like just smaller events to kind of bring something else to the community, as well as
we are starting a nonprofit for, for, for the young guys are running like just the youth
in general to pretty much teach them how to become successful in the culinary industry
like myself.
So that's basically what sums it up.
We will be having a catering events there for people who want to kind of utilize the
space for the events and they're utilizing my catering services.
But overall, it's just going to be like a social space for people to just come and just
eat food wine tastings and just have their own special events there uh providing i give them
my catering services thank you anyone else any questions i'm sorry any questions from the board
no no anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
i see though he is chair you planning commission good morning david effecto city planning
Thank you, Planning Commission.
Good morning, David Fecto, City Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed-use zoning for this property.
We believe that the applicant has shown that the proposal will have no more of an impact than an assembly and entertainment use normally would have in this location.
We recommend that the Board grant the requested special exception.
Thank you. MI 2021-001.
117-7573 Haverford Avenue.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
MI 2021-001122.
959 North Randolph Street.
There's a letter of opposition from Northern Liberties Neighbors Association and a letter of opposition also from Council President Darrell Clark.
Chair, Mr. Zin Jin has been promoted to panelists. He's coming back in now.
Good morning, Mr. Jin. When you get on, please identify yourself for the record, and I'll swear you in.
Yes. Zin Jin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia EPA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Plaza.
Mr. Gene, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to attack her scene?
Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
I have.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we do.
Please proceed. Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm going to share with the board the information relating to this case.
I have before the board, the refusal, we have actually submitted to the board, the refusal, the opposition letter from the RCO, proof of nearby neighbors with garages, similar to what we are requesting, photos, plans, and related documentation required as of for the presentation.
The refusal are twofold in this case.
One, and the primary refusal before the board is the off-street parking proposed to be front access under a new construction situation.
The second is a minimum open area, which we have a 25% requirement, and my client comes in at 19.78%.
What I'm going to do is go first to the plans to explain about the refusal relating to the open space, which is for the most part due to a small deck being proposed on the second floor of the property in the rear.
The actual rear yard has a slightly slanted rear line, which took up a little bit of space, but because there's a proposed deck, the actual calculation of the open area was reduced, and therefore, my client's property came in short on open space.
we would submit that the deck itself really isn't completely changing the open space.
It just covers up a little bit of the light from directly looking down, which is how the open space is calculated.
For all intents and purposes, the actual rear yard depth, the open space above from the rear of the building would still be the same,
and therefore not taking away light and air from neighboring properties.
The main refusal, and this is the one that the RCO has objected to, is the proposal for a two-car front-loaded garage.
What I'm going to do first is go and show the board the statements from the RCO relating to that point.
The RTO argues that the proposal interrupts the continuity of the sidewalk and streetscape, that neighbors would like to have eyes on the street, and that they're opposed to the idea that my client would demolish a house and build a new house with parking.
So what we wanted to show is that this is hardly a unique design or proposal on this side of Randolph Street.
First thing to note is that Randolph Street only has parking on one side, and my client's property is on the side where no parking is permitted.
As a result, not just my client proposed, but previously multiple properties on this block of Randolph Street and also further up and down Randolph Street has obtained front-loaded garages.
has obtained front-loaded garages because, again, many of these properties do not have
the ability to park on their own side of the street in front of their property.
A garage, a front-loaded garage, only adds to the total amount of parking available.
It does not take away any parking. The idea that it would take away ice from the street could be
easily resolved with camera being mounted. Even a ring cam would be actually more of an eye on the
street than a window that is generally going to be shuttered in any way. We believe that,
and we did offer the idea of putting a camera, and my client would certainly be happy to do so,
to have cameras mounted on the first floor at the front door at the garage door to
make sure there are ice on the street. This particular property is a currently existing
brick facade property with a passageway that is part of an easement. The building itself
is only two buildings away from two of the garages. There are also additional garages
further down the block on the other side. The house itself is not in terrible shape,
but is also not in great shape. Based on the current market situation, it's my client's plan
to demolish this and build a larger new property because from an investment standpoint, it makes
more sense. The variance is for the parking. And the parking, again, from the perspective of my
client, the parking would only assist in the situation on the street. This is an overhead
view of Randolph Street. As you can see, again, parking is only on one side, and it's on the other
side of the street. Two-car parking garage here actually would take two cars off the street and
add none and take away none of the on-street parking. A new house, whether it's with or
without a garage, will necessarily bring more cars. So this proposal is meant to alleviate
that impact, not to add to the impact. From the design standpoint, the entryway of the first floor
is here. And then the garage will be next to it. It's a double depth in car length, which allows
two cars to pull in. There's an office space in the back. The living room and kitchen will be on
the second floor with the deck. And then the basement is a den and storage utilities and
basically an activity area. The upper floor is where the master bedroom and closet and bath
would be located. This is, again, a single-family house, not a multifamily proposal.
So we understand the position of the neighbors with regard to not wanting a garage on that side.
However, we believe that this is not inconsistent with what is already existing on the block, for one.
And two, it would only help with the situation with parking and not take away.
Again, here's a photo of another property on Randolph Street that's nearby with a front-loaded garage.
Many of these were actually granted by variants through the zoning board in the past years.
Again, here's another one that's granted.
We have submitted all these to the board for reference purposes.
But again, this is all on Randolph Street, 900 block, 1000 block of Randolph Street.
So based on the fact that there are no parking on that side of the street, and based on the
fact that this would not take away any parking from the neighbors, with the addition of cameras
and that allowing eyes on the street,
we believe that the application should be granted
by the board in this case.
The property, again,
if we want to talk about hardship for parking is,
again, this side of the street,
all these owners on this side of the street
are fighting for same parking spots
that the other side of the street properties have.
So again, having a garage can only help,
it would not hurt the situation.
From a consistency point of properties on the block, I do want to point out again, new construction already exists. So to say that a block would have less consistency because a new building is put up, that is simply not true as it is already no longer all of the same look on the block.
In fact, there's a house nearby that is completely different looking than my client's property itself, the one right next.
That is completely different looking than my client's property itself.
The one right next door looks different, has a front porch, and it's designed in a different look.
So I'm happy to answer any questions from the board or refer back to any exhibit the board will be interested in looking at.
Do you have your client to adopt your testimony?
I believe that Roy should be here.
Roy, if you're here, please raise your hand.
Mr. Shemesh, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Thank you. Mr. Shemesh, please spell your first and last name, and I'll swear you in.
Roy, you need to unmute yourself.
Sorry. My name is Roy Shemesh, and my partner on this project, May Badush, is also on this meeting.
if you can please spell your first and last name roy it's r-o-i and last name shemesh s-h-e
m as in mary e-s-h you swear or from
you swear from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do
Thank you. Roy, have you, were you present during my presentation? Have you heard my testimony to the board?
Yes, I did.
Would you be willing to verify that they're true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Yes, it is.
Thank you.
okay questions from the board yes mr chairman uh counselor yes counselor yes in your new
building will the uh will there be a a carport or a garage with a door it's a garage
thank you thank you any other questions from the board no anyone else who would like to testify in
this case? If so, please raise your hand. Chair, we have a Larry Friedman. Mr. Friedman,
you can unmute yourself and speak. Good morning, Mr. Friedman. Please spell your full name for
the record and I'll swear you in. Thank you. Larry Friedman, can you hear me? Yes, I can.
Okay. L-A-R-R-Y-F-R-E-E-D-M-A-N, Northern Liberty Zoning Chair, 700 North 3rd Street.
Where or from to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Mr. Friedman, please proceed.
It is true that we have supported off-street parking where it wasn't allowed,
But we take a lot of time. And depending on the unique qualities of what is being proposed, we we really spent our time on that.
The other any other garages on the street that we did support were unique in the sense that there were lots.
This is a tear down. This is a bad precedent of tearing down a building.
That's fine. I'm sorry. What?
oh was that someone that wasn't for you i think someone on um mistakenly unmuted
right this is uh smack dab in the middle block it does break up the continuity of the street
we would like no more garages on the street which is basically what the uh the restriction
of parking is all about um this is a tear down which of course we understand it is allowed but
to support parking was a bad precedent of people just coming in and starting to tear down
houses just to get parking because the math works. All the neighbors at the meeting were
in opposition. It was unanimous. There's no hardship. We do have a letter, as you stated,
from President Clark. And I'm not sure if there's any other neighbors here. Today, I can't tell.
and it's hard to for them to come to these these hearings but that's basically our stance is we
don't want to see any more interruption in the continuity of the sidewalk and the street state
on the block. Thank you. Anyone else will testify in this case? If so please raise your hand.
I see no additional hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry. I just wanted to check.
Yvette, did he get me here?
Was he allowed to speak yet?
I do see one hand up.
Yvette, are you there?
Mr. Badoosh, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
I think he was one of the owners, if I'm not mistaken.
Yes, Mr. Badoosh is my client.
All right.
I'm just one of the owners.
sir hello hello it's fine Mr. Badush Mr. Badush yes please spell your full name yes Mayor Badush
M-E-I-R B-A-D U-S-H you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do thank you Mr. Jin yes thank you uh Mr. Badush can you um also uh let the board know
what prompted the decision to do a teardown on this property?
Was there anything specific about the interior
that triggered the decision rather than renovating
to simply tear it down?
So the house, the layout of the property inside,
it's very bad.
And the condition of the property inside
is a very dire condition to a point
that we will uh directly need to tear to tear down the whole house regardless uh maybe except
for the front wall but everything else will have to be teared down and we felt that if we already
tearing down the house um building a new house uh with a two-car garage but uh we actually taking
off two cars off the street and really not taking any parking spaces away because there's
no parking in that side of the street anyways and there are other garages right a few doors
down from us. So I do believe that it is in line with the rest of the block and we believe
that since it was granted, the variance was granted to others on the same block, we shouldn't
be any different. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that, again, Mr. Freeman mentioned
that the other ones were ground up from lots and ours is a teardown. I want to point out that it
really doesn't make a difference whether it was a lot or a teardown. They're all new construction.
So this one is no different than the houses two doors down that were new construction, both of which were also granted garages.
Again, partly because there's no parking on the side that these houses belong to.
So I do want to make that part of the record.
Thank you.
All right.
Again, any questions from the board?
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.