find out. But that's the extent of our, the responses
we were received were either from the actual neighbors or either not opposed
or in support of what we're doing.
Let me just see here.
Here's a letter, tab 16 from the Philadelphia
Here's the letter, tab 16 from the Philadelphia Historic Commission.
Historic Commission.
I did pull, I did include it at tab 19, the zoning archives for those properties that are of that consistent height with what we're proposing on the north side of Pine Street between South Hicks and South 16th Street.
And they are a combination of multifamily dwellings and single families.
Obviously, 1519 is nine condos, as I mentioned.
You have nine condos or nine units, apartments, the 1521. Then you see a mixed single family at 23, single family at 25, four family at 27, and so on. So a mixed use. Again, you have the Drake to the north of us. And as I mentioned that, I'm going to go to the aerials.
again you can see the drake right here absolutely towering over everybody and then you can also see
here in the aerial the um the uarts building so um we have mixed a couple we only have three i
think single family dwellings to the north of us before you hit the drake and then i think uh
there's the interact theater company before you get to the drakes you have a mixed use on south
Hick Street, in addition to some of the very old single-family dwellings. You have a multifamily
at the north end of the block right before you get to CVS. So you have a mix on Pine Street,
you have a mix of uses and structure heights on South Hick Street. When you take a look again
at the, you know, what we're trying to do here and maintain the cornice line of those existing
properties on Pine Street. We view this as a valley view type of case where you look at the
fabric of the block, you look at the existing structures and the existing uses that are there.
We even went so far real quickly to look at maintaining the heights on Pine Street and
dropping, as I mentioned, the height of the north building. There was no appreciable difference in
the shadowing, we thought it resulted in a really kind of oddball scenario of stepping down. It's
still at by right, you know, whether it's the northernmost unit or all the units, they're still
significantly taller than the Pine Street buildings. And again, our additional height doesn't have any
type of meaningful shadowing impact on any of the properties surrounding us. And again, we talked
about the by right um the renderings so um you know your testimony adopted what's that what you
want you want your testimony adopted yeah i was just going to get but i just was going to say so
we feel that there's a basis in law and then there's a basis just uh in going through the
criteria for the uh in the zoning code for the granting of this height variance um that there
is a hardship both effectively practically speaking in terms of the cases in the commonwealth
There's no material or substantial impact to conforming properties. We're obviously improving traffic congestion because we're eliminating and reducing the curb cut on Pine Street and eliminating the curb cut on Hick Street and going through the other various criteria.
As you see in my zoning copy, my zoning abort appeal that I did include with the package at tab 20 that we comport with the criteria for the granting of variance.
Our deed is included, tax compliance is included at 21 and 22, and all our various 14303 notices are at tab 25.
So if I could have Tom Famoletti promoted, if he hasn't already been to a panelist, I'd have him adopt my statements and provide some additional testimony if necessary.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Tom Famoletti, T-O-M, Famoletti, F as in Frank, A-M as in Mary, I-L-E-T-T-I.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Counsel?
Tom, you heard the statements I made to the board this afternoon?
I did.
And are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
They are.
And would you adopt them as your own?
I would.
A couple quick questions.
The property presently has a Pine Street address, correct?
Correct.
And you would maintain the Pine Street address with this project, correct?
Correct.
Correct. And the goal here is to match the Pine Street properties rather than doing something, doing a structure that matches neither the South Hicks nor the Pine Street structures. Correct? Correct.
And that when we submitted our zoning permit application, I can ask Derek Spencer about this as well, that the Planning Commission designated the street, the property line opposite Pine Street as the rear and Pine Street frontage as the primary frontage on the original zoning drawings, correct?
frontage as a primary frontage on the original zoning drawings correct correct okay do you have
Correct.
anything else you'd like to add for the board i do not okay thanks thank you questions from
the board i just want to have derrick spencer real quickly um adopt my statements okay derrick
sir yes hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
Yes, Derek Spencer, D-E-R-E-K-S-P-E-N-C-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Derek, you heard the statements I made to the board this afternoon?
Yes, I did.
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Would you adopt them as your own?
I would.
And do you concur that Pine Street was designated as the primary street with, and Hicks designated as a rear street is showing up on the screen right now with the stamp of February 24, 2012?
Yes, that's correct. We are providing the rear yard between our proposed structure and the structures on Hicks Street to our north.
And that does create some additional buffer, and then as a result of reducing or eliminating the shadowing with the additional height to those structures to the north, correct?
Correct.
And we are eliminating all the curb cuts on South Hick Street?
Yes, we are.
And we're reducing the curb cuts on Pine Street, correct?
Correct.
And is there anything about this project providing the off-street parking, the two cars per unit, that required the increased height?
um you could do the parking with a buy right structure correct yes well when we did propose
the buy right there was the same number of cars okay and again the goal here is the idea was to
match and in conformance with what we presented and what we heard from the historic commission
was to to match the heights of the pine street structures correct okay do you have anything else
you'd like to add at this point no not at this time okay thank you there's questions from the
board. No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. Questions or comments from the
virtual audience? Mr. Chair, I have a hand up for Ms. Michelle Liu. I will allow her to speak at
this time. Sure. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please? Hi,
my name is Michelle Liu. My first name is spelled M-I-C-H-E-L-L-E and my last name is L-U.
Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Proceed.
I'm the homeowner of 334 Hick Street, South Hick Street, which is the property right adjacent to the proposed townhomes.
I just wanted to mention that even with the tall, you know, like the shade, I think, analysis that they did, my property would be affected the most.
right? It seems like in all seasons, my property will be thrown into permanent shade. And I have
a backyard patio, I have side windows that are currently opened to the parking lot, as well as
skylights that right now collect sunlight through my bedroom at the top floor, as well as the kitchen
There's also, you know, the loss of privacy, loss of the view, and, you know, in general, it looks completely overpowering, and it's towering over all the other townhouses next to it, right?
Like, it doesn't look anything like the townhouses next to it, it doesn't look like my townhouse, and it will look massive, basically, next to the townhouses on Hick Street, South East Street.
If I can quickly...
Thank you for calling in.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
So, David, I'll give you a chance.
Sure, yep, yep.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, there's a Mr. Wade Albert with his hand raised.
I won't allow him to speak.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Hello?
Wade Albert, W-A-D-E, last name A-L-B-E-R-T.
Right.
Do you swear, affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you.
So I am a counsel for the Center City Residents Association, and I'm with the law firm of Stevens and Lee.
I just want to clarify a few points from Mr.
We appreciate the fact that he came to CCRA and he made redesigns.
But at issue, the reason why we have not withdrawn our opposition to this project is because at the very first meeting,
we heard from neighbors who opposed the height on hick street uh the neighbors were concerned
that the height was out of context with the character of the neighborhood and the presentation
that was made today does not still does not address those issues so uh as a result our
opposition remains okay thank you for calling in is there anyone else in the virtual audience
i see no other hands mr chair planning commission oh i'm sorry go ahead david
no no i can i can wait till the planning commission goes maybe i'll address everything
at one time if i need to planning commission
excuse me mr chair sorry um france pierre from councilman johnson's office has his hand raised
preparation for him next and then go to peter thank you okay he's been about to speak
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Mr. Pierre, if you're still available, please unmute.
I wait to be sworn in.
Mr. Pierre?
Do we see his hand?
you just left okay peter
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rm1 multi-family residential zoning
at this location while we recognize the historic commission's recommendations for four stories
along Pine Street, the applicant has failed to demonstrate a sufficient hardship for the
20-some years I've lived in Center City. You know, you do have bookends at either end of the block
that are much taller. But, you know, the issue has been from the beginning, and it was something
that the Historical Commission looked at, is you've got these two different heights of the
structures on Hicks and the structures on Pine. You know, the thing is the structures on Hicks
couldn't even be built now. They don't have the required open area. That's another thing to keep
in mind, the zoning code talks about the impact upon air and light upon conforming properties.
Rear yard depths are not adequate. Open area is not adequate. So in that respect, any claims
regarding that should actually not be, you know, should be irrelevant. But I understand from a,
I don't want to be callous. So I understand the practical aspects of this, but, you know,
we've shown you what it looks like to step a building down. You create a very odd type of
situation. It won't match 334. 334 and 332 and 330, these three single family dwellings before
you get into Interact and the Drake, which becomes a totally different build, totally different use,
totally different structure, are the only ones on this side. They, you're not going to be able,
they're not going to be able to be torn down and reconstructed at 38 feet, which is the permitted
height on this because they're in the historic district and contributing. Again, the chances of
getting a roof deck are slim to none. I've tried it on these types of properties and the historic
commission doesn't take too kindly to it. And again, in terms of the, you know, and I understand
the concerns of the neighbor to the north, this property has been a vacant, you know,
of the light coming in across that no structure property since she's owned the property lived
there and for decades. But, you know, the highest and best use is not as a parking lot. And we've
demonstrated clearly through the shadow studies, through the renderings, that the difference
between the two structures, you know, a by right 38 foot to the, you know, on Hick Street versus
is what we're proposing and you can see right here doesn't create cast any shadow on her on
her windows or in her yard any more than the by right would so here you have a by right
so it's all going to be in shadow with a by right building this is we're not asking for
dimensional variance where we were no closer to the um to her property than what we're permitted
to be because pine street again is the primary frontage so our rear yard has to be here um the
The question regarding looking down into a yard from a roof deck, you know, if that's something, you know, could be to be considered, you know, to set this back a little bit so somebody isn't looking over the edge.
I think that's Tom can speak to that if that's something that at least mitigates that addresses that concern. Because, you know, view, as we know, privacy aren't legitimate basis for contesting a zoning variance.
Nobody has a right to a view. But I think, Tom, you could speak up if that's something to address, because I don't know that it would impact it that much. Maybe that's something possibly we can do it to at least address the privacy issue. We don't have any windows.
Or I don't know, Derek, do we have windows in this north wall?
I don't know if Derek's still here.
But in any event, she raised the issue about people looking down from the decks, and we could set the decks.
I think we could probably set them back from that north property line.
Tom, can you confirm that?
David, he doesn't appear to be on here.
Oh, he's not on anymore.
i think i think but anyway i'm on um tom if the board needed you know felt even though again it's
not a basis for the granting you know for opposing a variance that the privacy issue i mean if needed
be in order to secure approval is that's pulling the deck back a little couple feet so that somebody
wouldn't be looking over the edge of the building and to their rear yard is that something that you
might be amenable to do yeah similar to how we from a street frontage we have a you know five
foot setback where we have a railing past the parapet wall we could do that on the rear of
the property so that you're not um up against the parapet and the rear and you're you're set back
um so that is something we could do if that was um to get us approval but okay i don't see that
major issue okay but again and derek just real derek is derek still on spencer i don't want
i don't want to belabor this to answer your question we do have windows on the rear property
to belabor this to answer your question we do have windows on the rear
since it is the backyard okay and you would have that on the 38 foot tall building apartment
building whatever the case may be yes whether 38 foot or the proposed height um we would both
be allowed to the parapet um we'd be able to go up to the parapet on the roof deck as well as
have windows on the back since it is a rear yard and not a side yard and then okay thanks tom and
And then I don't know if Derek's still on, but you can see right here from the shadowing that, you know, the claims that, you know, you're going to get extra shadowing by our proposed building is not supported by the shadow studies that we did.
It's not going to make any difference to her windows, south face windows.
Thank you. I think, David, you've made your point.
Thanks.
Hi, Chair. This is Tanya. I see now that France Pierre is back again. Can we try in one more time?
Sure. Mr. Pierre.
France, unmute yourself and try.
Hello?
I think you state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Yes, that's France Pierre, council member Johnson's office.
That's F-R-A-N-P-D, last name Pierre, P-I-E-R-R-E.