of yielded to about a very large house, a 7,500 square foot house, a bit out of scale
with the neighborhood, and, you know, a roof deck that looks over the neighboring yards
and whatnot, even at 38 feet high.
So that's just not something that we thought was particularly appropriate.
So we decided to try to scale it back and break up the massing a little bit so it wasn't
just one giant building.
Right. And you worked with, the team worked with immediate neighbors, right? Three separate households and coming up with their input in mind, coming up with the alternative design. Is that correct?
Well, we worked with, you mean in response to the RCO meeting?
Yeah, exactly. We took the comments from the first RCO meeting into account and changed it considerably based on their comments.
And Mr. Chairman, we have submitted, in addition to the two dozen or so signatures of the immediate neighbors, the signatures of the three households immediately adjacent to this property as well as a result of Mr. Avelino's redesign.
Okay. And with that, I'm going to allow Mr. Avellino to take it from here with sharing of his screen and walking through the project. Okay.
Everybody see that? We can now. Yes, sir.
Great. Thanks, Chair. So I think some of this is in the package you've received, too. So
if it's repetitive, forgive me. But the site is located near the intersection of Tulip
beneath Boston Street. And as Vern said, it's these three leftover parcels that front along
Boston but currently have addresses at the rear of homes facing Tulip. And this is just
a survey of the current site where you can see all three parcels that face along Boston and the
two that are back behind the front one aren't even accessible right now. Some site photos
for reference this is a view looking southeast along Boston Street so you really can't see the
lots there behind this fence and behind these trees so this is a view looking at the the front
facing parcel and again this goes over the zoning refusal information which which you already have
but it is about not complying our current design does not comply with the rear yard depth in an
RSA 5 zoning district the required is nine feet and we're proposing at the back end so that we
can push things off the side we have to skunch it towards the back so the rear yard is just under
just under 3 feet 8 inches. The side yard width in the zone for a semi-detached dwelling
three feet eight inches um the the side yard width uh
is 5 foot minimum and our smallest one is 3 foot 6 even though the front side yard is
much wider at 10 feet. And then the fence is you're required to have 4 foot high 50%
opaque fence and we're proposing a 6 foot high fence at the front. And again the largest
ONE IS FOR RSI V SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND WE'RE PROPOSING A THREE UNIT MULTIFAMILY DWELLING THAT
WE THINK IS COMMENSORED WITH THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL. I WANTED TO POST THE STATISTICS OF
HOW WE WORKED THROUGH THE PROCESS. SCHEME ONE, EARLY ON WE HAD FOUR UNITS. THE GROSS AREA OF
THE ENTIRE BUILDING, ALL FOUR UNITS, WAS JUST UNDER 5900 SQUARE FEET. IT WAS THREE STORIES
plus a mezzanine level, but the full height in the front was just over 36 feet and 38
feet in the back. The current scheme, which this was presented to the RCO, so really that's
what you're seeing now, is down to three units, and that's a 25% reduction. We reduced the
total square footage to just under 4,800 square feet. That's an 80% reduction in total square
footage in the front is two stories plus a mezzanine and in the rear sorry it's a bit of a
typo there's still three stories in the rear so that we reduced it by one story in the front
by a 13 foot reduction of height in the front where you really see it and again here is a
massing model of the concept and again it's being developed by an immediate neighbor whose backyard
to butts the site and you know with um a lot consolidation would have created a 2012 square
foot lot which would have allowed one single family home at about 7500 square feet as of right
which is about five or six times the average sized home in this area which didn't feel that
was appropriate so we created a massing of two separate buildings that are connected they look
like separate buildings but they're actually connected and it houses three units um excuse me
um it's essentially a triplex which is it's a very common use in density in philadelphia even
in one row home and its height and massing are determined by essentially pretty unique site
constraints on this on this island a lot um and what we're trying to do here is set it back from
neighbors to give it some buffer yards and softening the edges of of uh softening these
hard edges uh which is something we see in a lot of traditional row homes on corners whatnot so
we're kind of calling off of that there's some private terraces uh but they're set in with a
focus up towards the sky so we can maintain privacy between the neighbors um again here's
the zoning sheet that you have in in uh as part of the submission and this shows the zoning site
plan so here is that here's boston street here's the front portion of the building and the rear
portion with buffer yards on all sides to pull it back from the neighbors to pull it back from this
the empty parcel here where there's a lot of gardening and to pull it back from the the
neighbors uh who front on uh i believe that's your street and here are some floor plans again
three units the blue is unit number one access directly off boston street the green is unit
number two, and that's access through this generous side yard into, that's a double height
unit here. And then unit three has its own door here. Oops, sorry. And that accesses
above the second and third floor plan above. There's no roof decks or pilot houses that
go above the roof. We have some small terraces that are recessed into the structure with
uh sort of a focus up so these these walls are are actually as high they're full height walls
and have small uh apertures cut into them so that the focus is up and not out to the neighbors so
this this is a section through the building so it does go into the below grade level with egress
wells for um uh emergency escape and and and light for uh for those bedrooms uh but this gives a
sense of the front unit essentially acts almost like a single family home on the block the unit
number one and then you have almost like an accessory dwelling unit tied to that so this
is two units behind that but effectively legally it's they're not separated it's actually one
building and this last exhibit it was just an attempt to show what we were talking about to say
if we were consolidate the entire parcel into one you know by right you end up having
of, you know, what you can do in 38 feet is a four-story building plus a basement set
essentially five levels, pilot house, roof deck.
The gross area of this building is 7,500 square feet and the height is 38 feet plus the, you
know, three and a half feet for the guardrails and then a 10-foot pilot house on the side.
three and a half feet for the guardrails and then a 10-foot pilot house on the side
and this is not something we intended to design but it came up in the conversations with neighbors of
asking us you know or just just a conversation about what why not just do a single family home
well even if you split the lot in down the middle into two lots the the parcels are not big enough
they're still too small to develop into single family homes given the existing zoning code so
this is the only thing we would we could do by right and we just did not um feel that there was
a market for this or that it was appropriate uh for the block so i'll uh i'll leave it at there
chair and thank you so much for your time thank you mr avalino mr chair any any members of the
board have a question while the before a lot of the architect leaves no mr chairman okay no mr
chairman okay all right mr chair am i allowed to just uh wrap it up you could give me a short wrap
up? Yeah. I just want to thank Mr. Avelino. Because the building, building one home here
on a uniquely large and unusual lot would ruin the streetscape, blow up the scale,
and damage the character of the little Boston street upon which this lot lay.
Because we work tirelessly with the neighbors, especially the most adjacent ones that come up
with an alternative plan because we have the additional support of over two dozen immediate
neighbors because i believe the council person is leaving it up to this board as a result of that
support because three residentially zone lots have a long history of four opa tax accounts
for all those reasons we respectfully request the granting of the variance
All right, so we're going to vote. We've already had planning. So MI2022-004-094-2413, Rear, Fulop Street, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, I certify that I reviewed the video of 12-7-2022, and my vote is yes.
james snell my vote is yes jim can you please certify that you saw the video
thank you i forget this yeah uh i also certified the video and read all uh pertinent transcripts
pertaining to this uh case
yes my vote is yes thank you thank you we're now going to go back to our regular list
Number 1, MI-2022, 004-399-2964 Richmond Street.
Alan Nocklinson is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Recommendation of support from the Southport Richmond Civic Association.
Mr. Nockamson will be rejoining the panel, sir.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members.
Mr. Nockamson, how are you, sir?
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Alan, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Rose Garden Filla, LLC, the property owner.
And in the virtual audience with me is Carrie Borish and Bob Shaw, members of the Limited Liability Company, as well as Sasha Spriggs, one of the representatives from the architecture team.
Okay. Our Vice Chair, Carlton Harry, has a few questions.
Mr. Nachmussen, do you agree with the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or
referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met
with the rco and do you have a letter uh yes in all respects okay great you may proceed and begin
to share your screen thank you very much thank you
all right so i'm here to present 2964 uh richmond street uh this uh property is in the port richmond
section of philadelphia uh it goes street to street from richmond street to salmon street
uh currently there's a three-story uh structure on the richmond street side
uh currently there's a three-story uh structure on the richmond street side scmx2 and then on
the salmon street side there is it's technically rsa5 so we have split zoning and it's a one-story
garage so during our presentation we'll go over the notice of refusal which is dated july 8 2022.
we did amend uh or seek we obtained authorization to amend the zoning appeal
to make modifications to our project based on community input.
And we have a notice of refusal dated 12-8-2022.
So for record-keeping purposes, I would ask that if the board is so inclined to grant our zoning request,
we do so by way of proviso specifically referencing the notice of refusal dated December 8, 2022.
Afterwards, we'll review the letter.
Hold on one minute. Does anybody have a listening to another? If they are, could they try to mute themselves, please? There's a real lot of noise in the background.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Afterwards, we'll review the letter of support from the Southport Richmond Civic Association. This was a well-attended meeting. It was actually a second meeting.
um we're in the first meeting where we had a very lively discussion um where certain modifications
to our project were requested that's why we have this uh second refusal and then during that second
community meeting is when we received overwhelming support from the community as well as then a
letter of support from the south port richmond civic association and you'll see in that second
exhibit also a letter of non-opposition from councilman squilla's office after their review
of our project uh we have levers a letter of support from nearby neighbors uh 2970 richmond
street uh so we have nearby neighbor support uh proof of bars donnie hearing uh notice uh posting
uh you know which is obviously prerequisite to this hearing our presentation packet um our rco
meeting notice for the second meeting which above was taken along with the proof of mailing of that
notice to the surrounding properties within a 250 square foot radius. Our application for appeal
that we filed with the ZVA along with the notice of refusal in the project information form. Our
deed to the property showing that Rose Garden Filla LLC is the owner of the property and our
certificate of tax clearance showing that we're in good standing with respect to property taxes
and such with respect to this property. Again in the virtual audience is Kerry Borish and Bob Shaw
members of the corporate entity that which owns the property and one of them will virtually raise
their hand and adopt be sworn in and adopt my testimony as their own and we'd be more than
happy to take any questions. I also have Sasha Scraggs from the architecture team who can answer
any technical questions I cannot answer. So first things first again this was the original notice
of refusal. So this is split zoning, CMX2 and RSA5. So what we're looking to do is put an 11
unit or here was a 12 unit apartment building on the upper floors and on the lower floor on the
first floor facing Richmond Streets is to have a commercial component there. So Richmond Street is
a commercial corridor uh which you know obviously has been nurtured over the years and but it still
needs uh the density in order to be successful so for first of all the commercial space is empty
uh the residential space is currently empty and we're hoping to add density in order to help
not only support the commercial space in our property but other surrounding commercial spaces
as well uh so we you know as part of this project uh we're looking to put an addition on the
basically take the roof off literally um the rear of the property where there's the one-story garage
uh and um add two stories there and then um repurpose much of the building structure and
restore this to its natural beauty um so as part of this project we received initially four refusals
Because of the split zoning, you know, the zoning examiner, based on the code, took the most restrictive zoning as to this project for each zoning classification.
So we asked for multifamily use of 12 units.
Well, for RSA 5, technically, multifamily is not allowed.
So, but we're also a CMX 2 property.
So just because of split zoning, we're getting refusal as to that.
Then the second reason why we're getting refusal is for the commercial component again even though we're CMX2 property in the front where there is a commercial component.
even though we're a cmx2 property in the front where there is a commercial component already
existing at least technically um or conceptually because there's rsa5 zoning for this one lot in
the rear you know for salmon street we're getting a refusal by proposing commercial component which
again would not make sense um so those two refusals have everything to do with the fact
that we have split zoning we can't do anything about it so even though we're offering multi-family
with a property that is probably 50% to 60% CMX2, we're getting refusal for that. Even though
we're offering a commercial component, which is required for CMX2, because of the RSA-5 zoning,
we're getting refusal as to that. The third refusal is the height. Originally, we were seeking
a portion of our space, again, of our building, which goes street to street from Richmond Street
to Salmon Street, a portion of our building, we're looking to put 45 feet high, while 38 feet
is required, whether it's RSA 5 zoning or CMX 2 zoning. After discussion with the neighborhood,
we did agree to decrease the height of the building to the required 38 feet, and you'll see
that in the second refusal that's part of our presentation, and which is the operative refusal
for the pending zoning appeal. And then finally, the maximum fence height, six feet's allowed,
while we're proposing 15 feet and change.
Again, all we're doing is using the existing facade
for Salmon Street, and you'll see that.
And we're getting a technical refusal for that.
So really, the three of the four refusals
are technical refusals.
The only refusal which is, again, self-inflicted
was the height refusal where 38 feet was required
and 45 feet was proposed.
And that's the one we got rid of.