This parcel was intentionally not changed. While this use is typically permitted in CMX-4, the assembly and entertainment uses such as these are prohibited in the Chinatown area of the center city overlay.
This use, while it's classified as a nightclub, is more akin to a restaurant or a bar use in this specific case in terms of impacts.
And so the City Planning Commission concurs with the RCO and recommends that the board grant the variance with a condition that it expire at the end of the 10-year term of the lease.
Thank you. Mr. Jim, would you put up the provisos?
Yes, I will.
is that clear on the screen uh yes i just want to yeah i can read it okay thank you and
miss freeman if if there's anything in here that you see that is not enforceable
Let me
It seems to be pretty forward
I'm not seeing anything yet
I have two more to go
Okay, thank you.
So MI 2021-002572, 1025 Arch Street, my vote is yes with the following provisos, temporary
variants to expire March 31st, 2029, Mr. Jim, would you put that back up again?
I'm sorry, yes.
No worries. I don't have it in front of me. That's why I need to read it.
Okay, not a problem.
And following provisos, variance is restricted to current applicant and proposed use.
There will be no professional law. I don't know if we can do that one.
I'm sorry, Chair. I hate to interrupt.
If I could ask, did Ms. Saletta review these provisos?
I do see a couple
that it might be a question
but it is as you wish
but it was just a couple
yeah number two
might be I'm not enforceable
right?
it goes with the land
and my client is a tenant
so it's yeah
but tenants could change
it could go to a different tenant
and then we got the dancing
it's just a couple
things that's just questionable. Well, I think they want that in there because they don't want
it to be what would be typically a nightclub type of dancing environment. I think that's what
they're asking for. I think in addition, the space actually can hold, overall can hold hundreds of
people, Chairman. I think number seven actually prevents it from becoming a whole nightclub
anyway, because we're limiting the areas into 20 and 60 occupants, which would prevent a mass
dance situation. I read it in a proviso for the temporary variance. Number three,
there will be no professional live entertainment on premise. There will be no operation for
premise there will be no operation falling under the definition of adult cabaret under the zoning code
I don't know.
the business will provide on-site accessory restaurant food and drink services
and dancing will be limited as an accessory to karaoke performances
each karaoke room will be limited to 20 occupants
And the bar and lounge area
Will be limited to 60
Occupants
Carol Tenere
Carol Tenere
My vote is yes with provisors
Professor Plaza
Yes with provisors
James Snell yes with provisors
Thomas Holliman
Yes with provisors
Thank you
is there anything further
excuse me Jerry you're muted
every time I put some paper
on my computer it does that
MI 2021-002611
6101 Harley Avenue
Wenjiang Lee
or Lai
48th Ward, Republican RCO, Eastwood Community Network, Eastwood Friends and Neighbors Coalition,
Empowered Community Development Corporation, Paschal Betterment League Incorporated,
all sent a letter of opposition.
Owners must present themselves or be represented by an attorney.
if you're the applicant for this case can you please raise your hand
the applicant is available uh chair i have somebody with the last name lee
that looks like the person yes hello hi please spell your first and last name
My name is W-E-N-Q-I-A-N-G-L-I
Are you representing yourself?
Or do you have an attorney?
I have someone in the room.
Are you the owner of the property?
Yeah, I'm the owner of the property.
do you have a corporation let me call you you should be in the zone i can't hear you
are you a corporation yeah i'm a corporation then you need an attorney
yeah i have one person he he waiting for yeah is he an attorney yeah
what is the name
what is your what is your attorney's name
Kevin Kevin Chang
Kevin Chang
you see the K-Chang here
is your attorney available
Mr. Zoe, are you the attorney for this case?
No, we are exploited for the case.
No, we need an attorney. This case will have to be continued. MI 2021-002611. 6101 Harley Avenue is
continued must be heard all right I think we are now ready correct me from wrong Tanya we're ready
to go back to uh 1700 block in north 22nd I believe so too okay Mr. Holloman will excuse
himself in this case thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you and Ms. Tenere was not
present at the original hearing uh i'll read the cases into the record again three of them
mi 2021-000242 1720 north 22nd street mi 2021-000784 1744 north 22nd street
and MI 2021-000242.
And MI 2021-000242, 1750 North 22nd Street.
We left off, Ms. Pritzker was the attorney for the applicant.
Mr. Masters is an attorney for the Protestants.
This is a resumption hearing.
I think we left off with Mr. Masters being the next person up,
correct me if i'm wrong um yes mr chair that is correct um we were in the middle of our first
witness when we were asked to adjourn thank you so you uh do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you we already went through all the other issues
about uh stipulation and so forth correct that was in terms of the refusal no i will well we
normally ask, well, that's the applicant. We ask the applicant. I'm sorry. I apologize. You're
protesting. Sorry. Yes. Good morning, members of the board. I have to say, initially, I'm a bit
confused as to Mr. Holloman's recusal. He was an active participant in the first hearing that we
had. And I wasn't aware that he was going to recuse or what the grounds of his recusal are.
Is there something that you could share about that?
Excuse me, sir, you're muted again.
Does Mr. Holloman, Ms. Friedman, does Mr. Holloman have to explain his purpose for recusal?
for whatever reason he felt he needed to to recuse himself i'm not aware of his uh of his
reason for recusal or the fact that he has to um to explain that but he felt it wasn't necessary
to excuse himself typically mr masters uh i think i've recused myself maybe twice once i was asked
to recuse myself because the applicant's attorney in one case thought that one of my clients
would be a conflict which it wasn't at the time but I'm not sure I'm not the lawyer here so I
don't know if we need an explanation he did recuse himself he won't will not be participating in this
hearing and will not be voting on it. No he doesn't have to give an explanation if he felt as though
it was a conflict, that is his right. Thank you, Tanya. Yes, I agree with that. It's just that
it's highly unusual in the middle of a hearing and not at the beginning of a hearing, and that's
why I was asking. We have a, I'm going to share my screen. Our witnesses for the resumption
hearing, we're going to finish with Kayla Franks Jenkins. Our second witness would then
be Mary Jones from Council President Clark's office. And then we have a number of other
witnesses that we will go through as expeditiously as possible. Let me ask you this, Mr. Masters.
You do have an extensive list. And I got in trouble when I proposed this in the past,
but I'll put it out there again anyway. You've got a lot of people. We respect their time
and their willingness and wanting to be a part of this procedure but i would ask that you advise
your those folks in advance that they do not repeat as much as they can do not repeat
testimony that has already been given we are not like city council we cannot put any restriction
on time we understand that but i would ask that you ask as you bring your witnesses up that you
ask them to provide something new and different that would be helpful yes chairman i understand
chairman um this is rachel pritzker um i represent the property owner the applicant i just want to
also make it uh known or important that these witnesses put their address on the record because
this is the 20 this is a 1700 block of north 22nd street and it doesn't seem like any of these
witnesses own property or live on the 1700 block of North 22nd Street. So while I appreciate
the desire to put on extensive testimony, I would be, you know, for the brevity of some of this that
is already, this is now a resumption hearing that we've already discussed, if Mr. Masters to try to
this is now a resumption hearing that we've already discussed if uh mr masters to try to
to keep it relevant.
keep it relevant to the 1700 block of north 22nd street that would be appreciated and
to the issue on the refusal which is uh parking for just nine parking spaces
um mr chair just to just to um uh help um refresh the recollection of of the board on this
The only supporters of this application for variants are developers who purchased lots on the 1700 block of North 22nd Street.
They do not live there. They do not live in the neighborhood. They never made any representations of any connections or ties to the community whatsoever, other than buying a block of property and perhaps flipping it right after they construct it.
So we will be providing with you, for you, a number of individuals who have deep ties to the community, who are community leaders, and who live in very close proximity, because Krosky Street, where most of them live, literally is the back of 20 North 22nd Street.
So their properties are actually bordering the properties that we're talking about.
You can't really get much closer than that.
And we've already established in the first hearing that there's literally no one who lives on 1700 block of North 22nd.
It's basically all vacant lots and there's no dwellings that have been occupied.
The applicant has constructed his buildings, but he has not placed any tenants in them because it's our understanding that he hasn't closed out his building permit. He doesn't have a certificate of occupancy. And that's part of the concern here is that he's basically adjusting and modifying his building permit to incorporate what he hopes to get some variances today.
i'm gonna object to that was that's speculation you don't have a copy of the building permit and
you don't have it reviewed and also there's no amendment to the building permit application
which would be public record with all due respect to well we have testimony on that and i'd like to
proceed i would like to proceed i don't believe that you're mr masters yes mr masters miss pritzker
was making a statement would you let her finish and then we'll get to you miss pritzker i just
wanted to make it clear and I don't even believe that it goes that I have to say this but just
because someone's a developer they are a landowner just as equally as anyone else's and so they
having own owning property on the block does give them standing and doesn't make them any less
important in so far as their ability to have standing or speak in support or on behalf of a
case so um it doesn't matter that they're developers the point was that the people that
mr masters is presenting testimony on the behalf of or that are going to be testifying don't live
on the block and so i appreciate that they feel impacted but i just wanted to make it clear and
that we do have those landowners um who actually own property on the block um here as well to
testify in support of the project. Thank you, Mr. Masters.
You're muted, Mr. Masters. Yes, I got muted. Yes, one of them did testify. That's correct. The other
ones just gave a boilerplate letter with one of them being an illegible signature. So we don't
even know his name. We do know the names of three out of the four because we were able to get
screenshots from the video testimony since Ms. Pritzker, despite repeated requests, has never
provided us with any exhibits. Steve, you've never reached out to me once, so don't perjure yourself
on the record. You've never emailed me asking me for any documentations for this case, so I
completely object to you perjuring yourself on the record and stating that you reached out to me
multiple times. I don't have one email from you. Thank you. We reached out to your co-counsel and
we stated it at the hearing in September. Well, you just said you reached out to me,
which is inaccurate. So make sure. During the hearing. We'll establish that you did not reach
out to Ms. Pritzker. You reached out to her associates. So can we proceed? You're muted
again, Mr. Masters. We are going to be focusing members of the board on the four provisos that
board member Holloman proposed, and they've been endorsed, and you will hear from Council
President Clark and the community. These four provisos were, one, the new concrete sidewalk
is removed on all three properties, and a new concrete sidewalk is poured with a five and a
half inch curb. In other words, the curb cut or the curb depression is removed, and there is a
or the curb depression is removed and there is a full curb put back in front of these properties.
Four trees approved by the City Planning Commission are planted near the sidewalk
curb between each property line on all properties. Five bike racks are installed at the already built
on-site parking spaces on all three properties. So they prepared parking spaces as Mr. Holloman
was able to develop in his questioning with the applicant's witnesses, they prepared parking
spaces even though they didn't have any zoning permit or authority for it, but now they can be
parking spaces for bikes, which don't require curb cuts. And four, complete landscaping recommended
by the Philadelphia Planning Commission on the on-site parking spaces for all three properties.
I'm going to ask Kayla Franks-Jenkins to raise her hand so that she can be sworn in again and continue her testimony.
Before we do that, let me ask, does the court reporter need a break?
Chair, I would appreciate a brief break. Thank you.
Let's take a five-minute break, Steve. Okay, and we'll come back.