youngest children in a place where they'd have to go upstairs to get out. Our other concern is
that the outside play space is kind of an alley between two buildings. I don't know if that's
going to be sufficient even rotating you know with the children being rotated. However again
we do know that that is something that will be addressed by the state in their in their review
process um if the board um and i just want to know but both of both of the concerns about egress
um and the the play space along with kind of um fire extinguishers fire suppression
were things that were mentioned in the letter um from by the rco while it was a letter of support
they didn't indicate there were things that they would like to have provisoed um our office would
Our office would ask that if the board decides to grant this application, that it give provisos, one, that there be a certificate of occupancy obtained prior to occupancy of the building.
ask that if the board decides to grant this application that it
And also that the pickup and drop off would occur on the wing coat side of the building only because there are residences across the street on the lime kiln side.
And I've seen some of the businesses double park there and cause problems for traffic to get by.
so we wouldn't want to have that be an issue. There's more space on the windcoat side.
That is all of my comments. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for Rebecca Cole.
I believe the CO request is appropriate, but what about the drop-off zone?
That's something I think that streets would be handling, correct? I'm not sure on that.
we're happy to have drop off and pick up on the windcoat side yeah yeah i believe that's
been proviso'd on other applications before okay all right i wasn't sure that so okay
all right uh planning commission
good afternoon david fecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board
the comprehensive plan recommends this property for commercial mixed use
The block appears to be largely commercial in nature. We recommend that the board approve the requested variance.
Thank you. MI-2021, that's 001561-6630, Lyme Kiln, Pike.
My vote is yes with the following provisos.
CO to be obtained prior to occupancy and the vehicular drop-off lane be on the windcoach side of the property.
My vote is yes with provisos.
yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you uh we now go to case number 12
mi 2021-001565-9432 east roosevelt boulevard
and mr klein i believe is the attorney representing the applicant
excuse me one second to the court reporter this is our last case
on this round after this we'll take a break thank you carol okay thank you uh please put
your name and address on the record and spell your last name certainly good good afternoon
uh mr chair members of the board jared klein k-l-e-i-n from black rome 130 north 18th street
philadelphia do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and i'll think about the truth yes
i do do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i can waive
the reading i can't stipulate to the to the accuracy part of our appeal uh is an appeal
against lni but i can address that uh pretty efficiently for the board as i move forward
okay great have you emailed an 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 to all of the above okay great you may proceed
thank you uh if i can share my screen is everybody seeing that yes all right so yeah this is 9432
Roosevelt Boulevard, which is owned by the law enforcement health benefits. And the refusal that
we received is for use of a portion of the second floor of an already constructed building as a
healthcare facility. What it's going to be is a minute clinic type of use where they'll have
doctors from Temple University Health that are there to provide sort of urgent care, walk-in care
for people who are members of the health network. When we filed this appeal, it was put in as both
an appeal against LNI and, in the alternative, a request for a variance. As I'll get into in
just a minute, we have pretty broad-based support from the RCO and the councilman. And so I'm going
to address the variance aspect first because I think that the board might be able to resolve
this case just on the variance request alone without having to get into the legal issue of
the appeal against L&I. The sort of very short summary is this location was previously the home
of a medical building. What was there previously this was the signage for it and it was affiliated
with Frankfurt Hospital and it had an MRI center in there. Law enforcement health benefits filed
an application for the complete demolition of what was there before and to build a new
And to build a new building in generally the same place for use as this health care facility, personal services, some office space, and this minute clinic.
building in generally the same place for use.
Unfortunately, when that zoning application went in, the way it was worded referred to personal services use rather than medical office.
and so the LNI took the position that there had been abandonment of the prior medical use
as a product of the demolition of the existing structure and so we filed the appeal against
LNI to address that. However I don't think we need to get into that legal issue so let me
just briefly take the board through this case. The subject property is here it's located along
Roosevelt Boulevard. As I mentioned, it's already constructed. This is an aerial view as you can see
and this is an image of what the building looks like now. As I said, Law Enforcement Health
Benefits is the owner of this building. They are a private medical network only providing
medical services for people who are members of that Law Enforcement Health Benefits group.
So unlike the prior building that was here, this is not open to the general public.
You need to be a member of the health network to get inside.
You need to be a member of the health network to obtain any treatment.
Photos of the zoning notice posted in the windows are here.
And the area that we are talking about in the building is on the second floor.
And it is this area here that I'm circling with my mouse.
That's the area that would be what we're calling the mini clinic.
Again, it's already constructed, so there's no dimensional or any other variances other
than use because of the overlay in this area of the city that's designed to restrict medical
office use.
We did have a very productive conversation with the Civic Association.
Their unanimous letter of support is here.
The one thing that I will add is we did tell the community, we started our presentation
off there there will no be there will not be any uh methadone treatment services coming from this
facility and we're happy to agree to a proviso if the board is so inclined on that that that issue
that was something that was important to the uh rco and not something that was in our treatment
plans uh and here is the letter of uh non-objection from councilman brian o'neill also so we think
with the broad-based community support and the fact that this is going into an existing structure
that was previously used for medical use, that we've met the requirements for a variance.
And I would have my client adopt this portion of my testimony and then leave it to the board
to decide whether they would like a presentation on the appeal against LI aspect of this.
Mr. Reuters waiting in the wings. So let's get your client, Jared, to adopt your testimony. Then
we'll go to Mr. Reuter. Absolutely. And by the way, for the record, I apologize. I screwed up
again. I skipped over number 11. So after this case, we will then go to 760 South 18th. Sorry
about that. John Gatins, if you can raise your virtual hand. Mr. Gatins, please unmute yourself
and please wait for the chat. Good afternoon, sir. Please spell your full name and identify
yourself and I'll swear you in. John Gaitens, G-A-I-T-T-E-N-S. Do you swear for him to tell
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Klein.
Thank you. John, can you just tell the board what your role is with the LEHB?
I am the Administrator of Law Enforcement Health Benefits. Okay. And did you have an opportunity
to hear the uh presentation i just made yes sir i do and do you adopt it as true correct in your own
i do thank you um so mr chair i will rest there let mr reuter weigh in and then if i need to uh
spend any time on the legal side of it i'll be happy to do so before we get into that um any
questions from the board so no no okay so mr reuter uh thank you members of the board may
please the board leonard f reuter r-e-u-t-e-r for the city of philadelphia we're affirmed to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed um i think uh as
mr klein had already indicated uh there is a challenge to the refusal but there's also they
are also seeking the variance and the alternative um i think if the board were to uh i guess bifurcate
this and just simply decide
hear from city planning first
and then decide whether the
variance would be granted anyway, then the
appeal against L&I can just simply be
marked moot. So
So, I mean, obviously I'm here.
obviously I'm here.
We do believe that the refusal
We do believe that the refusal was properly granted,
but again, I don't think the board needs to address it
unless the variants were to be denied.
And the city's not taking any, the city itself,
not to speak for city planning,
but the city itself isn't taking any position
on the variants, but I,
so maybe you wanna hear from city planning first.
Thank you.
Planning commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change in the existing commercial area zoning.
A group medical facility is the type of activity that a reasonable person would expect to find in
an auto-oriented shopping center. We recommend that the Board approve the requested variance.
Thank you. Before I go, is there anyone else to testify in this case?
chair we have alice judovich please unmute yourself and wait for the
good afternoon alice you're still under oath from earlier just identify yourself and i'll
swear you in thank you chairman alice judovich from councilman brian o'neill's office city hall
room 562 i apologize you're already been sworn in please proceed yes uh the councilman fully
supports the granting of the variance at this location very much anyone else to testify in
this case chair we have bernard please unmute yourself and please wait for the
afternoon please identify yourself spell your full name and i'll swear you in
uh bernard jadak uh i'm with greater bustle in the civic league bernard please spell your last
name j-a-d-a-c-h swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes thank you please proceed uh yeah it's just uh uh the concern that uh that property had been
brought up uh uh on multiple occasions to be a methadone clinic and we were just wondering if
that could be included in the restriction or as a proviso or something along with the
sole practitioner use of the medical in that in the uh in the building facility
i'll ask counsel for that i'm not sure if we can make that a proviso it might be considered
discriminatory but i'm not a lawyer so rebecca i'll need to check i'm not sure on that i no chair
this is tanya it's not it can't use it as proviso no yeah i figured it would be a somewhat
But OK, well, I mean, as long as it's stated as sole practitioner, you know, it can't be a clinic and that would probably suffice.
You know what I'm saying? So that's the counsel for the applicant has stated that on the record.
Right. Well, it will there will not be any methadone service from there.
Just to clarify, it's not a sole practitioner.
It's a group office that's going to provide minute clinic or urgent care style of care.
But there will be no drug treatment or methadone service.
Anyone else to testify?
Thank you very much.
I see no more this year.
Okay, we already got the planning commission.
So, Leonard, do you have anything else to add?
We're going to vote this.
No, again, I think once you vote on the variance, then you can address the challenge against L&I, which I'm going to guess is probably going to be moot at this point.
Okay, thank you. MI 2021-001-565-9432 East, Roosevelt Boulevard, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
there weren't any provisors correct i mean any right any change in plans not right no thank you
all right and again i apologize i got a little confused i made some notes earlier today
we're going to go back to mi 2021
mi 2021 that's 001 569 760 south 18th street the attorney is rachel pritzker
I'm sorry I'm chair I heard Mr. Ruder were you trying to say something Mr. Ruder
okay it has to be it is it okay to be excused I think oh okay I think I could be wrong but
I was just asking that the record reflect then that the appeal against LNI is moot.
Thank you. I wanted that on record. Thank you, Mr. Rudder.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Tanya. Okay, Ms. Pritzker.
Okay, Ms. Pritzker.
Thank you.
She's coming back in as a panel.
Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the board.
Good afternoon.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA-19103.
Do you swear a firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal,
referral, photos, 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? You may proceed. Thank you. I'm going to
share my screen. Thank you. So this is 760 South 18th Street. This application proposes the division
of an existing lot that runs through the width of the block from South 18th Street to South
Cleveland Street into two separate lots, lots A and B, one fronting each on the aforementioned
Street, so one on 18th and one on Cleveland. The erection of two new single-family houses
is what we're proposing. I'll go through the revisions to the project as well as one of the
front of the existing structure on 18th Street is to remain in place based on conversations with
the community. This application also proposes the erection of roof deck on the existing structure
on lot A. As you can see, we have the refusal. We generated three refusals, all dimensional
variances, and I'll kind of go through how we're very similar to the other lots on the
block as far as lot size. So I'm just going to, for illustrative purposes, and our architects
did a great job in our presentation to kind of illustrate this, but just so the board
can see what I'm looking at. The code 14701-1 states that properties in RSA 5 must be 1,440
square feet. However, we're proposing 840 square feet for lot A and 740 square feet on lot B.
The code also requires 25% open space. We're proposing 17.1 on lot A. We do not have any
variances for rear yard, height, side yard, front setback, just these refusals. As you can see on