trying to really give the facade something that gives a little bit of a traditional feel, but
also looking at the industrial nature of the surrounding context. Rachel, is there anything
else you want me to hit on um no are there any other witnesses who would like to testify
um i believe our the owner dirk merrill should be on if he's not i can uh the board will allow
me as a member of the court to have him uh agree to my testimony absolutely
Absolutely.
Okay, Rachel.
Is Dirk Merrill on?
I don't see him.
And who is she, Rachel?
Dirk is the owner of the property.
If she's not available,
he'll stipulate you being an officer to court
that she would be adopting your testimony.
Yep, right.
I think that's what we were just telling you.
Other than that, if the board has any questions,
we're, like we said, we have support from SAS
and we're just looking for relief from the commercial,
the CMX2 ground floor commercial requirement.
Understood, thank you.
Any questions from the board?
And you asked if anyone else would like to testify?
Chair, excuse me.
We have Madeline Shacamba.
She's been unmuted.
Please unmute yourself and wait for the chance.
Am I unmuted now?
You sure are.
Okay, thank you very much.
Identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
My name is Madeline Shikumba.
It's spelled S-H-I-K-O-M like in Mary, be like in boy A.
I sent a letter of opposition.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Okay. I sent a letter last week on the 17th to the board concerning this property. However, I checked today and they did not receive it, so I had to re-send it again concerning this property.
Okay. No rec is opposed to it for the following reason. The line is known CFMX2, commercial district building, and they are not proposing any commercial at this time. No one disagrees with the statement that the property is not suitable for commercial use or development. The building of five duplexes is excessive. This is overuse of the property.
I just want to make a correction. It's five units total. It's not five duplexes.
plexus. I just don't know. Okay, still use of the property. None of the tenants have access to the
total trash to the trash area. Okay. In fact, none of the trash area site is not really directly
accessible to the tenants. All the tenants, including the one next to the fence, if you
look at the picture that they're just showing you, you see a little with a man is walking past
that area that is supposed to be the area for the trash and no one has direct access to this
i'd like to know who's going to be responsible for putting in putting putting the trash out on
the sidewalk and return the trash cycle to the sidewalk and keeping that area even clean i don't
see there's no hardship they have no hardship in terms of making uh as usual in south philadelphia
on this corner property some commercial access okay the permitted use for this property is only
CMX 2, which includes a community center, family daycare, business of professional use,
professional offices, medical, dental, food, beverages, groceries, artist, studio, etc.
And the applicant had made no attempt to even advertise this property for commercial use.
Canoa can pose the granting of the vans for the foreign reason.
One, the applicant has told no, they will not suffer any hardship if he's denied, and
they are unable to follow a part of this property for its permitted use. There's no unnecessary
hardship. The standards governing the grant of a variance are equally well settled. The reason
The reason for granting this variance must be substantial and compelling.
for granting this variance must be substantial and compelling. The party seeking the variance bears
The party seeking the variance bears a burden of proof that an unnecessary hardship will
result if the variance is denied and to proposed use will not be contrary to the public entrance.
The hardship must be shown to be unique or peculiar to the property as distinguished
from a hardship arising from impact of zoning regulations on an entire district.
Granting these variances will alter the central character of our neighborhood and granting
these variances is not necessary for the viable economic use of the property okay and therefore
me nice uh no respect request that the applicant be denied now getting back to the trash as i told
you before where that gentleman is walking past you can see for yourself that even the person on
the first next door to them or the two next door have no direct access to this here trash recycle
okay that is poorly designed and i don't think it's i think it's going to end up being a trash
heap because they have to come out to put their trash in there in order to enter that secluded
area and then they have to go back uh out that area to go back to the department i'm sorry this
is just not uh and i think also it's just too much for that small lot it's on a small street
called Webster Street, and it's just a little bit too much for that huge building that they
planning on building on such a small street. Okay, thank you. Anyone else to testify?
I see no more handshake. Thank you, MI 2021, Dazira, I'm sorry, Planning Commission. Sorry
about that. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends residential single-family zoner for these lots.
If the lots were not combined, that would result in six single-family homes. The applicant is
proposing to consolidate these lots and build one fewer unit than would be allowed if the lots
remain separate. We recommend that the board grant the proposed variances. Thank you. MI 2021-000
are zero nine eight two two six two eight webster street my vote is yes my vote is yes
my vote is yes okay mi 2021 that's zero zero one zero zero zero four two oh four park side avenue
and MI 2021-000-999-4206 Parkside Avenue.
Mr. Consul, you've been sworn in.
You're still on the roof.
So please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Board.
Or, sorry, good afternoon, Board.
Joe Consul, Consul Madison.
It's C-O-N-S-O-L-E, 1 West 3rd Street, Suite 204.
of media pennsylvania 1-9-0-6-3 how you doing and you're still under oath yes yes if i was
sworn in then yes yes okay do you um also agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy i do have you emailed the exhibit packet proof of ownership tax compliance refusal
referral photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met
with the RCO and do you have a letter? Everything but the letter which we discussed earlier at the
onset of this month. Thank you. You may proceed. All right. Is my screen up? Yes it is. All right.
Good afternoon everyone. Joe Consul here for 4204 and 4206 Parkside Avenue. These are two
buildings uh that are that are joined together on on one lot uh with me is uh jeremy yakubov he
spoke earlier he is the authorized representative for both 4204 parkside and 4206 parkside avenue
all right so 4204 and 4206 parkside avenue get this visual up here for everybody
is located on Parkside directly across from the Fairmount Park and the Police Touch Museum is
right there between those trees. Both of these properties have been approved as multi-family
buildings since at least the 1930s. The property was last licensed with a rental license over 17
years ago and as you'll see from these photographs that i'm putting on the screen right now the
i'm putting on the screen right now the property has fallen into significant disrepair
property has fallen.
but is on a block of a lot of beautiful historical uh buildings um in a moment
yes it's a really neat part of the city um okay in a moment my client will um
testify to the dereliction of the property and what's required to rehabilitate and beautify it
This is a historical property amongst a series of historical properties on the street.
We calculate there is between 50 and 60 of them.
As you know, it's currently, well, as I'm showing you now, it's currently zoned single family.
But as I noted above, it hasn't been a single family home in almost 100 years.
It's never been licensed as one as far as we can tell.
But between the date of the last rental license and its dereliction, it was rezoned and lost its zoning.
Click over here to this atlas map.
And I'm going to preface the next portion of my testimony with a discussion of the hardship.
The hardship is simple.
If this were an RM1 zoned property, we would not be here, as we have almost 5,800 square feet of property, just over 2,850 square foot per building, which would allow us to rehabilitate the properties and gain the uses and densities that we seek.
As I said, there's between 50 and 60 of these semi-identical, historically protected buildings on this street and are either zoned multifamily or have variances for multifamily for the same reason that we're here today, with one or two exceptions.
um this this is our hardship uh the property is simply not zoned correctly and as my client will
attest to his goal and um per the historical commission's requirements is to preserve this
beautiful property um and this beautiful street uh and and to do so uh requires the approval of
this property as as a multi-family building as it has been used um in off and on for the last 100
years again never as a single family multi-family and then since then it's been it's been derelict
and incidentally the revised plans that we presented this morning by email and Sharon
has them was approved by the historical commission at their April 27th meeting with a few
with a few caveats which we've added to the plans and that's what we're showing you guys here we
got unanimous support for the rehabilitation of of this property something on to the refusals
I'm not going to belabor this any longer than I have to we pull up the refusals here
we've got several several refusals uh first i'll start with rear yard and open area
uh these two variances are um easy to discuss we're not changing the footprint of the building
the two properties will sit as exactly as they've sat on these lots um since at least the 30s um
and also if they if this was owned rm1 we wouldn't be here for those refusals the open
air in the rear yard we're not changing the footprint those things are going to sit as they
are the height refusal i'm going to pull up one of the pages of our architecturals here
kind of give you an idea of what the top of the building looks like
get that up okay the height uh we're not proposing raising the living space at all
or adding a floor above the property, 38 feet to max.
We're not going any higher than that,
but for creating a roof deck with mechanicals.
And because of that, what we're doing triggers the variance
as it's a de facto fourth floor in the eyes of LNI.
And therefore, in addition to adding the height refusal,
it also requires us to provide a second means of egress.
As there already is a stair tower on the back of the building, which functioned as a second means of egress, the developer's plan is to raise that stair tower up to the roof and to connect it to the rooftop to provide the second means of egress.
On the actual main structure itself, all we're adding is the pilot house, which will be attached, as I said, to the extension.
All we're adding is the pilot house, which will be attached, as I said, to the extended stair tower by means of a walkway with guardrails.
Originally, we had proposed a covered walkway.
The Historical Commission said they wanted a walkway with raised guardrails between the back means of egress and the pilot house and the chemicals.
finally uh the discussion of density and the discussion
of parking use um ss this property has been multi uh family zoned for almost 100 years
and as far back as we can figure out actually um by means of the zoning archives the property
was zoned as i said sometime um in in the the last 15 or 20 years uh and because of the
properties dereliction, the zoning was lost. Again, my client will testify to the amount of work that
will go into rehabilitation in line with the historical requirements, the historical commissions
requirements. We have a refusal for parking. Again, if this was RM1, we would not generate
this refusal, which is an important but not as important point as we think that there are plenty
of parking spaces available and, in fact, the issue of parking has not come up as a
concern with anyone we've spoken to as of yet.
Next up, I'm going to bring up, again, the architectural plans just to give everyone
an idea of the floor plans and I'll, again, do this somewhat briefly.
we have units one through four occupying bi-level space between the first floor and the elevated
basement room and that's and what I'm saying is germane to both both buildings both 4204
and 4206 the the developer will be developing these simultaneously units five and six will
occupy the second level those are on the screen now uh unit five is a one bedroom and unit six
is a two bedroom units seven and eight will occupy the third level unit seven being a one bedroom
and unit eight being a two bedroom again the same for for both sides of uh 4204 and 4206
this morning we submitted revised plans to address those requirements of the historical commission
approvals namely the roof deck setbacks are are bigger um they wanted us to set the roof deck
back 15 feet from the building this was to allow both adequate space for the mechanicals but also
um something they're doing on parkside here they want to limit the view of the roof deck
from the street they know you got to put stuff on the roof but they don't want that visible from
street so we pushed the roof deck 15 feet to keep the visual historical continuity
and then we enclosed the walkway as i mentioned um and as they required uh finally uh the the
trash plan there's a very wide driveway in the rear it's a shared alley uh it's large enough
for a trash truck to drive down trash trucks do drive down it um there will be a dumpster there
for the residents, which will be picked up regularly. We anticipate a proviso for regular
commercial trash pickup. And finally, the RCO. We had the meeting on May 12th. We weren't sure if
there was a vote for my notes. However, I learned earlier today there was not a vote. There was
support and opposition both present at the meeting. We have a developer who wants to preserve
the history of the street and a property that is incorrectly zoned in order for us to rehabilitate
this and beautify it in the way that we're required to by the commission, we would like you
to take our variances into consideration today. And that's going to end my portion of the
presentation. I would like to call the developer, my client, Mr. German Yakubov, to speak for very
briefly on on this project good afternoon everyone am i still under oath i guess from earlier this
morning right yes but first german uh have you heard everything i said and do you agree with it
i do okay you know council just let him identify himself he's still under
to identify himself.
My name is German
I am the owner
of 4204 and 06 Parkside Avenue.
Okay, thank you. Please proceed.
You may proceed, German.
Oh, I'm sorry. German, have you heard it?
Did you hear everything I said earlier? And do you adopt this testimony