it is estimated that 20 or more homes could be built on this former industrial site. I'm pulling
that 20 or more homes
up the survey here. I'm going to zoom in just a little bit so you can sense, and I'm showing you
with the cursor, the size of that property. We're estimating that 20 plus homes could be built up
the site with massive, impracticable backyards, very dissimilar from what you would see in
Fishtown. And of course, there's no parking requirement. Turning, if I may, to the proposal
for the subject property, I'm going to advance ahead a little bit and pull up the zoning site
plan. Here we go. We propose the consolidation of lot lines into one, the construction of a new
multifamily apartment building with 42 residential units and 34 off-street
accessory parking spaces. There is a single curb cut here, which I'm
indicating with the hand icon off of Burke Street in and out through one curb
cut. This design actually returns two on-street parking spaces to the
community, which is a great addition. Also, although not before the board, here
at 1400 East Oxford, this property, which I'm circling with the icon, is also owned by my
clients who have committed open landscaped space for the entire property at the corner,
which is a great community resource. The plans, which have been revised, as I mentioned,
and I'm going to zoom in a little bit more here call for a we're looking at the Oxford Street
frontage at the moment a four-story building 45 feet to the point where my where the icon is the
rooftop with additional rooftop amenity space above that which is set back significantly in
a smaller footprint. A family-oriented mix is proposed, no studios, 27 one-bedroom units,
12 two-bedroom units, three three-bedroom units. Commercial trash pickup is proposed from the
interior of the property with accurate trash hauling to drive into the development off of
Belgrade after 8 a.m. for trash removal. The developer is committed to working with the
coordinating RCO which supports this project on notification concerning the
development of the former industrial property. We are also proposing 20 off
street interior bicycle spaces. You can see the updated zoning site plan on the
screen also at your tab 13. I'm going to move to conceptual renderings which I
think are quite impressive. That's a tab 17 in your packages. Looking at these
conceptual renderings, you might think that the buildings have been here from
Fishtown's industrial past, although cleaned up nicely. Of course they're all
new. You see here on the left-hand side of the page industrial brick facades, all
new construction. On the top right is also the Oxford Street view. We have a not
red brick but an industrial looking brick. It really fits in quite nicely.
Moving to the next page here you see on the left the Berks entrance which is
where cars will come in and out through one curb cut. You see a view along Oxford
Street and you see the garden here at the corner which again is not
specifically part of the property but it's important when we look at the
overall development not only of this site but the site across the street.
Amenities for this apartment building include package locker, fitness center,
swimming pool and spa storage lockers and a landscaped common roof deck the
refusal is at tab 9 in your packages and I'll go through each of the refusals as
quickly as I can multi-family living is not permitted in the zoning district we
previously discussed the impractic ability of the very deep lots for
single-family homes and also noted the presence of multiple CMX2
multi-family parcels along with non-conforming uses. There are additional
refusals regarding off-street parking. Not only is off-street parking not
Not only is off-street parking not required, but it's not permitted.
required but it's not permitted.
We are proposing the shared access driveway, which generates multiple refusals.
We're doing this in an effort to address parking needs identified by the community.
Again, we're able to take this industrial site, return two on-street spots to the community,
and only use one in and out along Belgrade.
we have parking for 34 cars for 42 apartments which is more parking than is required in any
other zoning district in the city of philadelphia unfortunately by providing the parking however we
trigger refusals on the rear yard depth issue the philadelphia city planning commission has made
a determination which generated the refusal in that belgrade is deemed a front of the property
if you review the plans or even just look at the rendering that we have here
along Oxford, with the actual front of the property, the main frontage along
Oxford, practically we have exceeded rear yard setback requirements if Oxford is
considered the front. Next and last of the refusals is maximum height. As I've
mentioned this has been reduced and revised. 45 feet is proposed to the top
of the apartment building with an additional 11 feet for the rooftop amenity which is set back
a whopping 25 feet off of oxford street for a small 825 square foot rooftop amenity
i'm going to bring up an illustrative plan here you see some massings of the building up at the
top of the plan. And you will note, I'm using the icon again, the hand icon. This is Oxford.
This is the significant setback off of Oxford. And this is the 825 square foot structure at the top.
So it really doesn't have a presence. It's not discernible from the street level.
Let me also pull up one more exhibit here. Here you see looking at the rooftop floor plan at the amenity is right here I'm indicating and that's very small and you have the setback dimensions as well.
I'm going to step out of this if I can and move across the street to the
companion project. This is the Belgrade Street project which is the smaller
project. Here we go. Here we have an aerial view of the property. You'll see
that it fronts on Belgrade. It has significant frontage also on Oxford. It was also part of the
industrial complex. Both sides of the street were part of the industrial complex. The zoning
district is the same, similar particulars. The lot size is 9,800 square feet in size.
The proposal calls for the demolition of the former industrial structures and the creation
of seven single-family homes with accessory parking for 13 cars through a shared driveway.
The homes are proposed at three stories going to 35 feet with a setback and a small fourth story
to 45 feet for the setback. The primary refusals, which you can find at tab nine,
concern again the parking that is not required but since we are providing it
it generates refusals we are proposing a shared driveway off of Oxford this is
on the side of Oxford Street without parking so there's no loss of on-street
parking to the community we're taking cars off the street and there is the
minor height variance to accommodate the proposed smaller setback fourth story.
I'm going to try to show you some additional, here we go, here are some renderings.
We're proposing a significant setback of 14 feet for the first three homes off of Belgrade
and eight feet for the other homes as shown in these conceptual renderings.
On the left side, you see Belgrade with Oxford running back.
On the right side, this is a view looking along Oxford.
Belgrade would be at the very end.
You see the brick homes here.
Then you have a differentiation of materials.
Then you have a differentiation of materials with glass front, the single curb cut driveway to the shared access, and another home.
So these last two homes are glass front, and then there are five additional brick fronts as you get towards Belgrade.
Many people complemented the use of different materials.
As I mentioned at the outset, Dore and DeVira, as the developers of the site, plan to be owner occupants, moving their young families into the townhomes.
This will be a benefit not only to the upkeep of the townhomes, but to their apartment building across the street, which they will personally manage.
Both of these projects will revitalize the former industrial parcels with active development that is appropriate for the district.
The proposed development balances the city plan of record with community priorities, including half of the variances generated due to the off-street parking plans.
The authorization of variance relief will not negatively alter the character of the neighborhood or district or be detrimental to the public welfare.
The proposal fits into the surrounding neighborhood as evidenced by the support of the RCO in both matters.
They truly are companion cases, and this speaks to the granting of relief being of benefit to
the public and within the spirit of the zoning code. The proposed variance is, and I would like
to again remind everyone that we have revised proviso plans on the development across the street
that decrease the height. They represent the minimum variance to afford relief and represent
the least modification possible of the regulation at issue. These huge industrial parcels do require
some relief to allow the permitted uses that the district contemplates. The grant of variance
relief will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets, quite to the contrary,
nor the danger of fire or other life safety issues.
Devir Aharon, who is one of the principals, is here and can be sworn in and adopt and affirm.
And as I mentioned, our architectural team is here.
There are also, I understand, supporters, should the board wishes, but we do understand
that these virtual hearings run longer than anyone wishes.
So I don't want to burden you with anything more than is necessary.
What was the name again?
DeVir, D-V-I-R, first name Aharon, A-H-A-R-O-N.
Mr. Aharon, could you raise your hand virtually, and the board chair, Mr. DeChico, will wish to swear you in.
You can unmute yourself.
Can you hear me?
Hi, my name is Devere Aharon, D-V-I-R, last name Aharon, A-H-A-R-O-N.
And Mr. Arlon, do you swear in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Laver.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Arlon.
You've stated your name on the record.
Could you please provide your nearby home address as well?
Yes, my home address is 2061 East Susquehanna Avenue.
Thank you.
And is it correct what I said that you plan to be an owner occupant of one of the proposed
new development homes?
Correct.
Thank you.
And were you here for the full virtual hearing that has just occurred before the zoning board
of adjustment?
Were you able to clearly hear my testimony?
Would you adopt and affirm it as your own?
Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I believe you're on mute.
Mr. DeChico, we can't hear you. Can you hear me now?
yeah somehow i'm on a full screen i don't know how that happened but in any event i understand
mr labor that there are some other witnesses who are in support before i get to those folks is
there anyone who wishes who's out here to object to these applications if so please raise your hand
now. Amanda, you can unmute yourself.
You can unmute yourself.
Hello, could you hear me?
Hi, my name is Amanda Broing, B-R-E-U-I-N-G.
Her address?
1412 East Columbia Avenue.
Are you swearing for them to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
So my property connects to the proposed construction of 321 through 325 Belgrade
Street by my rear yard. I'd like to first recognize the length the developers have gone to
to appease and interact with the neighbors on Oxford Street. After attending the February 18th
community meeting, I understand they took time and effort to make the project visually appealing
and within the confines of what may please the immediate neighbors on the front side of this
particular project. Unfortunately, this level of care was not taken for the residents of Columbia
Avenue. My main opposition is to the maximum height variance. While the developers and Mr.
Lava recognize the height will be within limits in the front of the homes, they've not taken care
to consider how the height overage in the rear of the building will affect myself and my neighbors
on Columbia Avenue. When asked repeatedly during the community meeting for documented evidence of
a hardship to extend the maximum height. It was not provided. Instead, Mr. Laver appealed to the
community by indicating the height needed to be extended to 45 feet to allow for parking garages
below four of the seven homes. However, these garages provide just four of the proposed 13
parking spaces for seven homes. This is based on plans presented at the community meeting.
thus if the four garages did not allow for parking there would continue to be
nine spaces for seven homes I believe this is sufficient and does not
represent a hardship for the developers also in looking at the plans I see the
homes would be in compliance if they were three floors rather than the four
proposed if my understanding is correct a hardship must be presented in order
for the variance to pass and it has not been identified as I stated during the
community meeting, I request a SUN study be conducted related to the height of the proposed
homes, and I kindly request this maximum height variance be denied. Finally, I'd like to note
that I submitted a letter for the record yesterday evening. I apologize for the late submission, but
I was unaware of the meeting until very recently. I understand the zoning board has a strong
suggestion that notice of rescheduled meetings be sent to the RCO and neighbors, but that did
not appear to happen in this case. This meeting was not listed on the Fishtown
Neighborhoods Association website and I did not receive a mailing about the
hearing even after emailing Mr. Laver in late May indicating I would like to be
informed. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to address the
comments respectfully that have been made. We have been in full communication with the
recognized community organization FNA, which we did share full information with regarding
rescheduled hearing going above and beyond the requirements in that regard. And as I've stated,
And as the record shows, the RCO is in support of this matter.
I never am happy to hear when a neighbor is not pleased with aspects of a development plan.
And I can assure all parties that there was no intention not to have any communication with any specific individual.
I'm sorry that, ma'am, that you weren't in touch with me with your most recent
letter so that we could have engaged in further discussion. However, that being
said, from a variant standpoint in terms of what we are proposing, and I
address this to the board, which is appropriate in this instance, we are
talking about a minimal addition for a setback which would be allowed with
other types of ordinances anyway on top of the rooftop. I think that's why in
this instance we had a packed house of neighborhood residents who came out to