to put parking anywhere there. Trust me, we investigated it. We were hopeful that there
might be um that would certainly make you know be a boon for our project however unfortunately
there's just there's no ability um to get a curb cut on south broad or frankly on carlisle excuse
me council there's a building there's a building on that block that has a parking on the first
floor it has a curb cut on carlisle street was you aware of that i yes and because of our
existing building I can actually go to so again here's board member Holloman I'll get right to
it I think I have the next photo is what you're what you're talking about there is that's the
building that I was talking about chairwoman that's 45 feet our buildings right here it
actually goes up to about the height of where this sign is and then their building goes up much higher
So this is the rear of our building, this and this two-story addition, which is existing.
One of the concessions that we're doing is this, there's going to be some openings for some windows to activate this area back here for the residential units.
We originally had commercial space going all the way back to Carlisle Street, and that was not desired by the community.
So we pulled back and now we have residential units in the rear, and we've made the commercial space only from basically the front half of the first floor on South Broad.
and one of the other things we're doing to try to diminish the the height and massing of this
building is we are lowering this um two-story addition down to a single story that will be the
the bike storage and whatnot for the required bike storage and whatnot for the property and
the residential units but this will be significantly lower cut in half basically um
and then this uh board member holloman is this what you're talking about this is a parking area
are right behind our building immediately behind i'm not sure if i'm answering what you're referring
to no it's on the opposite side of the street that's carlala street it's on the opposite side
okay um i i don't have a photo of that directly but what i can do is i can have
I'm going to call Ms. Agata-Reister in just a minute as the architect, and she can address why it's not possible for us to get parking on our site.
Obviously, we have a narrow opening back here, and it would require going in and out, and we simply, what she will testify to better than I can, we don't have the building width to have any kind of turnaround in the rear.
So I've already addressed the letter.
Here's the overall zoning plan.
I raised this simply as, you know, not getting into the details, which Ms. Reister can get into.
But if you look at it, what we've done here is we have the full frontage along South Broad Street.
This is our frontage along Carlisle that I just showed you.
This is a full two-story addition that's been existing.
this portion of the building is being lowered to just a single story and we've actually
included in our revised plans the removal of a first of a one-story building that was
of a first of a one-story building that was here in this area so now this will be a fully open
here in this area so now this will
courtyard to try to add light and air to 1216 broad street and i should note that i'm not sure
if they were able to make it onto the call today but both 1216 broad street our immediate neighbor
to the south and 1210 broad street our immediate neighbor to the north are both in favor of the
project. So like I said, we had we had two meetings and I think the neighborhood
height request in the beginning that has been lowered to 50 feet. We have overall reduced 11
percent of the lot coverage. Again, this you're taking away this large area to try to increase
open area and add more light and air to the neighboring properties we've removed all of the
side parapet walls in order to further reduce the overall massing visible to the property adjacent
property owners we pulled the commercial we originally had commercial going all the way back
to carlisle the neighborhood did not want that so we pulled the commercial just up to the front
portion of the building off of south broad
and like i said uh back here on the fourth floor we pulled the fourth floor back uh 14 feet
so that it will not be visible at all from uh carlisle street and
um the uh the third floor now at carlisle street will be uh less than 38 feet so that would be
you know, within the overall height requirements to begin with. And then finally, before I call
Ms. Reister, I would just say again that the height is contextual. We have 45 feet in height
to our north. We have 40 feet in height to our south. And more specifically,
you know, I know this board is concerned of how are we meeting the variance requirements.
this is a very large existing building and you know demolition would be exorbitantly expensive
and difficult and very difficult on the neighboring properties so we've done everything
we can to try to pull back open up some air and space for the neighboring properties while at the
same time you know meeting the height requirements for this for any addition to this property to
use it in line with the zoning code as we're doing since we only have the one refusal
would require demolition of the property just given the the age extent and structural nature
of the property which Ms. Reister will go into more. So we believe we you know we've met the
hardship which is a lesson standard because we have an existing building so that we don't need
to demolish the building. This is a dimensional variance only. Excuse me, this is Sharon. Can we
pause for just a moment? Ms. Tenere has been, she has lost her connection. She's trying to sign back on.
Of course. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, Ms. Tennery still hasn't been able to get back on.
We do have a quorum without her, so if you'd like to proceed, you can.
Certainly.
To whom should I address as the kind of acting chair then?
To whom should I address as the kind of acting chair then?
Mr. Plaza, would that be okay with you?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Thank you, Chairman Plaza.
So I'm not sure.
I'm happy to repeat anything that you may have missed in the hubbub,
or I can just proceed.
I'm just about to go.
I've been listening.
I'm okay.
Thank you.
So just to wrap up,
we believe that we've you know that there is no detriment to the public both immediately
adjacent neighbors are in support of the project all of our uses are by right the the height is
a minimal request based on the existing structural condition and nature of the existing two-story
building at 27 feet and again variance test is met again because we have no use refusals this
is a dimensional refusal only and we believe that this is a um a necessary and limited request
again we've we've already reduced the height from proposed from 55 feet down to 50 feet
that was essentially uh all the added height we could get out of the building given the existing
structural nature of the uh of the building so with that unless the board has any questions
i'm happy yes excuse me counselor do you have a an elevation of the front a picture of the front
of broad street uh yes i do sorry i thought i showed that tanya i'm back on okay now the
building i was referring to is between warden street where the council person vernon had her
office to your building there's a building in between there that has uh parking on the first
floor so further down uh here board member correct okay um i would uh believe that um
i'm not aware of that property but i'll i'll leave that to uh miss reister who i'm about
to call next and ask her to address that for you thank you is that acceptable yes okay thank you
so again unless the board has any questions for me i will call miss agata reister who should be on
the call mr has been allowed to speak thank you miss reister can you put your name on the record
and spell your last name and I'll swear you in. Yes, Agatha Reister with Landmark Architectural
Design. A-G-A-T-A-R-E-I-S-T-E-R. Thank you. Do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth and I'll
think about the truth? Yes, I do. You may proceed, Mr. Wayland. Thank you very much, Chair Warren.
Ms. Reister, how are you associated with this project? I am part of the architectural team
working on this project. Okay. And before we get into your further testimony, have you heard all
the testimony that I already presented? Yes, I have. And do you believe it to be true and correct
to the best of your knowledge? I do. And would you adopt it as your own? I would. Thank you. And
first, so that I don't forget it, can you please address the building along Carlisle, just a little
to the south of us on our same block that board member hollow man has stated has first floor
parking off of carlisle street could you address that building to the extent that you know it and
what our ability to have parking or not have parking would be given our current existing
building um well our current existing building right now as it stands um as you can see it
It narrows significantly towards the rear.
There are large support walls that you can see on both sides.
A small one-story addition is actually an add-on that I would assume is probably maybe 50 years old at the very most.
We're looking to lower one floor of it.
But as you can see right now at its narrowest point, it can barely provide room for two cars.
and they would have to back out of the garage right onto Carlisle.
As we mentioned before, to the community group
and also when the neighbors voiced their concerns,
they did not want to have much of traffic coming through.
We proposed the trash pickup on Broad Street
to alleviate as much of the traffic generated by this building as possible.
So it's right currently a problem because the trash is being picked up on Carlisle Street.
um it's right currently a problem because the trash is being picked up on carlisle street um
but um just given the nature of the existing building providing parking
it was it would be very difficult um and highly really undesirable
all right thank you very much um and do you know i i guess uh board member holloman i'm i'm happy
to pull up kind of a google map street view if you want to go into it further unless you
believe that uh miss reister has already addressed your concern how how much square footage is
on the first floor uh first floor is the total of the building is approximately um about
7,600 square feet that's gross square foot number and you couldn't get some
parking in that would turn around and still have commercial in the front as
far as a turnaround parking that they would be able to drive out we would not
be able to with the constraints of the existing building the square footage it
seems like it's very generous but all of the parking that we'll be able to
provide in this existing building is one that would back out back on to Carlisle
There's nothing that would be able to basically go in and turn around on the site and come out the same way.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Any other questions?
this uh miss reister if i may um i uh made reference and obviously this is more your
purview than mine of course um to the structural conditions and existing condition of the building
as uh basically the basis for our hardship and requiring the additional height could you please
elaborate upon that um certainly so currently our building is about 27 and a half um foot tall
Primarily, most of the height is on the second floor. This building was structured very heavily
because of the use that was proposed years ago as a culinary institute right now.
For us to try to restructure the building, it would be extremely difficult trying to lower all
of the floors. Also, the nature of the first floor, though it looks very tall, there's actually
a heavy concrete slab that ramps up so the first floor itself is actually i would say roughly nine
feet in height only because of the the existing vault beneath the first floor and it opens up
slightly bit more towards the back of the building the second floor is existing 11 foot eight the
proposed ceiling heights that we had mentioned were about nine foot in height which is very
reasonable for a building of this caliber but we also kept a little bit of area because of the
large spans that would be necessary to accommodate for the structure so we are truly unable to lower
it and still keep it as a four-story and still stay within basically a comfort zone that will
be able to structure the building and meet the building code for the minimum ceiling height
requirement for any of the protrusions for the drop steel beams that there would be necessary
okay um but miss reister is it in your expert opinion that you would require if we did demolish
the entire building you would be able to meet the height requirements of the uh zoning district so
it's really the existing building and the artist need not to demolish the building that requires
the extra height yes that that is correct okay thank you very much um uh mr reister is there
anything else that you believe pertinent to the board's review today um i don't believe so okay
thank you i would offer miss reister up for questioning by the board and obviously mr
pressman if he has any questions and i would simply um i'm not privy to what mr pressman will
be asking or presenting on his own. So I would ask that I could just call Ms. Reister back
on rebuttal if necessary. Does the board have any questions?
No, Madam Chair. No.
Okay, Mr. Cressman. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Reister, the current building, as you
said is uh is not is not 38 feet it's currently um what's the height of the building now it's about
27 28 feet and the existing first floor is nine feet four inches is that correct um that is that
is correct at its pinch point basically uh where the um sub-basement slopes up at the front of the
sub-basement slopes up at the front of the building. I'm not sure if you had
building I'm not sure if you had
been inside the building but there is a portion of it that is with low ceiling height and opens up
again towards the rear. There's nothing that's stopping the proposed user from building something
to the height of 38 feet though, is there? If the proposal only contains one floor.
Well, you could build a second floor or reconfigure the second floor.
You'd have two floors there.
Is that correct?
No, I would not be able to fit two floors within the two-story that is currently presented.
Okay, and there's nothing that stops you from demolishing this building and building something as a bright.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
and so the the hardship i think as uh um council had uh referenced was the demo was expensive and
difficult is that how you look at the uh the hardship uh the demo is definitely very extensive
this property has significant structural members that had been placed to erect this building um
and very heavy walls so it is it is definitely very intrusive on the neighborhood to demolish
this building. I think a council said that it was expensive and difficult. Is that the reason why
the applicant is electing to keep the existing structure?
I'm not really sure if I can state really to the expense of the demolition, but the difficulty
certainly. You adopted his testimony, so I was wondering if you had input into that.
um so you'll agree that there's no unique physical care circumstance at the existing
building that would prevent the applicant from developing the property in conformance with the
code i'm sorry could you repeat your question i broke up a little bit i apologize you'll agree
that there's no unique physical characteristic with the existing land that would prevent the
applicant from developing the property in conformance with the code is that correct
um yes it can be developed with the code uh not well without the building would have to be demolished
and do you agree that to the uh south of the proposed uh project all the uh buildings are
at 38 feet or below is that correct for the remaining 1200 block to south um the buildings
are 38 feet, yes. If you're stating buildings facing on Carlisle Street, they are about that
height. Buildings facing on Broad Street are not. What is the height of the buildings to the south