assume with with mr. Knottlinson is saying right yes the other properties
are Jason okay all right then any other questions from the board I do have
someone with their hand raised Kayla
You can speak. Yeah, this is Brian Tate. I'm actually the owner of Nova Contracting, who is a partial owner with BCB Homes, Charlie Murphy. I was just playing with the computer because I don't do the Zoom and my daughter has it under her name. So I'm on a computer. And I guess that's why it's coming up as Kayla. But I didn't realize I had my hand raised. I've just been listening. But I am one of the owners of these two lines.
Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. I asked any questions from the board. Calendar numbers 39672 and 39669 for 1652 and 1654 North 6th Street. My vote is yes on both.
Carol, unmute yourself. Yes to both.
Unmute.
still can't hear you
this is crazy okay now you got we got you my vote is yes on both thank you thank you everyone
thank you thank you have a great week guys sure good luck stay safe
Frank, do we go to Schur's Lane next, 132, since we have Alan?
I don't see why not, yeah.
Okay, calendar number 39665, 132 Schur's Lane.
Mr. Nockmson, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Name and address for the record.
Alan, I'm trying to put my video on
It's not letting me do it, but that's fine
You can see this bad headshot of me
Alan Ockamson of Ockamson, PC
123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600
Philadelphia, PA, 19109
Okay, there we go
I think I look bad
Alan, before we begin
I just want the record to show that
Our board member, Thomas Holloman
Is back on
thank thank you all right so I'm sorry can I just do a quick question um this
is a check-in with the court reporter I just wanted to make sure you there yeah
I'm here but my video is not coming on it says it's uh it has a line through it
like it's paused or something okay no problem the board just asked to make
sure you were there I just wanted to check thank you kindly okay you're
You're welcome.
Okay, Alan.
Okay, so present should be David Ross, the owner's representative.
Mr. Ross, are you on?
He was texting me.
He actually got on before me.
Yes, I am here.
Hello.
And then, additionally, should be Scott Woodruff and Corey Kirk, the architects.
uh okay so all it's going to identify themselves and uh all three would you
swear and affirm that the testimony you're about to give is true and the best of your knowledge
i do i do could alan figure it out how we you get them to give us their names and addresses
and get for the record uh mr ross can you state your uh address for the record
David, you have to unmute yourself.
Hello, David Ross, 3112 West Master Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19121.
And you're the member of 132 Shurer's Lane LLC, right?
Correct.
And it owns 132 Shurer's Lane, right?
Correct.
Scott, are you there?
Can you state your name and address for the record?
Scott Woodruff, 4001 Main Street, Suite 203, Philadelphia, PA, 19127.
Oh, and you're the architect for this project, right, Scott?
Correct.
So I gave you a packet of materials which include eight exhibits.
The first exhibit is the deed to the property, showing that 132 Shores Lane LLC owns the property.
The second exhibit is the Certificate of Tax Clearance, showing that 132 Shores Lane LLC is in good standing with the city of Philadelphia.
The third exhibit is the Notice of Refusal that we received on January 6th of 2020 for 132 Schurers Lane.
Currently, and you'll see from the pictures, which is Exhibit 6, this is a 2881 square foot lot and it has a building structure on what is known as 132 Schurers Lane with a significant side yard of almost 1,500 square feet.
And what we're trying to do is subdivide this property into two. Keep the pre-existing structure, renovate it. And then on the other lot, we're looking to put a single family home on this RSA 5 property.
so where the single family home that we're trying to put on their erect on what would be known as
130 surest lane that meets the code requirements of 1440 square feet we fall a little bit short
with this the pre-existing home of 1286.78 square feet and that's the first refusal right and it's
not and it's typical of this you know part of the neighborhoods to have properties around this size
um the second refusal we're in maniunk so we have a steep slope refusal as to that right so again
it's not atypical to have a steep slope refusal in maniunk so we filed an appeal our application
in Manioc. So we filed an appeal. Our application for appeal is Exhibit 4. And then you also see
for appeal is uh exhibit
as Exhibit 5, zoning and Google Maps. We're basically two blocks away from Main Street.
We're, you know, in basically the heart of Manioc. As you can see from Exhibit 5,
you know, zoning and Google Maps. Exhibit 6, you'll see the photographs. So you'll see with
the first photograph, which is labeled 130 and 132 Shores Lane, you'll see this, you'll see our
property as the brown stucco structure with uh on the first story there's like a side
addition and then you'll see behind it you'll see new construction right uh the you know the
the brick the you know the the red brick and and the grade facades that you would typically see
and then if you look at the second picture of sure's lane to to the left of the property you'll
see across the streets you'll see the same type of structures and then to the right of the property
the same sort of structures. And then, you know, you'll see more pictures.
Exhibit seven are plans and drawings, right? So what I would note, and Tanya should have this,
we have a proviso plan form completed for revised plans, which I signed, and we gave
indication as to what we're changing. The third floor balcony on Shurst Lane has been removed.
The front facade has been reworked.
Roof over third-story facade has been reworked.
Four is front third-story bay extrusion has been removed.
Five, planter box added to front of structure along shores.
And six, rear curb cut widths have been changed.
They have been reduced.
They have not been increased.
The reason why we had such significant changes in our plans is
because we met with the Maniont Neighborhood Council.
They had a pre-community meeting, and we took some of their input in terms of how to, like, make it look more in tune with what they believe Manning Unc should be.
And, you know, unfortunately, based, you know, on the community meeting, we didn't go far enough.
And all of their, if you look at their letter, which is Exhibit A, Correspondence for Manning Unc Neighborhood Council, has nothing to do with any zoning-related issues.
They didn't care the fact of the size of the current building, where the building structure is.
They didn't care about the steep slope.
In fact, they actually indicated how ugly the other pre-existing structures, new construction around them was.
But we worked diligently to actually improve what the property and the new construction property looked like.
But they weren't satisfied.
so none of their none of their objections has anything to do with zoning related issues so
we've worked diligently with them we try to really work in good faith with them and unfortunately
that they were not satisfied I will say that you know we reached out to Councilman Jones's office
to find out what their position would be and they stated they would leave it up to the board to
decide so uh david you never change yeah exactly um david you heard everything i stated today
yes and is it true and correct yes and would you adopt it as your own testimony yes okay
all right is there anyone uh ellen that needs that would like to testify in this matter i'll
wait for Tanya to give me the go-ahead. I have Roger Perry's hand up. Did you want to testify
for this project? Perry? No, I'm on another case. Yeah, no problem. Yes, so could you lower your
hand please thanks all right so is there anyone who wishes to be heard regarding this case
hearing none uh questions from the board tom you have any questions
no okay uh planning commissioner
I'm sorry. I'm just finishing reading the Manny Young's letter.
Hold on for just one second. I'm sorry.
Take your time. Take your time.
Chairman and members of the board, this property is indicated for residential use on the comprehensive plan.
the applicant is creating an undersized lot and we do see no hardship to the
existing property for to create an undersized lot because they are able to
to create an undersized lot because they are able to use the property as is.
use the property as is. Accordingly we recommend the
Accordingly, we recommend the requested variance not be granted.
So there's the size of a lot, nothing to do with the steep slope or anything that we normally get pushback from Manny Young, correct?
I don't have the letter in front of me.
I did not see that in the letter.
The reason with the steep slope, from what I believe, it's because it's a retaining wall.
the attorney didn't cover this but it's a retaining wall and in order to connect
services to the street they would have to do a split of the retaining wall but it looks like
they're still going to keep a retaining wall on the plan it also seems as if they don't like the
design that's right mr chair i can actually read the basis for their letter it's just two sentences
The basic proposition, members felt that the design was manifestly out of place and inappropriate for the immediate surrounding and for the neighborhood in general.
Therefore, the project did not warrant the support of the community or a variance.
It has nothing to do with the size of the lot.
And if you look at that block of Shure's Lane, you would see that there are similarly situated properties with equal size to what we're offering.
and if you and again it again if as part of the redesign they were even looking
for us to eliminate that side structure on the pre-existing structure so again
they were trying to be architects not the only actually the zoning related
subjects understood thank you any other comments questions from the board they
did get a steep slope refusal somebody's talking who they did get it okay all right calendar number
i'm sorry i was just saying that the refusals they did get a slip slope refusal
calendar number three nine six six five one three two sure is lane my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you thank you all may i be excused yes you may
thank you
be safe
you too
Mr. Chair
do we go to
is Hurt
did we get Hurt
is Hurt back
or not
is he on
I do see him
on the list
we'll promote him
hold on
before we go
I'm sorry Tanya
we've skipped over
number two
correct
and Sharon
and where go with that you get the letter we needed from uh councilman o'neill's office no
i got an email saying she was sending it but i haven't received it yet
all right uh if you don't mind mr perry we're going to just skip over and then we'll get back
to you uh how about case number three hirk are you on i'm here i'm sorry okay so we'll go with
Carol number three. Okay. Calendar number 39716, 1222 North 2nd Street. Mr. Griegos,
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do.
Name and address for the record, please. Good afternoon. Hercules Griegos, 1835
Market Street. I'm here today representing 1222 Holdings LLC, owner of 1222 North
Second Street. I have with me today Michael Petrikowski and Bill Katz from
1222 Holdings. Additionally, Jeff Watson from Harman Deutsch Architects should be
on. Just to give you a history, this is the corner of 2nd Thompson through to
American Street. This project was originally approved in 2016 where the
ZVA granted a variance for a multi-family building, 64 units with
ground floor retail, as well as ground floor live work units.
Subsequently, oh, and 52 parking spaces.
Subsequently, in 2018, an administrative review was granted to reconfigure the ground floor and
increase some of the retail space. Fast forward to 2020, HBO began to design
the building for the clients and the client, the owners built the adjacent apartment buildings
and they were seeing an increased demand for
and they were seeing an increased demand for commercial space at the ground floor and parking.
As such, we're here today with essentially a plan to reconfigure the ground floor,
increase the number of parking spaces from a previously approved 52 to 57 spaces.
This is accomplished via mechanical parking, increase and reconfigure the ground floor retail to add for additional retail, and take the previously approved live work units that were on the ground floor and move them up to the second floor.
um additionally um just to give everybody some history we met with the rco i believe it was in
january um we have a letter of support i believe the vote was um 11 nothing in support of the
project the only refusals that were generated were once again for the electronic uh i'm sorry
It was the refusal generated for the CMX2 for the ground floor use that was previously
approved in our original project.
Subsequently, when we are increasing the size of that ground floor retail, that triggers
that variance.
Additionally, there is a refusal generated for electronic vehicle charging stations.
We have looked at this.