and what's the justification for doing solid garage doors if it's open air
uh let me let me go back to that
as opposed to having clear light
i didn't hear i missed one i didn't hear you on that one i'm sorry anything with a higher
transparency yeah i just thought i think it's done for privacy i mean if you had a if you had
a fence there uh or box fence or something like that um you would still have some privacy for the
yard and i think that was the point for this and to make it i mean it's brick uh it's it's
It's kind of rich for a garage front, but we thought this would go over better, frankly, with the neighbors and a community group.
Any other questions?
Questions from our attorney, Hiller Emerson.
No questions, Mr. Chair, just a comment.
I think based on hearing the testimony, we can vote these two matters together if the board wishes.
Thank you.
All right.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
planning commission and i'm sorry chairs no hands okay thank you i'm surprised mr everett's not on
but go ahead michael gallitz philadelphia city planning commission the comprehensive plan
recommends no change in zoning from the existing rsa5 residential single family attached zoning at
this location the curb cut off american street is an existing condition however the appellant
has not shown the compliance with fence requirements would cause economic detriment
planning commission therefore recommends the board grant the requested variance for curb cut location
but deny the requested variance for fence height and opacity okay thank you um we'll go both
together. Number 12, MI2025-004-750-227 Fairmont Avenue, TB263537. And number 13, MI2025-004-751-227
Fairmont Avenue, TA263537. I vote yes for both. Michael Johns, I vote yes.
for both.
Cheryl Gaston, I vote yes for both.
Cheryl Gaston, I vote yes for both.
Tanetta Bram, I vote yes
Tanetta Bram, I vote yes for both.
for both.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes for both.
Tywin, my vote is yes for both.
Thank you.
I'm going to end the preamble for the 3.30 list, so just hang around a little bit, okay?
All right, sure. Thank you very much.
Sure, sure. Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this 3.30 meeting of the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment.
With me is our board vice chair, Tanetta Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our board secretary, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board member, Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board member, Ty Wynn.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board member, Ryan McAdams.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, our zoning board director, Ane Haggerty, and our board administrator, Lakeisha Dandy.
Recording of this hearing will be posted on the ZBA website.
By participating, you consent to be recorded.
This is an in-person meeting with remote capabilities.
Whether remote or in person, if you're called to speak, you must state and spell your name
then wait to be sworn in.
Once you've been sworn in, please state your name each time before beginning your testimony.
Any person may enter their appearance to become an interested party to a case.
There are three ways to enter your appearance.
Identify the case property address on your Zoom webinar.
You can see a staff member, or you can call the ZBA appearance line by the close of business tomorrow.
Call 267-270-5548.
Leave a message that includes your email address and the property of the appeal case.
The following guidance is for our remote attendees.
When directed, you must raise your virtual hand in order to be recognized to speak.
If you're called to testify, you will be prompted to join us at panelists.
please accept the request and turn on your camera.
The webinar Q&A is for questions about the hearing.
Do not comment on cases in the Q&A.
And fourth, if you're participating by phone,
press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
So let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number one, MI 2021-004-365.
4501 to 03 Belgrade. This case is continued until 4-8-26 at 3.30 p.m.
Must be heard. Must be heard. Okay.
Number two. Well, let me go right down the line here. Number two, MI 2023-006-895-2873 North Lee Street.
Michael Ruth is the listed owner, the applicant pro se.
We have no updated exhibits.
This is the fifth listing.
It was continued 12-10-25.
Exhibits were submitted on 6-11-25.
Mr. Ruth.
Mr. Chair, I just want to note for the record that in September, the deed for this property was transferred out of Mr. Ruth's name.
Right. So we don't believe he has standing any longer to pursue this appeal.
Thank you very much. So, MI 2023-006-895-2873 North Lee Street, I vote to dismiss.
Michael Johns, my vote is to dismiss.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is to dismiss.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is to dismiss.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is to dismiss.
Iowa N, my vote is to dismiss.
number three mi 2024 002 779 6907 to 11 torsdale avenue this case is continued to 418
26 at 3 30 p.m and mark must be heard
number four mi 2025 002 448 1506 cambridge street henry clinton is the attorney
good evening mr chairman just for the record mr clinton could you state your name
sure henry clinton could you identify your client their relationship to the property
sure my client is 1901 spruce family limited partnership and the general partner john roderick
r-o-d-e-r-i-c-k is on the call and mr clinton we have a letter of non-opposition from council
member young and it recommends for support from united france and phil civic association
The vote was 10 in support, 5 in opposition, 4 in non-opposition.
And our vice chair has a few questions.
Good evening.
Have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, Ms. Graham.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Okay, thank you.
You can share your screen and begin with your case.
Is that visible, Mr. Chairman?
It is, sir.
All right.
Again, good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
I'm here on behalf of the 1901 Spruce Family Limited Partnership.
This is kind of a unique project, kind of interesting.
So we're asking for a single-family home to be constructed upon an existing garage, which is a custom woodworking shop, and with multiple decks, porches, on a lot that's 100% lot occupied by the building.
And the big issue is we have exceeded the height limitation of 38 feet by about 8 feet or so.
But hopefully, if I explain this properly, you'll understand why.
Table contents A1 through A10, which I ask be admitted.
Here's the refusal.
So erection of an addition above an existing attached structure, that's the woodworking, custom woodworking shop, with two roof decks for use as a single-thombie household living.
So because of the configuration of this lot, we don't have a rear yard, and we're 100%
lot coverage.
There's really nothing we can do about that.
So we're kind of stuck with that.
Since we couldn't go back, we went up.
And when you look at the height of the building in context to the duplexes that are next to
it, it really doesn't look overwhelming as one would suspect if you just hear, oh my
God, it's almost 47 feet high.
We do have an RCO letter of support, and Mr. Chairman, you did outline what the vote was.
So here are the aerial photographs.
To the right are six duplexes, and when I get closer, you can see that there's three meters on the front, one for each dwelling and then one for the common usage.
Here is the one-story building in between, and there's Multithami on the left also.
A closer view, just to give you more context, this is the view from the back.
This brown or pan area is not my client's property, nor is the area where the trees are.
There is a rear door leading out there just for fire escape or for whatever to get air into the building, but is not owned by my client.
My client has tried to purchase it, but it has not happened because he really can't find the owner.
Again, some more contextual shots.
This is the front of the building, so we're going to maintain this.
It also used to be, from what I understand, and Mr. Roderick can address this more,
an area where they would bring in pieces of trolleys and have them repaired.
And that's why this area here above the door is an I-beam that's pretty long.
Obviously, it spans the whole building, but it's two feet tall.
And Mr. Roderick can also attest to that.
This window, we're going to keep it, and we're going to keep the opening to the front door.
But we're going to put in addition, hopefully, on top of it.
To the right, this is an older photograph.
This used to be a church.
This church was knocked down.
It was just a brick structure.
I actually was involved in that about 10 years ago.
This has been demolished, and all the duplexes that are there that I showed you in the aerial photographs are there now.
There's an alleyway on both sides.
There's a four-foot easement on the right-hand side to get to the rear.
And I'll show you that on the site plan.
We're now looking west on Cambridge.
You can see the three meters for each of the duplexes.
plans i i do have a proviso form because we changed the look of the roof it was a a gable
roof excuse me it was a mono roof and we changed it to a gable and i have a rendering to show you
that so here's a here's a side view of what it originally looked like it was a you know a mono
a mono roof really not without any detail and as a result of the community meeting and just
going back and forth with the client, we changed that. But I wanted to show you the site plan
and blow it up because you really can't see the dimensions. It's only 21 wide by 34 deep. That's
what this brick structure is right now. And as I said, there's an easement on the right-hand side
to get to the rear. There's also an alleyway on the left-hand side. The area in the back is not
owned by my client. You can see the properties on both sides really, really dwarf the subject
really dwarf the subject property. We're going to have roof decks front and back again,
property. We're going to have roof decks front and back again.
because we don't have any outside space. The client thought it would be best to try to take
advantage of whatever you can on existing footprint. And when you do that, obviously,
you're losing living space and that accounts for the extra height in the building.
So, this is a rendering of the front of the building.
I have some color renderings that really show what the building is going to look like because
I think it's a little bit difficult to discern with this whole roof structure going on.
But as I said, we're going to have the garage door that's going to stay there.
There's a curb cut existing, windows on the left, windows here, and some paneling in between,
and then a porch slash deck on the top floor.
So, again, let me show you the renderings, and then I think that will be more impressive than what I'm showing you here.
So, this is the gable roof that we're now proposing.
Again, the height is still at the 4610, but it makes for a better project.
The client thinks so, and I believe the community group thinks so also.
So, I'll go through the floor plans.
Excuse me, first floor.
There's no basement here.
First floor, it's going to be a flex room, maybe like a little office, a bathroom, and then a parking space.
Second floor, pretty straightforward, kitchen, living area, the porch.
Third floor, two bedrooms.
Fourth floor, a primary bedroom with a roof deck.
And also there's some light and air here coming in on the third floor.
So this is a rendering without the roof.
I do have a rendering that shows you the roof, but this is a look of us maintaining the garage door, opening up that boarded-up window, and keeping the door here.
You can see that there's alleyways on both sides.
And this is the rear of the property showing decks on all three floors.
Again, the height contextually.
I have a view that's going to show. Here it is. So this is the roof, and these are the pilot houses
on the duplexes that are next door. The duplexes are 38 feet. They were within code. I actually
was involved in that project too, but the pilot houses are about 10 feet. So when you look at
The overall context of the houses to the west, our roof is probably a little bit less in height than if you count the pilot houses.
I wanted to see if I, yeah, so this is a shot I wanted to show you.
with the pilot houses next door,
our building is slightly less in height