No, I was just going to say, and ours is rather large in nature. Ours is a little over 1500 square feet. Not that it matters, but like the 6 unit, 1636 square feet of lot size while the 4 unit 1800 north 22nd street is 1347 square feet.
No, I was just going to say, and our…
Ours is over 1500 square feet. I think, you know, again, screams more 4 units by deferred to the boards questions from the board.
yeah a couple things um uh first if you can go back to the plans that'd be great
um you said the rear yard was how many feet 40 feet uh it is according to my notes uh the rear
yard setback is 27 feet got 27 27 foot backyard which is a really decent backyard um but if i
look at your floor plan you've got to go through the bedroom to get to the backyard um let's see
well the one unit the only one unit has has access to it that's right through the bedroom
uh yes that was the the plan i mean again i think my client is willing to flip the the the you know
the layout um you know i think he's not he he's like basically go either way with it he thought
that it would be better to have the living in the in the lower level but yes either way you're
going to have to go through either the living room area or the bedroom to get into the backyard
practice it i don't think people want people going through their bedroom to go to a yard if
they're having a barbecue i would i would agree with that i don't you know i'm just telling you
You know, I've lived in enough houses in my life that have had interesting entrances and exits.
If you're starting from scratch, you ought to be able to plan something that works better, right?
All I can tell you is my client's not here, but given he's not here, I would agree with that.
Yeah, the other issue that I raise every time is the depth of the basement below grade.
And if you're six feet or below, below grade, that's always a concern for me because it's, you know, you know, it's just you're underground completely.
And that you are underground. I do. So let me finish.
And that's a poor from that's a poor living experience to have very little light air and ventilation in a space, whether it meets code or not.
Livability, I think, is something that we really do have to consider.
And if you're going to have a basement that has a living space and you've got a 30-foot, 20-foot rear yard, why don't you just – they should create access directly out of the living space to the backyard and not a light well.
So there's always a tradeoff here because the concern that we get from the community –
Those are my concerns. Depth of the basement below grade and the fact that the way that it is laid out is not a good living experience.
Yeah, I didn't mean to interrupt. I thought I didn't hear you finish. So I apologize for that.
But there's there's always a trade off when we appear in front of the community where they don't want the heights, even because we're only at 35 feet high and we're not near to 38 feet.
And there's always a trade-off because the community thinks even 38 feet is too high.
And that's why there's a lot of these overlays out there where they're trying to crunch down the height of the building.
So we try to do that trade-off where we're three –
Not to go back and forth with you, not to go back and forth with you, but the trade-off could be that the building is deeper and only three stories and not try to do anything in the basement.
You've got 24 feet, or even if you did a nine-foot backyard, which is required, you've still got another 12 feet to go.
So there's ways that they could have gotten around that if they wanted to reduce the height and not do such a deep basement where people are underground living.
I defer to you, and there's provisos out there that you can obviously hold us to, and there's opportunities out there.
I think he's also trying, because it's affordable housing, he's trying to limit the size of the building.
And I get that from what your position is or the board's position.
I'm just saying from a practical aspect, he's trying to make it work.
You know, we try to work with our clients in that way.
We hear what the board's telling us.
And, you know, it's, you know, what you're saying is not something we haven't heard and we know.
I don't want people to, and I hear this a lot, housing that's affordable or for low-income people has to be subject to poor design, right?
That you have to go through somebody's bedroom to get to a backyard because it's for low-income people.
that you have to go through somebody's bedroom to get to a backyard because it's for low-income
people. That's offensive. Well, I'm not saying that. And by the way, and again, I've never said
this in front of the board, I grew up in affordable housing during my childhood. And so I get that.
And that's something that I take very serious myself because I did grow up in affordable
housing. So I don't usually say that, but I do understand that. And I don't think my client's
trying to be insulting there's trying to be practical in the sense of it's really hard to
develop it's very expensive they're trying to balance that off and i don't think he's trying
to make bad housing because it's affordable so appreciate that you think your client will be
amenable to three units you know without basement living i know he's not here but no i i i've had
that conversation with him and i again i'll tell you i've got my clients i i don't think i don't
i don't think he can build that so that's but that's for the board to vote on but i don't think
he can build that so that's alan alan let me let's let's go back to where teneto was there
is he at four because of the size of the building or is he at four because for economics he he's
the hardship here is because of the expenses that he would have to incur the bill to build the
building he can't build it at three units um it that you know if the board you know gives a proviso
maximum three units you know we may come back here over a year later after the one year period has
elapsed and and say listen we really need that fourth unit and so but that's for the board to
decide and it's also for the board to decide you know have a proviso with you know what what's going
on in that basement so i don't know what happens there um uh other questions we've had those
conversations i i will say i try to have those conversations with my clients okay other questions
from the board is your client does he already have a hap contract with pha or is he just approved as
a section 8 landlord and he's planning to just rent these on go section 8.com i don't know the
answer i'm not that well versed in in pha rules like that so i do i don't want to say something
that's untrue he is certified to my understanding my limited understanding of pha he's certified to
rent these out as pha units that's what he does and that's why we gave those numbers because
that's what he does so i don't i don't know the difference the nuance that you asked me the
question so i do apologize so when he bought this property from pha it was his intention
to turn it into affordable housing.
Yes, that was his intention.
That's right.
But with the unit count that he has,
like that he's seeking.
And which is not out of character
to other properties on that block.
And again...
There are other four unit...
There's other quadplexes
in single-row house building.
I thought most of them were three.
Four of the six were three,
But for 1843 North 22nd Street, which is 1,636 square feet of lot size, that's a six unit, so 100 square feet higher in lot size.
And 1800 North 22nd Street, that's a quadplex at 1,347 square feet of lot size.
Are they an extra story or are they the same roof line?
there i believe again i have not i don't want to misstate anything but
i believe those are also three story structures
any other questions from the board questions or comments more attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
planning thank you chairman and good afternoon david effecto with the city planning commission
chairman and board members the comprehensive the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the rsa5 residential single family zoning at this location the city changed the zoning maps
in this neighborhood in 2014. At that time, this property was zoned RM1 residential multifamily.
This is a primarily multifamily block face. Most of the homes on the block face have two to three
dwelling units. We also note for the board that absent participation in a city, state, or federal
program, or a city zoning incentive, affordability mentioned in the appellant's testimony cannot be
enforced by any city agency. The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the
requested use variants for multiple dwelling units, but with a maximum of three dwelling units.
MI 2024-006-039-1820, North 22nd Street. I vote yes. Proviso. Maximum three units, no basement living.
proviso maximum three units no basement living michael johnson my vote is yes with proviso
Michael Johnson.
charles gaston my vote is yes with proviso tenetta graham my vote is yes with proviso
i am in my vote is yes with proviso
thank you alan thank you and have a happy holiday season thank you so number 11 excuse me mr chair
Could we please call number 15 next?
The attorney has a time constraint.
MI 2204-006-147-2144-48 Lombard Street.
Meredith Ferliger is the attorney.
Letter non-opposition from Center City Residents Association with Proviso.
Also, there's a petition of support
with eight signatures.
Council.
Meredith.
There you go.
Counsel, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Where are you referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Would you identify your client, their relationship to this property?
Most certainly.
my client is the j spot which is a tenant of this property represented here today by
jacqueline clarizio please share us a few questions oh counsel do you
counsel do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy
yes to both thank you i have emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i did thank you counsel please proceed
you then you can share is great. Okay.
All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, again, the request before the board today concerns
2144 through 48 Lombard Street, specifically the ground floor commercial space. You have an exhibit
a packet in front of you that contains 15 exhibits, which we do request be moved into
evidence at the conclusion of the presentation today. To summarize the basis for today's
request, my client is looking to open a new med spa business with a small juice bar cafe
in just over 2,000 square feet of space. Most of this use is permitted by special exception,
with a very small variance needed because of the size of the existing space.
Let me first orient you to the location of this property.
The tax clearance and sections of the lease are included at Exhibits 2 and 3.
As you can see here, let me zoom out a little bit.
As you can see here on the aerials shown at Exhibit 9,
This property sits on Lombard Street at the corner of South 22nd Street within the South and Grays Ferry Commercial Corridor, as indicated on the city's open map system.
The South view provides a slightly better view of the context of this building, which sits in an area that is mixed with residential, commercial, and other mixed non-residential uses.
On the zoning map at Exhibit 5, you'll see that this property is zoned CMX-1, which is a step down from the more common CMX-2 designation that you often see on commercial corridors.
Consistent with the photographs, this area is a mix of multifamily, commercial, and single-family zoning classification.
So you can see this is one of the more colorful zoning maps than you are probably used to seeing for particular areas.
If I turn to the photographs at Exhibit 15, you'll see the first view here from South, 22nd Street,
where you'll find the entrance to the commercial space that has now been vacant since 7-Eleven vacated sometime around 2019.
The next photograph is from Lombard Street, where the residential entrances to this building are found.
The next photograph is from Lombard Street, where the residential entrance
This building has three residential units above the commercial space.
From the back, there are several parking spaces for the residential units.
Another view here is provided from the corner of Lombard Street and South 22nd Street,
where, again, you'll see the dominant commercial frontage with large windows and a canopy denoting the commercial entrance.
And again, just from another view there.
I have also included, if I scroll a little further, I have included a photograph of the interior of the commercial space, which is currently in shell condition.
And again, this space was previously 7-Eleven.
Prior to that, dating back to the 30s, this site apparently contained a gas station
until that was demolished in favor of a retail use sometime in the late 1970s.
I did also include photographs of the zoning posters, which were posted timely on each of
the frontages. My client Jacqueline is here and can answer any specific questions you have
about her use, but let me give you a basic overview. At Exhibit 6, I'll zoom in a little
so you can actually read this, you'll see the floor plans. Starting first with the actual
med spa use, this includes areas for a cold plunge and a sauna, as well as more traditional
medical aesthetics such as facials, injectable products, and other services that are required
to be administered by licensed medical professionals. As you can see, most of the
space is reserved for the med spa, and you can see that's really most of this commercial space.
In the front, along South 22nd Street, a small space is reserved for a small-scale cafe,
predominantly serving prepared juices and other similar small-scale cafe items,
such as coffees and teas. The juices are strictly prepared off-site. As you can also see on the
floor plans, there's a dedicated trash storage area that can be emptied directly from South 22nd
Street. The cafe itself falls under the prepared food shop use, meaning that there are no commercial
cooking appliances requiring any exhaust, and any food items sold are pre-packaged or prepared
off-site. We have also included some renderings of the space at Exhibit 7. This is just a rendering
from the exterior showing the intended activation of South 22nd Street that has long been dark
since 7-11 vacated. Next is the cafe area, including both the seating area as well as
the service bar. The next rendering here shows the med spa lobby and the reception area where
the aesthetic products would be sold, similar to what you'd find in your traditional hair salon
that always has products being sold very similar products you can find in a med spa specific for
beauty use we have also included some renderings of the spa areas as well by way of additional
information about the use we have included a presentation at exhibit eight the j spot will be
a woman-owned medical business services here will include wellness and anti-aging medicine
mental health services and nutritional services
medical waste will be stored in required biohazard containers and will be picked up directly by a
medical waste company specializing in medical waste disposal as i mentioned earlier trash will
be stored in the designated trash room. And you can see that here. The medical component of the
business will be open from Monday through Saturday, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., and the cafe will be open seven
days a week, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. And again, my client Jacqueline is a licensed physician assistant,
so she has extensive background in this area and will be available to answer any additional
questions that you have on the use itself. Now, regarding the refusal and the referral at Exhibit
1, the proposal received two referrals and one refusal. Starting first with the refusal,
I can address really quite quickly. As you can see on this refusal, CMX 1 does not allow any office
As you can see on this refusal, CMX-1 does not allow any office, retail, or commercial service use
So, let's do this.
to occupy more than 2,000 square feet of gross floor area.
The challenge is that this existing commercial space is 2,354 square feet.
This is despite the fact that the previous 7-Eleven also occupied this same space
and therefore violated this exact same provision. That 7-Eleven was, of course, not considered
non-conforming for the amount of time that it occupied the space. To comply with the code,
this applicant would have to shrink her use by 354 square feet, which would clearly create
economic waste, leaving a 354 square feet space that is not capable of independent occupancy.
There are only a handful of by-right CMX1 uses that do not have this space limitation, and with this space having been vacant for about five years at this point, the hardship in complying with this section of the code is quite unambiguous and likely will be created by any tenant that would occupy this space.