because i don't i i wasn't prepared to do the actual presenting um i i mean i'm familiar with
everything enough to speak on it i just i'm trying to get myself together to figure out whether or
not i can actually do this coherently we're gonna have to move on to the next case okay
and cheer if you wish we can come back so that she can make a decision okay next one up
next one up it's uh mi 2020 that's 000 847 1401 north 29th street
i've promoted alan knockamson alan you've already been sworn in so you're still on the oath but
just identify yourself for the record please uh yes good afternoon mr chair members of the board
alan knockamson of knockamson pc 123 south broad street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19109
You agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans
five days prior to this hearing?
I have.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we have and yes, we do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
I'm going to share my screen.
Handed to you or in front of you is a pack of materials which include eight exhibits.
The first is the property showing cash properties unlimited LLC is the owner of the property.
THE SECOND EXHIBIT IS A CERTIFICATE OF TAX COMPLIANCE SHOWING THAT
THE SECOND EXHIBIT IS A CERTIFICATE OF TAX COMPLIANCE SHOWING THAT THE OWNER IS IN GOOD
STANDING WITH THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA FROM A REAL ESTATE TAX PERSPECTIVE.
THE THIRD EXHIBIT IS A NOTICE OF REFERRAL.
THIS IS A CMX2 PROPERTY.
WE'RE LOOKING TO LEGALIZE THIS COMMUNITY CENTER THAT'S IN THE BREWERY TOWN SECTION OF PHILADELPHIA
AND WE'RE SEEKING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS A RESULT.
The fourth exhibit is the application for a special exception that we submitted to the ZBA, along with the project information form.
Exhibit five is, you know, a zoning map shows that this is a CMX property at the corner of 29th and Master in the Brewery Town section of Philadelphia.
Exhibit six shows the property in its current condition. As you can see, you know, my client keeps it in good condition.
It's the Parker Family Community Learning Center.
Here are pictures to the left and right on North 29th Street, as well as to the left and the right of Master.
As you can see the interior photos, it's really a learning center.
This Parker Family Learning Center is run by Greg Parker, who was born and raised in Burrytown.
And, you know, he tries to give us back as much to the community as possible through, you know, self-learning as well as expanding the knowledge and depth of the residents in Burrytown through, you know, classes, you know, in terms of financial and real estate investments and things like that.
Exhibit 7 is just a floor plan. Again, this is an open floor plan, you know, with bathrooms in the rear.
And Exhibit 8 is the letter of support. So we met with the Brewery Townshard's Civic Association,
and as you can see, 27 people were in support of this project, only three opposed and seven
in non-opposition. So with me, I believe I have Greg Parker. So Greg, can you virtually raise your hand?
no hands at this time all right um as an officer of the court i will
we'll stipulate that your client would adopt your testimony
questions from the board no no no anyone uh would anyone else like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand
no hands at this time thank you cleaning commission
good afternoon chairman members of the board the applicant has demonstrated the granting
of a special exception will not cause detrimental impacts in the neighborhood beyond that
which might normally be expected from the proposed use accordingly we have no objection
to granting a special exception mi-2020-000847-1409 north 29th street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you
up. Next one up is MI 2020-00077-1254 North 19th Street.
This is Sharon Saleta. I believe this is a follow-up hearing and that the original
hearing was held on August 11th. Thank you.
Mr. Feldman can correct me if I'm mistaken on that.
So I have Augusta O'Neill with her hand up.
Good afternoon.
Yeah, I have Ms. O'Neill.
Please identify yourself for the record, first and last name.
Augusta O'Neill.
Shall I please?
A-U-G-U-S-T-A.
my last name is o apostrophe n e-i-l-l and you are affiliated with i'm affiliated with the
applicant miss o'neill is also from claire harrison i apologize gussie for getting that
wrong okay no problem do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes thank you please proceed sure it's a follow-up uh case or yes as sharon indicated
earlier this matter was originally presented this person sorry sure the matter was originally
presented to the zba on august 11th due to the pandemic we didn't get a chance to meet with the
rco for this matter um community land trust corporation until august 19th just to
Community Land Trust Corporation until August 19th. Just to briefly recap what our application was,
I'm not going to do it.
my client had bought this property when it was a store on the first floor. I can show a
image just to recap. This is the property in question. When my client bought the property,
this was a storefront and then there was a residential unit above. And my client intends
to take the first floor unit, which was used as a store, and make this property into two residential
units. This property is in the RM1 district. In a traditional RM1 district, as you're aware,
we could have had two units by right, but due to an overlay that the property is in,
we are required to seek the de minimis relief that we are now seeking. In a traditional RM1
district, there needs to be 350 square feet of lot area, but in this particular overlay,
there's required to be 425 square feet for each dwelling unit. So we're essentially off by less
than 100 square feet. The overlay's intent was to curtail excessive development, but we believe
that by converting this property into a two-unit property, we can bring two affordable units to
this neighborhood. Again, my client's intent is to fix up this property. As you can see,
it's in pretty bad condition. This side right here is actually bulging out.
The surrounding uses in this neighborhood are mostly multifamily. This property has always
been two units, and it's got two separate entrances. The proposed use would therefore
be consistent with other properties that are in the neighborhood. We met, as I said before,
with the RCO on August 19th. And as a result of our meeting, we did get the full support
of the RCO Community Land Trust Corporation for our proposal to convert this into two units.
We have since changed our plans. We submitted proviso plans. We are now going to remove
a rear balcony that had been on the initial submission. And we're also going to be reducing
the fence that we proposed in the rear yard. Previously, it had been a six-foot fence. We're
now going to reduce it to a four-foot-high fence with 50% opacity. And those two changes are in
response to comments that we received from the RCO. And so the purpose of today's hearing, like I
said before is just to vote on the application those changes make have caused any revision to
the plan yes and we submitted proviso plans um i'm sorry how many pages are revised i believe
that there were two pages if i stop my share i can just go through my emails and i can pull up
we sent to Sharon. There's two pages, the site plan and exterior elevations.
Do you have to bring a witness on? Do you need to bring a witness on?
my client is on and our project architect is also available if you have any questions
let's get your let's get your client to adopt your testimony first and then we'll see if we
need the architect sure and if you want to raise your hand
hello hi mr mr ty yes this is hontai yeah good afternoon please spell your name your first and
last name for the record yes that's hontai h-o-a-n last name is t-h-a-i you swear and affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed
did you hear my testimony this afternoon i did was everything that i said true and accurate
yes and would you adopt it as your own yes and was there anything that you wanted to
add to my testimony no thank you any questions from the board no no would anyone else like to
testify on this in this case if so please raise your hand no hands thank
you planning commission good afternoon chairman members of the board Ian
Litwin planning commission staff this parcel is owned RM1 residential
This parcel is zoned RM1 residential multifamily. The area was remapped in 2007 and this parcel
multifamily the area was
remains zoned RM1. We have no opposition to two units on a lot this size and support the
provisos to remove the rear deck and make the fence zone and code compliant. Thank you. MI-2020-000077
1254 north 19th street my vote is yes with proviso revised plan two pages approved today
yes or proviso yes for proviso yes with proviso
thank you okay next one up thank you very much you're welcome next one up is mi 2020
20-001-309, 109 Pleasant Street.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
Do I have to be sworn in again or no?
no thank you you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate its accuracy
no we do not okay have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents proof of
ownership proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans yes sorry
five days prior to this hearing so yes okay have you met with the rco and have a letter yes thank
you please proceed okay um so this is 109 pleasant street it's actually 109 through 21 pleasant street
um this project generated a couple of refusals mostly what we're here for is um similar to the
prior case that we just did um we're looking to subdivide uh what is over 11 000 square feet of
rsa 5 into nine uh lots to provide single family homes with accessory off-street parking access by
a front street, but also access kind of through a shared driveway for the home.
So I'm going to have Scott, the architect from Design Lens, go through the plans.
Then we'll go through the refusals and, you know, discuss the community portion as well.
Does he need to be the panelist?
Yes, please.
While we're doing that, Brandon, if you're still on, if you want to quickly go through why we don't stipulate to the accuracy of the refusal, and then it'll be a lot more clear and obvious once Scott shows the plans.
Okay, I would be happy to do so, and I assume I'm still sworn in as well.
Yes, you are. Thank you.
okay um if you uh do you want to show the refusal uh scott or rachel who's ever in control the
screen um there are three types of refusals that were generated um the majority of them eight of
them are for minimum lot area and that is actually the only type of refusal that we believe was
issued properly. The other two refusals pertain only to one of the nine planned lots, that lot
being 106 Meehan Avenue. It is sort of the flag piece, as you see there. The refusals for 106
Meehan are minimum side yard width and minimum rear yard depth at parking. And these were
generated because the examiner determined 106 Meehan Avenue to be a semi-detached lot.
But I just quickly want to walk the board through the definitions of attached versus semi-detached
building and explain why we believe the building should rightfully have been determined to be an
attached building. 106 Meehan Avenue is a lot that will be bounded to the west side by the adjacent
property line and a party wall that's 102 Meehan Avenue. On the east side, you'll see the driveway
that serves the rest of the complex runs in a non-exclusive easement area. So the actual wall
of 106 Meehan, the building, is going to run adjacent to the edge of the easement area.
And then the property itself continues to the other side of the driveway easement.
So if you take a look at the definition section of the zoning code, it says that an attached building is, for intermediate lots, a building with both side building walls located on or at the side lot line.
So if you take a look at the definition section of the zoning code.
and furthermore lot line is defined as a boundary line delineating one lot from another lot street
or any public or private means of vehicular or pedestrian traffic so we have an attached building
here because the building is bounded on both sides by lot lines to the west it's bounded in
the traditional sense by another lot. To the east, it's bounded by a means of vehicular
private traffic, which is a lot line under the zoning code, section 14203.178. So if you assume
to the contrary of the examiner that this is an attached building, the two refusals issued
wouldn't apply because table 147011 explicitly states that the minimum side yard width requirement
does not apply to attached buildings in RSA 5 whereas the examiner determined that the side
yard requirement does apply we don't believe it does in addition the rear yard depth requirement
similarly um it's a little unclear actually what the examiner's intent was here it states in the
refusal that divide the non-conformity was minimum rear yard depth but there's actually
code sections that are cited for other things such as parking in the rear yard um i'll address
both real fast even though parking in the rear yard is not stated in the refusal parking in the
rear yard in RSA 5, again, would have been permitted if this was classified as an attached
building. And when parking is permitted, the parking does not sort of disqualify your rear
yard for counting towards the setback. So in essence, if this was an attached building,
we would have met the rear yard depth requirement.
So in grand summary there,
if this is considered an attached building
rather than a semi-detached building or a twin,
which I think it's not both just in, you know,
looking at it and per the definitions,
if you make the right classification,
neither of those refusals should have been issued.
Thanks.
Great.
okay scott if you want to go through the plans that would be great yeah i can get sworn in
we want to do that first sorry before you go any further any uh board member tom do you have any
questions about that no no question okay thank you actually i have a question this is sharon saletta
can you um explain again which refusals remain just for the uh lot sizes
thank you yep so just that one minimum lot area and uh who is speaking now
rachel pritzker no no i know i'm sorry you called someone up oh scott woodruff who is our architect
all right i don't think we swore him in yet or did we you didn't go ahead yeah
please identify yourself with the record name and address by your last name
Scott Woodruff, W-O-O-D-R-U-F-F, 4001 Main Street, Suite 203, Philadelphia, PA, 19127.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
So to walk through the overall project, thanks, Brandon, for going over those refusals in depth.
I'm going to go over generally kind of the scope of the project and then go into some of the revisions and things that we did with working with the community to kind of enhance the project a little bit more and kind of fit in a little bit more with the neighborhood.
Our overall goal at the island side of this project from a development was to create single-family homes that had accessory parking and also fit in with the surrounding block face and somewhat with the character of the neighborhood to the greatest extent that we could.
uh so we're proposing nine single-family homes here is pleasant street to the south there's
eight homes uh that face pleasant street and then there's one home uh on the back side of
the block which is mehan avenue that has one home with uh the 12-foot driveway easement
the 12-foot driveway easement that allows parking for all the homes, which is a private
that allows parking
Thank you.