So that's how that would work.
I get that.
I would just say just based on human behavior, for you to have four units in this building,
it is unlikely that four units worth of people are going to go down to the basement and carry the trash out to the front.
Would you be opposed to commercial trash pickup?
Actually, what we discussed and agreed on in the meeting was that I will have the building
maintenance by my people weekly, so common area, plus the trash removal. So I'm actually taking on
the trash removal myself. Okay. And then my other question is about the rear yard. Is there access
to the rear yard? By the first floor only. By the rear, by that, oh, by this one big unit. Okay.
and where is there access because I don't see a door is it the one that's
through the we're looking at the second floor now yeah you're sorry through that
bedroom in the better dog let's see the bathroom in the back I see it okay
there's only that unit has access to the rear yard okay correct yeah any other
questions yes can we take a look at the first floor again where is the bathroom
in that at the very back okay so we have there's the living room
a little small okay so you got the living room the bedroom what is this
hall kitchen and then the bathroom is way there in the back so that you gotta wander
one of my little pet peeves you got to wander through uh the property to get to uh from
uh a bedroom to get to a bathroom and i just think that that you know well and so just to
point out too there's also two means of egress in this apartment as well so if you see the entry
door you come in and to the right there's a means of entry into the living room there directly or
Or if you continue straight past the stairway, you'll see another means of egress there.
That actually brings you into a really nice kind of a foyer, you know, hang your coats, put your shoes down.
It's all tiled and nice.
And then you can just meander right into the kitchen, and then the bathroom is right there.
Yeah, that's not my issue.
my issue is that where the you to get from the bedroom to uh the bathroom you've got to wander
through that hall and kitchen and what have you and that's you know at three o'clock in the morning
and that's you know at three o'clock in the morning that's a little trip and you have the
that's a little trip and you have
same thing going on when it comes to that second floor with the two units where the um again to get
from the bedroom to the bathrooms um you got to go through the living dining area um
to me it's just a poor layout okay i'm sure if kirk had built it i didn't even look at the
third floor from the ground up he might he might have done it differently yeah yeah yeah um
questions um just one comment mr consul yes the interior photos and the his uh historical
all archived documents if you could upload those please that record yeah thank you yep i did
compile them this morning so there you go
questions or comments from the virtual audience or the audience here
no hands at this time chair planning commission thank you chair and good morning david effecto
f e c t e a u with the city planning commission you swear or affirm to tell the truth to
truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i do please proceed thank you sir uh chair and board
members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa5 residential single family
zoning at this location the city rezoned this neighborhood in 2024 and a council requested
and community supported map change the city issued a rental license in 2025 for three dwelling units
most of the homes on the east side of the 3500 block of north 11th street have either three or
four dwelling units the city planning commission recommends to the board grant the proposed use
variance for a fourth dwelling unit mi 2025 006 173 3545 north 11th street i vote yes
wood proviso interior trash storage no household living in basement michael johns my vote is yes
with proviso. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso. Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with proviso. Tyowin, my vote is yes with proviso. Thank you,
Council. Thank you. Number 8 MI 2025-006174-2346 North 6th Street. Myrthe Furlicker is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from APM, the RCO.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Counselor.
Members of the Board.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Did you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is ESK Properties, and that LLC is represented today by Ellis Keplani, who is on Zoom with us.
Okay. And our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning. Have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did.
And do you wait with a read and other issues also stipulate to their accuracy?
Yes, I do.
All right. Thank you. You can share your screen and proceed with your case.
Thank you.
All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, as I mentioned, my client today is ESK properties, uh, represented by Ellis and Alda Capilani, and you'll forgive me.
I'm a little bit under the weather today, so you'll forgive me this morning and this afternoon.
Uh, the property before the board today is 2342 North 6th street in North Philadelphia.
the board has just by way of context heard two other cases on this exact same block and granted
identical relief given the unique circumstances so i will be brief and i can expand on any point
should the board require additional detail the exhibit packet in front of you contains
17 exhibits due to the relatively low rco meeting turnout i did also include our certificates of
mailing although given the details of this case i think you'll likely understand why no one felt
compelled to attend the rco meeting starting first with just a basic property overview
as you can see here up on your screen from the areas at exhibit six the newly constructed
building that is in front of you today sits on north sixth street and that is between west
York Street and West Dauphin Street. Next to the building, headed
and West Dauphin Street. Next to the building headed towards Dauphin Street is a religious
institution to the left. And then to the right, which you'll see in the photographs, is another
newly multifamily, newly constructed multifamily property that, again, you'll see in a moment.
The only other structures on this particular block on the north side of the street are similar
regular residential uses flipping to the east looking view on the next page and this is looking
on the other side of the street again you'll note here the dominantly residential uses or otherwise
vacant land that exists on this block from the photographs that are up on your screen at exhibit
eight you'll see again the newly constructed building that's in front of you today it is
the portion in this photograph with the white brick facade the adjoining building that was also
recently constructed with the gray bay was developed by a separate owner but was granted
identical relief uh to that which is requested before the board today uh from this front view
again you'll notice that this project was originally approved and constructed with six
dwelling units with large windows and doors at the ground floor to support the required cmx2
non-residential use on the ground floor
another view of the building from clever little drones
is shown in the next photograph and again this is looking down from overhead
head in i'm on adobe cooperate
in the next photograph this looks uh out towards dolphin street and again the board will see here
the church that occupies much of the the rest of this block headed towards dolphin street
Street and again just for some full context I did include some additional photographs just to show
you the quality of this new construction and this one is shown from the side of the building
I did also include a few other photographs of the block this one is shown looking in the opposite
direction towards York Street and again here you can see the fairly exclusive residential use of
of the existing structures.
It's really not until you reach West York Street
that the pretty much only commercial use
on this block emerges,
which coincidentally happens to be one
that is not characteristically compliant
with CMX2 mandates.
The final two views that I have in the packet here,
again, are shown on the Dauphin side of the street,
which again shows the residential character
of the opposing side of the street,
as well as the church.
and we did also include our timely uh posting evidence in the packet as well
looking at the zoning map at exhibit five you'll see that this property is zoned cmx2 however this
is a fairly unique block in that it is the only block of north sixth street with cmx2 zoning in
an otherwise sea of rm1 zoning even at that only one side of this street bears the cmx2 zoning
the crux of this case is fairly simple my client built this to be a code compliant project
fully intending to rent the ground floor commercial space as you can see it was plainly
built to support a commercial use as the photographs show here at exhibit 10 the space itself is large
with high ceilings and flipping in the other direction with large uh double sets of doors
that would support the needs of a commercial user yet as i'll show in a moment we're nearing a year
later from construction and my client is unable to locate a single commercial tenant with any
interest in occupying this space the request today is simply to convert this 950 square foot space
into a seventh residential unit which requires two variances at exhibit one
you'll see that one refusal is for failure to maintain the cmx2 required non-residential space
and the second refusal is for increasing the maximum density permitted by one extra unit.
I have a few additional pieces of information for the board that will clearly establish my
client's hardship. First, if you refer to Exhibit 7, I have a copy of the proposed plans.
I have a copy of the proposed plans let me zoom in on these on the left, you'll see the current floor plan with a 950 square foot commercial space, which was designed to have an accessible bathroom.
On the right is my client's intended design for a conversion to a residential unit with two bedrooms.
Because this project is built slab on grade with no basement, this unit will be type B accessible, joining the other ground floor unit as type B as well.
A slight modification will be made to the front to eliminate one set of doors and convert them instead to windows.
In terms of the quality of my client's construction, I did also include some photographs of the other units in this building, just so the board can get an understanding of the high quality of residential living that will be duplicated for this ground floor unit.
All six existing units in the building are currently fully occupied.
I've included sample kitchen, bathroom, living space, and bedroom space photographs.
It should go without saying, but for the avoidance of any doubt, it would be a considerable hardship to convert the entire ground floor space into one unit and thereby avoid the density refusal as the ground floor unit is already occupied and would require disrupting a perfectly happy tenant.
It would also create an entirely uncharacteristic and unmarketable unit of nearly 2,000 square feet that would be extremely awkwardly laid out, given the central staircase design here.
I will also note that the density restriction here is based in the video overlay calculations and not in the standard CMX2 calculations, which would allow that seventh unit by right.
In terms of the commercial space itself, there are two main hardships that support the board's
grant of relief. First and foremost, as I mentioned, the board has granted two other
variances on this block shown at Exhibit 12 for exactly the same relief. One was granted
immediately next door at 2346 North 6th Street, and one was granted at 2360 North 6th Street.
i did include the refusals in the packet just to establish that the nature of the relief
is identical to support that there's a clearly established hardship on this block
that just does not support that cmx2 required non-residential ground floor use
now i can't comment on the timing of these other particular requests for relief but here the timing
is even more compelling in terms of this board granting relief in my client's case they did
fully intend to build and occupy a zoning code compliant project they did not seek relief from
this board before even attempting compliance however at exhibit 14 i have showed a sampling
of the history of showings or attempted showings of the commercial space which date back to june of
2025. The showings either occurred or led nowhere, were scheduled and canceled, or simply were not
requested at all, with even the most recent showing held in January, long after we had filed
this appeal. The only tenants that expressed any interest wanted to use the space for an event
venue, which would not only have required a special exception, but the owner felt would be
quite disruptive of a use for this otherwise residential stream they did truly try but given
the nearly exclusively residential makeup of this block no one was interested in occupying the space
for any commercial purpose and my client simply cannot leave the space vacant any longer
particularly since all six existing residential units are fully occupied you can just to conclude
At Exhibit 13, you can see the business license map that I pulled from the city's website, further showing the lack of dominant commercial use on this CMX2 block, which is further evidenced by the land use map on the next page, where again you can see the sea of orange multifamily
FAMILY EXISTING USES OR YELLOW AGAIN INDICATING RESIDENTIAL USES FINALLY THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
Finally, the commercial corridor map on the next page shows that this block is not on or near any of the areas more dominant commercial corridors, which sit mostly around Lehigh Avenue front or Broad Street.
map on the next page.
The lower Northwest district plan did recommend this property to be zoned RM1.
So this proposal is also fully consistent with the comprehensive plan.
As always, we submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties,
or impair light and air, and a full legal analysis is provided in the memo of law submitted to the
board at Exhibit 11. Happy to answer questions on this or any more points. At this time,
I would ask if the administrator could look for Ellis Keplani and have him unmuted.
they're being promoted to panelists thank you
good morning good morning good morning could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
Yes, my name is Ellis Kapilani. First name is E-L-I-S. Last name is Kapilani, K-A-P-L-L-A-N-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and not to give it the truth?
Counsel?
Thank you. Ellis, can you confirm that you are authorized to speak on behalf of ESK Properties, LLC?
Yes, I'm authorized.
And did you hear all the testimony and evidence that I offered in front of the board today?
Yes, I did.
Do you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if you had given it yourself?
Yes, I do.
Happy to answer any questions.
Questions from the board.
I have two questions.
Looking at the first floor plan, understanding that we're converting both of these to wheelchair accessible units,
but I was a little confused about the grade change on the first floor,
because I see that it's at grade at the front entrance,
but there's steps that look like they're getting out to the rear and wanted just more clarity
about the wheelchair accessible path for both of those and if they're going to have access to the
rear yard so let me answer one and while i'm doing that if the administrator could look for
logan dry our architect who should be on the zoom to answer the second part of that question but i
just want to address the first part it's only one space that's being converted the one that you see
the back already exists exactly okay all right but that one is also wheelchair accessible yeah
the reason i asked is because from the original plans it looked like the wheelchair accessible
entrance for the unit at the rear was through that main front door that would now service both
of the units but they have a direct access to stairs and so i was trying to figure out
will both units have an access now to the rear yard and what was going on with the great change
understood if Logan is on he should be on he can address that question and then my second question