DOCSLIB.ORG

Zellerbach Development Parking Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Zellerbach Development Parking Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Zellerbach Development Parking Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: August 16, 2016 To: Adam Siegman, Watt Investment Partners From: Richard Brockmyer, AICP, Fehr & Peers Subject: Parking Space Study for Zellerbach Development UT15-1085 Introduction This memorandum reports the results of a parking study performed for the Zellerbach Development located in South Salt Lake, Utah. When complete, the development, as proposed, will consist of 293 dwelling units. In total, the current proposed parking ratio for the development is 1.47 spaces per unit. For comparative analysis, national parking generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) are presented as well as the Urban Land Institute (ULI), followed by a comparison of South Salt Lake City parking requirements with those of surrounding cities. Finally, the Fehr & Peers recommended number of parking spaces required for the Zellerbach Development are presented. National Parking Demand Rates In order to compare the results of the local parking demand study, the parking demand for the development was estimated using national data published by ITE. This data was obtained from ITE, Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition. Table 2 shows the projected parking demand. Based on the ITE average peak parking demand for Low/Midrise Apartments, the Zellerbach Development would need to provide a minimum total of 360 parking spaces. Table 2 National Parking Generation (ITE) Land Use Number of Units Average Peak Period Peak Parking Parking Demand Ratio Demand Low/Mid Rise Apartment (221) 293 1.23 360 Parking demand for the development was also estimated using the ULI, Shared Parking 2nd Edition. Table 3 shows the projected parking demand. The ULI calculations includes an 80% reduction to the recommended suburban ratio to reflect lower auto ownership rates in areas well served by transit. The development is adjacent to the S-Line streetcar line and the 300 East station, which provides frequent rail service to the surrounding area and connects to the larger UTA rail network. In addition there are bus routes that operate on 2100 South, State Street, and 500 East, which are all within walking distance of the development. 2180 South, 1300 East, Suite 220 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 (801) 463-7600 Fax (801) 486-4638 www.fehrandpeers.com Table 3 National Parking Generation (ULI) Land Use Number of Units Parking Ratio Parking Demand 1.5 (reduced to 1.2 Residential, Rental 293 based on transit 352 accessibility) Parking Requirements for South Salt Lake and Surrounding Cities For further evaluation, South Salt Lake City parking requirements were compared with those of three nearby cities. Salt Lake City, Sandy, and South Jordan City were chosen for comparison due to their proximity. Table 4 shows the required parking rates for each of these three cities and the minimum amount of parking that would be needed for the Zellerbach Development based on each corresponding rate. Table 4 Comparative Parking Requirements City Parking Required per Dwelling Unit Total Parking Required 1.5 spaces/du South Salt Lake 352-440 City Up to 20% reduction allowed in East Streetcar area 1 bedroom – 1.5 spaces/du 2 bedroom – 2 spaces/du Sandy City 3 or more bedrooms – 2.5 spaces/unit 605 Guest parking - 0.25 spaces/du 1 bedroom - 1.5 spaces/du South Jordan 2 bedroom - 2 spaces/du 532 City 3 or more bedrooms - 2.5 spaces Studio & 1 bedroom – 1 space/du 2 bedrooms or more – 2 spaces/du 543 Salt Lake City Guest parking – 1 spaces for every 4 units It is important to note that several cities in the region allow for reductions based on proximity to transit and zoning designation. In Salt Lake City, for example, any new multi-family residential, commercial, office or industrial development within one-fourth (1/4) mile of a fixed transit station, the minimum number of parking spaces required can be reduced by 50%. In the Transit Station Area District (TSA) there are no minimum off street parking requirements in areas designated as “core” and in “transition” areas the minimum is set at 50% of the traditional parking ratio table. In all residential mixed use zones only one parking space is required for single-family residential uses and one-half (1/2) a space is required for multiple-family residential uses. While the standard parking table in Salt Lake City would require 543 stalls, applying a 50% reduction would only require 271 parking spaces. Other cities in the region have similar reductions for transit station areas. Murray City’s Transit Oriented Development District also has different standards than in more traditional zoning areas, as does Midvale City. Table 5 provides some examples of these standards. Table 5 Transit Station Area Parking Requirement Comparisons City Zoning/District Requirements Salt Lake TSA District a. There are no minimum off street parking requirements in the core area as identified in City section 21A.26.078 of this title. b. The minimum off street parking requirement in a transition area as identified in section 21A.26.078 of this title shall be equal to fifty percent (50%) of the requirement in table 21A.44.030 of this section. Murray TOD District If more than twenty five percent (25%) of the off street parking is provided in surface parking City lots, the minimum parking shall be: 1. For residential units with two (2) bedrooms or less, 1.5 stalls per unit. 2. For residential units with more than two (2) bedrooms, 1.85 stalls per unit. Midvale TOD Zone Parking Requirements. The required number of off-street parking spaces available within a City medium or high density residential project is dependent on the proximity of the project to a major transit facility. The parking requirements are as follows: a. Units located within one-eighth of a mile of the transit stop must have one and one-quarter parking spaces per two bedroom unit; b. Units located within a quarter of a mile of the transit stop must have one and one-half parking spaces per two bedroom unit; c. Units located outside of the quarter mile line will have parking as determined by the planning commission; d. One bedroom units shall be allowed a one-quarter parking space per unit reduction in the parking requirement; e. Units with three or more bedrooms shall include an additional one-quarter parking spaces per unit; f. One additional guest parking space for every four units shall be included on the parking plan although on-street parking, where allowed by the city engineer, may be used to meet this requirement; g. Projects that lack direct and unimpeded pedestrian access to the transit stop or that lack a viable and sustainable parking control plan shall include parking as required by the planning commission regardless of location; h. Mixed use projects shall include the parking spaces required for the commercial portion of the project at the dimensions required for commercial parking lots. These parking places may be shared with a residential use as allowed under this title, but they shall be concentrated near the commercial use to ensure access to the commercial use patrons. National TOD Parking and Trip Generation Literature Impacts on travel behavior and parking demand in TOD locations is a topic of national interest. Several studies and reports provide additional information to better estimate parking demand in areas well served by transit. Research of TOD sites in California suggest that TODs can potentially reduce parking per household by 20% (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2002). A Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) report highlighted several case studies across the U.S. and suggests many who choose to live in a TOD location are self-selecting to live in these areas, resulting in lower car ownership rates, higher transit use rates, and less parking. The report further states that ITE trip generation and parking rates, can over-park TOD locations by as much as 50% (Arington and Cervero, 2008). New research from the University of Utah Metropolitan Research Center also suggests parking generation is much lower in TOD projects. In depth analysis of five TOD projects across the country demonstrate that, on average, peak demand is 0.87 occupied spaces per unit, significantly lower than traditional ITE guidelines (Ewing, 2016). The highest occupied spaces per unit observed was just 1.29/du, in Englewood, Colorado, a suburban location outside of Denver. While research is ongoing to better understand parking demand in transit rich areas, there is evidence to suggest that trip generation and parking demand is in fact lower in these areas. Recommendations The current Zellerbach Development site plan proposes 430 parking stalls. This equates to a parking ratio of 1.47 stalls per unit. This proposed parking rate exceeds average ITE and ULI rates. While nearby cities do have higher ratios, additional reductions would be allowed in some cities due to the proximity to high frequency/capacity transit. Literature suggests that parking in these areas can be reduced by up to 50%. Based on this, Fehr & Peers recommends that the current parking planned (430 stalls) for the Zellerbach Development is more than adequate to meet parking demand needs for the development. Furthermore, additional reductions could be made down to a total of 381 stalls – a ratio of 1.3 stalls per dwelling unit. This would still provide a higher number of stalls than ULI generation methodologies propose and what many studies suggest is needed in a transit rich area. Table 6 (on the following page) summarizes ITE, ULI, current South Salt Lake standards, and the recommended ratio as well as corresponding total development spaces. Table 6 Parking Ratio & Development Parking Comparisons Ratio Source Parking Ratio Total Development Parking Spaces Low/Mid Rise Apartment (221) ITE Average Peak Period Parking Demand – 1.23 360 Residential, Rental – 1.5 reduced to 1.2 based on transit ULI 352 accessibility South Salt Lake Studio – 1.5 spaces/du 352-4401 City Recommended 1.3 381 Ratio 1 Lower number reflects 20% reduction allowed under East Streetcar Form-Based Code References Cervero, G.B Arrington and Robert.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 720 Light Rail Time Schedule & Line Route
    720 light rail time schedule & line map To Central Pointe View In Website Mode The 720 light rail line (To Central Pointe) has 2 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) To Central Pointe: 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM (2) To Fairmont: 5:12 AM - 11:27 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest 720 light rail station near you and ƒnd out when is the next 720 light rail arriving. Direction: To Central Pointe 720 light rail Time Schedule 7 stops To Central Pointe Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday 6:17 AM - 8:17 PM Monday 6:17 AM - 11:47 PM Fairmont Station 2206 S Mcclelland St, Salt Lake City Tuesday 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM Sugarmont Station Wednesday 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM 2201 S 900 E, Salt Lake City Thursday 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM 700 East Station Friday 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM 2200 S 700 E, Salt Lake City Saturday 6:17 AM - 11:47 PM 500 East Station 2229 S 440 E, Salt Lake City 300 East Station 2233 S 300 E, Salt Lake City 720 light rail Info Direction: To Central Pointe South Salt Lake City Station Stops: 7 55 E Central Point Pl, South Salt Lake Trip Duration: 9 min Line Summary: Fairmont Station, Sugarmont Central Pointe Station Station, 700 East Station, 500 East Station, 300 East 2212 S West Temple St, South Salt Lake Station, South Salt Lake City Station, Central Pointe Station Direction: To Fairmont 720 light rail Time Schedule 7 stops To Fairmont Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday 6:02 AM - 8:02 PM Monday 6:02 AM - 11:32 PM Central Pointe Station 2212 S West Temple St, South Salt Lake Tuesday 5:12 AM - 11:27 PM South Salt
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX a Ogden/Weber State University Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis Draft Final Report
    Alternatives Analysis Update Report Ogden/Weber State University Transit Project Study APPENDIX A Ogden/Weber State University Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis Draft Final Report Ogden-Weber State University Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis Draft Final Report Prepared by: Utah Transit Authority MAY 2011 Final Draft Report – Alternatives Analysis Ogden/Weber State University Transit Corridor TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. ES-1 ES.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH ........................................ ES-1 ES.3 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... ES-2 ES.4 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................... ES-3 ES.5 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... ES-4 ES.6 NEXT STEPS .......................................................................................................... ES-5 ES. 6.1 FTA Section 5309 ........................................................................................ ES-5 ES. 6.2 National Environmental Policy Act .............................................................. ES-6 1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE
    [Show full text]
  • Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis
    Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis FINAL REPORT July 2008 Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis July, 2008 Special Acknowledgments to the Project Steering Committee Salt Lake City D.J. Baxter Janneke House Kevin Young, P.E. Russell Weeks Mack McDonald South Salt Lake City Jim Davis Larry Gardner Dennis Pay P.E. Dave Carlson Utah Department of Transportation Richard Manser, P.E. Utah Transit Authority G.J. LaBonty Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... ES 1. PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ...............................................................................1 1.1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT.......................................................................................................................1 1.2. PUBLIC PROCESS...........................................................................................................................................1 2. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS.....................................................................................5 2.1. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS.....................................................................................................5 2.2. LAND USE AND FUTURE PROJECTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................................................6 2.3. TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION...........................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Ogden/Weber State University Transit Project
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Ogden/Weber State University Transit Project The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) served as the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Ogden/Weber State University Transit Project. The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) prepared the Environmental Assessment (EA) and supplemental information in compliance with NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et. seq., and with FTA’s regulations, 23 CFR part 771. The EA discusses the potential impacts of the project so that FTA can determine whether significant adverse impacts (40 CFR 1508.27) are probable. If such a determination were made, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement would be required. The FTA has determined that the build alternative, as documented in the December 2018 EA, will have no significant adverse impact on the human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is based on the December 2018 EA, which has been independently evaluated by the FTA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the project’s purpose, need, environmental issues, impacts, and mitigation commitments. The FTA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the December 2018 EA. _____________________________ _____________________________02/22/2019 Cindy Terwilliger Date Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration, Region 8 1 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Project: Ogden/Weber State University Transit Project Applicant: Utah Transit Authority Project Location: Ogden, Weber County, Utah Proposed Action The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) proposes to construct a 5.3-mile bus rapid transit (BRT) system in Ogden, Weber County, Utah.
    [Show full text]
  • UTA Map Trax and Frontrunner
    456 460 461 471 462 Salt Lake County 463 461 462 460 472 470 System Map 473 455 456 August 2019 471 460 Legend 461 Bus 462 200 Routes run every 15 minutes 463 213 Routes run every 30 or more minutes 473 Routes that have limited stops/peak only 472 470 F556 Routes are Flex Routes Rail F522 473 FrontRunner 456 455 460 Salt Lake City TRAX red line 217 461 Redwood Rd Redwood TRAX blue line 519 462 Airport Station 470 463 North Temple Station TRAX green line Salt Lake See other side University Hospital 454 1000 N 473 3 200 209 University Medical Streetcar S-line International 471 Green line, FrontRunner for Downtown and 2 6 11 Green line 520 472 Center Station Airport 520 University Insets 9 17 21 213 472 470 LDS Hospital 11 223 313 354 1940 W Station F522 600 N 460 217 Northwest 461 200 473 Red line 217 F453 454 456 900 W 455 Union Building 551 551 454 Comm. Ctr 6 11 456 State 6 456 F522 551 State 519 470 9 17 21 213 223 217 519 473 Green line Offices 11 To Tooele I-80 454 N Temple 3 3 9 454 F453 200 N Campus Dr South Campus Station 451 454 456 551 S Temple Power Station 209 6 213 2X 9 17 213 F453 I-80 F453 217 454 551 902 451 220 2 313 21 Chipeta 455 473 Red line Green line 2 3 205 307 17 451 217 S Campus Dr 223 455 4 4 400 S 900 W 455 473 9 State 4 3 3 5600 W Bangerter Hwy Bangerter 320 Wakara 313 Salt Lake Central Station 220 4 3 451 205 307 209 213 This is the Place State Park 2 2X 6 11 205 220 Rd Redwood 9 21 3 509 200 900 S Arapeen 509 513 519 520 902 9 9 Sunnyside Ave 1300 E Hogle 300 W Blue line520, FrontRunner 9 900 E 223 513 Zoo
    [Show full text]
  • East Streetcar Neighborhood Form-Based Code
    East Streetcar Neighborhood Form-Based Code South Salt Lake City, Utah ADOPTED September 17, 2014 8.0 Parking 8.1 General Requirements. 3. Dedicated Visitor Parking. Developers shall clearly indicate the location of dedicated visitor 1. Intent. parking through directional signage, marked stalls, or other means to Parking requirements are established to accomplish the following: be determined in site plan review. (1) Ensure an appropriate level of vehicle parking, loading, and 4. Parking Spillover Management Plan. storage to support a transit-oriented development neighborhood. For developments requiring a conditional use permit, the Land Use (2) Provide appropriate site design standards to mitigate the impacts Authority shall require a parking spillover management plan for peak of parking lots on adjacent land uses and zoning districts. demand periods. (3) Provide specifications for vehicular site access. 5. Vehicular On-Street Parking. 2. Applicability. On-street parking, as permitted on designated street types, shall meet This section shall apply to all new developments and changes in use or the following requirements. Refer to Figure 8.1 (1) intensity of use for existing development, in any subdistrict. 8’ (1) Damage or Destruction. When a use that has been damaged or destroyed by fire, collapse, explosion, or other cause is 12’ reestablished, any associated off-street parking spaces or loading facilities must be re-established based on the requirements of this section. 8’ 8’ 8’ (2) Site Plan Approval Required. Parking quantities, design, and layout 23’ 12’ 12’ shall be approved through the development application process and meet the standards of the current parking chapter with8’ the Figure 8.18’ (1) On-Street Parking Dimensions.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Oriented Development
    Sugar House Streetcar: Land Use and Urban Design Recommendations Marilee A. Utter Citiventure Associates and Ronald A. Straka, Urban Designer November 2011 Introduction/Background • 2 mile vacated freight rail corridor • FTA grant—funding gap • Existing EIS submission • UTA--September: design recommendations due • 2 cities, UTA, County, PRATT • Slow real estate market The Assignment • Corridor Vision • UTA Design Guidance • Corridor Treatments/Upgrade • Land use and Urban Design concepts • Development Opportunities • Station Area Concept Plans • Implementation Streetcar Study Objectives • Increase Transit Ridership • Connect Sugar House to TRAX • Provide greenway trail and open space; PRATT Trail extension • Catalyze community redevelopment • Connect transit, neighborhoods and development • Enhance sustainability The Process • Small property owner meetings • Community/neighborhood outreach meetings, exhibits, website) • Developer interviews and work sessions • ULI developer workshop • Staff consultations • Internal meetings with UTA, PRATT, County, SLC, SSL Corridor Context • Concerns: – Old industrial corridor—not in street – Poor visibility, accessibility – Few anchors for ridership – Existing uses/building stock along corridor – Safety concerns (nighttime) – Overhead utility poles – Corridor image and width – Serious budget constaints Corridor Vision Statement The Streetcar will be a catalyst to transform the corridor into a memorable experience and place for its many users. It will be an inviting, safe, multi-use, sustainable, linear
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Evaluation of Streetcar Station Changes
    ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EVALUATION DOCUMENTATION PROJECT TITLE Sugar House Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment Re-Evaluation for Station Changes CURRENT, APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Title: Finding of No Significant Impact for the Sugar House Environmental Assessment Date: February 14, 2011 Type and Date of Last Federal Action: FONSI, February 2011 Title: Sugar House Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment Date: November 2010 IS THE PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION? REASON FOR RE-EVALUATION The station platform locations are changing from the locations proposed in the Environmental Assessment (EA). The changes are shown in Attachment A, Sugar House Streetcar Project Proposed Station Plan Changes, dated 12/16/11. The reason for the platform changes is to accommodate the results of a community visioning process that included UTA, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (SLC RDA), Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake City, the Parley’s Rails Trails and Tunnels Coalition (PRATT), community members, developers, and a consultant team (CitiVenture Associates and Ronald A. Straka). The community visioning was conducted to support future land use plans and create a mixed-use corridor that integrates transit and various modes of pedestrian circulation with urban design and redevelopment to encourage transit ridership and economic development in the Sugar House Streetcar corridor. The results of the community visioning are shown in Attachment B, Sugar House Corridor Recommendations. In total, there will be one or more changes to seven stations. The changes include moving one station to avoid the acquisition of a building; utilizing a wider area of the UTA right-of-way (ROW) at one station; incorporating side platforms at five stations, rather than center platforms; and placing platforms closer to areas of redevelopment along the ROW at two stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Priorities and Initiatives
    2021 Federal Priorities and Initiatives i UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY | MARCH 2021UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY UTA • FEDERAL PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES MESSAGE FROM THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES On March 23, 2020, the Utah Transit Authority celebrated its 50th Anniversary. From humble beginnings, we now serve over 80% of Utah’s population and board tens of millions each year. Our trajectory is forward and our momentum strong. We see the coming year and decade ahead filled withopportunity , driven by growth. UTA’s first headquarters Growth is a familiar theme at UTA. Utah is the A top policy priority and cornerstone of our network nation’s third fastest growing state. We are home is UTA’s 83-mile FrontRunner commuter rail system. to the second (St. George) and sixth (Orem-Provo, Traveling north and south through Utah’s four most which is part of our service district) fastest growing populous counties, FrontRunner has redefined what metropolitan areas in the country. Public transit is it means to connect with opportunity in the Beehive among our state’s top policy priorities to manage State. Riders can transfer from this transit backbone this growth while protecting our environment, to most of our service district via Bus Rapid Transit, supporting communities in need, and preserving light rail, regular bus, microtransit and other modes. our quality of life. Currently, our ridership is impacted by COVID-19 We need federal support to attain the policy goals and in the wake of the ongoing pandemic, our and community potential of our transit vision. UTA communities are assessing their future transportation encourages the Biden-Harris administration to needs and options.
    [Show full text]
  • A Plan for Urban Growth on Salt Lake City's West Side Based on Restored Rail Service to the Rio Grande Depot
    The Plan A PLAN FOR URBAN GROWTH ON SALT LAKE CITY’S WEST SIDE BASED ON RESTORED RAIL SERVICE TO THE RIO GRANDE DEPOT The Rio Grande Plan 1 What are the Problems? ▪ For the last 20 years, Salt Lake City’s main train station has been a temporary mobile structure that is only open during the night. The lack of passenger amenities is limiting ridership, turning away future rail and transit users, and stalling passenger rail projects in the state of Utah. ▪ Development around Salt Lake Central Station has not happened. Vacant lots have sat unused for over a decade. 300 South, which is blocked by the Rio Grande Depot, is a lifeless street. On the east side of the depot, 300 South and Pioneer Park are underutilized and overlooked. ▪ To the south and west of Salt Lake Central Station, mostly-abandoned railyards sprawl over 50 acres of otherwise prime land, creating an enormous ‘dead zone’ on the west side of downtown. ▪ Massive bridges span the rail yards at 400, 500, and 600 South. These disrupt the traffic flow on surface streets for vehicles and pedestrians alike, as well as consuming valuable street front. ▪ Major railroad crossings at 900, 800, and 200 South interrupt and often block travel between downtown and neighborhoods further west, as well as posing serious safety hazards. ▪ The design of Salt Lake Central Station is ‘flat’, meaning passengers must cross active railroad tracks to reach most platforms. This design creates significant safety hazards and limits the capacity of the station. Upgrades will required in the near future, and will cost millions of dollars.
    [Show full text]