VE-59-90
•
/
~
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A VARIANCE FROM )
NIINIMUM SHOPPING CENTER PARKING ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
REQUIREMENTS )
[VE-59-90] PRICE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ) CONCLUSIONS,
COMPANION FILES: PE-150445, ZE-61-89 ) AND DECISION
ZE-18-899 ZE-50-819 ZE-SOA-87, VE-38-89 )
ADDRESS:14700 East Indiana Avenue
PARCEL NUMBER: Portions of 45114, 90319, 45113.9026 and 45141.9170
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes a super-regional shopping
center with parking spaces calculated on the basis of one space per 253.8 square feet of gross
buildable area (1/253.8 ratio); whereas, section 14.802.040.35 of the Zoning Code for
Spokane County requires a ratio of 1/200. Authority to consider such a request exists pursuant
to section 14,404.080 of the Zoning Code for Spokane County and Spokane County Board of
County coIIimissioners resolution No. 89 9708, as may have been superseded.
PROJECT LOCA1'ION: Generally located Generally located in the Spokane Valley,
between the Spokane River and I-90, approximately 1/4 mile west of Sullivan Road in the S
1/2 of Section 11, Township 25N, Range 44 E;WM, Spokane County, Washington and in the
N 1/2 of Section 14, Township 25N, Range 44EWNi.
OPPONENTS OF RECORD: NONE
PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: -
Aftier consideration of all available infotmation on file, exhibits submitted and testimony
received during the couise of the public hearing held on September 28,1990, and the Zoning
Adjustor rendered a written decision on October ~ ,1990 to APPROVE the
application.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is described above and detailed in documents contained in the file.
2. The adopted Spokane County Comprehensive Plan designates the area of the
proposal as Industrial.
3. The site is zoned Regional Business B-3, which allows the proposed use upon
approval of this application.
4. 1fie proposal is exempt from the provisions of the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-$00 (6) (b).
5. The applicant has been made aware of the rocommendaaons of various County
agencies reviewing this project and has indicated those recommendations are acceptable.
6. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the 7oning
Adjustor of Spokane County have been meL
1
C.ASE NO.VE-59-90 SPOKANE COUNTY 7ANIIVG ADNSTOR PAGE 2
7. No adverse testimony ar written comments were received reganiing the proposal.
8. The applic;ant argued the existence of special M+cumstanoes, which when combined
with the 7oning Code standard far parking created a practical difficulty.
a. The site is restricted by boundaries existing or proposed through the Arterial
Road Plan; specifically Indiana Avenue, the Spokane River and a required riparian park to the
narth, Inteistate 90 to the south, Sullivan Road m the east and a future University Road
interchange and extension of University Road north of Intmtate 90 to the wesL 'b. Total required parking, due to the football shaped parcel, would necessarily be
locatod a substantial distance to the west of the primary shopping/mall facility, thus increasing
the walking inconvenience to the visiting retail clients.
c. The alternative is to go to "stacked" parking in the foan of muldple deckai
parldng areas. Strong evidence shows that such decks, as opposed to open utunofed parldng
areas, are associated with lugher crime rates, people disorientation and personal dislike by
retailers and shoppers.
d. The argument for less parldng then reqwred by the standani "but sufficient to
meet the present industry criteria" was also supported by the applicants decision to increase the
amount of landscaping around the actual mall structure, thus reducing the amount of parldng
area between the building complex and the property limitations Lo the north south and east.
e. The applicant has chosen to use slighdy larger parldng stalls and slighdy wider
rows between the parldng stalls, thus add.ing to the public vonvenience; but, also complicating
the ability to achieve the zoning cade standand.
f. The Environmental Impact Stat+ement (EIS) prepared for this project addressed a
parldng standand in terans of 1 parldng stall per 200 square feet of gross leasable area. This
standard was used throughout all of the EIS documents from 1980 t01986. This figure of 1
per 200 square feet of gross leasable area, translates into appmximately 1 parldng stall per 254
squane feet of gross buildable area for this project. It is this latter ratio which exceeds the Code
requirement of 1 parldng space for 200 square feet of gross buildable area and cause the
applicant to seek a variance. - ~
9. The applicant presented informadon to clarify what the present indusay standard is
with respect to the number of parldng spaces to be used in designing parldng lots and parking
facilities for super-regional shopping centers. This shopping cencer qualifies as a super-
regional shopping center by industry standards. The presentation by the applicant is included
in Zoning Adjustor Exhibit C(Parking• A Study and Compan5on Spokane Galleria,
Spokane County, Washinguon) and clearly sets farth that die Internauonal Council of Shopping
Centers and the Urban Land Institute both use the industry standani of 1 parking space per 200
squane feet of gross leasable area.
10. The apphcants put forth the argument that the Spokane County standand dces not
reflect large amounts of common area frequendy designed into a mall shopping center. Exhibit
C contains an extensive discussion of this pnnciple. Additionally in support of this argument,
,
~
CASE NO.VE-59-90 SPOK;ANE COUNTY ZONIIVG ADNSTOR PAGE 3
the apphcant also points out that a southern California open air mall could be calculated on the
basi.s of a 1 parking spaoe per 200 square feet of gross buildable area and would exclude the
mall area because of it not being an enclosed building space. Simply enclosing that land of
space to address our climate makes the entire structure, including the mall, part of the area
referred to as gross buildable area. If the standard of gross leasable area is used, the shopping
centers became equivalent from the standpoint of actual rerail needs.
The applicant's parking study, Exhibit C, also pnesented 19 case studies of super-
regional shopping centers which had more than adequate parldng by using the industry
staadard of 1 parking space per 200 square feet of gross leasable area. These case studies '
included remarks from the shopping center managers and from plannerrs fiom the jurisd.iction in
wluch the shopping center was located.
The applicants also addressed comparisons within the Spokane area, wherein Spokane
County had recognized the industry standard of gross leasable ratio rather than the Code
standazd of gross buildable ratio area. Although University City shopping center makes a
diffcult comparison due to it being primariiy arehabilitation and addition proposal, evidence
was pmesent~ed to support that a similar privilege had been granted to University City
The previously proposed and approved proposal foz Liberty Lake Mall clearly approved
the 1 parking spwe per 200 square feet of gross leasable area standard. Although, the Liberty
Lak~e Mall was a single floor mall instead of a double floor mall (as the applicant's Spokane
Galleria is) when allowances are made for the single floor versus the two flooz proposal, a
variance was clearly grantied to a staadard of 1 parlang space per 228 square feet of gross
buildable area. Although the applicants are asking for 1 parking spaoe per appr~ximately 254
square feet of gruss buildable anea (which translates to 1 parking space per approxirnately 200
5quare feet of gross leasable area), the applicants point out that their pmgosal is in the very
detailed planning stages, approaching application for a buildmg permit; wherea,s, the other local
proposals had never achieved the detailed planning level which the Spokane Galleria proposal
has now reached.
11. The question was raised by the Zoning Adjustor regarding the large amount of
comnlon area of the applicant's proposal compared with the relatively small common area of
the Liberty Lake mall (175, 400 square feet versus 131,700 square feet). The explanadon, by
the applicants, was the difference between the amount of common spaces needed for a two
level mall versus a one level ma1L By tha~ time the second level mall space, exit hallways,
additional restroom facilities, staiiwells, elevators, etc., is added the addidonal space results in
the difference shown by the figures described above.
12. The Zoning Adjustor also raised the issue of whether identifiable parking spaces
ought not be made available for strictly mall activities, recognizing that the mall itself may be a
traffic generator. The response from the applicant was that the gross leasable area standard
assumes a major amount of mall activities; such activities being common to all super-regional
malis. There is a specific discussion in Exhibit C which relates to the food court area of
common restaurant seating, such seating not otherwise being incorporated into restaurants'
specific leased space.
13. The applicants presented the vanous alternative transportation mode planning which
is incorporated into the center, all of which contnbutes toward a possible smaller number of
,
{
CASE NO.VE-59-90 SFOK:ANE COUNTY 7ANING ADNST+OR PAGE 4
parldng spaces than what otherwise might be needed. Detailed planning has proceeded with
the Spokane Transit Authority, recognizing that the Sullivan Park and Ride facility exists
inumediately to the north and that the routing onto the site will likely be involved with the
movement of transit vehicles from the park and ride facility southwand to the froeway. Actual
bus routing will occor in a loop around the parldng area and move m the major west entrance of
the mall, including handicapped access, shelte7s by STA and possibly the use of the interior
portion of the mall itself. A shopping center management objective is m encourage various
employers to make bus passes available m their employees on some kind of a subsiditied basis.
Special parldng areas will be provided for employees on the outer rim of the parldng areas, ,
thus leaving as many spaces available closer m the build.ing, as a techruque tio reduce the
number of overall parldng stalls needed. Special provisions will be made close m the entrances
for bicycle ra,cks for ratail and provisions will likely be made on the inside of the building for
secured pardng areas for employees who may ride bikes tio their job location. Additionally,
provisians will be made for concrete pads equal in area to a parldng stall and capable of parldng
up to six motorcycles. Ride sharing among employees will be encouraged to the maximum
extent possible.
CONCLUSIONS
1. With the conditions of approval set forth below, the variance will: a) not consdtute
a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limirdtions on other properties in the vicinity and
similar zone; b) ensure that the intent and purpose of the Zoning Oniinanve is achieved with
regard tio location, site design, appearance, and landscaping, etc; and c) protect the
environment, public interest and general welfare.
2. The varianve will not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the zone.
3. There are special circumstances applicable to the property which, when vombined
with the staadards of the Zoning Code, create practical difficulties far the use of die property
and/or deprive the property of righa and privileges common to other properties in the vicinity
and similar zone classificaaons.
4. Granting the variance will be neither materially detrimental to the public welfare nor
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone.
5. Strict application of the zoning standards dces create an unreasonable burden in
light of the purpose to be served by the standards.
6. The case for the variance was not supported by substantial reference to ar reliance
upon illegal or nonconforming precedent(s).
7. Granting the variance will not adversely affect the overall tioning design, plan or
concept for either the unmediate area or the entire county.
8. The case for a variance was not based substantially upon a lack of reasonable
economic return nor a claim that the existing structure is too small.
CASE NO.VE-59-90 SFOKANE COUNTY ZANIIVG ADNSTOR PAGE 5
C= ~
9. Granting the variance will not be inconsistent with the general puipose and intent of
the Comprehensive Plan.
10. The granting of the variance will not result in de facm zone reclassification.
11. The requested variance is not substantially for the purpose of circumventing density
regulations designed to protect the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer.
DECISION 'From the foregoing Fiadings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor APPROVES
the proposal, subject to compliance with the following
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The following conditions shall apply tio the applicant, owneT and suocessors in interest
and shall nun with the land.
I. GENERAL
1. The following conditions shall apply oo the applicant, owner and successors in
interest and shall run with the land.
2. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of approval contained in this decision,
except as may be relieved by the Zoning Adjustor, shall consatute a violation of the Zoning
Code for Spokane County and be subject to such enforcement as is appmpriate.
3. The Zoning Adjusoar may administradvely make minor adjustments to site plans or
the conditions of approval as may be judged by the Zoning Adjustor to be within the context of
the original decision.
H. PLANNiNG DEPARTMENT
1. The shopping center site plan shall evolve substantially as set forth in the file
documents associated with the underlying zone change, subdivision files and the zomng file.
Interpretations regarding substantial conformanve shali be made by the Planning Deparanent,
through its administradve procedures.
2. The consuuction plan approval shall rocognize the need for bicycle users needs
(including both inside the facihty and outside the facility), motorcycle parldng stall areas,
designated employee parking areas, transit acoess direcdy to one of the inajor mall entrances
and, as much as possible, a commitment from the mall owners to encourage nde shanng and
the use of subsidized bus passes for mall employees.
.
.
CASE NO.VE-59-90 SPOK;ANE COUNTY ZONIIVG ADNS7'OR PAGE 6
3. Specific site plan appTOVaI at the time of building permrits shall requine 9 foot by 20
foot paridng stalls, with rows of 59 to 62 feet between parking stall areas. The Planning
Department may grant relief from these standards to the specified standards of the Code; but,
only after a convincing arguanent has been made that the applicant cannot comply with the more
generous standanis, described in the Zoning Adjustor hearing for this variance.
4. Particular attention is drawn m the need to achieve the required land5caping, not
only around the building itself, but as associated with the street and road developmenL The
original zone change aad subdivision were appmved with extensive standardzed landscaping, ,
sidewalks and various appearanoes along the streets. These are not required vonditions of
approval, but are mentioned here only to draw attention tio the need to vomply with the
standands which were appraved for the street/ruad appearances. The laundscaping around the
building which has been approved by previous Sgokane County Approvals is of course
mandatory.
5. In light of the fa,ct that detailed pianning may actually modify ar vary the gross
leasable square feet of the building, a specific number of parldng stall is not setfarth in this
decision. However, the standard of 1 parking space per 200 square feet of gross leasable anea
is approved (equating to 1 parldng space per 253.8 square feet of gross buildable area, based
upon the square footage of approximatiely 825,389 square feet of gross buildable area setforth
in the application). The Planning Departinent shall administer the standard of 1 parldng space
per approximately 200 square feet of gross leasable area as it goes through the process of
approving actual plans for construction. The Planning Depardment may a1.5o use its discretion
as to whether the food court area of the vommon space is included in the gross Ieasable areas of
the calculations.
6. The following Planning Departanent Mes shall provide substantial guidance and
direction for approving the particulars associatied with this variance: PE-15(14-85; ZE-61-89;
ZE-18-89; ZE-50-87; ZE SOA-87 and VE 38-89.
M. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
None
IV. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the
Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended.
2. Applicant shall nuke connection t+o public sewer system. Sewer oonnection permit
is requmd. Plans and spocifications are to be reviewed and approved by the Utilities
Department
V. HEALTH DISTRICT
None
.
.
CASE NO.VE-59-90 SFOK;ANE COUNTY ?ANIlVG ADNSTOR PAGE 7
VI. SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE
1. Consistent with Z.E-180-78 and PE-1504-85.
NOrI'ICE: PENDING COMPLETION OF ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICi
NEED'PO BE OOMPLETED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANGE, PERMITS MAY BE
R;ELEASED PRIOR'PO TBE LAPSE OF THE TEN (10)-DAY APP'EAL PERIOD. '
HOWEVER, THE COUNTY HAS NO LIABII.ITY FOR EXPENSES AND
INCOrfVENIENCE INCURRED BY TI-E APPLICANT IF TBE PR4JECT APPROVAL IS
OVERTURNED OR ALTERID UFON APPFrAL.
DATED this day of October,1990.
,
THOMAS G. OSHER, AIGP
Zoning ' star
Spokane County, Washington
FILED:
1) Applicant (Cerdfied/Return Receipt Mail)
2) Opponents of Record
3) Spokane County Engineer's 4ffice
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Department
6) Spokaae County Deparoment of Buildings
7) Planning Depmrmnent Cr+oss reference F'~le and/or Electronic File
NOTE: ONLY TIHE APPLICANT OR AN OPFONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN
APPF.AL WITHIlN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING.
APPEAL MUST BE AC'GOMPANIED BY A$100.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT
THE SP+OK;ANE COUNTY PLA►NNIIVG DEPARTNENT, BROADWAY CENTRE
BUII.DING, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET, SFOKANE, WA 99260 (Section and
14.412.042 of the Zoning Code for Spokane County).
RECET,!r fl YOI. 110t WE 0 Z) 0
FILEC OR IRE~ORDED
REQu i
9011290307 tPr 1So 7
NnY 29 ~ 34 PH -W 2 Ila
Parcel Nos. 45132.9090, 45123.9026
1.l~lAM E t~OKAMN i~ 45114.9031, 45141.9170
WAUDIT
~
SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEpARTMENT
~ SA ~;~~pN Spakane County, Washington
~
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
The Grantor(s) R. A. Hanson Company, Inc., of the County of Spokane, State of
washington, for and in consideration of Mutual Benefits, the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, grants to Spokane County, a polil:ical subdiviston of the State
of washington, an Easement over, undec, upon and across the hereinafter described
lands situated in the County of Spokane, State of Washington:
A strip of land 10 feet in width adjoining the northecly right of way line
of Indiana Avenue across Lot 2, elock 2, Sullivan Park Center as recorded
in eook 19 of Plats, Pages 25 and 26; and
A strip of land 10 feet in width adjoining the southerly rigtit of way line
of Indiana Avenue across Lot 2, 8lock 1, Sullivan Park Center as recorded
in eook 19 of Plats, Pages 25 and 26.
All located in Sectfons 11, 13 and 14, Township 25, Range 44 East, W.M. in
Spokane Coitnty, Washington.
DAAItIAGE EASEMENTSi as shown hereinabove are for Ehe purpose of installing,
operating and maintaining drainage swales and drainage facilities to dispose oE
runoff, are hereby granted. The County of Spokane is heceby granted the cigfit of
irtyress and egress to all drainage easementa adjacent ta the public rigtlt of way.
The property owner shall maintain the drainaqe swale with a perrnanent live cover of
laNn turf, with opEional shrubbery and/or trees, whfch do not obstruct the flow and
percolation of storm drainage water in the drainage swale as indicated by ttiP
approved plans.
Ttie Easernent described hereinabove is to and shall run with the land. tio
modification of the boundaries of said Easement can be tnade without the prior
approval of Spokane CounEy.
Iti WITtIESS WNEREOF, said corporation has caused this instcument ko be executed by
lts proper officers and its corporate seal to be hereunto afEixed this _Z?071 day
of PJovember ► 1990.
R. A. HANSON COMPANY, INC.
ey (g. d •
President
STATE OF WASHItIGTON )
COUtiTY OF SPOKANE ) ss
on this J 9' A day of November , 1990, before me, the undersigned, a Notacy
Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn personally
appeared R. A. Hanson to me know[i to be the PRESIDENT of R. A. Hanson Company,
Inc., the Corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, aiid acknowledyecl ttle
said insLrumenz co be Lhz Iree and voluntary act. 3nd dead of said Corporation, for
the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath atated that he authorized to
execute the said instrument.
IN wtTrJESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and aEffxed my official seal, the
day and year first above written.
<<..~~~~~rl
►r
. ~
: <<
.
t~o ary Public •`~•t p•..,`~.~ .
In and for the stitelo~ ' 1ihn,
res idi ng at Spokane,,
- _ .
-
' .,3 t~01'~~'; •
, va ~ .
~~~~~~Itllll~~~~~~_.-.r-,.__ - . _ _ ~ i • _
• ° ' ~ ~
BlCf Cj r Fi k rFTl l t F eE'.' Nc..+ . F1 le No,
Pr .:i et Na me ~C~l J•t~t~ ~ J'G~
Ll
F'
Ad c~ r ~ , ar~ce]. ~~i . t J~
7~
5~~+~ons►~r ' s Na e j0~2.G F~h;~n Q ki _ ~1~
~ Enc~ i rreer /~~Rr veyo~' s~F~r c h i t ect' s /hlame~~/,''.~
Tel ephiDne. #
~ 0
F'1 ann i ng Cc~nt act F'+~t~ s~;r~ ~c~ 7Date St,tbmitted Description Init ials
~
[e1i
CV--
w .
,
.
,
.
~ IOT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~
B DWAY CENTRE BUILDfNG N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
PHQNE 456-2205
~ 4 / ~ ►y • H '9~
'SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99260
SPOKANL COUNTY GOURl NOUSC
FdO'll'IICE 07 S70 NTY 7LcmNIING AIIDJUSTOI~ PUBILIIC
$Q BIEARIIhYG
DATE: September 12,1990
TIIViE: 10:45 a.m. or as soon thereafter as possible
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Department
2nd Floor Hearing Room, Broadway Centre Building
Narth 721 Jefferson Saw
Spokane, WA 99264
AGENDA TTEM 6
File: VE-59•90
VARIANCE, FROM SHOPPING CENTER PARKING SPACE REOLIT_R_EMENTS:
LOCAT=: Generally located in the Spokane Valley, between the Spokane River and I-90,
approximately 1/4 mile west of Sullivan Road in the S 1/2 of Sectioa 11, Township 25N, Range 44
EWM, Spokane County, Washington and in the N 1/2 of Section 14, Township 25N, Range 44EWM.
PROPOSAL: Allow a retail shopping centeT with 1 parking space per 235 square feet of gross
buildable area; wheneas, secdon 14.802.040.35 of the Spokane County Zoning Code requires 1
parking space per 200 gross square feet
EXISTING ZONIl1iG: Regional Business (B-3) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industnal
SITE SIZE: Approximately 82 acres
APPLICANT: Price Development Company
dba Spokane Galleria
35 Centtuy Park-Way
Salt Lake City, LTT 84115
AGENT: Philip S. Brooke, III
ITEMS CARRIED OVER FROM PREVIOUS HEARINGS MAY BE HEARD FIRST, PUSSIBLY CAUSING
DELAYS. LEGAL DESCRIP'TIONS AND PROJECT DETAII.S FUR TEIESE PROJECTS ARE AVAILABLE
IN THE PLAIVNING DEPART'MENT FII.ES. APPEALS OF THE DECISION ON THE ABOVE LISTED
CASE MAY ONLY BE FII.ED BY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENI' OF RECORD ACCOMPANIED BY
A$100 00 FEE (SecUons 14.412.042 l, snd 2 of the Zoning Codc of Spokane County Washington )
~
M ^ . - ` • ! L ~ /dt'
r977
SPCIKIA►NE C4UNTY I'LANN1N+G l]FPAFtZ`11ENT
,dPPLICAUQN.S'L.$F]EQEWTFM Z'CJ►I'Ui"~~A12nlSTO /R!QARD QR ADnUS1=NT
~
Certifcatc of Exempcion Na.: ma AgpliCation No.:
Name of Applicant. Aqat: Y,~I~T .
c/o r h i 1 i p S.Broo e I I I, 12610 ~da s gt+on
Street Address: q~r~ F~ ~ja 1 Cent-ffr
Zip Phone • Home.
CiIy: coakaaf- Statc: WA Code: 99204 Work,
. Agcnts Nv. 455=JU0
Namc of Property Owncc(s): P-r-i-Cp. D=J~.~nt Carrooanv
Strcct Address: 15 ['prati lr_zE p rk-Wav
Zip Phvne - Hvme;,
city: Sa7:t Lak~ Cit~jate: vT Codo: 84115 workJ 801) 486-3911
REQUESTED ACTION(S) {Circlc appropriste activn}.
( Variancc(s) Candiuon81 Use Pcrnnit NoacvflfQrming LOt/Ust
W'aiver of Vialatian Temporary Usc/Siructurc (]ther: Far"~9 RatiO
.
Ft7R ~'T`AFF USE ON~'~Y CQDE: OMMOANW ~ C*4,rA fAx-
Citc Rcgulations Scctiants: .~c c5,* Pro crt V'it~lsti~onJ
Section:~~~ TorNnshi ~ P Y
p:~~. Rangc: Sizc:gn€'orcamcnt: f'~,c,C
`
,
Existing Zone: p
Com . Plan Dcs.:~ ' Crossovcr
LEGAL
P~`SA: Y I'd C.tIA• Y N A~SA; YII"~1 .~TRE DIST.;~ C~iECI~.ED BY:
Hearing Date:f
- f_ ~ Pcrsonnct Taking iu AppliCation:
Existing Usc of Praperty. t~T Cant, Baw Tand - EM~Qoad_LL= RQgjQnal ShpWi.n:cr Ma1.1
d]escribe Intended Propasal in Terms of REQUES'IED ACTIQN5 above. Variance fr.pm the
ca-loilat.on of the number of varkinQ stalls based frcxn Gross Buildinq Area to
-ca,l-milat i c,n Ws@d on ,Q~ca~s iea,,sahle Snace and excludinq cavereq cammn ma1T areas.
Strcet Address of Prapcrty: Nane -.Lcgal Dcscriptaon of Frvpeny .'(include casCmani, if applicable): . Lot 1, Block 1, Sull.ivan Park Center, accorciing to plat recorded in Volurne 19
of Plats. Paqes 25 and 26, Spokarne County, Washington.
:
rti,0 of 45114.9031. 45113.9(]26 g F~arcc' Na~s): a~,r3 . 451QJ~s~ 5orarcc of Lc al Plat PE-1504-85
~
Tota1 amaunt of adjvining land controlled by this vwnerJspansor; ~
Wtiat interest da you hold in the property? ~ t.ifile.
.
Aicase list Frcyiaus Planning Dcpartmcnt actions involrring this propcrty. R,e-zone
W_ Z -o-~E ans3JEJAL..EE:1504-5~
i SWEAR, UNDER PENALTY OF PEF.JURY, THAT: (1) I A.MTHE +DWI+Et OF RECOiRI7 OR
AUTHURIZED AC'.zENT FOR T'HE PROP"C)SEI) SITE; {2} IF NUT THE OWNER, WRrfTEN
PERMISSIQN FRC3M SAID C3WNER AUTHUR.IZING MY ACTIONS OI''d HIS/HER BEHALF IS
ATfiACHED: AND (3) ALI. C7F THE ABOYE RES SES AND THOSE C3I`+a' SUPP'ORTING
DOCUNffiNIS ARE MADE TRUT'HFULLY AND TO T EST ~?F .
Signtd: , - - 4
~ _ -
Address: 1200 Was h on Tnust Bldg., Spokane, WA 99204
Phonc ~'o.: t 5a9,~455-6o+~o I3acc: July 9, 1990
.~r
~
I'rIC3~'~Y iEAi~~- I~iotary:
Date: jplv 9. 1 9 0
. - _ ^ -
Page 3 of 4 (Over) Reviscd 3-4-88
e
. - - _ •
= • ~ut; _ivtui uui oUU ICIUIU lt WIUI yVt11 ispp/witt1U11. 11 yuu ulu iAu► ~~1 a iVtLjdJti ll1C,
Planning.- Departmcnt pcrsonnel for advicc on how to proceed.
ii, FF BY CQUNTY DEPARTMFNTS AND OTHER ACENCIES 1.
a) Proposed tnethod of watcr supply: PAIS, L~~~ Wal b) Proposcd mcthod of scwagc disposal: w_, G✓C~ LAh
A prel' in consultation has been held to discuss the prupusal. Thc; applicant
has e i f+orm d of requirements and standards.
0/0
(Signature) (Datc) (Sign-off Waived)
2. ('QLINTY ENCINEERING DEPARTMENT
relimi ary eonsultation has been held to discuss Lhc pruposal. The applicant
has cn formed of requiremYD a standards.
0
(Signature a )110 (Sigci-uff Waived)
03. COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Waivc if outside WMAB)
[`'f A prelimi consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
Oipkicant has rmed ~f requ~ire~ ents and standards.
(Signature iaf (Date) (Sign-off V~aived)
Thc applicant is rcquircd to discuss tho proposal with 641t.
to becomc informed of water system
rcquirtmcnts and standards.
[ 0***~The applicant is required to discuss tbe proposal with
- to bccome informed of sewage.~:di.sposal
raqulremtrita • -and- standards. ` a. WATER PURVEYORi (Waive if outside CWSSA)
a) The proposal not locatcd witbin the boundary of our futurc
scrvice arca.
b) Tha proposal ' located within the boundary of our currcnt
distr' t,
c) W able to serve is site with adeqvate:, water.
d Satisfacto arrangements . q~ been made to serve this
7
ro s .
Z//O AFO
(Signature) (Datc) (Sign-off Waived)
5. SEWERA ,E PCIRYEYQRT ,
(If other than Spokane County)
~ A preli inary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal.
The a ~cant as been«.informed ~,of requirements and standards.
~-tO~-~(J
I (Signat re) (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
!
V
-fag7 g of41~~%~
e~~ ,~''~0~~~ ~.Cr ~Rs.,~
l~ -
-rt'~
l~i~ ~ ✓ ~ J ~
_ . . . _ .
• • , Sullivan Park Center
VARIANCE BURnEN of PROOF Form NAME: c=,,e Cval i QrR
FILE NUMBER
Introduction to this form:
A"variance" is the means by which an adjustment is made in the application of ihe specific
regulations of the zoning classification for a particular (the subject) piece of property. This
property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in a similar zone classification. This adjustment
remedies the difference in privileges. A variance shall not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in
the zone classification in which the property is located.
The following questions will help to determine the outcome of your request. Your request
requires accurate and complete responses. First circle either the "yes" or the "no" answer(s)
following the questions below as they apply to your situarion and then explain as needed (in the
space provided) to make your unique situation clear. Certain phrases from the Spokane County
Zoning Code section on variances are included in these questions. They are underlined.
If your request is a ROAD FRONTAGE VARIANCE please answer only questions A,B,C,D,
and E.
A. Will this variance permit a use which is otherwise prohibited in this zone? Yes (NO)
Explain: Parkincx is uermitt_pci a1d reauired within he zone. ThP iss»P
is the detezmination of the arount of parlci.ng required.
B. Are there special circum~ n• (lot sizc, shape, topography, location, access,
surroundings, etc.) which apply to the subject property and which may not
not apply to other properties in the vi ini ? es No
Explain :This is a Super Reqional Shoppinq Center with enclosed climatized
customer and service area. A ccnplex of this type is not specifically
addressed bv the current paY-kin.g reauirements of tlle Zone Code. If the
mall area were uncovered, no parking would be required based on the nurnber
of sauare feet enclosed bv thP ma11T ` -
C. Is the subject property dgprived of Rrivileees commonl ►en,joy~by other
~ropertie~ in the v ini and in a similar zone classificatton? Ye No
Explain : Univexsity City, Northtawn Shopping Center and Liberty Lake Mall
have all been granted similar vari.ances.
D. Will this variance be harmful to the public welfare or to other properties in
the vicinitv and a similar zone classifi(ation? Yes No
Explain: A11owance of the vari.ance will red ce the of blacKtop asphalt parking,
reauce 'the amount ot stozm water runof~ d-Telp reate a %re esfhetically
pleasing shopping center. Because of the cluster of retail merchants within a mall
parxing is snarea dy tne tenants as o►I secl to strip aevelopment where separate
E. ~~ieregot~ier ~iml~r s°i~'ua~o s iri thPeavh ini ~!M~Imilar es
_ zone classificatio ?
n 0 No
Are tLheN' pern;:rted uses ? Yes No Are they "nonconforming" uses? Yes (S~
Explain: Winvest Development• Ccnxenv was uranted a simila vari nce rernipst
for parking requiranents on August 25, 1989, under ZE-18-89, as was Liberty
La}.e Mall ?
F. Could the subject property be put to a reasonable and pennitted use by you or
another person without the requested variance? es No
Expla.in: The property could perhaps be put to some other reasonable and
permitted use. Howrever, without the vari.ance the planned project for the
site becomes more difficult due to size limitations and the resultinq need
for elevated parking garages, additional asphalt and cornesponding difficulties*
G. If this request is granted, will the subject property be more environmentally sensi
energy conserving, or will it promote the use of an historic property? es No
Explain: Bv reducinq the nLUnber of required, pai-kinq stalls, the amount of land
area covered by asphalt will be reduced by 7 acres, thus allawing for a corres-
norxiinq increase in the area available for qreen spaces and 208 drainaqe areas.'**
Over please
Rev: 5l22/90 Page 1
*with waste water management.
**One parking space serves several different merchants, compared to separate parking for each
merchant in a strip development setting. Vistas will be protected by the elimination of the
need for elevated parking structures. The entire shopping mall will be more aesthetically
pleasing and an envirornrn~eentally sensitive development in harmony with surrounding.areas•
,
. ~ H. If this variancc is sr:inted, will the broader public nced or intarest be scrvcd? Yes No
The ublic need is better served by an enclosed, w~ell-designed shopp ing
Explain:~llPbecause of Spokane winters, than patchwork strip deveiopment which
require more overall parking because merchants are not able to share parking as
in a mall setting. Folicies which provide the least im:)act on the envimnment
benefit the broader public good..
I. Will this variance be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning which applies
to the subject property? Yes No
Explain: Allawance of the varianrP would have no irru~act on the_nurmsP nf the
zoning B-3, one of which purposes is to alloow the establishment of regional-
servinQ camkercial arPas alona principal arter' als or ighways
J. Will approval of this variance grant to the subject property the privileges of a different
zone classificadon (in other words would this be a"de facto" zonc change)? Yes No
Explain: This variance reauest does not ask for any ; r; vi 1 PBP a l1rywr-d nn 1W under
a different zone classification.
K. Will this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan? Yes ~Jo
This vari.ance request does not involve a proposed different use of the
Explain pronerty IIot oontemnlated by hp- S-3 znnA, h»fi ig rnnqi _C;tP_nt wi th thg
sound use and development of the land within the averall guidelines of the
Ccmrphensi v_ an _ rt i mi1 arl y a-q i t r-nntri NitPC tn thi- attrarf i veneS-& Of
Spokane as a place to live and shop.
L. Is this variance required for a reasonabla economic return from the subject property
or is the existing structure too small? Yes
While the decisi.on regarding this variance request will have an irrpact
Explain: on the developer/awners' economic return, the request is not sub-
stantially based upon economic retwrn, but rather on what is a reasonable
reguiresrient considerinq national trends in parkinq requirernents based on
national studies, including the ULI and ICSC studies which are attached.
I
M Did the practical difficultv which caused you to appl'y for this variance exist
before you owned the subject property? es No
Explain: The Spokane Countv ZoninQ Code reauires t~arkina on a site sDecific
basi.s geared to strip develapment and does not specifically address parking
requirements for shomin4 malls.
N. If approved, would this variance affect land use density regulations which exist
to protect the Rathdrum/Spokane Aquifer? Y e s &~O)
Explain: ExCP.Dt to the extent that a reduction in aggptLl ed r_as redu __s,
envirornental irnpact and prarates better storm water drainage managenent.
The following space is for further explanation. Your application will get better consideration if
what, how, arid why voti propose your application is clear. Attach an additional page(s) if needed.
See attachment.
You are invited to present additional photographs, diagrams, maps, charts, etc. in support of
this application (we havc the equipment to display video tapes). No such additional material
is required and in aiiy case it must be BRIEF and descriptive of issues which need to be
considered in relation to this requested variance. If you have questions about the procedure
to be followed feel frcc to contact the Spokane County Planning Department (456-2205).
Page 2
. Sullivan Park Center
VARIANCE BURnEN of PROOF Form NAME: smkane r-a1~ pria
FILE NUMBER
Introduction to this form:
A"variance" is the means by which an adjustment is made in the application of the specific
regulations of the zoning classification for a particular (the subject) piece of property. This
property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in a similar zone classification. This adjustment
remedies the difference in privileges. A variance shall not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in
the zone classification in which the property is located.
The following questions will help to determine the outcome of your request. Your request
requires accurate and complete responses. First circle either the "yes" or the "no" answer(s)
following the questions below as they apply to your situation and then explain as needed (in the
space provided) to make your unique situation clear. Certain phrases from the Spokane County
Zoning Code section on variances are included in these questions. They are n rlin .
If your request is a ROAD FRONTAGE VARIANCE please answer only questions A,B,C,D,
and E.
A. Will this variance permit a use which is otherwise prohibited in this zone? Yes No
Explain: Parkincr is permitted and reauired within the zone _ The 1.qq11Q
is the determination of the amount of parking required.
B. Are there special circumstances (lot size, shape, topography, location, access,
surroundings, etc.) which apply to the subject property and which may not
not apply to other properties in the vi in' 7 (!~esb No
Explain :This is a Super Regional Shoppinq Center with enclosed clirnatized
customer and service area. A ccxmplex of this type is not specifically
addressed bv the current narki.nQ recxuirefnents of the Zone Gode. If the
mall area were uncovered, no parking would be required based on the nunber
ofsquare feet enclosed by the mall.
C. Is the subject property deprived of privileges commonlv,e , jQygd bv othe
properties in the vicini and in aslmilar zone classificarion? Ye No
Explain: University City, Northtawn Shopping Center and Liberty Lake Mall
have a-U en grant simi.lar variances.
,
,
D. Will this variance be harmful to the public welfare or to other properties in
the vic_ initv and a similar zone classificarion? Yes No
ExD1ain: A11owance of the variance will reduce the area of blackto as halt parking,
reduce tile amoun o s ozm wa er runo an e p o crea e a more es e ically
pleasing shopping center. Because of the cluster of retail merchants within a mall,
par g is snarect y, e enan s as op s o s ip eve opcnen ere separate
E. ~~ie eqo't~i"er simbe ilrrO~'ulao s lnrtheavlcini rcu'f"'a ~mil z n 1 if ' n? es No
ar o e c ass icano
Are they permitted uses ? Yes No Are they "nonconforming" uses? Yes ~
Explain: Wi.nvest Developrnent Ccrrroanry was crranted a simil~ v ri nce r~ iPst
for parking requirgnents on August 25, 1989, under ZE-18-89, as was Liberty
Lake Mall.
F. Could the subject property be put to a reasonable and permitted use by you or
another person without the requested variance? es No
Explain: _The property could perhaps be put to some other reasonable and
permitted use. Hawever, without the vari.ance the planned project for the
_ site beccmes more difficult due to size limitations and the resultinq need
for elevated parking garages, additional asphalt and corresponding difficulties*
G. If this request is granted, will the subject property be more environmentally sensi
energy conserving, or will it promote the use of an historic properry? es No
Explain: BY reducinQ the nwmber of required parkinQ stalls. the anount of land
area covered~by asphal.t will be'reduced by 7 acres, thus allowing for a corres-
pondinq increase in the area available for qreen spaces and 208 drainaqe areas.'**
Over please
Rev: 5%22/90 Page 1
*with waste water management. **One parking space serves several different merchants, compared to separate parking for each
merchant in a strip development setting. Vistas will be protected by the elimi.nation of the
need for elevated parking structures. The entire shopping mall will be more aesthetically
pleasing and an environ[nentally sensitive developmnt in harnnony with surmunding. areas •
H. If this variance is sranted, will the broader public need or interest be served? Yes No
The ublic need is better served by an enclosed, well-designed sho ping
Explain: ~llPbecause of Spokane winters, tizan patchwork strip deveiox~ment whicFi
require more overall parking because merchants are not able to share parking as
in a mall setting. Policies which provide the least impact on the environment
benefit the broader public good.
I. Will this variance be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning which applies
to the subject property? Yes No
Explain: Allowance of the variance would have no irrmact on the nur; nsP nf the
zoning B-3, one ofwhich purposes is to allaw the establishment of regional-
servinq commercial areas alona Arincipal arterials or hiqhways_
J. Will approval of this variance grant to the subject property the privileges of a different
zone classif'ication (in other words would this be a de facto zone change)? Yes No
Explain: This variance reauest does not ask fQr any nr; vi 1 PoP a1 1 nwPd nn 1 v under
a different zone classification.
K. Will this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan? Yes ~o
This variance request does not involve aproposed different use of the
Explain Dmicerty IIot contetrmlated bv thE? B-3 znne, hiit icz enn-,i ~tPnt wi th the
sound use and development of the land within the overall guidelines of the
~_armrehOnGi ve Plani ~Tart'i Ct i1 ar1 y as i t rnntri hi ifiPC tn thp attrart ~ vc~nr~~c Of
Spokane as a place to live and shop.
L. Is this variance required for a reasonable economic return from the subject property
or is the existing structure too small? Yes No
While the decision regarding this variance request will have an urzpact
Explain: on the developer/owners' economic return, the request is not sub-
s}antially based upon econanic return, but rather on what is a reasonable
requi,rement considering national trends in parking requiraments based on
national studies, including the ULI and ICSC studies which are attached.
M Did the vractical difficultv which caused you to apply for this variance exist
before you owned the subject property? es No
Explain:' The Siookane Countv Zonincr Code reQUires parking on a site snecific
basis geared to strip developrrent and does not specifically address parking
requiremerits for shoppinct malls.
N. If approved, would this variance affect land use density regulations which exist
to protect the Rathdrum/Spokane Aquifer? Yes
Explain: Exce8t to the extent that a reduction in asn alted r.aG red u__s
environmental irrtpact and pranotes better stornn water drainage managgrtient.
The following space is for fiirther explanation. Your application will get better consideration if
what, how, and why you propose your application is clear. Attach an additional page(s) if needed.
See attachment.
You are invited to present additional photographs, diagrams, maps, charts, etc. in support of
this application (we havc the equipment to display video tapes). No such additional material
is required and in any case it must be BRIEF and descriptive of issues which need to be
considered in relation to this requested variance. If you have questions about the procedure
to be followed feel free to contact the Spokane County Planning Department (456-2205).
Page 2-
~ • .
7
. '
J . . SPOK:ANE COUNTY PLA►NNING DEPART'MEN'r
APPLICATIOhTS BEFORF THE 20hahn '..C3 AI,~n1STORBQ RD OF ADJIJSTMMI~T
Certificatc of Exemption No.: N/A Application No.:
Name of Applicant: 2~pn~jaN '
c/o rhilip s. arao e III, 9on ~
Stjeet Address: ,r--t, Finanrial C'_PntPr ~
Zip Phona - Home:, _
Cily: ~mkane Statc: WA Codc: 99_ work:.~
_ Agcnts No. 455-600Q ,
Name of Propcrty Owncr(s): price Develom-ent CompanY
. Strcct Address: ~ r-Pn _ ir= Park-way
Zip Phono - Homo:
City: ~lt Lake Cit~tate: Ur Codc: 8_ Work:( 801) 486-3911
REQUESTED ACTION(S) (Circlc appropriatc action):
Variance s Conditional Use Permit Nonconforming Lot/Use
Wuiver of Violation Temporary UselStructure Other:_„parkin9 Ratio
FtJR STAFF USE ONI.Y CODE: ORDINANCE
Cito Regulations Section(s):
Propcrty Violation/
~tt.. Seclion: Township: Rangc: Size: Enforcement: Y N
°Existing Zone: Comp. Plan Des.: Crossover_.
• LEGAL
PSSA: Y N UTA: Y N ASA: Y N FIRE DIST.;_ CHECKED BY:
Hearing Date: Personntl Taking in Application: _
~
Existing Usc of Property: Vacant Raw Land - Proposed Use: Regional Shomi.nct Mall
Describe Intended Proposal in Terms of REQUESTED ACTIONS above: Variance fran the
r-a 1 c-> > 1 a t i nn of the number of parkinQ stalls based from Gross Bui.lding Area to
~
raat; nn based on Gross Leasable Space and excluding covered carrmn mall areas.
Street Address of Property: None
Legal Description of Property (include easement, if applicable):
Lot 1, Block 1, Sullivan Park Center, according to plat recorded in Volune 19
-
of Plats, Paqes 25 and 26, Spokane County, Washington.
FrA p~-t ~0 of 45114.9031 45113.9026 . Plat PE-1504-85
arcel No~s): ~d ~.,~lal, 41 7n Source of Legal.
Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner/sponsor:
What intcrest do you hold in thc property? Fee title.
Picasc list previous Planning Dcpartment actions involving this property: Re-zone
UQ,_..;E-18Q-78 anCI,Plat PE-1504-$5 ,
I SWEAR, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJLTRY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OVVNER OF RECORD OR
AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOrI' THE OWNER, VVRITI'EN
' PERMISSION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY AC'I'IONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS
SES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING
%
Y ATTACHED: AND (3) f1LI.OF THE ABOVE RES
DOCUMENT'S ARE MADE TR Y AND TO T EST OF .
Signed:
. .
Address: 1200 Was ' on Trust Bld S kane, WA 99204
K.-• - ' ' - _ -j ' -
• 509 455-6000 Datc: J~y 91 1990
,
Phone No..
. ' '
X A .
. r
~ NOTaRY SEAL: Notary:
V\1
0
Date: Ju1v 9. 1 9
1
, . '
Page 3 of 4 (Over) Revised 3-4-88
~ .
~
I .
. . .
llll: lUlltl Ulll at►U lCtUiil ll Wllll yuul tipplll:iillUi►. 11 yVU UIU 1iu1 66;1 a lU1ul, dJK LI1C
Planning Department pcrsonnel for advicc on how to proceed.
11. S GN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
1.
a) Proposcd mcthod of watcr supply: f,~011
b) Proposed mcthod of sewage disposal: /,~c S~ G✓~f~
A prel' in eonsultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant
has e i f~orm d of requirements and standards.
1-4 :1:: TO
(Signaturo) (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
2. COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
relimi ary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The applicant
has en formed of requirernen7 a d standards. I.
(Signature Dat ) (Sign-off Waived)
3. COCINTY t1TTLITIES DEPARTMENT (Waive if outside WMAB)
["f A prelimi consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
ap licant has inf rmed of req~ire~m~ents and standards.
, ~
(Signaturc (Datc) (Sign-off Waived)
.0
The applicant is rcquired to discuss the proposal with
to bccome informed of water system
rcquiremcnts and standards.
[L4'0'~ The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to becomc informed of sewage djsposal
rcquircmcnts and: standards.
4. WATER PURVEYOR: lWaive if outside CWSSA~
. a) The proposal ' located within the boundary of our future
scrvice area. *WN* b) The propossl 'ys/is not located within the boundary of our currcnt
district. '
c) We are/are not able to serve this site with adequate water.
d) Satisfactory arrangements havelhavc not been made to serve this
proposal. .
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived) 05. SEWERAGE PURYEYQR:
(If othcr than Spokanc County)
~ A preli inary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal.
The a icant as beeninformed #of requirements and standards.
~-l - 7-/D-&J
(Signat re) (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
Ct ~ (
,
Page 4 of 4
, .
~ ~ '
40 'w_
• ' ~ ~l~~~i~~ ~ i~'~~ ~~1~._....~
TIttS IIOTE IS IfCALTINDER aA \ 1.
i0A ALL OEBTS, PU91lC ANO PRNATE G 13544677 C
WAtilllN(iTl)N.1).~:. ~
G 13544677 C
7
N A M I LT f] N ~•~^"~'!Y ~~~....y I.
i~ ~ ~,P~~' r~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
x~ -
' ~ . . - . 49
- 1 .I FW_qr
►
7~T~~~
TNIS MOTE IS LEGALTENDER / • ~ti
i0R All DEB7l. PUBUC AND PRIVATE
A E 85604725 G
~ .
%%'Af+l[I\GTUN.D.C. 5
1
Asaa
. - - - -
E85604725G
=
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ► - - ~ ~ ~ li i ~ 7~~.~'~ ~ i
; ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~
• _ ' ~ _ ~ ' _ J ' ,
, • i ~ • `
~ 1~, _
T111S NOTE IS IEGAITENDER
!OR ALL DEBTS. PUBLIC AND PRNATE L588515 5 2 F N
` E' ~ _ ~ , ~~:1_•;HL~7G'TU\,u.c. ~1 , ~
~ 12 -~m- • - - -V 12
E
L 58851552 F
12 ~i
12 ~
a - - -
t
~
~
~ R ECE t P Date ~b 19 9sz. N c::.
J ~
Receivad From
r .
Add ress a ,
~
Uollars $
a
s' ~For _A
. ~ - - -
~ t
, .
~ ACCOUNT ~ riOW PAiD /
- , Ak11 0f
AIC0IINi
1 I I
> - ~
~ Nr.i nN, 1
r r Sullivan Fark Center
VARIANCE I3URT)T',N of PR[]OF Fvrm NAME: -qpakanP Ga11Qr.ia
FILE NUMBER
Introduction to this form:
A"variance" is ihe means by which an adjustment is made in Lhe applicati.on vf th+e speeific
regulations of the zvning classification for a particular (the subject) piece vf pxoperty. This
praperty, beeause af special circumstances appPicable to it, is deprived of privileges commvnly
enjoyed by vther praperties in the vicinity and in a similar zone classificarion. This adjustment
remedies the difference in privileges. A varianee shall not autharize a use otherwise grohibited in
the zone classif catian in whieh the property is 1oGated.
The following questivns will help tca determine the outcome 4f your request. Your request
requires accurate and complete responses. First circle either the "yes" or the "no" answer(s)
following the questivns be1Qw ds they apply to your situation and th~en expZain as needed (in the
spaee provided) ta make your unique situation clear. Certain phrases from the Spakane County
Zoning Cade section Qn variances are included in these questians. They are underlined.
If yaur request is a RQAD FR17NTAGE VARIANCE please answer only questions A,B,C,D,
and E.
A. Will this variance pemmit a use whiGh is atherwise prohibite+d in this zvne? Yes
Explain: FarkirtQ is De.rmitted and reauire6 w th i n_ thp- znnp_ The, i~-c;nP
is the deterninatian of the amaunt of parking required. L.4
B. Are there st)eciat circumstances (lot size, shape, topagraphy, Iocativn, access,
sunroundings, etc.) which apply to the subject property and which may nvt
not apply to vther properties in the vicinitv? (!~esb No
Explain :This is a Super ReqiQnal Shoppinq Center with enclosed climatized
customer and service area. A corrplex of this type is nat specifically
addressed bv the current Darkincr rernairefnents of the. Zone C~ If the
mall area w+ere u.r:covered, no garking would be required based an the nwnber
af scxuare feet enclosed bv the mall.
C. Is the subject property de~rived of pnviIeges commonlv enjvveci hv other
pronerties in the vicinitv and in a similar zone elassif cation? Ye No
Expxain :University City, Narrtlibcawn Shapping Center and Liberty Lake Niall
have alI been granted similar varianees.
U. W ill this variance be harmful to the publie welfare or to vther properties in
the vicinitv and asimiiar zone cIassification? Yes Nv
c
Ex ain: Al~~wance of the va~ciance will reduce the area of blacktota asphalt parking,
r uce T-tae amount of sto=m water runor-1 ana' Fe"ip to create a more esfHeeEically
pleasing shopping center. Because of the cluster of retail merchants within a mall,
parKj-ng is snarea ay tne tenants as o,p secx to strip cxevelopment where separate
tn ust be rovi eci for each . rcant.
E. A~re~~ier~ot%er srmilr situaions In the vicini y_ in a similar zone classification? es No
Are they perrr:tted uses ? Yes No Are they "nonconfarming" uses? Yes
Explain: Winvest Develoxrnent. Copmanv was aran±-ed a similar vari an_ce recsuest
for parking requirements on August 25, 1989, under ZE-18-89, as was Liberty
Lake Mall.
F. CauId the subject property be put tv a reasvnable and pernutted use by yvu vr
anather person without the requested variance? es No
Explain: The property Cau-Id PerhaPs be Put to scxne other reasanable and
permitted use. However, without the variance the planned prc►ject for the
site beccx!xes 1110"re difficult due to size limitations and the resultinq need
" for elevated parking garages, additional asphalt and carresponding difficulties*
G. If this request is granted, will the subject property be rnore environmentally sensiti e,
energy conserving, or wili it promate the use of an histvric pra~perty? es Nv
Explain: Bv reducinq the numher of required parkinq stalls, the aric+unt of land
a.rea cavered by asphalt wil.l. be reduced hy 7 acres, thus allvwing far a corres-,
t)ondinq increase in the area available for qreen spaces and 20$ drainaqe areas
+f3ver please
Rev: 5122/90 Page 1 -
*with waste water management. **C7ne parking space serves seueral ciifferent mercnants, compared to separate parking far eaeh
merchant in a strip d.evelopment setting. 1listas will be prcatectei by the el.imination of the
need fflr elevated parking structures. The entire shopping mall will be rnc►re aesthetically
pleasing and an envirornnentally sensitive development .in harrrxony with surxc3unding areas.
~
. h `
H. If this v;lriancc is granted, will the hroader public need or interest be served? Yes No
The public need is better served by an enclosed, well-designed shopp ing
Explain: ~11 because of Spokane winters, than patchwork strip devel.ot~rnent whicFi
require more overall parking because merchants are not able to share parking as •
in a mall setting. Folicies which provide the least itroact on the environment
benefit the broader public good. I. Will this variance be inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning which applies
to the subject property? Yes No
Explain: Allowance of the variance would have no impact on _th_e_;ur; nsP of the
zoning B-3, one of which purposes is to allow the establishmnt of regional-
servinq cormtercial areas alona nrinc ipal arterials or hiahwayi, _
J. Will approval of this variance grant to the subject property the privileges of a different
zone classificarion (in other words would this be a"de facto" zone change)? Yes No
Explain: This vatI'i3aCe reauPst does Ilot sk for any = ri vi 1 PQP a 1 1 nwPCi on 1= under
a different zone classification.
K. Will this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan? Yes No
This variance request does not involve a proposed different use of the
Explain DrOpgrty flOt contenmlated by h_ B-3 .nnP_, hut is rnnqi gtPnt wi th fihe
sound use and development of the land within the overall guidelines of the
Cmrehensive P1 an parti Ctil arl y aS i t c-nnfiri hiitP-, tn thP attrar-fiivpnPqq Of
Spokane as a place to live and shop.
L. Is this variance required for a reasonable economic return from the subject property
or is the exisang structure too small? Yes No
While the decision regarding this variance request will have an urpact
Explain: on the developer/awners' economic return, the recruest is not sub-
stantially based upon econanic return, but rather on what is a reasonable
requirement considerinq national trends in parkinq requirements based on
national studies, including the ULI and ICSC studies which are attached.
M Did the practical difficulty which caused you to apply for this variance exist
before you owned the subject property? es No
Explain: The Spokane Countv ZoninQ Code recruires narkincx on a site specific
basis geared to strip development and does not specifically address parking
rectuisements for ShOUp1IlQ R1cil1S .
N. If approved, would this variance affect land use density regulations which exist
to protect the Rathdrum/Spokane Aquifer? Y e s Qo
Explain: ExceDt to the e,xtent that a rPd_uct; on in a-qnhal ed r s red u__s
environmental irrtpact and pramotes better stonn water drainage managernent.
The following space is for further explanarion. Your application will get better consideration if what, how, and why yoti propose your application is clear. Attach an additional page(s) if needed.
See attachment.
. J_
You are invited to present additional photographs, diagrams, maps, charts, etc. in support of
this application (we have the equipment to display video tapes). No such additional material is required and in any case it must be BRIEF and descriptive of issues which need to be • considered in relatian to this requested variance. If you have questions about the procedure
to be folloNved feel free to contact the Spokane County Planning Department (456-2205). :
. Page 2
,
r~
, ~ , • .
•
.-SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
P 1 A'I'[QNS BEFORE THE ZOIVINC ADn1STOR/B0ARD QF ADJUSTNENT .
Cerlificatc of Excmption No.: NIA Application No.:
Name of Applicant: Pri cP Develoamnt. C:o, Agent: Y, n
c/o Philip S. Brooke III, 12Q0 4Vas gton
Street Address: Tn~t- F'i nanni a1 _ 11 er
Zip Phone - Home:
City: cpok=P State: WA Codc: 99204 Work:
Agcnts No. 455-6000
Namc of Property fJwner(s): Price Develoxment Camany
Strcct Address: 15 rPntilrZr park-Wav
Zip Phone - Home:
City: Sa_Lake Cit4jate: UI' Code: 84115 work; (801) 486-3911
RCQUESTED ACTION(S) (Circlc appropriatc action):
(V a r i a n c c( s~ Conditional Use Permit Nonconforming Lot/Use
Waiver of Violation Temporary Use/Structure Other: Parkin9 Ratio
FOR STAFF IJSE O_.Y CODE: ORDINANCE '
Cite Regulations Section(s):
. Propcrty Violation/
Section: Township: Rangc: Size: Enforcement: Y N
Existing Zone: Comp. Plan Des.: Crossover
LEGAL
PSSA: Y N UTA: Y N ASA: Y N FIRE DIST.; CHECKED BY:
Hcaring Datc: Personncl Taking in Application: -
Existing Use of Property: Vacant Raw Lnd -Proposed Use~ &gional Shoppinct Mall
Describe Intcnded Proposal in Terms of REQUESTED ACTIONS above: Variance from the
c c-ulation of the nunber of oarkinQ stalls based from Gross Buildinq Area to .
1-a1c111_at?on based on Caross Leasable Space and excludinR covered carrnon mall areas. f
Strcct Address of Property: None . Legal Dcscription of Propcrty (include easement, if applicable):
:r.Lot 1, Block 1, Sullivan Park Center, according to plat recorded in Volume 19
of Plats. Paqes 25 and 26, Spokane County, Washi.ngton. .
~i i~ . 1 • r ~ 1L•
- , . . ` , .f -
P~rt ~0 of 45114. 9031, 45113 . 9026 F~arccl No~s): anri a5141 _917Source of Legal: Plat PE-1504-85
Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owaer/sponsor:
What intcrest do you hold in !he property? Fee title •
• r. - > 1.' ,'r I
.j..,... . ' . .
2i t
;c Plcasc list prcvious Plannins Dcpanment actions involving this propeny: Re-zone t~.~ _~sr: 1 i;a,.k r':
UQ._Z,E-18Q-78 ancl Plat PE-1504-85 ' ~~~"';:.•';=":.;a~
~ .•~'~t..it~-,
I SWEAR, UIVDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, VVRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS
ATTACHED: AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPOpN\ SES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TR Y AND TO T ES"I' OF MY .
0 ti Signed: ' ~ ' 1 ~y,►, ,
13 7Address: 1200 Was ' on Tiust Bldq., Spokane, WA 99204
'~l • Jul.y 9, 1990
f ~j_ -e' : Phone No.: ( 509 ) 455-6000 Date. . ,
7 • - ;
~ Notar Y • .,.;.r .
i'• ~1~'~?. Date: Julv 9. 1 90 .~ii~ / 1i.jyt;,3~+~.`~ ~ _
1 ~ ~ ~I~~~~~ •trti .
Page 4 (Over) Revised 3-4-88
.
j • - ~#i ~'_'3ti'i3 r`'
I1Y !
I • A /r 'f~J.~«~t
, ; . . t ,,.;~~4-1}►'?"
k
:"5 ~ .i ~~1~:7+1t.._ _r. . _ . . . ._Y. `J:.'L'[ • . . . _ s... _ ii
.
,
~~~~~~f►►II111►!/1~~ , • "
I
•J J t~ i~i~ ~ f - .
A~l
~ ~ ~ l ' l • .
!>1> > ~
r) ~
c7 lilc: lUi~/l U~ al1U iClUill ll Wllll yUUI iipptll:illlUll. 11 yuu UlU 1IU► 64,:1 'a 1V1U1, dJK 111C
;c) ~t pepartment personnel for advice on how to proceed.
~N 0.:)
> -
51.ri,',~-BY COUNTY DEPARTM NTS ND OTHER AG.NCIES
1:_4 7NTY H .A .TH DISTRI .T
.i
a) Proposed method of water supply:
. b) Proposed method of sewage disposal: _
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss thc prupu,al. Thc applicant
: has been informed of requirements and standards.
~ A#.
(Signature) (Date) ` (Sign-off Waived)
~ 2. GOUNTY ENGINEFRiNC; D .PARTMENT
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss ihe propos;il. The applicant
has becn informed of requirements and standards. •
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-uff Waived)
03. COUNTY i1TIL•ITIES DEPARTM ,NT (Waive if outside WMAB)
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
applicant has been informed ; of require~ments and standards. I
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived) -
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become informcd of water system
requirements and standards.
TAe applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become informed of sewage disposal ~
requirements and standards.
;
(3WATER PCIRVEYnRT (WaLve if outside CWSSA)
a) The proposal isAs not located within the boundary of our future
scrvice arca. "AW~ - -w *'%,*W
b) The proposal is/is not located within the boundary of our current
district.
c) ~ We are/are not able to serve this site with adcquate water.
d) ' Satisfactory arrangements have/have been made to serve this
proposal.
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
. 05. SEWFRACE P IRV .YORT
(If other than Spokane County)
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal.
The applicant has been,,.,.informedWof requirements and standards.
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-off Waived)
Page 4 of 4
` . ~ ~ .
r
~ •
i
~ The Spokane County Zoninq Code under Regional Business (B-3)
Zone requires one (1) parking space per two hundred (200) gross
square feet of building area for "other retail, commercial"
(Chapter 14.802.040).
The owner/applicant intends on developing a super regional
shopping center facility which will include substantial covered
mall areas. The development will proceed in three (3) phases.
Phase I will include 825,389 square feet Gross Buildinq Area (GBA) ,
650,000 square feet Gross Leaseable Area (GLA); Phase II, 345,733
square feet GBA, 307,091 square feet GLA; Phase III, 165,403 square
feet GBA, 126,127 square feet GLA, for a total of 1,336,525 square
feet GBA, 1,083,218 square feet GLA.
This variance application deals only with Phase I.
At one (1) parking stall per 200 square feet of GBA, the total
number of spaces required is 4,127. Applying the same ratio to
GLA, the requirement is 3,250, a difference of 877 parking spaces.
At 153 square feet per parking stall (8.5 feet x 18 feet for
parallel parking) times 877 equals 134,181 square feet or 3.08
acres. This figure does not include additional roadways and the
driving lanes between the parkinq stalls which when added to the
area of each parking stall totals 350 square feet per space. Thus
the total area required to provide an additional 877 parking spaces
is approximately 7 acres.
The Spokane County Zoning Code does not specifically address
parking requirements for shopping malls, but is instead qeared
towards commercial strip development.
The owner/applicant feels that the parking requirement based
on Gross Building Area as opposed to Gross Leaseable Area is
excessive, is not consistent with one of the stated objectives of
Chapter 14.802.000 Purpose and Intent "...to provide an
I
aesthetically pleasing parking facility which may incorporate the
required 1208' standards, all in the interest of public safety and
general welfare," and is inconsistent with national trends in
parking requirements as outlined in the attached 1982 Urban Land
Institute (ULI) and International Council for Shopping Centers
(ICSC) studies, which requirements have been adopted by many
communities.
The primary difference between GBA and GLA is the exclusion
under GLA of covered mall areas and emergency exit hallways. The
Spokane County Zoninq Code makes no distinction between enclosed
retail and enclosed mall areas in its parking requirement. Other
major shopping centers routinely exclude covered mall areas from
the parkinq requirement calculation. (See attached data on other
regional shopping centers.) Because of Spokane's climate, covered
mall areas are considered a necessity and are demanded by shoppers.
Covered mall areas, however, should not be included in gross square
footage for determination of parking requirements, as by themselves
they have no impact on parking use or need. They do, however, add
to the attractiveness of the center and promote retail shopping at
levels deemed necessary to attract and retain anchor and other
retail tenants. Further, enclosed emergency exit hallways
necessary for safety purposes should likewise be excluded from the
calculation of gross square footage as they are not leased areas.
The desired objective should be to balance the needs of
adequate off-street parking with the needs of retail merchants for
adequate and convenient customer parking. The two needs are
actually consistent. Inadequate parking will discourage patronage
of retail businesses within the center. Shoppers frustrated
because of difficult parking are not likely to return. Thus the
adequacy of parking is of paramount concern to retailers and
I -
•r
particularly anchor tenants in making a determination to locate in
a given shopping center.
The parking requirements recommended by the ULI and ICSC study
based on gross leaseable area are relied upon by developers,
retailers and planning departments as evidenced by the attached
data from other communities, all of which provide evidence that not
only are the ULI/ICSC standards widely used, but that they work.
Further, the owner/developer will provide bike racks at
convenient locations which will have some impact on the number of
vehicle spaces needed.
Finally, public bus transportation is available on nearby
Sullivan Road, and discussions are in progress with the Spokane
Transit Authority to expand bus service to the shopping center when
completed. Several on-site routes are now being considered by STA.
There is a park 'n ride parking area located on Sullivan just north
of the Spokane River in close proximity to the shoppinq mall.
Tenant employees could be encouraged to park their vehicles in that
lot and utilize bus services to the mall during peak shopping days
as necessary.
Because of the desire to reduce environmental impact and the
desire for aesthetically pleasinq surroundings in harmony with
sound land use planning, a policy of encouraginq the development
of landscaped areas with trees, shrubs and grass as opposed to
asphalt should be encouraged consistent with adequate parking.
\cheryl_s\lang
~ w
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
September 4, 1990
T0: SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Current Planning _
Administrator)
.
FROM: SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER
SUBJ: VE 59-90 / Prlce Dev.
re: variances "
The County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced
application. The followinq comments are offered for inclusion in
the Findings and Order as "Conditions of Approval" should the
request be approved.
E64 WE HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROPOSAL AND HAVE NO
COMMENTS TO MAKE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION, OTHER THAN THOSE
IMPOSED BY ZE-180-78 AND PE-1504-85.
,
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
September 4, 1990
TO: SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Current Planning _
Administrator)
,
FROM: SPOKANE COUNTY EIVGYNEER
SUBJ: VE 59-90 / Price Dev.
re: Variances "
The County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced
application. The following comments are offered for inclusion in
the Findings and Order as "Conditions of Approval" should the
request be approved.
E69 WE HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROPOSAL AND HAVE NO
COMMENTS TO MAKE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION, OTHER THAN THOSE
IMPOSED BY ZE-180-78 AIYD PE-1504-85.
9 0 111111~~~
~
c~► ~
( 30
ir
~
3
f W ~
o ,a~rie+~ ~C,ELO
s-
•
~ + r
,.r+ w ti .j . ~
C M o . • b 4 !
0'A ~r ' ~ ~ ' ~ ` ~ J ir ~ • '
{ - ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ p~„tr ~ ~
: t • 3 y~ ' ' OD
w . RN
~ + f t - 0 NE
' f< = • Ql~,
. .
~ ' w • ° a ~.a~► ~~it
~
1 TAR~~b .
06 RK
l~MtL 4 r .
~t
~ + Z ~SV~ ~ •
• ,o PAaK
♦
` ~
r • t
s~
90
.
` LK
. ~
• ~ 1
• ~
• ~ ~ ~
•
• ~ ~jiK C f ~
-
• . 4!,`1
~
r y ` ~a
~ ~
~
►/O ~ + 1i1~qr
~ 0 ~ .
. ~
j0 r s C
~ ! i 31
► • jjr •
c
j , .
• ~
t if • • a~ ~ ~
[
cc j•. -
• . ~ , .
. ~ . .
4.0
~ • ` ~ ~ •
.
~1~ f~ t ~ .
♦ f ~ 1! 1 m1 - '
• i► '~1 ~ . ~
SN =1
• '
~ ~ 1► t ~
~ `
.
~
."A,-
•
- F?0
~
~ 0 ~ - - 1
~ - ' ~
L
4~ . .
~ ~Flew
R
• ~j~ I. I
- i I - -
• i----
it
w
~ i
w
a C?_ . _ • ~ ~ f~------~~, !
~ ~ .
^7 ~ EUCLIC] RQAC7
~~"►.1tKi.~''
y- ~
" Z 0 N E
10 ~ ~ S-
12
"
y,
• p~ ~
~StlANNON
INGTQ,l~1 IP,j
~
ZONE C
CtfP
p
~
I '
~ ~ - -
~ aL
! I~~ ~ r
If
,,nwAY 15 1 AVENUE 13
0
~ ti,.aV I
~ALL£Y I WA Y
R ~
a ' ~ ~ r=ir==7t
~ ~ STE~N
~ AVE i' V I I ROAD
~ UNION _ PAClF1C
- . . . ~ -
EnluE O 4rH i aue ~
+~ry
_ L.4 8TH II 11 ~ A VE I I r~ ^ U
II `l ~ 1R I i f I I~~ ,t ~,f
Il
23
la
~I ~ II 'J AVENUC
~
~L
I I ~ p I
AVE
I I .r
40 p_ I ~ 4 I fr~
< Q' Pti'F~
+r
~i
V J frfi
~ ,4
ZONE C Q.
„
~ ~ ~1 26 2~►TN AVE 25
~
J2t . ,a vE , ~
~ rr
34 35 36 ,
Jt]IfVS PAfVEL 0401
Z0 NE A
PARKING:
A STUD'Y & COMPA.RISON
6L)0KAN-JL.E
GAttEQIA
SP(JKANE CUUNTY, WASHINGTON
PRlCE DEVEL.t~PN1EIVT Ct]MPANY
~ PRICE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
- SHOPPING CENTERS I INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE PAOPERTIES TELEPHONE (801) 486-3911
35 CENTURY PARK-WAY • SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 TELECOPIERFAX (801) 486-7653
~
il
June 29, 1990
~ -
~
Mr. Steve Horobiowski
- Spokane County Planning Department
8roadway CentrP Building
North 721 Jefferson
Spokane, Washington 99260
RE: Spokane Gallerfa
Spokane, Washington
~
~
Dear Mr. Horobiowski:
f- This booklet along with the accompanying site plan dated
~ 6/29/90 is rovidecl as
p part of the Variance Burden of Proof
Form filed with our application and request for a parking
adjustment at our Spokane Galleria project.
We have relied on shopping center industry standards in the
design of our parking areas and therefore have included an
r introductory explanation to the Urban Land Institute, the
International Council of Shopping Centers, and our traffic
consultant, Barton-Aschman Associates.
Basic to our appeal is the definiton and understanding of
common area. In the super regional center we are planning, the
- covered and climatized walkways provide for shopper
convenience and comfort. A map is included of this common
area, which, when taken away from the center, leaves gross
leasable area (GLA). We are proposing to provide f ive (5)
parking stalls for every 1000 Sq. Ft. of GLA in the shoppinc
~ center.
The ULI and ICSC support this parking index and their studies
are enclosed.
- Finally, we have provided an extensine survey for a 5.0/1000
- GLA index by contacting nineteen (19) double level shopping
- centers in municipalities similar in population to Snokane.
Size and parking data on each center along with testimony by
each shopping center manager and testimony from each local
~ planning department is provided. Names and phone numbers arz
included for your reference.
t J
~L -
cj Mr. Steve Horobiowski, ' June 29, 1990
~ Pasge ^Two
~
We stand rteady to provide whatever add,itional support and/or _ documentation the pl,anning d,epartment feels is needed to
_ kevaluate our design standards and philosophy.
Regra r ds ,
P CE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Project Director
~
PED/tf
' Enc,losures
y cc`: PF
File Noe 10'8601-I-A-3-c '
~
- - -
~
~
- I
~
0
~
7
-~C
5
i
~ SPOKANE GALLERIA
r PARKING
E_ .
A STUDY AND COMPARISON t
- . Introduction
1 . Index
`2 . Current Parking Authorities
~
~ 3 . Code Analysis
~
4 . Studies 6 Recommendation
~
. ULI/ICSC Study 1982
~ . ULI Information 1990
. Barton-Aschman Recommendation
~
~ 5 . Representative Projects - Open & Ooerating
- . Albuquerque, New Mexico (2)
. Boise, Idaho
` . Casper, Wyoming
. Colorado Springs, Colorado
. Eugene, Oreg on
. Fresno, California
. Medford, Oregon
. Ogden, Utah
~ . Portland, Oregon
. Reno, Nevada
~ . Salt Lake City, Utah (4)
. Sacramento, California (2)
Spr ingf ield, Oregon
t . Tucson, Arizona (2)
i
6 . S umma ry
%
r~
~
1
~
t
~
t
About UL -the Urban Land
nstitute
ULI-ihe Urban Land Institute is an independent, nonprofit
- research and educational organization incorporated in 1936 to
improve the quality and standards of land use and develop•
ment
The tnstitute is committed to conducting practical research
in thz various fields of reai estate knowledge, identifying and
interpreting land use trends in relation to the changing eco-
_ nomic, social, and civic needs of the people, and disseminat-
ing pertinent information leading to the orderly and more
efficient use and development of land
ULI receives its financial support from membership dues.
sale of pubiications, and contributions for research and pane!
" services
Ronaid R Rumbaugh
Executive Vice Presicent
~
~
~
~
i
- About the Internationa Counci
of Shopping Centers
The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) is the
trade association of the shopping center industry It is dedi-
cated to advancing professional standards of per'slormance in
the development, construction, financing, leasing, manage-
ment, marketing, and operating of shopping centers through-
out the world It also represents the industry on legisiative and
regulatory issues
- ICSC offers a broad range of business and professional aids
to persons in the shopping center industry These inc(ude ed-
ucationat courses, professional certification programs, meet-
_ ings and conferences, research, information exchange and
publications ICSC is a nonprofit membership association
Albert Sussman
Executive Vcce Presrdent
~
~
. rn Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
B arton-Aschman's multidisciplinary practice encompasses traffic
engineering and transportauon planning, civil and structural en-
- gineeruig; landscape architecture; parlnng planrung and design;
envuonmental analyses, and urban and regional plannmg More than
300 trained and expenenced men and women provide the broad ranee
of disciplmes and skills essennal for producing thorough and reliable
r solutions to a wide range of urban and regional problems.
" The companv provides nationvvide services to public and pnvate clients
' from offices located in San Jose, Berkeley, Pasadena, and Riverside,
California; Honolulu, Hawau; Dallas, Texas; Evanston, llLnois, Minne-
~ apolis, Minnesota; Southfield, Michigan; CoIumbus, Oluo, Boston,
_ Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., Fairfax, vrginia; Orlando, Tampa,
West Palm Beach, and FL Lauderdale, Flonda, and San Juan, Puerto
Rico
~ The present firm was organized in 1959. In that year, George W.
- Barton's traffic engineenng and transportation planning firm merged
wnth Fredenck T Aschman's urban and regional ptanning practice. This
- acuon, an innovative concept for its time, demonstrated the companvs
understanding of the fundamental relationships between transportatton
systems, land use, and socioeconomic developmencs
The company has conunued to strengthen its basic slulls and expertise
in traffic, transportation and urban/regional planning throu¢h the ac-
~ quisinon of several specialty firms: W.C. Gdman & Co (1966), special-
iscs in transit consultation; W.V Rouse Associates, Ltd. (1972), experts
in socioeconomic analyses; and R H. Pratt Assoaates, Inc. (1977), spe-
= cialists m transportauon systems analvsis and modeling.
_ In 1985, Barton Aschman became a subsidiary of The Parsons Corpora-
uon, headquartered in Pasadena, California. The Parsons Corporation
- is one of the world's largest internauonal engineenng and coastruction
organuauons, provlding services to government and industry.
,
:I • •
. ark'ing Planning and Design
. A Barton-Aschman Service
- a~ _ - Significant changes in commutina
patterns in America have increased
the need for parking space. It is esti-
Ilr►M r .
Y. - ~ --~'•=r-~ ~ mated that the typical automobile
in America requires 2.3 parking
,
y 3' i spaces today and within 10 years
• l
~'xn A.- will require 3.5 parking spaces.
r
~ a
~
_ r _
fN
The majority of U.S. households Barton-Aschman operates from
now have two or more vehicles, offices throughout the United StG:es;
while the number of households our parking practice and experier►c-z
without any automobiles dropped are extensive. This Cackground prc-
by a(most 10 percent between 1960 vides the broad experience that
and 1980. The number of two-vehicle comes only through a nationwide
households grew by 172 percent. practice.
The automobile is now and will con- This brochure describes Barton-
tinue to be the overwhelming modal Aschman's parking expertise:
choice for workers in America. The
bottom line to these facts is that • Central business district
every trip made by an automobile programs
requires a parking space at the . University campuses
ongin and destination.
With more than 40 years of experi- • Medical centers
ence, 8arton-Aschman Associates, • Airports
- Inc., is well qualified to provide con-
sultation in all aspects of parking • Parking management plans
from initial planning through finan• .Financial feasibility studies
cial analysis to the preparation
of designs and specifications. • Design and designlbuild
~
~
, z~ . • •
. ~
Traffic congestion in urban and suburban areas
h2s bacome one of the nation's most signifi-
cant issues. Efficient and safe mobility of
people and goods is the paramount goal of
traffic engineers. Traffic and parking solutions
associated with new or expanding develop- ~ . - -
ments must satisfy both developer objectives
and community interests.
Barton-Aschman's engineers use state-of-the-
art software systems to aid in the study of -~traffic problems. Barton-Aschman provides
the following services that encompass all fac-
ets of traffic engineering and operations:
Jl~ J
■ 517E TRAFF/C ENG/NEER/NG _ • t~
r
■ TRAFF/C OPERATION STUDIES '
~
■ DOWNTOWN C/RCULATION PLANS
■ TRAFFIC lMPACT ANAL YSES
■ TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTFMS
Barton-.95chman prouides trajj=ic IarJ?s:
■ TRAFrlC PLANNlNG FOR MAJOR shopprng center projert deveto,re-r;.
GENERATORS
■ PEDESTA/AN ClRCULATION
FAC/LITlES -
- ,
■ TRAFFIC SAFETY STUDlFS
■ ENEr?GY-SAVlNG TRAFFIC CONTROL
PLANS
■ FUNCTlONAL DES/GN OF PARK/NG
■ ROADWAY GE'OMETR/C DESIGN
For many major airPorts, Bar:or.-
Aschman has cond ucted tra f J: c~_
- cirC.~la!ion, ar.d rarkino >.'uc::~_.
V e, ~~y ~ ! tl
dr- ~
-
Tht `ttm prexns ha f frt Signcl Systen: ; iu *`ar
.~:n :n ~c.~ ~ r~,~,µ ~~J•~ ~.;.a~c,.?:.:.
2
~
1
L f
r
j
c .r r
r
SHOPPING CENTER COMMON AREA VS. GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE
^ The parking standard per Section 14.802.040 of the Zoning
_a Code of Spokane County for "other retail, commercial"
requires one (1) parking space per two hundred (200)
~ gross square feet. Our position, which has been shared
by other large enclosed malls in the Spokane area, is
that this standard does not recognize the enclosed
climatized non-retail common area that is provided
around, behind, and sometimes between shops and
` department stores in a super regional shopping center.
_ This area serves to allow comfortable pedestrian access
to the various retail operations, required safe emergency
exiting and enclosed service for the buildings.
~ An analogy might be to suppose that Spokane had a
_ comfortable year-round climate such that enclosing the
common area was not necessary. Without a roof, the
= common area would not qualify as gross building area and
the existing code would require parking to be provided
~ only for the retail shops; the area defined as gross
_ leasable area (GLA) in the shopping center industry. A
_ plan of Spokane Galleria's common area appears on the
next page.
~ For comparison purposes, note the plan of University
~ Towne Center in San Diego which follows. This mall
appears in plan as a typical enclosed shopping center,
- yet it actually has no roof over the sidewalks and common
` area. UTC has 1,100,000 square feet of GLA with 4699
stalls provided. A parking index of 4.3 spaces per 1000
_ square feet GLA is used.
~
,
~
~
A)b 1086
oLU-0 ! 91 ' n.ot 4-3a-F,
ti.rs0+t •-t1-io
l ~
, A c oR , ~ ~ ~ . i ~ I. ~ I I I 1., I I f ~
~ , , , , I I I I I , . ~ ~ ' r~rp ° , sE v~e ' .
' ` I ~._I_ ~ ._I_.--- . ~-1 - - - . - - - - , , ~ , , , , , - , , ~ I ~ ea~
~ ~ C I ~ ~ I ~ . _l_.. . . . . _ _ , , ~ I : ~ , ~ ~ , ~ . ~ ; , ~ , .
~ pg' , ~ A c oR~ ~ i i _ . _ _ . _ -I
_ _ - - _ - , _ ~ ~.ANC, DR . , , . , ~ , ~ , . ~ . , , , ,
- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ , , , , , , ~ o. , , , ~ I
. _ _ - - - - , ~ ~ ~ . , ,
~ . I ~ a I 1 1 ' r I . 1 I I ~ I I I , . , 1 ~ ~ I . ' . I 1 I 1 I
I I I ~ N I ~ - ~ • ~ ~ ' ' ' i 0g~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ IfI I I ' .
. . . . . ~.._1_.- ._4_ r.. . . • _ . . , , ~ ` ' ' , ' . . - . . . - -1-- ~ . _ ~
- ° - - - -•r - . - - - - _ ~ _ _ ~ _ _ , 'f ' ~
, ' ' , ' ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ Fooo cou r .r._.. ._-.a~._ r _ _,_,._J.._~ _ ' ~NTfiY_.~. : ~
_ r ~ ~ , . , , ~ . ~ ' ' ml_' ~ I ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ - . . a~~
i bo,-- - , r ~ I , , } , ~ I ~ ~ ~ 9E YICE' ~ . ~
M Ll. . . . . ~ . _ . . - ~ • - - - - -I-'-ll- - -x-~~-- -i- I -I -I I{-I-- I ~ A CN R Ma T. , ■
~ ~ i _ ~ I I ~ I I I , I ANC OR ! I I J II I ■
i~ I ~ senvre ' ~ ~ q Q i .
I • y ~ • ~ Y
, J ~ r _,+-~r u !
~ ~ .
. . ~ ~ ~ cor~M coMMoN AREA a ~
~
A CN R ~ ~ I ~
~ i i I ~ I I I ~ I 1 I ~ , , ~ I , , I ~ I I , I I I , , . . ~ , , , . . , . ~ ~ .
- . - . , , . , ' ~ EO' y' ~ NTR
i k ~ ~"N f ~ ~ 9ER1~~ ~ I , 9 u I I~ I ~ ~ I ~ , i i ~ i i ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , .
, , . , , ~ . a c~a ~ ~ ~ . . . _ _ . -
, ~ _ . . . . s . . .r_._ . _ _ _ ~ _ se~ A C , QF3 , , , , , . . , , . , , ~ ~
. . . . . . . ~ .ad . , . . . , . . . _ - - - 4 . , , , , , ~ , , . , , , , ~ . , , mo,~ vc
~ . . . ~_.e_.~_. . . . _ - ` _ _I.. _I-- - - - _ _ LL)o
~ fi" : ~ I ~ ~ <ti * 4 ~ , • ~ ~i' ~r ~ rr ,
t }r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GE TER ~ ~ ~ , ) ' ~ r i h ~ I I f ~ ~ N ~ ~ i cou T ~ > , ~ c > ~
EHV ~ 1 • ~ "'~f""w ~ , ~ . ' l~, / ' ' ' ~ ~ ~~_~r ' ~ ' ~ ~ . ~ . r-_ ~ 0 V)
_ _n~~:. . .V_._,. o. . . _ . LLi ~
, ~ i60'r , ~ ' , , ~ " ' ~ . _ . . _ e . . . . . _ _ _ r A ~ ~ ~ _ ~ . ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ + ' ~ Z: wp ,
, . • w r , . . , . ' 2e 8iflU un~~ e~r~ l _ _ _ I _ ~:2t
_ - - - - - ~ - - ' . . . . , ~ ~ MTR" ~ " ' . , . ' ~ ' • ~~~J ti C) o
_ _ . _ ~ ` - - • • • - '--°--r - _ _ _ _ I ~ I ~ . n ~ ~ , , , , , . . ~ . . - 60 . , ' ~ , CL
' ~ I ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ .A GH R _ ~ ~ , _ . - _ . ~
. . . , ~ I , ~ ~ ~ y f f ~ I I I I I I 1 I I I I I ~ N I I I I I--I I A CH R i I I I I I I 1
~
~ • ~ ~
l
l
~ ,
Diego, CA
ping Center Listing
CEN RE
ERSITY ToWNE ;
. ;j •
j
:~,.1C"~~`^~•~r~ .
y~ r ~.~Y: J~ "O ~~.~wi►.'~
.c...- r,i `
.~.~w. ~ t .~L v,y~.f•c ~
~ ~ "~..Ywv?~' y~:-' .w=~..+~•~.,.
. . • "a tY, a.a... ~ t,y•.y~_
,f.~'. ~t~`~ _i~ .y _ .♦Rl~^, ~
' tr ~•Vb~ ~'~w'{a ~ ' lf
M ,r~ ~ • ~ G'Y t .
.~^t~ , , ~ ~ C~•~_ ~
~..a:
^~i
t~
r ,7 ^•r ~ y-n. . x wd ~
4~'►r.~ c~~J .
i~►./' "Y ?[,,,r ~ir~-.'. ..Ji"o'S~J ' .
d~r A
M-,~r•
y~ ~~Y►~~ ' .
A This conmon area between shops
anchor stores i n thi s San roofgO
and
center is not covered with a
~
,
=s•
~ SHADED AREA ENCLOSEU
~
T
r ,
~i.
The Phase I GLA limit on the Spokane Galleria project, per tne
19-85 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is
approximately 650,000 square feet. The Spokane Planning
_ Department has ruled this to be an absolute maximum. Applying
the code index of one (1) space per two hundred (200) square
feet yields 3,250 parking spaces.
650,000 Square Feet
= 3,250 Parking Spaces
- 200 SF/Parking Space
One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet is the same
as five (5) per 1,000 square feet GLA which is tne current
inclustry standard index for parking design of a super regional
shopping center. If parkin were also provided for the common
area, an additional 877 par1ing, spaces would be required, for
a total of 4,127, raising the parking index to 6.3 parkinQ
spaces per 1,000 square feet GLA; far exceedinq the industry
standard.
r
~
t
The IIrban Land Institute and International Council of
Shopping Centers, both considered authorities in land use
~ and parking design for shopping centers, recommend the
~ index of five (5) parking spaces per one thousand (1,000)
square feet GLA. Reports from these organizations follow
; along with the recommendation of our project traffic
engineer, Barton-Aschman Associates.
~
~
-J
9
e~t
1
V
~
F
!
About UL --the Urban Land
~ nstitute
ULI-ihe Urban Land insiitute is an independent, nonp►ofit
research and educatronal organizatron rncorporated in 1936 to
_ improve the quality and standards of land use and develop-
- rrent
The Institute is committed to conduct+ng practical research
. in the various fields of real estate knowiedgs, identifying and
interpreting land use trends in relation to the changing eco-
nom,c, social, and civic needs of the people, and disseminat-
^ rng pertrnent information leading to the orderly and more
efficient use and development of fand
- Ull receives its tinanciai support from membership dues,
sale of publications, and contributions for research and panet
,
servic.es
_ Ronald R. Rumbaugh
Executive Vice President
M
Ld
3
t
~
i
r
About the lnternationa Counci
- of Shopping Centers
- The International Councii of Shopping Centers (ICSC) is the
trade association of the shopping center industry It is dedi-
- cated to advancing professional standards of performance in
. the development, constructian, financing, leasing, manage-
_ ment, marketing, and operating of shopping centers through-
out the world It aiso represents the industry on legislative and
regulatory issues
.
= ICSC offers a broad range of business and professionat aids
to persons in the shopping center industry These include ed-
~ ucational courses, professional certification programs, mest-
v ings and conterences, research, information exchange and
publications ICSC is a nonprofit membership association
;
~
Albert Sussman
Executive Vice President
~
~
~
1
. ~
- Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
.
B arton Aschman's mulUdLsciplinary practice encompasses traffic
engtneering and transportation planning, civil aad structural en-
gineeruig; landscape architecture; parking planning and design;
environmental analyses; and urban and regional planning More than
300 trained and expenenced men and women provide the broad range
_ of disciplines and slQlls essential for producing thorough and reliable
solutions to a wide range of urban and regional problems
The company provides nationwide sernces to public and pnvate clients
from offices located in San Jose, Berkeley, Pasadena, and Riverside,
, Califonua, Honolulu, Hawau; Dallas, Tbxas, Evanston, llluiois; Muine-
apolis, Minnesota, Southfield, Mchigan; Columbus, Ohio; Boston,
Massachusetts; Washington, D.C., Fairfax, vrginia; Orlando,'Ikmpa,
West Palm Beach, and Ft. Lauderdale, Flonda; and San Juan, Puerto
Rico.
The present firm was orgamzed ui 1959. In that year, GeorEe W.
- Barton's traffic engineenng and transportation planning firm merged
with Fredenck T Aschman's urban and regional planning practice.'IhLs
- acuon, an uinovative concept for its time, demonstrated the company's
understanding of the fundamental relationships between transportation
systems, land use, and socioeconomic developments.
The company bas conunued to suengthen its basic slcills and expertise
in traffic, transportation and urban/regional plannuig through the ac-
_ quisition of several specialty firms: W.C. Gilman & Co. (1966), special-
ists in transit consultauon; W V Rouse Associates, Ltd. (1972), experts
in socioerononuc analyses, and R.H. Pratt Associates, Inc. (1977), spe-
cialists in uansportation systems analysis and modeling.
~
In 1985, Barton-Aschman became a subsidiary of The Parsons Corpora-
tion, headquartered in Pasadena, California. The Parsans Corporation
- is one of the world's largest internauonal engineering and construction
organizations, providing services to government and industrv
~
~ ■ •
_ ar ■in Planning an esign
A Barton-Aschman Service
Significant changes in commuting
pattems in America have increased
the need for parking space. It is esti•
mated that the tYPical automobile
.Tr.;..~ ~
~ _ - in America requires 2.3 parking
Y " ► T~ spaces today and within 10 years
--~-=~m► - _ will require 3.5 parking spaces.
~
.x- -
-
~
The majority of U.S. households Barton-Aschman operates from
now have two or more vehicles, offices throughout the United Stat=s;
while the number of households our parking practice and experiencz
without any automobiles dropped are extensive. This background pro-
by almost 10 percent between 1960 vides the broad experience that
and 1980. The number of two-vehicle comes only through a nationwice
households grew by 172 percent. practice.
The automobile is now and will con- This brochure describes Barton- ~
tinue to be the overwhelming modal Aschman's parking expertise:
choice for workers in America. The
bottom line to these facts is that • Central business district
every trip made by an automobile programs
requires a parking space at the
origin and destination. • University campuses
With more than 40 years of experi- • Medical centers
ence, Barton-Aschman Associates, • Airports
Inc., is well qualified to provide con-
sultation in all aspects of parking • Parking management plans
from initial planning through finan- . Financial feasibility studies
cial analysis to the preparation
of designs and specifications. • Design and designlbuild
J~
~ . . .
~
J ~
Traffic congestion in urban and suburban areas
h2s become one of the nation's most signifi-
cant issues. Efficient and safe mobility of
people and goods is the paramount goal of
traffic engineers. Traffic and parking solutions
_ associated with new or expanding develop-
ments must satisfy both developer objectives -
and community interests.
I'M
- - _ /
Barton-Aschman's engineers use state-of-the- art software systems to aid in the study of
, -
traffic problems. Barton-Aschman provides
the following services that encompass all fac-
ets of traffic engineering and operations:
1
■ S/TE TRAFFIC ENG/NEER/NG
■ TRAFFIC OPERAT/ON STUD/ES
■ DOWNTOWN C/RCULATION PLANS -
■ TRAFFIC 1MPACT ANALYSES
■ TRAFFIC SlGNAL SYSTEMS -
" ■ TRAFFIC PLANNING FOR MAJOR shopyrng center project dez,e:
- GENERATORS
■ PFDESTRIAN C/RCULATION
FACIL/TIES -
■ TRAFFIC SAFETY STUD/ES
■ ENERGY-SAV/NG TRAFFIC CONTROL - ~
PLANS
~
■ FUNCTIONAL DES/GN OF PARKING
~ ~ i
■ ROADWAY GEOMETRlC DESIGN - -
MR B - -
For many ma jor airports, Barton-
Aschman has cond ucted tra f fic ucas,
- circulation, and parking studies.
-
.
~
~
- -
_ Tne ftrnc prepcrn traf fic signal systtm plaru for
citirs in the ilnited Stata ond abroad.
2
r ! ~ ti l,~i~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 T f`+~' j~ t r ~ ~T ~~t/,t;'L:lri:'~iH~'~i.a.,.tw'1,r~
Li ~
- l.r i►~
~~~+,~I, ~1` W` .A7 ~x~~`µi•~.' 1 V It~~.r. ~~~.~,,~I~f~r y ~yM4,
,;j
'
f,..• , ~i 1~ TIF*.
1 . i ti 'u• / 'J~ r~ ~ '~.~,,1.~tW ~i~~~i.h~. j.
Y
- : ~ .ist.. 1,1~i7 j" ,~"t~,; ~~,'~~t~~'~~'~ -w ^~.=A~~~'i1': ~ :~4. ~~y~~. y ~ ~~~~,~a~
` K~r•~ ,4 +~rT~rM~CN,~'F
~ ~ ~ "J~r ~ `F~i 7 ~ I . Nrlt•' ~ f ~ I ~1h~iVt.1~ ~ y~i•-.~ ~ '1 ''t~
~ t ~1~', w~~Nt~t'~;t~,~~;} y • DG r ~M~:=, r~l. ~ ? i . i- • . 1r41 11;u
'~r~ 4t~y,~. t~~ ' ! r ~ L_ I { ~I n~ '~3
, . _ . _ . , 9~ ~y~~ , L ,;r;•' f . ~ ~ . ~ •~~k
n.~;, ~yJ~~J}~t'1~,'~~:~. ~,,~r , ~ , M.=+' ,ti'~,~~,` , ~ ~
r r 1~ l~~! ~ G ~~~W:i:1:~:.1 1'~!~~~:~~.I~~'~'~ti' ~ ~'j ~ ~ ~tir....~~.~ ~.1~ ♦ t ~ i~~~ ~~h'~
j
~ ' ` ~~R}~iC~c ~i~~b~"'~'~~;hJ~~ 'ti`""'.i~i.i•~', .YI "`i•. ~,i ~ ,~~i4, ?~1;~/
~1 5~wii^ ~~~~kli~~~~~:,+~~I f=~ ~,i;..;. r,f ~~y ~
~ 1,.:~!~ r Itl,'?t`1Yf ,1 ~ ,i' ~~'~1\Y1 '`~l ~
9~ ~,~i~~} ~E h~{ ~ ` ~ +~i ~'r, • i. „ ' {
~'J, .~~,~,,1.,~r~~~~ ~ S. 4i „ y'w1 M~~i
` fVil~ ~ ~f'~~.j1~1~' •~".i,~,~ J~al 4.4E~
Via _ ~ • ~ ~ ~ 1 ; ~ ,i
~ ~ J ~ ' ~M1 ~ t ~ tr~ ' r,1 II `I{P~ ~.1~ ~ ~ 1 \ N ~ i
r-~ ~i , ~',1~~' ~ ~+13; ~ ~,1~~1 ' ~
~ ('4.I Y +~~~~'~~1', i i ~ ~ ~'~''i' C` 'Y t`1 ~i ~ ~ ~j,/ y~l" •N? i`
► ~u.~... . '~~s.._ ~ ~F e' • r , ~ 1 , ~ ~i ~ ti ~
~yi•'• ~ 1~'';4 1'~i ~ ~ ~ I ) ~ {
~ • r {I ~rl ~ ~I li ~F~,f`~~. -I Ah",1 ' i j I ' ~I~~~I'r ~ ~ ~f ..i ~ fj~
X4;
i ~ ~ LJ
!
1 R ~ ~ ~!f~fa~'1 i.1~ ~ iN, `i, ~ ~~j ♦ ~ ~rl, ,a
p 'i.,", '~~~~tir: . ~,~^'~x : •~f:' " ~ _ rl ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
1 }e r
• . . ~ ` ,f . ~ ~aur:l'!~ ~ ~!-1 i ~N' 1~ ) ,r i i ~ •`i` t~ r
iR'`G_~-7~'-J~ . ' ✓ ~ ~ ~~!•1~ •.i \j~ ~41 .
_ at`4;'fi ~ r ~ . ~~.~!l'~i~ i ~ ~~~~..iw`6:~-~-.,,,..~_, ~ ~~1 ~L''~~' yf~'/' 'h+.~~
- h 4Fl
1 * p ~ ~ i .r1 _ J` • "'y'''~ ,~,~"i~ ~ C l• ; ti~
. ~y~ ~ ~ f~~~. ti~ 11 ' ~ ti ~ ~ ,1~✓'^" ~ ~ +~Y~ .
T"ii
~ r~ ~ a l d r ~v ti+ f~(inl e~~ Y~ i4 ~ ~iru~-, • r A p~~~S''~I~ ~ ~
1~ A ti I. iM a r~ rv.~• 3', ' ~ i~( ~ , ! Z 11~
~~1~! !1 i~ ~~~4~A~ ~ ~~~~A, ~ r~'J~ • .i`~ ~,y 4
i~ . ' ~ ' ~1~,.ii 1~ ~ha P~"~,~~~. ~W,~•-t i~ ~ ~ "`'l,i ~ .r+'` ~ , ~
. : .i~~.
W ~ k~ 4 i:l ~ ~ ' '~t"yr{~'~~'3
1t.'• ~I~~'' 1,~~i~~'~iijll'~~~~~~.~; AY µYM'i f.i~~~ ~i
~ ~ 'i~l~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,i~'~~~~F'~f~~t"~'1~ ~~Pi~~~~ ~ •
IN ; I'ttl1~~~~1 J I ~ ~ i~~~~'~ ~.Yi~ ~i~~rri~G~'tiV~{ ,~~^~7'i^f~Y I W1~ • ~~Y
~ tt .~,r4,
(w~~,/y W
\t~~
~1.~ 1 ~ - ~r ~ !'l` ~r ~,l y t„ 1 k~,~5,
E,~ v1~~~}~~~fi~(~~kqrf~,{t- '~y'+~ ~Ih,~J~:~y~.. A~~~\ ~ ~1(~~rj~ ~ ~.j, f~ i ~ f~~.y • ~~;~,Ila(~; r. ~yi ~
~ ,1 y • ~ ~v
!i'hJ • ~A ~n{.
~
A
, , f`~► , - ' ~ ~q ' k'~~'~~.,rr
G. Parking
~ On-srte parking for customers is an essenUal mgredient of In the meantime, the design and operaUon of shopping cen-
the shopping center, but shopping center developers, own-' r ters changed sign,ficantly The types and usas af stores
ers. tenants, and regulatory authont,es Iike planning or zon- changed, budding and srte design became much more so-
- ing boards have not aiways agreed as to how much parking phisticated, and shopping patterns changed as Idestyles
the developer shouid provide to iulfill a reasonable levei of changed. By the mid-1970s, the 5 5 mdex was being chai- ,
demand In the past, a gap has ewsted between pracUcal lenged Thus, dunng 1980 and 1981, ULI, a5arn in conjunc• -
and theoretical requirements t,on with the InternaUonal Councd of Shopping Centers, con-
ducted a second major study of paricing requirzmen~ ior
For pianning purposes~ adequate parking was cons~dered shoppmg centers. That study establ'~shed new parking s;an-
as a relaUonship between the area ass~gnable to parking dards that replaced those set forth in the 19"5 study
purposes and the area covered by the shoppmg center
_ buitding A 3-to-1 ra4o (3 square feet of parking area to 1 • 4 0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of GLA for centers
square foot of building area), for exampie, was common for having a GLA of 25,000 to 400,000 square fest;
parking requirements. As more and more centers were budt • from 4 0 to 5.0 spaces in a linear progression, wrth an
and placed in operaUon, d became apparent firom the bar- average of 4 5 spaces per 1.000 square feet of GLA, fcr
ren expanses of asphait providing the shoppmg center's centers having from 400,000 to 600,000 square feet, and
" parking thai m many cases more area was being assigned • 5 0 spaces per 1.000 square ieei of~GfA tor centers
to parking than was needed The unused expanse repre- having a GCA of over 600,000 square feet
sented a financial drain on the centers resources it also be- -rnese new standards require that addiUonal consideration
_ came obvious that the number of parking spaces-not the be 9,ven ro ihe amounr of G1A devoied to a~~ces, cinemzs,
" area assigned to parkmg-reveals the relat,onship to park-
the gross leasable area of the cen- and tood service, with adjustments for a par'acular center
ing demand created by
ter. Accordingly, the parking index-the number of parking made accordingly
spaces made avaiiable per 1,000 square teet of GlA-be• parking lndex for U.S. Shopping Centers
came the s;andard measurement to indicate the adequacy
of parking at a shopping center Table 8G-1 shows that the median parking index for U S
in 1965, the Urban Land InsUtute in can unction with the super regional centers is about 5 3, whde that tor reoional
1 centers is about 5.4 U S commundy and nesghborhood
_ IntemaUonal Council of Shoppmg Centers published a centers are both about 5 3 Tables 8G-2 through 8G-5 shcw
_ study, Parlung Requrrements for Shopp,ng Cenlers, which the parlnng index by age group of the centers I',ll of these
found thai 5 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet ot GLA figures report the actual number of parking spaces now pro-
~ would be more than adequate to meet the parking needs of vided in the partlcipating group of shopping centers The
~ a shopping center tor all but the 10 highest hours of de- data should not be interpreted as the most desirable nor as
-mand dunng the year. Further, since 1960, each Dopars & a recommended number of parking spaces p2r 1,000
Cents of Shoppmg Centers siudy has coilected data on square feet of GLA.
parking available at the panccipating centers. In 1966--be-
fore the results oi the 1965 study had been welt promul- Parking Index for Canadian Shopping
_ gated and accepted-the 185 centers that reported parking Centers
data had indexes ranging from 3 to 12 spaces per 1,000
square teet of GLA and averaging 7 spaces per 1,000 The parking index for parUcipaUng Canadian centers is
square feet By the 1981 siudy. the median was 5 5 spaces shown in Table 8G•7.
~ per 1,000 square feet of GlA tor super regional centers, 5 8
for regional centers, and 5 6 for community and neighbor-
. hood centers. Cfeariy, the standard set in 1965 had been 'Ut1-the Urban land Inst,tute. Parkmg Requirements tfcr Shopprng
- adepted and faund appropriate Ceniers. Summary Recommendaaans arrd Research Study RePcr:
(Washtngton. D C.UL!-the Urban land Insttute.1982) UU Ca;a-
log No P33.
.
,
~
~
- 324 Supplementary informaaon
Table 8G-1 Table 8G-5
Parking Index In U.S. Shopping Centers U.S. Neighborhood Centers:
' Parktng Index by Age of Centers
Number ~ 1 In Lower Upper Number
Type ot Center Sample Median Decile DPCile -in Lower Upper
- Age Group Sample Median Decite Decile
Super regional 81 5 25 4 54 6 64 ~
- Regional 46 5 36 3 86 7.23 1-3 years 48 5 48 4 60 10 31 '
Communrty 228 5 30 408 6 94 4..6 years 31 5 00 356 7 79
~ Neighborhood 228 5 26 3 77 7.50 7_9 years 27 5 53 3 67 6 49
10 through 19 years 58 5 28 3 92 6 87
20 years and over 64 4 97 3 49 697,
- Table 8G-2
U.S. Super Reglonal Centers:
Parking Index by Age of Centers Table SG-6
Structured Parking Spaces In
Number U.S. Shopping Centers
_ In Lawer Upper ,
Age Group Sampie Median Dectle Decfle Number
. In Lower Upper
- 1'3 Years 2 Type of Center Sample Median Dec1e Dectte
_ 4-6 years 6 4 89 '
7-9 years 13 5 92 5 23 6 79 Super regiona! 24 1,517 804 4,493
10 through 19 years 36 5 37 4 73 8 59 Regiona! 7 gpp
20 years and over 24 4 98 417 6 26 Community 11 470 217 1,150
Neighbofiood 5 247
Table 8G-3
- U.S. Regional Centers: Table 8G 7
Parking Index by Age of Centers Parking tndex in Canadian Shopping Centers
- Number Num6er
- In Lower Upper In Lower Upper
Age Group Sampie Median Decile Decile TYP@ of Center Sampie Median Deciie Deule
_ 1-3 years 5 5 41 Super regionaVregional 26 549 405 695
q..s years 2 Commurnty 21 5 06 3 03 589
7-9 years 4 Neighbofiood 9 3 88
10 through 19 years 22 5 62 4.36 7.26
20 years and over 13 4 97 4 35 7.11
r
" Table 8G-4
U.S. Communtty Centers:
Parking index by Age of Centers
~ Number
In Lawer Upper
' Age Group Sample Median Decite Oezfle
1-3 years 34 5 86 4 35 711
4-8 years 20 5 36 4 60 707
, 7-9 years 27 5 32 4.15 626
10 Uvough 19 years 66 512 3 87 6 98
~ 20 years and ovet 81 5.19 409 6 65
~
Supptementary Infortnabon 325
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
r
1
,
- 6.
PARKING RATIO
The parking needs for the specific land uses propcued for the Spoka,ne Galleria and adjacent areas were
analyzed The present zoning code tequirement of Spokane County of 1 space per 200 s f. of gross
~ building area (GBA) was reviewed in regard to the proposed 650,000 sl of GLA mall.
In 1982, the Urban Land Institute (ULn and the Intemarional Council for Shopping Centers conducted
' a study to establish parking standards for shopping centers in the United States and Canada, with the intent
that these parking standards would be applied to the planning of new centers and the expansion of existing
centers. The standard recominended for centers having a GLA over 600,000 st is 5.0 spaces per 1,000
- s f. of GLA. The tenn "GLA" is defined in the ULI study as "ihe iotal floor area desiped for both tenant
occupancy and ezclusive use. This includes both owned and leased areas." The iJLI study contends that
provision of parking based on these standards will service patrons and employee needs at the 20th busiest
- hour of the year, providing a surplus during all but 19 of the hours during which a typical center is open
annually. During 19 hours of each year, which ane disiributed over 10 peak-shopping days, some patrons
will not be able to find vacant spaces when they first enter the center.
A recent appeal to Spokane County pointed out examples that both the cides of Bellewe and Kent have
adopted requirements based on GLA. The Bellewe Land Use Code requires retail centers greater than
600,000 sl to provide 5 paricing spaces per 1,000 sl of GLA. The Kent zoning codes requires 5 spaces
ger 1.000 s.f. of GLA for centers greater than 400,000 st of GLA. At S spaces per 1,000 s.f. of GLA,
the proposed Pbase I development of 650.000 s.f. GLA will require 3,250 parking spaces; proposed
parking is 3,259 spaces.
In summary, the niajority of paricing requirement standards are based on GLA, a figure that is measurable
and stated in each tenant's lease documenL GLA is thus a lrnown and realistic factor for measuring the
adequacy of parldng provisions in relanon to retail use. A parldng requirement of 5.0 spaces per 1,000
s.f. GLA is commonly applied to centers of the size proposed.
f
fJ
~
-J
~
6-a
1
r
,
, .
a
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS - OPEN & OPERATING
In the interest of proving that our planned 5.0 parking
spaces per 1,000 Sq.Ft. GLA parking index will work in
Spokane, we have surveyed nineteen (19) different
shopping centers in Western cities similar in population
to Spokane. Of the nineteen (19) centers analyzed, all
but one were built to a parking index 5.0 per 1,000 or
less. Shopping center managers were contacted and a
summary of their experience with the parking facility is
included. Each page includes the name and phone number
of the municipal planner who was, or is, in charge of the
project for the respective jur isdiction. Their comments
are noted on each page.
,
L
w CITY: Albuquerque, New Mexico
~
CENTER: Coronodo Center
YEAR OPENED: 1964 LAST EXPANSION: 1984 -
NO. OF LEVELS: Two (2) ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 1,096,816 Sq.Ft. ACRES: 85
N0. PARKING STALLS: 5,500
PARRING INDEX: 5.0/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: Charles Sullivan, Tom Wilson
TELEPHONE: (505) 881-2700
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Save adequate parking except on few
_ holiday period afternoons. Center provides
clearly marked compact s talls, however,
compact cars continue to park in most
convenient s talls. Center provides
- motorcycle pads and are used well. Bicycle
racks are located at entries with some
use.
MUNICIPALITY: City of Albuquerque
Alan Jramillo
_ (505) 768-3860
~PLANNER COMMENTS: Parking requirements stipulate index at one (1)
stall per 250 sq. f t. of net leaseable area
(4/1000 GLA) center has good parking
arrangement. Bike racks required but not tied
to a ratio or parking number. City has
provision in code to reduce required parking
number where centec is provided with bus
_ service.
ALB1
i
CITY: Albuquerque, New Mexicor
,
CENTER: Winrock Center
YEAR OPENED: 1950 LAST EXPANSION: 1986 •
NO. OF LEVELS: One (1) ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 1,000,000 Sq. Ft. ACRES: 73
NO. PARRING STALLS: 51000
PARRING INDEX: 5.0/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: Jay F. Vigil, Mary Freese
TELEPHONE: (505) 883-6132
~ MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Center in progress of remodeling without
adding parking. Parking number f ine with
no problems. A little tight at Christmas.
Bike racks at entries little used.
_ Motorcycle pads are used. Very good
bussing service.
s_
MUNICiPALITY: City of Albuquerque
Alan Jramillo
(505) 768-3860
PLANNER COMMENTS: Parking requirements stipulate index at one (1)
stall per 250 sq.f t. of net leaseable area
(4/1000 GLA) center has good packing
arrangement. Bike racks required but not tied
- to a ratio or parking number. City has
provision in code to reauce required parking
number where center is provided with bus
- service.
ALB 2
~ CITY: BOISE, IDAHO
~
CENTER: BOISE TOWNE SQUARE ~
YEAR OPENED: 1988 LAST EXPANSION: None
N0. OF LEVELS: Z ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 905,277 Sq. Ft. ACRES: 74
NO. PARK I NG S TAL LS : 4539
PARRING INDEX: 5.0/1000 GLA
~ MALL MANAGER: Bob Mitchell
_ TELEPHONE; (208) 378-4400
~ MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Lot is never filled. At Christmas only
cloes lot get close to full and only three
(3) Saturdays prior to Christmas and only
few hours each day. Bike racks at
entrances used except snowy months. Bus
service okay with good access except free
_ standing shelters are not as inviting as
Y a station within mall. Cold winter Center
uses designated compact stall areas.
MUNICIPALITY: ADA COUNTY PLANNING ASSOCIATION
_ Carla Olson
(208) 384-4366
- PLANNER COMMENTS: Basic commercial parking requirement of one (l)
stall per 250 Sq. Ft. GLA. Bussing arrangement
is between center and Transit Authority. Boise
' does require bike racks and motorcycle pads.
- Center parking has performed well except grand
opening. On that day cars were parked for
miles around.
BOIS
" _ ~ r+.ee~. .R a. sr v w. _ .a-..~a t,. ~
- CITY: CASPER, WYOMING ~
CENTER: East Ridge Mall ~
YEAR OPENED: 1980 LAST EXPANSION: _
N0. OF LEVELS: One (1) ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 593,000 Sq. Ft. ACRES: 66
CENTER: East Ridge Mall
YEAR OPE2dED: 1980 LAST EXPANSION:
N0. OF LEVELS: One (1) ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 593,000 ACRES: 66
N0. PARRING STALLS: 2,700
PARRING INDEX: 4.5/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: Curt Lundgreen
TELEPHONE: (307) 265 9392
.
_ MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Very little bike traffic. Bussing in
Casper poor except charter lines with
elderly people. Too low for of population
_ with spread out town to work efficiently.
Center 80$ leased and parkings more than
, enough. One lot very rarely fills evo-n
at Christmas.
u
MUNICIPALITY: City of Casper
_ Glenn Payne
(307) 235-8241
~
PLANVER COMMENTS: High volume retail parking requirement at one
space per 200 Sq. Ft. GLP, or f ive for every
1,000 Sq. Ft. GLA. Center has worked well
without any complaint to city. City has no
requirements for bicycles or bus service.
CASP .
r~
r- CITY: Colorado Springs, Colorado
~
1
' CENTER: Chapel Hills Mall s YEAR OPENED: 1982 LAST EXPANSION: 1986
NO. OF LEVELS: Two (2) ENCLOSED: Yes
~
GLA: 11200,000 Sq. Ft. ACRES: 75
N0. PARRING STALLS: 5056
PARKING INDEX: 4.2
MALL MANAGER: John C. Rolb
TELEPHONE: (719) 594-0111
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Center has workea gooa overall. No real
difficulty at Holidays. Has bicycle racks
and regular scheduled bus service.
MUNICIPALITY: Colorado Springs
Bob Pegler
(719) 578-6919
- PLANNER COMMENTS: Parking requirement at one (1) stall per 300
Sq. Ft. gross building area with no bicycle
parking requirement. Bussing in Colorado
Springs, poor. Center parking has been
adequate.
J
COLO
r--
1
r--•
CITY: EUGENE, OREGON ~
~
CENTER: VALLEY RIVER CENTER
YEAR OPENED: 1969 LAST EXPANSION: 1990 '
,
N4. OF LEVELS: One (1) ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 1,200,000 Sq. Ft. ACRES: 80
NO. PARRING STALLS: 5,862
PARRING INDEX: 4.8/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: Royal Nelson
TELEPHONE: (503) 683-5511
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Parking works great! Even works at
Christmas with over 3,000 employees for
season rush. Provisions at that time for
remote employee parking and shuttle.
Have $180,000 major bus station and
regular schedule with lots of use. Center
is #3 in Lane County destinations.
Bussing brings in good percentage in
sales. Bike racks provided and has very
good useage with all age grouos.
MUNICIPALITY: Springfield, Oregon
Gary Carp
(503) 726-3759
PLANNER COMMENTS: Parking requirements are at one (1) space per
350 Sq.Ft. gross building area. For enclosed
malls provisions are such to exclude common
area. Springfield typically encourages bike
racks, all bussing is worked out between Lane
Transit District and center during plan review.
EUG2
~ CITY: FRESNO, CALIFORNIA ,
CENTER: Manchester Center YEAR OPENED; 1958 LAST EXPANSION: 1989 .
~ N0. OF LEVELS: ENCLOSED: Yes
= GLA: 852,547 Sq.Ft. ACRES: 50
~ N0. PARKING STALLS: 2500 +
r
PARRING INDEX: 4.5/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: Chuck Champion
TELEPHONE: (209) 227-1901
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Sufficient parking. Little tight at
holidays but only peak hours. Bus
service good, well used. Bicycles are
using racks.
MUNICIPALITY: FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
a Jack Van Patten
(209) 498-1371
PLANNER COMMENTS: Parking requirements based on area ratio.
- Three (3) Sq.Ft. of parking area per one (1)
Sq. Ft. of building area, with an index not to
exceed 4.5 stalls per 1000 Sq.Ft. Gross
leaseable area. Bike racks not required, nor
~s
are bus provisions required but encouraged.
FRES
Y
!
~
w CITY: MEDFORD, OREGON ~
~
CENTER: Rogue Valley Mall
YEAR OPENED: 1986 LAST EXPANSION: '
- N0. OF LEVELS: 2 ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 639,989 Sq.Ft. ACRES: 51
N0. PARRING STALLS: 3,237
PARKING INDEX: 5.0/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: Mike Enslow
TELEPH0NE: (503) 776-3255
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Parking amount real good. Have ample
number even at high use times or Holiday
Peak hours. Bicycle use is surprising.
Well used in Spring and Summer and is used
year round. Great bus service.
MUNICIPALITY: MEDFORD, OREGON
✓ Scott Rogers
(503) 770-4475
,
i
" PLANNER COMMENTS: Parking requirements are set at one (1) space
~ per 200 Sq. Ft. gross floor area, with
provisions to exclude common area from enclosed
mall. No minimal standard for bicycles unless
use is children emphasis. Bussing is
~ encouraged.
MEDF
CITY: OGDEN CITY, UTAH r
,
CENTER: Ogden City Mall
YEAR OPENED: 1980 LAST EXPANSION: 1982 '
N0. OF LEVELS: 2 ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 790,000 Sq. Ft. ACRES: 23
N0. PARRING STALLS: 3400
PARRING INDEX: 4.3
MALL MANAGER: Rae Barbor
- TELEPHONE: (801) 621-2680
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Parking okay, have vallet service at
Christmas time which works very well.
Parking number seems to be just about
right. Bulk of parking on four (4) level
deck. Bike racks in but not well used.
Bus system has a drop-off right in front
of mall and is in good use.
MUNICIPALITY: OGDEN CITY
Ray McCandless
(801) 629-8900
PLP,NNER COMMENTS: Basn't seen Center full in ten (10) years on
staff. Gets close at Christmas time period.
Ogdenrequirements are one (1) stall per 200
Sq.Ft. GBA without provisions for bikes or
bussing.
r
CITY: PORTLAND, OREGON ,
,
,
CENTER: Jantzen Beach Center
~
YEAR OPENED: 1972 LAST EXPANSION: 1977 •
- N0. OF LEVELS: One (1) ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 773,000 ACRES: 60
~
NO. PARRING STALLS: 3,000
PARKING INDEX: 3.9/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: Gene Sandquist
- TELEPHONE: 503-286-9103
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Parking number good but on holidays a
little busy. Mostly, market is from
Washington - Center sits on island in
Columbia River and Oregon has no sales
tax. Bikes not used and only few racks
provided. Bussing good since center is
on the island with many other resort _
facilities. (Hotels, recreation, etc.)
MUNICIPALITY: MULTONOMAH COUNTY, OREGON
Mark Hess
503-248-3043
PLANNER COMMENTS: County requirements show retail parking at one
(1) stall for every 400 Sq. Ft. gross building
area. Of f ice park ing at one (1) s tal l per
every 100 Sq. Ft. GBA. Planning then breaks use
down into categories for final tally of
required stalls. Bike racks not required but
encouraged. County may grant exception to
- parking required where alternative
transportation methods are provided or are
nearby. Portland has light rail and good
- bussing.
PORT
CITY: RENO, NEVADA ~
CENTER: Meadowood Mall
YEAR OPENED: 1979 LAST EXPANSION: N0. OF LEVELS: One (l) ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 1,000,000 Sq.Ft. ACRES: 103
N0. PARKING STALLS: 41100
PARKING INDEX: 4.1/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: E. J. Silva
TELEPHONE: (702) 827-8450
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Parking very good. For holidays, center
restricts employee parking to encourage
alternating transit. Bus f acility cloes
get used well.
MUNICIPALITY: RENO, NEVADA
Gloria Dondero
Christina Fey
(702) 334-2350
PLANNER COMMENTS: Parking good but over 90% capacity at
Chrfstmas. Center has several entrances with
little used parking so on even the busiest aays
a decent stall could be found without too great
of walking distance. Reno requirements are one
(1) space per 200 Sq.Ft. gross building area.
Reno's feeling is that patrons will come to
center because of activities in common area
alone. Some provisions were made at time of
plan review to lower parking required. Reno
code states that where 600 or more stalls are
_ required then additional landscaping is needed
or a garking deck is to be used. Bussing
requirements are to provide bus turnouts for
~ entry areas with covered stops. Bike
requirements based on number of employees and
patrons. Different ratio for each. Mall
developments are to have painted stalls for
- tour busses from casino district users.
RENO
CITY: SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH ~
n r
CENTER: Fashion Place Mall
YEAR OPENED: 1972 LAST EXPANSION: None ~ N0. OF LEVELS: 1 ENCLOSED: Yes
a"
GLA: 970, 212 Sq. Ft. ACRES: 71
N0. PARKING STALLS: 4938
PARRING INDEX: 5.1
MALL MANAGER: Doug 0'Brien
" TELEPHONE: (801) 262-9447
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Most parking demand takes place at
Thanksgiving and Christmas. Parking
required by tenants and feels center would
still work good at 4.75/1000 GLA.
Employee lot is at remote location and
works real well. Minimum bike parking at
entrances woula like more at fooc3 court.
Bus service is at center but not
spectacular in use.
MUNICIPALITY: MIIRRAY CITY
Dennis Hamblin
(801) 264-2621
PLANNER COMMENTS: Murray ordinance required for retail one (1)
space for every 200 Sq.Ft. net useable area
plus one (1) space for 750 Sq. Ft. of storage
° area. No bikes or bus stops required but
encouraged. Parking seems to be ample.
FASH
,
CITY: SALT LARE CITY, UTAH
r
CENTER: ZCMI & Crossroads
- YEAR OPENED: 1975/1980 LAST EXPANSION: 1986/1988 •
N0. OF LEVELS: 2/4 ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 1,300,268 Sq.Ft. ACRES: 14
NO. PARRING STALLS: 5,000
PARRING INDEX: 3.8/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: Melvin Pearson, Dave Neilson
TELEPHONE: (601) 321-8743, (801) 363-1558
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: These centers are across main street from
each other in downtown Salt Lake City.
All parking as part of downtown centers
are multilevel parking s tructures. Both
provide validation for other park and shop
structures for parking programs. Main
Street is major destination for bus
service anci both centers receive good deal
of customers from mass transit. As
bicycle delivery services pick up downtown
both centers will provide bike parking.
Y
MUNICIPALITY: SALT LARE CITY
Doug Dansie
(801) 535-7757
PLANNER COMMENTS: Downtown parking listed at one stall per 300
Sq. Ft. GBA first level and one stall per 750
Sq. Ft. all other levels. Bus service is
encouraged as well as bicycle parking. Both
center parking structures also serve multi
floor office towers above. Parking still seems
to be good but as expected tight at Christmas.
_ZCMI
CITY: SALT LARE CITY, UTAH
r
CENTER; Cottonwood Mall ~
YEAR OPENED: 1960 LAST EXPANSION: 1984
NO. OF LEVELS: 2 ENCLOSED: Yes
~
~ GLA: 780,00 Sq. Ft. ACRES: 52
~ N0. PARRING STALLS: 3,500
ti
PARRING INDEX: 4.5
~ MALL MANAGER: Jeff Machin
TELEPHONE: (801) 278-0416
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Mall has remote location plan, strictly
enforcing employee parking. Only a dozen
bike rack locations. Bus booth provided,
service okay but not great. 4vera1l
Center has good parking arrangement.
,
' MUNICIPALITY: SALT LARE COUNTY
Rom Roach
~ (801) 468-2965
PLANNER COMMENTS: County requires five (5) space per 1,000 Sq.
Ft. GLP,. No requirement for biking, busses or
motrcycle parking. Cotton has good access from
major arterial streets and good circulation
within s ite.
,
~
~
SAL1
• i ~ V a.. i~f r ~ w 1ur
- CITY: SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
r
= CENTER: Downtown Plaza '
~
YEAR OPENED: 1971 LAST EXPANSION: 1981
N0. OF LEVELS: One (1) ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 740,000 Sq. Ft. ACRES: 12
. NO. PARKING STALLS: 3280
PARKING INDEX: 4.4/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: Dennis Smith
TELEPHONE: (916) 442-4000
r
" MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Parking is good! Much better since office
working around project have made other
parking arrangements. Entire parking area
below garage on the levels of structure
parking. Employees park and walk with
_ other downtown parking terraces. Bussing
~ is very well used as is the emergance of
the light rail system. Both have
terminals at center. No bike par;cing
~ usage to speak of.
l
- MUNICIPALITY: CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Dawn Solm
,
(916) 449-5604
PLANNER COMMENTS: City zoning orclinance lists parking required
at one (1) space for each 250 Sq. Ft. of gross
builaing area. However, center may reduce
required parking number by up to 60$ when
~ special permit is approved by City Planning
Department. To receive reduction center must
~ provide transit passenger shelters, light rail
station subsidies, bus pool/car pool/van pool
programs and other incentives for alternate
-transportation uses. 100$ of downtown parking
is city owned. Proposed expansion of center
i would also be built over city parking. Bike
~ racks are to bP provided at the rate of one (1)
space per 25 vehicles parked on lots. Bike
rack design spelled out in ordinance in detail.
- Bussing arrangements by agreement between
~ center ana Sacramento Regional Transit
District. Planners view of center is good.
Parking seems okay and busy times present
~ nothing outstanding. Center gets mostly walk- ,
in customers.
~ DOWN
_ , - - - - - - - - - - - -
~
E
CITY: SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
CENTER: Florin Mall ~
` YEAR OPENED: 1969 LAST EXPANSION: 1979
N0. OF LEVELS: 1 ENCLOSED: Yes
~
' GLA: 1,090,286 Sq.Ft. ACRES: 75
NO. PARKING STALLS: 51500
PARRING INDEX: 5.0/1000 GLA
~
MALL MANAGER: Janet Grisanti
_ TELEPHONE: (916) 421-0881
; MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Center is 95% full and parking very good.
Holiday traffic is handled well. Have
designated employee parking year round.
Bike racks are at all six (6) mall entries
and at all anchor entrances as well.
Center has three (3) bus stations and a
quite frequent schedule with regularly
used service.
MUNICIPALITY: SACREMENTO COUNTY
Cheryl Lenzie
(916) 440-6141
PLP,NNER COMMENTS: Parking requirement today are 5.5 stalls per
1000 GLA for centers over 350,000 GBA. However,
malls treated special. Most commercial has
_ gross building area equal to gross leasable
area. Her own experience has been good. No
inconvenience of parking at peak hours.
Parking okay without too much problem. Bike
j~ requirements are one (1) space per 25 vehicles
of employee parking and one (1) sgace per 35
vehicles customer parking. Bussing is a
~ cooraination agreement between center and the
Sacramento Regional Transit District, the local
transit agency. A light rail system is growing
in the Sacramento area.
~
SAC1
~
VL.i ~ ~ ~ ✓ J ~ ~
CITY: SPRINGFIELD, OREGON ,
~
CENTER: GATEWAY MALL
YEAR OPENED: 1990 LAST EXPANSION: None -
N0. OF LEVELS: One (1) ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 730,000 Sq.Ft. ACRES: 66
N0. PARRING STALLS: 2,500
PARRING INDEX: 3.4/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: Dennis Jones
✓ TELEPHONE: (503) 747-3123
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Center has not been opened for busy
season. So f ar plenty of parking. Few
bicycle users but have racks at all
entries. Regularly scheduled bussing -
main entry has bus station. Likes having
bus patrons in mall to wait, rather than
having them wait in a free standing bus
stop.
MUNICIPALITY: CITY OF EUGENE (For City of Springffeld)
John Weber
(503) 687-5481
PLANNER COMMENTS: Requirements are one (1) space per 300 Sq. Ft.
gross building area - number has not been
tested for taall. Bicycle parking required is
at a rate of one (1) space per ten (10)
automobiles. Bussing required under site
review. Lane County Transit District requests
, input to bus service.
EUG1
CITY: TUCSON, ARIZONA
CENTER: The Tucson Mall
YEAR OPENED: 1982 LAST EXPANSION: Currently
N0. OF LEVELS: 2 ENCLOSED: Yes
_ GLA: 1,300,000 Sq.Ft. ACRES: 95
NO. PARKING STALLS: 6,500
PARKING INDEX: 5.0/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: Greg ricFarland
TELEPHONE: (602) 293-7330
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Overall parking is good. Could always use
more at Christmas but even so, number is
okay. Bike traffic is poor but still has
bike racks. Feels residential areas would
promote more bike traffic. Bus service
is provided at perimeter of center.
MUNICIPALITY: CITY OF TUCSON
Glen Moyer
(602) 791-4541
PLANNER COMMENTS: Hasn't been to Center when he couldn't f ind a
spot. Parking seems to be very sufficient.
Ordinance bas parking at one (1) spacs per 250
Sq. Ft. g ross bu ilding area. 3$ of park ing
provided is number of bfke stalls. special
requfrements per 25% of bike parking: covered,
locked, enclosed, etc. When bussing is
vrovided with other qualifying shared parking
requirements, such as off peak users sharing
parking with peak users then parking
' requirements are one (1) stall per 300 Sq.Ft.
L GBA. Center is a park and ride lot, so many
cars park and don't use f acility. Aaditional
lot demands are special promotions such as
Christmas tree lots and other special
~ activities and even with these uses parking on
lots are adequate.
PAR2
CITY: TUCSON, ARIZONA j
~
CENTER: Park Mall
YEAR OPENED: 1975 LAST EXPANSION: 1985 '
~ N0. OF LEVELS: One (1) ENCLOSED: Yes
GLA: 1,000,000 Sq. Ft. ACRES: 63
N0. PARRING STALLS: 4,500
PARKING INDEX: 4.5/1000 GLA
MALL MANAGER: Foster Rivel
TELEPHONE: (602) 747-7575
MALL MANAGER COMMENTS: Much more parking than Center needs, so
much in fact that mostly 30% is never used
and only marginally at holiday season.
Center is 100$ leased and still too much
parking. 8us service good and great
during winter months. Some bike traffic
and some motorcycle parking pads used.
No P.S. parking yet.
MUNICIPALITY: CITY OF TUCSON
Glen Moyer
(602) 791-4541
PLANNER COMMENTS: Hasn't been to center when he couldn't find a
spot. Parking seems to be very sufficient.
Ordinance has parking at one (1) space per 250
Sq.Ft. gross building area. 3$ of parking
provided is number of bike stalls. As a special
requirement 25$ of bike parking to be covered,
locked, enclosed, etc. When bussing is provided
with other qualifying shared parking
requirements such as off peak users sharing
- parking with peak users then parking
requirements are one (1) stall per 300 Sq. Ft.
GBA. Center is a park and ride lot, so many
_ cars park and don't use f acility. Additional
lot demands are special promotions such as
Christmas tree lots and other special
actfvities and even with these uses parking on
r
L ,
SUMMARY
.
!
~ .
. Spokane County Zoning Code requires five (5) parking
spaces for each 1000 square f eet of gross building area
_ for the "other retail, commercial" category.
. The "other retail, commercial" category does not
specifically recognfze the enclosed non-retail building
area (common area) contained in a super regional enclose3
shopping center such as the proposed Spokane Galleria.
This area is enclosed and climatized for shogper's
convenience and safety.
,
L Gross building area less the common area is defined as
.
gross leasable area. Current land use practice in the
shopping center industry is to provide f ive (5) parking
spaces per 1000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) o
. The Phase I GLA limit on the Spokane Galleria is 650,000
_ square feet. Thus, 3250 parking stalls should be
required.
Nineteen (19) actual examples of other operating projects
`u together with respective planning department testimony
and references support the validity of this request.
r
C...r
1
a
1
i.. w
r
(
L
-