this project and which are not out of character to the neighborhood and the surrounding properties
And we'll review the revised refusal in that respect. Then we'll review the letter of support we received from the United Francisville Civic Association, which memorializes the approval that we received from the community.
and what we're asking for for the remaining refusals not of character to the neighborhood
and you'll see a nearby recently granted variance with regards to lot size which is comparable to
the refusal that we're seeking today then we'll review maps of the area photographs of the property
in the surrounding area we do have the original architectural plans and drawings but then we also
of the revised ones. Our RCO meeting notice for the last community meeting we had along with proof
of mailing of that notice. Our application for appeal that we filed. The deeds of the property
as well as the agreement of sale showing that DECO Collective is the equitable owner of this
property by way of the agreement of sale that's been introduced into the record. And then the
certificates of tax clearance for these two properties at 743 and 747 Capitol Street.
And at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Mr. Silva virtually raise his hand,
be sworn in, and I have a few questions for him. So we're taking two lots at one at 743 and one
at 747 North Capitol Street. We're consolidating them and we're reconfiguring it to four single
family homes. And we had several refusals in the beginning. First of which is we have front-loading
garages, which, you know, which would, you know, generate a refusal. It's not of character to have
front-loading garages and off-street parking here. There's actually off-street parking on the
single-family, on these single-family lots. And there was no parking allowed on this street at
all on capital so we're not taking any way away any um on-street parking and someone who lives
nearby you know i i'm appreciative of the fact that we're taking cars um off of the street by
way of this front-loading garages um so that's going to help the parking situation which is in
you know a situation throughout the city of philadelphia including francisville and the
amount areas. The other refusals has to do with the lot size. Oh, by the way, there is an error
in the refusal. The minimum lot size required is not 960 degrees. That was an error. It should be
1,440. There's an exception to the zoning code, which does not apply under these circumstances,
so I just want to note that in the record. But we're proposing 907 square feet of lot size
essentially per lot. Not out of character, the property next door to us was equally subdivided
in a similar fashion. So it's not out of character to have lots of this size in the neighborhood,
and which have been recently approved by the ZBA. The second refusal had to do with the rear yard
setback. Under the code, we were required to provide nine feet where three feet were proposed.
really wasn't it was more of a technical refusal we had a second floor uh we had the deck coming
out of the second floor which was 12 feet uh long we have a really a 15 foot um rear yard setback
from the actual back of the building structure um but because of the deck um that was you know
on the second floor that was considered as a part of the occupied area and not part of this setback
as well but we got we we kind of swapped it out we made the rear yard deck a lot shorter and you'll
see that in our updated drawings but because of how we shortened the rear deck um we had to create
steps which created another technical refusal regarding rear yard setback building height
we were at 41 feet six inches and uh we you know the code requires 38 feet
We were at 41 feet, 6 inches, and, you know, the code requires 38 feet.
We eliminated that refusal.
We reduced the height of the building to 38 feet.
And the roof deck sat back on the front.
We had it 4 feet, 4 inches, where 5 feet was required.
We also got rid of that refusal.
So these are the only – this is the new updated notice of refusal.
We have still the front-loading garages.
Again, not out of character for the neighborhood. There's no parking allowed on that street. And there's parking right off street parking right now for this property. Second refusal has to do with the deck while we shortened the size of the deck from essentially 12 feet to I think it was like three feet.
Because of how the steps are configured and hugs the back of the lot, we have a refusal for those steps.
And then the third refusal still has to do with the lot size.
Again, not out of character based on something the board has reviewed in the past and approved.
And this is our letter.
We will receive authorization to get this updated refusal and thereby amend this zoning appeal.
And that was the authorization letter we received from this board.
And then we had, you know, again, a very good meeting, multiple meetings with the community.
And at the last meeting where a vote was taken, there was overwhelming support for this project.
And then to kind of show this comparison, at 739 North Capitol Street, which is literally next door to us,
you can see that the lot size is 900 square feet, and that was approved by the ZBA by way of this zoning permit here,
where there was two lots that were created, but one existing one with two single families.
so the area again this is fairmont avenue here we're not trying to increase density in the
sense of multi-family we're trying to create single family houses that where people can stay
in the neighborhood have enough you know rooms you know to raise their families like again
i raised my family in fairmont um you know and i think there's an opportunity uh for this type
of housing to encourage more people to stay in in the francisville fairmont area as well as
to move into the francisville fairmont avenue as well
and then photographs of the property as you can see there's off-street parking that's already
allowed for this property so what again not out of character to have continued off-street parking
by way of each of these single family structures these are proof of posting for the two properties
of today's hearing. And then as you can see, this is actually that back of the houses on
Corinthian Street, but essentially all the houses on Corinthian Street use Capitol Street as their
rear access for their garages. And then there's multiple forms of parking here as well on North
Capitol Street on our side, but there's no parking allowed at all on the street here.
So, and then this is the, this is the structure that was approved by the ZBA, where this was
originally one property that was subdivided into two. Allen, they're both single homes too?
Yeah, they're both single homes too. That's right. Exactly the same. We're mimicking
completely the same. I think our architecture is a little bit nicer, but yeah.
So the revised plans are this, right? So in terms of the height, right, we wanted to go higher,
but what we did was a staggered approach this is a little over 30 feet high the the the front
cornice line and then it goes a little bit further back you know where there's a front deck
and that's at this at the roof line is 38 feet we wanted to do 41 feet but the community was
against that and you know we we said fine we're not going to do that um but you can see here it's
a very interesting architectural design staggered to you know most of the people are walking by
they're going to look at this as the front corners line they're probably not even going to see this
area here and again we try to make it well lit we try to activate it as much as possible
in terms of lighting and color palettes the type of bricks we're going to use are like brick screen
for where it is above the actual entryway to provide some light in there. Red brick, just in
general, the traditional Philadelphia red brick. The first floor will be slate tile. And again,
just nice lighting and landscaping as much as possible. And then this is just the example to
And then this is just the example to the interiors that this developer has used in the past.
the interiors that this developer has used in the...
He developed something on Uber Street, which is not far from here, in a similar fashion and turned out very nice as well.
And then you can see here just again the changes to our plans.
Again, we did this by way of, oops, we did this by way of authorization.
So there's no reason to do any provisos.
but the height was changed to 38 feet for the roof line.
The front decks, the setback on the front decks
were changed to five feet, which is as of right.
You can see here too, indication that we changed
the height of the property from 41 feet,
six inches to 38 feet front and back.
you can see also here the front setback we changed from four feet four inches to five feet in the
front you can also see the changes we made in the rear so instead of having a rear deck on the
second floor of 12 feet from the back of the building structure going towards the back of
our property it's more like a three feet a little more than three maybe it's five feet but like it's
enough to put a grill up there and you know we have steps leading down there and this is where
our technical refusal is is our steps how they are you know the turn um technically hugs back
for our property that's where we're dealing with issues with the rear yard setback but that's more
technical alan do you have a rendering of the rear i i do not okay all right i do not okay
so how far does that go back down uh i think it's like five feet if that is everything as
rights like you know and by the way we're the the so our property the rear of our building structure
to the rear to the rear property line is 15 feet so our deck is saying five feet even so that's 10
foot setback okay then the next building structure behind us is eight 18 feet setback so you know so
So we met with the RCO on April 10th and the community on April 10th, 114 addresses were notified of our meeting.
These are the list of the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses, our application for appeal.
And then finally, the deed showing that Mr. Weinhart is the owner.
and then our agreement of sale
as well.
And then finally,
our tax clearance certificate for both properties.
So with that being said,
I would ask that Mr. Silva virtually raise his hand.
They've been allowed to speak.
Mr. Silva, could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, Jonathan Silva, J-O-N-A-T-H-A-N-S-I-L-V-A.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Silva, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Is it true and correct?
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I have a Carolyn Steinberg with their hand raised.
I've allowed them to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
my name is carolyn steinberg c-a-r-o-l-y-n steinberg s-t-e-i-n-b-e-r-g you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor i am yes please
proceed this is 718 north 20th street okay block but my backyard shares a backyard with the block
they are building on okay thank you please proceed um yeah so i have i guess a few points
i'll try to be as concise as possible um as ellen mentioned he did come to our neighborhood at two
meetings the first meeting was in february we were able to do a lot of outreach prior to that
meeting there were 38 attendees and they voted overwhelmingly against the project only found out
Only found out later that it was an unofficial vote, that there had been some miscommunication between the ZBA and the developer.
later that it was an unofficial vote, that there had been some miscommunication between
And so when they sent their second letter, it was identical, as you saw, very small print.
And a lot of people that attended that first meeting as concerned neighbors didn't show up to the second meeting because they thought it was a duplicate notice that they had already voted on.
so they didn't realize that they had to show up a second time to do it on the project.
Also, as a neighbor, I watched this happen directly across the street from me.
I moved in in 2015, and both sides of my block and Capitol Street were all the 1980 workforce
housing homes that are essentially one floor from street level, if you're looking at it from the
outside. And I watched as developers pushed out the existing long-term neighbors on the other
side of my street to build very large condo buildings. And so this attempt to do two single
family homes on a single lot is an end run around the zoning overlay that was put in place
to directly combat this type of development and sort of ignores the fact that continuing to allow
these larger homes to be built directly next to these smaller existing homes severely reduces
the livability of the existing home for the existing occupants while also increasing the
incentive for developers to continue trying to get current residents to leave their homes for
these payouts and then build homes that current residents could not afford. The price point set
is closer to a million dollars, whereas you could buy the existing homes for $4.50.
That is, of course, an inflated COVID price.
And then the other point that I felt important to bring up was the project that got approved
in 2021 was in the height of COVID where we only had virtual online meetings, and it was
a lot more difficult to get neighbors to show up.
It was harder for older neighbors that weren't as good as with technology to join those
meetings.
so that project did pass but it had less involvement from the neighbors um i think
those are my main points i don't want to take too much no no no thank you thank you for your call we
we understand your point of view is there anyone else in the room yeah
why don't we see if there's anyone else okay uh is there anyone else in the virtual audience
no further hands mr chair please proceed alan all right um so my understanding there was no
vote taken at the first meeting instead we asked you know for an opportunity to make additional
changes based on comments from that first meeting and there were i think 36 individuals that
attended the second meeting so it was a well-attended meeting in terms of the effect on
properties on 20th Street, the rear of our building structure, the distance between the
rear of our building structure and the rear of the building structure on 20th Street that's behind
us is 30 feet. We're not trying to push anyone out. And in terms of that project to the right
of us that was approved by the CBA, I believe, because I did look at the letter, I believe there
were like anywhere from I think 15 to 20 people that attended that meeting which was approved by
the community and there were discussions just like ours where you know you you make proposals
you make concessions and you make compromises that the community feels comfortable with and
just like that process we had the same process where we and then we ultimately received
overwhelming support. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Thank you. In 2018, the zoning map was amended from RM1 residential multifamily to RSA5
residential single family with the support of the community. There is no unique physical
circumstance or condition that prevents the property from being used as zoned. The planning
Commission recommends that the Zoning Board deny the variances. Okay. MI 2023-007-096-743
North Capitol Street. I vote yes with proviso per amended refusals dated 5-14-24.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.