LAND-USE INTENSITW LUI).
THE CONCEPT AND
ITS APPLICATION

Thesis for the Degree of M. U. P.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CARL c. SUST‘AR, JR.

1968

WJWQH or“ A? :j'

{I

'. I. IBRARY ‘4’
Egan Stato

‘1 filial.

in

   

University

I

m

I117

”WM

@1131

HI!

I
'0
[1

III!!! III II!

I,
['9
I!
'1

W! I! II H!

W

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

LAND-USE INTENSITY (LUI),
THE CONCEPT AND
ITS APPLICATION

by Carl C. Sustar, Jr.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the
concept, workings, and application of Land-Use Intensity
(LUI) as develOped by the Federal Housing Administration.
Land-Use Intensity was posed as a measurement (regulatory)
system to supersede density measurements which were con-
sidered too ambiguous because of the variety of detail
which they might or might not include. For example, gross
or net dwelling unit density, depending upon the inclusion
or exclusion of on-site streets, parking bays and other
details, gives no indication of the size of the dwelling
unit, which might be an efficiency apartment or a five
bedroom house. Land-Use Intensity measures the overall
structural bulk and relationship of open space of a devel—
oped property.

The study was made in two parts, theory and applica-
tion. In theory the six ratio components of Land-Use Inten—
sity, floor area, Open space, livability space, recreation
Space, occupant car storage, and-total car storage, were

considered as

Carl C. Sustar, Jr.

they are defined for use by the Federal Housing Administra-
tion and as they have been adOpted for use in local land—use
regulation. The relationships of these components, also con-
sidered in theory, were studied through flow diagrams devel-
0ped from forms utilized by the Federal Housing Administra-
tion to compute Land-Use Intensity. The second part, applica-
tion, was a consideration of the theoretical Land-Use Intensity
as it has been ad0pted and modified with use. Possible alter—
native uses, beyond regulatory, were also considered in
application.

The six components of Land-Use Intensity are pre-
sented as six curves, on a rectangular Cartesian coordinate
scale, which may be read together as one intensity value.
While the scale is simple and precise, it is, in context
with definitions of the components and their interrelation-
ships, neither simple nor always consistent. These latter
attributes contribute to some confusion over the use and
value of Land-Use Intensity and seem to account for, to a
large degree, the limited use of Land—Use Intensity beyond
its application by the Federal Housing Administration.

Because of its sensitivity for details and definitions
built around residential development, the Land-Use Inten-
sity concept, as now defined, does not appear applicable
for measurement of non-residential uses, such as commercial
or light industrial, unless modified appreciably. The pre—

cision and details of Land-Use Intensity also demand

Carl C. Sustar, Jr.

technical staff and extensive data collection for which
many communities are not prepared.

The use of Land-Use Intensity is significant to
planning in that it is, as uSed by the Federal HouSing
Administration; one of.several.factors outsidewof and in—
dependentoof local land-use'contrOLs which influence land-use
patterns. And it does offer an Operational example of how
floor area ratio, Open space and other spatial factors can

be related.

LAND-USE INTENSITY (LUI),
THE CONCEPT AND

ITS APPLICATION

BY

Carl C. Sustar, Jr.

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING

Department of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture

1968

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation
to Professor Keith Honey whose interest, constructive criti-
cisms, and encouragement during the course of this investi-
gation have made possible and facilitated its completion.

Other people have provided data and background mate-
rial without which this thesis could not have been written.
Appreciation is acknowledged to all those who provided pri-
mary information and comments, especially Mr. Wesley Furton
for his time explaining details.

A debt Of gratitude is also due my wife, Philomena,
for her patience, consideration, and understanding during

the preparation of this manuscript.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter

I. THE LAND-USE INTENSITY (LUI) CONCEPT .

LUI, the guideline to determine
suitability for federal
mortgage insurance

LUI as ad0pted to local land-use
controls

II. DETERMINATION AND APPLICATION OF
THE LUI NUWER O O O O O O O O O O O

Intensity, a function of community
patterns

FHA Form 1095

FHA Forms 1028 and 1029

Local determination and application

III. USE AND NONfUSE OF THE LUI CONCEPT . .

Federal Housing Administration usage
Sponsor usage
City and planning usage

IV. LAND-USE INTENSITY IN THE FUTURE . . .

Beginnings and trends
Precision and point of emphasis

v. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGMPHY > O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O I O I C O O C O 0

iii

Page
ii

iv

26

60

84

101

108
113

Figure

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

The Land-Use Intensity Scale . . . . . . .
Land—Use Intensity Components . . . . . .
Land-Use Intensity Ratios in Tabular Form
Schematic of FHA Form 1095 . . . . . . . .
Step 1 of FHA Form 1095 . . . . . . . . .
Step 2 of FHA Form 1095 . . . . . . . . .
Step 3 of FHA Form 1095 . . . . . . . . .
Step 4 of FHA Form 1095 . . . . . . . . .
Step 5 of FHA Form 1095 . . . . . . . . .
Schematic of FHA Form 1028 . . . . . . . .
FHA Form 1028 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Schematic of FHA Form 1029 . . . . .‘. . .
FHA Form 1029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Density for Walk—Up Apartments . . . . . .

Schematic of LUI Site and Structural Areas

iv

Page

12
20
31
34
37
40.
42
44
47
49
54
55
67
91

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page

A. A Summary of Density Standards from
the Minimum Pr0perty Requirements . . . . . 114

B. Zoning Amendment for Planned-Unit
DeveloPment including FHA Standards
by Reference 0 O O O O C O C O O O O O O O 116

C. FHA Form 1095, with Several Building
Types Determined . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

D. Site Plans of 1946 Development,
Current Benchmark Design, and the
St. Vincent Court Project . . . . . . . . . 123

INTRODUCTION

The concept of Land-Use Intensity (LUI) is one of
the primary measures of the minimum property standards for
Federal Housing Administration mortgage insured projects.
It was formulated as an universally applicable device to
appraise residential development taking place under a
variety of local land-use regulations, notably those hav-
ing no meaningful standards for planned—unit development
or multifamily housing.

Even though they are but one facet of governmental
activities influencing the use of land, land-use regula-
tions, especially zoning, have been singled out for criti-
cism not only because of the manner of their administration,
or lack thereof, but also because of dated conceptual prem—
ises. On the one hand, zoning administration has been
characterized as

a process under which multitudes of isolated social
and political units engage in highly emotional alter-
cations over the use of land, most of which are set-
tled by crude tribal adaptations of medieval trial

by fire, and a few of which are conducted by confused
ad hoc injunctions of bewildered courts.

 

1Richard F. Babcock, The Zoning Game (Milwaukee:
The University of Wisconsin Press, 19667, p. 154.

 

And on the other hand, the concept of zoning itself is in—
dicted as an inflexible, dated mold. The failure to keep
in stride with the times is the fault.

It saw the ideal city as a great pattern of contrasting
districts, rigidly separating incompatible types of
land uses. It assumed that similar uses naturally
tended to congregate in homogenous areas, that develop—
ment takes place lot-by-lot on small parcels, that
shifts of social groups and land values come about
slowly, and that where and when and how development
takes place can be predicted and regulated in advance.
It did not reckon with the swift advances in technology,.
transportation, and communication, and the dynamic '
growth of American cities, which have wrought changes
in every old neighborhood and rung in new kinds of
suburban development.2

Moreover, zoning regulations are not necessarily related
to other regulatory devices or to any community plan.3
Flexibility, or freedom of expression within some

framework of law to protect the public interest, appears to
be the focus of much of the critical attention to land-use
regulations. The standard single-lot zoning enve10pe origi-
nally develOped to preserve light and air where land was
divided into many small lots restricts this flexibility,

especially in large scale development. What little oppor-

tunity for creativity remains is eliminated by many builders

 

2Dukeminier & Stapleton, "The Zoning Board of Adjust—
ment: A Case Study in Misrule," Kentucky Law Journal, L
(1962), 273, 339-40, cited by John E. Cribbet, "Changing
Concepts in the Law of Land Use," Land-Use Controls: A
Quarterly Review, Vol. I, No. 1 (19677, pp. 34-35.

 

 

3John Reps, "Requiem for Zoning," Planning 1964
(Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1964),
p. 58.

 

who believe that rising land costs require them to obtain
the maximum internal space by filling the zoning envelOpe,
the result being that the zoning ordinance "designs" the
buildings and spaces in between them.4
One answer to the problem of flexibility has been
planned-unit development, a concept which has been included
in some ordinances for at least two decades.5 Planned-unit
develOpment is land development which is controled by a
single ownership and developed as a single entity for sev-
eral dwelling units. It is usually included as a conditional
use or special exception
whereby height, yard, and type of dwelling requirement
(single family only, or single family and duplex) could
be waived through action of an administrative agency
(usually the planning commission), with approval of the
governing body, where the prOposal did not include more
dwelling units than the zoning district map would nor-
mally permit on that site.6

The quest for flexibility such as expressed in

planned-unit developments does, however, pose questions

 

4Eldridge Lovelace and William Weismantel, Density
Zoning: Organic Zoning for Planned Residential Units,,
Technical Bulletin No. 42ITWashington: Urban Land Insti-
tute, 1961), p. 33.

5Ibid., 8. A community unit plan provision--the
concept has several names--was enacted into the St. Louis
County, Missouri ordinance in 1946.

6Ibid. Note, Fremont, California is an exception
to this in that it allows, as a develOpment incentive, a
percentage increase in density for additional Open space
created in this type of development. Byron R. Hanke, Land-
use Intensity Standards, the LUI Scale and Zoning_(Washing-
ton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 17.

regarding certainty in standards and administration. While
the standard zoning envelope is labeled by its critics as
inflexibile, its supporters point to it as a standard of
certainty. At least the land owner knows beforehand what
he may or may not do. This facilitates an ease of administra-
tion that permits even the smallest village to handle zoning
with greater speed and certainty.7 The complex set of
regulations for planned-unit develOpment or other flexible
innovations, looking like the "Internal Revenue Code," is
not necessarily beneficial or inviting to the community
to administer or to the developer to follow. Regulations
serve as a mode of communication to the develOper. He is
interested in them only to the extent that they add to his
ability to predict what will be required of him and what
proposal will be acceptable to the local public authority.8
In this setting the Land-Use Intensity (LUI) con-
cept made its appearance. In the same year that it was
presented, 1963, it was acclaimed by some as "the clearest,
most concise presentation of land—use regulations ever
devised."9 Today it is still being used by the Federal

Housing Administration and has also been adapted into

 

7Babcock, 132-133.

8Jan Krasnowiecki, et al., Legal Aspects of Planned
Unit Residential Development, with Suggested Legislation,
Technical Bulletin No. 52 (Washington: Urban Land Institute,
1965), pp. 15-16. '

9"FHA's New MP5: Big Step to Good Apartments,"
House and Home, December,_1963, p. 130.

 

 

 

 

several zoning ordinances. In addition to serving in this
regulatory capacity, it has also been indicated that Land-
Use Intensity (LUI) is applicable to research aspects of
planning. Among other things it has been suggested as an
indicator of pOpulation density, traffic generation, utility
load, and storm.water runoff coefficients, all of which
could be computerized.10

This thesis, an exploration of the workings and
applications, existing and potential, of Land-Use Intensity
(LUI) is prompted first by the land-use flexibility-control
question and second, but to a greater degree, by questions
raised about Land-Use Intensity (LUI) a seemingly prodigious
concept about which few people are cognizant. For instance
what exactly is Land-Use Intensity? How is it derived and
applied? Why, if it is so clear and concise, is it not
more widely used in planning? And to what areas of planning
is the Land-Use Intensity (LUI) concept most applicable--
research?--imp1ementation? This investigation of the con-
cept and its uses will hopefully provide answers or at
least some insight into these and other questions.

The study consists basically of two parts: the

theory of Land-Use Intensity (LUI) and its application.

 

10Byron R. Hanke, Land-Use Intensity, A Guidance
System for Housing and Urban DevelOpment, Exerpts from
spOken testimony before the National Commission on Urban
Problems at its hearing on zoning, held in Houston, 10
August 1967 (Washington: by the author, 1967), P. 11.

The former describes the overall concept, its parts and

the intensity determination and application processes
(Chapters I and II) and the later views how theory is or is
Inttsedin actual operation (Chapter III). Chapter IV con-
tinues from an operational point of view and explores other
uses and structuring of the concept. To facilitate the
description in the first part, outline flow diagrams, devel-
oped from Federal Housing Administration processing forms,
are used. These diagrams emphasize base input components
rather than time or sequence to draw attention to the intri-
cacies of the concept. They are aimed primarily at the
intensity determination and application processes of the
concept as used by the Federal Housing Administration since
these constitute integral parts of the parent formcfi the

concept.

CHAPTER I
THE LAND-USE INTENSITY (LUI) CONCEPT

The Land-Use Intensity (LUI) concept is most often
presented as the precise scale which "reduces 200 pages of

11 But this simplicity

site—planning rules to a single page."
is deceiving because LUI is much more than a one page scale.
Two aspects of LUI should be considered to understand the
concept: LUI as applied by the Federal Housing Administra-
tion and LUI as adapted and applied in local ordinance form.
The basic concept remains the same in both instances; how-
ever,_the manner in which it is used to determine intensity
level, the Federal Housing Administration's LUI being ori—
entated to the individual site and the housing market and
the local ordinance's LUI being Orientated to zoning or
predetermined districts, creates two distinct aspects of
LUI.‘

LUI, the guideline to determine

suitability fOr federal
mortgage insurance

 

 

 

The Federal Housing Administration has three basic

functions which were determined under provisions of the

 

ll"FHA's New MP5 . . .,“ House and Home, December,,
1963, 130. This scale is reproduced in Figure l.

 

7

70

50

LAND U55 mmvsn'y

:u
no
U
M
U
M
m
.0r
F.
m
P

caramel)
may
2 new mmuvr
40

IMMM

m “TACIID

 

I
95755 I 3
fladaaa a a

20 c “Q SECS?

 
 

80
20
60
50
40
10
409
aaa
007
006
10

The Land-Use Intensity Scale

Figure 1.

National Housing Act of 1934. They are: (l) encouraging
improvement in housing standards and conditions, (2) pro—
viding a system of mortgage insurance, and (3) exerting a
stabilizing influence on the mortgage market. In the fol-
lowing year, 1935, the first "minimum standards" were estab-
lished for properties and subdivisions. Research, in urban
land use, housing laws and regulations, construction devel-
opments and costs, an uncharted field at that time, was also
begun to provide a foundation for the Administration's pro-
grams.12 The concept of land-use intensity was admitted

to the list of standards in 1963 as a part of Minimum

Property Standards for Multifamily Housing, which culminated

 

a five year effort, with consultation with two hundred agen—
cies, manufacturers, and industry associations, to rewrite,
expand, and up grade multifamily standards formulated in
1946 and accumulated since that year. LUI provided the
backbone for a site planning section which had been lacking
in the earlier Minimum.PrOperty Requirements.13
In revising the minimum prOperty standards for multi—

family housing, the concept of density, the number of living

units (or peOple) per unit of land, was deleted and LUI

 

12Federal Housing Administration, The FHA Story in
Symmary, 1934—1959, FHA 375 (Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1959), p. 12.

13"FHA's New MP8 . . .," House and Home, December,,
1963, 130. A summary of the old standards may be found in
Appendix A.

 

 

 

10

admitted in its place as a land-use measure. The reason
given for the revision was that density, because of wide
variation in the size of living units, the number of occu-
pants of living units of any given size, and the question
of gross or net density, is not really sensitive to nor
indicative of the degree of land—use. In develOping a site
the basic concern involved is the building area in relation
to the land area and the Open space that is left over.14
LUI expresses the degree of land-use in terms of floor
area, peOple space, and vehicular space. Values for these
components were determined through a sampling from local
Federal Housing Administration offices of "successful"
mortgage insured projects.15
The Federal Housing Administration defines land-

use intensity to mean

the overall structure—mass and Open space relationship

in a develOped prOperty. It correlates the amount of

floor area, Open space, livability space, recreation

space and car storage space of a property with the
size of its site, or land area.

 

l4Hanke, Land—Use Intensity, A Guidance System for
Housigg and Urban DevelOpment, 3. Mr. Hanke notes that
this originally was the direction taken by zoning with its
detailed regard for yards, coverage, and so forth.

15Interview with Mr. Wesley Furton, Area Site Plan-
ner, Federal Housing Administration, Detroit, Michigan, 24
-April 1968.

16Federal Housing Administration, Land-Use Intensity,
Land Planning Bulletin No. 7, HUDTS—6 (Intefim editiOn,
‘Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966), p. l.

 

 

 

11

This correlation involves six related numerical ratios.
The total residential floor area is related to the land
area by the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Open space, livability
space, and recreation space are related to the floor area
by the Open Space Ratio (OSR), Livability Space Ratio
(LSR), and Recreation Space Ratio (RSR). In turn the num-
ber of occupant parking spaces and total parking spaces is
related to the number of living units by the Occupant Car
Ratio (OCR) and the Total Car Ratio (TCR).l7
These might be better visualized in the following
figure which shows the relationships of land use elements
in a develOpment with about eight dwelling units to the
gross acre.18 Out of one-hundred acres of land actually
used for develOpment, twenty acres of it are covered with
houses and about four acres are covered with garages.
Vehicular space (streets and open parking spaces) take up
about twenty-four acres of the remaining land not covered

by buildings. The remaining fifty-two acres of Open space

is left for people.19

 

17The total number of parking spaces consists of
occupant plus guest parking spaces.

18See Figure 2.

19Hanke, Land-Use Intensity, A Guidance System
for Housing and Urban Development, 7.

 

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . Livability
Livability Space 48% Space
52%
Open
Land 552:6
Area
100%
Recreation Space 4% 1
Car
Car Area 24% Area
24%
Garage Area 4%
T Building
Area
Floor
Floor Area 20% Area 24%
20%

 

 

Figure 2. Land-Use Intensity Components.

 

1

Source:

Byron Hanke, Land-Use Intensity, A Guidance System
for Housing and Urban DevelOpment, Exerpts from spoken

testimony.

13

From this and other actual examples, it was found
that these land-use proportions, for a given living unit
floor area, varied as the density was increased or de—
creased.20 This variation in the land-use proportions,
with a certain living unit floor area, can be presented
in graphic form by plotting the values of the six ratios
on rectangular cartesian coordinates of the numerical
value of the ratio and the gross unit density. The data
from these various graphs, by living unit floor area, have
been summarized on a single set of coordinates known as
the LUI scale which presents the numerical value of the
ratios and the "intensity" for any given living unit floor
area.21

The primary ratio of the LUI rating scale is the
floor area ratio (FAR), the maximum square footage of

total floor area permitted for each square foot of land

area, as defined in Minimum PrOperty Standards for Multi—

 

family Housing. Floor area, with its dimensions being

 

measured from the faces of the exterior walls, is defined

to include:

 

zoIbid.

 

21See Figure l. The exact process of this reduction
is not known. It is conjectured that since the scale Of
the ratio values is common to all the sets of coordinates,
the numerical units of the "intensity scale" were adjusted
until there was a certain degree of coincidence of all the
ratio lines for each of the six ratios as determined by
various densities.

14

(a) halls, lobbies, stairways and elevator shafts, (b)
basement or lowest story to extent used for residential
purposes and for access to residential use, and (c)
relatively-closed exterior balconies and other covered
open spaces which are ineligible for inclusion in cov-
ered open space . . . and therefore are counted as floor
area, unless exempted [as follows]. . . . The floor area
does not include:_ (a) relatively-Open exterior balconies
and other covered Open spaces which are eligible for in-
clusion in covered Open space [defined below]; (b) any
terrace, patio, atrium, porch or balcony which is not
covered; (c) any area for special purpose for common

use of all occupants, such as recreation, library or
infirmary; (d) any garage or car port; (e) any area

used for major mechanical equipment; or (f) any area
used gar commercial or other nonresidential purposes.

Land Area (LA) is computed as gross area for ease
and accuracy of Operation. It is defined to include:

(a) the site area for residential use within the property
lines; (b) plus half of any abutting alley or street
right-of-way, (c) plus half of any abutting beneficial
Open space with reasonable eXpectance of perpetuity

(such as a river or public park), except that the width
of any abutting Open space included in Land Area shall
not exceed an amount in linear feet equal to 10 times

the Land-Use Intensity Rating of the Site. Land Area,
however, shall not include: (a) area not beneficial

to the residential use due to its location or character,,
or (b) area used predominately for commercial or other
nonresidential uses. . 23

Gross land area, rather than net site area within
the property lines, was considered to be a more realistic

approach in that it considered all the land that "reasonably

 

22Federal Housing Administration, Minimum Property
Standards for Multi-family Housing, FHA 26007(Washington:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963), pp. 42-43.

23Ibid., 43. Half of any abutting alley or street
right-of-way applies to those alleys and streets running
parallel with the site property lines.

 

 

15

can be attributed to contribute primarily to the utility
and amenity of the particular private property." By in—
cluding a reasonable share of park, river, or other bene-
ficial open space prOperties are measured on the same basis,
"that is, all the land involved in the given use instead of
taking only the privately owned parcel."
If the street happens to be a private street, it 15 of
no greater value to the adjoining building than if it's
a public street. Yet,the typical zoning treats it dif-
ferently. The measurement methods are wrong. You can't
rely on net site area.2
The rationale for floor area as the base for LUI is
for the most part a concern for Open space, that is how to
achieve an appropriate, sufficient, and usable amount of
Open space. Open space determined per dwelling unit is
"unrealistic" in that it might vary in size from five hun-
dred square feet to twenty-five hundred square feet.25
The more realistic approach is on the basis of the
number of peOple. But this is hard to measure on a
set of plans. The closest you can get to this in
practical operations is floor area. So we use open
space in relation to floor area or Open space ratio.26
The Open Space Ratio (OSR) determines the minimum

amount of Open space, in square feet, required for each

square foot of floor area. Open space is defined as

 

24Hanke, Land-Use Intensity, A Guidance System for

Housing and Urban Development, 17.

25Ibid., 15-16. This point should also be qualified
by the amount of land covered by buildings.

26

 

Ibid., 16.

.ll‘lttllll-“Il'l

16

the total horizontal area of all uncovered open space
plus 1/2 of the total horizontal area of all covered
open spaces. . . . Uncovered Open Space (UOS) is the
land area, minus the building area, plus the usable
roof area. . . . Building Area (BA) is the total ground
area covered by enclosed building space plus the total
area of all covered open spaces at ground level, both
eligible and ineligible as defined below. . . . It is
measured from the faces of exterior walls (or the ex-
terior line of omitted walls) at the mean grade level
of each building, garage, car port and other accessory
building. [Eaves and normal roof overhang are disre-
garded in these measurements.]. . . . Usable Roof Area
(URA) is the total roof area of residential buildings,
garages and accessory buildings which has been suitably
improved as residential Open space for use of occupants.
Roof areas used for car storage are included.27

Covered Open Space (COS), that roofed exterior space
with Open sides, is defined to include:

(a) roofed porches, (b) roofed car ports, (0) covered
exterior balconies, and (d) exterior spaces covered by
portions of buildings supported on columns or cantilevers,
such as a porch, portico, loggia, arcade, breezeway,
gallery, or pavilion which is at ground level, Open on
the sides (partially or wholly), and closed to the sky.
Eligible Area. The horizontal area of any covered open
space is eligible as covered open space (COS) to the
extent to which it is not more than twice the sum of
the clear, Open and unobstructed portions of the Open
and partially Open sides of the covered Open space.
Ineligible Area. Any remaining horizontal area of the
covered Open space is not eligible as covered Open
space (COS) in determining Open space (OS . . .). It
is counted as floor area (FA . . .) unless exempted
under [conditions for floor area, see above]. . . .
Together with eligible covered open space, it is con-
sidered in determining building area (BA . . .).28

 

27Federal Housing Administration, Minimum Property
Standards . . ., 44.

28Ibid., 44-45. For clarification the text also
provides an illustrated example. A 25 feet by 40 feet cov-.
ered open space at ground level has 20 feet of depth re-
cessed behind the exterior face of the building wall and
the other 5 feet projected beyond the wall and covered by

 

 

17

The Livability Space Ratio determines the minimum
amount of square feet of non—vehicular outdoor area to be
provided for each square foot of total floor area. Liv-
ability Space is for peOple, planting and visual appeal
and is defined as

the open space, minus the car area within the uncov—
ered open space, minus 1/2 any car area in that cov-
ered open space which was eligible and credited 50
percent to Open space. . .'. Car area (UCA and CCA)
is open space area (uncovered and covered) used for
car traffic and maneuvering and for car parking.
Included are the paved trafficways and parking areas
of all streets within the land area (LA), including
the subject half of streets abutting the property.29

Passive and active recreation areas, livability
space for common use, are required in accordance with the
needs of the residents. Tot-lots, for example would most
likely not be provided with housing for the elderly. The

minimum area of recreation space is determined by the Rec-

reation Space Ratio (RSR) again in relation to the total

 

the projection of an exterior balcony on the floor above.

“0'

 

Rumc‘a's' u a}, 15% on»

   

 

 

S ECflfioN ?L. 9H ELEV fl'r‘ON

Covered open space (COS) is computed as 1000 sq. ft. (25' x
40'). The total area of open sides is 400 sq. ft. (40' x 8'

+ 2><5'><8'). Obstructions, piers and railing, are 25 sq.

ft. (2 xl' x 8' + lx3' x12' x .25), which leaves an Open, un-
obstructed portion of 375 sq. ft. (400“ - 25“). Maximum
eligible covered Open space is 750 sq. ft. (2><375“). There-
fore eligible covered open space is 750 sq. ft. (750°‘<1000”)
and ineligible covered Open space is 250 sq. ft. (1000” - 750m).

29Ibid., 46.

18

amount of floor area. Permanent recreation space abutting
the prOperty and available for use by the residents may be
considered in recreation space calculations. All recrea-
tion area is qualified in that it is to be

at least 20 feet away from any residential wall con—
taining a window on the ground floor. Each recreation
area counted in RSR shall have a minimum dimension of
100 feet, except that an area of lesser dimension is
countable in RSR if: (a) the total required recreation
space is less than 10,000 square feet, (b) the shape

or t0pography of the site prevents compliance with the
100 foot least dimension, or (c) the recreation area
consists of usable roof area, and the building size
prevents compliance with the 100 foot minimum.

The Total Car Ratio (TCR) and Occupant Car Ratio
(OCR), which determine the minimum number of residential
garages and car parking spaces, are based upon the total
number of living units, (accupant spaces being the number
of garage and parking car—units available to occupants
without time limits and total spaces being the sum of occu-
pant spaces and spaces available for limited time periods
(primarily for guests).

Parking spaces available on the streets within and
abutting the property are counted as occupant parking
units in OCR if over-night on-street parking is per-
mitted by local ordinance, has market acceptance, and,
beyond any reasonable doubt, will continue to have
such permission and acceptance over the long term.
Otherwise street parking units are counted as guest
parking units. . . . Additional parking facilities
shall be provided for on—site commercial areas or
office space at the minimum rate of 3 sq. ft. of park—
ing compound area to 1 square foot of commercial and
office floor area.

 

30Ibid., 62-63.

31Ibid., 47.

19

A numerical relationship among these six ratio
components is established by plotting them all on one set
of coordinates, the scales of which read "intensity" and
the numerical values of the ratios. In this manner it is
possible to express all six of them with a single intensity
value. Upon assignment of an intensity number, the ratio
values for each component can be read either from the graph
or from a tabular presentation of the plotted curve values.32
These ratio values are then converted into the respective
component values according to the project land area, pro-
viding the develOper-sponsor with basic acceptable site
land-use proportions. From here the design task of fitting
building forms and spaces commences.

Here again recall that the six LUI components do
not function in a vacuum. In addition to the details and
interrelations found in the definitions of the components,
there are other interrelated standards and specifications,
among them such items as yard dimensions which are deter-
mined by building height and length and wall window area.33
Needless to say this makes the site fitting process a 3-

dimensional operation and closely related with the building

type and interior arrangement.

 

32See Figures 1 and 3. For example, an assigned in-
tensity number of 4.6 would have a 0-303 floor area ratio, a
2.4 Open space ratio, a 1.5 livability space ratio, a 0.15
recreation Space ratio, and parking space ratios of 1.2 and
1.4.

33Federal Housing Administration, Minimum Property
Standards . . ., 48-53, 194.

 

20

 

 

o 0
Ram

 

Occuu Cu
lam

 

lanolin
Sun lalio

 

.l’

 

DOC.
Rollo

 

 

I

 

Ln - :0
Mon";

 

S.
5.7
5.0
0.0

 

 

 

Land-Use Intensity Ratios in Tabular Form

Figure 3.

21

The predetermined quantities save the designer from
false starts with inapprOpriate sets of components.
But they do not of themselves assure the creation of
a good design. This is the irreplaceable contribu-
tion of the designer working within the context of
suitable physical components and the market require-
ments.

LUI as adapted to local
land-use controls

 

A recent study of urban problems, especially zoning
and land-use controls, projected that the planned-unit

develOpment ordinance will "probably" be the future land-

35

use control device in developed areas. It continued,

concluding that

a number of communities now have planned unit develop-
ment controls. In some cases these have been grafted

on existing zoning ordinances and are not very satis-

factory. The PUD concept also has some legal hurdles

to overcome, including the adoption of enabling legis-
lation, but these should be cleared reasonably soon in
most states. New Jersey recently adOpted PUD enabling
legislation.

One serious difficulty with PUD controls relates
to the problems of lay administration and technical
personnel shortage discussed earlier. The planned
unit development ordinance is a hybrid of zoning, sub-
division regulation, and design control. To administer
such an ordinance in the best interests of the developer
and the public, the community must forego the making of
political decisions on technical matters, and it must
use the services of professional personnel trained in
planning, architecture, and engineering. Neither re-
quirement will be easily met.3

 

34Hanke, Land-Use Intensity Standards, the LUI
Scale and Zoning.

 

 

35While many zoning ordinances include planned-unit
development as a conditional use or special exception, some
feel that it needs and will have greater status by being
adopted in a specific ordinance.

36American Society of Planning Officials, Problems
of Zoning and Land-Use Regulation, Prepared for the

 

22

The nature of regulations for planned unit develOp-
ment necessitates complexity because in permitting various
housing types together in one unit aspects of their design
and arrangement on various site conditions;and their relation-
ship to surrounding properties and neighborhood and public
facilities must be considered. This does not refer to the
simple cluster with reduction of lot size offset by Open
space and no departure from the single housing type per-
mitted in the zoning district. As such planned unit devel—
opment is a "direct challenge" to pre-set regulations "because
it is impossible to pre-set all of the regulations for such
development and satisfy the preference for simplicity in
regulations."37

In view of the trend and complexity of PUD, the use
of the LUI approach taken by the Federal Housing Administra-
tion has been recommended for adaption to local circumstances
for two reasons.

First, the standards, based On extensive experience,

are excellently drafted and organized and provide a
wide enough range so that they can be used in almost
any situation. Second, since a very substantial amount
of new development will be financed with FHA insurance
on mortgages, use of the standards will reduce the com-
plications which arise when several sets of regulations,

all for approximately the same purpose, are slightly
at variance with each other.

 

consideration of the National Commission on Urban Problems,
Research Report No. 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office,

37Krasnowiecki, 15.

38Frederick H. Bair, "How to Regulate Planned-Unit
DevelOpment for Housing--A Summary of a Regulatory Approach,
Zgning_Digest, June and July 1965, p. 186.

23

Since LUI was introduced by the Federal Housing
Administration in 1963, it has been adopted or is being
prepared for adoption into the ordinances of several com-
munities, among them: Frederick County, Maryland; Fair-
fax County, Virginia; Norfolk, Virginia; Richmond and
Virginia Beach, Virginia; Indianapolis and Marion County,
Indiana; and the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, for
a total of "something around 15-20 jurisdictions using it
in one form or another."39

The manner of adoption-adaptation varies. On the
one hand, as in Frederick County, LUI has been adopted by
reference into a planned—unit develOpment amendment. Maxi-
mum LUI ratings are pre-established in the Residence Dis-
tricts (R—l, R-2, R-3). PUD is also allowed in the A-l
(Agriculture) District, where the LUI rating is determined
by the Planning Commission which "shall follow the procedure
in FHA's Land Planning Bulletin No. 7, entitled Land use
Intensity Rating; dated September 1963,"40

On the other hand, as in Marion County, and the
City and County of Honolulu, LUI has been absorbed or added
on to the other zoning standards of the districts. In the

instance of Marion County, LUI related ratio values for

five of the six components have been assigned to each

 

39Letter from Mr. Frederick H. Bair, Consultant,
Bair and Associates, Auburndale, Florida, 29 April 1968.

40Hanke, Land-use Intensity, the LUI Scale.and Zoning,
23. This amendmentiis reproduced in Appendix B.

 

24

applicable residential district. LUI as such is inferred.41

In Honolulu, where LUI is to be applied in the multifamily
and hotel districts, LUI ratings are to be determined ac-
cording to scales of net zoning lot area established within
each zone. The components, excluding parking which is treated
separately, are determined by definitions very similar to
those used by the Federal Housing Administration. Honolulu
also may apply LUI to "Planned Development-Housing Districts."
In such develOpment the LUI rating is determined by a pre-set
scale based on the residential or apartment district from
which the PD-H district was formed.42

The pre—determination of the level of intensity,
excluding Frederick County's agricultural district, is the
primary distinction between local adoption of LUI and the
Federal Housing Administration application in relation to
each project site, surrounding develOpment, and market
acceptability. This will be explored further in the fol—
lowing chapter.

Thus far much of the discussion of LUI, especially

in the local adaptation, has been in relation to planned-

unit development (PUD). This does not mean, however, that

 

41Extracted from Dwelling Districts Zoning Ordinance
of Marion County, Indiana (Indianapolis: Metropolitan Plan-
ning Department, 1966). Only the total car ratio (TCR) is
considered for parking space and off-street parking require—
ments are considered separately.

42PrOposed Comprehensive Zoning Code (CZC) (Honolulu:
Planning Department, City and County of Honolulu, 1968). This
code was scheduled for final public hearing 10 May 1968.

 

 

 

25

the concepts are synonymous or interchangeable in applica-
tion. LUI is not PUD.43 Planned—Unit Development involves
a land area which (1) has both individual building sites
and common property such as a park, and (2) is designed
and organized to be capable of satisfactory use and
Operation as a separate entity without necessarily hav—
ing the participation of otherlmfiJding sites or other
common prOperty; the ownership of the common property
may be either public or private.44
Land—Use Intensity (LUI) is a set of spatial proportions,
primarily floor area and open space,based on floor area,for
peOple and vehicles, which has been developed as one stand-
ard for PUD. Its application, however, is not restricted
to the large, independent scale implied with PUD.45
The six component ratios of LUI, floor area, open
space, livability space, recreation space, and occupant
and total parking spaces, in addition to being related by
definition, are related through forms which outline the

process of determining and applying LUI. These will be

considered in the following chapter.»

 

43Interview with Mr. Furton, 24 April 1968.
Mr. Furton noted this confusion of terms as one source of
problems involved in explaining land-use intensity to the
public.

44Federal Housing Administration, Planned-Unit
Development with a Homes Association, Land Planning Bul-
letin No. 6, FHA 1097 (Revision; Washington: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1964), inside baCk cover.

45Hanke, Lane-use Intensity Standards, the LUI
Scale and Zonitg, 4.

 

 

 

CHAPTER II
DETERMINATION AND APPLICATION OF THE LUI NUMBER

While form is quite important, the function or func-
tioning of a thing needs also to be viewed to understand it,
the two being complementary elements of the whole. In form
LUI is to provide flexibility within a fixed standard which
is expressed in the six ratio intensity scale. In terms of
function, it is to establish

a workable basis for the planning, construction and Oper-
ation of a successful housing project--successfu1 both

as to market absorption and in long term values--succes-
sful whether the project is for rental or for home sales
in a planned-unit development.46

The workable base consists of assigning a LUI number
(level of intensity) and determining land-use and building
proportions from that number. This action is preferably

begun at "the preapplication stage of a multifamily housing

prOposal and the feasibility stage of a planned-unit devel-

 

 

opment."47 Responsibility for assignment of the LUI number
46Federal Housing Administration, Land-use Intensity,
1.
47

Federal Housing Administration, Instructions for
Land-use Intensity Forms, (Washington: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, 1965), p. 2. The reason for this is expressed in
a memorandum from Stratford E. McKenrick, Zone Operations
Commissioner, to All members of Zone III AdviSor Teams Trained
in Land-use Intensity Analysis Procedure, 03 January 1966.
"Occasionally, site plans for a PUD or multifamily prOposal

 

 

26

27

is given to the Chief Underwriter of the Federal Housing
Administration Field Office in which the project is proposed.
His decision is based upon site inspection and data which has
been collected, pooled, and analyzed by Federal Housing Ad-
ministration personnel. Recommendations concerning the data
come initially from two sources:

(a) The Appraiser--e5pecially on matters related to broad
economic forces affecting the area, and the immediate
rentals and long term values of a successful project;
and

(b) The Land Planners--especially on matters related to
present and probable future community patterns, and
those physical characteristics of the site and its
surroundings which are likely to affect land-use
intensity.

Upon recommendation of the Appraiser or Land Planner,
or upon his own initiation, the Chief Underwriter also
receives data and advice on matters affecting land-use
intensity from:

(a) The Market Analyst--on general market conditions and
economic growth of the locality;

(b) The Chief Architect--on building design and structure;

(0) The Site Engineer-on grading and drainage; and

(d) The Sanitary Engineer--on water-supply and sewage-
disposal.

 

are submitted to FHA for mortgage insurance prior to insuring
office site analysis. The land-use intensity number which
can be derived from these premature plans represent the spon-
sor's judgment as to the desired intensity for the site de-
velopment. In these cases, however, the insuring office must
still make its own independent L-U-I analysis of the site,
and so advise the sponsor. It should be noted that there

may be a considerable difference between the L-U-I number
proposed by the sponsor and the L-U—I number acceptable to
the insuring office for mortgage insurance purposes based on
the latter's knowledge and experience."

48Federal Housing Administration, Land-use Intensity,

 

7-8.

28

Intensity, a function of
communitytpatterns

 

It is held by the Federal Housing Administration
that to achieve a successful housing project it is necessary
that the assigned intensity level be appropriate to the site
characteristics and to the develOpment's location in the
anticipated community pattern.

While the characteristics of the site (steepness, shape,
etc.) may affect the site intensity, the principal deter-
minant of intensity is the location of the site in the
anticipated community pattern. It is necessary, there-
fore, for the rating of site intensity to thoroughly
consider community patterns.49 '
In order to consider the community patterns the Federal Hous-
ing Administration has isolated three variables of community
patterns for its determination of a suitable site intensity.
They are: (l) the spatial arrangement of land-use, (2) the
intensity range of land-use, and (3) the time stage of land-
use intensity.

The first variable, spatial arrangement of land-use,
concerns consideration of the physical location of the site
in relation to present and prospective land uses in the com-
munity. This ranges in scale from broad patterns of concen-
tric zones, radial or strip development, or combinations of
these,to the location of the dividing line between townhouse

development and detached home development.50

 

491bid., 1.

SOIbid.

 

29

The second variable, intensity range of land-use, is
the consideration of the supply of usable land available to
meet the present and long-term demands of the area. It is
concerned not only with the opportunities and limitations of
physical development, but also other studies and projections
of industrial and other economic activity, pOpulation size
and anticipated growth. These factors, especially population
considerations, and the site accessibility (or degree of
isolation) of the first variable are closely related to the
third variable, time stages of land-use intensity.

Time stage of land-use intensity is the measure of
the community's growth rate. This rate is characterized as
"static" (as in a conservation area), "increasing," "explo-
sive," "recessive" (as in a depressed area), or "regenerative"
(as in a successful redevelopment area).51

To facilitate the above studies and the determination

of the LUI level and its application to the project, three

 

51Ibid., 2. These are general analytical divisions.
In a memorandum from Mr. Earl J. Mann, Zone Site Planning
Advisor, to Mr. Clement C. Costigam, Chief Underwriter, Cin-
cinnati, Ohio, 17 September 1965 it is noted that "During the
Washington Chief Underwriters' Conference, we were given the
22% cutoff point of lO-year population increase, based on
Census figures, as the difference between an "increasing" and
"explosive" type of pOpulation increase.

To my knowledge there is no other written matter to
bear this out, so we have only Central Office word on this."

General analytical intent is emphasized in the caption
for the figure illustrating the broad land-use patterns.
Federal Housing Administration, Land-use Intensity, Figure A,
p. 3. ”It is not the intent to force this pattern or any
other pattern in the growth of communities."

 

30

technical worksheets were developed. One, Form 1095, formu-
lates the implied process for determining the LUI number of
the site. A second, Form 1028, is used to extend the LUI
number into a project program showing the possible physical
components of the proposed project. And a third, Form 1029,
is used to measure or check proposed physical components of
a design.

The LUI measurement of a project plan (Form 1029) is
accurate, scientific and mechanical. It requires little
or no judgement. However, the LUI analysis of a site
(Form 1095) and the programming of a project (Form 1028)
are not mechanical. They draw on experience, wiSdom

and judgment in evaluating data on the site, its commu-
nity and the market.52

FHA Form 1095

 

The land-use intensity number of a proposed project
represents the maximum intensity level that the Federal Hous-
ing Administration will accept for a site for current devel-
opment. Form 1095 serves as a "guide" in determining the in—
tensity level, but "it is not a crystal ball."53

Following the diagram in Figure 4, the analysis per-

formed with the aid of Form 1095 is made in five steps.54

 

52Federal Housing Administration, Instructions for
Land-use Intensity Forms, 3. '

53

 

 

Ibid., 4.

54This diagram and the following, figures 10 and 12,
have been develOped from Federal Housing Administration Forms
1095, 1028 and 1029 respectively, as an aid for this research.
Emphasis is on the imput elements.which may be found on the
left-hand sides of the diagrams. References to the Forms
are made on the diagrams. Charts or tables referenced in
the text are on the Forms. For better understanding of the
Forms it is suggested that the diagrams be followed when

reading the text.

 

Fen» 9...\:rm£1..cz\1 1r—

 

31

 

but»... 1%".th [John H

 

chem 'T'un‘b mm ]

 

50““: Ihqocma’fim somfus JLfi

 

 

lb. 0 an?“ Commuvivh‘ 60.1““ Masks E \s(‘7Tr

 

 

[6. g‘ste CommuOKhLGeowV’fi Tflufib . [\b (131}
E. Emvcc'tt‘b Intens'fi“ Q‘n0m1e L\b(3)] l

 

 

 

 

I
RDche-non 04 wa’én £19033

 

 

[it Change 04 Lamb-USE [\¢(1)?J:
Es. R03". uh Chem“. [\c (7.3] E

 

 

 

E. 13.0%, E-xisfi-Kq(Ne§1V\bo¢-\na) sum“. {2:}

[ (‘3 1:191.
l: [1) '/o o( Lam} ficeo.
I: m n1:

[—

g ('4) Cm‘M’fion
E1. Qn‘51c.‘ 901“} “\ack‘“ Dem“)

h

 

I__IL_JL_JIT.

j

 

 

[5. m .z.\ Mr T.- w. edema. jumms
IE. “\fined'v‘cnfl Geowihn ‘3“:qu gvfi, J—-—9-
E [>un {@6on f 9*: Dcvdoemm’c Cocks J——-)-

 

 

 

N 6'": °. '3 EQSC §adrec S on.“ wfi‘h
'Efifimq “$31035. \( Comnun'sh‘
want?“ "(Mb [Dobbin 'exp‘ow.‘

 

FL EOGKOq 4' OAK“- \-0¢-o.\ R! qu\a‘\\ms J—i

‘M‘ “aqmcco‘kfiuf‘

 

 

 

E: Lan OM 5339 "T‘nn‘b [Ink
[:1 Rake .4 Chem“ [353 }
I278. L'an Un'fi'IGeoS‘. hcce'TiQn) [Eek

 

 

 

 

 

 

E9. Rose 0‘ Chant: [3)] LF

L?“ Tbm’fxq.‘ 5‘92“”) (Nfifihbochoofi 8?qu (emit-‘3 {3.)}

[ (‘5) Number 0‘ Eek-onus
I: (B) Vv'scv. I Rafi Rug:
I: m h‘oxusm \Jwiog OM 6A5;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L (a) Living! Uo’s’fsl Gwoss Due.

L._JL_JL__.IL__J

 

F5. LOLA Pco'\c<.‘\' Bench NAK$ (1.", LU: no.) [9]}

 

 

I; MVS Penna" Benc\\ Macks (1490., LUI No.) [‘43]

Figure 4. Schematic of FHA Form 1

095

32

 

———->5': $13!. C\o.$$,To~\o\e pk [10.05)]

 

 

 

 

‘
————>EL§~\'\\' Set on Beach Mon-k '1‘an

 

 

\
l0. Cosme“: we Ihfifi.‘ w‘ehs one. BQMV\ MK,RW‘O [W043]
U330 “6%. on Tfinceu‘ Rwy“, BM.)

 

 

 

 

v

 

 

———-—>'E‘: Es‘thst LKNKVS mtfln‘ffiq Ranqg, Bow [\CL'DHQQ 00"(0 LUT- Sec-‘2.

———->-[:i mask new gauge semen; Tana q..- m; Sm. [2&5]

 

 

Us. 6 «\‘5\n(‘\"q1¢(s) , ivfims'fi‘ (we: 6]

 

 

'1

J

 

 

V,

 

FM. Rm on“ LUI. $u.\e F r 2': Naccow Kamqg, oC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LUI Numfic.
r34. Cowpce om} N‘ws’r \( Nansen! J
1
——__’[I‘“°"* D‘W“°?“°~*¢ N‘s-"1mm ro msm (cod’r‘h) [3:] _|

[ anhour 0‘ Ba News ]

[ P<°thI Read Rum“, ]

[ R‘o‘us’td L'N'mq Uv'sfi 6(32, }

[ L'N\hq UhfisIGCOss Raw, ‘1:

 

 

 

 

F3. Lu: Number, cue: c.

 

3
}
————>-[;T LUI Nwmbu' emu-1 Q

 

 

 

 

—————>-[H QOMVtCQ. kfi‘o AXES? \( Necfissosqfi
F58. S“! LUI Nunbu' (Test \( NKQSSQMO Lib—J

 

This diagram is derived from Form 1095. Box numbers refer
to sequence. Bracketed numbers refer to the Form numbers.
All input elements begin on the left-hand side of the page.

33

It begins with a general identification of the site area.55
First, the metrOpolitan area and the local community in which
the site is located are identified. Then, the present and
probable future development patterns are considered in (a)
the metropolitan area, (b) the community, and (c) that por-
tion of the community where in the site is located. The
metropolitan area is defined as the entire area of the Stan-
dard MetrOpolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) as utilized by the
Bureau of the Census. Initial data is found in a report
entitled "Current POpulation Reports, Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas in the United States as Defined October 18,

1963."56

Sites located outside of an SMSA are identified
with the county or part of a county in which they are located
and named by its principal urban community or other locally
appropriate appellation.57
. The Growth Trend, 4, is determined from base popula-
tion data, decade population change, and other sources in-
cluding local planning commissions and Federal Housing Ad-

ministration market analyses.58

 

55See Figure 5, Step 1.

56Federal Housing Administration, Instructions for
Land-use Intensity Forms, 7. This is Technical Studies,
Series P-23, No. 10, 05 December 1963.

57

 

 

Ibid.

 

58'Ibid. Please also see footnote 51.

34

 

 

FIIA FORM no. 1095 LAND-USE INTENSITY OF SITE
Project name fA/fi WAY fl/LLIS __ r __ _- Section_

/
Locationfftllfillfl SIUMGHT CIIY (0‘; Gross Acres [0 Date [/5/69'

STEP I-RELATE SITE TO COMMUNITY TYPE AND PATTERN

an. Urban Area and ”Bencmummunities
(1) Urban AW I Populationmmfl Decade Increase—M.
*4 E I . . .

(4) Growth Trend D 5 Increasing U
(5) SizeCIass oIUIIIsIIAIeaIIoIII Tab A: D I D 2 3

(6) Benchmark mnnm on Chart A: B _
G O

b. Intensity Range Bar Applying to Yea mmunIt
(1) Community Name” Waugh quECTIQNfl ”filfiflr_ CU Y)_-___ _

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2) Growth Trend: ’ i StatIc IncreasIng '_ Explosive f ecessIve . Regenerative

(3) Expected Change In Intensity: ; Much Lower Lower S e Higher Much Higher

(4) Community Type and Its Intensity Range Bar on Chart A. A C 1. D L. E L. F D G.
c. Sector of Community Range Bar Applying to Subject Site and Immediate Surroundmgs ' ‘.

(l) Direction of Growth In Relation to Site: Toward ‘Encompassing Away
(2) Change of Land-use In Vicinity of Site: None ore TOTQWJI’QI’HI Slow ® Moderate I, Rapid

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r3) ectm of Range Bar Appl gtoSIte and ImmedIate Surroundings ‘ Minimum ' Minimum-Medium Medium
Medium-Maximum Maximum
r
r
CHART A — Intensity Range Bars for Community Types / y net
I Ares Ian
. . I . r , Lsssthan 10.000 ............. 1 A
1 Minimum I Medium [Minimum] A Ionoomsohoo ............. 2 A s
........ A
I Minimum M ium Maximum 0 E
. . . _ 2.000.000Io5.ooo.ooBII 6 A s c n E r
M'mmum I Med'um I M "mm I C mammalian-u: ...... 7 A s c o E F e
l I
[ Mini‘num I Medium 1 Maximum 0
I 1
Minimum I Medium 1 Maximum 7 E
L
L Minimum I Medium 1 Maximum 1 F
J I I I G
L Min um 1 Medium 1 Maximum
T I I I I J
3 5 6 7 8 9
LL11 ljlliifillj Liflllllllil ITIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIII lrllm

 

FIRST Land-use Intensity Scale

To begin the analysis of a 10 acre site in Burr (hit, a co-Inity in Wright City in
the Howard Metropolitan Area, the site is attained in relation to the type and pattern
of the continuity where it is located. Burr Oak is compared with previously-selected
benchmark calamities representing various ranges of land-use intensity; see line
1a(6). It is found to be similar to hplewood which is repnsented by intensity
range bar 8 on Chart A; see line lb(h). As the intensity of the site and immediate
surroundings is high in relation to other parts of Burr Oak, range bar B is narrowed
appropriately, see line 1c(3) and bar B in Chart A. Vertical lines are then dropped
from the narrowed portion of the range bar to the first LUI scale, indicating that
the LUI of the site and imdiate surroundings falls somwhere between II.O and 5.6.

 

 

 

Figure 5. Step 1 of FHA Form 1095

35

Bench Mark Communities59 are identified, 6, and
ordered by intensity range as in Chart A of the Form. Bench-
mark community "A" corresponds to intensity range bar "A";
benchmark "B" to bar "B"; and so on. Limits are set on the
range of benchmark communities by the community size class,
5, which is determined by the pOpulation of the total urban
area (table A). For example, an urban area with a pOpulation
of 250,000 indicates a size class of "4", pOpulation 100,000
to 500,000, with a range of community types A, B, C, and D.

A less populous urban area according to this table has a
smaller range of community types than one with greater pOpu-
lation.60

The community in which the project site is located
is identified next and its growth trend and expected inten-
sity change are noted in the same manner as above, see foot-

note 58. This information of the site community is compared

to the range of community types and identified with the most

 

59These are communities which are identified in
order to compare land-use intensity ranges of each with the
others. -

"Generally, a community for this purpose has suffi-
cient pOpulation to support a high school, a community center
containing a wide variety of shOps, stores, commercial rec-
reation establishments, business and professional offices,
and such public facilities as fire and police stations,
branch library and branch post office. The population of
such a community usually is over 10,000 and under 75,000.

A single set of benchmark communities is used in a
metrOpolitanarea for all LUI analysis. . . . year after
year with little or no change . . . subject, however, to
review and revision by the Chief Underwriter at any time."
Ibid., 8.

6oIbid., 10.

 

36

similar benchmark community. The selection is recorded in
the appropriate box, 10. The corresponding intensity range
bar, Chart A, is also noted.
The analysis now proceeds from the community level
to considerations on the level of the site itself. The di-
rection of urban growth in relation to the site; the change,
if any, of land-use in the vicinity of the site; and the
rate of change, if any, are marked and used to further define
the intensity range on the intensity range bar selected in
element 10 above. This refinement, which may include the
whole bar or a part of it, is read on the LUI scale at the
bottom of the chart for the first step in progressively nar-
rowing down the intensity range to the subject project.61
The second step further narrows the intensity range
through an analysis of the most appropriate building type or

types for the site.62

Existing buildings in the "immediate
neighborhood most directly affecting the site" are used to
help determine the most appropriate type or types. This is
to the extent that existing buildings are expected to remain

in long range use. Factors involved are: building type,

 

6lThis range may be altered if data in the subse—
quent.steps warrent such a change. ‘Ibid., 11.

62Acceptable building types, other than those selected
as most appropriate in LUI analysis may be used when the spon-
sor plans the project. Ibid. This step is illustrated in
Figure 6.

37

 

STEP 2-IELATE THE SITE TO cowwou BUILDING TYPES

a. __ I we in "‘9 Neighborhood b. Most ApprOpriate Buildings for the Site 7
Land Building '96 Land Land Building % Land Sector of Range Bar

_ Med. High
1 % P;H- .

2 %
3
4

 

CHART B—Most Favorable Intensity Ranges for Common Building Types

2‘ STOIV APAN'MI NI

 

SECOND Land-use Intensity Scale

All indications are toward more intensive development of the area. The medium
to high ranges of 2-story townhouses are selected as appropriate and are entered
in table 2b and on Chart B. Vertical lines drawn down from the medium to high
range of 2-story townhouses narrow the LUI range found in Step 1 to a range of
L2 to li.8

 

 

 

Figure 6. Step 2 of FHA Form 1095

38

percentage of land area,63

and age and condition of the
structure. Other factors involved are: anticipated market
demand, available transportation and utilities, metropolitan
‘growth affecting the site, topography and other site features
affecting acquisition and develOpment costs, and consider-
ation of local zoning and ordinances.64
Upon consideration of the above factors, and guided
by wisdom and experience, the most appropriate building type
or types is entered in table 2b. The percentage of gross
land area for each particular building type is also entered
in this table along with an indication of a suitable sector
of the intensity range for each building type.
General categories of building type have been assigned

65 The sector or sectors indicated

positions on the LUI scale.
above in table 2b are marked on the appropriate building type
bar and read on the LUI scale of Chart B. This range is to

further narrow the range established in step one.

 

63This is estimated by "visual survey" and refers to
the gross land area developed for use with a particular
building type. It does not refer to the percent of building
coverage and Open space on individual sites. Ibid.

64Where the community's growth trend, B, is "explo-
sive" or "regenerative," the importance of existing buildings
is outweighed by these "other factors." Ibid., 12.

65These bars represent the range of land—use inten-
sity in which each building type is most advantageously used.
“The shown ends of a range bar for a building type do not
preclude the use of the building type at a higher or lower
intensity." Ibid.

39

The third step defines a LUI number for the site in
relation to density.66 This is determined through.further
analysis of the characteristics of existing develOpment and
the most appropriate building type or types. In this step
of the analysis the general trends in living unit size, 3a,
and number of living units per gross acre, 3c, are established
first. These indications also include the rate of change of
the respective trends. Along with these trends, other char-
acteristics of the existing neighboring buildings, identified
above in 2a, are also considered- Additional characteristics
include the.number of bedrooms per unit, the price or rent

range, adjusted living unit size,67

and the number of living
units per gross acre. These last two factors are used to
determine a LUI number for the existing develOpment. On
Chart C, the adjusted living unit size is located and fol-
lowed horizontally until it reaches theicurve representing
the number of living units per gross acre. At this point
the line is dropped vertically to the LUI scale and recorded.

The characteristics of the most apprOpriate building

type, number of bedrooms per living unit, price or rent

 

66See Figure 7.

. 67The Form also notes a “Living Unit Size in Sq.
Ft.," 3e(4) and 3f(4). The adjustment factor is used for
multifamily structures to insure that all buildings are
considered on an equal basis. "The living unit area in
Chart C includes public areas such as entrance lobby, ele-
vator hoistways, stairways and corridors in conformity with
the definition of floor area (FA) in MPS-M 302-3.l." Federal
Housing Administration, Instructions for Land—use Intensity
Forms, 14.

 

40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     
 
    

FHA FORM N0. 1095 LAND-USE INTENSITY OF SITE
STEP S—RELATE SITE TO DENSITY
3. Trend In Lwing Unit Size: ’ Much aIIer L‘ Smaller Same @Larger Much Larger
6. Which Is Occuring: ‘ Slowly Moderately ' Rapidly
c. Trend In Living Units per Gross Acre: ' Much Fewer ' ‘ Fewer Same @More Much More
d. Which is Occuring: . Slowly Moderately f ‘ Rapidly
ata to Determme e. Einsting NeIghborhood Use I. Most Appfopnate Use of Site
Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area
A B C D l 2 3 4
m Building .Lst. st. _st. _st. Ts. _st. ___st. __st.
"W M
(2) Number of Bedrooms
per Living Unit I! i J
(3) Price or
Rental Range 5 S S S S
“I Lwing Unit
SIze In Sq. Ft. m
‘5) Adjustment
Factor ‘ O 9 °/q 96 % Q 95 % 96 %
(5) Adjusted Living Unit
Size In Sq. Ft. {@M
(7) Number of L.U. per f
Gross Acre / in __
Chart t:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  

CHART C-Land-use I ensity cording to t umber wing Units per Acre for Various Unit Sizes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 I {I I
‘ P v
‘.‘ '34 ‘P l to 9‘5 '9‘ g g
l‘ I . g \\ P ‘? G - It'll-C. UNIS ”I 0.055 DC"
. ' \ . m . Lu PL]
'm Hfiflo *\ I I). I U 'lihl'MU‘. S'CII'SIS
”on F0 i 1“ ,_ e H {I _\ 9.... .9 non
" ” 4 P 1
I” \ ‘ \\ hm
m I I 4 I \ I ‘ T.“ l l I\ m
l “ 4!» .1” LI" 1” I h“ m
m Q' -. \= ‘1
l \ .J \
7w T '- ’00
600 ALT-4 fl“ 1% 3' ‘ “a; #1 $.71 ‘ “p. "1 ”t.“ III-7'1 “’0
\‘t" i“ ‘1’ p9 I I P4 l {I
w 1 ’ '° Irr “
can no
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I L t ' I A - i 1 1 I 1 L Li -

 

THIRD Land—use Intensity Scale

In this step the characteristic building types in the two tables in Step 2 are
studied further. 'Ihen findings on living unit sine ad Int-ber per acre are con-
verted directly to land-use intensity. For instance, the area of l-story detached
dwellings (Area A in table 3e) is 1131 3.5. To find this on Chart C, the horizontal
line for 1200 square feet living unit size is followed to its intersection with the
curved line for 5 living units per gross acre and a vertical line is drawn down to
the 'lhird LUI Scale. Analysis indicates a trend toward more bedrooms, larger living
units and acre living units to the gross acre. The nest appropriate use of the site
is entered in table 3!, converted to LUI II.6 as described above, and anrked LUI II.6
1n 3f(8) and the Third LUI Scale.

 

 

Figure 7. Step 3 of FHA Form 1095

 

41

range, adjusted living.unit size, number of living units per
gross acre,_and corresponding LUI.number, are determined in
light of the information determined in the first parts, 25-
30, of this step. The LUI number(s) for the most apprOpriate
building typeor types is found in the same manner as above,
30, by applying the adjusted living unit size to the desired
density curve on Chart C. This LUI number(s) represents the
most apprOpriate intensity level at the third step of the
analysis. It is compared with the range of land-use inten-

sities determined in steps 1 and 2. At this point "adjust-
"68

ment is made if appropriate.
The forth step relates the site to established suc-
cessful benchmark projects which have "location and environ—

mental characteristics similar to the prOposed site, and

69

appeal to the same segment of the market." These bench-

mark projects may be either local or include those found in

Appendix C of the Minimum Property Standards.70

 

The intensity ranges found in previous steps are com--
pared with the selected benchmark projects. Physical
characteristics and market considerations are studied.

If apprOpriate, adjustment is made to the land-use inten-
sities prOposed for the project. If a major change of
intensity is indicated, all previous steps are reviewed.71

 

68Ibid., 16.

69Ibid., 17. See Figure 8.

70Federal Housing Administration, Minimum Property
"Standards . . ., 447-485. Suitable local benchmarks are
preferred in that "they afford an Opportunity to visualize
the property develOpment and market reaction . that can be
reasonably expected with the prOposed land-use intensity."
Federal Housing Administration, Instructions for Land-use
‘Intensity Forms, 17.

71

 

 

Ibid.

42

 

STEP 4—RELATE THE SITE TO IEIICIIIMAIK PROJECTS

Proiect Name Location

1
2
3

3 4 5 6 7 8 9
thwjéLiLllLlrlJllIJlllIllllJ11141111i]liliILlllILJilJ

FOURTH Land-use Intensnty Scale

 

 

 

'mree townhouse projects in Wright City are found suitable for comparative use as

benchmark projects. Their land-use intensities are has, h.8 and L5. Consideration
of these projects corroborate previous findings.on the Burr Oak site. Therefore the
previous recording of LUI M6 is entered unchanged on tb Fourth Land-use Intensity

Scale .

 

 

 

Figure 8. Step 4 of FHA Form 1095

43

The fifth step marks the.culmination of the analysis
by the appraiser, land planner, architect, and others under
the.Chief Underwriter; and the final decision on the land-

use intensity number for the site.72

If there is any reason

to suspect that the number derived from the previous.steps

will not "permit develOpment appropriate to the site and

its community" or will not meet "the demands of the market

at prices or rent that can be paid by the market," then one

or both of two tests may be used to affect a final decision.73
The one test checks the physical practicality of the

selected LUI number by making projections of the LUI components

(open space for example) of the site with a proposed building

74

type. This test shows whether or not there is adequate

Open space and car space in relation to the maximum floor area.

 

72"Where separate site areas for varied building types
have been analyzed in steps 2 and 3, a separate LUI number is
determined in Step 5 for each site area. A combined LUI num-
ber is also found for the total area. To find the combined
LUI number, add the maximum floor areas for the separate site
areas and divide the resulting total floor area by the total
land area. This combined FlOor Area Ratio (FAR) determines
the combined LUI number by reference to the LUI Chart [Figure
1.]. At the discretion of the Chief Underwriter, FHA giVes
the Sponsor an LUI number for each site area or the.combined
LUI number." Federal Housing Administration, Instructions
for Land-use Intensity Forms, 19. For an example of a site
with several building types, see Appendix C. Also see Fig-
ure 9.

 

 

731bid., 18.

74This is Form 1028, which will be reviewed in the
next.section.

44

 

 

 

 

LUI Tests:
a. Planning Program ested [ A Not Tested
sm s—smm use-use musm assess b. Financial Vorkability ‘ 79““ U "0' “5'“
for Maximum Land.use Intensity he Maximum Land-use Intensity Acceptable to the FHA
A, A Are A t . rr nt iThi Site tgr FHAM Insuranceis

Initials and Date ea rea a rea o a Area Area Area Area Total
I __ 1 2 3 4 m
Area
L I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chief I
Underw ' Date ’

Appropriate staff “hers coqlete tire tests of the LUI tentatively dates-lined in

Step It. It is found to be consistent vith the characteristics of the site and the
narket. After mists review of the In]: anlysis, the Chief tiller-writer caucus

intheh.6nnrecc-ndedbyhis staff.

 

 

 

Figure 9. Step 5 of FHA Form 1095

45

The other test is one of financial workability based
on the project programmed in Form 1028, the test above, and
data on Form 2012, "Request for Pre-Application Analysis of
a Multifamily Proposal," or Form 2084, "Subdivision Infor-
mation."75

When there is disagreement, which may be recorded in
the left-hand table of Step 5 on the form, the processing
and data are reviewed by all those concerned in an effort to
reach concurrence. "In any event, the final LUI is deter-

mined by the Chief Underwriter, based on his judgment."76

FHA Forms 1028 and 1029

 

Form 1028 is more mechanical than Form 1095, but
requires some judgment in fitting design considerations into
the program. The purpose of this form is

To test the land-use intensity of a site by projecting

a planning program prior to planning, which will comply
with the minimum property standards. The land-use inten-
sity tested may be that assigned by the insuring office,
or that proposed by the sponsor.77 ‘

 

75Federal Housing Administration, Instructions for
Land-use Intensity Forms, 19. The second and third forms are
concernedfwith public acceptance and project marketability.
Although an "authoritative judgment as to [financial] sound-
ness of either multifamily orplanned-unit proposals is not
possible at this preplanning stage," the Federal Housing
Administration feels that it is possible to set “limits of
financial resonableness" through the use of techniques in
Form 2484, "How to Test Financial Soundness of Rental Hous-
ing Properties."

76

 

 

Ibid.

 

7'71bid., 23. Compliance with minimum prOperty stan-
dards refers here to floor area, livability (non-vehicular
space), and car space.

46

The form program begins with identification of the
project site, LUI number and corresponding ratio values.
There is also an identification of "basic data for the pro-
gram": percent of land area programmed, building type,_
adjusted living unit area, and percentages of car parking
spaces in garages, carports, and parking courts.78 In
essence the program ties together the component LUI ratios,~
basic data, and the elements of the site and proposed design.79
Upon determination of these preliminaries the Gross Land Area
of the site is computed. It is made up of the Net Land Area
(the actual gross site area), abutting street area, and
abutting beneficial open space.80 Since the project may
include some commercial or other non-residential use or be
of mixed residential building types, a programmed percentage,

as it applies, is taken from the gross land area leaving the

Programmed Land Area, which forms the base for the remainder

 

78See Figure 11, elements A, B, and C.

79These elements and the terms used in the following
discussion are defined in Minimum Property Standards and
reviewed in Chapter I under the LUI components.

The program itself as shown in the diagram, Figure 10,
includes these preliminaries in the left-hand column of ini-
tial inputs. Form 1028 omits Occupant Car Space and Rec-
reation Space frOm the computation. The prime necessity it
was reasoned is to assure the program's compliance with the
minimum standards for Open Space and Total Car Area. Fed-
eral Housing Administration, Instructions for Land-use Inten-
sity Forms, 24.

 

 

 

80See footnote 23.

47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DH. FM»: Beam Radio m.mamF\°°¢ Dina

13.2. 09m ‘39“: de‘xo ’L .

Pig, Luann-M 3?.“ Ram, . g .

Def-rd.) Ca: Km. gs gt ,

Qt. ../. Lom‘b new. Peary-avenue} D; L“) mt“ . ,g

02' B‘AMM-T‘V' L DaResEng. Mo. ‘5—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L

 

 

0,, bbq't‘v‘ é‘Vde’t he!“

 

 

 

 

 

O3. 5““de one“ (>th

 

 

 

0“. Co “Nufl\~‘ S115.

Q3. h‘fius’tg‘o L'thfl U «RV DR“ 07 Lwina‘ Udvrs Dg. Par-MK‘ngaS
Cu, ’/o Sara”. vat-\deg _: Din. GM‘fiz Dime»

C5. '/s Cacpsd‘ 903M.“ A \ Q2. Cox poi-1' DC“ 1

C5 bA: Rudder} Q milk ‘5— ' ‘

Dc Net Lola‘s Ema. r 0g. Gross LNQ mu.

 

 

 

 

 

Dis. Cover-CA Open Space.

 

 

 

09.. R004 Dice...

 

 

 

 

 

On. Space UQm- Ma‘s.

 

 

 

 

D‘s. QoVQtfi Schemes, e’rc.

 

 

 

0,3, 0Q!“ SQAce Cocteau'egj:

 

 

 

03¢ Qac (Ana Cort-9.85:0“

 

 

 

Figure 10. Schematic of FHA Form 1028

 

 

l

 

 

48

 

 

Du. “\lrx. 09m €QMQ

 

f

 

 

021. Min. waoum‘ Space

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9025R~Iai\a\>\£ tat “eta ‘

 

 

029, CM‘ “(Cm Qsmfihflvt

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r Dy; Rods ¢ DC'NtwauLs

 

 

 

Dag, Cai- Ike: ox

 

 

 

 

‘ {Dam 9.5mm! Csuc‘t “(‘03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0‘“, U «cave? Q) Detfi S Q N!

 

 

 

 

 

—"'"‘> D". guMfig “Re.

 

 

t

 

 

 

0w. Gimme) L{«\ Coven}: been Sent]
\

 

 

 

J

 

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

02o. Dem $9042.

 

 

“012, OgaSQuc Q°“Q\.\AN:]

 

 

 

 

 

This diagram is derived from Form 1028. Box numbers refer

to Form elements.

hand side of thediagram.

All input elements begin on the left-

49

 

FIIA FORM NO. 1028 PROJECT PLANNING PROGRAM

III“

Property W Section / ulna—L_S or_L --
LocationW Programmed by M... Date -

A. WWSIWMTNEMUN

 

 

 

'- W C. W
1. “III m F a: MC. R ' I . ' l.‘ . Ir. ' 1' mil. .- ’4’
inim m 0-.n L. R t it : -i» l' . . 1 J71;
inim m i il‘ .. R I: K. .- ' '. .' .. [Jail
4. Minim m R . rat‘ eRatio :15 . .. . '. . I
5. Minimum 0 u- nt r Ra io . . -.. i ”1.. -.-.a . I’I’
inimumTtl TR. ' l - . .. n. ..- .l ' .I.I' .-. ;I. ’

O. mmormssm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

war to muslin: new sum-less
1. Net Land Area Site Area Excluding Perimeter Streets M3024 NLA mm
2. Aouiling Street Area is Perimeter Street Area M3024 SA 4m
3. Other Banaricial Open Space River. Public Park. etc. M3024 cos a
4. Gross Land Area L.Dl + L02 4» L03 M3024 61.431 500
5. UND AREA (Programmadl on x as LA Programmsd L04 x L.C1 LA 4%
6. Maximum Floor Area FAR a LA L81 ii L.05 FA 1.30; m
7. Number or Living Units FA + LUA L06 + L03 LU / 04
a. Residential Building Area FA + Number Stories L06 + L02 ”(1)55: 340
9. Number or Parking Spaces TOR a LU L36 1! L07 PS :14 5

 

 

Individual Gals e
10. Building Area ‘ 682mg E523!" gugo'fmu‘ La 5 p02 a 2m W2) 0
Grou Stor Gar
H mm £95m mm '1' AM 9993mm}; Euilgimmitm. fis-___m§—_)_[£QQ_M 3M3
Car '5 x No. Carspacss x
@990“ Les . Lo. . W240—

 

 

 

i 6
Other Covered Open S s
. r pac O . M303-7 M5)
14. BUILONG AREA LOO + L.010 + L.011 + L.012 + L.013 “1%
15. Basic Uncovered Open Space LA - 8A L.05 - L014 0050
16. Other Uncovered Open Space Improved Root Area etc. M3034 UOS(2) D

 

Covered Open Space
0

Misses—W 10 cos (1)

Covered Open Space “(Ms'
' ' Br I . L.Dl7 + L012 + L.Dl3 cosiz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19. $3333 33:? Covered Balconies. etc. M303-7 005(3) 0
20. OPEN SPACE L015 + L016 + VsiL017 + L01s + L.Dl9) 05 346‘ 9m
21. Minimum Open Space OSR x FA L32 1 LOG MOSJIi 632
22. Open Space Compliance LOZO mustfexcsed L021 OSC

23. m... r... mm... 3225353.?'§‘;‘$§;33§°:§J'°“ °' W" “'3‘“ ”*-

24. Car Parlring Courts S:'."§'L‘.§.°."§‘ 3,30ll L.C6 $09900 CPA

25. Streets. Roadways. Driveways 20% 1: LA 20% x L05 SRO (3 7 / 22
3s. CAR AREA CPA + SR0 L024 + L025 CA 57/21
27. Minimum Livability Space LSR x FA Lea a L06 MLs [’ém
23. Available Car Area OS-LS L.020 - L027 ACAJ52: 9m
29. Car Area Compliance L. 028 must exceed L. 026 CAC a!

 

 

, , Provide Parki in Building. Underground. or Increase Open Space.
_30. Correction tor Non-compliance (Se_e__ L. 023) lama am. it a m_ajg cum

 

FORM NO. 1028 PROJECT PLANNING PROGRAM

 

 

Figure 11. FHA Form 1028

50

of the program.81 From the programmed land area the total
maximum floor area is determined through application of the
floor area ratio (FAR).

The maximum floor area, 6, in turn, directly influ-
ences four other elements. First, the minimum amount of
open space, 21, permitted by the LUI number is found by mul-
tiplying the maximum floor area by the Open Space Ratio.
Second, minimum livability space, 27, as allowed by the LUI
number is determined by multiplying the maximum floor area
by the Livability Space Ratio. Third, the number of living
units, 7, is found by dividing the adjusted area of the pro-
posed living units into the total maximum floor area. And
fourth, the ground area covered by residential buildings, 8,
is found by dividing the number of stories of the building
type into the total maximum floor area.82

To further determine the amount of land that will be

covered with structures, the number of living units, 7, is

multiplied by the Total Car Ratio to find the total number

 

81Each residential building is programmed separately.
In a project consisting entirely of townhouses this percent-
age might be 100%. In another project with one-third town-
houses and two-thirds high-rise apartments, one program might
be 33% for the townhouses and the other program 66% for the
apartments. When a project has more than one [building] type
or has several LUI numbers assigned, each type and number is
programmed separately on its own form. Federal Housing Ad-
ministration, Instructions for Land-use Intensity Forms, 23.

 

2Since each building type is programmed separately
it is assumed that each building will have the same number
of stories. A

51

of parking spaces required. By computing the number of
spaces allotted to garages and carports, from percentages
in the "basic data," 10 and 12, and multiplying by 200 square
feet, Garage and carport area is determined.83 Garage and
carport area, and residential building area, along with other
enclosed building area such as community buildings or storage
areas, and covered open space at ground level, all together
equal Building Area.84
Next Open Space is programmed. Basic uncovered open
space is the programmed land area minus the building area
which was just computed. Carport area and the covered Open
space used above for building area are again used to deter-
mine covered Open space at ground level. At ground level,
covered Open space also includes usable space under buildings,
such as found under a structure raised on columns. The basic
uncovered area, plus one—half of the covered Open space at
ground level, plus covered Open space above ground level such

85

as covered balconies, together make up Open Space. It is

checked for compliance against the minimum amount of Open
space as determined from the Open Space Ratio and total floor

area of the project.86

 

83For estimating purposes 200 square feet is allowed
for one parking space. Ibid., 24.

84See element 14.

858cc element 20.

86If there is none compliance then the program must
be adjusted by adding balconies, improving root area, or

52

Finally,_car area is computed and checked for com-
pliance. The area of the car parking courts is determined
by multiplying the minimum required number Of parking spaces
by the percentage allotted to parking courts and by 300 square

feet.87 Car area equals the parking court area plus land area

needed for streets and drives.88 In order to.determine the
compliance of car area, minimum livability space area (non-
vehicular) is substracted from the total open space area
leaving an area "available" for vehicular use. Car area may
not exceed this available area; if it does the program is
adjusted or reprogrammed.89
Form 1029 represents the basic relationships among

the six intensity components, and site and building design

data. As such it is quite mechanical. However, because of

 

changing building type. If the change is major the area
should be reprogrammed. Federal Housing Administration, In:
structions for Land-use Intensity Forms, 24.

87"For estimating purposes, a car space in a parking
court is 300 sq. ft. (200 sq. ft. for the parking space and
100 sq. ft. for the turning space)." 'Ibid.

88"In estimating the land area that will be needed
for streets and driveways (both on-site and abutting the
project), 20% Of the gross [sic] land area is used unless
more exact informatiOn is ava11able."Ibid. “Gross" is per-
haps a misprint for "programmed, W note Form 1028, D-25. It
should also be noted here that "car area" does net include
.garage or carport area.

89Ibid. Note that Form 1028 suggests that to make
an adjustment —additional parking spaces may be provided in
buildings or underground, [or open space may be increased to
accommOdate car area.

 

53

the site and building design elements, covered and uncovered
open space for example, its form is not unlike Form 1028.
The primary difference between these two forms is direction.
Form 1028, generally for pre-design layout, proceeds from
LUI ratios to plans. Form 1029, to check design or construc-
tion, proceeds from plans or construction to LUI ratios.
The purpose of Form 1029 is

to provide a convenient form and procedure for computing

the land-use intensity of a plan, either to check the

plan's compliance with an assigned land-use intensity

or to determine the LUI number of a typical benchmark

project.90

Form 1029 is designed to compute the six LUI com-

ponents and gross density of the site; in diagram it is basi-
cally a series of four steps which correspond to the ratios.91
Very briefly, since the details are quite similar to those of
Form 1028, Form 1029 in this sequence consists of the deter-
mination of the floor area ratio, the Open space ratio, the
livability space ratio, and the car parking ratios with gross
density included in the last step. As in Form 1028, the
strong influence of floor area and the close involvement of
building details, covered and uncovered Open space, in com—

puting Open space, might be noted as characteristic of the

LUI concept.

 

90Ibid., 26. Land-use intensity is the lowest LUI
number at wh1ch all computed ratios comply with standard
ratios on the LUI graph or derived chart, see Figures 1 and
3.

91See Figures 12 and 13. For all practical purposes,
based on inputs, the occupant car and total car ratios might
be combined. The livability and recreation space ratios
might also be so combined. See footnote 79.

 

 

L Ne’t Lem} “€10;

 

 

54

 

 

“I. Lam‘s “no.

 

 

 

 

 

7.. Bh‘“ Keg g‘fi‘td RCO. oi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Bmk'xdak Oct-n sew-Q.

 

 

 

(a. Floor pica. Ra’l'x'o

 

 

I

 

 

 

5. Root “Ceca

 

 

 

‘1. Res. 333. has.

 

 

 

 

8. Guru‘s B\)5. Glue.

 

 

 

 

\2.

 

 

‘5. We Endoss‘b Si) q. Nae.

 

 

 

BYML Diced.

 

 

&

¥

4\ JL

 

 

lo. Cos gel—(V RCQA

 

 

 

 

\\- Qfmnfi‘b LNG Na. Ditto.

 

 

 

 

 

 

l3. Bash Uncovsu‘b 0. $.

 

 

 

 

N. Warmth 090.“ $9.40.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l8. Brows) L!~R\ (we «1 OX...

 

 

 

“e. NONQ. G‘Qw LN“ Qua"):

 

 

 

.J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

?M\‘§hq COVE-V “(‘1 A

20. Ca? garage “('10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\9. Co: “News“ “as

 

 

 

 

 

 

2\. LN A\o\\'\\~1 SQ nu,

 

 

 

 

 

 

22. LS.K.

 

 

 

2‘5. Reece. office gents

 

 

 

 

 

 

24.l15nfin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2R. Number a‘. L'w'mr‘ va's’ts

 

 

 

27. OCLuQarsT Cat sgaces

i

 

 

 

 

 

’26. OCR.

 

 

 

 

2M (wuss Dms'W'

 

so.'tC£u

 

29. Guest Cat Scans

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 12. Schematic of FHA Form 1029. This diagram is
Box number refer to line numbers

All input elements begin on the
left-hand side Of the page.

derived from Form 1029.
of part B of the Form.

55

 

FIIA rose N. 1020 LAND-USE INTENSITY OF A PROJECT PLAN

HIS.

 

Mammy III/us 1
Location W5“ Analyzod oy ELL Date I: 0'
Plans Analyzed W II] jO'I

A. mmmmmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assigned to the Site Computed tor the Plan
1. Land-use lntsnsitylLUl) ................ Assilned LUI a], Z Computad LUI .
2. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .................. Maximum FAR fig: Line B6 FAR
3. Opan Space Ratio (OSR) ............... Minimum osggg Line BIB OSR . 7
4. Livability Space Ratio (LSR) .......... Minimum LSR /_ 5 Line 022 LSR / . a
s. Rscraation Space Ratio (RSR) ....... Minimum RSR 01/5 Line 024 RSR 0_ [1
6. Occupant Car Ratio (OCR) ............. Minimum OCR [ a Line 028 OCR /‘
7. Total Car Ratio (TCR) .................... Minimum TCR j; 4 Line 030 TCR ] -
s. wits! to m use me muse
1. Net Land Area Site Area Excluding Perimeter Streets M3024.1a NLA 3 9m
2. Aouttm. Street Area is Perimeter Street ‘Arsa M3024.» ASA 3 W
3. Beneficial Open Space River. Public Part. etc. Adm-4.“
4. LANO AREA Project LANO AREA 1.01 + 1.02 + L33 LA} 2; £20
5. Floor Area Floor Area on All Floors M3024 FA [M0
5. FLOOR AREA RATIO FA + LA L05 + L04 FAR
7. Residential Building Area Residential Floor Area at Ground Level M3035 0M1) 64.370
a Garage Building Area Enclosed Car Parking Area M3035 M2) 0
9. Other Enclosed Building Area Convnunity Building. Storage. etc. M3035 M3) [/50
10. Carport Building Area Covered Car Partingimpan Sides) M3035 M4124 M

 

Other Building

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. Basic Uncovered Open Space LA - BA L04 - L012 009113313
14. Other Uncovered Opan Space Improved Root Area. Open Balconias. etc. M3030 UOS(2) j”
. Covered Open Space Egon Spacg'ung Buildings on Piers. 4303.7 934111.15,“ 0
16. 2%“ 03333 3333' Covered BJalconies, etc. M3037 005(2) 0
17. Open since 005 + V2005 (L013 + L014) + vithls + L016) OS 35%
1a OPEN SPACE RATIO OS + FA L017 + L05 OSR
mm azflw'gpwg'a‘m ill—3M4 W0
20. Car Storaga Area 1h Carport Area + Parking Courts vsL010 + PC. CSA 0
21. Livability 50060 OSCA L017 - (L019 + L020) LS 24.4240
22. LIVABILITY SPACE RATIO LS + FA L021 + L05 LSR rm

 

23. Recreation Space

LS. Countable as RS

24. RECREArlON SPACE RATIO R5 + FA

25. Number OI Living Units

26. Cross Density

Count All Floors of All Buildings

M315 ”121422
L.823+L.BS RSR M

L.u. [fl 4.

LU + LA L325 + LB‘ (in acres) GO [g g

27. Number Occupant Car Spaces No. Spaces (without time limit)

M3052 ocs [24.

 

 

 

 

 

 

23. OCCUPANT CAR RATIO ocs - LU L027 + L025 OCR /_ 2

29. Number Guest Car Spaces No. Spaces (time may be limited) M3053 GCS 50

30. TOTAL CAR RATIO (OCS + SCSI — LU lL027 + L029) -: L025 TCR L 6:

row m. we W

 

Figure 13. FHA Form 1029

56

Local determination and
Application

 

 

Just as the form of LUI varies from community to
community when it is adopted locally, so does the manner of
local determination of intensity level vary. In the several
communities adopting LUI and about which information was

obtained,92

all LUI numbers are predetermined, with the ex-
ception of the agricultural zone in Frederick County where
the Planning Commission determines the number along lines
used by the Federal Housing Administration.93l
Most predetermined intensity levels appear to be

based on existing zoning districts. In Honolulu, for example,
the LUI number is related to lot size and district. The LUI
ratings in the various districts were arrived at by “assign—
ing an LUI rating to a district at a comparable floor area

in [the] existing ordinance."94

 

92These include Frederick County, The City and County
of Honolulu, and Indianapolis and Marion County-

93See Appendix B, Planned-unit Development Amendment
for Frederick County, under "(d) Plan Review."

94Letter from Mr. Wallace S. W. Kim, Deputy Plan-
ning Director, Planning Department, City and County of Hono-
lulu, 06 May 1968. Mr. Kim cites the example of an existing
medium density apartment district which allowed 100% FAR.
In the new medium density districts (A-2 and A-3) LUI 63
(FAR 100%) was assigned to the minimum (10,000 square feet)
sized lot. Smaller lots have lower LUI numbers and larger
lots have higher LUI numbers. "This is an attempt to en-
courage consolidation of lots for apartment and hotel devel-
Opment." Honolulu has a "very serious problem in that large
areas are zoned for apartments and hotels with lots too small
to provide adequate higher density development.“ The proposed

57

Other communities such as Norfolk and Virginia Beach have

develOped "bands" of land-use intensity.

95

It might be well to interjeCt here that the Depart-

ment of Defense has adopted LUI to Military Multi-Family

Housing requirements. In this situation

LUI is a five com-

ponent scale with car space ratios combined and maintained

at at least 1.5 spaces per living unit "unless lack of land

area requires use of Land-Use Intensity Rating greater than

 

Comprehensive Zoning Code lists (p. 148)
district LUI numbers as follows:

Net Lot Area

 

In Square Feet
0- 3,000.
3,001- 3,200
3,201- 3,500
3,501- 3,700
3,701- 4,000
4,001- 4,300
4,301- 4,600
4,601- 5,000
5,001- 5,300
5,301- 5,700.
5,701- 6,100
6,101- 6,500
6,501- 7,000
7,001- 7,500
7,501- 8,000
8,001— 8,500
8,501- 9,999

10,000-19,999
20,000-29,999
30,000-39,999
40,000—49,999
50,000-59,999
60,000-69,999
70,000 and over

95Letter from Mr. Frederick Bair.
whether or not these bands coincide with
districts or how they were determined.

the A-Z Apartment

LUI
Rating
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

It was not stated
previous zoning

58

4.50 in which case the ratio of 1.3 shall bemaintained."96

It also varies from the Federal Housing Administration's LUI
in that computing Residential Land Area community.facilities
such as swimming pools or tennis courts are not included.
The LUI numbers are predetermined by the project's intended
occupants' military grade- They are as follows:

Living Units for Enlisted Personnel and Company Grade

Officers: ‘
An LUI of 4.1 normally shall be utilized, with an
acceptable range from 4.0 to 4.5.

Living Units for Field Grade Officers:

Single detached units--LUI of 3.2 with an.acceptable
range from 3.0 to 3.5.

Semi-detached units--LUI of 3.7 with an acceptable
range from 3.5 to 3.9.

Living Units for Colonels, Generals or Equivalent:
Normal design effort shall be on the basis of an LUI
of 3.0 for Colonels and 2.7 for Generals. However,,
due to the small number of such units usually involved
in any project, site planning should be on a project
case basis.97
The military, to compute and apply LUI, use military

rank and a form quite similar to the Federal Housing Admins
istration's Form 1029 reviewed above. The other local adop-
tions apply predetermined LUI numbers as one part of other
planned-unit develOpment requirements or as another standard

of a particular zoning district's regulations. Frederick

County's Planned-Unit Development Amendment is an example of

 

96Ned H. Abrams and Ken F. Mitchell, Site Planning
Introduction (Washington: Department of Defense-Family
Housing, 1966), sheet 1.

97

 

 

Ibid.

 

59

the former; the zoning ordinances of Honolulu and Marion

County are examples of the latter.98

Frederick County alone,
in its agricultural district, has a non-fixed LUI determi-
nation process.

In summary, LUI is the numerical relationship of six
elements of residential land-use: floor area, open Space,
livability space, recreation space, and occupant parking and
total parking spaces. Floor area is the primary element in
that the others are derived from it. The proportions of each
element in relation to the whole site area are determined on
a sliding scale which is read in intensity levels. The level
of intensity, LUI number, of a site proposed for develOpment
is determined through an analysis of community patterns or
some pre-established zone or band of intensity. Using site
and building data and the apprOpriate LUI number, the propor-
tion of each element is projected from the sliding scale.

Based on experienCe these prOportions can provide a substan-

tial basis for design and successful development.

 

98See Appendix B for Frederick County's Amendment.
Honolulu's apartment and hotel district LUI number are set
by lot size within a particular district. Marion County's
LUI numbers are set by building use and height within a
particular district. Half of Marion County's twelve dwell-
ing district classifications are project (more than one lot)
oriented.7 and include LUI, along with other standards, as
“Development Amenities." As an example, one of these, dis-
trict D-9, Attached Multi-Family Dwellings, has four sets of
LUI ratios according to the proposed structures height. In
this district, LUI is distinguished at less than 4 stories,
at 4 to 5 stories, at 6 to 11 stories, and at 12 stories or
more.

CHAPTER III-
USE AND NON-USE OF THE LUI CONCEPT

On paper, in theory, it is possible to isolate
LUI and its parts and relationships for discussion, but
in practice, LUI's abstractness and other regulations re-
quired for development obscure and hinder its being as
well understood as in theory. In order to provide some-
thing more tangible for this part of the study an analogy
is drawn between LUI and a ram-jet engine. As with other
analogies it is not exact, but it does bring out the major
points.

In the late 1940's, the ram-jet appeared to be a
major breakthrough in aviation propulsion technology. The
ramrjet or "flying stove-pipe" as it was called because of
the close resemblance in form is

a simple tube gulping air that is compressed by the
ram effect of its own forward movement. The air is

sprayed with fuel, burned in a combustion chamber, and
spewed out the tail at high velocity.99

 

99Herbert Johansen, "Riding the Ramjet," Popular
Science, Vol. 154, No. 1 (January 1949), p. 130. In diagram
the ram-jet appears as follows:

i : f :Pl ‘ tk (
thrust combus-Hon .4 “5 0‘ Q: 0
‘ (Munch p)“:
y

 

)

 

 

60

61

The great value of the ram-jet was its potential
as supplementary power in high speed aircraft. It was the
"simplest" engine in use, having no moving parts except in
the fuel system, and it provided more thrust per pound of
engine weight than any other type of aircraft power plant.
However, it could not Operate in flight until sufficient
speed had been obtained to enable it to sc00p up enough
air for combustion. This speed had to be provided by the

100

aircraft on which the ram-jet was used. In a stationary

position, on the ground, it could Operate only when high-
speed air was forced into its air intake.101
The analogy of LUI and the ram-jet begins with the
form and functioning of that form. Just as the shell of
the "stove-pipe" jet gives an immediate impression of
simplicity, so too the six component LUI scale presents

102

the epitome of land-use regulations. The six LUI

ratios fonm a shell which shapes the proposed land-use

 

A

.__‘

as it passes through the system. This is much like the

 

looJack Charshafian, Manager of the Wright Aero-
nautical Corporation's ram—jet division, states in "Ram
Jet Grows Up," Newsweek, Vol. 35, No. 7 (13 February 1950),
p. 50 that the ram-jet "will outperform all other jet and
rocket engines in the 1,500- to 2,500-mile-an-hour range."

lOl"Test Chamber Simulates Air Speeds and Altitudes,"
Science News Letter, Vol. 57, No. 6 (11 February 1950), P.
84.

 

102See Figure 1.

62

shell of the jet as it channels the rammed air.103 The

floor area ratio (FAR) is similar to the fuel and ignition

system of the ram-jet. It is an integral part of the form,

 

£5

y

v

setting the relationship for the other ratios, and provides
the spark to activate the system.
The ram-jet's Operations air intake, combustion,

and thrust are also comparable to the functioning of LUI.

 

*f-~

A «ranch talc
* (LUI bats.)

____

Air rammed at high velocity is required for the Operation
of the ram-jet. LUI requires data; not just any data, but
specific site, structural, and program data as inputs for

Operation. Combustion of the rammed air and injected fuel

 

I a I
com‘osssfi on M—

(LUI 3030.)
might be compared to the interaction of the input data and
LUI ratios, sparked by the floor area ratio. However, the

LUI reaction, data and ratios, should not be as violent as

 

 

4 thank . comm ) nuke
‘ (L01. modicum) Combustion (LUI Beta.)

 

 

103While both of these forms are considered "simple,"
the level of technology: knowledge of dynamics, metallurgy,
and machine tooling in the jet and background research, data
processing, and concept design in LUI Should not be ignored.

63

the ramjet's. The resulting thrust of the ram-jet is
dependent upon the interaction of both the shell and igni-
tion components and the rammed air intake. The resultant
LUI prOportions, as obtained in Form 1028, are no less
dependent upon both the LUI ratios and input data.

The analogy further applies to another aspect of
the ram-jet and LUI. This is the overall operational
aspect and how they fit into this larger framework. While
the form and internal functioning of both LUI and the ram-
jet are important, the point is that neither is able to
operate independently in a vacuum. Outside of a test
chamber the ram-jet requires an aircraft with another,
primary, propulsion system that is capable of attaining
the speed at which the ram-jet can begin to function. It
is also a prerequisite that the aircraft be able to Operate
at the speeds provided by the ram-jet.104

Similar to the ram-jet, LUI needs a "vehicle" such
as the Federal Housing Administration's mortgage insurance
program or a local land—use ordinance. This vehicle should
have certain characteristics to benefit from the "thrust".

provided by LUI. First, there should be the capacity, in

 

104It should be noted here that a propulsion system,
such as the ram-jet is not necessarily feasible or desirable
for all types of aircraft. A small, short-range aircraft,
for example, is not built for such high speeds.

64

technical staff,105 to gather, to process, and to use data

to initiate and maintain the use of LUI. And second, there
should be provision for meaningful, complementary, support-
ing criteria by which to judge the design resulting from
the prescribed LUI ratios. These, for instance, might be
standards for spacing buildings.106 As with the ram—jet,
LUI is not necessarily feasible or desirable for all land—

use control or development situations, because of the above

two conditions.

Federal Housing_Administration

usage

 

To continue the analogy, the Federal Housing Adminis-
tration, in its mortgage insurance program, may be said to
have a "high velocity, long-range jet aircraft," and is
therefore able to benefit from the "thrust" provided by LUI.

There are three points of significance in the Federal Housing

 

105The increasing need for technical staff is indi-
cated in the report Problems of Zoning and Land-Use Regula-
tion, pp. 40-42, and in conversation with’and letters from
Mr. Wesley Furton and Mr. Wayne Depew.

106In a way these standards are analogous to the
weight of the aircraft. Light weight loading is desirable
for maneuverability (flexibility) and yet the power plantr
fuel, instruments, and other accessories required for the
functioning of the aircraft all contribute to its weight
and lessen performance possibilities. Mr. Peter Svirsky,
senior planner, Department of City Planning, City and County
of San Francisco writes in Problems of Zoning and Land-Use
Regulation, 27 that "there is much vagueness in written
standards, intentional or unintentional, which causes con-
fusion and often prevents effective administration of the
ordinance. The ordinance should be well drafted to begin
with, but, failing that, those administering it should issue
interpretive material as an aid to the public and to them-
selves."

 

 

 

65

Administration's use of LUI. The primary point is that LUI
has been modified--"streamlined."

As of 27 April 1967 the application of LUI standards
was "streamlined" to speedup "FHA processing and [to con-

107 This

tinue] reaching sound technical determinations."
came as a result of a backlog of otherwise approved proj-
ects in the pre—application and feasibility stages of the

108 The cause

insurance program which lacked LUI ratings.
of the lag was placed largely on the processing of Form 1095
which was used to determine the intensity number for the
project. While it is a logical process it was much too
time consuming to prepare. The streamline notice modified
the selection of the LUI number, stating that
the essence of the LUI system is that the Chief Under—
writer decides on the density and average living-unit-
size apprOpriate for the site and then selects a set
of site planning requirements by converting these de—
cisions into an LUI number.109
The essence of the modification was time. Its pur—
pose was to facilitate an agreement with the sponsor on the

project's physical characteristics and components at the

earliest possible date. Form 1095 was to be used as a "guide"

 

107Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Federal Housing Administration, "Streamlined Application of
Land-Use Intensity Standards," A notice, Control No. F-1249,
27 April 1967.

108Conversation with Mr. Furton, 24 April 1968.

109Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Federal Housing Administration.

66

to be used or modified as appropriate to reach a sound

. . . . . . . 1
concluSion on a particular Site in a "minimum of time." 10

It was concluded that

for some sites the Chief Underwriter alone can make an
immediate determination of the appropriate number of
living units per acre and average living unit size on
the basis of recent analyses of nearby properties or
with very little additional analysis. At the other
extreme, the density and size determinations may take
several hours of itaff analysis in an unfamiliar or com-
plex situation.11

The land-use intensity determination process is
now, in effect, reduced to step 3 of Form 1095.112 Three
additional tables, further eXpanding Chart C of step 3 of
Form 1095, were included with the streamline notice. These
tables, one for walk-up apartments, one for elevator apart-
ments, and one for all building types, relate living unit
floor area, LUI, and gross density. LUI is determined by
reading down the appropriate floor area column to the appro-

priate gross density and then across to the LUI number.113

 

lloIbid.

111Ibid. Other than "economic feasibility, there
is no comment as to how or by what criteria the "apprOpriate"
density and living unit size will be determined. As stated
in Instructions for Land-Use Intensity Forms, p. 5, the de-
ciding factor in LUI determination is "judgement based on
knowledge and experience."

112

 

See Figure 7.

113See Figure 14. Citing the same example, the
elevator apartment table would allow a LUI of 4.7+, while
the table for all types (townhouse or single family) would
allow a LUI between 4.4 and 4.5.

67

.000 .mnwmum .maamg cw Om:
coEEOO Mom cosoaam mm noun HOOHH mmOHm mo ucOOHOd COB .moum HOOHM COG
can nomads Had we mmcmpaflsn usufipnmmm mslxams cm OHOM mmoum Hoe mums:
mcw>ma mo Hogans ESEmez .mucofiuummm dblxamz How huflmcmn .vH mummwm

68

 

9.9

9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9

9.9
9.9
«.9
..9
9.9

9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
9 9

9.9
9 9
~ 9
..9
9.9

99
99

9.9
9 9

99
99
«.9
.9
99

99
99
99
9.9
99

.9....

9.3

9.99
..«9
9.8
9.9«
..9«

9.9«
9.“
«..«
9.9.
9.9.

« 9.
..9—
9.9.
9.9.
9.9.

«.«9
9. 9.
96.

9«.9

.99
99 9

~99

9o 9
999
8.9
99.9
«99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«.99 9..9 9.99 «.99 9.«9 9.99 9.«9 9.99 9.99 9.99 .99. .99. .99. 9.9
9.99 9,99 9..9 9.99 9.. «.99 9.99 9.99 «.99 9.99 9.99 .9.. 99. 9 9
..99 9.99 999 9.«9 9.99 9.99 9.99 9.99 9.99 9.99 9..9 .99. .99. 9.9
9.9 9.99 9.99 «.99 9 .«9 9.99 9..9 9.99 9.99 9.«9 9 99 .«9. .99. 9.9
9.9« 9..9 9.99 9.99 9.99 «.99 9.99 9.«9 9.99 9.99 «.99 ..99 .9.. 9.9
9.9« 9 9« 9..9 ..99 9.99 9.3 9.99 9.99 9.99 9.99 9.99 9.99 .2. 9,9
9.9« 9 9« 9.9« 9..9 9 .99 9.99 9..9 9.99 9..9 ..99 9.99 9.«9 99. 9.9
..9« 9.9« 9.9« 9.9« «.«9 ..99 9.! 9.«9 9.. «.99 9.99 «.99 9 .99 9.9
9.9 9.9« 9.9« 9.9« 9.8 9.«9 9.99 9.99 9.99 9..9 9.99 9.«9 ..99 «.9
9..« 9.«« 9.9« 9.9« 9.9« 9.3 9.99 9.99 9.«9 9.! 9.99 «.99 9.99 ..9
9.9. 9.9« 9.«« ..9« ..9« 9.9« 9..9 9.99 «.99 9.99 9 «9 9.«9 9.99 9.9
9.9. 9.9. 9.9« 9.«« 9.9« 9.9« 9.9« 9.«9 9.99 9..9 9.8 9.99 «.99 9.9
..9. «.9. 9.9. 9..« 9.«« 9.9« 9.9« 9.8 ..99 9.99 9.99 9.99 9.99 9 9
9.9. 9.9. «.9. 9.9. «..« «.99 9.9« 9.9« 9..9 9.99 9.«9 9..9 9.99 9.9
9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9 .« 9.9« 9.9« 9.9« 9.99 9.99 9.99 9.99 9.9
9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. «.99 «.M 9.9« 9.9« 9 .9 9.99 9.99 9.99 9.9
9.«. 9.9. 9.9. 9 9. « 9. 9.9. 9.9« 9.9« 9.9« 9.9« 9.99 9..9 9 .9 9 9
..«. 9 «. 9.9. 9.9. . 9. 9.9. 9.9. 9 .« ..9« 9 9« «.«9 9.8 9.99 9 9
9. .. 9.«. 9 «. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9« 93 9.9« 9 8 9.99 9.99 « 9
9.9. « .. 9 «. 9.«. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9..« 9.9« 9.9« 9.99 9.«9 ..9
8.9 9.9. « .. ..«. ..9. 9 9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.“ ..9« 9..9 «.99 9.9
9..9 99 9 9 9. 9 .. «.«. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9« 9 9« 9.9« 9.99 9 9
99.9 9. 9 99.9 9.9. 9 .. 9 «. 9.9. «.9. ..9. 9 9. 9.9« 9.9« ..99 9 9
thrfiBHIIBLIIBbIIFB 9.: 9.9. w: 9.9. 9.: 9KI 9 99 9... 9 9
«9.9 «9 9 99.9 9..9 99 9 9.9. 9... «.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. 9.3 9.9« W
99.9 99.9 «9.9 99.9 9«.9 ..9. .2 9.«. 9.9. 9.9. 9.9. «.fi 9 9« 9 9
99.9 99 9 99 9 99.9 «9.9 .99 9.9. 9. .. 9.«. 9.9. « 9. 9 99 9 9« 9 9
99.9 99.9 99 9 «9.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 9.9. ..«. 9 9.. ..9. 9.9. . 9« 9 9
99.9 8.9 99.9 99.9 .99 9..9 .99 9.9. 9... 9.«. 9 9. 9 9. 9 «« « 9
9«.9 99.9 89 99.9 89 999 .99 99.9 9 9. 99. 99. 99. 9 .« .9
99.9 999 99.9 99.9 99 9 9..9 999 .99 8.9 «.2 .9. 99. 99. 99
99.9 '9 9« 9 «9.9 99 9 99 9 «9.9 9. 9 9. 9 9 9. « «. 9 9. 9 9. 9 9
9«.9 99 9 I9 9«.9 99.9 .«9 «9.9 99 9 99.9 99 9 9 .. 9 9. . 9. 9 9
99.9 9« 9 99.9 99.9 .99 99.9 99.9 99.9 99 9 9. 9 9.9. 9 «. 9 9. 9.9
«9 9 99 9 9«.9 99 9 99.9 99.9 99.9 .9 9 «9.9 99 9 99.9 9... 9 9. 9 9
99 9 99 9 99.9 9«.9 «9.9 99.9 999 9. .9 999 «9 9 9« 9 .... 9 9. 9 9
Ha... . Ha: in. m. K: . 9... Lfil a. a. Mail. a?
<m¢< «00.... km: >9 9.9.9.... 62;... 5..

 

69

For example, if the analysis of a proposed site shows a
living unit.floor area of a net 1400 square feet and a gross
density of 8.49 as most apprOpriate, then the LUI number

for walk-up apartments would be 4.6.

These tables are also used by the sponsor, in reverse,
to determine density or how many living units are permitted
at the assigned intensity level. With all this concern over
density, one is apt to wonder about the earlier rejection of

density in favor of LUI.114

Perhaps density is not all so
insensitive and useless? Going back to the ram-jet analogy,
it would seem to indicate that LUI, while a strong force in
shaping site development, is not the primary moving force
in this process.

Also significant in the Federal Housing Administra-
tion's use of LUI is the strong emphasis and reliance on

marketability.115

This point is evidenced in both the ap-
plication procedure and in Form 1095 and its streamline
version.

The Federal Housing Administration suggests that
the most desirable time for determination of the LUI number

is at the "pre-application stage of a multifamily housing

proposal and the feasibility stage of a planned-unit

 

114See pages 9 and 10.

115Mr. Furton in a letter of the 15th of May 1968
writes that LUI, compatible with established local density
zoning to provide elements of livability, is one key to
sustaining a continuing housing market.

70

116

development." Both of the stages are the initial steps

in application for the respective mortgage insurance pro-
grams.

The pre-application stage is conducted through a
series of conferences between the potential sponsor and
the Federal Housing Administration administration and
technical personnel. It is a "standardization" process
to provide prompt service to the sponsor, to expedite
analysis of the proposal, to eliminate unsound proposals,

and to save the sponsors fees and other expenses should

117

the prOposal be unacceptable. The sponsor is to pro-

vide the following data:

(a) A request for Preapplication Analysis of Multi-
family Housing Proposal, setting forth basic in-
formation concerning the site and project.

(b) A location map or sketch positively identifying

. the site.

(c) A sketch plot plan indicating dimensions of the
site. (This exhibit may serve also as a location
sketch if street intersections, distances, and
compass points are shown.)

(d) Evidence of title to the land, option to purchase,
or owner's authorization to inspect the site for
the purposes requested.

(e) An Equal Employment Opportunity Certification.

(f) Any additional exhibits that may be required for
special programs.118

The proposal is studied and the Federal Housing

Administration makes an analysis which "is limited to a

 

116Federal Housing Administration, Instructions for
Land-Use Intensity Forms, 2.

 

 

117Federal Housing Administration, A Handbook for
FHA Multifamily Projects, FHA No. 2605 (Washington: U.S.
Government Printing OffICe, 1965), p. 5.

118

 

 

Ibid. I 2.

71

determination as to whether or not, in the opinion of FHA,
a market exists at the specific location for the prOposed
number of units of the stated room composition at the spe-
cific rents proposed. A determination is also made as to

119 This stage is

the suitability of the proposed site."
tenminated with either a letter of disapproval, which states
in full why the project was found inadvisable, or a letter
of approval, which includes a LUI rating, required modifi-
cations (if any), and an invitation to make a formal applica-
tion with fee within three months.120
The processing of planned-unit development for
mortgage insurance is similar to that which the Federal
Housing Administration uses for subdivisions; the Feasi—
bility Stage corresponds to the pre-application stage of
the multifamily analysis above with more emphasis on the
land-use. It is centered around FHA Form 2084, Subdivision
Information, which includes data about proposed building
type and land-use. Also included for study are simple lo-
cation and site sketches. This stage is concluded with
the issuance of a "feasibility letter containing recommen-

dations about the development program. This includes FHA's

Land-use Intensity Rating of the site, and FHA's tentative

 

1191bid., 3.

lzoIbid., 3-4.

72

conclusions on such essentials as acceptable price range,
building type, and lot size."121

In the streamline notice it is stated that

the agreement [on the determination of LUI] should be
based on economic feasibility and should allow flexi-
bility for creative project design.122
Backing up to its original form, Form 1095, it may be noted
that step 3, which pin-points the LUI number,_is primarily
a market analysis of the suitable building type.123 This
building type, determined in step 2, is also markedly in-
fluenced by market conditions.

Actual physical factors, such as topography, are
considered in light of acquisition and site development
costs. Local land-use regulations are also considered.
However, unless it is implied somehow in the elements of
Form 1095, there is no planning consideration of what ef-
fects the prOposed intensity, appropriate, building type,
or influx of people will have on the site and community.
Available transportation and utilities are considered but
in regard to determination of the most appropriate building
type.

A third small, but significant point is that with

the usage of LUI such elements of design as outdoor

 

121Federal Housing Administration, Planned-Unit
Development with a Homes Association, 58.

122Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Federal Housing Administration.

123

 

 

See Figure 7.

73

livability, vehicular movement area, pedestrian area, parking,
and recreation area, the LUI components, are of "concern to
[Federal Housing Administration] underwriting staffs, who
until recently were not cognizant of these values or rela-

124 Previous to the use of LUI all the Minimum

tionships."
Property Requirements involved was density in two ranges,l
above and below 25 families per net acre, and building cov-

erage, a percentage of the lot size.125

Sponsor Usage

 

While the Federal Housing Administration may be
said to have a jet aircraft, this cannot be said for the
sponsor, who is, perhaps, more analygous to a passenger on
a commercial flight. In this respect, as a paying passen-
ger (application fees, development costs, etc.), he is more
concerned with where and how he is going than with the ram—
jet propulsion of the craft. It should also be considered
that he may only want to take a short surface trip, in
which case the ram—jet flight may be quite unnecessary.

Here, in the sponsor's usage, it is not as easy to
isolate LUI as was done in theory. Basically this is be-
cause LUI is viewed by the sponsor as just one more restraint
on his development, that is if he makes a distinction between

LUI ratios and other requirements.

 

124Letter from Mr. Furton, 15 May 1968.

125See Appendix A.

74

An example of this situation is the St. Vincent
Court project, a 56 unit, non-profit organization sponsored
develOpment on the south side of Lansing, Michigan.126 In
conversation with the president of the project, he recalled
certain requirements for "playgrounds and parking," but
made no claim to understand them or the other design require-
ments.127 The responsibility for such matters, he said, was
placed in the hands of professionals. The professionals in
this instance were site planners and landscape architects128
and had the following comments:

(1) LUI directs and limits possibilities of design, but
as such good design is not encouraged, particularly with the
other (Federal Housing Administration) standards also in
force. There are too many rules.

(2) LUI and_the other standards tend to standardize

development.129

 

126The Catholic Weekly (Diocese of Lansing), 31 May
1968, p. l. The project is sponsored by the Lansing Partic-
ular Council of St. Vincent de Paul.

127Conversation with Mr. John Fuller, East Lansing,
Michigan, 08 July 1968. Mr. Fuller is not a developer by
profession.

128Jack A. Drew Associates, Inc., Site Planning-
Landscape Architects, Lansing, Michigan.

129Site plans, of existing developments, from a
1946 Federal Housing Administration publication and recent
Benchmark plans may be found in Appendix D for comparison.

 

75

(3) LUI proportions were difficult to fit into the
topography.130

(4) Because LUI and the other standards were required,
more attention was demanded and professional costs were
raised above normal operation.131

From just the aspect of the forms (Forms 1028 and

1029) used by the sponsor to project or check site propor-
tions there are some difficulties. In addition to time con—
sumed adjusting or reprogramming such elements as covered
and uncovered Open space or parking area, certain steps of
the forms are confusing. Three of them in particular stand
out.

(1) In Form 1028, Land Area, line 5, is computed as

programmed gross land area, since the project may have sev-

 

eral LUI numbers or several building types. This is logical
if one assumes that the amenities derived from the site area,
abutting street area, and beneficial open space are enjoyed
in the same prOportions as the building types or LUI num-
bers. For example, it assumes that if the project is pro—
grammed for 50% townhouses, then 50% of the amenities of

the land will be enjoyed by the townhouse residents. The

confusing inconsistency, however, is in Form 1029, if this

 

130A sketch of the St. Vincent Court site plans may
be found in Appendix D. The shape of the site may also be
of interest.

131Conversation with Robert Leighton, staff member
of Jack Drew Associates, Inc., 09 July 1968.

76

form were used to check the same example project. In Form
1029, Land Area, line 4, is simply gross land area with no
consideration of programmed prOportions. In this instance
the townshouse residents would enjoy the amenities of the
total land area.

(2) There is another inconsistency between Form 1028 and
Form 1029 in the computation of livability space (non-vehicular
Open space) and vehicular area (vehicular open space). In
Form 1028, vehicular space, line 28, is computed as open
space left over after the compliance of livability space is
met. By contrast Form 1029 subordinates livability space
to vehicular space, that is livability space is Open space
after vehicular area has been determined. In addition to
this shift of emphasis, vehicular area is computed in two
different ways. In Form 1028, vehicular area is 20% (if
more accurate figures are not available) of the programmed
gross land area, plus the area of car parking courts (non-
covered parking). By taking a percentage of the programmed
gross land area a percentage of off—site beneficial open
space (if there is such) is gained in the computation. In
Form 1029, vehicular area is computed as 1/2 of the roadway
area of abutting streets, plus on-site roadways and drives,.
plus the area of parking courts, plug 1/2 of the carport area.

(3) In computing the number of living units allowed and
residential building area, lines 7 and 8 of Form 1028, the

programmer is presented with a dilemma, because the two

77

factors are determined independently. While the building
type (number of stories in particular) and adjusted living
unit area are hopefully related in the "basic data for the
program," the manner in which they are programmed causes a
discrepancy for which the programmer is either penalized
by losing open space or forced to adjust the "adjusted
living unit area to the maximum floor area." Using the
sample in Figure 11 may help to visualize this situation.
The programmer, Fairway Hills,has decided to build
2 story townhouses with an adjusted living area of 1250 square
feet. These two factors are related in a design concept and
determined before the maximum floor area allowed was com-
puted. Following the form's procedures it is computed that
he can build 104 units, of the type he decided upon above,
which will have a total building area of 65,340 square feet.
But stopping to check his figures, he finds that with 104
units and 65,340 square feet of coverage he could have an
adjusted living unit area of 1256+ square feet.132' Con-
versely, he finds that if he maintains his original adjusted
living unit area of 1250 square feet, then an extra area of
1,840 square feet133 is credited to building coverage area.
This is deducted from basic uncovered open Space, a valuable

asset in this system, in subsequent computation. Should he

 

132(65,340 sq. ft. + 104) x 2 stories.

133(65,340 sq. ft.) _ [104 x (1250 sq. ft. % 2 stories)].

78

adjust his adjusted living-unit floor area to the computed
total maximum floor area, to fit the numerical envelope or
should he take the penalty or will he even notice the varia-
tion?

While the sponsor does not appear to fully appre-
ciate the usage of LUI, there has been occasion when he has
used LUI to his own advantage. For example in staged devel-
opment, where a project area is divided into several smaller
areas to be developed according to a project plan at different
scheduled time intervals, the sponsor has come out "ahead"
(developing at a higher LUI than prescribed) by first devel-
Oping the most intensely used parcel. After the develOpment
of the first parcel it has happened that a “change of owner-
ship, a collapse of market demand or other conditions beyond
the control of the sponsor" has allowed the remaining parcels
to be develOped at a higher intensity than specified for the
total project. The Federal Housing Administration has limited
such develOpment by generally requiring lower intensity areas
to be develOped first and, if necessary, requiring "a recorded
land-use agreement that no remaining site area will be develOped
at a higher intensity than specified inthe agreement and which

retain the overall LUI number for the total site."134

 

134Waldemar Weichbrodt, Director, Appraisal & Mort-
gage Risk Division, "Compliance with LUI Numbers on Staged
Development Projects," FHA Memorandum to James Smith, Multi-
family Housing Representative, Chicago, 11 March 1965.

79

City and planning usage

 

Again using the ram-jet analogy, the city and its
planners are in a choice situation. They either continue
to fly their small crafts, and perhaps, if they are not
careful, occasionally catch some "back thrust" from a big
jet or they too acquire a big jet for their own use.

In the first instance, the city and the planner se-
lect to maintain or improve, by means other than LUI, their
conventional land-use regulations. The "back thrust" alluded
to is pressure, usually from the sponsor, for change or amend-
ment of existing local land-use regulations because of more
permissive densities, for example, allowed by the Federal
Housing Administration's determination of LUI. The Federal
Housing Administration tries to avoid such situations and
as a matter of policy "coordinates its activities with those
of the local regulation authorities as much as possible and
supports local planning and zoning based on sound princi-

135

ples." In the instance of a planned-unit development,

however,

 

135Federal Housing Administration, Underwriting
Procedures: Home Mortgages (Washington: U.S. Government
Printing—UEIICe, 1959), paragraphs 70407—70412, 70507 and
70545, cited by Hanke, Land—use Intensity Standards, the
LUI Scale and Zoning, 161

Mr. Furton alludes to this problem in his letter
of 15 May 1968. ". . . its [LUI] most advantageous use
is not assignment, but the relationship of a compatible
L.U.I. with local density zoning."

 

 

 

 

80

FHA releases its LUI number for a PUD even though
higher than the zoning equivalent if the local author-
ity may consider a change and does not object to the
release of the FHA number in advance of its own de-
cision.136

In the second instance, the adoption and use of
LUI into or as a base for local land-use regulations, LUI
is no small matter. In the only published material, that
goes into any depth on the local adOption of LUI, its
author, after presenting LUI and_other regulations for
yards, courts, building spacing improvements and so on

concludes that "it should now be apparent why complexity

is necessary for flexibility."l3.7

A senior planner from the Metropolitan Planning
Department of Marion County wrote along the same vein.

L.U.I. should be handled carefully and should not be
applied--particularly in the smaller communities that
do not employ professional staff——without an adequate
training program for the local administrators. As
with any regulatory device of this nature, it is pos-
sible to overpopulate a zoning district, therefore
controls in addition to the L.U.I. factors may be
desired--such as maximum height of buildings, minimum
floor area per d.u., or gross d.u. per acre--that
still permit the effective functioning of L.U.I. but
within the community's desires for maximum limitation
of skyline or in relation to public facilities capac—
ities, etc.

 

136Hanke, Land-use Intensity Standards, the LUI

Scale and Zoning, 16.

137Bair, "How to Regulate Planned—Unit Develop-
ments for Housing--A Summary ofaaRegulatory Approach,"
Zoning Digest, 195.

138Letter from Mr. Depew, 02 May 1968.

 

 

 

81

In addition to complexity and the need for pro-
fessional staff, there appears to be some apprehension
about the effectiveness of LUI. For example Mr. Depew
expresses the need for other controls since with LUI "it
is possible to overpopulate a zoning district."139 Theo-
retically, because of the reliance on floor area rather
than the number of living units, LUI is much more indica-
tive of population than living unit density. An example
of this is the situation of an efficiency and a five bed-
room residence, both of which are one living unit, but
whose population expectation vary widely and more closely
with floor area.140

This apprehension coupled with complexity and staff
requirements are perhaps the reasons for the limited use of

141

LUI in local regulations. To what extent and how

 

l391bid.

140Frederick Bair, "Applying Land Use Intensity
to Public Regulation," Urban Land, Vol. 26, No. 4 (April
1967), p. 3. Also see footnote 114 of this thesis.

. 141Mr. Bair, in his letter of 29 April 1968, re-
phrases the first reason. "Since planners tend to be tra-
ditionalists, they are slow to adopt new ideas [such as
LUI] particularly when the ideas are complex and the plan-
ners have to think."

The ranks of traditionalists should perhaps be ex-
panded to include the "vocally hostile" residents of the
one family resident districts which adjoin Planned Develop-
ment-Housing districts (based on LUI) in the Honolulu
ordinance. To pacify these people the authors of the
ordinance have required screening and open space transi-
tion areas around the edges of the development "to pro-
tect occupants of adjoining residential districts [single

 

82

satisfactorily LUI is being used locally was not conclu-
sively ascertained in this study. While the literature
about LUI speaks of locally adopted LUI in the present and
past tenses, the only response to letters inquiring about
the usage of LUI came from two communities which had not
yet actually used LUI. The new zoning code for Honolulu,
which was structured around LUI, was scheduled for final

142 In Marion

public hearing on the 10th of May 1968.
County, the LUI rating system has been introduced in only
one community and "that community has not yet adopted the
proposal."143

LUI is simplicity in itself yet complexity in an

Operational context, which may account for its limited use.

 

family] from adverse views into the district, particularly
of off-street parking and service areas." Bair, "Applying
Land Use-Intensity to Public Regulation," Urban Land, 6.4
In the instance of the St. Vincent Court project in Lansing,.
Mr. Fuller commented that it wasn't so much LUI and the
other standards to which people objected as it was the
rent subsidy of 10% of the units. This confused the issue.
Neighborhood peOple thought the project was fine, but did
not want it in their backyards. -__

142

 

Letter from Mr. Kim.

4 .
1 3Letter from Mr. Depew. An article, Byron Hanke,

"Planning Developing, and Managing New Urban Areas," Soil
Water and Suburbia (Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1968f, p. 114, refers to Marion County as follows:
". . . in 1963, the city of Indianapolis and Marion County,
Ind., adopted the, LUI concept for multiple-dwelling dis-
tricts. In 1966 they adopted it for all residential dis—
tricts."

 

83

But rather than discount LUI as too far ahead of its time
or as impractical because of its Operational prerequisites,
it might be better to re-regard its form and functioning
and the operational context into which it has been placed.
There may be other possible applications of LUI. There

is one aSpect of LUI, measurement, which, while considered
indirectly, in these first chapters, will be treated in

more detail in the following chapter.

CHAPTER IV
LAND-USE INTENSITY IN THE FUTURE

Proponents of LUI have allowed that it takes time
for a new concept to be refined and to become accepted.
Looking forward to the future several steps have been sug-
gested to make the LUI approach a better measurement method
in zoning, planning, and development. Continued public
relations to make LUI known and understood is considered
the first step. Another step qualifies the first in that
the information should be consolidated into a concise,
easily understood, illustrated bulletin such as Planned-
Unit Development with a Homes Association, published by

144 The expansion of

the Federal Housing Administration.
the LUI technique into industrial and commercial land-use,
plus further research and testing of LUI in local regula-
tions, is called for in other steps.145

LUI is described here as "simply a measurement sys-

tem concerned with the physical components of urban

 

144This is Land Planning Bulletin No. 6, FHA 1097-
See footnote 44.

145Hanke, Land-Use Intensity, A Guidance System for
Housing and Urban Development, 14.

 

84

85

develOpment."146

In operation, thus far, its primary func—
tion has been regulatory, the application of measure, either
as a guide for eligibility for federal mortgage insurance

or as a local land-use standard. However, LUI is still a
measure and it is suggested that LUI, in map form, "can be

a key communicator and a common denominator in the general
plans for the physical development of an urban area."l47
Although the present LUI system is directed primarily at
residential develOpment, it could be "expanded [to be com—
prehensive] to cover commercial and industrial develop-
ment."148 The LUI map would be a contour map, the contour
lines indicating the existing and prOposed intensity levels
of land-use in a metropolitan area or other locality. Since
the LUI components are "key indicators of pOpulation density,
school enrollment, traffic generation, utility load, runoff
coefficients for storm drainage, and other factors in the
comprehensive physical plans for an urbanized area,“149

these factors could also be projected from the map. The

significance of LUI in the future, and now, lies in its

 

146Ibid., 2.

147Ibid., 11.

148Ibid.

149Hanke,"Planning, Developing,and Managing New
Urban Areas,“ Soil,Water, and Suburbia,_ll4.

 

86

potential as a universal mode of expression and of measure-
ment in land-use planning and regulation.150
This chapter is an analysis of the above prOposi—
tions for the betterment and future use of LUI. Specifi-
cally it will consider LUI as a measurement system, a device
to indicate and represent elements of physical reality,151
which can be expanded beyond its present residential frame—
work to include commercial and industrial development.
While the measurement potential suggested, especially the
role of key indicator for other physical planning factors,
refers to elements of the six LUI components, such as floor
area and building coverage, it is not specified whether or
‘ not the measurement of such elements is conducted within
the framework of the component ratios, as established by
the Federal Housing Administration or within a framework
of the six components the ratios of which are to be fixed
as a part of the measurement process. Although it might
be assumed that it is the LUI ratios established by the
Federal Housing Administration which are to be utilized,

this study will consider both possibilities. The estab-

lished ratios, however, are of major concern.

 

150Hanke, Land-Use Intensity, A Guidance System for
Housing and Urban Development, 11. This‘is through the use
of common terminology and definitions.

151While LUI in previous chapters was indirectly
considered as a measurement system, the emphasis was not
on its potential to indicate physical reality as it is.

 

 

87

The beginnings and trends

 

In order to have an applicable measure for land—use
regulation, there should be a framework for study of the
existing land-use and of the land-use that ought to be,
such as expressed in a land-use plan. The ratios of the
LUI scale reflect the study of what ought to be as determined
through analysis of successful residential projects. The
study of what is is provided for each site proposed for
Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance through
an analysis of marketability and feasibility. A part of
this study is to include consideration of gross unit density,
unit floor area, and building type. On the local level what
ought to be is reflected in a plan, and where LUI has been
adopted, in the LUI ratios. The local study of what is, for
communities utilizing LUI, is reflected in a map of inten—
sity zones or bands--these also reflect what ought to be.152
In that these site analyses and maps reflect physical real-
ity, it might be said that the initial stages of LUI, as a
measurement system, have already begun. Further, the appli-
cation of LUI to industrial and commercial development has

been initiated.153

 

152For example, the Honolulu ordinance's intensity

zones reflect the average floor area of those zones.

153Mr. Bair, in a letter of 29 April 1968, wrote
that "in Richmond [,Va.] we are proceeding to use it [LUI]
for commercial and industrial regulation as well [as resi-
dential], working on floor area ratios primarily, but prob-
ably adding in material or landscaped open space."

88

Although the.usage of LUI as a measure has already
begun, there has been a trend to simplify its use as a
measure. There has been no apparent (public) use, for
measurement, of the elements of the £15 components as de-
fined by the Federal Housing Administration, except in the
analysis and establishment of "benchmark" communities and
the compliance analysis of prOposed projects.154 Much less,
the framework provided in the combination of the LUI compo-
nents,_without pre-established ratios has not apparently
had any further measurement application since it was utilized
by the Federal Housing Administration for the LUI study.

Some current studies use a framework which is similar
to LUI; for example,_the list of preliminary statistical
information compiled for the Detroit City Planning Commission
on recent central city redevelopment. These studies, however,
omit or make substitutes for basic LUI elements such as floor

area. 155

 

154See Form 1029.

155The list, referenced by Mr. Furton during discus-
sion about LUI, is entitled "Land Use Components, Acreages,_
and Densities in the Grathirlafayette DevelOpment Project."
It provides the following information for each development:
area in square feet and acres; percentage of land for streets;
and areas of public walkways, parks, commercial parcels,
schools, and residential parcels. The residential data was
further broken down to include the type of housing (high or
low rise), number of bedrooms per unit, net dwelling unit
density, parking space, and, in some instances, building
coverage. In this case the number of bedrooms was substi-
tuted for floor area.

89

Even in the determination of an appropriate LUI
level for a proposed Federal Housing Administration mortgage
insured project or of a zone or band of a local land-use
ordinance, using Federal Housing Administration established
ratios, only certain elements of the six components are
being or have been used.156

It is possible that for the most part this simpli-
fication trend is a result of the complexity and technical
staff requirements which were noted in the previous chapter
as limiting the regulatory use of LUI. It is also possible
that the meaning of LUI and land-use intensity are not really

157

understood. And further it is possible that the six LUI

components, as they are now defined, encompass more than
the essence of land—use. This is to suggest that there
are essential elements and qualitative details” mixed within .

158

the LUI scale. Considering this last possibility, the

 

156The Federal Housing Administration (see stream-
lined application) relies primarily on adjusted unit floor
area and gross unit density by building type to determine
the LUI number for a prOposed project. In the Honolulu
ordinance determination of zone intensities was based on
the existing average floor area.

157That there is misunderstanding was mentioned by
Mr. Furton. This is further substantiated in the Federal
Housing Administration's concern for a consolidated, clear
presentation of LUI.

158Another intensity measurement system, devised
by Robert Katz, Intensityyof Development and Livability
of Multi-FamilyHousingPrgjects (Washington: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1963), considers two aspects of in-
tensity. Intensity, itself, is measured as a combination

 

 

90

question of the use Of LUI becomes not so much the complexity
as it is the details of LUI and the precision with which
these details are treated. Figure 15 may help visualize

the precision Of LUI as a measurement system.159

Precision and point Of emphasis

 

While it is not disputed that Off-site amenities

(streets and beneficial open space), improved roof area,

 

of net unit density, building coverage, floor area ratio,
building type and size, and spacing between buildings.
Other aspects such as privacy, usable Open space, indi-
viduality, diversity of housing type, location, proximity
to community facilities, safety and health, Circulation
(vehicular and pedestrian access and movement), automobile
stora e, blending of the new housing into its surroundings,
Site getails (walls, steps, benches, light fixtures, plant
materials, etc.), and views to and from the site are con-
sidered aside from intensity as qualitative aspects Of
livability. It would seem that this syStem's sensitivity
and Operability are increased by making the distinction
between basic and qualitative elements of intensity.

159This figure, an elaboration Of Figure 2, in-
cludes other variations which might occur under conditions
other than in that specific example. The example refers
to a single story building type, since "floor area“ does
not exceed "building area," and the building includes no
improved roof area, balconies, etc., since there is no
additional ”Open space" beyond the land area."

In the figure all dimension arrows represent two
dimensional horizontal areas Of the site or structure(s).
For example 1000 sq. ft. Of Open space might be composed
of 550 sq. ft. of livability space, 50 sq. ft. of bal-
conies, and 400 sq. ft. of vehicular space. The reduc-
tion of these areas to a lineal scale is to facilitate

the representation of their relationships.

 

 

91

 

 

 

C O 5 5
\fiomb
GC 10»
no}:
\ «~be
06‘ UL
(excess
s'x’te.
OW Q. as)

 

 

 

i

‘ O
BA {cow s . «it...

 

}

'wn 90mm: cook 'QNQ.

dxfiwn «munfies
(sh-«Ks (NRA 69m spa.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\'\\1 «\OK\\
<a 9 «£3
vzuuufiwn
$904.2. 4:01 a.\
. c amount}
b usxc s'xfi-e.
uncut“) i am}
099.0 sumac“;
‘? «u. T T axons
o n -s°\‘\’g, o 9!“
sheds 0.1% s 9am
‘o-c'wz w o.~\ S
VQ\A'\ 0A o.(‘
f c? «to.
toiA 6*«5’?
Que \¢.'\c\ V 0“ k3“
99 «as
9“ \4'
\‘w 'm P “1' “W COM-*5
‘x
um a M343». s on)» “(parks
5
O5?“ QC bdfi} .\'\fi$ A“)
\Oxfl\\\5\h 1(- or») \Q.«\ cow 0.) Own $QMQ.
ACE a %

 

i

(4 {Main A

\ovZNM'n :3 «CO. 0.

Quot- on...
(*O‘Vok 0%“?ch

\N’wxa‘ um“
somwewau
\{u‘m w’xfi

at nwm‘ozc o

\M\\\ '5

032$

«(‘10s

 

Figure 15. Schematic of LUI Site and Structural Areas.
The Schematic, expressing areas as lined dimensions, illus-
trates the relationships Of the elements of the total com-

puted horizontal site and structural area.

92

balconies, parking allocation and other details are aspects
of intensity, their weighted values are questioned.
It was cited earlier that "actually, how we develOp

the site involves the basic question of the building area in

 

relation to the land area. What is left over is the open space

 

 

we are so concerned about." (Italics mine.)160 It can be

seen from the diagram that "basic uncovered Open space" ("Open
space" in Figure 2) and "building area" are not nearly the
determinants that they appear to in Figure 2. This devia-
tion from the "basic question" occurs generally in multi-
storied building types which have improved roof areas, bal-
conies, etc. computed as part of their Open space. In such
instances the six LUI components, rather than reflecting
building area and basic uncovered Open space, become depend-
encies of Off-site amenities; improved roof area, balconies,,
etc.; and how the parking area is distributed (either covered
or a part Of open space). The Federal Housing Administration
defined LUI elements are more sensitive to the qualitative
and architectural details of the project than they are to

land-use coverage and building bulk.161

 

160Hanke, Land—Use Intensity, A Guidance System for
Housing and Urban Development, 3. Also see féotnote 14.

161Some of these details lack much meaning too, for
example, the abutting street area in the computation of gross
land area. According to the Minimum PrOperty Standards,_p.
43 this area is "half of any_abutting alley or street sight
Of way." (Italics mine.) Whether this is a 10 foot access
alley or a 210 foot limited access freeway apparently does
not matter--except as calculable area number.

 

 

93

If building area, basic uncovered Open space, along
with floor area are the basic question then details belong
on another level of consideration. LUI, as it is defined
now, in both its elements and its ratios, locks in, as
determinants and equals, these qualitative aspects of ex-
terior space and architectural detail.

This emphasis is fine for use as a guide tO judge
suitable and likely successful mortgage insured projects--
to determine what ought to be in these respects. TO deter-
mine, measure, what is, however, this detail becomes a
laborious distraction since Off-site amenities, improved
roof area, balconies, parking space allocation and other
details present an unlimited variety of possible combina-
tions. (This assumes the use of LUI as a measurement
framework without the fixed ratios. This instance is,
perhaps, more applicable to use by a community rather than
in a site analysis.) Fixed ratios only complicate the mat-
ter, requiring that what is be fit into a scale Of what

ought to be.162

 

162According to the Federal Housing Administration's
Instructions for Land—use Intensity Forms, p. 26, "the com-
puted land-use intensity is the lowest LUI number at which
all computed ratios comply with standard ratios." (Italics
Effie.) By such criteria, an existing medium intensity site
(as determined by the floor area ratio), in close proximity
to, but not abutting beneficial open space (a park); lacking
improved roof area and balconies; and having predominantly
Open court parking facilities, in place of garages, could
easily be classified as having a much higher intensity be-
cause the details Of "Open space" and "livability space"
do not match the successful standard established by LUI.

 

94

The super precision in details, unless modified
substantially, is also likely to make residentially ori-
ented LUI incompatible with the idea to expand its usage
to the measurement of commercial and industrial develop-
ment. Little, if any, of the residential detail is appli-
cable to commercial or industrial uses. Improved roof
area and parking requirements, for example, hardly have a
common base in these three uses. A real common denominator
seems to be the prerequisite unless consequences of the
same nature as the example in footnote 162 do not matter.
It should be recalled that the effort so far to expand into
this area (one instance, for regulation) has utilized only
the floor area ratio with thoughts Of eventually including
landscaped open space.163

The purpose for suggesting the extension of LUI to
include commercial and "light industrial" uses is that

the LUI system conceivably could become a basic guidance
measure [italics mine] anticipating and permitting a

mixture Of land-use types while maintaining compatible
environmental relationships.

 

163See footnote 153.

164Byron R. Hanke, Land-Use Intensity, A Guidance
System for Housing and Urban Development, written statement
Of testimony before the National Commission on Urban Prob- .
lems at is hearing on zoning, held in Houston, 10 August
1967 (Washington: By the author, 1967), p. 23. Mr. Hanke
further states that a floor area ratio and a livability
space ratio would be applicable in this situation, for
regulation. He does not comment further how an apprOpriate
"comprehensive" intensity level might be established. Since
LUI has the prOperties of comprehensiveness,_it would be of
interest to see how schools and other public places would
fit into this schema for measurement.

 

95

When LUI was spoken of in map form, "measurement"
Of both existing and proposed development was noted as a
particular advantage in the use of LUI. From his written
testimony, however, Mr Hanke appears to be referring pri-

165 While

marily to measurement of proposed development.
this is advantageous in the evaluation of a prOposed proj-
ect, it may be Of no particular value, despite its "compre-
hensiveness," to a community desirous of mapping what is

to judge what ought to be.

Again because of its precision for details the use
of LUI as a measurement system may involve a problem of
delimiting an intensity area (zone or band). For regulatory
purposes, which includes some measure Of what is, it has
been suggested that "land-use intensity area boundaries
should be established on the Official zoning map according
to the same procedures used in establishing zoning district
boundaries."166

The establishment of zoning district boundaries

begins with the gathering of factual data regarding land-

use, pOpulation, and so on, which is "best presented in

 

165Since for new development it is not required
that one apply for Federal Housing Administration mortgage
insurance, the Administration does not "regulate." Pro-
posed development is "measured" for compliance with stand-
ards.

166Bair, "How to Regulate Planned-Unit Developments
for Housing,V Zoning Digest (July 1965), 222.

 

96

167

map form." According to a plan, the population size of

the community, and "distinctive local conditions" the number

and types Of districts needed are also determined.168

Once these comprehensive studies have been com-
pleted and the~maps prepared, the zoning commission
has a detailed and factual foundation upon which to
base its zoning plan [sic]. From these studies a
logical delineation shSEId evolve for the several
zone or districts needed and the regulations necessary
pertaining to each.169

The process is reasonable, but with an exacting
measurement base such as LUI, as compared to density based

on lot size, can meaningful intensity districts or bands

 

167Martin Rody and Herbert Smith, Zoning Primer
(West Trenton: Chandler-Davis Publishing Company, 1960),
p. 19.

 

168The International City Managers' Association,
Local Planning Administration (2nd ed., Chicago: The Inter-
naEiOnaI City Managers' Association, 1950), p. 237. The
example is given that most self contained cities of 25,000
to 250,000 pOpulation will need at least the following types
of districts: one-, two-, and multiple-family residential;
neighborhood, general, and central business; and light and
heavy industrial. This process is not unlike step one and
Chart A of Form 1095.

169Rody. Some zoning advocates get carried away
with terminology. The International City Managers' Associa-
tion further clarifies the process with the following two
points. "UndeJ: an idealarrangement, each zoning district
is bordered by the next less restricted or more restricted
district. For example, a central business district may
be bordered by an apartment-house district followed by a
single family district. This arrangement is, Of course,
not always feasible; and a logical allocation of zoning
districts should not be warped tO Obtain easy transition,
desirable as it is.

As a general rule it is more desirable to place the
boundary line between two zoning districts in the interior
of a block along the rear lot lines than in the center of
the street [for ease in transition]."

 

97

be as easily or as exactly evolved as the zoning district?
The process may be simplified as it was in the instance of
the Honolulu ordinance- There intensity zones were based
on floor area and lot size--using previously established
zones as a guide.170 But are floor area and lot size, a
floor area ratio, an indication Of existing intensity? Is
this indication of intensity comparable to intensity as
defined by LUI-—considering off-site amenities, balconies,

171 If this indica—

parking allocation and other details?
tion of intensity is reliable, wouldn't it be more reason-
able tO state that on the basis of the study, such and

such open space at such and such floor area are desirable

in this and that district, rather than go through this
rigorous study of what is just to provide some relationship
to LUI ratios which have been determined apprOpriate for fed—
eral mortgage insured projects?172

On the other hand, if a community were tO measure

existing intensity, without the aid of some previously

 

170Letter from Mr. Kim, 06 May 1968. The process

used by other communities adopting LUI is not known.

171See footnote 162.

172The Federal Housing Administration's Land Plan-
ning Bulletin No. 7, Land Use Intensity, 8, states that
"FHNs requirements and those of zoning and other local
regulations seldom are identical. This is not surprising
since they are made for different purposes." Furthermore,
the Federal Housing Administration acknowledges in the
Minimum Property_Standards, 24, that adjustment may be
necessary for IOcal topographic conditions. Honolulu does
have tOpography and setting other than the standard success-
ful residential project of an average mainland community
does it not?

 

 

98

established districts, where,using LUI, would it begin to
define the boundaries and dimensions of figross land areaf?
Since LUI is sensitive to such decisions,_should a boundary
line be drawn through beneficial Open space and at what
point? What is "off-site" beneficial Open space? Should

a boundary line be drawn in the interior of a block rather
than down the center of the street? Depending upon where
the line was drawn a particular area could have several
intensity levels--even before the other qualitative details
were studied.

LUI is oriented - to the individual site, which has
definite, established legal boundaries. Without some pre-
establish bounds the application of LUI, with its six com-
ponents, as a device to measure existing intensity, is
Operationally impractical because of its precision in de-
tails.

The other factors, pOpulation density, traffic
generation, utility load, and storm water runoff coeffi-
cients, Of which the LUI components are key indicators,
increase the utility Of LUI, if LUI is an accurate measure
of existing land-use intensity. While the first three

173

might be projected from floor area alone, it is not

 

173V. Joseph Kostka, Nei hborhood Planning (Winni-
peg: By the author, 1957), pp. 2-247 sponsored‘by The
Appraisal Institute of Canada, writes that "residential
density, indicated as the number of families, or persons,
or dwellings per either the 'gross' or the 'net'acre is

 

99

evident how storm water runoff coefficient can be projected
from LUI components. Paved streets, parking lots, side-
walks, and roofed areas are factors which increase runoff
and reduce infiltration and percolation of precipitation
into the ground, but these factors are the elements which
are allowed "flexibility" under the LUI system. The only
component which might be indicative Of paved or covered
area is the number of parking spaces--if unit density is
known. The others such as building area and Open space
vary with the number of stories, roof area, balconies, etc.,
and do not necessarily indicate total ground coverage. To
project a runoff coefficient would require a complete anal-
ysis, such as in Form 1029, of all development within a LUI
band or zone.

If such factors as storm water runoff, soil, and
topography are important in the development Of the community,
then it might be more advisable to do a complementary terrain

analysis in coordination with the study Of intensity--noting

 

an ambiguous indication since it does not take into account
or express the two fundamental variables as follows: first,
the amount Of unbuilt land per dwelling available for private
and public use; and second, the type of dwelling unit and its
height. These variables can fluctuate considerably and thereby
affect the livability [italics mine] of the environment, yet
the density figure remains the same." The floor area ratio

is suggested as a supplementary means Of density control to
account for the three-dimensional space in which the buildings
exist. Conversely, "the building bulk expressed as a floor
area ratio does not [italics mine] reflect population density.
The latter [pOpuIEEion density], however, is needed in order
to determine, for example the total population for which the
neighborhood is planned."

 

100

ground coverage. Such analysis has been suggested in map
form. It includes classification of soil type, tOpographic
lepe, drainage conditions, and the depth of bed rock.
These factors, together, can be used to determine the suit-
ability of the terrain (from the point of View of the phys—
ical characteristics of the land) for residential or indus-
trial develOpment.174
LUI may be an appropriate measure to guide what

ought to be for a defined site. It can serve as a detailed

framework to measure residential develOpment that is, but

it is not a deus ex machina.

 

174Ralph W. Kiefer, "Terrain Analysis for Metro-
politan Fringe Area Planning," Proceedings paper 5649,_
Journal of the Urban Planning and Development Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 93, No. UP4
(December 1967), pp. 120-121.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The six component LUI scale, floor area ratio, Open
space ratio, livability space ratio, recreation space ratio,
and the occupant and total parking space ratios, created
some excitement when it was introduced in 1963. LUI offered
a standard against which large scale development, such as
planned-unit develOpment or clustering, could be judged.
Although LUI is offered as an universal standard, the man—
ner in which its ratios are defined and designed orientate
it to a purpose--specifically the appraisal of residential
development proposed for Federal Housing Administration
mortgage insurance. As one of the minimum prOperty stand-
ards, it is to "encourage the provision of housing projects
that meet the special needs of urban families and to pro-
tect the interests of the Federal Housing Administration in

175

the projects." The emphasis of this latter purpose re-

quires that it be considered "in relation to other factors

affecting marketability, tenant appeal, and economic feasi-

176

bility." The market orientation of LUI is reflected in

 

175Federal Housing Administration. Minimum Property
Standards 0 o 0 I 1 °

176

 

Ibid.

101

102

the precise manner in which qualitative details of intensity,
such as Off-site amenities, balconies, and parking alloca—
tion, are treated.

Because of the precision given to these details,

LUI is suitable to judge residential development, but not
entirely satisfactory to evaluate commercial or industrial
uses. Certain prOponents of LUI have applied floor area
ratio to commercial and industrial uses claiming this as
LUI in one form or another, but it would appear that this
is still an application of floor area ratio.

Even though LUI is offered as a description of both
existing and prOposed land—use intensities, it is more ap-
plicable as the design of the proposed or What ought to be.
As a measure of existing land-use intensity, the use Of
LUI is hampered partly by complex, often inconsistent, def-
initions of the involved elements and their relationships,
and partly by the precise treatment of details. While
the use of certain elements of LUI, such as flOOr area, have
been measured, projected to other elements of the scale,
and termed an application of LUI as a measure of existing
intensity, this again appears to be stretching the meaning
Of the term. The accuracy of such measurement and projec—
tion is questionable since what is existing is not neces-
sarily congruous with what ought to be as determined through

the LUI ratios.

103

In addition to some Of these technical difficulties,
which might be corrected with use in time, there are diffi-
culties of a more man-made nature, which discourage a wider
utilization Of LUI-

First, planned-unit develOpment, to which.the applica—
tion Of LUI is most appropriate, has no specific legal base
in most states. New Jersey is the first state to enact
planned-unit development legislation not only to permit but

also to encourage its use.177

In many states the lack of
enabling legislation poses problems. Planned-unit develop-
ment is a hybrid of zoning subdivision control, and design
regulation, but the authority and administration Of zoning
regulations and subdivision control regulations are dis-
tinguished as two entities and separated in enabling legis-

178 While some communities have adOpted planned-unit

lation.
development as a special or conditional use, the lengthy
procedure outweighs most advantages gained in its use.
Although LUI could provide certain basic standards, the
process is still subject to hearing and pressure group

arguments.179

 

177House and Home, Vol. 32, NO. 2 (August 1967), P.
5. This was enactediin May 1967.

178Fred A. Mauck, "New Development Powers for Fair-
fax County,9 Land Use Controls, Vol. 1, NO. 4 (1967), p. 27.

179The American Society of Planning Officials, Prob-
lems Of Zoning . . ., 38, acknowledges this as a problem.
“l . . most peOple feel expert on land-use and urban prob-
lems simply because they live in a city or own land, or at

 

 

 

104

Second,_the attributes and potential of LUI have
been presented in an Often misleading manner which creates
nor only misunderstanding (confusion) about LUI, but also
a wariness and apprehensiveness of its true values. The
LUI scale is clear and concise, but the definitions and
relationships of elements necessary to compute LUI are
neither simple nor always clear. For example, the partic-
ular value Of half Of the area of an abutting off-site street,
in the computation of gross land area, over the whole area of
the street or no consideration of the area is not apparent.
If the basic question in land development is the building
area in relation to the land area and the resulting Open
space}.80 and this is part of the concern for which LUI was
developed, then it should be sufficient and essential that
LUI meet this end rather than trying or claiming to measure
or project every other quality of land-use intensity. Much
of the presentation of LUI has been like the inflating of a
toy balloon--it grows bigger and bigger with much more chance
Of breaking. LUI, among other things is not a "two digit
number . . . which will produce a balanced, well-designed

project."181

 

least rent. 'The growing body of research . . . shows that
land-use problems are neither simple nor capable of intui-
tive solution."

180Hanke, Land-Use Intensity, A Guidance System for
Housing and Urban DevelOpment, exerpts from spoken testimony, 3.

181Don L. Ralya, "Planned Unit Developments--the FHA
Program," The Real Estate Appraiser (February 1967), p. 5.

 

 

 

105

Despite these difficulties and shortcomings, the
usage Of LUI does have a significant relevance to land-use
planning and should be of concern to the planner. This
significance and cause for concern can be viewed from two
aspects: the Federal Housing Administration's use of LUI
and the potential of LUI, itself, as a regulatory system.

LUI,_considering it as a guide--a prerequisite--for
'federal mortgage insurance issued by the Federal Housing
Administration, is a governmental activity outside of and
independent of zoning and subdivision regulation which in-

fluences the local use of land.182

If the planner is con-
cerned with the overall develOpment and relationships of
land use, then he must be concerned with and cognizant of
these activities, including LUI. He must know how they
function, their impact on land use and how they are related
to each other and to local land-use regulations.

LUI, as a regulatory system is significant to plan-
ning in that it Offers an Operational example of how floor
area ratio, open space, and other spatial factors can be

related in situations other than single lot develOpment.183

 

182The American Society of Planning Officials, Prob-
lems of Zoning . . ., pp. iii, 7, concludes that althougH
zoning and subdivision controls are widely thought of as
the primary land use control devices, they often exert less
influence on land use patterns than do such factors as:
water, sewer, and expressway location; tax and assessment
policies; and federal incentive programs--mortgage insurance.

183It is acknowledged that local land-use controls
are not the only factors influencing land development. It is,

 

106

The key here, however, for future application to planning
would seem to lie inthe use of the floor area ratio rather
than the six intensity components. Emphasis on the floor
area ratio rather than the details of Open space would be
a means of clarifying (and perhaps simplifying) what is
meant by intensity. Emphasis on floor area ratio would
also facilitate application of this system to uses other
than residential. Such a system, called "degree Of utili—
zation," was begun in COpenhagen, Denmark in 1939. It took
into consideration the gross floor area of all uses of the
total building area Of the site in relation to the gross
land area of the site. In support of the degree of utili-
zation, there were regulations for spacing between build-
ings, height in prOportion to breadth of street and to
neighboring boundaries as well as CH1 the nature and ap-
plication of the unbuilt area.184
LUI is a device which can provide a basis for numer-
ical prOportions regarding land-use and as such it can pro-
vide a flexibility not found in the traditional zoning
envelope. It is only a numerical device, however, and not
a substitute for personal involvement and concern in the

development of a healthy, safe, and livable physical environ-

ment for people. This personal involvement is necessary if

 

however, held that there is still a need for develOpment stand-
ards, unless land develOpment today is inspired by a conscious

co-ordinated public interest rather than the private or profit

motives which brought about the earlier controls.

184International Congress for Housing and Town Plan—
ning, Housing Densipy_(Edinburgh: International Congress for
Housing and Town Planning, 1954), pp. 32-34.

 

107
LUI is to have meaning beyond its present economic
orientation.

In its design determining function, LUI should
receive further study with value orientations other than
economic. Emphasis on physical and mental health or
cultural values, for example, may noticeably change the
ratio proportions of the six components. Other components,
such as topography, should also be explored in any

further study.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, Ned H., and Mitchell, Ken F. Site Planning Intro-‘
duction. U.S. Department Of Defense-Family Housing,
The Office Of the Deputy Assistant Secretary Of
Defense, 1966.

American Society of Planning Officials. Problems of Zoning
and Land—Use Regulation. A report prepared for the
consideration Of the National Commission on Urban
Problems, Research Report NO. 2. Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1968.

. Usable Open Space. Report 173, Planning Advisory
Service. Chicago: American Society Of Planning
Officials, 1963.

 

Babcock, Richard F. The Zoning Game, Municipal Practices
and Policies. Miiwaukee: The University of Wis-

consin Press, 1966.

Bair, Frederick H. Jr. "Applying Land Use Intensity to
Public Regulation," Urban Land, Vol. 26, No. 4

(April 1967).

. "How to Regulate Planned-Unit Developments for
Housing——A Summary of a Regulatory Approach," Zonin
Digest, Vol. 17, Nos. 6 and 7 (June and July 1965),

pp. 185-195, 221-230.

. "Planned.DevelOpment in Suburbia," Soil, Water,
and Suburbia. Washington: U.S. Government Print—
ing Office, 1968, pp. 123-131.

 

"Construction Underway on Non-Profit Housing Project," The
Catholic Weekly (Diocese Of Lansing), 31 May 1968.

 

Cribbet, John E. "Changing Concepts in the Law of Land
Use," Land-Use Controls: A Quarterly Review, Vol.

1" NO. 1 (1967) I pp. 21-540

109

110

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing

Federal

Administration. "Streamlined Application of Land-
Use Intensity Standards." A notice tO insuring of-
fice directors and HUD Regional Administrators, Con-
trol NO. F-1249. Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1967.

Housing Administration. The FHA Story in Summary,
1934-1959. Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1959.

 

 

. A Handbook for FHA Multifamily Projects, FHA
NO. 2605. Washifigton: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1965.

 

. How to Use the LUI Number of You; Site, Land
Planning Bulletin No. 3. WaShington: Government
Printing Office, n.d.

 

. Instructions for Land—Use Intensity Forms.
Washington: Government Printing Office, 1965.

 

. Land-Use Intensipy, Land Planning Bulletin NO.
7. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1966 (Interim edition).

 

. Minimum Prpperpy Requirements for Properties of
Three or More Living Units, FHA No. 160. Washing-
ton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961.

 

 

. Minimum PrOperty Standards for Multifamily Housing,
FHA NO. 2600. Washington: Government Printing Of-
fice, 1963.

 

. Neighborhoods built for Rental Housing, Land
Planning Bulletin NO. 4, FHA Form 2538. Washington:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947.

 

. Planned-Unit Development with a Homes Associa-
tion, Land Planning Bulletin NO. 6, FHA No. 1097.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.

 

"FHA's New MP8: Big Step to Good Apartments," House and

 

Home, Vol. XXIV, NO. 5 (December 1963), pp. 130-
133, 185-191.

 

Hanke, Byron R. Land-Use Intensity, a Guidance System for

Housing and Urban Development. Testimony before
the NatiOnaI CommissiOn on Ufban Problems at its
hearing on zoning held in Houston, Texas, on 10
August 1967. Washington: By the Author, 1967.

 

111

Hanke, Byron R. Land-Use Intensity, a Guidance System for
Housing and Urban Development. Exerpts from spoken
testimony before the National Commission on Urban
Problems at its hearing on zoning, held in Houston,
10 August 1967. Washington: By the Author, 1967.

 

 

. Land-Use Intensity Standards, the LUI Scale and
Zonin . Washington: U.S. Government Printing‘
Office, 1966.

 

. "Planning, Developing, and Managing New Urban
Areas," Soil, Water,and Suburbia. Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, I968, pp. 111-121.

 

Honolulu City and County Planning Department. PrOposed Com-
prehensive Zoning Code. Honolulu: Honolulu City
and County Planning Department, 1968.

 

 

House and Home, Vol. XXXII, NO. 2 (August 1967), p. 5.

 

The International City Managers' Association. Local Planning
Administration. Reprinted second edition, Chicago:
The International City Managers' Association, 1950.

 

 

International Congress for Housing and Town Planning. Housin
Density. Proceedings of the 22nd Congress--Edin5urgfi,
195 . Edinburgh: International Congress for Housing
and Town Planning, 1954.

Johansen, Herbert. "Riding the Ram jet," Popular Science,
Vol. 154, NO. 1 (January 1949), pp. 130-131.

 

Katz, Robert D. Intensity of DevelOpment and Livability of
Multifamily Housing Projects. Washington: U.S.
Government Prifiting Office, 1963.

 

 

Kiefer, Ralph W. "Terrain Analysis for MetrOpolitan Fringe
Area Planning," Journal Of the Urban Planning and
Development Division, AmeriEan Society Of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 93, No. UP4, Proceedings Paper
5649, 1967, pp. 119-139.

 

Kostka, V. Joseph. Neighborhood Planning. Winnipeg: By
the author, 1957.

 

 

Krasnowiecki, Jan, et a1. Legal Aspects Of Planned Unit
' Residential Development, with Suggested LegisIation,
Urban Land Institute Technical BulleEin NO. 52.
Washington: Urban Land Institute, 1965.

 

112

Lovelace, E1dridge,and Weismantel, William. Density Zoningp
Organic Zoning for Planned Residential Units, Urban
Land Institute Bulletin NO. 42. Washington: Urban
Land Institute, 1961.

 

 

Mauck, Fred A. "New Development Powers for Fairfax County,"
Land Use Controls, Vol. 1, NO. 4 (1967), pp. 11-34.

 

Metropolitan Planning Commission, Dwelling Districts Zoning
Ordinance Of Marion Counpy, Indiana, Docket No.
66-AO-2. Tindianapolis]: MetrOpolitan Planning
Commission, 1966.

 

 

Ralya, Don L. "Planned Unit DevelOpments--The FHA Program,"
The Real Estate Appraiser, February 1967, pp. 2—10.

 

"Ram Jet Grows Up," Newsweek, 13 February 1950, p. 50.

Reps, John." "Requiem for Zoning," Planning 1964. Chicago:
American Society of Planning Officals, 1964.

 

Rody, Martin J., and Smith, Herbert H. Zoning Primer. West
Trenton, N.J.: Chandler-Davis PubliShing Company,
1960.

 

"Test Chamber Simulates Air Speeds and Altitudes," Science
News Letter, Vol. 57, NO. 6 (11 February 1950), pp.
83-84.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

A SUMMARY OF DENSITY STANDARDS FROM
THE MINIMUM PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS

Under the Old standards a proposed site was one Of
two types.

"Type A. Areas are areas which are suitable for
residential uses at high densities, and may usually be
identified by the existence or imminent use Of typical
properties for high density apartments or high density
row houses. Type A Areas shall include only the follow-
ing:

a. Residential areas in which typical existing land
uses are established and stabilized with dwellings at
more than 25 families per net acre.

b. Additional areas determined by the Chief Under-
writer as apprOpriate for sound long-term residential
use at more than 25 families per net acre by reason Of
the presense of each of the following:

(1) Market demand for additional area for high
density use.

(2) Close proximity to good facilities for shopping,
‘transportation and other community services. Where the
amount Of land so located is greater than the amount
needed to meet the demand for high density use, only the
most favorably located portions of such land shall be
considered for additional Type A area.

(3) Appropriateness of other characteristics Of the
area for purposes of long-term high-density residential
use.

Type B Areas are areas which are suitable for resi-
dential uses at medium or low densities of 25 or less
families per net acre and may usually be identified by
the existing or imminent use of typical properties for
detached and semi-detached dwellings for one or two-
families, for medium and low density row houses, or for
two—story garden apartments with generous Open spaces.
Type B areas shall include all land exclusive of both
Type A areas and areas unsuitable for residential pur-
poses."

These two types established both building coverage

and density for the site area. The building coverage of a

114

115

Type A property was not to exceed 35% for an interior plot
and 45% for a corner plot. The Chief Underwriter, however,
could consider modification of these minimums. The coverage
of Type B property was not to exceed 25%.

The density of a Type A property was not to exceed
40 living units per net acre for an interior plot and 50
living units per acre for a corner plot. "That portion of
a property at the intersection Of two streets to the extent
of 22,500 square feet for each such corner shall be con-
sidered as corner plot; the balance shall be considered as
interior plot." Again the Chief Underwriter could consider
modification Of these maximums. The density of Type B prOp-
erty was not to exceed 25 living units per net acre.

These standards are found in the Federal Housing
Administration's Minimum PrOperty Requirements for Prpper—

ties of Three or More Living Units, reprinted to include'

 

all revisions through March 1961, pp. 5, 7, 8.

APPENDIX B

Zoning Amendment for Planned-unit DevelOpment Including FHA

 

Standards by Reference. Adopted by Frederick County, Marye

 

land. October 1964.

 

Section 40-1. Definitions

HOME ASSOCIATION. AN INCORPORATED, NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
OPERATING UNDER RECORDED LAND AGREEMENTS THROUGH WHICH,(A)
EACH LOT AND/OR HOME OWNER IS A PLANNED UNIT OR OTHER DE-
SCRIBED LAND AREA IS AUTOMATICALLY A MEMBER AND (B) EACH LOT
IS AUTOMATICALLY SUBJECT TO A CHARGE FOR A PROPORTINATE SHARE
OF THE EXPENSES FOR THE ORGANIZATION'S ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS
MAINTAINING A COMMON PROPERTY, AND (C) THE CHARGE IF UNPAID
BECOMES A LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY.

Section 40-23. Planned Unit Development.

(a) Purpose: The purpose Of this section is to permit such
flexibility and provide performance criteria which can result
in planned developments which produce:

1. A maximum choice in the types Of environment and
living units available to the public.

2. Open space and recreation areas.

3. A pattern of development which preserves trees, out-
standing natural topography and geologic features
and prevents soil erosion.

4. A creative approach to the use Of land and related
physical development.

5. An efficient use Of land resulting in smaller net-
works Of utilities and streets and thereby lower
housing costs.

6. An environment of stable character in harmony with
surrounding development.

7. A more desirable environment than would be possible
through the strict application of other sections
of the ordinance. '

The Planned Unit DevelOpment section is designed tO
provide for small and large scale develOpments incorporating
a single type or a variety of residential and related uses
which are PLANNED AND DEVELOPED AS A UNIT. Such develOpment
may consist of individual lots or it may have common build-
ing sites. Common land must be an essential and major ele-
ment of the plan which is related to and effects the long—
term value of the homes and other develOpment.

116

117

A planned-unit shall be a separate entity with a dis-
tinct character in harmony with surrounding development. In
a Planned Unit Development there shall be no maximum build-
ing height, no minimum lot, no minimum lot width. However,
no single family dwelling (except in a town house or semi-
detached dwelling), and no addition to any single family
dwelling shall be erected within a distance of less than
sixteen (16) feet from any other single family dwelling.

(b) Location: The Planned Unit Development may be estab-
lished in the R-l, R-2, or R-3 Residence Districts as au-
thorized in subsection (h) Of Section 40-72 and Sections
40-78 and 40-84. If the prOposed project is in an A-l dis-
trict the desired residential rezoning shall be requested
after the location and plans for the project have been ap-
proved by the Planning Commission. The criteria used in
evaluating the apprOpriateness of a Planned Unit Develop-
ment in an A-l District shall be the same as that required
for rezoning plus guide lines spelled out or indicated in
other parts Of the Comprehensive Development Plans. A
zoning certificate for any structure in a planned unit de-
velOpment shall be issued only after the plans for such
development have been approved by the Planning Commission.
All structures in a planned unit development shall be con-
structed as shown on the approved plans.

(c) Submission of Plans: The develOper shall present
plans, reports and related information in sufficient detail
to enable the Planning Commission to evaluate the proposed
development in accordance with the provisions Of this sec-
tion. Any applicable standards Of design and construction
and procedure for submission of plans that may be adopted
relating to subdivisions shall be followed.

(d) Plan Review: The Planning Commission shall investigate
and ascertain that the plans for a Planned Unit DevelOpment
meet the following conditions:

1. That the tract of land for the project comprises
not less than ten (10) acres. It may be owned,
leased or controlled either by a single person,
or corporation or by'a group Of individuals or
corporations.

2. That the standards for maximum floor space permitted
and for minimum recreation space, outdoor living
space, Open space and parking Space requirements
are related to a land use intensity rating (LIR).
The relationship between ratings and standards are
established by the Minimum PrOperty Standards for
Multi-family Housing (FHA 2600) dated November 1963.
The land use intensity rating for a planned-unit
develOpment shall relate to the zoning districts.
The overall maximum rating for projects, (excluding
commercial and industrial areas) permitted in each
district is:

118

District Rating (LIR) (LUI)
R-l 3.7
R-2 4.5
R-3 5.3

In the A—l District the land use intensity rating

for planned-unit development shall be determined

by the Planning Commission. The Commission in

determining the rating shall follow the procedure

in FHA's Land Planning Bulletin NO. 7, entitled

Land use Intensity Rating; dated September 1963.

The determination of the land use intensity rating

in the A-l District shall be completely documented

including all facts, Opinions and judgments justify-
ing the selection of the rating.

That the buildings are to be used for residential

purposes except where:

a. the development contains 100 or more dwelling
units, 2400 square feet Of floor area for every
100 dwelling units may be for limited commercial
use. This commercial area may be in a separate
building or incorporated with a two family or a
multi-family structure. The following require-
ments shall be met before such commercial use
may be incorporated.

(l) The structure if separate shall be of an
architectural design compatible with that
Of the dwelling units.

(2) Any single commercial area shall be limited
to 2400 square feet of floor area.

(3) One parking Space for every 400 square feet
Of floor shall be provided.

(4) Signs shall be limited to an identification
sign for each point of access. The Signs
shall not exceed two square feet in area,
shall not be directly lighted and shall be
attached flat against the face of the build-
ings or other architectural structure.

b. the develOpment contains 500 or more dwelling
units, one acre of land for every 100 dwelling
units may be used for commercial purposes. Only
uses permitted in the B-1 and B—2 districts may
be included. Where the development contains
1,000 or more dwelling units five (5) acres of
land for every 100 units may be used for light
industry (uses permitted in the M-1 district).
Individual industrial areas shall be a minimum
of 50 acres. Customary, accessory or associated
uses, such as private garages, storage Spaces,
recreational and community activities, churches
and schools are also permitted.

119

4. That the proposed project will constitute an envi-
ronment of sustained desirability and stability,
that it will be in harmony with the character Of
the surrounding neighborhood.

5. That the project is in conformity with the policies
and goals of the Comprehensive DevelOpment Plans,
and will be consistent with the intent and purpose
of this chapter.

6. That the prOperty adjacent ot the prOposed develOp—
ment will not be adversely affected.

7. That every structure containing dwelling units have
access to a public street directly or via a court,
walkway or other area dedicated to public use or
owned and maintained by a Homes Association, but
need not front on a road as defined in Section 40-1
and Section 40-10.

8. That the elements of the plan, (houses, streets,
parking areas, walks, service areas, plant material,
Open space, recreation areas and facilities, walk
and screening, lighting, community buildings, and
maintenance and storage facilities) are arranged
and designed to reflect the principles and Objectives
outlined in sections 5 and 6 Of the FHA's Land Plan-
ning Bulletin NO. 6, entitled "Planned Unit Develop-
ment with a Homes Association," dated December 1963.

(e) Utilities: The method for providing water and sewerage
for the development must be approved by the Health Department
before the Planning Commission approves the plans.

(f) Homes Association: A Homes Association will be required
if other satisfactory arrangements have not been made for im-
proving, Operating and maintaining common facilities including
streets, drives, service and parking areas and recreation
areas. When required, the owner(s) must establish a Homes
Association in accordance with the requirements and procedures
outlined by FHA in Sections 7 and 8.2 of the Land Planning
Bulletin NO. 6, entitled, "Planned Unit Development with a
Homes Association," dated December 1963.

APPENDIX C

FHA FORM 1095, WITH SEVERAL BUILDING TYPES DETERMINED

121

 

 

FHA FORM "0. 1095 LAND-USE INTENSITY OF SITE
Proiect name COLUMBIA RARK SeCI'On
Locatiod2rd€5(07f.ff¢. Jffftk‘afl U5. Gross Acres 440 Date ’2/29/‘f

..';.—_—:~.—_.;m-_“

 

 

 

 

 

STEP T—IELATE SITE TO COMMUNITY TYPE AND PATTERN

a. Urban Area and Benchmark Communities
(1) um... Areammm) Populatio ) Decade Increase--.nm.z__
Explosive ' '

(4) Growth Trend: l] Static I.) Increasmg CID Recessive
(5) SizeClass olUIbanAiealiom TableA; U 5
(6) benchmark Communities n Chart A: CW
01111.1... WW mflw
b. Intensity Range Bar Applying to Subject Community
(1) Community Name -_-_MI‘ -- - . _ - __ .. -__ .__---1 -_._ __

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2) Growth Trend: . . Static InCreasmg T Explosive ecessrve Regenerative
(3) Expected Change in lntensrty: I 1 Much Lower i ’ Lower . Same Higher . uch Higher
(4) Community Type and Its IntenSIty Range Bar on Chart A. B C l. D E i F C] G
c. Sector oi Community Range Bar Applying to Subject Site nd Immediate Surroundings ii
(I) Direction of Growth in Relation to Site. . Toward 923p)? I“ Away .1
(2) Change of Land use in Vicinity of Site: i" None, or‘ NEW. ' Slo ow Ll Moderate 17 Rapid
ip—-(3) Sector of Range Bar Applying to Site and Immediate Surroundings‘ ‘ Minimun® Minimum- MediquMedium
Medium- Maximum i.‘ Maximum
.. ' t
CHART A— lntensit Ran e Bars for Communit T s ‘
Y 8 V we 7 m. was
, . I I . Leather! 10.000 ............. l A
M'mmum I "90'” IMax'mum A 10.000» 50.000 ............. 2 A a
I I 50.!!!) to 100.000 ........... 3 A B C
Minimum 1 Medium 1 Maximum J a 100.000to 500.000 ......... 4 A a c o J
Minimum 11 Medium I Maximum J C ,,,,,, O
f . .
I Minimum Medium I Maximum D
L I
MinHTTUI: 1 Medium I imum j
l I
f lbflinimum L Medium I I Maximum J F

LL 1 I) J G

I Minimum 1 M‘fium I Maximum

r1 1 L1 f j

 

 

 

 

 

3 4 ' 5 6 7 8 9

 

FIRST Land-use Intensity Scale

STEP Z-IELATE TIM SITE TO om mm TYPES

a. in the
Land Building % Land

b. Most Appropriate Buildings for the Site
Land Building % Land Sector 0t

    

 

CHART B—Most Favorable Intensity Ranges for Common Building Types

2. non APAITHNT

 

SECOND Land-use Intensity Scale
FORM NO. 1095 LAND USE INTENSITY OF SITE

 

 

 

122

 

 

FI'IA FORM N0. 1095 LAND-USE INTENSITY OF SITE
STEP J-IELATE SITE To DENSITY

a. Trend in Living Unit Size: II Much alIer @5maller” Same ‘ I Larger i Much Larger
b. Which is Occuring: 'tj Slowly Moderately I Rapidly

c. Trend in Living Units per Gross Acre: I 2 Much Fewer II Fewer Same @MoremMuch More
d. Which is Occuring: u Slowly I ‘ Moderately @Rapidiy

 

    

    

      
     

Data to Determine e. Existing Neighborhood Use t. Most Appropflate Use of Site

 

           

 

     

      
  

     

Area Area

A

    

Area

   

    

Area Area Area Area Area

 

 

    

 

      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 

(1) Building St.

Type

(2) Number ot Bedrooms
per Living Unit

(3) Price or

Rental Range

(4) Living Unit

Size in Sq. Ft.

(5) Adjustment
FactOI

___ST.

 

 

 

 

 

(5) Adjusted Living Unit

 

 

Size in Sq. Ft.
(7) Number OI L'.U. per
Gross Acre

Chart C

 

 

 

    
   

CHART C—Land-use Intensity According to the Number of Living tor Various Unit Sizes

   

    

g . ii-imetsnlgposs (a! 1000
hI-(uPtlbl'A-'I| \Iluvs non
h.‘ ., via-vii All s'IH's. IND

THIRD Land-use Intensity Scale

STEP 4-IELATE THE SITE TO BENCHMARK PROJECTS

Project Name Location

 

 

 

3 4 J 5 j 6 1 7 __ 8 ;_ 9
BAA—14L; 1W3
. A [A a A REA 3
FOURTH Land-use IntenSIty Scale I ‘ LUI Tests:
3. Planning Program Tested Not Tested
STEP S—OETEIMINE LAND-USE INTENSITY NUMBER b. Financial Workability I Tested Not Tested

     
   

 

 

The Maximum Land use Intensrty Acceptable to the FITA

for Current Use of This Site for FHA MOrt age Insmaiice is
Area Area Area Area Tot il
._ --_H .L , , 2,- Area
arid  
LEI .. - - _0 -

Recommendations for Maximum Land use Inten5ityfl

Initials and Date

 

          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

SITE PLANS OF 1946 DEVELOPMENT,
CURRENT BENCHMARK DESIGN, AND
THE ST. VINCENT COURT PROJECT

124

Killingsworth Park Apartments

Portland, Oregon
88 living units

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

  

.... .. ... ............. ....ri. - I‘Vflulrill. ....

y‘fi
'a

 

 

__ as 5 l.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/////. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.00:! l

4’!

 

 

or am 1 .1.

_ peOJacr

M “a k" 5’- w

Neighborhoods Built

Source: Federal Housing Administration,

for Rental Housipg,

 

8.

 

125

          
                          

.s

Ct
mot;
e m
d I
rng
em...

gV
Vanni. 9.3“:
mm... ..
r88 /_ «.../x
032 \ //
W2 7 //
l/

.1
s» r.
. .\ / /.. SAW y
... \Nmmv/zfz/f/l.
. \. vfik/é. .

. we \\.. “w
I 1 I L \\. II.» ..\ ‘.~l\..\ \

\
_I\ A) . l \53. i0
\ >ufi$ ..

.. \\
\ o «I u If
«.9 iN‘Qfi .KHI-
qrxbomttcb x3 «SOQNtEQu.

 

 

 

 

 

     

    
    

\‘

 

  

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Federal Housing Administration, Neighborhoods

Built for Rental Housipg, 17.

Source:

 

 

126

Pomeroy Green
Santa Clara, California
78 living units

 

 

 

 

     

' .3 II! P. 33‘? J" Y Y ‘

..1 i; '-
«I!
RHHHMD

 

Source: Federal Housing Administration, Minimum Property
Standards for Multifamily Housing, 481.

 

127

LOGAN STREET

 

 

 

 

St. Vincent Court .Sa
Lansing , Michigan
56 living units .
( fl l
a»)
r

 

 

 

 

30° too we go o

 

 

 

 

scale 'in zed
ton‘t9uv {ntecvoA "Again...”

Siam ‘btoAn Casement ______

stc acts.“ e s D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Sketched from drawings of the Department of City
Planning, Lansing, Michigan.

I‘IICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

 

31293102332537