you know it's it it doesn't make any sense to me that would be a tremendous waste of uh everybody's
resources it's moot it's done that's what i was getting it is resolved if i can just state one
one thing just to piggyback on the mootness at the time the application was filed there was
a legal address of 414-16 south 20th street this is from the opa's um property records
the owners listed with the city of philadelphia were the kims su wan kim and young he kim
the land area referenced in the city's records was 2278 square feet which includes the entire
parcel including this 2006 waverly that mr demarco is complaining about so from the city's
standpoint the legal owner of the entire parcel were the kims and that is who my client was under
equitable ownership with so not only is it move it's just it's inaccurate to say that any falsehood
or lie was perpetrated upon the city the city goes based on the tax records we go based on the tax
records and clearing up a minor title discrepancy which has been cleared up is not a justification
to invalidate the permit I'll let Mr. DeMarco continue asking Ms. Templeton questions you may
thank you um all right so miss templeton uh let's talk about this this garage elevator which uh
i note that on your report on page six of your report where you have written section eight by
the way do you have that report in front of you i'm pulling it up oh okay i thank you mike
so miss templeton number eight at the end of your report section eight uh which is on page six
you see oh thank you mike you see where it says do you see that on your screen uh miss templeton
i do all right you say the proposed garage will have an elevator
to provide access between the parking garage and the street level
you see that yes all right that's inaccurate right
my understanding was there would be an elevator all right but you know that the plans don't show
an elevator they show a ramp right i believe you're mistaken uh to what that says it's an
elevator for pedestrians for pedestrians yes street level not not for vehicle not for vehicles
Okay, but you know that the plans actually do show.
Okay. But you know that the plans actually do show a garage elevator on the elevation drawing.
You're aware of that?
I thought there was an indication on the plan that the applicant corrected.
all right so you do agree though that there was a discrepancy on the zoning plan itself between
whether there was a garage elevator or where there was a ramp right because the elevation showed the
elevator but the plan showed the ramp would you agree with that i don't recall exactly but i do
know there was a discrepancy that i i believe the applicant acknowledged and
either intended to correct or did correct sorry i think that's fair the applicant acknowledged
that that was a that was an inconsistency agreed yes all right so let's let me ask you something
if the elevation was right and that there is a garage elevator proposed you couldn't that would
be a structure that would not count as open space do you agree with that yes okay fair enough thank
you uh did you do you recall the testimony of the architect at the earlier hearings that
a garage elevator was considered for this project do you recall that i believe so all right fair
enough did you also see on the zoning application itself that it proposes a garage elevator did you
see that on the application mr phillips went through it when he gave his opening oh god they
pull it up okay thank you very much um can i just uh interrupt for a second mr demarco could you
just clarify um the phrase you're using excuse me who's speaking i'm sorry this is this is leonard
reuter um could you just clarify what you mean by garage elevator are you referring to an elevator
that lifts automobiles or an elevator for uh humans that just happens to be in the garage
just so um it's really more for the board to understand what you're talking about
Yes, I'm speaking about a garage elevator for cars. That is shown on the elevation on the zoning drawing.
Objection is not shown. The word elevator is on the zoning plan. However, the zoning plan clearly references a shared driveway.
The zoning application says access by a shared driveway, and the zoning permit says shared driveway.
There is no car elevator proposed, no mechanical lift proposed.
And again, this is another red herring because it's something that was not proposed and is not part of the permit.
Mr. Chairman, that statement is directly contradicted by the language that where his courser is right now.
Yeah, mechanical elevator.
There's a mechanical elevator in the building.
That's not a car elevator.
That's an elevator that in the reason that's lifted is because any elevator overrun is part of the structure.
So, therefore, I reference it on the application.
I'm going to object.
I'm trying to cross-examine this witness, and I'm getting testimony from Mr. Phillips.
I know it's embarrassing that there's been all sorts of mistakes on their application,
but I'm allowed to conduct a reasonable cross-examination without being interrupted with testimony.
We agree that you guys shouldn't be interrupting each other, but I think we did need clarity.
Mr. Reuter asked the question if it was an elevator for vehicles or was an elevator for
pedestrians and I think that's that's a fair question to ask. So let's proceed as quickly as
we can please. I'll try to do that. Ms. Templeton getting back to the zoning application in front of
you you see where it says accessed by a by shared driveway and mechanical elevator right? Yes.
and and the phrase preceding that is talking about parking spaces and bicycle spaces right
yes all right do you think it's clear that what mr phillips is saying that mechanical elevator
refers to a pedestrian elevator do you think that's clear from that application
it is not clear okay and that would certainly dovetail with the confusion on the plane itself
where the garage elevator is shown on the elevation, but the ramp is shown on the drawing.
Don't you agree?
Where is the elevator on the drawing?
Thank you.
You see where it says to the right, it says garage door for car elevator to basement on the elevation.
Garage door for car elevator to basement.
and there's a structure shown there right yes I see all right so so it's certainly I think it's
Yes, I see that.
All right. So it's certainly, I think it's fair to say, isn't it, that there is confusion within the application language and the elevation drawing as to whether a garage elevator was intended or a ramp. Do you agree with that?
Yes, I guess so.
All right. Fair enough. Thank you.
And would you agree as a land planner that a garage elevator is a structure which would not be counted as open space, right?
All right. And so if, in fact, the elevation was correct, the garage elevator structure could not be counted as open space. Agreed?
Thank you.
All right. Do you also agree that garage, excuse me, parking spaces that are accessory to any use
must be accessible to street level, right? That's in the code itself, is it not?
Yes, that makes sense.
Okay. And it's, for the record, Mr. Chairman, that's section 14-801.3, which requires that
any accessory parking be accessible to the street all right um you also state in your report miss
templeton that and that's on page two of your report i don't know that you need to change this
mike but i'll i'll ask the question you agree that the regulations in the zoning code at 14-800
for parking and loading those regulations are applicable you say it in the third paragraph you
say the development is also subject to the regulations of section 14-800 for parking and
loading you agree with that statement right yes okay have you seen the um
the garage
layout drawings provided
and Ms. Sunkit, if you can
provide me
share screen ability
I think you already did
but I think Mike, I guess you have to click out
Do you want me to pull it up on mine?
I know where you got your material plants
Yes, sir
I could do it too
but I'm happy to have you
I appreciate that very much
Thank you very much
indulge you but let me ask make sure that uh nancy has uh miss templeton has seen it have you seen
the uh the plant david plant's response uh and drawings before today no you have not okay
well let's do this um i'd like to refer you to it and ask you the question if if if you can answer
so you can answer. If not, I understand. Mike, I'm going to ask her about the ramp drawing.
If you could pan down, I appreciate you helping with this. Right there.
Ms. Templeton, do you see there's a 24-foot width? I'm sorry, I'll up a little bit, Mike. I'm sorry.
right there do you see there's a 24 foot width in the middle there there's a measurement of 24
feet across i can't really read it very well mike is good enough to zoom in i appreciate it mike
okay 24 in uh 24 feet right that's not an accident right that's a driveway aisle width do you agree
do i agree that driveways are 24 feet no let me rephrase okay so i'll make it clear
do you agree that the code requires driveway aisles within parking garages to be 24 feet
i don't recall the exact language but
um okay that's what it is that's what it is all right uh but you know that you agree that
there are requirements for driveway aisle width and yes all right and do you see how the driveway
ramp depicted in this photo intrudes on the 24 foot wide width there
you see the edge of the driveway ramp right excuse me the the car ramp going down you see
that there right you point to it are you are you saying here yes sir yep
do you see that miss templeton yes all right do you see how the ramp comes into and past and within
the 24 feet wide dimension i guess so all right it's a zone violation isn't it
It's a zoning violation, isn't it?
it has to have to have clearance i don't think i don't know
It has to have clearance.
I don't think, I don't know.
I don't know if I agree with that.
All right.
Well, this is cool.
I'll reserve this questioning for Mr. Planck, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Templeton.
So you have made the opinion, and Mike, thank you for putting that drawing up.
You've made the opinion that because the accessory parking is for the commercial parking,
that it's not the curb cut is not prohibited because it's accessory to the commercial use
correct that's one of the the access is yes right well it doesn't have to follow the rsa-5
right but then but that's because that is because you you have stated very clearly in your report
that because the parking is accessory to the commercial it is permitted right yes all right
so but do you recall that the project table on the zoning drawing
states that the parking is accessory to the residential units
i believe that issue coming having been presented and i think it was
again um a clarification of an error that needed to be corrected i believe so all right i recall
all right fair enough so so in other words that was a mistake on the plan as well correct
i believe that's what it was all right so the and to be clear the the and i think i should
mike if you want me to do i'm happy to do i don't want to keep making your work but um i would like
the board to put on the screen i'd like to put the plan up which i can thank you and we can look at
the zoning table this is where the discrepancy resides the zoning table is at the top we went
yeah we went over this before already i know but she's testifying yeah um all right you have
any sense rich how much longer it's going to be uh well i can be done with cross of miss templeton
relatively uh we got a leash and we have an entire 330 i mean if this is going to be for
every witness i mean i think we're well beyond the scope but i mean i thought most of this we
may have heard but we went we went over this ad nauseum at the last hearing finish up with
Ms. Templeton, and then we'll make a decision. Thank you.
Right. She made the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, so I have to ask her about it.
I'll try to be as brief as I can.
So, Ms. Templeton, you see the four proposed parking units on the table,
our accessory to the residential use there?
Can you point to it again?
Of course, it's right here, Ms. Templeton.
It's four for residential right there.
Yeah. All right. So wouldn't you agree that it is certainly unclear from the plan as to whether the accessory parking was accessory to the commercial or the residential in the best light to the developer? Would you agree?
again i was
i was understood that this to be an error that was going to be corrected fine so isn't it true
then that the zoning examiner could have asked for a clarification here or at least an amendment
to the plan to make it clear that the parking was accessory to the commercial don't you agree
i guess you'd have to ask the examiner well i'm asking you as a zoning expert
you're here as a zoning expert well yes they could ask for clarification all right thank you
and certainly the examiner could have asked for some sort of floor plan to show that the parking
was only accessible to the commercial unit she could have asked for that correct
I guess you could ask for anything.
Right. Doesn't L&I have written authority in the code to request whatever clarification it needs?
Do you agree? Okay.
And you mentioned in your report that as far as the curb cut on Waverly Street,
um you're aware that the code provision that that we have cited uh which is 14-803
1c.1 which is is to prohibit front-loaded garages on residential row home blocks
you you know that's part of the current code right yes okay so
you know that's part of the current code right yes okay so the the section that i just mentioned
the intent of that section is to prohibit front-loaded garages on residential row home
blocks correct i don't know if that's clearly stated but i understand what you're saying
all right and waverly is a single family row home block is it not yes okay fair enough i'm objecting
to the fact because we received a permit for this for the residential use when we went for
the variance. So clearly this is not a refusal issue. This is what we're going through here
again. Mr. Chairman, this is why I reserved my objection to Mr. Phillips' intro. That's not
really relevant and that's not necessarily correct. There could have been an error on that
too. But anyway, I'll move on. I'll move on. Are you also familiar, Ms. Templeton, with
the provision of the code that says that on a corner property both street frontages are
considered frontages for the purposes of measurement and setbacks? Yes. And to be
clear, so I'll put that on the record, that's 14-701-1D, which states that both Waverly and
20th street are can or should be considered frontages uh are you aware of that yes but i
believe the planning commission can designate a primary frontage street i agree i agree with you
is there any evidence on this plan whatsoever that the planning commission did that
i did not see any okay and you would you would state that if you knew that right
that's something you would certainly be interested in right
could you restate that um of course uh if the planning commission had designated