ZBA Hearing - October 27, 2021

of the layout of the building in the middle of this sort of island landscape makes it a better

site for an adaptive reuse. Again, this building has been designated as historic, so it will still

retain its industrial character and will pay homage a bit to the historic nature of what once

was. However, it will bring back into a use that will lend to the surrounding neighborhood. And

again this has been vacant for a long time so I think any industrial use probably would have

come into play at some point had it been an appropriate site for that. Additionally it's

worth mentioning for the record that the property has near neighbors that were permitted multi-family

household despite being zoned either for low density single family or industrial commercial

mixed use, as I mentioned. This building over here is 525 to 47 Armstrong. It's a way smaller

lot than ours. It's only 11,694 square feet, but it obtained a variance in 2012 for 30 residential

units and a takeout restaurant, as did these buildings directly to the right on the screen,

which are both zoned RSA 3, but they were awarded over 50 units with no parking on way smaller

lots directly adjacent. They're owned by LaSalle. And there's a handful of others that are provided

in my packet that are also zoned RSA3 and were awarded variances for mold.

um RSA 3 um and were awarded variances for multi-family just showing that the desire and the

appropriateness of multi-family on the site and adjacent sites has already been recognized by the

board um and again our project is over a hundred thousand square feet um far less result residential

density than any of the other properties that were allowed um this type of relief i'm gonna pause

there aside from just showing the zoning posters and some of the images of the site, as the board

can see, it's very run down at this point, has not had any habitable use. And again, most of the

work that we're planning on doing is for the interior of the site and just kind of connecting

it to each other. The last real use on this was back in the 80s, as I mentioned, and really hasn't

had an industrial or light industrial use since. We had two meetings with the community and they

were pretty well attended, as you can see from the letter that was submitted. So there was 21

at one meeting and 17 at the other. Most of the concerns were about traffic, not enough parking,

um the impotential impact on traffic and um some of the site conditions um we have our civil

engineers here we already do have irsa approval by the water department so any of the and we don't

trigger any steep slopes or anything of that nature so all that um has been reviewed prior

to the submission and obviously we'll work with the water department and the other agencies to

work through that um but a lot of the issues have also been addressed via revised plans

We submitted revised plans, which I'll have the, I'm going to stop sharing my screen and have our architect go into.

I believe Michelle is on the line.

And we made some improvements to the site, dumpster locations, work for trash removal.

That was one of the concerns.

And also adding in sort of pedestrian walkway as well to include a little bit more pedestrian safety for the site.

Again, none of these things we have a refusal for, but, you know,

we did believe that a lot of those concerns were very valid and wanted to fit them in for for a

better project the person you're bringing up michelle she should be on the line promoted to

panelists now chair thank you michelle please spell your full name and i'll swear you in

you need to unmute yourself michelle

Michelle Kleschick, K-L-E-S-C-H-I-C-K, from Parallel Architecture Studio.

Or from the Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, Nothing But the Truth?

Yes.

Thank you.

Michelle, are you able to share your screen and go through the revised plans?

Yep.

I'm going to do, I think I'm going to do that right now.

There we go.

you can see it now yeah can you zoom in a little bit okay so um a little bit more if you can thank

you i think i'm i can't see you can see this whole screen we can see like a little bit now

yeah you can only really see the top right corner that's weird okay hold on

stop sharing and try to share

is that better

a little bit larger

there you go that's good thank you

so this is the only addition that we're proposing

and that's what we've proposed from the beginning

um the notes that that the community had asked us to include and add to this plan since the

zoning examiner had seen it they commented on dumpster locations and accessibility within the

site so we did add a dumpster here here here and up here and then there would be a walkway that we

be fitting in to come down off of the street if anyone were to walk through it because again this

all back here has varying levels of sloping so you can't get into the property anywhere except

for at this corner so this would add an exit like a an easily walkable access point for pedestrians

to the site um the other the other these the other revisions to this plan were things

The other revisions to this plan were things from the zoning examiner, and we had just failed to clearly mark our electric vehicle spots and some fences that we were cleaning up and upgrading.

So that's what those revisions were.

And I don't know if there's anything else you want me to point out, Rachel.

No, I think that covers it. I just wanted to be sure to add the dumpster locations as trash was a concern and the pedestrian walkway, which was referenced in one of the RCO letters.

So that was included as well, in addition to lighting and fencing of the site.

um i think as far as parking is concerned i just mentioned that we're almost directly about 500

feet away from the chestnut hill east line and there's a route j bus route stops directly in

front of the property so we're including 67 parking spaces for 77 units and without disturbing steep

slopes we cannot fit any more parking also as i said the property was designated as historic so

we cannot demolish parts of the building to add parking um they're really just trying to use the

existing parking that is there um other than that uh i don't have any more questions for you michelle

and um does the board have any questions for the architecture no no mr

If I can just share the screen again, the only other thing I wanted to mention is we did speak

with a real estate broker who deals with industrial sites in order to get an expert opinion as to the

ability to utilize this as an industrial site. The letter is submitted in the packet. Essentially,

I have them on if the board is interested in hearing their testimony, but we do have a letter

that was submitted in the board's packet, essentially saying that given the poor access

to below Bellfield Avenue, the way that the building is currently situated, the way that

the industry is working right now, the way that industrial companies are looking at this,

is this doesn't is not a viable industrial opportunity moving forward with the board

okay the last thing just to mention as well is our directly near neighbors are a lot of the

property is owned by LaSalle University and we included a letter of support from LaSalle

University in our packet as well one of the things mentioned by the community that was important

as they're building you know relationship with LaSalle that LaSalle is supportive of this project

and so we did share this letter with the community and also have it in the board's packet as well but

our near neighbors at la salle are also very supportive of this project

you have a client yes um phil balderson

Mr. Balderson, you can unmute and wait for the chair.

Mr. Balderson, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.

Philip Balderson, P-H-I-L-I-P, Balderson, B-A-L-D-E-R-S-T-O-N.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms. Pritzker.

Phil, have you heard my testimony today in front of the board?

yes i have do you believe it to be true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and

do you adopt it as your own yes i do thank you very much thank you i have any questions uh any

i'd asked the board already does anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand

chair we have charles richardson mr richardson wait for the chair good afternoon again mr

richardson please identify yourself you're still under of the roof yes sir charles richardson from

the office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall as the three rcos and the community

had two separate well-attended meetings with the developer and could not come to any agreement and

did not conduct a vote the councilman has decided that there will be no position that she's taking

on the project we did encourage the three rcos to write their own letters with their own opinions

and I'm aware that Mr. Nick Cavolis of the PANA RCO wrote the meeting summary with commentary that

Ms. Pritzker earlier shared and Ms. Inez Love of the FAIF RCO indicated that she was co-signing

with Mr. Cavolis of his account of the meeting. I'm also aware that Ms. Sandra Broadus of ACCA

also wrote her own account and I believe that she might have received that earlier today.

her own account. And I believe that you might have received that earlier today. So that being

So, uh,

if they,

said, the councilwoman is leaving it in the hands of the board to make the decision. Thank you. And

thank the councilwoman. Anyone else to testify in this case?

no more hands here thank you planning commission

hello good afternoon chair my name is keith davis with the planning commission i am stepping in

for peter right now hey keith spell your full name and i'll swear you in yep k-e-i-t-h-d-a-v-i-s

where it confirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth

yes i do thank you sir please proceed uh the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change

to icmx at this location the proposed multi-family use is inconsistent with both the existing and

proposed zoning. The property is within a depression adjacent to a major trunk sewer

and is below grade of surrounding properties. PWD has conducted a hydrologic and hydraulic

analysis in the sewer shed associated with the subject project to understand flood depths and

flood risks. These analyses demonstrate there is an elevated flood risk on the subject parcel

uh in its present condition accordingly the planning commission believes that granting this

variance would endanger public safety and uh we urge the board to to deny the variance

am i able to respond to that chairman yeah yeah please yeah so i guess i would just mention that

we've already been through the irsa plan review with pwd and they didn't trigger any of these

same concerns we had a bit rated by mr davis in addition i don't know how it would be feasible

that an industrial commercial mixed use with trucks, heavy machinery, and potentially retail

and a lot more visitors would be a safer bet for the site than 77 units on almost 115, 16,000 square

foot site that sat vacant for however long. Potentially, if this was denied, it would sit

vacant for another couple of decades and definitely would not be protecting from any potential

concerns. So I would just suggest that as in accordance with their own plan that PCPC does

recommend usually an adaptive reuse for long-standing vacant industrial sites and that

will happily work with the city and any other agencies to resolve any flooding or risks that

are brought to our attention. Rachel, how recent was the PWD? It was this year. It was several

months ago before we submitted to the board so within 2021 they didn't raise those issues correct

no they did not okay all right uh mi 2021-002915 whoop excuse me wrong one mi 2021-002908

5115-39

Bellfield Avenue. My vote is yes.

Two pages, Rachel? Yes. With revised plan, two pages

approved today. Professor Plaza, yes, with proviso.

James Snell, yes, with proviso. Thomas Holliman,

yes, with proviso. Thank you.

Thank you. MI 2021-002915, 5210 King Sessing Avenue. There's a letter of non-opposition from King Sessing Area Civic Association. I'm not sure who's representing this case, either Mr. Knockinson or Ms. Amazon.

Ms. Amazon is coming back in now, chairs and panelists.

All right. See, it has Alan on my sheet. That's why I didn't call it out.

Hopefully you're not disappointed.

Please identify yourself. You're still under oath.

Clementa Amazon, C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A, last name Amazon, A-M-A-C-A-N, 123 South Cross Street, Suite 1600, 19109.

Thank you, Mr. Plaza has a few questions for you.

Yes, Ms. Amazon, you agreed to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?

I do.

And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?

Yes, I have.

And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?

Yes.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Thank you. I will share my screen.

Can I see my screen?

Can I punch you on the screen?

Yes.

Yes.

Great.

Great.

So again, I will be presenting 5210 King Sessing Avenue.

So again, I will be presenting...

This is a very straightforward project in that we are requesting the legalization of a duplex.

As you can see from the photo in front of this property, there are two separate entrances, one for each unit.

When my client purchased the property, she was of the impression that it was illegal use, and she was looking to renew her certs and realize that it was not, in fact, legal.

So during my presentation, I will go through the notice of refusal, the letter of non-opposition from King Sessing Area Civic Association, in which they express that this is a longstanding use.

To their knowledge, it has always been a duplex, hence their letter.

We also have a use permit showing that it does have a multifamily history, maps of the area, photographs of the property, as well as the interior, our proposed plans and drawings.

Again, it's an existing use, the application for appeal.

Again, we did meet with the community, and we have a letter to that effect, as well as our deed and certificate of tax clearance.

So first things first, we have the notice of refusal.

The property is owned as single family.

However, it has a longstanding use as a duplex, and we're just looking to legalize that use.

We do have a letter of non-opposition from King Sessing Area Civic Association, as you can see here.

The property has a service already been known by the community as an apartment.

The meeting wasn't particularly well attended, and that was attributed to the community knowing the property as a duplex, which the RCO mentioned in their letter in that last line that you see right here.

The vote for the meeting, use permit showing that multifamily history.

Here we have a map of the area here on King Sessing Avenue along 52nd Street, a Google map view of the area as well.

Here's a view of the front of the property. Again, as you can see, there are separate entrances for each unit.

A view to the right of the property on King's Lessing, a view to the left of the property on King's Lessing.

There are multiple hot water heaters in addition to multiple electrical meters.

Here are just some views of the interior of the property, specifically the one bedroom unit, as well as our plans and drawings.

So the first floor is just a studio, one bathroom, which you enter through the door on the left.

And for the second floor unit, you enter into on the right, you go out the steps, you have a living room, kitchen, dining area, as well as one bedroom, one bath.

That is the unit that we showed the photos of previously.

Our application for appeal.

Again, this is a zoned-ed single family.

However, it has a history of multifamily use.

The RCO acknowledged that within their letter.

our project information form we met with the community on October 7th at 6 p.m. as you saw