that were listed on the announcement.
In addition to that, our meeting was held on the 23rd.
It was unanimously supported by the community.
The property is located
in the two-mile stretch of Germantown Avenue
along the Mount Airy commercial border.
It has been empty for a while.
Our plan is that we're going to renovate the property,
just really aesthetic pleasing in the front
and be able to have a small Caribbean restaurant.
Upstairs, there is a residential,
but downstairs, you know, we want to remove the iron gate
and make a beautiful facade in the front
and just operate a takeout.
We have submitted all of our documentations
and I'm going to go,
I'm just going to kind of scan past them,
but we submitted our tax clearance.
We submitted the site plan,
as well as our application
for the special exception. We also submitted the vote, the information from our Mount Erie bid,
where members attended a Zoom meeting. And again, the project was supported anonymously.
In this COVID time, and you know, it's really important for us, where we will be small business
owners along that commercial strip, but it wouldn't be a viable strip if we weren't able
to have a takeout option. We've also made arrangements. I know one of the important
things is about trash and trash pickup. We submitted photos of the property along with
our application. This is a copy of our letter that we sent to the community members to attend
the meeting. And then I just wanted to, and this is the deed to the property as we were
asked to submit. Vern and I are co-owners, we're husband and wife, and we're co-owner
of the property. I'm sorry to be going so fast here. This is the facade where we
I'm sorry I'd be going so fast here.
This is the facade where we posted the notice.
These gates, we did not move them the whole time, you know, in front of the property.
So they were never moved and community members were able to see that.
That's a close up.
This is what the property, we took this photo in December.
This is what it looks like.
Our plan is to renovate the entire front and give it a really nice facelift, keeping the original facade.
This is the back area where we will have a dumpster that will be picked up by a private trash collection company.
So we wouldn't have any issues with trash.
In the front, we plan to put lighting, you know, that's following the aesthetic of the community.
But the takeout exception is extremely important for us because the restaurant is only going to be a small, like under 15 seats.
And we really do need the ability to be able to have takeout.
option. Oh, and we also have, we were asked to also submit. Okay. We were also asked to submit
the site. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I'm sorry. Now that's back. Yeah. Okay. So we did submit the site plan
for the property, and this is just a copy of it here. This just shows the front of
the property. This is what we're hoping to renovate with the new windows, a door,
also a door facing, a door to go upstairs to the apartment where the current, you
know, to be able to go upstairs. And then this is just a plan of the inside of the
and inside of the restaurant on the first floor and again the kitchen the takeout area the dining
area and just a pretty small restaurant space with the ability to have takeout. Excuse me for
interrupting takeout area that that's enclosed though right you're not yes proposing a takeout
window or anything like that no no we're not it's enclosed yeah the takeout area is enclosed
Thank you. And the community is very supportive. We both live in Northwest. We live in Germantown and we're, you know, been pretty active in the community. And the bid, as well as community members are very enthusiastic about this. And they were, you know, they unanimously supported the project.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Questions from the board.
no anyone else no anyone wishes to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
here i have charles richardson good afternoon mr richardson just identify yourself you're
on the road from this morning good afternoon charles richardson from the office of councilwoman
Cindy Bass. Councilwoman unanimously supports the special exception for Ms. Mason with regard to
this restaurant. We do note that the community is unanimously supportive of the special exception,
so we'd be glad to see them on the avenue. Thank you very much. Planning Commission.
this property is indicated for commercial use on the comprehensive plan this proposal supports
the local commercial corridor and will not cause detrimental impacts beyond that which normally
might be expected from the proposed use therefore we have no opposition to granting the special
exception thank you calendar number could i just ask that planning commission when you come on you
just say your name and you're from the planning commission for all the people listening and for
the recordings thank you thank you calendar number three nine nine four zero six six three
seven germantown avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes good luck to you
Congratulations. Calendar number MI2020-000860 and MI-2020-000888-712-714-North 36th Street.
the attorney is Alan Nockamson. Before you begin, Alan, Carol, just take note that
that's item number three. If you look down, item number six speaks to the same application.
if you look down item number six speaks to the same application but it's
sorry about that that was my doing last minute revisions no problem I just want
to point that out because the refusal on item number six is for multifamily
prohibited it doesn't give any more specification than that so is there
anything that is should be should be included in item number three the one
we're going to hear now as it relates to item number six there's that just
cover it does this there's MMI-2020-000860 and 000888 cover
everything that's in it does there are okay there's one three family dwelling on each lot
with each with a roof deck and pilot house i think there's a slight difference in the refusal
um not nothing significant it's um the use is refused minimum open area requirements aren't met
and minimum yard depth requirements aren't met okay thank i just wanted to make sure we weren't
leaving anything out that's that for clarity purposes all right one one thing on number three
it's for an attached three family dwelling number six it's for it doesn't say it doesn't say it's
why i asked okay okay so there's supposed to be three family dwellings right okay so there's no
need for me to read in number six no alan can you put your alan are you there i am you're not
Can you put your name and address on the record, please?
Alan Ockamson of Ockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
As to 712, I do.
As to 714, I did notice an error.
We're actually seeking four units, not three units, in 7-14.
four units for each. Also, in late last year at 3615 Mellon Street, which is down the block from
us, probably like a block and a half away on 36th Street, similar circumstances, over 1,600 square
feet, barely, approved four units. And then a little bit further down at 638 North Shedwick,
830 square feet, two units. So essentially, this board has approved a unit per 400 square
foot feet of lot size. So what we're asking for is not dissimilar to what the board has
previously approved. Now, the reason why we are seeking to have four units at 714 North 6th
street versus three units at 712 is 714 is actually a corner property and how the property
slopes and you'll see it in the renderings and in the pictures of the property how it slopes
the unit on the lower level is really a lower level unit it has its own door and there's nothing
there's no portion of that unit that's underground right so it has light and air safety everything
that you would expect of a unit in the city of Philadelphia that this board holds dear in terms
of life and safety issues. That's why we had four units for 7-14, as opposed to 7-12, where we only
have three units because we did not want to put a unit in the basement for 7-12 in terms of its
own unit. Now, the unit for 7-12, the first floor and the lower level are bi-level, and then the
second and third floors, just like 714, have its own units as well. The other refusals for 712,
first, we're attaching these as twins, 712 and 714. And what you'll see here in the zoning map
that I provide, or a map I provided, let me just get to this. This is what, so for whatever reason,
if you go into city's website for 714 and 712 North 36th Street, it's still showing, if you go
on atlas.philo.gov, it's still showing the building structures exist here, but that's actually a good
thing. Bad for my client because they're paying for a building that doesn't exist, but good for,
you know, illustrative purposes, showing that these buildings were connected at one point.
So what we're trying to do, and this goes with some of the other refusals, is we're trying to
connect these as twins because that's what's in this part of town. You have twin buildings
with porches. And that kind of goes to the other refusals that we're dealing with, which
I'll just go back. We're looking to, we have a refusal for rear yard depth. So we're proposing
a rear yard depth of 10 feet as in what's allowed or required under the code is 20 feet.
So we previously presented this project to the community, 712 and 714 North 36th Street, earlier this year.
And one of the pushbacks that we got, and by the way, the pushback had nothing to do with the density.
The pushback we got was that we were proposing to have almost like a center city-looking structure in this portion of West Philly that have porches.
And one of the things that they wanted was eyes on the street, a sense of community, and they wanted porches. They wanted the property to look like twins. So one of the things we did, you know, and we listened to them, was to push the building back a little bit and to add these porches, which actually created a greater variance for us. But we did it at the behest of the community.
We see those.
Oh, which ones?
you're you're describing oh here setback yeah
all right here here's the building structure oops okay here here's the building structure so
you'll see that we created these porches and it's elevated already you know but we don't have any
height variances but you also see here's the side unit like for 714 you can see it's above ground
so that's why we have four units but you'll see that we created porches because if you look at
the photos this is kind of what the neighborhood looks like right and that they wanted something
very similar type of look so and this is our lot um from olive street and this is our lot from
north 36th street by the way the other thing is to keep in mind is that these have been vacant lots
for um for over a half a decade so these have been vacant lots for some time uh so anyway but
So anyway, but the point is, is that we're trying to match the feel, like, you know, with a modern look, of course, but like of what that part of West Philly looks like with the twins, with the porches.
The point is, is that we're trying to match the feel.
So we push the building structure back a little bit.
And then the other thing, the only other refusal that we have, and I'll go back to notice or refusals, is the open area, right?
So the code requires 50%, and we're asking for 28.75.
I would say this.
If you looked at, you know, what was there previously, this is not 50%.
And then if you went on atlas.philo.gov for every single property on the 700 block and North 36th Street,
which are all RSA-3 properties, none of them would meet the minimum requirement anyway.
So what we're doing is simply matching what's on that block in a lot of respects.
So we did meet with the community, and, you know, unfortunately, they did not find, you know,
that this project met what they were looking for in the community.
But the issue here is that, and even their letter kind of goes at it, and we can go through the floor plans afterwards, but in their rationale, none of it had to do with zoning related matters, right?
They want affordable rentals.
Well, we said that, you know, it's more affordable to have like a multifamily structure than a single family structure, right?
It makes it more affordable.
They were concerned about increases in their taxes.
either way like we're trying to put a new construction property there and we indicated
to them that it's apples and oranges like there are a lot there are some single family homeowners
there who are concerned that their taxes are going to go up we stated that from an assessment point
of view is apples and oranges a newly constructed multi-family structure should not factor into a
single family older construction but that's not his only related issue but we did have that
passionate discussion during a community meeting they indicated that they were concerned with
parking congestion and i wish i would have taken a picture of this because we actually had our
community meeting outdoors in front of the property there was we were there friday september 11th at
six around 6 p.m right which you would think it's high time for you know parking there was no one
parked on our side of the street. That means it was completely open. And I parked around the
the height of of these buildings given the slope of the property we're trying to respect that
their surrounding area of these three-story structures and again that's why we have some
living down here in the lower level um you know so just just based on the the merits of our case
we believe that a four story i was using a four unit on 714 and a three unit at 712 is appropriate
under the circumstances that's why my client purchased the property and and presented it
this way because that's what the board previously approved uh you know under similar circumstances
but with that being said and given the neighborhood opposition i know my client is open
to a discussion with the zoning board where he would agree to reduce it by one unit each
to you know but we don't believe that that's necessary but if the zoning board would like
to entertain something like that we would agree to that in the form of proviso but under the
circumstances you know again with the consistency aspect of it like this is what the board previously
approved and again while you're there i don't want to interrupt you 3606 and 3608 do you have
any photographs of what those
structures look like, what those
properties look like? No, I
wasn't the attorney. So, I mean,
Mr. Chair,
I don't know if those
drawings exist on Atlas.
That could be something there.
But again, what we're trying to do is embrace it, right?
We're trying to embrace the
structure. Well, I don't know. I'm trying to see what the, you know,
what your client's
proposal to me
looking at the photographs
of the adjacent properties
seems to be i know it's under 38 feet by right i got that but it looks out of scale but at least
on the photographs that you show of the properties of the houses on olive street from what i
yeah so yeah those that's olive street i'm not sure if it's east or west of or north or south
of your client but it seems to be your client's projects seem to be a little out of scale
that's why i was asking which what did this board approve on olive street does it look like what
we're looking at now or does it look more like your client's uh what your client is proposing
that's a good question i'm going to go on 36 i'm on atlas right now let me take a look
There are 38 feet.
they're exactly at their i mean again i'm just looking at my phone