This is 25th Street. Stillman Street is here.
The zoning map shows us that a large portion of Cecil B. Moore is RM1, which would allow multifamily buy right.
But this portion here is zoned to RSA 5.
Just to give the board some context as to what the actual condition on the ground is,
there are a number of properties in the immediate surrounding area that have multifamily zoning right now.
1705 North Stillman is two-family, 1708 North 25th is two-family, 1706 North 25th is a five-family,
1704 North 25th is three, 1702 North 25th is three, and then all along Cecil B. Moore here we have
unit sizes ranging from three to five dwellings. So the entire area surrounding the subject parcel
is already being used for multifamily purposes.
This is the property here, shown from a couple different angles,
and photos of posting and the surrounding area.
There is a church located across the street from the subject parcel
and a vacant parcel here.
Photos of posting at the property.
and floor plans showing the conversion of what was the takeout area to a residential dwelling unit.
takeout area to a residential dwelling unit. As I mentioned, we did meet with the 32nd Democratic
Ward. That meeting took place on March the 15th. We did have a couple of attendees,
including Judith Robinson from the 32nd Ward, Mary Jones from Council President Clark's office,
and a neighbor or two. We did not receive a position letter from the RCO, but I am including
the certificate of mailing, so the board can see that we did send out 204 pieces of mail
and we did have that meeting, although the RCO has not provided a letter.
We think that with the immense amount of surrounding multifamily use that it's contextually appropriate
to use the site for four families.
And I'd also note that this block of Cecil B. Moore is not part of the general commercial
corridor so we're not taking away from the business improvement desires of the area we're
really being more consistent with the residential uses that are around us i'd like mike randolph
if he's online to virtually raise his hand so he might adopt my testimony mike if you're there
can you hit the raise your hand button
and if he's been allowed to speak sir
mike can you just wait a moment and be sworn in sir can you uh please identify yourself for the
record yep mike randolph spell your last name for the sonographer please r-a-n-d-o-l-p-h
your address uh 2932 nicholas street
okay do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth from nothing but the truth
yes please proceed thank you mike did you have a chance to listen to my presentation this morning
yes and do you adopt my statements as true correct in your own testimony yes i do thank you
uh we don't have anything further mr chair thank you is there anyone else here in this matter
no hands at this time mr plaza thank you does the board have any questions no no you planning
commission thank you secretary plaza in 2014 the zoning map was amended in this area from
rm1 to rsa5 and accorded recommendations from the comp plan however the property as noted by
Council has a documented history of multifamily use and many adjacent non-conformities. Therefore,
the City Planning Commission would recommend that the Board grant the variance. Thank you.
Okay. Calendar number MI 2020-003419 1700 North 25th Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Thank you very much. Good luck.
um chair if i could interrupt for one minute um i just wanted to let you know that there is an
add-on that is not on your list i'm going to send you the information on that right now in a text
okay thank you you want me to do it now or after um you can just call the next case and gotcha
Thank you. MI 2020-001-082-1714 North Bouvier Street.
Mr. Jin has been promoted to panelist.
Thank you. Mr. Jin, please identify yourself and you are on the road from this morning.
Yes, good morning, Zen Jin, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia, PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
Please proceed. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Do you agree to waive the reading of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Thank you. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five days prior to this
area? I did. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes, we have actually multiple
letters and I'll discuss that during the presentation. Thank you, please proceed. Thank
you. I'm going to share with the board the information relating to this case.
so we have submitted the refusal the beach community services letter in opposition
map holistic cdc's letter in support community land trust corporation's letter in support
photos plans tax clearance and other related documents i want to address the letters first
but before we do that let's first understand what we're here for this is a refusal
first understand what we're here for. This is a refusal based on a RM1 overlay district.
The use and other design aspect of this is by right. The only variance we're asking for is a
three-foot variance of the rear yard. So it's a dimensional variance for three-foot
of the rear yard depth area. The Beach Interplex who hosted the meeting for this case
issued an opposition of this case based on seven votes out of 13 attendees.
Some of the other RCOs were actually in attendance and disagreed with the way the vote went.
Their main reason for opposing this application is they don't want more housing built,
particularly student housing in their view.
Secondly, they do not believe they want any more multifamily housing on the block,
despite the fact that this is an RM1 block with a by right use. And finally, the argument was
there's no plans for maintaining trash, which is because they also opposed the by right roof deck,
which was put there to help maintain trash for a duplex. So the trash would be stored one in the
rear yard for the first unit, and second on the rooftop deck for the second unit, keeping it out
of the street until such time they're picked up. My client went a step further and offered to have
trash enclosures in the rear yard and on the roof deck so that the trash is never even left out.
The cans would actually be in an enclosure. However, we still received opposition from
Beach based on that information provided. However, both the other RCOs understood that this is a
variance for three-foot rear yard, which incidentally no one at the meeting had opposition to
because most of the time the community actually prefers smaller rear yards so that people don't
party in them. So Beach opposed MAP and Community Land Trust, two of the other RCOs both supported
it. Again we're building next to what is an existing new structure and this building will
be replaced with a very similar building to what is next door. What we're asking for is really
pretty consistent to all new constructions on that block. It is also a multi-family zone block so
So despite the fact that the neighbors don't like multifamily uses, we're going with the minimum of two units, which is by right under the code as well.
The plan is to have the unit proposed as seen here.
The only difference main thing we're asking for is a smaller rear yard, which while some of the yards nearby are a little bit larger,
this proposal isn't inconsistent with some of the other rear yards for some of the newer buildings
being constructed in the area. So we would ask, based on the de minimis variance that we're
seeking, that the board vote favorably for this matter. I am certainly happy to answer any
questions relating to the design or other aspects of this case. Thank you. Does the board have any
questions? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Counselor, what is the hardship for a smaller rear yard?
Generally speaking, the hardship isn't to the land here specifically. However, as you know,
with Temple area, a lot of times the rear yard spaces, the larger rear yard spaces,
actually end up being used for activities that the neighborhood actually don't want.
What we're trying to do is actually provide a little more space on the interior rather than
having a large rear yard, which can be used more for other activities. The open space
impact here is minimal as well, because most of these multifamily buildings in the area
also has a real yard on the other end.
So they're not that close.
There's not a lot of shadow and light issues
for the neighbors.
And again, this is actually not the one,
this is the one issue that the neighbors
didn't have an issue with.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Is there anyone else here in this matter?
I believe my client should be here,
Mr. Alex Coppa.
Please raise your hand if you're in the virtual audience.
I don't believe I see him, sir.
All right.
Anyone else here in this matter?
No other hands at this time, Mr. Plaza.
No other hands at this time, Mr. Plaza.
No other hands.
No other hands, okay.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Secretary Plaza.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
In 2014, the zoning map was amended in this area in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
However, this parcel was not changed.
It remains R-M-1, as noted by Council.
We believe the proposed dimensional variance is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code,
and we would therefore recommend that the board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2020-001082-1714 North Bovier Street, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Good luck. Thank you.
I'm sorry, let's go back to this add-on real quick. MI 2020-001-317-3101, Cotman Avenue.
This is a resumption hearing from, I believe, back in March 10th.
Mr. Consul has been promoted to panelists, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Consul, good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Joseph Consul. Consul Madison LLP, 1 West 3rd Street, Suite 204,
Media, Pennsylvania, 19063. You swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth for nothing but the truth? I do.
thank you please proceed uh so i had emailed about this because i didn't hear it in the original call
this morning as being a resumption hearing uh my client i believe signed off do you want me to try
to get them uh back on here we had presented this case originally on march 10th uh and an email we
got five minutes ago said you don't need to appear but then sharing email means that you do need to
appear uh so i think i'm sorry mr council you're right the confusion is my fault um i think you
also had a continuance request in another case that's correct and that was what I was saying
you didn't have to appear for as far as Cotman it is an add-on case it's a resumption hearing it
doesn't include on the on the regular hearing list which is why Mr. Hand didn't know about it
would you like us to move you to the end of this list so you can contact your client or
because I think this is only for feedback regarding the RCO position is that correct
I'm not certain that we need my client.
We presented the full case.
The Planning Commission weighed in.
Yes, I have that.
The Planning Commission testified in support.
So if your call, if you'd like to do it now and just give the board information on the RCO's position.
Yeah, I'll do it now.
We had originally met with the Mayfair Civic in November, on November 16, 2020.
At that time, they did not issue a letter.
We went back and forth with them.
the next time they were willing to hear us was March 15th,
which was after the scheduled date for our last CBA meeting.
I came on, I explained that.
Frank at the time said, all right, we'll present
because we sent in all the proofs that we had notified everyone.
And so we presented the case and we met with the RCO again
the following Monday.
Again, they have not issued a letter, and so that's where we're at.
We don't believe this case is controversial, and like I said, it's just a situation regarding the RCO.
Thank you. Give me one second, counsel.
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Counselor. I apologize for that. Does the board have any questions?
No. Okay. We already have planning commission's input. Okay. Is there anyone else here in this
matter? No other hand to this time, Mr. Plaza. Thank you. All right. So calendar number MI2020-001
317-3101
Cotman Avenue.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes. Thank you. Good luck.
Thank you, everyone.
2020-003-420-2143 Christian Street.
2020-003
And I'll see you next time.
hi good morning can you please uh identify yourself yes good morning um annabelle saleh
s-a-l-l-e with toner architects um location 1901 south 9th street philadelphia
19148 are you the architect of this project yes correct are the owners here yes okay sir can you
please identify yourself for the record? Yes, of course. My name is Siddhartha Reddy, S-I-D-D-H-A-R-T-A.
Last name is R-E-D-D-Y. I am the homeowner and applicant at 2143 Christian Street, Philadelphia,
PA, 19146. Thank you. Do you swear on a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth for nothing but
the truth? I do. Thank you. Do you, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the
refusal or referral,
photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
And I would like to
elect to have