Tanya, was this case already been, has it already been continued?
It's number 10, Tanya.
Yes, I believe it was continued before. However, just the one time it was scheduled. And I believe we've been having problems communicating with this applicant.
Oh, never mind.
I believe we have been having problems contacting this applicant.
So if we could continue it, and I'll have Jason reach out to them directly.
Do we want to put a must be heard?
It's okay not to, because this was just taken in July.
The application came in July.
All right, thank you.
0-0-1-2-6-3
3-9-0-1
North Reese Street
is continued.
Calendar number
1-2-7-8-5-2-4-7
Frankfurt Avenue.
Wait a
Frankfurt Avenue?
That's a John Ward case.
What page is that?
I believe that was continued.
Go to number 13, Carol.
I think Cecily Moore Avenue
was continued also.
no that was another i don't have that no that wasn't continued this case we were going to hear
so i'm going to 619 cecil b moore avenue calendar number one two eight six
and the attorney is daniel mcelhetton
thanks sharon if daniel can raise his hand
Mr. McElhatton please raise your hand I have a hand to raise but it's good morning Mr. McElhatton
Good morning, Mr. McElhatton. Please identify yourself with the records by your last name,
please identify yourself with the records by your last name
and I'll swear you in. He's been promoted to panelists.
It appears that he is muted. If he could unmute himself.
I'm unmuted. Did you get my name and address or shall I repeat it?
Please repeat it. We didn't get it.
Daniel P McElhatton, 2000 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia 19103.
Mr McElhatton, please spell your last name for the court reporter.
M Small C, capital E-L-H-A-T-T-O-N.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Mr. McVeigh-Hutton, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you emailed an exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
We have met with the RCO on two occasions, and we do have a letter.
It's a letter which indicates a split decision, seven in opposition, two in favor, and that
is also included in our packet.
Great.
You may proceed.
All right.
If I get the opportunity to share my screen.
Are we good?
Not yet.
Not yet.
I'm still working on sharing the screen.
sorry mr chair working on it
if i might use this time while we're trying to get our screen to explain what the project
is. This is a request for a two-family dwelling where the RSA 5 only allows one family and
the property is at 619 Cecil B. Moore. It is currently a vacant lot. The property to the east
at 617 is currently zoned as a two-family dwelling and that was approved by the board
in the past two years. 621 Cecil B. Moore has been approved last year as a three-family
dwelling. That is currently under construction. The RCO, we met twice with the RCO, and it was
indicated that their concerns were around the issues of parking, and the parking is on-street
parking I would note for the board that the approval here of a two-family would
actually practically result in the loss of no spots on the street because if it
were as of right it would be the single family which would allow up to five or
six bedrooms. And the, can you, is my screen up now? Yes. Okay. And the, you know, the concern of
the RCO at the meeting we had was for stormwater management, which is a citywide issue because
they said there's some flooding at the intersection of Cecil B. Moore and Marshall. But in terms of
parking, if we do it as of right, it would considerably increase the parking. And the
RCO also had questions about the trash. I think that that was addressed also because the architect
raised the building up a few feet to be able to put storage for trash underneath the front steps
in a locked area. So that was addressed in the revisions to the architect's plans. We also filed a proviso with the
architect's plans. We also filed a proviso with the board with regard to the plans where
originally the lot was listed at 16 and one-half inches. We revised it to the accurate
it's 16 and 3 eighths. So it actually reduced it from the size. The corrected note at the third
floor on the plans also say that it's unit two instead of unit three. This will be a two unit
condominium. It will not be apartments. The condominiums will be obviously sold, but the
first floor unit is about 1,025 square feet, which is the basement, which is not to be used as a
living area it's the first floor and the basement will be a den area but not not a bedroom the
second unit is the second and third floors and that excuse me could you enlarge the floor plane
a little bit please it's if you can make that larger that would be helpful yeah let me
is that better Mr. Chair
we lost it okay
if you can do a little less than 300 percent maybe 200
that's good that's good thank you you're welcome so you can see that it's the pilot house is on
top of the second floor or second unit unit two which is the second third floor unit one and
indicates the first floor only. So I think the concerns of the RCO APM are legitimate concerns
except that if this is not permitted then there'll be a use that is significantly
possibly more intrusive. This is what the lot looked like and this is the projection of what
our building will look like here. Currently this lot at 621 is being developed and you can see that
in and there's the there's the current projected building and you'll see in the photographs of
the existing conditions.
621 is it being it's being developed as a multi-family three three units sir three units
thank you and that's this is the lot currently and this is the the current unit in uh in
construction at 621 um the uh the trash storage was addressed uh we believe that this is an
appropriate use. The single family is very difficult in this area, and because it's also
inconsistent with what the community wants, as the proximity to Temple University and Temple's
expansion increases, community would like to have less student housing. And if it's a six-bedroom
house, that is ripe for student housing as opposed to two families that might be in two separate
condominiums. The area is undergoing renovation. There was properties across the street that
have been recently developed. So I would ask that you unmute and promote the owner, Nate Oda,
who is the principal of 1A Development and Contracting, LLC, to join the meeting so that
he can confirm possibly my testimony before the board.
So he would have to raise his hand.
And Jason, you can just open up his audio.
No promotion necessary.
Problem.
One second, I'm allowing to talk and become a panelist or just allow to talk?
No, just allow to talk.
Thank you.
Understood.
Mr. Atta, you are now allowed to talk. Please wait to be sworn in, sir.
Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself for the record. Spell your last name.
Good morning. My name is Nathan Ota, spelled O-T-A.
We're infirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. McElhatton.
Thank you. Mr. McElhatton.
Nate, you've heard my testimony this morning before the board.
Nate, you've heard my testimony this morning.
Is that correct?
Yes, I have.
And if you were present and wanted to testify, would you confirm and adopt my testimony as yours?
Yes, I would.
All right.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I've also put up on the screen the south side of the 600 block of Cecil B. Moore.
And you can see that there is no parking on that side.
I mean, there's no extensive parking.
and there's no housing directly across the street.
So on-street parking for two condominium units
we don't believe would be a burden to the community.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
I want to.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Chair, at this time I have Ms. Mary Jones,
whose hand is raised.
I will allow her to speak right now.
Morning, Ms. Jones.
Please identify yourself with the record.
I'll swear you in.
Good morning.
Mary Jones, Council President Darrell Clark's office, City Hall, room 494.
Where do you from to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
yes um our office is in receipt of a letter of opposition from the rco um stating uh seven in
opposition two to two and so we just adopt the position of the rco and opposed experience thank
you thank you mr mclahatton what was the objections that were raised i'm curious because i see a
multiple, not a lot of properties on this block are multi-family already.
The RCO report is attached as one of the exhibits and they gave a, as APM normally does, they
give a chronology of things and they indicated that the first one is the two units and that
parking was increased congestion or traffic and then they mentioned the flood you know the flood
plane and the flood water matters possible flooding was raised and you know that was they had a series
of questions the question was will the builder live in the property we answered that no and that's
this is at tab 21 of our exhibit and they indicated that the properties they had a question about
condominium sales and we indicated that with a condominium sales would be to whoever buys the
particular unit unit one or unit two they asked how garbage would be handled that we indicated
that building would be lifted to hide the trash discreetly under a gate and this is what the
architect did in the revised plans and they also planned to install exhaust fans in the closets.
The next objection was the storm water which I think we've addressed and the architect responded
also they'll plan to install black backflow preventers and other things to install protections.
That was one of the reasons why in the original meeting with the RCO the first floor the first
unit one had a bedroom in the basement. We agreed to take that out because of prior
flooding in the general area. And then they had questions about what the sales price would be
and what the homeowner fees would be. We deferred on that because that's up to the two particular
owners. Correct me if I'm wrong. The opposition was not basically related to the density,
the fact that it was multifamily. Is that accurate? That's correct. I think the opposition
was more community-based in terms of parking is a significantly difficult issue throughout the
community where APM, more so in certain areas, the area across the street from this unit,
as I pointed out, has an open area that doesn't have housing on it. So this may not be as intense
as in other areas. So I think their experience has been that it increases density. This we don't
believe does. In fact, it would reduce density if, in fact, a blasterite was built.
Yeah, understood. Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
No further answer at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good morning. Brian Wenrich, Planning Commission staff.
This property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan near to RM1 zoning in
an area with new multifamily construction along Cecil B. Moore Avenue. Accordingly,
we have no objection to the granting of the variances for a two-unit owner-occupied condo.
Thank you. 001286619, Cecil B. Moore Avenue. My vote is yes.
Thank you. 001286.
My vote is yes. Excuse me, is that with revised plans?
I'm sorry. How many pages?
One page, sir. Submitted.
Part of the package.
All right. Am I? Let's go. 001286619, Cecil B. Moore Avenue. My vote is yes with the revised plan.