Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Thank you.
Have a good one.
Calendar number 0692, 1739 West Oxford Street.
The attorney is Zenzhen.
he's coming in now as a panelist good afternoon good afternoon can you please put your name and
address on the record yes zenjin z h e n last name is j i n 1617 john f kennedy boulevard
suite 1838 philadelphia pa 19103 do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? I do. And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with the required documents
consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans of the
property five days in advance of this hearing? And have you met with the RCO? And do you have
a letter? Yes, to all questions. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you. I will share the
information relating to this matter with the board and I'll address the various issues we
have with the case. So we have submitted a copy of documentation including the refusal, RCO letter,
and also the information, I'm sorry, also other information such as photos, plans, tax clearance,
deed. This application is refused for two primary applications.
is refused for two primary items.
This is a double-sized lot that my client wishes
to put an additional building up.
And at the same time, there's an existing single family
and the new proposed building both to be used as duplexes.
I'll state up front that the community was in opposition
to the idea of additional density.
And they came out strongly in opposition to the density.
Given that situation, I had spoken with my client, and I think what we would ask the board to entertain at this time is whether the second building being on the same lot and the existing building being on the same lot, both being used as single-family housing, would be something the board would consider.
What I'll do is I'll zoom into the site plan because it kind of explains what the situation is with this lot.
So this is on the corner of Oxford. And as you can see, the lot itself is actually about 34,
almost 35 feet wide. So it's 35.7 total width. So it's really two lots kind of combined into one.
The idea here really is to build a new structure, which is essentially a roll home and keep the
existing structure. The part of the proposal also was to extend the back of the existing structure
because it's a very small building, very short, to allow for additional bedroom space. The original
proposal is to have each of these used as a two-family dwelling. However, even if it was
subdivided into two actual lots and built a new structure as a single family, the lot itself
really would support two single family structures, one subdivided, and that is kind of what the
ultimate end result would have been if they had not gone for duplexes on this design.
From a density standpoint, because this is really almost two locks in one, the additional building,
if the variance is given, used as a single family would not be inconsistent with what's going on
with the remainder of the block. In fact, actually remainder of the block are predominantly student
housing, actually does have multiple multifamily buildings as well. But there are also single
family houses and certainly certain residents were against the idea of converting this to
multifamily. So all we're asking the board today to consider would be a variance to allow multiple
principal structures to be used in a form consistent to RSA 5, which would be single
family, and the grant of the addition, which actually did not trigger in and of itself any
refusal. So the addition could be done by right if it was done directly. The other refusal,
which is for the four family, we would be asking in this case for two units, one in each principal
building on the lot. So that would be ultimately what we're really asking for before the board
today given that the community did not want four units there if we were to be forced to go back
if the board does not agree with the request if we're forced to go back it would be a subdivision
application for two single family houses would be ultimately the end result while that is something
my client can do we're here before the board now so i wanted to at least present this alternative
to the board for consideration so that is our request is the board would entertain
at least granting two principal structures being permitted on one lot to be used consistent with
rsa5 if that is something the board can entertain we would certainly appreciate the consideration
i'm certainly happy to answer any questions excuse me counselor yes uh do you plan to
pierce the party wall no there's no actually even right now as you as you see from our proposal
it's two structures that is why there was a refusal for two principal structures on one lot
i'm not clear what you're trying to do oh i'm sorry so um so this building does not currently
exist right now this entire lot has just this single structure single building what my client
would like to do is to build a second, essentially this is open here as a lot, but it's all part
of the single large lot. So he wanted to put a roll home style structure up, but the proposal
that was originally applied for was for a duplex. We were asking if it's possible to put the
structure up as a single family and keep the existing single family that already is on the
lot. So it'll be two principal structures, but because a lot's not subdivided, it'll be on one
But because a lot's not subdivided, it'll be on one lot.
lot. But you can't have
But you can't have two principal on one lot.
But that is the refusal.
That itself is a...
You're looking for approval for that.
Correct.
Correct.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Excuse me, Mr. Van, this is Sharon's letter.
Are you presenting revised plans?
We are not.
Well, so the refusal itself is for multifamily dwelling, which can be simply rejected, because then it would be allowing the multiple principal structures to be used, then that would allow the RSA 5 single-family use.
Okay, so then there would simply be a proviso, should the board approve it, stating one family per...
Should the board entertain it, yes.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
It's not one family per lot.
It would be two single family.
Per structure.
One family per structure.
One family per structure.
Two structures on the lot total.
So it would be two families total, but it's on one large lot.
As opposed to the duplex.
All right.
Do you have your client to adopt your testimony?
I believe he is here.
Mr. Chen, can you raise your hand?
no hands at this time chair
all right mr jen as an officer of court we'll stipulate your client would be adopting your
testimony thank you i do have a question any other questions from the board before i move on
If I'm clear, you're asking for two single family houses on one lot.
Correct.
Thank you.
The original application was for two duplexes.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
That is correct, Chairman.
So you go from four unit, four family dwelling to two.
Right.
But if we were to subdivide the lots, it would essentially end up with the same situation,
except my client hopes to keep the lot the way it is.
So is Ms. Jones available by any chance?
Because we do have a letter of opposition from Council President Clark,
but that speaks to the multifamily dwellings.
Yes, I'm aware of the letter as well.
I would assume based on the opposition letter from the Council President,
as it relates, there's Ms. Jones.
Hello, good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Mary Jones, on behalf of Council President Daryl Clark.
You swear to firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Ms. Jones, did you hear the testimony of Mr. Jinn?
Yes, I did.
So I don't know if you need time or whatever, the position of the Council President.
This is two single family houses as opposed to two duplexes.
um right yes our opposition was based on the uh uh feelings of the near neighbors wanting to keep
a single family use so if that is what is being proposed now then we will not then we could
yeah okay thank you just want to make sure we're all clear on that so uh if we approve it what
what would be the proviso um i believe the approval would be for uh the multi let me let me
re-share with the board the refusal, I think it would help clarify this. And I'll zoom in,
it's currently zoomed out. So one of the refusal is for the proposed multiple principal buildings
on a single lot. I think if the board says that the proposal would be the proposed multiple or
two principal buildings on a single lot to be used as single family house individually,
I think Sharon correct me if you feel additional language will be needed yeah I think that works
two structures each a single family dwelling something each to be used as single family
yes I mean that's that's a little confusing because
Ellen I would still classify this as multi-family because there are two families on so maybe um
two structures one family per structure okay that would work two two structures one family
per structure is that it yes okay thank you all right thank you uh again any questions from the
board no no no thank you planning commission
Ron Bednar. Yeah, the proposed properties indicated for residential use on a city plan
brian bednar yeah the
given the site's configuration with no objection to the granting of the variance for two structures,
single family units. Thank you. So Mr. Jinder, we have, and I think
Shire may have asked this. We've got revised plans.
There won't be revised plans.
This doesn't really...
No, there would not be because this really doesn't
go into...
You're right. Okay. Got it now.
Thank you. Thank you for clearing it up.
All right.
MI2020-000692
West Oxford Street.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
structures to be used as
each one to be used for single family.
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso thank you very much
you uh carol we go to number five number four five number four is okay calendar number
3257 3216 north 16th street
the attorney is Rachel Pritzker
he's coming in now as a panelist thank you yeah hi Rachel can you put your name and address on
the record and spell your last name sure uh Rachel R-A-C-H-A-E-L Pritzker P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R
1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA 19103. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes. Have you emailed your exhibit packet with the required
documents consisting of proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral, photos under
plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO and
do you have a letter? Yes. You may proceed. I'm going to have my colleague Brandon Saverin do
the presentation for this as he did the work on this matter, and then I'm just here to add support
where needed. So if Brandon could be promoted, that would be appreciated. In addition to Scott
Woodruff, who's the architect, he'll be providing the plans. Brandon, can you put your name and
address on the record, please? Yes, Madam Vice Chair. My name is Brandon Saverin. Last name is
spelled S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R-A-N. Address is 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103. Do you swear we're firm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? I do. Okay, thank you. Is there another person, Rachel? Yes, Scott Woodruff. He's
our architect. Okay. And he's coming in now as a panelist. Thanks so much.
I'm just going to share my screen here, and I'll throw it over to Scott shortly, but did just want
to run through the refusal real quickly if everybody can see this. This is for a multifamily
project proposing 27 units on a property at 3216 North 16th Street. It's RSA 3, so the
refusals are for the multifamily use on the first line. At the bottom, you have a parking
refusal we are providing 11 on-site accessory parking spaces but 27 would be required under
the code in rsa3 there is also dimensional refusals which essentially stem from the fact that
we are proposing to build to the front and the side lot lines whereas that's not permitted under
the code in RSA3. Before I get into the plans, I did just want to share, this is a letter
of support we received from Tioga United, who was the coordinating RCO.
This was a wonderful RCO process, I thought, for both my client and Tioga United. I
conducted the first meeting with Tioga United. We kind of showed them our first iteration of the
plan. They gave us sort of two types of comments. One were substantive comments as to the plan
itself. The other was that they wanted to try to get some
The other was that they wanted to try to get some additional folks out to another RCO meeting,
and they asked us if we could go above and beyond the code's mailing requirements to help make that happen.
So what we did is we did another mailing, and then this time for the second meeting,
I also had my staff hand flyer a couple of large multifamily buildings on the block
just to make sure that there were enough mailers in each of those buildings
to sort of have, you know, like a one unit to one mailer ratio occur.
And I suppose that helped because we had our second meeting two weeks later.
We had increased attendance.