the Councilwoman does support this various request.
does support this variance request thank you thank you very much
Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Sloan.
okay thank you chair there's no other people who wish to speak
the planning commission would like to put a position on for this
if you will planning commission yeah well
no you have not all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about
the truth i do and will you state your name and spell it for the court reporter sure my name is
Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
I'm with the City Planning Commission.
El señor Ron Bednar acaba de hacer su jurar decir toda la verdad
y dice que viene de la ciudad, del planeamiento de la ciudad,
de la Comisión de Planeamiento.
So this property is currently indicated for residential
in the city plan, but given the site conditions,
we recommend that the request of variance be granted.
Thank you.
I'm sorry, Chair, could you just swear him in
after the fact, just to be on a record?
Okay, all right, I did swear him in before,
but I'll do it again, okay?
Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Thank you so very kindly, interpreter.
Thank you so much for your kindness and the word you do.
Mrs. Tania, if you wanted to resume
what Mr. Ron
said right now
Yes, and then you can depart if you wish
Yes, thank you so much
I will
Thank you
Thank you so much for your kindness everyone
Thank you so much for using our services
Thank you so much
Okay, bye-bye
Bye-bye.
Thank you.
All right.
So we're going to go to case one that we have, MI 2021-003-775-1215-17, Addison Walk.
Revised plans.
No RCO letter yet from the Washington Square West Civic Association.
Attorney's Catherine Misumer, you were sworn in before, and the Vice Chair will have some questions for you.
Hi, Catherine.
Hi, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I agree to waive the reading. I just have two quick clarifications.
one the minimum lot size in the center city overlay district is 1080 rather than 1440 square
feet as cited on the refusal and two we believe the refusal errantly has a typo they're stating
zero rear yard when there's five foot rear yard proposal okay have you emailed the exhibit packet
with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos under plans of the property five
this in advance of this hearing and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above. Great, you may proceed. Great, thank you. This property is located at 1215
17 Addison Walk. I am here on behalf of the owner. With me today is owner's rep Brian Zubek
as well as our project architect Gabriel Deck. We are here with a proposal to relocate the lot
lines of the existing corner lot at KMAC and Addison Walk to create two lots from the existing
one lot and the new construction of a single family home on each lot. You have letters of
non-opposition from both Council Member Squilla which you should see on your screen now as well
as the Washington Square West Civic Association. I believe it was mentioned earlier that it had
not been received yet but the non-opposition letter has been submitted both to the board
and the RCO ZBA address as well. We also include a strongly worded letter of support from the
near neighbor at 414 as well as 416 South Camac Street directly located across Camac Street from
this corner property. He is unable to attend today but does send his strong support for the project.
So again, this is 1215-17 Addison Walk at the corner of Camac and Addison Walk in Washington
at the corner of Camac and Addison Walk in Washington Square West.
Square West.
Property is zoned RSA 5. This is a overhead view of the relocation plan. It's an existing
one lot at this corner. We are proposing to create two smaller lots. You'll note that there is a
reserved easement in the rear of the properties. This allows egress from the existing apartment
building next door. At one time, this lot was part of that lot as well, so they have retained access
to an egress stair that does fall within the property boundaries of this property.
These are a few surrounding area photos. As you can see, this is a beautiful brick tree-lined
enclave in the city. It's a very tight-knit neighborhood with small walkway streets.
This is nearby properties. This yellow shaded area is the actual site. This is looking down
Kmack and this is Addison Walk. Another view. This is the site plan as you can see. Two single
family homes. Again with that rear egress for the apartment building next door. A five foot rear yard
for each home and then an egress through between the homes to Addison Walk.
These are just the layouts of the homes.
You'll note the material is very important in this neighborhood as well.
We did stick with the historically significant brick look, as well as the mansard roof that
you do see on the surrounding area photos.
So this property consists of over 1700 square feet.
It is almost double the size of the neighboring lots.
By proposing a subdivision here, we're able to bring this lot within conformity. As you can see,
we did a quick survey of surrounding lot sizes. Our two lots are proposed at 872 square feet and
887 square feet. You'll see that the majority of the lots in this area are well below that,
some by even 200 square feet. The proposal also includes the new construction of a single family
home on each of those new lots. Again, we propose to use like and kind materials, including both
the brick and the mansard roof. Our proposal does generate two minor dimensional variances
for each of these proposed lots. First, the minimum lot size. As discussed initially,
RSA 5 does typically require a lot size of 1,440 square feet. Certain sections of the city does
allow for lots in excess of 1,600 square feet to be subdivided, so long as each subdivided
lot is 800 square feet. In those cases, this would be a by-right subdivision. However, because we are
in the center city district overlay, we are required to provide 1,080 square feet for each
new lot. Again, we feel that because these surrounding lots are well within the context of
what we're proposing here at 872 and 887, we think that we are proposing a subdivision that really
brings us into conformity with the surrounding lots. Absent a subdivision here, a buy-write
project could consist of a 5,000 square foot, 38 foot high house, which neither the neighbors
or the property developer really think makes sense. The second request is for rear yard
refusal. Again, if we go back to the site plan, you'll see this is sort of a unique
scenario in that not only do we have a five foot rear yard for each of the homes, there's
also an additional four foot area that is not technically included in the rear yard calculation.
That's because it is reserved for the easement, but it does provide over nine feet based on the
five foot of the rear yard and the four foot easement between these properties and the apartment
building next door. So we do have the effect of a nine foot rear yard here again, but technically
L&I would not include this easement area. So there is showing a five foot rear yard on each.
these are both minor dimensional variances it's the board as the board is aware this standard for
dimensional variances is much lower using the hertzberg standard as a reasonable adjustment
of the code is what is required to utilize the property conformity with the neighboring parcels
this project as i'm sure you will hear today has evolved extensively through the community process
As the RCO will attest, the developer has met with the full community on two separate occasions as well as a separate meeting with near neighbors.
It should be noted that prior to our initial meeting with the neighborhood, a neighbor circulated a petition in opposition to this project.
Prior to anyone seeing any plans, any design, or any presentation materials for the project,
That petition errantly cited only the lot line relocation and the erection of structures.
that petition errantly cited only the lot line relocation and the erection of structure.
Since several meetings have taken place...
If I can interrupt for one minute.
We did today receive an email and a letter in non-opposition from Councilman Squilla's office.
In the email, the petition was attached, but they know there's a petition and map attached as well.
But we believe the issues these neighbors had were resolved by the applicant.
Excellent.
I was going to say many of those signatories have now supported the project.
So I think that does show that the petition was early in haste and predated any explanation of what the proposal here was.
Kate, one thing, I still am unable to find a copy of the RCO letter.
And in the councilman's letter, he refers to requested provisos.
So I apologize if you have already pulled that up.
but could you at some point do it again so that we know what the requested provisos are?
I believe they're in the councilman's letter as well, but I will pull up,
see if they're set here. You can see the height and massing to be consistent with plans presented
on 11-23. Those are the revised plans that the chairman referenced in the reading introduction
of the case, as well as a development agreement, which I'm going to get to in my discussion.
Okay, to proceed? Yes. Okay. As we discussed, the petition bears little weight on the discussion.
While the bulk of comments from the neighbors really related to design and massing of the
proposed structures rather than the requested variances, in the interest of being a good
neighbor and in long-standing relationship with this particular area of the city, the developer
has really shown a commitment here to the neighbors. There was willingness to alter some of
these by-right, otherwise by-right features of a design to be responsive to their concerns.
By way of example, the by-right height in the RSA 5 district, as you know, is 38 feet.
We have voluntarily reduced the height of these buildings to 31.4. We have also reconfigured the
proposed entry on the home at the corner from a corner entry to a front door on Addison Walk.
We've also reconfigured some of the window sizes to be more appropriate to the neighborhood
context. And we've also added additional windows along the South Camac Street side as well.
As mentioned in the provisos requested by the neighborhood, the near neighbors also requested
a developer commit to certain terms and conditions of construction while again outside the
purview of the zoning board. We have voluntarily signed that agreement. So my client has executed
that agreement as drafted by those near neighbors and is willing to commit to working with them
throughout the construction process, as we know that this is a delicate neighborhood. There's
some historic streets to preserve, and there's some interesting concerns here that you may not
have in other neighborhoods of the city. Obviously, this proposal is not detrimental to public
welfare as evidenced by both the councilman and RCO letters of non-opposition. We respectfully
request the board grant the requested variances with respect to the revised plans as presented
today. I'll just ask that my client Brian Zubek raise his hand so that he can be unmuted.
Mr. Zubek has been allowed to speak. Mr. Zubek, could you state your name and spell it for the
court reporter? Yes, sir. Brian Zubek, B-R-I-A-N, last name Zubek, Z as in zebra, O-U-B as in boy,
E-K. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir. Thank you. Brian, have you heard my testimony today? Yes. Would you agree that it's
true and correct? Yes. Would you agree to adopt it as your own? Yes. Thank you. We're available
to the board should there be questions our architect is also available should there be
questions on the design or the revised plans questions from the board no no
okay um questions from the uh from the virtual audience any questions
okay no hands mr chair planning commission this is uh ron bednar city planning property is
indicated for residential use on the city plan given the um existing site circumstances we
recommend the quest for variance be granted mi 2021 003775 12 15 17 addison walk i vote yes
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, yes.
Professor Plaza, yes.
Thank you all.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
MI 2021, 002884, 1714 Bainbridge Street, A, Kimberly Mangrini, RCO South of South Neighborhood Association has a letter of support.
Ms. Magrini will be coming back in as a
panelist. Excuse me, this is Sharon. We did not, however, receive
exhibits for this property. I'm aware.
I'm sorry. Hi, this is Kim Magrini.
I apologize. I've lost my voice. I emailed exhibits on Friday.
Can you please spell your name to the court reporter? Yes.
Kimberly K-I-M-B-E-R
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you. My last name is Magrini, M-A-G-R-I-N-I. I emailed all of my exhibits
on Friday afternoon. Ms. Magrini, this is Sharon Saleta. Was I copied on those emails?
Let me check. I emailed it to the three emails that were in the packet I received.
okay hold on also ma'am uh the package had been uh submitted five days prior to this hearing
yeah that friday was five days ago i sent it to rcozba at phila.gov
sletta zba at gmail.com pcp.zoning at phila.gov jason hand and copied my architect
i'm happy i'll have to check it maybe it went into my spam folder i will look for it now
Thank you.
I'm happy to forward as well, if that's helpful.
If you could, that would be helpful.
Thank you.
Ms. Saleta, I'm sorry to interrupt.
This is Tanya.
Ms. Saleta, I'm looking at the email that was sent to all boxes, as she stated, along with the PCPC.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And I would respectfully ask, since I'm having some difficulty speaking, I have my architect here today and was wondering if she could give the presentation and share her screen.
to discuss the plans. Sharon if it's okay I would ask that if you can begin the presentation