uh the owner of the property is land exercise llc uh i've got representative mr robert sherman
on the call and i've got uh mr german yakubov representative of the architect uh on the call
as well both here to answer any questions we uh originally uh when we applied i pulled the refusal
we had sought 18 dwelling units over six floors um our thought process at the time was that the
building across the street was six units and uh that was one third the size so uh ours was three
times the size so we had asked for uh 18 units and as i said there were several multi-family
properties um on the other side of the block and on our side of the block as well however we met
with Belmont Civic for the first time on August 26th. At that time, there was a number of concerns
regarding our plans. Chief among them were the density and the height, as well as the proposed
design for the building facade. At the time, we had proposed a height above 38 feet. They were not
happy about that, and they weren't happy that the facades of our proposed plans originally didn't
match what they felt. As you can see on the block, there's a kind of a common characteristic of
having a porch with a roof on it, at least close enough to our building. They took a vote at the
time, rejected us pretty much across the board, but there was an expressed desire for development
on the block. The community asked us to redesign our plans and come back and to consider that
rejection vote to be provisional pending the next meeting. And so there's our new letter. We
came back and represented to the community on September 9th. We had the same number of neighbors
show up to the second meeting as we did the first. At the second meeting, the community and the near
neighbors overwhelmingly supported the drastically revised plans. That letter's in the packet. It's
the screen right now also in the packet is uh are the new plans as well as the proviso form which
we provided uh last week um we believe that we got such strong support because the developer took
careful strides to address uh every one of the neighbors concerns that they had at the first
meeting um we pull the plans up right quick go first we reduced the height to below 38 feet
that was from six stories to three stories
with an elevated ground level.
Second, we reduced the number of units by a third
from 18 to 12.
And finally, we created a front facade
that would blend in with the character of the block
by incorporating a porch roof,
as well as dormer window, dormer windows.
Um, yet we were still able to keep, um, some of the key elements and amenities that the
Yet we were still able to keep
some of the key elements and amenities.
neighbors, uh, had, um, enjoyed from our first presentation and sort of demanded that we
keep, which was bike parking and a trash plan.
Um, my, my client, uh, is, is big on frequent trash pickup.
The trash plan here will be private pickup, uh, from the rear of the property on Wyota
Street.
Uh, that's been confirmed three times a week that that is what we will do.
um so we have a ground floor that's uh above grade we have uh the ability uh to provide 11
two bed two bath units and um one one bed uh one bath unit uh and to keep all the amenities that
the neighbors were were asking for so uh that's the kind of the crux of my presentation i'm going
to call mr robert sherman uh to identify himself and incorporate my testimony
hi robert and please identify yourself with a record and i'll swear you in my name is robert sherman
r-o-b-e-r-t-s-h-e-r-m-a-n you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir thank you mr console please proceed good afternoon robert did you uh hear all my testimony
just now regarding 746 north 40th yes do you have do you incorporate it as your own yes do you have
anything you wish to add no okay thank you thank you any questions from the board no no anyone else
would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon uh chair members of the board this is greg waldman for planning commission staff
the comprehensive plan recommends a change from the existing residential single family zoning
to multifamily residential at this location. Eight dwelling units in a 38-foot structure would be
permitted by right in the proposed zoning district, while 12 units under the maximum height limit
comes closer to meeting the code requirements for the proposed zoning district than 18 dwelling
units in a building that is almost 60 feet in height. It still exceeds the minimum variance
that would relieve the applicant's hardship. Accordingly, we recommend that the requested
variance not be granted thank you uh mr council yes 12 units 38 foot height correct yes sir
commercial trash pickup correct three times a week
mi 2021-002013 746 north 40th street my vote is yes with the following proviso maximum 12 units
similar height not to exceed 38 feet commercial trash put could pick up a minimum of three times
per week excuse me chair this is sharon i believe that the changes are reflected in
mr council correct me if i'm i'm wrong but revised plans
yeah i probably you're probably right one page yeah let me revive let me re re revoque that mi
2021-002013
746 North
40th Street. My vote is yes
with the revised plan, one
page approved today. Thank you, Sharon.
Harold
Tenere, my vote is yes with
proviso. Professor
Plaza, yes with proviso.
James Snell, yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Last case on our two o'clock list
is MI 2021-002013
0-1-1-7-7-1-5 Crittenden, C-R-I-T-T-E-N-D-E-N Street.
Mr. Jarrett Klein is the attorney of record.
Chestnut Hill Community Association supports this application.
Mr. Klein, there you go.
please identify yourselves by your name and i'll swear you in certainly good afternoon mr chair
members of the board jared klein k-l-e-i-n from blank rome 130 north 18th street philadelphia
19103 you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do
thank you mr neary has some questions for you do you agree to avoid the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy i do uh subject to a missing special exception that we will discuss
I do subject to a missing special exception that we will discuss as I get into my presentation.
process, I guess.
Okay. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all of the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed.
Thank you very much. I'm going to share my screen. Can everybody see that?
Good. Okay.
So this is for 7715 Crittenden Street, which is also known as the home of the Cheston Hill Village Residential Apartment Complex.
This is the scope of the complex here, as you can see.
This application is proposing a very small change.
It's the demolition and reconstruction of the pool house that serves the residents of the Cheston Hill Village Complex.
complex. And the reason for the refusal is a very specific FAR issue. And as you can see here,
we were refused for exceeding the maximum FAR of 70%. To contextualize this for the board,
I think very simply, this is an existing property that has been built up over the years to its
current condition. Currently, as it sits now, it is already at 90% FAR. The zoning change and
application that we've proposed changes the square footage from 832.363 to 833.221. So it's a change
of 858 square feet, which is a very, very minimal variance. But because it's a pre-existing
nonconformity in terms of FAR, we were refused even for this minimal increase in the allowable
FAR. These are some existing conditions photos of the property. And we do have revised plans
that we've submitted that make some general changes to the layout of some of the items,
but do not affect the FAR in any way. This is the overall site survey. This area here is the
very small part of the overall complex that we're talking about. And these are the revised
plans that we have submitted to the board for their approval to give the board just a sense of
what we would be constructing. These are elevations for the new pool house. And there are some very
detailed interior layouts that I thought I would share, though they're not germane to the zoning
request. And just to give the board a flavor for what the finished product would look like,
as you can see, it's an upgrade over what was there previously. As I mentioned, there is a
special exception that is needed that is not on our refusal referral. There is a tree that is
located in this area here, and it is a heritage tree. And there were several versions of the
plans, and we believed that the plan initially submitted to L&I showed that tree being removed.
However, upon really zooming in very closely to the original plan, we realized that that tree was
not noted as being removed on the original plan. So we have a need for a special exception
to remove this heritage tree that was not included in the initial refusal.
Excuse me, this is Sharon. If I can recommend that the board, if they approve the project,
that they add a proviso stating approval includes special exception for removal of heritage tree if
required. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Sharon. And so the board is aware we did
discuss the removal of this tree with the Chester Hill Community Association during our several
productive conversations with them. They understood that it would be impossible to save the tree given
its proximity to the pool house. And so they were okay with the understanding that we would be
replacing it with 10 trees, the total diameter of which would equal the tree that's being removed.
So we are planting new landscaping throughout the site. And this, there is a general landscaping
plan here to show where we're adding some additional green space. As I mentioned, we met
with the Chestnut Hill Community Association
on several occasions.
Their letter of support
is on the screen in front of you.
They were very productive conversations
and we were able to assure them
that the materials that we're using for this
are consistent with what you see
architecturally in Chestnut Hill
and that this would be a very non-invasive change
to the rest of the surrounding community.
And we were thankful for their full support
of both the variants and the special exception request.
If I could ask Howard Wolf to raise his hand.
If I could ask Howard Wolf to raise his hand, I would just have him adopt my testimony and allow the board to continue with its long agenda.
Hello, Howard's here.
Hi, Howard. Please identify yourself with the record and I'll swear you in.
Hello.
Howard?
Unmute yourself, Howard.
Yeah, sorry.
Yes, Howard Wolf.
It's H-O-W-A-R-D-W-O-L-F.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Klein.
Thank you.
Howard, did you have a chance to listen to my presentation?
I did.
And do you adopt my statements as true, correct, and your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, that would conclude.
we would ask both for the proviso with the revised plans one page
and the special exception that Ms. Soletta kindly articulated earlier.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, Chair.
and members of the board. My name is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing multifamily residential zoning
at this location. The site currently exceeds permitted floor area ratio and the proposed
improvement would increase the degree of the floor area ratio nonconformity. There does not
appear to be a hardship that compels the owner to build a three-story pool house rather than
replacing the area of existing pool house in kind. Accordingly, we recommend that the requested
variance and special exception not be granted. Thank you. MI 2021-002011 7715 Crittenden Street
my vote is yes with the following proviso revised plan one page approved today
and Sharon would you help me out with the language on the special exception yes tree if required
approval includes special exception for heritage tree if required yes chair thank you so noted
thank you that concludes the two o'clock list hold on i guess we got a vote right uh
carolton airy my vote is yes with proviso sorry you already have voted james snell my vote is yes
will provide. Thank you all very much. Sure. Chair, we have the you skip number six. Oh,
that's the one we got to go back to Oh, my mistake. I apologize. I'm I 2021-0021744335
lancaster avenue west the belmont civic association rco supports this application
my apologies ms amazon thank you i understand i'll make it brief
clemenza amazon c-l-e-m-e-n-t-a-a-m-a-z-a-n we're still under oath from earlier ms canary has some
questions for you do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do have you emailed an exhibit packet with required documents consisting of proof of
ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of the property
five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
yes and we do have a letter of support okay you may thank you do you have a twin sister
no i do not have a twin set well okay technically i do i do have a set of twins in my family okay