At 300 North Columbus Boulevard, which is across the street, the new building will be around 84 feet
high and One Water, which I pointed to earlier, is around 170 feet high. Finally, this project
received a refusal for the proposed parking, which per code is only permitted if it can be accessed
from a shared driveway, alley, or rear street. I will call the Board's attention back to the zoning
plans. As you will see, this is a highly technical refusal that upon granting would be consistent
with the intent of this section of the zoning code. As you have seen, this property has
As you have seen, this property has three frontages on North Front, Vine at the Curve, and North Water Street.
three frontages on north front, vine at the curb,
If you consider Front Street as the front, then the parking access from North Water Street would constitute a rear street, and this would comply with the code.
However, that is not how the zoning code treats a lot with three frontages.
With three frontages, each is considered a front, and the remaining attached lot line is the rear.
If this were a mid-block lot with frontage on just front and water, then the code application would be clear, and this parking would have been permitted in its proposed location.
Because it also has frontage on vine, the code treats this lot differently.
Clearly, it would not be feasible to design the parking access from the proposed party wall between 301 and 305 North Front Street.
In addition to being consistent with the intent of the zoning code, this proposed parking is also consistent and less intensive than the historical condition of the lot.
As you saw in the evidence, this lot historically had four curb cuts and four garages from North
Water Street, where this will reduce it down to one access point further away from the corner.
The last residential proposal for this lot that I've mentioned was approved and unbuilt in the
90s, also approved parking from North Water Street with two curb cuts instead of one.
The applicant submits that all of the requested variances are the least minimum to provide relief from the requirements of the zoning code.
This application only requests a series of dimensional variances that stem from direct and true hardships facing the lot.
Furthermore, the proposal is overall less dense than the code would allow, with four units being permitted by right, and this only requesting two.
These variances are consistent not only with the context of the neighborhood and surrounding structures, but are entirely consistent with the historical characteristics of the building and prior proposals for this lot.
The applicant submits the proposal will not increase congestion, endanger the public, or impair light and air.
Providing parking on-site for new residents will reduce on-street congestion and will pose no
impact to surrounding properties, especially since this represents a reduction in the long-standing
conditions of the property that should render it safer. The proposed structure is consistent
with the scale of existing buildings on the block and will not adversely affect adjoining properties.
Additionally, there are, and I'll bring up the aerials so you can understand this point, there are no structures across North Front Street up against the highway, nor are there any structures across Vine Street.
So there are no legal locks on either of those sections capable of development.
And as a result, this building will have zero impact on any surrounding property, most of which are already impacted by the larger buildings which have been constructed in recent years.
As I mentioned, we did meet with the RCO for the project and their expression of support is now shown up on the screen.
And as you can see here, with these concerns, our community supports the development.
This was just sent this morning.
The two concerns that they raised were ensuring adequate trash storage, which we did present
to the board today, showing that a designated trash storage area was added into the garage
level.
In addition, as a reminder, these are 3,000 square foot condominium units, so there will
be more than adequate trash storage areas within each of these units as well.
They did also raise concern over the proposed facade design.
We have been in additional discussion with them about the facade, but ultimately the
facade itself is subject to the jurisdiction of the Historical Commission, and the full
brick facade that the community prefers would unfortunately be entirely cost prohibitive.
With that said, the conversations are still ongoing and will continue during the the Philadelphia Historical Commission review process.
But ultimately, as the board knows, the facade itself is not a zoning concern and no concerns over the actual proposed variances were expressed.
This proposal will not burden area infrastructure facilities, nor will it create any environmental damage or other impact.
A more thorough analysis is included at Exhibit 12, as always at the Memo of Law, and I'd
be happy to touch on any particular point in more detail.
At this point, I would ask for Alex Kennedy to raise his virtual hand.
Alex Kennedy, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
alex kennedy please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer alex kennedy a-l-e-x
last name is c-a-n-a-d-y you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you um alex are you authorized to speak on behalf of
Open Door Investments, LLC? Yes. And can you confirm that Open Door Investments, LLC will be
the entity that will be purchasing this property? Yes, that's correct. And have you heard all the
testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today? Yes, I have. Would you agree
that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own? Yes, that's
correct. Thank you. We're happy to answer questions and I can bring on the architect if there's
anything that i'm unable to answer questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emberson
just briefly miss ferlinger i just want to clarify the because the entity listed on the
agreement of sale is different than open door but it does say that entity or i think it's design
pro development llc and that it says that or another designee yes and open door investments
is going to be that designee so it will be it's going to be purchased in open door investments
which is why which is ultimately how they were able to secure the tax clearance because that's
the entity that's been registered with the city okay what's their relationship to design pro
development alex can you answer that question yeah we design pro uh development um that's
it's one of our entities okay okay all right thank you thank you your comments from the virtual
audience chair we have louise estrada they've been muted and allowed to speak
could you please state your name is spelled for the stenographer
Please? Estrada? L-U-I-S-E-S-T-R-A-D-A.
Are you aware or affirm the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Please proceed then.
Mr. Estrada?
Yes. The lawyer should be here with us.
He must be here for something else.
I'm sorry, Mr. Stride, this is a different case.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, I have Darlene Threatt with her hand up.
Darlene?
My chair, she put her head down.
Thank you. I think she has a case later.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
i see no further here planning commission
hi sorry my video wasn't on um with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no
changing and zoning at this location from the existing residential multifamily rm1 the proposed
height and occupied area are consistent with the surrounding area and curb cuts are pre-existing
condition on water street the appellant has demonstrated that the irregular lot shape
constitutes a unique physical condition or circumstance that would prevent the property
from being used in conformance with the zoning code for roof deck access structure setback
the planning commission recommends that the board grant the requested variances
for three off-street parking spaces, building height, max occupied area, and roof deck access
structure setback. MI 2024-005-741-301-03-North Front Street, I vote yes with proviso. Revised
plans, two pages, stamped by ZBA, December 4th, 2024. Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Carol Gaston, my vote is yes, with provisals.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with provisals.
Thyowen, my vote is yes, with provisals.
Counsel.
Thank you.
Number nine, MI 2024-005-751, 216 East Cabot Street.
Sean Whalen is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from Fishtown Neighbors.
Vote was 36 in support, two opposed.
Okay. Chair, Mr. Whalen is coming back in as a panelist now.
Chair, Mr. Whelan is coming back in as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Whalen. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Certainly. Good afternoon, Chair. Sean Whalen, W-H-A-L-E-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in the relationship to the property?
Certainly. I represent the owners who are husband and wife, Stephen D'Onofrio and Rachel Teig.
Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal and do you agree with its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed and share your screen and start your presentation, sir.
Thank you. And just for clarity of the case, I believe, Chairman, you said 216 East Cabot.
It's actually 2316 East Cabot.
23, if I did, I'm sorry, 2316 East Cabot.
I was cutting in as a panelist at that point, so I'm not sure if I heard it correctly, but I just wanted to be clear.
All right.
I will share.
I hope I have what's a relatively simple case for everyone today.
This is an existing single-family home above an open artist studio and commercial space.
What you can see is a mid-block property on East Cabot in between York and Dauphin just off of Aramingo.
What you'll see here, this is the last property in the line of this entire CMX2 zoning district was previously one very large commercial warehouse.
You'll see some photos of that.
It has now been entirely redeveloped as residential, solely residential, and my client's property here at 2316 is the last remaining property that has an active commercial first floor, which generates the refusal.
So what you can see here, this is right in the middle, 2316 East Kabat.
You have the door on the right.
This leads up to the second floor where the single family home residential space is.
And then there's a very large 19 foot high ceiling artist studio in here that I'll show in just a second.
so again just looking down down the block to the south and then looking up the block to the north
and as you can see you know we have a very large apartment building built to 60 feet and the homes
next to us are actually built to 41 and a half feet so what we are seeking today is we have one
refusal. We are seeking to add additional living space to allow Stephen and Rachel to stay in their
home long term. They are considering starting a family and want to stay here long term. And like
I said, they both work from home and have an active commercial space on the first floor, which
raises the level of their second floor. And they're hoping to add a small, approximately 400
square foot addition onto the third floor in order to provide some additional living space
and an office for MISTAG. So again, this sort of gives you an understanding. I'm not sure why
Google pins 2316 here next door. It's actually this house. You can see the garage door
and this will give you the best instance. So right now there is an existing pilot house
right here on the left that is 166 square feet and you have an existing roof deck as you can see
sort of the only one to the whole south side everything all the other roof decks are to the
north. This roof deck this property was built by a company named Mom Investments and Stephen and
Rachel bought this property just almost exactly three years ago. The existing roof deck is actually
elevated off of the roof height, two and a half feet, and then has a parapet wall around it.
So what we're seeking to do is on this front portion of the property, we're seeking to,
here we go, we're seeking to add basically just a 400 square foot area to allow for some additional
living space, that existing roof deck, you can see it outlined here, will be removed and it will be
turned into kind of an outdoor living space balcony that will be actually at the roof height.
So we're reducing the roof height and all of the height effective to any of the properties behind
and all of the height effective to any of the properties behind us.
us. And this exists.
And this existing pilot house and access stairway from the second floor up to the roof
is existing and will remain unchanged, as will the rooftop units here.
So all we're talking about is a small additional third floor here.
We've additionally tried to set it back two feet and approximately a foot and a half
from the party walls and the front facade in order to further reduce and eliminate really any impact
to the sight lines. East Cabot is a narrow street, so you won't actually even be able to see it
from there. So like I said, we have one refusal, which is we understand we're allowed to build to
38 feet in height, and we're seeking to go to 42 feet. The sole basis for that
is this. You can see this existing first floor. So this has an existing steel beam
that creates a first floor. This is the existing commercial artist studio, and this is where
Mr. D'Onofrio works and actively builds and constructs his art pieces. So you can see in
here just how high this internal area is with, again, another steel beam supporting the upper
floor. Therefore, you know, if this were a standard row home, you know, where the first floor was,
you know, 10 feet or so, we would be well below the 38-foot threshold. But because we have this
sort of double height first floor, which was not a condition that we created, it was there
all along you know we have to in order to put living space you know additional living space
for this family to maintain in their home and maintain their artist studio we need those
additional four feet and we've squeezed it as much as we can again this first floor is already 19
feet you can see the height of the ceiling right over here so again we went we met with the FNA
Fishtown Neighbors Association zoning screening meeting. And then we had our full community
meeting actually last night, and I very much appreciate them. They turned around the vote
and their letter very quickly. We received overwhelming support. You can see, you know,
the vote ended up 36 to two. And, you know, again, this was overwhelming support, and especially in
large part to be able to keep this, you know, existing family who's been here for three years
already and wants to stay in the neighborhood, you know, already is the only, you know, the only
property in the area, as I said, that's actually abiding by the underlying zoning district. Every
other property, including this property across the street, has all been redeveloped as to residential
only. And therefore, you can see, you know, historically, this was not a condition we
created you can see here this is from 2011 uh when the entire block that i just showed this
down at the end is now that very large 60 foot apartment building um our property right here
is the one closest to me where this photo was taken and uh you know there was no condition there
and then it was put in as part of the you know while this was still an existing commercial
facility. So with that, I would, and here's just a, the city records for some reason still show
Mom Investments LLC as the owner. This is the deed that ZBA Council has and Stephen D'Onofrio
and Rachel Teig own this and have since November of 2021. With that, I would simply call Stephen
and Rachel, I believe, are on here. If you can see, raise your hand, please, Stephen and Rachel.
Stephen D'Onofrio has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Or could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Stephen D'Onofrio.
Could you spell your name, please?
S-T-E-P-H-E-N. My last name, D'Onofrio, D-O-N-O-F-R-I-O.