lot. In fact, these single-family homes comply with the spirit of the RSD3 zoning district.
Regarding the mansion itself, the applicant submits to a hardship in maintaining a single-family use of the existing 8,000-square-foot mansion.
The city's records show that the mansion historically had at least two units at one time, and this proposal would only increase that by three, including the rear addition.
As the board saw in the photographs and extensive elevations provided, this historic mansion is in need of considerable investment to restore its historic character in accordance with the Historic Commission requirements.
Such an investment is made possible by the proposed density, which also meets the spirit of the single-family zoning district, given the proposed condominium ownership structure.
The density and site layout is driven directly from physical characteristics of the lot, such as existing heritage trees, fire department access requirements, and maintaining the historic integrity of the site.
The proposed unit count is the least minimum to ensure historically sensitive redevelopment and is the least dense proposal of the several prior failed developments I referenced earlier, which all included significantly more units and overall structure.
The applicant also received a refusal for construction within a steep slope.
First, in accordance with Section 147042 of the Code, the applicant commissioned the preparation of an earth-moving plan, which is included at Exhibit 11D, bearing the City Planning Commission stamp.
On this plan, the board will note the areas marked in red, which proposes construction in areas containing more than a 25% slope.
And you can see that here with the little lines with the little dots on them.
As a preliminary note, it is thought that some of these steep slope areas are man-made, resulting from the original construction of the home.
Given the location of the slopes, which are nearly central to this property, it would be nearly impossible to avoid the slopes while still also respecting the significant historic considerations that contributed to the design of the site.
For example, the rear addition is situated in such a way as to be almost entirely shielded by the existing mansion.
Even a slight deviation in location of the addition to remove it from the steep slope would violate the desires of many community stakeholders and would likely not be approved by the Historical Commission.
It is probable that any design of this site would ultimately impact the steep slope areas, and this particular design has been crafted to result in the least amount of disruption and will be done in accordance with engineering consultants and applicable standards to avoid impact to surrounding properties.
The applicant submits the proposal will not increase congestion, endanger the public, or impair light and air.
Only a total of seven residential dwellings are proposed for a lot of over 60,000 square feet.
By way of comparison, if this lot could be subdivided, the RSD3 zoning district would permit lots of 5,000 square feet each,
so roughly 12 residences, if other dimensional aspects of the code were able to be met.
Each of the seven residences will have two parking spaces.
The driveway curb cuts already exist and will be improved to comply with modern standards.
The proposed addition and the new single-family homes all individually meet the requirements of the zoning code, including for height.
The proposed development fits into the context of the predominantly single-family neighborhood, as well as the apartment complexes to the rear.
Finally, the proposal will not burden area infrastructure or facilities, nor will it create environmental damage or other impact.
The development will require the installation of a new stormwater management system that will improve the current conditions of a site that was first developed over 150 years.
that will improve the current conditions of a site that was first developed over 150 years ago
a more thorough analysis of this proposal's compliance with all requirements of section 14
303 8e of the code is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at exhibit
15 and i'd be happy to touch on any particular point in more detail
regarding the community and let me bring up their letter for reference
you know what um i may have that in another version i'll bring it up if the board would like
it this proposal stems from over two years worth of house collaboration with both the chestnut hill
community association and more locally the rex avenue neighbors association resulting in the
execution of a cba documenting a variety of house development commitments that cba will
eventually be recorded of record. And at this time, I would ask if the administrator could
look for Mike Stanton. Mike Stanton. He's been unmuted and allowed to speak. Mr. Stanton,
could you please state your name as spelled for the stenographer? Yes, thank you. Good afternoon.
Mike Stanton, M-I-K-E, last name Stanton, S-T-A-N-T-O-N, with the Howe Group.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mike, can you please identify yourself in relation to the Howe Group?
Yes, I'm on our development team with the Howe Group and been leading this project for the last two years plus, working with the Chestnut Hill Community Association and the Rex Avenue Neighborhood Association.
and you have authority to speak on behalf of the howl group llc i do great and have you heard all
the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today i have and would you
agree that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own
yes wonderful we're happy to take any questions the board has questions from the board
no chair no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
um mary just verifying there are uh two pages of revised plans i believe that is correct let
me just double check uh one yes that is correct all right thank you yes and hillary they'll be
stamped today yes they will mr chair thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
chair we have charles richardson with his head up okay they have been unmuted and allowed to speak
mr richardson just state your name you've already been sworn sir thank you mr chair
charles richardson office of councilwoman cindy bass room 508 city hall councilwoman is not
opposed to granting the variance thank you very much for calling is there anyone else in the
diverse audience. Chair, I see the other heads at this time. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Dan Powers with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
D-A-N-P-O-W-E-R-S. All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Please proceed. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to
single-family detached zoning at this location the appellant proposes multiple dwelling units
and accessory off street parking on an almost 42 000 square foot lot the property is surrounded by
higher density residential zoning district and borders a commuter rail line there are also
multiple apartment complexes on evergreen avenue and the steep slope disturbance has been kept to
a minimum the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the proposed variances
Thank you. MI 2024-000-797-208-10 Rex Avenue. I vote yes with proviso. Revised plans, two pages, stamped 5124.
James Snell, yes. My vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2024, 000817, 472-74 Roxborough Avenue.
William O'Brien is the attorney.
Mr. O'Brien, please.
There he is.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
Mr. O'Brien
There you go
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman
There you go, there it's said
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer
Yes, William O'Brien
W-I-L-L-I-A-M-O-B-R-I-E-N
You swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify
your client in a relationship to the property? Yes. Baker Street Partners
is my client. It's a limited liability company registered in
Pennsylvania. Over my right shoulder is Andrew Molson, who is
a managing member of the limited liability company. Our vice
chair has just a few questions, sir. Good afternoon, counsel. Do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy? I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Can you see my screen?
We can, sir.
Great. So this is the refusal, but let me give some context first.
This project in a different form came to the board a year ago.
At that time, it was a little bit differently configured. It was a little denser. There was compliant but higher building involved.
We worked with the neighborhood over the past few months and came to a less dense proposal, which has almost 78% of the lot as open space, still providing one-to-one parking.
And we do have the support of the Central Roxborough Civic Association, which is attached at page two of the package.
The refusals are on the screen now.
One is the use, multifamily use.
And then there are some dimensional issues.
Because there's a second building now, there's two buildings on the lot as a refusal.
and the front yard space for the new building is dedicated to parking.
I'm not sure it's really a front yard, but that's how the examiner saw it.
And then finally, the rear yard, the required is 20 feet and was proposed as eight.
I'd like to address just a couple of these dimensional issues.
The minimum lot area in the RSA 3 district is 2,250 square feet.
This lot is over 22,000 square feet. It's almost 10 times the size of the minimum lot area.
The development proposal tries to find a common sense solution to maintain the streetscape, restore and maintain the existing Victorian building, and provide continued canopy for the neighborhood.
But as I said, the zoning limits the occupied area to 50%.
We're going to have over 78% of this lot open.
Although the rear yard is 8 feet instead of 20, the pictures we'll show you in a second
shows an existing four-car garage, which is approximately 2 feet from the rear property
So the eight-foot rear property line will be about four times greater than the current condition.
Let me move on to the RCO support letter.
In bold letters, it is supported.
54 people attended, and there was a good deal of support.
And Mr. Carpenter, the president of the Civic, goes into greater detail in his letter, explaining the history and why they support this project.
Let me go through a couple of photographs that gives more context.
This is the existing Victorian structure facing Roxborough Avenue.
This is with that building behind me facing Kendrick Rec Center and in front of that, Roxborough Avenue.
This is from the rear of the property looking towards Roxborough Avenue, showing the existing condition with the driveway.
The four-car garage I mentioned is behind me.
This is the east property line on the Ridge Avenue side.
You can see the stone retaining wall.
stone retaining wall. It's a 19th century stone retaining wall that extends a good bit along the
it's a 19th century stone retaining wall that extends a good
east property line and the rear property line. That detail will continue. That will not be
disturbed. It will be restored and maintained. That's the four-car garage I mentioned, which
is approximately two feet from that retaining wall, that stone wall in the back. And this is,
if you can see it, but there's the structure. Here's the rear wall, and you can see how close
the structure is to the rear wall. I couldn't get in because there's a lot of overgrowth and
distressed plantings in that area. This is with my back towards Manioc Avenue,
facing Ridge Avenue. Manioc Avenue would be to the right. I'm sorry,
not be developed and i'll go to that in a second you bring to the zoning plan
there is a proviso plan there is one change and that was a relocation of the bicycle parking
and this is the proviso plan showing that change it was in the lobby of the proposed structure
Now it's been moved to a bicycle shed as allowed by Section 14604D.
So this is the existing structure.
The retaining wall will be moved to allow for an 18-foot-wide drive aisle.
The existing building now has two units.
It will be renovated to accommodate four units, 14-car parking, and then 10 units in the proposed new structure.
As I mentioned, there's about a 4,400 square foot area of the lot, which will not be developed.
There will be a fence along the property line, six foot high fence along the property line.
And there will be a gate here so that the residents can enjoy this yard, but it will not be part of the development.
And the revised proviso form indicates that that is the only change from the review, from the plan that was reviewed and produced the refusal, and that's the relocation of the parking, bicycle parking.
Mr. O'Brien, the last time you were here, what are the major changes?
Major changes?
The original, let me skip to the renderings.
This is the proposed current condition.
This structure is 20 feet, seven inches high, generally in the same location as the four-car parking garage.
The previous proposal was not a separate structure.
but was an addition on to the existing Victorian structure.
It was height compliant, but the height was 38 feet.
But if you measured from the peak of the roof to the ground, it was probably closer to 40 feet.
So the structure I just showed you, which is now a separate structure, is approximately half the height, half the bulk of that former structure.
A wide denial. We also work closely with the planning commission on a landscape plan. There will be a total of six trees removed to allow for this development, but 14 trees are being introduced.
This is the planting plan, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 trees, all indicated in this plan.
And Bakery Partners has agreed to work with the RCO to select from the approved plantings list trees that will best develop a good canopy and will also work to save as many of the trees that are on the lot.
There are 29 trees that the arborist indicated are compromised, but we will work to do what we can to restore as many of those to some form of health and make them last as long as possible.
We do a streets department approval.
And although the area is single family, as shown on pages 24 and 25, a total of 15 properties that surround this have been converted from single family to apartments.
So there's not less than 55 apartments that surround this site.
this site. The aerial rendering shows the existing structure, the proposed structure,
and this is the area that will not be developed.
uh chris karakoff is on uh the call he's the project architect
uh if chris would raise his hand he can go through uh the floor plans
i i think we understand it mr o'brien okay and i why don't you bring your client on
uh mr molson uh were you uh you were here listening to my testimony
Could you first state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Andrew Molson, M-U-L-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Mr. O'Brien.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You were hearing your testimony?
Is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own?
Is there anything you'd like to add?
Questions from the board?
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
just a couple of quick clarifications mr o'brien um one is the the existing accessory
garage is that being demolished as part of yes okay all right thank you and then is there a lot
consolidation as a part of this i didn't see it anywhere and i understand your client owns
both lots but there are two lots here 474 472 to 74 and then the other one is also called 472