« Tuesday Links New Development: 96 Rockwell Place »

March 20, 2007

Clinton Hill/Fort Greene Downzoning Deets Released

amandaburden01.jpgCity Planning chief Amanda Burden (right) showed up at Polytechnic University last Wednesday night introduce some long-awaited details about the re-zoning of Clinton Hill and Fort Greene. Similar in concept to what happened in Park Slope, the plan is to down-zone the interior blocks while allowing developers to build bigger buildings on the three most commercial avenues in the area — Myrtle, Fulton and the northern side of Atlantic. The upshot: Developers who own property in the down-zoned areas have until sometime near the end of this year (depending on the speed of the approval process) to get their plans approved and foundations in the ground. In the meantime, prices should be rising for prime locations on the aforementioned avenues. The new R7/R7A zoning there will let developers build a 3.45 FAR as of right and up to 4.5 FAR by using inclusionary zoning. (All this means is that to get the bonus FAR, the developer must build affordable housing somewhere in CB2, not in the development itself.) One developer we talked to was a little disappointed in the 3.45 number, saying that he had expected it to be closer to 4; nonetheless, he said, it should still be a good shot of adrenaline for building on the avenues.




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:57 AM | Comments (22)
Categories: Brooklyn, Clinton Hill, Development, Fort Greene, Zoning

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/754

Comments

check your zoning calcs brown - its a 3.5 to 4.0 FAR in the R7A with a 20/80 onsite inclusionary bonus of only .5 FAR. not offsite. and only on M blocks between fulton and atlantic. Not myrtle, or dekalb. its all just proposed though, and the next three months are when it can change. so if you really want to do anything about it, show up at the Fort Green Alliance meetings or call DCP and CB2.

Posted by: anon at March 20, 2007 8:17 AM

What is an "M" block? Curious....

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2007 8:31 AM

I wonder what additional building in these traditionally less-than-desirable locations will do to the adjacent nabes: Bed-Stuy, Crown Heights and Prospect Heights.
Perhaps it will further the gentrification process?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2007 8:58 AM

Mr. B., what exactly is "down zoning"? I am not familiar with what happened in Park Slope in terms of zoning.

Posted by: donatella at March 20, 2007 8:58 AM

In Park Slope, they upzoned (i.e. increased building height/density) Fourth Avenue in return for downzoning (i.e. tightening the restrictions on new buildings and additions) the interior brownstone blocks.

Posted by: brownstoner at March 20, 2007 9:08 AM

Can we expect all of the buildings up and down Myrtle to be razed?

The building on Clermont and Myrtle is an example of what i'm talking about. They acquired a vacant lot, bought a couple of buildings, bang boom they got themselves 150ft of frontage.

Other Myrtle ave developmental 'targets'. Gas station on Vanderbilt and Myrtle. The Associated, Blockbuster, Post Office parcel is also prime. White Castle and old porn shop would be on the list. I could go on and on

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2007 9:18 AM

Anybody know what is happening to the building at the corner of Washington & Myrtle? I believe it is 183 Washington. I saw somebody changing locks on it yesterday but they did not speak english. It was forfeited to the US Marshalls in 2005.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2007 9:29 AM

8:58-you bet that crown heights/bed stuy/prospect heights will be gentrifying more and more from this rezoning & atlantic yards will have a positive impact as well. those neighborhoods are close enough to benefit from the new business, but fall just outside of the lines of parking nightmares/overcrowding and noise. new york is becoming like london-the circle keeps widening.

Posted by: fgmama at March 20, 2007 10:19 AM

How much do people think that the Walt Whitman houses (and surrounding buildings) are worth? Just curious on concensus...I know, I know they'll always be projects...

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2007 11:06 AM

Technically, this is actually a "rezoning", even though it has been called a "downzoning" by many community groups that have pushed for the change.

The brownstone core of Fort Greene and Clinton Hill are being downzoned, which means a reduction in the height of buildings that can be built there as well as a reduction of the FAR (floor area ratio) that can be built there. While it is said that the commercial streets of Myrtle and Fulton are being upzoned, this is actually only partially true. While the FAR is being increased from the density currently available in an R6 zone, the maximum height is being reduced. The new R7A zones will have a maximum height of 60 feet on Myrtle at Fulton, where an R6 zone has a height limit of 130 feet that can really go higher if certain conditions are met.

I was at the zoning meeting, and Mr. B is correct about the FAR. It is proposed that the R7A on Myrtle and Fulton which ends at Classon will be R7A with a base zoning of 3.45 FAR and up to 4.6 FAR if the difference is built as affordable housing.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at March 20, 2007 11:59 AM

Can someone elaborate a little further on Shahn Anderson's comment? Specifically, does this mean that all new buildings on Fulton and Myrtle will only be 60 feet high? If anyone has access to documents regarding this, that would be fantastic.

Posted by: ft greener at March 20, 2007 12:48 PM

This is fascinating stuff, but I don't understand the jargon. Any advice on where to get the 101 on zoning stuff?

Posted by: piratesofwaverly at March 20, 2007 6:28 PM

Based on the DCP presentation, some points of clarification and addendum:

1. Mr. B and Shahn are correct: the "inclusionary" (affordable) housing provision for the R7A districts does increase the floor area ration (FAR) from 3.45 to 4.60.

2. 8:17 is incorrect about the FAR as well as where R7A districts are proposed. In addition to the current M (manufacturing) zone along Atlantic , R7A is proposed for Myrtle, Fulton (except between South Oxford and Vanderbilt), Hanson Place between South Eliott and South Oxford, and on Vanderbilt and Waverly between Fulton and Atlantic.

3. 8:17 is also incorrect in stating that the affordable housing must be constructed on-site. It can be constructed anywhere in Community Board 2.

4. Shahn is incorrect about the height limits in the R7A zones. Street wall height has a minimum of 40' and a maximum of 65'. Maximum total height is 80' after a setback from the street wall.

5. No, 9:18, I don't think that we should expect all of the buildings on Myrtle Avenue to be razed. However, if affordable housing is constructed as part of a project, the FAR almost doubles from 2.43, under R6 zoning, to the aforementioned 4.60. That will create some development pressure, especially for 'under-built' sites.

6. Pirates of Waverly, a good place for a primer on zoning is DCP's website; specifically:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/subcats/zoning.shtml and the links extending from there.

Posted by: g-man at March 21, 2007 10:37 AM

FIGHT OPPRESSIVE DOWNZONING

Clinton Hill is borderline ghetto. Do you really believe the people in that neighborhood who ARENT the children of rich upper east side parents care about this?

They want affordable housing - and a maximum FAR of 10.0 will be needed to achieve that.

OPPRESSIVE ZONING is the #1 reason for the housing crisis in New York City. FIGHT OPPRESSIVE ZONING. It is the tool of the rich to keep the rest of us forever poor.

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2002papers/HIER1948.pdf

Posted by: Eryximachus at March 21, 2007 12:34 PM

Seriously, the R7-A is not proposed for Myrtle. Just a contextual downzone and an upzone to C2-4 from C1-3. I spoke with DCP. R7-A is only between Atlantic and Fulton M zones. But i was wrong about the 4.0 FAR - it is 4.6. I was not wrong about on site inclusionary though. The FGA, CB2 and CHA would not allow the change without onsite inclusionary. It was a DCP concession. It will also extend into the CB3 rezoning along Atlantic and Fulton, but as an R7-B with onsite. The CB3 rezoning will happen almost simultaneaously.

Posted by: anaon 8:17 at March 21, 2007 3:11 PM

anon 8:17, if you spoke with DCP, call back and tell then to get their s#it together. The PowerPoint presentation last Wednesday clearly showed the R7A as I indicated at 10:37. (I did not go into the little nuances.) Also, the slide on the inclusionary housing bonus stated, "The units can be provided on-site or off-site within the community district."

That would be (almost) consistent with Section 23-952 of the Zoning Resolution, "Substantial rehabilitation and off-site new construction options" which states:

"To qualify for one or more of these options, the designated #lower income housing# shall meet the following requirements:
(a) The #lower income housing# shall be located either:
(1) within the same Community District as the #compensated development#; or
(2) within an adjacent Community District and within a onehalf mile radius of the #compensated development#....

Posted by: g-man at March 21, 2007 4:37 PM

g-man, Another call to DCP wouldnt be bad - they seem to be very good at call backs within 24 hours. You should call too.

I may be mistaken. I was at the meeting but they really flew through the presentation (not suprising). I think a lot of people who were there are confused about at least something.

But I am 99.999% sure, the only rezoning along Myrtle was a contextual R6B, and a C2-4 overlay. Myabe you saw the overlay and got confused? The difference is huge. R7-A would be way out of line along Myrtle, no? No use in arguing though - if R7-A is proposed for Myrtle, it would be against the Fort Greene Alliance and CB2's rec's, and will get some serious opposition once the proposal is certified and public reviewed. Its potentially twice the density as the contextual rezoning.

Posted by: anon 8:17 at March 21, 2007 8:16 PM

Yes, 8:17, "The difference is huge," especially given all the soft sites like those listed by 9:18, not to mention the former KFC. And then there is the unchanged zoning for St. Josephs's, which has tons of unused development rights and open space to build. I spoke today with the owner of 'some plain old brownstones' (his description) in the proposed R7A on Fulton Street who pointed out to me, as if I didn't know, that his buildings were outside the landmark district. He seemed to have put 2+2 together. The right hand giveth and the left hand taketh away.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2007 10:01 PM

g-man, thanks for the explanatory link! This is interesting stuff, but much more so when one understands what people are talking about.

Posted by: piratesofwaverly at March 22, 2007 5:18 AM

The difference isn't quite as huge as some people are stating. The as-of-right FAR in an R6 district on a "wide street", that is, one of 75 feet or wider, is actually 3.0, not 2.43. With the as-of-right FAR on Myrtle & Fulton under the proposed inclusionary R7A being 3.45, it's not that huge of a jump. And as people have stated, the 4.6 FAR is only reached if a developer agrees to do 20% affordable units. The FGA, CB2, and others are not opposed to this change, as it was deemed necessary to offset the loss of FAR on the residential streets.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2007 8:33 AM

I request that people (e.g.: anon 8:17 at 8:16 pm, Anonymous 8:33 am) not make statements about the position of Community Board 2 until it has taken a position as part of its ULURP review of the still-uncertified application.

I am, however, interested in reading people's opinions of the proposed rezoning, if this thread can have a shelf-life of greater than 48 hours.

Robert Perris, District Manager
Community Board 2

Posted by: Robert Perris at March 22, 2007 9:11 AM

Robert - Good point, well taken.

I would recomend you get the word out about this thread, and make other threads and venues available soon. You should start one on the CB2 website (as well as update it - not offense, but it does a poor job of connecting the community and seems a little pretensious; there isnt even a calendar of events). I have a feeling the ULURP will fly through in record time, and the communtiy will have little chance to make an impression. On CB2, DCP, and all ULURP parties.

Posted by: anon 8:17 at March 22, 2007 2:33 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions