila \P.rkingDemendlatterRiverton doc COLOR COPY ONLY Brie Campb II, Leed AP TURNER SP CIAL PROJECTS March 6, 2 12 Page -4- project is a JTE, Inc. ulti -use project that encompasses the aforementioned uses and thus is conducive t• shared parking. Peak Parki Demand Anal sis I conducte• the peak parking demand utilizing six scenarios: ➢ Peak demand for Apartment - Urban and Suburban ➢ Peak demand for Office - Urban and Suburban ➢ Peak Demand for the Cafe - Urban and Suburban Included in the appendix is the Excel spreadsheet that shows the peak parking demand for the above mentioned scenarios. The site is situated in an area that is neither completely Urban nor Suburban in nature; thus both the Urban and Suburban ITE parking data is used. The Suburban ITE data, as would be expected, shows higher parking demand than the Urban data. My analysi using City parking rates indicates that the peak parking demand for the project to be 47 st4ills. Using ITE data the peak parking is projected at 34 stalls using Suburban data and 25 using Urban data. The residential peak parking demand on Saturday is 14% less than during the weekday and little parking is projected for the Office on weekends; thus my analysis focused on the weekday peak. I recommend that a transit schedule kiosk be provided in the lobby of the building and appropriate bike parking be provided. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This report analyzed the Peak Parking Demand for the proposed Riverton Mixed Use project. The parking requirements are governed by City Zoning Code. A peak parking analysis was done using the required City parking and the percentage of peak parking during the time of peak for each land use as derived in the ITE Parking Generation. I used the ity parking requirement data and ITE data for time of peak parking demand to calculate t e peak parking during the peak period for the Apartment and the commercial scenarios. My analysis indicates the highest peak parking demand scenario occurred during the late ev ning/early AM peak period that resulted in a peak parking demand of 47 spaces. The propos d project provides 51 spaces that are sufficient to accommodate the peak parking de and. Transit service is available adjacent and near the site and ITE data shows less parkin demand. The installation of a bus schedule kiosk in the building lobby and appropriat: bike parking is recommended. \ \Enginear2a\c \- Roject Files \2012 007 • Riverton Development • S 'tugan Nc7rteetete ile \PerkingDemendLette,Riverton doc COLOR COPY ONLY JTE, Inc. Brie Camp II, Leed AP TURNER SPECIAL PROJECTS March 6, 2 12 Page -5- Please con ct me at 206.799.5692 or email me at iaketraffic @comcast.net if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Mark J. Jacobs, PE, PTOE JAKE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. a . o 6. 2612_ Engmear2a \c\ -Protect Files \2012007 fliverton Development- Shugart Areoaectu.e • Weenie \Para g0emendLetterflrverton Coe COLOR COPY ONLY Project: Riverton Mixed Use - King County Location: j2909 East Marginal Way 1 NORTH Rainier Golr and 4 �Duwamish Courts: Oa, h S 112th St z o ,r ems S 115dh Si Si S 116th St 009 Qm S 178th St cs AlerdoVvn to co <ff co S 120th St R- a m 6P T A Project Site e 9 Q Boulevard 599 to m co Q' -2 Park w - S 124th `rJN Q rn m MilNOp y f Q L m Q rn Park s '� q� 'I �� L } l: S Q L D tP S 11; S 128th St v' L , to �sy v d IS SF 5 gt g 1301h St D Q °o co to S/1 m m oft m N so _99 3 S 133rd � a Seatac Park Q S 133rd St m a 4 v Q m N S 135th St y Rivertm (n Cr c ▪ S Tukwila d m S 138th St m SeaTac Seattle S Leo St S Avon St Lakeridge Park g any 11ewoa 3 140th St S Langston Rd S 133rd St .-c. co e CO 1k i C� Foster 0011 Links to Q> i ai m 0) �m'6 r ✓ > mD °'4 Q Q m 6_ • L S S 144th St • "� u� Lr1 Foster North Seatac Park Sunset Playflelds S 144th St S 142nd S1 S 146th St S 146th St @2 ) Microsoft Cap. et ri rases rd. rn m M 0) (h Riverton Hems 42nd Ave S S 132n3 3t S 135th St Fort Bent Park Renton JTE, Inc. FIGURE 1 ornomoolonnanyw Rapist In Color Only tationantiat RIVERTON MIXED USE - TUKWILA PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS VICINITY MAP Project: Location: Note: An 8.5 x 1 iverton Mixed Use - King County 2909 East Marginal Way 1" copy of the site plan is included with this Parking Demand Analysis NORTH JTE, Inc. FIGURE 2 Reprint In Color OnIy RIVERTON MIXED USE - TUKWILA PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS SITE PLAN 1.1.1121222 SP.2112. MESE Ia W27 .EC ' 0.110 ESCLOSOPE TUBW1LA SCHOOLS BUS LOT • 1 PROPOSE THREE STORY V ED&JSE RVILC LIE OF EC NOOFOVVa 24.2 WED. 2.222 Ili YYaulw.TUwE --4'— - 4.1171cxE,E.E erOaNe PPS ,rvo., , •• E.Er..Rn...E, STS SIDEW 5 90'425 41 {SP) 414.14 iiDo W:rl "1L WAY S. 5 00'39.07 W PLAT —NORTH PP SRE RAN ZONING CODE SUMMARY: PEIGI-11 ar. spa 12.• S21102.12:22012 ri.0 aROPox+r 01.1.110F ' '1ISTa.7.1El1., SPOSSPEO 1.2E( Y W ]NI SIPS 2•90 PARSN.xA4 .4Ni PROPOSED • Ban RFOirlitra PROPOSED: RECIARECII SM.. REM lb Arir.Fin PO LOR FORIS11.2PERS -le PER SP. MIER 20 SOF REA4P 1 If0fl P..WE0I Y.N..Y0 200 SF 17 a 200 .2470 811 PROPOSE. 62 PROJECT INFORMATION: 22.21 212 1.srissi ...2 222.22r2 1srWt 7:tT :4 e'n r+w As ST. 2.222.2.3.2.1.2 wpwr..c.VORTINOSINAL 11ivF.vn"r/./..614 mtAlwx,F.aD NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHUGART'. x1..,,,. Riverton Development 12909 E IWarginal Way S TH44 /144, WA Developer's Agreement iv +p .r e1. „rte EYY Site Plan A1.0 iMAP 1— _1 X County Bou r dary Mountain Pe Highways Streets t l :1'1+5'15 'cant} aks Legend A r1 ones Loaf Lakes and Large Rivers Streams Parcels Parks 2007 Color Aerial Photos (bin: 2007 Color Aerial Photos (12in: COMMENTS: Site Aerial The information included on this rrap has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations )r warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness. timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended for rise as a survey product. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited o, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date: 2/16/2012 Source: King County iMAP - Property Information (http: / /www.metrokc.gov /GISIMAP) 14 King County URBAN RESIDENTIAL PEAK (late night/early AM) Land Use Size SF/ Units ITE LUC City Parking Rate 1 fE Parking Rate City Peak Parking ITE Peak Parking Time of Peak % peak parking 0000 - 0400 City peak parking 0000 - 0400 I I E peak parking 0000 - 0400 Apartment 23 221 2 L03 46.0 23.7 0000 - 0400 100% 46.0 23.7 Office 2,000 701 3 2.47 6.0 4.9 1000 - 1100 10% 0.6 0.5 Restaurant 800 932 10 6.94 8.0 5.6 1200 - 1300 10% 0.-8 0.6 Total 60 34 47 25 Restaurant - Useable floor space 800 sf of the 1,000 sf. ITE data factored up by 25% URBAN OFFICE PEAK (1000 peak) Land Use Size SF/ Units ITE LUC City Parking Rate ITE Parking Rate City Peak Parking ITE Peak Parking Time of Peak % peak parking 1000 - 1100 City peak parking 1000 - 1100 11 E peak parking 1000 - 1100 Apartment 23 221 2 1.03 46.0 23.7 0000 - 0400 65% 29.9 15.4 Office 2,000 701 3 2.47 6.0 4.9 1000 - 1100 100% 6.0 4.9 Restaurant 800 932 10 6.94 8.0 5.6 1200 - 1300 85% 6.8 4.7 Total 60 34 43 25 Restaurant - Useable floor space 800 sf of the 1,000 sf. ITE data factored up by 25% URBAN RESTAURANT PEAK (1200 peak) Land Use Size SF/ Units ITE LUC City Parking Rate I FE Parking Rate City Peak Parking ITE Peak Parking Time of Peak % peak parking 1200 - 1300 City peak parking 1200 - 1300 I 1 E peak parking 1200 - 1300 Apartment 23 221 2 1.03 46.0 23.7 0000 - 0400 65% 29.9 15.4 Office 2,000 701 3 2.47 6.0 4.9 1000 - 1100 90% 5.4 4.4 Restaurant 800 932 10 6.94 8.0 5.6 1200 - 1300 100% 8.0 5.6 Total 60 34 43 25 Restaurant - Useable floor space 800 sf of the 1,000 sf. ITE data factored up by 25% SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL PEAK (late night/early AM) Land Use Size SF/ Units ITE LUC City Parking Rate ITE Parking Rate City Peak Parking ITE Peak Parking Time of Peak % peak parking 0000 - 0400 City peak parking 0000 - 0400 I fE peak parking 0000 - 0400 Apartment 23 221 2 1.23 46.0 ' 28.3 0000 - 0400 100% 46.0 28.3 Office 2,000 701 3 2.84 6.0 5.7 1000 -1100 10% 0.6 0.6 Restaurant 800 932 10 13.25 8.0 10.6 1200- 1300 10% 0.8 1.1 Total 60 45 47 30 estaurant - Useable floor space 800 sf of the 1,000 sf. ITE data factored up by 25% SUBURBAN OFFICE PEAK (1000 peak) Land Use Size SF/ Bedrooms ITE LUC City Parking Rate - ITE Parking Rate - City Peak Parking - ITE Peak Parking Time of Peak - % peak parking 1000 - 1100 City peak parking 1000 - 1100 III peak parking 1000 - 1100 Apartment 23 221 2 1.23 46.0 28.3 0000 - 0400 65% 29.9 18.4 Office 2,000 701 3 2.84 6.0 5.7 1000 - 1100 100% 6.0 5.7 Restaurant 800 932 10 13.25 8.0 10.6 1200 - 1300 85% 6.8 9.0 Total 60 45 43 33 estaurant - Useable floor space 800 sf of the 1,000 sf. ITE data factored up by 25% SUBURBAN RESTAURANT PEAK (1200 peak) Land Use Size SF/ Bedrooms ITE LUC City Parking Rate I I E Parking Rate City Peak Parking ITE Peak Parking Time of Peak % peak parking 1200 - 1300 City peak parking 1200 - 1300 I II peak parking 1200 - 1300 Apartment 23 221 2 1.23 46.0 28.3 0000 - 0400 65% 29.9 18.4 Office 2,000 701 3 2.84 6.0 5.7 1000 - 1100 90% 5.4 5.1 Restaurant 800 932 10 13.25 8.0 10.6 1200 - 1300 100% 8.0 10.6 Total 60 45 43 34 estaurant - Useable floor space 800 sf of the 1,000 sf. ITE data factored up by 25% Figure 18 -7 - Required Number of Parking Spaces for Automobiles and Bicycles Use Automobile Standard Bicycle Standard Single - family and multi- family dwellings 2 for each dwelling unit that contains up to 3 bedrooms. 1 additional space for every 2 bedrooms in excess of 3 bedrooms in a dwelling unit. Additional parking may be required for home occupations and accessory dwelling units as otherwise proved by this title. For multi - family, 1 space per 10 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. No requirement for single family. Multi- family and Mixed- Use residential (in the Urban Renewal Overlay (URO)) One for each dwelling unit that contains up to one bedroom. 0.5 additional spaces for every bedroom in excess of one bedroom in a multi - family dwelling unit. At least 75% of required residential parking is provided in an enclosed structure (garage or podium). The structure must be screened from view from public rights of way. One automobile space at no charge to a car sharing program (if available) for every 50 to 200 residential units on site. An additional space shall be provided for developments with over 200 residential units. All car share spaces are in addition to required residential parking. If car sharing programs are not available when the building is constructed, an equivalent number of guest parking spaces shall be provided. These shall be converted to dedicated car - sharing spaces when the program becomes available. One secure, covered, ground -level bicycle parking space shall be provided for every four residential units in a mixed -use or multi- family development. Senior Citizen Housing For 15 units or less, 1 space per dwelling unit. For dwellings with more than 15 units, a minimum of 15 spaces are required, plus 1 space per 2 dwelling units. 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Religious facilities, mortuaries and funeral homes 1 for each 4 fixed seats 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Colleges, Universities, Vocational Schools and other post - secondary educational institutions Shall be determined by Planning Commission, based on an evaluation of information concerning traffic generated by proposed use. 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Convalescent) nursing/rest homes 1 for every 4 beds with a minimum of 10 stalls 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Food stores and markets 1 for each 300 square feet of usable floor area 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. High schools 1 for each staff member plus 2 for every 5 students or visitors Hospitals 1 for each bed Hotels, motels and extended stay 1 for each room, plus one employee space for each 20 rooms, rounded to the next highest figure 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Manufacturing 1 for each 1,000 square feet of usable floor area 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Page 1 Office, commercial and professional buildings, banks, dental and medical clinics 3.0 for each 1,000 square feet of usable floor area 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Outdoor sports areas Shall be determined by Planning Commission 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Places of public assembly, including auditoriums, exhibition halls, community clubs, community centers, and private clubs The Director shall determine the number of required parking spaces, with a minimum of 1 space for every 100 square -feet of assembly area. To ensure parking adequacy for each proposal, the Director may consider the following: a. A parking study or documentation paid for by the applicant and administered by the City regarding the actual parking demand for the proposed use, or b. Evidence in available planning and technical studies relating to the proposed use. 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Post offices 3 for each 1,000 square feet of usable floor area 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Public facilities, including libraries, police and fire stations Shall be determined by the Planning Commission 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Restaurant 1 for each 100 square feet of usable floor area 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Restaurant, Fast food 1 for each 50 square feet of usable floor area. Fifty percent of any outdoor seating area will be added to the usable floor area for parking requirement calculations. 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Retail Sales, Bulk 2.5 for each 1,000 square feet of usable floor area 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Retail sales, General 4 for each 1,000 square feet of usable floor area if located within the TUC or TVS zoning districts; 2.5 for each 1,000 square feet of usable floor area if located in any other zoning district. 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Schools, Elementary & Junior High 1.5 for each staff member 1 space per classroom Shopping center (mall), planned, per usable floor area size, as listed below 500,000 sq. ft. or larger 5 for every 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. 25,000 — 499,999 sq. ft. 4 for every 1,000 sq. ft. 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Taverns 1 for every 4 persons based on occupancy load. 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Theaters 1 for every 4 fixed seats. If seats are not fixed, 1 per 3 seats, with concurrence of Fire Chief, consistent with maximum allowed occupancy 1 space per 100 seats, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Warehousing 1 for every 2,000 square feet of usable floor area 1 space per 50 parking stalls, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Page 2 TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 18.56.140 Administrative Variance from Parking Standards A. General: 1. A request for an administrative variance from required parking standards must be received prior to any issuance of building or engineering permits. Administrative variances are only eligible for requests for reductions of required parking between 1% and 10 %. Requests for reductions from minimum' parking standards in excess of 10% must be made to the Planning Commission. 2. The project developer shall present all findings to the Director prior to any final approvals, including design review, conditional use permit review, building review or any other permit reviews required by the Director. B. Criteria: 1. All requests for reductions in parking shall be reviewed under the criteria established in this section. 2. In addition to the following requirements, the Director may require specific measures not listed to ensure that all impacts with reduced parking are mitigated. Any spillover parking which cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Director will serve as the basis for denial. A reduction may be allowed, pursuant to either an Administrative variance or requests to the Planning Commission, after: a. All shared parking strategies are explored. b. On -site park and ride opportunities are fully explored. c. The site is in compliance with the City's commute trip reduction ordinance or, if not an affected employer as defined by the City's ordinance, agrees to become affected. d. The site is at least 300 feet away from a single - family residential zone. e. A report is submitted providing a basis for less parking and mitigation necessary to offset any negative effects. C. Process: 1. An applicant shall submit evidence that decreased parking will not have a negative impact on surrounding properties or potential future uses. This may take the form of a brief report for administrative variances. Decreases in excess of 10% must be made to the Planning Commission. The Director may require additional studies to ensure that negative impacts are properly mitigated. A complete and detailed Parking Demand study is required for requests reviewed by the Planning Commission. 2. All site characteristics should be described in report, including a. Site accessibility for transit. b. Site proximity to transit, with 15- to 30- minute headways. c. Shared use of on -site parking. d. Shared use of off -site parking. e. Combined on -site parking. f. Employee density. g. Adjacent land uses. Page 18-178 D. Review: Applications for Administrative Variances for reductions below minimum parking requirements between 1% and 10% shall be processed as Type 2 decisions, pursuant to TMC 18.108.020. Applications for reductions from minimum parking requirements in excess of 10% shall be processed as Type 4 decisions, pursuant to TMC 18.108.040, including a hearing before the Planning Commission. (Ord. 1795 §2 (part), 1997) Produced by the City of Tukwila, City Clerk's Office Land Use: 221 Low /Mid -Rise Apartment Based on Vehicles per Dwelling Unit (Suburban) Weekday Hour Beginning Percent o • •eriod Number of Data Points* 12:00 -4:00 a.m. 100 14 5:00 a.m. - "_ • _ 14 6:00 a.m. 92 14 7:00 a.m. 74 1 8:00 a.m. 64 1 9:00 a.m. — 0 10:00 a.m. 0 11:00 a.m. — 0 12:00 p.m. — _ 0 1:00 p.m. — 2:00 p.m. — 0 3:00 p.m. — 0 4:00 p.m. 44 1 5:00 ..m. 59 1 6 :00 p.m. 69 1 7 :00 p.m. _ 66 9 8:00 p.m. 75 9 9:00 ..m. 77 10 10:00 p.m. 92 14 11:00 p.m. 94 14 * Subset of database Q'S- Jr; dJ ' r a2r �� P--" r Parking studies of apartments should attempt to obtain information on occupancy rate and on the mix of apartment sizes (in other words, number of bedrooms per apartment and number of units in the complex). Future parking studies should also indicate the number of levels contained in the apartment building. Additional Data • Apartment occupancy can affect parking demand ratio. In the United States, successful apartment complexes commonly have a vacancy rate between 5 and 10 percent.' Study Sites/Years Canada: Central City, Not Downtown: Brooks, AB (1998) Puerto Rico: Central City, Not Downtown: Mayaguez, PR (2007) 'Rental and Homeowner Vacancy Rates for the United States: 1960 and 1965 to 2009, U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.goythhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr309/q309tab1.htmi Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation, 4th Edition [ 5I 1`' Land Use: 221 Low /Mid -Rise Apartment Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Location: Urban Statistic Peak Period Demand Peak Period 10:00 p.m. -5 :00 a.m. Number of Study Sites 40 Average Size of Study Sites 70 dwelling units 1.20 vehicles per dwelling unit _ 0.42 Average Peak Period Parking Demand Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation 35% 95% Confidence Interval 1.07 -1.33 vehicles per dwelling unit Range 0.66 -2.50 vehicles per dwelling unit 85th Percentile 1.61 vehicles per dwelling unit 33rd Percentile 0.93 vehicles •er dwellin. unit P = Parked Vehicles 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Weekday Urban Peak Period Parking Demand P = 0.92x + 4 R2 = 0.96 r • 0 200 400 x = Dwelling Units 600 • Actual Data Points Institute of Transportation Engineers Fitted Curve 6o- [ 54 - - - - Average Rate Parking Generation, 4th Edition Land Use: 221 Low /Mid -Rise Apartment Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. Dwelling Units On a: Saturday Of �4 q Location: Urban J 1- . O Statistic Peak Period Demand Peak Period No clear peak period emerged from the data; likely to fall between 10:00 p.m. and 6 :00 a.m. Number of Study Sites 8 Average Size of Study Sites 147 dwelling units Average Peak Period Parking Demand 1.03 vehicles per dwelling unit Standard Deviation - 0.19 Coefficient of Variation 19% Range 0.80-1.43 vehicles per dwelling unit 85th Percentile 1 1.14 vehicles per dwelling unit 33rd Percentile 0.93 vehicles per dwelling unit P = Parked Vehicles 500 400 300 200 100 0 Saturday Urban Peak Period Parking Demand P= 1.04x R2 = 0.99 0 100 200 300 400 500 x = Dwelling Units • Actual Data Points Institute of Transportation Engineers [551 Fitted Curve /Average Rate / o7 /, -ta Parkrng Generation, 4th Edition Land Use: 221 Low /Mid -Rise Apartment Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Location: Suburban Statistic Peak Period Number of Study Sites Average Size of Study Sites Average Peak Period Parking Demand Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation 95% Confidence Interval Range 85th Percentile 33rd Percentile Peak Period Demand 12:00 -5:00 a.m. 21 311 dwelling units 1.23 vehicles per dwelling unit 0.32 21% 1.10 -1.37 vehicles per dwelling unit 0.59 -1.94 vehicles per dwelling unit 1.94 vehicles per dwelling unit 0.68 vehicles per dwelling unit P = Parked Vehicles Weekday Suburban Peak Period Parking Demand 2,000 1,500 1,000 P = 1.42x - 38 500 0 0 500 1,000 x = Dwelling Units 1,500 • Actual Data Points Institute of Transportation Engineers Fitted Curve [53] - - - - Average Rate Parking Generation, 4th Edition Land Use: 701 Office Building As noted, peak parking demand rates were different between sites located in suburban settings and those located in urban settings for the independent variable 1,000 sq. ft. GFA. The individual site surveys did not enable a quantitative explanation of the factors that caused the difference. One potential explanation may relate to differences in the availability of alternative modes (for example, transit, bike and pedestrian) available at the urban sites. Of the studies with data on transit availability and presence of a transportation demand management (TDM) program, the suburban sites reported about 55 percent with available transit services and 20 percent with TDM programs. The urban sites reported almost 100 percent with available transit and 63 percent with TDM programs of some form. Weekend parking demand data were available at two study sites. At one site, the Saturday peak demand was less than 10 percent of peak weekday demand at the same site. At the other site, the Saturday and Sunday demand approached 90 percent of the weekday peak demand for the same site. It was not possible to derive reliable weekend parking demand rates due to lack of information on the nature of work conducted during the weekend at the two sites. The following table presents the time -of -day distributions of parking demand variation for suburban and urban sites. The only sites included in the table data were those that submitted at least four consecutive hours of parking demand observations. (Note: the majority of the parking demand data in the overall database consisted of one or two hourly observations.) Based on Vehicles per 1,000 sq. ff. GFA Weekday Suburban Weekday Urban Hour Beginning Percent of Peak Period Number of Data Points" Percent of Peak Period Number of Data Points"' 12:00-4:00 a.m. — 0 — 0 5:00 a.m. — 0 — 0 6:00 a.m. — 0 — 0 7:00 a.m. 59 1 19 2 8:00 a.m. 79 10 64 4 9:00 a.m. 12 91 5 s5 10:00 a.m. 100 12 99 5 11:00 a.m. 12 99 5 12 :00 p.m. 90 12 98 5 1:00 p.m. 77 7 96 5 2:00 p.m. 84 7 100 5 3:00 p.m. 81 6 99 5 4:00 p.m. 72 6 90 5 5:00 p.m. 46 6 58 3 6:00 p.m. 25 1 — 0 7:00 p.m. — 0 — 0 8:00 p.m. — 0 — 0 9:00 p.m. — 0 — 0 10 :00 p.m. — 0 — 0 11:00 p.m. — 0 — 0 Subset of database Institute of Transportation Engineers [202] Parking Generation, 4th Edition Land Use: 701 Office Building Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. 1,000 sq. ft. GFA On a: Weekday Location: Urban Statistic Peak Period Demand Peak Period 9:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Number of Study Sites 14 Average Size of Study Sites 370,000 sq. ft. GFA Average Peak Period Parking Demand 2.47 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA Standard Deviation 0.62 Coefficient of Variation 25% Range 1.46 -3.43 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 85th Percentile 2.98 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 33rd Percentile 2.24 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA P = Parked Vehicles 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Weekday Urban Peak Period Parking Demand P = 2.56x - 80 R2 = 0.98 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 x = 1,000 sq. ft. GFA • Actual Data Points Institute of Transportation Engineers eftV [ 206 1 Fitted Curve /Average Rate Parking Generation, 4th Edition Land Use: 701 Office Building Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. 1,000 sq. ft. GFA On a: Weekday Location: Suburban Statistic Peak Period Demand Peak Period 9:00 a.m. -4:00 p.m. Number of Study Sites 176 Average Size of Study Sites 136,000 sq. ft. GFA Average Peak Period Parking Demand 2.84 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA Standard Deviation 0.73 Coefficient of Variation 26% 95% Confidence Interval 2.73 -2.94 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA Range 0.86 -5.58 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 85th Percentile 3.45 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 33rd Percentile 2.56 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA cn 2,000 aa) 1,800 O 1,600 m 1,400 > 1,200 1• ,000 800 1.. • 600 °- 400 200 a 0 Weekday Suburban Peak Period Parking Demand 0 200 400 600 x = 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 800 • Actual Data Points Institute of Transportation Engineers Fitted Curve [ 205 ] - - - - Average Rate Parking Generation, 4th Edition • • • • P= 2.51x +26 • • • • R2 =041 0 200 400 600 x = 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 800 • Actual Data Points Institute of Transportation Engineers Fitted Curve [ 205 ] - - - - Average Rate Parking Generation, 4th Edition Land Use: 932 High- Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant The following tables present the time -of -day distribution for the variation in parking demand during the course of the weekday. The data represent a combination of urban and rural study sites. Based on Vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft GFA Weekday at a Family Restaurant Weekday at a Restaurant with Bar or Lounge Hour Beginning Percent of Peak Period Number of Data Points* Percent of Peak Period Number of Data Points* 12 :00-4:00 a.m. - 0 - 0 5 :00 a.m. 9 1 - 0 6 :00 a.m. 26 4 - 0 7:00 a.m. 44 5 - 0 8:00 a.m. 57 8 - 0 9 :00 a.m. 76 9 5 1 10 :00 a.m. 85 9 7 1 11:00 a.m. 100 11 16 1 12:00 p.m. 100 12 49 1 1:00 p.m. , 84 11 39 1 2 :00 p.m. 53 12 27 1 3:00 p.m. 42 11 19 1 4:00 p.m. 42 12 22 1 5:00 p.m. 76 11 60 5 6:00 p.m. 83 12 94 5 7:00 p.m. 63 10 100 5 8:00 +.m. 66 10 81 5 9:00 p.m. 63 7 _ 84 1 10:00 p.m. 48 5 - 0 11 :00 p.m. 44 2 - 0 ubset of database Based on Vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA Saturday at a Family Restaurant Saturday at a with Bar or Restaurant Lounge Number of Data Points* Hour Beginning Percent of Peak Period Number of Data Points* Percent of Peak Period 12:00 -4:00 a.m. - 0 - 0 5:00 a.m. - 0 - 0 6:00 a.m. 20 4 - 0 7:00 a.m. 30 5 - 0 8:00 a.m. 51 7 - 0 9:00 a.m. 73 9 5 1 10:00 a.m. 94 10 7 1 11:00 a.m. 100 10 20 1 12:00 p.m. 93 11 41 1 1:00 p.m. , 84 10 53 1 2:00 p.m. 63 11 46 1 3:00 p.m. 39 10 38 1 4:00 p.m. 48 11 63 1 5:00 p.m. 55 11 80 1 6:00 p.m. 63 11 100 1 7:00 p.m. 74 11 93 1 8 :00 p.m. 55 11 70 1 9:00 p.m. 39 9 33 1 10:00 p.m. 40 53 8 3 9 - 1 11:00 p.m. Upset oT aataoase Institute of Transportation Engineers d91 [3161 Parking Generation, 4th Edition Land Use: 932 High - Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. 1,000 sq. ft. GFA On a: Weekday Land Use Code Subset: Family Restaurant (No Bar or Lounge) Location: Urban Statistic Peak Period Demand Peak Period 11:00 a.m. -1:00 p.m.; 6:00 -8 :00 p.m. Number of Study Sites 10 Average Size of Study Sites 3,200 sq. ft. GFA Average Peak Period Parking Demand 5.55 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 2.69 Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation 48% Range 3.13 -12.41 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 85th Percentile 6.37 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 33rd Percentile 3.86 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA P = Parked Vehicles 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 x = 1,000 sq. ft. GFA Weekday Urban Peak Period Parking Demand (Family Restaurant) • • ., . • • • Institute of Transportation Engineers • Actual Data Points [ 319 Ac Parking Generation, 4th Edition Land Use: 932 High - Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. 1,000 sq. ft. GFA On a: Weekday Land Use Code Subset: Family Restaurant (No Bar or Lounge) Location: Suburban Statistic Peak Period Demand Peak Period 11:00 a.m. -2 :00 p.m. Number of Study Sites 20 Average Size of Study Sites 4,750 soft. GFA Average Peak Period Parking Demand 10.60 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA Standard Deviation 5.42 Coefficient of Variation 51% 95% Confidence Interval 8.22 -12.98 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA Range 2.59 -21.78 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 16.30 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA 85th Percentile 33rd Percentile 7.40 vehicles per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA P = Parked Vehicles 100 80 60 40 20 0 Weekday Suburban Peak Period Parking Demand (Family Restaurant) +•• • 0 2 4 6 8 10 x = 1,000 sq. ft. GFA Institute of Transportation Engineers • Actual Data Points [ .318 1 Parking Generation, 41h Edition