So, for the front, a full window well would not be required.
It would more just be a slight window well to allow the light in.
The back window well would be for egress.
So the question is, does this window well where my cursor is in the front, does that project out further than the steps?
It would probably project a tiny bit further than the steps, yes.
Can you make that window well not project out beyond the steps?
Because in this drawing, it doesn't look like it does.
Currently, there is no window well shown in that drawing, actually.
My mistake, then.
Yeah, it's only shown in the elevation.
is shown as a lower, you know, as a, as a deeper window and the as if it's.
If we did a typical depth egress, well, it would stick out further than that step.
Right. Right. But the, the, I guess the, the concern, and I don't want to speak for
Miss Graham is if can you if you don't need an egress well here and you just want to break light
and air in can you make it in such a way that it does not protrude beyond the bottom step of the
entrance steps yes okay
any other questions for the board what's what's the height of the building
and he has a question
this is is this the old plan of the new plan
is it this is if you scroll back to it this is a revised plan yes and then just
zoom into the front elevation it should say
Let me try to bring that up.
31.4, the top of roof.
And how low is the basement below grade?
What's the ceiling height in the basement, Aaron?
I believe it's still an 8-1 ceiling, but if you could go back to the elevation again to double-check it.
Not my question. My question is how low is the basement slab below grade?
Is it five feet below grade? Is it six feet below grade? Is it two feet below grade?
I'm sorry.
I don't have the exact number on hand, but it would be roughly five feet.
My apologies, Mr. Johns. I didn't mean to restate your question incorrectly.
No, I just wanted to make sure I was clear because it's always a concern if there is basement living, some basements living areas are so low below grade that if there's a heavy snow, you get locked in the basement and you can't dig yourself out.
you know what i mean so that's the concern with basement living that that i personally have
regardless of whether or not the code allows it can i can i just ask for clarification because
this is for an addition and it looks like there's something being proposed at the rear of the
property and the new third story is it both no to clarify it's currently a vacant lot this would be
a new home being built this is a okay this is a ground up construction yes
but i so i guess the trying to make it market rate or whatever trying to load it's not a
program it's just something you're setting yourself am i correct henry yes that's what
It's just something that she came up with a figure to say that, you know, $1,000 to $1,200 is cheaper.
Right. That's what she said. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I mean, we could put that in writing to the community group, certainly, but I understand your question.
okay so then my second question is there any elevation that shows this building
in relationship to the two contiguous properties on the same street because it's a row house
and this is now an infill row house i can clarify on that if you would like
so the right side is also currently a vacant lot but then the left side it is following those same
setbacks for the first and second floor so the first floor is at the property line the second
floor steps back about six feet to match that elevation for the second floor and then the third
floor is what steps back an additional two feet for the eight foot but currently there is no side
elevation drawn. Okay. Questions from our attorney? Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not see any further hands, Mr. Chair. Any commission?
Yeah, this is Ron Bednar. Property is indicated for residential use on the city plan. Adopted district or adopted comprehensive plan recommends no change to existing zoning at this location. The applicant's hardship not supported with evidence of physical circumstances or condition of the property that was prevented from being used and conforming with the code. We recommend the request of variance not be granted.
Can I address that, Mr. Chairman?
You know, certainly one of the elements we look at for use is in a hardship situation is, is it necessary for the viable economic use of the property?
Certainly, I agree with Mr. Bernard that a single family home could be built there.
But we have circumstances where lots may remain vacant.
I'm not a, you know, a genie.
And Jeannie, I'm not guessing what's happening in the future, but certainly nothing has happened for at least a decade.
I'm not guessing what's happening in the future, but certainly nothing has happened.
And this is one way to get housing stock and more people on the block and on the street.
MI 2023, 006254648 North Udall Street, I vote no.
Taiwan, I vote no.
my vote is no
sir gaston my vote is no
i'm opposing everybody today my vote is yes
thank you sir
thank you everyone have a great night
number two mi2024 000427
2549 north 19th street bart levy is the attorney
Hi, Chair. Bart Levy has his hand raised. I'm going to allow him to speak.
Thank you.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
My name is Bart Levy, B-A-R-T-L-E-V-Y.
We're a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Could you identify your client, a relationship to this property?
My client is North Warnock, LLC, and Gasner DuPont, who owns that LLC.
site. Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal and do you agree with its accuracy?
We do. Okay. There's a letter of support from all in the family CDC with some provisos.
Why don't you begin and start your presentation? Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to
note, according to the materials submitted by Mr. Levy, the coordinating RCO was North Central
um susquehanna cdc um there was a meeting held with them on september 18th but we do not have
a letter all the families and affected rco okay all right okay okay i mean if you have something
mr levy please please share but we did not receive a letter we do i mean i just click on
the share icon on the bottom we open your documents first and then you click all right
and then what right
green light you see the green light says share screen yeah i do hold on one second
I'm clicking on it.
I've got my documents up, but nothing's happening.
IT, any suggestions?
So when you click on the share button, nothing happens?
Nothing.
I've got a total of 14 documents I'm looking at now.
And I honestly, I don't know what it takes.
In other words, the arrow's on.
I'm clicking on it, and nothing's happening.
sir you don't see a green button at the bottom of your screen sure it says share screen
it's having no effect at all
can you mr all shitty maybe go back out or come back in what do you recommend i probably suggest
Just going back to panelists, I mean, back to attendee and then trying to come back into panelists.
Perhaps I don't want to have them come off all the way since we've already had trouble with people, given the lateness of the day.
I'm sorry, I didn't get that.
Let's send you back to an attendee and then re-invite you as a panelist.
So hold on one second.
Oh, wait.
Okay, I've re-promoted him to the panel.
Let's see if it helps.
Mr. Levy, already you're allowed to speak Mr. Levy, Mr. Levy,
he has returned as a
panelist but he is not he is both
muted and his camera is off at the moment
yes we're asking
him to unmute
Mr. Levy can you unmute
okay so
I'm clicking on the screen now
Documents are open.
Once your documents are open, then hit the share screen.
Honestly, I'm tapping on it with both keys now, and it's not open.
it's having no effect I've got I'm looking at my documents
they're on the screen they're not coming up
so Mr. Levy we know you've been waiting a long time
but we're going to have to move on and continue this and then very well Mr. Chairman thank you
and what we'll try to do is get you back in as quick as we can okay we'll be in touch
I appreciate your courage I'm sorry about you I'm sorry you have that
I'm sure it's me. I'm sure it's me. Thank you.
No, no, no. Thank you, sir.
And number three, MI 2024-000-429-1932 Main Street, Oluk Sokolov.
Mr. Sokolov has been allowed to speak.
Good evening.
Mr. Sokolov, I think you've already been sworn today. Am I correct?
I have. That is correct. I do not have a link to be promoted as panelists, however.
I'll do that for you right now.
Thank you so much.
Just so you know, we do have a letter of opposition from Point Breeze CDC.
I'm sorry, Chair, as it was converting over, I missed it, just so you know.
We have a letter of opposition from Point Breeze CDC.
I am aware of that. It's in our packet, too.
I will try to be as brief since this is a fairly straightforward use request.
Could you identify your client, please, because you've already been sworn?
Yeah, my client is Mr. Zhao Yu, owner of the property.
Stipulate to the reading of the refusal and also do you agree with its accuracy?
I do, Chair.
Why don't you start your presentation?
So the refusal is simply for the use as a visitor accommodation.
I've been before this board before on this, so I will try to move through the exhibit packet pretty quickly.
This is an existing structure purchased by Mr. Yu in 2021.
It is a single-family home in the Point Breeze section of Philadelphia.
I'm sorry, Mr. Sokolov, we can't see your documents.
You know what? You can't see them because I haven't hit share screen, and like all of you, it's been a long day.
It's okay. Thank you.
All right, let's let's start it again. Maybe I won't be as brief as I thought.
So once again, the refusal just simply for the use as a visitor accommodation in an existing structure, nothing being built.
Obviously, everyone on the board is very familiar with the prevalence of the Airbnbs and the the need to obtain licensure for such use under under new city regulations.
over the last couple years. So that is what we are going for here. The property was purchased in 2021.
That is what we are going for here. The property was purchased in 2021. Mr. Yu has, throughout the time, attempted to rent it at various prices and had very little success.
The property is a bit larger in the neighborhood, and just the rent that could support the property as a long-term rental hasn't been achievable to Mr. Yu.
You can see the neighborhood is often changing, a lot of development going on in the neighborhood.
This is a view down one side of Manton Street and a view down the other.
Now you can see this property is very well taken care of, very properly decorated and shows a level of care for the property that Mr. Yu has for it and intends to maintain in his oversight over this kind of use of the property.
And I know I mentioned this, you know, for all visitor accommodation requests that I've
been before this board on, but it really does add an element of, I apologize, it does lend
an element to the city of a way to experience it that is very unique.
It's not a hotel. You really get to be part of a neighborhood for some time while you're here.
It also does allow for people within the neighborhood to have family members come and stay.
So, you know, this visitor accommodation use is something that I personally and I think a lot of people in the city see as a benefit if done and taken care of correctly.
So to that end, what we proposed and what we presented to the RCO is a given number of house rules that we, you know, propose as provisos that kind of restrict the ability to improperly use this property, improperly use the Airbnb or the short term stay process in general.
So things like smoking, noise violations, even what people do with their doggy bags and trash, because the concern is that people that come for a little bit don't have the care of the neighborhood that maybe a long-term resident does.
And while I understand that, a property like this really does not attract the parties, the type of concerns that are often apparent with Airbnbs.
The other thing I'd like to point out, you can see this property isn't an RSA 5, but it's very close to two highly commercial corridors, that being Point Breeze Boulevard and a little farther to the north.
It's not here, but we're talking about Washington Ave right up here a little bit further, just a few blocks that once again, another commercial corridor that I think is ripe to attract visitors to the city.
And this way they're very close to it and get to experience parts of the city that don't really have hotels and may not attract, you know, tourists or visitors to the city otherwise.
And once again, to just kind of point out the deficiency in hotels in the area, there's really, this is some apartment that we couldn't tell if it's just a room being rented an apartment or not.
But the Deakin Hotel and the Bella Vista Hotel are really the only two things that are nearby.
So, this use in this neighborhood really does add an element to the neighborhood as well.
Our application for appeal, our project information form.
We met with the community on June 24th, I believe.
It was not very well attended, unfortunately.
In fact, the meeting was rescheduled from a May meeting at the RCO's behest.
So we really did everything we could to try to get the community there.
And out of 162 people noticed, as evidenced by these certificates of mailing, unfortunately, we only had six people that were eligible to vote at the meeting.
But since the chair brought it up, and obviously this is a point of concern, what I would like to point out is it is a letter of opposition from the RCO formally.
However, the votes themselves, and fully understanding that it is not a large number of residents of the neighborhood that voted, but the votes of the residents were in favor, three yes to two no's.
So the non-support of the RCO formally in the letter is a bit dubious to me.
We never really got an explanation of why it changed from the vote to opposition.
Notices of today's.
Notices of today's meeting in the property.
And then unfortunately, and like many people, we've had a problem with the tax clearance
system and couldn't pull an actual tax clearance cert, but this is evidencing not only that
payments are on time, but in fact, we have a credit somehow with the revenue services.
And then we do have seven letters of support
from nearby neighbors, not everyone on the block.
Mr. Yu did what he could to get people on the block,
but it is a residential neighborhood,