DOCSLIB.ORG

Crystal Reports

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crystal Reports THE NEW YORK CITY LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 1 CENTRE STREET 9TH FLOOR NORTH NEW YORK NY 10007 TEL: 212 669-7700 FAX: 212 669-7780 PERMIT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ISSUE DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: DOCKET #: COFA #: 02/12/2013 01/08/2018 13-8665 COFA 14-0778 ADDRESS BOROUGH: BLOCK/LOT: 30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK MANHATTAN 1265/7501 ROCKEFELLER CENTER/GE BUILDING Display This Permit While Work Is In Progress ISSUED TO: Joseph Szabo, Authorized Sig. RCPI Landmarks Properties LLC 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Pursuant to Section 25-307 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, the Landmarks Preservation Commission, at the Public Meeting of January 8, 2012, following the Public Hearing of the same date, voted to approve a proposal for certain work at the 65th floor terrace setback of 30 Rockefeller Plaza , as put forth in your application completed on December 6, 2012. The proposed work, as approved, consists of removing and storing historic metal railings, and installing glass safety panels on the south, west, and north sides of the setback terrace; enlarging the existing non-historic window openings on the south, west, and north elevations of the western room and installing new glazing within new aluminum framing; preserving the original cast-aluminum exterior mullions at the south elevation of the floor and installing new windows without the secondary mullions at this location. The proposed work was presented at the Public Hearing and Public Meeting in a Power Point presentation, along with select boards, and a reduced set of drawings labeled 1 through 48, all dated January 8, 2013. The proposal was presented in conjunction with LPC 13-8503, a proposal for interior alterations in the designated interior landmark, the adjacent Rainbow Room. In reviewing this proposal, the Commission noted that the designation report describes 30 Rockefeller Plaza an Art Deco Style skyscraper designed by the Associated Architects within the Art Deco style commercial, office and entertainment complex known as Rockefeller Center. The Commission further noted that the Rainbow Room originally opened in 1934 as a dining and entertainment venue. The Commission finally noted that that this portion of the 65th floor is not part of the Rainbow Room Interior Designation; that it was originally designed as a loggia or "Club Dining Room," with an open patio at its center, but early on, in the late 1930s the patio was enclosed; and that in the 1970s another campaign of major alterations resulted in alterations to window openings on the south, west and north elevations of the setback terrace. With regard to this proposal, the Commission found, that the removal and storage of ornamental railings, and the installation of a protective glass panel system at the parapet will be consistent with previous approvals at the observation deck on the 67th and 69th floors; that within the windows system of the south elevation, the original cast-aluminum exterior mullions will be retained, and new window will be installed without the non-historic secondary mullions, thereby bringing these windows closer to their historic condition; that the enlarged window openings on the south, west, and north elevations of the western room will return the windows to their original height, although they will retain their expanded width dating from the 1970s; that the work will result in the elimination of a minimal amount of historic masonry, and that given the enormous scale of the building the changes will not call attention to themselves; and that due to the height of the building and the location of the work at the 65th floor, none of this work will be perceptible from a public thoroughfare. Based on these findings, the Commission determined the work to be appropriate to the landmark, and voted to approve this application. In voting to approve the proposal, the Commission requested that the applicants review the mullion and glazing pattern of the new windows within the enlarged opening with staff to make it better relate to the historic masonry above. The Commission authorized the issuance of a certificate of Appropriateness upon receipt, review and approval of two complete sets of Department of Buildings filing drawings for the proposal. Subsequently, on January 14, the Commission received a letter from Michael Gabellini and Cas Stachelberg explaining that the mullion pattern is predicated by a structural conditions which cannot be altered. Staff reviewed the letter and agreed that any changes to the mullion patterning would not be practicable. Subsequently, on January 22, 2013, the Commission received drawings dated 12/18/12, labeled A.001.00, A100.00, A700.00, A101.00, A-701.00 signed and sealed by Richard DeMarco, R.A; A001.00 through A006.00, A-200.00, A-201.00, A-201.00, A300.00, A301.00, A400.00, A401.00, A501.00, A600.00, A604.00, A701.00, A702.00 through A708.00, A722.00, A800.00 through A803.00, also signed and sealed by Richard DeMarco, R.A.; 1.001, 1.101, 1.101A, 1.102, 1.104, 1.105, 1.111, 1.112, 1.114, 1.115, 1.601, 1.601A, 1.602B, 1.603, 1.6.4, 1.604A, 1.606 through 1.611, 1.710, 1.901, 1.902, 1.903, 1.911, 1.931 through 1.933, 1.941, 1.942, 1.951, 1.952 through 1.956 all prepared by Gabellini Shepard Architects; DM-201.00 through DM-204.00, DM301.00 through DM303.00, all signed and sealed by Peter Sposato, P.E.; S-100.00, S-101.00 signed and sealed by Edward M. DePaola, P.E.; M-001.00, M-101.00, M-201.00 through M-204.00, M-301.00, M-302A.00, M-302B.00, M-303.00, M-304.00, M-401.00 through M-406.00, M-501.00, M-601.00,M-701.00 through M-705.00, M-801.00, M-802.00, M-804.00, M-805a, M-805b, M-806.00, M-808.00, EN-101.00 through EN-104.00, E.101.00, E-201.00, E-202.00, ED-301.00, ED-302.00, E-301.000, E-311.00, E-312.00, E-401.00, E-402.00, , E-403.00, E-404.00, E-501.00, E-502.00, E-601.00, E-604.00, E-701.00, E-702.00, E-801.00, E-802.00, E-803.00, E-811.00 through E-813.00, FA-101.00, FA-301.00, FA-304.00, P-101.00, P-201.00, P-301.01, P-302.00, P-303.00, P-401.00, P-501.00, P-503.00, P-601.00, P-701.00, P-801.00, P-802.00, SP-101.00, SP-201.00, SP-301.00, SP-302.00, SP-401.00, SP501.00, SP-801.00, SP-802.00, SPD-301.00, SPD-302.00, all signed and sealed by Peter J. Sposato P.E.; KA-1, KA-2, KA-2a, KA-3, KA-3a, KA-4, KA-4a, KB-1 through KB-7, all prepared by Montroy-DeMarco LLP; AV.ODL.00, AV.OKY.64, .65, .66, AV.101.00 through AV.103.00, AV.201.65 through AV.208.65, AV.211.65, AV.209.66, AV.210.64, AV.501.00, all prepared by CMS Audio Visual Consultants. Staff reviewed these drawings and found that the proposal approved by the Commission has been maintained. Staff further noted that these drawing s include the construction of two ADA compliant ramps to provide access to the terrace, the replacement of mechanical equipment on the terrace setback, and extensive interior alterations throughout the 65th floor. Staff found that none of this work is discernable from the surrounding streets. Therefore, Certificate of Appropriateness 14-0778 is being issued. Please note that this permit is being issued in conjunction with Certificate of Appropriateness 14-0695 for interior alterations in the rainbow room. The drawings reflect the work approved under both permits. This permit is issued on the basis of the building and site conditions described in the application and disclosed during the review process. By accepting this permit, the applicant agrees to notify the Commission if the actual building or site conditions vary or if original or historic building fabric is discovered. The Commission reserves PAGE 2 Issued: 2/12/13 DOCKET: 13-8665 the right to amend or revoke this permit, upon written notice to the applicant, in the event that the actual building or site conditions are materially different from those described in the application or disclosed during the review process. All approved drawings are marked approved by the Commission with a perforated seal indicating the date of approval. The work is limited to what is contained in the perforated documents. Other work or amendments to this filing must be reviewed and approved separately. The applicant is hereby put on notice that performing or maintaining any work not explicitly authorized by this permit may make the applicant liable for criminal and/or civil penalties, including imprisonment and fines. This letter constitutes the permit; a copy must be prominently displayed at the site while work is in progress. Please direct inquiries to Caroline Kane Levy. Robert B. Tierney Chair PLEASE NOTE: PERFORATED DRAWINGS AND A COPY OF THIS PERMIT HAVE BEEN SENT TO: Cas Stachelberg, Higgens Quasebarth & Partners cc: C. Stachelberg, M. Gabellini, S.Carroll PAGE 3 Issued: 2/12/13 DOCKET: 13-8665.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Zoning ORDINANCE USER's MANUAL
    CITY OF PROVIDENCEPROVIDENCE ZONING ORDINANCE USER'S MANUAL PRODUCED BY CAMIROS ZONING ORDINANCE USER'S MANUAL WHAT IS ZONING? The Zoning Ordinance provides a set of land use and development regulations, organized by zoning district. The Zoning Map identifies the location of the zoning districts, thereby specifying the land use and develop- ment requirements affecting each parcel of land within the City. HOW TO USE THIS MANUAL This User’s Manual is intended to provide a brief overview of the organization of the Providence Zoning Ordinance, the general purpose of the various Articles of the ordinance, and summaries of some of the key ordinance sections -- including zoning districts, uses, parking standards, site development standards, and administration. This manual is for informational purposes only. It should be used as a reference only, and not to determine official zoning regulations or for legal purposes. Please refer to the full Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map for further information. user'’S MANUAL CONTENTS 1 ORDINANCE ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 2 ZONING DISTRICTS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 3 USES.............................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CITY PLANNING COMMISSION N 980314 ZRM Subway
    CITY PLANNING COMMISSION July 20, 1998/Calendar No. 3 N 980314 ZRM IN THE MATTER OF an application submitted by the Department of City Planning, pursuant to Section 201 of the New York City Charter, to amend various sections of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York relating to the establishment of a Special Lower Manhattan District (Article IX, Chapter 1), the elimination of the Special Greenwich Street Development District (Article VIII, Chapter 6), the elimination of the Special South Street Seaport District (Article VIII, Chapter 8), the elimination of the Special Manhattan Landing Development District (Article IX, Chapter 8), and other related sections concerning the reorganization and relocation of certain provisions relating to pedestrian circulation and subway stair relocation requirements and subway improvements. The application for the amendment of the Zoning Resolution was filed by the Department of City Planning on February 4, 1998. The proposed zoning text amendment and a related zoning map amendment would create the Special Lower Manhattan District (LMD), a new special zoning district in the area bounded by the West Street, Broadway, Murray Street, Chambers Street, Centre Street, the centerline of the Brooklyn Bridge, the East River and the Battery Park waterfront. In conjunction with the proposed action, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development is proposing to amend the Brooklyn Bridge Southeast Urban Renewal Plan (located in the existing Special Manhattan Landing District) to reflect the proposed zoning text and map amendments. The proposed zoning text amendment controls would simplify and consolidate regulations into one comprehensive set of controls for Lower Manhattan.
    [Show full text]
  • CHRYSLER BUILDING, 405 Lexington Avenue, Borough of Manhattan
    Landmarks Preservation Commission September 12. 1978~ Designation List 118 LP-0992 CHRYSLER BUILDING, 405 Lexington Avenue, Borough of Manhattan. Built 1928- 1930; architect William Van Alen. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 1297, Lot 23. On March 14, 1978, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a_public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the Chrysler Building and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 12). The item was again heard on May 9, 1978 (Item No. 3) and July 11, 1978 (Item No. 1). All hearings had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Thirteen witnesses spoke in favor of designation. There were two speakers in opposition to designation. The Commission has received many letters and communications supporting designation. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The Chrysler Building, a stunning statement in the Art Deco style by architect William Van Alen, embodies the romantic essence of the New York City skyscraper. Built in 1928-30 for Walter P. Chrysler of the Chrysler Corporation, it was "dedicated to world commerce and industry."! The tallest building in the world when completed in 1930, it stood proudly on the New York skyline as a personal symbol of Walter Chrysler and the strength of his corporation. History of Construction The Chrysler Building had its beginnings in an office building project for William H. Reynolds, a real-estate developer and promoter and former New York State senator. Reynolds had acquired a long-term lease in 1921 on a parcel of property at Lexington Avenue and 42nd Street owned by the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art.
    [Show full text]
  • The Skyscraper of the 1920S
    BECOMING MODERN: AMERICA IN THE 1920S PRIMARY SOURCE COLLECTION ONTEMPORAR Y IN OMMENTARY HE WENTIES T T C * THE SKYSCRAPER In the American self-image of the 1920s, the icon of modern was the modern city, the icon of the modern city was New York City, and the icon of New York City was the skyscraper. Love it or hate it, the skyscraper symbolized the go-go and up-up drive that “America” meant to itself and much of the world. A sampling of twenties illustration and commentary on the architectural phenomenon that still captures the American imagination is presented here. Berenice Abbott, Cliff and Ferry Street, Manhattan, photograph, 1935 Louis Lozowick, 57th St. [New York City], lithograph, 1929 Museum of the City of New York Renwick Gallery/Smithsonian Institution * ® National Humanities Center, AMERICA IN CLASS , 2012: americainclass.org/. Punctuation and spelling modernized for clarity. Complete image credits at americainclass.org/sources/becomingmodern/imagecredits.htm. R. L. Duffus Robert L. Duffus was a novelist, literary critic, and essayist with New York newspapers. “The Vertical City” The New Republic One of the intangible satisfactions which a New Yorker receives as a reward July 3, 1929 for living in a most uncomfortable city arises from the monumental character of his artificial scenery. Skyscrapers are undoubtedly popular with the man of the street. He watches them with tender, if somewhat fearsome, interest from the moment the hole is dug until the last Gothic waterspout is put in place. Perhaps the nearest a New Yorker ever comes to civic pride is when he contemplates the skyline and realizes that there is and has been nothing to match it in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination
    NPS Form 10-900 (3-82) OMB No. 1024-0018 Expires 10-31-87 United States Department off the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received Inventory Nomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries complete applicable sections____________ 1. Name historic Rockefeller Center and or common 2. Location Bounded by Fifth Avenue, West 48th Street, Avenue of the street & number Americas, and West 51st Street____________________ __ not for publication city, town New York ___ vicinity of state New York code county New York code 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use district public x occupied agriculture museum x building(s) x private unoccupied x commercial park structure both work in progress educational private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible _ x entertainment religious object in process x yes: restricted government scientific being considered yes: unrestricted industrial transportation no military other: 4. Owner of Property name RCP Associates, Rockefeller Group Incorporated street & number 1230 Avenue of the Americas city, town New York __ vicinity of state New York 10020 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Surrogates' Court, New York Hall of Records street & number 31 Chambers Street city, town New York state New York 6. Representation in Existing Surveys Music Hall only: National Register title of Historic Places has this property been determined eligible? yes no date 1978 federal state county local depository for survey records National Park Service, 1100 L Street, NW ^^ city, town Washington_________________ __________ _ _ state____DC 7. Description Condition Check one Check one x excellent deteriorated unaltered x original s ite good ruins x altered moved date fair unexposed Describe the present and original (iff known) physical appearance The Rockefeller Center complex was the final result of an ill-fated plan to build a new Metropolitan Opera House in mid-town Manhattan.
    [Show full text]
  • Height, Setbacks, and Floor Area 17.48
    HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND FLOOR AREA 17.48 Chapter 17.48 – HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND FLOOR AREA Sections: 17.48.010 Purpose 17.48.020 Height Measurement and Exceptions 17.48.030 Setback Measurement and Exceptions 17.48.040 Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio 17.48.010 Purpose This chapter establishes rules for the measurement of height, setbacks, and floor area, and permitted exceptions to height and setback requirements. 17.48.020 Height Measurement and Exceptions A. Measurement of Height. 1. The height of a building is measured as the vertical distance from the assumed ground surface to the highest point of the building. 2. Assumed ground surface means a line on the exterior wall of a building that connects the points where the perimeter of the wall meets the finished grade. See Figure 17.48-1. 3. If grading or fill on a property within five years of an application increases the height of the assumed ground service, height shall be measured using an estimation of the assumed ground surface as it existed prior to the grading or fill. FIGURE 17.48-1: MEASUREMENT OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT 48-1 17.48 HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND FLOOR AREA B. Height Exceptions. Buildings may exceed the maximum permitted height in the applicable zoning district as shown in Table 17.48-1. Note: Height exceptions in Table 17.48-1 below add detail to height exceptions in Section 17.81.070 of the existing Zoning Code. TABLE 17.48-1: ALLOWED PROJECTIONS ABOVE HEIGHT LIMITS Maximum Projection Above Structures Allowed Above Height Limit Maximum Coverage Height Limit Non-habitable decorative features including 3 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Zoning Handbook 1961
    CITY PLANNING COMMISSION • DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING ZONING HANDBOOK A Guide to the Zoning Resolution of The City of New York TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ............................................ >................. _ ••••• __••••••• __ ............................ 4 THE STRUCTURE OF THE RESOLUTION Zoning Maps ............................................................ _........................ _............................. 6 Text of the Resolution ................................................................................................ 7 Index of Uses ........................................................ ........................................................ 8 USE Use Groups and Special Permit Uses ....................................... __ .......................... 10 Use Districts .......................................................... _.......................... __ •......................... 12 Industrial Performance Standards (Manufacturing Districts) .............................................. _ .............................. 13 Supplementary Use Regulations and Special Provisions Along District Boundaries ............................................ 14 Signs ................................................................................................... _.............................. 14 BULK Controls Over Intensity of Development .............................................................. 16 Design Controls ........... ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chrysler Building: Race to the Sky
    PDHonline Course S255 (4 PDH) Chrysler Building: Race to the Sky Instructor: Jeffrey Syken 2012 PDH Online | PDH Center 5272 Meadow Estates Drive Fairfax, VA 22030-6658 Phone & Fax: 703-988-0088 www.PDHonline.org www.PDHcenter.com An Approved Continuing Education Provider Race to the Sky 1 Table of Contents Slide/s Part Title/Description 1 N/A Title 2 N/A Table of Contents 3~22 1 THE 1925 PARIS EXPOSITION 23~53 2 ART DECO 54~111 3 EVER HIGHER 112~157 4 RACE FOR THE SKY 158~177 5 OLD BULLET HEAD 178~234 6 THE DESIGN 235~252 7 THE LOBBY 253~262 8 THE CLOUD CLUB 263~273 9 CONSTRUCTION 274~300 10 LEGACY 2 Part 1 THE 1925 PARIS EXPOSITION 3 Away with the architraves, pillars and antiquated temples of the aristocratic past. The universal human community will produce its own style, appropriate for its own age here in the twentieth century! 4 5 6 “French taste was law… Why? Because all around us the English, Germans, Belgians, Italians, Scandinavians and even the Americans themselves reacted and sought to create for themselves – for better or worse – an original art, a novel style corresponding to the changing needs manifested by an international clientele…” Lucien Dior – French Minister of Commerce 7 8 9 10 “All that clearly distinguished the older ways of life was rigorously excluded from the exposition of 1925” Waldemar George 11 12 13 “A cabinet maker is an architect…In designing a piece of furniture, it is essential to study conscientiously the balance of volume, the silhouette and the proportion in accordance with the chosen material and the technique imposed by this material” RE: Excerpt from: Arts Decoratifs: A Personal Recollection of the Paris Exhibition 14 15 “In 1900, we saw the triumph of noodling ornamentation.
    [Show full text]
  • ARCHITECTURE AS the PRODUCTION of INTERIORITY a Comprehensive Tool to Understand Interiority in Architecture for an Evolving World
    DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN UNDERGRADUATE HONORS THESIS UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER ARCHITECTURE AS THE PRODUCTION OF INTERIORITY A Comprehensive Tool to Understand Interiority in Architecture for an Evolving World DEVIN COSTELLO Examining Committee: Jade Polizzi – Environmental Design – Primary Advisor Robert Nauman – Art and Art History – Secondary Advisor Maryanne Fantalis – Environmental Design – Honors Committee Representative Defense: March 31, 2020 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank everyone that had a role in the completion of this thesis. To my committee members, without your unwavering support and guidance through this, I would not have made the progress I did. I appreciate the countless meetings, draft reviews, and hours spent problem solving and adjusting my work to achieve the level it has reached today. To my parents and family, your emotional support has helped to motivate me in trying times. Given the current social climate that we are all persevering through, I hope my work can provide a sliver of hope, or at least provide a distraction, for those who read it as we continue to face more challenges related and un-related to design. Let us not forget that design is at the root of every problem and also every solution. 2 ABSTRACT World population is exponentially increasing, causing a depletion of natural resources, global temperatures to rise, and buildable land to diminish. Research has shown that as a reaction to these issues, designers are using old and unused buildings as the blank canvas for new projects. The objective of this thesis is to determine new ways of understanding existing buildings in case they undergo alterations and re-purposing.
    [Show full text]
  • Megablock Urbanism Rockefeller Center Reconsidered New York, NY USA
    Columbia University GSAPP AAD Summer 2015 Critic: Jeffrey Johnson [email protected] TA: Jiteng Yang [email protected] Megablock Urbanism Rockefeller Center Reconsidered New York, NY USA Rockefeller Center - Original Design in 1931 Image: wirednewyork.com Intro: The world continues to urbanize, in many regions at an astonishing pace, and we as architects must find ways to intervene in its physical metamorphosis. We are for the first time in history more urban than rural. Existing cities are expanding and new ones are being formed without historic precedent. How we continue to urbanize is of huge consequence. And, how we understand this phenomenon is critical to our ability to participate in the future urbanization of the world. This means we must invent new ways of thinking about cities and be agile enough to continuously modify and/or discard even the most recently developed theories and strategies. What possible socially and ecologically sustainable solutions can be invented for accommodating future urban growth? What role does architecture play in these newly formed megacities? 1 AAD Studio Summer 2015 - Johnson Superblock / Megablock: For many cities around the world, large-scale superblock development provides the default solution for accommodating urban growth. Superblocks, in their contemporary form, are byproducts of modernism – from Le Corbusier; to Soviet microrayons; to Lúcio Costa and Oscar Niemeyer’s Brasilia; to Mao’s danwei (factory units); to Steven Holl’s Linked Hybrid in Beijing. Varying in size from 8 hectares to over 50 hectares, with populations from 1,000’s to over 100,000, superblocks are spatial instruments with social, cultural, environmental, and economic implications, operating between the scales of architecture and the city.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Zoning Regulations in NYC
    Introduction to Zoning Regulations in NYC NYC Department of City Planning Zoning Division Zoning Regulations Building height Ensure harmonious relationship between all Setback the different users of a city Community Provides certainty to Facility residents and businesses Provides framework for appropriate growth Office Zoning Controls: • Land Use •Density Retail - •Building size •Parking •Signage 1840 to 1900 – population growth had led to tenements Pre-regulation “old law” “new law” Tenement tenement tenement (fire escapes (1879-1901) (after 1901) required 1867) Evolution of Tenement Laws Old law tenements in the East Village today Bond Street 1820’s: pre-eminent residential neighborhood 1840’s: shops and hotels appeared after Civil War: boarding houses and factories Equitable Building 1915 Broadway at Pine Street Change was quick & dramatic 1916 New York City established the first Zoning Resolution in the United States 1916 Zoning Resolution Set of regulations related to 3 volumes of maps: Use Districts Separated uses (residential, retail, business, unrestricted) Height Districts Related building size to width of streets; introduced sky exposure planes Area Districts Specified yards, courts, types & size of residences Cities never stand still, nor should zoning Building Configuration Sky Exposure Plane (setback principle) Building Configuration Towers – 25% lot coverage Sky Exposure Plane and Towers 25% tower pierces Upper floors follow slope of sky exposure plane sky exposure plane Highly influential in the 1950’s Stuyvesant Town 1947
    [Show full text]
  • Article 16: Zoning Code
    PART 3: GENERAL REGULATIONS § 14-16-3-3 Supplementary Height, Area, and Use Regulations. 3-25 § 14-16-3-3 SUPPLEMENTARY HEIGHT, AREA, AND USE REGULATIONS. The following regulations override conflicting regulations elsewhere in this Zoning Code. (A) Height Regulations. (1) Height regulations in this Zoning Code do not apply to: (a) Belfries. (b) Church spires and towers. (c) Flag poles. (d) Flues. (e) Monuments. (f) Ornamental towers and spires. (g) Religious signs as specified in § 14-16-3-5(D)(4) of this Zoning Code. (2) A height variance may be approved for the following structures even though there is only a minimal showing as to exceptional physical condition: (a) Chimneys. (b) Conveyors. (c) Cooling towers. (d) Cupolas and domes. (e) Elevator housings. (f) Mechanical equipment and its screening. (g) Observation towers. (h) Penthouses. (i) Smoke enclosures. (j) Smoke stacks. (k) Solar Collectors (l) Stage towers or scenery lofts. (m) Tanks. (n) Walls and fences which are normally allowed to be up to eight or ten feet high, measured from the lower side, but because of a retaining wall a variance is required to allow the wall or fence to be three feet high measured from the higher side. City of Albuquerque Zoning Code Page Rev. 6/2011 PART 3: GENERAL REGULATIONS § 14-16-3-3 Supplementary Height, Area, and Use Regulations. 3-26 (o) Water Towers. (3) A setback variance may be approved for the following structures even though there is only a minimal showing as to exceptional physical condition: (a) Solar collectors. (b) Houses located on lots created when side-yard setback requirements were less severe and the lot's dimensions make it unreasonable to require the current side-yard setback requirements.
    [Show full text]