Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all.
Okay, great. You may proceed and your screen's up. So that's good.
Thank you. Again, good morning, Chairman Bergman, members of the board, Michael Phillips again. Here on behalf of 922 North Broad Associates LLC, which is a subsidiary of HITOP Real Estate and Development, I have with me David Lance Groener, who's the principal of HITOP, as well as our project architect, Jessica Vitale and or Sergio Kosia from Kosia Moos.
I actually don't anticipate that I'll be calling them, though.
This is an already approved project that is underway for which we have zoning and building permit.
It's at the southwest corner of Broad and Girard.
Let me just orient.
So here is the zoning map.
It's zone CMX4, southwest corner of Broad and Girard.
Here's the aerial.
There was a CBS there for many years.
The CVS has been demolished by my client in November after taking this project through Civic Design Review. I received approval for a seven-story mixed-use building.
for a seven-story mixed-use building with ground floor commercial, 44 underground parking spaces,
and a multifamily residential with 196 units. We have a zoning permit is in your file at tab
three, and the building permits in your packet at exhibit four. In the process of looking for
a retail tenant to take up what was the first floor space, we've entered into negotiations
with a grocer who would like to relocate the parking from underground to the first floor
and pick up the second floor space for retail.
The reason we're here today is because above-ground parking in CMX 4
requires a special exception approval.
So we're here simply to seek the special exception to relocate the parking.
No other changes to the height, dimension, massing of the project I proposed.
Here's the aerial right here.
Literally, we are just taking the parking, shifting it up,
and shifting the grocer to the second floor.
Reason being is primarily ease of access.
Now, we have two existing curb cuts, one along Gerard, one along Gerard,
that we will continue to utilize.
There are 40 parking spaces provided, so individuals will come,
and this parking here will be all available.
We have the retail entrance here along Gerard and the retail lobby,
but you would come in get your shopping cart shopping cart will take you up on the escalator
to the second floor similarly the giant on 23rd street the whole foods and the art museum very
similar concept so you come on the first floor take the shopping cart up the second do your
shopping and then you come right back down to the ground floor for the parking again i'll just take
you some renderings you've heard this is uh thompson streets at the rear this is gerard so
we're proposing it's going to be all glass on that second floor very inviting no changes to
that residential component whatsoever this is looking at Broad and Girard again we're right
next to the subway station so the other added advantage of this is there won't be any excavating
or underpinning necessary as we're constructing this seven-story building
We, and here's just some existing photos, we went, the 5th District, 5th Council District
did organize a meeting that was well attended and United Neighbors, right here, sent in
United Neighbors Alliance Civic Association, sent in their letter indicating 15 people
in attendance and unanimous support slash non-opposition from the community. We also
have agreed and entered into a community memorandum of understanding that we did voluntarily just to
emphasize that we will be seeking minority-owned contractors on the project, also community-based
subcontractors, and we'll be providing advertising and advance notice of available employment
opportunities to the community.
Yet, I don't want to belabor this and take up too much time, as it is a special exception
that we're seeking.
There will be no adverse impacts that would not otherwise be expected from having a surface
parking lot.
This is CMX4, but we are not in core center city where the underground parking would be
needed to prevent any curb cuts.
We have these existing curb cuts.
It's a very centralized location, very pedestrian, a transit focused location. And with that, I would like to call David Lanskroner to adopt my testimony.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
David Lanskroner, L-A-N-D-S-K-R-O-N-E-R.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Good to see you, Mr. Phillips.
Hi, David.
You heard my testimony a moment ago about the project and the relocation of the parking and retail space?
And is everything I stated true and accurate?
And do you agree to adopt my testimony as your own?
Yes, I do.
I have no further questions.
Questions from the board?
no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission good morning mr chairman david vecto city planning
Planning Commission. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. David Vecto, City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, this proposal completed civic design review in July of 2021. The city changed the zoning maps in Francisville in 2018. At that time, the commercial mixed use zoning for this parcel remained unchanged in accordance with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
Commission.
the applicant has shown that a parking garage above the ground floor will have no more of an
impact than a parking garage above the ground floor would be expected to have and so the city
planning commission recommends that the board grant the special exception thank you david m i
2022-003-578-922-38 north broad street i vote yes carol tonnery my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
Thank you very much.
Have a great day.
Number 13.
MI 2022.
003345.
6995 Pitchin Street.
this is the resumption of the remand hearing for 6995 peaches street mi 2022 03345 this case was
remanded from commonwealth court through the court of common pleas for a limited hearing on whether
the proposed nine residential units is the minimum variance necessary in light of the established
geotech challenges at the property. As previously noted, testimony from the prior CBA hearing
on May 16, 2018, is incorporated into the record for this hearing. So it is unnecessary for council
to repeat or re-offer evidence and testimony previously provided. Mr. DeMarco, Mr. Toner.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Hi, Mr. Toner.
mr toner is coming back in as a panelist okay mr demarco i've already sworn mr toner today
um could you state your name spell for the court reporter
richard demarco d-e-m-a-r-c-o right do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do i understand that you want to finish up your case mr demarco yeah i'm
willing to so um in speaking with my clients mr toner you've already been sworn earlier today
yes proceed uh mr chairman i spoke with my clients you heard from uh david henderson who
is the owner and developer of this property you heard from our contractor daniel palachati who
will be constructing the homes um we were able to get both of their testimony onto the record
I am willing to rest with the movement of my exhibits into evidence.
I think you got exactly what you needed as far as a good summary of why the nine units is the minimum necessary.
And of course, you know, all the the issues with inflation that we've been dealing with, the construction costs and the length of time that this property has been delayed, the holding costs, et cetera.
Obviously, I would. It's a little stale for everybody.
I want you to make sure you read the transcript so that that stuff is fresh in your memory before you vote the case.
But I'm willing to rest, Mr. Chairman. I do have objections, though, to the late submissions by the Protestants.
Also, I do want to state state for the record, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, that this remand was very specifically for the purpose for the applicant to add testimony.
I went back and I reread the Commonwealth Court's remand opinion letter and the judge's remand order, and it was very specific that hardship was proven and accepted by the courts to the property, but the only issue remaining was to supplement the applicant to supplement the record with testimony that the nine units was the minimum necessary.
Sorry, this board already found that it was, but the court was concerned that there wasn't enough testimony from the applicant to support that.
And I heard you say that the Protestants had plenty of time. We know they're opposed to this development.
They filed appeal after appeal of this. There's no need for testimony that is is meant to just distract the board.
and there's evidentiary problems with a lot of the exhibits, Mr. Tony is saying,
what I'm getting at, Mr. Chairman, I'm objecting to the late exhibits,
and we really should follow the dictates of the Commonwealth Court.
The more this case is delayed, Mr. Chairman, the greater the hardship becomes.
The more this case is delayed, Mr. Chairman, the greater the hardship becomes, the more holding costs and the more difficult it will be to feasibly develop the property.
So I'll rest with that.
Thank you, Mr. DeMarco.
Thank you, Mr. DeMarco.
And I think Mr. Toner understands where we are on this about what test money we need.
All right.
I'll reserve the right for capital.
And thank you.
I'll rest with the submission of my exhibits into everything.
Thank you.
Mr. Toner, you want to give an opening statement, please?
So I just want to first address the argument made by Mr. DeMarco that only the applicant is allowed that testimony.
We're what is now the third day of the remand hearing at the third day to open up the hearing saying that a party intervener who has been a party before two Commonwealth Court remand hearings or two Commonwealth Court appeals is somehow precluded from offering testimony
and questioning or challenging the testimony exhibits entered by the applicant, really it
would be direct conflict with both the local agency law and basic concepts of due process.
We do not have extensive or voluminous testimony here today. Our exhibits are very straightforward
and they've been before the court fundamentally since May 31, 2022, when they were emailed to
to the Zoning Board as well as all parties of record.
And I'd like to begin just by going through
our exhibit packet, highlighting the most important documents
and then calling Ms. Christine Ertz
who was disclosed and identified way back in May of 2022
as our expert witness.
Okay, go ahead, Christine, Mr. Turner.
Thank you.
So, may I share my screen, Mr. Bergman?
Okay. So we have a total of 22 exhibits. The first exhibit are several MLS reports
for comparable properties that Ms. Ertz can identify. Exhibits two, three, and four are
all exhibits that were submitted in the course of the proceedings by the applicant. His plans,
his cost estimate for the homes, and his analysis of the cost of construction.
In Exhibit 3, I want to pay particular attention to the core incompetent evidence that we believe was submitted to this board.
So in Exhibit 3, they calculate what is the anticipated outsell per unit.
And to come to that calculation, they look to the sale of 6907 Hetching Street, which was a 2018 sale and a sale price of $458,250.
To account for the over four years of appreciation, the applicant does not look to comparable sales analysis. It does not look to any recognized appraisal methodology.
What they did was they took the consumer price index and they increased the 2018 sale of 69 to 7 by the consumer price index, the increase in the consumer price index.
Now, as we mentioned at the prior hearings and cross-examination of Mr. Henderson, the sale of real estate is not a consumer transaction that is included within the consumer price index.
And we submitted as part of our exhibit packet a summary letter from the U.S. Bureau on Consumer Statistics outlining exactly how the sale at real estate is improper.
Now, Exhibits 5 includes the reproof record that was submitted before the Commonwealth Court in the most recent appeal.
This is submitted as background information.
It's already part of the record in this case.
We also submitted a copy of our appellant's brief to the Commonwealth Court just to provide
a clear review for the Zoning Board of the arguments that were raised before the Commonwealth
Court and what was resolved.
Exhibits number eight and nine refer to, I'm sorry, eight, nine, and ten, and these are
all included within the reproduced record. These all refer to the document history of the sale
purchase prices for the properties at issue, as well as the mortgages that are recorded.
Exhibit 11 is a copy of the Commonwealth Court's order issued on February 24, 2022.
Mr. DeMarco has made some aggressive interpretations of what
Mr. DeMarco has made some aggressive interpretations of what the Commonwealth Court found.
Fundamentally, what the Commonwealth Court did in its February 24, 2022 order was it instructed the trial court to remand this case back to the Zoning Board of Adjustment with an instruction that additional testimony was needed on what was the quantifiable minimum variance necessary to afford relief.
And that is what we're here for testimony on. Did the applicant meet its burden of evidentiary
production to establish what is the quantifiable minimum variance necessary to afford relief?
Exhibit number 12 is the Redfin report for the property that's being relied upon by applicants
to set the proposed out-sale price, that being 6907 Petchon Street.
Of note, we'll actually let our real estate expert testify to that.
In terms of Exhibit 13, this is a Zillow report for 6907 Petchon Street.
As you can see, the Zillow estimate, which we're not arguing is the definitive estimate for the market value of 6907, is actually $589,000, which is significantly greater than that being offered by the applicant in their proposal before the board today.
And again, their proposal is that the property now has an out-sale value of $516,000.
Going back real quickly to Exhibit 12, what is important to note here is some of the sale history for 6907.
It was listed for sale in 2016.
2016. It sold in 2018. It's listing price of $449,000. Again, this property was constructed
over six years ago. It sold over five years ago.
In terms of the increase in market valuation, exhibit number 13 is important for one thing.
Zillow, while not entirely accurate for 6907 Petchen Street, does include how significantly this zip code has appreciated over the past five years in comparison to what we believe is the incompetent reference to a consumer price index, which is not relevant to a appraisement or assessment of value of real property.
Exhibit number 14 is a comparable sale that Ms. Ertz will address.
Exhibit number 15 is a real estate report card that Ms. Ertz is going to address to show how
the zip codes for this particular Ridge Park neighborhood have appreciated over the past
number of years.
Exhibit number 16 are the comparable sales that Ms. Ertz faces her expert opinion on,
Those being the comps that were submitted prior to the June 2022 hearing, the properties being 422A Seville, 420A Seville, 422B Seville, 325 Gates, 326 Wright, and 328 Wright.
And as you'll hear from Ms. Ertz, rather than having an estimated outsell price in the low 500s, it's her professional opinion as a real estate agent with numerous sales within these zip codes at issue,
that the actual market value for the units will be somewhere between $650,000 and $675,000
based upon a normal use of comparable sale data