takes umbrage with the fact that uh the westbound area neighbors uh executive board
voted for it and and is providing a letter of support when the community was uh totally against
it uh 11 members for 100 102 at uh 8 3 and 7 to 7 to uh 7 to 3 or 7 to 4 7 to 4 i have to look at
7 to 3 or 7 to 4, I have to look at the letter.
the at the letter but it was it was
But it was for 31 as well.
All the members of the executive board live in the more affluent areas of Westbound area,
further up towards Mount Pleasant Avenue and up in that area.
This is down in the lower area, and the people that were there,
even though it has been characterized as lowly attended,
you had 11 members there that were voting.
And the Councilwoman is in support of the community and what their desires are, not of the RCO board.
Thank you.
You mentioned, Mr. Richardson, that some of the objection had to do with the side yard and these applications, excuse me, these houses would be too close to adjacent properties?
Right. Where the requirement was for 31 is 8 feet, and they're proposing 5 feet. And specifically with 102, the requirement was 8 feet, and they're proposing only 3 feet. That's only a yard. So, you know, there was a feeling that it was too close, and that's what the Councilwoman also feels as well.
um mr knockinson could you put up a couple of those photos showing adjacent properties and
what their setbacks side yards or look like compared to what you're proposing uh yes i can
um just one sec and actually this is the strongest part of our argument to be honest i mean that's
why we're very frustrated well we were frustrated with the community and i think that even in the
the community group was frustrated with their own community in that respect because this is not the
first time we presented so this is the the 6300 block of cherokee because we intersect between
duval and cherokee and you can see there's no side yard but i'm going to go duval it's it's a it's a
it's a block of attached row houses no side yards correct yeah there's some there's some minimal
I can show you the street views as well, but this is just an example of 127 to 131.
There are none.
And then same here.
It looks like there may be a side yard, but again, if you measure them, this entire block would be nonconforming.
So that's what's the most frustrating part.
When we came here last time, the issue was just the use.
We don't want duplexes.
This is a single-family neighborhood.
All right.
And the other issue, I think Mr. Richardson said it had something to do with the third floor decks.
Does 100 and 102 both have decks or no?
I believe they do, Mr. Alon.
Can you confirm that?
100 and 102 have decks on top of the second floor, not on top of the third floor, in the back.
Second floor, okay.
Sorry about that.
Yeah, I'm sorry.
You're right.
there are rear decks coming out of the master bedroom and there was a discussion well people
were concerned about privacy but there's actually the property is owned by a behind us is owned by
a community garden that goes let me just take a look at the uh zoning map and that was a discussion
where we are um this this area right here i think it's like four or five properties that are by
community garden so we're not infringing on anyone's like privacy or light and air uh because
we were doing these these rear yards these rear deaths but not a roof deck and i don't know any
questions from the board no no would anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise
your hand chair we have someone by the name of david weber mr weber you can unmute and you can
speed. We're still getting feedback. I would appreciate if whoever's on, if you're not
speaking, would you please mute your microphone? All right, Mr. Weber. I hope you can hear me.
Yes, please identify yourself. Name and address by your last name. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is David Weber, W-E-B-B-E-R.
My address is 848 Carpenter Lane, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19119.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And your residence in relationship to Duval?
Yes, so I'm the owner of 104 West Duval.
That would be the house immediately adjacent to this construction, the one as you look at it here.
this construction the one as you look at it here on the screen share
it's the new house as proposed on the right my house is the one right next to it
and what concerns me about this discussion is
I think some inaccuracy I mean I have not gone out to measure between each of the houses but what
you are not seeing in the photographs that the appellant has produced here
are the spaces between these twins these duplexes so for example
if you go to my house 104 the other twin on the other side is 106 there is a significant amount
of space between 106 and what would be 108 the next house over and that is the pattern that runs
down through that block. Now they are correct that there are some houses where there really
isn't a side yard so it is not consistent. I want to be clear about that but there are many side yard
areas and if you look across the street there are significant side yards between those houses
as well so what you have here is this proposal that really butts up on the corner of the block
and not only does it tower over it with that third floor it really is much closer than is
consistent with many of the yards and consistent with this that you are not seeing all of these
spaces and all of these houses really represented accurately here in these photographs uh in this
yes in this exhibit six oh yeah that is there's you can find some sections of row homes as in that
photograph but what you're not seeing are the photographs of these other properties where there
are much larger spaces and the other thing i do i really want to emphasize of of how you're being
really misled here um well i'm going to object you know yeah i mean i finish you're not going
to object i i can finish he but he can't object all right and everybody has an opportunity to
object all right so i i would appreciate if we stay factual not attack thank you so sustained
uh okay whoever please okay so there's a statement that you know that about the issue with the um
uh the decks pose a privacy issue and i don't have a big problem about those decks but
you know when the developer comes in and says well they look out onto a community garden
That simply isn't correct. And you can look at the street plan and see how there are homes there and the backyards, the space behind the houses then going on up to the block that those balconies do look over.
So I just want to make it clear that I don't think that this presentation is as accurate as it should be in representing what this community looks like.
And it's, to me, one of the striking things about it is the amount of openness that you see here.
So that's really my main point is, as you were asking about the side yard questions, that's my concern is that what really gives this area its character, which makes it very attractive area, is that side yard respect that does exist between many of these properties.
And really, that's all I have.
So thank you very much.
I have a question, Mr. Weber.
uh 104 you own you're not you don't reside there correct that's right and the party wall
uh that would be facing the new construction are there windows yes there are so yes there are so
it's it's a you know that's a rental property and there are i think three at least three windows
on on that side of the house and then what there is is there's an alleyway basically
you know already exists there on our side so on your side what is the side yard width
that i i can't tell you i think it's probably uh four or five feet at least
at least i didn't i haven't measured it that's just all right you know it's close it's a ballpark
i didn't i haven't measured it that's just all right you know let's close
figure right yeah and and what is being proposed mr notkinson is your client the applicant is
proposing a three foot side yard or for for his the property that's in media for 102 for one of
uh it's uh three feet three feet yeah so if we use the low number of 104 and the three foot you've
at least seven foot correct between the properties between the structures not not the problem between
the structures that is correct that is correct and I would indicate I would also point to the
letter that for 100 and 102 Duval Street that was written by the coordinating RCO both properties
will not meet the side yard requirements by approximately five feet although not uncommon
for the existing older homes on the block you made that point thank you okay any questions from
the board no no i think i already asked that but anyone else would like to testify in this case if
so please raise your hand and we would appreciate something new and different
chairman we have charles richardson mr richardson
he already testified you have more test more testimony can you hear me
I just wanted to share my screen, if possible, because when you look at the other properties, as you go down the block on Deval Street, 106, 108, you know, throughout, there are significant side yards.
And, you know, they keep being referred to as minimal, but they're not minimal.
And, you know, there's nothing that even is close to the amount of space that exists within, you know, the properties going down the block.
that's not been represented to you guys, you know, with the presentation.
If you go further down the block on Google, you can actually just see what the, you know,
that there are significant side yards going all the way down.
So, you know, I just wanted to make sure that this is recorded accurately as, you know,
because of the fact that this, you know, is being portrayed as, oh, there's either none or there's that.
But when you go on that same block, there are plenty of side yards that have significant space.
I agree, but I think you'd also would agree that there are some that are in the similar.
Not on that block, Mr. Chair.
Not on that block.
Not on that block.
Yeah, I don't know if that's the case.
I mean, the point of the presentation was that most, if not all of those properties would not meet the side yard requirements of the zoning code of 8 feet each.
All right. Anyone else would like to testify? Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
Yeah, no hands up at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon. David Vecteau, F-E-C-T-E-A-U, with the City Planning Commission.
We're infirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, these properties are indicated for residential single-family use in the comprehensive plan. We have no objection to granting dimensional and parking variances on the three properties.
Thank you. Alan, I just have a question. The width of the structure, 102 Duval, what is the width of that structure? Not the property line, the structure itself.
well the lot is 19 feet and if we have uh let's see what's 102 let's see one down to 16 foot
yeah 16 feet is that the same dimension for 100 uh 100 it's actually a wider uh a wider property
is 21 feet, huh?
The width is, yeah, it's 21 feet.
Just curious if we can reduce the
corner, the 100,
and that would slide 102 over.
Well, the lot's the lot
size, right? So there's two twins,
100's here and 102's
here. So it doesn't matter.
so it's not like i can take some from 100 to put it to 102 because they meet they they stay merge
they're like two twins if you look i i know i understand that but what wouldn't it wouldn't
tom correct me if i'm wrong i'm just using a number could you not make both of them 16 feet wide
you could so it gives you 32 foot frontage and you pick up some more side yard well it's also
So if you look at the – here, let me get the – where is the – is there –
here let me get the uh where is the is there even make the corner 18 foot wide if you want a lot a
larger uh prop a larger house there it's still then it would give you another three feet which
gives you six foot side yard well no if i had if i'm 21 feet and i have a six foot side yard my
my building structure is only 15 feet on the 100 you're making a 12 you're going to make it a twin
you're going to keep them attached that's right right 100 would be just using a number 18 feet
in width 102 would be 16 feet in width right so that you're taking three foot off of the corner
property 100 making it 18 feet as opposed to 21 that that 18 feet 21 is the width of the lot not
of the building structure well what size is the structure oh the structure oh the structure for a
hundred is a hundred is 17 feet seven inches and change 18 feet it's 18 feet already all right
and the other one is the other structure at 102 is 16 feet it is 16 feet but but but you have to
look at it this is a regular shaped lot for 100 so some of it is actually more than the the here
so some of it's wider in some spaces than others because of how it curves
that's why at a minimum it's 17 is that the minimum
17 and some change you said actually i'm sorry you know what the actual they're both 16 foot
structure wide structures right here i'm looking at the site plan so 100 and 102 so it's as wide
as a little over four feet and nine and a quarter inches and then i don't know what the and then
it's as small as as three feet and four and a half inches but both structures are both 16 feet wide
okay well that makes that makes a difference okay yeah all right um
i'd like to look at this a little further i'd like to recommend that we hold this
for one week in executive session um the record will be closed uh we'll render a decision at next
Wednesday's two o'clock session. Next Wednesday would be the 20th of January. So case numbers
2020-002588, case number 2020-002589, and case number 2020-002572 are being
Cases closed and we will, executive session next Wednesday will render a decision.
Thank you.
Calendar number 2453, 164 Richmond Street.
We have Dawn Tancredi.
Ms. Tancredi, you've been promoted to panelists. You can speak now.
Good afternoon, Dawn.
I understand there's a letter of support.
Good afternoon.
Hi, Dawn. Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Sure. Dawn Tancredi, T-A-N-C-R-E-D-I. The address is 2005 Market Street, 16th floor, Philadelphia 19103.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to wave and stip?
As far as the accuracy of the refusal, it was accurate at the time it was issued, and there's been some changes to the plans, and two of the refusals have been eliminated.
okay have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance
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 yes okay you may proceed okay thank you
um good afternoon board don tancredi here today on behalf of shacks and maxim group llc and may
I share my screen? Excuse me, this is Sharon Saleta. Before you start, can I just say that
I did run the revised plans by Sarah Adamo at L&I and she confirmed that it would eliminate two of
the refusals. Thank you.
Thank you.