Here's our notice of posting for the zoning.
for the zoning. Here's our notice to the neighbors and support from that meeting.
And again, as the chairman stated from the RCO, there were 31 neighbors,
including the adjacent neighbors at 312 and 308 Bald Street in support of this project.
And here's the letter of support from the RCO.
I would like to call the homeowner, Tim Weeks, if we can promote him as well.
Sir, could you, Mr. Weeks, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Mr. Weeks, please raise your hand.
Mr. Weeks, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Weeks, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Sure. Timothy Weeks, T-I-M-O-T-H-Y, Weeks, W-E-E-K-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Tim, did you hear my statements that I just made?
Yes, I did.
Are those statements true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
They are.
And will you adopt those statements as if made by yourself?
Thank you.
Go ahead, Chairman.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
So, Ron Bednar, City Planning. The property is indicated for residential use on the city plan. Our adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing zoning at this location. The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent it from being used and conforming with the code. Therefore, we recommend Quest Ranch not be ready.
Thank you. MI-2022-007-242-3010, Ball Street. I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. Number six, MI 2022-006-749-6926 Old York Road. Carrie Nassay-Poust is the attorney. Letter of support from Council Member Phillips. Letter of support from Oak Lane Community Association with Proviso.
Ms. Pouss is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Okay, thank you.
Good afternoon.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Carrie Nace, Paust, C-A-R-R-I-E, Nace, N-A-S-E, hyphen, Paust, P-O-U-S-T, attorney with the law firm of Fox Rothschild, 2800 Kelly Road, Suite 200, Warrington, PA.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Yes, I represent Penn Asian Senior Services, who is the owner of the property.
Okay, and our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, thank you.
Have you, do you swear to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Excuse me.
There is one typographical error in the refusal that does need to be clarified.
If I may.
No problem.
So I do agree that the reason for the refusal is that the proposed use medical dental health practitioner is prohibited in this zoning district.
L&I included a parenthetical that it was a sole practitioner, and it is not a sole practitioner.
it is, it would fall under a, I guess, group practitioner.
Understood.
Have you emailed all the required documents to proceed with this case five days in advance
five days in advance into our offices. Yes, they were submitted.
into our offices?
Yes, they were submitted.
Thank you. Please proceed and share the screen. Great. Thank you. Let me just share my screen one
moment. I have too many screens open. It's coming up. Yes, we're good. Okay, great. Thank you.
uh again i'm here this afternoon on behalf of penn asian senior services they are the owner
of the property located at 6926 old york road let's see sorry uh here also here with me this
afternoon is ken yang he is a representative of penn asian senior services and he will be
providing testimony today as well. A packet of exhibits was submitted five days in advance.
We included a copy of the refusal, application for appeal to the zoning board, the project
information form, copy of the deed, certificate of tax compliance, plans that we will go over this
afternoon photographs of the property a letter of support from the rco
let me just uh bear here uh before you is a copy of the zoning site plan
this is a copy of the floor plan which we'll go over
and here is a aerial photograph of the property. The property has frontage along Old York Road.
It is located between 70th Avenue and 69th Avenue and is also bounded by Broad Street.
It's located within the RSA 4 zoning district. As you can see, it is currently improved with
two buildings as well as associated parking and some green area between the buildings.
The owner is proposing to use a portion of the existing building for a medical practitioner.
The footprint will remain the same. No site improvements are being proposed as part of this
application other than some minor improvements to the front entrance of the one building
where the medical practitioner office is proposed.
We do have photographs of the property also showing that the zoning notice was posted
as required under the code.
This is just a photograph of the existing parking area looking down Old York Road.
Again, another view of the parking.
This is a photograph of one of the existing buildings, as well as the second building.
If I may, I'd like to have Mr. Yang admitted so that I could ask him a few questions about
the current use and the proposed use.
Mr. Yang, could you state your name, please?
it's spelled for the court reporter. Mr. Yang, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hi, Mr. Yang. Could you state your name? It's spelled for the court reporter, please.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ken Yang, K-E-N. Last name is Y, A as in apple,
N as in Nancy, G as in Green. Right. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? I do, sir. Proceed, counsel. Thank you. Mr. Yang, is Penn Asian Senior
Services the owner of the property located at 6926 Old York Road? We are, Karen. And what is your
position currently at Penn Asian Senior Services? I serve as the Chief Executive Officer. Great. And
And how long has PASSE owned the property?
We purchased the property in 2012 and moved in in 2013.
Could you briefly just describe for the board the existing uses on the property?
Penn Asian Senior Services is a 5.1c3 nonprofit organization and we provide a variety of supportive
services mainly aimed towards diverse older adults to help them remain living independently
in the communities of their choice. Those services currently include home care,
an adult day center, or otherwise known as adult day care, and a senior community center, which we use the business name of Evergreen Center.
an adult day center, or otherwise known as adult day care, and a senior community.
And could you please explain to the board the proposed use that is subject to this application?
Sure. Harry, as you noted, we request variants to allow a medical health practitioner use of our existing space in the PASI building.
We propose to take an existing suite of offices, three contiguous offices, and turn that into a primary care practice that has as its goal to provide language accessible and culturally attuned healthcare services, primary care services, first starting with the clients and Evergreen Center members that we are currently serving,
but also opening up the option for our near neighbors and our surrounding community for anyone who has need of a primary care practitioner by appointment doctor's office to make use of.
Great. And will the existing uses remain on the property?
Yes, they will.
Okay. And looking at the zoning site plan here, this is Old York Road, where my cursor is. We have an existing building here. And is the area that I'm highlighting, is that the area where the proposed medical use will be incorporated?
It is. And just a slight point, I think that the street that you pointed out is Broad Street.
I'm sorry, that's Broad Street. We have Old York Road here. I apologize. So Old York Road, and here's the entrance into the parking lot, and then back into this area here.
That's right, yep.
Okay. And just briefly, if you could explain to the board, this is a floor plan showing the proposed medical offices. Could you just explain to the board what's being proposed on this plan?
Sure. The board can see the first floor of our existing PASI building, and where Carrie's cursor is now is the first room to the left of where one would enter our main lobby.
And so to the left of Carrie's cursor is where the primary, right where it is now, is where the primary care clinic is proposed to be sited.
Those are currently three contiguous office rooms. We would like to convert those rooms into the primary care clinic. And as Carrie also noted, no changes would be envisioned for the existing footprint, save for the new exterior entrance that would permit direct entry into the primary care clinic.
And in your opinion, just based on your experience and being in the community, why do you believe that this proposed use is necessary and do you believe that there is a need for this specific use?
I do believe that there is a need within the community for our proposed primary care clinic, and I think that that need is consistent with what PASI has been trying to provide, language accessible, culturally attuned access to services for our community.
And in the case of primary care, we see the opportunity to extend our supportive services, which again are home care, adult daycare, and a senior community center into the provision of direct health care.
We think that while there are some primary care practitioners that do have a diverse community focus that does include some in-language PCP provision, we have from our personal account as well as from what we hear from our clients and neighbors, there is a need for more.
And there are sometimes long wait times for seeing a doctor or seeing a nurse practitioner.
And so we would like to alleviate some of that burden and provide a convenient primary care option.
Again, starting with the clients that we are already serving and who are already coming out to our campus each day and extending that out to Oak Lane and surrounding communities, anyone who would like to see a family doctor.
Thank you. And did you meet with the RCO to review the proposed use of this property for medical practitioner's office?
We did.
Great. And submitted with the exhibits is a letter from the RCO summarizing the meeting and setting forth certain conditions that they had discussed with you. Are you familiar with that letter?
And is the owner willing to agree to the conditions that were set forth in that letter?
We are carried.
Great.
I have no further questions for Mr. Yang at this time.
Questions from the board?
questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments
No, Mr. Chairman.
from the virtual audience i see no hands at this time chair planning commission this is uh ron
bednar city planning while this property is currently indicated for residential on the
city plan. We have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Counsel, I see the proviso is use limited to the provision of primary care services. Is that
appropriate? Yes. Okay. And I think our counsel has also added, this is a group practice,
practitioners? Correct. And along the lines of the first proviso, just with the caveat that the
existing uses will remain in place. Okay, sure, sure. Okay, so MI 2022-006-749-6926-Older wrote,
I vote, yes, would provide a use limited to revisions of primary care services and also
continuing services that are currently there, and also this is a group practitioner, right? Correct.
Thomas
Thomas Holloman
Thomas you broke up
Thomas Holloman
Thomas Holloman
my vote is yes
with provisos
thank you
James Snell yes with provisos
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with proviso thank you counsel thank you okay we're going to move on
to number seven mi 2022 006 717 130 north third street katherine missomer is the attorney
letter of non-opposition from council member squilla recommendation of support from the
old city neighbors okay and we have several provisos here miss missomer is coming back in
as a panelist now good afternoon hi how are you could you state your name please and spell for
the court reporter it's katherine missomer it's m as in mary i s as in fam s as in sam i m as in
Mary ER at 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, 19103. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client in relationship
to this property? Yes, sir. 130 North 3rd LLC is the owner of the property. And our vice chair
has a few questions for you. Sure. Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to weigh the reading of
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. I'll just note for the record that there is a revised
refusal in this matter. It was issued back in December, so I'm sure you do have that.
Have you emailed all the required documents that are needed to proceed in this case five days in
advance to our offices? We have. Thank you. Please proceed and share the screen. Great,
thank you. Can you see my screen? Yes. Great. As mentioned, my name is Catherine Missimer. I'm
here on behalf of 130 North 3rd LLC, owner of the property at 130 North 3rd Street. With me today
are owners rep, Brian Zubek, and project architects, Gabriel Deck and Jeff Pond. Here today
within our application for new construction of a mixed-use building with ground floor commercial
space, four interior parking spaces, as well as four dwelling units. As you can see, a letter of
non-opposition from Council Member Squilla and a letter of support from the Old City District.
This property is located at the corner of 3rd and Cherry Streets in Old City. Historically,
the site was home to various commercial uses, including restaurants and grocery stores,
with accessory surface parking spaces open to the sky. The site is owned CMX3 and is surrounded
by neighboring mixed-use buildings. In a nod towards the neighborhood context, this concept
of new construction does include the historic commercial use of the ground floor and closes the
previously existing surface parking spaces to the rear of the building. You're seeing some
existing photos of the building now and also includes four multi-family dwelling units above.
This is some area context. You can see we're here on the corner.
The proposal demonstrates a single minor dimensional variance for open area.
CMX 3 requires open area of 20% at corner lots, while this proposal results in an open area of 2.6%.
CMX3 requires open area of 20% at corner lots.
While this proposal is a single minor dimensional variance for open area.
For reference, and I will jump to that as I think that's the most illustrative in our presentation packet,
we've included a lot coverage survey of surrounding lots in this neighborhood.
And once I pull that up, you'll be able to see that the bulk of the neighboring properties are all short on open area.
Their lot coverage exceeds the allowable lot coverage in the district.
As you can see, the orange and reddish colors represent lots that are currently in existence exceeding allowable lot coverage.
So they're all deficient in open area.
Only the green lots that you're seeing are compliant currently.
This lot to the rear is an open air parking space.
We do have support from that owner as well.
If you'll note directly next door is almost a full coverage building, and that's the condition along both 3rd Street as well as across Cherry Street from this location.
This is a single minor dimensional variance.
We can bring up the refusal, as you can see. As the board's aware, the standard for dimensional variances is much lower under the Hertzberg standard. Only a reasonable adjustment of the code is necessary to utilize the property in conformity with neighboring parcels.