you showed the floodplain and how let me um let me zoom out here i am not sure if
my apologies i'm not i'm not as familiar with the floodplain but this should be the
i think it was the garage plan where you showed the foot was the garage plan okay i will move
down to the garage this is the garage um i don't believe there's any more plans in this section we
have renderings and other information uh maybe it'll be helpful for gabriel to um be um
No, you showed it.
You showed a plan.
Oh, I did.
I believe it was the garage plan or the garage plan.
I think this plan here made, was there information on the flood?
Okay, right.
This one shows me.
Yeah, base flood elevation right here.
And you are, I can't see the whole plan.
You kind of like.
Let me move it.
And so this is requiring, is this the 100-year flood plan or what's the?
I wish I knew the answer to that.
I think this is definitely a question the architect would have to answer.
I'm not as sure of the exact.
Let's bring the architect on.
What's his name?
Gabriel.
Gabriel.
Yes, I'm here.
All right.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Gabriel Deck, G-A-B-R-I-E-L, last name D-E-C-K.
You swear or affirm the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Michael, please ask your question.
So, yeah, my question is, your reasoning to do the garage on the first floor is, for the most part, because you have the floodplain issue.
My question is, how do I tell that this is the floodplain, and how much far above the floodplain do you have to be?
If you can pan over to the left side of this drawing, you can see the base flood elevation indicated on the bottom left.
That is the 100-year floodplain.
We need to be at minimum 18 inches above that to any habitable space.
And you can kind of see that line does cut across the entire property, probably about three or four feet above the sidewalk grade.
But we can have no habitable space below that level.
So the only uses permitted are garage and storage spaces.
Absolutely. Thank you. That was it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Other questions from the board?
So this is CMX4, and CMX5 is the one for basically high-rise sort of multiple-type dwellings.
What's the difference?
Why is there this refusal concerning single-family household living?
How many units were you allowed to have?
I believe CMX4 does not permit single-family.
It actually permits multi, and that's actually the minimum use expected, generally, of that zoning district.
Right. And aren't you asking for more than single-family?
No, we're not. We're actually asking for single-family dwelling.
In this largest space?
The space is deceptively large. I'm sorry.
Let me actually re-post, re-share that.
My apologies.
so if you really look at the lot itself and what is surrounding it
the width of the property and the depth of the property is not really substantially larger than
your typical row home size I mean we're talking about I'm going to zoom in again to the total
depth here 65 foot 10 inch depth and a 16 foot 10 inch wide lot so this is not
a large lot in that sense that you would expect a dense multifamily
A large lot in that sense that you would expect a dense multifamily development.
My client actually looked very carefully at the surrounding properties, what is being developed on these size lots in the area.
And the original plan of multifamily, ultimately, they decided it would actually make more sense to do a single family here.
Given other single families were just developed right around the corner and there's easy comparables and it is a popular design for that area.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Amberson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Sarah Bond with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed-use zoning.
For the off-street parking refusal, the proposed use is consistent with nearby properties.
Several of the homes on the same block as this property and the block to the north have private
garages. For the occupied area refusal, the proposed dimensional variance is minimal and
does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code. For the single family
household living refusal, the proposed use is consistent with documented prior use of this
property. The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2024, 001-413-139 South 24th Street, I vote yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Tana DeGraham, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Ty Nguyen, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Okay, number 14, MI 2024, 001-513, 1330 Ellsworth Street.
Brandon Saverin is the attorney.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Pashunk Square Civic Association,
a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squill.
hi mr chairman good morning counsel how are you could you please state your name and spell for
the court sonographer yes um i am brandon saverin of uh dilworth paxton um spelled b-r-a-n-d-o-n
and then s is in sam a v is in victor r-a-n is in nancy you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do could you uh identify your client and the
relationship to the property? Yes, I represent Tamara and Rasheed Williams, who are the new
owners of the property. Okay, our vice chair has just a few questions for you. Sure. Good morning,
counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to attack receipt?
Yes, I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed
with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you, counsel. Please proceed
and share your screen. Thank you. One moment.
There we go.
Okay. Good morning, members of the board. Like Ms. Bond, I just wanted to say congratulations
to the board's new members. I am Brandon, as I mentioned. I represent Tamara and Rasheed
Williams, who are a married couple that in December of last year purchased this property
at 1330 Ellsworth Street. They intend to live on the second floor of the building.
The first and third floor are separate units that are already rented out to arm's length tenants. So this is physically a triplex. And my clients thought that they were purchasing a legally permitted triplex.
Once they found out that it was only legally permitted as a duplex, they contacted me. I will go through some detail as to the history of the property, but we believe that historically, it has had three units for a very long time.
um going going very far back those were all residential there was an interim period where
one of those three units the ground floor may have been non-residential um as i mentioned i'll
get more detail on that for you when i walk through some of the historical uh permitting
um in any brandon can i ask a question you're you're looking for a triplex
Brandon, can I ask a question? You're looking for a triplex?
Yes, right.
Our notes, Hillary, don't our notes say four?
Right. So the refusal says four. And I think I heard an attorney earlier use the term mislabel.
So our architect, who is a very smart guy, did label the zoning site plan as four units, but that was never the intent.
And we have a proviso plan, one page that corrects that and states that it's a high flux.
All right. Thank you.
And thanks for the question, Mr. Chairman. That's very important.
So with that, let me run through some of the exhibits.
I submitted 18 exhibits to the board last week.
I will go through some, but not all of them in the interest of time.
But I would ask that all 18 be moved into the record of the case.
They are.
Thank you.
The first exhibit is our refusal.
So, Mr. Chairman, you just addressed a lot of what I was going to say about the refusal.
So starting at the bottom, the first refusal is a used refusal, and that is because we are increasing the legally registered number of units from two to three,
although there is and has been for decades three units present. In the RSA 5 district,
that increase requires a use variance. The other variance is a dimensional variance.
When L&I reviewed our site plan, which I'll show you in a moment, it noticed that there is a rear
deck, technically a roof deck. It is above the first floor of the rear of the property
that may have not been built with permits.
So we said that we'd like to legalize that deck
and Ellen, I noticed that the rear parapet wall
does not have a proper setback.
So we're gonna request a dimensional variance
for that specific issue.
And I'll show you photos of that in a moment.
Just to rehash one last time,
we're seeking three dwelling units,
not four as stated in the description text here.
Here's our proof of tax clearance at Exhibit 2. Here is our deed at Exhibit 3, showing that the property was purchased in December.
Just flying through here. Exhibit 4 is our application for appeal, where I again noted the mistake with the three verse four units.
I also attached a memorandum to the application, which explains why I believe the two variances that we have requested are supported by the relevant criteria in the zoning code.
I, in the interest of time, will not rehash that entire legal argument, but I'll give you a summary at the end of my presentation.
Let's see.
Exhibit 5 are the relevant sections of the zoning code.
um exhibit six is the original site plan and exhibit seven is the proviso site plan and just
to zoom in here um you'll see that the architect corrected the um four units to three units and put
change clouds over them that's the only change in the proviso plan versus the original plan
because there's no addition to the property proposed um we were not required to provide
elevations, but we do have this bird's eye view site plan that shows the extent of the existing
structure on the property, as well as the garage, which is this checked kind of area, which has the
deck on top of it. And here's the proviso form that accompanies that proviso plan.
Exhibit eight is the zoning map. So our property is on the 1300 block of Ellsworth Street.
It is a half block away from Broad Street. Like most of the properties on our side of the street, the property and the structure runs the full length from Ellsworth to Annan in the rear, being that we are sort of on the western portion where this block fans out.
I suppose. We have one of the deeper buildings on the block, although there are numerous examples of other multifamily use, which I'll run through in a moment.
But our property is one of the bigger ones at 85 feet deep or thereabouts.
Here's an aerial from Atlas at Exhibit 9.
This is what was on my screen when I was promoted to panelist.
It's just the photos of our zoning posters.
This is the front of the building on Ellsworth.
This is the rear of the building with the garage on Annan.
This is the rear of the building with the garage on Annan.
These are more photos that are from Atlas rather than taken by us at Exhibit 11, just showing sort of the context of the block.
You can kind of see, you know, what the form of the block.
It's almost uniformly, at least near us, three-story buildings built flush to the street like ours.
here's the opposite side of Ellsworth same thing here's Annan so here's our garage and our deck on
top of it it is very common you know the angle is actually a little tough here but you know going
probably six properties down the line from us everybody has a rear garage the opposite side of
Annan Street is vacant sort of in our section or largely vacant and what you have also common in
addition to the garages are these sort of decks at the rear. So our neighbor has one. Again,
this is us to the left. This is our neighbor to the west to the right. But you can see they also
have a deck. Theirs is higher than ours. But to go speak to that dimensional variance for a second,
so we have this very nice sort of wall structure where you have these wooden slats
between these boy I don't want to insult the architects in the room but I'll call them
balustrades these sort of stone posts that the the wood runs between so it's a it's an existing
back wall to the deck it's it's sturdy and we're going to ask for your permission to to leave it
there rather than demolish it and build a new one that would be five feet further back because if
we were to move it, it would reduce the usability of the deck substantially. And I actually think
this is really one of the safer setups you come across as opposed to a thin railing or a piece
of glass or something like that. I do have interior photos. I'm going to skip those for
one moment to go to our floor plans, and then I'll come back to the photos. So these are the
existing condition plans, I want to highlight a few things here. There is no livable space
in the basement because the ceiling is not tall enough to support it, and there will not be
going forward. So that's very important to note. That is for storage and mechanical systems only.
What we're going to do is we are going to sprinkler this building and give it a proper
fire suppression system if our variances are approved as we move towards getting a new CO
for three units. I believe that sort of the historical permitting quirk may, I'm not positive,
but may have come from a prior owner trying to avoid the sprinkling requirement and other
building code requirements. So we're going to correct for that. And we're trying to do this
fully above board and in compliance with the building code. So here's the three units. It's
one per floor. The first floor unit, as I'll show you in photos in a second, is pretty standard. It
has a big, very nice living room in the front and sort of what is the current tenant uses it