and we are live uh thank you everyone uh good morning my name is frank de chico i'm the chair
of the zoning board of adjustment we have a quorum so i'm officially calling this session
to order attending our board members mr james snow one second i'm sorry one second because
people are still entering they're not here yeah i was going to do that and then say and then turn
it over to you okay i'll wait i'm just going to introduce the board and then turn it over to you
got a lot of people for this one
all righty chair okay thank you again good morning everyone my name is frank de chico i'm the chair
of the zoning board of adjustment we have a quorum i'm officially calling the session to order
In attendance is our board secretary, Mr. Confessor Plaza, our board members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Also, we have our city solicitor, Ms. Sharon Saleta, and our board administrator, Ms. Tanya Sunken.
As you're probably aware, today is our fourth week of holding virtual hearings.
While we may have to make some adjustments along the way, our plan is to call each case, which is, I only believe, one this morning, and basically proceed as we would have in a live hearing.
We ask that the attorneys for the applicants or other interested parties identify themselves for the record when the case you'll be participating in is called.
We will then hear the appellant's presentation, followed by any presentation by attorneys representing other parties.
interested parties and members of the public not represented by council will
then be given an opportunity to testify we will finally hear the recommendation
of the Planning Commission at the conclusion of today's hearing the board
will either vote the matter immediately or hold it for discussion in executive
session if the case is being held for discussion it would be voted on the
record at the next scheduled executive session, Wednesday morning, August the 12th at 9 30 a .m.
A couple of changes related to the virtual format. First, we will be administering oaths
to individual participants prior to their testimony rather than to the room as a whole
since we do not have a room. Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone,
we ask that attorneys and witnesses please identify themselves prior to speaking or
testifying. I need to repeat this because we've been having some problems. For the benefit of
anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves
prior to speaking or testifying. Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being
recorded and that by participating you acknowledge your agreement to be
recorded. If anyone wishes to testify, please raise your hand so that we may be
able to identify you and Mr. Sunkit will give you the information on how to
participate either by phone or on your computer. Ms. Sunkit?
i'm sorry chair um can we pause for one minute
yep we don't have no one here we don't have planning commission so let me see if i can get
someone okay tanya this is abby aisha is here yeah i'm here okay thanks all righty you can go
forward to you. Okay. Sharon, you do me a favor. My notes are kind of crazy this morning. Would you
read the title, the calendar number, please, and address? I misplaced my notes.
Okay, I'll read that, Chairman. Calendar number. Thank you. Yep, you got it, buddy. Calendar number
2000 Spring Garden Street.
I just found it. Okay. The attorneys...
I'm sorry.
And that...
Professor, did you... You had the
calendar number?
Yeah, I located mine.
Calendar number 39837
2000 Spring Garden Street.
Thank you.
If the attorneys could raise their hand.
And I believe the attorneys are Andrew Fisher, Ryan Bolin, and Rich DeMarco.
good morning good morning gentlemen um i know we left off last week so i don't recall where
we left off so who will begin test with your testimony was it you mr bolin or was it i don't
remember um it's actually mr fisher represents the appellant so he would go first
Is he here? I don't see him.
Andrew Miller, if I could make a correction.
I'm so sorry, Mr. Miller.
There's another attorney who appears before the board named Andrew Fisher.
Good morning.
All right, Mr. Miller, good morning.
Good morning. May it please the board.
This is the first hearing in the matter.
Mr. Miller, I apologize for interrupting.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Sure. My name is Andrew Miller. I represent the Appellant 2000 Spring Garden LLC. This is our first substantive hearing. Last week, we had argument on a continuance, which was granted in order that the RCO be able to have a Zoom conference.
That occurred on Monday, and today will be our first hearing where any testimony is heard.
May it please the board, what I'd like to do is I'd like to give an opening that summarizes our case and the evidence that you will hear this morning.
I'm hoping that by doing so, I can shorten the presentation that we have.
Any objections to that from Mr. DeMarco or Mr. Boland?
No, as long as we can respond, I have no objection at all.
Absolutely. You both have an opportunity.
Ryan Boland, no objection.
Thank you.
If I could ask the administrator to please allow me to share screen, I'll be able to make reference to my exhibits as I go along.
That would be helpful.
that would be helpful. And also, if they haven't yet done it, would Mr. DeMarco and Mr. Boland
put their names on the record and identify whom they're representing?
Sure. Richard DeMarco here for Mooring Properties, which is the owner of 2002 Spring Garden.
And Ryan Boland, 1801 Market Street, Suite 2300, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. And I represent the
RCO, Spring Garden Civic Association. Thank you. And I'm sorry, Chair, I don't know if I missed
it, but did we get, that get sworn in? Yeah, I just think I thought I swarmed in last week,
but we'll do it again. Do you gentlemen, do you gentlemen swear and testify, do you swear and
affirm that you'll tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Yes.
Ryan Boland, yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Tanya.
No problem. Mr. Miller, Mr. DeMarco, and Mr. Bolin, you all are promoted to panelists,
so you can all share your screen as necessary. Thank you. Thank you. Please.
I'm sorry. I don't know if you can see my screen now. Are you able to? Not yet. Okay.
This is Andrew Miller speaking. Yes.
Thank you.
my screen? No, okay. Mr. Chairman, my screen is ready. I just need it to be broadcast and then I
can begin. Can I sound to you? Are you able to assist Mr. Miller? So Mr. Miller, you have the
ability to share your screen. I'm not sure on your end. So once you become a panelist, you can.
Okay, once you click the share screen, go to the file and click on the file, right? I'm in the file. I'm sorry. I didn't. Okay.
okay so if you first click okay we got I apologize I didn't I didn't click no
worries world this is a learning process for all of us all right okay we have
part of your screen. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. May it please the board.
My name is Andrew Miller. I represent 2000 Spring Garden LLC, the owner of 2000 Spring Garden Street
in Philadelphia. The property is located at the corner of 20th and Spring Garden Streets.
We don't know the exact age of the existing structure, but it is not the original structure in the neighborhood.
It appears to be an infill, two -story building in a neighborhood of much taller buildings.
The first photo that you see is the front from Spring Garden Street.
It's the building to the right, the two -story building, just behind the trash cans.
the next image
the next image
I'm sorry
The next image is a view from the alley across the street of, looking across 20th Street at the back of the subject property.
This is a view of the property opposite this one, and I apologize.
guys. My order
has changed
in the
I'm sorry
that I'm not showing this to you in the order
that I intended.
Thank you.
This is a side view from 20th Street of our property. As you can see it's a
nondescript squat building and you can see above it the neighboring property at
2002 Spring Garden Street.
This image shows the rear portion of the subject property
where there is parking for five cars with a 51 -foot curb cut.
The property ends to the right, and then it extends back to the property line where there's a five -story or four -story parking garage for the neighboring apartment building to the left.
On the right of this photo, you can see the scaffolding that has been in place for the last three years on the neighboring property at 2002 Spring Garden Street.
Spring Garden Street.
This image shows the property opposite this property on 20th Street.
You can see that there's the
grade slopes pretty dramatically away from Spring Garden Street down 20th Street.
This is, I'm returning now because I'm back to the correct order.
This is the view of the property looking from the alley across 20th Street.
This is the front view of the property showing the building next door at 2002 Spring Garden
Street towering over the subject property.
property.
This is another front view showing the disparity in height between the neighboring properties
and the subject property.
This is a view looking at the property from above in the rear.
Now, I'm going to reduce this so that you can...
Okay. So you see the property at 2002 with the scaffolding that's been there for over three years, and you see the subject property to the right.
Now, 2002 Spring Garden Street appears to have some additions, obviously with something other than historic quality renovations, and you see how it towers over the property at 2000.
Again, here's a view of the back showing how 2002 towers above the property at 2000.
And now we see a historic photo of what originally existed.
Now, this is from the archives, and it's dated August 19th, 1958, and you can see that the original property at this site was essentially a twin to the property at 2002 Spring Garden Street.
And you see that the scale of the property, looking at it from Spring Garden Street, matched the rest of the neighborhood.
Now, this is the historical map that shows the subject property all the way to the right.
And again, it confirms that the original property matched the property that was at 2002.
Now, this property is in a historic district, and as a result, before anything could be
done, historic approval was required.
And the Historical Commission has rigid guidelines run by professionals that one has to abide
by and a process that involves the community and design professionals.
And that process was a months long process that began in 2019.
The RCO and the next door neighbor who turned out to be the most, that's Mr. DeMarco's client,
who turned out to be the most vocal opponent of this project,
participated in that process from beginning to end.
The process involved...
The process involved numerous revisions as a result of the input provided by the Historical Commission,
by the Architectural Committee of the Historical Commission, by the staff of the Historical Commission, and from the neighbors.
And our architect will explain the progression from concept one on the left, which is a bigger, taller, denser building, to the final submission, which occurred last August.
Historical Commission approval was obtained on September 30, 2019, and the letter evidencing
that approval is attached.
Once Historical Commission approval was obtained, and the Historical Commission required that the building be respectful of the historical character of the neighborhood, the architectural history of the neighborhood,
and the Historical Commission employs the federal guidelines for historic districts.
As a result of the Historical Commission approval, three variances were necessary.
So the plans that had already been vetted by the Historical Commission, by the community,
had required three variances from existing code.
The most obvious requirement was height.
The Historical Commission required that this building be the same height as the neighboring buildings.
The district is RM1 and only 38 feet is permitted.
And that's the primary issue before you today.
is height, and you will hear testimony from the neighbors who say this property shouldn't be as
tall as their properties. Now, the fact of the matter is that they have backtracked a little
bit, and they're saying something a little different, and I expect that you will hear
something a little different, as indicated by the RCO letter of opposition.
What they will now tell you is that they don't object to the height on Spring Garden Street,
but they object to the height at the back of the building.
And that's simply not before you.
Either we're entitled to the height variance, there is no variance for massing before you.
So the only issue is, on the height is, should this property be allowed to equal the historic character of the neighborhood as required by the Historic Commission?
And is there a hardship in that we can't get Historic Commission approval for a 38 -foot structure?
Now, the other two variances are really very technical, and they involve your determination of what is the front of this property and what is the side and the rear.
we received refusals for parking entering on the front because L &I wasn't going to make the
determination of whether or not 20th Street was the front of the property or the side or the rear.
Well, we submit, obviously, it's the side and there already is parking access from 20th Street.
So that's a really easy one for you to decide. And the other issue is a requirement of five -foot setbacks for balconies.
We are, all of the balconies are more than five feet from Spring Garden Street.
They are not more than five feet from 20th Street. And again, that's a technical issue.
Once the board decides that 20th Street is not the front and that the front is Spring Garden Street, those violations evaporate.
Now, you will also hear testimony and you will receive evidence from the opponents to
this project suggesting that they will lose access to all light and air as a result of
this structure being built at the end of the block.
Not only is that not true, but the images they will present to you are misleading.
As you can see from this bird's eye view, looking east. So 20th Street is behind the image
on your screen. As you can see, there's a 30 foot distance from the back of the building
to the property line.
And that's apparent behind the shaded area.
What we've done here is we've imposed an image
of the planned structure onto a Google Earth for you to see.
Now, here's another image looking...
southeast, showing the space between the building and the parking garage for the apartment complex behind.
Now, here's an image to the left of the exhibit that was presented to the Spring Garden Civic Association
by the opponents to this project, and you'll see the image prepared by the appellant's
architectural team, and you'll see the differences and how clearly misleading it is.
The image to the left, presented by the opponents to this project, is an image with the parking
garage in the foreground. As a result, it makes it appear as if there is no backyard
to this property. The image to the right is a higher elevation that gives the image of the
backyard, and it shows that indeed there is a 30 -foot backyard behind the property.
The other misleading, you'll see the circles. The image presented by the opponents to this project exaggerates the distance, the length of the pilothouse.
They have also stretched the body of the property. And if you look in the two circles, you'll see the obvious differences.
And we have the project architect here to testify that the image to the right is the accurate image and the image to the left is not accurate and very misleading.
This is the bird's eye view looking west with the project superimposed.
And what you'll see is it's entirely consistent with the neighborhood.
And I can.
Those are the facts.
and that's my opening. Now, I want to, in my opening, I also want to make reference to
the process that has taken place thus far. The process before the Historical Commission
was very involved. It was very costly. There were numerous meetings and there were numerous
meetings with the neighbors present.
Thankfully, the Historical Commission found that this project was historically sensitive
and merited their approval.
The next door neighbor, Mr. DeMarco's client, appealed the historical approval and took
that appeal to the Board of L &I Review, where it sits, they would use the ZBA as another
as another appellate remedy from the historical commission process.
appellate remedy from the...
They represented to you that they didn't have an opportunity to consider this project.
And we provided to you proof that not only was an RCO meeting scheduled in March,
but that ever since April, we've been asking them to consider this project.
And then you gave them additional time and a meeting was scheduled by the RCO on Monday.
And you will hear testimony from members of the community that they were not able to weigh in at that meeting.
And the proof in the pudding here is that prior to that rescheduled RCO meeting,
you received and that letter hasn't changed so there was a meeting on Monday
Mr. Miller sorry to interrupt you broke up you said you will see something about the meeting
and you broke up I apologize I'm not sure where I where I left off well you said that they had
the meeting and you will see and then you broke up right and the proof in the pudding
that the process that's been employed by the RCO has been only designed to advance the complaints
of the next door neighbor, the owner of a multi -unit apartment building. Because the RCO
claimed to need a meeting, a postponement was granted for that meeting, and yet the RCO didn't
provide a revised letter to the ZBA to change the letter that was previous, that was sent before
that meeting occurred. So it was a fait accompli. The RCO was not sincere in its desire to solicit
community input. And the RCO went through the motions, held the meeting, denied members of
the community the opportunity to be heard and then appears before you today without submitting a
revised letter. What you'll also find is that the app next door, and I've provided to the board as
an exhibit, the chats, the feedback from the community memorialized on that chat. And it's
open forum and there are people against the project and there are people for the project.
And that gives you an accurate understanding of the sentiment in the community
as about this project. The RCO said nothing but negatives. And
I think that when you consider just how involved the process has been thus far,
The board will understand that the objections that you're hearing are objections that have already been heard by the Historical Commission, that have already been voiced before the L &I Board of Review, which is considering that.
And I think you will find that this is a project that is historically sensitive, that it fits the neighborhood, and that the hardship on the height and on the access from the side will be adequately demonstrated.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Miller, could you tell us what is the status of the appeal before the L &I Review Board?
So there was a briefing schedule issued. And to my knowledge, Mr. DeMarco was obligated to file a brief. Then the COVID happened. And I honestly don't recall whether his deadline was before or after the COVID emergency. But it's my understanding that no brief was ever filed. And I don't think there's been any action.
Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco, could you respond to that?
The chair and I have discussed what the new deadline would be for the brief.
The brief was due during the COVID -19 shutdown.
I have not filed a brief.
That's completely accurate.
it. But I have been in touch with Ms. Salata and asked when she would want to receive that
brief. And I'm happy. And I should clarify that I am also the attorney for the L &I Review
I should clarify that I am also the attorney for the L &I Review Board.
Board. I will write to.
I will write to both parties after this and clarify what the briefing deadline is and when
the board will vote. Thank you Sharon. I'm happy to add that I'm happy to file my brief whenever
it's due. Thank you both. Thank you. So can I respond now or do you want to?
uh between you or mr boland you guys decide who wants to go first if it's okay ryan i'll i'll i'll
go first i'm gonna step on your toes ryan please go ahead okay uh so mr chairman members of board
thank you uh thank you for the uh the granting the additional time for some more rco input i
appreciate it i guess i'll start with uh the next door submission you know i i'm not going to um
hem and haw about late submissions of exhibits and uh you know i i i'm happy to uh not object to
most of the applicants exhibits including the images and i'm happy i would like to say this
they've they've offered that my experts our experts images are inaccurate I'm
happy to use mr. Miller's architects exhibit an image as well because it
shows how stark it shows starkly how adversely impactful on how out of place
the building is with the rest of the block I'm gonna attempt to share my
screen. Okay, I don't have to yet. I guess, Tanya, it's not critical at this point, but do you mind
giving me? Mr. DeMarco, you all have it. You're a panelist, so you all have the capability. Oh,
it says you cannot start screen share while the other participant is sharing on my screen.
Mr. Miller can you take yours down? I just changed it. He should be able to do
it now. All right thank you. Oh all right. Thank you.
Oops hold on.
you see my screen
yes okay so i don't have mr miller's most recent um most recent mr um the applicant's most recent
um image but you know they're really not that different i mean the board will make that decision
on their own but um you know their image actually shows greater massing right here this is my
client's property and this is our our experts exhibit and their experts exhibit is actually
greater massing right here i'm happy to use uh mr miller's uh mr uh excuse me the applicants
um i don't think they're that different but the board will make that decision anyway correct me
if i'm wrong while we're on this point yeah this looks to me as though the building extends further
back than mr miller's uh yeah i mean this is where the parking area is on this one
yeah doesn't seem to be a parking area for three cars right because i think what correct i think
what you're going to what you're going to see is that it's the angle of the point of view of you
You know, my expert took a different angle that, you know, part of the rear yard is obstructed in this image.
It's the angle that of the point of view of the image, the architect's, the applicant's image is swung out more.
I think they're both accurate, frankly.
But again, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to use the architect's image as well.
I know where you're going, but unless I'm having a lapse of memory here, this doesn't seem to be the same image that Mr. Miller provides.
And I understand the angles, but this to me seems that the backyard, I'll call it where the parking would be, much more narrow than in Mr. Miller's image.
Right.
I mean, I stand corrected if I'm wrong.
yeah you you can see that the parking garage here obstructs I don't I'm sorry let me say let me
rephrase that I'm talking about the parking area behind 2000 Spring Garden right all right appears
to be more narrow in this uh photograph than it does in the plan that in the photograph or the
uh photograph than it does in the plan that in the photograph or the image that mr miller
presented and mr chairman someone correct me or if i'm incorrect i i'll tell you what's happening
the the parking it extends back into here and janice woodcock will will explain that but this
this building obstructs it's our vantage point is is back in a way whereas the architect's
vantage point is in here somewhere so you so you see the full you see the full uh parking area in
his image and you don't see the full parking area because it's blocked by this image okay
so they're both accurate uh frankly i mean when jan and again janice will defend her work uh but
both both images are correct one is a different everybody chooses the best vantage point that
they can mr chairman to demonstrate the impact but like i said the architect's image shows how
much deeper their property is than the rest of the block and how unusual and how uh how stark
the adverse impact is on all of these properties and that's why everybody's so upset
this is a departure from the orderly uh massing of the block and that's a good segue to
the issue of the height variance. The opening of Mr. Miller seems to completely ignore the fact
that he must prove as part of his burden of proof, which he has a very extreme burden of proof,
he must prove that he's requesting the least minimum variance. And our courts have been very
clear that the least minimum variance is most applicable to dimensional relief. He needs that
height variance not just for the front of this building but all along here and here his height
variance is all along this massing and he could have if he chose to he could have mitigated his
height variance it's not just the height grant us the height variance and then we're done that's a
that is a ignorance of his burden of proof he must prove that he's asking the least minimum
dimensional variance. And his height variance is a stark height variance. It's over 10 feet,
which I know this board's reluctant to do. Now, if you were to take his argument that he gets to
match the mansard roof of my client, which I don't think he is, unfortunately the code says
what it says. It doesn't say that you get the height variance if you're matching the cornice
line of the neighboring property. Doesn't say that. If city council intended that, it would
have said that. It does not. And that's what we're left with. He needs to prove hardship.
He can build a building which meets the height variance. End of story. He doesn't meet the
standard. However, let's say you do get to match the corner sign, Mr. Chairman. Then why does he
have to have a height variance all along this depth and all along this depth so that he blocks
the light and air to all of these properties, including my client. His pilot house will block.
My client wants to put a deck here, and she won't be able to when his pilot house blocks it, and
that's a function of the height variance that he wants. He could have chosen to create massing,
which matched the rest of the block. He chose not to. He's seeking the greatest height variance
that he can get in order to maximize the buildable area of his building. He has not matched the
height of my client's property or the other properties. He has not matched the massing of
the height across the street. This is a radical departure from the massing of the properties on
this block. He needs variances. He won't meet the standard. So it's a fallacy to say, just give us
the variance. We get a variance for the whole thing. And that's all you have to give us because
we matched the cornice line at the front. That's completely incorrect as a matter of law.
And it's a misunderstanding. You know, he's saying we changed our tune. I don't know where
that comes from. We've always objected to the height variance at all points. But just for
argument's sake, if he can match the cornice line, then he still needs to match, to mitigate
his height variance and match our properties. And unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I don't know where
it's come to be that suddenly my client controls the RCO, controls the council person,
and there's an attempt to attack my client for offering her objections, which I think is
a shame. My client is clearly the most impacted by this development, has every right to offer an
objection when a developer chooses to seek variances to the zoning code. She has every
she has every right to object and the attack on her is is sad it's a shame and you see why we're
right to object. And the attack on her is sad.
here there's been no attempt to engage my client my client scaffolding is still there because she's
on hold due to this due to this she doesn't know what she's going to be able to do there
she's been working with the historical commission to beautify the rear of her building and suddenly
scaffolding that's necessary to upgrade a property is somehow a bad thing. I didn't know that,
but she is now on hold because he's going to block, this development's going to block the view
to her rear. She wanted to put a deck right here. She wanted to put a deck right here.
She doesn't want to remove the scaffolding and incur additional costs without knowing what,
whether this will be approved or not. So it's a shame that there's been this attack on her,
but you can see that there's tremendous opposition to this project. And it's for two reasons. One,
the tactics of the developer in attacking my client, attacking the RCO, acting entitled to
this relief. I'm sorry, but this is supposed to be a collaborative process. I've never seen a
situation where there's been no engagement with the next door neighbor other than threats. It's
a shame. And, you know, unfortunately we are where we are, but I want to make that clear.
The applicant has also, I'll note an objection for the record. The applicant has included a
pages and pages of hearsay testimony from this next door website, which has people from Fishtown,
people from center city people from the northeast commenting now i'm not going to object to all
these images i'm not going to object to the doc to the to the plans the pictures they're all proper
but this board and and mr miller should know better the next door social media commentary is
not proper for a zoning matter and should be stricken from the record it's all double and
triple hearsay, people who have no clue what's going on, just looking at one image, a self -serving
post by the developer or one of his friends. Let's get rid of that, please. Let's talk about
the variances. Let's talk about his burden of proof and talk about whether he meets the legal
standard for unnecessary hardship. Lastly, I heard a statement that somehow the Historical Commission
require him to seek a variance? No. Sorry, that's not how it works. They requested this development
and worked with the Historical Commission to get Historical Commission approval. The Historical
Commission never dictated the height. He applied for relief from the commission. So he actually
tried to go higher than, I believe, higher than the next door property, and the Historical
Commission made him match the corners line he chose to seek that height they
didn't dictate what height he wanted he's chosen that that's the choice of
developer this board knows that the historical mission process was started
by the developer developer chose which variances he wanted the parking sorry
the parking while there is a curb cut there that was for surface parking he
The applicant has changed the format of the parking, so therefore he doesn't get any non -conforming protection because of the existing lot.
He's using that rear yard to meet the code, so he had to remove the parking from the rear yard so he could get the massing that he wanted.
So it is his decision to lose any non -conforming protection for the surface parking that exists.
he's being refused because he's now changed the format and now he has
parking within the building because he can't put the parking in the rear lot
because he's pushed the building back as far as possible and he needs to not
have any surface parking within the rear yard so that is a perfectly legitimate
variance not only that mr. chairman we'll have testimony that we believe L &I
missed two variances with regard to the garage the garage has stacked parking
and there should have been a refusal for that when you're above two spaces you're
supposed to have aisles drive aisles and you're not supposed to have a depth
greater than 25 feet and that's in our exhibits that that should have been a
refusal in addition to the curb cut. Can I ask just a procedural question here? Mr. Miller,
that was your, when you spoke, that was your opening statement. Is that right? A summary of
what you would be presenting? You do still have witnesses whom you're going to call? Is that
is that correct that is correct I'll tell you I'm finished by the way thank
Correct.
you for your time mr. DeMarco before you go you mentioned stack parking yes are
you suggesting that it would be a three and it would be more than three spaces
no he's he's got three spaces but the spaces uh there's two of them are stacked and the code for
any more than two spaces an interior garage supposed to have drive aisles and he's got
three if he did just two uh that particular provision wouldn't be applicable but he's got
three spaces so it triggers uh the requirement for a drive aisle uh and you'll also note when
you look at the the layout of the parking they're inaccessible if if any one of the spaces is
occupied you can't pull into the two of the spaces it doesn't work you have to have people
moving their cars uh when you when you when you say stacking you mean one behind the other not
one above yes okay one behind yes but there are currently five spaces on the property now correct
yeah in this in the surf on the surface right right surface part yeah right just to be clear
they're using that space now for their open area and their rear yard so they could not they could
no longer put the parking in the rear yard because they're building the building back as far as
possible. Therefore, they're trying to create indoor parking, which has its own requirements.
And because it's a new scenario, the refusal is absolutely correct.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, the testimony will demonstrate that the historical commission did
dictate the height of this property. Moreover, the issue that council raises concerning
the interior parking is not before you. The issue before you is whether or not
20th Street is the front of the property. That's the issue. And if Mr. DeMarco takes issue
with the approval of the plan, then Mr. DeMarco had an obligation to appeal it. He didn't.
Thank you. Mr. DeMarco, you said you're about to close.
Yeah, I'll just, I'm finished. I'll just respond to the most recent item. There's no duty on the part of a neighboring property to take an appeal that they don't have notice of. So we were not part of the process that involved the receipt of the refusal.
We have every right to offer argument that there should have been an additional variance as our investigation went forward.
We lack standing to appeal his refusal.
The refusal was issued to the applicant.
An appeal was taken already from that refusal.
So we're clearly allowed to offer testimony that we think there was additional refusal.
But, you know, we're happy to deal with the current refusal as well.
He lacks a hardship either way.
but i think it helps put into perspective how poorly conceived the parking the new parking
scenario is uh but we don't we have no ability to file an appeal in a timely manner from a
refusal that we don't receive all right and we don't have standing to do it either
thank you thank you i'm finished
good morning mr chairman this is ryan boland speaking i will be brief here um i represent
the RCO, Spring Garden Civic Association. The real problem here, as Mr. DeMarco has explained,
is that the developer refuses to line up the rear setbacks, the step down on the building,
with the neighbor at 2002 Spring Garden Street. He's trying to take advantage of the fact that
they were trying to match the front facade and extend that overmassing throughout the rear of
building. There's a few issues here, Your Honor. First off, there can't be a hardship. Why can't
there be a hardship? Well, as Mr. DeMarco included in his exhibits, there was an over -the -counter
permit issued a year ago. When you have an over -the -counter permit, there can't be a hardship.
Second, it's important to note that the RCO and also Council President Daryl Clark,
they both opposed this project. A letter was submitted in that regard by both parties.
The real problem here with the RCO isn't the opposition of development. The real problem,
again, it's just the massing on the rear. Third, they're really just trying to cram too much above
Third, they're really just trying to cram too much above the upper 38 feet, which are the portions that require the height variance.
And as Mr. DeMarco pointed out, they just cannot meet the code requirement that this be the least minimum relief from the zoning code to afford relief.
They could have stepped this back and matched 2002 Spring Garden, and I don't think I would be here today.
Additionally, they can't, so they can't satisfy their requirement that there be a hardship
to have this matching 2002, and they also cannot get around the fact that they are also violating
the code because they're blocking the light and air. Although there might be 30 feet of light and
air, they're still blocking a lot of light and air by having the overmassing on the third and
fourth floors. Fourth, Mr. Miller is wrong on the law. Once the primary frontage is determined,
that still doesn't provide relief from the fact that there must be a setback from both 20th
Street and Spring Garden Street. If you look at Mr. Miller's excerpts of the law of the code,
he omitted the section that defines primary frontage and that you only look at the primary
frontage when that's specifically referenced. Here, when applying the code to the roof deck
requirements, as I'm sure the board knows, a corner property needs to have a five -foot setback.
There could be no hardship. They have this large six -foot wide roof deck that goes around on the
fourth floor. They have roof decks at every level. They're not set back except for the top roof.
They're not set back from Spring Garden. There's absolutely no hardship there. Additionally, I
believe Mr. Miller is also wrong on the law. If you read the sections of the code governing the
rear parking, it doesn't matter what the frontage is for determining the rear parking. This isn't
a shared driveway. There's no hardship for him to have this garage. And I also join in the
objections of Mr. DeMarco relating to the next door and also want to point out that we have no
idea who these people are, if they are who they purport they are, and really what
their knowledge base is. The only thing I saw in the next door postings were
photos that didn't show this over massing of the rear. People weren't able to see
how it was blocking the light and air from 2002 Spring Garden. And that's all
I have in my opening. I will save the rest for my primary case. Thank you.
Thank you. Any comment, Mr. Miller, Mr. DeMarco?
Mr. Milley, you need to unmute yourself.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I will make legal argument when I close.
I believe that we do understand the law.
I believe that we're entitled to the relief we seek based on the application of that law to these facts.
Thank you.
Tanya, just to the stenographer.
At some point, if the stenographer needs a break, please let Tanya know, and then that way we can take a five or 10 minute break.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Witnesses.
Mr. Miller, are you bringing yours in first?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
From the same order we went with the opening statement, okay?
Yes, please.
Our first witness will be Hyeong Kang, the architect.
All right, and I'm going to ask again, all witnesses, please identify yourself, name and address, spell your name for the stenographer, and then I'll swear you in.
Thank you.
And they would have to raise their hand?
Do you have?
Yeah, you need to raise your hand in order to be recognized.
Do you have that document on your screen?
Do you have that document on your screen?
Mr. Miller, you're not muted.
I apologize.
No, I just didn't want to.
I don't know how sensitive your conversation is with whomever you're talking to.
Only to the extent that I'm spared the embarrassment of my awkwardness with the Zoom process.
You have no idea how embarrassed I am.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So they can unmute themselves and testify, Mr. Miller?
So we're in the same room, and I just want to make sure that, if I can have 30 seconds
just to coordinate before we begin.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to have my audio on for Mr. Kang, but
Mr. Kang will be on the video.
And he'll be screen sharing as well.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Kang, please identify yourself.
Spell your name for the record.
Hyun Kang.
H -Y -O -N, last name K -A -N -G.
KCA Design.
Mr. Kang, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You have to wear your earphones.
I do. Thank you. Please proceed Mr. Miller. Thank you. We're just dealing with an audio
issue. Are you able to do it with the earphones? No. Oh, so it's one or the other. Okay. All right.
Thank you. Mr. Kang, would you please tell the board, are you an architect?
And are you the project architect on this project?
And are the plans your work?
Now, briefly, would you please describe the process to obtain historical commission approval for this project?
Okay, I've got a mute, Mr. Chairman, because of the feedback.
So, we started with an initial meeting with the Historic Commission on May 2nd.
we were advised that we had enough for a in -concept submission May 13th we
submitted a proposed five -story structure to historical commission that
was version one of our full rendering in what year 2019 so many 21st on 2019
we've received a letter from historic Commission acknowledging the receipt of
the application. May 27th received a letter from Spring Garden Civic
Association. On June 14th the client called Pat from the RCO. June 26th we
had an RCO hearing with myself, members of the RCO committee and Rami. June
In July 17th, 2019, we met with the historic to show version two of a four story version
of reducing the massing.
I think Andy had submitted them as additional exhibits.
August 1st, we emailed Pat and the RCO, updated design another time, that would be version
to four stories full renderings and floor plans are also attached august 13th we had another
meeting with laura from historic to present our final version we made additional revisions we
made our submissions on august 27th we had the commission's advisory architectural committee
meeting september 3rd we met with the historical commission one more time with laura for our final
revisions and then on September 13th we had the historic Commission meeting for
a final vote so I've never shared screen
Thank you.
Tanya, would you be able to make a panelist so I can share screen?
And who's asking the question?
Hyun Kang.
All righty.
You have authority now.
Thank you.
Mr. Kang, would you please explain the evolution of these plans from the beginning of the historic commission process?
I'm sorry, Chair?
Did we swear him in?
Mr. Kang, yes, I did.
OK, thank you. Thank you. So concept one was the initial meeting that we had with Laura from the historic commission.
It was a five story building. We still initially lines up still had similar sight lines and but a little bit more modern.
When we presented the option, she said we definitely had enough for in -concept submissions with some minor changes and suggestions.
So we made sure that in concept two, which was a submission in May 13th, we sure may try to make materials, additional sight lines, roof lines kind of line up.
But it was still a five -story version.
What was the feedback that you received?
They did say it was the staff not have an issue with the height, but the committee or architectural committee did have questions about our heights and materials selections and matching 2002 spring garden.
so we sat back we accepted the comments we came back with a completely new design taking off the
fifth story lining up a four -story with 2002 spring garden we tried to match similar materials
against similar sight lines corners lines roof lines and also window lines the additional comments
we count from them were we now you're speaking of the architectural review committee yes
architectural review committee they had suggested that the fourth floor roof behind the initial
mansard had extended roofs that covered the decks that would have kept our building co -compliant
our roof look like falling water that we should reduce that back. Also figure out a way to
cohesively integrate the rear of the fourth floor and the front of the fourth floor.
So I want to understand what you just said. Sure. The Architectural Review Committee
asked you to remove the covering over the balconies. Yes.
what is the code significance of the removal of those
What is the code significance of the removal of those coverings?
So technically, if a roof is over top a deck, it is part of a principal building structure.
It is not considered a balcony, so a setback is not required.
So we're here before the board today with five -foot setbacks from 20th Street.
Is it your testimony that we wouldn't need that zoning relief had you allowed,
had you maintained coverage over these balconies?
Okay. So that was a requirement of the Historical Architectural Review Board.
Yes. They wanted us to make the fourth floor more cohesive and integrated between what looks like an older structure and a newer structure.
Thank you. Please continue to describe the changes you made as a result of the
feedback from the architectural review committee. Additionally, we made the
building from something that was a combination of modern and historic, which
is something that they're okay with, to something more traditional, something that
matches the neighborhood but not does not duplicate so basically week final
concept came down to a four -story building we're lining all our sight
lines on Spring Garden Street that then wrap around to 20th Street we have
matching mansard roof we have basically the water table that still lines up the
the window sight lines still line up so with all the changes that they had
requested we had added additional tearing in the back from the rear setbacks
from the second third fourth so with all these recommendations from the plant
historic Commission we ended up with the final design is it your testimony that
the massing of the building was reduced as a result of the historical review process.
And I believe you just said that the setbacks on each level were increased through that
process.
As the building progression happened, we increased more and more.
Now, do these, does this progression exhibit show that progression of increased setback to the rear?
Would you please use your cursor and point that out to the board?
So in concept one, we're just rear decks with coverings on the roof.
And are those vertical in arrangement?
Yes, vertical in arrangement.
So they all reach the rearmost setback?
Please explain how that changed.
We took direction from what they considered historically sensitive and more accurate projects,
such references as Green Street and other previously approved projects.
and tiered them kind of accordingly okay and the final plan could you please use your cursor and
show the board how the setbacks appear in the final plan so in the final plan it goes five feet
on the second floor 10 feet on the third floor and 12 feet on on the fourth floor setback
And so now we have a stepped appearance?
Did the historical review process change the number of units in your plan?
We reduced the density from seven permitted by right to five.
And what was the feedback that you received that prompted you to make that change?
We didn't want to cram a bunch of units in.
We wanted them to be comfortable units, not a bunch of one bedrooms.
So is it fair to say that the height was reduced as a result of the historic review process?
Is it fair to say that the massing was reduced as a result of the historical review process?
as a result of the historical review process?
Is it fair to say that the number of units were reduced
as a result of the historical review process?
Did you attend the public hearings on this matter?
Were there representatives from the Spring Garden Civic Association
at those hearings?
Did those representatives speak?
Did you attend a meeting with the director or executive director of the Spring Garden Civic Association, Pat Freeland?
Did you discuss these plans with Ms. Freeland as part of the historical review process?
Can you tell the board what the priorities of the Historical Commission and its staff were regarding the height?
That we match and very sensitive to 2002 Spring Garden.
Laura, you've seen the exhibits presented by Ms. Woodcock, the expert hired by the next -door neighbor.
Have you not?
Yes. Do you believe that those images presented by Ms. Woodcock fairly and accurately depict the proposed structure?
Please explain your difference with her renderings.
A couple. One of the renderings that has the perspective from the rear, looking from the parking garage.
she has uh the one that uh demarco pointed out has um sight line issues where the building does
seem a little skewed and distorted to make it look larger than it should be um she also has
reference to uh light and shadow diagrams where in one of them it specifically says
our design can't cast a shadow on 2002 but on her historically correct or
appropriate diagram shows 2002 casting a shadow on 2000 spring garden so if I
understand what you're saying the opponent believes it's okay for shadow
to be cast from her property, but that no shadow should result from our property to hers.
Objection?
Objection?
Objection?
Declatation, calling for a legal conclusion, leading the witness, all sorts of
improper questions. I've kept quiet until now. That's an improper question for Mr. Kang.
Just saying.
Thank you.
Well, we can, we can address this on Revolve after we hear Ms. Woodcock.
If someone is speaking, we can't hear you.
Are you?
I can.
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.
I'm speaking through the witness's computer, so I'll restate my question.
Can everybody hear me?
Thank you.
Mr. Kent, would you please explain the code difficulty with 20th Street being deemed the front of the property?
20th Street being deemed the front automatically creates a height variance.
To line up with 2002 Spring Garden, the building is 49 feet to the top of the roof.
so sorry i'm talking i'm talking about not i'm not speaking about height now i'm talking about
access from 20th street for vehicles so access from 20th street um
Access from 20th Street, there was an existing curb cut, so if it is deemed a side street or rear street, parking is permitted.
By calling 20th Street another front, it triggers the parking refusal on an RM1 law.
do you have an opinion to a degree of certainty as an architect what the front of this property
is 25 spring garden is absolutely the front and can you explain your answer
it historically matches all the buildings on on spring garden
um this side as it goes down 20th street is as a side facade i mean historically it is not
considered a primary frontage can you comment on the similarity between this property and the
property across 20th street yes um we have similar i guess stepping tearing um that they're not exact
but also the property across the street has a garage access directly off 20th
Street it also treats it like a side yard or side property line now can does
the five -foot setback issue for the balconies follow the same logic
Are any of the balconies within five feet of the front of this property
if Spring Garden Street is the front?
And again, what is the front of this property?
Spring Garden.
Thank you.
Now, you heard a representation made by Mr. DeMarco,
that the historical commission did not require that this property be 50 feet high.
Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
I disagree.
Historic was very adamant about us lining up and showing sight lines that are similar to 2002.
Mr. Chairman, if I can have just a moment, I think those are all my questions, but I just need to tell myself.
Okay, can you mute that, please?
Mr. Chairman, those are all my questions on direct with this witness.
I have a witness, a neighbor, the manager of the neighboring property, who will not be available to us after 12 noon.
I don't know how long cross will be, and I don't want to limit anybody's cross.
But I'm wondering if I could take that witness out of order.
All right, we'll do that, and then we'll come back for cross on Mr. Kang.
Thank you.
Is Mr. Honler available?
um can you please activate uh charles homler i don't know if he's
uh so that he can speak
great he can unmute himself hi how are you
can you hear me uh yes we can would you please state your name for the record and spell it
and your address my name is charles homler that's h -o -m as in michael l -e -r and i'm the
community manager for city view of the condominium association uh that's at 2001
hamilton street we share the property line with every property on the even side
We share the property line with every property on the even side of Spring Garden between 20th and 21st Street.
We'll be right back.
Thank you.
Mr. Holmer, do you swear to this firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. Holmer, have you, well, first of all, could you explain your involvement in this neighborhood to the board?
I'm the manager of City View 2 Condominium Association.
The property behind was formerly a hotel that was converted into condominiums in the early 2000s.
We have 542 individual units that are owned by different people, while some are owned by multiple.
Some multiple units are owned by the same individual a couple times.
So I represent the ownership of the property working in contingency with the boards of directors of the association
and the joint committee that acts sort of as a master association for them.
I've been there since April of 2014, so six and a half years.
And were you involved in the historical review process?
Mr. Miller, I need to interrupt you. I apologize.
You're not coming through clear. You're a bit muffled.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
That's much better. Thank you.
I apologize.
Mr. Homler, were you involved in the historical review process for the plans that are before the zoning board?
I appeared with the president of the City View Two Condominium Association at a meeting at the municipal building,
municipal services building, where we gave testimony about the property and our consent for it to move forward.
And were you supportive of the project?
Yes, absolutely.
Would you comment on your support and the reasons for it?
Well, we've had a multitude of issues that have come up over time.
And it's just because when the hotel was there, maybe they really weren't enforcing their property boundaries.
But the properties on the 20th block of Spring Garden have allowed a lot of overgrowth on our structure and encroached on the property line over time.
And in 2016, when we were doing a major repair of the garage structure, which you see very clearly in the pictures that have been shared earlier, we had to remove a lot of ivy and repair some masonry work there.
At that point in time, we became aware of the scaffolding situation in the parcel behind.
And we've had some garbage issues and whatnot as well in this right of way.
And they've also attached things to our physical structure.
So when we found that there was an opportunity for someone that's developing the parcel to
improve that corner's attractiveness, to clear up some visual obstructions, and that
they had made overtures to try to be a good neighbor, that was something that was warmly
received by directors of the boards of City View and City View 2.
can you characterize the current appearance of the property at 2000 spring garden street
mr miller i think that the photographs you showed give us a clear indication of the condition
i don't mean to be disrespectful but um thank you mr chairman so thank you understood uh mr
Mr. Hummler, have you have you carefully reviewed the proposed plans for this project?
As carefully as I can, not being an architect, there are certain things that would, you know,
I can I can do it from a qualitative more than a quantitative view. I'm not looking at things as
detailed as you or the zoning board are. But from an aesthetics perspective, the consensus is that
it's a very attractive building. We believe it'll enhance that corner and enhance property
rights, property values for the 542 unit owners that we represent as well as other people in the
community. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Boland or Mr. DeMarco, any questions for this
witness? I have a few. Thank you. Mr. Hamler, can you hear me? Yes, absolutely. You're the
building manager of city view uh yes do you live in city view no but for two years i did live in
the neighborhood before i got married and i just answered a direct thank you yeah that's fine i'm
going to object to the standing of mr homler to testify he doesn't even live in the property
uh but i'll continue with my questioning but i want to note that for the record
mr homler the city view building is a high -rise building right yes there are two separate
towers. Okay. And those people are in upper floors, correct? They look down on these properties,
right? Yes. So they're not adjacent in any way to the proposed development, would you agree?
Yes. So they're not adjacent in any way to the proposed development. Would you agree?
No, absolutely not. They are. They are. They are adjacent.
I'm sorry. They're up in the air, correct?
They look out their window. They see it. And it's the garage, which is a common element, is actually the entire border for every single parcel along the 20th to 20th, the 2000 block of Spring Garden.
Right. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Handler.
What floor do the residential units begin?
They begin at the third floor.
What is the height of the – what floor – compare that to the height of the garage.
Is the garage higher than the third floor?
The garage is two separate sections.
The third floor of the garage is on the western section,
and then it goes up to six floors along 20th Street
and sort of right in the middle of the block of Hamilton
or Spring Garden, depending on how you want to measure.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Homler, is Mr. Schramm a resident of City View Condominiums
or any of his family?
He has a brother who lives in the North Tower.
Mr. Schramm's brother lives in the North Tower of your building, right?
Is he on the board of the association?
No, absolutely not.
He is only a tenant.
All right. But you are called upon to respond to requests of any resident of the City of
Wakanda as the building manager. No, not at all. Excuse me? You're not required to respond to
requests by your residents? You're the building manager, right? You don't understand that
Wakanda Minium Association works there. Oh, I don't. I'm a lawyer. I think I do understand.
Do you have to respond to a request by Mr. Schram's brother as a resident of your building?
Absolutely not. He is a tenant. He is not an owner.
In all seriousness, and I'm going to be very blank here. Yes.
So did the board vote on this?
No, there's no resolution of the board.
Okay. So you're acting on your own accord.
No, I'm not. I'm acting at the direction of members of the board,
but they did not have an open meeting and discuss a policy resolution.
All right.
So the request came from residents of for you to do this letter and do this
testimony came from residents of your association of which Mr.
Schrein's brother is involved, right?
You're qualifying in a very poor light.
And I'd like to clarify that firstly,
Mr. Schrein's brother is a tenant.
A condominium association is an organization of owners.
so one individual unit owner rents his home to the applicant's brother that person has no
standing as a member of the association
but you're building manager for for the entire process the entire building right
i manage city view 2 which is the south tower mr strain's brother lives in the north tower
which is managed by another person that i work uh okay i think that might be all i have oh
mr uh mr homler you've you submitted a letter right for this case as well as the president
of the board then the joint committee mr homler please please wait for the question to be finished
before you answer sorry sorry there's another letter from someone else other than you from
to City View? Yes. Mr. Chairman, I haven't seen that letter. That should have been provided to
me, but I'll move on with my questioning. I'm almost done. So, in your letter, you state that
my client's scaffolding is a blight, don't you? Yes. Yeah. And so, does that mean that someone
that does work to beautify their property, which requires scaffolding, that's a blight?
No, if it's temporary and if there's signs of progress.
so this so the person has to move expeditiously in your opinion and finish the job even though
there's a proposal next door that might impact that work well the proposal is newer than the
scaffolding i agree but do you understand that the scaffolding is part of a historic process
that my clients engaged in are you telling this board that her attempt to meet requirements of
the historical commission and beautify the rear for property is a blight objection mr chairman
uh council's now testifying yeah i hear i hear what you're saying mr miller but i mean your
your witnesses basically opened up that argument like saying that it's a blight and that uh i mean
he's creating the questions for for mr demarco yeah mr chairman your property if whatever shape
or form it eventually gets decided on we'll have scaffolding for a certain period of time i mean
certain period of time i mean it's mr chairman uh mr demarco made these same arguments to the
it's mr chairman uh mr demarco made
historical commission and and and the historical commission didn't order any scaffolding to be
erected or and and this is well that's how the work gets done well if if it were true your honor
if it were true, Mr. Chairman, but okay.
It is true.
I mean, if work is required above the first floor,
generally speaking, there's some sort of scaffolding
that's required.
And the scaffolding has been -
There's no such thing as a skyhook.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the possibility what I'm -
Well, we'll talk about the credibility.
I think we're belaboring this point,
to be perfectly honest with you.
I can move on.
Please.
Yeah, you made the point.
I think the point is made.
I'll ask Mr. Hamler one more question here.
So I'll ask Tanya to give me the share screen.
I can do that, Tanya?
Yes, Mr. DeMarco.
Thank you.
Is my image appearing?
this is something that the applicant can you see it I can see both images all right this is in it
I'm going to rely on the applicant's image uh for purposes of this question do you see
the image on the right Mr. Homler yes the yellow yes and that was prepared by the applicant by
by uh Mr. Schramme uh Mr. Schramme's uh architect and we're going to accept that for now now do you
see that image now now you have stated in your letter to this board that the height of the
proposed building matches my client structure tell me tell me how that's possible when you
look at the image on the right do you do you want to withdraw that question that statement
not necessarily so you think that these two buildings match the height when you when you
look at it from this angle right it's very difficult for you to match up the lines but
But it appears that the darker of the yellow sections aligns with that floor and the other part aligns with the front of the building.
But where that one circle on the absolute top towards the middle of the building, that wall there, obviously, I would say, is higher than the rest of it.
But it does look like it fits the footprint pretty well.
You do agree, though, that – I'm sorry, you said that the footprint matches?
Did I just hear that correctly?
What I'm saying is if you look at the individual floors, it looks like it aligns with the floors of the adjacent building pretty well.
All right.
So your testimony is that the image of the right, the proposed structure, matches the building to the left.
Is that your testimony?
Tony? No, I'm saying that from this angle, it appears that from a stacking level in terms of
floor heights, that it matches with the exception of that portion with the small circle towards the
center of the image being higher than the rest. So you agree with me that the proposed structure
does not match the height exactly at all right not exactly all right no further questions
i just want to wait say one thing if it's possible about the light
it's not in front i didn't ask the question i mean he's his my cross is over just because it
was made up as an image before we have southern exposure so most of that is blocked by a six
floor garage except for the peak of the summer and that's your garage right six stories high
yes it's six stories right okay if there's anything that's blocking light it's our garage
uh fair enough i agree i agree uh mr boland do you have any questions for this witness
it did however the witness just clarified that his garage towers over the property um therefore
making it clear that his
residents have no standing, that
they suffer no harm. So I have
no questions. Yeah, I was trying
to get to that myself. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Miller?
Thank you.
I think that it's probably
appropriate to offer
Mr. Kang on cross.
Thank you.
Mr. DeMarco, Mr.
Bowen, decide who's going first.
And thank you for taking the witness
out of order. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll start with Mr. Kang. I guess I'll put up one of Mr. Kang's
documents. I can still share screen, right, Tanya? Yes, sir. Thank you.
everybody see the uh mr kang's image on the screen
Everybody see?
are you seeing my image mr jess yes mr kang uh let me talk to people ask you about the historic
process um uh so concept one this was a concept that you withdrew right yes and it's fair to say
that you withdrew that that proposal because uh the of objections from this architectural committee
right not necessarily didn't you go to the architectural committee and they had serious
concerns isn't that fair to say mr kang i'm sorry the committee did staff did not
well that's not what i asked you i think you just you just agreed with me the architectural
committee sent you back because they were not they were they gave they had
strenuous objections to concept one correct yes and you offered that staff
did not but I think we all agree so I'll move on and this concept one was taller
than my clients property right yes okay so and you would agree that when you
when you go through the historical Commission process you submit drawings
or your client, you or your client, submit drawings to the commission and request approval, right?
Right. You file a building permit application, right?
Okay. So it's the applicant's choice on what to propose and give to the commission.
Wouldn't you agree with that?
Yes. The committee does not design the buildings.
Right. So when you testified during your direct examination that the historical commission
required you to match my client's property that was because your earlier iteration of the project
was taller than my client's structure correct yes but we also brought our approved zoning plan
at least if that were not yet approved mr kang you're getting we're getting an echo
So, I'm not hearing you clearly.
And I would like to hear what you said.
You said what about the zoning?
No, that's because I have to mute.
Mr. Kahn, last statement, what did you say about the zoning?
So, we asked the staff level, would a 38 -foot high building be approved?
They said no.
I'm sorry. First of all, I'm going to object. That's hearsay. But let's get into that.
You never put a 38 -story building in front of the staff, did you?
No, just the zoning plan.
All right. And we're going to get to that permit in a minute. You pulled an over -the -counter permit that complied with the zoning code, didn't you, Mr. Cash?
Okay. So before I leave that issue, so there is an approval for this applicant for a building, a new building, which complies with the zoning code. Agreed?
Okay. But that applicant, your client, has chosen not to propose that 38 zoning compliance structure to either this board or the commission, correct?
not an affordable presentation right so the applicant chose not to move forward
with a historical commission approval for that over -the -counter project correct
we were advised it would not get approved i'm sorry you were advised by who again
all right the staff doesn't make the decision for the commission do they
no but they're advisory to the committee and commission
okay so they take heavily favor on what they say okay but first of all that those people are not
available to be asked that question so this is hearsay but i'm going to go with it you chose
not to present that anyway right so you have no idea what the commission would say if you proposed
a zoning compliant structure do you i would say that most likely they would not accept our sight
lines would not align up which then it is no longer in character of the historic district
but Mr. Kang you don't know that you don't know what the commission would have done right this
commission right yes okay fair enough appreciate that so the commission is free to ignore their
staff and has done so on many occasions isn't that true objection well he opened the door Mr.
chairman about what the staff would or wouldn't do or what the Commission would or wouldn't do
Talk about what the staff would or wouldn't do or what the commission would or wouldn't do.
I object to Mr. DeMarco's statement about what the historical commission may have done in other cases.
I'm sorry.
That's what his witness just did.
No, no.
Mr. Chairman, the witness said that.
I lost you there.
Maybe you can rephrase the question, Mr. DeMarco.
I'm happy to. Mr. Kang testified that, first of all, they responded to the objection, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kang testified that he didn't think the commission would approve the 38 -foot structure. So my question is, Mr. Kang, you have no idea what the commission would or wouldn't approve.
action. Mr. Chairman, that's not what the witness testified to. And Mr. DeMarco.
He's asked a direct question. He can answer yes or no.
Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. DeMarco is deliberately ignoring his knowledge of how these things work.
When you get guidance from staff, you follow that guidance. That's what Mr. Kang is testifying to.
He was told by the staff what would or would not be acceptable, and he tailored his submissions
to comport with that guidance.
Now, Mr. DeMarco says,
well, you don't know what would happen
if you submitted a 38 -foot.
He's already said it wouldn't be approved
because staff told him that.
Now, Mr. DeMarco has preserved the argument
that maybe lightning would strike
and maybe they would bless a building
that was 12 feet shorter than the next -door neighbor,
giving the neighborhood a view of a blank wall.
He can make that argument,
but he doesn't have to beat the dead horse
with this witness. Mr. Chairman, this is an attempt to interrupt my cross -examination and
not have, I understand Mr. Miller not wanting his witness to answer questions like this because
they're harmful to his case, but I have a right to hear the answer to the question because they've
been making the historical commission process a part of this case from the very get -go. So I have
the right to challenge some of their assumptions that they're making because he clearly testified
that the commission would not would not have approved a 38 story as of right project
that i mean that's what i heard so right objection overruled okay mr kang i'll repeat
the question the objection has been overruled as far as the 38 store the 38 foot over -the -counter
permit that your client pulled you have no idea what the commission would do whether it would
approve that or not somebody's moving furniture or scaffolding okay would you ask again please
yep yes I didn't ask a question I'll go I'll move on
okay uh mr kang um this property uh there's a current structure on the property right
yes okay and the structure is a multi a mixed -use property is that fair to say
yes to the best of my knowledge
um and you haven't testified to any structural issues with that two -story property correct
no the property exists and is is functioning uh is that is that fair a fair statement
to the best of my knowledge okay thank you um and there's i guess there's individual units
within the property right are you aware of that it's not uh a building that i'm fully aware of
Oh, all right. Fair enough. Well, you know, you do, you have seen it. You're,
you've been there, right? You've done your drawings.
You've been to the property, correct?
Okay. You observed a functioning, let's say mixed use, uh, uh, building, correct?
Yes. And they do the existing structure. Yes.
Very well. Thank you. Um, where were, excuse me, uh,
where was the main entrance to that existing, to the two story building
currently on the front spring garden spring garden there's no entry no uh ingress egress
on the 20th street side correct i think there is a side entrance
yeah i believe there is all right but you would agree that you would agree that the front of the
building is on spring garden yes okay thank you all right well that's a that's a good segue mr
chairman i'll i'll hit that line of questioning right now now i think i heard you you stating
Now, I think I heard you stating, and forgive me if I misstated, Mr. Kang, but I believe I heard you say that the fact that you called 20th Street a frontage in regards to the parking issue.
and forgive me if i misstated mr kang but i believe i heard
Did I hear that right?
all right so and i believe there was an argument and again correct me if i'm wrong but there was
an argument that the refusal uh was impacted by the frontage uh along spring along 20th street
did i hear that right that's because they are deeming 20th street as a front okay uh so but
the refusal is for lack of rear access parking isn't it that is by the
definition of what a rear yard is no the refusal for the curb cut is because
there's no rear access parking right it's the way they determine a side yard
versus a rear yard. Mr. Kang, the refusal is for having a curb cut along that is not rear access.
Are you aware of that? The refusal is for, yes, it said coming off a frontage, not a rear, isn't it?
No, no, no. The refusal is because parking, the curb cut is a side access, not a rear access. You
would agree that the parking garage of the city view is along the rear boundary of this property,
right? Yes. All right, so there's no way to get a rear access parking, right?
It has to go... Not from the rear. Right, so this is side access parking, isn't it?
It says 20th frontage.
that's the you're talking about the the the roof deck the roof deck talks about the frontage along
20th street i'm talking about the parking variance it says for the proposed all street
parking space accessory multi multi -family living use an attached building and access from street
frontage 20th street is prohibited by zone right but that section that's referenced in that refusal
is the section that requires rear access parking.
Did you look at that?
On a corner property, they used to determine
what a side yard is considered a rear access.
So by the change in the code,
they are now deeming, I guess, 20th Street also a front and a rear,
saying that we're prohibited rear access.
Right. You don't have rear access parking.
Your parking is along the side, right?
It's on 20th Street.
Right.
You said Spring Garden's clearly the front, right?
All right.
So this parking curb cut is along the side of the building, right?
I think from the zoning code, there is no definition of a side yard.
Mr. Kang, is the curb cut along the rear boundary line?
It's on 20th Street.
Right.
No, it's not on the rear, direct rear.
Right. So this curb cut's along the side. If we agree with you that the frontage is 20th Street, this is a side entrance to the parking, right?
All right. Thank you.
Sorry, give me one minute.
all right there's nothing unusual about this property uh the lot lines of this property
it's a it's a typical rectangular property uh correct yes okay and there's no unusual soil
conditions uh no uh i mean the property is sloped uh but there's no unusual soil conditions or
no -build areas or anything like that, right? Unusual easements, utilities, right?
Not to my knowledge. Not to your knowledge, thank you. So, taking the existing structure,
it's possible, as an architect, you're a competent individual, and I know that to be true,
you could build an addition on this property on the existing structure,
which would comply with the height areas, correct?
uh potentially but again now you're speculating that historic would approve whatever we
addition we propose mr kang i'm not doing any speculating there's an existing two -story
there's an existing two -story structure on this property correct yes you could
structure at this property correct yes
place an addition or design an addition on top of the existing structure that
will comply with the height variance as a competent architect correct that's a
hypothetical going back to will historic through whatever we design I think the
question is could you build additional floors on the top of the existing
building as a matter of right i can't give you that answer because it goes back to historic
historic has to get final approval mr kang i'm not asking you about whether historical commission
would approve it i'm asking you could you design a structure which would be architecturally correct
where you would place an addition on the existing structure and it would comply with the height
variance. I object to the question because it puts the rabbit in the hat. The witness said,
the witness can certainly draw anything. Whether it will ultimately be approved, he said,
requires historical commission approval. Counsel says, well, you could do it and it would be as
of right. It's not as of right because anything you do in the historic district requires historic
approval. So again, it's an attempt to avoid damaging testimony, Mr. Chairman, to interfere
with my quote. I understand he not wanting the answer. It's a tough question. I'm sorry about
that. But it's part of why they don't have a hardship. Mr. Chairman, I object to that. It's
not if the leading questions, the leading questions suggest facts that are not in evidence.
they're based on council's understanding and council's suggestion and they're inappropriate
ask a straight question you get a straight answer Mr. Kang would there be any reason
as to why you would not be able to build an addition to the upper to an addition or addition
to the existing structure if it meets historical designation if it would meet historical designation
We can build a four -story building at 38 feet if Historic approves it.
You could.
Okay, thank you.
I'm sorry.
That was the answer.
They could build.
I heard feedback.
If Historic would approve it.
You could build it.
Again, if Historic with pending Historic approval.
All right.
I want the record to be clear because there was a lot of feedback.
I want to make sure the court reporter got it.
You could build that building that we're talking about if historical would approve it, right?
And you could certainly present that proposal to the commission, correct?
You could.
Thank you.
Mr. Canning, you would agree that you're not required to propose parking with this building.
You don't have to have parking.
The RM1 residential district does not require accessory parking.
Do you agree?
Yes, it does not.
So the variances that you're dealing with, the variance that we've discussed earlier,
is because you want to have accessory parking, correct?
Wouldn't you want accessory parking for a multifamily structure?
there's many multifamily structures without parking in the city of
Philadelphia there's thousands of them don't you agree agree okay so let's talk
about this over -the -counter permit I want the board to see it I'll share my
screen while you're bringing that up do you have any idea how much more you're
going to need of this witness of this witness mr chairman uh i guess 10 minutes 15 minutes
all right because we're at the two hour mark and uh i'm not sure if the stenographer needs
i don't want to break the rhythm of your questioning uh if the stenographer needs a
break if not we can just finish with this your witness this witness your cross -examination
and then we can go to mr bollin because at some point i think that this hearing's going to wind
up having to be uh held for another date to go but let's tanya could you let me know if the
sonographer needs a break at this moment or could she wait another 10 15 minutes um if we could take
a break after this witness that would be great okay so no all right mr demarco continue thank
mr chairman this is ryan boland i just want to let you know that i i will also have five or ten
minutes depending on what the witness says. Okay, thank you. Mr. Kang, thank you and thank you.
OK, thank you. Mr. Kang, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you see my screen, Mr. Kang?
Yes. All right. This is the over -the -counter permit that I referenced earlier, correct?
Yes. So the record's clear. This is a zoning and use and your name is on there, right?
Yeah. So you were able to design and provide to the Department of Licenses and Inspections
a proposal that fully complied with the zoning code, correct?
Zoning, yes.
And as a result of that, this is the permit that you obtained, right?
So your client and the applicant can proceed directly to building permits
to construct the building that's reflected in this permit, correct?
I'm sorry.
I know what you – let me rephrase.
your client can apply to the historical commission for a building permit for
this over -the -counter permit, right?
So historic planning commission, I mean,
historic commission submission does not require a zoning permit.
We could go straight to them without a zoning.
Oh, I agree. I agree. But that's not my question.
I certainly agree with you.
My question is with this permit that you're looking at,
you could submit building
commission
right away
based on this permit right
we could okay
so when I say you proceed to building
permit I agree with you
that it has to go to the commission first
but we all agree with that right
sure okay
so there is a
structure that you can design
and construct that would comply with the zoning
code agreed
one exists
Absolutely. All right, fair enough.
So I'll bring up another image.
Does the board and the witness see my screen?
no not yet oh I'm sorry give me a moment I'm going to share screen again thank you
now can you see it yes all right so your image here with the yellow all right I'm
refer to that as an architect you're a competent guy we all agree with that you could also design
a proposal which would need a height variance and would match the mansard here but would also match
the depth of my client's property you could design such a structure and submit it for approval correct
we could design anything that matches we'll take that as a yes
I will too thank you for your candor Mr. Kang
and do we agree Mr. Kang that the height of the top story at its total depth is over the height
limit. Do we agree with that? Almost the entire fourth floor is over the height limit. Exactly.
Thank you. And I believe we've done some calculations and hopefully we have, we can
agree here. The top, a portion of the top of this story also would need a height variance, right?
It's 42 feet, right? Not from, well, you're taking it from rear. The Illinois takes it from average
grade yeah i know i i agree let me ask you i'll ask you a different way the height at this level
here is 42 feet from grade would you agree approximately yes okay
and i think it's fair to isn't it fair to say mr kang that uh the height of the fourth story is
most of the footprint of the building. Is that a fair statement?
It's, uh, I don't know the
count, but I'd have to take a look.
Uh, would you agree that's most of the, of the footprint of the
building, the fourth story, right? It does step back. I can stipulate to that, but
the top story, it might be 60%, maybe.
Okay, fine. Very good.
And certainly, the fourth story could be stepped back, right?
You could design a building that would step back the fourth and third stories in order to minimize impact on the neighboring property.
the fourth and third stories in order to minimize impact on the neighboring
property. Would you agree?
I think it's already been stepped back enough.
I know, but you could step it back more. Don't you agree?
You could design it. You're a competent guy. You could design such a structure.
Do you agree?
I object to those characterizations and those statements.
They're obviously condescending and really rude.
i don't i don't mr miller with all due respect i don't find him condescending i think the
question is could he design something that is comparable to the to 12 2002 in terms of height
and depth on several occasions that doesn't mean you have to but it's possible why wouldn't it be
possible on several occasions he's already said he can draw anything right so i mean he's repeating
the question i'll grant you that right all right i thought i asked it a different way i'll take
You did ask it a little bit differently, but I think everybody understood.
You could design a building that can be exactly the same footprint, height, depth of 2002.
Thank you.
So, Mr. Kang, you would also agree that the pilot house here is even taller than 50 feet, right?
And you agree that that will cast a shadow on the neighboring property, right?
And we all agree, you know, I think it's fair to say that the massing of this property will cast a shadow.
We can argue about how extensive that is, but the massing of this structure that you designed will cast shadows upon my client's property.
Isn't that fair to say?
Potentially, yes.
do you agree Mr. Kang that your parking garage has two spots that are one behind the other
is that a fair way to run all right so the the rearmost parking space cannot be accessed if
um i'll rephrase uh the property the the first of all you agree that the depth
of the parking garage is greater than 25 feet right yes okay and you agree that there's no
drive aisles in within the garage right no and you would agree that so there'd have to be an
attendant on site in order to make sure that all all of the parking spaces are accessible
because if you have assigned spaces
all the parking spaces might not be accessible if they're if they're occupied do you understand
the question mr chairman these issues are not before the board mr mill i'm sorry you broke up
would repeat that yeah I object to the question because the parking arrangement in the building
is not before the board the issue is whether or not there should be access from 20th street
right sustained all right well I would say I just just to respond put on the record what
my response would be the parking itself is is before the record and it has to be accessible
And if it's not accessible, that's relevant, and the board should hear it.
But, I mean, you know, I can move on.
Also, we do believe that Ellen and I missed those two refusals, but I think it's on the record already.
So I'll move on.
That might be it, Mr. Chairman.
Hold on.
That's all I have.
Oh, wait.
Hold on.
I'm sorry.
All right. I'm finished. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Boland, I think you said you had about 10 minutes.
Yeah, hopefully it's less. I'll try to cut out as much as I can.
I'm not trying to rush you, but we do need to give the stenographer a break.
And again, I don't want to break the rhythm of the cross -examination.
I'll be quick.
Please proceed.
Ryan Boland on behalf of Spring Garden Civic Association.
Mr. Kang, did the historical commission tell you that you could not match the rear depth of 2002
Spring Garden? I'm sorry, could you re -ask that question? Did the historical commission tell you
that you could not match the rear depth of 2002 Spring Garden? They didn't tell us that we had to
match. But did they tell you that you weren't allowed to match it? No. And going back, I took some notes on your testimony.
and going back I took some notes on your testimony earlier where you mentioned
that the Historical Commission had some requirements for heights and in that
your language was something to the effect of you needed to match and be
sensitive with the height of 2002 Spring Garden. What did you do to be
sensitive to the height of 2002 Spring Garden along the rear? We've recessed the
building back. We stepped it from the rear. We also stepped it on 20th Street.
Do you agree that you could have made the fourth floor less deep and cut down
the square footage of the fourth floor? You can't reduce it too much more. I
mean we already took six feet out.
but do you agree that you could have cut down the rear of the fourth floor and
made it match 2002 spring guard uh not to get the program required
but mr bolan i think we established that uh when mr demarco was cross -examining that
the architect can design something that matches exactly if you wanted to wanted to uh 2002
to Spring Garden, and I don't mean to interrupt you, but that's been established a couple of times.
Mr. Kang, is anywhere on your four pages of plans submitted to the zoning board,
does it show where the average ground level is depicted?
Are you talking about our elevation on 20th Street?
Yeah, our elevation.
I think there is a side elevation.
that has an approximate right towards the middle of the building.
Here, let me, I'm sharing my screen right now. Do you know which page of your plans this is?
So if you're looking at what we submitted, it would be A4 possibly, 20th Street Elevation.
Okay, I'll pull them up right here. And I think it might be on our zoning plan also.
I just wanted to make clear because it's it's still unclear to me what the height of the third
floor is and whether using the average ground level whether the height of the third floor is
above 4080. The PDF is not loading. I'm just going to move on. Here we go. Mr. Kang, can you see what's
on my screen here where
there's a yellow arrow by my cursor?
your screen. Do you see the yellow
arrow that's by my cursor that's
at the front of the building?
I don't
think we have that.
All I see
is a front view of all
the properties.
I'll move along.
is there any reason why these roof decks couldn't be set back five feet off of 20th street
the the lot's only 28 feet wide we're already six foot set back you you step back another five feet
you're at about 10 feet for the building you take out another foot for the party wall you
take another six inches you're left with eight nine feet do you agree with me that you could
have had an eight foot wide balcony and complied with the zoning code
you're saying increase our setback an additional two feet an additional what i'm asking is for
these roof decks off the rear of the building above the first second third floor is there any
reason you couldn't have set them back five feet off of 20th street on the second and third floor
yes we could and reduce the usable deck on the second and third floor and what about the fourth
floor if we set an additional five feet that's where i was going into the numbers where we will
be left with only about eight feet inside clear. Let me move on to the off -street parking. Can you
explain to me what the unique physical conditions are peculiar to this property that require you
to have this accessory parking? There was existing parking there for the client would like to
there was existing parking there
to the client would like to have off -street parking.
There's a 51 -foot curb cut now,
so we would actually be introducing minimum one,
maybe two additional spaces on -street
by reducing that curb cut.
But you'd agree with me that it's possible
to use the property without having this off -street parking?
RM1 does not require parking, yes.
and there wouldn't have been an economic viability issue if um you remove the parking
i can't can't testify to that
that's all i have
okay uh tanya uh let's all take a 15 minute break
uh get back here at 12 30 and then we're gonna have to make a decision about how far along we
need to go um in cross -examination uh whether or not we're going to continue this for another day
uh yes that sound good okay so we'll meet back at 12 30. thank you
I don't have a full screen of who is on and who isn't.
I see Mr. Miller, Mr. Bolin.
uh tanya tom myself obviously uh mr kang is confessor on
oh yes he's here okay and uh james yes sir okay uh and mr demarco uh i'm here can you hear me
yes you can uh it's saying mr chairman's giving me a message that i can't oh there we go
Yeah, we all had the same message. I think we're ready to go.
Okay. All right.
Mr. Boland, I think you finished with your cross -exam?
Correct, Mr. Chairman.
All right. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Chairman, I'm not able to activate my video.
what i'd like to propose uh based on what i think is going to be a much more lengthy hearing than we
anticipated is that uh mr miller you can go through with all your uh all your witnesses
we'll get through the cross exam today and if need be we'll have to continue this for a second
hearing. But you'll do all your, you'll put all your witnesses on. Mr. DeMarco, Mr. Bowen will do
their cross -examination. We'll see what time that takes us to, and then we'll make that decision.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a few redirect questions for Mr. Kang.
Thank you.
Mr. Kang, Mr. DeMarco presented you with the buy -right zoning permit for this property.
do you recall that yes that was for a 38 foot structure is that correct yes did you present
that by right zoning plan for a 38 foot structure to the historical commission staff yes would you
relate to the board
the conversation that ensued.
Objection to the
hearsay? That person's
not available for cross -examination?
Objection?
Well, he was engaged in the
conversation.
I'll overrule that objection.
I'd like to hear what he has to say.
Please give your answer from the beginning.
She laughed at us. She said the store
wouldn't approve a SWAT building.
needs to speak a little more clearly.
I have to mute myself because the feedback. Okay. Thank you.
The staff laughed at us pretty much saying that they wouldn't approve a building that squat.
In your experience, do you confer with staff at various city agencies as a prelude to an ultimate submission?
Do you rely on the feedback that you receive from staff prior to making submissions?
Absolutely.
Do you do that with L &I?
Do you do that with the Planning Commission?
Do you do that with the Historical Commission?
Now, the buy right lot coverage and building mass for RM1 is what percentage?
Now, the by -right...
80 % coverage for storage.
I'm sorry, I can't hear the answer.
I'm sorry, I have to mute myself between questions.
Actually, I'm going to try to use the speaker on my computer.
I'm going to take it off the headset.
Are you all able to hear me?
What is the permitted percentage of lot coverage at this site in the RM1 district?
80 % for quarter lots.
Does the plan before the zoning board fill the 80 % that's permitted by right?
Only on the first and seller.
Is it less than 80 % on the upper floors?
On the floors above the first floor?
Second, third, fourth floor are less than 80%.
Right. And are we pursuing a variance for building mass?
Only for height?
Is that correct?
Okay. And to reiterate, you've answered a lot of questions about parking.
But to reiterate, what is the existing curb cut at the property?
51 feet, six spaces.
And what will be the curb cut when this plan comes to fruition?
20 feet.
How many spots will the neighborhood pick up on street parking?
Minimum one, potentially two, depending on how cars are parked.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, those are all my redirect.
have any other witnesses or is there any other follow -up Mr. DeMarco or Mr. Boland
I don't have any more questions Brian Boland I have nothing thank you all right Mr. Miller
your next witness please yes Mr. Chairman Iman Elkaban please
you're going to unmute yourself and you're allowed to speak hello hi
uh iman al -kaban yes uh ma 'am please spell your name and excuse me please identify yourself spell
your name, give us your address for the record? Sure. My name is Eman Alkoban, E -M -A -N -E -L -K -A -L -B -A -N.
And I live at one Franklin town, just a few blocks away from 2000 Spring Garden Street.
Thank you. Ms. Alkoban, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Miller, please proceed.
Thank you. Ms. Elkhoban, are you familiar with the current property at 2000 Spring Garden Street?
Yes, I am. I walk past that property almost every day on my way home from work.
And where do you work?
I work in University City.
And are you familiar with the plans for the development of this property?
Yes, I've been following this project closely. And I actually, I had the opportunity to attend
the meeting last year with the Historical Commission. And I was also given the opportunity
to speak there as well. And I presented the Historical Commission with a letter that was
signed by over 25 members of the community who were unable to attend the meeting.
um so i've been following the project closely and i i just want to say that um it was really
disheartening to just hear about the next door posts being so undermined um because there are
so many of us that were really in favor of this project and i understand that this is a zoning
board meeting but the rco meeting that was held earlier this week myself and several others raised
our hand to speak and we were denied the opportunity to do so. Would you please explain
how that happened? Were you on the Zoom conference? I was on the Zoom conference with my
how that happened. Were you on the Zoom conference? I was on the Zoom conference with my hand raised
from very early on, and the meeting was conducted in an extremely biased manner.
Several people were allowed to speak in opposition, and when one person spoke in favor of the project,
it was very immediately, abruptly closed. The meeting just suddenly ended, and nobody even
understood how that happened um so that was really um discouraging and disheartening to feel that
you know we take out our time as community members to follow these developments and attend
these community meetings and we're not given the opportunity to speak are you aware of the
feedback that the rco has received on this matter other than what you heard on the zoom conference
how could she possibly know that that's an improper question objection well it's
mr chairman the point is the rco operates in the shadows and the the the public has no idea
whether the rco is accurately reporting the sentiment of the community and that's what i
agree that's what i'm well there's there's there's a lot of obviously there's a any rco with
anything there's any rco there's always a matter of trust well did you i i wasn't there i mean the
lady was on uh the zoom call uh that's her opinion i'll accept it as her opinion but i don't
necessarily want to suggest that spring garden is acting in in the dark in you know in the dark
and not giving people an opportunity i i i can't speak to that none of us can't unless we were
I have another question. Ms. Elkaban, did you hear any sort of vote called by the RCO?
No. And that's what we were anticipating, that by the end of the call, there would be
votes taken. And again, the meeting ended very abruptly. No votes were taken. And there was no
resolution or, you know, what had happened there. It was a bunch of opposition. They painted a really
like you know dark picture of this property and that nobody's in favor of it and all these people
who had their hands raised weren't allowed to speak and that's why i'm saying it did feel
one -sided and and if that is my opinion that's fine but the fact was my hand was raised and i
wasn't allowed to speak and if you were given let me ask the question so in addition to yourself
miss alcabon alcabon yes other folks had their hands up but were not recognized correct and i
think some of those people are on this call today for that reason do we know there's no way of
knowing if those folks were either going to be in support or opposition to this absolutely i agree
with you yeah okay and i want a question you said you live in in franklin one franklin town yeah
is that a condo building or an apartment building an apartment building so you're a tenant you are
not an owner no i'm not okay and how long have you been there four years okay thank you oh one
more thing that i'd like to say that also because i've been in the neighborhood for as long as i
have i know because again i've been following this project closely the proposed project started last
year the scaffolding has been there for at least three so the idea that this is all on hold and
because of the proposed project is putting her work on hold. It wasn't on hold for the two years
before the project even became in the picture. So that was just something that I've noticed as
just, you know, living in the area. Thank you. Ms. Elkaban, if you were given the opportunity to speak
at the RCO Zoom meeting, what would you have shared? I would have shared that I do believe
that the new proposed project is going to be an asset to the community it's the current building
there is unsightly it's not anything that matches historically or just aesthetically to the block
and i'm all in favor of making our community as beautiful as possible and i really believe that
this proposed project you know they are following all requests to appease both the community and
historical commission and it's been revised multiple times to meet you know whatever
requirements were asked of them so thank you very much sure no problem thank you any cross
examination to this witness yes uh marco yeah thank you mr chairman mr out the bond can you
hear me yes i can hear you all right one franklin town is approximately uh a half a mile from the
the project that you're speaking about would you agree with that um i never calculated exactly
I never calculated exactly how far away it is.
i just did i just
I just calculated the walking distance, and it's 0 .4 miles away.
So, first of all, Mr. Chairman, note my objection to the legal standing of this individual.
She's almost a half a mile away from this proposal.
Don't note it.
Ms. Alcoban, you testified about my client's scaffolding being on hold, not being on hold prior to this project.
Did you hear the testimony that this project has been before the Historical Commission for over a year or more?
Actually, that's not the testimony.
The testimony was, the evidence was that the Historical Commission process began in the second quarter of 2019,
and that it concluded on September 30th.
So it hasn't been before the Historical Commission for a year.
Ms. Alcabon, that's incorrect.
But Ms. Alcabon.
I don't know.
Is it really worth belaboring the point as to how long that scaffolding has been up?
Well, I certainly agree with that.
But there's been testimony about it.
My client's under attack.
I need to do something about it.
No one is attacking here.
That's also something.
Ms. Alcabon, that's a legal terminology.
It's just a shame, Mr. Chairman, that the legal strategy in this case is to attack my client.
And, you know, the developer has, and note my objection, my client's not seeking variances.
And my client's scaffolding is due to a process that's been put on hold due to this project and how dare these people.
Again, I really don't want to belabor this part.
Let's move on.
Let's move on.
All right.
You can unmute yourself.
Am I unmuted now?
Thank you.
So you don't live along Spring Garden, Ms. Alcabon, right?
No, I do not.
And you're building a high -rise?
It is.
All right.
You enjoy a very good view from your high -rise, right?
Right.
And you wouldn't want somebody erecting a structure that partially blocked your view,
your wonderful views of the city, would you?
That's not something that I would have the power to stop.
It's all I can say.
If someone, you know, sought variances and they were approved and they want to build a building, I can't.
That's not the question.
You would certainly object if someone was seeking variances that partially or completely blocked your light in there.
You would want the right to object to those variances, wouldn't you?
i think that the right to object an easement like an easement for a view is not something that is
enough to completely you know take down a project that is otherwise following every single rule
that's there it's that's a personal issue not a community one so you have to you have to be fair
like if it's going to block my view on the 10th floor well people on the fifth floor don't have
of you anyway you know so that's that's something that i wouldn't that's me being personal then
miss alcaban you're saying you don't you would not want you would not exercise your right to
object to a variance that impacted your views of the city and your light and air
no no i don't think that that's something that is enough of a you know of a reason to completely
you know attack another project okay i have no further questions okay the bone
just one brief question um ryan boland um miss alcovan how did you end up participating in the
rco process and finding about the meeting on monday um i saw the uh posts on next door
and um again because i have been following this project i wanted to attend the meeting and voice
my opinion i i actually spoke at the historical commission meeting last year so that's how i knew
about the rco meeting and how did you first find out about this project um i'm actually just in
general i'm interested in real estate and development and i found out about this project
last year uh through a friend was it anyone affiliated with the developer no i have nothing
further. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Alcoban. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity
to speak today. I appreciate it. I appreciate you taking the time to be here today. Thank you very
much. Okay. Call Walenska -Stanke. And I need screen control, please.
Hey, I'm here, Valeska.
Hey, I'm here, Valeska.
Ms. Stunke, you're an architect, is that correct?
Yes, I am.
Architect and urban planning.
Mr. Miller, I need to mute you.
Ma 'am, would you please identify yourself with a record, spell your first and last name,
and give us your address?
Yes, my name is Valeska Stunke, W -A -L -E -S -K -A -S -T -A -M -D -K -E.
and uh what else i live in philadelphia and powilton village thank you do you swear and
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you please
proceed mr miller all right can she put her address on record 433 north 32nd thank you
are you able to see the screen before you yes okay at my request did you analyze the and compare
the image to the left provided by the next door neighbor uh the llc mooring properties the owner
of the apartment building next door yes i did okay and did you find that image to be accurate
or inaccurate?
Inaccurate.
I have a question.
Did she prepare this comparison drawing?
Get there.
We'll get there.
My first question to you is,
in what respect did you find the image on the left
provided by Ms. Woodcock,
the expert for the apartment building next door?
Or what inaccuracy did you find there?
I could say that they exaggerated by stretching it, which made it bigger than it is.
We can see in the small circle that the pilot house is bigger.
So they really stretched it, for sure.
So the image of the pilot house has been exaggerated?
Okay, and then what about the overall length of the building?
Did they represent that accurately?
Exactly, because they stretch the whole mass.
The pilot house shows us exactly that it was stretched.
So everything gets bigger after this.
Okay. Now, at my request, did you prepare an accurate massing exhibit to show the proposed building on the site?
Yes, I did.
And is that your work to the right?
And does your depiction to the right fairly and accurately describe the structure to be built?
Okay. Now, the view that was supplied by the objector, the owner of the apartment building next door, that view appears to be from the south. So more of the parking garage is in the image. Is that correct?
Yes, it is.
and that view makes the rear yard look smaller doesn't it yes now your view appears to be
either from a higher vantage point or from a more northerly vantage point
and it shows the rear yard is that correct is that correct okay it is sorry
thank you those are all my questions thank you
Thank you. Any cross -examination?
Just a few. Just a few, Mr. Chairman. Can I get share screen here? We have to end the
share screen so I can share screen. Oh, I can use. Yeah, yeah, I better do it that way. Thank you.
Can you see my screen?
I'm sorry, I didn't get your last name.
Oh, Stanky?
Stanky.
Stanky.
So you're a registered architect?
Not in the United States.
Uh -huh.
Where are you an architect?
Brazil.
Okay, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't aware of that. I would object to all of her testimony that she's not an architect in Pennsylvania or even in America.
Mr. Chairman, I wasn't aware of that.
I'm objecting.
So she would not have been, and Mr. Miller kind of got this in without, you know, I don't think.
You were saying that I don't have knowledge?
Come on, ma 'am. I'm putting an objection on the record.
So, you know, I didn't have an opportunity to volunteer. I didn't know she was an architect. I assumed she was an architect in Pennsylvania.
But I'll object to any opinion testimony and ask it to be stricken from the record.
And then I'll continue with Mike Cross.
I'm going to need some expert advice on this from Ms. Saleta.
I hate to put you on the spot.
I would agree.
I think we agree that she is a certified architect.
But is there a prohibition if you're not from Pennsylvania or from America?
no it goes to whether she is accepted as an expert you can still hear her testimony it might
go to the weight that you give her testimony but she can testify yeah i mean i the testimony is in
so we're stuck with it but right that's why i'm going to continue with my cross but i want to
make sure i but my question was but you asked about striking it and i didn't think it would
be appropriate but that's why i asked miss selena well it never gets forgive me it never gets removed
actually remove i understand i understand but if it goes up on appeal so you know whatever i want
to preserve the objection it's understood okay it's it's a question of the weight mr chairman
and if she's not if she's not credible you don't have to believe her but right right we're going
to let you continue with it we'll let her testimony we'll let her test continue to testify
I was going to say, I actually agree for once. Anyway, you can give it the way it needs. Ms. Stanky, I only have a few questions. You would certainly agree that the vantage point of each of these images is different, right?
Exactly. I can explain why.
Well, hold on. Let me put the question in front of you. So when you have a different vantage point, there's more obstruction from the neighboring structures, specifically this parking garage, right?
You agree?
I agree.
So certainly there's nothing wrong with selecting a vantage point
and using that vantage point as you see fit to create a rendering, right?
Mm -hmm.
Correct.
All right.
And let me direct you to one of the areas of your rendering, which –
can you see my coarser?
so in your rendering wouldn't you agree that the massing of this section that i'm circling right
here right is actually greater than it appears here because of that vantage point choice wouldn't
you agree yes i can agree okay fair enough and you would also uh this is my last question thank you
for your time, Ms. Stanky, but you would also agree that the rear yard of the 2000 Spring Garden
Street is partially obstructed by the parking garage wall. Would you agree with that?
Yes. The left side, we have an isometric perspective. The right side, we have a two -point
perspective. So this makes the park garage cover parts of the backyard on the left side.
So, because there's the right side, we can see more. But it doesn't make this mistake allowed because I can prove by the line of the end of the pilot house and my right mass that is smaller than the end of the neighbor at 2002.
let's let's let's talk about that pilot house I'm gonna use my cursor to show a
distance right here you see what my cursor see that distance I'm showing you
are showing the height right see that distance right here I'm talking about
the land all right and look at the distance right here your distance of the
pilot house to my client structure is actually taller and you're rendering
Because the picture at the right side, it's the Google Earth. So this mass and this volume of the roof is not accruated. You can understand that they created this by pictures from satellites.
You interrupted my question. You did not answer my question. I'm going to try to rephrase it.
I object. Mr. DeMarco interrupted the answer.
Ms. Stanky, I'm going to ask it again.
I'm going to ask it again.
All right.
All right.
You see the distance that I'm showing?
You see the distance that I'm showing right here?
And you see it compared to this distance here?
Your distance is greater, right?
It's almost the same.
You're saying that the distance from the top of your pilot house to my client's property
and the distance from the pilot house to my client's property in the other image is the same?
It's almost the same.
Right. Yours is taller, right?
Because the picture from the Google Earth is not the same.
But you can see that the line on 2002 is not straight.
So could someone speak to the distance?
Maybe this is my...
I'm going to ask that question. I know what it is.
The distance from that...
No, up top.
up top up here up the back of the pilot house the back of the pilot house yeah to
the railing or whatever coming to the back right there yes what's that the
same distance it's almost well you keep saying almost I mean is it I cannot say
that it is because I don't have the measurements ah on this pictures I don't
have the measurements, but I have my
project in front of me.
Miss Stanky, do you have the architect?
Did you even look at the architectural plans
in this case? Of course.
You said you just, you didn't have the plan.
You said you didn't have the measurements.
That's not what he said.
That's not what the witness said.
The witness said... The pictures that you are showing me, I don't
have measurements. I cannot say.
One at a time.
Excuse me. I'm almost done.
Do you know the distance right here? Can you see my
course? Do you know what this distance is?
what's yes I know what is it on the project yeah 34 feet well it's actually
31 feet isn't it this distance here is 31 feet right no your neighbor has 64
deep on the backyard and our project or the project that we are talking about
2000 spring garden has 30. So 64 less 30 is 34 feet. That is the measure. Do you know,
Ms. Stanky, do you know how far back this development goes deeper than my client's
property? Yes, 34. It's on the plans. All right. So you're saying this is not 34 feet?
doesn't look like 34 feet for me no 34 feet is is three stories
wouldn't you agree where the plans show that distance
you're saying that this distance does not appear accurate and that's that's a distance of 34 feet
What I said before is that this mass on the left side shows that it was
stretched to show bigger.
That wasn't my question.
It is what it is.
Is it 34 feet?
Is it 30 feet?
It doesn't matter if someone altered it.
Just give us the dimension.
The footage from where Mr. DeMarco's cursor was just now, what is the distance?
I don't know.
Forget what you said.
I think you said 34 feet, no?
It is on the plans.
On the project, it's 34 feet.
All right.
So you're certainly going to stipulate, and I'll wrap this up, Mr. Chairman.
You certainly would stipulate that this development extends 34 feet deeper than my client's property, doesn't it?
Mr. Chairman, the building, the proposed building, is 34 feet deeper.
Yes, at the ground level.
It's not 34 feet deeper than the neighboring property.
The neighboring property extends all the way back to the property line.
I think we understand that.
It's just that the project, proposed project, the wall of that proposed project extends 34 feet further out than 2002.
The structure I'm talking about, right?
And if that project were built by right, if it were possible to do so, it could fill that space to 34 feet to 38 feet.
Yeah, but nowhere near with the same impact, Mr. Chairman. If the height, if the height, if it as of right project is built, the height is somewhere in here and would have nowhere near the impact on my client's property.
and would have nowhere near the impact on my client's property.
I have no further question.
I have no further question.
Mr. Boland, do you have any questions?
Briefly, yes.
Ryan Boland.
Ms. Stankey, I'm a little confused.
I just want to make sure that I understand your testimony.
Are you saying that Ms. Woodcock's rendering is misleading,
or are you saying it's inaccurate?
Inaccurate.
and what was your methodology to figure this out because you couldn't seem to tell us what her
measurements were so i'm not sure really how you reached it just comparing to the both images that
we have on the screen now we can see exactly the the top circle the small one that the line
that finished the pilot house the back wall of the pilot house is far and going to the rear
and the yellow one on the right side is before the end of the neighbor and also i know that i did
the right image and when i did this i took the 3d that was made for this project and i export it
to google earth i cannot manage these measurements or this mass doing that i just take the project
and then search it in the Google Earth so I could I could see that that line
doesn't match this is the way that I'm saying that looks like that the left
side was stretched. Were you basically saying that you're eyeballing it?
Mr. Chairman?
Sorry?
Mr. Chairman?
Can you hear me, Mr. Chairman?
I'm not.
Mr. Chairman.
Tom, Tom, you're being too much static.
Can you hear me?
Now you can.
i assume can you hear me better now yes okay mr chairman in in my opinion it might be
right is
Tom, we got a hard time hearing you.
If Mr. Holloman would like to call me, I can put him on speakerphone.
That would be better.
Mr. Hellman is now on.
go ahead mr chairman
yes in my opinion
you lost your time you said in my opinion and we lost you
i'm sorry sharon it's okay
sorry i was um muted go ahead hear me now
Can you hear me now, Frank?
Okay, in my opinion,
the rendering on the right
is more accurate than the rendering
on the left.
And I'm a licensed architect
in Pennsylvania.
The shape of the rendering on the right
from the Google,
the one on the left is not.
Well, from what you're saying, I agree.
I agree. Thank you.
This is a question I asked earlier this morning.
It appears that the one on the left is stretched out further than the one on the right.
is stretched out further than the one on the right,
Just looking at the parking area.
just looking at the parking area
and the example on the right.
But the one thing we established is 34 feet.
Mr. Chairman, I had one more question, if I may.
Please.
Ms. Stankey, this is Ryan Boland again.
Looking at your rendering on the right,
which is the one with the yellow,
you obviously agree with me that
that 2000 spring garden will block the light and air of 2002 spring garden?
Depends on the time of the day,
because we know that the sunlight turns toward the south, not north.
So when the sun rises on the east, it starts to turn by the south
and finish the sun at the end of the day at west.
so the part the the shadow is more because the the parking garage in the back
than this this project at 2000 spring garden after 10 a .m more or less end of the season of
the year we will have a nice sunlight on the backyards what about the issue of air
i think is the same are you telling me your flow depends on the time of the year
yes of course what about the time of the day the air for the time of the day yeah
i i'm not an ambientalist i i cannot talk about flux of air it just seems obvious to me if there's
building directly next to you it's going to be blocking some airflow regardless of the time of
the day or the season. We still have 30 feet for airflow. On the first and sealer and other floors
we have more than 30 so I don't think the air in maybe 20 feet height will block airflow to the backyard.
I have nothing further.
Mr. Miller, I've been informed that you still have about 13 more witnesses?
On my list, but not that I intend to call.
Do you have any more witnesses that you do intend to call?
How many?
At this point, three or four.
And are these witnesses going to give us anything new and different?
Yes. My client, Rami Shrine, is the owner, and he will be my next witness.
All right, because we're going to have to continue this.
All right, let's go.
Mr. Chairman, may I make a quick suggestion?
That this be continued for a second hearing, that we will consult with the board to come up with a second hearing date, a date for a special hearing.
that the new date will be announced at the start of the hearing scheduled for August 12th at 9 30
and it will also be listed on the online calendar for the zoning board prior to that hearing if the
attorneys could sorry Tom is calling me if prior to that hearing the attorneys could resubmit a
witness list with just a brief summary of what the witnesses will be addressing.
Also, so that you know, we will be asking an attorney from the law department to appear at
the next hearing because there has been a suggestion that L &I erred in the refusal that
was appealed. And fourth, a question, do the attorneys agree that the L &I review board's
ruling on the historical commission decision is independent of this, or would you prefer that the
second hearing be scheduled after the L &I Review Board reaches and votes? May I speak to that?
Yes. I'm sorry. Be nice to her, Mr. Miller. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely.
Absolutely. The L &I appeal has little, if any, chance of success given the standard
of review. The L &I Board of Appeal, and I had the same case at 1930 Pine Street, they
don't have. It's not an opportunity, a second bite at the apple. The scope of
It's not an opportunity, a second bite at the apple.
The scope of review is very, very limited
and very unlikely to have any impact
on the historical commission approval.
I don't disagree on that,
but the question is really whether to tie matters up
and have that in before this board reaches a decision,
especially since it sounds as though
all that's required is for Mr. DeMarco
to submit a brief
And then for the L &I review board to vote on the record, if we can do that quickly enough.
Yeah, and I would urge this, I would urge the zoning board not to delay progress based on the delay before the L &I board of review.
Yeah, that's fine. I don't think they're related at all.
Great, we agree.
Yeah, we do.
Mr. Bolan?
i have nothing to add thank you did i hear that sharon wanted sharon that wanted to
relist this case for the 12th or special no no it will be listed for a special but we need to
confer with the other with all the board members to see when they're available the new date will
be announced on the 12th at 9 30 it will also be listed on the calendar the online calendar
should we confer with Ms. Suleta offline about availability so that does that make sense
yes that would be helpful okay yeah because the board needs to make sure that the three of us
that are on today or four of us at least three of us will be at the next scheduled hearing
and i and i in fairness to the board i i don't want to get a date that that somebody can't
uh attend yeah well we're on our end we'll work on that to make sure we have at least three of
the four who are on the listening in today will be available mr chairman just a clarification
uh that this case is going to be continued now because yes okay because i didn't i didn't want
to have a witness go and then my cross -examination be tabled to the next well i'm let me let me
rephrase that i would prefer it uh is there any are there any witnesses on your side mr miller who
are going to be necessary to have a testimony today that may not be available in the future
Not that I'm aware of. Everybody's had their wings clipped with COVID.
Yeah, we're well aware of that.
And we can talk offline and discuss everyone's availability.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right. So it'll be next, or the 12th, we'll notify everyone as to what the next scheduled hearing date will be for this case.
any questions comments uh just just just as a point of order and i hate to burden
everybody but should we should we have a call uh among council and miss zuletta to to compare
i think that's what i think that's what she was suggesting yes okay i mean does everybody want
to do that now that's all i'm saying um would you maybe i could we could wait i could get a few
available dates for the board first and then um send those to you and we're going to discuss
when or any or all those work for you as well okay that's perfect for us okay thank you okay
okay thank you everyone and uh everyone stay safe you too buddy everyone good luck thanks frank
i'll see you guys thank you everyone
Thank you.