reuse to residential. None of the described conditions were created by this applicant
who does not yet own the property. We submit that these are the least minimum variances
given the least deviation from an I2 use would be a use that conforms to the surrounding
neighborhood, here a single-family use. The proposed lot size of roughly 1,200 square feet
are actually larger than the surrounding single-family homes both on Richmond and Venango.
which sit on lots of roughly 1,000 square feet. The structures not only comply with the code,
but are considerably less dense than a comparable residential zoning district would allow,
evidenced by the 32-foot height, 50% open space, extensive rear yard, and one-for-one parking.
We submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties,
or impair any light and air. This proposal will eliminate blight and is much more in character
with the surrounding neighborhood than the current or any viable I-2 use of the property.
Converting this property from an I-2 to a residential use will not impair any viable
industrial use of surrounding properties, which are much larger and not bordered by residential
which are much larger and not bordered by residential homes.
homes.
A full analysis is provided in my Memorandum of Law that's submitted to the board at Exhibit 13,
and I'd be happy to touch on any particular point in more detail.
Now, with respect to the community, we did meet with PROPAC, and their letter of support is included at Exhibit 15.
As you can imagine, the neighbors here were quite excited about the prospect of eliminating the current relatively intrusive use of the property that borders them and inviting in new homeowners.
At this time, I would ask if the administrator could promote Atif Ahmad so he can adopt my testimony.
Mr. Ahmad, please unmute yourself.
yep i'm here hi sir could you could you state your name and spell it for our court reporter
my uh name is atif ahmad uh it's spelled a t i f uh a h m a d
do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do thank you atif have you heard all my testimony given before the board today
I have.
And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
Absolutely, yes.
We'd be happy to take any questions that you have.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission, members of the board. The comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the medium industrial zoning at this location. Between the pollution coming off
I-95, the active industry kitty corner to the site at 3,500 Richmond Street, and the industrially
zoned lot at 3,501 Richmond Street, which takes up a full city block, 2,800 Kingston Street is not
ideal for residential development. We've seen repeated encroachment into the Port Richmond
industrial protection areas by residential developers and the city planning commission
is going to recommend that the board deny the use variants for residential use in a medium
industrial zone. Mr. Chairman if I could just respond to that very briefly. We certainly
respect the planning commission's position but quite frankly most of the reasons that they just
gave really supports the argument because you know given the fact that I-95 is right here and given
the risk that industrial use can impact residential homes, this property is uniquely
situated in a way that already does impact residential homes. So although we certainly
respect that that argument might carry different weight as it relates to potentially the lot across
the street, which is very large, that argument doesn't really hold a lot of weight when it relates
to this relatively small property that deeply impacts existing residents.
And for that reason, we would submit that this property is very uniquely situated
to accommodate a residential use.
Thank you.
MI 2021-004-057-2811 Kingston Street.
I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no.
Thomas Holloman. My vote is yes.
James Snell. My vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed. My vote is yes.
Thank you. Thank you. Merit. Could you stay on? I think you have another case.
She does.
Meredith. Okay.
Okay. MI 2021-004048-3406 Mt. Vernon Street, RCO, match with Civic Association, letter of support.
Meredith.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Meredith. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And again, it appears that you've submitted everything required. Is that correct?
That is correct.
You may proceed.
Thank you. Again, for the record, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Meredith Ferlger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, of Dilworth-Paxson, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
My client for this particular project is Owner J LLC, which is represented here today by Rami Shreem.
owner j llc represent owns the property located at
Owner J LLC owns the property located at 3406 Mount Vernon Street in the city's Mantua neighborhood.
The deed to the property is included at Exhibit 3 and tax clearance is provided at Exhibit 2.
The exhibit packet includes 16 exhibits, which I will walk you through.
At Exhibit 15, you will see a unanimous letter of support from Mantua Civic Association for today's request.
Again, as a very brief overview, the variance request for today is to convert a ground floor commercial space into a third residential unit for an already constructed project.
Allow me to introduce you to what is likely one of the strangest properties you have ever encountered.
At first glance, looking at the zoning map at Exhibit 7, you will see 3406 Mount Vernon is a small, roughly 1,250 square foot property that sits between North 34th Street and North 35th Street and is zoned CMX2.
It appears relatively unremarkable until you turn to the aerials at Exhibit 8.
allow me to zoom in for you a little bit what you now see is that this standalone property
appears to sit smack in the middle of the lot of the adjacent apartment complex which is the
mantua presbyterian apartment complex from what i've been able to gather reviewing the public
records available through Atlas, and if you refer to Exhibit 12 here, it appears that all of the
parcels that join the Mantua apartments were acquired through the Redevelopment Authority,
with the exception of 3406 Mount Vernon. Somehow, 3406 Mount Vernon was not included
in the prior eminent domain proceedings. The property was then later sold at a sheriff's sale
in 2016. After several subsequent transfers after that sheriff's sale, my client purchased the
property. Now, after Rami and his team purchased the property, they obtained permits and subsequently
erected a four-story structure containing two residential units with a ground floor commercial
space. The approved zoning plans are shown at Exhibit 5, and the approved zoning permit
is shown at Exhibit 11. Now, this structure has been built since roughly September of 2020,
and the two residential units were successfully leased before construction even finished.
However, they did not have similar success in leasing the commercial unit.
As I show you the context of this immediate neighborhood, you will gather why.
Exhibit 16 shows some exterior photos of the property and the surrounding neighborhood.
Now Rami and his design team did everything they could given the constraints of this incredibly odd property to impose as little impact as possible to the Mantua apartment complex.
Now as you look toward, and this is just a view of the rear here.
Now, as you look towards North 34th Street, you will notice that there are solely residential homes as well as the Mantua apartment complex.
As you turn towards North 35th Street, again, you will see the conditions are the same.
And this photo should give you an even better sense of what this particular block is like.
It's extremely, extremely narrow.
Now, the city's records are consistent with these photographs. As you can see on Exhibit 9, the only commercial use within one or two blocks of this property are at the corners of Haverford and North 34th and North 35th.
This map was generated based on the city's business licensing records and shows that within a two-block radius, there are almost no commercial uses in the area, and there are certainly no mid-block commercial uses.
The only two commercial uses here are small commercial uses at the corners, about a block away.
Now, regarding the specific proposal, I'll direct you to interior photos, again at Exhibit 16, to show you what the other two existing units look like.
The proposed bi-level ground floor residential unit would be identical in finishes, would be roughly 950 square feet, with one bedroom, two bathrooms.
would be roughly 950 square feet with one bedroom, two bathrooms and living space.
Trash for this property is stored in the rear yard.
Now turning to the refusal, one of the refusals that we have relates to the elimination of the
commercial space while the second refusal relates to the unit count. Based on the documentation
and information that we've provided so far, we do submit to a hardship given the unique orientation
of this particular lot as it relates to any viable commercial use, as well as the context
of this surrounding neighborhood, which is exclusively residential. In fact, this property
was formerly zoned RM1, which would be much more consistent with the current use of the
Mantua apartment complex, which is a high-density complex with no commercial use. Had this large
area remain zoned RM1, this proposal would not have been before the board. It was rezoned from
RM1 to CMX2 during the Mantua rezoning that occurred several years ago at Bill No. 170-398.
Given both the unique orientation and situation of this property, in addition to the residential
nature of this neighborhood, in addition to the owner's failed attempts at leasing the space,
we do submit it would be a significant hardship to retain this ground floor commercial use
in this location. Now, regarding the number of units, the property is deficient less than 200
square feet to allow for this third unit. We do submit that this is a de minimis deficiency.
We submit that these are the least minimum variances, given that this proposal only
asks to convert the ground floor use of an already constructed structure, which will be very
consistent with the residential neighborhood as well as the former RM1 zoning of this property.
Although previous zoning is not always persuasive when seeking a variance, it should have particular
bearing here given that the remapping to CMX2 created a large non-conforming use on this property
that is particularly detrimental as it relates to this standalone very odd parcel. We submit the
proposal will not increase congestion harm neighbors properties or impair light and air
a full analysis is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at exhibit 13 and again
i'd be very happy to touch on any particular point in more detail with respect to the community
mantua's letter of support is in the packet at tab 15 as you can also imagine the neighbors here
were very supportive of this proposal, given the quiet residential nature of this street
and the negative impact a commercial unit could have in this location.
If the administrator could now promote Rami Shrine.
Does he need to be promoted or just speak?
Just speak.
Hello, this is Rami Shrine.
Could you spell your name for the court reporter, please, sir?
Sure. R-A-M-Y-S-H-R-A-I-M.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Rami, have you heard all of my testimony given before the board today?
And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
Thank you. We'd be happy to take any questions the board has.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
no mr chairman
no mr chairman
ishmael
okay questions from the virtual audience
i see no handshare planning commission afternoon mr chairman david vecto city planning commission
members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change the commercial mixed use
zoning at this location the zoning for this property presents a clear hardship for its reuse
considering the two legally permitted residential units already exist within the building the city
planning commission recommends the board grant the use variants for no commercial ground floor
say that again david say that david do that one more time sure sure let me go ahead and uh repeat
it so the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location
the zoning for the property presents a clear hardship to its reuse considering that two
legally permitted residential units already exist within the building the city planning commission
the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the use variants for no commercial
recommends that the board grant the use variants for no commercial ground
ground floor thank you mi 2021 004048 3406 mount vernon street i vote yes carol tanari my vote is
yes thomas holloman my vote is yes dame snell my vote is yes ishmael shaheed my vote is yes
thank you have a wonderful afternoon sure mi 2021 0 0 2 5 3 7 45 20 to 40 worth street
rco frankfurt knack letter of support with provisos
mr crick is coming back in as a panelist great
Good morning, members of the board.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, sir?
Yes, my name is Justin Crick, K-R-I-K.
Address is 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 630, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Hi, Mr. Crick.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
It indicates that, sorry about the barking dog, it indicates that you've submitted the exhibit packet with all the required documents. Is that correct?
Yes, it is.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you very much. Members of the board, as I indicated, my name is Justin Crick. I am here for the applicant, James Tarani.
Mr. Tarani is a tenant at the property located at 4520-40 Worth Street. And to specifically note, this is a large property zoned IRMX, and this is specifically for Unit F, industrial use in Unit F.
um this is somewhat unique because Mr. Tarani is an artist and what he intends to do in the
property is uh furthers his career and his his love of art but it is it requires that he use
certain chemicals and paints related to automotive materials to carry that out so what we have is
um a a fine arts finishing studio that um uses a paint booth and petrochemicals similar to
automobile finishes, but does not paint cars. Unfortunately, the city code really kind of
limits and bottles that into intensive industrial for usually for things larger,
such as automobiles and so forth. So this application is to allow the intensive industrial