referral, and planes and photos five days prior to this hearing? Yes to all of the above. Okay.
have you met with the RCO? Yes, we have. All right. And did you get a letter from the RCO?
Yes, we received the letter today. Okay, great. Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you. Let me just start sharing again.
Okay, as was stated, my name is Steve Bertil. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, or as we commonly known as SEPTA,
are here for a variance request for 2345 North Front Street. What we're here seeking is approval
for the erection of an enclosure addition on existing, an existing exit stairway from the
York Dolphin train station. And essentially we're constructing a turnstile type enclosure for the
exit. As you can see here, the property, I'm going to call it the property, although what we're
talking about here is exit rear stamps that are laid on top of existing city property. 2345 is
owned by the city. But the area in question is at the corner of North Front Street and East York
Avenue, excuse me, East York Street. The existing site, as you'll see here, is an exit stairway
from the York Dolphin train station. That exit out onto the corner, as you can see from
this. And as you can see from this photo, the steps themselves are attached to an existing
structure that falls within boundary lines of the parcel 2345 North Front Street. The steps are
actually not, the property itself is not in the public right of way as it stands. And as such,
any addition to it will require conformity with the zoning code in terms of occupied area, etc.
And for the refusal that we have for this proposed addition is for the increase of the existing occupied area that's out of conformity with the code.
So currently, the subject property has 80% occupied area, and we are increasing the occupied area by 2% with this proposed addition.
So just to see what we're talking about here, as you can see from this, first I want to
show you the zoning. So the site plan, let me zoom in just in case this is hard to see.
You'll see here where my mouse is circulating, where the existing stairway is on top of the
structure. And this is the turnstile enclosure addition that we would like to place. To the
right, you'll see the elevation plans that show you a little bit of the height and the
design of what we're talking about. Here's a better a close up of the turnstile addition.
And here are some renderings of what it will look like once it's a finished product.
And here are some renderings of what it will look like once it's a finished product.
As you can see, it's not dissimilar to some of the turnstile exit structures that you
see on some of the other train stops along the market Frankfurt line.
And here is a rendering sort of within the context of the existing structure.
And so part of the turnstile addition would be additional lighting, additional accessory sort of signage that doesn't require zoning, but most importantly, securing the exit from pedestrians or folks going up the exit as opposed to one-way traffic.
And so we did meet with the RCO. We met with their zoning board and also we met with the
pool community. As you can see, we do now have a letter of support
from the RCO, East Kensington Neighborhood Association. We also have a letter of non-opposition
from the councilwoman's office i believe um her uh representative from her office may be
on the call and he may want to testify as to this letter so as such i'm sorry i don't think you're
done uh yes i am um i was just going to summarize essentially what we're looking to do here is just
enclose the the exit stairway um and due to the unique positioning of the steps is subject to the
occupied area provision of the code. And we're adding a 2% difference in what's
there. Um, and as such, this is de minimis. Um, we believe that, um, considering the
community support and the public interest of having this properly be secured, we
exit the board, um, grants variance. Do you have a client to adopt your
testimony? I do Malik Gates would be on the line as a representative from
up there. Mr. Bates, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello. Good afternoon. Please spell your full name to the record and I'll square you in.
First name is Malik, M-A-L-I-K, last name Bates, B-A-T-E-S. Thank you. You swear a firm to tell
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr bertill uh mr bates did you hear the
testimony that i provided to the board this afternoon i did do you adopt and affirm the
truth of that testimony in the firm it is your own yes i do thank you very much thank you any
questions from the board no no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
here we have sloan folks mr folks you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
good afternoon mr folks please identify yourself
if you have to unmute yourself mr folks
i'm sorry i apologize no worry all right uh good morning uh good afternoon chairman de chico and
zba board uh my name is sloan folks i'm representing the office of councilman maria
sanchez uh room 508 city hall my name s s-l-o-a-n-e f-s-n-f-i-r-o-l-k-s
Thank you. You swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
The applicant, having met with the coordinating RCO and receiving a letter of support, our office offers, would like to offer no opposition to this various requests. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify in this case? Please raise your hand.
in no other hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon this is greg waldman planning commission staff this property was rezoned
from commercial mixed use 2 to commercial mixed use 2.5 as part of a district plan supported
remapping in 2016. this property is owned by the department of public property um and used as the
exit from the York Dolphin Station on the mark of Frankfurt Elevated Railway.
The proposed addition to accommodate a turnstile slightly increases the non-conformity by about
2% of occupied area.
Accordingly, we recommend granting the variance that would provide de minimis relief in order
to enhance security to the corridor and transit stop.
Thank you.
MI 2021-001-9629.
0-0-1-9-6-2-9-2-3-4-5 North Front Street. My vote is yes.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
MI, case number four, MI 2021-0-0-1-7-7-3-2-6-3-6 Belgrade Street.
Attorney of record is Jared Klein.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the old Richmond Civic Association.
Mr. Klein is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Good afternoon, Mr. Klein.
I don't know if that's your screen that I'm seeing with blur virtual.
I don't know if anybody else sees that blur virtual background.
I am not sharing my screen, so I don't believe it's me.
All right. In any event, please spell your full name and I'll square you in.
Certainly. It's Jared, J-A-R-E-D.
Last name's Klein, K-L-E-I-N, from Blank Rome, 130 North 18th Street, Philadelphia.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Snow has some questions for you.
Hey, Jared, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, and plans and photos five days
prior to this hearing?
Yes, I have.
All right.
Have you also met with the RCO?
Yes, we have.
Okay. Final question. And do you have a letter from the RCO?
We do. Yes.
Awesome. Okay. Please proceed.
Thank you very much. I'm going to share my screen. Does everybody see that?
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Holloman. Yeah. So we're here for 2636 Belgrade Street, and this is a fairly
simple and straightforward application. This is an existing structure that was approved
through a buy right permit for 19 residential units and a ground floor commercial space
consistent with its zoning. This application is to remove the commercial space and replace
it with a single residential unit. So a total of 20 residential units in the building and
removing that commercial space. Because we're zoned CMX2, we got a refusal for not having
the required ground floor commercial. The reason for this variance is that we have attempted to
do some lease up and found that this is just not a viable commercial space. It is a very small
commercial space and the property is already located off of a commercial corridor and I'll
show the board that now. This is the property that we're speaking about here. We're located
sort of adjacent to Aramingo Avenue, which as the board knows is a very well-developed
commercial corridor. And so there's not a lot of leasing opportunity or business viability
for a small commercial space that would be located on the interior of this property here.
So we thought a better use of the space would be to convert it to a 20th residential unit,
which is consistent with the rest of the development and minimally impactful versus
what was approved by right just to give the board a sense of where we are this is the street here
looking both ways on belgrade street this is the project uh it's actually further along in
construction now but when this photo was taken this is the property in development there and
more views of the of the street this is a more recent photo just to show the board the progress
on the construction that's been made and this is the belgrade street frontage um which is smaller
than as it as it backs up. Photos of our posting are included here. And just to give the board a
sense, this would be the layout of the additional residential unit we're adding. It is an ADA
accessible unit. When we met with the RCO, that was a point that they appreciated. We're trying
to provide a space that is handicapped accessible within this building. And as I believe the chair
noted when he started, we did meet with a very sparsely attended meeting with the old Richmond
Civic Association. Their letter is in front of the board now. As you can see, they noted that
they thanked us for our time and courtesy and talking through this proposal with them. And
although there was only one community member who attended that meeting, as you can see,
they concluded that the likelihood that the commercial space would be difficult and that
they take a position of non-opposition to the application. So again, we think this is a relatively
So again, we think this is a relatively minimal variance that's being driven by market conditions at that site, and will have no negative community impact and we'd ask the board to approve it.
minimal variance that's being driven.
I would ask Cynthia Schlegel if she is on the line to virtually raise her hand to briefly adopt my testimony.
Cynthia, are you there?
i see no one by that name at this time thank you mr klein uh you being an officer of court
will stipulate that your client would have adopted your testimony she certainly would
have thank you chair thank you any questions from the board no no anyone else would like
to testify in this case please raise your hand i see no hands at this time chair thank you very
much planning commission good afternoon this is greg waldman planning commission staff
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed use zoning for this
property the building was originally permitted in 2018 with a by right ground floor vacant
commercial space. The property is property situated on a side street all of the Aramingo
Avenue commercial corridor and the remainder of the block is primarily residential. We believe
the applicant has demonstrated a sufficient hardship in proving the challenge of finding
a commercial tenant. Accordingly, we recommend that the requested variance be granted.
Thank you. MI 2021-001-773. 2636 Belgrade Street. My vote is yes. James Snell. My vote is yes.
Thomas Holliman. My vote is yes. Thank you. We now go to case number seven. Thank you. MI 2021-001-768-434
north 54th street uh rachel pritzker is the attorney of record uh my notes say that we've
not yet received an rco letter but i'm sure ms pritzker will straighten that out please
identify yourself you're still on the oath
chair i promoted brandon sevron brandon are you uh the attorney yes okay please spell your full
name, and I'll swear you in. B-R-A-N-D-O-N-S-A-V-R-A-N. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Mr. Snell has questions for you.
Good afternoon. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, and plans and photos
five days prior to this hearing? Yes, we did. Okay. Have you also met with the RCO?
Yes, we did on, I believe, May 13th. Okay. And finally, have you acquired a letter from the RCO?
Yes. And that was received June 13th. And I believe it was in our RCO packet. If not,
I apologize for that. But we do have a letter of support. Okay, great. You can proceed. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to share my screen just to show everyone the property.
Oh, this is actually the letter of support. Can the board see this?
Okay, great. So here's the June 13th letter.
um hmc squared was the rco and you'll see uh the vote i believe was um nine in support one
in opposition and one in non-opposition um and the reason we're here is seeking a variance for
a refusal to uh allow us to put a children's daycare facility in an rsa 5 district so it's
just one use refusal. I think it's probably helpful to see the property. So this is in
West Philadelphia on 54th Street. One block down in the distance there at that light is Lancaster
Avenue, just to give everyone a sense of approximately where we are. And this is the
property, which my client purchased recently from the Kingdom's Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. It
was recently in use as a house of worship. And my client operates a daycare center in Smyrna,
Delaware, that he owns. He has also had a partnership with the School District of
Philadelphia to operate after school programs in Philadelphia schools over the years.
But this would be his first facility in the city for which
but this would be his first facility in the city for which he would own the land. And he was
Thank you.
attracted to this property because it's a nice size. It has a very nice size parking lot. You
can see here with well over a dozen spaces. And actually, if I sort of go down here, there's an
internal loop that passes by the building. So you could have sort of a one-way flow of traffic
through the property. Having attended a lot of ZBA hearings about daycare facilities,
you know, pick up and drop off traffic is a common concern of neighbors and a practical problem that
this site does a really good job handling because children can get in and out of the car off the
street. They're nowhere near the street and it's not going to hold up traffic. And this street is
is a nice width and has accommodated ingress and egress traffic from these gates for many years as
long as this church has been there. So I have, I believe, the architect on the line. He can speak
to the interior configurations that are proposed to turn the church into a daycare, but it does
not affect the external footprint of the building, which I know the neighbors were pleased to hear.
and I'm only going to bring him on if the board requests it.
I don't want to eat up any more of your time than needed.
We appreciate that.
Does the board need to see the interior?
So, all right, Mr.
Do you have your client to adopt your testimony?