The parcel at 610-40, soon set for development. (Photo: Rasheed Z. Ajamu)

MEETING INFO

Name: Civic Design Review

Date: Tuesday, May 5 2026, 1–3 p.m. (advertised)

• Meeting Start: 1:04 p.m.
• Meeting End: 2:45 p.m.

Type: Hybrid

Host(s): Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC)

PCPC reps present:

• Ximena Valle (Chair)
• Daniel K. Garofalo (Vice chair)
• Clarissa Redding
• Michael Spain
• Maria Sourbeer
• Sarah Eiseimer

Not present:

• Carol Scott
• Octavia Howell

PROJECT SUMMARY

Address: 610-40 High St

Zoning Permit: ZP-2025-008480

Zoned: RSA-5

Gross Square Footage: 53,206 total square feet

Uses include:

• 35 Dwelling Units
• 44 vehicular parking spaces

Developer: Liberty Bell Management

Architect: Designblendz Architecture LLP (Scott Woodruff)

Attorney: Nochumson (Alex Goldberg)

PCPC Presenter: Liz Fuselier

DESIGN PRESENTATION

610-40-High-Street_-1st-Review-May-5-2026-V2

Alex Goldberg from Nochumson PC introduced the project, Scott Woodruff from Designblendz Architecture, mentioning that High St. Associates LLC owns the property. He described this as a variance matter scheduled to go in front of the zoning board on May 13, 2026, at 2 p.m.

He described the development project as being done in a “PUD-style” (Planned Unit Development) layout, where there are 21 single-family homes and seven duplexes on a lot that is over 40,000 square feet.

The variances they are seeking are due to the single-family zoning, and the parcel will hold a total of 35 dwelling units. Additionally, he discussed 35 surface parking spaces and 9 private garages, adding up to 44 total parking spaces. He then handed it off to Scott Woodruff to walk through the design packet.

Woodruff started by describing the location of the parcel as directly north of the Chestnut Hill East line, south of Chew Ave. and Awbury Arboretum, adjacent to Tague Lumber, and surrounded by single-family homes.

He discussed the topography of the parcel as significantly sloped, with elevations between 12 and 18 feet across the site. He described an adjacent alleyway behind the homes on Chew Ave that residents use to access the back of their properties to park. He described their approach for developing this site as “splitting with a cut-and-fill”, essentially leveling out the site. He emphasized that it was important to maintain the feel of the private drives of adjacent structures and their historical and neighborhood context.

He described four-story homes bordering High St. with a small area that is “bi-leveled up” and then three-story homes as you reach the top of the site. Then a bi-level, single-family home with split level residence towards the rear of the site and leveling out the courtyard space. He discussed the homes along High St. as “maintaining a good street front” and creating a pedestrian experience, with a wide entry for pedestrians and vehicles. 

He described four different building types due to the different grading conditions on the site. The rear buildings that are lighter (bldgs. 16-24) have garages. He emphasized the variation as creating opportunities for families of different sizes. He discussed the community’s advocacy for sufficient parking for residents, and pointed to their design featuring 44 parking spaces. 

He also described an internal common trash enclosure, which would be governed by an HOA and/or the developer, as these homes might be rentals. 

For the entry way, he described a 24-foot curb cut with truncated domes to distinguish the vehicular entrance from the pedestrian area. He also discussed green space in the entryway. He said the Planning Commission recommended adding “X’s” to the spaces on either side of the entry and described working with the Streets Department to make that happen. 

The single-family homes are three bedrooms, two-and-a-half baths minimum. The duplexes are two-bedroom, one-bathroom units. 

For facade materials, he discussed the brick material as contextual to the neighborhood and an important part of the design. He also mentioned keeping the High Street homes at three stories so as not to disrupt the scale of the surrounding area. The other materials included are metal panels and vinyl siding along the back of the homes. 

The finished site would have a slight slope but a mostly flat courtyard. Woodruff’s time was then up, and he turned it over to the Planning Commission.

PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENTATION

Liz Fuselier introduced herself as a City Planner for PCPC. She said a refusal had been issued by L&I because multi-family is not permitted in RSA-5 zoning districts. A community meeting with the 59th Democratic Ward was held in mid-March 2026, and the RCO was in non-opposition to this project. 

For site context, she detailed the RSA-5 zoning of the parcel surrounded by RSA-5, RSA-3, RSA-2, and ICMX zoning. She described Chew Ave. as a major transit arterial road with High Street serving as the entrance to the development. 

Fuselier pointed out that the majority of the rowhomes face the alleyways and therefore the rear yards of the adjacent buildings that front Chew Ave. She asked the developers to consider a different orientation of the site plan by moving the parking spaces to the rear of the parcel. 

She also emphasized that an ADA-compliant pathway should be added to any future site plan submissions. She suggested using a variety of paving materials to differentiate entrances to make it safer for pedestrians, as well as an additional pedestrian entrance off of High Street. 

For building design, she asked developers to consider adding visual interest to the upper third of the front-facing facades, perhaps adding awnings to the entryways to create a more welcoming space, and larger-sized shade trees in the parking area to reduce the heat island effect. 

She said the alley-facing elevations would benefit from a mix of materials to add visual interest, as well as suggesting the addition of rear balconies to break up the facade. 

She also asked them to add bike racks to the parking lot because of the proximity to public transit and the arboretum across the street. She mentioned that pavers or other permeable stone reduce the heat island effect as well as provide a safer pedestrian experience. Additionally, she asked the developers to consider shifting the front-loaded parking garages to the rear. 

As open green spaces are undefined, she said staff suggest a community open space and additional patios for residents and their guests. She asked them to consider adding play spaces, benches, and community tables. 

Fuselier suggested adding EV charging stations to the parking lot and in the garages. She also asked them to consider adding solar panels to the rooftops to reduce the power footprint and offset residents’ energy costs. She then concluded her portion of the meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Germantown resident Oscar Beisart said he “appreciates the brick” along High St., but described the designs themselves as “fairly banal.” He suggested they could be improved by looking around the neighborhood for inspiration for something that isn’t so flat and drab. He emphasized that the designs look out of context, saying that the nearby houses have interesting details and variations in design.

SoLo Germantown Civic Association’s Allison Weiss agreed with the comments from Beisart and the PCPC, saying it feels like there is more emphasis on the parking lot than a recreation area for residents and children. She emphasized the paved surface, creating a heat island.

Nearby Awbury Arboretum neighbor, George McNeely, reinforced the comments around the amount of paving and resulting water runoff. He expressed concern about flooding on High St. and suggested on-site water retention efforts. He also agreed that the design is “pretty dreary” and looks like the typical “econo-box for human storage.” He supported the suggestions of adding elements to the front doors and third-floor facades and also expressed concern about the additional density that this project will produce, specifically the amount of cars traveling the “relatively quiet” High St. 

Mary Chicorelli identified as living on Chew Ave., saying her backyard faces this development. She said she was also at the last zoning meeting, though she objected to the meeting itself because of the signatures presented. She expressed concern about flooding, especially on Belfield Ave, due to massive flooding.

She also highlighted that in 2023 or 2024, there were three car accidents on Chew Ave. & High St. at the stop sign. She described that the grading makes it difficult to see around the corners, and often people will be taking a right on Chew Ave. and get hit. She expressed concern about the High St. entrance not addressing what could happen on Chew Ave. She said when she brought it up at the zoning meeting, they had not done any traffic studies and didn’t address the flooding issue. She wants to make sure those issues are addressed to ensure the safety of the neighborhood.

She said she appreciates the thoughtfulness of the developers in their design, but also wants accountability, especially for the trash on their lot. She liked the ideas about making the parking lot one-way and adding green space to reduce the heat impact. She also mentioned that when she moved in, the lot was covered in trees and that they removed the trees in 2022 without permission. 

The development team confirmed that the traffic study was a request of the RCO and that the developer paid for a study that was just submitted to the RCO. He said the study does not indicate that the additional traffic would be burdensome and also discussed additional measures for the Chew & High intersection that, in coordination with the Streets Department, they could help implement. 

COMMITTEE COMMENTS

One committee member asked for clarification on which structures will be the duplexes.

• Woodruff answered that the duplexes are blgs. 9-15 on page 71. 

Another committee member said it might be redundant to have an existing alleyway and a separate driveway for this site. She asked if it was considered and whether developers talked to the neighbors.

• Woodruff answered that the site doesn’t have access to the existing alleyway. It is for the common use of the other homes, but this site does not have legal use. 
• Another committee member clarified that the suggestion was to move blgs 9-15 towards the other buildings and move the driveway adjacent to the alleyway. They said that it was “a shame” to add another curb cut if there’s an existing one for the alley. They asked for clarification. 
• Woodruff reiterated that the alleyway is not public, but only accessible to those neighbors. 

A committee member suggested speaking with those neighbors to explore a mutually beneficial agreement for alley access, such as providing them access to the amenities of the new property. 

• They also discussed shifting blgs 9 and 10 to be front-facing to High St. 

They also questioned the need for a two-lane road within the parking lot. She said if it could be a one-way loop, the developers could save a huge amount of money and could plant instead of pave.

They also discussed stormwater management, as this plan would be a radical change from a green field site to a largely paved site. They pointed out the slope of the site, and that water will run down the driveway onto High Street or into the back of the front-facing buildings.

They expressed missed opportunities to make the courtyard space more efficient and asked the developer not to exceed parking requirements (1:1). They said that the developers could take inspiration from the arboretum to bring more green space onto the site, with small gardens along the sidewalk. They finished by suggesting they reconsider the site plan.

Woodruff addressed some of these questions. First, he said the project will comply with PWD’s standards, meaning all stormwater will be retained on site with no runoff through drains and a large basin.

He described a previous meeting with the neighborhood, where residents emphasized their concern about parking, saying they didn’t have enough spaces to begin with. He discussed their goal to try to find a “sweet spot” between neighbor consideration and creating enough green space in the inner courtyard. 

• The committee member responded, “Parking is always an issue,” and “neighbors always want more parking.” They argued that there is greater value to a softer edge along the facade. They also emphasized green stormwater management.

Please note: As this meeting was hybrid, these notes were taken virtually. Following the above, it was hard to note committee members during the remainder of the comment section, as they didn’t identify themselves when speaking.

Another committee member circled back to the comment about reducing the parking lot from a two-way to a one-way road as a way to increase green space. 

• Woodruff agreed it is a possibility, but highlighted that it will result in a significant reduction of parking spaces if they transition to a one-way system with diagonal spaces. He estimated that it would reduce the lot by 6-8 spaces. He also discussed the consideration of fire truck and trash truck access.

• A committee member asked if the residents on Haines St. have access to their alleyway through the Chew Ave. alley.
  • The development team member said no, there is a grade change. 

• A committee member asked what the previous use site was.
  • The development team said the records are unclear about previous use, but that right now it is a dumping ground. They said they don’t believe there has been a building on this site in 30+ years and said it might have been industrial due to adjacent industrial uses.

• A committee member asked if street parking is allowed on High Street.
  • The development team said yes, it is available on both sides.
  • The committee member suggested utilizing the street parking available. 

• A committee member reiterated the common theme of the courtyard. He said he had no problem with the design. He said the challenge was creating a community for the people who will live here. He asked how they could create more buffer areas between the parking and the houses. He wondered if they might switch the front doors on High Street, shifting the resident entrances to off the parking lot. He also emphasized that the planning commission discourages front garages. He reiterated that “everyone always wants more parking.” He suggested “shaking up the elements.” He said there’s more work to be done on the courtyard and suggested thinking outside of the box to utilize the alleyway to open up more green space.
  • Another committee member agreed and said that those green spaces would likely help with leasing. 

• The committee member disagreed with the previous committee member’s suggestion of switching front doors away from High Street. She said it would be a shame for this development to “turn its back on the neighborhood” and that having a welcoming frontage is good for the neighbors. She also emphasized that street parking is how the majority of Philadelphians park. She also wondered if there was an opportunity to include “windows into the courtyard” that would give pedestrians a sense of safety and visual access to the site.
  • Another committee member agreed and emphasized the need for EV charging.

• A committee member asked if they considered putting the duplexes as blgs 1-8 along High St. to give two separate front entrances.
  • Woodruff described the challenge of split-level and how it works, but said they can look into whether that could work. He said the smallest dwelling unit size right now is a two-bedroom one-bath to create a more family-oriented development and less transient. He also discussed their emphasis on the front-facing facades on High St.

• A committee member suggested adding yards to the courtyard to encourage community.

• A committee member suggested “real attention” to the rear facades.

• They wrapped up this section by reviewing their notes.

• Motion to accept the notes – accepted.

• Motion to continue the review process – unanimously approved.

WHAT’S NEXT

Zoning board meeting: May 13, 2026, at 2 p.m.