Q&A
Rationale for initially proposing R8A zoning district
0:43:22
·
153 sec
David Rosenberg explains that R8A was initially proposed because it matches the zoning along Washington Avenue, which is closer to the Brooklyn Botanic Garden. This zoning was part of a 1991 rezoning to protect the garden.
- R8A matches zoning along Washington Avenue from 1991 rezoning
- Development site is further back from the garden than Washington Avenue
- R8A would not exceed shadow impacts already possible on Washington Avenue
- Initial proposal aimed to align with existing density in the area
Crystal Hudson
0:43:22
Why did you initially propose an R8A district knowing that there would still cast significant shadows on the Brooklyn Botanic garden considering the long process.
0:43:39
That this project has has been through?
0:43:41
And did you ever consider a district with the lower high height limits?
David Rosenberg
0:43:46
So we've obviously, we've looked at, you know, the options there between the existing r 6a, there's R7a or 70 or 7x RNA.
0:43:57
And the reason why we looked at RNA and brought that forward is because when you look at the area and I think this is on slide 8, you can see what's going on that In the 1991 rezoning that was done to protect the Brooklyn Mechanic Garden, R8A was mapped along Washington Avenue, which is closer to the garden and intervening between where the development site is and where these sensitive resources are.
0:44:22
And so with r 8 a, we could never kind of exceed the shadow impacts that are already possible on Washington Avenue.
0:44:32
Because not only is it the same zoning district, we're also actually further back, back.
0:44:36
Now granted, right, the buildings that exist there on Washington Avenue, you were generally of a lower profile, one self in place being the exception, right, which was built recently and reaches the full height of the RADA.
0:44:50
But that's where we started because that's the density that's already existing, and we're further back in where we could put the project in a position where the any impact for secret purposes because we have to measure based on, you know, what's there, not what could be there, would not exceed what was already possible from the existing zoning all the way going back to 1991.
Crystal Hudson
0:45:13
Okay.
0:45:14
Thank you.
0:45:14
And forgive me.
0:45:16
Some of these questions are a little repetitive, but I just wanna make sure I get them on the record.
0:45:21
So we talked a little bit about the the 10 degree alternative or r 7 a.
0:45:31
The city planning commission modified this application to r 7 d with a 15 degree sloping plane to transition height down to 85 feet on the western side of the building to reduce shadows.
0:45:42
The CPC also considered a deeper modification to R7a with a 10 degree sloping plane.
0:45:50
Can you just go into a little bit more about why you believe the R7a10 degree alternative is infeasible?
