building because the windows looked like they were other residential units yes the the design intent
is for there to be three apartments down at grade we would you know we would continue to work with
the owner in in terms of the the glazing that would be appropriate for at grade apartments
and there is one controlled uh there would be one controlled lobby um off of the off of the main
street frontage there for the entire for the entire building and for the main street are
you referring referencing 48th street are you referencing why losing yes no i'm sorry the along
48th street where so the rest the the main building entrance would be oriented the same way as being
shown in the stoning street view where the where the main facade is off of facing the park
okay in the image that has no not the rendering we're not basing this
you you reference the street view not the rendering
oh i'm sorry i was i was looking at the uh the current view that was uh up so it would be the
the east facade okay and are there any other amenity spaces on the first floor for the tenant
Thank you.
This is what I was looking for.
Any other questions?
Oh, I see you, Trey.
So I do have another comment.
If this is the front, is that 48th Street where the double doors are?
Is that?
So at 48th Street, a main entrance, you created a stairway, a blank wall, and a track.
I mean, just conceptually, that's not good, right?
And in terms of scale, massing, and context, it just does not work.
It just doesn't.
It needs to be rethought.
Okay, any other questions?
What's happening in the basement?
That is utility space.
And only the management company is going to have access to the basement?
um at the moment i think the program is a little bit unclear because we have the requirement i
think for bike storage so there's the potential for the public requiring access down to the
requiring access down to the basement for that additional storage so the elevator and one of the stair towers would go down we would we would closely analyze the building code about the maximum occupancy that occupant load that would be allowed down there but we were confident that we can restrict it in such a way that we would
basement for that additional storage how are they going to
not require both stair towers to go down to that level okay okay any other points so Hillary what
I'm going to think about doing with this is give it a result of hearing date I don't think we're
going to take it to planning right now because things may change the same thing with there
right so that's fine we can hold planning and public testimony for the resumption so council
will make a result of hearing great and you know you go back to the team and figure out where you
want to be with this the resumptive hearing will be on 10 6 26 at 9 30 a.m thank you
okay and please stand by here and i have another case thank you by the way
all right so number five mi 2025 006 975 2015 frankfurt avenue uh rachel please just state
your name for the record sure rachel pritzker right um see here uh could you identify that
your client a relationship to the property yeah so my client is uh xl2 llc yuri tomoschak
uh who is the owner of the property okay um
our vice chair has a few questions for you good afternoon have you submitted your documents and
exhibits five days in advance of this hearing yes and there's lots of refuses on this one as well
do you weigh the reading of the refusals and stipulate to their accuracy?
Yes. Similar to the prior project, we did make significant revisions to this project and did
provide a proviso plan form and updated plans. Okay. Thank you. You can share your screen and
proceed with your case. And chairman and board members, no thank you, Anita. When you make good
points, we have to take them. So I appreciate that feedback. I'm just going to share my screen.
okay this is a little bit of a complicated one so just bear with me
this is the original refusal for this project I do also want to note before I go through the
details that we have a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squill's office and a letter of
support from fishtown neighbors association um the property consists of seven existing lots
uh 2015 2017 2019 and 2021 frankfurt avenue uh zone cmx2 um and 2016 2018 and 2022 set by the
uh uh i'm sorry to interrupt i just i do want to um acknowledge we have another attorney here i
believe for a protestant um if you want to state your name and be sworn in and indicate who your
client is my name is jordan rand my client is protestant dorothy correll resident next door
at 2022 set by the street could you do me a favor could you please spell your name
j-o-r-d-a-n last name r-a-n-d you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do please continue rachel yeah i just want to make note for the record that we have not
received any information documents exhibits from mr ran or his attorney so procedurally we've had
no ability to defend any opposition to this matter i don't have any exhibits
okay okay um so once again um this property consists of seven existing lots um zone cmx2 and
RSA 5. On the Subviva side, the parcels range from 792 square feet up to 2160 on the Frankfurt
Avenue side. We propose a relocation of lot lines to create two parcels, parcel H and parcel I,
both fronting on Frankfurt Avenue, consistent with the City of Philadelphia Planning Commission's
determination of September 18, 2025. As reconfigured, both new parcels remain split between
CMX2 and RSA5 districts. Parcel H holds 4,320.2 square feet, consisting of 3,520.1 square feet
of CMX2 and 792.1 square feet of RSA5. Parcel I totals 4,080.2 square feet, consisting of
Parcel I totals 4,080.2 square feet consisting of 2,070 square feet in CMX2 and 2,010 square feet
of RSA5. Each parcel will contain a new four-story mixed-use building on the Frankfurt Avenue side
with a two-story reduced condition on the SEPVIVA side with various setbacks among SEPVIVA,
ground floor on Frankfurt Avenue of office medical dental health practitioner use in one
the ground floor spaces and multi-family residential units above along with roof decks
the application as originally filed is different than what we're proposing today in direct response
to feedback from the community and the rco and i'll go through those revisions but and
we've eliminated a number of refusals as a result specifically some of the occupied
some of the building height and some of the use in addition to the,
we reduced it from nine units on each parcel as opposed to 10 units on each parcel.
So reducing the proposed figure here on table 166022 and 4A12.
The D for the property.
Here is the zoning map for the property, Frankfort Avenue and Sebaiva in the rear, and as you
can see, the majority of the parcel on the Frankfort Avenue and some of the Sebaiva is
the CMX2 condition.
Again, Frankfort Avenue is a major commercial corridor in Fishtown with three segments of the split zoning that are RSA-5 on the Sub-Viva side of the street.
It's worth noting in this second zoning map that the conditions are not exclusive to RSA-5 on this side of Sub-Viva. You have a mix of CMX-2, RM-1, and portions of RSA-5.
this is an aerial of these properties
and the street view the block is a mix of commercial mixed use on the
frankfurt avenue side with some existing warehouses and garages
as you can see from the front view
again on the front this is a new construction that was approved by this board similar split
zoning it's a bit taller in height but similar idea with the commercial mix use so there are
conditions on this block on especially in the frankfurt avenue side being a commercial quarter
which this project was similarly modeled off of
this is the rear side there's a mix of three stories properties towards the left side and
then there's a mix of single family homes and warehouse conditions on the survivor street
there's no like continuity on the block it's not all two-story row homes it's a mix of
one-story warehouses two-story row homes and again three-story structures as well
is the other side of sub viva towards the left of the property
these are just the zoning posters
So the different portions in the code, again, some have been revised from what we originally proposed.
So as mentioned, some of these don't apply anymore to the project.
We'll go through the plans and identify that.
We did significant community outreach for this project.
We met with FNA at a preliminary meeting in December.
We then had the full zoning committee meeting, the community meeting in January with notice and proof of mailing.
We also, Ms. Dorothy's son is an attorney at Claire Harrison.
He reached out and attended the meeting, and we also separately met with him to see what concerns they specifically had around this project.
and then also we had another community meeting after we made a number of revisions to the project
in which we received a letter of support from FNA. It just included in the packet
Just included in the packet all the outreach that we did. It's still unclear to me from Ms. Dorothy and her attorney what the specific concerns are that are remaining. A significant amount of the project that was revised is the Sepviva side of the project, which you'll see to implement a 30-foot setback, a two-story condition on the front, and the aesthetic to look similar to single-family homes in consideration that that sort of snapshot of the middle of the block does have a
all the outreach that we did. It's still unclear to me.
lot of those two-story conditions we'd still be willing to work with miss dorothy and and
especially if there are any construction concerns for this project which we can understand this is
just the posting the mailing and again a lot of outreach most of the response from the other
attorneys was just we'll discuss it at at that meeting and then follow up from that meeting if
was any other concerns um that we could address just showing our willingness to you know collaborate
on this project
asking if there's a list of concerns or anything else that's missing
this is from the other second rco meeting that we had the proof of mailing
and my outreach to mr rand asking what concerns they're still up to i think a few days ago
this is a letter from fishtown neighbors basically requested continuance which we
did to allow for more time and then a follow-up letter from the second meeting with support for
the project and Councilman Squilla's letter of non-opposition as well there also are some letters
of support from the surrounding area there were others that were included but I only put ones that
were directly relevant just bring up the plans I just want to kind of go through the legal argument
a little bit. As mentioned, we substantially revised the project. The unit count on each
parcel was reduced from 10 to 9 dwelling units and the previously proposed off-street parking.
We originally provided off-street parking at the rear. There's existing curb cuts in garages, but
in order to have more parking on the street or not keep that condition, we removed the parking
as a whole, which would have been accessed from Zepiva, which was eliminated entirely along with
with the associated curb cuts.
We also removed portions of the proposed balconies
and substantially revised the building design
along with on Sep Viva to reduce the height
and massing perceived from that block.
Significant portions of the upper floors
are pulled back approximately 30 feet
from the Sep Viva frontage resulting
in only a two-story wall condition,
which our architect will describe in more detail.
And again, this resulted in support.
The majority of this project refusals result
from this mixed zoning condition. And also the special exception for the use or the variance for
the medical dental is due to overlay in CMX2, which doesn't allow for that. Although uses such
as childcare center, educational facilities, fraternal organizations, or hospitals would
generate a greater intensity of activity than a medical dental facility. So keeping that in mind,
And the 100 percent lot coverage is a condition found directly adjacent to this and given
the split zoning would on some of these lots result in random gaps of nine feet between
a commercial corridor and commercial properties and a single family home, which is not an
ideal condition directly adjacent to a commercial corridor.
And again, we also will change the project to include internalized trash separating out
residential and commercial which was across bicycle parking and wide and pedestrian areas
and street tree improvements on the frankfurt avenue side the comment on height just before
i know i'm taking a little bit longer but want to make sure i lay this out
there are adjacent structures specifically at 2023 and across the street that are 45 and 46 feet in
height we're proposing 44 feet in height it's a little bit of a slope and grade change as you
see on the frankfurt avenue side and then a reduction to two-story conditions on set by but
with that 30-foot setback this is also supported by the city's own adaptive plan for the area
specifically mentioning rezoning frankfurt avenue to encourage mixed-use development and again is
more in line with the commercial corridor conditions and the mixed characterizations on this
existing block um if we can bring on kevin o'neill um to go through the revival
If we can bring on Kevin O'Neill to go through their revised plans, I'd appreciate that.
Kevin?
Kevin O'Neill has been allowed to talk.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. I'm here.
i could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer kevin j o'neill apostrophe n e i
l l do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes counsel uh
kevin can you go through the plans on my screen and uh specifically the some of the revisions
and site conditions as well. Sure.
Tell me when to stop. Okay, so we've got a couple of site photos just to give you an overview. The
top picture is Frankfurt Avenue. The black dash lines indicate the four properties along
frankfurt avenue the lower picture is the survivor street frontage uh again the black line the black
dashed lines indicate the uh the four properties where uh that make up our parcel on uh sup by the
street am i am i saying black dots on i don't i don't i don't see what you're saying maybe i'm
wrong that's the black dash lines okay all right all right all right coming down straight all right
okay yeah these are all part of our parcel all right yep
Zoning map on the upper left hand of the page, as Rachel already described, to the right is our zoning site plan.
And as you can see, what we're proposing here is a lot consolidation and subdivision of these parcels into two new parcels.
so currently there are multiple addresses and what we're proposing to do here is combine all
of this into two new parcels so parts of parcel h and parcel i uh parcel h
i've been to a lot of art
Parcel H is to the left, which makes up 2015 and 2017 Frankfurt Avenue and extends all the way
through to Sep Viva. 2019 and 2021 make up Parcel I and extend all the way through to Sep Viva
Street as well. Of note on this plan at the lower right-hand side, on the bottom of the page is
where we've made most of the revisions to this project from the April zoning meeting that was
held up to the, I'm sorry, the January meeting that was held up to the more recent May meeting
that was held. And we'll get to that in a second when we get to those slides. So I have floor plans
for all levels of the building. I'll briefly walk through those. Basement level, the orange hatched
area indicates the basement portion of the commercial spaces.
So we have two large commercial spaces facing Frankfurt Avenue,
and those are essentially bi-level.