�ݺ�ߣ

Editor's Notes

• #5: Specific zoning issues to be discussed later “Semi-exclusive” use refers primarily to Monday through Saturday shopping hours; the restaurant may benefit by greater availability during evening hours, as well As will be outlined in later discussions, a leasehold taking is unnecessarily complicated and does not result in a reduction of costs to the City nor an increase in benefits or compensation to the property owners
• #6: FAR specifics to be discussed later in this presentation
• #7: As opposed to C-4, which is also without setback requirements but does not require any on-site parking, either. Properties 18 and 27 (medical office building at 239 N. York and Hamburger Heaven) are the only subject properties which currently meet C-2 parking requirements according to their specific uses; this suggests a reduced value or marketability to new ownership for a continued use, despite grandfathering. Is parking here adequate for the clientele? Standard zoning requirements for uses in the C-2 zone are 4 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of building area, or, in other words, 250 square feet of available footprint for each parking space. The visible exceptions are restaurants (10 per 1,000 SF of building area or 1 space per 100 square feet of available footprint) and photography studios and travel agencies (3 spaces for each 1,000 SF of building area, or 1 space for each 333 square feet of available footprint). The most appropriate zoning will be applicable when redevelopment plans for the block are more solid
• #8: Typically, existing suburban downtown commercial buildings are one- or two-story in design, with retail on the ground and locally-utilized offices on the upper floors With an FAR of 2.0 in the C-2 district, facilities would consist of some 6,000 SF to match the allowable density and, given parking requirements (which few of them meet anyway), would be at least 3 stories high The available developable footprint is key in a densely-developed district which requires some minimum on-site parking -- to be discussed in detail later
• #10: 108 N. York though 172-76 N. Addison have 4.0 base FARs. 332 N. York, 401 N. York and 581-91 S. York have base FARs of 2.0, like the subject properties. 851 N. Addison is in a C-3 district with an FAR of only 0.5. And 110 Cottage Hill Ave. is in an OIC district with a base FAR of 0.8.
• #11: Shows a basic available footprint calculation, as provided by land planners such as Rolf Campbell Predicated upon required on-site parking and assumes modern standard of approximately 400 SF per space, allowing for buffers, landscaping, access drives, turn-around space, bumpers, pedestrian walks, etc. The available building footprint is ultimately discerned by multiplying the square footage of building applicable to a single required parking space by the building footprint ratio. In turn, the building footprint ratio is a factor of the site area divided by the space required on a per-space basis for parking and building combined (or, in the restaurant example, 100 SF of building area and 400 SF of parking space area).
• #12: Footprint x 2 represents the typical 2-story nature of suburban downtown commercial buildings and demonstrates the total available building area permitted on a site, given required parking and the resulting underlying footprint.
• #13: In each case, the property at the rear of the subject within the taking area involves land specifically set aside for customer/employee parking, or potentially developable for such parking In no case does the taking impact building improvements (with the exception of the delapidated garage on the Budgell property, as well as an assumption of demolition of the SFR on the southern Budgell property).
• #14: In many cases these currently underparked commercial properties will, for the first time, have access to adequate parking for their customers The lower end of the space and benefit spectrum reflects an allocation of 400 SF per space; the upper end reflects an allocation of slightly less (350 SF) because the modern design, width, etc. should result in a more economic layout of the parking spaces and access ways
• #15: Municipality, either in a fee or leasehold taking, would take responsibility for the maintenance and operating costs of the parking areas, relieving the property owner of both the actual costs and the management responsibility
• #16: Predicated upon 400 SF per space on an “after” basis, maintaining an “apples to apples” with the “before” figures For instance, the general taking will encompass a 50’ x 60’ area, or 3,000 SF which, divided by 400 SF per space equals approximately 7.5 parking spaces. Multiplied by $25,000/space, the property owner is essentially losing $187,500 in compensation. However, he gains in benefits the semi-exclusive use of 50% of the municipal spaces within his taking area. Adding the 16-foot-wide alley area to the 3,000 SF of taking, we arrive at a total parking development area adjacent to his remainder of 3,800 SF. Predicated upon 400 SF per space, 9.5 spaces could be developed on this area, 50% of which for the owner’s use is 4.75 spaces. Again, at $25,000/space, this benefit to ownership is equal to approximately $118,750. Adding the $1.26/SF for 3,000 SF for expenses now borne by the City, as opposed to the property owner, another $3,780 in benefits. Ultimately, total compensation is $64,790, or approximately $21.66/SF of the take area.
• #17: Predicated upon an allocation of 350 SF per parking space in the “after” scenario, due to increase in efficiency by way of the modern layout, access, etc. Allows for 11 spaces in the redeveloped taking area (as opposed to 9.5 based upon 400 SF parking spaces), or approximately 5.4 spaces for the property owner based upon the 50% semi-exclusive use assumption
• #18: $48,000 to $65,000 in compensation is equal to approximately $16.00 to $22.00 per square foot of land area (predicated upon standard taking area of 3,000 SF), which is in keeping with commercial land values in the market Hamburger Heaven compensation, parking impact, etc. will be slightly escalated due to a wider site width, and thus a larger taking
• #19: Both explaining to property owners and accurately estimating value of these partial rights bundles is extremely difficult and inherently subject to more “judgement-oriented” processes and analyses than is a fee taking With all current development falling significantly short of allowable FAR, and with rezoning a possibility in the future to draw redevelopment, any positive impact afforded value of the existing properties by way of allowing the owners to utilize the taking area for total FAR or developable footprint is nebulous New zoning in the future could address all density issues and afford redevelopers on-site parking in structures, higher FARs and/or higher building height allowances