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