ZBA Hearing - December 14, 2022

Mr. Phillips

Chair, Ms. Lacey is coming in as a panel

Okay, sure

Good afternoon, I'll actually be presenting

That's great

Say your name and spell for the court reporter, please

Melanie Lacey, that's M-E-L-A-N-I-E

Last name L-A-C-E-Y

I'm with Claire Harrison Harvey in Brandsburg

That's 1835 Market Street

suite 1400 Philadelphia PA 19103. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth and

nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?

Yes. I'm accompanied by Mihir Wan-Kawala, who is a member of the owner entity,

3701 North Broad LLC. And I'm also accompanied by Alex Robles from Shift Capital. That's the

joint venture partner for this development. And we have architects as well from SGRA, Alexa

Buczynski and Mark Paul. Ismail Shahid, our board secretary, has just a few questions.

Sure. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?

Yes. Did you email all of the requirement documents

into the office five days before this hearing? Yes, I did. All right, please proceed and share

your screen. Okay, are you able to see my screen at this time? Yeah, we can. Okay, great. Okay, so

we're here seeking an approval of additions to an existing approved project located at 3701

North Broad Street, which has unanimous community support. It's a courtyard Marriott with a proposed

roof deck. The visitor accommodation use was previously approved, and today we are seeking

three things. First, a special exception for the non-residential use of the proposed accessory

roof deck as a property zone CMX3. We're also seeking a variance relief for a de minimis

increase in the maximum GFA to allow the addition of an elevator shaft and ADA elevator vestibule,

as well as a de minimis reduction of the roof deck minimum setback. So as mentioned, we met

with the Nicetown Tioga Improvement Team on November 15th where the project was well received

and they unanimously voted in favor and submitted this letter of support which I am presenting at

this time. And the site is the historic Beury Building located at 3701 North Broad Street

and it's been vacant for many years, some of you may be familiar, and it's being adaptively reused

as a Courtyard Marriott. So the proposed roof deck is located at the, and these are some

So the proposed roof deck is located at the, and these are some images, street views of the existing building, as well as proposed facade and a neighboring development, which is not subject to this application.

um so the proposed roof deck uh and i'll zoom out so you can see first of all this is um

the site as well as some surrounding developments to give you some context

it's in close proximity to the temple temple campus uh medical campus um on the broad street

corridor. And as mentioned, the proposed roof deck is located on the 12th floor and there are two

existing roof deck access structures which would be expanded. So the first expansion as mentioned

is that proposed ADA elevator festival at the 12th floor. The roof deck itself and you can see

these items highlighted in blue, as well as a second proposed addition to an existing elevator

shaft at the 14th floor, which I'm hovering over. And the cumulative area of these proposed additions

is under 600 square feet of GFA. But since and I'll go to the zoning plan for your reference,

and the zoning data. Since the existing GFA of the building is 116,000 square feet,

116 and three to be specific, the proposed additions would only increase the entire GFA

of the building by approximately half of a percent. So this half of percent is obviously

The modest addition and the refusal is generated because that existing GFA already exceeds

a permitted amount, and so a variance would be required.

Additionally, there's a de minimis variance request for the roof deck setback.

We're proposing two feet, where five feet is required.

I'll go to the rendering for your reference so you can kind of see what I'm describing.

I'll note that there's an existing six-foot parapet wall and a four-foot guardrail behind it, which together ensure safety and allow for city views.

And the special exception request is for the non-residential use of the roof deck within the CMX3 zoning district.

But this is an existing roof deck, and it will be accessory only to the visitor accommodation use.

So here is the floor plan.

Showing the 12th floor and the 14th floor.

And I'll go back to some of the diagrams earlier.

that I kind of went through quickly depicting the proposed areas.

And to conclude, I'd just like to reiterate that the roof deck won't be any more negatively

impactful for the surrounding area than any other roof deck use. It would be used only as a lounge

with limited hours of operation, soft music. It would not be used for a club, and it isn't meant

for large parties or loud music.

The increase in GFA is half of a percent.

And the de minimis reduction of the roof deck setback

is based on the existing footprint of the roof deck

and offset by the parapet and guard rails

that ensure safety.

The project has unanimous community support,

as mentioned, and that pretty much summarizes

my testimony.

Why don't you have one of the owners

adopt your testimony?

Okay, great.

So can you please promote Mihir Wan-Kawala

to the panel?

hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please

i'm sorry chair there's no one with their hand up okay

can you click on the raise hand button me here

perfect i have him okay hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please

Sure. Mihir Wankawala. Mihir is M-I-H-I-R. Wankawala. W-A-N-K-A-W-A-L-A.

Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

Yes, I do.

Proceed, counsel.

Great. Mihir, did you hear the testimony that I provided to the board this afternoon?

Yes.

Do you affirm that my presentation is accurate?

Yes.

And do you adopt the testimony as your own?

Yes.

Great. Thank you.

questions from the board no mr chairman no no mr chairman

No, Mr. Chairman.

No, no, Mr. Chairman.

No, Mr. Chairman.

Questions or comments from the virtual audience?

I see no handshare.

Planning Commission?

Thank you, sir.

David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.

Mr. Chairman and Board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location.

the applicant has shown that the proposed roof deck will have no more of an impact than a roof

deck would be expected to have and the proposed roof deck setback variants and gross floor area

variants are both minor and will meet the spirit of the zoning code so the city planning commission

recommends that the board grant the special exception for a roof deck and the two requested

variances for roof deck setback and gross floor area. Thank you. MI 2022-004-354-3701-03

North Broad Street, I vote yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.

Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Number two, MI 2022,

004-350-506-South 4th Street.

Matthew Lely is the attorney.

Letter of support, Queen Village Neighbors Association.

Recommendation of non-opposition by Society Hill Civic Association.

Letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Matthew Lely, L-E-I-L-I.

All right.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

I do.

Do you identify your client in relationship to the property?

Yes, I represent, for purposes of this hearing, S&S Properties, who is the previous owner and the listed applicant for this application.

And the property was sold while the application was pending.

So we also represent the current owner, Bella 7 LLC.

Okay. Mr. Shahid has just a few questions.

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

I do.

Have you sent in all of the required documents that are required to move forward in this hearing five days before this hearing?

I have.

All right, thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. So, as I stated, I represent SNS Properties and Bella 7 LLC, who represent the previous owner and the current owner of the property.

We're here today seeking to legalize the current use of the property as a three-household apartment.

um there are no changes to the existing structure proposed this is simply to legalize what is

already there um i'll go through our exhibits quickly uh this we have the tax clearance

certificate um the refusal um the zoning code requires 360 square feet per dwelling unit

whereas for this property only 292 square feet per dwelling unit are provided.

Simply put, the lot size is a little bit too small to house three dwelling units.

We have a letter of support from the Queen Village Neighbors Association.

The RCO really had no negative feedback to provide.

Also from the Society Hill Civic Association.

To get into the property itself, this is a zoning site plan that shows the building on the property.

It occupies the entire property.

And we have floor plans that show each of the individual units.

You can see on the first floor, there's a 506-square-foot apartment. On the second floor, there is a 437-square-foot apartment. And then there's a bi-level apartment on the third and fourth floors.

Excuse me, it's about 697 square feet.

So the issue isn't that the units are too small, it's just that the lot size is too small.

We have pictures that show the apartment as it is right now.

Each unit contains a bedroom, a bathroom, a kitchen.

And the units were in these conditions when...

and the units were in these conditions when the previous owner purchased the property

in 1998. So neither the current owner nor the previous owner did anything to cause the

non-conformity. We can see the surrounding neighborhood. The property is in line with

what exists in the neighborhood. There's some single-family houses, some multifamily

properties. We have the orange posters that were displayed at the property.

So as I stated, the property owner did nothing to cause this nonconformity. It was purchased

in this condition in at least 1998 and probably for some time before then.

the physical dimensions of the property and its surroundings have created this hardship

the variance is the least modification possible otherwise it would create an undue hardship to

have the applicant renovate the property to restore it to a two-unit use

the variance will not increase congestion or endanger the public it won't harm the neighbor's

use of the property. It's simply to legalize the existing conditions that were there when

the property was purchased in 1998. With that, I can call the current owners to adopt my

testimony. Phil Harvey and Allison Hindman Harvey, if they could be promoted to panelist.

Hi, Mr. or Mrs. Harvey, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter? We just need one person, whichever one.

My name is Allison Hinman Harvey. It's A-L-L-I-S-O-N-H-I-N-D-M-A-N-H-A-R-V-E-Y.

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

Yes.

Proceed, counsel.

Thank you.

Ms. Harvey, did you hear my statements this afternoon?

yes are they true and correct the best of your knowledge so that's my knowledge yes and do you

adopt them as your own testimony yes okay questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no

mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience i see no handshare planning commission

thank you sir good afternoon david fecto with the city planning commission

Mr. Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily zoning at this location.

This appears to be a legalization of an existing triplex.

The third unit appears to have been built without benefit of permits through no fault of the applicant.

The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the variance for a third dwelling unit.

Thank you. MI 2022, 004-350-506, South 4th Street, I vote yes.

Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.

Jane Snell, my vote is yes.

Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.

Thank you, counsel.

Thank you.

Number three, MI 2022-004-246-4913 Haverford Avenue.

Alan Notkinson is the attorney.

we are waiting on a letter from the rco mill creek advisory council

mr chair this is hillary um we did receive a letter from mill creek advisory council and it

is a letter of non-opposition thank you mr knockamson you've already been sworn just state

Yes, Alan Nockamson, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-1.

Mr. Nockamson, can you identify the owner of the property in the relationship?

Yes, 4913 Heverford Avenue.

The owner is City Land Development LLC, and in the virtual audience should be Ghazi Onesette.

Mr. Shaheed has a few questions.

Did you waive the reading? Would you like to waive the reading of the

refusal and stipulate to a taxi? Yes, I would.

Did you email all the required documents five days prior to this hearing?

Yes, I did. Please proceed to share the screen.

So I'm here to present 4913 Aberford Avenue.

All right, so I'm here to present 4913 Agreferred

In our presentation packet, you'll see we'll first review the notice of refusal, then the correspondence from the Mill Creek Advisory Council.

I think I heard when I was venturing into becoming a panelist, I heard that Miss Emerson did indicate that this board has received a letter of non-opposition.