to to provide the least variance possible under the circumstances we have no dimensional variances
so that's apologize keep looking up but like you know you know that's we try to keep within that
mindset like we did we wanted to keep this from a building structure standpoint to amassing that
made sense under rsa3 i understand and we had unanimous support you know from the community
And I think they really embrace this because that block, it's a lot of open area that's been open area for some time.
It's a lot of open area that's been open area for some time.
So, again, I hear you about the lower level.
I express those concerns to my client, too, and I told him.
I said, the board's going to say, listen, you can't do this.
And, you know, I looked at him and I said, told you.
And so, you know, let's go back down to nine units.
But I think nine units is a really nice project.
and again what i pushed was not to have a deck up there i didn't think that's appropriate because
of the amount of size we have in the rear yard and everyone has access to rear yards there's a
trash room on every single floor like we took space there's no window in the living room there's
no light and natural air in the living room okay it's not a den it's a living room yeah
And don't we have a habitable, isn't it that we're supposed to have
what they call habitable rooms with the idea of being windows?
Natural light and ventilation.
Carcoded bedrooms, not the living room.
The living room, technically.
So what I can do is I can maybe, if the board feels so inclined to hold it,
maybe I can talk to the architect, see what we can do.
i can't guarantee that we're going to do any better but i always say let's try why don't we
get all the questions down yeah does anybody else in the court have a question yes i do want to
double down on what mike said i agree with all those same comments additionally i have a question
is this an all-electric building yes yes okay um where are the meters being placed
well again i now that we have like the the base we would have the basement level like you know
so there's no well true now you do but i was like there was no mechanical room in the basement and
where the mechanical rooms were placed on the current plan you can't put meters meters have
to have access to the exterior of the building so one i think like just having a question about how
it was being metered just the way it was currently drawn it didn't seem feasible that the utilities
would be easy to run um so i think that's like the first comment i have i think the second comment i
had it is i think just doubling down on the way that the basement was laid out um i think uh having
no light down there and everything being below grade but i did like that uh the first floor was
at grade which does open up potential for it to either at least be visitable which is really great
but i think because this is a single family residential property and you're asking for 12
units and to get rid of parking i think uh to make sure that what you've proposed you know
actually seems livable because you're getting a lot more units on it than the one so yeah and
and even hypothetically if we had living in the basement because we have a pass through like from
front to back we could put you know put the meters back there because they would be accessible out
there i would say practically speaking we don't control like you know where the meters grow we
can ask but you know ultimately the city and decides that and i agree with you i think when
I walk by properties in the city of Philadelphia, and you see like six meters on this beautiful
brick front facade, it's like, wow, that was a waste, right?
So I agree with you that.
I think that's a bigger issue that goes beyond zoning, and that's a conversation with the
utility companies where they could do a better job.
Tonetta?
I'm good.
That's just the basement.
No basement living.
I like that proviso.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
i just want to briefly note that we did receive a letter of support from swamp poodle on this
matter was provisos they asked for a limit of six units no basement living interior trash and
recycling storage as well as a co to be obtained which of course it would need to be this new
construction yeah so i mean swamp who was one of the rco is not the coordinating rco um you know
who i don't believe attending the meeting but you know you know that's a difficult organization in
terms of multi-family and if if they're in support of multi-family it seems like this is a property
that should go multi-family the only objection what i would say would be the six i think that's
a little bit light um because again it's you know the hardship here is you know we can't build
something like with six units it just wouldn't be cost effective like and again again i don't
know if that goes into hardship so to speak but that's practical and i again we would have no
objection to a proviso or we would request a proviso of maximum six units no living in the
basement questions or comments from the audience questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes mr chair i have a hand up from uh mr charles richardson i've allowed them to speak
good afternoon mr richardson good afternoon mr chair charles richardson sure
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Charles Richardson. Charles Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass Room, 508 City Hall.
The Councilwoman does not like...
Hold on, woman. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, sir?
Please proceed.
Okay, the councilwoman does not like basement living. And hearing that Mr. Knockamson has been trying to convince his client to remove the basement living, it sounds like they might be moving in that direction.
If they can hold, if you guys can hold this and they come back to the community, I would ask, request that they come back to the community and let them know whatever changes that they are making to the property.
Since they got a unanimous letter from Allegheny West, I think they still need to come back and talk to the community about whatever changes that they're going to be making.
We understand that.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I have a hand up from a number ending in 3552.
This may be Adrian Fernandez.
Adrian?
Ms. Fernandez?
You've been unmuted. You don't have to speak.
Ms. Fernandez.
i'm sorry you can proceed okay thank you um anyone else in the virtual audience
planning commission do you want to hold your or do you want to vote
that's all right sure we can testify if that's okay with you sure all right uh good afternoon
chairman and board members david effecto with the city planning commission chairman and board
members the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from rsa
residential single family to RTA 1 residential 2 family the appellant requests 12 dwelling units
and no accessory off-street parking spaces this is a 4157 square foot lot the previous building
had three dwelling units there are other multi-family dwellings on the block face with
up to six dwelling units but not the 12 that the appellant requests and off-street accessory
parking would not match the character of this block face the city planning commission recommends
that the board grant a proposed variance for not including accessory off-street parking
and the use variance for multiple dwelling units but limit the unit count to three
in keeping with the previous building so uh mr chair can i just respond sure um so according to
our records and maybe our records are faulty um i believe that the lot's a little bit larger than
the 4,100 square feet. According to what we saw in Atlas, it was 4,967 square feet. So it's a little
bit larger than what Planning Commission has stated. And I don't know who's right, but that's
what we see. And I think that may affect, again, how many units. And in terms of the amount of
units, again, the practical matter is this. We can't build it with three units. Both groups
agreed that multifamily should be here.
One group had six units.
One had agreed to 12 units.
Again, even six units, I don't think it would be feasible.
But we would like to have an opportunity to present this again
in front of the community and see what we can do here.
Okay, so Hillary, we'll make this a resumptive hearing?
Yes, and we'll leave the record open,
especially if there's further communication between the parties.
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
Just a note, though, the deed does have all the parameters
of the site so i would have your engineer architect pull the square footage from the
dean i will so the result of hearing will be four two twenty five at two p.m
thank you and mr notkinson uh would you please stay there so
thank you sir mi 2024 006 167 7600 germantown avenue
There is amended refusal, a letter of support from the Mount Airy Business Improvement District, which was an affected RCO, but at this point, we don't have a letter from the RCO.
Actually, we have received one, Mr. Chair.
Just give me one second.
We received a couple.
Mount Airy Improvement District?
So, no, the West Mount Airy neighbors, the coordinating RCO, they sent a letter of support.
However, Councilmember Bass has taken the position of opposition and did submit a letter.
Thank you.
Just state your name for the record.
Just state your name for the record.
Alan Nockamson.
Alan Nockmson.
You identify.
You identify your client and relationship to the property.
My client is Cresham Green Associates LP.
And behind me in the audience is one of its partners, Scott Sieber.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case?
five days in advance of this hearing yes other than the the correspondence from uh the council
member's office um i did not see it yet so i i'll look through my emails to see you know what
correspondence may have been submitted to the zba okay what about that rco letter i see we're still
we have we have two letters we have one from the coordinating rco and one from the bid
Okay, thank you. We have them, Helen. Yes, we have both of the letters. Thank you.
May I present? Yeah, please proceed. Thank you.
So I'm here to present 7600 Germantown Avenue, if I can get to the full screen. Okay,
Okay. So very unique property. It's an RSD3 property. The lot size is almost 51,000 square
feet. The opening of it is, I would say, no greater than 90 feet across. Why is that important? This
is a regular shaped lot. It's very unique. In the front of it, and you'll see this in the rendering,
and we'll go through it there is a one-story historic property and this is not the first city
board that has reviewed this project the historic commission reviewed this and approved like what
we're showing you today so it's not like we just you know decided you know this six-month period
to present this project this has been fleshed out by the historic commission as well as the community
and this is the true undue hardship just because of the configuration law and the fact that we
We have a one-story historic structure in the front where, again, according to RSD3 zoning, the lot width has to be 50 square feet.
So basically, we're stuck with a non-conforming building structure on a 51,000 square foot lot, which that's the only thing that could be built on it.
And it's non-conforming because the front sack back has to be 25 feet from the front, and it's not there either.
So what we're trying to do is put seven single family homes here, RSD3, which, again, with 51,000 square foot lots, given the lot area requirement of 5,000 square feet, you can actually build 10 single family homes here.
we're only looking to build seven. So we're choosing the least modification possible under
the Philadelphia zoning code. So during our presentation, we'll be reviewing the notice
of refusal. We'll also see a letter of support from the West Mountain Aries Neighbors Association.
And then after my presentation, I'll look to see if I had that email in my email box,
but it wasn't there at two o'clock. And then this property and this project has gotten a lot of
notoriety. If you look at the next exhibit, the Chestnut Hill local had a whole article about the
new homes for the historic coal company sites. And they speak glowingly because they should,
because my client is well known in that area for both adaptive reuse and sustainable projects,
which is a mix of both. And we'll talk a little bit about Bancroft Green, which is in the
presentation materials. We'll also look at the aerial view of the property. We're also next to,
hopefully, a reinvigorated trail called Cresham Trail, which will complement, you know, our
project will definitely complement that trail. And we'll then review maps of the area, showing
the zoning classification and showing the unique configuration of our property photographs of the
property in the surrounding area our plans and drawings and in the in the hearing room i have
to the left of me i have jim cassidy the architect and we'll go through it from a more architectural
standpoint um again beautiful project you know this is something that it's going to be really
nice for the people of, uh, the, uh, Mount Airy, uh, Chestnut Hill area. Uh, and then we'll review
the meeting notice that we sent again, a very well attended meeting. And as many board members know,
the West Mount area neighbors association is very distinguished. I mean, you have former members of
the, uh, former council to the ZBA, I think too, you know, on that board.
former counsel to the zba i think too you know on that board so again this is someone they're
very knowledgeable trust me it's it's more technical in nature and they fully embrace this
i mean they even they said well we don't usually vote in front of people but you know what we love
this project that much we're going to vote in front of you and they voted unanimously they
really embrace this project uh you know ralph pincus heads that organization and as you know
he heads another city board here and he really embraced this project so we have our applications
for appeal we have an agreement of sale I know that there was a note that like we didn't have
a countersigned copy of the agreement of sale but we I know my team emailed it I haven't had a chance
to pull up the newer version so that part is not part of my exhibit package just want to let you
note, but we have an active agreement of sale. And, you know, Mr. Seibert's been working on
this for years, this project, going through historic, going through much community comment.
And we're here today and we're excited for this project. It's really pretty. It's really amazing
project. And then our certificate of tax clearance, right? Showing that the property owner
is in good standing. Again, at the conclusion of my presentation, I'll have Mr. Seibert, like,
um you know be sworn in i'll have a full questions for him and i'll ask mr cassidy as well to come up
here um and then from a technical standpoint we'll can go through the project um notice a refusal
right so we're an rsd3 uh property and you know we are going to put proposing to put a prepared
food shop in that historic structure and it's going to have four parking spots near it um there's
a huge apartment building going across the street with very limited parking. Unlike us, where we
have parking dedicated to each of those units that are single family structures. So we're stuck with