HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 5:45 PM
somethingfast's Avatar
somethingfast somethingfast is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In A Van Down By The River
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrestedSaguaro View Post
The height limit on that lot is around 525'. Whomever rejected the height was way off stating it was 141' over the limit. I suspect this was in error. They (FAA) do make them from time to time. Probably misread the site coordinates or address. I suspect an appeal will be made.

Also, a follow-up PAPP was submitted on 4/10. I sent in a records request to see if anything has changed. Still waiting on the request to go through.
The FAA clearly hates Phoenix and is doing everything it possibly can to keep Chase as tallest forever and ever amen
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 5:52 PM
combusean's Avatar
combusean combusean is offline
Skyriser
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Newark, California
Posts: 7,181
I don't know how somebody at FAA could make such a ridiculous mistake. These height limits are not nebulous, they've been set in stone for like 15 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 6:22 PM
CrestedSaguaro's Avatar
CrestedSaguaro CrestedSaguaro is online now
Modulator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by combusean View Post
I don't know how somebody at FAA could make such a ridiculous mistake. These height limits are not nebulous, they've been set in stone for like 15 years.
I'm not sure if this was a mistake or what. But by looking at the FAA downtown height map (https://www.skyharbor.com/docs/defau...rsn=de938588_0), the lot is clearly marked as 1625' MSL. Using a baseline of 1100' give or take, that translates to approximately a 525' building height limit. This is further verified by the City of Phoenix downtown height zoning map which also shows the height limit at 525':




Maybe this was a temp worker covering for someone that has COVID-19 and doesn't know what they are doing?
__________________
Ronnie Garrett
https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?memberID=205
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 6:43 PM
xymox xymox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrestedSaguaro View Post
I'm not sure if this was a mistake or what. But by looking at the FAA downtown height map (https://www.skyharbor.com/docs/defau...rsn=de938588_0), the lot is clearly marked as 1625' MSL. Using a baseline of 1100' give or take, that translates to approximately a 525' building height limit. This is further verified by the City of Phoenix downtown height zoning map which also shows the height limit at 525':




Maybe this was a temp worker covering for someone that has COVID-19 and doesn't know what they are doing?
Did they look at the address and confuse an Ave with a St? Or are they using old rules? This doesn’t add up.
__________________
mmmm skyscraper, I love you....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 6:50 PM
combusean's Avatar
combusean combusean is offline
Skyriser
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Newark, California
Posts: 7,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by xymox View Post
Did they look at the address and confuse an Ave with a St? Or are they using old rules? This doesn’t add up.
I can only imagine they did that, but they should hypothetically sort by GPS coordinates.

There was never a 400' rule, there was an unofficial 500' rule because nobody ever pushed the issue before. That might be a fun thing to search for once I renew my newspapers.com subscription...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 9:46 PM
ChaseM ChaseM is offline
Chase M
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Peoria, AZ
Posts: 106
I really wish there was a ballot initiative or the city would rezone the height limits downtown to allow for taller buildings as it just seems outdated to me. I feel they could rezone north of Van Buren possibly even Monroe to allow for taller building heights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 1, 2020, 10:34 PM
Phxguy Phxguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Phoenix, Az
Posts: 1,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaseM View Post
I really wish there was a ballot initiative or the city would rezone the height limits downtown to allow for taller buildings as it just seems outdated to me. I feel they could rezone north of Van Buren possibly even Monroe to allow for taller building heights.
The Downtown Zoning Code is burdensome in this regard. Both height and density maximums should be removed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 4, 2020, 7:30 PM
azliam azliam is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrestedSaguaro View Post
I'm not sure if this was a mistake or what. But by looking at the FAA downtown height map (https://www.skyharbor.com/docs/defau...rsn=de938588_0), the lot is clearly marked as 1625' MSL. Using a baseline of 1100' give or take, that translates to approximately a 525' building height limit. This is further verified by the City of Phoenix downtown height zoning map which also shows the height limit at 525':




Maybe this was a temp worker covering for someone that has COVID-19 and doesn't know what they are doing?
I emailed the FAA specialist regarding this and he responded:

The FAA uses the Part 77 standards for determining an obstruction. Just because something is an obstruction, however, doesn’t mean it’s a hazard. It means we need to look at it more closely and many times we find we just need to add aviation safety marking and lighting to the structure.

Local zoning jurisdictions can create their own height limitations for construction but this is always completely outside the scope of Part 77. Local zoning can be more restrictive than Part 77 but cannot be less.

For example, the FAA can issue a favorable determination for a structure at x height, but if the city has a restriction that is less than that height, they can enforce that lower height.

In this particular building’s case, it is identified as an obstruction by the listed amounts. The FAA is not calling it a hazard, we are looking to the public to offer aviation based comments as to why it might be objectionable. If we don’t receive anything solid, then the building most likely will receive a favorable determination at the original height proposed. The city can still put a limit on that height, but that is outside the scope of Part 77.

Link to Part 77

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id....1.2.9&idno=14
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 4, 2020, 8:25 PM
gymratmanaz gymratmanaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,914
Fascinating azliam!!! Good info and interesting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 4, 2020, 9:17 PM
CrestedSaguaro's Avatar
CrestedSaguaro CrestedSaguaro is online now
Modulator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by azliam View Post
I emailed the FAA specialist regarding this and he responded:

The FAA uses the Part 77 standards for determining an obstruction. Just because something is an obstruction, however, doesn’t mean it’s a hazard. It means we need to look at it more closely and many times we find we just need to add aviation safety marking and lighting to the structure.

Local zoning jurisdictions can create their own height limitations for construction but this is always completely outside the scope of Part 77. Local zoning can be more restrictive than Part 77 but cannot be less.

For example, the FAA can issue a favorable determination for a structure at x height, but if the city has a restriction that is less than that height, they can enforce that lower height.

In this particular building’s case, it is identified as an obstruction by the listed amounts. The FAA is not calling it a hazard, we are looking to the public to offer aviation based comments as to why it might be objectionable. If we don’t receive anything solid, then the building most likely will receive a favorable determination at the original height proposed. The city can still put a limit on that height, but that is outside the scope of Part 77.

Link to Part 77

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id....1.2.9&idno=14
Still a little confused on that. It looks like they denied the request because they stated it exceeded the zoning height by around 140' which was incorrect. It may have exceeded the zoning height by 14' but not 140'.
__________________
Ronnie Garrett
https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?memberID=205
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 4, 2020, 9:57 PM
biggus diggus biggus diggus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,838
I've been through enough zoning hearings and imagine the FAA works in a similar bureaucratic fashion.

All applications are either denied or approved. Approved is blanket. Denied can have a caveat like "denied - further review" which doesn't actually mean denied, it means they had to give an answer by a certain date and need further review. If they gave it an approve stamp they are giving up their right to further investigate.
__________________
Mr. K the monopoly man
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 5, 2020, 2:18 AM
xymox xymox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrestedSaguaro View Post
Still a little confused on that. It looks like they denied the request because they stated it exceeded the zoning height by around 140' which was incorrect. It may have exceeded the zoning height by 14' but not 140'.
Here's how they get that (from the FAA):

Quote:
§77.17 Obstruction standards.
(a) An existing object, including a mobile object, is, and a future object would be an obstruction to air navigation if it is of greater height than any of the following heights or surfaces:

(1) A height of 499 feet AGL at the site of the object.

(2) A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport, excluding heliports, with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile from the airport up to a maximum of 499 feet.
Part 2 is important - the site is what - 5 miles from the end of north runway? If so that's an additional 200ft min (additional 100ft for each additional miles from the airport) - which brings us to 400ft. Then the building height as proposed is 541ft - minus 400ft - there's your 140ft above 'zoning'.

Again the 'zoning' is FAA rules - not CoP height zoning rules.
__________________
mmmm skyscraper, I love you....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 5, 2020, 2:55 AM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,388
I find it interesting that the City allows up to 140ft on the Chase Field parcel...but the actual stadium is 100ft taller.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 8,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 5, 2020, 3:07 AM
combusean's Avatar
combusean combusean is offline
Skyriser
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Newark, California
Posts: 7,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
I find it interesting that the City allows up to 140ft on the Chase Field parcel...but the actual stadium is 100ft taller.
If I seem to recall, the original Downtown Height Zone map produced during condomania that informs the modern Urban Form height limitations was produced after protracted discussion about changing flight path maneuvers long after Chase Field was built.

Again, I am unaware of actual height limits downtown prior to the unofficial "500 feet" but I chalk it up to being there no reasonable demand that would necessitate it. I always remember the general limit as 100 feet per mile from the nearest runway.

There's a lot that goes into these decisions that can be intensely political, from what airlines want to what the FAA considers as safe within engine-out circumstances. San Jose has definitely seen the same, and I believe their regulations now mirror what Phoenix has despite Phoenix putting the airport above all else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 5, 2020, 5:35 AM
xymox xymox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 1,103
Quote:
Originally Posted by combusean View Post
If I seem to recall, the original Downtown Height Zone map produced during condomania that informs the modern Urban Form height limitations was produced after protracted discussion about changing flight path maneuvers long after Chase Field was built.

Again, I am unaware of actual height limits downtown prior to the unofficial "500 feet" but I chalk it up to being there no reasonable demand that would necessitate it. I always remember the general limit as 100 feet per mile from the nearest runway.

There's a lot that goes into these decisions that can be intensely political, from what airlines want to what the FAA considers as safe within engine-out circumstances. San Jose has definitely seen the same, and I believe their regulations now mirror what Phoenix has despite Phoenix putting the airport above all else.

Eh - if the FAA says this is an obstruction (vs a hazard) - and all they need to do is put blinky lights on the building (which probably were going to be on it anyhow) - then this shouldn't kill the project. I'd be more concerned about economic conditions killing it - but if the money is already there then good chance we see it eventually. Just means city council has one more thing to put on a checklist.
__________________
mmmm skyscraper, I love you....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 27, 2020, 5:00 AM
rmcxion rmcxion is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 14
What is the deal with this one? I've been MIA for a few months.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 27, 2020, 7:10 AM
TJPHXskyscraperfan TJPHXskyscraperfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 665
[QUOTE=rmcxion;8933621]What is the deal with this one? I've been MIA for a few months.[/

What kind of excitement could you of had?lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 27, 2020, 3:45 PM
CrestedSaguaro's Avatar
CrestedSaguaro CrestedSaguaro is online now
Modulator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 4,393
I posted in the Phoenix Development thread about this one is going to a zoning hearing on June 8th (I probably should've posted it here). The zoning hearing is to request a lot height increase from the max height of 525' to 540'.

So the wheels are still moving...
__________________
Ronnie Garrett
https://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?memberID=205
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 27, 2020, 4:02 PM
somethingfast's Avatar
somethingfast somethingfast is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In A Van Down By The River
Posts: 783
badass - finally a new tallest on horizon !
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 27, 2020, 5:00 PM
gymratmanaz gymratmanaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,914
Any insights on how the hearing might go? Is this a challenge or simply a crossing T's and dotting I's?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:35 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.