on january 26th of 2022 this property owner is a known quantity in in this part of the city and to
the 32nd Democratic Ward. They embrace the situation of allowing for the increased density
to three units each, and because of that, there's a letter of non-opposition from the 32nd Democratic
Ward. Again, not uncommon to allow for triplexes on this block. Similarly, situated properties,
2031, North Carlisle Street is a triplex. 2036, North Carlisle Street is a triplex. 2038,
North Carlisle Street is a triplex. 2039 North Carlisle Street is a triplex. 2041 North Carlisle
Street is a triplex. 2043 North Carlisle Street is a triplex. And 2050 North Carlisle Street is
a triplex. Again we try to match apples to apples here so our request is not uncommon to what's
already on that block. Maps of the area as you can see this is a highly dense part of the city
Philadelphia, again, to help Temple University with housing for their students. That's why this
particular portion of the neighborhood, which is just off of Broad Street, is SPINS. We're also
uh is spins we're also surrounded by rm1 as well as cmx two and a half from a google maps
surrounded by RM1.
perspective you can see that we're just off of north broad street again in the heart of the uh
portion of you know for housing for temple students photographs of this block to the right of the
property to the left of the property and then our plans and drawings each one has their own site
plan as well as one combined floor plan but as you can see you know we are well within the
dimensional requirements of the zoning code that's why we have no dimensional variances
it's going to make this a little bit smaller we have sizable backyards we meet the rear yard
setback requirements and the height requirements all of these would be brick facades three-story
structures again this is 2046 and then 2048 all the site plans that were submitted to LNI as part
of this process and again just to quickly go through the floor plans again what we're trying
to do here is have you know again not load up this property with bedrooms uh to meet the you know
obviously we're not trying to do group living here we acknowledge that we're we are not allowed
more than three unrelated people uh so some students want their own bedroom some students
want uh to share bedrooms for cost efficiency purposes we gave that opportunity by having two
bedrooms and two baths for each of the units so you see each of the properties next to each other
each have first floor two bedrooms two baths that's you know number one and then if you look
at the second floor same type of floor plan two bedrooms two baths for the second unit
and two bedrooms two baths for the third unit
and then you'll see that you know we will be met with the community
we sent separate notices for each property
this is the notice that we sent for 2044 we met on january 26 at 2022 at 6 p.m here's our notice
of refusal we sent that notice to 115 addresses and here are the addresses
and so on and so on it's going to change up and just you know skip this just go to rd just to
show who the owner of the property is or properties as you can see it's north side rentals as well as
in Carlisle Street. And these are the deeds of the property.
And then our certificate of tax clearance, most importantly, showing that, you know,
my client Northside Rental LLC is in good standing with the city of Philadelphia as to all three
properties. With that being said, I'm going to stop sharing my screen. I could always share my
screen afterwards if needed. I have Mr. Al Saeed on the Zoom call. Mr. Al Saeed, can you virtually
raise your hand? Yes. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Omar Al-Sayed, O-M-A-R, last name A-L-S-A-Y-Y-E-D. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Proceed. Thank you. Mr. Al-Said, you heard
everything I stated today. Yes. And is it true and correct? Yes. And do you adopt it as your own
testimony? Yes. Thank you very much. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman.
mr chairman questions from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission
i'm gonna have to noon noon chairman members of the board ian litwin planning commission staff
the comprehensive plan recommends these properties for residential multi-family use
the current zoning present represents clear hardship preventing their reuse however if
preventing their reuse however if these lots were zoned rm1 the applicants will be allowed
If these lots were zoned RM1, the applicants would be
two units in each building three units are more than the minimum required to grant relief
so the city planning commission recommends the board grant the use finances
for all of the carlisle street properties but with a maximum of two units in each building
mi 2021 004756 2046 carlisle mi 2021 004750 2048 carlisle mi 2021 004 748 2044 carlisle
I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes on all three.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes on all three.
James Snell, yes to all three.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes to all three.
Tanya, do we need to put a proviso in to make sure it's limited to two bare rooms, as the planning commission stated?
i'm not i'm not sure they have to do the two bedrooms i think the issue would be
that the city code says no more than three people am i right and i think that's what the attorney
so that was the recommendation of planning commission however you all get to make that
determination and the chair decided not to so it's as you all wish uh yes mr chair that's correct
thank you
MI 2021-004-753-460 Lyceum Avenue
RCO letter of opposition Alan Nockamson
all right thank you Mr. Chair just state your name you've already been sworn
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Alan, A-L-A-N, last name, Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA, 19109.
The vice chair has several questions.
Thank you.
Alan, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
It appears that you have sent in all of the required documents. Is that correct?
That is correct.
okay you may proceed thank you thank you may i share my screen yes you may yes thank you
all right so i'm here to present 4460 lysum avenue in our presentation materials we'll go
over the notice of refusal the correspondence that we received from central roxborough civic
Association, permit number 289150, maps of the area, which includes the Atlas map as well as
the Google map to show where we are in Roxborough, photographs of the property in the surrounding
area, our plans and drawings, proof that we had a meeting with the coordinating RCO and the
community, as well as proof that we mailed notice of that community meeting to the affected
properties. Our application for appeal, our deed to the property, showing that Goldilocks
properties is the owner of the property, and our certificate of tax clearance showing that the
property owner is a good standing. On the line, I have a representative from the property owner,
Laura Feldman, who will adopt my testimony. So the notice of refusal. This is an RSA-3 property.
Even though this is an RSA 3 property and we're asking for two units, this property, if you look back at the zoning history, has been multi-units since 1975.
It's been a doctor's office on the first floor, and on the upper floor, it's been a residence.
Due to an unfortunate fire, the property had to go through significant structural improvements, and as part of that process, my client has desired to, instead of having a doctor's office there, put a residence there.
Pre-pandemic, she lost her tenant, the doctor's office there, and has been unable to get anyone who would be interested in making that a doctor's office.
Just a matter of background, my client purchased this property in 2014 for $170,000.
The Office of Property Assessment has this property assessed as fair market value of $181,400.
So her hardship here is that to require her to put a single family house here, which through no fault of her own is required under RSA three and prior to the fire, she had two units in there, like would be a significant hardship because she wouldn't be able to, to actually, you know.
would be a significant hardship because she wouldn't be able to actually handle all of the repair work in there.
It would decrease her value of her property significantly when she bought it for $170,000 as a multi-unit structure.
So all she's trying to do is really essentially swap out the commercial component with the residential component.
So the correspondence from Central Roxborough Civic Association, they did vote in opposition to this project. They did acknowledge that this property has been multi-unit for some time.
And, you know, if you look at the records since 1975, did acknowledge that there are some multifamily structures in this neighborhood, not a lot, but enough to show that it's not out of character and that we actually border a commercial corridor on Ridge Avenue, as you'll see from the photos, to help support that.
A couple other things to note, and we'll go through the maps, is that there's significant public transportation around there to allow for this density to be used.
So, again, our permit, this is 1981, this permit, but I did look on the city's website just before the hearing.
There's another permit in 1975.
So, for almost 50 years, this property has been used multi-units.
So it would be out of character to force my client, due to unforeseen circumstances, to revert it back to single family.
That would be a significant hardship, which would dramatically affect the fair value of her property.
Maps of the area.
So here's from an Atlas standpoint.
Again, we're just off of Ridge Avenue.
I think a better depiction is the Google map.
You can see that there is much, much commercial usage around here.
There's a shopping center, which I happened to go to recently, just randomly.
And I was like, oh, wait, this four-city Lycum is right here.
But, you know, there's a UPS store, a Starbucks, a diner, an Acme, multiple bus lines.
There's the 9, the 32, the 27, the 35.
So, you know, something like this, from a planning perspective, to support a commercial
corridor like this is not uncommon to increase have increased densities for multifamily use
photographs of the property again it's it's a three-story structure um all we're trying to do
is literally swap out the commercial component with residential you know like them avenue to
the right of the property to the left of the property and again if you can see on that block
There is a nearby triplex. We're not trying to do a triplex. We're just trying to do a duplex, but 471 Lycombe Avenue is a triplex.
And then just our plans and drawings, I'm just going to decrease the size so we can all see it on the single page.
But again, a couple things to note. My client has no living in the basement, has no desire to have living in the basement.
All she wants to do is convert that first floor, that was a doctor's office, into a two-bedroom, one-bath unit, and then basically rehabilitate the second unit, which is on the second and third floors, which will also be a two-bedroom, one-bath.
and again our notice that we had sent to the affected properties
but you can see that we met on January 6, 2022 at 7 30 p.m. for this property 460 Lycombe
street avenue there are 99 properties which were deemed effective properties by the city planning
commission these are the addresses of these properties and this is our proof of mailing
our application for appeal to the zba
along with our project information form,
and then our deed to the property,
showing that Goldilocks Properties LLC
is the owner of the property since 2014,
when they purchased it for $170,000.
And then our certificate of tax clearance
showing that they're in good standing
with the city of Philadelphia.
With that being said, I believe that Ms. Feldman is on the line. I would ask for her to virtually raise her hand. Now, I know that she's had connectivity issues, so I'm not 100% sure if she's on, but I did talk to her beforehand.
With that being said,
I believe that Ms. Feldman is on the line.
Any hands up?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Okay, Alan, you're moved to the court.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Alan, what condition is the building in now?
So fire issue?
Honestly, she's waiting for the board to decide.
But right now, it's standing.
It's a shell.
And the other thing is the lot's over 3,000 square feet, just, you know, just to put that in perspective.
So she's just waiting for the board to decide this issue before she, you know, does the building, gets a building permit, obviously.
Questions from the virtual audience or comments?
Chair, we have someone by the name of Ms. McCarthy.
Ms. McCarthy, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Ms. McCarthy, state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please.
Mary T. McCarthy, M-C-C-A-R-T-H-Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
I've been a resident here for 70 years.
It has been single for practically most of our time living here.
We have already a problem of parking here.
if they put it in two that means really four more parking spaces because people from the area
come to this street and get the bus into center city every day so they come at 6 30 7 o'clock
they will not come back until 6 30 or 7 so if i for instance i happen to be 96 years old
if i would go on an urn there is no parking spot or if i go to my church which is 7 a.m
When I come back, there is not a spot and those cars do not move until the people come out to work.
So there is a major problem here.
And I believe that it should not be put in with two families because that would be at least four more parking spots that we don't have right now.
So that's my objection to it being to two.
Since I came here, it has always been doctor's offices with one person living there.
Thank you, Mrs. McCarthy, for calling in.
Thank you very much.
Any other questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Board,
Ian Litwin, Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the residential single family zoning of this property.
However, given the location and history of this property,
the Planning Commission recommends that the Board
grant the variance for two dwelling units.
mi 2021 004 753 460 lyceum avenue i vote yes carol tenary my vote is yes
thomas holland my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. MI 2021-004814, 5558 Carlson Street, RCO 12th Ward, Democratic
Letter of Support, Councilwoman Bass, non-opposition. Charbonne and Kenyatta Anderson.
Charbonne, and Kenyatta Anderson.
Are there any hands up?
Yes, and they're coming in now as a panelist.
Thank you.
hello good
can you guys hear me yeah i can state your name and spell for the court reporter
my name is charbonate anderson first name c-h-a-r-b-o-n-e anderson a-n-d-e-r-s-o-n
and you're going to do the testifying yes okay do you swear or affirm to tell the truth