i'm gonna share my screen but i'm gonna have my colleague brandon saverin um do the presentation
for this so tanya if you can do you see brandon saverin or brandon can you raise your hand so
that we can get you sworn in he's been promoted to panelists rachel thank you
uh good morning chair and members of the board can you hear me okay
yes fine
mr chair um confessor secretary confessor can you swear brandon in please sure brandon you
swear i found to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you you
may proceed. So I'm sorry, but Brandon, if you could state your full name for the record and
spell it, please. So it's Brandon Saverin spelled B-R-A-N-D-O-N. Last name is S as in Sam, A,
V as in Victor, R-A-N. I'm also with Pritzker Law Group representing the applicant.
all right okay um so i'm gonna let yes um rachel is gonna uh control the screen here and i'm gonna
be the narrator um so we are here to discuss 1407 r-09 west grange avenue i hate the interrupt
up again I apologize but if you guys could maximize the screen for those who
are in the webinar to see clearly maximize the screen thank you get to
download it first yeah that'll work it's fine
is that better very well thank you okay so we're here to discuss 1407 r-09 west
grange avenue this is in north philadelphia about a block or two to the west of the only
transportation center to give you an idea of where we are and the proposal is
essentially to take this mid-block building which is a large
Uh, this mid block building, which is a large, um, abandoned automobile storage and repair garage that is currently two stories and add, uh, rehabilitate the existing two stories and add four stories on top of it.
The proposal would create 63 apartment units using the existing two stories as a parking garage deck.
A portion of the garage would also be dedicated to bicycle parking.
So we will end up with 77 car parking spaces, four of which would be handicap accessible, and 21 bicycle parking spaces.
so plenty of parking. There's also room to create a 2,000-square-foot commercial space
on the first floor of the garage. And as I mentioned, there will be 63 apartment units.
The vast majority of those would be two-bedroom units. Some will be one-bedroom and some will be
three-bedroom, but the vast majority are two. And the two-bedroom units would be about 800
to a thousand square feet in size depending on which layout they are. So the project generated
four refusals. The first one I'll address is the lack of a rear yard setback. If Rachel shows either
an aerial or just the location again. This is a strange property in the sense that it's very large
but it's mid block it has no direct frontage on any street thanks right yep perfect um so uh you
know essentially there is no way to create a setback on any side without demolishing a part
of the existing structure and this is sort of a you know hulking heavy thing um it's just not
practical um we wanted to put the dollars into rehabilitating this rather than um you know
modifying it in a way that we're not even sure would preserve its stability so we can't generate
a a rear yard without you know taking a chunk of the existing building away um before i speak to
all the other refusals um i'm gonna have rachel go to um uh that pdf packet i put together rachel
with the the four images yep that's it okay uh the next refusal is uh for the uh manner which
the parking garage on the bottom of the structure is accessed um there is a driveway to the south
of the building that leads from a corner of the garage to grange avenue and the examiner
gave us a refusal for accessing the garage using a unshared driveway that leads to the
front street. But we believe this was issued in error because the driveway is in fact shared with
the building's neighbor to the east. There is mention of a shared easement in our deed to this
property and I believe the deed of the property to the east as well. This was found by the
surveyor uh during his title examination and put on the plan as you can see highlighted there so
we believe that uh parking access related refusal was issued an error um that's the second refusal
um rachel you can go to the next page um so the the other two refusals have to do with essentially
the number of units in the building um one the unit count and two the height um so before i go
into that i just real quickly wanted to run through some pages in the upper north district plan
the housing recommendations that are contained within the district plan speak specifically to
dealing with this cluster of sort of large formerly warehousing and commercial lots
that are around broad street by the olney transportation center so you'll see here
housing recommendation seven says specifically that we need to allow redevelopment of these lots
and provide zoning relief where necessary rakes you can go to the next page
this is the introduction to the entire housing section and rachel yep perfect in that second
paragraph there it basically says that instead of knocking down existing single family homes or
consuming green space that development should be encouraged at major transit
nodes which we're right next to where density can be accommodated without
straining existing infrastructure in particular
the large lots on both sides of broad street
north of the OTC that's where we are could be redeveloped with housing
north of the OTC, that's where we are, could be redeveloped with housing atop a retail base,
which is exactly what we're proposing to do here. So redevelopment to create mixed use
without the consumption of any open space or single family homes. Rachel, you want to go
to the last slide there? Thanks. Okay. And to this point, the sort of recommended zoning map
at the end of the district plan specifically recommends the upzoning of our parcel we're one
of the red ones in zone k there to be either uh cmx uh it says 2.5 or 3. we're currently cmx 2.
so the reason that's relevant is because if we were under cmx 2.5 or 3 these two refusals for
height and unit count would be a non-issue even in cmx 2.5 given the area of the building there
would have been 78 permitted units we're well under that at 63 um we are over the limit which
i believe is 47 given the current designation of cmx2 that's all just to say the number of units
is is uh you know not abusive it doesn't intend to blow out the the existing regulation it's
actually an average of what the current zoning provides and what the up zoning to 2.5 would
provide. It's right in the middle. Height, I think, is the same sort of issue. I'm going to get some
numbers for you. We are creating six stories. If this was CMX 2.5, we would not have a height issue.
I believe that, let's see.
Thanks, Rachel.
Yeah, see if you can get the measurement there.
I thought I had written it down, but I think we're at 60 feet.
The maximum is 38 in CMX2.
If it was 2.5, I don't believe there would be a limit on this property.
For CMX2, it would be 55, so we're still 5 feet over.
but next three there would be we would be in the ballpark for hype okay thanks um so so that is
that is essentially the concept here um we think that we're really proposing something that the
upper north district plan um is intending to vote um and i think this would be a fabulous project
to deal with a really large vacant uh industrial parcel i'll also just add before we take any
questions from the board that the price point of these units is also within I believe the moderate
income price point so it does help support the need for more affordable housing as well so and
lastly just to address the community group we have the posters posted on the property I think part
of the letter that they sent said that we had posted the posters 40 feet from the front but I
I think that they didn't understand that this building is located in the center of the block.
So this vacant lot here is actually not our property.
So we couldn't post the zoning posters on this property,
but we did post them on all corners of the existing warehouse.
As you can see, again, it's in the middle of the block.
You know, I think they had thought that this was maybe the site,
but again, it's this middle site.
And obviously we can't post, this is sort of our best street frontage.
And it's, you know, I think also maybe they didn't understand that we no longer have to post those orange posters.
They're these now white ones.
So we'll be sure to clarify that when we get an opportunity.
But just wanted to make that clear.
And then I just wanted to, just for the record, provide all the outreach that we did starting August 19th to schedule a community meeting.
So I reached out to the RCO the 19th.
We also submitted the refusal and the plans on the 20th of August.
We also reached out again on September 14th, September 15th, September 29th.
Again, she asked us to forward the plans.
We did that again on the 29th.
As you can see, they're copied in this PDF.
again on the 30th and then we reached out to the ZBA to let them know that we were having trouble
getting a hold of the community group on the 15th of September after about like a month of efforts
and asked if what could be done they asked us to submit our inquiry here we did and then they kind
of let us know that this was the only rco in the area so if we could try
calling or leaving a message with charles or tyrone which we did to make
them aware these are the emails to tyrone and
charles that were sent on the 15th after receiving that information
Again, following up with them on the 29th of September, as we didn't hear from them.
again following up with them on the 29th of september
So we just wanted to show on record our outreach to both the RCO and the council office,
as we're always happy to do our best to make sure that these meetings are, you know, scheduled.
And again, happy to try and reach out.
I think Miad from my teams, as we speak, reaching out again to the RCO to see if we can get something scheduled.
but they do have all of our plans and just wanted to kind of provide the outreach so
happy to take any questions um from the board and and good job brandon on your first uh presentation
thank you
frank we can't hear you buddy oh i'm sorry i actually didn't have anything to add i think
oh he's saying he's saying to the chairman
no frank you're gonna have to go out and come back in again
We'll pause.
How about now?
You hear me?
Perfect.
I don't know why it does that constantly to me.
All right.
I asked if any questions from the board?
no is there anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you excuse me this is sharon i believe mr richardson was going
to sign on to testify is is he still here he's here his hand's not up
okay yeah I thought so too but I don't see his name but I don't see
well okay now he's here Mr. Richardson
good morning again good morning still under oath sir I don't know if you heard at the opening
statement we agreed to hear and and hold so if you have anything from your office you'd like to add
please do so. That would be fine. We had finally reached the RCO chair and found out that there
had been some health issues that had precluded them from being able to actually hear, do any
hearings at that point in time. And so we have worked with her and that's why she's been now
reaching out to all of the cases that might be a little bit backlogged as far as cases are
concern for them uh and we're going to be working with them to try to make sure that everything
moves moves forward including grain street uh as soon as possible thank you thank you um
so uh the hearing will be resumed we have a date uh tanya
i'm thinking
we can do two weeks august 20th at 9 30. over 20th i'm sorry october 20. it's okay
i wish summer was back i know me too okay uh at 9 30
yes chair thank you so this hearing will be resumed on october the 20th at 9 30 a.m
at which time we will consider any feedback related to the rco's position are we going to
hear from planning commission now or yeah i was going to do that next okay all right planning
commission good morning david fecto out of order i apologize yes okay good morning david fecto city
planning commission uh mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for commercial
and residential mixed use in the city's comprehensive plan this is a landlocked parcel
not located on a public street we believe the proposed use represents an overuse of the property
and is out of character with the surrounding area accordingly we recommend against granting these
variances the overuse has to do with the number of units yes sir any recommendation on that
uh we we do not all right thank you we'll take that up when we have the hearing on the 20th
all right thank you we'll take that up when we have the hearing on the 20th
okay all right thank you thank you
so i i let me go back on the record i don't know if i read that in properly so
So the hearing for MI-2020-001230-1407-09 West Grange Avenue is continued until October
the 20th at 9.30 a.m., at which time we will hear any comments, any feedback from the RCO.
okay next one is meeting item mi 2020-001270 address is 1800 master street and the attorney
he is Leo Moblehill. All right. Good morning, chairman. Are you going to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Do you agree to waive the reading of
its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet
with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal
or referral photos and plans five days in advance of this hearing yes and have you met with the rco
and have a letter i have met with the rco we have not received a letter although i received a phone
call from ms louise bondy yesterday indicating that i would be receiving one but i never did
thank you can you please identify yourself for the record please certainly leo mulvihill that's m-u-l-v-i
H-I-L-L, 2424 East York Street, Suite 111, Philadelphia 19125. I'm here on behalf of the
applicant CRUD LLC for the property at 1800 Master Street. On the line with me this morning
should be one of the principals of that company, Kevin Matheson. So members of the board, what I'm
sharing right now on the screen is the exhibit packet that I emailed, including the refusal
appeal and project information form at page one understanding this is an application for five
residential units in an existing structure for some history to this property that i'll be going
over in a few minutes as well the area zoning maps at page seven this is now zoned rsa5 although
historically this has been a corner property that was previously a grocer with multiple apartment
units above, but has since been remapped from CMX to RSA 5. The deed for the property is at page
8. My client's commercial activity license is at page 16. Tax clearance is at 17. The zoning
notification is at 18. As stated, I do not have an RCO letter. I have photos of the property beginning
at page 21, and the plans for the property are at page 47. Members of the board, for purposes of
some history for this project, going through the zoning archives and just taking judicial
notice of these as public records. Back in 1959, there was a permit granted for commercial use on
the grounds floor of this building as a grocery store with four apartments above. When my client
obtained the property sometime around 2012, they filed an application for a four-story rear addition
with cellar and roof deck for four units and vacant commercial space on the ground floor.
um at some point some work was done for that property the addition had been constructed
um there were some holdups and then it was never completed so then again another permit was filed
and obtained back in 2016 this property was again zoned cmx2 that was a permit number 703589
and that was a permit permit for vacant commercial on the ground floor with residential units above