And chair, we have, I'm sorry, it's still going.
And Chair, we have 38 attendees, and you can start as you wish.
Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this morning's meeting.
With me is our Vice Chair Ismael Shaheed, our Board Member Cheryl L. Gaston, our Board
member, Tanetta Graham. Present, Mr. Chairman. And our board member, Taya Nguyen. Present,
Mr. Chairman. Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and our executive director,
Ian Hagelin. Here's our virtual format. The proceedings are being recorded. With your
participation, you agree to be recorded. A video will be available by contacting
ZBA Executive Director at phila .gov. For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to
identify themselves before testifying. If you're participating by phone, press star nine to raise
your hand and star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267 -270 -5548. Leave
your email address and the address of the property in question. And finally, the question answer box
on the screen is not for testimony. All comments should be directed to zbaexecutivedirector
at phil .gov. Let's look at our schedule for today.
Number nine.
One minute, please.
number nine mi 2024 006 033 2601 to 31 north 20 a street william kerr is the attorney there's a
request for continuance from council member young's office and also we have no exhibits for this case
Mr. Kerr. This is Nadia, and I'll be your co -host today. William Kerr has been allowed to speak.
Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me? I think I got muted.
No, I hear you, Mr. Kerr. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. William Kerr, K -E -R -R. I'm an attorney with High Swartz LLP, and I'm representing the applicant in this case.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, sir?
OK, so the council member's office has requested a continuance, but we also notice we have no exhibits for this case.
Yeah. Yes, Mr. Chair. Let me give you a little background.
This is a proposal to renovate the Long Vacant Walton School to an affordable housing complex for seniors.
and requires financing for phfa we did meet with the rco on november the 14th and a week or so ago
they notified us they'd like to meet again it was raised at the at the meeting we weren't certain
but they did indicate they'd like to meet with us again we have scheduled another meeting for
january the 9th and we're willing to do that so i was also going to request a continuance this
morning the one trick with this is this is this project requires phfa financing they have an
annual appeal deadline for the financing applications of february the 11th so if there's
any way that we could we could have a rescheduled hearing either the week of january 13 january 20
or january 27th that would that would help us get in for this round of financing for 2025
and avoid having to wait until 2026 so again if we can continue with this for either of those weeks
13th 20th or 27th of january it'd be much appreciated so so mr carl we we we hear you
and we'll take note of it
and we'll see exactly what we can do with that, okay?
Yes, I appreciate that very much.
So MI 2024 -006 -033 -2601 -31 North 28th Street,
the case is continued.
And Mr. Kerr, please reach out to the ZBA office
to let us know about your deadline
so that the staff can see what can be accommodated.
Thank you.
Is there any other requests for continuance?
I see no hands.
Thank you. We're going to start with number six, MI 2024 -002 -892 -2100 Robbins.
Thank you.
We're going to start.
Henry Rojas Lopez is the owner. This is a pro se.
There is support from the RCO.
Henry Rojas is coming in as a panelist.
Chair Henry Rojas is in as a panelist.
He just hasn't shared his screen or anything.
Good morning, Mr. Rojas.
Could you unmute, please?
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Henry Rojas, H -I -N -R -Y -R -O -J -A -S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So this application is for artist studios and artesian industrial and wholesale sales and distribution,
making chocolate items and distribution at the basement in the same structure with a single
family household living above. That's correct. The proposed use of artists, studios, and artesian
industrial is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district. The proposed use of wholesale sales
and distribution is prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district. Multiple principal uses on a lot are
prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district. Our vice chair has a few questions here.
Yes, excuse me, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify one thing for the record that the refusals in this case are only for the artist studios and multiple principal uses on a lot. There is not a refusal for a wholesale sales and distribution on this application.
Okay, may I add that.
wait wait wait wait one minute wait mr rojas wait one minute go ahead good morning sir have you
emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days
in advance of this hearing yes i have provided all the information thank you please proceed
and you can share your screen okay thank you
okay so good morning uh i just want to show you
weekly the information that we have provided just in case you
want to confirm that we provided that which we don't see your screen yet you haven't shared
your screen mr rojas oh sorry sure
is it there now it's coming up now it's coming up now sir
we have that sir thank you you can okay okay perfect so yeah you i just wanted to confirm
that you have all of these documents which are the ones that we provided right um authorization
task clearance meeting with the rco uh the pictures of the property this was for the uh orange posts
and some pictures of the property per se?
We don't see pictures.
Oh, sorry.
You haven't moved on.
Can you see that?
We have summary notes from the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Do you see the pictures of the property?
No, we do not.
We see what the RCO sent.
okay well you should you should have something about the basement there
i i i don't i don't see anything but you you gotta you gotta move your documents
yeah it should be showing right now
see again
can you see anything not yet we we we see the the information from the uh rco
mr rojas you may need to unshare and then reshare your screen and select the photos it's okay okay
Let's see.
and you would click the share button again which would say unshare now i'm gonna stop sharing there
you go and share again and you see them now we see basement yep okay so this is the main area
that we would use for the as you mentioned the retailing and the selling of the product
and this is of course right now how we have it right now because we're trying to
improve it a bit more with just just just on preparation
and this is the area that is the original uh part of the house which has the utilities and
everything we will not we will not touch anything about it um for you to have an idea also of what
we do uh we basically it's like edible arrangements edible gifts made with fruit
and all we would do is just make the preparation and deliver from there we also have some balloons
and some cards as i mentioned we would do the delivery on our own we will barely use some
services like 10 just in high volume times like christmas or valentine's day and this is pretty
much the area right now. We wouldn't need to do any changes on the electrical area because
everything, it worked fine with what we have so far. And all we would add just some desks,
a sink so we could be able to wash everything and some tables where we would work there.
mr rojas do i understand you're going to put a dumpster outside did they say that
the rco required requested that yes they say we need to put our dumpster outside
we agree you have a picture you have a picture of the rear of the property outside
uh the re yeah there's a show the picture this area here yes that's that's your rear
property, right? Yes. So the dumpster would go in front of the garage and you wouldn't be able to
park a car there? No, we wouldn't be able to park a car there if we put the dumpster there.
That wouldn't be a problem. And this block is totally residential? Single families?
totally residential in this area uh one where one block from bustleton bustleton is totally commercial
okay is there is there anything else you want to add mr rojas um again we we want to do this
as you can see so we could work on that area is uh not a dangerous
procedure. We will not be cooking anything. There's no stove. There's no oven, anything like
that. Everything is like they call a cold kitchen. It's more close to what Rita's than anything else
because everything just needs to be cold. It needs a cold environment. You don't melt the chocolate?
Yes, but we use a melter for that. That's an electric device. It is not
something major. All right. Questions from the board? How many employees do you have?
Right now, we're just my wife and me. We don't have that much volume.
Other questions from the board? Yes. You said that you're going to use the space as it is.
you what are you going to do about uh the fruit comes from somewhere is that going to oh yes of
course that they're operationally speaking we buy the fruit we would buy the fruit one day or two
days in advance just to make sure they are fresh enough and we would put them in uh fridge to store
them um as you can understand fruit gets wasted really fast so we we cannot have like one week
of fruit because it would be wasted so fast so we pretty much would do daily or two two days uh
And it's okay. So is this something that would have to be a.
Okay, so is this something that would have to be approved also by the health department?
Yes, we, after you gave us the zoning, we would have to go then and make any adjustments we require and go to the health department to get an approval from them.
Yes, like they would do with any other kitchen.
Gotcha. So you would have to have the three -bay sink. You'd have to have commercial versus domestic equipment for this process. You would have to have your food safety type licenses and someone's site.
Yes, I do have the safety management so far, because we are working right now in what they call a shared kitchen.
So that's already happening.
In that case, as you're mentioning, now the property will need to pass the health inspection.
Exactly.
All right.
So, but you haven't done that yet because you're doing this elsewhere at this point.
Yes, we haven't done that related because we will need first your approval on the zoning.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
No problem. Thank you.
Any other questions from the board?
Yes, I have a question.
You have said that this is the basement of the property,
but from your interior photos, it looks like it's a converted garage.
Is the garage door still in operation?
Yeah, the garage door is still in operation. It works.
The garage and the basement, is it both spaces?
Or is the garage going to still be retained for vehicles?
no the garage is no longer used for vehicles it cannot be used for vehicles anymore
so it's been permanently closed off sorry i said it's been permanently closed off
what i mean the the door opens and closes but just because we want to make sure we can enter
you know the things that we would require there um like fridge equipment anything like that but
But we are not using that area for parking.
That's why when the chairman mentioned about the dumpster, that wouldn't be an issue because there are no cars being parked there.
So where is the plan?
Like, where are you planning to place the dumpster?
I don't think I have.
Well, basically in that area, well, basically next to the dumpster that is already here.
but this is a bigger dumpster so it would be on the side next to the to the door of the garage
the one that it's in the driveway okay so is it going to completely be on the asphalt or would
it also be on the grass no it would be on there on this area that is path on the paved part on
the paved part yes okay and then are you planning to do anything on the garage door in terms of
signage or pick up windows no we don't want to we don't want to do pick up windows or anything
we might do some sign i mean like something that shows people that we are here especially
drivers if they come to pick up because as i mentioned before we it would be it wouldn't be
like a store where you would go in and buy something you would need to order online
okay and then any people coming in on art that way okay understood and then my my last question
is is the garage sprinklered is the garage sorry sprinklered like does it have fire fire sprinklers
not right now no is there a plan to install them i didn't have any plan but if it's required by
the health system we would have to do anything that they require okay thank you no problem
good questions from the board questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
i just wanted to clarify one thing mr rojas excuse me um in the rco letter they did give
their support based on this being a delivery only service um but it sounds like there would be
deliveries but people would also be picking up orders is that what you're proposing
what what i mentioned to them it's in very few cases we would use a service we do want to do
the deliveries on our own we don't want to disturb the neighborhoods around we don't want to take any
parking spaces for sure and they said yes of course but i did mention in cases when we need
like very small, we might use one or two persons to help us with these delivery services.
So you're proposing delivery only and people would not be coming there to pick up?
So you're proposing delivery only and people would not be coming there to pick up?
Yeah, we would do the ones, the deliveries.
Someone could come by, like walking, or if someone could park around the area and come pick up one thing, but it's not our main objective.
All right.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands planning commission
good morning amy board with the planning commission amy boyd you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed the comprehensive plan
recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing single family rsa5 the application
has not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property that
would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code. The Planning Commission
recommends that the zoning board deny the requested variances for multiple principal uses and artist
studios. Mr. Rojas, we're going to hold this case and we're going to vote January 8th at 9 30 a .m.
after I have a chance to talk to all the board members
in the executive session.
So January 8th at 9 .30 a .m., we will be voting.
And thank you for your presentation, sir.
Thank you so much for your time.
All right, thank you.
Thank you.
Hillary, are we ready to go to one?
I thought we were going to go to...
Give me one second.
number five. MI 2024 -002 -842 -4143, Lancaster Avenue. Henry Clinton is the attorney.
Morning, Mr. Chairman. Morning, Mr. Clinton. Could you state your name and spell for the
court stenographer. Sure. Henry Clinton, H -E -N -R -Y Clinton, C -L -I -N -T -O -N. You swear or affirm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Could you identify your client, Mr. Clinton,
for the relationship to this property? Sure. My client is Kevin Roghani, R -O -W -G -H -A -N -I,
and he is the principal of the owner of the property. And this is a resumptive hearing,
So we have all your documents and things like that.
So we need, let's update first where we stand.
I mean, could you give me an update?
Sure, I can do that.
So at the last hearing, basically the board had a number of questions.
One is they questioned the accessibility of the first floor rear unit.
Just by way of background, we're requesting commercial on the first floor and four units.
This historically was a commercial and three units.
But because the commercial space was so big on the first floor, we shrunk the commercial space and put a handicap accessible unit in the rear.
And a number of board members, I believe Mr. Johns and Ms. Graham in particular, questioned the accessibility, and rightly so, because the hallways weren't wide enough.
The bathroom didn't have an ample turning radius, and it was an issue about actually gaining access to the first floor.
And in addition, Mr. Johns had a question about the trash and somehow venting it to the outside.
So we have cured all those issues.
And I can show you the plans that reflect that if you want me to walk through those.
Lonnie, we'll do that real quickly if you can.
All right, I'll share my screen.
Is that visible?
It is, sir.
So rather than go through the whole presentation, Mr. Chairman, I'm going right to the revised plans.
And I'll show you where my cursor is, bottom left.
I can blow it up a little bit.
So the issue was we had a step coming into the building.
We now have a ramp that has streets approval, and I have streets approval documentation in my presentation.
Now there's ample turning radius here in the hallway to go both into the commercial space and the hallway is wide enough to get down into the rear unit and wide path to get into the bathroom, which is also accessible.
If we backtrack through to the hallway, what we did was relocated the trash receptacles here in a closet, and this dotted line is the venting of the trash into the alleyway.
into the alleyway. These are windows here on the side of the rear apartment. And so the ventilation
These are windows here on the side of the rear.
is out into the outside, not on the inside. And then in the commercial unit, there's also the
turning radius for a wheelchair in the bathroom. I have an updated tax certification. I have proof
that we reposted the property in time for the hearing. And I also have a streets department
an approval that I can show you, but it's all in my package. Whatever the board wants me to do,
I'll do. Why don't we, questions from the board. Yeah, can you do me, can you move over the drawing?
I can't see unit three and four, the delineation between unit three and four. Okay, thank you.
So unit two is here. Unit three is on the third floor. And unit four is a studio in the back. We have not changed the footprint, the height, the open space or the rear yard. And we're going to refurbish the entire inside as well as the front facade, which has been vacant at least 10 years.
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Yes, I just wanted to clarify, Mr. Clinton. According to my notes from the last hearing,
you had reduced the number of dwelling units by one, and you were asking for three dwelling
units in a commercial space, but these plans show four. Is what the client is looking for,
has that changed since the last hearing?
No, I mean, the last hearing I presented four, I think there were questions about would we accept three?
I think Ms. Graham raised that issue.
I think that's why she's looking at the studio in number four.
I think there was discussion, but I didn't get the sense that that was a must.
If I was wrong, I stand corrected.
Now, I just wanted to clarify my notes because I thought it had been presented as three.
So, and also just wanted to clarify, like, thank you for putting these plans together.
If the board does approve this, because this is a change of use application, it can't stamp these, but it can, you know, note the number of units that are being approved.
Understood.
Thank you.
Mr. Clinton, before we go further, I mean, my remembrance, planning took a position the last time.
Where do you stand with the original planning position?
From the planning commission?
I think the planning commission said that we didn't show any hardship because it's, you know.
I thought the planning commission, maybe I'm wrong, I thought the planning commission said three units.
that's correct Mr. Chair okay planning units made a position of saying three units okay if that's
what you could you give if that's what the board is suggesting then well we're going to go along
with that very much so before we do questions or comments from the virtual audience
okay thank you uh planning commission do you want to update your position
no thank you we'll stay with our previous position thank you thank you very much um so
So, MI 2024 -002 -842 -4143 Lancaster Avenue, I vote yes, with proviso.
Use registration require priority occupancy for vacant commercial space, maximum three dwelling units.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Senator Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
my vote is yes with proviso if no my vote is yes with proviso
thank you mr clinton thank you mr chairman members of the board appreciate it
thank you so number one mi 2024 003 74 2228 south 12th street verne anastasio is the attorney
um we do not have an rco letter there is a letter of opposition from council member school
The applicant did provide a petition with 20 signatures of support.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, counsel. Could you please state your name as spelled for the court stenographer?
Good morning, Counsel.
Could you please state your name as spelled for the court stenographer?
Yeah, it's Byrne Anastasio, A -N -A -S -T -A -S -I -O, on behalf of Mr. Justin Bonner, who is the owner of the property.
Wear or affirm the tell -the -truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the read and other refuse or stipulate to exact proceed?
Good morning. Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Working on sharing my screen, please forgive me.
it's coming 2228 south 12th street mr chair members of the board this is the mls listing
my client viewed uh prior to deciding to look at the property in question it's established grocery
store been a business and operation since 1929 includes some equipment second floor is a three
bedroom apartment one car garage attached why is that significant well it's the reason why we're
here he visited the property and this is what he found large corner property with one car garage
attached after visiting the property based on the mls he purchases the property
uh and then he's um planning to put in his a uh business live upstairs and he'd like to use the
the garage. A little bit of an interruption of your conversation. Why don't you start again?
Start from the beginning? Yeah, right there is good, please. Okay, so my client, based on the
MLS and the physical manifestations of the property, my client reviewed it, purchased it,
intends to put his business on the first floor, live above, and use the garage. The garage is off
as far as the refusal is concerned.
And that is what specifically is the real point of contention.
No one's arguing that even though this is RSA 5 residential space adjacent,
it is a longstanding CMX 1 property, and he intends to use it that way.
The issue is the rear garage.
And that's why we went to the zoning board.
I'm sorry, that's why we filed the appeal and went to the RCO meeting.
Let's take a look at the interior layout of the property.
and here is further detail
Here's the traffic plan approved by streets, and there's the detail on the plan itself.
and there's the streets department's approval
here's a photo of the front of the property as you can see it's clearly
commercial oriented
here's from across the street
Here's with the garage door open.
Here's the letter that went out to all interested parties.
inviting both folks to the rco meeting there was two rco meetings one with me one without me
very few people showed no one spoke up in opposition we did not believe there was anybody in opposition
We did not believe there was anybody in opposition.
221 individual households were, in fact, mailed.
There was one person who spoke up in support.
Here's the proof of posting.
And also in my packet, we have the deed, tax information, property history,
showing a long use of commercial on the first floor, living space above, and the garage.
And, of course, 20 signatures of all immediate neighbors in support of the variance as it stands.
Because my client recently -
Could you go back to the garage one more time?
A photo of the garage with the car in it.
And that's a big car.
So, would the garage door close, Vern?
In fact, my client's car isn't even that size, and the garage door closed.
So, the other question I would have is, could you get out of the car?
Would the door open?
Is there enough room in there, a car like that, to get out?
And I could even ask my client to testify to that.
All right.
With that, I'm going to have Mr. Bonner raise his virtual hand.
Mr. Bonner, if you're in a virtual audience, please raise your virtual hand.
Richard Bonner has been allowed to speak.
Morning, Mr. Bonner. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
It's Richard Justin Bonner, R -I -C -H -A -R -D -J -U -S -T -I -N -B -O -N -N -E -R.
I are affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Bonner, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Okay, and do you have a smaller car where you can get into that garage and get out of the car while in the garage?
Is that correct?
We have a Toyota Prius, and I was just showing how big of a car would fit into it for that picture.
Okay, so you can get into your garage with your car, and you can get out of your car while in the garage.
Is that right?
My car is two -thirds the size of that car, and I could get out of that car.
Your answer is yes.
Is that correct?
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I have nothing further.
Questions from the board?
so is is there a there's a curb cut there already yes there's a legal curb cut there
recognized by the streets department okay
and it's not a makeshift it's not a makeshift curb cut it's an actual physical curb cut
the garage is going to be solely used by the owner operator that's correct
accessory parking for the living space above
the questions from the board
questions from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands planning commission amy boyd with the planning commission the comprehensive plan
recommends no change in zoning at this location from the existing commercial residential mixed
use cmx1 the accountant has demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances
that prevent the property from being used in conformance with the zoning code the planning
commission recommends that the board grant the perseverance for off -street parking and parking
cell dimensions mi 2024 000 374 2228 south 12th street i vote yes
cheryl gaston my vote is yes tenetta graham my vote is yes
iowen my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you all
anastasia we'll see you a little later this morning yes sir okay we're going to hear number
two, three, and four together. Number two is MI 2024 -002 -411 -3212 West York Street. Number three
is MI 2024 -002 -412 -3212 West York Street. And number four is MI 2024 -002 -413 -3208 West York
Street. Darlene Treat is the attorney. There is a letter.
Darlene Treat is the attorney. There is a letter of opposition from Strawberry Mansion for all three properties.
Good morning, Commissioner Darlene Treat on behalf of the applicant.
Good morning, Counsel. Could you spell your name, please, for the court stenographer?
Darlene, D -A -R -L -E -N -E, Treat, T as in Thomas, H -R -E -A -T -T.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client and their relationship to the three properties?
I believe I have several clients on the line today.
One is a Don Pinckney, one is a Aaron Holloway,
and I have the architect Thomas Holloman on the line today.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you, Counselor. Please proceed and share your screen.
Are you able to see my screen?
We can.
Good morning, Commissioners.
I'm representing 3208, 3210, and 3212 West York Street.
Basically, Commissioners, all of these properties are very, very similar, and I'm asking today to have a two -family dwelling approved in each of them.
I'm going to start with 3208.
Commissioner, my clients purchase these properties that have been not in use for many, many, many years.
From what I can see in the L &I files, the last time there was an active license here was 2003.
There was a restaurant and bar located on the ground floor of all three properties.
But we filed an application to have this property developed and to be used as a duplex, as a two -family dwelling.
We were refused, indicating that two family dwellings, household living, is expressly prohibited in the RSA 5 zoning district.
Commissioners, I submitted a host of forms, the PIF, the deed, property information, tax information, but I'm going to scroll down to the plans right now.
I'm going to reduce them just a little in the beginning so you can see the whole plan.
So, Commissioner, this is the site plan for 3208 and is very, very similar to the site
plan for 3210 and 3212.
Basically, this is a two -story dwelling.
we plan to clean up the brickwork in the front of the building and do some
cladding here on the bays here as you can see this is the back of the building
again just two stories we're not asking to add a third story we're trying to
keep in line with the aesthetics and the design of the other households I'm in
the community and you'll see there are no current households on this block on
per se. But this is the back of the dwelling, and you can see there is an exit out the back
of the dwelling. And we also put in a window well here for an additional exit out of the
back of the dwelling. And again, this is property 3208. Here is the site plan, how the property
lays out on the block. And I'll show you a little better pictures later on.
here is the floor plan and I'm going to enlarge it so we can go through
each floor so here we go so commissioners the first floor we would like to have what we would
call a bi -level apartment no living no bedrooms in the basement we have a and I'm just going to
enlarge that a little teeny bit more so you can see it a little better.
So basically, this is a bi -level apartment.
You can come into the apartment.
You can see on the ground floor, we have a bathroom and we have two nice size beds.
Ground floor, we have a bathroom, and we have two nice size bedrooms within code.
You can come downstairs to the first floor, and on the first floor, we have a kitchen, a living room area, and we have a den area, and we also have a bathroom.
There's also a window well area here for lighting, and we have a laundry washroom down here for the guests of the residents to use.
This apartment also is approximately 1 ,063 square feet.
It's a nice size apartment with nice amenities and a nice appointment.
if you come up the stairs here you can go to the second floor and on the second floor here
commissioners we're requesting a one unit two bedroom apartment again you have a bathroom area
a kitchen area a den living room area a bedroom in the front and a bedroom in the back and that
is basically the makeup of 3208. Now, I took various pictures just to give you a look of how
the block is. I'd like to indicate to you that I did have two meetings with the Civic Association.
The first meeting, I noticed 178 individuals in the community, and no one appeared besides the
members of the Civic Association. And the second meeting, I noticed 185 of residences for the
meeting and the individuals who came were just the members of the RCO. But these are how the three
properties sit on the block. Again, previously, and I saw a full license for 2003, at least from
the LNI records, and I'm not a member of this community, so I'm not trying to be misleading.
This property hasn't been in use for 20 years. When it was in use, it was two units being used.
The first unit was being used for commercial purposes, and the second floor was used as a apartment.
I'm going to scroll down some more to just give you a general look of the area and what the properties look like.
The commissioners, as you can see, this area is in need of development.
This is actually 32nd Street here. And as you can see, there's no development here along 32nd Street. I'll show you a little better picture later on, but there's not much development down York Street this way. And at this present time, density nor parking is really an issue in this neighborhood.
it. Here's an additional picture. This is the other side of York Street. Again, parking's not
a problem. Again, there's no... But I do know that the... Darlene, you froze up for a while. Could
you go back, please? I'm sorry, Commissioner. I didn't hear you. You froze up for a period of
time there. Could you just go back a little bit so you can repeat? We didn't hear you. Oh, I'm
I'm sorry. That's right there. You can start right there. No, no. Start. Start with the corner shot where you just left off.
Right. So this is actually on York Street, our side, where this would be thirty two hundred, which is also a lot now.
Thirty two hundred thirty two to thirty two four and thirty two six is currently a lot.
And there is an application in front of the zoning board currently for these lots on the corner.
There is no development here on the other side of the street on 32nd Street.
Parking is ample in the neighborhood, and there isn't much development down here also down on York Street.
This is the opposite side of the street of York Street, 32nd going down to 31st Street.
There's another big, big empty lot. I don't believe it's an official parking lot that's recognized by the city of Philadelphia, but it is a huge empty lot, and many of the residences in the neighborhood park in that lot.
this is the back of the properties
just to show you that behind these properties there's also not much development on these
properties this area is really in need of much development that's another picture of the next
corner and you can see again there is parking there are not many structures on york street here
and there are not many structures on 32nd Street. This area is in need of newer, what I would say, more
This area is in need of newer, what I would say, more affordable development.
This is actually Arizona Street, right in back of York Street, the same 3200 block.
As you can see, there are many vacancies here and there are vacancies on the corner.
Again, the neighborhood is in need of some development.
That looks like a duplicate picture.
And this is the other end of York Street.
These lots are 3200, 3202, 3204, and 3206.
Our three structures here are the only structures on this block at this time.
I do see that there are applications in front of the board for these lots here presently.
that's another look at uh arizona street which is directly behind york street to just show you that
uh the areas in need of uh development uh commissioners i uh noticed the meeting two
times one in july and i sent out 185 notices i did the posting i noticed it again in december
I sent 178 notices. Again, only individuals from the RCA came to the meeting. And
I believe this was the third posting. Again, Ms. Emerson did email to me today about a posting,
and I did send her a separate picture.
I do have the pictures of the posting.
Commissioner, in closing, I would like to say
that this area is in need of development,
residential development.
This property has a history of two units.
One was commercial and one was residential.
The actual use that we are asking for today
is actually a lesser use than this property
had previously been used for. If in fact a commercial was on the bottom, let's say a bar,
a restaurant, it would bring many, many, many more people to the area. It would bring trash,
blight, and some other elements that may go with a restaurant bar. What we are requesting today
is two units so we can provide what we would call a reasonable housing for the community.
And when I say reasonable, I mean units that persons that currently live in this community could afford.
I don't believe that two units is an overuse because the same amount of people that would be in two units would be in one unit.
My clients aren't trying to put five pounds of sugar in a 10 -pound sack.
We're not asking for an additional floor, which we could ask for and have a setback.
which would take away from the aesthetics of the community,
nor are we asking for a roof deck,
which would be different from almost all the properties in the community.
We did meet with the community.
We were open to suggestions, and we did take some suggestions.
And I'm going to show you specifically what they were.
Let me reduce this a little bit more for you.
When we went to the meeting the second time, the RCO had concerns about egress window well here,
indicating that trash accumulates here, and it just wasn't a positive thing for the community,
and we're more than happy to eliminate the window well here. Basically, we would like to
present affordable housing that persons in this community could live in,
small families, single individuals. Commissioners, I can go through the other three packets and they
are basically identical except that 3212 is a little bit larger than 3208 and 3212. Again,
the bi -level apartments are in excess of a thousand square feet and the two -bedroom apartment
on the second floor is approximately 550 square feet.
Commissioner, if I can, I would like to address the letter
that the Civic Center, excuse me,
excuse me, the Civic Association sent in opposition.
the Civic Association sent in opposition.
There were...
Tom Citro.
There were several points that the Community Association pointed out in their letter,
and I would like to address them.
Number one was a lack of hardship.
Commissioners, this property had been two units.
It was laid out for two units, and we'd like to continue it with the two units and the current fittings that it has.
In regard to health and safety concerns, the letter speaks of the kitchen being below grade and the risk of carbon monoxide.
Our commissioners, number one, we have the carbon monoxide units for our units, but secondly, our units aren't gas. They're all electric, so there would be no carbon monoxide exposure.
In regard to the egress well unit, we're more than happy to take the egress well unit out of the front.
We just thought that would be good for extra safety concerns.
The letter also indicates that there are inaccurate bedrooms dimensions.
I disagree with that.
Our bedroom dimensions are accurate and they are within code and above code.
And again, I have the architect on the line today, and he'd be more than happy to answer any questions in regard to the sizing of the bedroom units.
The fifth concern was insufficient living space, and I would just disagree with that altogether.
that these are nicely appointed and nice size apartment units and have nice amenities for those
who choose to live there. The sixth one was an inappropriate bedroom access and I don't really
understand that either because you can come in through the front door of the apartment and
traverse through the apartment and get to the back room, the back bedroom. There is a
egress regular door that you can walk out the back bedroom and get to the backyard. But that's
certainly not the only way that you can access the rear bedroom. In regard to the best use of
properties, this is the best use of properties. Philadelphia has a housing shortage. They really
have an affordable housing shortage. These properties have gone undeveloped from at least
from what L &I seems like at least 20 or 25 years. The development that we are requesting today is
actually a lesser use than the property had been used previously. And with that, commissioners,
I'm more than willing to answer any questions and so is my client or the architect.
Why don't you do this? Why don't you bring your client on to adopt your testimony? If the board has questions relative to the design, then we can bring Mr. Holloman on. So for this point, bring on your client to adopt your testimony, then we'll take it to the board, okay?
Okay. Mr. Pinckney, can you hear me?
Yes, I can hear you.
Mr. Pinckney, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Donald Pinckney, D -O -N -A -L -D, Pinckney, P -I -N -K -N -E -Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Counsel, can Mr. Pinckney speak on all three?
Okay, please proceed.
Mr. Pinckney, are you part owner of 3208, 3210, and 3212 York Street?
Yes, I am.
Mr. Pinckney, have you heard the testimony that I've given to the board today?
Yes, I have.
Mr. Pinckney, if you were to testify today, would you be able to adopt my testimony as true and correct?
And Mr. Pinckney, did we both attend two community meetings?
Yes, we did.
And, Mr. Pinkney, did we have anyone from the actual community besides the actual RCO staff come to the meeting?
No, we did not.
That's all I have, Commissioner.
Questions from the board.
I have a question.
The properties now, what are they originally, what are they zoned for right now?
RSA 5.
Okay, so.
That's single family development.
I got that. So even though there was commercial use, there was never zoned for the commercial use that was on that.
there was commercial use there was never zoned for the commercial use that was on that first
level correct so it was actually zoned before when it was used as a bar restaurant it just
hasn't been used in many many many years so it reverted back okay um and my other question was
and you said that it clarified this for me the window well um you were willing to remove the
window well in the back no no in the front they said trash accumulates in the front and um for
you know aesthetic purposes and to not have a pile up of trash um we're more than happy if
that's what you want to remove so the window well that you just showed us in that um diagram when
you circled it you said you it was relocated so it was originally in the front and you're saying
you relocated it to the back no i'm sorry we had one in the front and one in the back okay so now
you're saying it only be one window well instead of two yes okay and do you and would that be
there's any other type of lighting in the coming to the basement besides that back window well
um i believe in the front there's a little um area if you i don't know if my um diagram
is it still up on the screen it is right here you can get light into the um basement
miss three could you zoom in it's at like 25 it's very tiny okay i'll zoom out i'm sorry
Is that better?
Better.
I can make it bigger
or a little bit more.
Hold on.
Here you go.
Can you point to
what you were pointing to again?
That's on the first floor.
You just pointed to the first floor.
Yeah, this is the basement
and this is the first floor.
There's a
light well. Yes. Next to the stairs.
And my last question in your testimony, you mentioned that the neighborhood is in need of
development. Are you aware of any developments that are proposed for that area? The only thing
I could honestly say is that there are applications now in front of the zoning board for
the four properties to our right. The application says multifamily. I don't know exactly what it
is, and it hasn't been approved. I'm not aware there was a zoning permit for 3216. It looks like
it was abandoned, and I don't see any other active permits. I'm sorry, 3214, there's a application
for a zoning permit now that hasn't come before the board. And lastly, my concern is that there
there's no community participation at all?
Like, did your client do any type of petitioning or anything like that?
Like, there's nobody from the community?
No, we didn't do any petitioning.
We just circulated the flyers on two occasions.
All right. Thank you.
I also would like to say, though, there are a lot of vacancies, though,
right around that property.
And we did get a lot of letters to come back.
Other questions from the board?
yes i just want to confirm the floor plan is proposed to be relatively the same across all
three addresses just about identical except the 32
12 is a little larger property than the other two okay and then can you confirm
what is the height um from the ground plane to the top of the basement floor
um i couldn't read that wouldn't you let me just reduce that a little bit
so let's see so from the ground floor to the top that looks like let me just enlarge it a little
a little bit more. It's 22 plus, it looks like it's 28 .6, but I do have the architect on the
line. He can confirm that for me. Mr. Holloman, can you tell me what the height of the property
is from the ground floor. I see
it as 20.
I asked just to the
ceiling of the basement, though. So it looks like
it's three feet above
ground plane, but Mr. Holloman
can confirm that.
Mr. Holloman.
Mr. Holloman, please.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
I can, Mr. Holloman. Could you please state your name? It's spelled for the court stenographer.
Thomas Holloman. It's spelled H -O -L -L -O -M -A -N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Holloman, can you tell us the measurement from the ground floor to the ceiling? How much space it is? Is it above ground?
It's three feet above ground. We have the eight foot ceiling height, so it's five feet below grade.
Thank you, Mr. Holloman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and board.
Other questions from the board?
questions or comments from our attorney
hillary emerson um i just wanted to clarify the record miss three your testimony that you gave
applies to all three of these properties provided that is applicable because i know there were some
some slight differences between the three just wanted to yes i can show you the plans for all
three i have i uploaded three separate presentations but they're basically identical except the
measurements of the plan
3212 is a little bigger
than the other two properties.
Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for
our court reporter. Thank you.
Questions or comments for
the virtual audience?
I see.
I'm sorry, Chair.
I see no hands.
There's no one in the audience?
They just raised their hands again.
Strawberry Nation Community Service has been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Birkin, and the board.
My name is Bonita Cummings.
It's B as in boy, O -N -I -T -A -C -U -M -M -I -N -G -S.
Cummings, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
um we in the community um particularly along that corridors is kind of mixed like it could be
commercial use and residential use and that particular uh those particular properties
3208 10 and 12 since i was been in that community oh you know like 60 years or more it's it's been a
It was a bar. It was a space that provided recreation and entertainment to the community, and it was really never identified necessarily of any above -use living.
Those lots are like 700 square feet lots. You might have maybe improvement area a little larger, but we're trying to put the low -grade,
bedroom use because a den is a bedroom and it can be used as a
bedroom with a kitchen. And we also
are, you know, like some of those bedrooms are not even big
enough for, you know, a queen size bed and a dresser.
So some of the dimensions don't address doors
that have to be open so you can't block those doors. So
a lot of the, some of the information is not what we considered as we
reviewed it um totally totally accurate in terms of the comfortability um of how families would be
living um in this space like we're trying to cram every single thing into this small space
lot size and improvement size there's no space for even a scooter children children have uh you
know scooters scooters now electric scooters things that have to be taken inside there's no
space to grow. So these are, in essence, very small units. The first floor of all three of
those properties was all open. It was all open space. It was, you know, because it was an
entertainment venue. So these properties are suitable, what we've assessed, and our community
has assessed these locations. They may not have been necessarily a lot of people on
the Zoom meeting, but our community is engaged in talking all the time. So we have our needs,
particularly along that corridor, that nobody ever even asks, you know, like people purchase
properties, but they don't really engage the community and or the community organizations
as to what is best use for our community and how we would like to develop those parcels.
for our community and how we would like to develop those parcels. And those parcels really
could have been developed in a way that was really more useful to our community than putting families
in properties where they cannot grow, where there's no space, where bare room sizes are very
small. You may have one room that has a larger size, but primarily they're not conducive to
what we feel is multi -family, multi -family use. So we have everybody saying what's going on in
our community. They used to live there or they come back there or, you know, but they never
engaged us. They never really said, well, you know, let's reach out. And it's a lot of
organizations in Storway Mansion, particularly for that geographical boundary, to see how we
all could really work it out, work together and make this, you know, a really formidable
product. But right now, it's no demonstrated hardship for them to put it in a way is very
useful to the community, which would be single family homes where families could be in those
homes with the proper space that they need to be comfortable. You have backroom entryways to
From the yard, you enter into bedrooms on the first floor levels.
So we just feel that, you know, at this time, that the best use for those properties will be single family.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Do you have any questions, Counsel?
No, I have not.
Other comments from the virtual audience?
Good morning.
i can't uh reverend please state your name it's spelled for the stenographer
good morning reverend tyrone williams tyrone t -y -r -o -n -e williams w -i -l -l -i -a -m -s
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do reverend do you have anything to add do you have anything to add to what the last
witness presented well i i agree with miss cummings and that there is some um movement
and planning going on and i noticed in the picture she didn't go to the other side where they just
built a duplex or apartment type a building on 33rd and york and so you know that we don't want
to begin density there is a communication with the community uh there's current movement on
a plan for strawberry mansion and so that would not fit and um i agree that there is not enough
room up in those uh places and i've known that to be a bar i live down the street uh from the
properties. And I just
don't think it is a fit for
what is being discussed
in Strawberry Mansion at the time
for the future. I just don't
think it's a good fit, and
we oppose it.
Thank you. Counselor, do you have a
cross? I just have a question.
Mr. Williams, you said there's an apartment
building on the next corner. How many units
is in it? I don't
know. It looks like it's five,
four or five people are in there.
It has a beautiful John Coltrane mural that faces off to 33rd Street.
It's right across from the gas station there.
And like I said, you know, there's already movement along that area, particularly on 33rd Street.
And it's moving down towards York.
But, you know, yes, it is right down the street from York for your properties.
Thank you.
Other questions from the neighbors, virtual audience?
We have Strawberry Mansion with your hand raised again.
Would you like them to speak?
They have been allowed to speak.
I just wanted to...
Hold on, just say your name.
Thank you very much.
Please proceed.
I just wanted to state that the property at 33rd and York that's mentioned was done in error.
That property is a CMX2, which they violated using the space on the first floor as commercial space.
So I just wanted to note that because that property should not even have been multifamily units from the basement or from that first fuller level.
So you're trying to talk about apples and oranges, and it really was by acknowledgement of the Planning Commission that that property, there were some missteps in that.
that that property, there was some missteps, you know, in that property. So it's not a comparison
to what should be on York Street. If it was on York Street in the 3200 block, those would be
at best single family properties. Thank you. Council, do you have any questions?
I just like to note, I didn't mention the multifamily on 33rd Street. There are several multifamilies all up and down 33rd Street. I would like to say that my clients have thought about the community and they have thought about the need for housing.
They have thought about the aesthetics of the property and being consistent with the look of the properties around.
We haven't asked for an additional floor to make it an eyesore and to make it stand out from the other properties in the neighborhood or the new properties that are coming up on the block.
Thank you. Any other comments from the virtual audience?
I see no.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
And sure, these will be for all three properties as well.
Thank you.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 5 residential single -family zoning at this location.
Strawberry Mansion was rezoned in 2014.
At that time, the single -family zoning at the site, which dates back to the 1970s, was left unchanged.
The properties have been vacant for 20 years, and the proposal is for a complete rebuild of the structures.
The plot has not demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances of the properties that would prevent them from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the proposed use variances for two family dwelling units in 3208, 3210, and 3212 West York Street.
counsel we're um we've had a testimony roll to this i'm going to sit and talk to the other
members of the board and we will vote on this january 8th at 9 30 a .m thank you very much
Commissioner. Thank you. Thank you. All right, let's see here. We're going to go to number
number seven, MI 2024 -003 -086 -7330 Ridge Avenue. Catherine Misner is the attorney.
Pam Lachman is also an attorney representing the Protestants.
Could they both come on, please?
Good morning.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court's sonographer?
Yes, Catherine Missimer.
It's M -I -S -S -I -M -E -R at 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, 19103.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Thank you. Second counsel, Pam Lachman.
Do we see the counsel in the audience? Yeah, the counsel has already been
promoted to panelists. It seems that they keep unmuting and muting yourselves.
Mayor Redekop, Council?
They may be having technical difficulties on their end.
Mayor Redekop, Council?
Lachman
Hildory
I was going to say
I see her muting and unmuting
and we can't hear her
when she's unmuted and then she quickly
mutes again
Bill from IT do you have any suggestions
Why don't we do this
Why don't you log out and try to log back in again?
Chair, we have a Frank Cavani with your hand raised.
Are they related to this case?
They are a witness in this case.
We could go to the next case and then come back.
Why don't we go to the next case and we'll come back.
Counsel, we're sorry, but we'll get back to you as quick as we can, okay?
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Number eight, MI 2024.
Number eight, MI 2024 -004 -851 -1409 -13, Fitzwater Street.
Vern Anastasia was the attorney.
Thank you.
All right.
Just state your name for the record, please.
Yes, Mr. Chair of Vern.
anastasio anastasio on behalf of the applicant greg schumann our vice chair has a few questions
sir thanks good morning council do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate
to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed and
required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this area i have thank you council
Council, please proceed and share your screen.
Council, just for a note, there's a letter of unanimous support from South of South Neighborhood Association
and a letter of unanimous support from North of Washington Coalition.
Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
As you said, we have unanimous support from both RCOs in this service area.
Here's the property in question.
It is 1409 -13 Fitzwater Street.
For decades, it has been an auto repair shop.
As you can see, it's sort of an anomaly surrounded by residential homes.
And that's where it sits right there on Fitzwater.
The application is for personal services.
In this case, it would be for personal training services.
As such, we've gotten a refusal, because the property is zoned RM1, although it's
again, been a garage for as long as I've been alive.
The appeal was submitted.
Again, detailing in great depth how the personal services will not adversely impact the community,
would be less of a impact than the previous use.
And it's personal training, to be specific.
As you can see here, the interior shows the different sorts of machines and the tools.
Byron, could you make it smaller so we can see the whole picture?
There's treadmills and rowers and ellipticals on one end.
We've got some dumbbells, a power rack, a stepper
Leg press, rowing
Just about everything you would expect
We have a front office here
And we have a space for the different tools
For tennis, volleyball, baseball, hockey, basketball
And we have a turf area in the center
this is the property in question
I'll zoom in so you can see
been auto repairs again
sandwiched between residential properties and across the street
from residential properties for decades
This is the equipment that's been going in.
My client believed at the time that this would be a permissible use given the long history
of the property.
There's the office that I mentioned earlier.
Here's the letter of notification that went out to all the individual impacted households,
inviting them both to the community meeting and to the zoning hearing.
45 individual households were mailed.
Another four here, 45 there.
45 there.
The flyer, I mean, sorry, the notice of zoning, hearing, the proof of posting.
And then we have, of course, the rental license, tax clearance, and all the other reliable information from the city of Philadelphia.
Here's the letter from SOSNA. Again, overwhelming support for this, as well as the North of Washington Registered Community Organization.
because of the long history of commercial sort of light industrial use even at this space,
because my client, Mr. Schumann, as owner of TREC Personal Training,
will not adversely impact the community and still yet enjoys, in fact, overwhelming support from his neighbors.
We're respectfully requesting the granting of the variants for personal services. Thank you.
with that i'd like to bring your client on burn please greg schumann raise your hand
would you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
greg schumann greg is g -r -e -g schumann is s -c -h -u -m -a -n -n
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Greg, you are the owner of Trek Personal Training.
Is that right?
Yes, it's On Trek Fitness is the name of it, but I don't know what happened.
Okay, very good.
And you heard my presentation to the board today.
Do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Very good.
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have one hand with a hand raised.
Jeremy Blaston has been allowed to speak. Please unmute yourself, Jeremy.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Morning.
They have not unmuted themselves.
It seems that they may have been experiencing technical difficulties.
Anyone else from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the arm -run residential multifamily zoning at this location.
The city changed the zoning maps in this neighborhood in 1977.
This property has a documented history as an auto repair shop.
The zoning code contemplates personal services, a commercial use, as having less impact than auto repair and industrial use.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant their proposed use variance for personal services.
M .I. 2024 -004 -851 -1409 -13, Fitchwater Street, I vote yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ty Ewen, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Council, could you stay on, please?
Yes, sir. Thank you.
MI 2024 -007 -176, 1909 -13 South 12th Street.
Bernard Anastasia was the attorney.
This is an appeal against L &I.
Leonard Reuter will represent the city.
Leonard has been promoted to the panelists.
Good morning, counsel. Could you please state your name and spell for the court's sonographer?
Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair Verne Anastasio.
No, no, no. I already have you. I'm Leonard. I'm talking about Leonard.
Apologies.
Good morning. May it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter, Senior Attorney, City of Philadelphia.
Do you ever affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Okay. This is an appeal against L &I. Mr. Anastasio, do you want to start?
Thank you.
First, Mr. Chair, I want to make sure that the board knows that we augmented our exhibit
packet yesterday with a memo brief for 1909 -13 South 12th Street, and I'm not quite sure if
and I did, I'm not quite sure if the board got an opportunity to read it or review it. I suppose
the board got an opportunity to read it.
you might do that subsequent to the hearing today, taking testimony. I also did send that over to
Mr. Reuter, albeit late, so he may not have gotten a chance to review it much either, so I did just
want to share that with you, and I want to move, make sure that it's moved into evidence, and with
that. Hillary, we have that, right, Hillary? I have not seen it, but if it was sent last night,
it could have been after. Yeah, it was uploaded to the system, so I could also send it to you
individually if you'd like, Ms. Emerson. Okay, no, that's fine. I'm sure it's there. Thank you.
Thank you. Yeah, and this is the timeline, Mr. Chair and members of the board. In March of this
year, a zoning application was submitted for a subdivision and new construction of three homes,
three residential homes on a residential block. The zoning application comments from Plans
and Examiners started in April. Towards the end of April, April 23rd, the permit was issued,
not only for the subdivision, but for the construction of the three homes.
right so the then then the zoning permit was posted on the property for 30 days with no
objection from anybody uh in august the building application submitted uh for all three properties
there were then uh comments from the plans examiner on the 16th of of september twice
There was responses given. After the responses were given, there were no more information sent from L &I to Mr. Toner, who was the architect applicant on the project.
And then later on the 23rd, there was an email received from one of the supervisors at L &I that after all this time, the permit was being revoked.
We appeal that revocation today for obvious reasons.
My client has been working.
Here's the copy of the permit itself that's being revoked.
My client once received the permit and posted this permit for 30 days with no objection,
They then began to irrevocably change the property through demolition and begin the process of building, investing over $100 ,000 in professional services and other carrying charges.
and all of that is detailed in the exhibit packet that I sent.
Pages 13, 14, and 15 show all the expenses that have been incurred.
We believe the revocation is inequitable.
It contradicts doctrines of variance by estoppel and vested rights.
Their permit to build homes, again, was secured in April 2024, posted for 30 days without incident or objection.
The appellant then undertook irreversible property alterations, spent in excess of $100 ,000 in architecting, professional engineering services, and other carrying costs.
and then at the 11th hour just as when after the comments had been going back and forth to clarify
different items and the architect believed at the time that they had finally answered the last of
the questions in the comments then at the 11th hour they were notified that the entire use permit
was being revoked the good faith reliance here in this case the obvious investments made by the
client. We believe these should compel relief in this particular matter. And with that, I'd like
to first call architect Ian Toner to the stand. Mr. Toner. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, Mr. Toner,
could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer? Yes, it's Ian Toner,
I -A -N -T -O -N -E -R
We are affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Toner, did you hear my representations to the board this morning?
I did.
Were they true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
You adopt them as your testimony?
And do you have other testimony and additional information you'd like to explain to the board today?
And do you have other testimony and additional information you'd like to explain to the board today?
I don't think so.
I mean, we followed all the rules and posted.
This is, as you mentioned, it's a typical residential block in Philadelphia.
I mean, it's surrounded by row homes.
So, you know, we were granted the zoning permit and it made sense to me.
And so then we moved forward at the request of the owner to move along and get these applications in for the building permits.
And at no time during that process, between March and the end of September, were you given any indication from anybody at the City of Philadelphia that these use permits were invalid?
Is that right?
No, not at all.
I didn't hear anything from anyone.
Okay. And you believed you were at the end of the commenting process in order to secure those building permits. Is that right?
Yeah, I mean, they this was the we got one round of comments and it included this is this issue kind of offhandedly.
Oh, by the way, you know, we're going to we need to get a new zoning permit because we issued this in error.
And then we got a separate email from the so that was from the building plans examiner.
We got a separate email on the same day from the zoning plans examiner telling us the same thing.
And then shortly after that, we got the revocation letter.
But when it first came up, you didn't produce the zoning use permit, right, for them?
Yes. Yeah. And there seemed to be no dispute that it was issued.
I mean, it was issued and it was posted.
And we provided the photos to show them that even as of even as of August, the those zoning permits were still posted on the property from the time that they were issued all the way until four months later.
Thank you. On page nine of my exhibit packet, I'm showing right now some photos of the block and the property in question.
in the old garage, which historically was probably stables or livery facilities.
This represents the property as it was.
Is that correct?
And that's the block, the residential block with this plop right in the middle.
Is that right?
Correct.
Very good.
With that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to call.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Hold on one minute.
Mr. Reuter, do you have any questions of the architect?
I do not at this time.
The city's case, we'll just sum it up after Mr. Anastasia is done.
And I just need to bring my client on.
A representative from Frida LLC.
Anthony Maggiore.
Maggiore.
Maggiore.
Anthony Maggiore, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your virtual hand.
Another representative might be Joseph Pungitore.
Please raise your virtual hand, Joseph.
I see no hand.
Mr. Chair, I just want to also make sure that you understand that the examiner actually apologized and admitted the error for the such late notice.
There was no dispute here that it was an error.
Mr. Anastasia, you are an officer of the court. We will take your testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Reuter, do you want to start your presentation?
Sure. And I'm just going to briefly respond to the matter.
There's no dispute, and I don't think Mr. Anastasia is disputing, that the lots in question are ICMX.
Again, there had been a subdivision, a lot subdivision that was done, or I should say a lot adjustment that was done to create three lots, and I guess two -thirds of them are ICMX.
It was missed by the plans examiner.
There was a lot, first the lot adjustment permit itself had been issued, although that would have been by right anyway.
then a demolition permit for was issued i'm not clear on the timing of the actual demolition
although i can confirm the demolition has taken place uh based on the research that i did i
believe mr anastasia is correct uh this was probably at one point delivery it looks like
it had been um some kind of commercial or light industrial type use going back at least to 1909
1910, and because it had been a garage for at least the last couple of decades.
And because it had been a garage for at least the last couple decades before it was abandoned, it's likely that it was probably a livery because that was a kind of like common sort of transition to go from a livery or stable to some kind of auto -related use.
I believe, and Mr. Anastasia could correct me, that the last owner was the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority.
They had the property for some time, I believe.
So the city's position here is that in the comprehensive plan, the lots in question would be remapped to RSA 5.
um these are it's a fairly unfortunately fairly common occurrence in south philly in particular
you know queen village south philly uh former moya mensing and pass yonk areas that you have
these vestigial lots that are kind of in the middle of residential blocks um so again while
again there's no dispute that the properties are ice that it icmx does apply to the property
we the city will defer to the board's determination of whether vested rights exist here
thank you very much is there any questions from the board
did i did i hear you uh leonard that uh these properties should be zoned as far as a five or
the comprehensive plan i want to be clear about that that we're not saying it's a mapping error
It's not like there was a problem with the mapping, and it is ICMX.
There's no dispute about it, but in the comprehensive plan, these lots would be remapped to RSA 5.
I can share the pages or make reference to that.
If you want me to put that in the record, I'm happy to do that.
Let me see.
Let me see.
If you give me one second.
Oh, sorry.
unfortunately my computer's not the fastest i'm just trying to pull up well and is there
is that going to be done anytime soon or are we leaving they are or what's there's there's no
there's no current draft actually i had a discussion briefly with mr anastasio yesterday
and I asked, made a request of him that he or his client or Mr. Toner reach out to the council
member's office, which in this case would be Mark Squilla, and to start the process to get it
remapped. I mean, we would certainly rather that the properties be remapped than this become a
nonconformity, which it would be. And so again, it's, like I said, there are probably, there's
at least dozens if not hundreds of these types of things throughout the city uh but they're not
you know they're just kind of like little things that we want to fix when we get to it so i i
wouldn't say that you know there would be any you know were it not for a case like this there
wouldn't be any great uh urgency to have this remap it should be uh and i think in a case like
this it would be it would behoove the property owner to start that process to get it remapped
to RSA 5, but yes, there's a number of properties, like I said, in South Philly that have a very
similar problem with this. And if I may, Ms. Gavin, just the fact that the city is stipulating
that these should be, in fact, RSA 5, I think goes to support our argument that relief could
be granted here. The remapping process, as you know, is a very long and arduous one where we
have to sort of work within the confines of the legislative calendar with the district council
person. That's a really good long -term goal, especially since there's no plans from the
city to do it themselves. It's also a costly goal. But in the short term, granting this relief
will sort of equal the playing field here so that we can continue to pursue the you know
a consistent use on the block of single family development thank you yeah if i might very briefly
just i'm sorry can i also just say my my concern here is if this is a split zone block you're
putting RSA 5 next to this ICMX where you usually, when it's split zone, you would default to the
more restrictive use. And here you can't do that because ICMX and RSA 5 are not compatible in terms
of single -family use.
single -family use. So I think that there needs to be more urgency in this case
So I think that...
in terms of remapping because of that, because these are really not uses that you can have,
that you can't follow your usual rules in terms of split zoning with these classifications
as they are okay that that's that's my concern here yeah any other questions go ahead leonard
i'm sorry sure i i just said the record's complete uh if i could just briefly share
my screen i just wanted to show a couple pages from the comprehensive plan uh it'll just take
me a second hopefully can you see that we can okay so i will uh increase that a bit
and you can see this is a page from the 2035 comprehensive plan for east passion crossing area
oops wrong thing
another page the uh properties in question are right about here i think they're by 12th and
i'm sorry right around here they're 12th and mifflin you'll see a couple pockets there
So again, you have some existing zoning in various residential areas, again, little spots
here and there that are currently RM1 or CMX2, and those are to be RSA5.
We also have the zoning change viewer, so again we have some ICMX, this is ICMX here,
this is the properties 1909 -13, and the proposed zoning for 1909 -13 South 12th Street is RSA
five and it says as it points out it has not yet been introduced but uh there you go i can stop
sharing my screen and i would ask uh i i would ask the board just take judicial notice of these
documents i can i don't have a wasn't planning on necessarily showing them but i don't uh i
wasn't going to have a plan or verify those but i think they sort of speak for themselves as
Is there any other questions from the board?
Yeah, I have a question.
Was it stated that the demolition already took place?
And which is why our position is it's a cut and dry estoppel invested rights issue here.
And granting the appeal just corrects the mapping error.
Any other questions from the board?
Hillary, any questions from you?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
So, Vern and Leonard, what we're going to do is we're going to hold this, hold the vote until January 8th when we come back.
We will vote on it at 930 in the morning after we have a conversation among ourselves, also with Hillary involved.
OK, so we will have this on the schedule January 8th and we'll vote at 930 a .m.
And thank both of you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That concludes my business.
May be excused.
Thank you. Yes, you can. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Thank you. So we're going to go back to number seven. MI 2024 -003 -086 -7330 Ridge Avenue.
Catherine Mismer, please come back. You've already been sworn. And Pam Logman, could you please come on?
i i catherine could you just state your name for the record you've already been
sure catherine missimer it's m -i -s -s -i -m -e -r very much
pam logman uh yes mr chairman i'm here could you please state your name and spell for the
stenographer. Pamela M. Lachman, L -O -U -G -H -M -A -N. We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. So this is a resumptive hearing, but before we start,
planning has some information they would like to present to both attorneys. Planning, please.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, David Vecteau, F -E -C -T -E -A -U, with the City Planning Commission.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Yes, sir.
Please proceed.
So, Chairman and Board members, I apologize for doing this to you, but as you know, the code requires the Planning Commission to conduct preliminary reviews of certain zoning permits.
One of those items that we review is landscaping in certain cases, and we believe that there may be an outstanding plan review comment related to landscaping that may need to be resolved.
So the City Planning Commission would request that we would hold our vote until we can review the revised plans and revised refusals.
Council Lee, anyone have any questions?
David, do you mind letting us know what the nature of the comment is?
So, Kate, thank you.
Ms. Murray, thank you.
I believe it has to do with an adjacent landscaping adjacent to another residential district.
And then another planner had said it. There may be one having to do with adjacency to a public street, but I think that one may have been resolved. So I'm still seeking clarification for my plan reviewers here.
Yeah, I'm questioning on the adjacency to residential district because we have pretty wide buffers on both sides.
Thank you.
Absolutely. Thank you.
Thank you, David.
So, so we're not going to vote on this today, but what we will do is have the traffic engineer that Council Lockman has, we'll take that testimony.
This misery you will cross, and then we will probably move on.
Okay, continue it.
So, Council Lockman, please.
Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, it would just be continued for the vote, correct?
yeah okay thank you well the vote and you know public testimony and also the planning commission
will then make a recommendation right so we're not going to hold public comment today i don't
think i'm going to hold public comment to do we see what the whole issue is right
after planning comes with where they think we need to be then i would do public comment okay
All right. Hillary, are we okay? Yes, Mr. Chair. Okay. Counsel Logman, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I'd like to continue the protestant's case with
an expert witness. It is Frank Tavani. He is a traffic engineer and the principal of FTA and
Associates. Could he please be sworn in? Frank Tavani, if you're in a virtual audience,
Please raise your virtual hand.
They have been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Mr. Tavani?
Yes, can you hear me?
Can now, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Certainly.
My name is Frank Tavani.
Last name is...
We're not hearing you, sir.
Mr. Tavani.
We did not hear your last name.
Mr. Tavani, we're not hearing you, sir.
Mr. Tavani, could you state your last name and spell it?
T -A -V -A -N -I
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Tavani
i'm not sure what the problem is i have you connected um directly to me i i don't know
what the problem is either but we're not hearing so could you do one more time do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel um excuse
me mr chair could we since mr savani is a witness can we promote him to a panelist please so that
that he can turn on his camera.
Thank you.
Hello, so I'm trying a different connection now.
Is this working?
There you go.
Yeah, that's much better, sir.
Good, good, good.
Good, good, good.
Can you move in this one?
Can you move him sworn?
Council Lachman, please proceed.
Council Lockman, please proceed.
Yes, Mr. Tovani, could you please, by whom are you employed?
I'm self -employed by F. Tovani and Associates Incorporated.
I've been in that capacity since October 2004.
What is your education?
I am a civil engineer.
I have a bachelor of science degree, graduated in 1993 from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Do you hold licensures?
I do. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I have been since 1999. I also hold a PTOE certification, which is bestowed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, or ITE.
And what is your experience in that capacity?
So basically, for the last 31 years, I've been practicing exclusively in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and parts of South Jersey and Delaware as a transportation professional.
Typically, I represent applicants. Sometimes I also do reviews on behalf of municipalities and townships.
I also do a lot of institutional work, such as representing Villanova University, Lower Marion School District, Eastern University and others.
Okay. I would like to offer Frank Tavani as an expert in expert traffic engineer, particularly parking and traffic operations engineering.
Ms. Burke.
We'll just object on lack of experience in Philadelphia with residential projects.
I have, even though I didn't mention them, my CV might not also call them out.
I have worked on small and large projects in the city of Philadelphia.
I've also had a hand at reviewing some of the casino applications over the last 20 years.
And what type of residential projects in Philadelphia?
Well, as you might imagine, they're mostly single -family homes.
Which would not have a parking component typically, correct?
Yeah, parking doesn't really discriminate between city boundaries.
There are recommendations as proffered by ITE for single -family homes versus multifamily homes.
And in my experience, both doing reviews and preparing studies, these are usually upheld equally regardless of the location.
Philadelphia parking is governed by the Philadelphia Zoning Code.
So it is a unique application in this instance.
I don't know if I would call it unique, but I understand that there are ordinances and zoning requirements, as there would be anywhere.
But in my experience, traffic studies often look at the most recently available empirical data, which is usually not found in ordinances.
Usually ordinances lag behind by decades.
Usually that information is found in such manuals as the IT parking generation manual, the IT trip generation manual, things of that ilk.
We can respond to the report, Mr. Chairman, but we'll just note our objection for the record.
Blagman, please proceed.
We're not looking at him as an expert witness, but he can give his ideas of what he thinks about what's happening there.
But he's not an expert witness for this case.
Are you familiar with the land development project at 7330 Ridge Avenue?
Yes, I've reviewed the applicant's exhibit materials that were submitted, I believe, last month. I think they're dated 30 October 2024. That included plans, and I also prepared a report dated 11 December 2024.
Okay. Could you please summarize the major points in your report?
i could and um at this point i actually uh just as a matter of convenience i've pulled up uh parts
of the exhibits um the applicants exhibits on my laptop as well as my report as well so
if it pleases the board perhaps i could screen share to make things as quick as possible do that
So do you see what's on my screen now?
We do not, sir.
See the green button at the bottom share screen?
Spare it with me.
I see it.
Coming up now.
Please proceed.
Okay, wonderful. So this is a zoomed in version of one of the pages from the applicant.
This is a zoomed -in version of one of the pages from the applicant's exhibit package, and
I'm just making some changes to my screen at the moment. I'm going to zoom out just to show that
this, I believe, was page 14 out of the 151 -page PDF. This is a pretty illustrative view of the
proposed site location and you can see in particular in the lower right corner and the
upper right corner elements of a relatively recent single -family home development adjacent
to the site known as Roxborough Reserve. The homes in Roxborough Reserve appear to be substantially
comparable to what the applicant is now proposing. As the board's probably aware, the board had,
the applicant had previously proposed shoehorning 20 single -family homes or attached homes rather
and is now proposing a significant reduction in 10 detached homes that appear to be very similar to what's found in Roxborough Reserve.
One potential difference is at Roxborough Reserve, they have two car garages, and I'm zooming in a little bit now,
so you can see in particular one of the units you can see in the screen in the lower left side near the word east has a driveway apron with three cars parked on it,
And we don't know how many cars are parked in the garage of that particular unit.
But seeing that for context, this is adjacent to the site and knowing that we are pretty much in the northwestern extreme of the city of Philadelphia at this point, I would take the position that these homes have a bit more of a suburban nature in terms of their traffic and parking generation characteristics.
And what the applicant is proposing is a little different than what you see at Roxborough Reserve.
They include a single car garage and a single car apron.
So basically, they're proposing two parking spaces per unit.
They have significantly narrowed the proposed central driveway, the shared driveway, such that there is no potential at all for guest parking along that driveway.
So they are effectively proposing. I'm sorry, I misspoke earlier. It's not 10 units, it's 12 units.
So they're proposing 24 total parking spaces, all of which are found either in the building itself or in the apron in front of the building.
And as you can see in what we're looking at on our screen here, that's significantly less than what is found in Roxborough Reserve.
And according to the ITE Parking Generation Manual, ITE is the acronym for Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Homes of this type, four bedrooms, which is what's proposed by the applicant, has an 85th percentile parking supply of 1 .25 parking spaces per bedroom.
So if you have four bedrooms, ITE suggests you have a parking supply of five parking spaces per unit.
So that will work out to be 60 parking spaces.
And in this case, we are only having 24.
So that is one of the main concerns of the project. Another concern, if you look in the lower left corner on the screen or even the lower right corner, you can see, again, using Roxborough Reserve as a proxy, they have not one but two cul -de -sac bulbs, which facilitate ease of circulation for things like trash trucks and Amazon delivery vehicles, moving vans, basically, you know, any long wheelbase vehicle.
Does it need to back out the entire length of the central shared driveway in that community?
They simply turn around in one of these provided bulb areas.
And it would be my contention that the applicant can relatively easily provide that same facility on this site simply by eliminating one or perhaps two units from the current site plan.
And that would alleviate a significant burden on the community.
The applicant's own testimony last month, as I understand it, is that trucks -
Did you hear that, sir? Did you hear that testimony?
I did not.
Okay. Well, I don't think you should testify to something you didn't hear.
All right. Well, going back to the applicant's exhibits, their traffic study gave no indication that trucks will be able to turn around on site.
And even a cursory review of their proposed driveway will make it pretty clear that it's going to be impossible for any vehicle longer than a passenger car to be able to turn around and head out to Ridge Avenue.
They will have to back out onto Ridge Avenue.
So what I had proposed in my report was a pretty simple change.
You can see here I superimposed the applicant site plan onto an aerial image
and simply replaced that with a mock -up showing how it would be different.
And simply replace that with a mock -up showing how it would be different if they made the central driveway slightly wider to accommodate some parking along the driveway in between units, which would benefit guests.
And if they provide a turnaround area at the bottom corner of the site, this would represent a substantially safer situation for not only those residents, but, you know, anyone traveling along Ridge Avenue, whether they're going to or from the site, or just happen to be driving in general.
And I think that's it.
Frank, have you had a chance to review the vehicle circulation plan by dynamic traffic dated 12 -16 -24?
Yes, that plan, I believe, showed a moving van or a delivery vehicle, a relatively small vehicle that would have to drive onto sidewalks in order to accommodate movements on site.
I don't have that available at present, but I did review it.
Okay. As far as your recollection, does it show a 19 .7 -foot van making a three -point turn on the proposed driveway and showing that it would have to go up on not one, but two sidewalks in order to accomplish the three -point turn?
Yes, that's my recollection.
Would, in your opinion, would there be circumstances when vehicles longer than 19 .7 feet would have to enter the driveway for delivery? Things like larger delivery trucks, buyer trucks, things of that nature?
Oh, yes. Of course, as I mentioned during my direct, you know, even just trash trucks are significantly longer than that and would obviously not even be able to make a three point or more point turn.
They would basically have to back out onto Ridge Avenue.
In your opinion, is this properly planned for circulation, this land development?
Not as currently proposed.
Thank you.
At this point, I think it's been accepted. Mr. Tavani's report, dated December 11, 2024, has been received by the Zoning Board. I just want to make sure that it is moved into evidence.
Thank you. Council, Ms. Mer, do you have Krush?
I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tavani, can you describe some of your recent residential projects in Philadelphia? I know you mentioned a couple of single -family homes.
Have you done a PUD before?
I haven't done anything recently in the city of Philadelphia.
Okay, so that may reflect some of your comments.
Is it your experience that the parking ratio in Philadelphia is determined by what?
Generally by what the developer is able to provide.
What is the regulatory factor for determining requisite parking in Philadelphia?
I believe it's one space per unit.
And that's governed by the Philadelphia Zoning Code?
So in the RSD3 district, which this property is located, the applicable standard is one space per unit, correct?
The applicable municipal standard, as I mentioned, sometimes those standards are a bit outdated.
And it's my experience, both reviewing studies as well as offering them as my own, that the ITE Parking Generation Manual is something at least worth considering, as is the context, such as the neighboring community that we can see on the screen right now, which provides significantly more parking than what the applicant proposes.
And what's the current ratio proposed on this site?
Two per unit.
Two to one, correct.
And in your expert opinion, two to one is insufficient for a single family home.
In this context, in this location, I believe it will be, yes.
Yet the parking requirement in Philadelphia is one to one at this location.
And have you had a chance to review the zoning refusal for this project?
so in conducting your opinion and your report you didn't review the issues before the zoning
board in connection with the project objection i i think i think she could answer that ask that
question please i did not review those materials i wanted to rely on my own experience uh in
reviewing the application and determining whether or not there were any comments worth offering
So the reason I asked the question, and I appreciate you indulging the question, is that
So the reason I asked the question, and I appreciate you indulging the question, is that the zoning board is reviewing two instances.
Neither of them are parking or traffic related.
The zoning is compliant in terms of parking and traffic at this location, as determined by the Department of License and Inspections and the Department of Streets.
Is it your testimony that 12 single -family homes generates a need for 60 parking spaces?
I believe there's some evidence that one can see at the nearby Roxborough Reserve community that you very well may have four or five cars per household.
You know, 60 might be greater than what is necessary.
I certainly think that somewhere between two per unit and five per unit is probably a better outcome.
Have you worked on a city project that has provided five off -street parking spaces per unit?
You know, Counselor, after 31 years, I can't say that I can remember all the hundreds of
projects I've worked on, so I can't say yes or no to that question.
But off the top of your head, you can't think of a city project that's required five -to -one
or provided five -to -one?
That's correct.
Have you visited this location?
I have.
So you're aware that there is a large eight foot wide shoulder on Ridge Avenue directly in front of this property?
It's actually, I think, six and a half foot wide shoulder that narrows along the frontage and actually becomes a bike lane.
So our engineer also reviewed the site and measures that at an eight foot wide shoulder, just for your reference.
and it's not a bike lane it's a shared bike path past the property um once you get past the drive
um would you confirm that eight foot wide is large enough for parking yes okay and
lastly i just want to talk briefly about the proposal you have on screen
is it your testimony that this is a zoning compliant proposal no okay so just so we're
clear that this would not be compliant with applicable zoning because it does not provide
the requisite buffing buffering to the rear you cannot have parking or a turnaround driveway
located directly on a property line with a residential project site next door that's not
what i said you asked me if i reviewed it and i said no whether or not this complies it was not
my intention to provide for the applicant. I'm willing to do a lot for the applicant, but I'm
not going to prepare a plan for the applicant. I'm just trying to provide an illustration for
what I believe could better achieve the desired outcome of improved circulation and guest parking.
If, for example, that cul -de -sac area is too close to the property line,
one possibility would be to remove an additional unit among the row of four to bring the bulb
deeper into the site. So currently as drawn, where would the headlights of any turning vehicle be
aimed at their turning point? So as you enter the property, whether there's a turnaround bulb or not,
the headlights for entering vehicles will be shining toward the Roxborough Ridge
cul -de -sac bulb, which is closest to the site. And if a vehicle enters a cul -de -sac that may
be provided by the applicant, they would continue to shine in that direction. And then as the
vehicle would turn left to navigate through the bulb, the headlights would obviously sweep in
that direction, just as they would when vehicles would be turning in or out of the parking garages
for the proposed units on the east side of the site.
Except today, there is a 60 -foot landscape buffer there.
So with the removal of that buffer and an insert of a cul -de -sac,
you're now shining headlights directly into at least three,
maybe four homes in Roxborough Reserve to the rear of the property.
Is that correct?
That sounds easily solved.
As I indicated, if that row of four units becomes three units
and the cul -de -sac is brought further to the north -northeast,
then you could continue to provide a buffer, which I believe is actually not 60 feet wide
as proposed by the applicant.
But I'm sure that the applicant's team could creatively come up with a way to screen
headlights.
But as drawn, this is not a zoning compliant and it impacts adjacent properties.
This is a depiction meant to show how cars can turn around without having to back up
onto rich cars and long wheelbase vehicles.
Understood.
And the last question I have is with respect to your testimony regarding the turning radius.
Are you aware that those sidewalks are zero curb, they're curbless sidewalks?
I don't know if that means that it's safe for vehicles to interact with pedestrians along sidewalks, but no, I was not aware of the design of the curbing of the sidewalk.
I don't know if that means that it's safe for vehicles to interact with people.
So that's intentional to allow this type of turning radius.
I would also state that the pedestrian use of these sidewalks is going to be less likely than those along Ridge Avenue.
Again, this is a smaller interior space, but we appreciate your testimony there.
Mr. Chairman, would we be able to call our traffic engineer to respond to some of these comments?
Is he here?
Kevin Savage.
But before we do that, Council Lockman, do you have any follow -ups after the cross?
Yeah, just one.
Uh, Mr. Tavani, um, in your, uh, opinion, even if it's a curbless sidewalk, is it safe
for vehicles, large vehicles to make three point turns that mount the curbless sidewalks?
I believe not, especially in the case of a proposed development, which could be designed
to try to avoid those conflicts, even if they are not, uh, even if they're low pedestrian
intensity, it's certainly not good practice.
Thank you.
So, Ms. Miserable, before we call your person, I'm going to open it up to questions from the board for the traffic engineer.
And Mr. Tavani, I would like to start.
Your opening testimony, you talked about the original project being shoehorned in place and things like that, and this was a substantial reduction.
So you thought that was a good move?
I believe that.
Your testimony started off, you said this original project was shoehorned in place and things like that, and this was a substantial reduction.
So you agreed with that?
Well, yes.
I mean, I certainly, since I offered that statement, I certainly agree with it, and it is, I believe, fair to say 20 units to 12 is a substantial reduction, yes.
Thank you very much.
Other questions from the board?
This is the previous claim.
Ms. Mismer, please call your client. Could Kevin Savage be allowed to speak?
Mr. Savage? Yes. Do you hear me? Yes, I can. Could you please state your name
and spell for the court sonographer? Sure. Kevin Savage, K -E -V -I -N -S -A -V -A -G -E.
Do you swear or affirm, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but
the truth. I do. Please proceed, counsel. Mr. Savage, would you briefly remind the board of
your experience in Philadelphia, particularly as a traffic engineer? Sure. I've worked on,
you know, at this point, dozens of residential applications throughout the city. My office is
located in the city and worked on a number of larger developments throughout the city over
the previous few years as well. Great. Thank you. I just wanted to briefly have you speak to your
experience visiting the site and the dimensions at Ridge Avenue, particularly of the parking lane
that are directly adjacent to the drive of the development? Yes, I was able to visit the site
yesterday, actually, and measured the width of the shoulder along the site frontage and confirmed
that it is eight feet in width. Great. And are there any no parking signs in that location?
I believe not directly in front of the site. There is a no parking sign, I believe, towards the
the north towards the roxbury reserve uh driveway but there's there's nothing along the site
frontage great um what's the can let me talk a little bit about applicable parking standards
particularly in philadelphia what's the governing standard for requisite parking
uh it's the philadelphia zoning code for this development it would be one space per per unit
and what's the um the standard in this district is one space per unit what's being provided today
Okay. Two spaces per unit are being proposed.
So in your expert opinion, does the project propose sufficient parking?
Can you explain the reference that Mr. Devani is making to the ITE for the board so they understand where that 60 number is coming from?
Sure. So the Institute of Transportation Engineers publishes a parking generation manual, which Mr. Tavani indicated is continually updated with empirical research data that's obtained from developments throughout the country.
For this land use in particular, land use code 215, single family attached housing, which I would agree is the closest applicable land use code that the parking generation manual has to this development.
It provides data both based on bedrooms and based on dwelling units.
For the dwelling units category, it recommends an average peak parking demand of 1 .4 spaces per unit, which is, you know, met with the parking supply provided at this development.
For the dwelling units category, it recommends an average peak parking demand.
And just so I'm clear, I thought I misheard you. Did you say that that standard is applicable to attached homes or detached homes?
That is attached homes, but in my opinion, it is the closest land use to this development that the IT Parking Generation Manual publishes.
Right. And we're proposing the detached and that one to four is met with our two to one, correct?
Correct.
In your experience, is the ITE used as a standard for parking ratios in Philadelphia?
Not in the city of Philadelphia, typically, no.
Okay. And then I just wanted to ask one question regarding the circulation plan that was prepared.
Can you talk us through that a little bit and what types of vehicles that may include
and how you envision them entering and accessing the site?
Sure. So as was mentioned, the vehicle circulation plan was prepared utilizing a panel van,
which is approximately 20 feet in length. In my opinion, this is pretty similar to an Amazon -type
delivery van. They often may be a couple of feet longer, but as shown in that circulation plan,
And the van could utilize a three -point K -turn to perform a U -turn maneuver inside the development and exit back onto Ridge Avenue.
It's my opinion that, you know, an additional couple feet of length for an Amazon van, you know, would still be able to be accommodated via a U -turn on site.
Right. So in your opinion, a development like this is not going to have multiple delivery type vehicles or other vehicles that are going to be backing on to Ridge Avenue on a regular basis. Is that correct?
Correct.
That would be a rare instance that that would happen.
Correct. And I think especially for these units, they are meant to be owned. So at move -in, you'll likely have moving vans that may need to back into the site. But once those units are owned, the turnover should be relatively low, which results in that being a pretty infrequent occurrence.
And even though it's infrequent, are you aware of other locations on Ridge Avenue where vehicles are backing onto Ridge Avenue?
Yes. Per a quick review of the surrounding area, it looks like there's about a dozen or so driveways in the nearby area that back onto Ridge Avenue.
Now, were this lot configured differently and horizontally located along Ridge Avenue, theoretically, based on its size, it could be subdivided into 12 single family lots, each with its own drive to meet requisite parking. Is that correct?
yes i i've not reviewed relative to you know lot frontage or subdivision criteria but yes if 12
single family homes were proposed um 12 driveways could be proposed along ridge avenue as well
so in your opinion a single central drive is that a better alternative than 12 individual drives
entering and accessing ridge avenue in this location yes that would create less conflict
points along ridge avenue any other testimony you'd like to add based on listening to mr
tavani's report and overview this morning uh no not at this time great thank you miss lagman um
yes um uh hello mr savage would you be so kind as to share your screen so we can see the um
the vehicle circulation plan that you prepared yesterday sure i believe i may need to be
promoted to a panelist? Please, promote Mr. Chavez. Or I can share on my end for him,
if that's easier, either way. Why don't we let Ms. Mismer show hers,
and he'll testify to that. Is that okay, counsel? All right, sure.
are you seeing that it's coming up right now great
okay mr savage do you see that yes i i do see that okay so so can you just explain what this
circulation plan purports to illustrate? Sure. It shows a panel van traveling south along Ridge
Avenue, making a right turn into the site driveway, then proceeds towards the rear of
the development, makes a three -point U -turn, and then proceeds back towards Ridge Avenue,
and again makes a right turn onto Ridge Avenue southbound. Right. And when it makes the three -point
um u -turn how much how far does it intrude onto the the sidewalk space
How far does it intrude onto the sidewalk space?
I have not taken an exact measurement, but the total width of the curve and sidewalk is about six and a half feet on each side.
It looks like it encroaches four to five feet.
And that's for a panel van measuring 19 .7 feet, correct?
Correct.
And there are delivery vehicles and just vehicles in general that are larger than that.
That is correct.
And something like a moving van would be larger?
It could depend.
There are U -Haul vans and trucks that are of similar size.
There are some that are smaller, some that are larger.
What about like a truck delivering appliances or furniture?
Do they tend to be larger?
I would expect those to be larger vehicles, yes.
And what about fire trucks?
Those are typically larger as well.
Would any of those larger vehicles be able to execute the three -point turn you're showing here, which mounts two sidewalks by at least four feet?
I do not believe a larger, you know, fire truck would be able to make it.
I think, you know, a delivery vehicle that's a couple feet longer could still make this turn.
But I don't believe a fire truck could make a K -turn on site, no.
What about a UPS truck, a FedEx truck, or a trash truck?
It would ultimately depend on their sizes.
I believe some UPS and FedEx trucks are, especially in the city, a few feet longer than this, so they may be able to make that K -turn on site.
Trash trucks are typically larger, so they may not be able to make this K -turn.
In which case, they would have to back out and reverse onto Ridge Pike.
I would expect, just based on my experience in the city, that they may actually back into the driveway so that they could pull out directly onto Ridge Avenue without backing onto Ridge Avenue.
But then just reversing at the beginning rather than at the end.
That is correct.
Okay. And in Europe, oh, if a larger vehicle attempts to make this three -point turn, then of course it would encroach more than four feet onto the sidewalk, correct?
That is correct.
Yeah. And who do we anticipate might be using the sidewalks? Pedestrians? Children?
People walking pets?
I would expect the owners of this development to potentially be utilizing the sidewalks.
So we're dealing right now with what may be possible, correct?
This has not been constructed yet.
In your opinion, is it possible to design better circulation than this?
In an ideal world, I would say yes, but I think the development as planned provides for adequate circulation on site.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Ms. Murray, do you have any follow -ups?
Mr. Savage, can you please describe for the board how these developments are typically accessed in the case of an emergency?
Or a firetruck would typically either stay on Ridge Avenue or pull directly into the site.
And then when leaving the site, the firetruck, you know, firetruck specifically would likely, you know, through the use of firefighters, stop traffic along Ridge Avenue in order to back out.
And in a typical plan unit development, because these houses don't have street frontage, the city of Philadelphia is not collecting their trash, correct?
Correct.
So the neighborhood would hire a private trash collector, which typically uses a smaller trash vehicle. Is that correct?
Correct.
So you don't anticipate a garbage truck backing onto Ridge Avenue to service this development?
Correct. I think that could be coordinated with the local garbage service provider as needed.
Great. Thank you.
Could I ask one?
You can.
Yeah, Mr. Savage, where are the residents going to put out their trash cans for trash removal on the sidewalk?
I don't know that our traffic engineer is the right person to answer that question.
That's not a traffic -related question.
He's answering a lot of questions about trash trucks, so perhaps he can tell us where the trash cans will be located.
He can't speak to the operation of the developer.
Mr. Savage, do you think you have the ability to answer that question?
I am not familiar with the operations of where the trash would be located on site, nor do I believe that a garbage hauler has been contracted at this point, to my knowledge.
I am not familiar with the operations of where the trash would be located on site, nor do
Let's assume that residents place their trash on the sidewalk once a week or so for removal.
If there are trash cans placed on the sidewalk, is it going to interfere with the ability of vans to make this three -point turn because they have to mount the sidewalk?
Savage, do you have the ability to answer that question?
yeah i i think the the k turn could still be accommodated um obviously would have to
do it in a location where it would not knock over uh garbage cans but i think it could still
be accommodated based on the space in between the houses thank you thank thank both of you um
we will uh we will have a resumptive hearing uh where we would hope by that point we can go to a
vote okay thank you very much thank both of you and just for clarity that resumptive hearing is
just for the resolution of the planning commission and their comments as well as public comment
correct so the record is otherwise closed hillary um the hearing well the hearing the record of the
hearing is is still open at this point um the i mean you will need to submit proof of posting
again for the next resumption hearing as well as updated proof of tax compliance so
the record record remains open at this point but the hearing will be the but yes the hearing will
be limited scope to to planning to the public um and you will both be given an opportunity to
respond to those comments great thank you okay thank both of you and thank your your consultants
too is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called
do you see any hands
hello do you hear me hear me did somebody did somebody yes thank you ma 'am um i just got a
message that said somebody is letting me ask a question i mean could you state your name first
yes yes yes sir i may my name is eve jacobs sir and do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but truth absolutely i do sir so what case were you interested in no this one
that's why i don't understand i just wanted to ask a question but so so here here's where we are
yes sir this case had to be continued because there's some things that we have to add
into the record the next hearing you will have an opportunity to ask questions or give your
point point of view okay okay sir and thank you very much just to clarify yeah just clarify
mr sure that the the public can present comments um they are not they are not uh asking questions
of the applicant okay thank you is there anyone else in the virtual audience
okay see everybody thank you we'll see everybody tomorrow thank you for all be safe
have a good day bye -bye have a good day have a good day everyone