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