I mean, it would be for you to confirm whether or not...
Yes. Okay.
If I may, I know this is sort of out of order, but if I may ask Mr. Litwin just to describe for us what particular changes to the site plan he might be referring to.
I'm not sure what those are, and I want to address them as possible.
We're seeing these drawings for the first time right now.
So there's ground floor entry units that were not in the previous design, which would affect the public realm.
there's a pocket park shown on ridge avenue uh that would affect the public realm
i don't know if there was changes to the parking layout or not i can't i haven't seen the site
presented today so i usually after cdr we do not see this level of changes uh between cdr and
zoning board so and there's also changes to the building envelope itself that that that's fair
so the issue with uh maybe i can address these just for the chair uh the issue with the ground
floor entries in the pocket park sort of address all of the comments that Mr. Litwin has made.
We made those only with regard to considerations of EFCC requests following a fourth meeting with
EFCC on June 29th, I think it was, or late June. EFCC is obviously opposing us. So I mean,
And frankly, in order to proceed,
we'd be willing to even withdraw those comments
if EFCC is continuing to oppose us.
And, you know, clearly those didn't move the needle
for them regardless.
I don't see a problem with that.
Do you, Sharon?
So, Mr. Whelan, just to be clear,
you would not be requesting approval of revised plans in that case. Is that correct?
No, what we would be doing is going back to the first set of revised plans that we presented
to the board as exhibits in advance of the June 17th hearing that was continued. And those were
confirmed to me by you that those would not trigger any further reviews. Those were only
in line with what had been done at CDR, and we had actually just recently concluded CDR
at the time that we made those revisions in line with CDR's comments.
Okay, and Mr. Litman, would you be comfortable with that if he's returning to the plans
that were reviewed by CDR?
In that case, yes.
Thank you.
So can I make an objection, please?
There were some changes made as a result of dialogue with the community.
The Planning Commission has now indicated that upon seeing these changes, it might, and I emphasize the word might, require further review in going back to the CDR, going back to another CDR meeting.
Because EFCC is here challenging the project, the developer is now eliminating those changes for the sole purpose of getting the tax abatement by the end of this year.
That's what I heard Mr. Whelan say.
I object to any characterization by Mr. Bonney as to our reasoning for moving this forward.
Obviously, this has already been delayed six months. So the significant delays that have been ongoing in this process and the developer, frankly, bending over backwards to have numerous meetings, upwards of 10 to 12 public meetings and 50 plus communications outside of that with other individuals in the community,
I think makes clear that, you know, this project has reached a point where the community has its
position, and we have a lot of support, and obviously we have some opposition from EFCC.
And, you know, at this point in time, in order to move forward with the project,
the developer is willing to go back to what it had already revised. I will suggest that
the developer would still be willing to do the other aesthetic changes in line with what the
community wanted that would not affect CDR review. And that those, you know, we would be withdrawing
really only the issues related to zoning that Mr. Litwin just enumerated for us.
So that you'd be asking this board to approve a design scheme that you have not presented yet,
because it includes a little bit from the old one and a little bit from the new one but not
something that you've presented? No in essence we would be asking the board to approve what was
previously presented and that we would say in as a matter of good faith which I think my client
has shown throughout the entire process calling us to work with the community and would continue
to work with the community on design issues not related to the issues enumerated by Mr.
Litwin, and that could cause concern for CDR, but still would allow them to proceed.
And I think at this point in time, we've attempted to proceed for so long.
That won't necessarily preclude us from working with the community if they really want the
Pocket Park to including that at a later date. Obviously, we're presenting what we're presenting
today because we like that project and we hope that that project can go forward, but we just
simply can't sit back and have any further delay at which we could have and should have been done
with this months ago. Mr. Whalen and Mr. Bonney, would it be possible then to have a brief
presumption hearing in a week with the understanding that if Mr. Litwin confirms that no further review
by CDR is required, that you could go forward with the most recent revised plans. If indeed
they do require another CDR review, then the applicant is requesting that the prior revised
plans be approved is that making sense um uh it it is making sense and i appreciate the
attempt at this kind of resolution uh but my uh my client is adamant that we need to proceed
uh here today um and you know to to the extent that we need to proceed today i would submit that
we already have revised plans that have been you know looked at reviewed and you know set around
forever and you know if there were an agreement to be made um you know there were months to have
made it um and we're happy to continue working with the community as we have like i said we've
had you know 50 plus meetings and communications i don't think that's going to stop anytime soon
Everyone has each other's cell phone numbers and texting and whatnot, but this project really needs to go forward and keeps getting delayed and stalled time and again for a project that's been well-designed, well, well underneath what's allowed, and frankly just needs to move forward.
And, you know, frankly, just needs to move forward.
Understood.
Then, just to confirm, the request is that you are no longer proposing the most recently revised plans.
You are going forward with those that were reviewed by CDR and you were requesting a vote today.
Is that correct?
Yes, please.
Thank you.
But do we still, we would still, correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon, we would still need to wait for planning to look at the...
would not because they are no longer proposing the plans that include the changes planning was
concerned about. They're stood now. All right. Well, before we go any further, I apologize. I
got it on late. Are we still having hearings for item number 10, 11, and 13?
10, 11, and 13. Yes. Okay. The reason I say that, it is now 11, 15,
and we have three other cases
after this case
and we have to take our break
somewhere around 1215 I believe
Ms. Sunkit
1215 is that like the
the date we have
to make a break
I believe 12 o'clock Chairman
12 o'clock so
Mr. Chairman we still have
case number 8 Jeffrey Nums
four cases left all right all right gentlemen uh i'll proceed and try to be as brief as possible
we understand you want to get as much on the record sounds like there may be an appeal either
way um but we do have four other cases and we're bound by rules to break at 12 o'clock
completely understood uh chairman and i appreciate that i will move as quickly as possible
I would call Ronald Glenn from Ruggiero Plant, the project engineer.
Mr. Glenn, you can unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Good morning, sir. Please spell your last name.
Yes, my name is Ronald Glenn, last name Glenn, G-L-E-N-N.
You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Glenn, are you associated with this project at 4401 Ridge?
Yes, I am.
And you're the project engineer?
Yes, I am the civil engineer consultant.
And did you hear the testimony that's already been presented in this case?
I did.
And do you believe it true and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability?
In front of the record, please.
and would you adopt it as your own yes i would i object for the record please thank you so uh
what's the objection the objection is that i i do not agree or stipulate that witnesses can
incorporate um things said by um others uh previously um especially by attorneys
uh mr chairman if you like if we were presenting in the counties i would be happy to stipulate
that mr bonnie is correct uh that is unfortunately not the law in philadelphia oh yeah you're right
we can i can fight that out later okay a lot of fighting going on later okay
well i shouldn't i shouldn't use the word fight i would say i would say debate all right um i'm
going to try to be as quick as possible. Mr. Glenn, you've heard we're under time constraints
here. And just to be clear, because I didn't hear it for the record, would you adopt all that prior
testimony as your own? Yes, I would. Okay. And Mr. Glenn, you've heard all of the issues that
have been made, so we'll kind of skip to the most significant ones. Can you see on your screen
an existing site survey steep slope area with three photos underneath? Yes, I do. Okay, can you
please summarize briefly for us the steep slope conditions at the site? Yes, so it's our
understanding that there once existed a PHA development that had a few larger buildings on
it and you're talking about the photo down in the bottom left yes correct correct and um you know
with the grading of that project it kind of remained once they demolished the buildings
they've kind of left over some various uh parking you can see in the upper right hand side of the
survey um so largely these stopes these slopes were left over from uh the previous development
uh, the previous development. Okay. And, uh, Mr. Glenn, uh, what is your understanding as to,
in. Okay. And Mr.
uh, let me backtrack. Uh, if steep slope area is disturbed, a, uh, planning commission review is
required and a variance is required, correct? Yes. A variance is required if, um, slopes greater than
25% or greater are disturbed. Okay. Now, is that only true if the slopes are disturbed for the
final building site, or is that also true for any construction activity? It is for any construction
activity. Okay. Thank you. So here we have man-made slopes to tier the property, and we are essentially
going to de-tier the property? Would that be a, if I'm making up a word? Sure, through various
retaining walls and the parking areas we have outlined, yes. Okay, and you submitted an earth
moving plan to L&I for Planning Commission review, correct? Correct. And did you have any
comments on that, anything that needs to be described to this board? I didn't receive any
comments from planning commission but um my comments would just be that um you know we will
be providing um various erosion control methods to make sure that the slopes during construction are
are protected and and don't um impede the the public realm at all okay and would it be fair
to say in your opinion that the primary issue with a disturbance of steep slopes is stormwater
management? Correct. It would be, yeah, erosive properties of soil that might be exposed within
these steep slopes and might track sediment into the public right-of-way or sewers.
Are there any current stormwater management or mitigation
methods in place at the property? No, there are not. Okay. And can you briefly describe for us
the stormwater management facilities or methods that will be used in order to when we construct
our building? Sure. I'll just first describe the stormwater capture methodology and all stormwater
on site with exception of a small bypass area, which the bypass area will be 100% pervious
surface and compliant with PWD regulations. All storm water that is captured will be
sumped and trapped to prevent sedimentation downstream of the sewer collection system.
And all impervious surface on site, all storm water that falls on the impervious surface on site,
will be captured and directed to a subsurface infiltration basin under the surface parking
area. And it is a fairly sizable stormwater system that will effectively
slow the rates of stormwater as it discharges back into the public sewer.
And for clarification, it will slow the rates, according to modeling and calculations,
to a rate less than current conditions.
Okay, so there's currently nothing
and we're installing stormwater management systems.
Do you believe that there will be any,
in your opinion,
do you believe that there will be any detrimental impacts
with regard to the steep slope disturbance
or stormwater management issues from our proposed use?
I don't think so.
Okay. And finally, we'll get to, are you familiar with CMX3 zoning and CMX3 commensurate projects?
And in your opinion, would any development of the property with regard to CMX3 zoning or in line with CMX3 zoning require the steep slope disturbance either in the development process or the final building?
placement yes i do think so um only because there's you know footers necessarily are necessary
to install buildings and you know ingress and egress of construction activities on site um
so yes okay and are you familiar with the requirements for a variance under
the uh philadelphia zoning code yes and in your opinion does the property uh with the project as
proposed meet the requirements for that uh data issuance of a variance yes
meet the requirements for that uh data issuance of a variance yes i do all right thank you
chairman i tried to be as brief as possible i would offer mr glenn up for any questions from
the board yeah questions from the board no no um no okay no okay thank you
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Glenn.
Have you received any approvals from the Planning Commission regarding the impacts to the steep
slopes?
I have not received any formal approval, but they signed off for L&I review after submission
of the earthmoothing plan.
For what purposes?
for purposes of impacting the steep slopes yes as related to the variance that's now being contested
you're saying that your position is that the planning commission is supportive of
the impacts of the steep slopes is that what you read into that signature
no no okay thank you i would object to the questioning as far as lead into i'm not sure
what that means well i'm asking whether the planning commission has has approved the impacts
to the steep slopes mr glenn indicated he submitted some materials about erosion and sedimentation and
uh uh why don't we ask the planning commission well but then he hasn't heard back any comments
and i'm and i'm asking correct i did not receive any comments from planning commission regarding
the earth moving plan but he did get a stamp from the planning commission to move forward to this
yes correct fine of course of course um will you are you um will the planning in your