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