This is a rendering of the facade of the proposed new construction. There is occupied
space in the ground floor. There is a window, safety window well in the rear of the building.
First and second floor, the third floor is recessed with a roof deck above it.
And this is a view from above. So this is going to be a shared curb cut. There is
easement language so that the occupants of the existing triplex can share access to that one
curb cut to access the three spaces in the rear yard and then along the side of the property to
the north, the proposed single family on the north side, there'll be a parking space here
and then there's a curb cut on the right side of the southerly single family dwelling that has
parking space there. So the arborist report, which is, which starts on page 13, is dated July 29th.
The arborist went in and inventoried the trees. He did not have, he didn't, he wasn't sure where
the property lines were. And so he inventoried everything that he thought might be on the lot.
um when that plan when his inventory was then reduced to the tree preservation plan
um and i think it's january or december of 2024 uh it turns out that tree number three
is not it's on a neighboring line it's not it should not have been included in the inventory
but it was so the engineer placed it on the plan but as you can see uh it's on the next property
which is not part of this development. When this was submitted to the Planning Commission for
review, the Arborist Report, when it was completed in July of 24, satisfied the current regulations.
By the time it was submitted as part of this application in January of 25, however,
the regulations had changed. And on page 29 is a copy of an email from Ben Schmidt from the
Planning Commission, including the language in the new regulation. I won't go through the
whole thing, but the new regulation requires the photographs to represent the entire tree
from crown to base and must be taken during the tree's most recent period of full foliage.
Previous regulation did not require photograph from crown to base. It required photographs
to indicate and to demonstrate and show the deterioration of the tree.
So the photographs that are in the arborist report, again, pages 13 and 20 to 28 of this document,
go through each tree and photograph it and describe what the conditions are.
In response to this comment from the Planning Commission, the arborist...
In response to this comment from the Planning Commission, the arborist issued another follow-up.
This is January 28th of 25th, addressing the two trees.
Now, as I said, he responded to tree number three and explained in better detail or more detail why it is decayed and where it's decayed and why it's not safe.
But again, that's not on the lot, so that's not really relevant.
And then tree number 10. The arborist went on to say that it exhibits and proved to inhabit root decay. When we performed resistance testing, this tree also is causing the existing stone wall to heave and fail. Over time, the soil will erode and cause the whole tree to fail. Unfortunately, this tree is not to be preserved.
The subject root decay alone denoted the reasoning for condemning this tree. The arrow indicates the area of decay.
the lot is the trees that are on the upper area again the Boone Street photograph really didn't
show many trees the trees are closer to Fleming Street and it's steeply sloped and it's been
an area that has not been maintained or or received any attention for for decades
So those are the two refusal items, the parking, which does not affect on-street parking for the neighbors, and tree number 10, which the arborist went on, again, to explain why that tree is decayed and not safe and should be removed.
I think that's in a nutshell. I'd be happy to answer questions.
Why don't you have one of your clients adopt your testimony?
Okay. Sitting to my right is Andy Molson, who is a managing member of Dexter Street Partners, the owner of...
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer, sir?
Andrew Molson, A-N-D-R-E-W-M-U-L-S-O-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Molson, you were sitting next to me. You heard my testimony. Was I truthful?
yes uh was i complete yes uh do you adopt my testimony as your own i do okay questions from
the board yes uh two questions one what's being done on the property to keep the future tenants
from interfering with the steep slope is there retaining wall or a fence um place in the backyard
Let me go to the earth moving plan.
So here's the earth moving plan.
You can see that the tenants are in 267 Green Lane.
They are distant from the steep slopes, which are in the rear of what will become the two Boone Street properties.
The Boone Street properties will not be tenant occupied.
They will be owner occupied.
I understood that, but I was just trying to figure out, like, is there any provision being put in the yards for those owners when they purchase the property?
Yes, if I can go back to the aerial image, I think you'll see there's a terrace on the rendering.
Here we go. You can see here that there is a terrace, a little retaining wall on a terrace to separate the occupied area from the steeply sloped remaining rear yard.
Yeah, I just didn't I didn't see the retaining wall on the plant. That's why I asked. And then how is water drainage being managed so that the water doesn't run down the slope into the house?
well the area of disturbance is less than 5 000 square feet so uh water regulations are
pretty limited here um it will be yeah less regulations i was more so wondering
what provisions were accounted for in the design yeah i it may be over my pay grade um cheryl let
me let me see if uh andy can address that i'll step in um thanks for the question uh yes we're
being very conscientious about the water coming down off that hill. We understand, of course,
with some of the most recent heavy rains we've gotten. Then we're also going to have an egress
window back there. So we will be putting several yard drains in the rear there as well as handling
it with the pitching and sloping and everything like that. We will be tying into the city storm
water system on this. So it's not like we're dealing with trying to capture and preserve any
of this storm water. So we feel that we can definitely mitigate this properly without it
So we feel that we can definitely mitigate this properly without it being a concern for near neighbors and, of course, for the new properties as well.
being concerned for.
Are those yard drains connecting to the city sewer through the basement, through the existing sewer pipes for the house?
Well, no, no. So these are new homes so that we have all new sewer connections and stormwater connections.
Those stormwater connections, typically we run on the outside of the property as opposed to bringing them in through the property.
Does that answer your question?
I think so.
And then my question for the parking, is there an easement on the current, I guess they're all going to be new lots, on the, I forget which street it is.
Yes, this is Boone Street, and there is a cross easement between 267 Green Lane and this first property on Boone Street, because that curb cut will be shared by those occupants.
And assuming that that stormwater pipe is now running underneath that paved surface, is it on the Boone Street property?
Yes, it'll be in the shared easement. It's on the Boone Street property.
It's on the Boone Street property. The shared easement really addresses the curb cut and just, you know, the parking area.
I don't have it in front of me. I don't have it on the exhibit, but it's basically this area right here, which is shared.
yeah i just wasn't sure from the fence line from the adjoining property i wasn't sure where the
property line was from comparing the rendering to your site along this fence line is the property
line but you couldn't get in and out of this parking space without accessing part of the
boone street property it's true right okay all right all right other questions questions or
comments from our attorney hillary emerson uh just noting that there is a corrected refusal
Mr. Chair. Thank you. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any hands, Mr. Chair. Planning Commission.
Apologies, Mr. Chair. I had technical difficulties. Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the current RSA3 residential single-family zoning
at this location the proposed configuration of parking is insuscitated by the unique physical
conditions of the property the appellant has not satisfied the arborance requirements in section
9.4.6.3 of the planning commission regulations in order to arrive replacing any trees as identified
in the arborist report and on the site plan accompanying photographs must be must represent
the entire tree from crown to base and must be taken during the tree's most recent period of full
foliage. Under the regulations, the trees that were deemed healthy must be replaced in kind,
can be waived if certified as dead or damaged or diseased, or pay $1,000 per tree in fee of
replacement. The appellant has confirmed that they do not wish to pay the $2,000 fee in lieu
to waive replacing trees and instead seek a refusal for landscape regulations. They also
have the options to eliminate the refusal through submitting a compliant arborist report. The
The appellant refused both administrative remedies.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant their requested variance for parking
and deny their requested variance for tree replacement.
Thank you.
MI 2025, 001-339-267 Green Lane.
I vote yes.
Proviso per refusal dated 7-15-25.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Tyra Wynn, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Adam, we need five minutes.
We're going to take a five-minute break, but I promise you, you'll be right back.
and my 2025 is zero zero one three four five twelve sixteen shaka maxon street adam labor
is the attorney good afternoon mr chairman members of the board adam laver la vias and victor er of
blank rome one logan square on behalf of 1216 shaka max and partners llc the owner of 1216
Jacquemaxon Street and 1213
Frankfurt Avenue, contiguous
properties. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the
truth? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
Do you waive the refusals
and agree with their accuracy?
Yes, Chairman Bergman. I will notice that
Yes, Chairman Bergman.
I will notice that the Fishtown Neighbors Association vote was 27 in support, 11 of them near neighbors, a letter of unanimous support from Fishtown Kensington Area of Business, and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Young.
the Fishtown
Neighbors Association
Please start your presentation.
Thank you very much.
And I do note that I believe representatives of the coordinating RCO are with us virtually.
Blank Rome represents the owner of these two properties, which are contiguous, consisting of a relatively recently constructed structure.
You can see the residential entrance off of Shackamaxon Street.
The focus of today's hearing and the request for relief is actually concerning Frankfurt Avenue on the other side.
And you have that property there, that image there, just behind that white station wagon along Frankfort Avenue.
What was previously built is four residential units accessed off of Shack and Maxson Street with vacant commercial along Frankfort Avenue.
And you see that Frankfort Avenue photo here.
Doug Jordan is managing partner of the ownership entity. He has appeared before this board
previously. He extends his regrets as he's held up due to a flight delay and not with us this
afternoon. However, virtually, we do have Emory, E-M-O-R-Y, Emory Land, who is director of
construction and facilities of the proposed commercial tenant, 7th Street Burger. I'd like
to move to some additional photos. And right now, we are still along Frankfurt Avenue.
The property itself has the four dwelling units above the ground floor. The proposal before the
board for special exception, for special exception relief, calls for a takeout restaurant. It's
approximately 1,338 square feet of that ground floor interior, plus 590 square feet of outdoor
space along Frankfurt Avenue. The outdoor space is courtyard style, meaning it's within the
property line out of the public right-of-way, accessed only from within the restaurant.
And here you can see what that space looks like now. We really believe it's going to be transformed
in a dramatic and enchanting way, as many of our spaces are in Philadelphia neighborhoods.
and it's important to note on behalf of the property owner that with the four residential
dwelling units there vis-a-vis sound and traffic etc there really is a synergy of interest in that
Doug wants to maintain the best living environment for both those who live in his property and the
surrounding area in which he's a vested stakeholder.
Here you can see some streetscape photos
which are likely familiar to this board.
The proposed restaurant would incorporate
the neighborhood-oriented retail feel of Frankfurt Avenue
while preserving the residential feel of Shackamaxon,
which was that first photo that I showed you,
which really will remain residential,
not be touched by the proposed fit-out of the commercial space.
And here you can see some interior photographs of the ground floor commercial space.
We're at the back of the space looking towards what would be windows out onto Frankfurt Avenue.
And some conceptual renderings.
So as I mentioned, the proposal is for 7th Street Burger.
i'll tell you more about that in a moment and you can see a concept of what it would look like
to the right where you see the ivy beyond that is that courtyard space that i showed you
and here you see some interior renderings showing seating for approximately 17
And from the focal point of where we are, farthest away from Frankfurt Avenue, would be the ordering counter back of house.
And here you see, having walked into Seventh Burger, what you would see.
So towards the back, before back of house, would be fully accessible restroom area.
and you can see two or three folks towards the back lining up for their meal.
The property itself is located in the CMX 2.5 zoning district, which generates the need for special exception relief, which brings us here today.
The property itself is located in the CMX 2.5 zoning district.
It's actually two special exceptions that are required.
One is due to the neighborhood commercial area overlay district, which generates the need for special exception relief generally for all types of restaurant use.
whereas CMX 2.5 would require a special exception for takeout.
So it's a double special exception, if you will.
And here I've highlighted those two requests for referral,
as noted by the Department of Licenses and Inspections.
The proposal calls for the fit-out of the tenants based on the ground floor.
for 7th Street Burger, which specializes in smash burgers.
Existing locations of 7th Street Burger are in the New York metropolitan area,
as well as New Jersey and Washington, D.C.
One of the nice features of the newly upgraded property
is that there is built-in commercial trash pickup for the entire property,
And together with the residential, which is in place and operating well, the commercial trash pickup will join together so you don't have extra pickups.
And trash pickup would be the only portion that would impact Shackamaxin is the trash, which is already there.
So fewer trash pickups and deliveries.
The project is supported, as noted by Chairman Bergman, by the Fishtown Neighbors Association.
and the Fishtown-Kensington Area Business Improvement District.
And we appreciate the partnership with them
in helping to maintain the residential feel along Shackamaxon
and add to the vitality of a vibrant Frankfurt Avenue.
Just some operational notes for you.