Questions or comments from our attorney?
Hilary Amerson.
Just briefly, I did, going over the documents, I noticed that the refusal didn't list 4419 Market Street, even though that is clearly on the plans as one of the lots that's being, lots are stricken streets that are being consolidated into the parcel.
So I do have a proviso written for the board just to make sure that is included and doesn't cause a problem later.
I'm not sure why that. Thank you. Yes. As I think, Ms. Emerson, we've discussed the there's a little bit there's one big parcel that has been treated as one parcel by the city, even though it wasn't technically consolidated.
So part of our application actually goes through that consolidation process as well. So to to clean this up, there were there are a few additional deeded parcels, even though it's been treated as one large parcel for tax purposes and everything else.
Thank you.
Lemons from the virtual audience.
Yes, Chair.
Ali, you are allowed to speak.
You can unmute yourself.
Good afternoon.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, good afternoon, Chairman and members of the board.
My name is Jihad Ali, and it's spelled J-I-H-A-D-A-L-I.
We are a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
Good afternoon.
One thing that I saw, I'm an employee of the Enterprise Center, which is about 60 feet across the street from where this entrance is.
And I know that our corporation, we have a cleaning contract for both the north and south side of Market Street from 45th up to 52nd.
So one concern we have is, you know, you're going to increase that population of residents going back and forth.
So, you know, that's a concern for us.
And I think that that parking that's underneath this L that's shown on the board, you know, we rely on that parking when we have events.
And I'm sure some of you have attended some of our events.
So we're going to probably have to have some continued conversation.
Maybe Matthew and you could talk to our chair, Della, or either Jeff.
But we need to talk about those issues, about the cleaning, ongoing cleaning, and about
that parking.
Maybe we'll have to agree to have some type of restricted parking for that.
But overall, we support the project.
We think it's a change from what's there now.
But I think that those little details we need to work out.
Thank you.
Mr. Ali, is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No more hands, Chair.
Any commission?
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
This proposal completed Civic Design Review in November 2023.
This proposal completed Civic Design Review in November 2023.
The Civic Design Review Committee's advisory recommendations are not an expression of the City Planning Commission's recommendation
or opinion regarding zoning variances, special exemptions, or other discretionary approvals associated with this proposal.
This proposal supports the Comprehensive Plan Recommendation 1.2.3 to promote new affordable housing developments.
The appellant has shown that due to the shape of the parcel and the location of the elevated train line, in relation to the street configuration, the property cannot be used in conformance with the TOD setback requirements in the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the requested...
Well, that's there. But that's another conversation, too. But if you're talking about how we're trying this all together and we may not...
They're talking. Who's that talking?
We've been fighting this in 2020 for...
Okay, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the requested variance for setback and the TOD overlay.
MI 2024-005-642-4401 Holden Street.
I vote yes, would proviso.
Lot line adjustment includes 4419 Market Street as per lot adjustment plan submitted to L&I.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Diane Wynn, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Mr. McClure.
Thank you.
Number 12.
MI 2024-005-733-2225 West Norris Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
So there was a meeting held on November 18th, 2024, by Strawberry Mansion Community Concern.
Parties agreed to have case heard and held by the board so that there can be further discussion.
Mr. Nockamson.
He's rejoining now as a panel.
Mr. Nockamson, just for the record, could you state your name?
What would have been sworn?
Alan Nockamson.
Could you identify your client and your relationship to this property?
Yes, my client's Alvin Property, LLC.
In the virtual audience is Vincent Padula, as well as Alex Hemelbacker, who are in the virtual audience.
You stipulate to the reading of the refusal and agree with the sacristy.
Why don't you start your presentation, sir?
The only thing I request, I think I was when I was being transitioning in, I heard about like, you know, we're going to hold the vote.
There was a meeting held on November. This is what my notes say. Meeting was held on November 18th, 2024 by Strawberry Mansion Community Concern. Parties agreed to have case heard and held by the board said that there could be further discussion. Were you part of that?
So, you know, and we agree with that. We just want to make sure that we have a certain time frame. Is there a possibility of scheduling the hearing, the resumption hearing now for like maybe for the week, maybe of the second week of December, so December 11th?
Why don't we do this? Why don't you start your presentation? We'll look to see what we can do. And if not, we're going to get back to you, okay?
I understand what you're saying.
Yeah, Mr. Nockmson, please, please reach out to the staff on that. I know our schedule is very tight for December, so please reach out to the staff and they can let you know what could be accommodated.
Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
So we're presenting 2225 West Norris Street is in the Strawberry Mansion section of Philadelphia.
So first, we'll, you know, show you the notice of refusal.
So while this is an RSA 5 property, it's rather large in size that as of right, if this was an RM1 property, three units would be allowed as a right.
The reason why I mention that is you'll see later in the presentation that Philadelphia 2035 plan, the Lower North District plan, indicates that the zoning of this property should change to RM1.
So that's why I'm mentioning that.
So we originally proposed four units.
We did meet with the Strawberry Managing Community Concern, and based on the comments
that they have, we're now proposing to have a maximum of three units, and that's part
of Exhibit 3, which is our Zoning Board of Adjustment Revised Proviso Plans form.
Not out of character to have RSA 5 properties have multiple.
Not out of character to have RSA 5 properties have multifamily use and variances have been granted on many occasions nearby.
And I think that's why the 2035 plan is proposing this multifamily use.
And we'll review the properties nearby, which this board has also granted variances in the past under similar circumstances.
And again, the Philadelphia 2035 plan indicates that this property should change to RM1 zoning, which would allow three units as of right.
Aerial view of the property, you'll see that, again, on our block, there is not a lot of development going on.
And you'll see from pictures that this property has been vacant for some time itself.
The zoning map of the area, photographs of the property in the surrounding area, our plans and drawings.
Again, we reduced the unit count to three to kind of go more in performance to this RM1 zoning.
Our RCO meeting notice, I guess another issue that we had is we did send out the notice, and I think only one community member showed up.
So, you know, from our experience, usually if there's an issue with a project, you would definitely have more than one person show up.
I don't know how they voted, but it doesn't matter.
We're going to meet with the community again, but I'm just indicating we only have one community member at the last meeting.
Our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of Alvin Property Group, the deed to property showing that Alvin Property Group owns the property as well as the certificate of tax clearance.
Again, at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that either Vincent or Alex virtually raise their hands, be sworn in, and then they can adopt my testimony as their own.
And, of course, we would be more than happy to take care of the questions.
So in the notice of refusal, yes, we are an RSA 5 property.
We are requesting to have a variance to allow for now three units.
Originally it was four.
We have a few refusals here.
First, the use of the property.
This is RSA 5 property, so any multifamily use is not allowed as a fright.
We have a small de minimis dimensional variance requests.
We want to have a nice floor plan.
So we need our building structure to go a little bit further than would be allowed as of right.
So we have a rear yard setback refusal where nine feet is required for rear setback.
And we're asking for seven feet, six inches.
Same thing with the occupied area where 75% is allowed as of right for occupied area.
We're asking for a de minimis variance of 86.3%.
Again, we met with the, you know, community by way of Strawberry Mansion Community Concern on November 18, 2024.
We had this, you know, as a placeholder, you know, we're waiting, you know, to meet with them again, obviously.
And then, again, just based on the commentary, you know, or the comments we did receive, you know, we think it's more appropriate to be three units rather than four units.
We're ultimately, from a use standpoint, looking to do this project as of right, based on the 2035 plan, which would allow this property to be an RM1 property and three units would be allowed as of right.
And then these are our revised drawings based on that.
And then, again, not out of character to have multifamily nearby for RSA5 properties.
So 1938, North 22nd Street, four units.
1940, North 22nd Street, five units.
1832, North 22nd Street, six units.
1836, North 32nd Street, also six units.
1914, North 22nd Street, four units.
1800, North 22nd Street, six units.
Again, North 22nd Street is adjacent to us.
Not a lot of development on this block, though.
Now, the Philadelphia 2035 Lower North District Plan indicates that this property on West North Street should be RM1.
And then again, it actually indicates in the 2035 plan that the reason why they're looking for this conversion of RSA 5 to RM1 is to encourage development adjacent to Strawberry Square and encourage reuse of vacant land and buildings, which we fall into that category.
Aerial view of the block, as you can see, there's a significant portion of our block other than these two homes, which are vacant lands.
And even nearby, you can see there's a lot of vacant lands nearby.
So we're hoping to encourage this, you know, development of our property and nearby properties as well.
And then maps of the area, as you can see, you know, we are surrounded by multifamily zoning classifications of RM1.
You know, we are surrounded by multifamily zoning classifications of RM1, RM2, CMX2.
And again, the proposal is to change our property to RM1 as well.
And then as you can see here, where we are, we're between Diamond and, let me put this down, accurate.
NARS, right?
Well, at Norris, but we're between Diamond and Burks on Norris Street right here.
And then photographs of the property.
So this is a vacant lot, well-maintained.
And then this has been a lot, you know, again, we get these pictures from Google Street View.
This property, as far back as we can see, Google Street View has been a vacant lot.
So from a hardship standpoint, you know, it's clear that it's really hard, if not impossible, to develop this lot as a single family lot or single family dwelling.
And we're asking to allow us to put a triplex here.
Here's our orange notice posters, you know, to show that we posted for today's hearing.
This is West Northern Street to right of the property, to left of the property, our plans and drawings.
Again, we're not asking for a height variance.
We're asking for de minimis dimensional variances regarding rear yard setback, as well as lock coverage.
Floor plan, first unit one is a two-bedroom, two-bath.
First floor and lower level is one unit.
Unit number two is on the second floor.
That's also a two-bedroom, but one-bath.
and Unit 3 is a two-bedroom, one-bath.
The Units 2 and 3 are approximately 860 square feet.
Unit 1, which is a bi-level, is 1,690 square feet.
As part of our presentation, we are also proposing to have a proviso for commercial trash pickup as well.
Also, just so you know, this developer does affordable housing. They do vouchers through PHA. And my understanding, based on the two bedrooms out there, that while the rent is marked a rate of 1,830 square feet, from the voucher perspective, the tenant would pay currently $512.
dollars obviously it was 830 dollars they would pay 512 dollars based on the voucher program so
we sent out notice of the community meeting uh for community uh meeting uh of november 18th
we emailed that notice to the uh coordinating rco and other relevant parties we showed that
we mailed it to 119 addresses.
These are the addresses.
Proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal.
We filed on behalf of Alvin Property, LLC.
The notice of refusal,
the project information form,
the deed to property showing that Alvin Property, LLC
is the owner of the property.
And the certificate of tax clearance.
With that being said,
i would ask that uh you know either uh vincent or alex virtually raise their hands
they've been allowed to speak
well could you please state your name is spelled for the stenographer
yes good afternoon alex hamelbacher a-l-e-x-h-a-m-m-e-l-b-a-c-h-e-r
We're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Alex, you heard everything we had to state today about your zoning matter.
Is it true and correct?
And do you adopt this as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
what's the um what's the height of the the basement below grade uh the height of the basement let me
see oops then you can go back and find elevation i think the elevation is section that has one
let's see and uh if the if the architects on board on the
I should say the depth of the basement below grade.
I'm sorry, what did you say?