The, the height of the building is 45 feet that has not changed. Okay.
Questions from our attorney.
No questions at this time questions or comments from the virtual audience.
There are no good morning. Good take. Please take a seat.
could you please state and spell your name for this is that one yeah please state and spell
your name for the stenographer good morning my name is elizabeth o'caro and my name is spelled
e-l-i-z-a-b-e-t-h do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do so we have a rather large uh uh caseload today okay um so you'll have two minutes to really
state where you stand at this okay sure and can i just ask before my time begins there are community
members here that i'm also with that would like to have the chance to speak so if i keep it short
maybe they can sure have enough time as well great so thank you all so much for being here
Great. So thank you all so much for being here today and for listening to our concerns.
today and for listening to our concerns
I am opposed to this. I uploaded this morning a petition of neighborhood concern regarding
the proposed development at 2313 through 2317 North 11th Street. Did you all receive that?
We received it this morning, correct?
Thank you. So it's a really long thing. I don't know if you're interested in looking
at it or if you'll have a chance to. I'm not going to read through everything since I'm
limited on time but there are 22 signatures in here that are opposed to this project okay um
and the very few points that i just would like to make is um i'm here representing the non-profit
organization that's directly across the street like duro farm 2316 through 50 north 11th street
um it's been in existence since 2010 and we've developed family-like relationships with our
neighbors so i'm here today in support of their opposition to this and would also just like to
say that although there's been a revision to the original plan there has been no opposition to what
they've already been permitted to build our neighbors would like to see a bookstore or a
coffee shop made in that bottom area where there's no access to anything like that and these are
elderly generational homeowners that we have living on this block and i think now more than
ever it's important to protect that legacy in north philadelphia that's going under
unprecedented redevelopment and that's all i have to say today thank you very much next person
good morning why don't you get to move the chair up a little bit sure thank you could you please
state and spell your name morning everyone my name is cj white lawrence that's capital c capital j
and last name w-h-i-t-e hyphen l-a-w-r-e-n-c-e swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth and you heard our two-minute rule so please proceed yes we are opposed um and
And as she has stated before, we do have elderly people there, as well as we have younger people, generational on this block.
We are a one way, one sided parking community, and we already have issues with parking.
You would cause people to have to who can't walk, go several blocks to park and then to walk home.
a 15 or 20 unit whatever the unit you're stating is too much okay okay and so we're opposed to thank
you for coming down we appreciate it do you know do you have any questions that i all right next
person is there anyone in the virtual audience yes chair i have a person with the last name love
they will be promoted good morning oops hi could you please state and spell your name
My name is Theresa, T-H-E-R-E-S-A, last name Jordan, J-O-R-D-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I've been to one of the meetings that Mr. Dennis had regarding his feelings and our feelings toward the trash and the cars.
And so there was no resolution at that meeting.
We heard what he had to say, and then he heard what we had to say.
There was still no resolution at that time.
He's met with some of my family members on the block, and there still hasn't been any type of resolution.
And it's mainly because of how many units this building is, as well as no parking and the trash issue.
So nothing has been resolved as far as that part.
Thank you very much for coming, Dander.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in here or in the virtual audience?
I have a hand up go ahead okay person with the last name love
they have been promoted okay
good morning
to may love can you please unmute
hello i'm sorry good morning sorry good morning could you please state and spell your name for
this uh tina love l-o-v-e i am a neighbor on the dakota street and i was in the last hold on
one minute. I'm sorry. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told you nothing but the truth?
I do. Please, Pasheed. Yes, a neighbor on Dakota Street, and I am opposed to the proposal. Nothing
has changed. The fact is we still have lack of parking, and let's not forget on the opposite
and let's not forget on the opposite end of the block is another apartment building um it's just
end of the block is another apartment building.
no sense of community anymore they're building these tall buildings you can't come out and see
the sunlight anymore and it's just not community based anymore and my primary concern also is the
parking if you have two apartment buildings one on each end of the block is nowhere to park thank you
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no hands.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning from the existing CMX2 commercial mixed use to RSI5 residential single family.
The proposed lack of active ground floor use is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood and would not be required in the recommended zoning.
The request for an additional units above what would be allowed with the use of MIHB
is an overuse of the property. The Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant
the requested variance for no active use on the ground floor, but deny the requested variance for
17 dwelling units. All right, thank you very much. So the case is closed. There'll be no more
testimony we will vote on this next wednesday at 9 30 a.m what's the date august 26 august 26
we'll vote next week and i want to thank everybody for coming in and thank you for your presentation
thank you um number four
wait no no this was not before i got it give me a minute number two
MI 2025-205-993-6100 Wissahickon Avenue. Meredith Ferliger is the attorney.
Counsel, could you just state your name? You've all been sworn.
Meredith Ferliger.
all right and this is a resumptive hearing right are you part of the presentation uh of the uh
lupa hill civic board now so i can come to speak yeah one of you wait we'll call you we'll call
you you're gonna have plenty of time to come up we'll give you a call okay um
okay all right um council this is a resumptive hearing if you would would you um
give us a uh an update yep hold on a minute i'll bring you up to speed notes on this case
and then there'll be questions from the board um there'll be public testimony as we've talked
before and also the planning commission so why don't you start sure give us an update as to how
we how we arrived at this point for for sure uh so just by way of a very brief recap during the
first hearing, the board heard some introductory testimony about the property's unique size,
shape, and orientation. And again, the property is at 6100 Wissahickon Avenue. The main issue here,
as the board heard during the first hearing, is the steep slope that surrounds the entire
frontage of this property. So this particular refusal is only pertaining to that steep slope.
So just as a reminder, at Exhibit 16, as the board saw during the first hearing, you can see the dark gray areas, which indicate that steep slope that's over 25%, showing that this particular property is not only unusually shaped, but would be completely foreclosed of any form of by-right development because of the location of that slope.
so during the first hearing you heard uh predominantly testimony from our architect
carl emberger who described the project overall uh and just to give your rendering and refresh
your memory we did also present to you the project as it was originally designed and then we also
expressed the changes that were made in response to the community's concerns which they did also
So allude to in their letter that most of the changes were made responsive to their concerns,
not all.
We did also describe the standards that this board should be applying in consideration
of the steep slope variance.
Just to refresh your memory, because they are extremely relevant to the next witness
that I had, first we have to show that the development will not result in an increase
in stormwater runoff or the shifting of earth to adjacent buildings or an increase in loss to
or an increase in loss to property.
property. And then second, we're required
And then second, we're required to submit an earth moving plan.
So as we last left off during the last hearing,
I was about to bring up our civil team to verify compliance with the steep slope standards.
And then I have just a brief argument to conclude.
So at this point, I would like to, I have two witnesses.
Sure. The first one I believe is on Zoom, Alex Bruno.
Okay, they have been promoted.
Good morning, Mr. Bruno.
Hello. Hi. Good morning.
Could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer?
Yes. Alex Bruno, A-L-E-X-B-R-U-N-O.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Alex, if you could just introduce who you are and what your involvement was with this particular project.
Yes. My name is Alex Bruno. I'm a professional engineer and the president of Leak Engineering.
For this project, we conducted the geotechnical investigation.
And just generally speaking, what is a geotechnical investigation seeking to determine?
The geotechnical investigation will take samples at varying depths to determine the composition of the soil at those depths, as well as the varying capacity of the soil at those depths.
So if we turn to Exhibit 19, is this the geotechnical report that you prepared and submitted?
So that is not the geotechnical report, but that is a geotechnical officer.
Okay, yes, that's the geotechnical report.
Sorry, it was on the second page.
So this is just a summary letter on that first page.
Is that accurate?
Yes, that was a letter.
So on the first page of your conclusion, it generally states that the site appears to be previously disturbed and influenced by prior grading or earthwork activities rather than solely the result of undisturbed natural topography.
What does that mean?
So when we did a little bit of an investigation,
historical investigation of the site,
it appeared that the road adjacent to the site
had been widened decades ago.
And also when you look at the boring logs
for the geotechnical report,
you can see the first two to four feet
is sand and fill material.
so I included at exhibit 25 just a sample of some of the streets department legal cards
showing that Wissahickon Avenue in particular was widened several times between 1793 to much later
going from 45 feet to eventually its current condition of 60 feet so with the later opening
of walnut lane is it conceivable that the slope of the site resulted from those activities
it is conceivable that they would have taken the cut from the road and backfilled it onto
the site yes so at the time that you prepared your geotechnical report in february you did
also make some preliminary conclusions relative to the stormwater runoff from the site can you
summarize those findings? Yes, and it's important. We're not the civil engineer, but any runoff from
the site would be designed to be captured either by the stormwater system that would be designed
for the building. And just to confirm, at the time that you were making those general conclusions,
that was prior to the stormwater management plan being prepared that uh colliers is here to discuss
is that accurate that is correct and then based on your findings and in your professional opinion
do you believe a developer could build on top of this slope without disturbing it
yeah um sorry when you say build on top of the slope
Leave the slope exactly as it is and just sit a building on top.
There would have to be some excavation required for the building.
Depending on how the foundation lays, there would have to be some disturbance to the slope, yes.
uh some disturbance to the slope yes and did your investigation reveal any conditions of the site
that in your professional opinion would impair this developer's ability to safely construct
a building on the site no that's all i have for mr bruno okay next client uh and then next i'd
like to bring up Gabrielle from Colliers, if you would come up. Good morning. Good morning. Could
you get closer to the mic for me? Could you please state and spell your name? Sure. Gabrielle
Buckner, G-A-B-R-I-E-L-L-E. My name's B-U-C-H-T-E-R. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the
whole truth, nothing but the truth? Counsel? Thank you. Gabrielle, if you could just share
what firm you work with, your professional background, and your involvement in the project.
Yep. I'm a civil engineer with Collier's Engineering and Design, and I'm a professional engineer in Pennsylvania.
And you were the civil engineer that prepared many of the relevant plans that we're going to talk through today. Is that accurate?
Correct.
Okay. So let's start first with the steep slope plan that I have up on the screen here at Exhibit 16.
So this plan shows a limit of disturbance that generally infers the entire site is to be disturbed, but is that disturbance calculation relative to the slopes or relative to the site itself?
The limit of disturbance is relative to the entire site.
So based on the design, in your professional opinion, is the project designed to avoid as much disturbance to the slopes as possible?
Correct. Our design intent would be to limit the disturbance to only what's necessary for the proposed construction and development.
So it's not disturbing 100% of the slopes?
Correct.
correct okay uh in accordance with the code in order to disturb these slopes we're also required
to establish that an earth moving plan was prepared was that prepared in this case here yeah
uh all right let me bring that up go
all right and is that uh general plan and documentation that was submitted to the water
department shown up on the screen here at exhibit 18 uh yeah there's a plan showing yep that's the
plan right there and what does this plan establish in terms of compliance with the sections of the
code that talk about uh the developer having to avoid stormwater runoff and things of that nature
when disturbing the slopes yeah so because we have more than 5 000 square feet of disturbance on this
site we trigger pwd's irsa ens plan so this plan generally just shows what's going to happen during
construction and the controls that will be in place such as a rock construction entrance
soil stockpiling inlet protection things of that nature
did any particular city agency have any involvement in reviewing this particular plan yes pwd reviewed
and approve this plan and is that conceptual approval uh shown at exhibit 17 yes and at
following and following a conceptual approval the water department would also do a technical
uh review of this prior to a building permit is that correct um actually we're less than 15 000