All right.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, okay?
Good morning.
Good morning, ma'am.
have you emailed all the required
exhibits and documents to proceed
with this case five days in advance of this
hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed.
I see you have already shared your screen.
I'm sorry,
Chair, this is Tanya Sunkit,
the administrator. If I could just
ask Ms. Santiago, is there
something wrong with your video? We do need to see
your face.
Give me a second, Tanya.
Hold on.
One second.
I don't know why it's not showing the face.
I don't know why he's not showing the face.
We see a...
We see a black screen.
Just turn your video on.
You're not seeing the video, the share screen either?
Yes, we see that.
We just need to see the screen of the actual applicant.
I'm trying to open the window now.
I can't even get you on open.
Hold on.
You have a slider over your video, maybe, your camera?
Yeah, but I can't.
Give me one second.
I'm trying to open the screen, and I'm about to get this connected.
One second. One second. What's going on with this window? Your window's not open. One second, please.
Oh, my God. What's this? Where is this?
Why can't I get this open?
Okay, Chair, as you wish, we can proceed without the video.
However, Chair, if allowable, may you please confirm that the applicant who is supposed to present is the actual applicant under oath, just so we're all clear.
So, Ms. Santiago, state your name one more time.
Arlene Garcia Santiago.
Right.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
And you state on this, this is you making the presentation, not someone else.
Okay, so it's all you now.
You can't turn it over to anyone else, all right?
Thank you, kindly Chair.
So that's your application for zoning, right?
Move on.
Good morning.
My name is Arlene Garcia, property owner and resident at 1238 Distance Street, Philadelphia, PA19111.
What brought me here today was a legislation of side and front fence over six feet as per plans.
and the reasons for this was security and privacy for my kids and my pets that are part of my family
too. I submitted an application last year, 2022, for legalization. I had purchased this property,
was not aware of this need, it as zoning and building permit. This is why I'm here today.
Attached, you will find application, refusal, appeal, special exemption form, project information, flyer, date, letter of support from RCO, Community on the Rights Foundation on support of my project, certificate of mailings, pictures, floor plans on entire fence, signatures collected in support and letters.
this has made our blocks better
and we are making
our property nice and clean
just do my favor
go a little slower and show his defense
go back
two or three pictures
go back one more
so that's the front
Proceed.
Keep going.
We are manning our property nice and clean, not as before that was abandoned.
I'm unable to get a tax compliance insistent, but my property taxes are up to date with
mortgage.
And for these reasons, I'm here today to have a variance.
Thank you.
okay questions from the board
no chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
I see no hands at this time chair planning commission please good morning chair david
effecto F-E-C-T-E-A-U with the City Planning Commission. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir, I do. Thank you. Proceed. Thank you,
sir. Good morning, Chair and members of the board. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the residential single-family zoning at this location. There is no unique physical condition
or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with
the code. The applicant's hardship claim is self-created. The city planning commission
recommends that the board deny the proposed variances. MI 2022-006-334-1238 Distant Street.
One, two, three, eight, Distant Street. I vote yes.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, we're going to go to case number one, and we'll hear number four with a two.
So case number one is MI-2022-003-147-208 East Mount Airy Avenue.
Council Woman Bass has no objection to the granting of the variance.
There is a letter of support from East Mount Airy neighbors.
And then number four is MI 2022-003-146-208 East Mount Airy Avenue, Parcel C. East Mount Airy neighbors have a letter of support and also Councilperson Bass.
Sarah, we have Stephanie Magna coming back in as a panelist now.
Great.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Of course, Stephanie Magana.
Last name's M-A-G-A-G-N-A.
There's an 1835 Market Street suite, 1400-19103.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
My client is Stuart Udis.
He is the owner and developer of the properties.
he's on the call today we're also joined by kevin tatlow who's the project engineer and jacob
anderson okay our vice chair our vice chair has a few questions for you good morning counsel do
you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy yes i do have you
emailed all the required documents and exhibits to proceed with this case five days in advance
of this hearing yes thank you please proceed and share your screen sorry
excuse me this is this is hillary um just to clarify you're representing the the owners of
the properties mount airy flats for parcel d and mount airy homes for parcel c correct they're both
okay thank you sure um so as i said stewart and our project engineer and project architect are
here to answer any questions after our presentation but just as an initial kind of
Putting us in the world, these properties are now 210 and 214 East Mount Airy, formerly Persil C and Persil D of 208 East Mount Airy, based on a recent lot line adjustment approval.
These applications propose two residential redevelopment projects on adjacent parcels, which have been designed to complement one another and the surrounding neighborhood in the aesthetic and the scale of the project, as well as to use common infrastructure.
The project sits on a former portion of Fred's Mount Airy Motor site, which the developer recently purchased from the longtime family owners of that assemblage.
At the time it was purchased, the site was an assemblage of lots occupied by existing non-conforming but commercial uses and some residential uses on an oversized lot, which accompanied approximately about 67,000 square feet in total, but that shared one common interest at grade along East Mount Airy Avenue.
The size, the shape, and the non-conforming uses of the site add significant additional costs to developing this site related to bringing it back into residential use that are not customary in an RSA-free district and prevent strict development and compliance with code.
So this project is specifically designed to represent the lease modification from the use standards that's needed. We are otherwise mentally compliant and compliant with parking requirements, but the lease modification needed to allow the developer to absorb the fixed costs associated with bringing this to a residential use and also to construct a viable project in the neighborhood.
The current design as it stands, which we'll go through in a minute, represents a long community engagement process.
As the board chair mentioned, we do have letters of support in the packet, which we're happy to say we were able to reach a consensus of support with the neighborhood.
There is a letter of support from East Mount Airy Neighbors, who was the coordinating RCO in the packet, as well as a letter of support from the Neighborhood Gardens Trust, who will be running the conservation or be the beneficiaries of the conservation event for the existing community garden.
And there's also a community benefits agreement included in the packet, which is the developer's commitment to the design improvements that have been made specifically in response to neighborhood concerns.
And I'll note that that also, that agreement includes 13 petitions from adjacent property owners in support of the project.
The steward will run through the plans with specifics in a second, but as a summary high level, the project is going to preserve three existing residential uses.
The project is going to preserve three existing residential uses on separate lots within this assemblage and the lot line adjustment was done to reflect some of that preservation and bring the remainder of the property back into residential use in keeping with the general purpose of the RSE3 district and also the intentions of the RM district, which is the proposed remapped district for this site based on the planning commission's Philadelphia 2035 plan for this district.
The original design for this project was 24 townhomes on the site, 12 in front and 12 in the rear, and we shared that design with the project with the community initially last July received significant feedback and we've made numerous changes kind of in response to that feedback.
Stuart will go through the plan specific, but I want to highlight the most important ones.
The use of the rear portion of the lot here was changed from 12 townhomes and two separate
structures, or I'm sorry, three separate structures to 18 kind of minimum units in one building
that will have an end sale price at about 60% of the value of what the original proposed townhomes
would have been, which will provide some diversity in the housing stock in the neighborhood. We've
also, with the one building, have been able to increase the rear setback from 20 feet to 40 feet
kind of along the Sydney Street rear property line. We were also able to remove an outer circular
driveway, which increased our green space and provided about 8,700 square feet of additional
pervious coverage on the lot. And we'll be restructuring the retaining wall with a terrace
retaining wall along the Sydney Street property line as well. And there is the preservation of
the community garden, as I mentioned. So with that, I will turn it over to Stuart and kind of go
through more specifics of the site and the design. Stuart, if you have not already, can you identify
yourself with the board so they can call you and throw you in? Mr. Unis, please unmute yourself
and wait for the chair. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning. Stuart Eunice, S-T-U-A-R-T, last name U-D-I-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thanks, Stuart. Just as to start, have you heard the comments I've provided this morning?
Yes, I have.
Do you believe that would be true and accurate?
Yes, I do.
sorry sir would you adopt them as your own yes okay great um okay can you walk us through um
i touched on it a little bit but can you explain a little bit of the site configuration and the
existing conditions of the property um originally the uh property was addressed 208 214 224 and 226
East Mountain Area Avenue. The assemblage, which is approximately 67,000 square feet, has been
owned by the same family for multiple generations. And despite being four separate tax parcels,
the assemblage was essentially used as one, which is why you can see the first image,
the original lot lines, where the former auto body shop and sales office
was split between two properties, 210 and between 208 and 214.
There was a single family home in the front of 208.
And then there was the parking lot, which was shared between the 214 and 208 building.
And then further down to the bottom of the screen, the 224 and 226 East Mountaine Avenue,
historically, each is a three-unit building.
The residence for those buildings, they previously parked on the side yard at 214.
and then there was a garage, or excuse me, the community garden in the rear of 224 and 226 East
Monterey Avenue. And then we recently have the lot lines adjusted here. Can you explain a little
bit about the configuration? Sure. The top of the screen in the front, that was a single family
house that was part of the original shared parcel with the garage building. So we brought that
parcel into conformance as an RSA-3 lot, and that will be rehabilitated as a single-family house.
And then the rest of the formerly commercial assemblage, which consisted of a four-unit
building in the front and then the auto body garage in the rear, that was broken into two
RSA-3 parcels. The front parcel being 214 East Monterey Avenue, and the rear is now deeded as
210 East Mountain Area Avenue. Some of the lot area of the 224 building was added to the parcels
210 and 214 just to maintain where the previous driveway or surface parking lot area
was extinguished. And then the 224 and 226 uses are being made.
was extinguished and then the 224 and 226 uses are being maintained and the community garden
it's our intention to enter into a conservation easement where we'll donate the development
rights to the neighborhood garden trust and this picture uh identifies in the yellow the
two development parcels and then the preservation of the residential uses in the garden area
on the outer sections of the site great um okay i'm going to scroll through the existing site
photos, Stuart, but can you walk us through some of the existing conditions and the grading
challenges that exist on the site? Or if you could scroll up a little bit, it might be helpful to
have this one as a visual. So from where the garage is located, closer to Boyer Street,
the top of the screen, towards where the garden is, in the bottom, there's approximately a 20-foot
grade change. In the rear of the property, there's an existing shared retaining wall that sits on the
property boundary between the Mount Airy Avenue parcels and the Sydney Street homes, and the
maximum height of that wall is approximately 14 feet. On the other side of that wall, there's a