Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich
BTW, it just needs to be clarified that the 60-foot width is only in the case that a building uses it's entire lot. What I'm still not clear on is if these two structurally seperate buildings are considered one building for this requirement due to the skybridge that was added, or because they are both on a single lot? That is to say whether the width requirement is attached to the buildings or the lot. If the latter, short of the variance, they could also simply do a lot split, leave the passageway between the two buildings on either of the lots, and then simply build as tall as they would want.
|
If the whole lot isn't used then whatever is unused in the horizontal cubical volume can be applied toward the height. A building can be whatever which shape and size so as long as it doesn't exceed the cubical volume limit of the lot it's built on. Whatever is above that cubical limit has to adhere to the 60-foot width rule.
This pretty much allows for fat and short buildings or tall and skinny ones on lots of the same square footage. But you can't have a fat tall building unless it's built on a sufficiently large enough lot.
They would only be able to build as tall as they want if they got rid of the podium block altogether without splitting the lot. However, in that situation, instead of leaving it as inefficient open space, it would likely be replaced with a big parking garage which aren't counted toward the volume of a building or buildings. Which I'm sure everyone would just love.
Also the buildings share a basement and are on the same lot but they are considered multiple structures. However, it's much more important on how much volume of space those structures occupy in relation to the cubical limit.
Prev
Linear Mode
