a townhouse development well the no no but this is exactly mr mr roller i'm talking to mr phil
i'm sorry so mr feldman i i would appreciate if we could move on
so let's so let's let's try returning returning to what what a what a putt is
here here is the rta one layout correct that you you set up here
I'm going to object to the line of questions on PUD because it's speculative.
There's no, the witness hasn't been able to testify that he has any knowledge that L&I
would actually require this to be listed as a PUD.
He has talked to L&I.
That's exactly why I was presenting the plan.
Mr. Roller, Mr. Roller.
Let me talk to Mr. Masters.
Mr. Masters, I'm going to let that testimony.
But Mr. Feldman, I want you to move this a little bit and not a lecture on PUD, but just a quick overview, please.
Well, so Jerry, your position is looking at this RTA1 layout that you've mocked up, that this would not be code compliant, correct?
That's correct.
And that's because in your 40-year experience, Ellen and I would treat this as a multifamily project, no different than the multifamily project that we submitted and we received our answers for, correct?
That's correct.
Now, looking at this plan, there's all of these different notes.
Can you tell us about these notes, where they came from, and the implications that they have for this type of development?
These are notes from the City of Philadelphia's development standards, the Streets Department's development standards, as they relate to curb cuts, impediments to pedestrian traffic, et cetera,
All of which disincentivize multiple curb cuts, all of which do not permit curb cuts within 40 feet of the corner, all of which do not permit continuous curb cuts, which would be required to develop this with the 25-foot frontage as shown in accordance with RTA1.
And why do these policies exist? These prohibitions exist?
Objection. That calls for speculation. He's not a legislator.
I'm no line of hand today.
What was the goal of all these different city planning and streets department regulations and prohibitions against what you see in front of you, to your knowledge?
To my knowledge, it's in order to preserve streetscape, in order to preserve the pedestrian nature of city streets, particularly in West Philadelphia, where there are a dearth of curb cuts.
All the other buildings on the site, around the site, or most of them don't have curb cuts.
now mr roll i talked about in my opening new legislation um that was uh approved by city
council in the last year uh at the urging of septa are you familiar with that legislation
excuse me counselor i think you're going back to curb cuts
and i thought we dissolved curb cuts no this is i member holliman this is actually
it is related to curb cuts but it's a whole separate i know but mr mr feldman yes i think
in your opening you described that very well for us and and i think that to have mr roller go back
to the septa and things like that you've already described that very very well for us and i don't
i don't think we need any more we need to move on let me ask one question based off of the
legislation that now bars curb cuts on Chester, could you even, would this plan even now be as
of right, even if you could get past all the other issues that you described and all the
prohibitions? It would not because of the curb cuts on Chester, which would not be permitted.
Because city council has now barred. That was your one question. That was your one question
about that. Now we're going to move on from curb cut. Sure.
let me ask you another question here
this unusable land can you tell us about the unusable land and the waste that this plan
creates um it creates a large piece of property that uh has no use it
uh wastes a a taxable piece it wastes uh a usable piece uh it couldn't it really uh
doesn't have anything to do with it's a huge piece of property with which is not buildable
under the rta one so according to this plan it's what 12 000 square feet
So according to this plan, it's what, 12,000 square feet?
And these lots, these four lots together, about 36,000 square feet?
Right.
So you've got a third of the property that's just lost, that's not viable, correct?
That's correct.
And some could characterize that as a major hardship that is created on this property?
Objection, that's cause for a legal conclusion, and it's also very vague.
Why is there such a large area of unusable land on this lot, on these lots?
Because the scale of the existing property is inconsistent with the scale of development contemplated under RTA-1.
Which means what?
RTA-1 is designed to have small lots fronting on the street.
These are large lots, which are residual from larger buildings that existed on those lots.
And how does the frontage of our lots compare to RTA-1 lots?
I'm not expecting that for vagueness. I don't know what our lots and our frontage mean.
So, Mr. Feldman, I really think you have described everything about this.
I think we have to move on. You have to have, move on with Mr. Roller, please, for other supplemental information, but we can't keep staying on this parcel.
Jerry, this is the SEPTA bar?
Yes, I'm perked on Sanchester Avenue.
So, Jerry, one more scenario that Mr. Masters spent a lot of time on his opening.
And it was this supposed, as of right, RTA-1 alternative plan that only had one curb cut.
Are you familiar with this plan?
And have you reviewed it?
I have.
And can you, and my understanding is your office did a zoning analysis of this plan
and came to certain conclusions, correct?
We did.
And those conclusions were with regards to what items?
The existence of the alleys as shown are significantly smaller than what is permitted
under the zoning code.
We still have significant lack of understanding of how they would be administered.
There's still vacant property in the rear of this.
More importantly, this development, as I said before, will be considered by L&I as a planned unit development
and will require a, will be zoned for their, considered for their purposes as multifamily.
And the reason, this is why I was presenting something else where we got the same determination
from L&I. So it's not just me saying it. We've done lots of multiple building, generally townhouse
or duplex developments where they're essentially singles. They lay front on streets, but because
of the common facilities, stormwater and driveway, L&I calls this multifamily. And the permits that
are issued are multifamily permits. I mean, I don't know why. This is not my determination,
but we've been doing this for the last 20 years. And L&I says...
Excuse me, sir. Is that an L&I code or a policy?
i don't know when we submit these to the to l and i we get a review we either get an approval
or refusal based on multi-family determination they call this multi-family because of the
common facilities okay so this case may this case may be different right okay correct no
Hold on one minute. This is the second time we've discussed this. You've got to move on. I mean, you went through this before.
Mr. Chair, this is a separate plan. This was the plan that...
Yeah, but it's the same conclusion that you originally did a little while ago about L&I. So, I mean, I think we have to move on. We understand it. You've made your point. We understand it, but you have to move on.
okay i understand so mr roll let's let's turn to the project itself okay okay we previously showed
this this is our this is our lot this is our context the other item that is in front of this
board today is least minimum variance it's that and our conclusion is that um rta1 is not
rta1 is not appropriate and that there's a hardship on the properties so the question is
appropriate and that there's a hardship on the properties so the question is
if the variance is entitled what is the least minimum variance okay we concluded and with i'm
objecting that this is now leading the witness and that's not permitted in my direct examination so
mr feldman do do your question over like let's i understand what mr masters is saying so jerry
let's talk let's talk about um the building that ultimately was approved by the zoning board
can you describe the building in terms of um of height first building is a uh three-story and
four-story building i'm sorry i'm objecting because this is all in the record and there's
nothing supplemental about it this absolutely goes to least minimum value the dimensions of
the building are in the record you've asked him this we've been asked by mr feldman mr feldman
Look, I do agree that we know the size of the building.
I think what you need to do is to concentrate on what's the supplemental information he has relative to that today.
We've already had that other testimony.
Mr. Roller.
What is the code requirement in RM1 or RTA1 for height?
38 feet.
and we have a small portion of this building that exceeds that correct that is correct
and why do we need to slightly exceed the height here we we needed to slightly exceed the height
to give us a lower height on the street lines which brings the cornice line on the street
closer to the typical cornice of the adjacent buildings and still give us the unit count that we
wanted to achieve. The average height of this building, if you take the area times the height
and the area times the height, the average height of this building is 36.7 feet, which is less than
the RM1 allowance. Or RTA1. So, Mr. Feldman, could you get to the point what supplemental
information that is? I mean, I think it's not supplemental. Let's get to the point what's
supplemental here. We were asked by the board. First, we're providing the average height,
which we had not provided, I don't believe, at the first hearing. We had provided the height,
this portion is 32 this is 42 so we wanted the board to realize and and to understand for the
record that the overall height of this building the average height of this building is actually
less than the code requirement in terms of most in terms of um least minimum variance that were
actually below there okay okay that was that's the whole that's the whole point of this exercise
so what else do we have for mr roller sure jerry let me ask you this the other item is
what what is the appropriate number what is the least minimum variance for the number of units
um for this for this building you've testified you've testified that uh rta1 is not viable
that the alternative rta ones that mr master's expert uh or alleged expert will testify to is
not viable how do we come up with the number of the 76 units and why do you why do you believe
that's the least minimum variance? What we did is look at the overall zoning on the site
and consider that if RTA1 was not viable, what was the next zone which exists on the site?
The property in question includes a portion of RM1, and based on that, that would seem to be
the least the next least developed site that we could use as a standard and we developed this
building with that in mind the unit count here at 76 is less than the 79 that would be permitted if
this these four properties were considered under rm1 in addition we can we maintain the setbacks
and the coverage of eight feet and 50%, which are contained in RTA1, so that we weren't
asking for variances on those dimensions. In terms of the height, we also provided
affordable housing at 20%, which if it were under the RM1, that would permit the height
to a variance of 45 to 45 feet under the zoning code.
uh to a variance of 45 to 45 feet under the zoning code so this is compliant with what would
be in our rm1 if that were the next zone used considering that it's the only it's the next
lowest zone in on the site excuse me sir excuse me sir yes rm1 it's the smallest partial
in this package correct it's part of it's it's the next the majority of the site is rta1 there's
no question correct but it also includes rm1 and includes cmx2 so how many square feet is rm1
um a small portion of it it's probably uh 10 percent
okay thank you yeah jerry let me let me wrap it up with this
There are also other refusals, multiple structures, multiple uses.
RTA1 does not allow multiple structures, multiple uses on a lot.
Because we are on the same zoning lot as the nursing home, we got the multiple structures, multiple uses, refusal.
Is there any way with the unity of use configuration that we used here to comply with either one?
Is there any conceivable way?
Thank you. And I would reserve any redirect. Mr. Masters, Cross. Yes. All right. Mr. Roller,
I'm going to look a little bit at your testimony from April 7th, 2021 on page 29. Do you remember
saying that if you did a different subdivision of those parcels that are the RTA one, that you
could build 15 buildings and get 30 units and could have up to 90 bedrooms in an RTA-1
development? Yes, that's essentially the plan that we just showed. We didn't. Well, I just
asked you, can you just answer the questions I asked you and not go on, please? She's allowed
to answer the question and provide an explanation. He doesn't. Mr. Roller, for this point, Mr.
Roller, please just answer the question. Mr. Roller, Mr. Feldman asked you if the
front-loaded driveways were required under RCA1 and that is in fact not the case, right? You are
allowed to have driveways in the rear of a house in RCA1 zoning, correct? You are allowed to, but
it is yes you're allowed to right in in in the plan that you that you designed you designed a
plan that only had front-loaded parking and apparently it looks to me like you designed a
plan that would check off um wait brett i'm gonna i'm gonna um ask for the screen now
Brett can you can you release the screen right could you miss let Mr masters on the screen yeah
I'm just trying to move this home okay okay so on the on the plan from from Tom Ewing
uh there's one curb cut on the plan that you created um for mr galley um there were numerous
curb cuts right correct and you had a chart that listed all the reasons why under complete streets
that's a really bad idea correct so you basically created a plan that was like a frankenstein plan
when you look at what the what the rules are for the city philadelphia it was like worst case
scenario, you never want to meet this plan in an alley, so to speak. If you were creating a plan
that you actually wanted to have developed, that you actually cared about, wouldn't it be closer
to what Mr. Ewing's plan is? The problem with Mr. Ewing's plan, aside from dimensions which can be
cured is that this would not be permitted by lni as under rta1 right but your plan that you created
mr roller isn't permitted by lni either doesn't it have refusals and that's why it got got zoning
variances so it's the same set of variances it's the same set of variances for multi for
for multi-family use. So you think that 76 multi-family uses is the same as 30?
Is that your testimony that you don't think that the numbers make a difference? Right.
What's your question here, Steve? Isn't 76 two times, more than two times the
the the the level of of variances under mr ewing's plan
76 is more than 30 but i i'm not sure that
76 is more than 30, but I'm not sure that equates to being a different variance.
Okay. You testified that...
Under that theory, this is...
Mr. Roller, Mr. Roller, Mr. Roller, Mr. Roller.
Mr. Roller, Mr. Roller, Mr. Roller, he's as opposed to two, so that's...
Mr. Roller, it's going to work better if you let me ask the questions and you answer them.
That's how it's supposed to work.
um so you um you testified that it's essentially the same refusals um so do you understand that