property. The certificates of tax clearance. Just for your information, these properties are owned
by Oak Spark Ventures, LLC. And I'm just indicating that Tomer alone is the member of that LLC. He's
in the virtual audience, along with Mr. Rolla, who's the architect on this project.
uh 31 west of all street this is an rsa3 property uh we're proposing to have a single family
structure all of these matters deal with single family structures we have two refusals as to 31
west of all street and we'll go over those refusals each one of them with mr ola but just
as a matter of background there are two refusals uh this lot is 20 feet wide uh we're required to
have an eight-foot side joint, which is required to have a building structure of 12-week part.
We are proposing to have a 15-foot side joint, and Mr. Roller and I will discuss why our proposal
is the least modification possible under the Philadelphia zoning code. The second refusal
is that because we're an RSA 3 property, we're required to have one parking space.
And again, we'll discuss with Mr. Lola why that's not possible either under the Philadelphia Zoning Bridge.
Second set of refusals is the 100 west of Wall Street.
Again, doing a single-family structure, just as another background, I was in front of the same zoning board regarding 100 and 102 west of Wall Street years ago, requesting to have two dupluses there with the same building footprint.
And we were asked by the West Mount Perry Neighborhood Association to, you know, to provide a single family structures.
And if that was the case, we would receive their approval and we'll look at that under support.
But, you know, the refusals for this are as follows.
We would need a common driveway for the parking for 100 West of Wall Street.
We'll show you why we believe we conformed with that requirement in spirit.
but we would also be willing to forego that parking because our understanding from both
you know in the testimony of the previous hearing as well as previous discussions with the community
they are against any parking in the 100 in the 102th of all street so we would be willing to
forego that by way of a proviso if the board feels so inclined the second refusal is non-accessory
parking so we're basically using you'll see through the drawings and we'll go with through
mr ola uh we have a part a common driveway coming off of 100 where uh the corner of duval and and
uh cherokee we're coming off of cherokee where we will have a common driveway where two parking
spots will be there on 100 one for 100 and one for 102 because this is a non-accessory parking
for the benefit of 102 we're getting a refusal for that again we believe that we're needing
again we believe that we're needing the spirit of the code uh because we're providing essentially a
the spirit of the code, because
common driveway for two properties each having a parking space just one the parking spaces has to
be um under the circumstances on 100 as a non-accessory use for the benefit of 102.
but again we we defer to the board if the board feels so inclined we have no objection to eliminating
that off-street parking use, which would eliminate this refusal, which would go closer in conformance
with the code. The third refusal is the minimum rear yard depth shall be 15 feet, whereas the
depth proposed on 100th Duval Street is 9 feet. And as you'll see from the drawings, it has to do
with the fact that the parking is 17 feet wide with these two parking spots. While we have
a backyard of 26 feet 17 of those feet is because those parking spots again it's really open area
it is a rear yard it's just because we have to reserve that space for the parking technically
under the code we're showing that we're only nine foot rear yard when in essence we're a 26
foot rear yard again we defer to the board if the board feels so inclined we would have no
objection to a proviso, no off-street parking. And again, under those circumstances, we would
be eliminating that refusal and going in closer performance to the codes. And then the final
refusal for 100 west of all streets. Again, we run afoul the minimum side yard requirements. Again,
this is an RSA 3 property. We're required to have an 8-foot side yard. The width of our property,
you'll see it's in a regular shape lot the width of the property is anywhere from 18.62 feet wide
to 21 feet wide so it tapers in the back by having an eight foot side requirement would make it a
non-functional uh building uh property you couldn't even have a single family with that
wide of the requirements again not out of character to what we are uh what other properties
in the neighborhood are most if not all the most a super majority of the properties don't need the
eight foot requirements and for good reason uh but again we're proposing as way of a proviso
to shave essentially a foot off of a hundred the width of the building structure of a hundred as
well as the width of the building structure of 102 so we are the closer conformance to the codes by
having at a minimum four feet and four and one half inches of side yard and as much as five feet
nine and one quarter inches as well so that's 100 west of olive street as far as 102 west of
olive street again another single family structure we're not asking for any use variances here this
is a single-family neighborhood. We're asking for a single family. So that in itself is the
least modification required or expected under the zoning code in our opinion. But we have two
dimensional refusals. First, again, it deals with the side yards. We have an eight-foot side
yard requirement. This lot is 19 feet wide. So if we were required under the zoning codes to comply
or we were required to comply with the zoning code you would have a building structure of 11 feet
which is you know impossible under the circumstances uh mr roller will testify and you'll hear his
testimony that um having such an 11 foot building structure would be impossible to have a functional
floor plan uh he will also testify that he took measurements of next door and 104 west of all
Street and our proposed side yard of three feet here, but by way of their proviso form to have
four feet, it's in conformance with what the neighboring properties are. And then the second
refusal again has to do with the parking requirements. Technically, it says that we
were supposed to provide one parking spot. We didn't. We actually did by way of having the
parking on 100 west of All Street. But again, from what we're hearing from the neighboring
property owners they do not want us to have a curb cut coming out of cherokee so again we defer to
the zoning board in that respect if the zoning board is inclined to grant our variance by way
of proviso no off-street parking we would have no objection to it and then the letter of support from
the west mount harry neighborhood group again it speaks for itself it's part of the record
but it even gives the background of how we got here.
Originally, we asked for two duplexes here,
one at 100 Dowell Street, one at 102.
The community was disinclined to support that project,
but dimensionally, they had no issues,
uh and they they they supported the project because of it and then again a separate one for
and they supported the project because of it.
102 for 31 as well and then our revised uh proviso plan that we delivered by email to
miss emerson earlier today for 31 west of all street it's just a housekeeping item we noticed
that there was a typographical error on the uh on the site plan so we're just correcting it on
elevation only we're not changing any dimensions this is a 20 foot wide lot we're asking for a
five foot wide side yard and we're having a 15 foot uh wide building structure so i think there
was a typo something saying like 16 feet wide building structure when it's 15 but the notice
and the refusal uh are correct but we just wanted some housekeeping items so if this board is
declined to grant our variance requests, we would ask that they do by way of proviso one page
of these plans. And then for 100 west of Wall Street, again, looking at the situation further,
we talk to the architect, the least minimum width of the building structure has to be 15 feet.
originally we proposed a 16 foot wide building structure for a single family and you know just
based on you know the discussion with mr rollout which the board will hear we'll we'll discuss why
we think this is the least uh modification available to us under the Philadelphia zoning
code and we have plans as well in that respect and the same thing for 102 we decreased the width
of the building structure to 15 feet wide giving us a side yard which is uh similar to ones in the
neighborhood as well and then here's our motion for reconsideration along with our explanation
which goes forth with basically the same arguments we made in front of the zoning board as well
without the benefit of mr rollo's testimony and then here are remand orders explaining how we
doctorate today. And there's a transcript where the, you know, again, my understanding is that
the court of common police relinquished jurisdiction, allowing the ZBA to hear today's
matter with Mr. Roller's testimony, where then they can reissue their votes. And then just as
an example, here are just other examples, and I'm going to go really quickly through it. This would
say there are other matters, but, you know, it's not uncommon to have either no or minimal side
yards and again just you know for refreshing one's recollection here um you can go through
these materials but you know we have many examples and then just maps of the area of where we are in
here again just trying to get through everything but the maps and the photographs of the property
here's 31 west of all street we're a vacant lot here as you can see we're a twin to 33 west of
Wall Street, you can see that the side yard here is not eight feet, between 33 and 35.
All we're asking for is if you walk by the property built or used as proposed,
you know, the question is, is this, does it stick out like a sore thumb or is this something that
fits within the fabric of the neighborhood? 31 Duvall Street, we're asking for two variances.
First, no parking in the front, which you don't see for any of these houses in this part of the neighborhood, especially the twin of 33 Duval Street.
The second refusal is the width of the side yard.
And as you can see, the side yards here are rather small in nature and clearly are not eight feet on each side, because that would require a 16-foot wide side yard in between these two twins, where it's nowhere near that.
and then this is 100 west of all street this is a vacant lot it's been a vacant lot at least
according to google as far back as 2008 all we're trying to do is have a single family structure
the coordinating rco uh voted in their executive committee voted in support of this variance
request for 3100 and 102 and the planning commission at the conclusion of our hearing
some time ago recommended a grant that they do not impose a granting of these variances.
Again, it's been some time and we're asking that we can develop these properties.
And then this is 100 and 102 West of Olive Street, the side of the properties from Cherokee.
And then there's the street views. Again, we're talking about parking as one of the variances.
Most of these properties do not have parking. And Mr. Lola will explain as to the difficulty
of having parking regardless
regardless under the circumstances and this is the first block of west of all street to left
under the circumstances.
And this is the first block of West
of Wall Street to left.
their property again really don't see parking here as an option given the width of these properties
is very difficult if not possible 100 block of west of all street to the right of the property
100 block of west of all street to the left of the property and then the 6300 block of cherokee
to street to the right 6300 block of charity cherokee uh to uh to the right and then just
our plans and drawings what we try to do is match and mimic what's in this neighborhood so
we try to have this as all the properties with porches man serge roofs that more traditional
feel of of of stone we really try to mimic that and it's a very handsome project this is
the rendering of 100 and 102 west of all streets and that's from the cherokee section or side and
then this is just again we can go through this uh what we're trying to propose for 31 deval street
is a two-story structure in this two-story structure part of of the of that block with a
front porch and again we have no height variances we're just asking because of the width and the
parking requirements. And again, these are just single-family structures. You walk up to a porch,
open floor plan, living room, kitchen, bedroom, and then you go up to a second floor and there's
a few bedrooms up there. And there is a lower level for laundry as well as a den area.
And then this is 100 and 102 west of all streets. Again, these twins, similar. You walk up a porch,
open floor plan living room dining room kitchen here's the parking area as you can see so there's
one curb cut that you come off of cherokee one is for the benefit of 100 west of all
one's for the benefit of 102 west of all but as you can see
the rear yard depth is really 26 feet two and quarter inches for all intents and purposes
we do corner off the nine foot side door for the benefit of 100 west of all street and then
each of the parking spaces width wise takes eight and a half feet again if we eliminated
the parking on 100 west of all 400 and 102 west of all we would be eliminating two refusals one
for the non-accessory parking of on 100 west of all 402 and then the second has to do with the
fact that this entire yard now would be 26 and two and a quarter feet rear yard setback would
be well in conformance with the code of a 15 foot setback. But again, if you go up a flight of steps
to the second floor, there's two bedrooms, a laundry room, and two bathrooms.
And then you have the third floor, which is a master bedroom and a rear deck.
And then that's basically it.
I wanted to give you just a general overview of where we are, where we hope to go.
Again, and now I would like to have Mr. Rola virtually raise his hand.
Mr. Rola, you may unmute yourself.
Yes, I believe I'm unmuted now.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Raymond Rola, R-O-L-A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Rola, let's first review 31 West of Wall Street.
On my screen is the notice of refusal.
So, first of all, this is a proposed single-family use, correct?
That's correct.
Okay, and we're not seeking a use variance for multifamily, right?
That's correct.
Okay, so let's go over the first refusal.
The first refusal is minimum side yard width for semi-detached structure shall be 8 feet, whereas the width for the proposed side yard is 5 feet.
So how wide is this lot?
This lot is 20 feet wide.
Okay, so you're asking to have a five-foot side yard and a 15-foot wide building structure. Is that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
And what was your reasoning behind having it that way?
First of all, we were trying to keep very close to the – it's basically a twin, so we were trying to keep close to the other twin.
but at the same time understanding that in new construction against a
But at the same time, understanding that in new construction against an existing party wall, we basically have to build another wall next to that party wall, which would take up some of the width of the inside of the space.
So 15 feet seem to be the right dimension in order to be able to get the same amount of interior space as the Twin next to it.
Okay, so when we're talking about the Twin, we're talking about 33 west of Austria, right?
That's correct.
Okay. So am I hearing that the interior of 31 West of All Street, the amount of actual square footage is going to match the actual square footage of 33 West of All?
Yes. Yes, it would.
Okay. Is there any way for us to meet the 8-foot side yard requirements under the code in any respect?
well we you basically end up um with a 12 foot wide building and by the time you took out the
wall space for the party wall and the exterior wall you know you'd end up with about 11 foot
of usable space inside which would be very difficult would that be a fun would there be
an opportunity to have a functional floor plan under those circumstances
uh not reasonably no okay are there any other yeah are there to your knowledge are there any
other properties on that block or in close proximity which have a 12 foot wide building
structure not to my knowledge no okay uh so in your professional opinion it would
be virtually impossible to have a functional floor plan with the 12 foot's uh uh with the
12 foot wide building structure. And that's correct. Okay. And then the 15 wide building
structure mimics what's next door at 33 west of All Street. That's correct. And anything less than
a 15 foot wide building structure would make it rather difficult, if not impossible, to have a
functional floor plan at 31 west of all street yes that's correct and it's partly because of