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.