Sorry, Henry, hold on for a second. There were, oh, hi, how are you doing? There were two.
The lot, the one with the original house in the front and the two houses on DuPont in the rear. Is that what was refused by license and inspection?
Yes, that most recent refusal was for that. We believe there were two refusals for this property. One was old, and then we resubmitted after the community group meetings, and then we were issued a second refusal in June. So the June refusal should be the one that we're dealing with now.
Okay, and that had the lot survey stamped by the survey district and the planning commission?
Absolutely.
I believe so.
We just couldn't track it down.
I have no reason to believe it did not.
Thank you.
Thanks.
So could I just ask just a few more questions for Mr. Bailey?
Henry, the doctor's office is just, what, empty space in the building?
Yeah, the lower part of the rear unit has steps down to it, but there's nothing there anymore.
And that, to bring that to a usable state would require what?
Capital.
Improvements.
You know, some sort of plan.
But more money invested into the historic property.
Correct.
I have no further questions.
are we looking at this property um mr wise speak up didn't hear you would you repeat are we looking
at the picture i'm sorry uh mr chair are we looking at the photo of green street no that's a
proper that's a property that henry had restored we put on testimony that that's the property that
he wanted to okay so this this is this is a green street right here
i have any questions mr wise no sir thank you mr malloy thank you call derek spencer to this hand
or to the to testify hello yes can you hear me yeah derek speak up though because it's your
little muffled there sorry yeah let me know if it's still um difficult to hear me and i'll take
We can hear you. Just spell your first and last name.
Derek Spencer, D-E-R-E-K, last name S-P-E-N-C-E-R.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Mr. Malloy?
Derek, I introduce yourself to the ZBA, please.
Hi, how's it going? I'm Derek Spencer from Nome Architects.
We've been working on the design here for 348 Green Lane with Henry Bailey since 2018.
As Mike said, this project has gone through a number of different proposals in terms of number of homes and orientation.
And right now, the one we're looking at here is the most current proposal, which is two homes fronting on DuPont Street with a rear loaded drive aisle from Maniunk Avenue.
Excuse me, are these new homes or restored?
These are new construction homes.
Okay, thank you.
There's an existing three-story and two-story.
Derek, why don't you walk us through the site just to make sure everybody's clear.
So the building that's being discussed thus far, which is on the historic registry, is on the right here.
That is the existing five-unit building that's on site.
Our proposal is to subdivide off the rear of this property and locate two new construction single-family homes.
and derek uh after you subdivide um the property uh what is the square footage of the property
that's remaining that the single family home will sit on um the single family or the remaining
the single family it's it's on on what square footage um i don't have my notes in front of
me that i sent to you yesterday i believe it was about 2900 square feet so sorry the single
So, sorry, the single family home was on. No, the single family homes currently sits on a 13000 square foot lot.
family home was on?
No, the single
But if you mean the five unit, the five unit, once this one, once the five, once the units are subdivided off, is it isn't it correct that you'll have a 9400 square foot lot that the single family home will still sit on?
That's correct.
And the minimum square footage for RSD 3, where this is located, is what?
I believe it's 5,000 square feet.
So the lot, even after the subdivision, will still comply, correct?
Correct. Yes, I believe everything around the five-unit building will still comply with RSD 3.
Now talk about what's proposed in the rear.
In the rear, we have two single-family homes, kind of in a twin-style arrangement.
Through conversations with the community group early on with what they wanted to see on the site was,
if you take a look at the zoning map, actually a little bit, a few pages before this,
you'll see that the site is surrounded by RSA3 and RSA5 lots.
So we were kind of designing in the spirit of RSA3,
which is matching a lot of the context along Manny Yonk Ave.
You'll see there's a lot of twin-style homes that are set back from the street with green space on all sides.
So that was the original intent going in here was to create semi-detached single-family homes
that kind of fit into that fabric of RSA 3, which is the majority of the surrounding context.
Just known by objection.
I'm sorry, what was that objection?
you're muted mr weiss thank you i i just wanted to object to the architect's testimony
of the um characteristic of the neighborhood and the surrounding
zoning since it's irrelevant we are dealing with an rsd plot
i think i know where he's going i'll overrule the objection
So, Derek, so what's proposed are 2,336.9 square feet and 2,182.5 square foot lots in the rear of the property, correct?
Correct.
And how do they compare them to the zoning for an RSA 3 and RSA 5? Do they meet those zoning if they were located in those zoning districts? They would meet that zoning requirement?
Yes, they would.
Great. And so I have up on the screen, I have the proposed landscaping plan, which shows, you know, some of the improvements for the surrounding area. Can you walk us through some of the landscaping and some of the things that are proposed on that plan?
Sure. This plan was not actually presented by us. We did not create this plan. Henry had a landscape designer do this, but I can walk you through some of the concepts here, which are the community wanted to see a good amount of green space around the homes.
The homes were actually originally split with an even side yard on either side of the homes.
Community group members wanted to see the view cones and the view lines from the intersection at DuPont, not to be blocked from the existing building.
So we actually pushed the homes further away from Maniunk Ave, giving a slightly larger side yard for that home at the corner.
But we have landscaping around all sides.
We are proposing to keep as many of the existing trees on the site as possible.
I believe that large tree there kind of in the center of the site is existing.
All new plantings are what you can see down there at the bottom in terms of local native species.
That's great. And so I'm going to show you what's marked in the exhibit packet
as proposed rendering presented to PHC.
is that the rendering that's currently proposed?
Yeah, this is the most current iteration of the rendering.
You know, we worked with Henry and the community group
to pick materials that speak back to the original home.
It was the desire of the community group
to kind of hide a lot of the mass of the building
within a gable roof form.
So it doesn't look expressly like a three-story building
from the front, which is where the roof form came from.
But, you know, as we've, as we're going to be discussing here, the historic nature of this, you know, we are going to have to go through the full historic process for all exterior materials.
And that discussion will still be ongoing even, you know, after the zoning process.
And so in the community group letter, if I can just summarize, they object largely to what I would consider.
object largely to what I would consider architectural or characteristics. And do you
think that those could change even with future discussions with the Historic Commission and
the community after the zoning is granted? Yes, absolutely. It'll have to change as we
go through the historic commission process and so um the community made a uh and the historic
commission have made um different points about roofs and different roof types um did you consider
different roof types as you went through and um are you still considering different roof types
And I'm showing I'm showing. Excuse me, excuse me, for the sake of time.
OK, the historical commission will settle. OK, I appreciate it.
OK, Derek, let's go to the refusals then and and what we're here for today for the zoning commission.
And let's talk about the different refusals that are for these for the new houses that we're proposing.
okay yes um i believe most of the most if not all of the refusals are centered around the
dimensional variances um as an rsd3 which is what we are zoned um semi-detached structures are not
allowed they need to be fully detached and we are proposing a semi semi two semi-detached structures
um and the required setbacks um for front yard and side yard i believe are not met
And what about the refusal for private residents' parking garages? We're going to be providing off-street parking in these houses, correct?
Correct, yes. There are two-car garages for both homes.
Correct. And there's also a refusal for steep slopes. Could you speak about that?
Yeah, there are no expressly steep slope areas on the site. We are proposing a new, essentially a curb cut and a cut through the retaining wall that's at the perimeter of the property. It's a bit of a technicality because technically at a retaining wall, you have 100% slope because it's a complete vertical drop off. So being that we are disturbing an area of slope that is over, I believe, 25%, that's hitting us with that refusal.
Derek, you heard Mr. Wise question, Mr. Bailey, about hardship and Mr. Bailey testified about the economic part of the hardship that he's facing with this property.
But what hardship do you see relative to this property and its current state that justifies a subdivision and the dimensional variances that we're asking for?
um i mean i'm not a property developer or contractor so i'm not sure if i can speak
to the actual hardships that are on the site i think there is an unusually large amount of
open space in the rear here that you know could definitely be utilized and i think this proposal
um you know it matches i think the density and the style of home that is within the area and i
think fits well with the fabric. So you're saying comparatively speaking, this property is unusually
large compared to others in the area? I have to object to the leading question, Mr. Chair.
I think it's an appropriate question because that comes up often that people will say that
the proposal is out of character. I think Mr. Malloy is trying to establish that this is not
an unusual uh not going to be an unusual uh house that's being built in this neighbor i think that's
where he's going mr molloy that is correct uh mr chair that's exactly where i'm going with respect
to the character uh of this lot uh before and after the proposed development
yeah i mean i think it's pretty rare to see a property um in the city limits but with this
much open space on the site. And as I stated earlier, the twin style single family homes
fit with a large number of the contextual buildings on the site. If you go down
Manny Yonk Avenue, it's pretty much exclusively twin style single family homes.
So Derek, a couple of questions from the zoning ordinance. Do you think this is the,
if this variance is authorized, is this the minimum variance that will afford the relief
and represent the least modification possible to the dimensional regulations at issue?
Yes, I do.
Will the grant of this variant substantially increase congestion in public streets or
Will the grant of this variant substantially increase congestion in public streets or increase danger of fire or otherwise endanger public health, safety, or welfare?
No, it won't.
Will the variants substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming property or impair adequate supply of lighter air to adjacent conforming property?
I don't think it'll have much of an impact on adjacent properties being that it's set back from all sides.
Will the grant of a variance adversely affect transportation or unduly burdened water store, school park, or other public facilities?
Will it adversely or substantially affect implementation or adoption of a plan for the area where the property is located?
And will it significantly, will it cause any significant environmental damage, pollution, erosion, or siltation, and will not increase the danger of flooding during after construction? And will we take measures to minimize damage? And I think you could just say, there might be yeses and nos there.
There may be yeses and noes, but as part of the building permit process, we will be required to provide an IRSA plan to show erosion and settlement control on the site during construction.
So those things will be handy.
I have no further questions.
Mr. Wise, and I would ask everybody to be as brief as possible.
We're coming down to the hour when we have to break.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Spencer, my name is Corin Wise, speaking for the RCO.
Central Roxborough. You stated that down Manningham Avenue, there are attached homes.
You would agree that down Manningham Avenue is a different zoning classification, right?
Yes, it is RSA 3 and RSA 5, where we had RSD 3.
You understand that the lot we're discussing is RSD 3, detached homes?
Correct.
And the refusal on this application is based on the fact that you're suggesting, you're proposing attached homes in an RSD property, right?
Semi-detached, yes.
Semi-detached, right.
You said that as proposed, this is the minimum variance.
First of all, the hardship you testified about was the size of the property being larger.
So it's too large. That's the hardship. It's too large for this property?
I'm saying it's uncharacteristic.
In RSD?
For the surrounding context.
Okay. The minimum variance is two houses. Isn't one house less than two?
One house is less than two.
Did you do a study? You told us that these comply with RSA3. Did you ever contemplate whether one house complies with RSD, the actual zoning on this site?
Yes, we did look at it with the required setbacks. You'd be left with a seven foot wide home.
But that would be a more minimum variance to propose one house compared with two houses, right?
it would be less yes you also I also think it would be unfeasible you you also well well you
could apply for variances though for a lower density proposal couldn't you of course which
and the uh you stated that adding these homes will not increase uh the traffic or congestion
at this location by definition there will be more people on the plot right um yes there will be more
people on the land. You also testified that the proposed project would not affect any adopted
plan, but your refusal contains a refusal from the specific NCO in Central Roxborough being
the driveway, right? Objection. The driveway was asked for by the community group members. They
did not want any of the added density on the site to affect on-street parking.
Okay. Well, we might hear from them. But you agree. Well, the wall, you mentioned the steep slope being the wall. That wall is also part of the historic designation, right?
That's correct. And in our initial historic meeting, we had conversations with them and talked about that at the next historic meeting, we would need details on how the opening was treated in terms of keeping it consistent with other openings in the wall.
Okay. And so the, so that would be part of your historic hearing.
Okay, and so that so that would be part of your story.
How much of the wall is retained or not retained around the front of these new proposed properties on fronting on DuPont, I believe, right?
Yeah. So, I mean, the, the wall wraps the, the entire perimeter of the site.
We have a 42 inch opening for pedestrian access on the DuPont side.
and if we can zoom in possibly on that um driveway access i believe it's a 12 foot
proposed opening for the cars okay so some of that's going away with this project right
i'm sorry what's your question some of the wall some of the historic wall is
we'll need correct yeah we will be creating two new openings in the wall for site access
okay for the driveway and the pedestrians correct okay nothing further thank you sir
here hi this is tanya