Hopefully you're seeing my screen.
This is 701 East Girard.
These are the zoning exhibits, which were, as we said, emailed around.
The project is a large, approximately 50,000 square foot lot.
it's going to be consolidating three smaller lots at the corner of gerrard and burks street
it's right off of the aramingo avenue exit on 95 to give you some context
i'll get into it in more detail but we have two refusals one is we're proposing 53 units and 43
units are by right and we are proposing 45 feet in height and 38 feet are by right this right here
if you can see where I'm circling is the one typographical error on the refusal. It correctly
states that this is in the CMX2 zoning district in the main portion of the application identification
main portion of the application identification, and one of the two refusals cites CMX2, and one
and one of the two refusals.
of them just by, I'm sure, stroke of a key cites CMX3. If we want to agree to CMX3, it'd be by
right. We wouldn't have to be here, so I'm happy to agree to that if you like. We have a letter
from the Fishtown Business District. They voted in full support of the project as it is. We also
went before FNA. FNA has sort of a confused opposition, I would say. They support and oppose
the exact same aspects of the property at the same time. Essentially, the community is in favor
of multifamily use along Girard Avenue. They like the fact that we're including almost 8,000 square
feet of commercial space, which would actually be an additional 2,000 square feet of commercial
space at this property. But yet they say that we failed to demonstrate a hardship and that the
additional density will cause vehicular and traffic and parking issues, even though they
support the density and massing and size. We also have a conclusion letter from CDR.
We actually received fairly overwhelming support from CDR, and we just have a few issues from CDR
that we are looking at. There are two loading zones for the project. One is off Burke Street.
That's going to be limited to the residential use to keep the commercial use off of Burke's
and out of the neighborhood. The loading zone on Girard will be limited to the commercial use,
again, to keep that commercial use on Girard without having it turn on to Berks. We were
asked to increase the size of the tree pits, which we did, and we were asked to look into some of the
design aspects which the design team is doing. So we've addressed all the CDR comments. Again,
that was largely in favor. So here's the project. Again, here's 95, the Aramengar Avenue exit,
right to the right. As you can see, right on Girard Avenue, this is a large, almost square
shape with this sort of jagged edge along one side and Burke Street going one way off of Girard
in that location. Again, here's just kind of an overview. I think this view gives a better sense
of it. Presently, this is a beer distributorship right here. This is a Dunkin' Donuts, and there's
a laundromat right in the middle. As you can see, this is an underutilized spot with extensive
parking in the front, a lot of car traffic. Most of this frontage here along Girard is actually
already chopped up into multiple curb cuts. So cars are just going in and out, in and out,
and really carving up this sidewalk. There's also a very overlarge curb cut on Burke Street
carving up that sidewalk as well we will be having no curb cuts as part of our project
there's no parking offered and that is not a refusal and so we are significantly improving
the pedestrian landscape here this site also or this picture also shows you our height will be
in line with the adjacent buildings which are all built up newer buildings you can see behind us
and really kind of encompassing us all the way around.
As I said before, we are entirely in the CMX2 zoning district.
This should cart all the way over like that.
I'm not sure why it didn't, and hence we have our two refusals.
So here's the picture just to walk us through Beer City, Beer Distributorship,
the cleaners, and the Dunkin' Donuts.
you can see almost everything is curb cut. There is no curb here, and cars just zip in and out,
which is a condition that we intend to correct. This is directly across the site if you're
standing on the sidewalk. Again, larger warehouse right across the site. Contextually, I think
everyone agrees that large multifamily works here and is the appropriate use here. In fact,
this larger building with first floor commercial. It is actually multifamily with the residential
access off of Berks. This again is just across Berks. Girard is right off to the left here.
As you go down Berks, again you get into the residential neighborhood.
That's why it's our intention to have to limit the Berks loading zone to only residential and keep all the commercial traffic out of the out of the neighborhood and try to keep it only on Gerrard with access solely off of Gerrard.
That's why it's our intention to have to limit the Berks.
Pardon my fat thumb, but here's we're right across the street. So here are the trolley tracks, the subway tracks rather going both ways.
so we have extensive uh bus sand trolley um usage right here at our site
and then again and then this is uh 95 right there in the distance
so the proposed project i don't know that i really need to to go into it this is the um
Sorry, here's the proposed project. What you see is, here's Gerrard Avenue, here's Berks, and you have a very large sized commercial space. This is actually significantly larger than is required by Wright.
And as I said earlier, we have two refusals.
uh the refusals are actually um caused by what everyone in the community enjoys about the site
specifically the increased height is due to the fact that we're putting in you know the significant
first floor commercial space um as i think everybody is aware modern commercial uses require
an increased height you know they don't want uh nine or ten foot ceilings um you really got to
put a 14-foot ceiling in, which is what we're doing here, and hence the increased height
why we're going from 38 to 45 feet.
We also have, as I said, we're requesting 53 units instead of 43 units.
The basis for that is really that there are 17 units per floor.
There are no, in our proposed plan, there are no residential units proposed on the first
floor.
We really want to capture all of that as commercial space. However, there are 17 units per floor on the upper three floors.
This is actually using larger one-bedroom units. The neighborhood has a lot of smaller units, which the developer here wanted to capture the really good tenant clientele for larger units.
So these units are going to be 625 to 790 square feet each.
So, you know, in order to build fewer units, you would, in the first instance, have to lose an entire floor and all 17 units on that floor.
And it would cause, you know, cause the site to be underutilized and inappropriately used.
That buy right plan would also create an undesirable condition on the ground floor because the commercial would then get pulled towards the front.
It would get shrunk in size.
You would have lower commercial heights there, which bring in a less desirable commercial tenant.
and you would have a couple of first floor residential units in the rear, again, which is
not a desirable condition. Although it would allow for a buy-write plan, it would
kind of flummox the site. The other alternative would be to lose just the 10 units. This would
result in, and you'll hear the developer and architect testify, losing the just 10 units to
get down to buy right number as far as units would mess up the layout and create oversized
units, which would be impossible to rent and sort of awkward for the neighborhood and the building
in this site. So a lot of thought and consideration went into this design as far as
the height being contextual to what is around us, the changing neighborhood requiring and almost
demanding that that nicer commercial space and and the larger nicer residential units above
um and you know that that would be our uh um our basis for a hardship and the uh you know
addressing all of the concerns and considerations of of the community stakeholders so with that
unless you have any questions for me i'd be happy to call my client and the architect to adopt my
testimony. I have no questions. Okay. Is Ori Fibush or Jose?
Is Ori Fybush or Jose Hernandez on the call?
Mr. Fybush has his hand up.
If you may, I can allow him to speak.
Good afternoon.
And I do see Chairman DiCicco speaking,
but I think he may be on mute here.
okay um mr feybush can you put your name and address on the record of course ory feybush
1936 washington avenue philadelphia pa and do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do okay you may proceed sorry can we get him to give a name spelling
please for the course in our course sure can you spell your last name mr feybush of course
It's F as in Frank, E-I-B-U-S-H, and the first name is Ori, O-R-I.
Thank you.
Are I back on?
Yes, you're back on.
Thank you.
All right, Mr. Fibush, you're here on behalf of the equitable owner of the property, correct?
Yes, sir.
Okay, and did you hear the testimony that I just presented?
I did.
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
I would only add that we really approached this project trying to design what we believed made the most amount of sense.
We've spoken to both immediate neighbors and stakeholders and really tried to mirror both the needs of the development team and the community.
And so while it doesn't fit perfectly within the underlying zoning, it very much does meet the spirit of what the neighborhood is trying to accomplish on this corner
and corrects some small mistakes and improvements from past projects in the area and really hopeful
that ultimately this will be a good development for the area. The neighborhood was largely
supportive and really was excited to see. We have 14-foot high ceilings on the first floor as
opposed to traditional 8, 9, or 10 feet here. We're really setting up this building with the
hope of creating opportunities for the best potential commercial tenant and similarly for
the apartments upstairs. So I certainly recognize it doesn't fit fully within the code or we
wouldn't be here. But in the same breath, given a vacuum, this really is something that I think
was designed by consensus and really designed in a way that took into consideration both
immediate interests and larger stakeholders. Thank you, Mr. Feibusch. And just to tie it off,
would you adopt my testimony as your own? I would.
uh does anyone of the board have any questions i'll ask that question now but someone has a
radio or a television on the background we're getting some feedback uh any questions from the
board no no no no thank you anyone else would like to testify in his case if so please raise
your hand yes chairman i'd like to call jose hernandez from jkrp architects
Mr. Hernandez, can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Jose Hernandez, J-O-S-E-H-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z.
Sir, do you swear and affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
And will you put your address on the record?
100 East Penn Square, Suite 1080, 19107.
All right.
Mr. Hernandez, you're the project architect for this project, correct?
And did you hear all the testimony that I presented?
I did.
Do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt it as your own?
I would.
And Mr. Hernandez, there was one thing that I'd like you to run through
if you could along among anything else you might have to add um is could you just run through the
elevations of the building for the uh the board just to make sure that that was clear yeah so uh
can you pull up uh as as was mentioned this project went through the civic design review process and
um part of our challenge is to make sure that this project fits contextually um within the
neighborhood and respects uh the street edge um and all the other items uh that are required uh
sean can you share screen or should i share screen uh i can share my screen i was actually
just trying to pull up what i'm sure you're going to be asking me to right hello so you should be
able to see the cdr presentation right now as was mentioned um one of one of the items and go back
one the the image the image uh that that's shown there it's basically an area of view of
the image uh that that's shown there is basically an area of view of the building in its context and
how the building is taken to the extent of the street edges to reinforce and reactivate the
street edge and sort of in line with the building directly to our uh west and some of the other
commercial properties that are along gerard avenue right and and uh mr henna as you heard we have
uh 14 foot ceilings on the first floor correct it's it's a it's a 14 foot level to the ceilings
are about uh 13 feet there's a foot of structure there so they are significantly higher and why
did you design that so based based off of the uh commercial space being a little over 7 000 square
feet um it's in our experience in our retail experience that uh spaces of that size require
higher ceilings. They have a larger mechanical use. So a higher ceiling allows mechanicals to
be placed without impacting the overall height of the space. Okay. And I'm showing right now what
the elevations are that you're talking about, correct? Correct. So as was mentioned, you have
a predominantly commercial use on Girard Avenue and you have a residential use on Berks. So what
we've done here is we've basically utilized more of the residential element, which is predominantly
brick along the Burke's facade that have sort of a stepping rhythm that matches some of
the property. There's a perspective that Sean will get to that really kind of illustrates
that use. So this is, you can see the images on the left. You have some of the residential
townhomes that are on the left, and we kind of mimic that with the brick. We've tried
to accentuate the commercial use of commercial by changing materiality to the fiber cement
that's above that area. So above that is or below that directly is the limits of the commercial
space. So this is the view I mentioned this really ties into there's some existing architecture
that's to the north of our property that we sort of mimic this design and this is what was well
received from CDR. There's also you'll notice the two-story piece is actually a gap between the
buildings that goes into a courtyard that actually creates a little bit of a separation
from the adjacent property. So in one of the aerials and in the shadow study, the building
is set back from the edges and in line with this adjacent building. So to not create an adverse
shadow effect on those units. And there's the condition you were talking about? Correct. And
the residential entry where the signage says 701 is is dedicated to Berks again reinforcing that
sort of residential feel to the block this is a view inside the courtyard looking out towards the
gateway on the right so this area is landscaped and again it's separated from the adjacent
property as I did want to clarify there are two units on the ground floor those are our
handicap accessible units so they have direct access um from the street edge and uh direct
access to the courtyard so there's no issue with those units needing to ride down the elevator to
it to access those spaces so there are two units that are that front into the front and look into
this courtyard and those are to the left that you see there that's correct i i appreciate you making
that correction. I misspoke. And again, this is a view looking on Gerard Avenue. Again, we're trying
to have the scale of the residential to the right with the material change and then providing a
little different material and some attention to the commercial use on the ground floor.
And then that's it. So Mr. Hernandez, I mean, obviously you've delved into most of it. Do you
have anything for any last comments before you answer questions from the board i do not
any questions from the board thank you questions from the board no no no anyone else would like
to testify in this case if so please raise your hand mr chair i have a karen javaruski with her
hand up. If you wish I can allow her to speak right now, sir. Good afternoon, ma'am. Please