It's in their testimony, it's in their letter.
So, but we accept that.
We think the use of it is good,
and we acknowledge that it is complicated
to retain that substructure.
But at the same time, I think if you know Mr. Leitner's from when we first met.
Mr. Leightoners, from when we first met, which is 20 months ago now,
we were presented at the very end of the meeting with just two members of MNC on site
with an 82-foot-high building with 200 units and 99 parking spaces.
Since then, the only thing that's changed is the number of parking spaces
increased to almost one-to-one parking by going up to the second floor on part of the site,
which is what we recommended at the first meeting. But beyond that, nothing has changed about the
project other than manipulation of the facade. Our concern has always been not with building
the building, not with its use. We understand all the constraints of the flooding and of the
rock outcrop it's the mass of the building on Main Street and I assume our
concerns which were conveyed were taken into account when you came up with a
proviso height of 60 feet and we still believe that is the major concern what
we would challenge the design team to do is to go back and reconfigure parts of
the building which architecturally I think could be reconfigured to get the
the majority of the accommodation that they're proposing
within that 60-foot height mass.
And we think it can be done, and there is a viable scheme.
Incrementally, there's not one simple thing
which has been suggested here,
is you have to just take off the top floor.
That isn't the issue.
For instance, there's been great suggestion
in the document submission about nine-foot ceilings
being an absolute necessity.
You asked Ms. Gasson about next door.
We double-checked.
The height of the building next door is 38 feet.
It has floor-to-floor heights of 9 feet 6.
It has floor-to-ceiling heights of 8 feet 6.
The developer is a smart developer.
He does buildings in the immediate area.
He's experienced.
He's building it now.
It's on-site during construction.
He's building a four-story building in 38 feet, and he is not doing it out of charity.
He has tested the market, and he believes it can be marketed.
This building is seven stories, as proposed, the full height is 82 feet.
It's double the height of the building, and only the first 15 feet can really be attributed to the flooding problem.
That's all, that 15 feet.
If you just said that 15 feet was a giveaway
and then you built the building above that,
it's still almost double the height of the building next to it.
Now, whatever research is done that Mr. Angelides did,
all around us in Maniunk and Roxburgh,
there are buildings that are built,
multifamily units that work,
and most of the developers are pursuing by-right projects,
So they're working within either a 38-foot height, which is what the 11 shows line did, or a maximum of 44-foot height.
And they're making buildings in the last three years, and we've submitted it in our testimony for Ridge Avenue.
They're on seven buildings that have been built that are no higher than 38 feet or 44 feet.
And one of the buildings, which is in less than half a mile on Venice Island, which is the isle, which was built now 10 years ago, is one over four.
It's four stories of multifamily over one story of parking because it's on Venice Island and it floods in just the same way.
And that's viable and it's fully occupied.
It's been fully occupied for 10 years.
So what we cannot understand is this disconnect from the reality that we're surrounded with on Ridge Avenue and parts of Maniunk where smaller buildings are being constructed and being occupied, completely occupied, and they repeat doing it.
So obviously the finances work, and yet we have here a proposal which is totally unable
to accommodate criticisms, suggestions, and a proviso from the zoning board to work within it.
It almost to us seems to be just an arrogant posture that this is what we think we need to do.
this is the calculation and we won't change anything and we just think that is something
something that the councilman should have addressed.
that the councilman should have addressed if he thinks this building is so important
If he thinks this building is so important,
he should have gathered a group together
to try and come up with understandings and suggestions
of what worked, not just make almost an implicit threat.
That if this building is not allowed to be 82 feet high,
then it will fail, it won't work,
and we'll be left with a non-viable scheme.
I'd also like to point out in the councilman's sort of letter
because I was just hearing it, I'm trying to think of it,
that he talked about other developers
who've been interested in the project
and had not come up with a viable sort of solution.
That is not our experience and what has happened.
We've talked to four different developers
who were interested in this site,
moved forward with plans for it and then they failed but really what was the main problem was
the problems of the site obviously but also the um the valuation of the sale of the site which
was high and it was too high the only way that it seems to us that objection mr chairman can we
speak to the issue before the board on reconsideration so John yeah concentrate
on all right worry about sales and things okay so what we believe is there
is a solution that is viable based on what we're seeing all around us in terms
of multifamily developments, and we've sited them,
and we've given you photographs of them,
and most of them have been built within the last three years.
And they are significantly lower in height.
Now, we're in a difficult position here
because we don't have the information,
I don't expect to be produced,
to be able to assess the validity of what Mr. Angelides
and JL in their testimony and Mr. Lever said about financial viability.
So we can't challenge that.
We don't know.
But what we can point out is all these other schemes that have been built.
But most effectively is we have a scheme immediately next door,
which is four stories of multifamily units over parking,
and it's being built.
And the one next door to it, the height above the flood problem is almost double the height.
And we don't believe that that is the solution, the only solution, and that the height can be less.
And it seems that your discussions in giving a 60-foot height overall confirms that.
And there's nothing so far that we've heard that expands on testimony that was given at that time that led to your decision.
There's nothing here.
It's just repetition.
It's saying the same thing over again.
And there's no absolute clarity of why they can't work within the limit.
All right.
Hold on.
Questions?
I'd like to address you.
But I'm saying you have questions for that.
I don't know that.
question will be necessary but i'd like to address a few discrete points raised in to try to be uh
respectful to mr hunter and just get to get to the points for the board um we have on the record
mr chairman that there are unique physical limitations to this site so for mr hunter to
uh point to 11 shores lane which is a very distinguishable site from the subject property
that has essentially a naturally built-in podium that raises it up
and does not have the like challenges of floodplain,
of the historical fabric, and the rock outcropping.
It's simply an apples-to-oranges comparison.
But we were not given the courtesy of the apparent letter
that was submitted to the board by MNC.
However, I heard the testimony and quickly was scrambling to be able to respond to these
examples that have been given to the board.
And I'd like to share with you.
Adam, let me ask you this.
Is your response to Mr. Hunter going to be lengthy?
I need two minutes, please.
I would like to respond to two specific examples that were given here.
with screen sharing going to city of philadelphia department of licenses and inspections records
With screen sharing, going to City of Philadelphia Department of Life.
so mnc has provided an example of 6174 ridge avenue as an example quote of four over two
construction lni records show that we have four stories of wood frame construction
over a steel or concrete platform, as it said.
But what we see here is the second floor at 6174 Ridge Avenue
is nine feet, eight inches in height,
which denotes a wood frame floor.
This is, again, not an apples-to-apples comparison.
The second example that I'd like to share with you,
which is a misstatement of official records,
concerns 6910 Ridge Avenue.
Mr. Hunter has suggested that this is three over two.
However, L&I records clearly show, and these are not my records, this is pulled right off
of Atlas, that this is a four-story building.
So we are not comparing apples to apples here.
And that's Dr. Angelaitis presented information to the board, which is accurate in terms of what the argument that we are making.
Interestingly enough, and this is the last point, 6515 Ridge Avenue is cited by MNC.
This is an example of five over two, and it is consistent with what we're bringing to the board.
So there simply are not examples of two-story podium structures,
two-story podium structures with less than five stories above.
All right, thank you.
John, thank you very much for your testimony.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the pastor immediately across the street,
Pastor Walter Shaw, may be trying to raise his hand.
Do we see Mr. Shaw, Reverend Shaw?
Yes, he'll be rejoining shortly, Mr. Chairman.
How many hands do we have up?
one more i think got two more ways all right thank you mr o'brien may be here as well
who's known to the board bill o'brien testified the first time right you want him to testify
again about that on the specific issue okay sure mr reverend shaw
hey good afternoon hi good afternoon reverend could you please state your name and spell for
with a stenographer yes my name is walter shaw w-a-l-t-e-r last name s-h-a-w you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes um please start your testimony
all right uh like i said my name is walter shaw one of the pastors of city light church which is
right across the building or right across the street from where this project is taking place
it's right behind this window you can see on my screen behind me here as a representative of
City Light Church I can say I have no concerns about the height the additional height which is
the issue at hand in fact we're excited to see this project get developed bringing some more
vitality to lower Main Street you know we do quite a few events at night and there's not as much
activity down here we're excited to see this area of main street get some more activity at night we
do grief share and uh some of our elderly folks coming out 8 39 o'clock it's dark and uh there's
not a ton of activity where further up on main street there is so we're excited we have no
concerns about this uh height increase and we're excited to welcome this uh project to be our
neighbors. Reverend, thank you for taking the time to calls. We appreciate it. Next hand, please.
Have a hand for Mr. William O'Brien. I will promote them.
Mr. O'Brien.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Pardon me?
Mr. O'Brien, we're not hearing you.
Can you hear me now?
Oh, yeah, we can.
Mr. O'Brien, could you state your name and spell for the stenographer?
And if you would, try to raise or get closer to the mic.
William O'Brien, W-I-L-L-I-A-M, O-B-R-I-E-N.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do. And as you know, Mr. O'Brien, this is a court, this hearing is about the height. So could you please give us your feelings?
i do and as you know mr o'brien this is a court this hearing is about the height
so could you please
Mr. Laver already introduced bridge five. It showed the image of the structure and its location's proximity to this site. The street address and OPA address for that structure is 3750 Main Street.
I was involved 20 years ago, a little over 20 years ago, representing the Manioc Neighborhood
Council, the WSIC and Interested Citizens Association, WSIC and Neighbor Civic Association