But you identify your client, the relationship to this property.
I can.
My client is SV Design Inc., which is the owner of the property.
And Mr. Chairman, if you wouldn't mind repeating what you said about Councilwoman Lozada, I was coming back in.
I didn't hear that.
I said, letter of non-opposition from Councilmember Lozada.
Thank you.
And our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed then all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I sure did.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed.
You've already shared your screen.
Great.
Again, good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
My name is Meredith Verlager with Delworth Paxson.
As I mentioned, my client this morning is SV Design Inc., which is the owner of the property, and I'll just bring up the deed real quick so you can see that.
And that entity is represented here today by Serge Meslenikov.
The proposal before the board today concerns a new three-unit multifamily dwelling in the NARS Square section of North Philadelphia.
In your packet at tab 14, you'll note a letter of support from the RCO, NARS Square Community
Alliance, as well as several individual letters of support from area neighbors.
The board has my exhibits, which contain 15 sets of documents.
The zoning map at Exhibit 7 shows that the property at 2207 North 4th Street is roughly
mid-block between West Susquehanna Avenue to the south and West Nevada Street to the
north.
The property is currently zoned RSA-5. As I will touch on a bit more later, the property was
previously zoned RM-1. The board has seen several cases on this same block in the last year given
that the zoning classification does not match the comprehensive plan nor the character of the block,
so this block might seem quite familiar to you after this presentation.
In the aerials at Exhibit 8, the board will develop an understanding of the unique character of this block, which is largely comprised of a mix of multifamily residential structures with some commercial and automotive uses.
If I flip to the east-looking view, zoom in just a little bit, you'll see that the opposing side of this street has some fairly intrusive automotive and commercial uses.
The remapping I referenced a moment ago will be particularly relevant to this unique character of the block.
At the west view, you'll see that this property sits at the end of this block, which is currently amongst a vacant swath of land.
This parcel is only a small piece of that empty area.
As you can probably surmise, most of these vacant lots are currently city or land bank owned.
In Exhibit 15, I'll briefly walk you through some photos to provide additional context.
The property in front of you today is currently vacant lot, which has been vacant for many
decades.
The property has any permits or history to suggest when it last had a structure or any
form of an active use.
As I walk through the photographs, you'll see that this side of the street is predominantly
residential structures with quite a few vacant lots interspersed. Looking across the street,
this photo shows one of the several commercial and auto-based uses which exist on this block.
And again, this is looking the other direction towards West Nevada Street.
Directly across the street here where you can see the trees, the board just approved a significant
multifamily proposal, which I'll address momentarily. If we look up farther towards
West Nevada Street, you'll see that there are additional automotive facilities as well as some
dilapidated residential structures. You'll note how these commercial uses still occupy a significant
portion of this block, including into the street, which is shown in some detail in these next couple
which is shown in some detail in these next couple of photographs.
of photographs.
In addition to vacant lots, there are still some dilapidated structures on this block with no active use.
Looking at the site plan at Exhibit 5,
my client is proposing to erect a new three-story building to contain three dwelling units.
originally the zoning application requested four units but that has been reduced based on
discussions with the community accordingly if the board is inclined to grant today's request
we would request a proviso for a maximum of three units from a zoning compliance standpoint the board
should note that this building is not only fully compliant with the dimensional restrictions of the
code, but is in fact underbuilt. Specifically, the building is only three stories and 33 feet
three inches high, where 38 feet would be allowed. In terms of open space for residents,
each unit has its own exterior area. The first floor has use of the rear yard. Let me bring up
the floor plans because I think it shows it a little bit better. The first floor has use of
the rear yard area, the second floor has use of an exterior deck, and the third floor has
the exclusive use of the roof deck. Unit one is a bi-level unit of 1,040 square feet.
The second floor contains another unit of 525 square feet, and the third floor unit is 615
square feet. Each unit has an independent ventilated trash storage area, which you can
see here. An artistic rendering is also included to show what the owner expects this new structure
to look like. Regarding the refusal, because the property is currently zoned RSA 5, the applicant
is required to seek a variance for the multifamily use. The applicant submits to several hardships
in erecting a new single-family home on this lot for several reasons.
As I mentioned earlier, this property was previously zoned RM1.
Although the rezoning alone might not support a hardship,
absent other compelling evidence,
the rezoning of this block is unique as it relates to the hardship.
At Exhibit 10, I have included a copy of the remapping ordinance,
Bill No. 170-516, from 2017.
What the board should take note of is the map of the then-existing zoning that existed prior to the remapping.
You may notice that this block of 4th Street, just between Susquehanna and Nevada, at one time had three different zoning classifications, including RM1, I2, and CMX2.
Upon the rezoning, everything on this block was rezoned to RSA 5.
However, despite the rezoning, as I'll show, this block still has considerable mixed uses stemming from this remapping.
At Exhibit 9, I've included zoning permit history and a map for most of the immediately adjacent structures surrounding this property.
Marked in orange and black are the current industrial or commercial uses.
Marked in blue are the multifamily uses.
As the board can see, nearly every single property surrounding this one is either multifamily or some form of commercial.
Many of these uses were granted by variants, either because of the previous industrial classification or because of the more recent RSA 5 classification.
Most recently, just about a month or two ago, at the property directly across the street where I pointed to in the photos earlier, this is 2214 North 4th Street, the board approved the erection of a new development that will add 36 residential units to that lot.
Roughly one year ago, the board granted a variance to permit the erection of a seven-unit development at 2219 North 4th Street.
Further up the street, the board granted a variance at 2231 North 4th Street for an industrial use, which we understand is some form of a brewery.
A previous board granted a variance for one of the commercial operations within the prior residentially zoned area.
Based on just these few examples, the board can see that this block has become
quite a melting pot of variance-based uses. The memo of law included at Exhibit 11 includes a
list of all the uses per property, which is consistent with the few examples that I provided.
Of all the uses contained on this one block, the only new residential uses have been multifamily structures, similar to the one proposed today, and in fact have been significantly more dense to the one that's before you today.
Of all the uses contained on this one block, the only new residential use
This combination of factors establishes it would be a hardship to use this property in compliance with its single-family use.
In addition to this evidence, the board can also consider that despite the rezoning, the comprehensive plan actually recommends this block for RM1 zoning, which we've pointed to in the exhibit shown at Exhibit 10.
And you can see the arrow pointing to that RM1 zoning.
If zoned RM1, this lot would have been just a few square feet short of a by-right three-unit density, which would have been a de minimis request before the board.
We submit that the requested variance is the least minimum.
There are no dimensional refusals associated with this request, and the proposed density is largely consistent with the allowances of the former and recommended RM1 zoning.
It's also consistent with the density of the multifamily uses of surrounding structures.
Given the diverse uses on this block that resulted from the prior mixed zoning, it is the least deviation from the code to propose a use that is most consistent with the existing character of the block.
New single-family development of this street that contains significant automotive and industrial uses is simply not viable or realistic.
This proposal will not increase congestion, and in fact, it's the existing automotive uses on the block causing any congestion, and encouraging future residential development will help to mitigate those conditions.
Although parking is not a requirement, the applicant submits it would not be feasible to provide parking for this development as a result of the property's location mid-block with no other access point other than North 4th Street.
The proposal will not impair light and air, as it is designed to be three stories and underbuilt from a height perspective, much like the other residential structures on this block.
The board saw that this design includes individualized open space for residents.
The applicant submits this proposal and the requested variance complies in full with the requirements of Code Section 3038E.2.
Full analysis is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at Exhibit 11.
As you saw from the RCO letter, this proposal did ultimately receive support from the community,
given the developer's willingness to work with the community on several of their concerns.
We did also supplement that with a couple additional letters of support from community members.
At this time, if the administrator could look for Serge Maslenikov.
They've been about to speak.
Good morning.
Good morning, Borg.
Good morning.
Could you please state your name as spelled for the stenographer?
My name is Serge Moslenkov, S-E-R-G-E-M-A-S-L-E-N-N-I-K-O-V.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Serge, you are authorized to speak on behalf of SV Design, Inc., is that right?
And have you heard all the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today?
Yes, I did.
And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
Absolutely.
Thank you. Happy to take any questions.
So, Council, this project started with four units and after meeting with the RCO it went to three?
Exactly.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
Sorry about that. No questions, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, I have a Josh Kravitz with their hand raised. I've allowed them to speak.
Sure. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, my name is Josh Kravitz. That's spelled J-O-S-H-K-R-A-V-E-T-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor, sir?
Please proceed.
So I own a property at 438 West Susquehanna Avenue. That's right around the corner from
this project that's being proposed yep so i'm i'm very familiar with the area and that block as well
and it does have a lot of distress it's a messy block there's land there's that car shop or repair
There's land, there's that car shop or repair shop.
shop um
I think the project proposed is going to, it's going to revitalize that block in particular.
It's going to help start the revitalization at least.
And it's just from watching the presentation, it's a very practical project in my view.
And there's, you know, there's multifamilies all around that area.
I just want to voice my support for this project.
I think it's going to do good for that block and the area.
Thank you very much for taking the time to close.
We appreciate your input.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
There are no further hands at this time, sir.
Planning Commission.
Good morning again, Chair.
Michael Gall, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change to the residential single-family zoning at this location to RM1,
a residential multi-family zoning designation this is a block with a history of diverse uses
and some vacancies and the parcel in question is small due to the unique physical conditions
of the property and the recommendations in the lower north district plan the planning commission
recommends that the board grant the requested variance for multi-family residential use
but at a maximum of two units as would be allowed in rm1 given the parcel size thank you
counsel do you want to comment yeah mr chairman as i mentioned uh if this lot were zoned rm1
if this lot would only be a few square feet away from by right three three units so if if a
comprehensive plan were fulfilled the applicant could have come back before the board and at that
point it would have been a de minimis variance request for three units uh and again this start
started at four and based on the recommendations of the community, the applicant did agree to
reduce it to three. So based on the floor plans and the layout, you know, we believe that three
units is the appropriate density for this particular proposal. Thank you. So MI 2023-007-272-2207
North 4th Street. I vote yes with a proviso. Maximum three dwelling units.
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with proviso
baron leonard palmer my vote is yes with proviso thank you council okay number 13
mi 2024 000057 1715 south 18 street sean whale is the attorney um these point breeze neighbors
did not reach an agreement. It was a 6-5 vote.
I'm sorry, Chair. This is Tanya. May I humbly request that I ask Mr. Jason Hand
to raise his volume? We have a little bit of a challenge hearing you, and we want to make sure
we can. So please raise your volume. Thank you very kindly, Chair. Sorry to interrupt.
No, that's fine. Mr. Whalen, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Certainly, Sean Whalen, W-H-A-L-E-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
My client is the owner of the property at 1715 South 18th Street, Hasbi, H-A-Z-B-I, Daku, D-A-K-U.
Vice Chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?