dominantly residential single-family. An OPA map is also included at the next page, just to show
that although the application itself does include a consolidation, the city has historically treated
this as one tax parcel with one address. So this is maintaining that existing character.
Aerials are shown in the exhibits at Exhibit 6.
From this first north view, you'll note that the property contains a small 25,000-square-foot building
that has an adjoining open area that is currently packed with some vehicles.
Across the street, you'll notice the Hamel Mill Apartments, which was last occupied as 40 units
until falling into disrepair and being acquired in foreclosure by the Redevelopment Authority several years ago.
From this east view, the board will see that the context of the area is aligned with the diverse zoning classifications as well,
with few remaining lighter industrial uses, but transitioning to predominantly a residential neighborhood.
From the south view, you'll notice the large open lot to the southwest of the property, which was last proposed for a new project with 148 dwelling units, but that request was seemingly abandoned.
It seemingly never even made it to the board.
The existing conditions of this lot are shown more closely here at Exhibit 17.
The first image I have here is the front of the building from Lena Street, where you'll see that
it has undergone some fairly significant modification over the years. An existing
curb cut and driveway provide access to the existing parking lot. And again, this is just
another view looking towards East Earlham Street to the left of this photograph.
Across the street from the property, again, you can see here the former Hamill Mill apartment complex, which is currently vacant.
Looking in the opposite direction, again, you'll see the dominantly residential character of this block becoming more clear from this image.
From the corner, again, you can see the building more clearly that has an existing concrete
sidewall adjoining the lot, and this CMU wall is proposed to remain, and that will continue
remain and that will continue to as it does today shield the accessory parking
to as it does today.
lot the existing curb cut in front of the building will also be removed the
one that is directly in front of the building the one in front of the
parking of course will remain I've also included of you from the corner of Lena
and Church Lane, as well as from East Earlham Street.
Again, this is down that street where you can see the side of the building and the side
of the CMU wall.
We did, of course, include photographs of our timely posting that was posted on each
frontage of the building.
I have also included interior photos at Exhibit 10, although they are relatively unremarkable,
at least in terms of today's request.
You can see here that the side lot was historically used for truck parking and material storage,
and the interior of the building was last used as a warehouse for the storage of materials and equipment.
And I'll just scroll through quickly here.
Again, you can see it's just some storage.
One thing to take note of in some of these photographs is the existing high ceilings.
And the upper floors are fairly unused at this point.
They're relatively vacant with just some office and additional storage space.
And you can see that in some of these photographs.
As I mentioned in my introduction, and as I will show at Exhibit 13,
this property sits within the Germantown Urban Village Historic District
and is a contributing property to the district.
So effectively, that gives this property the same level of historic oversight as it would if it were individually designated.
That nomination shows that this building was built in 1914 and was occupied by a manufacturing company and was later used as a garage and a warehouse.
In terms of the proposal, the consolidation plans are shown at Exhibit 7.
And as I mentioned, historically, the OPA has had this as one lot, but it does exist as two deeded lots, so this will formalize that.
The combined lot is 15,025 square feet.
This proposal contemplates the renovation and reuse of that existing building for 23 dwelling units.
The original application had 22, but we sought and were granted leave to amend to add one extra unit.
And as I mentioned early on, that amended refusal is at Exhibit 1.
At Exhibit 8, the zoning plan shows that the proposal includes vehicle parking for 16 spaces in that existing vacant lot next to the building.
The board should recognize this parking as a fairly uncharacteristically large amount of parking spaces for a multifamily proposal.
Although it will not be seen from the exterior because of that existing CMU wall, the parking lot does, in fact, meet all of the minimum landscape requirements.
And you can see that indicated on this image here along the sides.
Overall, the lot itself will remain over 50% open.
If I zoom in a little bit on the zoning plan here, you'll notice that there's a bike storage area in the back, and trash will be kept towards the front, towards the Lena frontage, to ensure that it can have efficient trash pickup, and that would be done via a commercial hauler three times a week.
And you can see here that there is a six by eight trash enclosure.
I believe that since these plans were designed, John has re-evaluated, and I believe that
that trash enclosure will actually be slightly larger.
And in response to one of the RCO letters, John would agree to a proviso that the trash
would be further shielded from view, although it will already be behind this wall.
there will be an ada ramp as you can see here to the main entrance of the building which allows
all of the first floor units to meet type b adaptability standards the 18-foot curb cut here
will remain as and as i showed earlier the curb cut in front of the building will be removed
terms of the floor plans there is no basement in this building
There is no basement in this building.
What you'll see here is that the first floor has a designated secure mail and package room in the front,
which was another proviso that Solo Germantown had requested.
It was actually already on the plans, so that is something that my client is perfectly happy to accept.
Overall, in the building, as you can see from this chart here, there are four studio units,
units 11 one-bedroom units and and uh eight two-bedroom units the square
footages range with the studios ranging from 359 to 418 square feet one
bedroom units ranging from 522 to 612 square feet and two-bedroom units
ranging from 768 to 881 square feet the two-bedroom units all have two
bathrooms, and all of the units have in-unit washers and dryers. Each unit will have soaring
12 to 18 foot high ceilings and custom crafted finishes. Each unit, which John is happy to
discuss further, will feature a reclaimed or antique design element, which may include things
such as vintage lighting fixtures, industrial partitions, and handmade bathroom vanities
that John crafts in his Fishtown woodshop.
Elevations of the building show that the entire eastern side of this building will be opened up
with large historically characteristic windows.
The windows on the Lenafront will also be opened back up.
I have also included some photographs of some other units that my client has built, just to give you a little bit of a sense of the design intent regarding the character and the uniqueness of his designs, particularly as it relates to the renovation of a historically designated building.
So you can really see in some of these photographs how that historic character can be retained and reused.
So, this is really just giving you a sense of what the design intent is for these units.
By way of a few additional points, my client is reserving three of the 23 units as affordable
based on low income AMI standards.
My client also has a longstanding relationship with a respectable property management company
that will be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the building.
lighting and cameras will be added to the building and parking lot to ensure the safety of residents
while avoiding any light intrusion into neighboring properties now regarding the refusal as you can
see at exhibit one this application was refused because multi-family use is prohibited in the i2
industrial district we submit that this application relies on a multitude of hardships that this board
can find to entitle this applicant to relief. First, as I alluded to earlier, the code already
contains a mechanism to permit the use of a historically designated building where the
underlying zoning may not already allow for multifamily use. The section of the code I'm
referencing is found at 146028 and allows the use of a building as if it were zoned CMX2 as long as
meets certain size and historical use criteria. This building would have met all of those standards.
Unfortunately, that section of code limits the exception to properties bearing a residential
or a low-density commercial designation. So, while this building would fulfill the
spirit of that section of the code, it is deprived of relief under that section because of the I2
designation. Furthermore, even absent that code exception, courts have recognized that zoning
boards are given latitude in applying a lesser standard of relief to a historically designated
building, given that the inherent challenges and cost considerations make a historic renovation
infinitely more difficult. Arguably, most would have looked at this property with the vast open
lot and ventured to build a new adjoining structure to the historic building. It's a fairly
large lot. We submit that any new construction, regardless of use, but especially if it were an
industrial-related use, would create considerably more impact and would detract from the preservation
of the historical character of the building and the lot itself. Residential uses of historical
Residential uses of historical buildings is also well within the character of this particular neighborhood, as you saw from the evidence presented.
buildings is also well within the character of
Although it is not currently occupied, the formerly industrial Hamel Mills building across the street was converted by variance into 40 units.
It is reasonable to predict that this Hamill Mill apartment building will one day return to dense multifamily use to complement the future residential use of the Lena property before the board today.
Furthermore, generally speaking, the building at 5416 Lena Street is not suited to most industrial uses that would be permitted in the I-2 district without significant modification or expansion that would likely be prohibited because of the historical designation.
The location itself is not near any highway or rail line, and the adjoining parking lot cannot accommodate large industrial trucks.
The Planning Commission's Upper Northwest District Plan, shown at Exhibit 14, notes that only 1% of the district is used for industrial use, reflecting the overall trend of industrial uses moving to where they are better suited.
In fact, as you can see here with the arrow, this district plan recommends that the property
be rezoned to IRMX, which would allow for multi-family use of the building.
The memo of law at Exhibit 11 has a more extensive discussion of the district's plan's recommendations
and how those support the proposed use of this building.
We also submit that the relief is the least minimum and that the proposed use is most
similar to the character of the surrounding neighborhood, which is a characteristic the
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has looked to when reviewing the least minimum standard.
As the board has seen from the evidence today, the unit sizes are reasonable, varied, and include
a voluntary reservation of affordable units, as well as an entire floor of type B adaptability.
16 parking spaces are provided for 23 units which is far more than many comparable developments have
to offer we also submit that the proposal will not increase congestion harm neighbors properties
or impair light and air this will ensure the preservation and renovation of a historic
structure with minimal impact to the neighborhood now just a brief note about the conflicting rco
letters that you have in front of you. First, you will note that the vote at the meeting was
fairly split. The 12th ward letter and their residents voted 3-3, so perfectly even split.
The solo civic summary of their residents reflected a vote of 4 in support and 1 in opposition.
As I did mention earlier, my client is perfectly happy to accept the proviso for a fenced trash area, as it is already behind a CMU wall.
In light of the petition that we also submitted to this board, which has 20 signatures of near neighbors, you can see the addresses here are on Lena, Earlham Street, Lena, Colter, Church.
So these are all immediate neighbors.
we do submit that the project has received significant support we do recognize that there
was a request by the rco for a follow-up meeting that second meeting request was not declined as
it states in the letters however the overarching request that we had received was to decrease the
density of the project to 16 units to match the number of parking spaces unfortunately that
density would render this project completely uneconomically viable so we politely inform
the community group that while we'd be happy to have another meeting that that meeting could only
discuss non-density aspects of the project so we did question whether that would be a fruitful
second meeting and finally consistent with the testimony offered earlier the 12th word letter
does also acknowledge the likelihood of the Hamill Mill Apartments coming back online for
multifamily use, which further supports the basis for conversion of this building into multifamily
residential with nearly half of the density and with significantly more parking than the
nearby Hamill Mill Apartments can ever provide. At this time, I'd like to have my client adopt
my testimony. Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
It's spelled for the stenographer.
John Cunningham, J-O-H-N-C-U-N.
John Cunningham, J-O-H-N-C-U-N-N-I-N-G-H-A-M.
I'm sorry, I'm not able to hear.
Okay, all right.
John Cunningham, J-O-H-N-C-U-N-N-I-N-G-H-A-M.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
John, you've been present and have heard all of the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today?
And do you agree that testimony was true and accurate?
Absolutely.
And would you adopt it as if you had given it yourself?
Yes, I would.
Happy to answer your question.
Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience or this audience?
Chair, we have Christopher Covada.
They're coming back in as a panelist now.
Hello?
Hi, Christopher.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, Chris, C-H-R-I-S, Cavada, C, O as in Victor, or sorry, O as in Octopus, V as in Victor, A, T as in Thomas, T as in Thomas, A.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, that I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Actually, you can see my building and all of the examples here.
i am the adjoining property if you go to actually if you go to well yeah okay you see the red
outline there and i am 5424 lena street also known as 82 through 88 east church street i'm
the adjoining building to the proposed project yeah right there the black building all right
why don't you proceed with your testimony um well i there are multiple concerns about this project
being that it butts up and i am you know in representation of eight other artists in uh
the adjoining structure that have multiple concerns about construction about uh noise about
disruption to the frontage on Lena Street here and to, you know, the businesses that are conducted
out within the warehouse. Also, you know, this warehouse being my primary residence as well.
So you have an artist loft there? Is that what you said you have?
Yes. So this is parceled out to eight units, one of which is residential, which is my unit.
right and then eight other artist uh studios correct okay sure and have you participated
in the rcos uh no i missed the first one and the second one was denied by the client i guess
okay all right as previously stated you're against this project i am currently against this yeah i
mean they're testifying that they went through the neighborhood and yet no one in my building
has had contact with the developer and or the developer's attorney all right okay um you have
any questions um just just real quickly so you're you're living in your industrial building is that
correct so you're using it for residential use my unit is uh there is one the zoning of it states