above the current painted by structure again we are only asking for a eight foot setback on floors
three to four in exchange for their variance the mosaic can be saved with slight modifications to
the current building design and without over building to paraphrase the artistic executive
director of the painted bride the artistic value of the skin of the bride is not comparable to the
the artistic value of the skin of the bride is not comparable to the value of the livability
value of the livability of
of our neighborhoods light and air are the most basic reasons for zoning thank you great and um
i can't believe uh i can't remember if it was you or max so whoever um spoke to me about this who
had done the comps on apartments i would just like you to briefly um establish how you came up with
what you thought a 15 reduction would um why that would occur uh uh can the board hear me
yes uh this is maxim spielchow uh so old city has a lot of apartments a lot of them in alleyways
existing warehouses uh we've had tenants move into us from units that face brick walls and they took
our unit because you know we had light we don't understand a new building would be no matter what
gets built does block light and air but once you get to a certain height it makes it more and more
darker and and um um less airflow uh so we based our comps based on we looked around looked at
units that were not as you know not as sunny and and based their values on that great and you own
many rental units so you're experienced in pricing um rental units yes we do not many but we own
quite a few great that's um i just wanted to put that on the record it's uh michael lady i just
want to object to that testimony i think it's speculation we don't know what the properties
are we don't know if they're comfortable i think it's just speculation what might yeah i normally
would agree mike but uh they do own properties and they are familiar with real estate and the
needs of uh tenants so i'll over you know you're truly comparable properties well
they didn't give any list or anything. I'm sure they were provided. I'm just trying to keep this
quick and simple to not drag this out as much as possible. I'm just going to summarize again,
my client's biggest concern are light and air access to this property. And the proposal is
having a large structure with 100% lot coverage, which is going to be very, very close and block
light and air access they're asking for just a setback from uh from the property line uh their
proposal is eight feet they are willing to negotiate and compromise on this um and if that
was granted if we could reach an acceptable compromise they would be in support of the project
one last thing it does not have a hundred percent lot coverage if it's the third fourth
fifth six seven floors there is the cut out they know it so to say it's a hundred percent
law coverage is incorrect sure i think we i think we established that at the last hearing it's it's
20 open over um and 25 is required uh so we could you know look at what a setback would
comp would look at at that extra five percent too mr marionni uh the testimony was just given by
uh splizak i'm probably mispronouncing that i apologize has that been given to uh you you
under your client? Are you aware of that? Yes, my client has spoken to Ms. Bozillo's clients. I
think they said that, and they did have discussions, and they talked about possible
compromises, but when I spoke to my client, he said that he could not, he could not, he gave them
a proposal. They rejected his proposal, and he rejected their proposal, so they did have
discussions about it, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make sure on the record that that's established.
thank you uh jennifer any more uh any other witnesses for you um i do not believe so
all right i just want to make an announcement it is now about 11 15 approximately we have
numerous other cases uh i would ask that the attorneys and if you have your witnesses to
please try to be as brief as possible not because the board doesn't care to hear what you have to
say or is not doesn't think it's important but at the rate we're going i suspect this this hearing
may have to be continued again because we're required to take a break for the employees
uh who from the zone employees from or part of the zoning process will need a break at a certain
time about 12 30 and then we have a two o'clock list today as well so just clear bear in mind again
It can be as brief as possible and advise your clients to be brief. That would be helpful. With that, we'll go to Mr. McElhatton.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. And I would ask that Jeffrey Reinhold to be elevated to be able to participate by video.
I would move to incorporate all of the testimony of all of the folks who testified today, and I'm not going to reiterate any of their testimony.
the theme that came through loud and clear from the earlier testimony
was that there was no communication with some of the neighbors and that holds true for
was that there was no communication with some of the neighbors, and that holds true for the individual who is the largest property owner adjacent or close to the building, and that's Mr. Reinhold.
He owns the Chocolate Works, which would be impacted by any of the developments, but when you heard the last witness say, well, just do this, it would also have an impact on the Chocolate Works.
So is Mr. Reinhold been elevated?
Did he be promoted to panelists?
Mr. Reinhold, please spell your first and most name.
No, I'm sorry.
He just needs audio, right?
I would do his hand up.
I thought he was on video.
No, does he need to present?
Jeff, are you there?
Mr. Reinhold, please unmute yourself.
I did, Chairman DiCicco.
Thank you.
Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
It's Jeff, J-E-F-F, Reinhold, R-E-I-N-H-O-L-D.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Jeff, where do you live?
I live in Philadelphia, 2029 Delancey Place, Philadelphia PA.
And are you employed and do you have a business?
My business is located at 117 North 15th Street, Philadelphia.
And what is the nature of your business?
I am a real estate developer, owner, manager, primarily of multifamily apartment buildings.
And do you have multifamily apartment buildings in the city of Philadelphia?
Yes, we have five buildings in the city of Philadelphia.
Consisting of approximately how many units?
Just about 800 units.
And one of the units that you own is the Chocolate Works, is that correct?
One of the properties is the Chocolate Works, correct.
Where is that located and specifically where in relation to the application on Vine Street?
So the building's legal address is 231 47 North 3rd Street. It is located directly to the south across New Street from the rear of the Painted Bride.
And approximately how wide is New Street?
New Street is a 20-foot wide street. It has parking for one part of it, and then one lane, one way, I guess, west to east.
And how many units are at the Chocolate Works?
It's 135.
And how many of those units will face north?
North. So the north-facing units, there are 27 north-facing units, and north-facing units
obviously look onto the Painted Bride site. And do they also look at various spots,
both east and west, from those apartments? No, they do not. All right. And since you learned
of this proposal for Lyon Street, has the developer or any representative of the developer
reached out to you and had any discussions with you? No. And we appeared at the last listing of
the zoning hearing. And since that time, I presume there's not been any outreach. Is that correct?
That's correct. So there's been no communication between you and the developer, but have you had
communications with the RCO? I spoke with the RCO in I guess it was late January but I haven't
really had much communication at all since then. So please describe for the chair and the board
members the impact that you believe this proposal as it is proposed now not various and sundry
alterations or amendments to it what the impact of the proposed building would be on the chocolate
works yeah i i'd like to do that may i share my screen so that i can show this yes may i okay
just give them a minute okay
and while you're doing that i'll take just that moment to say there was an argument earlier mr
chair about the public policy and i understand that but the public policy is also that the
the impact of any zoning on the community is paramount,
not the impact on potential public art.
public art um can you see my screen on not yet okay
Can you see my screen?
can you see it now no it's saying yep there we go you're up okay um it's just it's just a lot
easier for me and I can be briefer chairman to Chico I think if I can if I can show this
um so this is the north elevation of the chocolate works property and so this is looking from
um the painted bride uh to the north and looking to this elevation this is the north side
of the property and you can see the heights here um there are the the chocolate works property is
actually four or five properties that were put together, the former home of the Wilbur Chocolate
Factory back in 1985. So you can see that there's, it looks like two distinct buildings here.
The front part is about 91 feet to the parapet, and the rear portion, the majority of the north
elevation is about 80 feet to the parapet. What I'd like to do is just show you what the impact
will be on this north elevation on these apartments and these windows and views and light
and air based on the as right development and then with variances.
So this is the property, the proposed development as I know it from the presentations that have been
made by the developer.
You can see there's a line that shows you the 65 feet height.
And then you can see that it's higher than that,
which represents the elevator and the pilot house
and the stairwell.
And so this is the as by right development
with setbacks, which is required, as you all know, CMX3.
And then the next slide is the proposed with the requested variances, no setbacks, additional height, and from the prior testimony, we heard that to the power pit, I mean, it's about 88 feet.
and then, of course, the pilot house, elevator, and others, you will see that this property will
be up to about 100 feet at its highest elevation. Now, what I'm showing you now is by right in the
green and with the variances and the impact that it has on the Chocolate Works on the northern
elevation. As I've already said, there's 27 apartments on this side of the building.
They'll all be impacted in some way by this, but 11 of these apartments will be negatively impacted
if the variances are granted and the larger structure is built. And I would just like to say
just a couple of things about the proposed development. We've already heard testimony
about the second floor and the second floor if you look you can see here where these notches are
the second floor are the proposed keyed rooms or what I will call transient rooms
with balconies and that balcony looks directly was on the south side of the of this project but
looks directly over to the north side of my building so what we have is our transient keyed
rooms with balconies. You've already heard testimony about, about, you know, Airbnb and
party rooms. They tend to be party rooms and there's 10 of them. That'll certainly have a
significant negative impact to the residents on the other side of, of, of new street, which by
the way, the, the, the, the distance between these two buildings is no more, or is, is, is,
it's about 40 feet um so so i would excuse me for interrupting i was going to ask that question so
that the south side of the proposed building yes will be facing the north side of the chocolate
works correct and what is the distance between those two buildings at that so new street's 20
feet the existing sidewalk and i don't know this as a fact uh chairman de chico but i'm assuming
a 10 foot sidewalk will stay there there's a 10 foot sidewalk on the chocolate work side so a total
40 feet that's the distance so so the
that's the distance so so the the first thing about the design is this second floor with balcony
um for transient rooms and quite frankly they're they're they're party rooms um especially on
weekends and and and they they are a nuisance people have already testified to that um the
second thing about the project is that on the seventh floor there are balconies
But on the roof, there are planned two roof decks, two large roof decks, as well as, as you would expect, the HVAC systems, which look like to be heat pumps, so heat pump farms.
There is nothing in the design that, you know, mitigates the noise or sound that will definitely come from roof decks and from the HVAC systems.
I guess I can't see it. But that has a significant impact. And the decks are enormous, which is, I guess, great for residents. But unless, you know, we understand what they're going to do regarding buffering noise and hours of operation, there will be certainly a significant nuisance to residents living, you know, 40 feet from the property.
I want to object that there's no, that they're going to be a nuisance.
I got to object to that. That's speculation.
Stipulation. Sustained.
Well, I will only say in my opinion of operating buildings with roof decks,
that we really need to control the hours.
And quite frankly, I haven't seen a building yet that has the size of the,
basically the entire roof, except for the,
the need for the HVAC systems and the pilot has our roof deck. So it's significant,
it's substantial, and I do believe that they have the potential to be noisy.
So that's my opinion anyway. So that's the issue. Do you believe that the proposed development
it would have, as you've described, a negative economic impact on the chocolate works based
on your experience as a residential landlord and residential property owner, department
property owner here in the city of Philadelphia.
And if so, what that impact would be.
So the impact, if you look at these outlines, you can see, look, by right, what you see
and green is what can be built. What I'll talk to is the negative impact from the additional height,
the balconies, the decks, things of that nature. And the additional height and mass of this
property will affect 11 units. And what it'll do is it'll cause increased turnover.
there'll be darker units and I understand the shadow study but it's not just shadow that impacts
light it's it's it's it's the indirect light that that that that has an impact on a building
some people spoke to that earlier so it impacts about 11 of the apartments and quite frankly
just going higher and wider impacts all views from all of the 27 on that side so the significant
it's a significant impact and would have a significant economic impact on on the property
on our ability to rent the units and most likely the rent that we would receive
from those units that are impacted. Thank you. Mr. Reinholder, is there anything else you wish
to advise the board of? Yeah, I, you know, look, I, I, I understand what, you know, what can be
done by right. What I, what I, what I just don't understand is a couple of things. There was never
any outreach by this developer, yet we are the one of the nearest neighbors and probably have
the largest building that's impacted, directly impacted by this development. And it has just
been no outreach. And I don't see anything from the design that has been included in this project
to help mitigate the obvious issues here and potential issues for the neighborhood. I just
see that there's just been really a total lack of communication. And I've heard that from the
other testimony starting in April. And it's highly unusual, in my opinion, as a real estate
as a real estate developer and in my opinion as someone who's been in front of this board
developer and, in my opinion, as someone who's been in front of this board.
and been and have worked and has worked collaboratively with rcos highly unusual
i have nothing further mr chair thank you uh if we could take down that screen mr
reinhold that would be helpful okay thank you for your testimony uh i'm looking are there
any other attorneys who have not yet had an opportunity to speak? If so, raise your hand.