Follow-Up Corrective Action (FUCA) approved 17 modifications to Hudson Yards revitalization plan. In January 2005, after extended negotiations, the City Council approved ten land use actions related to the revitalization of Manhattan’s Hudson Yards. 2 CityLand 4 (Feb. 15, 2005). Public review of the proposed text amendment identified the need for certain modifications. On August 4, 2005, the Planning Department, Council Member Christine Quinn, and Manhattan Community Board 4 applied jointly to incorporate the modifications into the Hudson Yards plan. The Follow-Up Corrective Action, or FUCA, identified 18 modifications related to affordable housing, development controls, clarifications, and corrections. On December 21, 2005, the City Council approved 17 of 18 revisions to the text. The approved corrective actions: (more…)

Changes will increase the protection and affordability of low-income housing and lower the commercial square footage. The Council approved all ten Hudson Yards land use actions after extended negotiations with the Bloomberg Administration on modifications to the rezoning text as well as the financing mechanism. The Council’s modifications were aimed primarily at lowering the overall development potential of commercial uses, increasing the potential for residential uses, lowering density along the Tenth Avenue corridor and altering the inclusionary affordable housing text.

The development potential for commercial uses was reduced from 26 million sq.ft. to 24.3 million sq.ft. The Council reduced the permitted floor area from 15 FAR to 13 along the west side of Tenth Avenue, unless a project included community facility space. Height controls were modified in Hell’s Kitchen, adjacent to the Lincoln Tunnel approaches, to limit the height to 180 ft. (more…)

New development potential of 26 million sq.ft. of office space and 13.6 million sq.ft. of residential; 24 acres of parks, a subway extension, and a new boulevard approved. On November 22, 2004, the Commission approved the Bloomberg Administration’s major urban planning initiative for Manhattan’s Hudson Yards, the area bounded by West 30th and West 43rd Streets, running from Seventh and Eighth Avenues to Twelfth Avenue.

The ten applications before the Commission would achieve a comprehensive redevelopment plan, the expansion of City services and a rezoning of the entire area. At the center of the plan for redevelopment is the transfer from the MTA to the Department of Citywide Administrative Services of the 30-acre, eastern portion of the Caemmerer Yard, spanning from West 30th to West 33rd Streets and from Tenth to Eleventh Avenues, for construction of a platform over the yard. (See C 040505 PQM.) The platform would facilitate future private development and the City’s construction of new parks. Further, the rail yard transfer would partially enable the No. 7 Flushing Line expansion, which is proposed to extend from Times Square to West 41st Street and Tenth Avenue, then south to West 34th Street and Eleventh Avenue. (See C 040504 PQM.) (more…)

West siders sought to prevent public hearing on Hudson Yards Project. Hell’s Kitchen Neighborhood Association filed an article 78 petition to prevent the September 23, 2004 public hearing on the West Side’s No. 7 Subway extension and Hudson Yards rezoning and development project. The Association claimed that the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the Planning Commission, lead agencies for the required environmental review, had submitted an incomplete draft environmental impact statement and, as a result, prevented the Association from meaningful participation at the public hearing. According to the Association, the draft environmental impact statement offers the only opportunity for public comment on the environmental impacts of the project and, since it lacked important information, it could not form the basis for public review.

Justice Herman Cahn denied the petition, ruling that the Association had not yet suffered an injury or exhausted its administrative remedies. Final approval had not yet occurred and the Association could voice its concerns and objections at the scheduled hearing. The court found that if after the hearings the Planning Commission did not issue a sufficiently detailed final environmental impact statement, the Association could then petition the court. (more…)