Thank you.
Chair, we have 30 attendees, and we can start as you wish.
Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman.
Are we on yet?
Yes, Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's ZBA hearings.
Before we begin, I have an announcement to make.
Beginning with the December 4th hearing, any documents or other verbatim parties wish to submit to the ZBA for hearings must be submitted through the ZBA's new online upload tool, ZBA Case Document Submission.
Information about how to access and use the submission tool will be included with hearings, notices, and zoning posters.
Please note that applicants' documents are due five calendar days prior to the hearing.
Documents submitted by other parties have to be submitted at least 48 hours prior to allow sufficient time for processing.
In addition, the filing information should continue to be submitted through email and not through the upload tool.
Requests for continuances, withdrawals, reconsiderations, and amended refusals, as well as requests by attorneys to enter or withdraw.
all. Any other questions relative to the submission tool, please contact RCOZBA at phila.gov.
Thank you. With me today is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
President, Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member, Tanetta Graham.
President, Mr. Chairman. Our Board Member, Michael Johns.
President, Mr. Chairman. And our Board Member, Taya Nguyen.
How's it, Mr. Chairman?
Also present is LeBaron Leonard Palmer, our alternate board member.
Morning, Mr. Chairman.
And we have our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and also our executive director, Ian Haggard.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting ZBAexecutiveDirector at phil.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating in FIFO, please press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To want an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for testimony.
All questions should be directed to zbaexecutivedirector at philo.phil.
Let's look at our schedule for today.
Do we have any requests for continuances?
Good morning, Chair.
This is Nadia, and I'll be our co-host today.
We have one hand up, Andrea McIntosh, and they have been allowed to speak.
Orna, could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
My name is Andrea McIntosh.
I'm sorry, is this for the hearing about prevention point?
No, that will be later today.
We're hearing that this morning.
It'll be on a little bit, okay?
Okay, that's for that one.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Is there any other requests for continuances?
There are no hands.
Okay, so case number two, MI 2022-007-283, 500 to 10 South Broad Street.
And case number three, MI 2022-007-284, 500 to 10 South Broad Street.
Both cases have been withdrawn.
we're going to go to case number one
MI 2021-004-633-3900 Main Street this is a redemptive hearing
Mr. Laver are you present
good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the board yes I am here
Please state your name and spell for the stenographer.
please state your name and spell for the stenographer
Adam Laver, L.
Adam Laver, L-A-V-E as in Victor, E-R, Blank, Rome, 1 Logan Square, Philadelphia, 19103.
Where are firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, Chairman Bergman, I do.
Laver, could you give us an update of where we stand and my understanding of what we're going to do?
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I just want to note for the record that Vice Chair Shahid and Board Member Johns are recused in this matter.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
Mr. Laver, could you give us an update?
And my understanding of what we're going to do today, we're going to hear from the RCO,
from Maniunk, and then we'll go to planning.
But could you give us an update of where you stand with this project?
Certainly, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
As board members will recall, I represent Shahab Investment LLC, which is a Philadelphia-based
certified minority business enterprise, and its managing partner, Ahmed Michael Al-Haddad.
Four months ago, Mr. Chairman, we appeared before this board and presented a proposal to redevelop
and transform the subject property, which is a 59,000 square foot underutilized surface parking
riverfront property located along Main Street in Maniunk, but outside of the historic district.
The underlying application in the matter was initially submitted to L&I on September 10th of 2021, more than three years ago.
Since the time of the submission, as the board is aware, the plans presented have been revised.
As we shared in July, the proposal now consists of plans for a 115-unit residential dwelling with mixed use to include office at ground, but also a component including affordable housing.
In addition, the project includes accessory parking and complementary office space, among other attributes, which are extensive in the record before the board.
At the July 16th hearing in this matter, the board called for a resumption hearing to allow for a representative of the coordinating RCO to present the RCO's position and for PCPC to share its recommendation.
And we understand, as you said, Chairman Bergman, that that will occur today.
Following July 16th, Board Counsel Emerson separately requested that the revised plans, which were presented to the board in July, be submitted to L&I for amended application review.
And we were happy to oblige with that.
An amended notice of refusal was subsequently issued, dated September 18th, 2024.
which has been posted at the site, shared with counsel for the zoning board, et cetera.
The amended notice of refusal confirmed that no new refusals were generated as a result of the plan refinements.
Again, the plan itself is what was shared in substance with the board and in the public hearing four months ago.
This has been a robust and substantive public review process.
As the board may recall, in response to stakeholder input, the plans presented, highlights of the plans presented, number one, remove all below grade parking, bringing it up to street level, if you will, reduce the dwelling unit density,
incorporate preservation of the public view and access to the river in the proposed building
design and provide for the addition of green space and a public river walk. Shahab Investment
has proposed an elegant six-story, flood-resilient, responsibly built residential and commercial
building designed by Philadelphia architectural firm SGRA Architects. Extensive expert testimony
has been offered on the record to support the request for variance relief. Notedly, support from
immediately impacted neighbors, including the neighbor immediately across the street, is on the
record, along with the support of the district council member and others. In conclusion, the most
vested stakeholders are on record yearning to see the property transformed.
Thank you.
I believe that brings us up to date.
Thank you very much.
The RCO representative for Man Young, please.
You have John Hunter with their hand raised, and they haven't allowed to say.
You have John Hunter with their hand raised, and they haven't allowed to speak.
Good morning, Mr. Hunter. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes. Good morning, board members. This is John Hunter, J-O-H-N-H-U-N-T-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. Hunter.
um thank you um as uh mr labor has just described um the scheme that was presented on july 16th was
one that we as the coordinating rco had never seen before and uh board chair you allowed us
to be given time to review those drawings and um provide comments at this resumption hearing
which we appreciate um the drawings uh that were presented the scheme were submitted to us
and um we reviewed the drawings and we included them in our last public meeting as an rco
and discussed the scheme and took a vote on it we know that it's not a formal vote because
the notice was not circulated to all immediate neighbors that would be normally necessary but
We thought it was prudent to do that to make sure that the revised scheme, which is substantially revised, still receive the same respondent.
And we did that.
I understand that I can share my screen and go through some of our comments in respect to the scheme.
Why don't you do that, Mr. Hunter?
Thanks.
John Hunter has been promoted to a panelist.
Thank you.
Okay. Mr. Hunter, just for a point of information, if you would, and I'm not trying to rush you, but we have some issues with board coverage today. Could you see if you can have this done in 10 minutes? Is that possible?
I doubt it, but I'll certainly try.
Okay. Please proceed.
OK, I hope you can see the screen. We can. Good.
What you see are initially some photographs that Kevin Smith, MNC's president, took on the day of September 1st, 2021 for the day after, sorry, September 2nd, the day after Hurricane Ida.
And they show the subject property from a drone view, looking down from Main Street along the river toward Ridge Avenue.
And you can see the arrow that points in the middle there that is indicating the location of 3900 Main Street and the fact that it is entirely inundated with floodwater.
This is taken in the following day, so the flood water had already started to recede significantly.
The high point of the cresting of the flood was in the middle of the night.
The photograph below is looking from Lower Main Street near Shows Lane towards 3900 to the east.
And you can see again, although it's receding, the inundation of the whole of Lower Main Street.
This is the view in the opposite direction from the Ridge Avenue, eastern end of Lower Main Street, looking towards the site and Bridge 5 condominium, which is just visible in the middle of the screen.
And you can see, again, continuous inundation of the whole of Lower Main Street.
this is a more optimistic view that shows the site to the left and the corresponding
existing buildings on the right are opposite 3900 main street a view of the existing site
mr al haddad bought this property in 2016 so it's been in this situation for seven years
as Mr. Lever said, it's used casually and informally at the moment as a parking lot,
but it is not well maintained.
These further photographs are from the presentation that Mr. Lever provided,
and they've been forwarded to us by the ZBA Council,
but I just point out that they are the design drawings from the applicant.
Here is the site, as you can see, closer view and the respective buildings on either side.
closer view and the respective buildings on either side this is the revised proposal and
it is significantly different in that as mr labor said the parking is provided on surface parking
right next to the sidewalk on main street it is enclosed with a building form underneath the
building but it has parking on the west end of the building and commercial space on the
east end of the building and some more office space and elevator cores in the
middle we'll point out that there are now 47 parking spaces provided sorry 46
but of that 46 three are required for the commercial space and also six of the
spaces are these first six spaces as indicated on the zone drawings are for
shared shared cars of higher spaces which the applicant has proposed to
provide and there is a sort of an implied bonus to that in that it takes
the place of four normal parking spaces so that would be the equivalent of 24
parking spaces but it also means that those six parking spaces should be
separated from and not used for the accommodation above for the residential accommodation so
they're really the parking space is provided in this present revised proposal is 37 and remind
you there's 115 units now reduced from 120 but that still leaves 78 spaces that would normally
be provided on a one-to-one ratio which is particularly common in this area of many
Manny Ankin has been posed in lots of other similar schemes in recent times,
including one that will come before you in a couple of months
that Mr. Labour will present for 4045 Main Street.
There was also in Dr. Cohen's testimony about his planning issues
that he cited Bridge 5, 3750 Main Street.
that has 60 units and it has 83 parking spaces and if you drive past there in a evening late at
night you'll see there's usually around eight or ten cars parked on the street so that would be
about a requirement for 150 percent parking ratio to units which we think would be normal so
clearly we feel that the parking provision here is inadequate it will create problems
or the commercial use on the street will have parking on the street,
which is metered parking on both sides presently.
There are two parking areas to the east.
One is a private one and one is a partway-run city-owned site,
but it certainly isn't adequate to provide all the parking.
These are the floor plans, and I just want to point out on the second floor plan
But elsewhere in the testimony, as is a requirement by the zoning code, all equipment, including the residential units, have to be above the base flood elevation plus 18 inches.
So that includes electrical rooms, mechanical rooms, sprinkler rooms, large diameter pipes, et cetera.
They were referred to in the testimony by Mr. Labor.
As you can see on the second floor plan, they aren't there.
they don't occur there is one relatively small for this side building um on the on the main street
side in the sort of light blue but otherwise there are no um assignments for any of those uses
nor is there any trash uh rooms on each floor also i'd like to point out on the top plan the roof
plan that um there are beyond uh the pilot houses which are shown on the elevations and we'll come
to the elevations below there are other uses indicated that the pilot house for the staircase
and for the elevator room are not included within the building height calculation we understand
that but you will see here there are also lobbies there is restrooms there is staircases which go up
to raised private roof terraces, which are not included in the refusal description and would
increase the height of the building because they shouldn't be allowed unless they're included in
the building height. The other thing about looking at this floor plan, you can clearly see that
what was previously in the scheme that we'd seen from 2021 onwards was three separate buildings
above ground and they were physically separate and they were designed that way according to the
and they were designed that way according to the architect so that they allowed view corridors
architect so that they allowed view
through the mass of the building and particularly at low level so that the public was engaged with
the river view and could access it at four different points around those three buildings