Tax clearance, you can see taxes are paid through 2021.
So with regard to the plan, as you can see, didn't want to do that.
so what you have here is this is the structure at 34 this is 60 j street um
we are looking to add a a penthouse unit above the fifth floor there would be a rooftop deck
a portion of it would be a communal deck for the residential dwellings inside the building
and a portion of it would be uh limited solely to the penthouse residence with when i mentioned 10
46 East Tioga as part of that unity of use. This is a vacant lot but pursuant to the unity of use
that will remain a vacant lot and there's access from Tioga Street sidewalk to the rear of the
property. And this is also in conjunction with the building next door at 3450 J Street which is also
a multi-family dwelling project. As far as the elevation goes, you'll see
we are looking to add a sixth floor penthouse unit above the existing structure.
And that plan also included some photographs, but I have plenty of current photographs. So
we have a picture of the zoning notice on the front door.
Here is the existing newly constructed building. Again we're looking to add a
six floor penthouse unit to it. Here's a shot from the corner.
This is the the new building and there is a breezeway and patio area which connects to the
other existing multi-family structure on the site. Across the street is Tioga Beverage.
so it's not a prior client of mine we put an addition on that building years ago
uh this would be uh tioga facing west it sits across the street from the joseph
scanlon playground and rec center and this is tioga street facing down towards kensington
avenue where the uh deceptor rail is again toga beverage across the street we sent out our rco
meeting notice went up to 120 identical mailings went out on that there's the addresses
and then impacts letter number of 10 d attendees was six and they provided as you can see unanimous
support before this application and then we have copies of those zoning permits that i
previously discussed they are attached to the packet and made part of the record in this matter
Again, here's the zoning map. This property is zoned RM1, whereas the adjacent property is zoned I2, but they are used in unity of use for the multifamily use there.
So, again, here is an aerial photograph. They're known as the J Street Lofts, and it's a very successful residential complex.
I do have Mr. Groves available to verify and adopt, and Ian Smith is present on the call.
Should the board have any specific questions with regard to the architectural plans?
Any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
no bring on your uh yeah i would ask george uh raise your hand and be uh allowed to uh testify
hello hi please spell your full name and i'll swear you in george groves g-e-o-r-g-e-g-r-o-v-e-s
we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir thank you mr ward all right george you've heard my representations to the board today
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
And you adopt them as your own testimony?
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
No further hand, it's time to chat.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
While this property is currently indicated for industrial use on the city plan, given the site context, we recommend to press advance.
Thank you.
MI 2020-003-249-3460J Street.
My vote is yes.
Professor Klaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Case number five, MI 2020-003-389-446-58N 12th Street.
Justin Crick is the attorney of record.
Callahill Neighbor Association sent a letter of support, as did Councilman Squilla and the Asian American Federation of the United States.
Good afternoon, members of the board.
Mr. Crick, please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Yes, Justin Crick, J-U-S-T-I-N-K-R-I-K. Address is 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 630, Philadelphia PA 19102.
He's where I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Mr. Plas has some questions for you.
Mr. Crick, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to attack her?
I do believe that there is a minor issue with the refusal.
It indicates four dwelling units when I believe the request is for a total of five, but that would not create an additional refusal.
Okay, and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Okay, and have you met with the RCO and have the letter?
Yes, we do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you.
members of the board we're here today for the property of 446-52 north 12th street
the property is currently zoned as um icmx with the industrial and commercial requirements
what the applicant is seeking is the legalization of this property with five units and commercial
frontage on the first floor we are not here to discuss the commercial use but that has been
approved as a use permit and will be a commercial establishment with uh for archery the entire first
floor as i'll show you the building uh you'll understand how it's set out but we're we're
concerned only with the residential component um of this property so as the refusal states
it says four dwelling units but based on the layout and a reading of the actual application
we have one unit above the area designated 448 and four units total above the area designated
450-52. To bring this into context, we are on North 12th Street between Buttonwood and Hamilton
Street at the corner. And it is this entire property, while this will show you, it looks
like three properties, but all three of these are one tax parcel. And we're here seeking the
approval for the entire, the entirety of the property. This is the frontage on North 12th
street. And here you have a side view of the one story portion, uh, on the adjacent, excuse me,
adjacent street. This will, uh, the picture may be a little bit dated, but it is, uh, best to show
you where the apartments would, would be, uh, situated. So one of the apartments is located
above the structure and the two story component of the building. And there are two units at each of
the second and third floors. The property was originally used as a tofu manufacturing plant,
at which time the current owner's member was the owner, and he had owned and operated the plant in
the neighborhood, and at one point had begun to allow some of the workers to have lodging in a
place to stay. In developing or improving the property in the first floor commercial unit,
And in response to certain violations, the owner has subsequently recognized that they need to bring things up to code and get the approval of the zoning board.
So what the proposal plans, these are the current floor plans of the second floor of the building.
You have a unit up front, one in the back, and this side unit is actually the unit that's over the one-story portion of the building.
So we have this is the two-story section, which two units, one front, one back.
And then the third floor just shows the one in the front and one in the back.
And then the third floor just shows the one in the front and one in the back.
Some interior photos.
The property does have fire safety, but all of the systems are going to be upgraded.
All of the code compliance issues, if any, in order to issue the appropriate COs would be obtained with the approval of the variance.
This is the exit to the roof area.
This is not for roof deck use or any sort of pedestrian or occupant use.
This is only just showing you that there's access to a roof for maintenance purposes.
And we've met with both not only the PCDC, Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation, but also gotten received support from several other RCOs, including the Callahill Neighbors Association and the Asian American Federation of the United States.
So basically, and I just want to go through some of the other basic documents for you real quick before my argument is that here's a copy of the deed showing Mr. Nguyen, who was the owner of the property, deeded it over to a 448 12th Street LP, of which he is still a partner.
Tax clearance certificate, and I do have on a different screen, which I can share if the board requires the picture of the posting that my client had sent me.
But essentially what we're doing here is my client has been a longstanding member of the community and business owner and was a one time, a long time ago, a resident of the community, has continued ties with the community.
And during our discussions, the PCDC has supported this based upon our discussions and negotiations to continue to make the housing affordable in the area.
There is a community benefits agreement that is separate from this, but given that the nature of the property and the industrial use in the area has dwindled significantly, the industrial use is somewhat antiquated for the area and residential use would, in our opinion, be the highest and best use for the second and third floor.
That said, with the community's support, we are hoping that the legalization will allow
the owner to bring the property up to code and obtain the necessary certificates of occupancy.
I have Mr. Wen available to adopt my testimony.
Mr. Wen, are you available?
Members of the board, I was informed that if they ran into some technical difficulties,
I don't know if the weather is affecting them, but they did ask me to be prepared for that.
We'll stipulate that you being an officer of court, your client would have adopted your testimony.
Any questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
What else would like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
Hi, Chair.
This is Tanya Sunkett.
May I ask a question of Mr. Crick?
I'm not quite sure because I'm not sharing the letter, but I did want to confirm that you are stating your refusal has an error saying four, but you're requesting five.
So the application indicated one apartment above this section and four apartments above this section.
This is all one address and one OP, Office of Property Assessment number.
So I noticed that it says four dwelling units.
Even five would be prohibited because residential in and of itself is not available in this district or in this classification.
But I believe that the examiner may have only seen the four units above this component of the property, the three-story component.
So the reason why I'm asking, Mr. Crick, is that if the board grants the variance, you will only get four for the permit with L&I.
So that was why I was just trying to confirm. If you're going down, it's fine. But if you're going up, other than what's on the actual application slash refusal, that I believe a proviso would be required for maximum five units.
But if we wish, we could always hold off and request clarification of how to change the language for Ms. Saleta next week.
Well, thank you. I am open to the board. If the board is willing to do a proviso for the allowance of the fifth, that would be preferable. I can understand the need for Ms. Saleta to weigh in. But again, I don't know that since we're not dealing with any dimensional or
But again, I don't know that since we're not dealing with any dimensional or capacity issues, even at the fifth unit, because that unit's located on the separate building.
I, you know, I do believe that the underlying issue is really the residential use at all, but a proviso would be welcome.
So you're suggesting then, Mr. Crick, if the board were to approve this with a proviso, maximum five units?
Does that work, Tanya?
I would actually, if everyone is agreeable, prefer Ms. Saletta's weigh-in, because sometimes when LNI is not very clear, it will hold your permit up for an extensive period of time.
So if we can hold it, deliberate next Wednesday, have Ms. Saletta's weigh-in, and then offer a vote next Wednesday.
All right, Mr. Crick, I think that Tanya gives good advice.
we can that way all the dots will be dotted and the i's will be dotted and the t's will be crossed
all right i have no objection thank you miss thank you uh planning commission
this is uh ron bednar city planning this property is indicated for industrial commercial mixed use
on the city plan. In 2015, this parcel was remapped from I2 to ICMX to protect the light industrial
area in the neighborhood. No further changes to the zoning at this location has been approved
since. Therefore, we recommend an equestor variant stop plan. Okay, we're going to hold
this until next week right so uh mi 2020-003389446-52 north 12th street
tanya do we revise that i say the record is closed yes all right the record is closed and
the board will discuss this at next wednesday's executive session thank you
Thank you. Last case, MI 2020-003-248-7105, 7105 Grays Avenue. Is there anyone here for 7105 Grays Avenue?
Mr. Craig Melodosian has his hand raised.
Mr. Melodosian, please identify yourself with a record. Spell your last name and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon. Craig Melodosian, M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N, Ward 40, Republican RCO, Coordinating RCO, P.O. Box 33355, Philadelphia 19142.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
I do. Mr. Melodossian, I know you're not the applicant, so just give me one more second. Is
anyone here beside Mr. Melodossian for 7105 Grays Avenue?
I'm going to ask Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Melodossian, this case has already been listed
previously and we have no exhibits. Are you adverse to us dismissing this case?
uh that that's what i was uh going to request on behalf of the community
uh we've received no communications whatsoever from the applicant and for neither hearing was
there any notice uh that we could see visibly posted on the building uh and the building
does continue to operate in violation of the code we'd like to move it to enforcement if possible
Okay. MI 2020-003-248-7105 Grays Avenue. This case is dismissed. And Tanya, can we order enforcement?
We can?
Yes, Chair. You can dismiss with the request for enforcement action, and then I will reach out to License and Inspections to request an inspection to determine if they are operating without the proper
required permits and licenses thank you so uh what ms tunkett just sunk it just read into the
record is what the case will be uh dismissed for and further uh and for enforcement for l and i
i know i screwed that first applause it no problem confessor plaza my vote is uh dismissed with
enforcement. James Snell, dismissed with enforcement. Thomas Holloman, dismissed with
enforcement. Okay, any unfinished business? Is there anyone who feels as though they didn't
have an opportunity to testify? Please raise your hand. No hand, sir. Thank you.
no answer thank you uh any unfinished business tanya
no cheer everything is great all right thank you everyone be safe enjoy your holiday weekend
see everyone thank you likewise great job
bye-bye thank you oh by the way you notice we're getting done at 5 30
when carol's here we don't get done the eight o'clock
last week she was here for a while
I just want to say thank you
DPZ Zoom IT
and thank you court reporter John Kelly
everybody behind the scenes
you're very welcome
have a good weekend
all right
good night all
Thank you.