a three-story single-family home
with a one-car access parking garage on this lot
to restore it to residential use
and to also have it be consistent
with the other homes along the block
that do have front access parking garages.
We have several letters of support from our near neighbors,
including the next-door neighbor
and many other property owners along this particular block of Lyceum Avenue.
And as I mentioned, those letters to support kind of go with the RCO's letter at tab 10.
That letter was received the day before our last ZBA hearing
and is the reason for our continuance of this matter to today's hearing.
We took another look at their comments and all of the plans themselves,
our architect and our engineer, we reanalyzed the plans
and considered whether any changes could be made to reduce the impact of steep slopes.
We have a letter from our architect included in our packet at tab 12 that speaks to after his re-evaluation of the property,
his opinion that what we are proposing represents the least excavation of the steep slopes required in order to build a single-family home on this lot.
We also have a letter at tab 13 in your packet from our civil engineer who discusses that the ground floor garage that we're proposing,
consistent with the other houses along this block do not require any additional excavation of the
steep slopes or exaggerate that condition based on what would otherwise be required and they will
they can speak to the details of that um in a moment um so in general what we're asking to do
is to restore this lot to residential use to construct a home that's otherwise dimensionally
compliant to minimize the steep slope disturbance that we are proposing and also have it be
consistent with the context and character of this particular block and allow it to have a front
access parking garage. Because of the location and the unique character of this lot, as I said,
we do not expect that that will increase any congestion in the streets. And at this point,
I'll turn it over to Ronald Glenn, our civil engineer, to go through the plans for the
project and explain the extent of the excavation that will be required on the site.
Ronald, if you can raise your hand so Tanya can identify you.
And Stephanie, what does he need?
His name is Ronald Glenn.
No, I said what does he need? Does he need to do something?
If he could share his screen as well, he can pull up the plans
and walk through those while he's providing his testimony. Thank you, Tonya.
Good morning, Mr. Glenn. Please identify yourself for the record. First and last name. Spell your
name please yes uh ronald glenn r-o-n-a-l-d
Yes, Ronald Glenn, R-O-N-A-L-D-G-L-E-N-N.
I'm with Ruggiero Plant Land Design, address 5900 Ridge Avenue, Philadelphia, PA.
Please swear in front of me to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Ronald, just as an initial matter, have you heard my testimony that was offered this morning?
Yes, I did.
Do you believe it to be true and correct based on your knowledge of the project?
Would you adopt it as your own? Yes, I would.
Are we going to see any exhibits? Yes.
All right, so
this exhibit, being the steep slope disturbance exhibit, I'll zoom in a little bit,
shows the the limit of disturbance on the property and how basically demonstrating that
the entirety of the property with exception to the area closest to the the the the right of way
will consist of steep slopes greater than 25 percent um enlarge that a little bit please yes
Yes, yes. Thank you. Thank you.
So this is this is basically the entirety of the building.
The crosshatch pattern on the property is 15 to 25% slope, and the dash hatched pattern is slopes exceeding 25%.
um basically any development that will be proposed on this property will need to ultimately uh
disturb slopes greater than 25 percent and seek relief um our my office believes that any single
family home constructed on this property will result um in similar area of disturbance
depending on the size of the building. We also don't believe that alternative designs
such as raising the building or removing the garage will necessarily reduce the amount
of disturbance area required to install a single-family structure. This is due to, you
still need to install foundations and columns, utilities, drainage from the rear of the property
which will all ultimately result in a similar disturbance area as what we propose right now.
So unfortunately steep slopes disturbance
will be necessary to install a single-family dwelling on this property and I don't think it's
going to be avoided one way or another. And again, just to reiterate, I don't believe that the
inclusion of the single car garage necessarily increases that amount of disturbance.
Can I ask you, what is your plan for runoff?
So runoff right now would be, it's not shown necessarily on this plan,
but right now runoff um draining from here you can see this this would be the rear yard area
runoff would drain towards this wall and there would be a drain provided here
and that drain would be what type what type of drain hasn't been um specified yet but we can make
it um it would be it's a trapped in some structure it could be um an 18 by 18 inch drain or two by
for uh inlet if necessary if we determine that that's going to be required to uh
intercept all the storm water that would be discharging to it you pipe in it to the city
to the city outlet yeah yeah so that that drain would ultimately connect to um interior plumbing
or the roof drains which would have to extend through the building and ultimately connect
there if you could see this there it would ultimately connect to the sewer infrastructure
within lyceum avenue has city approved this we have not uh i don't believe we've received pwd
ur approval yet but that is something that will be required for building permits
thank you of course ronald have we received our technical or i'm sorry our conceptual pwd approval
Actually, this project, since it disturbs less than 5,000 square feet on a barrier and is not within the Derby project,
on area and is not within the Darby Cobbs Creek watershed. It is not required to receive PWD
personal approval. That being said, our plans that are given to the contractors always specify
PWD compliant erosion control measures and that would not change in this case either.
Thank you.
hey um mr glenn if you can finish with your testimony yeah i i think i'm all finished up
now can we please turn it over to zamir garcia who's the project architect for this project
and can explain a little bit else about the layout of our design zamir if you can raise your hand
and and tanya if you could allow him to share his screen as well that would be helpful
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Garcia. Please identify yourself with the record. Spell your first and last name.
Yes, Zamir Garcia. First name is Z-A-M-I-R, last name Garcia. I'm with M-Architects, 4590 Main Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
You're swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
yes hi so this um i've got the the plans here so as ron was stating um we've looked at various
different versions of the iterations of the plan here and we felt like this was the plan which
achieved most of the outlying goals for the client and the request that we when we spoke to
the RCO. The issue with the site as aside from the steep slope is that it narrows down to almost
to right around 12 feet towards pretty far not far into the site so the site's not very deep
so most of the building we've tried to keep the bulk of the building up towards Lyceum
because once you get back further towards the bend of the site it becomes really narrow and
kind of limits the use of the types of spaces you can have back there internally so what we've done
is with the garage at the level at the bottom level we've included the utility space which is
kind of central to the plan so that we can kind of control all that and not have to then go out
further trying to get utilities out further into the site into the steep slope and so everything's
kind of centralized there and goes up the building and splits off from there so we're trying to
utilize that garage as well for consolidation of that on the on the second floor or primary
living level there's a living room a powder room and a family room with a kitchen and then as you
make your way up on the upper level there's a bedroom on the second floor two bedrooms and
two bathrooms with the laundry room all centralized and and then up at the top
level on the there is a the master bedroom with the master bath and a roof
deck and then the roof level has just the rooftop units in section the
building what we were primary goal was to again limit the disturbance so we've
designed this building to be sort of a split level building so that the living
space is split so we're building up with the terrain not building into it trying
to minimize how much impact we have on that terrain and still maintain
relatively from the street side a building that fits within the context of
the neighboring buildings that you know appears more of a townhouse and fits the
character of the neighborhood and and not trying to raise it up higher or make
it look like it's floating above the train trying to kind of build within
that and minimize the impact of it.
are there any questions about the design or questions from the board no no i think
No. No.
I think we can summarize, if you would, Ms. Boggs.
we can summarize if you would miss
Sure. So, like I said, we have letters in our packet from Morrissey Architects and from Ronald Glenn
that specifically address the comments that were raised by the RCO in their opposition letter.
And as I said, we took that letter seriously.
We've re-evaluated their comments and the plans since our last hearing.
And that was the reason for the continuance that we'd have a chance to do that.
And as stated today, and as stated in those letters, what we are proposing represents the least least disturbance of the steep slope areas possible to build a single family home on this lot.
And the garage does not add to any excavation that's going to be required.
And it's specifically proposed because on the context of this particular block of Lyceum Avenue, there are several houses that have front access garages, the house immediately adjacent to it.
There are two homes up the street that have front access garages, and then four townhomes that share front access shared parking as well.
And we have letters of support from many of those near neighbors in our packet supporting the project as designed.
If there are any additional questions, please let us know.
There were questions raised by the RCO about excavation and those practices,
and i do have um jacob bash and gonfalso or mccall who are applicant representatives with
significant experience in excavation work um and demolition work particularly where there are steep
slopes involved so we can have them available if there are any questions about that okay thank you
um again any questions from the board no no thank you anyone else who wishes would like
to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time thank you planning commission good morning david effecto city planning commission
mr chairman and members of the board this block only has six curb cuts for the entire block and
those curb cuts do not follow an established pattern well we have no objection to the proposed
single-family home we do request that the board not grant the front-loaded parking in a neighborhood
where parking is at a premium. Thank you. MI-2020-000131, 257 Lancome Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. I'm sorry, Chair. Yes. If possible, could we make
correction on the street name what's what okay what is it you said lycombe i think it's lyceum
oh you're right i'm sorry lyceum l-y-c-e-u-m avenue thanks for the correction it's tongue twister
it is yeah good luck thank you very much have a good day all right thanks tanya thank you
Okay, next one up is MI 2020-00129829-79 East Shelton Avenue.
i have no hands up on this one okay mi-2020-00129 excuse me um this is sharon saletta i just wanted
to say that the attorney on this is brett feldman and i believe he did send in exhibits so if no
no exhibits you said no we did receive exhibits if we could perhaps move it back one and i can
find out if he's having technical difficulties all right so well confessor we'll move to the next
case next one up it's mi 2020 dash hello brett hellman oh brett hellman okay yeah i'm here
right you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth for nothing but the truth
i do do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
uh yes yes also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of
ownership proof of tax compliance copied the refusal or referral photos and plans five days
prior to this hearing uh correct yeah also have you met with the rco and have a letter
uh we do and it was uh submitted to the board um thank you please identify yourself for the
record you may yes yes um sorry for any confusion there uh brett feldman 1835 market street philadelphia
pennsylvania 19103 i represent the applicant uh mcdonald's uh in this application for uh two signs
uh two signs uh accessory to an existing uh mcdonald's uh takeout restaurant with drive-through
accessory to an existing McDonald's.
capabilities um with me today also is uh and should be on the call is uh michael geitner
uh project architect from bowler engineering who has uh testified in front of this board many times
We also have the franchise operator as well.
Sharon and Tanya, if I may share my screen.
Mr. Feldman, if I can just interrupt you.
I didn't realize this was a case in Bob McDonald's.
I do some consulting work for them, so I'm going to recuse myself at this moment.
Thank you.
So the confessor will be up to you and Jim and Tom.
All right. Thank you.
Can the board now see my screen? Yes. Great, great. I'll get right to this.
This is location 29 to 79 East Chelten Avenue. It's a long standing McDonald's location. And
I guess over the last year, McDonald's and the franchise operator made a significant investment
in the property. Let me just flip through. We have all the property information, the deed,
tax cert, tax clearance, its own CMX 2.5. Here's the photographs, just real quick. It was a tired
legacy mcdonald's location you know with the the signature roof and uh again as i said mcdonald's
and the franchise operator made a significant investment completely modernized the outside
the inside brought it up to all codes uh and we were trying to finish off the project and um
upgrade the the you know the the drive-through the existing drive-through signs here
and I'll show you this is the way it looks actually right now so right now there's there's
two of these we call them pre-browse menu boards you know those are the ones that have that you
know some of the menu items and then you actually get up to the speaker and you order so the
proposal was to there's two pre-browse one of the menu board the application is is to go from two
menu boards down to one. So we're reducing the number of menu boards from two to, the number
of pre-brows from two to one. And then the existing menu board, we're actually making it smaller. We're
going from existing 43 feet square feet to 20 square feet. For some reason, and I think we're
still trying to figure this out, when Al and I interpreted the sign, the menu boards, you know,
these are usually considered internally illuminated, as I understand it. They designated these as
animated signs, which I haven't seen before. And in CMX 2.5, you can't have an animated sign.