Belmont and some internal signs on the buildings which will again just identify what it is that's
happening there. If you go to tab six that's probably the easiest way to understand what
we're talking about. Tab six the first page there contains is it is it possible Tanya for you to put
or do the board members have that exhibit?
We do not have, we need it on the screen please,
if you have it.
I can share my screen if that's helpful.
That would be helpful, thank you.
Yeah, and I apologize, my computer went out
about a half hour ago, so I'm not sure,
I was not gonna be able to get it back up to share.
May I be given rights to share my screen?
Can you see the screen?
yes okay bill just tell me what tab you want me to get to go to tab six yeah so keep going that
way go keep going down um yeah these are just some photos of the property
zoning notice okay keep going keep going i think you're almost there
right there okay tab six all right now this first
page and exhibit in tab 6. You see that we have, that's the property. If you can center that,
Gary. You're better at this than I am, so it's a good thing my computer went out, I think.
A little bit lower. The Belmont Ave is to the top. There are two entrances. One is to the north,
to the left, to the south, to the right. There's an existing sign which is designated as E01
at the upper left of the screen. That's an existing sign, which is a freestanding sign,
which will be refaced. And we have some diagrams in the packet. N02 is a new sign which will go
in the front of the building. N01 is the freestanding sign at the southern entrance coming
in off of Belmont. Then to the left of the building, the first building, there you see
N06. That's again another new building sign. Then if you go back behind that building on the other
side we have E02 which is an existing directional sign essentially in the parking lot. Then we have
NO4 again on the facade of the rear building and NO5 on the facade of the rear building.
So if you go flip go down to the next
this is just an aerial it shows
the existing property, and you can see Inglis House. There's another Inglis House facility
just to the north there on Belmont. So this is part of a campus. Okay, next. Go down, Gary.
Okay, now this just shows the location. These diagrams show the locations on the building, but
But what we'll do, since we've already gone through that site plan, this is the existing sign number one.
This will be refaced to look like this.
That's the freestanding sign out on Belmont.
Okay, second is existing sign number two.
That's the sign that's sort of in the landscape area at the top of the parking lot there as you're coming in off of Belmont.
Again, that's to be refaced.
Now, the rest of the signs are all new.
This is an N01, you see up in the top upper left-hand corner, that's new sign number one.
That's the new freestanding sign in the photo.
And then to the right of the screen, you'll see the actual sign face that we're proposing.
And again, it's primarily for the Innovation Center and to indicate the various programs
which are happening in the Innovation Center, the Enhanced State Program.
Mr. Kern?
Apologize for the interruption.
That's fine.
Because we're up against a clock here.
If you can summarize, do you know of anyone who, and I'll ask this question further on,
if anyone who has objected to this, you have a letter of support from the RCO?
Yeah, we have a letter of support.
Everyone at the RCO meeting supported it.
We have heard no objections.
So that's the summary.
All right.
You can summarize that.
And if you need to get your client on, we can, is that Mr. Karamick?
That's Mr. Brownick.
Yeah, the rest of the signs are all internal.
So this was the key sign I wanted to get to.
So Gary, you hear me, Gary?
Yes, sir.
You've heard my statements to the board over the last couple of minutes?
Yes, sir.
And they were all accurate?
Absolutely.
And you adopt them as your own testimony?
Okay, that's all.
Thank you, thank you, Mr. Kerr.
Questions for the board?
Anyone like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
We have no hands, Chair.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, board.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for multifamily residential on the comprehensive plan.
We have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2020-000330-2566 Belmont Avenue.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Kerr.
Before you go, Confessor, just hold off a minute.
Sonographer, do you need a break?
We've got about six more cases.
I have two minutes that's all I need. Take five. All right thank you. Okay we'll be
I have two minutes. That's all I need.
Take five.
All right.
reviewing in five minutes. Thank you. Thanks everyone. Thanks everyone. Thank you.
Whenever you're ready.
I'm ready. Okay number 10 on our list Wharton Street correct? Yep. MI 2020-0015
4576-1730, Wharton Street.
Chair, I have promoted attorney Meredith Ferlinger.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Ah, there you go.
Listen, I got a party with me today.
got two of them today i do whammy all right hi guys hello all right um please identify yourself
with the record you know spell your name and address and we'll proceed to swear meredith
ferligerve delworth paxton uh 15 f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r 1500 market street suite 3500 e
And do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I sure do.
Thank you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required document,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal,
or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, to all.
Great.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We have two letters, in fact, yes.
great thank you please proceed uh kalfani if you want to hit the raise
hand button we can just get you sworn in now
kalfani leslie
cal if you can spell your name and address
name kalfani leslie k-h-a-l-f-a-n-i last name leslie l-e-s-l-i-e and your address
1834 pemberton street philadelphia pa19146 and you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth you thank you please proceed thank you good afternoon mr chairman
members of the board. Again, my name is Meredith Ferliger of the law firm Dilworth Paxson.
I am here today on behalf of Pelican Point Investments, the owner of the property that
is represented here today by Kalfani Leslie. Now this request is going to come as deja vu
to the board and for good reason. The property before the board today is 1730 Wharton Street,
which is the former Friendship Baptist Church at the intersection of Wharton Street and South
18th Street and East Point Brees. Now as is reflected in tab 6, which I put up on the screen,
the property was just before the board in March of 2019, where you did approve the conversion of
this church into 10 residential dwelling units. As you may recall, this is a historic building that
is on the local Philadelphia Register. The original proposal met with overwhelming support from the
community. And that letter of support is shown in the original letter of support at tab two here.
The proposed revision that we're bringing before you today also received support.
Now, just this past March of 2020, my client, Cal Fani, and his entity, Pelican Point Investments,
purchased the property. Cal and his team immediately began the process of working
with the Historic Commission on the exterior renovations. Now as they started vetting the
previous approved plans, they noticed something peculiar that I'll explain further in a few
moments. Now as a result of this discovery, we're before the board today to ask for four more
additional units on top of the original 10 that you previously approved. This will be for a total
of 14 residential units that are intended for condominium sale. You previously had approved 10.
Now with respect to the application, we did receive one refusal.
As it was when the board first saw this proposal, the property remains zoned RSA 5.
Accordingly, the underlying obvious hardship to converting the property to single-family use
remains. However, the main concern before the board today is not necessarily the multifaceted
However, the main concern before the board today is not necessarily the multifamily use, which was previously approved, but the reason for the additional four units.
I'll first refer you to some photos of the interior so you can get an understanding of the magnitude of the size of this nearly 10,000 square foot structure.
So I'll scroll through these relatively fast. So this is how it was when it was originally sold.
And now that construction has begun on the interior based on the prior approval, you'll see
just how large this structure is. Now please take note of the shape of the roof as I now refer you
to a section that was prepared during the original approval. Now here was the peculiar
discovery that was made. As you can see, the way this project was originally approved,
the second floor units here would have had at a minimum 19-foot ceilings at some points.
On the mezzanine level, the ceiling heights are over 20 feet high. Now Cal had his engineers
assessed this design and they were understandably concerned that if they are to close off that space
to make the ceiling heights a little bit more reasonable and rational that it would then leave
a significant void in the upper part of the historic structure. Now not only is this an
inefficient use of this unique space but this would may also lead to significant
maintenance challenges that will ultimately impose a burden on the eventual condominium
association that will be tasked with maintaining these common areas. Any unoccupied space in a
historic structure can pose a risk to the integrity of the building. Instead, as you can see at tab
4, this empty space is so large that it can accommodate a full third floor and four additional
units. The units are comparable in size to the previously approved units, which range in size
from 670 square feet to 1,410 square feet. The new units are bi-level and are also between 890
square feet and 1,150 square feet. You can see that even with this design, the ceiling heights
are still high and will result in very unique living for the eventual owners. We do submit
this as the least minimum variance as still no dimensional variances are necessary. The number
of units here is carefully crafted to ensure the maximum use of this space and to ensure the
preservation of the historic structure by mitigating unused, unmonitored, empty space.
Now, by way of comparison, if the property had been zoned RM1, it would have allowed for 12
units by right. So the 14 units that we are proposing is not a significant deviation from
that theoretical by right figure. We submit, of course, this will not increase local congestion.
the board did previously approve this structure for multifamily use, and the additional four
units will not impose significant added burden. Will not impair light and air or negatively
impact surrounding properties. This is a historic structure. No changes are proposed to the exterior
envelope that has existed for over a century. The building sits among primarily residential
uses, and this use will closely align to the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
we submit the variance complies in full with the provisions of section 1430380 of the code
as is further detailed in my memorandum of law submitted at tab 11 now with respect to the
community as i previously mentioned we met again with east point breeze neighbors they again
supported the additional four units here and are thrilled that the new owner is continuing with the
uh renovation reuse plan of this building uh cal have you heard all of my testimony here today
yes and would you agree that testimony is true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were
your own yes i would mr chairman and board if you have any questions we'd be happy to answer them
uh questions from the board no no
anyone else prepare to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
Good afternoon, Board. Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan. However,
the proposal is for an adaptive reuse of an existing building that would help maintain
the existing character and scale of the neighborhood. We do not feel the proposal will have negative
impacts on the surrounding community. Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the