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