MI 2021-001-318-1805-East Passiunk Avenue.
Or as my neighbors would say, Passiunk Avenue.
And I don't see any hands here.
Anyone here for 1805-East Passiunk Avenue?
no hands chair okay uh mi 2021 that's zero zero one three one eight 1805 east pass yonk avenue
is continued number four yep excuse me this is sharon um we do have a request from rachel pritzker
that she perhaps be called next she has an rco meeting coming up this afternoon
number five case number five mi 2021 that's zero zero one two seven one seven four six
south cleveland street there's a letter from sasna a letter of deferral with provisos
good afternoon chairman members of the board
great so you're still on the oath from earlier today i don't believe i was sworn
Oh, no, I'm sorry. It was Meredith. I apologize.
So please spell your full name and I'll swear you in it.
Yep. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
Do you swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to wait and stipulate to the accuracy of this application?
have you emailed an exhibit packet with required documents including proof of ownership
proof of tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral and 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 thank you please proceed i apologize i'm a little under the weather so if my voice
goes in and I'll do my best. Okay, so this is 746 South Cleveland. This application, I'm just
going to try to bring it up. Yeah, so this is the property we're talking about similar to a case
that the board approved a few months ago. It's 748 South Cleveland, which is the directly adjacent
building. This is an existing single-family home. We're looking to do a third-story addition with
a mansard roof and a third story, setting it back as a mansard roof instead of the eight-foot
setback. Our refusals that we have are related to the eight-foot setback, as the board can see.
Our refusals that we have are related to the eight-foot setback, as the board can see.
Again, we're trying to provide a mansard roof similar to the adjacent property and the rear
properties on Doran Street as well, and in line with what Sazna has typically been supportive of.
The only other refusal we have is for rear yard depth. We're not changing the rear yard depth.
We've actually modified the plans, which the board should have revised plan forms that our
architect will go into actually pulling back the third story addition to match the directly adjacent
neighbor at 744 South Cleveland which I'll go into in a minute but we're not actually changing
any of the rear yard it's existing so we're just not adding on top of it and making it worse but
had this application just for the board's information had this application been withdrawn
today and reapplied for we would have it would actually be by right for the roof given 748 South
Cleveland was approved however we would still have the rear yard again nothing we can do about
that because it's existing but we do have revised plans um limiting the slope of the pilot house
minimizing the height of it from uh I think it was 33 to now 32 feet in height although 38 feet
is required is permitted um and making some other changes with the um keeping the cornice line and
doing a clear parapet wall, which we'll go through in more detail. Again, this property
is a single family home. These are the revised plans that we have. And as you can see from
the revised plans, the rear addition is going to stop where the directly adjacent neighbor
at 744 is. I just want to bring the board's attention to 744 South Cleveland. This property
is also a two-story single-family home they were actually granted a variance in 2011 to permit for
the erection of a two-story rear addition uh 62 feet sorry six feet two inches by 14 feet nine
inches as part of an existing two-family dwelling so any hardship that that property claims is is uh
is self uh is self-provided as they were able to obtain a variance uh for their uh rear yard so
they're limiting their open space, which I think the requirement was 30% at the time, and they were
approved for 21%. I also want to make it known that that property is actually not owner-occupied.
The owners of the property have been running this property out to tenants since 2004,
so they actually don't live there. But despite all that and despite their rear yard variance that
they were able to obtain. We have revised the plans in order to address concerns that their
attorney had expressed to me regarding light and air. So I just want to make that known.
The other property I think the board will hear about is 714. And as you can see,
this property backs up to 746 and 748. The owner of this and their attorney, I believe,
are on this call as well. This property was consolidated. It used to be two properties.
she not only has this rear yard but she also has a small rear yard here there's no records of the
addition that was put on this house that is taking almost 100% law coverage so once again any concerns
are really self-created and there's plenty of rear yard and open space in addition to the skylight
and things that the board members from the previous case had brought up and that we had talked about
in addition again for 746 which we're here for we're willing to pull back with the revised plans
pull back the addition that we're providing to meet directly the neighbors basically having it
be in the same condition we also reduced the height again we were at I think 33 which is less
than the 38 we're now going to be at 31 and also providing for a slope pilot house to take into
additional considerations as the board may recall from the last hearing this is what is being
proposed directly adjacent as well. So 748 South Cleveland was approved with the same changes
and a proviso to lower the height of it and do the slope pilot house in addition to having the
parapet wall be see-through. So as far as uniformity, this is going to be in line with what's directly
adjacent. And just again, if we're looking at similar in the neighborhood, this is the block
directly behind it. This is Doran Street, which actually is similar in width as far as it being
a small street, as the board can clearly see. And they have mansard roofs next to two-story
single-family homes. They also have straight-up flush, which we're not providing, but we're
trying to kind of keep in mind of the mansard roof. And it's not out of character for this
neighborhood. This is the block behind it. And as you can see, the mansard roof, even
mid-block, even next to adjacent properties, looks a hell of a lot better than this. No
offense to whomever's home this is. I'm going to stop there again. Like I said,
I'm going to stop there again. Like I said, our hardship is really that this is a small lot. It's under 700 square feet, this lot. It also has an existing addition to it in the rear. And there's a mix of properties in the block. There's white homes with different colors. And so I don't think what we're providing is disrespectful of the block.
our hardship is really that this is a small lie.
and again we've tried to make a lot of changes. What we would be able to do by right is the
mansard or even the eight foot setback. We still would be in front of the board today for the
rear yard which again we can't do anything about its existing unless we were to demolish
parts of the home which again directly next to your neighbor has additional lot coverage as well
so it's not unique for these lots with these very small houses and very small lot areas.
I'm going to pause there to have Scott Woodruff share his screen. I just want him on the record
to put the different changes we made that are referenced in the Proviso plan form.
Is that one page, Rachel? Yes, I believe it's one page.
Yeah, one page. Mr. Woodruff, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
uh scott woodruff uh 4001 main street suite 203 philadelphia pa 19127 last name please
uh w-o-o-d-r-u-f-f we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you mr pritchett thanks scott are you able to share your screen or do you want me to
no i got it okay great i just want you to specifically go through where we were and
And then just highlight the changes that we made and, you know, speak to the lesser impact
that these would have given the changes that we made as compared to the right.
Absolutely.
So as you can see, this gray box here is kind of the existing footprint of the structure.
Currently this is a one story portion.
we're proposing a second story here and we had originally proposed the third story to go back
to this level as well in kind of some of the concerns plate and air we've pulled the third
story back an additional five foot five roughly completely from the second story so that we're
essentially in line with i mean roughly this is kind of a guesstimation on where this house is
the two-story facade of the neighboring, again, in hopes to try and provide as much light and air
back here as possible. And then we also sloped the pilothouse roof down dramatically, basically
down to the parapet height on that third floor to, again, kind of provide more light and air.
This also reduces the roof deck area because the pilothouse was originally in the rear here
on this side if we can look at the side elevation you can kind of clearly see the amount that we
cut back here so again here's that one story addition we're providing the second story here
and then we cut all this out we originally had the pilot house kind of in the rear which we
pushed up and then we sloped the roof back additionally again so kind of providing a lot
more area again for sunlight air uh to get back over there um as well as reducing the height
overall by a little more than a foot again kind of matching uh the neighboring at 748 south
cleveland we decreased the height on that one um and then pulled back the parapet in the front
uh and then produced a uh opaque uh railing uh that'll kind of be a little more generous for
shadows to get through. This is Sharon. Can I ask one question? It appears that the revised plans
incorporate all of the provisors requested by the RCO. Is that correct? Yes. Correct.
The last thing I just want to mention. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Scott. Sorry. I was just going to walk
through the plans quickly. Again, this is the existing second floor here. Again, this kind of
goes back already. We're providing room for the washer dryer in the bathroom, which is what that
small little addition is on the second floor. And then on the third floor, we cut this all back.
And really, it was difficult to do with the stairs, which we were able to reconfigure to
our best ability here and kind of slope all this back. So this just gets a lot tighter.
But again, was able to comply with the codes here to get this pilothouse to come up.
So again, cutting off this roughly 5'6", 5'5", from the third floor.
So, essentially, the rear yard is going to be the same as far as its coverage.
So essentially the rear yard is going to be the same.
Yeah, exactly.
This is the first floor, which this is the kitchen in the rear.
That's most of these little one-story portions that go back are.
Again, the existing rear yard is roughly three feet, I believe.
It's two.
Two, 11 and a half.
Yeah, so there's three feet here.
uh by code i believe uh seven feet is the minimum for again this lot's 44 uh feet in depth which is
very shallow um so it's under that 45 so you get relief as is but again these are these are small
tight lots thanks scott the last thing i just wanted to uh go over was the sasna's letter
just so the board can see the count if you add up support it's actually 31 and if you add up
opposition it's 27 um so actually there were more people that were in support than not in support
um i do know they have uh taken a position of deferral to the zoning board of adjustment but
i just wanted to emphasize that if you add up the support and opposition it's actually 31 to 27 in
support of the project thank you okay any questions from the board no i'm sorry do you need your
client to adopt your testimony? Yes, please. Thank you, Chairman. Greg Katz. Yvette, do you see a
Greg Katz? Mr. Katz, you can unmute yourself. Thank you, Lakeisha. I appreciate that. Katz,
please spell your full name and I'll swear you in. Gregory Katz, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y-K-A-T-Z.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you,
ms pritzker thanks greg have you heard my testimony today in front of the board yes
do you adopt it as your own and do you believe that it is correct and accurate to the best of
your knowledge i do and yes thank you you any questions from the board no no
what else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand yes we have roger perry
hurry please spell your full name and i'll swear i'm sorry no worry yes please spell your full
name and i'll swear you in thank you roger perry r-o-g-e-r-p-e-r-r-y i'm attorney representing the
owners of 744 south cleveland street thank you you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do thank you sir please proceed i would like to share my uh package that
sent to the board can I do that? Please do. I'm looking for a shared
He's coming in now as a panelist.
Okay there should be. Could you enlarge that a little bit Mr. Parry? I'm sorry?
If you enlarge that document, it's a little hard to read.
Okay. Can we all see that?
That's better. Yes.
Okay. Thank you. I'll enlarge it if we need to.
I have three procedural issues before.
I just wanted to notify the board that on the provisal letter that Ms. Pritzker has provided,
it says that they're moving the third story away from the rear lot line by five feet four and three
quarters inches. That's, I think that's just a misstatement. They're actually moving it an
additional five feet four and three quarters inches according to her architect. So that should
be modified just to say that the total is approximately eight feet. It isn't dimensioned
on one of the drawings, it is dimensioned
on the first drawing that he showed.
So just on that proviso letter,
it should note that the total is an additional five feet,
four and three quarters inches.
That being said, we submitted a series
of two procedural issues to start.
The first is that in the public notice
that was sent out to everybody within 250 square feet,
we've noticed, Ms. Pritzker, that there is no reference as to what the refusal was for this
property, nor was a refusal attached. That's not correct. Well, I'm looking at it now,
and you can certainly direct where it is. It says here that anybody who has a question can find the
documentation at 1515 Art Street. Right, it was sent with the refusal as all of ours are sent.
I can we submitted the proof of mailing and those it always that's the form letter that the city requires us to send as well for any additional documents.
This is not the form letter this it says in the form letter, which I have right here.
this is not the form letter this it says in the form letter which i have right here
it says that a summary of the refusal with an attachment shall be included in the notice
yep as the board is not here and there's no i didn't see any well it wasn't to you so maybe
your client has it it was sent to everyone who lives within 250 feet of the property you weren't
well that was an issue the second notice issue was i understand that this is the posting of
the property now you know miss pritzker is an attorney and normally i still post them in large
11 by 17 orange posters this apparently is a small printed version out which looks like a
building permit and here it is it's on the upper window i guess about eight feet which again is a
violation of the ordinance which requires that the posting for notices be at eye level and large
enough to read from the sidewalk this particular posting was way out of line with the regulations
those are my procedural questions greg the board can hear you so be careful what you're saying
so uh that being said the substance of our issue is uh that any this lot is primarily this block
as indicated by the one photograph that was shown by the applicant is almost exclusively two-story
row houses. That's a mischaracterization of what's going on. I will be glad to finish,
Ms. Pritzker, and then you can ask me questions. Mr. Perry, everybody calm down for a moment,
please. Mr. Perry, you made a statement and she's entitled to object. She objects and
And I think the pictures that she showed make it clear that there are buildings on the 700 block of South Cleveland that are taller than two stories.