Okay, Chair, we have six, excuse me, 17 attendees.
You can proceed as you wish.
Okay. Good morning. My name is Ishmael Shaheed, and I will be chairing this morning's ZBA board meeting. With me is board member Cheryl Gaskin.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board member Tanetta Grant.
Chairman.
Board member Michael Johns.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And board member Taiya Nguyen.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also, here is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and deputy director of planning and zoning, Kathleen Grady.
Here is our virtual format. The proceeding is being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting the ZBA executive director at zbaexecutivedirectoratphilly .gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask that attorney and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating by phone, please press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, please call 267 -270 -5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
Finally, the question box on the screen is not for testimony, testimonials.
All questions should be directed to our executive director, Kathleen Grady.
We're going to move right into our, we have no add -ons today.
We're going to move right into the regular list.
Number one, MI -2022 -007283, 500 -510 South Broad Street, Michael Mattione.
We're going to call also number two, MI -2022 -003 -284 -500 -510 -South Broad Street, as well, same attorney, Michael Maglione.
Good morning, this is Jasmine, I will be the co -host for today.
Michael Maglione has been allowed to speak.
Good morning, counsel.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Can you please identify your name, spell it, or the court reporter, please?
Certainly. Michael Mattioni, M -A -T -T -I -O -N -I.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Can you identify your client?
Certainly. It's a Symphony House condominium.
Do you agree to swear? Excuse me.
That's all right.
This is the fifth listing, so we are going to continue this for the last and final time.
It must be heard on the next hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
MI -2022 -003283 and MI -2022 -007284 is being continued.
Thank you.
number five
MI -2023 -006 -201
2940 East
Tioga Street
this case is being
continued attorney moving party
and now we're going to go to
number six
MI -2024
4 -003 -295, 229 West Roosevelt Boulevard, Abdullah Ali or Ahmed Jani, we have no exhibits.
Ahmed Jani has been allowed to speak.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Yes, how are you, sir?
I'm here. Hello?
Hello?
Hello?
I don't...
Now I see.
Now I see.
Take your name and spell it for the court reporter, please.
My name is Ahmed Johnny.
A -H -M -E -D
J -O -N -N -Y.
You're ready to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
All right. I'm here trying to legalize
an existing single -family house
to be zoned for a duplex.
Mr. Johnny, this case is going to have to be continued, but we have not received any exhibits.
This is the first listen. Just want to let you know we're going to continue this case,
but we definitely need all of the information that is needed to proceed with this case.
We have the letter of support from the RCO.
Yeah, but we haven't received all of the information in our offices as of yet. So we
need to make sure that information is received in before we can proceed with this case.
so it's going to be rescheduled yes it's going to be continued uh you will get a letter in the mail
from this day board uh on the next date schedule okay and mr johnny um this is hillary board
council um please reach out to the zoning board office we'll put the number in the chat they can
provide you with more information about the documents you need to have ready in order to
proceed at your next hearing date. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. MI -2024 -003295
cases being continued. First listing. All right, going back to number three.
mi -2023 -005620708 samson street meredith ferlinger uh is the attorney
miss ferlinger meredith ferlinger
Good morning, Council. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. How are you? I'm fine, thank you.
Let's meet your name and spell it for the court reporter. Sure. Meredith Ferliger, F -E -R -L -E -G -E -R.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I sure do. Do you identify your client?
Sure. My client is J .R. Sanson Partners, LLC, which is the owner of this property.
This is for the erection of an attached high -rise structure with skyplanes, options with a roof, decks, and balcony.
Counselor, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I did.
Please proceed, Counselor.
thank you just give me one moment to get organized i'm recusing myself from this uh
yeah so mr johns will be uh recusing himself from this case thank you
okay mr vice chairman members of the board uh this morning we've submitted to you a detailed
exhibit packet that contains 19 exhibits, which we, of course, would request that they be moved
into evidence at the conclusion of our presentation today. These exhibits reflect the project as
originally designed, as well as reflect changes that have been made since the board was originally
scheduled to hear this case back in June. Since that time, you'll be pleased to know that the
development team can report that the original letter of non -opposition from Washington Square
West Civic Association has now also been joined with a letter of no objection from Society Hill
Civic Association. Given this positive development, we will try and keep the presentation as brief as
possible, while still also respecting the scale of this proposed development does still require
quite an extensive presentation. The packet includes standard information, including
updated evidence of tax clearance at Exhibit 2, as well as the owner's deed to the property
at Exhibit 3. That deed shows that J .R. Sansom, which I'll refer to generally today as Pearl
Properties, acquired the property from Toll Washington Square LP on January 9, 2023.
As mentioned, Exhibit 17 shows a ladder of non -opposition from both RCOs that have boundaries covering this project.
This first one is for Washington Square West, and the second.
This first one is for Washington Square West, and the second one is the letter from Society Hill
Civic showing no objection. Prior to coming before this board, the project has completed
its required reviews by both the Philadelphia Historical Commission as well as the City
Planning Commission Civic Design Review Committee, in addition to several informal and formal meetings
with Washington Square West Civic Association and Society Hill Civic Association.
Those completion letters are also included in the packet at Exhibits 18 and 15, respectively.
By way of some background, the property before the board today is located at 708 Sansom Street
along the city's famous Jewelers Row. The board may recall that the property is current vacant land
and was previously the subject of a high -rise apartment building development for which Toll
Brothers obtained full zoning, historic, and building approval, but was tabled due to capital
market conditions. After nearly 10 years since the project first started and four years since
the lot became vacant and unused, Pearl Property's newly envisioned project follows extensive
of discussions, including various informal discussions and public meetings with neighborhood
stakeholders, and reflects Pearl's commitment to respect and enliven the Jewelers Row Corridor
while blending with the surrounding neighborhood comprised of buildings of mixed character and mass
in and around Washington Square. The basis for relief before the board today is actually fairly
minor given the scale of this project. As the refusal and referral at Exhibit 1 show,
one referral was issued for the proposed above -ground accessory parking garage.
Two refusals were issued, one for exceeding maximum gross floor area due to the above -ground
accessory parking garage, calculated as floor area ratio, and one for insufficient dry vial
inside the garage. We did submit a set of revised plans and a revised plan proviso form to the board
today of three total pages. I'll walk the board through some basic context. As you can see from
the zoning map at Exhibit 6, the property and the surrounding neighborhood are largely zoned CMX 5
or Commercial Mixed Use 5, which you know is the densest zoning classification available under the
zoning code. The board may note that the single zoning lot for this property is constituted as
a master condominium, which includes the land at 708 Sansom Street. This master condominium is
between Pearl Properties and the adjacent building, commonly known as 714 Sansom Street.
Referring to the general overhead aerial views at Exhibit 6, the board will note that this is a
vacant lot with dual frontage on Sansom Street and there's a little sliver here that's a little
hard to see from the aerial on 7th Street as well. The property is just west of the Curtis Center
which you can see in this image. On this next southern view the board will recognize the
Jewelers Roadblock. We have also included a view from the west facing the Curtis Center where you'll
see the edge of Washington Square, which is to the southeast of this property.
These next views are slightly more illustrative in terms of showing the context of the site
in relation to its surrounding neighborhood. The high rise to the southwest is the St. James,
and you can see that here in this image and also here in this image.
Excuse me, Ms. Furliger, I believe one of our board members has a question at this time.
Board member Wynne.
Sorry, Hillary. I accidentally hit that button.
Okay. All right. Never mind.
If anybody does have a question while I'm talking, please feel free to stop me. This is obviously a very large project.
All right. Please continue.
you. No problem. From an overhead view here, the board will discern that this is an irregularly
shaped lot with a wide L shape that includes the small portion I mentioned along South 7th Street.
Finally, we did also include a general neighborhood context map,
just to give you a sense of where this project sits in relation to the surrounding area.
Looking more closely, we have also included site photographs at Exhibit 19.
The first view here is from the Sansom Street frontage.
The first view here is from the Sansom Street frontage.
This small historic structure at the corner is not included in this proposed development.
This next image here, which is a sheet from the Civic Design Review presentation, provides
several additional views of the property, both from Sansom Street and the 7th Street
intersection, as well as additional views from Sansom Street and north and south along 7th
Street. So this is really, this first one is right at the corner. This is looking north on 7th Street,
right in front of Curtis Center. This is looking northwest on south 7th Street towards that
historic building on the corner. And then this one is looking east on Sansom Street.
This section of South 7th Street is one -way heading towards Sansom Street.
You can see that with the cars here heading up towards Sansom Street.
Sansom Street also further follows a one -way traffic pattern heading west.
We've included some additional views on the next page here.
And again, these are just some additional views on Sansom Street, looking west.
And then this is directly in front of the portion of the property that fronts on South 7th Street.
So you can see it's a fairly small piece that creates that L onto South 7th Street.
The zoning posters were timely posted and updated on September 2nd, 2024.
And we've included images in the exhibits for reference.
At this point, I would like to ask our architecture representatives from DAS to join me so that they can actually walk you through this proposal.
So if the administrator could look for Dave Schultz.
David Schultz has been allowed to speak.
Hello.
Can you hear me?
we can hear you if you can get a little bit closer to the microphone okay
is that better yes sir please state your name and spell it for the court reporter please
my name is david a schultz spell it for the court reporter please uh schultz is s -c -h -u -l -t -z
you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel
Thank you. David, could you just identify your profession, generally speaking?
Sure. I'm a registered architect in Pennsylvania. I've been practicing in Pennsylvania for 41 years. I'm also NCARB certified.
And you've been practicing in Philadelphia for a significant amount of time?
I have.
We started our business 41 years ago.
I'm a partner in DAS Architects.
We're actually based in Philadelphia.
We have done literally hundreds of projects in the Philadelphia area.
And we've also done several high -rise projects in Center City.
We did the Hyatt Centric, the Cambria Hotel at Bron and Locus, the Beacon at 16th and Walnut.
the Harper Project, the 19th and Sansom, the Granary, and others.
Thank you. All right, I'd like to walk you through some plans so you can share with the
Board the details of this proposal. So let's start first with Exhibit 5, which is up on the screen,
which is the site survey. Could you use this exhibit and just generally describe the site
in terms of its size and shape? Sure. As you noted, it's an L -shaped site with frontage on
Sansom Street and 7th Street to the right. It is a slight L and it's it's it consists of 12 ,440
square feet. When you were retained to design this project for Pearl Properties was the site vacant
or did it contain any structures? It was completely vacant actually excavation had already occurred.
All right. Let's start with Exhibit 7 here, which is the zoning site plan.
I believe you already mentioned this, but could you just recap? How big is this lot?
12 ,440 square feet.
And that also includes the full boundary of the master condominium parcel. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Can you just generally describe the proposed project that is reflected on the zoning plans?
And while you do that, please touch on the changes that were made since the original hearing date in June.
Sure. The building, it's a 34 -story residential building, 403 feet, 6 inches tall. It'll contain 99 residential units, 50 parking spaces, and one interior loading space.
Sure. The building, it's a 34 -story residence.
The changes, I think we'll talk more about the changes since the prior hearing in a moment, but in general, it was just really changing the garage to an elevator garage versus a ramped garage and providing access to residents from the lobby onto Sanson Street.
Thank you. What is the total proposed gross floor area and what does that translate to in terms of floor area ratio?
So the total area of the building is 185 ,688 square feet, and that calculates to 1 ,493%.
Now, aside from the items that are listed in the referral and the refusal, was the project otherwise designed to comply with all applicable provisions of the zoning code?
Yes, it is.
All right, turning to, and again, this is the revised proviso plan. So you can see here, this was the original plan, and this is the revised proviso plan reflecting that parking elevator, as well as that entrance. And we'll touch on some of these in an additional moment.
All right. So turning to the floor plates and parking diagrams, and again, I'll just bring up the revised version of these. Can you describe generally the interior floor breakdown, starting with the cellar level?
Sure. The cellar level, I don't know if you want to show that.
Yeah, you know what, I'll bring this up.
That's helpful.
As you can see, it's a fairly small, below -grade cellar space.
It's really to accommodate utilities and some storage, and of course, the building core.
We've pulled it back significantly from the neighboring properties to avoid underpinning any sort of risk to those buildings.
So it's much smaller than the actual property footprint.
All right, I'm moving along to the second floor.
So this is showing the problem.
Okay, this is the new version.
The garage now is going to be served by an elevator.
It is a completely valet garage.
It won't be open to the public.
And you can see there's valet spaces throughout.
throughout there's three levels of parking in the project and it will be completely valet.
So, so, Councilor, I have one question. Are these 11 parking spaces as well as the
three electrical parking spaces? Are they within side of the 50 or outside?
They are. They're included in the 50. So it's 50, it's 50 total spaces with, you know, with valet
spaces it's always a little bit strange in terms of space numbers because of course in practice
valet garages you know typically operate uh and and they they typically try and fill as many spaces
as they can but in this case it is 50 spaces that have been marked out to accommodate those valet
operations and that's also consistent with the requirement it's a little bit above the requirement
for this property, but I hope that answers the question. Yeah, sure. David, if you could,
right now I have up here the second floor plan. If you can generally talk about the third floor
and the fourth floor, if there's anything different or notable to mention to the board.
No, it still operates as a valet garage. We still have the core for the building and
And now that we do not have a ramp, we have a little bit extra storage and maintenance space that's provided.
Do you want to talk about the requirements for parking?
So I was going to just ask you, is parking required for the project?
Yes, parking is required.
The code requires 0 .3 or 3 per 10 parking spaces per unit.
So that's equivalent to 30 spaces.
um we've provided 50 spaces in this proposal now do the drive aisles that are leading to the
parking spaces do those drive aisles comply with the minimum required dimensions in the code
so for example the drive aisle that would lead out of the vehicle elevator up to where the
parking spaces would begin yes they do it's a minimum of 18 feet which is what we're proposing
Yes, they do. It's a minimum of 18 feet, which is what we're proposing.
We'll see you next time.
Thank you. And I believe that you already mentioned this, but in addition to removing the ramp and adding the vehicle elevator, were there any other changes made to the parking layouts since the June hearing date?
I don't believe so.
now when designing the project did you conduct a review of tolls prior plans and approval for the
site we did yes did that project provide any on -site parking it did not it relied entirely
on off -site parking okay let me turn to exhibit 13 which provides a rendering of tolls prior
project for this site. David, were you familiar with this particular rendering?
I have seen it before, yes. Okay. And again, Board, this is just for informational purposes,
as we get into our own renderings, for you to see the quite significant difference between this
prior project that was approved for this site compared to Pearl Properties' version, which
has been substantially changed in terms of design all right if we can turn back to exhibit nine
briefly um can you just share with the board the breakdown of the units range of sizes and
amenities generally sure um the building is uh is as a small footprint it's a fairly narrow
high -rise building. The total residential units are 99 total units. They're larger units than
typically you find in a residential building, and most every unit has a corner,
which we thought was important, and you'll see a variety of balconies on the various corners of
the building. The unit sizes range from 700 square feet to 3 ,000 square feet, and so it's a one -bedroom
all the way up to a four -bedroom unit, and again, many of them have terraces.
And what about amenities? I just wanted to say at the very top of the building, there's
double penthouses with terraces. Yeah, there's amenities. If you can go back a few slides
to the amenity floor, which is floor five.
You can see, there you go.
You can see there's a 2 ,400 square foot amenity space,
which will be developed into a lounge
and kind of a game and relax area.
And then there is a three -sided wraparound terrace
that will be heavily landscaped.
And that's it, the fifth story of the building.
There will be views of the park, and that will be a primary amenity for the building.
Thank you.
All right, turning to Exhibit 7, I'll bring up the skyplane diagram for this project.
Can you just briefly explain to the board what this diagram establishes in terms of zoning compliance?
The sky plane offers an additional way to measure bulk and area in a building.
So just these are illustrations.
The far left is really a profile of the building from Sansom Street.
And you can see that the building has layers to it where we've created some character.
And the base of the building is in line with the adjoining properties, which you'll see more in a moment.
The middle diagram is kind of a section through the building with Sansom Street on the right.
And the way this is calculated, you plot the lines from the center of the street up to the building facade.
And on the far right is what the code provides in terms of blockage.
So up to 80 feet, you're allowed to have 100 % blockage.
and we're providing 91%, so we're less.
And then up to 115 feet, the code allows 85 % blockage.
Our proposal is 73%, again, less than.
And then up to 175 feet, you're allowed 80 % blockage.
Our proposal is 73%.
And from there, up to 340 feet, you're allowed 70 % blockage.
We're proposing 50 % blockage.
So all in all, we're well within the skyplane requirements.
So even with the refusal that this project received for exceeding gross floor area or floor area ratio, this project still complies in
floor area ratio, this project still complies in terms of its overall sky, plane, and height. Is that right?
That's correct.
All right, so let's come back to the elevations.
All right, so let's look at the, let's first look at the rendered ground floor plan.
And this, again, is the revised version.
The original version is up on the screen here.
So we can flip back and forth if it would be helpful to kind of visualize what has changed.
But just to direct your eye, you'll notice most of the changes in the areas surrounding the parking, as well as this retail space and entrance along Sansom Street.
So, David, could you just describe to the board, please, this ground floor design in detail?
and, again, hit on the changes that have been made?
You can see there's a motor court or a motor lobby that's internal to the project,
and that will be treated as a very nice, highly finished space
because it's also how residents will return to their residences.
You'll see at the bottom left there's the elevator, the car elevator,
and then above that is a loading dock.
and then above that is the base building core.
So folks, as they return, they'll drop their cars off for valet,
and they'll walk through the lobby, which you can see.
It gets labeled lobby, and one of the things that's different in this version
is the lobby is now accessible to Sansom Street, so there's cross -circulation.
And then in the pink area, that's the retail space or potential cafe space.
And David, could you just briefly touch on trash storage location in this particular design here?
Sure. Behind the loading facility, there'll be storage containers for trash. Of course,
there'll be maintenance people that handle trash on a daily basis, and it will be wheeled out that
existing alleyway to pick up, private pickup on 7th Street.
Great. Thank you.
All right. All right. Let's turn back to exhibit nine, which will start to give you a more broad
scale view of this building. So exhibit nine, of course, are colored elevations of the buildings,
has all of the materials labeled, and we're certainly happy to come back to these if you
have any questions on the materials. I will note it is important that these renderings have not
been updated to reflect changes that were made to the Sansom Street facade since the June hearing,
but we can show you those changes visually in a moment. So I just want to make sure that it's
clear that the actual renderings were not updated. So at Exhibit 11, we have all of the detailed
renderings that were prepared for this project and you should already start to get a sense of
how significantly changed uh the the visual aspects of this project are from the one that
was previously approved uh so david if you could just uh generally talk about the aesthetics of
this design and you know we can walk them through these renderings as as you're talking about them
Certainly.
As you noted, the base of the building on Sanson Street has been changed, but has not yet been reflected in these renderings.
You can see at the fifth storyline, the building recesses.
There's a significant recess that honors the streetscape and the other buildings on the block.
And then that is also the amenity floor.
That's why there's trees and greenery at that level.
And then above that level, the building has different layers, so the building has interest.
But it's treated with a mahogany color vertical fins that would be made out of metal.
Horizontal trim would be in a dark bronze color.
So fairly muted earth tone colors that we think will blend with the area.
It's not a glass building that was proposed before.
This is really a building with much more character.
In fact, the building as designed, its profile changes as you view it from different sides
because of all the different layers of the building facade and the steps in the building
and the way the fenestration is handled.
You can see balconies are going to be prominent on the exterior as well as those vertical
are going to be prominent on the exterior, as well as those vertical fins will change how you
see the building. They'll also provide shadow and character as sunlight approaches it. And then you
can see that green terrace at the base of the building that will, you know, try to connect us
to the park, frankly. This is a bird's eye view, and you can kind of see it looking down. You can
again see how the building is layered and then at the very bottom how the building the base of the
building is in line with the property but then the building sets back substantially from the street
and we also did not develop this the 7th street side we wanted to keep the tower away from that
and use that as a more chance a more late entrance but there you go that's the motor lobby
It will be open frame, almost like a big pergola, so that light enters that area,
so it would be nice and bright, not a dark space at all. And then we're proposing an artistic
element, sort of a sculptural tree, at the center of that, that will give it some light
and make it unique. Those are, if you want to continue, those are the massing studies.
in the next slides, Mary, that we've done as part of our CDR presentation to just show
how the building relates to the context of the site.
Thank you, David.
And again, there's just another view of those massing studies from a different direction.
That's correct.
All right.
So let's turn back then.
I do have a question.
The parking, again, can we go back a little bit as to how the parking entrance is, the valet parking entrance is going to be?
Absolutely.
No, I just want to make a note so I don't lose track of where I am.
All right.
So let's turn back.
Yeah, David, if you want to use the ground floor plan here and I can, we'll start with this.
and then let me flip back to that second floor
so that that board member Gaston
can kind of visualize how a car would enter.
Excellent.
I'm sorry if I didn't cover that well.
So this is just for residents.
It's not for the public.
So residents would drive into that curb cut
off of 7th Street
and they would go counterclockwise.
I'm sorry, clockwise.
They would go clockwise and stop
and they would be met by the valet.
they would depart the car there
and then the valet would continue clockwise
with the car
into that elevator
and then that elevator would take it up
to whatever level they choose
there's three levels of parking
and then when
you want to have your car
you would call
either call or use an app
to let them know you want your car
brought down in say 10 -15 minutes
and they bring your car
back down to the lobby and they pick you up there okay so then when you when you get to that second
floor obviously it would just be a traditional valet operation the vehicle would exit off that
second floor or third or fourth floor whatever floor that they choose and and it would be you
know traditional valet layout gotcha okay and then when you showed the kind of rendering of
how the parking would look.
Ah, okay.
And that's
that 7th Street there?
This is 7th Street, that's correct.
So this is that entrance from 7th Street,
which is one way headed towards Sansom.
So a car would be coming up this direction,
they would turn into the motor court,
and then they would be met by a valet.
Gotcha.
OK. All right. Thank you. No problem. All right. So let's turn back. I do want to show the board the changes that were made to the Sansom Street facade, since that's, of course, very important.
So, David, if you can just using this image here, can you just explain some of the changes that were made as a result of discussions with the community?
Sure. I think the new design is a little more traditional in nature. So it will blend with some of the existing historic buildings. We're incorporating brick. We sort of match the rhythm of the columns with some of the neighboring buildings.
buildings and the storefront again would be similar to the neighboring buildings there's
a and we have that some created some recesses at the left and right side of
And we have created some recesses at the left and right side of our building to really articulate our building from the neighbors out of respect.
But you can see, by and large, there's a lot of brick.
The tones, the color tones will be similar to the neighboring buildings.
And the top of that area is really set back.
That's where the tower starts.
So we're really lined up as precisely on the heights of the neighboring buildings.
In terms of overall massing, in your opinion as an architect, architect practicing in the city of Philadelphia, do you believe that this building will be out of scale or character with the surrounding neighborhood in light of the additional proposed GFA that was refused by L &I?
I do not.
I think it's going to be, I think it will fit in.
I think primarily because we've respected the neighborhood in terms of the base of the building, and then we've set the tower back both from Sansom Street and from 7th Street.
So it's going to be more of an internal tower to the block.
Now, as we've mentioned, this application requests a variance for exceeding the maximum FAR.
While the code would allow for 1 ,200 percent, this application requests 1 ,493 percent.
Given that Toll's prior approval was granted by Wright, where does the additional necessity for FAR in this iteration largely derive from?
Yeah, it's primarily caused by the fact that we have parking.
We have 21 ,000 square feet of parking, and that counts towards FAR, and that's pushing our FAR calculations up.
So it's primarily the parking and the fact we're not using the ALP portion of the property facing 7th Street.
Thank you.
Board members, I can conclude with David at this point.
Before I move into some argument and then bring up representatives from Pearl Property,
I want to give you the opportunity, if you had any questions for David about anything relating to the design or anything like that,
if you had any questions you wanted to ask him at this point.
I have one quick question. So is that one commercial space or will it be subdivided into several?
Yeah, go ahead, David.
Oh, I'm sorry. It's a fairly small space. It's more than likely going to be one retail or cafe space. Not both. It'd be one tenant.
and that that was really one of one of the more significant changes that was made in this newer
iteration to accommodate that residential lobby entrance from sansom street obviously adding that
that through way from sansom street required that the commercial space be reduced slightly
it was already a small space but now it's really really meant for a cafe or something of that nature
and the fifth floor amenity space is going to be trees and things like this like more like a
park sort of yes yes that's that's a great way to just describe it so um you can you're just
there you go um the the whole perimeter is a planter so that would be you know for uh for
both shrubbery flowers and trees to try to capture that, the essence of a green terrace.
If you look, if you remember our renderings, we had trees and greenery illustrated. But that is
our client's desire is to create a very special terrace up there that's people for people to
relax and kind of view the park, view the treetops in the park. And is it accessible
for all the
units or just the units
on that? I believe it's for everyone.
It's for all residents
to use. Okay.
That is correct.
And is it going to be like a
I see trees and what have you
is there going to be some
sort of
I don't
I'm not seeing that there'll be
anything other than
And I don't mean, I don't mean it to be, well, I guess what I'm asking is while folks are there sitting around in this space, is there going to be any way for them to have food, drinks, anything?
And board member Gasson, if you wouldn't mind, I can have representatives from Pearl Properties answer that question.
And board member Gasson, if you wouldn't mind, I can have a representative.
They have several buildings in Philadelphia that they have built and amenitized.
If you would prefer, I can bring somebody up now or I can wait and bring them up in a little bit and have them answer that.
We can wait.
Okay, perfect.
I will make sure that we ask them that.
All right. So before I bring up representatives from Pearl Properties to adopt my testimony and answer any additional questions you have relative to building operations or construction, things of that nature, I will conclude briefly as our arguments are largely captured within the Memorandum of Law that I've submitted to the board at Exhibit 14.
We do submit that our witnesses and evidence presented today have conclusively established each basis upon which this property suffers a unique unnecessary hardship leading to the variance request before the board.
We further submit that the evidence presented establishes the applicant's entitlement to special exception relief.
First, in terms of the two requests for variance, the applicant submits to a hardship in light of the zoning code's technical application of dry vial width rules, excuse me, to valet -operated garages.
And let me just bring up an image of one of the floor plans so you can try and get a better sense of what I am arguing here.
the testimony established that the drive aisles are nearly double the required width
leading out of the vehicle elevator into the parking spaces to comply with the code
separate 24 foot wide drive aisles would need to be provided in between all of these valet spaces
which of course would be terribly inefficient and unnecessary given the solely valet operation of
this garage. Unfortunately, the zoning code does not have any provisions that capture this type
of operation. This minor dimensional variance fulfills the spirit of code, which encourages
parking designs that limit impact on neighboring uses, increases safety, shields parking areas,
and allows flexibility in addressing vehicle parking.
This proposed parking meets all of those elements.
The drive aisle variance is the least minimum modification of the code to provide relief.
This is a pure technicality of the code as applied to a valet garage,
and this is not the first time the board has heard and granted relief on an identical basis for a valet garage.
By way of example, for another case I presented to this board, the board granted variance for similar relief for a valet garage at 3025 JFK Boulevard back in 2021, and that information is publicly available on Atlas.
Pearl Properties has significant experience operating garages of this type in other developments
it has in Philadelphia, and that experience will ensure that the valet operations are conducted
safely and efficiently, and we do have representatives that can answer any questions you have from them
on that regard. Now, regarding the gross floor area, the board has heard testimony that the
A roughly 36 ,000 square foot overage in gross floor area derives directly from specific design aspects of the previously approved but unbuilt project that was lacking in on -site parking, as well as design considerations stemming from the irregular shape of the lot.
And just by way of context, the board may or may not recall that Toll Brothers' prior project had no on -site parking, and that was really something that came up in a lot of conversations that Pearl had with the local community when it was looking to design their version of this project.
The board also heard testimony of the applicant's unsuccessful pursuit of additional bonus options that would have rendered this refusal null.
Well, the applicant submits it would not be possible to relocate three floors of parking underground due to the significant excavation that that would entail, which would risk jeopardizing the integrity of surrounding historic structures.
That excavation is also rendered much more challenging given the unusual shape of this lot.
You also saw that the design is meant to not over -excavate this site, specifically to ensure that they can increase the protection of those adjacent structures.
increase the protection of those adjacent structures. Had it been feasible to locate
three floors of parking underground, it would have allowed this parking square footage to be
excluded from the gross floor area calculation. The zoning code encourages additional density
in center city, and this development was designed specifically to address many concerns espoused
during the former development process that was fully entitled and yet unbuilt, given the infeasible
prior design. The slight increase in allowable GFA is the least minimum deviation from the code
to ensure a viable development that more closely aligns with the immediate community's vision for
the Jewelers Row District. In terms of congestion in public streets, public endangerment, neighbors'
use of their properties, overcrowding, environmental impacts, and infrastructure considerations.
I'll incorporate those arguments into the applicant's entitlement for special exception
relief, as the evidence presented has established compliance with each of those considerations
as applicable under both variance and special exception standards.
As mentioned, the application received one referral for the above -ground accessory parking.
As is required by Section 3037E .1 through .3 of the zoning code, as well as Section 803 .1C .4 .b, the above -ground accessory garage is permitted by special exception in the CMX -5 zoning district.
Furthermore, the evidence presented to the board has established that the above -ground
accessory parking will not cause any specific detrimental impacts, provided at Section 3037E .1
through .3, beyond that which might normally be expected from an above -ground garage.
In fact, the evidence has established quite the opposite, that this design will serve
to mitigate impacts that one might normally expect from an above -ground garage, both without
an internal circulation area and one that is not valet -operated and heavily managed.
The requested variances and the special exception will not cause congestion in public streets.
To the contrary, the significant on -site parking, which is required, will mitigate concerns
expressed from the prior development.
The valet design of the garage will facilitate efficient ingress and egress and will ensure the circulation is monitored 24 -7 to avoid any spillover.
At Exhibit 10, the board will see motor court turning plans reflecting feasibility of the proposed design.
Please note that these were not updated to reflect the addition of the vehicle elevator,
and they were also not updated to reflect the clockwise circulation of the motor court.
These motor court plans were prepared under the prior design, which would have created a cross in traffic.
And that was something that was updated based on additional discussions with the community.
The change in circulation aside, these clearly show the efficient operations of this motor
port area.
And the change that has been made would not fundamentally alter the operation that is
shown in this diagram.
There are no other vehicular access points on 7th Street on this block, further limiting
pedestrian and vehicle conflicts.
In addition to the designated loading areas on South 7th Street, the internal loading area will be managed by on -site staff, and Pearl Properties has the necessary experience and expertise to ensure that those operations will not cause any congestion.
And let me just bring this up so, again, you can see the loading areas.
and you can see that right here, which is accessed through the motor port.
Furthermore, as shown on this updated image, Pearl Properties is in the process of pursuing
two additional loading zone areas on 7th Street, which will further contribute towards the
mitigation of any congestion that would be caused by the loading. The applicant has and will
continue to have significant coordination with the streets department, which included a developer
services meeting that was held at the beginning of the development process. Importantly, the access
points in circulation design and loading are not directly relevant to the special exception for an
above -ground garage, as those are concerns that would similarly exist whether or not the garage
whether or not the garage was above grade or below grade.
was above grade or below grade.
The variance and special exceptions sought will not substantially or permanently harm the neighbors' use of their properties,
cause overcrowding, or impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjoining properties.
The evidence established that the proposed building, including the additional GFA,
remains consistent with other dense buildings in this area
and is only a slight increase from the previously approved but disfavored design.
The evidence has established that the significant design and operational considerations have generated this proposed design, which will reduce impacts well below what might be expected from an above -ground design.
Given the scale of the building, the additional GFA will not be discernible, particularly in light of the evidence you heard relative to the skyplane compliance of this project.
The proposal will not place any burden on public facilities, nor will it create any environmental impact.
The proposal continues to undergo review by applicable reviewing agencies, including the Water Department.
Given that a project of similar mass was already reviewed and issued a building permit on this site,
that would have required prerequisite reviews by all applicable city agencies
and the sufficiency of the area infrastructure and utility capacity has already been conclusively
established. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and will directly serve
to heal the void and reinvigorate the Jewelers Row area with additional retail and pedestrian
traffic. Members of the CDR committee in the letter included at Exhibit 15 acknowledged that
this is a much better and more creative proposal than the prior one, and that it will be a quote
asset to the community. We submit the evidence before the board today shows full compliance
with the zoning code, and we respectfully ask that this board grant the requested variances
and special exception for this exciting and transformative development that is quite
literally a decade in the making. At this point, I will bring up Reid Slogoff and or Jim Pearlstein
from Pearl Properties, ask one of them to adopt my testimony, and then I'd be happy to open them
up for any questions the board has about operations or anything that was not addressed.
So if the administrator could look for Reed Slogoff and Jim Pearlstein.
James Pearlstein has been allowed to speak. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Pearlstein. Can
please state your name and spell it for the court reporter sure james james perlstein p -e -a -r -l -s -t -e -i -n
do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes please proceed council
thank you uh jim could you identify yourself in relationship to jr sanson partners llc the owner
of the property um i'm i'm one of the two owners of the property thank you uh and have you heard
all of the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today? Yes. Would you agree
all of that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if you had given it yourself?
Yes. You heard board member Gaston ask earlier about the amenity floor and some of the amenities
that will be provided in this building. Could you just briefly give a little bit more light
to the amenities that you would expect to be in this building? Sure. The amenity floor will be a
really great place for all of our tenants to enjoy and relax and have views of the beautiful park
next door. We'll also have tenant events that we conduct as a management company for the tenants
and we'll also allow them to have friends and family over to enjoy the amenity spaces. So it's
really just a common area that all the tenants can enjoy board members if you have any other
questions for jim at this point i he is available okay so i'm not sure who should answer this
question but um i see that the um there was a letter from the historical commission um
um uh because this the seventh street side of this is is that jeweler's row correct so the the
so let me explain the historical commission briefly so the historical commission reviewed
this proposal ultimately to determine whether or not they would have full jurisdiction or review
and comment jurisdiction over this proposal.
What they ultimately concluded after a very lengthy hearing was that they would only have
was that they would only have review and comment jurisdiction over this proposal under all of the circumstances and the standards that they apply.
review and comment jurisdiction over this proposal.
So they did review it. They did comment on it. But that that is the ultimate scope of their review over this proposal.
And is that because there was no actual facade that they could review?
It has to do with the timing of when the prior building that sat on this lot was not individually designated. That building was demolished by the prior owner, and because it was considered an undeveloped lot in a pending historic district, that ultimately created this area where it was simply review and comment jurisdiction.
it was quite complicated board member casting i could i could understand okay and so then
the idea of this is to provide uh some
some contextual kind of uh incorporation of this idea of a historic journalist row without
you're having to actually do it is that that that is exactly correct and that was actually
so if if you want to take a look here so at exhibit nine this was the original facade design
that was proposed for jeweler's row this was what was presented to cdr and i believe if i'm
remembering correctly this may have actually been the version that was presented to the historical
Commission as well. After this presentation, Pearl Properties worked extensively with the
community, particularly with Society Hill, to really try and hone in on making revisions to
that jeweler's row facade. Obviously, what is built above is setback, and that's not really
what they're looking to in terms of contextual elements of jeweler's row. So the changes were
really focused on this Sansom Street facade to try and make that blend a bit more with that
with that district. Gotcha. And that was purely voluntary. That was, you know, again, that was
them working with the community to try and achieve something reasonable here. Well, I like the idea
of the brick and the whole idea of trying to incorporate, if you will, some kind of context
for that area. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
The parking is, is it specific to only tenants of the building? Or is there also a public parking
aspect for the retail space? There is not a public parking aspect. The parking is for retail tenants,
uh retail tenants for residential tenants
questions from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr vice chair uh questions from the virtual audience
yes i have a hand up by paul bonnie they have been allowed to speak good morning
Mr. Bonney. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Can you please state your name and spell it for the
court recorder? Paul Bonney, B -O -N -I. And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? Yes, I did. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of
the board. My name is Paul Bonney, and I'm here on behalf of the Society Hill Civic Association.
We're pleased to provide our position of non -objection.
We wanted to point out the changes that were made that helped us get to the place of being non -objection.
First, the redesign of the layout of the ground floor.
Our initial concern was that there were too many activities packed into the motor court.
Key changes now include the addition of a car elevator, which eliminates the need for a large ramp.
Eliminating the ramp allows for better truck loading and also allows for the trash storage, et cetera, to have direct access to the alley.
All of this alleviates the competition for the motor court.
Also, an entrance to the lobby was added on the Sansom Street facade.
The other major change, which you've just seen, was the redesign of the podium on Sansom Street, basically the facade of the first.
redesign of the podium on Samson Street, basically the facade of the first few floors
on Samson Street. We believe that it now better maintains the continuity of Jewelers Row in
materials, color, vertical units consistent with the block, and some detailing that's also
consistent with the block. We want to thank Pearl Properties for working with us so much.
They spent a lot of time with us. They brought their consultants to the table. Everyone worked together professionally and cordially. In particular, we want to thank James Perlstein, Reed Slogoff, and their architect David Schultz and his colleagues at DAS. And of course, we want to thank Meredith Ferlinger.
We look forward to this exciting project and to the additional density in this area, and as Pearl Properties builds to hold, we look forward to having their presence in this area too. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Blaney. Is anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
good morning amy boyd for the planning commission amy boyd
uh can you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed this proposal completed civic design review in february 2024 the civic design
review committee's advisory recommendations are not an expression of the city planning
commission's recommendation or opinion regarding zoning variances or special exemptions or other
discretionary approvals associated with this proposal the appellant has demonstrated that
the proposed of above ground accessory parking garage would not cause detrimental impacts beyond
what would normally be expected the proposed above ground parking is counting towards far
and locating the parking underground is not feasible the drive aisle with refusal comes
from the dual use as valet parking therefore the planning commission recommends that the board
grant the proposed special exemption for above ground parking and the variances for max far and
drive aisle. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just a reminder that there is a revised plan of three
pages. Yep. MI -2023 -005620708 Sampson Street. My vote is yes with proviso. The revised plan is
three pages. Stand by ZBA on September
And Mr. Chair, if we can include a proviso as well that use registration
is required prior to occupancy for the vacant commercial space?
Yes, and also the use registration for the vacancy commercial space is
required prior to the occupancy as another proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
tennetta graham my vote is yes with proviso tywin my vote is yes with provisos
thank you have a wonderful day likewise thank you number four mi -2023 -006174
2036 spruce street david orpanides
david orphanetes is coming in as a panelist thank you good morning miss lord orphanetes
morning mr chairman uh please state your name and spell it for the court reporter
certainly david orphanetes last name is spelled o -r -p -h -a -n -i -d -e -s
At least where to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you, sir.
At least proceed, counsel.
Let me just read this one in, too.
For the erection of a rear deck with stair grade retaining wall, replacement of an existing fence along the side of the lot line, and the erection of the rear fence with a roll -up gate or continued use of a single household living.
Okay. And just as a housekeeping matter, you were reading from the first amended notice of refusal. We had to amend the application, which was issued on June 4th. There was a subsequent corrected amended notices, a notice of refusal that was issued.
Actually, two of them were issued that removed the the erection of the deck.
The deck where we are proposing stairs to lead from to grade was already permitted as a matter of right.
I just want to make sure you have the.
We have is the residential parking controlled area off street is prohibited unless it can be accessed from the shared driveway in a rare alley.
alley and the second one is an attached structure stairs in the deck is from the ground is
and the second one is
an attached structure
stairs in the deck
prohibited right then there should be a third regarding the height of the roll -up gate uh yes
proposed rear fence gate uh must exceed the maximum permitted height 6 .5 allowed and 9
eighth is proposed right i'm just saying that the date on that refusal should be 9 11
yes we we do have the 9 -11 one thank you for emailing this morning we have that i know i
know the refusals have not changed but the language has changed as you noted and it also
mentions the two parking spaces which were mentioned as a refusal item but not listed
in the description so thank you for getting that cleared up we appreciate it correct it took a
little quite a little bit of effort so uh to get that all sorted out and it was a little confusing
because there was a buy -right component and a variance component to this project.
May I share my screen, please?
Let me get the rest of the questions in for you.
Can you please identify your client?
Sure. My clients are Kevin and Margo Pellegrin, the owners of the property.
All right. Do you agree to waive the reading of refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
As long as we're talking about the 9 -11 -24 notice of refusal,
I waive the reading and stipulate to its accuracy.
Yes. And have you emailed in all the required documents five days in advance of this hearing? Yes.
I did email everything in advance. The one thing that I had to supplement yesterday was that 9 -11 notice of refusal was posted at the property last week.
And when I submitted on Friday, I submitted the posting with the prior notice of refusal, and I provided that to Hillary last night.
Thank you. Please proceed, Counsel.
can everybody see my screen okay great this is a rendering of what we are proposing
I'll show you in a few minutes aerials and existing conditions at the property but what
you see through this rendering right here is a deck that was previously permitted as a matter of
right as part of that application there was a removal of a rear sliding gate removal of fencing
existing fencing along the side property lines on the eastern property line here to the right
and then extending uh to the north beyond the existing garage to the left of us
um the uh and also uh removal of some retaining walls and steps this that part of that by right
was to build this deck that you have here this application is to is to create these steps leading
from the deck to the grade to put up this roll -up gate that you see here the rendering and then to
have two surface open -air accessory parking spaces um david yes you make that a little bit larger
sure i i can thank you yep
there you go better a little bit yes thank you i i can zoom in as we need so okay we do we do
have a letter of non -opposition um from ccra the letter daily july 1st uh 2024 spoke about the
refusals involved. This property, as mentioned, we had a buy -right zoning permit application
as part of the rehabilitation of the property that had been previously utilized as a two -family
dwelling for quite a number of years. My clients purchased the property and it converted it
into a single -family dwelling for their personal use. As you can see here, there was a rental
license previously for the two family. And as I scroll through, you can see the prior zoning
permits for the two families going way back in time. The property is zoned RM1, residential
multifamily. The lot is 2 ,400 square feet. As a result, six units would be permitted on this lot
as a matter of right, seven with a moderate income housing bonus, mixed income housing bonus,
and nine with a low -income, mixed -income housing bonus. Again, my clients have acquired this
property to convert it into their personal residence and use as a single -family dwelling.
As most of you know, the 2 ,000 block is Spruce Street, is to the north of Fittler Square,
west of Rittenhouse Square. We are bounded to the south by Cypress Street. Cypress Street is
on the city plan some of these back streets over in the runhouse square area although they have a
street name or not but in this instance cypress street is on the city plan there is no parking
There is no parking on either side of Cypress Street, you'll see in the photographs that I have.
on either side of cypress street you'll see in the photographs that i have
And I will scroll through here as you can see a little closer image of our property in the rear.
Backing back out, what you will see with the records that we've pulled in the research that we've done is that there are 40 properties that front on Cypress Street.
of those properties. Only three, including my client's property, do not have accessory
off -street parking. 20 of those are surface. So over 90%, 92%, 93 % of the properties have
off -street parking access from Cypress Street. And about just under 60 % of those are surface.
And then the other ones are garages.
and again here's you can see a view from the south of uh of my client's property right here
to the left here's some historical images of the cypress street as you can can see again very
narrow street uh with sidewalks either side this is the sliding uh fence and gate that uh previously
existed at my client's property uh when they purchased it um i believe that the property was
utilized for off -street parking previously but there was no permit in the file and given my
client's desire to have the steps leading from the deck that they secured the permit for as a matter
of right and and wanting to utilize the property with the roll -up gate we for the parking we did
include the parking as part of this application and again here you can see the condition of the
property when my clients purchased it uh it has been much improved since then uh rehabilitating
it from a two -family dwelling rental to a uh to a single family residence and here you can see
current views up and down cypress street to the east and then to the west as i mentioned we did
research um and at tab uh two or tab two yes 2h you can see we went through and pulled the zoning
archives for all the properties we surveyed all the properties and again there are 40 properties
you can see here of a map that we prepared here's our property right here there's 40 properties on
the block two of which three of which including ours do not have off -street parking um 12 of them
11 12 of them have permits in the zoning archives the other ones do not but long -standing as long
as i've lived in the city there's always been uh mostly off -street parking coming off of cypress
street on the 2000 block and then uh at 2h romanette 3 we have an exam examples of of all
the garages and all the off -street parking that you can see some of them have gates some of them
don't many of them have roll -ups similar to ours some are taller many are taller you have garages
that have a wall that is much taller than what we're proposing.
And in our instance, as you saw in the rendering,
we have a gate to the right of us, to the east of us,
and then we have a garage to the left of us.
And you can see, going back to the rendering of the cover,
we're shorter than the property,
then the garage to the left,
a little bit taller than the fence to the right.
At tab three, you have the amended drawings.
Again, originally this application was put in and there was a buy right component to it and a variance component to it.
We parsed out the buy right.
We put that in as a separate permit, which I showed you a permit application and showed you previously the permit that was issued and the amended plans based upon.
We had two different examiners doing two different reviews.
They came up with different refusals, and this amended application was to get everybody on the same page.
It took quite an effort, but everything is clean now and everything is accurate.
Again, here you've seen the rendering both up and down with the gate.
We had the original notice of refusal, as was mentioned.
It only mentioned the rear deck, the stairs to grade, the rear fence with the roll -up gate.
Even though it issued a refusal for the parking, it wasn't included in the description.
This description is what appears on the notice, and we thought it was important to revise that and to correct that.
Originally, they had the height of the fence wasn't exactly accurate either.
It's nine feet, eight inches, not eight feet.
So between correcting the description and getting corrected refusals, which were important both to me and to my clients,
for when we present it to the community group and the zoning board.
We now have our fourth notice of refusal, which has everything accurate.
we now have our fourth notice of refusal, which has everything accurate. Again, the stairs to
grade, which does generate, still not clear after all these years why in most instances, a stair
from a deck to grade generates a refusal, but it does. It actually provides better security and
safety for our clients in the event they need to get out of the ground floor rather than to the
back rather than having to go to the cellar to get out or to the basement to get out, or if they
can't get out the front door, this allows them a way out of the back of the property to their rear
yard. It also provides direct access to the parking that's at the, at grade in the rear yard.
And then the other two refusals, as mentioned, you have the parking, because generally if we
weren't in center city, parking to a rear street where there's no parking on our side of the street
would be permitted as a matter of right. But in the center city overlay, they removed the ability
to, when you have an attached structure in the RSA 5 or RM1 zoning district, they removed the
access to the rear street, a rear street option for by right parking. And it's only if it's an
alley or a shared driveway, which do not apply in this instance. And again, we have the nine -foot,
eight -inch roll -up gate. And as indicated, we are shorter than the garage to the one side of us.
And as I showed you in the photographs, there are plenty of examples up and down the block
of both garages and roll -up gates that are as tall, if not taller, than what we have.
I did include at tab six all the applicable provisions of the zoning code, both that are
in a notice of refusal that might apply to this property i don't believe we need to go over those
right now a copy of my zoning board appeal and the project information form or tab seven
um we um we sent out three uh 14 303 notices when the first uh when the time the deadline came up
according to the zoning code to issue the first 14 303 we hadn't yet scheduled ccra so we sent
that one out. And you can see that at tab 8E, including our certificate of mailing. We then
thought we were going to have, we had a CCRA hearing or meeting scheduled for 528. We weren't
able to, we didn't have everything sorted out enough with L &I in terms of the amended notices
of refusal, amended application. And ultimately, even though we sent a notice out that did not
proceed, and then we ultimately sent a notice out and proceeded with the meeting with CCRA on 625 -24.
And as mentioned, we garnered a letter of non -opposition from CCRA out of that meeting.
I do have a number of other letters of support from nearby neighbors, 2034, 2038 Spruce, 2035 Delancey, 2029 Delancey, 2033 Delancey.
These are all properties that are located in very close proximity, either behind us or to either side or across the street from our property.
And then tab 10, some miscellaneous housekeeping documents, the deed showing my clients or the owners of the property at 10A, our tax compliance documentation at 10C, copies of both of the zoning notices.
As mentioned, we posted the notice that was based upon the 6 -4 amended notice of refusal, which still mentioned or mentioned that the deck was to be erected because we needed to have that corrected.
And then you can see here, based upon the 9 -11 corrected notice of refusal, the notice of refusal that properly describes the project, and then the posting photographs we have in both instances.
The property has been posted for well over the 20 days that were required under the zoning code.
And then we just swapped out once we had the, finally got on 9 -11, got the amended notice of refusal from the corrected one from the L &I zoning plan examiner.
We then posted, we swapped it out with both the notice and the amended notice, corrected notice of refusal at the property.
so uh with that i think uh i would just have my clients and uh the architect either kevin or
margot pellegrin and then david nordone uh promoted to a panelist so they can be sworn
in and adopt my statements sure let's get your client on the line
can you identify them
can you identify your clients yes it's kevin or margo uh pellegrin p -e -l -e -g -r -i -n
kevin pellegrin he's been allowed to speak
good morning good morning sir please state your name and spell it for the court reporter please
Sure. It's Kevin Pellegrin, K -E -V -I -N. Pellegrin is P -E -L -E -G -R -I -N.
It's Kevin Pellegrin, K -E -V -I -N. Pellegrin is P -E -L -E -G -R -I -N.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Kevin, good morning. You and Margo are the owners of the property, correct?
Correct.
And you reside there with your family, correct?
Correct.
And you converted, as part of this project, you converted the family from a two -family dwelling to a single -family dwelling, correct?
Correct.
And did you hear the statements that I made to the board today?
True and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Would you adopt them as your own?
Thank you, Kevin.
Thank you, David.
And then I have David Nordone, N -O -R -D -O -N -E.
You should also be in the audience.
Mr. Nordone out in the audience?
Good morning.
can you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter good morning david nordone d -a -v -i -d
n -o -r -d -o -n -e do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counsel david you're the architect for this project correct
yes you pray you prepared all the different drawings for all the different applications
we had to put into lni correct correct all right and did you hear the statements that i made to
the zoning board today yes and i true and correct to the best of your knowledge yes would you adopt
them as your own yes thank you you're welcome
um not a question but a comment on uh decks uh when deck legislation was originally
um introduced back in the 90s yes dating myself quite a bit um that deck legislation
always carried on those two restrictions that decks cannot have a permanently affixed roof
or stairs and the reason is because people would convert these decks with the roof and the stairs
into additions as opposed to decks which is what was intended so just to comment and as far as I
I know those restrictions, the no permanently affixed roof, you can have an awning, you can have some other kind of whatever covering that may be retractable or whatever, but no permanently affixed roof or stairs for decks.
Just a comment.
Right.
And I understand that the question is when there is no roof, why when there's not.
But in any event, we have no roof here and it will not become an addition.
No problem.
Just saying.
anyone else on the board
all right questions from our attorney hillary emerson
um i don't have a question mr chair but just note um because as i mentioned this morning
the refusal that we should be uh noting when we vote on this matter is on for 9 11 24
yeah thank you
questions from the virtual audience
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multifamily RM1 zoning at this location.
The historical commission staff have approved the proposed changes.
This review is separate from the zoning variance request
and not an expression of the City Planning Commission's recommendation
or opinion regarding variances or special exemptions or other discretionary approvals associated with this proposal.
The appellant has presented evidence that the proposed off -street parking with the proposed fence site
will maintain the essential character of the neighborhood and are in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the zoning code
as they are in common conditions at Cypress Street.
The proposed deck chairs, sorry, deck stairs, will not injure use of surrounding properties.
Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends that the board gather requested variants for off -street parking, fence site, and decked stairs.
Thank you.
MI -2023 -006174, 2036 Spruce Street, my vote is yes, with proviso, per amended refusal, dated 9 -11 -24.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with provisals.
Senator Graham, my vote is yes, with provisals.
Hi, Owen, my vote is yes, with provisals.
Congratulations, counsel.
Thank you, may be excused.
Yes. Is there anyone else out in the virtual audience that 930 case has not been heard?
Is there anyone else out in the virtual audience that 930...
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank everybody. Thank our staff and our board members for your participation today, as well as our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Good job, Mr. Vice Chairman.
I'm right back to back. I don't usually get back to back ones.
You did a wonderful job.
Yes, you did.
I'm going to re -nominate you for vice chair forever.
Thank you all.
All right, y 'all.
See you in the morning.
Good morning.
Everyone have a good one.
All right.
Good one.
Bye -bye.
Goodbye now.
Goodbye now.