um in 2019 we obtained a by right zoning permit to construct this building which is uh five
stories five floors first floor commercial had some commercial spaces on it um the floors
two through five have uh 40 single family residential dwelling units that was in 2019
Later on in 2019, we went back in for a buy-write permit to eliminate most of the first floor commercial space and create an accessory parking garage.
and create an accessory parking garage with some open space parking,
but a total of 22 spaces, 20 inside the garage, 22 spaces outside.
In 2021, the construction started, and in 2024, recently, the construction was completed,
and a CO was issued.
The first floor, within the last week, we received a new zoning permit
for a coffee shop, prepared food use here on the first floor.
Um, the, um, you know, currently the properties, uh, leased at about 50%.
Um, uh, but yeah, we've, we've been seeing that the demand for the parking is running
about 40%, but that translates into, and here's the, the entrance to the garage here.
it was inside the garage that the garage is being underutilized
yet I want to show you another
another document here
Can you see this?
There we go.
Yeah, we can.
So this is an area, Matt, we'll call it.
The bottom is 44th Street, Chestnut Street on the left, Ludlow in the middle, Marcus Street on the right.
These properties are holdings by the same real estate group, the Orange Brothers Real Estate.
The property with a red dot is the one we're talking about here.
Some of these, most of these or all of them have residential components.
some of them have parking associated with them some of them do not and so the fact that we're
now beyond our utilizing our parking we thought that it would be prudent to change the use from
an accessory to non-accessory for the parking garage so they can offer it to our neighboring
projects as well as provide it to the neighborhood as a benefit and as you mentioned
we did meet with the Spruce Hill Civic Association and they voted to support the project with
because it provides a beneficial use let's put this back up here
sorry with the maneuvering here
so the property zone located the cmx2 commercial zoning district non-accessory parking requires
referral which is what this is um you know allowing non uh accessory parking will have
have no detrimental impacts on the public health, safety, welfare, and traffic. I mean,
it's invisible as to which cars would be accessory or non-accessory. We would see no
increase in density or traffic. We're not asking to increase the number of parking spaces
in the garage. We have no impact on that. And the use for the non-accessory will have no greater
impact, therefore, than the permitted accessory use. And then yet, we've, you know, as noted,
that allowing property for the neighborhood would be beneficial. With that said, I'd like
to promote Mr. Orens, Scott Orens. Okay.
He better now to speak, sir. Sir, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
And before he gets on, you'll see the new page that I put up.
Hello, can you hear me?
Scott Orens, O-R-E-N-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Ron, nothing has come up.
Okay, sorry.
You're there now.
you see the pink screen now yeah yeah we do okay we do yeah okay uh scott um there for news uh
you see the pink screen now yeah yep
could you uh tell me your affiliation with 4415 chestnut llc i'm one of the partners uh uh the
ownership partners my other two partners are my brothers uh we own this building we developed the
building we built it and we created these parking spaces even though no parking space were required
by zoning at the time. And Scott, you've heard my presentation. Would you agree it's true and
accurate? Yes. And you would accept it as if it were your own? Yes. What you see on the screen
here is the parking layout? Yes. And that's not changing, correct? That's correct. And I did show
an earlier plan of your holdings in the area. And if you want to briefly explain how they would
interact with the parking and how it will be provided to the neighbors as beneficial use,
please feel free. We would like the ability legally to be able to rent any open space to
anyone else in the neighborhood across the street that might be one of my tenants or someone else
in the neighborhood that has a vehicle that they want to get off the street. This is a position
that's supported both by my next door neighbor because we have, based upon the development in
the area a lot more congestion with vehicles and it's supported by the spruce hill community
association great thank you scott uh mr chairman i have no further questions okay questions from
the board no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i do not see any further hands mr chair planning commission good afternoon chair and members of
the board this is greg walden planning commission staff the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the existing commercial mixed use zoning because non-accessory parking will not cause
detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what quite normally be expected the city planning
Commission recommends that the zoning board grant a special exception. Thank you. So MI 2024-000-747-4415
Chester Street, I vote yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you.
Okay. Number 13, MI 2024-000752, 1740 North 16th Street.
Alan Notcomson is the attorney.
Beach Corporation has sent a letter of support with a proviso relative to interior trash.
They'll be rejoining again and as a panel, sir.
Mr. Noxon, just for the record, state your name.
Alan Noxon.
And could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is North 16th ST LLC.
and in a virtual audience is its member Firas al-Sayed.
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to read another refusal
or stipulate to his accuracy?
I've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits
to proceed with this case five days
in advance of this hearing.
Yes, we did.
Thank you, counsel.
Please proceed and face me.
Thank you.
All right, so this is an RM1 property, so multifamily.
It's not something where we're trying to convert an RSA5 property into multifamily.
The only reason why we're here is we're in an overlay which requires a greater amount per square feet for each unit up to the first four units.
If this was in the base zoning district of RM1 with no overlay, this would be a project as of right.
So first of all, we reviewed the notice of refusal and then a letter of support from Beach Community Services Incorporated, which was the coordinating RCO.
We do have revised plans.
Originally, we proposed to have five dwelling units here.
we're asking to have a maximum of four and we do that by way of
We're asking to have a maximum of four, and we do that by way of proviso or the revised plans, an aerial view of the property on that or the block in which the property is located, maps of the area, autographs of the property in the surrounding area, or plans and drawings or RCO meeting notice or applications for appeal or deed to the property and their certificate of tax clearance.
And then at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Feroz virtually raise his hand and be sworn in.
So notice of refusal. So this is an RM1 property. We're looking to put five dwelling units in here.
We have a few refusals. So the first of which, again, because we're in the north central Philadelphia overlay district,
we are only allowed to have three units under that zoning district where five units is proposed.
We're asking for a proviso of four units.
So based on those calculations, our lot is 1,683 square feet,
even based on the 425 of unit of, even based on the overlay,
where you're only allowed one unit for every 425 square feet of lot size,
like that's 1,700 square feet for four units.
That means we're 17 square feet short, which is a de minimis variance request.
If we were in the base overlay of where the first four units would be a 1,440 square feet of lot size,
we would well fit within those parameters.
So, again, we're asking for a variance for that. The second one is actually incorrect in this respect. So if you look at the North Central Philadelphia Overlay District, it's a 3 to 10 ratio after the first three units, meaning this, if you have up to three units, there's no parking requirement.
After the first three units, for every unit thereafter, it's a 3 to 10 ratio.
So if we provide it for four units, we're only required to have one parking space, not three parking spaces within this overlay district.
Regardless, our lot is only 17 feet wide.
There is no way we can put a side parking spot along the side of the property.
and we would be required to then have front loading a front loading garage the community
would not want that like there's parking allowed on our side of the street so basically
it wouldn't be any benefit for us to take put a curb cut take one parking space off of the street
to give it for the benefit of one parking space off of the street so that's the second refusal
It would be impossible to comply with it without, like, essentially causing more harm to the community.
And then the third refusal is the maximum occupied area, where 75 percent is allowed, where we're at 85 point, a little over 85 percent.
We looked at the surrounding area. What we're proposing in terms of lot coverage is similar to surrounding properties.
So what we're proposing is not out of character to the neighborhood as a whole.
So we did meet with the Beach Community Services Incorporated group.
We do have revised plans based on we shrunk the size of the roof deck at their request.
We, you know, in terms of, you know, trash management, they asked us to put trash compactors in the units.
or some type of tenants maintaining trash disposal.
Don't know if that is an enforceable proviso,
but we would embrace it
by installing trash compactors into our units.
And again, it was unanimous consent
with their board of six individuals
in support of this project
with those revised plans,
which we have right here,
where we reduced the deck area
and we reduced the unit count from five to four.
And then this is just an aerial view.
As you can see, there was a building structure here at one point.
What we're proposing is not too different than what was previously there.
And you can see there are other buildings here in close proximity
that run afoul of the lot coverage requirements of the Philadelphia zoning code.
And then maps of the area. Again, we're an RM1 property. We're allowed to build multifamily here. We just are within this overlay, which is causing some technical issues with regards to our project.
And then photographs of the property, we're vacant lots. As you can see, this building to the right of us goes pretty far back.
And then photographs of the property. We're a vacant lot. As you can see, this building to the right of us.
And then this is a posting that we had or have for this hearing.
And then this is our property from North 16th from the left and right.
Our plans and drawings.
Our RCO meeting notice we met on April 3rd at 5.30 p.m.
We emailed that notice to the community organizers while in advance of that meeting, and we also mailed it to 126 addresses.
These are the addresses we mailed it to, proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of North 16th STLLC.
Our deed to property showing that they own their property.
And then finally, the certificate of tax clearance showing that they owe no money to the city of Philadelphia with respect to real estate taxes.
I would ask that for us, virtually raise his hand.
They have been about to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
can you hear me hello yes hi sir could you stay
and could you spell it please for the stenographer sure sir for us i'll say it
f-i-r-a-s i'll say it a-l-s-a-y-y-e-d you swear or affirm to tell the truth told
truth nothing but the truth i do sir please proceed counsel
So, Frost, you heard everything I had to say today about your zoning matter.
Yes, I did.
And is it true and correct?
Absolutely.
And do you adopt as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Vanderson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Planning and Commission.
Oh, I'm sorry.
questions or comments from the virtual audience
planning commission
good afternoon chair members of the board this is greg wallen from planning commission staff
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential multi-family designation at this
location the appellant has not shown that the property cannot possibly be used in strict
conformity with the zoning code and the variance is necessary is therefore necessary to enable
the viable economic use of the property for dwelling units and or occupied area proposed
use variance for no parking is consistent with nearby properties the city planning commission
recommends that the board grant the proposed use of no parking but deny the variance or dwelling
units and occupied area so mi 2024 000 752 1740 north 16th street i vote yes but provisos revised
plans one page stamp by zba april 24 2024 and maximum for dwelling units thomas hollman my
My vote is yes, with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Number 16.