Good morning, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing this morning's
meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. With me is our Vice Chair, Tanetta Grant.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Secretary, Charlotte L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board Member, Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board Member, Taya Nguyen.
She may be on her way. Also, here is our attorney, Lynn Reuter-Huber,
our ZBA Executive Director, Ian Haggerty, and our Board Administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
This hearing is being recorded and will be posted on the ZBA website.
By participating, you consent to be recorded.
This is an in-person meeting with remote participation.
Whether in person or on Zoom, if you're called to speak, please state and spell your name,
wait to be sworn in, and then after that, each time you testify, start by stating your
to enter your appearance indicate the property address on the zoom webinar speak with a staff
member call the zba office by the close of business tomorrow call 215-686-2429 and provide
your name email and the address of the property in question remote participation raise your
virtual hand when directed to speak. When we call on you, you must click the join as a analyst
button. Use the Q&A only for procedural questions, not questions about the case.
If you are joining by phone, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
In-person participation. If testifying, get close to the mic so that all attendees and
the court stenographer can hear you. No talking, eating, or drinking during the hearing. Aggressive
behavior will not be tolerated. In an emergency, follow the staff instructions. The main exit is
the two doors at the rear, and there are stairwells to the left once you get out into the hallway.
If we evacuate, please go to Love Park, which is across our street, and please remain there
so we can account for you so let's take a look at our schedule today
number eight mi 2025 waltz road mi 2026 003033 um could the spanish interpreter please come on
Good morning, Chair. This is Doreen, and I will be co-hosting this morning.
Thank you.
You're welcome. The Spanish interpreter will be coming in as a panelist.
Sure. Thank you.
Good morning.
Good morning. Could you please state and spell your name?
rancor rodriguez f-r-a-n-c-o-r-o-d-r-i-g-u-e-c do you swear or affirm that you will interpret
accurately completely and impartially from english to spanish from spanish to english
thank you okay could you please call um maria good to teres to come on please
uh can you repeat the name sorry yes maria g-u-t-i-e-r-r-e-z
there are no hands raised okay uh interpreter could you uh we we're continuing with this case
until 9 15 26 at 9 30 a.m could you please announce this for us
thank you very much sir we appreciate your help is there anything else i can help you with today
no that's fine thank you very much all right have a wonderful day everyone bye bye all right
We're going to go to number one, MI 2025-004-134-3813 Folsom Street.
Alan Nockmson or Al.
Mr. Goldberg, this is a resumptive hearing.
Good morning, sir.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Could you please state your...
Alex Goldberg.
Alex Goldberg. A-L-E-X-G-O-L-D-B-E-R-G.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Goldberg, this is a resumptive hearing.
Our schedule is that we will have an update from you.
There'll be questions from the board.
We won't take public testimony.
It will be limited to what is additional today.
And then we will go to the Planning Commission.
So could you please start your presentation?
Sure, I can.
And you might want to just give a little overview of what the case is about.
So the property address is 3813 Folsom Street.
We presented to the board on June 17th at 3.30 p.m.
The application is for a three-family dwelling,
the erection of a three-family dwelling on a currently vacant lot this this application
was approved previously by way of variance in 2021 it had the support of the coordinating rco
at that time which was mantua civic association due to financing issues my client was unable to
build it the permit expired and they went to seek that variance again with the same set of plans
the application was again supported by the coordinating rco which was hope phl this time
around we also have a letter of non-opposition from the council member council member gautier
and when we came to the zoning board on june 17th there was some feedback that the massing of the
structure was out of character with the block and it was recommended that we create a mansard roof
or a third story setback so we've done that we have a provis proviso form and revised plans
that you can see. Let me go full screen mode. Right here, listing the changes to the architectural
drawings where we added a mansard roof to the third floor. There's a very slight increase in
building height just because of that mansard roof, but pretty negligible. We also shrunk the
building slightly in the rear to give a little bit more light and air in the back and rear yard
space, an additional six feet. In turn, that reduced the occupied area. We've also added a
built-in trash enclosure to the front of the property and we we corrected the front setback
which was previously listed at eight feet to match the adjacent property but upon an additional
measurement it was actually 10 feet so that was corrected these are those revised plans you can
see the mansard roof whoops the mansard roof there go to the floor plans i think it'll give
you a better idea of what we're working with here obviously the property was posted again
and here were the revised drawings so there's a trash enclosure in the front
there is obviously you know additional space in the rear yard uh 16 foot wide rear yard there's a
there is basement use but we've um sort of carved out a basement walkout out of the rear
and kind of like a sunken patio back there so what you're looking at is sort of top down here
the green the green unit is the top floor it is a two bed one bath the second unit is pretty
similar two bed one bath and then the blue unit is the first floor and lower level which is a
two bed two bath we added a porch at the front again out of the mansard roof and you can see
that there's you know this walk out here as well as a walk out of the rear here as well
um with that i'm happy to take any questions from the board questions from the board i guess if
you'd like for my client to adopt that you could if you bring okay heaven thomas is in the virtual
audience heaven thomas is coming in as a panelist thank you
heather he should be coming in now chair sure
heaven thomas can you unmute yourself
hello hello hi good morning could you good morning could you please stay
and spell your name for the stenographer hello my name is heaven thomas h-e-a-d-e-n last name
hello my name is heaven thomas h-e-a-d-e-n last name thomas t-h-o-m-e-s
Thomas.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
unmute please
you're muted hi hi do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes counsel heaven did you hear my testimony today yes was it true and correct yes and do you
adopt it as your own yes thank you questions from the board what's what's the material of the uh
uh trash can enclosure in the front and how high is that so the the trash can enclosure i believe
is going to be sort of like metal panel doors or like metal screen doors as far as the height the
first floor is two feet six inches above grade it looks according to this plan that it's just about
at that height level um so that so the trash cans will be pretty pretty well screened yes okay all
right all right thank you you're welcome all the questions yeah i'll quickly um so there's also
trash storage in the rear well that's just theoretically unit one could store their trash
in the rear but um you know i think it would just be easier to to store it where the rest of the
trash stored. Okay, thank you. Questions from our attorney? No questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience or the present audience here?
There are no hands in audience, Chair. Planning Commission. Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission,
A-M-Y-B-O-Y-D. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth? I do.
please proceed chair we've already been on the record about this case but i'm happy to repeat
if you wish sure why don't you do that the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the rsa 5 residential single family attached zoning at this location there is no unique
condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance
with the zoning code therefore the planning commission recommends that the board deny the
proposed use variance for multi-family household living thank you um um this case is closed uh we
will vote on this one 8 26 26 at 9 30 a.m okay all right thank you had conversations with council
about that yes okay thank you number five
Number five, MI 2026, 000492, 4055 West Dorot Avenue. Henry Clinton is the attorney.
henry clinton will be rejoining as a panelist thank you good morning mr chairman members
mr clinton could you please state and spell your name sure henry clinton h-e-n-r-y clinton c-l-i-n-t-o-n
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Clinton, this is a resumptive hearing.
My understanding, you will give us an update.
The board will have questions.
There will be public testimony.
And planning will also have a chance to take questions.
So why don't you start?
And if you would, please just give us a brief overview of where we are with this.
Is that visible, Mr. Chairman, the first page?
Yes, sir.
You might want to make it just a little bit bigger if you get a chance.
Got it.
So I was before the board early June on this project.
The project involved the rehabilitation of the long dilapidated building, 4055 West
Girard Avenue.
We had full support of the community for six units.
we presented to the board in the cmx2 zoning district the board was not enamored with the
number of units the size of the bedrooms uh as well as a apartment uh in the basement and we've
since revised those plans and i have those to present to the board today table of contents
here's a refusal it was simply concerning use we had no issue with open space rear yard it was
simply a use it issue in the cmx 2 zoning district we did have the rco east parkside
residents association full support with the initial refusal and we had
with the initial refusal and we had signatures from the block you may recall this building it's
a large building on gerrard avenue in bad shape my client has done some make safe issues with
the property to safeguard it and i'll show you the original plans and this may help you recall
what we talked about in June so these were the original plans that we
presented to the board again vacant commercial space on the first floor we
don't know what that commercial space will become we had a an apartment studio
in the basement first floor another unit and then on the second and third floor
we had two units there was concern from the board about the two bedrooms in the
rear we've since changed that and made those one-bedroom units the same with
the third floor so I'll move on to the revised plans again reduction in
apartments from six to five elimination apartment in the basement which is now
designated as storage inclusion of trash closets and kitchens of all five
apartments second of floor rear bedroom apartments are reduced uh the bedrooms that is reduced from
two to one here are the revised plans again commercial space uh in the front basement
storage in the rear there's an existing uh access from the sidewalk into this rear space
so it's really not in egress well it's it's an opening that you would see
typically on corner stores where there are iron grates that you can open up and
walk down into the basement on the first floor one apartment in the rear now
included the furniture in the drawings and again commercial vacant space in the
front you go up the stairs situated in the middle of the building to the second
floor, one bedroom in the rear, two bedrooms in the front, and that same floor plan is repeated
on the third floor as you continue up the switchback steps with one larger bedroom in the
rear and two bedrooms in the front. So that is the presentation. My client is here to adopt my
testimony why don't you bring your client all right my client is to my right your left can
you spell your name for the board please my name is nevin abedina n-e-v-i-n henry could you bring
him a little closer a little closer spelling is n-e-v-i-n capital a-b-e-d-i-n-a-j do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do debon you you sat
here when i presented your revised proposal correct yes if you had the opportunity to testify
would you adopt my testimony as your own and that's true and correct yes thank you uh questions
from the board can you zoom into the the plan so we can see the the whole board plan certainly
Do you want me to concentrate on the basement? Mr. Johns, I work my way up.
Yeah, that would be good. So, so you made the changes, the suggested changes, and that's just storage. I think that's great.
First floor is zoom out a little bit more so we can see the whole plan a little bit more.
Okay, and so you go through. So the access to the backyard is through the kitchen, not through the bedroom. Okay.
right yeah well there okay all right can you just zoom zoom out a little bit more so we can
see the whole the whole floor plan on both floors no zoom zoom out yeah zoom out not not in but out
okay okay yeah it's better that's better
Okay, stop moving slide slide it back. All right. All right.
Any other questions? Yeah, I think I'm good. Yeah. Yeah. So the storage for in the basement, is that for the units?
Or just clarify with that storage in the back and the rear basement.
That's really general storage for the commercial.
The green, the green space space. Yes. Okay.
okay other questions
Other questions?
not a question but a comment that first floor apartment has that condition that i don't like
where you have to go through the living room and the dining room to get to the bathroom but
you know i don't know how else you can rearrange it but
That's 1 of my issues with some of these.
Okay, just a comment.
Thank you. Questions from our attorney.
No questions at this time, comments from the virtual audience.
No hands to the present audience here.
Planning commission, Amy boy with the planning commission.
At the time of the district plan.
The property was zoned RM1 residential multifamily. The plan did not recommend a change. The property was later remapped to CMX2 commercial mixed use. The appellant could have earned a fifth and sixth unit with the mixed income housing bonus by providing affordable units or paying fee in lieu. The planning commission recommends that the board deny the requested variance for an additional dwelling unit.
thank you um mi 2026 000 492 4055 west rod avenue i vote yes with proviso maximum five dwelling
units no household living in the basement michael johns my vote is yes with proviso
charl gaston my vote is yes with proviso tenetta graham my vote is yes with proviso
tie in my vote is yes with proviso thank you all right thank you mr chairman all right
Number three, MI-2025-007-5790.
6 918 north 28th street zenjin is the attorney this is a resumptive hearing
zenjin has been promoted thank you
good morning good morning counsel could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer
yes my name is zenjin z-h-e-n-j-i-n
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do um council this is a resumptive hearing um we will take testimony for update from you
there'll be questions from the board will be public testimony and also then planning will
have a chance to make a recommendation um why don't we um why don't we start and in that just
give us a few minutes of where we were and where we are now. Yes. Good morning. I'm going to share
with the board an updated submission that we just made with some of the information I believe that
would address the concerns from the initial application presentation. I'm going to share
that with the board now as I speak on this. This is an application for special exception in a CMX1
district at 918 north 28th street this is for use at the prepared food shop essentially a coffee shop
with hard ice cream service at the last hearing there were some concerns with the way the plans
were presented that it was not clear as to location of items how the service is done so
my client and i went back and he has made a more detailed presentation which i'm going to
go through with the board right now this is the location that in question this application was
in fact supported by the RCO after the meeting their only concern was trash which we're going
to address by having daily trash pickup from the location as you can see this property is a
corner commercial property that has previously been used as some kind of office type space
my client intend to convert this into the shop that is being requested before the board with the
business uh the idea is to have the salasa mediterranean cafe this is a european greek
style cafe with the cafe pastries and ice cream the ice cream itself is a hard ice cream and that's
soft serve and will be served directly from a pub the idea of this
served directly from a pub. The idea of this cafe actually comes from similar ideas and similar
cafes already in existence in Europe, which is a small style, mostly coffee service with a little
bit of pastries and ice cream as additional available products. There will be minimal to
no no real seating required uh there will be a few bar stools along the countertop uh they
they are putting only like a small top reserved for employees for their breaks to avoid congestion
in inside the space everything will be designed to allow people to kind of come through purchase and
take away quickly there's going to be a coffee station pastry display ice cream station and then
pickup counter. There's no kitchen, no cooking, no frying. It's a very simple setup. When the
customer enters, there'll be three self-serve kiosks, a cashier. Also, a worker would walk
around with a mobile handheld device if there are a lot of customers to help move the line along.
The employees will prepare the order, and then the customer will pick up the order and exit.
so from the operation side uh the the flow would be uh order uh routes the order to the
display system employees will prepare it and then the customer will pick it up
there's uh fresh pastries will be delivered every morning we're going to work with local
and mostly local pastry shops that actually produces pastry on their own to deliver it on
a daily basis. Ice cream would be delivered daily or every other day. There's no plan for a lot of
storage on site. And that was actually one of the concerns from the last hearing. So the idea is to
have things kind of flow. The coffee itself would also not require a lot of storage. I'm going to
move down to the the we believe of course that this uh use at this location would one support
local bakeries again we're going to purchase locally it would improve the corner for the
neighborhood which actually did come up during the rco meeting uh this at one time long time
ago was a bar and certainly that wasn't a well-liked operation so this idea of having a coffee shop
in its place was well received by the community one of the key items with trash is to have it
picked up daily to avoid any kind of trash gathering at the location the employees will
obviously clean up sidewalk in front of the store to make sure that cups and other things are not
just left on the sidewalk we do have the ability to put trash in the basement through Velcro doors
the keys can be given to the trash company. And we have already reached out to a trash company,
a woman-owned trash company business, and come to an agreement for daily pickup with that company.
So the hours of operation would be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Mondays and Thursdays and Sundays,
and then 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Friday and Saturdays. This is going to be a business
owned by my and run by my client it's a family-owned business it would not it's not part
of any kind of a chain uh or franchise so from the plan standpoint uh my client has produced
a slightly more uh property skilled and more detailed plan uh for the board's review as you
can see the the restroom will be in the back corner there's a storage small storage room
and the counters for working would be towards the front of the space and the counter with a stool
for people who do want to consume the coffee on site will be limited to the bar here and a few
stools uh the counter again has the flow would be people can come into here if there is a line
and then exit through the front but if there isn't a line they can enter and exit through both
of these entries do their purchase and exit the space. So there's a 3D angle of what it looks
like. Part of the storage solution is to have cabinetry on top of the preparation areas as
well for additional storage for cups and things like that that would be used as part of the
service. For the most part, because the pastries are pre-made and delivered, they would just be
laid out and sold. And if they're sold out for the day, that would be it. The same would go for
the ice cream. And then primarily the focus would still be the coffee service. So that is essentially
the special exception that we're seeking before the board is to permit this coffee shop ice cream
service to be at this location. We do believe that given the daily pickup and daily delivery
We do believe that given the daily pickup and daily delivery kind of structure, this operation should not cause any hardship to the community greater than what is normally expected of such a business.
kind of structure.
So that is our update.
Bring your client on.
Sure. My client is Matthew Maltepes.
Mateo, can you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
Matthew has been promoted
hello good morning could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer yes
matthew martepes m-a-t-t-h-e-o last name martepes m-a-l-t-e-p-e-s do you swear affirm
to tell the truth told truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you um good morning uh
my fail so did you see my presentation hear my representations before the zoning board
i did yes i did can you verify what i have represented to be true and correct
and adopt it as your own testimony yes i do and you will be the personal personally operating
this uh business correct yes i will so you'll be directing the employees and making sure the
plans are followed accordingly yes i will thank you questions from the board
yes um where is the coffee bar part of this
or in in the uh the coffee service would be done this is it is the machine
yeah that says rest machine yes correct okay so the service counter is right here for coffee
preparation okay help me here it's a little small so where are we pointing to
oh i'm sorry i can zoom in yeah please thank you so there's a there's sinks and then the counter
area this is the espresso machine uh so the coffee preparation service will be through right here
ah okay so then the the employees are going to be in that area in this area okay so this is
itself this isn't self-serve this is no no it's not self-serve no okay all right thank you
other questions questions from our attorney yes i just wanted to clarify um are you using the
first floor in the basement or just the first floor the the the uh service of coffee and
everything will only be on the first floor the basement would be accessory only for storage
of trash if needed okay so you're using both the first floor and the basement then yes
questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands planning commission amy boy with the planning commission the comprehensive
plan recommends no change in zoning at this location from the current cmx1 commercial mixed
use the appellant has demonstrated that the proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts
beyond what would reasonably be expected the planning commission recommends that the board
grant their requested special exception for prepared food shop thank you mi 2025 007 576
918 north 28th street i vote yes with proviso interior trash storage use limited to first
floor and basement johns my vote is yes with proviso cheryl gaston my vote is yes with proviso
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
All right, number four, MI 2025-007-735-2313 North 11th Street.
Meredith Verliger is the attorney.
good morning council all right this is a resumptive hearing could you please state
and spell your name for the stenographer meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do um
yeah so we we're going to take an update from you there'll be questions from the board
public testimony limited to what was said today and then also planning will um make comments
understood so why don't you just give us a little update as how we got here waiting for the exhibits
They're waiting for the exhibits to open right.
All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the board as as you might recall.
this case proposes 20 units on 11th street right at the intersection of west dakota street
there were a variety of concerns that were expressed by the board and the community during
the last hearing and since that time my client has been in communication with several of the
immediate neighbors that live on west dakota street seeking to try and address some of those concerns
his goal of course was to try and address those concerns while also making revisions
that would be responsive to some of the board members uh concerns as well
he did hold three meetings with the immediate neighbors and as a result
did agree to reduce the proposal from 20 units down to 17. And as a reminder, the buy right
conditions here are 13. So this is a fairly even split compromise that will still create the
density that is characteristic of this surrounding neighborhood. Just as a reminder, this entire
neighborhood here is a mix of cmx2 and rm1 zoning as we showed during the first hearing and as you
can see on the zoning map so the city has recognized the need in this particular area
to create additional density to spark reinvestment and revitalization as i mentioned during the first
hearing and again as just a reminder this property happens to sit just one block from
pha's latest affordable housing development that this board saw last year and then again just two
doors away at 2307 north 11 street this board had recognized the hardship facing this particular
block and the properties on it granting additional density uh for an overall density in that case of
297 square feet per unit so the 17 units that are now proposed and as are reflected on these revised
plans is just within a few square feet of that density that was already granted for this particular
block so in addition to the density update the floor plans were also revised to address
both board and community concerns so just to highlight a couple of those changes
at the first floor and i did include revised plans these revised plans did not come with a
revised plan proviso form because none of the changes that i am about to show are anything
that would require stamped zoning plans so um i'm referring to them as revised plans but they
are not anything that would have required an actual proviso floor plan or anything like that
So at the first floor, the trash room was relocated at the request of the community. It was previously located off of West Dakota Street, and specifically in response to neighbors who were concerned about the trash being accessed from Dakota Street, it has been relocated to North 11th Street.
uh furthermore in response to the board's feedback a trash room and shoot has been added on all floors
and i will show you that at the floor plans here so again first floor level you can see the little
the little circles and then as you move up to the higher floors you can see that designated trash
And then, in addition, at the basement level, a designated trash storage area was added to supplement the bike storage that was already provided.
And again, just as a reminder, this is an elevator building, so this will provide access to all tenants, regardless of their particular physical needs.
And then, of course, just in response to the fact that the unit count changed, the unit layout has changed slightly as well.
So, as now designed, there are 10 one-bedroom units, five one-bedroom plus den units, and two two-bedroom.
five one bedroom plus den units and two two bedroom plus den units and then at the first
floor as well the previously uh provided mail room has also now been expanded to become a mail
and package area the only concern my client believes he's been unable to materially address
is parking. However, as this board knows, parking is not required in CMX2 or RM1, nor could a lot
of this particular size accommodate any form of material parking. Fortunately, this site is
located within walking distance of no less than eight transit stops and is also within walking
distance to the Broad Street Line and a 10-minute walk to the North Broad Regional Rail stop.
furthermore as we showed during the first hearing off street parking is not a common condition in
this neighborhood so just to bring it all home and summarize we do believe that our original
presentation made it abundantly clear that this particular property suffers from a significant
hardship that would prevent any form of ground floor non-residential use that is required in cmx
too the board recognized this very hardship by granting relief just two doors down
in terms of the overall density this is a unique block where there are no
other active or non-abandoned structures on this entire block of north 11th street
these factors give this property section of north 11th street the feel of a largely
abandoned industrial corridor which does justify a slightly higher density than the code would allow
here and again this is really to allow this property and some of the other new development
to sufficiently activate the area and again not to belabor the point here but the board did
recognize these factors just two doors down and this particular project will supplement that
while adding necessary density, providing all type B accessible units, including two deed restricted affordable units earned through the mixed income housing bonus.
Although this project, even though the project did receive overwhelming support from the assigned 37th Ward RCO, my client did take great measure to attempt to address the concerns of the immediate neighbors on the block.
And we do believe that this proposal now materially responds and strikes a careful balance of all of the competing factors that weigh on this particular property.
That is our update.
You want to bring your client?
Please. Dennis Schifrin, please.
Dennis Schifrin will be rejoining as a panelist.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
hi i hope uh everyone can hear me this is dennis could you please state your name and spell for
the stenographer uh my name is dennis shuffin i mean spelling my name is d-e-n-n-i-s and my last
name is s-h-i-f-r-i-n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do counsel thank you uh dennis have you been present today and heard all of the additional
testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today yes i have do you agree that
testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if you had provided it to the board
yourself yes i would adopt it as my own thank you questions from the board
i have a question can you go back to the what's the what's the height again uh the
The, the height of the building is 45 feet that has not changed. Okay.
Questions from our attorney.
No questions at this time questions or comments from the virtual audience.
There are no good morning. Good take. Please take a seat.
could you please state and spell your name for this is that one yeah please state and spell
your name for the stenographer good morning my name is elizabeth o'caro and my name is spelled
e-l-i-z-a-b-e-t-h do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do so we have a rather large uh uh caseload today okay um so you'll have two minutes to really
state where you stand at this okay sure and can i just ask before my time begins there are community
members here that i'm also with that would like to have the chance to speak so if i keep it short
maybe they can sure have enough time as well great so thank you all so much for being here
Great. So thank you all so much for being here today and for listening to our concerns.
today and for listening to our concerns
I am opposed to this. I uploaded this morning a petition of neighborhood concern regarding
the proposed development at 2313 through 2317 North 11th Street. Did you all receive that?
We received it this morning, correct?
Thank you. So it's a really long thing. I don't know if you're interested in looking
at it or if you'll have a chance to. I'm not going to read through everything since I'm
limited on time but there are 22 signatures in here that are opposed to this project okay um
and the very few points that i just would like to make is um i'm here representing the non-profit
organization that's directly across the street like duro farm 2316 through 50 north 11th street
um it's been in existence since 2010 and we've developed family-like relationships with our
neighbors so i'm here today in support of their opposition to this and would also just like to
say that although there's been a revision to the original plan there has been no opposition to what
they've already been permitted to build our neighbors would like to see a bookstore or a
coffee shop made in that bottom area where there's no access to anything like that and these are
elderly generational homeowners that we have living on this block and i think now more than
ever it's important to protect that legacy in north philadelphia that's going under
unprecedented redevelopment and that's all i have to say today thank you very much next person
good morning why don't you get to move the chair up a little bit sure thank you could you please
state and spell your name morning everyone my name is cj white lawrence that's capital c capital j
and last name w-h-i-t-e hyphen l-a-w-r-e-n-c-e swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth and you heard our two-minute rule so please proceed yes we are opposed um and
And as she has stated before, we do have elderly people there, as well as we have younger people, generational on this block.
We are a one way, one sided parking community, and we already have issues with parking.
You would cause people to have to who can't walk, go several blocks to park and then to walk home.
a 15 or 20 unit whatever the unit you're stating is too much okay okay and so we're opposed to thank
you for coming down we appreciate it do you know do you have any questions that i all right next
person is there anyone in the virtual audience yes chair i have a person with the last name love
they will be promoted good morning oops hi could you please state and spell your name
My name is Theresa, T-H-E-R-E-S-A, last name Jordan, J-O-R-D-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I've been to one of the meetings that Mr. Dennis had regarding his feelings and our feelings toward the trash and the cars.
And so there was no resolution at that meeting.
We heard what he had to say, and then he heard what we had to say.
There was still no resolution at that time.
He's met with some of my family members on the block, and there still hasn't been any type of resolution.
And it's mainly because of how many units this building is, as well as no parking and the trash issue.
So nothing has been resolved as far as that part.
Thank you very much for coming, Dander.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in here or in the virtual audience?
I have a hand up go ahead okay person with the last name love
they have been promoted okay
good morning
to may love can you please unmute
hello i'm sorry good morning sorry good morning could you please state and spell your name for
this uh tina love l-o-v-e i am a neighbor on the dakota street and i was in the last hold on
one minute. I'm sorry. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told you nothing but the truth?
I do. Please, Pasheed. Yes, a neighbor on Dakota Street, and I am opposed to the proposal. Nothing
has changed. The fact is we still have lack of parking, and let's not forget on the opposite
and let's not forget on the opposite end of the block is another apartment building um it's just
end of the block is another apartment building.
no sense of community anymore they're building these tall buildings you can't come out and see
the sunlight anymore and it's just not community based anymore and my primary concern also is the
parking if you have two apartment buildings one on each end of the block is nowhere to park thank you
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no hands.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning from the existing CMX2 commercial mixed use to RSI5 residential single family.
The proposed lack of active ground floor use is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood and would not be required in the recommended zoning.
The request for an additional units above what would be allowed with the use of MIHB
is an overuse of the property. The Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant
the requested variance for no active use on the ground floor, but deny the requested variance for
17 dwelling units. All right, thank you very much. So the case is closed. There'll be no more
testimony we will vote on this next wednesday at 9 30 a.m what's the date august 26 august 26
we'll vote next week and i want to thank everybody for coming in and thank you for your presentation
thank you um number four
wait no no this was not before i got it give me a minute number two
MI 2025-205-993-6100 Wissahickon Avenue. Meredith Ferliger is the attorney.
Counsel, could you just state your name? You've all been sworn.
Meredith Ferliger.
all right and this is a resumptive hearing right are you part of the presentation uh of the uh
lupa hill civic board now so i can come to speak yeah one of you wait we'll call you we'll call
you you're gonna have plenty of time to come up we'll give you a call okay um
okay all right um council this is a resumptive hearing if you would would you um
give us a uh an update yep hold on a minute i'll bring you up to speed notes on this case
and then there'll be questions from the board um there'll be public testimony as we've talked
before and also the planning commission so why don't you start sure give us an update as to how
we how we arrived at this point for for sure uh so just by way of a very brief recap during the
first hearing, the board heard some introductory testimony about the property's unique size,
shape, and orientation. And again, the property is at 6100 Wissahickon Avenue. The main issue here,
as the board heard during the first hearing, is the steep slope that surrounds the entire
frontage of this property. So this particular refusal is only pertaining to that steep slope.
So just as a reminder, at Exhibit 16, as the board saw during the first hearing, you can see the dark gray areas, which indicate that steep slope that's over 25%, showing that this particular property is not only unusually shaped, but would be completely foreclosed of any form of by-right development because of the location of that slope.
so during the first hearing you heard uh predominantly testimony from our architect
carl emberger who described the project overall uh and just to give your rendering and refresh
your memory we did also present to you the project as it was originally designed and then we also
expressed the changes that were made in response to the community's concerns which they did also
So allude to in their letter that most of the changes were made responsive to their concerns,
not all.
We did also describe the standards that this board should be applying in consideration
of the steep slope variance.
Just to refresh your memory, because they are extremely relevant to the next witness
that I had, first we have to show that the development will not result in an increase
in stormwater runoff or the shifting of earth to adjacent buildings or an increase in loss to
or an increase in loss to property.
property. And then second, we're required
And then second, we're required to submit an earth moving plan.
So as we last left off during the last hearing,
I was about to bring up our civil team to verify compliance with the steep slope standards.
And then I have just a brief argument to conclude.
So at this point, I would like to, I have two witnesses.
Sure. The first one I believe is on Zoom, Alex Bruno.
Okay, they have been promoted.
Good morning, Mr. Bruno.
Hello. Hi. Good morning.
Could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer?
Yes. Alex Bruno, A-L-E-X-B-R-U-N-O.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Alex, if you could just introduce who you are and what your involvement was with this particular project.
Yes. My name is Alex Bruno. I'm a professional engineer and the president of Leak Engineering.
For this project, we conducted the geotechnical investigation.
And just generally speaking, what is a geotechnical investigation seeking to determine?
The geotechnical investigation will take samples at varying depths to determine the composition of the soil at those depths, as well as the varying capacity of the soil at those depths.
So if we turn to Exhibit 19, is this the geotechnical report that you prepared and submitted?
So that is not the geotechnical report, but that is a geotechnical officer.
Okay, yes, that's the geotechnical report.
Sorry, it was on the second page.
So this is just a summary letter on that first page.
Is that accurate?
Yes, that was a letter.
So on the first page of your conclusion, it generally states that the site appears to be previously disturbed and influenced by prior grading or earthwork activities rather than solely the result of undisturbed natural topography.
What does that mean?
So when we did a little bit of an investigation,
historical investigation of the site,
it appeared that the road adjacent to the site
had been widened decades ago.
And also when you look at the boring logs
for the geotechnical report,
you can see the first two to four feet
is sand and fill material.
so I included at exhibit 25 just a sample of some of the streets department legal cards
showing that Wissahickon Avenue in particular was widened several times between 1793 to much later
going from 45 feet to eventually its current condition of 60 feet so with the later opening
of walnut lane is it conceivable that the slope of the site resulted from those activities
it is conceivable that they would have taken the cut from the road and backfilled it onto
the site yes so at the time that you prepared your geotechnical report in february you did
also make some preliminary conclusions relative to the stormwater runoff from the site can you
summarize those findings? Yes, and it's important. We're not the civil engineer, but any runoff from
the site would be designed to be captured either by the stormwater system that would be designed
for the building. And just to confirm, at the time that you were making those general conclusions,
that was prior to the stormwater management plan being prepared that uh colliers is here to discuss
is that accurate that is correct and then based on your findings and in your professional opinion
do you believe a developer could build on top of this slope without disturbing it
yeah um sorry when you say build on top of the slope
Leave the slope exactly as it is and just sit a building on top.
There would have to be some excavation required for the building.
Depending on how the foundation lays, there would have to be some disturbance to the slope, yes.
uh some disturbance to the slope yes and did your investigation reveal any conditions of the site
that in your professional opinion would impair this developer's ability to safely construct
a building on the site no that's all i have for mr bruno okay next client uh and then next i'd
like to bring up Gabrielle from Colliers, if you would come up. Good morning. Good morning. Could
you get closer to the mic for me? Could you please state and spell your name? Sure. Gabrielle
Buckner, G-A-B-R-I-E-L-L-E. My name's B-U-C-H-T-E-R. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the
whole truth, nothing but the truth? Counsel? Thank you. Gabrielle, if you could just share
what firm you work with, your professional background, and your involvement in the project.
Yep. I'm a civil engineer with Collier's Engineering and Design, and I'm a professional engineer in Pennsylvania.
And you were the civil engineer that prepared many of the relevant plans that we're going to talk through today. Is that accurate?
Correct.
Okay. So let's start first with the steep slope plan that I have up on the screen here at Exhibit 16.
So this plan shows a limit of disturbance that generally infers the entire site is to be disturbed, but is that disturbance calculation relative to the slopes or relative to the site itself?
The limit of disturbance is relative to the entire site.
So based on the design, in your professional opinion, is the project designed to avoid as much disturbance to the slopes as possible?
Correct. Our design intent would be to limit the disturbance to only what's necessary for the proposed construction and development.
So it's not disturbing 100% of the slopes?
Correct.
correct okay uh in accordance with the code in order to disturb these slopes we're also required
to establish that an earth moving plan was prepared was that prepared in this case here yeah
uh all right let me bring that up go
all right and is that uh general plan and documentation that was submitted to the water
department shown up on the screen here at exhibit 18 uh yeah there's a plan showing yep that's the
plan right there and what does this plan establish in terms of compliance with the sections of the
code that talk about uh the developer having to avoid stormwater runoff and things of that nature
when disturbing the slopes yeah so because we have more than 5 000 square feet of disturbance on this
site we trigger pwd's irsa ens plan so this plan generally just shows what's going to happen during
construction and the controls that will be in place such as a rock construction entrance
soil stockpiling inlet protection things of that nature
did any particular city agency have any involvement in reviewing this particular plan yes pwd reviewed
and approve this plan and is that conceptual approval uh shown at exhibit 17 yes and at
following and following a conceptual approval the water department would also do a technical
uh review of this prior to a building permit is that correct um actually we're less than 15 000
square feet of disturbance so there will be there's no required stormwater per pwd um so this is pwd's
approval of this project thank you is the you actually just answered my next question but just
to make sure is the project subject to any required or typical stormwater management requirement
not per pwd and why is that again because we're less than 15 000 square feet of disturbance
so to comply with the requirements of the zoning code as it pertains to steep slope disturbance
and as well to address community concerns, did Collier's prepare a stormwater management plan
seeking to address some of those concerns? Yes, we did. And is that plan and finding summarized
and shown here on the screen at Exhibit 20? Correct, yes. And just if you can summarize some
of the highlights for the board. Sure, so this plan shows the roof area being captured by roof
drains running into yard drains that will have filters to collect sedimentation and then
ultimately that will discharge to a rain garden and you can see the rain garden is that green
area on the plan in the green space that we have on the project this rain garden will manage the
two through the hundred year increase in volume due to the additional impervious area and then
increase in volume due to the additional impervious area. And then also the rain garden
also the rain garden will have
will have an outlet control structure which will manage the rates coming off the site from the
post-development conditions to the pre-development conditions. And pre-development conditions versus
post-development conditions, will this development based on this design increase stormwater runoff
to this site from the site? Without the rain garden there would be an increase in runoff.
with the rain garden there will be no increase in runoff based on your professional opinion will
the project cause any shifting of earth to adjacent buildings either up or down slope
no and a developer will need to obtain their building permit site work permits there'll be
on-site supervision and special inspections that have to occur and based on your professional
opinion uh in the scope of what you would have reviewed do you believe that this development
will cause an increase in the likelihood of loss of any adjoining properties no same thing building
permanent site work inspection special inspection slate work permits will be obtained during
construction thank you gabby so just to summarize board we believe that the testimony that our
architect presented as well as our professional consultants and engineers today and during the
first hearing have conclusively and as a matter of law established that this lot suffers from a unique and unnecessary hardship that would foreclose the development of any construction on this lot whatsoever in the absence of variance relief.
we believe that that evidence and the witnesses have established that the variance is the least
minimum and is intended to disturb as little of the site as is possible this is not the case where
an alternative development might generate a different but less extreme variances
in this particular case these are the absolute least minimum variances that are required in
order to support any viable development of the site furthermore in a review of available case
law on the subject and as referenced in the memo of law at exhibit 21 courts have generally only
upheld denials of steep slope variances where there was some evidence of another viable option
here we would submit that the evidence has shown that there is simply no other viable option
uh i did like i said i included the memo of lawd exhibit 21 and i'm also happy to submit
my notes of testimony after the hearing for your file as well and for your additional review
now while my client fully respects the community's position and concerns the fact remains that this
particular developer met with the community three times over the course of nearly a year
including continuing the hearing originally scheduled way back in the winter in february
to make further changes that were shown to the board during the last hearing
now as the community did acknowledge changes were made uh even though a vast majority of those
changes had no bearing whatsoever on the steep slope variances but were done in an attempt to
try and find some level of common ground uh just for purposes of the record we would respectfully
ask this board to strike from the record a letter that was submitted yesterday on behalf of rco
solo germantown civic that does not have geographic boundaries including this property
in fact its boundaries don't start for over a half a mile away after west chelton avenue
The letter was not submitted on an individual's behalf. It was actually submitted by an RCO purporting to take a position on the project for which it has no technical jurisdiction under planning's RCO rules.
That note aside, we do submit that the evidence presented during the first hearing and today is unambiguous and clearly establishes this applicant's entitlement to relief, and we would respectfully ask for the board's approval.
I would like to bring on my client to adopt my testimony, and I just have two questions for him.
Nadal Hassan.
Nadal has been promoted.
Good morning, sir.
Could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer?
Hello?
Could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer?
Yeah, Nadal Hassan, first name Nadal, N-I-D-A-L, last name Hassan, H-A-S-S-E-N.
Could you please turn on your video too, please?
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
i do counsel thank you uh nadal have you heard all of the testimony and ever
evidence that was offered uh first in the hearing in may and then as well today in front of the board
yes do you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it
as if you had provided it to the board yourself i do uh nadal just very briefly can you please
explain how you intend to manage this particular property um i have a management company that i use
to for rentals for tcs management and then um if we have the we already have a stormwater agreement
with uh colliers we've already signed the contract so they would manage that as well for maintenance
overseeing that so just just to uh emphasize what you just said so uh colliers would be
managing the stormwater management system on this property correct and do you have experience in
construction in philadelphia yes for like eight years now and would you be intending to construct
this building in accordance with all necessary and required engineering and building code standards
yes thank you questions from the board can you can you explain uh just uh briefly uh the storm
water management system uh just one more time and how that um system um will not um
increase any runoff uh from the existing site if if the site is not developed
Sure, I'm sorry, I'm going to have Gabby answer that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I wanted to hear from this. So a rain garden is essentially just a whole that the storm water from the roof would be the roof discharge with discharge to the rain garden, which is essentially just a big hole.
and then um that holds back some of the water and there's an outlet control structure that has
various orifices and weirs that hold back water and will only release it at a rate that is
consistent with the pre-developed conditions um and the water that's sitting in the rain garden
you know there's evapotranspiration and things like that that occur and and gabby a rain garden
this is a system that uh colliers has designed and implemented for other projects before correct
correct it's a typical BMP used in Philadelphia and is there a green roof on the building at all
or no there is not okay so the rain garden and the stormwater management on site will
effectively address all issues related to stormwater management uh and runoff correct okay
other questions yes and this system has been reviewed with the water department it's not
required to be reviewed with the water department because we have less than 15 000 square feet of
disturbance pwd doesn't require stormwater so then this is done through what how how is this guaranteed
well um the we can prepare an o and m agreement which is an operations and maintenance agreement
that we will provide to the developer that he can record with the city to maintain it.
All right. And then I guess, all right. So this rain garden, how many gallons does it hold?
Gallons? Let me give you some numbers here.
So the existing runoff volume is 15,000 cubic feet approximately.
and then the proposed runoff is 2990 cubic feet so there's a 1500 roughly cubic foot difference
in the amount of runoff that's going to be generated from the proposed building essentially
because that's the impervious addition um so that rain garden is approximately 1500 um hold about
a 1500 cubic feet of rainwater okay and then you say it drains how it'll yeah it'll connect to an
existing pwd um sewer in walnut avenue okay all right and then it it drains is there some sort
of system in terms of how that drainage uh is controlled correct so that yeah yeah so that
you're not like if there's a big storm it's not like it's going to overwhelm the system that's
in place correct that's the exact point of the rain garden so it it'll maintain what's currently
Correct. That's the exact point of the rain garden. So it it'll maintain what's currently happening at the site.
happening at the
Okay. All right. Thank you all the questions. Yeah. So just a quick summary. I know the building height has been reduced, correct?
that's that's correct so uh let me just show you the summary form so the roof height was reduced
uh from 39 feet 8 inches to 37 feet 4 inches main roof parapet was reduced from 44 feet 2 inches to
41 feet 10 inches and is this still a roof deck proposed or that's gone too um the there is a
roof deck um the locations and and dimensions of the pilot house were revised let me bring that up
and and where is that and oh yeah sorry uh so you can see it's it's a fairly small roof deck it does
not cover nearly the entire building it's just a small roof deck uh basically right up at the front
along walnut and uh with second avenue and you can see it does meet all of the setbacks including an
additional setback on the side uh next to the neighboring property so there's about a 10 foot
uh distance from the roof deck to the neighboring property along with the hicken avenue okay and and
and i think is the cut then the commercial on the first one has been removed as well correct
that's going to be a unit now that that is correct the the commercial was removed really
in response to discussions with the community that didn't feel that commercial was appropriate here
Got you. Thank you. Any other questions? Questions or comments from our attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chairman. Questions or comments from the virtual audience? Well, we're going to start right here.
Sir, could you please state and spell your name? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Sidney Ozer, S-I-D-N-E-Y.
Right. Last name Ozer. O-Z like zebra, E-R like Robert. Right.
And I'm a member of the board of the whole Civic Association.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
And you have sent us correspondence, am I correct?
Yes, we have.
Okay, so you could summarize the correspondence, but you have two minutes because we have other people who want to testify.
I appreciate it.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and board.
Working with Meredith and Nidal, we did come to agreement on many issues.
However, we did not come to agreement on a very, very important issue, that being the building height. We mentioned that. Also, we have questions about the responsibility of the builder that we'll address, and the developer submitted ground floor plus four stories without notifying the community, which is different than what we had thought we had negotiated.
So, and it seems that the midpoint that they're using for the height may have been changed as well. So let me just summarize here that our community supports responsible, environmentally sustainable development, but we have questions about the height. It's not in scale with the neighborhood.
We have questions about the hardship. The developer and affiliate have eight years of working in Philadelphia. Right now, they have seven other development sites in Northwest and North Philadelphia that they're working with. So they should have been familiar with the area.
The developer and the affiliates have many L&I violations in the city, including utilizing a contractor for demolition excavation whose license was revoked.
Regarding the man-made nature of the hill, for lack of a better word, neighbors have lived here for generations,
and some of our senior neighbors do not recall any removal in their lifetimes or in their family's
lifetimes. The developer did not remove weeds at the site for months until we called CLIP.
The developer promised to prepare a dangerous sidewalk of the property and has never done that.
And this indicates the responsibility or lack thereof of the developer.
An adjacent nonprofit child care center requested discussions with the developer.
Obviously, their children and their staff would be at risk if there was a problem with the excavation.
The developer never contacted that child care center organization.
The partner, RCO 21st Ward Democrats, requested discussions with the developer about the safety of the removal, and they were never reached out to by the developer as well.
And the following organizations also do not support the development as proposed and have submitted letters, in addition to near neighbors in the Blue Valley community.
Uh, uh, letters, uh, in addition to near neighbors in the Bluebell community, that would be historic written house town, Delaware river keepers, 21st Ward Dems, state representative Rob and council member Jones.
So, therefore, Bluebell Hill civic, uh, kindly request that you not support the development as proposed.
All right. You have any questions?
just just one um mr ozer you you made uh allegations about the developer having received
many violations on other development sites do you have any proof that it's this developer
do you have any any documentation to provide thank you council these are affiliated companies
with the same address in astoria queens uh that this developer used and the ndh the same initials
is one of the developer's LLCs. Also, can I point out, counsel, if you'll excuse me, the PWD.
Wait a minute. Let her answer first. My question was, do you have any documentation?
We have the L&I names of the developer and the address being the same address
in Astoria, Queens or Milford, Pennsylvania. So I have one question. You did start off by saying
And you came to agreement with many things about them, and then you went on, right?
So you came to agreement on many things, except the height, but the height, let's me, but the height's not an issue here, right?
It is not, Mr. Chairman.
That's right.
But the rainwater care of the rainwater retention basin is a very important thing, and we're very worried about the responsibility of this contractor, particularly in view of their history.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir.
Why don't we do this?
Let's see how many other people want to testify, then we come to questions.
How many people want to testify?
Why don't we start over here?
Good morning.
Could you please state and spell your name?
My name is Laura Morris, L-A-U-R-A, last name Morris, M-O-R-R-I-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I'm a near neighbor.
Please proceed.
i reside at 609 west naomi street my property is one parcel over from the construction i submitted
testimony for you all as well as a video but i'm not sure if the video was able to be uploaded
because i don't know how that works and i tried my best if you look at 609 west naomi street in
the council you'll see that um and if you pull up the water if you still have the water drains
you'll see that i have drains in my backyard i took a video of the property which i've dated
in my testimony to you all which shows that there is significant earth that will be moved
during construction and i'm very concerned about my yard okay and i think that's really it in
summary well you can read my testimony i thank you so much for your consideration thank you very much
for being so precise and quick next person good morning could you please state and spell your name
for the stenographer my name is mary louis friedberger m-a-r-y-l-o-u-y-s one word friedberger
f-r-i-e-g-b-e-r-g-e-r do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do please proceed and your neighbor i am a neighbor i have lived in 617 naomi street which is
yep i know where it is right for greater than 50 years the only building that was built
on wissahickon avenue is the building that is now the school all the other buildings
have entrances on Wissahickon Avenue Walnut Lane has no building entrance on
that side okay because of the slope the slope as is not a man-made slope it is a
slope my from my from Walnut Lane where I enter the back of my house I have to
go up at least ten steps all the other houses are the same that are three
houses from
that have entrances from
Walnut Lane into their
front entrance, which is on
Naomi. Okay.
You're against
this. All right. Thank you very much
for your testimony. Is there anyone else here?
Yes, sir.
Good morning.
Could you
please state and spell your name for the stenographer?
Daniel Spicer,
S-P-I-C-E-R. Right. Do you swear
or affirm, tell the truth, whole truth, nothing but
truth i do are you a neighbor i am a neighbor and i am an a officer of the uh blue bell hills sure
why don't you tell us where you stand on this project um so i'm opposed um the uh
steep slope in question is an old rock formation hundreds of millions
The steep slope in question is an old rock formation, hundreds of millions of years old.
The geology of the Wissahickon is noted for its ancient rock history, which is what this
steep slope is part of.
We had meetings, as was stated, with the engineering teams, both Colliers and the Leak Engineering.
AT THE FIRST MEETING WITH THE COLLIERS ENGINEERING, THEY STATED, AND I SUBMITTED THE EXHIBITS AS WELL FOR THEIR LETTER, AND THIS IS FROM THE COLLIERS LETTER, THE INTENT OF STEEP SLOPES REQUIREMENTS ARE GENERALLY INTENDED TO PRESERVE NATURAL SLOPES, HOWEVER, THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY IMPERVIOUS SURFACES INCLUDING STRUCTURES AND ROADWAYS WHICH INDICATE THAT THE STEEP SLOPES ARE MANMADE AND THEREFORE CAN BE DISTURBED.
Now, this was quickly debunked by engineers of our civic association as being not sufficient, and that a core sample would need to be taken to determine the composition of the site, which was done by leak engineering, who submitted that ship.
Yes. So, and this is from the leak engineering report. The subsurface investigation identified the following stratigraphic layers at the project site.
stratum one brown medium fine sand extended to a depth of two feet below grade stratum
two comprised of decomposed mica schist encounter two to eight feet below gray which is as deep as
they went so two to eight feet below grade they confirmed in their engineering report that it is
indeed mica schist very old hundred millions of years old um at rock formation okay um one quick
question for you. Didn't I see Friends of the Wissahickon are in favor? Well, I'm asking him.
I don't know. I thought I saw a letter from the Friends of the Wissahickon.
I don't know. Okay. All right. Thank you. One of you, go ahead.
Two minutes now. Yes. Hi. Sydney Ozer here again. The Friends of the Wissahickon
did not oppose the development, but they did question the responsibility of the developer.
All right. Thank you. Also, one other thing. I'm going to let you know.
We're done. We're done. We're done. Thank you. Is there anyone else here?
All right. Is there anyone else after that? All right. We're going to have to start moving this.
Hi, could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer?
certainly isabel pilling i s a b e l p i l l i n g you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth is nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor i am are you in favor or against this
i am opposed thank you very much we appreciate it so it as briefly as i can i am a retired science
teacher environmental educator an environmental researcher who is also on the board of bluebell
HILL CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND I JUST WANT TO SHARE THE I SUBMITTED A LETTER I HAVE THE LETTER WE HAVE YOUR
LETTER I JUST WANT TO SHARE UH THE LAST STATEMENT THAT CITY OF PHILADELPHIA'S ZONING CODE PROVIDES
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENFORCE SUSTAINABLE DECISIONS IN THE WISSAHICKEN WATERSHED WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE CODE BE FOLLOWED FOR THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE OF PHILADELPHIA AND THE
watershed uh this uh the runoff from this property goes to the monoshone which goes to the wissahickon
which goes to the schuylkill river which is immediately upstream of the queen lane reservoir
intake so it goes directly to our drinking water um to a casual observer the the property is steep
the steep slope zoning overlay was knowable in advance if someone purchased a known wetland
at sheriff's sale surely the city would prevent them from building on it if the zoning dictated
it how is this site different and then the only other comment i have is that the approval from
the water department is a preliminary approval and uh it's unfortunate that they're not required
to weigh in about the storm water runoff solutions um they have invested significant money in the
restoration of the monochony watershed um including a um artificial wetland on the other
side of lincoln drive that is significant thank you very much for coming in we appreciate one more
thank you for hearing no yes ma'am mr chair can i just respond to one one point most certainly can
um just in terms of her point that the developer would have had knowledge of the steep slopes
there is a case in my memo of law the sulbury township case where the court specifically held
that the property owners and knowledge that the property was burdened by steep slopes
does not preclude the board from granting a variance due to hardship of those conditions.
does not preclude the board from granting a variance due to hardship of those conditions.
Thank you. Ma'am. Hi, good morning. Hi, could you please state and spell your name for this
stenographer? Carolyn Dixon, C-A-R-O-L-Y-N-D-I-X-O-N. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Are you a neighbor? I'm a neighbor. All right. Are you
in favor of this or against? Against. And if there's anything, wait a minute before you do it.
now listen to me we heard a lot is there anything different than what you've said
um i believe it's it's brief and it's important that um since 1956 i grew up there yeah i understand
seven i was there was a small trail why don't you stay close to the mic small trail off of
walnut lane that reached wizzahick and the kids in the neighborhood always took that short short
that hill has not changed in 70 since 1956 okay so I don't know so you're you're against this
thank you for taking the time to come down here we appreciate it um is there anyone in the virtual
audience yes I have a calling user with the last four numbers and they can four four seven five
and another hand just went up but that first one will be allowed to speak
good morning
oh good afternoon uh board my name is dalvatore sandone s-a-l-v-a-t-o-r-e s-a-n-d-o-n-e
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do are you a neighbor yes we are
listen to me listen to me are you for or against this project against the project okay is there
anything completely different than what we've heard from six or seven people here i'm not
exactly sure, but I'll be brief. We're the adjacent property. We occupy 6110 Wissahicken
Avenue. We own the building here. We've been here since 2012, and we run the only martial
arts child care program in the United States out of this building. We have children in
the building from the ages of three and up every day and since we began
conversations with the developer in the community meetings we have continually
requested an audience with the developer to discuss our safety concerns about
what would it be like during construction for these children because
there's a large yard in the back of our building that is adjacent to the site and
for those reasons we oppose the development for the safety concerns about what would happen in
the process all right thank you very much for taking the time to call us next hand please
next hand is tony flanagan hi could you please state and spell your name for the stenographer
he's being promoted now
sorry tony t-o-n-i flanagan f-l-a-n-i-g-a-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
truth nothing but the truth yes are you a neighbor yes are you for or against this project
against okay is there anything different that you can offer yes it's just one paragraph
Go ahead.
The construction of this brick modernist apartment is a scar to our entrance.
It is a building best suited for retail commercial corridor.
So what's the message?
What are we entering here?
It is not appropriate for a historic, charming neighborhood embedded in the Fairmount Park.
We already have previously built apartment buildings that are not architecturally relevant to the spirit of the neighborhood,
but they are much smaller in scale and set back from the street with generous lawns, parking, and landscape.
None of these buildings are as abrupt as this building, which is placed right on the sidewalk on the corner of Bluebell Hill.
I want construction of this entrance of Bluebell Hill to lift the integrity of the neighborhood,
not bring it down just because the developer wants to fit 16 apartments in a very tiny area.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the audience?
no more hands planning commission
amy boy with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no
Amy Boyd with the planning commission, the comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this location to the existing CMX 1 commercial mixed use as presented. The proposed deep slope disturbance is not the least minimum.
The planning commission recommends that the board did neither requested variance for steep slopes.
Okay, so, obviously, we've had a great deal of testimony.
a great deal of written issues both ways.
We will vote on this next Wednesday at 9.30 on the 26th,
and we will take this in our executive session
and discuss it among the board.
But this case is closed.
Understood.
I'll submit notes of testimony after the hearing as well.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Number six.
thank you thank you thank you thank you number six mi2026 000809 4112 peach and street uh
alan knockamson is the attorney i see mr goldberg is here and we also have with us
uh daniel uh mackal hatton mackal hatton as the attorney for the protestants
who else is here
we're going to switch seats that's all right with the chair that's fine with me
i speak faster on this side well that's well that's that um you could sit up here if you go
that fast i'll do the old
must have been a problem
okay all right um so let me start with mr goldberg um
Um, where we are with this is, uh, you, I think you initially had five witnesses. You're going to have five witnesses. Am I correct? And you were on the second. Does that sound right?
That is correct. All right. And so you're going to finish up with your presentation, right? And then what, pardon me? Well, I hope so. Yeah, I hope so. How many people do you have to do?
So, can you hear me okay? I have three expert witnesses, plus my client, just to adopt my testimony. Would you like opposing counsel to cross in between them, or at the conclusion?
Let's see, what's your thoughts about that?
Let's see how the witness goes. I may not have any questions for a particular witness.
okay so take one at a time so that they wouldn't have to come back do me a favor why don't you um
i already swore you in right yes right um just state your name for the record alex goldberg right
and if you would um talk to us about how we got here right and then start your presentation i
I will do that.
Join as a panelist.
Okay. Good morning, members of the board. Before calling my witness to be sworn, I'd like to give a brief summary of the case and the testimony provided at the last hearing on June 6th.
The application seeks the approval of a planned unit development consisting of 10 single-family homes on a parcel slightly over 15,500 square feet in the Roxborough neighborhood of Philadelphia.
What the board reviewed on June 6th, and we'll review again today, is the third substantially different iteration of this development proposal, which started at 36 apartment units and 25 parking spaces, 30 apartment units and 25 parking spaces, then 30 condo units and 25 parking spaces, then 26 condo units and 26 parking spaces, and now finally 10 single-family homes with two-car parking each for a total of 20 parking spaces.
with two car parking each for a total of 20 parking spaces this is the least modification
This is the least modification.
possible under the zoning code and we intend to show that by way of additional testimony provided
by project architect scott woodruff and new expert testimony from real estate professional
john featherman general contractor mark mike gargiulo and owners representative tim townhill
sitting behind me after removing a variance request for building height by way of revised plans
we are seeking just three variances in one special exception the first is the
steep slope refusal it was June 6 testimony architect Scott Woodruff
confirmed that we can never have a buy right option simply because the steep
slope issues on the site the portions of slope 25% of or grit of grade or more on
the site are along the property lines which has to be modified otherwise we
would be prohibited from trenching any utility lines or doing any earth moving
activities at the front and back of the site additionally scott pointed out that there is
a spine of sloped land beyond 25 grade running down the center of the site right where the
building structure is proposed the project was designed to minimize impacts and site
developments along the street frontages second on the notice of refusal is a special exception
for the removal of two heritage trees the board was presented with an urban forest review and
investigation performed by rockwell associates the report stated that there are 28 trees on the
site 21 of which are in poor condition two of those trees are designated as heritage trees
the board was shown a topographic survey showing the location of the two heritage trees
one in the right corner of the site near pechin street and one in the center of the site one of
the heritage trees is listed as being in poor condition and both trees are located in positions
on the site that would make development impossible without removing them 16 new trees will be planted
to on the site as part of the development plan the third refusal which we didn't get to last
time is the requirement for a van accessible parking space you'll hear scott woodruff testify
about why providing single van accessible parking space is both infeasible and impractical the fourth
refusal for multi-family living is a technical is technical in nature because if approved a
declaration of planned community will be executed and recorded turning the multi-family living into
10 single-family homes each per reference the site could fit eight rsa five lot size and lot
with compliant parcels obviously not including several of the dimensional parking and site
development related refusals which again are unavoidable with that i would like to call scott
woodruff to be sworn sure scott
god has been promoted good morning sir could you please state and spell your name for the
stenographer yes scott woodruff s-c-o-t-t w-o-o-d-r-u-f-f do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth whole truth nothing but the truth i do counsel hi scott um i'm sharing on my screen
a plan that is included in our presentation materials are you able to see it
yes okay and can you describe um what i've zoomed in on on the left side of this plan
Yes, this is a buy-write scheme showing eight single-family homes and subdivided lots that comply with RSA standards for subdivision.
Okay, and when you say buy-write, does that include potential refusals for removal of heritage trees or parking?
That does not.
okay so um is it your expert opinion that even this version of the plan which does not require
which does not propose parking just four homes on peachen and four homes in loriston
that that would not be permissible as of right under the zoning code that is correct
um if we wanted to add parking to this plan how would that work so if we were to add parking
We would need to create curb cuts along Peachen and Larson for front loaded garages, which
are prohibited by the zoning code, and also disturbing more of the steep slope even past
what is being shown.
And can you describe the site work required for this version of the plan and how it differs
from the site work, excuse me, required of the plan unit development design with the
loan curve on Peachen Street?
Absolutely. So this development has four homes that are directly against both of the abutting property lines, which is permitted.
This would obviously cause a little more slight disturbance.
This would obviously cause a little more site disturbance, as well as shoring excavation required along adjoining properties, which is vastly different from the proposed, which limits development to the center of the site to limit some of the disturbance along both of the flat lines.
This would also, if we were to invoke parking into this, also cause additional curb cuts within the street and disturbance along more of the steep slope areas at both sides of the property.
Are there additional costs in this version of the plan as well?
Yes, there would be additional costs for excavation, shoring, and site management.
okay in this version of the plan are the heritage trees the two heritage trees in locations
such that they could remain on the site under this version of the plan they are both in uh positions
that would be problematic um and not possible to create this okay scott i'm gonna now go to the
floor plans, which I think are most helpful for my next questions for you, which have to do with
the requirement for the van accessible parking space. Can you explain to the board why a van
accessible parking space was not provided in the plan? So van accessible parking spaces are
primarily for multifamily projects to provide ADA accessibility to those multifamily buildings.
They're not required in single-family homes per the zoning code.
We do not have, we would need to provide an eight-foot parking stall with an eight-foot clear space for that van accessible space to be properly used.
it also needs an eight foot clear height which is a large amount of space which would increase
our garage height and add to one of the height refusals or just the height in general to the
project which was a primary concern going through this process okay so am i understanding correctly
that if we were proposing 10 single family homes with two park two car parking each which is what's
being proposed here on one lot but if we were on 10 individual lots that were attached like a typical
philadelphia row home street would would this code provision requiring ban accessible parking
apply to them it would not apply okay so again why does it apply here it applies for the technical
nature of the refusal uh being multi-family 10 units on one lot which will eventually be um
Subdivided in a plane unit development, turning this into single families.
Okay, thanks Scott. That's all I have for Scott.
May I, I think it'd be your pleasure to get rid of those witness. Can we put up the.
Yeah, the plan has the.
building shown on Pichin?
The actual building?
Like the zoning plan?
Scott,
the proposed eight units
that you were discussing,
were they
separate entrance from Pichin
and separate entrance from Larsen, correct?
Correct.
so there'd be two two curb cuts as opposed to one as proposed in your development now correct
each single family home would need its own curb cuts provide parking so there would be
eight total curb cuts if parking were to be brought could you have not developed a plan
where you'd have eight units that are parallel to loriston or parallel to peachen and have access to
a parking area or a driveway behind those is that correct
you're asking if we develop two less units uh and provide a shared parking
i just want to clarify the question provided access to the garages from the rear
there would be challenges with how the slope works for those buildings uh because the
grading would have to be raised up there'd be a large driveway slope to get to the rear
of the site which would have to be either we have a large surface parking lot in the rear
of those homes or we would have to be parking on the second or third level of those homes
based on the grade changes that would occur and the proposal here is for
And the proposal here is for 10 units that will run perpendicular to Lauriston and Pichin, correct?
That is correct.
And that is, are the homes on Lauriston and Pichin, do they front on those streets?
They do.
They have access from both of those streets frontages.
And so this proposal is inconsistent with the uses and the characteristics of the community, both on Pitchin and on Larson, correct?
We've provided facades that blend in with some of the surrounding contexts, providing porches to this and front entryways.
So I would argue that they blend into some of the surrounding contexts.
well the the porches face the the house on loriston that has that was adjacent to your twin
correct both porches face the street frontage peachen and larson those porches face there
don't they face the yard of the other house on peachen
alex maybe go there rendering it might be more clear council
what the rendering or do you want elevations whatever he can point to that would show that
those houses face loriston impeachin consistent with the other homes that are already on there
so the top image which is the southwest perspective that's larson street to the left
you can see there's a porch that fronts the entire street frontage of that
I want to go to that other perspective
to show the Peachen Street side.
Again, it's a little bit clearer in the actual renderings.
But yeah, you're kind of getting to it.
Yeah, so you can see there's a large porch
that fronts Peachen Street.
But all the homes behind that,
if you go back to the other one,
all the homes behind that,
the front of those homes face the backyard
of the other house on Peachen Street.
That is correct.
And how far out does the front of this unit with the porch that you have described there, how much further out toward Peachin Street does that go compared to the adjacent house?
I'm going to zoom in.
So our front building face is set back.
As you can see, they're 17 feet, one and one quarter of an inch.
um roughly five feet in front of the adjoining the old twin at 4114 peach and street um and then
the porch comes out another i don't know there's a mention somewhere on there i'm just missing it
right now another five feet now the intent in providing the house to be a little bit further
is that the house to the southern plan side is directly on the street.
So this is set somewhat into the middle of both sides.
As you can see, 4104 Pichin is directly against the street frontage.
So we felt we're setting back a good amount,
but also somewhat in line with some of the existing character on Pichin Street.
But inconsistent with the direct next-door neighbor.
Correct.
Okay, I have nothing further next person, please.
John Featherman, if you could raise your virtual hand.
I do have I'm sorry. May I ask God?
How many square feet are proposed for each of these units?
Alex, you have that number.
THE OCCUPIED AREA OF THE ENTIRE SITE OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING STRUCTURE IS 7700 SO HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
I THOUGHT I SAW IN YOUR PLANS THAT IT HAD A 960 SQUARE FOOT FOR EACH OF THE UNITS.
THAT WOULD BE THE FOOTPRINT.
okay and doesn't the rsa 5 uh in council district 4 require 1440 square feet
uh that's specifically to the lot area for a subdivided lot
i'm i'm sorry what do you mean by that the 1440 square feet uh is required to
You subdivide a single RSA lot of land area, not necessarily building square footage.
So each of these will be less than the required RSA-5 because they are a planned unit development?
So each of these will be less than the required RSA 5.
We're not proposing a sub-bill.
So the lot is staying 15,518 square feet.
If you were to divide that number by the 1,440, you would get 10 lots.
Okay. All right. Fine. Thank you. I have nothing else, sir.
next witness please John Featherman and while John is I guess being promoted
John is a licensed real estate professional he's drafted and we've
submitted a report regarding the market of the marketability of an 8 a 9 and a
10 unit version of the planning and development that we proposed so he's
going to speak briefly about his report and then i'm going to ask him some questions and then
obviously shan has questions john featherman you're allowed to speak great john a-o-h-n
f-e-a-t-h-e-r-m-a-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth told truth nothing but the truth
yes i do counsel john um i think i would say now is your opportunity to to sort of
uh give you a brief statement about your report and then i'll ask you some questions
great okay so i am a licensed pennsylvania associate broker and i'm also a pennsylvania
licensed real estate instructor at temple university my role here is very narrow
it's to address the market consequences of reducing the number of residences at 4112
petchin street my conclusion is that 10 units are the minimum market supportable configuration
based on the information i've reviewed we have a developer and contractor model comparing all
three scenarios 10 homes nine homes and eight homes with 10 homes the model assumes about 2 000
square feet per home and an average sales price of 775 000 gross revenue would be seven million
$7.75 million. Projected cost would be about $6.64 million, leaving a projected profit of about
$1.11 million. With nine homes, the homes become larger, about 2,500 square feet, and the assumed
sales price jumps to $950,000 each. That produces $8.55 million in gross revenue, which is actually
$800,000 more revenue than the 10-home plan. But the projected profit falls to about $289,000,
which is about 3.4% of the gross revenue. The developer's concern here is straightforward.
A cost overrun, delay, concession, weaker sale price, or other project problem could erase that
relatively small cushion. And with eight homes, the model assumes 3,200 square foot homes selling
for about a million each. And despite 8 million in gross revenue, the model projects a loss
of approximately 1.13 million. So progression is important. Roughly 1.11 million of projected
profit at 10 homes, only $289,000 at 9 homes, and a $1.13 million projected loss at 10 homes.
The issue is about depth of demand here. The project doesn't need one premium buyer.
It needs enough buyers to absorb all the homes at the prices required to make the project work.
All three pieces point in the same direction. The contractor says fewer homes spread difficult site costs among fewer units. The financial model shows the margin collapsing at nine homes and becoming a loss at eight. And the MLS evidence shows greater market resistance at the higher prices those alternates require.
Based on my experience in the Philadelphia residential market, my familiarity with Roxborough and Maniunk, and my review of the plans, MLS evidence, contractor feasibility statement, and revised developer model, it's my professional opinion that 10 units are the minimum market-supportable configuration for this project.
Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Are you done?
I'm going to ask him a few questions.
um john the the mls reports and the data that you reviewed are these the same review
reports and data that is available to the general public no so they're not bright
available to the general public no so they're not bright mls is our professional most multiple
listing database that we use as real estate agents it contains detailed listing and transformation
information transaction information including list listing histories that generally are not
available on consumer websites including sites like zillow redfin realtor.com okay um
Um, so where, where does the home have to sell for just for the developer to break even
here for the developer to break even, it's got to sell at about, probably about 775,000,
800,000, somewhere in that range.
And where does the 664,000 break even point for 10 homes sit relative to the market?
So that would, that would give it considerably more room.
For example, one of the items I put in the report, 151 levering, solved for $799,990 after 40 days.
So the 10-home breakeven is more than $130,000 below that actual closing.
Is there evidence that the market has supported an 8-home breakeven of approximately $1.141 million?
Can you say that again? I couldn't hear.
Is there evidence that the market has supported the eight-home break-even point of approximately $1.14 million?
Not in the properties that I reviewed on the MLS.
The most relevant one, let me look here, is $268 DuPont.
It started at $1.15 million and did not sell at that price.
What happened there?
So that's new construction.
Let me just check.
It's 3212 square feet, four bedrooms, three-car parking.
It was originally listed at $1.15 million, was reduced by $301,000 to $849,000, and was still unsold when I reviewed it yesterday.
Okay. A couple more questions here for you, John.
You spoke about sort of the razor-thin margin on the nine-home plan.
How common is a $32,000 concession on a home sold for what he'd need to sell it for, about $950K?
so i want to be careful here because 32 000 is about 3.4 percent of 950 000 mathematically
a concession of that amount on each home would wipe away the projected profit but i haven't done
a separate study showing how frequently buyers receive concessions of that size
so i don't want to characterize it as routine without data but what kind of concessions do
buyers typically ask for so in my experience they ask for things such as closing cost assistance
rate buy-downs, finished credits or repairs. I can speak from my brokerage experience,
but I don't have statistical studies showing how frequently each one occurs.
Okay, last question for you. What happens when absorption, the sale of these properties takes
longer than expected? So generally, the property remains exposed to carrying costs like financing,
taxes, insurance, marketing. Longer exposure can also result in price reductions. So I would
keep, I would say that, you know, it's going to hurt. Okay. And those things you described
could also very easily wipe away the razor thin margin of the nine home plan, correct?
it could it could and realistically it often does that's a theoretical profit but the reality is
you know these concessions happen supply and demand changes etc okay and last question is
there anything in the record that's inconsistent with your conclusion well yeah i mean there's
evidence i mean a home theoretically can sell over a million and i think it's over i think
it's really important to acknowledge that one wind guard for example which i have here sold for
900,000 after 62 days and i consider that rather than ignoring it but when i look at all the
evidence together including the longer market times the substantial reductions at 268 dupont
which i just spoke about i still reach the same conclusion okay all right thank you john hey i'm
yes sir mr featherman where is your office located yeah so my office is located in center city
philadelphia on 19th street between uh sansom and uh chesson street and when was the last time you
sold a property in the rocksboro area i don't remember i sold over i sold over 2 000 pro i've
sold or rented over 2 000 properties in my career so i don't remember and in this this matter you
were engaged as an expert witness correct yes and you've been paid by the developer
and you've been paid by the developer or someone on his behalf i haven't been paid by anybody yeah
or someone on his behalf i haven't been paid by anybody yet
you will invoice them for your services yes yes um and when did you meet with anyone from the
community from central roxborough community association i did not meet with anybody that
was not within my scope okay did you think it was important to possibly meet with the neighbors who
might be impacted by this development that was not within my scope and but the financial aspects were
within your scope, correct? Yes. And you've outlined the potential dangers to the developer
of a project of less than 10 units, correct? I've made them aware of what the numbers are.
I'm not going to call any of it dangers. And the financial risk that's involved,
that's the only hardship you see, correct? Again, what I did was I presented an analysis
that looked at selling 10 units nine units and eight units and that's without respect to the
configuration of those proposed units what do you mean by that well how they're laid out on the site
or different proposals for laying out no so i mean that that's not true i as i mentioned before
the the if you're going to have eight units nine units or ten units you're going to have
different square footages the ten unit ones are going to be smaller and the eight unit ones are
to be bigger again i just gave that square footage all right thank you i have nothing
further mr thank you your next witness yep mark mike gargiulo of the how group he's a general
contractor for the project and he prepared a brief um feasibility statement which i submitted to the
board which is on the screen promoting Mike is rejoining now thank you
mike yes hi sir could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer
yes mike gargiulo m-i-k-e last name g-a-r-g-i-u-l-o right do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do counsel mike can you describe your background
and experience in residential and multifamily construction in philadelphia yep i work with
the the how group we're a vertically integrated uh real estate development construction and property
management company in the city for over 25 years. And were you asked to provide a construction
feasibility assessment for the proposed development here? Yes, I was asked to give a high level
construction feasibility perspective and I reviewed the zoning and the site plan. Okay,
and how would you describe the physical characteristics of the site from a construction
standpoint? It appears to be a constrained urban site that has grade changes, multiple retaining
walls drive out conditions foundations and some access constraints and what kind of challenges
for construction to those constraints cause yeah it causes uh more excavation uh complicated
foundations the retaining walls require coordination and engineers drainage issues
waterproofing etc and what does all this mean for cost it means there's a lot of fixed costs
that are directly related to the site conditions okay and would a subdivision that proposed four
homes on peaching and four homes on loriston the same sort of theoretical plan i showed earlier in
my presentation would that create more or less uh site development complications and expenses
uh hard to know at this point but uh probably pretty close to what's actually there today
you're still doing a lot of the work that's underground whether you're building
10 9 or 8 houses okay um but but if there was if we were developing the back side and we had four
homes parallel to pechin and four homes parallel to lorist on that that sort of plan does that you
know because of the the site does that propose additional costs and complications rather than
this perpendicular pud development that we presented to the board
um no it still requires all most of the same things that are required under the
the perpendicular plan as the other planet the house is facing mentioned and marsh and
these these fixed site costs would they reduce if we went from from 10 to nine or eight homes
not necessarily um that's all i have for mike i have no questions of this witness is that the
end of your uh yeah if i could just have my client adopt my testimony sure
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
All right. Timothy Townhill.
Why don't you get a little closer to the mic?
Timothy Townhill, T-I-M-O-T-H-Y-T-O-W-N-H-I-L-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Counsel?
Tim, did you hear my testimony today?
I did.
Was it true and correct?
It was, yes.
And do you adopt it as your own?
And do you adopt the testimony of your expert witnesses as your own as well?
No questions.
How long do you think your presentation will be, Dan?
Could be 45 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I just have a question.
For who?
For them.
It looks like, according to our notes, that Shannon Park testified earlier.
She did.
She's available.
I asked her to come today in case opposing counsel had questions for her, but I have no, I had no additional questions. That was going to be my question. Did you want to have, she testified in the last hearing. I wasn't sure if you had any questions. Thank you for asking, but I would be as brief with her as I was. Just want to make sure the record was there. Okay. Thank you. You're going to be 45 minutes. I expect it. Right. How many witnesses are you going to call Dan? Six, six or seven. Okay.
I think we're going to have to do a resumptive hearing, because I see there's people in the audience, too. Am I correct?
Right. So, yeah, I don't want to start and then get you all the way through.
So, I think our resumptive date would be in 915. Does that sound right?
that's correct chair tuesday september 15th at 9 30 a.m 6 at 9 30 a.m i'm sorry 9 15 15
right at 9 30 a.m and then i think that way i don't want to break and i have to bring it back
and that way you have a fresh and we should be able to finish your presentation up that day i
appreciate that
okay all right everybody thank you very much we're going to take a five minute break and
then we're going to come back and and you're back with us right so why don't you just stay right
there you got another mi 2026 mi 2026 001 455 69 30 are late arlid street this is a a an appeal
against l and i attorney is david orfinetes also here is leon leonard reuter and alan knockamson's
firm, Mr. Goldberg. David, could you first state your name as spelled for the stenographer?
Certainly. My name is David Orfanides. Last name is spelled O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
You swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Goldberg, you've been here several times today. Leonard, could you please state your
name as spelled for the stenographer?
Sure. May it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, Senior Attorney, City of Philadelphia.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
David, we're going to start with you.
Okay, certainly.
David, how long do you think your presentation will take?
Uh-oh.
Probably.
I'm sorry.
That's not long.
Come on now.
Why don't you do this? Why don't you answer?
It's biased.
Listen to me, why don't you answer me without taking that deep breath?
Yeah, certainly.
I think I can be through.
I have one witness, one expert witness, and one or two witnesses from the neighborhood just to corroborate some conditions that he speaks about.
So I don't think I'll be more than an hour.
It might be 45 minutes.
Okay, well, let's start and see where we stand.
And this is about L&I, right?
It's the appeal against L&I.
This is appeal against L&I, appeal of a zoning permit that was issued for 6930 Ardley Street.
Right, but it's around L of an I, right?
So what would the neighbors be a witness?
I'm going to boil it down.
So what this is, is this property, 6930 Ardley Street, is bound by two properties, Ardley and East Sedgwick Street.
Yeah. All right. Um, in the planning commission's review of the zoning permit application, they designated hardly street as a primary frontage.
And that's important because under the zoning code, and we're going to talk about this since the property was owned on one at the time, if one frontage, not both front, because it's possible to designate both frontages as primary.
If one frontage, not both front, because it's possible to designate both frontages as primary, but if one is designated as the primary frontage, the front yard requirements for RM1 do not apply to the other frontage because every street frontage is deemed the front, right?
So, because of that, because of that determination, the developer, Mr Goldberg client was able to secure zoning a permit for an addition, not only to the rear of the property towards a rear shared drive into the rear yard area, but all the way out to the property line at East Sedgwick Street.
And it's our position that the Planning Commission, and that if it turns out that there's only one primary frontage and that primary frontage is Ardley Street, then that's permitted.
There's no question about that.
It's our position that the Planning Commission, with all due respect, made an error and designated only Ardley Street as a primary frontage and that they should have designated both streets, both frontages as primary frontage.
And then because of the rules applicable in RM1 regarding front yard setback, that you can't be any closer or further away from the property line than the adjacent properties, not abutting properties, but adjacent properties, that they would have had to have maintained at least a setback, approximately, or a setback that existed at the building as it presently exists and could not build an addition all the way out to Cedric Street.
So, being that we're laying the groundwork out, Mr. Goldberg, do you have comments?
Sure, yeah.
Sorry, Len.
And I just was laying out with the basic issue.
Yeah, I understand.
Well, I think the basic issue is about L&I, but go ahead.
Right.
And to be fair, I don't dispute most of what Mr. Orphaniti stated, but the code explicitly
says the Planning Commission shall decide the primary frontage.
The Planning Commission makes that, they stamp it on the plan, and L&I issues a permit or a variance or, you know, acts based off of the Planning Commission's determination.
So whether L&I, L&I interpreted the Planning Commission's decision, I would, I don't believe it's up to this board to overrule a Planning Commission decision when L&I just plainly acted on what they decided.
Leonard?
uh yeah i would just uh echo that and also particularly add that again this this is an
appeal where again they've appealed against lni there is a provision that says that if you want
to appeal a preliminary decision by one of the um agencies that makes preliminary review you can
appeal that through an appeal to the zoning board but this was never presented as an appeal against
the decision of planning commission so this is kind of a new argument here um it was not part
of the original uh notice of appeal that was submitted by uh in my recollection it's not
part of the original appeal that was submitted by um by the appellant uh we'll just preserve
that argument um for now and just yeah yeah we'll start but my view of this this is about l and i
well so so then i just want to clarify that because to me it's about the an appeal of the
permit, of the zoning permit. And whether you want to, I mean, we typically call that an appeal
against L&I, but it's an appeal to zoning permit, and that includes the underlying prerequisite
reviews that were served as a basis of that zoning permit. Wait a minute. I see my counsel's
getting her. We're good. All right, start. We're going to see how this goes, okay? So, I mean,
I've given a brief opening, and I think with that, I'm going to get right into the meat of
it um we we had a um a report prepared by by a land planner brian seidel of seidel planning
um i'm gonna have him go through the report um and go through his conclusions um the basis for
his conclusions which are that again there are two primary frontages for this property and as such
the the approved structure should have been set back from both ardly street and sedgwick street
Mr. Seidel should be on the call right now.
So I'd have him promoted to a panelist.
Excuse me, did you say Seidel with a Z?
S-E-I-D-E-L, Brian.
Promoting now.
If you'd like, I can share.
He's coming in as a panelist.
good morning everyone good morning could you please state your name is bill for the sonographer
Sure. Name is Brian. First name is B-R-I-A-N. Last name is.
Sure. Name is Brian. First name is B-R-I-A-N. Last name is Seidel, S-E-I-D-E-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
David?
Okay. Brian, have you appeared before this zoning board before?
I have.
Okay. And were you recognized as an expert in front of this zoning board?
Yes, an expert in land planning.
Okay. I would introduce Mr. Seidel's testimony today and his report.
as an expert in land planning before the zoning board i can go i included a cv
with my witness list that i submitted last week if you'd like me to go through that i can but
otherwise you're both okay okay yeah go ahead all right um brian um we're here what property
are we here before today uh it's regarding the property at 69 30 orley street and can you tell
me um what area of the city that property is located at uh yeah it's the upper northwest
planning district okay and can you for the benefit of the zoning board um i think most people
um will be familiar with that neighborhood um but can you give us a general overview of um that
neighborhood or that area of the city uh sure specifically i think it was indicated previously
is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Arlie Street and East Cedric
Street. Generally, in terms of the housing that's in that area, most units of that block
of Arlie Street are semi-detached or two-family dwellings, larger front yards on the main
frontage and uh generally residential in character um can can i uh can i share my screen yeah for
some reason it's we let him share his screen please yes excuse me um mr orphanities i didn't
see your name so i can promote you oh on the attend now i was in and then i think i was
kicked out but i'm i'm on now okay yep there you are i'm gonna promote now
We should be coming in now great.
All right. Can you can you tell us a little bit about the the neighborhood in general, though?
Like the characteristics of the neighborhood, not just the block?
Sure. In general, I'd say it's a residential neighborhood. The subject property is served
by a rear residential alley that connects to each Sedgwick Street. In terms of the frontage
on RLA, as I mentioned, those buildings generally have a pretty large building setback from
marley street so they have larger front yards i believe the front yard is approximately 35 feet
based on the zoning drawings that were provided in the application and then
regarding the end units or the corner what i call a corner properties on these areas
those properties are also set back from the adjoining streets
okay so so when you're talking about the you're talking about the 6900 block of ardley street
right now correct that's correct okay and then you're talking about as far as corners are you
talking about uh what streets are at the end of either block at the end of the block at either
end of the block i'm sorry sure uh we're adjacent to east sedwick street and then to the east would
be east orgus lane okay and the conditions that you've described um regarding setbacks
exist at both ends of the block that's correct okay and then the lots that are located in between
the corner properties they are set back from ardley street as well correct that's correct and
And you provided me with a report, and you have photographs of these conditions in your report, correct?
Okay, and right now I'm looking at page 5 of 20.
Those photographs are of what?
Page 5 of 20, the first photograph is a street view of a few units, 69, 20, 22, 24, 26, and 28 Arley Street.
26 and 28 Arley Street um those are generally the inner what I call the intermediate Lots
Those are generally the...
interior Lots on on which side of the 6900 block of Bargeley Street that would be on the south side
and that's the same side as the subject property that's correct okay and 6928 Ardley is that the
property that's located um abutting our property correct that's the other semi-detached structure
that's for lack of a better word attached to 6930 yes okay and then the photographs at the bottom
are of of what that would be the north side of ardley street okay the 6900 block the 6900 block
uh 69 33 31 29 and 27. and that's how they have the same conditions correct uh same conditions
larger setbacks a little bit different character in terms of uh those units have front entry
garages and driveways facing ardly street and then in terms of the ends uh the ends of the block
uh pulled up page i think six of your report what do those show uh page six generally shows the
corner lots uh street view first one is street view at 6000 ardley street um and then the second
one is 601 ardley street so basically the two adjoining uh or yes adjoining corner lots they're
at the opposite end of ardley street of the 6900 block of ardley correct correct okay and then they
um and they and what are the they both of those buildings are located in what way to the adjacent
streets uh they're in both situations they're primarily facing ardley street but they provide
a substantial setback from uh the adjacent east gorgas lane as well okay um so then when you get
to the r end of the block um what are the conditions that exist there sure so the i think
the next photograph uh that we're showing on page seven is a street view of 69 35 ardley street this
would be on the north side of Ardley Street opposite the subject property. Again, situation
or a characteristic that's very similar to the subject property. Facing Ardley Street,
substantial side yard setback. Because Sedgwick is on a little bit of an angle, what you get
is a little bit of irregularity on that side yard. So you can see at the rear of that property
at 6935. The building's a little bit closer to the street, but closer to Ardley, the front of
the building has a much larger setback. As we, you know, compared that to the zoning drawings on the
subject property, you know, we estimated, I think it was 11 feet setback from Sedgwick Street at
the closest point and 24 feet at the furthest point okay then um in terms of the um other
page uh eight of your report um you have an aerial you've included an aerial that shows
um can you describe what's shown in that photograph sure so what we're showing here is
basically the surrounding blocks or surrounding properties and buildings on those blocks um
in the lower corner where there's a red dot that is the subject property of 69 30 ardley street and
you can see all the surrounding properties you know on the block the adjacent properties on on
either side of uh ardley street all maintain a very similar character with uh you know a larger
setback from ardley street but also very substantial setbacks from east sedgwick
okay and then can you and what addresses are we talking about
so the red the red dot is 69 30 correct that's correct okay and that shows the setbacks from
both ardley street to the right and sedgwick street to the north correct correct okay and then
And if I move to the right, to the right, bottom right-hand corner, is that 6935 that we showed the picture of just before?
6935 Hardway, correct.
Okay, also set back from both corners, correct?
And then if I move to the upper right-hand corner of that photograph, what's that address?
I believe that's 7001.
And that's, and can you tell us about the orientation and the configuration of that lot?
And that's, and can you tell us about the orientation and the configuration of...
Yes, same orientation facing Ardley Street.
Again, significant setback from Ardley and a significant setback from Sedgwick as well.
And then as I move to the left, the one that's across the street that runs from left to right, which is Sedgwick Street, correct?
Correct. I believe that's 7,000 Sedgwick.
that's immediately adjacent to the subject property across Sedgwick Street okay and then to
the left on the other side of the railroad tracks there's another corner property which is kind of
behind our property and what is that address that one is 69 45 Spray and is that and what is that
has what's the configuration there and the orientation of that property uh similar configuration
the units are facing sprague street uh but again uh substantial setback and green buffer from the
sidewalk sidewalk on east sedwick street and you found uh there was a zone there were zoning
archives for 69 45 sprague street do you know what the setback was in set stated in the zoning
archives for sprake street um i believe it was uh similar to the subject property and the setback
approximately 10 or 11 feet yeah thank you um now you mentioned you we showed 69 35 already
then you mentioned 7 000 and then i believe that the other op caddy corner is 7005 hardly i think
called the 7001 but um the the the intermediate lots on ardley street there they have their
main entrance is on the front or the sides of the buildings i'm sorry can you repeat that again on
for the intermediate lots on the 6900 block of ardley street um are the main entrances to the
homes are in the front facing ardley street or are they on the side facing the side yard
the intermediate lot space and have frontage on ardly street okay and um then how then there's
a walkway out to ardly street correct that's correct and for the corner properties uh that
are across sedgwick street across ardly street um where are the entrances to first of all where's
the entrance to the existing building on at 69 30 ardly is it out to ardly street or is it
out to Sedgwick Street? It is out to Sedgwick Street. And is that a condition that's similar
to the opposite corners, the other three corners at the intersection of Sedgwick and
Ardley Street? Yes, it is. Okay. Now, you had also included a larger aerial context map.
uh is this condition of the corner properties residential properties being set back from
both both street frontages is that a common condition prevalent condition is it uh is
the exception to the rule in the community it is a common condition it's difficult to see
at this scale in the photograph that we provided but if you were to zoom in and look at all of the
elements in all the corners of the surrounding area again residential area but they provide
substantial setbacks from both roadways on those corner lots okay now you um
you took a look at the the zoning code provisions that govern uh street frontages uh is that correct
i did and you included a review and an analysis of those provisions in your report correct yes
and the um can you quickly tell the zoning board what is what does the zoning code provide
regarding corner properties so on page 11 of our report we provided a graphic from the city code
that does identify what is considered front yards.
In this graphic, it shows a regular lot, two-street corner lots, three-street lots, and through lots.
In all of those situations, every frontage or every side of the lot that adjoins a street line is considered a front line.
okay now does it go on to address um
what what what what is are both are both street frontages and both fronts
to be dealt with the same way or does the zoning code go on to just make distinguish
to be dealt with the same way or does the zoning code go on to just make distinguish or create the possibility of distinguishing between the different street frontages?
It does distinguish. It does indicate at least one frontage needs to be designated as a primary frontage and then gives I would say criteria or direction in terms of what to use to identify those
primary facades and what are those criteria uh orientation of the primary structure
the orientation of the structures on adjacent lots adjacent corner lots and the orientation
of other structures with frontage on the same block and also the stream type designation of
the bounding streets okay now um you mentioned so does the code say that there can be only one
primary frontage or there can be more than one primary frontage it it says at least one frontage
so there can be more there can be more all right and what is the result if only one of the frontages
is deemed to be a primary frontage uh in this situation that it would be a reduced side yard
setback okay so with the front side front yard setback requirements apply to that frontage
that's not a primary street frontage it's not a primary frontage uh they would not okay and
do you believe that that's what happened in the the review of this zoning permit application
yes and the zoning drawings are are stamped that they identify a um primary frontage um but if you
know the illustration that i provided on page 11 of the report identifying the front and side yard
designations. The point of identifying, in my opinion, the point of identifying a front yard
facade is to determine if the opposing lot line is going to be a side or a rear lot line. And that
is the stamp on the zoning drawings, identifying what is the primary facade, but then also to
identify what is the opposing lot line, if it was going to be a side or a rear line.
okay and then did you go through and analyze uh and apply the criteria for the designating designation
of a primary frontage to the conditions that exist at the subject property and surrounding
the subject property yes okay and could you please go through those quickly for the board
sure the orientation of the primary structure again the primary structure faces ardley street
STREET, BUT IT DOES HAVE THAT ACCESS AND ENTRANCE THAT DOES FACE EAST SEDWICK STREET.
THE ORIENTATION OF STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT CORNER LOTS, AS WE PROVIDED IN A PREVIOUS GRAPHIC,
IF WE LOOK AT ALL OF THE CORNERS OF EAST SEDWICK AND ARLEY STREET, ALL THESE RESIDENTIAL
UNITS ARE SET BACK FROM ARDLEY, BUT ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY SET BACK FROM EAST SEDWICK.
The orientation of other structures with frontage on the same block face, again, going down and looking at the area of East Sedgwick between Arleigh and Spring to the south.
Again, all of those units on that block are set back from East Sedgwick.
And street type designation of the bounding street.
So East Sedgwick in this situation is a lower tiered street.
It's considered a lower density residential street.
What are the different street types there?
Let's see.
Sorry, I'm drawing the blank on the designation of Artley.
i want to make sure i state this the correct
city neighbor it's uh early is considered a city neighborhood street and then from the
from the complete streets design handbook did you pull up what the different um characteristics
of each of those two streets are and the photographs that they provide in the
streets department provides in the complete street yes book and and in looking at those
too so you're saying ardly street is a city neighborhood street and you're saying east
sedgwick was designated as a low density residential street correct correct and but
in looking at the descriptions and looking at the photographs and obviously streets are different in
the city of philadelphia from block to block and when and when you looked at the streets
department's designations of these streets they don't change generally block to block they
they don't change generally block to block they generally stretch for a fair distance over several
generally stretch for a fair distance.
blocks correct that's correct and but in looking at despite the way that it's designated on the
streets departments i guess you looked at their website is that correct um that which which which
care which characteristics and which photographs seem to resemble both streets uh the what's
characterized or described as the lower density residential streets and shown in that character
is basically the character of both Ardley and East Sedgwick. Okay. Now, so based upon your review of
the criteria set forth in the zoning code and the conditions that exist both in the general,
in the neighborhood as a whole, and at this particular intersection, the adjacent properties
located adjacent to the subject property and real quickly what what is do you know that what the
definition of adjacent is in the zoning code does it include properties um across the street it does
include properties across the street yes uh it's i believe the specific definition is to touch or
share a contiguous boundary or border or to be separated by an alley shared driveway or street
okay and there's a shared driveway to the rear of the property correct that's correct okay um so is
it your conclusion that the was the planning commission's designation of one primary frontage
and that primary frontage being ardly street was that correct or incorrect uh i believe that
designation was incorrect and what what should have what should have been the designations
i i think both roadways should have been identified as a primary frontage because
of the corner lot configuration and the existing building setbacks that exist not only in the
subject property but on the surrounding adjacent properties and and the block base
now what is the importance of that if they're both primary frontages what would the frontage
what would the setback be at east sedwick street would it be zero feet zero inches as shown on the
zoning plans it would not okay and what based upon the definition in the zoning code uh for
front setback what would it what would it be or what would the range be um in this situation i
think the it would be uh you know approximately 10 foot which is the existing setback of the
existing building what's that based upon uh based on the the existing building location
and is that at all determined by any of the surrounding properties
uh yes uh based on frontage one of the other criteria for for setbacks is based on the
um average distance um of adjacent properties on the same block base and in your and it's your
position that which properties are located adjacent to the property in terms of sedgwick street
uh adjacent based on the definition would be uh opposite arley what address is that uh that would
be 6935 arley street okay and then what other properties uh regarding the the block face it
would be 6945 east sedgwick no i think 6945 was i'm sorry i misspoke 6945 sprake street
and then are there any other what other adjacent properties are there
The other adjacent property would be on the opposite side of East Sedgwick Street, which would be the 7,000 RLA, I believe.
Okay. So your position is based upon the zoning code that it would have to be, there would need to be a setback at East Sedgwick Street?
There would, yes.
That would be, would it have to match those setbacks, or what is the setbacks of the adjacent properties?
What is the regulation?
No greater or no less than.
And then from the photographs, you've approximated, did you go out, you didn't go on to anybody's property and measure their side yards, did you?
We did not.
We just based it off of aerial photography and zoning drawings that were provided with the application.
okay um your report goes on to talk about um you know planning type of uh considerations
um can you briefly talk to the zoning board about those sure the we reviewed the upper northwest
Sure. We reviewed the Upper Northwest District Plan, which generally provides a guideline of development within that area.
WEST DISTRICT PLAN.
The existing land use analysis identifies the existing land use of the subject properties and all of the surroundings as a low-density residential area.
For new housing development, it suggests for new housing, new units should be guided toward existing infrastructure.
structure, away from lower density blocks, and new developments should remain compatible with the existing buildings.
Housing recommendation policy, I'm sorry, priority number five is to direct multifamily housing development to commercial streets and train stations.
Neither one of these streets, Sedgwick or Arley are considered commercial streets.
The area around the subject property was identified as a proposed local historic district identified as Sedgwick Farms B.
The proposed land use that's identified in the plan identifies the area and the surroundings as a low density residential area.
PROPOSED ZONING. THERE'S NO CORRECTED ZONING MEASURES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN AND
THAT EVERYTHING WAS INTENDED TO REMAIN AS RSD1. THAT WAS A SUMMARY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.
I'M SORRY. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO INTERJECT AT THIS POINT. I WAS A LITTLE BIT DISTRACTED
looking checking something but i i'm objecting to this portion of the testimony because this doesn't
go towards uh the issue of you know the street frontage um and this is more i'm not i'm not sure
what context this discussion of the comprehensive plan is taking place this is it we're now at a
are we making a new argument about the zoning change ordinance uh the remapping that took
place in 2024 or i mean what is the purpose of this portion of this test do you respond to that
please certainly um it's the planning commission and the planning commission is directed to uh
review applications in context in context of the of the plan yes i i know the planning commission
was directed to make a determination about about uh uh which actually not really street
frontage per se but which of the remaining lot lines on the corner lot constituted a side
a side lot line and a rear lock line uh it had nothing to do with making a determination about
the appropriateness of the project we believe we believe that that goes into making a decision
regarding primary frontage so i mean so listen to me i mean i think listen to me listen to me
i agree with mr reuter i think you're getting a little bit too far away so why don't you continue
you and give me where you there is a criteria that talks about I think you've got regulation too far
away okay all right we respectfully disagree for sure thank you very much okay um so Brian this
let's just even put the planning side of it you know those those factors or those those elements
out of your out of your consideration and looking at the zoning code the definitions that are set
forth therein and the um and the and the conditions that exist out at the property uh in the
neighborhood but in particular the 6900 block of ardly street and the intersection of ardly street
and the sedgwick street and the block face um from ardly street on east sedgwick street from
ardly street to sprague street um can you please provide the uh zoning board again of your position
regarding the Planning Commission's determination?
In summary, I would say the proposed development
that's been approved with the zoning permit
is completely out of character
with the setbacks of all the surrounding...
Yeah, Brian, I'm just asking you
about the criteria of the zoning code.
Because we've already ruled on the character.
Sure, and you're referring to the criteria
pertain to primary frontage primary frontage and then then once if you uh yeah first primary
frontage sure sure uh again first criteria is primary uh primary frontage which faces argley
street uh but also again provides access the subject property provides direct access and
frontage to east sedwick uh the orientation of structures on adjacent corner lots again we went
through the discussion of those setbacks from those surrounding corner lots.
The orientation of structures with frontage on the same block face, we identified that area between Arleigh and Sprague Street and designation of bounding streets.
The orientation of structures with frontage on the same block face.
We identify.
Again, East Sedgwick Street being a lower volume, lower classification street, identified as a lower density street, which is described as having those larger setbacks from the roadway.
okay so your determination is that is what regarding primary frontage uh primary frontage
should be provided on both arley and east sedgwick street for the property then based upon that what
should there be a setback on east sedgwick street as well as ardley street there should yes and that
setback should be what uh no greater or no less than the adjacent lot okay and we we already know
that the abutting property or adjacent property on ardly street 6928 is is that roughly in line
with the current setback for uh 6930 from ardly street uh can you i'm sorry can you say that again
the setback from ardley street for 69 30 is that no closer no further than the the uh setback for
69 28 ardley street um it's yes that's correct and then then then you also already addressed
there is a setback at the adjacent properties um to the subject property they are all set back
about how far? The northeast side of Ardley, 6935 Ardley would be similar to subject property
and the properties on the opposite side of East Sedgwick are set back a greater distance than
the subject property. And when you say the subject property, you mean the building on
subject property correct that's correct the building at 69 30. and then you already referenced
the zoning permit for 69 45 sprake street correct yes okay um i have no further questions but i
reserve the right to call to rebut to go over okay uh mr seidel um page 11 of your report
speaks about the Planning Commission's responsibility to determine primary frontage.
That's Section 14701.1D.4. Is that correct?
Okay. To the best of your knowledge, is the Planning Commission part of L&I?
Are they part of L&I?
Is it a part of L&I or is it a separate entity?
I believe that would be a separate entity.
is it governed by l and i in any way
i don't believe so do you believe that l and i has the discretion to overturn a planning commission
decision
sir i'm i'm thinking i'm i'm thinking i'm looking at the uh date specifically of the
THE ZONING DRAWINGS THAT WERE RECEIVED AND APPROVED HERE.
I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN?
TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DOES L&I HAVE THE DISCRETION TO
OVERTURN A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION?
I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
IN YOUR EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WORKING IN CITY PLANNING AND L&I
related matters in the city of philadelphia have you seen an l and i examine or disagree with the
planning commission decision and withhold the issuance of a permit on that basis
uh not that i've experienced firsthand and your opinion is that the planning commission
incorrectly identified the pr the primary frontage or frontages yes a couple more questions for you
you spoke about the criteria that the planning commission considers when determining a primary
frontage correct yes does the orientation of the structure specifically the structure at 6930 match
that orientation of other building structures on our side on our block of ardly street
uh the in terms of the building setback from orley street yes and entrances
i'm sorry i'm having a difficult time hearing you and and entry points
um and entry points no i would say that was different okay can you expand on that
sure the uh entry point for the property at 69 30
Sure. The entry point for the property at 6930 Ardley has access on to East Sedgwick.
Correct. But I'm specifically referencing the building structures, aside from where it sits on the street.
Are the entrances to the building structures on the twins on this block on the sides of the building structure or at the front of the building structure?
on i'm yes i see what you're saying uh they are located on the side of the building okay and are
you last question for you are you aware with regard specifically to the three other corner
properties at our intersection are you aware of any determination the planning commission
has made regarding those properties primary frontages or frontage no that's all
Leonard? Sure. Just a couple questions. Sir, referring back to your report, to page 11, which just particularly the graph that's shown, which is taken from the Philadelphia Cove, section 14-701, sub 1, sub D, I believe.
Let me share that, Len.
Point D. D? Just D.
That's D.
Yeah. I can pull it up.
Oh, okay. I'll stop here.
i mean it's easier if you did it since oh okay sure sure uh let me now go down here
there you go
yeah yep okay great so that graph um you would agree with me that the graph there is simply showing
uh whether you have street frontages where the street fronts are on a corner lot so
So in this instance, would you agree that looking at the shape of the relative shapes
of lots and understanding that 6930 is a little bit irregularly shaped, would you agree that
from a satellite view, the left side, the left street shown here would be Ardley, and
the street on the bottom that's going horizontally, that would be Sedgwick, would you agree?
I'm sorry, say it again. The property, I would say, generally, the property, the street on top would be Ardley and a, oh, I'm sorry. I understand what you're saying. Go ahead. You want to repeat your question?
Sure. I mean, well, let me just put it this way. There's no disagreement that Ardley Street, that Ardley and Sedgwick are both front streets. Do you agree with that?
I would agree with that. Okay. And the determination in 701 sub 1 sub D.4 has to do with making a determination of which is the primary front street or the primary frontage. Is that right?
That's correct. Okay. So because if you only have one front street, there's no reason to have to determine the primary frontage. There's only one, correct?
if there's only one street and and not a corner lot correct okay
so when we're talking about uh 14701 sub d sub 0.4 that's the section about determining primary
frontage um you agree that the commission determined it's the commission that determines
which street frontage uh or frontage is so to be designated as the primary frontage
uh i i would agree if i'm understanding your question uh that it primary frontage is identified
by the commission. Yes. Okay. And you agree that the section there, the zoning provision
provides guidelines to the commission. Correct. Okay. And it says the things that they're to
take into consideration. Yes. Okay. So you would agree that that consideration, that review by the
commission is, involves a certain amount of discretion and subjectivity, right?
These are not hard and fast rules. There's no specific measurements and things like that that
they have to take. They're just different things they have to think about, right?
There are specific stated criteria, so I think I disagree with that.
okay are you saying do you have any information or belief uh that the commission or the commission
staff did not take into consideration the orientation of the lot or the building the
or the building, the structure on the lot?
structure on the lot?
Not specific to the Planning Commission, but based on the approval and based on the lack of designation of East Sedgwick as a primary facade with a setback, I would say I disagree with that, yes.
Not specific.
Okay, so I understand that in your opinion you disagree with that, but you're not here to say that the law expressly requires that the Commission had
uh picked both ardley and sedgwick as primary frontages right
i'm sorry can you uh say that again i'm gonna object that he's looking for a legal conclusion
okay no that's fine so um i don't have any further questions that's fine i have a couple
are you sure um just real quick mr seidel um when your your council asked you what the
properties were that were considered adjacent there was one on sprague street 69 45 correct
uh the spray street i think we identified specifically as being within the block face
okay i i remembered at the conclusion of the testimony
you confirmed that it was adjacent for purposes of matching a setback and I believe that was
because there was reference in the zoning archives specifically what that front setback was 10 feet
I think my question for you is does our property 6930 share a lot line with 6945 Sprague Street
I don't believe it does no and why do you not believe that to be the case
My discussion of adjacent properties specifically referenced the four corner properties across the street from East Sedgwick and across the street from Arley Street.
I think it would be the three adjoining properties, so to speak.
The discussion of the property at Sprague Street at the intersection of Sprague and East Sedgwick, again, specifically spoke to a criteria regarding frontage on the same block face.
okay well in case that isn't what happened just i would like the record to be clear that
adjacent properties under the code are defined as uh sharing a contiguous boundary or border
or to be separated by only by an alley shared driveway or street and those two properties
ours and the one behind it on sprague are separated by a railway which does not fall into the category
of an alley shared driveway or street and and pennsylvania case law authorities would agree
that a railway is not considered an alley shared driveway or street so um i would just for the
record like to clarify that that should not be considered jason yeah so a couple of follow-ups
for me i have a couple follow-up well tell me what how long is follow-ups which we gotta get
less than five minutes probably three right sure um brian uh i believe uh council for the property
owner had brought up about the primary entrances to the property being on the sides of the buildings
on the 6900 block that i mean as semi-detached they could either be at the one street facing
this front street or facing the side yard um and i think your answer was that the primary entrances
were on the side, correct? The building entrances, correct. Okay. And, but there is a difference
between the buildings, the intermediate lots, and this particular, the corner lots, in that
those doors on the side for the corner lots, they have walkways that lead to the cross street or
the side street, correct? That's correct. In this case, it would be leading to Sedgwick Street,
correct? Correct. But in the case of the intermediate lots, the other semi-detached
structures, their doors on the side, they have walkways that lead to Ardley Street, correct?
That's correct. Okay. Now, in terms of 6945 Sprague, you read the definition for determining
setbacks in RM1. Now, I'm going to go back to that provision in your code.
in the your report where you talk about that um when when do you look so it says you look to
adjacent properties which i think as council stated can include properties across the street
and that's not a lot of people get confused about what's abutting what's adjacent that's a little
unusual you might not think of across the street or across an alley or across a shared drive as
being adjacent and maybe that's what the planning commission may have missed out on but when there
is when here on you talked about block face and when are the situations when you look at the setback
And when are the situations when you look at the setback of properties on block faces versus, let's say, an adjacent property?
of properties
And in particular, why we're looking at 6945 Sprague?
Sure. The reason you would look at the block face is if there are no adjacent properties.
In this situation, there are adjacent properties.
uh in terms of looking at the criteria we were just being conservative and saying there are
several criteria that all address and in my opinion uh recommend uh frontage along east
sidewalk street but it's we know that there's a railroad track between our there's our property
a shared driveway i think we can all acknowledge it's in the photographs in the aerials it's on the
plans um then there's a railroad track then there's 6945 sprake so there isn't as mentioned
an adjacent property um i'm not sure how the railroad tracks will qualify as an adjacent
property but you've stated that 6945 is the next property on the block face correct between ardley
street and sprake street correct that's correct okay i have no further questions yes go ahead
hi sorry uh david i mr orphan 80 sorry uh i don't know if you have just an overhead view i can share
my screen i don't want to delay things too much but why don't you use the one that you do you
have a specific one you want to use or i can i mean or i have do you want this one but that has
the corner the there's the street so our red dot is our property okay good yeah i can zoom in if
like good yeah that's good uh sir just we're looking now at an overhead view if you could
and uh your council has indicated that the uh the property with the red dot is the one that
we're talking about that's 69 30. that's correct okay great and uh the the right next to that
literally part of the same structure with the white roof that's the adjoining property right
because i want to make it clear to the board what we're looking at here so the red dot is a 6930
white roof which is literally just right up against it it's the same structure because
these are twins right that's correct and would you agree that most if not all of the properties
on this block of the southerly portion of uh the 6900 block of ardly are actually twins correct
yes right and your council had referenced uh the entries to all of these buildings uh being on the
quote-unquote sides is that correct and you would agree that you're entering these all of these
twins on the side is that right that's correct okay but you don't disagree that the fronts of
buildings the twins are on hardly they're front the building's front on hardly do you agree uh for
the intermediate lots correct okay so in terms of the orientation of the structure and where
the properties are entered there isn't any difference between 6930 and any of the other
properties on the 6900 block southern portion of the 6900 block of Aardley, is there? They're all
the same. In terms of the building design and the building entrance, correct. The difference is the
sidewalk which accesses the adjacent roadway frontage. Okay, fine. So the only difference
that 6930 has, and I assume maybe the one at the opposite end of the block, is that there's some
concrete going from that sidewalk to the entry but otherwise it's still a side of the building
i don't know that i would agree with that on the on the corner lot situation
okay that's that's fine i don't want to get into a debate about that no further questions all right
thank you um i know we're pretty much out of time can i just address one thing about the question
about the nature of the appeal it's two minutes you got that okay sure um i just want to show that
the with this question about whether this is an appeal against ellen i the planning commission
should be considered i mean first of all wait here no no okay because they're going to have
to apply it okay all right okay so we can still go forward we're going to do a resumptive hearing
9 15 26 at 9 30 a.m i'm sorry all right army 9 15 9 15 date and 9 30 a.m will be the hearing
i'm sorry for the people came down but as you say we we got as far as we can go okay
and thank you all appreciate it david thank you thanks all right is there anyone in the audience
david thank you thanks all right is there anyone in the audience whose case what's the matter
is there anyone in the audience whose case has not been called for the 9 30 a.m list
i see no hands thanks everybody see everybody tomorrow all right