Thank you.
MI 2022-003-514-5518 North.
Fair Hill Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
You have your votes.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you to everybody.
Okay, thank you.
Number three, MI-2022-006-999-4136-40 Mitchell Street.
The attorney is Meredith Verliger.
There's a letter of opposition from the Central Roxborough Civic Association.
Good morning, Counsel. Good morning. Could you say your name, please, and spell for the court
reporter? Certainly. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is Mitchell Commons, LLC, which is the owner of the property at 41.
Sure. My client is Mitchell Commons, LLC, which is the owner of the property at 4136 Mitchell Street.
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Yes.
Have you emailed the required?
You cut out a little bit, but the answer is yes.
I did email exhibits five days in advance. And yes, we do have a letter from the RCO.
Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Again, my client is Mitchell Commons LLC, which is the owner of the property. The deed is reflected
in the packet at exhibit three. I was coming in as a panelist, but I believe that you are in receipt
of CRCA's letter of opposition, which I will address specifically later on in the presentation.
However, we do hope that after our presentation today, the board will see the significant
hardship that this property faces. Simply put, the request before the board today is to permit
a variety of commercial uses of an existing commercial space located in the relatively
newly constructed building at 4136 Mitchell Street. To just briefly summarize the hardship
that this owner faces and this property faces, any commercial use of the previously approved
commercial space will generate a variance. I will first walk you through some background and context
and will then explain the unique issue that led to the refusal. As the board knows, I did submit
an exhibit packet with 15 total exhibits.
The property is located at 4136 Mitchell Street, which is just south of Pensdale Street, and
you can see the property here in this aerial image, which is shown here at Exhibit 10.
This aerial image will also give the board some context to this area.
Specifically, you'll note the newly constructed building, which is surrounded by a large religious
congregation to the south, residences to the west, some dense apartment buildings to the north,
and you can see a little bit better in this aerial. There are some commercial uses further
north on Mitchell Street as well. Directly across the street, you'll see this open lot here,
which is the Roxborough Dog Park, which was revitalized in part due to a partnership with
my client when this project was constructed. In fact, the dog park users regularly visit
this property to access fresh water for their dogs. Additional photographs of the property
are shown here at Exhibit 15. In this front view, you'll notice there are two separate
entrances to this property. The entrance on the right is the residential entrance just
behind that tree and the entrance on the left with the ada accessible access point is intended
for the commercial space i'll scroll through briefly so you can get a zoomed in sense of
context to the area i described so again this is looking south on mitchell street
this is looking up north where you start to see some of the apartment complexes
dog park across the street and this property also benefits from an accessory parking lot as well
i will return to these interior photos in a bit but for preliminary context the commercial space
at issue is now shown up on the screen you will note that this is a nicely sized space of 740
total square feet with ample street-facing windows and an independent separate restroom
that is separate from the rest of the building. Now, by way of history, this project was issued
its first zoning permit back in June of 2016. It was subsequently granted several additional
permits between 2016 and 2019, including the grant of a variance in 2019 for the addition of parking.
This owner was not involved in the permitting, so I'm not entirely sure why there were different
permits issued over the course of those years, but the project did receive a couple different
permits and also went through Civic Design Review. The project was approved under the prior
CMX2 zoning classification of this property and includes 72 dwelling units, 10 parking spaces,
and a fresh food market at the first floor front. My client purchased the already approved project
from the former owner in December of 2017 through an LLC asset purchase and proceeded to secure
through an llc asset purchase and proceeded to secure building permits for the construction
building.
the building was completed and occupied as of 2020.
the first floor floor plans which i'll zoom in on a little bit are shown here at exhibit seven
you will note the commercial space is specifically identified here and listed as being 740 square
feet, not 550 square feet, as is noted in CRCA's letter. And it's directly next to the lobby space
here and can only be accessed through the outside. You'll notice there is no access to this space
from inside the building itself. The building itself is already heavily amenitized with a gym,
a vegetative roof deck, open space in the rear with a common gazebo, and several open gathering
and study rooms within the building. As I mentioned earlier, there is also now a dog park across the
street. I will bring up my client momentarily to testify to just a few key points, but the board
will hear that this property has been occupied for over three years, during which significant
efforts to find a tenant that fits the limited definition of a fresh food market has occurred.
Those efforts have, unfortunately, not been successful.
Accordingly, the owner started investigating whether there are other commercial uses that would be viable for this space,
given that the overall benefit of finding a viable commercial user for this space to both the building occupants and the surrounding community is a significant benefit.
You will also hear from the owner that he has received significant interest from several possible different tenants, including an appointment-only barber that's currently operating in Fishtown that would like to expand her geographic reach.
However, before he testifies for just a moment, I'd like to show the board the primary challenge this property owner faces that leads to the hardship before you today.
As the board can see at Exhibit 9, this property is now zoned RSA 5, single-family residential.
At the time this property and project was approved, the property was zoned CMX 2, which permitted the multifamily and commercial use.
The property was rezoned in 2017 by Bill number 170-465, which is shown up on the screen at Exhibit 8.
The board will note the property's prior CMX2 zoning.
It was actually partially zoned RM1 as well, and it was rezoned entirely RSA5 through this 2017 bill.
As a result of this rezoning, the only commercial use that is now permitted for this space is the previously approved fresh food market.
Because of the RSA 5 zoning, any changing use to this commercial space will trigger a variance, whether that changes to another commercial use, which is what we're requesting today, or as an alternative to another additional residential unit.
However, the owner felt that a commercial use of the designed commercial space would be much more of a benefit than just adding an additional residential unit to the building.
Before I move on, I would like to bring up Mark Duzak just to answer a few key questions.
So if the administrator wouldn't mind locating and unmuting Mark Duzak.
Mr. Duzak, can you raise your hand, please?
I'm going to allow him to speak.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Mark Duzak, D-U-S-Z-A-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Mark, you already shared your name and address.
Could you share with the board, what is your affiliation with Mitchell Commons LLC?
I'm one of the owners.
And is it generally correct that you purchased this LLC following full approval of the project?
Yes, we purchased it with the approvals permits in December 2017.
Now, in addition to your ownership of this particular property, do you have any other relevant credentials that would be relevant to the issue of the leasing of this commercial space?
Yes, I do. I'm a licensed full-time commercial broker.
I've been in the business for 20 years.
During my career, I've worked at three national firms. I currently still work at one. I consider myself very knowledgeable of the Philadelphia commercial market, which includes being very dialed in with owners, brokers, and the community.
During my career, I've worked at three national firms.
I currently still work at one.
Philadelphia is a little bit unique because of its size, but I think with my 20 years of experience and my connections with brokers and businesses out there, I feel I'm pretty qualified.
Can you talk about your efforts at locating a fresh food market over the last several years?
Sure. Well, since I'm a broker with numerous contacts out there, I've reached out to many
colleagues about the space being available. I did this prior to construction, during construction,
post-construction. Unfortunately, the feedback I really got was pretty much the same
from any broker I spoke with, and it really dialed into two pieces of it. One being that
There is, and at the time was, I guess, a lot of fresh food space that opened up.
And all that space at the time was vacant.
Brokers really weren't able to lease out a fresh food space.
There wasn't a lot of desirability for it because what I'm being told is there were some strict requirements with the amount of fresh food that had to be on counter space.
and it really didn't pencil out for business owners so that wasn't really going very well
and then the second feedback we got about our site was it was small for a food market and
the parking that we do have there we allocate to renters so we would have to change that around
maybe to give shoppers parking space if we found a fresh food tenant in there
And in your efforts in recent months to locate a different kind of commercial tenant, have you found other types of commercial users that would be interested in this space?
yeah i mean um we we had a few groups approach us one was a uh a water ice shop uh obviously i
needed a variant so that time lag was was going to be pretty long there first personally i wasn't
too keen on on a water ice shop because of the trash and cleanup and what it may do to the you
know the sidewalk and keeping the building looking good uh during covet we had a tenant
that was interested in the space uh he was either a cpa or an attorney he wanted to open up a small
office uh but i couldn't rent to him because i didn't have a um i didn't have a variance
um ideally i really want something that blends into the neighborhood since we're across from
the dog park um something that would be a pet service would be i think you know fantastic
that our building's dog friendly.
We have a dog washing station in the building.
We helped out the dog park when they had an incident
and they lost their insurance.
So we made a donation to them
to get their insurance back in play.
When they got moving again,
they asked us if we could help them out with the fencing.
So we donated a fence for the front of the street there
that is in front of their dog park.
As you mentioned, we allow them to use water for the dogs there.
But most recently, I'd say about seven or eight months ago, I found a business owner, a woman-owned barbershop that seemed interested in opening a second location.
She wasn't really willing to commit because we had no idea what the timeframe would be or if we'd get approval for it.
Her existing shop, it's appointment only, so there's no walk-ins.
It's a pretty high-end shop that I think would fit into the neighborhood.
Her existing shop is in Fishtown.
It's neighborhood-oriented, so neighbors walk there rather than driving there and parking.
She's not interested in the core Manioc, Roxborough, Markets, Main Street and Ridge Street because those spaces are too large and they're too expensive.
but I'd say at this time she's probably a 50-50 bed if she takes the space even though her shop's
doing well the economy has cooled off prices for her equipment has gone up a lot so she's a little
bit on the fence and that's really why I'm here seeing if we can get a variance that would allow
a few different options so if I find someone that fits into it it's not a six seven or eight month
time lag to see if I can get them in there. Because that's really, that time lag is the
piece that's really hindering me from getting a tenant. Thank you, Mark. Sit tight.
getting a tenant thank you mark sit tight as i alluded to before mark testified any changing use
As I alluded to,
for this commercial space will trigger a variance as a result of the rsa5 zoning
as mark testified this has made it nearly impossible to find a tenant willing to commit
to the space as a result of the uncertainty and delay that currently comes with seeking variants
We initiated this use change request in November of 2022. This hearing was scheduled six months
later. In light of this anticipated delay, we applied for a broader spectrum of commercial uses
to ensure that the owner has more flexibility to locate a tenant without having to return to the ZBA.
As shown on Exhibit 12, there are 34 total use categories permitted in CMX 4. The ones that I highlighted are the broad categories that we initially requested to L&I.
However, we have limited the request before the board today to 13 possible uses.
I think Mark did a good job at explaining this, but just so the board understands the nuance of
the timeline, the owner is optimistic that this barber will commit to the space if the board is
inclined to grant the variance today. Her use would fall under the limited personal services
category. However, had we limited the request to just personal services, received a variance,
and then the barber fell through, the owner would have been faced with applying for an entirely new
use, generating another variance, and once again being subject to delay. Accordingly, we requested
the limited uses based on what the prior CMX2 zoning would have allowed. As I mentioned, the
owner has also agreed to further limit the permissible uses, which I did send over to board
Council yesterday in case the board is inclined to grant this with the proviso for those specific
uses. The remaining 13 categories are ones the owner believes is feasible for the space
and will pose the greatest benefit to the community. The use list itself is intended
to accommodate small community-serving uses for both the residents of this building and
the surrounding community and those uses you can see highlighted up on the screen community center
libraries and cultural exhibits so something like an art gallery uh office space a few different
retail uh uses mark mentioned you know the the um the benefit to having some form of a pet use here
a prepared food shop like a cafe or something to that nature. Financial services really only
thinking that maybe a bank would want to put, you know, some form of a small sort of, you know,
branch here. I'm not sure how viable that is. Personal services, artist studios, maintenance
and repair of consumer goods, you know, maybe a watch repair store, something to that nature.
So, as shown today, this property owner faces a significant hardship in that a commercial use of this property is no longer permissible.
The unfortunate impact of a denial today is a space that is designed and marketed for commercial use that will unfortunately remain vacant indefinitely.
As the board has heard today, any change of use in this space will trigger a variance.
This statement alone is the very essence of a hardship in that there is no possibility this space can be used in strict conformity with the code or the previously issued permits in light of the new owner's diligent but failed attempts at finding a user to occupy the space fitting that limited fresh food definition.
We submit this is not a self-imposed hardship, as the owner purchased this LLC following full approval of the project and has, as testified, attempted for many years to find a viable fresh food market.
We further submit the request as the least minimum variance, as a commercial space was previously approved.
This proposal simply seeks to broaden the types of commercial uses that would be permitted for the space.