comprised of six non-accessory, legally non-conforming garages running on Trenton
Street, which is this wide street here, wrapping around to Sargent Street.
Here's another image showing that same property on the left.
You can see Sargent Street, which is the blank stucco face in the foreground, and Trenton Street is the wide street running vertically.
And again, on the left, you can see those six existing garages here fronting on Trenton Street.
The coordinating RCO East Kensington Neighbors Association noted in its letter of non-opposition that the existing conditions that you see prevent public parking on Trenton Street because of these curb cuts.
And this is just one of the reasons that the proposed development itself would greatly improve current conditions.
The zoning map here, and again I'm indicating with the cursor, the subject property, shows
the RSA-5 single-family zoning, but immediately across the street you have IRMX, there's nearby
CMX2 as well as RM1, so a multitude of zoning districts in close proximity.
I'd like to run through some photographs.
And as I'm doing so, we're looking, of course, at existing conditions.
We've revised the proposal for this property along the way in consultation and in collaboration with the community.
At the request of the community, we would eliminate the nonconforming use and return on-street parking spaces here along Trenton Street.
back to the community, a true plus. Additionally, the plans that I'll share with you momentarily
call for a reduction in density and larger residences for the multifamily development.
Incidentally, across the street, you can see the ribbon factory, which was an adaptive reuse
project that's multi-family. Subject properties on the left here, ribbon factory across the street.
Here we have Sargent Street, that blank wall which would be dramatically transformed,
and the subject property here to the left. On the screen before you is the zoning site plan,
And in the upper right-hand corner, you can see that the proposal falls for four stories and 42 feet to the roof line with a modification of the two stair towers that you can see here at the rear.
If we move down to the lower right-hand corner, the two stair towers are...
If we move down to the lower right-hand corner, the two stair towers are as far away from Trenton as possible so that they really would not be perceived by pedestrians, creating very significant setbacks, certainly from Trenton, and five feet from Sargent Street to make them as discreet as possible to minimize the nature of the relief being sought.
In the floor plans themselves, an overall density decreased from the original application of 16
to now 11 residences, larger residences, nine two-bedroom homes and two one-bedroom homes.
Additionally, at the first floor level, ample handicapped accessibility is important
to this design. Each of the residents have individual washers and dryers. There is ample
trash storage inside the property outside of the public view, and Class 1A bicycle parking also
at grade. The development includes an outdoor open deck overlooking Trenton Avenue.
I'd like to move to the revised refusals, which I'll go through one by one.
Multifamily living is not permitted in the district.
We have worked with the community to create diverse housing options to bridge the lower density along Sargent Street with the higher density at the Ribbon Factory, which I pointed out, as well as the nearby Huntington Mills, for example.
we would through this proposal be returning a non-conforming use the non-accessory garages
to residential use coming uh meeting uh closer the residential spirit of the community across
the street multi-family along sergeant uh a mix regarding the second refusal on height
The proposed height to the roof would be a de minimis variance at 42 feet, and I explained, Mr. Chair and members of the board, the setback pilot houses, which would not be perceived at the pedestrian level, raise eight feet beyond that.
This keeps to the scope and scale of Trenton Avenue.
The final refusal, there is no change in existing non-conforming rear yard depth.
The subject property has been significantly underutilized. It's a bane for the community. So what's practicable at the location, what's possible? We believe that the multifamily strikes the right note and the RCO joins. In terms of the vote, it was unanimous support.
Mr. Laver, just out of curiosity, was the 16 to 11 made in conjunction with the neighbors?
Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Although it was not it was not the critical issue.
It was something discussed. Critical was getting rid of the non-accessory parking.
Yes, sir. Council Member Squilla offers his non-opposition.
And in some, given the practical realities of repurposing the site, the treatment to design, we believe that the proposed development meets the ideals of the community and respects surrounding land uses.
I believe that the photos that we showed demonstrate that better than anything else.
The authorization of variance relief would not alter the character of the neighborhood or district or be detrimental to the public welfare.
The proposal fits into the surrounding neighborhood and will be of benefit to the public within
the scope and spirit of the code.
The proposed variances, as I outlined one by one, would represent the minimum variance
to afford relief.
And this will not substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire or otherwise in danger of public health, safety, or welfare.
Returning the public parking to the community is a welcome addition.
There are no environmental issues.
With that, Mr. Chair and members of the board, I would rest at the moment, and my client is available at the appropriate time to adopt and affirm, I believe.
Why don't we bring your client on?
Thank you.
Mr. Jaleel Bami, would you kindly raise your virtual hand?
Mr. Jaleel Bami or David Rowley of management.
I'm not sure why the hand is not being raised.
Do we see anybody?
Do we see anybody?
I don't see anyone with the hand raised.
I don't see anyone with the hand raised.
Obviously, Mr. Laver, you're an officer of the court, and we would gladly take your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to make a note for the record. As Mr. Laver said, this case involves 2151 as well as 2153 East Sargent Street.
Unfortunately, 2153 wasn't mentioned on the refusal. It should have been.
I did check with L&I and verify that these properties are treated as one for zoning purposes.
However, they are separate properties, separate parcels in the city records, as well as separate tax parcels.
So I just wanted to clarify that for the record as to the status of those two properties.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
There are no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Hello, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA 5 zoning at this location. There is a hardship for dimensional variance, but under the current zoning, there is not a hardship for the proposed multifamily use. Accordingly, PCPC staff recommends that the requested variance be denied, and we feel the extent of the variances would be better handled through the rezoning process.
Thank you. MI 2022-006-979-2151 East Sargent Street, I vote yes, proviso. Per amended refusal, dated 2-15-24.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso. James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Have a good afternoon.
Okay. MI 2024, 001451, 1001 East Ontario Street. Rachel Pritzker or Zanetta Ford are the attorneys. There's a letter of unanimous support from Kensington Independent Civic Association and a letter of non-opposition from council member Squill.
Rachel Pritzker is coming in as a panelist.
Zanetta is going to be handling this one.
Thank you.
Zanetta, could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
oh my god i'm sorry good afternoon hi could you state your name good afternoon could you state
your name and spell for the court stenographer yes my name is zanetta ford z as in zebra a n e
t t a ford f o r d right you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth? I do. Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property? Yes. The client is
3401 Makeshift LLC, and appearing on their behalf is Ashton Simmons. He's in the virtual audience.
Thank you. And our vice chair has just a few questions for you. Thank you. Good afternoon,
do you agree to waive the read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five minutes in advance of this hearing?
All right.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Board.
the property address that we are here today is 1001 east ontario street units 201 to 203
the application proposes a use as commissaries and catering services in unit 201 to 203
and an existing building zoned i2 the existing structure which houses unit 201 to 203 is a
which houses unit 201 to 203 is a medium industrial building
medium industrial building.
comprised of multiple businesses that are not solely industrial in nature.
And I'll just scroll down so you can see those, see what it looks like, the property looks like.
The applicant is proposing, oh, wait.
So here's the zoning map of the property.
Here's an aerial view of the property.
where you can see that there's a private parking lot.
Again, the aerial view.
Here's the street view of the property,
which is a warehouse with the posters from the posting.
It's the front entrance.
The applicant is proposing the use of an existing commercial kitchen space
for use as commissaries and catering.
in order to prepare food on the premises to be sold at separate locations in the city.
It was not until the applicant and property owner were approached by the health department that it was determined they needed use of the space as commissaries and catering to align with the health department license for the same.
Although the property is an industrial zoning district, the property's history and physical characteristics and current use of the property by various tenants and businesses indicate that it is clearly unfit solely for industrial uses.
In fact, there are several caterer licenses issued to other businesses in the building, and commissaries and catering is a similar use to a commercial kitchen and other food uses that would be permitted by Wright.
the application generated one refusal because commissaries and catering is prohibited
in the industrial district i2 so i'll show you the refusal again
second here's the refusal and before i turn to the hardship i'd just like to show you
pictures of the interior of the property inside the interior is a commercial
kitchen space here we are you can see that it's commercial kitchen it's been
outfitted for this purpose and it has been used this way for a number of years
the prior
was a commercial.
Zanetta, you're breaking up.
Breaking up?
Stop sharing my...
right now, Chairman?
Yes, I hear you now.
Thank you.
i want to turn to the hardship compliance with the requirements of the zoning code
compliance with the compliance with the requirements of the zoning code causes an
unnecessary hardship i'm sorry can you still see me you can still hear me compliant well we can
hear you we see the prinsker law group uh emblem thank you i just wanted to help with maybe with
the internet connection okay sure okay so turning to the hardship compliance with the requirements
of the zoning code causes a due to the physical history of the subject property the existing
structure which houses units 201 to 203 has been specifically outfitted for a food business
the prior tenants also use the space for a food kitchen the health code and the zoning code do
not contemplate that this location, the type of food preparation and catering service that
is being provided, does not present a habit.
Accessories and catering services use is common in this structure.
According to atlas.phila.gov, in addition to the applicant, there are five other businesses
operating under food licenses.
For example, in December of 2023, SRS Business LLC received a license to be a food manufacturer or warehouse at the same location.
And in November of 2023, at the same location, Keith Robinson, Legit Snacks LLC, the Caramel Corn Lady, and Love Cinnamon all received food caterer licenses.
Although the property is owned, I too.
so permitting permitting the variance in this case would further the purpose of the city's
comprehensive land use plan for this area in the city's comprehensive comprehensive land use plan
philadelphia 2035 river wards district plan it sets forth the goal to promote strong and well
2035 river wards district plan it sets forth the goal to promote strong and well-balanced
neighborhood centers um given the need for the use as a commissary and catering given
during as a function of being able to correct the health department license for the applicant
we submit that this is the least modification of the code the zoning of this prior
line with multiple other uses in the building and the surrounding residential area the use
will not increase any traffic congestion as there is a private parking area and trash is picked up
by a private service literal enforcement of the zoning code would impose an unnecessary hardship
can adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of traffic in the area.
I'd like to show the...
You're breaking up pretty bad.
Sorry.
Why don't you bring your client on?
At this time, I'd like to bring on my client.
to Ashton Simmons, on behalf of 304-3401 Makeshift LC.
Good afternoon, sir.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Ashton Simmons, good afternoon.
A-S-H-T-O-N-S-I-M-M-O-N-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
one. Mr. Simmons, have you heard my testimony today? Yes. Do you believe it to be true and
accurate? Yes. And do you adopt it as your own? Yes. Questions from the board? No, Chair. No,
Mr. Chairman. Is there comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson? Not at this time,
Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience? There are no answers. Planning Commissioner.
Good afternoon. The comprehensive plan recommends zoning of ICMX on this site.
However, the site is currently zoned I-2. The commissaries and catering services use proposed
here would be allowed under the comprehensive plan's proposed zoning. Therefore, PCPC staff
recommends granting this variance. Thank you. So MI 2024-001-451-1001 East
Ontario Avenue, I vote yes with proviso. Use limited to number 201 to 203.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso. James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Okay, we're going to thank you very much. We're going to go to our add-on list from earlier today. Hold on.