i don't let my children go on there for a number of reasons uh when there's a heavy storm um as we
were almost getting two nights ago my children are upset my oldest son cries because this water
will flush down overflow the deck uh because the pipe physically cannot take enough water away and
this is not the first pipe it was already redone by the previous owner um it's especially bad if
collects all the sort of leaves from the neighboring trees, ice, snow, etc. We're opposite a neighborhood
garden. You can see there's an awful lot of trees in this part of South Philadelphia and the irony
is that although the setback is for houses where the street is less than 20 feet wide, it's actually
nearly 50 feet to the next property. The other houses on the street, they don't have an eight
foot setback um some of the houses that's because they're older uh for instance my next door the
neighbor here um they also have decks which have sort of open sides so you could blow the leaves
off or brush them off or the water can run off it doesn't collect in what is essentially a cup
and fill up and freeze and block and jam um but actually there's modern houses on the street as
well none of which have an eight foot setback uh what we're actually proposing would be
architecturally far more in line with the existing street uh you can kind of see the property i mean
actually it it drops off uh suddenly by sort of 12 feet and is a real outlier um
so i mean the i'm very aware that most of the the hardship terms that are put forward for these
meetings are talking about new developments that might not be financially viable and that's what
the term is normally used for but in in our case it is um it's just constant maintenance um uh
running to you know thousands of dollars and I've only been in the property a couple of years
but ultimately I think that the kind of water damage will cause structural issues
with things like the beams and the members both on that deck level itself but also further down
I mean like you can actually see my roof there's a line going across the ceiling where the water
ran in the other week and it really cannot be good for a property in the long run to do that
so essentially not having that output setback requirement would allow us to extend the roofline
forward it would bring it in line with the rest of the street architecturally it would put an end
to the constant cost of maintaining the property and also long-term structural viability as far as
we're concerned I'm very aware that the Queen Village Association put forward a letter suggesting
that it was not it was not to the it would be to the detriment of the community that people
were opposed to it and that really cannot be further from the truth we sent out nearly a
thousand letters to every house within a half mile radius or whatever the requirement has to be
we didn't get a single complaint nobody showed up at those meetings to voice any concern
we didn't get a single complaint nobody showed up at those meetings to voice any concerns
we're on a first name basis with everybody on the street everyone's kids knows everyone's kids and
they all wanted to happen um there's really no objection to this at all um you know they've
obviously both myself and the previous owner have to deal with this uh situation um what we're
proposing is not you know lime green sort of plastic it's a sort of a sandstone effect exterior
so it would be within keeping of the building certainly it would also be a improvement from
the current setup where the top floor is for whatever reason made out of a kind of gray
plastic uh which i don't think is terribly nice but it is what it is um you can kind of see here
this is the sort of the drain coming out as it currently stands uh we got the site completely
surveyed and this um angle is kind of in line with where the property is our property extends
kind of halfway down the easement between the two buildings um so there's no issue of building
outside the property line here um the rest of the deck is uh sort of architectural engineering plans
these were drawn up by sra which is the company that i've been working with uh they're all stamped
off uh by a registered professional in the state of pennsylvania um this is a company that's done
thousands of projects in the Tri-State area, this sort of stuff.
I'm probably not at liberty to discuss.
I actually have a master's degree in engineering,
but you can tell from my accent that I'm not from this country,
so any of my credentials are worth nothing, really.
I'm not sure at this point if you want me to transfer over to Tom Mazza.
No, we're fine. We're fine. We understand.
We're fine.
But, yeah, essentially, the details are kind of here.
i think one of the questions raised was about the uh the loading and the wind concerns um this is
again kind of all sort of stamped off here um again i'm slightly more used to the metric system
rather than the foot pans um but again this is all sort of stamped off um and it's a company
with a lot of experience of doing projects just like this okay questions from the board
no mr chairman no mr chairman
questions or questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no heads at this time chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty
for the philadelphia city planning commission members of the board the comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 single-family zoning here. And as the applicant
has explained, the Queen Village NCO overlay is specifically intended to prohibit structures over
two stories on narrow streets without a setback, such as a section of Fairhill Street. However,
we believe the applicant has demonstrated an economic detriment related to this code requirement,
and the proposed enlargement is consistent with the three-story height of buildings on either
side of it and further down the block so the city planning commission recommends that the
board grant this variance thank you mi 2022 000 399 1027 south fair hill street i vote yes
carol tanari my vote is yes my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
thank you Mr. Graham
MI 2021
356 1309
North 22nd Street
Jared Klein is the attorney
letter of support received from
Brewery Town Sharswood Civic Association
although
committee had concerns about
bedrooms in the basement
Mr. Klein is coming back in now as a panelist
Good morning Mr. Klein could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
Certainly it's Jared J-A-R-E-D last name is Klein K-L-E-I-N
Go ahead you proceed I'm sorry
130 North 18th Street in Philadelphia 19103
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yes. My client is Shardswood Estates, LLC. They are the current owner of the property,
and I'm joined online by one of the principals, Mike Randolph.
Our vice chair, Carl Tenere, has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Klein. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
see? I do agree to waive the reading. Ms. Emerson and I had discussed some administrative
Ms. Emerson and I had discussed some administrative confusion over which refusal is applicable.
So I stipulate to the accuracy of the one that we're proceeding under, but I can explain that when we get started.
Okay, great.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet consisting of proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes to all of the above.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin to share your screen.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
So again, we're here for 1309 North 22nd Street. The application is to erect an eight-family dwelling on this lot. And let me just briefly address the refusal issue that I mentioned a moment ago.
The original refusal that we received through Eclipse is on the screen before you, dated September 11th, and it outlines the applications for an attached structure for use as an eight-family dwelling.
It lists two refusals.
Subsequent to this, but without an email notification from Eclipse, the refusal was updated to the one that you now see.
This one's dated September 17th, so it was issued just a week later.
The refusals that it identifies are identical to the September 11th refusal.
The only change was in the narrative description where the examiner now notes that there's a lot adjustment as part of the application.
The lot adjustment is by right, so it would not have generated an additional refusal.
And this refusal is the one that is currently in the Eclipse system.
After speaking with Ms. Emerson, I think we all agree that we're proceeding under this refusal.
But in the event that the board is inclined to grant the variance, we just ask for a proviso clarifying that it's September 17th, 21 refusal, just so there's no confusion down the line.
Turning to the project itself, this is our location here.
It's located on a corner lot, and it is located across the street from a multifamily housing complex that I'll share more detail in in a moment.
The other lots on our side of the block are primarily vacant here, and there's residential uses here and to the south.
One of the issues for the development of this parcel, I mentioned it, it is a consolidation of these two lots here.
The end result of the consolidation leaves us with one lot that has sort of an odd triangle shape to it that creates a physical condition that is unique to these lots once they're combined.
So the variances that we're seeking are allowing some additional density on the lot to make up for the weird shape that we're going to have to build around.
Showing you the base zoning, it is zoned RM1, so multifamily use is permitted here.
The refusal that we received is for the unit count. We are about 800 square feet short of the necessary lot square footage.
The other refusal that we received, the height refusal, we have revised plans that were submitted to Ms. Emerson in advance of the hearing that removed this refusal from the application.
We've reduced the height of the building to a code-compliant 38 feet, and so those are the revised plans that I'll share with you momentarily.
Currently, the lot is vacant. This is what it looks like in its current condition with the zoning notice posted.
And this is the block itself. These photos are older in that it shows this structure as standing. It has since been demolished.
And this is a view from the street frontage looking up and down that block.
I wanted to mention this set of apartment buildings here that are located directly across the street from our lot.
All of these homes were erected decades ago, but each of the structures on the lot has zoning approval for eight residential dwelling units.
So looking into this complex here, each of these buildings has eight residential style dwelling units in it.
These are more affordable housing style units.
So we are not proposing affordable housing.
It is a market rate project.
But what we were trying to do was match our requested density with the density that was located immediately across the street.
So all of these buildings have eight. We're proposing eight for our building for some consistency across that street line.
Turning to the plans, this is a rendering of what the proposed structure will look like.
this is a rendering of what the proposed structure will will look like again if you've reduced it
down to 38 feet these layout of the various units the smallest unit size that we're proposing is
710 square feet and the largest is 1495 square feet the floor plan as you can see we had to take
into account for some of these angles so that's driving the configuration of this building as it
proposed to be constructed and the floor plans mimic each other as they rise up through through
the building um we are uh at as i mentioned 38 feet to the top of the roof line with the power
pit and pilot house we've reduced the elevation to be uh 38 feet so it is a code compliant height
excuse me counselor yes is 50 of your building out of the ground
is is 50 of the building out of the ground correct i i believe that it is yes
can you show the your basement plan please basement plan let me look here uh this is the
yeah this is the basement floor plan here
can you enlarge it i can give it a shot yes
we we are as i'm sure you're asking about the board member holloman we are showing
bedrooms in this basement um again we're doing that to try and make an accommodation on the
height by bringing the building down from 45 to 38 to keep the same unit count we are proposing
some some bedrooms in the basement area so you're using area wells yes so you're building it's not
50 percent out of the ground well it it you mean in terms of the basement level no it is it is not
more than 50 percent out of the ground there are wells here and here thank you
um turning to our meeting with the rco we did meet with the brewery town sharswood civic
association uh we initially got uh just the vote count which i'm sharing which was 18 in support
seven opposed, and then they followed up with a letter of support that I believe was also
shared with the board.
And they noted that we did make some reductions in the height to resolve that issue that the
community had in terms of the size and massing of that building.
With that, I'd like to ask Michael Randolph to raise his hand so he might adopt my testimony.
mr randolph please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
can you hear me yeah mr randolph could you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter
yes it's michael randolph m-i-c-h-a-e-l r-a-n-d-o-l-p-h
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you.
Mike, did you have a chance to hear my presentation this morning?
And do you adopt my statements as true, correct, and your own if you've been given the chance to fully testify?
Yes, I do.
Thank you very much.
I don't have anything further, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends single-family zoning at this location.
However, under the existing RM1 zoning applicant is allowed six dwelling units by right, as we've seen in the refusal.
This is a vacant triangular lot.
We agree that the property is physically constrained.
and that the degree of the variance is in keeping with the hardship presented by the irregular lot.
City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the use variance for eight dwelling units
with the proviso to conform to revised plans reflecting the revised code compliant height.
MI 2021-004-366-1309-North 22nd Street, I vote yes with proviso.
her refusal dated 9 17 21 revised plans two pages stamped may 18 2022.
carol tenery my vote is yes with proviso thomas holloman my vote is no gang snell my vote is yes
Ishmael Shahid, my body is now.
my vote is no
was that 2-2
or was that 3-2