Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
00-1
Resolution No. 00-1 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY OF ELGIN DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PREPARED BY WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS WHEREAS, the City Council authorized , Walker Parking Consultants to prepare a study of the parking supply and demand in the central business district within the City of Elgin; and WHEREAS, Walker Parking Consultants has submitted its report entitled "Downtown Parking Study" to the City Council of the City of Elgin. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS, that it hereby accepts the report of Walker Parking Consultants entitled "Downtown Parking Study" for the City of Elgin dated December 27, 1999 . s/ Ed Schock Ed Schock, Mayor Presented: January 12 , 2000 Adopted: January 12 , 2000 Omnibus Vote : Yeas 7 Nays 0 Attest : s/ Dolonna Mecum Dolonna Mecum, City Clerk OF E4c, — City of Elgin Agenda Item No. HNO ` 010' December 3, 1999 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Joyce A. Parker, City Manager SUBJECT: 1999 Downtown Walker Parking Study PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to present to the Mayor and members of the City Council the results of the 1999 Downtown Walker Parking Study. BACKGROUND In December 1998 , the Mayor and City Council authorized Walker Parking Consultants to undertake a Central Business District parking study. The scope of services for the study was as follows: (10°‘ Phase I - Review of previous studies and new data collected Phase II- Parking supply and demand updated. This would include a detailed analysis of current and future land use and parking demand Phase III - Analysis of parking alternative Phase IV - Final Report The initial cost of the 1999 Walker Parking Study was $24 , 000 . Walker Parking Consultants has completed the tasks as outlined above and has reached the following observations and conclusions : 1 . A total parking supply of 3 , 542 spaces was inventoried within the study area of which 1, 970 (59%) are public spaces . The effective parking supply (total number of spaces less a cushion to keep parking patrons from spending time looking for the last available spaces) is 3 , 152 spaces . 2 . Walker conducted occupancy counts for three days, two weekdays (December 17, 1998 and September 14 , 1999) and a Saturday (March 27, 1999) . The overall peak occurred at 10 : 00 a.m. on a weekday when 50% of the spaces were occupied. The peak occupancy on Saturday occurred at 8 : 00 a.m. , when 30% of the spaces were occupied. Jpurm Downtown Walker Parking Study December 3 , 1999 Page 2 3 . Overall, there is currently a surplus of 994 spaces within the study area when the peak parking demand is compared to an effective parking supply. Only one activity center now has a parking deficit, and the remaining activity centers have a surplus of spaces . The Office/Retail/Residential-West now has a deficit of 160 spaces . 4 . If the occupancy of the existing buildings increases to 90% in the core of the downtown, and several projects now envisioned become a reality, additional parking will also be required. Walker has projected a need for an additional 789 parking spaces within the core of the downtown area. 5 . To provide adequate convenient parking within a reasonable walking distance, an additional parking facility (s) will be needed in the core of the downtown area, generally bounded by the Fox River, Kimball Street, Spring Street and Prairie Street . Walker has developed 14 parking alternatives to satisfy the future parking deficits. Walker also investigated adding one or two levels to the Spring Street Deck . That facility was not designed for additional levels . 6 . A presentation to the public was held on July 20, 1999 . The public perceives, and our analysis confirms, there is a parking deficit in the core of downtown (Office/Retail/Residential-West Activity Center) . 7 . Walker would recommend the following parking program to meet existing and near-term parking deficits : A. Begin planning for a mixed use development, which contains a parking structure on the NBD/Osco site . The best solution for this site appears to be Alternative 3-D. B. Construct a three-level (two-bay) 340-space parking structure on Block 3 at the time the recreation center is built . COMMUNITY GROUPS/INTERESTED PERSONS CONTACTED The Downtown Neighborhood Association and New Century Partnership have been included in meetings with Walker and City staff regarding the development of the report . In addition, a public meeting was held and a presentation was made regarding the first draft of the report . • . Downtown Walker Parking Study December 3 , 1999 Page 3 ZL-FINANCIAL IMPACT As part of the 1999 budget process, the City Council allocated unprogrammed 1998 Riverboat receipts totaling $382, 200 toward the CBD parking lot (former NBD site) and study. Account number 275- 0000-791 . 30-03 , Professional Services - Engineering, project number 337500, Parking Study, has been charged. Ond/ LEGAL IMPACT None. ALTERNATIVES 1 . Accept the 1999 Downtown Walker Parking Study. 2 . Do not accept the 1999 Downtown Walker Parking Study. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City accept the findings of the r Downtown Parking Study as written by Walker Parking Consultants . The findings of the report should be shared with the Riverfront/Center City Master Plan Consultant as they proceed with the Downtown Master Plan. .ectfully submi", Aar ' oyce A. Parker City Manager RHM:amp Attachment 4# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY CITY OF ELGIN ELGIN, ILLINOIS Prepared for: CITY OF ELGIN WALKERWalker Parking Consultants 505 Daos Rood PARKING CONSULTANTS LIgin IL 60123 Voice 847 697 2640 911 Fox 84/69/7439 N\V-Vv ccrr 01` 4,Pb 9PA December 27, 1999 (111 Mr. Ray Moller City of Elgin OPlb 150 Dexter Court • Elgin, Illinois 60120-5555 Re: Parking Supply/Demand and Alternatives Final Report 9/6 Walker Project No. 31-5617.00 4!1" • Dear Mr. Moller: 1,011 We are pleased to submit 10 bound and one unbound copy of the supply/demand and • parking alternatives revised final report for downtown Elgin. The report has been revised 4,14 as a result of additional parking occupancy data collection on September 14, 1999. Walker recommends that planning begin now for a mixed-use development which contains a parking structure on the site of the NBD/Osco site. Also a three-level, two-bay 340 space parking structure should be constructed at the time the recreation center is /Ph built. It114 If you have any questions prior to that meeting, please call me. 41°' • erely • (' • Richard T. Klatt, P.E. Project Manager • r?5--- 01". Dave Ryan, E.I. 411,P' Design Engineer • J:\31-5617.00\Report letter-December 27.doc 411114 1.1 Olh 011 e P P CITY OF ELGIN WALKER 91 DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKiNG CONSULTANTS P 41, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i TABLE OF CONTENTS P INTRODUCTION 1 P Background 1 • Scope of Services 2 Study Area 2 P Study Methodology 2 eh Definition of Terms 6 1, EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS 7 fli Parking Occupancy 8 /lb Parking Demand 12 • Building Use Summary 14 OP Parking Demand Summary 14 Parking Adequacy 15 Activity Centers 15 P . FUTURE PARKING CONDITIONS 18 Future Parking Supply 19 • Future Parking Demand 21 P Future Parking Adequacy 21 e PARKING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 23 0111 Introduction 23 IP' Level of Accuracy 23 • Alternative Descriptions 25 a Cost Comparison 29 Recommended Parking Solutions 31 IP • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 32 • — APPENDICES 04 Figures APPENDIX A — Scope of Services Figure 1: Study Area 4 a APPENDIX B — Parking Tables Figure 2:Activity Centers ,5 4, APPENDIX C — 1996 Parking Occupancy Tables Figure 3: Peak Parking Occupancy-Private Facilities, 1999 10 • Figure 4: Peak Parking Occupancy-Public Parking, 1999 11 a Figure 5: Parking Occupancy Weekday vs. Saturday 12 0 Figure 6 Existing Parking Adequacy by Activity 40°' Centers, 1999 17 Figure 7: Proposed Future Development 20 a Figure 8: Future Parking Adequacy by Activity Centers 22 II Figure 9. Parking Alternative Sites 24 a a Tables Table I Parking Supply, 1999 7 a Table 2:Alternatives Descriptions 28 Table 3.Alternatives Financial Summary 30 P P AJdwwns ]ntinJ]x] • CITY OF ELGIN WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS Objectives EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 016 The objectives of this parking study are to determine how much parking 1 is needed, how much will be needed in the future, and what are the best solutions to resolve any parking deficits. Currently there is a renewed interest in further developing the downtown area. The '" adequacy of future downtown parking is a concern. Conclusions Based on our analysis of current and future parking conditions, there + presently is a perceived parking shortage in the core of the downtown, and our analysis confirms this perception. Presently, there is a deficit of 160 spaces in the Office/Retail/Residential-West Activity Center. The planning for mixed use development, which would contain a parking structure, should begin now. In addition, a parking structure ,�► (340 spaces) should be constructed when the recreation center is constructed. If the occupancy of the existing buildings increases to 90% in the core • of the downtown, and several projects now envisioned become a reality, additional parking will also be required. Walker has projected a need for an additional 787 parking spaces within the core of the downtown area. • • Study Area This study covers a 28-block area in downtown Elgin from the Fox 400' River to Center Street on the west and east and from Kimball Street to Lake Street on the north and south. • Parking Supply A total parking supply of 3,542 spaces was inventoried within the study area of which 2,394 (68%) are public spaces. The effective parking supply (total number of spaces less a cushion to keep parking patrons from spending time looking for the last available spaces) is 3,150 spaces. Parking Occupancy Walker conducted occupancy counts for three days, two weekdays 4111110 (December 17, 1998 and September 14, 1999) and a Saturday, 40 (March 27, 1999). The overall peak occurred at 10:00 a.m. on a weekday when 50% of the spaces were occupied. The peak rh CITY OF ELGIN10 PARKING CONSULTANTS WALKER 0111 DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY • • occupancy on Saturday occurred at 8:00 p.m. when 30% of the • spaces were occupied. Parking Demand • A parking demand model was established for the existing downtown • land uses. The existing parking demand is based on occupancy • counts, square footage of buildings and type of use. The existing parking demand model for the study area is estimated to be 2, 158 410` spaces. 411' Parking Adequacy Overall, there is currently a surplus of 994 spaces within the study area • when the peak parking demand is compared to an effective parking • supply. Only one activity center now has a parking deficit, and the remaining activity centers have a surplus of spaces. The 011 Office/Retail/Residential-West now has a deficit of 160 spaces. 4104 Future Parking Conditions A number of projects are proposed or have been discussed for the 1.1 downtown area. Those projects include eliminating the present • vacancy rates, redevelopment of existing vacant buildings, construction • of a recreation center and incorporating retail space in a proposed parking structure. 4110' f" Based on our projections, the current parking surplus (994 spaces) 4111 would decrease to an overall deficit of 627 spaces in the future if all of those projects materialized. The overall deficit of 627 spaces is a very conservative estimate since it assumes a high building occupancy for many areas within the downtown area. • Future Parking Needs Through discussions with City staff, parking service areas around major • activity centers and development opportunities have been developed to • more accurately reflect the parking situation as perceived by the users. 46' These service areas, which consist of block clusters, more accurately • describe the parking situation than either individual blocks or quadrants and provide parking within a reasonable walking distance. 4111 To provide adequate convenient parking within a reasonable walking distance, an additional parking facility(s) will be needed in the core of • the downtown area, generally bounded by the Fox River, Kimball • Street, Spring Street and Prairie Street. Walker has developed 1 4 • mi IP` • CITY OF ELGIN WALKER • DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS a 014 parking alternatives to satisfy the future parking deficits. Walker also • investigated adding one or two levels to the Spring Street Deck. That facility was not designed for additional levels. A presentation to the public was held on July 20, 1999. The public 411 perceives, and our analysis confirms, there is a parking deficit in the • core of downtown (Office/Retail/Residential-West Activity Center). 411 Walker would recommend the following parking program to meet existing and near-term parking deficits. 4P. 1 . Begin planning for a mixed use development, which contains a parking structure on the NBD/Osco site. The best solution for this site appears to be Alternative 3-D. 2. Construct a three-level (two-bay) 340 space parking structure on • Block 3 at the time the recreation center is built. The City has recently hired an urban planner to update their downtown 4110 master plan. Walker feels that, at this point, it would be premature to • recommend long-range parking solutions prior to an updated approved • master plan. a a a a a • a a a a S NOI1DfGOI1N1 it* r , • CITY OF ELGIN WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS • DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY INTRODUCTION • The City of Elgin is currently in the process of assessing the adequacy Background IP' of their downtown parking. Many changes may be occurring within • the next 10 years as the City updates its present downtown master • plan. The City has recently selected an urban planning firm to update the existing downtown master plan. 0 4.6 Several projects are now underway that will increase the parking ‘111 demand; they include: • Renovation of the Burritt Building (office space) which will require • 82 additional parking spaces, all of which will be in the NBD • Lot. • Construction of the Douglas Avenue Lofts (office space) wiich will require 80 parking spaces. • Other projects are envisioned within the downtown that will create more parking demand and/or reduce the existing parking supply; they include: 0 • • Razing the Crocker Theater. 0 • A 144,000 square foot City of Elgin recreation center. • • Relocation of the Gail Borden Library to a site on the north side of • Kimball Street. • Conversion of the Gail Borden Library to office space. 01 • • Increased utilization of existing downtown buildings. • Utilization of NBD/Osco Drug Store sites for the construction of a • mixed use parking/retail/residential building. 014 • • Removal of 2/3's of the Riverside Drive parking facility. 0 • Conversion of Leath Furniture to office space. The primary issues of his study that will be answered are: • • • How many parking spaces must be provided both now and in the future? 0,11 • • CITY OF ELGIN WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS • • What are the best solutions to resolve any parking deficits? This report represents an analysis of the existing and future parking • adequacy and solutions for the downtown study area. Existing parking • conditions represent conditions as of September 1999 and March 1999 for two weekdays and Saturday, respectively. Parking occupancy data was collected by Walker staff on Tuesday, December • 17, 1998, Saturday, March 27, 1999 and Tuesday, September 14, di 1 999. The additional data collection effort on September 14, 1999 was the result of comments received for additional data collection at the July 20, 1999 public meeting. 00 • The report is divided into two sections, parking supply/demand and 011' alternative analysis. The parking supply/demand section examines both the existing and future conditions. The future is driven by potential development as opposed to a specific year. • Walker Parking Consultants of Elgin, Illinois has been retained by the Scope of Services City of Elgin to conduct a parking study to assess the current and future 4lPh parking needs of tie downtown area. A copy of the scope of services • is located in Appendix A. 0 • The geographical area included in tie study consists of 28 blocks. Study Area • This area is generally bounded on tie west by tie Fox River, on the • north by the Kimball Street, on the east by Center/Villa Streets and on the south by Lake Street, as shown in Figure 1 . • The parking characteristics were examined on an activity center basis. • Seven activity centers were established through discussions with city staff. The activity centers will be discussec further in this report. Those activity centers are siown on Figure 2. • The study methodology for the downtown parking analysis consisted Study Methodology • of: • Conducting a meeting with representatives of the City. • • Conducting parking occupancy counts on two weekdays, • Tuesday, December 17, 1998 and Tuesday September14, 1999 and on a Saturday, March 27, 1999. 01" • • Determining existing parking demand for each different land use E14 by comparing the results of the parking occupancy data with • 2 fiA 014 CITY OF ELGIN • 40 WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS 0116 • 0111 parking demand data collected by Walker at other cities. The total parking demand equals the existing peak parking occupancy. 011 • Determining the future parking demand by establishing realistic • parking demand ratios determined from other downtown areas. The study assumptions were as follows: 4P` • • The future occupancy of all buildings was assumed to vary (65% to • 90%) as to the activity centers that are discussed under Future • Parking Conditions. • • The existing land uses will remain as they are today other than as • discussed under future conditions p • All known potential developments were included in the future 411 parking projections. p p p p p p 0 p p p 0 p p 3 • • CITY OF ELGIN • DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY • • • Figure 1 : Study Area N go �_ • O CD Z a �� ixCO 0N • ----------\ \ <731ZEIV-• 4.: 0 (W:!!,-.1:Ff:I n„...,,,.„,..:,.T,:j m • .r1•1�- :JS: ,.,....„ ,„, .14a W-s--- I • • • ,I town .. • • ,r•a; O2 6A ro IAThR1 • =7 W. \ _ UK IH Si. m� rrri • ... POLICE U FN • o=" NM ::+ti-1...t -=•-w- t PARKING z o• O DEXTE DEXTER - Z 0 ' 11 Z LUJ • \O F 10 —rr I � • ■ DIVI I N r 13 � II cr.:1>v, HIGHLAND AVE. • _ ; 1t711 KIIMI 6 7 ::.,:;rte; • Are#44 17' • 14 ilitilt ♦ E. CHICAGO ST. • 41%, 0 20 • UNDERGROUND PARKING • `'= "`'''"° -.-� \ _ • ..'V0.a. 21 22 ,... t-:.4. C.'fi IkLFULTON_ST • . _ • -7 • ''-'-:s.:-E':. -:.\ .1.4,:t. 27 CS• O • ` '.. y� LC • STUDY AREA: TUESDAY, 9/14/99 • PRIVATE OFF-STREET = 1148 SPACES 40 • PUBLIC OFF-STREET = 1970 SPACES 4 WALKER NORTH PARKING CONSULTANTS • ON-STREET = 424 SPACES LIMITS OF STUDY AREA • • 4 Oft o. CITY OF ELGIN • DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY • A' Figure 2: Activity Centers sii .:N a Q O, Yo . z J2 oce O CL CL lea :Stilt ...-1...A5 = rr NFw • t otwii t ,t•rit:fy • 0 , i Z POLICE Eia ;: �,IPARKING• a,;_ -� >- w0DEXTEi iN• o • ISLA D 10 ..,.y. hill I v • : ❑^- I DIVI I N M:eS_:e:�i.,w��i w. 12 • . ,\ s-:_.•. i HIGHLAND AVE. • X-(1k ri 16 III 3- 0 17 I E. CHICAGO ST. • 0 siplik . UNDERGROUND • ,`�` • PARKING F -'; _:..::i;:::: ;i�\ ..: ,: DUP E V) • e-v`'.-'.�„�.. ® ' W ivt, ,Z FULTON ST. _ 9� .,..,:iii-4, \ik ';'' ' ' 24 • a..P.._ o. T. -- 14.44L. • 25 �• g -ra .., ' • 27 STUDY AREA: TUESDAY, 9/14/99 • •p ._ • p , .. _ACTIVITY CENTERS .... • ph _ _....•_ .. 9�OFFICE/RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL (WEST) ` • — OFFICE/RETAIL/RESIDE (EAST) \ '7 � _I ENTERTAINMENT Y ;L — CIVIC CULTURAL—— INSTITUTIONS (SOUTH) \ SJ. ‘':\ • WALKR 40 . NORTH PARKING CONSUELTANTS • • 5 • P CITY OF ELGIN WALKER P PARKING CONSULTANTS DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY p • The following definitions are provided to help clarify some of the Definition of Terms • parking terms used in this document. The definitions are particular to Olk this document. More complete discussions are provided throughout this document. p • Demand —The number of parking spaces required to satisfy • customers, employees, residents, and commuter needs on any given day. This is estimated by comparing the number of vehicles parked, the building sizes, standard parking demand ratios and similar data collected by Walker in other downtown business • districts. • Effective Supply — The number of parking spaces less a cushion to keep parking patrons from spending time looking for the last available spaces, and to allow for the dynamics of vehicles moving in and out of spaces. It is also needed to provide extra spaces when parking facilities are uncer repair. 411 • Occupancy —The number of parking spaces occupied by vehicles. This information is collected by performing parked 41" vehicle counts in each parking facility located within the downtown area. OP' • Supply — The total number of parking spaces within the downtown. • Peak Hour - Represents the busiest hour of the day for parking demand. In a downtown area this usually occurs between the • hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. wen employee and 411 customer activities are the highest. 41" • P P p p p p • P 6 4114 ( EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS 011 0114 CITY OF ELGIN40 WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS 111 EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS Walker conducted an inventory of all on-street and off-street parking (1.16 within the study area in December 1998. A total parking supply for • the study area was established at 3,542 spaces, as shown in Table 1 . 01111h A detailed tabulation, on a block-by-block basis, is provided in Appendix B, Table B-1 . • Table 1 : Parking Supply, 1999 0 • Effective do` Supply Effective Location/Type Capacity Factor Supply • On-Street 10 hour 301 95% 286 00' 2 hour 22 95% 21 Olk 1 hour 69 95% 66 011 15 minute 25 95% 24 dik 10 minute 1 95% 1 Accessible 6 85% 5 0116 Sub-Total 424 403 0 Off-Street Private 1 ,119 85% 951 0111 Public 1 ,936 90% 1 ,742 • Accessible 63 85% 54 Sub-Total 3,118 2,747 Totals 3,542 3,150 0 00. It is normally acceptable to size the parking supply approximately 5% to 15% over actual parking demand. This provides a "cusnion" of 410 spaces hat allows for vacancies created by restricting lots to certain • users, the dynamics of vehicles moving in and out of parking stalls, and 016 misparked vehicles. The cushion reduces the need to extensively • search for the last few available spaces. Therefore, the "effective" parking supply is used for analyzing tie adequacy of the parking system rather than the total supply or inventory of spaces. 0114 To establish the "effective" parking supply, we have applied a factor of 95% to all on-street curb spaces with the exception of tie accessible 416 spaces that were assigned a factor of 85%. Off-street parking spaces have been assigned a factor of 90%, with the exception of the private and accessible spaces that were assigned a factor of 85%. The total • effective parking supply is 3, 150 spaces. Appendix -fable B-1 shows • 7 9` CITY OF ELGIN op) li WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS the supply for each block with the associated effective supply along with the applied effective supply factor. Pi Private off-street spaces are intended for customers, employees, • business-related visitors of a specific building or business and account for a total of 1 1 48 spaces (32% of total supply). Public off-street parking totals 1 ,970 spaces (56%). There are a total of 424 (1 2%) • public on-street or curb spaces. Included in this parking supply are 69 Or' accessible spaces (2% of the total supply). • Occupancy counts (the total number of vehicles parked) were Parking Occupancy • conducted by Walker on three different days. Two weekdays, • Tuesday, December 17, 1998 and Tuesday, September 14, 1999 • and a Saturday, March 27, 1 999. On Tuesday, December 17', all of the spaces were observed at 8:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m., noon, 2:00 • p.m. and 4:00 p.m, while on Tuesday, September 14th all the spaces were observed from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. at two hour intervals. • On Saturday, March 17, 1999 all of the spaces were observed from 8:00 a.m. to midnight at two hour intervals. 4114 • Weekday al The overall downtown peak occupancy occurred on a weekday at • 10:00 a.m. on September 14th, when 1 ,771 spaces 150% of the total • spaces) were occupied. Appendix Table B-2 tabulates the occupancy • on a block by block basis for Tuesday, September 14th. 416 Different parking facilities and different land uses have different peak O parking characteristics, thus the peak number of vehicles observed on • a facility-by-facility basis represents a better yardstick for determining 4,01` the overall parking needs of he downtown area. The peak number of vehicles observed on a block-by-block basis on September 14th totaled • 2, 141 vehicles. That number has been utilized in determining peak • parking demand model to be discussed in the next section of this 411" report. The parking occupancy for September 14th, on a facilitybyfacility • basis for the private parking facilities, is illustrated in Figure 3. Seven 1?" private parking facilities, all relatively small lots, had a parking • occupancy greater than 90%. 411% Figure 4 illustrates the parking occupancy on a facilitybyfacility basis • for public off-street parking on that same day. There were two public 411r, parking facilities with a parking occupancy greater than 90%. The 114 8 t' a' CITY OF ELGINAil. WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS facilities were the Riverside Drive Lot and the Lot on Block 23 at the corner of Praire Street and Grove Avenue. a' Saturday • 911 The overall downtown peak occupancy for a Saturday occurred at 8:00 p.m. when 1,036 vehicles (29% of the total spaces) were 4116 occupied. A similar peak occupancy occurred at 10:00 a.m. when 1 ,033 vehicles (29% of the total spaces) were occupied. The peak occupancy on Saturday was considerably less then the peak occupancy on a weekday (1 ,036 vs 1 ,771) thus the parking needs during the week are for greater than on the weekend. Therefore, from ! ' this point forward, generally the parking needs for a weekday will be discussed in detail. • The observed parking occupancy on an hourly basis is illustrated in Figure 5 for the two weekdays and a Saturday. • • 1996 Parking Occupancy In October of 1996, Walker also collected parking occupancy data for three days: Tuesday, October 22, 1996; Wednesday, October • 23, 1996 and Saturday, October 26, 1996. A portion of our study • area was surveyed — the Civic Cultural Activity Center plus blocks 5, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16. The peak occupancy occurred on Tuesday, when 730 vehicles were observed at 10:00 a.m. On Tuesday, September 14, 1999, within that same area, 738 vehicles were • observed. The results of the 1996 data are tabulated in Appendix C. a' 414 a' a' !a► • a' a' a' 9 • a. e CITY OF ELGIN DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY 0 e Figure 3: Peak Parking Occupancy- Private Facilities, 1999 al Ph .:N a � w i.'t-------\ viiNN ••Y o Z acoo _NKIMBALL ST I-J co a_ ui • O c O O _ o • O O © r-- ® ,..... _..: -_-__:,:-;_, _ _ • \ uotiIH SI. r • \ •7: ® :,:,,,-;•••:. I O VNORTH ST. 9 POLICE C' 1 • PARKING Z `n DEXTE DEXTE' A • 11 z z w o • ISLA D \ 10�I I c' \ IVI ION • E\12 la 0 . _ _ HIGHLAND AVE. \ w14 15 MK17 \ — E. CHICAGO ST. 20 f 18 1s ..... IP UNDERGROUND - , • PARKING / DU• V• C \ ; \ 1LULTONSTL<• -99 23 24 I. ) Qcv • \ • STUDY AREA: TUESDAY, 9/14/99 P' T. @• LEGEND: 25 ,s, 2s \ • I. 90% - 100% OCCUPANCY N cpo� • f 9 u-,,,u-,,, / F • tti 75% - 89% OCCUPANCY 7:-A4c. 60% - 74% OCCUPANCY S> O • BELOW 60% OCCUPANCY \,\''4'CF • • PRIVATE PARKING OCCUPANCY (LOT BY LOT) 40 WALKER • NORTH PARKING CONSULTANTS • • 10 • ellh al e CITY OF ELGIN • DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY • ab Figure 4: Peak Parking Occupancy - Public Parking, 1999 • Ilb . N • > in ¢ ii ___---\ • o m o N_ w KIMBALL ST cf r J a • I w • o O' O VQ Zcc . ..:O • � r NORTH ST. 7 MIMI • ►Nl:il.f.`I • POLICE j Min PARKG DEXTER AVw • • ISLA D • •-: ;-, I DTVI ION T. • \ :+ 1\\12 Is13 HIGHLAND AVE. • 16 • 1\C: 111-11 17 • ♦ E. CHICAGO ST. • /\ .' ` 18 19 20 • UNDERGROUND • `gin PARKING , DUP E IritiA 21 22\ LTONSTL _ N(�• Ji, . _ -57P3 \-5 • J� . 24 - STUDY AREA: TUESDAY, 9/14/99 . .T P T. • • LEGEND: 25 J, 26 \ 27 \ • �� ...: . 90% - 100% OCCUPANCY An • ...1.:::.N 75% - 89% OCCUPANCY \-7.-A• �� /0,5 c9ti • _. 60% - 74% OCCUPANCY t�/ se • BELOW 60% OCCUPANCY \p2t'C' s • • PUBLIC PARKING OCCUPANCY (LOT BY LOT) 40 • WALKER NORTH PARKING CONSULTANTS • • 11 0 CITY OF ELGIN 4# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY IO' Figure 5: Parking Occupancy Weekday vs. Saturday 2,000 —— 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 . I U wool 600 , 600 II , II , 1111 1111 1111 - - 400 . II III III II - - • 200 • 0 • 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 rime • • ■Weekday in Dec. INWeekday in Sept. •Saturday • • Parking demand is defined as the peak accumulation of parkers Parking Demand generated by the buildings and land uses present in the study area. Parking demand is generated only by the uses in each building; • people do not come to or travel within the CBD merely to park. • Parking demand ratios developed for the downtown land uses were based on data contained in a report titled Shared Parking, which is a • publication of the Urban Land Institute (ULII, Parking Generation, a • publication of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, discussions with City staff and on the City's zoning requirements. The ratios were • developed to represent the peak hour of parking demand on a busy • day during a peak month, rather than a true, or once a year peak. • The ratios are based on the data compiled from the parking • occupancy counts conducted for this study, the square footage for each type of land use, and Walker's previous experience with municipal parking studies including Walker's two previous 1992 and • 1997 downtown Elgin parking studies. The parking demand ratios for • each of the downtown land uses are shown in Appendix Table B-4. City staff provided the buildings' square footage data. • • It must be remembered that the demand ratios represent an average • number of spaces required per land use type. That is, if the demand ratio is applied to the square footage of a specific business or • building, the calculated demand may or may not accurately represent • that particular business. Some individual estimates may be low, • whereas others may be high. Of the two weekdays, the September • 14'h parking occupancy was greater than December 17h, thus the . parking occupancy data collected on September 14'h was used as 12 e A CITY OF ELGIN .4111# WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS a the survey day. The total parking demand within the study area was observed to be 2,141 spaces. The parking model (See the Appendix Table B-4) was calibrated to approximately match the peak observed occupancy (2, 141 vehicles) on a block-by-block basis rather than the the peak observed occupancy on September 14th for the entire downtown (1,771 vehicles). It needs to also be pointed out that the parking demand shown for 0 most land uses represents their peak demand between 10:00 a.m. 41 and 4:00 p.m. Shared parking is defined as parking spaces that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The most extreme example of this would be a theater, which has its peak in the evening. Conversely, the office worker parking demand is mainly during the day, thus, the office worker can utilize the parking spaces during the day and the theater patrons can park in these same spaces at night. All land uses have peaks and valleys. Shared parking relates to mixed-use developments such as those contained in downtown areas. It indicates that by combining land uses, the 1114 demand for parking spaces is less than the der-nand generated by 41% separate freestanding developments of similar size and character. 41R. The interplay of land uses in a mixed-use environment produces a reduction in overall parking demand. For example, a substantial percentage of patrons of one business are employees of another downtown business. The ULI defines this as the "effects of the captive 4111 market. These patrons are already parked and contribute only once to the number of peak hour parkers. In other words, the parking demand OP' ratio for individual land uses should be factored downward in • proportion to the captive market support received from neighboring land uses. do% Overall, the effects of tie captive market can be very significant. 40 Based on our experience wits other mid-western cities, 50% of retail • patrons have been assumed to be downtown employees and are considered captive. Tie other land use captive market factors are shown in Appendix Table B-4. The use of captive market factors ensures that captive patrons are not • counted twice in the overall parking demand estimate. The net effect • of the utilization of shared parking and captive market factors is the reduction of parking space needs. Detailed information regarding the calculations of parking demand for each land use and shared parking • can be found in Appendix Table B-4. 4' .1 13 4' 0 • CITY OF ELGIN WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS Parking demand ratios for each land use were determined by multiplying the demand ratio by the non-captive ratio (one minus the percent captive), by a monthly adjustment, by an hourly adjustment and by a local adjustment factor. The local adjustment factor is based • on the occupancy counts conducted for this study, observations made during the data collection process, discussions with City staff and our experience. For example, the parking generation ratio for retail use, for that portion of retail parking that can be shared with other land !p' uses, is 0.79 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space, derived as • follows: `1111 Retail Demand Ratio 3.30 Peak Demand Ratio 0.50 non-captive ratio 41, 0.75 seasonal variation for September (ULI) 0.80 hourly adjustment (ULI) 0.80 WALKER adjustment to calibrate total demand with vehicles observed Gross Ratio = (3.30) x (.50) x (0.75) x (.80) x (.80) = 0.79 spaces 4101 per 1 ,000 square feet. 0 The quantity (gross floor area in square feet) and type(s) of use were Building Use Summary provided by the City. The breakdown of uses within a building was recorded in terms of the gross square footage. Excluding residential buildings, a total of 1,500,358 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) • was identified. This includes approximately 113,550 square feet (8%) 4, of vacant space. A large portion of the occupied space is now under utilized. The tabulation of the downtown level uses on a parcel by • parcel basis for each block is tabulated in Appendix Table B-3. 0 0 The existing parking demand is estimated to be 2, 158 spaces. This is Parking Demand based on the observed peak demand on a block-by-block basis as Summary 4' previously discussed. The average parking demand ratios for all 014 building uses, excluding residential, is 1 .39 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of occupied GFA. This ratio falls at the low end of the range of average ratios of 1 .3 to 3.0 per 1,000 square feet of GFA, as calculated by Walker in recent years for a number of other mid-western #� cities. The average ratio excludes residential because that demand is based on the number of units versus GFA. The weekday Parking Demand Ratios Table for all land uses within the downtown is shown in Appendix Table B-4. 14 0 OP' CITY OF ELGIN 414 WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS 1.111 Oh Parking adequacy is defined as the balance of the effective parking Parking Adequacy supply as compared to the parking demand. A very fundamental aspect of any area being studied is the interplay of activities from Oh block to block. Parking is one of these dynamic factors. The • traditional method of analyzing parking in a downtown mixed-use area • is to determine the effective parking supply and the parking demand on each block and compare them to determine the parking adequacy. 0114 0 4.011 The present perception of parking around major activity centers is that Activity Centers 111 parking is in short supply and that there is a parking problem. Comparing the parking demand against the effective parking supply #11 on a block-by-block does not adequately reflect the parking situation as • perceived by the users. A one-block area is perceived as too small of 014 an area to accurately illustrate the actual parking situation. Through discussions with City staff, parking service areas around major activity .001 centers and development opportunities have been developed. The ft' major activity centers and their service areas are illustrated in Figure 2. alb The adequacy of parking within those seven service areas is shown on Figure 6. The parking adequacy for those service areas varies from a • surplus of 331 spaces in the Civic Cultural activity center to a deficit of • 160 spaces in the Office/Retail/Residential - West activity center. It • needs to be kept in mind that the large surplus in the civic cultural activity center reflects the parking demand for land uses within that activity center compared to the effective parking supply. The large • civic lot, located south of City Hall, is utilized by a number of people 01' who have destinations outside the civic cultural activity center and • probably witiin tie Office/Retail/Residential - West activity center. There is an overall surplus of 994 parking spaces. Olk • A positive figure indicates the activity center contributes more supply • than demand to the balance; a negative figure indicates that the • activity center contributes more demand than supply to the balance. It is important not to just focus on the balance for any individual activity • center. Not all parkers bound for a particular activity center will OP' choose to park there, even if sufficient spaces are available. Market 110' factors such as walking distance, condition of a lot, and security will result in substantial interaction between activity centers. Walker has dik found that a generally acceptable walking distance for a community similar to Elgin is 300 feet (approximately one block) for short-term 4h porkers (shoppers) and 600 feet (approximately two blocks) or longer for long-term parkers (workers). The acceptable walking distance is Oh influenced by a number of factors such as: • • Lighting, 0.% 15 114 CITY OF ELGIN 0 WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS Oh • Paving amenities, 41P • Topography, • Weather, especially during the winter months, • Benches/other amenities, and • • Infill uses along key connections between core business and parking.• • The positive/negative figure is merely the net parking balance that activity center contributes to its influence area - (for example, within an • acceptable walking distance for most users), and the downtown area as a whole. It does not and should not represent the number of spaces that should be provided on a specific activity center but rather the 1.11' number of spaces compared to the number of peak hour parkers OP" generated by the land uses present on the activity center under design • day conditions. The parking adequacy, summarized by activity • centers, is illustrated on Figure 6. • 0 0 • OP' OP` 01 • • 01 011 01111" Oh 16 0 r► • r CITY OF ELGIN 0DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY Oh • Figure 6: Existing Parking Adequacy by Activity Centers, 1999 • .:N ► � a Q- 1111• (n NI • .-----------\ I N Q On -CE; 11 J =o a KIMBALL ST O r J 0 O N r , COCC LIJ Ammar • > 293 w . > 98 0 0 195 a z I •• Li— 0 11111111:114- r NDNIHS1 I • ' C— 815ZRTIrs.T1- v 484 ! POLICE • 331 PARKING o w -- 178 r w • z�D TER CT 59 z J o • ISLA D 119 / 1-- • DIVI I N • = "."." HIGHLAND AVE. • # • 5 S� �� E. CHICAGO ST. • l 1083 145• /\ SY' 1243 91 UNDERGROUND • , (160) \ 54 • PARKING t DUP E • v , ._(,;.:zr--- N Lu 110 SUPPLY/DEMAND• w BASED ON WEEKDAY ,Z, FULTON ST. _ OCCUPANCY COUNTS N° 220 • EFFECTIVE Kit6---- 87 SUPPLY 3152 133 • DEMAND 2158 N PRAIRIE ST. • SURPLUS/ 994 s, (DEFICIT) • �� • O • ACTIVITY CENTERS o� — OFFICE/RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL (WEST) 418 • — OFFICE/RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL (EAST) �� • 96 ENTERTAINMENT — CIVIC CULTURAL 322 • — COMMERCIAL SERVICE4,�, — INSTITUTIONS (NORTH) ,-F,S boy • — INSTITUTIONS (SOUTH) \-Q Si, • • 40 WALKER • NORTH PARKING CONSULTANTS • • 17 • FUTURE PARKING CONDITIONS 4,114 OA CITY OF ELGIN WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS FUTURE PARKING OA CONDITIONS In order to project the future parking needs in the downtown area, it is 114 necessary to consider proposed development projects and their impact on the parking supply and demand. There are eight identified projects 016 that will effect the downtown parking supply and demand as follows: • Restoration of the Burritt Building in block 19 into office space. This project will require 82 spaces, all of which will be located in the NBD Lot. • Restoration of the upper floors of the buildings located on the eastside of Douglas Avenue into office space. This project is • known as the Douglas Avenue Lofts and will require 80 parking 0,* spaces. • Construction of a 144,200 square foot City of Elgin recreation center on a site within the Civic Cultural Activity Center as identified on Figure 6. • Relocation of the Gail Borden Library to a site on the north side of • Kimball Street (outside the study area). The existing Library building will be converted to office space. • Razing of the Crocker Theater. • Utilization of NBD/Osco Drug Store site for construction of mixed use parking/retail/residential. • Removal of 2/3 of the Riverside Drive parking. • • The following restoration projects: - Tower Building - Professional Building - Kent Bank • Conversion of Leath Furniture to office space • Increased utilization of existing downtown buildings. 41" These potential projects are identified on Figure 7. Many of the existing land uses are now vacant or under utilized which is evidenced by the overall downtown parking demand ratio of 1 .39 parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of building. The goal of the e' city is to have better utilization of their existing building stock. With that in mind, Walker proceeded to determine more realistically parking • demand ratio for each land use. National parking generation references, Institute of Transportation "Parking Generation" and Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking" along osh with data collected by Walker for another Chicago suburban downtown area were utilized to determine the peak land use parking demand ratios. Those parking demand ratios assumed 100% building occupancy. The city realizes that to have all of the existing buildings 18 41 CITY OF ELGIN WALKER 411DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS 411 fully occupied and utilized within the 28 block downtown study may be a desirable objective but was not a realistic goal say within the 011 next 10 years. The city also realizes that some areas (activity centers) 411 are more ripe for development than other areas. With that in mind, each activity center was assigned an occupancy/utilization 41 percentage. The downtown core areas were assigned a 90% factor while the peripheral areas were assigned a 65% factor. The figh formulation of those parking demand ratios is tabulated in Table B-11 in the Appendix. The assumed land use intensity percentage by activity centers is illustrated on Figure 7. 41114 41 Other future land use assumptions were also made as follows: • • That 2/3's of the Riverside Drive parking facility will be • removed. • An additional 35 parking spaces will be added to the lot on 410. block 7 across the street from the police station. 41P • The combined NBD/Osco Drug Store site will be redeveloped 4P into a mixed-use development which will have a parking structure element. • The Ace Hardware parking lot will be reconstructed per present isk plans. The number of spaces will be increased from the present 87 to 124 spaces. a awl Walker has developed a parking model that assumes the development of the projects identified on Figure 7 along with the building 411 occupancy percentage for each activity center. a 4111 The future parking supply will increase with the addition of 35 spaces Future Parking Supply to the civic parking lot in Block 7 and an additional 37 parking spaces with the reconstruction of the Ace Hardware parking lot in block 6. a The proposed recreation center will occupy Blocks 2, 3 and 4. As now proposed, Block 3 would contain a 137 space surface parking 411 lot and the recreation center would occupy Blocks 2 and 4. The existing off-street parking on Lots 2 and 4 (107 + 52 spaces) would be removed. The existing on street parking within these three blocks would remain. There would be a net decrease of 22 spaces (137 — 4ft' 159 = -22). a ,*, The Riverside Drive parking lot is partially a structure that is supported by pilings in the Fox River. The remaining portion of the parking is an 41111 at-grade parking lot. Approximately 2/3's of the existing facility is the • supported structure that now requires periodic repairs to remain i 19 a • d. CITY OF ELGIN R. DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY 416 0 Figure 7: Proposed Future Development 4114 • N PROPOSED a cn "' 124 S CONSTRUCTEDQ 11111 FUTURE144,200 �' Q__ RKING LOTLIBARY SITE RECREATION 8 VACANT e ENTER o = BALL ST/p J CD C3 N '/ d e 0 > 0 0_ 0 ACE HARDWARE • UJ>0 w CONVERSION STORAGE cc0 O 65% TO RETAIL a • vz ® MI 11 – MI • _ N.OF IH SI I �[�I:iICf.9 79,000 SQ. FT. 0 ® II I 'fflillOFFICE L POLICE �'• \ IIIII I i �� PARKING LdN III \35 ADDITIONAL Q DEXTE' w SPACES �� 01.1.:130- ■ DOUGLAS AVE. z -J . 9096 LOFTS 24,000 w oiLA D10 I SO. FT. 1 DIVISION T. LEATH • 94 ADDITIONAL \ © IED 19096 — FURNITURE • SPACES O _ ' �� HIGHLAND AVE. 10.500 S0. T �� BURRITT CONVERTED 4 16 BLDG. 82 TO OFFICE i�� 4., ��` �,t SPACES • q 'I MI I NBD LOT .� �� O - • E. CHICAGO ST. ( GROUN4PARKING O \WEST N 1 P NBD PROPERTY-PROPOS, DUP E \ SUB-LEVEL PARKING & / • \/ STREET LEVEL RETAIL ® 22 ,� ` N N ABOVE GRADE PARKING IF • ®, • WARRANTED -9096 w a 0IP �� 2/3 OF RIVERSIDE DR. NI �w FULTON ST. _ o U LP PARKING TO BE REMOVED ® 24 e 9 s� . < CROCKER THEATER RAZED '�, 24 p \ P;, : T. It STUDY AREA: PROPOSED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 25 `f' 26 Q • cpo� 65% ACTIVITY CENTERS \\\ EAST P — OFFICE/RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL (WEST) 04- 6- 90% `: P — OFFICE/RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL (EAST) ,`/2, \ , • CIVIC CULTURAL s, — COMMERCIAL SERVICE P — INSTITUTIONS (NORTH) ,l-F,S.\ Choy ##% ASSUMED LAND(SOUTH)USE INTENSITY \.P s> P 40 e 4 WALKER NORTH PARKING CONSULTANTS P p 20 P di CITY OF ELGIN WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS * DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY structurally sound. For future conditions, that portion of the structure that * is constructed above the Fox River was assumed to be removed, thus, w the number of parking spaces would be reduced by 2/3's (120 ,l, spaces). 4* • The Future Parking Demand Appendix Table B-12 shows the future Future Parking • parking demand for the downtown. Overall, the projected increase in Demand parking demand is 1,556 spaces (3,714 — 2158 = 1,556). The increase in parking demand can be contributed to the following �►► projects: • City of Elgin Recreation Center 298 spaces • Retail on the NBD and Osco Drug Site 62 spaces • Burrit Building 82 spaces +�► • Douglas Avenue Lofts 80 spaces 46 • Higher Occupancy of and Changes to Existing Buildings 1 ,034 spaces 46 46 Figure 8 summarizes the future parking conditions by activity centers. Future Parking The existing surplus in the downtown area is projected to decrease Adequacy from 994 spaces to a deficit of 627 spaces. Three activity centers are projected to have a future deficit. The 411 Office/Retail/Residential -West has the largest deficit, that deficit being 1,004 parking spaces. Two other activity centers had deficits 416 of 96 and 48 spaces, respectively. All of the other activity centers are projected to continue having a surplus of parking. 4116 et !► 4111. 411 et 41 • 411 21 • • • CITY OF ELGIN WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS • • • Figure 8: Future Parking Adequacy by Activity Centers • .:N a 4,1 DI • O Z IA a J • o _N KIMBALL ST J • m 2 w M • a 325 0 > 291 a • Lr 0 WIIEC I 34 • r` , , ________ • _ _RUN I H 5 I / C� 823 IIIV' 41714-ST U-- 1- • 919 1 POLICE c' in • (96) w PARKING o w 178 in w • 4TER C 108 w zo • ISLA D 70 — DIVISI N '- " • • 1 _ 111HIGHLAND AVE. 0l• • s',L`P� �� _ E. CHICAGO ST. e ♦ ( 82 / * 978 193 .: \V \ UNDERGROUND • , 145 \ (1004) \ (48) • PARKING > DUPA E • SUPPLY/DEMAND N BASED ON WEEKDAY > w • OCCUPANCY COUNTS w FULTON ST. _ • EFFECTIVE N° 220 SUPPLY 3087 • DEMAND 3714 \ 92 128 SURPLUS/ (627) • (DEFICIT) N Pt, ; T. • STUDY AREA: FUTURE cep \ 0 • ACTIVITY CENTERS \ o • — OFFICE/RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL-WEST f/ • — OFFICE/RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL-EAST �� 418 ENTERTAINMENT 129 • — CIVIC CULTURAL 289 Sj COMMERCIAL SERVICE '� • — INSTITUTIONS-NORTH P��St o�oy • — INSTITUTIONS-SOUTH S> • • 40 4 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS • NORTH • • 22 • PARKING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 411i 411k CITY OF ELGIN 41# WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS 4ft DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY 41i 4ft PARKING ALTERNATIVES 41Ik ANALYSIS 41Ih In Phase 1 of this study, we identified three areas of future parking Introduction oba concern. Those three areas had a combined need of 802 parking spaces. It needs to be kept in mind that certain events need to take place before the major portion of those needs materialize. In review those events are: 41116 4 • The removal of 2/3's of the Riverside Drive parking structure 4Ift • Construction of the City of Elgin Recreation Center 41116 • The development of the additional retail space in the NBD Bank and Osco Drug site • Occupancy of the Burritt Building and Douglas Avenue lofts dllo• • Increased building use of the existing buildings within these three activity centers (projected to be 90% occupied) The purpose of this phase of the study is to identify and evaluate 41 potential parking solutions to eliminate the future parking shortages in 411 each of the major activity centers. Discussions with the City staff have 41111k resulted in four potential parking facility sites being identified. Figure 9 identifies those four sites. 41114 411 411k The alternatives described herein have been based on the best Level of Accuracy information currently available. We have been conservative (on the low side) in our estimate of the new spaces produced by each alternative. The actual number of spaces to be gained may vary • slightly based upon the actual site dimensions and final design • selected. Oh a Oh • 404 4114 411 411 23 • • • CITY OF ELGIN • DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY • • Figure 9: Parking Alternative Sites • EE Z• /� ..N No aJoD a i f�a =;; J V4171:11111111./,11 • rz•• / > 11_ wo • o r-6 Q • L,-- a'III :a.1 • rz / • U 0 V NORTH ST. NORM Si. POLICE c. • PARKING Z "' • n DEXTE T DEXT AV 0 I [SITE 2 Z • ISLA D o • DIVI I N • \a O HIGHLAND AVE. • • IliA • ♦ E. CHICAGO ST. • a . . LI • UNDERGROUND • PARKING r\___\5, 11.1i!,r1.7( • w • 0 _FULTON ST. a t Illillk\—\0E]c) e 9l • k\' P:: : T. • Q • LEGEND � co T • PARKING ALTERNATIVE SITES• obi 9LF 4 \\. '‘f) 0 Its 9,L • -\-St\\\ 26, s • L, A:10PN • 40 4 WALKER • PARKING CONSULTANTS NORTH • • 24 CITY OF ELGIN WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS OPth • 01/4 The alternatives for adding parking spaces are summarized in Table 2. Alternative In addition to describing the dimensions and type of structure, there are Descriptions several important evaluation criteria identified in Table 2. The first is that of efficiency, which is the square feet of floor area that must be built per parking stall. This generally translates to cost per space. In most schemes a number of existing spaces will have to be torn up and reconstructed, at new construction costs, before any significant 0.1 increase in capacity is achieved. Therefore, it is important to know for each alternative the number of additional spaces it will provide, although total capacity is also provided. ' Alternative 1-A: Construct a three level (two supported levels), two bay parking structure on a site bounded by Water Street, Brook Street, North Streets and N. Grove Avenue. Traffic circulation would be two- way with one of the parking bays being sloped (ramped) to provide floor-to-floor traffic circulation. There would be a total of 340 spaces. The construction of the Recreation Center is to include a 1 37 space • parking lot. The parking structure is proposed to be on the site of the parking lot and would add 203 spaces (340-137=203). The Recreation Center would be the primary user of this facility. 114 Alternative 1-B: Same parking structure as Alternative A-1 with an • additional level which would provide 128 more spaces or a total of 468 spaces. ! " Alternative 2-A: Construction of a three level, three bay parking structure with retail space on the site of the Civic parking lot south of • City Hall. The parking structure would occupy only a portion of the existing lot. One hundred and twelve (1 12) spaces within the existing 330 space lot would remain as surface parking. Traffic circulation would be two-way and floor to floor circulation would be provided in the middle parking bay, thus, each floor would be level on the exterior. This alternative would provide a total of 506 Oh spaces which would be a net increase of 288 spaces (506 —218 =288) over the spaces lost with the construction of a parking structure. In addition to the parking structure a street level retail shell of approximately 26,000 feet would be provided for the city to lease. 4111 The retail space would front on both Highland and Douglas Avenues. 0 Alternative 2-B: Same parking facility as Alternative 2-A but with an additional level of parking. The retail space would be same as 41114 Alternative 2-A. This facility would provide a total of 756 spaces which is a net increase of 538 spaces (756 -218=538). 0 25 CITY OF ELGIN WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS 0111 Alternative 2-C: Same parking structure as Alternatives 2-A and 2-B but with a 5th level of parking. This alternative would provide 1 ,006 spaces which is a net increase of 788 spaces (1 ,006 -218=788). Alternative 2-D: Same footprint as the above three parking structures but without retail in order to maximize the number of parking spaces. 4111 A three level structure would provide 684 spaces, this contrasts with only 506 spaces (Alternative 2-A) if the retail space is eliminated. The net increase in parking spaces over what exists today is 466 spaces (684 -218=466). • Alternative 2-E: Same parking structure as Alternative 2-D with an 01" additional level of parking. This four level parking structure, without • retail space, would provide a total of 929 spaces which is a net increase of 71 1 spaces (929 -218=711) over the spaces lost due to the construction of the parking deck. 0 • Alternative 3-A: Construction of a four level three bay parking structure • on the site of the demolished Osco Drug and NBD Bank. Retail shell space would be provided along the Grove Avenue street frontage, 4111 which would be leased by the City. From the perspective of Grove Avenue, the parking structure would appear to be only three levels (two supported levels) since the lowest level would be at the grade of Riverside Drive that is about 8 feet lower than Grove Avenue. The structure, including the retail space, would not extend all the way north to the Chicago Avenue right-of-way line. A parcel would remain for 414 some other type of development that could be landscaping or • residential. (Alternative 3-C uses this space for residential uses). The parking structure would provide 515 spaces and 14,400 square feet of retail space. The net increase of spaces would be 340 spaces '! (515 -175=340). Access would be from Riverside Drive and could • also be provided from Grove Avenue. Alternative 3-B: Same parking facility with retail space as Alternative 3-A but with an additional level of parking. The additional level of parking would add 167 spaces or a total of 682 spaces which is a net increase of 507 spaces (682 -175=507). Alternative 3-C: Construct a five level parking structure without Grove Avenue frontage retail. It would be the same footprint as Alternatives • 3-A and 3-B. Removing the retail shell space would add 108 spaces 411 for a total 790 spaces, which is a net increase of 615 spaces (790 -175=615). This alternative is shown with apartments/condominiums, on the parcel of land north of the parking structure. The two facilities are independent of each other except pedestrian access could be • provided on each floor between the residential units and the parking 26 0 Olb CITY OF ELGIN WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY W PARKING CONSULTANTS 41' structure. Approximately 36 residential units could be provided on four levels. eh • Alternative 3-D: This alternative is a combination between Alternatives • 3-B and 3-C in that both retail shell and finished residential units would both be provided. The retail, street level shell space would be on Grove Avenue and a portion of the Chicago Avenue frontage. A total • of 79 residential units could be constructed over the retail space and 0 full height along the western portion of the Chicago Avenue frontage. • The second level of the parking structure would have a 12-foot floor-to- floor distance to provide minimum ceiling height for retail space. There would be a total of 562 parking spaces which would be a net dik increase of 387 spaces (562 -175=387). Vehicle access would be 4111h provided from both Riverside Drive and Grove Avenue. 016 The next three alternatives assume the removal of the Crocker Theater and utilizing that site for parking. 011 • Alternative 4-A: The extension of the existing surface parking lot to include the Crocker Theater site. Fifty-eight (58) additional spaces 41P` could be added to the existing City lot bringing the total number of 41.1 spaces to 147. Alternative 4-B: Constructing a three-level, three-bay parking structure on the site of the existing lot and the Crocker Theater. The middle- parking bay would provide 90° parking on a sloped ramp, which • provides floor-to-floor circulation. The two outside bays would be 70° • parking with one-way traffic. Both of these outside bays would be flat. Thus, viewing from the exterior, the floors would all be level. A three level (two supported levels) structure would provide 374 spaces, a net 404 increase of 285 spaces (374 —89=285) over the existing surface lot. 411 Alternative 4-C: Same parking structure as Alternative 4-B witn an additional level of parking. That additional parking level would add 139 spaces bringing he total number of spaces to 513 which is a net • increase of 424 spaces (513 -89=424). 41111, • Adding one or two levels to the existing Spring Street Deck was considered and investigated. The deck was not designed for adding • additional levels. It is still conceivable to add a level to the Spring Street Deck, but it would be considerably more expensive than the • other alternatives, and it would be disruptive to motorists now parking in the deck. That option is no longer being considered. 0 • • 27 'VI ', 1 -1 11 - '1 # .1 .11 f 1111 1 t 1 '1 1 `1 1 1 '1 1 V `1 1 1 ..1 ,1 -11 1 1I 1 1 .11 0 o n aT" 4 Parking Effc'y Total Retail N z 0 Site Stoll Angle Circulation Total Construction Sq.Ft./ Existing Spaces Space D 0 Alternative Description Dimensions Width (degrees) Module System Spaces (sq.ft.) Space Spaces Added (sq.ft.) N < 171 3 z 1-A Rec.Center Deck 3-Level 124'x318' 9'0" 90 60' Two-Way Traffic 340 107,856 317 137 203 0 -3,,,, 2 Structure Single Threaded Helix R. Z 1-B Rec.Center Deck 4-Level 124'x318' 9'0" 90 60' Two-Way Traffic 468 147,288 315 137 331 N Structure Single Threaded Helix 0 2 2-A Civic Center Deck 3-Level Structure 248'x364' 9'0" 90 60' Two-Way Traffic 506 166,160 328 218 288 26,200 y with Retail irregular Single Threaded Helix n Cn 2-B Civic Center Deck 4-Level Structure 248'x364' 9'0" 90 60' Two-Way Traffic 756 243,600 322 218 538 26,200 -6' C with Retail irregular Single Threaded Helix = Q 2-C Civic Center Deck 5-Level Structure 248'x364' 9'0" 90 60' Two-Way Traffic 1,006 321,040 319 218 788 26,200 j with Retail irregular Single Threaded Helix r^ 2-D Civic Center Deck 3-Level Structure 248'x364' 9'0" 90 60' Two-Way Traffic 684 219,375 321 218 466 without Retail irregular Single Threaded Helix 2-E Civic Center Deck 4-Level Structure 248'x364' 9'0" 90 60' Two-Way Traffic 929 297,475 320 218 711 without Retail irregular Single Threaded Helix 3-A Chicago St. & 4-Level Structure irregular 9'0" 90 60' Two-Way Traffic 515 160,916 312 175 340 14,400 Grove Ave.Deck with Retail Single Threaded Helix 3-B Chicago St. & 5-Level Structure irregular 9'0" 90 60' Two-Way Traffic 682 212,240 311 175 507 14,400 Grove Ave.Deck with Retail Single Threaded Helix 3-C Chicago St. & 5-Level Structure irregular 9'0" 70&90 58'&60' Two/One-Way Traffic 790 245,150 310 175 615 Grove Ave.Deck Residential Adj'c. Single Threaded Helix 3-D Chicago St. & 5-Level Structure irregular 9'0" 90 60' Two-Way Traffic 562 175,536 312 175 387 18,200 Grove Ave.Deck with Retail/Res'd. Single Threaded Helix 4-A Crocker Lot Expansion Surface Lot 180'x288' 9'0" 90 60' Two-Way Traffic 147 48,212 (1) 328 89 58 irregular 16,560 (2) 286 4-B Crocker Lot Deck 3-Level 174'x288' 9'0" 60&90 54'&60' One-Way/Two-Way 374 126,144 337 89 285 Structure irregular Single Threaded Helix 4-C Crocker Lot Deck 4-Level 174'x288' 9'0" 60&90 54'&60' One-Way/Two-Way 513 171,962 335 89 424 Structure irregular Single Threaded Helix Notes: 1/ Total square footage of the proposed lot 2/ Square footage of new construction 4 t D Za oxN Cm D ti M N CO CITY OF ELGINV. WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS 11" 4016 Oh Olk A tabulation of the preliminary estimated cost for the 14 alternatives is Cost Comparison shown in Table 3. The construction cost represents the estimated costs • (1999 dollars) of the facilities based on unit costs for recent projects within the Chicago metropolitan area. These estimates include typical amenities provided in Walker projects such as long-span construction, special considerations for durability and low maintenance, concern for Oh pedestrian comfort, security considerations such as openness of AP, elevators, lobbies and stairs, etc. The $28.00 per square foot for an open parking structure includes a facade allowance that should meet • City of Elgin requirements. • The construction cost estimate does not include any costs associated with the relocation of utilities or roadway improvements. The site 4111 development costs do not include land acquisition and building demolition costs for the Crocker Theater site. 0 411b In similar projects where Walker has provided a retail shell, the cost to construct that portion of the structure has been about 1 .5 times the cost of parking structures ($42.00 square foot). 0 • RS Means "1999 Building Construction Cost Data" was referenced to determine the S85.00 square foot for finished residential apartment space. The total number of units per floor assumed 1 ,200 square feet 4111, per unit that includes common area. 0 The total project cost is the sum of the construction cost and an additional fee for soft costs, which include the cost of design, construction observation, surveys, and contingencies. A soft cost fee of • 1 5% and 25% was used for surface lots and parking structures • respectively. The project cost is then divided by the number of added 1011 spaces (cost per added space) which most fairly represents the economy of each solution for comparison purposes. • • Although tie cost per added space might seem at first to be the • overriding concern, the 14 alternatives also have operating costs. Therefore, an estimate of the annual cost to own and operate each alternative, for the paring space only, is performed. Financing 11, methods have been assumed, with an interest rate of 6% over 10 and • 20 years for a surface lot and structured parking facility respectively. Operating costs are based on our data bank of parking facility • operating costs, which is updated periodically. Another factor to • consider is whether the facility will be attended/cashiered or • unattended/card access only. An attended facility would have the • 29 • 1 :11 i ,► 1 - -1 V V 1 I $ -V '1 1 , 1 a , , 1 1 1 1V 1 11 -1 1 i 11 V I 1 11 'i o n_ iii" 4 w z Parking Annual Annual O 0 Parking Cost Retail Shell Residential Total Project Total Cost Debt Operating Net Net Annual Net Annual D Construction /Total Construction Construction Cost Per Added Service Cost Annual Cost Per Cost Per177 Alternative Cost Space Cosl(4al Cost(4b1 (5) Space)6) (7) (8) Cost Space(6) Added Space(6) Footnotes 7 Z ^ 40 1-A Rec.Center Deck $3,019,968 $8,882 $0 $3,774,960 $11,103 3329,118 $85,000 $414,118 $1,218 $2,040 3,50,70,813 �. ' 0 77 1-B Rec.Center Deck $4,124,064 $8,812 $0 $5,155,080 $11,015 $449,443 $117,000 $566,443 $1,210 $1,711 3,5a,7a,8b N Z _T 2-A Civic Center Deck $4,652,480 $9,195 $1,100,400 $7,191,100 $20,193 $626,953 $126,500 $753,453 $1,252 $2,200 3,4a,50,7a,8b 5 Cr) 2-B Civic Center Deck $6,820,800 $9,022 $1,100,400 $9,901,500 $12,678 $863,258 $189,000 $1,052,258 $1,233 $1,733 3,4a,5a,7a,8b n fl -< 2-C Civic Center Deck $8,989,120 $8,936 $1,100,400 $12,611,900 $11,408 $1,099,563 $251,500 $1,351,063 $1,224 $1,562 3,4a,5a,7a,8b C/) 2-D Civic Center Deck $6,142,500 $8,980 $0 $7,678,125 $13,181 $669,414 $171,000 $840,414 $1,229 $1,803 3,50,70,86 C 3 2-E Civic Center Deck $8,329,300 $8,966 $0 $10,411,625 $11,715 $907,733 $232,250 $1,139,983 $1,227 $1,603 3,50,70,81dfl 3-A Chicago St. & $4,505,648 $8,749 $604,800 $6,388,060 $13,252 $867,933 $38,625 $906,558 $1,028 $1,558 3,4a,5a,7a,8b Grove Ave.Deck 3-B Chicago St. & $5,942,720 $8,714 $604,800 $8,184,400 $11,721 $1,111,998 $51,150 $1,163,148 $1,025 $1,378 3,4a,5a,7a,8b Grove Ave.Deck 3-C Chicago St. & $6,864,200 $8,689 $0 $4,071,500 $13,669,625 $11,161 $1,857,264 $59,250 $1,916,514 $1,022 $1,313 3,4b,5a,7a,8b Grove Ave.Deck 3-D Chicago St. & $4,915,008 $8,746 $764,400 $8,065,140 $17,180,685 $12,700 $2,334,305 $42,150 $2,376,455 $1,028 $1,493 3,40,46,50,70,86 Grove Ave.Deck 4-A Crocker lot Expansion $82,800 $1,428 $0 $95,220 $1,642 $12,937 $4,350 $17,287 $298 $298 2,56,76,8c 4-B Crocker Lot Deck $3,532,032 $9,444 $0 $4,415,040 $15,491 $384,923 $93,500 $478,423 $1,279 $1,679 2,5a,7a,8b 4-C Crocker Lot Deck $4,814,936 $9,386 $0 $6,018,670 $14,195 $817,744 $128,250 $945,994 $1,273 $1,540 2,5a,7o,Bb Construction Costs; 1/ Reconfigure Surface Lot $2.50 /sq.ft. 7/ Annual Debt Service a)Structure @ 6,00% for 20 years 2/ New Surface Lot $5.00 /sq.ft. b)Lot @ 6.00% for 10 years 3/ Open Structure $28.00 /sq.ft. 8/ Operating Costs a)Above Grade-Attended $350 /space/year 4/ a)Retail Shell $42.00 /sq.ft. bj Above Grade-Unattended $250 /space/year b)Residential $85.00 /sq.ft. 5/ a)Plus Soft Costs @ 25% /Const.+Development Cost for Parking Structure c)Surface Lot-Unattended $75 /space/year 0 b)Plus Soft Costs @ 15% /Const.+Development Cost for Surface Lot 6/ Does not include retail shell or residential costs and for Site 1 the cost represents total cost per space Note;The project costs do not include unusual soil conditions,site preparation costs including removal of existing buildings and/or environmental abatement expenses. 1n y N W 0 CITY OF ELGIN WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY W PARKING CONSULTANTS 411` eh dik additional expense for cashier payroll and additional equipment. Presently none of the city's parking facilities is attended and that was also assumed for all of the proposed alternatives • These figures are preliminary estimates and are based on typical unit costs. It must be remembered throughout this analysis that the purpose is to compare the schemes on an apples-to-apples basis. 4" The perception now is that there is a parking shortage in the core of Recommended Parking • the downtown (Office/Retail/Residential-West Activity Center) which is Solutions confirmed by the present deficit of 160 spaces. Additionally, there is • projected to be a parking deficit in the Civic Cultural Activity Center, which is mainly due to the proposed 144,000 square foot recreation center to be built on Blocks 2 and 4. Therefore, Walker's recommendations are as follows: 4111 Ilk 1 . Enhance the parking at the NBD/Osco site by beginning the • planning for mixed-use development, which would contain a • parking structure. It would appear that the best solution for this site is Alternative 3-D. Alk 2. At the time the recreation center is built, construct a three-level two- bay parking structure on Block 3 (Alternative 1-A with provisions for • a future fourth level (Alternative 1-B). 4,6 The City has recently hired an urban planner to update their downtown 4111 master plan. The future scenario presented as part of this parking study 411 did not have the benefit of that analysis and citizen input throughout • master plan update will result in an updated downtown master plan. Walker feels that at this point it would be premature to recommend 41% long-range parking solutions prior to an updated approved master plan. 41111 a a a a 1111k a • 31 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 011" CITY OF ELGIN WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS (11116 CONCLUSIONS AND OP" Following are the conclusions that summarize the findings of the RECOMMENDATIONS IP" parking supply/demand and alternatives analysis: • The City of Elgin has a total parking supply of 3,542 spaces, of which 2,394 (68%) are public spaces, both on and off-street. 11011' • • In order to provide an effective parking supply cushion that allows • for the dynamics of vehicles moving in and out of parking stalls, to reduce the search time, and to allow for minor construction and 0111 snow cover, the effective parking supply is estimated to be 3, 150 spaces, or 89% of the total supply. • Parking occupancy counts were conducted on three different days: two weekdays (December 17, 1998 and September 14, 1999) and a Saturday (March 27, 1999). The overall peak occupancy • occurred at 10:00 a.m. on a weekday (September 14') when • 1 ,771 vehicles (50% of the total spaces) were observed occupied. • Currently, there is a 994-space parking surplus in the study area. 401" Only one activity center has a deficit; all the other activity centers • have a surplus of spaces. The Office/Retail/Residential-West now • has a deficit of 160 spaces. 410' • The downtown parking demand was projected to increase by • reducing the downtown building vacancy, the rehabbing of several !Oh vacant buildings, construction of a recreation center and • establishing some additional retail. 06 • Based on our projections, the current parking surplus (994 spaces) 014 would decrease to a deficit of 627 spaces in the future. 0 • Comparing the parking demand against the effective parking supply on either a block-by-block or quadrant basis does not • adequately reflect the parking situation as perceived by the users. Through discussions with City staff, parking service areas around • major activity centers and development opportunities have been developed to more accurately reflect the parking situation as perceived by the users. These activity service areas, which consist of block, clusters, more accurately describe the parking situation • than either individual blocks or quadrants and provide parking within a reasonable walking distance. • • A significant parking deficit is projected to occur within the Oh Office/Retail/residential - West activity center of 1004 spaces. fib 32 Oh CITY OF ELGIN WALKER 4.1 DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY W PARKING CONSULTANTS Oh ih Two other activity centers: Civic Cultural and Institutions-South — are projected to have deficits of 96 and 48 spaces, respectively. All of the other activity centers will have a surplus of spaces. 0 • • Walker has developed 14 parking alternatives to satisfy the • existing and future parking deficits. • Walker also investigated adding one or two levels to the existing • Spring Street Deck. The deck was not designed for additional • levels. • A presentation to the public was held on July 20, 1999. The public perceives, and our analysis confirms, there is a parking • deficit in the core of downtown (Office/Retail/Residential-West a Activity Center). 416 • Walker would recommend the following parking program to meet existing and near-term parking deficits. a a 1 . Begin planning for a mixed used development which contains a parking structure on the NBD/Osco site. The best solution 4111. for this site appears to be Alternative 3-D. a • 2. Construct a three-level, two-bay 340 space parking structure on Block 3 at the time the recreation center is built. 411k a a a a 141 a a a a S a a a 5 33 . APPENDIX A SCOPE OF SERVICES A 00. Ow CITY OF ELGIN WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS SCOPE OF SERVICES Data Collection (Phase I) 1 . Meet with officials from the City of Elgin to further clarify study objectives; review the previous studies; define study area(s), parking analysis zones; and review and update the work plan including the schedule. • #� 2. Collect parking occupancy data (one day) for all on and off-street parking within the study area. 4.14 Parking Supply and Demand Update (Phase II) !'► 014 1 . Obtain from the City of Elgin changes that have occurred and are projected to occur in land use. 414 2. Obtain from the City of Elgin, and verify the field changes that . have occurred in the on-street and off-street parking inventory. 3. Update the tabulated parking inventory from the two previous studies. 4. Update the existing parking demand model utilizing the updated land use and parking occupancy data. • * 5. Determine the future parking demand under two to three development scenarios prepared by the City of Elgin. flok Typically, the scenarios include: 1) committed development that reflects projects either in construction or expected to begin within ,i the next three years; 2) expected development that reflects projects * likely to occur within four to seven years; and 3) optimistic development that may come to fruition in the longer term. 6. Compare the parking supply with projected future demand to determine the impact each of the development scenarios will have on area parking conditions. " ` 7. Identify areas with parking deficiencies that are likely to require I�► expansion of the parking supply. 8. Prepare a draft report or review and discuss findings with City of ' Elgin staff, New Century Partnership and Downtown 4111 Neighborhood Association. Oh 1 eh. CITY OF ELGIN110 WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY PARKING CONSULTANTS Parking Alternatives Analysis (Phase III) • 1 . Determine whether the number of spaces could be increased through restriping and efficiency improvements in existing facilities. 1!" 2. Determine whether any existing facilities can be expanded to meet • area parking needs. 41" 411.1" 3. Develop a number of conceptual solutions, including those developed as part of Walker's February, 1997 Parking Study for new parking facilities (surface and/or structured). External • variables that will be considered are desirable density, phasing of • construction and incorporation of other uses (such as retail) in any • proposed facility. 4. Determine conceptual construction and project costs including • estimated operational expenses to enable a comparison of the • costs of each alternative on an "apples-to-apples" basis. • 5. Evaluate the various alternatives on the basis of qualitative criteria • to be mutually agreed upon with the City of Elgin. The criteria may • include but is not limited to capital cost, life cycle cost, ability to • generate revenue, location, visibility, pedestrian access, vehicular access, traffic impact, aesthetics, implementation time, security, (Ph and future versatility. A weighted matrix will be used to achieve • more objectivity and to rank the alternatives. 6. Meet with the City of Elgin, New Century Partnership and Downtown Neighborhood Association to discuss the conceptual designs and present the matrix analysis to agree upon weighting and other considerations. 401 7. Develop a recommended plan for improvements, including phasing 411` of components corresponding to projected needs. 0 oph 8. Prepare phase report. Final Report — (Phase IV) 0 • 1 . Conduct one formal presentation of our findings. 2. Incorporate the City's comments, and those obtained form the • formal presentation, prepare final report and submit to the City with • executive summary. • 2 p CITY OF ELGIN WALKER DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY W PARKING CONSULTANTS p 3. Provide five (5) copies of the final report. Provide the City of Elgin with a computerized file of the final report in Word format. p • 0• • p p p • • P P • p • fib a p a p 0 a p a p a 3 APPENDIX B r PARKING TABLES • TABLE B-1: Existing Parking Supply Tuesday, 9/14/99 City of Elgin, CBD Parking Study Elgin, Illinois ON-STREET PARKING OFF-STREET PARKING 10 hr 2 hr 1 hr 30 min 15 min 10 min Private Public I Effective Block Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit HCHCParking Parking HCSubtotal Total Effective Supply (.951 (.95) (.95) 1951 (.951 _ (.951 (.85) , 1.851 (.901 (.85) Supply supply Ratio 1 1 0 17 159 7 183 183. 164 0.90 2 5- 5 107 107 112 101 0.90 3 3131 f 0' 31 29 0.94 4 26 26 521 52� 78 69 0.88 5 4, It 1 5' 191 56. 1 . 76 81 72 0.89 6j 0 137 6 143 143 122 0.85 6A 0 42 42 42 36 0.86 7 8' 8 74 346' 13 433 441 393 0.89 8 4 2 6' 57 5. 62 68 58 0.85 9 3' 3 71 71 74 63 0.85 10 6 6 12 172 3 175 187 160 0.86 11 19 6 _ 25 64 48 I 6 118 143 126 0.88 12 6 3 1 1 1 3 13 0 13 12 0.92 13 10 4 1 14 7, f 7 21 19 0.90 14 I 8 8' 31 50' 3 84 92 82 0.89 15 21 11 1 21 12 12 33 30 0.91 16 I 27 I 27 37 37 64; 57 0.89 17 S 201- � 20 14 369 1 384 404, 364 0.90 •18 18 f 1 18 5 339 7 351 369 332 0.90 19 9 9 23 2 25 34 30 0.88 20 31 31 6 6 37 35 0.95 21 13 _ 13 0 0 13 12 0.92 22 23 23 82 50 2 134 157 138 0.88 23 L _ 0' 85 4 89 89 80 0.90 24 30 1 3 1 140 1 141 172' 149 0.87 25 - I 1. 0 0 0 0 0.00 26 25 1 25- 327' 327 352 318 0.90 27 50 f 1 I 1 50 57 21 59 109 98 0.90 TOTAL 301' 212 69- - 0 , 25 11 61 424 1,1191 1,936' 633,1 18 3,542 3,1491 0.89 %of Subtotal 16% 1% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% 22% 36% 62% 2% 100% %of Total 8% 1% 2%' 0% 1% 0% 0% 12% 32% 55%' 2% 88% Note:The total effective parking supply of 3,149 differs by 3 spaces from the text which is due to the rounding of numbers. Walker Parking Consultants 12/17/99 fe4 elk irk elk frik TABLE B-2: PARKING OCCUPANCY for a WEEKDAY Tuesday,9/14/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Oh Elgin,Illinois ill111 Block location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 Peak Occupancy IP e 1 On-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Private Off-Street 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 • Public Off-Street 166 19 83 89 89 77 120 85 72.3% 120 . 011 Block Totals 183 - 19 83- 89 89 77 120 85 65.6% 120 4014 2 0n-Street 5 2 8 4 4 3 1 1 160.0% 8 • Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public Off-Street 107 9 19 15 16 11 11 , 77 72.0% 77 011 Block Totals .. 112 11 27 19 20 14 1278 69.6% 85 IP 3 On-Street 31 15 23 18 14, 5 0 4 74.2% 23 I.' Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 OP IP' Block Totals 31 15 23 18 14 5 0 4 74.2% 23 4.P1 4 On-Street 26 19 19 19 18 11 15 16 73.1% 19 4014Private Off-Street Public Off-Street 52 29 32 0 32 41 27 14 12 78.8% 0 0 0.0% 41 0 00 0 0, 0 Block Totals 78 48 51 51 59 38 29 28 7• 5.6% 60 • 5 I On-Street 5 4 9 8_ 81 5 3 4 180.0% 9 'Private Off-Street 19 6 6 4 6,1 4 1 0 31.6% 6 ill Public Off-Street 57 12 13 11 131 10 5 3 22.8% 13 916 BlockTotals 1 811 22 28 23 27 19 9 7 34.6% 28 lb 6 On-Street 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 . Private Off-Street 143 28 44 30 30 22 20 21 30.8% 44 4111 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 • Block Totals 1431 28 44 30 - 30 22 - 20 21 - 3• 0.8% 44 4, 6A On-Street ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 ill Private Off-Street 42 35 38 43 38 41 39 33 102.4% 43 ilk Public Off-Street . ... _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 _ ..._ fib Block Totals I 42 35 38} 43 38 41 39 33102.4% 43 0111 7 On-Street 8 2 4 2 2 3 1 0 50.0%, 4 . Private Off-Street 74 40 62 40 46 55 54 27 83.8% 62 Public Off-Street 359 287 257 171 218 170 53 86 79.9% 287 4//k - .. , • Block Totals 441 329 323 213 266 - 228 108 113 7• 4.6% 353 0 0 ' lb Walker Parking Consultants 12/20/99 0 ei r ell, Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 Peak Occupancy dna 8 On-Street 6' 1 3 1 5 2 2 2 83.3% 5 Private Off-Street 62 41 34 25 43 38 36 34 69.4% 43 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals 68 42 _ 37 26 48 40 381 36 70.6% 48 eh 9 On-Street 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 0 100.0% 3 I. Private Off-Street 71 48 58 54 54 49 29 31 81.7% 58 Public Off-Street 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 * Block Totals 1 741 51 61 57 57- 52 30 31 82.4% 61 01 10 On-Street 12 6 10 12 9 15 11 11 125.0% 15 • Private Off-Street 175 48 56 51 61 54 10 40 34.9% 61 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0.0% 0 O Block Totals 187 54 66 63 70' 69 21 51 37.4% 76 • 11 On-Street 25 10 10 8 10 10 3 9 40.0% 10 Private Off-Street 68 22 21 23 22 20 12 18 33.8% 23 0 Public Off-Street 50 13 15 15 16 8 10 10 32.0% 16 Block Totals 143 45 46 46 48 38 25 37 33.6% 49' 0114 Oh 12 On-Street 13 11 10 8 13_ 9 6 7 100.0%1 13 Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%I 0 0111 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals 13 1 1 1 10 8 13 9 61 7 100.0% 13 0 13 On-Street 14 6 4 5 6 5 3 9 64.3% 9 Oh Private Off-Street 7 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 42.9% 3 diih Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0- _ y 0 0 0 0.0% 0 ' Block Totals 21 8 a 7 8 Si 71 4 1 1 52.4% 12 • 14 On-Street 8 4 4 5 4 4 3 6 75.0% 6 01 Private Off-Street 34 4 8 3 9 9 1 4 26.5% 9 Public Off-Street 50 20 16 16 20 19 0 0 40.0% 20 • Block Totals 92 28 28 24 33 32 4 10 35.9% 35 P 15 On-Street 21 16 12' 17 14 13 21 17 100.0% 21 • Private Off-Street 12 5 9 7 7 6 4 3 75.0% 9 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals 33 21 .. 21.. - 24 21 19 25 20 75.8% 30 • 16 On-Street 27 15 22, 20 17 24 16 7 88.9% 24 Private Off-Street 37 15 19 17 12 12 3 3 51.4% 19 O Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 011b Block Totals 64 30 41 37 29 36 19- 10 64.1% 43 illh Oh Oh Walker Parking Consultants 12/20/99 rte. t^ ell Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 Peak Occupancy w 17 On-Street 20 5 1 4 7 7 4 10 50.0% 10 E Private Off-Street 15 9 6 0 1 0 3 3 60.0% 9 e Public Off-Street a 369 265 264 248 269 217 107 103 72.9% 269 Block Totals ,404 279 271 252 277 224 114 116 69.1% 288 18 On-Street 18 17 14 10 6 10 9 16 94.4% 17 e Private Off-Street 5 2 4 5 4 5 5 5 100.0% 5 Public Off-Street 346 166 190 154 170 142 20 19 54.9% 190 P. e Block Totals _ 369 185 208 169 180 157 34 40 56.4% 212 • 19 On-Street 9 7 8 7 7 9 5 12 133.3% 12 t. Private Off-Street 25 16 18 17 13 21 13 10 84.0% 21 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 04 _ Block Totals 34 23 26 24 20 30 18 22 88.2% 33 t• 20 On-Street 31 12 14 16 17 14 24 31 100.0% 31 Private Off Sheet 6 0 0 0 0 1 7 7 1 16.7% 7 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals 37 12 14 16 17 15 31 38 102.7% 38 01 21 On-Street 131 11 14 10 11 14 7 19 146.2% 19 Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 Public Off-Street 0I 0 0 0 00w 0 0. 0 0.0% 0 01 Block Totals 13 11 '14 10 1 1 J 14 7_ 19 146.2% 19 22 On-Street 23 12 13 17 5 9 21 20 91.3% 21 01 Private Off-Street 84 37 38 44 42 30 50 49 59.5% 50 4114 Public Off-Street 50 11 9 _ 9 5 6 11 26 52.0% 26 *' Block Totals 157 60 -601 70 52 45 82 95 60.5% 97 23 On-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 * Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public Off-Street 89 97 87 79 79 68 20 25 109.0% 97 lillh Block Totals 89 97 87 79 79 68 20 25 109.0% 97 • 24 On-Street 31 13 14 18 13 13 16 17 58.1% 18 01 Private Off-Street 141 104 63 66 46 39 83 40 73.8% 104 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 * Block Totals 172 117 77 84 + 59w 52� W 99 J 57 68.0%1 122 • 25 On-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 01 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0.0% 0 tl0 _ _ y Block Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 * 411 411 Walker Parking Consultants 12/20/99 0 e r elk flik Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 I 8:00 1 Peak Occupancy 26 On Street 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Private Off Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public OffStreet 327 50 52 55 40 34 53 72 22.0% 72 ell Block Totals 352 50 52 551 40 34 53 72 20.5% 72 fik 27 On-Street 50 2 2 3 2 2 0 0 6.0% 3 P Private Off-Street 59 30 26 26 37 29 11 20 62.7% 37 Oh Public Off-Street 0 0 0- 0 0_ 0 0 0 0.0% 0 • Block Totals 10932 2829 39 31 11 20 35.8% 401 4111 TOTAL On-Street 424 193 221 215 195 190 172 218 52.1% 300 • TOTAL Private Off-Street 1 148 521 545 490 515 464 396 362 47.5% 654 TOTAL Public Off-Street 1970 949 1005 862 935 762 410 506 51.0% 1 187 P TOTAL 3542 1663 1771 1567 1645 1416 978 1086 50.0% 2141 0 91 fil 04 0 Oh • * Oh +IIS 0 flik 41111 OP) filk 1>� II Oh • 0 41.1 Ohl 11 0 Oh Walker Parking Consultants 12/20/99 1 , $ 1 1 -/ 1 '1 $ i 1 1 a '9 -1 1 1 t I -V 11 -1 9 I 1 -1 1 I/ 1 1 I I 1 -I 91 1 -111 1 1 1 Page 1 TABLE B4: Existing Land Use Saturday,3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Block Parcel Nuntbor Address Owner Dweilkig UN Brakedown Total SQ.FT. I , Units 1 , Office I Retail I Bank I Restaurant V Residential I Industrial I Institutional 1 Public I Vacant . 1 06-14-276-002 200 N.Grove library library 1 79,000 79,000 06-14276403250 N.Grove City - Vacant _ 06-14276404 - N,Grove City - Vacant J 0 0 06-14276-005 ' 200(206 N.Grove Library Library i 0 Block Totals:SQ.F1.Rand Use0 0 , 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 79,000 0 79,000 ' 2 06.14-239-001 229 N.Grove I City - Vacant 1 i- 0 06-14-239-002 55 Kimball City Vacant 0 06-142390 .03 216 Brook City , Vacant _ . 0 06-14-239-004 225 N.Grove City Vacant _ 0 06-14239-005 56 Water City Vacant - i 0 06-14-239-008 216 Brook Cily Vacant _ 0 . .. Block Totals:SQ.FT./Land-Use 0 0 0 J 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 06-14240-001 200 Brook City Vacant , , , 0 06-14240-001 74 North City - Vacant .w. 0 Block Totals:SQ.FT./Land Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f.. ... .. 0 0 4 06-14241-002 Kim-boll City Vacant I _ I I I 0 06-14-241-003 115 Kimball City - V- acant 0 06-14-241-004 119/121 Kimball City - Vacant .t i .... 0 06-14241-005 Kimboll/Douglas City Vacant 0 06-14-241-006 230 Douglas ..... City -..- Vacanti . ' 0 1 06-14-241-007 Douglas City - -- V- acant - - _ - 0 06-14241-008 222 Douglas - City - Vacant 0 , 06-14.241-009 - 222 Douglas City - Vacant 0 06-14241-010 200 Douglas - -- Vacant 0 06-14-241-011 - 146 North - City Parking ________ 0 Block Totals:SO.-FT.Rand Use • 00 1 0 ... 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 5 06-14242-003 165 Kimball Cite ...._ Vacant 06-14-242-007 . Douglas Haight . 0 06-14242-009 - 211 las Goodyear -- Business 8,100 8,100 06-14242-010 - 201 as Micha Parking . 0 — 06-14242-011 -, 158/160 North ' Halsey Business 900 15,300 r 16,200 06.14242-013 222 N.S•ring Griffith Business0 06.14242-015 North Griffith Business . 0 06-14-242-016 - 200 N.Spring Griffith — Business . 11,000 11,000 0614242-017 246 N.Spring City Vacant i 0 06-14-242-019 245 Douglas City Vacant 0 06.14242-020 - 231 Douglas Haight -- Business . _ 5,900 5,900 — . . 06.14242421 N.Spring Ci Vacant 0 , 06-14242-022 7 219 Douglas Haltit Parking - I 0 06-14242-023 166 North Haight Business . 9,000 19,000 28,000 06-1 4242-024 - . 0 06-14242-025 - 226 N.Spring Griffith - _ _ Business , 6,500 6,500 06-14242-026/029 t 231 Douglas Haight Vacant 6,000 6,000 , .- block Totals:SQ.FT./Land Use 0 _ 0 0 0 , 900 - ''' 0 , 19,100 15,500 0 46,200 81,700 6 06-13-107-006 1 240 Center Vacant I 1 I I 0 . 06-13-107-009 215 Spring - Ace Business '. 32,512 32,512 — 06-13-107-011 220 Center Ace - Business . 0 06-13-107-012 218 Center Ace Business _ 0 06-13-107-0)3 203 N.Spring [lgin Key Business , 3,846 3,846 , 06-13-107-014 NorthElgin Key - Business - 0 Walker Parking Consultants 12/20/99 -9 10 '9 1 9 -'1 1 '0 -4 -1 'I -, 1 1 9 a 9 Page 2 TABLE 8-3: Existing Land Use Saturday,3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Block Parcel Number Address Owner Oweirusg Use - BrakedownTotal SQ.FT. Units Office Retail Bank Restaurant Residential Industrial Institutional Public Vacant 06-13-107-015 210 North Elgin Key - Business 2,550 - 2,550 06-13-107-016 214 North Ace Business 3,906 : _ 3,906 06-13-107-017 220 North Ace Business 792 792 06-13-107-018 212 Center Ace Vacant 0 06-13-107-019 210 North - Ace Vacant 0 - 06-13-107-025 ,- 215 N.Spring . _ -Ace Business '------C---- 06.13-107-026 Center Ace Business - 0 06-13-107-028 205 Kimball , City Vacant - 06-13-107-029 Spring Ace Vacant - . 0 06-13-107-031 236 Canter - 0 . _ _ , 06-13-107-032 207 Kimball Ace Vacant 0 06-13-107-034 213 Kimball Ace . Vacant 0 - . _ 06-13-107-035 209 Kimball Ace Vacant _ 06-13-107-036 215 Kimball Ace Vacant , .1- . . 0 06-13-107-037 Kimball City Vacant 0 Block Totals;SQ.FT./Land Use [ 0 _i_ 3,906 1 32,512 1 0 0 0 ...7 7,188 0 0 0 . 43,606 .. 6A 06-13-108-002233 Center Ace Vacant 1- I 0 06-13-108-003 ' 227 Center Ac. - Vacant 1 0 06-13-108-004 225 Center lansinisz0 . - 06-13-108-005 222 Dundee Stairs . Business ' 2,990 2,990 06-13-108-006 219 Canter Hodge 1 Single-Family . 1,500 . 1,500 , 06-13-108-007 213/215 Center Easter - Vacant 0 06-13-108-008 : 211 Center Collins 1,500 . . 1,500 06-13-108-012 , .. -275 Kimball City Vacant 0 06-13-108-013 - 250 Dundee - City Vacant i . 0 08-13-108-014 230 Dundee Ace ., . .Vacant 0 06-13-108-015 228 Dundee Ace - Vacant 0 _ 06-13-108-018 220/222 Dundee - Stairs - 0 06-13-108-017 216 Dundee Stairs Business -- 2,168 ----------' 2,168 06-13-108-018 212 Duns "'" Trust , 5,726 . 5,726 . . ' 06-13-106-019 210 Dundee Moran Vacant - 0 06-13-108-021 Kimball City Vacant . 0 - - 08-13-108-022 Kimball Ace Vacant 0 ... . . . /lock Totals:SQ.FT.!Land-Use I 1,500 5,158 0 0 1,500 5,726 0 0 0 13,884-.. 7 06-14276-0081011 150 Dextpr/Hommens- CI City Hall _ 112,000 112,000 06.14-276-01066 N.Grove Post Office 34,225 34,225 06-14276-012 . 69 N.Grove Court 0 . . . _ _ 06-14-277-001 160 Douglas . 0 Block Totals:SQ.PT./Ink!Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146,225 0 146,225 8 06-14278-014 172 N. .ing I- 1 I 0 06-14-278-014/023 ' 151 as City .,- Police Dept. - 83,000 83,000 06-14-278-018 - 0 06-14-278 .-018/023 - 0 _-. . -,,,- ...... Black Totals:SQ.FT./Land Use 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ,, 83,000 0 83,000 9 06-13-151-003 217 North Kellenberger Business 1 7,951 7,951 - ' 06-13-151-004 168 Canter - Business ' 440 440 06-13-151-006 - 151 N.Spring Burnham - -_, Business 3,000 3,000 . 06-13-151-007 - 208 Dexter , Khan -4 Multi-Family 4,600 4,600 06-13-151-008 214 Dasior Kellenborger . - Vacant 1,0000 _ - 06-13-151-009 - 220 Dexter Centanni 4 - Multi-Family2,000 - _ 2,000 _ 06-13-151-010 .. 160 Dexter _ Ramirez 1 Sines-Family , 1000 . 06-13-151-011 156 Center Ramirez 2 - Single-Family 721 . - 721 _., 06.13-151-012 224 Dexter Hai Vacant 0 Walker Parking Consultants 12/20/99 , Page 3 TABLE B-3: Existing Land Use Saturday,3/27/99 City of Elgin,CEO Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Block Parcel Number Address Owner Dwelling- Use Brake:lawn Total SQ.FT. Units Office Retail Bank Restaurant Residential Industrial Institutional Public Vacant 06-13-151-013226 Dexter Hill 2 ... Multi-Family ' 1,400 • 1,400 06-13-151-016 - 203 North Amodh. 2 Multi-Family 2400 2,600 06-13-151-017 North Kellenberger _ Vacant 0 06-134 51.018 165/167 N.Spring Bunion Business 1,400 _ • 1400 IllocCrotals:SQ.FT./Land Use 15 1,400 0 0 0 12,321 11,391 0 0 0 25,112 --- - I 0 06-14297-001 115 Douglas City Vacant [ 1 , 0 06-14297.002/003 169/173 Dexter St.John Parking . 0 06-14297-004 122 N.Spring Born 2 ' Multi-Family 1 1 1,500 1,500 06-14297-007 Ill Douglas Dwyer -., Business ' 2,800 s EIMIIIIII=M1111 - 2,800 I. 06-14297.008 Douglas City , 0 06-14-297-009 156 Division Zu6a 45 - Multi-Family 45,000 45,000 0614-297.010 164 Division Stickling Business 35,200 -1 35,200 06-14297-011 102 N.Spring St.John - Parking 0 06-14297-012 114 N.Spring SI.John 4 Multi-Family • 5,400 3,400 _ , 06-14-297-013 ' 120 N.Spring 1 Born 6 Multi-Family 1,5001 500 ..--. -- -......,..m. ...- r Block Totals:SQ.FT./Land Use 57 38,000 0 0 0 , 53,400 0 0 .-. o 0 91,400 11 06-13-154001 115 N.Spring St.John Church 0 0613454002Dexter St-John • • 0 06-13-154-003 - Dexter St.John 0 . 06-11154-004 ' 116 Center Fundbrg. 7Multi-Family 2,300 , 2,300 06-13-154 ,005 Center St.John - Church 0 06-13.154-006 109 N.Spring St.John School - . 0 06-13-154-007 103 N.Spring St.John - 7 - , 7,500 7,500 06-13454-013 212 Division St.Paul Vacant 0 06-13-154-014 216 Division St.Pail Vacant 0 . , 064 3-154 ,015 Division r St.Paul Church ' 0 06-13-154-016 220 Division St.Paul Church . 0 Block Totals:SQ.TT.nand Use 14r, 0 J 0 ....1 00 9,800 0 0 0 0 9,800 12 06-14280.001 59-63 Douglas Corn Business 10,600 5,000 15,600 06-14280-002 51 Douglas Barbosa Business 3,200 3,200 06-14-281-001/002 160 E.Highland Kummer/ 1 Single-Family 2,471 2,471 0644281-003 162/164 E.Highland Kresmery 2 Multi-Family 1,500 ... ' 1,500 06-14281-004 168 E.Highland Kr-emery Business 0 064 4281.005 172 E.Highland Kummer,' Business 53,50053,500 06-14-281-006 173 E.Highland Kreunery Business • 0 06-14281-007 50 N.Spring AEJ Corp. Restaurant -. 11,50011,500 -- -.. ....mmm. ....m--- Nock Totals:SQ.FT./Land Use , 3 67,300 5,000 0 11,500 3,971 0 0 0 0 87,771 13 06-134 57-001 _ - , ' _ ..I Park 0 06-13-157-002 216 E.Highland : First Methodist -I Church 0 Block Totals:SQ.R.nand Use 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0614282-004 28 N.Grove Heider Business r ' 14,600 14,600 06-14282-005 22/24 N.Grove First Chicago Parking , 06-14282-006 First Chicago Parking , 0 06-14-282-007 24 E.Chicago First Chicago - Business 10,000 . 10,000 06.14282.008 .. 12 E.Chicago First Chicago 06-14-282.009 14 E.Chicago - Amer.Notl.BankBusiness - Businss ' 1- . 0 0 06-14282-010 - 168.Chicago ..s AmerrNatl.Bonk Business 0 . _ _ 0614-282-011 ' • 0 I ••••- .... Al A • Block Totals:SQ.FT./Land Use 0 0 0 j 10,000 0 0 0 0 o 14,600 24,600 15 I 06-14-283-001 1 25/27 N.Grove l JR Prop. I I Business I 1,850 I- 1,850 r 1 1 ! -1 1 I I 3,700 Walker Parking Consultants 12/20/99 11 I 1 11 -I 11 9 1 '4 9 -I '9 1 1 '1 -9 I 1 'a Page 4 TABLE B-3: Existing Land Use Saturday,3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Block Parcel Number Address Owner Dwelling Use -------------ilrakedown Total SQ.FT. 1 Units i Office . Retail Bank Restaurant Residential Industrial Institutional Public Vacant , , 1 . ' 06-14283-002 23 N.Grove JR Prop. , Parking , 0 06-14-283-003 21 N.Grove JR Prop. Parking 1- 0 0614283-004 19 N.Grove JR Prop. Parking I 0 06-14-283-005 17/17 1/2 N.Grove JR Prop. 1 Mixed I 1,300 MEM= 1,300 2,600 ,.. 06-14283-00615 N.Grove Gasthaus "' , Restaurant 1 2,600 2,600 . - 06-14.283-007 ' 13 N.Grove , Gasthaus Restaurant 2,400 2,400 _ 06-14283-008 11 N.Grove Gasilaus Restaurant 2,400 2,400 , 06-14-283-012 113 E.Chicago I Heins Business 3,000 _ 3,000 • 06-14-283-013 18 Doos Kubiak Business 3,000 3,000 06-142E13-014 16 Das Kale . Business . 3,400 ' 3,400 - - , , 06-14283-015 , 14 Douglas White Business 3,400t 3,400 ..i.. 06-14283-016 10/12 Douglas Richards 1 Mixed 2,000 '' '' 2,000 4,000 1 06-14283-017 8 Douglas Jaramdlo Business - .2,600 . - - 2,600 06-14283-018 100 E.Chicago Stickling Business 34,000 . . 34,000 06-14.283-019/020 20/34 Douglas Heins Business 13,000 - 13,000 Block Totals:SQ.FT./Lanci Use 2 58,150 8,250 3,000 7,400 3,300 0 0 0 0 80,100 16 0614284-002 21 Douglas Anderson Business 3,600 T 3,600 06-142134-003 ,, 19 Douglas Keeney Business 3,600 3,600 _ 0614-284004 17 Douglas Steffen Business 4,400 4,400 0614284007 0 . - . 06-14284-008 152 E.Chicago ," , Business 0 _ 06-14-284-009 154 E.Chicago - Business 0 _ - 0614-284-010 , 156 E,Chicago - Kim : Business 5,300 5,300 0614284011 158 E.Chicago - Big Brother Business 3,5003,500 06-14-284-012 , 160 E.Chicago ,, D-R Ent. - - Business 4,900 _ 4,900 06-14284-013 162 E.Chicago Zimmerman Business 4,800 - 4,800 0614-284-014 "" 164 E.Chicago - Leag . Business 1 10,500 - ' , 1-- , 10,500 06-14-284-015 " 168/172 E.Chicago e- Shales , Business 1,250 1 1,250 , - 2,500 06-14-284-016 11 Douglas - Steffens Business L, I 2,000 1 ' . 12,000 06-14284-017 , 23 Douglas Gavin Business I- 3,300 , F „ 3,300 06-14284-018 115 E.Chicago - Sabo Business 1,000 1,000 0614285-001 , 165 E.Highland Dioz Restavrat • 2,400 , 2,400 0614285-008 176 E.Chicago Elgin Federal Business 4,200 4,200 06-14-285-012 16 N.Spring Horne Federal Business ' 35,000 • 35,000 i Block Totals:SQ.PT./Land Lise , 0 30,650 25,250 39,200 2,400 1 0 0 ' 3,500 0 0 101,000 17 0613-159-001 200 E.Chicago - Deck r I 0 . - ... 1613-159-004 Highland . ome HFedera . .l Drive-Up - . _ 1 0 16-13-159-005 40 Center Episcopal Church 0 16-13-159-006 14 Center - . - t Home Federal . Drive-Up _ 0 1613-159-009 • 214 E.Chicago - Sakolari Business , 4,800 4,800 - 1613-159-010 216 E.Chicago - Taloa' Business 6,900 6,900 I 613-159-011/012 220E.Chicago , YWCA Institutional 30,360 30,360 .......--.........w...... Block Totals:SQ.FT./Land Use 0 0 11,700 0 0 0 0 I 30,360 0 0 42,060 18 06-14-433-013 14$.Grove City Parking L f 0 1 06-14-433-01416 S.Grove - City - Vacant F 0 . : , 06-14-433-015 06-14433-016 4433-017 24/26 S.Grove ... 28 S.Grove 38 S.Grove . City City Pro Mac 06-14-433419 3388SS..Grove. Pr Grove Pro°MMac°c Parking Parking Business Business . , _ , 0 Business _ 0 0 061 0 06-14-433-018 0 0614-433-020 "' 52 S.Grove Latino Business 3,1003,100 0614-433-021 54 S.Grove - Business , - - . 0 0614-433-022 56 S.GroveRieke Business 14,000 14,000 , . 06-14-433-023 60 S.Grove -Casino Foundalion Business 4 300 , 4,300 Walker Parking Consultants 12/20/99 Page 5 TABLE B-3: Existing Land Use Saturday,3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBO Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Block Parcel Number Address Owner Dwerrg Use Itrakedown Total SQ.FT. Units Office Retail Bank Restaurant Residential Industrial Institutional Public Vacant ... 06-14-433-024 625.Grove Centro _ _ Business 11,200 11,200 - I - 06-14-433-025 64 S.Grove Rieke Business 5,400 5,400 06-14-433-026 66 S.Grove Trust Business 5,300 5,300 06-14-433-027 65 Riverside Bray Business - 6,600 6,600 06-14-433-028 72 5.Grove Bray Business 6,400 - 6,400 0614433429 745.Grove Bray Business 6,600 _ _ 6,600 T06-14-433-030 805.Grove Bray Business - 13,000 13,000 06-14-433-031 96 S.Gray* D/A Prop Theater .. . 12,000 12,000 . _ T 06-14-433-036 , 1005.Grove City Parking . 0 _ 06-14-433-036 ) City Parking _ , 0 06-14-433-037 100 S.Grove City Parking _ 0 06-14-433-039 6 5,Grove 1 City Parking 0 1 ... 06-14433-040 , 100 S.Grove City 0 t 4 , ...._ 1 06-14433-041 122 S.Grove ,, Heaverly Business 1,000 , 1,000 06-14-433-043 32/52 S.Grove Pro Moc Business 110,000 10 000 120,000 - ----- .- --- ---- -- -- - -... Block Totals:SQ.FT./Land Use 0 159,900 ' 6,400 ti 6,600 0 10,000 0 0 26,000 208,900 19 06-14-434-001 101 E.Chicago Union Bank , Business 1 F 8,160 I I 8,160 06.14434-002 101 E.Chicago Union Bank .. Drive-Up 0 - - 06-14434-003 161 E.Chicago Amarth. - ,Business 5,000 5,000 0614434-004 163 E.Chicago - Yaniz . Business - 1,750 ,- 1,750 3,500 06-14434405 165 E.Chicago Yaniz Business 3,500 3,300 06-14-434006 167 E.ChicagoBusiness3 500 3,500 . Reuter A , 06-14-434-007 169 E.Chicago Anderson Business , 3,500 3,500 4 0414434-010 175 E.Chicago - Union Bank Parking I : 0 06-14-434-012 23 S.Grove - Pan Cor - Business I 1,000 . 25,000 , 26,000 06-14434-015 31 S.Grove - City . Office 14,700 ' - . ' 14,700 06-14-434-01630 Dv Page Seigle Business 26,000 26,000 _ - 06-14-434-017 : 40 Du Pogo - Seigle Business 43,000 43,000 . . . 06-14434-019/020 S.Grove - Pan Cor Vacant ' 0 06-14-434-021 Chicago/Spring Union Bonk , Parking ' 1 1 - 0 . Block Totals:SQ.FT.!Land Use 0 87,200 ' 8,750 ....L. 8,160 1,000 0 0 5,000 0 26,750 136,860 20 ' 0643-301-001 19 S.Spring F Jones Business _ 6,000 I 6,000 _ __..--- 06-13-301-002 235.Spring Maring Business 6,000 . 6,000 06-13-302-001 201 E.Chicago Livingston I Business 1,8001,800 3,600 06-13-302-002 , 203 E.Chicago Livingston 1 Business 1,800 . 1,800 3,600 , 06-13-302-003 5/11/13 S.Spring - Kim Business ' 6,000 I: 6,000 , 06-11302-004205 E.Chicago Wrona , Business 9,000 9,000 06-13-302-005 - 209/211 E.Chicago - Bakstad - Business 10,000 ' 5,000 - 15,000 06-13-302-006 213 E.Chicago Bolutad Business 2,000 _.... 2,000 06.13-302-007 ' 215 E.Chicago - Lao Trod - 1 Mixed 1,150 1,150 2,300 06-13-302-008 217 E.Chicago - Sokolari Restaurant ' 2,000 2,000 - _ 06-13-302-009 219 E.Chicago Sakolori Restaurant 1,500 I . . 1,500 06-13-302-010 221/223 E.Chicago Ginsberg Business - 17,400 . 17,400 , 06-13-302-011 225/227 E.Chicago ... Ruffle 7 . .Mixed 3,000 3,000 6,000 I. 0613-302-01210 Villa Ct. K of C - Fraternal _ 3,000 06-13-302413 ' 12 Villa Ct. Monthly . 2 Multi-Family - -II I 1,500 ' 3,000 i 1,500 _ [ 06-13-302-014 210 Du Page Baker Business 3,600 [ 3,600 15/19 Dealer Ct. - Baker Business 13,800 - -I . . 13,800--- 06-13-3021315 I 18 Villa Ct. Elks Fraternal , ' 20,000 20,000 Block Totals:SQ.FT./Land-Use 12 ,j 61,150 20,400 0 8,500 9,230 ' 0 23,000 0 i 0 122,300 ' 21 0414435-001 , 51 S.Grove Weds - Business - 11,000 I -, 11,000 06-14435-002 , 59/61 S.Grove ...., Vargas 1 Mixed ..... 0 0614435-003 65 S.Grove Vargas Business - 0 06-14-435-004 _ 47 Dv Page 1 Trust Business 4,600 _ . - 4,600 ...... , Walker Parking Consultants 12/20/99 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 1 4 4 111 JO 1 4 I 'I I 1 1 1 11 1 4 1 1 4 ! 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 "t Page 6 TABLE B-3: Existing Land Use Saturday,3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Block Parcel Number Address Owner -Dwelling Use Brakedown Total SQ.FT. Units Office Retail Bank Restaurant Residential Industrial Institutional Public Vacant 06.14-435405 43 Du Page Pederson Business2,800 2,800 06-14.435-008 67 S.Grove City Vacant 0 06.14435-009 69/71 S.Grove Scholz Business 2,900 2,900 06.14.435-0101 73 S.Grove - Gavino Business - 2,100 2,100 06.14435-011 75 S.Grove Kohler Business 1,5001,500 06-14-435-012 79 S.Grove Trust Business 1,400 1,400 06.14.435-014/016 59/65 S.Grove Vargas Business 15,100 15,100 77 Riverside Business 0 Block Totals:SQ.FT./Land Use 1 20,000 ' 18,600 0 2,800 0 0 0 0 0 41,400 22 06.13305-001 51 S.Spring ECC School54,000 54,000 06.13.306-002 227 Du Pae Oak Tree Business 7,000 7,000 06-13-306-004 56/60 Villa Cavitt Restaurant f 2,100 2,100 06-13-306-006 Villa City Parking 0 06-13-306-007 Villa City Parking0 06-13-306-008 Du Page Elks Vacant 0 06-13306-008 Du Page Vacant 0 0613.306-009 221 Du Page Barna 1 Mixed 900 900 1,800 Block Totals:SQ.FT./Land Use 1 7,900 0 0 2,100 900 0 54,000 0 0 64,900 24 06-13-309-001 101 S.Grove Sr.Center Soc.Ser. 6,100 6,100 06-13309-002 113 S.Grove Halsey Business 20,000 19,500 39,500 06-13309-004 220 ProneCity 0 0613309.005 117-125 S.Grove Prorie Rock Business 5,225 5,225 06-13309-006 127 S.Grove Prarie Rock Business - - 0 06-13309-007 - 212 Prone Manahan 7 Mixed 14,600 14,600 0613309.008 216 Prorie - GPI Prop Business - 6,237 6,237 0613309.009 220 Prarie City - - 0 0613309-010 200 Prone Prone Rock Restaurant 9,800 9,800 0613.309-011 225 Fulton Seigle Vacant0 06-13.354-009/010 300 lake Courier News Business 27,000 27,000 0613310-001 247 Fulton Home Federal Business 6,200 6,200 0613310-002 110 Villa TurnersFraternal 1,380 1,380 06 _13-310.003 112 Villa Turners Fraternal 7,300 7,300 0613310-005 118 Villa - Cavitt 1 Single-Family 1,800 1,800 0613.310-006 ' 122 Villa Marion 1 Single-Family _ 2,400 2,400 0613310407 264 Prorie Brockner Business 3,500 3,500 0613310-008 264 Prorie Brockner Vacant 0 Block Totals:SQ.FT./land Use 9 47,000 11,462 6,200 29,300 18,800 3,500 14,780 0 0 131,042 Total SQ.FT./Land Use 115 584,056 153 482 66 560 72 500113 242 56 905 146 140 308 225 113 550 1 614 660 Walker Parking Consultants 12/20/99 11 .1 10 1 1 .11 1 1 1 . `1 / 1 li t -/ '! 1 1 1 ) i 11 11 1 1 1/ I I Vii / 11 1111111 TABLE B-4 Shared Parking Analysis Tuesday,9/14/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Land Use Units Peak Demand Ratio Non-Captive Ratio Monthly Adjustment Hourly Adjustment Local Adjustment 1 Walkers Adjusted Demand Ratio Spaces Retail 142982 S.F. 3.30 0.50 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.79 113 Furniture Retail 10500 S.F. 2.00 0.80 0.75 0.80 0.30 0.29 3 Restaurant 72500 S.F. 13.00 0.50 0.80 0.40 0.90 1.87 136 Office 584056 S.F. 3.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.86 1086 Banks 66560 S.F. 3.10 0.80 1.00 0.70 0.60 1.04 69 Government Offices 27000 S.F. 3.10 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.79 75 Courts 20000 S.F. 2.30 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.07 41 - Police/Jail 83000' S.F. 1.70 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.53 127 Post Office 34225 S.F. 3.50 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.15 108 Library 79000 S.F. 3.00 0.90 1.00 0.80 0.75 1.62 128 Single-Family Residence 26 Units 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1 23 Multi-Family Residence 35 Units 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.72 25 Elderly/Subsidized 45 Units 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.54 24 Clubs and Lodges 35180 S.F. 4.00 1.00 1.00 10.30 0.30 0.36 13 Industrial 56905 S.F. 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.49 28 University 54000 S.F. 10.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.30 I 1.50 81 Educational 11500 S.F. 1.30 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 1 1.05 ( 12 Churches 59796 S.F. 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.30 0.06 4 f Athletic Clubs 30360 S.F. 4.50 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.40 0.92 28 Auditorium 1200 Seats 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.05 0.01 6 Institutional 26600 S.F. 1.30 1.00 1.00 ! 0.90 0.90 1.05 `28 TOTAL DEMAND 2158 •Parking Demand Ratios are per 1000 S.F.,unit,or seat • q 3£} Tr n � 3 O 8 N Y r w w a LRMM aOapdNO 8 11:110111001 0 •In M 11 ‘4:°! IMPIEM ii• : :40.0 w w a xN 111111111101 1111111111111 IoIIIIIIIIlIIlIIIII O O O 8 O 8 0 1 111] 44�QQQj vo = O P P + Y • N N Y V r N % P Y F 4 4 a / l101 it ) i itl11 / 10 "10101/ 11110 / / / / / / / / 1 TABLE B-6: Existing Parking Supply Saturday, 3/27/99 City of Elgin, CBD Parking Study Elgin, Illinois . ON-STREET PARKING OFF-STREET PARKING - - 10 hr 2 hr 1 hr 30 min 15 min 10 min Private PublicEffective Block Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit HC Subtotal Parking Parking HC Subtotal Total 1 Effective Supply 85) Supply supply (.95) (.95) _ (.95) (.95) (.95) (.95) (.85)_ (.85) (.90) (. Ratio _ 1 . 0 17 159 7 183 183, 164 0.90 _ _ 2 5' 5- , 107 107 112 101 0.90 3 31 31 _ _ 0 31 29 0.94 4 26 26 52 52 78 69 0.88 _ 5 4 1 , 5 18 57 1 76 81 72 0.89 60 137 6 143 143 122 0.85 6A 0 421 42 42 36 0.86 7 8 8 74 346 13 433 441 393 0.89 _ _ 8 - 4 2 6 57-- 5 62 68 58 0.85 9 3' 3 71 717 63 0.85 10 6' 6 12 172 3 175 1874 160 0.86 11 19 6 H 4- 25+ 64 48 6! 118' 143 126 0.88 12 6 3 1 3 13 0 13 12 0.92 13 10 4_ , 14 501._ 7 21 19 0.90 8 14 - _ 8 31 3 84 92 82 0.89 15 21 I 21 12 _. 12 33 30 0.91 16 27 ' - 1 27- 3/ 37 64 57 0.89 - 17 20 20 14 369 1 384 404 364 0.90 . _ 18 18 - _ _ - 18 5- 254 7 266 284 256. 0.90 19 9 9 23 2 25 34 30 0.88 20 31 31 6 6 37 35 0.95 21 13 13 0 0 13 12 0.92 . . - 22 23 ' 23 82 50 2 134 157 138 0.88 23 - - - 0 85 4 89 89 80 0.90 _ 24 30 1- - 31 140 1 141 172 149 0.87 25 -- . a 0 0 0 0 0.00 26 25 _ 25 327 327 352 318 0.90 27 50- - 50 57 2 59 109 98 0.90 T•TAL 301 22 .9 0 25 1 6 .2, 1118 - 1852 63 3033 3457 307 0.89 %of Subtotal 71% 5% 16% 0% 6% 0% 17,,-- 100% 37% 61% 2% 100% %of Total 9% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 12% 32%' 54% 2% 88% Walker PArking Consultants 12/17/99 Ii ) TABLE B-7: PARKING OCCUPANCY for a SATURDAY • Saturday, 3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin, Illinois Block location Capacity 8:00 1 10:00 I 12:00 1 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 1 Peak Occupancy I I I I I • 1 On-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ol-, 0 0 0.0% 0 Private Off-Street 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public Off-Street 166 24 50 88 931 75 6 1031 5 2 62.0% 103 .• Block Totals 183 24 50 881 93 75 61 103 5 2 56.3% 103 2 On-Street 5 2 1 1 1 10 14 0 0 280.0% 14 Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public Off-Street 107 3 2i 31 2 2 0 54, 0 0, 50.5% 54 .... Block Totals 1121 5 3 41 3 3 0 681 0 0 60.7% 68 3 On-Street 31- 1 1 3 21 2F, 0 291 0 0 93.5%1 29 Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 or 0 ol 0 0 0.0% 0 Public Off-Street ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Blocknotals 31 1 1 3 2 2 0 29 0 0 93.5% 29 • 4 On-Street 26 14 14 11 10 8 7 22 7' 4 84.6%( 22 Private Off-Street 52 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 3 1 ' 11.5% 6 Public Off-Street 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0.0% 0 Block Totals 78 15 151 12 11 12 101 281 10 5 35.9% 28 — Walker Parking Consultants 12/23/99 1 i 1 11 `V I 1 1 I 1 1/ '1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I 11 1 1 1/ 1 1 11 11 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 -1 1 1 1 TABLE B-7: PARKING OCCUPANCY for a SATURDAY Saturday, 3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin, Illinois Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 1 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 1 10:00 12:00 Peak Occupancy 1 i 1 5 On-Street 1 5 1 3 31 1 2 5 5' 51 4 100.0% 5 Private Off-Street 19 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.3% 1 Public Off-Street 57 4 4 5: 5 3 1 1 1 1 8.8% 5 Bleck Totals 81 5 8 9 6 5 6 6 6 5-----71.1527 - 11 6 On-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0.0%1 0 Private Off-Street 143 18 27 32 28 32 331 37 36 33 25.9% 37 Public Off-Street 0 0' 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals 143* 18 271 32 281 32- 33 r 31 36 33 - 25.9% 37 6A On-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Private Off-Street 42 24 37 46 37 33 27 22 21 21 109.5% 46 Public Off-Street I 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0' 0 0 0.0%, 0 Block Totals 42 24 37 46 37 331 271 22 21 21 109.5%1 46 7 On-Street 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 125.0% 10 _ Private Off-Street 74 32 27 26 28 32 33 37 36 33 50.0% 37 Public Off-Street I 359 155 192 1361 105 67 41 196 33 24 54.6% 196 - . 1 Block Totals 441 191 219 1621 133 99 74 243- 69 57 55.1% 243 Walker Parking Consultants 12/23/99 11 -I 1 1 1 1 11 -1 , 1 1 1 lb '1 'I i III 11 / / 1/ 4041401 / It 1 / 1 / 41/ 4011 / / / 1 / / TABLE B-7: PARKING OCCUPANCY for a SATURDAY Saturday, 3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin, Illinois Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 Peak Occupancy 1 8 On-Street 6 1 4 1 1 4 7 3 0 1 116.7%1 7 Private Off-Street 62 44 46 47 47 41 47 36 58 39 93.5% 58 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 of o' 0 0 o _0.0% 0 Block Totals 68 45 50 48' 48 45 54 39 58 40 85.3% 65 9 On-Street 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo' 0 0.0% 0 Private Off-Street 71 29 27 20 23 25 29 22 21 21 40.8% 29 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 oi 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals 74 29 271 201 23 25 29 221 21 21 39.2%1 291 10 On-Street 12 9 9 7 8 8 2 16 11 8 133.3% 16 Private Off-Street 175 46 45 28 28 24 35 33 27 23 26.3% 46 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals 187 55 .54 35 36 32 371 49 381 31 29.4%1 62 11 On-Street 25 61 10 61 41 6 7 8 7 6 40.0%1 10 Private Off-Street 68 30 20 20 4 2 20 7 5 4 44.1% 30 Public Off-Street 50 12 11 7 8 8 14' 2 2 2 , — 28.0% 14 Block Totals 1431 48 411 331 16 161 41 17- 14 12 33.6%1, 54J Walker Parking Consultants 12/23/99 011 ) 11 , 11011119901 , 401141111411111 , , 111 -1111 -1111 TABLE B-7: PARKING OCCUPANCY for a SATURDAY Saturday, 3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 Peak Occupancy 12 On-Street 13 8 8 141 8! 9 7 5 10 9 107.7%. 14 Private Off-Street 0 0 6 of o' 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 of o 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% o Block Totals 13 8 8 14 8 9 7 5- 10- 9 107.7%77211 13 On-Street 14 3 12 14 1 2 51 7 6 3 100.0% 14 _ - - Private Off-Street 7 1 0 0 1 0 3 2 2 2 42.9% 3 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals I 211 4 12 141 2 2 81 9 8[ 51 66.7% 17 14 On-Street 8 5 7 5 81 1 3 2 0 0 100.0% 8 Private Off-Street 34 5 9 7 4 3 9 2 1 0 26.5%i, 9 Public Off-Street 50 7 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.0%[_ 8 Block Totals 92 17 24 19! 12 4 12 4 1 0 26.1%! 25 15 On-Street 21 151 16 12 31 7,1 12 151 13 9 76.2% 16 Private Off-Street 12 5 3 2 2 31 4 3 3 3 41.7% 5 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%! 0, Block Totals 33 201 19 14 5i 10I 161 18 16 121 60.6%1 211 Walker Parking Consultants 12/23/99 TABLE 13-7: PARKING OCCUPANCY for a SATURDAY Saturday, 3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin, Illinois Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 1 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 Peak Occupancy i 16 On-Street 27- 20 16 191 15 9 14 11 10 7 74.1% 20 Private Off-Street 37 11 8 9 6 6 2 1 1 0 29.7% 11 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals 64 31 24 281- 21 15 16 12 11 7 - 48.4% 31 17 On-Street 20 4 9 6 2 2 12 5 12 12 60.0% 12 Private Off-Street 15 2 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 26.7% 4 Public Off-Street 369 85 110 150 88 49 15 60 168 201 54.5% 201 Block Totals 4041 91) 122 159 94) 52) 28) 661 181 214 53.0% 18 On-Street 18 5) 9 81 9 6 21 2 1 1 50.0% 9 Private Off-Street 5 2 3 3 2 0 0 3 3 3 60.0% 3 Public Off-Street 261 23 42 38 26 18 5 28 102 127 48.7% 127 Block Totals 284 30 54 49 37 24 7 33 1061 131 46.1% 139 19 On-Street 9 5 6 9 9 6 8 9 9 71 100.0% 9 Private Off-Street 25 7 10 23 17 10 3 3 2 3 92.0% 23 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 BlockTotals 341 12 161 321 26 161 11 121 11J 10 94.1%) 32_, Walker Parking Consultants 12/23/99 ) ) 1 , 1 ) Itiltitittiltati , 111111 -1 , 111 -1111111111 ) TABLE B-7: PARKING OCCUPANCY for a SATURDAY Saturday, 3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 Peak Occupancy 20 On-Street 1 31 15 25 221 20 14 15 28 27 20 90.3% 28 Private Off-Street 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 33.3% 2 - _ Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals 37 15 251 22- 20 14 17 28 27 20 75.7% 30 21 On-Street 13/ 6 9 13 131 7 7j 4 3 5 100.0% 13 Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0r 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0, o I 0. 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals 13 6 9 13 13 7 7 41 3 5 100.0% 13 - 22 On-Street 23 10 8 18 17 6 7 5_ 4 4' 78.3% 18 Private Off-Street 84 21 18 13 11 71 3 3 3 3 25.0% 21 Public Off-Street 50 8 10 6 3 41 2 2 2 3 20.0% 1 0 ° Block Totals 157 39, 36 37 31 17 12 10 9 10 24.8% 49 23 On-Street 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%1 0 Public Off-Street 89 21 40 36 30 18 15 12 9 i 8 44.9%L. 40 Block Totals i 89r 21 40[ 361 301 181 15 12 9 8 44.9% 40. Walker Parking Consultants 12/23/99 01111 , 111ta1tata1a1111l1ialli111111111I1111111 ) TABLE B-7: PARKING OCCUPANCY for a SATURDAY Saturday, 3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 Peak Occupancy 24 On-Street 31 13 13 10 131 6 7 8 8 9 41.9% 13 Private Off-Street 141 59 66 31 20 21 21 19 13 13 46.8% 66 Public Off-Street 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals 172 72 79 41 33 27 28 27 21 22 45.9% 79 25 On-Street 0 0 0 0 0 of 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%, 0 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%l 0 . . Block Totals 01 01 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 26 On-Street 25 0 0 0 0 0 13 7 1 1 52.0% 13 Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0.0%L 0 Public Off-Street 321 18 31 25 35 37. 103 120 881 59 36.7%i 120 BlockTotals 3521 18 31 25 35 37 116 127 89 60 36.1% 133) 27 On-Street 50 0 0 or 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Private Off-Street 59 0 2 21 0 6 6 6 5 4 10.2% 6 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 01 or o' 0 0 0 0 0.0% o . - - Block Totals 109 0 2 2 0 6 61 6 5 4 5.5% 6 TOTAL On-Street 424 147 180 182T 1451 106 140 215 134 110 42,9%1 300 TOTAL Private Off-Street 1148 337 353 3141 263 250 281 243 241 207 30.7% 443 TOTAL Public Off-Sheet 1885 360 500 501 395 281 ' 202 578 410 427 26.6% 878 TOTAL 3457 844 1033 997 803 637- 623 1036 785 744 39.9% 1621 Walker Parking Consultants 12/23/99 t $ 't 1 =11I .1 $ , / mit 1 :1i / iI1111 `11411i '1VD .14141 / / `1 '11 l l / 1 TABLE B-8 Shared Parkins Analysis Saturday,3/27/99 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Land Use 1 Units Peak Demand Ratio Non-Captive Ratio Monthly Adjustment Hourly Adjustment Local Adjustment 1 Walkers Adjusted Demand Ratio , Spaces Retail 142982 S.F. 3.30 0.50 0.70 0.90 I 0.90 0.94 134 Furniture Retail 10500 S.F. 2.00 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.30 0.27 3 Restaurant 72500 S.F. 13.00 0.50 0.90 0.90 I 0.90 � 4.74 344 Office 584056 S.F. r 3.10 1.00 1.00 0,40 } 0.50 0.62 362 Banks 66560 ` S.F. 3.10 0.80 I.00 0.10 0.60 0.15 10 Government Offices 27000 S.F. 3.10 0.90 1.00 0.10 0.80 0,22 { 6 Courts 20000 S.F. 2.30 I 0.90 1.00 0.10 0.90 0.19 4 Police/Jail 83000 i S.F. ' 1.70 0.90 1.00 0.50 0.90 0.69 57 Post Office 34225 I S.F. 3.50 I 0.90 1.00 ( 0.90 1.00 2.84 97 Library 79000 I S.F. , 3.00 0.90 J 1.00 0.30 0.50 0.41 32 Single-Family Residence 26 I Units I 0.90 1.00 f 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 0.90 43 Multi-Family Residence 35 I Units 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.72 25 Elderly/Subsidized 45 Units 0.60 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 � 0.90 0.54 24 Clubs and Lodges 35180 S.F. ' 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.30 0.72 25 Industrial 56905 i S.F. 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.80 } 0.19 Il University 54000 S,F. 1 10.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.30 0.30 ' 16 Educational 11500 S.F. . 1.30 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 6 Churches 59796 S.F. 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.30 0.06 4 Athletic Clubs 30360 S.F. 4.50 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.30 0.69 21 Auditorium 1-- f 1200 I Seats I 0.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 0.35 420 Institutional 1266001 S.F. I 1.30 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.70 0.73 , 19 I TOTAL DEMAND 1 1643 •Parking Demand Ratios are per 1000 S.F.,unit,or seat Walker Parking Consultants 10/13/99 1 1 `1 1 1 1 .1 1 Al 1 -1 s I 1 1 _1 1 .1 -1 .1 1 ., -, 1 1 ., _, 1 ..I 1 ,1 .1 <'1 ,I 1 1 1 1 1 ,I 1 +1 TABLE EA Parking Donand Per Activity Connor Soturday,3/27/99 City of Elgin,COD Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Activity Connor f Civic/Cultural Cenono cit I Servkn OFfice/R.wll/Residential Wass Offie./RabH/Ro,WanH.LEas I MnNwbns Net institutions Swnh Erwanokunws Land Use Units Adiusl.d Demand Ratio I I I i Total Demand i I A Units I Demand + •Units I Denard ! •Units r Demand I r Units T Demand 1 I Units 1 Demand T1 •Units Demand 1 I Units Demand Retail S.F 0.94 0 0 37670 35 82150 77 6237 I 6 11700 I II 1 0 1 0 5225 5 134 Furniture Retail S.F 0.27 0 0 0 0 10500 3 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 I 0 0 3 Restaurant S.F 4.74 0 0 900 _ 4 40200 191 1 2100 10 j 0 j 0 1 0 0 29300 139 344 (Miro S.F i 0.62 0 0 6806 522350 60360 324 i 34000 22 0 0 0 0 i 20000 12 362 Ranks S.9 0.15 0 0 ` 0 9 1 6200 j I I 0 1 0 0 0 I 0 0 10 Government Offkes S.F 0.22 1 27000 6 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 j 0 0 0 I 0 6 Courts S.F I 0.19 20000 4 0 t1 0 0 r 0 r_ 0 I 0 0 { 0 0 o i o 0 4 Poke/Jag T S.F 0.69 83000 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 j 0 0 0 57 Past Office S.F i 2.84 J 34225 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 0 97 Ub.ary S.F 0.41 1 79000 32 t 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 1 0 0 32 Single-Family 4.id.scas Unit 0.90 0 05 _ 5 14 .,13 8 7 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 35 MMN{-Family Re.ldances Units 0.72 I 0 0 I 12 9 16 r.C12 0 0 7 I 5 i 0 I 0 I 0 0 26 ..Elderly/Subsidised Units 0.54 I 0 0 1 0 11 0 45 24-7 0 l 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 24 Club.and Lodge. S.F 0.72 I 0 0 0 0 26500 19 0 0 0 1 0 I 8660 I 6 ' 0 0 25 IndasMal S.F 0.19 I 0 0 43405 1 8 10000 2 1 35001 1 0 I 0 j 0 0 0 0 11 Universities S.F 0.30 0 0 1 0 I 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 l 54000 l6 0 0 16 Educational S.F 0.55 I 0 j 0 ! 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11500 6 ! 0 0 0 0 6 Churches S.F. 0.06 I 0 0 o iiiI 0 0 o I o 0 59792 4 0 0 0 0 4 Athletic Clubs S.F. 0.69 • 0 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 + 0 I 0 0 I 30360 I 21 0 0 0 I 0 21 Auditorium Soot � 0.35 1200 420 - 0 I 0 I 0 ( o 0 o o ( o j o o o 0 420 kHtug uons S.F , 0.73 0 I 0 i 15500 , II I 5000 4 r 0 0 0 1 0 6100 I 4 0 I 0 19 Osmond Per AcMty Cenar 243225 616 104291 76 737060 679 52937 47 113356 47 69790 26 54525 156 1646 •Parking Demand Raeos ars per 1000$,F.,unit,or rot Walks(Parking Cansukant 10/13/99 , t TABLE B-1 0: Future Parking Supply City of Elgin, CBD Parking Study Elgin, Illinois ON-STREET PARKING OFF-STREET PARKING 10 hr 2 hr 1 hr 30 min 15 min 10 min Private I Public - Effective HC HC Total Effective Block Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Subtotal Parking Parking Subtotal Supply (.85) (.85) Supply supply Ratio mom 11.95 ummi95 iiim95 1.1.95 .95 .95 imminimmumnisimmmumumummi .85 .90 1 . 0 17 159 II=2 183 183 164 0.90 2 5 I I 5 0 0 MEd 5 1.00 3 31 I I j 31137J 11111111111.11N 168 145 0.86 4 26 I 26 0 26 25 0.96 5 4 1 5 18 57 1 76 81 72 0.89 6 0 174 6 180 180 MUM 0.85 6A 0 42 42 42 36 0.86 WM 8 8 109 346 EMI 468 476 423 0.89 8 4 I 2 6 57 5 62 68 58 0.85 9 3 . 3 71 NOM 74 63 0.85 3 10 6 6 1 ) 12 172 175 187 160 0.86 11 19 3 625 641 48 6 118 143 126 0.88 12 6 3 1 1 13 0 11111.811111.1E 0.92 13 10 4 14 7 INNIMINIINIMEil 19 0.90 14 311 50 3 84 92 82 0.89 1156 IIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIMEj 12T 12 33 30 0.91 37 1 37 64 57 0.89 INIUMMINIENIMMINIMINIM 20 20 14 369 1 384 404 364 0.90 18 18 18 5 228 7' 240 258 233 0.90 199 1 9 23 21 25 34 30 0.88 20 31 IIIIIIIII I 31 6 6 MORN 35 0.95 21 13 13 0 .111111/MEME 0.92 22 23 23 82 50 11111 13 134 111M4 138 0.88 111123111111=MIIMMIIIIIIIIMIIIIIMMINIMINNIMIIII 0 ME 85 4 89 89 80 0.90 2431 140 MIIMIIMMIIMCUIIIIMEI 149 0.87 25 3IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 0 0 0 0.00 25 0 26 25 IIINEVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIESIIIIEBEI 318 0.90 27 50 I 50 571 2 59 109 98 0.90 TOTAL 301 22 69 0 25 1 6 424 1 75 1719, 63 3057 3481 3087, 0.89 %of Subto 71% 5% 16% 0% 6% 0% 1%' 100% 42% 56% 2% 100% %of Total' 9%' 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 12%' 37% 49% 2% 88% Walker Parking Consultants 12/23/99 TABLE B-11: Parking Demand Comparison Ratios City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin, Illinois Parking Generation(1) Future Activity Center Parking Demand Average Village of Recommended Hourly Development Ratio Demand Shared Libertyville(3) Peak Parking Non-Captive Monthly Adjustment Intensity Adlustment Land Use Range Ratio Parking (2) with Adjustments Demand Ratio Ratio Adjustment 10:00 AM 65% I 90% I 100% Retail 1.02 6.17 3.23 3.80 2.18 3.30 0.80 0.75 0.80 1.03 1.43 Furniture Retail 2.00 0.80 0.75 0.80 0.62 0.86 Restaurant 6.25 25.83 12.49 20.00 1.80 13.00 0.60 0.80 0.40 1.62 2.25 Office 0.75 32.93 2.79 3.00 1.67 3.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.02 2.79 Banks 1.55 2.59 2.07 2.70 3.10 0.80 1.00 0.70 1.13 1.56 Government Offices 1.64 7.81 3.84 1.67 3.10 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.81 2.51 2.79 Courts 2.30 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.86 2.07 Police/Jail 1.70 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.38 1.53 Post Office 3.50 0.90 1.00 1.00 2.05 2.84 Library 3.00 0.90 1.00 0.80 1.40 1.94 Single-Family Residence(4) 1.00 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 0.81 0.90 Multi-Family Residence(4) 0.24 1.9 1.04 1.00 0.90 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 0.72 0.80 Elderly/Subsidized (4) 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 0.54 0.60 Clubs and Lodges 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.78 1.08 Industrial 0.75 2.97 1.59 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.35 0.49 University 10.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 3.25 4.50 Educational 0.82 1.30 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.76 1.05 Churches 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.13 0.18 Athletic Clubs 4.50 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.50 2.07 Auditorium 0.33 1.00 0.80 0.30 0.05 0.07 Institutional 1.60 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.94 1.30 * Parking Demand Ratios are per 1000 S.F.,unit,or seat Sources: (1)Institute of Transportation Engineers.2nd Edition"Parking Generation"1987. (2)The Urban Land Institute. "Shared Parking"1983. (3)Walker Parking Consultants. "Libertyville Downtown parking Study"1997. (4)residental land uses were assumed to be 100%occupied. TABLE 8-12 Parking Demand Por Activity Center Future Projection City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin,Illinois Activity Center Land Us. Units dusted Demand Ratio CJvic/Culiurai Commercial Services Of6ce/Retoil/Residential Wast_Office/Retail/Residential East Institutions North Institutions South Entertainment Total Demand 65% 90% 8 Units Demand 8 Unite Demand Demand I Units Demand I Units Demand I Units Demand I Units Demand Detail 5.F 1.03 1.43 0 0 37670 39 125350 179 6237 6 11700 17 0 0 5225 7 248 Furniture Retail S.F 0.62 0.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Restaurant S.F 1.62 2.25 0 0 900 1 40200 90 2100 3 0 0 0 0 29300 66 160 Offke S.F 2.02 2.79 79000 220 104726 212 548850 1531 34900 70 0 0 0 0 20000 56 2089 - Banks S.F 1.13 1.56 0 0 0 0 60360 94 6200 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 Government*Muth S.F 1.81 2.51 27000 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 - Courts S.F 1.35 1.86 20000 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 Pollee/Jail S.F 0.99 1.36 83000 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 Post Office S.F 2.05 2.84 34225 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 Ubrary S.F 1.40 1.94 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stngio-Family Rosidencos Units 0.59 0.81 0 0 5 3 14 11 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Multi-Family Residences Units 0.52 0.72 0 0 12 6 16 12 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 0 23 Elderly/Subsidized Units 0.39 0.54 0 0 0 0 45 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Clubs and Lodges S.F 0.78 1.08 0 0 0 0 26500 29 0 0 0 0 8680 9 0 0 38 industrial S.F 0 35 0.49 0 0 43405 15 10000 5 3500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 _ Universities S.F 3.25 4.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54000 176 0 0 176 Educational S.F 0.76 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11500 12 0 0 0 0 12 Churches S.F. 0.13 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59796 11 0 0 0 0 11 Athletic Clubs S.F. 1.50 2.07 144200 298 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 30360 63 0 0 0 0 361 Auditorium Seois 0.05 0.07 1200 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 institutions S.F 0.94 1.30 0 0 15500 15 5000 7 0 0 0 0 6100 8 0 0 30 Demand Per Actvity Center 387425 919 202201 291 816260 1982 52937 92 113356 108 68780 193 54525 129 3714 •Parking Demand Ratios are per 1000 S.F.,unit,or sal Welker Parking Consultants 12/6/99 0114 9114 0/1" TABLE B-13: PARKING OCCUPANCY for a WEEKDAY flik Tuesday, 12/17/98 illi City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin,Illinois 04 ' ' Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 Peak Occupancy ill 0 1 On-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Private Off-Street 17 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 • Public Off-Street 166 36 96 69 66 72 57.8% 96 Block Totals 183 36 96 69 66 72 52.5% 96 01114 • 2 On-Street 5 5 6 6 7 7 140.0% 7 Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 a' Public Off-Street 107 36 38 37 44 42 41.1% 44 0 Block Totals 112 41 44 43 51 49 45.5% 51 ' 3 On-Street 31 21 19 16 17 17 67.7% 21/ Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Oh Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Oh • Block Totals 31 21 19 16 17 17 67.7% 21 011111 4 On-Street 26 4 21 19 22 24 92.3% 24 01 Private Off-Street 52 33 36 37 35 34 71.2% 37 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 P► • Block Totals 78 37 57 56 57 58 74.4% 61 • ' 5 On-Street 5 4 4 4 5 5 100.0% 5 • Private Off-Street 19 8 8 8 7 11 57.9% 11 Public Off-Street 57 7 9 11 7 8 19.3% 11 0114 4111 Block Totals 81 19 21 23 19 24 29.6% 27 • 6 On-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 • Private Off-Street 143 26 32 37 37 39 27.3% 39 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 416 Block Totals 143 26 32 37 37 39 27.3% 39 ilik 7 On-Street 8 7 9 7 8 8 112.5% 9 01 Private Off-Street 74 31 41 43 43 44 59.5% 44 Public Off-Street 359 220 257 219 162 180 71.6% 257 diih * Block Totals 441 258 307 269 213 232 69.6% 310 fit► I!► Oh Walker Parking Consultants 12/23/99 Ph OP' fih P e'► TABLE B-13: PARKING OCCUPANCY for a WEEKDAY Tuesday, 12/17/98 • City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin, Illinois • Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 Peak Occupancy e 0.01 8 On-Street 6 2 1 1 2 2 33.3% 2 Private Off-Street 62 51 55 37 26 34 88.7% 55 O Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Block Totals 68 53 56 38 28 36 82.4% 57 414 ► 9 On-Street 3 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Private Off-Street 71 37 43 43 43 41 60.6% 43 e Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 • 9 Block Totals 74 37 43 43 43 41 58.1% 43 f► 10 On-Street 12 10 10 5 9 9 83.3% 10 Private Off-Street 175 31 36 35 37 36 21.1% 37 Oh Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 ilk 6 Block Totals 187 41 46 40 46 45 24.6% 47 11 On-Street 25 4 5 6 3 7 28.0% 7 Private Off-Street 68 19 24 24 27 30 44.1% 30 Public Off-Street50 17 17 19 18 16 38.0% 19 Oil 0, Block Totals 143 40 46 49 48 53 37.1% 56 O 12 On-Street 13 7 11 10 16 15 123.1% 16 •, Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 ,I► Block Totals 13 7 11 10 16 15 123.1% 16 ' 13 On-Street 14 2 4 4 6 5 42.9% 6 • Private Off-Street 7 3 5 4 5 4 71.4% 5 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Oh • Block Totals 21 5 9 8 11 9 52.4% 11 ' 14 On-Street 8 2 3 4 4 5 62.5% 5 • Private Off-Street 34 8 17 10 5 11 50.0% 17 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 1 ' Block Totals 42 10 20 14 9 16 47.6% 22 1111 0 0 S Walker Parking Consultants 12/23/99 0 e e eh TABLE B-13: PARKING OCCUPANCY for a WEEKDAY flik Tuesday, 12/17/98 fil City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin, Illinois eh 014 Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 Peak Occupancy OP P 15 On-Street 21 10 10 14 11 13 66.7% 14 Private Off-Street 12 3 5 4 2 6 50.0% 6 • Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 filk Block Totals 33 13 15 18 13 19 57.6% 20 • 16 On-Street 27 14 14 20 17 18 74.1% 20 Private Off-Street 37 3 12 12 6 11 32.4% 12 Ph Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 9494 Block Totals 64 17 26 32 23 29 50.0% 32 O 17 On-Street 20 1 8 4 3 6 40.0% 8 Private Off-Street 15 1 3 2 3 4 26.7% 4 44 Public Off-Street 369 146 208 152 182 191 56.4% 208 • I Block Totals 404 148 219 158 188 201 54.2% 220 18 On-Street 18 15 18 16 18 18 100.0% 18 4111 Private Off-Street 50 21 28 0 35 45 90.0% 45 Public Off-Street 261 182 208 198 201 236 90.4% 236 Oh Block Totals 329 218 254 214 254 299 90.9% 299 • 19 On-Street 9 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Private Off-Street 25 18 21 24 19 20 96.0% 24 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Ok Block Totals 34 18 21 24 19 20 70.6% 24 'h 20 On-Street 31 14 16 22 14 14 71.0% 22 • Private Off-Street 6 2 2 0 0 0 33.3% 2 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 • Block Totals 37 16 18 22 14 14 59.5% 24 21 On-Street 13 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0114 Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 • Block Totals 13 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 * Oh Walker Parking Consultants 12/23/99 0 e eh eh elh ek TABLE B-13: PARKING OCCUPANCY for a WEEKDAY IIIPh Tuesday, 12/17/98 014 City of Elgin,CBD Parking Study Elgin, Illinois 411111 014 Block Location Capacity 8:00 10:00 12:00 2:00 4:00 Peak Occupancy 0114 22 On-Street 23 7 5 14 13 15 65.2% 15 Private Off-Street 84 31 42 39 38 41 50.0% 42 0/4 Public Off-Street 50 2 4 7 4 8 16.0% 8 eh Block Totals 157 40 51 60 55 64 40.8% 65 4114 Oil 23 On-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public OffStreet89 72 87 86 88 86 98.9% 88 4 0104 Block Totals 89 72 87 86 88 86 98.9% 88 ► 24 On-Street 31 14 20 15 18 22 71.0% 22 Private Off-Street 141 34 50 40 54 52 38.3% 54 0111 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 OP e, Block Totals 172 48 70 55 72 74 43.0% 76 0114 25 On-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 illi Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 04 40 Block Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 011 26 On-Street 25 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Oh Private Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 Public Off-Street 327 24 31 123 59 108 37.6% 123 eh ,h Block Totals 352 24 31 123 59 108 34.9% 123 Oh 27 On-Street 50 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 " Private Off-Street 59 32 26 20 35 35 59.3% 35 Public Off-Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0 00, P► Block Totals 109 32 26 20 35 35 32.1% 35 eh TOTAL On-Street 424 143 184 187 193 210 49.5% 231 • TOTAL Private Off-Street 1151 392 486 419 457 498 43.3% 542 ilk TOTAL Public Off-Street 1835 742 955 921 831 947 52.0% 1090 TOTAL 3410 1277 1625 1527 1481 1655 48.5% 1863 41114 Oh Pi Walker Parking Consultants 12/23/99 APPENDIX C 1996 PARKING OCCUPANCY TABLES et elk TABLE B-1 e PARJCING OCCUPANCY,1996 Civic Cultural District Parking Study Elgin,IUinois Peak ,Block Location Capacity 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 Occupancy 1 On-Street 0 0.0% e Private Off-Stmt 17 5 IS 16 16 17 13 15 15 15 7 8 7 7 100.0% Public Off-Street 228 56 87 125 133 135 132 124 141 128 127 105 228 228 100.0% 2 On-Street 12 9 11 10 10 6 7 6 5 4 0 0 12 12 100.0% Private Off-Stmt 3 2 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 4 2 0 0 0 133.3% • Public Off-Street 109 0.0% • 3 On-Street 20 5 15 16 18 19 18 17 13 6 2 1 20 20 100.0% Private Oft-Street 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 66.7% Public Off-Street 0 0.0% 0 4 On-Street 17 18 20 2D 19 11 18 17 13 8 6 1 15 15 117.6% aill Private Off-Street 48 14 15 15 15 15 15 18 18 IO 1 1 26 26 54.2% Public Off-Street 0 0.0% • S On-Street 12 4 4 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 S 6 8 66.7% Private Off-Street 80 32 32 39 38 33 32 30 26 12 5 5 4 4 48.8% III Public Off-Street 00.0% 4. 7 On-Street 29 7 18 22 18 25 20 17 22 21 9 5 8 8 86.2% Private Off-Street 37 16 25 26 26 18 20 22 19 18 8 5 4 3 70.3% Public Off-Street 323 163 236 227 220 175 219 214 205 159 186 90 253 282 873% Oil 8 On-Stmt 3 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 5 5 233.3% 0 Private Off-Street 0 0.0% Public Off-Stmt 0 0.0% di 10 On-Street 8 6 8 8 7 6 7 5 4 3 2 5 6 4 100.0% Private Off-Stmt 127 44 62 64 69 72 66 65 64 53 51 32 26 20 56.7% • Public Off-Street 0 0.0% dillh 12 On-Street 16 4 10 9 11 11 12 10 10 8 8 9 9 6 75.0% Private Off-Street 0 0.0% Public Off-Street 0 0.0% 0114 14 On-Stmt 12 6 9 8 8 9 7 9 10 9 8 5 3 3 83.3% Olh Private Off-Street 94 19 46 47 44 37 42 48 42 39 35 13 7 6 51.1% Public Off-Street 0 0.0% - 15 On-Street 19 8 14 17 16 14 15 13 14 12 13 14 10 12 89.5% Private Off-Street 11 4 10 12 13 14 14 11 10 12 8 3 2 0 127.3% elk Public Off-Street 0 0.0% Oh 16 On-Street 31 6 18 19 21 22 17 19 20 16 18 17 15 15 71.0% Private Off-Stmt 10 4 13 13 16 18 18 16 17 15 11 8 7 4 180.0% 01114 Public Off-Street 0 0.0% TOTAL On-Street 179 80 134 141 140 141 131 122 120 94 73 66 109 108 78.8% Oh TOTAL Private 0ff-Stmt 430 140 222 237 241 227 228 229 214 179 128 75 83 70 56.0% TOTAL Public Off-Street 660 219 323 352 353 310 351 338 346 287 313 195 481 510 77.3% • TOTAL 1,269 439 679 730 734 673 710 689 680 560 514 336 673 688 57.8% fik Zone 1 432 138 227 257 245 253 264 263 278 233 193 159 346 345 80.1% Zane 2 147 16 30 31 32 28 31 27 21 15 4 1 32 32 2L8% Zone 3 92 36 36 44 43 37 36 33 29 14 7 10 10 12 47.8% Oh Zone 4 328 101 190 197 205 203 198 196 191 167 154 106 85 70 62.5% Zone 5 270 148 196 201 209 157 181 170 161 131 156 60 200 229 84.8% IOW TOTAL 1,269 439 679 730 734 678 710 689 680 560 514 336 673 688 37.8% AP illIk 011h 41106 40 Oilk 01.14 OW TABLE B-2 O PARKING OCCUPANCY.1996 Civic Cultural District Parking Study Elgin.Illinois Oh P Ph 'Block Capacity 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 Occmane- 1 On-Street 0 0.0% Private Off-Street 17 8 IS 16 14 14 16 16 15 16 13 8 8 7 94.1% Public Off-Street 228 23 56 121 132 140 138 124 112 107 103 97 121 142 62.3% Oh 2 On-Street 12 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 33.3% Private Off-Street 3 2 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 4 2 0 0 0 133.3% Oh Public Off-Street 109 0.0% Oilh 3 On-Street 20 16 16 16 18 16 18 18 16 13 9 7 6 6 90.0% Private Off-Street 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 66.7% Public Oft-Street 0 0.0% 01 4 On-Street 17 17 17 18 16 16 16 15 13 9 7 1 1 0 105.9% Oh Private Off-Street 48 8 13 14 14 13 14 16 17 17 14 14 14 15 35.4% Public Off-Street 0 0.0% Oh 5 On-Street 12 6 9 10 10 8 8 8 6 6 6 7 6 4 83.3% Private Off-Street 80 27 34 38 37 37 36 37 25 24 11 8 7 3 47.5% Oth Public Off-Street 0 0.0% Oh 7 On-Street 29 4 8 8 6 8 6 5 6 7 6 5 6 3 27.6% Private Off-Street 37 15 26 24 25 18 19 23 19 17 7 5 4 2 70.3% Public Off-Street 323 132 148 188 208 179 197 215 215 211 162 109 80 69 66.6% OA 8 On-Street 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 4 5 4 6 233.3% • Private Off-Street 0 0.0% Public Off-Street 0 0.0% O10 On-Street 8 6 6 7 6 7 12 13 11 9 6 6 7 3 162.5% Private Off-Street 127 47 52 53 67 68 60 65 63 55 53 38 32 30 53.5% Ohl Public Off-Street 0 0.0% Mk 12 On-Street 16 4 4 9 13 18 10 9 10 10 11 11 9 7 112.5% Private Off-Strut 0 2 . 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 I 0 0 0.0% O Public Off-Street 0 0.0% 14 On-Strut 12 5 9 8 6 7 7 8 7 7 7 4 3 4 75.0% * Private Off-Street 94 18 34 42 44 31 45 42 39 45 34 12 8 8 47.9% Public Off-Street 0 0.0% Oh 15 On-Street 19 18 17 15 14 13 15 15 13 14 13 11 12 11 94.7% Private Off-Strut 11 4 11 13 14 10 10 14 12 11 7 2 2 0 1273% O' Public Off-Street 0 0.0% 401 16 On-Street 31 17 18 22 25 27 16 19 22 19 22 17 16 16 87.1% Private Off-Street 10 3 12 12 20 16 16 18 16 15 11 9 7 4 200.0% Oh Public Off-Street 0 0.0% TOTAL On-Street 179 102 114 122 123 130 117 130 114 101 91 74 70 60 72.6% OP TOTAL Private Off-Street 430 134 204 220 241 213 224 238 212 208 153 97 82 69 56.0% TOTAL Public Off-Street 660 155 204 309 340 319 335 339 327 318 265 206 201 211 51.5% OilA - TOTAL 1,269 391 522 651 704 662 676 697 653 627 509 377 353 340 55.5% Pk Zooe 1 432 89 150 234 237 241 252 249 241 230 195 180 203 213 583% Zone 2 147 21 24 24 25 23 27 25 22 19 11 7 6 6 18.4% Zone 3 92 33 43 48 47 45 44 45 31 30 17 15 13 7 52.2% O' Zone 4 328 124 166 184 211 200 193 206 196 188 165 111 96 83 64.3% Zone 5 270 124 139 161 184 153 160 172 163 160 121 64 35 31 68.1% • TOTAL 1,269 391 522 651 704 662 676 697 653 627 509 377 353 340 55.5% Oh Source:Walker Field Surveys,Wednesday,October 23,1996. 414 Oh dillh Oh Ok Oh Oh 91111 filik TABLE B-3 ?il' PARKIN()OCCUPANCY.1996 Civic Cultural District Parking Study t Elgin.Illinois Peal Block Capacity 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 3:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 Occupancl 1 On-Street 0 0.0% Private Off-Street 17 11 11 II 10 11 9 10 9 7 64.7% 1 Public Off-Street 228 69 102 131 117 99 101 113 101 98 57.5% e 2 On-Street 12 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 41.7% Private Off-Street 3 ERR Public Off-Street 109 0.0% 3 On-Street 20 16 16 18 18 16 14 15 13 13 90.0% Private Off-Street 3 ERR Public Off-Stmt 0 0.0% flilh 4 On-Street 17 17 17 16 15 13 12 6 5 3 100.0% 01/ Private Off-Stmt 48 4 5 4 5 5 5 11 12 11 23.0% Public Off-Street 0 0.0% 41/1 S On-Stmt 12 2 3 6 5 7 5 6 6 4 583% Private Off-Street - 80 14 13 11 8 9 8 8 7 7 17.5% PA Public Off-Street 0 0.0% 7 On-Street 29 11 23 26 22 10 5 6 4 2 89.7% Oil Private Off-Street 37 18 16 16 14 15 12 7 7 6 48.6% PI Public Off-Street 323 95 100 107 107 94 81 52 34 25 33.1% 8 On-Street 3 4 4 5 12 4 3 5 4 1 400.0% Oh Private Off-Stmt 0 0.0% Public Off-Street 0 0.0% 4011 10 On-Street 8 11 14 13 11 9 7 5 3 2 175.0% 011 Private Off-Street 127 40 51 75 82 59 31 30 28 23 64.6% Public Off-Street 0 0.0% • 12 On-Street 16 9 12 18 12 7 11 15 14 10 112.5% Private Off-Stmt 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 0 ERR . Oil Public Off-Stmt 0 0.0% 14 On-Street 12 8 9 7 7 6 4 2 2 2 75.0% Private Off-Street 94 18 17 22 17 6 4 3 3 2 23.4% Public Off-Stmt 0 0.0% 15 On-Street 19 17 19 17 15 10 9 7 6 2 I00.0% 414 Private Off-Street 11 2 3 3 5 4 2 2 1 1 45.5% Public Off-Street 0 0.0% 4111 16 On-Street 31 29 30 26 24 21 16 13 12 11 96.8% Private Off-Street 10 14 22 25 17 15 13 9 11 9 0.0% • Public Off-Street 0 0.0% 41111h TOTAL On-Street 179 0 129 152 157 146 108 91 85 74 54 0 0 0 87.7% TOTAL Private Off-Street 430 0 124 141 170 161 127 87 81 80 66 0 0 0 39.5% TOTAL Public Off-Street 660 0 164 202 238 224 193 182 165 135 123 0 0 0 36.1% OW TOTAL 1,269 0 417 495 565 531 428 360 331 289 243 0 0 0 44.5% Alb Zone 1 432 163 207 237 221 181 168 171 149 134 54.9% Zane 2 147 21 21 23 23 21 19 20 18 17 15.6% Zone 3 92 16 16 17 13 16 13 14 13 11 18.5% mik Zone 4 328 151 180 209 193 140 100 87 82 62 63.7% Zone 5 270 66 71 79 81 70 60 39 27 19 30.0% • TOTAL 1.269 417 495 565 531 428 360 331 289 243 44.5% Oh Source:Walker Field Surveys,Saturday,October 26,1996. Oh Pk OA OA all OA OA TABLE B-4 fri PARKING OCCUPANCY.1996 Civic Cultural District Parking Study Elgin.Illinois 914 P Block Capacity 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 Occuparici I On-Street 0 0.0% Private Off-Street 17 ERR Public Off-Street 228 246 247 108.3% 911 2 On-Street 12 17 15 141.7% Private Off-Street 3 ERR Public Off-Street 109 59 0.0% 3 On-Street 20 29 27 143.0% Private Off-Street 3 ERR Public Off-Street 0 0.0% 4 On-Street 17 23 20 135.3% Private Off-Street 48 ERR Public Off-Street 0 0.0% 7 On-Street 29 13 12 44.8% Private Off-Street 37 ERR Public Off-Street 323 311 195 - 96.3% 0 0 0 04 406 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oh 06 MI ORA 0