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?