residential single family zoning at this property the applicant could have redrawn their lot lines
into fewer house lots to come further into compliance with the dimensional standards of
the zoning code in that scenario the applicant could build smaller homes but with larger yards
so we do not believe that the relief sought is the minimum required to make viable use of this
property so the city planning commission recommends the board grant the proposed lot
line changes with a limit to no more than five house lots
MI 2021 002893 312 West Coulter Street. I vote no.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no.
Thomas Solomon, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is no.
Thank you.
Thank you.
MI 2022-001-492-338 West Gerrard Avenue and MI 2022-001-531-336 West Gerrard Avenue.
David Orfanides, we do now have a letter from Northern Liberties Neighbors Association.
Okay. Mr. Orphanides has been brought to Panama, sir.
Mr. Orphanides, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court report?
Certainly. My name is David Orphanides. First name, D-A-V-I-D. Last name, Orphanides. O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Right. Do you swear, affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property, please?
Certainly. My client is Dog Days, D-A-Y-Z-Z-Z-L-L-C, and they are a tenant of the ground floor of the subject of the two properties, 336 and 338 Howard Avenue.
All right. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Orphanides. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do. Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all.
You may proceed, and please share your screen.
Certainly.
Can you see my screen?
uh yes try to make it a little bit that's it that's it that's great yeah i'm just adjusting
the uh there you go so it takes up the full page okay um and i have with me today i have uh my
my client tim karsten uh who is um who is dog days llc uh and i have alex duller who's the
architect for the project with me as well. They should both be here on the Zoom call at some
on the zoom call at some point to adopt my statements or answer any questions so the the
point to adopt my statements or answer any questions.
subject property is i have a photo pulled up it's uh 336 and 338 uh west gerard avenue here you can
see a picture i took from across the street um it's located uh between 332 to 334 west gerard
on the left hand side you can see vacant building right now and then 330 uh 340 uh west gerard
to the right-hand side of us. You'll see in a little bit that, and you can see on the edge
of the photo here to the right, the property at the end of our block, which is an IRMX property,
zone property, is presently under construction, having been granted variances by the zoning board.
The property immediately adjacent to us across the street to the east is an ICMX property that
was also recently granted variances by the zoning board. Behind us to the south, this larger
building is a cigar factory loss, which is a condominium building that has a few rental units
in it. I saw a few rental licenses on Atlas. That was originally an industrial zone property.
Variances were granted for the residential use of that property, but it has since been remapped as
IRMX. This is a special exception case. This is not a variance case. So as such, the proposed use,
which is a dog daycare, they call it animal services on the first floor. By the way,
the owner of the property, the owners live above the unit that my client is renting. They live on
the upper floor and have for quite some time. Again, this is a referral case, special exception.
You're familiar with the criteria. I'll quickly point it out to you a little later on just to
remind you. But essentially, we don't have to meet the same, we don't have the same burden of
proof as an variance case. The uses by the zoning code is deemed to be appropriate for this location
unless this particular dog daycare, animal services, in some way is worse than dog daycares
typically are. And I'll show you that in a little bit. And so here's the referrals for both
properties, 336 and 338 at Exhibit 1 in my exhibit book. Here's just an overall site plan of the
property that the architect Alex Dollar and Fuso Design prepared. You can see you have the
two-story buildings at the front of the property running on the south side of West
Ward Avenue. There's a porch with an awning or roof over top of it to the rear and then a rear
yard. You'll see in the photographs that there's a very high masonry stone stone masonry or masonry
fence wall around the rear yard. Again, to the left of us, to the east is that vacant one-story
building, and then to the right is the two-story building. Here are floor plans that were showed
to the community. There has been an additional change or one change that's been made to the
floor plan from what was submitted to the community. We have shown in an interior storage
room is where trash will be stored and dog waste, what have you, inside of the property rather than
outside to the rear. We're going to have commercial trash pickup and that'll be picked up at times
that the neighborhood wants to see it picked up and that'll be placed out, you know, brought out
to the street for collection. Here you can see again the rear yard area, which is 560 square
feet the covered deck there is a um here's a there's act the neighbors have use of uh they
get up to the the rear of their property by a spiral staircase and the neighbors i mean the
owners upstairs uh can come down the spiral staircase here and utilize a portion of the
rear yard as well you can see the lay the layout here's the front west gerard avenue there's a
large lobby. You'll see in the photos a grooming area, the main dog play area, a small dog play
area, and then again the rear yard. Here's the elevation. There's no proposed change
to the facade of the building, no change to the height or area of the building,
and there's actually no signage included with this application. Presumably signage would be
applied for in the future and would comply with the CMX2 requirements for accessory signage or
they have to come back before the port. Here's an aerial image. Our property is right here.
Properties are right here, 336 and 338 West Reward. Here's a slight close-up picture of it.
This is a 310 to 330 Westerward, which I've mentioned you'll see is the ICMX property that's been approved for mixed use with variances.
This is 310 to 330 West Reward, which I've mentioned you'll see as the eye.
This property here that on Google's aerial or Google Maps shows up as a parking lot with the building is presently under construction.
Again, you'll see what the zoning maps, that's an IRMX property that was granted variances.
here you have the uh 330 to 30 332 to 334 west drawer which is a vacant one story to the east
of us and then to the left of us is that two-story building that has a residence above and then has
zoning approval for non-residential use of the ground floor and then to the south of us you'll
see there's a large gap here's our rear yard right here and then there's the masonry fence wall
around it. And then there's a large gap or space that's on the property to the south of us,
the cigar factory building, and then the condos and apartments at the cigar factory behind us.
Some closer up aerial images that you can see get a better view of the rear yard
and what's happening in close proximity to our properties. Again, you can see a very large setback
of the buildings to the building to the south of us in the residences.
Here you can see the zoning map that I pulled from Atlas for both 336 and 338,
shows the properties for zone CMX2, as you'll see in a short bit.
The proposed use is a use permitted by special exception in the CMX2 zoning district.
And again, you can see that you have the IRMX property behind us
and then the ICMX property to the east of us. And then I apologize, the property to the west of us
is on CMX too. Some other photographs, again, from across the street, you can see the property
that's under construction to the west of us, the lot that's to the east of us, the abutting
properties to either side, and the condos and apartment buildings to the south of us.
This is the abutting property to the east of us, or to the west of us, I mean, that's on page
page. Mr. Orphanides, I think we know where the property is. Okay, that's great. I mean,
you showed where the property is several times. So real quickly, so again, these are uses that
are proposed uses allowed by special exception, granted by the zoning board,
and as indicated earlier, the criteria for the granting of a special exception
is that so long as a special exception will not cause the following specific detrimental impacts
in the neighborhood beyond that, which normally might be expected from the proposed use,
it's to be granted. You'll see from the letter that Northern Liberties issued today that they
support the granting of the special exception. So I don't think there's any doubt that the special
exception should be granted. They have requested certain provisos, which for a variety of reasons
we have an issue with. And I think that's what we're here to discuss today, whether there should
be, uh, provisos imposed upon, um, upon the special exception use. I've included in the
exhibit book, um, of both, uh, showing other, showing dog parks with residences located around
them in the immediate area of the subject property. That's at exhibit eight. And we also went through
and did a Google search of, uh, other dog daycares in the area in Philadelphia. We Googled Philadelphia
and dog daycares. Of the 30 we came up with, about 20, almost 25 percent of them, I think it's
seven, were granted relief by the zoning board. Of those, one, two, three, four, five of those
were granted special exception relief. Only one of those had any proviso, and that was for
commercial trash pickup. One of the variance cases, which is on the 1700 block of South Street,
was a variance that had no provisos. And then one variance, which was located at 90 Rochelle Avenue,
had a proviso for commercial trash pickup and a five-year temporary. You'll see in the letter
from Northern Liberties that one of the things they've requested is a one-year temporary. I
personally have never seen a one-year temporary granted for a special exception. The letter does
state that it's a variance, and this is not a variance case. I don't know, maybe Larry, I think
Larry Friedman may be on the call, but you'll see, again, if you go back to what we show in our
exhibit book and show this, you know, what the zoning approvals that we've included, we haven't
included them all. We didn't want it to be too massive, but gave you an example that the special
Exceptions did not have any provisors with them.
Granted.
granted and the the variance again for 90 rochelle
And the.
had it but it was and that was a variance case it was a five-year temporary with commercial trash
pickup um here's another one 4805 was just to give you examples and i can you know i can assure
you that if you went through and looked at the other ones that i list in the exhibit book that
those also did not have conditions associated with the special exceptions.
Again, I referenced the abutting properties to the south of us, 1147 North 4th Street,
having variances granted for the residential use thereof when it was owned industrial,
and then spoke about the variances that were granted for the properties to the east and west
of us, 310 and 330. And those were variants. It's not special exception cases. That's a property to
the east of us. The property to the west of us is 332 to 334 West Reward Avenue. I've included
exhibit 19, the deed for the property that shows the Strokeman's as the owner. I have also included
a copy of the lease for the property, which shows my client dog, Dave's LLC, as the tenant.
we have a tax clearance um for dog days and we also included a zero tax balance for the uh for
the subject properties uh there was a hearing notice that was posted at the property in
conformance with the zoning code showing today's hearing here's copies of the photographs of the
posting the application for special exception those posting photos were exhibit 22 the application
for special exception is that exhibit 23, the 14303, I was not present at either the community
group meetings. I was retained after the community group meetings. The 14303 notice was handled by
my client, but at tab 24, we include the notice that went out, the list of addresses, and then
the certificate of first-class mailing of the same. Back to the zoning code provisions. Again,
And I could have my client testify and adopt my statements.
But it's our position that this is, and you look at the floor plan, this is a small property.
It's the floor plan.
We have not a lot of square footage inside.
It's a little over 1,000 square feet.
The rear yard's 500 square feet.
and that per the zoning code provisions, there is nothing about this application and about my
client's proposed use that would cause congestion in the public streets or transportation systems
beyond that, which would normally be expected from the proposed use. No overcrowding of the land
beyond that, which normally might be expected from the proposed use. There's no change to the
physical structure or the rear yard. So there's no impairment of adequate supply of light and air
to the adjacent properties. There's obviously no burdening of water, sewer, school park, or other
public facilities, particularly not beyond which would normally be expected from the proposed use.
In terms of impairing or impermanently injuring the use of adjacent conforming properties, again,
the properties have been granted variances that surround us. In addition, I think it's
understandable that dog daycares will have dogs in them, at them. That's understood with this
being a special exception in CMX2. It's interesting that the zoning code actually allows them as a
matter of right in CMX1, but does not allow them as a matter of right in CMX2 or 2.5.
But dog daycares, dogs obviously bark. And so it's assumed that there will be some barking
associated um with a daycare a dog daycare animal services at a cmx2 zone property and there's
nothing here to suggest that the dogs that my client is going to have are going to be barking
any more than any other type of dogwood and again we're on the we're on gerard avenue which is a
very busy four-lane street so i think there's going to be a lot of other background noise
not including the current construction projects large construction projects that are happening
to either side of us. We don't feel that the proposed use is endangering, will endanger the
public health or safety by fire or other means beyond that, which might normally be expected
from a doggy daycare. And we don't believe that it's inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of
the city beyond that, which might be expected from the proposed use of dog daycare. So in terms of
the provisos that were included in Northern Liberty's letter, we have no problems with the
owner's phone number and landlord's phone number being shared with the neighbors. In terms of
weekend hours, if you go through, we again, our Google search, we pulled the hours for the other
for the other establishments right off of Google. Some of them are closed on the weekends, but many
establishments right off of Google. Some of them are closed on the weekends, but many
of them are open. I've circled those 10 to 5, 8 to 5, 7 to 6, 8 to 6. You can see 10 to 6.
So I think it's clear that dog daycares can be open on the weekends. So we think that that's
not something that's unusual not to be expected from this use uh typically uh no extension of
hours we've expressed uh an agreement to be open from 6 6 30 7 o'clock in the morning till about
eight o'clock nine o'clock at night so that people can get home from work i know personally i use one
that's open to 6 30 and it's often hard for me to get even being in center city to get there in time
to pick my dogs up. So, but we feel that that's a reasonable time. Shouldn't incur on anybody's
evening hours. We do agree to the trash pickup once a week, but not on weekends. As far as no
noise escape premises, you know, I mean, CMX2, IRMX, CMX allows all kinds of uses, which I included
in my exhibit book. We're going to comply with the noise regulations that everybody else has to
comply with in the city of philadelphia so um to that extent you know we don't feel that that's
applicable and we should be held to any higher standard than any other business or homeowner
in the city of philadelphia in terms of the number of dogs permitted outside at a time of supervision
um says eight we'll always have somebody outside supervising the dogs outside in terms of the eight
we think that's a pretty low number the rear yard is indicated in the in the floor plan is over 500
square feet, 600 square feet, probably close to, but at eight dogs, I mean, you're talking about