Testing a Site the Realtor Says "Obviously Works"
A behavioral-health nonprofit has programmed 38,000 net square feet: 22,000 sf clinical and counseling, 9,000 sf administrative, 4,000 sf group rooms, and 3,000 sf support. Their planning rule is 75 percent net-to-gross efficiency. They hold an option on a 60,000 sf suburban parcel zoned for a maximum floor area ratio of 0.85, 30 percent maximum building coverage, three stories, and parking at one space per 350 gross square feet. The board's pro forma assumes surface parking at 330 sf per space including drive aisles. A 4,000 sf one-story building on the site would be retained as a day-program annex; it is not part of the 38,000 sf program but it counts against zoning. The realtor has told the board the site "obviously works." The option expires in 30 days and the price assumes the full program fits.
1. Test the realtor's claim. Do the program, the annex, and the parking fit on the parcel?
Read the worked answer
Gross area. 38,000 nsf ÷ 0.75 = 50,667 gsf.
Floor area ratio. 60,000 sf × 0.85 = 51,000 gsf permitted. The program fits with 333 sf to spare - a 0.7 percent margin. Any efficiency slip breaks it: at 73 percent the same program needs 52,055 gsf, which is over the cap. Efficiency is the number to hold, not the number to hope for.
Coverage. At three stories the new footprint is 50,667 ÷ 3 = 16,889 sf. Add the retained 4,000 sf annex: 20,889 sf = 34.8 percent of the lot. The 30 percent cap allows 18,000 sf, so the plan is already 2,889 sf over before anything else is drawn. Either the annex goes or the building goes to four stories - which is itself a variance.
Parking. 50,667 + 4,000 annex = 54,667 gsf ÷ 350 = 157 spaces. At 330 sf each that is 51,810 sf of asphalt.
Site arithmetic. 51,810 sf of parking + 20,889 sf of building = 72,699 sf on a 60,000 sf lot. The claim fails by more than 12,000 sf, and that ignores setbacks, drive aisles beyond the per-space factor, snow storage, landscaping buffers, and stormwater basins. The site does not work on the stated assumptions.
2. The board has 30 days. What do you recommend, and what would change the answer?
Read the worked answer
Do not exercise the option on the current assumptions. Recommend a 30-day due-diligence period with three parallel actions.
- Pre-application meeting with the jurisdiction. Ask specifically (a) whether the existing annex is grandfathered or counts as new coverage, (b) whether shared-parking reductions apply for a use with a weekday 8-to-6 peak adjacent to an off-peak use, and (c) whether the code sets a parking maximum as well as a minimum. A 30 to 50 percent shared-parking reduction is common where peaks do not overlap and would eliminate 50 to 75 spaces - the single largest lever available.
- Parking demand study. Behavioral health is not office: appointment-based visits, no all-day parkers, heavy drop-off and transit use. Counted demand is often 40 to 60 percent below the code minimum. Code minimums are policy, not demand.
- Test alternatives in dollars. Structured parking at roughly $25,000 to $35,000 per space × 157 spaces is $4M to $5.5M, which is almost certainly fatal to the budget. Cutting the program to about 30,000 nsf to let surface parking fit changes the nonprofit's service model and their fundraising case.
What would change the answer: an executed shared-parking agreement, a confirmed variance or grandfather on the annex, or a site roughly twice the area. Absent one of those, negotiate an option extension or walk away.