I mean, hopefully we get like 40, 50 seats, I think.
And then the rest of the facility has how many seats?
I mean, it's 30 plus, but it has almost 100-ish.
Between, there's two other floors?
And what are the hours of the roof deck?
It'll be 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.
and you agreed to that am i correct yes yep yeah we kind of we talked to him with the
yeah any other questions from the board questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair or comments from the virtual audience or the audience here
i do not see any hands raised mr chair well any commission amy boyd with the planning commission
amy boid where we're a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do
please proceed the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing zoning of cmx 5 commercial
mixed use the appellant has demonstrated that the opposed use will not cause the tremendous impacts
beyond what would reasonably be expected the planning commission recommends that the board
grant their requested special exception for non-residential roof deck thank you mi2024
0 0 5 3 8 5 1 16 south 11th street i vote yes with proviso roof deck time 10 a 10 piece sunday to
saturday cheryl gaston my vote is yes with proviso tennetta graham my vote is yes with proviso
ryan mcadams my vote is yes with proviso tywin my vote is yes with proviso thank you thank you
Thank you. I'll see you on the roof next year.
Oh, okay.
Number two, MI 2024-005-733-2225 West Norris Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
This is a resumptive hearing.
so mr knockamson um state your name please and spell for the sonographer alan knockamson
a-l-a-n last name knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do uh mr knockamson the order of this will be an update from
uh mr knockamson the order of this will be an update from you and the rco meeting
you and the
there'll be questions from the board and council public testimony limited to the information
that's presented today and a planning commission recommendation uh thank you uh mr chair members
of the board again alan knockam said knock knockam simpc i just want to give a brief overview of how
we got here today. We originally proposed to have four dwelling units in this RSA-5 property.
The 2035 plan actually proposes to make this an RM-1 property. The lot size of this property
is 1,240 square feet. If this was an RM-1 property, three units would be allowed as of right.
After considering the situation and given the 2035 plan, my client agreed to reduce the unit count to three units.
So if this board feels inclined to grant the variance request, we would ask for a proviso maximum three units.
Again, just some more facts.
There's only two occupied properties on this block on our side of the street.
there's 11 properties nine of them are vacant the uh one of the other two at 22 29 nora street is
also a triplex with for which further leads credibility as to why the triplex is appropriate
we met with the community uh this past monday i believe um with strawberry mansion community
concern which which was the coordinating rco for this matter uh there were only two people present
other than Mr. Goldberg who made the presentation to the community, Bonita Cummings, and I believe
there was another board member from Strawberry Mansion Community Concern. There were no neighbors
at all that appeared at that meeting. Again, at the beginning of that meeting, we were told that
before we even made the presentation, unless you proposed to have two units, you're not getting it
essentially so we said well let's let's make the presentation uh so a letter was issued um
afterwards that you probably have in front of you uh mr chair members of the board dated july 14th
2025 um i would like to quickly go through that letter point by point um and it starts with page
two with the bullet starting with the bullet points with the header of concerns with three
apartment units uh no demonstration do you have your screen up oh no i didn't i just
so i could share my screen yeah why don't you go ahead yeah yeah i could do that thank you
thank you sorry about that it's okay let me share my screen to make it easy for the board
thank you
so can everyone see my screen it should be coming up okay all right so so if you this is page two
of that letter um starts with archer could you enlarge yeah sure we'll go uh first part of that
uh page two is concerns with three apartment units there's uh the indication was there was
no dentist demonstrated hardship there's extreme hardship here uh first of all it's out of character
to have multifamily or more in character to have multifamily on that side of the block.
We have 2229 West Norris Street, and I believe across the street is RM1.
So it's more in character to have multifamily there.
Also economically, and I believe Mr. Ali Dodd stated at the last hearing, it's not feasible
to build a single family home here.
While this is RSA 5 zoning, this property has been vacant for some time.
We made that presentation to the board last time showing that this has been a vacant lot
for the longest period of time.
Stated that the next indication is about the open space deficiency.
Again, our requests for dimensional variances are de minimis in nature.
As you can see, we are requesting a rear yard of 7 feet 6 inches where 9 feet is required
under the Philadelphia zoning code.
And we're asking for an occupied area of 86.3%, where 75% is required under the Philadelphia Zoning Code.
This is to allow to have functional floor plans for the units themselves.
Again, it's always an issue with, you know, when you do have multifamily, are they functional units?
And these are functional units providing a great amount of space within the units themselves.
The density overload was the next cause of concern with the three.
The density overload was the next cause of concern with the three apartment units.
Again, 2229 West Norris Street, which is one of two occupied properties that's not vacant lots, is a triplex as well.
And again, the Planning Commission has recommended under the 2035 plan, these should be RM1 dwellings with falls in line with what our request is now, maximum three dwelling units.
And we do have a responsible trash storage and maintenance plan.
The first floor has access to a rear yard, and then the upper floors each have a ventilated trash closet.
Fourth bullet point has to do with we are attempting to undermine the single-family block nature of this block.
Well, again, nine of the 11 lots on this side of the street are vacant lots.
One of the two occupied lots is a triplex. Across the street is RM1. So this is not a single family portion of the neighborhood. We also provided many instances on intersecting streets on North 22nd Street, where there are many, many, many multifamily dwellings.
Then the next set of objections have to do with light wells on sidewall, obstruction
of future row home infills, or encroachment.
This goes beyond zoning.
These are issues regarding how the light wells will affect neighboring properties.
I will say this, that obviously if we're so lucky to get the zoning variance approved,
we have to go through the building code process as well, getting a permit.
We have to comply with the building code.
And these side wall light wells would have to comply with the Philadelphia building code.
But, you know, how it's written is as though we are putting light wells on someone else's property, which is not the case.
We're putting that on our property.
We're not affecting other people's properties.
The next item is about key concerns about, again, excessive.
You know, three units is excessive for 1,250 square foot lot.
It's not. Again, if this was an RM1 property, that would fall within line of allowing that type of use.
We mentioned the light wells, and I think that's basically it.
So, again, we, again, originally proposed four units.
We are now reducing that request to three units, which falls in line with what RM1 zoning would be allowed, and the Planning Commission has proposed that.
Given the nature of that block, given that our side of the block, there is one triplex there
and nearby multifamily there and across the street is RM1. We respectfully request that
the board grant the variances. Thank you. Thank you. We have an update from the RCO.
Good afternoon, Ms. Cummings. I'm okay. Good.
so if you could turn your mic on
seems like it's on okay right could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
okay um my name is bonita cummings b as in boy o n i t a cummings c-u-m-m-i-n-g-s do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do why don't you give
us an update of the rco's position again um we we want to make look um we weren't sure whether the
board would have had a chance to review this because we were only able to meet again with
this property on monday and we submitted our information um yesterday okay um so we did just
want to indicate that um just to make it expressly clear that strawberry mansion community concern
an rco is pro-responsible development and the notion that rcos are anti-development is both
inaccurate and misleading so i just wanted to unstate that so that it's not like we're here
all the time saying we're opposed to development because we are not okay um we spend a lot of time
with professional people in assessing what we have to come before this board to do so we're
not being emotional, it's not emotionalism, and it is not just made up. We try to look at the code
and we try to present before you what your role is structurally and looking at these properties.
So when we assess that through the code, and it's all written down, I don't have to go back over it,
you all are able to see it. If you're following your own code, your own code says that this is a
small lot based on what they proposed so it would be an overload in density and that is one aspect
an overload in density, and that is one aspect of how we feel that this project is flawed.
The other is, there's nothing I've written that indicate that we're talking about something right
now that's on other people's property. We're talking about a block that we're very clear about
is a block of many lots, but the way that this particular property is designed with the light
wells will prevent other developers from building properly in that block so if you start with this
one string of properties where that property has a light light well something coming up next to it
is now blocking the light well so you kind of force people to either develop inappropriately
or irresponsibly. And that is what we see as it relates to that many lots being available to
really develop this block. You can do this development responsibly. Also, again, putting
families in these properties where every single inch of space, including the basement, is where
they live with no no space there's no space to do anything so here you have three units of families
and and the first floor starting with the kitchen being in the basement and there's no real um you
know some of the air air um you know your air the installation all of these factors that um are also
impacted by trying to start development in ways that in not you know pretty much philadelphia's
neighborhoods, 1900s, were not designed.
So you can do as you may.
We just ultimately looked at it.
We looked at the zoning overview measurements.
And based on your code, those measurements
say that three units is too many, particularly
based on how they want to go down into the basement,
put the kitchen in the basement, and how they
want to overbuild.
So you want to, it's like 11, what is it, 11.5% over, 11.5 percentage points, the maximum occupied area, taking it to 86.3% that overbuild.
And also, as we're continuing in communities to work with professionals around these developments, we're starting to understand, too, overbuild also impacts properties onto other blocks.
And letting these things happen excessively in this manner is impacting the quality of life of those blocks.
So, you know, again, we're not, we're here to just say we are, you know, appreciate responsible development and we support that, but we also try to express to the board that our health, welfare, and safety, our mental states are impacted by things that you might not can see right now, but then it happens, then we, you know, later on we're dealing with it.
So you got a code that says it shouldn't happen.
Two units would be, you know, and people talking about what RM1 did and what the 2035 plan, that's not an effect.
So we need to talk about what is in effect.
So we would hope that the owner would be responsible and say, you know, she's right.
The window, the light wells will impact how that block streams, how other properties and other property owners can come along and develop in that block.
So thank you.
Hold on one minute.
What was the vote?
Well, I'm having a hard time.
It says the people present here said two in opposition, four in non-opposition.
No, it wasn't four in non-opposition.
4 is the indication based on your form of, well, I took this form to mean, when I was
doing 4, I was just talking about the attorney and the applicant, so it was no vote in terms
of that, but it was just the committee's presence and overview of who was present, but it's
more members that were assessing and overview.
Thank you very much for your presentation.
Do you want to? Yeah, Mr. Chair, briefly respond. As indicated, not one member of the community came in and in to this meeting in opposition or in support, but more so in opposition.
We know from experience that if there is an issue with a project, we will see members of the community show up.
there was not one member of the community or close by neighbor that showed up my understanding
it was miss cummings as well as one of her board members who did not participate in the meeting
did not have her camera on and did not make any indication of what
did not have her camera on and did not make any indication of what their position was
in terms of the fact that this is an overbuild compared to the amount of units given the lot
size again 1250 square feet given the recommendations of the planning commission
this would be allowed and in terms of the light wells like we're trying to provide as much light
and air within the units themselves.
They're being built within the building structure itself.
And as we went through those drawings previously, we think that's a responsible use, especially
given the fact that this is an affordable housing development.
Mr. Ali Dodd, who's the owner, that's all he does is affordable housing.
So we hope that the board embraces the fact that Mayor Parker is looking to have 30,000
affordable units built during her administration.
and we hope that these are the three of those 30,000. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the
board? Yeah, I have a question. So, two questions. The first one is, are the affected RCOs being
notified of these meetings? Yes, we are required under the Philadelphia Zoning Code to notify any
affected RCOs. So, again, I can look at my notice, but my notice would have all those RCOs participate.
Typically, as you know, it's not very often that those other RCOs do participate.
In this neighborhood, they do.
Ms. Cummings sometimes is not, you know, her organization's not the coordinating RCO.
And she does a great job of participating in those meetings and giving valuable input.
But most times, those other RCOs do not participate.
And the other question I have is for the light wells.
do you have a diagram or can we see a rendering of where they are in relation to where another
building would go adjacent to it yeah we can do that um let's see let me share my screen
i'm having probably oh wait here it is that's what
okay if you can see here these there's well obviously it's the front and back light wells
right you know for the front and back of the first floor and then throughout the whole building
we provide light wells to provide additional light and air for all floors.
Again, as a design feature, we want to make sure that there's proper light in there
for the residents within this building.