For 803, it's 803 North 42nd Street, LLC.
And for 809, it is 809 North 42nd Street, LLC.
Ellie Seidenfeld is the representative for 809.
And Newcomb Maring would be, Nick would be a representative for 803.
Our counsel, do you want to respond to this?
Yes, I'm sorry.
Our counsel, our counsel.
Sorry.
Matthew Webster, board counsel.
Mr. Jen, is the principal in each LLC the same?
Yes, it's the same two partners.
it is so essentially there are two people they're both on both llc's okay thank you okay all right
um our vice our vice chair has a few questions good morning counsel do you agree to wait the
reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that's needed to and required to uh proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing. We did. Thank you, counsel. Please proceed. And counsel,
could you present for both at the same time, please? Yes, they're very, they're basically
similar cases. So I will try to make one presentation for both. Thank you. I'm going
to share with the board one of the two first, but it's essentially the same case. I'm going to give
the board the 80, I think 809 was called first. So I'm going to go ahead and put that up on the
screen? I did call 809 first, yep. Thank you. Can the board see my screen on theirs? It's coming up
now. Great. So this is an application for use for a new construction at the location of 803 and 809
North 42nd Street. The application refusals are very similar in the sense that essentially the
The area has been rezoned from RM1 to RSA5, and the application is refused for the multifamily use, as well as a 1% occupied area difference.
What I would like to first tell the board is that when my client purchased the lot, it was still zoned RM1.
So these plans, the proposals were kind of in the works at the time, but they didn't get the applications in.
And then the area was rezoned to RSA 5 while everything was still being worked on to be designed.
So my client did go to the community and also told the community a similar background situation.
Plus, given the proximity of these large lots to Lancaster Avenue and also further down 42nd Street between Lancaster and Brown,
where these two lots are actually located and abutting to, the properties in those areas are
CMX2 as well as existing both a mix of single and multifamily. So the multifamily use isn't
really out of character with what's already there. In fact, most of the original zoning was RM1 and
therefore there were a lot of existing RM1s. Now, the community made it very clear that they wanted
to change everything to RSA-5 in the area
to kind of regulate the amount of RM1s that's coming in.
the amount of RM1s that's coming in, but given our location proximity to Lancaster, given the
But given our location,
size of the lot and what's around us, the community ultimately voted unanimously in favor of what we
are requesting. Now, the community did ask us to make sure that from the plan side that we are
matching the design style of the buildings nearby in the sense that we're providing
a front porch with roof, that the building is set back appropriately to match what is
essentially front porch designed buildings in the area, and that we are doing that in
this case.
And that's one of the factors that led to their favorable review.
The 1% difference really is because of the setback and pushing back the building to have
essentially a similar depth to the neighboring properties.
And it depends on the properties are all different depths in the area.
But we have kind of a slanted rear lot line.
And that's what took away the 1%.
The one side actually meets the requirement.
It's the shorter side that gets calculated.
And that kind of took away the open space 1%.
that is the second part of the refusal, but the primary refusal is, again, for the use itself.
The other piece I wanted to make it clear to the board is that as part of our negotiation with the
community, they wanted us to reduce it from a three-unit to a duplex, and we are in agreement
of that. So any decision from the board would be for a duplex, not for a triplex at this point.
and part of the reason the duplex is more accepted is because there are duplexes in the area and
they feel that duplexes are a fair number of units to be used in this particular case given
the newer construction and given the style changes to meet what the community is looking for
so that is why we're before the board today to request the amendment to duplexes for both
both properties with the variance still in place for that 1% coverage difference due to the shape
of the lot being the main cause of that. I'm happy to, oh, I'm sorry. Let me show the board the
floor plans so that it is clear how it's laid out with the duplex. So this is the first floor
layout. Let me zoom out slightly because it's actually easier to see this way. There is no
living in the basement is basically storage and utilities. We have the first floor being the
kitchen, living room, bathroom. The second and third floor will be one unit, a much larger unit
with a larger master bedroom in the back, bedroom in the front, and then the first floor being the
living room, kitchen, and one bedroom in the back. So the second unit is three bedrooms,
and the first floor unit is two bedrooms.
That encompasses the two units altogether.
There is no roof deck.
That is not part of the request here.
So that is essentially what we're here before the board today,
two new developments with the style of the existing buildings
to be used as duplexes.
I'm happy to try to answer any additional questions from the board
and redirect to any part of the exhibit as needed.
So why don't you bring your client on first?
Okay, let me see, is Nick here or is, let me see who's here so I can have him raise
their hand virtually.
Nick Mayring is here and he'll be promoted to panelists.
Great, thank you.
He'll be coming back in shortly, Chair.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
hi nick merrick hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yeah hi my name is nick merrick n-i-c-k my legal name is actually no him let me give you that
spelling n-u-c-h-e-m last name merring m-e-h-r-i-n-g do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Please proceed, counsel. Thank you. Nick, for the board
counsel's information, can you first verify that you are, in fact, a partner on both properties,
LLCs? Yes, I am. Thank you. And you are authorized to represent for both properties, correct?
Correct, I am. Thank you. So I'm going to ask you the questions relating to what I've just
presented to the board for both properties. Can you verify what I have represented to the board
Can you verify what I have represented to the board to be true and correct, and my testimony to be true and correct as well, and adopt it as your own testimony?
to be true and correct.
Yes, it is.
Thank you.
And, counsel, both of these are duplexes, am I correct?
Both are going to be duplexes, correct.
Questions from the board?
Yeah, I do have a comment.
I think people are finally hearing me that you're not going through the bedroom to get to the backyard, so thank God for that.
um yeah it's horrible when when when it's designed that way um so what was the opposition
so the the opposition initially was our original design had a flat front
um and with a triplex request the neighborhood felt that with the adjustment to a porch design
and a duplex use they are that is consistent to what they see in the neighborhood and therefore
they supported it so you've got trash room in each one of the units all right thank you yes
other questions yeah i have a question about the facade so i know that you all added the porch
to sort of meet the other visual cues from the neighborhood my question is why is the porch so
much higher than the surrounding porches given that the basement is not really being used so
So typically when a porch is that high, it's to give you full door egress from the basement.
And I feel like the way the plans are laid out now makes it look like the basement is, although it's not shown on the plans, actually intended for more specific use.
Nick, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's an existing building next door to you.
I think part of the issue here is you were trying to avoid underpinning by digging deeper than the next door property.
is that part of the reason for the elevated look yes i believe so yeah because my my understanding
speaking to the architect before is that there is an existing building at least for 803 that was uh
that is next door and they we can't if we go down more we would have to essentially um underpin
all right questions
yes um for 803 north 42nd street there's a refusal for the minimum yard rear yard
yes okay and you didn't really talk about it that much you said something about the
uh lot line being uh yes yes i'm sorry i should have addressed both as the same
The reason for both refusals being triggered, and I'm going to put that back up on the screen for the board real quick for 803.
If you look at a site plan, the issue is that the rear property line, rear access alley and the way these lots are situated, it's a slanted, slightly slanted path.
and that it cuts off that corner which triggered both the rear yard depth as well as the um the
one that the coverage percentage uh refusals okay thank you you're welcome other questions from the
board questions for our attorney no sir questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see the kids at this time chair planning commission
thank you chair bergman sarah bomb with the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 5 residential single-family zoning at
this location the city rezoned this neighborhood in 2023 in a community supported map change
at that time this property was zoned rm1 residential multi-family the proposed
dimensional variances from maximum occupied area and rear yard depth are minor and in keeping with
the purpose and spirit of the zoning code. However, there is no unique physical condition
or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformity with
the use provision in RSA 5. The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the
proposed dimensional variances for rear yard depth and occupied area, but deny the proposed
use variance for three dwelling units. Thank you. So I'm going to do four and five together. Number
four, MI 2024, 001-571-809 North 42nd Street. And number five, MI 2024, 001-591-803 North 42nd
Street. I vote yes to both, proviso for both, maximum two dwelling units. My vote is yes to
both with proviso. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes to both with proviso. Tanetta Graham, my vote is
yes to both with provisos for both.
Iowyn, my vote is yes to both with
provisos. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote
Ishmael Shahid, my board is just to both with proviso.
is yes to both with provisos. Thank you,
Thank you, counsel.
counsel. Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, so I'm going to call, I believe it's a total of five cases.
Am I correct, counsel?
We're fine.
Yes, sir.
Okay, so number nine, MI 2024-007-502-2507 East Elkhart Street.
Number 10, MI 2024-007-508-2509 East Elkhart Street. Number 11, MI 2024-007-509-2511 East Elkhart
Street, number 12, MI 2024, 007-511-2513 East Elkhart Street, and number 13, MI 2024, 007-512-2515 East Elkhart Street.
Bern Anastasio is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the South Port Richmond Civic Association,
and a letter of non-opposition from council member squilla mr anastasio
thank you mr chair uh verne you've already been sworn could you uh just state your name for the
record yep it's verne anastasio on behalf of uh nataniel levy who is the owner of the
uh a single owner of the llc and question today okay and our vice chair has a few questions
thank you good morning council do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to
his actress i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed and
required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i have thank you council
please proceed thank you mr chair as you said we're going to take these all at the same time
because it was one large parcel that was subdivided a while back
for single-family home development.
I first want to – you did mention –
Yeah, the only thing is, Vern, I think we've talked about this earlier today.
Number 10 is just a little bit different.
There's no proviso.
Am I correct?
Correct.
Right?
One property is –
That's right.
Property F is situated differently than the other four.
Right.
Okay. All right. Just so we know. And the architect will go through why that is. Sure. Okay. But I'm sharing right now, just for the record, the Southport Richmond Civic Association. That's fine. These are the five ZP numbers. The project was initially under 3003 Gaul. But as you said, once the subdivision happened, they all now have Elkhart Street addresses.
So I'm moving this into evidence, and I'm only doing this because these came late and not in my packet, but just bear with me just for one second.
And the letter dated this morning from council member Mark Squilla, supporting the RCO's
position to have the appeal for the front-loading garages approved.
That's why we're here.
We're here for front-loading garages, and we're going to get to that in a minute here.
But we only have, ostensibly, there's a refusal for front-loading garages and the setback
that would create the front-loading garages.
But we're here at the request of the RCO.
Let there be no misunderstanding.
My clients made an initial meeting with the community.
They have by right single family home development, which you'll see that's already in progress and has been done on several of the homes.
The community asked in order to alleviate some parking congestion, since there was no legal parking on that side of the street, that we in fact give the community some off-street parking to alleviate some of the vehicular congestion.
And of course, my clients would like to oblige.
So we're going to get to, this is the property in question here.
This is the corner of Elkhart and Gaul, right there.
This is the corner of Elkhart and Gall.
I'm going to pull out for a minute, but we'll be happy to zoom back in if any of the board members would like.