access uh we did present to sasna and we have a letter of opposition uh i will i believe miss
kodecker is on the call so i don't want to speak for her um but the the meeting went well essentially
they thought that you know the information we received was a number of very good specific
criteria that they hope to see revised. But overall they thought that the project was just
over large and so what happened was we needed to move this forward. SOSNA suggested a continuance
so that we could present revised plans. We agreed to a number of revisions at the meeting itself.
SOSNA only had the original plans in front of it, so it voted in opposition to those
And suggested maybe a continuance for us to meet with them again. Unfortunately, the Ostrovs are hoping to have this home finished before the beginning of next school year, which is, you know, approximately 13 months from now.
and suggested maybe a continuance for us to meet with them again.
Unfortunately…
um and with a continuance you know continuances are already being granted by the board as all of
you know uh for the end of this year and that would really uh preclude any ability to get this
home done for the Ostrovs and their children uh by you know next next summer so their kids could
go there for school um so we believe that we have addressed uh there's I always forget to say this
So there's one page of revised plans, and Ms. Agata Reister is on as the architect that can go through with specificity about what was done.
But essentially, here's just an example.
We really dug in, listened to what Sosna had to say, and Ms. Ostrove actually went door-to-door talking to neighbors, finding out what their issues were.
ultimately got 29 signatures in support on a petition, which I have, and I can show you if
need be. And we actually eliminated two of the zoning refusals that we originally had, and
are, you know, we have not cured the other several refusals we received, but we ultimately pulled
back and lessened all of the refusal requests we had on those, including reducing the height by
two feet. You know, the double wide lot actually, and Ms. Reister can testify to this better than I
can but the double wide lot requires substantial more substantial support beams which adds to the
height and actually pushes us over 38 feet but we agreed to remove a pergola there's no pilot house
and there's no parapet wall so in functional height we're actually lower than you know your
traditional 38 foot height home can be by right with the parapet wall that is allowed
um so with that i would uh like to turn this over to miss reister and have her kind of walk you
through exactly what the changes were like i said i believe them to be significant uh and i believe
that if we had the time we could go back before sasna and and you know i hope um but obviously
can't speak for them get uh get approval for the project going forward um so if that uh i'm happy
to answer any questions from the board otherwise i'll call miss reister as my first witness does
the board have any questions no no all right thank you uh if mr miss reister could raise her hand
i've unmuted someone who's under the name christopher noble um no it's it's actually
agatha reister it might be that my computer is logged in under one of my employees um names but
it's it's myself agatha reister with landmark architectural design
can you hear me yes i can can everyone hear miss reister yes yes can you put your name
name and address and spell your last name at the reister with landmark architectural design
1325 snyder avenue philadelphia pa 19148 the spelling is a g a t a r e i s t e r
Thank you.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, you may proceed.
Mr. Whalen.
Ms. Reister, before you jump forward, you are the project architect, yes?
That is correct.
And did you hear all the testimony already presented today?
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt it as your own?
All right. And Ms. Reister, as you just said, you heard me discuss the significant revisions to the
plan in order to try to meet all of the concerns that we heard from SOSNA and the concerns that
we heard from near neighbors. If you could walk the board through just kind of the breadth of all
of those and let them know just how substantial those changes were. Yes, may I have the ability to
share the screen or Sean could you pull up the revised zoning plan also the provided plan sure
the revised zoning plan also the provided plan sure i'll pull up the plan now
I'll pull up the plan now
is this what you were talking about
she's coming back in as a panelist oh okay in that case i will stop sharing
and let miss reister share so that she can control and show you exactly what she wants you to see
okay um could you just confirm that you can see the screen
yes i can see it i don't know about everybody else members yes we can see it thank you um so
as shown mentioned uh this currently this property is occupied 100 occupied it's a two-story
structure that basically occupies the entire lot. To north of us is a property that is recessed,
that has windows on both sides, south side and also west side. Our proposal took into consideration
that there are present windows. The property to south is 100% occupied, no windows. We position
are building accordingly. What you can see in this portion, this is the open area, all of
these elements in here are decks that allow light and air to this neighbor to north.
Building, the lack of rear yard setback occurs only in this portion and only occurs for
about 11 foot height. Again, currently we are 100% occupied for two stories, so we
limit the amount of
encroachment that we are proposing.
The home
on second and third floor,
we are proposing
25% open area,
which is in line with the
requirements of the zoning code.
The fourth floor is set back
at the front
by eight feet, which actually
puts it at only 48%
open, 52%
occupied area, which
we are trying to really limit the amount of encroachment and also the volume on the side.
As you can see, this is the profile. First floor, 11 feet in the rear, 12 foot setback on the second
floor for the entire building. On the north portion of the proposed building, which you can
see this line and here it's actually an additional setback of nine feet that would allow more
light to the neighbor from north to the north. Fourth floor front, as you can see, it's the
setback here. We are not proposing any parapet walls. This is open railing. This is a low
parapet wall on the third floor with also opening railing. No pilot houses have been proposed.
just an open stair to the roof deck. Originally we proposed a pergola that occupied a good portion
of the roof which was since then eliminated. As far as the revisions that had been made after
the meeting with SOSNA and the local residents, we eliminated one of the parking spaces to preserve
the two trees we reduced the size of the operable garage door we had set back the roof deck on the
third floor roof by five feet to eliminate the refusal reduce the height by two and a half feet
we eliminated the fergola as i mentioned we increased the rear yard area from 120 feet to
145 square feet, which would make us in compliance with the zoning code and eliminating one of the
additional refusals. We increased the open area on second and third floor to comply with the zoning
code and also set back the decks on the third and fourth floor to open up more light and air for the
building to north of us. So all of these revisions were really a result of all the comments that
came up at the meeting, and we thought that they were addressed very sensibly. I would like to
show you the building, what we are proposing. This is adjacent building to south,
building to north. This is the relationship of the structure. As you can see, we try to line
ourselves up with the existing building one door down, which is three stories with the setback
at fourth floor. That is basically how we mimicked it. This portion, this is a one.
That is basically how we mimicked it. This portion, this is a one two-story building that conceivably could ask for additional two floors without any setback required in the future, just additional.
Ms. Reiser, just also, can you explain what is the condition of that two-story existing duplex in between us and the other homes of our height?
um the condition as far as physical condition um yes is it physically in good condition
and i i would i would state um and at the rear there is a tree growing from the back of the
building um uh surveying our property we could actually see significant cracking in the wall
from from the roof down there's potentially water entering um but those are really observations that
they're done from the exterior um we have not been able to enter the building on the interior
and right now it's occupied as a as a duplex okay thank you please proceed um these additional
views um are very helpful as you can see we are proposing an open stair no pilot house
we did not want to add additional height all of the railing surrounding the roof deck it's an open
rail to lower the appearance of the mass of the structure. We are proposing a green roof and also
living walls. There are elements throughout that they're environmentally friendly. At the rear of
the property what you can see is really how we addressed the relationship of the existing homes
to the existing homes.
This two-story structure to south of us
entirely occupies the site 100%.
There are no windows that we would be taking away light from.
As you can see, out of all the buildings,
we're actually on the second, third, and fourth floor
reset back more than any other structure on this parcel.
next building to south of us is a 100% occupied site that the volume basically extends all the
way up to fourth floor. The elements here that are being presented really take the neighbor
into consideration, especially the neighbor to north. As you can see, our building closest to
the neighborhood to north is setback even further to allow more light and air.
This is only the first floor portion that is occupying the site without a rear yard.
There's a good portion here that still provides setback at the rear yard.
There are just additional views that you can see just showing the relationship of the building to the context.
All right. Thank you very much.
You're very welcome.
Does the board have any questions for Ms. Reister?
Tom, do you?
Are there any other witnesses?
Yes, I would call Katie Ostrov, please.
Ms. Ostroff, you can unmute yourself and please wait for the chair.
Ms. Ostroff, yes. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Yes, ma'am. My name is Katie Ostroff, K-A-T-I-E, Ostroff, O-S-T-R-O-F-F.
My address is 770 South 16th Street, Philadelphia, PA.
Do you swear in front of me to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you. You may proceed.
uh yes miss ostrov uh you're one of the two owners of the property correct yes and you intend to have
this be uh your personal home correct correct okay and you heard all of the testimony that
was presented already today yes i did and do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of
your knowledge and information yes sir and would you adopt it as your own i would yes
and with that do you is there anything else pertinent or necessary that you think
would benefit the board and its determination today
um we we really hope that everyone can see how important the neighbors and the neighborhood
The neighbors and the neighborhood are to us.
are to us we've been living here for
We've been living here for over 10 years, and we're really looking to stay forever.
I don't know.
And our kids are starting at Stanton in the fall.
So we would like all of it to be a smooth transition, not only for us, but also for the neighborhood as a whole.
Okay, thank you. I would ask if the board has any questions.
that's up to the uh uh madam chairwoman
i have no questions okay no me either thank you very much uh any other witnesses
um i i would uh just in the issue of time suggest that matthew ostrov katie's husband
would testify similarly and i'm willing to stipulate that to that so that we're not
duplicating anything in front of the board thank you planning commission
um madam vice chair i think we need to hear from uh miss kodecker from sasna
okay you did ask if there are any other witnesses i see her hand up oh i'm sorry it's not my
witness i apologize i i just i represent i made representations about sasna so i didn't want to
cut off miss kodecker tanya are there any other witnesses who need to testify
Yeah, it does appear to be a couple here.
Okay, Confessor, can you take this?
Thank you.
Is there anyone else?
Hi, this is Nicole from Sazna.
Nicole, please identify yourself for the record.
Nicole Kodeiker, K-O-E as in Edward, D as in David, Y-K-E-R.
I'm the executive director for South of South Neighborhood Association, or SOSNA.
You sure are firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
This project was initially presented to SOSNA zoning committee and our community on June 16, 2021.
Community and zoning member concerns included the size of the two-car garage,
the mass and height of the building, and a lack of stated hardship for a five-story building on a smaller block.
SOSNA wrote a letter of opposition to reflect neighborhood voices on this project.
project. It was requested by our zoning committee and the community to make additional changes
to the plans which are reflected in updated plans submitted to the ZBA and sent to SOSNA
on June 29th after our zoning meeting. The applicant's plans were updated after a vote
was taken on June 16th and include many of the changes that Agata mentioned earlier on
in the presentation. SOSNA is appreciative of the changes that the applicant was able
to implement prior to the ZBA hearing but cannot change the vote that took place at
our original zoning meeting on June 16th without additional community input. If the applicant
would like to request a continuance so they can represent updated plans to the community
for another vote, SOSNA is open to accommodating this meeting. Please note the votes were close
and the decision to oppose the project is based on the zoning committee and near neighbors
majority vote against the project and without having the benefit of reviewing and formally
voting on the proposed changes offered in the applicant's subsequent June 29th letter.