Steve, you've heard my testimony.
Yes. Why don't I do this?
Why don't I get him to say his name first?
Why don't you say your name first?
spelled for the stenographer.
Yes, Steve Oshesti, spelled S-T-E-V-E.
Last name is O-L-S-Z-E-W-S-K-I.
Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, told truth,
nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Steve, is my testimony true and complete?
And you adopt it as your own?
Questions from the board?
What's the trash plan for all of the units?
What's the trash plan?
Oh, the trash plan.
Well, that's one of the bullet points.
Let me go back to the letter.
Maybe I can read it.
Trash storage will be fully screened from view
and located with sensitivity to neighboring properties.
We have some areas because, you know, the campus is large.
So we have some areas behind the parsonage here.
There is a garage building here.
So there's spaces where we can do it.
We're just not sure where it's going to be.
But we promised the neighborhood that it will be screened and it will not become an eyesore for any neighborhood.
So residents will have to walk into these specific areas to drop off their trash?
Or are there trash rooms in each unit for storage until that time?
This will be a managed apartment use.
The management company will be involved in making sure
that residents have access, convenient access to a trash storage.
Other questions?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
um so just a a couple things um related to the the revised plans um because of the reduction in
the parking spaces and consequent consequentially increase in landscaping um one um mr o'brien we
will need actually not just the landscaping plan but an updated site plan if the board approves
this so that would be two pages of revised plans and also as we discussed previously
if the board does approve this it would do so with a provisor that the plans need to be
stamped by the planning commission prior to permit issuance right i i think really it's only one
plan um if the site yeah i was going to say there's there's two plans i looked on i looked
on the um i looked on eclipse and there's a there's a z100 site plan and so that ellen
um i looked on eclipse and there's a there's a z100 site plan and so the lni needs an updated
version of that that says 16 parking spaces and not 18 otherwise they'll have conflicting plans
we can do that okay thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
yeah this is jason hand i say a handout from jake thompson okay i will allow them to uh
speak to the panelists real quick. Sure.
Hello, good afternoon. Hi, good afternoon. Could you please take your name and spell for the
stenographer? Jake Thompson, J-A-K-E-T-H-O-N-P-S-O-N. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Jake Thompson, are you a neighbor?
Yes. If you would, turn your video on if you can. Sure. And start your testimony.
So I strongly oppose the zoning variance for a surface parking lot shared between 401
Martin Street and 4351
Pechen Street. I'm a home
owner on the 4300 block of Pechen
Street, and I can see the former
Bethany Lutheran Church from my porch.
In fact, I can see it outside my window right now.
The churchyard fronting Pechen
Street is an important part of our community.
The trees, which the developer removed
without a permit, provided valuable
shade and contributed to the natural aesthetic
of the block. Neighbors have used
the churchyard as a pocket park for years,
taking their children and pets to play,
or enjoying a respite from hot summer
days. What makes Roxborough a special place is a combination of walkability, density, and plentiful
nature, and that is why I chose to live here. This proposal for a surface parking lot would detract
from all of these. It would negatively affect the historic nature of the property, increase the urban
heat island effect, and introduce additional traffic noise, emissions, and danger. The curb cut would
require destruction of the historic stone wall and create a more dangerous situation for people
walking on the sidewalk. The loss of green space would be detrimental both to immediate neighbors
such as myself and future tenants of the property. I see the revised plans. There's still not very
much green space. It's a lot of hardscape. I strongly oppose the zoning variance for a surface
parking lot shared between 401 Martin Street and 4351 Peaton Street. I support the proposed use
of poor parking units within the existing structure. We need more housing in every neighborhood,
but parking is not a requirement for housing, and future tenants would greatly benefit from
shared public green space on the property thank you thank you very much for uh is there anyone
else in the virtual audience further hands mr chair army no further hands mr chair okay um
mr o'brien do you want to respond no i understand mr thompson's position um a lot of neighbors uh
are happy that this development will have adequate parking that it won't affect the
neighbors and they're also pleased that we're introducing uh going to be more than a dozen
trees and many bushes and shrubs i mean it's all the landscape all right thank you planning
commission good evening liz fuselay for the planning commission the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the rsd1 residential single family zoning at this location
the city rezoned this neighborhood in 2017 in a council-supported map change the appellant
seeks to repurpose a structure that is listed on the philadelphia register of historic places
this reuse triggers several variances the comprehensive plan recommends identifying
and preserving at-risk historic buildings so the city planning commission recommends that the board
grant the proposed variances for multifamily use in minimum lot area and width. For the proposed
parking lot, there are no unique physical conditions or circumstances that would prevent
strict conformity with the code. The City Planning Commission recommends the board deny the proposed
variances for surface parking located in the required front, side, or rear yards and non-accessory
parking. The appellant also removed heritage trees without the benefit of permits. The granting of
a variance for avoiding the required fee for removing heritage trees deprives the city of
funding that would otherwise use to increase the tree canopy in low-income neighborhoods
to mitigate excessive summer temperatures. The city planning commission recommends that the
the board deny the proposed variance for fee avoidance,
which will require the appellant to pay the fee that is owed.
okay um we're going to think this through bill um just get the right things that we need to do
with this and we'll vote on this next uh next wednesday at 2 p.m okay thank you mr chairman
Thank you.
MI 2025 002916936 South 10th Street.
David Orphanides is the attorney.
There's non-opposition from Bella Vista Associates and non-opposition from Council Member Squillard.
so chair david orfanides should be coming back in as a panel shortly thank you understood
good morning oh good good morning good afternoon mr chair good afternoon mr orphanages could you
please state your name and spell for the stenographer certainly my name is david
orphanides my last name is both o-r-p-h-a-n-i-d-e-s all right do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Our vice chair has
a few questions for you. Sure. Good evening. Have you emailed
your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
We submitted everything. We had an issue uploading the deed
which we were notified of and we did upload that.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Waive the reading. Don't stipulate to its accuracy just for
of minor technicality it's it cites the wrong table uh dimensional table in the zoning code
for the dimensional refusals um i have the correct table uh in my exhibits but it's it's it has the
content right it just cites the wrong table number okay thank you you can start your presentation
david we have all your documents too so you don't have to go through every document just go right
get to the meat of this please i understand i understand that's that's good let's get everybody
out of here, right? All right, again, my name is... Not quite, not quite, because we still got the
3.30 list, okay? Oh, that's true, but let's get the 2 o'clock list out of here. So again, my name
is David Orfanides, and I'm representing the owners of 936 South 10th Street, Claire Robertson
Craft and Paul Hughes. They've lived at the property since 2015, and they, since August of
2015. It's a single-family dwelling. In its history, the property had been zoned C2. It had
been used for this property and the abutting property, 938. South 10th Street had been used
for a mixed-use video store on the ground floor, believe it or not, if you can remember those
things, and residential dwelling units above. But both 936 and 938 had been utilized as single-family
dwellings for some time. The property, and I'm going to go right to an aerial, you can see here
is our property. It is zoned RM1 multifamily, but again, and the other properties between Hall
Street and Carpenter, as well as the properties across the street are RM1, but our property is
utilized as single family. What's interesting to note here, and I have our property clouded,
It is an attached structure, but you can see the rear yard of our property, and you'll see pictures.
It's three stories straight up and down in the back.
The properties are regularly shaped.
It slants westward from the southeast corner to the northwest corner.
It actually slants northwestward, but westward.
The property to the north of us, 934, extends further to the west than our structure, as does the property to the south of us, 938.
Here you can see in the aerial, both of those structures extending further towards their rear property lines or to their rear property lines, as opposed to ours, which is set back.
In addition, you can see 1,005 Carpenter located to the west.
That is a solid, you'll see in the photographs, that's a solid face of a wall.
So basically, the backyard of my client's property is essentially in the bottom of a well.
Here you can see the upper floors and to the right, you can see 938.
To the left, you can see 934.
Here you can see at the bottom, here's 938 to the south.
You can see directly in front, the two different color buildings.
it goes from a three-story to a two-story with the fence you can see to the right the very tall wall
solid wall of 1005 carpenter street as i pan around here you can see then to the north
You can see our property here to the right. And then again, you can see the wall of 934 extending further to the west.
you can see our property here to the right and then again you can see the the
You do see a wall, a masonry wall in this picture to the bottom left with a fence on top of that.
This application is to construct a seven-foot deep addition at only the ground floor level, which will, as you'll see in the zoning plans, doesn't extend further than either existing property to the north or south.
And we're not sure whether that fence, this masonry fence wall with the wrought iron or steel iron fence above it is on our property or not, but we elected to legalize that as part of this property, as part of this application.
So both the addition and the fence garnered their refusals.
The application does include a two-story set of stairs that go up from the roof and the roof deck surface above the one-story addition up to a roof deck above the existing third floor.
Those stairs and that roof deck did not generate any refusals.
The only refusals, again, as you'll see right here on the refusal that was issued on April 4th by LNI is for the addition to the rear, which, because it extends as deep as it does, does not meet the requirements in RM1 for rear depth open area or rear yard area.
And then again, that existing fence to the north exceeds the six-foot height limitation for fences in the residential zoning district.
Here are our zoning plans.
I'm going to zoom in just a little bit.
And here you can see to the left, this is detail one.
You can see the addition.
You can see it's seven feet deep.
You can see the addition does not extend further than the property to the north to the south.
You can see the deck and the stairs that are located above that.
There still is a rear yard area to the rear because of the angle of the rear property line.
It's for one and a half inches to six, six and a half inches in depth, which is, again, more than the properties to the north and south bus.
Here you can see a rear elevation.
You see above that one story structure.
You can see the stairs that go up and then go up to the roof deck.
That's going to be located largely on the back half of the property.
It shouldn't be visible from South 10th Street.
But again, those stairs and the roof.
David, the stairs has nothing to do with the zoning.
Exactly. That's correct.
Nothing to do with that, as I stated.
So real quickly, here are floor plans.
I'm going to scroll out.
You can see the addition at the ground floor.
You can see there's a kitchen.
There's no real dining area.
We can also show that in the photos, interior photos.
This allows for a larger kitchen and a seating area for dining.
Still, again, allows a rear yard for storage of trash, for outdoor area at the ground floor level,
although it is very dark there, as I've stated.
And then above that addition, you have the stairs.
Let me go to the interior, exterior photos real quickly.
Just real quickly, interior, here's the front living room, as I showed, the rear kitchen, the area that's to the rear.
And then you can see from the floor plans that I provided, you know, at the upper floors, you have, you know, a bedroom and then kind of an office area and then a master bedroom.
And none of that is being impacted.
I've included a copy of the deed that, again, shows my clients own the property.
The lot's only 15 feet wide and 50 feet deep.