PCDC, who originally had a one to five opposition, where non-opposition was one and opposition was
five. Based on the changes and the situational changes, the votes did change. However, they still
came out one in opposition over non-opposition. One of the key changes that makes a difference
in the evaluation here is that the first floor of this building is currently under contract
with a lease agreement for a restaurant use. Under the FAR exclusions calculation, if there's
an eating or drinking establishment on the first floor or if there's a proviso saying
these are the only uses that are permitted, it would not be calculated into the FAR calculation.
So in essence, by having a restaurant in the first floor, our FAR actually dropped from 590
to 524%, making the excess floor area being a total of approximately 750 square feet,
rather than the approximately 3,000 when we presented last time.
Because of the substantial reduction in the FAR, we asked the RCO to reconsider their position.
Some members did reconsider.
However, ultimately, they're still not fully in support,
mainly because they feel that it would impact possibly future development
where things were done that were not too cold initially.
There was also an issue last time where the community claimed that we were operating without permits. That was cleared up at the second meeting. We had permits for demolition. So the work that was being done during the period the case was pending, those were following specific permits that limited to that work that was being done.
So it was not a situation where work was being done illegally while the case was pending.
In addition, my client, this is, I'm showing the board the original votes here on the screen.
This is the original vote of five to one.
Later on, the vote was four to three for the second meeting.
In addition, my client went and obtained a petition of the area because, again, he feels that the neighboring people in the community
generally would not be in opposition of this 750 square foot FAR or this
building in general. So we obtained a pretty extensive petition showing that
Petition showing that generally the people that are in that particular area, whether the business owners or residents are not strongly
generally the people that are
Objecting to this FAR change or this building in general. Now with the FAR rules. I just want to show the board that
The actual rule is in the code
and that particular
i'm sorry i'm kind of scrolling fast here so the the gross area calculation has specific exclusions
and one of the key exclusions that we're discussing here is that in this cmx4 district
retail sales eating and establish drinking establishments financial services which
incidentally, the owner himself is in the financial services business, except he was
planning to be located on the second floor. These would allow up to a 25% total growth area floor
being excluded. What this ends up doing is making our request now almost de minimis in the total
request to be over the square foot area because we're talking about a difference of 16,406 square
feet to 15,656 square feet that is permitted so we're talking about 750 square foot actual change
at this point. Now I know the board architect Mr. Holloman recommended at the last meeting that
maybe we can take off the entire top floor because at the time we were talking about approximately
3,000 square foot over the FAR that is permitted. At this point we're talking about 750 square feet
taking out an entire floor would not really be a I wouldn't say it's not a
viable solution but it's a very difficult solution I also spoke with the
engineer mr. Alex wrong who should be here with us and I would like him to
kind of address the difficulties in removing further removing floors or the
meganeum floors in this particular project if miss sunk it I don't know if
Mr. Rung is showing us attending at the moment.
Could you spell the name for me, Z?
Alex, A-L-E-X, Rung, R-O-N-G.
It would be A-R, engineering.
I'm not sure if he's attending based on that.
No, if he could raise his hand.
Mr. Rung, if you're with us, please raise your hand.
okay i'm not sure if he's able to make it on i spoke with him this morning and it was my
impression that he would be able to make it here uh well i cannot um i cannot make the
representation on his behalf but i can certainly uh supplement a letter if the board would like
to have a letter explained.
Oh, he is here.
Okay, great.
Yes, I'm here.
Yes, Mr. Rong, can you give the board a little bit of...
Let's swear him in, please, his full name.
Sir, give us your full name and address, please.
Alex Rong, A-L-E-X, first name, last name,
R-O-N-G address
Presidential Boulevard
616 Bala Kingwood
PA19004
Is we're in a firm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Rong,
can you explain to the board a little bit
of your background and your expertise
in engineering?
I am a professional engineer specializing in structure. I have 25 years business experience.
I have a PhD and master's degree specializing in structure. I have taught as an adjunct faculty
at Drexel University, Temple University, and also Philadelphia University.
Thank you. I would move to have the board admit Mr. Rong's testimony as
expert testimony at this time. Thank you. So Mr. Rong, with regard to further
removal of structural support of that 750 square foot I testified to earlier,
what is the engineering difficulties that this building would face if that
removal were to be required if you remove the existing roof and load
If you remove the existing roof and lower that to the next lower floor, the next lower floor
becomes the roof, the difficulty will be first we have to reframing for the pilot house location.
Secondly, the existing roof deck is designed for heavier life load, say 60 PSF. However,
the existing floor is only designed for residential 40 PSF so we need to
strengthen all the floor joists and also reframing at the pilot house staircase
area. So it would not be as simple as simply removing 750 square foot of
flooring somewhere in the building to accomplish the goal of hitting the 500
FAR? That would be a major task structurally you need to strengthen
and sister each choice it's not easy thank you let me follow up on that question i hear what
you're saying that there's a challenge in terms of uh removing the the roof uh the the roof of
the building and bringing it down one level to the fourth floor i believe you said it can be done
is that correct correct but it's just a question of cost right uh time yes all right time is money
but it can be done. Yes sir. I have a question for the engineer. Why
was the existing roof designed for 60 PSF? Whenever you have a pilot house we
consider that as the deck and that is required to design for 60 PSF life flow.
Isn't live load for roof less than 60 PSF?
Regular roof if there's no deck that's 30 PSF.
And the uh the penthouse is that heavy?
Whenever you have a pilot house you have area we will consider as a deck. That deck area
shall be designed for heavier load. If you don't have pilot house, don't have
access to the roof, then that roof is considered as a regular roof that can be
designed as 30 PSF. But my understanding, the owner or this building, the roof will
have a pilot house for access.
I'm sorry. Thank you.
maintenance purposes or it's I didn't I didn't see a
if you look at elevation of the building zoning yeah yes I will go to
that. I believe it's, bear with me while I pull up the elevation. You can see
there's a pilot house just at the elevation, yeah. Yes, but at the same time
it looks like the roof is supposed to be unoccupied so there's no deck proposed
for the roof, correct?
so i'm going to pre-slide what is the what is the status of that roof we're talking about
is it in place all of it the roof is in place yes has it been uh i mean is it just a raw material
or was the roofing material put down um i think my client um might be best to answer that he's
more familiar with the current status or his-
Well, according to your client, not to be sarcastic,
the last time we talked to him,
he said he wasn't in the building for over a year.
So I don't know if he's gonna be an expert witness
on this or not.
I understand.
Mr. Ron, have you been to the roof of this structure?
I was there a few weeks or a few months ago.
The roofing material was at being installed.
So you were still going ahead
with putting material on the roof?
That's what it sounds like.
Hey, Frank, I have a question, if I may.
Yeah, sure.
Mr. Rang, a quick question.
Have you been the engineer since the inception of this project?
I was the engineer at the beginning, however, there's an interim about two, a year or two.
I was not involved.
okay so were you or were you not aware that the this building was uh an extra two floors were put
onto this building when it shouldn't have been were you aware of that i was not involved at that
Were you aware of that?
I was not involved at that period.
Period.
I was involved at the very beginning, I think, at the first approved plan.
And somehow the contractor has an issue with the building, and now then I shut it down.
At that period, I was not involved.
And I was hired by the owner about six months ago.
So a man of your expertise, you mentioned you've been in the business, I thought you said roughly
25 years. Have you ever seen in the city of Philadelphia downtown, an extra two floors be
installed in a building and an owner not be aware of it? Have you ever seen something like that?
Not many. Okay, thank you.
So what I do want to point out again, with regard to the final FAR, which is the sole refusal at
this point we're talking about a 750 square foot structural difference you
know with the regard to about 16,000 square foot total floor area ratio at
this point which is well I don't want to call it de minimis but it's certainly a
small portion of the overall building I think that the variance itself or FAR
is meant in this case generally to keep the building out of a particular floor
area ratio so that it does not become a super structure whereas normally 500 percent is permitted
I think here we're talking about 524 percent not a 600 percent or even 590 percent as it was before
so I would ask the board's consideration that certainly my client acknowledges that this
building was built without following the original plans and it is currently again under
supervision with LNI to correct and meet everything that the code would otherwise require.
Now we're here particularly for this variance for the FAR just for that difference which
ultimately the 750 square feet is essentially a portion of one floor at this point. So I would
ask the board's consideration in that and not force my client to completely tear down a portion
of the structure just to meet the uh 750 square foot additional space you know you make a good
argument about the uh the far but it still doesn't address the issue which brought this to everybody's
attention in the first place the extra two floors i mean that's well we can play with these numbers
interior wise all day long and get to where you need to get to but the building was built beyond
what the permit allowed for. Way beyond. Yes, it was. However, I do want to point out though,
this is a CMX four district where height is not an issue. So the extra, if the floor ratio was
there, the extra height would not be ultimately. Then what's to stop the next person from doing
the same thing? Well, I got, you know, CMX, I can build as high as I want. I'll get a permit to go
three stories, but you know what, I'll make it six. And as long as I acknowledge it, everything's
okay yeah all right i understand the board's concern here but again we we're we're not asking
for the board to set a precedent here but at the same time the specific case we're talking about
you know a 750 square foot difference ultimately is what would we be setting if we approve this
we you said we would not be setting a precedent well it there are far variances in other proposals
those as well. There are large buildings being built on North Broad and other places. So
FAR variants in and of itself is not something that is unusual in CMX4 districts.
All right. Any other questions from the board?
What is unusual is an owner of a building doesn't know that it was built two stories too high.
that's kind of unusual. Yes. I'm sure he was paying the contractors to put the extra two
floors on. They weren't doing it pro bono. I'm back to the engineer issue of 60 PSF.
Is that for the 96 square feet of a pilot house but not the entire roof?
So whenever, usually, whenever there's a pilot house, the intention is the roof can be used for promenade purposes.
And according to IBC, whenever this is for promenade use of the roof, we consider as a deck that should be designed for 60 PSF.
That's in general structure engineer take on the design life flow.
the design life loan. However, if there is no access to the roof, there's no
However, if there is no access to the roof,
pilot house, the for sure the roof should be designed for lower life loan,
that's 30 PSF. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions from the board? No.
Anyone else wish to testify in this matter? If so, please raise your hand. I
I would think my client is here with me I would like I'm sorry I'm sorry
um Tana is Mr. Jung z-h-e-n-g
he gonna testify to anything different than he did last time or did we not have
his testimony um we did have his testimony last time I
don't think it'll be anything different I just want him to affirm my