And then we have the zoning context sheets and plans along with the tax clearance.
Similarly, with this plan, we are going to be, if the board chooses to approve it,
we're going to be asking that the board approve the revised plans,
which were presented to the RCO with a proviso sheet as requested. With this, again, since we
have support from the community, I could turn this over to Mr. Roller, who can walk you through
the plans. Yeah, so basically, as Matt had mentioned, as you can see, our property is split
zone. It's CMX2 in the front and RSA5 in the back. Previously, there was a by-right building
that we designed and permitted with commercial to first floor and residents above on Hammerford
Avenue. This is the rear of that parcel. We are proposing an additional structure on Mount Vernon
Street. Would the entire parcel be zone CMX2? We would not be here for the number of units.
It is consistent with what be allowed in this lot area. And then other than having the second
building on the lot, which faces Mount Vernon Street, we are not asking for any dimensional
refusals for complying with the heightened open area. Matt, if you could go to the next slide.
So here you can see the additional building in context. There are a series of vacant lots and
other buildings running on Mount Vernon Street, including multi-families directly across the
street from us which front on 35th Street. And the vacant lots at the corner immediately adjacent
to us to the east are also zoned RM1 for when those get developed. If you could go to the next
slide. So overall floor plans, we have five units, two at the first floor with some interior trash
storage for commercial trash pickup, and then two units at the second floor. And if you could
go to the next slide, Matt, there is one unit at the third floor, which you just skipped over.
And then next slide from the exterior, we have a red brick two-story facade
with cornice and then detailed like an addition for the top, primarily being that all the buildings
to the west of us on Mount Vernon Street are two-story buildings, and then the buildings that
are to the east of us and across the street are three-story buildings. So we're trying to
blend between those two things. That's it for my presentation, so I'm happy to answer any
questions you have. Thank you. Mr. Monroe, do you need a witness? I do, and again, I'm going to ask
Rick Young from Westview Development Partners and Susan Callanan to raise their virtual hands.
Rick Young, you're still under oath. Thank you. Just identify yourself for the record.
Rick. Thank you, Mr. Young. Did you hear the factual statements that I made in my presentation?
I did. Do you adopt them as your testimony? I do. Thank you.
in any questions from the board no no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand no hands at this time thank you planning commission good morning
david effecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property
is recommended for residential use in the city's comprehensive plan this proposal as well came to
this to the city planning commission for review from the redevelopment authority the commission
voted to approve this proposal therefore we have no objection thank you mi-2020-001089
3509 Haverford Avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
next one up is Leo
Mr. Chairman Chico was that with the proviso to adopt I'm sorry how many pages
it's I believe it's just one page sorry about that let's go back and do that apologize
it's going to be two pages sorry oh it's two pages thank you sorry about that all right
mi-2020-001089-3509 Haverford Avenue my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan two pages
approved today yes with proviso yes with proviso and I hate to complicate things but I didn't
catch if, and thank you, uh, on the, uh, on, uh, 3,300 and 3316 Mantua, whether the, uh,
on 3300 and 3316 Mantua whether the approval was with the revised plans and proviso.
I didn't know there was a revised plan but we'll go back and and what was the proviso?
The proviso was simply to adopt the revised plans that were also presented.
How many pages for each? Each one is one page.
And this is Sharon Sletta. Can I ask what the revisions are?
yeah let's see um yeah i can open these up uh just one second rusting i'm sorry i missed that
totally so sorry about that oh no i i i should have caught it in uh in the boat um but here we
can uh open this up and just one moment okay
so yeah yeah i'm sharing uh my screen uh the plan for to provide uh days for the facade
uh actual induction for the facade uh articulation and this is uh for the streets department
with modified access gates i apologize for my dogs um those changes are fine thank you
no worries all right so we have to go back and we have to revote mantua avenue cases correct
okay all right so it's mi 2020-001090 3300 mantua avenue my vote is yes with reviso revised
plan one page approved today yes with proviso to both yes proviso yes proviso i'm going to read
the other one in mi 2020-001088 3316 mantua avenue my vote is yes with proviso revised plan
one page approved today yes for proviso yes for proviso yes with proviso we already corrected
the Haverford Avenue right correct yeah thank you thank you very much apologize again no thank you
very much I'm sorry I missed it the first time no problem next one up is Leo Mulvihill's case
MI 2020-000377 126 East Street
all right good morning chairman members of the board do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth for nothing but the truth i do and do you agree to waive the reading of its
refusal and speculate to its accuracy i do also have you emailed an exhibit packet with the
required documents proof of ownership proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral
quotas and plans five days prior to this hearing? I have. Thank you. Have you met with the RCO and
have a letter? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed. So good morning, Chairman, members of the board.
Commander Leo Mulvihill reporting in from the USS York Street, call sign NCSuite 111 in the
Philadelphia sector. Location is 19125. Members of the board, I apologize for the technical
difficulties earlier. We had some problems with our subspace communications array, but I believe
that our engineering department has now fixed that. Members of the board, we're here today for
essentially the legalization of one All Street parking space. I'll begin with showing a Google
Maps view of the affected property from July 2019 so that everybody can get a better sense as to
what's going on in three dimensions before I get on to my presentation. So members of the board,
what I'm showing now on my screen and I hope you all see is basically a parking stall that's
located in between an off-street garage and a two-story gray stucco structure. It's approximately
20-some feet wide. You see a black Range Rover parked there. That is the site that we're speaking
of today. This property is located just north of Crescent Street. I'm going to rotate so we're
looking north on East Street at this point. And members of the board are now rotating.
So we're looking directly across the street from the subject property where you can see
several new construction homes with both garages and all street parking pads for two
units. Additionally, a little further up the block, we have this box indicated for no parking
for all street parking, next to this white stucco structure with the red door, and rotate
Next to this white stucco structure with the red door, and rotating to the right, we have another driveway on the opposite side of the street for rear access off-street parking.
to the right.
With that put aside, we now all have an idea as to what we're looking at here.
I'll move to my zoning packet.
I'm here today on behalf of SP, as in Paul, D, as in Delta, Investments, LLC.
Principal is Pat Duffy.
Mr. Duffy was unfortunately not able to make it onto the presentation today, so I will be flying solo.
For purposes of the record, I have the refusal appeal and project information form at page 1.
Heria's zoning maps are page 6. This is an RSA 5 district.
Deed is at page 7.
The commercial activity license tax clearance information is at page 14.
My zoning letter and proof of mailing is at page 15.
Letter from the RCO is at page 18. That came a little late.
I received it late Monday and sent that to the board under separate cover, but in this packet,
I have just simply added it to what we have. I have photos of the property at page 20 and then
the plans at page 30. So members of the board, I'm going to move specifically to first the refusal to
address that matter. Essentially what we're seeking is for an existing newly built single
family home, accessory Wall Street parking. That parking pad that I showed you earlier has since
been removed, a new home has been constructed, and whether it was something that the initial
designers missed or decided to change after the fact, now that the home is built, they're seeking
to get that all street parking back in the form of one garage and one all street parking pad.
We've received a refusal for that because this is an RSA 5 zoning district.
What I'm showing now on the screen, members of the board, page six in my packet,
is the overhead shot of the property from Philadelphia Atlas indicated with that blue dot
and the property itself indicated in that dark blue in the RSA 5 zoning district right off of
Crescent Street on east. This is the deed for the property at page 7.
My client's commercial activity license number and the tax clearance at page 14.
17, my notification letter that was sent, proof of mailing at page 17.
We met with the RCO, West Tahitian Neighbors Civic Association, ultimately after our presentation
even though they acknowledged that this was previously a parking pad, the near neighbors
were opposed somewhat quizzically because they didn't want to set a precedent on the
block for all street pad parking. Members of the board, I suggest that the all street parking that
previously existed here had existed for at least 20 years from what I understand from speaking with
members that were present at the meeting. You can see there's a garage directly adjacent to
our property which is accessory to the corner bar at Crescent and East Street and directly across
the street we have several homes that are set back with all street parking and garages. So we're not
asking for anything out of the ordinary here. In fact, all we're asking for is something that if it
been caught earlier, we would have gotten when the initial zoning application was submitted,
when we were seeking to build the house to begin with.
At page 20, this is just a still shot of the previously shown site. Page 22, this is the
zoning notice posted on the property. I'm sorry, page 21 rather. This is page 22. This is the site
as it exists now. The home has been constructed. You can see that parking garage accessory to the
bar directly to the left of the existing home. Where this port-a-potty is currently located
for on-site construction, you can see what will be a garage door to allow for interior
parking. The house itself is set back to allow for a parking pad space as well, which will
not encroach upon the pavement. I'll go move through the rest of the live photos that I
took. This is again looking northbound on East Street, directly to the left of the photo
here on page 23, you can see those all street parking pads. Up the block, that house with that
red door, you can see the all street parking area as well. This is looking southbound towards Crescent.
Northbound with a better view of across the street,
directly across the street indicating the all street parking.
Another shot of across the street down towards Crescent, southbound on Crescent.
this is the property itself again with the setback uh area to allow for all street parking as well
i'm going to interrupt you for if i could i don't want to lose my train of thought what is the width
of that opening and the new construction the home that we're that's already built on this
the pad for the pad the width of the pad now moving to the actual drawing itself right now
members of the board. I'm zooming in on that. Waiting for that. I'm going to compare that to what the width of the.
waiting for that i'm going to compare that to what the width of the pad was prior to the new
construction yeah so the width of the pad prior to the new construction members of the board as i
wait for this pdf to render the existing property width is 21 feet six inches as indicated on this
plan the parking pad was or curb cut was previously about that wide probably about 22 because these
curb cuts are always a little bit bigger than the property themselves what we've done then
essentially is shrink that from 22 feet, give or take to eight foot eight. So we're giving back
parking spot. Yeah, that's where I was getting it. Okay, thank you. And more or less, just looking
at the site plan itself, we have the proposed one car interior parking garage stall, and then the
open area parking stall within the property line. Both of these are of the standard size required
under the code by taking essentially by shrinking this parking pad as it currently existed with the
curb cut and proposing this we're giving one street spot back to the neighbors and taking
two cars off the street so overall it's a net gain for the neighbors based on what had previously
had been there the rest of my packet members of the board are just renderings of the property
and interior floor plans those aren't necessarily germane to our application this rendering kind of
shows what we could do with the property and what we expect to look like at its completion,
including that all street parking pad with a full-size vehicle that does fit without encroaching
on the sidewalk. If you'd like to see the floor plans, I'm happy to show those as well. But members
of the board, essentially all we're asking for is about half of what used to be there. We're taking
cars off the street. There's previous precedent on the block for all street parking, both directly
across the street, directly adjacent, and up the block from us on both the left and right side of
street it's a net gain for the neighborhood overall so with that presented members of the
board i suggest that based on the dimensions of the lot the fact that we're giving back
street parking and taking two carts up the road themselves for purposes of parking that this is
an overall benefit to the neighbors with respect to parking which is always at a premium and i
request that you would vote in favor of our request for allowing the accessory all street
parking interior space and the accessory all three parking pad space is indicated
on page 31 currently on your screens. I'm happy to take any questions you may have at this time,
members of the Board. Thank you. Do you have any witnesses? I don't have any witnesses. Unfortunately,
my client was not able to make it today. No problem. Questions from the Board? No. No. No.
Anyone who would like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
We have a caller with the number ending in 917. You can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good morning, Chairman DiCicco. Can you hear me? This is Joe Bergen,
President of the Neighborhood Association.
Yes, please, Joe. Please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name.
My first name is Joe. My last name is Bergen, B-E-R-G-A-N. I am the president of the lead RCO
known as Wissahickon Neighbors Civic Association. We did meet with the applicant, as he stated,
on October 5th. Joe, let me swear you in, please. You're swearing the firm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Please proceed.
I just wanted to keep it very simple. Our opposition as the applicant's attorney did
state is basically it will establish a precedent if we were to agree or disagree and we wanted to
keep a consistent voice and that is our opposition to the pads in front of homes. He is correct it
was a prior accessory use owned by the bar owner Mr. Vaccarelli on the corner who lived
uh at 12080 street it was subdivided in 2019 we acknowledge that um and that's all i have to say
thank you mr appreciate your time but just so you all understand this board uh looks at each
case on an individual basis uh this will not in at least as far as i know as long as i've been
here it doesn't set the precedent i think the precedent precedent has already been set on that
block by the i guess more recent construction across the street uh so again we look at each
of these cases uh on a case-by-case basis but thank you for your testimony is there anyone else
who would like to testify in this case please raise your hand no other hands thank you planning
commission good morning david fecto city planning commission mr chairman and members of the board
This property is recommended for single-family use in the comprehensive plan.
Due to the existing conditions for parking on this block,
we have no objection to the application,
which will reduce the impact of the curb cut on this street.
reduce the impact of the curb cut uh on this street thank you mi-2020-000377
126 east street my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you does that conclude this morning's list yes it does yes any um any unfinished business
No, not for my end. Okay, with that in mind, we'll see everybody at two o'clock.