so you know as opposed to where we have 12 right now residential units that are approved from from
the third to fourth um and again the con with the the configuration in today's standards i mean it
would require uh it would require a variance nonetheless because uh we would have a parking
other than we'd have a use other than commercial or industrial on the first floor and so you know
we feel especially speaking with the near neighbors they were not opposed to the conversion
to residential notwithstanding any concerns about density this would add eyes on the street and it
would you know we would have those windows and you know the rear windows on or we feel that it
would be beneficial. I agree. I just think it's an overview. That's just my opinion. I thought
there might be a way of which it can provide some off-street parking for the tenants or anyone else
in the community because there is no place to park around there anymore. Yeah, it just, I mean,
it was just, it came down to a feasibility matter. And quite frankly, I mean, you know,
my client was looking at this, you know, they were looking at it as commercial or residential. And
with the current climate with commercial uh agree and and to avoid a vacant uh a long-term vacancy
this was i agree that commercial probably wouldn't work there that those days are gone i just think
that 16 units is a little bit too much but that's my opinion at the moment anyone else would like
to testify in this case if so please raise your hand identify yourself for the record and if you
can give us something new and different no hands mr chair thank you questions from the board no
no no no planning commission
good afternoon chairman and members of the board brian winrick
City Planning.
Please spell your name and I'll swear you in.
B-R-I-A-N-W-E-N-R-I-C-H.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you, please proceed.
This property is indicated
This property is indicated for commercial residential
for commercial residential mixed use
mixed use in the comprehensive plan.
in the comprehensive.
This block is residential in character
and we support the reuse of the existing building
for residential only.
Therefore, we have no objection to the granting
of the variances or a compromise
which would include both residential and parking.
Thank you.
mr phillips i'm not sure by looking at this diagram if there was a way in which
at least the put the two units on erp street and the rest of it would be for off street parking
or for reed you'd like to have some time a couple of weeks to talk to your client about that
i i just i i just i just think that 16 units is just way too much on that block understood and
we will um i will talk to my client and take time to to actually um present the supplemental
evidence showing what the parking configuration would have to be um to make it work and again by
I know it doesn't sound like much, but by at least eliminating, you know, the garage, we are going to be adding some more, you know, another parking space on the street, as opposed to whatever we could fit in here.
We will look at that, and I will be happy to provide an updated letter.
I hear what you're saying.
You provide one more parking space, but you're creating four units, and even if only two of those units have a car, you're minus one.
you're not picking up anything you're adding you're adding another car to the
parking lot street uh so if you want i mean it's up to you uh i'll put them i i'll vote it now or
we can give you some time i think we'll i think it will be uh good to to at least show the board
what the parking configuration would entail um and why that's you know we believe that's not
feasible um and then you know we can we can go from there and i don't believe we need to do we
have a date fair enough we can resume this um we can do december 16th two o'clock yes thank you
mi2020-000835621-25 reed street this hearing will be resumed on december the 16th at two o'clock
p.m at which time the board will consider any feedback from the rco at that time thank you
thank you
calendar number mi2020-002123 5918 mcmahon avenue
is that right
yeah you have to wait they're getting her wrong okay
I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, Yvonne Haskins, I will allow her to talk right now, sir.
Good morning, Ms. Haskins. Good afternoon, Ms. Haskins. Please identify yourself with the
record. Spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in. I'm sorry, Jason. She's the attorney,
so she should be promoted.
Right.
Jason, did you get that?
Yes, I did.
I just promoted her to a panelist, ma'am.
Thank you.
And somebody, I'm sorry,
but I'm hearing like kitchen noise.
Can somebody mute themselves?
Yeah, I'm going to have to, but I have to speak.
So, confessor, can you speak on my behalf?
Uh-oh.
And say whatever I have to say?
Thank you.
I don't see myself, Tanya.
I see a Facebook post.
I don't know why that's happening like that.
That's okay.
We can hear you.
Oh, okay.
Oh, I have to start my video.
There I am.
Good afternoon, ma'am.
Please identify yourself with a record, spell your name.
Yvonne, Y-V-O-N-N-E, Haskins, H-A-S-K-I-N-S.
Yvonne, Y-V-O-N-N-E, Haskins, H-A-S-K-I-N-E.
And do you swear to the firm, ma'am, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copies of refusal, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
All of the above.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, a letter is in the package.
Please proceed.
I would like very much before proceeding to ask if we can group two other properties that are on the list so that we can handle all three during this presentation, this part of the hearing.
The other two properties are 109 West Rittenhouse Street and 216 West Rittenhouse Street. The 109 is under M1 MI 2020-002119 and 216 is MMI.
all right for the purpose of the board it's uh number 13 and number five
number 13 and five on our shoots
any where can you do it that way no chair they're not related um miss haskins yeah they're not
they're not related um so that they would have to go in order if they were related cases a same
project then we could allow it but okay no but i'm saying i can do them one after another
no they would have to wait called on the list yes yeah i'll have to wait on the list yep
yes unfortunately okay i i've never done the zoom before mr chairman if you will bear with you
i'm i'm trying to uh make certain i can share um on the screen but before i start 59 18
McMahon was heard in 2017. It received a unanimous approval from the community of 30 people at a
meeting. The board approved it in 2017 and granted the variance. Unfortunately, the owner's property
manager failed to pick up the zoning permit and therefore it it it lapsed and we're here today
to reinstate hopefully reinstate the zoning variance that you had already approved okay so
why don't you give us an overview of what it is and then we'll proceed from there okay i wish i
could figure out how to share um i'm trying to walk you through it i'm trying to i have it
I have it right I have it right here I think so go ahead and double click on those files that you
wish to open okay I wanted to give you pictures and um I'm looking I have it here we go
this is the inside I don't want the inside I want to let me get rid of that
i wanted to give you the the pictures of the carriage house there's a let me give you the
overview this property has a main building and had a carriage house that had been occupied for
years as an apartment the owner applied in 217 to legalize the carriage house because it wasn't
really useful as a garage. And I'm going to find that picture that will show you how it looks like
two houses side by side. And in that regard, it is clearly, this is the front of the carriage house
that I'm, I hope I can pull up. We're not seeing any photos. Oh, you're not seeing it. So if I,
if I, what do I do now? Did the photos come up on your screen? I have to say share. No,
you're already sharing, but did the photos come up on your screen? Yeah, it came up on my screen.
Okay. So unshare, hit the share button again. Okay. And it'll go away. And then
here, I'll unshare you. Is it sharing? I unshared you, right? You practiced this beforehand.
So now, Ms. Haskin, hit share screen again.
And after you hit share screen, go to the photos, not to your files.
All right.
Here's the photo.
And then hit share again.
Yes, hit share screen.
Yes, share a screen and then go to your photo.
And then go to your photo.
I see a picture of the carriage house.
Okay, it looks like it's coming out.
Here we go.
Here we go.
We got some.
Here you go.
Okay, this is the front door, but it's not showing me all of the photos.
Here we go.
That's the photo I want you to see.
You can see on the left side is the main house.
and this on the right side with the lighter color is the carriage house and it looks like two houses
side by side but it actually is a carriage house I mean it is a building that has been occupied
forever as as a residential unit the board approved this is the side of the carriage
house that has a small yard here's the rear of it
and on the inside you can see it has a living room and a second floor that goes up the kitchen
goes up to a bedroom
and that pretty much is the the reason for this application i vaguely remember this case all right
uh that you've got a great memory i don't know about that maybe but i remember i've
vaguely remember it um any questions from the board no no anyone else would like to testify
in this case if so please raise your hand mr chair i think there's a mr charles richardson
his hand is raised i will go ahead and allow him to talk okay good afternoon mr richardson
identify yourself and we'll swear you in good afternoon mr chair charles richardson from the
office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312 city hall you swear and affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth i do please proceed uh i was just uh calling in to let you guys know that the
councilwoman has no opposition to granting this variance uh it was heard before three rcos and
everybody agreed. Thank you very much. Anyone else would like to testify
in this case?
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Hold on. I'm just making sure.
No, sir. I see no other hands.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Brian Wenrick, City Planning.
This property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan.
Accordingly, we have no objection to granting of the variances.
Thank you very much. MI 2020-002123. 5918 McMahon Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes see you in a few minutes miss hanskin okay sir thank you
number three on our list mi2020-001716 6738 pitching street or pechin p-e-c-h-i-n street
no hands mr chair no hands mr o'brien are you here for this okay he's right here for mr o'brien
he's to be panelist correct yes mr hand okay thank you mr o'brien you have been promoted to
panelists please wait to be sworn in sir good afternoon mr o'brien please identify yourself
with a record spell your last name and i'll swear you in
mr o'brien you have to unmute yourself
good afternoon good afternoon mr o'brien please spell your last name
William O'Brien OBR, IEN, Manioc Law Office, 4322 Main Street, Philadelphia, 19127, on behalf of Baker Street Partners.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, and I do the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy.
Confessor.
have you met uh have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of
ownership proof of task compliant copy of the refusal photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing yes the materials have been forwarded and we have met with the rcf great thank you
please proceed
um so the uh revenue clearance certificate is a page 14 of the package the deed is
the refusal is page two uh it's an unusual lot it's uh well over 12 000 square feet
it's zoned rsa2 and just based on the area alone it would accommodate more than five building lots
But because of its shape, that's not possible.
The variances for the width of the proposed lots, 33 feet is what is provided, 35 feet is what is required.
And if I can go down and see the subdivision plan.
So the lot's 66 feet wide, and it's 187 feet deep.
so as a result of its shape it's just really difficult we can't accommodate we can't meet the
code and the shape presents the hardship we have met with the civic group they have issued a letter
in support of the proposed variants the requested variants we're requesting it's almost a de minimis
variance is about 5% less than the required width. So the proposal is to subdivide the existing 12,153