of the refusal. The presentation was the same. So they indicated to me last week that they would
get back to me by Friday with regard to a follow-up meeting, and I never heard from them.
We are ready to go. The original refusal was issued last August, almost a year ago,
and we we don't think that uh frankfurt neighbors is really acting in good faith here i don't i
don't understand why they mr folks are you of it were you aware was your office aware of the uh
chain of events that mr ward just spelled out the letter that we have uh is simply requesting um a
The letter that we have is simply requesting a continuance until the refusal was updated.
a continuance.
If Mr. Ward has updated the refusal, we'd simply request a hearing hold for a letter
from the RCO then if he supported that. I'd also ask Mr. Ward if he could email me
that updated refusal so I could forward that also to the RCO so that they have a number of
methods of receiving that updated refusal. For the record, Sloan, you were copied on
all the email transactions. Okay, Sean, I'll check it, but if you could just send me another one,
please. I'd be more than happy to. Okay. We'll hear the case and then we'll make that decision.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal
for the 930 list. Chair, we have Hillary Emerson. Ms. Emerson, please unmute yourself and wait for
the chair. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Hillary Emerson on behalf of
Councilwoman Sherelle Parker. Please identify yourself for the record. Sure. Hillary Emerson,
e-m-e-r-s-o-n we're a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you please proceed um yes i'm here about number nine on the list 534-42 west olney
avenue um i i had recent contact with the applicant there was an rco meeting the community
was not in support of the proposal and the applicant has since pulled um permits for other
uses at the property um i advised him how to um withdraw his appeal um but i'm not aware that
that's been done unless he's here today to do that in person um i i'll interrupt you if i don't mind
we as of now we had no listing and no exhibits and i'm going to ask if there is there anyone
representing 534-42 West Olney Avenue on? If so, please raise your hand.
This is the second listing and no exhibits.
Chair, we have a Cush Petaway with the hand up. Are you for this case? If not, please lower your hand.
534-42 West Olney.
Chair, I would also mention that the property owner is a corporation, so they would require an attorney.
Anyone here for 534-42 West Alony?
Mr. Padaway, you've been unmuted. Please unmute yourself to speak.
Please identify yourself. Spell your full name.
Oh, C-U-S-H-P-E-T-T-I-W-A-Y.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yeah, I was trying to withdraw from my application for 1813 North Natrona.
Yeah, 1813 North Natrona Street.
Is that for 930 this morning?
1813 you said latona yeah natrona n-a-t-r we don't have that it's not on our list could
tanya yeah i believe that it's on the afternoon list oh i'm sorry no i'm my my my mistake it's
number one number two on our list so you're asking to withdraw correct yes all right mi 2020-002
994 1813 north natrona street is withdrawn thank you um chair can we go back one moment you are
we got to go back to the other case i'm sorry to the person who just spoke can he confirm that he
is the property owner. Mr. Petaway? Mr. Petaway, please unmute yourself.
Mr. Petaway, are you the owner? Yes, I'm the owner. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right,
Getting back to 534-42, Alany, anyone representing that application?
I see no hands, Chair.
I see no handshare.
Okay, so MI-2020.
Okay, so MI 2020-002955-534-42 West Olney.
My vote is to dismiss.
Dismiss.
Dismiss.
Dismiss.
Dismiss.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else requesting a continuance or withdrawal?
For the 930 list, please raise your hand.
I see no hands, Chair.
Thank you.
We'll go to the first case is the add-on list.
MI 2021-001-000, 4204 Parkside Avenue,
and MI 2021-000-999-4206 Parkside Avenue.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
Maximum six units in each property.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
My vote is no.
you carol you have to do the next one i recuse myself okay calendar mi-2021-000
994 1201 west gerard avenue my vote is yes for reconsideration and rehearing
the original vote is now vacated and the parties will receive notice
Madam Chair, it won't be vacated unless a majority vote for request and reconsideration to grant.
Okay, so I'll start again. My vote is yes for reconsideration and rehearing.
Yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
No to reconsideration and rehearing.
So the original vote is now vacated and the parties will receive notice as to a new hearing.
Is that correct, Ms. Saleta?
Yes, it is.
Thank you.
Okay, we can now proceed with the regular list.
MI 2021-001-244. 1201-07 West Somerset Street. Mr. Jinn. And there's a letter of support from the 37th Ward RCO.
Mr. Jinn is coming back in as a panelist.
Hi, Mr. Jin. Can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name?
Yes, Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N, last name J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103, here on behalf of the Advocate.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
You also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy.
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 to all questions.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you.
Good morning.
I'm going to share with the board the information related to this case.
we have submitted to the board ahead of time the refusal rco support letter photo plans tax
clearance deed and related documentation the refusal in this matter uh reads as follow it is
a cmx2 commercial mixed use property i will get into more details about the history of the property
as we proceed with the presentation however based on the size of the lot what is being
permitted by right as 11 dwelling units, whereas my client is asking for 21 dwelling units.
While this sounds like a lot of a variance change in the total units, taking into perspective of
the area and what is needed in the area, you'll see that this is actually a very sensible proposal.
The RCO and the community met with us, and we had overwhelming support from the community
and the RCO. In essence, this is a corner that used to be a commercial lot, but has been unused
for some time. I'm going to show the board the photograph of the property. This is the building
in question that is going to be demolished and a new structure placed in its place.
demolished and a new structure placed in its place. By doing the new property structure,
what we're doing is we're proposing to build the following. The best shown is through a rendering.
My client proposes a new building that has commercial space on the ground level
with residential units above. Because of the economics of the area, larger residential units
would have difficulty getting tenancy from people in the area.
And the community is aware of that.
And that was one of the feedbacks that was given to us when we did our presentation.
By changing the total number of units, my client can actually lower the cost and size
of the units.
What I'm going to do is I'll zoom into the floor plans so it's easier to see exactly
how we're trying to lay this out.
So as you can see, we have a basement plan that will go with the commercial units.
So this will be building maintenance room, garbage compactors, elevator, along with commercial office space for the commercial tenants.
The first floor, again, is also commercial.
We're actually putting in offices and smaller tenancies for commercial as well, because, again, that is what's needed in the neighborhood over large commercial units,
which are not as useful to people that are looking for that type of service in the area.
Once we go above that to the upper floors, from second to fourth floor,
we have what is essentially smaller apartment units that are still set up with one and two bedroom setups.
They're more closer to smaller efficiency-sized units, which contains bedrooms, separate bedrooms,
living space, and kitchen, but the overall cost will be a lot more acceptable to the
community and more easily met by the people that might be interested in leasing.
In this situation, we also have a roof deck, which is accessible, so open space is still
maintained. And dimensionally, the building does not trigger any refusals as well. When we met with
the community, the community supported this overwhelmingly because of the need for one,
office space type commercial spaces, and two, smaller, more accessible, and more affordable
overall residential units. The negative impacts that normally comes with high density
would not be attached to this particular area as parking on the street. While neighbors and
residents certainly park on the street, there is enough space left that these additional units and
even associated parking would not necessarily affect the overall parking situation. The
additional ice on the street, corner activity, and lighting in a new building in that position
would increase the safety and would actually help the community in developing into a better
and more active corner. So as a result, my client received full support from the community.
I believe there may even be a few neighbors here in support today in attendance. So we would ask
the board favorable consideration in this request. If the board has any questions or require me to
re-present any of the attached documents, I'll be happy to do so. Thank you, Mr. Chin. Do you
have, is your client available to adopt your testimony? Yes, I believe Mr. Sean Thomas should
be here, or his brother might be the one that's attending. So, Sean, can you raise your hand if
you're present? We also have the architect present if the board has any specific architectural
questions. Thank you.
Oh, Keith Sheed. Yes, Keith is Sean's brother, who's also a partner in the project.
Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself with a record spell, your first and last name,
I'll swear you in.
My name is Keith Sheed, K-E-I-T-H-S-H-E-E-D.
Where from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Jim.
Thank you.
Keith, you heard my presentation to the zoning board.
Can you verify that what I represented is true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Yes, it is.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
i see no handshare thank you planning commission good morning thank you mr chair members of the
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. That's H-E-G-A-R-T-Y.
board ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning committee
We're firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing about the truth?
Please proceed. Thank you.
Thank you.
Members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change to CMX1 at this location.
The applicant's hardship claim is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property.
This is a nice square corner lot, and I want to just draw attention to the board that this is an instance in which the appellant has neglected to pursue an available buy right density bonus for green roof and mixed income housing, and is instead asking for additional density without requiring the required benefits.
so we're therefore arguing that no hardship exists the variance is not the minimum variance
necessary and instead this is a request to circumvent an established process to achieve
similar density but without having to provide the necessary community benefits city planning
commission recommends that the board deny the variance thank you mr jen uh the commercial
it was 21 units does that include the commercial or is that the commercial was separate from the
residential? How many residential units? I believe 21 units is the residential units,
the commercial units. Then you have the commercial. Correct. We have the commercial units on the first
floor. I do want to point out that while green roofs and other bonuses do exist, I believe part
of the reason it's designed this way is, again, when my client talked to the community with the
resulting costs involved with how the building has to be built. This is probably the best way
to achieve the pricing the community is looking for for what the units would go for without
exceeding the budget that my client would be able to shoulder in this case. Again, this is a project
that is really to the benefit of that particular community because of the area's need for that
type of development. Again, that is why the community gave us overwhelming support when we
met with them, despite the substantial increase in the unit count. And again, even with the increase
in the unit count, with the layout, I don't believe that the overall bedroom density is
really substantially higher than what 11 units with bigger apartments would necessarily come
out to be i mean we can easily do 11 units with three three bedroom setups uh in the same spot