but also serves as a de facto parking lot for illegal parking.
So that's the current use,
which I would argue is an extreme detriment to the community.
And what we are proposing here is, as a matter of fact,
very low impact. What we're asking for is a first floor ground level commercial,
which is consistent with the CMX classification. We simply want to put a professional office on
the first floor. As you know, that the property itself is owned CMX 2.5. So it could certainly
be a lot more than that, a lot more impact, but we're going to go for a low-impact commercial
with a professional use, a large majority.
with a professional use. A large majority of these refusals are dimensional variances
and that's because of the unique physical condition of the property making side yards
impossible, making any kind of real outdoor space impossible. So what we've done is we've done the
best we could to improvise here. Here's the parcel in question. There'll be a roof deck,
a pilot house. Let's take a look at the proposal. First, we'll get rid of the ugly old shack that's
been there forever and clean it up as far as illegal parking is concerned. This is the basement.
It'll be just storage for the commercial first floor.
Nothing more than that.
Here's the commercial unit.
400 square feet in total with an ADA accessible restroom.
And again, it'll be for professional offices, administrative offices only.
Above that, on the second floor,
you're going to have a nice one-bedroom apartment, which would be by right.
As you can see here, we have a living room, a kitchen, and a bedroom.
And the second floor, pretty much the same. Kitchen, living room, and a bedroom.
Each, we've agreed to interior trash storage for both the commercial and residential units.
We've also, of course, agreed to commercial trash pickup, exterior lighting, and exterior cameras.
Here's the roof deck.
And that'll be for the benefit of the residential units below.
As you can see, there's a shared stair here.
Here are some renderings with the Ridge Avenue elevation.
As you can see, the design is very much in tandem with homes across the street.
This is all CMX2, most of it, that surrounds this property.
There's RM1 across the street, which is residential multi, and there is some RSA5 as well.
So what we are proposing is completely consistent with, especially given the development constraints that such an odd little parcel provides us, is completely consistent with the community.
Because of the weird shape of the parcel, outdoor space is really not necessarily something that could be offered on the ground level, so we added it here.
so each unit has a nice little terrace for some outdoor space and as you can
say all of these here this row of homes all brand new multifamily zero
road commercial, although it's zoned for commercial mixed use, and what we would do would be actually
more consistent with these all 100% residential homes in the CMX 2.5 district.
the fact that all this residential development has happened surrounding this little island
while this island sits blighted uh is in fact evidence of its unique
and challenging condition that would make compliance impracticable in this particular
case. Because of those development challenges, getting those two units will make all the
difference. And yet there's only two bedrooms on that whole island. We're still only going to have
two bedrooms, which is actually fewer bedrooms than if there were a single-family home.
This is all the information
And all the addresses that were mailed
82 individual households
Were notified
We have proof of tax
And the deed
And as I said at the beginning, it was my understanding that it was a split decision, but we received no official correspondence from anyone that we met with.
And as I said at the beginning
It was my understanding that it was a split
And my client did, in fact, meet with the RCO more than once.
So because of the unique physical condition of the property and the situation in the this, you know, we're looking at a unicorn here.
As you can see, this is the only parcel like this anywhere near there, given that the what I would consider a very close decision from the RCO with one vote separating those who supported us versus those who did not.
Given the viability challenges of building anything on this unusual space, given its close proximity to public transportation, and because there's absolutely no evidence that this will negatively impact the community with trash on the inside, security lighting, security cameras, property management.
And my client actually operating her office on the first floor, we respectfully request the granting of the variants, considering the unique physical condition in this particular case.
And with that, I'd like to bring Danielle Lawless.
Danielle Lawless, we'll be joining as a panel shortly.
Thank you.
Hello, this is Danielle.
Hi, Danielle, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yeah, so you can hear me. Great. Danielle Lawless, D-A-N-I-E-L-L-E. Last name's Lawless, L-A-W-L-E-S-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Would you turn your camera on?
Oh, gosh. I'm not sure that I know how to.
Okay, so I'm a police machine.
Thank you. Ms. Lawless, did you hear my presentation to the board?
Yes, I did.
this afternoon is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge it is and may i also add
something to that yes of course so as you can tell it's almost like a billboard so that building is
completely graffitied constantly intact um at all times and so much so that the city of philadelphia
just routinely comes out um and then paints it and paints it and paints it it's been going on
for decades um so it's it's a major blight to the community i also have lived in francisville for
last 14 years, and I'm a real estate agent, and I would be putting my office on the first floor.
So, you know, I see it as a great thing coming to the community. So that's just my two cents.
Verna, you done? Yeah, let the record reflect that the evidence is submitted, that the property is
and has been historically continually blighted while other development rises above it.
with that, I have nothing else. Questions from the board. Could you talk about the commercial
activities that'll be happening on the site and how many people you'll anticipate being in that
space? Yeah, sure. She's a realtor, so it's going to be a real estate office, but it's only 400
square feet, so it's going to be her and maybe another other person. Nowhere near the kind of
activity that a 2.5 commercial designation could bring, but no, it's not necessarily a place
where hordes of people will be coming.
And is the assumed activity
is just going to be people coming in
to talk and sign paperwork?
Yeah, most of the time that's all done off-site,
but yeah, that would be it.
And then is there a reason
that this was conceptualized as two units
instead of one,
given the small nature of the floor plates?
Yeah, marketability.
I can bring my client on to testify
that because she knows the area and she works in this area as a realtor, one bedroom apartment of
this particular size would be more approachable to folks who are looking in this particular area,
which are mostly younger people. So two smaller units will be a bit more likely to be filled
than one larger emptier unit. Other questions? Yeah, I have a quick question. Could you tell me
the height of the building in relation to the other buildings that you pointed out
in the surrounding area? Yeah, the ones that I pointed out across the street
are, hold on for one second.
Are, hold on for one second.
Their height is less than theirs, but I'll bring that up.
yeah we're at uh at the top of the pergola is 33 feet uh and then here we have is 38 feet
I think she's talking about what are the other buildings in the area in comparison.
They tower over this.
They, too, are zoned CMX 2.5.
And the newer construction homes that I pointed out to you in the photos earlier are above 38 feet and nine.
Ours does not exceed 38.
Question.
What size are the units on the first and second floor?
The commercial space is about 400 square feet, and then not counting the bathroom.
Here we got 483 square feet in each of the living units.
What did you say?
Okay. And are you planning to basically mirror some of the exterior with respect to this building?
I can barely hear you.
I said, are you planning to mirror the exterior of or use the same exterior kind of building materials as the surrounding new construction for this?
I'm going to be polite and say that some of the newer stuff is not necessarily something that my client would be interested in.
The cheaper press board doesn't seem to last longer than 10 years.
So as you can see here, we're doing pattern, we're doing bricking to be more consistent with some of the smaller homes also in the area.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
You mentioned trash storage in the units, but I don't see anything designated when you planned.
On the interior, you wouldn't, because that came out as a result of our RCO meeting.
But interior trash storage will be in each of the units.
So you're going to add that?
Yes, sir.
Can you point out on the plan where you intend to have that go?
uh it's not on the plan uh it came out but can you just point out on the plan where the
interior trash storage would go sure
understanding that we can't see it but yeah i can give you a roundabout yeah yeah yeah it's
going to be right right up uh between the kitchens and the living rooms hold on i'm sorry
there we go
I'm trying to keep it big
so you all can see it so my apologies
yeah so each of the unit
has a sort of a natural divide
between the kitchen and the living area
so we're thinking of a bump out here
do you know what the width is between that
and the refrigerator
I personally
do not
it looks too tight
to fit a closet
with an old garbage receptacle
it looks like it's three feet
i don't know what this area here is but the plan is to put something between the living room and
the kitchen that will store the trash and if you can't dimensionally fit that what would be the
alternative plan it no there is going to be a closet in each unit for the trash and that could
be a proviso. Other questions? Questions from the audience, virtual audience?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair. Council? Yes, I do not believe we have received a proof
of posting for this. We have not? No. Byrne, do you have that? You know, I can get that
to you separately if you'd like I don't I didn't see it in my exhibit packet and my apologies for
that but I can certainly get it to you in that case we need to continue the matter until we
receive that before we can vote just you want to postpone the vote for a week until I can get it
to you sure planning you want to take a position yeah we will
well planning you want to take a position yeah we will so ron bednar city planning
comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing cmx 2.5 commercial mixed use zoning at
this location the applicants uh property is undersized and irregularly shaped however
the variance is not the least modification possible of the use um in question the um
City Planning Commission therefore recommends that the board grant the dimensional variances, but deny the variance for two-family household living.
Thank you.
I appreciate that. Just for the record, again, the unique physical condition of this property and the development challenges are going to require any smart development to be two units, but at the same time, manageable in size so that they could actually be occupied to remove the blight. Thank you.
So this matter is closed, and we will vote next Wednesday at 9.30, and hopefully you'll have that information for us.
Yeah, we'll send it to you right away.
All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the audience whose case has not been called?
Yes, Mr. Chair. I have a handout from David Schuette.
That's our mistake. Thank you.
should you please unmute
good afternoon hi counsel sorry we uh almost missed you there not a problem
so mi2024007253717 east chelton avenue david schudy is the attorney council could you please
state your name and spell for the stenographer we'll be coming back in as a panel shortly mr
good afternoon
David Schody
I'm with Chapman Pepper Lock
we represent the property owner
why not
prosper Inc in this matter
just for the record could you spell your name
for this tonight
last name is spelled T-S-H-U-D-Y
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do. Have you submitted all your appropriate exhibits? Yes, we have. Yes, we have. Um, do you, um, do you, do you waive the reading of the refusal? Yes. And agree with its accuracy? Yes. Please proceed. Okay. Um, let me just figure out how to share my screen here. Okay. So I think there should be a green button there, right? Green button. Oh, there it is. It says share. Yep. Uh, and.
sent a letter of support
yeah you find your
you're coming up okay great great yes we represent the property owner why not prosper who owns
717 East Shelton Avenue. In
2016, the property owner was granted
a use permit following a zoning
hearing to allow for the use of the property for five women that were
recently incarcerated to live and a proviso