that it would require a new refusal yeah i i think what why don't we do you have the numbers
there uh the original application was for a 300 square foot edition whereas their proposed plans
show it's 1771 square foot edition is that is that accurate why don't you bring your architect
Yes. Thank you. Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer? It's Todd
Phillippe, T-O-D-D-P-H-I-L-L-I-P-P-I. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Please counsel, I ask your questions so we
see where we can start. Would you kindly identify yourself and modest your relations with the
applicant? Yes, I am. When do you get a little closer? Principal architect for church architects,
I've been specializing in churches for 25 years, have been licensed in Pennsylvania since 1987, have testified at multiple zoning hearings throughout the state, represented the church for architecture for the last about 12 years.
We had previously received a zoning approval for the same type of application regarding parking.
The reason that the proviso was submitted afterwards is that our first effort was to get the denial for the parking.
We knew that was the one area we would not comply in order that the church could re-approach the city about obtaining the vacant land surrounding the church.
It's part of the Logan Triangle. And about 12 years ago, they had been told that they would be given land as part of the redevelopment that was proposed in order to put parking.
So the first step that we needed was to get substantiation to go to the council person to let them know that the church cannot do their project by right without the parking in hopes that it would begin negotiations again in order to get the adjacent land.
that was not successful not because the council person was not in favor of it but because
they really had no authority to be able to do anything relative to the land
so in order to expedite the denial from zoning we removed that section of the plan just so that we
could get the denial the inclusion of that will not require a variance for the only rejection
that we would get, again, would be for the parking, for the 31 parking spaces that would
be required.
So from that standpoint, we did not want to appear before the board without showing the
same project that was shown to the community board when we met with them, and they supported
the project.
So that is the reason why we added the proviso, so that it would not be a different building
than we showed to the community group.
than we showed to the community group this is what the church would like to construct
This is what the church would like to consider.
it does comply with zoning with the exception of the parking and so that's why we are here for that
one very council i i i think ultimately we would need an amended refusal to to go forward yes so
the issue um i'm sorry to say is that we are not in a position to be able to verify that there is
There are no additional refusals generated by the proviso plan, correct?
So only L&I has the authority.
And so there's going to have to be a process for which a plan examiner looks at the amended plans
and then determines whether or not it generates additional refusals,
which would need to be considered by the board.
The board can't take up consideration of the project because if it approves the proviso plans,
it's thereby granting a variance for everything that's been considered here and we've skipped a
step of identifying potential additional refusals it um and we can't just take your word on it so i
you know with my apologies i i do believe that you will need to leave to amend this um uh with the
with lni and receive an amended refusal before the board can consider it in that event would we be
able to get a remove the provisio from it and get the variance just for the 31 parking spaces and
then it would be our obligation to come before this board again should there be another issue
raised by the zoning hearing so we would remove the procedure i i mean ultimately if you're willing
to proceed with with the original plans and and and not you know provide the not proceed with the
revise plans, then yes.
So we're talking about just parking?
Yes. Correct.
Great. All right. Why don't you start?
We'll keep it right to parking,
okay? Okay, great.
and madams,
this is a fairly simple case.
Basically, the church
right now, the sanctuary
is located on the
lower floor of the basement, so
So we would like to switch the sanctuary to be part of the main level, and I'm happy to
show you pictures.
And right now Sunday school is being held on the main level.
So we would like to switch the levels to put Sunday school in the basement and allow accessibility
for other lead members and anyone that needs assistance to be able to take an elevator
and go to services on the first floor.
But aren't we aren't we just doing parking?
Correct sir.
it was denied because it's cmx 3 and it requires 31 parking spots right okay continue
so the building has been there my understanding is for a very long time over 100 years old and
the church has been there for nearly 40 years sir and i will go ahead and oh by the way so the rco
does support our application as well as cancel woman bass and i will uh hand it over to our
architect Todd to explain the projects and the scope? So the the building was originally intended
if you can bring up maybe the photo of the front of the building the building was originally
intended to have a sanctuary on the what would be considered the main level and it was built with a
temporary roof over top of that and this is going back now about a hundred years and that
floor that was determined to be the future sanctuary is where the sunday school classes
are now currently and the church has been meeting in the basement it has a capacity of 190 seats
in the basement our intention is to construct the church on that floor that it was intended
to be and it would have a capacity of 299 seats and for that we would need 31 parking spaces at
the required ratio of one to ten there is no place on the property where parking can be constructed
parking has been on the street for the last hundred well maybe not a hundred years but
parking has been always on the street for the church currently there are no constructed
properties surrounding the church. It's all part of this Logan Triangle. All the parking today is
on the street. It would continue on the street. And so that's why we're asking for the variance
from the requirement to construct 31 parking spaces. Questions from the board? What would
be the plan once the Logan Triangle is redeveloped? The hope would be to be able to get
hope would be to be able to get parking to get property next to the church to be able to construct
parking to get property
parking and would the plan be in the future to consolidate the lots with whatever the new parking
lot is yes other questions no so i may add ambassador cologne if you could kindly confirm
uh the previous pastor passed away but they were in conversations with the land bank sure
With the land bank or with the developer of the site?
Because you said both in your previous testimony.
Why don't you let him be next to the mic?
First of all, could you state your name?
My name is Jose Colon, J-O-S-E, last name C-O-L-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm the tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I believe our late pastor, he was in conversations with the Redevelopment Authority.
who he was dealing with in reference to the land.
Do you know what year that was and if it was before or after the city's RFP
for the property in 2012?
I want to say it was 2012.
And then when the subsequent RFP went out in 2016
and it was awarded to Goldenberg Group,
had you been in conversation with the then DeLavella prior to the site?
I could not answer that.
Our pastor, he was the one dealing with that,
and he's no longer with us.
understood right any other questions questions I would just note that you
know or it is inclined to vote yes that the proviso be made that that this is
just for the original plans and I think what I'm what we're going to do is if we
go through this the vote the next week next Wednesday and then we'll have what
we want to say in the positive way okay questions or comments from the virtual
sure um okay so you're saying that you're going to switch the floor so that the services will be
on the first floor and you're going to increase the number of seats um well i guess so where are
people parking now and now you're going to have this increase of uh what another 100 people or
so where are these people going to uh park the the parking is now on the street the parking would
continue on the street it's surrounded by uh both 7th street which currently is blockaded off at the
end and then also on wyoming avenue so there's vacant property all around and the parking would
continue on the street. And this is just
on the street proper. It's not on other
sites. Correct. There is no parking around there
now, just on street parking. Thank you.
Questions or comments from the audience?
Yes, Chair. I have a header from
Charles Richardson. I forgot them to speak. Hi, Mr. Richardson.
and you've already been sworn, just state your name, please.
Charles Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N,
Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City.
Yeah, you've already been sworn.
Just please proceed.
Got a question here because of the fact that it looks like the plans are
different than what, you know,
now we're talking about parking spaces versus, you know,
in addition to the building, that type of thing.
And I'm a little confused now because of the fact that it's, you know, and I know that they were talking to the Redevelopment Authority, and that was prior to, I believe, even the pandemic, you know, trying to get Lander in that area.
um you know the councilwoman at this point is going to withhold any uh statement on that on
this because of the fact that this it sounds like things have changed since the uh rco
was considering something completely different and we were going to uh go with non-opposition
but now at this point we need to actually look back and reassess what's going on there
mr mr richardson thank you we appreciate anyone else in the audience
Yes, Chair. I have a hand up from Daniel Trutman. I've allowed them to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for this thonographer?
Sorry, that was a mistake. I've lowered my hand now.
All right, thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience?
No further heads, Mr. Chair.
planning do you want to vote now or do you want to wait to see uh yeah what our proviso is we'll
vote uh this is ron bednar city planning property is currently indicated for commercial mixed use
Property is currently indicated for commercial mixed use on the city plan.
on the city plan given a document
Given the documented use history, its physical condition, the site, we recommend the variance be granted.
All right, thank you.
We're going to vote on this next Wednesday, and you don't have to come down, but you just listen in, okay?
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
MI 2024-004-578-1722 Ridge Avenue.
Bernard Anastasio is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from Francisville
and a letter of opposition from Council Member Young.
They'll be coming back into Zepanima shortly.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Counselor. I don't think we've observed you yet today, so could you please state your name and spell for this thought?
Sure. It's Vern Anastasio, V-E-R-N-A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
Do you use Vern to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Did you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Danielle Lawless.
Mr. Chair, did you say that you received letters of opposition?
We have a letter of opposition from United Francisville.
We have a letter of opposition from Council Member Young.
This is all news to me, to us.
We were notified yesterday via email from the RCO of Francisville that it was a split decision.
There were actually as many people in support of the project as there was opposed.
So we have seen nothing.
They list here a vote of five to four opposed, right?
And one abstained.
And then the councilman wrote a letter that basically says it does not fit the character of the neighborhood and places hardship on the community.
We're still seeing the image of the church.
okay thank you mr chair i i was unaware of either of those letters um so taking a little off guard
on that but that's okay we were told that it was a split decision right do you waive the reading
the refusal do you agree with its accuracy the refusal of course yeah right why don't we proceed
thank you here's the property in question right here on this island
and a very odd sort of triangle.
What we are proposing is sort of like a mini flat iron building
because this is prima facie evidence of a unique physical condition of the property
that makes developing this site incredibly challenging,
which is why for many years it has, while development has been around
and CMX2 development all over this particular neighborhood.
This particular property has not enjoyed any of that,
and I'll show you what I'm talking about here.
Pull this out a little bit.
This is the shack that's been sitting on this weird triangle parcel for a very long time.
and it sit there year after year after year as brand new residential multifamily development
as you can see here on my left go up all up and down ridge avenue
1700 block of rage 1600 block 1500 block all new construction
and all surrounding this very odd piece of real estate
that not only has had this vacant shack on it for many years,