on North 40th Street. The next view here is sort of standing in front of the property facing out.
The next view here is sort of standing in front of the property facing out towards North 40th.
Flipping back the opposite direction, this is facing Union Street.
And again, you can see the Pico substation off in the distance.
And another similar view is shown from a little bit farther south on Union Street, looking up towards the site.
looking south on union street the board will notice the abundant lack of structures that
exist in this area and then if we move west towards north 40th street this view faces the
site as if you were standing on north 40th and again this final view this final view shows that
phase one building which fronts on north 40th the phase one portion of this project is 100 percent
affordable, which I will note was built prior to the inception of the MIN and was voluntarily
rendered 100% affordable by the applicant. I have also included evidence of proper posting,
which was made on July 2nd. The current zoning plan is shown at Exhibit 9C. Given the unusual
shape of this lot, the project is designed with a unique U-like shape. To the west of the site,
the board will notice an area, let me zoom in a little bit, will notice an area marked as Sloan
Street. Sloan Street has now been stricken per act of City Council, and we have included that
ordinance as Exhibit 6. Once that striking is formalized, half of the Sloan Street area will
be to the use of this subject property. However, the applicant is still working out a few kinks
with the law department, so we're not able to officially include the area on the zoning site
plans as being a part of this property. Sloan Street aside, in the center of the U is significant
open space that has been left open for resident enjoyment. In addition to the vegetative buffer
that already exists from the railroad, this project includes additional landscaping in the rear,
which does meet the code requirements. We have also included colorized floor plans at exhibit
10. The 87 units are mostly two-bedroom, two-bathroom units, with a few one-bedroom
units included throughout. Although there's no actual bonus available for this site because of
the RSA 5 and I-2 zoning, 10% of the units will be reserved as affordable in accordance with the
standard mixed income housing bonus requirements. A designated trash room is on each floor of the
building, which can fortunately be accessed from outside on the first floor to avoid conflict with
interior operations. And you can see here on the zoning site plan that that door is roughly in this
area here that would be able to be accessed from the side of the building. We've also included
renderings of the building at Exhibit 11. As you can see, this was designed to harmonize with the
aesthetic character of the Phase 1 building. Furthermore, as I will show, this design has
been considerably modified throughout the entitlement process, largely as a result of
feedback the applicant received during the civic design review process, which has concluded.
These renderings also show an important aspect of this project, which is the inclusion of
Mantua Greenway connection along the Ogden Street frontage. The next view from 40th Street shows how
this building thoroughly transforms just this one block from North 40th to Ogden Street,
just in this triangular area here. From the street level, the buildings have been designed to have a
consistent aesthetic look as well as overall massing, with the North 40th Street building
being slightly higher than the one that's before the board today. We've included a few more views
for reference, which I will scroll through. We obviously had quite a few images for civic design
review. I will note that this current rendering that I'm showing here from the back of the building
is slightly out of date as this parking was removed in favor of an open courtyard for resident
use, and I will address that. The next view shows the abundant use of balconies, which again was at
a suggestion by the Civic Design Review Committee, and the intent to enliven the Ogden Street frontage
directly along the greenway. From the side, you can see the doors that are providing access to
the trash room, which will be accessed from the vacated Sloan Street. As I've mentioned, this
As I've mentioned, this project was considerably revised throughout this permitting process.
This project was considerably revised throughout this permitting process.
To give the board a sense of the volume of changes, I've included the original zoning plans at Exhibit 9A.
The original design was a somewhat oddly shaped building that largely followed the shape of the property.
This building would have had underground parking access from Ogden Street, which was a significantly unfavored design due to the conflict such parking would have with the future planned greenway.
The original building had 140 units and was 86 feet high.
After CDR reviewed this original design, the applicant returned for a second review with a revised design that is shown at Exhibit 9B.
The revision dropped the unit count to 87, shortened the building to 50 feet over a 30-foot reduction, and removed the underground parking.
Instead, 13 spaces were slated to be provided in the rear, accessed from Sloan Street.
Additionally, this design removed all of those rear units and created a greater separation from the residential units to the adjacent rail lines.
which are downhill and still roughly 75 feet from the rearmost property line.
Feedback received from the second design suggested that the parking in the back was unnecessary,
especially given the tangible benefit a large open courtyard would provide to building residents.
The board can see the monumental change from the original design to the current design at Exhibit 12.
And again, I'll briefly scroll through these. You can see the before version, an aerial view here at the top, and the revised version. And again, we have several of these views. Again, this was the view from 40th Street, and this is the revised design.
Again, another view from the top. And I think the street perspectives are really the most
compelling in terms of reflecting how considerably this project has been changed over the course of
a year and a half. And again, I will leave it at this last view here. At exhibit 17, I did include
a copy of the CDR completion letter. And I'll bring that up because I highlighted a few things.
I've highlighted a few illustrative points noting the applicant's significant changes,
as well as the thought-out design, which include larger units, balconies, and natural light.
The completion letter also incentivized the applicant to consider removing the rear parking
in favor of an open courtyard, with the committee noting the value in providing an outdoor amenity
space. Throughout the course of the process, Manchua Civic Association has been supportive,
and their official meeting summary sheet is included at Exhibit 19.
With respect to the refusals, I'll work down the list and address each individually.
The applicant submits to a hardship in complying with the code requirements,
and we further submit that each of the requested variances is the least minimum.
A quick technical note, because this law is split-zoned,
the code dictates that L&I must review the most restrictive provisions of each district
in determining the project's compliance with the code, and such is indicated on the refusal itself,
review done per most restrictive provisions of both of these districts.
Given that this lot is split-zoned RSA 5 and I-2, two of the most dissimilar districts in the code,
a hardship inherently results as it would be near impossible to design a use
of this property in a fashion that does not generate a refusal. For example, in terms of use,
I-2 prohibits any residential use of the property, which is considered the more restrictive
requirement. An applicant would need to identify a use that is allowed in both I-2 and RSA-5,
which a quick review of the I-2 and RSA-5 permitted use tables at Exhibit 13 shows does not exist.
That, board members, is the essence of a hardship where there is virtually no permitted use of this property.
Even if a use could be identified, the use would have to fit within the limited dimensions allowed under RSA-5,
despite the fact that this lot is considerably larger than a typical RSA-5 lot,
And that statement is true whether or not the properties are consolidated.
Since there is essentially no permitted use of this law, it becomes the least minimum variance to identify a use that is most appropriate in terms of the context of...
to identify a use that is most appropriate in terms of the context of the surrounding area.
Contextually, this area has been identified as one subject to significant blight and in need of
investment. If one refers just to the 2013 Mantua transformation plan, the board can see that this
property sits at the northern tip of the Mantua border. And let me bring up that exhibit so you
can see what I'm referring to. So again, this property sits at this northern tip of the Mantua
border, and even back in 2013 was one of the most densely packed areas in Mantua, noted for its
abandonment and distress. And again, privately owned vacant lot is the gray, publicly owned vacant
lot is the red, and you can see the density of those colors in this area compared to some
some other areas of Mantua. While things have certainly changed since 2013, especially in
Mantua, this area was also highlighted as significantly lacking in any investment
compared to other areas south and east. The West District Plan further supports the development
of residential uses along blocks with considerable vacancy, and this property certainly meets that
qualification. An industrial use of this property compliant with the I-2 district would not only be
prohibited based on the RSA-5 zoning, but would not be feasible or respectable here given the
size and shape of this lot, in addition to its limited access to a roadway network that is
necessary to support a modern industrial use, in addition to its surrounding residential uses.
A single-family use would be prohibited by the I-2 zoning, but would also be inappropriate given the adjacency of the Pico substation and the rail tracks.
It would also be entirely inconsistent with the predominantly multifamily uses of the surrounding area.
The proposed 87 units represents the most appropriate transition between the industrial
use to the east and the residential multifamily uses oriented along North 40th Street and south.
And I'll just bring the renderings back up. As I referenced earlier, the board recently granted
a variance at 879 North 40th Street, which permitted the construction of Phase 1 at 60 feet
high, and six stories. That building has 42 units, and the plans and permits are included at Exhibit 14.
In addition to that example, the Board has also granted repeated variances permitting
multi-family use of RSA 5 lots just in this immediate area, including several on Union
Street, North 40th Street, and Parrish Street. Examples of those addresses are listed on the
exhibit list. Given current development conditions, the project was able to be reduced from 140 units
to 87 units, which is the least minimum necessary to facilitate a viable project.
As the CDR committee recognized, the 87 units are well-designed and an appropriate layout for this
building. A development of this nature will continue the spark and development that will
facilitate the revitalization of Mantua to the northern end of its border. The proximity to
the proposed Mantua Greenway also supports the development of a denser multifamily use in this
location. The Mantua Transformation Plan, highlighted at Exhibit 15, envisions a bustling
area with public spaces and walking trails. It's hard to envision a better adjacency to such a
significant trail system than a dense multifamily building. The West District Plan also recognizes
the opportunity of the greenway to act as a catalyst for economic development, and this
project does just that. Regarding a refusal for height, this refusal again stems from the
unfortunate interaction between the I-2 and the RSA-5 requirements as applied to this property.
RSA 5 limits the property to 38 feet, while the I-2 would allow for 60 feet.
This project falls roughly in the middle at 50 feet and 5 stories, which is dramatically reduced from where it started at over 80 feet.
As the board saw in earlier photographs, the surrounding Pico substation and Amtrak lines to the rear, in conjunction with the vacancy in this area,
supports the construction of a higher building that will essentially mark the beginning of the
Mantua boundary. The height will also create a uniform line with the recently approved
North 40th Street project, which will remain slightly higher than this building.
which will remain slightly higher than this building. Finally, in terms of parking,
Finally, in terms of parking,
this project has seen quite a shift in parking conditions. The originally proposed underground
parking was determined not only to be economically unviable, as well as challenging given the immense
retaining walls that would be required along the Amtrak tracks, but it was also disfavored by
most who inputted into this project due to the interference with the greenway. As revised,
there were still a few remaining spaces in the rear. However, feedback suggested that providing
a few parking spaces would not be quite as beneficial as having open amenity space for
residents. As the board may know, the residential zoning classifications would not impose a parking
requirement. This is dictated solely by the I2 classification. So again, another example of the
somewhat odd interaction of the two. Given the project's location along the Greenway, as well
as its ample access to a rich public transit network, this project is uniquely situated to
accommodate a multifamily use with no parking. The Greenway will ultimately connect residents
to the Spring Garden Street Bridge, Center City, Schuylkill River Trail, West Fairmount Park,
Girard Avenue, and the Zoo. The applicant submits the proposal will not increase congestion,
endanger the public, or impair light and air. There are very few structures surrounding this
property, which is predominantly bordered by the rail rights-of-way, the PICO substation,
a vacated former street, a few remaining dilapidated structures, and the newer
multi-family construction on North 40th Street that is of similar mass. The height of the building
will serve to further shield surrounding residential uses from the remaining industrial
uses. Finally, the proposal will not burden area infrastructure or facilities, nor will it create
environmental damage or impact. A more thorough analysis of the proposal's compliance with Section
14-303-80 of the code is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at Exhibit 16.
And I'll bring up my client to adopt my testimony as well as to be available for any questions the
board has. German Yakubov, please. They have been allowed to speak. Good afternoon, everyone.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. German, Yakubov. German, G-E-R-M-A-N, and Yakubov, Y-A-K-U-B-O-V.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do, so swear and affirm.
Please proceed, counsel.
German, before I have you adopt my testimony, if you could just give the board a few sentences on the issue of affordability in terms of this project that the councilwoman raised.
Sure. So we're probably the largest affordable housing developer in Mantua and Belmont. We recently purchased 103 deed-restricted affordable units that are part of a low-income housing tax credit that are a block away on 41st Street.
um the building that's adjacent to it on 40th street has 42 units um most of which are occupied
by section 8 voucher holders some are from the va others are from other programs but the entire
building is um subject to affordability um that we've chosen to kind of accept on our own um
And we've been doing that all through Mantua for the last 17 years.
And we continue to do that with this building as well.
We offered to set aside 10% of the units for moderate affordability, and that will also be deed restricted.
And it's really the only way the project works financially.
Essentially, we've talked to a lot of lenders, and the moderate affordability restriction is really the only one that they would be able to be okay with on landing on.
So we're excited about the project.
We're excited about phase two.
Phase one was a great success.
It took a while to get there.
But phase two seems to be taking a while to get there.
We've listened to CDR over and over again.
We've valued their input, and we've incorporated, I would say, 90% of their suggestions as well as community input as well.
So we're excited about the project and we hope to get approved today.
Thank you, German.
And you heard the rest of the testimony that I offered in front of the board today?
I did.
And would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
It is and I do.
So I'm going to open it up to the board, but Meredith first.
So the two together, 129 units?
so the two together 129 units no no no it's 87 units mr chairman originally the project no no
No, no, no.
no but i'm saying the one in the front oh right how many you got in phase one 42 oh goodness
gracious you're going to ask me to do math in my head yes it's 42 yes 42 and i thought it was 87
here it's 87 here yes so 129 units you have yes i mean they're two separate properties
to separate approvals, but yes, that is correct.
Yeah, but I mean, you're putting in there 129 units.
Correct.
And there's no parking.
That is correct.
And to be clear, no parking was required for this first case because of the RM1 zoning.