We've got refusals for open area, very minimal, 25% required, 15% proposed. Same thing with the
nine foot rear yard requirement, can't meet that.
So we've proposed seven feet and just over seven feet
and the rear yard area was the last thing
that we were refused on.
But in any event, the plan as designed
and I'll just get down to it
so we can just walk through it very quickly.
If I can get down there, yeah, here we go.
a little bit too big all right
about that okay so here's just a nice rendering of what you're going to see from the street
they're proposing to do a brick facade mirror some of the traditional look and materials of
the neighborhood with a cornice line at the top to mirror some of the traditional
uh philadelphia row home designs uh you can see that the um the house is it's not going to be an
overbuild or anything like that because of the small lot size uh you know we're we're getting
as much house as we can into the into the lot and at the rear right here you can see is the um is
the side of a home with no windows because it's right there on a property line they can't build
them back by right so there's going to be no deprivation of light and air the immediately
adjacent neighbors uh 1705 montrose uh they were in support of the project came out in support of
it we're going to try to be here today um but um they had other commitments weren't able to they're
in support of the project they're aware of it uh the the home is is uh basically designed just to
kind of meet the uh the size of the footprint that they had before and um and and also just as it
relates to the uh hardship uh because this was a property that was lost through casualty through
no fault of the property owner under section 14 uh 305 10 zoning code any property uh that has
been lost due to casualty like this that's not the fault of the owner uh i.e she didn't burn it down
herself uh and tried to get a rebuild um that uh she can replace a property that was previously
non-conforming the home was previously non-conforming it did encroach on the uh what
what is now the uh the 25 open area nine foot rear yard um at the rear and so we're just really just
trying to go back um stick with that floor plan and go up again although the uh although the home
is going to be taller than the home next door it's still below the uh maximum height of uh in
this rm1 district uh it can build up 38 feet uh proposed is to build up to uh just over 35 feet
at the roof line and um just uh over uh it's uh 36 uh 36 feet nine inches at the parapet
and uh the pilot house is going to be right smack dab in the middle of the uh of the roof deck to
access the roof deck and so it's going to be won't really be able to see it from the street um and
from the side and because there's a um because there's a vacant lot there right next to her right
now it eventually there's probably going to be a house next to there uh so you won't be able to
see the pilot house from that side as well. So for that reason, I do have, I believe Ms. O'Donnell
is on the line. And just to go over quickly, we did submit Ms. O'Donnell's deed at Exhibit 1
and her tax clearance at Exhibit 9. We have some context photos. It was properly noticed. We have
the certificate of service, etc. So with that, if unless there's a question.
et cetera. So with that, if unless there's questions from the board, if Ms. O'Donnell is
online, if you could raise your virtual hand.
Ms. O'Donnell, if you're there, put your name and address on the record and spell your last
name and I'll swear you in. Hi, my name is Eileen O'Donnell and you spell my last name O-D-O-N-N-E-L-L.
do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes okay jimmon row good afternoon miss o'donnell um did you hear the factual statements that i made
about this project to the board yes i did and were they accurate yes they were do you adopt
them as your testimony yes i do okay thank you thank you just the board have any questions
no madam chair is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions
i see no hands madam chair thank you planning commission
madam chair and members of the board the property is designated for single family
resident for single residential family residential use in the comprehensive plan
but a zone for multi-family residential their imposed use is in line with the recommendation
of the comprehensive plan, and in the recommended RSA 5 zoning, lots with a depth of 45 feet or
less are not subject to any of the provisions that have generated variances for this proposal.
Consequently, because the requested variances are largely de minimis in nature, the staff of the
planning commission has no objection to the granting of this variance. Thank you. Calendar
number 1831, 1703 Montrose Street. My name is Carol Tenere, and my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Sure. Calendar number 1795 4006 Chestnut Street. The attorney is
Mr. Jinn is coming back in as a panel.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Can you put your name and address on the record, spell your last name, and I'll swear you in?
Zenjen, Z-H-E-N, J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia, PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
Do you have a letter?
Yes to all questions.
And I do see that the Spruce Hill Community Association has submitted a letter of support and Councilwoman Gautier supports this as well.
yes that's correct so briefly you may proceed thank you i'm going to share with the board the
information relating to this case this is a straightforward application the refusal in this
matter which i'm going to jump to at this point indicates that for a cmx4 property which is what
my client has as a property in order to put the proposed new structure with three residential
dwelling units and one vacant commercial space, it would require one off-street parking space.
Now, the easiest way to tell the difficulty here from a hardship standpoint is actually looking at
the photos and plans of the property. The issue here, and I'm going to zoom in in one second here,
the issue here is that this is on Chestnut Street, which has on-street parking on both sides.
The property itself is right here in between other buildings and it's a narrow lot.
It simply is not possible to put a off-street parking here without actually negatively impacting the neighborhood rather than helping.
As a result, Spruce Hill was more than happy to support us in this endeavor.
In fact, they indicated there's no way to provide parking at this site for a project of this size and in this location.
So they're in agreement with our position that it is simply a hardship to squeeze in an off-street parking spot while taking away what would be viable on-street parking.
The proposal itself will be a new construction, which includes a commercial space and residential above.
There is no basement living as the basement is part of the commercial space.
The residential units are all above.
The residential units are all above one of the larger units coming in at 1,680 square feet, and even the smaller two units are almost 800 square foot each.
one of the larger units
So these are substantial size units, even though we're asking for three, which the unit count itself is no issue as well under CMX4.
In all ways of looking at this application, what we're proposing is very consistent to what is around on that portion of Chestnut Street,
even though further down they're proposing hundreds of units but our one lacking space
will not be impacting those proposals nor impacting the neighbors on chestnut that we are
proposing to build at so with that i'll be happy to answer any further questions from the board
and direct to any particular exhibit the board would like to see again
Does the Board have any questions?
No, Madam Chair.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience with questions?
I see no hands, excuse me, I see no hands, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Fatina.
Planning Commission?
Madam Chair, members of the Board, the property is designated for high designated
DENSITY COMMERCIAL MIXED USE. BECAUSE THE LOT IS IN A HIGHLY TRANSIT ACCESSIBLE AREA
ALONG AN ACTIVE COMMERCIAL MIXED USE CORRIDOR WHERE A CURB CUT FOR PARKING WOULD HARM
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND RESULT IN A NET LOSS OF PARKING, THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE GRANTING OF THE VARIOUS. IF I MAY, MADAM VICE CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE MY
client just to verify my testimony? Sure. Thank you. Mr. Manok, can you raise your hand
in Zoom so that you can be identified? My name is Manok Ponukda.
Wow. Can you spell your name, please? The first name is M-A-N-O-C-H. The last name is Ponukda,
P-O-R-N-M-U-K-D-A
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth
and nothing about the truth?
Thank you.
It's all yours, Mr. Jin.
Thank you.
Monarch, you heard my testimony
and saw the presentation I made before the board.
Can you verify that what I presented is true and correct
and adopted as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Calendar number 1795-4006, Chestnut Street, Carroll-Tanary. My vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Harleman, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Calendar number 2719-6832, Ridge Avenue.
Mr. O'Brien is coming back in as a panelist.
Mr. O'Brien, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair.
William O'Brien, O-B-R-I-E-N, 4322 Main Street, Philadelphia, 19127.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, 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 to each of those questions.
Okay, great.
You may proceed.
All right.
So this is one of two companion parcels. The board heard the first parcel, 6830 Ridge Avenue,
on July 21st, and granted the required variances. This is the companion piece. It's 6832
Ridge Avenue, and it is an existing non-conforming use, it's a three-family dwelling, a photograph
dwelling and photographs of the existing structure is on page five of the materials.
of the existing structure is on page.
It is considered contributing to the Ridge Avenue thematic historic district,
so there's actually two pieces to this development of 6832 Ridge. The first is the restoration of
this historic structure to reintroduce a porch that would have been on the original structure
and to remove a non-contributing addition in the rear.
Although the property is zoned RSD 3,
there is no detached single-family dwelling in this block of Ridge Avenue.
I direct the board's attention to the photographs on pages 12 to 22,
where you see a bank, a supermarket, professional and medical offices,
a funeral home, a bar, restaurant.
In fact, two doors, two properties away, on page 14 of the materials, these two semi-detached structures were demolished in the last two weeks to make way for a by-right 77-unit multifamily structure.
On pages 7 to 11 of the materials are the prior approvals that have been issued by the Historic Commission, Streets Department, Water Department.
and page 11 is the approved erosion and sediment control plan.
As I mentioned, the RCO has met about this project
and their letter of support is on pages 3 and 4 of the materials
and they strongly support this project.
I'm going to turn this over to Chris Karakoff, who is here, if he could become able to participate,
I can bring up the renderings and he can talk you through what we're looking at.
Chris, could you raise your hand?
He's coming back in as a panelist. He has to unmute himself.
Thank you.
While Chris is turning back in, the building to the left, that was the subject of the hearing
on July 21st. This hearing is about the building on the right, the white stucco facade that shows
the historic building restored with the original stucco finish that it would have had and the
reintroduction of the front porch. Chris is now here and I'd like him to speak about the structure
that will be introduced into the rear portion of 6830 and you can see it here uh on the right side
behind the driveway. Okay Chris can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last
name and then I'll swear you in. Sure Chris Karikoff it's C-A-R-I-C-K-H-O-F-F.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay.
um thanks bill for the intro uh yeah just to speak briefly we we met with historic
and worked closely with them uh at the uh with the design of this so we're restoring uh the historic
structure to the front um and at the request of the historic board we were asked to separate our
proposed uh three-story structure in the back from the the main historic building uh which we
We are separated by about five feet, making this a second building on the site.
The exterior, we're proposing to do a stucco.
There's no roof deck proposed, just roof access for maintenance.
It's three stories.
We have parking below with 16 spaces, and then we have two floors of units, each with
six six units per floor
this is the first floor plan you're seeing the parking to the rear of the the site which is on
the left of the page here below that is the unit one in the historic building which is a one one
bedroom unit you jump to the next page maybe go
second floor you're seeing in the green there is a two-bedroom unit of the historic structure
on the second floor of that building and then to the rear is are the six
on the second floor of that building and then to the rear is are the six residential units
occupying the second floor of the proposed structure to the rear of the parcel