Monday, March 27, 2017

Developers pitching city tomorrow for extra floor at former PO site on 14th Street

Reps for the developers of 432-438 E. 14th St. will appear before the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) tomorrow to seek a variance on their mixed-use building between Avenue A and First Avenue.

As we reported on March 16, the developers — Benenson Capital Partners in association with the Mack Real Estate Group — have cut back their original zoning variance request by two-thirds.

Their new proposal is seeking nine stories on the East 14th Street side of the building, one higher than the eight allowed under the current zoning. Aside from ground-floor retail, the building at nine stories would contain 130 apartments, 26 of them tagged as affordable.

The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP), one of the groups opposed to the variance request, broke it down further:

The developer is now requesting a 14.5 ft. increase in the allowable height of the building (restricted by zoning to a maximum height of 80 ft.), to allow the building to rise up to 94.5 feet. This is down from the 44 ft. increase requested in January, which would have allowed the building to rise up to 124 feet.

The developer is also now requesting a 10,000 sq. ft. increase in the allowable size of the development (restricted by zoning to a maximum of size of 103,800 sq. ft.), to allow the building to contain 113,929 sq. ft. This is down from a 27,550 sq. ft. increase in allowable size of the development requested in January, which would have allowed the building to contain 131,350 sq. ft.

As previously noted, the developers say the property "is burdened by a combination of unique conditions that result in practical difficulties in complying with the applicable zoning regulations."

[Photo from 13th Street Saturday by Bobby Williams]

The BSA's Public Hearing Sessions are at 22 Reade St., Spector Hall. The hearing starts at 10 a.m. This item is No. 18 on the agenda.

The GVSHP is hosting a rally at 9:30 a.m. before the hearing tomorrow...

Per GVSHP officials: "While significantly reduced, the developer is still asking to build larger than normally allowable, based upon what we believe are false and inaccurate claims about the project."

This was the former site of the Peter Stuyvesant Post Office, which closed in February 2014.

Previously on EV Grieve:
Former Peter Stuyvesant Post Office slated to be demolished

The former Peter Stuyvesant Post Office will yield to an 8-story residential building

New residential building at former 14th Street PO will feature a quiet lounge, private dining room

A look at the new building coming to the former Peter Stuyvesant Post Office property


Anonymous said...

Good luck and thanks for fighting this battle. I hope these developers eat crow, and then miraculusly change the color of this stalingrad gray building.

Anonymous said...

Typical developer...ask for the sun and stars, but settle for the moon when in reality the only thing that is on the table are rivers and streams.

Say NO to the variance. There is no excuse they can offer that they were not aware of the height and square footage restrictions in place. They knew it then and they know it now. There is no reason they can offer to deviate from the current zoning regulations.

They need to consider that they are just going to have make a few less dollars in the end.

sophocles said...

The developers must have spend a million bucks on legal fees, experts, and reports. Let's too them a bone!

Anonymous said...

This is SOP these days - get the permitting (knowing that they are not enough for what you want), then ask for variance(s), get some of them, walk off happy.

Giovanni said...

Since these developers are obviously much better at finding water than they are at constructing buildings, maybe they should just open a spring water company. Call it EV Springs: We liquefy, you gentrify.

Anonymous said...

Weren't they marketing this as a building for young people? Someone on that strip was. I think it was them. That is insulting not to mention discriminatory.