Draft resolution re: AIA proposed zoning text amendments
The American Institute of Architects has proposed, and the City Planning Commission (CPC) has certified a series of proposed amendments to the Zoning Resolution. CPC has allotted 60 days for Community Board Comment. Although AIA asserts that it has been working on the proposed amendments for three years, and although Community Board Seven (Manhattan) has just completed an extensive and time-consuming rezoning of a substantial portion of its Board area, and although the AIA proposed changes might well have had an impact on the rezoning of the 97th-110th Street area just completed, neither the AIA nor CPC publicly disclosed or publicized the existence of the AIA project, much less the nature of its proposal until late October 31, 2007.
Since, unlike Community or CPC generated amendments, the AIA Proposal proceeded to certification without any community input whatsoever, it is not surprising that, in some respects, the AIA proposal fails to consider realities “on the ground” in Community Board Seven.
To compound the problem created by lack of any advance notice of the proposed changes, AIA and CPC have failed to provide the Community Board with either sufficient time or necessary information to permit a fully informed review of the proposals.
For the foregoing reasons, and because, as set forth below, two or more of the proposed amendments appear ill-advised in their present form, Community Board Seven urges the City Planning Commission to delay a vote and extending the comment period so that appropriate changes can be made in the AIA proposals.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, Community Board Seven has examined the AIA proposals as best it could given the limited time and resources available, and make the following comments:
1. The AIA proposal to allow 100% lot line coverage for small corner lots appears appropriate in principle, but could have the unintended consequence of blocking windows in adjacent buildings which are at or near the lot lines. Accordingly, Community Board Seven approves this proposal if, but only if, it is amended to disallow lot coverage over 80% to the extent that lot line windows or windows within 10 feet of a lot line will be affected by 100% lot coverage (Land Use Committee vote, 5-1-0; Board Members, 1-1-0).
2. We are advised that the AIA proposal to allow multi-family buildings on small lots will not affect any sites in the Community Board Seven (Manhattan) area. Accordingly, Community Board Seven takes no position on this proposal and defers to the view so Community Boards containing affected sites (Land Use Committee vote, 6-0-0; Board Members, 2-0-0).
3. The AIA proposal to allow rear dormers on R6-10 quality housing buildings appears appropriate in principle, but could have the unintended consequence of blocking lot line windows in adjacent buildings. Accordingly, Community Board Seven approves this proposal if, but only if, saving language is included which would not permit rear dormers which abut lot line windows in adjacent buildings (Land Use Committee vote, 5-1-0; Board Members, 1-1-0).
4. Community Board Seven disapproves the proposal to allow an increase in maximum base heights in R6-R10 quality housing buildings to the height of an adjacent building. This proposed amendment could have a domino effect, allowing successive developers to increase their base heights to match the tallest building on a block. The proposal ignores the irregular nature of many blocks on the upper west side, and the necessity of a new building to relate not only to its tallest neighbor, but also to shorter buildings on the block. Community Board Seven has recently studied buildings on West 70th Street, a block comprised primarily of brownstones; by happenstance there is a 105’ grandfathered building adjacent to a building site. It would be inappropriate to permit an increase by 25% the base height of buildings on either side of the anomalous building.
Broadway, in particular, contains an irregular, almost saw-tooth, skyline. New buildings should not automatically be allowed to increase their base height to conform to the building height of the tallest buildings in a row, while ignoring the relationship with smaller buildings.
Community Board Seven recognizes that there are times when slavish adherence to setback requirements produces an undesirable result. It is conceivable that with addition study, focused primarily on conditions on the varied avenues and streets of the Community Board Area, a more nuanced amendment to the Quality Housing requirements can be drafted. The AIA proposal however, applies a lawn mower where a manicure scissor is required.
If, despite our objections, CPC is determined to pass a version of this ill-advised proposed amendment, at the very minimum, an increase in building base height should not be as-of-right, but should be subject to a certification process, which includes an opportunity for Community Board comment, and which provides criteria designed to bring about a harmonious blending of the building heights of adjacent buildings and the base height of new buildings (Land Use Committee vote, 6-0-0; Board Member, 2-0-0).
5. With respect to the proposal for a doubling of the surface area of bulkheads housing building mechanical apparatus, Community Board Seven is dismayed by the complete absence of any descriptive or technical information explaining the problem the proposed amendment seeks to address. The claim is made that larger bulkheads will enable buildings to be more efficient, but the AIA representative who presented the proposal at our Land Use Committee meeting could not explain why an increase is necessary. Her knowledge was limited to the need for taller (not necessarily bulkier) bulkheads to accommodate higher speed elevators, and she had no idea whether this issue had any applicability to buildings of the type likely to be built in the Community Board Seven area. It may well be that this proposal has merit, in whole or in part. The case for it simply has not been made. We do not know whether the issue is one of efficiency, cost, a desire to save space within the building or a combination of these and other factors. Nor can we quantify what benefits will accrue (and to whom) as a result of a trade-off in which the negative feature (a larger bulkhead) is evident. We urge CPC not to accept on faith conclusions unsupported by data and a detailed explanation of why the increase in the bulkhead size is necessary, who benefits from it and how.
If, despite our objections, CPC is determined to pass a version of this proposed amendment, we urge that the enlarged bulkhead not be allowed as-of-right, but only via a certification process, with input from the Community Board, in which the applicant will be required to explain why the enlargement is necessary, and in which the impact of the larger bulkhead on surrounding buildings can e assessed. (Land Use Committee vote, 6-0-0; Board Members, 2-0-0).
6. We are advised that the AIA proposal with respect to waiver of side yard requirements by special permit in R3-1, R3-2, R4, and R5 districts, will have no application in the Community Board Seven (Manhattan) area. Accordingly, Community Board Seven (Manhattan) takes no position on this proposed amendment and defers to the views of Community Boards which are so affected. (Land Use Committee vote, 6-0-0; Board Members, 2-0-0).