Sure. Sure. I know you'll be available shortly, correct?
I will be. Yes. Thanks.
Okay, okay.
Mr. Feldman, so you'll understand, and everyone out and listening,
we are going to be required to take a break at 1 o'clock.
So it is more likely, unless you have some way of condensing your testimony,
we may have to continue this case regardless of the issue regarding the community benefits agreement.
We will have to break at 1 o'clock.
Sure. I understand. And I do want to give everyone a chance to speak. So let me just quickly turn to Nick Krause. He was our project historian. Nick?
Mr. Krause, you have been unmuted.
Great. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself first in my name.
Yes, I'm Nick Krause, N-I-C-K-K-R-A-U-S, and I'm Vice President with Heritage Consulting Group.
We're infirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Mr. Krause, I have passed up your report.
It's at Exhibit Tab 4 with your CV.
You have an MS in Historic Preservation from Penn, a BA in History.
You've been with Heritage for 13 or 14 years.
um I just want to if you could just briefly talk about your work with looking at the appropriateness
of this building uh in the in the in the surroundings um what was there prior uh and
as far as your opinion on um you know what what how this makes sense for the neighborhood yes thanks
Brett so we took a look sort of right at the site as well as you know the neighboring Squirrel Hill
community and really a little bit wider, the surrounding blocks of Cedar Park and West
Philadelphia in general. So I think on the really micro granular level, if you look at
our report and look at the property that we're talking about, we had a lot of density historically
on this site. We had two large apartment buildings. You can see it on this map here on the Sanborn
map Wycliffe Hall is right at the corner of Chester and 48th and then two parcels down
is Winston Hall on South 48th Street and then in between those there's a multi-family dwelling
that had been I think subdivided into six or eight housing units during the period as well as
other houses on Chester there that had also been subdivided.
So this site historically was utilized for multifamily.
Surrounding the area, I think you had a really good visual,
both the aerial that showed the other large, that one right there,
that shows the context really between 46th and 49th,
fronting on Chester. But again, if you broaden this out to further blocks, even going up into
Garden Court, you've got a 10-story Garden Court Plaza, apartments adjacent to that. You have
Garden Court condominiums, which I believe are six stories in height. All these around here
on the next page where you have the elevations show similar context in height, as well as a
kind of a uniformity of design. And when you look at these, they really all read as sort of mid to
late 1920s apartment buildings. And that is what they are. And that's a really important
aspect of West Philadelphia. I think, you know, everyone who'd been through the area
knows the Victorian twins that sort of worked their way out as the West Philadelphia streetcar
suburb. But also integral to the West Philadelphia streetcar suburb are these sort of early to mid
20th century large apartment buildings fronted, as was talked about earlier, on the trolley
rights of way. So Chester Avenue, as the historic documentation from when both Winston and Wycliffe
hall talked about they were marketed as being on the chester avenue trolley line on the 13 line
They were marketed as being on the Chester Avenue trolley line, on the 13 line, which was important in the 20s and certainly is as important, if not more so important, to West Philadelphia right now.
And so, you know, one of the really important things, I think, from our perspective as a historic consultant is that this whole area is part of the West Philadelphia streetcar suburb historic district.
that was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1997.
The properties on the site that we're talking about,
so both the smaller duplexes that had been converted,
as well as Wycliffe Hall and Winston Hall,
all existed at the time that the historic district
was listed on the National Register of Historic Places,
and they were all considered to be contributing.
So all these buildings, these large-scale buildings
that you're all looking at here,
are all considered to be contributing historic resources to that historic district.
And I'd like to just quote from that National Register nomination, and it's in the report as well,
specifically about these buildings.
It says, the final significant building period within the district occurred in the 1920s
in response to the changing fashions which made the apartment a desirable mode of living.
This generation of development typically involved the demolition of late 19th century rows for the
construction of larger four or five-story apartment houses, which generally took the form of U-shaped
brick blocks with detailing concentrated at the entrance, belt courses, and parapet. Chester Avenue
boasts the greatest number of these buildings. This includes the Royal Chester Court at 4601
Chester Ave from 1927. And then moving forward, also in the same year, further down Chester Avenue,
the Winchester Apartments at 4800 Chester, which is also a four-story Tudor Revival building.
Then these all represent that 1920s to 1930s period, which really culminated the development
patterns of west philadelphia the streetcar suburb and specifically here squirrel hill
so just in looking in the research that we've done specifically on this site but also the general
context um and looking at the the design as proposed with the red brick um kind of earth tones
cast stone um the the u-shaped building that's been worked out with with neighbors uh it really
is appropriate historically for this site um this this site prior to the demolition in the 90s
was considered to be historic because of what was there yeah no nick i don't mean to cut you off
here but we know the historic is important but it also goes to the zoning code um one of the criteria
for approval is that it's you know that we don't we're not altering the essential character of the
neighborhood or detrimental to public welfare. Do you see us as completely compatible with this
neighborhood in this area because of the design and the history? Completely. I think if that was
shaded the same color in the map we're looking at right now, you wouldn't ever know that it was
not something that had been there before. This is totally appropriate for the neighborhood.
And it marks the corner as it should be based on what it was historically.
Great. Well, thank you very much. And you passed in your record, your report, which we added to the record. Mr. Chair, I do want to have Ms. Templeton speak. I don't know if she's available right now.
So if you want to open this up now to the public, which I think may make a lot of sense, and then
I could call her back, whether it's later today or on the callback. She's critical to establishing
full compliance with all the hardship criteria and the adverse impact on this matter.
Why don't we get her on if she's available?
I'm ready.
Ms. Templeton, please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, Nancy Templeton, T-E-M-P-L-E-T-O-N.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Farrell.
Great.
Ms. Templeton, you're a certified land planner, correct?
Correct.
And you are with CH Planning?
Yes, that's correct.
You've testified on numerous occasions before this board, and your testimony in the past has been accepted as expert testimony, correct?
Yes, correct.
And Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that the same be done in this situation.
And your CV is part of your report at Exhibit tab.
It's in the package.
it's in the package. Can you just briefly explain the work you've done to look at the
Can you just...
compatibility of this and the hardship challenges that we face at this site?
Sure. So I visited the site and the surrounding neighborhood. I reviewed the zoning regulations,
the development plan, and I reviewed the historic report that was submitted. I also looked at the
example RTA1 site plans and the University South District Comprehensive Plan.
And what did you find? Well, I found that the proposed development is contextual and
compatible with both the historic use of the site and the current development context
of the neighborhood with diverse mixed housing options with single family, twins,
multifamily, and large apartment buildings. Okay. And as far as the history of the property,
I was pretty clear that this had been multifamily?
Yes, it has.
And even where it is zoned RTA-1 or single family around us, most of those properties are not used in that manner, correct?
Correct.
the uh the neighborhood where it's zoned the immediate neighborhood where it's zoned there's
some rta1 and there's some rsa3 rsa5 there are a lot of apartment buildings on those
single family zoned or two family zoned properties okay no not to interrupt i apologize i think we've
established that a couple of times yes prior to you so get to the heart of her testimony that
would be helpful. Yes, yes. As far as the hardships, it's been made pretty clear that
affordability is a critical component of this project. But as you found and Mr. Roller found,
the number of units that would be allowed as of right would lead to a very different outcome as
far as the affordability and what we could provide here, correct? Correct. And can you explain that?
Well, under the current zoning, the density would be much lower. You would yield far fewer units. And I'm sure you know, and anyone who does development knows, you need a minimum number of units to make affordable housing viable.
So the RTA1 zoning would not really yield any reasonable, discernible, positive impact for affordable housing.
And you also concluded that the as of right, the limited yield on as of right, would lead to an urban form with the front loaded curb cuts that would be just completely incompatible with the neighborhood, with the history, with the pedestrian experience, correct?
Yeah, I think it would really actually be a negative impact on the neighborhood, more so than the proposed development.
And you looked at the city plan and the neighborhood plan that talked about congregating density along corners with transit lines. Can you talk about that briefly?
Yeah, so the comprehensive plan, you know, what it says in this neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods like Cedar Park is that they want to direct the demand for new rental units and multifamily housing in true transit nodes.
And I think there's no better transit node than this corner.
Right. And as far as adverse impacts, you saw that on the final plan, there's no new curb cuts.
We have new stormwater management.
We have internal trash storage.
We're keeping as much of the green space as possible.
What is your opinion as far as adverse impacts at this site?
I don't think there are any adverse impacts.
I think this is actually a positive impact for the neighborhood, given all those reasons.
And you've looked at whether it be the schools, whether it be impacts on immediate neighbors, light and air.
Can you just briefly touch on that?
um again the you know the immediate neighbors a lot of it is it's a mixed diverse housing
uh context so this fits in pretty well uh very well and schools i mean i looked at the schools
their their enrollment has been declining over the years and you know i just wouldn't add any kind of
oppressive uh capacity problems for the schools okay and
oppressive capacity problems for the schools. Okay. And as far as the parking that we're
providing on-site, plus the overflow parking at the Renaissance facility, plus the tremendous
mass transit, what we've got to 13, and we also have a septal regional line that is one block
from here? Right. Yeah, the parking wouldn't be negative. I mean, you wouldn't lose any parking,
on street parking and you're adding parking and yeah it's actually probably an improvement
on on parking in the neighborhood so um you believe that we have um and and just as far as
uh least minimum variance um what was your conclusion as far as what would be
what would be the appropriate district um for this uh site based on um the prior history of
But based on the fact that part of it is split zoned, do you have an opinion on that?
Yeah, given the historic use and the other surrounding uses, similar surrounding uses, this should be zoned, probably RM1.
And I believe RM1 would yield, without even the bonuses, the mixed income bonus, RM1 would yield, I believe it's 76 units.
Correct.
Which is exactly what we're seeking here.
So this is, you know, exactly what the district that you believe makes the most sense for this slate.
I do. Yes, I do.
Okay. Is there anything else as far as the criteria for a use variance or dimensional variance here that you wanted to touch on briefly?
I don't, I don't, I think we covered all of them.
i just think it meets all the criteria in fact is um much more of a benefit to the neighborhood than
what would be allowed under current zoning yeah okay and i passed up your report um i've asked
that to be incorporated into the record um and uh i think with that uh mr chair we'll we'll we'll
rest for right now but obviously reserve uh the right for um cross-examination and um to add
additional materials to the record. Thank you. It is now 1248. I would just ask, is there any
representative from Councilwoman Gautier's office on the call? And if so, please raise your hand.
good afternoon good afternoon is this mr goodman yes hi and please identify i think you were
sworn in earlier so please identify yourself yes i was andrew goodman g-o-o-d-m-a-n representing
the office of third district council member jamie godier and as i said you're still under oath
I want to get your testimony now because we're going to have to be breaking shortly.
Yes, absolutely.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I mean, we're largely ceding our time today.
We joined the request for a resumption hearing perhaps four or eight weeks from now, but
we'll cede the rest of our time for public comment.
Very good.
Thank you.
Do the board have any questions for any of the witnesses that we've heard from so far
because we're going to be breaking shortly?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a quick question. The refusal for zoning and use has been reduced how much?
Let me go right to that here.
Many of the items have been eliminated. There was a refusal for parking, which is now we have the
required uh parking one second here um there was a refusal for setback off of 48th street
we have provided five we required eight we now meet that um there was a uh here it is there was
a refusal for um landscaping in the parking lot which um we we believe we met and we we we now
have concluded that we we do meet that as far as the 10 in the parking lot um the height
38 feet and we're at 40 42 feet and most of the much of the building is actually at 32 feet so
when you do the average between the three-story portion and the four-story portion our engineer
is certified we're at 38.5 feet now when you kind of average the two pieces of this building out
which is really a de minimis dimensional variance at that point and again we
We needed some, you know, we're trying to get to some sufficient density to have.
You know, we're trying to get to some sufficient density to have, you know, the wherewithal to provide the affordable, you know, the massive affordable component on this that we're providing and we want to enter into with the community.
So that's we're down significantly. Oh, and the number of units. I'm sorry. The number of units we reduced from 83 to 76.