Remarks by Javier Fernández
827 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 31 of 34
“I'll let someone answer if you want. Nick, you can answer. Yes, you're welcome to. You're recognized, sir.”
“I think the result of what we have right now is you're going to have a property burdened by the requirements without any correspondent benefit because a portion of it's outside the footprint of the buffer area. Am I expressing myself correctly? Yes. Okay.”
“Well, definitely the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,”
“The only others I would tell you are, the bank does not run, well, the bank does run the 73rd. That's what I was saying. The bank, yes. The bank, that's right.”
“If they chose to. Again, they have the option.”
“They're not restricted outside the buffer area.”
“They are not restricted outside the buffer area. If they're choosing to keep it, they are imposing the limitation. They're giving up something. They're giving it up, and therefore, we're trying to give them the benefit of foregoing that additional envelope. So that would be true for, thank you for clarifying. I forgot about the bank, but the bank building does run the 73rd. So remember the back parking lot near Boogie's. But they do have that portion. So essentially, they could go, I think, to six stories there? Yes. Right? So they would be foregoing going to six stories in exchange using the…”
“Just the ones that are integrated integral. I don't know if the right word is buildings, right? Single buildings. Contiguous, maybe? Not really. I don't know if that's right.”
“It would give them the option. It would give them the option. They're not required to. So they're, again, you can just bring those buildings or portions that are outside the buffer area into the footprint of the TDR program.”
“My discussions with the bank ownership is they want to keep the bank's structure. They're just going to modify it and restore it. That's what they've been communicating to me in my private conversations. So it could be that we have that building treated the same way. But we'll see what happens. Again, we don't have to decide all these issues today. We'll get another bite of the apple. The question is, do we want to refer it to the planning board?”
“Okay, seeing no, let's just consider it referred. I don't need to think we can take a vote on it. Okay. Madam Clerk, if you can read N1, please.”
“Colleagues, move on to Items 1 and 2, which are consent agenda items. Anyone have any questions regarding Items 1 or 2? Okay, Madam Clerk, if you can read Items 1 and 2 into the record, please.”
“Thank you. Colleagues, is there a motion to adopt item 1 and 2? I'll move the motion.”
“I'll give a motion by Commissioner Rodriguez, a second by Commissioner Bonich. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.”
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
“Can we just, if I could just put the question more bluntly, which is how would this impact the application that was deferred earlier today? If this provision was adopted, they're now seeking a variance to allow for the continuous floor plate. How would the adoption of these rules on second reading impact that applicant, either positively or negatively?”
“Yes, Madam Commissioner, you're recognized.”
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
“Thank you. OK, colleagues. I do as well. So do we want to try and dispense with this item, then we'll take a quick break? Okay. Is there a motion on item seven? Yes, sir, you're recognized.”
“Or is there a linear dimension that we have as a maximum?”
“Travers, how big is the typical block in South Miami in the TSTD? How long is it?”
“I think 300 feet would be the outer limit that I would suggest that, right?”
“My point is I wouldn't go beyond 300 feet. Oh, I agree with that. The question is do we want something shorter or not? And again, I want to ask this procedural question. I do not want members of the public who are not here now to accuse us of changing the rules in the middle of the game to do an applicant a favor. I am concerned about the confluence of this conversation with the other application that is pending. if we were to adopt this on second reading, right, that, you know, the next meeting or one in June, is that applicant able to modify their application to conform with these…”
“So I just want to make sure that whatever we do as a board, you're comfortable with the fact that they could come in and activate the site consistent with these changes, right?”