three-foot easement alleyway. That easement alleyway is solely for the benefit of the Sydney
Street homes, and then on the other side of the easement alleyway, there is approximately 11-foot
rear yard to the back of the Sydney Street houses, and that wall continues about three-quarters of
the way down the Mount Airby properties, then due to some soil erosion, the easement
access is no longer available towards the bottom of the screen.
The garden area, as I mentioned, is in the bottom area of the screen.
And then where the parcel 214 enters Mount Airy Avenue towards the top.
That's the only location on the entire site that allows for vehicular or pedestrian access
to the site.
That's because of the train tracks that are up at the bottom of the screen due to the
grade change to get to the bridge.
So historically, all the properties within are here.
Great.
So this is the visual of where the access to the site is currently, and that will be
maintained.
Another visual of the entrance to the site with the auto body garage behind.
This is what was previously used as both the pedestrian as well as vehicular access to the side yard at 214 East Monterey Avenue.
That's where the residence of the two triplexes and the photo below, 224-256, that's where they would park.
Another photo of the existing auto body garage.
This is a photo of the surface parking lot. It shows the grade change from a vantage point
closer to where the garden is facing up towards the garden behind 224 and 226 up towards the
garage building. This is another photo of the grade and the surface parking from the back
of the site vantage point facing Mount Airy Avenue this depicts the the grade change which
is more severe between the surface parking and the community garden which is in the rear of the site
it also shows the grade change and relationship between the grade of Mount Airy Avenue and the
city street homes behind where the the homes are set approximately a grade below
This is the community garden behind 224 and 226 East Monterey Avenue.
This is the rear of the site.
The existing garage building is 11 feet from the property line.
It shows the relationship between the existing retaining wall and the Sydney Street houses on the other side of the Eastman Alleyway.
Another photo depicting that. Aerial photos of the site.
Counselor, I think it'd be helpful if you would show us what you're going to build.
I think we understand the site.
Great. So there was an original zoning plan that was proposed with this application.
If it's okay, I'd like to explain the original design and then some of the community feedback we got.
Yeah, that's good. That's great.
Can you explain kind of maybe the direction you gave your architect and coming up with a plan for the site?
Yes. So the intentions initially were to come up with a site plan for single family homes, which was tied closest to the RSA 3 use that respected all the dimensional guidelines of the RSA 3 district, as well as
that respected all the dimensional guidelines of the RSA State District, as well as preserved as
many of the residential buildings and the garden area behind 224 and 226 East Monterey Avenue.
And we came up with a site plan that consisted of 12 townhomes in the front and 12 larger townhomes
in the rear that was dimensionally compliant. But once we had this created, we recognized there were
certain flaws. Namely, the retaining wall, the shared retaining wall would have to be rebuilt
as it currently is, which provides very little light behind the city street houses. And also
the grading that we required for the 12 independent townhomes would require a retaining wall between
the development parcels and the 224-226 garden area that would have a maximum height of 14 feet.
That was necessitated by the grading necessary to get all the utilities and stormwater off the site.
And then there would have to be a rear circulating driveway that circulated the site.
It's the only way to provide the vehicular access to the site.
And while we knew that those were certain issues when we met with the community in July,
other things that were raised, including additional green space,
assurances that the garden area could be preserved,
And as of today, all the housing that's being built in the neighborhood is larger, single-family homes, and there's a request for more diversity and lower-priced housing units.
So we went back to the drawing board, particularly with respect to the rear parcel, because that's where most of the conditions existed.
And we came up with the idea to convert it to a single 18-unit building.
there are smaller units. We replaced the 1,230, 600 square foot townhomes with
18 units between 1,500 and 1,600 square feet. The housing price of those units are approximately
60% of the original townhomes. I'm going to pull up the new development
plans and we can walk through. While I do that, can you just explain a little bit of the rationale
behind the unit count, maybe the costs associated with developing the site and the original unit
count rationale? Sure. So no matter how the sites develop, the retaining walls have to be rebuilt
in the rear, and the walls have to be added for the grading between the development parcels and
224, and it's approximately 400 square feet of linear retaining wall has to be built. There is
the existing non-conforming use structures that have to be demolished, along with the surface
parking. And because the lots are over 15,000 square feet, no matter what's proposed from a
residential standpoint, the stormwater management kicks in and we have to address all the stormwater
requirements for the site as well. So those are all costs that are necessary regardless of how
it's brought back into residential conformance. Okay, great. So this is the new unit plan or the
new layout plan for Lot C. So, we made minor changes to this plan, right? So, the main changes
were to Parcel D, correct? Correct. Slight grading change for the front parcel, but the building
locations and types have not changed. Okay. So, the main changes in response to community feedback
are to Parcel D. So, maybe you can walk us through those. You started, but now we have them again.
Sure. So by consolidating it into one building, we were able to remove the rear circulating driveway that added 8,700 square feet of pervious lot area, which is about 20% of the site.
In addition, the setback was increased from 20 feet to 40 feet in response to particularly the Sydney Street homeowners request.
And what that allowed us to do is rather than simply rebuild the shed retaining wall as the same 14-foot wall in certain locations, slightly shorter than others, we're able to terrace the wall.
So the wall is broken into three sections and the top of the wall location is now removed 16 feet further away from the Sydney Street Homes and we'll be able to add landscaping there.
So that will reopen their easement alleyway and provide far more light behind their houses.
And it also allowed for us to modify the grading of the site for the benefit of 224 and 226.
Retaining wall between those parcels can now be built approximately six feet shorter in the rear.
And that'll provide far easier access to the 224 and 226 buildings,
which require access through the development parcels due to the grading of Mount Airy Avenue.
I'm sure there is an easement agreement recorded to provide access to 224 and 226. Is that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
Okay. Does that contemplate access during construction, before construction?
Okay. Does that contemplate access Dory construction?
Yes. There's language in the easement that provides access before, during, and after
construction along with a permanent easement road that will be utilized by the 224 and 226
East Monterey Avenue houses throughout access once the proposed development is completed.
Okay, great. I'll note for the Board that a copy of that easement agreement and the associated
exhibits showing the proposed conditions for that permanent access road are included at tab 11.
That was an important question for the RCO. We wanted to confirm that there is that access
easement there, which we believe addresses those concerns, but if there are others, we're happy to
answer questions on those. With that, I'll go to the renderings.
Out of curiosity, how high is the building in the rear of the condo building?
The height of the building is 38 feet, which is the RSA department.
Thank you.
We're not asking for any dimensional.
I know.
I understand.
So the picture, particularly on the rear, that depicts the changes that we've made,
namely the retaining wall, that rather than being rebuilt, is rebuilt as a terrace wall,
will offer the easement alleyway to be used and sets back the building and the wall from
the city street houses. Great. So just a few other items that were important to the neighbors
were trying to understand the environmental impacts of this project. I'll note for the board
that there is the phase two environmental report that's included in the packet. So Stuart and our
civil engineer can answer any questions if there are there. But more importantly, there were
questions about the stormwater design. We do have Kevin Tatlow, who is our civil engineer,
kind of here on the call. So I can call him briefly. I'd ask him to kind of walk through
some of the stormwater controls that are contemplated currently and what the process
is going to be moving forward with PWD. So Kevin, if you haven't already, can you identify yourself
for the board and raise your hand? Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the
court reporter? Good morning. Kevin Tatlow, Bowler Engineering. Could you spell it, please, for the
court reporter? Kevin Tatlow, T-A-T-L-O-W. Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Proceed, counsel. Thank you. So, Kevin, can you just explain
for us what the requirements are generally for PWD review of this site and where we are in that
process? Sure. So as far as the process prior to zoning, we submitted URSA plans for the water
department review and approval for the prerequisite for zoning. So what this plan shows is the
preliminary grading and storm management for the property. The stormwater management will meet the
water department requirements for water quality as well as flood control. We're proposing two
underground basins on the site uh that exhibit shown right there that item in red that's the
underground basin um to handle the parcel c portion of the property and then i believe
might be another exhibit showing the underground basin for parcel d yep correct and then we'll
also be providing a water quality structure, water quality filter prior to it going into the street
sewer. Okay. And the final design of this will need to be reviewed and approved by POD, is that
correct? Correct, yes. Part of the building permit process, that'll have to be reviewed with full site
plans, reports, things like that. Okay. The requirements to put in this stormwater, is that
specific to our current design or is that tied to kind of the redevelopment of the site?
The redevelopment of the site. Since this project is over 15,000 square feet of earth disturbance,
storm management is needed for this project regardless of the type of design.
Is there an alternative design that would provide better or worse conditions or is
what is proposed kind of the only option on the site?
uh for the the site what is proposed um is probably the best option because uh any basin
or stormwater infrastructure we put in we have to have an overflow pipe to connect into the city
street name so what we did is work back from tying into mount area to set our our basin elevations
to be able to capture both the proposed development and then be able to convey it out to the street as
well. And we made some changes to the design. How did those changes
And we made some changes to the design. How did those changes from the original plan to the current plan impact the stormwater plan, the stormwater management controls?
Yep. So the proposed changes significantly helped it, especially in the rear along the east property line.
that previously was a drive-out to the property line by shifting, making the building further
away from the property line and adding that green space, that decreases the amount of
impervious surface on the property to reduce the amount of runoff. So adding that additional
green space and removing impervious area significantly helped with the storm management
for the property. Thanks. So with that, I think we can turn it over to questions. We know that
there are some some near neighbors who I believe have tried to join the call and E-Man might be
here and any questions the board has. So, Council, how many how many meetings have you had with the
neighbors? Three. We met with them in July for the first community meeting and then we took
pulled the project out, revised the plans. We're submitting revised plans for parcel
reflect those changes and we did get a revised refusal for parcel d plans so the the plans that
were submitted to l and i in connection with that revised refusal are in the packet um so that took
a while um and then we brought it back we had our second community meeting with them in march and the
voting or march 14th and then our voting meeting with eman on march 28th um but i'll note that
stewart has had many other conversations with the sydney street neighbors in particular but other
neighbors in the community come. And if you have questions about that process.
Okay. No, no, no. That's fine. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman.
Right. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Tina Marie Russell with her hand up. Ms. Russell, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning, Ms. Russell. Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the record?
Tina Marie Russell. I'm sorry, that was a mistake on my part. I did not mean to raise my hand.
Okay, that's fine. Thank you, Tina. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience that has a comment?
Chair, we have Stephanie Hagan.
Ms. Hagan, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Good morning.
My name is Stephanie Hagan.
First name S-T-E-P-H-A-N-I-E.
Last name Hagan, H-A-G-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Okay, proceed.
So I'm a near neighbor of the property that Stuart has proposed. I'm on Boyer Street. So my backyard abuts the garage building at Fred's, the current auto garage.
Um, so when I'm in my bedroom in the evenings, I will look out, um, onto the townhomes, um, and Stuart will, his crew will need access to my backyard for some of the repairs that are being done.
I wanted to speak in support of the development. Stuart has been really responsive, really communicative since applying for the property. I've been in touch with him for a long time by email and by text.
Um, I know that some neighbors have expressed a concern about these buildings, um, aesthetically or worrying about more crowding in Mount Airy.
But as I know, the Philadelphia 2035 plan is to make our city more dense.
I think these townhomes are a nice compromise between a single family house that only certain people can afford and, you know, apartments that are that welcome more people to the community.
I'm also really impacted by the retaining wall that Stuart has brought up because my property
runs along that retaining wall. I've been in a former property that I was renting where the
retaining wall collapsed and the result of that was there was a wall and mud in my backyard that
never got removed. I had to move. So the retaining wall is like the thing that keeps me up at night
Um, so the retaining wall is like the thing that keeps me up at night. So I'm really pleased that, um, the retaining wall on that, that aligns with my property that joins my property is going to be repaired as part of this process.
Um, even though that part of the wall is not along, um, the property that Stuart has bought
the, he needs the whole wall to stand up. He needs that wall not to fall down. Um, so basically I'm,
I'm positively impacted by this development in a way that would be, um, really difficult to
sort of maneuver on my own by working with my neighbors since no one owns that wall,
but we're all responsible for that wall. So it's helpful for me that Stuart sort of becomes
responsible for the wall for a time and that he makes provisions for the condo association to
become the caretakers of that wall in the future. Thank you very much for calling in. We appreciate
your input. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? Chair, we have Saul Waskow with his hand
up. Mr. Wasco, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair. Hi, could you please state your
name and spell it, please, for the court reporter? Yes, my name is Saul Wasco. That's S-A-U-L-W-A-S-K-O-W.
Right. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Sir, are you a neighbor? Yes, I'm a near neighbor. Okay. Yeah, I live in 226. Proceed.
Yes, I just wanted to express my support for this project, because I think it's very well thought out and will bring housing to the community that's needed.