All right. Thank you. MI 2022-001-991-1239 North Allison Street. I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Ms. Jacks, you have your vote.
I vote yes.
No, no, I'm saying you have your votes, okay?
Oh, okay.
I know you vote yes.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Number four.
Mr. Chair, before we jump into number four, Mr. Harry Cook is here to withdraw one of the cases on the list.
What should I call Mr. Cooks?
Yes, please call Mr. Cooks.
Mr. Cooks.
Good morning.
Mr. Cooks, just identify yourself and spell your name for the court reporter.
Harry Cook, H-A-R-R-Y-C-O-O-K, Anastasia Law.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do so, Mr. Chairman.
What case is that, sir?
1529 West Butler.
Okay, here.
Okay. This is with being withdrawn?
Yes, sir.
Okay. So, number 10, MI 2022, 003-653-1529 West Butler Street. The case has been withdrawn.
Thank you, Mr. Cooks.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, we're on number four.
MI 2022-007-290-1800 North 22nd Street.
Meredith Ferreger is the attorney.
As of this point, we still do not have an RCO letter.
Okay, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ferreger will be rejoining as a panel.
Thank you.
Good morning, counsel. Could you, I state your name, please, and smell for the court reporter?
Certainly. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R,
Dillworth Paxson, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
I sure can.
I sure can. My client is Chatham Developers, LLC, and that LLC is the owner of the property, represented here today by Mike Lagudakis.
All right. And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents that are needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing? I have. Thank you. I see you shared your screen. Please
proceed. Thank you very much. Counsel, do you have the RCO letter? I do not, Mr. Chairman,
and I do intend to address that. Okay, go ahead. All right, that's fine. Thank you. Thank you.
Again, Meredith Ferliger here today with Chatham Developers, LLC, the owner of the property at 1800 North 22nd Street.
We do also have a representative from the architecture firm Plato Studios, just in case there's any specific questions on the design or layout.
To summarize, the proposal before the board today requests to restore this property to its historical multifamily use through a comprehensive interior and exterior renovations of this 1915 built structure.
before i begin as mentioned a quick note on the status of the rco letter which i believe has not
been sent um an rco meeting was held on april 13th 2023 our notice was sent to over 130 addresses
however only a few people which did include the rco leader miss miss robinson attended the meeting
I did forward those certificates of mailing to board council and administration. No one at the meeting raised any concerns over this proposal, as they recognized, as the board will see, the multifamily history of the property and the predominantly multifamily character of this block.
They were also very pleased by the intent to renovate the structure instead of demolishing it.
The RCO leader requested a couple items of follow-up, such as plans for any street trees, affordability information, and a sanitation plan, which I did provide to her, and I have been trying to follow up with her for several weeks now without success.
I did send a copy of all that correspondence over to board counsel and administration as well, just to document the fact that I have been trying to follow up.
I'm honestly surprised she didn't send a letter, given, you know, how the meeting went.
So I'm not sure if, you know, she got tied up, but board counsel does have a copy of all that correspondence to document that.
So to move on, I'll start first with some neighborhood context.
the board has all my exhibits which contain 14 total exhibits at exhibit seven the board will
note that this property at 1800 north 22nd street sits right at the corner of north 22nd street
and west montgomery avenue in north philadelphia this is just a few blocks north of ridge avenue
to the south the board will note the significant new multifamily development that has occurred in
recent years, which actually includes a conversion of this church structure. The north end of this
property is bordered by other existing structures, although not all of them are in habitable
condition. To the southeast is the substantial Martin Luther King Rec Center and Park,
and then just some existing vacant lots across the street.
At Exhibit 14, you'll see some photos showing the existing condition of this 3600 square foot structure.
As I mentioned earlier, it was built in 1915 and has certainly and will hopefully soon see brighter days.
The first photo here showing the frontage from West Montgomery Avenue.
You'll note the two entrances that exist here on this side, which previously served two commercial spaces many years ago.
The proposal intends to keep these two entry points in the middle, while this entry point in the rear will be relocated to the back of the structure.
And this, if the board just wants to take note, these entry points are actually going to be important to some of the other information I'll present later.
Now, moving through some of the photos again just a different view to show you the back of the structure.
And then again, this shows you the newer multifamily structures that have been built just across West Montgomery Avenue.
Now, looking north, you'll note the uniform facade line that starts with this corner property and extends at least nine homes up on North 22nd Street.
Now looking north, you'll note the uniform facade line that starts
So, let's go.
Now, on the interior, you'll note that this property is in a significantly decrepit state here.
And just a couple of different views of what the interior of this structure currently looks like.
obviously this structure requires a complete gut renovation
the zoning map at exhibit six shows that the property is owned cmx one
and the adjoining block to the north is zoned rsa five to the south the properties are all zoned rm
one the permit history for this property is shown at exhibit eight the property has some mixed
history of commercial and multifamily use. But for most of its history, it contained a total of six
units, which included four dwelling units and two commercial units. As far as L&I's history shows,
the last time it was occupied was sometime probably around the early 2000s. So it's been
pretty run down for quite some time now. My client is proposing a comprehensive renovation
of the property to restore it to its historical use as six separate units. Given the current
character of this area, the six units will be solely residential. No commercial use is proposed,
nor would one be required. The proposed floor plans are shown at exhibit five, and I can zoom
in a little bit on this for you. The structure will have two units per floor, with the units
ranging from 522 square feet to around 620 square feet. And you can see the breakdown
here to the right. Each unit is a one-bedroom, one-bathroom unit. And the one thing we want
the board to note is the efficient design here with the center staircase towards the middle of
the structure. This design with the center staircase accommodates a couple of important
features, which is important for the board to review to understand why six units provides the
most appropriate layout for this structure. On the first floor, you'll note having the center
staircase provides the ability to have four separate points of ingress and egress in the
front, two on the side, one which is a common egress point, and one in the back. This is also
consistent with its historical layout which you can see from the exterior additionally the center
the center staircase ensures that each of these second floor units have the benefit of these
historical bay windows which will be restored the center staircase design also ensures that
the newly renovated structure will comply with modern building code requirements for egress
light and air and fire safety. Designing this structure for anything less than two units per
floor would be quite challenging and inefficient for the space. Renderings of the proposal for
the newly updated structure are also provided. Trash will be secured in a secured area in the
rear yard and will be collected by a commercial hauler several times a week. My client does have
some other properties in the area, so he will be managing this himself. Regarding the refusal,
because the property is zoned CMX1, the code dictates that permissible uses are in accordance
with the surrounding zoning. In this case, the directly adjoining property is zoned RSA5,
which would prohibit the multifamily use of the property. In addition to the strictly mixed
multi-family and commercial history of the property, which I presented earlier, the hardship
further lies in the predominantly multi-family character of this block. Additionally, to restore
a structure that is over 100 years old, the owner is required to make a significant investment given
the size and condition of this structure. Unfortunately, the single-family zoning
classification has prevented any use of the building, given the significant hardship in
restoring this property to a single-family use that has never existed here. At Exhibit 9, I have
included zoning permit history for all of the immediately adjacent structures. I've also
summarized those permits on the exhibit list to make it a little bit easier to read. As the board
can clearly see nearly every single property surrounding this property contains between
two and six units. Directly across West Montgomery, the permit history shows structures that
directly across West Montgomery, the permit history shows structures that contain anywhere
from 8 to 18 units. Of particular interest to the board, you may recall granting a variance in August
of 2021 for a structure just a few doors away at 1836 North 22nd Street for six units. That proposal
seemingly even requested some dimensional variances to accommodate the requested density,
where our request has no associated dimensional refusals. The lack of single-family use for this
property for over 100 years, the predominantly multifamily character of this block, and the
significant investment in restoring this historic building establishes it would be a considerable
hardship to establish a single-family use on the property. We also further submit that the
requested variances are the least minimum. As mentioned, there are no dimensional refusals
associated with this request, nor is the existing structure proposed for any form of expansion.
Historically speaking, this building was separated into six separate units, so this density is
consistent with the historical breakdown. I also provided the board evidence of the structural
characteristics that dictate the six-unit layout, which I'm happy to have the architect expand on
if the board should require any additional information. Finally, the proposed density is
much lower than all the structures just to the south and is comparable to all the structures to
the north. The proposal will not increase congestion, as this block is uniquely situated
to accommodate a multifamily development with limited impact on area congestion due to the
surrounding recreational uses. There's also fortunately a bus stop right at the corner in
front of this property. This proposal will not impair light and air as no exterior expansion
is proposed. Accordingly, we submit that this proposal and the requested variances
comply in full with the requirements code section 3038E.2 and a full analysis is provided in the
memo of law submitted to the board at exhibit 10. if the board has any additional questions about
the rco process i would be happy to expand on that and at this time i would see if mike lagudakis
is in the audience to adopt my testimony
Mr. Chair, I have a hand up from Plato Maranacus.
Yes, he's he's the architect.
He's going to have to speak. Yeah. Hi, how are you?
Is this the owner? No, this is the architect.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yeah, it's Plato A. Maranakis, Jr., Plato Studio. Address is 107 South 2nd Street, 4th floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19106.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
You see, counsel.
Thank you. I wasn't necessarily looking for you, Plato, but since you're here,
Or do you have anything additional you wanted to add to the six-unit layout of this building?
Well, yeah, you handled it very well.
I think you described the big issue is affordability.
And we wanted to make a unit that could be afforded by the community in the neighborhood.
So and the single stair in the center allowed us to do that, because if you didn't do that, then you would have larger units and then it would be unaffordable for most people in the neighborhood.
Thank you. I'm not sure if my client is in the audience, Mike Lagudakis, to adopt my testimony.
If not, Mr. Chairman, as an officer of the court, I would submit that he had he been here, would have adopted my testimony.
we will we will take your testimony thank you questions from the board no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i do not see any hands mr chair planning commission thank you chair bergman and good
morning david effecto with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location this building has a documented use
as a beauty shop candy store and four dwelling units dating to 1953 the applicant has not shown
that they cannot derive value from the previously permitted four dwelling units the city planning
commission recommends the board grant the proposed use variants with a maximum of four dwelling units
And Mr. Chairman, we would submit that the testimony presented today shows why the six unit layout for this property will respect the historical six unit layout of this building and will really result in the most efficient use of this property.
mr chairman we would submit that the testimony presented today
Okay. I know you've submitted numerous things to Hillary. I'm going to hold the vote on this for two weeks. Take one more shot at getting a hold of the RCO, Ms. Robinson, okay? And we will vote on this. What's the date next? Two weeks from today?
two weeks from today is June 7th. June 7th we will vote at 9 30 a.m. and everything everything's
closed other than the letter from the RCO. I'll do my best. Okay Hillary is that okay?
Yes that is fine Mr. Chair thank you. Thank you. Number five MI 2022 007 135 1128 South 52nd Street
German Toppin is the attorney
we do not have an RCO letter
for this
issue either
Mr. Toppin if you're in the virtual audience
please raise your hand
alright Mr. Toppin
has been voted to panelist
you will be rejoining shortly
Good morning, Mr. Toppin. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Sherman Toppin, S-H-E-R-M-A-N,
T-O-P-P-I-N. Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth? I do. Could you identify your client and the relationship to this property? Yes,
my client is Paul Bergman. Mr. Bergman is representing his family. The owners of the
property are the Bergmans, and he should be in the audience. He's been on the hall. Perhaps he