adopt it as your own and as true and correct yes I would thank you Mr. Conway appreciate it
thank you with any questions from the board no no anyone else would like to testify in this case
if so please raise your hand no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon chairman de chico and members of the board
i'm sorry hold on greg uh okay try that again and spell your last name please
hi my name is gregory waltman i'm staff from the planning commission
my last name is spelled w a l d
my last name is spelled w-a-l-d-m-a-n we're in firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do thank you please proceed um this property is indicated for residential single
family on the city's comprehensive plan but we have no objection uh to the variance from the uh
for the third floor setback we believe that the applicant has not demonstrated hardship
for relief from the required open space accordingly we recommend that the requested variance not be
granted we're only off what five five five percent was it henry yes mr chairman all right thank you
mi 2020-001217 2004 pemberton street my vote is yes with proviso revised plan one page approved
today? My vote is yes with Proviso. Yes with Proviso. Yes with Proviso. Thank you. Members of
the board have a great day. Thank you. Is Mr. Jinn available yet? If not we'll go to the next case.
let's go to the number five on our list mi 2020-001291 418 east allen's lane
oh mr jen you're here yes sorry so you're ready i am all right i apologize everyone
I'm going to go back to Mr. Jin's case.
Thank you.
MI 2020-001218, 1832 North 22nd Street.
Please identify yourself with a record.
I believe you're still on their oath, and proceed.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Zin Jin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838.
Philadelphia PA 19106 here on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Jin, do you agree to waive and step?
And have you also emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, copy of the refusal, referral, photos, plans, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
We did, and I do have a letter.
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you. Good afternoon. I would like to share with the board the evidence for this particular matter.
This is an application we have submitted. Refusal, the community letter from 32nd
Democratic Ward, photographs, plans, tax clearance deed, as well as the application packet with the
project information sheet and the hearing notice. This application is refused for various reasons.
This is a RSA-5 zoned district. However, it is an application for a six-family dwelling,
and I will go into the details of why we're applying for that number of uses. There's also
a height refusal open area and rear yard, all which is better explained when we look at the
area and also the plants. I do want to point out that we have met with the RCO and the neighbors
and obtained non-opposition in this case, partly because this property, and I'm going to
put the plans up first, this property is located on a block of North 22nd Street,
where predominantly are large lots with currently being used by existing buildings also for the most
part as multifamily dwellings. This particular property's size and height and prior use
are actually similar to what we are asking for before the board. This used to be at one point
a six-family dwelling legally. It's a vacant lot at this time. What we're proposing is, again,
a six-family dwelling setup, but when you look at the floor plans, it's actually set up in a way that
a lot of the normal concerns of six-family dwellings are actually addressed by the design.
one matter is that we actually have a pass-through design for the first floor
so that all units share a central stairwell and both all units also share both an entrance
and exit to the back the units themselves are divided up as first floor basement by levels
second floor apartment smaller apartment and then third third floor and a mezzanineum unit on that
leads to a deck on the upper floor and that mezzanineum is actually what triggers the height
refusal in this case because if you look at the elevation plan which I'm going to zoom into
if you look at the elevation plan, which I'm going to zoom into,
you can better see the actual part of the building that would exceed the height
restriction is not the building's facade or the roof for the most part, it's the mezzanineum
section on the top, but they're actually centralized into the middle of the building,
so they're not seeing from the street the only request the community feedback asked for is that
if we're going to have a roof deck that we would set it back 10 feet on each end which my client
does agree with and we would ask that be if the board is inclined to approve this that would we
would ask that to be a proviso included in any approval that roof deck would be set back 10 foot
from the front and rear of the building. Again, the property itself historically was used as a
six-family. We have other multi-families also mostly on this block. There are, I believe,
one or two single-family houses. They're relatively smaller than this proposal, but
they're also large apartment buildings. And what I'll do is I'll use the photograph to better
show that. This is the actual lot in question here.
These buildings across the street are multifamily. These here are also multifamily.
There is one single family house I'm aware of down this end of the block, but pretty much across the
street behind us is actually an RM1 district. So those are multifamily. And for the most part,
everything around us is also multifamily. That is part of the reason the community was not opposed
to the proposal of the number of units we have. In addition,
these are relatively large lots. As you can see, these buildings all run very deep into the lots
and they're large buildings and that's part of the reason why they're almost all used as
multifamily buildings in on this block. These are the ones across the street as you can see
these are multifamily we know that the ones down this way particularly this one is also
an apartment building and again the neighbors were all notified we had a meeting and the general
feedback is not anything to do with the use but rather they just don't want the building to look
44 feet from the front. So the fact that it's centralized into the middle of the structure
and the roof deck railings are moved away from the edge is why we have received final non-opposition
from the community. I'll be happy to answer any additional questions from the board relating to
this application. Is the 10-foot setback, the roof 10-foot setback, does that reflect it in your plan
or is that going to be a proviso I would rather have it as a proviso it is reflected on this
elevation plan as you can see the railing is there's a 10 foot on each side for the deck
rating okay all right thank you any questions from the board no
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
i believe with us we have we have no hands here thank you uh planning commission
um good afternoon my name is greg waldman from the philosophy city planning commission
um this property is indicated for residential single family use on the city's comprehensive
of plan it was rezoned to residential single family in 2014 in accordance with the recommendation
from the lower north district plan while we believe that six units is an overuse for this
property we would not object to a variance for three units should be consistent with some
properties on the block thank you i would i would point out that in fact there are other
more than three unit buildings on the block
just for the board's consideration.
All right.
That is a lot.
MI 2020-001218
1832 North 27.
Let me have a question before I go there.
Where's trash going to be stored?
So again, if I may share the...
That everybody has access to that, through that corridor?
Yes, everyone has access through the corridor.
The central stairwell allows access by all units to the hallway that runs all the way to the back.
What is the depth of that yard?
um seven feet it's seven foot seven foot depth and the width is about 20 feet for the uh property
Seven feet.
It's seven foot.
it's 19 foot 11 and a half so these these are large properties um the and the height of the
building again the height of the building itself is 38 feet the mezzanineum section in the middle
is the only part that goes above the 38 foot did you show me a photograph again of the adjacent
properties sure
my apologies it's scrolling no problem so this is one of the properties um we are you know the
height of that building um these i i'm not 100 sure the exact height i know this one here that
is about 35 feet so that one is about 38 in the front um the other not as sure of the actual height
And the top floors, are they two units? Are they a floor, the mezzanine floor?
The mezzanine floor is part of the top floor unit. So they're not a separate unit. They're all front and back units.
Okay. All right. MI, thank you. MI 2020-001218, 1832 North 22nd Street. My vote is yes. Maximum number of units, four.
yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso um excuse me this is sharon's letter
was there another proviso related to the setback at the if they only go four foot then that that
goes away doesn't it i don't know mr jinn is that the case i'm not sure if if the four units
if these units for example are combined i'm not sure how the layout would be affected
the the deck the deck setback was requested only as a community request because they even if we
have a roof deck otherwise i think they're not they're not objecting to that they just wanted
a front setback away from the edge so if the board would just put that as a proviso roof deck
to be set back 10 foot from the front i think that would satisfy the community
okay and the proviso will the other proviso will be the roof back set back 10 foot 10 feet thank you
all right uh mi 2020 that's zero zero one two nine one four one eight east allen's lane
There is this is Sharon Saleta there's an unusual legal question in this case the property
is owned by two individuals who are trustees not they own it in their position as trustees
However, the trust is the beneficiaries or beneficiaries of the trust are the same two people. Because of that unusual circumstance, I think they might be able to proceed without an attorney. The architect submitted the application. He, of course, would not be able to present for them, but the two individuals, I think, should be allowed to go forward.
yeah thank you i mean um mr simonelli excuse me excuse me one minute you need to identify
yourself spell your last name for the record and then i'll swear you in okay uh my name is anthony
simonelli uh last name is spelled like simon s as in sam i m o n e l l i and your address
trustees that uh are the beneficiaries of the living trust that uh and your and your address
uh 418 east allen's lane philadelphia 19119 you're swearing a firm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth yes they do thank you please proceed all right so what i
would like to do is uh share my screen um and uh take you through a short presentation that i put
together. Okay, this is a promotion to panelists, you just want to come out and come right back in.
You should be able to share your screen now. Okay, so there was a series of attachments in
email that went to everyone um this was uh sent uh last thursday and it includes all the
And it includes all the requirements, a copy of the deed.
requirements uh a copy of the deed we're unable
We're unable to see.
Oh, okay.
Maybe they're coming up now.
All right.
We have your exhibits now.
Yes, we do.
Thank you.
So the.
I'm sorry.
No, we don't see.
You're going to have to click on your file, open it up, and then share your screen.
All we have is your file.
You see the folder, right?
So this is my file.
We see that.
Okay, so my wife and I bought the house at the end of last year, and without any knowledge of the requirements to put in place or pursue a permit for the construction of a deck, we went ahead with construction that was halted when the COVID restrictions went into place.
And what we wanted to show you was the process that we followed in good faith since then.
So we put together a building permit application and a zoning application.
The zoning application was refused for two requirements.
We went through the RCO, the East Mount Airy Neighbors, E-Man is the RCO, and they held
a meeting on October 7th.
At that meeting, we had two participants from the E-Man board vote in favor with six
abstaining.
So we got a non-objection to the deck proposal.
At the time, we did not have any input from our near neighbors regarding the deck proposal.
So we reached out to them subsequent to the meeting, and I've included in the group of attachments emails that have come from our neighbors at 420 East Allens Lane, as well as 416 East Allens and 414 East Allens.
So that's in the material that was included in the email.
In this neighborhood, you'll see in this diagram, which is essentially a snap, a screen snap,
from the Atlas website. On the 400 block of East Allens Lane, as well as the block behind East
Allens, Wadsworth Avenue, there are about a dozen homes that have decks behind them,
and including our neighbor at 420.
And so we wanted to put in place the variance
and get the variance approved
so that we could have a deck behind our home as well.
So we sit where the blue arrow is,
which is pretty much squarely in the middle
of the 400 block of East Allens,
one block over from Mount Airy Avenue.
And it's important to note that on that block alone,
there are two decks already actually three decks already two up towards anderson uh as well as our
neighbors at 420. um so i have some photos that i can show as well mr simonell if you can get to
some of the photographs that would be i think helpful okay so included in the attachments are
of the photos that show the entrances to in photo number one, both our home on the right 418 East
Downs as well as 420. So this is the view from the street. You might expect the construction
on this block was done by the same builder. There are 20 homes that look identical. So our photo
number two shows our front door. And as you look past it into the side yard behind the bump out
where the front door is you can actually see the stairs from the deck at the neighbors at 420
East Allen. Their deck is actually shown in photo number three. If I scroll to the next page you can
see from the rear the steps that you go up to the side yard from the back which is where the drive
is you know leading up to the garage and the alleyway that extends behind it. So you'll see
from the picture uh number five uh both the neighbor's uh deck in the background as well as
the start of the deck that we um we began construction on again before we knew that
we had to go through a permit process i think we get that picture here no pun intended okay