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