to septa mass transit route makes the 18 spaces sufficient for the type of residence we expect
and i note that the rco which is normally where parking concerns come from was comfortable with
the plan as we presented it. And the third refusal was for the ADA parking spaces. Again, two
are required. We're providing one, again, based on size constraints of the space.
And with that, out of respect for the board's time, I could talk about this application a lot,
but I will stop there. We appreciate that. You have two pages of revised plans, you said?
Yes, there were revised plans. All of them reduced the general size of the building. There's a slight reduction in GFA, land coverage, and we changed some of the architectural details on the egress wells and location of the Pico Vault.
Thank you. Do you have your client on the line?
I do. David Goldstein, please virtually raise your hand for us, if you would.
david you can unmute yourself and speak hi david goldstein david can you spell your last name and
give us your address for the record please g-o-l-d-s-t-e-i-n-2-0-1-6 naudain street
And Mr. Goldstein, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Declined, please proceed.
David, did you have the opportunity to listen to my complete presentation and Rustin Oler's statements?
I did.
And do you adopt them as true, correct, and your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who wishes to participate in this here, in this application?
Please raise your hand.
No hands are up chair. You can proceed. Thank you. Any questions from the board? No. No.
So while this property is indicated for industrial commercial mixed use on a city
plan, given the recent development pattern and revisions made, we have no objection to
the granting of the variance provided that the code required ADA parking is added.
eight all right uh calendar number three nine eight two four two one oh one east westmoreland
my vote is yes with proviso revised plan two pages uh approved today yes with proviso
yes with proviso
up all right uh carl we're going to go to uh number five but before you do mr klein
uh if everything goes right where the board will take up that matter on 1523 south broad
today we'll have a final vote on it today very good thank you thank you calendar number three
nine zero five eight three one eight east durham street mr klein you're back
Do you agree to waive the reading of this refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Good morning again, everybody.
Again, just for the record, Jared Klein from Blank Rome, 130 North 18th Street, on behalf
of the applicant.
The chairman will swear you in.
You know, in the future, Carol, maybe you should do it, said, and we don't have to stop
and start, all right?
I'm sorry to change it, but it might be easier.
Mr. Klein, you're already on the roof from the previous hearing anyway.
I am, and I still swear to tell the complete truth.
Thank you.
As the board may recall, this matter was heard on July 21st.
Just to briefly refresh the board's memory, this is a property that is a RSA 3 zone lot
that is surrounded by an existing RM 2 zone apartment complex.
We had a lengthy hearing on July 21st at the conclusion of which the board asked that we
reconvene with some of the neighbors that had appeared at the hearing and engage in some further
dialogue about the project. We did do that. We had two Zoom calls with near neighbors, the first
of which lasted over an hour, during which we listened to all of the concerns related to the
project, including some of those that we can't make any amendments to. And at the conclusion of
that first call, the developer offered to reduce a unit, so make it from eight
units as requested to seven, and to present the community with some revised
And to present the community with some revised renderings with some exterior architectural detail that would help address the concern about how the proposed structure would blend into the surrounding community.
renderings with some exterior
We did provide two renderings to the near neighbors who had an opportunity to review them.
And unfortunately, on our second Zoom call, the neighbors indicated that neither of the designs warranted further conversation and that while we had a very respectful dialogue, they were unchanged in their opposition.
I've submitted a letter to that effect, and I hope the board has it, but I would request that the board, taking into account the hardships as discussed in the Planning Commission's non-opposition from the last hearing, vote this case at this time.
Mr. Klein, you indicated that the developer was willing to reduce the units from eight to seven?
That was a proposal that we made to the community as what we hoped would be a global compromise, yes.
Okay, all right.
If that unit count is particularly important to the board's decision, we can certainly honor that.
Okay, thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to testify on this case?
Please raise your hand.
We have Kelly O'Day. You can unmute yourself.
This is Kelly O'Day. I testified at the previous hearing on July 21st.
i'd like to point out that the mr auday you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes i do and please give us your address ma'am yes sir it's a 301
east dorm street in philadelphia 19119 i live across the street from 318 east dorm street
i participated in the two meetings that mr klein referred to in our discussion between the new
neighbors and the applicant. We pointed out that the applicant has withdrawn the use of a regional
leasing office, which is 1,500 square feet, and they proposed to go from eight units to seven
units, which would say approximately 1,000 square feet. So they're reducing the usage by 2,500
square feet, and yet they have not reduced the size of the building. That does not make sense
to us we we pointed out our major concern is the overwhelming size of the building in a single
family residential area we have 11 properties on this in this block 10 of them are single family
houses one is an apartment building and that this would change the character of our neighborhood and
the applicant was not willing to consider a reduction in the size of the building
even though there were two significant reductions the other thing that we requested was a
consideration for a setback on the third floor so that there would be a less
dominating appearance and that was not acted upon either so the neighbors
simply do not feel we can live with a such a large building and a very small
lot I will remind the board that it is a 4,400 square foot parcel and they are
proposing to use 3,960 square feet for their building. And that is, you know, 90% of the
space. Now they have a unity of use so that they will move the building, but still well over half
of the building will be in the original RSA3 parcel. Thank you. Mr. Klein, Mr. O'Day mentioned
something about an apartment building. Refresh our memory. How many units were in the existing
apartment building? Currently, there were 93 units. Okay. And if your client were to reduce
the number of units from eight to seven, does that not change any of the size of the building
or does it remain the same as was presented? We had presented it as remaining the same size.
We would just take that square footage and reapportion it to other units within the building.
If the size of the building continues to be the sticking point, we did not have full building plans drawn up.
We had a site plan, so we didn't have a design of the building to present to the neighbors.
But if the size is particularly important, we could agree to a proviso that the Durham Street frontage on the top floor would be set back an additional five feet.
Mr. Klein, another building, no matter how many units, engulfs that neighborhood, because
they're based on the first hearing. There were many other large buildings, and there's
a nice block of homes, if I remember correctly.
if I remember correctly. On the other side of the street from the subject property, yes.
On the other side of the street from the subject property, yeah.
There are one or two homes on our side. The other side is residential. Our side of the street is
primarily made up of the apartment complex. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on this
in this case. Mr. Chairman, could I add just one point? The even side of 300 block of East
Storm Street has one apartment building and two single-family homes, and there are 10
properties on the other side, or eight properties on the other side. But the apartment building
complex is consists of 96 I believe it was 96 units 93 currently 93 units so it's not like
it's a duplex or a triplex it's a multi it is a very big apartment complex so I would
so Mr. Klein if you're if if the board were so inclined to grant this variance
uh with a maximum of seven units describe again what we would you your client would
be willing to do as it relates to the size of the structure
we don't have a rendering that we can present but we would agree to a five foot setback
on the upper floor um set back from the durham street side
Mr. Klein which what floor is that that would be I believe the third floor of the proposed
structure thank you all right anyone else to testify on this case if so please raise your hand
no hands are up chair you can proceed thank you questions any more questions from the board
no no any commission
on yes uh planning commission remains and non-opposition thank you
calendar number 39058 318 east dorm street
my vote is yes with the provisos maximum seven units third floor setback
uh five five foot setback at third floor that makes sense yes from if you wanted to note from
dorham street just to make it clear five foot setback third floor is set back five foot from
dorham street additional five feet yeah i i just wanted to make it clear that we're setting back
the portion of the building that fronts on Durham as opposed to the rear which
fronts into the apartment complex. All right so there is already a setback and
you are setting it back an additional five feet? The building itself is 14 feet
three inches from Durham Street. What we would be able to do is when we build
the building our building plans would show an additional five feet at that
third floor. Okay so it would be additional five foot setback at third
floor level that's correct fronting on durham and maximum seven units thank you yes mr chair thank you
my vote is no my vote is no my vote is no
thank you thank you very much for your time i appreciate it
am i going to six or seven seven
Calendar number 39316, 3375 East Thompson Street.
The attorney is Alan Nockmson.
Alan, you have been promoted to panelists.
You can share your screen and testify as you wish.
Mr. Nockmson, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Name and address for the record and please spell your name for the stenographer.
Yes, my name is Alan Nockmson, A-L-A-N, Nockmson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
My address is 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA 19109.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
I am here to present 3373-75 East Thompson Street. I handed you a pack of materials, or it's on the screen of eight exhibits. Do you see them?
I am here to present 3373-75 East Highland.
We have the table of contents so far.
Okay. Okay, great. And by the way, Florian Thiem, the owner of the property, is present as well. He'll affirm my testimony at the conclusion of my presentation.
So the first exhibit is the deed to the property, showing that Florian team is the owner of the property.
The second exhibit is the certificate of tax clearance, showing that we're in good standing with the state of Philadelphia.
The third exhibit is the notice of refusal for this property.
This is an RSA 5 property.
Currently, it's two tax ID numbers of 3373 and 3375 East Thompson Street.
All we're trying to do is relocate the lot lines to even out the properties, and we're being refused because our minimum lot coverage area is lower for each lot, lower than the 1440 allowed by law.
If you look at what's also in this exhibit, I did a breakdown of every single property on the 3,300 block of East Thompson Street, the lot sizes.
and you know we can go through it but um you know each for the most part every single property on
that block is of similar size to the one that the ones that we're proposing uh you'll see the
application appeal and then really this is what makes our case if you look at it i don't know who
the surveyor was back in the day um but clearly the person had some issues with drawing straight
lines because if you look at the zoning map it's it's crooked by a big amount
and all we're trying to do is legalize it so I don't know if he was under the
influence or what but it's very interesting photograph of the property
there's a pre-existing structure on one and it's a side yard on the other you
know and we're looking at one point to develop it it goes street to street and
you'll see that there are garages in the back and these are just drawings of what you know the new
structure would potentially look like but that's not for today's you know hearing um we met with
the port richmond or propac um and as you can see uh they are supporting um our endeavor with this
appeal uh the nearby neighbors the immediate nearby neighbors voted eight to two in favor
of this and councilman squilla also issued a letter of non-opposition
Thank you. Do you have any witnesses, Mr. Notkinson?
Yes. Florian, are you on the line? Just raise your hand virtually.
You can unmute yourself and speak.
Please identify yourself with the record name and address. Spell your name for the record.
Florian Temme, F-L-O-R-I-A-N. Last name is T-E-M-E.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth
The whole truth and nothing but the truth
Thank you
So Florian you heard everything I stated today
And is it true and accurate what I stated
And would you adopt it as your own testimony
I would
Thank you
Anyone else wish to testify on this matter
please raise your hand if you're here to testify on this case
no hands are up chair thank you questions from the board
no no planning commission properties indicated for residential use on the city plan
given the nearby pre-existing lot configurations we have no objection to the gun events
Thank you. Calendar number 39316-3375 East Thompson Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
I believe that concludes the 930 list. Tanya, Sharon, do we have any other business before we recess?