And again, only one member of the community showed up to that meeting.
The deed to the property showed my client owns it in his personal name.
in his personal name and the certificate of tax clearance at the conclusion of my presentation
and the Certificate of Tax Clearance.
At the conclusion of my presentation,
i would ask that mr pond virtually raise his hand and be sworn in and i have a few questions for him
I would ask...
so the notice refusal again this is an rsa3 property we're proposing to keep its use as a
single family dwelling we have a small addition uh to the right of the property in the rear
And you'll see it from the photographs, but it's 117 square feet. It's 18 by six and a half and it's 17 and a half feet high. We have two refusals. The first one, actually, I do object to the refusal in this way. Sorry about that.
They talk about the surface parking spaces where proposing is prohibited given, you know, there's an issue then with the rear yard depth. Those in existing parking spaces, everyone else has those parking spaces. So I'm not sure why we have that refusal. So I think that's, honestly, that's a mistake in the notice refusal.
The second refusal has to do with the width of the side yard, eight feet required where one feet, six inches. Again, because of the addition is six and a half feet wide on like a small portion of it. We, you know, we're closer to 1818. We have a letter, we have a petition signed by them in support of that.
And again, you'll see from the petition in the map, there's no one really against this project or project more like a, you know, a homeowner trying to just get some extra space for themselves.
So as you can see here, while the board was against the project, only one member of the board showed up.
I mean, excuse me, one member of the community showed up.
I mean, when we spoke to, you know, the board, we were actually, you know, to the member of the community, the representative, we were surprised that we were going to get a letter of opposition because it seemed like this was just a project, you know, a request that was benign in nature.
So, again, only one member of the community showed up.
Apparently, they were against it.
But that's it.
But if you look at the petition, I created a map based on the people who signed.
But if you look at this, this is the person who would be most directly impacted right here.
That's 1818 Edwards.
You'll see it in the pictures.
We're a twin.
Our twin is in support of this.
And basically nine other individuals on our block are in support of this.
And then behind us on Tustin Avenue, again, these people would be directly impacted by this building structure that kind of jets out right here.
They're all for it.
So, again, it's unfortunate that my client hired someone and he didn't know better and he got, you know, a permit, you know, got work done without permits.
And then this is him.
He got people to sign a petition.
He personally solicited these signatures.
And then maps to the area.
Again, we're an RSA3 property.
We're not trying to change the zoning use in any way.
Still single family.
And that this is where we are from a Google Maps perspective. And again, we're in the Northeast Philadelphia. And then just want to show this as an aerial view. So this is our building structure right here, like just in the back. And again, it's 18 feet long by six and a half feet wide.
the person here at 1818 signed a letter or a petition to support everyone else back here who
would be like who would be directly impacted by this increased massing in the building or in
support of this and then the refusal has to do with our parking in the rear as you can see this
is the quintessential northeast type of development where you have a common driveway
and then everyone has parking
pads in the rear.
I don't understand. Maybe
there's something missing of the public records
regarding the off-street parking, but
everyone else has the same off-street
parking. I don't know if it's
just limited to us having
an issue, but everyone else...
Alan, could it be because most
of them only have one pad?
I don't know.
You have two pads, basically?
You see here, there are two right here.
That side of the street, look at
the patch yeah well there's a pad here this big oh you're saying your block look at your block
yeah i don't i don't not saying it but most of them have one pat yeah no i hear you i hear you
um i don't think we extended the pad out no no i'm fine yeah so i just think that's how we bought
that um so but that could be the reason why but there's enough room for that we're not getting
refusal given the width of the parking spot or the length of the parking spot. Photographs of
the property. Here's the front of it. Again, the typical Northeast twin home. And then this is our
orange notice posting. And then this is Everts to the right of the property, to the left.
And then this is adverts to the right of the property, to the left of the property, and then interior photos.
This is the building structure that's 18 feet long and six and a half feet wide.
And all he does is just keep some of extra materials here.
And then this is just our site plan.
As you can see, here are the two parking spaces, and it could be that maybe someone somewhere extended the parking pad in the way.
And we're just, I guess, asking for that additional parking.
But here's the building structure here.
And you can see it over here.
This is the 18 feet long, six and a half feet wide.
That means our side yard is one feet, six inches.
Again, the person right here who would be most directly impacted at 1818 Evarts signed our petition in support.
and then again oops
we met with the community on august 8th at 6 p.m and maybe it's because it was an august meeting
and it's really tough sometimes from you know many people on vacation but we we emailed that
notice two weeks beforehand right to the relevant parties giving them you know the notice that we
sent out and proof of mailing of that notice. And it only went to 67 people. And maybe that's
the reason why. But again, we got a lot of signatures on our block and behind us. The
people would be most directly impacted and they were in support. And then these are the addresses
that we went to. Proof of mailing to those addresses. And then there are applications
for appeal. Again, these people are not developers. They're just homeowners. They didn't know any
better. It would be really financially devastating if they had to rip that
addition to their property, which
has extra storage.
And then this is their deed to the property.
And he's lived there for since
2018. So this is his home.
And a certificate of tax clearance. I would
ask that that Mr. Prawn virtually raise his hands and and I have a few questions for him.
Vladimir Prawn has been allowed to speak. Sir, could you please state your name as
spelled for the court stenographer? Vladimir Prawn. Please spell your name for the stenographer.
v-o-l-o-g-y-m-y-r p-r-o-n you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes please proceed counsel uh yes mr prine you heard everything i had to state today
yes is it true and correct yes and do you adopt as your own testimony
correct thank you questions from the board
okay um i'm going to ask this and i'm not sure what the answer might be i seem to recall that in
the um administrative code uh there uh are exceptions to zoning and one of them is for
um like a shit kind of and i know this isn't the same as a shit but um and there were dimensions
that uh you had to meet but so i guess my question is has anybody looked at it from that standpoint
is that something that you ever discuss with ellen i know because it's attached to the
building structure so i think it differs from a shed but i mean if you look at it that way
it's it's it's not structural in nature like it's you know there i think it's more more akin to a
shed it's it's separate structure but it's attached to the building so that's why we could not
about ourselves with that okay just just asking because again um the size and what have you and
And I guess if we're in a catch, we might be talking something a little different.
Thank you.
Any other questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Demers?
Not at this time, other than just to note that there is a revised refusal in this case.
I see on the bottom.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning.
First name Ron, R-O-N.
Last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
This property is indicated for residential use on our city plan or adopted district plan.
recommends no change, existing zoning, single family zoning
at this location. Applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence
of unique physical conditions of the property that prevent it from being used
in conformity with the code. Therefore, we recommend the rest of the
variance not be granted. Mr. Chair, can I
respond? Sure. This is a de minimis variance.
We are asking for one, essentially one
refusal to be adopted by this board. I don't count
the parking, but that's for the board to decide if that's more of a
technical refusal or not. But in terms of the side
yard, it's de minimis in nature. There is a side yard
to a degree, and the individual who'd be most directly impacted at
1818 Edwards has no issue with that.
MI 2024
824-004-052-1820, Everett Street. I vote yes. Proviso, per amended refusal, dated 9-11-24.
Joe Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Iowen, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
thank you thank you council number nine mi 2024 004-205-828-240 north 2nd street
Catherine Misner is the attorney
letter of support from the northern liberties neighbors association
katherine mismer is coming in as a penalist
good afternoon hi counsel could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
of course katherine mismer it's m-i-s-s-i-m-e-r at 1835 market street suite 1400 19103
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, a relationship to this property?
Yes, I am here on behalf of CCD 110, LLC, owner of the property.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the written letter of refusal or stipulate your
diagnosis?
I've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with
this case five days in advance of this hearing.
yes sir i have thank you council please proceed and share your screen
great thank you are you seeing my screen yes great thank you as mentioned i'm here on behalf
of the owner of property ccd 110 llc the property is located at 828 north 2nd street in northern
liberties we're here today with an application for two accessory flat wall signs with me today
is owner's rep, Tyler McNeil, and I'll have him adopt testimony at the end of our presentation.
As you can see, we do have a letter of support from our coordinating RCO, Northern Liberties
Neighborhoods Association. This property is located at the corner of 2nd and Poplar Streets,
and I'll just scroll through some photos to give you an idea of the property and its location.
The property currently hosts 55 multifamily dwelling units, as well as commercial space
on the ground floor in connection with the multi-family use today's application is to add
two flat wall signs one reading no and the other reading libs in a nod towards the common nickname
for the neighborhood of northern liberties they will wrap the corner of the building
from poplar street on to second street and i'll pull up the zoning plan just so you can see um
smaller for you here's the no and then that's on the poplar street elevation
and this is the libs on the second street elevation
proposed signage is similar to what you may see in larger buildings known as building
identification signage building id signs are limited to the logo name address or number of
building this site is on cmx 2.5 in this zoning district building identification signs aren't
building identification signs aren't permitted.
As a result, the proposed flat wall signs do generate a refusal because they are located above the second floor window sill.
That's the sole refusal generated by this request.
Both the neighborhood, as evidenced by their letter of support, and the property owner agree,
while similar to building ID signs permitted in other districts,
this signage is appropriate given the commercial character of 2nd Street
and the proposed signs identify the building and consequently the neighborhood for pedestrians and
vehicles that are traveling second street and poplar street the size scale and design of the
signs is consistent with the aesthetic of the neighborhood and the signs as you can see are
tastefully simple and sleek i think we do our detail there we met with northern liberties
coordinating RCO to review this proposal. We also continued our conversation regarding signage with
their zoning committee to address any concerns they had about the proposal, and we were able
to come together on a community benefits agreement as well. As a result, you have a letter of support
in your packages from them. We believe this project will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood. In fact, it is consistent with the commercial character. As you can see in
some of the photos, there are other signage along Second Street that is above the second floor
window sill. We do think it complements the surrounding existing uses. It obviously will
not impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property. While backlit, the signage is
not flashing, it is not obscenely lit, and will not be a distraction to any other properties.
And lastly, this project will not be detrimental to the public welfare, as evidenced by our letter