19 and then our 14 303 notice that now to i believe 105 uh destinations addresses including
the planning commission here's providing the community group meeting that was held with ecna
and our zoning board hearing for today copy the notice of refusal and then here's a certificate
at 105 mailings. With that, I would ask that our exhibits be entered into the record, and I would
ask that I be allowed to have the architect and the owner adopt my statements. And again, either
Logan Dry or Josh Matthew, if they could identify themselves and just be promoted to panelists and
sworn in please state your name and spell for the court reporter
sure logan dry l-o-g-a-n-d-r-y kca design associates 6525 tulip street philadelphia pa
you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Logan, did you hear the statements I made to the board today?
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt them as your own?
And is there anything you'd like to add at this point regarding what we're proposing?
No, I think you covered most of it.
You've covered all aspects of our design, some of the hardships, and the overall context pretty well.
So nothing I'd like to add at this point.
Okay, you're available for questions.
So then if Mr. Matthew can be sworn in, please.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Josh Matthew, J-O-S-H-M-A-T-H-E-W.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Josh, did you hear the statements I made to the board today?
yes sir and are they true and correct for the best of your knowledge yes would you adopt them
as your own yes and is there anything you would like to add to the board no thank you questions
from the board no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission
Good afternoon Board, Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends RM1 multifamily and RSA5 single-family residential zoning
at this location.
While we have no objection to the proposed use, RM1 would only allow 16 units by right.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the Board approve the variance, but with a proviso for a reduction in the total number of units.
And again, you know, you have the industrial uses across the street.
You have more units than what we were proposing at the end of the lot.
It's a very mixed line.
Thank you.
MI-2022-00034-2151-61 East Albert Street.
i vote yes with revised plans of three pages carol tenary my vote is yes proviso
thomas holloman my vote is yes with proviso ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with proviso
thank you thank you that concludes my business may be excused yes thank you mi 2021 003661 3140
clifford street do not see a letter from the rco as of yet michael michelhanie um chair we actually
have since the summaries went out we did receive a letter from the rco it is in support but i
believe with the proviso requesting no um no decks or okay thank you thank you very much
Mr. McElhenney. Yes good afternoon Mr. Chairman. Hi Michael McElhenney. Yep state your name and
spell please for the court reporter. Michael M-I-C-H-A-E-L McElhenney. M-C-capital I-L-H-I-N-N-E-Y.
Do you swear for him 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 property?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I'm here on behalf of the Black Real Estate Investors Network, LLC, and a member of that LLC, Mr. James Page, Jr., is here on behalf of the company.
They are the equitable owners of the property.
Mr. James Williams is the owner, and we're here under a letter of authority to seek the zoning as part of the acquisition.
Thank you.
So our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Hi, Mr. McElhoney.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I can stipulate to the majority of the accuracy.
There's one scrivener's error.
There's a fence at the rear of the property, whereas the refusal references a fence at the front.
But otherwise, yes, the refusal is accurate.
And it appears that you've submitted all the required documents timely.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
Okay, you may proceed and share your screen.
Good afternoon again, Mike McElhenney.
Good afternoon. Again, Mike McElhenney on behalf of the Equitable Owner at Black Real
Estate Investors Network for the property at 3140 Clifford Street, where we are seeking a
two-family use at the existing, at the property, a new construction structure.
As a preliminary matter, I'd just like to run through some of the prerequisites
that at Exhibit 11, a copy to the subject property is attached, the deed.
um exhibit 12 is the owner's authorization letter to allow us to file the appeal to the zba
exhibit 13 is that is the appeal form to the zba the property has been properly noticed as
indicated by exhibit 14 and the photographs attached there too i'm sorry yes may you
thank you enlarge the screen thank you kindly
there we go let's drag this over
okay at exhibit 15 are the rco 14303 notices we did meet with the strawberry mansion community
development corporation twice once on december 2nd 2021 and the community was in support of the
use variances and the dimensional variances but did have some stylistic design changes
to the project. And to take those comments into consideration, we did meet with them again on
February 24th and incorporated all the community's changes. Also, in advance of that second meeting,
my clients went out and met with all the near neighbors and provided a rendering addressing
all the changes that the community addressed at the first meeting so that people had advance
notice of that we've addressed all the concerns. The tax clearance for the property is at
exhibit 17 and i did zoom out trying to log in as a panelist but the strawberry mansion cdc
did send a letter they titled it a letter of non-opposition um but as you see from the letter
it's really a support letter it's 13 in favor one opposed three abstained and of the rcos
to support it to abstain one of which was the 28th ward rco which isn't technically within
the boundaries for the subject property. As was mentioned, the community did reference they did not
want roof decks at the subject property, and they asked that I send written confirmation that there
is no roof deck as part of this property, no roof deck access structure, no pilot house. Although
not a part of my exhibit package, I did send a follow-up letter on February 24th to Net-A-Gram
just explaining and making it clear and we're okay with the proviso if it made the the board
comfortable in the community that there is no proposal for a roof deck no roof deck access
structure no pilot house and i think a lot of that was there was a meeting before ours that
was very contentious regarding a pilot house and roof decks but that is not a part of our
application exhibit two is the refusal for the subject property and as i previously stated it's
an application to erect a new construction structure at the property, which is currently
a vacant lot, and for use as a two-family dwelling with a one-place surface parking
space at the rear. The proposed development creates six refusals. Two are use. The property
is known to RSA 5, so multifamily, the two units, creates a use refusal, and off-street
parking in the rear yard is a use recusal as well. The uses that we're requesting here are in keeping
with the conditions of this block of Clifford Street in the neighboring area, as you'll see
from the photographs. The other restrictions use, or I should say zoning recusals, the building
height. Our proposal is for a 37-foot high building. Strawberry Mansion recently enacted a overlay
limiting height to 35 feet. In some cases, that makes sense. On blocks such as this, where there's
existing structures were matching the existing structure at 37 feet, and the community understood
that and was in support of our proposal. We do have small dimensional variances from the porches.
Our porch is a few inches in discrepancy from the neighboring porch, whereas they're supposed
to match exactly. It's a difference of about three inches, and there's reasons for that in
terms of avoiding underpinning at the subject property so it's a small dimensional change that
we're requesting and at the rear of the property as you'll see on the zoning plan there are decks
off the rear of the property and those decks the support posts are within the 18 inch buffer between
the property line and my client's property the posts are within the prop my client's property
they're not on the property line but they do create a little bit of an encroachment into that
buffer area to allow for full parking at the rear stairs exit.
to allow for full parking at the rear stairs exiting the rear and the um we did speak with
the neighbor next door and they had no concerns and again this was the discrepancy the fourth
dimensional refusal um referenced the fence at the front of the yard it's there's actually
a fence at the rear around the parking that is a five foot fence whereas a four foot is only permitted
by code. Exhibit 3 is a zoning map for the subject property. I'll zoom in. As you can
see, the property is on the south side of Clifford Street with 32nd Street to the west,
31st Street to the east, and West Hollingsworth Street to the south.
And two blocks to the west is also Fairmount Park, 33rd Street, Fairmount Park.
looking at the a map view of the the same exhibit exhibit three you'll see the subject property is
the the blue dot on the screen this block the 30 30 100 block of clifford street is marked by
a lot of vacant land there's approximately 22 vacant parcels as you can see on the screen
on both the north and south side of the property of the block of these properties on the block that
occupied many are existing multi-family two and three unit dwellings and there's also a decent
amount of abandoned properties on the block so this is a block that is in need of rehabilitation
as referenced in the strawberry mansion letter they are encouraged to see redevelopment efforts
coming to this block clifford street exhibit four to orient the board to the existing conditions of
the property is an aerial map and as you can see the block consists mainly of three-story structures
and with a lot of vacant land in between most of the houses.
This is the south view, and you can see West Hollingsworth Street behind.
Most of the properties on Hollingsworth Street, as you see, have all-street rear access parking,
which, of course, creates a refusal in this zoning category,
but Hollingsworth Street itself does not have parking on it,
which is why the majority, if not all, of the properties have all-street parking at the rear.
looking at the second photo on the same exhibit four is just the rear of the subject property
which is a vacant lot and as you can see each property on either side of my client's property
is used for the off-street rear off-street parking as are properties further down the block
and on west hollingsworth street which face cecil be more av
so the current the property at issue on exhibit four exhibit five shows rather the uh the subject
property which is the vacant lot in the middle of the screen as you can see there's three properties
to the right side which is the west side of the block and two properties to the east side
the property to the east is an existing three-story 37 foot high building for single
family use, the property it is attached to is an abandoned structure, missing doors, lacking
functional doors and windows. The properties to the west are single-family and multifamily structures.
And turning to page two is a close-up of the corner properties at the intersection of 32nd
and Clifford Street. The red brick building, the second in from the corner, is a three-unit dwelling
and the corner property is an existing two unit dwelling as evidenced by the multiple meters at
the rear of the property. Going down the block on the towards the east on the south side of
Clifford you'll see that there are five vacant lots and then three residential dwellings.
After those three dwellings we then have two vacant lots, one dwelling, then another vacant lot
and then one residential dwelling and then when you get to the other end of the block 3106 and
08 Clifford you'll see two new construction buildings which are both duplexes new construction
duplexes that were approved a year or so ago and they are coming towards completion at this time
this is similar to what my client is requesting a two-family use at the property with all street
parking the same as these new construction structures and continuing out the block it's
another vacant lot, a single-family structure, and then another vacant lot. On the north side
of the block, again, we have a lot of vacant land on the corner, two vacant lots, then we have two
residential dwellings, and then three vacant lots, and then there's this blue building that was
renovated recently and that is used as a two-family dwelling. Then there's another vacant lot, and then
we have two new structures that are both lacking functional doors and windows. So again, it's
another evidence of the blatant abandonment on the subject block.
and at page six is just a close-up of the multi-family blue building that I just referenced.
And at page six is just a close-up of the multifamily.
Continuing to the west on the north side of the block, we have four vacant lots,
then we have two residential single-family dwellings, and then we have another vacant lot,
and then abandoned buildings. This is the middle of winter. Windows are wide open on the first
building the second building has been boarded up uh with metal barriers by a bank and then there's
another abandoned building next to that and going towards the corner are two residential structures
and the corner property again is another multi-family property as evidenced by the
the multiple four meters at the end of the at the side of property on 32nd street i did include at
exhibit 10 the zoning archives for the other properties in the block that i just went through
that are multifamily in nature.
I don't need to run through these again,
but as you can see, 3102, 06, 08 are all multifamily.
And then when you go to the other end of the block,
closer to the property, my client's property,
we have 3122, 3133, all multifamily,
and then 3144, 45, 46, 47, all multifamily.
So given the abandonment on the block,
the blight on the block and the other multifamily uses, we are going to request that the board
does grant the multifamily use variance for the property.
The Exhibit 6 was the original zoning plan that we submitted as part of our application.
And the original zoning plan called for two entryways in the front of the property.
um one this is a two-family dwelling so the first unit would be the basement and the first floor
and unit two would be the second floor and third floor as you can see we are matching the cornice