And a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Jones.
Chair, what is the name of the second attorney?
Ann Logman.
Unless she just grew off completely.
Ann Logman, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
we have a pamela laughlin chair that's it yeah pam i said pam oh pam i'm sorry chair i
misunderstood she's coming back in as a panelist now
Pam? Pamela?
Yes, I'm here. I'm sorry.
Sure. Now, you both have been sworn before, just for the record.
Both of you, state your names, please.
Pamela Lockman.
Catherine Mismar, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, 19103.
Ms. Mismar, could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Sure. I'm here on behalf of Terra Firma, 7330 Ridge, LLC, owner of the property at 7330 Ridge Avenue.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
good afternoon council do you agree to waive the read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
i do i just want to confirm the board has received the updated refusal that was issued in october
i believe so yes um have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes sir
council hillary we do we did receive the latest one correct yes mr vice chair we do have it thank
you thank you please proceed i just want to confirm before we get into the meat of the presentation
on the resumptive hearing that was decided earlier are we limiting the scope of that to
the traffic study that has been requested and the reason for their request for delay
i just want to make sure we're not putting on our entirety of our case and then allowing them
two to three months to prepare a response so i want to limit that scope to make sure we're
all on the same page logman miss logman uh well i i believe it was my entire case was to be
presented on the next date and so i have already texted my witness you're not starting today
uh not my expert witness the other witness however you would like how many how many witnesses do you
have two an expert witness who's unavailable and i have uh my client who is an adjacent neighbor
but I can I can get her back if you would like so your client wasn't planning to attend today's
hearing my client's been online the whole time I have texted her that it looks like
she is not going to be testifying because I'm not putting on a case
i just don't know that it makes sense for us to put on an entirety of our case
I just don't know that it makes sense for us to put on an entirety of our case
if the reason for their continuance was because their traffic engineer is not available
if the reason
Thank you.
and they're not going to put on any of their argument at all i just said i will do whatever
the board would like me to do and put on her client if we depending on where we go with time
i don't think this will take that long she can have her client come on and testify okay thank
you appreciate it all right miss missman as mentioned i'm here on behalf of 7330 ridge llc
or the property at 733 ridge avenue with me today i've got owner's representative rob robertson
our project architect rustin oler our professional land planner janice woodcock our traffic engineer
kevin savage and our real estate broker samantha miller we're here today with an application for
new construction of 12 detached single-family homes, each with accessory off-street parking.
Before you, you have a letter of opposition from Councilmember Jones,
non-opposition from Councilmember Jones, a letter of support from Ridge Park Civic Association,
who is a co-coordinating RCO for this project, as well as a letter of non-opposition
from Upper Roxborough Civic Association, the second co-coordinating RCO for this project.
this vacant property oh i apologize we also have a petition of support containing signatures of
over 25 near neighbors several of those are located on ridge avenue on harman road
on in the rocksboro reserve development to the rear
this is a vacant property consisting of almost 60 000 square feet that fronts on ridge avenue
in Roxborough. The site is zoned RSD3. This part of Roxborough, especially those lots fronting Ridge,
are an eclectic mix of zoning classifications. Here's our site fronting Ridge Avenue running
through. This is what it currently looks like today, this deep lot that stretches back from the
road. This is a zoning map of showing you the surrounding area. We have a large apartment
building across ridge avenue that's zoned rm2 we've got rsa3 rsa2 rsa1 rm1 rsa5 and ca1
the rsd3 zoning district which is our site is a single family detached zoning district
it requires a minimum lot size of 5 000 square feet per lot this project is located in front of
the Roxborough Reserve development, which is here, which consists of a mix of twins and single
families. There's a large apartment building over here directly across Ridge, and there's a mixed
use building on this side of our site, as well as grow homes to the right of our site.
The proposal includes a new construction of 12 single family homes. They are detached homes,
each with off-street parking, both interior and a garage, as well as surface parking on a drive.
Each detached home has its own private rear yard, and there is also an extensive landscape buffer to the rear of that, as well as to the rear with our border of the Roxborough Reserve development.
This project's evolved extensively through the community process, as I'm sure you can imagine, based on testimony you've already heard today.
Councilman Jones' office designated two co-coordinating RCOs for this project.
Ridge Park Civic, who's here today, and Upper Roxborough have both submitted letters of
support and non-opposition, respectively. You also have a petition of support signed by over
25 near neighbors. This project has a long history. I'd like to share with you the community
engagement summary that we put together. This project was originally proposed back in February
of 2023. The project team met with the councilman's office, as well as the two co-coordinating RCOs at
that time. In its original iteration, this was a multifamily project. The proposal was 60 to 80
apartment units, similar to the apartment building located directly across Ridge Ave.
Through discussions with the councilman's office and the leadership of those two RCOs,
the project evolved to a townhome proposal similar to what's to our rear in Roxborough Reserve
with 24 units and off-street parking. Conversations continued as you can see from the engagement
timeline and the project was ultimately reduced to 20 single-family towns each with accessory
off-street parking and zoning application was made. The revised scheme of 20 units
was what was submitted originally to Illinois.
Ridge Park Civic and Upper Roxborough Civic were designated by the Councilman's Office
Ridge Park Civic and Upper Roxborough Civic
as the co-coordinating RCOs for this project.
The revised townhome scheme was presented at a community meeting that was properly noticed and advertised in June of 2024.
Based on feedback received at that meeting, which was co-hosted by Upper Roxborough and Ridge Park Civic,
further additions were made to increase the side yard landscape buffers to the sides and
rear of the project and the interior layouts. A second community meeting was held in July of 2024
and additional feedback was received at that meeting. The ownership team following that
meeting revised its plans again to further reduce density to 12 single-family detached homes that
you see today. Following that process, it was in June of 2024 that Durnley Park, a long vacant
vacated RCO, revived itself. The leader of that RCO is the protestant who is protesting under her
individual name and not under the name of her civic association. Again, because that civic
Association did not exist when this case was initially filed. The applicant was invited to
an additional community meeting coordinated by Durnley Park. We accepted the invitation and
presented our project. That meeting was lightly attended. Over one month later, the Durnley Park
Civic held a private voting meeting, which we were not invited to attend, and included several
participants that did not have the benefit of our presentation in september that meeting was held
october 16th of 24. while we worked tirelessly with the two co-cording rcos and the councilman's
office for over a year and a half on this project to accommodate the requests of the neighborhood
and work with the community on the changes the injection of a new rco with different interests
at this 11th hour, regardless of our proposal,
seemed relatively disingenuous
and will discourage future developers
from working with the community.
Developers openly and actively participated
in the community process
and ultimately has been able to produce a project
that is consistent with the single-family
detached nature of RSD3.
The density is appropriate for a 60,000-square-foot lot.
Again, RSD3 requires 5,000-square-foot lots.
so at a 60 000 square foot lot 12 homes is the appropriate density for lot size
given the rsd3 designation and this lot configuration the proposal while consistent
with rsd3 does generate three technical refusals the first refusal is for the use
as the board is familiar the philadelphia zoning code does not recognize planned unit developments
or PUDS. A planned unit development is an ownership construct which allows several single
family homes to be constructed on a single lot with each homeowner owning the simple title to
his property and sharing the use of the remainder of the property in common with his or her neighbors.
In this case, the 12 single family homes share a central driveway which provides access to each home.
As a result, the proposed use is consistent with the single-family requirements of RSD 3, but given the location of the homes on a single lot rather than individual lots, generates a refusal despite honoring the intent of the code for single-family detached homes.
were this roughly 60,000 square foot lot configured differently with more frontage
along ridge it could be subdivided to create 12 single family lots or very there close there to
it I believe it's 59,700 and some square feet each lot could host its own single family detached home
in conformity with the code however because the law is deep with limited frontage along ridge
the lawful subdivision would not be permitted. At roughly 5,000 square feet per home on the
60,000 square foot lot, the 12 homes again are consistent with the RSD3 density for this lot.
There's also a refusal for one structure, more than one structure being constructed on this lot.
Again, this is the nature of the code not recognizing the PUD concept, which I know
the board is familiar with. Each of these homes could be constructed on a single lot
were this lot configurated differently, elongated along Ridge Avenue, and divided amongst the 12
units. The final refusal in the case is for occupied area. RSD3 district permits a maximum
30% occupied area. The proposal before you today is 30.5%. The dimension
The proposal before you today is 30.5 percent. The dimensional variance at only half a percent
over the allowable occupied area is de minimis. As you're aware, the Supreme Court in Hertzberg
has held standard for dimensional variances is less than that normal undue hardship standard.
When seeking a dimensional variance, the owner is only asking for a reasonable adjustment of
zoning code here in this case because we're at 30.5 rather than 30 it's a dimensional de minimis
variance that is not impactful to either of the neighboring properties and is consistent with
the spirit and intent of the code as mentioned earlier in our presentation in connection with
this project the ownership team engaged woodcock design to perform a land use analysis of the
proposed project of this location the report concludes the intent of the zoning regulations
for this site is fulfilled by the proposed project the project is compatible with the
city's land use policies and the project is consistent with nearby development patterns
and residential density could miss woodcock be promoted to speak
Ms. Woodcock
You're looking for Ms. Woodcock
Janice Woodcock, yes
She's been unmuted and allowed to speak
Woodcock, could you state your name and spell for the stenographer
Yes, Janice Woodcock
J-A-N-I-C-E-W-O-O-D-C-O-C-K.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Ms. Woodcock, could you please introduce yourself and provide a brief summary of your education and expertise in land use?
Certainly.
I am a registered architect in three states and also an architect practicing with my own firm here in Philadelphia.
I've formerly served as the planning director for the city of Philadelphia, as well as in other positions for a number of years in the middle of my career.
So I've had a lot of exposure to this kind of dialogue and analysis.
Right. The applicant would put forward Ms. Woodcock as an expert in the field of land use and analysis.
And we would also request that her report be admitted to evidence.
um do you have any objections to that yes i do mr chairman i have not seen the report
i'm going to put the report forward she's going to do to put the report forward but
she's bringing miss woodcock in as an expert witness and i'm going to approve that thank you
have you reviewed the project consisting of 12 single family homes with off-street parking at
this location, Ms. Woodcock? Yes, I have. I've visited the site. I've reviewed the city's land
use policies. I've reviewed the details of the proposal itself and the zoning code standards
that apply to the property. Great. Are you familiar with RSD3 zoning classification as well as the
Roxborough neighborhood of Philadelphia? I'm familiar with both. The RSD3 classification is
It's a detached classification that's the third less dense of three, where the lot size is the differentiator.
Great. And would you conclude that the 12 proponents on a lot size of 60,000 square feet are consistent with the intent and nature of the RSD-3 zoning classification?
I believe so, and I can go into a few details if you would like.
Please.
I can do that best, I believe, by leafing through the pages of my report because there are some
illustrations. Sure, I have your first page to be showing here with your introduction summary.
Yes, reading the bolded sentences here. An analysis of design indicates that the proposed
development solves a hardship created by the site's depth, which you have already stated.
The layout of the site enables each house to occupy a similar amount of area as the surrounding neighborhood, while maintaining setbacks from adjacent lots specified by the zoning for the parcel.
And then secondly, just a general conclusion, this report demonstrates that the intent of the zoning code regulations for the site is fulfilled by the proposed project, the project is compatible with the city's land use policies, and the project is consistent with nearby development patterns and residential density.
thank you janice we'll reserve the right to bring janice back to the extent there are further
questions additionally we also engage hold on miss london do you have any questions yes please
um miss woodcock may i ask when you were retained for this project
I don't remember the exact date, but it went sometime in the summer.
i don't remember the exact date but it went sometime in summer
I'm not sure the relevance, given your traffic engineer was retained in July and still can't produce a report.
I understand. And I think Ms. Woodcock has answered it.
My next question is, Ms. Woodcock, isn't it true that if the lot were subdivided, if it were longer along Ridge Avenue and were subdivided into 12 lots for 12 houses, those lots each would have to comply with setbacks for RSD-3?
Yes. And because it's not a planned community, the setbacks would be strictly complied with such as 15-foot side yards and 25-foot rear yards?
Yes, but if you look at the site plan here, the impacts of not having setbacks, which you're pointing out, and which if you get a chance to read my report, you will see that I note, the impacts on the adjacent property have been addressed because those setbacks comply with RSD-3.
Well, they comply as far as a plan community.
But in fact, if these were 12 individual lots to...
We can interrupt you, but I already told you that the side lots are impacting the lots that are already on this site.
And that is actually the purpose of a PUD is to make sure that it can take a site and optimize the site's qualities and assets.
And in this case, that's not my ability to, I'm sorry.
That's not my question.
Mr. Lockman, listen to me.