Could you please state your name as spelled for the sign?
My name is T-I-N-A, last name Smith, S-M-I-T-H, hyphen love.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
And my mother is on that block as well.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Are you in favor of this or against it?
Against it.
Is there anything you can add that you haven't heard?
I just want to add the capacity of the space.
Dakota Street is a very small street.
um it's all two-story properties on that block the original properties are two stories like
uh my neighbor said we all been on that block for over 30 years and the congestion i sent you photos
of the opposite side of the street on dakota street where uh the representative attorney
was speaking about they're building house apartments on the opposite side of the block
So where's everybody going to park?
The concerns are the trash, increased trash, lack of parking.
Ms. Love, I think we've heard testimony about the parking and the trash from the three people prior.
Is there anything else you could add?
Overcrowding of our neighborhood.
We don't want them there, simply put.
You don't want them there.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the audience?
One more hands, Mr. Chair.
No more.
Thank you.
do you want to respond quickly or not if it's going to be long i i i can't keep no it's not
going to be long and mr chairman we were going to suggest uh scheduling a resumption hearing
um i think you know the the concerns relative to trash are certainly well heard particularly
board member uh john's comments so we're happy to schedule a resumption hearing uh to ensure
that we can better address that particular concern um but you know in in terms of in terms
of parking i mean you can see here this is a corner property it would require a variance to
provide parking and even if you could provide it it would be maybe two spaces so that's that's
that's certainly not going to provide any form of material impact um but we were going to suggest
scheduling a resumption hearing um we'll probably have a resumptive hearing you want to take a
position now or do you want to wait the resumptive hearing we'll wait okay thank you so we'll have
the resumptive hearing on 8 18 20 at 9 30 p.m at 9 30 p.m no 9 30 a.m i'm sorry
we go much longer it'll be nicer but i will not all right oh you would be here thank you um you
um you have another case okay right yes okay and let me just grab my water number six
We have another case.
Right?
thank you for coming down by the way
MI 2025-005-993-6100, Wissahickon Avenue.
Meredith, just for the record, state your name.
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Right, you've already been sworn.
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Sure thing.
My client is Hornet93LLC, which is the owner of the property, and represented today on Zoom by Nadal Hassan.
Right, and we had some testimony earlier about what the support of the RCO.
At this point, there is a letter of opposition, as I understand.
Understood.
Vice Chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon.
Have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we did.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
yes i do all right thank you you can show your screen and proceed with the case thank you all right
uh mr chairman uh in addition to the property owner nadal hassan i also have in the room with
me today our civil engineer gabrielle butcher and rhett chileberti who are right behind me
i'll bring them up momentarily i do also have on the zoom our architect carl emberger
and then i do also have alex bruno with leak engineering wait give me an idea i'm just going
to take because seriously we can't i can't do another 45 minutes from now it's it's probably
45 minutes we're here's we're going to be you you have 45 minutes yeah and then it's what's cut
i hear you all right and we'll take it to a presumptive hearing understood please yep understood
The request before the board today concerns 6100 Wissahickon Avenue. You have an exhibit packet in front of you that contains 25 exhibits. To summarize the basis for today's request, this application requests the erection of a new structure for use of 16 dwelling units, including two reserved as affordable through the mixed income housing bonus program.
only one refusal was issued for this project which is required due to the disturbance into
steep slope areas that surround the site for a variety of reasons that the board will see today
this project and this property meet the textbook legal definition of a true and legitimate hardship
such that if relief were denied would completely foreclose any development of this lot whatsoever
As you will see, that is not an exaggeration for effect.
We are, of course, however, aware of the letter of opposition that was submitted to the board that does acknowledge that this developer addressed the majority of the requested changes, barring one.
We will address those concerns during the presentation in the hopes that the board will assign the appropriate weight to the community's position, both in light of the considerable hardship and the
relationships as well as the material changes that my client made seeking to appease the
community's wishes tax clearance is included at exhibit two I did just submit that to the
board this morning and the deed to the property is included at exhibit three showing that my
client purchased this at sheriff's sale just last year I'll start first by introducing the area and
And then we'll invite some of our design team members to walk you through the project.
Exhibit 5 shows the zoning map of this area.
As you can see, the property location is indicated with an arrow at the corner of West Walnut Lane and Wissahickon Avenue and is zoned CMX1.
From the map, you can also see that the property sits just west of Lincoln Drive and is largely just engulfed by parkland.
i've also included some overhead aerials at exhibit six this first image looks north showing
the vacant corner property that is at issue if i zoom out just a little bit more in the next
image you'll start to glean that this is a relatively mixed single-family neighborhood
with some larger apartment complexes interspersed the parkland itself creates a natural buffer for
the neighborhood the south and the south and the west looking aerials further show
how this property is largely surrounded by significant impervious surface as well as
some additional large apartment complexes as well the property itself sits between west walnut lane
the property itself sits between west walnut lane which is 80 feet wide
which is 80 feet wide.
and then wissahickon avenue that is 60 feet wide and then it adjoins a commercial property that
you can see here that occupies nearly a hundred percent of its lot as well as parking on the
opposite corner as well although this case does not involve any variances that pertain to use
I did include at Exhibit 7 a map of the surrounding density just to show the general context of this neighborhood that does have a multitude of multifamily buildings nearby, including two directly across the street, one for 32 units and one for six units.
again we don't have any burden with a steep slope variance to establish the appropriateness of the
use itself but we do believe it is important to establish just the overall reasonableness
of this proposal in light of many many complicating factors exhibit 8 shows photographs of the site
where you'll immediately discern what brings us before the board today the entire site is
surrounded at the edges by an existing slope this photo is standing right at the corner of the
intersection looking at the site the next photo here shows the site itself is already downhill
from the neighbors along wissahickon avenue to the northwest and you can see that slope down
along wissahickon avenue although not a refusal item the height was a concern to the community
you can see here in the photograph the relative height of the opposing corner
which again does sit at a higher elevation than this property if i zoom out even further you can
see the the stark con contrast of the slope of this site to everything that surrounds it
including the park across the street which has a much more gradual slope to wissahicken avenue
Moving further southeast on Wissahickon Avenue, you can see that the sloping conditions generally dissipate entirely.
And then looking towards Walnut Lane, again, we would point to the significant impervious surface that sits downhill from this site.
the sloping condition to the southeast again you can see in this photograph you can see the
significant slope that extends all the way down Wissahickon Avenue and then you can see here the
apartment complex property extends essentially all the way to the corner it's a little hard to
see in the photograph but the property line for this apartment complex does extend to the corner
as well and then that adjoins some single-family homes and then i have included a couple of
additional photographs from from walnut lane again showing the steep conditions that border
this site and you can see those here uh looking up towards wissahick and avenue
and then this is the apartment complex that i mentioned across the street
on walnut lane and then this is as you move north of the property this is that corner
that i mentioned that sits at the higher elevation and just some of the additional
homes that sit on wissahickon avenue and then i did also include the zoning posters
i do have several exhibits that essentially establish the same thing
so i will note a few details on each of them quickly
if i start at exhibit 15 you can see a general topographic survey of the site
if i zoom in a bit you will see the elevation markings and i'll pick one particular area
hopefully so you can see here
you can see here that the uh that the slope uh is is fairly gradual in the middle of the site here
and then becomes quite steep as you move towards the outer edges of the site itself.
It's just an issue.
Your people you're going to bring in, they're not going to cover this too, are they?
So you're covering the sloop.
Okay, thank you.
They'll cover the hardship aspects of it.
I'm just giving you some background.
the site itself is over 5300 square feet with roughly 58 feet of frontage on wissahickon
avenue and 162 feet uh and change on west walnut lane it is as you can see here a highly irregularly
shaped parcel which would alone render construction more difficult even absent the
which would alone render construction more difficult even absent the considerable intrusion
of the steep slopes more directly if you refer to exhibit 16 again you can see a visual representation
of the steep slopes in terms of the zoning code itself so the white areas in the middle
have no slopes at all the light gray areas have slopes of 15 to 25 percent which are permitted to
be developed with the submission of an earth moving plan and then the dark gray areas which
is why was which is ultimately what brings us in front of you today uh represent slopes of more
than 25 percent which are not permitted to be disturbed under the zoning code and you can see
here that these slopes surround the entire border of this site the parcel does sit within the
wissahick and watershed shed overlay but contrary to the steep slope restrictions the property is
a category 5 which means that there is no zoning code restriction relative to the impervious
coverages so it's somewhat of a conflicting restriction which further illustrates both
the hardship and the project's compliance with code requirements before i bring up the design
team to walk you through the more detail i would like to just bring up the zoning code sections
that outline the standards that this board must apply to steep slope variances in addition to
all of the other standard variance provisions i'll bring up the relevant one here we go
section 143038 i is shown at exhibit 23 the applicant must demonstrate that the
application meets certain criteria as certified by a licensed professional engineer number one
that the variance will not result in an increase in stormwater runoff
the shifting of earth to adjacent buildings or uh properties down or upslope
or an increase in likelihood of loss to the property number two the applicant must submit
an earth moving plan and then in terms of overall scope of review the commonwealth court has
clarified that steep slope variances are not properly characterized as use variances but
should be subject to a less stringent hardship requirement so at this point i'd like to bring
up uh first carl m burger our architect sir could sir could you step back and sit on the
thing let her put her witness there is this person online okay
carl is that his name carl yeah carl and burger
and just while he's coming on i will note that we do we did submit revised zoning plans and a revised
zoning plan proviso form i'll have carl address those changes in his walkthrough all right carl
hello my name is carl emberher with canary architecture carl could you please spell
your name for the stenographer yes it is c-a-r-l and then um e as in edward m as in mary b-e-r-g-e-r
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth told truth nothing but the truth
i do counsel uh thank you uh carl you you already mentioned but you are the architect on this
project is that correct that is correct um so i have up on the screen now exhibit 11 which is
our revised zoning plans from these zoning plans can you just briefly walk the board through the
project envelope and the impetus behind this particular building envelope that is shown
yes um the project is a four-story building with a basement for 16 units um the lowest level um is
actually considered a basement because of the changing grade across the site
but that lowest level will be our entry level there's four apartments um per upper floor
um and the reason we arrived at the um the footprint that we that we finally arrived at
was that um we were trying to minimize its incursion into the steep slopes dimensionally
speaking does the project comply with the zoning code yes it does and then what about in terms of
the occupied area of the site itself does the project seek to maximize coverage of the site
Does the project seek to maximize coverage of the site?
No, as I just had noted, we were looking to minimize the footprint to minimize the incursion into the steep slope.
So is it correct that the zoning plans reflect an occupied area of 66% where the code would allow for 80% for a corner?
That is correct, yes.
And what about in terms of rear yard requirements?
the rear yard well um the rear yard is greater than um far greater than what we are required
okay uh turning to the floor plans i have up at exhibit 14 just if you can talk through uh first
the entry level plan and then we can move to the upper levels sure um so at the entry level uh we
We have the main entrance to the building, a mail and package room, a bike room for six
bike spaces.
Utilities are to the far left of the plan, a utility room for incoming utilities.
In the center of the plan, we have the stairs and the elevator and a trash room.
And then to the right of the plan, we had what was formerly a retail space.