Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Are we ready? Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome to

Whatever we are. Yeah.

Welcome to the review session for city planning commission 11/18/2024. Today's agenda will begin with a proposed mixed use building at 166 Kings Highway in Brooklyn, Vinsonhurst, Brooklyn. Project will would include 100 new homes, of which 30 would be income restricted affordable on top of ground floor commercial space. The site sits only a few blocks from the Seth Low playground, the High Lawn High Lawn branch of the Brooklyn Public Library and the Kings Highway And Subway Station. Moving to East Williamsburg, we'll consider a mixed use building with 15 homes above ground floor retail, around a third of which would be income restricted affordable.

The project is located at 19 Maspeth Avenue near the Graham Avenue L train, the B 24 and B 34 bus lines, and the 6.4 acre Cooper Park. Back before us is as well is 975 Nostrand Avenue in Crown Heights South. This is a mixed use development with over 320 homes and a fresh supermarket, which is requesting a curb cut extension for deliveries for ease of access to the residential and commercial parking garage. The commission will also hear details on a special permit renewal for 3201 Vernon Boulevard in Ravenswood, Queens. This was initially approved in 2019.

This development would include over 350 homes of which roughly 110 would be permanently income restricted affordable. Located close to Socrates Sculpture Park, Rainey Park, and Noguchi Museum, the project also features public open space and community facility. Finally, we will look at city council modifications for two significant Brooklyn projects, Brooklyn Yards in Borough Park and 960 Two-nine 72 Franklin Avenue in Crown Heights. You'll recall that Brooklyn Yards would include 14 buildings with a total of two seventy homes, around 80 of which would be income restricted affordable. Project would platform over an active train line and would also feature office and retail space in three publicly accessible open space areas.

Lastly, we will review the council's modifications to 962972 Franklin Avenue. This development will create 355 new homes, over 100 of which are permanently income affordable near the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens. The Jackie Robinson playground, and trains at Franklin Avenue, Medgar Evers College in Prospect Park. The recent city council committee votes on this project have been a long time coming, and we applaud the city council, especially council member Hudson, the commission staff, the Brooklyn Botanical Garden team, and the applicant team on their collaboration to find a win win solution on this site. The chair would say, were he here, is that when the commission voted to modify this rezoning, he believes that we had a collectively charted path forward that balances the need for new housing with critical protections for a treasured community space.

With that, Sarah, let us proceed. Thank you.

Good afternoon, and welcome to City Planning Commission review session for Monday, 11/18/2024. The time is 01:17PM, and a quorum is present. The first item on our agenda is a certification of a zoning map and zoning tax amendments in Brooklyn Community District 11. Our presenter is Amelia Clark.

Hi.

Now can you hear me okay? Okay. Fantastic. Mhmm.

Good

afternoon, commissioners and vice chairman. Should I be oh, there we go. Awesome. Great. Okay.

This is a private application from one sixty six Plaza LLC for zoning map amendment from an r six b c two three district to an r seven x c two four district and a zoning text amendment to appendix f. These actions would facilitate the development of a new mixed use building, including over 89,000 square feet of residential space, excuse me, and 97 dwelling units, and 14,600 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The project is located at 166 Kings Highway between West 11th And West 13th Street in Bensonhurst CD 11, Brooklyn. This is an aerial view looking north towards Downtown Brooklyn and Manhattan. The project area sits in Central Bensonhurst in Southwest Brooklyn.

It is located about a mile north of the Belt Parkway and approximately four blocks east of the Kings Highway and train subway stop. The project area is also served by several bus lines, including the B 82 and the B four, which connects Bensonhurst to Eastern Brooklyn. Brooklyn. The project area consists of two full blocks and is bound by Kings Highway and Quentin Road to the north and south, and West 11th And West 13th Streets to the east and west. Kings Highway and Quentin Road are East West corridors, both 80 feet wide.

The wider corridors surrounding the project area, specifically Kings Highway and Avenue P just to the north, are characterized by larger mixed use and residential apartment buildings. The mid block areas between Avenue P and Kings Highway as well as the block south of the project area are predominantly lower density residential with semi detached and attached residential buildings between two and three stories. Stillwell Avenue, which is a block west from the project area, is a major North South corridor connecting southbound to Coney Island. The Highland branch of the Brooklyn Public Library sits directly across West 13th Street from the project area. Sethlow Playground bound by Avenue P to the south sits a block north of the project area.

On this land use map, the project area is outlined in green with the development site outlined in pink. The development site, which is Block 6619, Lot 42, is one of the five lots that comprise the rezoning area. As illustrated here, the land uses in the surrounding area, I'm sorry, in the area surrounding the project consist of low and mid density residential, commercial, mixed use, office, community facilities, and transportation uses. In addition to the aforementioned public library, there are a few community facility uses in the vicinity on this map in blue. Those include an adult day care center fronting West 10th Street, public school six eighty six on Avenue P And Stillwell, and an assisting living facility also on Avenue P And Stillwell.

There are a few transportation utility uses along Kings Highway, including a gas station on the Northeast corner of Kings Highway and Stillwell and two former auto related businesses diagonally across the street fronting Kings Highway. The rezoning area is mapped R 6 B with a C 23 commercial overlay. R 6 B is a low to medium density contextual residential district with an FAR of two. C23 is a commercial overlay that supports a wider range of local retail uses. The rezoning area was originally zoned C82 at the adoption of the zoning resolution in 1961, but was rezoned to R 5 C 24 in 1965 and then to R 6 B C 23 in 2005 as part of the Bensonhurst rezoning.

The Bensonhurst rezoning was a contextual rezoning which aimed to balance housing development and pushed and pushed development towards key corridors. Currently, the blocks surrounding the project area are zoned R four one, R five B, R 6 B, and R 7 A with C 23 overlays along the Kings Highway frontages. This is a northern aerial view that shows a complete picture of the rezoning area and development site. The rezoning area includes five lots with a combined 28,000 square feet. The development site is a single approximately 17,000 square foot corner lot.

The three adjacent lots to the development site front Quentin Road and are improved with a two story, two family residential building. I'm sorry. Each improved with a two story, two family residential building, two of which have detached garages. Across West 12th Street, Block 6620 is a single lot that is currently improved with a single story commercial use. This is a view of the development site facing southeast on Kings Highway.

The development site is currently bound by a construction fence. This view looks Northeast from Quentin Road and West 13th Street. You can see the three existing townhomes in the center of the image on the left and the development site on the left side of the image on the right. This view looks north and northeast of West 12th Street from Quentin Road with the development site on the left side of each image. This view looks west from West 11th Street, which is the eastern boundary of the development site.

The image on the left shows Quentin Road, and the image on the right shows Kings Highway. Lastly, this view looks south and southwest from Kings Highway towards the development site. So the applicant is proposing a 10 story plus seller mixed use building. Of the buildings, almost 104,000 square feet, about 14,600 would be ground floor commercial, and over 89,000 would be residential floor area. The single ground floor commercial space will have entrances on Kings Highway, West 12th Street and Quentin Road.

The proposed building will rise to a total height of a 103 feet and 10 inches with setbacks along Kings Highway. There will be 48 attended parking spaces in the seller level, accessible via a 12 foot for 12 foot long curb cut on Clinton Road. Floors 2 Through 10 will include 97 residential units, including 30 of which would be in restricted to incomes averaging 80% AMI pursuant to MAH option two. The residential lobby will front Quentin Road with a second entrance on West 12th Street, and the development site will include common recreation room, gym, and shared outdoor tenant, outdoor terrace for tenants. The overall building will have an FAR of 5.95.

So to facilitate this development, the applicant seeks two proposed actions, a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment to Appendix F. The zoning map amendment seeks to change the existing r six b and c two three districts to an r seven x district with a c two four overlay across the entirety of the project area. R seven X is a contextual zoning district with a maximum residential FAR of six with MIH, an FAR of five for community facility uses, and an FAR of two for commercial uses with the commercial overlay. Parking must be provided for 50% of market rate residential units and for 15% of income restricted units. Within MIH designated areas, the minimum base height can rise to between 60 and a 105 feet with a maximum building height of a 145 feet when providing a qualifying ground floor.

This would not change under city of yes for housing opportunity. The applicant also proposes a zoning text amendment to appendix f to map MIH coterminous with the rezoning area creating permanently income restricted housing via MIH options one and two. This application requires a racial equity report on housing and opportunity. The proposed development would provide new housing units and neighborhood that has experienced little recent housing production. The area median household income for the project $60,267, which is around $10,000 lower than the median income for Brooklyn and New York City.

The applicant intends to provide MIH units that meet 80% AMI income band limits. As per the report, the racial makeup of the Bensonhurst And Bass Beach NTA is predominantly Asian and white. Asian residents are 40% of the total population, which greatly exceeds both the borough and citywide percentages. Hispanic Latino residents comprise 16% of the NTA, and only 1% of the population are black non Hispanic. From 2010 to 2020, the area saw a modest 9% increase in population with increases in the Asian population commensurate to borough and citywide trends.

The Hispanic population and black population also grew, while the white population decreased by 30%. Between 2010 and 2020, Bensonhurst and Bath Beach experienced a 2% increase in housing units, while the overall population grew by 9%, illustrating that the housing unit production has not kept pace with population growth. To conclude, this is a private application for a zoning map amendment from an r six b c two three district to an r seven x c two four district and a zoning test amendment to appendix f to facilitate the development of a new 10 story mixed use building, including 97 dwelling units and over 14,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space at 166 Kings Highway And C D 11 Brooklyn. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Commissioner Benjamin.

Hi. Thank you for the presentation. I have two questions. The first one is, I'm interested in your thinking about including the Block 6620 in the rezoning. It's not clear to me. You took out the part of the block that had existing homes on it, those three homes. So why include Block 6620?

Just to clarify, the three townhomes are also included in the rezoning area. They're just external to the development. Okay.

But why include Block 6620? It seems like you're making it a development site.

Yeah. I think that's a a good question. I think, certainly, part of the rationale for this rezoning is to align with the sort of pushing denser development to wider corridors. And this is certainly an underutilized site. It's only a single story building there.

That said, there's not projections for development on this site in the with action scenario. I'm sorry. There are projections in the with action scenario, but the the current owner of this building does not intend to redevelop. It's currently, like, a fruit and vegetable vendor. Maybe if there's anything else that

It's I just that when this was last rezoned in, what, 2005

Mhmm.

The idea of density along Kings Highway was part of the rezoning. And at that time, it was thought that you would get development with the R 6 B.

Mhmm.

And the community overall was pleased with the housing that would result from that. Obviously, this site did not develop. I don't know how long it's been vacant. But there's a big difference between R 6 B and R 7 X.

Mhmm.

And I'm wondering, while you're right to the north on the two blocks away, there are higher rises. But most of the intervening sites are low rise, R4s. So what can you tell us about why the R 7 X is appropriate?

Certainly. Yeah. Well, I think in general, the R 7 X kind of meets our standard, you know, checkbox criteria. Like, the site is close to transit, it's close to open space. And like I mentioned, it's, you know, flanked by two wide streets. And and there's sort of a existing land use pattern to have larger scale buildings, like I said, pushed to kind of wider corridors in the area.

Oops. This way.

Sorry. Actually, maybe this is a better view. You can kinda see along Avenue P here. There's a a string of, you know, maybe six story prewar buildings that are existing. So for those reasons sure. And maybe David will step in.

Hi. Also, one of the biggest differences between an R7B and R7X is that R7B doesn't necessarily include MIH units. And so that's a very important policy of us. Right.

That brings up my second point, which is that the rents under the MIH are greater than the market rate. So why are we doing it? Why do we think that MIH is appropriate here when it leads to higher rents?

Yes. This is a good flag. This is unusual, but not completely unprecedented.

But I did vote no against the others.

Fair point. I guess I can just give a little context to the methodology used in the RER. DCP recommends that our applicants use the third quartile of rents in the area, usually data pulled from StreetEasy. And this particular applicant team has conveyed that they believe they'll be able to get top rents for their market units market rate units for this development. They know that there has been quite limited housing production in this area.

A lot of the existing housing stock is rather old and doesn't have the kind of amenities that they're proposing here. I guess, anecdotally, the the applicant has a a new development about half a mile to the east from this site, and their studios are renting for $2,500 a month, and their three bedroom units are renting for $5,000 a month. So they expect to to command top rents for these market rate units, which is not reflected in the methodology used for the RER.

But then it's also not reflected in the income. If they're expecting $5,000 instead of $3,000 for the three bedrooms, then they're not expecting people who live there and have the median income to move into market rate. They're expecting people to come from somewhere else.

I think we can certainly have them speak to these choices

at the public hearing.

Okay. I mean, I know that the policy is that when there's a zoning, a rezoning that increases FAR, we attach MIH to it. But my question is always does it make sense in many instances if what it does is serve to drive up the rents in the area, does it make sense to do this?

Thank you

for the comment. No, that's fair. And the applicant can speak to a little bit more of this on Wednesday. But I think an important part of this of course that NIH is in perpetuity, right?

This is for certification.

When it comes back

for sure.

So it won't be in a bit. Yes, apologize.

You can

let them know that that's the question. But it really is a question also for you as the for the department as to whether we want to start to look at where and how MIH makes sense in areas that have one, a high percentage of already rent burdened people. So those people are not going to be moving in here unless they're moving into the affordable. And then they're still paying more than they were paying previously. And this is an area that has experienced displacement.

So with those two combined, I would say take a look at whether you really think MIH is doing something that will benefit this community.

Thank you. Thank you.

Well, I just want to underscore because my question would have been around that dynamic as well, you know, and why the so called low income projected rent is higher than the income restricted. I still don't know. I I listened to what you say, but I I I still don't under I don't think I have a total grasp of the rationale for that. So that will certainly be a question for the applicants to anticipate. Other questions? Commissioner Goel.

Hi. Thank you. I just wanted to follow-up on Commissioner Benjamin's question about the rezoning area. Just as we think about that, if the other I understand where the applicant comes from, but if the other owner who's next door has no plans, does it make sense to keep that in there, or is there some reason that we need to keep that site in there as well?

I think in general, we try to avoid, like, spot zoning, and I think it was just the adjacent site made sense to kind of extend the rezoning along the Kings Avenue

frontage. Yes. One

of one of the considerations is about creating a a consistent zoning map here. And so if you can see on the left, this is the existing condition. The R six b is on those three blocks basically between Stillwell and West 11th By, when, you know, meeting with the applicant and talking about increasing zone capacity on on their site, the discussion about, like, a consistent zoning map boundary, and about how to draw that whether to the west so it's not just on their site or to the east. We felt that mapping it to the east was was appropriate given it would have left kind of an odd irregular R 6 B island on its own just over that small triangular site. As Emilia mentioned before, given the kind of the context of the wide street's proximity to transit, we did feel that this was the most appropriate zoning district boundary to include the non applicant site without leaving kind of odd r six p pocket kind of an island on the on the zoning map.

Are there any just my for my own identification, any unintended consequences of doing that zoning change for the other site?

I mean, as as Amelia pointed out, it it for secret purposes, we did project development on that

site, which Mhmm. Which makes sense.

And so, you know, thinking through possible scenarios, it's from our perspective, it wouldn't be inappropriate to see new housing development on the site with with a mixed use character given Kings Highway is a major East West commercial corridor. It's a wide street. It's about four short blocks to the

train. Mhmm.

So even if the owner says that they have no intent now, zoning is a long term Right. Kind of policy. And therefore, we we think even if in the next ten, fifteen, twenty years, it does set a framework for guiding development in the area that we think would be appropriate.

So we're thinking about it from the perspective then that if we do this, chances are that site at some point, whether it's under this owner or whether it's under another owner, turns into housing at some

That's right. And recognizing that there's an active retail use there today, we think the residential with a commercial overlay is appropriate to ensure that there's a continued mixed use character for the area. Knowing that the R6B is a relatively low density district and wanting to make sure that we don't kind of lose an active ground floor commercial use in the future while still allowing for residential capacity.

Got it. Thank you.

Other questions? Commissioner Rampershot, just a couple of quick questions.

I had a similar question as Commissioner Benjamin about including Block 600620. It is possible just to provide the full unit breakdown, how many three bedroom, two bedroom, one bedroom? I'm looking at the plans, I just have a question, I guess, the applicant team when they do come back. I noticed they have a number of recreational areas allocated on the lower levels. And I'm just trying to understand why on the 10th Floor, they decided to put a 1,400 square foot gym up there when it could probably best fit for two or three bedrooms. So I just would like to know their rationale as part of

the design. Thank you. Certainly. Thank you for your questions. Yes.

Other questions? All right. There being none, this is certified. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. The second item on our agenda is a certification of a zoning map and zoning text amendments in Brooklyn Community District 1. Our presenters, Lucia Capuchio.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair and Commissioners. Good afternoon. Okay. This is an application by Kapscar III, LLC for a zoning map amendment from a CA 2 district to an R seven DC two four district and a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to map MIH. These actions are to facilitate the development of a new six story mixed use building with 15 dwelling units, four of which will be income restricted.

This project area is located at 19 Masbath Avenue in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Community District 1, Brooklyn. The project area is outlined in blue on this map. It is well served by transit with the Graham Avenue L Station, approximately four fifty feet from the project area with service between Canarsie and Chelsea. Several buses serve the area, including the B24, which runs adjacent to the project area along Masbath Avenue with service to Williamsburg and Long Island City and the B34 bus, which runs along Graham Street with service to Greenpoint. The Q54 and Q59 buses with service to Queens operate on Grand Street four blocks south, just outside of this mapping area.

In addition to transportation access, the surrounding area also contains several open spaces, including Cooper Park, a 6.4 acre city park to the northeast of the project area, which can be seen on the right side of the map outlined in green. There are two other small triangular city parks south of the project area, Memorial Gore and Orient Grove, both also outlined in green on this map. The project area is also one block from the former Greenpoint Hospital and Cooper Park NYCHA houses and about a third of a mile west of the North Brooklyn Industrial Business Zone shown here in purple. The project area is within the Greenpoint Williamsburg 2009 contextual rezoning area, which mapped contextual residential districts, extended commercial overlays and maintained the 1961 mapped CA2 district of which the project area was included. A portion of the CA2 and a portion of an R6B district was rezoned in 2021 as a part of the 824 Metropolitan Avenue rezoning one block south, represented on this map in pink on the bottom right hand side.

Also in 2021, one block east of the project area, a large scale general development special permit was approved by the CPC in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the former Greenpoint Hospital seen in pink on the top right hand side of this map. The project area consists oh, sorry. Hello, Chair. Do I keep going? Keep going.

Okay. Sorry. Okay. The project area itself consists of two blocks in their entirety. Block 2892 And 2893, bounded by Humboldt Street, a 60 foot wide street to the West Concilia Street, a 60 foot wide street to the North and Masbath Avenue, a 70 foot wide street to the South.

The project area is bisected by Woodpoint Road, a 60 foot wide street going north south through the project area. The development site, Block 2893, is applicant owned and includes Lot 1 and Lot 59. Combined, the two lots make up the small 2,966 square foot block with frontages on Matsbeth Avenue, Concilia Street and Woodpoint Road. The site has been used for automobile related uses in the 1960s and surface parking since at least 2009. These are outlined here in yellow.

The rest of the project area to the west of the development site consists of non applicant owned lots on Block 2892, which is an 11,734 square foot block. These lots include Lot 37, which is a 1,700 square foot triangular religious shrine and park called Vito Abate Grotto, owned and maintained by St. Francis Paolo Roman Catholic Church Lot 39, which is a 2,800 square foot lot improved with a three story walk up apartment building and garage and an auto service business, which fronts on Concilia Street. Lot 38 is a 2,900 square foot lot improved with a three story walk up apartment building and a garage also fronting on Concilia Street. Lot 40 is a 1,100 square foot interior lot improved with a three story single family home with frontage on Masbath Avenue.

And lastly, Lot 1 is an irregularly shaped 3,900 square foot block long property fronting on Humboldt Street that contains a two story ambulatory and diagnostic health care facility, which was constructed in 2018. As mentioned previously, the project area is in the CA2 zoning district, which has a maximum permitted commercial FAR of two and community facility FAR of 4.8. Residential uses are not permitted. The CH2 area consists of the project area, the entirety of the block to the South and a part of the block to the Southeast and consists of primarily legally nonconforming residential uses and commercial and auto oriented uses. The surrounding area includes residential districts, including R6B, R6A and R7A contextual residential districts with commercial overlays along Metropolitan And Graham Avenues.

These residential districts range from two FAR to 4.6 FAR at a maximum overall height between fifty and one hundred and thirty five feet. Residential uses seen on this map in light and darker yellow and orange range from two to three story walk up buildings to the south and west and seven to eight story elevator buildings east of the project area. Commercial uses can be seen here in red. Notable community facilities nearby are shown in blue and include a nonprofit, St. Nick's Alliance, St.

Francis Apollo facilities, including a learning center, church and a shrine, and PS132. In the next few slides, we'll look at the project area images starting at the northeastern north tip of the project area on the corner of Mass 5th Avenue and Consilia Street where they merge. We face Southwest towards the development site, which we can see outlined in yellow. In the same location, but facing Northeast to see the convergence of Consilia And Masbath Streets, one block north is the former Greenpoint Hospital site and Cooper Park. Turning back west, we are now along the project area on Concilia Street and Woodpoint Road.

We see the development site and the service parking uses on the left side of the image and St. Francis Apollo Church on the right hand side outside of the project area. Moving west along Concilia at the Concilia and Woodpoint Road facing Southwest, the project area outlined in blue and the development site in yellow in the foreground and the nearly completed 824 Metropolitan Avenue rezoning development on the left hand side. Moving further west along Concilia, we are now on the other side of the intersection of Concilia and Woodpoint Road, where you can see the development site in the project area. Residential context, just south of the project area on the northern side of Mass Avenue, a six story walk up residential development on the left hand side and the 824 Metropolitan rezoning development in the background.

Now at the furthest western edge of the development site along Concelius Street and Humboldt Street facing Southeast, we see the project area and recently developed commercial community facility building and two garages fronting Consilius Street. Turning further south, we see the residential and commercial context of the area along the western edge of the project area and the recently constructed commercial and community facility building. This is a view of the southwestern most tip of the project area looking Northeast on Maspeth Avenue and Humboldt Street. Moving further east on Massbeth Avenue at the corner of Massbeth and Woodpoint Road, we see the project area and development site in blue and yellow as well as the context of the CA 2 District just south and a taxi auto business on the right hand side. Lastly, we ended the intersection of Maspeth and Woodpoint facing Northeast and the development site again in yellow.

The proposed development is a six story 5.6 FAR mixed use commercial and residential building with approximately 14,300 square feet of residential use and 2,300 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The development would rise to a height of 65 feet with full lot coverage and consist of 15 dwelling units, four of which would be permanently income restricted. The development waves out of required parking spaces and does not plan to provide car parking spaces. Eight park bike parking spaces are required and will be provided. The proposed actions include a zoning map amendment to change the existing CA2 District to an R7 DC24 district and a text amendment to Appendix F of the zoning resolution to map MIH Housing Options one and two.

The proposed actions included zoning map amendment to change the existing CA 2 District to an R70 D, C24 district bounded by Humboldt to the West, Masbath Avenue to the South, and Consilia Street to the North. R7 DC24 is a residential district with a maximum FAR of 5.6 for residential uses, 4.2 FAR for community facility uses, and two FAR for commercial uses. For MIH developments, the maximum base height is 95 feet and the maximum building height is 115 feet. The applicant also proposes a zoning text amendment to map MIH coterminous with the project area, creating permanently income restricted housing via MIH options one and two. The applicant has proposed option two with four units, income restricted units at 80% AMI.

This application requires a racial equity report on housing and opportunity. The proposed development would provide new income restricted housing units on an undeveloped lot within a highly desirable neighborhood. The area median household income for the project area is around $93,676 which is greater than the median income for Brooklyn and New York City. The applicant proposes MIH units that meet 40%, 60%, and 80% AMI income band limits. In Figure one, we see that the population of Greenpoint Williamsburg NTA is predominantly white and Hispanic Latino, with a percentage of white residents at 62%, which exceeds both the borough at 35% and the city at 31%.

The HispanicLatino population at 21% is between the borough and citywide percentages. Figure two shows the percent change in race and ethnicity from 2010 to 2020. The largest growth we've seen in the Asian population, which has experienced growth of 55% compared to an increase at 43% borough wide and 34% citywide. The Black non Hispanic and white populations have also seen population increases in comparison with borough and citywide percentages. Figure 14 shows the percent change in housing supply and population from 2010 to 2022.

During this time, housing units in this area increased by 34%, while the population increased by 19%. Housing production and population change has exceeded both the borough and the city change by over 20% increase in housing supply change and 10% increase in population. In summary, this is a private application for a zoning map amendment from a CA2 district to an R7 DC24 district and a zoning tax amendment to map MIH to facilitate the development of a six story 5.6 FAR mixed use commercial and residential building with approximately 14,300 square feet of residential space and 2,300 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The development will consist of 15 dwelling units, four of which would be permanently in commercial. So thank you and happy to answer questions.

Great. Thank you very much.

Let me

just one point of clarification. This was in the rezoning area of a prior rezoning. I think it was 2009. Is that correct?

Yes. It was in the 2009

Williamsburg and Greenpoint rezoning. But it was not but the zoning designation for this site has not changed at that time?

That's correct. It was mapped CA2 and it remains CA2.

Okay. Do you know why that was or what the history was with that? It looks like Corenza is coming Okay.

For the question. And so

at the time, as you can see, there's kind of a legacy of auto oriented uses in this particular area. And of course, we've seen some of these businesses leave, go elsewhere. There were two gas stations also in Metropolitan. Both of them have left as well. And so we're seeing sort of a change in the uses of this area. But at the time, there was more of a kind of robust auto oriented character here. And so the CA2 facilitated that. And at the time, we didn't want to change the zoning to make those uses non conforming.

Okay. Got it. Thank you. Let me see if there are other questions. Okay. Thank you. This item is certified. Let's move on to the next. Thank you.

The third item on our agenda is a non ULURP post referral review of an authorization in Brooklyn Community District nine. Our presenter is Kyra Queva.

Hi, Kyra. How are you?

Good. Good afternoon, everybody. Good to

see you. Today, I will be presenting a zoning authorization application that is here for post referral at 975 Nostrand Avenue. The application was referred out to committee board nine on September 24 for forty five days. This is a follow-up action to the fresh authorization approved by the City Planning Commission earlier this year on 02/06/2024. This project is located in the Crown Heights neighborhood within Community District 9.

This is a private application by Nostrand Grand Green, pardon, LLC to permit a 23 foot wide curb cut at 975 Nostrand Avenue. A curb cut authorization is required to increase the maximum width of a curb cut by one foot from the 22 feet permitted by zoning to 23 feet. As I mentioned in my introduction earlier this year, which was 02/06/2024, the CPC approved a fresh authorization for 975 Notre Dame Avenue, seen on the rendering on the left. This action will facilitate the widening of the curb cut proposed to provide parking for the residents and for the commercial use for this project. The project site is located within the Southwest portion of Crown Heights and borders the Northeast portion of Prospect Lefford Gardens.

And it is bounded by Montgomery Street on the North, Blow Road on the East, Empire Boulevard on the South and North Shoren Avenue on the West. Three bus lines and subway lines are within proximity to the project. The immediate surrounding area includes a range of institutional, commercial and multifamily buildings, which range from one story to six stories, and a few vacant lots scattered throughout the area. Community facility uses include schools scattered north of the site. The project area is located on the eastern edge of the R7-one District and across the edge of an R6 district.

R7-one Districts are medium density residential districts that permit community facility uses and allow up to a maximum FAR of 4.6. R5 and R2 zoning districts are further east and demonstrate a great array of residential density. This is a bird's eye view that illustrates the curb cut location in relation to the rest of the development and the neighboring street network, where Clove Road and Malbone Street are both shown as one way streets. As you can see on this slide, the current curb cut location is on Clove Road along Melbourne Street. The currently proposed curb cut width was 22 feet.

This is a view from Malbone Street taken recently and looking west from Malbone Street onto Clove Road. This image shows you a t intersection, which shows the proposed location for the curb cut. Both Malbone Street and Clove Road are now streets with a width of less than 80 feet, with Clove Road measuring about 50 feet in width and Malbone Street measuring about 40 feet in width. This is a view from March 2024, which looks directly onto the site, south from Clove Road and shows the southeastern edge of the site where the curb cut is proposed that you see in the yellow line here. You can begin to see the irregularly shaped street grid closer to the T intersection.

Furthermore, there is no stop sign south of Clove Road and the approach of Malbone Street. The curb cut will serve the residents of the recent recently approved fresh application at 975 Neisheran Avenue. The curb cut connects drivers to a below grade parking garage that will provide a total of 193 parking spaces, 164 of which are for residents and 24 of which are for commercial uses as currently required for R7-one and C2-three zoning districts. On August 2023, prior to the fresh certification and authorization, the Department of Transportation issued a letter to the applicant stating that the agency recommends a wider curb cut for safe and efficient access as a 22 foot wide curb cut is not sufficient for the width of a T intersection with an irregular geometry. Their auto turn analysis is shown here indicating that a 22 feet curb cut is not feasible, and you'll see that in the yellow line.

An auto turn analysis is a tool that traffic engineers use to map out a vehicle's turning radius to evaluate the efficiency and safety of either a curb cut or a street corner. The applicant worked to minimize the width of the curb cut and discovered that the minimum curb cut width must be 23 feet to operate functionally. Therefore, after adopting DOT's recommendation, the applicant is proposing a 23 foot wide curb cut for the inbound and outbound traffic towards the garage. The curb cut widening would trigger the need for zoning authorization twenty five thousand six hundred thirty one. Under the zoning resolution, two conditions must be met where the proposed modification does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding area and where more than one curb cut is provided, the curb cuts are arranged to foster retention of curbside parking spaces along the street frontage of the zoning lot.

The applicant stated that they meet the conditions. This application was referred out to the community board for forty five days on September 24. During that time, the applicant presented at the October Committee Board nine Land Use Committee and the October Full Board. We have not yet received a recommendation or vote at this time. In conclusion, the proposed action would facilitate the construction of a 23 foot wide curb cut. Happy to take any questions or concerns, comments, etcetera.

Great. Thank you very much. Okay. So we have an authorization to increase the size of the curb cut by a foot.

And

the standard here is would that affect the character of the area basically?

Yes.

Okay. I just have a legal question about where the 22 feet came from in the first instance. Can you help us understand that? Is that the requirement as defined for particular sites? Or is it defined in the zoning resolution?

I believe it was in the zoning resolution.

Sorry.

I'm Oh, currently looking at it, but it was based on the zoning resolution. I forget which It's

a zoning requirement.

Zoning requirement is for parking structure like this, you need to have 22 feet. Is that

The maximum width is 22 feet.

Maximum width is right. So you can go up to 22.

Mhmm.

And if you wanna go anything further, you need this authorization.

Yes.

That's right.

Does this authorization allow for us to have gotten or for them to have sought authorization for more feet?

That's correct.

Could have.

It could have.

But didn't.

So we have worked with DOT. Our team and DOT and the consultants have worked together to minimize the width. So originally, it was actually larger than what we're showing here. But the minimum curb cut that would provide an efficient and safe access to the parking garage would be 23 feet. Hence, the need for the authorization based on the zoning resolution.

DOT is comfortable with 23 at this intersection where you've got Clove And Malbon Street coming together?

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. Let me see if there are other questions. Commissioner Rambuchad?

Just two quick questions. Has DOT decided if they're going to put a street light on there? I know there's stop signs. I'm just curious. And number two, is this attended parking? Because I'm just curious about how many cars going to queue up when they're pulling in. Does the attendant pick up the car from the top of the ramp?

So I will say that we don't know the answer for both of those questions at this time, but we can get back to you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks, Commissioner. Okay. Thank you. This item is certified. Let's move on to the next one, Sarah.

This item is going be voted out, at a public meeting. We'll put in the calendar for

vote. Okay.

The fourth item on our agenda is a non ULUIP post referral review of a renewal of a previously approved special permit in Queen's New District 1. Our presenter is Colin Ryan.

Chair, I'm recused on this matter.

Okay. Commissioner Rampershed is recused, I'm sorry that I made the wrong designation on the last one. So yes, that will be for a vote. My apologies. Okay. Let's move on. Welcome. Good afternoon, commissioners. Good afternoon.

This is a private application by Cipico Construction Incorporated for renewal of a special permit to facilitate construction of three new five, nine, and 14 storey mixed use buildings in the Ravenswood portion of the Astoria neighborhood of Queens Community District 1. Pardon. Pursuant to the zoning resolution section eleven forty three, a special permit may be renewed for two additional three year terms provided that the commission finds the facts upon which the special permit was granted have not substantially changed. The following special permit was approved in 2019 and a special permit request has not changed. In this presentation, I'll provide background on the original application and then summarize the findings of the current special permit renewal application.

The project area, as outlined in teal, is located in Ravenswood. It is bounded by Broadway to the North, 33rd Road to the South, Vernon Boulevard and 10th Street to the West, and 11th Street to the East. Directly west of the Pradus area is in the Gucci Museum and its associated sculpture garden, a critical cultural asset in the neighborhood. Rainy Park and Socrates Sculpture Park are located across Vernon Boulevard approximately a block to the west. Product area is well served by the q one zero three and q one zero four bus services, and the NW line is located approximately a fifteen minute walk to the east at the Broadway Station.

The project area is located within an R 6 B and r seven x c one three zoning district, which was rezoned in 2019 as part of the Vernon Boulevard Broadway rezoning. The project area was originally zoned r five in 1961, and the zoning district map in the surrounding area include R5 to the South and West, R7A to the North, M14 R7A to the Northeast, and M15 R6A to the Southeast. The product area is currently improved with a single story warehouse. As part of the Vernon Boulevard Broadway rezoning on 09/11/2019, the CPC approved the following actions. A large scale development special permit pursuant to ZR Section 70 fourseven 43 to permit the distribution of total allowable floor area without regard rezoning lot lines or district boundaries and to modify the minimum base heights.

Zoning map amendments to map r six b and r seven x c one three districts and zoning tax amendments to establish an MIH area. The city council approved the project with modifications on 10/17/2019 to remove MIH option two. The actions will facilitate the construction of 330,000 square feet of mixed use development, which include approximately three fifty dwelling units, of which 113 would be income restricted. The proposal includes 11,000 square feet of commercial space and approximately 6,000 square feet of community facility space. Approximately 16,500 square feet of open space would be provided for the public and an additional 16,000 square feet of open space residents of the neighboring development.

A 166 parking spaces would be provided as part of the project as well. At this time, construction has not begun. Here's a view of the project area outlined in teal facing south from the intersection of Vernon Boulevard and Broadway. Here's a view of the project area facing Southwest from the intersection of Vernon Boulevard and 10th Street with the Noguchi Museum outlined in yellow on the right side of the image. And lastly, one more view of the project area facing Northeast from the intersection of 33rd Road and 10th Street.

The special permit is pursuant to ZR section seven four seven four three related to bulk modifications. The applicant was granted bulk distribution and height modifications in order to facilitate a site plan and building mapping strategy that would better relate to the surrounding area. Presumed to ZR section 20 three-one 154, maximum residential floor area for any one zoning lot may not exceed the base FAR of the district. In the instance of an R7X district mapped with MIH, the FAR is six point zero. Large scale special permit would permit portions of floor area generated on Zoning Lot A to be distributed to Zoning Lot B.

This would concentrate height to the north at adjoining wide streets, namely Broadway, Vernon Boulevard, and 10th Street and 11th Street and away from the the New Guiche Museum Sculpture Garden. The applicant was also granted base height modifications shown as indicated by the teal dotted line. R seven x districts have a minimum base height of 60 feet. In order to be responsive to the surrounding context of the Museum Sculpture Garden and a lower density character to the south, special permit, permitted a lower minimum base height of 45 feet along portions of 10th And 11th Street. The applicant requests the renewal of the special permit pursuant to VR section eleven forty three.

Pursuant to this section, the special permit renewal may be granted provided the facts upon which the special permit was granted have not substantially changed. Since the approval of the special permit in 2019, the area surrounding the project has seen two rezonings to mixed use districts in contact with densities proposed at the site. The Broadway And 11th Street rezoning to the East and the 11th And 34th Avenue rezoning to the South. The applicant argued in their application that the proposed special permit renewal and the prior actions are consistent with the existing land uses within the surrounding area while furthering citywide goals of facilitating mixed use transit oriented development. On October 17, Queen Community Board one voted a recommendation of conditional approval with 31 in favor, one against, and one abstaining.

The board restated comments from the original application in 2019 with respect to a limited number of affordable units, especially family size units. To summarize, the applicant seeks a special permit renewal that was approved in 2019 pursuant to ZR section eleven forty three to facilitate the construction of three new five, nine, and 14 storey mixed use buildings in the Ravenswood neighborhood of Queens Community District 1. And that concludes our presentation. And I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you. Okay. So we have renewal of a special permit to which you're entitled for two additional three year terms pursuant to Zoning Resolution eleven forty three if the underlying circumstances have not changed. So that really is the question here. You noted that there were a couple of developments that have taken place since 2019. And those were it sounds like consistent with what is being proposed here. Is that a fair assessment of the dynamic? That's correct. Okay. Okay. Other questions? Anybody else? Commissioner Benjamin?

One quick question.

Well, actually two. The first is why did they not were they not able to start construction? And what the second one which relates to that is, what is the building program and why do they think they can start construction now? And thirdly, in order to secure their building rights, do they need to only start on one part of the program? Or do they need to start on each one of the parts of

the program that were involved?

Sure. So the applicant does cite the COVID nineteen pandemic as inhibiting them from beginning this project. I'll just refer back to this slide for the programming here, which includes a variety of uses, including commercial and community facility spaces. I believe the applicant is confident they'll be able to take up that development program now, given that there's been some time since the pandemic. But, yeah, that's that's how they reflected it in their application. And to your last question, I actually don't have the answer right now, but we

can follow-up on that. Steven?

Hi. My name is Stephen Leonard. I'm the director of technical review. Because this is a large scale and planned as a unit, they can vest the special permit with foundations for any one of the buildings in the special permit.

Okay. And once they've asked, they would not need even if they only built the one part of the program, they would never need to come back to renew the special permit. Is that correct? That is correct. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Vice chair Knuckles?

No. I for the purposes of the of of of the zoning rate, the review session does not constitute a public hearing.

Alright. No. You wanna No. You're saying the mic for

No. It it said that the renewals Yeah. To to Two renewals. Two renewals without any public hearing could be renewed without

So question from the vice chair is whether you need a public hearing for the renewal of these. And the answer is no, you do not. You actually can do it as part of a review session. And that is why I'm going to pivot now with your permission to a vote on this item unless there are other questions. Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to seek a sent by a voice vote to send an approval letter on this item to the buildings department. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, nay. Okay. The ayes have it. We will send over that letter. Thank you. Thank you.

The fifth item on our agenda is a pre hearing review of the zoning map and zoning text amendments in Brooklyn Community District 15. Our presenter is Lucia Capuccio.

Hello. Hi. Hello again. Good afternoon again. This is a prehearing follow-up for a private application from two thousand one hundred eighty five Coyle Associates LLC for a zoning map amendment from an r four c one two district to R6AC24, R7AC24 and R7X C24 districts and a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to facilitate the development of a new nine story mixed use development, including over 378,000 square feet of residential space or four thirty five dwelling units, 109 of which will be permanently income restricted, and over 43,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space.

This application was certified on August 5, and the public hearing is scheduled for this Wednesday, November 20. The proposed actions include a zoning map amendment to change the existing R4 C12 district along Coyle Street to R6AC24, R7AC24 and R7X C24 districts and a zoning text amendment to map NIH coterminous with the project area. On September 24, Community Board fifteen held a public hearing and with a vote of 24 in favor, 12 opposed and one abstention voted to conditionally approve the application. The Board had concerns that the proposed amount of parking would not be adequate and said that there should be no reduction in the amount of parking proposed. On October 9, the Brooklyn Borough President held a public hearing for this application.

Subsequently, the Borough President recommended to approve this application with two conditions, that the applicant locate a grocery store in the commercial floor area and participate in the Fresh Program's discretionary tax incentives and that the applicant reduce the proposed parking to no more than what is required by zoning. So in summary, this is a private application for a zoning map amendment from an R4 C12 to an R6AC24, R7AC24 and R7XC24 districts and a zoning text amendment to Appendix F to facilitate the development of a new nine story mixed use building with approximately four thirty five units, including 109 units of permanently income restricted housing. So thank you, and I'm happy to take questions.

Great. Thank you. Just one point of clarification since it sounds like there was some divergence of you between the Community Board and the Borough President on the subject of parking. My understanding is that the number of proposed parking spaces have actually increased in this application. It was two thirty five and now it's two sixty three. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And when the Community Board says no reduction of parking, are they talking about off of

two sixty three or are they

talking about off of two thirty five?

It's a good question. I'll have the applicant speak to that. I know that they did increase obviously, as you just said, they increased the parking spaces by 30 or so units sorry, spaces. I'm not sure if that was I think that was after their conversations with CUE fifteen, but I'll have them confirm, like, when they made that decision.

Okay. Got it. And we will we can address with them on Wednesday as well. Okay. So we'll pick this up for a public hearing and we can address questions to the applicant unless there are any others at this moment. Commissioner Benjamin?

Hi, Lucie. Thank you very much for the presentation. I have the same question for you that I had before, which is in the description of residential space and affordability, in the profile of anticipated residential affordability, once more we see a case where the moderate income apartments, the studio are more than the market rate. And that's a problem, I think. I'm not sure

sorry, don't have the RER on this presentation. Well, I can have them speak to that. I know last time you did ask about unit distribution, which I do have answers to if you still want But in terms of that decision, we can have the applicant speak to it. But did you want me to go over the MIH units? Sure.

I would Yeah. Like

So they're proposed, obviously, out of the unit mix. In terms of the MIH units, it would be 27 studios, forty nine one bedroom, twenty seven two bedroom, and six three bedroom within the MIH program. So then the overall numbers would be 109 studios, one hundred and ninety five one bedrooms, one hundred and nine two bedrooms, and 22 bedrooms. You give me two bedrooms again? Sure. A hundred and nine two bedrooms.

No. Of the income

restricted? 27. Okay. And the applicant will be speaking to this on Wednesday, so they're prepared to speak to it.

Okay. And if you would let them know that I'm interested in why it's just about the

rest. Sure.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. All right. We'll pick this one up on Wednesday. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Madam Secretary, move on to the next.

The sixth item on our agenda is a pre hearing review of a city map amendment in Queens Community District 2. Our presenter is Stephen Leonard.

Hello, Steven. Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners.

All right. Great. So this is an application from JPB Realty Company for the elimination, discontinuance and closing of a portion of Gale Avenue adjacent to the on ramp to the Queens Midtown Expressway. Approval would facilitate an outdoor eating and drinking establishment within the area to be demapped. This application was certified on August 5 and is back for hearing on this Wednesday.

So as was presented at certification, the project area is located between Van Damme Street, Gale Avenue and the Queens Midtown Expressway Community District 2 of Queens. The area is zoned M12 with a variety of commercial and industrial business types in the area. The area to be de mapped is a crescent shaped piece of land shown here in yellow between warehouse buildings owned by the applicant and the curving on ramp to the expressway. The area to be demapped is vacant and wooded and is often the site of homeless encampments and dumping. The applicant's property shown here in red is occupied by one and two story warehouse buildings.

The applicant's proposed development would involve the conversion of a portion of one of the existing warehouse buildings into a restaurant and the use of the demapped area as outdoor seating for the restaurant. The outdoor area would be improved as a patio. Similarly and then no expansion or modification of the warehouse buildings are proposed beyond the conversion of the space into restaurant use. The space to propose for restaurant uses are shaded in red on the slide. The proposed city map amendment would eliminate discontinue and close approximately 7,682 square feet of Gale Avenue as shown here in yellow.

And a 15 foot buffer from the ramp structure would be maintained within the map street. The areas to be demapped to city owned and would be sold to the applicant. On October 10, Community Board two of Queens passed a resolution by a vote of 26 to six with zero abstentions recommending disapproval of the application. In correspondence attached to their recommendation, the board stated that their primary concerns included potential loss public land within the area that had limited green space, the importance of retaining city owned property for future public use and uncertainty about the long term intentions for the site beyond the initially proposed outdoor dining use. On 11/13/2024 the Queens Borough President recommended approval of the application with the following condition.

In accordance with New York City DOT the applicant must demonstrate appropriate traffic calming measures immediately surrounding the development site and should present these measures to Community Board two, the borough president and the council member. That concludes my presentation. I can take any questions.

Okay. Questions Vice Chair Knuckles?

Thanks. Steven, as proposed, the restaurant will be carved out of what is an existing warehouse, a portion of it. I'm just curious what will take place in the rest of the warehouse space?

I don't know that. It wasn't provided in the application materials, but the applicant can speak to that on Wednesday. I'll make sure

they're ready to do that.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Benjamin? I'm

curious about microphone. Thank you. I'm just curious about what the air quality, etcetera, will be like for the people sitting outside on this entrance to the LIE Midtown Expressway as they sit and eat their food and drink their lattes while traffic is going by them, it doesn't seem very pleasant. Was there in the environmental review, did they look at the air quality specifically since this is in essence creating a new receptor?

I will have to get back to you on that. I'm sure the applicant can speak to it on Wednesday as well. I know that there were no impacts identified in the environmental review. But exactly what kind of

analysis And was also of the noise. Because if you've ever been near here, the noise as the cars are getting onto the expressway and going around is is quite loud. So I'm just wondering what the analysis was and what the applicant is going to do to make this space usable. I know that there are trees on one side. I'm not sure if they're staying or going or what will happen, but I'm curious about how they see this space operating as an outdoor eating facility.

Right. And a good amount of the proposed patio will be below the level of the ramp. That may provide some. But the applicant can speak to what their plan is.

Okay. If you

could let them know. Thank you.

Fair enough. Thank you. Let me see if there are other questions. Okay. Alright. So we will pick this one up on Wednesday. Thank you, Steven. Thank you, Craig.

The seventh item on our agenda is a prehearing review of a special permit in Manhattan Community District 8. Our presenter is Chelsea Evans.

Hi, Chelsea. Hi.

Good afternoon. This is a private application by Celtic New York A LLC requesting a special permit pursuant to ZR section seventy four seven eleven to allow for use and bulk modifications to a landmark building at 854 5th Avenue in the Upper East Side, Manhattan Community District 8. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing building into a private members' club with three overnight guest rooms. This application was certified on 08/05/2024 and will be presented at Wednesday's hearing. In order to allow for the private members' club with overnight guest rooms to operate in a residential district, the applicant is seeking to modify the use regulations of ZR 2210.

The members' club use would be located on the 1st Through 4th Floors, while the transient hotel use for the three overnight guest rooms would be located on

the 5th And 6th Floors.

Along with the use change, the applicant is proposing restoration of the interior and exterior of the building. Most of these changes would be as of right and include the installation of an ADA accessible lift in front of the building and the infill of one level of the building's interior court. In addition to the as of right changes, the applicant is proposing to extend the rooftop stair and elevator bulkheads to create a code compliant egress. The proposed extension, outlined in black in the image on the right, would partially be in the required 20 foot rear yard and increase the degree of existing noncompliance with CR Section 2,336 for a rear yard requirement. The requested waiver area is highlighted here in blue.

On 09/18/2024, Manhattan Community Board eight recommended approval of the application by a vote of 36 in favor, two opposed and one abstention, on the condition that the applicant provide tours of the building to the public at least two days per year. On 11/12/2024, the Manhattan borough president recommended approval of the application stating that the grant of the special permit will allow for the restoration and maintenance of an important historic landmark. In summary, the applicant, Celtic New York A LLC, is requesting a special permit pursuant to z r seventy four seven eleven to permit use in bulk modifications at 854 5th Avenue to facilitate the conversion of the building to a private members' club

with overnight guest rooms. Thank

you and happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Commissioner Dwight.

Thank you. Can you just speak to the difference between overnight guests from a hotel special permit?

The 74711 allows for use modification. So the hotel special permit would be redundant in this case.

But what are the limitations on on the overnight guest room allowance? Are there a certain amount of rooms that are it's only three rooms. I get that. So is is is there a trigger after a certain amount of rooms that it goes to a hotel special permit? Or what what

I don't believe so, but I can get back to you on that.

Okay. For us. K.

Good afternoon. Aska, head, east side team leader. So in this case, like Chelsea mentioned, because this is using seventy four seven eleven special permit, we we don't need the the hotel special permit. So if they did not if they were not using that and they were only doing a hotel and this is they weren't doing a use change under the other special permits, then they would apply for the hotel special permit even for those three rooms. So it's not necessarily, like, the amount

of rooms that's triggering it, but

it's rather that because they're already getting a use change through the seventy four seven eleven, they don't need the hotel special permit.

Is there a threshold on rooms at all? Any any seventy four seven eleven special permit automatically qualifies for rooms. So if somebody wanted to and I'm not saying this is the case here. I'm just Yeah. Yeah. If somebody wanted to get around the hotel special permit, If they did a use change to a 74711, they would not be required. That's to be a landmark. Okay. That's okay. So 711 okay. So there you go. So that's the clarification I need. Thank you so much. Yeah.

Commissioner Gold? Sorry. So just to follow-up

on that then. So so I understand the the bulk changes triggering the request. But as far as the overnight rooms, that also falls into the than the the four seven eleven, or that's a different approval?

No. That's right. So seventy four seven eleven allows for use and bulk modifications. Got

it.

And just to clarify the questions here about hotel. Does this actually qualify as a hotel? Like put aside anything else here and put aside whether it was a 74, seven Eleven or anything else. We're talking about two guest rooms, which are overnight, whatever they are. Is this a hotel?

It falls under the same use group, transient hotel use. I don't I don't think it would be considered a hotel.

I think so. It's under the use group of a hotel, but it is not a hotel. Is that correct?

You have to be the guest of a member to stay in the room. I think that's

So So hold on. Let me come to you, commissioner. So you have to be the guest or a member to stay there. Does that make it not a hotel?

I can clarify. So it is technically a hotel, those two floors that are using the the 74711 to get the guest rooms. Yeah. The the stipulation about only members will stay there, that's something that, you know, the members club is saying they would do, but that's their program. That's not controlled by the special permit. So one is is granted wherever on the floor plans that they have indicated hotel use, which is on the 5th And 6th Floors, they can have those as hotel use.

And they don't need to seek a hotel special permit because there is a provision either in seventy four seven eleven that allows for this to capture this sort of change of use? Or because there's something in the hotel special permit rule, which says you don't need to seek hotel special permit if you're going for seventy fourseveneleven? Tell us which it is.

Yes. So the it's the fact that it's a special permit. So the hotel special permit is something that you can only get that use if you go through the special permit process. And in landmark buildings, if you're going through special permit process under this other special permit, it's still the same sort of review process. So you can do that without having this redundant special permit.

So, functionally, this is a review of a hotel special permit. But in the context of a seventy fourseven eleven landmark change of use in bulk. Is that did I say it correctly? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Marien?

If

we were converting a 50 unit building into that landmark Mhmm. To hotel, then we don't need a hotel special permit, but we would go under the seventy four seven eleven?

They could. Yes. So they could if they're if they're a landmark building, they can get a hotel special permit or a seventy four seven eleven special permit. So they have the option to do either one. They don't need bulk modifications. They could just do the special permit under the hotel special permit.

And on the both scenarios, they still need to come

to this body for approval. Yep. Exactly.

So it's a special permit either way, so it gets the full process. Yes. Okay, great. Commissioner Benjamin, go ahead.

The one difference would be under seventy four thousand seven hundred eleven, they have to establish a plan of maintenance for the landmark and the Landmarks Commission has to approve a certificate of no effect or a certificate of appropriateness, which they did in this case. Whereas if they could just go under the hotel, they wouldn't have to

do any of those things. Okay.

This is a good conversation. I think we all clarified a lot. Helpful. Thank you. We'll pick this one up on Wednesday. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Let's move on. Okay.

The eighth item on our agenda is a City Council modification scope determination for the Brooklyn Yards project. The City Council proposes to modify three of the special permits and staff believe this modification is within scope.

Any questions here or shall

we make our scope determination? Okay. I'm going to seek a sent by a voice vote here to send a letter to the council that these modifications are in fact within scope. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed nay. Ayes have it.

Okay. The ninth item on our agenda is a city council modification scope determination for the 962972 Franklin Avenue rezoning. The city council proposes to modify the zoning text amendment and the special permit. Staff believe this modification is within scope. We are joined by Josh on Zoom to present.

Thanks, Josh. Good afternoon, Sharon. Next slide. So as Sarah mentioned next slide. On November 13, the city council voted to modify the zoning text amendment of the 962 Franklin Avenue rezoning.

The angle of the sloping plane from the approved CPC text amendment was reduced from 15 to, 10% and will rise from a height of 90 feet, which which is the increase from the 85 feet previously approved by the CPC. As we can see in this image here, bulkheads would be permitted to penetrate the plane up to 12 feet within 85 feet from Franklin, which essentially would be below the height of the CBC approved text amendment. In the applicant's most recent illustrative materials, the number of units is not impacted, and the floor area increased by 4,500 square feet. This modification resulted in further shadow reductions on the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens by up to seven minutes. The modification also added the MIH workforce option to options one and two.

Thank you. Happy to take any questions.

Okay. Thank you. Let me see if there are questions. Obviously, we spent a fair amount of time on this particular application across a couple of, mayoral administrations. So, obviously, the council made some modifications here, which will, you know, make some changes on shadows and things like that. Any questions about where they landed or about the scope of those changes? Okay. All right. Thank you. I'm going seek a sent by a voice vote to send a letter to the council that the modifications here are within scope. All those in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay? Okay. Ayes have it.

Fragmentism range. Good.

Lastly, for post hearing follow ups. We have, 438 Concord Avenue, which had a hearing at the November 6 public meeting. Cesar is here to present.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Good afternoon.

I'm here to do the agency recommendation of the 438 Concord Avenue application, which will be voted on the public meeting session of Wednesday, December 4. The Department of City Planning recommends to this commission, the approval of the proposed actions, a zoning map amendment to rezone from the existing M12 to an M14 with R7 D zoning district and a tax amendment to create a new mandatory inclusionary housing area and include zoning district R7 D in the Special Next Use District 18 in The Bronx. The proposed development will facilitate the construction of one new 10 story building with approximately 87 housing units, of which 24 are intended to be income restricted. The building will also have light industrial and retail spaces and is located on 438 Concord Avenue in the Modehaven neighborhood, Community District 1 at The Bronx. The agency recommends the development because together with its required actions, it aligns with Department of City planning objectives to increase the stock of affordable housing, specifically of family size units with more than two rooms and at the same time trading local jobs.

That's

all for today.

Thank you very much.

Great. Thank you. Any questions here? Okay. We'll pick this one up for a vote. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Next we have Gleason Funeral Home Commercial Overlay, which also had a hearing at the November 6 public meeting. Joy is on Zoom to present.

Hello. Good afternoon, chair and commissioners.

Hi, Joy.

This item is scheduled for a vote on, December 4 as a Gleason funeral home commercial overlay. And I'm here today to present the agency's recommendation for the proposed action for a zoning map amendment from an r two a zoning district to an r two a c two two district. This proposed c two two commercial overlay would facilitate the development of a second accessory parking lot for the funeral home on Lot 6, adding 22 new parking spaces. And, yeah, the agency recommends approval of this action.

Great. Thank you very much. K.

Okay. Also listed for posturing follow ups are, 455 1st Avenue in Spark, Kipps Bay. There were applicant responses on both projects in your weekend materials. Ali is here should there be any questions today.

Great. Allie, you're not making a specific presentation, right?

No, I'm not making any presentation.

But if you have any questions, I'd

Okay. Happy Are there any questions on I'm sorry, this is on both, right?

Yes, 455

455 1st Avenue and Spark, Kipps Bay. Follow ups, questions? Okay. Thank you. All right. Next.

Okay. Lastly, for post hearing follow ups is 441467 Prospect Avenue, which had a public hearing at the November 6 public meeting. There were testimonies and public comments in your weekend materials as well as the letter from the applicants. Juki is here to present.

Thank you. Welcome, Juki, noting Commissioner Rappersciat is recused.

Welcome.

Hi. Good afternoon, commissioners.

I don't have an in-depth presentation today. Just a couple of points. The public hearing for the 441 And 467 Prospect Avenue rezoning was held on November 6. And again, this is a private application by Arrow Linen Supply Company to facilitate two new 13 storey developments totaling 248,700 square feet with two forty four dwelling units, including 61 MIH units in Windsor Terrace, Community District 7, Brooklyn. At the public hearing, the commission asked the applicant a number of questions about the proposed project.

The applicant team has responded to those questions in writing, and those responses were included in your weekend briefing package. I want to note that during public review, there were concerns raised about City of Yes, how City of Yes for housing opportunity might affect this project. We want to share that the vote for this project, ARO Linen, will take place on December 18, which will likely be after the City Council's final vote on the City of Yes for housing opportunity. I just want to say it's I'm here today to answer any questions that I can on the project. And I will come back in following review sessions to answer any follow-up questions and later on to provide the department's recommendation on this project.

Thank you. Thanks, Judy.

So it sounds like we will have an opportunity to go through potential impacts on this project as result of whatever action the council takes on housing opportunity. And we'll have some additional follow-up information from the applicant in between now and perhaps the next time we are together for review session. Is that right?

Yes. We'll have two more review sessions before the vote on this project.

Okay. Got it. All right. Well, let me see if there are issues that people want to address now or we can hold them for the next time. Commissioner Benjamin?

I just want to address the issue of timing. It was my understanding that the council intends to vote on the December 5. But that's only if there are no modifications. Is that correct?

No. You're talking about on housing opportunity on Yes. Yes. That would be with modifications. That's the time frame with modifications.

Okay.

Other questions? Okay. All right. Okay. So we'll pick this up, Juki. We'll see you at the next Okay. Thanks, everyone. Madam Secretary, do we

have anything else on the agenda for today?

No, check, Robin.

Do you have any announcements that might break my flow as I bring this meeting No, to a check, Robin. Okay. Wonderful. With that, thank you to you, Sarah, and thanks to all the commissioners for being with us today. We will see you all on Wednesday. Thanks.

The time is 02:42 p. M.