ZBA Hearing - October 7, 2020

the block captain for this block, who confirmed that it's been used as a two-unit building for

quite some time. And in the letter of support, the RCO also acknowledged that there is a documented

history of this building being a two-unit building. Let me just, I think you probably

want to see the floor plan. So this is the floor plan. There is a studio apartment on

the lower level, and then there is a three-bedroom, two-bath unit on the upper levels. Hold on,

let me just get to the pictures. So this is the lower unit, and these are the

photos of the upper unit. Okay, sorry. Let's see. I was gonna say this

use as a two-family dwelling is not out of character with the neighborhood. Let

me just get to the zoning map. So this is the property right here. And as you can

see, there is RM1 zoning directly across the street, and also on 67th Ave. And

this large RSA3 property, zone property right here, is actually a self-storage

unit. So it's not, in fact, residential at all. Let me just get to that photo.

So in the photo, you can see these are the duplexes that are across the street from this

property, and this is the self-storage unit that's directly across the street, which also

allows for more parking because there is no residential use directly across the street and

many of the other houses in the area do have parking behind their houses. So like I said,

we met virtually and let me just get to the aerial photo too one second so you can see

where this is situated in terms of other multi-families.

so this is our our property right here these properties are two unit buildings

these are also this is also an apartment complex right here um there is also apartments over here

and this is a large self-storage unit and then it's directly adjacent also to broad street with

mixed-use and commercial uses. We met with the 10th Democratic

Committee. They issued a letter of unanimous support. Let me get to that

page so you can see it. They did have a couple provisos which we are happy to

comply with. No parking in the rear of this property because there is an

extension on the back that prohibits that. The management company owners will

be responsible for the upkeep of the outside of the building including shrubbery and bushes uh

they agreed to install safety lighting on the property and also agreed to screen their tent

any potential new tenants um i do believe hillary is on the call as well the councilwoman's office

i don't think has any objections either any other witnesses um if ronnie fetterman um is on the call

if she could raise her hand and just speak and adopt my testimony.

Just speak and adopt my testimony.

Hello?

Hi, Ronnie.

Please identify yourself, spell your name, first name, last name, and give us your address.

Ronna, R-O-N-A, Fetterman, Ethelick Frank, E-G-E-R-M-A-N, 1822 Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19130.

zero the property manager for this property we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth

nothing but the truth yes i do thank you please proceed rana have you heard my testimony here

today yes i have do you believe it to be truthful and accurate yes i do do you adapt it as your own

yes i do thank you thank you questions from the board no no anyone wish to testify in this case

if so please raise your hand here we have hillary from the council person's office you're going to

meet yourself and wait to be sworn in thank you good morning good morning mr chair good morning

mr chair members of the board hillary emerson um e-m-e-r-s-o-n on behalf of councilwoman

sheryl parker we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank

you yes uh just briefly uh mr chair um this is a corner property um with an above grade uh basement

that has a separate entrance um as a council for the applicant noted um it has it's been recognized

It seems to have been recognized that the city is a duplex, according to the OPA description

and the fact that they noted at the RCO meeting that duplex trash fees were being paid.

The neighbors were not opposed and indicated at the meeting that this had been a duplex

for at least 20 years.

So they had no objection to it continuing to be so.

I emailed with Jennifer about provisos. I know a couple of the ones that the RCO mentioned I

don't believe are enforceable by the board, but we would like to see, sorry, my co-worker is waking

up. We would like to see a proviso with no parking in the rear due to the extension on this property,

also that trash he stored um in the rear of the property um the lighting uh the safety lighting

being installed and a certificate of occupancy um being obtained in nine months because i don't

know when when this was converted way back i don't know that it was necessarily done to code

so we just want to make sure that it is the code

thank you anyone else this is sharon can i just say that um hillary's um description of the

allowed provisos was good except the installing safety lighting front back inside a property

it is it's so vague that our the that ellen i would have no means of enforcing it

it might be better as a um an agreement between the applicant and the rco um i'll just add that

after speaking with my client they have they are planning on doing improvements to the exterior of

the property and have no issue with installing the lighting um i can work with hillary to just

confirm that in email i think we already actually did confirm it in email and happy to continue to

work with them on that and that is that is fine for us thank you thank you anyone else

would like to testify in this case please raise your hand

no hands at this time thank you planning commission

good morning this is paula brumbalo burns this property is indicated for residential use on the

comprehensive plan we feel that this represents an overuse of the property accordingly we recommend

and that the requested variants not be granted.

Calendar number MI-2020-000865-1500 Kinsdale Street.

My vote is yes with the proviso.

No parking in rear of property.

Yes with proviso.

Yes with proviso.

Yes with proviso.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Calendar number MI 2020-000273-1701, South 24th Street.

I thought that was in that case continued.

I'm not sure.

I'm sorry, which did you call?

1701 South 24th.

Yes, you've already considered that.

I sent a text message.

Sorry about that.

Go to number 6.

Thank you.

Okay, down to number MI2020-000047203 Diamond Street.

Thank you to an attorney as Meredith.

Meredith, good morning.

You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do, yes.

And do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?

I do, yes.

Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,

proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal referral photos and plans five days in advance

of this hearing i sure did thank you also have you met with the rco and have a letter

yes to all thank you you may proceed okay uh adam adam ben and logan at this time if you

want to just hit the raise hand button so that uh we can get you involved

while we're waiting. My name is Meredith Ferliger of Dilworth Paxson,

F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E. My client here today is LTD 203 LLC,

represented here today by Adam Perlman, Adam Feinstone, and Ben Reese. We also have with us

here today are architect Logan Dry from KCA Architects. Let me get the packet up.

All right. Before the board today is a proposal that will eliminate a long vacant blighted lot

at the corner of Diamond Street and North Phillips Street in the city's NARS Square

section of North Philadelphia. The properties involved are 203-209

Diamond Street. So you can see here, this is the corner of Diamond, North 2nd

Street. The board should have an exhibit packet with 16 exhibits that I will

refer to throughout. I'll start first with the details of the proposed

construction. I would ask the board to indulge me today as I do need to be

quite detailed so the board clearly understands what is proposed in light of

the letter we received from the RCO which I will address a little bit later

in the presentation today. The board can refer to the zoning plans at tab 4 which

I do have up on the screen, floor plans at tab 5, and a rendering which I will

start with at tab 6.

The proposal calls for the erection of a four-story structure on the lot

to be used as a multi-family dwelling with eight units.

The new structure meets all of the dimensional requirements of the code

including providing 20% open area. As you can see in the zoning plans,

which are tab four, although a nine-foot rear yard would be required here along North

Phillip Street, this structure will be set back by 12 feet from the next adjacent lot on North

Phillips Street. As you can see in the floor plans, these eight units are quite large at 1,000

or 1,100 square feet each, and they include one bedroom, one and a half bath, or two bedroom,

two and a half bath units on the first floor through the fourth floor. Each unit has ample

living space, in-unit laundry, and in-unit trash closets. The cellar level, which you can see up on

the screen, has bike storage, mechanicals, and another designated trash storage area for tenants,

which the commercial trash provider will collect during the week. So at no point is trash on this

property stored on the exterior. It is stored 100% within the interior of this building.

Now, with respect to the application, we received two refusals.

Now, with respect to the application, we received two refusals.

Because the property is zoned CMX2, a ground floor commercial use would be required where none is provided.

We do submit to a considerable hardship here for a variety of reasons.

First, if we start with the history of this property, which I will bring up at tab 13 and 14,

any remaining structures on these lots were demolished way back in the 60s and they've

remained entirely vacant for the 60 years since. In the last 60 years these lots have not supported

a commercial use. Now let me give you some context which will help explain why commercial use was not

and remains not viable for these lots. As you can see in the zoning map, if we go back for a moment,

this property sits among a variety of zoning classifications which include RSA 5 north along

Phillips Street, CMX 2 north and south on 2nd Street, and east along Diamond Street

is ICMX, I'm sorry, CMX 2 to the east and ICMX to the west, fronting on North American Street,

which is this larger street right here. Now, if you refer to photographs at tab 16, which I will

walk you through, you can get a better understanding of the context of this particular neighborhood.

So starting first, of course, this is the corner here of Diamond and North 2nd Street where all

these trees are is where this proposal is going to be built, hopefully. As you travel east on Diamond

Street, the only commercial uses of note are automotive repair shops not traditionally

associated with a cmx2 zoning classification now if you move farther away east on the property

and you move closer to the intersection of diamond and second street you'll see that the commercial

makeup of the neighborhood does not really change aside from a very small grocer right here at the

corner now if you look across the street from our property you'll see either vacancies or

residential uses again if you move west from our property all towards american street

you'll see that the vac that there are vacancies or you'll you'll start to see some of the more

heavily industrial uses that do face american street now north phillip street directly north

of this property are either, again, the warehouse-type industrial uses, fronting on American,

or two-story single-family dwellings. This picture is replicated if you then travel

south on Phillips Street. Again, you start to see apartment complexes, single-family dwellings,

or just vacant lots. There are virtually no commercial uses within two blocks of this

property aside from auto repair garages which are not traditional cmx2 type commercial uses

the large commercial you the large lots across north phillip street that are zoned i cmx which

you can see here have no evidence of impending development further evidence of the lack of

commercial viability in this area can be found in the city zone maps if you refer now to tab

which I will bring up, this is a map that reflects the city's commercial

corridors that shows that this portion of Diamond Street here marked by the

blue dot is not considered a traditional commercial corridor. Now if we drill down

even further, you'll see a map that reflects any business license that was

issued within a four or five block radius of this property. The only active license was for an auto

repair shop on North American Street. Now of course that does not mean that there are no businesses

that are simply operating without the required licenses, but this map in conjunction with the

photographs I walked you through do show that there is no pedestrian-oriented commercial use

viability here. Simply put, there is insufficient pedestrian traffic to support a CMX2 type use in

this location. Alternatively, a multi-family use, which is permitted in CMX2, harmonizes

harmonizes with the predominantly residential character of this neighborhood now this hardship

with the predominantly residential character of this neighborhood.

is further supported in light of my understanding that the city planning commission did contemplate

rezoning this area several years ago but that the lack recognizing of course the lack of commercial

uh viability here but for whatever reason they were unable to push that agenda forward

now moving on for a moment from the hardship concerning the commercial use we did also receive

a refusal for the proposed number of units cmx2 would permit five units on this lot where we are

proposing eight so ultimately it's two units per floor as i mentioned the units are large and are

priced affordably for the neighborhood no dimensional variances are necessary to support

the additional three units, and they are proposed to ensure maximum affordability and a variety of

unit types. We do submit these are all the least minimum variances, again, as no dimensional

variances are necessary. Providing a commercial use here is not viable given the lot history,

the predominantly residential nature of this area, as well as the heavier industrial type uses that

do already exist. The additional three units will ensure that these units are

within neighborhood context and will support additional density necessary to

support hopeful future commercial development on the large adjacent ICMX

lots. If these lots before the board today were zoned RM1, the eight proposed

units would be permitted by right based on the lot size. We submit that this will

not increase local congestion given the residential character of this of this neighborhood and the

location in close proximity to public transit. Given the number of existing vacancies in the area

there is still available on-street parking. Furthermore, providing a commercial use in this

location would likely serve to increase congestion given the lack of pedestrian traffic. The developer

did consider whether providing parking in this location would make sense. However, it learned

that it would be unable to secure a curb cut on very narrow Phillips Street, which you can see

quite how narrow that is in this photo, nor would one be supported by the streets department on

Diamond Street. In fact, providing parking here would generate additional refusals.

the proposal will not impair light and air or negatively impact surrounding properties

the proposed structure complies with the requirements of the zoning code