four pages consisting consisting of four pages yes okay confessor plaza my vote is yes with
proviso james snell my vote is yes with proviso thomas holloman my vote is yes with proviso
thank you secretary plaza i was looking at the other list
okay beginning of the regular list um calendar number one five three four one zero five
north felton streets engine is the attorney
mr jen has been promoted to panelists great hi mr jen can you put your name and address on the
record and spell your last name and I will swear you in. Yes, Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N, J-I-N, 1617 John F.
Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia, PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership,
of tax compliance refusal referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all questions we have a
letter of um from achievability and it is a letter of support so you may now proceed thank you i'm
going to share with the board the information relating to this case
So I have before the board the cover letter of the documentation we submitted, which includes
the refusal RCO letter, photos, plans, and related documents.
I'm going to show the refusal first.
This is an application to legalize an existing condition in a structure that is currently
in an RSA 3 zoning district.
It is an existing duplex, which is why we received a refusal. My client purchased the property as a duplex, well, as it exists currently in the end of 2019, and since then has applied for an application to legalize it once they realize there's some problems trying to obtain rental licenses.
They also want to go ahead and get the property renovated because it does need some work.
Achievability met with us and primarily they wanted some work done to make the property nicer.
The neighbors are aware that that property was used as a duplex for a long period of time prior to even my client acquiring it.
So they have no issue with the existing uses.
Their main concern was that they wanted some exterior enhancements, the rear yard cleaned up with some of the trees and debris, and basically helped the area reduce issues with pests and rodents.
Of course, my client's property is not the sole cause of those issues. It's just that it's part of a greater issue that Achievability would like my client to also make an effort to help reduce the issues in the area.
So this is the property in question. It is actually an existing building that has existing two units within it. There are also multifamily uses in the area next door and across the street. So it's not solely and exclusively a single family area.
and across the street so it's not solely and exclusively a single family area although
there are a mix of single family and multi-family the building itself is an older building and does
need some work however it is when it was purchased it was actually occupied and usable in the
condition that it's in my client does plan to make changes and renovation changes to the property to
make it better. The layout is shown here on the plans. It is pretty straightforward. There are two
units. One is the first floor, which incidentally is not connected internally to the upper floor.
The upper floor is a complete separate unit that is only accessible by the exterior staircase
that is on the side of the property. So again, this is the condition that was existing
when it was purchased however none of this physical structure to our knowledge is in
violation of any code and is in fact within requirements so the main application here is
to legalize the use of two family again the property itself does not have any other issues
that we're aware of and the neighbors are not in opposition because of historically it being used
that way. So I would ask the board's favorable consideration in our request for a variance to
permit two-family dwelling at this location. I'm happy to answer any questions or share any
additional information the board might be interested in seeing. Does the board have any
questions? No. We do have a letter of support from G-Ability. Planning committee, is there anyone in
audience who would like to testify? I believe my client may be here with us if you want him to.
It's Edward Pronay. Okay, if he's there, can you raise his virtual hand
and then you can ask him to adopt your testimony? Sure. I don't know if Mr. Pronay or Mr. Pavel
would be here today with us.
I don't believe I see them in the audience, sir.
I mean, as an officer of the court,
I'd be happy to stipulate to
that my client agreed with my testimony in this case.
Okay, and that's acceptable.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
That's R-O-N.
last name bednar b-e-d-n-a-r do you swear a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do thank you you may proceed this property is indicated for residential on the city plan
given the documented use history we recommend you request advance be permitted calendar number
1534 105 north felton street my vote is yes and my name is carol tenery professor plaza my vote is
yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. Zen, stay there and don't move
because you're next up. Calendar number 1408 1748 North Marshall Street. Yes. Name and address on
the record and spell your last name. You're already under oath. Thank you. Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N,
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103 here on behalf of the
applicant. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal,
referral, voters, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing? And have
you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter? Yes, to all questions. We have a letter.
of no opinion from the RCO
Associación Puerto Ricanos
and Marcha. Is that correct, Mr. Confessor Plaza?
Something like that, yes. Something like that, okay.
So you do have a letter of no opinion. I've never seen that.
Yes, APM did not take a position on this, partly because of
what we presented to them and the lack of feedback from actual
participants at the RCO meeting. I'm happy to discuss that during my formal presentation.
If I may, I will share the information with the board. That's great. Thank you.
So I am sharing the refusal that is in reference to this case. What this property is, it's 1948
in North Marshall Street has a, it's currently a vacant lot, and that is a RSA 5 zone lot. However,
a it's currently a vacant lot and that is a RSA 5 zone lot. However, the makeup of the block is a
mixed and in fact contain many multi-family dwellings. This being a vacant property naturally
ended up with the RSA 5 zoning although I would point out that across the street
and also further down the block there are actually RM1 zoning. Properties and parcels
still zoned that way because they were existing. Regardless, when we met with APM, they did not
take a position because really there was only two attendees, and one decided to oppose because
they, and it's addressing their letter, which I'm going to get to in a second, and the other one was
a non-opposition. The individual who opposed the development felt that they did not agree to the
lack of affordability the units offered. Even though, in a sense, a single-family house of this
size, if built here, would actually be even less affordable, and that was addressed during our
presentation, the community was, the member of the community who opposed was looking for low-income
housing and was against any new development. What is important to note here with this particular
project is, my client, because of the lack of participation from people during the meeting,
decided to go out and actually obtain a petition of surrounding area. And that petition is attached.
And as you can see, many on Marshall Street had no issue with the proposal because it is very
consistent to what they've seen and what is being used on 7th Street, Marshall Street in that area,
which is a lot of multifamily houses. This will be a new construction which isn't out of the
character with what is on the block and what is surrounding the block. As a result, as you can see,
we have a pretty extensive petition. APM will not consider that, but APM did indicate that
we should present that to the board. So one thing to note is that this is a lot currently,
And some of these buildings nearby are, in fact, multifamily twins and triplexes.
Right next to us, you can see this new construction here has triplex with four meters in the front.
Although the building immediately next door is a single family, there was no objection from that neighbor as to the proposed development.
My client actually lives next door.
So one of the property next door is her property.
So she is trying to develop a lot that's next to her. It's worth noting she's not really a developer. She's just someone who lives in the neighborhood and finally acquired a lot next door to herself, her own lot, and wanted to develop it for the purpose of additional income.
And this is one of the first projects that she is trying to do. So the proposal is again a new construction with no dimensional variances required. Everything is within code requirements and it'll be used as a three-family dwelling.
As you can see, the unit one covers the basement and first floor, and then the additional, I'm sorry, I don't know why my scrolling function is not available again.
Let me, oh, here we go. That's better. So this is the cellar level plants. You can see that
there's a proposed bedroom and then in the front with a bath as well. There is a egress well in
the basement. The first floor is living room, kitchen, and two bedrooms in the back section.
and then we move on to
I'm sorry, I don't know why
I'm having some issues with the
planning information.
I seem to be missing
a page here. My apologies.
If the board could bear with me for one minute, let me try to pull up the second and third floor plans directly from my file.
All right.
I'm going to share now the upper floor plans.
So I'm sorry for the little confusion there, but this is second floor and third floor plan.
As you can see, each is its own unit with two bedrooms each, one in the front, one in
the back with a small exterior deck for the it's basically a I'm sorry it's escaping me now it's
not a roof deck but a I don't know why I can't think of the word but there so essentially what
the goal here is to have exterior space for each unit one having the roof deck one having the rear
yard and the second floor unit having its own small deck in the rear that allows the items
such as trash and other things to be put outside if needed. So again, this is not an unusual
design. It is consistent with what's being built in the area. And although APM did not take a
position on this, as you can see from the petition, we have pretty extensive support from the
surrounding area. If the board has any questions, I would be happy to try to answer them. And I'm
happy to try to show a close up of the plans if any particular floor needs to be looked at more
carefully. Does the board have any questions? Yes, vice chair. Counselor. Yes, this is new
construction. And you have bedrooms in the basement. Will the building be 50% out of the
ground? Let me let me actually go to the elevation plan. I think that would give us a better idea.
I'm going to share that with the board now.
So I am unfortunately not
an architect i'm not so sure if this is i don't know if mr holliman you can see from this design
whether it would be i i would think it's not 50 it looks like it's a little bit less than 50 above
ground it looks like it's less than 50 out of the ground yes if the board feels that a basement
bedroom is an issue because of the depth of the basement we're certainly happy to accept the
provisal to that effect, not to have it in the basement.
If you had less units, you would probably not need to use the basement as a living space.
That is correct. However, the layout itself is to keep the sizes down a little bit.
The basement, even if the basement was not used specifically for bedrooms, the building coverage gives about 1,000 square foot per floor, and that is really because the lot itself is about 1,290 square foot.
Even with the open spaces, if we combine the units into two units, we're talking about possibly 1,600 square foot units, it would actually be very difficult to have those size units in that area being marketable.
It, I mean, as it is, it's beyond the affordability of what the one neighbor felt was needed. If we go with even bigger units, it will be even more difficult as far as meeting certain affordability goals at all. So that's why my client, she lives right there on the block. That's why she proposed the triplex in this case.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So, Tom, your thoughts are fewer units?
Yes, you can increase the open space.
I don't believe we, I believe we actually have pretty substantial open space in this
If I may, I'll reshare the rear yard.
I'd like to see the drawings again.
Absolutely. So this is the site plan here. As you can see, the open space here, the rear yard
portion here is 17 foot deep. So this is not a short small rear yard,
and it's also a slight side court as well. So that's why there are no open space.
and it's also a slight side court as well. So that's why there are no open space
variants being asked for here. It's 322 square foot of rear yard space available.
Another question, trash. How do all the tenants use the rear yards for trash?
No, not all the tenants use the rear yard. This is why if we can go back to the floor plants,
i will show so you have uh first floor has the rear yard and then when we go to the upper floor
plans let me so the first floor has an egress well yes that was because of the basement
bedroom that was being proposed if we don't if we eliminate that uh the egress well probably
will still be there because they're going to want to put a window um for light regardless even if
it's used for other purposes um but the first floor has an egress well that is part of the
basement it's it's in the rear but i wanted to show the upper floor wait can i interrupt you
and i'm sorry i apologize so if where there's an egress well for the first floor how can there be
an egress well for the basement i mean i'm sorry it's for the basement for the first floor my
apologies the first floor is the basement that's what you're considering the first floor is not
basement. The first floor has a door leading to the rear yard with steps. The basement has an
egress well that's marked on the site plan next to where the steps are. How far out are the windows
in the basement? As far as how much height it has? Yes. Above ground. I think I don't have exact
measurements but based on this and again I'm going to share this again with the board. Based on this
elevation drawing, this will be the full size of the window. As you can see, half the window would
be above ground and the other half would be part of the egress well. What is that room? Is that a
bedroom? Well, there is a proposed bedroom in the basement in the plants, yes. And that would be
where the egress well would be? The egress well is here. I'm sorry. The egress well is actually
this one I'm looking at the that's the front this is the egress well side of the drawing
and you're proposing one bedroom in the basement yes that that was on the plants yes and again
as I was indicating to Mr. Holloman I think it's something my client certainly can accept to have
no bedrooms in the basement I think that was something the architect already designed in
and we presented the plans as the architect ruled it with regard to the exterior space question
that was asked as you can see there's a rear deck above this for the second floor and there's a roof
deck for the third floor so each of them have their own specific space outside that they can
put stuff like trash until such time that it's brought out for pickup okay um Mr Holloman you
did have a question? The window is four feet it looks to appear to be four feet out of the ground
which is not 50 percent out of the ground. Right and that we understand that.
So again if if that's if the bedroom in the basement is the is something the board does
not want to have again my client would not have an issue with accepting a proviso to that effect
okay yeah i don't like no bet at the bedroom in the basement
supportive any other questions no no no is anyone in the virtual audience who would like to testify
I'll answer at this time, Mr. Madam Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The property is indicated for residential on the city plan. Given the block use context,
Next, we recommend that the requested variants be granted, provided no basement bedrooms.
Thank you.
Calendar number 1408, 1748 North Marshall Street.