Charles Reeves, president of the Tasca Morris Neighborhood Association on this
and you have their letter of I think it was almost unanimous support right here
page 43 but it's been a great relationship so far. It's under
it's it's it's been a great relationship so far uh it's under construction uh and the relief
construction
we're seeking is is only for those signs uh with that um i would ask if the board has any questions
mr frank is on the line and we also have our project architects as well
why don't we get one of your witnesses uh mr frank and then swear him in and then we'll
ask for questions
mr frank are you are you available
Paul, if you want to unmute yourself.
There we go.
Can you hear me now?
Please identify yourself, your name and address for the record.
Hi, my name is Paul Frank, spelled P-A-U-L.
F-R-A-N-K.
I'm with Sioka Dealerships at 750 South West End Boulevard, Quakertown, Pennsylvania.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed, Mr. Feldman.
Mr. Frank, you've heard my testimony?
Yes, I did.
And is it true and accurate?
Yes, it is.
And do you adopt it as your own?
I adapted as my own. Yes. Okay. And, and again, this would be a Subaru returning to the city.
The building is under construction and hundreds and hundreds of jobs that we were CEO was bringing
to the city. Correct. That's correct. And the signage was important to the signage is important
both to Sioka and to Subaru national, as far as visibility to motorists and as far as wayfinding
on the adjacent elevated and non-elevated roads that surround this property, correct?
That is correct, and it matches with Subaru's architectural design guidelines.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Anyone else wish to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
What happened?
hello anybody hear me yes we hear you my screen went blank so I hear you put your finger on your
mouse that work figure it out oh there I go we have no additional hands up chair
Planning Commission.
Chairman and members of the Board, this property is indicated for industrial use on the comprehensive plan.
While we have no objection to the granting of the variance for the existing rooftop sign and the proposed signage,
we do not support the large sign that is abutting the access ramp as shown on the rendering that was not discussed during the presentation.
Thank you.
MI-2020-000859-1400, South 33rd Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Thank you, Brett.
Okay. Calendar number MI-2020-000850-2004, Cambridge Street. The attorney is Sarah Alderfer.
Ms. Alderfer, you have been promoted to a panelist. You can unmute yourself and share
your screen as necessary.
Hi, Sarah. Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Sarah Aldefer, S-A-R-A-H-A-L-D-E-R-F-E-R, 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
And you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Okay, you may present your case.
All right, I'll go ahead and share my screen.
Okay, so I'm here today on behalf of TVM Group, which is the equitable owner of 2004 Cambridge
Okay, so I'm here today on behalf of TV.
Street, pursuant to an agreement of sale dated June 9, 2020, which is exhibit two in the
booklet that I submitted.
Our plan is to build a duplex on the Cambridge Street side of the property and a single family
home on the George Street side of the property. 2004 Cambridge Street is an RM1 lot that runs
street to street from Cambridge to West George. In developing our plan, we looked at the surrounding
properties and what they had. And we developed a plan that was very, very similar, if not almost
identical to what is currently existing at 2006 Cambridge Street, which was granted a variance by
the board on February 14th, 2018, calendar number 31766, and the zoning archive containing that
information is exhibit 10, which is page 72 in your packet. So to take you through the refusals
on this application, we have two refusals, one for the setback of the pilot house on the single
family home here. And then one for the open area, we are proposing 224 square feet of open area,
which is 17.5% as opposed to the 320 square feet or 25% that is required. So to take you through
the plan, the duplex fronts on Cambridge, and it is a two bi-level units. Cellar, first floor,
second is one unit, and then third floor, second floor, third floor is another unit. I would note
here that the cellar is, according to the elevations, only set three feet, eight inches
below grade, so the majority of the floor of this, of what we're calling the cellar is actually
above grade. And you can see that on the renderings. So I'm showing you now the
zoning site plan, which is page 66 of the PDF. Let me just scroll a bit.
Apologies, I think I'm a little frozen.
So, as you can see here, this is the elevation of the rear of the duplex.
and you can see in this elevation that the floor is not completely below grade
and that a large portion of that cellar unit is in fact above grade.
So taking a look at the renderings.
This is the Cambridge Street side as proposed, and this is the West George Street side.
Regarding the pilot house that's proposed on the single family home, the pilot house is set at the
rear of the single family home, which creates a refusal. That was designed that way for two
reasons. First, and primarily, is that if we were to put the pilot house, which is located at the
rear of the property, so it's set back five feet, it would not be even with the pilot house of the
adjacent property and would then block the view of the adjacent property from their roof deck.
So we wanted to avoid that. In addition, the pilot house at the rear of the property allows for the
location of the stairs at a convenient location inside the property, which creates more space
inside the single family home. And then, you know, in terms of it's set back from the street, which
we've completely, it's just that the rear property line of the single family home is along the rear
yard. And so there's not a setback there. So it really only creates a setback issue for this
property itself and not for the adjacent properties. Other things of note on this plan
Other things of note on this plan, we are adjacent to a five foot wide alley, which provides for egress from the rear yard in the event of an emergency and so we're abutting onto our property line.
But on the West George Street side, there is a five foot alley that runs along the eastern edge of the property here into and well alongside a portion of the rear yard.
we met with the coordinating RCO FND, the coordinating RCO United Francisville Civic
Association and got their support. We discussed issues with them of where the property lines fall
as well as issues of this fence in the rear. And then we also did a courtesy presentation to
Francisville Neighborhood Development Corporation and got their support. And the letters of support
are in your packets at exhibits 13 and 14. And with that, I'm going to ask my client to come on
and adopt my statements. Bob, are you there?
who would that be i don't have um it would be um bob stein or um boris harrelstein i have a boris
boris you're gonna mute yourself and speak
hear me yes sir would you please identify yourself for the record name and address and
spell your name my name is boris perstein or bob stein 2036 poplar street b-o-b-s-t-e-i-n
you're infirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Mr. Perelstein, are you the principal of TBM Group, LLC?
I'm the owner, yes.
And have you heard my statements?
I did.
Are they true and correct?
It was.
Do you adopt them as your own?
With that, I'm ready for questions of the board.
I believe we have the architects on the Zoom as well.
questions from the board no no no no thank you anyone else wish to testify in this matter if so
please raise your hand if you haven't already done so
here I have a Spence Cass Spence you can unmute yourself and speak to this case
yes um i'm speaking sarx oh yeah please identify yourself name and address by your name
hello fence you have to unmute yourself
spence cass can you hear me now yes and please spell your first
Okay, S-P-E-N-C-E-K-A-S-S, 915 North 20th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19130.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
uh the neighbors uh the five properties on north 20th street that have their rear yards
against the property line of 2004 cambridge street um have some concerns because um
i'm sorry to interrupt you but you need to have your testimony on behalf of yourself
Okay. All right. I'm concerned that the alley, it's listed on the drawing is only three feet, not five feet. And in actuality, it doesn't measure even three feet right now.
So we'd like to or I'd like to see them strike that line so that the neighbors can we can understand if they're going to encroach or if it currently encroaches on this back alley that's back there and also what disruption there'll be to their rear yards and alley during construction because the middle property goes all the way back to the property line.
Currently, there's a jog in the block wall that separates these properties.
So it's uncertain where the property line is.
So it's, it's uncertain where the property line is. So that's concern number one. Concern number two is the facade on Cambridge Street. None of the buildings on Cambridge Street, which is a small street, have cast stone going all the way up to the second floor.
uh they're very modest brick homes i believe excuse me for interrupting uh the board has no
enforcement materials but we can get to the first question if you will okay sarah maybe you can get
your architect to uh address the issue that the gentleman just brought up about the alley
i think you said it was five foot in your testimony so yeah apologies i misspoke um it is
It is a three foot alley and I would just, while the architect is in the process of unmuting
himself, I will just say that it is, you know, the issue of the alley, we, it is our plan and
duty to build only on our property. And we have no plans to encroach on a property that is not
ours. We understand that alley issues are complicated in the city and we have an interest
in maintaining the alley free and clear and not obstructing on it just as much as any other
property owner on that alley. You advise your, excuse me, your
your applicant if he or she could share a phone number or whatever during construction. I think
the gentleman raised questions about the alley being used maybe during construction so they can
at least inform the residents, adjacent residents and the residents in the rear as any construction
that may impede access to the alley during, during construction. Sarah, who's your architect?
Um, from Nome Architects, um, either Derek or Justin should be on the call.
If they could raise their hand and I can have them on for you. I don't
not sure who to put on for you okay well if if bob is still there um he's familiar as the
equitable owner he's had these plans um he he he can also testify as to the location of the
boundary lines and the existing block wall so i think you you explained that you you cleared it
up you misspoke you said so it's actually three foot not five and your testimony is you're not
going to encroach on any of that three the three foot alleyway correct correct
all right anyone else have any questions uh regarding this case if so please raise your hand
i have a robert losick
would you please identify yourself your name and address by your last name for the stenographer
so no robert can't speak robert it's not allowing you to because your
version is um an older version of zoom
anyone else
no other hands up chair thank you uh planning commission
chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive
plan we feel that this application represents an overuse of the property and we have concerns
regarding the house fronting onto george street which is used almost exclusively as a rear access
street and not as a front frontage street accordingly we recommend that the requested
variance not be granted well would you repeat that about the the cambridge street frontage
we have concerns regarding the house fronting onto george street which is almost used exclusively
as a rear access street and not as a frontage street
if i could quickly respond um i'd just like to re-emphasize that we are building that well this
plan is almost identical to what was approved in 2018 for 2006 cambridge 2006 cambridge has a
single an existing four-story structure with a first floor garage and single family home above
so our plan is a direct mirror of what this board approved for george street in 2018
yes and and looking at the streetage or the street frontage we still may not have supported
that but we feel that it is basically a driveway access street
and chair if i could offer um robert losick who was unable to
testify because of his zoom um is stating in the q a we are
is stating in the Q&A we are concerned regarding the egress from the alley just to put that on
concerned regarding
record yeah yeah yeah just just the ceilings and then I'll talk to
all right uh seems they're having technical difficulties uh anyone else i know robert