Remarks by Javier Fernández
827 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 32 of 34
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
“Again, I just ask the question so we know what the typical condition is of what a full block parcel looks like. It's 300 feet on one side. If you wanted to say, we said 200 as one number. If we wanted to, so 66% of the block can only be on one face occupied by a single monolithic structure, that's fine. I mean, it kind of gets to the concern people have about Avalon Bay being A big box. A big box, right? So... very active now, big box, but yes, a big box nonetheless. So again, where do we want to land that conversation?”
“But over 300 would still allow someone with a 300 foot linear block to have a 300 foot linear mass on one side, correct?”
“I'll say E200. I'm going to say this. Maybe this needs to marinate another meeting. I don't know. And we can bring it back with your recommendation. Like a good number. And with some examples of what the standard is elsewhere. What creates a good urban condition. Okay. I don't know that we need to do this immediately, right? So I prefer to kind of get that recommendation with some standards adopted elsewhere. Okay. So we know with typical block conditions, maybe some other urban cores, and see how we break it up. But that's just my thought. Did you want to ask something else?”
“There's multiple issues here, but that's one. And I want to be sure that we're not, again, perceived as doing something to change the rules after the fact, correct?”
“I would recommend that we move to defer this item to May 19th.”
“Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay. So we have a motion by myself, a second by Commissioner Rodriguez. Let's show this item deferred without objection to May 19th. Okay. Let's read Item 8, please. Wait, no. I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am. Oh, you need, yes, my apologies. I forgot. So if we could take a five-minute recess. Thank you.”
“Hey, good evening. We're now back in session. Madam Clerk. Guys, are you ready?”
“Madam Clerk, if you please read item A in the record.”
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.
“Or to allow for one. Not to have one, to allow for one. No, to allow for one, again. Right. You just have to provide the opportunity, not necessarily guarantee it. Okay. And so, I mean, for that reason, with respect to the spacing, the one standard I'd like to see changed is the spacing of 500 to at least 750, if not the full 1,000. It's been at least adopted elsewhere.”
“Colleagues, any other thoughts on the standards? Yes, Commissioner Rodriguez.”
“You just have to provide for the opportunity. Right. I mean, you could choose to provide it in any number of use, any number of districts,”
“It can't be one property. That's what I'm saying.”
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
“as corner lots are facing. Can I maybe suggest something? It doesn't seem that if we make this a conditional use, there's any sort of constitutional firmity with that. And so right now, I'm going by the fact that Carl Gables Is there an issue with it being subject to review?”
“Yeah, there is some. Let me just kind of give you the reason for the question, because what I'm sensing is even within this footprint that we are looking to authorize, there are concerns about aesthetics, orientation, and signage. And so and we are essentially delegating this decision as you know i'm sure that none of us it's not a decision i'm sure any of us really want to make but if someone's going to make it i feel most comfortable this board makes as opposed to delegating to the design review board right to address these concerns so is there a process by which we can uh maybe it's a site…”
“We would evaluate all the same conditions.”
“Understood. Understood. And again, but what I'm sensing with the board is that there's some anxiety about just adopting it and never seeing it, right? Because there may be, you know, there may be some signage that is oriented, you know, that's partially visible from 68th Street, right, at an intersection that would defeat some of the orientation standards that are here or, you know, again, us having the comfort of being finally the ultimate arbiters of the approval. Is that Is that something, am I?”
“Can I ask a question related to that, which is, can you give, I mean, facts matter in these cases. So we said it was a 4% threshold. In this case, it was recognized as being constitutionally infirm. Do we know anything about the size of the jurisdiction in which it was being?”
“I mean, again, I just want to make sure. Is that a standard, really, we should be? We tend to get fixated with numbers. And I don't know that numbers always translate perfectly well across cases, because these become You know, there's standards, and there's some fact-based, you know, analogies that get drawn from one jurisdiction to another. So I guess I don't want to get fixated on 5%, but, you know, to try to draw a very tight net around this. I certainly think we should create an opportunity for one and one, if that's all that's required, which is why I want to increase the distance…”
“That would be appropriate. And we'd be limited to. Yeah. It's not if or what, it's not if the use can happen, it's is it complying with the criteria. And it's almost as if we've given it a final once over to make sure that we are comfortable as opposed to delegating that decision to the DRB, which is doing the same thing. We would basically just be substituting ourselves.”
“For the DRB. Right. Yes, sir. You're recognized.”
“No, it's called the Fellowship House, but it really is a behavioral services addiction services center.”