HomeMy Public PortalAboutParkingBOYLSTON PROPERTIES
March 13, 2018
Mr. Gideon Schreiber
Senior Planner — Community Development and Planning
Town of Watertown
149 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Watertown, MA 02472
Re: Arsenal Yards: Phase IV— Buildings C, D & E.2
Dear Gideon:
Attached please find the Watertown Arsenal Updated Shared Parking Study, version 4.2, dated
November 20, 2017 completed by Walker Consultants. In filing this application for Phase IV —
Buildings C, D & E.2 of the Master Plan Special Permit, we have considered the projects impacts on
parking.
For all three (3) buildings, the parking and retail portion of the building square footage is consistent
with the approved MPSP and shared parking study. There is one (1) additional unit included in
Building D (91 total) and four (4) fewer units in Building C (130 total), making the final unit count
221, three fewer units than what was approved per the MPSP. These three units will be included in
Building G, therefore there is no net change in the total residential unit count for the project and no
change in municipal impacts to traffic, water, or sewer infrastructure.
As discussed with Planning, Zoning, and DPW staff, and shown in the attached documentation, we
are seeking Final Site Plan Review for buildings approved under the Master Plan Special Permit PB-
2016-03, as specified in Section 5.18(h)(5) Final Site Plan Review, in the zoning code. We look
forward to an engaging process with the Town and the Departments, as we anticipate meeting on
March 27, 2018, to discuss this application.
Kind Regards,
Andrew J. Copelotti
Principal
Cc: Mark Deschenes — BP
Justin MacEachern — BP
Project file
411 WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL— UPDATED SHARED PARKING — (VERSION 4.2)
DATE:
TO:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE:
COPY TO:
FROM:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER
SUBJECT:
November 20, 2017
Jeffrey Heidelberg, P.E.
Boylston Properties
800 Boylston Street — Suite 1390
Boston, MA 02129
Art Stadig — Walker Consultants
Sarah Markos — Walker Consultants
Kramer, Ezra
Watertown Arsenal
16-2730.00
Updated Shared Parking — (Version 4.2)
INTRODUCTION
16-2730.00
850 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 310
Chicago, IL 60607
312.633.4260
walkerconsultants.com
Pursuant to your most recent email request (October 20, 2017), enclosed is Walker Consultants ("Walker")
revised update to the Shared Parking Analysis (versions 4.2). This report was prepared to update Walker's latest
report revision (July 11,2017), issued for the Watertown Arsenal (the "Development") site. The Shared Parking
model, and report were adjusted utilizing revised program data provided by Boylston Properties ("Boylston").
The updated program data adds a 30,000 sf office component as a replacement for the Pinstripes bowling,
billiards, lounge (21,060 SF) and restaurant (350 seats).
For this revised update, we included one Shared Parking analysis. The model (version 4.2) projects the peak -
hour parking demand using the revised program data assumptions and excludes the HVMA medical office
component (52,847 SF) from the peak -hour parking demand analysis.
We hope that Walker's updated Shared Parking analysis provided sufficient information to assist Boylston with
their decisions regarding the projected parking demand for the Development. Please call or email at your
convenience to discuss any questions or comments you may have regarding the material provided for review.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Historically, city planners calculate parking demand for each land use as a stand-alone entity, which assumes
that each land -use requires an independent supply of spaces. The sum of the minimum requirement for each
land use is added to the next, regardless of efficiencies experienced to due varying levels of activity for each land
use. When calculated in this way, a parking surplus typically results, which in turn increases the developed
area —and is largely vacant parking spaces.
Along similar lines, some owners intend to provide adequate parking for every potential user every day of the
year; consequently, a substantial number of spaces remain vacant most of the time. The benefit of such a
system is that parkers, whether employees, visitors, or residents, always find an available space. Other owners
would rather have fewer of their assets utilized for parking; therefore, these owners plan a system that
comfortably meets the needs of its end users on most days, but less than every day. The disadvantage of this
type of system is that from time to time the actual peak -hour parking demand may exceed the available supply.
The Shared Parking model developed by Walker takes the second approach and satisfied "Design Day"
conditions representative of an 85th percentile level of performance. The updated model (version 4.2)
1
411 WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL— UPDATED SHARED PARKING — (VERSION 4.2)
16-2730.00
presented in this memorandum excluded the HVMA medical office building. Based on the program data and
assumptions made within the model, we found a peak -hour parking need of ±1,435 spaces. The peak period
identified by the model was 1:00 PM on a typical weekday in December. For greater detail and to understand
the methodology and assumptions, please refer to the following text.
When assessing the adequacy of any parking system, it is vital to define conditions for which the system is
designed. Walker's projections were prepared to provide Boylston with an informed third -party
recommendation of the amount of parking needed to accommodate the Development. The level at which
parking demand is accommodated is a policy decision that must ultimately be made by Boylston.
SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
A Shared Parking analysis is based on the concept that a single parking space may be used to serve two or more
individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The ability to share parking spaces is the result of two
conditions:
1. Variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, by day, or by season at the individual land uses, and
2. Relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same auto trip.
The key goal of a Shared Parking analysis is to quantify the number of parking spaces that is adequate to support
a mix of land uses within a development from a commercial standpoint without requiring the wasteful
construction of an excessive number of parking spaces, many of which will remain unused.
Shared Parking considers the types, quantities and user groups of land uses for a development, as well as site
and market specific characteristics. The analysis begins with those quantities being multiplied by base parking
[generation] ratios. Adjustments, such as Modal Split and Non -captive (both defined later), for each user group
are then applied for morning, afternoon, and evening time periods based on a site and market analysis. Further
adjustments are applied based on hourly and monthly activity factors for each user group. A shared parking
model is structured to identify a peak parking demand period for both weekday and weekend conditions. Figure
1, on the following page, outlines the ULI Shared Parking Methodology, which Walker utilizes when performing a
Shared Parking analysis.
12
WALKER MEMORANDUM
CONSULTANTS
WATERTOWN ARSENAL— UPDATED SHARED PARKING — (VERSION 4.2)
Figure 1: Shared Parking Methodology
1
Gather and review project data
o Type and quantity of land uses
o Local zoning standards of practices
o Existing conditions, parking pricing, local users, and facilities if appropriate
O Local mode splits, transit, and transportation demand management programs
o Physical relationships between uses
O Parking management strategies acceptable to the various parties
1
Select parking ratios (space/unit land use)
o Weekends and weekdays
o Visitor/customer, employee/resident, and reserved
1
Select factors and analyze differences in activity patterns
O Time of day
o Monthly
1
Develop scenarios for critical parking need periods
1
Adjust ratios for modal split and persons per car for each scenario
1
Apply noncaptive adjustments for each scenario
1
Calculate required parking spaces for each scenario
0
0
1
Do scenarios reflect all critical parking
needs and management concerns?
YES 1
NO
Recommend a parking plan
o Test adequacy of parking for key scenarios
o Evaluate potential facilities and allocation of spaces for key scenarios
o Confirm physical relationships between uses to encourage shared parking
o Recommend parking management plan to achieve projected shared parking
Source: Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, 2005
16-2730.00
3
WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL— UPDATED SHARED PARKING — (VERSION 4.2)
16-2730.00
PROGRAM DATA
Boylston provided the updated program data on October 20, 2017. The program was summarized in Table 1.
Walker used this information as a starting point to develop a Shared Parking model that depicted the
approximate number of spaces needed to accommodate the projected peak -hour parking demand at an 85th
percentile level of performance. I believe these numbers were
confirmed with Wilder/Tom but it
should be double checked.
MPSP approved is actually 2245
Table 1: Watertown Arsenal Program Data (October
Pro ram Data
Land Use
Seats
SF
Rooms
Units
Units
Units
Units
Restaurant/Fine Dining
1,170
41,539
Restaurant/Family
accounting
for 1,895 seats
versus the 2,245
seats
455
Currently
Restaurant/Fast Food
270
that are
approved in the
MPSP (exclusive
of cinema
seats)
Cinema
750
33,822
33,880
Grocer Parking
32,658
31,853
Retail Space
143,828
163,120
Hotel
147
Office (Building A)
95,000
Sub -totals
2,645
346,847
147
Residential
MPSP
374,000.
the
approved is
Actual at
moment is
365,392.
Bldg. C
Bldg. D
Bldg. F
Bldg. G
Type (Rental or Condo)
Rental
Rental
Rental
Condo
Residential/Studio
25
23 20
16
13
Residential/1 Bedroom
65 71
52 47
48 46
30
Residential/2 Bedroom
36 34
16 22
17 18
62
Residential/3 Bedroom
4
0 1
0
15
Sub -totals
130134
91 90
81 80
122120
Residential Reserved (spaces)
168
60
120
Source: Boylston Properties
PARKING DEMAND RATIOS
Walker developed a Shared Parking model specifically for the Development using Walker's base parking demand
ratios as a starting point. Additionally, we used data compiled by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), and other agencies. Data points were gathered by these agencies by observing
hourly accumulations of vehicles around standalone land -uses.
The base parking demand ratios contained in Urban Land Institute's (ULI) Shared Parking, were developed by
observing hourly accumulations of vehicles around standalone land -uses. Each of the peak -hour observations
from the data sets was compared to a designated key unit of measure specific to each land -use (e.g. square
footage, number of hotel rooms, number of residential units). From this data set, the 85th percentile ratio
between the key unit and the number of vehicles was established. Informed assumptions were used to
differentiate between the various user groups for a single land use (employees versus visitors, etc.). Therefore,
a "base parking ratio" for each user group of each land use was developed.
Additionally, some base ratios included in this Shared Parking model represent data collected during fieldwork
conducted by Walker. For the revised analysis, we utilized the base parking ratios depicted below to
approximate the peak -hour parking demand at an 85th percentile level of performance for the Development.
14
WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL- UPDATED SHARED PARKING - (VERSION 4.2)
16-2730.00
lame z - erase Parking Demand Ratios
Land Use
Weekday
Weekend
Total
Visitor
Employee
Visitor
Employee
Unit
Source
Weekday
Weekend
Retail
2.50
0.50
2.80
0.50
/ksf GLA
1
3.00
3.30
Grocery
3.50
0.60
3.70
0.50
/ksf GLA
2
4.10
4.20
Fine Dining
3.40
0.60
3.40
0.60
/seat
1
4.00
4.00
Family Restaurant
3.40
0.60
3.40
0.60
/seat
1
4.00
4.00
Cinema
3.40
0.60
3.40
0.60
/seat
1
4.00
4.00
Hampton Inn & Suites
0.75
0.07
0.75
0.07
/room
1
0.82
0.82
Residential :Studio Efficiency
0.10
0.75
0.15
0.75
/unit
1
0.85
0.90
1 bedroom
0.10
1.00
0.15
1.00
/unit
1
1.10
1.15
2 bedroom
0.10
1.50
0.15
1.50
/unit
1
1.60
1.65
3 bedroom
0.10
2.00
0.15
2.00
/unit
1
2.10
2.15
Residential : Studio Efficiency
0.10
0.75
0.15
0.75
/unit
1
0.85
0.90
1 bedroom
0.10
1.00
0.15
1.00
/unit
1
1.10
1.15
2 bedroom
0.10
1.50
0.15
1.50
/unit
1
1.60
1.65
3 bedroom
0.10
2.00
0.15
2.00
/unit
1
2.10
2.15
Office (Building A)
0.30
3.17
0.03
0.32
/ksf GFA
2
3.47
0.35
HVMA Medical Office
2.00
0.50
2.00
0.50
/ksf GFA
1
2.50
2.50
Source:
1. Town of Watertown Zoning Ordinance 2016, plus input from Boylston Properties.
2. Walker Parking Consultants field observations at Whole Foods, Trader Joes and Wild Oats
Source: Walker Consultants, 2017
These base parking ratios were used as the starting point of the model and analysis, but once applied to land use
quantities will require adjustment to local and site -specific contexts to truly reflect parking needs for the
Development.
MAXIMUM PARKING DEMAND
The base parking ratios were applied to the program data to generate a hypothetical maximum parking demand.
This theoretical maximum parking demand does not consider Shared Parking (varying activity levels, and
complimentary land uses), market conditions, or site conditions that would reduce the amount of parking
needed to truly accommodate end users. These conditions, while not appropriate to the Development, are a
starting point and reference for city planners to better understand the approach and dynamics of the Shared
Parking model and analysis. Table 3 was prepared to relate the hypothetical maximum parking demand for the
Development.
I5
WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL- UPDATED SHARED PARKING - (VERSION 4.2)
16-2730.00
Table 3: Maximum Parking Demand
Weekdays
Weekends
Land Use
Base Ratio
Unit
Demand
(Unadjusted)
Base
Ratio
Units
Demand
(Unadjusted)
Retail
2.50
/ksf GLA
360
2.80
/ksf GLA
403
Retail Employee
0.50
72
0.50
72
Grocery
3.50
/ksf GLA
114
3.70
/ksf GLA
121
Grocery Employee
0.60
20
0.50
16
Fine Dining
3.40
/seat
249
3.40
/seat
249
Fine Dining Employee
0.60
44
0.60
44
Family Restaurant
3.40
/seat
97
3.40
/seat
97
Family Restaurant Employee
0.60
17
0.60
17
Fast Casual
3.40
/seat
57
3.40
/seat
57
Fast Casual Employee
0.60
10
0.60
10
Cinema
3.40
/seat
159
3.40
/seat
159
Cinema Employee
0.60
28
0.60
28
Hampton Inn & Suites
0.75
/room
110
0.75
/room
110
Hampton Inn Employee
0.07
/room
10
0.07
/room
10
Residential Guest
0.10
/unit
42
0.15
/unit
64
Studio
0.75
/unit
10
0.75
/unit
10
1 bedroom
1.00
/unit
30
1.00
/unit
30
2 bedroom
1.50
/unit
93
1.50
/unit
93
3 bedroom
2.00
/unit
30
2.00
/unit
30
Residential - Rental
Studio
0.75
/unit
46
0.75
/unit
46
1 bedroom
1.00
/unit
164
1.00
/unit
164
2 bedroom
1.50
/unit
1 1 1
1.50
/unit
1 1 1
3 bedroom
2.00
/ksf GFA
10
2.00
/unit
10
Office (Building A)
0.30
/ksf GFA
29
0.03
/ksf GFA
3
Office Employee
3.17
301
0.32
30
HVMA Medical Office
2.00
/ksf GFA
0
2.00
/ksf GFA
0
HVMA Employee
0.50
0
0.50
0
Subtotal Customer/Guest
1,217
1,263
Subtotal Employee/Resident
663
388
Subtotal Reserved Resident - Condo
81%
resident
131
131
Subtotal Reserved Resident - Rental
61%
resident
202
202
Total
2,213
1,984
Source: Walker Consultants, 2017
Contrary to the calculated code requirements and the theoretical maximum parking demand, fluctuating
patterns of demand typically enable different land uses to share some or all, of the same parking spaces;
thereby, reducing the number of spaces needed to support development. Moreover, the more individual
utilization patterns of land uses differ from one another, the more complimentary they are to share the
available parking supply. For example, the Development is proposed to contain retail, hotel, and cinema land
uses, which are typically complimentary as they experience peak demand periods at different times of the day,
on different days of the week.
By ensuring the developer offers an appropriate parking supply for the busiest hour of the year (without an
unneeded surplus), owners maximize open space and undeveloped areas. The following sections detail the
various factors used to adjust from the theoretical maximum parking demand, shown in Table 3, to the
anticipated number of spaces truly needed to accommodate the Development at an 85th percentile level of
performance.
I6
WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL- UPDATED SHARED PARKING - (VERSION 4.2)
16-2730.00
MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION
The Shared Parking analysis began with applying parking "base ratios" to provided land use quantities in the
program data. These base ratios assume that 100 percent of employees drive to work except for service
employees, which are typically reduced by 5%, due to the lower socio-economic nature of this type of
employment. Adjustments attributed to public transportation use and/or other means of travel were therefore
required to account for specifics of the market and site. We researched U.S. Census Bureau statistics (Means of
Transportation to Work), to ascertain an approximate drive ratio for people who work in Watertown and several
other communities that surround the Development site.
Based upon our research, when Boston was included in the drive to work statistics, about 54% of daily
employees arrive to work by car. When Boston was excluded from the data set, about 64% of area employees
drive to work. Moreover, when Watertown only was examined, almost 76% of the employees drive to work.
Given the above, we adopted a 70% drive ratio for office employees, and a 65% drive ratio for service employees
in this updated report. This assumed that 30% of office employees and 35% of service employees were likely to
utilize public transportation or ride -sharing to get to work rather than drive. Table 4, on the following page, was
prepared to reflect the data sets for the information presented above.
Table 4: Means of Transportation to Work
Means of Transportation to Work (includes Boston)
Means of Transportation
Belmont
Boston
Cambridge
Newton
Waltham
Watertown
Total
%Total
Drove Alone
8,231
127,601
18,753
25,626
22,717
1 12,120
215,048
46.3%
Car Pooled
906
23,949
2,733
2,712
2,639
1,677
34,616
7.5%
Sub -total (Drive)
9,137
151,550
21,486
28,338
25,356
13,797
249,664
53.8%
Public Transportation
1,316
103,078
16,013
4,764
1,820
2,606
129,597
27.9%
Walked
279
38,810
11,169
830
888
450
52,426
11.3%
Other Means
227
8,076
4,147
604
795
387
14,236
3.1%
Work at Home
942
8,932
3,276
3,142
923
942
18,157
3.9%
Total
11,901
310,446
56,091
37,678
29,782
18,182
464,080
100.0%
Means of Transportation to Work (excludes Boston)
Watertown
Means of Transportation
Belmont
Cambridge) Newton
Waltham
Watertown
Total
%Total
%Total
Drove Alone
8,231
18,753 25,626
22,717
12,120
87,447
56.9%
66.7%
Car Pooled
906
2,733
2,712
2,639
1,677
10,667
6.9%
9.2%
Sub -total (Drive)
9,137
21,486
1 28,338
25,356
13, 797
98,114
63.9%
75.9%
Public Transportation
1,316
16,013
4,764
1,820
2,606
26,519
17.3%
14.3%
Walked
279
11,169
830
888
450
13,616
8.9%
2.5%
Other Means
227
4,147
604
795
387
1 6,160
4.0%
2.1%
Work at Home
942
3,276
3,142
923
942
9,225
6.0%
5.2%
Total
11,901
56,091
37,678
29,782
18,182
153,634
100.0%
100.0%
Median that Drive (includes Boston)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
VEHICLE OWNERSHIP
58.8%
Boylston provided program data that stated the Development would contain 304 rental residential units and 120
condominium residential units at full build -out. Furthermore, Boylston specified that a large majority of the
spaces designated for residential parking would be reserved for residential use only. Spaces designated for
reserved residential parking were therefore not considered within the shared pool for use by other patrons of
the Development. The remaining unreserved spaces within the Development were considered to be within the
shared pool for use to accommodate other Development patrons, and also non -reserved residential tenant and
17
411 WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL— UPDATED SHARED PARKING — (VERSION 4.2)
16-2730.00
guest parking. To ascertain the approximate parking demand attributed to residential parking, we again
researched U.S. Census statistics (Tenure of Vehicle Ownership) to determine an approximate number of
residents (renters or owners) that would not own a vehicle. The survey results shown below were used to
determine approximate vehicle ownership for renters (87%) and owners (94%).
Table 5: Tenure of Vehicle Ownership
Vehicle Ownership (Watertown)
Type of Residence Vehicles
% Total
Owned Residence with Vehicle
7,455
93.8%
Owned Residence (No Vehicle)
461
6.2%
Rental Residents with Vehicle
6,691
86.3%
Rental Residents (No Vehicle)
918
13.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 - 2009
SHARED PARKING PROJECTION (HVMA MEDICAL OFFICE EXCLUDED)
Time of day and the time of year have a considerable effect on overall parking demand. For example, restaurant
activity typically peaks in the early evening, while hotel parking demand peaks during the overnight hours.
Shared Parking theory assumes the effect of these variations by time of day and time of year.
Moreover, parking demand is a fluid force, subject to variations based upon the availability of alternative
transportation, proximity of complimentary land uses, differences in user presence by time of day and time of
year, building occupancy and a host of other factors. Conversely, the available parking supply tends to be fixed,
and therefore limited by the amount of space allocated for parking on a given site.
WEEKDAY PEAK PERIOD
Walker tailored the Shared Parking model (version 4.2) with revised program data and assumptions, and
excluded the projected parking demand associated with the HVMA Medical Office building. Again, based on ULI
methodology, the peak -hour parking demand was projected based on an 85th percentile level of performance.
The model calculated a peak -hour weekday parking need of ±1,435 spaces, which occurred at 1:00 PM in
December. These peak -hour conditions were detailed in Table 6.
I8
WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL— UPDATED SHARED PARKING — (VERSION 4.2)
Table 6: Peak -Hour Weekday Shared Parking Needs (projected) — Excludes HVMA MOB
16-2730.00
Weekday
Land Use
Demand
(unadjusted)
Mo. (adjusted)
December
Peak Hour
1:00 PM
Non Captive
Daytime
Drive Ratio
Daytime
Demand
December
1:00 PM
Retail
360
100%
100%
93%
100%
335
Retail Employee
72
100%
100%
99%
65%
46
Grocery
114
95%
85%
88%
100%
81
Grocery Employee
20
100%
100%
99%
65%
13
Fine Dining
249
100%
75%
92%
100%
172
Fine Dining Employee
44
100%
90%
99%
65%
25
Family Restaurant
97
100%
90%
92%
100%
80
Family Restaurant Employee
17
100%
100%
99%
65%
11
Fast Casual
57
100%
100%
10%
100%
6
Fast Casual Employee
10
100%
100%
99%
65%
6
Cinema
159
23%
45%
95%
100%
16
Cinema Employee
28
50%
60%
99%
65%
5
Hampton Inn & Suites
110
67%
55%
100%
66%
27
Hampton Inn Employee
10
100%
100%
99%
65%
6
Residential Guest
42
100%
20%
100%
100%
8
Residential Reserved - Condo
131
100%
100%
100%
94%
123
Residential Unreserved - Condo
32
100%
70%
100%
94%
21
Residential Reserved - Rental
202
100%
100%
100%
87%
176
Residential Unreserved - Rental
129
100%
70%
100%
87%
79
Office (Building A)
29
100%
45%
100%
100%
13
Office Employee
301
100%
90%
98%
70%
186
HVMA Medical Office
0
100%
90%
98%
100%
0
HVMA Employee
0
100%
100%
98%
70%
0
Subtotal Customer/Guest
1,217
738
Subtotal Employee/Resident
663
398
Subtotal Reserved Resident - Condo
131
123
Subtotal Reserved Resident - Rental
202
176
Total (spaces)
2,213
1,435
% reduction from unadjusted requirement
35%
Source: Walker Consultants, 2017
Walker also provided the projected needs by hour for December weekdays as a stacked graph in Figure 2 on the
following page. The stacked graph visually relates the parking needs for various user groups as they change
throughout the day based on typical usage patterns.
9
WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL— UPDATED SHARED PARKING — (VERSION 4.2)
Figure 2: Hourly Parking Needs — December Weekday
16-2730.00
Peak Demand Day - Excludes MOB (December)
1,435
P`� P� e� e� Q� e4' e� "r � � � e� e4 � P�
�� Q t4 ti� ;`Q tieP �(Q �� ycP b� �.� �c.P acP ocQ .(
•
Time of Day
Retai€Errpbyee r_ Fetal r_ Grocery Enpbyee r_ Grocery
Fine Dining r_ Foray Restaurant Employee r_ Foray Restaurant r_ Fast Casual Employee
Cinema Employee r_ Cinema r_ HVMA Employee r_ HVMA Medical Ottce
Office Errpkyee r_ Hampton Inn Employee r_ Hampton Inn &Sofas r_ Residential Guest
Resident -al Reserved - Rental r_ Residential Unreserved- Condor_ Residential Reserved - Condo - Total Demand
Fine Dining Employee
Fast Casual
Otace (BuikIing A3
Residential Unreserved - Rental
Source: Walker Consultants, 2017
1 10
WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL— UPDATED SHARED PARKING — (VERSION 4.2)
16-2730.00
WEEKEND PEAK PERIOD
Under the same conditions and assumptions noted for the weekday peak period, the Shared Parking model produced a
peak -hour weekend parking need of ±1,352 spaces, which occurred at 7:OOPM in December. These peak -hour conditions
were detailed in Table 7.
Table 7: Peak -Hour Weekend Day Shared Parking Needs (projected) — Excludes HVMA MOB
Weekend
Land Use
Demand
(unadjusted)
Mo. (adjusted)
December
Peak Hour
7:00 PM
Non Captive
Evening
Drive Ratio
Evening
Demand
December
7:00 PM
Retail
403
100%
75%
97%
100%
294
Retail Employee
72
100%
80%
99%
65%
37
Grocery
121
95%
33%
92%
100%
35
Grocery Employee
16
100%
40%
99%
65%
4
Fine Dining
249
100%
95%
95%
100%
224
Fine Dining Employee
44
100%
100%
99%
65%
28
Family Restaurant
97
100%
70%
95%
100%
64
Family Restaurant Employee
17
100%
95%
99%
65%
10
Fast Casual
57
100%
80%
12%
100%
5
Fast Casual Employee
10
100%
90%
99%
65%
6
Cinema
159
67%
80%
97%
100%
83
Cinema Employee
28
80%
100%
99%
65%
14
Hampton Inn & Suites
110
67%
75%
100%
77%
43
Hampton Inn Employee
10
100%
55%
99%
65%
4
Residential Guest
64
100%
100%
100%
100%
64
Residential Reserved - Condo
131
100%
100%
100%
94%
123
Residential Unreserved - Condo
32
100%
97%
100%
94%
29
Residential Reserved - Rental
202
100%
100%
100%
87%
176
Residential Unreserved - Rental
129
100%
97%
100%
87%
109
Office (Building A)
3
100%
0%
100%
100%
0
Office Employee
30
100%
0%
100%
70%
0
HVMA Medical Office
0
100%
0%
100%
100%
0
HVMA Employee
0
100%
0%
100%
70%
0
Subtotal Customer/Guest
1,263
812
Subtotal Employee/Resident
388
241
Subtotal Reserved Resident - Condo
131
123
Subtotal Reserved Resident - Rental
202
176
Total Parking Spaces Required
1,984
1,352
reduction from unadjusted requirement
32%
Source: Walker Consultants, 2017
Walker also provided the projected needs by hour for December weekend days as a stacked graph in Figure 3 on
the following page. The stacked graph visually relates the parking needs for various user groups as they change
throughout the day based on typical usage patterns.
1 11
WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL— UPDATED SHARED PARKING — (VERSION 4.2)
16-2730.00
Figure 3: Hourly Parking Needs — December Weekend Day
Peak Demand Day - Excludes MOB (December)
Time of Day
PtA PtA 24 � e �S e Qtf �l � e Qer Q� Qrr Ftr
CP J9 tiC ,� ti� "6' t%, �� ycA b� �.� �cP ac• A oc• P �� cP
Retail Errpbyee r_ Retail r_ Grocery Enpbyee r_ Grocery
Fine Dining r_ Farriy Restaurant Employee r_ Family Restaurant Fast Casual Employee
Cinema Employee r_ Cinema r_ HVM AEmployee r_ HVMA Medical Dace
Office Employee r_ Hampton Inn Employee r_ Hampton Inn &suites r_ Residential GUest
Residential Reserved - Rental r_ Residential Unreserved- Condor_ Residential Reserved - Condo - TOTAL DEMAND
Fine Dining Employee
Fosh Casual
Office (Building Al
Residential Unreserved - Rental
Source: Walker Consultants, 2017
12
rev' P e`r � `s ex-\` e e"a � � e"r e`s e`r e4". P`s
ti61' `Q ti� cQ 6 6' 6:2' .6 �cP acP , `6) cc, \- <ti.
Time of Day
WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL— UPDATED SHARED PARKING — (VERSION 4.2)
16-2730.00
TYPICAL MONTH (NON -HOLIDAY) FINDINGS
At various points throughout this effort, Walker was asked to provide parking needs calculated for off-peak periods. Walker
recently generated stacked graphs to reflect hourly parking needs for the month of May — a typical non -peak month.
Figure 4 was prepared to visually relate the parking needs for various user groups as they change throughout the day based
on typical usage patterns for the Development during weekend days in the month of May.
Figure 4: Hourly Parking Needs — May Weekend Day
Peak Demand Day - Excludes MOB (May)
1,286 1,318
1,275
1,258 1,272
1,211 1,216 248
RetafErrpbyee r_ Petal r_ Grocery Errpbyee r_ Grocery r_ be Dining Employee
r_ Fne Dining r_ Forriy Restaurant Errpfoyee r_ Ferey Restaurant r_ Fast Casual Empbyee rs Fast Casual
Cinema Errpfoyee r_ Cinema r_ HVMA Employee r_ HVMA Medica[Otice r_ Office (Buikfing A3
Office Errpkryee r_ Hampton Inn Employee r_ Hampton Inn $suites r_ Residential Guest r_ Residential urresened- Reniol
Residential Reserved- Rentof r_ Residential Urreseeed- Condoms Residential Reserved -Condo - TOTAL DEMAND
Source: Walker Consultants, 2017
Figure 5, on the following page, was prepared to visually relate the parking needs for various user groups as they
change throughout the day based on typical usage patterns for the Development during weekdays in the month
of May.
113
WALKER
CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
WATERTOWN ARSENAL— UPDATED SHARED PARKING — (VERSION 4.2)
16-2730.00
Figure 5: Hourly Parking Needs — May Weekend Day
0
L
N
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
Peak Demand Day - Excludes MOB (May)
1,258
1,224
1,178
1,248
P`� P� 2� e� Q� e4' e� e"r e� e� � e� e� e4- P�
&ells
Q� & t4 ti� ;`Q ti� �(Q �� ycP b� �.� �cP ac• P o(P
•
<0
Time of Day
Retoi€Errpbyee r_ Retail r_ Grocery Empbyee r_ Grocery
Fine Dining r_ Fanny Restaurant Employee r_ Ferny Restaurant r_ Fast Casual Employee
Cinema Employee r_ Cinema r_ HVMA Employee r_ HVMA Medical Otice
Office Errpkyee r_ Hampton Inn Employee r_ Hampton Inn &Suites r_ Residential Guest
Residential Reserved - Rental r_ Residential Unreserved - Condor_ Residereial Reseeeed - Condo - TOTAL DEMAND
Fine Dining Employee
Fast Casual
Office (Buikling A3
Residential Unreserved - Rental
Source: Walker Consultants, 2017
14
TOWN OF WATERTOWN
Zoning Enforcement Office
149 Main Street
Watertown, MA 02472
Telephone: 617-972-6427 Facsimile: 617-926-777B
Michael Mena, Zoning Enforcement Officer
rnmena[�watertawn-ma.gov
January 26, 2018
Jeffrey Heidelberg, PE
Boylston Properties
800 Boylston St. Suite 1390
Boston, MA 02199
Dear Mr. Heidelberg,
RE: 485 Arsenal Street — Arsenal Yards Modification to Building "A" of the Master Plan Phase 1
special Permit.
This letter is in response to your request for a modification of uses within building "A" of the Arsenal
Yards Master Plan. More specifically, sheet "OS -1," lists the building to include three stories, with
167,000 SF of retail/restaurant space and 12,000 SF of common area. The change requested would only
amend the fitting out of the 2nd and 3rd floor as office space, rather than retail/restaurant, with a first
floor entrance/lobby.
The requested change was also accompanied by an updated shared parking study. The Walker analysis
shows a peak demand, with this reallocation to office, as 1,435 spaces, where the current control plans
show 1,490 spaces provided.
Staff has reviewed your proposed modification and the updated parking study and finds that your
proposed change is consistent with the intent of the Master Plan and is a minor modification and will
riot need further Planning Board review.
Please contact our office if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely
Mik " ena
Zo g/Code Enforcement