in the commonwealth of pennsylvania right yes that's correct all right and and you're familiar
and experience in renting out commercial units
in the city of Philadelphia?
And, you know, your office has attempted
to rent out these two units on North Front Street, right?
That's correct.
Yeah, we've been trying to get these rented
for a little over five months now.
And, you know, again, just to give the board
some flavor as to location,
This is just off of the L on North Front Street, right?
Correct.
And you have had no interest from anyone, essentially, to rent these commercial units?
Yes, no interest.
It's a very tough area for a commercial property like that.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Questions or comments from the board?
I have a question.
Are these two bi-level units with the lower level being in the basement?
That is correct.
And did I see window well prints on the drawings?
There are window wells in the front for each of them.
Alan, that was on the drawings?
I think so.
Let me take a look.
Let me share.
It wasn't.
It were not.
I believe that, well, if there's living down the basement, there would have to be an installation of window wells.
So, and that would be a building code requirement.
So, my understanding, I didn't provide the full packet of materials because, again, what we're trying to do is merely swap out the commercial unit for residential units.
I can look at the full, I can provide the full packet.
That was the construction drawings.
And just for commercial, did I hear that they were just on the market for five months?
They were on the market for five months, but before that, they were marketed as well.
This is a building that's in construction, and there's been no interest in terms of commercial, which is not uncommon because there are at least a half a dozen instances of CMX2 properties similar to us, which have full residential on the ground floor.
on the ground floor.
this was
Was this a buy-write project?
Oh, this was a buy-write.
Yes, the 18 units plus two was a buy-write project.
Again, we're also in the MN,
which as the board probably knows
is a really difficult proposition
for many developers to build in.
So they built there
and it's been a challenge
with construction costs and interest rates.
They have also added to that with respect to adding affordable units under the Affordable Housing Program for 50, you know, it's moderate income, so 50% AMI.
So they have right now, they have, let me make sure I'm accurate here, they have three units at 40% AMI and two units at 50% AMI.
And they made it a deal with the community organization to have these units affordable for a certain period of time.
Questions?
I don't know if it's a question, but what we're looking at here, I guess, is once you
did the payment in lieu, we have a density issue here where you're asking for 20 units
in effect, when according to the lot area, you'd only have permission by right to have 12 units.
So, I mean, you did a significant change in the project by doing this payment in lieu.
Well, we didn't do a payment in lieu. We added the units themselves. So, again, I disagree with
the refusal i think because we're in the the men we're allowed um we're allowed 15 16 units i'm
sorry 16 units and then because we are you know we also availed ourselves to the affordable housing
bonus program we're additional two units so really we're we're allowed 18 units that's why i provided
the zoning permit um as part of my exhibit packet so we're not it's not a a variance request to go
from 12 residential units to 20 it's going from 18 to 20 and we have 20 units here it's just two
commercial units and you know because of our location we have been unable to rent them and
we feel no confidence given our marketing experience with this property that those
commercial units are going to be able to be rented. That's why we're looking to add those
two residential units. Okay. And that's what it says in the refusal?
Well, the refusal says for the expansion of the previously approved multifamily household living
18 units to occupy at 100% of the proposed structure, no permits for construction have
been issued and increase the unit count to 20 dwelling units. So in the refusal itself,
the description states that we were approved for 18 units just based on the affordable housing
programs, both the overlay and the bonus program. We're allowed two commercial units and well,
we're not allowed. We're supposed to have two commercial units on the ground floor
as a CMX2 property, and we're asking for a variance to
essentially convert those two commercial units into residential units.
Thank you.
Any other questions? Questions or comments
from our attorney? Hillary Emerson.
Just to, I think where I was
confused is the examiner on the refusal included a note that said you had you changed to payment
in lieu for the min overlay so that's where it seemed like um there had been a change but yeah
it sounds like you you went through two programs and so do you you still have affordable units
based on the mixed income housing bonus,
but you've done the payment in lieu
for the mint overlay, is that?
No, I would ask Mr. Aronovich
if he can virtually raise his hand.
I think he would confirm my understanding,
but maybe I'm wrong.
My understanding is that we're providing the units,
but maybe we're not.
So I think it would be helpful.
mr ronovich yes we're we're providing all the units
Mr. Aronovich?
Yes, we're providing all the units.
both the overlay and the um and the extra bonus ones
and that's why i thought too that's why i i forgot to object to the uh refusal because
it's incorrect in in that we're not going from 12 to 20 we're going from 18 to 20
okay and we're providing all we're we're not doing any payments under those programs we're
doing the we're providing those additional units as affordable okay so for clarity you said there's
currently five affordable units two at 40 percent ami and three at 50 percent ami
well i think 43 at 40 percent ami and two at 50 did you say that no i thought i thought you
i said the opposite which is what i thought you said when you presented earlier maybe i mistake
mistakenly said that and the two new units have been agreed upon in an agreement with
north square civic association to be affordable undefined for a period of time undefined no not
Undefined. No, it's actually, we have a community.
We didn't hear it yet, so.
Yeah, and I believe, and it's the Norris Square Community Action Network. It's not the alliance.
I think it would be helpful. I think my understanding is that some representative from the group is going to appear at the hearing.
So maybe if they're there, maybe they can confirm, you know, our understanding.
And then I can also look for the benefits agreement to define it a little better.
Alan, so basically on top of the affordable units that we already have, the three and the two,
we agreed on two additional ones to partner with Valley Youth, which is a transition program for young professionals.
So in total, you'll have seven affordable units.
Yeah, I think they want to know the exact requirements. Let me just take a look.
So I want to, I'm specifically asking around AMI because per the min overlay, 20% of the units have to be at 40% of AMI or below. At 18, you were at 20, you were barely at 20% at 40. Well, you were hitting it. But at 20, you would need one more unit at 40% AMI to meet the overlay.
Which is why I was asking.
I think
you have to round up to the nearest unit
which would be
4 at 40%
yeah I'm having
problems unfortunately with my computers
circling around so I'm having problems
getting onto my
drive with the client drive
hold on a minute is there anyone in the
virtual audience
from the Norris Square Action Network.
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Chair, I'm sorry, Chair, we have Nilda Pilmantel
from Norris Square with their hammers at this time.
Yes, I believe that individual is high.
Could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, good afternoon.
My name is Nilda, N-I-L-D-A, last name is Pimentel, P-I-M-E-N-T-E-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Would you offer some insight into this project?
Sure thing, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon to you and the members of the board.
Prior to the Sony meeting that we hosted on the 26th of August, we met with the appellant and
his attorney on actually two occasions, which is a practice that we have when we receive an
application in order to gather more detailed information about the project, about the proposal.
And at that time, we provided some feedback and also made some recommendations.
We also toured the building, which is also a practice that we have.
And one of the requests that we made was to establish an affordability period
for the two units subject to one of the refusals today.
They agreed.
They also agreed to other recommendations that we made, including mentoring a young person in the areas of real estate development and construction, and also support for a number of community projects.
project. This application was approved unanimously. Actually, it was by 20, a total of 21 residents
This application was approved.
that attended the meeting. With the proviso that the appellant satisfies, the terms agreed.
We also feel that from a zoning perspective, this project is not going to fundamentally alter
the current zoning context.
In fact, we believe that the proposed changes
of the conversion from commercial to residential,
if approved by your board,
will help enhance the block,
populate a block where we need more residents.
And that's one of the reasons
why we have a very low demand.
At the moment, we have had that problem
over the past two years for commercial space.
The demand for commercial space is very low and we need more residents in that block.
We also feel very strongly that the public benefit awaits any risk or any other weaknesses
because setting aside those two units, affordable units for two young adults that are transitioning
from the foster care system is going to really provide a benefit to people that may be locked
out of the housing market, the market. So the overall benefits, we believe, are considerable
in our view. And because they also were very receptive to engaging our group, our RCO, and
other groups in the area in terms of the marketing of the affordable units and referring income
eligible families we decided to endorse this application. So do we have anybody who has
questions of Nelda? Alan? No I don't. I mean I think she's stated you know the extensive
discussions we've had in the community benefits agreement.
And again, I didn't bring up the other stuff because, again, it's not Sonya related, but
we have entered into a comprehensive community benefits
agreement that's thoughtful.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? Thank you, Nelda, by the way.
You're welcome, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Okay. Any board members with any other questions?
Planning. Yeah, this is Ron Bednar, city planning.
Properties indicated for commercial mixed use on a city plan or adopted district plan
recommends no change to the existing zoning at this location. Recommend that the requested
variance for any additional residential units not be granted.
um alan i i don't want to have to hold this but i'm going to hold this because we had so much
input from different board members so i'm going to wait to hold this till next week
and i'll vote on this at two o'clock yeah i just would like to comment that it's not out of
character to have residential living on the ground floor of a cmx plot property on this block
Just to reiterate, 2504, 12, 22, 26, 38, 42, and 44 are, my understanding, all CMX2 properties, which have ground floor residential use.
Thank you very much.
We will vote next Wednesday at 2 p.m., okay?