And there's only enough for probably one, maybe one and a half.
So what is with proposed, we believe it creates an over-adverse impact on the public health, safety, and welfare,
and it fits in with the character and context of the surrounding area.
So with that said, I'd like to go to an album, Mr. Logan Dry, our architect, to testify.
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself with a record and I'll square you in.
Sure. Logan Dry, L-O-G-A-N-D-R-Y, KCA Design Associates, 6525 Tulip Street, Philadelphia, PA.
Thank you. You swear to the firm, the public truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Patterson.
Thank you. Logan, could you tell me your affiliation with the project?
Sure. The project architect.
and uh would you uh agree that the testimony you've heard from me is true and accurate and
you would adopt it as your own yes okay and uh the plan that we see on the screen is a plan you
developed correct okay because you want to briefly describe the plan and how you arrived at this
design and what the uh the complications were with this property sure um so i mean you know
And when we looked at the site, the thing that sort of came up first was obviously its sheer size, some of the context around it being CMX 2.5.
So what we did when we initially developed the project is we took an approach where we wanted to keep the building, you know, the 75% lot coverage.
And we also wanted to do multifamily just based upon the surrounding context and the size of the site.
We also wanted to integrate some parking, even though it's not required.
A lot of the multifamily development, as we've seen in the past, tends to be more successful or more desirable if there's some off-street parking.
And this one, you know, we had the ability to do that through some innovative site design here.
You know, then as we went through, you know, we tried to pull the building in different areas away from the sloped edge of the lot that you see there.
And that sort of gave us the ability to do a mix of one and two bedroom units on the upper floors, eight units per floor.
We integrated some outdoor space into all of the units as well.
You know, and from there, we just we tried to minimize the number of variances that we needed based upon the odd shape of the lot that we had.
Like you had mentioned previously, you know, we did look at a scenario of perhaps subdividing and doing a pud.
with single family homes. And one of the problems we ran into with that was obviously the lack of
street frontage. Now, you know, there's certainly the ability to do PUD developments without street
frontage. But in this particular case, given some of the constraints of Rittenhouse Street,
as well as, again, the shape of the lot, you know, we ran into a scenario where getting utilities and
the sort of infrastructure we needed, you know, let's say, for instance, the very far back corner
of the site if we were to do, you know, single family homes, you know, it just presented itself
as being an infeasible option. So that's sort of where we arrived with this design.
Logan, the photograph that's on the screen currently, those buildings are directly across the street.
Currently, those buildings are directly across the street.
How many stories and what are they used for?
The buildings across the street, that one, because of the grade, it's about four stories.
Again, the basement is partially out of grade.
But a lot of the surrounding context folks we're looking at are either being used as multifamily apartments or, in some cases, some senior living facilities.
And you mentioned that we're providing parking spaces. Of course, under RSA 5, we may or may not be required to. And so how did you arrive at these spaces? And would it be a compliant number of spaces for the number of units we're now proposing, which is 26?
uh yeah so so you know if you were to take this into a development that had a parking ratio for
instance like some of the cmx3 zonings and things like that have a parking ratio of three spaces for
10 units so that that's sort of a code minimum benchmark so if we do the math here um we're
sitting at you know just under uh a 50 parking ratio um again the thing that i would say that
limited us from doing more parking was you know obviously there's building structure that comes
down in the form of columns so we had to you know lay out the spaces on that ground floor in a way
that you know a would work from a building standpoint and some of the structure in the
building and b also gave us you know the correct turning radiuses and things that we needed so we
you know we maxed out the number of spaces that we could fit under there while you know still
making sure it could actually be built and used for parking so we think we did a little bit better
than the code minimum of three for 10.
But again, the number you see here we arrived at was a function of, you know, really designing
the ground floor based on our odd-shaped lot and still having the ability to put, you
know, a staircase and a lobby to get upstairs.
And of course, we did have to submit to the streets department for its review and approval
of parking lot to curb cut and the configuration of the ingress and degress turns.
This is the revised plan that we're proposing, which really doesn't change any footprints.
It just reflects that there's a reduced number of units.
But we do, in fact, have the streets department approval, correct?
Yeah, we have the streets department zoning prerequisite approval for the project, yes.
Okay, thank you.
There's no questions I'd like to promote Nancy Templeton?
While we're doing that, Ron, there's no parking on that side of Rittenhouse Street, is that correct?
um i believe that's correct um unless logan you know differently i didn't see any
no there's no legal parking and if there was for instance the the curb cut that exists for this lot
would have precluded any sort of legal parking but the street itself is is narrow for there to
be any sort of legal um on-street parking as it exists yeah i can see in the photo okay thank you
Thank you. Excuse me, counselor. Can you go back to the site plan? Sure.
Can the architect explain again why he ruled out a pub?
Sure. So, Ron, using your cursor there, if you just want to
direct Mr. Holloman's attention to the sloped lot line then as well. So the reason why we
ruled out a PUD in this case was in order for us to take utility, you know, the first issue
is basically street frontage. So, you know, if we were to subdivide the lot into, you know,
smaller individual single family lots, you know, there'd be one that would have frontage
and then the others would not. Well, so let me interrupt. So that means you really can only
have one conforming lot correct correct so the alternative would be either what we're proposing
or perhaps a pud so that's really the question that's at hand right and in the case of the pud
the difficulty was getting um you know utilities and infrastructure to the very back extreme corner
of the site given the existing street that we're pulling the um utilities and things off of okay
getting utilities
to the back end of the site.
Is there any housing
back there now, or what's back there now
in the back of the site?
Todd, the back of the
site currently, this is, Ron, I don't know if you have a
map to kind of get an idea.
But basically, it's like the back, it's the
back side of the
it's the back side of the block
of houses
um behind so i ron i don't know what the street is um parallel with rittenhouse street but the
other back half of that block there's no housing or anything down in that deep end um it's just
back half of that block. There's no housing or anything down in that deep end. It's just
the stuff's all lined along the street frontages. Oops, sorry.
We're talking right here.
Correct. Yeah, so this is Irvingmont Avenue. There's buildings here that we
kind of butt up against their rear yards.
They're commercial buildings,
at least on the first floor.
Okay, you butt up against
the rear yards of those
properties.
Correct.
And this one here
is not ours, it's over here at this corner.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, Ms. Templeton?
Is that you, Nancy?
This is Nancy.
Just identify yourself.
You're still on the oath from earlier.
Nancy Templeton, T-E-M-P-L-E-T-O-N, with CH Planning, 1520 Locust Street, Philadelphia, 19102.
Thank you, Ron.
Oh, it's great.
She's on the road.
Sorry.
Hi, Nancy.
Tell the board your occupation, please.
I am a certified urban planner. And you've had the opportunity to review this case?
Yes, I have. And as a result of your review and your study, you prepared a report
which is on the screen. And if you could just briefly summarize what you looked at and what
your findings were? Sure. So I visited the site and the surrounding neighborhood. I reviewed the
plans and the zoning regulations. I reviewed the Philadelphia 2035 Upper Northwest District
Plan and the Philadelphia City Planning Commission's Rezoning Northern Germantown website.
Okay, thank you. And what was your conclusion about this multifamily development in terms of
the ability for it to be developed for an RSA 5 project and whether what's proposed here
will cause any adverse impacts well yeah i just like to reiterate the fact that this is an
irregularly shaped lot and uh you know having had the architect uh describe how it would be
sort of difficult and impractical to develop uh single family homes on it makes sense
but also it's just it's kind of out of character out of context with the surrounding uses
it's surrounded by commercial mixed apartments parking lots I just think it would be kind of
difficult to undesirable I guess to have a single family home on this block okay thank you
there's any questions for Ms. Templeton I'll move on to my last witness
any questions from the board for Ms. Templeton no no if you could promote Mayor Melz M-A-Y-E-R
we can't hear you your client there Ron I don't think his hand is up
right Ron we'll see you here yes I've just unmuted her now okay please identify yourself
spell your first and last name please sure uh mayor milts y-e-r last name m-i-l-t-z
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed mr patterson hi hi mayor um so uh you are the owner and
developer of this property correct yes sir and you uh heard my presentation so far and would you
agree is true and accurate and you would adopt it as your own? Yes. Okay. And jumping to pretty
much the end of this, we did present to the RCO group and what I have on the screen is the last
page of their letter. You know, we'll go through this maybe, but, you know, the applicant did not
We'll go through this maybe, but, you know, the applicant did not prove why he can't build single-family homes.
prove why he can't build single-family homes.
We believe we did.
I guess they don't agree, but that's not accurate to say we did not prove it.
They're not the decider here.
We did not demonstrate the necessary hardship.
We believe we did.
That's their opinion.
We didn't demonstrate the hardship for the roof.
As I mentioned, that was not an issue anymore.
The proposed variances were the least, you know, possible variances.
Again, I disagree.
The property is zoned, zoning.
You know, as we mentioned, we are reducing the number of units.
Is that correct, Mayor, to 26?
And maybe you want to elaborate on what your discussion or discussions were with the Planning Commission?
So, as everyone could probably see, it's surrounded predominantly by CMX 2.5 properties.
um to the left of us is a church parking lot uh that i believe houses in excess of 45 cars
to the right of us there's a small lot that is also paved and owned by the church
and then the rear of the process can you show the pictures not seeing the exhibit
oh you're not sorry okay sorry let me get it back up on the screen
um while you do that i just want i um i want to just reconfirm something as said earlier
was it there is parking on the street on the entire left hand side of the block
not on our side though not on your side okay yeah that's correct um and as as nancy and ron
pointed to the you know both sides of the block for the entire length of the block um i i believe
are all non-residential. Across the street, there's Maple Village, which starts at 5 stories
and grades out to 4 stories. It has a height of 51 feet and 70 apartments. And then on
my side, the remainder of the block is predominantly church properties. Okay, so we started out
with 32 units in contacts with CMX 2.5 without any bonuses. So it was really just the minimum.
And then, you know, I did work with the planning commission. They are supportive of RM1,
which would bring, which would be by right 20 units with a green roof, bring this to 26 units.
That's their vision in their 2035 plan and the rezoning of Northern Germantown.
And in the past week or so, we brought the unit count down for less density, as the Planning Commission would have liked to see.
And I imagine the community would have liked to see it as well.
So, Mayor, and you and I attended the RCO meeting, and we heard the comments that were made, and I guess we didn't know who voted.
But what was your understanding of who had voted, and what did you do on your own accord to let the board know that there was support for this application?
I mean, in all honesty, I felt that essentially that it was no from the beginning.
I felt also as though they may have been taking out their frustrations on other developments in the area, out on this property.
Perhaps those other developments maybe were on residential blocks and didn't make sense.
Versus this one, it didn't seem like they wanted to give it a chance at all.
Okay, tell us about their petitions.
So the petitions, you know, I did as best as I could to try to drum up some support.
I have support letters from, I believe, almost all of Germantown, the 5900 block of Germantown Avenue.
There's business owners, residents. And then there's four properties directly behind me on Haines Street. I believe there are four duplexes or four triplexes, but they're definitely something of that sort.
I did get support from two of the properties behind me. The other two, which are investor-owned, did state they would be supportive, but I never received a letter.
and then you know i have support letters from residents i have support residents from business
owners i have support support letters from investors in the that own property in the air
so it's really a mix okay thank you are on the call today to voice their opinion
Some of the people are on the call today to voice their opinion.
Okay, they'll have their opportunity.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.