and nor will endanger the public health, safety, or welfare of the community
and is not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of the city.
Why don't you bring on your Walmart rep and adopt your testimony?
Okay. Kelly, I think you need to raise your hand to be brought in.
Please.
Kelly Halstead has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Good afternoon.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the court's sonographer?
Hi, my name is Kelly Halstead, K-E-L-L-Y-H-A-L-S-T-E-A-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Kelly, did you have an opportunity to listen to my presentation and review the exhibit booklet that was submitted?
I did.
And did everything I say true and correct?
And would you adopt my testimony to this board as yours?
I have no further questions.
All right.
Thank you.
Questions.
And by the way, could both of you stay after this case is over?
Because you have another case right after this, right?
So questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No questions, Chair.
Questions from our counsel, Hillary Emberson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no answer this time chair thank you planning commission
hi this is john lavicar from the planning commission uh last name l-a-v-a-c-c-a-r-e
right do you swear or affirm do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth is
nothing but the truth john i do please proceed the comprehensive plan recommends no change
uh sorry i'll start my video here the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing auto
oriented commercial zoning the proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts beyond
what might normally be expected the city planning commission therefore recommends that the zoning
board grant the special exception thank you mi 2024 00424 4301 bybury road number a i vote yes
the baron linda palmer vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes so case number two
mi 2024 000 425 1675 south christopher columbus boulevard uh counsel you've already been sworn
just state your name for the record david david shuddy right um could you identify your client
the relationship to the property. Sure. My client is Walmart Real Estate Business Trust and is the
fee owner of the property. Council, this is, and by the way, there's a letter of non-opposition
from Penn Sports Civic and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Counsel, could you just – it's the same thing, Tyres?
Council, could you just, it's the same thing, Tires? Exactly the same thing.
Exactly the same thing.
Why don't you do this?
Why don't you just give us a brief outline and say it's all the same as the last time?
This property is located at 1675 South Christopher Columbus Boulevard.
This property is located in the CX3 zoning district.
It is – the property itself measures 11 acres and is currently improved with 150,000 square foot Walmart store.
Again, Walmart has owned this property since 2008.
And here's the exhibit booklet for this one.
But the same situation as the last hearing, only in this case we're requesting a variance because the vehicle equipment and supplies sales and rental is not a permitted use in the CX3 zoning district.
We went through the same process. We did meet with the Append Support Civic Association, received their support after that meeting, and also received a non-opposition letter from the city council person.
Why don't you bring your Walmart rep back on as she's still on the line?
Sure. Kelly, are you still on?
okay um if she just if she got off that's fine you're an officer of the court we'll accept
your testimony questions from the board
no questions chair
questions or comments from our attorney not at this time mr chair questions or comments from
the virtual audience. Chair, we have Kelly Halstead. They have been unmuted in the last week.
That's okay. We're okay with that. Okay, Chair. Thank you. Questions or comments? Planning
Commission, please. John? Hello. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the CMX3 zoning at
this location. The proposed use is in accordance with the site and the surrounding area. Therefore,
PCPC staff recommends granting the variance request. Thank you. MI 2024-000-425-1675 South,
Christopher Columbus Boulevard, I vote yes.
The barrel in a former, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you,
counsel. Thank you very much. Have a great afternoon. Okay. Number four, MI 2024-001-512-1433
Diamond Street. Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Do we see Mr. Nockamson?
There he is.
There he is.
I see him.
I see him.
Mr. Nockamson, could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Alan Nockamson.
A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, their relationship to their property?
Scott Miller, the owner of the property.
Mr. Nackamson, before our vice chair comes on, do we have an issue with the tax office?
Yeah, we're still waiting for a tax clearance certificate, so I would ask that the board hear this presentation, hold it until we provide a tax clearance certificate.
Okay, and our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed then all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
We have.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
before i give my presentation i too wanted to say some words to mr holliman i appreciate your
service to the board um well i have not always agreed with every decision you have made
um i think every decision you have made has been thoughtful and in the best interest of the city
so i do applaud you for your many many many years of service and um i hope to see you
Many, many, many years of service, and I hope to see you sometime in the future, not as a board member, but as an architect.
I want to make sure he gets your words. He left already, but I would tell him what you said to him. Thank you very kindly, Alan.
Oh, you're welcome. All right, so I'm going to share my screen.
Alan, will we remember those words, too? Like, if you disagree, they're thoughtful,
worth being thoughtful. You know what? As long as you provide a fair forum,
I tell the community groups, too. So, but yes, thank you.
All right. 1433 Diamond Street. So this is a really nice project. You know, and it's a historic,
we're in the historic section of Philadelphia. So we have historic requirements, which we still
have to deal with um but um you'll we'll review this project first with the notice of refusal
then the correspondence from the uptown entertainment and development corporation
which is a letter of support uh let's get rid of that uh and then nearby uh comparable rm1 density
one of the refusals has to do with an additional unit requesting aerial view of the property so
this is a vacant lot it's been a vacant lot for some time we'll review maps of the area and
photographs of the property in the surrounding area. Our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting
notice. We had a meeting with the community in person recently. Our application for appeal that
we filed on Mr. Miller's behalf. Our deeds of property showing that Mr. Miller owns the property
and our certificate of tax clearance. Because of the Jewish holidays, Mr. Miller could not
attend today's hearing, but his son, Ari Miller, would be able to verify the factual assertions I
make in my presentation. Notice refusal. So this is an R1 property. We're not trying to convert
an RSA 5 property into multifamily use. We're trying to put seven units here, right? So we
have multiple variances, which are explainable. First, we're in an overlay, which requires us
to have 425 square feet of loss size per unit.
You know, typically with RM1,
it's 360 square feet of loss size per unit
for the first four units
and then 480 for each additional one.
So we're only asking for one additional unit
and we're in this overlay.
The second refusal has to do,
again, we're in this overlay
where the NCP overlay district A,
which technically requires us to have parking which makes absolutely no sense here we're half
a block away from broad street right on the broad street line and it would be out of character to
require us to have parking you know we're in a historic district there's no parking off street
parking of this sorts and so all we're trying to do is mimic what was previously there from a
physical standpoint and then the third refusal has to do with the height you know typically it's
tough to establish a hardship in terms of height. We have 38 feet as requirement. We're asking for
45 feet, 6 inches. We're mimicking what was there before and what's adjacent to us as well. And
you'll see, and, you know, the Historic Commission would require us to mimic that as well.
So we did meet with the community, and as you can see here, we do have a support letter from them.
We would ask for two provisos, which we promised them.
We also are trying to enter into a community benefits agreement, which I drafted and presented to them.
But the two provisos, which I believe are enforceable, is commercial trash pickup, which we're required to do anyway because of the size of the building.
But, you know, we would agree to that in the zoning permit and trash stored in the rear as well.
So those would be the two provisos.
and then um what we're asking for is now of character in terms of a density in terms of
density as you can see 1423 west diamond street also had seven units at one point
in an aerial view of the property you can see we're here open field here um it's been that way
for as long as you can see uh on street view on google so maps of the area again we're just off
Broad Street here on Diamond. And Broad Street's here. And, you know, we're an RM1 property. So
multifamily use is allowed. Given our requirement to meet the historic requirements, it's very
expensive endeavor. We're asking for one additional unit to make that endeavor a possibility. This
property has been a vacant lot for the longest period of time. And you can see here we're just
off the Broad Street line.
So having one parking spot
makes absolutely no sense
Makes absolutely no sense, given that we have ample public transportation.
given that we have ample public transportation.
But you also...
But you also see, given the history of the property, given the surrounding properties,
it makes no sense to have off-street parking.
In addition, we would be taking a parking spot off of the street.
So we take one parking spot off.
We take one car off the street, but we're taking a parking spot off of the street as well.
So it really just makes no sense whatsoever.
the photographs of the property here is our property here and this is our property in 2009
so we go as far back as we can with this property so for the last 15 years this has been a vacant
lot it's really hard given the historic district we're in to build anything and this is our
hearing notice that we've posted you know three weeks before today's hearing and this is our
property you know we looked at it from a historical perspective but you can see our roof line here
matches completely the roof line to the right that building structure is no longer there
and then this is you know diamond street to the right of the property as you can see there's
really no off street parking diamond street to the left of the property and you can see there's
these beautiful brownstones here and what we want to do is just mimic the brownstones that
are there. And again, rebuild what was previously there. So you see the roof lines matched
previously, and that's all we're trying to do here, which is requiring us to have a height
refusal of 45 feet, six inches. And then, you know, in terms of our living, we have seven units here.
There's actually a separate egress outside in the rear for the lower level unit. And then there's
two units on every single floor, the first, second, and third floors as well.
No roof deck. We met with
the community on May 14th at 6 p.m. in person. We
emailed that notice well before the meeting to the RCO and the
relevant parties. We also mailed that notice to 87 addresses.
Here are the list of the addresses. Here are the
certificate of mailing, proof of mailing to those addresses. Our applications
for appeal that we filed on Mr. Miller's behalf.
And then finally, the deeds of property
showing that Mr. Miller has owned it.
And just another thing,
he owned this property prior to the creation of this overlay,
which is creating two of the refusals.
So I'm just, you know, again,
he purchased it without that restriction of the overlay.
And then, you know, so I think that goes kind of to our hardship as well.
There have been further requirements placed upon him since his purchase.
And, you know, we don't have a tax clearance certificate.
So, you know, we would ask the board to hold this to allow us the opportunity to get one.
You want to bring his son on to adopt?
Mr. Miller, can you virtually raise your hand?
Do we see a hand?
Mr. Nockmson, you're an officer.
The court will gladly accept your testimony.