Right?
I'm Brandon Saverin of Pritzker Law Group, and I represent 4200 Powelton, LLC, who is the property owner.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Saverin.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case?
five days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed. Mr. Chavrin, you have an RCO letter?
Yes, we have a RCO letter of support. And I also wanted to mention that we're asking for
proviso plans to be stamped. I believe they are one page, although I can confirm that. Yes,
what one page of proviso plans okay okay thank you let's see here
okay good afternoon again members of the board so the application before you now is a appeal for a
variance for 42, 23, and 25 Powelton Avenue. As is typically the case, L&I used one address
when drafting the notice of refusal, but you'll see in the text of the scope on the refusal
that it concerns the consolidation of two existing parcels into one parcel,
and then the erection of a semi-detached structure for use as three dwelling units
with three off-street accessory parking spaces in the building's rear.
So this is currently two vacant lots.
And what I'm going to show you in one moment and what demonstrates the core of the hardship in this case
is that with the exception of one building our entire side of our block
is vacant and has been since 1996 in fact why don't I pull that up right now
so these are from Atlas so these are official aerial photographs provided by the city at
exhibit 13 of our packet. And the 96 photo is a little blurry, but it's at the top of my screen
right now. And what you will see is that on our side of this block, there's been no further
development over that two and a half decades. I think we have some sort of institutional building
that's sort of on the corner, but really faces 42nd Street. And then, as I mentioned, there's
one building in the middle of the block, which happens to be our neighbor, and just a bunch of
vacant land. So, you know, this demonstrates, we believe, that single-family ground-up construction
has not been viable in this location over this entire span of years. And what we're proposing,
essentially, we believe, is the minimum necessary relief to solve that problem. It's to take two
lots, combine them, so you'll have a lot that is over 30 feet wide, and we're asking you for only
an additional half a unit extra, in the sense that if we develop these two lots separately, we'd
be permitted under the RSA 5 zoning to develop one home per lot for a total of two units.
on our property, but we're asking for three units. So it's really only half of an extra unit
per lot. And that we believe will break the ice, so to speak.
And that, we believe, will break the ice, so to speak, and allow my client to obtain financing to construct a project here from the ground up.
The consolidation will also help with the ability to fit parking into it.
And I'll go through how the parking is designed and how that unavoidably triggered some refusals in one moment.
I want to show you the zoning map just to demonstrate that while our largely vacant side of the block is zoned RSA5 until you get over here to a Drexel-owned sports complex, the other three of the four corners at 42nd and Powleton are zoned RM1.
And here's why that's important. For starters, it means that by my count, on the other side of the street from us, which is developed on like our side of the block, 10 of the 22 buildings are used for duplex or multifamily use.
and here's a list that I put in my memo of law on your screen. So that means that our block is
about half used for more than one dwelling unit per property. And these are, this is not by visual
observation. This is per registered zoning permits. I have a zoning permit reflecting
these units in the packet I've submitted to you for each of these buildings. So this is really
thoroughly a block that has a lot of multi-unit buildings. And again, we're doing three units on
two lots. So we are less dense in terms of unit density than these other properties.
We also are proposing off-street parking at the request of the community,
which most of these other properties don't have.
um now let me go into um those refusals just to jump back up to the notice of refusal so
i'm going to start from the bottom here excuse me here we go okay so the at the bottom of the
notice of refusal the first refusal is for the fact that we're proposing three dwelling units
on this combined property, whereas only one per lot is allowed. The next one up is for the sheer
fact that we're proposing parking. There's no rear or side street or alley that services our
property that's large enough for vehicles. So because of that, it's impossible under the zoning
code for RSA 5 to have off-street parking. We want to have parking. So that's as, you know,
know, a clean explanation for the second refusal from the bottom. The third one from the bottom
is for where we're placing that parking. We're going to have a 29 foot deep rear yard. So there's
a lot of open space that we're preserving in the back of our building. But we're going to use,
as I'll show you on the plan, a good portion of it so that we can get three parking spaces back
there. The code mandates that the final nine feet of our 29-foot rear yard be unpaved. And if we
were to do that, we would only get two parking spaces. So given the size of the yard and the
need we feel to have one space per unit, we needed to take up a little bit more of that rear yard
And the code allows to get three parking spaces in there.
And then finally, the top refusal is for the fact that our front porch will be a little closer to the lot line than that belonging to the building next to us.
So we're going to be two feet closer, but we're still, our front porch and our bay windows above are going to be set five feet off the front property line, which, as you can see in this rendering, ooh, that is way too zoomed in, I apologize, hold on, there we go.
um this is still going to leave a really nice amount of space so we're going to have an ample
sized front porch which is sort of a modern take on our neighbor and we're gonna have space for
something like planters to sit in front of it and this is all um you know um uh without uh
impacting the sidewalk right of way for travel.
impacting the sidewalk right of way for travel.
I think that I'll show you the zoning plan real fast.
Basically, if we were to push the building back another two feet as the code would command,
it would either cause the units to be smaller or it would take away from this space right here.
And what this space allows us to do is make sure that when you go out the back door of the building,
you're not walking into a parking space I believe there's like three or three and a half feet of
space here where you can open the rear door and be assured that a car is not going to come and
run you over so so you know we wanted to preserve this space in the back and and that sort of made
it difficult to push the building back uh further um see what else oh yeah and let me uh quickly
show the floor plans um this is uh the tentative floor plans that we had marked up and because of
the uh uh the double lot width and because of the uh you know dimensional refusals that we did
generate to sort of make everything fit we were able to have really nice sized units so the second
and third floor are each their own units um and the smallest of them the third floor is still 852
square feet so these are going to be you know really nice living space very wide um you know
abnormally wide for a philadelphia low home um and then i'll go into the rco letter uh we have
a letter of support here from the west powell and saunders park rco which was the coordinating rco
it reflects an overwhelming vote in support and you can see that on the table they provided
Um, there's a explanation letter that, um, basically ends up referencing the same issues
that went into the CBA that we entered with them.
And, and what that CBA speaks to, um, are, are not, I believe issues that are enforceable
by proviso, but are things that my client is gonna, uh, per his signature comply with.
So those are to take best faith efforts to sell these, um, units as condos, because that's
what the RCO preferred. It wanted sale units rather than rental units. Also to contribute
to a fund that the RCO has at a reasonable $250 a year going forward beyond an initial payment
for neighborhood cleanup and to preserve some egress alleys that are in the rear and the side
of the building um that that's sort of a summary there's some additional issues but i don't want
to take your time reading through this whole letter um i think that uh that's that pretty
much accounts for my presentation um i do have the architect here um logan drive right then i
can i ask the question and i'm not saying that was this was this uh proposal brought 2021 to
zoning board and was turned down um you know let me see if that's indicated on the refusal
and if not what i'd have to do is look it up but it might be um
yes and i think that i think mr chairman what this doesn't answer though is whether that
pertained only to this um half of this space or what or all of it and when i bring my client
all right okay and you you were not your firm wasn't the attorney then um i at least was not
and i don't believe our firm was that's right thank you yeah
um my my client's name is uh saki pyramid atopolis if he's available
Mr. Chair, I see who we're looking for right now.
I've allowed the gentleman to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
How are you doing, Aaron?
My name is Saki Karamitopoulos, S-A-K-I-K-A-R-A-M-I-T-O-P-O-U-L-O-S.
Right.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Saki, before I go into the usual questions, real quickly, did you personally, through your LLC, bring at least part of this property through the variance process in 2021?
Yes, I did.
i had a i was represented by somebody else and what we proposed was two triplexes on the lots
Okay. So is it correct then that when that refusal that you have now says that you presented an application for 42-23 Powleton, that you were trying to put three units in a property that is half as wide as what you're proposing now? Is that right?
okay so is it correct then that when that
That's correct. Yeah.
Okay. Other than that, were you able to hear my testimony in your case this afternoon?
I did, yes.
And was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes, it was.
And would you therefore adopt that testimony as if it were your own?
Absolutely.
Okay, thank you.
And, Mr. Chair, if you have any questions about that distinction.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, I have Pamela Andrews with the hand raised. I have allowed them to speak at this time.
Sure. Could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Hello?
Andrews, please unmute if you wish to speak.
Wait to be sworn at.
Hi. Can you hear me now?
I can. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Pamela Andrews, P-A-M-E-L-A, Andrews, A-N-D-R-E-W-S.
I am the chair of West Palatine Saunders Park RCO.
Hold on one minute.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Roshid.
I'm just here to make a quick testimony.
We did support this project this time in 2022 when it came before us.
We did not support the project because of density and we wanted something smaller in size.
We're also an RCO that is trying to really increase homeownership in our area.
So we were pleased with this second revision, which allows the units to be sold as condominiums.
Thank you so much.
Thank you for calling in and taking the time. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, sir. Jahad Ali.
Mr. Ali, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Sure, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jahad Ali, J-I-H-A-D-A-L-I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yeah, I affirm.
Proceed.
Mr. Chairman, you know, I'm a, my organization is a stakeholder.
I'm with the Enterprise Center, which is at 4248 Market Street.
And I'm aware, I didn't hear the council talk about that, but is that currently being used as a basketball park, a basketball court?
Not to my knowledge, but I would welcome my client to answer the question.
Well, let me just state for the record what I want to tell the chairman about.
So, Mr. Chairman, that is right next to PHA's housing site that was home to 350 families,
which is probably close to 100 young men and women that frequently play on that basketball court.
But because right now the housing authority is undergoing a renovation, that family is not there.
I would just like to know, was it resident counsel from West Park where they made aware of this decision?
So if if the Mr. Chairman, as you may know, the city actually gives the applicant the list of.
Yeah, I can I can look quickly to see if West Park is is on the list.
We also notified all affected RCOs, not just the coordinating RCOs.
So if West Park has an RCO or is in communication with any of those RCOs, they would have been notified that way.
I think the thing to stress.
West Park doesn't have an RCO.
They're a council, resident council.
And then also, if the councilwoman is signed off on it, well, that would end my question because she would be aware of that.
Has the councilwoman signed off on that?
So we sent the CBA and the letter of support to the councilwoman's office. The councilwoman has not responded positively or negatively.
I would love to see this case voted today, but given the support of the coordinating RCO and the vote reflected in it and the CBA, I'm very confident that the councilwoman would not oppose this project, particularly given that my client basically gave a second lot to make it less dense versus what he originally proposed.
to make it less dense versus what he originally proposed so I am not attempting to hide this from
the councilwoman I sent everything over to Andrew Goodman her zoning contact just you know I didn't
know whether she'd offer a letter or or send Mr. Goodman to this hearing apparently that didn't
happen but well Mr. Chairman just as he said if he's not if he's not trying to hide it from her
if he could just hold it and let her weigh in on it but also because of the resident park the
resident council there at west park because young people need places to play and they active they
still they use that park is under use now i come by there every day at the end of the day three
o'clock it's in use drexel students use it the community uses it so in light of that at least
hold it for the councilwoman in west park to weigh in on it and that i'm just doing my duty as a
concerned citizen as a stakeholder mr chairman it's all up to you thank you sir yeah thank you
I appreciate your call. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, sir. Logan Dry has his hands raised. I have allowed him to speak at this time.
Okay. Sir, state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter.
Sure. Logan Dry, L-O-G-A-N-D-R-Y, KCA Design Associates.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.