Public Policies and Private Decisions Affecting

the Redevelopment of Brownfields:  An Analysis of Critical Factors,

Relative Weights and Areal Differentials

 

 

Appendix F

 

Data Used in Determining Estimated

Brownfield/Greenfield Trade-Off Ratios

 

 

APPENDIX F – 1

(Baltimore, Maryland Study Area)

SITE:          BAL – 1

          Site acreage:                15 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Office complex with limited retail and commercial facilities, total of 400,000

                                                square feet in five buildings

1.       If constructed in Baltimore County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (amended through July 6, 1998)

b.      Under § 207, the most appropriate zoning would be O-3 (Office Park) Zone.

c.       With regard to O-3 land use requirements, §§ 207.3 and 207.4 incorporate by reference the OR-2           requirements.

d.      In addition to use as offices, § 206.3 also authorizes a variety of commercial activities.

e.       § 206.4.C.5 imposes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.  This assumes that the building is a Class B

Office Building.  § 101 defines a Class B Office Building as an office building that was not originally constructed as a one or two family dwelling.  The project as redeveloped would fall within the definition of a Class B Office Building.

f.       Given a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, the minimum amount of land area that would be required

          by the project would be 800,000 square feet.

g.      The parking (§ 409.A.2) and loading zone (§ 409.11) mandates could be accommodated within the

          minimum land required by § 206.4.C.5.

h.      800,000 square feet = 18.37 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  15:18.37 = 1:1.22


 

2.       If constructed in Carroll County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Carroll County Maryland – Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 1, 1996)

b.      Under Art. 14, Division VI, the most appropriate zoning would be as a Planned Business Center.

c.       § 14.6 provides that uses permitted in the B-G (General Business) District are also permitted in a

          Planned Business Center.

d.      § 14.63(a) impose a 50 foot height maximum.

e.       § 14.63(c) establishes a 25% maximum tract coverage limitation.

f.       The 25% maximum tract coverage limitation would require a total land area of 486,000 square feet.

g.      § 14.63(d) incorporates by reference the parking and loading zone requirements of § 14.1.  The

minimum land area requirement imposed by § 14.63(c) is sufficient to accommodate both the parking (§ 14.1(a)(23)) and loading zone (§ 14.1(b)(10)) requirements.

h.      486,000 square feet = 11.16 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  15:11.16 = 1:0.74

3.       If constructed in Frederick County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Frederick County, Maryland (amended through March 30, 2001)

b.      Under § 1-19-289, it would be most appropriate to locate the project in the Office/Research Industrial

          District.

c.       § 1-19-290 imposes a 40,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement.

d.      § 1-19-308.1(3) imposes a 20% open space requirement.  (The setbacks required by § 1-19-290 may

          be located in open space areas.)

e.       The parking (§ 1-19-167) and loading zone (§ 1-19-168(2)(f)) mandates would require a total land

          area of 187,800 square feet.

f.       The total area of the footprints of the project buildings plus the parking and loading zone

requirements = 309,300 square feet.  When the 20% open space requirement of § 1-19-308.1(3) is included, the minimum area required for the project becomes 371,160 square feet.

g.      371,160 square feet = 8.52 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  15:8.52 = 1:0.57

 


 

APPENDIX F – 2

(Baltimore, Maryland Study)

SITE:          BAL – 2

          Site acreage:                4.5 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Redeveloped commercial facility with 160,000 square feet of commercial space

                                                and 40,000 square feet of retail space.

1.       If constructed in Baltimore County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (amended through July 6, 1998)

b.      Under § 207, the most appropriate zoning would be O-3 (Office Park) Zone.

c.       With regard to O-3 land use requirements, §§ 207.3 and 207.4 incorporate by reference the OR-2

          requirements.

d.      In addition to use as offices, § 206.3 also authorizes a variety of commercial activities.

e.       § 206.4.C.5 imposes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.  This assumes that the building is a Class B

Office Building.  § 101 defines a Class B Office Building as an office building that was not originally constructed as a one or two family dwelling.  The project as redeveloped would fall within the definition of a Class B Office Building.

f.       Given a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, the minimum amount of land area that would be required

          by the project would be 400,000 square feet.

g.      The parking (§ 409.A.2) and loading zone (§ 409.11) mandates could be accommodated within the

          minimum land required by § 206.4.C.5.

h.      400,000 square feet = 9.18 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  4.5:9.18 = 1:2.04

2.       If constructed in Carroll County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Carroll County Maryland – Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 1, 1996)

b.      Under Art. 14, Division VI, the most appropriate zoning would be as a Planned Business Center.

c.       § 14.6 provides that uses permitted in the B-G (General Business) District are also permitted in a

          Planned Business Center.

d.      § 14.63(a) impose a 50 foot height maximum.

e.       § 14.63(c) establishes a 25% maximum tract coverage limitation.

f.       The 25% maximum tract coverage limitation would require a total land area of 332,000 square feet.

g.      § 14.63(d) incorporates by reference the parking and loading zone requirements of § 14.1.  The

minimum land area requirement imposed by § 14.63(c) is sufficient to accommodate both the parking (§ 14.1(a)(23)) and loading zone (§ 14.1(b)(10)) requirements.

h.      332,000 square feet = 7.62 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  4.5:7.62 = 1:1.69

3.       If constructed in Frederick County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Frederick County, Maryland (amended through March 30, 2001)

b.      Under § 1-19-289, it would be most appropriate to locate the project in the Office/Research Industrial

          District.

c.       § 1-19-290 imposes a 40,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement.

d.      § 1-19-308.1(3) imposes a 20% open space requirement.  (The setbacks required by § 1-19-290 may

          be located in open space areas.)

e.       The parking (§ 1-19-167) and loading zone (§ 1-19-168(2)(f)) mandates would require a total land

          area of 125,460 square feet.

f.       The total area of the footprints of the project buildings plus the parking and loading zone

requirements = 208,460 square feet.  When the 20% open space requirement of § 1-19-308.1(3) is included, the minimum area required for the project becomes 250,152 square feet.

g.      250,152 square feet = 5.74 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  4.5:5.74 = 1:1.28

 


 

APPENDIX F – 3

(Baltimore, Maryland Study Area)

SITE:          BAL – 3

          Site acreage:                0.75

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Office building containing 100,000 square feet of office space

1.       If constructed in Baltimore County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (amended through July 6, 1998)

b.      Under § 207, the most appropriate zoning would be O-3 (Office Park) Zone.

c.       With regard to O-3 land use requirements, §§ 207.3 and 207.4 incorporate by reference the OR-2

          requirements.

d.      In addition to use as offices, § 206.3 also authorizes a variety of commercial activities.

e.       § 206.4.C.5 imposes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.  This assumes that the building is a Class B

Office Building.  § 101 defines a Class B Office Building as an office building that was not originally constructed as a one or two family dwelling.  The project as redeveloped would fall within the definition of a Class B Office Building.

f.       Given a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, the minimum amount of land area that would be required

          by the project would be 200,000 square feet.

g.      The parking (§ 409.A.2) and loading zone (§ 409.11) mandates could be accommodated within the

          minimum land required by § 206.4.C.5.

h.      200,000 square feet = 4.59 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.75:4.59 = 1:6.12

2.       If constructed in Carroll County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Carroll County Maryland – Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 1, 1996)

b.      Under Art. 14, Division VI, the most appropriate zoning would be as a Planned Business Center.

c.       § 14.6 provides that uses permitted in the B-G (General Business) District are also permitted in a

          Planned Business Center.

d.      § 14.63(a) impose a 50 foot height maximum.

e.       § 14.63(c) establishes a 25% maximum tract coverage limitation.

f.       The 25% maximum tract coverage limitation would require a total land area of 68,000 square feet.

g.      § 14.63(d) incorporates by reference the parking and loading zone requirements of § 14.1.  The

minimum land area requirement imposed by § 14.63(c) is not sufficient to accommodate both the parking (§ 14.1(a)(23)) and loading zone (§ 14.1(b)(10)) requirements.  Assuming that the entirety of the available lot area is used for parking, an additional 13,260 square feet would be necessary.  The total area required would be 81,260 square feet.

h.      81,260 square feet = 1.87 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.75:1.87 = 1:2.49

3.       If constructed in Frederick County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Frederick County, Maryland (amended through March 30, 2001)

b.      Under § 1-19-289, it would be most appropriate to locate the project in the Office/Research Industrial

          District.

c.       § 1-19-290 imposes a 40,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement.

d.      § 1-19-308.1(3) imposes a 20% open space requirement.  (The setbacks required by § 1-19-290 may

          be located in open space areas.)

e.       The parking (§ 1-19-167) and loading zone (§ 1-19-168(2)(f)) mandates would require a total land

          area of 51,600 square feet.

f.       The total area of the footprints of the project buildings plus the parking and loading zone

requirements = 68,600 square feet.  When the 20% open space requirement of § 1-19-308.1(3) is included, the minimum area required for the project becomes 82,320 square feet.

g.      82,320 square feet = 1.89 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.75:1.89 = 1:2.52

 

 

APPENDIX F – 4

(Baltimore, Maryland Study Area)

SITE:          BAL – 4

          Site acreage:                2.75 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Two office building containing a total of 118,000 square feet of office space

1.       If constructed in Baltimore County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (amended through July 6, 1998)

b.      Under § 207, the most appropriate zoning would be O-3 (Office Park) Zone.

c.       With regard to O-3 land use requirements, §§ 207.3 and 207.4 incorporate by reference the OR-2

          requirements.

d.      In addition to use as offices, § 206.3 also authorizes a variety of commercial activities.

e.       § 206.4.C.5 imposes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.  This assumes that the building is a Class B

Office Building.  § 101 defines a Class B Office Building as an office building that was not originally constructed as a one or two family dwelling.  The project as redeveloped would fall within the definition of a Class B Office Building.

f.       Given a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, the minimum amount of land area that would be required

          by the project would be 236,000 square feet.

g.      The parking (§ 409.A.2) and loading zone (§ 409.11) mandates could be accommodated within the

          minimum land required by § 206.4.C.5.

h.      236,000 square feet = 5.42 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.75:5.42 = 1:1.97

2.       If constructed in Carroll County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Carroll County Maryland – Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 1, 1996)

b.      Under Art. 14, Division VI, the most appropriate zoning would be as a Planned Business Center.

c.       § 14.6 provides that uses permitted in the B-G (General Business) District are also permitted in a

          Planned Business Center.

d.      § 14.63(a) impose a 50 foot height maximum.  One of the two buildings in the complex exceeds this

limitation.  In order to conform to the requirements of § 14.63(a), the building was redesigned as a building having half the height and twice the footprint.

e.       § 14.63(c) establishes a 25% maximum tract coverage limitation.

f.       The 25% maximum tract coverage limitation would require a total land area of 208,000 square feet.

g.      § 14.63(d) incorporates by reference the parking and loading zone requirements of § 14.1.  The

minimum land area requirement imposed by § 14.63(c) is sufficient to accommodate both the parking (§ 14.1(a)(23)) and loading zone (§ 14.1(b)(10)) requirements.

h.      208,000 square feet = 4.78 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.75:4.78 = 1:1.74

3.       If constructed in Frederick County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Frederick County, Maryland (amended through March 30, 2001)

b.      Under § 1-19-289, it would be most appropriate to locate the project in the Office/Research Industrial

          District.

c.       § 1-19-290 imposes a 40,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement.

d.      § 1-19-308.1(3) imposes a 20% open space requirement.  (The setbacks required by § 1-19-290 may

          be located in open space areas.)

e.       The parking (§ 1-19-167) and loading zone (§ 1-19-168(2)(f)) mandates would require a total land

          area of 56,100 square feet.

f.       The total area of the footprints of the project buildings plus the parking and loading zone

requirements = 94,600 square feet.  When the 20% open space requirement of § 1-19-308.1(3) is included, the minimum area required for the project becomes 113,520 square feet.

g.      113,520 square feet = 2.61 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.75:2.61 = 1:0.95

 


 

APPENDIX F – 5

(Baltimore, Maryland Study Area)

SITE:          BAL – 5

          Site acreage:                6 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Multiple family residential development containing 240 apartment plus limited

                                                office and retail space

1.       If constructed in Baltimore County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (amended through July 6, 1998)

b.      Under § 200.2, the most appropriate zoning would be R.A.E. 1 (Residence, Apartment, Elevator 1).

c.       For areas zoned R.A.E. 1, § 200.3.D. imposes a gross density limitation of 40 units per acre.

d.      § 200.3.E establishes an open space ratio of 0.7.

e.       Given the footprints of the existing structures, the open space requirement could be accommodated

          within the minimum project area as could the parking requirements of § 409.A.1.

f.       A gross density limitation of 40 units per acre would require a minimum land area of 6 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  6:6 = 1:1

2.       If constructed in Carroll County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Carroll County Maryland – Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 1, 1996)

b.      Under § 3 and Art. 9, the most appropriate zoning would be R-7,500 (Residential Multiple Family).

c.       Under § 9.1(b), multifamily residential developments are allowed only as planned unit developments.

d.      § 9.5 established a 10 acre minimum area requirement for planned unit developments.

e.       § 14.8(e) imposes a density limitation of 6 dwelling units per acre.  To calculate this density

limitation, efficiency apartments = 0.5 units, 1 bedroom apartments = 0.75 units, 2 bedroom apartments = 1.0 units and 3 bedroom apartments = 1.5 units.  The project would require a total of 212.5 units.  At a maximum density of 6 units per acre, the density limitation of § 14.8 would require a total of 35.45 acres.

f.       The parking requirements of § 14.1(a)(24)(B) and the 25% open space requirements of § 14.8(f)

          could be accommodated within the 35.45 acre minimum area requirement.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  6:35.45 = 1:5.91

3.       If constructed in Frederick County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Frederick County, Maryland (amended through March 30, 2001)

b.      Under § 1-19-240, the most appropriate zoning for this residential development would be R-16

          (Residential High Density).

c.       Areas zoned R-16 have a maximum density limitation of 16 units per acre.

d.      Applying this limitation would require a minimum land area of 15 acres.

e.       A minimum land area of 15 acres is sufficient to accommodate the parking requirements of § 19-1-

          168(1).

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  6:15 = 1:2.5

 


 

APPENDIX F – 6

(Baltimore, Maryland Study Area)

SITE:          BAL – 6

          Site acreage:                1.3 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Townhouse development containing 36 townhouses

1.       If constructed in Baltimore County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (amended through July 6, 1998)

b.      Under §§ 1B01.1.A.1.c and 1B01.1.A.1.d, the townhouse development could be located in areas

          zoned D.R. 5.5, D.R. 10.5 or D.R. 16.

c.       The most appropriate zoning  would be D.R. 16 (§ 1B02.2.A), the highest density allowable in other

          than an apartment development.

d.      Areas zoned D.R. 16 allow a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre.  This would require a minimum

          land area of 2.25 acres.

e.       § 1B02.3.C imposes a minimum size of 2,000 square feet per unit.

f.       Both an increase in the project footprint necessitated by the requirements of § 1B02.3.C and the

parking requirements of § 409.6.A.1 could be accommodated within the 2.25 acre minimum area required for the project.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.3:2.25 = 1:1.73

2.       If constructed in Carroll County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Carroll County Maryland – Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 1, 1996)

b.      Under § 3 and Art. 9, the most appropriate zoning would be R-7,500 (Residential Multiple Family).

c.       Under § 9.1(b), multifamily residential developments are allowed only as planned unit developments.

d.      § 9.5 established a 10 acre minimum area requirement for planned unit developments.

e.       § 14.8(e) imposes a density limitation of 6 dwelling units per acre.

f.       The density limitation imposed by § 14.8 as well as the parking requirements of § 14.1(a)(24)(B) and

the 25% open space requirements of § 14.8(f) could be accommodated within the 10 acre minimum area requirement.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.3:10 = 1:7.69

3.       If constructed in Frederick County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Frederick County, Maryland (amended through March 30, 2001)

b.      Under § 1-19-240, the most appropriate zoning for this residential development would be R-8

          (Medium Density).  Areas zoned R-8 have a maximum density of 8 units per acre.

c.       § 1-19-427 establishes a minimum townhouse size of 1,600 square feet as well as a 40% green space

          requirement.

d.      Setbacks are required by § 1-19-430.

e.       § 1-19-168(1) requires one parking space per unit plus 0.5 parking spaces for each bedroom.

f.       Given a maximum density of 8 units per acre, the minimum land area for the project would be 4.5

acres.  This area is sufficient to accommodate the green space and minimum size requirements of § 1-19-427, the setback requirements of § 1-19-430 and the parking requirements of § 1-19-168(1).

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.3:4.5 = 1:3.46

 


 

APPENDIX F – 7

(Baltimore, Maryland Study Area)

SITE:          BAL – 7

          Site acreage:                2.8 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Multiple family residential development containing 89 condominiums

1.       If constructed in Baltimore County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (amended through July 6, 1998)

b.      Under § 200.2, the most appropriate zoning would be R.A.E. 1 (Residence, Apartment, Elevator 1).

c.       For areas zoned R.A.E. 1, § 200.3.D. imposes a gross density limitation of 40 units per acre.

d.      § 200.3.E establishes an open space ratio of 0.7.

e.       Given the footprints of the existing structures, the open space requirement could be accommodated

          within the minimum project area as could the parking requirements of § 409.A.1.

f.       The existing structure does not exceed the height restrictions of §§ 201.3.A and 231.

g.      A gross density limitation of 40 units per acre would require a minimum land area of 2.23 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.8:2.23 = 1:0.80

2.       If constructed in Carroll County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Carroll County Maryland – Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 1, 1996)

b.      Under § 3 and Art. 9, the most appropriate zoning would be R-7,500 (Residential Multiple Family).

c.       Under § 9.1(b), multifamily residential developments are allowed only as planned unit developments.

d.      § 9.5 established a 10 acre minimum area requirement for planned unit developments.

e.       § 14.8(e) imposes a density limitation of 6 dwelling units per acre.  To calculate this density

limitation, efficiency apartments = 0.5 units, 1 bedroom apartments = 0.75 units, 2 bedroom apartments = 1.0 units and 3 bedroom apartments = 1.5 units.  The project would require a total of 96 units.  At a maximum density of 6 units per acre, the density limitation of § 14.8 would require a total of 16 acres.

f.       The parking requirements of § 14.1(a)(24)(B) and the 25% open space requirements of § 14.8(f)

          could be accommodated within the 16 acre minimum area requirement.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.8:16 = 1:5.71

3.       If constructed in Frederick County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Frederick County, Maryland (amended through March 30, 2001)

b.      Under § 1-19-240, the most appropriate zoning for this residential development would be R-16

          (Residential High Density).

c.       Areas zoned R-16 have a maximum density limitation of 16 units per acre.

d.      Applying this limitation would require a minimum land area of 5.56 acres.

e.       A minimum land area of 5.56 acres is sufficient to accommodate the parking requirements of § 19-1-

          168(1).

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.8:5.56 = 1:1.99

 


 

APPENDIX F – 8

(Baltimore, Maryland Study Area)

SITE:          BAL – 8

          Site acreage:                0.17

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Two story office building in established neighborhood (7,300 square feet per

                                                floor)

1.       If constructed in Baltimore County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Baltimore County Zoning Regulations (amended through July 6, 1998)

b.      Under § 206.1, the most appropriate zoning would be OR-2 (Office Building Residential) Zone.

c.       § 206.4.C.5 imposes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.  This assumes that the building is a Class B

Office Building.  § 101 defines a Class B Office Building as an office building that was not originally constructed as a one or two family dwelling.  The project as redeveloped would fall within the definition of a Class B Office Building.

d.      Given a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, the minimum amount of land area that would be required

          by the project would be 29,200 square feet.

e.       The parking (§ 409.A.2) and loading zone (§ 409.11) mandates could be accommodated within the

          minimum land required by § 206.4.C.5.

f.       29,200 square feet = 0.67 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.17:0.67 = 1:3.94

2.       If constructed in Carroll County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Carroll County Maryland – Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 1, 1996)

b.      Under § 14.6, the most appropriate zoning would be B-G (General Business) District.

c.       § 14.63(c) establishes a 25% maximum tract coverage limitation.

d.      The 25% maximum tract coverage limitation would require a total land area of 29,200 square feet.

e.       § 14.63(d) incorporates by reference the parking and loading zone requirements of § 14.1.  The

minimum land area requirement imposed by § 14.63(c) is sufficient to accommodate both the parking (§ 14.1(a)(23)) and loading zone (§ 14.1(b)(10)) requirements.

f.       29,200 square feet = 0.67 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.17:0.67 = 1:3.94

3.       If constructed in Frederick County, Maryland:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Frederick County, Maryland (amended through March 30, 2001)

b.      Under § 1-19-289, it would be most appropriate to locate the project in the Office/Research Industrial

          District.

c.       § 1-19-290 imposes a 40,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement.

d.      § 1-19-308.1(3) imposes a 20% open space requirement.  (The setbacks required by § 1-19-290 may

          be located in open space areas.)

e.       The parking (§ 1-19-167) and loading zone (§ 1-19-168(2)(f)) mandates would require a total land

          area of 7,860 square feet.

f.       The total area of the footprints of the project buildings plus the parking and loading zone

requirements = 15,160 square feet.  When the 20% open space requirement of § 1-19-308.1(3) is included, the minimum area required for the project becomes 18,192 square feet.

g.      18,192 square feet = 0.42 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.17:0.42 = 1:2.47

 


 

APPENDIX F – 9

(Burlington, Vermont Study Area)

SITE:          BUR – 1

          Site acreage:                0.40 acre

          Use as redeveloped:   Multifamily residential

          Site as redeveloped:   One single family residential building and one multifamily residential building

                                                on a single lot

1.       If constructed in the Town of Colchester, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Colchester, Vermont Zoning Regulations and Official Zoning Map (amended

          through April 14,1999).

b.      § 1.310 of the “Table of Permissible Uses” allows for multiple family residential development under

          the following zoning classifications: R-1, R-2, R-3, GD-1, GD-2 and GD-3.

c.       Under § 902.2, Planned Residential Development standards are applicable to the development of

          multifamily residential facilities in the low or medium density residential districts (R1, R2 and R3).

d.      § 1503.3 of the Planned Residential Development standards includes open space requirements.

e.       Under § 905, the maximum lot coverage in zoning classifications R-1, R-2 and R-3 is 20%.

f.       Because of these open space and maximum lot requirements, construction of the facility under R-1, R-

          2 or R-3 zoning classifications was not given further consideration.

g.      Multiple family residential development is permitted within the GD-1 zoning classification but only if

          the development complies with the aforementioned Planned Residential Development standards.

h.      The “Dimensional Requirements” (Table 1) require 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit (both single

          family and multiple family) within the GD-3 zoning classification.

i.        However, the “Dimensional Requirements” only mandate a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size for

          multifamily residential development in the GD-2 district.

j.        Because it would have required the minimum amount of land, the 20,000 square feet requirement of

          the GD-2 zoning classification were assumed.

k.       20,000 square feet = 0.491 acres.

l.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.40:0.491 = 1:1.15.


 

2.       If constructed in the Town of Milton, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Milton, Vermont Zoning Regulations (amended through December 28, 1998)

b.      Under § 302(2), multifamily residential developments are permitted in high density residential

          districts (R1) only as Type A Planned Residential Developments.

c.       Under § 312(4), multifamily residential developments are permitted in medium density residential

          districts (R2) only as Type A Planned Residential Developments.

d.      Under § 322(4), multifamily residential developments are permitted in medium density residential

          districts (R3) only as Type A Planned Residential Developments.

e.       Under § 332(4), multifamily residential developments are permitted in transitional residential

          districts (R4) only as Type B Planned Residential Developments.

f.       § 822.1 requires Type A Planned Residential Developments to have a minimum of five dwelling

          units.

g.      § 824.6 imposed mandatory open space requirements on Type A Planned Residential Developments.

h.      The five dwelling unit requirement is not applicable to Type B Planned Residential Developments

          (§ 822.2).

i.        Under § 825.4(3), the minimum lot area for a Type B Planned Residential Development that is

          connected to municipal water and sewer systems is 20,000 square feet.

j.        Development was assumed to occur as a Type B Planned Residential Development in a transitional

          residential district (R4) having a 20,000 square feet minimum lot size.

k.       20,000 square feet = 0.491 acres.

l.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.40:0.491 = 1:1.15.

3.       If constructed in the Town of Williston, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Williston, Vermont Zoning Ordinance (amended through April 30, 1998)

b.      Under the “Chart of Permitted and Conditional Uses” (§ 3.15), multifamily residential development

is permitted in the Taft Corners (TC) zoning district, is permitted as a Planned Residential Development in the Medium Density Residential (R) zoning district and the Mixed Use (MU) zoning district and as a conditional use in the Village Center (VC) zoning district.

c.       It is most likely that development would occur in either the Medium Density Residential (R) zoning

          district or the Mixed Use (MU) zoning district.

d.      Under § 3.16, Planned Residential Developments located in either the Medium Density Residential

          (R) zoning district or the Mixed Use (MU) zoning district have a minimum lot size of 6,000 square

          feet. 

e.       Also under § 3.16, the same setback requirements apply to both the Medium Density Residential (R)

zoning district and the Mixed Use (MU) zoning district with the exception of the front yard setback from roadways other than the principal town highways.  The setback requirement is 35 feet in the Medium Density Residential (R) zoning district and 50 feet in the Mixed Use (MU) zoning district.

f.       Because of the smaller setback requirements, development was assumed to occur in the Medium

          Density Residential (R) zoning district.

g.      Applying the setback requirements to the dimensions of the project resulted in a minimum area

          requirement of 7,750 square feet.

h.      The 6,000 square feet minimum lot size requirement noted above could not be used because it was

          less than the minimum area requirement resulting from the application of minimum setback

          requirements.

i.        7,750 square feet = 0.178 acre.

j.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.40:0.178 = 1:0.44.

 


 

APPENDIX F – 10

(Burlington, Vermont Study Area)

SITE:          BUR – 2

          Site acreage:                2.16 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Multifamily residential and commercial development

          Site as redeveloped:   25 residences with parking plus approximately 14,000 square feet of commercial

                                                space with associated parking


 

1.       If constructed in the Town of Colchester, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Colchester, Vermont Zoning Regulations and Official Zoning Map (amended

          through April 14,1999).

b.      § 1.310 of the “Table of Permissible Uses” allows for multiple family residential development under

          the following zoning classifications: R-1, R-2, R-3, GD-1, GD-2 and GD-3.

c.       At the time of the preparation of this analysis, it was not known what type of business would be

locating in the commercial space made available by this redevelopment project nor was it known whether the space would be developed as a single property or would be subdivided.  Consequently, alternative business development possibilities were considered.

d.      Under § 2.140 of the “Table of Permissible Uses” allows retail businesses having a store area of less

than 10,000 square feet in the following zoning classifications:  Commercial, GD-1, GD-2 and

GD-3.

e.       Under § 2.150 of the “Table of Permissible Uses” allows retail businesses having a store area of

greater than 10,000 square feet in the following zoning classifications:  Commercial, GD-1, GD-2 and GD-3 (conditional only).

f.       Under § 3.100, if developed as offices, the most likely zoning classifications were Commercial, GD-1

          and GD-2.

g.      Under § 4.100, if developed as a repair, renovation or service facility with all operations conducted

entirely within a fully enclosed building, the only possible zoning classifications were GD-2 and Industrial.

h.      Therefore, it is most likely that the project would be developed within the GD-2 zoning classification.

i.        Unusual site characteristics precluded utilizing a setback method to determine minimum area

          requirements.

j.        The square footage of the footprint of the residences and the commercial space, plus residential

parking (§§ 1827, 1829), commercial parking (§ 1827) and loading zone requirements (§ 1830) totaled 63,189.25 square feet.

j.        Given that the project was connected to the municipal sewer, the applicable GD-2 lot coverage

          maximum (§ 1305.4) was 70%.

k.       Applying the 70% lot coverage maximum to the 63,189.25 square foot minimum area requirement

          discussed above would result in a total lot size requirement of 90,270.36 square feet.

l.        90,270.36 square feet = 2.07 acres.

m.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.16:2.07 = 1:0.96.


 

2.       If constructed in the Town of Milton, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Milton, Vermont Zoning Regulations (amended through December 28, 1998)

b.      Under § 362, redevelopment would be most likely to occur in the commercial/residential district (C1).

c.       Total square footage of the residences plus the parking area required by §§ 812.2 and 812.3 =

          24,494.25 square feet.

d.      Total square footage of the commercial area plus parking (§§ 812.2, 812.3) and loading zone (§ 815)

requirements = 32,140 square feet.  (This assumes a total of 12 employees.  Under § 812.1, parking spaces require 200 square feet.  Under § 812.2, one parking space is usually required for each employee.  Depending on the ultimate development of the commercial space, therefore, the area required for parking could either increase or decrease.)

e.       The total footprint for the entire redevelopment project would be 56,634.25 square feet.

f.       Under § 364(6), the maximum lot coverage in the commercial/residential district (C1) is 50%.

g.      The minimum amount of land that would be required, therefore, would be 113,268.5 square feet.

h.      113,268.5 square feet = 2.6 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.16:2.6 = 1:1.20

3.       If constructed in the Town of Williston, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Williston, Vermont Zoning Ordinance (amended through April 30, 1998)

b.      Under the “Chart of Permitted and Conditional Uses” (§ 3.15), multifamily residential development is

permitted in the Taft Corners (TC) zoning district, is permitted as a Planned Residential Development in the Medium Density Residential (R) zoning district and the Mixed Use (MU) zoning district and as a conditional use in the Village Center (VC) zoning district.

c.       Under the “Chart of Permitted and Conditional Uses” (§ 3.15), retail establishments are permitted in

the Commercial I (C1), Commercial II (C2), Taft Corners (TC) and the Business Park (BP) zoning district.  The same zoning classifications apply to offices (§ 4.100) and to repair, renovation or service facilities with all operations conducted entirely within a fully enclosed building (§ 6.100).

d.      Given that it is the only area of congruence, it is most likely that development would occur in the Taft

          Corners (TC) zoning district.

e.       Total square footage of the residences plus the parking area required by § 4.11.1A = 22,414.25 square

          feet.

f.       Total square footage of the commercial area plus parking (§ 4.11.1) and loading zone (§ 4.12)

          requirements = 23,230 square feet.

g.      The total footprint for the entire redevelopment project would be 45,644.25 square feet.

h.      Under § 3.7.8C(3), the maximum lot coverage in the Taft Corners (TC) district is 85%.

i.        The minimum amount of land that would be required, therefore, would be 53,699.1 square feet.

j.        53,699.1 square feet = 1.23 acres.

k.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.16:1.23 = 1:0.57.

 


 

 

APPENDIX F – 11

(Burlington, Vermont Study Area)

SITE:          BUR – 3

          Site acreage:                0.75 acre

          Use as redeveloped:   Community building

          Site as redeveloped:   Community service organization offering day care, elder care and other

                                                community services.

1.       If constructed in the Town of Colchester, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Colchester, Vermont Zoning Regulations and Official Zoning Map (amended

          through April 14,1999).

b.      § 1.400 of the “Table of Permissible Uses” allows intermediate care facilities, child care facilities and

housing for the elderly under the following zoning classifications: AGR, RR, R-1, R-2, R-3, GD-3 and R-10.

c.       Under § 902.5, Planned Residential Development standards are applicable to the development of

          community care homes in the low or medium density residential districts (R1, R2 and R3).

d.      § 1503.3 of the Planned Residential Development standards includes open space requirements.

e.       Under § 905, the maximum lot coverage in zoning classifications R-1, R-2 and R-3 is 20%.

f.       Because of these open space and maximum lot requirements, construction of the facility under R-1,

          R-2 or R-3 zoning classifications was not given further consideration.

g.      It is unlikely that intermediate care facilities, child care facilities and housing for the elderly would be

constructed in agricultural/open space districts (AGR) or in low density 5-acre and 10-acre rural residential districts (RR and R-10).

h.      Therefore, it is most likely that the project would be developed in the general development (GD-3)

          zoning district.

i.        The existing building covers approximately 10,530.2 square feet.

j.        The parking requirements mandated by §§ 1827.11b(3) and 1829.1 would require a total of 5,704

          square feet.

k.       The total area required for the project, therefore, would be 16,234.2 square feet.

l.        The “Dimensional Requirements” (Table 1) require a 30 foot front setback, a 15 foot side setback and

a 25 foot rear setback.  The existing building design would require setbacks totaling 13,580.5 square feet.

m.      Complying with the setback requirements would increase the total area needed for the project to

          24,110.7 square feet.

n.      24,110.7 square feet = 0.55 acre.

o.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.75:0.55 = 1:0.74.


 

2.       If constructed in the Town of Milton, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Milton, Vermont Zoning Regulations (amended through December 28, 1998)

b.      Under § 362, institutional establishments and housing for the elderly are permitted in the

commercial/residential (C1) district.  This is the only zoning district in which both of these uses are permitted uses.

c.       Calculation of parking requirements is somewhat problematic.  The following parking requirements

are mandated by § 812.2:  For day care centers – one parking space for each employee plus one per five children.  For group care facilities – one parking space per three occupants plus one for every two employees.  Assuming 40 children in the day care center, 15 elder care guests and 12 employees, approximately 25 parking spaces would be required, one of which under § 812.3 must be handicapped parking.  This would require a total of 5,080 square feet.

d.      The total footprint for the project, therefore, would be 15,610.2 square feet.

e.       The maximum lot coverage in the commercial/residential (C1) district is 50% (§ 364(6)).

f.       The total amount of land needed, therefore, would be 31,220.4 square feet.

g.      31,220.4 square feet = 0.72 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.75:0.72 = 1:0.96.

3.       If constructed in the Town of Williston, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Williston, Vermont Zoning Ordinance (amended through April 30, 1998)

b.      Under the “Chart of Permitted and Conditional Uses” (§ 3.15), intermediate care and child care

facilities are permitted in (Commercial I (C1), Commercial II (C2), Taft Corners (TC) and Business Park (BP) zoning districts and also as a planned unit development in the Mixed Use (MU) zoning district.

c.       Under the “Chart of Permitted and Conditional Uses” (§ 3.15), location of day care facilities is

conditional except in the Taft Corners (TC) and Business Park (BP) zoning districts and or as a planned unit development in the Mixed Use (MU) zoning district.

d.      It is unlikely that the project would be developed as a planned unit development in the Mixed Use

          (MU) zoning district because of the two acre minimum lot size (§ 4.5.2).

e.       Given the need for child care in the business environment, it is

assumed that the facility would be located in the Business Park (BP) zoning district.  In addition, the depth of the existing building exceeds the maximum depth for buildings to be located in the Taft Corners (TC) zoning district (§ 3.7.8E).

f.       Under § 3.16, in the Taft Corners (TC) zoning district, the maximum lot coverage for buildings only

          is 25%.

g.      Given that the building covers approximately 10,530.2 square feet, the minimum lot size would be

          42,120.8 square feet.

h.      42,120.8 square feet = 0.97 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.75:0.97 = 1:1.29.

 


 

APPENDIX F – 12

(Burlington, Vermont Study Area)

SITE:          BUR – 4

          Site acreage:                1.1 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Multifamily residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Twenty residential units in two buildings on a single lot.

1.       If constructed in the Town of Colchester, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Colchester, Vermont Zoning Regulations and Official Zoning Map (amended

          through April 14,1999).

b.      § 1.310 of the “Table of Permissible Uses” allows for multiple family residential development under

the following zoning classifications:  R-1, R-2, R-3, GD-1, GD-2 and GD-3.  Irrespective of classification, however, all are subject to Planned Residential Development standards and review.

c.       § 1503.6(a) of the Planned Residential Development standards establishes a minimum lot size of

          7,500 square feet per unit for multifamily structures.

d.      For twenty units, this minimum lot size provision would require a total of 150,000 square feet.

e.       The total minimum lot size is sufficient to accommodate the open space requirements applicable to

Planned Residential Developments (§ 1503.3) and the parking requirements applicable to multifamily developments (§ 1827.11a).

f.       150,000 square feet = 3.44 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.1:3.44 = 1:3.13


 

2.       If constructed in the Town of Milton, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Milton, Vermont Zoning Regulations (amended through December 28, 1998)

b.      Under § 302(2), multifamily residential developments are permitted in high density residential

          districts (R1) only as Type A Planned Residential Developments.

c.       Under § 312(4), multifamily residential developments are permitted in medium density residential

          districts (R2) only as Type A Planned Residential Developments.

d.      Under § 322(4), multifamily residential developments are permitted in medium density residential

          districts (R3) only as Type A Planned Residential Developments.

e.       Under § 362(2), multifamily residential developments are permitted in commercial/residential

          districts (C1) only as Planned Residential Developments.

f.       § 822.1 requires Type A Planned Residential Developments to have a minimum of five dwelling

          units.

g.      § 824.6 imposes mandatory open space requirements on Type A Planned Residential Developments.

h.      § 824.1 provides a means of calculating the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a Type

A Planned Residential Development.  Under § 824.1(c)[4], the lot area for single family structures located within specific zoning categories (R1, R2, R3 or C1) is used to determine the number of dwelling units that may be constructed in a Planned Residential Development.

i.        The smallest lot area requirement for single family structures is 10,000 square feet (C1).  The lot area

          requirement for the other residential districts (R1, R2 and R3) are all significantly greater.

j.        For 20 dwelling units, therefore, the minimum lot size would be 200,000 square feet.

k.       This assumes under § 824.1 that 100% of the tract of land to be developed is, in fact, capable of

development.  This is the most conservative assumption as there is certain to be undevelopable land contained within the tract.  As the amount of undevelopable land increases, so would the minimum lot size.

l.        200,000 square feet = 4.59 acres.

m.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.1:4.59 = 1:4.17.

3.       If constructed in the Town of Williston, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Williston, Vermont Zoning Ordinance (amended through April 30, 1998)

b.      Under § 1.320 of the “Chart of Permitted and Conditional Uses” (§ 3.15), multifamily residential

development is permitted in the Taft Corners (TC) zoning district and as a Planned Residential Development in the Medium Density Residential (R) zoning district and the Mixed Use (MU) zoning district.

c.       Under the § 3.16 Table of Dimensional Requirements, the maximum residential density permitted in

the Taft Corners (TC) zoning district is 8 units per acre.  Two units per acre are permitted in the Medium Density Residential (R) zoning district.  Five units per acre are permitted in the Mixed Use (MU) zoning district.

d.      The 8 units per acre density limitation for the Taft Corners (TC) zoning district is also contained in

          § 3.7.8B.

e.       Given this density limitation, 20 dwelling units would require a total of 2.5 acres.

f.       The parking requirements mandated by § 4.11.1A could be contained within the minimum lot size.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.1:2.5 = 1:2.27.

 


 

 

APPENDIX F – 13

(Burlington, Vermont Study Area)

SITE:          BUR – 5

          Site acreage:                1.1 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Community grocery story (approximately 21,850 square feet)

1.       If constructed in the Town of Colchester, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Colchester, Vermont Zoning Regulations and Official Zoning Map (amended

          through April 14,1999).

b.      § 2.110 of the “Table of Permissible Uses” (§ 1.310) would allow this land use in the Commercial and

          GD-1 zoning classifications.

c.       Selection of a specific zoning classification is not required in this instance because the setback

          requirements are the same in both the Commercial and GD-1 zoning classifications.

d.      Applying the setback requirements would require a total of 17,250 square feet.

e.       Conforming with the general parking requirements contained in §§ 1827.11c(1) and 1828.2 and the

handicapped parking requirements contained in § 1829.1 would require a total of 36,900 square feet.

f.       Conforming with the loading zone requirements contained in § 1830 would require a total of 1,750

          square feet.

g.      The total area needed in order to fulfill parking and loading zone requirements would be 38,650

          square feet.

h.      Under § 1827.1, the side and rear setbacks may be used for parking.

i.        The total area of the side and rear setbacks is 11,400 square feet.  Assuming that the entire area of the

side and read setbacks is used for parking, an additional 27,250 square feet would be needed in order to fulfill the parking and loading zone requirements.

j.        The amount of land needed for this project would be 66,350 square feet (the total of the footprint of

          the building, the setback requirements and the parking and loading zone requirements).

k.       66,350 square feet = 1.52 acres.

l.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.1:1.52 = 1:1.38.


 

2.       If constructed in the Town of Milton, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Milton, Vermont Zoning Regulations (amended through December 28, 1998)

b.      Under § 372(1), the most applicable zoning classification would be the General Commercial/Service

          (C2) zoning district.

c.       Under § 372(2), a 200 foot minimum road frontage is required.  Applying this requirement would

          increase the width of the side yards as the existing structure has only a 100 foot road frontage.

d.      Therefore, the total setback area required by § 374 would be 39,000 square feet.

e.       The general parking requirements (§ 812.2), handicapped parking requirements (812.3) and loading

          zone requirements (§ 815) could be accommodated within the setback requirements.

f.       The total amount of land required would be 60,850 square feet (the sum of the footprint of the

          structure and the setback requirements).

g.      60,850 square feet = 1.40 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.1:1.40 = 1:1.27

3.       If constructed in the Town of Williston, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Williston, Vermont Zoning Ordinance (amended through April 30, 1998)

b.      Under § 3.130 of the “Chart of Permitted and Conditional Uses” (§ 3.15), grocery stories are

          permitted in the Commercial I (C1), Taft Corners (TC) and Business Park (BP) zoning districts.

c.       Given parking and public access needs, the Business Park (BP) zoning district is the least likely of the

          three zoning districts to be a chosen site for the construction of a grocery store.

d.      The Commercial I (C1) zoning district was chosen.

e.       The choice of the Commercial I (C1) zoning district was driven in part by the fact that setbacks

within the Taft Corners (TC) zoning district are not set.  Such requirements are determined by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis.

f.       Under § 3.16, with regard to the building only, the maximum lot coverage in the Commercial I (C1)

          zoning district is 25%.

g.      Given this lot coverage limitation, the minimum lot size would be 87,400 square feet.

h.      Both the parking requirements (§ 4.11.1I) and the loading zone requirements (§ 4.12A.1) could be

          accommodated within the minimum lot size requirements.

i.        87,400 square feet = 2.01 acres.

j.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.1:2.01 = 1:1.83.

 


 

APPENDIX F – 14

(Burlington, Vermont Study Area)

SITE:          BUR – 6

          Site acreage:                0.5 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Industrial

          Site as redeveloped:   Metal fabrication facility (10,000 square feet)

1.       If constructed in the Town of Colchester, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Colchester, Vermont Zoning Regulations and Official Zoning Map (amended

          through April 14,1999).

b.      § 4.100 of the “Table of Permissible Uses” (§ 1.310) would allow this land use in the GD-2 and

          Industrial zoning classifications.

c.       The Industrial zoning classification was selected because the GD-2 zoning classification also allows

          for commercial and residential development.

d.      Under § 1405, the minimum lot size for an industrial development is 40,000 square feet.

e.       The parking requirements of § 1827.11e and the loading zone requirements of § 1830 could be

          accommodated within the minimum lot size.

f.       40,000 square feet = 0.92 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.5:0.92 = 1:1.84

2.       If constructed in the Town of Milton, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Milton, Vermont Zoning Regulations (amended through December 28, 1998)

b.      Under § 402, the use would be permitted in the Light Industrial (I1) zoning district.

c.       The use would also be permitted in the General Industrial (I2) zoning district but the minimum lot

size required is significantly greater than the minimum lot size required in the Light Industrial (I1) zoning district.

d.      § 403 imposes minimum road frontage and setback requirements. 

e.       Applying these requirements would require a total of approximately 12,750 square feet.

f.       The parking requirements of § 8.12.2 and the loading zone requirements of § 8.15 could be

          accommodated within the setback requirements.

g.      The total amount of land required, therefore, would be 22,750 square feet (the square footage of the

          structure combined with the setback requirements).

h.      22,750 square feet = 0.52 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.5:0.52 = 1:1.04.

3.       If constructed in the Town of Williston, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Williston, Vermont Zoning Ordinance (amended through April 30, 1998)

b.      Under § 6.120 of the “Chart of Permitted and Conditional Uses” (§ 3.15), metal fabrication facilities

are permitted in the Industrial (I), Commercial II (C2) and Interstate Commercial (IC) zoning districts.

c.       The Interstate Commercial (IC) zoning district classification was not used because, under § 3.10.1,

          land uses within this district are intended to server travelers on a nearby interstate highway.

d.      Under the § 3.16 Table of Dimensional Requirements, the minimum lot size for nonresidential uses

in the Industrial (I) zoning district is two acres while the minimum lot size for nonresidential uses in the Commercial II (C2) zoning district is five acres.

e.       The two acre minimum lot size is sufficient to accommodate the parking requirements of § 4.11.1M

          and the loading zone requirements of § 4.12A.2

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.5:2.0 = 1:4.0.

 


 

APPENDIX F – 15

(Burlington, Vermont Study Area)

SITE:          BUR – 7

          Site acreage:                0.33 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Architectural salvage and warehouse (three story building having a footprint of

                                                square feet and a total floor area of approximately 14,000 square feet)

1.       If constructed in the Town of Colchester, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Colchester, Vermont Zoning Regulations and Official Zoning Map (amended

          through April 14,1999).

b.      § 2.140 of the “Table of Permissible Uses” (§ 1.310) would allow a retail business having a store area

greater than 10,000 square feet in the Commercial, GD-1 and GD-2 zoning classifications and as a conditional use in the GD-3 zoning classification.

c.       § 10.210 of the “Table of Permissible Uses” (§ 1.310) would allow a warehouse (storage entirely

          within the structure) in the Commercial, GD-1, GD-2 and Industrial zoning classifications.

d.      Given compatible land uses, it is most likely that development would occur within the Commercial

          zoning classification.

e.       Under § 1105, the setbacks required within the Commercial zoning classification would require a

          total of 10,050 square feet.

f.       The general parking requirements (§ 1827), handicapped parking requirements (§ 1829) and loading

zone requirements (§ 1830) could be accommodated within the side and rear setbacks (allowed under§ 1827.1).

g.      The total area required would be 14,850 square feet (the footprint of the building plus the setback

          requirements).

h.      14,850 square feet = 0.34 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.33:0.34 = 1:1.03


 

2.       If constructed in the Town of Milton, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Milton, Vermont Zoning Regulations (amended through December 28, 1998)

b.      Because of § 402(3), a specific provision applicable to enclosed wholesale warehousing and

distributing, the most applicable zoning classification would be the Light Industrial (I1) zoning district.

c.       Under § 403(1), the minimum lot size within the Light Industrial (I1) zoning district is 20,000 square

          feet.

d.      The setback requirements (§ 403), general parking requirements (§ 812.2), handicapped parking

requirements (812.3) and loading zone requirements (§ 815) could be accommodated within the minimum lot size.

e.       20,000 square feet – 0.46 acres.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.33:0.46 = 1:1.39.

3.       If constructed in the Town of Williston, Vermont:

a.       Authority:  Town of Williston, Vermont Zoning Ordinance (amended through April 30, 1998)

b.      Under § 3.140 of the “Chart of Permitted and Conditional Uses” (§ 3.15), retail establishments are

permitted in the Commercial I (C1), Commercial II (C2), Taft Corners (TC) and Business Park (BP) zoning districts.

c.       Location of the facility in the Taft Corners (TC) zoning district was rejected because the specific land

use (commercial salvage and warehousing) did not integrate well into other Taft Corners (TC) land uses, particularly residential land uses.

d.      Under § 3.16, the Table of Dimensional Requirements, development within the Commercial II (C2)

zoning district would require a minimum lot size of five acres.  Development within either the Commercial I (C1) or Business Park (BP) zoning districts, however, would require a minimum lot size of one acre.

e.       Development was assumed to occur in either the Commercial I (C1) or Business Park (BP) zoning

          districts.

f.       Both the parking requirements (§ 4.11) and the loading zone requirements (§ 4.12) could be

          accommodated within the one acre minimum lot size requirement.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.33:1 = 1:3.03.

 


 

APPENDIX F – 16

(Lowell, Massachusetts Study Area)

SITE:          LOW – 1

          Site acreage:                2.5 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Supermarket (40,903 square feet) with parking and landscaping

1.       If constructed in Chelmsford, Massachusetts:

          a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Law, Town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts (adopted October 22, 1998)

b.      Under § 2230, land use acceptable in CA, CB, CC and CD commercial districts.

c.       Most likely that the project would be developed in the CB (Roadside Commercial) District.

d.      § 2320 establishes both dimensional (setback) requirements and lot coverage limitations.  The

          maximum lot coverage is 30%.

e.       Applying the 30% maximum lot coverage to the footprint of the building as constructed would require

          a minimum lot size of 136,343.33 square feet.

f.       The area required to fulfill the setback requirements (§ 2320) is less that the area required given the

          30% maximum lot coverage requirement.

g.      The areas required to fulfill parking requirements (§§ 3120, 3130) and loading zone requirements

(§§ 3141, 3145) may be included in the setback requirements.  (Article VI, Definitions, allows for the location of parking in the “yard” – the setback areas.)

h.      The footprint of the building plus the setback requirements and additional areas as needed to

          accommodate the parking and loading zone requirements do not exceed 136,343.33 square feet.

i.        136,343.33 square feet = 3.13 acres.

j.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.5:3.13 = 1:1.25.


 

2.       If constructed in Dracut, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Town of Dracut Zoning By-Laws (with amendments through November 18, 1996)

b.      The Table of Permitted Uses (§ 2.11.30) allows for commercial development greater than 5,000

          square feet in areas zoned B-3, B-4 and B.5.

c.       The definition of  “business uses” (§ 2.11.44) includes supermarkets.

d.      The dimensional requirements of § 2.12.50 and the Zoning Map, Town of Dracut, Massachusetts

          indicate that the project could only be constructed in the area zoned B-4.

e.       § 3.14.40 requires buffers of 15 feet along the sides of the building and of 30 feet along the rear of the

building.  This provision would require 13,950 square feet of land.  (NOTE:  § 3.10.47.2 requires an additional five foot buffer strip along parking lots.  This requirement has not been included as is it not possible to determine the configuration of either the parking lot or the buffer strip.)

f.       In addition, the setback requirements would mandate the use of an additional 25,047 square feet.

g.      An area of 25,047 square feet would not be sufficient to fulfill the parking (§ 3.10.23) and loading

zone (§ 3.10.23) requirements.  In order to fulfill these requirements, an additional 17,753 square feet of land would be required.

h.      The minimum amount of land needed to fulfill the land use requirements would be 97,653 square

          feet.

i.        97,653 square feet = 2.24 acres.

j.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.5:2.24 = 1:0.90.

3.       If constructed in Tewksbury, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Laws, Town of Tewksbury, Massachusetts (January, 1999)

b.      Under § 4.6.D, retail food stores are permitted in areas zoned COM and IH.

c.       It is most likely that the store would be located in an area zoned COM as areas zoned IH are areas

          zoned for heavy industry.

d.      § 5.3 establishes both dimensional (setback) requirements and lot coverage limitations.  Under

          § 5.3.8, the maximum lot coverage is 30%.

e.       Applying the 30% maximum lot coverage to the footprint of the building as constructed would require

          a minimum lot size of 136,343.33 square feet.

f.       The area required to fulfill the setback requirements (§ 5.3) is less that the area required given the

          30% maximum lot coverage requirement.

g.      The areas required to fulfill parking requirements (§ 6.3.3(f)) and loading zone requirements (§ 6.4)

may not be included in the setback requirements.  The definitions section (§ 2) makes is clear that yards are to be unoccupied.

h.      Nonetheless, the footprint of the building plus the setback requirements and the parking and loading

          zone requirements do not exceed 136,343.33 square feet.

i.        136,343.33 square feet = 3.13 acres.

j.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.5:3.13 = 1:1.25.

 


 

APPENDIX F – 17

(Lowell, Massachusetts Study Area)

SITE:          LOW – 2

          Site acreage:                0.69

          Use as redeveloped:   Industrial

          Site as redeveloped:   Hazardous waste transfer facility

1.       If constructed in Chelmsford, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Law, Town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts (adopted October 22, 1998)

b.      Under §§ 2110 and 2230, most likely to be developed in a Special Industrial (IS) District.

c.       § 2320 establishes both dimensional (setback) and minimum lot size requirements.  Under § 2320,

          the minimum lot size would be 40,000 square feet.

d.      The area required to fulfill the setback requirements (§ 2320) is less than the 40,000 square foot

          minimum lot size.

e.       The areas required to fulfill parking requirements (§§ 3120, 3130) and loading zone requirements

(§§ 3143, 3145) may be included in the setback requirements.  (Article VI, Definitions, allows for the location of parking in the “yard” – the setback areas.)

f.       The footprint of the building plus the setback requirements and additional areas as needed to

          accommodate the parking and loading zone requirements do not exceed 40,000 square feet.

g.      40,000 square feet = 0.92 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.69:0.92 = 1:1.33.

2.       If constructed in Dracut, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Town of Dracut Zoning By-Laws (with amendments through November 18, 1996)

b.      Under § 2.11.30, waste transfer facilities are permitted in areas zoned either I-1 or I-2.  The only

difference in the zoning requirements is the width of the side yard.  Given the toxic nature of the waste, the area calculations assume the larger side yard as a safety factor.

c.       § 2.12.50 establish a 225 foot lot frontage requirement and also require a 100 foot minimum front

          yard and 40 foot side and rear yards as setbacks.

d.      The total area needed to fulfill the requirements of § 2.12.50 is 45,748.2 square feet.

e.       Parking (§ 3.10.24) and loading zone (§ 3.10.31) facilities may be located in the setback

f.       The total area required for the project would be 55,625.2 square feet (the footprint of the building plus

          the setback requirements).

g.      55,625.2 square feet = 1.28 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.69:1.28 = 1:1.86.

3.       If constructed in Tewksbury, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Laws, Town of Tewksbury, Massachusetts (January, 1999)

b.      Under § 4.6.G, most likely zoning would be IH (heavy industry).

c.       Under § 5.3.1, the IH (heavy industry) minimum lot size is one acre.

d.      §§ 5.3.2 – 5.3.7 establish dimensional (setback) requirements.

e.       The area required to fulfill the setback requirements (§§ 5.3.2 – 5.3.7) is less than the one acre

          minimum lot size.

f.       The areas required to fulfill parking requirements (§ 6.3.3(j) and loading zone requirements (§ 6.4)

may not be included in the setback requirements.  The definition section (§ 2) makes it clear that yards are to be unoccupied.

g.      Nonetheless, the footprint of the building plus the setback requirements and the parking and loading

          zone requirements do not exceed one acre.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.69:1.0 = 1:1.45.

 


 

 

APPENDIX F – 18

(Lowell, Massachusetts Study Area)

SITE:          LOW – 3

          Site acreage:                15

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Multiple use commercial, retail and entertainment facility having 1.2 million

                                                square feet in three office towers.

NOTE:       The site as redeveloped now covers approximately 60 acres.  The area calculations include only the

                   original 15 acre redevelopment site.

1.       If constructed in Chelmsford, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Law, Town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts (adopted October 22, 1998)

b.      Under §§ 2110 and 2230, the most likely zoning is CD – General Commercial District.

c.       § 2312 establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45.  As defined in Article VI, this is the ratio of

          the gross floor area to the area of the lot.

d.      The project as redeveloped has 1.2 million square feet of floor area.  (NOTE:  Though this is net floor

area, it is considered gross floor area for the purposes of this analysis.  Since net floor area is less than gross floor area, this assumption may underestimate the land area required.)

e.       Given a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45 and 1.2 million square feet of floor area, the minimum

          amount of land that would be required for the project would be 2,666,666.7 square feet.

f.       The parking (§ 3120) and loading zone (§ 3140) requirements would fit into the minimum lot size.

g.      The buffer area requirements (§ 3530) would also fit into the minimum lot size.

h.      2,666,666.7 square feet = 61.2 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  15:61.2 = 1:4.08.


 

2.       If constructed in Dracut, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Town of Dracut Zoning By-Laws (with amendments through November 18, 1996)

b.      Under § 2.11.30, the commercial development portion of the project could be constructed in areas

zoned B-2, B-3, B-4 or B-5.  The restaurant portion of the project could be constructed in areas zoned B-3, B-4 or B-5.  According to the Zoning Map, Town of Dracut, Massachusetts the only available zoning that the two uses have in common was B-3.

c.       The dimensional requirements applicable in areas zoned B-3 (§ 2.12.50) impose both setback

          requirements and a three story building height limitations.

d.      In essence, because of the height limitations, constructing the same number of square feet as the

redevelopment project would require a number of shorter buildings rather than a smaller number of taller buildings.

e.       Based on the footprint of the redevelopment project, four three-story buildings having exterior

dimensions of 150 feet by 150 feet would be required as would 10 three-story buildings having exterior dimensions of 150 feet by 200 feet.  The existing cafeteria and auditorium could be reconstructed as neither building exceeded three stories in height.

f.       With the setbacks required under § 2.12.50, the total area required for these buildings would be

          826,817.1 square feet.

g.      The regulations impose parking (§ 3.10.24) and loading zone (§ 3.10.31) requirements.

h.      The regulations allow use of the setback areas for parking except for certain buffer areas around both

          the building (§ 3.14.40) and the parking areas (§ 3.10.47.2).

i.        The total area required for parking and loading zones would not fit into the available setback area. 

(Total available area in the setback is 262,715.6 square feet.  Total parking and loading zone requirements are 1,200,360 square feet.)

j.        The total area required for the footprint of the buildings, the setback areas, the buffer areas and to

          fulfill the parking and loading zone requirements is 1,774,461.5 square feet.

k.       1,774,461.5 square feet = 40.7 acres.

l.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  15:40.7 = 1:2.71.

3.       If constructed in Tewksbury, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Laws, Town of Tewksbury, Massachusetts (January, 1999)

b.      Under § 4.2, the only zoning within which both offices (§ 4.6.E) and restaurants (§ 4.6.D.4) are

          authorized is Commercial.

c.       The regulations applicable in areas zoned Commercial mandate setbacks (§§ 5.3.3.c and 5.3.4.c) and

          impose a 2.5 story height limitation (§ 5.3.3.6.c).

d.      The regulations also require buffers (§ 4.11.6.4) but allow these buffers to be located in the setback

          areas.

e.       Under the § 2 definition of “yard” (as being an unoccupied area), parking could not be located in the

          setback areas.

f.       Because of the height limitations, constructing the same number of square feet as the redevelopment

          project would require a number of shorter buildings rather than a smaller number of taller buildings.

g.      Based on the footprint of the redevelopment project, a minimum of five 2.5-story buildings having

exterior dimensions of 150 feet by 150 feet would be required as would 12 2.5-story buildings having exterior dimensions of 150 feet by 200 feet.  The existing cafeteria and auditorium could be reconstructed as neither building exceeded three stories in height.

h.      With the setbacks required under §§ 5.3.3.c and 5.3.4.c, the total area required for these buildings

          would be 1,036,283.5 square feet.

i.        § 6.3.3(g) imposes parking requirements.  The total area needed to fulfill these requirements is

          1,200,000 square feet.

j.        Since parking areas can not be located within the setback areas, the total area required for the project

          would be 2,236,283.5 square feet.

k.       2,236,283.5 square feet = 51.3 acres.

l.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  15:51.3 = 1:3.42.

 

 

APPENDIX F – 19

(Lowell, Massachusetts Study Area)

SITE:          LOW – 4

          Site acreage:                3.17

          Use as redeveloped:   Industrial

          Site as redeveloped:   43,000 square foot industrial building containing corporate offices as well as

                                                commercial space.

NOTE:       When the property was purchased, the developer obtained more land than would have been required

under applicable land use regulations.  There were two reasons for this.  First, the developer wanted sufficient land to allow for future expansion.  Second, the contaminated facility and the property surrounding it were offered for sale as a single unit.

1.       If constructed in Chelmsford, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Law, Town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts (adopted October 22, 1998)

b.      Under § 2110, the most likely zoning would be IA – Limited Industrial District.  This zoning also

          allows business and professional offices as well as clinics (§ 2230).

c.       § 3120 of the regulations imposes parking and loading zone requirements.

d.      § 3520 of the regulations imposes buffer requirements.

e.       The total area needed to fulfill the parking, loading zone and buffer requirements would be 95,495.9

          square feet.

f.       However, § 2312 establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45.  As defined in Article VI, this is the

          ratio of the gross floor area to the area of the lot.

g.      The gross square footage of the redevelopment project is 43,387 square feet.  Applying the floor area

          ratio would require a minimum lot size of 96,415.6 square feet.

h.      96,415.6 square feet = 2.21 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  3.17:2.21 = 1:0.70.


 

2.       If constructed in Dracut, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Town of Dracut Zoning By-Laws (with amendments through November 18, 1996)

b.      Under § 2.11.30, industrial activities are authorized only in areas zoned I-1 and I-2.  Commercial

          general services are authorized only in areas zoned I-1.

c.       § 2.12.50 establishes applicable setback requirements while § 3.14.40 establishes buffer requirements.

d.      The regulations impose parking (§ 3.10.24) and loading zone (§ 3.10.31) requirements.

e.       The regulations allow use of the setback areas for parking except for the buffer areas around both the

building (§ 3.14.40) and the parking areas (§ 3.10.47.2).  (NOTE:  § 3.10.47.2 requires an additional five foot buffer strip along parking lots.  This requirement has not been included as is it not possible to determine the configuration of either the parking lot or the buffer strip.)

f.       The total area required for parking and loading zones would not fit into the available setback area. 

(Total available area in the setback is 21,637 square feet.  Total parking and loading zone requirements are 41,370 square feet.)

g.      The total area required for the footprint of the buildings, the setback areas, the buffer areas and to

          fulfill the parking and loading zone requirements is 95,495.9 square feet.

h.      95,495.9 square feet = 2.19 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  3.17:2.19 = 1:0.69

3.       If constructed in Tewksbury, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Laws, Town of Tewksbury, Massachusetts (January, 1999)

b.      Under § 4.6.E, business and professional offices are allowed in areas zoned for heavy industry (IH).

c.       § 4.6.G provides that the assembly of electronic equipment (one of the activities occurring in the

redeveloped facility) may occur only in areas zoned IH.  Therefore, the most likely zoning for the development project would be IH.

d.      §§ 5.3.3.c and 5.3.4.c establish dimensional (setback) requirements.  The area required to fulfill these

          setback requirements totals 43,023.1 square feet.

e.       The areas required to fulfill parking requirements (§ 6.3.3(j) and loading zone requirements (§ 6.4)

total 31,302 square feet.  These areas may not be included in the setback requirements.  The definition section (§ 2) makes it clear that yards are to be unoccupied.

f.       The footprint of the building (25,680.9 square feet) plus the setback requirements and the parking and

          loading zone requirements necessitate a total area of 100,006 square feet.

g.      100,006 square feet = 2.3 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  3.17:2.3 = 1:0.72.

 


 

APPENDIX F – 20

(Lowell, Massachusetts Study Area)

SITE:          LOW – 5

          Site acreage:                1.25 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   80,000 square foot office and commercial center

1.       If constructed in Chelmsford, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Law, Town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts (adopted October 22, 1998)

b.      Under §§ 2110 and 2230, the most likely zoning is CD – General Commercial District.

c.       § 2312 establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45.  As defined in Article VI, this is the ratio of

          the gross floor area to the area of the lot.

d.      The project as redeveloped has 80,000 square feet of floor area.  (NOTE:  Though this is net floor

area, it is considered gross floor area for the purposes of this analysis.  Since net floor area is less than gross floor area, this assumption may underestimate the land area required.)

e.       Given a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45 and 80,000 square feet of floor area, the minimum amount

          of land that would be required for the project would be 177,777.78 square feet.

f.       The parking (§ 3120) and loading zone (§ 3140) requirements would fit into the minimum lot size.

g.      The buffer area requirements (§ 3530) would also fit into the minimum lot size.

h.      177,777.78 square feet = 4.08 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.25:4.08 = 1:3.26.


 

2.       If constructed in Dracut, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Town of Dracut Zoning By-Laws (with amendments through November 18, 1996)

b.      Financial services and professional offices can be located in areas zoned B-2, B-3, B-4 or B-5.

c.       Because of height limitations, if constructed in areas zoned B-2, the project would require four, two-

story buildings.  Height limitations would require a similar configuration in areas zoned B-3, B-4 or B-5.  These areas were not selected for analysis because the setback requirements are greater than in areas zoned B-2.  The total area required by the footprints of the four buildings would be 43,699.6 square feet.

d.      The setback provisions contained in § 2.12.50 would require a total of 47,137.4 square feet.

e.       § 3.14.40 establishes side and rear buffer requirements.  The total area required to fulfill these buffer

requirements is 3,130 square feet.  (NOTE:  § 3.10.47.2 requires an additional five foot buffer strip along parking lots.  This requirement has not been included as is it not possible to determine the configuration of either the parking lot or the buffer strip.)

f.       The regulations impose parking (§ 3.10.24) and loading zone (§ 3.10.31) requirements.  The total

          area needed to fulfill these requirements if 80,360 square feet.

g.      The regulations allow use of the setback areas for parking except for certain buffer areas around both

          the building (§ 3.14.40) and the parking areas (§ 3.10.47.2).

h.      The total area required for parking and loading zones would not fit into the available setback area. 

(Total available area in the setback is 44,007.4 square feet.  Total parking and loading zone requirements are 80,360 square feet.)

i.        The total area required for the footprint of the buildings, the setback areas, the buffer areas and to

          fulfill the parking and loading zone requirements is 127,189.6 square feet.

j.        127,189.6 square feet = 2.92 acres.

k.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.25:2.92 = 1:2.34.

3.       If constructed in Tewksbury, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Laws, Town of Tewksbury, Massachusetts          (January, 1999)

b.      Under § 4.6.E, the most likely zoning is Commercial.  This is the zoning generally applicable to

          business and professional offices.

c.       The regulations applicable in areas zoned Commercial mandate setbacks (§§ 5.3.3.c and 5.3.4.c) and

          impose a 2.5 story height limitation (§ 5.3.3.6.c).

d.      The regulations also require buffers (§ 4.11.6.4) but allow these buffers to be located in the setback

          areas.

e.       Under the § 2 definition of “yard” (as being an unoccupied area), parking could not be located in the

          setback areas.

f.       Because of the height limitations, constructing the same number of square feet as the redevelopment

project would require an increased number of shorter buildings.  Based on the footprint of the redevelopment project, four two-story buildings would be required. 

g.      With the setbacks required under §§ 5.3.3.c and 5.3.4.c, the total area required for these buildings

          would be 128,797 square feet.

h.      § 6.3.3(g) imposes parking requirements.  The total area needed to fulfill these requirements is

          66,600 square feet.

i.        Since parking areas can not be located within the setback areas, the total area required for the project

          would be 195,397 square feet.

j.        195,397 square feet = 4.49 acres.

k.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.25:4.49 = 1:3.59.

 


 

APPENDIX F – 21

(Lowell, Massachusetts Study Area)

SITE:          LOW – 6

          Site acreage:                5.25

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial (primarily)

          Site as redeveloped:   Multiple use redevelopment project containing commercial, educational and

                                                industrial activities as well as residences.

1.       If constructed in Chelmsford, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Law, Town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts (adopted October 22, 1998)

b.      The unique nature of the redevelopment project required different components to be analyzed under

          different zoning provisions.

c.       Under § 2100, multifamily residential developments are allowed only in areas zoned RM –

Residential Multifamily (§ 2230.A.3), commercial activities would be allowed in areas zoned CD – General Commercial (§ 2230.C.16), self-storage facilities would be allowed in areas zoned IA – Limited Industrial (§ 2230.D.3) and museums could be located in either CD- General Commercial or ID – Limited Industrial (§ 2230.C.3).

d.      Floor area ratios for these zoning categories are established under § 2312.  For RM – Residential

Multifamily, the floor area ratio is .30.  For CD – General Commercial, the floor area ratio is .45.  For IA – Limited Industrial, the floor area ratio is .45.

e.       Applying the floor area ratios to the Residential Multifamily portion of the redevelopment project

          would result in a requirement for 200,000 square feet of land.

f.       Applying the floor area ratios to the General Commercial portion of the redevelopment project would

          result in a requirement for 1,417,777.7 square feet of land.

g.      Applying the floor area ratios to the Limited Industrial portion of the redevelopment project would

          result in a requirement for 213.333.3 square feet of land.

h.      The total amount of land that would be required for the redevelopment project is 1,831,111.1 square

          feet.

i.        1,831,111.1 square feet = 42.04 acres.

j.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  5.25:42.0 = 1:8.01


 

2.       If constructed in Dracut, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Town of Dracut Zoning By-Laws (with amendments through November 18, 1996)

b.      Because of the unique nature of the redevelopment project, to calculate area requirements on a basis

other than floor area ratios or maximum lot coverage percentages would be speculative in the extreme.

c.       The Town of Dracut Zoning By-Laws do not contain such provisions.

d.      Consequently, the amount of land that the redevelopment project would have required had it been

          located in the Town of Dracut has not been included in this analysis.

3.       If constructed in Tewksbury, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Laws, Town of Tewksbury, Massachusetts (January, 1999)

b.      Under § 4.6, multifamily residential development would be allowed in areas zoned MFD (§ 4.6.A.3),

commercial development would be allowed in areas zoned COM (§ 4.6.E) and self-storage facilities would be allowed in areas zoned IH (§ 4.6.G).

c.       § 5.3.8 establishes maximum lot coverage percentages for the different zoning areas.  The maximum

lot coverage percentage for areas zoned COM is 30%.  The maximum lot coverage percentage for areas zoned IH is 35%.

d.      With regard to the residential portion of the redevelopment project, while there is no maximum lot

coverage percentage, under § 5.3.1 the minimum lot size for areas zoned MFD is four acres.

e.       With regard to the commercial portion of the redevelopment project, height limitations contained in

§ 5.3.6 would require doubling the footprint of two of the four buildings that comprise the commercial portion of the redevelopment project.  Applying the 30% maximum lot coverage percentage to the increased area of the footprints would result in a total area requirement of 763,083.6 square feet (17.52 acres).

f.       Height limitations contained in § 5.3.6 also would require doubling the footprint of that portion of the

redevelopment project used as a self-storage facility.  Applying the 35% maximum lot coverage percentage to the increased area of the footprint would result in a total area requirement of 66,960 square feet (1.54 acres).

g.      The resulting total area requirement for the redevelopment project would be 23.06 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  5:25:23.06 = 1:4.39.

 


 

APPENDIX F – 22

(Lowell, Massachusetts Study Area)

SITE:          LOW – 7

          Site acreage:                2.0 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Industrial

          Site as redeveloped:   Commercial food processing facility having approximately 40 employees

1.       If constructed in Chelmsford, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Law, Town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts (adopted October 22, 1998)

b.      Under § 2110, the most likely zoning would be IA – Limited Industrial District.

c.       § 3120 of the regulations imposes parking and loading zone requirements.

d.      § 3520 of the regulations imposes buffer requirements.

e.       The total area needed to fulfill the parking, loading zone and buffer requirements would be 62,578.4

          square feet.

f.       However, § 2312 establishes a maximum lot coverage percentage of 40%.

g.      The footprint of the redevelopment project is 29,341 square feet.  Applying a 40% maximum lot

          coverage percentage would require a minimum lot size of 73,352.5 square feet.

h.      73,352.5 square feet = 1.68 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.0:1.68 = 1:0.84.

2.       If constructed in Dracut, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Town of Dracut Zoning By-Laws (with amendments through November 18, 1996)

b.      Under § 2.11.30, industrial activities are authorized only in areas zoned I-1 and I-2.  The critical

difference between the two classifications is the size of the side setback.  As it is unlikely that a large setback would be required, it is assumed that the redevelopment project would be located in an area zoned I-1.

c.       § 2.12.50 establishes both a minimum lot size (90,000 square feet) and applicable setback

          requirements.

d.      § 3.14.40 establishes buffer requirements.

e.       The regulations also impose parking (§ 3.10.24) and loading zone (§ 3.10.31) requirements.

f.       The regulations allow use of the setback areas for parking except for the buffer areas around both the

building (§ 3.14.40) and the parking areas (§ 3.10.47.2).  (NOTE:  § 3.10.47.2 requires an additional five foot buffer strip along parking lots.  This requirement has not been included as is it not possible to determine the configuration of either the parking lot or the buffer strip.)

g.      The total area required for parking and loading zones would fit into the available setback area.

h.      The total area required for the footprint of the buildings, the setback areas, the buffer areas and to

fulfill the parking and loading zone requirements does not exceed 90,000 square feet.  As this is the minimum lot size, it is also the minimum amount of land that the redevelopment project would require.

i.        90,000 square feet = 2.07 acres.

j.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.0:2.07 = 1:1.04.

3.       If constructed in Tewksbury, Massachusetts:

a.       Authority:  Zoning By-Laws, Town of Tewksbury, Massachusetts (January, 1999)

b.      Under §§ 4.2, 4.6.G.9 and 4.6.G.16, the redevelopment project would most likely be located in an

          area zoned for heavy industry (IH).

c.       §§ 5.3.3.c and 5.3.4.c establish dimensional (setback) requirements.  The area required to fulfill these

          setback requirements totals 40,844.9 square feet.

d.      The areas required to fulfill parking requirements (§ 6.3.3(j) and loading zone requirements (§ 6.4)

total 9,823.5 square feet.  These areas may not be included in the setback requirements.  The definition section (§ 2) makes it clear that yards are to be unoccupied.

e.       The footprint of the building (29,341 square feet) plus the setback requirements and the parking and

          loading zone requirements necessitate a total area of 80,009.4 square feet.

f.       However, § 5.3.8 establishes a maximum lot coverage percentage of 35%.  Applying this percentage

          to the footprint of the building results in a minimum land area requirement of 83,831.4 square feet.

g.      83,831.4 square feet = 1.92 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.0:1.92 = 1:0.96.

 

 

APPENDIX F – 23

(Richmond, Virginia Study Area)

SITE:          RCH – 1

          Site acreage:                0.18

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Three bedroom single family residence

1.       If constructed in Goochland County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Appendix A: Zoning, Code of Ordinances, Goochland County, Virginia (amended through

          June, 2000))

b.      The project would be authorized in districts zoned R-1 (Art. 6, § 1), R-2 (Art. 7, § 1), R-3 (Art. 8,

§ 1) or R-O (Art. 9, § 1).  The areas zoned R-1, R-2 and R-3 are for low density residential development.  Consequently, the R-O zoning (Residential, Office District) was assumed.

c.       Art. 9, § 6 establishes a 20% maximum lot coverage.

d.      Art. 9, § 6(1) establishes a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size for single family residences

connected to central water and sewer systems.  It was assumed that the project would be connected to such systems as this minimizes the amount of land that would be required for the project.

e.       The minimum lot size is sufficient to accommodate the Art. 9, § 6 lot width requirements, the Art. 9,

          § 7 setback requirements and the Art. 18, § 8.1(1)(a) parking requirements.

f.       20,000 square feet = 0.46 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.18:0.46 = 1:2.56

2.       If constructed in Hanover County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Hanover County, Virginia  (2000 reprint)

b.      The project would be authorized in areas zoned R-1 (§ 3), R-2 (§ 4) or R-3 (§ 5).  Of these three

zoning categories, the R-3 zoning was assumed because it imposed the minimum lot size requirement.

c.       § 5.7 mandates a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

d.      Assuming that the project was located on a 60 foot right-or-way, the setbacks required by § 5.8 could

          be accommodated within the minimum lot size.

e.       The parking requirements of § 5.10 and Art. 7, § 1.1 could be accommodated within the minimum lot

          size.

f.       10,000 square feet - 0.23 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.18:0.23 = 1:1.28

3.       If constructed in Henrico County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24 of the Code of the County of Henrico, Virginia (amended

          through August 25, 2000)

b.      Under § 24-11(a), single family residences are permitted in areas zoned R-O, R-OA, R-1, R-1A, R-2,

          R-2A, R-3, R-3A, R-4 and R-4A.

c.       The assumed zoning was R-4A. Under § 24-94, areas zoned R-4A have the smallest minimum lot

          size requirement of all of the areas zoned for single family residential development.

d.      The setback requirements of § 24-94 could be accommodated within the minimum lot size.

e.       The parking requirements of §§ 24-96(b)(1)(a) and 24-96(c) could be accommodated within the

          minimum lot size.

f.       7,500 square feet = 0.17 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.18:0.17 = 1:0.94

 


 

APPENDIX F – 24

(Richmond, Virginia Study Area)

SITE:          RCH – 2

          Site acreage:                0.55

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Three single family residences, all having three bedrooms, developed on two

                                                adjoining lots.

1.       If constructed in Goochland County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Appendix A: Zoning, Code of Ordinances, Goochland County, Virginia (amended through

          June, 2000))

b.      The project would be authorized in districts zoned R-1 (Art. 6, § 1), R-2 (Art. 7, § 1), R-3 (Art. 8,

§ 1) or R-O (Art. 9, § 1).  The areas zoned R-1, R-2 and R-3 are for low density residential development.  Consequently, the R-O zoning (Residential, Office District) was assumed.

c.       Art. 9, § 6 establishes a 20% maximum lot coverage.

d.      Art. 9, § 6(1) establishes a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size for single family residences

connected to central water and sewer systems.  It was assumed that the project would be connected to such systems as this minimizes the amount of land that would be required for the project.

e.       The minimum lot size is sufficient to accommodate the Art. 9, § 6 lot width requirements, the Art. 9,

          § 7 setback requirements and the Art. 18, § 8.1(1)(a) parking requirements.

f.       The three residences would require a total minimum area of 60,000 square feet.

g.      60,000 square feet = 1.38 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.55:1.38 = 1:2.51

2.       If constructed in Hanover County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Hanover County, Virginia  (2000 reprint)

b.      The project would be authorized in areas zoned R-1 (§ 3), R-2 (§ 4) or R-3 (§ 5).  Of these three

zoning categories, the R-3 zoning was assumed because it imposed the minimum lot size requirement.

c.       § 5.7 mandates a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

d.      Assuming that the project was located on a 60 foot right-or-way, the setbacks required by § 5.8 could

          be accommodated within the minimum lot size.

e.       The parking requirements of § 5.10 and Art. 7, § 1.1 could be accommodated within the minimum lot

          size.

f.       The three residences would require a total minimum area of 30,000 square feet.

g.      30,000 square feet - 0.69 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.55:0.69 = 1:1.25

3.       If constructed in Henrico County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24 of the Code of the County of Henrico, Virginia (amended

          through August 25, 2000)

b.      Under § 24-11(a), single family residences are permitted in areas zoned R-O, R-OA, R-1, R-1A, R-2,

          R-2A, R-3, R-3A, R-4 and R-4A.

c.       The assumed zoning was R-4A. Under § 24-94, areas zoned R-4A have the smallest minimum lot

          size requirement of all of the areas zoned for single family residential development.

d.      The setback requirements of § 24-94 could be accommodated within the minimum lot size.

e.       The parking requirements of §§ 24-96(b)(1)(a) and 24-96(c) could be accommodated within the

          minimum lot size.

f.       The three residences would require a total minimum area of 22,500 square feet.

g.      22,500 square feet = 0.52 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.55:0.52 = 1:0.95

 


 

APPENDIX F – 25

(Richmond, Virginia Study Area)

SITE:          RCH – 3

          Site acreage:                0.18 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Three bedroom single family residence

1.       If constructed in Goochland County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Appendix A: Zoning, Code of Ordinances, Goochland County, Virginia (amended through

          June, 2000))

b.      The project would be authorized in districts zoned R-1 (Art. 6, § 1), R-2 (Art. 7, § 1), R-3 (Art. 8,

§ 1) or R-O (Art. 9, § 1).  The areas zoned R-1, R-2 and R-3 are for low density residential development.  Consequently, the R-O zoning (Residential, Office District) was assumed.

c.       Art. 9, § 6 establishes a 20% maximum lot coverage.

d.      Art. 9, § 6(1) establishes a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size for single family residences

connected to central water and sewer systems.  It was assumed that the project would be connected to such systems as this minimizes the amount of land that would be required for the project.

e.       The minimum lot size is sufficient to accommodate the Art. 9, § 6 lot width requirements, the Art. 9,

          § 7 setback requirements and the Art. 18, § 8.1(1)(a) parking requirements.

f.       20,000 square feet = 0.46 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.18:0.46 = 1:2.56

2.       If constructed in Hanover County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Hanover County, Virginia  (2000 reprint)

b.      The project would be authorized in areas zoned R-1 (§ 3), R-2 (§ 4) or R-3 (§ 5).  Of these three

zoning categories, the R-3 zoning was assumed because it imposed the minimum lot size requirement.

c.       § 5.7 mandates a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

d.      Assuming that the project was located on a 60 foot right-or-way, the setbacks required by § 5.8 could

          be accommodated within the minimum lot size.

e.       The parking requirements of § 5.10 and Art. 7, § 1.1 could be accommodated within the minimum lot

          size.

f.       10,000 square feet - 0.23 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.18:0.23 = 1:1.28

3.       If constructed in Henrico County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24 of the Code of the County of Henrico, Virginia (amended

          through August 25, 2000)

b.      Under § 24-11(a), single family residences are permitted in areas zoned R-O, R-OA, R-1, R-1A, R-2,

          R-2A, R-3, R-3A, R-4 and R-4A.

c.       The assumed zoning was R-4A. Under § 24-94, areas zoned R-4A have the smallest minimum lot

          size requirement of all of the areas zoned for single family residential development.

d.      The setback requirements of § 24-94 could be accommodated within the minimum lot size.

e.       The parking requirements of §§ 24-96(b)(1)(a) and 24-96(c) could be accommodated within the

          minimum lot size.

f.       7,500 square feet = 0.17 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.18:0.17 = 1:0.94

 


 

APPENDIX F – 26

(Richmond, Virginia Study Area)

SITE:          RCH – 4

          Site acreage:                0.14

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Three bedroom single family residence

1.       If constructed in Goochland County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Appendix A: Zoning, Code of Ordinances, Goochland County, Virginia (amended through

          June, 2000))

b.      The project would be authorized in districts zoned R-1 (Art. 6, § 1), R-2 (Art. 7, § 1), R-3 (Art. 8,

§ 1) or R-O (Art. 9, § 1).  The areas zoned R-1, R-2 and R-3 are for low density residential development.  Consequently, the R-O zoning (Residential, Office District) was assumed.

c.       Art. 9, § 6 establishes a 20% maximum lot coverage.

d.      Art. 9, § 6(1) establishes a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size for single family residences

connected to central water and sewer systems.  It was assumed that the project would be connected to such systems as this minimizes the amount of land that would be required for the project.

e.       The minimum lot size is sufficient to accommodate the Art. 9, § 6 lot width requirements, the Art. 9,

          § 7 setback requirements and the Art. 18, § 8.1(1)(a) parking requirements.

f.       20,000 square feet = 0.46 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.14:0.46 = 1:3.29

2.       If constructed in Hanover County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Hanover County, Virginia  (2000 reprint)

b.      The project would be authorized in areas zoned R-1 (§ 3), R-2 (§ 4) or R-3 (§ 5).  Of these three

zoning categories, the R-3 zoning was assumed because it imposed the minimum lot size requirement.

c.       § 5.7 mandates a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

d.      Assuming that the project was located on a 60 foot right-or-way, the setbacks required by § 5.8 could

          be accommodated within the minimum lot size.

e.       The parking requirements of § 5.10 and Art. 7, § 1.1 could be accommodated within the minimum lot

          size.

f.       10,000 square feet - 0.23 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.14:0.23 = 1:1.64

3.       If constructed in Henrico County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24 of the Code of the County of Henrico, Virginia (amended

          through August 25, 2000)

b.      Under § 24-11(a), single family residences are permitted in areas zoned R-O, R-OA, R-1, R-1A, R-2,

          R-2A, R-3, R-3A, R-4 and R-4A.

c.       The assumed zoning was R-4A. Under § 24-94, areas zoned R-4A have the smallest minimum lot

          size requirement of all of the areas zoned for single family residential development.

d.      The setback requirements of § 24-94 could be accommodated within the minimum lot size.

e.       The parking requirements of §§ 24-96(b)(1)(a) and 24-96(c) could be accommodated within the

          minimum lot size.

f.       7,500 square feet = 0.17 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.14:0.17 = 1:1.21

 


 

APPENDIX F – 27

(Richmond, Virginia Study Area)

SITE:          RCH – 5

          Site acreage:                0.10

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Three bedroom single family residence

1.       If constructed in Goochland County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Appendix A: Zoning, Code of Ordinances, Goochland County, Virginia (amended through

          June, 2000))

b.      The project would be authorized in districts zoned R-1 (Art. 6, § 1), R-2 (Art. 7, § 1), R-3 (Art. 8,

§ 1) or R-O (Art. 9, § 1).  The areas zoned R-1, R-2 and R-3 are for low density residential development.  Consequently, the R-O zoning (Residential, Office District) was assumed.

c.       Art. 9, § 6 establishes a 20% maximum lot coverage.

d.      Art. 9, § 6(1) establishes a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size for single family residences

connected to central water and sewer systems.  It was assumed that the project would be connected to such systems as this minimizes the amount of land that would be required for the project.

e.       The minimum lot size is sufficient to accommodate the Art. 9, § 6 lot width requirements, the Art. 9,

          § 7 setback requirements and the Art. 18, § 8.1(1)(a) parking requirements.

f.       20,000 square feet = 0.46 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.10:0.46 = 1:4.6

2.       If constructed in Hanover County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Hanover County, Virginia  (2000 reprint)

b.      The project would be authorized in areas zoned R-1 (§ 3), R-2 (§ 4) or R-3 (§ 5).  Of these three

zoning categories, the R-3 zoning was assumed because it imposed the minimum lot size requirement.

c.       § 5.7 mandates a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

d.      Assuming that the project was located on a 60 foot right-or-way, the setbacks required by § 5.8 could

          be accommodated within the minimum lot size.

e.       The parking requirements of § 5.10 and Art. 7, § 1.1 could be accommodated within the minimum lot

          size.

f.       10,000 square feet - 0.23 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.10:0.23 = 1:2.3

3.       If constructed in Henrico County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24 of the Code of the County of Henrico, Virginia (amended

          through August 25, 2000)

b.      Under § 24-11(a), single family residences are permitted in areas zoned R-O, R-OA, R-1, R-1A, R-2,

          R-2A, R-3, R-3A, R-4 and R-4A.

c.       The assumed zoning was R-4A. Under § 24-94, areas zoned R-4A have the smallest minimum lot

          size requirement of all of the areas zoned for single family residential development.

d.      The setback requirements of § 24-94 could be accommodated within the minimum lot size.

e.       The parking requirements of §§ 24-96(b)(1)(a) and 24-96(c) could be accommodated within the

          minimum lot size.

f.       7,500 square feet = 0.17 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.10:0.17 = 1:1.7

 


 

APPENDIX F – 28

(Richmond, Virginia Study Area)

SITE:          RCH – 6

          Site acreage:                0.59 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Multifamily development having 18 apartments in four restored townhouses

1.       If constructed in Goochland County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Appendix A: Zoning, Code of Ordinances, Goochland County, Virginia (amended through

          June, 2000))

b.      Under § 2(1), the most likely zoning classification that would accommodate development of the

          project would be as a Residential Planned Unit Development.

c.       Under § 3(2) and Art. 10, § 1(1), Residential Planned Unit Developments require a minimum of 20

          acres of land area.

d.      The setbacks and yards mandated by § 3(5) could be accommodated within the minimum land area

          requirement.

e.       The parking requirements of § 4(1) and Art. 18, § 8.1(1)(c) could be accommodated within the

          minimum land area requirement.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.59:20 = 1:33.9

2.       If constructed in Hanover County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Hanover County, Virginia  (2000 reprint)

b.      Under § 7, the assumed zoning was R-5, Multiple-Family Residential District.

c.       The project would also be authorized within the Planned Unit Development District but the minimum

          lot size is substantially greater than the R-5 minimum lot size.

d.      Under § 7.7(2), the minimum acreage requirement is the greater of 14 units per acre or a 30% lot

          coverage maximum.

e.       With regard to the project as developed, the 30% lot coverage maximum requires less land area than

          the 14 units per acre provision.

f.       Because of the requirements of § 7.7(2), the 14 units per acre mandate would require a total land area

          of 1.29 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.59:1.29 = 1:2.19

3.       If constructed in Henrico County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24 of the Code of the County of Henrico, Virginia (amended

          through August 25, 2000)

b.      Multifamily residential developments are permitted in the two General Residential Districts, R-5 and

          R-6.

c.       Areas zoned R-5 have a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet while areas zoned R-6 have a

minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.  Because of this differential, it was assumed that the project would be developed within the R-5 zoning.

d.      Under § 24-94, multifamily developments within the R-5 zoning require a minimum of 3,000 square

          feet of lot area per family.

e.       This requirement would mandate a minimum land area of 54,000 square feet.

f.       The setback requirements of § 24-94 and the parking requirements of § 24-96(b)(1)(b) could be

          accommodated within the minimum land area.

g.      54,000 square feet = 1.24 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.59:1.24 = 1:2.10

 


 

 

APPENDIX F – 29

(Richmond, Virginia Study Area)

SITE:          RCH – 7

          Site acreage:                0.52

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Multifamily development having 18 apartment in three restored townhouses and

                                                12 apartment in one three story apartment building.

1.       If constructed in Goochland County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Appendix A: Zoning, Code of Ordinances, Goochland County, Virginia (amended through

          June, 2000))

b.      Under § 2(1), the most likely zoning classification that would accommodate development of the

          project would be as a Residential Planned Unit Development.

c.       Under § 3(2) and Art. 10, § 1(1), Residential Planned Unit Developments require a minimum of 20

          acres of land area.

d.      The setbacks and yards mandated by § 3(5) could be accommodated within the minimum land area

          requirement.

e.       The parking requirements of § 4(1) and Art. 18, § 8.1(1)(c) could be accommodated within the

          minimum land area requirement.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.52:20 = 1:38.46

2.       If constructed in Hanover County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Hanover County, Virginia  (2000 reprint)

b.      Under § 7, the assumed zoning was R-5, Multiple-Family Residential District.

c.       The project would also be authorized within the Planned Unit Development District but the minimum

          lot size is substantially greater than the R-5 minimum lot size.

d.      Under § 7.7(2), the minimum acreage requirement is the greater of 14 units per acre or a 30% lot

          coverage maximum.

e.       With regard to the project as developed, the 30% lot coverage maximum requires less land area than

          the 14 units per acre provision.

f.       Because of the requirements of § 7.7(2), the 14 units per acre mandate would require a total land area

          of 2.14 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.52:2.14 = 1:4.12

3.       If constructed in Henrico County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24 of the Code of the County of Henrico, Virginia (amended

          through August 25, 2000)

b.      Multifamily residential developments are permitted in the two General Residential Districts, R-5 and

          R-6.

c.       Areas zoned R-5 have a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet while areas zoned R-6 have a

minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.  Because of this differential, it was assumed that the project would be developed within the R-5 zoning.

d.      Under § 24-94, multifamily developments within the R-5 zoning require a minimum of 3,000 square

          feet of lot area per family.

e.       This requirement would mandate a minimum land area of 90,000 square feet.

f.       The setback requirements of § 24-94 and the parking requirements of § 24-96(b)(1)(b) could be

          accommodated within the minimum land area.

g.      90,000 square feet = 2.07 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.52:2.07 = 1:3.98

 


 

APPENDIX F – 30

(Richmond, Virginia Study Area)

SITE:          RCH – 8

          Site acreage:                0.60

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Multifamily developing containing 14 two story townhouses

1.       If constructed in Goochland County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Appendix A: Zoning, Code of Ordinances, Goochland County, Virginia (amended through

          June, 2000))

b.      Under § 2(1), the most likely zoning classification that would accommodate development of the

          project would be as a Residential Planned Unit Development.

c.       Under § 3(2) and Art. 10, § 1(1), Residential Planned Unit Developments require a minimum of 20

          acres of land area.

d.      The setbacks and yards mandated by § 3(5) could be accommodated within the minimum land area

          requirement.

e.       The parking requirements of § 4(1) and Art. 18, § 8.1(1)(c) could be accommodated within the

          minimum land area requirement.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.60:20 = 1:33.33

2.       If constructed in Hanover County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Hanover County, Virginia  (2000 reprint)

b.      Under § 6, the most likely zoning for the project would be Residential Cluster Development. § 6.2(3)

          permits townhouse development projects in areas zoned for Residential Cluster Development.

c.       § 6.4(1) establishes a maximum density of eight townhouses per acre.

d.      The parking requirements of § 6.12 could be accommodated within the minimum area requirements.

e.       14 townhouses would require 1.75 acres.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.60:1.75 = 1:2.92

3.       If constructed in Henrico County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24 of the Code of the County of Henrico, Virginia (amended

          through August 25, 2000)

b.      Multifamily residential developments are permitted in the two General Residential Districts, R-5 and

          R-6.

c.       Areas zoned R-5 have a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet while areas zoned R-6 have a

minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.  Because of this differential, it was assumed that the project would be developed within the R-5 zoning.

d.      Under § 24-28(e)(1), the maximum density for townhouse developments is 12 dwelling units per acre. 

          This mandate would require a total of 1.17 acres of land.

e.       Under § 24-94, multifamily developments within the R-5 zoning require a minimum of 3,000 square

feet of lot area per family.  This mandate would require a total of 42,000 square feet (0.96 acres of land).

f.       Because the land area required by § 24-28(e)(1) is greater than the land area required by § 24-94, the

          provisions of § 24-28(e)(1) would be controlling.

g.      The setback requirements of § 24-94 and the parking requirements of § 24-96(b)(1)(b) could be

          accommodated within the minimum land area.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.60:1.17 = 1:1.95

 


 

APPENDIX F – 31

(Richmond, Virginia Study Area)

SITE:          RCH – 9

          Site acreage:                0.42

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Two story commercial building (14,686 square feet per floor) presently being

                                                redeveloped.

1.       If constructed in Goochland County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Appendix A: Zoning, Code of Ordinances, Goochland County, Virginia (amended through

          June, 2000))

b.      Under Art. 14, the assumed zoning is B-2, Business Limited District.  The project could also have

been constructed under Art. 13 in areas zoned B-1, General Business District.  Areas zoned B-1, however, have no fixed area requirements unless they adjoin a residential neighborhood (Art. 13,

§§ 4, 7).  Under Art. 14, § 2, uses similar to those permitted in areas zoned B-1 uses are permitted in areas zoned B-2 (except for use as office space which is a conditional use in areas zoned B-2).  Under § 7, the setback requirements for areas zoned B-1 and B-2 are similar.

c.       Art. 14, § 5 imposes a 40% lot coverage maximum.

d.      The assumptions are made that the first floor of the building will be redeveloped as a restaurant or

retail facility and that the second floor will contain both office space and a restaurant or retail facility.  It was the opinion of the developer that this is the most likely development scenario.

e.       For restaurant or retail facilities, Art. 18, §§ 8.10 and 8.11 require one space for every 200 square feet

of floor area.  For commercial space, Art. 18, § 8.9 requires one space for every 400 square feet of floor area.  Under Art. 18, § 8.4.1, each parking space require 162 square feet.

f.       Art. 18, § 8.2(1) would require four loading spaces for the retail facility.  No additional spaces were

included for the commercial facility because of the provisions of § 8.3(2) allowing joint use of the loading spaces.  Separate dimensional requirements for loading zones are not included in Appendix A.

g.      A minimum of 115 parking and loading spaces would be necessary.  This would require a total land

          area of 18,630 square feet.

h.      Under Art. 26, § 96, the definition of “structure” includes parking facilities.

i.        For the purposes of the 40% lot coverage maximum, total coverage would be 33,316 square feet (the

          footprint of the building  - 14,686 square feet - plus the parking facility - 18,630 square feet).

j.        Applying the 40% lot coverage maximum would result in a total land area requirement of 83,290

          square feet.

k.       The setback requirements could be accommodated within the total land area.

l.        83,290 square feet = 1.91 acres.

m.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.42:1.91 = 1:4.55


 

2.       If constructed in Hanover County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Hanover County, Virginia  (2000 reprint)

b.      Under § 12A, the most appropriate zoning would be OS (Office/Service District).

c.       Allowable uses within areas zoned OS include restaurant, retail and commercial facilities

          (§ 12A.3(1)).

d.      § 12A.10(1) imposes a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.

e.       The buffer requirements of § 12A.8(2) could be accommodated within the minimum land area.

f.       The parking (Art. 7, § 1.1) and loading zone (Art. 7, § 2.1) requirements could be accommodated

          within the minimum land area.

g.      40,000 square feet = 0.92 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.42:0.92 = 1:2.19

3.       If constructed in Henrico County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24 of the Code of the County of Henrico, Virginia (amended

          through August 25, 2000)

b.      The project could be developed in either of the Business Districts (B-2 or B-3).

c.       Under §§ 24-58.1 and 24-62.1, retail, commercial and office uses are permitted.

d.      § 24-94 imposes a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement.

e.       The assumptions are made that the first floor of the building will be redeveloped as a restaurant or

retail facility and that the second floor will contain both office space and a restaurant or retail facility.  It was the opinion of the developer that this is the most likely development scenario.

f.       With regard to development of the facility as office space, § 24-96(b)(12) would require one parking

space for every 250 square feet of floor area.  With regard to development of the facility as retail or commercial space, § 24-96(b)(13) would require one parking space for every 200 square feet of floor area.  Under § 24-96(c), parking spaces require a minimum of 162 square feet.

g.      A total of 133 parking spaces would be required.  This would necessitate a minimum land area of

          21,546 square feet.

h.      § 24-97(a) requires one loading zone.  The minimum area for the loading zone (§ 24-97(b)) is 250

          square feet.

i.        The total parking and loading zone area would be 21,796 square feet.

j.        The minimum area require for the project would be 36,482 square feet (the footprint of the building –

14,686 square feet - plus the parking and loading zone requirement - 21,796 square feet).  This requirement exceeds the 20,000 square feet minimum lot area of § 24-94.  NOTE:  The calculation of the minimum land area required for the project does not include necessary buffers (§ 24-106.2(e)(3)) because these requirements are a function of the uses of adjoining lands.

k.       36,482 square feet = 0.84 acres.

l.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.42:0.84 = 1:2

 


 

APPENDIX F – 32

(Richmond, Virginia Study Area)

SITE:          RCH – 10

          Site acreage:                0.94

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Two story commercial building (5,150 square feet per floor) presently being

                                                redeveloped.

1.       If constructed in Goochland County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Appendix A: Zoning, Code of Ordinances, Goochland County, Virginia (amended through

          June, 2000))

b.      Under Art. 14, the assumed zoning is B-2, Business Limited District.  The project could also have

been constructed under Art. 13 in areas zoned B-1, General Business District.  Areas zoned B-1, however, have no fixed area requirements unless they adjoin a residential neighborhood (Art. 13,

§§ 4, 7).  Under Art. 14, § 2, uses similar to those permitted in areas zoned B-1 uses are permitted in areas zoned B-2 (except for use as office space which is a conditional use in areas zoned B-2).  Under § 7, the setback requirements for areas zoned B-1 and B-2 are similar.

c.       Art. 14, § 5 imposes a 40% lot coverage maximum.

d.      The assumptions are made that the first floor of the building will be redeveloped as a restaurant or

retail facility and that the second floor will be redeveloped as office space.  It was the opinion of the developer that this is the most likely development scenario.

e.       For restaurant or retail facilities, Art. 18, §§ 8.10 and 8.11 require one space for every 200 square feet

of floor area.  For commercial space, Art. 18, § 8.9 requires one space for every 400 square feet of floor area.  Under Art. 18, § 8.4.1, each parking space require 162 square feet.

f.       Art. 18, § 8.2(1) would require four loading spaces for the retail facility.  No additional spaces were

included for the commercial facility because of the provisions of § 8.3(2) allowing joint use of the loading spaces.  Separate dimensional requirements for loading zones are not included in Appendix A.

g.      A minimum of 41 parking and loading spaces would be necessary.  This would require a total land

          area of 6,642 square feet.

h.      Under Art. 26, § 96, the definition of “structure” includes parking facilities.

i.        For the purposes of the 40% lot coverage maximum, total coverage would be 11,742 square feet (the

          footprint of the building  - 5,510 square feet - plus the parking facility - 6.642 square feet).

j.        Applying the 40% lot coverage maximum would result in a total land area requirement of 29,480

          square feet.

k.       The setback requirements could be accommodated within the total land area.

l.        29,480 square feet = 0.68 acres.

m.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.94:0.68 = 1:0.72


 

2.       If constructed in Hanover County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Hanover County, Virginia  (2000 reprint)

b.      Under § 12A, the most appropriate zoning would be OS (Office/Service District).

c.       Allowable uses within areas zoned OS include restaurant, retail and commercial facilities

          (§ 12A.3(1)).

d.      § 12A.10(1) imposes a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.

e.       The buffer requirements of § 12A.8(2) could be accommodated within the minimum land area.

f.       The parking (Art. 7, § 1.1) and loading zone (Art. 7, § 2.1) requirements could be accommodated

          within the minimum land area.

g.      40,000 square feet = 0.92 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.94:0.92 = 1:0.98

3.       If constructed in Henrico County, Virginia:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24 of the Code of the County of Henrico, Virginia (amended

          through August 25, 2000)

b.      The project could be developed in either of the Business Districts (B-2 or B-3).

c.       Under §§ 24-58.1 and 24-62.1, retail, commercial and office uses are permitted.

d.      § 24-94 imposes a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement.

e.       The assumptions are made that the first floor of the building will be redeveloped as a restaurant or

retail facility and that the second floor will be redeveloped as office space.  It was the opinion of the developer that this is the most likely development scenario.

f.       With regard to development of the facility as office space, § 24-96(b)(12) would require one parking

space for every 250 square feet of floor area.  With regard to development of the facility as retail or commercial space, § 24-96(b)(13) would require one parking space for every 200 square feet of floor area.  Under § 24-96(c), parking spaces require a minimum of 162 square feet.

g.      A total of 47 parking spaces would be required.  This would necessitate a minimum land area of

          7,614 square feet.

h.      § 24-97(a) requires one loading zone.  The minimum area for the loading zone (§ 24-97(b)) is 250

          square feet.

i.        The total parking and loading zone area would be 7,864 square feet.

j.        The minimum area require for the project would be 13,014 square feet (the footprint of the building –

          5,150 square feet - plus the parking and loading zone requirement - 7,864 square feet).

k.       The 13,014 square feet minimum project area does not exceed the 20,000 square feet minimum lot

area requirement of § 24-94.  Consequently, the requirements of § 24-94 would be controlling.  NOTE:  The calculation of the minimum land area required for the project does not include necessary buffers (§ 24-106.2(e)(3)) because these requirements are a function of the uses of adjoining lands.

l.        20,000 square feet = 0.46 acres

m.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.94:0.46 = 1:0.49

 


 

APPENDIX F – 33

(Sacramento, California Study Area)

SITE:          SAC – 1

          Site acreage:                3.64 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Supermarket (30,736 square feet)

1.       If constructed in Placer County, California:

          a.       Authority:  Placer County Zoning Ordinance (edition #5, January, 1998)

b.      Under § 5.060(D), the redevelopment project would be authorized in areas zones C1, C2, CUP or HS. 

The most appropriate zoning would be C1, Neighborhood Commercial.  This reflects the setting in which the project was actually constructed.

c.       § 5.260(E) imposes setback requirements as well as a 40% lot coverage limitation.  (The setback

          requirements and lot coverage limitations are the same in areas zoned C1 and C2.)

d.      §§ 10.050(B) and 10.052(B)(6) imposes parking requirements (with dimensional provisions as

          mandated by § 10.054).

e.       The total area required for the setbacks (49,950 square feet) and to fulfill the parking requirements

(19,740 square feet) could be accommodated within the total area required by the 40% lot coverage provisions (76,840 square feet).

f.       76,840 square feet = 1.76 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  3.64:1.76 = 1:0.48

2.       If constructed in Sacramento County, California:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Code, County of Sacramento, California (amended to July, 1999)

b.      Location would be appropriate in areas zoned SC (Shopping Center), LC (Limited Commercial or GC

(General Commercial).  The assumed zoning was LC because, under § 225-4, there is no minimum lot area.

c.       §§ 315-42(b) and 315-43(b) establish setback requirements.  Under the definitions contained in

          § 130-199, these setback requirements are to remain unoccupied open space.

d.      §§ 330-20 and 330-120 establish parking and loading zone requirements for retail stores.  The

          parking space dimensional requirements are contained in § 330-80.

e.       The total area required by the footprint of the building plus the setback requirements (72,000 square

feet) plus the parking (26,410 square feet) and loading zone (350 square feet) requirements is 98,760 square feet.

f.       98,760 square feet = 2.27 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  3.64:2.27 = 1:0.62

3.       If constructed in Yolo County, California:

a.       Authority:  The Yolo County Code (October, 1997)

b.      The activity is authorized in areas zoned C-1, C-2 and C-3.  Given the characteristics and location of

the project as constructed, the most appropriate zoning would be C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Zone.

c.       § 8-2.1208 establishes a three acre minimum land area for newly zoned C-1 properties unless the

property adjoins a commercial or industrial zone.  The project as constructed did not adjoin either a commercial or an industrial zone, so the three acre minimum land area was assumed.

d.      The three acre minimum land area would be sufficient to include mandatory parking, loading zone

          and setback requirements.

e.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  3.63:3 = 1:0.82

 


 

APPENDIX F – 34

(Sacramento, California Study Area)

SITE:          SAC – 2

          Site acreage:                1.4 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Retail drug store (15,120 square feet)

1.       If constructed in Placer County, California:

a.       Authority:  Placer County Zoning Ordinance (edition #5, January, 1998)

b.      Under § 5.060(D), the redevelopment project would be authorized in areas zones C1, C2, C3, CPD or

HS.  The most appropriate zoning would be either C1, Neighborhood Commercial or C2, General Commercial.  This reflects the setting in which the project was actually constructed.

c.       § 5.260(E) imposes setback requirements as well as a 40% lot coverage limitation.  (The setback

          requirements and lot coverage limitations are the same in areas zoned C1 and C2.)

d.      §§ 10.050(B) and 10.052(B)(6) imposes parking requirements (with dimensional provisions as

          mandated by § 10.054).

e.       The total area required for the setbacks (22,960 square feet) and to fulfill the parking requirements

(9,920 square feet) could be accommodated within the total area required by the 40% lot coverage provisions (37,800 square feet).

f.       37,800 square feet = 0.88 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.4:0.88 = 1:0.62

2.       If constructed in Sacramento County, California:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Code, County of Sacramento, California (amended to July, 1999)

b.      Location would be appropriate in areas zoned SC (Shopping Center), LC (Limited Commercial or GC

(General Commercial).  The assumed zoning was LC because, under § 225-4, there is no minimum lot area.

c.       §§ 315-42(b) and 315-43(b) establish setback requirements.  Under the definitions contained in

          § 130-199, these setback requirements are to remain unoccupied open space.

d.      §§ 330-20 and 330-120 establish parking and loading zone requirements for retail stores.  The

          parking space dimensional requirements are contained in § 330-80.

e.       The total area required by the footprint of the building plus the setback requirements (37,230 square

feet) plus the parking (13,110 square feet) and loading zone (350 square feet) requirements is 50,690 square feet.

f.       50,690 square feet = 1.16 acres

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.4:1.16 = 1:0.83

3.       If constructed in Yolo County, California:

a.       Authority:  The Yolo County Code (October, 1997)

b.      The activity is authorized in areas zoned C-1, C-2 and C-3.  Given the characteristics and location of

the project as constructed, the most appropriate zoning would be C-1, Neighborhood Commercial Zone.

c.       § 8-2.1208 establishes a three acre minimum land area for newly zoned C-1 properties unless the

property adjoins a commercial or industrial zone.  The project as constructed did not adjoin either a commercial or an industrial zone, so the three acre minimum land area was assumed.

d.      The three acre minimum land area would be sufficient to include mandatory parking, loading zone

          and setback requirements.

e.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.4:3 = 1:2.14

 


 

APPENDIX F – 35

(Sacramento, California Study Area)

SITE:          SAC – 3

          Site acreage:                3.67

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Multifamily residential development (total of 90 units including 6 one bedroom,

                                                44 two bedroom, 32 three bedroom and 8 four bedroom units)

1.       If constructed in Placer County, California:

a.       Authority:  Placer County Zoning Ordinance (edition #5, January, 1998)

b.      Under §§ 5.060(D) and 5.430, the project could be located in an area zoned RM for multifamily

          residential development.

c.       § 5.430(D)(2) imposes a density maximum of one dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet of area.  This

          would require an area of 180,000 square feet.

d.      Under §§ 10.050(b) and 10.052(B)(5), a total of 197 regular parking places and six handicapped

parking places would be required.  (The dimensional requirements are contained in § 10.054(A)(1).)  Fulfilling the parking requirements would require a total of 43,249 square feet.

e.       The total area required would be 223,249 square feet.  NOTE:  This assumes that the area required by

the § 5.430(D)(2) density limitation is used in its entirety to fulfill mandatory setback and landscaping requirements.  Because these requirements are set on a site-specific basis and reflect the configuration of the parking areas, it was not possible to quantify them for the purposes of this analysis.

f.       223,249 square feet = 5.13 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  3.67:5.13 = 1:1.4


 

2.       If constructed in Sacramento County, California:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Code, County of Sacramento, California (amended to July, 1999)

b.      Under § 201-02, the project would be authorized in areas zoned RD-10, RD-15/20, RD-25/30 or RD-

40.  According to the Sacramento County Department of Planning and Community Development, the most likely zoning would be RD-20.

c.       § 215-71 imposes a lot coverage limitation of 20 units per acre.  Applying this limitation to the

          existing project would require a total of 4.5 acres (190,020 square feet) of land area.

d.      Under § 330-69, a total of 225 parking places would be required.  (The dimensional requirements are

contained in § 330-80.)  Fulfilling the parking requirements would require a total of 40,612.5 square feet.

e.       The total area required would be 230,632.5 square feet.  NOTE:  This assumes that the area required

by the § 215-71 density limitation is used in its entirety to fulfill mandatory open space (§ 305-14) and landscaping (§ 305-17) requirements.  Because these requirements are set on a site-specific basis and reflect the configuration of the parking areas, it was not possible to quantify them for the purposes of this analysis.

f.       230,632.5 square feet = 5.29 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  3.67:5.29 = 1:1.44

3.       If constructed in Yolo County, California:

a.       Authority:  The Yolo County Code (October, 1997)

b.      Under § 8-2.1001, the appropriate zoning would be R-3, Multiple-Family Residential Zone.

c.       § 8-2.1006(g) mandates a minimum lot area of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit.  This would

          require a total land area of 180,000 square feet.

d.      Under § 8-2.2504(a), a total of 132 parking places would be required.  (The dimensional

requirements are contained in § 8-2.2502(c).)  Fulfilling the parking requirements would require a total of 19,008 square feet.

e.       The total area required would be 199,008 square feet.  NOTE:  Mandatory setbacks may not include

parking areas.  The assumption is made that setback requirements are roughly equivalent to the minimum lot area mandated by § 8-2.1006(g) less the footprint of structures located on specific lots.  Because these requirements are set on a site-specific basis and reflect the configuration of the parking areas, it was not possible to quantify them for the purposes of this analysis.

f.       199,008 square feet = 4.57 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  3.67:4.57 = 1:1.24

 


 

APPENDIX F – 36

(Sacramento, California Study Area)

SITE:          SAC – 4

          Site acreage:                3.0

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Multifamily residential development (total of 50 units including 6 one bedroom,

                                                4 two bedroom flats, 25 two bedroom townhouses and 15 three bedroom units)

1.       If constructed in Placer County, California:

a.       Authority:  Placer County Zoning Ordinance (edition #5, January, 1998)

b.      Under §§ 5.060(D) and 5.430, the project could be located in an area zoned RM for multifamily

residential development.  (A small commercial area that is part of the project was not included in this analysis as such a use is not authorized in areas zoned RM.)

c.       § 5.430(D)(2) imposes a density maximum of one dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet of area.  This

          would require an area of 100,000 square feet.

d.      Under §§ 10.050(b) and 10.052(B)(5), a total of 107 regular parking places and four handicapped

parking places would be required.  (The dimensional requirements are contained in § 10.054(A)(1).)  Fulfilling the parking requirements would require a total of 22,220 square feet.

e.       The total area required would be 122,220 square feet.  NOTE:  This assumes that the area required by

the § 5.430(D)(2) density limitation is used in its entirety to fulfill mandatory setback and landscaping requirements.  Because these requirements are set on a site-specific basis and reflect the configuration of the parking areas, it was not possible to quantify them for the purposes of this analysis.

f.       122,220 square feet = 2.81 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  3:2.81 = 1:0.94


 

2.       If constructed in Sacramento County, California:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Code, County of Sacramento, California (amended to July, 1999)

b.      Under § 201-02, the project would be authorized in areas zoned RD-10, RD-15/20, RD-25/30 or RD-

40.  According to the Sacramento County Department of Planning and Community Development, the most likely zoning would be RD-20.

c.       § 215-71 imposes a lot coverage limitation of 20 units per acre.  Applying this limitation to the

          existing project would require a total of 2.5 acres (108,900 square feet) of land area.

d.      Under § 330-69, a total of 127 parking places would be required.  (The dimensional requirements are

contained in § 330-80.)  Fulfilling the parking requirements would require a total of 22,923.5 square feet.

e.       The total area required would be 131,823.5 square feet.  NOTE:  This assumes that the area required

by the § 215-71 density limitation is used in its entirety to fulfill mandatory open space (§ 305-14) and landscaping (§ 305-17) requirements.  Because these requirements are set on a site-specific basis and reflect the configuration of the parking areas, it was not possible to quantify them for the purposes of this analysis.

f.       131,823.5 square feet = 3.03 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  3.67:3.03 = 1:1.01

3.       If constructed in Yolo County, California:

a.       Authority:  The Yolo County Code (October, 1997)

b.      Under § 8-2.1001, the appropriate zoning would be R-3, Multiple-Family Residential Zone.

c.       § 8-2.1006(g) mandates a minimum lot area of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit.  This would

          require a total land area of 100,000 square feet.

d.      Under § 8-2.2504(a), a total of 72 parking places would be required.  (The dimensional requirements

are contained in § 8-2.2502(c).)  Fulfilling the parking requirements would require a total of 10,368 square feet.

e.       The total area required would be 110,368 square feet.  NOTE:  Mandatory setbacks may not include

parking areas.  The assumption is made that setback requirements are roughly equivalent to the minimum lot area mandated by § 8-2.1006(g) less the footprint of structures located on specific lots.  Because these requirements are set on a site-specific basis and reflect the configuration of the parking areas, it was not possible to quantify them for the purposes of this analysis.

f.       110,368 square feet = 2.53 acres

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  3:2.53 = 1:0.84

 


 

APPENDIX F – 37

(Sacramento, California Study Area)

SITE:          SAC – 5

          Site acreage:                4.0

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Multifamily residential development (total of 75 units including 27 studio and

                                                one bedroom, 27 two bedroom, 16 three bedroom and 8 four bedroom units)

1.       If constructed in Placer County, California:

a.       Authority:  Placer County Zoning Ordinance (edition #5, January, 1998)

b.      Under §§ 5.060(D) and 5.430, the project could be located in an area zoned RM for multifamily

          residential development.

c.       § 5.430(D)(2) imposes a density maximum of one dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet of area.  This

          would require an area of 150,000 square feet.

d.      Under §§ 10.050(b) and 10.052(B)(5), a total of 142 regular parking places and five handicapped

parking places would be required.  (The dimensional requirements are contained in § 10.054(A)(1).)  Fulfilling the parking requirements would require a total of 27,960 square feet.

e.       The total area required would be 177,960 square feet.  NOTE:  This assumes that the area required by

the § 5.430(D)(2) density limitation is used in its entirety to fulfill mandatory setback and landscaping requirements.  Because these requirements are set on a site-specific basis and reflect the configuration of the parking areas, it was not possible to quantify them for the purposes of this analysis.

f.       177,960 square feet = 4.09 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  4:4.09 = 1:1.02


 

2.       If constructed in Sacramento County, California:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Code, County of Sacramento, California (amended to July, 1999)

b.      Under § 201-02, the project would be authorized in areas zoned RD-10, RD-15/20, RD-25/30 or RD-

40.  According to the Sacramento County Department of Planning and Community Development, the most likely zoning would be RD-20.

c.       § 215-71 imposes a lot coverage limitation of 20 units per acre.  Applying this limitation to the

          existing project would require a total of 3.75 acres (163,350 square feet) of land area.

d.      Under § 330-69, a total of 181 parking places would be required.  (The dimensional requirements are

contained in § 330-80.)  Fulfilling the parking requirements would require a total of 32,670.5 square feet.

e.       The total area required would be 196,020.5 square feet.  NOTE:  This assumes that the area required

by the § 215-71 density limitation is used in its entirety to fulfill mandatory open space (§ 305-14) and landscaping (§ 305-17) requirements.  Because these requirements are set on a site-specific basis and reflect the configuration of the parking areas, it was not possible to quantify them for the purposes of this analysis.

f.       196,020.5 square feet = 4.5 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  4:4.5 = 1:1.13

3.       If constructed in Yolo County, California:

a.       Authority:  The Yolo County Code (October, 1997)

b.      Under § 8-2.1001, the appropriate zoning would be R-3, Multiple-Family Residential Zone.

c.       § 8-2.1006(g) mandates a minimum lot area of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit.  This would

          require a total land area of 150,000 square feet.

d.      Under § 8-2.2504(a), a total of 99 parking places would be required.  (The dimensional requirements

are contained in § 8-2.2502(c).)  Fulfilling the parking requirements would require a total of 14,256 square feet.

e.       The total area required would be 164,256 square feet.  NOTE:  Mandatory setbacks may not include

parking areas.  The assumption is made that setback requirements are roughly equivalent to the minimum lot area mandated by § 8-2.1006(g) less the footprint of structures located on specific lots.  Because these requirements are set on a site-specific basis and reflect the configuration of the parking areas, it was not possible to quantify them for the purposes of this analysis.

f.       164,256 square feet = 3.77 acres

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  4:3.77 = 1:0.94

 


 

APPENDIX F – 38

(Sacramento, California Study Area)

SITE:          SAC – 6

          Site acreage:                0.92 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Hotel (27 stories, 501 rooms plus meeting     rooms)

1.       If constructed in Placer County, California:

a.       Authority:  Placer County Zoning Ordinance (edition #5, January, 1998)

b.      Under § 5.060(D), the redevelopment project would be authorized in areas zones C2, C3, CPD, HS or

MT.  The most appropriate zoning would be C2, General Commercial.  This reflects the setting in which the project was actually constructed.

c.       For hotels located in areas zoned C2, § 15.410(A) requires 1,000 square feet of site area for each hotel

          room.  For this redevelopment project, the total site area required would be 501,000 square feet.

d.      §§ 10.050(B)(2) and 10.052(B)(8) imposes parking requirements (with dimensional provisions as

          mandated by § 10.054).

e.       § 5.220(E) allows 100% site coverage but limits height to 50 feet.  In response to this limitation, the

project was redesigned from a single tower to a shorter (within the height limitation) and wider structure having the same footprint square footage.  Doing so increased the footprint of the project to 114,422.7 square feet.

f.       Both the total area required to fulfill the parking requirements (92,760 square feet) and the expanded

footprint for the redesigned facility (114,442.7 square feet) could be accommodated within the total area required by § 15.410(A) (501,000 square feet).  This would leave sufficient room as needed to fulfill landscaping and buffering requirements.

g.      501,000 square feet = 11.5 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.92:11.5 = 1:12.5


 

2.       If constructed in Sacramento County, California:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Code, County of Sacramento, California (amended to July, 1999)

b.      Under § 225-11, location would be appropriate in areas zoned LC, GC, TC and CO.  The assumed

          zoning in GC (General Commercial).

c.       §§ 315-42(b) and 315-43(c) establish setback requirements.  Under the definitions contained in

          § 130-199, these setback requirements are to remain unoccupied open space.

d.      § 315.44(c) incorporates by reference the requirements of § 301-22(b) which establishes both a floor

area/lot area ratio of 2.5:1 and a maximum height of 40 feet.  Under § 301-22(b), the maximum height may be increased to 150 feet if the setbacks are increased in proportion to the height of the building.

e.       Because of the height limitation, the project was redesigned from a single tower (277.8 feet in height)

to a shorter and wider structure containing two towers (each 148 feet in height) having the same square footage.  Doing so increased the setback requirements proportionately for a total project footprint of 187,011 square feet.

f.       § 330-67 requires one parking space per hotel room (with parking space dimensional requirements as

provided by § 330-80).  To fulfill the requirements of § 330-67, a total of 90,430.5 square feet would be needed for parking.

g.      The total area required by the increased footprint of the project (187,011 square feet) plus the parking

          requirements (90,430.5 square feet) would be 277,441.5 square feet.

h.      277,441.5 square feet = 6.37 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.92:6.37 = 1:6.92

3.       If constructed in Yolo County, California:

a.       Authority:  The Yolo County Code (October, 1997)

b.      The activity is authorized in areas zoned C-2, C-3 and CH.  Given the characteristics of the project as

          constructed, the most likely zoning would be C-3, General Commercial Zone.

c.       § 8-2.1405 establishes a six story (75 foot) height maximum.  In order to meet this requirement, the

project was redesigned from a single tower to a shorter, wider structure having the same total square footage.  This increased the footprint of the project to 106,139.7 square feet.

d.      §§ 8.2.2504(j) and 8-2.2505 impose parking and loading zone requirements, respectively.  The

dimensional requirements are provided by §§ 8-2.2502(b) and (c).  The area needed to fulfill the parking (36,144 square feet) and loading zone (5,500 square feet) requirements would be 41,644 square feet.  This resulted in a total project area of 147,783.7 square feet.

e.       147,783.7 square feet = 3.39 acres.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.92:3.39 = 1:3.71

 


 

APPENDIX F – 39

(Sacramento, California Study Area)

SITE:          SAC – 7

          Site acreage:                1.62

          Use as redeveloped:   Commercial

          Site as redeveloped:   Hotel (8 stories, 249 rooms plus meeting rooms)

1.       If constructed in Placer County, California:

a.       Authority:  Placer County Zoning Ordinance (edition #5, January, 1998)

b.      Under § 5.060(D), the redevelopment project would be authorized in areas zones C2, C3, CPD, HS or

MT.  The most appropriate zoning would be C2, General Commercial.  This reflects the setting in which the project was actually constructed.

c.       For hotels located in areas zoned C2, § 15.410(A) requires 1,000 square feet of site area for each hotel

          room.  For this redevelopment project, the total site area required would be 249,000 square feet.

d.      §§ 10.050(B)(2) and 10.052(B)(8) imposes parking requirements (with dimensional provisions as

          mandated by § 10.054).

e.       § 5.220(E) allows 100% site coverage but limits height to 50 feet.  In response to this limitation, the

project was redesigned as a shorter (within the height limitation) and wider structure having the same footprint square footage.  Doing so increased the footprint of the project to 63,600 square feet.

f.       Both the total area required to fulfill the parking requirements (46,480 square feet) and the expanded

footprint for the redesigned facility (63,600 square feet) could be accommodated within the total area required by § 15.410(A) (249,000 square feet).  This would leave sufficient room as needed to fulfill landscaping and buffering requirements.

g.      249,000 square feet = 5.72 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.62:5.72 = 1:3.54


 

2.       If constructed in Sacramento County, California:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Code, County of Sacramento, California (amended to July, 1999)

b.      Under § 225-11, location would be appropriate in areas zoned LC, GC, TC and CO.  The assumed

          zoning in GC (General Commercial).

c.       §§ 315-42(b) and 315-43(c) establish setback requirements.  Under the definitions contained in

          § 130-199, these setback requirements are to remain unoccupied open space.

d.      § 315.44(c) incorporates by reference the requirements of § 301-22(b) which establishes both a floor

area/lot area ratio of 2.5:1 and a maximum height of 40 feet.  Under § 301-22(b), the maximum height may be increased to 150 feet if the setbacks are increased in proportion to the height of the building.

e.       Because of the height limitation, the project was redesigned as a shorter (within the height limitation)

and wider structure having the same footprint square footage.  Doing so increased the footprint of the project to 130,134.16 square feet.  (Increasing both the height of the project and the required setbacks was rejected as it would have increased the footprint of the project to 156,547.44 square feet.)

f.       § 330-67 requires one parking space per hotel room (with parking space dimensional requirements as

provided by § 330-80).  The project as designed contained 150 parking spaces within the building.  To fulfill the requirements of § 330-67, an additional 99 parking spaces would be required.

g.      The total area required by the increased footprint of the project (130,134.16 square feet) plus the

          parking requirements (17,869.5 square feet) would be 148,003.66 square feet.

h.      148,003.66 square feet = 3.4 acres.

i.        Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.62:3.4 - 1:2.1

3.       If constructed in Yolo County, California:

a.       Authority:  The Yolo County Code (October, 1997)

b.      The activity is authorized in areas zoned C-2, C-3 and CH.  Given the characteristics of the project as

          constructed, the most likely zoning would be C-3, General Commercial Zone.

c.       § 8-2.1405 establishes a six story (75 foot) height maximum.  In order to meet this requirement, the

project was redesigned from a single tower to a shorter, wider structure having the same total square footage.  This increased the footprint of the project to 75,092.16 square feet.

d.      §§ 8-2.2504(j) and 8-2.2505 impose parking and loading zone requirements, respectively.  The

dimensional requirements are provided by §§ 8-2.2502(b) and (c).  As constructed, the project contained sufficient parking within the building to meet the requirements of § 8-2.2504(j).  The area needed to fulfill the loading zone requirement would be 3,500 square feet.  This resulted in a total project area of 78,592.16 square feet.

e.       78,592.16 square feet = 1.8 acres.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.62:1.8 = 1:1.11

 


 

APPENDIX F – 40

(Sacramento, California Study Area)

SITE:          SAC – 8

          Site acreage:                2.54

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Single family residential development containing residences

1.       If constructed in Placer County, California:

a.       Authority:  Placer County Zoning Ordinance (edition #5, January, 1998)

b.      Under §§ 5.060(D) and 5.440, the project could be located in an area zoned RS for single family

          residential development.

c.       § 5.400(B) establishes a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.  § 5440(E) establishes setback

          requirements and a 35% lot coverage maximum.

d.      The setback requirements for each of the three residential designs contained in the project would fit

within the 10,000 square feet minimum lot size.  None of the three residential designs would exceed 35% coverage of the lot on which the residence was located.

e.       Under § 10.064, the project could have been located in areas zoned for planned residential

development.  This possibility was excluded because of a 20% open space requirement imposed on such developments.

f.       The minimum area required for the project would be 450,000 square feet.

g.      450,000 square feet = 10.3 acres

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.54:10.3 = 1:4.06

2.       If constructed in Sacramento County, California:

a.       Authority:  Zoning Code, County of Sacramento, California (amended to July, 1999)

b.      The project could be developed in areas zoned RD-1, RD-2, RD-3 or RD-4.  Of the four zoning

categories, RD-4 allows the highest density of single family residences.  Consequently, the assumed zoning is Article 5: RD-4 Residential Land Use Zone.

c.       Under § 215-44(b), the maximum single family residential density for projects containing more than

five residences is four dwelling units per acre.  This would require a total of 11.25 acres (490,050 square feet).

d.      The density limitation imposed by § 215-44(b) would allow sufficient space landscaping and setback

          requirements.

e.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.54:11.25 = 1:4.43

3.       If constructed in Yolo County, California:

a.       Authority:  The Yolo County Code (October, 1997)

b.      Appropriate zoning for the project would be either R-S (Residential Suburban Zone) or R-1

(Residential One-Family Zone).  R-S is a specific zoning for agricultural lands that are being converted to residential use.  However, because § 8-2.706(a) mandates a half acre minimum lot size, the R-S zoning was rejected.  The appropriate zoning would be R-1.

c.       § 8-2.806 establishes minimum lot sizes for corner lots (7,000 square feet) and for interior lots (6,000

square feet).  Applying these requirements to the specific projects yields a total land area requirement of 280,000 square feet.

d.      The front and side yard requirements of § 8-2.806 would fit within the minimum lot sizes.

e.       280,000 square feet = 6.43 acres.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  2.54:6.43 = 1:2.53

 


 

APPENDIX F – 41

(St. Louis, Missouri Study Area)

SITE:          STL – 1

          Site acreage:                1.08 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Industrial

          Site as redeveloped:   Combination industrial and manufacturing facility (51,250 square feet under

                                                roof, 28,125 square foot outdoor work area)

1.       If constructed in Madison County, Illinois:

a.       Authority:  Madison County Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 15, 1999)

b.      Under § 93.035, the most appropriate zoning would be M-2, General Manufacturing District.

c.       § 93.035(B)(4) imposes a 20 foot buffer strip requirement.

d.      §§ 93.035(B)(5) - 93.035(B)(8) impose setback requirements.

e.       §§ 93.137(A) and 93.139 impose parking and loading zone requirements, respectively.

f.       § 93.035(B)(9) establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 3.

g.      Under § 93.006(B), only the square footage of buildings is used to calculate the floor area ratio.

h.      Given a floor area ratio of 3, the minimum land area required by the project would be 153,750 square

          feet.

i.        The requirements of §§ 93.035(B)(4), 93.035(B)(5) - 93.035(B)(8), 93.137(A) and 93.139 could be

          accommodated within the minimum land area requirement.

j.        153,750 square feet = 3.53 acres.

k.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.08:3.53 = 1:3.27

2.       If constructed in Franklin County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Unified Land Use Regulations (UniRegs98) (September, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be either ID or ID-2 (the setback and density requirements are the

          same).

c.       The minimum amount of land required would be the specific use plus the setback requirements

          (parking and loading zone requirements are included in the setback requirements).

d.      §185(2) provides that the “[m]aximum lot coverage of principal and accessory buildings shall not

          exceed 40% of the lot.”

e.       The definition of “building” contained in §184(3) would include the outdoor work area as a structure

“which by nature of its size, scale, dimensions, bulk, or use tends to ... generate activity similar to that usually associated with a building.”

f.       The building and outdoor work area plus setback requirements = 101,525 square feet; building and

          outdoor work area = 46,875 square feet or 46.1% of the lot.

g.      If the building and outdoor work area (46,875 square feet) = 40% of the lot, then § 185(2) would

          require a minimum land area of 2.69 acres.

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.08:2.69 = 1:2.49

3.       If constructed in St. Charles County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Revised Zoning Order for St. Charles County, Missouri, supplements #2 (July, 1998) and

          #3 (October, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be M-1 (light industrial district).

c.       §405.200 establishes setback requirements for the M-1 light industrial district.  The total setback

requirements = 25,750 square feet.  The basic footprint for the project = 76,625 square feet (46,875 plus the setback requirement) = 1.76 acres.

d.      The outdoor work area was included as a structure by virtue of § 405.200(A)(19) which includes

          “[a]ccessory uses customarily incident to the above uses.”

e.       For light industrial developments, §405.540 would require 1 parking place (180 square feet per

parking space) for every two employees (for 30 employees, a total of 2,700 square feet) and §405.570 would require 5 off-street loading zones (540 square feet per loading zone = 2,700 square feet).  These requirements were not included in the total because they could be included in the setback requirement.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.08:1.76 = 1:1.63

 

 

APPENDIX F – 42

(St. Louis, Missouri Study Area)

SITE:          STL – 2

          Site acreage:                10 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Industrial

          Site as redeveloped:   Multiple tenant industrial, manufacturing and commercial facility (total of

                                                500,000 square feet under roof)

1.       If constructed in Madison County, Illinois:

a.       Authority:  Madison County Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 15, 1999)

b.      Under § 93.035, the most appropriate zoning would be M-2, General Manufacturing District.

c.       § 93.035(B)(4) imposes a 20 foot buffer strip requirement.

d.      §§ 93.035(B)(5) - 93.035(B)(8) impose setback requirements.

e.       §§ 93.137(A) and 93.139 impose parking and loading zone requirements, respectively.

f.       § 93.035(B)(9) establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 3.

g.      Under § 93.006(B), only the square footage of buildings is used to calculate the floor area ratio.

h.      Given a floor area ratio of 3, the minimum land area required by the project would be 1,500,000

          square feet.

i.        The requirements of §§ 93.035(B)(4), 93.035(B)(5) - 93.035(B)(8), 93.137(A) and 93.139 could be

          accommodated within the minimum land area requirement.

j.        1,500,000 square feet = 34.44 acres.

k.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  10:34.44 = 1:3.44

2.       If constructed in Franklin County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Unified Land Use Regulations (UniRegs98) (September, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be either ID or ID-2 (the setback and density requirements are the

          same).

c.       The minimum amount of land required would be the specific use plus the setback requirements

          (parking and loading zone requirements are included in the setback requirements).

d.      §185(2) provides that the “[m]aximum lot coverage of principal and accessory buildings shall not

          exceed 40% of the lot.”

e.       The present state of project redevelopment precludes utilizing a setback requirements approach

because the specific use of specific buildings, which must be known in order to determine specific setback requirements, has yet to be determined.

f.       If the buildings (500,000 square feet) = 40% of the lot, then the provisions of § 185(2) would require

          a minimum lot size of 28.7 acres.

g.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  10:28.7 = 1:2.87

3.       If constructed in St. Charles County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Revised Zoning Order for St. Charles County, Missouri, supplements #2 (July, 1998) and

          #3 (October, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be M-1 for the industrial and manufacturing portion of the

          project and C-1 for the commercial portion.

c.       The present state of project redevelopment precludes utilizing a setback requirements approach

because the specific use of specific buildings, which must be known in order to determine specific setback requirements, has yet to be determined.

d.      St. Charles County does not have a provision similar to the 40% requirements of §185(2) of the

          Unified Land Use Regulations for Franklin County.

e.       As a result, it is not possible at the present time to calculate the amount of land this development

          would require in St. Charles County.

 


 

APPENDIX F – 43

(St. Louis, Missouri Study Area)

SITE:          STL – 3

          Site acreage:                1.65 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Industrial

          Site as redeveloped:   Manufacturing facility, 15,560 square feet under roof, 5,184 square foot outdoor

                                                work area

NOTE:       The developer intentionally purchased a larger site that was required in order to allow for future

                   expansion of the manufacturing facility.

1.       If constructed in Madison County, Illinois:

a.       Authority:  Madison County Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 15, 1999)

b.      Under § 93.035, the most appropriate zoning would be M-2, General Manufacturing District.

c.       § 93.035(B)(4) imposes a 20 foot buffer strip requirement.

d.      §§ 93.035(B)(5) - 93.035(B)(8) impose setback requirements.

e.       §§ 93.137(A) and 93.139 impose parking and loading zone requirements, respectively.

f.       § 93.035(B)(9) establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 3.

g.      Under § 93.006(B), only the square footage of buildings is used to calculate the floor area ratio.

h.      Given a floor area ratio of 3, the minimum land area required by the project would be 46,680 square

          feet.

i.        The requirements of §§ 93.035(B)(4), 93.035(B)(5) - 93.035(B)(8), 93.137(A) and 93.139 could be

          accommodated within the minimum land area requirement.

j.        46,680 square feet = 1.07.

k.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.65:1.07 = 1:0.65

2.       If constructed in Franklin County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Unified Land Use Regulations (UniRegs98) (September, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be either ID or ID-2 (the setback and density requirements are the

          same).

c.       The minimum amount of land required would be the specific use plus the setback requirements

          (parking and loading zone requirements are included in the setback requirements).

d.      §185(2) provides that the “[m]aximum lot coverage of principal and accessory buildings shall not

          exceed 40% of the lot.”

e.       The definition of “building” contained in §184(3) would include the outdoor work area as a structure

“which by nature of its size, scale, dimensions, bulk, or use tends to ... generate activity similar to that usually associated with a building.”

f.       The building and outdoor work area plus setback requirements = 65,520 square feet.  The building

          and outdoor work area = 20,744 square feet or 31.6% of the lot.

g.      65,520 square feet = 1.50 acres

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.65:1.50 = 1:0.91

3.       If constructed in St. Charles County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Revised Zoning Order for St. Charles County, Missouri, supplements #2 (July, 1998) and

          #3 (October, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be M-1 (light industrial district).

c.       §405.200 establishes setback requirements for the M-1 light industrial district.  The total setback

requirements = 24,886 square feet.  The basic footprint for the industrial development = 45,630 square feet (20,744 square feet plus the setback requirement) = 1.05 acres.

d.      The outdoor work area was included as a structure by virtue of §405.200(A)(19) which includes

          “[a]ccessory uses customarily incident to the above uses.”

e.       For light industrial developments, §405.540 would require 1 parking place (180 square feet per

parking space) for every two employees (for 22 employees, a total of 1,980 square feet) and §405.570 would require 3 off-street loading zones (540 square feet per loading zone = 1,620 square feet), these requirements were not included in the total because they could be included in the setback requirement.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  1.65:1.05 = 1:0.64

 

 

APPENDIX F – 44

(St. Louis, Missouri Study Area)

SITE:          STL – 4

          Site acreage:                0.7 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Residential (107 units) and commercial (limited) facility, 170,000 square feet

                                                under roof (150,000 square feet residential, 20,000 square feet commercial)

1.       If constructed in Madison County, Illinois:

a.       Authority:  Madison County Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 15, 1999)

b.      Under § 93.026, the project would most likely be developed as a planned unit development in an area

          zoned R-5, Multiple-Family Residential District.

c.       Assuming that the project is served by approved water and sanitary sewer systems, § 93.026(b)(3)

          requires a minimum area of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit.

d.      § 93.026 establishes a 40% lot coverage maximum for buildings and structures.

e.       § 93.026(B)(11) establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 1.

f.       § 93.026(B)(13) establishes a minimum size of 540 square feet per dwelling unit in a multifamily

          development.

g.      Planning Unit Developments in the R-5 District are authorized by § 93.026(C)(14) which

incorporated by reference the requirements of § 93.037 regarding districts zoned PD, Planned Unit Development District.

h.      § 93.037(C) allows residential, commercial and industrial uses in planned unit developments as

          approved.

i.        § 93.037(B)(4) imposes a 25% open space requirement on planned unit developments.

j.        For the residential portion of the development, 107 dwelling units would require a minimum land

area of 214,000 square feet.  The open space requirements of § 93.037(C) as well as the parking requirements of § 93.137(A) could be accommodated within the minimum land area required.

k.       With regard to the commercial portion of the project, the applicable requirements would be those of

          § 93.030 for areas zoned B-2, General Business District.

l.        § 93.030(B)(10) establishes both a floor area ratio of 1.2 and a 60% maximum lot coverage. 

Applying the maximum lot coverage requirement to the commercial portion of the project would result in a minimum land area requirement of 33,333.33 square feet.

m.      An additional 4,066.67 square feet would be required to meet the setback requirements of

          §§ 93.030(B)(6) - 93.030(B)(9).

n.      The definition of “yard” in § 93.006(B) requires that the area be unoccupied by any structure.  The

definition of “structure” in § 93.006(B) includes parking areas.  Consequently, an additional 12,500 square feet would be needed to meet the commercial parking (§ 93.137(A)) and loading zone (§ 93.139) requirements.

o.      The total area required for both the residential and commercial portions of the project would be

          263,900 square feet.

p.      263,900 square feet = 6.06 acres

q.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.7:6.06 = 1:8.66


 

2.       If constructed in Franklin County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Unified Land Use Regulations (UniRegs98) (September, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning for the project would be as a planned unit development in an Planned

          Unit Development (PUD) district.

c.       §138(c) provides that the minimum size for a PUD district shall be 25 acres.

d.      If the zoning requirements for multiple family developments (with the §182 maximum density of 0.5

acres/dwelling unit) or for cluster developments (with the §187 maximum density of 0.33 acres/dwelling unit) are applied, then the minimum land area required would increase significantly.

e.       The minimum amount of land would be 25 acres.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.7:25 = 1:35.7

3.       If constructed in St. Charles County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Revised Zoning Order for St. Charles County, Missouri, supplements #2 (July, 1998) and

          #3 (October, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be R-3 for the multiple family residential portion of the project

          and C-1 for the commercial portion of the project.

c.       §405.120(D) mandates a minimum of 2,500 square feet per living unit in a multiple family residential

          district.  This provision would require a total of 267,000 square feet.

d.      For multiple family residential developments, §405.540 requires 2 parking places (180 square feet per

          parking space) for each dwelling unit.  214 parking spaces = 38,520 square feet.

e.       §405.170 establishes setback requirements for the C-1 commercial district.  The total setback

requirements are 10,800 square feet.  This results in a footprint for the commercial portion of the project of 30,800 square feet (20,000 square feet for the building plus the setback requirement).

f.       It was the opinion of the site developer that the most likely use of the commercial space would be as a

          restaurant.

g.      For restaurants, §405.540 requires 1 parking places (180 square feet per parking space) for every 100

square feet of floor area.  The resulting need for 200 parking places would require a land area of 36,000 square feet.

h.      The total area required for the residential and commercial portions of the project would be 372,320

          square feet.   = 8.55 acres

i.        NOTE:  With regard to the location of a restaurant at the site, §405.570 requires 2 off-street loading

spaces at 540 square feet per loading space.  This was not included in the project total because, unlike the parking space requirements, this requirement could be included within the setback requirement.

j.        372,320 square feet = 8.55 acres.

k.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.7:8.55 = 1:12.21

 


 

APPENDIX F – 45

(St. Louis, Missouri Study Area)

SITE:          STL – 5

          Site acreage:                0.46 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Industrial

          Site as redeveloped:   Combination industrial and commercial (limited) facility, 404,244 square feet

                                                under roof (18 floors, 22,458 square feet per floor)

1.       If constructed in Madison County, Illinois:

a.       Authority:  Madison County Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 15, 1999)

b.      Under § 93.035, the most appropriate zoning would be M-2, General Manufacturing District.

c.       § 93.035(B)(4) imposes a 20 foot buffer strip requirement.

d.      §§ 93.035(B)(5) - 93.035(B)(8) impose setback requirements.

e.       §§ 93.137(A) and 93.139 impose parking and loading zone requirements, respectively.

f.       § 93.035(B)(9) establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 3.

g.      Under § 93.006(B), only the square footage of buildings is used to calculate the floor area ratio.

h.      Given a floor area ratio of 3, the minimum land area required by the project would be 1,212,732

          square feet.

i.        The requirements of §§ 93.035(B)(4), 93.035(B)(5) - 93.035(B)(8), 93.137(A) and 93.139 could be

          accommodated within the minimum land area requirement.

j.        1,212,732 square feet = 27.84 acres.

k.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.46:27.84 = 1:60.52


 

2.       If constructed in Franklin County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Unified Land Use Regulations (UniRegs98) (September, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be either ID or ID-2 (the setback and density requirements are the

          same).

c.       The minimum amount of land required would be the specific use plus the setback requirements

          (parking and loading zone requirements are included in the setback requirements).

d.      §185(2) provides that the “[m]aximum lot coverage of principal and accessory buildings shall not

          exceed 40% of the lot.”

e.       The project as redeveloped exceeds the building height limits contained in the Franklin County

Building Code.  (These requirements are incorporated by reference in § 186.)  It was the opinion of the project developer that a similar project constructed in a greenfield area would be configured as a number of single story buildings.  The basic rationale for this conclusion is the fact that different floors of the project as redeveloped are leased by different companies.

f.       The building and setback requirements per floor = 56,250 square feet.  The building area per floor =

          22,458 square feet or 39.9%.

g.      Assuming that the project would be developed in a greenfield area as a series of single story

          structures, 56,250 square feet per floor for 18 floors = 1,012,500 square feet (23.24 acres).

h.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.46:23.24 = 1:50.44

3.       If constructed in St. Charles County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Revised Zoning Order for St. Charles County, Missouri,     supplements #2 (July, 1998) and

          #3 (October, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be M-1 for the industrial portion of the redevelopment project

          and C-1 for the commercial portion.

c.       The project as redeveloped exceeds the building height limits contained in § 405.200(C).  It was the

opinion of the project developer that a similar project constructed in a greenfield area would be configured as a number of single story buildings.  The basic rationale for this conclusion is the fact that different floors of the project as redeveloped are leased by different companies.

d.      §405.200 establishes setback requirements for the M-1 light industrial district.  The total setback

requirements = 11,500 square feet.  The basic footprint for the industrial development = 33,958 per floor (22,458 plus the setback requirement) for 17 floors = 577,286 square feet.

e.       For light industrial developments, §405.540 would require 1 parking place (180 square feet per

parking space) for every two employees and 405.570 would require 3 off-street loading zones (540 square feet per loading zone).  These requirements were not included in the total because they could be included in the setback requirement.

f.       §405.170 establishes setback requirements for the C-1 commercial district.  Total setback

requirements = 9,300 square feet.  The basic footprint for the commercial development = 31,758 square feet (22,458 square feet for the building plus the setback requirement).

g.      The commercial space is being used at present as a U.S. Post Office.

h.      For Post Offices, §405.540 requires 1 parking places (180 square feet per parking space) for every

          300 square feet of floor area, 22,548 square feet = 75 parking places = 13,500 square feet for parking.

i.        The total area required for the project would be 622,544 square feet = 14.29 acres.

j.        With regard to the use of the site as a U.S. Post Office, §405.570 would require 3 off-street loading

spaces at 540 square feet per loading space.  This was not included in the total because, unlike the commercial district parking space requirements, this requirement could be included in the setback requirement.

k.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  0.46:14.29 = 1:31.07

 


 

APPENDIX F – 46

(St. Louis, Missouri Study Area)

SITE:          STL – 6

          Site acreage:                10 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Industrial

          Site as redeveloped:   Bulk distribution center (187,500 square feet)

1.       If constructed in Madison County, Illinois:

a.       Authority:  Madison County Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 15, 1999)

b.      Under § 93.035, the most appropriate zoning would be M-2, General Manufacturing District.

c.       § 93.035(B)(4) imposes a 20 foot buffer strip requirement.

d.      §§ 93.035(B)(5) - 93.035(B)(8) impose setback requirements.

e.       §§ 93.137(A) and 93.139 impose parking and loading zone requirements, respectively.

f.       § 93.035(B)(9) establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 3.

g.      Under § 93.006(B), only the square footage of buildings is used to calculate the floor area ratio.

h.      Given a floor area ratio of 3, the minimum land area required by the project would be 562,500 square

          feet.

i.        The requirements of §§ 93.035(B)(4), 93.035(B)(5) - 93.035(B)(8), 93.137(A) and 93.139 could be

          accommodated within the minimum land area requirement.

j.        562,500 square feet = 12.91 acres.

k.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  10:12.91 = 1:1.29

2.       If constructed in Franklin County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Unified Land Use Regulations (UniRegs98) (September, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be either ID or ID-2 (the setback and density requirements are the

          same).

c.       The minimum amount of land required would be the specific use plus the setback requirements

          (parking and loading zone requirements are included in the setback requirements).

d.      §185(2) provides that the “[m]aximum lot coverage of principal and accessory buildings shall not

          exceed 40% of the lot.”

e.       If the building (187,500 square feet) = 40% of the lot, then a lot of 10.76 acres would be required.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  10:10.76 = 1:1.08

3.       If constructed in St. Charles County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Revised Zoning Order for St. Charles County, Missouri, supplements #2 (July, 1998) and

          #3 (October, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be M-1 (light industrial district).

c.       §405.200 establishes setback requirements for the M-1 light industrial district.  The total setback

requirements = 43,500 square feet.  The basic footprint for the industrial development = 231,000 square feet (187,500 square feet plus the setback requirement) = 5.3 acres.

d.      For light industrial developments, §405.540 requires 1 parking place (180 square feet per parking

space) for every two employees and §405.570 requires off-street loading zones (540 square feet per loading zone), these requirements were not included in the total because they could be included in the setback requirement.

          e.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  10:5.3 = 1:0.53

 


 

APPENDIX F – 47

(St. Louis, Missouri Study Area)

SITE:          STL – 7

          Site acreage:                20 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Industrial

          Site as redeveloped:   Distribution facility (two buildings, total area of 465,000 square feet)

1.       If constructed in Madison County, Illinois:

a.       Authority:  Madison County Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 15, 1999)

b.      Under § 93.035, the most appropriate zoning would be M-2, General Manufacturing District.

c.       § 93.035(B)(4) imposes a 20 foot buffer strip requirement.

d.      §§ 93.035(B)(5) - 93.035(B)(8) impose setback requirements.

e.       §§ 93.137(A) and 93.139 impose parking and loading zone requirements, respectively.

f.       § 93.035(B)(9) establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 3.

g.      Under § 93.006(B), only the square footage of buildings is used to calculate the floor area ratio.

h.      Given a floor area ratio of 3, the minimum land area required by the project would be 1,395,000

          square feet.

i.        The requirements of §§ 93.035(B)(4), 93.035(B)(5) - 93.035(B)(8), 93.137(A) and 93.139 could be

          accommodated within the minimum land area requirement.

j.        1,395,000 square feet = 32.02 acres.

k.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  20:32.02 = 1:1.60

2.       If constructed in Franklin County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Unified Land Use Regulations (UniRegs98) (September, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be either ID or ID-2 (the setback and density requirements are the

          same).

c.       The minimum amount of land required would be the specific use plus the setback requirements

          (parking and loading zone requirements are included in the setback requirements).

d.      §185(2) provides that the “[m]aximum lot coverage of principal and accessory buildings shall not

          exceed 40% of the lot.”

e.       If the buildings (465,000 square feet) = 40% of the lot, then a lot of         26.69 acres would be required.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  20:26.69 = 1:1.33

3.       If constructed in St. Charles County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Revised Zoning Order for St. Charles County, Missouri,

          supplements #2 (July, 1998) and #3 (October, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning would be M-1 (light industrial district).

c.       §405.200 establishes setback requirements for the M-1 light industrial

district.  Total setback requirements = 111,000 square feet.  The basic footprint for the industrial development = 576,000 square feet (465,000 square feet plus the setback requirement) = 13.22 acres.

d.      For light industrial developments, §405.540 requires 1 parking place

(180 square feet per parking space) for every two employees and §405.570 requires off-street loading zones (540 square feet per loading zone), these requirements were not included in the total because they could be included in the setback requirement.

e.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  20:13.22 = 1:0.66

 


 

APPENDIX F – 48

(St. Louis, Missouri Study Area)

SITE:          STL – 8

          Site acreage:                4.37 acres

          Use as redeveloped:   Residential

          Site as redeveloped:   Multiple use redevelopment project including residential (397 units) and

                                                commercial (75 hotel rooms plus office, retail and commercial space)

1.       If constructed in Madison County, Illinois:

a.       Authority:  Madison County Zoning Ordinance (amended through September 15, 1999)

b.      Under § 93.026, the project would most likely be developed as a planned unit development in an area

          zoned R-5, Multiple-Family Residential District.

c.       Assuming that the project is served by approved water and sanitary sewer systems, § 93.026(b)(3)

          requires a minimum area of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit.

d.      § 93.026 establishes a 40% lot coverage maximum for buildings and structures.

e.       § 93.026(B)(11) establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 1.

f.       § 93.026(B)(13) establishes a minimum size of 540 square feet per dwelling unit in a multifamily

          development.

g.      Planning Unit Developments in the R-5 District are authorized by § 93.026(C)(14) which

incorporated by reference the requirements of § 93.037 regarding districts zoned PD, Planned Unit Development District.

h.      § 93.037(C) allows residential, commercial and industrial uses in planned unit developments as

          approved.

i.        § 93.037(B)(4) imposes a 25% open space requirement on planned unit developments.

j.        The residential portion of the development (including both residences and hotel rooms) totals 990,000

square feet.  Applying the maximum floor area ratio of § 93.026(B)(11) would result in a minimum land area requirement of 990,000 square feet.  The open space requirements of § 93.037(C) as well as the parking requirements of § 93.137(A) could be accommodated within the minimum land area required.

k.       With regard to the commercial portion of the project, the applicable requirements would be those of

          § 93.030 for areas zoned B-2, General Business District.

l.        § 93.030(B)(10) establishes both a floor area ratio of 1.2 and a 60% maximum lot coverage. 

Applying the floor area ratio to the commercial portion of the project would result in a minimum land area requirement of 252,000 square feet.

m.      The definition of “yard” in § 93.006(B) requires that the area be unoccupied by any structure.  The

definition of “structure” in § 93.006(B) includes parking areas.  Consequently, an additional 186,750 square feet would be needed to meet the commercial and retail parking (§ 93.137(A)) and loading zone (§ 93.139) requirements.

n.      The total area required for the residential, commercial and retail portions of the project would be

          1,428,750 square feet.

o.      1,428,750 square feet = 32.8 acres

p.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  4.37:32.8 = 1:7.5


 

2.       If constructed in Franklin County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Unified Land Use Regulations (UniRegs98) (September, 1998)

b.      The most appropriate zoning for the project would be as a planned unit development in an Planned

          Unit Development (PUD) district.

c.       §138(c) provides that the minimum size for a PUD district shall be 25 acres.

d.      If the zoning requirements for multiple family developments (with the §182 maximum density of 0.5

acres/dwelling unit) or for cluster developments (with the §187 maximum density of 0.33 acres/dwelling unit) are applied, then the minimum land area required would increase significantly.

e.       The minimum amount of land would be 25 acres.

f.       Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  4.37:25 = 1:5.72

3.       If constructed in St. Charles County, Missouri:

a.       Authority:  Revised Zoning Order for St. Charles County, Missouri, supplements #2 (July, 1998) and

          #3 (October, 1998)

b.      The only appropriate zoning is RL (for large scale residential districts).

c.       §405.140(B) mandates a minimum of 200 acres for large-scale residential developments.  This may

include commercial use (§ 405.140(C)(13)) but a variance would be required because the commercial use would exceed ten percent of the area.

d.      Estimated BF/GF Trade-Off:  4.37:200 = 1:45.77