And the hope was to bring the high density residential that we need adjacent to transit.
This is a block from NL station, but also keep both makerspace and active uses in the community
during the day the original project that proceeded by right through the community through the
civic design review process and through this eba was presented as having ground floors with
a multitude of artisan industrial spaces i believe it was clear to everybody at the time that those
spaces were effectively residential spaces that were being presented as industrial spaces they
were the same size and configuration as the residential spaces above at the
first time they were presented to the community they had the residential
kitchens in them as a result of that some serious design deficiencies in the
overall project proceeded with no input or no ability for input from the community
or from the Civic Design Review the building defies our community plan by
turning its back to York Street and having all of the loading access and
parking on York Street, which is our primary pedestrian path to transit, and a link to a
number of community businesses, instead facing onto Boston Street, which is really more of a
backstreet. That was something that was raised at the Civic Design Review meeting, was raised in the
original RCO community meeting. However, because the project proceeded through all of this process
by right, there was no potential for making modifications. So now that we're presented with
a project that eliminates 24 light industrial spaces spaces we never expected to see come to
fruition because they were clearly not designed to be light industrial spaces they have never been
marketed no attempt has been made to make them real or even build them converting all that space
to residential space and moving commercial space to the corner the community discussion at the
neighborhood meeting for this project centered around understanding the modifications to what
was presented, understanding clearly where we were in the process, that we weren't at this
point having the opportunity to re-question or talk about the entire building because that
talk about the entire building because that already has building permits.
already has building permits.
Our committee met several times with the applicant.
Their first effort at showing something was incredibly weak, taking one small unit and
converting it to commercial use and nothing else. We asked them to come back with something more
realistic. This is what they presented. This is what they presented ultimately to the community.
i think in general the community appreciates the direction that this is better than nothing
better than converting all of the space to residential space we understand that the
original project did not make a lot of sense and was never going to happen the inclusion
of a commercial space on the corner of york and emerald is the location where that would be desired
and had been also indicated in previous applications we've seen for this site
think the split vote in the neighborhood was based on the fact that you know 24 units of
light industrial space were removed and only two units were really given back as commercial space
and the sense was it just wasn't significant enough um along with the sense that there's
you know no affordability in here which had this come for a variance um and gone through
the civic design review process originally as it should have um we may have had more leverage as a
community as a city and instead all of the time spent reviewing this project by the planning
commission by the councilwoman's office by the civic design review board and by the community
was sort of wasted um and now we're here with a less than ideal solution
if i can respond i appreciate that and you know i i will say that i agree the process stunk
We weren't part of it, but I do agree that, you know, when you talk about artists, it's really a question of square footage.
And I think that we do have, you know, especially on New York Street, a good amount of square footage that we've added here and really tried to improve the building into kind of what we bought into.
We came into this and bought into a project and sort of took control of this project as the owner.
we weren't part of the original development and yeah we're really we're trying to make it better
and um and i think that we um and the community saw that i think we've been responsive to that
and sure would we like to have more commercial space we you know our experts tell us that it's
not um you know it's not leasable so we're trying to balance that um to make the best um corner and
best usable commercial space and with the commitment that on the haggard street building
that amenity space that we have at the corner um is easily convertible to commercial space
and additionally the commitment that we made to the council continue to work um with the neighborhood
with the councilwoman on improvement of the commercial corridor where i think that there is
certainly more opportunity desire and demand or more retail and commercial space um and um and
just to respond to the other comments.
And the project does comply with the parking
and we are transit oriented and we're blocking the else.
But I appreciate everyone's comments.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
No further hand at this time, sir.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
You serve a friend to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Just for the record, my last name is spelled B as in boy, A as in apple, R as in Roger, N as in Nancy, A as in apple, R as in Roger, D as in dog.
Thank you.
This property is indicated for industrial commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan.
The proposal that was presented to Civic Design Review Committee included 50% ground floor artist studios.
The developer has proposed revised plans with additional residential units and commercial space, but no light industrial use.
We feel the developer has failed to demonstrate sufficient hardship.
Accordingly, we oppose the granting of the variant.
Okay. Thank you.
So for calendar number MI 2021-001-231-1918-22 East Haggard Street, and MI 2021-001-232-1929-45 East Georgia.
Excuse me, Chair, I don't mean, oh, I'm sorry.
I just wanted to remind you that it both,
that we're only waiting for the amended refusal.
Thank you.
I apologize.
this record is now closed and we will hold this vote for 30 days pending the submission of the
This record is now closed and we will hold this vote
for 30 days pending.
what was it sharon for the the revised refusal revised refusal there we go thank you thank you
All right, calendar number MI-2021-000-958-2829-North-23rd Street.
Mr. Sklaroff will be rejoining as a panelist, sir.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Good afternoon, Mr. Sklarov.
Please identify yourself again.
Thank you.
I'm Neil Sklarov, an attorney with Dilworth-Axon, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
Philadelphia 19102. Thank you. Can you please spell your name, please? N-E-I-L-S-K-L-A-R-O-F-F.
Thank you. And you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. And can you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of
ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, overflow, photos, and plans five days
prior to this, Aaron? Yes, I did. And have you met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes, we do.
Thank you. Please proceed. May I share my screen? Yes, you may. And I hope I get this correct.
As I stated earlier, we're here on the new TM Pierce Elementary School at 2829 North
23rd Street. I'm going to rely on section 14-303-14F and ask if there's no objections and there is
agreement. The statements I make will be considered to be statements of the school district and its
experts and a proper basis for findings of fact. If there are no objections, I will proceed.
Joining me today are Kevin Blackney and Troy Hill, principals with the architectural firm of Blackney Hayes, the project architect, Chantel Francis with JMT Architecture, Richard Burrow with KS Engineers, and Nicole Ward with the School District of Philadelphia.
here is our list of exhibits our certificate of tax clearance
and our deeds now there are a number of deeds here the parcels were acquired in 1908
and 1909 the original school opened in 1916 and we would suggest since this building is smaller
and the use is the same that this is a lawful pre-existing non-conforming use
and therefore the Department of Licenses and Inspections could have approved this
as of right. It's an assemblage of a number of properties that are considered by L and I
to be a single zoning lot. Now the parcel is, I'll go through these Ds quickly,
certainly wasn't weren't quickly reviewed by me they're very difficult to read
the property is bordered by 23rd street north krosky street and west cambria street
they were posted appropriately with both the notice of referral and refusal as well as the
zoning notice. This is the 23rd Street, this is Cambria Street, and this is North Krosky Street
at the time of the posting. As you may have noticed, the building, which is a four-story building
and comprised 85,000 square feet, is in the process of being demolished. And we propose to
erect a modern building. This here is the photographs of the existing community and the
existing building. This is a key plan showing from where each of the pictures were taken.
Our next exhibit is the site plan that was submitted.
Our next exhibit is the site plan that was submitted. The white area here is where the building will be, and this gray area is where the playground will be, and we'll get into some detail as we go forward.
this is our refusal as we stated in clearly in our letter to the community
this is an rs5 zoning district which does not permit
which does permit educational use but by special exception
and therefore it is permitted and the decision has been made that this is appropriate
for residential community as I've mentioned to the board many times before
in times past we we built schools in residential neighborhoods so kids could walk to school
and we we continue with that in part and here is an example of where we're going to build a new
school right where the old school was we also have been refused for maximum height
As a residential community, the maximum height is 38 feet. However, portions of our building,
and you'll see it when we get to the site plans, rises to 66 feet. But that's just an
architectural embellishment for our sign. The building is actually 44 feet in some spaces and
32 feet in others. All of that being shorter than the existing building was. It also requires
were 75 parking spaces. Well, there weren't any parking spaces before, and we don't have the room
to provide any parking spaces. So again, it's a lawful non-conforming use. We think we don't need
to provide these, but if we do, we ask there to be a variance because we couldn't build the school
and have that many parking spaces. Also, there's a requirement for eight bicycle spaces. We've
only shown four on the plan. We will have at least eight, but we didn't think it was
worth everybody's time to redraw new plans and have them reviewed. So we'll ask for
variance here, understanding that we'll put at least eight spaces on the area surrounding
the school. This is our application for appeal and our project information form. Here are
artist renderings of the new school building. This is the main entrance, this one marked one,
which will be here at the corner. And that's the main public entrance where one would see
a receptionist and administrative offices. Here down Krosky Street is where the pre-K
and kindergarten students will be left off and brought into the building, and that would be here.
And lastly, this is from 23rd Street, and this shows a portion of the playground and the
gymatorium and cafeteria, and I'll show that to you in greater detail in a moment.
Again, this is just the artist rendering, you know, in a broader sense to get the understanding
of the materials here.
Here are renderings, you'll notice on the bottom one to the right, there's this, what
is shown here in orange is a flange, this will actually have the name of the school
on it. T.M. Pierce. And that's why we're up to 66 feet. Another set of renderings.
This is a bird's eye view. You'll see the three-story portion of the building here
in the playground. And this would be the auditorium in the cafeteria, which is a lower roof line.
This is the playground. Painted and soft surfaces, opportunities for planning, different kinds of
playground activities. There's some musical instruments that are stationary here. You'll
see the lion's head inset. And this is designed with great care. I should say this design
is a result of more than 10 community meetings held between March and I think it was October
of 2020. It included the architectural team, administrators.
It included the architectural team, administrators, school district administrators, as well as schools administrators, members of the community, teachers, and an accumulation of the T.M. Pierce community.
And they worked very hard and they came up with a very exciting plan.
This is a rendering of the gymnasium as I said it's also an auditorium. You'll see there's a stage
to one side as well as seating that could be available if needed. This is the ground floor
again showing the gymnatorium. This is the cafeteria here and the playground space that
we saw some details of. The reception area is to the upper left in pink, and the pre-K
and kindergarten classrooms are shown. On the second floor, we have first and second grade
classrooms, as well as some amenity rooms and some special rooms. There's a miscellaneous room,
art room, music rooms. Here we see the art room on the third floor where the fourth and fifth
graders will have their classrooms as well as special classroom spaces.
This is a view of one floor of the interior, modern, wide, well lit, attractive,
and what we would hope to have in our modern school buildings.
Our next exhibit is the letter we sent to the three community groups, the RCOs,
The Planning Commission advised us that Allegheny West Civic Association was to be the coordinating RCO.
We have a project description as well as the summary of refusal, which as I explained it to you folks.
Then we sent a letter to 225 neighbors about a virtual public meeting.
Again, we have a summary of the project, a summary of the refusal, and instructions how to join that meeting.
That meeting took place on May 4th, and we recently received this form from Allegheny West Civic Association, which shows no opposition and 43 meeting attendees in favor.
the date of the meeting being May 4th we also have a support letter and it's a robust support
level in favor of the project and it is accompanied by a petition that was taken after the meeting
and there are approximately 100 names and most of these names are on the nearby streets
That completes our presentation. I haven't seen the letter that was sent to Ms. Saluda asking for a continuance, but we would object to that as we have not seen it.
Certainly the author is not available for cross, and we do not believe that accurately would put forth what occurred with the community.
I'll say in closing that we heard from Swamp Doodle neighbors.
We responded before the community meeting and provided them with an even broader range of materials.
All of those you've seen here are most of those that you've seen here, as well as some additional renderings.
we received another
on April 30th
I sent a letter
to Swan Poodle
they appeared to want to have
more control over the process
but they are not the coordinating
and so unless there are questions
that completes our presentation
thank you
does the board have any questions