I'm showing now on the screen for purposes of record members of the board page 23 of the original zoning submission that was previously presented at the prior hearing.
this is the notice of decision that was dated oh where's my date on here the date of decision
3-15-17 calendar number 2-8-5-6-4 and where I'm showing at this point now members of the board
is page 22 of my packet for the record this was the original zoning referral from 8-11-2016
application number 71430, indicating that this is the same location and the same applicant
for the exact same use that we're seeking today.
And it notes in this original refusal that we received previously that the Department of Public
Welfare in Pennsylvania requires that my client and any personal care home complies with all
the necessary regulations of 55 Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 2600.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Chairman, before we continue with that, if I may interject,
other concerns that were raised at the community meeting,
I'm referring to my memorandum that I prepared immediately after the meeting for purposes of
being able to elucidate here. The other concerns that were raised at the meeting
were trash. We explained to everybody that the trash would be stored in the rear yard.
I don't believe this is a matter that would require commercial trash pickup,
but we're not opposed to that. There were concerns about staffing and we explained
that there was 24 seven staffing and we included a handout which I previously presented to this
board earlier during my presentation regarding the programs and the staffing on site.
There are other concerns again about the members of the community saying that
There are other concerns, again, about the members of the community saying that people like this don't belong in our neighborhood, and that they should be put, open quote, somewhere else, close quote, open quote, not close to things.
And there were some inexplicable concerns about NSF kitchens, which are not a requirement for a personal care home along these lines, and nevertheless, is not a zoning issue.
So overall, members of the board, the opposition that I observed that day is related to a fear and lack of experience of those individuals with Downs.
And that's exactly what my client is trying to remedy, to help these special needs individuals be able to integrate into a neighborhood, take care of themselves, and have a little bit of help that they may need as adults who are suffering from this disability.
Your client owns this property?
and the last time the board approved it was a three-year temporary permit three-year temporary
use permit for the special exception uh personal care home maximum 12 people it's a it's a six
bedroom house numbers of the board there is sufficient space to house 12 but that would be
the absolute maximum and my client isn't at this point intending to be at maximum capacity
but that's just the option for the future for us so temporary use permit maximum capacity was
Any other questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
At this time, I have Ms. Shameka Sparrow.
I will allow her to speak right now, sir.
Thank you.
Good morning, ma'am.
Please identify yourself with a record.
could spell your first and last name and provide us with your address yes hi my name is Shamika
Sparrow my home address is 368 East Church Lane Philadelphia PA 19144 uh would you please spell
your first and last name sure uh Shamika S-H-A-M-E-K-A last name Sparrow S-P-A-R-R-O-W
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do and your residence in proximity to this application how far away are you chairman miss
farrow is miss johnson baron's daughter and is affiliated with the project she is the person
about whom i spoke who has a master's degree in social work if i recall correctly and miss
farrow please forgive me if i got that incorrect that's okay um allow me just chair to ask a few
questions of miss farrow just to verify her credentials with the board uh miss miss farrow
I've already testified that you're affiliated with this project, along with your mother.
Would you kindly explain to the board briefly your credentials, education, and background
in working with this vulnerable population?
So I have close to seven years of working as a clinical social worker.
I graduated with an honor from Temple University's Master's Social Work Program.
I am an independent licensed clinician for both Pennsylvania and Delaware.
I currently am in private practice, and I provide services for vulnerable populations, victims of trauma.
I'm a trauma specialist, and I have experience running Comars, long-term structure residence at that facility.
I was there for approximately two years and assisted with those with intellectual disabilities, schizophrenia, and some other developmental delays.
Now, Ms. Sparrow, you've heard my testimony with respect to why you and your mother are seeking to open this type of personal care home.
Would you explain what bearing your experience in dealing with trauma has for the population that is affected by Downs that you're trying to service in this neighborhood?
Sure. With women with Downs, they are often a prime target because of the fact that they're very childlike and very trusting.
Many times these women are preyed upon by so-called family members, members within their community, because they're trusting.
Ms. Barrow, may I stop you for one second?
I don't know if you're in the room with your mother, but I'm getting a feedback loop from another computer.
Could we mute that computer so we don't have that happening?
It's difficult to understand.
And Mr. Mulvihill, with all due respect, if you can make this, summarize her testimony, that would be helpful.
Sure. So, Ms. Barrow, all in all, you heard my testimony today?
Sure. Yes.
And it's true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Great. Thank you, members of the board. I don't have anything else at this time.
Thank you. Any questions from the board?
no anyone else would anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
Anyone else? Would anyone else like to testify in this case?
we're getting a lot of noise in the background somebody there you go
see no further hands at this time thank you planning commission
Good afternoon, Brian Wenrick, City Planning. This property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan. We do not feel that this proposal will have a negative impact on the surrounding community. Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the special exception.
Thank you.
000 303 3643 north 19th street my vote is yes with the following provisos
a three-year temporary use permit commercial trash pickup maximum 12 individuals
my vote is yes with provisos yes with provisos yes with provisos excuse me this is sharon
seleta can we put a definite end date on the three or ten i'm sorry i actually wrote it down i forgot
to so the three-year temporary use permit will expire january 1st 2024.
24. That's three years, correct? Yes. Yes. Yes. So do we revote that? Yes. No, we don't
have to revote that, do we? No, that's fine. Okay. Thank you, members of the board. You
do likewise thank you uh i believe that we go now to uh do any any uh communication sharon with uh
mr marionne regarding brown street uh yes you continued that um okay right so it's hancock
street is the last one for today okay thank you zero zero one three one five one three three four
for North Hancock Street.
Ms. Rachel Pritzker has her hand raised. I will promote her to an analyst immediately, sir.
Thank you.
good morning miss pritzker please identify yourself with the record spell your first and
last name and i'll swear you in good morning uh rachel pritzker r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103 we're in front of the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes miss prisker do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy yes and have you emailed the packet with proof of ownership tax
compliance refusal referral photos and plans five days in advance of this hearing and have
you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes thank you you may proceed
Okay. I'm going to share my screen. This is, as the board may remember, a follow-up hearing
for this case that we already had. So this is for 1334 North Hancock Street. I believe
I'm just going to go back through it, just to refresh the board's memory.
This is, our proposal is for the relocation of lot lines to create three new lots from
an existing lot.
I'll show the site in a second.
The lot currently is sort of this odd shaped, pull it up on Atlas, it's probably easier
to see. Sort of odd shaped lot that goes sort of in this L-shaped formation. So it's comprised
of frontage on Palethorpe Street and frontage on Hancock Street. As you can
see all the properties to the north here are half block properties split in
um our half block properties uh split in half and so our proposal is to make our project and our
half and so our
property lot lines uh consistent with the north side of the block and to provide three new single
family homes two of which will have accessory off-street parking on the palethorpe side and
one of which on the hancock side will not have parking to reflect uh the fact that there are not
a lot of off-street parking spaces and garages on the Hancock side. I'm going to have our architect
go through our plans, but just wanted to bring to the board's attention sort of
the lot sizes, as that is one of the refusals that we have. So as the board knows, lots that
are zoned RSA 5 require 1,440 square feet and 16 feet in width. However, most of the properties
on this block, as you can see, are around 18 feet in width and 51 feet in depth, which is anywhere
between 1,030 and 927 square feet. Our lots that we're proposing, the two lots on Pailthorpe, are
going to be 20 by 51, so slightly larger than the existing properties or lots on the north side
of the block. And then the proposed lot on North Hancock Street is going to be 20 by 51. So
about 19 by 51 and 20 by 51. So sort of a little bit larger than what's there, but still in
character. Again, around 991 for the Pailthorpe lots and 1055 for the Hancock Street lots. And
as you can see on this chart, we sort of made an outline to kind of show where we're going to be
proposing the relocation of the lot lines and how it's consistent with the properties on the north
side of that block. Additionally, we have our plans here. I'm going to have our architect Gabe
Deck. Tanya or Jason, do you see Gabe Deck so that he can share his screen and go over
the plans for the homes? Yes, I see Mr. Deck. I'll promote him to panelists as well.
Thank you.
Welcome.
As Mr. Deck is getting prepared, these lots, as they are, around 3,000 square feet, again,
they're oddly shaped, and we're proposing three lots consistent with the north side
of the block, around 900 to 1,030 square feet.
Again, we're proposing single-family homes, two of which have off-street accessory parking.
Just on the Pailthorpe side, there's no parking on that side of the street anyways, so the curb cut will not affect anybody's ability for on-street parking.
As you may be familiar, a lot of times people park on the curbs here, so we thought that the off-street parking provided for two parking spaces for each property would be ideal to help deal with the parking congestion on the street.
um i'll have uh gabe go through the plans and also address the last refusal we have which is for the
pilot house we are going to be setting it back from the rear but we have aligned it so that
it's in configuration with the existing homes as well so gabe if you want to go through the plans
for the board i would appreciate that
sure um again my name is gabe deck with gnome architects can you spell your name for the record
please sure first name gabriel g-a-b-r-i-e-l deck d-e-c-k you're swearing a firm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed rachel
Thanks, Gabe. If you could just go through the plans, you know, briefly to highlight the project, that would be great.
Can you see the site plan on your screen?
Okay. So as Rachel mentioned, three single family dwellings is the approach here.
So we're dividing for three individual parcels, two homes facing Palethorpe Street, one home facing Hancock Street.
so as far as the plans go uh the pale thorpe street side um is going to be a slab on grade
four-story uh structure for both of the homes um so we have ground floor garage front uh accessory
parking the fourth floor we're setting back um you can see in the elevation to minimize kind of
the impact of the four-story structure on the block uh to look through the plans for that uh
house layout first floor plan on the left side here we're proposing um again each home has a
single garage but we're we have a car uh deep tandem parking arrangement to to keep as many
cars off the street as possible so the ground floors is primarily all parking uh garage um
Upstairs on the second floor is living spaces, living kitchen and dining in the back with a small walkout rear deck.
upstairs on the second floor is living spaces um living kitchen and
The third floor plan is a master suite as well as laundry.
And then the fourth floor plan has two additional bedrooms and a full bath.
again the fourth floor wall is set back about six feet from the front wall to minimize kind of the
impact of a four-story structure these homes both have full roof decks with a pilot house that's in
compliance with the zoning code for the Hancock side the floor plan or the arrangement again is
a cellar plus three-story structure, no garage. So first floor plan, open living, kitchen,
dining, and powder room, steps to the rear yard. The cellar just has additional living space
and a bathroom and mechanicals and an office. The upper floor plan, second floor has bedroom
in the front bedroom in the back um and then the top floor third floor is a master suite
um we have a full roof deck with a pilot house that's held to the rear of the property
um again that was to kind of a design element to uh keep the the arrangement on the interior
as open as possible um so as far as the elevations go again this is the pale thorpe street side all
red brick for the first three floors and doing a fiber cement cladding for the rest of the
materials, keeping the railings of the roof deck open to minimize blocking anyone's view
for other roof decks up the block. This is the Hancock side, similar in material palette,
all red brick facade with some fiber cement panel cladding accent. Some of the RCO boards
concerns were regarding the uh walking zone in front of this house um so to to work with them
and appease that those concerns we set back our entryway for um the front door and the stairs to
as well as provided a size street tree pit uh to maintain a wide walking zone and also add a street
tree so that'll be subject to streets and parks and rec approval but um it shouldn't be a problem
um that is the gist of the design can you just also um provide the board with the illustration
that we have to show um what what the buy right option would have been just because
i'll go into sort of the community considerations but just so that the board can see sort of the
odd size and shape of this lot and sort of why we decided to go with three homes instead of two
and to keep in kind of context with the block. If you could zoom in a little bit, it's kind of
small to see. So this arrangement is a kind of a buy-write arrangement for what we could have done
for two homes. So we kind of, in order to hit the minimum lot areas, we would have to kind of have
like an interlocking lot line arrangement where we have an l-shaped parcel facing hancock and um
you know straight parcel i'm sorry i'm pale thorpe and l-shape um but the you know the house sizes
and the footprints of the homes for buy right footprint are just much larger than the context