Here's the refusal. There is one item, and that is the use. The zoning in this block
is RSA 5, and the proposed use is three apartments. This is a zoning map of the area. The highlighted
property is 277274 Corral Street. It's surrounded by CMX 2, which allows multifamily, and to the
north is IRMX, which also allows multifamily. This is a photograph of the subject property.
It is an oversized lot that includes the two-story single-family home where Mr.
Atkinson resides and an adjacent garage with a curb cut. Those conditions existed
when Mr. Atkinson bought it. He did upgrade the house. He improved it. And when he replaced the
curb trap and lateral, he replaced the sidewalk. The rest of the block is about 50% commercial and
50% residential. This is a commercial use, commercial storage use to the south of the
property. A couple buildings down Corral Street, another commercial use. At the end of the block,
another commercial use. This is across the street, another commercial use. Across the street,
again, a little bit further south, another commercial use. These are used by contractors
for commercial use, and this is next to Mr. Atkinson's property, and this is a yard used
to store construction equipment. This image will help put the area in context a little bit.
So here is Mr. Atkinson's property. And the images I just showed are along this block. The one large one that wraps these houses is the facade that's painted black.
And then this lot, similar to Mr. Atkinson's property, is zoned RSA 5. That is 2740 Amber Street. This board last year granted variances to allow 132 units in a six-story building with a roof deck and 42 accessory parking spaces.
That permit was issued March 10th of 2021.
There's the following pages of that permit and an image of the structure that will be built there.
In fact, I think the structure is starting soon.
It's headed six stories.
What is proposed is the replacement of the existing garage next to Mr. Atkinson's home
with a three-story structure. Maintain the curb cut so that there is accessory parking on the
ground floor and in the two floors above it a total of three apartments.
There's the elevation calling out the architectural details of the construction.
um and then the floor plans uh again the first floor ground floor is the garage the entrance
and a compliant rear yard uh the second floor uh the front half is the first floor of unit one
uh with washer dryer laundry living kitchen area the back of the first floor is a one bedroom unit
uh the third floor front is this upper level of the unit one which has two bath two bedrooms
and the rear of the third floor is another one-bedroom apartment for the total of three
apartments. So we met with the civic group, the RCO, on the zoning committee on May 16th.
And then on July 11th, we met again with the Somerset neighbors for better living at the general meeting, the RCO meeting.
And then on July 11th, we met again with the Somerset neighbors.
And in either meeting, was there any derogatory comments about the proposal?
As you might expect, my client, Mr. Atkinson, was surprised when the following day, on July 11th, he found out that in a mixed vote, the RCO decided to oppose the project.
Mr. Atkinson then circulated this petition in his neighborhood, including eight neighbors in the 2700 block or eight neighbors in the 2700 block of Corral Street, which says that the undersigned neighbors support zoning relief to allow the replacement of the existing garage with a three-story structure, having a total of three dwelling units on the second and third floors and accessory parking on the first.
and again Mr. Atkinson nobody refused to sign it he would have had more signatures but
people were not home when he circulated the petition the next is the letter issued a couple
weeks after the meeting which was in non-support it was then modified by the civic on this past
Saturday using the Planning Commission's form indicating the split in their vote.
And then the same day, they responded to a question I had raised asking if there was a
common concern. And in this email, they explained that the reason for their opposition is that
they prefer affordable housing. I have nothing further. Mr. Atkinson, did you hear all my
testimony? I did. Let me swear here. Could you state your name as spelled for the court reporter?
I do. My name is Alex Atkinson. It is A-L-E-X-A-T-K-I-N-S-O-N. Right. Do you swear
for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Proceed. Mr. Atkinson,
did you grow up nearby in Fort Richmond? Yes, I did. And you've lived here for five years? Yes,
I have. And did you circulate this petition? Yes, I did. Did anybody refuse to sign it? No.
Did you attend the meetings of the summer set neighbors for better living, the zoning committee
in May and general meeting in July? Yes, I did. Did anybody express derogatory comments about the
proposed uh use of no okay um what are you going to use the uh if you get relief from the zoning
board and you go ahead uh what are you going to use the apartments for uh the one apartment i'm
going to use to have my mother live in and the other two i'm going to rent to people in the area
just going to try to keep it down you know it's a lot of construction and stuff going on so i'm
keep it affordable um is it is it easy for you to keep it is it easier to keep it affordable
because since you own the property the cost to construct this will be less yes i have no further
questions and i have no further brian let me ask you a question i know you talked about the large
project that's going to happen down the street in that block there is there other multiple family
units? Well, I could not. I don't know that there are any legal two-family or three-family,
Good afternoon, David Vecto, City Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
The zoning maps were changed in this neighborhood in 2017 in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
If the proposed lot were divided to be conforming with the zoning code, assuming the dimensions were correct, the applicant would be able to build two single-family houses.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the use variants with a proviso for a maximum of two dwelling units.
Okay. MI 2022, 002-546-2772-74 Coral Street, I vote yes for amended refusal dated 5-16-22.
I think we lost Jim okay thank you Mr. O'Brien you have your three votes thank
you Mr. Chairman thank you okay let's see here
okay we're good mr thank you mr o'brien
is there anyone from the two o'clock list in the virtual audience whose case has not been called
i see no heads at this time we're going to take a five minute break and then we're going to come
back and finish up okay thanks everyone
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this afternoon's ZBA hearings.
With me is Ishmael Shaheed, our board secretary.
Present, Mr. Chair.
Thomas Holliman, our board member.
James Snell, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, here is our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett, and our Board Attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Here's our virtual format. Be advised these proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you knowledge agreement to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at philo.gov.
For the benefit of our court sonographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
Lastly, the question answer box on the screen is not for testimony or comments.
Any comment should be directed to Tanya Sunken, our Executive Director.
I have a couple of messages that I would like to read that everybody is aware.
Effective July 18, 2022, if the case is continued, attorney or applicant moving party, the attorney
or applicant has 90 days from that date, the case is to continue to either request a new
hearing date, ask for an extension of moving party status, or withdraw the case.
If ZBA staff is not contacted by the end of the 90-day period, the case will automatically be listed for a new hearing date.
Please note that extensions for moving party status must be sent to the Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett, with Board Attorney Hillary Emerson copied.
Number two, ZBA staff is currently sending out letters to listed applicants on appeals filed prior to 2019.
if the case has been pending and holds status, if an applicant or their attorney does not contact
ZBA staff to discuss the next steps for their case, within the time period stated in a letter,
the case will be considered abandoned and administratively closed. Questions about either
of these policies should be directed to Executive Director Tanya Sunkett and Board Attorney Hillary
Emerson. So let's look at this afternoon for our continuances. Number three, MI 2022, 001-771-2641
West York Street. That case is continued. Number four, MI 2022, 001-797-2600 West Montgomery
2600 West Montgomery Avenue. That case is continued. Both those cases are continued.
avenue that case is
Is there anyone who has any comments relative to those two cases?
I see no hands, Chair. Are there any other continuances requested?
I see no hands, Chair. Case number five is a withdrawal.
Call MI-2022-001-776-5219 Wissahickon Avenue.
That case has been withdrawn.
And I have one case with no exhibits.
Number two, MI-2022-001-767-2544 Turner Street.
Daniel Wu is the owner.
Applegant.
There is no exhibits.
This is the first listing.
It's Mr. Wu in the audience.
I see no one by that name at this time, Chair.
MI 2022-001-767-2544 Turner Street is continued.
Mark must be tried.
I'm going to go now to our number one case.
MI 2022-001-798-251, South 21st Street.
Zen Jin is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from Center City Residence Association.
And also the applicant has submitted a petition of support signed by 101 neighbors.
Mr. Zen Jin is coming back in as a penniless now, Chair.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
Hi. Could you just state your name because you've already been sworn?
Zhenjin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N.
Could you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
Sure. My client operates a Sugary, which is a tenant at this property.
The property itself is owned by the trust of Mr. Franco.
and my client has a lease agreement with the ownership.
Now, Leslie McDevitt or Ronald Camdello
would be here today on behalf of the Sugary.
Thank you.
Our board secretary has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal
in Stabil A-2-H?
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents that are required, such as proof of ownership,
tax clearance, copy of the refusal or referral pictures of the drawings of the property five
days in advance of this hearing, and did you meet with the IRS CEO?
Do you have a letter?
Yes, to all questions.
Great.
Please proceed and share the screen.
Thank you.
I'm going to share with the board the exhibit that was submitted previously.
Can the board see my exhibit?
We can, sir.
Thank you. We have submitted a copy of the refusal, the letter of non-opposition from CCRA, which contains certain provisals that my clients agree to, petition to support photos plans, a business plan, and related documentation.
application the application is refused because this property is located in the rm1 zoning district
however i want to point out to the board that as far back as 1953 the property on the location of
the first floor unit has been used in a commercial format and the photographs can also show very
clearly that this is really a commercial space and has been such for a long time. The owners
also have verified that this has been basically a commercial space for many years until it was
vacated. And it was actually leased out as a commercial space because they were not aware
that their zoning became RM1 and therefore made the CMX use itself something that is not permitted.
That being said, the application here is to use the space as a very specific limited use from a cooking standpoint.
My client's Sugary is an appointment only studio.
It's a boutique dessert shop, cake shop specifically making wedding cakes, which are custom in nature.
As a result, the only operation on the premises will be the preparation of these cakes, showing it to customers and selling the cakes.
A lot of their business actually is online, but the location would allow customers to come in to taste, test, and otherwise see the cakes and the offerings in person.
A lot of their business actually is online, but the location.
In addition, they do offer some cupcakes and cookies as well, and there will be limited amounts of in-shop tasting.
So in essence, while it's zoned, the application is shown as zoning for a takeout restaurant, it really is not.
And based on that, the CCRA, which their biggest concern was, of course, future use as a takeout restaurant, has asked that we limit the use to retail sale of baked goods that are baked on premises, no fryers.
And then due to feedback from the local neighbors and community regarding prior issues and possible ongoing issues with pests and rodents, we are making sure that trash would be stored internally and removed by a licensed trash disposal company from the premises itself.
they will be given access to the interior
to make sure they can take the trash directly.
Naturally, my clients will have the pest control
and other necessary contracts in place as well
to make sure that we do not cause an issue for the neighbors.
That being said, they also asked that,
CCRA also asked that we do not have any deliveries
take place before 7 a.m. and not before a.m. on weekends,
which will not be an issue.
And finally, that we try to get a loading space in the front of the premises.
That, again, we'll try to apply for.
Whether we'll actually get it would depend on the streets department.
So my clients are in agreement with all these provisals that the CCRA has brought forth.
As you can see, they also have talked to surrounding neighbors and obtained a petition.
Many neighbors are actually looking forward to having the opportunity to check out the wedding cakes and other bakery goods.
The plans are relatively simple for this space.
The space on the first floor would be mostly the kitchen.
I'm sorry, I'm going to zoom in because I think it's a little difficult to read from this size.
So the first floor is mostly going to be ovens for baking, counters and preparation.
And then there'll be refrigeration and other preparation in the basement.
As you can see, it's not meant to be really a sit-down location.
There are very few seats being proposed just for people that want to get the cupcake, maybe
a cookie and something just to have at the shop while they're browsing the cake contents.
So that's essentially the proposal.
The use will be limited to the first floor and basement.
There's actually existing steps with Belco doors that are part of the property, and that can be seen in the photos attached on the side of the property is where the delivery access door would be.
And again, that would give a direct access also to the basement, allowing trash to be taken out, allowing deliveries to be put in.
So that is essentially the proposal that is before the board to use this space as a specialty cake shop and limited uses to that degree.
So there's again, there's no cooking. It's not a restaurant and it is retail sale, the food, beverages and grocery.
But the baked goods would be prepared on premises.
I'll be happy to try to answer any questions or redirect the board to any part of the exhibit.
Do you want to have your testimony adopted, please?