There were meetings on September 1st, 2021, September 22nd, 2021, October 6th, 2021, March 2nd of this year, and March 23rd of this year.
And not surprisingly, between these meetings, there was discussion as well with members of the zoning committee of the community, et cetera.
Additionally, this development proposal was subject, due to its size, to public civic design review hearing, and that was completed on March 1st, and representatives of the coordinating RCO and the council member's office attended.
This was a very engaged process, and during the course of the process, the development plans were refined.
On the screen before you, you can see a letter from Ms. Sunkit authorizing us to amend the application, which we have done, and that amendment was in line with the discussion with stakeholders in the community.
And as noted in the letter, which was attached to Ms. Sunkit's approval, we noted that we were looking to create a significant setback from the south edge of the property to adjust the overall height downward, to reduce the FAR, and to eliminate bays and balconies at the lower levels, again, in response to community concerns.
concerns this led to a community benefits agreement that was reached with the coordinating rco which
supports the project and we were taken aback unfortunately just yesterday to learn of council
member quinones sanchez's concerns regarding the development proposal however i'd like to
state for the record that there's no deadline on open communications and continued dialogue
We are committed to meeting with the council member outside of this forum, and I will be in touch with Mr. Fulks after the hearing today to move that process forward.
Turning to the subject of the proposal before you, and you see on the screen some historic photographs of the property.
These date to March and April of 2019.
I'm bringing up historic photographs because I'd like to point out this large structure that I'm trying to indicate with the...
to point out this large structure that I'm trying to indicate with the hand cursor
is the site of a former factory that existed on this parcel and I'll show you some
other photographs here and here is a good one. This does not exist anymore as I'll show you in a
moment, but this is what had existed for a long time. The property was previously home to what
was known as the Peter Wall, W-O-L-L and Sons Manufacturing Company Complex. In April of 2019,
however, this industrial building that had existed at the site for a good 100 years or so
was demolished by other parties once again we are the equitable owner we don't own the property
and here on the screen before you are the photos taken after the site was cleared previously and
you can see just the gaping hole in the community that uh that uh occurred once this happened
i should also note that numerous prior attempts to redevelop the site have failed by other parties
leading to today. Photographs on the screen right now show current photographs, giving you a sense
of the surrounding residential nature of the community. The neighborhood's industrial past
has largely shifted, residential living has expanded, and the subject property,
the vacant land where the arrows are pointing has clearly been significantly underutilized.
Turning to these aerial photographs with the subject property with the red dots around it,
red lines around it, this shows you the vacant approximately 32,000 square foot parcel.
It fronts on Burks, where the hand icon is, running along Masher and Hancock on the left of the screen, if you will, with the rear of the property backing up to parcels that front on Wilts Street over here.
Here are some additional photographs of this site.
I'm bringing up some conceptual renderings now of what we are proposing.
Urban Conversions has proposed a new residential and commercial building designed by the highly
respected Philadelphia architectural firm Cecil Baker and Partners.
And this proposal includes 152 residential dwelling units, ground floor retail commercial,
which you can see here along the Burke Street facade, 42 off-street automobile parking spaces
accessed solely along Mashor Street, 77 indoor bicycle parking spaces, and one off-street loading
space also located along Mashor Street. There are four curb cuts currently at the property.
we are reducing that, as I mentioned, with just the curb cuts along Masher Street.
And you're seeing on the screen renderings of the site from various angles,
which I'll bring up again as we go into some additional specifics later on.
Here is the residential entry along Burke Street, just so you can see that.
The proposed reuse of this former industrial site where prior projects have failed is clearly
a tremendous opportunity.
Before we address the notice of refusal, I'd like to pull up this zoning map showing the
underlying zoning with the arrow pointing to the large site that you're now familiar
The zoning map, Mr. Chairman, shows our property as ICMX, but it also shows around it the predominance of IRMX, RM1 in the orange, dottings of CMX2, and other residential zoning districts in the nearby vicinity.
And you'll note that the parcel really is not in line zoning-wise with the surrounding districts.
The development proposal before you has been designed to meet the IRMX zoning district
standards, which we would submit are more appropriate in light of the
which we would submit are more appropriate in light of the growth and the development of the
community. And I'd further note for the record that, in fact, in 2021, the City of Philadelphia
changed the zoning of similar parcels on the north side of Burke Street, for example, to IRMX.
Here is the refusal, however, in front of you. It's a two-page refusal. I'd like to note that
this was amended to again to take into consideration the adjustments that were made based on dialogue
with the community. There are three refusals. I'm going to go into detail, forgive me, on each of
them because this is the heart obviously of the board's review. I've highlighted just for the
board's ease and convenience each of the refusals. Number one, residential living is strictly
prohibited in this ICMX industrial district. That means residential of any type. The only,
the closest to residential would be a caretaker's residence, which really was historically
associated with industrial, to have somebody on site, God forbid, to make sure there wasn't an
explosion or something like that so i'd like to speak regarding this residential prohibition
the property itself is located directly across the street i'm going to scroll down for a moment
to go back to the zoning map uh directly across the street from this green area which is an
sppo parks and open space special purpose district let me show you a photograph of it
It's a recreation center, a city recreation center, which is appropriate for the surrounding residential and shows the residential oriented nature of the location, rather than having heavy in and out traffic usage from an industrial site, the types of smells and other health risks associated with the industrial, which once was appropriate in the community.
Also, I'm pulling up a transit map to show you that we are within yards of the L, SEPTA's
elevated line, as well as several SEPTA bus lines that you can see on this map, and this
transitional site calls for mixed-use development.
The transitioning nature of Burke Street and its proximity to other residential development
would render industrial use on the site unfeasible.
Turning back, if I may, to the refusal,
number two is that the ICMX Industrial District
anticipates industrial loading and unloading,
calling for a very intense, heavy, sick spaces for loading.
During the eight months of discussion with the community,
I don't recall a single comment raised in support of continued industrial at the site.
The proposed plans appropriately show one off-street loading space.
Again, that was off of Masher Street, you may recall.
And that would adequately support the planned residential and commercial uses that are proposed.
The third and final refusal, as you'll see here highlighted, is maximum height, 60 feet.
and this is a really nuanced issue. Applicants' amended application proposes a height of 68 and
a half feet to the top of the sixth story of the seven-story building. The seventh story itself
is heavily set back uh that seven partial seven story goes to 79 feet nine and three quarter
inches uh bear with me for just a moment to to pull down to some exhibits that will help with
this here we are so where the hand cursor is you can see the 79 nine and three quarters
which takes us to the very top of the setback seven story and you can see that 68
in this instance it is actually three quarter inches I had said half pardon pardon that
but that takes you to the top of the sixth story right here incidentally and I'll discuss this
later across the street, you see much higher elevations for some of the existing former
former industrial properties that have been at this site for quite a while. Also here is another
industrial properties that have been at this site for
elevation that shows you the same numbers that I had mentioned again to the top of the six story
68 feet six and three quarter inches and then the partial seventh story takes you to that 79 number.
I'm pulling up on the screen some professional reports that have been presented in the material
shared with the board last week. The reports show unfavorable geotechnical and environmental
conditions that preclude below-grade development at the site, which is relevant when we're talking
about a height variance. This makes smaller scale proposals unfeasible and vertical development I
would submit appropriate. Here is Earth Engineering Incorporated Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists
report which states that shallow groundwater is present at the site. It further states lowering
the groundwater elevation can also impact adjacent buildings by potentially causing
settlement of adjacent existing building and structure foundations. These are quotes that I've
highlighted. Earth Engineering's report concludes, quote, it is EEI's opinion that for this site in
particular, based on the presence of shallow groundwater and due to the potential high costs
uncommon within the industry for similar projects and ongoing operational issues associated with
below-grade space development, below-grade parking should be avoided, and any below-grade
space minimized as much as possible, end quote. Moving to the Environmental Consultants Report,
Advantage Environmental Consultants Report states that environmental remediation is being conducted
at the site, not surprisingly, members of the board, due to the heavy industrial that had once
been there. There is semi-volatile organic compound contamination in the soils, and the
environmental consultants call for capping that contamination to prevent exposure to soil
contamination at the site and for members of the community. Quote, additional subsurface
disturbance from a remedial standpoint would not be recommended, end quote. And finally, Cecil Baker
and Partners Architects report buttresses these findings based on the site constraints.
Urban Conversions has proposed, I'm still speaking towards the height variance, of course,
Urban Conversions has proposed high ceiling, light-filled commercial spaces along Burke Street,
as shown in this rendering in line with community interests. There are also large formal former
industrial buildings on the north side of Burke Street here is one across the street for example
that are of a similar size and scale to the proposal actually in excess of the scale.
And here is a very interesting rendering in the upper left hand corner it shows a previous
iteration shared with the community, and the revised rendering, and I'll point out some of
the changes. Urban conversions has decreased the proposed height and increased the setbacks at
the seventh floor that you can see where the hand icon is. This was done in response to community
feedback. The massing of the proposed new construction structure includes sizable setbacks
to respect the pedestrian-level experience, particularly along Wilt Street, W-I-T Street,
which is the lower right-hand corner, I'd like to share a sight line with you from Wilt Street.
So from Wilt Street, a pedestrian standing right outside his or her home or walking by
would not even be able to see or appreciate that setback partial 7th story.
And their line of sight where I'm trying to put the hand icon falls even below the top of the 6th story.
So much closer actually to the code 60 foot height limitation.
Going back here to the massing, you can see a 90-foot, 1-inch setback from the Wilt Street property lines to the interior courtyard, and a 51-foot, 3-inch setback.
to the interior courtyard and a 51 foot three inches setback up at the seventh partial seven
story level between those properties which is a huge change and just imagine on the site the
former factory building which was right along the property line actually not set back at all
so the permissible uses light industrial along with limited commercial are quite
limited at the location, as demonstrated by the vacant eyesore that currently exists in
the midst of a lively transit-oriented neighborhood. And continued industrial use at the location
is not practicable. The glance at the zoning map, the aerial photographs show solid residential
with some mixed commercial and a sampling of both old and newer construction. Common sense would
dictate that the proposed multifamily residential is most consistent with the surrounding character
of the community. And the steadfast adherence to what is now an obsolete zoning classification
for this location, being the ICMX zoning designation, is not in the best interest of
of the city plan or the community.
Cecil Baker and Partners on behalf of Urban Conversions
has proposed, albeit at great expense,
a first-class re-imagining of this block,
which should be exciting in any neighborhood in the city,
deserving of Rittenhouse Square, Chestnut Hill,
and South Kensington as well.
I mentioned that the Civic Design Review Committee reviewed this project, and I'm just pulling up their letter for the record.
They described the design as, quote, lovely, end quote, commended the materials, facade articulation, and demonstration sizes and patterns.
Unlike many other projects, CDR praised the proposed, quote, use of tree trenches and planters to create vegetation on both sides of the walking zone, end quote.
That means not only along the gutter, if you will, where the cars are, but also adjacent to the property.
So when you're walking along the sidewalk, you have greenery on both sides, quote, leading to a wonderful sidewalk environment, end quote.
The project's parking lot was also commended for the insertion of trees within the parking area.
Moving to the coordinating RCO, South Kensington Community Partners, they issued a letter of support, noting the many meetings regarding the site going back several years, and noting several attributes associated with the proposed development.
Quote, active uses that serve the neighborhood on Burke Street being appropriate and appreciated, end quote.
Quote, the Burke Street L stop is just a couple blocks away, making this a prime location for transit-oriented development, end quote.
Additionally, the agreement with SKCP reflects the developer's investment in the community through a coordinating RCO program fully within the coordinating RCO to keep low and moderate income neighbors in their homes, specifically low and moderate income neighbors in their homes.
even in the midst of a pandemic and social distancing
I'm bringing up for you a petition of support from some two dozen plus neighbors who had the
opportunity to review the proposed plans and independently offered their support for the
project. On this last page, for example, several neighbors on the same block of Hancock Street where
the project is being proposed. Turning, if I may, to the floor plans, and I'm trying to get through
this quickly at this point, again, I beg your pardon. Here is the ground floor consisting of
the residential lobby entrance on Burke Street near Hancock Street. Retail along Burke Street,
it's about 7,300 square feet of retail, shown as four different spaces, but that could be changed
based on the needs and the interest. The indoor trash storage to serve both the commercial and
the residential, just adjacent to the single off-street interior loading, which is enclosed
and off of Masher Street, and you'll see the parking access off of Masher, as previously
described. Once again, eliminating four curb cuts for this much more efficient use, which
use, which has been reviewed by the streets department. Please also take notice of the heavily
has been reviewed by the Streets Department. Please also take note of the
landscaped and buffered area behind the Wilt Street properties in the courtyard of the proposed
development. This speaks to Cecil Baker and partners considering not only the interests of
those future residents of this site, but the neighboring properties and what their experience
will be. And the neighboring pedestrians walking to and from the L and to and from
the lively retail commercial along the site. In addition, I'll point this out later, in blue on
the left along Hancock Street, there are two town homes built into the project with Philadelphia
style stoops to go in and out of those homes and have the feel of the more low-scale residential,
the mix that is in the neighborhood.
Here is an elevation along Masher Street. You can hardly perceive the loading zone and the in-and-out
parking along master street the green walls the screening trying to really keep the scale
pedestrian friendly and here is that uh hancock street elevation it's a little difficult to see
but these are the two stoops to those townhomes that i had mentioned the basement itself as
previously discussed due to the site constraints is very very tight uh it's a waterproof utilities
of all. Nothing more can go there. The second and third floors have been adjusted in the upper
right-hand corner as the previous iteration and the large scale to the left is the current.
The current iteration eliminates balconies and bays to give more privacy to nearby existing
neighbors. That's the second floor. The third floor is similar. Fourth through sixth floors are
typical layouts. And here is the setback partial seventh floor revised to allow for an east wing
setback. The green area shows you had heavy setback and there are the numbers in terms of
the setbacks that I had discussed before. I'd also like to just quickly show you the proposed
plantings both inside and along the sidewalks. You can see what I had mentioned with street trees and
also greenery right up against the building on all sides. There's no back of house here.
The proposed unit mix itself is 44 studios, 76 one bedroom, one bathroom units, 32 two bedroom,
two or two and a half bathroom units. And in this instance, the authorization of variance relief
will not alter the character of the neighborhood or district or be detrimental to the public