Download Proposed Text of Amendments (PDF)

Download Presentation about Proposed Text Amendments(PDF)

Letters of Support(in process)
Architects Council
APA Metro Chapter Bar Assoication
CHPC
NYSAFA
MAS

For more information contact
mark@cplusga.com
lmanville@aiany.org

The following proposal has been prepared by a committee organized by the AIA New York Chapter including representatives of the following organizations: American Planning Association NY Metro Chapter, The Architects Council, Citizens Housing and Planning Council and the Municipal Art Society

Since 1961 the Zoning Resolution has been amended and expanded numerous times, often without removing old and outmoded provisions. The logic of some provisions has often been lost or obscured by the passage of time. Over those years our City has changed. Most of the prime parcels of land have been developed – particularly outside of Manhattan - leaving small, irregular infill sites within a largely built up City. These proposals concentrate on improving and updating the Zoning Resolution. The intent is not to radically change the Zoning Resolution, but to make it work better after over almost fifty years of use.

Proposed changes to the Zoning Resolution have the following objectives:

    •Deal with a largely built up, mature city where development sites tend to be infill sites, and are often irregularly-shaped.

    •Allow flexibility to encourage variety and design excellence, consistent with sound planning and urban design principles.

    •Encourage sustainable housing practices.

The following is a list of the proposed changes:
1.Increase coverage on small corner lots for Quality Housing buildings
2.Let underlying zoning determine density for undersized lots
3.Permit dormers in rear setback areas forQuality Housing buildings
4.Adjust maximum base heights for Quality Housing buildings in certain circumstances to align with adjacent buildings.
5.Permit design features not to comply with height and setback regulations in specific locations for Quality Housing Buildings.
6.Waive side yards in R3-1, R3-2, R4 and R5 non-contextual districts by BSA special permit
7.Clarification of the applicability of residential tower regulations in certain commercial districts.

 

 

The proposed amendments do not add floor area to buildings.

Below are detailed descriptions of each proposal:

1. Coverage on Small Corner Lots for Quality Housing Buildings

  

 

Current Regulations
Currently, the Zoning Resolution allows 80 percent coverage on corner lots for residential buildings developed or enlarged pursuant to the Quality Housing Program in R6 through R10 districts and their commercial equivalents. This current zoning makes it difficult to design buildings that provide continuous street walls, force the buildings to be higher to achieve the maximum floor area ratios allowed and limits efficient building design by creating small floor plates.


Current

 

 Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment will allow 100 percent coverage on lots of 5,000 square feet or less. There are already no side yard or rear yard requirements for corner lots in the applicable districts. The proposed amendment will allow for greater street wall continuity, and therefore lower buildings, since allowable floor area may be distributed over more of the lot, and more efficient building design.

2. Determine Density for Undersized Lots by Underlying Zoning
Proposed

 

 Current Regulations
In all residence districts, undersized lots less than 18 feet wide or 1,700 square feet are limited by Sections 23-32 and 23-33 of the Zoning Resolution to a single-family or two-family residence, no matter what the permitted FAR. This can result in very large buildings occupied by only one or two families.
Current

 

 Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment will allow multi-family buildings on undersized lots, as long as they are in accordance with underlying density requirements. Structures with three or more dwelling units on these undersized lots would be restricted to the building envelope of an R8B district, which has a 60-foot maximum base height and 75-foot maximum building height, or the height and setback regulations of the applicable district, whichever is more restrictive. This would prevent the construction of excessively tall multiple dwellings on narrow lots. The amendment would allow a more efficient use of space by permitting multiple units where the underlying zoning permits.

3. Permit Dormers in Rear Setback Areas for Quality Housing Buildings


Proposed

 

 Current Regulations
Currently, dormers are allowed within the front setbacks required above the maximum base height in R6 through R10 contextual districts and their commercial equivalents and for buildings developed pursuant to the Quality Housing Program. However, the Zoning Resolution does not contain a parallel mechanism to allow dormers in the rear setback area above the maximum base height.
Current

 

 Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment will allow dormers in the rear of buildings above the maximum base height in the same manner in which dormers are allowed in the front of buildings above the maximum base height for Quality Housing buildings in R6 to R10 districts. Permitting rear dormers will allow greater flexibility in building design and allow floor area to be shifted from lower floors to upper floors, thereby allowing for more open space on the lot.

4. Adjust Maximum Base Heights for Quality Housing Buildings


Proposed

 

 Current Regulations
The Zoning Resolution allows a fixed range of base heights in contextual districts and for buildings developed pursuant to the Quality Housing Program. No variation based on the context is permitted.
Current

 

 Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment will allow maximum base heights to be increased by up to 25 percent to match existing adjacent buildings whose street walls exceed the maximum permitted base height. However, the maximum base height would never be allowed to exceed the maximum building height of the applicable district. The proposed amendment will allow greater design flexibility and will allow buildings to match or more closely match the existing height of adjacent buildings.

5. Permit Obstructions to Height and Setback Regulations


Proposed

 

 Current Regulations
Rooftop structures (including bulkheads and certain mechanical spaces) that exceed height limits are regulated by a formula that limits their surface area facing a street to four times the width of the building (i.e. for a 50 foot wide building an area of 200 square feet is permitted). This formula is applicable in all districts except lower density contextual districts and except in seven special purpose zoning districts (Battery Park City, Hudson Yards, West Chelsea, Downtown Brooklyn, Tribeca, Bay Ridge and Stapleton) which have formulas similar to the proposed formula.

The formula most often affects buildings in R6 through R10 contextual districts and their commercial equivalents and buildings developed according to the Quality Housing Program.

The current regulations impose restrictions that are based on the demands of building infrastructure design originating in the late 1950s (the current Zoning Resolution was drafted in 1961) and are no longer appropriate. For instance, the current regulations allow cooling towers on rooftops, but not heating equipment, even though it is more efficient to place these systems next to each other. Current regulations also do not allow for sustainable technologies on rooftops, such as solar panels or planting beds for green roof systems. The proposed amendment reflects the spatial demands of the mechanical systems for modern building.


Current

 

Proposed Amendment
The existing formula would continue to apply to all buildings. However two alternatives would be added to allow for larger rooftop obstructions, provided the obstructions were placed at least 20 feet from a wide street and at least 25 feet from a narrow street.

The first alternative would allow rooftop obstructions to have a surface area equal to eight times the width of the building. The second alternative would apply only to buildings at least 120 feet in height, and would allow the rooftop obstructions to cover up to 20 percent of the footprint of the building and limit the height of the obstructions to 40 feet. This second alternative envelope is necessary to accommodate roof water tanks in taller buildings where street pressure or booster pumps cannot be used to provide water to upper floors.

In addition to elevator and stair bulkheads and water tanks, rooftop obstructions would be allowed to contain mechanical equipment of any kind provided it is contained within the allowable envelope. In addition, sustainable technology equipment, such as green roof equipment and solar panels/photovoltaic cells will be allowed to occupy the remainder of the roof, up to a height of 4 feet.

6. Waiver of Side Yards in Some Low-Density Non-contextual Districts by BSA Special Permit


Proposed

 

Current Regulations
In R3-1, R3-2, R4, and R5 districts (but not in not R4A, R4-1, R4B, R5A, R5B or R5D districts) a residential building is allowed to abut a building on an adjacent zoning lot if such adjacent building is built to the same side lot line.
Current

 

Proposed Amendment
The standards for approval of the Special Permit would be that construction to the side lot line would not adversely affect neighboring properties, alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the building is located, nor impair the future use or development of the surrounding area.
Proposed

 

 7. Clarification of the applicablity of Residential Tower Regulations in Certain Commercial Districts.

There has been some confusion as to which commercial zoning districts "Tower-on-a-base" regulations apply, and to which districts the older "standard" tower are applicable. Part of the problem was the unorthodox way the original amendment which created "tower-on-a-base" in Section 23-65 in 1994 numbered the sub-sections, so that the cross-reference in the "mixed buildings" provisions of Sec. 35-63, dealing with the applicability of towers in commercial zones, was not clear. This amendment merely corrects the format of Section 23-65 to place the alternative tower regulations in their proper context of applicability, particlarly for the cross-referencing of Sec. 35-63. In summary, the text will now make clear, as was originally intended, but unclearly stated, that "tower-on-a-base" applies in C1 and C2 zones, and not in C4, C5 and C6 zones.