still parking four or five blocks away because i i can't stop at the grocery store on the way
home from work or i'm really going to be in trouble because how am i getting my groceries
to my house it's you know the ppa loves our neighborhood because they know we have nowhere
to park um so yeah even though there are garages being you know supplied how many people are
actually going to use them and you know are going to be looking for street parking instead
okay okay council no questions you have any other i have no other witnesses okay um
why don't we go to questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney no questions at this time mr chairman um
questions or comments from the virtual audience
good morning mr chair this is jason handoff is definitely contemporary i do not see any hands
laid for the matter i do not understand either no no i i think he said there was no one up there on
the board um no hands raised for the matter yeah right um what i'm thinking instead of like
having summaries at the end here that you could both submit to us a short document that you think
are the key issues because I mean I think there's a lot been said we we've met several times and all
that it would be very helpful to have from the both of you a document that would yeah I could
just give me a minute just give me a minute I wanted to do this before I went to planning to
make sure that they were okay with that okay so you'll you'll you'll be okay I'll comply right
all right planning you want to take a position now go ahead madison matera planning commission staff
m-a-d-i-s-o-n-m-a-t-e-r-a do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes please proceed the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa 5
residential single-family zoning at this location city rezone this neighborhood in 2017 in accord
with recommendations in the comprehensive plan under the rsa 5 lot size and lot width standards
the appellant could divide the slot into smaller code compliant lots proposed amount of steep slope
disturbance is not the least minimum and the design significantly alters the local topography
the appellant has not shown that the site plan cannot be practically redesigned to protect the
heritage trees the parking and heritage tree removal would not be needed if the property were
THE PARKING AND HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL WOULD NOT BE NEEDED IF THE PROPERTY WERE SUBDIVIDED THE CITY
or subdivided.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE BOARD DENY THE REQUEST OF VARIANCE FOR VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING
HEIGHT MULTIFAMILY STEEP SLIP DISTURBANCE AND THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL
ALL RIGHT THANK YOU UM I WOULD JUST DISAGREE FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS COULD BE SUBDIVIDED BY RIGHT INTO
SMALLER PARKINGS NOT AGREED ON OKAY UM AND YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS ABOUT A TIMELINE FOR THIS I BELIEVE
that we should check with the uh parties to see what what do you return but i would recommend i
think i think nine months for a memorandum would be uh chair i would recommend the 30th uh 30th of
oct of uh september what year vote what year all right 30th all right 30th october september
september right we'll take that we'll we'll fine i was warning that's 9 30 a.m right yes and i
I would recommend, sorry for the interruption,
I'd recommend establishing a due date on those memoranda
that you requested, the preceding Friday,
which would be the 25th of September, 2026.
And then we'll come back here on the...
Well, we're just going to vote.
You come back, you can listen, whatever you want to do.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you both.
Mr. Chair, that'll complete my business before the board.
Happy excuse.
Thank you.
I don't think it completes.
on that i didn't think does not complete your business and um we got a little timeline here
and could you and could you have someone check their computers they're all out up here
yes jerry
uh we could take a break if you guys would just take a little
Good morning, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman. So MI, we're on number 6, MI 2026, 001-455-6930 Arledge Street. The attorney is David Orfanides. Mr. Orfanides, if you would, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
certainly my name is my name is david orphanides last name is both o-r-p-h-a-n-i-d-e-s do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do um mr goldberg you've
already been sworn today just for the record state your name alex goldberg all right and
leonard could you please state your name is spelled for the sonographer uh thank you may
please the board leonard f reuter r-e-u-t-e-r for the city of philadelphia um do you swear
a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do okay so um this is a resumptive
hearing and um we have an order here of uh i believe david you gave us witnesses that you
intend to call right um but did we finish up with you last week i mean now you're ready for the next
the last time we met i should say next time i mean we finished with my land use planner um i did have
a couple uh neighbors just to speak about some conditions there but i think we may be able to
take care of that possibly between what the planner said and maybe what the city um if the city uh
witnesses are here based upon what they say i may not need to call them okay all right so um
i mean so cool your first witness do you so the first question that the city had is that uh mr
Orphanides uh had requested um that the city present the planner uh to testify again the
city is not clear on what the relevance of the testimony is since this is primary this
entire case it revolves around what we believe is strictly a legal question since all the
relevant facts I think are stipulated to uh such as the accuracy of the plans or the plans that
were submitted and the authenticity of the plans and all that business and what the code actually
says. That being said, the city has agreed to make the city planner the one who made the
determination of primary street frontage, Cindy LaRue, she is present. But what wasn't clear is
if the board is going to allow Mr. Orphanides to call her as of cross, or if the city is presenting
her as our witness and then he can cross. Honestly, it doesn't make that much difference to me. We'd
rather just get on with it. So if David is Mr. Orphanides, I'm sorry, is going to call her of
cross um you know again we would ask just for an offer of proof like what exactly is this testimony
about all right so and just uh so i had requested two witnesses one would be the planner who stamped
the plans determined primary frontage and the other was the zoning plan examiner who issued
the zoning permit based upon the plans that were stamped by the planning commission mr reuter
based upon the plans that were stamped by uh the planning commission mr reuter and i have had some
email exchanges in advance of today's hearing and lynn i don't want to restate what you stipulated
or what you stated in the email but regarding the zoning examiner um you know you had stipulated or
thought you had stipulated in your email something yeah i mean the planner uh the city the person
from city planning because again the planning commission staff is who makes the determination
of the primary street frontage under the code uh she is available to testify and she can testify
um how you know the process of how she made a determination of what the primary street frontage
is uh you know anything beyond that the city is going to reserve you know the right to make
objections uh as far as the plans examiner i know that sounds like they're the same person
the plans examiner the person at l and i that person is not available and the city does object
to that testimony because we really don't see the relevance the whole the only issue that's
been raised in this case is the determination of the primary street frontage the city stipulates
that had sedgwick been chosen as the primary frontage or as a second primary frontage you
know one of the you know say two primary frontages for this corner lot that the um
um the setbacks that would have been required or really where the facade would be of the property
would be different uh they would have either gotten a refusal or Ellen I would have at least
reached back out to um the architect to have them resubmit a different design right so so here's the
question we're going to start with the city planner right and by the way with this this is we have an
hour okay that's fine so who wants to call the city i'll call them is that okay with you yeah
and just real quickly the relevance again to this planner is that under 14701 1d.4
it states that um when necessary to apply certain provisions of the zoning code properties bounded
by two or more streets shall have at least one street frontage designated as a primary frontage
by the commission commission being the planning commission we i think we all know that this has
two frontages so that would apply and then and then that's subsection a uh subsection or point
a subsection point b states that the commission shall determine which street frontages shall be
designated which street frontages so it can be more than one street frontage shall be designated
as a primary frontage based on the orientation of the primary structure the orientation of the
structures on adjacent lots the orientation of other structures with frontage on the same block
face the street type designation of the bounding street or any additional criteria stated in the
regulations of the commission for the purpose purposes of clarifying or implementing this
determination and then sub subparagraph point c says the primary frontage designation shall only
apply to those provisions of the zoning code were specified otherwise the front yard and front setback
requirements of this zoning code shall apply and then the relevance to that is what happens after
that is uh the notes for table 147012 that apply to rm1 properties state at note 6 in the rm1
district front facade shall comply with the following and there's a point a a point b and
a point c point b and i think you know what that is you can't be any closer or any further than
adjacent properties but what's important is at point c is if the property is bounded by two or
more streets only the primary frontages as designated in 14701 14701 1d.4 primary frontage
shall be subject to the front facade requirements of point a and point b above so that's how this
all ties together and what how it flows from the planning commission to lni and why it's important
to hear those reasons that the that the planning commission person that reviewed the plans
determined that only Ardley Street would be a primary frontage.
Okay, so very briefly, so the city's objection to the relevance is that as a matter of law
and the provisions that we agree, Mr. Warfranidis gave a pretty decent summary of what the provisions say
and what the requirements are.
There is no requirement that under any circumstances that planning choose whether a street, where a property is bounded by two or more streets or in fact a corner property here, that there's no conditions where they are obligated to choose two primary street frontages.
And in fact, as you will probably hear, there's a very good reason why we would not have chosen Sedgwick as a primary frontage, but we'll get to that.
And in our position is the discretion, sorry, the discretion is that whether or not they're going to look at primary frontages, and once they do, they open the door.
All right, so our person from planning has been sitting here for about three hours.
our person from planning has been sitting here for about three hours oh um she didn't get the
Oh, she didn't get that.
she didn't get the email huh could you uh please state your name and spell for the sonographer
absolutely i'm cindy larue l-a capital r-u-e if you want to get that a little closer to her
cindy larue l-a capital r-u-e right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
with the truth i did council okay uh good morning well good afternoon now uh thank you for being
here today i appreciate it um uh please let us know how long have you worked for the city planning
the philadelphia city planning commission coming on three years now three years okay
um is this the first time you testified in front of the zoning board yes okay and just real quickly
can you tell us your your training or your experience that qualified you for your position
with the planning commission my lengthy experience or um i have a current i mean i'll tell you when
to stop in zoning um i used to work for upper makeville township um i also have a certificate
in zoning administration and community planning and a bachelor's from temple university awesome
okay thank you very much and in your three years with the planning commission have you held this
position the same position or have you held different positions i've been with the planning
commission the entire time oh i mean but within the planning commission the the role that you
played in this application is it the same position or role that you've had with the
planning commission since you started with them three years ago no okay what are the different
positions or roles i was a transportation planner a development planner and i'm now with the art
commission okay all right so your present position is different than what it was when you reviewed
this well i'm still a city planner i'm just with the art commission okay and do you still review
zoning plans presently i do okay gotcha all right so we're all clear all right um the property that
we're here for today is 6930 ardley street you're familiar with that correct and are you familiar
with the the application uh well you're familiar with the property but are you familiar with the
application in question that we're here for today which is zp 2025 007104 i am okay and
in connection with that zoning permit application did you uh perform any duties or responsibilities
on behalf of the city of philadelphia planning commission i determined the primary frontage okay
and first of all i guess the the first step is um did when looking at the property looking at the
app well do you know what the application was for correct well when presented to me i just look at
the primary frontage okay so you don't look at what the underlying application is okay understood
and in this case you made a determination that first a primary frontage frontage should be
designated correct correct okay there are times where is there ever a time where a corner property
or property with more than one street frontage comes to you and you determine that to other
applications all right is there a reason why you can't say in your experience why you haven't
looked at other multi-street frontage properties and decided that any of them none of them should
be determined to be a primary frontage well in my work i look at primary frontage but i cannot speak
to other applications i can speak to the one that's before me now okay all right so you right
now you're not you won't tell us whether you've ever made a determination on a multi-street
frontage property that there none of them should be determined to be primary frontage i have made
determinations for primary frontage in the past have you ever and that's my that's not my question
my question have you ever made a determination that no street frontage should be a primary frontage
again i can't speak to past applications they're not in front of me okay but do you remember any
of your past applications i'm sure i do but again they're not in front of me but your experiences
is and your knowledge that you bring you brought to this application is but at this point object
because again this is not a situation where uh that wouldn't be a need to determine a primary
street frontage the code provides that um i'm sorry i'm sorry to interrupt len can you yes the
code provides that if there's a situation where in order for lni to make a determination about
whether or not to issue a permit that primary street frontage needs to be determined then they
have to determine the primary street frontage so yes in fact there was a case recently decided like
a year or two ago involving 10 Bethlehem Pike some of you may remember that where the court held
that in that case the determination of primary street frontage wasn't even though it was talked
about a lot in the case it was in fact not really relevant to the ultimate outcome of the case
because the zoning classification of the property in that case was CMX2 and that didn't have any.
with cmx two years two and that didn't have any setback requirements and therefore the street
primary street frontage wasn't actually relevant to the outcome of the case
this is not that case this is a case where everybody concedes that the determination of
primary street frontage is relevant so what difference does it make whether there are any
other applications well well that's not really my question my question is goes back to i think what
But Mr. Reuter, I believe, initially raised either to this board and or in his communications with me that the planning commission has discretion to decide whether or not, first of all, whether or not to pick any primary frontage because they could just leave both as fronts.
So I agree with Leonard here.
Why don't we move on?
Sure, certainly.
No problem.
so in in light of this particular application you you reviewed both street frontages correct
and what are those street frontages