SITE ANALYSIS CASE STUDY
A true story.... A man, working with a realtor, located
a piece of property upon which he thought he would be able to build five single-family residential homes. On behalf of his
client, the realtor commissioned what is commonly referred to as a "mortgage survey" to determine the area of the property.
The completed survey (see below) showed an area of 1.824 acres or 79,487 square feet.
The realtor made a preliminary review of the local zoning ordinances and found
that in an R-15 zoning (15,000 square feet per residential lot), the property appeared to support five single-family
residential lots with five thousand square feet remaining. Though the property was zoned R-20 (20,000 square feet per
residential lot), the realtor noted that there was significant precedent in the area for rezoning property from R-20 to
R-15.
The realtor contacted an architect and convened a meeting with his client
and the architect two days before the scheduled closing date for the sale of the property. In the meeting, the realtor
suggested that he wanted a second opinion about whether the property would support five single-family houses if it were
rezoned from its existing R-20 zoning to an R-15 zoning. As many architects are known to say, the architect replied, "It
depends."
The architect went on to explain that even though the square footage given in
the survey indicated there would be enough room for five homes, without assessing all the requirements of the authorities
having jurisdiction, it would be impossible to say whether there would be room for the intended five homes: the storm
water detention pond may need to be a few thousand square feet, the Department of Transportation (DOT) may take a
larger piece of right-of-way at the edge of the property, there may be density issues, etc.
Upon concluding their meeting, the realtor, his client and the architect
agreed that the best course of action would be to delay the purchase long enough to conduct a proper site analysis. The
realtor and his client went to the closing two days later and bought the property before the site analysis was
complete. They were able to negotiate a deal that made the property worth purchasing even if significant issues were
identified during the site analysis.
The realtor's client was now the owner of the property. He contacted the
architect, advised him of his purchase and asked the architect to conduct the site analysis. The architect began the
site analysis and started to diagram the buildable areas on the site (see below).
While working with the local DOT,the architect learned that the plans for
roadway development on either side of the property called for a much larger right-of-way to be taken should any properties
be rezoned or developed. This larger right-of-way took more than six thousand square feet from the owner's property,
leaving him with just over 73,000 square feet... less than the area required for the five homes. The architect also
learned that the density for the area would not allow more than four homes on the property.
When the DOT right-of-way and density issues dictated a maximum of four
homes on the lot rather than five homes, the anticipated profit from the development immediately dropped one-fifth or
twenty percent. In addition, because the property now offered just over 73,000 square feet, the owner had no choice but
to rezone the property if he intended to maximize his profits by building four homes.
[If the owner had not lost property to the DOT right-of-way, he would have
had over 80,000 square feet or four 20,000 square foot lots in the existing R-20 zoning. The loss of the DOT right-of-way
property left him with 73,000 which would have only been enough for three homes in the existing R-20 zoning. Though there
would have been three homes on larger lots, the profit margin would have dropped further still with the construction of
only three homes.]
Given his situation, the owner determined to rezone the property. This was
a wise decision because it added value if the owner later decided to sell rather than building. He would be able to sell
the property outright or divide it into four parcels rather than just three. The owner instructed the architect to prepare
the necessary paper work and meet with the interested parties to rezone the property. The architect developed a site plan
for submittal to the local authorities (see below).
The owner successfully navigated the rezoning process and was granted a
new zoning for his property (with some contingencies). To develop the property, he had to solve another series of issues.
The most important turned out to be the storm water management. There were no storm water catch basins at the edge of the
property at the lower elevations. This left the owner working with an adjacent property owner to try and negotiate an
off-site storm water easement. Due to a medical condition, the communication and subsequent progress were delayed for
months. When the owner was able to meet with the adjacent property owner, the adjacent property owner tried to take
advantage of the owner by asking that the owner pay for significant improvements to the adjacent property.
While battling this frustration, the architect advised the owner that the
local authorities require a development package, including a series of civil drawings. The "mortgage survey" commissioned
by the realtor did not have the necessary information to produce the development package. This equated to a substantial
expense that could have been avoided had the necessary information been collected during the initial survey.
The new survey (of the same property) showed an area of 81,572 square feet or
1.872 acres. These revised numbers represent an additional one thousand square feet of area. The initial area was less
than 80,000 square feet or four lots at 20,000 square feet. This new number, over 80,000 square feet, may have given
the owner the necessary leverage to argue that the local authorities should grant a variance and allow him to build
four homes without rezoning. The point made by the owner would be that he had four lots at 20,000 square feet each and
area for the detention basin before the local DOT took thousands of square feet from him.
Lesson(s) learned.... The owner was an honest and fair man who had
not developed property prior to this effort. He was exceptionally patient throughout the process and enjoyed ownership of
a property in a very attractive location. However, he, like many owners, became fatigued with the process.
Completing the site analysis before the property was purchased would have
allowed the owner to anticipate the issues that arose and informed his decision about whether he should purchase the
property or consider other properties. The owner would have also realized a savings in professional fees. More complicated projects require more
time to develop. This results in additional professional fees compared to similar projects that don't have as many
contentious issues to be solved. Certainly, you can develop these projects, whether they're renovations or new construction.
However, you should be aware of potential issues before you commit your time and resources.
The density in our metropolitan areas continues to grow and our local authorities
are writing more and more regulations to control growth. As so-called "in town" properties subject to these regulations
are developed, proper site analysis becomes increasingly more important. Contact taylor28design LLC to learn how the
process of site analysis can be of benefit to your next renovation or new construction. You may also request additional
information about this case study or other similar case studies.
BACK TO PORTFOLIO>>
LEGAL
| PRIVACY | CONTACT
© taylor28design LLC