They are proposing three multifamily dwelling units, accessory parking, roof deck, and ground
accessory parking, roof deck, and ground floor commercial. The site is zoned CMX2.
floor commercial, the cytosine CMX.
It's been vacant for a little over 10 years at this point, so there's a lot of cleanup work
that needs to be done both internally and externally. This is another letter of support
from a neighbor. This is the zoning site plan of the proposal. This lighter brick area is the
existing facade. As you can see, this is the existing scroll work I referenced. It does have
Roman numeral 1927 etched in there, which is gorgeous. This is the proposed addition.
You can see that it's set back 10 feet from Fairmount Avenue. The idea there is to differentiate
clearly between that historic facade and the proposed addition that will be built above.
We are proposing what we think are period appropriate rounded windows, some other nice
features. And this is the rear of the proposed building. There are interior layouts. So these
are helpful to understand the current condition of the building. This is our zoning poster
on the front of the building. As you can see, this is the existing door to the vacant commercial space
and there's damage to both the facade and the windows that are currently in place.
This is the rear of the building. There's existing parking access to the rear.
And this is the building in question. This is the scroll work on the front.
We're adjacent to this recently rehab building. That building is at a height of 48 feet.
Our proposal would be at 45 feet. This is the rear of the building along Mellon Street.
I seem to have lost some of our photos here.
Okay. Let me just see if I can address this internally.
You said the proposed height will be 45 feet. What is the current height?
The current height and my architect David Whipple is on the line as well can confirm I believe we're just at 38.
No, that's not going to help us.
I apologize, I'm experiencing some technical difficulties here.
But what's important to understand that the proposal is the open area is currently zero.
So with the addition, we're actually improving that condition.
We're bringing in 15% open area at the roof deck area and the setback of the addition.
Again, we've got 10 feet between Fairmount Avenue frontage and the proposed addition
at the fourth floor.
And you won't be able to see there's a third floor deck that will be hidden completely
by this raised facade here.
So that will not be visible from Fairmount Avenue either.
One of the key features, and if you'll indulge me, I'll just stop to share so I can grab
the other documents, is that there's several projects in the area that have similar heights
that have previously been approved.
In particular, there are two that we think is appropriate to reference.
It's 1717, which is directly across the street, and 1801.
Both were similar projects that involved two-story additions in those cases to the existing structures
for use as both six and ten units respectively on those sites. So the density here is appropriate
with three units. My clients will be living in the third unit. And from a general use standpoint,
we comply with the CMX2 requirements. Again, it's an existing open area that we're actually
improving the condition on and the height is appropriate city planning commission has advised
that cmx 2.5 would even be appropriate here and that's a 55 foot height so again in our exhibit
packet we do have a list of surrounding heights that exceed the 38 feet um but those are the two
zoning issues we did obviously have a meeting with spring garden civic as referenced briefly
in the continuance discussion earlier um they do take issue with a non-zoning item which is
the rear egress stair. Given the confines of this property, you'll notice the other
properties on this block have been combined to increase the size. Here we are constrained to a
single lot. We don't have the benefit of an additional lot to spread out the units in.
And an interior stair to the rear of these units would make the commercial space and some of the
back of house difficult to operate within the existing structure. We feel like demolition of
this structure is wasteful and detrimental to the neighborhood. And our goal to preserve it
really is because my clients fell in love with the building and they want to make their home here.
really is because my clients fell in love with the building and they want to make their home here.
With that, I will ask that Zahra Said be promoted so that she can put her name and address on the
record. I see her. Zahra, could you please spell your name for the record and then your address,
please first and last name zara saeed z as in zebra a h r a last name is saeed s as in sam a e e d
as in david my current address is 877 perky omen street b as in paul e r k i o m e n street philadelphia
pa 19130 the whole truth and nothing but the truth i will yes thank you excuse me sorry have
heard my testimony today yes would you agree that it's true correct and accurate absolutely yes would
you adopt it as your own yes thank you and my architect david whipple is also available in the
event that there are questions with respect to the design and the conformity and restriction
of the existing building a couple questions um you showed a garage in the rear yes that's existing
Is that for the people who will be occupying the building?
Our proposal is to have two spaces.
They would be utilized by Zara and her husband as occupants of the building, yes.
And are these for rent or are they condos?
They would be rentals.
Obviously, Zara and her husband would own the building and the unit, but they would rent.
That's why I asked.
1717 and 1801, Fairmont, you referenced those.
Are there duplexes or triplexes?
So one has actually 10 units and the other has six units.
So similar overbilled to the existing structure, exactly what we're proposing here.
One is at 48 feet, I believe, and the other is at 55 feet.
And we submitted the zoning history for those sites with our exhibit package.
so the only issue and i guess we'll hear from the other side is the the fire fire escape the fire
stairs i think they've they've raised additional issues they'd like to see some renderings of the
view etc there are a couple other items in their letter but they've indicated that that stair is
a non-starter so we can't get past it if we jump through the additional hoops very good thank you
Thank you. Any questions for this, for Ms. Misser? No. No. Anyone else to testify? Mr. Bolin, I believe.
Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I think you were already sworn in, so please proceed.
certainly um just to go back to one issue um with respect to our continuance request um part of the
reason that we did request a continuance is we we haven't seen any of these exhibits that were
submitted um i requested that miss missimer send them to me she never has so we haven't had the
opportunity to go back through but i can i can try to have my clients address this on the fly with
respect to 1717 and 1801 but that was just one of the issues and the the big picture issue here
with the rear zoning uh or with the rear fire escape is that ties in with all these zoning
issues because the only reason they need a rear fire escape the only reason they need that is
because they're they're trying to increase the density too much here so what they're trying to
do is they have a 30-foot tall, 35-foot tall, two-story building. It's non-conforming because
it occupies 100% of the lot. They're trying to cram a third floor within it, and we believe that
that should have generated a variance because they're increasing the gross square footage.
Then they're building a fourth floor on top of it. However, the zoning code requires that when you
build on top of a non-conforming structure, that that structure itself be fit within the
dimensional requirements of the code here in cmx2 with this being an intermediate property
they'd be required to have only occupy 75 percent of the lot here for no reason there's no hardship
it's not the least modification they want 85 percent and and the real problem with them
occupying so much of that fourth floor besides being a technical violation of the code is that
you have this 20-foot Mellon Street in the rear. When I say 20 feet, we have five-foot sidewalks
and about a 10-foot cartway. So we're going to have now a 45-foot tall structure just looming
over these houses to the south on Mellon Street. And there's no reason, there's no hardship here,
And there's no reason, there's no hardship here. There's no reason that they should need to build up to 45 feet. It's simply that the developer wants more. They want more. They could, and I will call a witness, Justina Navarro, who will testify with respect to existing buildings next door.
there's no reason that they should need.
there's two of them, that are laid out exactly the same, and they never came to the board for
the variance, but there's clearly no hardship here. But I would like to, I guess, first call,
Catherine, were you going to call your architect, or have you rested?
We can respond and then conclude if that's appropriate. I just want to address a couple
technical conversations. Mr. Boylan, did we not speak this morning on this project and there was
no request made for our exhibits? That's not typical in a zoning case. Additionally, I think
with all due respect to your experience, the code section you're referencing for non-conformities
applies in a by-right repair of a building. That's not what we're proposing here. Obviously we're
seeking a height variance to exceed. So I don't think that's applicable here, but I just wanted
to set that forth. And then obviously we're available, my architect's available to respond
to additional questions as they arise. I guess that I would like the opportunity
to cross-examine your client that you called Ms. Zara Saeed.
Before you begin, Mr. Boland, did I hear you say that there were adjacent properties
that, I forget what your term was,
but it seems to me that the adjacent property,
1718, I'm sorry, 1720, is 45 foot in height.
It's actually 48 feet.
It's rather large.
I'm sorry, it's a little bit, the print small, 48 feet.
Yes, it's properties on the other side
of the 48 foot bar Hoga there.
I mean, if, which I'll have Mr. Navarro testify about those, but those addresses are 1710 to 14, which is a vet, and 1714 to 1716, which I believe is physical therapy.
but they're they're in essence the exact same buildings and um no one has come to the board
claiming that there's some sort of hardship with operating um with having a viable use there i mean
we have 2 000 square feet um on the second floor that they could have their personal residence on
it's actually 2000 about 2050 square feet they could still have the commercial down below they
could still have the garage i get that i just i just was concerned questioning that it is it is
not out of character in terms of height that's all i was suggesting it it isn't out of character
as far as that the building next door was an existing building and again i i think it would
be more appropriate for mr my witness to testify that lives in the neighborhood about that um
rather than my experience rather than my personal experiences well it can but it is what it is
view of what's existing and it's several properties uh along the front along fairmount avenue
i mean a rough guess for me where it looks like it could be three or four properties that were
combined at one time which would mean mellon street before you know it is going to have
you know 48 foot buildings all the way across fairmount avenue i mean that that's not for the
zoning board i mean that that would be legislation that that would be an act of legislation they
should rezone the properties if they think that that's appropriate. These are CMX2. And what I
would like to question the owner about is that it's clear that they could have made these, that
they didn't try to develop within the existing property, that there's no hardship and that this
isn't the lease modification possible. I just, I believe the architect will testify that they
weren't asked to try and they didn't try. They wanted to make more money by cramming two more
floors in rather than build an as-of-right project which was viable. I'm just going to
object to that statement because my clients are homeowners. They're building their own
property. They're building within a historic structure that they want to preserve for the
benefit of the neighborhood. Their architect is available and he can speak to the limitations
caused by that existing building. As the chair referenced, next-door properties have been
combined. They're multiple lots. It's not a single lot like this present lot.
I wanted the opportunity to try and cross-examine the applicant or whoever it was that testified
the applicant or whoever it was that testified on behalf of the applicant.
on behalf of the applicant.
That's Ms. Saeed. Ms. Saeed. Yes, sure, go ahead. Good afternoon.
Can you explain to me how it's a hardship to keep the building at 35 feet?
Catherine, did you, you've already provided them with the plans?
Yes, I'm the attorney. It's my job to reiterate and understand the hardship of the property.
That's not the applicant's responsibility. And again, the 35 feet does not allow us to provide
a modern day usable commercial storefront on the first floor. Obviously, it's been vacant for over
10 years. Nobody has purchased this property with the hopes of utilizing that existing structure.
the interior is in poor shape as is the exterior and again in order to conform with the requirements
of the code and have ground floor commercial space that is usable and rentable we need to
increase the height of the building excuse me counselor excuse me counselor
what is what is the ceiling height of the first floor existing is david whipple promoted to speak
he can give you the existing ceiling heights. I believe there's a tin ceiling in there.
And I'd just like to assert for the record an objection that I'm trying to ask a question of
the applicant and her attorney is the one doing the testifying. It's fine. I'm happy to go through
the architect and ask a few questions, but I need someone other than Ms. Missimer that I can
ask questions about you make out with the architect and to tom's point uh in the on the plans what
are the ceiling heights of the upper floors uh so chair mr whipple is available for it to be sworn
mr whipple yes first and last name spell your name please sure uh my name is david
David Whipple, office name, D-A-V-I-D.
We lost you there for a minute.
You said David, and then we lost you.
Whipple, W-H-I-D-P, as in Paul, L-E.
We're firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Whipple, can you explain to me why you were unable to design a building in the existing 35-foot building envelope?
I'm not exactly sure that's a – so part of the problem was with the front elevation.
um we we couldn't adjust the floor and ceiling heights to the front elevation without
um uh changing what the existing windows were in that elevation um it simply wouldn't work for
uh bedroom egress levels out the second floor that didn't answer my question i'm trying to
figure out why did you have to add the fourth floor what was wrong with the 35 foot existing
building. We couldn't get the we couldn't get the number of floors and the desired program
within that while keeping the front elevation in half. Do you mean when you say
are you suggesting that you couldn't get the height ceiling heights on the floors that you
or in the new design?
So without adjusting the windows of the front elevation,
we couldn't adjust the existing floor and ceiling height enough
to fit them in the 38D.
We lost part of that, but I think, Tom, you had the question, Tom.
Yes, the ceiling height on the first floor, what is it?
Existing ceiling height is about 15 feet.
So you have enough height for commercial space on the first floor already?
Correct.
It's really the height of the floors above.