Ms. Blackman is coming back in as a panelist. Thank you.
i'm sorry madam chair could i just ask a um question this is tom yeah um as far as the
previous case um would it be okay for you to announce that it is being rescheduled and for
the reason this the calendar number 1856 1715 north 59th street the attorney is leo malvihil
this case is continued and it will be rescheduled to be heard with related case for 1720 North 59th
Street. Thank you, Ms. Sunkett. Thank you, Ms. Chair. And I apologize for not including that
on your continuance list. That's okay. Ms. Blackman? Good afternoon. Can you put your
name and address on the record and spell your last name? Sure. Dina Bleckman, B as in boy, L-E-T-K-M-N,
1735 Market Street, 51st floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Thank you. Do you swear or firm to tell
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership
tax compliance refusal 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 uh yes the exhibits were
submitted last week uh and we met with the rco center city residents association on april 27th
and their letter of non-opposition is included in the exhibits and we do have that here you may
proceed. Great, thank you. I will share my screen. One moment, I apologize.
Great, thank you. Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Dena Bleckman and together
with my colleague David Guest, we represent the applicant Pearl Properties in this application
for a special exception. Also here today are Reed Slogoff from Pearl Properties and Stephen
Cook from Cook and Solo Restaurant Partners, the proposed tenant for the property.
The property here is the Harper located at 19th and Sansom streets. It's an existing development
containing residential, commercial, and retail spaces. And our application is to commit a
and our application is to permit a restaurant use in three already existing spaces along
restaurant use in three already existing spaces.
the Sansom Street frontage and those are shown on the screen by the red rectangle along Sansom Street.
Here are some photographs of the spaces currently, you can see they're fully constructed,
they're integrated with the larger development, you can see it above
the ground floor on the left photo, and they are currently vacant.
Here are floor plans of the spaces. You can see them in yellow at the bottom along Sansom Street.
And because the spaces are part of an existing development, they will also be integrated into the existing trash and loading facilities for much of the block.
The trash and loading facilities are shown here in yellow. The space is again at the bottom along Sansom Street with access to trash and loading in the rear.
As you know, the standard for a special exception is that the use not caused detrimental impacts
to the neighborhood beyond what would be expected from that use, and that is certainly the case here.
In fact, we expect that the impact on the neighborhood would be even less than would
normally be expected from a restaurant use because of that existing infrastructure
and the internal trash and loading facilities. As I mentioned, we met with the local RCO, CCRA,
and they have issued their letter of non-opposition to the use, which is included in the exhibit
packet at Exhibit 12. I'd like to turn it over to Reid and Steve just to provide some additional
details on the operations of the site. If they could please be unmuted. That's Reid Slogoff
and Stephen Cook and then be very happy to answer any questions the board or the public may have.
Okay and what is their connection to this building? Reed Slogoff is from Pearl Properties,
the owner of the property, and Stephen Cook is from Cook and Solo Restaurant Partners,
the proposed tenant of the spaces. Okay great.
read and steve i believe you need to raise your hands and then that will allow you to unmute
does the board need to hear from these two individuals
no no no okay planning commission
good afternoon madam chair i'm sorry to interrupt again as always
would it be okay for the um virtual public to be able to give testimony oh sure
planning commission
afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission i'm sorry
did we allow the public to weigh in yeah i was going to ask them to weigh in
after planning because i thought he was ready to speak and i didn't want to interrupt him again
okay planning commission do you want to hold off and anybody in the virtual we will hold our
comments okay anybody in the virtual audience who would like to speak
okay we have teresa jones she's been unmuted please unmute yourself miss jones and wait for
the madam chair okay wait i'm answering
miss jones yes i am unmuted hi put your name and address on the record spell your
last name and then i will swear you in please my name is theresa jones my address is 1723 north
59th street philadelphia pa i was raising my hand to see if i i'm sorry to be late to the meeting
my apologies, but I was
Is Ms. Jones here
for 1910 Chestnut Street?
Meeting for 1750
voting appeal. Am I too late for that?
No, no, me.
Chair, apparently she's not here
for this case. You can go forward.
It does appear to be Sarah Aldafer
here with her hand up for this case.
Okay, Sarah?
Hi, good afternoon. Sarah Aldefer, S-A-R-A-H.
Hi, good afternoon. Sarah Alderfer, S-A-R-A-H-A-L-D-E-R-F-E-R, 1919 Chestnut Street,
apartment 1513, Philadelphia. I'm here to- Do you swear a firm to tell the whole truth
and nothing about the truth? I do. Okay. So I'm here today in support of the application.
I don't have any problem with restaurants going in and I think that they would be
good for the area. I would just like to note that I would like if they, you know, could move,
if the owner could move a little quickly to get a tenant in the Chestnut Street side of the
building. That's, this is not a zoning matter. You can probably speak to Dina or to the owner.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair. Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan.
We support the granting of the special exemption.
Thank you.
Calendar number 1264, 1910, Chestnut Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Calendar number 1413, 2441, Aspen Street.
there are no exhibits and this is the first listing
madam chair would it be allowable this is tanya sunken for me to make an announcement
oh sure i would just ask that all present as attendees or otherwise who wish to ask a question
utilize the q a that would allow you to ask questions to the staff of the zoning board
please do not raise your hand and interrupt the proceedings as we have a lot of cases to get
through and we would not like to interrupt the board and thank you very kindly and i would have
asked you to weigh in but i i didn't think that even you had the power to get the builder to
get the restaurants moving quickly so don't don't feel that i neglected you um i'd like to move
Excuse me, Madam Chair, have we determined whether anyone is here for Aspen Street?
No, we have not. Today's that day.
Madam Chair, Justin Crick on behalf of the applicant.
There are no exhibits.
I did forward the exhibits over.
I had that email going.
It was Sunday evening, but it was to the RCOZBA, to Ms. Saleta, as well as the PCPC.
Can you name and address, spell your last name, and then I'll swear you in?
Yes. Justin, J-U-S-T-I-N, Crick, K-R-I-K. Address is 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 630, Philadelphia PA 19102.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
uh there is one typo in the refusal but uh excuse me i'm sorry but before we go forward
these were not submitted to anyone correct before sunday evening is the board going forward with this
before sunday evening no it should be five days in advance of the hearing
this is the first listing calendar number 1413 2441 aspen street is continued
Calendar number 1240-2928 Poplar Street. The attorney is Richard DeMarco.
Excuse me again, Madam Chair. Before you begin with this case, we have the add-on appeal against
lni mr reuter has limited availability he is in the room now would be possible to call that next
okay um i will do that calendar number one no
i can read that if he's like is is that the woodbine avenue no this is mi 2021 002596 1101
east mount pleasant avenue the applicant appellant is beatrice bolden and mr reuter will be present
to represent the city okay and i am trying to find this on our list it's not on the list so
you've read everything no this is we have discussed this and it is in the right okay
Thank you.
Mr. Reuter?
Mr. Reuter yes hi can you hear me yes I can name and address please
Leonard Reuter R-E-U-T-E-R senior attorney for the city of Philadelphia 1515 Arch Street 15th
floor you swear from to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do okay Ms. Bolden put
your name and address on the record, please? Beatrice Bolden, B-A-T-R-I-C-E-B-O-L-D-E-N,
1101 East Mount Pleasant Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19150.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay. Mr. Reuter, you may proceed. I know there's time constraints here.
Sure. No, I mean, I have time now. There were some issues that had to get resolved, but that's pretty much taken care of. This is an appeal against LNI, and typically the appellant goes forward first, but I think in this particular case, since Ms. Bolden appears to be unrepresented, it might be a little bit faster if I just laid out what the issue is.
this is an appeal. It's actually an appeal from a violation, a zoning violation that was issued by
the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I was not able to get an inspector here,
but I think the violation speaks for itself. It's attached to Ms. Bolden's appeal.
And as the attorney representing the city here, I can certify that that is a true and correct copy
of the violation that was issued in this case. I think it's probably the easiest thing to do
would be if I could just share my screen, I will show you basically what the violation
is. I think the picture is worth more than a thousand words here. If I don't get frozen,
which it looks like I got frozen. All right. Can you still hear me at least?
I can hear you.
Yeah, it looks like I'm unable to share my screen. It just kind of froze up there.
What happened is Ms. Bolden erected an opaque fence along the rear and a portion of the side
of her property. Her property is located at 11, I'm sorry, 1101 Mount Pleasant.
let me see here
I'm sorry if I could ask a question
Mr. Reuter
this is Tanya
would it be okay for you to stop your video
because it appears as though we might be about
to lose you
and then just do audio
okay that's fine
I will stop the video
so yeah I mean
And I'm on the city's network, and as you're all aware who work for the city, the city's network is problematic at times.
So anyway, this property is located at 1101 Mount Pleasant Avenue, and it is a corner property.
and Ms. Bolden erected again a fence that's over four feet tall that is in along the rear and
portion of the side of her property and that side actually is this street facing side of the
property and it's a very simple the code does not allow for a fence over four feet tall it has to
be at least 50 percent opaque so basically you know nothing more than a picket fence
and it can't be more than four feet tall so this is not it doesn't appear to be that tall I don't
know how tall it is I think it's really more the issue of it being opaque it appears to be probably
only about five feet tall I don't think it's six feet but Ms. Bolden can explain that so that it's
just simply it's just not permitted she she's the reasons given in the appeal in the appeal from the
violation she gives a number of reasons of why she erected the fence and we have no we're not
taking any position on why she believes she needs the fence of that type at that location but
unfortunately it's just something that we can't that's just not permitted by the code we would
suggest that she simply try to seek apply for a variance. That is apply to get the fence
approved, she will get a refusal, and then she can come back to the zoning board for
a variance. And again, I'm going to try one more time to share my screen.
I'll try one more time to share my screen.
And yay.
All right.
Can you see this?
That's what she built.
And it's that simple.
This is not allowed.
The fence that she has over towards the right of the screen, that's fine.
that's not that's not a problem but she can't have the fence at this height and it cannot be solid
so that's pretty much it it's not a question of a use or there's some dispute about a use here
this is just simply a fence that's that's not permitted in the district she does state that
there are other apparent appear to be other fences down the alley or the the access easement
back there I have no idea whether those also generated violations or whether they maybe have
variances for those fences or whether they predate the restrictions but what we would offer is we
would and we do this at the board of L&I all the L&I review all the time with violations I don't
know whether this board believes it has the authority to do this but what we would say
is we would agree to have the city violation affirmed,
but I will agree to give her 120 days
to a stay of enforcement
while she goes and tries to obtain a variance
if she wants to keep the fence
or 120 days to take it down and put up one that's legal.
But I don't really have anything else
unless you have any questions.
So there is a way she could keep the fence