The proposed new buildings, two new single families, produce the other two refusals.
The first refusal is for rear yard depth, and the other is for attached homes.
Let's take a look at page 8 of the package, which is part of
Eight of the package, which is part of the atlas, this is the subject property, and as you can see, it is surrounded by RSA 5 properties.
To the north, on the same side of the street, there are eight properties that are RSA 5.
across the street there are nine that are RSA 5 and they're further down the block on both sides
are 30 properties they're all RSA 5 which allow attached homes and are in fact attached homes so
the fact that this proposal is for attached homes is not out of character with the immediate block
the other proposal the other refusal is for rear yard
Let me briefly bring up the zoning plan.
I'm going to bring up the proviso zoning plan, which I'll get to in a second.
As the plan shows, the distance from the back wall of the structure to the rear property line is over 92 feet.
So there's plenty of space between the rear property line and the structure.
However, strict application of the zoning code does not count areas designated for parking as rear yard.
So we have taken steps to reduce the degree of the variance needed.
The easement, the turning easement here depicted across all three parcels was reduced from 24 feet to 20 feet, which enlarges the rear yard.
The other item I'll bring right up, the Civic met on July 8th and produced a letter in support.
I do have received and the board has received an amended letter of support, which I will offer. But the meeting on July 8th, there were 61 persons who attended, there were no persons in objection.
One of the important elements of their support is the owners, Mr. Pearson and his wife, agreed to maintain the height of a retaining wall, which is part of an existing garage.
We go to the structure. So here's the 19th century, late 19th century structure. And it's the refusal of side yard is existing in this location.
And across the back of the property are garages, and the height of those garages have become walls that make the backyards of the three properties on Dexter Street that back up to this property, gives them quite a nice private courtyard effect.
And as indicated in the civics letter, they have asked the board to include as a proviso that 44-42 Dexter would retain a height of six feet on that garage wall.
44-40 Dexter would receive, would maintain a height of 62 inches, and 44-38 would maintain a height of 48 inches so that they have privacy from, they continue to enjoy the privacy that they have now in their backyard.
which goes to the effect of a rear yard requirement in that these rear yards are
topographically are distant from each other and visually distant from each other.
I can move to the section on page nine through page 13 are the prior approvals issued by
the streets department, the water department, the planning commission, including
the erosion sediment control plan has been approved for this project.
Steep slope analysis has been done and approved. Finally, the existing conditions is on page 14.
The lots are all by right. In other words, the width and area are fully conforming.
It's only the attached structures, which, as I said, is consistent with much of the block
and the rear yard, which introduce the refusals. The proposal is to construct
two new attached homes. And at the rear of the existing and proposed building next to it,
two new attached homes, and at the rear of
they will also be attached at the first floor level. There's a small structure. And because
they're three in a row, that's considered attached. But the two new homes will share a driveway.
That driveway then opens up into the rear where a parking is provided to all three parcels.
Here is the driveway, opens up in the rear, providing two cars for each of the homes,
the existing home and the two proposed homes. Also in the meeting is Chris Karakoff, the principal
of Studio C Architecture, I'd ask Chris to raise his hand and be recognized.
Okay. Can you hear me? Yes, Chris, can you please identify yourself for the records by
your first and last name? Yes, my name is Chris Karakoff, C-H-R-I-S, last name C-A-R-I-C-K-H-O-F-F.
You still affirm the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Chris, you served as project architect for this development?
That's correct.
Could you walk the board through the floor plans and the elevation plans and describe this project?
Tell me what page you'd like.
uh why don't we start at the uh ground floor of parcel a and b uh let's see i'm not sure which
page that is on your booklet okay this is existing structure this is the existing structure yeah
so um this is the ground floor of the um the two new attached buildings um we're just looking at
one of them. This is a media room, entertainment area, and entrance off of the Fleming Street
is on the left side of the screen. This is kind of a half depth because of the slope of the
existing site. So you go upstairs, and maybe you can jump to the next slide, and land in a large
living area, open living area, which has a living room, dining room, kitchen. Toward the rear,
which is where the parking is, we have a storage area where trash and other lawn equipment type
of thing can be stored. Above that, you see a mudroom. The main entrance for the owner would
come through there. There's a half bath and pantry. Above that, we have three bedrooms
and two baths. And then lastly, on the top floor, we have a master suite and an office.
Finally, there's also a roof deck up above, which is set back, I think, just over 14 feet
from the street, per the discussions with the residents and the preference. It aligns with the
pilot house, the railing. So we're set back, I think it's just about 14 feet. So it'd be towards
the rear of the building. Elevation-wise, we're staying consistent with the block with the proposed
brick facade the uh connection element uh you know is is a uh is a hardy panel uh and then on the rear
we have just siding you see the carriage doors uh for the garage uh or garage storage i should call
them um and um the the arches are kind of tie into some of the buildings across the streets and the
attached on to across the street and the overall height is 37 feet but the height because of the
slope change this the height of the structure at the rear is 28 feet is that correct that's correct
does the board have any questions for mr karakoff uh does the board have any questions no
Okay. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak in this matter?
I see no hands, Chair.
Madam Chairwoman, or Madam Chair, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Mr. Pierce to be sworn in.
Please.
Can you swear our firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
thank you uh mr pierce uh did you hear my testimony i did uh and
Mr. Pierce, did you hear my testimony? I did. And is it truthful and correct? Yes. And do you adopt it as your own? I do. And is the relief you're requesting from the zoning board the least modification possible to achieve this project? Yes.
I have nothing further, however. I do want to point out that there is a proviso plan. It's depicted on page 17 of the materials. There were three or four items. The parapet wall was reduced to two feet to be compliant, more sympathetic with the streetscape.
The turning easement area was reduced from 24 to 20 feet, and the front setback of the roof deck was set back 14 feet.
Okay, so how many provisos through?
And then there's the proviso from the Civic's letter.
The Civic requested that the board adopt as a proviso its letter, which incorporates the items in the proviso plan,
And also mentions the height of the rear wall of the existing garage that will remain to benefit the homes on Dexter Street.
So, Mr. O'Brien, what we're going to do is we're going to hold this to next week, and we'll vote it next week, okay?
That way we could go over the provisos.
I don't have them in front of me.
And so the record is closed, okay?
Planning Commission?
Planning Commission?
It looks like he's frozen.
Ron, are you back up?
Or David?
There we go.
Hey, everyone.
Good afternoon.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
It was on this this morning, so I wouldn't need to be sworn in again.
So the lot is designated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan in a zone for that use.
Due to the peculiarities of this site and due to the agreement reached with Central Roxborough,
staff of the planning commission has no objection to granting the variances requested through the revised plans.
Okay, thank you.
Board has any questions?
No, Mr. Chair.
So for calendar number MI 2021-002465, 4477 Fleming Street, the record is closed.
We will vote this on next week hearing, okay?
Pending the, you know, we'll get everything squared away with the proviso, okay?
Thank you, Mr. Plaza.
Thank you, Mr. Brian.
Yes, you may.
Have a good one.
calendar number 2537 is continued and on to number 11 yes calendar number 2641
506-10 emily street the attorney is joseph consul
mr consul is coming back in as a panel okay
hi Mr. Consul can you put your name on the record and spell your last name I'll swear you in
no I don't have to because you've been here all day hi how's it going Joe Consul Consul Madison
LLP one west third street suite 204 media Pennsylvania 19063 do you agree to waive
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy yes I do have you emailed the exhibit
packet with required documents proof of ownership tax compliance refusal 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 everything thank you you may proceed good afternoon board for my third and
final time joseph consul here on 506 through 510 emily street uh lisa boucher marquis is on this
call. This is the property owner, along with Mark Wallace, if needed, the architect from
Core Design Architecture. This is a single family property. Here we go. RSA 5 on Emily Street,
two blocks south of Snyder between 5th and 6th Street. We're seeking to legalize the one car
garage that faces Emily Street. The property had a garage when Lisa purchased it in 2020.
We met with the 7th Street Community Civic Association and the attendees at that meeting confirmed that, where is their letter, confirmed that the garage had been there for as long as they can remember, which according to the RCO chair, Bruce Baldwin, is a very long time.
We met with the 7th Street Community Civic Association.
because of that there was no opposition to the request to legalize this garage as they stated
in their rco letter we had the architects involved because we needed to submit a turning radius study
we got the required streets department approvals and the architecture plans confirm
that there's no issues regarding turning radius or room in the garage for a vehicle
So with that, I'll ask my client, Lisa, to raise her hand.
Lisa, are you out there?
I was just messaging with her.
hi i'm here hey lisa can you put can you put your name on the record and spell your last name and
i'll swear you in lisa boucher b-o-u-c-h-e-r do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do thank you okay mr consul good afternoon miss boucher did you hear
my testimony right now regarding the property yes do you adopt it as your own yes do you have
anything to add um no i think you hit everything okay thanks i'm nothing further does the board
have any questions no madam chair no is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions
i see no hands madam chair okay uh councilman scuola has sent in a letter in non-opposition
the rco uh is also non-opposition calendar number two six four one five zero six dash ten emily
street my vote is yes confessor plaza my vote is yes now my vote is yes thomas halliman my vote is yes
hopefully contribute to the revitalization of Woodland Avenue. As you can see from this is just
the rest of the tax stuff. Indeed, as you can see from the zoning map, it's an intermediate lot zone
CMX2. It allows for multifamily again on the second and third floors and all we're looking for
is to utilize the ground floor for residential.
It is also near RSA 5 and also as an intermediate lot,
it's a little bit more difficult on these thinner lots
to provide meaningful commercial uses.
As you can see, the main hardship that we have,
aside from the fact that the owner since 2018
has tried to obtain a commercial use,
is that the way that the building is currently built out,
there's steps up to even get to the first floor
and then there's a small window. Obviously, this was great when there was room for business and
professional and office space. But since then, in order to provide any real commercial use,
we would have to really demolish the entire first floor, reconfigure the entire front,
potentially demolish and rework the basement so that there could be some reasonable storage.
And instead, the community and the neighbors were really just supportive of having
residential. They believed that it would be a benefit to the neighborhood at an additional
affordable unit, and they did not want us to be creating a lot of demolition. The prior owner of
this property had promised some things from a construction perspective that were not done,
so they were really excited to actually have the building go into use and keep most of the
existing structure. Obviously, once permitted, we'll be cleaning it up a bit, but as you can see,
it would require a significant amount of work and heavy demolition to make this usable for a
commercial space. As you can see, the adjacent structures have a different facade where it
actually makes it a little bit obviously easier for commercial use. We don't have that over here.
And again, most of these are at the ground floor. We have to go up several steps to even get into
the space. Another view and an angle, see how we're sort of dissimilar from all the other commercial
uses in sort of the way that the building is built out. Again, I have the zoning permit where
we did try to get use for business and professional services. It's remained vacant ever since,
despite efforts. On July 22nd, we met with the Southwest District Services RCO. And as you can
see in front of us, this is a letter of support from both the 52nd Republican Ward who attended
the meeting. Cedar Park neighbor was there, but they were not an effective RCO, but it was five
in support from the Southwest District Services in the 51st Republican Ward, and there was 10
people at the meeting. Again, an additional letter, basically based on the outcome of the meeting,
they're in support of the application as proposed for three dwelling units in existing structure
from the president of Southwest Philadelphia District Services. We also did touch base with
the one of the adjacent near neighbors a few blocks away but also someone who had been working
on trying to help encourage additional businesses and support in Woodland Avenue and they provided
a letter of support for our application as well. I am happy to also share the floor plans
just so that the board can see what we are going to be proposing for the ground floor
so as you can see after walking up be a bedroom in the front bathroom closet space kitchen and
living space and a bedroom in the back so two bedrooms one bathroom just a small you know
ground floor unit we're not utilizing the basement again we'd have to do a significant
dig down to do that and the goal was really just to rehab this first floor in order to provide for
an additional unit I believe my client and the owner Jason Houma is on the line if I could bring
him up to adopt my testimony then happy to take any questions that the board may have thank you
Mr. Homa you please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
Mr. Homa can you hear me? Yes can you hear me? Yes I can can you put your name and address on
the record and spell your last name please? My name is Jason Homa last name is H-O-M-A
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth