um updated of course and another metaphor we've talked about is sort of a a beacon or a lighthouse
for businesses on the avenue and hence la 21's uh sort of bright glassy fifth floor
uh so this is the ground uh the basement planets primarily storage and mechanical spaces
uh so this is the ground uh the basement plan it's primarily
and bike storage as well correct that's right
and so the first floor of course has the main entrance off Lancaster Avenue the required
egress stairs and elevator lobby um it's got the commissary kitchen has two cooking stations and
then a shared scullery and then along Lancaster Avenue there's a cooking classroom and a small
sort of display area for products that are developed there uh second floor is uh the hub
the business hub so there'll be a business library and these sort of available spaces for meeting and
offices uh third floor again more incubator and sort of shared workspaces
uh as is the fourth and then the fifth big me offices for la 21.
and the roof is intended to be occupied because we are using so much of the site we felt it was
important to have some outdoor space available for the users and Kurt your understanding of
the roof deck use is that it is exclusively accessory to the users of the building itself
correct that's correct thank you uh stick around just in case there's any questions
so mr chairman members of the board even in the absence of technical arguments surrounding the
refusals the applicant submits to hardship in complying with the code requirements
given the irregular shape of the lot the ongoing trends of revitalization in the neighborhood
and the city's stated goals for the lancaster avenue corridor which are difficult if not near
impossible to achieve achieve on this lot through code compliant development this board has heard
and previously accepted similar arguments for other developments along this stretch of lancaster
avenue as well as you saw throughout the presentation the lot is subject to an extremely
irregular and small shape narrowing significantly at the corner this creates a unique and unnecessary
necessary hardship requiring this board's grant of relief for both additional height, as well as exceeding the maximum occupied area.
I'll just bring up the refusal so that you can see what we're talking about here.
Designing a building on this lot to ensure that each of the floor plates can be occupied for its intended use requires taking advantage of every ounce of square footage on this particular lot.
even with it even without the lot challenges the proposal does still only represent the bare
minimum necessary relief as kurt mentioned leaving eight percent of the lot open in the
rear along parish street to accommodate trash storage in terms of the height the lot size
and shape is only one factor leading to several hardships which give this board discretion to
grant relief particularly since this is a dimensional variance to accommodate a project
that has uses that are entirely consistent with the zoning code since this is an exclusively
commercial development no bonuses are available under the code to provide additional height
allowance that said even 45 feet would be insufficient here given the shape and size of
this lot the comprehensive plan recommends rezoning much of lancaster avenue to cmx 2.5
which if it applied to this particular lot would allow for a height up to 55 feet
as you can see on the elevations on the zoning plan here let me zoom in on that most of the
actual mass of this building itself uh is is uh 56 feet which is consistent with the cmx 2.5 height
allowances with the additional 10 feet accommodating predominantly the stair tower and the elevator
tower on the lancaster avenue frontage the mass at the corner and along parish street tops out at
that 56 feet as the board has heard here today this project is a landmark directly community
community serving development that would be simply impossible to fulfill without the space planned for each floor that has been designed to accommodate each aspect of the proposed use.
Furthermore, this building itself will serve as a beacon to the community and represent a prominent representation of the revitalization that has continued to occur along Lancaster Avenue.
as i mentioned before this board has granted several other height variances on this stretch
of lancaster avenue including similar height relief on just the next block finally as you
heard from our architect the proposed height will not impair uh light and air to surrounding
properties as the shadow study evidence that this building will have minimal if any any
as the shadow study evidence that this building will have minimal if any any impact on any surrounding properties
these exact examples establish a clear trend in the nature of development that is necessary to
continue the revitalization of lancaster avenue the hardship is further supported by the city
planning commission's west district plan from 2018 which identified that many commercial corridors
are suffering due to a variety of forces it highlights that reinvestment and resilience
can be found where entrepreneurs immigrants community organizations and city partners are
active this project is quite frankly the embodiment of that goal the plan also recognizes the value
in allowing additional building height even absent unique site considerations such as the ones that
burden the property before you today finally the refusal the final refusal here stems from the
code's prohibition against a roof deck use for commercial properties however given the nature
of this development and the extremely small lot size the only possible outdoor space for building
users is on the roof deck it will only be utilized as an accessory used to the occupants of the
building itself as a space for gathering and outdoor enjoyment all of the variances we've
requested before the board today are the least minimum and were carefully tailored in light of
clear site constraints and neighborhood context they are limited by both the irregular shape of
the lot and unique considerations based on the use we submit that the proposal will not increase
congestion or endanger the public as the property is located in in an area with significant access
to public transportation and meets the goals of the west district plan for transit oriented
development the variances are in harmony with the purpose and spirit of the code and will not injure
adjacent properties the evidence presented today has established why this property suffers a unique
and unnecessary hardship supporting the grant of the requested relief and as always all of
detailed arguments are included in the memo of law submitted at exhibit 13. the applicant looks
forward to welcoming the community into its new hub along lancaster avenue and we're happy to
answer any questions questions from the board questions from our attorney hillary emberson
not at this time mr comments from the virtual audience i see no hands planning commission amy
board with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning at this
location from the existing cmx2 commercial mixed use the appellant has demonstrated that the
irregular lot shape constitutes a unique physical condition that would prevent it from being used
in conformance with the zoning code for height and occupied area but not for non-residential
roof deck the planning commission recommends that the board grant the requested variances
for occupied area and building height but deny the requested variance for non-residential roof deck
M.I. 2025-006-469-4320 Lancaster Avenue. I vote yes with proviso. Per refusal, dated 12-29-25.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with proviso.
i win my vote is yes with proviso thank you thank you all right number seven mi2025
006 510 104 market street mr o'brien good afternoon mr chairman good afternoon sir
would you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer william o'brien w-i-l-l-i-a-m
O'Brien, O-B-R-I-E-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Mr. O'Brien, could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
My client is Burley Brothers LLC, which is the owner of 104 Market Street. In the virtual
audience is Eric Burley, the managing member of Burley Brothers. And the recommendation of
unanimous support from Old City District RCO and a letter of non-opposition from council
member squiller our vice chair has a few questions good afternoon have you submitted your documents
and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing yes i have and do you waive the
reading of the referral and stipulate to its accuracy i do i think you can share your screen
and proceed with your case bear with me one second i turned my screen down
so that I could save some battery and now I'm trying to
and now i'm trying to increase my display so i can see what i'm looking at there we go okay thank you
i'm not sure i see the prompt to join as a panel i promote i'm going to try to promote
you again okay oh it looks like you were promoted already
i have the screen but i'm not there were two names i mean two two of them saying william
o'bryant um i promoted to see what happens i'm sorry what did you say no i just closed
one. Okay, I'm going to promote one now, again.
Give me one second.
Okay, I just promoted the one that was there. Yes, thank you.
are you able to share now
are you okay bill to get on we're getting there i was on but i guess it was on twice
I got the screen for join as a panelist I selected that and it rebooted
so we were getting ready to we were getting ready to take a five minute break why don't
we take a no no listen to me we'll take a five-minute break and by that time you'll be ready
to go we'll be right back we're not we're not going to let you out there don't worry
thanks eric hang in there
okay mr o'brien could you please state your name and spelled for the stenographer
william o'brien w-i-l-l-i-a-m-o-b-r-i-e-n from the maniunk law office and you already
identify the Burley brothers, if I remember correctly. Did you do him yet? Vice chair
conversation? Yes. Okay. We did not. Okay. Good afternoon. Did you submit your documents and
exhibits five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, I did. And did you waive the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I did do it. And it's a referral and yes, I did do it.
Okay. Thank you. You can proceed with your case. Thank you. I've shared my screen. This is the
zoning map for the area uh you can see right so don't worry you didn't miss anything
you can see the blue dot where my cursor is
right there yeah that's 104 market street is between front and leticia place yep um this uh
was last used as a restaurant. Those records are on pages five through nine. I won't go
through them. I do want to show you some exterior images. There's two actually.
So this is Philadelphia's very famous confectionery row.
On the right side, you see the Franklin Fountain, 116 Market Street, that opened by the Burley
Brothers in 2004, I believe. In the middle is Shane Confectionary. That is candy store,
confectionary store that has been there since 1863. The Burley Brothers acquired it from the
Shane family and who's had it from 1910. And to the right of Shane Confectionary is the ice cream
Bar. Again, another production from the Burley Brothers. And then ultimately, the left is the
subject we're here now. It's a 104 Cotton Street. It's a condominium building. The first floor is a
104 Cotton Street. It's a condominium building. The first floor is a commercial condominium.
commercial condo.
Burley Brothers bought it in 2019. The COVID pandemic interrupted their plans.
It's a small space. It's about 500, a little less than 500 square feet.
The next picture shows the existing exterior of the building.
and the sign there the business is called the cocoa pod
interior photograph there's two as i said it's a small space so you can see the front door
and the interior there really weren't any renovations it was cosmetic improvements the
door to the left side is the bathroom and the next image is the other side of the room
It's basically going to be used for gatherings. It won't be open but for events, for groups.
It only has about 23 capacity, I think 18 seated, and then some standing tables for up to 23 people.
and they will be serving things like ice cream, hot cocoa, cold cocoa, waffles and ice cream.
And that's about it. This address is subject to 11 zoning overlays.
So there's not much you can do in this 500 square feet without retaining an attorney.
And on behalf of the Zoning Board, I want to thank City Council.
If I may enter, ask Eric Burley to raise his virtual hand.
mr burley yes mr burley could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer
my name is eric burley spelled e-r-i-c-b-e-r-l-e-y
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, sir?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Burley, are you the managing member of Burley Brothers LLC?
And you were in the virtual audience and you heard my testimony?
Correct.
Is it truthful?
And do you adopt it as your own?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
questions from our attorney hillary emerson can i can i just say maybe not a question but
i love the interior of this space and i guess you said it's just going to be for
how how is this going to work so it's not so you can like regular hours but you could right it
won't be for uh just random come in it would be you want to have a birthday party you want to have
gathering from work maybe an administrative board from the city wants to have some sweet chocolates
and cocoa and discuss their their policies do they deliver okay all right I get it thank you
Hillary yeah I just I just wanted to note um because I when I was looking through this I
saw that this was one condominium unit in the building so that wasn't noted on the refusal so
i would just note that use is limited to unit 101 yes you don't want to walk it yes questions yeah
and that that was my question when when it's a condo like this because i don't remember
seeing this very often do you need the permission of the if if there's a condo board or when the
The condo was first created, I think, about 2004.
It was approved for zoning with first floor permitted uses as in CMX3.
And then the first use was a restaurant and it continued being that restaurant.
The records are pages five through nine.
It was a restaurant when my client bought it.
Their intention was to do this, but they just, you know, they had to wait until COVID was
over and they could gather their their resources again to proceed all right thank you washington
is the comments from the virtual audience they're annoying planning commission
amy boyd with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change in zoning from the current CMX 3 commercial mixed use. The appellant has demonstrated that the proposed use will all have detrimental impacts beyond what would reasonably be expected. The Planning Commission recommends with the board grant their question special exception for prepared food shop.
MI 2025-006-510-104 Market Street, I vote yes with Proviso. Use limited to unit number 101.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Hi, Wayne, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay. Number 9, MI-2025-006-847-2715 Westmoreland Street. Richard DeMarco is the attorney.
Richard DeMarco has been promoted.
mr chairman can you hear me i can i can could mr demarco please state your name and spell
for the stenographer good afternoon everybody richard demarco last name spelled d-e-m-a-r-c-o
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do but you identify your client a relationship to the property yeah the llc is
called franklin deborah llc uh james smith is uh my is the representative that is my client and i
represent of course both him and the llc okay and i'm gonna um give it to our vice chair but