Screening Concepts for Feasibility <br />The first level of screening for the project tested the concepts for their feasibility, which is <br />the degree to which the proposed concepts and zoning codes would result in the desired <br />development outcomes given the market conditions along the River Road corridor. <br />The study team conducted an analysis to evaluate the type and amount of development <br />that might be feasible under each concept and to inform the discussion of possible <br />revisions. A customized analysis tool was developed using a platform called MapCraft <br />Labs to evaluate the concepts. This tool allows the analyst to iterate changes (zoning <br />regulations and other policies, such as financial incentives) to understand how they impact <br />development feasibility and other indicators. The findings from this analysis are <br />summarized below. Also see the Summary of Alternatives Evaluation Technical <br />Memorandum in Appendix F for more details about the analysis and inputs. <br />Concept 1 Findings: <br />• Corridor Mixed -Use (C -MU): The C -MU zone is unlikely to yield much new <br />development on developed commercial land as long as the existing use has <br />some value. Office development is unlikely to be feasible under current market <br />conditions but small, stand-alone retail may be feasible in limited locations. As a <br />result, C -MU is more likely to result in residential development than commercial <br />or mixed-use development. <br />• Corridor Residential (C -RES): There are relatively few parcels with existing <br />single-family homes where redevelopment to middle housing types is likely to <br />be feasible under current market conditions. Infill on larger parcels where the <br />existing home could be retained is more likely feasible. Allowing for more <br />development potential along the side streets, by applying C -RES zone, <br />increases the potential for redevelopment. The most likely form of <br />redevelopment in those areas is for -sale duplexes on smaller lots and <br />townhomes on larger lots. <br />• Single -Family Options (SFO): The SFO zone is applied too sparingly to have an <br />effect, but some of the parcels might be feasible for redevelopment to <br />duplexes. <br />Concent 2 Findinas: <br />• C -MU: Concept 2 presents the same level of feasibility as Concept 1. <br />• C -RES: Concept 2 presents a similar level of feasibility as Concept 1; however, <br />Concept 2 would not provide development potential along side streets. <br />• SFO: The SFO zone generally does not provide enough of an increase in <br />development potential to make redevelopment with a different housing type <br />financially viable on most standard single-family lots with existing homes. There <br />is potential for conversions and adding units to sites with existing homes, though <br />RIVER ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY <br />IfiCl <br />