DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 4: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy................................................4-1 A. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................4-1 1. ISSUES.................................................................................................................................4-1 B. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................4-1 C. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................4-4 1. STUDY AREAS.....................................................................................................................4-4 D. EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................4-4 1. PROJECT AREA....................................................................................................................4-4 a) Development and Zoning History................................................................................................ 4-4 b) Land Use...................................................................................................................................... 4-6 c) Zoning Districts ..........................................................................................................................4-18 d) Special Districts..........................................................................................................................4-23 e) Public Policy...............................................................................................................................4-26 2. PRIMARY STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................4-27 a) Land Use.....................................................................................................................................4-27 b) Zoning ........................................................................................................................................4-30 c) Special Districts..........................................................................................................................4-33 d) Public Policy...............................................................................................................................4-33 3. SECONDARY STUDY AREA ...............................................................................................4-34 a) Land Use.....................................................................................................................................4-34 b) Zoning ........................................................................................................................................4-36 c) Special Districts..........................................................................................................................4-38 d) Public Policy...............................................................................................................................4-38 E. 2010 FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION....................................................4-39 1. PROJECT AREA..................................................................................................................4-39 a) Land Use.....................................................................................................................................4-39 b) Zoning ........................................................................................................................................4-42 c) Public Policy...............................................................................................................................4-42 2. PRIMARY STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................4-42 a) Land Use.....................................................................................................................................4-42 b) Zoning ........................................................................................................................................4-44 c) Public Policy...............................................................................................................................4-45 3. SECONDARY STUDY AREA ...............................................................................................4-45 a) Land Use.....................................................................................................................................4-45 b) Zoning ........................................................................................................................................4-46 c) Public Policy...............................................................................................................................4-47 F. 2010 FUTURE WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION............................................................4-47 1. PROJECT AREA..................................................................................................................4-47 a) Land Use.....................................................................................................................................4-47 b) Zoning ........................................................................................................................................4-51 c) Public Policy...............................................................................................................................4-57 2. PRIMARY STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................4-58 a) Land Use.....................................................................................................................................4-58 b) Zoning ........................................................................................................................................4-59 c) Public Policy...............................................................................................................................4-59 3. SECONDARY STUDY AREA ...............................................................................................4-60 a) Land Use.....................................................................................................................................4-60 b) Zoning ........................................................................................................................................4-60 c) Public Policy...............................................................................................................................4-60 4-i No. 7 Subway Extension—Hudson Yards Rezoning and Development Program FGEIS G. 2025 FUTURE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................... 4-60 1. PROJECT AREA ................................................................................................................. 4-61 a) Land Use.................................................................................................................................... 4-61 b) Zoning........................................................................................................................................ 4-63 c) Public Policy.............................................................................................................................. 4-63 2. PRIMARY STUDY AREA.................................................................................................... 4-63 a) Land Use.................................................................................................................................... 4-63 b) Zoning........................................................................................................................................ 4-63 c) Public Policy.............................................................................................................................. 4-64 3. SECONDARY STUDY AREA............................................................................................... 4-64 a) Land Use.................................................................................................................................... 4-64 b) Zoning........................................................................................................................................ 4-64 c) Public Policy.............................................................................................................................. 4-64 H. 2025 FUTURE WITH THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................... 4-64 1. PROJECT AREA ................................................................................................................. 4-64 a) Land Use.................................................................................................................................... 4-64 b) Zoning........................................................................................................................................ 4-74 c) Public Policy.............................................................................................................................. 4-74 2. PRIMARY STUDY AREA.................................................................................................... 4-74 a) Land
Load more

Recommended publications
  • General Info.Indd
    General Information • Landmarks Beyond the obvious crowd-pleasers, New York City landmarks Guggenheim (Map 17) is one of New York’s most unique are super-subjective. One person’s favorite cobblestoned and distinctive buildings (apparently there’s some art alley is some developer’s idea of prime real estate. Bits of old inside, too). The Cathedral of St. John the Divine (Map New York disappear to differing amounts of fanfare and 18) has a very medieval vibe and is the world’s largest make room for whatever it is we’ll be romanticizing in the unfinished cathedral—a much cooler destination than the future. Ain’t that the circle of life? The landmarks discussed eternally crowded St. Patrick’s Cathedral (Map 12). are highly idiosyncratic choices, and this list is by no means complete or even logical, but we’ve included an array of places, from world famous to little known, all worth visiting. Great Public Buildings Once upon a time, the city felt that public buildings should inspire civic pride through great architecture. Coolest Skyscrapers Head downtown to view City Hall (Map 3) (1812), Most visitors to New York go to the top of the Empire State Tweed Courthouse (Map 3) (1881), Jefferson Market Building (Map 9), but it’s far more familiar to New Yorkers Courthouse (Map 5) (1877—now a library), the Municipal from afar—as a directional guide, or as a tip-off to obscure Building (Map 3) (1914), and a host of other court- holidays (orange & white means it’s time to celebrate houses built in the early 20th century.
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of HUBER HEIGHTS STATE of OHIO City Dog Park Committee Meeting Minutes March 29, 2018 6:00 P.M
    Agenda Page 1 of 1 CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS STATE OF OHIO City Dog Park Committee March 29, 2018 6:00 P.M. City Hall – 6131 Taylorsville Road – Council Chambers 1. Call Meeting To Order/Roll Call: 2. Approval of Minutes: A. March 22, 2018 3. Topics of Discussion: A. City Dog Park Planning and Discussion 4. Adjournment: https://destinyhosted.com/print_all.cfm?seq=3604&reloaded=true&id=48237 3/29/2018 CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS STATE OF OHIO City Dog Park Committee Meeting Minutes March 29, 2018 6:00 P.M. City Hall – 6131 Taylorsville Road – City Council Chambers Meeting Started at 6:00pm 1. Call Meeting To Order/Roll Call: Members present: Bryan Detty, Keith Hensley, Vicki Dix, Nancy Byrge, Vincent King & Richard Shaw Members NOT present: Toni Webb • Nina Deam was resigned from the Committee 2. Approval of Minutes: No Minutes to Approval 3. Topics of Discussion: A. City Dog Park Planning and Discussion • Mr. King mentioned the “Meet Me at the Park” $20,000 Grant campaign. • Mr. Detty mentioned the Lowe’s communication. • Ms. Byrge discussed the March 29, 2018 email (Copy Enclosed) • Mr. Shaw discussed access to a Shared Drive for additional information. • Mr. King shared concerns regarding “Banning” smoking at the park as no park in Huber is currently banned. • Ms. Byrge suggested Benches inside and out of the park area. • Mr. Hensley and the committee discussed in length the optional sizes for the park. • Mr. Detty expressed interest in a limestone entrance area. • Mr. Hensley suggested the 100ft distance from the North line of the Neighbors and the School property line to the South.
    [Show full text]
  • Take Advantage of Dog Park Fun That's Off the Chain(PDF)
    TIPS +tails SEPTEMBER 2012 Take Advantage of Dog Park Fun That’s Off the Chain New York City’s many off-leash dog parks provide the perfect venue for a tail-wagging good time The start of fall is probably one of the most beautiful times to be outside in the City with your dog. Now that the dog days are wafting away on cooler breezes, it may be a great time to treat yourself and your pooch to a quality time dedicated to socializing, fun and freedom. Did you know New York City boasts more than 50 off-leash dog parks, each with its own charm and amenities ranging from nature trails to swimming pools? For a good time, keep this list of the top 25 handy and refer to it often. With it, you and your dog will never tire of a walk outside. 1. Carl Schurz Park Dog Run: East End Ave. between 12. Inwood Hill Park Dog Run: Dyckman St and Payson 24. Tompkins Square Park Dog Run: 1st Ave and Ave 84th and 89th St. Stroll along the East River after Ave. It’s a popular City park for both pooches and B between 7th and 10th. Soft mulch and fun times your pup mixes it up in two off-leash dog runs. pet owners, and there’s plenty of room to explore. await at this well-maintained off-leash park. 2. Central Park. Central Park is designated off-leash 13. J. Hood Wright Dog Run: Fort Washington & 25. Washington Square Park Dog Run: Washington for the hours of 9pm until 9am daily.
    [Show full text]
  • PHR Local Website Update 4-25-08
    Updated as of 4/25/08 - Dates, Times and Locations are Subject to Change For more information or to confirm a specific local competition, please contact the Local Host or MLB PHR Headquarters at [email protected] State City ST Zip Local Host Phone Email Date Time Location Alaska Anchorage AK 99508 Mt View Boys & Girls Club (907) 297-5416 [email protected] 22-Apr 4pm Lions Park Anchorage AK 99516 Alaska Quakes Baseball Club (907) 344-2832 [email protected] 3-May Noon Kosinski Fields Cordova AK 99574 Cordova Little League (907) 424-3147 [email protected] 26-Apr 10am Volunteer Park Delta Junction AK 99737 Delta Baseball (907) 895-9878 [email protected] 6-May 4:30pm Delta Junction City Park HS Baseball Field Eielson AK 99702 Eielson Youth Program (907) 377-1069 [email protected] 17-May 11am Eielson AFB Elmendorf AFB AK 99506 3 SVS/SVYY (907) 868-4781 [email protected] 26-Apr 10am Elmendorf Air Force Base Nikiski AK 99635 NPRSA 907-776-8800x29 [email protected] 10-May 10am Nikiski North Star Elementary Seward AK 99664 Seward Parks & Rec (907) 224-4054 [email protected] 10-May 1pm Seward Little League Field Alabama Anniston AL 36201 Wellborn Baseball Softball for Youth (256) 283-0585 [email protected] 5-Apr 10am Wellborn Sportsplex Atmore AL 36052 Atmore Area YMCA (251) 368-9622 [email protected] 12-Apr 11am Atmore Area YMCA Atmore AL 36502 Atmore Babe Ruth Baseball/Atmore Cal Ripken Baseball (251) 368-4644 [email protected] TBD TBD TBD Birmingham AL 35211 AG Gaston
    [Show full text]
  • COURSE OBJECTIVES Moving Beyond the Scale of a Single Individual, Design 7 Seeks to Address Architectural Issues at an Urban Scale
    URBAN VIEWING | 1 COURSE OBJECTIVES Moving beyond the scale of a single individual, Design 7 seeks to address architectural issues at an urban scale. This project examines a New York City block in the Hell’s Kitchen area just east of the Hudson River. The site, shown in Figure 1a below, exists between 10th and 11th Avenue and between West 53rd and 54th Street. It follows New York City’s rectilinear grid, establishing a block with an area of 1,600 square feet (200 x 800 ft). To the West lies the Hudson River, directly across 11th Avenue is DeWitt Clinton Park, and the Manhattan skyline extends to the North. This project proposes rethinking what it means to inhabit both the immediate site and the larger context of New York as both a viewer and a participant. Through an emphasis on the notion of viewing and juxtaposition of traditional building programs, architecture is able to form and transform experiences and relationships between individuals. Figure 1a. Satellite image of site, highlighted in green Figures 1b, 1c and 1d. Site analyses A major challenge proposed through the project is how one begins to start breaking down the immense scale of the site. Site analyses, like the ones seen in Figures 1b, 1c and 1d, draw important lines from surrounding edifices and landmarks, emphasizing their influences on the site and circulation. Maintaining views to the water and to important surrounding structures reduces the scale of the block as each edge reflects a unique condition. The writings of Jane URBAN VIEWING | 2 Jacobs are considered in the project as her notions of “eyes on the street” and “breaking down the block” increase the permeability and transparency of the site.
    [Show full text]
  • 619W54 Final NYSCF Release Consumer Press
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE New York Stem Cell Foundation to Build New State-Of-The-Art-Laboratory and Research Facility at Taconic Investment Partners’ 619 West 54th Street Prominent Nonprofit Organization Leases 42,000 Square Feet of Prime Office Space at the Historic Commercial Building on the West Side NEW YORK—November 30, 2015—The New York Stem Cell Foundation (NYSCF) and Taconic Investment Partners LLC (Taconic) announced today that they have signed a multi-year lease for 42,000 square-feet at Taconic’s 619 West 54th Street. JRT Realty Group, a strategic alliance partner with Cushman & Wakefield, is the exclusive leasing agent for the 10-story, 333,000-square-foot Art Deco commercial property and Greg Smith, Ellen Israel, and Kristen Morgan represented ownership in the transaction. NYSCF was represented by Stephen Siegel and Gary Kamenetsky of CBRE, and legal representation by Joshua Stein and Lauren Silk of Joshua Stein PLLC. NYSCF, a world leader in stem cell research and the development of pioneering stem cell technologies, will create a new state-of-the-art laboratory and research facility including office space, consolidating it’s current operations from two sites into one central location. NYSCF leased the entire third floor (32,512 sf) and a portion of the 2nd floor at the property. “As we expand NYSCF to make room for new collaborations and further cutting-edge research we are excited to help develop and strengthen midtown Manhattan as a major biotechnology hub.” said Susan Solomon, NYSCF CEO and Co-Founder. “Bringing together our laboratory and office at 619 West 54th allows us to not only physically grow our footprint, but also expand our technological capacities and programs, a fitting step for NYSCF as the organization celebrates its tenth anniversary.” 619 West 54th Street is currently home to medical and research tenants like Roosevelt Surgery Center and The Rogosin Institute, along with other prominent office tenants in the building.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinton: a Plan for Preservation
    A ~· PLAN FOR PRESERVATION SEE CENTER PAGE FOR SUMMARY AND PROPOSALS CLINTON: Predominantly resi.dentialand low scale, yet mixed uses abound. Boundaries of the study area are indicated. Prologue of information gathered (most prior to our in~ been active participants in determining City policy Acknowledgments volvement) was· necessaty to prod uce a report of toward Clinton. Therefore, many of the introductory readable, yet informative scope and size. An outline of steps, such as developing goals, were well advanced at & Format the contents follows: the outset of this study. Starting with this groundwork The study process described below indicates the behind us, the task was fairly weIl defined. Although great deal of community participation and ac­ 1 SUMMARY (Centerfold) not all the problems had been isolated, a framework companying responsibility for this report. The study Existing Conditions in which this could be done had been established. The Subcommittee was chaired by John Duffel, who Proposals challenge was in finding solutions to many complex coordinated the many meetings and presentations issues. For this reason, an inordinate amount of time throughout the study. The Subcommittee members 2PROWGUE and energy was devoted to examining various included Mary D'Elia, Eileen Jennings, Bill Sansone, Acknowledgments and Format strategies which the community saw as potential Joan Tassiello, Joe Walsh and Bill Wise. Study Process solutions. This is in contrast to the more general Steve Wolf, Chairman of the Clinton Steering Introduction approach usually employed in community planning Committee and Aston Glaves, Chairman of Com­ studies, where direction rather than implementation munity Planning Board #4, contributed generously of 3mSTORY is stressed.
    [Show full text]
  • 4301Annual Report Nyc Dept P
    ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS FOR THE YEAR MARTIN B. BROWN PRESS& NEW 'i!YORlC THE PARK BOARD: HENRY SMITH, President, Commissioner of Parks for the Boroughs of Manhattan and Richmond. JOSEPH I, BERRY, Commissioner of Parks for the Borough of The Bronx. MICHAEL J. KENNEDY, Commis~ioner of Parks for the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. W, J. FRANSIOLI, Secretary. THECITY OF NEW PORK,DEP~~RTMENT OF PARKS,) THE ARSENAL,,CENTRAL PARK, December 31, 1908. i Hon. GEORGEB. MCCLELLAN,Mayor, The City of New York: SIR-I have the honor to submit herewith, in compliance with the provisions of the Charter, report of the work of this Depart- ment during the year ending December 31, 1908. Respectfully, HENRY SAIITH, President, Park Board. The Park Board. The value of the public lands entrusted to the care of the De- partment of Parks and the respective Commissioners composing the Park Board is estimated to be $501,604,188. Of this sum, $409,080,100 represents the value of the park territory in the Borough of Manhattan alone, the balance being divided among the other four Boroughs comprised in Greater New York, as follows : Manhattan ................................. $409,080,100 Brooklyn .................................. 56,318,358 The Bronx.. ................................ 33,453,805 Queens ..................................... 2,522,300 ltichmond .................................. 229,625 Total. ............................. $501,604,188 - Central Park has the greatest aggregate value, being esti- mated at $236,500,000. Next in point of value are Prospect Park, $33,600,000, and City Hall Park, $31,196,000. This sum represents the actual value of the land and build- ings, coniputed on the basis of the assessed valuations of adjoin- ing private property, as determined by the Department of Taxes and Assessments of the City for purposes of taxation.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson River Park Trust Plans Renovation of Pier 97 | Chelsean
    Hudson River Park Trust Plans Renovation of Pier 97 | chelsean... http://chelseanow.com/2018/04/hudson-river-park-trust-plans-r... Home Calendar Contests & Sweepstakes Our Staff In Print Get updates Ad Info Search in site... Classified Advertising Jobs Back to Work We Seeds Planted for Go — But First, Rooftop Gardens to Some Back-Patting! Feed Midtown BY SCOTT STIFFLER | Needs From subways to… BY DUSICA SUE HOME NEWS EDITORIAL HEALTH WHY PINK? ARTS SPECIAL SECTIONS JOBS ADVERTISE Calendar Contests & Sweepstakes Our Staff In Print Get updates Ad Info Classified Advertising Jobs Thursday, April 19, 2018 Socialize Hudson River Park Trust Plans Renovation of Pier 97 Added by Scott Stiffler on April 18, 2018. Share This Post Saved under News 1 Tweet Like Sponsored Content L to R: Hudson River Park Trust Senior Vice President of Design & Construction Kevin Quinn and President & CEO Madelyn Wils discussed ideas for Pier 97 at the April 12 meeting of CB4’s Waterfront, Parks & Environment Committee. | Photo by Winnie McCroy BY WINNIE McCROY | On April 12, nearly 50 community members gathered at the Hotel Trades Council building in Midtown for a meeting of the Waterfront, Parks & Environment Committee (WPE) of Community Board 4 (CB4), to share their “wish list” of items for the renovation of Pier 97. On hand to discuss the project was Hudson River Park Trust (HRPT) President & CEO Madelyn Wils, and Senior Vice President of Design & Construction, Kevin Quinn. 1 of 3 4/19/18, 10:37 AM Hudson River Park Trust Plans Renovation of Pier 97 | chelsean... http://chelseanow.com/2018/04/hudson-river-park-trust-plans-r..
    [Show full text]
  • Bryant Park Case Study
    New Yorkers For Parks PARK EXPENDITURES SECONDARY IMPACT ANALYSIS Analysis of Secondary Economic Impacts New York City Parks Capital Expenditures Final Report New Yorkers For Parks PARK EXPENDITURES SECONDARY IMPACT ANALYSIS Table of Contents: Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Bryant Park Case Study…………………………………………………………………………….16 Prospect Park Case Study…………………………………………………..………………………66 Clove Lakes Park Case Study…………………………………………………….………………120 St. Albans Park Case Study……………………………………………………………………….149 Crotona Park Case Study………………………………………………………….………………192 Serrano Park Case Study…………………………………………………………………….……224 30 Parks Analyses………………………………………………………………………………...255 2 New Yorkers For Parks PARK EXPENDITURES SECONDARY IMPACT ANALYSIS Executive Summary Primary Objectives: • Determine the secondary economic impacts of capital spending for park improvements on the value of residential and commercial properties located adjacent to improved parks, and, • Understand whether there is a basis for successful reinvestment in community parks that results in positive fiscal impacts. Main Findings: • Capital reinvestment in parks results in tangible fiscal benefits when they are secured and preserved through effective administration, community participation and maintenance. • Residential assessment and sale prices were analyzed, from 1992 to 2001: – Assessments near an improved park generally exceeded assessments further from the park, ranging from approximately 8% to 10% – Single family home sale prices in close proximity to a well improved
    [Show full text]
  • Park Board Department of Parks
    MINUTES OF THE PARK BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1924 Commissioner FRANCIS D. GALLATIN, (President) JOSEPH P. HENNESSY EDWARD T. O'LOUGHLIN ALBERT C. BENNINGER JOHN J. O'ROURKE WILLIS HOLLY, Secretary \ M. B. Brown Printing & Binding Co., 37-41 Chambers Street, N. Y. 31-2001-25-B I \ INDEX A PAGE Adams, Edward F., Brooklyn, Bushwick Playground, steps, bid received ....... 80 Ah'ord & Swift, Manhattan, American Museum of Natural History, heating and ventilating, bid received ............................................... 41 Alterations, Manhattan, American Museum of Natural History, central gallery, bids received ................................................. 56 To Comptroller, for approval. .................................... 56 Queens, Jacob Riis, Seaside Park, approved ............................. 71 American Federation of Musicians, park music ............................. 33 American Museum of Natural History, Manhattan, central gallery, alterations, bids received ................................................ 56 To Comptroller, for approval ...................................... 56 Construction, southeast wing, extension of time ......................... 71 Electric generating plant, contracts A, B, C, D, E, bids received ......... 35 To Comptroller, for approval ..................................... 51 Elevators, extension of time ........................................... 49,78 Improvement, bird hall, bids received .................................. 63,72 To
    [Show full text]
  • FY2016 MCB4 Statement of District Needs
    MANHATTAN COMMUNITY BOARD NO. 4 Statement of District Needs Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016) Chelsea Clinton/Hell’s Kitchen CHRISTINE BERTHET Chair NELLY GONZALEZ Acting District Manager BURT LAZARIN Chair, Budget Task Force September 4, 2014 Table of Contents I. District Overview and Priorities ............................................................................... 4-5 II. Land Use Planning Needs ............................................................................................5 Hell’s Kitchen/Hudson Yards Follow Up ........................................................................5 Eastern and Western Rail Yards.......................................................................................5 Special West Chelsea District – Follow Up .................................................................6 Clinton Urban Renewal Area .......................................................................................7 Special Clinton District – Preservation Area ................................................................7 III. Housing Needs .............................................................................................................8 Preservation of Existing Affordable Units .......................................................................8 Creation of New Affordable Housing ..............................................................................8 Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) ......................................9 General Code Enforcement
    [Show full text]