Public Policies and Private Decisions Affecting
the Redevelopment of Brownfields:
An Analysis of Critical Factors,
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 |