screen now they are thank you so much please proceed thank you good afternoon mr chairman
members of the board again my name is meredith ferliger with delworth paxton my client this
afternoon is Koinonia Investments LLC, the owner of the property at 3114 North Broad Street,
which is represented here today by the member of that LLC, Reggie Bullock. This is a fairly
minor variance request before the board today concerning a property in Allegheny West located
at 3114 North Broad Street. As you mentioned, this proposal received unanimous support from
Allegheny West Civic Association, which is evidenced by the letter of supporting your
packet at tab 14. Let me first orient you to the location of this property. As always, the deed and
tax clearance are included at Exhibits 2 and 3. As you can see on the aerials at Exhibit 8,
this property sits on North Broad Street between West Allegheny Avenue and Clearfield Street.
West Allegheny is to the screen right, Clearfield is to the screen left. This property is a 1,658
square foot vacant piece of ground that extends all the way from North Broad Street back to North
Rosewood Street. The adjoining structures on North Broad Street include some new and some
existing three-story structures. Flipping to a view from Rosewood Street, you will notice the
rear yards of the Broad Street facing structures are largely comprised of either structure or some
exterior fence areas. There are only a few structures with rear parking, two of which
benefit from wide, double, or triple-sized lots. A historical photo from 2004 is shown for reference
as well, showing that this lot has not been improved in quite some time. Turning to the
photographs at Exhibit 15, this first view shows the board the property from North Rosewood Street,
which is that rear street. In the next photograph, the board may take note of the residential
character of North Rosewood Street and the extraordinarily narrow condition of the street
that has led to many vehicles being parked on the sidewalk. Of course, the vehicles being on
the sidewalk serve to further narrow the drive aisle in this street. This section of Rosewood
Street is a maximum of 14 feet wide based on city plans. These conditions are shown in even
more detail on this current photograph I have up on the screen, which is facing towards Clearfield
Street. From the frontage along North Broad Street, the board will note the fairly characteristic
condition of this section of North Broad Street with a mix of commercial and residential structures.
This block of Broad Street is exclusively comprised of three-story structures.
And just a view, again, towards Clearfield Street, this to the left of the property really are predominantly residential uses.
And then this is looking to the right, where it's a little bit more mixed, where you start to see some of the ground floor commercial uses.
And then this, of course, is looking across the street.
We did also include photos of the zoning posters, which are posted on both frontages at Exhibit 15 as well.
Referring to the zoning map at Exhibit 7, you'll see that this property is zoned CMX 3, which does permit this proposed development by right with one minor exception.
The proposal before the board today is shown on the zoning plan at Exhibit 5.
This includes one new three-story structure, which again is designed to blend with the three-story character of this block.
The building will contain six dwelling units.
Although there are no refusals related to the units or the dimensional characteristics of the building, we did include floor plans at Exhibit 5.
The units are an average of about 550 square feet, and you can see that here.
this particular developer is experienced with and also intends to accept tenants.
This particular developer is experienced with and also intends to accept tenants with Housing Choice Vouchers, which was something that was really influential with the community as well.
Trash is going to be stored interior to the building with access to the rear, and you can see that on this first floor plan here.
Regarding the refusal, this proposal only received one refusal for failure to provide a required two parking spaces.
No dimensional variances are required or requested, no variances are needed for the density, and this structure is in fact proposed to be quite a bit shorter than the CMX 3 district would allow, which does not impose a maximum height limitation.
The applicant submits to hardship in providing the two required parking spaces, given physical constraints of this lot, as well as based on the history of the lot and the context of surrounding similar developments.
Starting first with the lot, if I turn back to the zoning site plan, the board will see that this lot is only 17 feet wide.
Let me just slide that over.
If parking were to be provided in the rear yard, the entire rear yard width would be engulfed with parking spaces instead of open space for residents.
The 17-foot width would also create a terribly hazardous parking condition, given the narrowness of North Rosewood Street.
And again, I'll bring up the photo for reference.
It's difficult to imagine that two vehicles could safely turn in and out of North Rosewood Street from the rear, given the extremely limited rear yard width and depth.
Given the narrowness and the constant illegal parking, the applicant submits that providing rear-access parking spaces would carry a risk of substantially hazardous consequences to drivers and pedestrians on Rosewood Street, as well as potentially to the residential homes that would be in the direct path of someone backing out of a parking space.
Given that North Rosewood Street is already burdened with residents parking on the sidewalk, adding any additional vehicle turning conflicts would accentuate an already challenging block.
Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that PennDOT would allow parking to be accessed from North Broad Street, which even if permitted would be entirely inconsistent with the uniform three-story block and would create a conflict for pedestrians traveling down North Broad Street.
Additionally, this lot has historically accommodated multi-family usage, with no evidence of having accommodated on-site accessory parking.
There is no current curb cut on North Rosewood Street or North Broad Street to suggest that this site was ever accessed by vehicles.
A permit for this site from 1963 is included at Exhibit 9, showing that the structure at that
time had an open backyard for the multifamily use with no parking provided. Finally, the lack
of parking is consistent with most of the surrounding structures. As I noted earlier in
the presentation, with limited exception, the two structures on this block that do provide
intentional off-street parking are comprised of multiple lots and have sufficient width to
accommodate safer turning movements. For example, 3102 North Broad Street has rear parking available
for two cars, but those two spaces are provided on a lot that is double the size of this one.
Similarly, towards West Allegheny Street, there is another property at 3142 North Broad Street
with rear parking, but that lot is triple the size of this one, which again creates a much
safer ingress and egress condition given the narrowness of North Rosewood Street.
We submit that the variance request is the lease modification of the code to provide relief.
As explained, the challenges inherent in providing parking access from either of the two streets that directly abut the property would create detrimental effects to the public and the property's residents.
Aside from the parking deficiency, the proposed project is permitted entirely by right.
Furthermore, the applicant intends to address the parking deficiency by providing tenants with an allowance to park their vehicles at a public garage that is just about two blocks away at North Broad Street and Ontario Street.
If this garage had been just slightly closer, the applicant could have formally documented this parking arrangement and secured a buy-right permit by taking advantage of off-site parking.
by taking advantage of off-site parking. However, because that garage is just a few square feet
However, because that garage is...
beyond a thousand feet, that was not possible within the constraints of the zoning code.
We submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties,
or impair light and air. The subject property is located under 400 feet away from the Allegheny
station of SEPTA's Broad Street subway line, which of course is a major station stop served by both
local and express service on the subway line. Broad Street and Allegheny Avenue are also served
by several SEPTA bus routes. As mentioned, this is a uniquely situated property to accommodate
public transit-oriented residents, which is consistent with the mandates of the comprehensive
plan shown at Exhibit 10. In addition to the official RCO letter of support, my client also
ventured to speak with as many homeowners on Rosewood Street to ensure that they were supportive
of this request. Even considering some duplicate signatures, petitions of support included at
Exhibit 14 established broad support among area residents. A more detailed analysis of the
applicant's compliance with section 143038E of the code is provided in the memo of law submitted to
the board at Exhibit 11, and I would, as always, be very happy to touch on any particular point
in more detail. This point, if the administrator could look for Reggie or Reginald Bullock.
Counsel, counsel, could you, did you show what the project's going to look like?
oh i i've um so we have the zoning plans here we don't have a rendering or anything like that but
we do have the elevations and the floor plans and the site plan if there's anything similar
to other projects in the area similar to other the front absolutely so if i just go to the photos
along north broad street you'll see that they're all three stories so this is designed to be
exactly consistent with those okay thank you for sure mr bullock
they've been enough to speak mr bullock could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer uh reginald bullock r-e-g-i-n-a-l-d last name is b-u-l-l-o-c-k you swear or firm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you
Reginald, you are the member of Coinonia Investments, LLC, correct?
Correct.
And have you heard all of the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today?
And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
Thank you. Happy to take any additional questions.
Questions from the board?
No questions, Chair.
No, Chair. No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hilliard Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, I have a hand up from Charles Richardson.
I've allowed them to speak.
Mr. Richardson, you've already been sworn to state your name and begin your testimony.
Yes, sir, Mr. Chair.
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
Councilwoman has no objection to granting the variance.
Thank you very much for calling in.
We appreciate it.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
No further hands, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing CMX-3 commercial mixed use zoning at this location.
The appellant has not supported their hardship claim with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property.
Therefore, if the Planning Commission recommends that the board deny the requested variance for required off-street parking.
Mr. Chairman, we certainly respect that position.
But again, I'll bring up this photo just as sort of a summary of the position that we've stated here today,
that if parking were to be provided here, that it would create a significant hazard to this block of North Rosewood Street,
which is most likely why the vast majority of structures fronting on Broad do not have rear parking because of the narrowness of that street,
which is a unique character to not just this lot, but every other lot on this block that does not benefit from a multiple lot width.
Thank you. MI 2024, 000915, 3114 North Broad Street, I vote yes.
my vote is yes
the baron lennard palmer my vote is yes thank you council number six mi 2024 001
can you hear me yes chair
So MI 2024-001-034-4828 D Street, Joseph Consul.
There is a letter of unanimous support from the 42nd Ward Democratic Executive Committee.
Mr. Consul.
Good afternoon, board.
Mr. Consul, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
It's Joseph Consul. That's J-O-S-E-P-H. Last name is Consul. That's C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you identify your client in relationship to this property?
My client is Michael J. Construction Incorporated, and the owner is on this call. His name is Juan Pena, P-E-N-A.
Vice Chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to wait a reading that would choose or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you. Please proceed and share the screen.
All right, my screen should be up with my packet for 4828 D Street.
This property is owned by Michael J. Construction Incorporated.
It was purchased in June of 2023.
At the time, the property was occupied as a three-unit, which you'll see it is outfitted for.
My client has had two of the tenants leave, and when he realized that the property was not licensed appropriately, he did not add additional tenants pending the approval today.
Now, again, I said three units, which was our initial application.
However, after reviewing the layout and meeting with the RCO, we've amended our request to two units because we, myself especially, don't believe that the basement was an appropriate place for occupation.
That said, the city did come out and inspect several times, and they have approved of the property in its state from a physical perspective.
But we still need to clear up this today, hopefully, by obtaining this zoning permit.
So my client purchased it, as I said, in June of 2023.
Actually, we did amend the permit to two-unit requested.
So at the time when he purchased it, he believed it to be a three-unit, and we filed for a two-unit approval here because, like I said, the unit in the basement, we don't believe it's appropriate.
So it's a two-unit request.
It's kind of a weird property.
It's almost 2,000 square feet on a double-wide lot.
We went in front of the 42nd Democratic Ward Executive Committee twice.
They approved it as a two-family household living.
They appreciated two entrances and exits.
The basement, again, they were very specific, was not to be used as a rental unit.
They examined the old separate meters and the external lighting my client had installed,
and also that he has a track record of successfully managing properties in this part of the city.
There's also plenty of place to store trash and that sort of thing on his property.
Their approval came with provisos for installing a fire ladder for the second floor
and cleaning and maintaining the property and performing yearly inspections.
I believe the state of the property was somewhat deteriorated
and he's working towards improving that significantly.
Yeah, we have photos of plans.
So it's this lot here, but also this whole side lot,
which leads to the backyard.
And I'll show you in a second.
Showing the property.
Front view, we included a layout.
Showing the layout of the properties
It's two bedroom units, each with a living room and a kitchen.
Two bedroom units, each with a living room and a kitchen.
Here's the back entrance.
And you can see this door stuff in the back.
Obviously, that should be cleaned up.
And there's the property again.
Here's the meters showing that it had three meters that existed on the property.
Another shot with three meters, three heaters, again, these are all old and had existed.
Four pictures before you cleaned up the yard, you saw the cleaned up pictures in the other
photo.
Then we included, I'm sorry, it's a weird thing. We included the project information form, the deed to Michael J. Construction, as well as the tax clearance certificate, showing that he's clear.
with that we'll call my client mr console can i ask a question was it always uh just residential
even though there was three there they never tried to zone it before the history of it there
is no uh it's weird the the property on the front says 4814 d street and i'm wondering if maybe
there's a lost zoning archive somewhere because there's really no history of this property ever
there's no zoning archive at all
that I can find
appreciate it