okay chair we have 34 attendees you can proceed as you wish thank you good morning everyone my
name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this morning's eba hearings with me is our
vice chair ismail shaheed present mr chairman thank you our board member thomas hallman
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
And our board member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Jim.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised the proceedings are being recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phil.gov.
For the benefit of our court sonographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and address the property question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken.
Let's look at our schedule.
or this morning. Number one, MI 2023-004-396-1807 East Boston Street. That case is continued.
And number 14, MI 2023-004-014-150 East Champlose Avenue. That case is continued.
Is there anyone who has comments relative to the two cases we continued, or is there any other requests for continuances?
Good morning, Chair. This is Fatina. I'll be your co-host for today.
Thank you.
You're welcome. I see no hands.
All right. Thank you.
And we have a few cases that we do not have exhibits.
Number two, MI 2023, 003-851, 1615-17, Haworth Street.
Janelle Solomon is the listed applicant.
We have no exhibits.
This is the first listing.
I see no hands, Chair.
MI 2023-003-851-1615-17 Hallworth Street.
That case is continued.
Mark must be heard.
Number seven.
MI 2023-004-084-2337 North 30th Street.
Warren Hamilton is the attorney listed.
There are no exhibits.
This is the first listing.
chair we have reverend tyrone williams with their hand up okay
good morning mr chair good morning reverend uh state your name for the record and spell
for the court sonographer yes my name is tyrone williams tyrone t-y-r-o-n-e williams w-i-l-l-i-a-m-s
Right. You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do, sir.
Are you involved in the case at 2337 North 30th Street?
We have received the information from ZBA in July 2023 concerning this address.
They have not reached out to us to schedule a meeting with the community.
I sent a letter in opposition as to give the community a chance to weigh in and vote on this project.
All right. Thank you, Reverend, for calling in. We appreciate it.
Thank you.
Is Mr. Hamilton in the audience?
No, Chair. There's no one by that name.
Thank you.
MI 2023-004-084-2337 North 30th Street.
Cases continue. Mark must be heard.
And number 10.
MI 2023-003-929-175
MI 2023-003-929-174 Levering Street.
Mark Cratchville is the owner applicant.
There are no exhibits.
This is the first listing.
The owner is available with their hand up, Sheriff.
Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer?
Yes, sir.
My name is Mark Cratchville.
M-A-R-K, last name spelled K-R-A-T, as in Tom, O-C-H-V, as in Victor, I-L.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Sir, this is the first listing. We do not have your exhibits at this point.
Oh, I'm very sorry for that.
I know I had gone through the Maniunk Council and had submitted everything,
But maybe I should have also submitted that to the greater Philadelphia and maybe or maybe they didn't they didn't get to you.
I'd be happy to send those documents over.
So why don't you do this? We do not have the documents now.
Why don't you call the office and they will make sure they work with you to have the appropriate documents and we will hear it the next time.
OK. OK, that's that's great. And I'm sorry, sir.
Who should I get a hold of for that?
can he just send us a message in the in the I'll put it in the chat chair
okay thank you you're going to you're going to see the information in the chat down on below okay
okay thank you sir appreciate it so MI 2023 003 929 174 Levering Street this case is continued
must be heard okay we're going to go to our add-on list
So, three cases I'm going to call out here.
Number one is MI-2023.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, I'll tell you, the first three, you don't have to call.
We took them off the add-on list.
You can just go right to number four.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Mm-hmm.
Number four, MI-2023-003-645-3029 Ridge Avenue.
This is a resumptive hearing.
The purpose of the hearing is to respond to the revised plans that were put in by the applicant.
We're going to immediately go to the virtual audience.
Anyone in the virtual audience who has comments relative to the plans that were resubmitted?
Mr. Chair, I just want to note two things.
One, Mr. Shahid has recused himself from this matter.
and two we can we can i think bring um mr harris on as a panelist from the outset
yeah yeah and then we can go right to the audience mr harris come on please
mr harris has been promoted to panel good morning mr harris
good morning mr harris good morning just state your name for the record please
Jermaine Harris, counsel for the applicant, Amina Perez, owner, JLK Investments, 3029.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
All right.
So the purpose of this hearing is going to respond to the changes that were submitted by you.
And what we're going to do is immediately go to the virtual audience to see who has comments relative to those plans.
OK. OK. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I have Strawberry Mansion. OK. Good morning.
Hello. Good morning, Miss Cummings. Yes. All right. Could you state your name,
please and spell for the court stenographer it's bonita cummings d-o-n-i-t-a c-u-n-m-i-n-g-s
miss cummings could you get closer to the machine we're having a hard time hearing you
can you hear me now i can yep thank you do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth i do okay so miss cummings so you know the purpose of this
is to respond to the changes that they had submitted in the plans.
So please start your testimony.
Right.
In response to that, the community has not seen those changes.
And to play it out in this process.
Excuse me, Chair.
Excuse me, Chair. Pardon me. This is the court reporter. I apologize for the interruption, but I'm having difficulty.
Pardon me.
This is the court reporter.
I apologize for the interruption.
Yeah, so am I. Ms. Cummings, we're having a hard time hearing it this morning. Try to get closer to the machine.
Can you hear me now?
I can.
Can this, can I go for hear me now?
Yes. Thank you.
Okay. I was saying that this process is playing out at the board without really having had been vetted through the community's process. So the changes were made and stated here at last week's meeting.
It is the community's position that the property design is still too high with 43 feet for the Stanley Street, 2100 block Stanley Street residents.
So it's a 25-feet property being towered over by 43 feet.
Ms. Cummings, there's someone talking behind you, and then we're having a hard time again hearing you.
Can you hear me now?
Okay, I'm saying that the 43 feet in height is still too high for the 24.
Okay, please.
I know, Mr. Kelly, I understand.
Mr. Kelly, I understand.
Can I call back in on another device?
Why don't you do that?
Okay, thank you.
chair we do have another hand from okay please mr williams you are allowed to speak
thank you very much hi reverend reverend you've already been sworn just state your name for the
record sure reverend tyrone williams right right and you've already been sworn so so reverend so
you know this purpose of this hearing is to respond to the changes that they made so i'm
just going to pick i want to please start your testimony okay i want to pick up when this
comes left off yeah that's fine i want to first off ask did the board get my information on
yesterday afternoon i sent you a urgent email concerning the petition and i need well so so
mr william so we we have the information about the petition but the purpose of this hearing is
not the petition the purpose of this hearing is to respond to the changes that have been made okay
well let me respond to that please thank you mr bergman we have a process in this community in
which we are transparent to the residents of this community.
It will be very egregious and unfair to decide on these changes without the community's input, nor have they had a vote.
This is. Well, Reverend, I understand what you're saying, but I guess the purpose is you understand the changes.
And we're curious as to your stance. I don't understand the changes because I have not had time to review.
them. I have not had time to discuss them with the applicants. I have not had time to even inform
the community of the changes. And I think this is, I mean, I'm not going to give my opinion.
I'm just stating the community has no input on these changes. All right. Thank you.
Could I briefly respond if I could? No, Mr. Harris, wait a minute until I'm done with him.
Mr. Harris, you're going to get a chance to respond to everybody who calls, okay?
All right.
Is Ms. Cummings back in the audience?
Hello?
Yes, Chair.
Just a moment.
Yes, Chair.
Can you hear me now?
Yes, Ms. Cummings, we can hear you.
You've already been sworn.
As you know, the purpose is to respond to these changes, and you were in the process
of talking about the hype.
Right. The height is 43 feet over, towering over and casting a shadow onto the residence of the 2100 block of Stanley Street.
The property is situated in a way where it's a corner property.
So it's two areas that, you know, Ridge Avenue and Stanley Street is not just affecting Ridge Avenue.
And and that is really.
And that is really a hardship to that block to have to be put in the dark or have something protruding out from their block from that corner.
The height is too high. And again, we haven't had the opportunity as a community, you know, we looked at what we did see and we determined that that was too high.
but it's almost the same you're talking about the same height and then they use uh you know i'm
they use these uh petitions to miss cummings we we have everything that everyone sent relative to
the petitions we have a record of that what we want to do is concentrate right now on these
changes and where you stand or what you think about the changes well the changes we're opposed
of the changes okay because the changes okay thank you very much is there anyone else in the virtual
audience chair we have amina perez okay counsel do you want do you want your client to testify
um i i guess i will reserve the right to have her testify after i respond okay all right
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience besides Amina Perez that wants to testify?
Tyrone Williams had his hand up.
Were you done with him, Chair?
If he has any more input, bring him on.
Mr. Williams, you're free to speak.
Please unmute.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before Mr. Harris or Ms. Perez speaks, if there are any mention of this petition in their testimony or their statements, I reserve the right to come back and rebut that.
I have faith, though. It is important to our processes in this community. It is important that it is heard.
Reverend, listen to me. We have copies of everything that was said about the petition.
That's part of our record. And we will make sure that we look at that in a way, in an appropriate way.
I'm just saying if they speak on it, then I reserve the right, please, to have my hand raised again.
I hear what you're saying. Thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Calvin Williams.
Good afternoon.
Good morning, Mr. Williams.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Calvin Williams, C-A-L-V-I-N-W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S.
You swear a friend to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair.
Are you a neighbor?
I am a near neighbor, yes.
Okay. So, Mr. Williams, the purpose of this is to respond to the changes that they've been in. Where do you stand on the changes?
Well, I am not absolutely sure at this time because through illness, I've been able to miss the RCO meetings.
I'm sorry about that.
So I have not had an opportunity to see any of the plans or any of the things that they're referring to.
So I would like to have an opportunity, since I'm well now and back in recovery, to take a look at those things.
Okay, thank you very much. We'll see what we can do about that relative to the RCO. Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no more hands, Chair.
Mr. Harris, do you want to respond to what was stated relative to the changes by the community?
Sure. Do I need to, could I just briefly share my screen?
You can?
Okay, just so that we're on the screen and we're seeing what it is that the changes that
were being made, the changes is that the roof deck is being removed that was proposed that
was reviewed by L&I, so the rooftop deck is being removed, also the height of the building
is being reduced from 45 to 43 feet.
is being reduced from 45 to 43 uh feet that was also a uh concession that uh my client made in
light of the concerns that was had the roof deck was also a concern so that was something
uh that uh my client the jlk investments that they removed uh also there was there this wasn't
a concern at the meeting, but the depth of the rear yard was reduced. It was originally 180
square feet. Now it's 138 square feet. So those are the changes that was made as far as that's
concern. And these changes are pretty consistent with what's on this block right now, which is
multifamily buildings, RM1 District. This is 306 Ridge Avenue. This is the 3017 Ridge Avenue,
similar type of facade and we have
3006 3017 and 3007 and this is a five family right here this 3006 ridge avenue the 30
17 is a 46 46 foot building that was approved all of these were approved by the zoning
by this board recently, and we're asking, as was presented at the last hearing, we're requesting
that this be, since these are the adjacent uses, this is what we're requesting for this to be
consistent with this particular area. So that's what the extent of this resumption hearing is,
is for the changes those are the changes and we just wanted to again highlight to this uh to this
board that what's being requested is what is uh currently uh the adjacent use thank you i understand
questions from uh planning commission
good morning chair and members of the board this is greg waldman from planning commission staff
could you spell your name for the court reporter please greg absolutely uh my name is spelled uh
g-r-e-g-o-r-y gregory waldman w-a-l-d as in david m-a-n as in man right do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed greg
this property is indicated for residential use on the city plan our adopted district plan
recommendation uh sorry our adopted district plan recommended no change to the existing zoning at
this location the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique
circumstances or conditions of the property but prevented from being used in conformance with the
height, roof deck, unit number, or rear yard depth requirements of the code.
The section of Ridge Avenue was rezoned in 1967 in a council-sponsored zoning map change
to remove commercial zoning.
The correct process for something that varies this significantly from the code is a zoning
change, not a zoning variance.
Therefore, we recommend that all the requested variances be denied.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And the board has heard a great deal of testimony about this.
We will go next week on the 31st.
We will examine this in the executive session and we will vote at 930 a.m.
on the 31st next Wednesday.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
All right.
We're going to go to our regular list.
See here.
Number.
Number three.
MI-2023-004-388-755-North 44th Street.
Meredith Ferliger is the attorney.
There is a recommendation of support from the West Belmont Civic Association.
Ms. Ferliger is coming back as a panel.
Good morning.
good morning mr chairman good morning counsel i'm aware that you have another case very close to this
Good morning, counsel. I'm aware that you have another case very close to this one. We'll hear
that right after, but not together. Okay. Sounds good. All right. So could you state your name,
please, and spell it for the court stenographer? Sure. Meredith Ferliger, M-E-R-E-D-I-T-H,
F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E. Could you identify your client and
relationship to this property? Sure. My client is 42nd Market Associates, LLC, which is the owner
of the property at 755 North 44th Street. And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refuge or stipulate to his
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? I did. Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, with me today I have my client, Brahimengladen, who is a member
of 42nd Market Associates LLC, which as I mentioned is the owner of the property at 755
North 44th Street. As the board is aware, the case in front of you this afternoon concerns
a property on 44th Street in the city's West Belmont neighborhood. As the board listens to
the presentation today, the critical piece of information for the board to consider
is that my client purchased this property as an RM1 lot that would have permitted the application
before you today. A short time after its purchase, and unfortunately with no knowledge of what had
transpired, while he diligently continued to develop design drawings for the intended
development, the lot was rezoned, along with many others in the area, to RSA 5. I'll bring up the
exhibit packet for reference. As you referenced early on, at Exhibit 14 is a letter of support
from the West Belmont Civic Association. Tax clearance is included at tab 2, and you'll also
note the deed at tab 3, let me zoom out a little bit, showing that the applicant purchased this
property on August 26, 2022. As you'll see on the zoning map up on the screen at Exhibit 7,
although the property was rezoned to RSA 5, the property sits on a block that served as a point
of division between the new RSA 5 and the retained RM 1. As you can see, the west side of the street
remained RM 1, while the east side predominantly transitioned to RSA 5. By way of area context,
I have included aerials at Exhibit 8. 755 North 44th Street is directly across from the Marshall
Washington Public School, but is otherwise predominantly surrounded by a mix of residential
uses that I will touch on in additional detail momentarily. Photographs of the existing vacant
lot are shown at Exhibit 15. As you'll note, this lot sits on a block with some mixed vacancy. As
you can see, some of the structures are brand new, while others are still in a fairly dilapidated
condition. This lot, as you can see, extends all the way back to Palace Street, which is shown in
the image here. The previous structure that sat on this lot was demolished due to neglect around
2005, but did previously have history of mixed residential and commercial use. And I have a
couple other images just looking either way. This one's looking towards Brown Street,
and then I included the zoning posters as always. The zoning plans are included in the packet at
Exhibit 5. I also have floor plans at Exhibit 6. The application proposes a new three-story structure
to contain three dwelling units. Given the context of the surrounding neighborhood,
the structure is only proposed to be three stories and less than the code allowable height
of 38 feet. Additionally, based on discussions with the community, the third story will be designed
with a mansard to better blend with the surrounding properties. At Exhibit 6 that I
have up on the screen, I've included a photograph of another property that this particular applicant
constructed that has a similar mansard design. Each unit is a two-bedroom unit of about 850
square feet each. All units are well equipped with laundry facilities, trash storage, and ample
living space. The applicant handles his own property management and has a proven track
The applicant handles his own property management and has a proven track record in the West Philadelphia community of responsible management.
Now, with respect to the application, we received one refusal for the proposed three dwelling unit use in the now zoned RSA 5 district.
As I referenced early on, this case presents a dual hardship.
Most importantly, the applicant purchased this property with the specific goal of developing the project that's presented here today.
The applicant's investment in this lot was specifically based on the then-buy-write three dwelling units.
The remapping bill is included in the packet at Exhibit 10.
As the board may be aware, when a remapping bill is introduced, no advance notice is provided to effective property owners.
Accordingly, it was not until this bill became effective around February 2023 that the applicant caught wind of what had transpired, fundamentally frustrating its investment in the property without recourse other than seeking the relief requested before this board today.
Furthermore, despite the rezoning, the area surrounding the property remains a mixed
compilation of single-family, multi-family, and even some commercial uses.
The fact that the rezoning line was drawn essentially down this street accentuates the
hardship facing the property. At Exhibit 9, which is summarized on the exhibit list
that I have up on the screen, the property is surrounded on all sides by a mix of multifamily
densities. Most of the comparable densities are between two and three units. In fact, to make this
case even more clear, the vacant lot directly next door to this one at 753 North 44th Street,
which is shown in the image here, was approved just prior to the rezoning taking effect,
for a three-family dwelling nearly identical to the one proposed today. The applicant is also
the owner of that property, having purchased both under the assumption that two identical
structures could be built. The applicant further submits the proposal represents the lease
modification to provide relief from the requirements of the code, given that the
entirety of this proposal would have been permitted by Wright at the time the applicant
purchase the property under the prior RM1 zoning. This simply seeks approval for the exact
development that was contemplated and designed as a buy-write project. Furthermore, the density
is well in line with the character of the surrounding area, which includes predominantly
three family dwellings. The units each have two bedrooms and are large in relation to similar
available tenancies in the area. The proposal will not contribute to congestion in the area.
As you may have noticed as I walked through the photographs, the block still has ample parking
on each side of the street. North 44th Street has an added benefit of extending back to Palace
Street. The property, like so many others in West Philadelphia, benefits from ample public
transportation in close proximity. The variance will not impair light and air or harm any neighbors.
No dimensional variances are requested and the proposed structure is below the code allowable
38 feet height and only three stories to better harmonize with the existing structures on the
block. The proposal will fill the intended goal for the reactivation of this property
set in motion when the applicant purchased it back in 2022.
With respect to the community, we presented the proposal to West Belmont Civic Association in November,
and the proposal received predominantly votes in support, as is reflected by the RCO letter at Exhibit 14.
In addition to these reasons, we submit we comply with all of the standards outlined in Section 143038E of the Code,
as is more thoroughly outlined in the memo of law that I've submitted to the board at Exhibit 11.
At this time, I would ask if my client, Brahim Agladin, could press the raise hand button to unmute yourself.
Your client has been allowed to speak.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
Hi, good morning, everyone.
My name is Brahim Igladon, B-R-A-H-I-M.
Last name is I-G-H-L-A-D-E-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Brahim, have you heard all the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today?
Thank you.
Brahim, have you heard all the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board?
Yes, ma'am.
And would you agree that all that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you. Happy to answer any questions the board has.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
What's your comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. We have Adrian Fernandez.
Morning, Adrian.
Please unmute yourself.
Phone number ended in 3552.
I don't think she covers
this properly. I'm guessing it might be
an error.
This is West Philly.
I'm sorry it popped up, Adrian Fernandez
for some reason. Excuse me, call her
with the extension 3552.
Please unmute yourself.
You're free to speak.
I believe it's
star six to unmute yourself.
Or star nine.
Maybe she, maybe they accidentally raised a hand.
Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no other hands chair.
Planning commission.
Morning chair members of the board Greg Waller for planning commission staff.
In 2023, if the zoning map was amended from residential multifamily,
the single family residential at this location,
in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
However, the variance is not likely to impair the character of the block,
which is mixed in character.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance.
MI 2023-004-388-755 North 44th Street, I vote yes.
My vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
So number 16 is MI-2023-004-386, 660 North 42nd Street.
Meredith, just state your name for the record, please.
Meredith Ferleger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
And there's also a recommendation of support from the West Belmont Civic Association.
Could you identify your client and relationship to this property?
Give me one moment just to switch out my exhibits.
My client for this property is 617 Brooklyn Associates, LLC, owner of the property at 660 North 42nd Street.
And our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to read or refuse or accept related to his accuracy?
I do, yes.
Thank you for the department.
it is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing i did yes
thank you uh thank you uh i'll apologize uh in advance board members i was intending to
present these together so you you may have a so on so so marath what's similar just just go a little
bit through it yeah so this is uh i'll walk you through where this property is and some of the
background uh but the circumstances surrounding this application are identical to the one that's
fine that's 44th street he purchased this as an rm1 lot and shortly after his purchase it was
rezoned so okay if if the board would like i'll walk you through uh the the area of the location
But otherwise, I'd be happy to just expressly adopt all of my testimony.
And thank you for that.
So but why don't you just take us through the areas with some photos and things like that?
No problem at all.
So, again, this is very similar case.
The deed I have included at Exhibit 3.
This property was purchased in January of 2022 around the same time as the prior case.
I've included all of the standard exhibits in the packet.
And again, what's also extremely similar in this case as the last one is that the rezoning line here, again, was drawn essentially right down this block.
So 660 North 42nd Street, you can see, sort of served as the point of division. The other side of the street remained RM1, and you can see the dense CMX2 Lancaster Avenue corridor up at the northeast of this image.
uh northeast of this image uh while you know the west side of the street retained the rsa
5 zoning uh by way of aerials what the board will also note about this image is that directly across
the street here this is 141 dwelling units so this is a pretty dense multi-family development
that sits directly across the street uh just by way of photographs not a little bit this this is
also an existing vacant lot that was demolished a couple years ago, probably a couple decades ago,
due to neglect. And the board will note as I scroll through that, again, this structure is
designed to be identical. It would be less than the code allowable height. You can even see a
little bit further down this block that there is a three-story structure with that Mansar design.
So that's really what drove this decision to, you know, add that design to better reflect the block.
And you'll see across the street where that very dense multifamily development is.
And at the end of the block, the other way facing Wallace Street, there is a church and just a couple other images.
Let's see what else. So I do have the zoning plans.
They are substantially similar to the plans that were presented for 44th Street, obviously
just different based on this lot and the fact that there's no rear street here.
The application is proposed for three family dwelling.
And again, the Mansart design was specifically based on discussions with the community.
These units are actually slightly larger than the project we showed for 44th Street.
these are about 900 square feet each similar similar amenities such as laundry trash storage
and ample living space board I would adopt the same hardship arguments that I gave in the prior
case concerning 755 North 44th Street again very similar to the prior case the remapping occurred
just shortly after this applicant purchased the property, which, again, fundamentally frustrated
its investment in the property. But similar to 44th Street, this area does remain fairly mixed
in the way of single family, multifamily, and even some commercial uses being fairly close to
Lancaster Avenue. And so in this case, densities range from two to four families, including
directly across the street, which is 161 dwelling units. I think that is the only additional
information. The rest of the argument is identical to that which would have been given for 44th
Street and is also included in the memo of law that I submitted to the board at Exhibit 11. So
that is fully referenced in the exhibit packet as well. Is it your same owner?
Why don't we bring him on
And just let him state his name for the record
Brahim if you're still there
The owner has been allowed to speak
Aye sir just for the record state your name
Brahim Ikeladen
B-R-A-H-I-M
Last name is I-G-H-L-A-D-N
Please proceed counsel
Thank you Brahim
Have you heard all of my testimony
Given today in regards to
660 North 42nd Street
yes ma'am and would you agree that all the circumstances concerning the 42nd street
property are similar if not identical to that you experienced with 44th street yes ma'am and would
you agree that all the testimony given today was true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it
were your own yes thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no chair
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emberson
not at this time mr chair um questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands here planning commission
good morning chair and members of the board this is greg robin planning commission staff
um in 2023 the zoning map was amended from residential multi-family to single-family
residential at this location in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan
the variance is not likely to impair the character of the block which is mixed in character
the city planning commission recommends the zoning board grant the variance thank you mi2023
004 386 660 north 42nd street i vote yes thomas hall i vote
James Snell, my vote is yes.
there's no shaheed my vote is yes thank you mr chair can we have can we have tom vote again i
Nishnah Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, can we have...
didn't catch one more time time you fell off a little bit at the end thomas holliman my vote is
yes okay thank you council thank you mr chairman we'll see you we're gonna thank you mr chair um
yeah actually can we move to number eight next okay we originally had that one later in the
schedule. Yeah, that was going to be last. Okay, you're right. Thank you.
Yeah, so let's hear that one. Thank you.
So MI 2023-003-927-1815
South 20th Street. Jennifer
Bradzillo is the attorney. Letter of
Opposition from Point Breeze Civic Association.
Ms. Bradzillo is coming back
in as a panelist.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Hi, could you state your name for the record, please?
Jennifer Zicklo, B-A-Z-Y-D-L-O.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to this property?
My client is Daniel Katz, and he is the owner of the property.
Now, our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to obey the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right. Before I start, I just want to let the board know I am at a hospital waiting for my father to get out of a procedure.
So your background noise, I very much apologize. This is a last minute thing.
So just wanted to just wanted to let you know. All right. So like I said, my name is Jennifer Bezidlow.
I'm here representing the owner of the property, Daniel Katz. He is owned it in various LLCs and ownership entities, but he's owned the property since 2007.
I'm just going to walk you through our exhibits. We have one refusal.
it is for a lack of commercial use in a CMS2 or deed showing that Daniel Katz on the property
and then we have showing that the property taxes are paid the only outstanding balances
from this year that's not due yet this letter will come back to the RCO letter or notification
letters, zoning map of the area you can see it's mostly RM1, our zoning archive
which I'll come back to later showing that this has been two units since it's
been built. These are our previous building permits I'll come down. This is
the marketing from the multiple listing services showing that this building has
been for rent and for sale unsuccessfully since 2019 aerial view and I guess we'll
start here with the photographs there's the posting of the property so let's
just talk a little bit about this building 1815 south 20th streets it is
a CMX 2 zoned property at the southeast corner of 20th and McClellan in the
point breeze neighborhood of philadelphia uh the parcel is a uh 1 156 square feet with an existing
building that's about 2 000 square feet total um currently uh it is one commercial unit
on the first floor and and ground floor let's just scroll there you can see the photos this is the
and then
There is also an existing two-car garage on the property that has been there and permitted
since at least the 1940s and confirmed with our 2019 building permits for the renovation.
Our proposal is to convert the ground floor residential unit, one second, just trying
to get to the plans, the ground floor residential commercial unit to a one bedroom plus an office
space on like the lower level um residential unit uh there uh the reason for this as i saw
in the multiple listing service records uh the property had was renovated in 2019
been actively marketed both for rent and for sale since then uh without success and as you know we
We have been going through quite the real estate boom in the past couple of years, but because of the relatively small.
But because of the relatively small size of this commercial space, along with the fact that we are dealing with a property that's right by Point Freedys Avenue, as well as other commercial properties that are nearby that are probably more suitable given their size and location, it has been very difficult to find a tenant for this commercial site.
So it has been remained vacant since the renovation in 2019 to 2020.
Here you can see across the street that there are two daycares across the street already.
And you can see there's another commercial building across McFlellan Street.
There's also a lot of vacant commercial properties in this area as well as on Point Cree's Avenue.
So it has been marketed. It's unsuccessfully both for sale and for rent.
And by right, this property can be one commercial unit and two residential units based on the lot size and the CMX2 zoning.
What we are asking for is a significantly less intense use of the property, which is to just have the two residential units with no commercial space.
um the uh existing commercial space will be converted to a one bedroom plus office plus
and two back uh and that is our only refusal is for the lack of commercial space
uh there'll be no major changes to the building on float uh we would just be putting a kitchen
mostly the biggest the biggest change would be to add a kitchen to uh this entryway area on the
first floor uh to have a residential unit uh we'll go to the floor plan you can see a little bit more
about what the layout would be but we're largely keeping the layout the same but adding the kitchen
space i'll see here downstairs could be like a playroom office probably an ideal space for you
know because there's not a big living room area upstairs so we're dealing with uh you know kitchen
upstairs living room downstairs home office attached to the bedroom and then upstairs you
can see that there is a three-bedroom unit upstairs um let's go back to so like i said
before the commercial unit has been unsuccessfully marketed for several years now uh and there are
numerous other commercial businesses in the area like corner stores hair salons daycares all that
of stuff that is being provided to the community already in a much more serviceable area in larger
spaces and on commercial corridors uh the small space of this first floor is not something we
created this building has been in existence since before 1940 i have documents back to 1940 and this
building was already existing by then uh so it's not something that we've created ourselves um by
converting this first floor unit to a residential dwelling will ensure that we have eyes on the
street and activating this first floor use so that it doesn't remain vacant um it is in line
with the surrounding area let me just get to the map so if we look at the map uh we are in a solidly
rm1 area um so we have some corner commercial here you see this block has a one large uh block
to the north has one large commercial building uh but for the most part we are dealing with
residential multi-family zoning and if this property were zoned rm1 like the adjacent parcels
three residential units would be unified right so again we're asking for something less intense
than is by right and less intense than would be by right in the surrounding uh zoning districts
in this area um we did meet this point breeze uh community development coalition let me just get
to that we had an extensive conversation uh 202 neighbors were notified five were in attendance
the conversation resolved revolved mostly around the existing garages uh their letter did say that
someone desired commercial space but mostly were near neighbors within a block or two
and i'm sure some of them are on this call um did not want the property to be commercial they
wanted residential use but what they were concerned about was the garages um so let's
just go to talk a little bit more about the garages so you can understand that the garages
are already there and permitted. One second, we'll just get to the right notes here. So
if we look here in our zoning archive, this is a permit from 1949.
in our zoning archive this is a permit from 1949
which is for an addition for this building that's already divided one family plus a store
and when you scroll down to the plans you can see this garage is already in existence
in 1949 right um you then have in 1980 the confirmation of the continued existence of that
1949 permit uh if we then go to my clients building plans that they submitted in 2018 and
2019 these are the permits for the renovation that were pulled there was extensive work done
l and i was out there a bunch inspecting everything you can see in these plans
that the garages there's an existing two-car garage that was approved along with the building
plants in 2019 so so these garages have been there they've been in continuous use
there hasn't been there's they're permitted they're there and they're not a subject of this
application this application is just for the conversion of the commercial ground floor unit
to a residential unit um i'm just going to talk a little bit about like non-conformities just to
get it on the record because i'm sure the neighbors are going to talk about it so um
we can see here that these are the existing garages you can see there is a slope down where
the garages are it doesn't hit the pavement uh if you look back in the images which i can't pull up
at the moment um but there was extensive road work done on this road a few years ago so uh you can
tell that that curb cut is there and it's still been there since 1949 and it looks way different
than what it looks like across the street where you actually have an illegal parking space with
no curb cut across the street from here this is not a permanent parking although it's used for
parking um and as you know uh non-conformities once they are established uh remain unless they're
discontinued um so there's been no removal of the garages there's been no modification to
this property that would prevent the use of those garages um i wonder what happened here
why my screen split um sorry about that um so you know there's been nothing that's changed
there uh there's been no there's no permits that have last uh the taxes have been paid and most
notably um the code requires if there's going to be a discontinuation of use at 14 305 5 net 0.3
quote a that the city must document in the zoning archive that it was a discontinued use
here we have no documentation of that discontinued use so we have a barrage that's still active and
being used and has been there permitted reconfirmed several times most recently in 2019
of its right to exist so and yet again it's not a refusal we're not talking about the
garage is talking about the conversion of the ground floor unit to residential use. Also,
I would note that the two garages are taking up one parking space, but getting two cars
off the street. So I just want to kind of summarize hardship and my argument here.
We have a property that is in an RM1 area that's not really suitable for commercial use,
as evidenced by the fact that it's been marketed now for several years.
It hasn't been able to be rented or sold, whereas the residential unit was rented quite quickly.
We are looking for the least modification possible,
but we're actually looking for a use that is well-blown the intensity and density allowed by Wright,
both in this zoning district and the adjacent RM1 zoning districts.
it's well serviced by public transit there's a bus stop right in front of the property
with lines into center city and why the neighbors voted to oppose it their opposition was not to
the conversion of the commercial space it was to the existence of the garages and actually wanted
this to be a residential space I'm sure some of the neighbors are here to more fully talk about
that um but with that i would just i would just end my case in chief is your client here i don't
think he is okay all right so we'll take your accept your testimony as an officer of the court
questions from the board no mr chairman no chair
questions or comments from the virtual uh from our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board.
This is Greg Waldron from Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from commercial mixed use to single-family residential.
This property has a documented history as an entirely residential use.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the proposed variance for not including commercial use on the ground floor.
Thank you.
MI 2023-003-927-1815 South 20th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Counsel.
Thank you so much. I'd appreciate your accommodation.
Oh, absolutely. Thank you.
So we're going to move to number four and number 13 together.
MI 2023-004-079-2556 Frankfurt Avenue.
Number 13 is MI 2023-004-078-2554 Frankfurt Avenue.
Michael Matione is the attorney.
Um, there is a, um, recommendation of, um, of non-opposition from the East Kensington neighbors.
There is also a recommendation from Councilman Squilla, um, where he recommends this, this decision up to the board.
He does give us a letter stating some of his concerns.
Mr. Mattione, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenography?
Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Certainly. It's 2554-56 Frankfurt Avenue, LLC, and they are the owner of the property,
and I have the managing member of the LLC, Roman Guzbaugh, on with us today.
Okay, and our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to leave the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
Good morning, and yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we did.
Thank you, sir.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Okay. Again, good morning, Mr. Chairman and Michael Mattione. We're seeking two variances
to permit residential use. And these are neighboring properties, 2554, 2556. They're
similar, but not exactly the same, pretty much mirror images of each other. And we're seeking
two variances to permit residential use of the unit
on the first floor and basement that was originally developed as professional
offices. The refusals are due to the lot size not being large
enough to support
three residential units because you need 480 square feet
per residential unit and at 2554 we have
1226 square feet and at
2556 we have 1110 square feet and the second refusal is in the cmx two district we would
like to have residential use at street level we have submitted our exhibits in advance including
the tax clearance the refusals a letter of non-opposition from the east kensington neighbors
Neighborhood Association, the Coordinating RCO, our zoning site plans, floor plans, a use registration permit that was obtained when we were trying to lease this out as professional offices, and photographs.
The properties were purchased in 2021 by my client, and they were vacant lots at that time.
So just give a little context on the Google Earth.
These are the two vacant lots right there where Amber Street runs into Frankfurt Avenue.
The last two addresses on Frankfurt Avenue, the remainder of that block are on Amber Street.
So our client obtained construction permits and built this and fit it out as professional office space of permitted use in the CMX2 zoning district with two residential units above.
zoning district with two residential units above. This is the ground floor and basement. And then
there are two residential units, one on the second floor and one on the third floor.
The property complies with the height and other dimensional requirements for the CMX2
zoning district. Our client then retained Jonathan Beaulieu of JVMP Group to list the
properties. They've listed the properties for rent for 20 months. They've had zero showings
as professional offices in either property. The rent started at $2,300 a month. They reduced it
to $1,600 a month. They have now reduced the rent to $850 a month. They still have yet to have
anybody even come through to look at this, to use this property as a professional office.
And there's a bunch of different factors. And I just want to run down. This is the floor plan
the first floor, you have the living area, kitchen, bedroom, and then just some additional
living space in the cellar. And that's 2554, 2556, very similar. They're both about 715 square feet
on the first floor and slightly less on the lower floor. And again, these are the permits that we
to allow the office use on the first floor and in the basement.
And then these are just photos showing the properties.
The problems we've run into is trying to lease it as an office is it's bi-level space,
about 700 feet on the first floor.
So we've been told it's not large enough.
We've been told the location doesn't work.
There's not enough foot traffic.
and foot traffic's not good there and any kind of business relying on foot traffic we've been
told by the real estate agent is not successful when you look at this we have a lack of market
ability and that's recognized as an unnecessary hardship to justify the granting of the variances
there's approximately 19 properties on this side of frankfurt avenue and amber street
and only about four have active commercial uses the remainder are either vacant closed down or
being used as residential uses as you can see the property over here on Amber Street is clearly a
residential property we've spoken to other business owners failed business owners Justin
Mink of Bell Salon at 2560 Frankfurt Avenue this is 2558 I'll get to that in a minute but this is
2560 Bell Salon they were in business from May 20 of 2021 to June of 2023 and he said there were
several reasons he closed down the main reason being not enough foot traffic to bring the amount
of business necessary to to pay all the bills and where we are located it doesn't have it's not a
viable place for businesses and that's the owner of this failed business the Bell Salon so you know
Now, with that and our 20-month effort to try and lease our space, it's been a problem.
So we've been unable to find anybody to come in.
Now, this is 2558, directly adjacent to 2556.
As you can see, this was set up as a commercial establishment.
They've been unable to get anybody to lease it.
It's been problematic for the neighbors.
You can see there's been vandalism on the building and everything else.
And this is directly next door to us.
And this is the condition that's there today.
And we don't want to become another vacant commercial space.
And, you know, this is, again, from the Bell Salon where they were closed.
And this just shows some of the surrounding properties.
As you can see, this is not an active commercial area.
That's on Frankfurt Avenue.
That's across the street.
There is a large commercial space, and that appears to work.
but this is just some additional again this is amber street which runs right into our properties
as you can see all of the storefronts have been converted or being used as residential uses so
um and this is our property and some interior shots just showing um and now the back on arcadia
Street, just to get the context of the property. Again, we designed it as a professional office.
The windows and doors were appropriate for a professional office.
We talked to the real estate agent before, and he said professional office may very well work
there, a lawyer, an insurance agent, maybe an architect, some other professional.
um but over the 20 months we've tried to lease this space you know it's turned out that you know
we can't find anybody and we've reduced the rent twice down to uh you know 33 percent of what it
33% of what it was originally. So we believe that this effort is clearly indicative of the
was originally so um we
inability to use this property as zoned. It just doesn't seem to work and we don't want to end up
like 2558 in a blighted, dilapidated condition. As you can see, we did have a fairly strong support
at the RCO meeting with 11 neighbors in support. We believe that the physical conditions, both the
size of each property and the location of the property justify the granting of the requested
variance along with our inability to find anybody to use it as it's zoned we believe that the
requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow this property to be used
the grant of the variance will not adversely impact public facilities it's a low impact
residential use it won't adversely impact the surrounding properties and it you know if you
look at 2558 that does adversely impact surrounding properties but we will benefit them by removing
vacant commercial space and adding eyes and ears to the street and hopefully it would not become
a problem like 2558 and we won't cause any environmental problems by having this property
utilized. With that, I would like to call on Roman Guzva.
We see his hand. No, but I do see him. Wait a minute here. There he is.
Okay, good. Sorry about that chair. Sure. Good morning, sir.
Please unmute, sir, and you're free to speak.
Good morning, sir.
Roman Guzva, please unmute yourself.
He's free to speak, but I don't know if he's having trouble unmuting.
So, Mr. Mattione, you're an officer of the court.
We'll gladly accept your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
We have someone by the last name of Garcia.
Please unmute yourself.
Good morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, sir. Hello, my name is Eastman Garcia, I-S-M-A-N-I-E-L. Garcia is my last name. I am
currently a resident on... Hold up, hold up, hold up one minute, sir. Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Are you a neighbor?
yes all right please proceed uh i am a neighbor on the property block and i have been very
upset recently because due to break-ins due to not having a neighbor occupying that space
okay all right so you're in favor of the project you're saying yes i am in favor of
the project i think it will help out a lot with the the community the block just the residential
mr garcia thank you for calling in we appreciate your input is there anyone else in the virtual
audience i see no hands chair planning commission excuse me chair um they're bringing up their hands
spontaneously at the last minute.
We have someone,
Kevin, last name, ending with a B.
Sir, could you state your name
and spell for the court
stenographer?
Kevin, which is K-V-A-N
B as a boy, A-S-Z
C-Z-E-W-S-K-I.
Right. Do you swear
for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I'll do it.
Are you a neighbor?
can't hear it are you a neighbor i am a neighbor okay please proceed with your testimony
so um similar to what the neighbor said i've i've witnessed people breaking in and
it it ends up me spending way too much out uh time on the street getting the cops coordinated
traveling around the block trying to catch the criminals it's ridiculous i don't have time for
it i think it's mostly because it's just not no one's in it and they know it's and they keep
and they know it's and they keep coming back and it's uh it's it's it's not good so i really like
coming back and
to see this place get occupied and it would have to be residential for that to happen at this point
thank you very much for taking the time to call us we appreciate your input is there
anyone else in the virtual audience i see no hands chair planning commission
good morning chair members of the board this is greg waldwin from planning commission staff
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to existing commercial mixed use at this location.
The applicant's proposal for three dwelling units could be achieved by right by providing one affordable unit at the moderate income level through the Mixed Income Housing Bonus Program,
a program that helps the city achieve its affordable housing goals while allowing developers to build at greater densities with a by-right permit.
There is no hardship. Furthermore, there is no hardship for not providing the required ground floor commercial use on Frankfurt Avenue, a commercial corridor with active storefronts up to Huntington Avenue. The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board deny the variances.
Thank you. I'm going to put these both together when we vote. MI 2023-004-079-2556 Frankfurt Avenue.
Hold on, I'm sorry.
And MI 2023, 004-078-2554, Frankfurt Avenue.
I vote yes to both.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes to both.
James Snell, my vote is yes
to both
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes to both
Thank you, Ken
Thank you
Number 5, MI 2023
004-008
1607-09
McKean Street
Michael Gumbel is the attorney
There's a recommendation of support
from the East Point Breeze
Neighbors Association
10 in support, zero in opposition.
Mr. Gumbel is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Gumbel.
Could you please state your name?
It's spelled for the court stenographer.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and Board.
Michael Gumbel, G-U-M-B-E-L.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client in relationship
to the property yes uh alan kwan dr alan kwan and breen neff and they are the owners of the property
okay and our vice chair has just a few questions sir good morning counselor do you agree to waive
the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required
documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this
hearing we have thank you please proceed and share your screen
where's the share screen at it'll be on the bottom the green button
oh there we go
okay can you see that it's coming up now you're up yes sir
Okay, thank you. So again, my name is Michael Gumbel. I represent Dr. Alan Kwan and Bree Neff. And Ms. Neff is the owner of, they're the owners of property as a residential unit, but Ms. Neff is also the owner of Equilibrium Pilates, which is a physical therapy and Pilates studio that she's owned for approximately 20 years in the city in various different locations in Queen Village and Bella Vista.
So they purchased this property about a year ago, and it has a unique zoning in that it zoned both RM1 and CMX2.
And essentially what that means is if more than 10% of the property is being used as residential, then they consider it RM1, whereas the inverse of that, it would be considered CMX2.
And so this use would be by right if we were using the property exclusively as a CMX 2.
However, as you'll see, a majority of the property is being used as their personal residence,
and we're just seeking to use a small portion of it for her Pilates studio.
So you have the refusal there.
You have the application that was filed, the project information form, the deed.
The project information form, the deed, tax clearance, photos of posting, and then we have the property here.
So the property is located at 16th and McKean in the kind of lower east Point Breeze section of the city.
And what you'll see on this property is it's a massive kind of double wide, almost triple wide property on McKean Street.
in between 16th and 17th Street. And what's unique about it is that if you look around,
you'll see that essentially every other property on this block is a commercial property. So you've
got a garage next door. There's actually a brewery, second district brewery, two doors down from them.
There's several garages across the street, a daycare center. And if you go across,
or I'm sorry, around the block on a Bancroft Street, again, it's filled with garages and
commercial properties. On the other corner, you've got several little grocery stores as well as
another bar situated there. So effectively, what we're trying to do is on the second story of the
property, that's primarily the residential area. On the first floor, they have parking garages where
they can fit four vehicles. And then the first floor was also used by the prior owner. They had
a construction company and that was their office. So when you come into the property, you go straight
back through this hallway and this first room here is about 17 by 17 and that would be kind of like
a sitting area for the studio. And then in the back room, you have a room that's 13 by 30 and
this would be where the Pilates machines and so on would be kept. Again, Ms. Neff has been a Pilates
instructor for over 25 years. She's got excellent credentials and certifications. She's been on the
best affiliate list. So she's very well known in the industry and throughout the city. And she's
really just trying to move her studio into her living space to make things easier on herself
and make things easier financially for them. It's not a huge impact on the neighborhood. She only
meets with one client at a time. So it's not as though there's going to be several people coming
in and working with her. It's not going to impact traffic. Again, they do have parking
garages there, as well as a space in front of the building that they could use.
Here is the RCO notice that went out, as well as the proof of mailing.
And then again, we met with the East Point Breeze Neighbors Association, and they were
strongly in favor of it as it's bringing a well-known business to help lift up the neighborhood
and it's not going to have any significant impact on the surrounding neighbors and businesses
themselves. Ms. Neff is here today and she is happy to testify and adopt the testimony as well.
Why don't you bring her one to adopt your testimony, sir?
Brie Neff
Brie Neff
Excuse me, I've allowed you to speak
Please unmute yourself
Good morning, could you state your name and spell it for the court stenographer
My name is Brie Neff
Last name N as in Nancy
E double F as in Frank
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counsel thank you miss neff have you heard my testimony today
i have uh is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge it is and if asked to testify
would you adopt it as your own absolutely thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no
chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Planning Commission.
I'm sorry.
It's all right, Greg.
Good morning, Chair and members of the Board.
This is Greg Walden, Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing zoning at this location,
which is split between commercial and mixed use and residential multifamily.
When a property is split zoned, the more restrictive zoning
designation regulates the property if that zoning district encompasses greater than 20% of the lot area.
The proposed variance is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
The proposed variance is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission...
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2023-004-008-1607-209-McKean Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Counsel.
Thank you.
Okay. We're now going to hear three cases together. Number six, number 12, and number 15. So number six is MI 2023-003-952-2553 East William. Number 12 is MI 2023-003-948-2049 East Williams.
And number 15, MI 2023-003-947-2151, East Williams.
We have our counsel is Rachel Pritzker or Brandon Sovereign.
Recommendation of support from the Somerset Neighbors for Better Living.
A letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squill.
Good morning, counsel. Good morning. Could you state your name, please,
to spell for the court stenographer? Sure. It's Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and not think about the truth?
Yes. Could you identify a client, a relationship to the property?
Yes. The client is Finch LLC. They are the owner of the property, or Finch Development LLC. They
are the owner okay and our vice chair has just a few questions good morning counsel do you agree
to waive the reading of the refuse or stipulate to his accuracy yes have you emailed in all the
required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance
of this hearing yes thank you please proceed to share your screen thank you okay
can you see my screen we can okay so this is the refusal um the properties are all essentially the
same that's why we're hearing them together um just to give an aerial view for the board
um we have 49 51 and 53 um and as you can see it's sort of a pretty blighted and
vacant block. The refusal is the same for all the properties where we're proposing
two units on each of these vacant sites. The properties have been vacant since at least
1996. And there's only been one time of new construction on that block, which was at 2048
East William Street. The construction of a single family home, which is what is only permitted on
these properties given the RSA 5 zoning designation, is clearly not viable. You can see the state of
this block and the lack of construction. And so we're proposing two units on each, which we
believe is the minimum adjustment from the code, just adding one additional unit so that the
property, these properties can be constructed and be viable and sort of add to the surrounding
area. As you can see, there's a need for development and especially residential development.
There's 33 lots on this block between East William Street, Coral Street, and Amber Street,
and only four have residential structures and one is a garage. The other 28 lots on this block are
vacant. Again, so the zoning classification provides a bit of a hardship here given single
family home designation doesn't allow for any other sort of viable uses. Again, just seeking
to do one additional unit per property. We met with the Somerset neighbors for a better living
as mentioned i'm going to get to their letter of support this is the deed and all the zoning
posters have to come up as you can see again ariel of the site zoning posters on the property
mailings we did and here we have the letter of support um from the somerset neighbors for a
And I believe the board has the letter of non-opposition from Councilman Swilla.
I do want to bring on our architect, David MacArthur, just to go through the plans.
They're similar for each property.
Some are slightly turned around, but essentially the same.
essentially the same and we do have a proviso plan form as we added um some trash enclosures so
And we do have a proviso plan form as we added some trash and clothes.
there are proviso plan forms should the board choose to grant the variance
just want to see if our architect can can jump on and uh yeah do we have copies of the plans
in the uh exhibit here or do you need me to okay hold on hold on sir could you state your name
please and spell for the course sonographer oh sure my name is david mcarthur i'm the project
architect uh david uh d-a-v-i-d m-c-a-r-t-h-u-r uh do you swear or further tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth i do could you do me a favor try to get a little closer
to the machine where you're just a little low okay is this uh better that's better
okay this is uh the site plan right here and you can see that it's a um the uh two family dwelling
will not be occupying the whole space so we still have a lot of rear yard space we don't occupy the
full 75 percent of the law we're only about a 65 percent uh there is a deeded alley on the lot that
we're not using but um it could be used for uh trash storage for the units um you can see the
elevations here that we're proposing um kind of a brick-based facade with a fiber cement siding
on the upper levels and then the rear portion would have both a rear deck at the second floor
and then also a um roof deck unit on the top uh do we have copies of the floor plans in the exhibit
um i don't believe so but i if you could do a screen share i could pull them up if um we'd
like to see them sure i'll promote you to panel panelists
assuming everyone can see these we see it sir okay uh yeah so this would be the first
floor unit or the first of the units which would occupy the first floor in a basement level uh
they're both three bedroom units with three bathrooms uh the ground floor would have the
living space kitchen and the extra bedroom uh they would also have access to the rear yard
and also um trash storage along the rear yard and the second and third floor unit is pretty
much um similar just occupies the second third floor is also a three bedroom unit
three bathrooms they would also have a second floor rear deck off the living unit and then
access to a roof deck from the third floor and I believe both and this will also have a
interior trash storage unit for the unit just to keep garbage and things off the street
and I guess is there any other questions thank you why don't we bring your client on and adopt
your testimony, counsel. Yes, Roy Shemesh should be in the audience.
Yes, I'm here. Sir, could you state your name and spell please for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Roy Shemesh, spelled R-O-I-S-H-E-M-E-S-H. You swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed counsel right have you
heard my testimony today do you believe it to be true and accurate and would you adopt it as your
own yes i do thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no chair no chair questions or
comments from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments from
virtual audience i see no hands chair planning commission good morning chair members of the
board this is great walden planning commission staff the comprehensive plan recommends no change
the residential single family zoning at these locations there is no unique physical condition
or circumstances of these properties all vacant lots that would prevent them from being used in
conformance with the zoning code, the city planning commission recommends that the board
deny the use for two dwelling units at these locations.
I'm going to vote these together.
MI-2023-003-952-2053-East-Williams.
MI 2023-003-952.
Number two, MI-2023-003-948-2049-East-Williams.
And number 15, MI-2023-003-947-2501-East-Williams.
I vote yes to all three.
What revised plans, one page, stamped by ZBA, January 24th, 2024?
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes to all three, including proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes to all three with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes to all three with provisos.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
We're going to go here. Number nine, NLI 2023-004-072-2860 Hope Street. Leo Mulvihill is the attorney. There's a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Lozada, and there's a letter of support from HACE, H-A-C-E.
Mr. Mulvihill is coming back in as a panelist.
good morning counsel could you state your name and spell please for the court stenographer
yes good morning members of the board leo l-e-o last name moldahill that's m as in michael u-l
v as in victor i h-i-l-l do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do could you identify your client in relationship to this property yes one moment
please share. I'm just getting my screen up. My client is Dion. That's D-E-O-N. Last name
Phillips. P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S. Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its
accuracy? Yes. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes thank you please proceed
and share your screen chair members of the board are you able to see my exhibit packet at this time
yes excellent so just before i begin my presentation i'm just going to review the
documents that we will be submitting and i ask that they be incorporated into the record
first exhibit at page one or the refusal appeal project information form exhibit two of the area
zoning maps at page eight. The deed, exhibit three is at page 10. Exhibit four, zoning notice of the
neighbors is at page 16. Exhibit five, our proof of mailing is at 24. Exhibit six, the ASE letter of
support is at 26. At seven, we did not need a commercial activity license as my client privately
owns this property. At eight, the tax information showing that there is only the current year's
taxes that are due, which I don't believe need to be paid yet. That is at page 27.
Exhibit nine is neighborhood petitions in support of this variance. That's at page 29.
Photos of the property as exhibit 10 are at page 31 plans. Exhibit 11 are at page 44.
So members of the board, this is a currently existing structure that my client purchased
already set up as a two family dwelling. My client is a young man that lives in the Philadelphia
area. He works in the fire department as an EMT, as I recall. And this is one of his properties
that he currently rents out. Realizing now that he needs to have a variance to have this be a two
family dwelling, that's ultimately why we're here today. The hardship in this instance is that
because my client purchased this already completely set up as a two family dwelling,
it would be financially uh ruinous essentially for him to have to reconvert this back to a single
family so you currently see that we have the at page one off the left of my screen the request
for variance uh our refusal is for a two family dwelling in an existing structure i've highlighted
that just for the ease of the board i'll proceed now to the area zoning maps and let me just adjust
this so we only have one page showing to make that mr movil could you raise your voice just
a little bit we're just having a little more time yeah a little bit apologies that's no that's fine
sir so let's let's see if i can change this i'm just going to try to adjust my speaker here
right that's fine sir thank you hopefully that's a little bit better that's that's great that's
great so here's the area zoning map as previously discussed at page eight the property is
So here's the area zoning map, as previously discussed at page eight. The property is indicated from the Philadelphia Atlas page in this blue in the middle where I'm indicating with my cursor.
We are in an RSA 5 area, but as you see, we have a mix CMX 2, RM 1, ICMX properties all in this area. We're located just south of Cambria Street in the Kensington section.
This area that's all zoned ICMX would be the viaduct that runs and kind of cuts across the Kensington neighborhood, dividing the area north and south, or just around where the Elwood run as well.
Here is the overhead shop, and we can see again, Tuscaloosa Street to one side of the viaduct, Gurney Street to the south side of the viaduct.
Here again is Cambria Street, and our property is indicated by this red pin.
The screenshot was taken from Google, so you have an idea of what the area looks like.
It is a mix of multifamily, single-family homes, and like I said, commercial properties.
This is my client's deed.
He picked it up on the 11th day of July, 2022.
It had already been converted to two-family dwelling at this time.
At page 16, this is the zoning letter that went out to area-affected residents.
We sent that on September 13.
And this is the list of properties that it went to, along with our proof of mailing.
At page 26, this is the letter of support from ASE, dated January 17th, 2024, indicating that they support this proposal.
My client actually went around individually at the request of ASE to get this petition in support as well.
So we have at least 20 signatures here from nearby residents on the same and adjacent box in support of this property.
Finally, I have photographs of the property. This is the posting itself. It's a two-story structure. There are a number of residential structures on the street. Some are single family. Some are being used currently as multifamily, either legally or otherwise.
There are also a number of garages on this block. Hope Street on this particular 100 block is rather small. And we can see this is looking northbound.
This is the property itself and the property directly to the north.
This is southbound.
These are two garages that I was discussing earlier.
This is, again, looking southbound on Hope.
And we can see a mix of garages and single-family homes and some multifamily properties as well.
This is directly across the street.
And then, again, looking southbound on the street.
What I have here now are photographs of the interior of the property, showing the first and second floor units.
My client is currently only renting this out as a single unit.
Only once he has the proper variances will it be rented out as two separate units.
And I have the floor plans here as well.
The ground floor unit is a one-bedroom unit with a bedroom to the rear, living area to the front.
There's a common entrance at the front door.
For the first floor unit, you'd go to the right and then enter the unit to get immediately into the living room and kitchen area.
And to access the second-story unit, you'd go directly up the set of stairs to a smaller unit that has a kitchen and dining area, living, bedroom to the rear.
The basement itself is not going to be used for any living area, but only for mechanicals.
Some concerns that were brought up at the community meeting primarily revolved around fire safety.
As I said, my client does work for the fire department as an EMT, and he agreed to have
emergency ladders in the units as well for emergency egress in the case of fire.
With respect to emergency exit from the property, there is a fire alley behind the property
as well.
And the use of those fire ladders will facilitate any sort of emergency access or egress from
the property as well from the rear of the property into the fire alley itself now mr phillips if
you're on the line what i'd like you to do is please raise your hand was the utilities already
separated as i understand yes they were separated my client property thank you uh mr phillips if
you're still there would you please raise your hand so you can be invited in as a panelist to testify
dion phillips has been allowed to speak good morning sir could you state your name and spell
please for the court stenographer good morning dion phillips d-e-o-n phillips p-h-i-l-l-i-p-s
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes please proceed counsel certainly now dion you've heard my testimony today with respect
Now, Dion, you've heard my testimony today with respect to your property at 2860 Hope Street.
to your property at 2860.
And it is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge, correct?
Is there anything you'd like to add at this time?
Thank you, Dion.
I have no other questions for you, but the board or the board counsel might.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience.
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good morning, Chair and members of the board.
This is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at its location.
there is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property
that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code
we are aware of one duplex on the 2800 block of hope street
all other row homes appear to be single family
the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the use
for two dwelling units
thank you
MI 2023 004072 2860 hope street
I vote yes
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Great. Thank you, members of the board. You all have a good day.
Thank you, counsel.
Number 11, MI 2023-004-333-1100 South 27th Street.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
There is a letter of support unanimous from the residents organized for advocacy and direction.
There's also a petition from 19 neighbors.
Mr. Consul.
Good morning, Board.
Good morning, Mr. Consul. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yeah, it's Joseph Consul. It's J-O-S-E-P-H, last name Consul, C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Brittany Jean Batiste, the owner of City Town Coffee LLC,
who is the tenant seeking the variance today.
and our vice chair has just a few questions mr council good morning counsel do you agree to
waive the reading of the refuse or stipulate to accuracy i do i've emailed then all the required
documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes thank you please proceed and share your screen okay is that my packet yes sir all right hey
everyone. Joe Consul, 1100 South 27th Street. This is 27th and Ellsworth. I represent Citytown
Coffee LLC, which is hoping with approval today to be the first sort of coffee shop in the Northern
Grays Ferry area. They will serve hot and cold food, but they don't have a kitchen on site,
so it'll be food that they bring in. Their hours of operation, their intent is from
7 a.m. until 3 p.m., and they believe they'll employ around five people when they get up and
running. The reason we're here is because this property is zoned I-2, so for the ground floor
use to be a coffee shop requires zoning approval. Previously approved in this property was a
consolidation of two lots to make one lot. There's three residential units above,
And then this vacant commercial space on the floor below. And so the three units, residential units, are operating and my clients are hoping to move forward with the coffee shop in the space on the first floor.
So there's two refusals. One is for the shop itself being prohibited in an industrial district. And the other is a corollary to that, which because it's an industrial district, there would be required parking and there is no parking available.
So, I'll just scroll down to the pictures.
So, here's what the space looks like.
It's a new construction.
Coffee shop, obviously, would be along the entirety of the ground floor.
It is some of the interior photos nice size space, and it was designed to be a commercial
space but for getting this approval today there's a zoning notice there is the letter
from road residents organized for advocacy and direction we got full support from them
from them to populate this with a coffee shop. I don't believe there'd be any desire under the
to populate this with a coffee shop, I don't believe.
three residential units to see a kind of industrial space down there, so we're hopeful that the board
feels the same and we can get this coffee shop up and running. With that, I'll call my client,
which is Brittany Jean Batiste, to raise her virtual hand and adopt my testimony.
Brittany Batiste is able to speak
Good morning, could you please state your name and then spell for the court sonographer
Good morning, Brittany Jean-Baptiste
B-R-I-T-T-A-N-Y
J-E-A-N
Hyphen
B-A-P-T-I-S-T-E
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel
Good morning, Ms. Jean-Baptiste. Did you hear my testimony just now regarding your space at 1100 South 27th Street?
Yes, I did.
Do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
um just briefly mr chair um mr consul and maybe miss batiste would could answer this as well
um so i noticed on the refusal it said first floor but in the lease it indicates that the
basement would also be used as well um if so we probably would want to include a proviso if the
board grants clarifying the uses for the basement and the first floor so they're not issues later
But I just wanted to verify that, first of all, that both the first floor and the basement would be used by Ms. Batiste and her business.
Ms. Batiste, would you describe the use in the basement that you may or may not be seeking?
Yes. Good morning.
We are using the ground level for our coffee shop, and we are renting the basement because it's attached, but we do not have any plans on using it at this time.
would you perhaps be using it for storage or something like that that might
it might be wise to get the approval on that today um we can use it for storage
um but we won't use it for our customers
right that's fine i i think yes the board approves it should note that the
use is both for the the basement and the first floor because part of the operations will be
in the basement thank you thank you thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission
um good afternoon or good morning uh it's a little morning uh chair members of the board
this is greg waldman planning commission staff the comprehensive plan recommends a change in
zoning at this location from general industrial, which is I-1, to industrial and residential
clinics to use, or IRMX. Under the recommended zoning, a prepared food shop would be allowed
by right and parking would not be required. The City Planning Commission recommended the
Board to grant the proposed variances. Thank you. MI 2023-004-333-1100 South 27th Street,
I vote yes. With proviso, prepared food shop use approved for basement and first floor.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheen, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Number 17, MI 2023-002-897, 2001 East Lehigh Avenue,
murder the furlaker is the uh council there's a recommendation of opposition
by somerset neighbors for better living applicant provided a petition from 19 neighbors
and civic design review was required and completed
miss furlaker is coming back in as a panelist
good morning council just for the record state your name you've already been sworn
sure meredith ferlinger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r all right could you identify your client
relationship to this property certainly my client is 2001 east lehigh llc which is the entity that
is under agreement of sale to purchase the property and our vice chair has a few questions
Good morning, Counselor. Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal to stipulate to
good morning counselor do you agree to wait a reading of the refusal to stipulate to its accuracy
its accuracy?
i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case filed even advance of this hearing i did thank you please proceed share
All right. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, again, my name is Meredith Ferliger with Dilworth Paxson here on behalf of 2001 East Lehigh LLC, which is the equitable owner of this property.
That entity is represented here today by both Isaac Singleton and William Guzman.
Our architect is Design Blends, and we do have Chris Klass here today.
I am going to be asking him to walk through the plans.
So if the administrator would like to get Chris Klass promoted and we can get him sworn in just for efficiency purposes.
Sure, Mr. Klass is free to speak.
Good morning, sir. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
I'm sorry, Chair. It looks like he's coming back in as a panelist. I'm sorry.
Okay, fine. Thank you.
Good morning. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Christopher Klass, C-H-R-I-S-C-L-A-S-S, representing Design Bonds.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Counsel, please proceed.
Thank you very much.
And Mr. Chairman, members of the board, about 30 seconds ago, possibly 45 seconds ago, we got an email from the councilman's office.
I'll bring up his letter.
It essentially leaves the decision up to the board.
He apologized.
He did not realize that the case was on today's agenda.
So I will put that up for you just for reference.
So, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Could you make sure Hillary gets a copy?
I will. I believe she was copied on it.
So, Hillary, if you don't have it, let me know.
I'll make sure that you get it.
I just received it as well. Thank you, Meredith.
Great. The project in front of you today represents the natural continuation of the residential March North along East Lehigh Avenue
in Kensington, North Philadelphia. In front of the board is a comprehensive exhibit packet with 21
total exhibits. Touching on the basics first, tax clearance is included at Exhibit 2. My client,
as I mentioned, is currently under agreement of sale to purchase the property at 2001 East Lehigh
Avenue, and that agreement of sale is shown at Exhibit 2. At Exhibit 20, the board will find
petitions of support from nearby neighbors, and we'll touch on that a bit more later in the
presentation. To give the board a proper frame of reference as we present this project, the variances
requested today result from true and substantial hardships that burden this property and are
virtually the same variances that several other large properties sought and secured over the last
several years. The variances are for proposing a residential use in an industrial zoning district
and for exceeding maximum height by a total of eight feet. The property before the board today
is located at 2001 East Lehigh Avenue. As you can see from the zoning map to the right of your
screen at Exhibit 6, this property is zoned ICMX, or Industrial Commercial Mixed Use.
Surrounding the property are zoning classifications, including a mix of single-family districts,
multifamily residential districts, commercial mixed use, and industrial residential mixed
use zoning districts. To the left, the board will see an aerial image of the property from overhead,
which sits along East Lehigh Avenue between Frankfurt Avenue to the south and Emerald Avenue
to the north. The board may notice from this aerial that the large strip of industrial zoning
shown in the zoning map represents the rail lines that sit roughly 100 feet to the east of the
property. Photographs of the property are included at Exhibit 21. At the front of the property the
board will notice a large concrete wall that fortunately, in this case, the developer is
permitted and intends to remove. The next view looks along Frankfort Avenue, where the board
will notice the bridge infrastructure connecting to a rear wall, which portion is required to
remain. The property currently has an access point from the curb cut along Frankfort Avenue.
The property currently has an access point from the curb cut along Frankfurt Avenue, which is visible in this photograph and more clearly here, and you can start to see a little bit of the use of the current property.
You can also, in this photograph, take notice of the concrete infrastructure that sits along the rear of the site.
looking in the opposite direction on the opposing end of lehigh avenue is a gas station
and newer residential development looking along east lehigh avenue the board will take note that
the side of the street opposing the property is fairly exclusively residentially used
as we flip south the board will notice the beginning of the new residential developments
that have replaced the undesirable and unusable formerly industrial land along East Lehigh Avenue.
And you can start to see the long stretch of developments in this photograph.
The developments visible in this image extend nearly 2,000 feet down to Tulip Street
and were all approved by former members of this board as far back as 2018.
On the opposing end of the property, at Emerald Street, the board will see another bridge connection to the abandoned rail.
The next photograph that I have up on the screen shows how this particular bridge infrastructure presented considerable challenges in designing access to this site, which the board will see is relegated exclusively to Frankfurt Avenue.
This not only presented challenges to designing this project, but also presents significant challenges to any by-right use of the site.
And the next couple of photographs show a closer view of the previously mentioned concrete rail infrastructure, which was a part of the rail system many, many decades ago.
I don't know why that just jumped around.
this infrastructure unfortunately cannot be removed from the site
a property survey is included in the packet at exhibit five
properties just over 35,000 square feet on this survey the board will begin to glean some of the
unique characteristics of this property that contribute to the hardships triggering today's
requests for relief. As you can see on the survey and as you saw in the photographs,
the property has a variety of rail-related infrastructure in the back, some that can
be removed, such as the infrastructure in the front, and some that cannot in the back.
Historically, as early as 1895, this site was improved with a wooden building,
supporting the operations as a coal yard. That use continued for many decades to support the
rail operations, but most recently, and at least since 2012, the property has been used as a tire
shop and automotive scrapyard, despite having been denied a permit for such a use in 2017.
The developer has secured both a phase one and phase two environmental investigation of the
property, which did not reveal any unmanageable environmental site conditions or any conditions
that would impair a future residential use of the site. I did include those executive summaries at
Exhibit 16. So at this point, I would like to bring Chris Klass on. I believe we've already
sworn him in to walk the board through the presentation. So Chris, I'd like to start with
Exhibit 7, which is labeled as the Site Constraint Diagram. Can you just briefly explain to the
board what this diagram is intended to show? Sure. So, this diagram is really showing the
results of amassing based on the constraints of the site. But just to summarize these, to the
north, there's structural buttresses from the consolidated rail elevated line that are entirely
within the project property. We're not permitted to modify these in any way, and they have
substantial foundations below grade. As a result of this, we've pushed the building away from
those buttresses and are facing High Avenue. To the west, along Emerald Street, a formerly used
access bridge spans across the right of way and is supported with a concrete wall that's within
our property boundary this is also owned by consolidated rail and it's something that we
can't modify but it also prevents vehicular access from entering the site from emerald street
to the south we have a notoriously busy lehigh avenue uh it's about 120 feet wide and lacks
It's about 120 feet wide and lacks pedestrian infrastructure, and it was deemed to be not suitable for vehicular access to the site just because it's centered between two traffic lights and it is quite a stretch to cross.
pedestrian
And then finally to the east, the rail track overpass along Frankfort Avenue and a difficult at best transition for pedestrians in this area.
Frankfurt Avenue is the only viable option for vehicular entry within the site and is unable to accommodate any loading vehicles for maneuverability.
And this makes this site extremely difficult to support any of the industrial uses and loading requirements that would be associated with it.
Thank you. So, the zoning of this site, based on the ICMX classification, would ordinarily allow for 100% coverage. Is that right?
Correct.
And how much of the site is actually covered with this proposal?
I think we're looking at somewhere in the 60 percentage range. It's significantly smaller.
And similarly, the maximum floor area ratio for this site, or the total gross floor area
that would be allowed, would be up to 500% of the site.
Is that correct?
Correct.
And would you agree that the proposal only includes 373% maximum FAR here?
Yes, it's much lower than what would be permitted.
So, is it generally accurate that one aspect of the height variance requested today directly results from the decreased site availability, resulting from all the conditions that you just described?
Yes, the project wasn't viable from a yield standpoint without the additional height that we're asking for.
Thank you.
Board, I have included the formal zoning plans at Exhibit 8, but I'll have Chris walk you through some of the more rendered plans, which I think are a little nicer to look at.
And then we can certainly turn back to the zoning plans if you have any questions.
So let's just start here with Exhibit 9A, which is the master plan.
And Chris, we can just walk through as you go.
Okay. So, the proposed project includes a six-story building, as you can see, with multifamily and ground-level commercial space. To adapt, based on the items that we had discussed, we're proposing a ground, landscape space, and buffer that surrounds the rear of the site and will be publicly accessible connecting Emerald Street and Frankfurt Avenue.
Green roof is going to cover a majority of the building footprint, with the exception of where
we're going to have mechanical units, and that's going to significantly improve the stormwater
management features of the site as a whole. The exterior design is recognizing the residential
module that exists across the street and is providing comparable material breaking
to continue that rhythm. And the height is increased to support more viable commercial
space that you can see on the ground floor, mostly so that we can accommodate a wide range of
tenants. And just for the record, the elevations that I'm showing up on the screen right now are
at Exhibit 9B. Chris, moving along to Exhibit 9C, which are floor plans, you can walk the board
through these? Sure. So it was important for us to provide as much activity along Lehigh Avenue
as possible. You'll see in the next slide, all of our parking is pushed to below grade and ample
commercial space is being provided along the Lehigh Avenue frontage. We'll also have access
points on all three frontages with some small residential units tucked to the back and some
amenities and, as mentioned before, a pretty substantial outdoor space for tenants and the
public. Okay, and if you can just briefly explain to the board the general unit makeup as well?
Yeah, it'd be a mix of one and two bedroom units. We had discussed with the community providing some
additional three bedrooms, which we believe that will accommodate, but in any case, they'll range
from 600 square feet all the way up to 900 for some of the two bedrooms. The roof will consist
mostly of a green roof with condensing units that'll be tucked back so they're not visible
from the street and also a roof deck space that will be doing the same thing. It'll have setbacks
so that it can't be visible from adjacent neighbors. And the units, just for purposes
of completeness? Is there anything of note regarding the unit layout, or are they generally
Of note, regarding the unit layout, are they generally fairly standard, what you would expect to see in this area?
fairly standard, what you would expect?
These are fairly standard layouts.
They range between 600 and 650 square feet for one bedrooms and 900 square feet for two bedrooms.
It allows some variety in pricing and comps for tenants.
Great. Let's come back to Exhibit 9D in a moment.
If you could explain to the board just a little bit more detail relative to the design for access and what these next slides at Exhibit 10 show.
Sure. So our primary entry will be centered on Lehigh Avenue.
There'll be a number of pedestrian improvements to this frontage with the inclusion of a four foot furnishing zone that will be sufficient for the planting of street trees.
a healthy 10-foot walking zone, and some building zone for additional landscaping features.
Next slide shows our access point at Emerald Street.
So this would be the accessible entry for pedestrians or the public to enter the
common space, landscape area, some bike racks and ramping.
Um, and then finally along Frankfurt Avenue, this is our, uh, vehicular entry point to the
below grade garage. Uh, you can see what that elevation looks like. There is really no, uh,
other option for vehicles to enter the site. This is as far back as we could put it. Uh,
we've continuously worked with the streets department to, to get this in the right spot.
uh and you know we were at one point we're trying to get loading in the site as well but it just
wasn't feasible and then finally you can see some additional examples of what that rear
uh space will look like when it's finished against the wall thank you and then chris is there anything
of note uh relative to this particular uh site diagram for pedestrian and vehicular circulation
to note? No, I think it's just important to recognize, though, that the developer and our
design team recognized the disconnect of pedestrian circulation along Lehigh Avenue,
and we thought it was incredibly important to bridge these connections and make a number of
options available for people walking in this area, even as what you'll get to in a minute with
future trail implications and things like that. And just so the board can get a good sense of
the project, I'll just briefly scroll through the renderings. Chris, is there anything in
particular while I scroll through that you would like to add relative to the renderings for the
project? Not in particular. I think these are fairly common materials for projects of this
scale. It's something that was reviewed by the CDR committee and for the most part was
well received. And we've been working with them in the community to make sure that this
was something that everybody would like. Thank you. So then very briefly, just to touch on
something you referenced moments ago at Exhibit 9D, can you explain to the board
what is shown in these next two images? Sure. So there was discussions with Rails for Trails
for eventually developing the elevated rail line, a portion that's abandoned as a park space.
And design team understands that this can be years in the making, especially with ownership
transfers and things like that. But we have the infrastructure in place to provide a potential
connection to that within our building. That access point that bridges over Emerald Street
makes for a great connecting point. The proposal would be that if that park system falls in place,
we would bridge to that and then provide a public stair that was separate from the building,
but still part of the construction that would allow people access to that.
Thank you. So as the board knows, due to the size of this project, it was required to be reviewed by
the Civic Design Review Committee which completed the process on September 25, 2023.
The completion letter is included in the packet at Exhibit 18. The project received a generally
positive reception with committee members noting that the project was appropriate in size and scale
given the width of Lehigh Avenue and all of the new projects that you saw in the photographs to
the south. Members also praised the underground parking design, noting it would serve as positive
precedent for future developments. Should the request be granted today, the design team will
continue seeking ways to incorporate additional committee and community feedback surrounding
public access and traffic improvements. Before I turn to some concluding arguments where I'll
Before I turn to some concluding arguments where I'll touch on the remaining exhibits, I'd like to just briefly summarize the community engagement process.
touch on the remaining exhibits.
During the course of this process, the development team held at least four separate meetings with the local RCOs.
In addition, the team met with non-RCO-specific organizations, such as Rails to Trails.
There are a total of five RCOs that cover this property.
Somerset Neighbors for Better Living was assigned as a coordinating RCO, although East Kensington Neighbors, or ECNA, equally participated throughout the process.
During CDR, only ECNA sent a letter to the committee where it expressed strong support for the project and detailed each reason supporting its position.
During the final official meeting of the RCO, at least 20 people were in attendance, which I've documented in a screenshot that I included for the board at Exhibit 20.
Oddly, the RCO letter only references 12 total attendees, even though there were clearly 25 or more.
Of those 12 people, eight people voted to oppose the project, four voted in support, and two voted in non-opposition. So for a project of this scale, it was really quite a low voting project.
While we have no explanation for the missing votes and the discrepancy in the number of votes against the listed attendees, we would note the board should consider whether a project of this scale should rest on the opinion of just eight people in a community of thousands, particularly since the vote was largely neutral.
Additionally, at Exhibit 20, we did include petitions and letters of support, which includes
over 20 signatures from nearby neighbors expressing their full support of this project.
The applicant submits that the exhibits and the testimony presented today has considerably
established why this property suffers a unique, unnecessary hardship leading to the variance
request before the board. As it relates to the refusal generated for the additional eight feet
in height, the board saw evidence of this property's unique constraints, including structural
buttresses and concrete pads that extend from the freight rail lines into the property that cannot
be removed. Chris noted that the site is significantly underbuilt as a result of these
constraints, which ultimately leads to the necessity for a slight increase in height.
Furthermore, there are important design considerations required to accommodate the
underground parking and the 18-foot ceiling heights for the Lehigh fronting commercial
spaces, which further contributes to the additional height. Importantly, the proposed height increase
of eight feet is a more modest height increase compared to the height variances granted for
several of the nearby developments, which are up to 75 feet high. Regarding the proposed
residential use in the industrial ICMX zoning district, I have just a few more exhibits for
the board to consider in concluding, as prior boards have done, that this property suffers
a significant hardship in attracting any by-right or desirable ICMX-compliant use.
To summarize those exhibits, the ICMX zoning of the property does not match the character
of the area, the history of this particular property, or the city's own vision for this
property and the Kensington area.
The area surrounding this property has undergone a significant transformation over the last
10 years as traditional industry and industrial uses have left and have been replaced with high
density mixed-use projects that provide walkable access to services and amenities for the surrounding
neighborhoods. This site was specifically selected as a catalyst site in the Brownfields Area-Wide
Plan Lower North Delaware Industrial District published in 2019. Since the demolition of the
industrial uses decades ago, the long remaining vacant lots, including this property, have been
underutilized for car sales and under other automotive uses. The property in particular
has been a troublesome tire and scrapyard that has caused undesirable impact to the surrounding
community. This notion is supported at Exhibit 15, which provides a summary of the Philadelphia
Scrap Yards and Auto Wrecking Planning Considerations publication, published in February of 2018,
which used this property as an example of the detriment that these types of uses pose.
A link to the full publication is included at that exhibit. This prop
A link to the full publication is included at that exhibit.
This property, as I mentioned earlier, was even denied a variance years ago for its use, further lending support that the industrial use is no longer appropriate or desired in this neighborhood.
The only remaining industrial use in this area is the Jackwinds Distillery located between Trenton Avenue and Sepfiva Street.
This Lehigh Avenue corridor has and continues to undergo a transformation into predominantly mixed-use commercial and residential uses.
The existing ICMX zoning does not reflect the ongoing trend in the neighborhood.
That trend is further reflected at Exhibit 13.
This first image is a general reflection of the use of property surrounding 2001 East Lehigh, which is shown in red.
Some of these uses are permitted by Wright, some are under construction, and some are fully occupied.
This image clearly shows the march of residential transformations that I've referenced early in the presentation.
The next image more clearly shows the property's nearest to 2001 East Lehigh Avenue.
Immediately next door at 2035 East Lehigh, also zoned ICMX, contains a mix of 155 dwelling units with commercial use.
Next to that, at 2157 East Lehigh, which was just approved by the board in 2020 and is currently under construction,
includes four structures as high as 75 feet, including just under 300 units and commercial.
It is also extremely important to note that 2157 East Lehigh was granted by the board with nearly identical variance requests,
and when it was appealed by a community member to court, the court found that the board had
appropriately concluded that the property suffered a hardship concerning both use and
height. While the height consideration would be independent to each property, the use analysis
is heavily related, if not identical. Should the board desire to review the prior board's findings
of fact and conclusions of law or the transcript in the case concerning 2157 East Lehigh, I'd be
happy to provide that to board counsel. Finally, 2621 Frankfurt Avenue was recently permitted by
variance for 453 units plus significant commercial space. The natural trend has shown that a solely
industrial commercial use of this property is not in keeping with the character of the mixed
residential commercial development occurring along east lehigh avenue i did also include
the permits for all of these properties at exhibit 13. physical features of this property
such as its size narrowness rail infrastructure all limit it limits its viability for a more
traditional by right industrial use which is significantly accentuated by the limited
vehicular access to the site that Chris described, which is due to the adjoining overhead but
abandoned viaducts. In fact, you heard today that the owner had a challenging time designing the
vehicular access to the site as a result of these conditions. The only feasible access point is off
of Frankfurt Avenue. Additionally, this site cannot support commercial or truck turning movements
that would be needed for an industrial development, nor is this site a part of an industrial corridor
anymore. At Exhibit 14, I have included snapshots of four different city and community-led plans
for the area, which all support the proposal before the board today. To highlight just a few
key points from this exhibit, Frankfurt Avenue north of Lehigh is identified as a gateway area
crime for repurposing. Several of these plans contemplate redeveloping unused or undesirable
formerly industrial sites as mixed-use properties. Driving commercial and recreational activity to
East Lehigh Avenue is a priority, and the plans encourage the removal of the large Lehigh Avenue
fronting wall to facilitate these activation goals. The applicant submits that the requested
variances are the least modification of the code to provide relief. The use of the property includes
by-right commercial uses and merely deviates in the addition of the residential uses most consistent
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. It is further in conformity with the city's vision
for the property and the community. The density and size of this project is in many cases less
The density and size of this project is, in many cases, less dense and more modest than some of the newer developments, and the lot is significantly underbuilt from a dimensional perspective, aside from the height.
All of the surrounding new developments required some form of ZBA relief due to the inconsistent zoning classifications that are not in character with the shift in neighborhood conditions.
The height variance is minor and is directly related to the physical characteristics of the property that lead to the hardship in erecting a code-compliant building.
The variances sought will not increase congestion in public streets, increase traffic, or endanger the public.
The developer has and will continue to work with the relevant street-related stakeholders, such as PennDOT, SEPTA, and the Streets Department, on warranted site improvements.
The underground parking is designed with the least impact possible to the surrounding community from an access point that has historically served as the entry and exit from this property.
History aside, the board clearly saw that the site is situated in a fashion where Frankfurt Avenue is the only viable access point to mitigate impact along East Lehigh Avenue.
After significant coordination with the streets department and PennDOT, the loading space that was originally designed within the building was located to the front of the building along East Lehigh Avenue.
This was necessary to avoid the loss of critical corner commercial space at East Lehigh Avenue and Frankfurt.
Coordination with the relevant departments will continue.
The proposal will not substantially or permanently harm the neighbors' use of their properties or impair an adequate supply of light and air.
The building design fits with the character and design of the surrounding neighborhood.
The height variance is similar to that requested by other owners and is in fact lower than some, since the height here is driven specifically by this property's unique constraints.
The property is further uniquely situated to avoid any impact to neighbors, which includes the rail lines that severs this property from the nearest residence to the east at more than 250 feet away.
On the west side of the rail, the closest single-family residence to this property is 100 feet away on the other side of Lehigh Avenue.
The property is separate and isolated from the existing neighborhood, which will ensure the project will not impact light and air for any surrounding property.
The proposal will not burden the infrastructure of the area, which will be upgraded if necessary to accommodate the proposal.
No environmental impact can reasonably be expected, as the developer continues to work with its civil engineers to implement any recommended measures identified by the environmental reports.
The project will include the required stormwater mitigation and a green roof.
In conclusion, the applicant submits the evidence shown today, has established full compliance with each requirement of code section at Title 14, Section 3038E, which is summarized in the Memorandum of Law submitted to the board at Exhibit 17.
We are very grateful for the board's patience this morning in allowing us to walk through the project, and I would now ask if Isaac Singleton could join me to adopt my testimony.
isaac singleton has been allowed to speak good morning sir could you please state your name
and spell for the court stenographer isaac singleton i s a a c s i n g l e t o n right
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth told truth nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel
thank you uh isaac are you an authorized member of 2001 east lehigh llc yes yes i am
And have you heard all of the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board this morning?
Yes, I have.
Would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt that testimony as if you had given it yourself?
Yes, I would, 100%.
Thank you, Isaac. We're happy to take any questions the board has.
Counsel, one quick question.
So the RCO that sent the letter is different than the two RCOs at the Civic Design Review, quote?
That's correct. So Civic Design Review, there were two RCOs that participated, New Kensington CDC and East Kensington Neighbors.
I believe that there's actually a representative from East Kensington on the call today, but that's correct. Somerset Neighbors didn't send a letter to CDR.
All right. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
I have one quick question. I may have missed it in council's report. How many units?
Council's report. How many units? Oh, sure. Chris?
Oh, sure. Chris?
Sorry, 157 dwelling units. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hilary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Josh Graff.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Josh Graff.
Hello?
Sorry, can you hear me?
Yeah, I can.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Josh Graff, and that's spelled J-O-S-H-G-R-A-F-F.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Yes, so I'm a neighbor on the neighboring across the street on Braddock Street,
and I'm also a board member of the East Kensington Neighbors Association,
which I would also argue that this is more in our RCO's purview than maybe the assigned one,
but that's a whole other discussion i just wanted to say how how um the community engagement effort
was really strong from this project and the amount above and beyond engagement that they went in with
uh meeting neighbors where they are and like really listening to the wants and the desires
of the community um i just give my full support to the project and i think it will be a positive
impact um i think it's briefly mentioned the kind of conversations with rails to trails and
their effort to give a public access to that potential future project is huge and just the
willingness to sign on and that we think it's kind of a positive change in this neighborhood
and an extremely underutilized plot even as its current use as a tire shop and yeah we really
just wanted to emphasize that I think me as an individual and direct neighbor as well as a member
a strong member of the Neighborhood Association, believe in what this project's going for, and
yeah, wanted to pass along. Thank you for your call and your input.
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Board. This is Greg Baldwin, Planning Commission staff.
this property is indicated for industrial commercial use on the city plan in 2017 our
adopted district plan recommended remapping from i2 which is general industrial to icmx
zoning at this location the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical
circumstances or conditions of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance
with the requirements of the code therefore we recommend that the requested variance not variances
not be granted. Mr. Chairman, if I could just very briefly respond to that. We believe the
evidence has more than adequately shown that this property has very unique constraints that would
prevent it from being used for any buy right use, which is a commonality that has been found along
this area for several years now. So you've really presented a lot of facts today. And what I would
like to do is meet with next Wednesday in an executive session, and we'll vote on this
at 930.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All right.
Thank you for your presentation.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called on the 930 list?
I see no hands, Chair.
Thanks, everyone.
See everyone at 2 p.m.
I think it's just going to be.
Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this
afternoon ZBA hearings. Our vice chair, Ismail Shahid, should be on any minute.
Our board member, Thomas Holliman. Present, Mr. Chairman. Our board member, James Snell.
Present, Chair. Also present is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director,
Tanya Sunkett. Here's our virtual format. Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded.
A video will be available by contacting TanyaSunkett at phil.gov. For the benefit of our
court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star
6 to unmute. To an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email.
2-6-7-2-7-0-5-5-4-8. Leave your email in the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is now for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number 10, MI 2023-005-992-1618 West Hunting Park. That case is continued.
Number 11, MI 2023-006-059-5604 North Fish Street. That case is continued.
And number 12, MI 2023-005-996-1118 East Montgomery Avenue, that case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuances or comments on the three cases that I've continued?
Chair, we have Joseph Consol.
Good afternoon.
Hi, Mr. Consol.
You've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record.
Joseph Consul.
What case, Mr. Consul?
It is 2100 South 61st, which is MI 2023-006-111.
What number is that, Hillary?
That's number nine on the list, Mr. Sharon.
That's the first listing.
Do you need a continuance?
We have not met with the RCO yet.
So MI 2023-006-111, 2100 South 61st Street.
That case is continued.
Thank you.
Any other requests for continuance?
I see no hands shared.
Case number 17, MI 2023-005-989-3017 Diamond Street.
No exhibits, first listing.
Pierre Smith is the owner.
i see no hands here okay so mi2023 005 989 3017 diamond street that case is continued
mark must be heard and number eight
MI 2023
143 East
Sharp,
next street.
That case
has been
withdrawn.
let's go
Is Mr.
Shahid on
Not yet, sir.
Hillary will go back when he's on the vote on that add-on.
Is that okay?
That's totally fine, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
All right, so we're going to go to number two.
MI 2023-006-109, 5700 Lansdale Avenue.
Patricia Hoggart is the owner applicant.
It's pro se.
This application is for a proposed change of use from residential to a child care in an existing structure.
No change in area, no change in height as part of the application.
No sign on this application.
The proposed use of child care center requires special exception in the CMX1 zoning area.
Patricia Hulger has been promoted to panelist.
Good afternoon.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court's announcement?
Ms. Hoggard, please unmute yourself.
Patricia Hoggard, P-A-T-R-I-C-I-A, H-O-G-G-A-R-D.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Holloman has just a few questions from you.
Yes, sir.
Good afternoon.
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
I think I got it.
Don't see your documents.
Don't see your documents.
We see the Zoom screen.
We see the Zoom screen.
Should I close?
I think you should close and go back and open your documents, then put the Zoom on.
Am I right?
Yes, you want to unshare.
Here's all my documents.
You want to click the unshare, the green button.
and then go to your documents, open the documents that you want to share,
and then click on share screen.
Okay, so stop share.
Right.
Open your documents.
Okay, open my documents.
And then share.
Which document do you want to see first?
I'll just. Yeah, I probably want to see most of them. So let's see. Why don't you open up your share screen now that it's open?
Okay. One second. Preview.
I'm sorry. One moment.
We'll start with this one. Okay. Now go back and share screen.
okay now share screen
okay this document here is the rco yeah but we don't see it on our screen yet
application that you want to share select that and share
okay you're up now yep okay this here here is the um right rco meeting so you had a lot of
so 19 people were in favor of you yes sir okay thank you we should that's that's great go to
your next whatever you have next okay let me close that and then go to my posters
that's put you posted your content thing that's fine yep okay it printed out on two sheets of
paper so I just had to
that's fine
here's the next
and then we had
that was poster
one poster two and I think
I have a poster three
this was
the third poster
that's the side
door right
I couldn't put it on the inside because it wasn't safe to get to that far back of the building.
So why don't you tell us what you want to do?
Why don't you do that?
Tell us what you want to do.
Well, right now I'm requesting a special exception be granted to change the occupancy of the property.
I'm going to be doing exterior stairs, new partitions, fixtures, furnishings.
The building is going to be fully sprinklered.
And I'm going to install a fire suppression system.
So why don't you show us a picture of what it is now, okay?
Of what the building looks like.
What the building looks like now.
Give me one moment.
let me close this and okay not that
i'm gonna move some of this stuff around so i can see
okay let's take a look at this one
Here's what the building looks like now.
Okay, let's see.
Oh, okay.
Let me make it bigger.
We don't see anything here.
We see your files, but we don't see the building.
Oh, you can't see the building?
Oh, well.
All right, I'm going to close it and try again.
Interior photo.
Interior photo.
Can you see it now?
Can you see it now?
All right, in that case.
Try unsharing and then reopen the file and share again.
Okay, stop share.
and then
put that down
for you
okay now go back and share again
share screen
share that okay so this is right now it's a vacant building yes yeah it's a blighted
building um this is a picture um of the front okay
I have another, I have
other pictures, so I'm going to try
and... Okay, we don't see anything right now.
Alright, let's stop sharing again.
And then let's go back down. Preview this one.
Open the picture, try opening it and downloading it
so we'll be able to view the document.
give me a second
oh okay now let me make this bigger i'm starting to get the hang of it
and there's the other picture that's the basement right no this is oh this is the first floor as
well okay okay all right there's no stairs going is this building is this building the end of the
block yes it is a corner property corner property okay so so it's a corner property that you have
and now you're going to redo it and you want to use it as a child care center right yes sir
okay so um why don't you show us your plans of what you're going to do to bring this up to
one moment
just some of the plans
yes sir
one second
one second
one second
One moment, I'm trying to find one that shows, okay, let's bring this back up and then share
screen click on this and share okay this here shows something you could turn that for us
right you know how to turn the document
i don't know how to turn this around
tell us what you're going to do to the building
put it that way
well I'm going to be
as you can see
putting in
one bathroom on each
I'm going to be finishing the basement
but not using it
child care I'm just going to be using it
for storage
right um i'm going to be uh putting a where the there's an existent uh exterior stairs
but the doors the doors are flush to the ground they have those metal doors that's flush to the
ground i want to create an entrance into the basement um i'm going to be adding a handicap
ramp on the front
on the front
with an iron
railing. Those are the only
two things that's going to be done on the exterior.
Oh, there's going to be a fire escape
stairs, a
A right on fire escape stairs with two landings on the rear of the building, and that's going to be confined to the that's going to be confined.
right iron fire escape stairs with
two landings on the rear of the
building.
We see your drawings now.
So it's going to be confined to the first and second floor of the daycare center.
The fire escape stairs is going to be confined to the backyard, so it's not going to extend outside of the property.
What I'm saying is the child care centers be on the first and second floor?
Yes, sir.
And there was a permit.
There was a permit.
Okay, so you're on a corner property.
You also have the support of the HMC Squared Community Association and 19 people in favor, right?
And two in opposition.
Yes, sir. I already operate. I service the community. I operate an insurance agency at 5642, which is on the opposite corner.
So this is on a different corner. You're going to be with this.
Okay. All right. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
This is Sarah Bond with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
S-A-R-A-H-B-A-N-H.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed-use zoning.
The proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected.
Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2023-006-109-5700 Lansdale Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote yes.
James Snell my vote is yes thank you you have your votes ma'am thank you board thank you everyone
right okay now we're going to go to number six Mr. Chair I believe that Mr. Shahid is now present
yes I'm here okay so we're going to go to our add-on
let's see here okay mi 2023 005 747 1936 walkin street
i vote yes for a temporary variance to expire 13126
thomas holloman my vote is no
james snell my vote is yes with proviso ishmael shaheed my vote is yes with proviso
and is she got to certify
yes and i also certify that i have read the materials on this case um and my vote is yes
with Proviso. Thank you. We're going to move to number six, MI 2023-005-995-808 South 9th Street.
Danny Chu is the owner applicant. This application is for the change of use to visitor accommodations.
The proposed use visitor accommodation is prohibited in the CMX2 zoning district.
There's a letter of non-opposition from the Bella Vista neighbors with the proviso that use be limited to the three existing residential units and not include the vacant commercial space on the first floor.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Derek. I'm the son of Danny. Danny's right here.
Well, can he speak English?
A little bit.
A little bit.
Yeah, figure it out.
Hillary?
Yes, Derek, because your father owns the property, he needs to be the one to testify.
You cannot testify in his place.
um we can go ahead and start the hearing um if he's unable um to to to get through the hearing
then we can give you another date and we can make sure we have an interpreter for him you can go
ahead okay all right thank you sir could you state your name and spell for the court sonographer
uh my name is not denny last name is chill sis are you uh okay
Last name is Chiu, C-H-I-U.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
All the truth.
And we have our vice chair is going to ask you a couple questions, okay?
No problem.
Good afternoon, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and all the exhibits that was needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yeah, I do.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Okay, thank you.
No problem.
How do we share a screen?
Is it on the...
Should be a green button at the bottom of your screen.
Yeah, green button on the bottom.
Open your documents first.
It's up.
We're good.
All right.
so Danny
the first thing I see there is a letter
from the local RCO
and they're in support of what you want to do
and they voted
six to zero in your favor
continue with the documents
let's see what this is
this is
keep going on
yep we see that
we're good with that keep going
The building right now has three apartments, sir?
And it has a commercial space?
Show us some photos.
that's in front of the building okay that's the front of the building right in the center
there with the two doors yes okay keep going that's in front of the street okay
that's the street that's the right in front that's the right in front of the building
okay this is the this is the one unit of the second floor okay
there's a second and that's the second unit in the front okay
oh that's it okay so you have a you you have a building now has three apartments
And a commercial unit on the first floor.
And you want to change that to visitor accommodations?
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Sure. Mr. Chu, as you presented, the RCO asked that the board, if they grant, add a proviso limiting the visitor accommodations used to the three existing dwelling units and not include the commercial unit on the first floor.
Can you tell us what your thoughts are in that proviso?
That's fine, because we were planning to keep the first floor as commercial.
Yeah, that's why we keep the first floor for the commercial.
Okay, so the second and third floor, the building has three floors, the second and third floor are residential, and there's three units between those two floors.
Is that correct?
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Chair, if you do grant, I just would suggest limiting the use to the existing residential units on the second and third floors.
Thank you.
thank you what questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no handshare planning commission
Thank you, Chair Bergman and Board Members.
Sarah Bond with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed-use zoning.
The appellant has not shown that the property cannot possibly be used in strict conformity
with the zoning code and that a variance is therefore necessary to enable viable economic
use of the property.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board deny the variance.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
So MI 2023-005-995-808 South 18th Street.
I vote yes for a temporary variance that will expire 124-27
and proviso
three units
on floor two and three only
Thomas Holloman my vote is
yes with proviso
James Snell
my vote is yes with proviso
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes with proviso
thank you sir you have your votes
thank you
okay here
All right, we're going to number one, MI 2023-006-107, 3935-61 Germantown Avenue.
Clemente Amazon is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the 13th Ward RCO with provisos.
No roof decks and height of addition not to exceed 60 feet.
Applicant provided a petition and support signed by 19 people.
Ms. Amazon is coming back in as a panelist.
Council, could you state your name and spell for the court sonographer, please?
Of course. Clementa Amazon, that's spelled C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A. The last name is A-M-A-Z-A-N, and I'm an attorney at Garland Ball.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to this property?
Of course. My client is Olympia QOZB. I also have the principal who will be speaking, Ken Weinstein.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wait a reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this year?
Yes, I have.
thank you please proceed and share your screen of course if i could also have the architect
for the project harris ford be included as a panelist
mr ford is coming back in as a panelist
and if it's more convenient for the board if they would like to throw him in as well i will
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
yes of course harris ford h-a-r-r-i-s f-o-r-d and i'm an architect at digsau right do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed council
thank you i'll go ahead and share my screen
Again, my name is Clemente Amazon, and I will be presenting 3935-16
So this building has a very interesting history.
It was previously owned by Ira S. Davis as a moving and storage facility.
Mr. Davis actually participated in the Olympics in 1956, 1960, and 1964.
So although it is not designated as a historic property, it does have an amazing history.
so although it is not designated as a historic property it does have an amazing history and my
client is looking to not only honor the history of the property but also the structure that
currently exists so this building that you see currently and we are just looking to add a seven
story addition so during my presentation i will go through the notice of refusal the property is
zoned IRMX. A lot of the reviews that we have are as a result of us looking to maintain that
existing structure and simply add on to it, and I'll walk through that in further detail. We did
receive a letter of support from 13th Ward RCO with provisos, which I will go into further detail
as well. We met with the Planning Commission on January 9th in an effort to get as much information
as possible regarding the proposal and how it fits the character of the neighborhood.
We have a map of the area, exterior as well as interior photos, the site plan and elevation,
the notice that we sent out for the January 11th committee, excuse me, community meeting,
our application for appeal, project information form,
seeds to property, and our certificate of tax clearance.
So, as I mentioned, this property is zoned IRMX. The refusals that we have in large part
are because of the fact that we are looking to maintain the existing structure which is not in
conformance with the current code so the first refusal that we have is for the roof steps we
are looking to have office space here and we're looking to revitalize the germantown corridor
we believe that providing roof steps is something that would be beneficial
as competing office spaces within the city have roof steps and it does not have any negative
impact or detrimental impact on the surrounding area as it relates to the height and as you'll
see in the plans there is currently an existing structure on the roof that will remain and it
would look similar to the inclusion of the roof status the second refusal that we have is for the
signage and again we're looking to maintain the structure of the building along the front facade
you will see that we are including the signage within the two arches so it doesn't quite meet
the height requirements by IRMX. It is 20 feet and 8 inches from the ground. However, they are
small signs. They would not really impose upon anyone. Our third refusal that we have here is
for the height. So you'll notice that the refusal is because 60 feet is allowed by right. The
existing structure is actually 84 feet. So as it is, the building is not in conformance with the
code what we are looking to do is match the height of the existing structure and thus we have a
refusal here for that as well as off-street loading we are required to have four off-street
loading spaces this is accessible for the use that we have we are looking to only include office
spaces here and we prioritize including more parking spaces for tenants and their guests as
opposed to providing loading spaces which is more in the spirit of industrial use the loading
space that we currently are offering will only primarily be used by commercial trash pickup we're
not really using this property in a heavily industrial way it's more of a commercial use
so we felt it more important to prioritize the parking spaces for tenants and their guests
so we did meet with 13th ward rco and they did provide us a letter of support
our meeting was on january 11th overall the community was very supportive of the proposed
used and felt that it would be beneficial to the neighborhood. I would like to point out that the
RCO did mention they had concerns regarding the height because it would block, as you can see here,
natural light and airspace, and that the property is surrounded by residential properties. As you'll
see in my presentation, the property is adjacent to a residentially zoned block. However, it is not
primarily residential properties excuse me also they expressed concerns regarding the roof deck
as we will go through the plans we believe that the roof decks are important and beneficial as
we are looking to compete with other office spaces in the area that also provide this
amenity to tenants and the board has also previously granted similar uses in the past
for roof decks on long office spaces specifically 21 south 11th street which is known as the yard
as well as 1901 South 9th Street, which is known as the Bok building.
So having a roof bed on a structure of this sort is not uncommon.
It provides a great amenity for the community and as well as for the individuals who are
leasing the spaces.
I would also like to highlight that during the meeting, not all attendees were part of
the conversation of the request for the provisos.
There were various attendees as well as RCOs who did not have the opportunity to truly vote on the provisos.
the opportunity to truly vote on the provisos the provisos i believe were included as
The provisos, I believe, were included as
the stance of the rco not necessarily cohesive of everyone who was in attendance of the meeting
so here we do have the vote as you'll see we do not have any votes in opposition
of the project we have the unanimous support from the rco board committee
attendees were also given were not given the opportunity to vote specifically in favor instead
they were listed as having a position of non-opposition but again it was a positive
meeting we believe they were very excited about the proposed use for the property although we have
the request for the provisos that i mentioned previously as a result of not all of the rcos
of being able to express that they are in support
with the property as listed.
We did receive a letter from TLB United,
who is an effective RCO.
As you will see, they provided full support,
including the seven stories,
as well as the roof depth of the property
and of the project,
and that they believe that it would be beneficial
to the Germantown business corridor.
We also wanted to make sure that we took into consideration
the community's concerns regarding light and air you'll notice that we have a letter of support
from the chairman of the trustees of nazarene baptist church nazarene baptist church as you
will see in my presentation and in this image right here our property is located right here
if everyone can see my cursor nazarene baptist church owns the properties which are highlighted
in red so excuse me specifically they own the property adjacent along 39 35 germantown avenue
here this property in the rear as well as the property which is actually a parking lot and
you'll see in my presentation as well it is zoned rsa 5 however it's a parking lot owned by the
church who is in support again as i mentioned we did meet with the planning commission as well
and this is a summary of our meeting so to highlight a few points the planning commission
noted that we presented evidence of the unique physical circumstance or conditions particularly
for the property which enable which are necessary to enable the viable use of the property specifically
that we are looking to add the seven story edition harris will go through this in the
presentation as we go through the plans the property as it stands is not up to code part
the reason that we need to add the seven-story addition is to bring it to code and to address
some of the concerns of egress and ingress and that the property was harmonious with character
excuse me characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood it's consistent with the adopted
plans and that we showed evidence that it's unlikely to cause a specific detrimental impact
within the code section 14303 8e.1c through f and h so as i mentioned previously the rco stated in
their letter of support that the property was surrounded by residential as you can see here
on this overlay of the zoning map we are right here we're going to irms this is the existing
structure that we're looking to maintain we are looking to demolish these two portions
and the rear addition would be here to match the height of the existing structure.
Nazarene Baptist Church is located here along the corner of Germantown Avenue and West Life
Homing Street. As you saw previously, they own this property as well this property to the rear
of it, which is also a parking lot. They also own this entire parking lot that is zoned to RSA 5,
but is not used in a residential manner. And we also have the properties along Curbock Street.
The residentially zoned properties along Kerrbox Street are 40% vacant.
We did send out notice.
To my knowledge, individuals who were along Kerrbox Street were not in attendance.
On the other side of Kerrbox Street, the portion that is zoned residential use is not used in residential way.
It is actually used for commercial use.
There is an auto repair shop that is located there.
so although the letter states that the property is surrounded by residential yes there are
portions of the property that are zoned residential however there's only i believe 60
along kerbach street and as you'll see they are not impacted by light and air in any way
that are in fact residential and we also have the post office which is across the street
so here we have photos of the front of the property again the signs would be located
here along the arches and these to the side we are demoing those blue structures that you see here
there are two existing curb cuts where we'll be placing parking we did post notice of these eba
hearings and here we have an aerial shot i'll also highlight that the shadows as you see reflect
And here we have an aerial shot. I'll also highlight that the shadows as you see reflected here primarily impact our parking lot and the church's parking lot along here, which is owned residential. It does not impact these properties along Kerbock Street, which as you see is also 40% vacant.
Again, you'll see the church parking lot along here and the church is located here as well. This entire parcel with the exception of this section right here is owned by my client.
And here we have sample interiors. Again, one of the pillars of my client's company is that he looks to repurpose structures that have good bones, maintain their integrity, instead of allowing properties to become blighted and a nuisance to the community.
So with that, I will have Harris go through our plans and discuss in detail the necessity for the variance and why it does not, we cannot move forward with this project with the five-story addition. Harris?
Thank you, Clementa. This really just restates what's already been shown in the aerial views. In the orange is indicated the property line. The bold solid black line is the seven story Olympian building to remain. And the structures which are dashed in the dashed black line are to be demolished.
um this is the zoning plan uh as as uh submitted i think actually if you just go to the next
slide clementa this is simply highlighting the zoning plan for e for convenience
uh number one is the existing seven story building number two is the proposed seven
story building addition with roof deck so uh roughly you know very similar in size and and
proposed to match in height uh number three is just the footprint of the um warehouse building
and the one story rear building to be demolished uh did both of the number fours are the existing
curb cuts to remain entries to parking um both north and south of the building uh from germantown
avenue number five is the surface parking again north and south the as stated it exceeds the
required number of parking spaces and exceeds the current number of parking spaces on site
the loading dock is shown in the rear so you can you can see the drive lane for on-site loading
loading at this building is currently from germantown avenue actually one of the bays
in the front is a loading dock so this would be reducing an encumbrance from the street
and the proposed interior landscape in fact exceeds the code required minimums in terms
of coverage planting requirements etc go to the next please this is a view of the
existing building to remain from the front from germantown avenue you can see the building height
called out at 84 feet that's the height of the roof clementa mentioned there are two tenant signs
shown at the arches the glassy arches which are reasonable for seeming seemingly reasonable for
the the use there's also indicated building signage which would be paint so that 39 39 that's
at the center of the building in an homage to the
historical signage that was on the building. You saw in some of the photos, it's faded
at the broad facades. The arch on the right
is currently loading from Germantown Ave. That would be infilled and become
tenant space, ground level tenant space.
This is really
just a diagrammatic elevation from the south. These are the broad facade. The brownish color
is the existing building. The dashed elements are obviously windows that would be added to
provide light and air to the tenants' bases at all seven floors. The white portion is the proposed
seven-story addition. So again, obviously very similar in scale, composition. There is an existing
elevator and stair that serves the existing building with a bulkhead that's shown here on
the left. Similarly, there would be a new stair and elevator to provide the required number of
exits, meaning egress stairs, to all tenants at all floors. This diagram is to indicate
the proposed so the pink really is just conceptually the stairs and elevators
You can see there that at the diagram below, if we were to meet the letter of the zoning code, coming in below the 60-foot allowable height, that the top two floors in the existing building, which are currently non-code compliant, would remain non-code compliant.
you can see there that at the diagram below if we were to meet the
there would only be one egress stair and the solution to that was to match the heights and
again have two means of egress for all tenants at all floors which are shown in the plan diagrams on
the next page so on the left is the existing ground floor and there again the pink is the
stair that serves all floors. There's only one stair. There's a large freight elevator. Both of
those would remain. The dashed lines are the warehouse and the single story to be demolished.
On the left, sorry, on the right at the top is the proposed floor plan. So again, a new stair
and elevator core in the proposed addition. This would allow for the top two floors, level six and
seven to have two means of egress if you were not to have it um if the building addition were
to be five stories the top two floors of the existing building would be not non-code non-code
compliant as shown in the plan on the bottom with only one stair
thank you clementa these are sun shading studies uh and these are done in the software that output
accurate shadows given the sizes of the buildings you'll see that the figure of the property line
outlined in black and this is showing three times of day at three times of year really four times
of year so the vernal and autumnal equinox the summer solstice and the winter solstice this is
just to track the extreme cases of shadows on the left is if the addition were to be five stories
on the right showing if it were to be seven stories so nine images for the five stories
nine images for the seven stories we'll zoom in in a bit the takeaway as you sort of look as you're
looking at all of these as clementia mentioned previously um the majority of the shadow at
almost all times of day at all times of year is cast across the um parking lot of the property
itself obviously the in the winter as we all know longer shadows are cast um you'll see down there
actually i guess so you can go to the next slide clementa zooms zooms in on just the the winter
scenario the five stories version is at the top the seven stories version at the bottom uh there
is some shadows being cast on the post office across germantown ave and the nazarene baptist
church which are in support of the project um in really winter early morning um really winter
early morning uh and as you can see really there's not much difference between the five story and
seven story in terms of shadows cast uh really the place it's most evident is midday uh the noon
you can sort of see the outline of the you know the building steps down but again it's impacting
only the the parking area of the property itself um of note um the residential properties along
kerbaugh street which are to the south of the building are not impacted at all by shadow and
light since they're south of the building um and uh the what was zoned is rsa5 to the east of nice
street you see at 3 p.m whether five or seven stories that shadow is being cast into the parking
lot zoned residential but owned by the church and used as a parking lot thank you harris and
if you could also just highlight the matter of the code requirement for the seven stories and
which portion of the code requires for us to have multiple means of egress and thus why the variance
is necessary. Thank you, Clementa. Yes, that's required by section 1006.3.3, table 1006.3.32,
which requires more than one exit for buildings of three stories or more. Thank you, Erin.
So we did provide notice of the meeting, as you will see here. Our office sends out this letter
on december 27th well in advance of the meeting that was held on january 11th and was well
attended again the refuges that we have are in relation to the roof set which we believe is
necessary as a amenity for tenants in order for us to revitalize the germantown commercial corridor
amenity for tenants in order for us to revitalize the Germantown Commercial Corridor and compete
and compete with
with similar properties that offer tenant space. We also have the signage, which is framed by
the arches. We want to have minimal impact on the existing structure. We really want to honor
the building as is. We have a refusal for the height. As Harris mentioned, we would not be
able to move forward to bring the property up to code without this particular variance being
granted as there are issues with the property currently with multiple means of egress. So in
order for us to be code compliant, we do need to match the height. And we have our refusal for
off-street loading, which is a byproduct of the fact that one, the property is zoned IRMX of use
that we are proposing here although it is permitted in irmx and the refusal for the off-street loading
we do not need four off-street loading spaces we do have longages in the rear along 9th street and
instead of providing three additional off-street loading spaces we decided to prioritize tenant
parking which is why we are well above what's required i believe around 50 are required on
Friday well over 100 parking spaces a list of the properties that weren't that notified of the
community meeting our certificate mailing showing that we sent notice out to all of the affected
properties the application for appeal our project information forms and the deed showing that my
client does in fact own the property so with that i believe my client is present if i could have
ken included as a panel so he may have got my testimony
ken weinstein yeah he's been allowed to speak eric could you please state your name and spell
for the court stenographer ken weinstein k-e-n-w-e-i-n-s-t-e-i-n of philly office retail
sure do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counsel right um thank you very much oh go ahead
of course did you hear my presentation for that yes was it true and correct it was
And if you could just elaborate on the reason that you guys acquired the property and the proposed use.
Yes, we acquired the property a couple of years ago and have been using it, continued use of the commercial tenants that were in there.
But we would like the seven-story addition in order to do this legally by building code and offer 110 studio spaces in the building that will range in size from 156 square feet to 1,045 square feet.
Thank you.
and with that i'd be happy to answer any questions that the board may have questions from the board
no chairman questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
just briefly mr chair um we did not receive the letters of support from the church or from
tayoga united so if miss amazon could please forward those at her earliest convenience that
would be great. Thank you. Absolutely. We received them after submitting our material, so I will
submit them to Ms. Emerson. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Carmela Vassar-Johnson. Okay.
Hi. Hi. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Carmella, C-A-R-M-E-L-L-A, last name Vassor Johnson, V as in Victor, A-S-S-O-R hyphen Johnson, J-O-H-N-S-O-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am in an organization that lives in this neighborhood.
Please proceed.
Okay, I am a founding member of Jumpstart Tioga. We provide education and support for new and smaller developers with the focus on removing blight in the neighborhood and to improve our neighborhood and surrounding areas.
We're in support of this project because of where this property is currently located. Right now, there are a lot of automotive type businesses.
Right now, there are a lot of automotive-type businesses.
This project would provide opportunity for startup businesses, for people to move their businesses out of their home into another facility, and also for business to expand in their own neighborhood without having to find a location elsewhere.
The fact that there's so much parking provided, I think, is a huge bonus to the tenants as well as the neighborhood.
And the rooftop deck, in my opinion, offers a place to refresh as you're working through the day, which often is found in other neighborhoods.
And there's no reason, in my opinion, that we should have to go outside of our neighborhoods to find that amenity, as well as a place of potential content and other tenants in which they can network and expand their business.
So we wrap our arms wholeheartedly around this opportunity for this project.
Thank you for taking the time to call, sir. We appreciate your input. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
yes chair we have a calling user phone number ending at 4608 okay
calling user ending at 4608 please unmute
yes um i believe i'm unmuted now okay sir could you state your name and spell please for the
court stenographer?
Charles Carn.
C-A-R-N.
Do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
We're all firm.
Do you live in, are you
a neighbor?
I am the 13th Ward
chairperson, and I live in the community
for over 45 years.
Please proceed, sir.
Good day.
Good day, board. Couldn't be on
the laptop, but I'm here. I want to commend the owner for purchasing the property. When we did
have the meeting, we wanted to try to stay focused on the refusals rather than the program itself.
So the petitions that were shown to us were from people who were not directly affected
or within the 13 Ford area around that property on Germantown Avenue.
So to get to a couple of points that we discussed,
and it was a lengthy meeting and well attended by the directly affected 13 Ford,
Nice Town, CDC, and the block captains of Nice Town.
Sir Wright, if you looked at the, I know we had the exhibit of the pictures of the lot that Nazarene's on.
No one from Nazarene logged on at the meeting time.
No one from, so we were looking at the parking lot for one.
Parking lot behind that is RSA 5.
If they sell the parking lot, it goes away.
Carball Street and Knight Street are the streets directly behind the property itself.
They are RSA 5 and occupied.
But we also looked at the existing property that was on Germantown Avenue, the seven stories.
And the shadows, and I don't know where that study came from.
It was not at the presentation at all.
It's the existing building casting a shadow towards Ninth Street, which is behind it.
We thought as though if you put another seven-story building behind there, it's going to cast a longer shadow.
So we did not see that.
directly affected were there.
The petition folks, we talked about it.
That came out of the one nine one four zero.
So they were all over the place like the person who called in just a minute ago.
What we were trying to do as the 13th Ward is maintain those two blocks,
the nice, nice street and cabal as RSA five districts.
And a reason for the refusal.
um this is a existing building and they're proposing to add on another seven-story building
the refusal says up to 60 feet we support the project and to the limitation of 60 feet and um
i guess we got pushback um on that so the um that was one of the issues and
degress the building we felt as though that they're building a unit so it should no way
be out of compliance with any type of building and they can still have their um as many um units
in the building itself um the hardship um it was never voiced that it was a hardship to go down to
voiced that it was a hardship to go down to 60 feet. It's just that they wanted a certain amount
60 feet. It's just that they wanted a certain amount.
of units in the building itself. The parking itself is, as they said, is contained within
the gate. It's always been there inside the fence area. The roofing was an issue
from the meeting. It was voiced that it becomes a gathering place rather than
whatever they were looking for there so we felt as though we could um because it's a reason for
the refusal to stay within the guidelines this building 30 39 35 to 61 is the only seven-story
building in the area this is not 1901 11th street wherever that's located but this is right within
nice town area there so the um coordinating and affected rco nice town they were online
the block captains of nice town were online and only two of the directly affected were
online there and that's why we sent it in we support it we support in the program the jump
start um that was most of the folks who did not live in the area but we do support the project
itself with proviso for the second the second building that's proposed to stay at 60 feet
and to eliminate the roof decks
i can answer any questions you want sir
if the board doesn't have any questions may i respond what's that again if the board doesn't
have any questions for mr karen may i respond yes sure well why don't why don't we do this
why don't we wait to see if there's anyone else in the vertical in the audience okay
is there anyone else in the virtual audience
yes chair we have someone williams to shine first name begin with a d okay
hi could you state your name please sir hi this is uh dashonda dr dashonda williams d-e-s-h-a-w-n-d-a
Last name Williams
W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
The whole truth and nothing but the truth
Yes sir
Are you a neighbor
I have an organization
My church actually
One of the pastors of the church in
Nice Town
Sure please proceed
I came on today
As a support for this project
Just wanted to
shared the highlights in reference to what it can bring to our community, not just to our community,
but to those who live in the community. I understand that there's things that need to
be discussed in reference to building and hiding, et cetera, et cetera. I just know that hoping that
we can come together to see that whatever needs to be done can be done because this is really
needed for our community there's a lot of individuals that look forward to advancing
and have an opportunity to you know have residence there in terms of entrepreneurship work we're
working to empower and encourage people at our fellowship to seek out endeavors like this and
to have something like this in our community is really really great and it's awesome and so
i'm just here to show support on today thank you thank you for taking the time we appreciate your
call is there anyone else in the virtual audience yes we have ariel rivera how many more hands do
you have three hands after this person okay hi could you state your name please it's spelled
for the court stenographer yes can you hear me okay i can yeah okay my name is ariel rivera
First name, A-R-I-E-L, last R-I-V-E-R-A.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
You support the project?
I do support the project.
Is there anything you could add that hasn't been said?
No, I'm an entrepreneur.
I'm a community member.
I've grown up in the area and I'm in support.
I would love to own or rent a space in this property once it's complete.
Thank you very much for taking the time to call.
we appreciate it next hand please Charles Richardson hi Mr. Richardson good afternoon
Mr. Chair just as you know state your name and spell for the court sonographer please Charles
Richardson R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass room 508 City Hall you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I certainly do please proceed sir
uh the councilwoman is in support in so much as the uh
The councilwoman is in support in so much as the provisos that the RCO had requested.
If those can be enacted, she will certainly support the project.
That's where we stand.
Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
You have one more hand?
We have one more hand.
Now we have three more chair.
We have Kent Cook.
All right.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon.
My name is Kent.
That's K-E-N-T.
Last name is Cook, C-O-O-K-E.
Hold on.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, told truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am the next door neighbor.
Nazarene Baptist Church.
Very good.
Do you support the project?
Is there anything you could add that we haven't heard?
Yes. Our main concern is that people from the local neighborhood in the one nine one four zero zip code have employment opportunities.
And that is as respects construction of the property and also for things like servicing the property, for instance, housekeeping, extermination and things like that.
We just know this zip code always tracks into the three most economically depressed in the city of Philadelphia.
So we are 100 percent in support of anything to bring gainful employment to the neighbors.
Thank you very much for taking the time to call. Next to him, please.
We have Renee Norris Jones.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer?
Sure. My name is Dr. Renee Norris Jones.
Are you do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, sir. Are you a neighbor?
I am a community member, yes. I live like two blocks away.
Thank you. Do you support the project or against it?
I support the project.
Is there anything you can add that hasn't been said?
This, as the gentleman just said, this area is economically depressed.
That one block, that one block is just a, there's nothing there. Outside of the church, there is nothing in that block.
The post office across the street looks like it's closed down.
so to have something to have some life come to this block in this community i've been in this
community for 45 years to have some life come back to that block would be a plus i mean i
understand you guys are saying it's going to cast a shadow on a building i think that has less to do
with the mental physical and psychological effect of the neighborhood thank you very much for taking
the time to call we appreciate your input could i have the next person please the last person is
keith marshall hi could you state your name please and spell for the court sonographer
keith marshall please unmute yourself
to williams senior k dot m-a-r-s-h-l-l-w-i-l-l-i-a-m-s-s-r i am the senior pastor
Okay, thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth is nothing but the truth?
Yeah, I affirm.
Robert, do you support this project?
Yes. My chairman, Kent Jefferson Cook, spoke. I don't have anything to add to what he said, but I just want to go on the record that we stand in support and the opportunities that will be afforded to the members of our community.
As a church, we've done all that we can do to to upgrade, uplift our community around the church and the properties around the church.
And we're 100 percent support. Thank you. Thank you, Reverend.
Thank you for taking the time to call. We appreciate it.
Council, before I give this to Planning, do you have a short comments?
Yes, I do. So in regards to the comments that Charles made, he is correct in that we did not have the shadow study prior to meeting with the community.
We've recognized that they expressed concerns regarding light and air, and we put together
the shadow study to ensure that this would not have a negative impact on the surrounding
properties.
So, as you saw when we went through the presentation, primarily impacts our parking lot, the church's
parking lot, and two of the members of the church have clearly expressed support for
this project, and they are, in fact, most impacted.
As Charles, I believe, mentioned previously, along Kerrbach Street, there are residential
properties.
it is 40% vacant. So we recognize that the shadow, if any, would be minimal upon existing structures.
Excuse me. There was mention of a petition during our presentation to the community we had
included a petition. There was some concern that was expressed regarding the fact that it included
some concern that was expressed regarding the fact that it included individuals within the
individuals
boundaries of the RCO, but not necessarily within 250 feet of the property. In honor of
the comments that were made by the RCO, we did not include them in our presentation materials
today, nor were they submitted to the ZBA. So I would like to highlight that. As for the roof
deck, yes, I mentioned properties that are outside of this area. However, I mentioned them because we
believe that this particular community deserves to have similar projects of the same level and scope
to allow to use and exemplify what can be done along germantown avenue roof decks on office
buildings is not uncommon the dba has approved it in the past in order for us to really compete with
other properties that are providing similar use we need to also provide similar amenities
thank you council chairman may i add one detail regarding the roof deck sure um the the owner is
willing to set the roof back back back from the edge of the building if that uh would be seen as
a benefit to to minimize or negate any views of folks on the deck so that the roof deck had not
been designed yet but the footprint of it need not take up the entirety of the building from
parapet to parapet it could be set back if needed thank you um planning commission
thank you chair berkman and members of the board sarah bond philadelphia city planning commission
and and i lost my place if you can that's okay take your time sarah all right here we are uh
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing industrial mixed use at this location
physical circumstances of the property create hardships for use and dimension therefore the
city planning commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance thank you
mi 2023-006-107-3935-61 germantown avenue i vote yes thomas holloman my vote is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number three, MI 2023-005-932-824-34 Red Lion Road, David Orfanides is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Greater Busselton Civic Association.
mr orphanetes is coming back in as a panelist thank you good afternoon good afternoon mr
orphanetes could you state your name and spell please for the court stenographer
certainly uh david orphanetes last name is spelled o-r-p-h-a-n-i-d-e-s do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do um could you identify
your client in relationship to this property? Certainly. The property is known as the
Ambassador to Apartments. My client is Jack Beinenfeld, who's, per the deed, is the trustee
of the Jack Beinenfeld Separate Share Trust under the Henry Beinenfeld Third Amendment amended and
restated revocable trust agreement dated October 31st, 2011. That's how it shows up on the deed.
Thank you so much. Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, Counselor.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I do not stipulate to the accuracy, but I waive the reading of it.
Understood.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I did.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Certainly.
Yep. Okay. Let me just move this over here, minimize it. Okay. Again, my name is David
Orphanides from the law firm of Orphanides & Toner, and I'm here this afternoon for the
property located at 828 to 34 Red Lion Road, which is also known as 824 to 34 Red Lion Road.
can you still see my screen oh there we go we can sorry yeah there you go wasn't sure what
happened there um the uh the property in question is located you can see here highlighted in uh with
the red clouding it's located on red lion road on the south side of red lion the southwest side
between Bustleton Avenue and Varee Road.
The property is, it was constructed as an apartment complex back in the mid-1990s.
It was constructed as an apartment complex back in the mid-1970s.
The zoning permit was issued in 1976 for the five structures that you see right here.
It includes a swimming pool and accessory parking.
Again, that was originally 128 units.
It's 127 units at the present time.
there are three signs that exist this is a sign application there are three signs that presently
exist along red lion road on the property they don't project over the footway onto the footway
they're all within the property lines you will see there are two double-sided freestanding signs
here and here, and then an internally illuminated freestanding box sign here.
The application is to replace these two signs and then just to document this sign that's
here on the west end. Here's another view from the north, another view. Now, you can see in
going back to the original Ariel that I showed you, there's an apartment building across the
street, apartment complex across the street, which we're also here for today. That's owned by my
client. There's an apartment complex that's just to the west across the street that is converted
to a condominium. There's a church to the west of us that has a freestanding sign. And then there
are commercial properties that also have freestanding signs that I've circled here.
So as you know, Red Lion Road is a very wide commercial corridor. Cars pass along it pretty quickly. And there is an obvious history in the immediate vicinity of our property of very large freestanding signs, which I'm going to show you a picture of right now.
Now, here are the existing signs that we have at the subject property.
Here's the one that's closest to Busselton, just externally illuminated wooden freestanding signs, very modest, but outdated.
My client is in the process of updating all the signage on the property, building signs for security purposes,
for purposes of identifying, better identifying the building for emergency vehicles.
Also, obviously, for deliveries that we all receive these days.
Now, here's the box sign that you see right here.
My client's office is in this unit, and that's why originally it was 128 units, dwelling units.
It was dropped to 127 with his office.
But here's this freestanding sign of the church that's directly to the west of this property.
There is a shopping center further to the west on the opposite side.
I'll be talking in a couple minutes about the property across the street, another very large apartment complex, but we're also looking to swap out the signs.
This is just a little sign showing that my client does the plannings in the median strip on red line between his two properties.
And then as you head down to Busselton, you can see very large freestanding signs, which are, you know, a stone's throw away from my client's property.
This is coming back on our side of Red Lion.
This is the corner of Busselton.
And then heading closer to our property.
This is the property right next door to our property.
And as you can see, they're very large freestanding pylon signs here.
The application is, again, as I mentioned, let me zoom in here.
Let's see if I can vary.
The two signs, the wooden freestanding signs that I showed you in the photographs that are here and here, is to replace those.
And again, to document this sign, the box sign in front of my client's office.
uh here are the the elevations that were submitted with the zoning permit application
um basically what we have is we have a masonry base upon which they'll be set a internally
illuminated freestanding sign double-sided and again the sign that's in front of his office is
going to remain.
Here's a rendering of the type of sign, the sign that we have.
They are in slightly different shapes
between the two signs that are being replaced.
But this gives you an idea of what the sign will look like.
The lighting actually comes out where there is lighting
around the letters.
The lighting comes out around basically
around the sides of the letters.
They don't come through the letters
where you see the dark letters and creates a halo effect.
according to the sign um manual or the sign installer around the dark lettering and then
manual or the sign installer around the dark lettering and then the white lettering will
the white lettering will will be in
will be internally illuminated and shining through that
um as mentioned um we do have we did meet with uh um the greater buston civic league
for this project and as you can see there were 20 people that voted in support only one was
opposed and they have they have taken a position of support and then we have a letter of support
from Councilman O'Neill. The reason that I bring up that I don't agree with the refusals, and you
can see here, the refusal for this property is that they say that freestanding signs are not
permitted in the RM2 zoning district. By the way, we have, if you look at the table right here,
if Ellen and I did view these freestanding signs in RM2 as being permitted,
the heights that we're proposing are within the height limits that are permitted for freestanding
signs in the zoning districts that include RM2.
But what's interesting is that, so it says freestanding signs, and it says home occupation
prohibited, non-residential uses, 15 square feet for each lot frontage.
So my position is, if it were to be prohibited in RM2, it would state as much, just like
it states for home occupations, but it doesn't.
So the way the code is drafted and the way this chart appears, that in RM2, as long as you're not using it for a home occupation or non-residential use, it would seem to appear that there is no limitation on a freestanding sign.
Now, I understand that's a little absurd because you could basically then put a billboard other than the fact that you have the height limit here.
But in terms of square footage, you could be fairly large.
But with that being said, the fact that there is an issue with the way the zoning code is drafted and the way that it's there is not our problem, per se, in this case.
And I brought this to the examiner's attention.
We agreed to disagree.
I took the refusal.
Instead of doing an appeal against L&I, we just went through this project because given the existence of the freestanding signs that are already there and the two that are to be replaced with what, again, what we showed here in the rendering and the elevation.
that it's a height that would otherwise be permitted here, we felt that it was safe and
it was a good idea to go to the community and to present this. But again, our position is that a
refusal should not have been issued in this case. The other thing that's interesting is that under
this reasoning, wall signs are also prohibited because, again, they're not addressed as a home
occupation or as a non-residential use. And as such, you couldn't even have a flat wall sign
here. And I've shown that, you know, this zoning classification RM2, for those of us who have
been around since before 2012, when the current zoning code was implemented, there were large,
there were, this RM2 was known as R11, R11A, R12, R13, very large apartment complexes, similar to
what you have here. And you can see here from the zoning code of 14401, you have a description of
what the RM zoning classification includes, which includes high-density multifamily residential
buildings. The idea that you cannot have a freestanding sign for an apartment complex
without going to the zoning board seems pretty bizarre to me. And that doesn't seem to make
sense either. It's obviously a business. It is a residential use, but it could be a condominium
complex. It could be an apartment complex. But you see, these are very large operations. And
it's obvious that you're going to have some type of wall sign, some type of freestanding sign
to identify these properties. And the idea that you can't have either is also an absurd result
from L&I's, with all due respect, L&I's interpretation of this provision of this table
and the zoning code.
David, I think we understand you.
So I was just wrapping it up.
With that being said, whether the refusal is not warranted, we have the support.
Either way, we think that the variance should be granted.
Thank you.
Do you have your representative here with you?
And Jack Meinenfeld, he could be promoted to a panelist.
Jack Beinenfeld has been allowed to speak.
Hi, sir. Could you please state your name as spelled for the court stenographer?
Jack Beinenfeld, B as in boy, I-E-N-E-N-F-E-L-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, sir.
Jack, did you hear the statements that I made to the board today?
I did. Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
I did.
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, they are.
Yes, they are. And would you adopt them as your own? Yes, I would.
And would you
And do you have anything real briefly that or quickly that you would like to add that I didn't cover in the presentation thus far?
No, I thank the board for their time and consideration and look forward to putting our signs up.
Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman. No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hilary Emerson?
Just briefly, Mr. Chair, I was frankly confused by the refusal as well and reached out to
L&I to understand why it was issued.
And the explanation that I received is that residential freestanding signs are not permitted
accessory to residential uses in this zoning district.
So that's why it was issued.
I just wanted to clarify that for the record.
That's okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Sarah Bond with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential multifamily zoning.
the variance requested for new signage is not the least modification possible of the use or
dimension regulation in issue. The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant
the variance for legalization of the existing signage with the proviso that a variance for
new signage is denied. Thank you. MI 2023-005-932-824-34 Red Line Road. I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number four, MI2023-006086-2557 Carwithin Street.
Alan Notchamson is the attorney.
letter of support from the Northeast Community Civic Alliance.
An applicant also provided one form letter of support from a neighbor.
Mr. Nachamson is joining us as a panelist.
good afternoon mr chair members of the board alan knockamson just for the record mr knockamson
they will know but could you spell your name for the court reporter sure alan a-l-a-n last name
knockamson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. I do. Could you identify your client and relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Top Line Properties, Inc., and in the virtual audience is its president,
Dmitry Mezheevich. Okay, and our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wait to renew or stipulate to a day?
So, what's going on now? Mr. Benfield, could you please get off? Thank you.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed
with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you.
Please proceed.
All right.
Thank you.
all right so we're here to present uh 2557 carwithian street uh it's property in northeast
philadelphia um what we're trying to do here is uh put a 40 unit uh apartment building in the
property that is honestly mislabeled as RSA 3 and under the 2035 plan is geared to be labeled and
classified as RM 2, which is more in line with the use that we're requesting. We're also providing
a significant amount of off-street parking, 38 parking spaces as well, which has precipitated
this variance request. So first of all, we'll review the notice of refusal, then the correspondence
from the Northeast Community Civic Alliance. As you'll see from their letter, they're in full
support of this project because it meets the character of the neighborhood and the surrounding
area. We do have revised plans because of, you know, to deal with some of their requests. So if
you know to deal with some of their requests so if this board feels so inclined to grant
this board feels so
our zoning appeal we would ask that they grant it with a proviso of these revised plans and again
what we're offering is not out of character to what's in the surrounding area we're proposing
a 40-unit apartment building which is very similar and in some ways lesser density than
nearby comparable apartment complexes, and you'll see that as well. Then we have a letter of support
from the nearby neighbor. So the neighbor next door, who would be most detrimentally impacted
by some of these variance requests, is also in full support of this project. Then we'll review
the Philadelphia 2035 plan. Again, the 2035 plan designates this property as being changed to RM2,
which is in line with what you'll see from the zoning map, which is the next exhibit.
Very strange. We're like RM2 everywhere except this little pocket, which, again, that's why I think that the City Planning Commission is recommending a change of the zoning designation to RM2.
And then photographs of the property, and you'll see that this is an undeveloped part of the Northeast.
So, you know, even with our development, there's going to be a lot of still tree coverage, which makes it so that we're not really impacting any of the surrounding properties, many of which are still undeveloped in that area.
Then we'll review those photographs and then we'll go through our plans and drawings and our RCO meeting notice where, again, we met with the community and we have proof of mailing to the surrounding property owners.
And then our application for appeal that we filed with the ZBA or deed to the property, showing a top line properties, Inc. is the owner of the property.
And then the certificates of tax clearance. We're doing a consolidation of five lots.
So we have a tax clearance for each lot. And then at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that Dimitri virtually raise his hand, be sworn in.
And I'll have a few questions for him. And then finally, if there are any technical questions,
I have Eric Quick from Harmon Deutch who can answer those questions.
So first things first is the notice of refusal.
As you can see from the notice of refusal, we're taking five lots, combining them, and making one lot.
The combined lot is over 22,400 square feet.
And what we're trying to do here is 40 units.
With here, it said 40 parking spaces.
There was requests made of us for the trash area. And I believe there was also some additional landscaping requests. So, you know, to help conform to the community requests, we reduced the account of the parking spaces technically to 38.
one of those parking spaces was changed to a car share parking space where under the Philadelphia
zoning code that car share space would technically account for four parking spaces. So when we have
a 40 unit apartment building now we have technically under the Philadelphia zoning code 42 spaces so
we're better than one-to-one. We have several refusals. I think they're technical in nature
especially given the circumstances. First refusal is this is an RSA 5 property. So by proposing
multifamily use, that is a refusal. But again, if we were RM2, multifamily would be allowed
as of right and would be based on FAR. The second refusal has to do with the proposed
surface parking spaces are in the front and side yards and is prohibited under the zoning
classification. So you'll see that Carwithan, first of all, our named street, is not even an
open street. Really, it really should be labeled as this property as Dewey's. And we'll see,
maybe that name will be changed when we go to the Office of Property Assessment, hopefully when this
board grants our zoning appeal. So the first street, really, we're not having any parking
on the front because you'll see from the uh the drawings we it's like an l-shaped parking spot
uh lot and the the l part on quirthian it's not even an open street so we're not really that's
not really our front but so be it and then on the side um you'll see that it mimics like you know
what was approved by this zoning board uh previously for 9122 deweys and also other
properties in the nearby vicinity where they also have side yards or that are being used as a parking
parking lot. The third refusal has to do with landscaping that, you know, with a parking lot
of this sort, you know, you're supposed to have 10% of the lot for landscaping in order to
you're supposed to have 10% of the lot for landscaping in order to provide the amount
of parking that the community has requested of us. Because we're in the Northeast and you really do
need parking, we have a lesser amount of 4.5% of landscaping. But again, this is something that
the community has requested upon us. Then the other refusals have to do with rear yard depth
where 20 feet is required and none is proposed because we have a parking lot. And again,
Again, not out of character to what's, you know, in the surrounding area in terms of parking lots, which are, you know, dealing with the, you know, rear or side yards.
Also, the owner that we most directly impacted by this variance request would be the owner of 9122 Dewey Street.
And again, they support this endeavor as well.
And then another variance request is a maximum building height of 38 feet, where 43 feet, 7 inches proposed.
Again, not out of character in this neighborhood to have a height of this sort.
Again, if this was an RM2 property, there is no height limitation for RM2.
And again, because of our setbacks of how our building structure is, where the parking lot you'll see is L-shaped,
We are completely insulated from our surrounding property owners, so we're not going to cause any issues with light in there.
And then finally, the last refusal has to do with the removal of a heritage tree from the property, which requires a special exception.
Again, this is a wooded area.
We're hoping to develop this wooded area.
We're ultimately at the construction phase of this project, hopefully, if this board so grants our zoning requests, we'll be seeking a waiver and paying the requisite amount for that.
So we met with the community and the Northeast Community Civic Alliance, you know, supported the project.
And they said, we received only positive feedback in regards to this project.
We're optimistic that the relationship between ownership and the community will be only positive moving forward.
So this area has a lot of apartment buildings like this.
The issue, I'll increase it, Mr. Chair.
The issue is these apartment buildings are older and have not really been kept up like the community would want to.
So having this influx of newer apartment buildings will provide nice housing for individuals in this neighborhood, but also hopefully encourage those other apartment building owners to step up their game.
So that's what the community is hoping for, because I think there's been a lack of competition in this area where many of the apartment buildings have become rather old and stale and have not met the needs of this community.
just make this more
all right so if this board feels so inclined to grant the zoning of appeal we would ask that they
do it with a revised plan so we have the revised proviso plan these are the things that we changed
we relocated electric uh the electric vehicle stalls and we'll show you that on the site plan
We did an addition of a one car share stall, which allows for reduction of four required parking stalls.
We reduced provided parking stalls by two from 40 to 38.
And we did an additional trash enclosure outside.
And again, this is where the electric stalls are.
This is where the trash is.
And this is where the landscaping is.
And this is where there, I believe, may be additional landscaping.
And then this is where the car share is.
And that's all reflected in our drawings.
That's the next page.
All right.
So nearby comparable apartment complexes.
So we're 2577 car width in.
We're here, right?
So there are seven other complexes, all numbered, which have a humongous amount of density in this area because it's ARM2.
So that's what we're trying to do as well.
So, again, what we're offering as part of this zoning appeal is not out of character in the neighborhood.
And it's been embraced by the community because they're excited about new housing in this area for multifamily.
all right we got a letter of support from the nearby neighbor 9122 dewey street and you'll
see from the site plan he is an l-shaped lot which basically hugs our property so if anyone's
He is an L-shaped lot, which basically hugs our property.
So if anyone's impacted by this project, it would be this property, and they're in support of this project.
And then the Philadelphia 2035 plan, as you can see here, right here is 2549-57 Corithen.
And as you can see, they're changing the zoning from what's RSA 3 to RM 2.
And then maps of the area, again, very strange, but this is all RM2 around here, but there's this little sliver of properties right here that's RSA3, which is, again, out of character.
I think that's why Planning Commission is trying to fix the zoning classification here, or at least proposing to.
And then, as you can see here, where we are, we're not far. Not only is there a lot of RM2, there's a commercial corridor here as well, which we would help support on Welsh Road if this project is granted by the ZBA by way of variance.
And then photographs of the property, that's literally the front of our property. It's all trees. We're in the forest.
and then this is the zoning hearing notice poster we tried to put it somewhere that was noticeable
from the street so we tried our best and then if you can see here this is an aerial view so you can
kind of see where we are so carwithin is this street that's right here that you don't even see
it's not even an open street by the city plan but as you can see here this is basically all
forest we're a sliver of that and then as you can see here there's a ton of parking all around here
So, again, if we were RM2, I don't think we'd have an issue in terms of parking, the existence of parking.
And then this is Dewey Street to the right of the property, Dewey Street to the left of the property, because we believe Dewey Street is really the street that's the only part that's developed.
Carwithan is literally a forest in there. It's on an open street. And then these are drawings that
are pictures from our architecture team at Harman Deutsch, who was the architecture team
as part of this project. But you can see an aerial map with the site plan, which I kind of showed you,
a view from the north showing, again, we're in the middle of this forest, a view from the east,
a view from the south, and a view from the west. And then, as you can see, it's a more
zoomed in view of this, but how our property is here and we're literally surrounded by RM2.
And then this is just our survey, which shows the consolidation of these properties. Again,
in total, it's over 22,400 square feet in lot size. And then this is just showing our parking lot.
and as you can actually let me just zoom out a little bit I can't oops
but you can see at least from here well this is Corinthian this is like the
wooded area and this is the part we're hoping to develop but as you can see
here 2 9122 deweys completely surrounds us over here so again if anyone's
impacted by this project would be 9122 deweys. And then in terms of the floor plans,
these are three-story structures, four-story structures. There's 10 units per floor.
The first floor units are bi-level units. And then the second, third, and fourth floors each
are just single floor units. There's a total of, let me just make sure I have this,
Correct. Three, three bedrooms and three baths, 17, two bedrooms and two baths, three, two bedrooms and one bath and 17, one bedrooms and one bath.
And if the board feels so inclined, we can walk through the actual floor plans themselves.
They're pretty straightforward. I don't believe there's a roof deck here.
I also believe let me just confirm this. I think it's built on grade.
I can't tell from there, but I think it's built on grade.
So, again, while not ADA accessible, it will be helpful for the more elderly members of this community by having those first floor units.
Oh, there it is.
It is.
Here's a rendering, a mix of brick and composite metal.
And then this is more of a sketch of what it looked like conceptually before it was put into a colored rendering.
and then again we met with the community on december 20th at the 6 p.m this is
And then again, we met with the community on December 20th at 6 p.m.
This is proof of email to the members of the RCO, as well as the district council members, zoning aid.
We do that two weeks before the meeting when we mailed them out.
16 addresses were notified in the meeting.
These are listed in the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses.
Our application for appeal that we filed on behalf of Topline Properties, Inc. with the zoning board of adjustment.
the notice of refusal
and then the project information and then the deed
of the property showing that top line properties Inc. is the owner of the property
and then the
certificates of tax clearance. The only reason why money is owed is just showing
that that's for the 2024 tax year which are not due yet
but for each property it's the same.
All right. With that being said, I would ask that Dimitri virtually raise his hand.
Alan, did you say you had to cancel support from this?
City council?
So we got the letter so late. I have not heard from them that they're against it. So I don't know. But again, yeah.
Okay. Thank you.
So I can't say they're supportive of it because I don't know. I don't think they would be against it, though.
All right, good.
Thank you.
Your client has been allowed to speak.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
Yes, Dmitry Majewicz, D-Z-M-I-T-R-Y, and the last name M-I-A-Z-H-E-V-I-C-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Oh, yes.
Dmitry, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Yes, I did.
Is it true or correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Sarah Bond with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning.
The City Planning Commission also recommends that the granting of the special exception
for the removal of the heritage tree as well as granting the use of the dimensional variances.
In terms of landscaping refusal, the code allows appellants to apply for waivers
for landscaping requirements to avoid generating refusals.
There was no waiver application included in this case.
The City Planning Commission recommends
that the Zoning Board deny the landscaping variance.
Okay, okay.
MI 2023, 006, 086, 2557 Carworthson Street.
I vote yes.
Proviso, revised plan, one page, stamped by ZBA on January 24, 2024.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number five, MI-2023-005-997, 4433 Wayne Avenue.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
Letter of support from the 13th Ward RCO with one enforceable proviso.
Limited signs and illuminated signs to be installed on the two sides of the building that do not face residential structures.
Good afternoon, Ward.
Mr. Consul, you've already been sworn. Could you just state your name for the record?
Joseph Consul.
And could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Joanne Pelletere. She's representative for StoreSpaceQR, Philadelphia LP, the owner of the building.
Okay, and our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulating to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Right.
Let me share my screen.
All right.
I'm here on 4433 Wayne Avenue.
This property is a storage space owned by a national company called StoreSpace.
This property is a storage space owned by a national...
It was previously owned by a company called Extra Space Storage and functioned as the exact same thing.
My clients purchased it, improved the building, and are now seeking to put up three signs.
We have a refusal because, as you'll see in the pictures, the building's quite tall. Zone CMX3. You are not permitted above the second floor windowsill of the structure to install signs.
Now, what I think is important to note here is we'll show you the photographs of the signs as they had existed on the extra storage space property for as far back, at least as we can see, at least to 2008.
And we're replacing these signs with smaller signs. So we're hopeful that the fact that we are replacing signs with other replacing old signs with new signs will allow for the board to grant the variance.
The RCOs in support, their one caveat, as you mentioned, is one of the signs faces residential properties, and it always has, and we'll get to that in a second, but they are asking for that one not to be illuminated, but everything else they approved.
So, as mentioned, there's the letter we got, proof of mailing, the photos and plans.
So, I'll show you each of the three signs individually.
This is a photo of the extra space storage sign.
The sign that faces the residential properties is the one that you see on your screen now.
It's this sign at the top that says extra space storage.
That is the one that we are seeking to replace with a store space sign, which is smaller and illuminated to the exact extent that this extra space storage sign was illuminated.
If you look on Google, you can go back all the way to 2008, their first picture.
You can see that sign's there.
It's illuminated.
It's at the top of the building because that is the piece of the building that faces the highway, obviously.
So it's a good spot to market that particular building.
Um, we, uh, are cognizant of the neighbor's lack of a desire for a new illuminated sign are put our argument against that would be the reason the sign is not permitted is, is because it's above the second floor.
We could put an illuminated sign on the first floor or the second floor. It doesn't seem like it would be any better to have a sign lower down, like actually at level with the residential properties.
Second of all, no one that came to the RCO seemed to mind the sign as it had been. And so we're hoping that we can just replace it and continue moving on.
So here's what we're attempting to replace that particular sign with, which is this store space sign here.
Again, that's just the newer version of the two that I already showed you.
And that was the one that the RCO was seeking a potential proviso on.
However, we don't believe that's necessary.
The other two signs, this is how the sign looked previously.
this is our proposed store space self-storage sign so replacing just that banner sign with
this store space self-storage sign and then the third sign is this one here below this billboard
which obviously the billboard rights are not related to what we're seeking seeking to replace
that one with this store space sign up there again this is not one that faces the residential
properties and there was no um no proviso sought related to that particular sign so
here's the rest of my packet we included in the packet a lot of the photos that i just showed you
i just tried to break them out into a way that made sense again here's the here's the one sign
that has some level of controversy but again we're replacing an illuminated sign with an illuminated
sign there's the second sign and there's the third sign also included where the plans that
were drawn up required for the installation of the signs and some other photos of the property
as you can see it's only one side of the building that actually faces any units there's a train
station there on the highway over there okay then my other documents round out the packet
i will call joanne to raise her virtual hand
Joanne to raise her virtual hand if she's in if she's in the audience she's been allowed to speak
I could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
yes my name is Joanne Pelletier Joanne j-o-a-n-n Pelletier p-e-l-l-e-t-i-e-r
go ahead i'm sorry no go ahead do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do i swear hi please proceed okay good afternoon joanne did you hear my testimony
just now regarding the the sign installation yes i did sir do you adopt it as it was as if it was
your own yes i do um briefly would you because you and i were speaking earlier would you speak
about the potential concessions you can make regarding the one illuminated sign that the RCO
had some potential qualms about? Yes. So for the sign that the RCO had some qualms about,
what we could do is instead of the sign being illuminated from dusk to dawn, we could put the
sign on a timer and turn it off at 10 p.m. so that the sign would no longer be illuminated
10 p.m. on. The other thing that I'd like to bring to your attention is that the sign is on
the fourth floor of the highest level, which is the fourth level of the building. And the
residential units right across the street from it are two-story units. So having the sign at that
height actually is less in their face if you want to call it that as if we had installed
it on the second floor which would technically be allowed to be installed on the second floor
yes thank you joanne thank you questions from the board
no chair no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary anderson
um you just wanted to clarify um mr console so it was just it was the one sign i was having a
hard time telling which was the residential side of the building or side that the rco was
referencing um in their letter because it does seem like there's main street what what street
was that one sign i'm trying i'm going to show you so here i'm going to pull it up right now
so here's it's roberts ave yeah so there's the residential and there's the side of the building
got it got it all right thank you um i mean mr chair if you if you were inclined to do any
provide those related to um the sign you could reference the sign face the sign that's facing
roberts avenue okay um but that's only if you're inclined thank you questions or comments uh from
the virtual audience yes chair we had charles richardson good afternoon again mr mr richardson
mr richardson you've already been sworn just state your name for the record charles richardson
Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass from 508 City Hall. Okay. I have a question for Mr. Council and
has there been a lumen study because that's our office is right our district office is right
around the corner from there and I'm very familiar with the building and the and the sign and all of
that. There's an older sign that's up there that's illuminated that you had mentioned but is there
Will this be a brighter sign that we're talking about? Has there been any lumen study that's been done with regard to the brightness of this new sign versus the old sign?
I'm certain that Joanne has some feedback on that because her and I spoke to that as well.
Joanne?
I think she logged off.
She's coming back in. Here she is.
All right, I'm back.
Hi, Joey. Could you respond to that comment?
Yes, actually, I can. So if you look at the image that's currently on the screen, you will see that the extra space section of the sign is white faced.
It's clearly seen there. So a white face sign because of the there's no obstruction between the clear, the white acrylic face and the LEDs is definitely a much brighter sign than our sign, which is currently shown as navy blue, as you can tell.
and what happens with a navy blue sign is the only way to get that illuminated at night is that we
do some pinholes in the blue vinyl so that the light that comes through at the face at night
is a lot dimmer than a white face sign because all that is coming through
is the lighting that can come through the pinholes in the blue vinyl that we
is the lighting that can come through the pin holes in the blue vinyl that we put on top of
the face does that clarify that it would be less bright than it used to be for that reason i i i'm
i'm understanding what you're saying okay perfect um with that uh we have no opposition thank you
thank you mr richardson uh anyone else in the virtual audience yes chair we have a calling user
Phone number ending in 3503.
Hello?
Calling user, please unmute.
Try one more time.
Good afternoon.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Mr. Chairperson, Charles Karn, C-A-R-N.
Oh, okay, sure, sure, sure.
I want to repeat my name, make sure you didn't, make sure to say,
you got it right.
All right, do you swear, you've already been sworn, Mr. Karn.
Yes, sir.
Please.
Two questions, sir.
Two things that were voiced from the attorney and the architect.
on on on berkeley street and roberts street there are two-story um residential properties
but on the corner there there's a three-story property sitting right on the corner so um
when they stated it wouldn't be high enough now currently right now it's illuminated on the roof
itself right okay but most buildings that i know are four-sided we're asking and we have we support
businesses but responsible businesses if the illuminated signs are appointed towards
new customers which meaning 76 and the train station on those two sides of the building
we have no no problems with right they're going to put them on the residential side because there
are there are two sides there are four sides but the main side off of berkeley and the small street
Roberts those are residential properties and if you put signs in it it shines right into the
windows of people who are trying to go to sleep prior to 10 o'clock I just didn't understand the
timer but the whole thing comes down is that we support and start installation but only on the
two sides on the expressway side and the train side only on the non-residential side we have
problem with. Thank you. Thank you very much for taking this time. Is there anyone
else in the virtual audience? I see no other hands, Chair. Planning Commission.
Sarah unmute. Thank you, sir.
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the existing commercial mixed-use zoning. The appellant has not supported a hardship claim
with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property. The City Planning
Commission recommends that the zoning board deny the variance. Thank you, Asar. Hillary, can I put
it up for that Roberts Avenue side? Can we put the timer on, a set of time for that?
um we we can set um an hour do a proviso for hours of illumination
so and they can do that either by timer or manually or however
they decide that they wish to do it so we go 10p to 6a is that okay
mr console that be acceptable yes okay okay all right so mi 2023 so mr chair just to clarify
If I, so you might want to, if, if I think you were saying the hours that it wouldn't
be illuminated.
No, I'll, I'll, I'll do the time that they're going to be eliminated.
Thank you.
Thank you.
MI 2023-005-997-4433 Wayne Avenue.
I vote yes with proviso.
Signed to be eliminated 6A to 10P on the Robert Street side, Roberts Avenue side.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Number seven, MI 2023-006-087, 1017-21 Palmer Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from Fishtown Neighbors.
there's a letter of opposition from council member
There's a letter of opposition from Councilmember Scuola, and there's a letter of opposition from a neighbor on Palmer Street.
Squilla and there's a letter of opposition
The applicant has provided 21 neighbors based on 10 dwelling units.
Mr. Nockamson.
Board of Allyn Nockamson.
Thank you, Mr. Nockamson.
As you know, you've already been sworn.
Could you identify your client?
Yes, my client is Palmer Street is Neat, LLC. In the virtual audience, I have several members of the development team. I have Kerry Borish and Bob Shaw, who are members of the corporate property owner. I also have Kerry Jackson-Yontz, who is the architect of record for this project.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed.
So I'm here to present 1017-21 East Palmer Street.
We'll go through this project.
it has we have dramatically through community input reduced the density of the project going
from 19 units to 10 we've reduced the height of the project by going from 51 and a half feet to
40 feet eight inches we've done changes in terms of increasing the size in the mail room increase
doubling the bike, uh, storage, the lobby, um, and the trash room. Uh, and we've increased
landscaping this project. I, you know, again, the elephant in the room is this, the community is,
you know, has, has issued or FNA has issued a letter of opposition. And that was based on
13 units where we went down from 19 units. Um, now we're at a one-to-one ratio, 10 to 10,
10 residential units and 10 parking spaces. And you'll see through the project that, you know,
based on where we're located in the neighborhood, you know, it would be very challenging,
if not impossible, for us to build a by-ride project. And, you know, again, we're trying to
work with the neighborhood and have a responsible project. And I do believe that, you know,
sometimes you got to look at where we started and how we got there. And I think where we
have landed is a responsible project that we hope the ZBA will approve by way of variance.
So first, we'll review the notice of refusal, and then we'll do the correspondence from the
Fishtown Neighbors Association, and we're going to direct and we're going to respond to every one
of their points, the good, the bad, and the ugly. And, you know, through that, you'll get a flavor
of why we think that this is a responsible project that the city's zoning board of
adjustments should grant. And then we have revised plans based on those modifications we made based
on community input. And then we have a petition that we circulated of neighbors who are in support
of this project, as well as maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and
drawings, our RCO meeting notice, our application for appeal, our deeds of property, and our
certificate of tax clearance showing that this property owner is in good standing with respect
to real estate taxes. Again, in the virtual audience, I have Kerry Borish, who's going to
read a statement. This has been a long project in terms of us, where we started and where we have
ended up. And he wants to kind of explain his thoughts as well. I have Bob Shaw, his business
partner. He may or may not be necessary. We'll see what community input we have as well. And then
And same thing with Carrie Jackson-Yonce, the architect for the project, who's with Cano Architects, who can give some flavor and input about some technical matters if necessary.
So our notice refusal.
So this is an RSA 5 property, but you'll see in the area of Fishtown where we're at, that is probably not the correct zoning classification.
If you go to the right of where we are, same type of configuration, that's an RM1 property.
Given our significant lot size, we would be allowed 11 units as of right.
So what we were originally offering of 19 units, you know, we admittedly was a little aggressive, but we thought that that, given where we're located in the neighborhood, we thought that that was an appropriate.
But we thought that that, given where we're located in the neighborhood, we thought that that was an appropriate use, especially since we're providing off-street parking, which is not required in R&1.
But given the 19 units, we thought, and given that we're right off of 95, you can almost leap off of 95, we thought that that was appropriate under circumstances.
But, you know, based on several community meetings, input generally in the neighborhood, we have now reduced the amount of dwelling units from 19 to 10.
We've kept to 10 parking spots.
So now we have a one-to-one ratio.
We have a bigger trash room.
We have additional bike storage for, you know, or storage for bike bicycles.
We have a more pronounced lobby area.
We have additional landscaping.
So we have tried to meet as many of the needs of the community that we can, obviously, other than trying to do a buy-write project with an irregular-shaped lot, which goes to our undue hardship.
So we have several refusals, the first of which is, in a way, almost self-inflicted.
We want to provide parking.
We think that's the responsible thing to do.
That's why we have 10 parking spots, you know, with dedicated to these 10 units.
So, again, in a way self-inflicted, but we're trying to be responsible.
Where we're putting the curb cuts on Salmon Street is there is no public parking in front of us on Salmon Street.
So by creating those curb cuts, it's actually a positive impact to the community.
And you'll see also that across the street from us
is additional public parking.
So we don't need the parking,
but we thought that that was a responsible thing to do
as the community grows.
You don't look at just today,
you look at 10 years from then.
Second refusal has to do with the amount of dwelling units.
We proposed 19 dwelling units.
Again, looking at the situation,
hearing from the neighborhood,
we went down to 10 dwelling units.
There reaches a point where we have to be able to
build responsibly and we think we have with those 10 dwelling units and we have an economically
feasible project with 10 dwelling units anything less than that we could not build in this
environment of rising interest rates and you know the rise of construction materials it would be
impossible for us to build three single family homes here in addition to the fact of where we're
located in the neighborhood and you'll see right we're right off with 95 and you know you'll also
see as part of our presentation there was an article recently by the philadelphia inquirer
saying that 95 and the whining in 95 is is is causing a lot of issues with row homes in philadelphia
like ours that that that that the community is dictating that we create there it would not
survive there it would not be economically viable no one would purchase this property because if
you'll see the bend of 95 we're right against 95 they the third refusal has to do about the height
of their property again you know we're providing parking on their ground floor um which also by
the way the reason is is because you'll see this like almost like strobe light like you know you
know structured that's across the street from us to provide really really really bright lighting
because this has been you know they've had some crime issues around here so for safety purposes
they've created this extreme lighting that you would know you would kind of see almost like
i'm a adjunct professor at the fox business school and so i teach at temple and so you know
i visit the temple campus once in a while well every monday unless i'm virtually teaching classes
but you see that same type of lighting at temple and it's it's it's good for safety purposes but
can you imagine living across the street from like where you're going to see the lighting that
we have it's not viable that's why we created parking on the first floor so the people on the
upper floors wouldn't have to deal with it great for safety not for living so that's why we're
asking for the height variance is to create parking on the first floor so they won't be
disturbed by the lighting. The next refusal has to do with maximum occupied area of 100%.
Yes, we have maximum occupied area of 100%, but you'll see where we're located in relation to 95.
We're actually diffusing the light that, well, not diffusing, diffusing the sound that you would see
from 95. And where we are in 95, we run almost in line with 95. So they're already, the people who
are in that part of the neighborhood already losing light and air. So having 100% building
capacity over there is actually under the circumstances, something that we think is
appropriate. And then finally, the rear yard kind of goes with that where you have 100% occupancy.
Given that where we are, you'll see a 95, I do think it's appropriate under the circumstances because they already have a shadow effect on 95.
Given that where we are, you'll see in 95, I do think it's...
What we're doing is no different there.
And in some ways, it's going to be more helpful because you're going to block the sound that's coming from the cars on 95.
So the correspondents from the Fishtown Neighbors Association, right, they're in opposition in this project.
And as you can see, they're in opposition for 13 apartments and 10 parking spaces.
Again, we had a meeting with the community on a more informal basis before the certified community meeting where we presented 19 dwelling units and 10 parking spots.
We heard from members of that from that meeting, community members from that meeting, that it sounded like if we did a one to one ratio, that would be more amenable to them.
spoke to my clients. It's, you know, the market has definitely shifted where they spent a lot of
money on this lot. At that time, they were only prepared to do 13 dwelling units and 10 parking
spots. You know, after the meeting and really discussing this situation, you know, and I said,
you remember in the first meeting you had community members say one-to-one ratio? I think
that makes sense. And again, do they want to do 10 units and 10 parking spaces? No, they would
prefer to do 19 units and 10 parking spaces. They understand that's not going to happen.
They would prefer to do 13 dwelling units and 10 parking spaces. Again, practically, that's not
going to happen. But I do believe that 10 units and 10 parking spaces is a reasonable accommodation
under the circumstances, especially as you see where we are in the neighborhood and the
configuration is shaping a lot. So these are the concerns of the people in the neighborhood,
right? Community members we're opposed to are concerned with the following elements, density,
surrounding context is single family homes. Well, again, you'll see where we are in relation to 95.
Our property is as close to 95 as anything around on Salmon Street, even though we have
a Palmer Street address, it's really salmon is the one where everything's facing and that's
where everyone's facing essentially. This type of density, given that we're in the surrounding
areas to the right of us is RM1, again, I would have stated to my client, follow what's close by
the RM1. That would have given us 11 units. But given the commentary from the community,
instead of going 11 units and 10 parking spaces?
Because I said, can you squeeze another parking space for me?
Can you find another parking space?
They said, no, we can only do 10,
especially in light of the fact that the community wanted
in a large mail room, in a large trash room,
in a large lobby, like we only had 10 parking spaces.
So I said, do a one-to-one ratio of 10.
So the density is not out,
it would not be out of character
to what's nearby next door to us, that's RM1.
Also, we're not that far from East Girard Avenue, which is a commercial corridor.
Again, let's support those commercial corridors with increased density, which also has public transportation, with us still providing one-to-one ratio in terms of parking.
And across the street, there's a ton of parking across the street.
The second commentary by the neighborhood was they expressed the preference by a buy-ride option of three single-family homes.
Trust me, if we can build three single-family homes, we would.
My clients, based on what they paid, based on the market conditions here, they can't build it.
It would be a losing proposition.
And, you know, again, economic feasibility is a small fraction of undue hardship.
And you would look at the configuration and the shape of the lot as well.
These are regular shape lots.
I will say this, too.
When my client, you know, solicited signatures for the petition, some of the neighbors were talking more so, well, let's do four units then, you know, if that's not feasible as the three.
Well, four units would require all the variances plus more other than the parking that we're seeking here.
And again, it wouldn't be economically feasible.
And we have our architect who can tell you that, that not just economic feasibility, but from a practical standpoint, those lots for single family use would be so small.
It just, you couldn't even like live in that.
The next thing has to do about the height.
You know, they state that they have issues about the height and the casting of shadows. Again, we're not that far off from the height limit. We're doing the, you know, because of like what's across the street, it's really hard to have first floor.
Because of what's across the street, it's really hard to have first floor anything over there.
Because of where we are, we're hugging the 95.
There's Salmon Street, and there's Palmer Street, and there's Ayer Street.
We border three public streets.
There are some single-family homes on Palmer.
There are some single-family homes on Ayer.
But they're set back, not us.
We're the ones that are going to get the full brunt of the lighting that's there because of the activities down there for safety purposes.
Plus, we're the closest to 95, and 95 does already cast a large shadow over some of these properties.
So in context, having a various request of 40 feet 8 inches, where we originally went 51 feet 5 inches, we locked off a whole floor of the building, I think makes sense under the circumstances.
And then finally, the community stated that they didn't feel that we expressed our hardship. We do have a hardship here. Given the shape of the lot, the unusual shape of the lot, and given what is right there now in terms of 95, we can't move our property.
The conditions have gotten worse since we've owned that property in terms of the lighting and such.
So we believe that there is a hardship under the circumstances.
Now, what did the community find that they were receptive to?
The community members felt this proposal represented an improvement over the original proposal presented in December.
Height and unit count were both reduced.
They weren't just reduced, they were significantly reduced.
We almost reduced our unit count by 50%. We reduced the height by over 10 feet. So we have done significant modifications to this project at the behest of the community, in addition to the other things that I stated.
And then the other thing that they stated was they were receptive or supported to potential for more activity for area under I-95, which is not always safe at night.
They recognize that.
And the thing is, having eyes on the street on the second through fourth floors is only going to make that part of the neighborhood safer.
It's going to block the lights that are coming from the underpass over there as well.
So we do believe that if you look at the letter as a whole, there should be a lot of support for this project because of the circumstances that we are facing today.
Now, here's the vote. And again, there were some people supportive of this project.
So it wasn't like a complete unanimous opposition to the project.
It was a well-attended meeting. And, you know, we always respect the Fishtown Neighbors Association.
They always provide a fair forum and there were questions and there were some tough questions and, you know, difficult answers to, you know, to make as well.
But again, I do understand that some of the neighbors, you know, want to have this single family neighborhood.
They're not facing Salmon Street. We're facing Salmon Street. And that's the issue.
We're so close to the overpass. And unlike them, we have this irregular shaped lot. So again, they fall into the simple rectangular shaped lot. They can build something. Given the market conditions today, given where we are, it would be impossible for us to build this single family.
And then I took the article from the Philadelphia Inquirer. I-95 reconstruction is really a widening project that will hurt Philly neighborhoods. If you read that article, you will see that they specifically referenced that it's causing hardship on row homes that border I-95, that it's rather difficult for them to live.
And we'll see from the pictures of how close we are to 95.
I think our property is the closest of any of those in that close proximity on Salmon Street.
And if this board feels so inclined to grant the variance, we do have revised plans to reduce the unit count from 19 units to 10 and to reduce the building height from 51 and a half feet to 40 feet, eight and a half inches.
And then this is the revised plans.
But you can even see the building. This is our lot. You can see it's very narrow on this side and widens, but it's really all Salmon. Even though this is East Palmer Street, this is a Salmon Street property for all intents and purposes.
all right and the petition like you know again we're not here to say the community meeting
doesn't matter you know we try to do outreach to the community um just a little bit of background
Just a little bit of background, especially about Cary Borish.
especially about carrie borish you know carrie you know
Cary and his company has invested heavily in the Fishtown neighborhood.
He is the one who redeveloped the Mulherin building.
He is the one who has developed many parts of not just Fishtown on the commercial corridor, but also Port Richmond.
When he can, he likes to do it, whether it's adaptive reuse or complete renovations of properties to preserve the character of the neighborhood.
When he can't, he tries to do responsible projects like this to encourage not just a sense of community where there's none because in this on this lot has been vacant for some time, but to help to support the commercial workers.
So recently I visited at the end of the year, Chicago, and they have a part of Chicago called Fulton Market.
Reminds me of what Fishtown hopefully will be in 10 years.
You know, they had not just, you know, a residential neighborhood, but they had this amazing commercial corridor of two main streets.
But on top of that, you saw the Google headquarters.
You saw other office buildings being built up.
In order to have Fishtown be a secondary center city or maybe a complement to center city, you do need to increase density to the point where there is a thriving commercial corridor, not just at nighttime, but throughout the day, which will hopefully encourage businesses to invest to maybe have offices down there rather than everyone's going to center city.
this is the type of project that hopefully will encourage that type of use and then here's the
petition and here's we do have you know a letter of support from someone on palmer street so again
as you can see here and you know we are um you know we're right here we're right next to rm1
there's icmx like that borders you know us on on um salmon street and across you know 95
there's ICMX. So are we at the beginning of a residential neighborhood or at the end of the
residential neighborhood where, you know, you see non-RSA5 use? You know, that's for the board to
decipher. But again, we hug 95. And again, East Girard is a commercial corridor that, you know,
again, every commercial corridor needs a little bit of a pick-me-up. And we're hoping that this
increased density will do that and then photographs of the property this is our property from east
palmer street this is uh the intersection of east palmer and and salmon and as you can see we're
hugging 95 and then this is the from the intersection of east air and salmon and then
these are the zoning hearing notice posters and then this is east palmer to the right of the
property. East Palmer to the left of the property, you can see we're right on 95.
Salmon Street to the right of the property, again on 95. Salmon Street to the left of the property.
And then East Air to the right of the property, you can see we're right on 95. And then East Air
to the left of the property. These pictures were taken last night. So my client wanted to take
pictures showing the extreme light that is emanating from the underpass where all this
parking is and you can see there's a ton of parking as well but you can just see the lights
it's like a bright light again i can only equate it to like if you're on the temple campus and
temple does it for security reasons and they probably do to a small degree here for security
reasons as well but it's not something that you want to see you know at night if you're living
on a single family house and then this is our you know rendering that we had for the property
And then this is what you can see. Like you can see, like this is Salmon Street, right? You see
there's parking lots. You see there's setbacks. You see there's some industrial use here. This
is our site, right? No one else hugs 95 like our property hugs 95. It's not appropriate to have
single-family use here. Multifamily is more appropriate under circumstances. And then this
is a rendering of showing how we would look if you're driving by going south on 95 right so
we're we're building ends the top of it it's kind of like the same thing you would see with the with
the you know with 95 you're blocking 95 you're blocking the sound of 95 in a way that's helping
some of those residents and then this is just our site plan which you've seen before
which shows the parking down here again
you'll see there's a more pronounced lobby area lounge area track
You'll see there's a more pronounced lobby area, lounge area, trash room, bike storage spaces, and 10 parking spaces.
So, again, we try to do a responsible use of this property.
There's no basement living.
You know, again, we think that this hopefully, you know, we're taking 10 cars essentially off the street by having all these curb cuts, which, again, there's no parking on that side.
and then this is just the elevation showing that we went down from 51 and a half feet to 40 feet
eight inches it's elevation from a different angle from the air street side and then the
salmon street side and then the building section showing confirming our height and then this is
It's the first floor plan, 10 parking spaces, a much bigger lobby area, trash room, mail room, bike storage.
And then the second floor and third and fourth floors equate to all of the units that we have.
But again, you can see just the shape of the building structure would make it rather difficult to have single-family use here.
and there are rco meeting notes we could say you know again i think you know from the you know
letter shows that you know people did show up to the meeting it was this january 2nd this is proof
of our email the notice to the fna and other organizations 81 addresses were notified of that
meeting, those are the addresses, proof of mailing to those addresses or applications
for appeal that we filed on behalf of our client, the notice of refusal, the project
information form, the deed to property showing that my client owns the property, and then
finally the certificate of tax clearance.
The only reason why there's an arrearage is because that's for 2024, and that's not
due to until the first quarter, the end of the first quarter of the year.
With that being said, I would ask that Mr. Borish virtually raise his hand. I'll ask him a few questions, and I know he has a statement as well.
Mr. Borish has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Borish, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
Certainly. It's Cary Borish, C-A-R-Y Borish, B-O-R-I-S-H.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Borish, you heard everything I had to say today about your zoning matter.
Yes, I did.
And is it true and correct?
Yes, it is.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
And do you have anything to add to what I stated?
Thank you, Alan.
I think you captured the spirit of the new project well, and thank you, Borish, for your time.
I think I just want to highlight a few things and and reproach a few things as well. I think we, you know, I regret first presenting 19 units. I think we underestimated the reactivity of the neighborhood.
and um you know i i regret doing that i think we ruffled a lot of feathers and i think we
really tried to do our best to hear the community respond to it and come up with an appropriate
project to scope and scale which i think we've achieved i i also have no interest in doing a
project that is not going to be a net positive for the community and i just want to you know
distill it down that we're taking a lot right now that's oversized, that's blighted, that's a
nuisance, that's causing problems that I don't believe anybody, including us, can develop into
single-family homes given the conditions and turn it into a project that will be contributing to
the neighborhood, certainly by creating safety and additional activity on that street. When we
first acquired the property, I think we made some poor assumptions. One, that whatever construction
was going on underneath I-95 would be more conducive and landscaping to a residential
property. We had time that they were going to be putting in these blinding LED lights, they were
going to be putting in parking, and putting in an area that is supportive of, you know, illicit
behavior. If you look at the adjacent blocks, certainly going south, it's protected, it's
landscaped, there's walls. Like you've said, Alan, this is a convergence of this parcel right on I-95.
In addition, a lot of people that are resistant are on Palmer Street.
And I want to speak to that in a few ways. One is, the address is
And I want to speak to that in a few ways. One is this the address is on Palmer Street, but the property is on Salmon Street.
Thank you.
It's overlooking I-95. Not only not only is it on Salmon Street, but the only way to access the property is to come off of Columbus Boulevard.
As you come off of Columbus Boulevard, in order to park at this property, you are required to make a right onto Salmon Street.
You don't drive up Palmer Street. You make a right and it forces you to park at the property and then continue down to Iyer Street and then to either Girard or to reaccess I-95.
In addition, you know, I do want to say that we've heard a lot of resistance from the community about wanting to engage in who lives there, resistant to rental properties, you know, and some irrational fear around just having non-home ownership at that place.
I've been doing this for many, many years.
I actively manage a lot of apartment buildings.
And, you know, I find that people want to live in Fishtown.
They want to be part of the community.
They want to be an active part of the community, but they're not in a position to have home ownership.
And I just feel like these people, you know, I just want to address that, that it's a misconception to think that these people that we rent to won't be active supporters, engaged, you know, dynamic community members.
So I did want to make that call. And, you know, I, you know, they are 10 smaller units, one-to-one parking. The density would be comparable to three single-family homes. But I think given the situation, the proximity, the lighting, it's just, it's not viable to do that. And so thank you. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
Excuse me, Chair.
yes oh i'm sorry go ahead i'm sorry uh questions no questions chair questions or comments from our
attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair we have someone with the last name in in quinn okay
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
hi yes my name is concetta quinn c-o-n-c-e-t-t-a last name q-u-i-n-n right you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor i am yes
immediate neighbor please proceed okay um i just wanted to go over some of the things um that i
just heard so the first thing i wanted to go over was that uh the building that they are referencing
as an r1 that is in current existence is an old school building that was built in the early 1900s
that was then changed to apartments so that's why it was zoned that way um the second thing is that
they're talking about having a thriving commercial corridor in our area we already have gerard avenue
and frankfurt avenue so not we don't need one in palmer street okay number three the hardship um
they bought that lot three years ago and the lot the shape of the lot has not changed in those three
years um number four they stated that they've been um trying to um
um make uh you know come down reasonably with their plans yes and um i would like to say that
first their plan started at eight then it went to 19 then it was down to 10 um and we do have
those plans where they started advertising when they were trying to sell um okay number five um
The lot never caused problems before when the old tenant lived there.
It has just recently been causing problems since they've been the owners.
Number six, we are not against renters.
We have renters on our block, but they live in single-family homes.
And I think that's pretty much all I wanted to say.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
we have four hands up the next is christopher fletcher okay mr fletcher could you state your
name please and spell for the court stenographer c-h-r-i-s-t-o-p-h-e-r f-l-e-t-c-h-e-r
christopher fletcher good do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do are you a neighbor i am are you in support of the property i'm opposed to the
Are you a neighbor?
Are you in support of the property?
I'm opposed to the project or against?
I'm opposed to this project.
Could you, other than what you've already heard, could you give us a reason why?
I would also like to indicate that this is a large building.
And if you look on Irish Street, most of them are two-story houses with small backyards.
This building would be built to the southeast, would literally take their sunshine.
thank you for taking the time to call us mr fletcher we appreciate it is give me the next
hand please lynn last name ending in k hi lynn could you state your name and spell please for
the court stenographer sure my name is lynn l-y-n-n my last name is kazmierski k-a-z-m-i-e-r-s-k-i
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do are you a neighbor i am an immediate neighbor are you in favor of the project or
against i am opposed to the project okay the things you've heard can you offer anything
different than what we've heard uh yes i can um there was originally three homes on those prior
lots years ago um so there's no reason why three homes cannot be put in place of that
the lighting that they're referencing on their 95 is actually to help us prevent crime so our
car windows are not broken into because of all the traffic that is turning off of Delaware Avenue
north into Palmer Street okay that is the first street that actually can turn into the Fishtown
area off of 95 so we actually are dealing with issues with that with the city as well trying to
get speed bumps in place so with their project they're referencing salmon street and air street
uh what they want to do is pretty much direct all traffic on two little streets
salmon street is a little street to where cars can't even fit down there as is so for them to
even put the parking underneath i don't know how and no one else seems to know how they're actually
going to be able to do that and they want to take the project to 100 of the curb along with curb
cuts, which is preventing pedestrian walkways. Now, if you have to cross the street, 95's beams
are so low that you can't even walk on that side as well. That is a big issue. It's a big safety
concern. And then also their trash pickup, they said that they were going to put that onto Airstreet.
The trash men currently cannot even turn on Airstreet to pick up Airstreet's trash.
um every single thing that we have brought to their attention and ask questions i mean
they bought this project knowing that 95 was still there uh the lot like the neighbor said
has always been the same size um and that's pretty much all i have to say as well but i'm
opposed to this okay thank you i appreciate you taking the time to calls is there's give me the
next hand please sure benjamin katz turkey do you state your name please spell for the court
stenographer good afternoon chairman benjamin katz b-e-n-j-a-m-i-n-k-a-t-z do you swear a firm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do uh are you a neighbor i am a
neighbor i live on shackle maxon street and i are you in favor or uh against the project
I support the project. I am familiar with the immediate corner. Some of the challenges just based on 95, the limited space, the lighting issue, and the size of the lot. I'm also familiar with a lot of the work that this group has done around the neighborhood.
I think they've only positively influenced the neighborhood. And this is land that does need to get developed to eliminate crime, eliminate some of the issues that I've known to be there previously.
And I just don't think that there is a better option or a better group out there to do the project, 10 units, 10 parking spaces, it all seems, it all seems feasible. And it would be really nice if both, you know, the development group and the neighbors can work together and get this accomplished.
All right. Thank you for taking the time to call us. Next hand, how many hands do you have now?
We have three hands and the next is Bill Weber.
Mr. Weber, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, sir.
My name is Will Weber, spelled W-I-L-L-W-E-B-E-R.
I'm a resident on Air Street.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
We've heard a lot.
Could you tell me if you're in favor or against the project?
Absolutely.
I am opposed.
Is there anything, and we've heard a lot of reasons, is there anything else you can add?
Yeah, yeah, I'll be I'll be brief. I generally don't believe that a 10 unit apartment building being added south of Girard into an area that's going to see an influx of about 20,000 apartment units over the coming years on Columbus Avenue.
Yeah, I'll be brief.
Um, I generally don't believe that, uh,
I don't imagine that's going to really provide any sort of commercial jolt into this this corner of the neighborhood just to refute one of the points.
All right. Thank you for taking time to close. Next hand, please.
Next, we have Michael Quinn.
Hi, Mr. Quinn.
Could you state your name for the court stenographer, please, and spell it?
My name is Michael Quinn, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-Q-U-I-N-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I live across the street.
Are you in favor or against the project?
I'm against the project.
We've had a lot of people give us comments.
Is there anything different you can tell us?
Well, I'd like to just start out.
I wrote a letter to Tanya Sunke expressing a lot of my concerns, but I'll just keep it short.
I'll keep it short to the one.
You know, this group keeps talking about how they compromised, came down from 18 units.
It's all a lot.
They started with eight units.
They tried selling the property as eight units.
uh that gentleman who spoke before me benjamin cats he's their actually he was their realtor
so i don't think his favor should have any weight in this being the realtor um but yeah they started
with eight units scrapped that went to 18 and then came down to 13 mr quinn you live on palmer
street right i do i live across the street we we have your letter sir thank you tanya gave us
and we all have your letter. Thank you. We appreciate it. Any more hands?
Just two more, Chair. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Michael
Casey? Mr. Casey, state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer.
Mr. Casey, please unmute.
Okay. Next we have is Robert Everett, Chair.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
good afternoon first name is robert last name everett e-v-e-r-e-double-t right do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor
i live in the neighborhood i'm not an immediate neighbor but i am on the zoning committee for fna
right all right say so uh you know we've had a lot of comments could you tell us whether you're for
the project or against it i'm personally opposed and i'm just here to represent the community or
in support of the neighbors okay is there anything different that you can tell us that anything
different than what you've already heard i think the the people who spoke who all but one are
immediate neighbors within 250 feet got their point across okay mr ever thank you for taking
the time anyone else michael casey casey has his hand back up mr casey
mr casey please unmute mr casey so you can be heard
okay planning commission
thank you chair bergman sarah bond of the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning
the appellant has not shown that the property cannot possibly be used in strict conformity
with the zoning code and that a variance is therefore necessary to enable economic
use of the property. The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board
deny all use and dimensional variances. Mr. Nockamson, we've had a great deal of testimony
and different viewpoints. I really want to take some time with the board. We will meet next week
in the executive session on Wednesday, and we will vote on this at 2 p.m. Thank you so much for your
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nockmson.
Okay, number 13, MI 2023-005-979-2134 South 10th Street.
Matthew Corcoran is the attorney.
Recommendation of support from the Lower Moy Mencing Civic Association
and a letter of non-oppositions from Council Member Squilla.
he's returned as a panelist chair great
there we go good afternoon mr chair could you state your name please and spell for the court
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
sonographer yes sir matthew corcoran
Yes, sir.
Matthew Corcoran, C-O-R-C-O-R-A-N, Anastasio Law, 2016 Spruce Street, 19103.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Could you identify your client and relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is BATP Real Estate Holdings,
one of the principals of which Joseph Cotilli is here in the virtual audience with me today.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, we do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, with two notable exceptions.
the rco um letter of support which was seven to zero with two abstentions came in yesterday
uh as did councilman squilla's letter in non-opposition all right thank you please proceed
thank you so as you know we are here on a single refusal which is for office space above the first
floor uh this is a cmx one property which has a long history as a bakery um
The owners of the property are a health care services company, which is based in the neighborhood, which has outgrown their space at the old St. Agnes Medical Center, the Constitution Health Plaza, and would like to keep themselves and their employees in one location.
So what they'd like to do is expand the use above the first floor.
There are no services.
They're a counseling company, but they counsel in public schools and rec centers and homes throughout the city.
None of those services will be provided on site.
This is solely admin, solely billing, 9 to 5, Monday to Friday.
The majority of their clients walk or ride a bike or take a bus to work.
uh the two or three who don't have paid parking so there's very little burden if any on the
neighborhood um there will be security cameras installed um there'll be a lighting on a timer
and there will be a professional uh real estate management company to deal with the sidewalks
and exterior of the building and i think there's very little burden from this extended use
and if I could share my screen
I can take you through
some of the details here
the green button on the bottom
yeah I'm not seeing it
hold on let me expand
there we go
thanks sir
okay so this is the property
and I won't bother with the refusal since you've all seen that
a simple
rehab space
and let me see if i can show you the plans which i think would be the most relevant portion
here we are
so on the first floor by right there would be space for for desks and filing cabinets
And the idea is just to expand that use upward so that all the company's employees can be in the same location.
That's on the corner, that property, right?
This is. It's on the corner of 10th and Winton Street.
And our binder includes posting photos and tax compliance and all the standard things.
You want to bring your client on and adopt your testimony?
So if I could ask Mr. Cotilli to raise his hand.
Mr. Cotilli has been allowed to speak.
Mr. Cotilli?
Yes. Hi. Hold on. Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
Oh, yes. It's Joseph, J-O-S-E-P-H, Cautilli, C-A-U-T-I-L-L-I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I swear, I guess. I swear.
Thank you. Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Cautilli, did you hear my presentation to the board?
Yes, your presentation was accurate.
Yes, your presentation was accurate.
And are you familiar with the materials that we presented to the board today as well?
And did you, are you familiar with them?
Okay. And were they correct to the best of your knowledge?
Do you adopt that presentation as your own?
Yes, I adopted the presentation as my own. You did a great job.
Thank you, Mr. Cusilli.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have Sally Lonergan.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Sally Lonergan, please unmute.
Hello. Sally, last name ending in L, please unmute. She might be having technical issues.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? No, I see no other hands. Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, Sarah Bond, Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed-use zoning.
The proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2023-005-979-2134 South 10th Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Council.
Thank you all. Have a good afternoon.
Number 14, MI 2023, 006108, 851 Red Lion Road.
David Orfanides is the attorney.
Letter of unanimous support from the Somerton Civic Association.
Mr. Orfanides is coming back in as a panelist.
yep i'm here all right mr orphanetes you've already been sworn just state your name for
the record certainly uh david orphanetes uh i'm sorry and identify your client one more time for
the record certainly um the client for this property is also jack bienenfeld um he's a
trustee of a slightly different um trust but um he's here to speak okay and our vice chair has
That's just a few questions, Ms. Norfenides.
Good afternoon, Counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I waive the reading, but do not stipulate to its accuracy.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, everything was submitted at least five days in advance.
And following that deadline, we did provide a copy of the letter of support from Councilman
O'Neill's office, which I believe we received yesterday.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Can everybody see my screen?
Okay, great.
So again, David Orfanides here on behalf of Jack Beinenfeld, who's the trustee for the
shared trust that owns the property. This spoke earlier today about 824 to 34 Red Line, which is
across the street on the south side, adding signs to that property. We're now, I referenced 851,
the property across the street on the north side, which we are now here for now. The property across
the street is known as the Ambassador 2 apartments. This one's known as the Ambassador 1 apartment.
um real quickly uh try not to belabor this here's this property um again it's located almost
directly across the street from the one we had earlier today it's actually closer to the
properties um that are on busselton avenue closer to busselton and those properties that i referenced
previously have very large freestanding signs and actually is directly across the street
from the other property to the east of the one I presented earlier that have freestanding signs
that are far larger than what we are presenting today for this property. Similar to the property
across the street, this property was approved, zoning approval was in 1973, across the street
was 76. You have five structures, each one's three stories in height, and you have 129 units here.
and you have 129 units here. We have existing photos, which I'm going to show you in a second.
Okay, so here's the existing signage that presently we have at the property,
And I'll go through that. This one right here is sign B, which we'll talk about. And you can see here it's listed down below. This is a freestanding, externally illuminated, single-sided sign with landscaping around it.
With all these signs, just like across the street, the landscaping that's there that surrounds any of these signs will be maintained, if not improved.
Then you have sign D, which is a double-sided internally illuminated sign.
That sign will remain, but the face of the sign will be updated and improved.
Again, this is similar to the project across the street.
The replacement of these signs is part of a larger project that my client's undertaking
to improve all of the signage on the property, not just that, that people walking by or driving
by the property on Red Line see, to better identify the property in general. Again, for
those visiting guests, for emergency vehicles, police, ambulances, for deliveries, you know,
um amazon things of that ups things of that nature um but also there'll be some additional
interior signage which once you're in the property once you know where you are you're at the
ambassador one you're at 851 red lion will better direct uh anybody who needs to know where to go
inside the property to which building to go to and again the idea is to improve the um the safety and
security of everybody that lives there and visits the property. So that last sign, here's sign A,
which is a single-sided externally illuminated wooden sign. You have sign C, which is a double
sided. Here you can see the two sides down at the bottom and then at the top, externally illuminated
again. And then there's an existing banner that is considered to be a wall sign under the zoning
code. And the idea is that we are going to replace signs A, B, and C. So this double-sided wooden
sign up to top, the single-sided wooden sign, and then again this single-sided wooden sign.
And what we're looking to replace them with are signs very similar to what we're showing across
the street. Again, the rendering is the same. They're going to be the same type of signs
As you had across the street, there are two types for A and B. They are more horizontal
in nature and orientation. And then the sign that's going to replace sign C is more vertical.
We do have similar refusal as we had with the project across the street, where LNI is of the
position that freestanding signs are not permitted in the RM2 zoning district. Again, like I stated
earlier. The table in the zoning code clearly indicates those uses where you are not allowed
to have a freestanding sign for home occupations and indicates those uses where you're allowed,
but there's a limitation. And it doesn't mention residential uses. So under the law in Pennsylvania,
if it doesn't limit you, you basically get to do it. And, you know, it is what it is with the
zoning code. I did point out that RM2 is, RM zoning districts are designed for moderate to
high-density multi-unit residential developments or buildings. You can see here, RM2 has a minimum
lot size of 15,000 square feet. Of the straight RM zoning districts, it's the largest in terms of
lot size. So by its nature, it contemplates larger complexes, unlike our RM1, which we see in
downtown, which is as little as 1440. You can see here on the site plan, if I zoom in, that the size
of this lot is actually 212,537 square feet, which is 4.88 acres. At 15,000 square feet of
minimum lot size. This property is over 14 times larger than the minimum lot size, which, again,
is very much in keeping with what we have here, which is a very large-scale development project.
So it's our position that there is no limitation in terms of the use, in terms of the other
refusals. There is, if it were permitted, as I mentioned before, there is a height limit for
As I mentioned before, there is a height limit for those situations where, or those scenarios where freestanding sign is permitted at seven feet.
those situations.
One of our signs is below that, sign C, sign A and B are slightly larger.
Part of that has to do with the topography that we have in the vicinity of the signs that it requires kind of slopes away from the street as opposed to the other side of the street where it was more flat.
So because of the change in grade, more so as you work away, you can see here it slopes away, you end up with a, in order to have the visibility from the sidewalk in the street, you end up needing a slightly taller structure.
And again, we're just about, we're a foot and three quarters, one foot nine inches over the permitted height.
However, with sign A, we're only a little over two feet taller than what's there now.
And sign B, we're a little over one and a half foot taller.
Sign A is only a little over 13 square feet larger than what's there now.
Sign B, what we're proposing to replace from, is only a little over eight square feet larger.
And sign C is only a little over, a little under four square feet larger than what's presently there.
In terms of sign E, which is the wall sign that I showed you, the banner, it's similar.
I think you heard it just earlier.
There's a limitation on wall signs not being located above the second floor window.
In this case, it's really largely a blank wall.
I think there's there is a reason for having that when you're in other places and other buildings and other scenarios.
But you can see here we're not blocking any any windows with this signage.
The windows are that there are on this wall face or far to the west.
And I think the reasons where you would want to limit wall signs or projecting signs or any other type of sign above the second floor windowsill do not exist here.
We are obviously still below the parapet or the edge of the top of the wall here.
And it's not a very large sign that, as you can see, doesn't take up all of the wall.
So for those reasons, we feel included with the support that we have from Summertown Civic Association.
We did meet with them.
The 14303 notice is at tab 15.
The certificate of mailing is at 15D.
The list of the addresses is 15B.
And a letter of support from Councilman O'Neill that came out yesterday.
We respectfully request that there is the basis for the granting of the variance here.
There's a hardship.
It's a very wide road.
It's cars travel by pretty quickly.
There is a need for both the residents as well as those people who visit or need to be on the property,
find the property like emergency vehicles or delivery trucks to have better identification
of the property. It is a de minimis variance. I went through how much we're just a little bit
taller, a little bit larger in terms of square footage. These signs are internally illuminated
as opposed to be externally illuminated. Darker letters will have a halo effect around them.
The white letters will be internally illuminated coming out through the letters. We're not going
to impact traffic. We feel that it's not creating negatively impact, impacting the air light to any
abutting properties. It's largely commercial, large-scale residential in the vicinity. For
these reasons, we request that the zoning board grant the required variances in order to allow
my client to build these signs. With that, I'd have my client promoted to a panelist so that
can be sworn in if we can adopt my statements.
Sir, could you please state your name
and spell for the course of the stenographer?
I'm sorry, what's the name of your client?
Jack Beinenfeld, I'm sorry.
You don't remember every person
that comes before the board?
You do a terrific job, so.
All right, he's free to speak now.
Sir, could you just state your name?
You've already been sworn.
My name is Jack Beinenfeld.
All right, counsel, please proceed.
sheet. Hey, Jack, did you hear the statements that I made today to the board? I did. And are
they true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Yes, they're correct. And would
you adopt them as your own? Yes, I would. And just real quickly, you are the trustee named in the
deed for this property, correct? I am. Okay. And do you have anything else to add to what I stated
to the board? As I said before, I wanted to thank the board and its chairman for, you know, for
its consideration thanks thank you um questions from the board no chair no chair
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Quick things.
One, Mr. Orphanides, we didn't receive the letter from Councilman O'Neill's office, so if you could just forward that, that would be great.
And then I just also wanted to verify there is an updated or amended, one way or the other, refusal dated 10-10-23 for this case?
Yes, that's the one that I have that I utilize, yes.
there were some refused i had to fix it add some refusals and clarify some other ones with
frederick and he was very helpful with that he didn't he didn't buy my argument about the use
but he he took everything else into account okay no problem mr chair you can just note that it's
a refusal dated 10 10 23 because it wasn't officially amended thank you all right thank
Thank you. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Sarah Baum with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential multifamily zoning.
The appellant has shown a hardship with the existing signage, but not for adding additional signage or replacing.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance with proviso that proposed new signage is not approved.
Thank you. MI 2023-006-108-851-Red Lion Road. I vote yes. And Hillary, the proviso was not amended. Is that what you want to say?
No, just say per refusal dated 10-10-23.
Her refusal dated 10-10-23.
Thomas Holland, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
That concludes my business may be excused.
Okay, yes.
Thank you.
MI 2023, 006085, 1318 North 23rd Street.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
Ishmael Shahid is recusing himself from this hearing.
Good evening.
Good evening.
Mr. Consul, just to say your name, you've already been sworn.
Joseph Consul.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
My client is Chivetta Property Group. On the call is its principal, Michael Tomasetti. Chivetta is under agreement with the Philadelphia Housing Authority to develop this property.
Okay. Mr. Holloman, could you do the follow-up questions, please?
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing?
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
All right.
All right.
Joe Consul here for Chivetta Property Group.
Chivetta Property Group is Philadelphia's number one affordable housing developer.
They are under contract with the Philadelphia Housing Authority to develop 1318 North 23rd Street under the Turn the Key program.
The property is zoned CMX2.
My clients are seeking to build a single-family home.
This is a corner property, and because they are not seeking commercial space and because they are seeking to put up a six-foot fence,
There are two refusals that are generated. The first is for the lack of commercial space in the first 30 feet of the first floor. And the second is because it's a corner property, there is a four foot height limit on the fence and my clients are proposing a six foot fence.
proof of mailing we uh went in front of the rco actually here's the meeting summary
we got their support um by a decent margin
right now it's a vacant lot with the tree growing through it
my clients are developing this property uh and i'll be back for the property across the street
in a few weeks, but here's what the lot looks like in the back.
Property next to it. There it is from
across the street where the corner property there, and there's a vacant
property next to it. Affidavit of service.
Here's our design plan by Modo Design Group.
By motor design group, the property is calling for a 3 bedroom, single family home, as I said, built on the corner.
The property is calling for a three-bed
And the rest of our documents are attached here, including the development agreement with the Philadelphia housing authority.
Won't belabor it. I will call like Thomas city to raise his hand and adopt my testimony.
Mr. Tomasetti has been allowed to speak
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer
Yes, sir, Michael Tomasetti, M-I-C-H-A-E-L
P-O-M-A-S-E-T-T-I
Right, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do
Please proceed, counsel
Good evening, Mr. Tomasetti
Did you hear my testimony just now about 1318?
or 27th yes i did do you adopt it as your own yes i do is there anything you'd like to add
nope thank you thank you questions from questions from the board no mr
no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
just one quick clarification um mr consul the the fence is refused only for height it's not
refused for opacity as well the refusal wasn't clear so that's why i wanted to clarify
by um 50 opaque it okay yeah um yeah it does it does say 50 opaque as well um but i don't know
if that's just citing the code or the height i think yeah i think it was citing the code because
it didn't cite the height in on the review it just had to be more than four well that it didn't
meet the code and it wasn't i only saw the six feet on the plans i didn't see if i couldn't tell
if it was if there was an opacity issue as well i don't believe there's an opacity issue pardon me
but yeah yeah i don't think so okay that's fine thank you questions or comments from the virtual
audience i see no hands chair any commission
thank you chair bergman sarah bond with the philadelphia city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change to residential single family at this
location. Therefore, the exclusion of ground floor commercial conforms to the planning
codes, excuse me, the planning commission's recommendation. The appellant has not supported
a hardship claim for complying with the requirements for the fence. The city planning
commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance with the proviso that the plans for
the fence be brought into compliance.
MI 2023
006 085
1318 North 23rd Street,
I vote yes. Thomas
Holloman, my vote is yes.
Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
I hate my vote is yes. Thank you, board.
Oh, excuse me. I was accused of doing that one.
That's okay. That's okay.
Thank you. We know you're back.
MI 2023
333-005-967-3337 West Clearfield Street.
Steve Masters is the attorney.
No RCO letter, but meeting was held by Councilman Jones's office on 113-24.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
We do have a letter now in enthusiastic support from Councilman Jones, who hosted the RCO meeting.
Thank you.
Thank you.
and also the applicant has provided a petition and support signed by numerous neighbors.
Mr. Masters, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, I'm thrilled to state my name and to be called on this case.
Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-M-A-S-T-E-R-S from the law firm of JustLaws.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Masters, could you identify your client, their relationship to this property?
My client is the RCO, Ridge Allegheny Hunting Park Civic Association.
They are creating a community center at this location, and they own it from a transfer of property from the City of Philadelphia via the Redevelopment Authority.
Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Good afternoon. Yes, I agree.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, and we added some supplemental documents earlier today that we recently received, including the RCO letter that's via the council office and some new, actually more petitions than we had before.
And all of that information was still turned in to us, correct?
And all of that information was still turned into us, correct?
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right. I don't know how many of the community folks are still with us in the Zoom room since it's been a while since the two-clock list was called.
We're here on a property that was conveyed by the city of Philadelphia to RAH Civic Association to create a community center in the neighborhood.
This is going to be the first community center and also some office space for the community group.
There's only one refusal, which is because this is an RSA 5 property.
the community center use is prohibited in that zoning district.
We have many, many petitions that were signed. The original number was 53. But when we had
the community meeting a few weeks ago that was led by Councilman Jones's office,
there were only two questions that were asked at the end of our presentation.
The first question was, can more of us sign the petitions? Do you have more petitions to sign? And the second question was, how do we log into the Zoom meeting to talk about why we really want this to happen?
So I've never been at a community meeting where that was the only concerns that were brought up. This is an extremely popular project, and the community just can't wait for this to happen.
So we're still cycling through all these petitions. And then we're going to get to the letter from Councilman Jones' office. It says, I'm pleased to support this application enthusiastically based on the community meetings. There was unanimous approval. 51 to 0 was the vote at the community meeting.
And we have Rose Cooper, who's going to be coming on to to adopt the testimony.
This is, like I said, it's one of the most popular zoning projects that I've ever been part of.
Here we have the the the elevation plans.
There are there is no more there are no renovations that are required for this.
But this is this is what the property, the plans for the property when it was constructed.
recently uh it was constructed uh for rah civic but because they didn't have the zoning it was
it was um constructed as a as a single family home it has never been occupied as a single
family home uh it's it's designed to be set up for for um for for use as a community center
this is rah civic's um recognition letter from the internal revenue service that they are a charity
It's one of the requirements for the community center designation and zoning is that it's operated by a recognized charitable organization.
Here's the front room facing out to Clearfield Street.
So this is the front door that we're looking at.
This is the main floor kitchen area.
This is the rear of the main floor.
This is the restrooms, and we're going to see the areas here for students who are going
to come and learn computer coding and engage in other educational activities.
This is the rear of the property.
They have an emergency action plan for fire code safety and to ensure the safety of young
people and seniors who are going to be using this facility.
We also have a PowerPoint that was presented to the community showing all of the activities
and programs that will be offered at the community center.
uh the zoning poster photos uh this is the front of the building uh with the zoning posters here
this is the deed from the redevelopment authority to reh civic
Our application for appeal, project information form, our letters that we mail to the community, and our proof of mailing.
At this time, I would like to call Rosalie Coe.
At this time, I would like to call Rosalie Cooper for her testimony.
Rosalie Cooper has been allowed to speak.
Ms. Cooper, could you state your name, please, and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, Rosalie L. Cooper, R-O-S-A-L-I-E, L. Cooper, C-O-O-P-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Rose, you've heard my testimony today.
Do you agree with it and adopt it as your own?
Is there anything that you would want to share with the board at this point about the project?
I'm really happy with the project.
We never had a community center in the area.
The kids didn't have nowhere to go. And now we have a building and the kids will be able, I can do the after school program. I can do some reading with the kids on Saturday. I can have the seniors to come in to do things. I'm happy about it. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
We have no further evidence to put on.
Does she have to adopt your testimony, Steve?
she did okay maybe i didn't notice that okay thank you questions from the board
no mr chairman no chair no church questions or comments from our uh our attorney hillary emerson
on this side mr care questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission sorry chair uh ralph winder just put their hand up okay
Hi, sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Could you state one more time?
We're having a hard time hearing you.
I'm R-A-L-P-H-W-Y-N-E-E-R.
Did you get that?
No, chair, I'm afraid I did not.
It's very garbable.
Mr. Winder, you're breaking up.
All right.
Thank you. We understand you, Mr. Winder. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual
audience?
I see no other hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Sarah Bond with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family
zoning however the proposed use will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond
what might normally be expected the city planning commission recommends that the zoning board grant
the variance thank you mi2023-005-967-3337 west clearfield street i vote yes
thomas holliman my vote is yes
James Snell my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes
Thank you counsel we appreciate it
Thank you sir
Is there anyone in the virtual audience
From the 2pm list whose case has not been called
I see no hands chair
So we're going to take a 5 minute break
And we're going to come back and we'll go through the 3.30 group
Thank you everyone
Thank you chair
oh please good afternoon my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing the zba 330
hearings with me as our vice chair ismail shaheed president mr chairman our board member thomas
hallman president mr chairman and our board member james snell
President, Mr. Chairman
Okay, and also here is Hillary Emerson, our attorney
and our executive director, Tanya Sunkett
Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded
Video will be available by contacting
TanyaSunkett at phil.gov
For the benefit of our court stenographer
we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying
If you're participating by phone
and you wish to testify, press star 9
to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave
your email and the address of the property in question. And finally, the question and answer
box on the screen is not for comments or testimony. All comments should be directed to our Executive
Director, Tanya Sunken. Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon. Number four.
Tanya Sunken. Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon. Number four, MI 2023-004-400-409
South Eiseminger Street. That case is continued. Number nine.
MI 2023-004-397-1006 Fairmount Avenue. That case is continued. Are there any other requests for
continuances? Good afternoon. Again, Chair, this is for Tina. I'll be your co-host.
thank you you're welcome i see no hands okay mr chair this is hillary we can continue number eight
as well okay we received a request for continuing all right number eight mi-2023-004-398-1113
Mount Vernon Street that case has been continued and I also have number two MI 2023 004 322 38 South
57th Street we have no exhibits for this this is the first listing Baldeva Ashanta is the owner
applicant. I see no handshare. So MI 2023 004 322 38 South 57th Street. That case is continued.
Mark must be heard. I also have a few cases here for withdrawal. Number one, MI 2023 004 139 1514
Watson Street. That case has been withdrawn. And number three, just to clarify that last case was
1514 Wadsworth Avenue. Wadsworth Avenue. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And then number three,
MI 2023-004-200-509-Springer Street.
Elisa, Malik, and Daniel Augustin, are they in the audience?
I see no room.
I see no room.
Okay, so this case.
MI 2023-004-200-509-West Springer Street. The case is continued.
Let's go to our first case.
MI 2023-004-362-1218-Wallace Street.
winter wooden has their hand up should i bring them in as a panelist chair please
is this attorney uh hillary this is pro se mr chair would you like me to read the refusal
into the record sure that would be great okay this application is for youth as a child care
center in an existing structure there is one use refusal the proposed youth child care center is
prohibited in the rsa 5 zoning district um we do not have an rco letter um we need verification
that a meeting was conducted thank you thank you the owner's name
um the owner name is uh john zow um but my name is winter wooden i actually
could you do me a favor could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer
um winter wooden and my uh spelling of the name is w-i-n-t-e-r last name is w-o-o-d-e-n
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes okay um first question is did you have a uh an rco meeting last night no we did not we did
not conduct a meeting last night okay so we had no meetings at all right so um i was a little
confused on how to do this situation how to go about to be honest with you um i did not know i
thought i had to schedule the meeting and then contact the rco representatives to see if they
were on board um that's they told me no that's not how it's supposed to be done and that i was
supposed to actually um reach out to them so they can schedule the meeting and then they will get
back to me so so i so i do apologize for that no you have to apologize so hillary do you do you
have all your documents with you um so mr chair it was my understanding based on the letter that
she provided that she said to the neighbors that there was a meeting last night um since
last night um since there has been no meeting unfortunately we cannot hear this case today
there has been no meeting unfortunately we cannot hear this case today
because a meeting is required um before before the board can hear the case all right so when
and what you're going to have to do is you're going to have to go back make sure you get that
meeting done okay you have any questions we'll contact the office and we'll tell you how to
handle this okay okay so wait do i have to do the process all over again no you don't do the
probably you just have to have the meeting okay i just have to have the meeting and then i what i
do is all your documents are already sent in am i right yeah all my documents is already sent there
so have the meeting and then we'll schedule another meeting right okay all right thank you
all right so um mi 2023 004 362 1218 wall street that case has been continued
Number six, MI 2023-004-402-4833-37 North Howard Street.
Justin Crick is the attorney.
Mr. Crick is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
good evening mr crick
good evening good evening could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
yes justin j-u-s-t-i-n crick k-r-i-k right um do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do could you identify your client in relationship to this
property? Yes, my client is Ishmael Castillo, and he is the record owner of the subject property.
Okay, our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refuse or stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, and the tax receipt was
recently submitted showing the zero balance as well thank you sir thank you council please we'll
see you then and share your screen thank you all right members of the board I'm here today to
present the application for variance at 4833-37 North Howard Street this is a renewal of a
variance that has been granted twice before each time with a two-year proviso
just to double check that everything was going as planned. So the property is
located in an RSA 5 zone and the current business that's there requires
non-accessory parking which is prohibited. It performs personal vehicle
repair and maintenance which is also prohibited and also contains a vehicle
paint finishing shop booth which is also prohibited. The three refusals we got
were based on those use refusals in this district the the application was for again the extension
of previously approved 12 non-accessory non-accessory surface parking spaces the personal
vehicle repair and maintenance and vehicle paint shop the background here is that while this one's
not relevant in 2007 the parking lot area basically was was created and allowed and
And the structure now looks as though it could handle 52 cars or a lot of cars or whatnot.
And then this applicant, this same applicant applied in April of 2019, received a two-year
variance for this with the temporary use to ensure that this within that R5 neighborhood,
RSA5 neighborhood would be sustainable for them and not create any disruptions.
We revisited and renewed in August of 21 that lasted and recently expired why
this application has currently been filed. The property is a through and
through property between Howard and Hope Street and again as you can see it's
surrounded by a lot of residential properties. From an aerial standpoint the
property is these three long bays as well as this larger structure here it's
through and through, as you can see outlined in red.
You can also see that the center of this is open as the pictures will demonstrate better.
This is open air area and the parking lot areas and garages are along these sides and
the vehicle maintenance repair is done on the inside mostly of this structure.
This one would be from Howard Street and this from, I apologize, North Hope.
Here's the general schematic of the building. Again, Howard and Hope.
Here's the general schematic of the building. Again, Howard and Hope.
And a few pictures to help demonstrate what's going on inside. Oops, sorry, that was a little too far out.
and this is a uh schematic of essentially the paint booth that is in there and is is used uh
at this property so i have attached again uh for reference the prior applications
and decisions where this was uh the recent one granted with proviso for two years uh painting
the painting use for two years was set to expire. So technically, I don't know whether the
use as repair and maintenance or the parking spaces did expire, but we are asking for all
of them to be approved. And as you will see, we met with the Neighborhood Association. Again,
these are the past permits with expiration dates. We met with the Neighborhood Association in
October. They were supportive unanimously, six votes at that time. And again, they had been with
us or we had been with them for the last four years plus. Their letter of recommendation
did indicate that in the past, they previously asked for the two-year variance and indicated
that they have not received any inquiries or communications about concerns or issues.
This, as different from other letters of support, does not request the imposition of an additional
two-year variance. We believe that that need is no longer necessary at this time. I have attached
a exemplar page of the deed showing that Mr. Castillo is the owner of the property.
copies of the postings on the facade and then as of last week there was the 2024 taxes due
but I will jump and show you that as of earlier today that amount was paid
and the Philadelphia website shows the tax balances as zero and the receipt was provided
to board council this afternoon as I received it. I did attach all of the mailings I'm not
to go through all the certificates of mailings and the notice but we did send our notice to the RCO
and to the regular people requested by the city planning commission with that said I'd like to
bring my client on to adopt my testimony if Castillo is available please raise your hand
it may be by phone or it may also be under Vanessa Castillo
We see them in the audience.
No hands at this time chair, Mr. correct you on the office of the court and we, we accept your testimony.
Thank you and I appreciate that in light of this being the 3rd round of the identical use requests.
None of the facts have changed.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comment from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission, Ron Bednar, City Planning, first name Ron, R-O-N.
name bednar b-e-d-n-a-o you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do please proceed while this property is currently indicated for residential on the city
plan we recommend question variants be granted provided all vehicles are stored within the
property lines. MI 2023-004-402-4833-37 North Howard Street, I vote yes with Proviso.
All vehicles stored within the property line. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.
thank you counsel thank you right number seven mi2023 002 942 1546 to 48 south 20 street
jennifer brazilo is the attorney this is a resumptive hearing
miss brazilo is coming back in as a panelist
could you state your name you've already been sworn once today
sure uh jennifer bazitlo b-a-z-y-d-l-o right okay um so this is a resumptive hearing
um what where we left and i believe this is open it up to the uh the audience the virtual audience
OK. Yeah, we had a second meeting and then I would just like an opportunity to respond to what I what happened at that second meeting and what the neighbors say, if that's possible.
OK, do you want to do that before we open it up? I would I would love to if that's possible.
Sure. Because I know we just kind of wanted to have community input at this one.
So let me just share my screen. All right. So we had if you may or may not remember.
We had had a previous community meeting in October, and there were some issues.
I thought they didn't want me to come back. They did want me to come back.
We agreed to the resumption hearing in a second meeting. So we had a second meeting on Monday,
and there were a total of 12 people. The vote, well, there was actually 11 people,
uh because there's a vote in here that didn't attend the meeting um but so there was two yeses
and uh 10 no's nine of those no's were from people that attended meeting one was from someone who
didn't attend the meeting but was allowed to vote um so i just also wanted to say here
i did speak with the immediate next door neighbor uh in the intervening time as well at 1544 unit b
which is the top unit uh he was at the prior meeting he wasn't at the um the last community
meeting so he wasn't included in that vote total but he is very enthusiastic about the project and
looks forward to it being developed so that's the letter of support that I got from the next door
neighbor that's the adjacent parcel but let's go back and talk about what happened at the meeting
I went back I presented again um there were I just wanted to first address one issue in the
letter that came through um that it said down here that uh the owner needs to comply with building
code and correct violations there's no outstanding violations on this property uh the prior last time
there was violations was in 2009 which is before my client owned the property and those have been
resolved so i'm not sure what that's about but i just wanted to make sure that the board knows
that there are no open violations on the property um then there was a couple of main issues that
came up and i'm sure that the neighbors who are here today will bring them up again
uh the biggest issue that came up and was in the first meeting of this are the garages
um that are existing on the property um this is an existing condition of the property um
and the issue is is that there is a building that was built on the property
uh hold on we'll go we'll go here uh it was built on 1548 that's this property here with
the garages in the back at some point this was combined with 1546 which is now the vacant parcel
next door and as part of this application we're looking to subdivide it the subdivision is by
right the lots are big enough however when you subdivide the uh lni has said that you lose the
grandfathering of these garages that have existed we have documentation for at least 60 years with
reference further back um so the community wanted these garages torn down but they are an existing
condition of the property um that has been there for a long time and we're looking to preserve this
property so uh that was really the thing we got the most pushback on was about the garages
We talked about this before, that they said they're too small.
They are small.
We don't negate that.
They are big enough to fit some small cars, scooters, motorcycles.
I believe in our previous meeting, I listed cars.
We're not going to do that again.
But so that remained an issue.
But again, I think that this is a legitimate hardship because we're looking to maintain
the existing building and do an overbuild on this property.
And it's an existing condition on the property.
If we can't get the variance, we can't proceed with the subdivision.
And it's nothing that my client did to create the condition.
He bought a property in this condition, and we're just looking to continue to use it, those garages, the way that they've existed for over 60 years.
Another big issue that came up was the tenant of the upstairs unit in the building right now was there along with some of her neighbors.
and I assume that she's probably here today too but the concern and it was
Um, but the concern, and it was brought up in the letter, if we, if we go to the second letter, um, there was an issue about displacement of the tenants of the property.
brought up in the letter if we if we go to
Uh, and while I understand their concern and I am, um, empathetic to having to move, I was a renter for a very long time and had to move several times because my property was sold or whatever.
um the reality is is that you know we have a property that does need renovation and
rehabilitation um there's no kind of dissent on that um proper notice will be given if
everything's approved and the project moves forward um and you know there will be notice
given in terms of the lease um so that was like three of the people that were there opposing it
We're mostly concerned about the tenants that are there, and we are looking to have a duplex in here as it is now.
There's two units there now, and so there will still be two units at the end of the project.
We're not reducing housing.
And then the other big thing was that I wanted to address, and that was brought up, was that the property 1548 is zone CMX1.
So as we know, CMX1 can have commercial space, but doesn't have to have commercial space.
And some of the neighbors were looking to have a commercial space in this property.
I just wanted to say that at this meeting, there was also an applicant for a coffee and prepare food shop two blocks away at 22nd and Tasker, where we're at 20th and Tasker.
and the same members of the community who were demanding that there be a commercial space here
were opposing his project because there was too many commercial businesses and they didn't need
another business that would go either by right or by special exception in the area in a CMX1
property. I also wanted to say that that presentation for the 1600 South 20th that day
uh it was agreed that that that commercial property had been vacant for about 10 years
um ours has also not had um a commercial use for over 10 years um so we have an area where we have
lots of vacant commercial space that's not being rented that's not being used and we could be using
it for much needed housing as as shown in uh you know the other comments about needing tenant spaces
and places for people to live um i just want to say also this is the same owner as the case i had
this morning at 1815 south 20th who did try to rent renovated rent his commercial space three
blocks to the south and has unsuccessful been unsuccessful at renting it for the past four
years there's no reason to believe that uh it's the same street a few blocks away that it would
be any different for this property if we were to create a commercial unit here um and so that's
you know i went over a lot of the hardships about not having commercial there there is two units the
last approved was two residential and one commercial so we're actually asking for something
less intensive than the previous use there were some concerns about density um but it really
seemed like that was a lower concern um and we know that there's other multi-families on the
block and the surrounding blocks the adjacent building at 1544 is a duplex we're building the
same thing at 1546 um and 1548 already has two units in so we're just looking to do that over
build and have two residential units uh which was there prior uh the two residential units plus the
commercial so it's not really anything of creating an intense amount of density where density didn't
already exist um there was continued to be miscommunications about why we're there but
i don't think we need to get into the weeds we had the meeting and those were the topics discussed so
i'll let the neighbors talk and then we can if i need to follow up i will
questions or comments oh i'm sorry are you going to the board mr sheriff
pardon me are you going to the board or going to the audience i'm sorry i'm just going to go to the
audience okay can i just jump in quickly um jennifer we did not receive the letter from the
rco with the vote count all of this so if you could yeah so if you could please forward that
to us um that would be great thank you sure i'm sorry i didn't realize you there was a lot of
people on the email i didn't realize you were not copied no problem no problem thank you i'm
going to do it right now. All right. So, questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Excuse me, Cher. We have Taylor Phillips. Excuse me.
Taylor Phillips?
taylor phillips
hi taylor
she's unmuted we can go taylor could you state your name please and spell for the
court stenographer
you want to move on to the next hand chair
Wait, how many hands do you have?
I have two more.
Okay, thank you.
Move on to the next hand.
Do you have a call-in user?
Good evening.
Good evening.
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Tiffany Green.
Tiffany, spell your name for the court.
I-N-Y-G-R-E-E-N.
All right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
First, I want to say, I did receive an email from Mr. Littlepage.
Currently, right now, he's unable to attend.
He's doing a church activity, which is directly across the street.
First, I want to say that this property is located at 20th and Tasker, and directly across
of it is the Rockbrook's top lot, and then across the street from it is the Tasker Street
Baptist Church, and then they just opened up a new health clinic.
So, this is a very congested area, as well as residential area.
I just want to say that this has been a very disingenuous operation by this particular lawyer.
I say that because of the fact that, first of all, there was a concern about the resumption hearing where someone can testify.
Nobody's here because everyone's under the impression that she's coming back to the community meeting for a follow-up.
So nobody actually heard her testimony, and I don't see where that's fair to the community to not really be able to hear her testimony in front of the CBA because people can say different things in front of different people.
To get down to the point, which is, and the second thing was it was a concern that the tenant that lives on the second floor said she was never even notified of the project.
She found out from another, maybe she's on, I'm not sure, but maybe she said she found out from another neighbor.
So the fact that they didn't even notify the tenant that was living on the second floor at 1548 I felt was a real concern to the point where she was asking would she be able to stay and would there be relocation fees.
So I'm saying that as a point of how they've been operating.
First of all, the South 20th Street, 1500 block, is majority two-story.
The one in 1544 came about after the new zoning code where the residents were no longer,
I would say, stripped of their rights to have a say about the height.
So that was built in, that was a by-right height, okay, the same as these two are being by-right height,
and the community does not have a say about the height.
So, therefore, but there was, they opposed, initially she came, we talked about four apartments.
When we started talking about affordable housing, affordable units to keep a balance,
they came back and said they're not going to do affordable housing, they're going to do condominiums.
At that point, that was one of the concerns until people felt that we should just keep a single family homes,
single family homes in the community.
And so for 1546, we were like for the planning, I mean, I'm getting confused,
Zoning ZBA to keep this according to the character, which is single-family homes, RS5.
We do have some across the street at 1946 and 1948 Tasker,
and we have some on Ferdinand Street that did sell, and they are three-story with single-family homes.
As far as 1548, this is like overuse of the property and a lot of density.
Again, the CA1, I mean CMX1 commercial, we would like to keep that.
That is an area that could be very good for a commercial piece.
The business she was talking about has five other food takeouts on one block, the 1500 block of 22nd Street,
and that's why the community was not really trying to support that fifth business there.
Here at 21st and Tasker, there is no other business on that area.
There's no other CA commercial department at 21st and Tasker.
And so the community felt that would be really good with the church being there
and the playground, which is very active during the summer.
And just let me make the statement.
We hear that the barbers always talk that way.
If you have a place that's run down, a lot of people will not move into that.
What we find is that once they remodel it and make it look very nice and pleasing,
people who may be riding through might say, hey, I can put a business in there,
whether it's an office, whether it's, you know, after school or whatever.
So it's about fixing up the property and then trying to rent it out,
property and then trying to rent it out, not trying to rent out a property that's sitting
not trying to rent out a property.
there looking run down and no one wants their business to be associated with that kind of
image.
With that, let me just get to the zoning piece, which is we support keeping the project, I
mean, keeping the CMX1 in place and asking that the owner build a code.
We think it still could be nice and built up nice on that corner, but just build a code
and that we do not support the garages at this particular point
because it's not accessed by alleyway, it's not accessed by a driveway.
This is a very crowded area, especially on Sundays where there's church and everything,
and that we feel if you're going to have a garage,
you should be able to accommodate small as well as large vehicles.
This is very small, and so therefore at this point, no, we do not support the garage.
We think that she can build or they can build a nice building or, you know, regular CMX one with one unit on top.
Thank you for calling in. We appreciate it.
Who else is in the audience?
We have Madison Rodwell.
OK. Madison, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Madison Rodwell, M-A-D-I-S-O-N-R-O-D-W-E-L-L.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I actually live across the street from the property of 2004.
Please proceed.
Yes, absolutely.
I believe the woman ahead of me referred to the garage already.
I would just like to, again, reaffirm that statement.
I've been in that garage myself.
For one, the roof is leaking and spalling. If this garage has been intact for 60 plus years, I imagine that just my cursory visual inspection, I'm not a building engineer. That's not what I do.
But I do know a little bit about structures and a spalling roof is a collapse hazard. And if their plan is to simply renovate the building and not actually re-address the structural issues that are causing this spalling and this leakage, then there shouldn't be a garage there.
They should just take it down. If their stated purpose is to create more housing in the area, then why exactly do they need to keep this garage, not even getting into the size of the garage, which let's be – again, having been in there myself, it's kind of laughable to think that you could put cars, plural, in there.
As for the density argument, I know the tenant, Taylor, on the second floor. They're a very good friend of mine. I don't think that displacement for the sake of more density is the right answer.
I know that the zoning board doesn't really directly concern itself with displacement.
However, I did want to make sure that that was read into the record since Taylor seems to be having some technical difficulties.
And for the in terms of notification, again, I live across the street.
I never received a piece of mail.
I didn't even realize that there was going to be a renovation done on that property until one of my neighbors alerted me to it.
So, you know, I think that there is, there are several issues, which I stated in the community meeting on Monday, that would, that would that, you know, again, that may give me pause about this, you know, I would love to see more residential housing, you know, I would personally love to have a, you know, some, a proper, a proper, you know, more proper housing on our block.
But at the same time, I don't think that, I don't think that the way that this has been done is, as a neighbor, I can't, I can't, you know, I can't support this.
I appreciate you calling.
Chairman Bergman, may I just respond to some of those comments?
Could we wait till we get through the audience?
And then you do it one time?
Is there anyone else in the audience?
Yes, we have two.
Erin Kelly.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hello?
Can you hear me?
Could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Erin Kelly.
E-R-I-N-P-E-L-L-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
are you a neighbor um yes i was at the meeting okay please please proceed
Um, yeah, I just wanted to also being at the meeting, it seemed like, I mean, it was an issue with me and with Madison was right across the street. And of course, the tenant, it doesn't seem that the directly adjacent neighbors other than 1544 were really spoken to. So that seemed to be an issue.
um yeah i just wanted to um also being at the meeting
I know I found out through just the zoning board posting, the posting about the initial hearing that was required, and that I saw on Thanksgiving Day, which I guess is after the initial RCO meeting, so I did not attend that.
Are you in favor of the project?
Are you against it?
I'm opposed.
and yeah um the notice was only continuously posted on one side of the building um on
i i saw the one on thanksgiving day and i didn't see it like after that but there was still on the
other side so yeah i just i think um an issue i saw at the meeting was um yeah neighbors like
directly around other than the one weren't really spoken to um and that is all i have right now
thank you so much for taking into your time
can I have the last hand please
sure that's Taylor Phillips
hi Taylor could you state your name
please and spell for the court sonographer
I want to make sure this is working this time
can you hear me
could you speak up a little bit
we're having a hard time hearing you Taylor
can you get me a little bit better now
hi could you spell your name
for the court stenographer hello yeah she's having a technical audio issue where is she's
anyone else in the audience i see no other hands here
they're having a hard time hearing
there are no other hands up up sir um
Hilary, do we have a planning look at this too?
Planning had deferred at the prior hearing to give their recommendation.
Jennifer, do you want to respond?
Yes, I would.
I guess the first thing, just in terms of notification,
all addresses were notified of the first community meeting with proof of mailing.
I have a professional company that sends that out.
I've never had any issues with the notices being received.
As we know, sometimes it's just people don't realize that it's important mail, but they were all sent out.
So I just wanted to reaffirm that the notices were sent out.
I personally posted the property as well.
So I'm going to start an order from commentary in terms of Tiffany's comment about height.
I did want to just say this is only going to be 33 feet tall.
It's not reaching maximum height and it's going to be the same height as 1544.
So we're just building in line with the adjoining building.
I know there was a mistake and I had spoken to the RCOs about the initial meeting.
I had honestly been confused with this project, like I said, in 1815 that I did this morning, which is rentals.
So it was presented at a rental.
However, at the first meeting, when I said that, they asked they wanted homeowners.
And then when it came back with homeownership, I was told they're too expensive.
And so I just wanted to say in terms of affordability, I know that housing is expensive.
However, when we do two-unit buildings like this, we can offer fully renovated new rehabs and new construction at a much lower cost than single-family new construction homes.
Our estimated price points are the mid-threes to mid-400s.
And the single-family new construction homes in these areas are selling from the upper fives to the upper sixes.
So this puts these kind of family-sized units that are like 1,100 to 1,300 square foot, two to three bedrooms at a much more accessible, although I understand still expensive price range.
So if we're talking about affordability, the density is actually what we need in order to maintain a more affordable housing option, especially on the vacant lot that has none right now.
um i let's see i just want to say uh she also mentioned that you know if the building was
renovated people would want to have a commercial space in there again this is cmx1 so no commercial
space is required but um as i said before my client owns 1815 south 20 has spent incredible
like a lot of time effort and money renovating the office space the commercial space on the first
floor three blocks away and it remained vacant even though it was marketed for almost four
three blocks away and it remained vacant even though it was marketed for almost four years.
So and in terms of the garages, yeah we're planning a full renovation of this building
structure and if there are any structural issues they will be addressed. If there's any facade
issues, leaking issues, yeah we know the building needs to be worked on which is why we're proposing
to work on it uh and the proposed overbuild allows us to do that construction and perform
and provide these larger units that are more family oriented to hopefully have home ownership
and involvement in the community um you know and have people living in in nice units in a fixed up
building um so i just wanted to add that in that people were notified um and uh yeah if there's any
other questions i'm happy to answer it chair can i ask a question uh what is the uh size
dimension and height of the parking spaces that are proposed sure so it's in the refusal uh one
second let me just get to my refusal page i've got a lot of tabs open here so they are significantly
small i'm not gonna lie they are um if we go here they are seven feet three inches by 14 feet
four inches um they are small uh but they could fit small city-sized cars um something like honda
fits uh hold on i gotta just had honda fits a jeep renegade a kia soul yeah so you've read that
before you know i'm just saying every car yep thank you chair um planning commission
this is uh ron bednar city planning uh property property is currently a spilt zone commercial and
residential on the city plan our adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing zoning
at this location. The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical
circumstances or condition of the property or what prevented from being used in conformity
requirements of the code. The proposal represents an overuse, therefore we recommend
the request of variance not be left. Thank you. Mr. Bergman, before you vote, I just wanted to
reiterate that if you... I'm not going to vote. Hear me out. I'm not going to vote. You know,
we've had two hearings of this. I was talking to Hillary earlier. We want to go through back.
We're going to go back through everything and we're going to vote for this next week.
Great. We're going to vote next, I guess, next Wednesday at two o'clock. But we're going to go
back and look at everything. Okay. Great. I just wanted to reiterate my request that if
you weren't going to grant the use variances, that if you could consider granting the
dimensional variances as well as the parking variances as that would allow us to subdivide
the parcel and continue with a lower density project perhaps. All right thank you for your
comments and we're going to vote on this I think next Wednesday's the 31st am I right? Yep. Yeah
and we'll vote 2 p.m. We'll vote 2 p.m. Okay and and thank you very much we appreciate your time.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 330 case has not been called?
I see no handshare.
Thank you, everyone.
I appreciate everybody's work today.
We're here a little late, but we did get a lot of nice cases handled today, and I appreciate what everybody did.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Great job, everyone.
Great job, everyone.
Thank you, Bill.
Good night, y'all.