with the posting requirements as we didn't receive the posters in time. But once they were received,
the property was posted and we've included evidence of that posting in our exhibit packet.
Additionally, originally on our appeal, the APPA, we were requesting three variances. One, to permit two residential units and no commercial space on the first floor of the building. Two, to permit eight dwelling units where six exist and the building has historically been licensed for seven.
and the third variance was a building height of 39 feet where 38 feet is permitted we met with
the RCO on May 4th the controlling RCO is the Bella Vista Neighbors Association at the RCO
the RCO board and the public were generally supportive of our project and the investment
that we're proposing to put into the property I believe most if not all were supportive of
the variance for the number of dwelling units and the variance for the height. However, we did
receive some feedback from the RCO members and the public that there was a concern regarding the
lack of commercial space, the removal of the commercial space on the ground floor of the
property. So we went back to the drawing board and we revised our plans and the revised plans
can be shown at exhibit A11. Mr. Riley, could I ask just a couple of questions? Sure. Do you have any evidence that the existing office use is legal? And second, when you say commercial space, what specific commercial space
When you say commercial space, what specific commercial space are you proposing for the ground floor?
So the I'll answer the second one first. So the commercial space on the ground floor is just designated as commercial.
We don't have a tenant for that. We that was put in at the request of the RCO.
So we don't have a tenant for that. Currently, that tenant will have to apply for a commercial use permit there.
So it's just labeled as general commercial space at this point.
As far as the proof of the commercial space, this property has not had any zoning permits issued, applied for, for many years.
This has been a commercial space for many years.
uh if that's evidenced by you know the street photos of the property show the sign the our
posting photos show the sign that's that says it's a law office shows that it's a law office
and the the property owner has been there for many years um in any case we would have to verify that
there has to be a use registration permit in effect if if it is an approved commercial space
And we would have to verify that with L&I. And also, I'd like to ask if they need something more specific than commercial space. I mean, unless you're not saying that it's going to be office space again, just generally commercial space. Is that correct?
No. And if you look at our refusal, I can go back to it.
If you look at the refusal, the refusal for the.
uh the first floor the grounds floor here the second one it's that buildings in this district
must contain a use other than residential and other than parking along 100 percent of the ground
floor primary street front frontage so by showing that it's commercial there that's a use other than
residential or parking so i don't believe there's anything more necessary there and obviously the
tenants that would go in uh would have to apply for a use variance or not excuse me a use permit
um or you know relief potentially but a use permit to show that their use is permitted there
and again i would just like to get clarification from lni that um they find this acceptable that
the board can vote on it with the revised plans and that no amended application is necessary
i do believe that in the long run this could save your client time okay i'll ask you sharon um do
you know what the timeline would be for that oh i should be able to get an answer on it this week
okay and then unless if they hold if they tell me that you are required to submit an amended
application of course that would be a longer process if it's not required then the board
could vote it as early as next week okay because there there is um you know we are under time
constraints as we are the equitable owner of the property that's why i ask i will understand that
i will get that answer for you as quickly as possible okay thank you um so just getting back
to our plans and the changes that we made we removed the one residential unit on the ground
floor replaced it with commercial space uh we also added larger windows to the first floor commercial
space. And so as a result of our revisions, we're requesting the same three variances, but to a
lesser degree, essentially. The first to permit one residential unit and one commercial unit on
the first floor of the building, two to permit seven dwelling units where six units exist in
the buildings has been historically licensed for seven. And the third is the same as it was before.
it's a building height of 39 feet where 38 feet is permitted. We shared these revised plans with
we are proposing seven residential units and one commercial space. So similar to what is there.
The height relief we're seeking is not only is it a de minimis variance of one foot in height
that we're seeking, but we're also really requesting this variance out of an abundance
of caution. Without opening up the roof, we are not exactly certain where that proposed fourth
floor will start. It may be the case that we open up the roof and we're able to comply with the 38
foot height requirement but at this time we're requesting that height relief out of an abundance
of caution and i believe that is all i had i have listed as witnesses uh andy kaplan who's
the representative of the equitable owner and rich villa who's the architect for the project
so if there are any questions we can answer those does the board have any questions no no no no no
Is there anyone in the audience who would like to testify?
Mr. Bruce Wolfe has his hand raised.
I will allow him to speak at this time, Madam Chair.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
And just for the record, Mr. Wolfe is the current property owner.
It's his commercial law office.
Can you hear me, members of the panel?
Sir, put your name and address on the record, please.
My name is Bruce Wolfe, and my residence address is 612 South 6th Street, 1st floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19147.
I am an attorney, but if you would like me to be sworn, I'm perfectly willing to be sworn.
Thank you. Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Raleigh, is he going to adopt your testimony?
There is one change, if I may make, to the testimony members of the panel.
what has been described as a commercial space and as my law office is actually a home office. I live
here. The apartment, which was actually designed by my father as two separate units, there were
actually three apartment units on the first floor initially, were combined in the year 2000 so that
I could have a home office and a residence after my marriage fell apart. So of the four rooms that
comprise the two apartments, only one of the four is actually used by me primarily as a place where
I can do paperwork. I'm primarily a criminal defense attorney. I have seen a few clients in
this space when I have clients who are not in custody, but a lot of my clients are in jail
and I go to them and they don't come to me. So what has been described, so this building has
been used as a as a residence address primarily since my father rehabbed the building in 1975
and among the documents that are a part of the packet that you have before you it will show that
in 1975 my father indicated for the property that there were three apartments on the first floor
two on the second and two on the third so what what this commercial space i just want to clarify
it although I do have an office here it is also a residence as well and if anybody has any other
questions I'd be willing to answer them does the board have any questions Tom no no no no
Ms. Saleta are you still recommending uh that this be held for further clarification
yes and you know it's possible that I could get that clarification as early as today which would
me that the board could vote it this afternoon. I will try to do that. Okay. Planning Commission?
Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the CMX2 zoning at this location. With the regard to the height refusal, we find the proposed
variance to be minimal and not in conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code. With
regard to the dwelling unit count, we find that the density is consistent with the comprehensive
plan recommendations to promote commercial corridors including the nearby south street
corridor with housing and so the city planning commission would recommend that the board grant
both variances in accord with the revised plans thank you um calendar number one four one five
six one zero dash twelve south sixth street is being held thank you for your time thank you
Calendar number 1476-731 North Uber Street.
The attorney is Roger Perry.
Mr. Perry, I've been promoted to panelists.
Mr. Perry, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Mr. Perry, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Still not unmuted.
I'm here.
Hi, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name and then I'll swear you in?
Yes, thank you.
My name is Roger Perry. I'm at 734 South 4th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19147, and I'm here
representing the owners of 731 North Uber Street. I should be here with the architect and possibly
a representative of the owner. Thank you. Do you swear our firm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? Yes, I do. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? Unfortunately, there's a correction to the refusal that I would like to put on the record.
Okay. Have you emailed the exhibit packet? You can put that on the record when you begin.
Yes, thank you. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal or 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, with the caveat that United
Francisville has not sent me a letter they were indicating they were sending it to the board
but we did meet with United Francisville in June of this year and they indicated I haven't seen a
letter so I don't want to say what they indicated. Okay you may proceed. Thank you
and here I am and here are the exhibits I hope. They're there. Now as I need to do
school. There we go. Okay. Let me address the refusal. First of all, there's a list of the
exhibits, the application, the project information. Okay. There was an issue that we
dealt with the architect and United Franceville about the pilot house is listed as 111 square
feet. What was not noted by the examiner and is now noted on the plan's SP1 is that there's an
elevator to the top floor pilot house. It's not a floor, but it's a pilot house. Because there's
an elevator, the size under the code is now 125 square feet, and therefore the height is going to
be 38 feet to the roof not 48 feet the 48 feet included the pilot house so we're noting to
the board and we'll get down to it with the plans that there is an elevator which allows
the pilot house structure to be 125 because it was over the original I forget 90 or 95 at 111
they indicated that that was a floor but it is not excuse me Mr. Perry this is Sharon can I ask
one question. Hi. The plans that you submitted as revised plans, are they the same as those that
were reviewed by L&I? In other words, did the examiner just miss the elevator, or was it not
identified on the original plans? I understand, and Michelle, I believe, is here, but I understand
that they just missed it. It is now in SP1, and unfortunately, the plans are really small, but
at this area here
is the elevator
with elevator.
In that case, if it is,
if they are the same plans
and it was originally identified and it was
just an error on ONI's part
to miss it, I think the board
wouldn't necessarily need to stamp
revised plans since they are the same
but could just add a note stating
that includes
pilot house.
I will ask Michelle that
after my presentation okay thank you 731 north uber street is currently a property that has a
setback of 30 feet and that was the refusal along with the parking and the height
the issue here is that there's only two houses well let me go down to the
to the photographs there's only two houses on this block that have this setback
and one of them is ours that we're planning to here's the posting that we're planning to move
forward to the street all the other properties on the block
and on across the street are at the street front with the exception of ours and the adjacent
property all these are across the street they have garages you can see and they are at the
front property line. We are seeking to move the new construction as a single-family home
four stories. Basement is not utilized. It's utilized for
four stories basement is not utilized it's utilized for storage and utilities and we're
asking for a two-car garage access similar to what's on the other garages on the street as
you can see here this is directly across the street let's see setback so the the issue is
that this house will be more in conformity with 95% of the block or 98% of the block.
It's just because the immediately adjacent property has a 30 foot setback that that refusal
was generated. So we want to bring the house forward and we want to have off street parking.
You can see that although there would be parking not accessed now because they park in the 30,
everybody parks in the 30-foot setback in these houses. But the cars would be taken off the street
so that it would be a wash in terms of the parking issue. On the plans, and I'll have,
if Michelle is here, well, all the plans are, well, we have them here.
let me rotate that
okay this is the pilot house with the elevator and there is a
single family dwelling to be built here here's the elevation because it's a pilot house the
elevation will be 38 feet so we'll be within that guideline and we'll be in the guideline with the
elevator. So the primary issue here is moving the house forward to the street property line and
having off-street parking. Michelle, are you here?
I'm here. Michelle, can you put your name and address on the record and I'll swear you in?
Michelle Kleschick, K-L-E-S-C-H-I-C-K, from Parallel Architecture Studio, 230 South Broad Street, 17th floor, Philadelphia.
Thank you. Do you swear our firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Okay, Michelle, you've heard my representation.
Could you describe briefly what the planned house is going to look like in terms of number of bedrooms and usage as a single family?
Yes, so it's a three-bedroom house with a generous living room and dining area on the second upper floor, which provides quite nice views of the city and the surrounding area.
There's a two-car garage at the front, which would be reusing essentially the same driveway that's there to access the current open parking area in front of the old house.
um otherwise we're just trying to maximize our space while making a very nice house
in a nice neighborhood okay and in the basement there are this basement is just storage and
utilities yeah it would just be storage and utilities okay here's the layout of the i'm
sorry i was going to say the original application did not mention that there was an elevator in the
pilot house. Oh, it did not have it. It did not. It did not mention that. Sharon, we would ask
that SP1 be stamped by the board if they approve this, indicating the elevator. Here it is here.
Yes, we've provided. Yes, that would be fine. Thank you for clarifying that.
Yes, the refusal did not note that the plan listed in the pilot house 125. The roof is
therefore 38 feet. So we would ask that SP1 as attached to the document production
be stamped by the board and therefore can be resubmitted to the
elevator. Thank you for clarifying Mr. Perry. Thank you. Thank you Michelle. And we also we
did slope the roof of the pilot house so that it you know is less visually obtrusive because you
might be able to see it from the two houses down the block from us that are set back.
But our face is in line with the building to the right of us. Okay.
Okay. I don't know if anyone here, is anyone here from the owner, Frank, or anybody?
If nobody raises their hand, I would ask the board to
take my testimony as attorney for the llc as true and correct and make that part of the record
we will do that does the board have any questions no no no is there anyone in the virtual audio