certainly continue to work with Miss Harvey and her representation of Mr. Brady. Again, I think
that Miss Harvey was correct saying that we will resolve the issues that Mr. Brady raised at the
last hearing over the next coming weeks. I don't think that that needs to stall this board's
decision, however. And as you know, I mean, I've been handling this for over a year already,
And I know Ms. Pritzker, who was just on, handled it before that.
You know, and I've submitted, I think, over 200 pages of emails between myself and the RCOs and, you know, Mr. Richardson on behalf of Mr. Brady and the RCOs trying to set up meetings, trying to have communications, and it hasn't occurred.
So, again, happy to work with Ms. Harvey going forward.
we've had a very good working relationship over the last uh week to 10 days that we've been
communicating um and i think that that can continue you know regardless of the court of
this board's uh voting today which i would prefer to do does any board member have any objection to
voting this case today based on what we just heard from mr whalen no i'm okay no you're okay tom yes
I'm okay. I didn't hear Mr. Holloman. I didn't hear. He said yes.
I said yes. All right. Thank you. All right. With that, MI 2020-001171, 541 East Worcester.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
you before we go on the regular list uh there are about 11 cases that are all
uh there are about 11 cases that are all somehow related so i would say in the interest of time
why don't we go to number 15 and we'll do 15 and 16 and then go to uh mr careless's list okay
calendar number 0786-3605 fairmount avenue and calendar number 0785-3620 fairmount avenue
The attorney for both is Meredith Ferliger.
And there's a letter of non-opposition for both applications from Councilwoman Gautier.
Correct.
Ms. Ferliger will be coming back in as a panelist, Chair.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. Name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name.
sure meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r 1500 market street suite 3500 e philadelphia pennsylvania
you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth i sure do do you agree
to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes for 3620 no for 3605 uh for
For 3605, we're going to submit that the side yard variance was incorrectly issued.
So yes for 3620, no for 3605.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all of the above.
Thank you. You may proceed.
All right. Caught me a little off guard.
I was expecting to be last. So we come to you today with a request for a variance for two
properties on the same block located at 3605 and 3620 Fairmount Avenue in Mantua, both which
receive support from the Mantua Civic Association. My client here today is the owner of the property,
owner F LLC, which is represented here today by Rami Shrine. Now to orient you to the particular
properties, you can refer to the zoning map that I have up on the screen here, which is at tab 7.
As you'll see, both of these properties sit between North 36th Street and North 37th Street.
3605 Fairmont Avenue is on the north side of the block and is zoned RSA 3. The lot is just under
1,500 square feet. The north side of the block is zoned half RSA 3, half RSA 5.
Now on the other side of the street, the 3620 Fairmont Avenue lot is just under 3,400 square
feed. I'll turn to the photos briefly at tab 13 to give you a better sense of the makeup of this
block. The first photo that you'll see here is of the vacant lot that's at 3605 Fairmont Avenue.
Now if I flip to the other side of the street,
you'll see here is 3620 Fairmont Avenue. You'll notice that most of this side of the street
is vacant land, and this blue dilapidated structure here was just recently demolished.
Now, as far as the proposals are concerned, generally speaking, my client worked with the
Mantua community to design these proposals. What he heard, and what I'll expect that you'll hear
from the RCO representative today, is that there's quite an underserved need in this area
for affordable homeownership. So given the mixed nature of this block, which I'll describe,
the community felt this block was uniquely situated to accommodate that type of affordable
condominium development. So the units proposed today will be condominiums and will be sold for
affordable prices for the area around $250,000. My client has also confirmed with the councilwoman
his intent to work with the local housing counseling agencies when it comes time to sell the proposed
units. Now let me flip up to the renderings here. 3605 Fairmount Avenue proposes a three-story
structure with four units and the units will range from 895 square feet to 990 square feet,
including two bi-level units. As you can see in the rendering
including two bi-level units. As you can see in the rendering at tab 4C, the structure was designed
to blend as much as possible with the adjacent structures, including matching the front setback
and the porch. 3620 Fairmont Avenue
has been revised from the original submission. I'm sorry, just one second. I need you to stop.
3620 Fairmont Avenue has been revised from the original submission.
Originally, a four-story structure was proposed with eight units.
In response to community feedback, that has now been revised.
Before the Board today is now a three-story structure with six units.
I did submit a revised plan and a revised plan proviso form that details the modifications to all the zoning calculations
that reflect the changes that were made. You'll also notice in the revised plan
at tab 5b that the design itself has changed. So you'll see in the original design it was a four
story sole single face structure and it's now been revised so that it will visually appear as
if it has two separate buildings. Now, although there are no structures that actually surround
this, a front setback and a porch are included to be consistent with the other side of the street.
These six units will range from 940 square feet to 1,700 square feet. Trash for both will be
stored in the rear yard area and will be, of course, collected on pickup day. Now, regarding
the refusals, both of the proposals received a refusal for the proposed multifamily use.
I'll address that in a moment. Originally, 3620 Fairmount Avenue also received a refusal for
height, but that refusal has been eliminated with the elimination of the four-story, so 3620 is now
just before you for the use refusal. Now, regarding 3605, because it is zoned RSA 3,
it received several dimensional refusals. I'll address the hardships concerning the
dimensional characteristics of 3605 Fairmont Avenue first before turning to the use.
First, as I mentioned earlier, we do contend that the refusal for the side yard was issued in error.
The structure is considered attached under the zoning code and therefore would not be subject
to a side yard requirement, so the examiner was mistaken when he did issue that refusal.
Now for the other dimensional refusals, as you saw in the zoning map, this block is split zoned
between RSA 3 and RSA 5. From a dimensional perspective, the 3605 proposal was designed
to comply as much as possible with the RSA 5 provisions, given that most of the structures
remaining on the block conform with the RSA 5 district. An RSA 3 structure would be quite out
of character with the block and would be challenging for any development regardless of use
because the lot is significantly smaller than a typical RSA 3 lot. A minimum RSA 3 lot is required
to be 2,250 square feet and 25 feet wide. Here, the 3605 Fairmont lot is only just over 1,500 square
feet and 20 feet wide. So in comparison, the minimum lot size for RSA 5 is 1,440 square feet,
which is much more in line with the 3605 Fairmont lot before you. With the RSA 3 zoning,
the required open area would be 50% and only 26.25% is proposed. Because the lot is undersized,
complying with the RSA 3 standards would mean that the owner could only build on a footprint
of just under 800 square feet. Similarly, the required rear yard here would be 20 feet
and a nine foot rear yard is proposed. So as mentioned previously, this was designed to ensure
that the proposed structure blends as much as possible with the surrounding structures which
do align more closely with the RSA 5 requirements. Now we also received a refusal for a failure to
set back above the second story. We do submit that this providing this setback would result
in a structure that would be significantly out of character with the block and with the neighborhood
and with the neighborhood generally is you don't tend to see that type of third floor setback
generally is you don't tend to see that type of third floor.
in this general area. That's more so something you tend to see in South Philadelphia.
This is especially true since a 12-foot front setback with a porch is already provided.
Now if you take a look at the photos,
you'll see that towards north 36th street off in the distance here is the pha apartment complex
now if you travel in the opposite direction on the street
you'll see a mix of two and three story structures including a newly developed
apartment complex that was erected on the street prior to mantua being rezoned
So there's really no precedent in this area, and especially on this block, for that type of third story setback, and providing one would be quite out of character, and really quite unnecessary, given there is a significant front setback provided.
Now, most importantly, turning to the proposed multifamily use, we do submit to a hardship for several reasons.
First, this block is illustrative for the mixed character that has resulted from that
Mantua rezoning.
Because the entire block used to be zoned RM1, you're left with a mix of multifamily,
mixed with single family, as well as significant vacant land.
This is precisely the reason that the Mantua community felt that an affordable condominium
project would be ideal for this particular block.
There, and you can see it in the photo here, there is a large 10-unit complex at 3619 Fairmount, as well as a four-unit proposal that's permitted for 3623 Fairmount, all on the same block here.
Directly behind 3605 Fairmount is a four-unit building at 3606 Olive, which is also zoned RSA 3, in which this board approved by variants just several years ago.
As I mentioned, one block away is the PHA apartment complex that includes roughly 101 units.
And I did include copies of these permits in your exhibit packet at tab 10.
So the density proposed here is consistent with the surrounding structures and does reflect the density that would have been allowed if the properties were still zoned R&1, which of course they are not.
In fact, 3620 Fairmont proposes less units than would have been allowed. So the original proposal
was for the eight. It's now been reduced to six. These multifamily condominiums will blend with
the mixed character of the street and will continue the revitalization of the street,
which does still include quite a few vacant structures and lots. As always, we submit the
variances are the least minimum variance, proposing densities that are consistent with
the use of surrounding structures. The 3605 Fairmount dimensional variances are intended
to conform the development to existing and newer developments on the street, which all more closely
align with RSA 5 standards. We submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors, or
impair light and air. A full analysis is provided in the Memorandum of Law submitted to the Board
at tab 10. Now with respect to the community we did meet with Mantua Civic Association
and their letters of support are in the packet at tab 12. I do believe we also have a representative
for Mantua on the zoom today that intended to speak about the community's position on that
but before we get there I will just briefly bring up my client to adopt my testimony. Rami are you
there. If you could unmute Rami Shrine. Mr. Shrine, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Hi, this is Rami Shrine. R-A-M-Y-S-H-R. Okay, you know, get it. I'm sorry. Sorry. R-A-M-Y-S-H-R-A-I-M,
433 North 32nd Street. Thank you. You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth yes sir thank you Rami you've heard all my testimony here today before
the board yes and do you adopt that testimony as if it were your own yes thank you with that we'll
we're happy to take questions uh anyone else like to excuse me questions from the board no
no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
Chair, we have a Gwendolyn Morris with her hand up.
Chair, we have a Gwendolyn Morris with her hand up.
Good afternoon, Ms. Morris.
Good afternoon, Ms. Morris.
Please identify yourself, spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon.
My name is Gwendolyn Morris.
First name G-W-E-N-D-O-L-Y-N.
Last name Morris, M-O-R-R-I-S.
I'm the secretary of the Mantua Civic Association and had the pleasure of taking notes at the RCO public meeting held around these two properties on April 26th.
second 2021 and we have you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do please proceed i just like to add um from a community perspective uh we were quite
excited uh if you look at the photographs of that particular block the 3600 block of
front avenue that has a lot of vacant land um a lot of vacant property i think the kids used to
call it Cowboy Hill at one time, and it's been vacant for many, many years. We were really
excited about the opportunity for affordable home ownership, and particularly where the
homeowner families could develop some sort of generational wealth as a result of owning those
properties. The opportunity to own a multifamily dwelling was given to me 40 years ago in Mantua
as a very young woman and I was able to maintain and sustain my house for over 40 years I think
this is an opportunity and it really is an example of how diverse housing and the way we can
apparently offer affordable home ownership to some of our young people so I am we are in full
support of this particular proposal and we hope that we'll get some agreement and a positive
outcome from this hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to be with us.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
There are no hands at this time, Chair. Thank you, Meredith. On 3605, you have revised plans,
correct uh 3620 3620 i'm sorry and how many pages one one page 3605 no revision correct that's
correct okay planning commission good afternoon chair uh this is mason austin with the planning
commission please spell your full name and i'll swear you in sure mason m-a-s-o-n-a-u-s and austin
A-U-S-T-I-M? We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Sure. May I ask a question of the applicant?
Sure. Okay. I just wanted to ask, because it affects the recommendation,
are there any kind of deed restrictions or any other documents to ensure that these will be
sold at the prices referred to? You know, we certainly had not gotten into that level of
detail. But, you know, in this particular instance, you know, he really worked hand in hand with
community on it. So I don't know that that is as strong as a deed restriction would be. But,
you know, I think given the community oversight on this, should my client decide not to do that,
obviously you know the community was involved in this so I would hope that that's more than enough
of the oversight that you know the planning commission would hope to see that this will
come to fruition. Okay um thank you um so with that in mind um so the property is
indicated for uh single family residential use and I'll combine both uh recommendations one uh
the properties are indicated for single family use on the comprehensive plan and they are zoned for
that use um there are no unique physical circumstances or conditions peculiar to the
property that would prevent the use of the property in accordance with the zoning code
um in the instance of 3605 while the lot may be smaller than the minimum necessary for subdivision
it's not a typical a typical size for rsa3 zoning district um consequently the staff
of the planning commission recommend denying the requested variances
Thank you.
plan one page approved today my vote is yes proviso yes for proviso yes with proviso
yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you all thank you enjoy the rest of your day
thank you you as well now carol this is the 11 cases i believe so it's three five through 14.
yeah all right i'll read them off for you i'll read them off and then you go okay cool all right
MI 2021-001193, 1210 South 27th Street, MI 2021-001173, 2716 Manton Street.
MI 2021-001171, 2704 Manton Street. MI 2021-001170, 2710 Manton Street. MI 2021-001197, 2737 Ingram Street.
MI 2021-001195, 2729 Ingram Street. MI 2021-001156, 2733 Ingram Street. MI 2021-001175, 2738
Manton Street. MI 2021-001174, 2724 Manton Street. MI 2021-001194, 2723 Ingram Street.
MI 2021-001172, 2720 Manton Street. I believe I, if I missed any, please let me know, but I think