Thank you.
okay we are at 40 attendees you can begin anytime you wish good morning everyone my name is bill
bergman and i will be chairing this morning zba hearings with me is ismail shaheed our board
Secretary. Here, Mr. Chair. Thomas Holliman, our board member. Present, Mr. Chairman. And James
Snell, our board member. Present, Mr. Chairman. Also here, our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkett,
and our board attorney, Sharon Saleta. Before we begin, here is our virtual format. Be advised,
these proceedings are being recorded. By participating, you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded. A video will be available by contacting the Executive Director,
TanyaSunkett, at phila .gov. For the benefit of our court sonographer, we ask attorneys and
witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you are participating by phone,
and if you wish to testify, please press star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548. Leave your email and the address
of the property in question. And lastly, please note the question answer box on the screen is
not for testimony or comments. Any comments should be referred to the Executive Director,
Tanya Sunkett. So let's look at our continuances for the day. Number two, MI 2021 -005158109 Green
Lane. And number five, MI 2021 -003 -722 -1901 Westmoreland Street. That's the request of the
City Planning Commission for design review. Anyone have any comments or statements on those two cases?
no hands chair thank you um anyone else have a continuance to request
no hands chair thank you we also have a withdrawal mi 2021 0 0 5 0 7 2 10 14 north 64 street that's
withdrawn by the applicant. Is there anyone has any comments
relative to with withdrawal?
No handshare. Any other requests for withdrawal?
No handshare. Thank you. Our first case of the day is number
three, MI 2021 -005 -163 -1322 North Hancock Street, RCO letter in support, South Kensington Community
Partners, Rachel Pritzker, the attorney. And Brandon is coming in now as the panelist.
Good morning, Brandon. Good morning. State your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Sure. It's Brandon Saverin, spelled B -R -A -N -D -O -N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R -A -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Mr. Holloman has a few questions.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
according to our records you have submitted all of the required documents is that correct
yes please proceed thank you okay may i share my screen mr chair yes thank you excuse me this is
Excuse me, this is Sharon. Mr. Saverin, have you identified who your client is and what their relationship to the property is?
Sharon, Mr. Saverin, have you identified who your client is?
Sure. Ms. Saleta, my client is Elizabeth Otero, who is the property owner, as well as Cameron Johnson, who is her son.
um only miss otero's name is on the deed they live at the property together uh mr johnson
is here to adopt my testimony because miss otero was uh unable to make the zoom today
thank you you're welcome so the property in question is 1322 north hancock street which
is outlined in blue here. This is a through lot between Hancock and Pailthorpe Street in South
Kensington and is among the largest lots on this block currently. The proposal is to draw essentially
a line to subdivide this lot into two rectangular lots, one of which will continue to be a through
lot, and one of which will be a rectangular lot that fronts only Pale Thorpe Street.
The through lot currently contains Ms. Otero and Mr. Johnson's residence, which I will show you
in a moment, and that residence will remain in place, and there is no construction proposed for
the new lot. So this is purely a subdivision request along with the legalization of an existing
fence, which I'll show in a moment. There is no proposed construction and the intent is for
Miss Otero to sell the newly created smaller lot as a vacant parcel in order to raise money
to fund her living as she ages.
This would basically create a setup
where someone who purchases that lot
and wishes to build on it
would have to comply with the zoning code
or would have to seek their own variances
with regard to whatever they want to build.
Just to give you one more illustration,
that subdivision again
would essentially be extending this line
so it goes back to Pailthorpe.
so you'd have two lots one here one here uh this is the the uh family's house uh miss otero has
owned this home since 2001 as you can see it has seen a lot of change since then so she has some
larger neighbors um so she's right here this is the front on on hancock this is the pale fork side
where the lot is wider in the back this is the rear of the home this is uh her rear fence and
essentially i don't know if you can see my cursor but to the right this would become its own lot
this is our zoning refusal we were refused for two reasons one is because the
proposed new lot is just shy of what was at the time the required 1440 square foot
area requirement in the RSA 5 district. The lot would be 1344 square feet. In addition, that fence
I just showed you is two feet too high per code. There's a four -foot limitation on such fences in
this district. This is a six -foot fence as opposed to a four -foot fence. The community association,
The registered, sorry, the coordinating RCO took no issue with that fence.
And I'll briefly show you their letter here.
So this is a letter of support with regard to both the subdivision and the legalization of the fence.
And then this is the meeting summary, which shows a unanimous vote of support with 14 attendees in favor of the subdivision and the legalization of the fence.
Back to that fence for one moment. So there are other fences of the same height.
It actually sort of fits a uniform pattern. So the community did not have a problem with that fence remaining in place.
With regard to the subdivision, just want to make a few quick comments.
One is that at 1344 square feet, if I go back to Atlas for a moment, the resulting rear, sorry, the resulting new lot right here would actually be the largest lot on its block that is not a through lot.
So it would be quite large and larger than most others that front Pailthorpe, certainly no smaller than most others that front Pailthorpe.
certainly no smaller than most others that front Pail Thorpe and the eventual construction of a
and the
home here would assist in sort of building out what has become a nice residential block
on this block of Pail Thorpe where you would have new construction fronting flush to the street much
like these homes do as opposed to you know sort of where there's been less development up the block
it's a more sort of staggered situation so this would promote sort of a uniformity of the form of
a block finally just to point out there was a recent code change and actually in the rsa5
district the area lot area minimum has since been reduced to 960 square feet i apologize
it's a little small might be better so we believe that if this zoning application was filed today
that we would not have been refused for uh the lot area just defense let's see um that is my
presentation i'm happy to take any questions and i'm also happy to bring on uh miss otero's son
uh mr johnson to adopt my testimony why don't you bring your client on and adopt the testimony
thank you um is cameron johnson available
mr johnson could you state your name is spelled for the court reporter please
sure thing uh cameron johnson that is spelled c -a -m -e -r -o -n last name is johnson j -o -h -n -s -o -n
you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do thank you proceed counsel uh mr johnson did you hear the full extent of my testimony this
morning yes i did and was it true and accurate yes it was and would you adopt it as your own
i would and one further question is it true that you are the son of miss otero the property owner
and that you live on this property yes that is correct okay thank you what questions from the
board? No, Mr. Chair. No, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
The no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Good morning, Chair Bergman and Ian Higert for the
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. That's spelled H -E -G -A -R -T -Y. Do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Proceed. Thank you,
members of the board in 2017 the zoning map was amended at this location from rm1 to rsa5
in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan this proposed lot size
variance is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code
and the proposed fence variance recognizes an existing non -conforming condition city planning
Commission recommends that the Board grant these variances. Thank you very much. MI 2021 -005163 -1322
North Hancock Street, I vote yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is here.
Thank you, Mr. Shabrin.
Thank you.
MI 2021 -005 -022 -1726 Memorial Avenue, RCO Centennial Park, letter of support.
Fern Anastasio.
morning mr chairman morning could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
sure verne anastasio a -n -a -s -t -a -s -i -o 1315 walnut street suite 317 philadelphia 19107
you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do. Before we start, can you identify your client and who what relationship they have to
the property? Sure. My client is Mr. Paramir Singh and he is the owner. Thank you very much.
Mr. Holloman has a few questions for you. Good morning, counselor. Do you agree? Do you agree
to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to this accuracy? I do. According to our records,
you have submitted all of the required documents is that correct that's correct please proceed
thank you so this is the property in question uh the one with the green front
Thank you. So this is the property in question, the one with the green front.
It is on a block.
You have to burn. You have to open it up. It's not open.
It's not open. Yeah. It says I'm sharing. OK, hold on.
So, Vern, you're sharing, but you were in your files.
So you need to open the document and then share. Thank you kindly.
Thank you.
There we go.
Everybody see it now?
Yep, we got it.
All right, great.
So this is the property in question, the one with the teal front.
The application is for use as a four -family dwelling in an existing structure.
It is zoned RSA 5. Let me walk you through the plans.
There are no single -family homes to speak of on the block that are occupied and in good shape.
Here is the first floor plan, as you can see.
nice ample size one bedroom apartment with a rear yard the yard by the way has out every
tenant will have access to the rear yard through a shared door with gate and each unit will have
its own trash bin on wheels that can be easily taken out to the sidewalk
here's the next level again a nice large ample bedroom up ample apartment with several bedrooms
and then we've got the next level here with two one bedroom apartments at the top
The block itself, as I said, is full of multi -families and or abandoned properties that are currently being renovated.
The block is in transition. There's another four -family. There's another three -family.
So this is where our property lie. Again, all of these are multi -family homes on this side of the block.
behind it there are some vacancies some vacant locks but it is up and coming in the area and
my client would like to be able to breathe new life into it and otherwise
ignored property for quite some time the last use was in fact multifamily
we have evidence of that in various meters
and there's a center stair that runs through the property that would make um it would
in order for us to have one apartment on the third floor we would have to tear out that center
stair. It's an original staircase to the property. It's actually, it's pretty, you know,
in good shape, despite the rest of the property's condition. And we would like to be able to
maintain that original stair. As a result, we went before the community organization.
Here's our flyer. Our community meeting was 15th of February. We presented all the facts and the
evidence. And as a result, Centennial Parkside has given us support of our variance for the
appeal. And here's our proof of mailing. 90 individual pieces went out to the immediate
neighbors. And of course, we have our tax certification. This property has a long history
of multifamily household living. It is literally surrounded by other properties in the same
condition, three, four, five -bedroom homes. As a result, we respectfully request that this
appeal be granted so my client can continue the repopulation of a long neglected block
in Philadelphia. Thank you. Is your client here, Vern? Yes, may I call him up? Can you have
your testimony adopted, please? Thank you. Mr. Singh, can you please raise your hand and be
recognized mr singh you may unmute yourself hello hi could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter yes this is parambir singh first name parambir p -a -r -a -m like michael v like victor
a m like michael v like victor i r and then my last name is singh s -i -n -g -h right do you swear
i -r and then
for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed sir thank you
mr singh did you hear my presentation to the board this morning yes i did is it accurate to
the best of your knowledge yes and do you adopt it as your own testimony certainly yes thank you
very much mr chairman questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia
city planning commission members of the board in 2014 the zoning map was amended from rm1 to rsa5
in this area and a quarter of the recommendations from the comprehensive plan however the proposed
use is consistent with multi -family use on several other similar houses on this block face
as Mr. Anastasio described and with the size of the existing structure city planning commission
recommends that the board grant this variance thank you MI 2021 -005 -022 -1726 Memorial Avenue
I vote yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ismail Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you.
MI 2021 -004 -969 -2401 Aramingo Avenue. Melanie Lacey is the attorney, RCO, Old Richmond Civic Association, letter of non -opposition.
Ms. Lacey is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Melanie Lacey, M -E -L -A -N -I -E, last name L -A -C -E -Y.
I'm with Claire Harrison Harvey in Brandsburg, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, PA.
all right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do could you before we start could you state who your your client is and what's the relationship
to the property yes i represent um gsrh wings pa llc which is the applicant and tenant of the
property thank you mr holliman has a few questions for you good morning counselor do you agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy I do according to our records
you have submitted all of the required documents is that correct that is correct please proceed
can you see my screen yes wonderful could you make it just a little larger please sure
perfect perfect okay great so
Thank you once again. I am accompanied by Hansraj Agrawal, who is a representative of the tenant
that I just named. And we're here because Wingstop seeks special exception relief to open a new
location. So the property is located at 2401 -259 Aramingo Avenue. And Wingstop received a refusal
letter or a referral letter rather on September 29th, 2021 due to the fact that ZBA approval is
required for all restaurant uses in the North Delaware Avenue overlay district. We met with
the coordinating RCO on September 29th, 2021 due to the fact that again, once again, ZBA approval
is required, special exception relief for restaurant users. The property is zone CA2
and it is the Delaware district that provides the restaurant controls.
And here are some photos of the subject property and surrounding area. So the proposed restaurant
is located within a fairly large shopping center near the intersection of Aramingo Avenue and East
Cumberland Street. And it's in the pad building that's closest to Aramingo Avenue. I'm hovering
over it right now if you can see. So that unit is currently vacant at this time and Wingstop
would be the first tenant since the shopping center underwent an extensive remodeling and
rebranding back in 2019. Here is an aerial.
Here is an aerial, and here you can see a construction photo from 2020, and this is an image of the pad site.
Here I've identified the unit that will be occupied, and it is located next to a proposed nifty -fifty.
So, before I proceed with the posting of the zoning notice, I'll also mention that, you know, the name of the shopping center is Port Richmond, previously, and it was renamed to Fishtown Crossing in 2019.
So, here's a photo of our compliance with the posting of the zoning notice 21 days before the hearing, and I have some floor plans.
um so the restaurant will have approximately 12 tables um hours of operation will be from 11 a .m
to midnight and i'll also mention that alcohol will not be served on site and the restaurant
will be uh using a shared dumpster for the pad building which is already in place and trash
collection has been arranged by the landlord so with these arrangements we would respectfully
argued that granting the application will not cause any negative impacts. Lastly, I will go
through, here is a copy of the lease agreement, tax compliance certificate,
application for special exception, project information form, and RCO notification and
proof of mailing. So that summarizes my testimony. And I'm accompanied, once again, I mentioned
Hansaraj Agrawal, managing member of GSRH WINS PA LLC, the applicant and tenant who will be sworn
in. Hansaraj, can you please raise your hand so that you can be promoted to the panel?
He may
immute
himself.
Could you
state your
name and
spell it
for the
reporter
please?
Hansraj
Agrawal,
H -A -N -S -R -A -J -A -G -R -A -W -A -L.
Right.
Do you
swear or
affirm to
tell the
truth,
the whole
truth,
nothing but
the truth?
thank you uh did you hear my testimony that i provided to the board this morning yes and do
you affirm that my presentation was accurate yes do you adopt my testimony as your own yes great
thank you thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments
from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Ian Hegarty
for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the Board,
the proposed special exception
will not cause detrimental impacts
to the neighborhood beyond
what would normally be expected for the use.
The City Planning Commission recommends
that the Board grant this special exception.
MI 2021 -004969,
2401 Aramingo Avenue. I vote yes. Thomas Holloman. My vote is yes. James Snell. My vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid. My vote is yes. Thank you, Counselor. Thank you.
MI 2021 05 -227 -3201 -07 West Oxford Avenue. We have a letter from the RCO of Support,
strawberry mansion community development corporation eileen quigley is the attorney
ms quigley is coming back in as a panelist
yes good morning uh chair could you could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
please yes my name is eileen quigley e -i -l -e -e -n quigley q -u -i -g -l -e -y do you swear or firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do before we start to i could you identify
your client and the relationship to the property yes good morning i'm here with my colleague
jordan meyer from ballard spar on behalf of habitat for humanity philadelphia habitat for
humanity is developing the property okay hold on one minute hold hold on one minute mr hollman has
a few more questions for you mr hollman uh good morning counselor do you agree to waive the reading
of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy i do and did you submit a rco letter
i do and did you submit a rco letter we did not but the rco uh it's my understanding that the rco
submitted it to the uh zoning board we got a copy from we have we have a copy of the letter we have
okay from the rco the other day thank you please proceed thank you so as i say good morning everyone
my name is eileen quigley i'm here with my colleague jordan meyer on behalf of habitat
for Humanity Philadelphia. With me are Ed McCauley, who is representing Habitat for Humanity
Philadelphia today, and our design team from ISA, Alex Gauza, Chris Mulford, and Brian Phillips.
Oh, let me share my screen, if I may.
So, as I said, these properties are being developed by, redeveloped by Habitat for Humanity
Philadelphia. The owner currently is the RDA, but there will be a conveyance of the property
to Habitat for Humanity Philadelphia this year. As you noted, we submitted all of our
exhibits to the board. We attended an RCO meeting on February 24th. We sent out notice
letters as required and posted the property as required. So we're here today seeking a
variance for minimum lot size for the redevelopment of lots located at 3201 -07 West Oxford Street.
The property lies in the RSA 5 Zoning District and is subject to the 5th District and the
Neighborhood Conservation District Strawberry Mansion overlays. Here's our certificate of tax
clearance, the posted property.
Finally, we did submit revised zoning plans to the board, which we are seeking the board
to approve today.
The revised plans for which we are seeking approval were shown to the community at the
February 24 RCO meeting.
The zoning application was submitted for the relocation of lot lines to create five lots
from four lots.
These lots are vacant and have been vacant for quite some time.
the required lot area for the rsa 5 district is 1440 square feet however under the overlay
the proposed lots well also under the overlay they should be 1440 square feet however
with the relocation of lot lines creating the five lots the proposed lots are 1048 square feet
so we are seeking a reasonable adjustment from the minimum lot area regulations and we believe
the request for variance meets the spirit intent of the code and at this time i would like to ask
um alex gaza to raise her hand and go through the site plan for the zoning board excuse me this is
sharon if i can interrupt for one minute miss quigley did you submit the the um completed
proviso plans form and the revised plans i did i submitted that last week okay thank you you're
welcome. Under a separate email as well, Ms. Salata. So it was a separate PDF from our zoning
exhibits. Thank you. I'll check for that now. I can resend if you need me to.
Not necessary. Thank you. You're welcome.
i mean is it okay if i this is sure we have to square you in okay could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter please my name is alex gaza interface studio architects
spelled a l e x g a u z z a right you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do proceed may i just ask you some questions miss gaza to establish you as an expert
yes thank you so miss gaza can you state your occupation i'm an architect and how long have
been an architect 10 years and can you give us just a brief summary of your educational background
um i have a bachelor's degree bachelor of arts and architecture and a master's degree in
architecture okay and can you identify the as your resume at exhibit o
yes okay exhibit o is miss gauze's resume all right miss gauze i'm on the site i'm on the
revised site plan right now if that's uh somewhere else i would just like you to get
okay i would just like you to go through the redevelopment of these vacant lots for the
zoning board? Sure. Can you just scroll down a little bit? Sure.
sure um can you just scroll down a little bit sure okay um okay the site plan that you're seeing
kind of in the upper left hand corner is the proposed uh subdivision of one large parcel into
five lots um you can see that we are looking to have these lots face 32nd street these houses
will be two -story single -family homes the house on the corner of oxford and 32nd street is designed
slightly differently from the floor plans of the other four homes to be able to accommodate
a potential owner who is wheelchair bound. That is the reason for the difference in the
footprint of the building. It allows for a bedroom on the first and bathroom on the first floor of
the home. We have a alley that's adjacent to the existing property proposed for egress from the
rear yards and the corner lot also has a ramped at an entrance point on Oxford Street. Ms. Gauza,
Can you just explain briefly why the properties are going to be oriented to 32nd Street?
Sure. As part of Habitat for Humanity's mission to create for sale affordable housing in the city of Philadelphia, we have looked to right size these units to make them affordable for people to buy.
And therefore, two -story homes were more desirable than three -story homes. Oxford Street, the fabric along Oxford Street is primarily three -story homes.
Thus, we chose to turn the houses and have a break between the existing fabric along Oxford Street and have these houses face 32nd Street, to which if you continue down along 32nd Street, the scale of the homes along 32nd Street is also two -story.
So we're trying to kind of respect the existing pattern of the scale of homes on both of those edges.
And Ms. Gauza, as you know, we're here today for a variance for minimum lot area, but if we were to maintain the original four lots, would we still need a variance for lot area?
Yes, we would.
So in your opinion, would this request for variance for minimum lot area be the minimum variance required to use these lots for single family affordable dwellings?
Yes, it would.
And in your opinion, will the proposed homes fit in the character of the neighborhood?
Yes, they will. We've followed all of the requirements for the overlay to with for the materiality of the exterior of the homes.
we have also had multiple meetings with the community to come up with an agreed upon strategy
for material distribution that includes brick which is the desire of the community and we
which is shown in this rendering here and we are still this is one of the two images that was shown
at a previous community meeting and we're still working through the color of the siding product
with the community all right thank you miss gaza but finally in your opinion would the grant of
variance endanger the public health safety or general general welfare in any way no it would
not thank you miss gaza thank you mr bergman all right do you want the owner's rep to adopt
your testimony yes could you do that please have him mr mccauley can you please raise your hand
mr mccauley please unmute yourself and wait for the chair good morning could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter yeah my name is edward mccauley e -d -w -a -r -d mccauley m -c -c -o -l -l -y
right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed mr mccauley you heard me give the presentation a beginning with regard to this
project if you were able to testify would you adopt my testimony as accurate and in keeping with what
you would have testified to yes thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman yes
no mr chairman no mr chairman yes mr chairman um so for the for the actual property now when
mr chairman
when it comes to the side lay of one along 32nd street um what exactly are going to be the
designated areas for the trash
i'm sorry this is tanya i just want to state for the record
that that is ishmael shaheed asking one of our board members
miss gauze do you have a response to that where the trash is going to be stored
are you talking about the lot a the oxford and 32nd yes
i think it is our intention that trash will be stored in the the rear yards and taken out for
pickup through the alley all right okay no further we just thank you we just want to note that even
with the revised plans the only variance that is still required is for the minimum lot area
the the project in every other way we're we're okay we're okay complies with the zoning code
One more thing. I would like to enter my exhibits into evidence.
Okay. And if I could mention, this is Sharon. I've reviewed the revised plans and form. Those changes are fine. It's one page.
Okay, thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Sharon.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
members of the board in 2014 the zoning map was amended from rm1 to rsa5 in this area
in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan the project's been refused
because in the fifth city council district the minimum lot size for rsa5 is 1440 square feet
these proposed lots are substantially smaller than this required minimum and the average lot
size on this and adjoining blocks we don't believe that applicant has demonstrated a hardship as it's
strictly defined in the zoning code however given the intent of the project to provide
rent restricted housing sorry it's housing in accord with comprehensive plan recommendations
with affordable housing the city planning commission does not object to the granting of
variance. Thank you, sir. MI 2021 -005 -227 -3201 -207 West Oxford Street. I vote yes with revised plan
one page. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso. James Snell, yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes with proviso. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes my business. May I
please be excused? Absolutely, yes. MI 2021 -005 -093 -3500 Civic Center Boulevard,
letter of support from the 27th Ward RCO, Jared Klein.
Excuse me, Chair, if I can also mention that we did receive four letters in opposition
from neighbors oh i'm i'm i apologize no i guess i apologize we're we're still on eight
good morning mr chair members of the board state your name and spell for the court reporter please
sure it's jared j -a -r -e -d last name is klein k -l -e -i -n from blank rome 130 30 north 18th
street in philadelphia do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes i do um before we start you identify your client and the relationship 3500 civic
center boulevard mr chair yes if you if the uh board could also promote peter kelson to
panelists he's going to make the presentation i'm just going to provide some exhibits sure
mr kelson is coming back in as a panelist
Mr. Kelsen, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Peter Kelsen, K -E -L -S -E -N, blank Rome.
I am counsel to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, which is the applicant in this
thank you do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do sir mr hallman has a few questions for you good morning council
I do, sir. Mr. Holman has a few questions for you.
Good morning, counselor. Do you agree to do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
I do. According to our records, you have submitted all of the required documents. Is that correct?
That is correct. Please proceed. Thank you. And Jared will assist in providing the exhibits, which are now before your screen.
Um, we'll start with the refusal, um, by way of context, members of the board, um, the subject
property is zone CMX five commercial. Um, Jared, if we could skip down to the overall, um, um, area
site photographs, the property, which is located at 3 ,500 civic center Boulevard is also bounded
by Health Center, Health Services Drive and East Services Drive. The property is currently
utilized by CHOP for clinical and support services. The application before the board,
pretty straightforward, requests permission to erect three accessory identification signs
for Children's Hospital upon these, it's really one structure upon the buildings.
Now we're removing three signs and Jared, if we could just go into the rendering plans,
I think that would be easiest. So if the board please, these signs are required to afford visual
identification of the property to visitors, patients, and others. You know the area is
extremely dense. It is the health center complex with the University of Pennsylvania Hospital,
Children's Hospital, the VA Hospital, etc. And the signage that we're proposing
is the minimal amount needed to afford that identification and location.
As I indicated, it is all accessory.
So let me be very careful and describe the signage that's at issue.
We are proposing, and we're identifying this as sign number two.
We call it the skyline sign.
It's located on the parapet of the structure. It is approximately 19 by 200, and that's including the entire box members of the board, not the individual letters.
L &I counts the entire sign face. Internally illuminated, it has a total square footage
from tip to tip and all dimension of about 4 ,084 square feet. It will be internally illuminated
and will certainly be consistent with existing signage immediately adjacent to it and in the
area. Sign number three, which we'll refer to as the roof sign, basically consists of pinned letters
that will be about one and a half feet by 36 feet in approximate length. Again, that's not
the individual letters, that's going to be the collective. And that sign will consist of about
462 square feet of area. And you can see that on the screen before you. And the last sign,
members of the board, is a sign which we'll refer to as sign number four. We call it the
staff canopy sign. It's a sign that will be located on the existing canopy, as you can see
indicated in the cursor. Also pinned letters, about two and a half feet by 36 and a half feet,
a total amount of signage equating to 94 square feet. As I indicated earlier, these signs are
lit either internally or minimally. There will be no glare. There will be no light spillage.
there will be no intermittent or flashing lights at all. The variants we request members of the
board are for the size, overall dimension of the signage proposed, as well as because we're in CMX5,
any signage that is located above the second floor level requires Zoning Board of Adjustment
requires Zoning Board of Adjustment Variance approval. I would point out to the board that
variance approval.
the ARC Commission has reviewed all of the signage proposed, and the commission has approved the
signage that is before you, as well as all existing signage. And lastly, we have a very brief but
but a very supportive email from the 27th board Republican RCO.
That was the convening RCO indicating their support for the variants that is dated 2 -14 -2022.
At this point, members of the board, I welcome any questions that you may have.
Mr. Kelson, do you want to have your, do you have a representative from the hospital here?
Why don't you have your testimony adopted by that person?
Let me have Brian Hardner join as a panelist, please.
There's no hands at this time.
What's the last name again?
Should be Hardner.
Brian.
we would ask that they raise their hand to be allowed to speak.
There's no one listed underneath that name.
Mr. Kelson, you're a member of the court.
We'll take it.
Your testimony's fine.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
commission members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing cmx5
zoning at this location we believe these proposed signs are substantially similar to existing signs
and consistent with other signs in the area city planning commission recommends that the board
grant the variances thank you mi 2021 005093 3500 civic center boulevard i vote yes thomas
halliman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes yes my vote is yes thank you sir thank you so
much for your congratulations have a good day good mi 2021 005085 4700 city line avenue the rco
windfield residence association letter support support with provisos we also have several
letters of people for at least four letters of people objecting to the project stephanie boggs
Magna is the attorney. Yes, good morning. Stephanie Magana. Could you state your name
and spell for the court report? I'm sorry. That's okay. Stephanie Magana, M -A -G -A -G -N -A,
Claire Harrison, Harvey Bransburg, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, P -A -1 -9 -1 -0 -3. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Could you
identify your client and relationship to the property? Sure. So my client is in the mansion
at bala lp they are the fee owner of the property all right mr hollman has a few questions good
morning counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy
yes i do according to our records you have submitted all of the required documents is
that correct that is correct please proceed
so can you see my screen we can great um so this application is in reference to 4700 city avenue
it's the property that encompasses city avenue conchahokan boulevard and north 47th street
it's an existing multi -family apartment complex um with on -site accessory parking it was originally
approved as a multi -phase development so there is an undeveloped portion of the site
because that secondary phase was never constructed.
This application seeks approval to relocate lot lines in one part
to create two lots from the one existing parcel.
The one lot that's proposed will include the existing multifamily apartment complex,
and the second property will include the undeveloped portion of the lot.
No new construction is being proposed in connection with this subdivision,
but we are seeking variances in connection with the subdivision,
specifically to allow a maximum occupied area of 61 .5%, which is a function of
reducing the lot size that will occupy the existing multifamily apartment complex.
reducing the lot size that will occupy the existing multifamily apartment complex.
And the second is a regular depth variance, which I'll note is going to be internal to the site
and a function of the distance that will be created between the leasing office that's existing
and the property line of the new lot. So it will be internal to the site. The second phase of this
application, which we're not seeking approval for, but I'd like to mention is a reconfiguration of
the existing parking lot. So as I said, there is on -site accessory parking provided to the
residents of the mansion at Bala. This application will restripe the parking lot and reduce that
count by 38 spaces to remove spaces that will be on the new lot that's proposed to avoid a
variance there. I'll note that we have an existing greater than one -to -one ratio for existing
apartment units, and that ratio will be maintained as we go forward with the lot subdivision and the
reconfiguration of parking and we are not seeking variance approval in connection with the
reconfiguration of parking just simply the subdivision excuse me miss um could you tell me
are these the changes that you just described are they on revised plans did you submit revised
plans to show those changes no so sharon they're not they're not any revised plans that need to be
submitted this is simply not a refusal the parking reconfiguration so it is on our existing zoning
plan. Okay, thank you. So we did meet with the co -coordinating RCOs on January 18th, and their
letter of support is included within the packet. I'll note that at the meeting, they requested that
certain repairs be made to the fence that's in front of the Vista apartments that's on our
property, and those repairs have since been made. I do have a property manager for the site as well
as representatives for the owner available to answer any questions about that, but given that
those repairs have been made. We don't feel that that proviso is necessary, but we're happy to
answer any questions if anybody has it. And with that, I'll ask Tyler Updegrave to sign on and adopt
my testimony. He is the project engineer with Pannoni. Tyler, can you please raise your hand
and identify yourself for the board? Hello, this is Tyler from Pannoni. Hi, could you state your
name is spelled for the court reporter? Yes, it's Tyler from Pannoni. It's T -Y -L -E -R space U -P -D -E -G -R -A -V -E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Proceed.
Tyler, have you heard my statements this morning? Yes. Do you believe them to be true and accurate?
Yes, I do. Would you adopt them as your own? Yes, I will. Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Sandra Lawrence.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Sandra Lawrence, S -A -N -D -R -A, Lawrence, L -A -W -R -E -N -C -E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
I'm very concerned as a resident.
I've been here for several years.
I relocated from my home here because of the fact that it was all one level for me and very convenient for me in my aging stance as a senior.
I am really concerned about the parking and the fact that if they go ahead with this, it will eliminate a lot of the green space and the greenery and some of the other issues or beautification that really appealed to me when I moved here.
I am especially concerned about the elimination or how they would space our current dumpster area and our trash area.
I am totally petrified of critters of any sort, and I know that if they move that dumpster and trash, if it's something they move closer to the property, or if it's not maintained as it is in the size that it is, that we could possibly begin to have infestations of various sorts to accommodate all the members that are, or residents that are here.
I am also concerned about, I was thinking of getting a pet, and that was one of my concerns was I liked having the dog park here because I've had a pet for many, many years.
And I was thinking eventually if I ever again got a pet, I would be able to have the convenience of the dog park.
got a pet, I would be able to have the convenience of the dog park because I had anticipated when I
moved here, based on the structure of the existing facility, that it would be ideally suited to meet
my needs for while I'm earthly, basically. Ms. Lawrence. Yes. I'm sorry, if I may. I just want
to clarify what the scope of this application is. First, I'm a dog lover, so I always recommend you
good pet. But this application is not proposing any new development with the project. There will
be no physical improvements or reconfigurations made except for the restriping of the parking,
which again, as I said, we're maintaining a one -for -one parking ratio, so you will still
have a space for your unit. I know there's not assigned parking, is my understanding,
but there will still be a greater than one -to -one ratio provided at the site. There is no
improvements and physical improvements proposed with this application so none of the issues around
trash relocation or critters or development or removal of the green space is proposed at all
with this application so it is simply a legal let's listen up one minute do you want to finish
is there anything else you want to add to your testimony yes and i heard everything you said
okay so i can go forward yeah is there anything else you want to add yes to my understanding the
information that we received about um what this purpose how it would eliminate or restructure
the facility as it is now that the gazebo and the dog park or the trash area would possibly be
um eventually at risk and i'm also concerned if they begin to build a building or any structure
in the future on that additional lot if they separate it traffic will be horrendous what
But listen one minute. So the issue is, are you for the project or against what they want?
I'm against the project. Totally. Thank you. And I heard counsel, you'll get a chance to respond.
And excuse me, chair. This is Sharon. If I could just clarify one thing.
Once this is developed as a separate lot, you would be able to develop that lot as something other than what it is now.
Is that correct? Well, it's currently vacant, so it could be approved if there was new development proposed.
But certainly that would either need to comply with the zoning code or they would need to go back to the RCOs and back to the community and to this board to seek relief should any be required.
But there is no development proposed at this time.
But compliance with the zoning code would not require you to continue the conditions that are currently on the lot.
So they could be eliminated, correct?
Correct.
This is an RSA -3 lot, though, so we would be very limited as far as what a by -right development on the site would be.
The purpose of this application is to secure appropriate financing for the existing multifamily
development complex. That is why the owner is submitting this application. We are not proposing
any new development on the new lot at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for calling in.
Anyone else in the virtual audience who wants to make comment? Yes, Chair. We have
someone with the last name
please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
could you state your name
it's spelled for the court reporter
yes my name is Limunga
L -I -M -U -N -G -A
last name Musonge
M -U -S -O -N -G -E
do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Good morning. Thank you for letting me, giving me time to make a comment. I just wanted to piggyback off of Ms. Lawrence in reference to the concerns about parking. The parking garage that we have here at Mansion at Bala at 4700 City Avenue is already extremely crowded with the outside parking.
so the elimination of those parking spaces outside would mean that many of us who work at night
or who come in after a certain hour will be forced to park elsewhere and because there is no
street parking in the immediate area we would have to figure out where we would be parking
especially if we come in late at night you know like myself I work at night so my concerns with
safety are you know where would I park you know and still feel safe walking from my car into my
apartment. That's one of the main concerns I have with this project. Thank you. Thank you very much
for calling in. Is there any? I don't want to go one for one. I'll give you a chance to respond at
the end. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience who wants to make a comment? I see no
hand share. Council? Yes, again, I just want to confirm what the scope of the application is. So
Yes, again, I just want to confirm what the scope of the application is. So we're proposing a relocation of lot lines, and that is the only issues we're seeking refusals for.
We're proposing a relocation.
Those refusals relate specifically to the relocation of lot lines and the dimensions that would be created on the existing lot that would include the existing multifamily development complex.
It's being requested by the owner at this point in order to secure appropriate financing for the existing apartment complex.
there is no new development proposed on the lot the restriping of the parking is so that we avoid
an additional refusal on the lot that we are creating but again we will be maintaining a
one -for -one parking ratio greater than one -for -one parking ratio on our property and we are not
seeking any variance relief related to parking there is an over provision of parking compared
to what is required under rsd3 zoning here and again i'll note that this is an rsd3 lot
So any new construction that eventually would be proposed or possibly could be proposed on the new lot would either need to comply with the relatively strict provisions of the RSD -3 zoning code, or would need to seek relief from not only the approval from the community, but also relief from this board.
I apologize if I'm not understanding, but the 36 spaces that are on the lot behind the residential development, are they being eliminated or continued?
We're removing those from the striping plan so that we don't have non -accessory parking on that lot in an RSD3 district.
that would so no parking would no longer be permitted there is that correct right they
would no longer be striped spaces they would no longer be stripe spaces meaning there would be
no approved parking on that lot it would be thank you and it's 38 spaces there are 276 dwellings
units um we have 365 existing spaces and we are removing 38. thank you so council where would you
be adding or replacing the 38 parking spaces on that facility site? We're not replacing them
because we don't need a variance for parking. We have a greater parking provided on site.
What you mentioned to the young lady, Sharon, was that it's still going to be one for one
for a unit parking, one parking space for each unit. So if you're going to take away 38 spaces,
where's the replacement for it to be one -for -one ratio there are only 276 dwelling units on the
property we have 365 existing parking spaces and there will be 327 spaces once this restriping is
finished okay question uh planning commission
thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission
um members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsd3 zoning
at either of the proposed lots. This proposal would increase the degree of dimensional
nonconformity for the existing nonconforming buildings and lot. We typically are looking for
some evidence being presented about an economic detriment to the applicant in consistency with
the surrounding neighborhood, and it's not clear that we have that here.
we don't believe there's hardship in this case it's also not clear even if there were to be
shown a hardship that the proposed dimensions represent the minimum necessary variance we
didn't hear any testimony to that effect and so the city planning commission is going to recommend
that the board deny these variances MI 2021 -005085 4700 city avenue I vote no
Thomas Holloman my vote is no James Snell my vote is no Ishmael Shahid my vote is no
MI 2021 003 182 5000 Warrington Avenue
looking for the rco letter peter kelson's an attorney also andrew stoll is an attorney
and i believe the solicitor's office will be involved in this too
chair this is sharon we have received three rco letters in support
it's not clear whether one of those is the coordinating thank you okay mr kelson just
just state your name we already have sworn you in yes good morning again members of the board
I've sworn you in.
Good morning again, members of the board.
peter kelson
Peter Kelsen, K -E -L -S -E -N, Blank Rome,
counsel for Warrington Development Partners,
Limited Partnership, the owner of the subject property.
And Mr. Ruder, can I swear you in, please?
State your name and spell for the court reporter.
Leonard Reuter, R -E -U -T -E -R.
All right.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do i do i do all right miss mr stall could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
please yes good morning everyone andrew stall s -t -o -l -l and i'm counsel for lisa johannes
fire right okay um sharon you want to lay some ground rules out yes mr reuter is here today
because, Mr. Stoll, you raised issues having to do with the accuracy of the refusal.
If Mr. Reuter could begin by speaking to the issues you raised, please.
Yeah, hi, sure.
The Department of Licenses and Inspections was asked to take another look at the application
and the refusals in order to determine whether any refusals were missed i think there were three
in particular that were asked about um one had to do with uh whether an adjacent property affected
the review the other one is whether the rear yard was uh correct the measurement for the rear yard
whether there should have been a refusal for that and the third one is uh that the project that went
through the civic design review uh had 104 units and the application is asking for 100 so with
respect to um the first issue the the nearest property uh that might have affected the review
is actually across the street and therefore it's not considered an adjoining property so there
would not have been an additional refusal issued for that on the second issue having to do with the
um with the rear yard setback we it was reviewed and we do agree that there should have been an
additional refusal for uh the rear yard uh proposed as being uh non -compliant uh it's it's required to
be eight feet uh deep and based upon what so the letter states that the rear yard is 6 .9 feet but
The plans actually show 7 .1 feet, but in any case, the rear yard would be non -compliant,
so there would be an additional refusal for that.
As far as there being a difference between what went through CDR and what was put on
the site plan, that really doesn't have anything to do with L &I's review of the site plan.
um the cdr committee recommendations and the plans that are shown to to uh the cdr committee
um can be different if there's a big change between what cdr has reviewed and what uh is
proposed to lni lni might send it back but a difference of four units uh wouldn't make any
it wouldn't matter and again ultimately regardless what was shown on the cdr plans
based upon the application that was presented only 100 units would be approved unless the board
approves or imposes a proviso so basically the project is for 100 units so again there would
be no refusal for that so again the upshot is there there would be an additional refusal for
the rear yard as far as how the board would deal with this um in the past we've had things like
this come up where a refusal was missed and you know it's been our position in the law department
and i believe the board's council has agreed in other instances that in most cases so long as
it's indicated on the record uh what the additional refusal would be this board has the authority to
just simply recognize that in the record and not require uh it to formally go back to lni to get a
a formal uh additional refusal uh issued because we can just i mean it's on the record now that
there would be the additional refusal for the rear yard um so again if if there's a if there
is however a challenge uh or a strong disagreement with the city's position or lni's position on these
three uh matters that would kind of convert this into at least partially an appeal against ellen i
which would then you know would have would have to be handled in a different way so basically i'm
would have would have to be handled in a different way so basically i'm just here to advise
just here to
the board of what l and i determined and it's entirely up to the board's discretion how to
mr reuter if i can ask just two quick questions um as far as increasing the number of units the
revised plans submitted by the applicant do increase the number of units by four units
However, there is already a refusal for residential use in an industrially zoned property. Increasing the number of units would not in any way change that refusal. Is that correct? It would not generate an additional refusal.
no because the refusal is for the is for the use uh it wasn't there's no uh there's no yes there
there's no limitation on the number right because right i mean it would be different if the refusal
were based on specific density but that's not the case here this is a this is a straightforward use
uh refusal so and as far as the second refusal that you mentioned um the rear yard right that
not being included in the notice of refusal that was not because of any misrepresentation on the
applicant's part the plans were accurate it was simply that the examiner it was just missed
yeah okay i mean and that would then not require an amended refusal it would simply require um
i i think that you do memorandums of um of correction is that correct i believe ellen i
could do that sure but again i think once it's in the record this board can just recognize that
there should be additional refusal and they can just simply address that in their decision i mean
it's interesting just as an aside in the past prior to the new zoning code actually even for
a few years after 2012 it was very common for lni to see a refusal and then a couple other things
that also would result in either special exception
or other refusals,
but they would oftentimes just list the main one
and not even mention the other ones,
even though they knew they were there
because once the board grants a variance
for the project as presented to the board,
it covers everything.
Thank you.
Yeah, it's only more recently
that we've been trying to be more meticulous
about making sure every refusal and referral is listed,
but that was not past practice.
Mr. Chairman and Ms. Saleta and Mr. Reuter and Mr. Stoll, if I might, just for one moment, with regard to the rear yard, there is an interpretive component here.
And it's our position that we believe that the application as filed and refused, the original plan set, again, we're working off of a proviso plan set, but that rear yard dimension did not change.
But Section 14203 .370B, and I'll paraphrase, allows the examiner to take the extreme rear line of the lot, and that's going to be adjacent to Building A on the plan, which you'll see in a few minutes, or the nearest sideline of the lot.
And it is the most extreme distance. So when you see the plan, we believe that the examiner correctly interpreted that that portion of the plan meets the required setback.
But rather than debate this, I want to put that on the record because we have a challenge, potential challenge, but I certainly agree with Mr. Reuter with regard to the jurisdiction of the board, should you be disposed to grant this relief.
but we actually believe that the examiner was correct it is an interpretive issue um there
you know there are really three street frontages associated with this project and then the scepter
right -of -way so i thank you for for letting me speak to that issue briefly mr stoll do you have
any comments i do and i just have one thing i'd like to to make and perhaps mr royer can
um comment on this so when we look at the the height with respect to the height we agree
that the setback was missed and we agree with the um the examiner's review on that point
um and i if i could share my screen if i can have permission to do so go ahead
so we we've received a correspondence this morning with uh the reviewers comments back
to the issues we raised so with respect to whether or not there is a height limitation
So with respect to whether or not there is a height limitation, we believe there is, and I can explain why.
we believe there
With the I -2, it's 60 feet if it's a budding, a residential district.
If I look at the definition of a budding, which I'll pull up now, that is to touch or share a contiguous boundary or border or to be separated by an alley or shared driveway.
in the refusal or I'm sorry in the comments that we received back this morning it mentions a
railroad a railroad or railroad right a railroad right away is not mentioned at all in the definition
of abutting under the code so we would believe again if it be an interpretation issue or otherwise
that there is a height limitation with respect to this project
Mr. Chairman again I believe Mr. Reuter has addressed this but it's our we provided
And our rebuttal to Mr. Stoll's argument, there is a very big difference between abutting and adjacent. And it's our position that the examiner was correct. There is no height limitation based on the fact that this property does not meet the criteria for imposing a 60 -foot height.
thank you Sharon I'm ready to move on with the case okay if I could just note one more thing
that as far as Mr. Reuter's comments I can confirm that the board has in the past where
there is a missing refusal only because the examiner missed something not that the applicant
misrepresented you've added a proviso stating it includes approval includes variance for
whatever it is if necessary thank you all right Mr. Kelson you've been sworn we're going to
start the case mr hollman has just a few questions for you absolutely good morning counselor do you
agree to waive there do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy well in light of the conversation we've just had i i um will waive the reading but i can't
stipulate to its accuracy um however the reason i'm not stipulating to the accuracy
the moment is because we're also presenting a proviso plan which has been previously
submitted calling for 104 units and therefore the original refusal would not necessarily
match the proviso plan. Thank you. Thank you. According to our records, you have submitted
all of the required documents. Is that correct? That is correct.
please proceed thank you uh i'm going to call up our exhibits um
if mr stall could stop screen sharing thank you
mr klein is running av today um so members of the board uh while the screen is is going up
this is the original refusal we can move off of that and i just want to show you the um
site context, subject property,
which we've indicated is zoned I -2 industrial,
located in an area predominantly residential.
This is an overhead view of the site.
The site is immediately to the right of the railroad tracks,
as you can see indicated, immediately to the left,
under construction, it's probably, it's complete now,
is a multifamily dwelling. Surrounding are predominantly residential uses.
Zoning classifications vary from CMX2 to meet on the opposite side of the street, as well as
RSA5 and RM1. Members of the board, subject property is clearly a blight on the neighborhood.
It has been vacant. It is a junkyard. You can have a direct street view. This is what the neighbors see every day and have seen for years.
the site borders the trackage as you see in this photograph it is also bounded by Warrington
as well as 50th street and a small portion of the property by Springfield the property itself
contains about 75 ,000 square feet of area I should point out to the board and this is contained in
the application and the refusal mentions that there are currently existing nine forces that
constitute the subject property. We are, as part of this application, requesting consolidation.
We are, as part of this application, requesting consolidation from nine lots to one line.
The property itself has been the beneficiary, I'll use that term purposely, of over two years of community engagement, literally.
We've held over a dozen meetings with various community groups and the collective community organizations.
And I believe, with perhaps one or two exceptions, we've reached consensus, as evidenced by letters of support.
And I want to commend the Councilwoman's office, the developer and the community for facilitating this and allowing us to get to this point.
What are we proposing to do at this location? As you can see from the site plan, and again, I'm going to call this a consensus site plan.
We are proposing to develop the site for affordable housing within two buildings, as you see on the screen.
The total number of units will be 104, again, all affordable housing, either through the LIHTC program, low -income housing tax credit program, or other programming, but primarily LIHTC.
There will be 99 accessory parking spaces located in the area indicated as part of the proviso plan in our discussions with the community.
There will be screening, fencing, and screening that will bound the property on 50th Street.
Jerry, let's go back to the other one for a second.
And run along Warrington as well.
That's intended to prevent headlights spillage onto the residential properties directly across 50th Street and on Warrington.
um primary access to the site or i should say exclusive access to the site will be from
warrington uh to curb cuts um we will also be providing um landscaping and a public park
um to be accessed off the 50 the public park to be accessed off the 50th street
through a new stairwell. Let me give you a sense, if I may, members of the board,
of the unit configuration within the buildings. Remember, we're going to have 104 units total,
and building A will contain a total of 51 units. Five of those units will be configured as one
bedrooms containing 655 square feet of square footage for occupancy. 30 of those units will be
two -bedroom, 940 square feet, and 16 will be three -bedroom units of approximately 1170 square
The intention is to create a diverse living facility available to families, individuals, etc.
Now, Building B is similar. That will contain a total of 53 affordable dwelling units, configured as follows.
Five one -bedroom units, 10 -unit size, 655, 32 -bedroom units, again, 943 feet, and finally, 18 three -bedroom units, 1170 square feet.
um because the the property is zoned industrial two the total far that would have been allowed
gross floor area that would have been allowed on site is 375 ,000 square feet we're proposing a
total gross floor area of 131 ,000 square feet roughly one third the building height
will be set at 72 feet. Again, that's shown on the proviso plans, and you can see some renderings
indicating that as well. Our building coverage, the code would allow us 80 percent
in the industrial zone. We're providing 35 percent, so a significant amount of open area
affording landscaping, affording active recreational use will be provided.
Provide two loading areas. All access for that will be off of Barrington.
Loading will be positioned behind the building.
Loading will be positioned behind the building, as indicated there with the cursor.
It will be shielded from view of the residential area, be used for tenant move -ins, move -outs, as well as for trash removal from the project.
34 bicycle parking spaces will be made available.
Our parking field includes not only handicapped accessible spaces, but electric vehicle spaces as well.
I should point out to the board, before I get into a few more comments, that this project had been reviewed by the Civic Design Review Committee on December 7, 2021.
One, the Civic Design Review approval letter is in the packet.
A number of the changes that you're seeing in the Proviso plan reflect comments made by both community, but also Civic Design Review members.
So if I may take a moment to just indicate the changes between the original plan submitted and the Proviso plan before the board today.
We have reduced the building footprint substantially.
The building footprints are now 10 ,918 feet.
Previously, they were 12 ,474 and 14 ,126 feet on the previous plan.
We've reduced the gross floor area to $65 ,500 approximately per building.
Previously, building A was almost 79 ,000 square feet of floor area.
Building B was almost 71 ,000 square feet of floor area.
We have unified and created a consistent height configuration for both buildings at 72 feet.
Previously, the building A was close to 75 and a half feet.
I mentioned again, unit count at 104, parking at 99.
If I may ask to share the renderings of the site to give you an illustration of how the buildings will be positioned, the materiality, the parking, and how the buildings are sited as close to the rail tracks as we can.
Again, this plan that you see, as I said previously, is a consensus plan.
A lot of deliberation went into it, and the consensus with the community was to set the buildings back from 50th Street and from Warrington and place the parking in that configuration that you see.
This is the public community park that we're creating, accessed off of 50th. We have a significant grade change along the site, as you can see from the retaining wall, and this will allow for an enlivening of the streetway, active recreational use, both by our residents, as well as by the community.
Within the site, you can see numerous areas of landscaping and active and passive recreational areas.
We've enhanced the landscaping substantially, again, as a result of community input, as well as comments received from Civic Design Review.
And at this point, members of the board, I will pause.
I believe you've referenced the letters of support.
Mr. Chair, if you want, I can indicate who they are from for the record.
You could, why don't you just indicate who they're from?
Southwest Philadelphia District Services, Cedar Park Neighbors, Earth Keepers, Inc., and I believe, I'm not going to steal any thunder, I believe Andrew Goodman is here for the Councilwoman.
And I would I would point out to the board that the RCOs that participated in the review of the plan and development consisted of about, I believe, five total RCOs.
So you get a sense of of the depth of the community involvement in this process.
the depth of the community involvement in this process.
Do you want to have your client adopt your testimony?
I'd like to do that.
Could,
Polina,
could you raise your hand and be admitted as a panelist,
please?
Hi, good morning.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Hi, good morning.
My name is Polina Bakhtiara, first name P -O -L -I -N -A, last name B as in boy, A -K -H -T as in Tom, E -I -A -R -O -V as in Victor.
Great. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Polina, good morning. You've heard the testimony and the facts and the description of the project that I've given this morning, have you?
Correct.
And is that true and correct, to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
And in fact, you have played a role in this project as a project manager from inception. Is that correct?
Yes, it is.
And you've engaged with the community from the onset for approximately two years. Is that correct?
Yes, it is.
So having heard everything I described, would you adopt that as your own testimony were you to testify today?
yes i would thank you thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
i'm going to go to the virtual audience mr stole would you want to call your client now
yes i can make my presentation and just have my client adopt my testimony if that's that's fine
thank you we just need to be sworn in i believe yeah right do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth? The whole truth is nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Thank you. So good morning again. My
name is Andrew Stoll. I represent a neighbor, Lisa Johannismeier. Simply put, members of the
board, there's just no hardship here, and the applicant hasn't met the heightened standard for
the variances, the multiple variances that he's requesting. So it bears emphasis that not only
is he asking for variances for dimensional requirements, but he's asking for variances
for the use. This use is not permitted in the zoning district, in the I -2 zoning district.
So if we go to hardship, you know, what have we heard and what have you seen that tells you that
there is something unique about this property? There are certain physical circumstances about
this property that prohibit it from being developed in strict conformity with the zoning
ordinance. And simply, there's nothing. In fact, historically, this has been used and even
even recently was used for permitted purposes. So that in and of itself defeats any showing of
a hardship. You know, if I go to the second requirement that due to the hardship, you can't
use in conformance with the ordinance requirements, I'd like to pull up, if I may, if I can share my
screen so what i have on my screen is just but you put it we don't see your screen mr oh i'm sorry
how about now we have it now okay thank you so simply if we just go down like i said this has
been for many years and even recently used for industrial purposes um without issue now again
the applicant was tasked with and his the applicant's burden to show that there are
circumstances and conditions of this property that make it such that it cannot be used in strict
conformance with the code if i just go down what's on my screen in the zoning table for the i2
district i mean it can be used for passive recreation it can be used for safety services
It can be used as a transit station. It can be used as utilities and service, basic and major, business and professional uses, building supplies and equipment.
If I even go to the second page.
It can be used for animal services. It can be used for building services, business support, financial services, maintenance and repair of consumer goods, parking, non -accessory, radio, television, and recording services.
And to that point, my understanding is that there's actually a satellite tower or a video tower on the property that's about 150 feet as they stand there, as it stands today.
Commercial vehicle repair and maintenance, commercial vehicle sales and rental, personal vehicle repair and maintenance, vehicle fueling station, vehicle equipment and supplies, sales and rental, vehicle paint and fishing shop.
I mean, the list goes on and on. Equipment, material, storage, yards and buildings, moving and storage facilities, a warehouse, wholesale sales and distribution, artist studios and art.
a warehouse, wholesale sales and distribution, artist studios and artisan industrial,
limited industrial. Like I said, the property has been used for industrial purposes for many years.
In fact, there is a property, my understanding, right next to it that is actually used and being
used right now as a car storage facility, as a car maintenance repair shop, which is a permitted
use in the I -2 district. So you have been given nothing by the applicant to show that this
property, which is actually much, much larger than the property next to it, cannot be used in
conformance with your ordinance. One of the arguments I would just like to reiterate here
is in terms of what we're seeing is that this is all about profitability. What the applicant is
asking you to do is to disregard the zoning code and say that, you know what, you've heard how great
the project is, but you haven't heard how it conforms with the zoning ordinance or how it
meets the requirements for a variance. So what they're looking for might be what the applicant
thinks is the highest and most profitable use of the property, but that's not why zoning's there.
You know, you had heard that this is a bladed area. Well, bladed or not, the zoning code is
the zoning code, and those requirements are in place. So if I keep going just through the
requirements, that the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
But as you heard, it's surrounded mostly by residential homes.
These are one and two -story residential homes.
If I bring up another.
So if you'll see on the zoning map, it is surrounded by residential areas, but residentially zoned areas.
So we are now putting in a proposed 72 -foot building into an area that is primarily two -story dwellings.
And I'll see this, which is all shown through these exhibits.
So these renderings show that it's the proverbial sticking out like a sore thumb.
Again, all two -story homes.
So putting a 72 -foot building or 272 -foot buildings there, which is going to be 104 units, is just simply, it's not in conformance with your code.
The next requirement is that the hardship can't be cured by the grant of a dimensional variance.
That's somewhat mute because the applicant seeking, I believe, three or four given interpretation issues, dimensional variances, and the use variance.
The use variance in and of itself defeats the applicant's ability to comply with that requirement.
Moreover, the applicant was burdened to show that they're asking for the minimum variance to afford the relief necessary or that they're asking for the least modification possible.
Well, coming in with a use that is not permitted is simply not coming in with the least modification possible.
And you can throw that same position with respect to the setbacks, with respect to the loading spaces, all other variances that the applicant needs to see.
Again, there's just simply nothing that's been provided to you, despite the project being on property that might be blighted or maybe not aesthetically pleasing to the applicant.
It's not permitted.
In terms of the next requirement that the project be in harmony and spirit with the code, again, I can't stress enough, this is not a permitted use.
And the zoning is there for a reason.
So even if we love this project and think that this is a great idea, it doesn't belong on this property.
And even if the residential uses were permitted on the property, what the applicants proposing is grossly consistent with the surrounding area.
As you can see on my screen, these are all two -story homes, and we're coming in with two buildings that are 72 feet in height.
You have to consider, too, what kind of traffic and thruway is going to be placed on the surrounding streets, which are not very large streets, by all the 104 units that are going to be in the proposed project.
And to that same point with the next requirement, congestion and general welfare, you know, the applicant had to show you that the grant of the variance will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public health, safety or general welfare.
Again, what has been provided to you to show that the 104 units in a primarily two -story residential area fits that requirement?
You have 100 plus units, you have 100 plus cars, two to 400 people, give or take.
And when you talk about deliveries to and from the property, you know, Amazon, moving vehicles, people coming in and out, how is this not work strike against the health, safety, and general welfare?
One point I want to just make with respect to congestion, there is a through street, and I'll show you, I'm sorry, a no through street.
So there is a through street and I'll show there is, I'm sorry, a no through street. And this is right at the corner of the property. And what I'm showing you on my screen is a sign where you'll say it says no through street and then a map that shows the location of that no through street.
So we're really questioning how traffic is going to be handled and how there's not going to be congestion from what the applicant's proposing.
And again, I would ask, what has the applicant shown you to say that there is not going to be significant congestion?
Especially because I understand right now that there is 104 units, I believe, was presented.
But the plan has been changing. It's going up and down and up and down with the number of units.
So, what's not to say that we can move forward and now it's 150 units.
Similarly, with respect to injury to the surrounding uses, again, it was the applicant's burden to prove to you that the variance will not substantially or permanently injure the appropriate use of adjacent conforming properties or impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent conforming properties.
But all the reasons that I just stated, putting these two 72 -foot monstrosities in the neighborhood fly against that.
And one other thing I want to show is right off of, and these were plans that were previously presented.
These are the two buildings on my screen now.
There is a drop -off, or at least there was a drop -off right off of this street here, right in front of the properties.
that is about a 50 foot drop or 15 15 foot drop off and as you'll see it here so while to some
the properties may be 72 feet high if you are further out including like my client
they become about 90 feet out so I understand that there's been different plans changes to the
plans and things like that but again that goes goes directly against what the applicant had to
do, and it was to show that it was not going to have adverse impacts on adjoining properties.
With respect to adversely affecting transportation or undueling, burdening local roadways,
sewer, schools, parks, all the same reasons that I just stated really apply here. We're adding in
an undetermined number of people with at least 104 units into an area that's just not suited for it.
You know, moving on, the grant of the variance will adversely and substantially affect the implementation of any adoptive plan. I don't believe that really applies here.
What they're doing, again, and not to beat the proverbial horse here, is that they're asking to use something in a way that's not permitted by your code.
And in terms of the last prong, the applicant was to show you that the grant of the variants
will not create any significant environmental damage, pollution, erosion, or siltation.
It will not significantly increase the danger of flooding, either through construction,
or the applicant had to take measures that there were not environmental damage during construction.
Just to that same point, if I can wrap it all up here, is, again, it's not a permitted use.
you know, what has the applicant given to you to show that they can't develop this property
in a way that's in conformance with your code? And I thank you for your time. If I can, I just
have, I'd like to have Ms. Johannes Meyer adopt my testimony. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to let Mr. Stoll have her adopt the testimony. I'd like the right to
ask her a couple of questions. Number one, I'd also like the right to respond to Mr. Stoll
whenever the chair feels it's important because um uh he's made a lot of statements that need
right well let's let's talk to his client first sure do you state your name and spell for the
court reporter please your name is melissa johaningsmeyer it's m -l -i -s -s -a -j -o -h -a -n -g -s -m -p -i -e -r
okay thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i affirm thank you mr stall good morning mr hansmeyer um were you present did you hear
the testimony that i just gave to this board yes um do you agree with the statements that i made
and adopt them as your own yes do you believe them to be truthful and accurate and and uh
accurately reflect um your testimony as if it was your own yes i have nothing further mr chairman
Thank you. Mr. Kelsen, you have a question. Sure. Mr. Hannes -Meyer, I hope I'm pronouncing it correctly. Good morning. Can you indicate where you reside?
I reside at 913 South St. Bernard Street, but I also own 918 South St. Bernard Street.
you're breaking up a little bit. You, where do you live? Where do you live? 913 South St. Bernard
You're breaking up a little bit. Where do you live?
Street. And you also own a property at which address? 918 South St. Bernard Street. And is
that um property one in which you live in the 918 it is a vacant lot i see i have no further
questions thank you very much but i'd like to offer my rebuttal very briefly if i may well well
let me what why don't i go let's get some other people who may be in the virtual audience first
counselor other comments from the virtual audience statements chair excuse me this is the court
reporter could I please have the previous witness spell her name I don't believe I got it clear
absolutely Mr. Kelly Mr. Stoll could you spell the name please I'm gonna have uh respectfully
I'm gonna have Ms. Johanning's mark so all right go ahead that's a wise move
It's J -O -H -A -N -N -I -N -G -S -M -E -I -E -R.
Thank you.
Are you okay, Mr. Kelly?
Yes, Chair. Thank you very much.
Sure. Let's go to the virtual audience.
Comments or statements from the virtual audience?
here we have christopher smith
hello mr smith could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter please
yes my name is christopher mejia smith that's spelled m -e -j -i -a hyphen s -m -i -t -h
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Proceed.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
I participated in a number of the community meetings, and I support the variances that are requested for this project.
I don't believe that it's been touched on, but the targeted rents for this property are going to be all below market rate and subsidized, and affordable housing is a major priority for the city.
Now, speaking exactly to the zoning category for this lot, I believe that what we have here is simply outdated zoning and a drafting error.
If you look at the University Southwest District plan for this lot, it is circled and denoted as that the zoning should be I2 as aligning to the existing land use.
And I think that as the applicant has shown, this land has not been used in an industrial form for many years.
So I believe that that was a drafting error.
And in fact, on page 78 of the University's Southwest District Plan, it says as follows.
It is important to encourage commercial uses along corridors with the capacity and density to allow businesses to thrive.
To do this, it is recommended that blocks south of 58th Street, Baltimore Avenue, and Woodland Avenue be zoned for residential uses.
So, given that this property is below Baltimore Avenue, it would make sense to have residential uses be legalized on this lot. So, I believe that the applicant is proposing a project that is within the spirit and the harmony of both the code and then also the district plan.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you. Thank you very much for calling in. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience that wants to comment?
Yes, Chair, we have Diane Settles.
hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
hello hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
good morning my name is diane last name is settles t -i -a -n -e last name spelled s as in sam e -t -t -l -e -s
right do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes, I did.
Thank you very much. Proceed.
Good morning. My name, I represent the group of King Sesson Air Civic Association.
I am one of the RCOs that did not write a letter of support for this project.
Early on, Mr. Kelsen had said that there were numerous meetings, community meetings.
I was only privileged to one community meeting, so I'm not sure what when these other meetings did happen.
Also, I didn't support the project because the community was not given the opportunity to review the changes that had been made by the CEREC design review.
And so that was another reason why I didn't support this.
um support this um the community has not been kept in the loop of these meetings um and that
The community has not been kept in
is unfortunate um if i if i miss something i would like for someone to correct me of um
when these meetings did occur and piggybacking piggybacking off of mr stall as far as this
community this community is a solid community with houses now going for 350 000 up to 600
yes it is a blighted area that is true it's been a blighted area for a while but yet and still
this community has still thrived with the raising of their um um property value um so that is what
I wanted to add and to this proceeding. Thank you for calling in, Ms. Settles. Anyone else in the
virtual audience? Yes, Chair. We have Mark Harrell. Please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Harrell, state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter.
Good morning. My name is Mark Harrell, H -A -R -R -E -L -L.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. I am the co -chair of the 51st Ward
RCO, coordinating RCO for this application, and also a 50 -plus year member of the immediate
community in which this application serves. I, as stated in the previous ZBA and CDR
meetings, hearings, the 51st Ward RCO supports this application and respectfully submit that the
request be granted. Here's an opportunity for, as stated before, affordable housing in our
community and blight obliteration. This property, for as long as I can remember,
has not been used in accordance with what industrial, it's been an eyesore.
For the past two years, we've been meeting the coordinating RCOs and the affected RCOs
have been meeting along with Omni and the residents of this community.
Representatives from Omni have taken it upon themselves to speak with representatives
and near neighbors of this community, and we support in full this application and respectfully
submit that you grant this. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Anyone else in
the virtual audience? Yes, Chair. We have Christopher. Please unmute yourself and wait for
the chair.
Hey, could you state your name and spell
for the court reporter?
Hey, this is not Christopher. This is
Alex Schieffer -Decker.
But I was unmuted, so
I will talk. Alex Schieffer -Decker,
S -C -H -I -E -F -E -R -D -E -C -K -E -R.
Do you swear
for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth? I do.
Proceed. Thank you.
I'm a resident of the Near My Neighbors. I live two blocks away from the project site, and I've attended at least three public meetings on this project.
This is a complicated project. I urge the ZBA to reject variances related to the site plan.
I'm not totally up to speed on what the new ones are, but there's ample room on the site to design a project that meets these design requirements, and there's no practical difficulty that comes from meeting them.
The developer has simply chosen not to comply with site design requirements basically from the start because they've chosen instead to prioritize a massive surface parking lot over anything else, even additional affordable housing, and the ZBA does not need to endorse that choice.
However, whatever the faults with the design, the ZBA should grant the variance requests for residential use on this industrial zone property.
The existing industrial use on the site is inappropriate, as Chris said earlier.
It's embarrassing that past and present council members have not rezoned the site correctly.
The site is surrounded by residential uses.
It's hard to imagine any future owner of this property being able to economically use it for industrial purposes.
And it's even harder to imagine the community acquiescing to an industrial use at this location in the future.
Historically, the site was a coal yard and most recently was a junkyard.
Neither of these prior uses are suitable or practical today.
The use zoning on the site imposes a hardship on the applicant because it is so incongruent
with any feasible use on the site going forward.
The ZBA should also grant variance requests for height.
The ZBA should also grant variance requests for height. The building site is located within a dense urban area and is nearby residential buildings of comparable height, including the new development directly across the railroad tracks and the Irvine building just two blocks down the track.
The building site is located within a dense...
I also want to, I have to directly rebut the assertion by Mr. Stoll that this project will injure the general welfare of my neighborhood. This could not be further from the truth. My neighborhood needs affordable housing and this site is currently a blighted and polluted site. The implication that new neighbors are tantamount to new pollution is frankly insulting.
This is a complicated site and a desperately needed affordable housing project that is unfortunately marred by a thoughtless design.
Given this, I urge the ZBA to render a sort of unusual split decision and reject the site design variances for the project, but grant all the other variances for the underlying land use and height.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
uh mr kelson do you think you can summarize it in two minutes for me please i can do it in one
and mr stall i'll give you two minutes then okay i can do it very quickly thank you mr chairman
so with regards excuse me i'm sorry mr kelson i don't mean to interrupt but i believe wasn't
andrew goodman going to testify is he available sharon you're absolutely right i forgot i'm sorry
Yeah, I, Mr. Goodman, are you out there?
Mr. Goodman, please unmute yourself.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Goodman.
State your name and spell for the court reporter, please.
Thank you.
Andrew Goodman, G -O -O -D -M -A -N.
Here representing the office of third district council member,
Jamie Gaudier, room 586 City Hall.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, please.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, Council Member Gaudier fully supports this application and asks that the board grant the variances as requested.
Given the length of testimony to date, I'll just try to hit some bullet points instead of belaboring particular points.
Certainly, a by -right development scenario under I -2 would absolutely have longer -term negative impacts on neighborhood quality of life, and we would strenuously object to Mr. Stoll's declaration that the previous industrial use was, quote, without issue.
In fact, just in the short time since Councilmember Gaudier took office, our constituent services staff have fielded dozens of concerns from near neighbors for assistance with abandoned autos and short dumping and other issues that were tied to the previous use.
So we believe this declaration to be inaccurate. Further, the declaration that this is, quote,
the most profitable use is also inaccurate. This has already been stated. This application
is only made possible through financing from the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency. So the claim
that this is some sort of market rate grab is inaccurate also. And in fact, the applicant will
be voluntarily entering into deed restrictions to ensure as such. We can also attest to at least
four open public meetings being held, two of which being held even before Omni filed its permit
applications in order to receive early feedback and input from near neighbors. It's certainly
understandable that there might be disagreements about aspects of the proposal and the design.
that's pretty common for projects of this size and scale and ones for the amount of public
attention they've received. But I think a couple of things we can all agree on is that this is an
important site and this neighborhood needs more affordable housing. Home values have more than
tripled in the census tract since the year 2000. Rents have increased by over 50 percent during
that same time period and the Black population has been cut by a quarter. And simply put, there
is no publicly controlled surplus land in the near vicinity to try to create the type of equivalent
affordable housing to what Omni is proposing to build here. And the design presented today does
include a variety of changes that respond to concerns by near neighbors. So it is this need
to ensure this type of affordable housing in neighborhoods of high amenities that is of utmost
important to our office. And so I will leave it there and thank the board for their time and
consideration this morning. Thank you for calling in, Mr. Goodman. Mr. Kelson, would you summarize
for me. I will, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. In terms of Mr. Stoll's
contention or assertion, I should say, that this fails to meet the hardship standards
supportive of the grant of a variance, I would point the board to a case that Salette is very
aware of, Mr. Reiter is aware of. It's called Valley View Civic Association. In a nutshell,
So when you have a property like ours, which is an island, it's an I2.
When you have a property like ours, which is an island, it's an I -2 zone property that is surrounded by what Valley View would call disharmonious uses, all residential and transit behind.
That in and of itself creates the fact that there are disharmonious uses, underpins the hardship standard supportive of the grant of a variance.
It's ironic, members of the board, that if you would go with Mr. Stahl's argument and reject the variance, that creates a hardship on the community and on the subject neighborhood.
To deny it would actually create more hardship and more distress to the public health, welfare and safety than granting the approval.
This is a good plan. It's a necessary plan. The plan has been reviewed by the streets department in terms of traffic loading and mitigation efforts.
Those are the experts. They have reviewed it. It's been reviewed by Civic Design Review, which also includes streets design and checklists.
Most importantly, or equally importantly, it will meet all applicable building and fire codes, including water department approval for stormwater mitigation.
Right now, the site has no stormwater management, completely free for runoff.
All of that runoff will be detained and in its place you will see a community itself being built of affordable housing units that will support the community, support the residents, and allow for the community to grow and expand as it has.
So with that, I ask the board's consideration and approval of this project.
Thank you.
Mr. Stoll, can you give me two minutes?
I can give you less than two minutes, Mr. Schoenberg.
Thank you.
So I'll just reiterate and highlight a few points that I've previously made.
Belighted or not, zoning is in place for a reason.
Applicants have to follow the zoning code, and the applicant is requesting that we disregard the requirements of the zoning code.
And this has really turned into how much do we love this project?
How much do we like this?
Again, we're completely, we're being, the board is being asked to totally turn a blind eye to the zoning requirements.
You know, we represent an affected neighbor and we're asking that you follow the zoning code.
And again, like I said, there is nothing in this record, nothing been presented to you as to a hardship.
This is just, this is what I want to do with the property.
There's nothing unusual about this property.
There's nothing irregular about this property.
property. And I get that the applicant wants to say to you and present that this is a great use
of the property. It's not consistent with your zoning code. So with that, I'd ask you to deny
all the variances that are requested. Thank you. Thank you very much. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the board, first to just make a note for the board, Civic Design Review Committee's
advisory recommendations are not an expression of the city planning commission's recommendation
regarding zoning variants or other discretionary approvals associated with this proposal. So I just
want to make sure that those are not conflated in this case. The comprehensive plan recommends a
zoning map change from I2 to ICMX on this property. The intent of that comprehensive
of plan zoning recommendation was to prevent heavy industrial uses adjacent to existing
residential uses. However, the proposed use is residential. And furthermore, the current
development proposal includes rent -restricted affordable units, which would align with the
comprehensive plan goal of providing a wide range of housing types across the city. And so the City
Planning Commission supports the variance for multifamily use. However, we recommend that the
board grant the use variants with two provisos. Our first request is that we believe that
residential use demands meeting residential parking lot landscaping standards, and so we
would request a proviso that the final plan be subject to City Planning Commission approval of
the parking lot landscaping requirements. Secondly, low -income housing tax credits, as you know, are
extremely competitive. We're skeptical that the low -income housing tax credits will actually be
awarded for this project and regardless of any agreements made with the community groups or rcos
the zoning entitlement in question could be transferred to a future owner who wouldn't be
bound to honor the promise to include deed restricted affordable units and so we therefore
request a second proviso to grant a temporary variance in this case to expire march 31st 2025.
to grant a temporary variance in this case to expire March 31st, 2025.
Excuse me, this is Sharon. We cannot include a temporary proviso for this kind of
this kind of use that requires so much construction. Temporary provisos are for
uses in an existing building or surface parking lot. It would not be appropriate here. May also
and Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Goodman indicated,
Ian was not privy to this,
there will in fact be deed restrictions.
And in fact, if the project does not proceed
as an affordable housing project
as defined in the deed restrictions
and the community benefits agreement,
I know they're independent of the zoning board,
this project cannot proceed.
So I think that covers that.
is this is a very unprecedented way of protecting the community from exactly the concern just raised
that it would be available for market rate housing so i wanted to make sure that's in the record
thank you thank you wayne thank you mr kelson mr stole mr reuter chair chair um i in that case
the planning commission would withdraw the request for the provisor satisfied by the fact
that there has been a or there will be a deed recorded against the property however we still
request the uh right to review the uh final plan for parking lot landscaping thank you thank you
MI 2021 003182 5000 Warrington Avenue. I vote yes with provisos. Revised plan of five pages.
also number two uh variance for rear yard depth if required number three maximum of 104 units
and number four uh approval of parking by planning commission one one uh put together
excuse me chair i'm sorry but we can't make it conditional on planning's approval okay once
there's a final decision okay we'll we'll take that out so the first three
thomas howlin my vote is yes with the provisos james snell my vote is yes with provisos
ishmael shaheed my vote is no thank you thank you members of the board thank you all appreciate it
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
MI 2021 -0.
I'm back. MI -2021 -005230 -5300 Chester Avenue. Hello?
Yes, sir. Okay. RCO Southwest District,
letter of support our 51st Republican Ward letter of support West Philadelphia United
neighbors letter of support. Morning, Mr. Sheriff. Morning, Mr. Mattione. State your name and spell
for the court reporter, please. Certainly. Michael Mattione, M -A -T -T -I -O -N -I. And it's
square firm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Could you
state who your client is and the relationship to the property?
Certainly. My client is the Little Sisters of the Poor, and they are
the owners and operators of this property since 1902.
Mr. Holliman has a few questions. Good morning, Counselor.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to his accuracy? Yes, it's a referral.
Okay, thank you. According to our records, you have submitted
all the required documents is that correct that is correct please proceed
thank you thank you and as I said I am representing the little
And as I said, I am representing the Little Sisters of the Poor.
They are the owners of this property at 5300 Chester Avenue.
We do have numerous representatives from the organization on today, including Father Mark
Fregan, who is their legal counsel, Greg Hensley, who is their owner's representative, Patricia
Lowe, who is the nursing home administrator, Mother Celine, who is president of the Holy
Family Home, Sister Maria, the Vice President of the Holy Family Home, Jeff Bolan, our architect,
and John Medendorp, our engineer. And as I said with Mr. Holloman, I did submit the
tax clearance certificate, the referral, the support letter from the Southwest Philadelphia
District Services, the coordinating RCO, numerous plans, photographs, proof of the mailing of the
RCO meeting letter etc so what I like to do is the reason we're here today is we have a referral
two two separate referrals we are proposing removal of three heritage trees and I will show
where they are on the plan briefly and also this personal care use which will be continued
requires a special exception and the removal of the heritage trees requires a special exception
And again, the Little Sisters of the Corps
have been operating here since 1902.
The present building was built in 1973,
and given that the present facility is 50 years old,
it's in need of updating,
and the updating will allow the Little Sisters of the Corps
to continue to provide the services to seniors
that they've been providing since 1902.
Just wanna run down, we do have a support letter
from the RCO and at the meeting it was it was unanimous support 14 people from the community
and three people from the RCO board so it was 17 people in support and no one in opposition
and I just want to show some site photographs again this is what the present building looks
like this is looking down Chester Avenue again the corner of 53rd and Chester Chester just some some
photos showing the interior of the site again some additional photos showing the site and it is this
entire city block. It is 202 ,500 square feet of land or 4 .64 acres. The proposal is to reduce
the size of the home and to improve the lot and area where the home operates. There is presently
157 ,000 square feet of building area or gross floor area. We propose to reduce that to 105 ,000
square feet. The home is presently five stories at its highest. We propose to reduce that to four
stories again this shows the existing site the existing city block we've got five -story four -story
three -story buildings this building will be reduced in height this building will be removed
this building will be removed and replaced with a smaller building in addition to that
this is what the site will look like if approved we will add a rain garden another rain garden
third rain garden to help with the stormwater management.
Again, this building is reduced from 52 feet to about 41 feet.
The highest new construction is 38 feet.
We have 73 parking spaces proposed where there are presently 54.
We're increasing the parking so that if we ever do have events or functions at the home,
that there's ample parking on site so that it does not have to flow out into the community,
leaving basically an entire city block for the community to park on.
In addition, their stormwater management is shown by the rain gardens,
and we are vastly improving the entrance and exit off of Chester Avenue
to have it two separate and distinct, one in and one out,
to have better access to the site.
Again, we're going to remove three heritage trees,
but we're going to replace them with 42 new trees
and also with all the extensive landscaping around the site.
So, yes, it's three heritage trees that are basically, I'll show you where they are in a minute,
but they're being replaced with 42 new trees.
This facility, it's still an RSA too, so it could be developed into 64 homes,
but this is a much better use, continuing the use to show by the support of the community.
Again, we're doing what's been here since 1902.
Again, we're doing what's been here since 1902.
The improvements will reduce the burdens on the community because it will reduce the size of the facility,
will increase the parking, and add stormwater management where none exists.
Again, this is just a special exception for two special exceptions.
And if I go down, I'll show you the elevation plan you will see.
we are reducing the height down here from the top line to this lower level about 11 feet we're
reducing this entire building so again the scope of the project is considerably less if i show you
now other planes this is what presently exists existing frontal chester this is the proposed
new front addition a much smaller in scope project again front entrance
and then what it would be proposed to look like and then just some other rendering showing
the renovations and the smaller scope and scale of the building if approved
and some floor plans, just again, it's a smaller scope, less units, less residents.
Just showing this, this will be removed, this will be removed, this will be removed.
So it's just overall a much smaller scope, but what needs to happen so that they can continue to exist here.
Believe that the special exception should be granted.
We're not increasing congestion.
We're not overcrowding the land.
We're only occupying 22 % where 40 % occupied area is permitted.
We're not impairing light and air.
We're actually reducing it because we're reducing the height.
um again this could be 64 homes and it's not it's going to reduce the use of public facilities
and that's due to the reduction in size of the facility we're not going to impair any
joining conforming uses and they're going to benefit they're going to have on -street parking
that they might not have if this were 64 homes the heritage trees will be replaced by 42 trees
and we're going to have more than 83 total trees on the site when done with the extensive landscaping
in rain gardens. What I'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, is call on Mother Selene, but Mother
Selene is on with Patricia Lowe, so Patricia Lowe's name would probably pop off.
Okay, sure. And she'll adopt your testimony?
Yes, I have her adopt my testimony.
Thank you.
Ma 'am, you can unmute. You're free to speak.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
My name is Patricia Lowe, P -A -T -R -I -C -I -A.
Last name is Lowe, L -O.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you going to adopt a testimony or is sister going to do it?
Sister's going to do it.
Could sister identify herself, please?
Sister Celine Woducut.
C -E -L -I -N -E -V -A -D -U -K -K -O -O -T.
Thank you.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceeds, Mr. Manionee.
Mr. Chair.
Mother Selene, did you hear my statements to the board?
And are they true and correct?
And do you adopt them as your testimony?
I have no further questions from others.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Members of the board, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 2 zoning at this location.
We believe the proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond
what normally might be expected, and we also find the applicant's proposal to satisfy the
requirements to replace removed heritage trees in accordance with 147051F, and that the building
cannot be practically redesigned to avoid the existing heritage trees. The City Planning
Commission recommends that the board grant both special exceptions. Thank you. MI 2021 -005230
5 ,300
005230 5300 Chester Avenue I vote yes. Thomas Heilemann my vote is yes. James Snell my vote
is yes. Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. MI 2021 00509454 East
Pastorius. RCO letter in support with Provisos, Faith Community Development Corporation.
Gussie O 'Neill is the attorney.
Good morning. Good morning. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Sure. My first name is Augusta, A -U -G -U -S -T -A. My last name is O 'Neill, O -N -E -I -L -L.
all right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do could you state who your client is and what's the relationship to the property
sure my client is elad bella he is the principal of matt yanner llc which is the owner of the
property thank you mr hallman has a few questions good morning counselor do you do you agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy I do according to our records
you have submitted all the required documents is that correct that's correct um I just wanted
to say I was rejoining as a panelist um I know that the RCO did send a letter of support
um but I don't think it was sent until Sunday evening but I did forward it to um Ms. Lalletta
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD ADMINISTRATOR WAS COPIED ON THE WE HAVE IT WE HAVE A COPY
OKAY THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU PLEASE PROCEED THANK YOU SO MUCH JUST GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN HERE
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD I'M HERE THIS MORNING REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT 54
EAST PISTORIUS STREET THIS APPLICATION IS TO PUT THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON WHAT IS CURRENTLY
a vacant lot that is owned RSA 5. Just for context, I've got some pictures of what the
lot currently looks like in the surrounding area. This is where the homes are going to be located.
This is just a view looking north on East Pistorius Street, just to give the board an
idea of the look of the homes that are currently at this location. Here is a view looking south.
on East Pistorius Street. As you can see, it's a pretty quiet street. There's plenty of available
parking. Next thing I wanted to show was a zoning map. As you can see, this area is
purely residential. The lot that's highlighted is ours. This is a very oversized lot, as you can see
from this picture. We received a refusal on December 7th of this year. The refusal that we
received was because the lot sizes that we're proposing, the minimum lot size that's required
for homes in the RSA district is now 960, but this property is located in the 8th district overlay.
And so lots in that district have to be a bit larger. So on our particular application,
one of the lots that we're proposing, um, is 1 ,265 square feet. The other lot that is the
subject of the refusal was 1292. And so we're just off, um, by about a hundred square feet on each
lot. So we would meet the required minimum lot area at any other place in the city, but, um,
not in this overlay. We believe that the lot size that we're proposing is actually closer to what
you're going to see on this particular street. I think that the average that I was able to
calculate was closer to about 1 ,200, which is pretty much what we're proposing with this
application. We don't believe that the addition of these single -family homes would have any
negative impact on neighbors. We did have an RCO meeting with Faith Community Development
Corporation on March 10th, so just last Thursday, and near neighbors did attend the meeting.
The feedback that we received from the neighbors at that time was that they thought that the application that we're proposing here is more in line with what you will currently see in this location.
um we had previously been proposing to put pilot houses and roof decks on the on the um single
family homes that we're proposing here but the neighbors uh asked that we remove those because
they feel as though that wouldn't be consistent with what's currently in the neighborhood
that wouldn't be consistent with what's currently in the neighborhood and the owner was amenable to
and the owner was amenable to doing
doing that and there was discussion also of the fact that a buy right application i'm sorry the
buy right project would kind of be out of character in this location because it would result in over
oversized houses with roof decks and pilot houses which again the neighbors didn't want to say
a letter of support from faith community development corporation was previously sent
to the board with me this morning is our principal designer bar levy as well as elad bella mr levy
is available for any questions that any members of the board might have relative to the design
but i would like to call mr bella forward to adopt my testimony
so elad if you could hit the raise hand feature so that you can be identified
could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter please
sure elad bella e l a d b e l a do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth i do proceed thanks so much mr bella did you hear my testimony this
morning yes and was everything that i said true and accurate yes and uh would you like to adopt
my testimony as your own yes thank you so much uh members of the board if you have any questions
questions from the board no mr chairman no no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual
audience excuse me mr chair if um miss o 'neill could i ask you one question you submitted five
plans of revised paper five pages of revised plans on the attached form the only changes listed were
removal of the um pilot houses and roof decks can the board just add a proviso stating no pilot
houses or roof decks instead of the plans yes that would be fine with us thank you thank you
questions from the virtual audience yeah we have charles richardson
good morning mr richardson state your name and spell for the court reporter please
good morning mr chair charles richardson ch -a -r -l -e -s -r -i -c -h -a -r -d -s -o -n office of
councilwoman cindy bass from 312 city hall do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do proceed councilwoman has no opposition to granting this variance
Thank you very much for calling in. Any other comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission? Thank you, Chair Bergman and Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 zoning at this location.
however these lot proposed lot sizes are consistent with those on an adjoining row of
attached buildings on this block face so the city planning commission recommends that the
board grant the variance thank you mi 2021 005094 54 east pastoria street i vote yes with proviso no
roof decks or piled houses thomas holliman my vote is yes with proviso james snell yes with proviso
ishmael shaheed yes with proviso thank you thank you so much mi
2021 -005 -223 -5844 Overbrook Avenue, RCO, Winfield Residence, Letter of Support, Vern Anastasio.
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist.
good morning again mr chairman good morning you you've already been sworn just state your name
please sure verne it's verne anastasio a -n -a -s -t -a -s -i -o and before we go further could
you identify who your client is and the relationship to the property yep i'm representing
my client um owner occupant ms janet ames and her husband mr holliman has a few questions
good morning counselor good morning do you do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy i can according to our records you have submitted all
of the required documents is that correct that is correct please proceed
I want to stipulate to this, the accuracy of this particular refusal that just came in 3 -15 -22, that's today.
i want to stipulate to
There was an error in the one before you and the refusal before you, whereas the examiner said that we were proposing two feet wide for parcel B, when in fact, technically speaking, it should be 12 feet.
So I wanted to make sure that that was submitted for the record.
And I'm going to stop sharing this and pull up my binder.
this is this is a simple you know very straightforward relocation of lot lines
this is the property in question here's the primary residence on the lower part of the photo
the accessory dwelling unit in the rear portion of the photo and we have a plan to subdivide
so that my client who has made this large home her and her husband's home for many years
they are now getting on in age and can no longer bear the cost of upkeep what she'd like to do what
What she plans to do is subdivide the lot and then move into the rear accessory dwelling
unit and either lease or sell off the big house.
So that's that is the plan I'll share with you the actual plans of the property itself
as well as the subdivision plan which was um you see me counselor can you blow up enlarge
the site plan yep
there you go thank you you're quite welcome
The plan is to basically we'll have two proposed curb cuts.
One driveway will go to the accessory dwelling unit, I'm sorry, the small house with plenty of ample parking, and the second will go, will remain with the main house.
We have been refused for some small dimensional reasons.
And obviously, the reason why we're seeking this is for financial reasons.
The hardship is purely financial.
As they get on in age and retire, it's impossible to maintain the big house.
And that is appropriate.
Those hardships are appropriate when seeking dimensional variances.
The minimum side yard variance is de minimis, so I don't necessarily think that's an issue.
Parcel B variance, again, it's required 50, proposed 12 because of the driveway, but that's only on paper only.
The fact of the matter is the width of this vista stays the same. It's over 87 feet wide.
The reason why the 12 foot width issue comes into play is because we're creating a driveway for access to that rear structure.
But for all intents and purposes, the width of the vista stays identical.
The only changes are purely unseen and will be unnoticed.
So for that reason, we respectfully request the variance.
We've secured an overwhelming support of the neighbors.
And I will show you that now if I can. This is a 96 page exhibit packet. So excuse me while I.
Yep, we've got the RCOs and a letter of support. We also went to every neighbor surrounding the property and got unanimous support for the subdivision.
as other neighbors have and will continue to subdivide as well,
those that have large lots and two households on these lots as the owners get older.
on these lots. As the owners get older, they find it necessary in order to do that.
So with that, here's, by the way, the letter that went out to all the households. We had
23 immediate households that are impacted. And as my sheet shows, every one of them,
full support of the variance in addition to the RCO itself. Mr. Anastasio can I ask one question
would you mind pulling up the amended refusal again I think it needs the board needs to refer
to that in the decision if they should approve this and also if I could note that I was glad
to see that you had that corrected I wondered exactly what kind of property was two feet wide
but yeah yeah thank you yeah you're welcome uh okay well then i'm going to get out of my binder
and then because that's a separate doc okay
and this is the refusal dated 315. that's the one that uh we'll you know we we are uh
respectfully requesting the variance from again to avoid to avoid any confusion then if the board
should approve this it would be as per refusal date at 3 15 22 thank you sorry to have interrupted
that's okay and just in closing because we secured overwhelming support of all the neighbors because
the lot width is only 12 feet because of the width of the driveway when to the naked eye the
Vista's width remains unchanged at 87 because the side yard variance sought is de minimis in nature
because the back house is a pre -existing accessory dwelling unit and because the hardship is financial
which is permissible when appealing these sorts of dimensional variances I respectfully request
granting of this variance and with that I'm going to ask Ms. Janet Waymes to raise her hand and be
recognized. Ms. Ames, you may unmute yourself. Thank you. Good morning. Could you state your
name and spell for the court reporter? My name is Janet Ames, J -A -N -E -T, last name A -M as in Mary,
E -S as in Sam. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? Yes. Proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Ames, did you hear my presentation today?
I did. Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge? Yes. And do you adopt it as your
own testimony? Yes. I thank you. I have nothing else, Mr. Chair. Questions from the board? No,
Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Members of the board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSD -3 zoning
at this site. For dimensional variances, the code asks us to look at economic detriment and
consistency with surrounding neighborhood. We disagree with the stipulation that the
dimensional requirements of the code present an economic detriment to the applicant here
who may either sell or continue to live in the property regardless of this variance.
And further, we don't find that this type of configuration is a common condition in the
surrounding neighborhood. And so the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the
variance. Mr. Just respectfully, thank you, Ian, for the input. Again, the side yard is at the
minimus request, and the minimum lot width is invisible. And again, I think we've met our
burden with the financial hardship. She'd like to be able to stay at home, and she could only do
that if she's able to sell off one of the structures. Thank you. Thank you. Overwhelming
support from the neighbors by the way. MI 2021 005223 5844 over Brook Avenue the amended refusal
of 315 -22 I vote yes. Thomas Holliman my vote is yes with the proviso. James Snell my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahi, yes, we're provisor.
Oh, I apologize. My vote was yes, we're provisors.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been heard this morning?
this morning i see no handshare thank you everyone nice morning work thank you thank you mr chairman