so that the widths of the houses we would build would be 20 feet at the corner and then the
interior houses would be 18 feet.
Not only is that in line with sort of a normal,
per se, row house width for the city,
but it would fit in a lot better
with the fabric of the neighborhood.
Next, we'll move to our requested variance
for off-street parking.
We're not permitted off-street parking on the site.
However, we are proposing three houses
and certainly we think it would be better
for the neighborhood and the neighbors agreed
that we should try to get the cars off of the street.
that we should try to get the cars off of the street.
So here's just showing that the proposed parking configuration
So here's just showing that.
is one garage door along Third Street.
And then this is a top down view
to show cars would pull in here into a shared driveway.
House one would have a one car garage,
two car garage at house two.
And then house three would have one two car garage.
And then the portion that curves into the rectangle
to the east, there would be space for one more car.
Again, in a by-right scenario,
we presume that the residences of these houses
would have at least one car each.
If we don't provide parking onsite,
then the cars would just have to compete
with the neighbors for street parking.
We believe it's a much better solution to put one garage,
which would eliminate one space on the street.
However, we would be able to absorb up to six cars
for residents and their visitors on the site next we got a refusal for rear yard depth the minimum
required rear yard depth here is nine feet again the refusal here we in our opinion is really due
to the fact that one the lot is irregular and two because of how rear yards are measured by the code
Montrose Street was declared as the front of the parcel and the rear yard is measured from the opposite property line, and that is the area shaded in green here.
If you look at our proposal, you'll see that behind House 1, House 2, and House 3, we're actually providing in excess of 16 feet of open space behind.
And then even when you look at the portion of House 3 that curves into the rectangular portion, there's 29 feet of open space behind.
So in our opinion, we are complying with the spirit of providing at least a nine-foot rear yard, even though the irregular lot prevents us from complying with the letter of that requirement.
So we also, this item for refusal for roof deck setbacks, we actually comply.
If you look at the left, this is our original proposal when we submitted the zoning permit application.
What we were trying to do is have our roof deck railings follow the line of the setback, our setbacks on the fourth story, which led to a number of varying railing setbacks.
After consulting with the neighbors, we decided to just make a constant five-foot setback along Third Street and an even larger eight-foot setback along Montrose Street.
So we're actually in compliance on that item.
And finally, we're requesting a modest height variance.
As I mentioned before, you know, we've drastically set back the fourth floor and we've cut out several sections of the buildings.
And we've also provided parking on site on the first floor.
And while this all greatly decreases the visual mass of the building, it also reduces the interior volume of the building.
And we found that we require a little bit of extra ceiling height to make the interior spaces work.
However, our proposal to do that would result in a building with a visual sight line that is equal to what we could build by right.
So if we look at this diagram on the left side, we have the by-right scenario where we have a building with a 38-foot roof, and then we're permitted a three-and-a-half-foot parapet, which leads to a total sight line height of 41 feet, 6 inches.
Our proposal is to keep that same sight line height that we would be able to get by right, except just to trade the roof height and parapet height.
So our proposal is a 41-foot roof with a six-inch parapet.
And as you can see from the two diagrams, the building that we're proposing actually is and will look significantly smaller than what you can build by right,
In addition to the up to six-foot setback on the fourth floor, we've also increased the setback of the pilot house dramatically, and we've also pitched the pilot house back away from Montrose Street to make it as impossible to see as we possibly can make it.
And we also have some studies available, if you would like to see them, that demonstrate that the buildings as we propose them actually do have a lesser impact on the neighbors in terms of shadows and light and air.
And so this is just an elevation showing the various level heights of the building as proposed.
And so this is just a...
And finally, we believe this design best balances the hardships caused by the irregular lot configuration, along with our efforts to minimize the visual mass of the building
and minimize the impact to neighbors.
And finally, as I noted before,
the packet we submitted includes a letter of support
from QVNA, 14 letters of support from individual neighbors,
and a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla.
Evan and Leah, could you just raise your hands
so that we can have you sworn in
so that you can adopt this testimony?
Thanks, Gary. We're both here.
okay so uh evan and leah do you uh affirm that my testimony is hold on gary gary just a moment
please i need their full names and addresses for the record spell their names
it's leah litvin l-e-a l-i-t-v-i-n address is 2203 lombard street philadelphia pa 19146
you swear to him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you
so uh leah uh if you heard have you heard my testimony do you affirm that it's true and
correct and do you adopt it as your own yes i do all right thank you thank you uh any questions
from the board no no is there anyone else like anyone else who would like to testify in this
case if so please raise your hand no hands at this time thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential on the comprehensive plan the
applicant is proposing to remove two residential structures and replace them with three units
we do not feel this will have a negative impact on the surrounding community accordingly we have
no objection to the granting of the variances. Thank you. Mr. Clark, you said you had revised
plan. If so, how many pages? One page. One page? Thank you. MI-2020-000096, 925 South
3rd Street. My vote is yes with the proviso. Revised plan, one page approved today. Yes
Yes, with Proviso.
Yes, with Proviso.
Yes, with Proviso.
Thank you.
Good luck to you.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Frank, are we on Washington Avenue?
MI 2020-000094, 2300 Washington Avenue.
that's we get a little bit of an echo when you speak do you have another device on no how about
now perfect thank you all right is anyone here for washington avenue please raise your hand
this is carrie nace proust's case
built martin on there no
no it's carrie oh okay good afternoon carrie please identify yourself full name and address
please good afternoon carrie nace attorney with the law firm of fox rothschild c-a-r-r-i-e-n-a-s-e
hyphen p-o-u-s-t
I'm sorry you finish
oh sure
address 2700
Kelly Road suite 300
Warrington PA 18976
thank you
swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth yes I do
thank you confessor
Carrie 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
hearing?
Yes, I did.
All right.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we do.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
Great.
Thank you.
Also here with me this afternoon is Danny Morris, who is the program manager of the applicant,
as well as John Harder, who is a traffic consultant from Atlantic Traffic and Design.
I would ask that both of them raise their hand so that Ms. Sunkett could admit them.
this is danny morris with extra space storage uh it is all legal name is daniel d-a-n-i-e-l
This is Danny Morris with Extra Space Storage.
m-o-r-r-i-s i am currently at 2795 east cottonwood parkway suite 400 salt lake city utah
84121 we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir thank you carrie
great can i also have john harder on the line yes i'm here if you can hear me um i'm principal
atlantic traffic and design engineering 1600 manor drive suite 200 chaufant pa 18914
your full name sir spell it john harder h-a-r-t-e-r thank you swear and affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you please proceed
Great, thank you. This application involves property that is located at 2300 Washington Avenue. The property is zoned I-2.
One administrative matter before we get into the testimony, this matter was previously being handled by a former partner of mine, Mr. Martin.
Martin, it has come to my attention as I was preparing for the hearing that this property
is also subject to the West Washington Avenue overlay district and pursuant to section 518.2
of the zoning code, it does reference that non-accessory parking is not permitted within
the overlay. However, this was not identified by L&I in the notice of refusal. However, we don't
believe that this would in any way expand the relief that's being requested. However, I did
want to go on the record in the event that a variance would be required from that section
that we also specifically request that variance. Carrie, excuse me, this is Sharon. Yes. You did
include in the application, it did note that you were, that there were non-accessory parking spaces,
correct it was the it was the examiner's oversight not any failure on your
client's part to include a correct description of what you're doing that is
correct in both the appeal to the zoning board as well as notices to the
surrounding neighbors and our discussions with the community group we
have had discussions that this the application is to provide for non
non-accessory parking. And in that case I would recommend if the board does
approve it that they add a note confirming that they are additionally
granting a variance for non-accessory parking. What was that again? Conditional?
And that if you add you're going to have revised plans but also if you could add
note that the confirming that you are granting a variance for non-accessory
parking. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Paus, please proceed. Thank you.
So as I mentioned the property here it's on the aerial being shown to you. It's
identified as 2300 Washington Avenue. It's bounded to the north by Washington Avenue,
to the south by Alter Street, and to the east by 23rd. The property is zoned by two, as I mentioned,
and previously has received approval to operate as a self-storage business on the property,
which has been in operations for three years now. We do have the photographs of the
property here, you can see this is the existing building looking southwest from 23rd and
Washington. Looking again, this is from 23rd and Washington. This is the rear along Alter Street
and 23rd. Under the zoning code, table 802-3, for this property, we are required to have one
parking space for every 2,000 square feet of space. So as applied to this property, it would
require that we have 49 parking spaces, which we do in fact have located on the property, as well
as five loading spaces in addition to that. However, the zoning code does not make a distinction
between self-storage facilities or other warehouse uses that may be more intense.
We believe that the parking requirements are in fact excessive for a self-storage facility.
I'll pull up our plan here and zoom in so you can see. This is a site plan showing the current
parking on the property. As you can see, we have the 49 spaces. In this area here, it's five
additional loading stalls. And what you'll see here, we have photographs of the existing parking
of the existing parking spaces and this type of use on at any one given time the maximum amount
spaces. And this type of use on
of parking or visitors that you would see would be five to six individuals or cars utilizing the
parking area. So you can see that we have a large vacant space here that is being underutilized
due to the current code requirements.
What the applicant is proposing is to maintain the five loading spaces in this area here,
and then provide six additional accessory parking spaces. We would have three here,
and then we would also have another three in this area close to the leasing office
that would be maintained for use for customers visiting the self-storage.
The remaining 43 spaces within this area here, we're proposing to lease them out to the
surrounding community.
We would not be leasing them on a daily or hourly use, similar to like a typical parking
garage.
Instead, we would be entering into long-term rental agreements that would be subject to
a month-to-month lease, really geared more towards providing residents within that area
with off-street parking spaces. However, the non-accessory parking spaces are not permitted
in the overlay, as we discussed, and in addition, we would then be reducing the number of accessory
parking spaces that are otherwise required for the self-storage facility. We did meet with the
Point Breeze Community Development Coalition. Several concerns were raised by the residents in
this area. Primary concerns related to this access here onto Alter Street and providing safety
features. So it came to our attention that the prior developer had made some agreements not to
use this access onto Alter Street. And as you'll see in the proviso, we have agreed that this
Access will be limited to emergency only. So access will primarily be taken on to Washington Avenue up in here. This will be turned into instead of two one way, we will make it two way.
We also have added here as you'll see one way emergency exit sign in here notifying the patrons that they cannot access this road on to alter except for emergency.