recommends no change in zoning to the existing rsa5 residential single family this property was
remapped from cmx1 commercial mixed use to rsa5 in 2017. the property has a documented history of
residential and commercial use the planning commission recommends that the board grant
the requested variance for multiple principal uses and prepared food shop all right thank you
MI 2025-007-280-1638.
Porter Street, I vote yes.
DARYL FOXMANNELL, MICHAEL JOHNS, MY VOTE IS YES.
DARYL FOXMANNELL, CHERRYL GASTON, MY VOTE IS YES.
TANETTA GRAHAM, MY VOTE IS YES.
DARYL FOXMANNELL, RYAN MCADAMS, MY VOTE IS YES.
TAYOIN, MY VOTE IS YES.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
GOOD LUCK.
I APPRECIATE STILL STANDING.
LET'S SEE HERE.
HE KNOWS WHAT I'M JELIA.
THERE ARE MANY, JOHN.
all right so mi 2025 007 283 318 north 42nd street merrith ferrlicher is the attorney
and so as you know you've already been sworn once today could you just please state your name
meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r could you identify your client the relationship to the
property sure the owner of this property is owner w and that entity is represented today by rami
shrine sitting to my left there's a letter of support from west patten civic association
there's a letter of a letter from council member gothia in favor and there's a letter of opposition
from Judy Weston and there's yeah understood our voice share us a few
questions good afternoon have you submitted your documents and exhibits
five days in advance of this hearing yes I did okay and do you waive the read
and other referrals and stipulate to their accuracy I do waive the reading
and stipulate to their accuracy thank you can share your screen and proceed
with your case. Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, as you know, the case before you today
concerns 318 North 42nd Street. In addition to Mr. Shrine, to my left, we do also have the architect
on the line, Waleska Stanke, to the extent there are any architectural questions that we cannot
not answer you have an exhibit packet in front of you that contains 16 exhibits just to briefly
summarize the basis for today's request the application requests the erection of four
single-family homes on this over 12 000 square foot lot which will each eventually be sold via
the creation of a planned unit development although we submit that the proposal is not
only patently reasonable in terms of the extremely technical variances requested and are completely
in character with the surrounding single-family neighborhood as with most proposals we do
understand that there remains a pocket of concern neighbors that said as you can see in your
exhibits at exhibit 15 the proposal did receive a letter of support from the official coordinating
the proposal did receive a letter of support from the official coordinating RCO,
West Peltz and Saunders Park RCO. And I did happen to notice that Ms. Andrews from that RCO
is in the room today. Furthermore, as Mr. Chairman mentioned, Councilwoman Gautier
also issued a letter of support for this proposal as well. I'll highlight just a few critical pieces
of these letters. Number one, the proposal that's before the board today is a staunch deviation
from two prior proposals pursued by two prior owners that were rejected by the community and
by this board, prior boards. Following Mr. Shrime's purchase in 2024, and as the councilwoman
highlights in her letter my client immediately began engaging with the neighbors holding a total
of eight meetings seeking to achieve a common ground that would allow this uniquely burdened
lot to be developed we believe that the proposal you'll see today is the culmination of these
efforts and truly the least minimum in terms of what is necessary to allow development of the lot
we do also believe we have some understanding of the community's concerns
most of which are not zoning related and i will address them during the presentation
tax clearance is included at exhibit two and the deed to the property is included at exhibit three
showing that my client purchased it in february of 2024. by way of background exhibit five
goes the zoning map of the lot where you will see here that the lot itself is a narrow
somewhat triangularly shaped lot that flags out to north 42nd street
as you can see north 42nd street is uh dominantly zoned rsa5 with some rm1 interspersed
to the west you'll see the drexel property which maintains a dense cmx4 zoning classification
to better orient you to the neighborhood i have some aerials up on the screen at exhibit six
again just starting with an overhead aerial you'll see here uh the large highly irregularly shaped
lot that extends behind the existing single family homes that front on north 42nd street
as well as adjoins the drexel fields to the west zoom out a little bit here
this next aerial here looks in a southerly direction
where again you can see the vacant land that is the subject of today's application
Here, just preliminarily, I will point out a row of large trees that line the Drexel fields, which was a patently reasonable concern that the community had over the health of these trees.
However, as I will show in a tree survey, none of these trees is on my client's property and all sit quite a distance from the proposed homes.
directly to the south of uh south of the property is a church and again that view here is shown in
the southeast direction and again looking northwest you can see here the little flag
portion of the property and the church directly next door again just a little bit more close-up
context from the photographs at exhibit 10. this shows the view of the property from north 42nd
street showing the fence that marks the front boundary of the lot in question
if we move a little bit more to the interior of the property this is a view generally facing
out towards powellton avenue and this is the church that i pointed out a little bit earlier
again the large tree that is shown in this photograph is also not on my client's property
Facing north 42nd street here, you'll see that the lot itself is currently vacant and sits along the rear of the backyard of these homes on north 42nd street.
Facing north, again, you'll see the relationship of this property in relation to the Drexel fields, you can see the parking lot to the left of this photograph.
And this is, if you're thinking about that overhead aerial, this is looking up towards the point of the property itself.
Again, none of these evergreen trees sits within my client's property boundary.
Another view here is shown facing north, again, towards that point of the property.
And then a final view here, again, facing north 42nd Street.
And then a final view here again, facing north 42nd street historically speaking from historical maps. It appears that this lot has existed in this irregularly shaped condition since at least 1895.
Seemingly, it was owned by Drexel for many decades, but was never consolidated into their own parcel.
and was later eventually sold off while we do understand that the community would prefer that
the lot remain undeveloped open space that is unfortunately not a reasonable possibility
uh since it that possibility was long since foreclosed when it was first sold from drexel
to a private developer all the way back in 2012. i did also include photographs showing the timely
posting at Exhibit 10. At Exhibit 7, the zoning site plans are up on the screen here. I'll
summarize, and then Rami and the architect can be available if the board has any further questions.
As you can see here, the plans show four single-family dwellings, each of three stories.
Given the extraordinarily unusual shape of this lot, the homes homes have been uniquely designed to accommodate that narrowing condition of the lot.
Four parking spaces are provided in a small paved lot that is next to the church, keeping the vehicles as far away from possible from the homes on North 42nd street.
Street here you can see that a 12 foot rear yard is provided which is more than sufficient to ensure
the preservation of the trees on the adjoining lot up at North 42nd Street a 16 foot wide curb
cut is designed that leads to a 16 foot wide driveway and this is also a paved walking area
which you'll see in a little bit more detail in just a minute as shown on the next plan here on
the tree schedule let me zoom in on that for you the only trees that are being removed from this
lot currently are non-heritage trees and are proposed to be replaced fully in accordance
with the requirements of the zoning code i will also note that all of the plans that are shown
to the board today were also shown to the community if i scroll back up to the zoning
plans and zoom in on the zoning table itself you'll see that the zoning code would allow
75 of this lot to be occupied by some kind of structure with that said this proposal represents
Over 75% of this lot is slated to remain open.
And again, page 2 of the zoning plan.
Shows that existing tree schedule.
Let me zoom out here.
Where you will see that none of the large heritage trees that the community has interest in sit on this project.
property and will therefore not be affected by this particular development I have also included
conceptual site plans and renderings at exhibit eight here you'll start to get a better sense of
the plan for the site landscaping and design with a dense hedge of evergreen trees along the shared
alleyway behind the north 42nd street homes there's also as I mentioned earlier a small
walking path that leads out to north 42nd street which is directly next to that 16 foot wide driveway
we did also include floor plans of ex at exhibit eight here you'll see that the homes the four
homes range from just over 2400 square feet to just over 3000 square feet the cellars will be
reserved for storage mechanical and general recreation area at the first floor each of the
homes will have a large kitchen dining and living areas as well as a porch and deck off the back
which overlook the drexel fields this was intentionally designed to ensure that the
active outdoor space would be on the opposing side where there are no residences at the second floor
There will be 2 bedrooms and balconies and on the 3rd floors, uh, there will be the main bedroom areas with some extra office space.
There will be the main bedroom areas with some extra office space for two of the homes. Again, they're a little bit different just because of how irregularly shaped this lot is.
Exhibit nine shows the conceptual renderings. This first view here is what you would see from the front of the homes, which again are dominantly brick.
The second view here is from the back, where you can see the balconies and the rear living areas that overlook the fields.
Finally, we thought it was important to render the separation between the north 42nd street homes and these four homes where you will see here not only a six foot high fence, but a dense evergreen barrier that will create more separation
than typically exists between back-to-back row home blocks.
The pathway that you see in between the fence is already an existing three-foot wide alley,
and then the homes themselves are set back an additional nine feet, eight and a half inches
minimum at the closest, up to 12 feet at the widest.
So, just by way of comparison, these conditions would approximate or exceed the same conditions that would be required by the zoning code if the front of these homes were considered the rears and is further buffered by fencing and dense vegetation.
My client can certainly speak to the aesthetics in greater detail.
Now, in terms of the refusals, this proposal only received two refusals, both of which are highly technical in nature, since there is no mechanism in the zoning code to recognize a planned unit development for a lot that is not permitted to be subdivided under the zoning code.
first the proposal received a refusal for failure to meet the front facade of the adjoining lots
let me bring up the zoning plan and just give you a sense of what that actually means here
measuring a front setback is quite challenging when it is applied to a flag lot but code section
142022 tells us that the flag portion of the lot is to be ignored when measuring front depth
therefore the front lot required depth would be measured from the lot line that adjoins the alley
so i'm just indicating that with my cursor here this is where the front lot line should be measured
from based on the lot depth of the adjoining homes on 42nd street and the church these homes
would be required to have a zero front setback which would be consistent with the homes fronting
on north 42nd street in this case that would require these homes to be brought even closer
to that alley and to the back of the homes on 42nd street and would certainly not serve the
intended purpose of the zoning code to ensure uniform facades given the flag shape of this lot
secondly the refusal was issued because the zoning code would treat this proposal as multi-family
even though this will be submitted to a pud in order to separately convey these new homes
The hardship here is plainly obvious in that this lot cannot be subdivided because of its irregular flag shape.
Even though a lot of over 12,000 square feet could be, based on the lot size, legally subdivided into 12 separate lots if it were oriented differently or shaped more regularly.
On each of the subdivided lots, one single-family home could theoretically be built.
In comparison, this is only proposing four homes, not 12.
In fact, in the eight meetings held with the community over the last year, earlier designs that did contemplate more homes were scaled back, resulting in a proposal that occupies only a very, very small portion of this lot.
as i mentioned early on this lot has been subject to considerable attempts over the course of the
last 13 years to see some kind of development all of which have failed those failed attempts
alone are evidence of the extreme hardship facing this lot at exhibit 16 you will see that in 2013
13, a proposal was first put forth to develop an eight family dwelling with only three parking spaces that.
to develop an eight family dwelling with only three parking spaces that request was denied four years
later in 2017 another attempt this time the proposal sought one single family dwelling
and one six family dwelling with six off street parking spaces again another denial now nine years
later my client invested significant energy into ensuring that his proposal would incorporate
community feedback resulting in over a year of meetings and the design that's put before the
board today reaching unanimous consent among community members is never easy if at all possible
however we submit that this proposal is the most reasonable balancing and response to all
expressed concerns over a very long review and design period recent pennsylvania commonwealth
court decisions have confirmed that where the impossibility of a subdivision reduces the number
of homes that may otherwise be developed this board may grant a variance either excusing the
subdivision or allowing it to occur on modified terms here there is no possibility of a modified
subdivision instead the only solution to a single family home development is through a pud
which unfortunately is artificially treated as multi-family under the zoning code
we submit that the variance itself is not only truly is not truly a use variance but is instead
a dimensional variance subject to a lower standard of review we also submitted as the least minimum
In accordance with case law, we believe that we have shown the board that there are no viable alternatives and that the proposed use of single family homes is the most similar to the adjoining single family homes in this neighborhood.
Now, just to anticipate some of the comments that the board might hear from some community members.
i have also included in the exhibits at exhibit 11 the conceptual approval that this project received
from pwd as well as a letter from the civil engineer that addresses some of the concerns
that we've heard over the course of the year relative to stormwater runoff i've highlighted
a few of the key points and will summarize that the current site conditions result in the discharge
This development, as you can see, the summary here will include such improvements as downspouts and area and trench drains, which will capture all the runoff from the new 6,300 square foot of impervious coverage.
Although the size of the proposal would not require it to comply with the city stormwater runoff rate control requirements.
The civil engineer has confirmed in their report that the development of the lot will reduce runoff discharges by approximately 50% from current conditions.
Further information relative to the drainage design is also included in your exhibits.
Finally, I will note that a full analysis of the project's compliance with section 14, 303 of the zoning code is provided at exhibit 13.
and most critically the proposal will not create congestion as it provides one for one parking it
will not harm neighbors use of their properties as it is set back to a degree consistent with
typical back-to-back roadblocks and will include dense screening for privacy i will also gladly
expand on any point that the board requires and at this point i just have two quick questions for my
client, and then I can conclude. Why don't you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer. Sit forward. Rami Schraim, R-A-M-Y-S-H-R-A-I-M. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Counsel? Thank you. Mr. Schraim,
can you confirm that you're authorized to speak on behalf of Owner W LLC? I do. Thank you. Just
briefly in terms of the trees and the concerns that you heard over the likely heritage trees on
adjoining properties are you prepared to implement tree protection measures to ensure the maximum
protection of any large trees on those adjoining properties i do and that was discussed during the
community meetings and agreed upon now the community expressed doubt relative to your
ability to connect these homes to the utility infrastructure in the area you've been building
in the city of philadelphia for nearly 20 years is that correct that's correct
That's correct. Have you confirmed that the project can connect to all required utilities, whether it be gas, electric or water?
have you confirmed that the project can connect to all required utilities
Yes, it does. And have you heard all the testimony that was offered in front of the board today? Yes.
Do you agree that testimony was true and accurate? And would you adopt it as if you had provided it yourself? Yes, thank you.
questions from the board um yes have you done a study to show from 42nd street if these would be
visible if you were on the sidewalk or on the street on the 42nd street side i mean understanding