need that extra unit and instead of trying to squeeze it into two stories it makes more sense
to make it into a three-story and we hope that the board defines the same
in the renovation of the building are we having active use in the basement
let me take a look at that other thing is to note by going to three stories everyone knows now we
have to put a sprinkler system is in the next next level of building code here so that's even
you know makes it a safer uh building um but let's take a look
it does not look like it it looks like from my notes there is no basement living
previously i think there was a bathroom in the basement yeah so i think that these updated plans
does do not show basement living um i do think that there's mechanicals down there
um and maybe laundry but there's there's nothing living down there the bathroom that we had
commented on the last time is still on the plans though so oh yeah i guess uh when we start and
that's a question for her how does she see the basement being used yeah well maybe you can talk
to your client as we bring her on okay all the questions what's the hardship for the dupe um
not having a duplex and sticking with the RM1? Well, yeah, we were allowed a duplex. I think
just the amount of work that needs to be done on this property would be cost prohibitive to just
keep it as a duplex. We really need to make it into a triplex for it to make sense. And again,
my client, while no guarantees, is thinking about potentially moving back to the neighborhood that
her family lived in for some time. And are there triplexes on that block or multi-duplexes?
You know, our office did not look at that.
I mean, this is solidly an RM1 block, and next door is RM2.
So if we were RM2, that goes based on FAR and not based on the lot size per unit.
So we think that this fits comfortably within what we're asking for.
And Alan, the RCO was in favor of this?
That is my understanding.
It was overwhelming support.
that was the mantua civic association nine to one yeah so it was well attended meeting too
other questions um i'm i'm still having problems with why three units instead of two considering
that the lot area is what the the normal lot area is 144 square feet whereas this one has
90.03 square feet and you're not meeting the minimum rear yard depth so
what is the hardship here for three units well we're so going back to the dimensional refusals
we're building on a non-conforming uh building structure right now the building structure
doesn't meet the the zoning code requirements because on the first floor it doesn't all we're
it doesn't all we're doing is building on essentially on top of it and squaring that
doing is building on essentially on top of it and squaring that off to
off to create more functional floor plans like even the second floor right now you know is it's
not functional um you know given its configuration um as far as have whether to have two or three
units again just the condition of the property it just would be so it's gonna be so expensive
to renovate this property in order to do it the right way we believe that three units is
appropriate again it's making it more expensive for my client some ways because again she would
have to put a sprinkler system in there there are higher building code requirements from going to
two to three but she embraces that that's a self-imposed hardship though right that's a
self-imposed hardship no no it is but like again i think it's just you wouldn't need them that's
true but i'm saying just to condition the building right now it's not functional on the second floor
the building structure how it's being it's it's set back and it's just there's those two units
would not like the second unit would not make sense so we're we're hoping that the board sees
it that way given the overwhelming support of not just the rco who voted with the people in the
community who showed up to the meeting voted in favor but also nearby neighbors plus i will have
my client testify that the only person who's being impacted with any light and air is in support of
this as well so i think development in in in renovating properties is it has a positive
impact on why don't we um bring your client on to adopt your testimony in yeah please state your
name is spelled for the stenographer i'm sorry cooplin paul c-o-o-p-l-y-n do you swear we're
referring to tell the truth told truth nothing but truth yes mr nackamson uh yes uh you heard
everything i had to state today about your zoning matter yes is it true and correct yes do you adopt
this your own testimony yes uh specifically you did speak to the uh individual who lives next door
to left of you yes and um are they in support of the proposed uh variances that we're requesting
yes okay would you have any objection to having a proviso no basement living no so you would have
no objection so we would agree to a proviso no living in the basement okay any other questions
for you yeah so real quick can you just tell me what will the configuration be if there was the
three units what's the configuration yeah we can go over the floor plans um every unit every unit
it's on its own floor so we can go over those really quick bedrooms each one uh the first floor
is a one bedroom one bath second unit on the second floor is one bedroom one bath and then
on the third floor it's a two-bedroom one bath with the roof deck right with the with the roof
deck that's right do you want you want me to show your floor plans yes they're right here so you
walk in uh to you know the vestibule area you make a left um and again just to look and make sure
like you know we made sure there's enough light in there for the residents themselves so you know
if you look at the living room there's a breezeway so we have three windows on that left wall where
the kitchen is and where the where the living room is and then obviously they have access to
the outdoor area and then you see the bedrooms that also are we purposely put that in the front
to give a little bit more light in there for those bedrooms if you go on the second floor again just
to make sure we have enough light in there for the residents who live there so it's not considered a
dungeon you have the living room in the front there's actually i think three windows here
there's again because of the breezeway we're able to have windows in the bathroom and two sets of
windows uh in the bedroom on the second floor and then the third floor is just mimicking what's on
the second floor the only difference is that the third floor also has access to a roof deck
there's definitely a need in mantua for these smaller type of units you know not everyone wants
like there are a lot of single individuals who are living in many parts of philadelphia and i
think it's helpful to have these more compact units there, rather than forcing people to have
to rent larger units if they don't want to. Questions for our attorney? Actually, if the
board is willing, I'd like to have a quick conversation off of the record. Sure. Okay.
Let me go.
Thank you.
No questions, Mr. Chair.
Alan, can you pull the plan up again really quickly?
Let me go this way for a minute.
And then, so there's a full, there's a full walkway up to the roof deck.
It's like a full stairwell.
Yeah, I believe it's an internal staircase.
Yep. Okay. Okay. Questions from the virtual audience?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location
from existing RM-run residential multifamily. The appellant has not demonstrated that the property
cannot be used in conformance with the zoning code. The Planning Commission recommends the
board to neither requested variances for number of
dwelling units, rear yard minimum, and rear yard depth.
Number three, MI 2024-007-431-633 North 33rd Street.
I vote yes with proviso, no basement living.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Iowen, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, we're proviso. Thank you. Thank you so much. Sure. Sure. Thank you.
Alan, I'll bring you back shortly, but I want to bring up Mr. Phillips.
Good afternoon, Mr. Phillips. Good afternoon, Chairman Burbank, members of the board.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Michael Phillips, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S, Claire Harrison, 1835 Market Street.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Here on behalf of 415 to 19 South 15th Street, LLC, which is the owner of the property at 415 to 17 and 419 South 15th Street.
And I would note that the Center City Residents Association are non-opposition.
There's a letter of approval from the Philadelphia Historical Commission.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reason of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
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, we did, and we supplemented it with, I believe, the survey last night that was missing.
thank you council please proceed thank you um we're here on behalf of 415 to 19 south 15th
street this is a property on the southeast corner uh 15th and waverly streets it's a
about an 8600 square foot lot with an existing four-story building that is on the historic
register uh you can see a an overview of the existing property right now as well as the zoning
its own cmx one the property was most recently used as offices for pennsylvania society protect
children from cruelty and then turning points for children it has been vacant since my client's
acquisition the proposal is to consolidate these two lots and adaptively reuse the existing historic
structure by erecting additions and overbuilds and for use as 32 dwelling units which utilizes
the cmx3 use regulations for historic structures the application originally said 36 based on the
floor plans that i'll discuss it we are actually going to only use 32 units there are three
refusals that we received and we will go through each of them but the first is for roof deck
setback five feet is required for one of our roof decks we are not proposing a setback and we'll
go into that. Many of these are guided by the Historic Commission and the changes in ensuring
that the new overbuild, while it remains consistent with the façade, can...
the new overbuild uh while it remains consistent with the facade and can uh consistent with the
massing uh does not uh uh over uh you know overemphasize is not overemphasized in that um
it's uh more uh conspicuous inconspicuous uh second we have a height uh refusal we have a 38 foot
limit we are proposing 52 feet one inch but again i'll pull up the site plan that is on a very uh
minor area it's just limited to a portion of the roof monitor um where i will show right
here so you'll see this is the existing building that is about 49 feet uh there is one area where
We're going to 52-1, and it is just this roof monitor, as I'll have our architects, Evan Lipvin and Leah Lipvin from Elo Design, discuss the step downs and the reason for those refusals.
Lastly is the minimum open area. 20% is required. We're proposing 13, and that is largely guided by the need to connect the 419 property to the 415 property and have those units at the rear with double-wide corridors.
we are maintaining the courtyard here you will see this is the over build we are maintaining
a courtyard and there will be ample light and air still to all of the units
i will ask that evan litvin from lo design be promoted as panelist and he will walk the board
through uh the uh the proposed uh additions okay they will be coming back in shortly thank you
and just to orient everyone this is the view from um 15th the property uh has about 79 feet
frontage along 15th and then goes along for about 108 feet down Waverly. Michael, what was the vote
of the RCO? It was unanimous. How many people? They didn't provide me with the number, but I
believe there were about maybe 15 people in attendance, including the individual who lives
directly behind this was in support. I can, as an officer of the court, represent that I have my
clients own the former uh pierce college building across the street as well as 1500 pine which is
caddy corner mm partners who have advised that they are in support of this as well all right
good thank you um evan evan are you with us i am all right sir could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer sure it's evan litvin e-v-a-n-l-i-t-v-i-n you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please please proceed counsel
evan just tell me next page but i'll let you uh run through these quickly
perfect um you can leave it on that one um as mike mentioned this is an adaptive reuse
of a historic property consisting of several existing buildings at the corner of waverly and
15th street uh they were combined and repurposed nearly a century ago for commercial use
There were two full review processes with the historical commission that included an in-concept review at the beginning of the design process and a full review at the end, totaling four meetings and a walkthrough of the site with the commission staff member.
The process was productive and it was collaborative.
Significant input was received and incorporated into this project.
Though we believe this input has created a better, richer project, it did trigger several of these zoning refusals that we're discussing today.
Next slide.
There are three refusals for this project, as Mike mentioned, building height, open area, the roof deck setback at Waverly Street.
These were all a direct result of the shape, form, and configuration of the existing historic structures.
Next, please.
To briefly address building height first, our goal is to minimize demolition of the existing building material and preserve as much of the original building as possible.
The new components of the building are finely calibrated to respond to the existing building without overpowering it.
The refusal notes a building height of 52 feet 1 inch, however.
The refusal notes a building height of 52 feet 1 inch. However, it's very important to note that this is only the one very small area where a roof monitor window is proposed at the 419 South 15th Street portion.
It's intended to assist with the transition between existing and new roof heights and provides daylight to that unit.
Further, it's out of view of the public way.
After working closely with the Historical Commission, much of the original framing of the building will remain intact.
The floor levels already stepped down to the rear of the structure along Waverly Street, with the existing floor framing of levels 2 and 3 largely dictating the height of the rear addition.
Level 4 and the roof heights are also driven by two existing conditions.
The sill and parapet heights in the newly restored carriage house limit adjustment to lower floor levels.
Also, the historic cornice forms a key alignment with the new fourth floor windows that creates a clear relationship between the new addition and the existing buildings, again, setting floor heights.
It is also important to note that the heights are generally in keeping with the surrounding context, and by design, much of the new addition is largely out of view of the public way.
Next slide, please.
To speak to open area, while the code requires 20%, as Mike mentioned, we are proposing 13%.
The general configuration of the historic buildings make this minimum very difficult to achieve.
For instance, the historic carriage house on Waverly Street extends all the way to the rear property line.
And while the new construction maintains the appropriate minimum setbacks, this area would otherwise be open.
And that's roughly 370 square feet of space.
Considering that the area setbacks meet code requirements, or sorry, the rear setbacks meet code requirements,
the other opportunity for open area on this site is within the inner courtyard.
You can go to the next slide.
um however the courtyard were were it to be hypothetically or were the open area to be
hypothetically increased here this would one make the double loaded corridor configuration
at the rear for the new construction part non-workable and the and two the change would
not be visible from the street or have any impact on neighboring buildings next slide please
Lastly, within the courtyard, the actual open area is a bit more generous than the technical calculation would lead you to believe because of overhangs and jogs in both the existing and the new building.
Next slide.
It's also worth noting that this is a very dense block, and 13% open area is largely in keeping with the density of the surrounding properties.
Next slide, please.
I'm sorry. Last is the roof deck setback on Waverly Street. There are, next slide, please.
That's fine. Yeah, there are two decks that caused this refusal, one at level three and one at level