This is an RSA 3 property. It's currently a vacant lot in the middle of a block of gigantic
twins. What we're looking to do because of the overall size of the lot and because constructing
a home that is single family of a similar size and dimension, style, any of that, is
simply financially impossible from a realism perspective. That's the hardship we're facing,
so we're seeking to be able to allow multifamily on the property for three dwelling units, which
would be in line with this lot size. And you'll see as well, members of the board, that although
this property is zoned RSA 3, we're located pretty closely to other properties that are zoned
multifamily. So there's our application for appeal. One moment, please. There we are.
what's going on
so whatever reason that's not working but we have our
area zoning map here and this is exactly what i was talking about members of the board so
this is our property directly behind us is rm1 and then lots are something like
half the size of what we're looking at here on our rsa3
lots currently. And then we have a mix of CMX in the area as well. Haverford Ave is the main drag.
North 63rd Street runs this way, which is pretty large. 64th is still a pretty well-traveled street.
There's traffic in each direction, but it's smaller than the main thoroughfares.
What we have next is an overhead shot, so we can kind of see exactly what we're looking at again.
Haverford main thoroughfare. This is the size of the lot that we're talking about, members of the
board. It's huge compared with the houses that are directly behind, which are about
half the width and not quite as deep, which is on multifamily. So there is precedent in
the area for that. This is my client's deed. Commercial activity license, page 15. That's
our zoning notification that went out, oh, wow, a year and a half ago. We've been trying
with trying to work with the RCO since then to come up to some sort of agreement that neighbors
and the RCO and we could all work with and it simply wasn't possible. We weren't able to make
that happen after so many months. Certificate of mailing, the letter that was sent back in May of
21 in opposition. This is the lot itself. These are pictures that were taken quite some time ago.
I do have the reposting photos as well. The grass is cut. But this is what we're talking about,
members of the board. These are large lots. The homes on them are set back from the street,
like some of the huge houses you would see in University City that have long since become
multifamily. I believe this house next door is single family. And to the best of my recollection,
most of the homes have maintained single family status on this block at least. There are some
across the street and some further up the block that are multifamily. You'll see the
property next to us is unique as well and that it's three stories versus the two
on the remainder of the block. This is doing a 360. You see more large twins
across the street. And that's back to our lot. These are the immediate adjacent
properties. This one, this was one of the properties a couple doors down that did
have two mailboxes already 615 see there are more photographs of the overall area and this is just
Let's see, these are more photographs of the overall area, and this is just from the
across the street looking into our subject property, which is here.
This is multifamily around the corner, and I think it was three units, newly renovated
for rent, multifamily just up the street, three units, more multifamily up the street,
three units in a similar size property as one directly next to us. Multi-family. There are
zoning signs. Again, more photographs of the area, which we've all seen. And this was our plan,
members of the board. So we're taking some design cues while staying a little bit more modern,
taking some design cues from the properties next door. So you see we have a covered porch
at the property next door. We go up three stories to kind of honor that height. And we even set
back the third story a bit to take some of the massing away from the street because it's in the
work building. We have a side yard which we received a refusal for under the code as well
because our side yard is less than what's required in this zoning district. I submit that it is about
the same size as the neighboring side yard to the property directly to the left of us.
This is our overhead site plan and you can see exactly what I'm talking about. So here's our
side yard this is the neighboring side yard which is significantly smaller we have the same front
yard as the neighboring property we're fitting uh the height and the depth of our building to be
nearly identical to the adjacent property it isn't even going to be as wide so significant
outdoor backspace condensing units to the rear egress exit from the basement another egress well
and the Juliet balcony for use of the third-story tenant.
All right, so just going to the floor plan starting at the basement.
We have the area below the porch and then just open basement for storage and mechanicals.
That's part of unit A. This is also part of unit A in the pink. One bedroom to the rear,
bath, kitchen, living and dining, common area in the front off the porch. You go up the stairs,
you get to the second unit, unit B, which is about the same size and layout as the first
story of unit A. Bedroom's a little bit bigger. The layout's a little tweaked, but not by
much. Then you go up the stairs to get into unit C, and that setback, because of that
third story setback, there's a Juliet balcony. And then again, similar layout to the second
story unit, but it's a little bit smaller because it's pushed back. So ultimately, we
have one, two, three bedrooms in here that wouldn't be any more than if this were a
single-family home, because if this were a single-family home built of the same size
and scales and neighboring property, it's at least a five, six-bedroom house.
By requesting this variance, we are meeting the goals of all of Philadelphia by allowing
somebody who can't afford a brand new $600,000 house, especially with current interest rates,
especially with a recession, to get into something smaller and more affordable to get them living
in the neighborhood.
That's ultimately it, members of the board.
This is the elevation from the side, just showing we're using a mix of brick, cement
board, and other materials.
But there's sufficient exterior space in the front via front porch, significant exterior
space in the rear and sides due to the significant open space, and we request that this become
a three-family dwelling versus a single-family home simply because this lot is so large that
frankly, it is a hardship financially, which is usually not an issue, but this is something that's
going to run with the land. This lot can't be bigger, and it can't be subdivided in any way
because it wouldn't be wide enough to build anything at that point. So we're left with a
large piece of land. This is our suggestion to the community to get new construction in.
Mr. Borovic has done a number of properties in the area. They held a coat drive in the area
last year, and he's done a ton of development here, so it's not as if we are a stranger
to the neighborhood and we've made ourselves available at all points, including continuing
communication with the RCL and with the council's office, with me and with Mr. Borovitz to try
to come to some sort of resolution that works for everybody. We're not there, so we come
to you again with this triplex and ask for your support.
Mr. Mulvihill, is there any other new multifamily buildings built in that area?
area on that block on that block there aren't a new anything it's all old houses other than this
all right and to the best of my recollection if we uh why don't we adopt your testimony
sure mr boravich if you're on the line would you please unmute yourself and raise your hand
i'm sorry what's your client's name last name is borowich b-o-r-o-v-i-c-h
there's no one um in the audience with that last name okay he may have had to drop just
okay he may have had to drop just because it's already 5 30 versus the 3 30. i suggest that
because it's already 5 30 versus the 3 30.
everything i said is true as an officer you're an officer of the court we'll take your testimony
thank you questions from the board no mr chairman
no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands share planning commission ron bednar city planning this property is indicated
for residential use on a city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change to the
existing rsa3 single-family zoning at this location zoning district matches the existing
semi-detached single-family form of the block face the applicant's hardship claim is not
supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property,
the size of the vacant lot is not a hardship. The building on either side of the subject
property are legally single-family dwellings, and we believe the majority of the buildings on the
block face to be single-family dwellings as well. Therefore, we recommend the request of variance
not be granted. Thank you. MI 2021, 001675 614 North 64th Street. I vote no.
Carol? Again, Carol Tineheri, my vote is no. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell. My vote is no.
Ishmael Shahid. My vote is no.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, members of the board.
So, number five, MI 2022-004-488-301-REx Avenue.
Jody Greenblatt is the owner-applicant.
letter of support from the chestnut hill community association with proviso
councilwoman cindy bass is in non-opposition of this application
yep good afternoon everyone sorry i was just coming off of mute
could you state your name and spell for the court reporter sure my name is jody greenblatt
J-O-D-Y
G-R-E-E-N
B-L-A-T-T
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Hello?
Jody, can you hear me?
Can you hear me?
I think your computer's
a little wry there.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Yeah, okay, I'm here.
Jody, have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of those.
okay i was i kept hearing a buzzing i didn't know what that was this is an application for
the erection of an addition to the existing detached accessory structure for use of single
family household living one zoning refusal this proposed zoning is refused for a maximum
allowed area. For accessory structures, 130 square feet is allowed. 266.65 square feet
is proposed. So you may proceed and share your screen.
Sure. Thank you very much for having me today. Ms. Tanara, yes, you are correct that it was
allowable is 130 square feet and what proposed is 266.65 square feet. I'll just note that's a
little misleading because the existing structure is already over the 130 square feet. So the
request for variance, and I'm hoping you can see this, the presentation now. Okay. The request for
variance is actually it's only another 30 square feet beyond what is already existing there. And
I think this presentation is best shown just through the photos. This is the front of our
property at 301 Rex Avenue. To the left, you will see the existing auxiliary building that's in our
backyard. The next photos, this is, again, the front of the house that you can only
The next photos, this is again the front of the house that you can only see the auxiliary
building from certain angles.
Here the right, that is the building in question.
It's a kind of a neat old building that happens to be in our backyard and in discussing what
we wanted to do with it because it is falling down, my husband and I agreed to consult with
our architects and see what can be done to preserve the building and use it for our personal
the this is just from the back our backyard the back of the house you can see where it is in
relation again side view you could see the old wood the old doors the rear view
and the plans here basically what's an issue is that when looking at how best to rehab this
structure there's an interior staircase that is almost that is it's not to code it's almost
like a ladder staircase on the inside. In order to have a staircase to code,
because it is a two-story structure, we would lose a lot of usable space on that first floor
area if we were to have that staircase be entirely inside the structure. Therefore,
what our architects came up with is cantilevering the staircase starting from the interior and
bumping out, for lack of a better word, the staircase as you can see in the side elevation
here so that we're able to reach the second floor without using up a lot of the first
floor, preserving the structure of the building, preserving the look of the building, and allowing
us more usable space.
So that bump out is what's at issue here and put us over the already non-conforming structure
by about 30 to 35 square feet.
And really, that's all I have.
These are the plans.
um questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
i see no handshare um planning commission this is ron bednar city planning property is indicated
for residential use under city plan variance is minimal and does not conflict with the
purpose and spirit of the zoning code we recommend the request for parents be rented
so one question before we vote the community association has a proviso
no limited lodging use in the accessory structure is that okay that's totally fine all right so
mi 2022 004 488 301 rex avenue i vote yes
Carol Tenere my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman
my vote is yes
Mr. Chair were you going to add the proviso or not
oh I'm
it's okay
it's late in the day
301 Brexit Avenue
I vote yes with proviso
no limited lodging use in the accessory structure
Carol Tenere
my vote is yes with proviso
Thomas Holloman
my vote is yes with proviso
James Snell, my vote is yes for Proviso.