Perfect.
Perfect. So this is for a property located at 2550 North 30th Street, the FPA.
I'm just going to go through the presentations and offer some insight into what we have going on.
So at first, the letter of refusal.
The letter of refusal states this is for erection of a multifamily, three-family dwelling property.
This is a vacant property. I'm going to call notice to there is an overlay with a structure.
the roof deck um and the roof deck structure by a pilot house which i think earlier we heard the
rcl mentioned um which i'll get into later in the presentation
here we have just the d to the property
and then now we have some pictures of the the area that the property is located
So, the property is located on 30th Street, the surrounding neighborhood is in North Philly.
Some of the commercial corridors on these streets here, as you see, some of the corners have businesses.
It's another area of view of what the property map looks like.
This here is where the property is located.
It's RSA 5.
You'll see some of the surrounding areas are also RSA 5.
there's some commercial mixed-use buildings as well there's a current status of the current
state of the property the property is a vacant lot um east side has two houses that are both
three-story i also have one of the homeowners of the properties um on the call as well who
is also an agreement with the development but the we plan to build a three-story
building here I mean consistent with what's already there again this is
another area of view of the properties in the area then here we have some again
area view zoomed out a little bit more some RM1s and CMX2s again commercial
mixed use in the area as well and i'll go into the drawings of the property
so again existing the property is um currently just is a vacant lot
um there's two properties that are adjacent to it i'm just going to build in the middle of them
um we're proposing three units two two bedrooms and then one one bedroom
Maintaining a three-story building.
Again, it's a side view of the property.
Just prove that the real estate taxes are paid.
Now I'm going to go into, I guess,
we held a meeting with the RCO.
At the meeting, they did not hold a vote,
but I saw that they sent a letter,
which I was CC'd on and then sent another letter this morning.
So I was just going to bring that up to the board and kind of discuss some of the RCO concerns.
So I was just going to bring that to the board and kind of discuss some of the RCO concerns.
So it's a letter I believe the RCO sent this morning.
And basically, for the most part, the RCO's main issue, which I guess we would be able to cure, is that this property has an overlay.
So here, the property has an overlay.
So there's some trash storage.
They want trash storage, which we would agree to.
No basement living.
They did request two units, but as you saw, the property is actually three stories.
Additionally, they mentioned that they did not want a rooftop.
So on the refusal, there is an overlay on a property that lists that they don't want a roof deck on a property, which the property owners have agreed to not do.
We talked about with the RCO.
try to comply with their wants uh we would maintain a three-story building similar to
the properties that are there um and we would not do any um roof deck of any sort and make
sure that the porches and patios are in compliance with the overlay as well
to curing concerns from the rco um i mean we originally said that they didn't have a vote
an initial email then i guess they're saying now they did have a vote um but nonetheless
we were carrying concerns that they have with the overlay by not by abiding by it
um so this is just i mean the history of the property so i originally took over this case
on a prior attorney um and pretty much this this property um was a pill with an accelerated review
requested and we haven't even really been able to get in front of our rso and it's taken about
two years to get us to this point. Well, a year and a few months. So, at this point,
what we're requesting is that we've allowed the case to be pushed back. We've met with the RCO,
sent out the notices. We're going to comply with the overlay. I even have attached some properties
which I submitted to the RCO, which established similar properties that were approved by the RCO
that are doing similar things to what we're doing, and they're pretty close.
So this is 2334 North 30th Street, 2637 West Somerset Street, all from the same RCO,
2203 North Natrona Street, 315 Cummins Street, and then 2848 North 26th Street.
Similarly, they were built multifamily.
They were properties that were originally RSA 5.
I mentioned it to the RCO as well.
I think in their letter, they referenced that they are aware that other developments have happened that were similar, which we plan to do with a vacant lot and just basically comply with the overlay security concerns that the RCO may have.
And that concludes my presentation.
Thank you, counsel.
Questions from the board.
Sure. So did I hear you correctly that you will abide by the request of the RCOs?
I will abide by the request of the overlay, yes.
Okay. So no, the request, for example, no basement living, maximum two units, and there were a couple other things I thought I heard you said that you would comply with that.
So we're in agreements with complying with the no basement lettering. I guess the issue with the two units on which we mentioned was that they're fine with the property being built three stories, but they're not.
One, two family.
Yeah. Which, I mean, it's kind of like not cost effective to do that way because we're still building three stories regardless.
And how many are there, how many duplexes are on that particular block?
So the top of my head, there's, I'm not sure.
The properties that I showed you, so for example, this would be on the same block, well, something like a block over.
this is a three unit but this one also has a roof deck and a balcony so there i mean there
is multiple not so much on that block within a few blocks they've come through this rco and been
approved um some of them also i guess don't actually comply with the overlay but we're
still approved but we do plan to actually comply with the overlay all right thank you
I have a question. So on the plans that you have, are you showing one unit per floor?
So how it will work is the plans that you do show the RCA. I'm sorry.
yeah so basically it's one unit per floor but there's like steps so a part of another unit
Yeah. So basically it's one unit per floor, but there's like.
may have like the uh may like like stairs or like the living room or something like that so
wait sorry just gonna pass it
looks like it's a basement uh apartment like basement bedroom in a basement in in this picture
that's why did you show this to the rco or did you say we would have no basement living
during the RCO meeting?
I did show it to the RCO
and we will comply with no basement living.
They said no basement living,
but they were fine with if we had,
we built out the basement to have storage
or water heaters or washing machines
and stuff like that.
So how would that change
these plans that you have now?
We would still have three units,
except, and we still had to build out
the bottom unit because it's a vacant lot.
We'd have to build it out
and just leave it as storage.
So like they can have,
technically the first floor unit
could have access to the basement so that means you won't you wouldn't use the egress wells you
would take those out yes um okay so i have a question because you said that you are in agreement
with the three stories but you're currently showing a building that's five floors and four
stories no the building is so the so the currently all of the buildings are three stories and the
building that will be built um would also be three stories your your your plans showed four stories
there are four floors above the ground plane so that the top floor meant the height requirement
but it was it was four stories so the the top floor would have been a roof deck which is not
compliant with the overlay which we were saying we would not do we had mentioned so there's a
bedroom up there though so that's not a roof deck that's a that's a floor that's a half floor right
so this is this is one floor this is one floor so this is not one floor it just has an interior
staircase it it would be considered one floor when it's built it's not going to be four floors
yeah no i i can read but i get what you're trying to say um so one i think are we really trying to
do 7 foot 11 ceilings? I mean, like this, I feel like this is trying really hard to cram a lot of
units into a very small space. And these are not really functional spaces. And to ask, so my
question would be, what's the hardship that requires this? Right. So I guess currently
um it's not they're not small units i mean seven seven foot eleven ceiling is pretty low
i mean standard is nine feet uh you know typically things are eight right like you know when they
drop it's the eight so i mean that is still it's your floor to ceiling heights are tight
so i guess currently the hardship is that this property when i mentioned so our show is a vacant
lot. So some of one of the people at the meeting suggested, well, if you were to build a single
family home, it's currently a vacant lot. And I guess economically, it wouldn't really make much
sense for the owners to build just a single family home at the current property. Yeah, but to go from
a single family home to three units, I guess I'm trying to understand those. Well, we're going from
a vacant light we're going from a vacant lot to three technically council how many how many three
i mean how many three units are on the uh or triplexes on the block
this actual block there's no triplexes there are blocks within of their triplexes on blocks
within the next two blocks which were some of the address i showed got it okay additionally
the property owner who's to the property to the I guess the left or right of this also is in
agreement with the development and is on the call. Any other questions from the board? Yeah
maybe not question but just comment I understand maybe two family but to go from vacant to three
family seems a little stretched. And I'm not hearing
any kind of real
hardship kind of argument being advanced here as to why
it couldn't be two units as opposed to, and
I guess my question then too would be how many other two families
are there on this block? Do we know?
So, like I said, the address that I mentioned
We're not necessarily this exact block, but within a few blocks radius, because this is basically a vacant lot on this block.
um because this is basically a vacant lot on this block so for example this would be 2334
So, for example, this would be 2334.
north 30th street and this is a three-family unit um so i guess this is within a two block
radius of the current property now so i guess they do exist and have been through this rco
um i mean there are three units so it's not like as
yeah, I guess completely unheard of in the area.
All right. Thank you.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Yes, two things briefly. First, Mr.
Do you have proof of posting for today's hearing?
Because I don't believe you received that.
i can i can submit it uh when i submit we need to see that right now okay now you do you're
aware this is a vacant lot right yes but proof of posting is required regardless of the status of
the lot okay i don't have it in this presentation i have to search through my emails but i can
submit it to you okay well we cannot vote on that and i'll vote on this until we have that
That's fine.
From my understanding, there are no votes going on today anyway, correct?
Well, it definitely has to now.
So, and that was something that was requested of you.
So, in future, please make sure that's with your initial exhibits.
Second, you had, can you go to the site plan?
And then also, if possible, I wanted to bring forward the adjacent properties owner.
Okay, well, just give us one second. So, going to the site plan, you, so this does not show, does not look like it shows a roof deck. Is that correct?
Right. Yeah.
So, you were not, are you not, did you originally propose a roof deck? I heard that mentioned, but I don't see that in any of the.
Yeah, so that's what the original proposal was for, yes.
okay all right so but so was there a different plan submitted to l and i showing a roof deck
because so then we need then there's a revised plans issue here no these are the only plans
that we have when i took over the case these are the plans we presented to the rco these are only
plans okay so had no roof deck and they just they then wanted assurance that there would be no roof
deck basically correct yes all right thank you questions from the audience any questions from
the virtual audience yes i have a hand up from pastor tyrone williams i've allowed them to speak
thank you mr williams please state your name and spell it for the court reporter
Good morning, Tyrone, T-Y-R-O-N-E, Williams, W-I-L-L-I-A-L.
You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
I attended the meeting with the coordinating RCO Strawberry Mansion Community Concern.
One of the first questions I asked him in looking at the packet that he had for everyone to view through,
uh was did you we did you know about the overlay and um i was disheartening to know that he had
no idea about the overlay that's number one number two um we gave some suggestions to uh um um the
lawyer uh and and the homeowner that was there about perhaps duplex um and scratching the whole
idea of four units or even three units.
And I left my position
at the meeting that the
CDC will only support this if
it was a duplex.
And that it's just too
many red flags for the overlay
for even considering the
CDC to support it. So I just
want to put that on record that we