of completeness? Is there anything of note regarding the unit layout, or are they generally
Of note, regarding the unit layout, are they generally fairly standard, what you would expect to see in this area?
fairly standard, what you would expect?
These are fairly standard layouts.
They range between 600 and 650 square feet for one bedrooms and 900 square feet for two bedrooms.
It allows some variety in pricing and comps for tenants.
Great. Let's come back to Exhibit 9D in a moment.
If you could explain to the board just a little bit more detail relative to the design for access and what these next slides at Exhibit 10 show.
Sure. So our primary entry will be centered on Lehigh Avenue.
There'll be a number of pedestrian improvements to this frontage with the inclusion of a four foot furnishing zone that will be sufficient for the planting of street trees.
a healthy 10-foot walking zone, and some building zone for additional landscaping features.
Next slide shows our access point at Emerald Street.
So this would be the accessible entry for pedestrians or the public to enter the
common space, landscape area, some bike racks and ramping.
Um, and then finally along Frankfurt Avenue, this is our, uh, vehicular entry point to the
below grade garage. Uh, you can see what that elevation looks like. There is really no, uh,
other option for vehicles to enter the site. This is as far back as we could put it. Uh,
we've continuously worked with the streets department to, to get this in the right spot.
uh and you know we were at one point we're trying to get loading in the site as well but it just
wasn't feasible and then finally you can see some additional examples of what that rear
uh space will look like when it's finished against the wall thank you and then chris is there anything
of note uh relative to this particular uh site diagram for pedestrian and vehicular circulation
to note? No, I think it's just important to recognize, though, that the developer and our
design team recognized the disconnect of pedestrian circulation along Lehigh Avenue,
and we thought it was incredibly important to bridge these connections and make a number of
options available for people walking in this area, even as what you'll get to in a minute with
future trail implications and things like that. And just so the board can get a good sense of
the project, I'll just briefly scroll through the renderings. Chris, is there anything in
particular while I scroll through that you would like to add relative to the renderings for the
project? Not in particular. I think these are fairly common materials for projects of this
scale. It's something that was reviewed by the CDR committee and for the most part was
well received. And we've been working with them in the community to make sure that this
was something that everybody would like. Thank you. So then very briefly, just to touch on
something you referenced moments ago at Exhibit 9D, can you explain to the board
what is shown in these next two images? Sure. So there was discussions with Rails for Trails
for eventually developing the elevated rail line, a portion that's abandoned as a park space.
And design team understands that this can be years in the making, especially with ownership
transfers and things like that. But we have the infrastructure in place to provide a potential
connection to that within our building. That access point that bridges over Emerald Street
makes for a great connecting point. The proposal would be that if that park system falls in place,
we would bridge to that and then provide a public stair that was separate from the building,
but still part of the construction that would allow people access to that.
Thank you. So as the board knows, due to the size of this project, it was required to be reviewed by
the Civic Design Review Committee which completed the process on September 25, 2023.
The completion letter is included in the packet at Exhibit 18. The project received a generally
positive reception with committee members noting that the project was appropriate in size and scale
given the width of Lehigh Avenue and all of the new projects that you saw in the photographs to
the south. Members also praised the underground parking design, noting it would serve as positive
precedent for future developments. Should the request be granted today, the design team will
continue seeking ways to incorporate additional committee and community feedback surrounding
public access and traffic improvements. Before I turn to some concluding arguments where I'll
Before I turn to some concluding arguments where I'll touch on the remaining exhibits, I'd like to just briefly summarize the community engagement process.
touch on the remaining exhibits.
During the course of this process, the development team held at least four separate meetings with the local RCOs.
In addition, the team met with non-RCO-specific organizations, such as Rails to Trails.
There are a total of five RCOs that cover this property.
Somerset Neighbors for Better Living was assigned as a coordinating RCO, although East Kensington Neighbors, or ECNA, equally participated throughout the process.
During CDR, only ECNA sent a letter to the committee where it expressed strong support for the project and detailed each reason supporting its position.
During the final official meeting of the RCO, at least 20 people were in attendance, which I've documented in a screenshot that I included for the board at Exhibit 20.
Oddly, the RCO letter only references 12 total attendees, even though there were clearly 25 or more.
Of those 12 people, eight people voted to oppose the project, four voted in support, and two voted in non-opposition. So for a project of this scale, it was really quite a low voting project.
While we have no explanation for the missing votes and the discrepancy in the number of votes against the listed attendees, we would note the board should consider whether a project of this scale should rest on the opinion of just eight people in a community of thousands, particularly since the vote was largely neutral.
Additionally, at Exhibit 20, we did include petitions and letters of support, which includes
over 20 signatures from nearby neighbors expressing their full support of this project.
The applicant submits that the exhibits and the testimony presented today has considerably
established why this property suffers a unique, unnecessary hardship leading to the variance
request before the board. As it relates to the refusal generated for the additional eight feet
in height, the board saw evidence of this property's unique constraints, including structural
buttresses and concrete pads that extend from the freight rail lines into the property that cannot
be removed. Chris noted that the site is significantly underbuilt as a result of these
constraints, which ultimately leads to the necessity for a slight increase in height.
Furthermore, there are important design considerations required to accommodate the
underground parking and the 18-foot ceiling heights for the Lehigh fronting commercial
spaces, which further contributes to the additional height. Importantly, the proposed height increase
of eight feet is a more modest height increase compared to the height variances granted for
several of the nearby developments, which are up to 75 feet high. Regarding the proposed
residential use in the industrial ICMX zoning district, I have just a few more exhibits for
the board to consider in concluding, as prior boards have done, that this property suffers
a significant hardship in attracting any by-right or desirable ICMX-compliant use.
To summarize those exhibits, the ICMX zoning of the property does not match the character
of the area, the history of this particular property, or the city's own vision for this
property and the Kensington area.
The area surrounding this property has undergone a significant transformation over the last
10 years as traditional industry and industrial uses have left and have been replaced with high
density mixed-use projects that provide walkable access to services and amenities for the surrounding
neighborhoods. This site was specifically selected as a catalyst site in the Brownfields Area-Wide
Plan Lower North Delaware Industrial District published in 2019. Since the demolition of the
industrial uses decades ago, the long remaining vacant lots, including this property, have been
underutilized for car sales and under other automotive uses. The property in particular
has been a troublesome tire and scrapyard that has caused undesirable impact to the surrounding
community. This notion is supported at Exhibit 15, which provides a summary of the Philadelphia
Scrap Yards and Auto Wrecking Planning Considerations publication, published in February of 2018,
which used this property as an example of the detriment that these types of uses pose.
A link to the full publication is included at that exhibit. This prop
A link to the full publication is included at that exhibit.
This property, as I mentioned earlier, was even denied a variance years ago for its use, further lending support that the industrial use is no longer appropriate or desired in this neighborhood.
The only remaining industrial use in this area is the Jackwinds Distillery located between Trenton Avenue and Sepfiva Street.
This Lehigh Avenue corridor has and continues to undergo a transformation into predominantly mixed-use commercial and residential uses.
The existing ICMX zoning does not reflect the ongoing trend in the neighborhood.
That trend is further reflected at Exhibit 13.
This first image is a general reflection of the use of property surrounding 2001 East Lehigh, which is shown in red.
Some of these uses are permitted by Wright, some are under construction, and some are fully occupied.
This image clearly shows the march of residential transformations that I've referenced early in the presentation.
The next image more clearly shows the property's nearest to 2001 East Lehigh Avenue.
Immediately next door at 2035 East Lehigh, also zoned ICMX, contains a mix of 155 dwelling units with commercial use.
Next to that, at 2157 East Lehigh, which was just approved by the board in 2020 and is currently under construction,
includes four structures as high as 75 feet, including just under 300 units and commercial.
It is also extremely important to note that 2157 East Lehigh was granted by the board with nearly identical variance requests,
and when it was appealed by a community member to court, the court found that the board had
appropriately concluded that the property suffered a hardship concerning both use and
height. While the height consideration would be independent to each property, the use analysis
is heavily related, if not identical. Should the board desire to review the prior board's findings
of fact and conclusions of law or the transcript in the case concerning 2157 East Lehigh, I'd be
happy to provide that to board counsel. Finally, 2621 Frankfurt Avenue was recently permitted by
variance for 453 units plus significant commercial space. The natural trend has shown that a solely
industrial commercial use of this property is not in keeping with the character of the mixed
residential commercial development occurring along east lehigh avenue i did also include
the permits for all of these properties at exhibit 13. physical features of this property
such as its size narrowness rail infrastructure all limit it limits its viability for a more
traditional by right industrial use which is significantly accentuated by the limited
vehicular access to the site that Chris described, which is due to the adjoining overhead but
abandoned viaducts. In fact, you heard today that the owner had a challenging time designing the
vehicular access to the site as a result of these conditions. The only feasible access point is off
of Frankfurt Avenue. Additionally, this site cannot support commercial or truck turning movements
that would be needed for an industrial development, nor is this site a part of an industrial corridor
anymore. At Exhibit 14, I have included snapshots of four different city and community-led plans
for the area, which all support the proposal before the board today. To highlight just a few
key points from this exhibit, Frankfurt Avenue north of Lehigh is identified as a gateway area
crime for repurposing. Several of these plans contemplate redeveloping unused or undesirable
formerly industrial sites as mixed-use properties. Driving commercial and recreational activity to
East Lehigh Avenue is a priority, and the plans encourage the removal of the large Lehigh Avenue
fronting wall to facilitate these activation goals. The applicant submits that the requested
variances are the least modification of the code to provide relief. The use of the property includes
by-right commercial uses and merely deviates in the addition of the residential uses most consistent
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. It is further in conformity with the city's vision
for the property and the community. The density and size of this project is in many cases less
The density and size of this project is, in many cases, less dense and more modest than some of the newer developments, and the lot is significantly underbuilt from a dimensional perspective, aside from the height.
All of the surrounding new developments required some form of ZBA relief due to the inconsistent zoning classifications that are not in character with the shift in neighborhood conditions.
The height variance is minor and is directly related to the physical characteristics of the property that lead to the hardship in erecting a code-compliant building.
The variances sought will not increase congestion in public streets, increase traffic, or endanger the public.
The developer has and will continue to work with the relevant street-related stakeholders, such as PennDOT, SEPTA, and the Streets Department, on warranted site improvements.
The underground parking is designed with the least impact possible to the surrounding community from an access point that has historically served as the entry and exit from this property.
History aside, the board clearly saw that the site is situated in a fashion where Frankfurt Avenue is the only viable access point to mitigate impact along East Lehigh Avenue.
After significant coordination with the streets department and PennDOT, the loading space that was originally designed within the building was located to the front of the building along East Lehigh Avenue.
This was necessary to avoid the loss of critical corner commercial space at East Lehigh Avenue and Frankfurt.
Coordination with the relevant departments will continue.
The proposal will not substantially or permanently harm the neighbors' use of their properties or impair an adequate supply of light and air.
The building design fits with the character and design of the surrounding neighborhood.
The height variance is similar to that requested by other owners and is in fact lower than some, since the height here is driven specifically by this property's unique constraints.
The property is further uniquely situated to avoid any impact to neighbors, which includes the rail lines that severs this property from the nearest residence to the east at more than 250 feet away.
On the west side of the rail, the closest single-family residence to this property is 100 feet away on the other side of Lehigh Avenue.
The property is separate and isolated from the existing neighborhood, which will ensure the project will not impact light and air for any surrounding property.
The proposal will not burden the infrastructure of the area, which will be upgraded if necessary to accommodate the proposal.
No environmental impact can reasonably be expected, as the developer continues to work with its civil engineers to implement any recommended measures identified by the environmental reports.
The project will include the required stormwater mitigation and a green roof.
In conclusion, the applicant submits the evidence shown today, has established full compliance with each requirement of code section at Title 14, Section 3038E, which is summarized in the Memorandum of Law submitted to the board at Exhibit 17.
We are very grateful for the board's patience this morning in allowing us to walk through the project, and I would now ask if Isaac Singleton could join me to adopt my testimony.
isaac singleton has been allowed to speak good morning sir could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer isaac singleton i s a a c s i n g l e t o n right
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth told truth nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel
thank you uh isaac are you an authorized member of 2001 east lehigh llc yes yes i am
And have you heard all of the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board this morning?
Yes, I have.
Would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt that testimony as if you had given it yourself?
Yes, I would, 100%.
Thank you, Isaac. We're happy to take any questions the board has.
Counsel, one quick question.
So the RCO that sent the letter is different than the two RCOs at the Civic Design Review, quote?
That's correct. So Civic Design Review, there were two RCOs that participated, New Kensington CDC and East Kensington Neighbors.
I believe that there's actually a representative from East Kensington on the call today, but that's correct. Somerset Neighbors didn't send a letter to CDR.
All right. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
I have one quick question. I may have missed it in council's report. How many units?
Council's report. How many units? Oh, sure. Chris?
Oh, sure. Chris?
Sorry, 157 dwelling units. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hilary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Josh Graff.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Josh Graff.
Hello?
Sorry, can you hear me?
Yeah, I can.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Josh Graff, and that's spelled J-O-S-H-G-R-A-F-F.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Yes, so I'm a neighbor on the neighboring across the street on Braddock Street,
and I'm also a board member of the East Kensington Neighbors Association,
which I would also argue that this is more in our RCO's purview than maybe the assigned one,
but that's a whole other discussion i just wanted to say how how um the community engagement effort
was really strong from this project and the amount above and beyond engagement that they went in with
uh meeting neighbors where they are and like really listening to the wants and the desires