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.