And then in the back, there will be a chef's kitchen type restaurant, which is where the functioning kitchen is to the right of it, as well all the other back of house areas from dishwash to dry storage, wet storage, toilet rooms, additional back house space.
And then in the back, there will be a chef's kitchen type restaurant.
The third floor on the left-hand side in blue is the office space for TTLF.
And then the outdoor covered dining area that I had mentioned looks down into the
Tun Alley courtyard. The rest of the space is mechanical and back of house.
Roof plan.
Nothing really to say there. And then the building elevations, again, largely you see in the lower left, the tavern, and then the portions of the restaurant space in the back.
Mr. Curry, you're done?
Yes, I don't have any questions for Mr. Mock.
Mr. Orfinides, do you have any questions?
um i do not uh yeah real quickly um sir my name is david orphanetes and i i represent second
LLC um just two quick questions um the is there a place for the staff to take breaks
um indoors or outdoors on the premises yeah yes this is keith mock indoors uh we have a
uh staff area uh which is on the second floor okay and have there been any uh sound studies
that have been performed regarding the potential impact of the um of the outdoor seating both at
grade and at the third floor as i understand it uh right now you are showing 44 units at grade in
the kind of courtyard in the alley area and 80 seats at the third floor the open covered area
That's 124 seats.
Have there been any sound studies done?
We've done sound studies with regard to the existing decibel level.
That's a requirement of the code.
And we are not permitted to exceed that decibel level.
You know, at that decibel level, did you take readings?
We did take readings.
I do not recall exactly what those were.
But we can make them available.
All right. And then. In terms of the occupancy, the outdoor ground floor, you're showing 44 and then you're showing 80 at the third is, in your opinion, is that the maximum lawful occupancy for those areas based upon the seating and the square footage of those areas?
Yeah, it is. It is the maximum number of seats that we can fit to properly have dining spaces.
Well, no, that wasn't my question.
So my question was, could there be, if I put it in an application for those areas,
could there be, given the square footage and given, I believe it's 15 square feet per seat,
could there be, and that's if it's only seating, if it's standing, we're talking about something,
we're talking only five square feet per person.
What would the maximum occupancy, lawful occupancy be for those two areas?
Have you run those calculations?
I have not done those calculations, so I couldn't tell you.
And have you run the calculations for standing as to what they would be?
No, I have not.
As of right now, I have no further questions.
Mr. Kurz, are you done your presentation?
Just a few points of clarification.
Mr. Mock, you're a registered architect in Pennsylvania, correct?
That's correct.
And how long have you practiced architecture?
45 years plus.
Okay. And during and over the course of your career, you've done other restaurants, correct?
Okay. And you heard my statement that this restaurant is designed similarly to other
restaurants of the same style, type and use, correct?
Yes. Second Street is primarily a restaurant street. I've been to most, if not all of them.
And this is very consistent with all of those restaurants.
And is it your position that the impacts resulting from this restaurant will be consistent with impacts of other similar restaurants in the area?
That is correct. Yep.
And with the exception of the fact we don't have sidewalk seating, correct?
That's correct. That's a huge benefit to not have the need for any sidewalk seating.
to not have the need for any sidewalk seating okay that's all that i have for mr mock
Thank you.
all right but my question is are you done your presentation uh yes that's the end of my
presentation as well mr orfinity so you have a presentation uh well i have a follow-up question
for mr mock um a couple follow-up questions first of all mr mock um you said it's consistent with
the other restaurants located on on that block um i haven't been down that way in a little while
but can you tell me what other restaurants have uh open outdoor seating or serving
um i know that several of them do i couldn't tell you the ones by name uh cuba libra
does actually have outdoor seating they are right across the street um and they actually
their outdoor seating um is a constructed uh temporary structure that sits on the sidewalk
and their restaurant is very much the same scale as this restaurant
so what so a couple things so so it's a temporary seating on the sidewalk or one that's in like the
parklet that's in the parking area um cuba libra is the uh restaurant that has the
temporary structure on the sidewalk on the sidewalk that's correct and that's a covered
structure i believe it is yes okay and do you know how many seats it is i i don't know no okay
um and that's not on the property that's that's that's on the sidewalk correct
yeah that is across the street from this site and then and that's and that's subject to a
license correct not a not a zoning permit correct i believe a sidewalk license i believe it does
require a license that's correct so it's something that could be revoked by the city correct
doesn't have that let me rephrase that it doesn't have the same rights as a zoning use that's been
granted by a zoning permit on a property correct yeah i'll just to the extent i'm not sure mr mock
okay listen listen mr mr orphanages listen a minute could you get to the point where you
want to make that so so this the point is this is that um mr kerr and you know really didn't
have an opportunity to discuss this at the beginning and i have been in discussions
regarding the conversations that my my client and his client mr adeli i believe it is
have been having regarding the hours of operation and the nature of the operations that will be
outside, open to the outside. My client obviously has an interest regarding sound volumes and
quality of life on the block, having just constructed a very large 42-unit, or no,
it's actually a larger unit than that, 61-unit building, multi-story building,
mixed-use building down at 40 South 2nd Street. They've been having very pleasant conversations,
as i understand we just not we have not had the ability the time yet to reduce those to writing
and as you know this approval runs with the land so while the ton and mr daly may be amazing people
and may abide by the hours and may abide by the noise and whatnot if they sell to somebody else
they sell to david orphanetes i mean we understand that so so what i would ask at this point is rather
than dragging this on, is I would ask the board's courtesy and consideration of keeping the record
open on the issue of the outdoor use and whether the standard or the burden has been met regarding
for special exceptions regarding that for a resumption hearing to allow our clients to
hopefully reduce their agreement to writing so that both properties and both owners are properly
protected. And if that's the case, then we can present that at the next meeting, and there
wouldn't be the need for this to drag on today or at the next meeting. Mr. Kerr, what's your
opinion? I think we're very close with Mr. Orvan Eges and his clients. There is some time pressure
on us with regard to our proposal. Two of the things I didn't mention is there's a 250th
anniversary of the United States Marine Corps this year. And so we're hoping to have this
restaurant up and running so that we can have a substantial portion of the year where we can
tie into that anniversary. And also next year, we have the 250th anniversary of the United States,
which which uh we're hoping to to market um this all right okay okay as well so if we could if we
could if i if i might if i may so if we could just have a uh a decision that's conditioned
A decision that's conditioned when I reach a written agreement with Mr.
on our recent agreement a written agreement with mr rafanidis i think that would
I think that would work.
We can approach it the way he suggested.
Hillary, can we get a date for a result of hearing?
I think you have a date there.
I see two possibilities on the 8th of April at 930 a.m.
And I don't want to hold Mr. Kerr up.
Is there any chance?
I mean, we could be extremely brief.
Can we set that?
and if there's a chance we have...
Mr. Orphanides, I'm giving
you what we have available.
I'm just trying to hold Mr. Kerr
up and his clients.
Is there anything
sooner than that, Ms. Emerson?
No. I'll tell you
what to do. Call the office.
That's what I'm saying.
We're going to continue this for
a resumptive hearing that will be set
in a short period of time.
Not this hearing, but in a short
period of time we can set when that
date's going to be okay fantastic and thank you both so we're not setting it we're not setting it
for the eighth then you just you both just told me you didn't want the eighth so i'm gonna see
if there's anything else okay yeah i'd like it to be at the outside bill let's just let's we'll be
fine okay thank you i take you at your word david thank you i'm with you okay thank you everyone
Number two, MI 2024-005-262, 1311-13 North 27th Street, Al Nockamson is the attorney.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal?
Do you agree with its accuracy?
Could you identify a client, a relationship to the property?
My client is S2 Real Estate LLC, and to the left of me is Sheriff Ron Whitaker, one of its members.
Right, and just for a point of information, I have a letter of opposition from Brewery Town.
from the council member and show with different people from the block.
Okay, so why don't you start your presentation?
I just have to be a minute as a panelist.
Yeah, thanks.
Hi, I'm here to present 1311 North 27th Street.
This is an adaptive reuse project.
It's actually 1311-13 North 27th Street.
The size of the lot is 3132, so it's a rather large lot.
We'll go through this, but the 2035 plan actually recommends that this lot be reclassified as an RM1 lot, which would allow seven units as of right.
During my presentation, I'll review the notice of refusal.
We do have correspondence from the Brewery Townshardswood Community Civic Association.
It is technically a letter of opposition.
It goes to the community vote, but there are two votes in that letter.
There's one from the zoning committee itself, where they voted overwhelmingly in support of this project. And then the community did not. I will say that Brewery Town Shardswood Civic Association is a rather sophisticated board. They have been in existence for as long as I've been practicing zoning law in Philadelphia.
and um they have their own meetings which are not attended by the public where we have to provide
our presentation materials well in advance and they review it and they take it very seriously
so when their zoning committee supports a project it's because it makes sense um technically um
under the law so we'll review that the property history as well again this is an adaptive reuse
project. It looks like it was a former firehouse of some sort, and it's never had a single-family
use, even though this is an RSA-5 property. Exhibit 4 shows that next door to us is a six-unit
building. Again, so it's not out of character for the property to have non-single-family use,
and it's in character for that block to have multifamily use. There's six units right next
store. And many of the refusals that are applied to us would also have applied to them.
Uh, and many of the refusals that are applied to us would also have applied to them and, and they are occupied and built again, the Philadelphia 2035 lower North district plan recommends that this property should be an R or should be an RM1 property.
And again, based on the square footage of a lot, we would be allowed seven units as of right.
We are only asking for five units.
Um, and again, you'll see that with this property is a responsible use of the property.
There is no basement use whatsoever. It's built on grade. There's access to the rear yard for
everyone for trash storage. We would agree to commercial trash pickup as well. Aerial view of
the property. One of our refusals, and we'll review that, has to do with the occupied area.
We're just extending a non-conforming use by building a story above. So again, not out of
character for this property to have full lot coverage. Maps of the area, photographs of the
properties around the area, or other exhibits. Our plans and drawings, these plans and drawings
are designed by 24-7 Design, a great, again, adaptive reuse of this property. Our RCO meeting
notice, where we show proof of mailing that notice, or applications for appeal that we filed on behalf
of S2 Real Estate LLC, deed to the property showing that they own the property, and our
certificate of tax clearance. Again, to my left is Sharon Whitaker, one of the owners of the LLC
that owns the property. Notice of refusal. So again, we're a rather large lot of 3,132 square
feet. There's an existing building structure there that's been vacant for a while. And we want to
have an adaptive reuse of having five dwelling units. Again, not out of character because the
property adjacent to us is six dwelling units. We have three refusals. First is the height of
the building where we're proposing to have 38 feet. And again, we're in the overlay where
we can only go based on the height of our adjacent building. The adjacent building is 36 feet high,
but they also have a parapet wall of three and a half feet on top of that. So really from the
outside, you're looking at it, it's 39 and a half feet high. Here to the roof line, our property is
38 feet high, and there is no parapet. So again, for the outside world, it looks like our building
is actually shorter than the building to the right of us. Roof decks. Again, what we're proposing is
really not a roof deck. That's a technical refusal. You'll see that there's balconies throughout.
Everyone has outdoor space. So it's not the quintessential roof deck that you would see
like a pilot house and things like that. And within the spirit of the overlay prohibiting
roof decks, I think they're looking at roof decks, not where you're walking out to a balcony area.
And that's throughout the whole property. So I think that fits within the character of the
neighborhood. Also, I think it fits within the spirit of the law in that respect. The third is
parking where, you know, we are providing, we're repurposing like a garage door and we're proposing
off-street parking there. The fourth refusal has to do with the amount of units. Again, the 2035
plan proposes that this should be an RM1 property, which will allow for seven units. And we're only
asking for five units. Again, not out of character, even though this is RSA 5, because this has a long