Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Okay, so despite the Penn Sports
Civic Association recommendation,
they have not actually heard the voices of the residents
of Earth Street and surrounding streets.
mr sure i would i would object again you're speaking on behalf of other folks mr savina
if you can just present your testimony as it applies to you the other folks will have an
opportunity to be heard as well all right well i'll let them uh speak afterwards um but
there's no new construction that is on uh the block so the statements prior to that
reflect that this is similar is not true um we also
concerned with uh somewhat recent published accounts of v2 properties and their subcontractor
tractor rock haven builders um with a list of articles that mr savini that mr savini with all
that has nothing to do with this case yeah and your objection to the proposal uh that's before
us mr knockison yeah mr chair i i again we can go over a letter more closely but if you had the
letter in front of you and the members of the board all of these issues regarding non-zoning related
matters were actually brought up to the attention of pensport and they actually specifically
reference in their letter saying that these are non-zoning related matters and that our proposal
asking for a mere redistribution of the two lots to equal size lots is a reasonable request and
that's why they do not oppose it but they they did state that the nearby neighbors did have some
issues regarding height and other things which are not zoning related because we're not asking
for anything outside the philadelphia zoning code but it's actually in their letter all these issues
and they were all dealt with refresh my memory what is the height of this proposed that building
uh i have to take a look at it um but let me i mean if let me if you don't mind i'll share my
screen again for sure i just want to make sure i have it right yeah
i mean it looks like 35.8 you're under you you're under what the uh code allows correct oh yes yes
that's why we have no yeah i think it's all right at least my plans it looks like a little 35 and a
half okay i just i thought so i just wanted to double check because mr savini mentioned something
Okay, I just, I thought so. I just wanted to double check, because Mr. Savini mentioned something about three-story houses being, this being a three-story house.
So you're, well, you're under, about three foot under the bi-right. Okay, thank you. Mr. Savini, we'll try again.
Are you there?
Yes, Mr. Savini.
Yeah, I just want to show some visual representations of the street and the
proposed buildings as they would exist in context.
And if I could share my screen, I could take two minutes and show you that.
I'm going to panelists right now, sir.
so mr mr trauma object excuse me i'm talking please can i can i have my moment
um here this is mr salvini so you'll understand council for the applicant is permitted to object
i had not getting two words out and he already interrupted me before so i just want to show
these okay i'm sorry this is tanya sunkett the administrator i would request that we all be very
respectful of each other please understand all witnesses that the attorneys have a job to do
they are allowed to object and put on the record as necessary any information please stop speaking
when someone else starts to speak and respect the chair as well thank you very kindly chair
thank you tanya uh mr knockinson state your objection
you're muted yes um mr chair i object i in terms of this rendering i i don't know
you know if this is a true and accurate representation you know of of what the
height would look in comparison to the other building so i i would i hear what you're saying
but either way you're still three feet under what the code would allow so whether this is
i understand what you're saying so let's go from there okay mr savini please just try and understand
mr savini by right they can you can build up to 35 feet height this property that this application
is three foot below what is by right what we're what we're talking about um in addition to that
is the width and then also um the the conformity issue of saying that these houses conform and that
there's new construction that's not the case these are approximations but i do work in photography
and architectural photography so this is a pretty good approximation you'll see that the first floor
lines up with the first floor of 309 and also the building that's next to it um as well as the second
floor lines up to the top of the house there so it's an approximation but it should show you
that these do not fall in line with the conformity of the block you'll also see that the other side
has mostly two-story houses all the way to the end
so those are just things that we wanted to submit and um i was actually on the penn sport civic
um meeting and i vocalized some of my concerns as did some others um i don't remember any uh
any residents actually approving of this or, or, or, you know, giving their blessing for it.
That's not something I remember. I remember everybody talking about how they did not seem
to think that this fit with the existing conformity of the block. Thank you. So you'll
know that photo that you have up with all the two story houses, every one of those homeowners,
if they so chose, could extend their houses to 38 feet. Thank you. Anyone else to testify in this
case? Something new and different would be appreciated. Thank you.
Chair, I have a Luisa Velasquez with her hand raised. I will allow her to speak at this time.
hello how are you my name is grisa velazquez
spell your first and last name yes l-u-i-s-a and the last name is v-s-victor e-l-a-s-q-u-e-z
thank you you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you ma'am please proceed i'm sorry chair to interrupt i apologize
I'm sorry, Chair, to interrupt. I apologize. Chair, if it's okay, may we please ask the
Chair, if it's okay, may we...
addresses of witnesses? Yes. Your address, ma'am? Yes. Hi. My address is 300 ERP, E-A-R-P Street,
Philadelphia, PA, 19147. Thank you. Please proceed. And I'm just jumping in because I
want to confirm what Dominic, the last witness, mentioned about our blog not supporting the
project and unfortunately our block is a high age block and the majority of the residents don't have
access to social media or like computers or technology so a lot of these conversations
and meetings are being done in person and we talk and get together and we have you know i just want
to confirm that everything that dom mentioned i'm speaking for my my house we are and i know for
like multiple of our neighbors that we are against the problem there haven't been a lot of information
there hasn't been really nothing we're like basically kept on the blind of what is going on
that's all thank you and i'll just remind you and anyone else who wants to testify in this matter
the proposal brings this height of the building to around 35 feet which was permitted under the
old code the new code allows for a height to go to 38 feet so there are three feet below what is
a buy right everyone on that block who wants a two-story home who would like to go up three
i'm making it the simple way would like to go up to 38 feet buy right you can do that
Naturally, you got to get permits and things, but you can go to 38 feet as a right.
Anyone else to testify something new and different?
No more hands.
Thank you very much.
Planning Commission.
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission this property is indicated
for single family residential in the comprehensive plan while the proposal would result in undersized
lots it is consistent with existing development in the area accordingly the planning commission
is not opposed to the granting of the variance thank you mi 2021-001-898 308 sears street my
vote is yes professor plaza my vote is yes
james snell my vote is yes thomas holloman my vote is yes
here we go to case number seven pardon me mi 2021-001864
3323 north 16th street rachel pritzker is the pritzker is the attorney of
record you've already been sworn in but please
spell your name and Mr. Kraplaz will have some questions for you and I don't know I see there
has not been a letter submitted yet it may have come in late from the Tioga United. Yep so Rachel
R-A-C-H-A-E-L Pritzker P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R 1635 Market Street Suite 1600 Philadelphia PA 19103.
Rachel you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
yes have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of ownership proof of
tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral folders and plans five days prior to this end
yes and have you met with the RCO and have a letter yes thank you please proceed when I share
my screen. I believe that the council office has spoken with the RCO as far as the letter. I don't
know that they had time to actually get it out, but I do know that they were able to make
communication on this. So this is 3323 North 16th Street. We are proposing a semi-attached structure
not to exceed 38 feet in height with architectural embellishments to match the existing context and
for use is a seven-family dwelling as per the plans. Most of the refusals we received relate
to the RSA 3 zoning district and also just the context of the neighborhood that the architect
will go into specifically related to the side yard. The code requires eight. We're providing
three, which is what most of the adjacent buildings have, as you'll see once you bring up the plans.
We're looking for a de minimis variance for open area.
We're required 50%.
We're at 45.8, so a difference of about 100 or so square feet.
And then, as the board's well aware, RSA 3 does not allow for multifamily.
And then, as the board's well aware, RSA 3 does not allow for multifamily.
However,
However, this property was previously multifamily, and there's a good mix on this block of both multifamily and single-family dwellings.
As you can see from the screen, 3301, North 16th is 3, 3311 has one private dwelling unit plus six roomers and six bedrooms.
same with 3321 and then a mix of uh quads and triplexes on uh one two three four additional
properties on the block um i will i think what would be best is to have scott join again just
to go over the plans because then it's a does a better job of addressing the two other refusals
again the open space and the side yard um as well so if scott woodruff could be promoted to panelist
that would be appreciated
woodruff has been promoted thank you just identify yourself you've already been sworn in
uh this is uh the site plan um yeah scott just just say your name for the record yep scott
woodruff uh w-o-o-d-r-u-f-f thank you please proceed you're still you're still on the roof
Thank you. The gray box here is the proposed three-story structure. We are matching kind of the existing block face of the existing buildings adjacent. As Rachel said, the two refusals, one for open area and one for the side yard.
As you can see, this lot is 20 foot, one inch per the deed.
All the existing structures along this block have a very similar three foot side yard, which we are also maintaining.
If we were to do an eight foot side yard, our building then would be shrunk to 12 feet and one inch width, which obviously is a very small structure and width.
for this uh again by coverage we are covering about the same amount as some of these other
structures on the site again fairly de minimis as we're looking just under 50 percent for open area
some of the changes i just want to run through real quick that we did have meeting with the rco
So they wanted some secondary access to the rear yard for trash, which we added some stairs here.
There's kind of like a weird retaining wall situation at the front, which we can look at some photos to understand a little bit better.
And then they wanted a porch covering or like canopy covering at the front of the structure, too, to try and match some of the existing structures.
uh as you can see in some of these photos you know this is kind of where our proposal would be
the existing structures um on the block face has some very distinct architectural features
um and aesthetic so we did our best to kind of match to blend in with some of the existing
character um and you can kind of see some of these existing houses have either
a canopy over the the entrances or some sort of porch on them
So, this is the previous rendering. I don't have an updated one with the porch, but again you can kind of get an idea of the architectural embellishments that we are trying to provide to match some of these existing contextual elements.
Again, the existing grade, there's a retaining wall that we're holding, so like a lot of the stairs that we're proposing will be behind there.
As far as kind of updated aesthetic, this is the new proposed canopy, which you can see is over the door.
We have an upper level door, which we can run through the planes and then a lower level.
This one is accessible.
So we have a small ramp that goes down here, which is more kind of just straight access into the proposed unit.
One of the things that was important is having a unit that could be accessible for seniors and then also providing enough lighting kind of in these spaces, which are, you know, three feet basically down on grade.
So there's enough lighting, which we obviously complied with.
so there's one unit kind of on this half level going up the flight of stairs there's two units
on the first level a small one bedroom and then a larger 600 square foot one bedroom to the rear
and then going up in the plant there's two units per floor with with a
And then going up in the plan, there's 2 units per floor with with a common access stair within the middle.
Rachel, is there anything else you wanted me to go through on the plan specifically?
Yes, yes. Excuse me. Sure. Yeah. My concern is this is new construction. So why can't you stick to the requirements for open space?
uh that's a good question i think um one of the the concerns at least for for ours was that
i just i think just honestly with the structure if we were to cut the structure back um having
some more of a larger structure it would decrease some of the density um that we were looking to
create to have affordable units um and decreasing you know another i think it was about four or five
feet on the building um really made it made it hard to get two units per floor plate um so that
was really the the ask for the de minimis variance of and i think we increased it to 43 because of
the porch covering um but the building itself covers 46 percent uh i mean allow it has open
area of 46 percent as opposed to 50 so we're you know four percent off um of what's permitted
so if you reduce the number of units you can get the uh open area requirements
that yeah that that would we have to do um to get that and again i think one of the
parts of this um at least with the client's perspective and actually you can speak to this
more was to provide a certain number of units to provide affordability correct um for the
development so that was kind of the the intention in that in addition you're going to do the zoning
bonus no it's we're not able to do that it's rsa3 so it uh we we don't have an opportunity to utilize
that so you would have to reduce the number of units or ask for a variance or four percent um
in order to have the the units that's why we're here
thank you yep i i think it's a great uh comment we we had grappled with it in addition to the
fact that there were some additional things like the retaining uh adding stairs into the retaining
wall um that we wanted to also be able to um include in the project and just even some of
the site conditions of doing that in addition to adding affordable units in this neighborhood
uh was why we we had thought that a de minimis variance for the four percent would would be okay
and we do have support from the community on this project as uh some of those considerations
specifically around the additional stairways
so that people could bring trash in and out from the rear
and making sure that we provided affordable units
was really paramount in this neighborhood.
The only other thing I would mention
is I want to make sure that the client,
Matanj Noel, is able to adopt my testimony
whenever appropriate.
Any other questions?
Tom, Mr. Holloman?
No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Anyone else would like to testify in this case, please raise your hand and then we'll get your witness on. I mean, your client on. I'm sorry.
Mr. Chair, I have a Matan Shmuel on the line. I don't want him to speak at this time.
Sir, please raise your hand. I'm sorry. Please identify yourself. Spell your full name.
matan shmuel m-a-t-a-n s-h-m-u-e-l i am the developer of this project