the lower band of steep slope where you're actually flattening out you know you're altering
and you're flattening out, almost removing two thirds of the lower band of steep slope. Is that
correct? That's right. Now, you've been very hopeful in that you put the rear of the Penrose
building, the 50 unit senior housing building, the rear of that building in the bottom left,
and I photograph, and I think what you're showing, correct me if I'm wrong, that that parking lot
is filled in is fill that slopes right up to the second floor of this building is that correct
yeah that's right okay so that's what you're showing here that um in orange that instead of
using a bridge which may or may not require a variance whether it's a smidgen or not you're
really just flattening out this whole area so that everyone in this parking area can waltz
walk or waltz right into the building as if they're doing it here in the Penrose. Is that correct?
here in the Penrose. Is that correct? That's right. Okay, and everything else is pretty much the same,
That's right. Okay and everything else is pretty much
but you're getting one-for-one parking here, even though the code requires less. Is that correct?
Yes. Finally, you're showing on the bottom right. What are you showing on the bottom right?
These are some other TAPCO projects, three, that were pulled out of their portfolio from their
website uh that that looked like they would be um uh appropriate uh to this location uh with
balconies um and uh a smaller scale um you know we're overlooking the river here we're overlooking
trees uh next to kelly drive um so you know this kind of prototype which atabco familiar
would be applicable to this situation also.
Mr. Bonney, with all due respect,
how many more exhibits of ideas and possible...
This is it.
This is it.
This is it.
This is it.
We have this rendering that chose option four,
and that's it.
Did you prepare a conceptual rendering of your option four?
okay are you looking at it now we are okay uh how was just how did you get to this rendering
well um well we we built a three-dimensional model based on the topography um on the um
zoning zoning plan submitted by the tapco uh sheet one of one uh you can't really see it um
But the side itself here underneath the buildings is accurately sloped.
And I can attest to that.
So you have first floor retail here on the corner?
That's right.
You've also put in a bunch of other features that I think were discussed at the CDR.
um for instance materials and the height and um chairman i'm going to going to object to
the further continuation of this it's been asked and answered we we have all of this testimony we
know that there are other options none of these options have been reviewed by l and i they're all
entirely hypothetical we're not talking about the project itself at all at this point sustained and
Mr. Bonney, I think you've made your point.
Okay, thank you.
I want to continue.
What are we continuing with?
The rest of the testimony for this witness.
I'm going to switch gears.
Could you generate additional options, Mr. Langer?
Definitely more options in terms of the way the building looks.
We will stipulate that there are numerous other options that could be developed on this site.
Okay, how about, okay, thank you.
How about cost feasibility as to whether these types of things are feasible?
Wouldn't that depend on the size and scope of the project?
Well, I wanted to ask the witness, but if you...
It could be less, it could be more.
I mean, depending on which project you decided to develop.
Well, look, you know, and this is residential construction of three, four, or five stories.
It's a cheaper construction prototype than one that builds on steep slope that's eight, nine stories tall with elevated decks of parking.
understood there are again it goes back to there are other options and we will stipulate to that
council for the applicant has even stipulated to that okay i want to move on to the last part of
the last category i want to
show that in the lower northwest plan they have a section called planning recommendations
and in that planning recommendations section first they talk about this area which is more
the Wissahickon area and then on the next page they have a very particular section here that
has what I call a red lasso the the property that we're talking about is this is that the
The Planning Commission is showing in this diagram a sort of long, narrow building in yellow, and it says up to 250 multifamily houses.
yellow and it says up to 250 multi-family housing units possible near the falls bridge
and uh this is ridge avenue and the planning commission is saying there's up to 250
multiple multi-family housing units possible right they're also showing uh in mr bonnie i'm
going to object are you asking a question or are you trying to testify here i'm like a closing
argument isn't i mean you've been making what sounds like to me like a closing argument
that there are options and all i was told that i was able to present these um documents lightning
fast and i'm almost done okay and it says it says here on page 24 that the major recommendation
is perfect is maintain low density development in these falls and finally um that is what
is being discussed relative to the change to CMX3. That is the plan. Now I'm going to go back to
Mr. Langer, and I'm going to show him the comparison chart. First, I'm going to focus
on the bottom part of the chart of this diagram. Was this document generated by a member of your
committee under your supervision um yes okay this is what we just looked at the red look this image
is from the lower northwest plan and it shows the 250 possible units being recommended for this area
in the lasso and just to go through your calculations here um there are already 337
units constructed or approved in that red area looking from the bottom up these these annotations
on the right hand side were prepared by you and your colleague on the committee the how project
is 136 units the falls bridge 46 units grasso which just had a which is in the ground um and
currently in under development 142 units and that is the that is the 337 if you would add in the
atapco project that's before us today which would be 185 units you would be at 522 units more than
twice the density recommended by the city plan that is my did i did i did i go over that correctly
That's right.
And also I'd add that the 4442 Ridge is also well under construction.
Thank you.
Which is the 136 units.
Right.
At the top of the page here, this is really just to respond to the applicants' questioning
of our witnesses about that we're in support of the HAL project and we were in support
of the Grasso project.
Am I reading this correctly by your tabulations that the ATAPCO project is taller, significantly taller than those other two projects?
The ATAPCO project is more density in terms of number of units and also in terms of number of beds when you add up the one bedrooms, two bedrooms, etc.
Okay. Finally, I want to ask you something about the section of the zoning code for variances.
And isn't it correct that under the section for variances, about what you need to get a variance,
there is a special section for steep slope variances.
And under this section for steep slope variances, it says where any earth disturbance were to occur on a steep slope of 25% or greater, the zoning board shall approve a variance only if the applicant demonstrates that the application meets the following criteria as certified by a professional engineer.
and that point one point a says that any requested variance for the property will not result in an
increase in stormwater runoff i'd like to ask you mr langer have you you've reviewed the materials
submitted to this board by the applicant has the applicant made a showing by a professional
professional engineer um that this project in other words that this variance that this project
will not result in an increase in stormwater runoff have you seen that i'm going to object
now because mr bonnie's own question certifies that mr langer is not appropriate witness to
witness to testify to that. Mr. Bonnie's question said, an opinion of a professional engineer,
testify to that mr bonnie's question said an opinion of a
this is not the scope, stormwater management is not the scope of a work of an architect,
you know, expert documents have already been presented, they've already been stamped and
approved by the planning commission for stormwater management and this project.
And so, you know, the earth moving plan and everything that Mr. Bonnie is pointing at has
already been presented to this board. And Mr. Langer has no ability to make an opinion as to
that. Yes, he does. Mr. Langer, I have a question, Mr. Langer, going back to some of the hypotheticals
that you and Mr. Blani spoke to. Would any of those hypothetical projects add an increase to
the stormwater runoff? No. No? No. I mean, you know, what you've seen there are conceptual
proposals, and obviously it would need to be further developed beyond the scope of a zoning
hearing, beyond the scope of a community proposal with engineers appropriately to take it to that
level, but the goal would be absolutely no increase in stormwater runoff, complete filtration
on the site, pervious surfaces wherever possible, underground retention basins, and if it were
me, I would say we would exceed the code and average maximum rainfall per hour, 4.5 inches.
we wouldn't know any of that until you really drill down on the plane
right well what other work would you need would an engineer need you've worked with engineers
doing stormwater plans is that correct right yes absolutely but that's a process that takes
place over many weeks and a lot of meetings with a lot of calculations you need to do a technical
survey. I understand that, sir. I understand that. I just was curious that it's possible
that those hypotheticals might not be able to be developed because they may adversely affect
the stormwater runoff and other items that we're looking at on this slide that is up now.
We just don't know. Well, I don't think that's his testament. I think he said
absolutely i think he said yes or absolutely but you'd have to do the work
right got to do the work yeah yeah and all right and has that i don't want to belabor that but i'm
just you threw a lot of hypotheticals in there i'm just curious absolutely but but but my final
question is that has that work has that homework has those calculations of those measurements
It's been submitted to the board by the applicant in this case, Mr. Langer.
I don't know if I've seen those in the exhibits or in the final zoning application.
Okay, thank you.
All right.
Mr. Bonney, are you complete with your witness?
Yes, I am.
No other witnesses from your side?
chairman i have we're up to five minutes to 12 which is way past the hour on one side yes mr
whalen uh i i just wanted to state that i do have unfortunately some extensive questioning
for mr langer on cross as uh yeah that was i hate to say inappropriate on a number
number of accounts but also factually incorrect on many
Mr. Bonney, are you still sharing your screen?
Someone is scratching their microphone or something.
Try that again, Mr. Whelan.
I'm sorry, Mr. Bonney, I was asking if you are still sharing your screen.
I stopped.
Maybe it'll take a second, but I stopped.
Does the court reporter need a break?
uh chair i'm okay to continue if you are okay we'll proceed okay um i don't know if anyone
else has but i have completely lost zoom on my screen and i can hear you but i can't see anything
we can see i can see you uh but nothing else other than you and paul and the names of the
folks that are uh pauline so mr what mr wellin mr wellin if you could um maybe go out and come
maybe go out and come back and we will pause accordingly so why don't we do this let's take
back in we will pause accordingly so why don't we do this
five minutes let's take a break all right let's do that let's take five minutes and get that straight
now thank you mr whalen this is calling from it um i can also see you so i'm wondering if your um
zoom is just minimized and you can see like the website but not the zoom application so if you
scroll along the bottom does any of it there you go i i brought it back up it was actually um
it had actually closed i just okay
Mr. Whalen.
Yes, Ms. Sunke.
I think we have where you are maybe shuffling papers or something, and it affects the audio.
We can hear it, and it's a little disturbing in your mic.
I will attempt to not see that.
Just be conscious of that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Whalen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
are we ready uh are we back online is the court reporter available first john
i am chair thank you thank you and tanya and pauline are we ready to go
yes chair we can continue yes mr wellin yes thank you chairman um and i understand the
timing issue here for today and that we have to finish so i will be as brief as possible
um is mr langer still on
mr langer please unmute yourself
how's that perfect thank you very good i can hear you now mr langer
okay mr langer um i'm not going to try to be curt but i'm going to try to get to the point because
we have some time constraints today um mr bonnie began your testimony by asking you about
looked like six, seven, eight different projects that also involved potentially steep slopes in
the East Falls area. Is that correct? I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you saying
existing buildings? He showed you a number of site photos. The last one stopped on yarn factory