in the development of that site. The zoning records are at the ancestor address, 3742 Main
Street. In those records, you'll see an agreement between the developer tower investments and the
three civic associations where they supported the development and the similarities between
that development and this proposed development of 40 uh 45 are remarkable with both south one
main street was south of shores lane uh they're both in industrially zoned so they both included
a change in use to an unpermitted use residential and they're both in the flood plain the bridge
five building uh was approved for 75 feet and seven stories the similarities are remarkable
it's been a landmark on main street bridge five has for more than 20 years uh and it's great to
have that development on the south side i want to support what the pastor said a minute ago
thank you thank you very much uh one more hand please
Yes, Jeff Woolery. I will promote him.
Yes, good afternoon. Can you hear me?
Hi, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, Jeff Woolery, Jeff G-E-O-F-F-W-O-O-L-E-R-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Jeff, are you a neighbor?
Yes, I live in Maniunk on Venice Island.
Right.
Are you in favor of this project or against?
I am against it.
You've heard a lot of testimonies or anything you can tell us differently relative to the
height? I just wanted to say, I don't know if it's different, but I certainly support development
in that area as has been talked about by many people and think continued development in
particular that end of Main Street is welcome. It is simply the height that I think is much
higher than it needs to be as other testimony has come in. And so I'd love to see the area
developed. I just think the height is too much for that end of town. Thank you. Thank you very
much for taking the time to call us. We appreciate it. Is there any other hands? No further hands,
Mr. Chair. Planning Commission. Michael Gall with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing I2 medium industrial zoning at this
location. However, this was placed due to the active industrial use of the property at the
time of the writing of the district plan. Since then, the industrial uses here have closed.
Similarly, the character of Lower Main Street has evolved over time, and industrial uses are
becoming increasingly rare as the land use has shifted primarily to a mix of commercial and
residential uses. The additional height at this location would not fit the character of the
immediately surrounding area, and there is still not sufficient evidence to support the additional
height requested. This is especially due to the property's low relative base flood elevation and
its high potential for height-related impacts to the rights to light and air of nearby residential
and commercial properties, which are much closer in proximity to the proposed building here at
4045 to 61 Main Street than at similar approved variances for tall residential conversions
elsewhere along Lower Main. Therefore, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission stands
by its original recommendation and recommends the board deny the reconsidered request of the
variance proviso for building height. May I have a 90 second closing, Mr. Chairman? You can take
120. 120. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, since Hurricane Ida, there have been several
attempts to redevelop this site. All have been unsuccessful. The site is burdened by a significant
flood elevation. It is pinned in by rock outcropping in an elevated railroad. It is subject to the
Maniank Historic Main Street Historic District Controls, which further limit what can be done
with an already compromised site. Fortunately, in this instance, the Philadelphia Historical
Commission has endorsed the proposal that is pending before this board in full. PHC recognized
the appropriateness of the height, as well as the massing at this location, which has been embraced
which has been embraced by neighbors, near neighbors, immediately adjacent across the street,
by neighbors, near neighbors, immediately adjacent across the...
not those who have to walk several blocks to actually see the site.
The scant opposition seems to be, as a matter of principle, which I respect,
but those who are not immediately vested.
Maniank Development Corporation and a Maniank Special Services District
have extensively reviewed and endorsed the proposed plans.
there's an unprecedented level of support by those most impacted, including the House of
Worship across the street. There is a record of both current and historical precedents
for supporting the height of this project, whether we look towards Bridge 5 condominiums
located 0.3 miles to the east, seven stories and 75 feet in height, or historically to the
Economy Mills and Schuylkill Mills complex, 0.1 miles away and eight stories high. The proposed
project itself includes second floor rear parking. Why? This is the only practical responsible use
for the second floor due to the tall rock outcropping, the flooding concerns. Residences
that would have otherwise been located in this area and would have been at any other site have
been relocated to the proposed seventh floor, permitting the project to have a sufficient unit
yield to create the necessary financial return based on conventional market industry standards
to construct this project. But the heart of this matter is a true hardship at this site
in ways that are quite unusual. The impact of the 60-foot height limitation would pose a true
challenge and clearly reduce the project by one full floor. The development team and their
consultants and new information that you saw this morning attempted to develop a viable project
with that height limitation in place but were unable to do so. We looked at a typical five
over one construction type as well as the atypical actually four over two. Both options would result
in below market expectations below the threshold to justify construction and to take on the
development risk. In closing, the team also looked to shrink the seven-story project to adhere to
the 60 feet unsuccessfully. The few inches of height for each floor would not reduce this
to that proviso. Urban conversions has been a reliable steward when it comes to preserving
Mount Young's historic character. They have won numerous Preservation Alliance awards, for example.
they previously redeveloped two mounting on properties to national park service
historic standards the same mindset would be brought to this project we hope to have that
opportunity thank you mr chairman and thank you um we're going to vote on this on october 1st at
9 30 a.m after a discussion um in the executive session i want to thank your presentation john
i want to thank your presentation for coming in purpose and person and we're going to move on
thank you thank you hillary we have about five cases left i think around yeah and i'm gonna i'm
gonna get try to get the one now well so it's number 16 we had a request um because they are
in court if we could go ahead with that one okay mr chair this is ian hegarty executive director
just a reminder we do have a hard stop at 1 p.m for staff i'm aware thank you that's why i was
trying to just making everybody aware thank you chair devins hillary yes mr chair all right so
mi 2025 001 611 1323 north 49th street devin upta is the attorney um there's unanimous non-opposition
from cathedral park community development total of three votes
You'll be rejoining as a panel shortly, Mr. Chair.
Hillary, after this, should I list the cases we're carrying over?
Should we just say all cases that are left?
We'll hear it, too.
I mean, we can see how long this takes.
There's another case in the list that has said it's very quick.
I'm just pulling that up now.
But we can see where we're at after this.
You heard Ian, right?
Oh, I know.
I know.
you you heard and and you know i have cheryl next to me too so
we're not messing with anyone's lunch don't worry
uh good morning mr chairman good morning board hi devon could you please state your name and
spell for the stenographer devon uqdah right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth uh firm yes could you identify your client a relationship
to the property uh michael carter he is the sole member of the llc that owns the
uh michael carter he is the sole member of the llc that owns the property sure and tenetta graham
has a few questions good afternoon have you submitted your documents five days in advance
of this hearing yes and do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
yes okay thank you you may share your screen and proceed with your case one second sorry
How are we doing, Devin?
It's coming up, Devin.
Coming up. All right. Let me know when you can see it, please.
Sure. And Devin, we have all of your paperwork. Why don't you go to the
the refusal and start your presentation.
Okay. So this is the letter of refusal. So the property
address is 1323 North 49th Street. This
property is currently RSA 5 residential, single family residential.
The letter of refusal states that for the proposed use of two-family household
living within an existing structure. Sorry, just like AI
stuff. Sorry.
i'll propose uh for the pros use of two-family household living within an existing structure
so this pro this property is you know a single family house it always has been
basically set up as a duplex so we're trying to legalize it
why don't you show us some photos please sure it's the de we have all your we have all your
paperwork uh surrounding property so this is a presentation that was given to the rco
This is the address legalization of existing property.
This is the layout of the museum out some so you can see it.
so here is
i'm gonna go to the first floor i apologize it went down really quickly when i
all right so property this is the front of property the exterior of the property
um it's two floors this is the first pictures of the first floor as you can see the property's
already completed it's additional pictures of the first floor so it's one bathroom it's a kitchenette
the bedrooms this is the second floor which is another unit stairs that go up bedrooms hallway
again this is a kitchenette it's one bathroom and a bedroom um i also have a floor plan
right here so you can see this is the first floor floor plan it's one bedroom again the kitchen i
saw one bathroom in the living room there's the first floor and the steps that go up
there's the second floor again two bedrooms bathroom it's a little kitchenette living room
and these are the stairs that come up from the first floor it's another picture of the exterior
that we went through so it's one bare one bedroom on the first floor one bath second floor is two
bedrooms um one bath both have the kitchenette um justification is basically you want to legalize
it because it's not new construction property was acquired the property was acquired by the
owner under an llc when it was acquired it was already set up as a duplex so we're seeking to
legalize it it's going to be additional affordable housing in the union in the unit i mean in the
neighborhood i apologize since it was already used as a duplex when he acquired it so it's like
no significant increase in traffic.
He did send out notices with the proof of notices to the neighbors.
Devin, people on either side, are they in favor of this?
Yeah, so he has no opposition.
He has no opposition to this.
I believe, and I mean, a good part, in his defense,
a good portion of the block is also vacant property.
and there's commercial space across the street so it's not like it's residential
on both sides across the street is like a corner store and
some apartments above and then the end of the block
is also commercial I think it's like a tire shop
there's proof of posting at the property
Devin there's no
there's no there's no living or any household living in the basement am i correct no no sir
no no no chairs no living in a basement it's a letter of support
why don't you bring your client on sure uh mr clark
he should be in the audience
It's been coming back in as a panel shortly.
Thank you.
I got it.
Yes, hello. Good morning.
Hi, Mr. Carter, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Michael Clark, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, Clark, C-L-A-R-K-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, Devin.
Mr. Clark, can you state your relationship to the property?
I'm the owner of the property.
By, through what?
Through a single member LLC.
And did you hear my testimony?
Yes, I did.
And do you agree that it was truthful and accurate?
Yes, sir.
And will you adopt my testimony?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No questions.
when did you purchase the property?
I believe I purchased this property back in 2015 or 16.
And we're just asking to legalize this now?
Yes, ma'am.
It was one of the situations where I needed to be compliant with the city of Philadelphia