Clark County Parking Study

Transcription

1 Prepared for: and Clark County Parking Study Final Report June 2015

2 Clark County Parking Study June 2015 Prepared for: Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada and Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning Prepared by: 319 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada (702) The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f) of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... ES Introduction and Background Study Sites Category 1: Shopping Sites Large Shopping Sites Medium Shopping Sites Small Shopping Sites Category 2: Industrial/Commercial Sites Category 3: Resort Hotels Category 4: Place of Worship Parking Demand and Supply Survey Dates and Hours Survey Results Survey Results: Shopping Sites Survey Results: Industrial/Commercial Sites Survey Results: Resorts Survey Results: Place of Worship Sites Data Analysis Parking Requirement per Chapter Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirements Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirement Shopping Sites Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirement Industrial/Commercial Sites Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirement Resort Sites Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirement Place of Worship Sites Local Factors Local Factors for the Study Sites Accessibility Population and Employment Density Commuting Practices Evaluation of Local Factors at Study Sites Research/Literature Review on Impact of Local Factors Final Report i June 3, 2015

4 6.0. Consumer Behavior Practices: A Literature Review Impact of Excessive Parking Needs Assessment Issues and Challenges Conclusions Recommendations List of Figures Figure ES-1: Survey Sites... ES-1 Figure ES-2: Survey Results... ES-2 Figure ES-3: Survey Findings... ES-2 Figure 2-1: Study Area Figure 2-2: Study Sites Figure 2-3: Large Shopping Site Figure 2-4: Large Shopping Site Figure 2-5: Large Shopping Site Figure 2-6: Medium Shopping Site Figure 2-7: Medium Shopping Site Figure 2-8: Medium Shopping Site Figure 2-9: Small Shopping Site Figure 2-10: Small Shopping Site Figure 2-11: Small Shopping Site Figure 2-12: Industrial/Commercial Site Figure 2-13: Industrial/Commercial Site Figure 2-14: Industrial/Commercial Site Figure 2-15: Industrial/Commercial Site Figure 2-16: Industrial/Commercial Site Figure 2-17: Strip Resort Figure 2-18: Strip Resort Figure 2-19: Strip Resort Figure 2-20: Local Resort Figure 2-21: Local Resort Figure 2-22: Place of Worship Figure 2-23: Place of Worship Final Report ii June 3, 2015

5 Figure 2-24: Place of Worship Figure 2-25: Place of Worship Figure 2-26: Place of Worship Figure 3-1: Survey Result: Large Shopping Site Figure 3-2: Survey Result: Large Shopping Site Figure 3-3: Survey Result: Large Shopping Site Figure 3-4: Average Parking Occupancy - Large Shopping Sites Figure 3-5: Survey Result: Medium Shopping Site Figure 3-6: Survey Result: Medium Shopping Site Figure 3-7: Survey Result: Medium Shopping Site 2 Typical Weekday Figure 3-8: Survey Result: Medium Shopping Site Figure 3-9: Average Parking Occupancy - Medium Shopping Sites Figure 3-10: Survey Result: Small Shopping Site Figure 3-11: Survey Result: Small Shopping Site Figure 3-12: Survey Result: Small Shopping Site Figure 3-13: Average Parking Occupancy - Small Shopping Sites Figure 3-14: Survey Result: Industrial/Commercial Site Figure 3-15: Survey Result: Industrial/Commercial Site Figure 3-16: Survey Result: Industrial/Commercial Site Figure 3-17: Survey Result: Industrial/Commercial Site Figure 3-18: Survey Result: Industrial/Commercial Site Figure 3-19: Average Parking Occupancy Industrial/Commercial Sites Figure 3-20: Survey Result: Strip Resort Figure 3-21: Survey Result: Strip Resort Figure 3-22: Survey Result: Strip Resort Figure 3-23: Survey Result: Local Resort Figure 3-24: Survey Result: Local Resort Figure 3-25: Average Parking Occupancy Resorts Figure 3-26: Survey Result: Place of Worship Figure 3-27: Survey Result: Place of Worship Figure 3-28: Survey Result: Place of Worship Figure 3-29: Survey Result: Place of Worship Figure 3-30: Survey Result: Place of Worship Figure 3-31: Average Parking Occupancy - Place of Worship Sites Figure 4-1: Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirement - Large Shopping Sites Final Report iii June 3, 2015

6 Figure 4-2: Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirement - Medium Shopping Sites Figure 4-3: Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirement Small Shopping Sites Figure 4-4: Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirement Industrial/Commercial Sites Figure 4-5: Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirement Strip Resorts Figure 4-6: Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirement Local Resorts Figure 4-7: Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirement Place of Worship Sites List of Tables Table 2-1: Shopping Center Categories per ITE Parking Generation Table 3-1: Survey Dates and Hours Table 4-1: Parking Rates from Chapter Table 4-2: Parking Calculations Summary Table 5-1: Summary of Local Factors Data Table 5-2: Example Local Factors Adjustments Appendices Appendix A: Clark County Parking Code (Chapter of Title 30) Appendix B: Survey Sites with Assessor s Parcel Numbers (APNs) Appendix C: Time-of-Day Distribution Tables of Parking Demand from ITE Parking Generation Appendix D: Survey Results Raw Data Appendix E: Minimum Parking Calculations per Chapter Appendix F: Local Factors Data Final Report iv June 3, 2015

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Study examines parking supply and demand, through field surveys, for certain nonresidential land use categories in selected urban townships of unincorporated Clark County, Nevada. The objective is to evaluate how closely the County s parking code (Chapter of Title 30) match actual parking demand, and if a change in the Code is warranted. The overall goal is to better align the parking code with the smart-growth and sustainable development policies in the County s Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Transportation Commission s (RTC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). A total of 24 sites, consisting of nine retail (shopping), five industrial/commercial, five resort hotel, and five place of worship sites, were selected for the parking surveys. Figure ES-1 illustrates location of the survey sites. The surveys were conducted on days that correspond to a busy, but not the busiest day of the year for that particular land use category. Figure ES-1: Survey Sites As indicated in Figure ES-2, survey results revealed that the existing standard parking rates in the Code are generally high, resulting in excessive parking supply. Additionally, developers sometimes choose to provide parking in excess of the minimum Code requirement based on their knowledge, experience, and expectation; and this results in further excessive parking supply in some instances (see Figure ES-3). The Code does not limit how much parking can be provided. Final Report ES-1 June 3, 2015

8 Figure ES-2: Survey Results Parking Demand versus Chapter Requirement Chapter Requirement 19% 47% 47% 36% 44% Difference Parking Supply 60% Required Parking per Data* Large Shopping Medium Shopping Small Shopping Industrial Local Resort Strip Resort Note: Place of worship is not included in this chart because there was a substantial variation in the occupancy rates; and therefore, the average occupancy rate is not a reliable representation for this category. Figure ES-3: Survey Findings Final Report ES-2 June 3, 2015

9 Excessive parking supply is a barrier to smart-growth and sustainable development; and therefore, in conflict with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the RTP. The emphasis on providing adequate parking is often justified on the grounds of future growth, but in reality is a cautious and conservative planning approach. Such decisions stimulate vehicle travel and reduce the desire to walk or bike. It also encourages sprawl leading to increased travel and environmental cost. National best practices show more cities are evaluating new ways to manage parking supply and demand as part of their overall smart growth goals. Reducing the parking supply, as part of a broader smart growth initiative, can have many positive impacts including: Increased incentive to use alternative modes of transportation; Increased economic development and job creation potential by reducing development costs and encouraging redevelopment; Reduced sprawl and more compact urban design; Increased tax revenues; and Improved air and water quality. Therefore, to promote smart growth and sustainable development, a change in the Code, to achieve reduced parking supply, is an appropriate future action. In addition to the existing code parking rates being high and developers often providing parking in excess of the minimum Code requirement, several other factors, such as the ones listed below, contribute to excessive parking supply. The Code is not context-sensitive. The parking rates are applied across the board without taking local factors (such as residential and employment density, transit accessibility, walkability and bicycle access, demographics, and land use diversity) into account. There are some existing provisions in Chapter that allow reduced parking and alternative parking standards; however, these provisions are usually not fully utilized, and/or are insufficient. Site designs are usually auto-oriented. Parking lots oftentimes are directly adjacent to the street, with buildings and stores away from the street. Additionally, there are often numerous access driveways to the parking lots, a situation that is unsafe for all modes. Parking in Clark County is almost always free. This is an impediment for non-auto modes and encourages driving. Free parking is not really free. The cost is borne by the business owners who pass these costs to patrons through the goods and services they provide. Driver behavior is changing due to shifting demographics and the rapid advancement of technology including e-commerce and telecommuting. Code requirements are generally conservative based on traditional planning methods, and do not take into account these changing preferences and consumer behavior trends that are likely to result in reduced parking demand in the future. Final Report ES-3 June 3, 2015

10 The key recommendations of this Study are summarized below. Retail, resort, and industrial/commercial land-use categories should be further examined, and specific parking reduction amounts should be investigated and proposed. Parking for place of worship sites surveyed in this Study is fairly utilized in most instances. Therefore, the place of worship category is not recommended for future examination for parking reductions. The County should update Chapter to make it more context-sensitive, allowing requirements to reflect each particular situation as opposed to applying the same standards for all situations. Existing provisions should be reevaluated and expanded as appropriate, and new provisions that take local factors into account should be added. Incentives should be included to dedicate portions of the existing surface lots for public facilities such as bus turnouts, pedestrian connections, bicycle parking, and on-site transit facilities such as park-and-ride areas. Reduced parking and alternative parking provisions should be better highlighted and emphasized in the Code. The County and RTC should promote site designs that are less auto-oriented with better accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. The adopted design standards should ensure a public facility benefit such as provision of dedicated bus turnouts and protected, direct, and paved connections for pedestrian access from the transit stop to the front door of the buildings. Benefits and feasibility of limiting the total amount of parking that can be provided and/or tying the parking area to the footprint of the building or the net acreage of the development area should be further explored. Benefits from such policies to both developers and the public (e.g., ability to relegate more land to revenue generating uses) should be emphasized. Special parking regulations should be mandated during special events. Owners and/or organizers should be required to have an overflow parking plan that provides alternate means of transportation during large events. Title 30 allows up to a 30 percent parking reduction to the resorts that request a waiver. This reduction should be considered to be incorporated in the standard parking rate for resorts in Chapter Changes to the Code should be explored that discourage developers from providing more than the minimum required parking. This Study concludes that a change in the Code is warranted. The specifics of the required changes should be determined through further investigation and evaluation, including public and stakeholder outreach. The changes should be geared towards achieving the goal of bringing parking policies in line with the smart growth and sustainable development policies and goals in the Comprehensive Plan and the RTP. Final Report ES-4 June 3, 2015

11 1.0. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This Study examines parking supply and demand, through field surveys, for certain nonresidential land use categories in selected urban townships of unincorporated Clark County, Nevada. The objective is to evaluate how closely the County s parking requirements match actual parking demand. Title 30 is the Clark County Unified Development Code related to land use, zoning, and development. Chapter (also referred to as the Code herein) addresses parking requirements. Chapter is included in Appendix A of this Report for reference. The policies in the County s Comprehensive Plan and in the Regional Transportation Commission s (RTC) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) encourage sustainable development patterns and smart growth such as compact, walkable, and transit-oriented neighborhood areas. This Study compares actual parking demand with the Code requirements to examine potential policy changes to better align the Code with the smart-growth and sustainable development policies in the County s Comprehensive Plan and the RTP. Additionally, the impact on parking demand of local factors such as accessibility via alternative modes, population and employment density, and travel characteristics of the residents in the area is examined. Following is a list of the land use categories examined in this Study along with the rationale for their inclusion: Category 1 Retail (Shopping): Shopping related uses are the most common nonresidential land use type in the County and generally devote the largest proportion of their developable land to surface parking. Parking rates for shopping related uses have changed in the past and a reevaluation was deemed appropriate given recent trends in e- commerce and other mode choice and demographic changes in the Las Vegas Valley. Category 2 - Resort Hotel: The Code currently has standard parking rates for resort hotels. Resort hotels were included in the Study to evaluate the actual utilization. Category 3 Industrial/Commercial: In Clark County, manufacturing/warehouse type industrial sites are allowed to include a mixture of commercial uses with approval of a special use permit. These sites are zoned industrial due to the permitted use; however, some developments applied for, and received land use approvals that allows a mix of uses (i.e., use permits for recreational facilities, retail, places of worship, etc.). The County desires to identify parking issues or impacts related to the commercial use of such sites. Category 4 - Place of Worship: In the past, there have been concerns regarding overflow parking from churches onto residential neighborhood streets. Places of worship were included in the Study to evaluate this potential issue. This Report summarizes all aspects of this Study from data collection to recommendations. Final Report 1-1 June 3, 2015

12 2.0. STUDY SITES Unincorporated Clark County consists of eleven distinct planning areas (referred to as townships herein) with adopted plans. Of these eleven, the Study area includes the four townships in Figure 2-1. The majority of the Study sites are located within these four townships. 1 These four are the most urban townships with the most land use application requests. Figure 2-1: Study Area 1 When there were no suitable sites identified in these four, other townships were also considered, resulting in a few sites from Sunrise Manor Township. Final Report 2-1 June 3, 2015

13 A representative sample was selected for each of the four land use categories. A total of 24 sites were selected, consisting of nine shopping, five industrial/commercial, five resort hotel, and five place of worship sites. Figure 2-2 illustrates the locations of the study sites. Appendix B includes a map of each site with the individual assessor s parcel numbers (APNs). Sections 2.1 through 2.4 describe each selected site within each category. In general, the primary selection criterion was site occupancy. Sites with building occupancies estimated to be 85 percent or greater were selected, consistent with the industry standard for performing parking studies and as suggested in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation publication. Figure 2-2: Study Sites 2.1. Category 1: Shopping Sites The shopping sites are divided into large, medium, and small subcategories based on their gross floor area (gfa). This sub-categorization was necessary to allow for a more reasonable comparison, as parking characteristics of shopping facilities are (or may be) related to their size. For example, the parking characteristics of a million-square foot regional shopping center are not directly comparable to a neighborhood grocery store. The primary reference for conducting parking studies is the ITE s Parking Generation publication. In ITE s Parking Generation, shopping centers are defined as shown in Table 2-1, which in turn is based on the Urban Land Institute s (ULI) definitions. Large shopping sites selected for this Parking Study correspond to the regional and super regional centers, medium shopping sites to the neighborhood and community centers, and small shopping sites to the strip centers. Final Report 2-2 June 3, 2015

14 Table 2-1: Shopping Center Categories per ITE Parking Generation Center Type Building Area (square feet) Typical Anchor and Tenant Type Strip (Small) <30,000 Small Businesses Neighborhood (Medium) 30,000 to 100,000 Anchored by supermarket and/or drug store with variety of supporting stores Community (Medium) 100,000 to 400,000 Anchored by general merchandise stores or discount retailer Regional (Large) 400,000 to 800,000 Anchored by department stores with variety of stores Super Regional (Large) >800,000 Anchored by several department stores with variety of stores Source: Parking Generation, 4th Edition, ITE, 2010 In Chapter (definitions chapter of Title 30), the term shopping center is defined as any structure or group of structures housing any assemblage of commercial and/or retail with a minimum of 25,000 square feet of gross floor area upon a single lot or parcel of land, or upon contiguous parcels of land which have common vehicular access. Based on this definition, the medium and large shopping sites selected for this Study are shopping centers. Per Chapter 30.60, the minimum parking required for shopping centers is calculated based on a single rate of 4:1,000 square feet (sq.ft.) of gfa regardless of the types of uses within the center. For example, restaurants or places of worship within a shopping center are not treated differently with respect to their parking rate even though such uses have stand-alone parking rates that are different than 4:1,000 sq.ft. In other words, the gfa of each use in a shopping center is added up, and then the 4:1,000 rate is applied to the total gfa. Commercial/retail sites that are smaller than 25,000 square feet gfa do not fall in the shopping center definition. Per Chapter 30.60, their minimum parking is calculated based on the parking rate of each individual use within the site. It is perceived that this individual use approach results in more parking than necessary. To understand if this perception has basis in reality, sites with less than 25,000 square-foot gfa were selected for the small shopping category. Three sites from each shopping subcategory were identified for the survey. The following subsections describe each subcategory, including information on mix of uses within each site, because the mix of uses may be a factor in parking demand. Final Report 2-3 June 3, 2015

15 Large Shopping Sites The first large shopping site is located in Paradise Township. The facility is bound by Spencer Street to the west, Eastern Avenue to the east, I-215 to the north, and Serene Avenue to the south. Figure 2-3 shows the site layout. Access to the site is provided on Serene Avenue, Spencer Street, and Eastern Avenue via multiple driveways. This site is a regional shopping center with a gfa of approximately 650,000 square feet. The center includes several big box anchor retailers such as Walmart, Home Depot, and Sam s Club. Some of the smaller stores and restaurants are in-line buildings located adjacent to Serene Avenue providing direct access from Serene Avenue. Figure 2-3: Large Shopping Site 1 Final Report 2-4 June 3, 2015

16 The second large shopping site is located in Spring Valley Township. It is bounded by Tenaya Way to the west, Rainbow Boulevard to the east, I-215 to the north, and Badura Avenue to the south (Figure 2-4). Access to the site is provided on Rainbow Boulevard, Badura Avenue, and Tenaya Way via multiple driveways. This site is similar to Large Shopping Site 1 in its type of stores and layout. It is, however, approximately 35 percent larger with a gfa of over 900,000 square feet. 2 Figure 2-4: Large Shopping Site 2 2 There is a large undeveloped pad on this site. However, the parking for this pad has not yet been built; therefore, the existence of the empty pad does not skew the survey results. The provided parking is based on the current status of the development (i.e., what has been built to date). Final Report 2-5 June 3, 2015

17 The third large shopping site is located in Enterprise Township (Figure 2-5). Compared to the first two sites, Large Shopping Site 3 is also a regional center; however, it is much larger with a gfa of approximately 1.3 million square feet. 3 This site is different from the other two sites in that it includes on-street parking and both surface and structured parking, and is oriented around a central core with dining, entertainment, shopping, and office space. Large Shopping Site 3 is bounded by I-15 to the west, Las Vegas Boulevard South to the east, and Sunset Road to the north. On the south side, this site is adjacent to Fry s Electronics, the largest consumer electronics store in Las Vegas. The surface parking lots are located adjacent to the bounding streets, with structured parking integrated with the stores, restaurants, and plaza/activity areas located in the center core. Figure 2-5: Large Shopping Site 3 3 There are a number of small undeveloped pads on this site; any impact of these empty pads on survey results is discussed in Section Final Report 2-6 June 3, 2015

18 Medium Shopping Sites Three neighborhood/community shopping centers with building occupancy levels estimated to be 85 percent or greater were selected for the medium shopping category. The first site (Figure 2-6) is located at the southwest corner of Tropicana Avenue and Maryland Parkway in Paradise Township, and has a gfa of approximately 70,000 square feet. This is a typical size for a neighborhood shopping center, and includes a grocery store, several smaller size retail stores, and a fast-food restaurant. The stores are set back from the adjacent streets toward the rear of the site with parking lots buffering them from the street. Figure 2-6: Medium Shopping Site 1 The second medium shopping site (Figure 2-7) has a gfa of approximately 200,000 square feet (typical community shopping center), and is located at the northeast corner of Flamingo Road and Maryland Parkway in Paradise Township. The site has a grocery store, a drug store, a medium size department store, a gas station, and several smaller size retail stores and restaurants. Similar to Medium Shopping Site 1, the stores are set back from the adjacent streets toward the rear of the site. The third medium shopping site is located in Spring Valley Township at the southeast corner of Tropicana Avenue and Jones Boulevard. Similar to Medium Shopping Site 1, this site is also a typical neighborhood center with a gfa of approximately 90,000 square feet (Figure 2-8). The center has a grocery store, a drug store, a fast food restaurant, and a gas station. Final Report 2-7 June 3, 2015

19 Figure 2-7: Medium Shopping Site 2 Figure 2-8: Medium Shopping Site 3 Final Report 2-8 June 3, 2015

20 Small Shopping Sites As explained earlier, small shopping sites have a gfa of less than 25,000 square feet. Among the many options within the Study area, three with occupancy levels greater than 85 percent were selected. Figure 2-9, Figure 2-10, and Figure 2-11 show their layouts. Site 1 is located on the northwest corner of Pyle Avenue and Pollock Drive in Enterprise Township; and has a gas station with a convenience store and a fast food restaurant, and several smaller size retail stores. Site 2, located at the southeast corner of Pebble Road and Maryland Parkway in Paradise Township, has a restaurant/bar, an animal hospital, a dry cleaner, and several small retail stores. Site 3, located at the southwest corner of Flamingo Road and Cimarron Road in Spring Valley Township, has a restaurant/bar, a gas station with smog check, and a bank/office building. All three small shopping sites are located within or adjacent to residential areas where residents can walk to them. Figure 2-9: Small Shopping Site 1 Final Report 2-9 June 3, 2015

21 Figure 2-10: Small Shopping Site 2 Figure 2-11: Small Shopping Site 3 Final Report 2-10 June 3, 2015

22 2.2. Category 2: Industrial/Commercial Sites Five industrial/commercial sites were selected within the Study area, and are described below. Each description includes information on mix of uses, and compares the percentage of retail and/or recreational uses (e.g., restaurant, grocery, cleaners, repair, hair/spa salons, gym, etc.) with more industrial and/or non-retail uses (e.g., warehouse, manufacturing, office, showroom, etc.). This information is useful in identifying the differences in parking utilization amongst the sites. The first site (Figure 2-12) is located at the southeast corner of Warm Springs Road and Dean Martin Drive in Enterprise Township. This site includes mostly (up to 90 percent) industrial and non-retail uses. A recreational facility which opened in 2013 is the most popular attraction (i.e., highest trip generator) at this site. Figure 2-12: Industrial/Commercial Site 1 Final Report 2-11 June 3, 2015

23 Site 2 (Figure 2-13) is located at the southwest corner of Spring Mountain Road and Valley View Drive in Paradise Township. The front of this industrial/commercial center, adjacent to and facing Spring Mountain Road, has mostly restaurants and retail stores, and is the busiest part of the center. The middle and rear portions of the site have more industrial type uses along with some recreational uses. Of the approximately 100 active businesses in this site, approximately 45 percent is retail and recreational uses. Figure 2-13: Industrial/Commercial Site 2 Final Report 2-12 June 3, 2015

24 The third site, located at the northeast corner of Pecos Road and Sunset Road in Paradise Township, is shown in Figure The site has a variety of uses ranging from small retail stores and restaurants to large warehouses and also includes a place of worship. Of the roughly 40 active businesses in this site, approximately 40 percent are retail and recreational uses. Figure 2-14: Industrial/Commercial Site 3 Final Report 2-13 June 3, 2015

25 The fourth industrial/commercial site, located at the southeast corner of Patrick Lane and McLeod Drive in Paradise Township, is the smallest among the five surveyed industrial/commercial sites (Figure 2-15). The development consists of three buildings. Two of the three buildings include industrial type uses and related offices (comprising up to 90 percent of all businesses in this site), with the remaining building housing a recreational facility. Figure 2-15: Industrial/Commercial Site 4 Final Report 2-14 June 3, 2015

26 The fifth site is the largest amongst the five industrial/commercial sites surveyed, and is located at the northwest corner of Valley View Road and Desert Inn Road in Winchester Township (Figure 2-16). Of the approximately 185 active businesses in this site, approximately 20 percent are retail and recreational uses. The remaining 80% are light industrial type uses including warehouses and offices. Figure 2-16: Industrial/Commercial Site 5 In summary, the portion of retail and/or recreational type uses are approximately 10 percent for Site 1, 45 percent for Site 2, 40 percent for Site 3, 10 percent for Site 4, and 20 percent for Site 5. Final Report 2-15 June 3, 2015

27 2.3. Category 3: Resort Hotels Resort hotels (referred to as resorts) in Clark County typically consist of large building/complexes serving a variety of commercial uses, hotel rooms, and gaming areas (i.e., casinos). The resorts along Las Vegas Boulevard South are within the designated Gaming Enterprise District commonly referred to as the Resort Corridor (or The Strip). These resorts have a different character than the resorts that serve the local/neighborhood areas outside of The Strip. Therefore, this category is divided into two subcategories: Strip resorts and local (neighborhood) resorts. Three Strip resorts and two local resorts were selected for Study. The location and layout of each site is shown in Figure 2-17 through Figure The resorts on the Strip are located in Paradise Township, and the local resorts are located in Sunrise Manor Township. The Strip resorts provide a majority of their parking within parking structures, while the local resorts provide a significant amount of their parking in surface lots. Figure 2-17: Strip Resort 1 Final Report 2-16 June 3, 2015

28 Figure 2-18: Strip Resort 2 Figure 2-19: Strip Resort 3 Final Report 2-17 June 3, 2015

29 Figure 2-20: Local Resort 1 Figure 2-21: Local Resort 2 Final Report 2-18 June 3, 2015

30 2.4. Category 4: Place of Worship There were many options for place of worship sites within the Study area. Five sites, with locations spread throughout the Study area and with varying denominations, were selected. Figure 2-22 through Figure 2-26 show the location and layout of each site. Except for Site 2, the place of worship sites are located within residential areas. Figure 2-22: Place of Worship 1 Final Report 2-19 June 3, 2015

31 Figure 2-23: Place of Worship 2 Figure 2-24: Place of Worship 3 Final Report 2-20 June 3, 2015

32 Figure 2-25: Place of Worship 4 Figure 2-26: Place of Worship 5 Final Report 2-21 June 3, 2015

33 3.0. PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY Parking surveys were conducted to determine parking demand and supply at each Study site. Parking demand is the total number of vehicles parked at a given site at any point in time; and includes all parking associated with the site whether parked illegally or parked on-street. Parking demand does not include standing vehicles awaiting the pick-up or drop-off of a passenger in a drive-through lane or vehicles at loading docks. Parking supply is the total number of parking spaces that are available at a site regardless of whether or not they are utilized. Parking supply only includes marked spaces; and does not include areas designated for standing vehicles, emergency vehicles, loading docks, and shopping cart return areas in the case of shopping sites. The parking surveys were conducted consistent with the methodology outlined in ITE s Parking Generation. Parking counts were made every 30 minutes within the survey hours to account for fluctuations during the peak demand hour. The observed parking demand for each 30-minute period was recorded for each site Survey Dates and Hours Table 3-1 summarizes the survey dates and hours for each site. Table 3-1: Survey Dates and Hours Site Survey Date Survey Hours All shopping sites except Small 3 Saturday, December 14, AM to 4 PM Small Shopping Site 3 Tuesday, June 17, AM to 4 PM Strip resorts Local resorts Saturday, December 7, 2013 (National Finals Rodeo Event) Sunday, February 2, 2014 (Super Bowl Sunday) 7:30 to 11:30 PM 3 PM to 7 PM Friday, January 10, 2014 and Industrial/Commercial Site 1 1 PM to 5 PM Saturday, January 11, 2014 Friday, January 10, 2014 and 12 to 5 PM and Industrial/Commercial Site 2 Saturday, January 11, AM to 3 PM Industrial/Commercial Site 3 Thursday, January 9, PM to 4 PM Industrial/Commercial Site 4 Tuesday, November 19, PM to 5 PM Industrial/Commercial Site 5 Wednesday, November 20, PM to 4 PM Place of Worship Site 1 Sunday, June 15, :30 AM to 12:30 PM Place of Worship Site 2 Sunday, June 15, :30 AM to 1 PM Place of Worship Site 3 Friday, July 11, :30 PM to 11 PM Place of Worship Site 4 Sunday, June 15, AM to 1 PM Place of Worship Site 5 Sunday, June 15, :30 AM to 1 PM Final Report 3-1 June 3, 2015

34 Survey dates for each category were selected based on the following rationale: Shopping sites: The project stakeholders decided to conduct the shopping site surveys on days that correspond to a busy day, but not the busiest day of the year. Saturday, December 14, 2013, was selected to capture this busy day activity at all shopping sites, with the exception of Small Site 3. Small Site 3 was surveyed on a weekday because it is busier on a weekday due to the existence of an office building within the site. December 14 is generally a busy shopping day because this falls within the holiday shopping season. The busiest shopping day of the year is generally Black Friday which is the Friday after Thanksgiving, or the Saturday before Christmas, which may sometimes be even busier than Black Friday. One of the sites was resurveyed on a typical weekday to compare peak versus off-peak demand. Medium Site 2 was selected for this purpose, and the off-peak survey was performed on Wednesday, January 15, Strip resort sites: The Strip resorts were surveyed on Saturday, December 7, 2013, during the National Finals Rodeo (NFR). During NFR, the parking demand is generally higher than on an average day, but not as high as on New Year s Eve, long holiday weekends, or during a major convention. Local resort sites: The local resorts were surveyed on Sunday, February 2, 2014, during the Super Bowl. Super Bowl Sunday is generally one of the larger events for a local resort. Place of worship sites: Typical service days were selected for the place of worship sites. The intent was to capture the demand when the facilities are busy, but not the busiest. Industrial/commercial sites: There are no special busy times for these types of facilities. The decision, therefore, was to capture the peak demand during a typical week. Depending on the nature of the site, a typical weekday (Tuesday through Thursday), a Friday, or a Saturday was selected for surveying the industrial/commercial sites. Two of the sites were surveyed on November 19 and 20, 2013 right after the inception of the Study as test cases to identify potential issues with the survey instrument. The remaining sites were surveyed in Spring Two of the sites (Site 1 and Site 2) were surveyed twice (a Friday and a Saturday) because it was not clear prior to conducting the survey which day would be the busier at these two sites. The objective of the parking observations was to obtain the peak parking demand on the selected survey day. Therefore, the surveys were conducted during the hours of operation when the peak demand was anticipated to occur. Survey hours (i.e., the time window that the peak demand would fall) were selected based on the following rationale: Shopping sites: For shopping sites, the survey hours were determined by examining the time-of-day distribution table for the shopping center land use in ITE s Parking Generation. The table is included in Appendix C. Eleven AM to 4 PM was selected as the appropriate time window to capture the peak demand for the shopping sites, and therefore, the sites were surveyed for five hours during this time period. Industrial/commercial sites: For industrial/commercial sites, the survey hours were determined by examining the time-of-day distribution table for the industrial park land use in ITE s Parking Generation. Industrial park is the most similar land use type with Final Report 3-2 June 3, 2015

35 a time-of-day distribution table in ITE s Parking Generation. The table is included in Appendix C. The sites were surveyed for up to five hours within the 11 AM to 5PM time window. The hours of observation were different for the different sites depending on the nature of the site (see Table 3-1). For example, hours of observation were extended for sites that include recreational uses compared to those with more office uses (where the demand usually dissipates earlier). Strip resort sites: Evening/night hours are the busiest along the Strip. The stakeholders agreed that the peak parking demand occurs between 7:30 and 11:30 PM, and all Strip resorts were surveyed during this time period. Local resort sites: Local resorts were surveyed on Super Bowl Sunday. The highest parking demand was anticipated to occur during the game. The game started at 3:30 PM; and observations were made between 3:00 and 7:00 PM to capture the peak demand. Place of worship sites: Three hours of survey was conducted at each place of worship during their respective typical service hours Survey Results The parking occupancy rate is a measure of parking utilization. It is the percentage of the parking supply that is observed to be occupied during a given time period, and is calculated as parking demand (number of vehicles parked) divided by parking supply (number of available spaces). This section presents survey results for each site through a series of parking occupancy rate charts with the peak parking occupancy rate highlighted (in the color red) on each chart. The charts show parking demand (total vehicles parked) in 30 minute increments and parking supply (total available parking spaces on site). The average parking occupancy rate for each category as a whole is presented following the results for each individual site. The raw survey data is included in Appendix D. 4 It should be noted that the parking occupancy rates documented in this section are the actual (i.e., observed) demand divided by the actual (i.e., field counted) supply. The actual supply is the number of parking spaces the site owner deemed appropriate to provide, and is oftentimes more than the minimum number of parking spaces required per the Code. Developers/site owners in some instances choose to provide parking in excess of the Code (based on their knowledge and experience) to accommodate their highest anticipated parking demand. Therefore, a 50 percent parking occupancy rate, for example, does not imply that the Code requires 50 percent more parking than the actual need. Instead, it may be due to the additional parking provided by the developer over and above the minimum requirement. Furthermore, a few sites have not completely been built out, but parking for their entire build-out area has been provided. In those cases, the parking occupancy results are skewed due to the parking provided for future buildings. Due to both of these reasons, the parking occupancy rates shown in this section are not intended to provide a direct comparison with the Code requirement; and are rather intended to document 4 Handicapped stalls are not specifically relevant in the survey because the requirement is based on a ratio of the total number of parking spaces, and therefore, surveying the demand and use of the handicapped stalls would not lead to any actionable finding. Nonetheless, handicap stalls were counted as additional information and are included in the raw survey data. Furthermore, several other observations were noted in the raw survey data that are not necessarily used as input to results (e.g., loading dock related notes). Final Report 3-3 June 3, 2015

36 the field survey results, and provide an indication of the general trends in parking utilization. An evaluation of the parking requirements in the Code is discussed in Section 4.0. The evaluation in Section 4.0 compares the actual demand calculated from field observations with the minimum parking required per the Code, not with the provided (i.e., field-counted) supply. Additionally, in Section 4.0, the observed demand is adjusted for certain factors (e.g., building occupancy) prior to the comparison. It should be noted that, as an industry standard, a parking area is generally considered full if its parking occupancy rate is at 90 percent or higher. Ninety percent occupancy is referred to as the ideal utilization. Occupancy rates at or close to 100 percent are generally considered undesirable because motorists must search or wait for available parking and may be tempted to park illegally. In addition, such high parking occupancy rates do not allow flexibility for special circumstances or events including temporary loss of spaces due to construction staging or incorrectly parked vehicles (e.g., a car taking two spaces) Survey Results: Shopping Sites Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-3 present survey results for large shopping sites. Figure 3-4 presents their average parking occupancy rate. Figure 3-1: Survey Result: Large Shopping Site 1 Large Shopping Site 1 Total Parking Spaces in the Field = 2, % 68.8% 60.0% 50.0% Occupancy 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 Parking Occupancy 62.2% 61.8% 64.9% 66.4% 68.6% 68.7% 68.8% 68.6% 63.9% 64.5% 63.8% Total Vehicles Parked 1,550 1,539 1,617 1,654 1,709 1,711 1,714 1,709 1,592 1,605 1,588 Time of Day Final Report 3-4 June 3, 2015

37 Figure 3-2: Survey Result: Large Shopping Site 2 Large Shopping Site % Total Parking Spaces in the Field = 4, % 50.0% Occupancy 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 Parking Occupancy 41.9% 42.6% 46.8% 49.6% 50.2% 50.9% 52.4% 51.1% 51.9% 52.7% 52.0% Total Vehicles Parked 1,928 1,959 2,154 2,284 2,313 2,341 2,411 2,352 2,388 2,426 2,392 Time of Day Figure 3-3: Survey Result: Large Shopping Site 3 Large Shopping Site 3 Total Parking Spaces in the Field = 5, % 50.0% 50.2% Occupancy 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 Parking Occupancy 25.3% 31.2% 36.4% 35.7% 45.2% 48.2% 49.4% 48.3% 49.2% 50.2% 49.1% Total Vehicles Parked 1,410 1,744 2,031 1,991 2,520 2,689 2,759 2,694 2,748 2,800 2,739 Time of Day Final Report 3-5 June 3, 2015

38 Figure 3-4: Average Parking Occupancy - Large Shopping Sites 80.0% Average Occupancy Large Shopping Sites 70.0% 60.0% 57% Occupancy Average Occupancy 50.0% Occupancy 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Large Shopping Site 1 Large Shopping Site 2 Large Shopping Site 3 Notable observations from the survey results of the large shopping sites are as follows: National trends on regional shopping centers indicate that parking demand is fairly flat from 11 AM to 4 PM. Sites 1 and 2 are generally consistent with this trend; however, Site 3 has more fluctuation. The demand in the morning is lower at Site 3. This was determined to be due to the different nature of this site (as described in Section 2.1.1) compared to the other two. Site 1 has a higher parking occupancy rate compared to the occupancy rates of the other two sites. It should be noted that Site 1 merely provided the minimum parking required per the Code while the other two sites provided more than the minimum. Therefore, the higher occupancy rate does not necessarily mean more parking demand. There are a number of undeveloped small pads within Site 3. The parking for the entire center; however, has already been built. The occupancy rate is expected to be higher once these pads are developed. The average occupancy rate for Large Shopping sites is 57 percent with a range of 50 to 69 percent. Final Report 3-6 June 3, 2015

39 Figure 3-5 through Figure 3-8 present survey results for each medium shopping site. Figure 3-9 shows their average parking occupancy rate. Figure 3-5: Survey Result: Medium Shopping Site % Medium Shopping Site 1 Total Parking Spaces in the Field = % 38.8% 35.0% Occupancy 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 Parking Occupancy 26.0% 31.7% 31.7% 34.9% 33.1% 38.8% 35.2% 35.5% 33.7% 31.7% 30.8% Total Vehicles Parked Time of Day Figure 3-6: Survey Result: Medium Shopping Site 2 Medium Shopping Site 2 Holiday Weekend (December) Total Parking Spaces in the Field = % 40.0% 40.4% 35.0% Occupancy 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 Parking Occupancy 26.0% 36.2% 38.8% 38.2% 38.9% 39.7% 36.8% 40.4% 37.2% 35.4% 35.2% Total Vehicles Parked Time of Day Final Report 3-7 June 3, 2015

40 Figure 3-7: Survey Result: Medium Shopping Site 2 Typical Weekday Medium Shopping Site 2 Typical Weekday (January) Total Parking Spaces in the Field = % 30.0% 28.8% 25.0% Occupancy 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 Parking Occupancy 20.6% 22.9% 25.1% 27.4% 27.2% 26.4% 26.6% 27.5% 28.6% 28.8% 27.8% 26.4% 26.2% 25.2% 24.8% 24.3% 22.9% 20.2% 18.5% Total Vehicles Parked Time of Day Figure 3-8: Survey Result: Medium Shopping Site 3 Medium Shopping Site 3 Total Parking Spaces in the Field = % 25.0% 25.3% Occupancy 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 Parking Occupancy 20.8% 16.6% 20.6% 23.3% 22.4% 25.3% 24.2% 21.1% 18.0% 21.5% 18.8% Total Vehicles Parked Time of Day Final Report 3-8 June 3, 2015

41 Figure 3-9: Average Parking Occupancy - Medium Shopping Sites 50.0% Average Occupancy Medium Shopping Sites 40.0% Occupancy Average Occupancy 35% Occupancy 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Medium Shopping Site 1 Medium Shopping Site 2 Medium Shopping Site 3 Note: Site 2 was surveyed during a typical weekday (Wednesday, January 15) in addition to peak season (Saturday, December 14). This chart shows the occupancy from the survey on December 14 (i.e., peak season). Notable observations from the survey results of medium shopping sites are as follows: The average parking occupancy rate for medium shopping sites is 35 percent with a range between 25 to 40 percent. Site 1 and Site 2 have comparable rates while the rate for the third site is considerably lower. Site 2 was surveyed twice to provide an indication of average demand to peak season demand. The peak season demand is approximately 40 percent higher than the average demand, but still much lower than the supply. The chart in Figure 3-9 shows the occupancy based on the peak season demand (i.e., from the survey on December 14). Final Report 3-9 June 3, 2015

42 Figure 3-10 through Figure 3-12 present survey results for each small shopping site. Figure 3-13 shows their average parking occupancy rate. Figure 3-10: Survey Result: Small Shopping Site % Small Shopping Site 1 Total Parking Spaces in the Field = % 22.7% 22.7% 22.7% Occupancy 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 Parking Occupancy 17.3% 14.7% 14.7% 22.7% 18.7% 17.3% 18.7% 16.0% 17.3% 22.7% 22.7% Total Vehicles Parked Time of Day Figure 3-11: Survey Result: Small Shopping Site 2 Small Shopping Site 2 Total Parking Spaces in the Field = % 48.1% 45.0% Occupancy 35.0% 25.0% 15.0% 5.0% 5.0% 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 Parking Occupancy 43.2% 48.1% 40.7% 43.2% 45.7% 40.7% 38.3% 42.0% 39.5% 33.3% 32.1% Total Vehicles Parked Time of Day Final Report 3-10 June 3, 2015