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.

COMMENTS #1

• Seems like a lot less windows in the Proposed Amendment. I count 15 less windows on the right side of the building, blocked by the tight fit with the adjacent building.
• 
  

2. Determine Density for Undersized Lots by Underlying Zoning

Proposed

COMMENTS #2

• In my neighborhood we have single family houses being torn down and replaced by much larger buildings. The adjacent single family homes get dwarfed, loosing light and livability.  Eventually they get torn down and replaced. While in my neighborhood these tear-downs are in 18 feet + size lots, I'm left wondering about the impact such a Amendment might have on owners of "dwarfed" homes. My first thought is that it encourages them to resist development buy-outs and they'll have  broader opportunities.
• 
  

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

Proposed

COMMENTS #3

•  Why only Quality Housing?
• 
  

4. Adjust Maximum Base Heights for Quality Housing Buildings

COMMENTS #4

•  It seems to me that every building would take advantage of the extra space allowance. More space more money. Should there not be an offset to the residents loosing light and space?
  
• 
  

5. Permit Obstructions to Height and Setback Regulations

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.

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.

COMMENTS #5

•  This needs acoustic consideration and space from adjacent buildings.
• 
  

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

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.

COMMENTS #6

•  If there is adequate expertise and notification to communities this might be acceptable. Perhaps the Special Permit fee should be adequate to cover the cost of a planner to be selected by the local neighbors in conjunction with the community board.
• 
  

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.

COMMENTS #7

•  How is this confusion resolved at this time?