Yes, sir.
Proceed.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And I see that your exhibit packet isn't timely, so you may proceed.
Thank you. I'm going to share with the board the exhibit package we have previously submitted.
This is an application for development of a lot.
We have submitted with the exhibits refusal, RCO letter and support, photos, plans, and related documentation.
This application has some extensive refusals, but I will address them as they also have been changed.
So I want to address them to the board one piece at a time.
The lot itself is a slightly L-shaped lot on a corner.
It's a large lot about 4,800 square feet in size.
my client originally proposed 18 units with six accessory bicycle parking and one accessory
car parking space. After meeting with the community, there were some feedback on the
number of units. Despite the fact that the units would have been more affordable,
the community would rather see slightly larger units but less in total count. So a change of
the plan related and changed it to 13 units, reducing the smaller units, actually increasing
the size of the smaller units and reducing the overall units. In addition, what we also provided
was four actual parking spaces off street that would offset the additional units that is beyond
what is normally permitted. I'm going to go ahead and jump to the rendering and plan because
it's easier to see the changes from the plans itself. So this is the proposed structure.
It's a four-story structure that would actually take on a slight L-shape. What my client did in
changing the layout, original layout, we had a single parking, off-street parking space,
accessed through a curb cut and entrance. By taking away some of the units on the first floor, we
a curb cut and entrance by taking away some of the units on the first floor we have now increased it
to a total of four parking spaces including one being handicapped and this allows a much nicer
layout for the first floor parking and the four additional units beyond the nine normally permitted
would each have a one-to-one parking we're still maintaining the bicycle spaces and there will be
um management of trash and other uh items that would relate to a multi-family dwelling
the excuse me mr sharon sletta um we received those revised plans today and i reviewed them
for the first time ordinarily addition of parking spaces would require an amended refusal but
in this case can you confirm that the parking entry both the width of the garage and the
location of the entry have not changed from the original submission? I can confirm that, yes. And
in addition, parking was not an original refusal item, so it would not have triggered an additional
refusal. But it would have required an additional review ordinarily because the department refused
the size. But thank you, that's fine. Thank you. So again, we have both provided bike room, trash
storage internally as well as internal access to all units for the building in addition to
these changes the original proposal did not have a rear yard the building was extended further
we have now changed to provide a five foot rear yard per the community's request
the original refusal also had a 43 feet height total we have reduced it to 41 feet per the
community request. And as a result, we did get support from the community. The second through
fourth floor is laid out almost identically with basically two-bedroom units, and the first floor
contains its own one unit in addition to the parking, trash, mail, and other related items.
As such, based on the changes, we, again, received support from the community.
Their requests were pretty much all were addressed through our revised plan.
So as such, we would ask the board's favorable consideration in this case.
I'll be happy to redirect any specific exhibits or answer any questions.
And my client is here to adopt my testimony.
Thank you.
Why don't you have your client state his name and spell for the court reporter and we'll adopt this testimony.
Sure. Mr. Chagai Bader should be here. Can you raise your hand virtually so you can be identified?
Mr. Bader, you can amuse yourself and please wait for the chair.
Hello?
Yeah, please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Chagai Bader.
Could you spell it, please?
C-H-A-G-A-I. Last name is Bader. B-A-D-E-R.
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Mr. Bader, did you see and hear the testimony I made to the board?
And can you verify that my presentation was true and correct and adopted as your own?
everything was true correct and this was we we submit thank you um if i if i may i just want to
indicate the board that because of the changes i don't know if ms saletta would want some specific
provisos if the board were to be inclined to grant this case thank you mr jinn yes it would require
proviso revised plans one page stamp today thank you questions from the board no mr chairman
no questions from the virtual audience
i see no handshare planning commission good morning board members ian hegarty for the
philadelphia city planning commission members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends a
zoning map amendment from rm1 to rsa5 at this location we appreciate the applicants coordination
and concessions based on community concerns.
However, I want to just emphasize for the board
that under the existing RM1 zoning,
nine units are permitted by right
and an additional four units can be earned
through the mixed income housing bonus.
So if the board is granting a variance for 13 units here,
they're granting this exact benefit to the applicant,
but without the applicant providing
any defined public benefit,
that is deed restricted rent capped units
on site in the building. There are no peculiarities to the lot that would constitute a
hardship. And so we don't find that there is an actual hardship that the zoning board should be
and so we don't find that there is an actual hardship
that the zoning board should be working from.
working from.
The City Planning Commission recommends
that the board deny all variances.
If I may, with regard to the income housing bonus,
I think the reduction in unit size
actually make these units larger
and therefore harder to meet the affordable housing requirements.
However, again, these were part of what was negotiated with the community
because they wanted the larger units,
and they would rather see it be more family-friendly units
than having smaller single-occupant-type units,
which would be actually more affordable.
So I just wanted to let the board know that.
Excuse me, Counselor.
YOU COULD MAKE FAMILY UNITS AFFORDABLE AS WELL AS SINGLE FAMILY, AS WELL AS ONE BEDROOM UNITS.
YES, WE HAD ORIGINALLY MORE ONE BEDROOM UNITS IN THE LAYOUT.
THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE ORIGINAL SETUP, WHICH WAS WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMUNITY INITIALLY.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
it. So MI 2021-002890-232628 North 9th Street. I vote yes with proviso.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, if I may, the provisos would need to indicate the unit
limit. Yeah. That's right. We talked about that. Oh, okay. Thank you. Change, right,
Right, that Sharon Sled has said.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Jin, I'm sorry, what is the number of units?
It'll be 13 total units.
And would you prefer, like that to be added as a specific proviso as well?
Because it is a change from the refuser, I wouldn't have that as a provider.
Thank you.
So even though it's reflected in the plans, it might be helpful to, Chair, add two provisos,
then maximum 13 units and revised plans, one page stamped today.
Thank you.
Okay, and I vote yes for that proviso.
Thank you.
Carol Tenere, yes, with a maximum of three units and revised plans stamped today.
My apologies, 13 units.
Did I say 13?
I hope 13 units.
Yes, thank you.
You said three.
Oh, my gosh.
Professor Plaza, yes, for provisos.
James Snell, yes, for provisos.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Thank you. Thank you.
So our next case is a presumptive hearing for nine parcels. Sharon I'm going to read the parcels
into the record. MI 2021 004015 1431 North 25th Street
Parcel E. MI 2021-004388-2408-Chargewood Street. MI 2021-004364-2408-Steward Street.
Parcel I, MI 2021, 004018, 2401 Stewart Street, MI 2021, 00419, 2406 Harland Street.
Parcel B, MI 2021, 003380, 2422 Harlan Street.
Parcel D, MI 2021, 003379, 2401 Harlan Street, MI 2021, 00417, 2401 Master Street.
parcel j and mi 2021 004020 2433 harland street parcel d attorney is jared klein
good morning mr chair members of the board uh jared klein it's k-l-e-i-n from blank rome
130 north 18th street philadelphia on behalf of the app do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Sharon, we'll proceed with this with RCO.
Should we see if there's an RCO member present? Yes. And if I could just say this is a resumption
Yes. And if I could just say this is a resumption hearing. It was previously heard and to be resumed for feedback from the RCO and the Planning Commission's recommendations.
hearing. It was pre-
So, Mr. Klein, would you like to make a statement first?
Yes. Thank you, Sharon. I'll be very brief. And if I might share my screen, I can put the community's letter up for the board to see.
um so this is the letter that we received from the brewery town sharswood uh civic association
and i'll just very very briefly recap for the board um this is an affordable housing proposal
that's part of a master plan of redevelopment in conjunction with pha in the sharswood area
this application is proposing 59 affordable housing units and those are going to be across
18 different parcels um that are within about six blocks of each of uh each each other in the same
geographic area um the uh as i mentioned this is part of a phase and so there are future phases
coming for this project um that will address some of the community comments from their letter
um specifically units that are going to be designed for single family home
ownership and units that actually include parking or coming in future phases. Just to very, very
briefly comment on the RCO's letter, as I know this resumption hearing was intended for their
testimony. I wanted to point out that although it is a letter of general opposition, they do note
that they're not opposed to the project concept and that the neighbors that voted to oppose did
so for some specific reasons. And those include the units being rental units as opposed to
home ownership, which respectfully is not really a zoning issue in terms of the demographics of
the occupancy. There was concern about some of the density on Harlan Street. And as we explained
during the initial hearing, although there are 59 units, this is not a traditional multifamily
project these units are going to be designed to mimic exterior look of a single family house
and the density is spread out across 18 properties in six blocks so we're not
jamming a bunch of density into a single spot uh and the third comment was about parking
and i mentioned that's coming in a future phase but also to point out part of the problem we had
is this is an rsa5 zone and so to add parking would have generated an additional refusal which
as the board knows is against the minimum variance necessary concept um we were here previously and
heard support from both the planning commission and the council president's office um and so with
that context i will uh turn it over to the board to take public comment comment from the virtual
audience i see no handshare has the planning commission taken a position on this
yes sir we have we're on the record for this okay
sharon ready to vote we're ready to vote yes if if we could simply get the planning commission to
restate their position absolutely yes um uh thank you sharon and members of the board um ian hegarty
for the philadelphia city planning commission um the scattered site redevelopments proposed with
this series of appeals uh conform to the comprehensive plan goals of providing public
housing and so the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the variances for
all appeals. Karen, you want me to read all the
I think because they were previously announced, you can announce that the
case is previously announced, or your vote is.
The case previously announced, I vote yes.
You're on mute, Carol. Sorry.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Sorry.
Professor Plaza, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thomas Hollowan, my vote is yes.
he might be having difficulties okay we have the vote
yes it's a yes chair thank you thank you all very much thank you mr chair
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
MI 2021-002889-2949-51 North Phillips Street, Natal Real Estate, no exhibits, first listing.
Chair, I'm promoting looks like Lou's panel.
Can you just let her have audio, please, ma'am?
Thank you.
You're welcome.