lofts and i was not sure what the other ones referenced okay um for each of those uh site
photos shown in those proposed projects that are existing uh did you do a uh a similar zoning
analysis as you've done here about any steep slopes that were uh affected or variances that
were required uh no i did not okay so you don't know what situations happened for each one of
of those matters shown by Mr. Bonney
that led to the either existing building being redeveloped
or which would not be the case here
or a new building being constructed, do you?
Actually, I'm familiar with one of those
mill redevelopment projects,
but in terms of the same detailed analysis, no.
Okay, thank you very much.
So moving on, you, again, trying to speed things along here, you testified that there were multiple smaller options that could be built on this site, correct?
That's right.
And would you also agree that multiple larger options or taller buildings could be built on this site?
That is allowable within CMX3.
Okay. Now, are you aware that we have this proposed project has 185 units?
And offers essentially one-to-one parking?
That's right.
Now, EFCC has objected to not having enough parking. Is that correct?
okay i i would suggest to the board that it's in the rco letter i don't need to go back to it
so noted um the now mr langer would you agree with me that each of your options shown one two
three and four uh show approximately one-to-one parking that's right okay now also for each one
of your options shown, options 1, 2, 3, and 4, each option would also require the clearing
So each option would also require the clearing of the site, at least to some extent, if not entirely, correct?
On the buildable portions of the site, yes, upper and lower.
So you would be removing significant growth in trees there, correct?
Yes, we would.
Okay. Now, have any of your four options been submitted to and or reviewed by
the City Department of Licenses and Inspection?
No. Okay. And you said that none of your options had had any analysis done for stormwater
management, correct? That's right. These options are not engineered at this point.
now uh mr langer you've uh i believe were you at both of the prior hearings
yes and you heard the testimony that there was uh there is currently no stormwater management
system or facilities on the site correct
i i don't recall i'm i'm sorry um okay well if i represented to you
that there is currently no stormwater management on site other than the natural conditions that
exist. Would you disagree with that? The existing site. The existing site. As it exists. Yeah,
there's no, it's covered in trees. Right. And Mr. Langer, you are not a licensed engineer in the
state of Pennsylvania, correct? That is correct. Okay. So you would not perform any stormwater
management analysis on the existing site with regard to the proposed project correct I would
not do that but as a lead project coordinating architect I would certainly be involved in those
in that engineering and that coordination okay now Mr. Langer Mr. Bonnie asked you if you had
experience with residential construction and you said you did is that correct that is correct
Do you have experience with large mixed-use commercial residential projects like the one proposed?
Okay. And have you taken any projects with regard to steep slopes through the review process with the Department of Licenses and Inspections in Philadelphia and or the Planning Commission?
Okay. So you would not be aware of how the Planning Commission determines whether steep slope variance is required, correct?
Correct.
Okay. Would you disagree with me if I suggested that prior testimony and corroboration from the Planning Commission in this matter, in the prior hearings, stated that any disturbance during foundations, footings, or even during construction or materials of steep slopes would require a variance?
i i don't understand the question okay i'll move on
mr langer a couple of your options uh showed hypothetical uh curb cuts and uh driveways
at along ridge avenue correct that's right um did you propose any such driveway or uh curb cut
along ridge avenue to either pendot or the philadelphia streets department no okay uh did
you hear the prior testimony from uh our witnesses the developers witnesses that is
that PennDOT and the Streets Department would not approve any curb cut or driveway along Ridge Avenue?
I do not recall that part of the testimony.
Okay, thank you.
I will quickly just ask you a couple questions.
about. So I'm going to share my screen.
Mr. Langer, can you see my screen? I believe I'm showing conceptual option number 370 units.
That's correct. Okay. And up in this top corner that I'm
circling right now with my cursor, you show a driveway.
uh circling right now with my cursor uh you show a driveway uh for potential parking
that's right okay now uh that driveway would actually disturb the steep slopes in that
corner of the property correct according to the topographical plan there is some slope there but
it's not above 25 percent. Have you analyzed the site survey or the existing conditions for this
project? I looked at the zoning drawing submitted by TAPCO. Okay and you're aware that there's
currently existing a driveway from back from the PHA development that exists essentially in the
location that you're showing now right there's a there's a small little driveway that goes in and
a small flat area now do you understand that that driveway is actually only half on uh the property
that is 4401 ridge and is actually half on property that is not subject of this project
um i i think uh i'm i'm not sure of the intimate details of exactly what's on or what's off
Okay. Now, I think we've already shown that in your options three and four here, and even option two, you are proposing development immediately abutting 25% grade or higher steep slopes. Is that correct?
uh yes um so in order to immediately there's a buffer there's a buffer but but in order to
immediately abut uh similar to the photo that's showing up here i think it's called cotton hill
there would need to be some kind of retaining wall or other uh shoring or foundation work
to prevent the steep slope from sliding.
Is that correct?
The intent would be not to provide
build retaining walls.
Now, Mr. Langer, you testified
as to a determination of feasibility
with regard to this project, right?
as far as yes absolutely now feasibility necessarily depends on the price paid for
the land correct yes it does and this project this property was sold or are you aware that
this property was listed for sale at an open bidding by PHA yes okay and are you aware of
what the final purchase price was for this property?
I think so, but I wouldn't want to say if my memory served me 100% correct.
Understood, but that would obviously affect feasibility as you testified.
That's right.
Now, Mr. Langer, I've just clicked to show you a zoning map that was previously entered
in this matter um you have you see highlighted here this is the property 4401 ridge avenue
correct yeah and you understand that there's a a very large uh snake-like property behind us
that's also cmx3 between us and the hilltop uh project correct correct okay and uh this where
i'm showing the cursor right up here this is what you've been just you have described as the hilltop
project correct that's right and the zoning for that property is actually rm1 yes okay and the
property uh the two blocks over here with homes and again continuing over here on the other side
of palisage drive um that probably property is also zoned rm1 correct right and then you go down
to the what mr bonnie described as the penrose building uh senior building that's zone cmx2
that's right 2.5 sorry yes you're correct mr bonnie 2.5 um and and you're understanding that
the underlying zoning districts of RM1 and CMX 2.5 have widely disparate zoning characteristics.
widely disparate zoning characteristics in the code than CMX3, correct?
They have different limits.
Now, again, Mr. Langer, you testified with regard to 4442 and 4300,
these two projects over here, colloquially called the Howe and Grasso projects.
that's right and those are both cmx3 properties as well correct that's right okay and
getting to the end here but uh ultimately you or someone under you prepared uh this document
that's not labeled but it says the tapco is taller and more dense that's right all right
Now, beginning, you say a TAPCO at 4401 Ridge, the height is 92 feet 4 inches.
Mask, where you calculated that from?
From the documents presented to zoning on your documents.
uh would you uh disagree with me if i said that those documents actually reflect
a height at the highest point along the uh along the ridge line of uh 82 feet
uh we we can go look at the documents um but if you go up to uh the height of your parapets
um i believe there's a number in there um which states 92 feet four inches
i i will uh just disagree but move on but you know uh let's now mr mr langer if it's 88 feet
or 92 feet then uh mr langer i'm asking you questions right now you need to answer the
questions that i'm asking you um he's trying to answer with regard to the how 4442 ridge
uh project you show a height of 70 feet 10 inches correct right and that height is actually the
effective height along ridge avenue correct that is the effective height above average grade
but at ridge avenue you're talking about this project over here uh yes oh um and similarly
the grasso project the 92 foot 4 inches is actually the height of your building above
average grade it's on one of your documents um so mr langer i'm asking you the grasso project
at 4300 ridge is uh you have listed as 68 feet 9 inches that again is down along ridge avenue
correct with uh no steep slopes uh that's right okay and uh do you recall what the height of
the proposed project is along ridge avenue uh that that is considerably lower because
right there you're only i believe it's uh four stories above retail
okay so so the height here reflective against the the height shown here reflective against the ridge
and the two other projects on ridge are not measuring apples to apples they're actually
measuring a height significantly measured up along the uh slope as opposed to uh two slight
two um heights measured at grade along ridge avenue correct that's right this height actually
reflects the height opposite two-story homes okay now uh mr langer are you familiar with the size
of these three projects by square footage uh land land size of these three projects um
i would have to go to a cheat sheet uh to be able to speak accurately about square footage okay and
And this information is in the record already, but I will represent to you just for the purposes of moving forward, the Atapco project and our project is approximately 82,000 square feet.
The Howe project is approximately 31,000 square feet.
And the Grasso project is approximately 70,000 square feet.
um so would you disagree that the atapco project has a much larger land size than the other two
projects i'm sorry i can't attest to the data you just presented i don't have that in front of me
so i can't agree or disagree okay so where you show where you calculate total
Okay, so where you show, where you calculate total number of units, that is not adjusting for any kind of density per square foot or the number of square feet on the site for the units provided, correct?
We'll be right back.
No, but I do know you can do more and you can do less.
Understood, but you would agree with me, correct?
that if you put a hundred units on a small property that density would impact the neighborhood
differently than a hundred units on a very large property correct that's right okay thank you um
and now here this uh chart right here references um you know page from the lower northwest district
plan, correct? 12-9-2014? Yes. Are you aware that this property, and actually the properties
across the street, were upzoned from CMX 2.5 to CMX 3 in 2016? There was the process that produced
that result, yes. Okay, so there was a public process to bring about the Lower Northwest
district plan and then actually two years later there was a process to upzone the project
uh the property rather um to cmx3 that's right okay now uh it's been previously testified to by
uh the efcc president both the howe and grasso projects were supported by efcc correct
that's right okay um so is is this just a first come first served
issue that the neighborhood is now feeling like it's agreed to too many units objection
he can't i don't think he's a he's the right person to ask for that he can't answer on behalf
of all the community respectively he's here not testifying as mr hillary langer individually he's
here testifying as the head of the Zoning Board for EFCC, the community.
Mr. Langer, can you answer that question?
Sorry, with all the interjections before that, I can't remember the specifics of the question,
but is it first come, first serve? Absolutely not. The way we're looking at this site is that
it's adjacent to two-story homes and neighbors who will be directly affected by this development.
It's a different site, it's a different situation than the Grasso or the Hauer Projects down there
on Kelly. Okay. It's on its own merits. Understood. I have no further questions,
chairman all right uh here's the game plan gentlemen it is now 12 24. uh mr bonnie i think
we were much more generous than we anticipated with you uh earlier i mean that respectfully
well beyond the one hour i understand you may have two witnesses left well one that they're
but they're both pretty short one is extremely short okay and what I was going to want to say
next is there may be other people from the community want to testify so uh without any
objection Mr. Whalen we will go to Mr. Bonney's witnesses uh no chair I would love to do that
because by all means we this must this project must finish today exactly right thank you Mr.
Bonney my next witness is Raymond Adams it was going to be extremely brief can you raise your
hand Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams please identify yourself for the records spell your last name and I will
swear you win. Do you see him Ms. Hunkett? Yeah he's at I see his name here he is. Mr. Adams
Spell your full name and I'll swear you win.
Okay, my name is Raymond Adams.
Mr. Adams, Mr. Adams, there's an echo.
Do you have another device on?
I know I don't, but I do have it here.
Maybe I'll take that off and just let me turn that off and see if that helps.
Okay, can you hear me, is it better now?
Right now again.
Hello?
Is it better now?
Is it better now?
A little bit better, yeah.
A little bit better, yeah.
Spell your name.
My name is Raymond Adams.
That's R-A-Y-M-O-N-D Adams, A-D-A-M-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.