We're not going to be frying.
We're going to just be primarily coffee,
and we're going to have some baked goods
that all really we're going to be doing is warming them up
for about 20 minutes in the oven.
Okay, but you do have an exhaust, exterior exhaust on your plan.
That was the plan, yeah.
it's an existing exhaust is that correct mr velasquez it's not an existing exhaust
it's something that we would have to put in okay but you but despite the fact that you're not
actually cooking food live at the location yeah we're not cooking anything with frying or anything
like that okay the questions yeah is um what's the plan do you or i guess do you plan to do
take out delivery services like uber eats caviar or doordash and what is your plan for deliveries
and couriers we we do um and we would just uh plan to sign up with those uh with the carriers
but yeah the answer is yes well i'm thinking more so in terms of traffic like yes you're
Well, I'm thinking more so in terms of traffic. Like, yes, you're on a corner, but Titan Street and 6th Street are both really narrow streets. And I know how South Philadelphians feel about parking and traffic congestion. So is there anything you're trying to do to sort of help move people or help these things happen fast?
on a corner but titan street and
I know a lot of times when you've got a lot of delivery services lining up to pick up orders, you can get very clogged, especially if they're waiting.
You know, they have to wait till something's complete.
So, like, in terms of flow, are you using any windows?
Is there going to be a designated space on the plan inside the first floor?
We don't plan on using the windows, at least initially.
Actually, we do plan on having a designated area for pickup on the counter, kind of like you would normally do at a Starbucks or something of that nature.
Other questions?
Counsel or counsel?
No questions at this time.
I should say comments from the virtual would answer the current audience here.
I see no hands up at this time, Chair.
Plenty, Commission.
michael gall with the philadelphia city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the existing cmx1 neighborhood commercial mixed-use zoning at this location
this property has a documented history of use as a prepared foods and small grocery business dating
back to at least 2004. the appellant has demonstrated that the proposed use prepared
food shop would not cause undue detriment what might otherwise be expected at this location
therefore the city planning commission recommends the board grant the requested special exception
for prepared shop use thank you mi2026002 226 1229 south 6th street i vote yes michael johns
my vote is yes cheryl gaston my vote is yes tennessee graham my vote is yes i'm mcadams my
vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you board thank you thank you council
Number one, MI-2025-007-020-2408 Wesley High Avenue.
Zen Jin is the attorney.
Zen Jin will be rejoining us as a panelist.
Good afternoon.
Zen, you were already sworn this morning.
Just for the record, state your name.
Zen Jin.
Z-H-E-N-J-I-N.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is MB Group's property, the property owner.
And then before we start, there was some debate.
Initially, there was a request for four, and now it's three.
Is that right?
That's correct.
And also no office use.
We're moving away from that as well.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon.
Have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
And do you waive the reading of the refusals and stipulate to their accuracy?
All right. Thank you. You can share your screen and proceed with your case.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board what was previously submitted.
We did supplement because the community's letter did not come in until yesterday.
So there is a supplemented exhibit with that particular letter, which I will address with the board.
So this is an application originally filed for use as a four family dwelling, four units, as well as an office, business, and professional on the first floor.
We have gone back and re-evaluated the history of the property as well as its layout, and my client ultimately decided to move forward asking for three total units in this property.
The history of the property is that this entire block, for the most part, was used as doctor's office plus residential units for both this building, 2406 as well as 2410.
These are rather large buildings that, while they're zoned RSA 5 since the 2014 remapping, was originally zoned RM1 before that.
And a lot of the configurations happened long before the RSA 5 zoning took place.
My client purchased the property back in 2023 in its current condition, which is essentially
five total units, including dividing up of the upper floors into four units, and then the first
floor being one unit that was probably the former doctor's office. The prior history of the property
shows that this was, for many years, the doctor's office with two residential units above.
After considering what the prior use was and what's consistent to his neighboring uses,
uh what the prior use was and what's consistent to his neighboring uses which incidentally
which incidentally...
uh we believe also are basically triplexes both on both sides also converted due to its original
use in in the history of being doctor's office and uh units of residential units above a three unit
proposal was ultimately brought before the community after an original proposal of four
units in office was actually circulated through the community for a petition so the community
group met with us and initially did not make a determination because they had some difficulty
understanding how three units is laid out in this property and wanted to schedule a property tour
which actually took place on june 8th at 6 30. after the tour we were initially advised that
we would be receiving a letter probably within a week or two with their comments and position.
We unfortunately did not get that until just yesterday. I'm sorry, on July 13th, so two days
ago. What we see in their letter are concerns I anticipate are partially due to the confusion
between what exists now versus what is being proposed uh what exists now are in fact multiple
residential units in fact there's four upstairs divided into two floors so naturally it does
look very dense the issue of uh the exiting of the property and fire code and other items were
initially addressed during the first zoom meeting i indicated to the community that once we have
obtained a zoning change for three units if if it were to be approved my client would have to submit
building plans and as part of that fire code requirements would have to be met we're not
looking to simply legalize an existing condition here this is going to have additional steps
following any zoning application decisions.
The trash storage, which actually is an ongoing issue
that my client's aware of,
he actually in his plans proposed trash rooms
since they were taking away some of the unit space,
we're able to convert that into trash rooms.
And also by reducing the total number of units,
you would also reduce the trash being generated,
which all would actually help alleviate
some of the concerns mentioned in the community's letter. So the actual support petition was done
prior to us, my office becoming involved. That was actually done back in April of 2025,
when Mr. Ward was still the attorney of record. As you can see, at the time, for the four
departments and office, many of the people in the area were aware these buildings were multifamily.
they actually did not have a strong objection to even legalizing something as dense as that however
again when we reviewed it we found that the actual prior use was more or less a office in two units
making it a three unit total and based on that condition of its pre-existing non-conforming use
we had discussed with our client and agreed that three units at max is probably what makes sense
here this property also is a rather large property i'm going to go ahead and move to the
photos and plans because we did submit prior to the community letter coming in our communications
with the community pending a letter and that is what's before the photo exhibit so as you can see
this is a property on a block that is on one end there's a church on the other end there are also
additional properties. Again, historical notes show that all these properties here
along the block more or less had some kind of multifamily use in its history and currently are
likely used as such, although we cannot confirm that for every property. The property itself
came to my client's possession with the four units on the second and third floor already split
and then having another unit on the first floor.
There are electric and water heaters and existing kitchens.
He did do the painting and flooring inside the space.
However, the layout in the existing kitchens really were just refreshed and was not changed.
So what we are proposing to do as a way to reduce the total unit count,
as well as making this into essentially a three unit property is to have the following layout.
property is to have the following layout. The basement was and is still going to be storage
and utilities only. There's a powder room in the one corner and an open space. There's no living
in the basement. The first floor would become one unit. So the first floor would have one unit
in the, I'm sorry, that's the second floor. The first floor would be the one unit with the
entry there's there is a single entry into the building with stairs leading up the first unit
would be to the entry to the left and that would take the entire first floor with the kitchen area
in the back bathroom uh and bedroom in the front with a secondary reading room or bedroom in the
middle section the second floor is accessed through a central staircase that would lead
up to the second floor which actually has its own open hallway to turn around to the third floor
originally there was a unit in the back and a unit in the front and they were separated what
we're proposing to do is to keep the unit front and back separation so the second unit would be
this smaller unit in the back it would be maintained as is what is one of the bigger
changes is that third floor and the front half of the second floor would now become one unit.
There was originally two additional units in the upper floor with their own kitchens.
The kitchens will be removed and the unit would be connected into one unit. So there's no
longer split entrances. The entry to the third floor would be here on the second floor,
leading both to the front part of the unit as well as the stair, which leads up to the upper
part of the unit. This would all be part of one unit with a single kitchen on the second floor
and then sleeping areas, living areas on the third floor. That essentially would reduce the
use from four units plus what was a professional office on the first floor, which also is
essentially laid out as a residential unit anyway. So that would literally reduce the total from five
complete units into three total units, which is what we're asking the board to consider today.
With this change, we believe that this is much more consistent both to the properties that are
next door to the block, as well as to the original legal use that was in the property,
which is, again, a doctor's office and two units. I'm going to share with the board real quickly,
this was not in our exhibits, but it is part of the record history of the properties,
And that is the neighboring property's history in the ATLAS system, which shows their prior and historical approvals for doctor's office as well as the, if the board can bear with me for one second, I'm going to pull up that information.
So what I'm going to share with the board right now is a historical record for 2406.
This is record in the Atlas for 2406, which is very similar to the record in 2408, which
is doctor's office and two family.
I suspect at some point a doctor's office might have had all three properties, but this
going back to the 1950s and that is the latest record in the file for these properties in the
area and the same actually also exists for 2410 which has a very similar late approval in the same
time frame which is also very much like what our property had as its original historical record
So I'm going to share with the board that information real quick as well.
So here's 2410.
As you can see, 2410, historically, it's a three-family dwelling.
And I believe that is still its current use.
So we're actually abutted on both sides.
And I believe further up the block, when I did the quick review of those properties,
they also had multifamily primarily as their use.
While there are single family houses across the street, this side of the block from history has been primarily multifamily.
And this property itself also was laid out as a multifamily prior to even my client acquiring it.
uh was laid out as a multi-family prior to even my client acquiring the property uh as it sits today
so we understand the opposition from the community but we are asking the board's consideration
in allowing a maximum of three units at this property particularly in light of its historical
uses which uh generates a hardship to now convert this completely to a single family dwelling
thank you and i believe my client on please sure um
let me make sure i uh knock knock knock him can you uh raise your hand and virtually to be identified
your client knock on last name starting with a b has been promoted to panel
Thank you.
is he has he is he available to speak it's yes um they're coming in as a panelist mail
great thank you back on police on mute when you get an opportunity
okay should i do with you or just no no video is good hi could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer could you spell your name please n-a-k-a-m my first name and
last name is b-a-l-o-g-h-l-a-n-o-v do you swear or affirm to tell the truth told you
nothing but the truth yes thank you nakam uh did you see my presentation to the board and hear my
representation to the zoning board yes i did can you verify what i have spoken and presented to
be true and correct and adopted as your own testimony yes thank you questions from the board
then um i might have missed something can we look at the uh second unit please absolutely
yeah so this is the second unit it's actually a small unit in the back of the second floor
okay so no so i did miss something because when it was when you were originally i didn't see the
bedroom in the back i was just a little confused that's all oh okay it's one bedroom yes one
bedroom unit in the back all the questions so you can leave it right there go ahead yes
my quick quick question is the trash um is that an interior trash storage or is that like in the
hallway so it's going to be a trash closet um right now right it's enclosed yes ventilated
yes it'll be ventilated okay all right and that's for everybody well for all the tenants well the
first floor uh ultimately can have the backyard as well okay so this will be mostly for the second
and third floor second and third floor and it's enough for three trash bins uh we want to make
sure it's big enough not to have overflow right so so this configuration for the front part of
the second floor and the third floor is going to be remain the only i'm just trying i'm saying is
that correct is that correct so the configuration for the front half would remain correct and the
third floor change would be removal of the kitchens and so these open spaces that are on the third
floor are they just going to remain as open spaces like what's the what's the deal at this point they
would remain as living spaces um it doesn't make sense to fight to enclose them i mean ultimately
while he potentially could put an additional bedroom up here we we believe leaving it as