okay can we confirm i'm sharing yes excellent uh mr chairman i've submitted my typical exhibit
packet on behalf of Jose Garcia for 2208-16 North 2nd Street. A1 is the Notice of Refusal.
It was an application for the relocation of lot lines to four lots to four lots for the erection
of four attached structures with roof deck and access structures for use as three family dwellings.
It resulted in two refusals. The property is the CMX's own property, so it requires commercial
use on the first floor. And the lot area for the reconfigured lots, 1,440 square feet is required
versus we average about 1,250 square feet plus or minus average per reconfigured lot.
So, accordingly, we seek variances today. A2 is the application of appeal. A3 is the project
information form. A4 is proof of ownership. A5 is proof of tax clearance. A6 is the lot line
relocation survey plan. A7 is our site and elevation plan. A8 are proposed floor plans.
A-7 is our site and elevation plan. A-8 are proposed floor plans. A-9 are the photographs of the property. And as the chair mentioned, we do have a RCO letter of support at A-11, as well as a petition of support at A-10.
A9 are the
I don't know if the district council person submitted a letter, but if it has been, I would ask that it be marked as A-12 for the record.
And as far as relevant zoning history, these lots together have been used for auto sales since about 1953.
A-13 is the zoning map, and A-14 are aerial photos.
So, again, with regard to the refusal, we're proposing three units.
Two would be permitted as per the lot size, and again, with regard to lot size of the reconfigured lots, 1,440 is required.
However, we average, again, I said about 1,250 each.
So if we were to put commercial use on the first floor, the two other units would be permitted by right.
However, we still have the lot size issue to work with.
I also included the application of appeal, as stated, the project information form, my transmittal letter to the board, copy of the deed.
One deed includes all of the subject premises, as noted in the refusal.
As you can see, I highlighted the addresses.
Um, with regard to tax clearance, uh, we noticed last week that there was still a balance due for 2022, but Mr. Garcia, uh, upon my notification immediately, uh, paid that online on May 11th.
So he is current with regard to the actual plan.
currently you have uh four lots promises a b c and d uh we are looking to relocate these lot lines
to more or less make them even sized lots uh four total so the proposed lots uh would be
a little over 17 feet wide, pretty much wider than what's next door. It's 14 feet
and pretty much consistent with what's on the corner on the block. So as part of the
proposal, Jose intends to construct four identical attached structures for use as
three family dwellings. The floor plans, as you can see, the three colors represent the three
different units. You have the first floor and basement are one unit complete with code compliant
emergency egress window wells. The blue would be the second floor unit and the rear of the first
floor. And then the the tan color would be the third unit, all of which would have common access
through a common stairwell to the roof deck. Okay, as you potentially could see the air conditioner
units would be contained on the roof out of sight from the public view. The property was
The property was posted in accordance with the code.
Here is a picture of the front of the property with the zoning poster on the fence.
Again, another picture of the auto sales lot, an aerial view of the sales lot, an overhead shot, street views.
this is our petition of support consisting of one two three four pages this was a uh a mailed in
ballot uh in favor of the project submitted by one of the neighbors and then we have the letter
of support from uh nara square they voted to support 12 in favor one in favor with
some conditions. And three were opposed and three requested a continuance. There was a total of
19 eligible voters, 12 of which, or 13 of which, voted in favor of the project.
With regard to the zoning map, I've highlighted the area. Here's the four lots. As you can see,
it's zoned CMX2. Another aerial photo. And when we met with Norris Square, they wanted some
reasoning for the residential use on the first floor. And I did a survey of all the properties
on the block. And there is very, very, very limited commercial use on this block, despite
uh the cmx zoning uh there are three as i found 2329 north second was a takeout restaurant two
the CMX zoning. There are three, as I found.
apartments 2233 was auto repair and 2207 was a bar restaurant so we submit there's no demand
for commercial use at this location and commercial space would likely remain vacant for some time
so we're proposing all residential use for new construction and all would be two bedrooms two
baths. And they were curious as to the estimated rental rates. And we submitted that was approximately
$1,100 a month. And finally, we just indicated that vacant commercial results in zero rental
income for that unit, which affects the ability to pay for the other construction mortgage and
mortgage, and that the project could become financially unfeasible. So I would ask that
Jose raised his hand virtually in the audience so he can be identified.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Yes, good morning. My name is Jose A. Garcia, J-O-S-E-G-A-R-R-C-I-A. Good morning.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir proceed sir proceed sir okay jose you've heard my representations to the board today
yes sir are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief
that is correct sir and would you adopt them as your own testimony yes thank you very much
if the board has any questions we'd be happy to answer questions from the board yes mr chairman
uh counselor can you go back to the floor plans yes sir
can you see him top yes thank you are there apartments in the basement
yes and again they have code compliant uh egress wells
what percentage of the building is in the ground
basement apartments is okay if 50 of the building is out of the ground
yeah so uh it appears that nine i don't know you're better at plans than me
time it looks like nine nine feet two inches is below grade and then
so 50 of the building is not out of the ground
oh more than 50 of the building is out of the ground correct
more or less
the building the building measures 35 feet eight inches uh to to the roof line and nine feet no
is no we're only referring to the basement level and the grade level
well it would appear that
it appears that nine feet two inches is below grade
And that's not 50% out of the ground. Thank you.
Joe, a real quick question. Right behind here, they look like new development back there. Are they multifamily?
Right behind the project, right behind the place, there's new buildings back there.
Yes, that's correct. There is. Let me get that up picture.
Yes, right there. Is that multifamily?
i am not sure i don't know if jose knows
yeah i i don't know mr chairman yes um there are actually rsa a5 their single family dwelling
their four houses actually i own those properties and i developed them last year and the answer for
the apartments in the basement actually there's not a full apartment in the basement it's actually
the the one bedroom is in the basement for the one apartment going back to the previous question
so um those houses in the back yes we did uh develop them last year uh completed them last
year uh but they are for a single family they are rsa five okay any other questions from the board
no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
In 2021, the zoning map was amended in this area, but this parcel was intentionally left at CMX2 at the request of the community.
We agree with the appellant that the neighborhood conditions do not support commercial use on the ground floor of these properties, and the four additional dwelling units overall throughout the lots effectively would replace that required commercial space in terms of overall space.
So the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant these variances.
MI 2022-000-414-2208-16 North 2nd Street, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Allen, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishqar Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Counselor.
Thank you very much.
MI 2022-002116-3618 Wallace Street, Lot 20.
and a letter of support from a coordinating RCO
Mantua Civic Association.
Darwin is coming in now as a panelist here.
mr chairman good morning good morning could you say your name and spell it for the court reporter
darwin beauvais at dealworth paxton darwin d-a-r-w-i-n beauvais b as in boy e-a-u-v as in
victory a-i-s as in sam again i'm at 1500 market street at the law firm of dealworth paxton and
Meredith Merlager as my law partner.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, please, in the relationship to the property?
If we can promote Charles Lomax, who's also on the call. He's of the Lomax companies, and he is the developer of this project.
It's a response to an RFP put out by the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority.
And this particular project is part of a larger scheme that is supported by the RDA as well as the community.
Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good morning, Mr. Movede. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, copy of the refusal or 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?
Yes, we do.
You may proceed, and please begin to share your screen.
Great.
Thank you.
Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, again, my name is Darwin Beauvais, and we also have here on the call Mr. Charles Lomax.
What we did file with Hillary was an exhibit package with approximately 15 exhibits, including our refusal, tax clearance, all the way down to our appeals, aerial views, a memorandum of law, and the letter of support, as well as photographs.
Now, we also did submit revised plans, which focuses and is the essence of our appeal today.
So, our project takes about two blocks from Wallace Street to half of 3rd Avenue, between 37th and 36th Street.
um the project in turn it it's part of a large-scale process project that complies with
the mantua transformation plan which was also accepted by the philadelphia planning commission
back in 2013 this particular project uh before you today includes 32 low-income tax credit
residential dwelling units. The project sits within the promise zone and that promise zone encourages
The project sits within the Promise Zone and that Promise Zone encourages job opportunities,
economic activities, improve education, and reduce crimes. After decades of blight,
the structures that were originally on this project have been demolished as far back as 2015.
I would like to bring the board's attention to Exhibit 15.
So let's just start with some photos.
This is our location.
that's view from 37th street view from mount vernon another view from out vernon looking west
um this is in essence a map of where the property is located and evidence of our posting this is
across the street standing in front of the post and that's where we are so let's just start with
our refusal if i may um our refusal is simple we're short for a side yard by less than three
feet. We are providing 9.62 feet of slide yard when the code requires 12 feet. And the essence
of our discrepancy is it's clear. And if we go to page 18, which is exhibit five,
see if we can get here you'll see exactly what's going on some earlier this year we actually got a
relocation permit which is part of the exhibit package with that and i think the plans will
better illustrate what our intentions are can can everyone see this let me just zoom in a little bit
further. Above, this was the original lot as contemplated or as taken by the Redevelopment
Authority. Since then, we divided the lots into three. This lot is an open-air parking lot that's
going to serve commercial usage, which is part of, it's all the same development, all the same
scheme but this is going to be an open-air parking lot. The lot before you today is here in the middle
and this lot we will probably be coming back in the next few months to address this but that's
not before you today. Now we did receive a permit for this project as you can see here's the open
lot. Here's the lot that's before the board today. Here's the lot that we're going to come back
in a few months. This lot, we decided to, we originally wanted to put our bicycle parking
in another location. But as we sat down and discussed this and reviewed the program,
We thought it would be best to provide the bike parking in the open alleyway, which in the side yard, which is 12 feet originally, but now it ends up being only 9.6.
So, let's go to page 25.
Here's our elevations.
We're just providing three-story buildings.
There are no bedrooms in the basement.
These are two-bedroom apartments.
and they're all dedicated for low-income tax, low-income families.
With that, let's go to our zoning map, which is page 31.
as you can see we're sitting in the middle of our rm1 district rm1 is throughout a
and although we are keeping in essence with uh providing multi-family because our lot will
provide two buildings, a total of 32 units, and it is for low income. The only variance that
The only variance that we're seeking is the side yard.
we're seeking is the side yard.
We're submitting that our variance is de minimis as a result.
Let me just provide a closer look at the lot.
So, here's our first building identified as multifamily building A. Our second building
identified as multifamily – oh, it should be multifamily B. But this is in question
the side yard here and this should be 12 feet and again we submit that it's de minimis because
the use that is provided along this slot is an open air parking lot so if as the issues
of light and air are are are what's being addressed with the with requiring a side yard
we are still accommodating that.
Having said that,
let me just go back to the beginning.
Having said that,
uh we our our permits with the several lots adjacent to the project given the fact that
it's all under one development we submit that that that all accommodate and fall in line with
with the Mantua Transformation Plan.
This particular phase of the project
is just a side yard requirement,
and it does lend itself to the broader design
and lock orientation,
which we are presenting before you today.
Although we don't have,
we're unable to provide a 12 foot side yard, right?
We're still suggesting that the light and air
is still being provided we're still suggesting that as a result we're not can there's no signs