Proceed, counsel.
Thank you very much, Chairman. Ms. Rogers, you're here today on behalf of WAG Days Philly, correct?
And did you already hear the testimony that I provided?
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
Yes. And would you adopt it as your own? Yes. OK. And now, since obviously you're the you're the operator and owner, is there anything with regard to your operations that I left out that would be relevant for the board to consider today?
Yes, my current location now, on top of a small dog boarding, dog grooming, we also do dog daycare, which will also be done in this location.
Dog daycare is only during regular business hours, 7.30 a.m. to 7 p.m., but that is an additional service that will be offered in this location.
That's the only thing that you left out. Everything else was covered.
okay thank you very much any questions that the board might have i'm happy to answer or
have miss rogers answer questions from the board no mr chairman
no chair thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair i have sloan folks okay hi mr folks could you state your name please and spell for
a court reporter. Good afternoon, Chairman Bergman and board. My name is Sloan Folks.
Good afternoon, Chairman Bergman and board. My name is Sloan Folks. I'm representing the Office of Council Member Katsy Lozada. My spelling of my name is S-L-O-A-N-E-F-S-A-F-I-R-O-L-K-S, Room 316 City Hall.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Proceed.
The applicant, having met with the coordinating RCO and receiving a letter of support, our office supports this various request.
Thank you very much. Thank you for calling in. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman and Board Members.
David Vecto with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
the applicant has shown the proposed animal services will have no detriment impact beyond
what might be expected for this use however the applicant has not shown that a hardship exists
that would prevent them from using this property without the proposed animal boarding so the city
planning commission recommends the board grant the special exception for animal services but
deny the use variances for animal boarding chairman if i may respond to that briefly
Certainly. The dog boarding, which actually I have up here, is a vital component of the Wag Days business. It was an issue and a desperate need in this neighborhood as raised by the RCO, and that's why they had so much support.
It is the least minimum variance that we're asking for because we're putting it in the basement with dedicated outdoor space that only affects our own tenants.
So there is a significant upside for the public health, safety and welfare with no detriment there, too.
Again, we're asking for the least minimum variance necessary because we're putting it in the basement and away from anyone else and any problems that could be caused to the public.
and the hardship here is that it would not be allowed anywhere in this neighborhood and it is
a desperate need given the cmx2 zoning which i could pull up if the board chairman would like
no we're fine we're fine so thank you very much all right hillary do we we want to list this as
23 25 or stay with 15. mr chair stay stay with what's on the refusal because that's that's what
the application is for, L and I can make that change at the permit level if they need to.
MI 2022, 007-576-2315 North Front Street, I vote yes for the variance and also the special exception.
Thomas Solomon, my vote is yes with the proviso.
So, Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Excuse me, Chairman, what is the proviso?
So, no, I think, why don't we do it again?
When I said both the variance and the special exception.
So, instead of making that a proviso, could you state that for me, please, Tom and Isha?
Tom and Tom.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I don't think you even need to have state it's both.
If you just grant yes, you're granting the entire application.
Okay, so then MI 2022-007576-2315 North Front Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Mr. Shahid, my vote is yes.
Thank you.
You have your three votes, Mr. Whelan.
Thank you very much, Chairman and Board members.
All right.
Number five, MI 2022, 007-546-138-40 Tasker Street.
David Orfanides is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from Penn Sports Civic Association.
A letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Just before the hearing, we did receive three letters of
opposition from neighbors, one of whom I believe wanted to testify.
Thank you.
How about the agreement of sale? Do we have that?
Yes. That's been taken care of. Thank you.
Mr. Orfanides, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Certainly. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
David Orphanides. Last name is spelled O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Could you identify your client and relationship to this property?
Certainly.
Certainly.
My client is Gerard Investment Partners, LLC, and they are presently under agreement to purchase the subject premises.
All right.
And our vice chair has a few questions.
Certainly.
Excuse me.
One second.
Mr. Orfanides, the agreement of sales is Tasker Fernand, LLC.
Are there multiple entities?
No, there's just the one.
It might be an assignee.
um i'll have to you can clear that up maybe afterwards i just i didn't get a chance to
review it i just got it from my client and forwarded it yes the original the original
agreement is under toward investment partners llc and i actually have my client on the phone
and perhaps he could address that when we get to the conclusion of the hearing sounds good thank
you very much counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his
accuracy i waived the reading um in terms of its accuracy i believe there was may have been a
refusal that was missed but it'll we have an app request for authorization to amend this
application based upon comments we received from the community within the last um week and a half
or so and uh well if it is something that they did miss it'll be picked up then it's just regarding
a fence and it has to do with how odd this property is but other than that everything else is accurate
okay have emailed in all the required documents and exhibits needed
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing uh as was indicated we didn't have
a an update for the agreement of sale and that was just uh forwarded today there was a little
confusion in the language of the agreement of sale but my client apparently addressed that um
And I did forward that, but it seems like there's a question as to the name, and I believe everything else was forwarded five days in advance.
Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Please proceed to share your screen.
You all see my screen?
Great. All right. Let me just minimize this. All right.
So, again, my name is David Orphanides. I am an attorney with Orphanides & Toner LLP here in Philadelphia.
Again, I'm here on behalf of Girard Investment Partners, LLC, or possibly the other entity.
I'll have to look at the addendum and clarify that.
But we do, as indicated, have letters of non-opposition from the community group to Penn Support Civic Association.
You can see here at tab one, their letter dated May 8th.
I think it's important to note some things that they commented upon in their letter, one of those being that the applicant repeatedly responded to directly affected neighbors and their suggestions to arrive at the latest proposal.
Also, we had three community groups, three community meetings that were well attended by near neighbors over the course of this project.
This project started all the way back in 2021, and I'll discuss that briefly.
The project has changed dramatically given the input we received from the community at the beginning and then through the remainder of the project or the process until we got here today.
But as you can see, it states they provided notable input, questions, and concerns.
These were thoroughly reviewed and addressed by the applicant.
We were informed that the applicant even met with some nearby neighbors directly to ensure their concerns were fully addressed to their satisfaction.
And that was a site visit with me, the architect, and one of the prospective purchasers, or an authorized agent of the, one of the authorized agents for the prospective purchaser, I think it was a week ago, Thursday, at the site we met with three abutting neighbors on Fernand Street.
It does, in our letter, it does point out that the property is oddly shaped, irregular, and landlocked.
And then with these challenges, the applicant has made multiple changes with directly affected neighbor input to create the project currently presented.
And again, they have a letter. Their position is one of non-opposition. And then we received a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla today, dated May 9th, 2023.
So, as I indicated there, based upon that meeting we had at the site with the Fernand Street neighbors, the budding neighbors on Fernand Street, that's at one.
Our property is 135, includes 135 Fernand.
So, we met with the property to the left.
This is the view from Fernand Street at the back of our property.
It's basically a gap between two two-story row homes that leads back to a one-story or a story with a mezzanine warehouse structure.
There's an existing curb cut here and a chain-link fence.
So we met with this neighbor to the left, which is 137.
We met with the neighbor to the right, which is 133, which goes back.
And you'll see our property starts out narrow in front and then widens out dramatically.
And then you can't see it in this picture that I have up right now on the first page of the zoning drawings.
And then you can't see it in this picture that I have up right now on the first page of the zoning drawings, the owner of 131 and his property extends further back along the right side or the east side of our property.
So we had a site visit with them. And the changes that came about based upon that meeting, even though you have all these clouds, was essentially to leave portions.
oops sorry about that to leave portions of the existing structure because as I indicated and as
you could see in that photo it's a fairly large or tall one-story building but you can see in this
area and this is the property line of budding 131 was either leave a portion of the wall or build a
new wall up to 10 feet in height he wants to get as much height they want to have as much of that
wall that's there presently to remain or to be re-erected. Here again, the same thing, wall here,
this was added. These will generate new refusals because these properties are zoned RSA 5 and RM 1,
and I'll go through that in a minute. And they permitted fence height or fence wall height,
and that zoning district is six feet. But again, we'll be going back and submitting an amended
application with the authorization of the zoning board. I did submit that request for the
authorization earlier this week. Once we receive the authorization, we will submit that. We'd ask
that this case be held until that notice of refusal is issued, amended notice of refusal.
Here again, 10-foot tall wall. Over here, 10-foot tall wall. Those were the main changes other than
adding for security purposes at the request of the neighbors a gate and fence at the Fernand
Street frontage. The refusal that was missing was because of where the buildings are located,
and because it's so narrow at the front, and this will be addressed also when I go through
notice of refusal, we couldn't put a building up at the front of the property like the two
buildings to either side. And I believe, as you know, in RSA 5 and RM 1, your buildings can't
be any further from the property line than the structures to either side of you. So under the
zoning code, we were required to have a portion of our structure squeeze in between these two
buildings all the way up to the front, which doesn't make sense for a whole lot of reasons
that are pretty obvious to see. But as a result, any fencing that goes between where the buildings
will be, which is back here, all the way back here, to the front property line can only be up
to four feet in height, no more than 50% opaque. And again, based upon our conversations with the
budding neighbors, they want the existing walls or the new walls to be put in their place to be
up to 10 feet in height. And then this fencing gate out at the property line, six feet. We'd
originally shown a fence in this area before at six feet. That's the refusal that I mentioned,
I believe was missed, but it will be picked up in the amended notice of refusal. Those were the
only changes we made to the project at this last point of our interaction with the community in
the near neighbors. Essentially, what we're proposing is we have two lots, and they're very
oddly shaped. And you can see here, scroll in, you have 138 to 40 Tasker Street, which is right here.
smaller rm1 partial parcel 1323.4 square feet the which see even though it's a little skewed
parallelogram is not that unusual then behind that extending to fernan you have all of this
you have this narrow 10 foot 9 inch wide strip about 43 feet and change deep that is open right
Now, it's a driveway with a garage door here that opens up, and you can see like a lollipop, into the larger warehouse garage structure, and then jogs over, narrows out, then widens out to come up behind 138 to 40 tasker.
This is all RSA 5.
It's 5,052.5 square feet in size, extremely irregularly shaped.
Originally, when we first came to this group back in 2021, we had proposed to consolidate these two lots and upon them to build a single multifamily structure for 13 units and six-car parking.
It was a little shy, and I have the information regarding that application included in my exhibit book.
It was a little shy of the required open area.
It was about 21% as opposed to required 25%.
percent. And because the RSA 5 portion was more than 10 percent of the overall lot area,
And because the RSA 5 portion was more than 10% of the overall lot area, the whole
the whole lot was deemed to be RSA 5. So we got a use refusal. And I think there was one other
refusal as well. That project was not well received at all by the community group during
a remote hearing. So my clients went back and in the many months since then really worked hard to
redesign the project. And what we are looking to do now is to relocate the lot lines. And because
this is this tail end of the 135 front end is RM1, it's split zoned with this portion,
the strip, but then the wider portion in here being RSA5. And if I can go to the zoning map,
you'll have a better idea of what that looks like. You can see right here. So this portion
is RSA 5. This up here at the top is 138 to 40 tasker, but you can see there's the RM1 portion
of 135 Fernand. Here I've highlighted it. So the idea was to basically take the RM1 portion,
which is nicely kind of cut off right at this point, and add that to the 138 to 40 tasker,
make it all an RM1 portion, RM1 property, and then have all of another property be RSA-5.
And you can see that, again, here in the survey right here, which is what we look to do. So
what we have here is the one RM1 portion, and the proposal there is for a single seven-unit
apartment building with two off-street parking spaces utilizing the existing curb cut at Tasker
Street, which you can see right here. I don't know why my screen keeps zooming in everywhere, but
this is a Tasker Street side of the property, single family dwelling here that's occupied by
the owner of the properties, and then an existing curb cut and gate. So there's an existing curb cut
at our property at the Tasker Street frontage. There's a curb cut at the funeral home located
right next to us to the right. So the idea is, and then you can see it here in the zoning drawings,
is single curb cut coming in, two-car parking. One of those is an ADA van parking space