You are on page 1of 15




TO: MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING B OARD FROM: DOUG MELNICK, AICP | CNU-A, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING RE: PLANNING BOARD MEETING, NOVEMBER 21, 2013 DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2013 Based upon Planning Staff’s professional experience, research, and consultation with other professionals, we feel that additional analysis and design considerations need to be investigated prior to our recommending that the Planning Board issue a positive recommendation to the Common Council on the proposed Columbia/AMC/Tri-City proposal. Specifically, 1. The height of the parking structure should ideally not exceed that of the liner buildings proposed to buffer its presence on adjacent residential streets. The distribution of residential, office and commercial could be redesigned to allow for appropriatelysized liner buildings and/or below-grade levels could be incorporated into the design. In the event that any portions of the garage façade is visible beyond the buildings or from the street, it must be treated appropriately so as to not visibly detract from the surrounding areas. 2. The ground floor of the parking garage should be designed in a manner that allows for conversion to commercial or office use if it is determined that the parking is not required or if future market conditions demand additional commercial or office space. 3. The provision of active uses along the Myrtle Avenue frontage of the parking structure, such as those retail uses proposed within the PSURP to be located on the ground level of the Medical Office Building should be considered. 4. A more objective analysis of the suggested parking needs / ratios of particular uses, specifically the proposed medical office use, should be employed. Such analysis should be based upon comparable parking ratios in similarly sized urban areas, not suburban locales. Consideration should also be given to parking minimums set forth in the PSURP, which were purposely lower than those set forth for the City as a whole.

21 Lodge Street Albany, NY 12207 518.434.2532 (fax) 518.434.9846 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAPITALIZE ALBANY CORPORATION 21 Lodge Street Albany, NY 12207 518.434.2532 (fax) 518.434.9846 NEIGHBORHOOD & LONG-RANGE PLANNING 21 Lodge Street Albany, NY 12207 518.434.2532 (fax) 518.434.9846 LAND USE PLANNING 200 Henry Johnson Boulevard Albany, NY 12210 (fax) 518.434.5294
Board of Zoning Appeals Planning Board

Historic Resources Commission

518.434.5271 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 200 Henry Johnson Boulevard Albany, NY 12210 518.434.5265 (fax) 518.434.5242 communitydevelopment@

5. The number of on-street parking spaces available within the vicinity of the proposed uses should be a considered in establishing overall parking need. Consultation with transportation consultants have verified that it is extremely likely that on-street parking spaces will be utilized prior to those located within the garage due to mere convenience. A preliminary analysis indicates that there will be between 100 and 150 on-street parking spaces to remain subsequent to project completion. 6. Application of a shared parking calculus should be employed where two or more uses are able to share the same parking spaces because their parking demands occur at different times of the day. 7. The applicant(s) should be encouraged to submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) that is approved and reviewed annually to identify the potential, and success, of all means of appreciably reducing parking demand to be generated by the proposed uses, such as: parking cash out programs; free or discounted transit passes; priority parking for ridesharing (carpools or vanpools); bicycle parking and related amenities; car-sharing; efficiencies in use and management of existing parking facilities. The increase in the allowable number of stories for buildings proposed to be located between and including 11-41 New Scotland Avenue is found to be generally acceptable. However, it is recommended that the following design measure be considered: 1. Building step-backs could be employed on upper floors to enhance design articulation and to provide better access for light and air at the street level. Step-backs may also enhance the value of the residential real estate by providing usable exterior spaces to accommodate recreational uses such as outdoor dining.

We have attached supplemental information for your review. 1. 2. 3. 4. Examples of other parking structures and buildings with top floor setbacks. A sample Transportation Demand Document . A list of medical center parking standards from other cities. A template that shows how shared parking between uses reduces required parking through temporal variations between uses.
Page 2

FINAL MASTER PLAN for Seattle Children’s

A . C O M p R E h E N s I V E T R a N sp O R T a T I O N P L a N
Children’s has long been recognized as a leader in Transportation Demand Management (TDM), receiving awards from the Governor’s office, King County and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its excellent commuter benefits and achievements in vehicle trip reduction. The hospital’s programs to reduce drive-alone commuting and vehicle trips to the campus have resulted in a drive-alone rate of only 38 percent among daytime employees, down from 73 percent in 1995 as measured by a state-administered Commute Trip Reduction survey. This accomplishment is significant both for a hospital and for an employer located in a neighborhood with limited public transit service. With the input of the Citizens Advisory Committee, SDOT and DPD, Children’s has developed a Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) to focus on sustainable transportation programs. The CTP includes a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to mitigate vehicle traffic related to MIMP expansion by shifting even more employees and visitors from single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) to bicycling, walking, shuttle and transit. In addition, the CTP goes above and beyond the traditional TMP elements by including a substantial investment in transportation infrastructure improvements outside the hospital campus. The Transportation Management Plan (TMP) enhancements described in this document, consisting of enhanced shuttle, bicycle and incentive programs, are expected to further reduce the percent of employees driving alone to work, leading to an SOV mode split of 30 percent or lower among daytime employees at MIMP build-out. For comparison, this meets or exceeds the 2020 goal of 70 percent non-SOV travel set for the University District Urban Village in the City of Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan (see Appendix J for a complete discussion of the TMP enhancements and the methodology used to calculate the proposed TMP’s SOV and vehicle trip reduction benefits). The first three elements of the hospital’s CTP represent major enhancements in programs that are operated within Children’s as part of this highly successful TMP . The balance of the CTP consists of five new elements that go well beyond the measures usually associated with a transportation management plan.

Elements 1-3: Enhanced Transportation Management Plan
Children’s proposed enhanced policies and programming for its TMP include expanding its Transportation Demand Management incentives and extending Children’s shuttle system to offer new commute alternatives. These TMP enhancements will achieve a 30 percent SOV mode split or lower among existing and future employees, as measured under applicable TMP requirements. Modeling indicates that the enhanced TMP and its associated SOV mode split is expected to result in a 36 percent reduction in net new PM peak-hour vehicle trips, reducing what would otherwise be additional peak-hour vehicle traffic generated by the MIMP expansion. The level of additional investment in shuttles and other elements of the TMP is a significant commitment and represents additional costs on the order of several million dollars annually, in addition to capital expenditures. The three enhanced Transportation Management Plan elements are:

1) A robust shuttle-to-transit system linking Children’s to regional transit hubs Children’s expanded shuttle system is designed to increase the number of employees who use transit by providing frequent and convenient service between Children’s and regional transit hubs, including the Downtown Transit Tunnel and 3rd Avenue corridor, Campus Parkway in the University District, the Montlake Flyover stop at SR-520, and park-and-ride locations in south Snohomish County during later phases of development. Expected outcome: 19 percent reduction in net new PM peak-hour vehicle trips by 2028





Submitted to: Portland Planning Board Portland, Maine Submitted by: Judith H. Harris Office of Transportation Policy Prepared on September 3, 2009 For Meeting on September 8, 2009 All Background Material Supplied by Jean Fraser Planning Department



Stanford University Medical Center Trip Generation and Parking Demand Study


100 Pringle Ave, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA Prepared for: Stanford University Medical Center October 2008

University of Virginia Transportation Demand Management Plan

Submitted to:

Submitted by:

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

In Association with: Land Planning and Design Associates, Inc.

July 3, 2007

Transportation Demand Management Plan

Steering Committee Direction The steering committee discussed the appropriate level of TDM implementation. There was consensus that the University of Virginia should pursue TDM in a moderate to aggressive way. Members of the steering committee supported the implementation of a program that reduces single occupant vehicle travel as much as possible without creating disruption to employee’s ability to complete work responsibilities and meet personal obligations. It was suggested that Phase 2 of this plan should consider the income and geographic impact of the TDM program on specific populations. Phase 2 should also ensure that the program is consistent with existing or modified human resource and benefit policies. The impacts on neighborhood parking around Grounds should also be assessed. With implementation of the moderate to aggressive TDM program, University can expect a 3 percent reduction in automobile mode share (with an 8 percent shift from single occupant vehicle to carpooling) and a reduction in parking demand of between 625 and 775 spaces for the 2015 and 2025 scenarios, respectively when compared to the Baseline scenario. This reduction in parking needs is likely to result in substantial cost savings associated with the development of new parking resources. Rough estimates gauge this cost savings to be in the range of $15 to $27 million over the timeframe considered in this study. Preliminary Conclusions The analysis contained in this report shows that TDM can play a significant role in the development of the Grounds Plan and future growth. TDM can help reduce automobile traffic associated with growth in enrollment and employment at the University of Virginia and can help reduce or eliminate the need for an increase in the parking supply. The degree to which TDM can assist with these objectives will be determined based on the University’s selected approach determined through stakeholder participation, the rigor and success of program implementation, and the behavioral response of the University community.

To support the TDM plan, a range of physical improvements can encourage walking, bicycling, and the use of transit. Guidelines for implementation of these improvements are also provided in this report. There are two alternatives for including physical improvements on University Grounds. The University could decide to implement some or all improvements as a single grounds-wide construction project or improvements could be included in construction as plans as new facilities are developed. In either case, the goal of the improvements is to form a comprehensive system of measures that encourage University staff, students, and health system employees to seek alternate modes of transportation when destined to the University.

Page - 10 -

Municipal Parking Requirements (Medical Office or Similar) 
  Municipality    Connecticut  Bridgeport  Hartford  New Haven  New London  Stamford  Waterbury    Delaware  Wilmington    Maine  Portland    Massachusetts  Lowell  New Bedford  Pittsfield  Springfield  Worcester    New Hampshire  Manchester  Nashua  Portsmouth    New Jersey  Elizabeth  New Brunswick  Trenton    Population      146,425  124,893  130,791  27,707  125,109  109,915      71,292      66,214      108,522  94,929  44,168  153,552  182,669      110,209  86,933  21,379      126,458  56,160  84,477        3 / 1000 sq. ft.  2 / 1000 sq. ft.  1.67 / 1000 sq. ft.  3.3 / 1000 sq. ft.  3 / 1000 sq. ft.  6 / 1000 sq. ft.      2 / 1000 sq. ft.      2.5 / 1000 sq. ft.      3.3 / 1000 sq. ft.  5 / 1000 sq. ft.  4 per practitioner  3 / 1000 sq. ft.  4 per treatment room      5 / 1000 sq. ft.  1 / 1000 sq. ft.  4 / 1000 sq. ft.      2.5 / 1000 sq. ft.  4 / 1000 sq. ft.  5 per practitioner    Minimum Requirement  Notes                No requirement in CBD                    Reduce to 1 / 1000 sq. ft.  after  10,000 sq. ft.              Maximum of 5 / 1000 sq. ft.  Maximum of 4.4 / 1000 sq. ft.          2 / 1000 sq. ft. in Business‐A District   

New York  Binghamton  Buffalo  Cohoes  Ithaca  New Rochelle  Mount Vernon  Rochester  Poughkeepsie  Rome  Saratoga Springs  Schenectady  Syracuse  Troy  Utica  White Plains  Yonkers    Pennsylvania  Allentown  Harrisburg  Lancaster  Reading    Rhode Island  Cranston  Pawtucket  Providence    Vermont  Burlington   

  46,551  259,384  16,174  30,331  78,388  67,896  210,532  30,847  32,840  26,960  66,078  144,170  49,946  61,822  57,403  198,449      118,974  49,279  59,360  88,102      80,579  71,170  178,472      42,282 

  2 per treatment room  4 / 1000 sq. ft.  4 / 1000 sq. ft.  4 / 1000 sq. ft.  4 / 1000 sq. ft.  3.3 / 1000 sq. ft.  5 / 1000 sq. ft.  4 spaces per practitioner  4 / 1000 sq. ft.  5 / 1000 sq. ft.  3.3 / 1000 sq. ft.  3 spaces per practitioner  5 spaces per practitioner  5 spaces per practitioner  5 / 1000 sq. ft.  5 / 1000 sq. ft.      5 / 1000 sq. ft.  3.3 / 1000 sq. ft.  4 / 1000 sq. ft.  5 / 1000 sq. ft.      4 / 1000 sq. ft.  1 / 1000 sq. ft.  2 / 1000 sq. ft.      2 / 1000 sq. ft. 

    1.5 / 1000 sq. ft. in Transit Station Area Districts      2.9 / 1000 sq. ft. in Central Parking Area      Plus 1 space per 2 employees          Plus 1 space per employee    3.3 / 1000 sq. ft. in Central Parking Area  2.5 / 1000 sq. ft. in CBD & Government Center District        Plus 1 per 2 employees            Maximum of 3 / 1000 sq. ft.        3 / 1000 sq. ft. in Neighborhood District