just showing the progression of the lots themselves and how they've changed over the years.
So if we flip back to Exhibit 6, I have provided detailed site photographs outlining all the
properties before you today, which is inclusive of 148 through 158 North 2nd Street. There are
a series of existing buildings on the site, which were previously owned by the Swift family
and used to facilitate their food service business.
From the first photograph here, I will point the board's attention to the height profile
of the surrounding buildings on North 2nd Street as you're looking up towards the bridge.
And then looking from the next photograph, you can see looking southwest on North 2nd
Street towards Arch, where again, you can get a sense here of some of the context in
that direction as well.
flipping to the next photograph this looks from quarry street up towards second street
where you can see the historic cobblestone street that leads into the property as you can
probably gather from this photograph the block itself is mostly back of house parking access
for some of the other surrounding residences and commercial uses
and then another view here from the front on north 2nd street again to give you a sense of
all of the different lots and their current uses i have plenty of additional photographs that i can
go through if if necessary uh but just in terms of the aesthetic design uh i just want to point
this out here you can really see here and derek can speak to this as he talks through the plans
just some of the nearby site context that was considered in terms of both massing context
as well as the actual design itself. I do also have some photographs of the interior of some
of the existing buildings, but again, there's really nothing remarkable in terms of today's
request that's shown in these photographs. So again, we can return to these to the extent that
there's any questions. And then we did also at Exhibit 20 include photographs of the zoning
posters that were timely posted on the property. So again, just in terms of the existing conditions
of the site, at Exhibit 8, you can see that there are six existing lots, where the gray indicates
the existing structures on the lots, and then the two white currently vacant lots.
The lot line relocation plan, which is on the next page here, shows that all of these lots will be consolidated and re-subdivided from six lots to create three new lots, with the primary purpose here being creating both a physical and legal separation to ensure the long-term preservation of the historical structures that will remain on the sites.
so parcel a that's right at the corner of second inquiry will be 1003.3 square feet
parcel b which is one in from the corner will be 748 square feet and then parcel c is the
large parcel that's being created and that will be 9152 square feet i will note to the board that
many of the refusals that we have today stem from the lot line conditions, which, as I think you'll
see, are not being arbitrarily drawn, but do stem directly from the historic considerations
that Derek can talk about. So before I have Derek take over and explain to you what's actually
proposed i want to just for context uh point out the demolition diagram that we have
at exhibit eight it's a little subset of exhibit eight you can see here on the left hand side of
the screen so you can see here the pink indicates the areas of demolition where the hatch lines here
all indicate the existing structure that is proposed to remain so as you can see the historical
Commission did approve a partial demolition of the rear portions of the buildings on parcels A
on parcels a and b as well as a nearly complete demolition of the building at parcel c with the
and B, as well as a nearly complete demolition.
exception of that front facade and you can really kind of see that small hatch line in the front
there and that will be preserved so i'd like to bring up derek at this point so if you wouldn't
mind swearing him in could you move up to the microphone sir sure sure could you please state
to spell your name for the stenographer. Yes, Derek Spencer, D-E-R-E-K-S-P-E-N-C-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Counsel.
Thank you. Derek, I have up on the screen Exhibit 9, which is our zoning site plan. So
if you can just start with Parcel A and work the board through the site plans here,
describe the project, and please highlight to the board any of the considerations
that were driven throughout the historical commission process.
Sure. So Parcel A, that incorporates 148 North 2nd Street. So we're maintaining the original
historic piece of the building and demolishing some of the later additions that have been done.
We're also proposing a third floor reconstruction of the third floor and the gable roof that was
previously existing and had been torn down at some point in time. But we've worked
very closely with the Historic Commission to do all the details, sizing, proportions of that
addition to match the historic nature of the building. Parcel B, not too much is being done
to that existing structure other than the demolishing of the rear structures. That's
mostly staying in place, just some repair and reconsideration of some of the repointing and
other materials that might need to be fixed up. As Meredith mentioned, parcel C, that incorporates
the bulk of the project here. So that's a proposed seven-story structure holding 43 units.
This has been worked through extensively with the Historic Commission to provide a number of
setbacks at floors as we kind of go up through the building. You can see that the seventh floor
is significantly set back from the front to really minimize the impact of that massing on the street.
Here in this diagram, we still do have pilot houses and elevator overruns going up to the
roof deck but those have subsequently been removed throughout the process we now just have two
exterior stairs going up to the roof deck and just the elevator overrun pops up but not an actual
elevator stop itself so we can see that in the revised zoning section as well
yeah and and just in terms of what derek is referencing here you can see that in the revised
plans that we submitted to the board and then what about in terms of uh parking so for parking we're
bringing the parking in through quarry street as you mentioned there's a lot of other curb cuts and
garages along the street um the parking is not required but you know was recommended as some
you know a nice to have feature uh for some of the the residences in the building so we do have
that kind of tucked around the side on quarry street plenty of turning radius to get in and
out of the garage and is it generally accurate that uh some of the refusals here stem from
the fact that you are creating this separation and therefore losing some of the space that you
would have otherwise had maybe through parcel B and A? Correct. Okay. And then in terms of
considerations pertaining to windows in adjoining properties, was there anything that
the client directed you to consider in terms of separation from adjoining properties?
Yes. So you can see that our properties are pulled away between seven and 10 feet in different
locations from the buildings to our west and north. The building to our west actually had that
front on Ray Street has a few windows that are along the property line. We didn't want to, you
know, those windows technically can't be there. I'm not sure when they appeared there or how,
but we wanted to respect what was there and pull our building away from those so those windows
could remain. Thank you. All right. If you can just, again, generally walk the board through
the floor plans and you can tell me when to switch. So parcel A and B will have commercial
spaces on the ground floor that already exist. They will have residences above. Parcel C will
have a new proposed commercial space at the ground floor. The main residential entrance for the 43
unit seven-story building, that will be through the facade of 152 North 2nd Street. So that's
what Meredith mentioned is the facade that we're saving and integrating that into the building,
which you'll see in the renderings you can see that we have trash and mail both accessed off
quarry street so that the trash there's a trash room at every floor with a chute that'll go down
to a compactor in the room and then there'll be private trash pickup we also do have some storage
that's just off of the garage for over we have a bike room you know behind the commercial space
there but overflow for other tenants storage or bikes could also be in that storage room off the
garage and then just in terms of sort of a general layout in terms
and then just in terms of sort of a general layout in terms of the uh second through seventh floor
unit breakdown yeah so we have a mostly two bedroom units throughout the building
they were designed to be condos but we're not really sure if they're going to be condos or
rentals but wanted to design them in a way that they could be either one we didn't want to end
up with a bunch of micro units that couldn't be sold as condos down the road so we have
pretty nice spacious units and then yeah the only difference is really between the floors
as they go up are incorporating those setbacks and notches in the building which we'll be able
to see a little bit more clearly in the renderings and then just for the board's purposes we do also
have typical unit plans just to give you a sense of a more zoomed in look at what these units would
look like we can certainly return to these if there's any particular questions
uh let me scroll through these real quick uh also for the board's information we do have
some uh very detailed information about how the existing buildings will be renovated to maintain
their historical integrity uh that's at exhibit 11 again where i'm happy to have derek walk you
through any of that if you need any of that information uh but if you want to just uh walk
them through Exhibit 12 and just sort of talk a little bit about the actual aesthetics and massing
design here. Sure. So you can see at Parcel A, that's where I was talking about the third floor
reconstruction of that gable roof and third floor with the dormer above. Parcel B, pretty much the
exact same as it exists today. Parcel C, the entrance to that at 152 North 2nd Street. So you
can see that facade has been maintained. Right now it's crumbling. It's actually pulling away
from the building so we are stable we're tearing down the majority of the building
but the new structure behind it that will kind of tie that facade in and stabilize that structure
then you can see we have a kind of two main materials that we're working with for the
parcel c which is the red brick facade and then kind of a light cream panel just to kind of as
the building steps away kind of lighten up that massing so we have our red brick coming up and
matching the cornice line of the building to our right and then stepping that brick down towards
parcel B to kind of create that cascading effect. We have kind of an arched entryway for the new
commercial space in the brick area to kind of highlight that as well. You can see the seventh
floor, as I mentioned, set back pretty far. I believe it's about 10 feet from the property
line that it's set back. So it really doesn't have much of an impact on the street.
And in terms of the facade itself of parcel C, the height directly at the front property line
is proposed to align directly with the building immediately next door to the right. Is that
accurate? That's at that 65-foot by right height limit, and it's the setback portion that exceeds
that. So there's certain views that you won't even see the seventh floor. Is that generally
accurate as well? Yeah, this is a view looking south on Second Street where you just can't see
the seventh floor at all. And then what about from Quarry Street? From Quarry Street, the further
back you stand obviously the more you can see it but this is a view right from the corner where
it's just very barely visible you can just see the glass guardrail that's up at the top and
again we've worked with the historic commission on the materiality of that guardrail to be glass
and then this is just another view from quarry street as well so when you were designing the
building and i have up at exhibit 13 uh that that you prepared did you compare the proposed height
to what the building might look like on the site in a truly buy right fashion versus what is
actually proposed to the board today? Absolutely. Yeah. The bottom diagram there,
well, both diagrams take into account the surrounding buildings. The bottom diagram
is when we had the buy right design. We had four pilot houses on that building,
three staircases and one elevator going up to the top plus the overrun. So you could see it did
take up quite a bit of mass where that's proposed seventh floor is so that red line on the bottom
diagram represents our proposed building height and then at the top this is kind of where we have
that full seventh floor as you can see how it compares to a by right massing so let me just
briefly walk you through the refusals and then obviously we can return to provide you argument
on any particular point here so as the board knows the project did receive a refusal for height
Now, as you might also know from other projects that have come in front of you, CMX 3 does not typically provide a height limitation.
In this case, the height limitation is imposed by the old city residential overlay, which limits that height to the 65 feet.
In this case, as you saw, this is just over 10 feet taller.
Now, simply put, as we hope the board has seen, the property suffers a significant...
Now, simply put, as we hope the board has seen, the property suffers a significant hardship in that this project is seeking to preserve the longstanding historical structures, and as a result, does lose significant buildable area across the entire site itself.
You've also seen evidence that the buy-right conditions are nearly identical to that which is proposed due to Noam and Derrick's thoughtful design and step-back massing design to ensure that the height here is focused towards the interior of the property instead of around the edges where you could see it.
As Derek also mentioned, there have also been very important considerations in ensuring that some of the adjoining properties with windows are able to preserve their windows.
And in fact, the property at 212 Ray Street actually received a variance in 1999 to permit it to have windows along the side of the building.
And that variance would require them to close up the windows if anything was built too proximate to those windows.
So, you know, certainly there could have been a situation with the wrong developer where they just built right to the property line and unfortunately those windows would have had to go.
As you also saw, the height here is entirely within character of many new buildings in this area that were either granted by variance or existed pre-overlay.
And we did include a height comparison map at Exhibit 14, just so you can get a sense here of the significant scale of buildings that are directly in this area and even specifically fronting on Second Street.
So you can see here, 76 feet, 73, 77, 185.
So this is well within character.
Second, Parcel B received quite a strange refusal that I'll touch on for just a moment.
As you heard from Derek, Parcel B will have a ground floor commercial use and one dwelling
unit above.
However, this was refused as CMX 3 does not allow for single family household living.
In this case, this is not intended as single-family household living as CMX3 is intended to prohibit,
nor is it actually how the code would define single-family, which is the use of a lot as a residence for one family.
In this case, it is a mixed-use building with one apartment, which is entirely consistent with the long-term historical use of the building.
And then in terms of the last two refusals that I can address together, you can see that
Parcel C received a refusal for exceeding maximum floor area ratio.
You can see 500% is allowed, 527.1% is proposed.
And then exceeding occupied area, you can see here 75% is allowed because Parcel C is no
longer considered a corner.
and it says here 87.2 percent is proposed and that's where l and i made the error the plans
actually show 87.7 percent so as with the height this is largely driven by the lot adjustment
itself so just to give you an example the occupied area on parcel a will be 79.2 percent
And only 59.4% will be on Parcel B.
And I can bring up the zoning table just so you can actually look at this.
Oof, that went too far.
The FAR on Parcel A will be 237.4%, so well below the allowable, and then 118.9% on Parcel B.
unfortunately once the subdivision occurs there's no way to transfer unused development rights from
one parcel to another one even if being constructed as a part of the same process project effectively
the preservation of these historical structures has shifted a small amount of the occupied area
and gross floor area to parcel C where the main amount of development is occurring from a calculation
perspective, this only amounts to 2,288 square feet of gross floor area that is in excess of
the allowable, which in light of the total building area of 48,086 square feet, we would
submit is a de minimis deviation from the code requirements. As you likely saw from many of the
early earlier aerials as well as the photographs many of the existing buildings in this area also
cover 100 of their lots so in this case just over 87 will not be out of character
So in this case, just over 87% will not be out of character with the existing conditions of many, many historical buildings in this area.
All of the requested relief is the least minimum and is carefully tailored to achieve historic preservation goals while ensuring that the proposal will blend into the neighborhood.
Just by way of history, this lot has been the subject of multiple failed development attempts,
dating all the way back to 2018, and my client is quite excited at the prospect of finally
reinvigorating this corner while preserving its historical charm. As always, we did submit a
thorough analysis of the proposal's compliance with Section 1430380 of the Code in the Memo of
Law at Exhibit 15. So at this point, Virgis, if you could come up here, I need you to adopt my
testimony. Sir, could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer? Yeah, my name is
Reginius Anusalskas. It's a V-I-R-G-I-M-I-G-U-S. Anusalskas, A-N-U-S-A-U-S-K-A-S. Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Counsel? Virgis, did you hear all
of the testimony and evidence that I offered in front of the board today? Yes. Do you agree that
that testimony is true and accurate and would you adopt it as if you had given it to the board