decision, I would respectfully ask that any of the provisos that the ZBA would be willing to
include in the license, I would respectfully ask that you include them. I also would like to point
out that as a side issue, and I think I heard Mr. Patterson reference this, is that CCRA and a bunch
of other neighborhood stakeholders have been in negotiations with the applicant for to
enter into a side agreement that would include a number of provisions that would provide
for basically quality of life issues and most importantly a basically a deed restriction
that there that the applicant would not be seeking a gambling license for this property
other provisions dealing with security um and uh trash and traffic management and so while i
understand that that would you know not be really a part of this case um understand that there are
i guess like some moving parts to this um i think that we've pretty much reached an agreement in
principle there there may be some minor changes uh but the the bulk of that agreement um has been
um agreed to by both sides um and so i know that as of right now that agreement the stakeholders
are ccra they are um 1920 chestnut street and a property owner that owns um a a residential
apartment building on that block.
As of right now, the William Penn House,
which is represented by Mr. Mattione,
is not a part of that agreement.
I don't know if that's going to change or not.
Perhaps it will not.
But that is where we stand at this moment.
So thank you.
Excuse me, Mr. Albert, this is Sharon's letter.
If you have not yet sent me a copy of that letter,
could you email it to me, please?
I'm sorry.
It's attached to the
to the uh to the vote letter here yes okay thank you it's part of my exhibit okay uh
is there anyone else who wishes to testify
no hands at this time chair thank you uh sharon do you suggest we hold off on the planning commission
until uh um they could you could give them the option but it would probably be better for them
to hear all of the testimony before making a recommendation yeah that's right i would request
i would request that mr chairman if in fact we do oppose it i would like for the planning
commission to hear our testimony in opposition yeah before they okay all right well so noted
And again, Tanya, it's January.
What was that date?
January?
MI 2021-003213, 1910 Chestnut Street.
This hearing will be resumed on January the 18th, 2022.
At what time, Tanya?
9 30 a.m. chair. 9 30 a.m. at which time the board will consider any feedback
from the RCOs and the district council person's office. Mr. chairman of course if we reach a
resolution in advance we could submit by letter to ask the board to vote
before January 18. Excuse me no that wouldn't be possible because we will still have to hear
from the planning commission yeah yeah that's interesting that may not that really wasn't what
i had planned i really was hoping that we could you wanted i know you guys want to get it done
before the end of the year yeah i hope because of timing i like for example if we reached an
agreement in two weeks and i'd submit a letter then it could be placed for vote so um mr patterson
given that perhaps we shouldn't schedule it for a specific date okay fair enough to do an attorney
moving party yeah i like that that's better is that okay michael that's that's that's fine with
that's that's that's fine with me okay thank you because you're looking at uh what three months
me okay thank you because you're looking at uh
almost tanya we're going to do attorney moving party okay
sounds fine chair okay thank you let's go back on the record again mi 2021-003213
1900 chestnut street attorney moving party thank you thank you for you all thank you
Okay, number five and six on our list, MI 2021-002845, 1921 Montrose Street, and MI 2021-002844, 1923 Montrose Street.
Mr. Orfanides is the attorney of record.
SOSNA, South Neighborhood Association, sent a letter of support for both applications with a proviso of revised plan.
Mr. Orfanides, please identify yourself.
You're still under oath, and our vice chair will have some questions for you.
Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Oh, okay. I didn't see a flash up that I had been promoted.
David Orphanides, last name spelled O-R-P-H-A-N, from Orphanides & Turner, 2 Penn Center, 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet for both cases with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, plans, five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all.
You may proceed.
Thank you.
And may I share my screen?
Can you see my screen?
Can you make it a little bit larger?
I was already on.
All right.
let me just do the single page view there we go all right again uh david orphanetes orphanetes
and toner um here this uh this afternoon on behalf of um the owners of the property of both
properties um which is base camp property group llc um they came to own these properties in 1921
they came to own in December of 2017. 1923, they came to own in April of 2018.
We're going to present both projects together. They do have two separate application numbers
and two separate calendar numbers. As indicated, 1921 Montrose Street has a calendar or a meeting
ID number of 2021-002845. In 1923, Montrose Street has a meeting ID of MI-2021-002844.
The reason we're presenting them together, because they're mirror images of each other. They're
abutting properties, separately deeded, separately described, separately deeded to my clients,
and separately described, but they are the same project.
They are two existing two-story buildings.
If you give me a minute, I'll show you what they look like, and here they are.
This is tab 9 of our exhibit book, and you can see 1923 on the left and 1921 on the right.
Two existing single-family dwellings.
Our proposal is to maintain the single-family use.
We are proposing a third-floor addition and then a three-story addition to the rear that will be dimensionally compliant,
except for the fact that the proposed third floor is not set back eight feet from the extreme front building line,
given that the properties to either side have two buildings on them with only two stories of habitable space.
However, if you take a look at the remaining site context photographs that I've included at Tab 9,
You'll see further to the east, on our side, there are existing three-story buildings that come, have the third story all the way to the front.
This is the view to the west, where you have two stories until you get down to the end of the block.
But then you can see across the street on the south side, and this is the second part of our Tab 9, on the south side of the 1900 block of Montrose.
You can see all three stories, including directly across the street from us, going straight up from the sidewalk all the way up.
And you can see at the top here was to the east.
The bottom is directly across from the properties.
And then to the right is to the west.
Again, the application, as you can see in our notice of refusals for both properties, was the partial rear demolition of the existing structures and for the erection of a three-story rear addition and a third-floor addition over the existing two-story portion that was to remain for use as a single-family dwelling.
Again, the application, as you can see in our notice of refusals for both properties.
Each of them, they had different examiners, same examiner, same refusals.
the original zoning drawings we do have revised zoning drawings are included at tab four
and as you can see from the drawings it includes um the uh the existing structure portion of the
existing structures to be demolished um and then what's to be erected in their place uh so in in
in both cases you'll see that our building is actually shorter uh not as deep as it originally
was and not as deep as the buildings to either side. And then here is the original drawings.
This is for 1921. And what you'll see what we're doing at the third floor is while we do not have
the eight-foot setback, we do do what's called a mansard roof. We're maintaining the existing
cornice at the front of the building. I'm going again, going back. You can see the existing
cornices these have been covered and you'll part of the meetings that we had with sasna are to
restore remove the vinyl covering and to restore the cornices so we'll be maintaining the cornice
line here at the second floor level and then going above that again with this mansard roof that
slopes back with windows in the front this is a an architectural design that's been utilized
time and time again in the graduate hospital area as opposed to providing the eight-foot setback,
particularly on blocks such as this, where there are other existing three-story structures
in close proximity to the property, but not abutting to either side.
And here again, you can see here's the existing two-story at the front,
and then it drops down to the rear, and you can see that we're actually not as deep
as the existing structure for 1921 roof deck above with the pilot house set back to five feet
here's 1923 the original plan again showing the original footprint
showing the existing building beyond um or the existing building could be demolished
our revised plans are at tab two did provide uh they here in our exhibit book and we did
forward then again today separately the both the revised plans and the revised proviso plan uh form
uh to um to the attorney for the zoning board ms toletta and we made a number of changes based
upon the comments that we received from sasna following the architectural review committee
they have two separate meetings first we meet with the art their architectural review committee
And then we have the full coordinating RCO community group meeting.
You referenced the letter of support dated October 6th.
That referenced both.
They handled them both together, just as we're handling it today.
And here are the comments, just as an example, that we received on September 7th following our architectural review committee meeting with them.
And, again, those have been addressed to the satisfaction of those who were in attendance at the community group meeting.
Here's renderings of the front facade, as you can see.
We'll be restoring the front steps, restoring the facade.
You can see how the cornice line is going to be maintained, restored, beautified.
And then we have the third floor addition mansard roof with the roof deck beyond and the pilot house beyond.
Existing floor plans are included at tab five for the single-family dwellings,
from cellar all the way up, media room in the front.
storage flex space in the rear, common living space on the ground floor. And these are mirror,
again, the two units are mirror images of each other going back or the two properties going back
to the revised zoning drawings. You can see how both of them are reflected here. The pilot houses
are located in the middle of the properties, budding each other, not to the outside, imposing
upon the properties to the outside, to the east and west of the two properties in question.
But, again, going back to the floor plans, two bedrooms with a bathroom on the second floor, pretty standard master on the third floor.
Then the deck with the pilot house above, set back as indicated.
The roof deck does have a change.
It's a little higher in the rear than in the front, but, again, it's dimensionally compliant.
Here's an aerial image of our existing buildings, and as you can see, there's some other pretty deep buildings on our side, and we're actually going to be shallower than what's presently existing.
Here's an aerial image of our existing buildings.
And as you can see, there's some other.
Dimensionally compliant, again, are only refusals for the proposed third floor not being set back to eat feet.
And we have plenty of additional aerial views at Tabby.
I already went through the photographs.
We have interior photographs at 10.
um you know the properties have not been upgraded in a very long time sorry so um zoning archives
simply showing the single family use the deeds that's a tab 11 tab 12 are the deeds for the
property showing my client base camp property group llc owns both properties there's 1921 and 1923
1923 and 1921 our tax clearances are tab 13 and you can see for 1921 and for 1923
copies of our appeals and project information forms are tab 14 photographs of the posting
from conformance with the zoning code requirements at both of both the notice
and a copy of the notices of refusal this is 1921 here you have 1923
And then at tab 16, again, as in my last presentation, we include the email from the Planning Commission designating SOSNA as a Coordinating RCO from the project.
Our 14303 notice that went out for both the SOSNA Coordinating RCO meeting on September 15th, as well as the Zoning Board hearing notice today.
The list of the copy of notice refusals, the project information form.
uh sasna does have their own zoning meeting notice uh that we also include with the mailing
and a copy of uh that was all also all forwarded to um to the people uh that received the mailing
of our uh of our notice and then we have our certificate of mailing included as well
for you to view here's a list of addresses that it mailed to and our certificate of first class
mailing of the notices of the community group meeting and the zoning board hearing and again
we have the support of sasna here is a vote 14 in support one in opposition no abstention
and with that i would just call uh one of my clients uh to uh identify themselves either tal
or yes okay you could raise your hands one of you hi yes here okay yes great um yes uh please
spell your full name sir i swear name is y-i-s-r-a-e-l last name t-gay spelled t-i-g-a-y
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do thank you mr orphanetes yes um are you uh are you base camp i am okay and um you live in
close proximity to the property don't you uh yeah i live a couple blocks away okay and did you hear
the statements that i made to the board today regarding both of these applications and both of
these appeals i did okay and a true and correct to the best of your knowledge they are and would
you adopt those statements as your own i would okay thank you um with that you rest and uh we're
here for any questions that the board may have any questions from the board no no chair no would
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand oh and real quickly by
the way i did reach out to ms shakumba noack is involved in this i asked her if she had a letter
for us and uh and she said even though we had sent her all the materials i don't believe she
was going to forward one um and again i made sure she was aware of today's presentation
and uh i don't know if she's on the call or not anyone to testify in this case please raise your
hand no hands chair mr marfanidis and would you like us to uh continue this case until we hear
from uh no i would not like you to do that okay every opportunity i think if she really you know
you know how she knows how to find she knows how to find you all so i know okay planning commission
that's how to get here to a hearing
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
these properties are indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan
while the proposal does not include the required eight foot setback the third