Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning all, I am the zoning board administrator, and I am here to state that the board had together today two cases or two sessions scheduled one for 930am one for 10am.
The case scheduled for 9 .30 a .m. is being rescheduled 3948 to 50 West Gerrard Avenue.
A reconsideration case is being rescheduled to July 20th at 2 p .m.
Therefore, there will be no 9 .30 a .m. session this morning.
We will begin 10 a .m. for the next scheduled hearing.
If you have any questions or concerns, you're always welcome to contact us at rcozba .phila .gov and ask any questions.
But the 9 .30 a .m. case is being rescheduled and will be held on July 20th at 2 p .m.
Thank you all very kindly.
Okay, Pauline, thank you.
Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our board secretary, Confessor Plaza, and board members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
our board administrator today will be who is it today I should have asked is it Leticia
it can be me chair just time okay okay thank you our board administrator Ms. Tanya Sunkett
and Ms. Sharon Saletta our board attorney are also in attendance for those of you who haven't
yet participated in one of our virtual hearings I'll go through some of the basics of what you
can expect. First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their
testimony. Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that
by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and that the recording will be
made available to the public on the web or otherwise. Third, for anyone participating
by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six
to unmute yourself. I'll repeat. For anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, please call Google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email
address and the address of the property at issue. I'll repeat that. To enter an appearance statement,
call google 267 -270 -5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue
i would also like to advise everyone please do not attempt to testify in the chat
all questions and concerns should be raised with our board administrator miss sunken with that
With that, we can begin.
we can begin
In, um...
It's my understanding that since we last held the first hearing, there's an additional two attorneys that will be representing interested parties.
One is Mr. Daniel McElhatton, and the other is Mr. Philip Ramplosky, Y -A -M -P -L -O -S -K -Y.
But before we do that, there was a request for a motion to dismiss.
My vote is to deny that motion.
I'm sorry, Chair. May I please request of you to announce the address of the case going forward this morning?
You know, it's this case involves 230 Vine Street.
An appeal on the application for 230 Vine Street.
So I just entered my decision to deny the motion.
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Motion to dismiss, deny.
Motion to dismiss, deny.
Well, that's a quorum. Three's a quorum. All right. So having a little issue.
Yeah. Yeah. No worries. Well, as long as there's three of us, Mr.
Mr. Mattione, but before you begin, Mr. McElhantin and Mr. Philip Jamplowski are available.
If you are, please unmute yourself. I swear you in.
I have burned with his hand up. Is he a part of this case also?
Yeah, he's one. I wanted to get the other two newly appointed attorneys.
Chair, I see Mr. Yablonski in the attendees list. Could he raise his hand, please, Mr. Yablonski?
Mr. Jamblowski, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning, sir.
Please identify yourself, spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
Philip Jamblowski, Y -A -M -P -O -L -S -K -Y.
I represent Franklin Bridge, which is the owner of the adjacent property
in the eastern party wall of the subject premises.
Sir, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. McElhatton, please identify yourselves by your full name.
Daniel, D -A -N -I -E -L -P, McElhatton, M -C, capital E -L -H -A -T -T -O -N, 2000 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, 19103.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Thank you.
Mr. Anastasio, I just want to make sure we get all the attorneys sworn in and then we'll proceed.
You have to unmute yourself, Vern.
Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman.
Yep, Vern Anastasio, 1315 Walnut, Suite 1006, Philadelphia, 19107.
My co -counsel attorney, Harry Cook, is also looking to be promoted to the panel as well.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Cook and or Mr. Mattione.
Mr. Cook is available. Good morning, Mr. Cook. Please identify yourself for the record.
Harry Cook, Anastasio Law, 1315 Walnut Street. We're protesting.
Let me tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do, sir. Cook is spelled C -O -O -K, correct?
That's correct.
Mr. Mattione.
Mr. Mattione, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning.
Please identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll square you in.
Michael Mattione, M -A -T -T -I -O -N -I.
Federal Reserve Bank Building, 100 North Independence Mall, Suite 5A Northwest, Philadelphia, 19106.
Federal Reserve Bank Building, 100 North Independence Mall, Suite 5A, Northwest.
You swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
I just want to give everyone a heads up.
I expect this will be a monthly hearing.
We're bound by a certain time.
We have to be out of here by 1230 today.
hopefully we can finish this case but if for some reason we can't we will have to continue it again
i know that some people are not don't like to hear that but those are the rules and we have
to abide by them we're good up until 12 30 so it asks the attorneys and any of your witnesses
when they get up to speak to try not to repeat what has already been put on the record
in the interest of time we appreciate everyone's cooperation um i think we left off and correct me
gentlemen uh mr medione i think you were we were in the middle excuse me chair
i'm sorry i'm sorry yeah miss we're going to have go a little out of order on witnesses
Mrs. Golden from the Mural Arts has another appointment if everyone's agreeable we'd like
to get her testimony and then we'll move on with the attorneys and your clients so
Mrs. Golden if you're there please raise your hand and we'll swear you in
okay I'm here hi Jane please identify yourself spell your full name and I'll swear you in
Yes, my name is Jane, J -N -A -N -E, Golden, G -O -L -D -E -N.
Order for them to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Oh, so hello, everybody.
So I'm the Executive Director of the Mural Arts Program.
I'm very pleased to be here today.
So I'll be short.
So there are a couple points here that I want to make.
And I say this with, I believe in this with all my heart and soul,
and I've done this work for 30 years and I love my job and I love our city. And so I think that
this is a very unusual circumstance because we have an iconic institution, the Painted Bride,
an iconic person, we have Isaiah Zagar. And we have a proposal with the Atrium Design Group that
brings people together. And there seems to be a solution here that would allow, really, it seems
like a very interesting development to occur, and it would allow this iconic work of art to be
preserved. And so I just want us to think for a minute about what Philadelphia would be without
public art. There are, I know Mural Arts has created over 4 ,300 works of art since 1984.
Isaiah Zagar has contributed mightily to this city. I think they're just, there's public art
everywhere. And it's truly the autobiography of our city. And we have to protect that because it
can go away. It's precarious. I got my start in the city of LA. And when I moved back here and
started doing murals, I remember getting calls from the LA Times. And people were saying that
the collection was disappearing. Murals were getting defaced. No one was taking care of it.
Murals were deteriorating. People didn't seem to care. And generations of beautiful works of public
art. We're just gone. So what does that mean to a city? Well, you have to question, what does art
mean to the life of the city, to our humanity, to who we are, to our identity? The fact that we're
known internationally as the city of murals, the fact that countless tourists come here to see our
works of art, the fact that incredible artists come here to work on murals. I mean, this is a
lot about the very fabric of our city. So when a mural goes away, it's not insignificant. This is
worth fighting for. And the fact that we have a solution is really, I think, quite remarkable
that we're all parties feel okay about this, of the Painted Bride and the artist. And I understand
there's sentient from the neighborhood. I'm very sensitive to neighborhood issues, having been to
a million community meetings in my life. But I just felt like, oh my goodness, after all this
struggle, there seems to be something present here that's a win. And I want to quote Inga Safran.
She said, if the city misses this chance to do this with this development, it will have lost a piece of its soul.
And I always feel that when murals go away, that we as a city lose a piece of our soul.
And I know I'm biased, but I have been a witness to seeing the power of art firsthand for 30 years.
And it's the honor and privilege of doing this work.
And so I'm here today to urge everyone to think about the atrium group's design and the fact that there is something before us that could bring parties together and allow this work of art to continue living, breathing, inspiring people.
thank you mr chairman if i might i have to object to the entire testimony of the witness
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, if I might, I have to object to the...
on what grounds well first of all none of it was relevant uh it's completely off point unrelated to
this legal matter and this legal analysis it is word for word the exact same testimony that the
witness provided at the historic commission and it was rejected at the historic commission
And as a result, this board is collaterally stopped from overturning the Historic Commission's decision.
We're a separate agent.
We're not overturning the Historic Commission's decision by no means.
I don't know.
I think Ms. Golden, like any other person who represents Philadelphia, has an opportunity to be heard.
So I'll overrule your objection.
Okay, thank you.
And anyone have any questions for Ms. Golden?
I do not.
Thank you.
And thank you, Ms. Golden, for your dedication and hard work on behalf of the citizens of Philadelphia.
All right.
With that, I think we can begin.
Is Ms. Golden still on the line?
Is Ms. Golden still on?
All right.
Maybe an opportunity, Ms.
Yes, but thank you.
All right. We began, I think, the last hearing, Mr. Cook began argument.
We already handled the motion on dismissal. We asked that. Mr. Mariani then presented the argument in support of the appeal.
Mr. Mattione, your testimony, I believe, is cut off midway through, and Mr. Anastasia has to be given an opportunity to cross the exam and Mr. Zakin.
Right.
We had not finished Mr. Zakin's direct testimony.
If there is a direct testimony is done, then Mr. Anastasia would have an opportunity.
Just want to make sure we're all on the same page.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman, I just want to put into the record that we'd requested a briefing.
Excuse me, one second.
Sorry.
When you speak, just identify who you are so the court reporter knows who's speaking.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, Harry Cook here, Anastasia Law.
I just want to put in the record as it relates to the motion to dismiss, we had requested a briefing schedule from this board.
We never received a briefing schedule from this board.
Mr. Mattione had submitted a supplemental briefing that we would have appreciated time to respond to.
So I'm just assuming that your determination was made on the brief since argument was denied in front of the board.
Excuse me, Mr. Cook, you did begin your argument.
I apologize for not sending out a briefing schedule, but you submitted briefs on it, I believe, the day of the last hearing.
Mr. Mattione submitted a response in his supplemental exhibits.
Very little time to respond.
I think everyone has had an opportunity.
Mr. Mattione had a month and a half to respond to our brief.
We had very little time to respond.
I just want to put that on the record.
That's all.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Mattione.
Yes, I would like to continue with Mr. Zakin.
Does he need to be sworn in again on a new day?
Let's do it.
Just so everybody's been spoiling.
Mr. Zakin, please identify yourself for the record.
I'll swear you in.
My name is Shimi Zakin, Shimshon Zakin, S -H -I -M -I, Zakin, Z -A -K -I -N, and I'm the owner of Atrium Design Group.
You swear we're firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Please proceed, Mr. Matiomi.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And then, Shimmy, getting back to where we were the last time, and I think you want to share your screen, Shimmy, and put the plans up.
Yeah, if that's possible.
Do I have the permission to share this?
No, that's him.
That's him, but it doesn't matter.
It's him.
Shimmy, this is the one.
There it is.
Thank you.
These materials are at Exhibit 5 in the packet that I had submitted previously to the board.
And Shimmy, please explain again the plans to the board and to the public, exactly what it is we're trying to do here.
Yeah, sure. I just want to make sure that everyone see the right screen.
Do you see the illustration of the Painted Bride edition?
addition yes okay now so um let me just make sure that the screen is all
you uh full screen there it is okay great so um it's very simple what we're trying to do is first
of all to uh develop the site and why at the same time to preserve the painted bride um the artwork
by Isaiah Zagar that many people in Philadelphia
sees a significant piece of art
and some thinks the other way.
Yet we came to the conclusion that it was the efforts
to try to preserve this piece of art
and at the same time develop the lot, the site.
We're proposing 74 units in one building that is designed to basically float in some ways above the painted bride, not to touch the building.
And that is basically created by a way of adding a connector piece, as you can see in this diagram, and build a mass thing on top as a mass that is basically not touching any of the walls of the existing building.
and by eating or scooping into it,
creating an area for light and air
and for a garden to exist on top of the second floor connector piece.
This illustration right here nicely shows the summary
or summarized the project entirely.
It shows the plaza that we are repurposing
that is created by the shape of the existing building
and that will be functioning as the main entrance to the building through what we see in our mind
a small gallery that will transition people from the public space into the private space
that gallery is to celebrate the first friday and those galleries art galleries that we all
very much familiar with around the old city and that gallery will be available for artists to
come in and for $1 to at least a place and show their art as a part of the scene of Old City.
Above that there is a linear garden that is created by a setback of the second floor
and above that we have 64 units on a multifamily building that has two wings.
the southern wing and the northern wing with a connector piece that occupy the elevators,
the stairs, and that also has the garden that you can see here that is created above the second floor
short -term lease or visitor accommodation 10 units section. Up above on top of the building
there is a very limited section of the roof deck for both sides of the building.
This shows the first floor section and how those functions coming all together. So we're talking
about the plaza, the gallery, and then into the private section of the building, which is the
lobby and other amenities. Commercial space is designed along Vine Street with its own
utilities and amenities parking garage access through the existing opening and that is a time
to also say that all the openings of the building are repurposed so we are working within what
exists and we do not propose to block off or cut out new openings that will be disturbing or
or basically removing significant pieces
of the skin of the bride.
The garage will occupy 12 parking spaces
as required by zoning.
So we do not have any refusal for parking spaces.
So the refusal that we are facing
to hopefully grant today
for the height 85 feet
where 65 feet is allowed and for the FAR that is a result of the additional flows but it's only
12 .5 to 13 percent more than what allowed which is 500 percent so we are proposing 565 percent
FAR and of course for the lack of open spaces we are keeping a full
And of course, for the lack of open spaces, we are keeping the existing building, but yet we see this site as a corner site, even though this street, Bordang Street, is not what we call open street, and it's not part of the city street map.
and therefore it's in many ways a private alley
and this building is not defined as a corner lot.
Otherwise, we were at 20 % as allowed in CMX3 for open space.
This diagram shows nicely the structural approach
that we took coming to design a building within an envelope within a building and the concept
was to not propose any basement that's first of all so we will not dig down and disturb the soil
where those foundations of the existing building are placed in and not and to minimize the
vibrations to the building and that may damage the mosaic.
We are proposing to install single tiles that will be drilled into the ground,
a podium between the first floor and the second floor that will be made of steel and concrete
and will help also supporting the skin of the bride,
the envelope of the existing building.
Those piles will continue one floor up
to create the secondary podium
and stick framing above of the building.
This is a view of the garden
and the area created between the southern wing
and the northern wing of the building
with setback of the seventh floor
to create some outdoor areas of those units
on the upper floor.
And that gentleman looking to the north west
showing a view from the top floors.
So, as I said, we have the three variances.
We will not repeat them because of the time.
And what's important to show here is the shadow study.
We took the step to try to run a shadow study
on the property as for the proposed building
versus a buy -write condition.
A buy -write is of 65 feet tall building, 25 % open space.
We definitely allow to build all the way to Bodden Street property line.
And we will see it in four different times of the year.
This is for March.
and you can see that the shadow is that the building we proposed versus the by right building
is pretty much the same and you will see that also moving to the next one June in the summer
and definitely September and December there is no any huge significant difference between
one and another, especially to those buildings that are located on North 3rd Street and stretches
all the way to Gordon Street, all the way around. The fact that we propose an opening here along
Gordon Street gives a lot of breather, if I'm allowed, a breather to in the alley instead of
having a long continuous wall of 65 foot along the building, along the alley.
There was a discussion about the section and there were questions asked by the board and
by the attorneys of the floor to ceiling details and we took the floor to ceiling measurements.
We took a stab and we developed an architectural and structural section that is much more developed
than what normally you see in zoning meetings,
only so we can very clearly explain the challenges
that we are facing here.
Excuse me, sir.
Excuse me.
Could you enlarge the picture?
The work section.
Is this close enough?
A little more.
Thank you.
And I will read the measurements as well, so it will be very clear.
So the concept was to keep the existing building, as you see,
and to float above that with a setback on the second floor.
and to float above that with a setback on the second floor.
This measurement is critical.
Four foot three, second floor light strip that in many areas along the perimeter of the existing building
is what's left in order to get light and air into the linear garden and the setback of the windows to those units.
that's enough but it's not anything that we can reduce besides that the size of the beams
and the size of the structure that we will need to use in order to make this ambitious
project happen are such that shows such a significant cavity or or a floor thickness
that will, that also plays an important role.
So looking at the second floor structure,
the beam itself is a three foot high beam.
And that's before we account for the fire spray
for any utilities and duct work
that we will need to drop beneath.
Same for the commercial space.
So by the time we start the stick framing addition on a typical floor plan, you will see that the highest point in any given apartment is eight foot nine and five eights, below nine foot.
And 50 % of any floor plan of every unit between the air condition system, the ductwork, any sprinklers, and any pipes and drains will give us 7 foot 5 inches finished, I'm sorry, 7 foot 9 and 5 8 finished floor to finish ceiling.
And that's at minimum 50 % of any unit between the bathrooms, between the hallways, any suffix that we may need.
So in my opinion, it's below what we call market standard.
You would expect to see 10 foot ceilings or 9 foot 6 ceilings in a building in this level, but we are not seeking for any of that.
So a typical floor plan is represented here, and you'll see that on the roof itself, there is even more of a component that makes the roof structure even thicker than a typical floor plan.
So even those, what we call penthouse units or top units, they still have the same exact floor to ceiling detail.
So in many ways, this is not really any 10 foot ceilings trying to create a super high ceilings for these proposed units.
It's very much in line with what the market is or the standard in the market is for multifamily buildings.
excuse me excuse me yes from from street level to top of a parapet wall what is the height
for top of parapet so we 85 feet to the top of this
of the roof plus the parapet is 42 inches as allowed by code
so that's a total of that is a total of uh three foot six plus 85 88 six
88 feet six inches that is correct thank you
so that's another view from vine street and uh some presidents of the of the material we're
proposing to use. This image right here on the very right side is of one of our projects in
Philadelphia by the Mormon temple. So you can see that we already used that material in the
previous project by us, and it looks amazing, and we know how to use it, so it's not any kind of a
dream. It's something that we're definitely able to achieve. Excuse me, may I also interject?
As long as we're talking height, what is the height of the elevator tower on the eastern side?
I'm sorry, Philip Gampolski.
It's okay. I mean, I'm happy to answer any question.
So I'll go to the isometric because that's...
because that so we we located the elevator and stairs tower away from any street so it will not
So we located the elevator...
be seen and will not be uh it won't affect any neighbor building in by by shade or by
light of light and air the height is
I can tell for sure
I don't have the section right in front of me
normally
to the top of the elevator
pit is 12 foot
but I'm not in front
AutoCAD and I can't tell you the exact
measurement
but it's approximately 100 feet alongside
the properties at 226
for the pilot house
but pilot house is, as we all know,
is not part of the building height.
It doesn't occupy any other function
but access to the egress from the roof and the elevator.
So this is not another story.
Mr. Jampolsky, if I can ask,
you can hold your questions
and then we can have cross.
The only questions I would ask
that come from the board at this particular time.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let him finish his,
Let's allow him to finish his testimony, then we'll go back.
Thank you.
So just a quick review of the floor plan, the architectural floor plan.
So the first floor, as we discussed, the commercial space, parking, lobby, elevator,
and we have 44, we propose 44 bicycle storage room, more than what required by the code,
and some amenities.
The second floor, you can nicely see the linear garden all around, and there are 10 units located on that floor.
Those will be a visitor accommodation units with the gym located in the center.
The ratio of the units for, as seen in this table, two studios only,
46 units of one bedrooms which is 62 % of the number of the units proposed and of the two bedroom
we have 26 units so we're not trying to get 50 % studios that is not appropriate for this particular
area of the city. A typical floor plan the southern wing and the northern wing with the
connector piece in the garden and the seventh floor you see the setbacks that we proposed
to create a better architectural articulation and appearance of the building and the roof decks
with that i am ready for any questions yeah i i have no i have a couple questions for further
questions shimmy in preparing plans for the project what challenges were confronted by the
mosaic so many challenges of course we are working within an envelope which is a very unique
condition but removing the structure the roof structure that is now part of what is holding
this masonry walls together and adding supports temporary support so we can get excavators in
or machines in to drill for those piles
that I was talking about before.
That just by itself, that's a great challenge.
Making sure that there will be no significant vibrations
that may damage the mosaic is another challenge.
Adding the steel into the building,
those columns and beams that will support the new addition
and many other aspects of the construction.
It is not just challenging in the way of making it, staging it and making it happen, but also has a huge effect on the financials behind the project.
It's going to be way more expensive than an ordinary foundation work.
And why is it impossible to preserve the mosaic without the requested variances?
Because the mosaic is a very large building.
In some areas, it's exceeding 24 feet in height.
And in order to keep this entirely, we really start from about, by the time I add the strip of light that I was referring to before showing the section,
with the size of the beams that we need to use
in order to make the podium strong enough
strong enough to support the above building.
to support the above building,
I'm starting the stick framing area
I'm starting the stick frame.
in about 36 feet from the sidewalk.
So in order to fit the number of units we need
in order to make this project work financially,
justify the efforts we need at minimum,
the 80 units originally proposed.
We did took a small chance here and we were listening to the neighbors and we reduced six units of the total count.
So we're now proposing 74 units for this building, which is really the minimum that we can have in order to make, to justify this challenging project.
pardon the interruption uh did you say the revised plan would be 74 units that is correct
we had 80 units on the original uh zoning application okay my because my my notes were
i had a mistake on my notes i had 70 versus 64 it's 80 versus 74 that is correct 64 64 units
long -term rental units with 10 visitor accommodation units.
Understood. Thank you.
And is there stabilization work necessary to preserve the mosaic?
And explain that to the board, please.
So as I mentioned before, we have to make sure that there will be no
significant damage happens to the mosaic during construction.
We will have to stabilize the envelope building
while doing the demolition of the interior of the building.
And that by itself is going to be quite challenging of a task.
And do you have an estimate of the extra time involved
to preserve the mosaic?
We don't know exactly how long it's going to take,
But we anticipate that this by itself will be over a million, million and a half dollars in cost just to make this happen, close to even $2 million in additional costs.
And extra time as well to shore up the mosaic.
It's almost like a surgery in many ways.
I mean, you need to work within a very delicate site.
You need to make sure that as much as we can, of course, that there are no accidents, there are no potential conditions that can increase the option for any hits or disturbance of the mosaic, of the walls, the sub -wall that the mosaic is attached to.
Can you preserve this cigar mosaic without the requested variances? Is that possible?
No, I'm not. To my opinion, it's impossible. In this particular project, for sure, I need this amount of square footage and this amount of units to make it happen.
And will the variances, if granted, adversely impact public health, safety or welfare?
And why not?
As I said, I showed a study, the shadow study, and that is a good representation of what this project versus a by -right project means.
And as we all see, the effect of a variance 20 foot taller building than what zoning code allowed does not really affect any of the neighboring building more than if we were go with a multifamily building, removing the building, paint the bride and build this from ground zero, a 65 foot tall building with 42 inch parapets and pilot houses.
and will the variances on newly burdened public facilities if granted but if i'm allowed i will
continue answering the previous section just by not excavating in this particular site because
we're keeping the existing building and i'm not proposing a basement to be added to the building
just by that it makes a lot of sense and create in many ways a better project you know almost
a green project. We do not remove soils from the site and transfer it to another site and dump it.
So a new building that will be proposed there to replace the building obviously will then
propose a deep basement excavation and a greater, maybe even risk.
and a greater, maybe even risks to the buildings surrounding us.
Are the variants proposed, the least variants necessary for this project to move ahead?
And is the grant of the variances in harmony with the zoning code and plan for the area?
Absolutely.
Even though we're asking for a variance, it is in many ways an appropriate building
in massing, in size, in scale, in density, to what already exists in this particular area of
old city and of the city, and in what is proposed on those empty lands around us. There are many
multi -family buildings that are that already got zoning approvals around us on empty lands
and and what will likely happen if the variance is denied
um we will need to recalculate our um our next steps we are holding in our hand a by -ride zoning
permit to remove the painted bride building and erect eight 65 foot tall buildings each one
contain two dwelling units so 16 dwelling units to replace the painted bride and that that is
the alternative option we that was approved about two years ago and it's still an active
permit but together with the with my team and magic garden and listening to the people around
And we took a stop to try to preserve this building and to propose something that I was humbled by the amount of support that we were able to get from not just neighbors and people in the city of Philadelphia, but other people who are very actively working and writing about architecture and design in the small architecture and design community.
Philadelphia, like Inga Saffron, David Brownlee from Doug, Hilary Jay from the architecture,
from the co -founder of the Design Philadelphia.
I would never imagine that I would read so many good words about work that we were able
to put together.
And as I said, humbled by that.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman, for the witness.
Thank you.
I think Mr. Anastasio would be next up.
Mr. Chairman, I think we're going to withdraw our request to cross.
Just to say, however, that none of what you heard is going to be helpful to this board
in making a legal determination with respect to zoning law.
The beams, the machinery, the stabilization work, it's all irrelevant.
you know the witness testified that it's like performing surgery no one asked him to play
doctor there's nothing tying his hand mr chairman i object to mr anastasia speaking now if he wants
to have a closing argument he can do it at the end if he has no questions for the witness that's
yeah i i'm that's it mr chico i do have a couple questions to follow hold on hold on mr cook
everybody just hang in there the court reporter needs to know who's speaking
so yeah vernon let's hold your closing arguments all right uh mr cook i i believe that it should
be either mr anasazi or mr cook they're the same firm and only one of them should should well i
don't know what he's going to have i'm waiting to hear what he has to say then we'll okay decide
whether he should go forward or not okay mr cook were you looking to do a closing argument here or
just a brief cross okay we can do a cross mr marionni okay i thought i thought mr anasazi
withdrawing the cross. I was withdrawing my cross. Mr. Cook has well within his right to ask for a
cross. Understood. Understood. Mr. Cook. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Zakin, good morning. Good morning.
We heard your testimony about the underpinning work, etc., to preserve the mural. That is
the type of underpinning work that's required for a structure of the height you're talking about,
correct? No, I did not say the word underpinning. I am not proposing underpinning the existing
building. That's the whole point of keeping the piles away from the envelope of the existing
building. Okay, but the work that you're doing to be able to build the structure at 86 feet,
86 feet, whatever the number is, is the type of work that you were speaking to in terms of
whatever the number is, is the type of work that you...
preserving the outer exterior envelope of the mural and building, correct? Yes. Okay. Is there
no other way to preserve the mural? There are other examples in the city where there are
freestanding walls that have a development behind them it appears that you know it's it's chocolate
or vanilla it's either this project or no mural in townhomes there's did you did you consider
anything in between we consider many things yet in order to preserve the building and repurpose it
in such a way that it will make sense financially,
we will have to add the units on the second floor, right?
Now, the second floor units cannot exist
with the openings that are within the envelope.
So we have to cut new openings to build,
to create walls of lights or to install windows.
That is the whole purpose of the setback
and the linear and that is that is partly due to the fact that you want to have that floating
aesthetic correct no it's it's first it starts from a development developer point of view i'm
as you as you know i'm an architect and a developer by the way in this order the way i see
in this particular project in this as well you know in my profession life but in this project
as well in this project as well yes so first we're trying to what is the number of units we
need to make it happen you as a developer i'm coming to buy a property it's not for the sake
of uh playing with a play -dohs it's for the end of the day hoping to make a project that works
financially and the number of units that we need is such that we 80 units that we came up to now
And did you do a pro forma or a project that would preserve the mural and perhaps have townhomes behind it?
Do you have any alternative pro formas that you've presented to this zoning board?
There is no pro forma because it cannot happen.
How do you know to not run the numbers on these other projects?
why would i run a number on something that does not make any sense architecturally because you're
asking for a variance sir and what is the least the least amount of variance from what you plan
to do from the code if you don't have another alternative that we've presented uh you've seen
the letter from ian toner correct it states that an alternative is a freestanding wall
with townhomes behind it that would be the experience from the code in terms of height
and footprint if you haven't considered that and haven't run a pro forma on it you haven't
met your burden here i didn't run a pro forma i ran many many sketches so it's your opinion
no you're asking me a question let me answer if you don't if i'm allowed could we stipulate that
there may be other alternatives to what is being proposed we can stipulate to that there may or may
not be there may be why belabor the point let's deal with the issue at hand because your honor
it's important for their burden under case law um to be able to determine whether or not they've
met their burden for a variance here there are alternatives that have that touch upon the zoning
code and require less variance and are still feasible financially and maintain the safe are
would you agree would you agree that he can demolish the painted bride building
and build a 65 foot absolutely that's a buy right that that's the case in point that there's no
hardship here except when you have a property that has an impediment on it you're not required
to go and demolish it to be able to build and that's not a requirement i mean it's not a
requirement of the law and we cited that in our memorandum of law that we submitted to the board
and i think that we that i have not been able to argue and i think that we can take that was not
on the motion to dismiss that was just my regular memorandum of law and that was submitted back in
april not in june um and i and i think that we can submit that theoretically there's lots of
different things that could be done with this project however mr zakin is saying what is
actually possible to do rather than some theoretical thing. There's lots of different
theoretical things that could be built, but he is talking about what can actually be built given
But he is talking about what can actually be built, given all the constraints of this project.
all the constraints of this project. Mr. Matt.
Mr. Mattione, I understand that. And our design expert presented an alternative that then shifts the burden for you to show why it can't be done and why you deserve more of a variance than what would be required otherwise.
otherwise so i mean i'll stipulate to the fact that there are other alternatives that would
preserve the mural and have a financially beneficial outcome i mean townhomes i will not
stipulate to that all i all i will stipulate to mr hook is that there are theoretical things that
could be done here mr zakin is testifying as to what is what can be done here in a self -serving
fashion which is not acceptable i don't i think that's a self -serving is a good mr chairman
orangeville stakeholders versus pittsburgh zba i would like to add that you hear your court
it would be in mr's in in the developers best interest uh both financially because this is
taking a lot of money all the way around including legal fees to just demolish the painted bright
and build a structure and that's it we can move on i understand that chairman but he is the person
who is the developer the architect and the and testifying as to his own interest for his vanity
project which is beautiful by the way no one is taking away how gorgeous the project is
obviously but that is not the standard for seeking a variance
especially under the case i just cited and that's your opinion and you're entitled to it
it's a commonwealth sports opinion lawrenceville say disagree with the interpretation of the cases
as well so that's okay i have no further questions thank you mr chair uh this is daniel mackal
Mr. McElhatton, please proceed.
Good morning, Mr. Zakin.
Good morning.
My name is Daniel McElhatton, and I didn't have the opportunity or the pleasure to be on the prior hearings.
I am not going to ask you to go back over any of the other testimony, and I'm not going to make the legal arguments that have been made so far this morning and that are reflected in all the briefs that have been filed.
However, I do have a couple of questions.
you mentioned that the elevator tower would be away from any other structures is that correct
from any other structures along the streets it is attached to the back structure behind the project
but it's not affecting any light and air to that building it is approximately 100 feet high
approximately 100 feet high and um do you have the elevations for from new street
new street is about two feet higher than vine street so that means that it will be
98 feet tall on that you have any you have any elevations you can show us
i'm sure there is there are definitely illustrations but i'll see if i have an elevation
so new street elevation is right on the on the right side of this screen
doesn't show the height though it doesn't show the height the height of the building or the
height of the pilot house it's the height of the pilot house yeah as we are we just said that it
is approximately 100 feet well and you said it's away from any other structures it is away from
any street, but it's attached to the adjacent building on the east side of the property.
It is across the street from an apartment house.
It is deep inside the lot across the street. So if we looked at the plan,
this is where the elevator and pilot house are, exactly halfway in from Vine Street to New Street.
and new street could you point your your marker onto new street this is new street right here
so we are halfway in from new street and halfway in from vine street and you you did not have any
communications with the owner of the building known as the chocolate works did you in reviewing
your plans or preparing your plans no and presenting to please let me finish and presenting to
this board? No. Why not? Why would I? We have a public hearing. Oh, okay. The fact that there
are 74 units, you know, 135 units in that with units facing where you propose to build your
building was of no concern. There is a, I'm sure they have concerns or maybe not, but that's why
There is, I'm sure they have concerns or maybe not, but that's why we had an LCO meeting and now we have an open CBA meeting and they can expose their concerns.
That's why we had an LCO.
Understood. And your by right ability to develop this parcel would result in 16 total units?
That is correct.
And your proposal is for how many total units?
And do you see any difference in the density in the neighborhood between your 70 plus and the 16 units?
Absolutely. And I would say that in many ways, the 74 units are more in line with what proposed in this particular area of Old City and what already exists there.
So the 16 units will be a unique development for this section.
74 multifamily buildings is more in line with all the multifamily buildings around this lot.
But Mr. Zagan, doesn't density include vehicular traffic and other types of impact on the community?
Yeah, but we're not seeking for a density variance.
We could, there is no limit on number of units on a CMX tree.
No, but that could be a 65 foot old building with 100 units.
I understand.
But that takes me to the next question.
You've mentioned that it's not out of character, except that you are seeking a variance that would change the massing of the building.
It will eliminate 25 % of the open space that the code that the legislature, the council in Philadelphia has imposed.
And that increases the massing and it increases the density. Isn't that right, sir?
I'm not sure why. What is the 25 % that you're suggesting that we're adding?
Well, you are seeking 100 % lot coverage.
That is because of the existing building.
But our proposed building is keeping 20 % open space as required in a corner lot.
Okay. You do recognize the change in the character of the density, correct?
As I said, I see a difference between 74 and 16. It's mathematical. But if we're looking urbanistically, if we're looking in architectural point of view, no, I do not see a concern by adding 74 units to an area where it's surrounded by multifamilies all around.
And if you're looking at this particular image, that is a very important one in my slide, one would not be able to tell the proposed building just by staring at this image, if I would not point it to him.
Because it's bland into the fabric of this neighborhood.
And that is relevant, why?
that's an answering the exact question you were just asking okay well you you might believe that
but okay i have i have nothing else at this point mr chair thank you while you have that picture up
uh mr zakin could you point to where your project sure this is right okay this is the building
the building to the right of it uh how how how tall is that building do you know this building
is shown in this illustration, I'm sorry, one second, this one right here, so this diagram
shows the variety of heights that we have, of this, I would say, pocket of the neighborhood,
and this building that you were asking about is right here, and it's between 90 to 99 feet.
thank you and go back to that photograph again the uh aerial photograph of uh in a second right away
and to the extreme right on the other side of the ben franklin bridge which is second and race
second and race it's right there that tall building uh my my information is that that
building is 197 feet high and i believe that you are correct the chimney is also here yeah i know
the chimney but i'm talking about this because it's a massive property it's 197 okay and uh
and there is another one right here right here i'm just going to ask you about that one
so this guy is um over 100 feet tall building it's the actually actually this is the tallest
building in this pocket of the neighborhood thank you um does the board have any questions for mr
zakin no no
No. No.
Chair, Philip Yampolski, I have some questions if you don't mind.
Yes, I was going to get to you. Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Yampolski.
Mr. Zaykin, what is immediately to the eastern border?
I cannot hear you. If you can raise your voice, please.
What is immediately to the eastern border of your province?
The eastern border. Do you mean right here?
I mean 226 -228
vines.
This one?
One second. I'm trying to get a picture
of that so everyone can see it.
And we do
have it. Give me a second.
So we're talking about this
house, right? It's a historical
building, three -story
high. Historic, right?
Yes. Are you aware
of the age of that historic building?
I am not aware of the exact age, but it's historic and it's very old building.
Yes, if I told you that it was constructed in 1770, would that be what your basic understanding is?
I would not be amazed. It is expected.
Expected. So would you agree that that building represents part of the historic culture of the old city neighborhood in which your proposed project is situated?
Yes, I do.
And have you taken into account considerations for the preservation and well -being of my clients historically significantly?
Since we are not proposing to underpin this building or to affect the building in any way, but to build a side to it.
And the way I see it as an architect who's been doing work for 20 years and being in a situation where I was facing an historical building as my immediate context many times, I see my proposal as an ultra -modern building as a nice balance, something that emphasizes the age of this building and I'm trying to imitate it.
So in many ways, my application here is appropriate to be adjacent to a historical building as this one.
That's an opinion that you hold, correct, as a developer?
I'm trying to get to an image that everyone knows already.
And that brings here. That's it. Right here.
So, your opinion is that your building is in keeping with the historical nature of the block,
and in particular, my point, it's not in keeping, it's reinforcing what is new and what is old.
And by adding a building that is clearly speaking the language of what's new, what is new,
it's redefine
again what is
old and what is historic
so in other words you're saying
the juxtaposition between new and
old enhances my client's
property is that your opinion
objection Mr. Chairman only
because I don't know what this has to do
with the relevance
what is the relevance
it's aesthetics and the zoning board does not do aesthetics
right now you're talking about
driving piles into the
ground immediately adjacent to my client's property correct? That is correct. And so that
the piles that you would remove or distance from the delicate
bride skin, skin of the bride, in order to preserve the bride's skin,
are going to go right up against my client's property which is approximately 250 years old.
Is that right? Yeah. I mean, it's it will be there will be some effect, but not in in the form of damaging or potentially creating a hazard to to the to the building of your client.
Well, I apologize that I was not present during the first hearing, but my understanding is that you have not provided any engineering assessment to back up that statement.
Mike Barrett? Not at the moment, but it's important to say that the 20 -feet addition
to that what allowed by code does not make any difference. If I were to build a 65 -foot tall
building like I have the permit for, next to that, the same questions will arise and we will need to
do the same kind of structural assessment.
So it doesn't really make any difference unless I would propose to keep an alley or
proposed to keep an alley or backyard between your client structure and any future development there.
backyard between your clients.
These questions of yours that are important, they still apply for any project,
even if it was a 30 feet high single family townhome next to your client's structures.
And, sir, you haven't performed any kind of width analysis of the wind studies or snow loads
that will result from the construction of your property on my client's building?
Not at the zoning phase. Those questions will raise down the road. But first, we need to know
what is that we are allowing to build. As I said, any building from 38 feet and up would bring the
same concerns to the table and those will need to be addressed by our engineers.
And what assurances are you giving the zoning board that those concerns will be adequately
be addressed and not create a structural risk to micromancy.
I'm sorry, we really could not hear.
It's very difficult.
The microphone or something is not working well.
What assurance are you giving to the zoning board
that those engineering considerations
will be addressed prior to construction?
Mr. Chairman?
That's not a question for the zoning.
Yeah, that's a question for the L &I.
Yeah, thank you.
Mr. Zakin, when you describe the process of construction as surgery to preserve the skin of the bride,
you are acknowledging that there is risk that the surgery will be unsuccessful.
Is that fair?
Again, Mr. Chairman, that's a question for L &I, not the zoning board.
Anything could go wrong with any development.
A three -story building could create a problem.
Again, those are questions not for this board, with all due respect.
Respectfully, Mr. Chair, the whole basis upon which the variance is sought is to preserve the skin of the bride.
And my question goes to whether or not we have assurances that there won't be accidental damage to the skin of the bride, which will render the entire...
How can anyone predict that there won't be an accident?
I would say that more people die just by driving cars in the road than by building collapsing.
I'm not talking about danger to the public.
I'm talking about the failure of the construction activities to preserve the mosaic.
in which case i am sure mr i am sure mr zakin as any other developer will do everything in
their power to make sure that they do not damage any adjacent building because that becomes a
problem for them financially it's just maybe i'm not making myself clear so i'll try again
the basic premise of the request for variance is because he wants to preserve the skin of the bride
right correct correct and you are describing the delicate nature of your construction
in uh as akin to surgery in order to preserve the skin of the bride correct correct well that's
only part of it that's and we have understood it was not if it was not preserving the painted bride
and was building a 65 foot structure, you still have some of the same concerns that I think that
you're raising concerning the structural integrity of the historical buildings adjacent to his
project. I am not addressing the structural integrity of the historic buildings adjacent
to his property in this question, Mr. Chair. I am trying to understand if there is a cataclysmic
failure of the mural as a result of accident during this surgical process, what assurance
does anyone have that you will not just build an 85 -foot -tall building that no longer preserves
the mosaic, which is the whole basis for this variance request?
Mr. Chairman, we have our agreements with the Magic Gardens. Emily Smith from the Magic Gardens
is going to testify next. She's going to talk about all the work they've done to review the
status of the paint the mural and what they're going to do to preserve it and construction work
post -construction work and the fun that they have to fund it moving forward. I will ask Ms. Zaletta
is there a is does the zoning board have could we
Does the zoning board have, could we introduce a proviso, and would it be something that is not challengeable to preserve, a proviso that says he must preserve the painted bride or anything like that?
I don't believe that you can add that as a proviso. I do think, however, that this is one of those situations where it is handled by private agreements independent of the zoning board's ruling.
and we wouldn't go through all this effort mr chairman to destroy the the mosaic i mean it's
a lot of money we're spending to come up with this elaborate plan to preserve it we're running
into other agreements with the magic gardens to preserve it we're going to have a fund of money
set aside to preserve it so you know we're doing everything possible to preserve it i mean you
know, anything could happen. I mean, somebody could drive a truck into it today. I mean,
it's hypotheticals that are just not likely. Don't give anybody any ideas, please.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I'm not the one who likened this construction process to surgery,
Mr. Malone. I'm only following up on the concerns that your client has expressed
and trying to understand and have a record developed as to what happens in the event of an injury to the, or damage to the skin of the bride.
Is he going to rebuild it? Is he going to restore it to its current position?
Does he have a budget for how much preservation dollars are allocated towards this skin?
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
would he not be would he not be one minute you can ask the same question if he was only going
to build it 65 stories in total and preserving the bride and building a structure above it that
did not exceed 65 feet i think the same same questions uh would have to be dealt with it
if he did that as opposed to and we have a totally separate agreement with the magic gardens mr
chairman exhibit 13 of our of our exhibits that is in agreement with them they will have a fund
miss smith will testify as to the fund that will be set aside to you know preserve the uh the bride
so you know they they take into account all this we've done it and that's what she's going to
testify to when she testifies and she's not mr i think mr holliman tommy had a question yes i think
all of that will be covered under a certificate of insurance on the project thank you thank you
Mr. Aplonsky?
Jim Polsky.
Jim Polsky.
Okay, I have my next witness if there's nothing further for Mr. Zakin.
Okay, Mr. Mariano, please proceed.
I'd like to call Emily Smith.
she's available to be sworn in chair
thank you please identify yourself your full name spell your full name and i'll swear you in
Emily Smith. M -I -L -Y S -M -I -T -H. Emily, do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Medellini.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Emily, what's your profession? I am the Executive Director of
Philadelphia's Magic Gardens. What are your responsibilities as Executive Director?
I'm responsible for the strategic vision of the organization, making sure we don't stray from our values, our mission, all of our fiscal responsibilities, managing 20 employees, working closely with our founding artist, Isaiah Zagar, and I'm also a member of the preservation team.
What is the Magic Gardens?
we're a non -profit art museum located in the art environment that was created by isaiah
zagar that's located on 10th and south we opened in 2008 and we educate the public
and tours events exhibitions outreach preservation you know the whole nine yards
before covid uh we were serving over 175 000 visitors annually and we have an economic
an impact of millions of dollars for our local community.
And did the Magic Gardens prepare what I've got up on the screen, and which is Exhibit 6 in the materials presented, a condition report, and the next exhibit, which is Exhibit 7, a repair plan regarding restoration of the cigar mosaic at the Painted Bride?
And did the Magic Gardens prepare what I've got up
on the screen and which is exhibit six?
Could you make that larger?
Chairman, respectfully, I just need to object to this witness, this evidence that's being
entered into, and the testimony of this witness.
What grounds?
Relevance.
I mean, her testimony isn't relevant.
The condition report isn't relevant because here's the thing.
Aesthetics aren't relevant.
Mr. Marcioni says this is about aesthetics, and the zoning board doesn't do aesthetics.
And that's all this is.
I'll agree with that, but I think that the condition assessment may go to Mr. Jomplowski's questions about what the Magic Gardens nonprofit could do as it relates to preserving the painted bride or any damage that may occur during construction.
understood, Mr. Chairman, but the whole question as to preserving this skin of the bride isn't
relevant to your legal analysis when you offer relief, and that's what I needed to put on the
record. I believe it's totally relevant, Mr. Chairman. The basis of preserving the bride,
it's an impediment to the property, and we're entitled to preserve it, and Mr. Yampolsky
specifically asked about conditions, repair plan, and also our ability to preserve it and present
it from having any further damage and how we're going to address those issues. So,
you know, I think it's totally relevant. It's something I agree. It's an aesthetic.
Zoning board doesn't do aesthetic. But it's, again, it goes to Mr. Iampolsky's questions,
I think yes no one's requiring the bride to be saved period the whole basis of this testimony
we understand that but if the board were to uh grant this variance then some of those issues
that have been put on the record about preservation short -term long -term uh
uh or noted in on the record and i believe it that it's relevant to to our decision
mr chairman if the board would base the preservation of the skin of the bride uh on
your the decision based on that then the zoning board would become the de facto last place
i just it's part of that discussion well then every wall covering in the city and he should
just go and tear the damn thing down, and we can end this hearing in three seconds.
Absolutely. I completely agree. I'm sure you would. Okay. You take your structures as they
come, Mr. Chairman. The zoning board is also not out there telling people to demolish structures
no matter what they are, and we are entitled to work around the structure that we have. It's no
different than the Marshall case where the Supreme Court said preserving a school made sense.
It was something that came with the property. This is exactly the same thing. It's a mosaic that comes with the property. It happens to have been completed by a world -renowned artist, but it is something that we are entitled to work to seek to provide. We should not be required to demolish a structure just because somebody doesn't like the aesthetics of it.
No one, you're not required to tear it down, but you're also not expected to get more than 65 feet. That's your decision.
That's why there's a zoning.
That's why we're here.
Thank you.
Next question for Ms. Smith.
Would you describe to the board the present condition of the mosaic?
Yes, it's very typical, if not a bit better than anticipated for a Zagar mural that's more than 30 years old and is completely exposed to the elements and has never done any repair work.
The majority of the mural is fine. I would say about 70 % is completely fine and only needs to
be cleaned. The remaining needs some simple repairs and about 15 % of that requires more
in -depth repair work. And is the Magic Gardens prepared to complete all of the recommendations
in the report and the plan? Yes, and we would be thrilled to do it. And did the Magic Gardens
enter into another agreement, which is exhibit 13, an agreement to preserve the skin of the
bride mural with the developer at the painted bride site. Yeah, we have a signed agreement
to work together to preserve the mural throughout construction and later, and it is dependent on the
ZBA outcome today. And that's at exhibit 13? Yes, I think so. And what does that
And that's at Exhibit 13?
Yes, I think so.
And what does that agreement obligate the Magic Gardens to do?
We would work together with Shimi's team to document and prepare the mural first for the construction process.
And then we would make any repairs necessary as construction is completed.
Then after that, we would clean and seal the mural.
And then going forward, we would perform any annual assessments needed.
And is the Magic Gardens capable of complying with the covenant in that agreement?
Does the Magic Gardens have the financial capability of complying with requirements of the preservation agreement?
Yes, we do.
And there have been many statements made regarding the cost to restore and maintain the mosaic.
How do you know that your cost estimates are accurate?
well anyone who claimed the amount of money it would take to preserve this mural or not
they never did a full assessment of the mural nor did they ever speak to us or to the artist
who's still alive our estimate is based on our detailed assessment and our repair plan which
which you see here and as I said the majority of the mosaic actually does not need much work
Our estimate is based on the square footage of supplies needed, which we know from many years of previous experience.
And our estimate for repairs is between $35 ,000 and $50 ,000 for this project.
And does the Magic Gardens have staff who will complete the work as part of their jobs for the Magic Gardens?
Yes, we have three full -time preservationists whose only job is to work on zagar mosaics.
They work every day on mosaics that are in very similar conditions to what you would find at the Cana Bride.
We also, of course, have Isaiah Zagar. He's the artist.
He's 82. And even though he's going a bit slower, he's also a member of our team.
And so he would be a part of that process as well.
And what assurances can you provide the board and the public that the Magic Gardens can prepare the mosaic for construction?
and once construction is completed complete any restoration necessary and also maintain the
mosaic into the future well we we know the current state of the mural right so we just need to
properly prepare any areas of concern and then in our agreement which we've already signed
shimmies engineers and our engineers work together to make sure that we have the appropriate bracing
to protect the facade and then when we get to a certain point of the construction process we can
complete our repairs which like I said it's not going to be anything new for us it's going to
take some time probably take months of time and then we're going to clean and seal the whole
mural and then actually with Shimmy's design for the building the overhang which hasn't been
mentioned yet in this in this meeting it actually protects the mural in a way that it's never been
protected before because the biggest threat to the mural like this one is water penetration
from above. So moving forward, it's going to be much better taken care of. And of course,
we're going to be doing annual assessments as well, so we can always react as needed. So after
those main repairs and the building is completed, we're looking at a much better situation moving
forward. And does the Magic Gardens have a separate fund available for the expenses predicted
to be expended in efforts to maintain and preserve and repair the mosaic. Yeah, we have a restricted
fund of over $280 ,000 for preservation purposes only, such as these, and we have rolling contributions
each year to that fund, and I would just add that we didn't touch any of that money during the COVID
crisis so we're ready to go i have no further questions mr chairman thank you any questions
for this witness from the board no no okay any questions from council
yes other council questions mr cook yes mr chairman hi good morning
Good morning.
Ms. Smith, did you testify at the Historic Commission hearing when it was attempted to preserve the skin of the bride?
Objection, Mr. Chairman. That's a different setting. It's a different hearing and the issues that are decided.
Understood. And can we stipulate that Ms. Smith and others, Ms. Golden and others, testified in front of the Historical Commission, and the Historical Commission did not designate this as an historical building.
and the historical commission did not designate this as an historical building.
Can we stipulate to that?
I will stipulate if we can stipulate that these witnesses testified there.
They testified here.
Their testimony was materially similar or the same there as is here.
And their goal there was to preserve the mural.
And their goal here is to preserve the mural.
objection with respectively historical commission and what they did didn't do i'm asking a relevant
question about whether or not this this this witness has testified before regarding this
matter in the same fashion with the same goal it is relevant to a question of law that will be on
appeal i think we can stipulate to that yes we can stipulate yeah to all three of those aspects
correct we stipulate that she testified before the historical commission
may i may i ask if her goal is the same here as it was there mr chairman i i think it's obvious
okay that's fine as long as it's stipulated too i have no problem with that yes all right thank you
thank you
any other questions for this witness
Mr. Matteoni, I have one additional witness, Scott Holsinger.
No one has their hand raised.
be under another name mike scott holsinger he just texted me
yes he's about to speak all right can you guys hear me now yes good morning please identify
yourself spell your full name and i'll swear you in good morning uh my name is scott holsinger
s -c -o -t -t -h -o -l -s -i -n -g -e -r you're a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And what is your profession or occupation?
I'm a structural engineer.
I've been a structural engineer for 26 years.
And is the exhibit that's on the screen, is that a copy of your CV?
Yes, it is.
And is it reasonably accurate in terms of your qualifications to testify today?
It is.
And did you review the framing and foundation concept for the project, the 230 Vine Street, prepared by the architect?
I did. Yes, we discussed it and came up with a structural concept.
Did you review the architectural plans for 230 Vine Street?
I did.
And do these plans provide protection for the cigar mosaic on the exterior of the painted bride?
Yes, in combination with the structural concept in which, at the ground level, we bring all the structural columns and foundations inboard away from the perimeter, neighboring, and mosaic structures, and then use piles that are drilled into the ground instead of driven into the ground.
It's the best solution to protect the existing structures.
Yes. And does that foundation, the way you're going to do the foundation, I don't know if I
have the correct engineering term, but however you're going to do whatever it is, it supports
the structure. Is that done not only to preserve the mosaic, but will that also limit any adverse
impact on surrounding properties? Yes, absolutely. It's a micropile foundation system. Micropiles
are four to seven inch diameter steel pipes that are drilled into the ground. And we would do that
inboard six to eight feet away from the perimeter existing structures. And we do that specifically
to protect and significantly, extremely reduce the risk of any damage to those structures.
And explain how the floors are designed, you know, the second floor, third floor, fifth floor,
how they're designed above the mosaic and the extra work that this entails.
Sure, sure. So because we're bringing in that ground floor foundation and steel column structures in six to ten feet away from the perimeter structures,
the building above the podium levels above at the second and third floor levels have to cantilever out six to ten feet from those building columns
in order to fill out the footprint of the building, and then above that, they then have
to carry the weight of the building above on those cantilevers. So those cantilevers, in order to
on those cantilevers. So those cantilevers, in order to carry the weight of the above,
are quite large in terms of steel beam size and cost of construction.
And are you confident that through this construction
system or process that the Zegar Mosaic will be preserved?
Yes, yes. You know, as was said here, anything can go wrong accidentally, but in terms of a
design concept. I've used this concept and this type of design before at historical sites,
and I'm confident that it's by far the best system to preserve the existing structures.
And as a structural engineer, from a structural engineering perspective,
will the proposed 85 -foot hike cause any significantly greater impact on neighboring
properties than the 65 -foot hike permitted? I do not believe so, no.
What impact, I'm sorry, with respect to impact on the foundation of the neighboring properties, we covered that, I'm sorry.
It's important to note, though, Michael, we're not doing any underpinning, not digging a basement and pulling, you know, drilling piles inboard away from the structures is being done specifically to protect neighboring structures.
And is the construction process proposed, is that the least impactful when preparing a foundation on all the structures surrounding it and also the mosaic?
Absolutely.
And can you explain again why?
Yes. Yeah. If we were to go to a spread footing foundation, we would have large footings that would require us to underpin the mosaic or neighboring structures.
structures and you know as everybody knows anytime you go underpinning you you're undermining the
structure so that you can put a new foundation in we specifically do not want to do that or avoiding
anything to do with that and what we're doing is we're drilling four inch to seven inch diameter
steel pipes into the ground um six to ten feet away from the perimeter existing structures
and and so there are no impacts from driving piles there is just the drilling of these steel piles
into the ground and um by doing that is it is definitely the best best method to preserve
preserve surrounding structures and has been used at other historical sites in the past
and will there be extra costs incurred above the typical demolition and construction costs
to preserve the zagar mosaic yeah there definitely are it's you know micro piles are not a cheap
system. So there's extra cost in the micropiles. And then because we're doing this six to 10 feet
inboard from the existing perimeter walls, the structure above has to be cantilevered and the
cost associated with the heavy steel framing cantilevered beams to carry the building above
is significant. It's very significant. And while this is at an early design stage,
you have some estimate of what these extra costs might be? Yeah, my best estimate based on
work I've done over the past 26 years is about $2 million.
And are the opinions you've expressed today based upon a reasonable degree of structural
engineering certainty?
Yes, absolutely.
It's based on my professional experience over the past 26 years.
I have a number of projects that are awarded by the Preservation Alliance of Philadelphia.
I have a national award for a similar project to this.
It was actually much more complicated than this project.
It was completed at the Pennsylvania Hospital campus. And so, yeah, I believe I have a degree of certainty on this.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions for the witness.
Thank you. I just have one question. As it relates to the process of the drilling for the piling, you said you have experience in other areas where there were historical structures. Any of them in Philadelphia?
Yes, Chairman. The one I'm specifically referring to was completed at the Pennsylvania Hospital campus. As you know, Pennsylvania Hospital is a historical hospital in the city here. And at their Widener building, the emergency department building, a project that I designed and oversaw through construction administration as the design engineer, we built while we kept their emergency department active and running every minute of every day through this year and a half.
long project. We actually installed new foundations with micropiles in the basement of that building
below that building and then threaded columns down through the existing three -story building
and built four stories above the existing emergency department building and also gave
them capacity for an additional three stories in the future. And that work was done the entire
time on the historic campus with the emergency department running 24 hours a day the whole time.
running 24 hours a day the whole time thank you any questions from the board for this witness
Thank you. Any questions from the.
yes mr chairman do you happen to know the uh depth that you're going to drill the piles and
the reason why i asked the question is that second feet is close to the river thank you
uh yes no we do not have that information yet uh they wouldn't obviously wouldn't go deeper than rock
Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions from the board for this witness?
Any other questions for this witness?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, just very briefly.
This is Vern Anastasio.
Please proceed.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Haltsinger, you testified that there's extra costs to preserve the bride, is that correct?
Extra cost, yeah, to do this system that we're proposing, this concept.
And to preserve the bride, you estimate the extra cost to be around $2 million, is that right?
That's my guess.
Okay. Are you aware that there is no reason, legal or historic, for preserving the bride?
Objection, because that's why we're here today, Mr. Chairman.
Objection.
I was asking if he's aware that there's no reason to go.
He's asking him for a legal conclusion, Mr. Chairman.
I think he's been listening. And Mr. Hollinger, you have been listening to this testimony?
I have.
All right. So I think, Bernie, it's obvious that he's aware.
Okay. So, Mr. Hollinger, you would agree then that these extra costs are voluntarily taken on by the applicant? Is that right?
Objection to the characterization, Mr. Chairman. They are what they are.
There are extra costs that are taken on to design a project to preserve the bride.
But for, Mr. Holtzinger, maybe I should restate the question.
Sir, but for your client's desire to maintain the bride, would there be extra costs involved?
Let me ask the same follow -up to that question.
You haven't answered it yet, I know.
Given the testimony that was put on earlier about the two historically certified structures that are 250 years old, would your process be a better way of ensuring to the best of your ability that no damage would be done to those adjacent properties as opposed to typically pile driving?
I'd have to understand the alternative structure that you're talking about to answer that.
Mr. Chairman, I was only wondering if Mr. Housinger understood that these costs were being assumed by his client voluntarily, that's all.
I understand your question.
I'm not sure. I don't know.
Okay, so his answer is he doesn't know, that he doesn't know that these are self -inflicted
wounds. Okay, fine. Thank you.
All right. Do you have any more witnesses?
I have no more witnesses, Mr. Chairman.
Okay, who's up next?
And remind everyone, we have 45 minutes to go.
I'll be as brief as I possibly can, okay?
Someone else, was that Sharon?
No, it was Lakeisha. I was just letting you know we have two hands raised.
Okay, let's, Mr. Anastasio, and then we'll do the attorneys and then public.
Okay, I'm going to be brief with my argument, just going through it very briefly with the highlights.
You have our memo and all the case law.
It's voluminous.
It's already entered into the record.
I am going to ask to share a screen, if that's okay with you.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, may I proceed?
Yes, please.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, you've already heard lots of things today, some of which is and is not relevant.
You're going to hear other testimony today as well.
and you know I think we have to bring it back to the basics here and we have to be really crystal
clear with what we're doing and I'm going to focus just on the law because this is a legal proceeding
I know there's a lot of emotion involved with this particular piece of work but
wall coverings are not zoning unprotected wall coverings
Wall coverings are not zoning. Unprotected wall coverings are not hardships. Yes, the applicant
has a right to preserve the building that he purchased, but he does not have the right to
then use that building as a basis to seek zoning relief. The Historic Commission in 2018
already ruled that any purchaser of the property
has every right to demolish.
And then he moved, he knew that,
and then he purchased it.
He knows he can demolish the property.
And he may or may not know
that he could preserve some of it
and build an alternative scheme.
But the developer knew about this property
before he bought it.
he was aware of the determination of the historic commission when it was purchased
now the commonwealth court 2019 they relied on the historic commission's determination
that a prospective purchaser could demolish the entirety of the building including the mosaic
and the fact of the matter is what you're looking at is prima facie evidence that no hardship exists
they have in their possession this permit this is it
which they can execute tomorrow on they bought the bill they bought the property for four and a
half million dollars they have a permit to build 16 dwelling units three bedrooms apiece
in a residential section of Old City steps away from Alfred's Alley, which will sell in excess
of $2 million a unit. And by the way, they have parking. You can't sit here and credibly argue
that the numbers don't work. Okay? The only reason why the numbers may not work is if you choose
to save a building no one's asking you to save in fact the historic commission said go right ahead
the commonwealth court said go right ahead
so this is the prima facie evidence that i want to enter into the record and by the way
these are beautiful 16 townhomes they can go 65 feet
beautiful roof deck there's a reason why they submitted this you know they submitted it because
this is what they wanted to build and the applicant wouldn't have gone through all this trouble
if this was impracticable right he said it himself why would i bother if
if uh if it's not going to work well certainly this he bothered here
right he bothered look at all the work he did he submitted and he got his permit
this is this is the case this proves full evidence because there's no evidence of the contrary
that there is no hardship he's he has what he needs to proceed
and by the way if he doesn't want to go with that we've moved into this into evidence
our own report from our design professional. He's determined in his expert opinion that preserving
the mosaic can be accomplished with a structure not exceeding 65 feet, or as a supported
freestanding wall fronting a modified townhome development. So I don't understand the problem
here. There's an unwillingness to look for alternatives, and there's a desire to preserve
a building, but you can't base zoning relief on a desire, right? You see, there's zero evidence
of hardship as i've demonstrated you're going to hear testimony that granting relief in this
project would do adversely impacts to my clients those individual neighbors on both bodine street
and vine and by the way granting relief on this basis
would fundamentally alter the role of the zoning board forever
So while there's no hardship, as I said, there is a desire or a preference, and that is to spare a mosaic, which they won't even commit to personally maintain, by the way.
which they won't even commit to personally maintain, by the way.
They're going to leave that up to a third party.
They're going to leave that up to a third party with a paltry bank account.
So he can go 85 feet in the air and eat up all the light and air for the neighbors on Bodine Street.
Desires and preferences, Mr. Chairman, they're nice to have, but they have no place here before the board for a zoning analysis.
you can't use it the zoning board doesn't do aesthetics opposing counsel said it himself
the neighbors through their attorney sent three separate emails offering alternatives
based on your recommendation Mr. Chair that would give the appellant some of what they want
but they were answered with a big no each time and by the way no alternative option was ever offered
and if you grant this appeal the zoning board isn't just offering zoning relief anymore
the zoning board would become the last great hope for every wall covering in this city
be it a mosaic a mural or a vertical garden
when the courts won't protect them when historic commission won't protect them
they'll come here to the zoning board you think your docket's heavy now
they'll come here and they're going to rely on this case and they're going to ask you to
protect that wall covering or in the alternative bend over backwards to award huge variances
in deference to that wall covering you don't want that there's a place and a time for that
It's not here.
Granting the appeal is bad public policy.
It's bad law.
And that's what we're here to do.
This isn't arts and crafts.
It's a legal proceeding.
And that would be a terrible mistake in law
would be to grant this variance.
I submit all of my materials into evidence again,
including all relevant case law.
with that i have bob grimanskin as the first witness mr chairman before we go to him i just
have you mentioned the you use the word desire isn't it pretty much the same case for everybody
who appears in front of the zoning board no to seek some sort of relief because they desire to
do something right it's not permitted and i i'm sure there have been other cases at least i haven't
been sitting on as chair during any of the cases that may have where people may have requested to
save murals uh i know the sumatra mural of brodo morton wasn't saved i don't know if that was a
the applicant who built a multi -story building uh that basically covered it came in front of
the board or not but that's that's our job here isn't it to make those decisions based on a legal
analysis desires of people you've been faced for numerous times where people have a single family
home and their desire is to convert it into a three -story home i mean a three -family dwelling
as opposed to a single family dwelling that doesn't mean that the board's going to grant it
they desire to change the use right and preserve or preserve you're right and every and every
parcel is unique and that's how zoning law is handled uh in this case you when you do the
legal analysis you know again you all know this better than anybody you have to have a legal
hardship if you're going to ask for this kind of relief this isn't turning this is the board
understands that okay so but there's zero there's zero evidence it's not even like they tried
there's zero evidence of any hardship there's not one document that says what they have in
their hands 16 luxury units can't be built they have it it's the fact it's evidence the only thing
they actually have in evidence is the fact that they have no hardship mr chairman his statements
because we presented our case and they are what they are.
I do want to object to the toner letter.
It's hearsay and I want to object.
I want that on the record.
Sustained.
Vern, I think you had someone.
Yeah, Bob, are you there?
Is the RCO chair or representative?
Mr. Robert, you can unmute yourself.
Good morning, sir.
We couldn't hear you.
please I spell your full name and I'll swear you in. Sure it's Robert and the last name is G -U -R -M -A -N -K -I -N.
M -A -N -K -I -N.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You swear for him to tell the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Bob, please explain your role with the local RCO.
Yes, I live at 319 Vine Street, right up the street from the Painted Bride, and I'm president of Franklin Bridge North Neighbors, where the presiding RCO and hosted the RCO zoning meeting with the applicants.
very good and you've heard my presentation to the board this morning yes okay is it true and
accurate to the best of your knowledge yes it is and would you adopt it as your own testimony if
need be yes thank you as a leader in the RCO that deals with this particular project can you please
tell the board the process through which this proposal went and the lengths through which you
went to try and come to a reasonable accommodation. Sure. So we had a virtual meeting with the
applicants and our zoning committee on December 28th just to go over the project. I will say that
This is the first variance that our area has faced other than with use in over a decade.
We then had a virtual open meeting on January 7th with the public.
We had a vote at meetings end.
It was 17 opposed, six in support, and one non -opposed.
Of the near neighbors, they were 12 to one opposed.
Our voting rules only allow those who live in our boundaries to vote as one vote per household, building ownership, or business, and there's no proxy voting.
We sent the results to the development team the next day, and then all the registered vote attendees were sent notice the following day.
We didn't hear anything from Mr. Maniotti since the RCO meeting until the Friday before the April 21st zoning meeting when Mr. Anastasio received their 265 -page packet.
Maybe I'm naive, but I was a little surprised.
You know, an RCO voting to oppose the project, I would have expected the developer to reach out.
But anyway, because of the complexities of this project, we sent a survey to all those who voted.
Very simple survey. Why did you vote the way you did? And anything else they wanted to add.
And there were a lot of reasons for those opposed.
Objection, it's hearsay, Mr. Chairman.
Yeah, you have to speak. Well, he is the chair of the RCO.
He's speaking about a survey that he sent out that didn't share with us, and it's clearly hearsay.
He's the RCO. It's not hearsay at all, Mr. Chairman.
It certainly is.
It's their process.
We'll allow that. It's over with.
Okay. So the main reason that we got was the height at 30 % greater than code and concerns about setting precedent.
At the April CBA meeting, the applicants referenced a couple other tall buildings, which they did today, Bridgeview Place and the Chocolate Works as the reason why building to 85 feet is not a big deal.
But these other buildings can't be just pointed to as just being taller, as if they're some sort of similar example, when their age and historic character can't be replicated.
These buildings are historic factory conversions built before the modern zoning code, but even so, they conform to the current code when it comes to lot coverage.
So while they may be rather large, tall buildings, they don't overwhelm the lot.
they pointed out that you know no one in our area is building higher than 65 feet so this
isn't going to set a precedent but until variances are first given and we're talking three there is
no precedent that others will surely cite we have several sites that are primed for redevelopment
we know that it's second and callow hill national properties is using every bonus available to build
to 244 feet by right.
Now it's a new developing area, it's not historic,
but it's two blocks away.
In 2008, right before the Great Recession,
there was a variance application for a 21 -story building
within our boundaries at 5th and Wood Street.
So it's very likely that developers are gonna continue
to look for maximizing their investment by building higher.
So this building may very well set the precedent
in our historic neighborhood.
There were concerns about increased congestion, density, traffic issues, with a building containing
25 or so more units and building to code.
The 200 block of Vine Street's two -way street, which is actually a surprise to many people,
It gets a lot of traffic in the morning rush hour because it's a block from the Calahoe exit of 95.
it gets a lot of traffic in the morning rush hour because it's a block from the Calahoga.
New streets one way with one way plane of traffic.
And while there certainly will be move -ins, move -outs, deliveries with whatever's built, there's going to be more with these increased units.
And they have no provisions for any kind of loading zones in this project.
Some of the issues raised aren't really relevant.
Loss of view, difficulty with parking.
the people who have properties that back onto Bondean Street, they will testify when they're out.
Excuse me, when they're out. I have a real problem, and it was brought up by Mr. Jan Polsky.
Real concerns about the Mosaic surviving demolition. These variants are being sought
solely predicated as Isaiah Mosaic being on the site. We already know it's in poor condition.
There's two reports that were.
Objection to those reports, Mr. Chairman.
They were in a different form and they're not presented as evidence in this here.
These reports were from the Preservation Committee on Preservation and Historical Commission.
And they had two experts, John Carr, a highly regarded architectural conservator.
And then there was also an engineering firm, Joseph B. Callahan.
Both of them surveyed the facade.
Again, my objection, Mr. Chairman, is to be on hearsay.
These reports will be entered into evidence at the appropriate time.
They're at a different forum, and the people who perform them, as far as I know, aren't here to testify about them.
Are they here to testify, Vern?
Not as part of my witness list, but they very well may be.
And Chairman Harry Cook here, if those were submitted and entered into evidence at another tribunal, they are records of the city of Philadelphia and admissible here.
They're hearsay, Mr. Chairman.
They're official records.
They're not official records.
They were just evidence submitted to a different forum.
Yes, and that is part of the record.
They're still hearsay.
And it's official.
It's not official.
There's nothing official.
And everyone had an opportunity to cross -examine at that point.
Objection, objection, objection.
Excuse me, this is Sharon.
There is no right to cross -examine at the Historical Commission.
It is a quasi -legislated body, not a quasi -judicial board.
So where does that lead me as far as my testimony?
You can proceed.
Okay. So I did send a two -page letter to the board yesterday, so I'll try and summarize. Both Mr. Carr and Joseph Callahan assessed the mosaic and gave it a much worse assessment than the Magic Gardens.
I'm a continuing objection, Mr. Chairman. It's noted, right?
It's hearsay.
Can I continue or do you want me to move on?
It's hearsay.
Okay, I will move on just to say that the entire building has been shrouded for over two years now, not without reason.
The property has failed three L &I inspections since 2018.
Now, neither of these evaluations nor the Magic Gardens evaluation report take into account the removal of the roof system and the demolition.
since too much of this is hearsay,
the only mosaic assessment that the 260 page packet has
is an evaluation repair plan from the Magic Gardens.
Calls from 8 -0 -0 service.
Anybody has a phone on?
Sorry about that.
Whoever it was, please silence your name.
Please proceed, sir.
Robert?
I think he muted himself, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not sure if that was on purpose, but...
I'm sorry.
Please unmute yourself, Bob.
There you go.
Okay, sorry about that.
What I was going to say is that the Painted Bride
pretty much rejected the Magic Gardens repair plan,
saying that they didn't feel...
Again, that was in a totally different forum,
in a different sort of circumstances.
Fine. Then I will move on. The Magic Gardens has a repair plan. However, the credentials of the people who did that plan.
Objection. Emily Smith testified and they could have cross -examined her and they chose.
Fine. And I will go on. In Exhibit 13, which is the agreement between Groom Investment and the Magic Gardens to preserve the skin, Section 6C, Groom Investments can effectively take control of repair of the mosaic if the Magic Garden doesn't have the funds, it takes too long.
Fine. Then I will go on. In Exhibit 13.
So my question, and it's a rhetorical, because I'm not expecting a reply, is what would that look like?
Would it still be considered an Isaiah Mosaic if Grun did large -scale research?
Mr. Chair, and Ms. Smith testified, Ms. Zaykin testified, and they were subject to cross -examination, and nobody asked them any questions.
Sorry, I do have a question for you.
What are the boundaries of Ben Franklin Bridge North?
So we are between the Ben Franklin Bridge and Callow Hill Street, I -95 and 6th.
But you're on the north side of the Ben Franklin Bridge, correct?
That's correct.
Do you know if your RCO participated in any of the discussions about the development that was built at second and race?
No, not that I know of, but I understand that there was a special overlay for that development, and that overlay ends at New Street.
Thank you.
Bob, do you have anything else to add?
Yeah, I'll try and be brief.
We're very concerned that we're going to have an 85 -foot building, 100 % of the lot, and that when everything's said and done, we may have a mosaic that's been damaged beyond repair.
many in the city may be disappointed if that happens but they're not the ones living with
an overlarge building with at best some generic replacement this project's been presented to us
and to the board as two options 85 foot buildings 74 units or demolition and townhouses take it or
leave it we've been open from the beginning to a third option something that could preserve the
mosaic, or at least most of it, but is at least closer to the zoning code. We presented a number
of ideas for discussion. They were dismissed. We're willing to compromise, but we've seen
zero flexibility from the developer's side. We've asked for reasonable assurances if variants are
granted that the mosaic survives, including increasing the amount in escrow. This was also
turned down. You feel like the mosaic is being hostage. It's a wonderful work of art, but it's
not historic. There are some 220 other mosaics by Isaiah Zagar around the city. Other murals,
some by well -known artists, have not been given special dispensation and neither should this one.
Many people in the city and elsewhere are interested in this case, but ultimately whatever
does get built, it's our neighborhood and the people on Vine and Bodine Street who will have
to live with the results. Thank you. Bob, I just have a question. You see on the screen the
the as -of -right 16 housing units that the applicant secured permits for. Is that right?
Are you pleased with this proposed development that the applicant initially submitted?
Yeah, it would be very nice. We have both townhouses and multifamily residential
buildings in our neighborhood. It's a nice mix.
In fact, you have them on that particular block. Is that correct?
Yes, and there's going to be new ones at the end of the block at 2nd and Vine Street.
11 new townhouses are planned.
Right.
And you were here for when we went through the aerial shot of all the taller buildings in the immediate area of Franklin Bridge,
including the one that's not part of your RCO boundary that's just south of the bridge.
You remember when we were pointing those out?
Are any of those properties on this particular block?
No, they're not.
Very good.
I have nothing further.
Yeah, I just have one more question that you refresh my memory.
How many, you said you had a meeting and how many people voted in favor of 16?
No, it was 17 opposed, six in favor.
One, no, no position.
Backwards.
Thank you.
Bob, one more point of clarity, Bob, you are aware that
councilman mark squilla opposes this variance request is that right yes we we had been in
contact him from back in december or january when we first heard about it we raised some concerns
and we recently talked to their office just last week and he sent a letter of opposition
that's correct so no do we have that in the record that councilman school did send the letter
of opposition. And Representative Mary Isaacson, Bob, you are aware that she also, she too opposes
this granting of the variance, is that right? That's my understanding. Okay, yeah, very good.
That's my understanding.
Yeah, very good.
Thank you.
Thank you, nothing further.
Nothing further.
Any questions for this witness from the board?
Mr. Marioni?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a couple of questions for Mr. Gamankin.
Are you aware, Mr. Marioni, one of the concerns that you expressed was that if we get a variance here, that everybody around will get variances for hygiene.
Isn't that what you said?
It's a concern.
But aren't you also aware that there are right now three projects that have just been granted permits on the 200 block of Vine Street, all just to the east of this or one just to the north, where they're building the 65 feet, but those projects also don't have a cigar mosaic on their properties.
Now, isn't that correct?
Very few properties have cigar mosaics on their property.
Right. So these other properties are all doing 65 feet because that's what's permitted. And they don't have the hardship presented here of having a cigar mosaic. Isn't that correct?
That is correct. As I said, you know, I can't speak for everyone in our neighborhood, but I think most people would like to see it preserved, but with something closer to the zoning code.
code. And just one last thing. Are you aware that we are not doing demolition here? And this is not
a demolition project. You keep talking about demolition. We're preserving the mosaic.
Right. But you're demolishing the entire interior of the building. You're removing the roof. That's
demolition. Yes. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Next up is Gary Vernick.
for everyone's uh knowledge it is 12 10 p .m. gary vernick is next thank you mr chair yes mr gary
is all available i am now unmuted can you hear me thank you gary can you please spell your full
name, and I'll swear you in. Gary, G -A -R -Y, Vernick, V as in Victor, E -R -N -I -C case, 215 -217 Vine Street.
You swear, affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I certainly do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vernick,
could you please explain to the board why you oppose the granting of this variance?
Sure. You know, I had prepared some testimony, something that Jane Golden said in her testimony kind of hit me in the stomach.
And I have the utmost respect for Jane Golden and the work that she has done in this city.
I also have the utmost respect for the Painted Bride. The Painted Bride has been a good neighbor for 40 years.
I am a near neighbor and I have resided and owned since 1978. I am completely aware of the history
of this neighborhood and I am the past president of our RCO. But Jane Golden said that murals
are a piece of our soul. They may be a part of her soul. They're not a part of mine.
We're a heritage city. In fact, as far as I understand, the only heritage city in the country. That designation is because of our history, our architecture, our culture, our independence halls and constitution centers.
it has nothing to do or very, very little to do with this Zegar mural.
And so what I really want to make clear to this Honorable Board
is that I have some questions and I think I have some answers, and I want to speak to what I
believe this matter should really be about, which is zoning, hardships, and variances.
And my first question is whether or not this development presents any legal hardship as to why zoning relief is actually necessary.
This is a zoning case of a self -imposed hardship.
This mosaic was no surprise.
I've been looking at it for the last 30 years.
It wasn't buried under some wall and unseen.
This developer purchased the building and the mosaic.
fully knowing what was involved. And as the Commonwealth Court has already ruled,
the painted bride has the right to dispose of their building and the mosaic as they see fit
and according to law. So what's the legal hardship, as Mr. Anastasio keeps asking?
So what's the legal hardship, as Mr. Anastasio keeps asking?
I sat through all of the testimony before this case was continued and since it's been continued, and I have not heard one legal hardship.
My second question, can this property be developed without the three variances?
And this has already been covered, and the answer is obviously yes.
Permit number 976829 was issued by the City of Philadelphia, and the request was granted for these townhouses without any variance.
Is it financially feasible? Is it viable without the three variants? Obviously, yes.
So again, where's the hardship?
and so what we have here as far as I'm concerned is nothing more than an excuse for enhanced
profitability due to a non -protected mosaic and the third question I have what conditions are
present on the land what's unique about the land is it's a rectangular lot it's a flat lot
It goes from Vine Street to Bodine Street to New Street.
It's not irregular.
It's not narrow.
It's not shallow.
The lot has no obstructions for building purposes.
There's nothing unique to the land that requires a variance for this builder to develop it.
And so can the property be reasonably used and developed without variances and in its current condition?
Absolutely yes. If you answer those three questions the way I do, we're talking about
a textbook case of no hardship. Textbook. It's really the definition of no hardship and no
variance. And my next question is, will the granting of the three variances alter the
essential character of this neighborhood and be detrimental to this neighborhood?
Will the variances and the proposed building have an adverse effect on the welfare of the
neighborhood? And to this, I can absolutely guarantee you the answer is yes. A request 30 %
higher than allowed by the code. And as Mr. Mattione just interjected, all the other construction
on the 200 block of Vine Street and within 150 yard radius, there are five projects already
permitted, some of which are already going up by right. None exceed 65 feet. And you'll also hear
testimony as to the effects of going up not 85, but close to 100 feet on these two historic
buildings on Vine Street. And think about our heritage. Think about buildings that go back to
the Declaration of Independence. That's our heritage. That's why we're a heritage city.
But I believe that the detrimental effects of 75 units run much deeper on this neighborhood.
Their request is for 100 % lot coverage, 100 % to accommodate 74 or so or 75 units.
Here's the problem. Members of the board, I shouldn't even have to tell you this, but we are
a very, very old neighborhood, one of the oldest in the city. Our infrastructure is old, our water
is old, our sewers old, our electric gas, very old. 12 years ago, my wife and I built our home
at 215 Vine Street. Mr. Vernick, I'm sorry to interrupt. I appreciate your testimony, but if
you can summarize that would be helpful we're running out we're running out of time here and
i know it's important not dismissing your your passion about this but if you can summarize that
would be helpful councilman it's somewhat difficult to summarize and i asked for your indulgence
with all due respect we're talking about a building that's going to be there for a hundred
years i'd ask for another 15 minutes to talk about it if that's okay that will put us past
the 12 30 deadline i don't know if you heard it's going to be continued anyhow sir we have expert
excuse me so i think the determination oh we've got two other lawyers who still have
haven't had their chance to present so this this case will definitely be continued there's no
question about it all right so what having said that mr verney it's 12 it's 12 18 mr
All right. So having said that, Mr. Verne.
It's 12. It's 12 .18, Mr. Chairman. I will definitely be done by 12 .30.
I can tell you, thank you for calling me councilman today. I wish I was the councilman and not the board chair, but continue.
And so as I was saying, thank you. Our infrastructure is very, very old. All of our utilities, our water, our sewer.
And 12 years ago, my wife and I built our home at 215 Vine Street, and we asked PGW, the gas company, for an installation for a tankless water heater.
PGW could not give us the pressure necessary to run a tankless water heater because of our infrastructure.
The water company couldn't give me enough pressure to accommodate my upper floors, and water pressure pumps had to be installed to get water to the bathrooms on the upper floors.
And so you can answer the question yourself. What effect will 74 additional units have on our utilities, our infrastructure, and our quality of life? A horrible effect.
perhaps not on his building because everything's going to be new but on the rest of the neighborhood
it will be horrible what other negative effects will an 85 foot building have with 74 units
i see that the developer is calling for 10 or 12 parking spaces and perhaps that's legal under the
due to some zip car loophole so i'm not going to comment on the zip car loophole
But I do want to comment on what happens with 74 new units on the 200 block of Vine Street, and to do that, you must understand the physical setting.
New Street is a one -way street, two lanes, with parking on the south side of the street.
Vine Street's a two -way street. It's three lanes wide with parking on the north side.
Bodine Street is basically not wide enough to fit anything other than a subcompact down.
And so let's say the building goes up and at the end of the month when people are moving out
or the beginning of the month when people are moving in, where do the moving trucks park for
hours while they load and unload is it on new street which will close it down because there's
only one lane to travel or objection mr chairman i mean this is a cmx3 zone we could build there's
no limit to the number of units we could build here and you know this is really irrelevant i
mean and mr vernick to your to your point about the infrastructure i understand that most streets
in philadelphia have the same challenges so if if what is being agreed to by the community
the proposal that the community supports it's going to put the same kind of pressure on that
infrastructure as what is being proposed in this application i don't see much difference there
i see a very big difference between eight townhouse units and 74 individual units because
way. Townhouses are built, Mr. Chairman. They move in once and they move out once when they
sell the building. These apartments around here are filled by millennials that you're lucky if
you get a year out of before they get transferred, disillusioned, or go to the suburbs and get
married. And I am telling you that as somebody that's lived here for 43 years. And what I'm
telling you is that moving trucks on any of the streets surrounding this building, especially in
the morning when traffic is coming off Callahill exit of the I -95 off -ramp, will create gridlock
in our neighborhood for hours. And so I am only enunciating the standards put forth by Commonwealth
Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as a standard as to the detrimental effects
that the proposed variances would have on the neighborhood. And I will tell you that
this particular proposal, that this particular building, the way it's situated, its density,
it's lack of a space for the painters the electricians the repair people
the people that come to service this building is not present
it simply isn't there we all know what contractors do they park as close to the
building as they possibly can without regard they have to empty their materials
they have to have access to their tools where do all these people go for 74 units
Where do all these people go for 74 units?
It's not provided for.
it's not provided for
it's given
Excuse me, Mr. Vernick.
Excuse me, Mr. Vernick.
I have a question.
Do you believe or think that the mural is an icon in your neighborhood?
The mural is a part of our neighborhood that some people love, some people disregard, and some people hate.
But I ask your position.
My position is this.
I've grown to love the mural. I think it's a wonderful addition to the neighborhood,
but not at the expense of the neighborhood's welfare and well -being. I live across the street,
and I am telling you that if I see three or four or five people during the course of three or four
summer months come and take a look at the mural for five minutes, it's a lot. And remember,
And remember, there's 220 other murals by Mr. Sagar throughout our city.
This is not some unique Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel that is one of a kind.
It is not that.
Excuse me.
Excuse me.
So therefore, you support the mural in your neighborhood?
excuse me mr holliman he's testifying that against this particular project now the mural is the
mosaic is not relevant here icons are icons if in one's opinion but the icons are not the purview
of this board icon cannot be used as a legal analysis for a variance full stop period
end of story and i and i do disagree with mr anastasio's conclusions we've cited the cases
in our brief that support it such as the kid case where you had a tree line a mature tree line and
they found that that was a something possessing intrinsic value that should be justified and
allowed granting of a dimensional variance same thing here we have a mural that is iconic and
is worthy of saving and it has intrinsic value and the additional cost to save it can be
so mr chairman i'm sorry excuse me totally mr cook mr cook mr cook you're talking over other
people we're not getting your testimony all right mr vernon five minutes mr chairman all right i
just have a question for you mr vernon sure hypothetically if the board or if the developer
were to propose to build the same exact plan, but keep it to 65 foot, meaning preserving
the mosaic and not exceed 65 feet, what would your position be?
Mr. Chairman, what would your position be?
Excuse me, Gary. Hold off, Gary. Hold off. Mr. Chairman, we've already proffered that solution.
my clients were already proffered that and it was shot down
i'm asking mr vernick because he raised other issues about infrastructure
and the concerns through my office mr vernick proffered that solution already okay i didn't
know that all right thank you yep and and you and mr chairman to answer your question
if this was by right you wouldn't be hearing from me i was past president of this association for
five years and oversaw you've never seen or heard from me before let's put it that way
and there's been multiple projects that have gone up in the neighborhood if they're by right
that's what the law says it's by right i understand okay all right so let me just finish
up let's just talk about this mosaic there's been a black shroud over this mosaic every time i walk
past it for the last two and a half, three years. I actually drove through your neighborhood two
weeks ago to react and make myself with the neighborhood. You should have stopped in. We
would have had coffee. That would have not been legal for me to do. Thank you.
We wouldn't have talked about the Painted Bride. But the Painted Bride has in fact put forth
testimony that is on this record already. The Painted Bride hasn't put any testimony on this
record. They're not even a party to this case. The exhibits presented as part of my brief include
the Painted Bride's argument to the Historic Commission of the City of Philadelphia
and the Court of Commonwealth Court have all agreed that mosaic has no protection.
that mosaic has no protection we have certainly used it is 12 20 it is 12 28
We have certainly gentlemen.
mr cook just wanted to put something on the record mr chair should i finish uh mr yeah let
mr vernic finish please and then we're going to continue this case and i'll give you the date and
time. Thank you, sir. And so what I was attempting to say is that the testimony that was put forth by
the developer, Emily Smith, who testified here at the Historical Commission is part of this record
and included in the record and you can go check the actual words yourself but that the painted
bride's testimony before both commonwealth court and the historical again they're not they didn't
testify here mr chairman and they didn't testify all entered into evidence and you don't testify
before the commonwealth court that's oral argument only so there's no testimony before the commonwealth
court either. It's part of the record Mr. Chairman. Go ahead Gary. 50 % of this mosaic is
be laminated. The mosaic itself is separating from the walls of the painted bride. Now maybe
that's not a big deal for some people but understand this since this mosaic went up 25 28 30 years ago
exactly what it was. This mosaic has not been cleaned, repaired, preserved, maintained in any
way. So tell me something. If this mosaic is all of a sudden so valuable, please tell me why nobody's
taken care of it for 25 years, and now it's become the focus of this whole argument concerning zoning.
Something doesn't make sense here. And what doesn't make sense is that this whole argument
concerning the nature of the mosaic is an illusion.
This developer is smart.
He submitted an agreement to you
between himself and Magic Gardens,
which he, the developer,
and this is on the record, Mr. Matione,
that they completely,
the developer completely absolves himself
of all responsibility.
Actually, the agreement speaks for itself, Mr.
That's right.
And I'm commenting on it.
You can read it yourself.
He absolves himself.
you're not a party to the agreement gentlemen gentlemen this is it's 12 31 i'm not trying to
be a stickler but we have rules we have to follow on this side the city side we have to we're going
to have to continue this case i'll be happy to give the rest of my testimony at the next hearing
mr chairman all right um well unless there's any objection from the board uh this case will be
continued to august the third tuesday august the third at 9 30 a .m thank you mr chairman we thank
everyone for participating and for those of you who haven't had a chance to testify we apologize
but we have to be out of here at 12 30 thank you thank you mr chairman thank you board
thank you thank you councilman thank you mr chairman does that conclude or who's that another
the case. I believe that concludes. That's it. Tanya, do we have any unfinished business?
No, all that does conclude this session for today.