What's the height of the floor above the second floor and third floor?
Ceiling height.
Sure. We adjusted the ceiling heights by removing the roof down. So we're at about an eight foot six ceiling height at the second and third floor.
at the second and third floor.
I'm not understanding.
I'm not understanding.
You move the ceiling, you move the floors down?
So it's an existing two-story structure.
So the existing ceiling height of the second floor
is about 12 feet.
Existing.
So with Tom's question, could you not adjust
the ceiling height of the commercial space and then the other spaces from 12 to 10
without changing the windows on the front elevation now without the windows all right
right because like when you adjust those floors it's going to hit the windows and if we lower the
if we lower the second floor down we won't have the required egress um out the windows on the
front elevation like our um our um window sill height will be at like six or eight feet instead
of at like three feet um so like that's the main issue is this excuse me is this building
historically certified by the city it is not
now. The answer is no. It is not, no. And Mr. Whipple, again, I want to, I don't think you
answered my question. Why was it that you couldn't simply use the existing 35-foot structure and that
you had to build a fourth floor? Were you told to build it with a fourth floor or was the only way
make this viable to have a fourth floor? I think in order to fit the in order to fit the allowed
program of a three unit structure with a commercial space it required a fourth floor.
But if you decrease the number of units you certainly could have designed this without
adding a fourth floor. If we didn't follow what was allowed for us to take in the zoning of it,
sure, like it could be designed as a single commercial space with nothing else in there.
The problem here is really the restoration cost. The cost to convert this to a usable building,
which again it sat vacant for 10 years is so high that it necessitates the density that's
expected by the code. CMX2 permits three units here and a ground floor commercial. So it's exactly
in line with what the code is contemplating. The limitation is again the size of the lot we haven't
combined with neighboring lots. The height restriction which city planning has admitted
is more appropriate at 55 feet for this area and has been granted several times in this area.
to address some of the other costs associated with trying to preserve what is a unique structure in
the neighborhood. We don't think it makes sense to demo this beautiful structure that you can't
replace. It's from 1927. Ms. Summers, educate me. What triggers the necessity, the need for the
fire escape? So this is a building code issue, and I'll be the first to admit I'm not an expert
on the building code, but the egress that's generated by having multiple units at a certain
point requires a second means of egress. I don't know what that point is, and I also don't know
that it will be required with this building. And we're willing to go through the process to see if
it is, but the RCO has stated that that's not something they're willing to wait for.
um is that a reaction to not having a fire stairwell in the interior of the building
yes and that again is based on the limitation of the existing structure where in order to fit
what's contemplated by the code three units and ground floor commercial we don't have the depth
of the building to include the required stair depth and heights to allow to egress out that
the interior just yeah i was just curious what triggered the uh okay absolutely excuse me excuse
me counselor do you have floor plans yes and we can make these larger as well you make it larger
please yep so this is the ground floor commercial space with the meter room you'll see it's a pretty
large commercial space um and just storage to the rear and the stairs to access upstairs
this is the rear garage which again will be utilized by the owner unit
they will be living on site and this shows your residential entrance as well
um this would be unit one to the front of the building unit two to the rear
And then this would be unit three at the third floor.
and then this would be unit three at the third floor excuse me
Excuse me, those stairs, they're new, correct?
Though
Interior, yes.
Interior stairs are new, correct?
Mm-hmm.
You're going to definitely need two means of exit, and that's going to make it bad for the stairs to be in the center.
You need them at both ends.
And that's why we're showing this rear exit stair, and that's the problem for the neighbors.
what is that 800 square feet i'm looking at for unit one and unit two is that 800
680 actually for unit two it's for 680 okay because it's not clear and i
let me ask you another question counselors can you pull up so we can see the uh new stairs that
fire escape stairs. Yes. And in response to neighborhood comments, we did, these plans
are revised to show a smaller fire escape stair to the rear than initially proposed.
Previously it went all the way up. Now we shrunk it based on their comments to what
we think is minimally required. And that's still not.
You could bring that second means of egress inside.
It's just lose some floor space.
Well, it also decreases the value of those interior units,
which we need to support the renovation
and construction costs associated
with maintaining the existing structure.
And that's really the plus or minus here
because right now you're showing an 800 square foot
and a 680.
If we shrink those any smaller,
you're decreasing their rentability and frankly
tenant quality that the neighborhood I believe is looking for here
well you could enclose them inside the building because the building is 100%
at the ground floor so there's no open area
you're going to put new stairs in anyway so a second set
the stairs in the center is just a bad location because they supposed to be diagonally remote from each other.
David, can you speak to what drove the location of the stairs?
Sure. So if you go to the second floor plan.
So at the second floor, we were able to accommodate two stairs out.
um and our travel distance between the two you're not seeing it show up there um is is over
one third of the diagonal um the issue was trying to get that stair going up to the third floor as
well uh just in order to accomplish that uh that separation between the stair and the
and the size of the switch that going all the way up it just ate up a lot of the second and and
in first floor um so how we accomplished the two means of egress out of the third floor
was by adding the rear uh outside egress um and then just to follow up on the issue about whether
or not we need it um one of the uh one of the things that i'm that that that that um
I'm unsure about is like, if I'm on I reduce as an existing structure, we can just maintain
the one means of egress out out of the structure. If they determine that there's too much work
being done to the structure, and they review it as new construction, that's when they'll
kick in the second means of egress requirement out. I'm, I'm sure you're going to need two means
of egress because you're doing more than 50 60 percent of renovation work i mean like it it was
still qualified as a as a level three alteration and the existing building code um and within that
there is an an exception in there that says you can go up to a four-story structure uh with a
maximum of four units per floor and still have one means of egress out so so like that's really
the balance with an eye that we're going to try and strike.
Is that an elevator you're showing?
It is.
I think you might be squeezing too much in a small space.
The elevator is in reference to our clients who are older. They anticipate living here for a long
period. They want to be able to access their third floor unit in the event that they're
you know they're handicapped in the future or are unable to do the stairs so that that's the goal
handicapped in the future or are unable to see the stairs. So that's the goal.
there but again the code contemplates three units here over ground floor commercial so we're not
exceeding the allowable density but you're exceeding the height though correct which has been
density you need the height exception which has been common in this area um several several
neighboring properties have done the same. They've built up to accommodate the allowable density.
And one other point about the density is that the one additional refusal that the applicants
concede was missed is that there should be 25% open space on the fourth floor. And here,
for whatever reason, they only have 85%. There's no explanation. And I'll ask Mr. Whipple,
Well, Mr. Whipple, can you explain to me why it was that you didn't build the fourth floor with 25% open space?
It was simply in response to what the program needs were.
So could you have designed the fourth floor and complied with the open space requirements and had 25% open space on the fourth floor?
I mean sure like we could have designed a structure to fit within um whatever the zoning
requirements were but that doesn't necessarily mean it will meet the program needs of what's
going on the inside of it and just to be clear the fourth floor is set back and on top of that
it has to be usable, right? So there's no open area now. It's 100% coverage. So by providing
that open space, there's at least increasing or bettering that existing condition. We're providing
15% open area. 25 is required. And Mr. Chairman, just to make sure that the board understands,
here they have built up 45 feet on this little melon street. So had they had this 25% open space
and had it in the rear, they wouldn't be towering over these little homes on Mellon Street.
So that's why it's so important that they comply with the open space requirement.
They already admitted that basically there's no hardship and that this isn't the least modification needed.
I'll just object. We did not admit there's no hardship.
The building next door is 48 feet.
So if anybody's towering, it's the tallest building on the block.
All right, why don't we do this? Mr. Boland, do you have any witnesses? We need to move
I do. I'd like to call Mr. Justino Navarro.
Mr. Marriott.
Yeah, Mayor. Good evening. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Please identify yourselves by your first and last name.
Justino Navarro, J-U-S-T-I-N-O, N-A-V-A-R-R-O, member of the zoning committee of the Spring
Garden Civic Association and the Civic Association's representative to this hearing.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. Bowen?
And Mr. Navarro, can you just briefly take me through what the basis were for Spring
Garden Civic Association opposing this project? Well, in a nutshell, we feel that they're trying
to get too much into a small building. I think they're excessive in their requests for height.
We have a problem with the height. We have a problem with the massing. We have a concern about
the open air requirement that was not mentioned in the refusal. I identified a refusal myself,
which is a setback of the deck that was on the Fairmont Avenue side which Council addressed
earlier and got rid of the refusal and also neighbors were objecting to the fact that
what we consider an element of blight was being installed in the rear 20-foot wide cartway of
a very quaint very lovely street that has developed over the years on zoning issues
presented to this board of the past for single-family homes that's only 20 feet wide so
we feel that too much is being asked of the community here it is inconsistent with the
development of the very similar properties just adjacent to the east here this seven this 1718
property is part of an assembly of Art Deco buildings on the 1700 block of Fairmont Avenue.
And while they are not on the Philadelphia Register, they are on the Fairmont Avenue
And while they are not on the Philadelphia Register, they are on the Fairmont Avenue Federal Historic Register.
And very successfully in the recent years, 1710 and 1714 Fairmont Avenue have been developed very, very successfully within the building envelope without causing a burden on the neighbors on Fairmont Avenue or the neighbors to the rear.
at 1710 you have a very very successful veterinary clinic at 1714 you have a very successful
rehab physical rehab facility and you also have on the upper floor a very successful cultural
use in terms of a dance studio all developed within the building envelope so we just don't
subscribe to the notion or to the belief that this property part of an assembly of historic
Art Deco buildings cannot be built or cannot be developed within an existing envelope and it
be a valuable addition to the Spring Garden community and the Fairmont Avenue Commercial
Corridor. And just to mention, Mr. Chair and members of the board, the 1801 Fairmont Avenue
structure that Council references and next door, 1720 Fairmont Avenue, those are two new construction
projects. They're not rehabbed. And now that you've mentioned 1801, I would like to remind
the board that 1801 was in fact a project that came before this board and its member and Mr.
Chair. And it was very successful. And we got the cooperation of the developer, where the developer
listened to the community. We negotiated some objections that we had, and it was very successful
and came to this board in unison because there was a meeting of the mind
and because there was flexibility on both ends.
We have not seen where the applicant has been flexible in this instance.
And Mr. Navarro, just before I forget, did you hear my testimony?
I did.
And was it true, correct, and accurate, and would you adopt it as your own?
Absolutely, it was, and absolutely, I will adopt it as my own.
Ms. Missimer.
Can we briefly speak to Mr. Maru, but I'll address your questions first.
My question is, it sounds to me like there's an offer here or an opportunity to maybe have further discussion.
But let's see what he has to say.
You have questions for him.
Absolutely.
Mr. Chair, that has been the hallmark of your chairmanship and of this board, and that is the spirit in which we as the Civic Association and the Zoning Committee approach developers and projects that come before us, the spirit of cooperation and compromise.
And we appreciate that, and we were looking for that in this case.
Reciprocity would be nice.
we received an ultimatum that if the project were to include or it to be determined possible
to include a rear regress, that it would be met with vigorous opposition was the quote.
So my clients are less inclined to go through additional studies and work on redrafts when
regardless of what they do in the event that a rear regress stair is required, you will oppose
the project. But with respect to your testimony, I just want to confirm, you mentioned an assemblage.
Well, the other two properties represent multiple lots, not a single lot like 1718, correct?
Mr. Navarro?
Yeah, I believe the actual address is 1718, I believe.
Right, so they're multiple sites rather than a single lot that we're dealing with.