06/27/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

on balance this is very positive. Mr. Asseff questioned if water fountains and like use space would be excluded in the GLA. Mr. Barker replied "yes." He reiterated that the existing ordinance provides for a ration of 6.5 per thousand. In discussion with Mr. Conway, the calculation is based on gross building area, which would include items such as lights, fountains, and storage areas. The City normaily applies an 80% factor to account for 20% of non-leaseable area, non- traffic-generating space, thus yielding the 5.2 calculation. Mr. Asseff questioned how the two would coinpare if 80% of the area, as defined, were compared to Mr. Barker's calculations of GLA. Mr. Barker indicated that they have attempted to take a conservative approach with their numbers. The numbers can be maneuvered one way or another, but a 20% factor is a fair representative basis for that. Mrs. O'Rourke questioned if there had been a study done on increased traffic. Mr. Rinker indicated a traffic study would need to be done, and that a count would be difficult without actually doing the study. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that in regards to the parking ratio, it was a based on 15% back room area. He indicated that 20% is for smaller tenants and the common area with kiosks, would include parking and that is how the Building Department has derived at the 6.5 ratio. Mr. Rinker indicated that kiosks are in their numbers as well, since they are looking for functional space that is profit generating. He indicated that there is approximately 5-8% of vacancies that do not generate profits. Mr. Rinker indicated that the study that has been referenced is one that looks to the industry standards and looks to a good body of experience to show that these are practical numbers. He indicated that it does not cover the "busiest hour." Mr. Rinker indicated that as a rule of thumb, the 20t' busiest hour is used as a benchmark pinnacle. Mr. Koeth questioned if there would be enough parking spaces to accommodate this addition, aside from Christmas time. Mr. Barker reiterated that in the report submitted, the studies that have done are based on the 20'" busiest hour. . It is that hour that occurs during that time between Thanksgiving and Christmas. He indicated that the 4.5 ratio is based on that hour. He indicated that it gives the City a benchmark to make some decisions based on the coinmunities policy would be. He questioned if it made sense to insist that businesses have enough pavement to support the 20'h busiest hour when most of the time there are a lot of empty space around the mall any other time of the year. Mr. Barker indicated that it makes sense to recognize that no matter how inuch parking there is, there will always be problems. Mr. Spalding questioned if multi- level parking is used in most inalls, from the applicant's experience, and would multi- level parking an option for the City of North Olmsted. Mr. Rinker indicated that it would be premature, because there are numerous shared rides. He indicated that at a number of 5 anchors would suggest the City to start looking at how much space is dedicated and that vertical parking should be considered. Mr. Rinker indicated that North Olmsted does not have the demand to justify putting in vertical parking. Mr. Barker indicated that what North Olmsted has is a multi-level department with only a one level main mall concourse. He indicated that at Randall Park Mall, for example, there is upper and lower level parking fields, so that both levels of the mall are serviced. Mr. Spalding indicated that he was referring to more than several department stores, whether or not it would create a need for more parking. Mr. Barker replied "no, it does not." Mr. Rinker indicated that it is fairly easy to get caught up in the numbers. He indicated that if 9