um back uh in june 10 2021 by the passage of bill number two zero zero seven one three
by the city of philadelphia city council um the proposal generated a refusal
The proposal generated a refusal for the number of dwelling units due to the downzoning as well as a refusal to the proposed height of the new structure exceeding the allowable height and now CMX2.
for the number of dwelling units due to the
These are the two variances that we're requesting our refusal for, as was on the screen a few minutes ago.
I also just, for the record, also want to challenge and provide for a constitutional challenge that has to be incorporated into the record where we're challenging the substantive validity of the property's new CMX2 zoning as it's arbitrary and capricious and lacks any reasonable connection to urban planning principles and or the city's own planning documents.
The rezoning exceeds the limits of the city zoning powers established by the Pennsylvania Zoning Enabling Act and violates the applicant's right under Article 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
As such, the proper relief in this matter is to enable the proposed project to move forward granting a zoning variance.
In my memo of law, I obviously have the relevant law related to what the board needs to look out for a hardship argument.
So I will not bore the board with reciting that as part of the record, but it is noted on pages two and three and four of the memo that's contained in this packet.
I want to just transition over to the hardship argument and then I'll have our architect jump on to go through the plans.
Again, the change in this property zoning from CMX two and a half to CMX two represents an unnecessary hardship to the property.
As the project plans cannot be revised to conform to the CMX2 requirements, we had SEPTA approval, given this is on the L, streets approval, all before we were able to finalize and get the zoning approval.
Adhering to the CMX2 requirements would cause great economic harm to the applicant in terms of the cost of revisions and the tremendous loss of value that is generated by a CMX2 compliant development versus a CMX2.5 compliant development.
Again, there was really no sensible reason for our property.
If you look at how the remapping was done, being treated differently in down zone than the properties directly across the street.
All other properties on the other side of this block, as referenced by the zoning maps, as you can see here on the bottom of the screen, remain CMX 2.5, as do all properties on North Front Street on the 2000 north block immediately south of the property.
There are also several newly constructed buildings on the 2000 block that avail themselves the allowances for height and residential density that CMX 2.5 allows for, and for which we have been refused given the downzoning of this property.
Additionally, it's worth noting that file number 210349, a quote-unquote communication in the city's legislative archive related to the rezoning bill, contains the following recommendation that council not pass the subjected rezoning bill.
April 9, 2021, to the President and Members of City Council of the City of Philadelphia,
pursuant to Section 4, 604, and 2307 of the Home Rule Charter.
I am today transmitting to the Council the recommendation of the City Planning Commission
on the following bills, of which this bill is included, not for approval.
I respectfully submitted James F. Kenney, who is our Mayor.
The CMX2 designations application to the property is particularly egregious in light of the 38-foot height limit vis-a-vis the fact that the property block that we're on has the L and the property is located under the elevated railway, the Mark 8-Frankford line.
The resulting effect is that the windows of the rooms facing North Front Street on the first three floors of the project will have views into or under the rail line.
A 38-foot height limitation means that only one floor would have views above the rail line to the sky, whereas the subject and proposed project 62 feet in height would have three floors with sky visibility in the residential units.
Thus, the 38-foot height versus 62-foot height emphasized on our refusal is tremendous in terms of its economic consequences and its effect on the quality of life of future occupants.
Additionally, the 2035 comprehensive plan for the city for the Lower North District Plan does not recommend a zoning change for the property.
That's emphasized on pages 81 and 83.
In fact, the district plan recommends the following for the area around York and Dauphin Station located under two blocks from our property.
It recommends to adjust the zoning to allow higher densities. That's zoning recommendation,
page 74 and 77, and direct development subsidies to these areas, which is emphasized on page 57.
Further, the lower north district plan notes that almost 60% of households on the lower north do
not have access to a car, which is on page 10. Thus, dense residential development in close
proximity to a rail station as proposed here is appropriate and beneficial to the public,
here is appropriate and beneficial to the public even in absence of on-street parking which neither
even in absence of on-street parking, which neither
cmx2 or two and a half require the plan also proposes that the front and kensington commercial
quarter of which this property is part um at the time of the plan's publication provided a 34.3
vacancy rate accounting for 207 000 square feet of land area the subject proposal would actually
insist in curing this condition and the condition itself indicates that the area is well positioned
to accommodate new developments of significant densities. Finally, the River Wards plan,
district plan, which governs the other side of North Front Street, calls for financing and zoning
relief to owners of large buildings and former industrial sites around the market and Frankfurt
line to encourage redevelopment. That's on page 34. The market Frankfurt line is directly in front
of this property. And while the applicant is not sure as the details of the property's past usage,
there is the presence of a hazardous materials permit in the city's archive issued to this
property in 2001. As a result of this, what we're hearing in front of you guys, we believe that
we're seeking the least modification possible to code, again, just for the density allowed
and permitted under CMX 2.5 and height on this project out of the 38 feet to 65 and conformity
with the co-required reduction of this project to a drastically smaller scale, 24 feet shorter
and 19 fewer residential units. The variances we steep are the minimum necessary to enable relief
and are again designed pursuant to CMX 2.5. I'd like to bring on Chris Class from Design Blends
Architecture to go through the plans and specifically discuss the design of the project
and how it relates to some of the challenges around light and air if we were not able to
obtain relief from the code. Chris, could you raise your hand in the audience?
Mr. Klaas, you're free to speak.
Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Christopher Klaas, C-H-R-A-S-T-O-P-H-E-R-C-L-A-S-S, representing the design of Glenn's architecture.
Okay, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Chris, can you share your screen and go through the plans for the board and make sure to discuss the design and the light and air considerations related to the L and its location directly on that railway line?
Would someone be able to permit access for me to share my screen, please?
I'll promote you to panelists then.
Thank you.
is everyone able to see my screen yes thank you as rachel mentioned uh upon
inception of this project, we evaluated the lot, expecting to provide a by-right project
at their request. The parcel was determined to be within the CMX 2.5 district,
which permits high-density residential development and ground floor commercial uses.
You can see in these photographs its proximity to the L and some of the size of the adjacent
and structures. Within this district, buildings of this size are permitted to be within the five
to six story range, and the proposal included 31 dwelling units, which would have been provided by
Wright, utilizing the permitted density bonuses and would have also given us additional building
height allowing a total of 62 feet. Since the change of the CMX 2.5 to CMX 2 that drastically
reduced the permitted building height and density permitted, we felt at the time of this project's
inception that the density being proposed was entirely in line with what is being built within
the community in both north and south and is shown in the adjacent structures but as I go through
the floor plans you can see that the basement is dedicated to much of the utility spaces for
the building so that we can maximize the ground floor commercial space along front street as we
get up to the ground level there's approximately a thousand square foot commercial space with some
dwelling units to the rear and a small lobby area the building will be fully accessible by the
and a small lobby area. The building will be fully accessible by the means of an elevator
and all of our trash for the building will be enclosed within the building with access to Hope
Street. And there are four dwelling units on the ground floor. As we go through the typical levels,
each level has six dwelling units. They range between smaller one bedrooms and two bedrooms,
anywhere between 550 and 850 square feet in size there's a partial amenity roof deck on the sixth
floor and then the roof will be a mix of green roof and space for mechanical units the stormwater
management was evaluated as part of the zoning application that was completed reviewed by the
Philadelphia Water Department. In the building's design, we're really looking to mimic the adjacent
structures and visually reduce the size of the building so that it is more appearing and
pedestrian-friendly. We're proposing four levels of brick to match the adjacent structures and
then toning the building back with panels as we get into the fifth and sixth story,
uh looking to open up as much as possible the ground level and storefront uh to capitalize
on the commercial space that we have available and you can see the use of these materials all
the way around the building looking to include some more detailed brick fenestrations
that also match some of the historic structures
And finally, our zoning application, which illustrates items that we previously discussed, but I can review anything in detail if I request them.
Thank you.
Chris, can you just touch on, for the record, if this had to be compliant with the code at 38 feet, what concerns or design considerations, how that would affect the light and air, especially given the L?
Sure. So, you know, some of the advantage of having the taller building is that we're able to get over the rail. If we were within the 38 foot requirement for the CMX2 district, almost the entire building would be in shadow and we'd have a difficult time getting fresh air, especially from rooftop mechanical units. So that, you know, there's some advantage from a level of living that we can provide in the taller structure.
thank you
um if the board doesn't have any questions for the architect i want
we're fine with the architect awesome uh can you unshare your screen and then
i just want to talk about the community portion of this and then i'm happy to
get my client on and wrap up
are you able to see my screen again yes it's up it's up great so uh we met with the north square
civic association uh north square community alliance as the coordinating rco on may 11th
at 530. We also had subsequent meetings with the near neighbors who formed an organization and will
put their testimony on the record. They provided us with a letter of support as we negotiated a
community benefits agreement and essentially also provided the vote from the RCO meeting that we had
on May 11th in support, 13 in favor, four in favor with conditions, one opposition, and two
continuance, which obviously wasn't necessary at this point. The community benefits agreement is
provided for and the board is welcome to read that at its leisure. I won't go through the details of
it. Lastly, I do want to also mention for the record that we did speak with the directly
affected near neighbors who will speak. But aside from that, we did also speak with the only other
directly adjacent near neighbor at 215 hope street who submitted a letter of support as well for the
project uh so i want to make sure that that's uh mentioned for the board um other than that um i
just would appreciate being able to bring on uh phil balderson who is the uh managing member or
member of Front Street Lofts LLC to adopt my testimony.
Mr. Balderston, you can unmute yourself.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Sure. It's Philip Balderston, P-H-I-L-I-P, Balderston, B-A-L-D-E-R-S-T-O-N.
Sure. It's Philip Balderston, P-H-I-L-I-P, Balderston B.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you. Bill, have you heard my testimony today?
Yes, I have.
Do you believe it to be true and accurate, and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, it is, and yes, I do.
Thank you very much.
Questions? Go ahead.
Yeah, just nothing further from me.
all right questions from the board no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
as excuse me chair we have sloan folks okay
uh good uh good afternoon chairman bergman as you go
i think i swore you this morning right sir yes you did sir okay proceed um uh the count um
The applicant, having met with the coordinating RCO, members of the community, and near neighbors, and receiving letters of support from the RCO, near neighbors, and other members of the community, the council member supports this request. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Folks. Any other comments from the virtual audience?
yes chair we have another uh someone who would like to speak who last name begin with the p i'm
sorry yeah sure that's fine that's fine okay please unmute yourself yes hi nilda i think
you were already sworn but just mention your name and spell for the court reporter one more time
Sure. My name is Nilda, N-I-L-D-A, last name Pimentel, P-I-M-E-N-T-E-L.
All right. Thank you. Proceed, counsel.
Yes. I'm presenting on behalf of NASCAN, the Nori Square Community Action Network, which is a coalition of residents representing over 100 households within a 10-block area in the neighborhood.
We have a steering committee, which is comprised of captains and other residents from these blocks.
Our group was part of the Community Benefits Agreement Committee, put together after the community's only meeting of May 11th, convened by the RCO.
this committee completed after many many hours and consultations completed its work
and made its recommendations to to the RCO zoning committee
NASCAM was to go on record in support of the application that you're considering today
We support this project because we badly need to revitalize the block where the development
is being proposed, which was, as many or some of you recall, was part of a vibrant commercial
Strip, mentioned earlier known as the Kensington Commercial Corridor. This development will also
help enhance security and give a much-needed business in the neighborhood a business that
will be recommended hopefully by the residents. But besides these reasons, the developers have
agreed to provide a set of benefits to make this development acceptable by many sectors of the
community. I want to close by reminding and asking both parties in this case, developers and the RCO
to please not lose sight of the fact that our group expects nothing less than full compliance
to the substantive provisions that were negotiated and the terms and the conditions of the CBA.
I really believe that the goodwill that has been built between the developers and the residents
will help make this happen is enough of an incentive to make this happen and also for
this project to become a model of what a good relationship and collaboration can be developed
between developers and residents. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for
calling in. Is there any other comments in the virtual audience? I see no hands, Chair.
is there any other comments in the virtual audience i see no hands chair planning commission
hi mr chair and members of the board this is mason austin representing the planning commission
these lots are designated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan and their cmx2
zoning matches that designation while the lots were up zoned from cmx2 to cmx 2.5 in 2016
they were returned to their current zoning in 2021 following a community-led remapping process.
Whereas under this current zoning, 12 units are permitted by right, even under CMX 2.5, only 21 would be permitted.
Under that previous zoning, the requested 31 units could be earned with participation in the Mixed Income Housing Bonus Program,
but that would require either a payment of over half a million dollars to the City's Housing Trust Fund
or the institution of a deed restriction whereby at least three units are reserved for and made
affordable to very low-income households for at least 50 years. While some affordability has been
promised as a component of the CBA, these agreements have not been reviewed by the Planning Commission
and are not enforceable by the city. Consequently, as there are no features, unique features to the
lot that present a hardship that would necessitate the inclusion of more than double the units that
are allowable by right, PCPC staff recommends denying the requested variances. Thank you.
MI 2022-001-772-2112 North Front Street.
I vote yes.
Harold Teneri, my vote is yes.
Thomas, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Moving on to number 12.
MI 2022-001-803-2406 Cawley Drive.
Michael Mattione is the attorney.
There is a letter of support from the Packer Park Civic Association.
Mr. Mattione?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm appearing on behalf of Mr. Mattioni.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yes, it's Matthew Liley, M-A-T-T-H-E-W-L-E-I-L-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to this property?
Sure. My client is Penrose Park Associates LP. They are the owner of the property.