Thank you. And Tanya will give you a few minutes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
okay we're ready thank you Tanya good morning everyone my name is Frank DiCicco I'm the chair
of the zoning board of adjustment I'll be participating in today's hearing along with
our board secretary Mr. Confessor Plaza and board members Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell
board administrator Tanya Sunkit and board attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individuals' participants prior to their testimony.
Second, for the benefit of everyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star 9 and then star 6 to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email
address and the address of the property at issue. With that said, we can begin. But before Mr. Plaza
calls our first case, we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal of an
appeal listed for this morning's hearing? If so, please raise your hand.
Chair? Yes, ma'am. I do have a few
continuances. Okay. Number one
on your list? 3,400 North 19th.
Maybe I'm confused. Well, that's number one on my list.
so just give me the address. 1727 Lambert. This is Sharon. The problem, the confusion is that
I sent you the addresses from the original list that was sent out. Karima yesterday afternoon
sent out a revised list that orders the cases differently. Okay, no problem. No problem. I have
it here. So, MI-2020-000380. Correct. 1727 North Lambert is continued. Right. That was requested
by the attorney of record. Then I also have 2326 North Park Avenue, which is number seven on my
list. Number nine on our list, I think. Okay. Okay. And that was requested by the attorney.
Okay, so MI-2020-000-539-2326 North Park Avenue is continued.
Okay. So, MI-2020-000.
I also have 2709 West Allegheny Avenue, number one.
Requested by the attorney and the RCO.
Oh, yes, I do. I'm sorry. It's number six on our list.
MI-2020-000723, 2709 West Allegheny Avenue is continued.
And I have 2646 North 17th Street, requested by the attorney, North Central CDC, and Swap Portal.
And just to put it on the record, I'm sorry, 2709 West Allegheny, the RCO is objecting to the continuance and requesting dismissal.
Yeah, I understand, but I also understand that there's been a change with the attorney. So in all fairness to the applicant, we're going to continue it. So to allow the new attorney who's representing the applicant to reach out to the RCO and we'll see what comes out of that.
Understood. I just wanted to put it on the record.
Thank you. What was that last one? Request continuance on?
2646 North 17th.
So MI-2020-0007592646 North 17th.
Correct.
Is continued.
I also have 3400 North 19th Street, continuance requested by the applicant and the RCO.
Okay, MI-2020-000549-3400 North 19th is continued.
Thank you. I have an individual with their hand up. Hernandez, you can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in. Okay, thank you. Good morning. Please identify yourself with
a record, spell your first and last name and give us your address. Adelina Hernandez, A-D-E-L-I-N-A,
for the address, 3964 North 7th Street,
Philadelphia, PA, 19140.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I wanted to have the case continue
to get the approval,
so that way they could proceed
with the permit of zoning
to take our restaurant on the first floor
and to two apartments on the second floor. Have you met with the RCO? Yes, we
have the approval from the RCO. But still asking for a continuance? Yes, to get it
approved, yes. Anyone else? If there is no one else on this case, it's MI-2020-000-537-3964
North 7th Street is continued.
That's all the hands,
Chair.
That would take us to
confessor on our sheets.
Hold on one second.
I'm going to make sure I got everything right here.
There's a couple of cases listed together.
All right.
You can begin. Thank you.
MI 2020-000311, 1712 Master Street.
Also together, it's MI 2020-000306, 1716 Master Street.
Also, MI 2020-000313, 1710 Master Street.
uh also let's see where we at here we have mi 2020-000304 1714 master street
and mi 2020-000309 1718 master street thank you
1718 master street thank you that's five five cases on master street and the attorney is pasquale
colavita okay good morning is mr colavita out there
Mr. Colavita
I don't see you
are you under the owners
the owners
of 1710
can you hear me now
yeah we got you now
the owners are here
I'm under my own
but the owners
I have them here with me
and they're in
they're on a separate computer
right but you have them raise their hand they're listed as 1710 to 1718 master street owners
right i have two devices i don't have you at all did you need to be promoted to panelists
do you sure i mean that that would just allow you to view because what i'm going to need to do is to
um show and share documents right but i don't again how do i how do i how do i
handle that portion of it somehow I'm on here right but this is under the owners
of Master Street are you using that device no I'm currently no I'm not I'm
using the one that I logged in on which was under my name I mean they on the
other device which is also my computer but I don't have all my documents on
that one mine should be under pj colavita did you log in under that device i did you're not visible
here do you want me to log off and log back on again uh yeah chair if you want because i can
hear i mean i'm i'm speaking to you through my device patrick hold on a minute yeah tanya you
We can move on to another case and come back to this, you think?
Mr. Colavito, you're going to have to come up with a device that's visible so that I can make you a panelist.
You can't do anything as an attendee.
All right.
So whatever device you need to pull up your documents on, you have to log in on that.
All right.
Because I don't know if it matters, but it's two different devices with the same name for Master Street owners.
all right so mr colavita all right i'll log off yeah and work it out with tanya we'll go to the
next case confessor i think it's glenn street right mi 2020-000-547-3761 glenn street
is there anyone here for Glenn Street Patrick and or Patricia rather and Kenneth
McGuire and it's and Patricia McGuire McGuire no hands at this time all right
so for the moment we'll continue it unless there's some technical issue and
they come back on let's go to mi 2020 000 689 2744 latona street leo mauva hill
Pauline it may be a problem that I'm having um I can't promote him could you promote the
one with the hand up to panelists of course
okay he should be panelist now all right good morning everyone
Good morning, sir. You swear on a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do 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?
photos and plans five days prior to this hearing? Yes, I have. Also, have you met with the RCO and
Yes, I have.
Also, have you met with the...
have a letter? Yes. Great. Can you please identify yourself for the record? Certainly. Leo Mulvihill,
M-U-L-V-I-H-I-L-L, 2424 East York Street, Suite 111, Philadelphia, 19125.
And members of the board, I'm just attempting to share my screen for the project in this instance.
All right, that's the wrong file.
So members of the board, Leo Mulvihill here today for the property at 2744 Latona Street.
I'm here on behalf of the applicant B, Z as in zebra standard with a T, LLC.
see. And what I should be showing right now is my screen with the necessary materials.
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be working. One moment.
There we go. Everybody see that now? Yes. Great. So members of the board,
what I have here on the screen is my summary packet for this project. We have the refusal
appeal and project information form at page one. Area zoning maps at page seven. This is an RM1.
I'm sorry to interrupt. Mr. Movaho, I'm having a little bit of trouble hearing you. Could you try
to keep your voice up a little bit for me? Sure, I'll do my best. Thank you. Sure, we have the area
zoning maps at page seven, the deed at page eight, my client's commercial activity license at page
11, tax clearance at 12, zoning notification letter and proof of mailing at 13, photos of
the property at 17, plans at 31. I received the RCO letter after my submission of the packet,
but I did send it under separate cover, and I do have it attached to the end of this packet as well.
So members of the board, what we're seeking in this instance is pretty straightforward.
We're looking to build a two-family dwelling on an RM1 lot. The lot is slightly smaller than
what's allowed under code to have two dwelling units. It's 674.25 square feet. We're required
that is 720 under the code. We're also having refusals for minimum open area and rear yard
depth. We requested the minimus variances for those that have a five foot rear yard versus a
nine foot rear yard to allow for some better quality interior space. We also received a refusal
for a maximum height. The reason that we received that refusal is due to the location of the pilot
house and access there on the back which we had to do based on the dimensions of the lot and
we'll go through all of that as we continue with the presentation. The project information form
pulling up the area zoning map members of the board page 7 of 32 of my packet. This lot is
currently a vacant lot in an RM1 zone on this block of Latona street. There's been significant
new development on this block in the last couple months. There are quite a number of older homes as
well. Here's our deed, my client's commercial activity license and tax clearance, my notice
of community meeting, which was held over Zoom on September 17th with Graves Ferry Community
Council. That was a well-attended meeting, and we ultimately did receive a letter of support.
I'm showing now members of the board at page 16, the zoning notice that was posted on the property.
Page 17, you can see the existing lot. It's overgrown with some shrubs and some trees right
now, but we'll be taking care of that shortly. This is looking eastbound on the block, directly
across the street from our project. You can see that the left is an open area that's used either
as illegal all street parking by members of the block. There's also some playground equipment on
that parcel. Again, looking eastbound on the block. The lot as seen from across the street,
the house immediately adjacent. This is a new four-story multi-family dwelling on the corner,
catty corner to our project. Another photograph of that. This is that all street parking slash
playground area, page 24. Another photograph of that new structure. You can see going down the
block, we have a mix of older construction and a new construction down the block. You can see this
gray building that I'm indicating with my cursor on page 28, as well as this addition on the two
story structure of page 20, up the block of page 28. And some more photos of the block itself.
What I'm now showing members of the board at page 31 of the packet is the proposed site plan for
this property. It's a four story, two family dwelling, not to exceed 38 feet. I'm going to
zoom in on the site plan, hopefully for us. There we go. Here's the overall site plan members of
board. The lot itself is not terribly wide. We're going to be about 14 feet 6 inches. Interior
dimensions of the house are going to be just over 12 feet. Here's a smaller rear yard. As we've
just over 12 feet. Here's a smaller rear yard. As we've indicated, we're asking for this due to
indicated we're
the fact that the lot is a little bit on the smaller side. We prefer to have
some better quality interior space versus having a larger rear yard. The downstairs units will have
access to the rear yard. Upstairs unit will have access to a roof deck, so both people will have
ability to have outdoor space. There's a three-foot alleyway that runs behind the property as well.
I'm going to go to the next page, page 32.
So this is the floor plan members of the board as proposed.
Starting at the bottom left of page 32, we have an office, bathroom, and playroom in
the basement with an egress well to the rear.
Going up the staircase, you have living, dining, and a bedroom.
Going up to the second floor, we have a living room and a dining room for unit number two.
third floor we have a bedroom to the front bed into the rear and a bathroom in the middle with
a laundry space and up on the fourth floor we have the master bedroom with two walk-in closets
the master bathroom as you can see tucked to the rear of the property are the stairs leading to
that pilot house and that pilot house is back here which is why it was included in the height
of the project itself but at the street line itself it's not over 38 feet or only slightly
smaller than what will be allowed by right under the zoning code to have two units in this property
what i have here now members of the board page 34 of the pdf which was set under separate cover
a letter dated 5 october 2020 from graze ferry community council indicating that they support
this project as it was presented to them so members of the board at this point unfortunately
my client's not on the call today but i'd be happy to answer any questions that you have at this time
um and the some of the early the earlier photographs you show there's an adjacent
property and it looks like there are windows in the adjacent property that face yes that would
be the brown property that's right there members of the board but as i understand what we're going
to have and i'm showing page 31 for purposes of the record we have an existing alleyway that's
actually between us and that adjacent property that was there that may have windows on the side
of it so we're not building up next to it okay i wasn't sure i knew there was an alleyway wasn't
sure what side it was on okay yeah we have an alley to the rear and then next to that property
as well so we're not tying into that understood thank you uh questions from the board no no
anyone else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time thank you planning commission good morning mr chairman and
members of the board david effecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning commission
you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir i do please proceed thank you sir mr chairman and members of the board this property
is indicated for residential single-family use on the city's comprehensive plan. Most of the
row homes on this block are two-story single-family homes. Two-family homes are the
exception. Accordingly, we do not recommend that this variance be granted. Thank you. Mr. Moblehut,
could you go back again? I think I saw a couple of houses that had two or three meters on them.
uh yes that's correct members of the board um and i'm i'm unsure whether mr effecto misspoke
or perhaps city maps haven't been updated but at the time that we filed this application this
property was zoned rm1 um and when i pulled the information from the city of philadelphia atlas
this was also zoned rm1 and i pulled that sometime last week thanks for clearing that
appreciate it thank you looking down the block um at least with these initial homes i i'm not
seeing any two meters right there i saw didn't i just see one right i believe these two homes have
separate meters that are located very close to one another okay they may be okay two units however
as i indicated this i believe is a four-family dwelling that was recently approved by the zoning
board caddy corner a few literally 15 feet away as we walk from the property line across the
street and there are as you said one uh did a rehab or whatever they put an addition on and
then there's a new that are that exceed the two-story limit okay anyone else wish to testify
in this case i think i asked no one raised their hand mi-2020-000689 2744 latona street my vote is
yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes. Thank you members of the board.
Chair, we now have Mr. Colavita. Okay. If you wish to go back to those cases.
We now have Mr. Colavita. Okay. If you wish to go back to those cases. Yeah. I don't think we need
to read it. Well, maybe we do. Want me to call him back? Yeah, let's do it just for the purpose of
Master Street, MI 2020-000313, 1710 Master Street, MI 2020-000304, 1714 Master Street,
and MI 2020-000309, 1718 Master Street.
Presque, you swear on the firm to tell the truth
The whole truth for nothing but the truth
Do you agree with 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
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We have.
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Pasqua Colavita.
On behalf of the owners of 1710, 12, 14, 16, and 18 Master Street,
what I did was I submitted one, and they're all in the room with me.
I don't know whether they're able to be seen.
They're able to watch you.
I have them on a separate device, and I sent in a packet with a table of contents, and we can follow on that.
So, an exhibit with me is Chai Lin, and I'll just ask her to identify herself.
You can state your name.
My name is Chai Lin.
The owner of 1710 Nester Street.
Can we ask her to spell her name for us first and last name?
Yeah, and I couldn't hear.
All right, you can just speak up.
Okay, my name is Tari King.
We can't hear her.
We can't hear her.
I'm sorry, Mr. Colavita.
Does she have her own device?
Well, let me see if I can.
If I unmuted, what's going to happen is we're going to get.
Here we go.
She's back.
The video is on for her. So if you step here, the problem with putting on two computers in the same room is you get the reverberation and the feedback.
So when it's time for her to speak, you can mute yours.
Thank you.
can you identify yourself yeah can you hear me now yes yes we can hello hello please spell your
full name hello hello can you hear me i'm just gonna have you you're gonna need to speak up very
loud would you please identify yourself for the record yeah hi can you hear me yes
hey pat pat why don't we wait until the end for her
put on your put on put on your case and then we'll we'll get her at the end
did you are you here do you hear me pat i do loud and clear my apologies i i i muted mine
by accident let's go put on the case and then we'll get to her okay fine so with me are the
or all the others i i'm not going to speak good into them we're having a hard time hearing you
is this any better much better thank you okay so i i have all of the owners at exhibit a
are all of the deeds for each of the properties uh at exhibit b uh are the tax clearance
certificates which have been submitted at exhibit c and let me see if i can share screen
You don't need for me to show you each of those, do you? If you want, I can. I mean,
I can share all of them. Share as much as you can with us, please. Okay.
So, at Exhibit A are all of the deeds for each of the properties, a copy of which has
So, at exhibit...
been previously submitted.
Exhibit.
Exhibit B are the tax clearance certificates for each of them, indicating they're up-to-date.
At Exhibit C, are there applications for family dwelling for each of those same properties?
at Exhibit D are the notices of refusal for each of the properties based on it's an RSA-5 zone,
and the request is for a three multifamily dwelling. And if you look, I'll just point it
out, which I'll kind of repeat, but with additional information, if you look at 1714 indicated it was
previously a six-family dwelling, and 1716 was previously a six-family dwelling, and
And if we go to Exhibit E, unfortunately, and I'll share it, I'm the second attorney
on this matter, and there is a second architect on this matter, and neither of them nor the
owners had a copy of the actual application for appeal, which is my standard procedure in terms
of submitting submissions to the panel. So I just ask that the, I'm assuming that the board probably
has a copy of these appeals somewhere in their files, or at least license inspection to do,
and that they be submitted as evidence in this matter. And based on those applications attached
are the architectural plans and in essence they are all similarly situated
and constructed properties for each unit and I'll go back to exhibit F at
another time but but I want to continue to did you make those a little bit
larger Pat, we're having a hard time. Sure, okay and let me get out, let me share one, a few more
documents and then what I'll do is I'll go back to each of them for you. If you can bear with me
one second so that way I have all of them shared. Exhibit G is our notice to the RCO for each of
the properties with proof of mailing and then exhibit H is our proof of postings
for each of the properties.
At Exhibit I, I will begin to explain to each.
This is, in essence, a basis of our argument.
So at 1710, it lists the property address, the name.
The previous use was six-family dwelling from 1945 through 77.
The proposed use is a three-family dwelling.
The dimensions of the property are 22 by 1,000, and this is on all of them.
All of them are identical of 22 by 1,000, making it a 2,200-square-foot lot.
The structure will be a three-story property with a finished basement, and the rear yard is going to be 21 and one-half inch by 22 for about a 1,600-square-foot rear yard.
So the total usage is about 3,000 square feet of property, and that's for each of them.
So, again, if we go through 1712, its historic use was a six-family dwelling until 1977 and afterwards, too.
uh, until 1977. Um, and afterwards too, the properties didn't, and my apologies on these,
I've listed the dates, uh, 19 and on 1714, it was a three family dwelling, uh, from 10, 18 or 73.
But prior to that was a six family dwelling from 43 to 1973 at 1716. Uh, it was a three family
dwelling uh until it was uh raised and that was from 1972 to uh when it when it came down a few
years back but prior to that it was a six family dwelling and and the same thing for uh 1718
and again our request is just to have it a three family dwelling the star what i've also attached
and I will share them but not go through them, is the zoning archives for each of these.
So we have the zoning, which I just ask that it be submitted, you know, entered into the record for 1710, 1712, 1714 archives.
did 1714 share? Okay, here's 1714. And then I'm going to share this zoning archive for 1716.
And I'm going to share the zoning archive for 1718. And what those documents show are
that this was a three-family dwelling in 76.
It was approved.
17, 16 shows three-family dwelling.
17, 12, I skipped 14,
but this is a six-family dwelling.
And let's see.
I think I got 16 is three family and 10 is a six family dwelling was its last use 12 again six
family I just want to make sure that I went through these because okay and here's 14 14 was
three-family as late as 1976, but prior to that was a six-family dwelling, as you can see here
on page six of that document. So, continue to share here. If you go down the block at exhibit...
I've got a blank screen, Pat.
Oh, I'm about to share exhibit, I guess I, K. And are you able to see exhibit K?
okay so exhibit k was uh two doors down or a few doors down at 1726 master street on
three five of 19 this board approved it for a four-family dwelling
and if you can and let me see i may actually
have it on the same one okay so and and here's the proviso branded um and then if you go down
to the same address, another address, which was 1728.
It was approved on 621 of 19 for three family dwelling
on the same block, just five doors down.
And to continue, just to show you some at Exhibit L,
What I've done was created a list of properties on the previous block, on that block, showing that that entire block, despite the fact that it's RSA 5, are primarily multifamily dwellings from, as you can see, 1623, 25, 34 through 40.
four stories, three family dwellings. If you look even at 1711, six family dwelling,
1723, five family dwelling. You have four stories. All we're asking and so on. I'm not going to list
all of them, obviously, just submitting these as additional proof. If you go to the next block,
1800 Master Street, the same thing happens. If you continue on around the corner,
the same thing happens. If you continue on around the corner on North 17th Street, you have
four-story, two-story, three-family, four-family, and three-family just right on the same block.
So just to continue and actually show you what they look like at exhibit M,
If you bear with me, I need to locate it, are photographs of the neighboring home.
So here's a four-story property.
To the left of this property are the client's lots.
If we take it down another page, that's the block across the street.
all multi-family dwellings across the street from it three stories this is
Master Street at 18th Street as you can see the entire area is again three
stories this is another this is at 1431 North 17th Street another as you can see
for three unit property on that block which was previously shown and now what
do is I'll give you a little bit clearer of photographs. Are these actually sharing at this
time? I know that they're large, but I'm going to try to shrink. Okay, here we go. So this is
Master Street, as you can see, approaching, I want to say this is 16th Street. So from Broad Street
all the way down to past 19th Street.
This is 15th Street headed south right here, the corner of 15th and Master.
All you see are three and four-story multifamily dwellings.
Here's another property on the same block as you continue down.
And this one is on their block.
So just right across the street from them is, and I'm going to try to increase it slightly, is a four-story, five-unit property right across the street from them.
And to continue on, this one is directly across the street from their lots.
Again, all multifamily dwellings.
This is just west of their properties, as you can see. Four-story, four-story. Across the street from them are all three-story units. They're all under the proper height limit, but what I'm showing you are all multifamily dwellings with each of these properties.
As you can see on Master Street, again, you have five-unit properties right next door to each other, four stories each.
Here, again, are multifamily dwellings.
Just this one is 1728 and 1730.
As you can see, three mailboxes for each.
And these addresses were placed on the same list.
continue on a little bit further. This is a five-unit property on the same block.
So, in essence, and if you would like, I know that you had asked about
taking a look at the plans. What I'll do is I'll pull them up for you.
and what they show are a three unit property, the first floor, the entrance is on the first
floor at the front for each of the properties. To this area right here, where my cursor is,
is the plot plan which shows a large rear yard and there is a small alcove on the left side
of each of the properties. We don't see the plans. Okay, let me share that one then. Okay,
so you're still seeing the old one then. In this one, the plans are exhibit F.
okay can you see them now yes okay all right my apologies for that large can
you enlarge the plans I can and so here is are you able to is it a little bit
better now for a little larger okay thank you okay
Thank you.
So to the far left, and in each of these plans are identical.
I mean, I mirrored what my clients did is they found me through the 1726 or 28 approval.
They obtained the same architect, copied the same plan that was approved in 2019 by this board, and all they're asking is one year later for the board to approve, in essence, the same plan that this board previously approved.
So what it is, is each unit one is the basement and the first floor, which is, it's obviously a very large three bedroom unit.
Then you have the entrance to the second floor is through the first floor.
There's, I don't know whether this is where my cursor is to, I guess.
Let me interrupt if I can. I'm sorry because I had to sign off and sign back in. My volume was something was wrong. The plans that you're showing us, are they consistent with the plans that you keep referring to that were approved back in June of 19?
Yes. Yes. These are identical. So what my clients did was they went to the same architect here.
Originally, they went in front of the board. They had a different attorney.
The attorney presented the plans. The board, the community group, the attorney went without them.
The community group declined approval. They didn't want another.
another, and I believe that they've submitted a letter, which I didn't attach. They can attach
it, but I'll let you know. I mean, they were not in approval of another set of five, three-unit
properties. All we've done is, what my clients did, again, was they select, they found out who
the architect was. They found out that I was the attorney on this matter. They hired me. They hired
the architect. They presented these plans. And this is what we've presented to the RCO at our
meeting last month. They're not in approval, but I'm just asking that this board be consistent
with one, the neighborhood, two, the historical use of the property, the historical use of the
entire neighborhood. Unfortunately, it was rezoned and it went from multifamily use zoning to an RSA
five, but since then, multiple properties, one, the board has agreed with, but two, the actual
RCO had sent in letters of support, including 1726 and 1728 Master Street. Letters of support
went in for the board to consider when they granted the other variances. And all I'm asking
is that my clients not be prejudiced by a refusal because now, you know, for some odd reason,
they don't want any more multifamily dwellings. These are going to be brand new homes. They're
built from the ground up um they're going to be using uh quality material i mean that they're
going to some of the owners intend on keeping some of the units for themselves most of them
are not let me interrupt you just for a minute all right um so basically it's the same layout
as the other ones that were approved correct is there anything else you need to before we move on
no not at all i just asked that you you be consistent with these um let's get your client
we'll swear your client in i believe her name is spelled c-h-a-i-a last name is l-i-u yeah can you
hear me yes my name is chai ling i'm the owner of the message 1710 master street
we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do all right before you begin uh just again for the stenographer the lady's name is
first name is c-h-a-i last name is lou l-i-u
thank you that's why you want to ask your client if she adopts your testimony
Escher, client, if she adopts your testimony.
Yes, I do.
Yes, I understand.
I'm sorry, I can't hear.
We can't hear you, Pat.
Pasquale, we can't hear you.
We can hear Ms. Liu.
I don't know.
This makes no sense.
We're two feet away.
I don't know.
Listen, I'll plead ignorance on this one.
No problem.
and uh do you adopt my testimony as your own yes we heard that okay okay all right and i'm loud
questions from the board no yes no yes uh what is the hardship
that they're being prejudiced because a a single family dwelling
on a $5,000.
Pat, we're not hearing you again.
Try that again.
The hardship is that it is not consistent
with the neighborhood,
that there's a selective enforcement
of the RSA 5 zoning in this matter, that a single-family resident does not fit in this neighborhood
surrounded by all entirely multifamily dwellings, that the lot size is enormous for a single-family
resident.
Tom, any other questions, Tom?
Yeah, could you reduce the number of units?
You're running into the same issues.
I mean, can they reduce it to what, to two?
I'm sure that they can attempt to do it.
It would just make it a massive, it would still have the same number of bedrooms.
It would still have the same number of the size would still be the same, but it would you're not changing the number of individuals that go in and out of the property if you're doing that.
I mean, the only I understand the fact that it is RSA five. I just unfortunately believe that this thing was missed zoned at the time that they should have left it in the at the proper zoning where it was with all the multifamily dwellings.
there are you go up and down the block you don't see any single family residences on that block
so so what they would be doing is it would make it very difficult to live in a single family
dwelling when you have all multi-family dwellings around you so all i'm asking is to be consistent
with with the prior uh requests submissions and approvals uh that have some of obviously as as
recent as 2019 just on that hundred block I can continue and go on around the other corners
which this board has approved others that were even more recent as far as past the June of 2019
so we're less than 12 months I mean then 18 months from the two approvals on both of these
I think that that's sufficient of a hardship here.
Thank you.
All right.
Anyone else wish to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Here we have Mary Jones.
Mary, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good morning, Ms. Jones.
please identify yourself with a record good morning my name is mary jones i
work for council president daryl clark room 494 city hall uh 19107 and you swear and affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed
Yes. Today, I'd like to put on the record that our office echoes the community sentiment
in opposing the granting of these variances. Every zoning case is unique. And despite the
fact that there's a presence of other multifamily housing in the area, it does not mean that the
neighborhood wants more multifamily housing they have expressed a desire for
more single-family housing and further the applicant has not expressed a
expressed a hardship for this variance um so we like to support the opposition thank you
hardship for this variance.
thank you anyone else
that's all uh actually one minute yes yes am i still on yes okay i wanted to just
swear in the other uh owners of the property so that way that they're they're going to also
So, adopt my testimony.
I'm assuming you want that for the record?
Well, I think Ms. Liu, is she the principal?
She's of 1710, but there are five.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I thought she was.
Yes, there are five separate owners.
All right, so let's get them individually, yeah.
And it was Ms. Lin.
Chai Lin was 1710.
And what I can do is I can ask each,
I can ask the same question one time
and have each of them answer yes.
Yeah, well, let them get their names
and then ask you in unison
if they adopt.
I'm going to call Mr. Hang Yang,
the owner of...
We're having a hard time hearing you, Pat.
You've got to get closer to that mic.
1710 Master Street, Hang Yang, the owner?
1712, I'm sorry.
Would you state your name?
Yeah, my name is Hang Yang.
Okay, now I'm going to call...
Please spell it.
H-A-N-G-Y-A-N-G
is the owner of Yang Partners,
the owner of 1712 Master.
have a seat um the owner of 1714 i paul pat you you're still you're drifting away we can't
i'll deal owner of 1714 is sue chung chan spell his name for us
pat you got to get closer to the mic
i'm sorry i cannot hear i'm sorry
Pat, you're having problems with your service
I believe it's probably your service
That's good, right there
1714 is
S-I-U-C-H-U-N-G-C-H-A-N
That's Mr. Chan right there
Now I'm going to call
Benson Jang
The owner of 1716
It's B-E-N-S-O-N
J-I-A-N-G
You can sit down
And now Rang Zhao
R-O-N-G
Z-H-A-O
The owner of 1718 Master Street
Thank you, now you can just ask him in unison
Has everyone
Heard the testimony
That I provided on your behalf
Do you adopt
My testimony as your own
yes okay okay all right thank you frank did you want to just swear in the whole group
yeah the this okay that everyone who's just been introduced all the owners of the master street
properties is swearing for them to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes thank you
this is unique unique uh i tried i tried i tried even the social distancing the mask everything
is possible uh understood uh planning commission i'm sorry excuse me before that anyone else wish
to testify in this case no and sharon we have a letter in the file from the rco
I looked for one and couldn't find it. What is the name of the RCO? What is the coordinating RCO,
Mr. Colavita? Bear with me a moment.
While he's looking, can I say that we did receive refusals for each property, and we received the notices the only refusal was a use refusal. They meet all dimensional requirements.
It's Ms. Van Story. I'm trying to remember the name of her group.
my apologies that i don't have their information immediately ready no problem no problem
um anyone else want to testify i think tom you said no hands were up
no hands at this time thank you planning commission good morning david fecto city
Planning Commission Mr. Chairman and members of the board these properties are indicated for residential single-family youth
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, these properties are indicated for residential single-family use in the city's comprehensive plan.
Since the 2014 zoning map changes, the nature of the block has changed from primarily vacant land to a mix of single and multifamily homes.
However, we do not believe the applicant has proven that there is a hardship.
Accordingly, we do not recommend this application be approved.
Would you happen to know how the Planning Commission, what their decision was back in June of 2019, when our board, this board, approved the other multifamilies?
I don't have the recommendations from the, from the zoning board applications, Mr. Chairman, but I do know the planning commission itself recommended approval to council for the, for the original zoning map changes in 2014
Yeah, I can understand that. But I'm just curious because there's been so many multifamilies over the last several years on that block and in close proximity.
um hold on uh i would i i'm sharing if i want to i want to i'd like for the executive board
to have a discussion on this and we can render a decision next wednesday is it okay if i use
language pending a letter from the rco um if you are you would have to leave the record open then
and mr colavita would have to come back if you are uh if you close the record you cannot then
receive the letter from the RCO. By the way, I found it. I found it. Okay, here we go. Community
Land Trust Corporation. And let me see if I can share this. And took a while.
I'm just trying to find it on the shared, here it goes, is it shared?
Yes. Okay. So, I will reduce this so you can see. Came in to me on 921. And here's the community land trust.
10 to 10 oppose, zero support. Is that correct?
Correct. There were board members. More than less, I should say.
Understood. I would recommend to my board member and fellow board members that the record be closed and we render a decision at our next executive meeting, Wednesday, the 21st.
You could also do it tomorrow if you'd like.
Tomorrow. Okay. We can do that tomorrow. That's the 14th tomorrow, correct?
All right. So the record's closed. The board will render a decision at tomorrow morning's executive session.
Mr. Colavita, could I ask, too, that you submit, that you send me a copy of the RCO letter so that we have it in the record?
Thank you.
And that was Ms. Saleta?
No problem.
I'll do it immediately.
Thank you very much.
All right.
So do I excuse?
Thank you.
Sharon, do I need to read those calendar numbers in?
Not necessarily, no.
You can read them in when you vote tomorrow.
Sounds like a plan.
Thank you.
thank you very much good luck okay next one is mi 2020-000688 1302 north 18th street
that's uh leo move here
Leo, good morning. You still under oath from this morning. Do you agree to wait for reading
of its refusal and stipulate 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 photos and plans five days prior to this hearing i have also have you met with the rco and
have a letter i do great please identify yourself for the record let me clarify i have met with the
rco we met uh several weeks ago i have not yet received a letter from the rco one way or the
I have not yet received a letter from the RCO, one way or the other, and I'm unsure whether
And I'm unsure.
the RCO forwarded a letter to the zoning board itself.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
I'm seeking to share my screen at this point.
Okay, members of the board, this is for 1302 North 18th Street, R-E-K-R-L-L-C.
This is the applicant in this matter.
What we're seeking to do in this instance is build a two-family dwelling on an existing empty single-family lot in an area that is mixed single-family and multifamily, whether two, three, four, or more units.
I've included in my packet here the refusal, appeal, and project information form at page one, area zoning maps at page seven.
deed at 8, commercial activity license at page 13, tax clearance at 14, zoning notification
letter and proof of mailing at 15. We have not received an RCO letter. I have photos of the
property at 18, plans at 34. So members of the board, I have the refusal up on the screen right
now. This is for the address 1302 North 18th Street, currently a vacant lot. We received a
the refusal of asking for two family living.
On your screen right now at page seven
is an area zoning map showing this area.
My understanding this was previously zoned RM1,
had been remapped to RSA-5 some time ago.
And in the time it's been remapped to RSA-5,
there have been a number of properties in the immediate area
which have received variances for multifamily.
And I'll go through all those once I get to the plans
because we have an excellent diagram
that's been prepared by our architects, Hartman-Doy-Toller.
that shows the proximity of all those variances that have been granted by the zoning board.
On the screen right now are my client's commercial activity license and tax clearance at 13 and 14.
Zoning notification at page 15 and 16. Proof of mailing at page 17. Now I'm going to go to single
page up. At page 18, members of the board, this is a photograph of the lot. Adjacent to us is
an existing multi-family building, as you can see via the multiple mailboxes at 1300 North 18th
Street. This is looking southbound. You can see new multi-family construction here,
indicating to the right of the screen on page 20.
This is an additional photograph of the property immediately adjacent, which is multifamily.
This is the lot itself. It's a little overgrown at this point, but our lot
extends from the left to about halfway through the screen. These are other vacant lots that do
not belong to us. Looking northbound, you can see new construction with roof decks. Those are
multifamily. Again, looking northbound and slightly more to the east, you can see new
construction with roof decks. Many of these are multifamily. Directly across the street,
catty corner, southbound again, another northbound photograph.
These are additional structures around the corner, showing new construction,
much of which is multifamily with roof decks.
and again further new construction up the street multifamily at the intersection of Ingersoll and
18th members of the board this is page 34 this is the initial pack that was submitted by my
architect showing the site itself showing photographs both aerial and zoning
page 35 for the record members of the board I think this is the most telling here
for purposes of our request for a variance,
which we are seeking due to a hardship in this case
because, frankly speaking,
building a single-family home on this lot of this size
in the area that has so many mixed-use opportunities
presents a hardship for the applicant.
So we have 1811 West Cabot as two dwelling units,
1244 North 18th as a church,
1810 West Thompson as two dwelling,
1814 West Thompson is 2 dwelling, 1816 is 2 dwelling, 1819 is 4, 1815 is 3, and you can see, I'm not going to read them all, but for purposes of the record, the structures that are indicated in dark gray are all multifamily dwellings that are existing.
Other lots that are indicated in light gray are single family. The lots that are simply plain outlines are vacant lots at this point.
Going to the floor plans numbers of the board from left to right. We have basement through third floor and then the roof deck as well and
from left to right we have basement through third floor and then the roof deck as well
we're going to zoom in on the floor plan beginning in the basement so ultimately we're proposing two
dwelling units each three bed three bath dwelling unit one which is in the basement and in the first
floor is approximately 1500 square feet there is trash storage in the rear yard in the basement
we have bedroom one with the light well to the front the utility closet bathroom bathroom to the
rear and the rear bedroom with a full walkout egress stair to the rear of the property that
goes directly into the rear yard. Entering from the street, you come in off the recess entry,
which would have likely our mailboxes here. Go into a common hallway and enter the property for
bedroom three, a bath in the middle, kitchen, and then living slash dining area to the rear,
along with stairs to get you into the backyard with trash storage. As you go into the main
entrance and proceed up the stairwell you'd get into unit two unit two is a little bit larger
about 1700 square feet again three bed three bath bedroom to the front small balcony bath in the
middle kitchen in the center of the unit dining and living to the rear with a projected deck for
some outdoor space third floor bedroom in the front bedroom in the rear baths off of each of
the bedrooms and a laundry spot in the middle. Going up the stairwell to the roof deck, we
end up on the roof deck, which is set back from the street as required by code. The pilot
house itself is set back from both the front and the rear of the property as required by
code. And that provides for outdoor space for those units as well. What we have here
are now members of the board is a projected elevation,
page 37 of my packet.
What we tried to do is essentially match the roof line
of the existing structure as well as the window heights.
It's not 100% on, but it's just not as close
as you can get with new construction.
So we're not going up to the full 38 feet necessarily.
We're matching what we have next door.
We have some more modern materials, some synthetic wood,
some metal paneling, large windows to allow in light.
And what we have here is just an additional zoning plan that was submitted to the city showing the overall elevation and your yard.
As you can see, we have a substantial rear yard for the use of the downstairs unit is 18 feet deep, 16 foot, pardon me, 16 foot, eight inches wide.
So members of the board in this instance, due to the existing multifamily structures already in the block, we're not doing anything that messes with the character of the neighborhood.
our height is what within what's allowed under the zoning code we tried to match
in terms of total design the adjacent property as well the hardship here is
simply that this lot is better suited for two-family use we're a single-family
home constructed of this size and dimensions on this lot it would also
become relatively unaffordable compared to having two units with the
construction costs as they exist today with the market prices what they are
today. When we held this community meeting, members of the board, I believe it was with
the Friends of 47th Ward, it was an outdoor meeting that was socially distanced, and I was
told to call into the meeting, which I did. As I understand, this meeting was run by Dorothy Kelly
and Ms. Louise Bundy. I did make a phone call. I answered, to the best of my abilities, any
questions that were asked of members of the community who were present. The meeting was
held outside in front of the storefront in the 1600 block of Cecil B. Moore. And I did my best
to accommodate the RCO's request with respect to dropping off 25 packets of the zoning materials
that I've shown to the board today, as well as making myself available by phone or by email for
any additional questions that members might have. I believe that Rustin Ohler is on the line right
now. Rustin, if you might raise your hand so you can be sworn in.
hello uh chairman members of the board how are you
hey rustin will you please state your name spell your last name and give your address to the record
yeah rustin oler o-h-l-e-r harman deutsch oler architecture 1225 north 7th street philadelphia
EPA, 19122.
Rostin, are you swearing a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. You may proceed.
Rostin, you've heard my presentation today.
Have you been involved in any other development in this area?
Has that development involved multifamily, whether two or three family or more?
And have you received prior variances for other properties in this immediate area from this zoning board?
Is there anything you'd like to add with respect to my presentation today?
Is there anything you'd like to add with respect to my presentation today?
And do you adopt my testimony otherwise as your own?
Thank you.
Members of the board, we're happy to take any other questions you may have at this time.
Frank, is your audio out?
Yeah, he's going to come back in.
All right, I'll just hold.
does the board has any questions until frank gets back yeah i'm back can anyone hear me
yes we can i know i have to there's a second time this morning i had to leave and come back in
all right questions from the board no anyone else anyone else who'd like to testify in this case
please raise your hand here we have mary jones from the council president's office
you miss jones you are still under oath please identify yourself
yes hello mary jones um from council president daryl clark's office room 494
um we just ask that the decision be held until uh we can get a letter from the rco unless it's
been sent um i plan to follow up with them uh today and they said it was on the way thank you
so again we do not have a letter from the rco is that correct tanya and or sharon
i don't have anything i don't either members of the board this is leo mulvihill speaking again
I had been in touch with Ms. Kelly and Ms. Bundy after our presentation, and after a presentation that I had with this board last week for the property at 1800 Master, they indicated they would be sending a letter in last week for both properties.
I haven't heard anything from either of them since, though.
Okay, so what we'll do is we'll resume this hearing on, could we do it next week, Tanya?
Really, it's more about getting a letter from the RCO than anything.
Do our chair.
All right. So, M-I-2020-000688-1302 North 18th Street. This hearing will be resumed on Tuesday, October the 20th at 930 a.m., at which time the board will consider any feedback related to the RCO's position.
Thank you, members of the board. I will be present for that as well, then.
Thank you.
Thank you. Have a good day.
You do like this. Thank you.
Okay, next one up is MI2020-000546-3008-Clifford.
And our attorney is Jeffrey Young.
this is sharon saletta revised plans have also been submitted for this i've reviewed the form
if you should approve it it would be revised plans one page one page thank you yes uh good
Morning. You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing but the truth?
Yes. And do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes. However, as Ms. Saleta mentioned, we have submitted revised plans that would eliminate
the dimensional refusal. Okay, great. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required
documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral,
folders and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, the documents were emailed.
However, we have been having difficulty
of obtaining a tax clearance.
We asked that the board hold a decision
until we cleared this hiccup up.
Excuse me.
Great, great.
Also, have you met with the RCO?
I'm sorry, confessor, I didn't mean to interrupt.
I can check on the tax status
while Mr. Young presents the case.
Great.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we have met with the RCO.
A letter was submitted to us yesterday evening.
I will submit that to the board under a separate cover, but it is in my updated presentation, so you will be able to see the letter.
Awesome.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Again, good morning, members of the board.
My name is Jeffrey Young, 3900 Ford Road, Suite B, Philadelphia PA 19131.
I am here representing the applicant, 3008-14 Clipper Street, LLC.
On the line are my clients, Dr. Rosa Marino and Dr. Jill Williams.
On the line are my clients, Dr. Rosa Marino and Dr.
And if I may, I would like to share my screen to begin the presentation.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Can you see my screen?
Thank you.
Again, good morning, members of the board. So before you right now is the deed for the property, transferring the property and showing ownership to 3008 Clipper Street, LLC.
see um there we get in the presentation um as you'll see here this is a copy of the refusal
um that was uh generated uh last october um i'm going to show a larger version so folks can see
uh what we are refused for um again this is a application uh for the erection um of a 51
feet structure, 51.8 inch structure with decks for seven multifamily dwelling units.
We are refused for the property is currently zoned RSA 5. We are refused for multifamily
living. We're also refused for the proposed accessory parking spaces and the curb cut.
As I mentioned before, we were previously refused for open area. However, we have revised the plans. So now we have 20.6% of open area, which I will show on our new plans.
We are also refused for height. The height requirement in RSA 5 is 38 feet. We are requesting again 51 feet 8 inches. And as I go through my presentation, you know, I will show why there is a hardship here in regards to the height.
um here is uh pictures of the plans um and as again i'll have more uh detail as i move forward
in the presentation um here uh is the uh proviso application we submitted to the board as i
mentioned where we submitted revised plans uh this page here shows the revised plans i'll zoom in
So you'll be able to see that our revised plans actually cover one of the refusals.
If you see here, we have changed our open area.
So now the open area is proposed to be 1,574.6 square feet.
which covers 20.6% of the open area.
So we meet that requirement now.
Here are some dimensional standards in regards to our lot.
Our lot is 7,662 square feet.
Again, we have changed the dimensional standards.
So we meet the open occupied area.
We're asking for 51 feet, 8 inches, and a 38 feet height limit for zoning.
The proposed uses on the first floor will be one residential dwelling unit, parking, and trash room.
We are asking for a curb cut for seven parking spaces for each unit.
Each unit will have a needed parking spot.
These are condominium units. These are not rental units. These will be home ownership units in the Strawberry Mansion section of the city. The second floor will consist of two residential units. Second to third floor, excuse me, fourth floor will be two residential units, all each consisting, each floor being 5,563 square feet.
here's a zoning map with the arrow as you'll see our property most of the property in this
particular neighborhood is zoned RSA5 however again given the size of our lot being over 7,000
square feet you know a single family home on this lot just would not be feasible as you see
of our lot is actually abutting the bridge if you see here in the purple
everything here is on ICMX and as I should go through pictures you'll see
this is train tracks that are behind our property which create some of our
some of our hardship issues I'm going to zoom out so you can see here's a picture of the property
hardship issues
with the outline of the size of our proposed building currently there is a one-story garage
on the property that is 18 feet high the previous uses were a motorcycle club as well as there were
business licenses for vehicle repair at this site.
So historically, this site has never been used for single-family use.
Here is providing you with an overview of the neighborhood.
Again, as you can see, where our property sits here, here are train tracks.
So we abut the train tracks across the bridges that are in Strawberry Mansion.
We're on the corner of Clifford and Montgomery, which is a bridge that rolls over the train tracks.
Here again is just updated zoning plans just to show where our property is in comparison to the neighborhood.
As you will see, there's an existing curb cut here, and that's where we are planning to maintain our curb cut for the parking.
so we are not taking away any parking spaces that are on the street.
Again, this curb cut is already in existence.
We are actually adding parking to the street
because currently there's a curb cut in the front of the property here,
which we will be taking away,
so we'll allow for additional street parking on Clifford Street.
Again, here's a breakdown of the units
um from floors two through uh four um or will be two residential units
um on the first floor there'll be one residential unit with parking and trash
again here is just a zoning outline uh showing um the street directions
here is a rendering of our proposed building as you can see we're using a traditional red brick
with some updated aluminum panels we met with the community group three times in regards to
this project and redesigned it to something that you know would fit the neighborhood and
overwhelmingly at the community meeting, the last one we had, they supported our new design and
rendering. This rendering here showed the rear of the properties. Each unit has a rear facing deck
that faces the train tracks. And you'll see what that view looks like in a second. This is the
rear view from our property. As you can see, the train tracks are below. So where the height of
our building is will not be in the way of anyone um we are consistent uh with other buildings that
are along the train tracks um on the corners of properties in this particular neighborhood as far
as um height uh we are not um you know one of the largest buildings um that abut the tracks here
um there's our view uh looking uh south um from the rear of our property um as you see here um this
actually uh is is our property but because the way it slopes down it's unbuildable um so if we
weren't able to use this particular property um this portion of the property um it would create
some kind of uh rear uh parking however because we can't um this is why we need to go higher to
create some indoor uh parking spaces this is a lot that is next door to our property um our client
My client has been taking care of this lot since becoming owner of 3008-14 Clifford Street.
And as you can see here, parking, the cars parked on the curb here in the neighborhood,
and parking on the sticker block is a broke issue.
From this next picture here, every single car is parked on the curb,
and there's only parking on one side of the street here.
here is a picture of eastern lofts um in the neighborhood this building is located at the
intersection of glenwood and csu b moore avenue uh which is uh two blocks from our particular
project um it's 33 feet high three stories 36 units plus business and professional offices
uh with uh 30 parking spaces uh so again our building is something that um is consistent with
with the neighborhood. Here's just a side view of the Eastern Lofts with their curb cut to show
the interest for their parking. Here is a proposal.
Here is a proposal at 3029 Glenwood Avenue. It's currently being constructed. This is a 60 feet high building, five stories, 49 units, 16 parking spaces.
So, again, in this particular neighborhood, as it becomes more developed, parking is going to be an issue here.
So, for our units, we're trying to get ahead of that curb to allow each of our units to have a dedicated parking space.
And here is the pyramid building.
This building is 78 feet high, again, on the corner, but in the train tracks.
Um, excuse me, 46 units with 15 parking spaces.
And this is, excuse me, uh, the Sartain School on the corner of CCB Moor and Glenwood, opposite of, um, the, uh, 3029 Glenwood project I showed you.
uh this project is 35 units with uh 25 parking spaces um so again we're we're consistent with what
um the larger corner buildings up in this neighborhood are and last but not least
it's a letter of support from the strawberry mansion rco as i mentioned we met the community
group uh officially three times um to go over the project um the community uh group supports our
project um you know with few provisos um asking that you know we we uh utilize some planters on
the side and the sidewalks um and we are going to be in discussions um with the community group
regarding um how we can assist the neighborhood and in other uh matters um and with that um
i conclude my presentation and ask if there are any questions
this is sharon seleta if i can interrupt for one minute i did check the um tax records and the
property is compliant thank you thank you uh mr young do you have a witness you need
to uh adopt your testimony yes um if you could uh unmute uh dr rosa marino please
can you hear me yes ma'am please identify yourself for the record first and last name and your
address my first name is rosa my last name is marino 3008 clifford street philadelphia pa
19121. Can you spell your last name, please?
M-A-R-I-N-O.
You swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Young. Dr. Moreno,
have you heard my testimony and presentation presented to the
Zoning Board this morning? Yes, I have.
And can you stipulate to the accuracy of my presentation?
Yes, it is. And do you adopt
my testimony as this board of your own?
yes i do thank you thank you any questions from the board no no no anyone else wish to testify
it would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time chair thank you planning commission good morning david effecto city
planning commission mr chairman and members of the board this property is indicated for
residential single-family use in the city's comprehensive plan. However, this is a large
property that could be divided into several house lots. Since the Neighborhood Association
supports the proposal, we do not object to granting these variances. Thank you very much.
Meeting MI number 2020-000546-3008-3014 Clifford Street. My vote is yes with the proviso
revised plan one page stamp approved today one page approved today yes for proviso yes for proviso
yes with proviso
thank you thank you mr chair that concludes my business may be excused yes you may have a good
day thank you thank you you too
Are we finished?
I believe so.
I have nothing else.
Tanya, you guys and Charity concur.
We're finished.
I'm reviewing now.
I'm reviewing now.
Looks like that's it.
See you all back at two.
I understand, confessor, you'll be running a little bit late.
Confessor?
I'll be logging a little.
I have a two o'clock meeting.
No problem.
We'll have a call.
We still have a car. Thank you. Okay. So we're going to have Jim do the questions and sharing
if we can make everything available. Okay. That's okay with you, Jim. Wait, we have some
hands. No problem. We do have some hands up if you don't mind indulging. Okay.
Adelina Hernandez. Hi, how are you? I wanted to know what the continuance mean. Was it
approved or it was not approved? That means we haven't heard the case yet. It will be heard at
a later date. Okay, so will there be an email sent out to me to let me know when to come back in?
So were you the applicant or you're the owner? I'm actually representing the owner, but I did
the registration. You were on earlier, correct? Yes. So do you know when you ask for a continuance
what that meant? You want us to hear it at a later date, so you'll be scheduled for probably
december or january oh i thought that i thought i was representing the see i thought you didn't
know what you were doing yeah um excuse me representing someone on here this is sharon
um ms hernandez are you an attorney no i'm i work with the expediter i'm sorry you cannot
represent the applicant then they either have to represent themselves or be represented by an
attorney oh okay then just so you know for the next hearing all right then thank you so we're
so we're going to leave this at a continuance um and you'll get a notification whoever the
applicant was we'll get a notification in the email of the new date okay okay then thank you
you're welcome okay okay thank you any other business um is i have hannah is hannah with
i don't know hannah you're gonna mute yourself are you requesting uh yes we received a letter
um for 1330 vernon road that will be included on this listing today um has that changed what time
what time is that hearing scheduled for it was supposed to be for 9 30 let me just check
yep no it's tomorrow the 14th what do you have
um let's see it says tuesday october 14th so i don't i didn't know i sat in on this meeting
because i thought it would be today and maybe they just got the date wrong today are you able
to appear tomorrow? Yes. Does that work, Tanya? What was the, yeah, it will have to be, because if
there's any discrepancies or errors, you would have to have contacted our office, so because we
have it listed for Tuesday, I mean, Wednesday at 9 30, that's the time we would have to hear it.
Okay. Okay. The letter came out for Tuesday.
Right. I apologize for the miscommunication. However, if that's the date that it was
communicated to the community and passerby saw that date, then that's what we will have to stick
to. October 14th. Okay. Okay. So we'll see you October 14th at 930, which is tomorrow.
Thank you. I apologize for any inconveniences.
all right any other any other unfinished business no that was the last one chair thanks all right
see you all two o'clock all right bye bye see you later thank you and good afternoon and tanya
we'll give you a few minutes correct
okay all ready thank you uh good afternoon everyone my name is frank de chico i'm the chair of this
Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our acting secretary, Mr. James Snell, and board member, Mr. Thomas Holloman. Our secretary, Mr. Confessor Plaza, will be joining us a little bit later on.
Board Administrator Tanya Sunkit and Board Attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what we can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your
hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email
address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
With that said, we can begin, but before we call the first case, we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance or withdrawal of an appeal listed for the 2 o'clock session today.
If so, please raise your hand.
Oleg, you have been unmuted. You can open up your mic and wait to be sworn in to speak to
a continuous or withdrawal. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, Mr. Sokolov. Please identify yourself,
your name and address spell your first and last name sure good good afternoon members of the board
oleg sokolov council for i'm so sorry i gotta pull up the um
1700 market street philadelphia pennsylvania
19103 215 717 515
spell your first and last name for the record please oleg o-l-e-g
Last name, Sokolov, S-O-K-O-L-O-V.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I am here representing Penn Holdings, Pine 1 LLC on 3912 Pine Street.
I am requesting a withdrawal of this matter, please.
okay uh mi-2020-001313 3912 pine street is withdrawn that is correct thank you thank you
any other requests for continuances or withdrawals i have dawn tancredi dawn you can open your mic
and wait to be sworn in thank you good afternoon dawn please spell your first and last name give
us your address? Sure. Good afternoon. Dawn Tancredi, D-A-W-N. The last name is T-A-N-C-R-E-D-I
and the address is 2005 Market Street, Philadelphia 19103. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Sure. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. We were here last week on 6301 North Broad Street. The case was continued until today.
The docket number is not formally on the list that I have that was printed out from online.
However, the case was relisted for today and it turns out that one week was not enough time
for the community and applicant and all parties to discuss this matter and we respectfully request
a continuance. I have been in touch with council's office and representatives of the RCO and we're
asking for a date after the election. Thank you. Two things. I don't have that on my list.
Thank you. Two things. I don't have that on my list either. Sharon or Tanya, somebody have a MI number? And that was 6301 Northbrook, correct, Dawn?
Do you have the MI number, Dawn?
I do. It's MI-2020-000826.
Thank you. Sorry, I was trying to pull it up. No problem. We have it now. And, Tanya, we can continue this. You'll give Dawn a date?
Yes, I can give her November the 10th. Thank you. That worked on? Yes. Okay. And we're going to do it at 930.
9.30. Okay. So MI-2020-000826-6301 North Broad Street is continued to November the 10th at 9.30
a.m. Thank you. Yes. And just to put on a record, Chair, it's a resumption hearing. No posting
requirement, Dawn. Okay. Thank you. Have a good day. Bye-bye. You do likewise. Thank you. Anyone else?
no that's all i see chair okay um okay hold on one second james hold on
i don't know if you were on uh and correct me if i'm wrong sharon uh mi-2020-000123
North Randolph
Street and
MI-2020
that's the
same one I'm sorry so
2039 North Randolph has already
been decided
yes yes okay
so that comes off the list James
August 19
all right so that's 6 and 11
Correct.
Correct.
All right.
All set?
If I could, I have one other.
I have, for the attorney of record, we have Alberger Street, Alberger Avenue, 929.
All right.
Number five on our list.
Requesting a continuance.
MI-2020-001220. 929 Alberga Avenue is continued. Thank you. That's all I have. You can proceed.
Thank you. James. Okay, here we go. Calendar number MI-2020-000886, 650 North 36th Street.
The appellant is Gregory Schwab.
And the attorney in this case is Meredith Verlager.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
then, Meredith Ferliger, on behalf of the appellant.
Could you spell your name, please?
Yeah, name and address for the record, please.
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
Meredith, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, which are proof
Proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and
plans within the five days in advance of this hearing?
I sure did.
Also, have you met with the RCO and you have a letter from them?
We do.
Okay, great.
You may be good.
This is where you're in.
They swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you, Mary.
All right, Mr. Chairman, I am here today on behalf of Brandywine Associates, LLC, the owner of the property.
Brahim, when you get a moment, if you want to just hit that raise hand button so we can get your name and address on the record.
I did.
I did.
Brahim, oh, there you are.
Rahim?
Name, name, spell your name and address for the court reporter, please.
Hi, good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Brahim Eigladen, B-R-A-H-I-M.
Last name is I-G-H-L-A-D-E-N.
And your address?
3615 Brandywine Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Virginia 19104. Mr. Chairman, if you want to just get him sworn in now.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Please proceed. Thank you. Our architect here today is Sean Kang, if anybody has any
questions for him. Before the board today is a proposal that will eliminate one of the last
remaining vacant lots on this block of north 36th street in mantua between
mellon and wallace street the board should have an exhibit packet
that i will refer to throughout the presentation today
this application did receive overwhelming support from the community
just last week the application requests the erection
of a new three-story structure with a roof deck for use as a three-family
dwelling and as you can see in the picture i've
brought up on the screen. This is an infill development that will fill in this vacant lot
in between these two existing structures. The board has zoning plans at tab five, as well as
floor plans at tab six. Now, as reflected in the floor plans, unit one is a 1,440 square foot
bi-level unit with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Units two and three are both 725 square feet
and are one-bedroom, one-bath units. Trash is stored within each unit and will be collected
by the property management company, which is managed by Brahim himself. Now, with respect
to the application, we received one refusal. As you can see in exhibit seven, which is the zoning
that, this property is currently zoned RSA 5. Now directly across the street is an area of very
high density CMX 3 zoning. I did include a tab 3, a copy of bill number 170-398, which rezoned
Mantua back in 2017. The board is of course very familiar with this rezoning bill. As you can see,
this property and everything around it was zoned RM1. After the rezoning, the property's been
rezoned to RSA5. Now the lot is small, less square foot and narrower than is required by the RSA5
zoning district for single family development. The former RM1 zoning of the property would have
permitted the requested three units. Now the hardship today lies both in the result of the
rezoning, but especially in the existing context of this particular block and neighborhood. Now,
the lot itself has been vacant since the 70s and has been a blight to this neighborhood.
The zoning map shows that the rezoning left the particular block with single-family zoning,
despite the fact that directly across the street is high-density CMX3 zoning that accommodates a
92-unit development. The block is largely made up of vacant structures, a few single-family homes,
and a duplex at the end of the street at 638 North 36th Street. We do submit this as the least
minimum variance, as we are not requesting any dimensional variances. The density is in line
with the former zoning of the property, which would have permitted the three proposed units,
as well as the character of this neighborhood which high which accommodates
many structures of significantly higher density especially that right across the
street from this we submit this will not increase local congestion as the block
this block of North 36th Street has ample on-street parking that is still
available and I think you can probably see that in some of these photos given
its location in Mantua West Philadelphia the property does have ample access to
public transportation. The proposal will not impair light and air or negatively impact
surrounding properties. The proposed structure is only three stories so that it will blend in
with the existing three-story structures on the block. We submit the variance complies in full
with the provisions of section 14303 of the code as is further detailed in my memorandum of law
that I submitted at tab 9. Now with respect to the community we did meet with Manchua Civic
Now, with respect to the community, we did meet with Manchua Civic Association just last week
Association just last week.
at a meeting that was held at this particular property.
Their letter of support is attached at tab 14, which I will bring up.
Brahim, have you heard all of my testimony here today before the board?
And would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate,
and would you adopt it as if it were your own correct thank you with that we'd ask you grant
our application and we are happy to answer any questions you have thank you uh when did your
client purchase this property oh it was last year october of 2019
after the rezoning was done correct that is correct mr chairman he did purchase it after
the rezoning was done. However, you know, as we have presented, the way that this rezoning affected
this particular property is relatively unique in that directly across the street, let me see if I
can bring up some photos, you'll see that these structures here are part of a very large 92-unit
development. So the RSA-5 zoning of this property does not necessarily reflect the particular
character of this block, which is, we suspect, why the community was in overwhelming support of this,
especially in light of the fact that this lot was vacant since the 70s. They did support,
you know, seeing not only a three-story structure to go in here, but something that would
continue to bring a little bit of life back to this block,
given that there are still some vacancies that do exist here.
A question from the board. Yes. The property across the street,
are they single family? They are not. No, that is a 92 unit development.
So I guess the way that they built it was to give the illusion of single
family but these are each of these structures i believe has two units in them it was a little bit
hard to see in the zoning history i wasn't able to actually pull the the zoning permits i don't
know what address the permits are under but they are not single family structures is that public
housing i believe it is yes
thank you
anyone else on the board no anyone else who would like to testify in this case if so please raise
your hand no hands at this time thank you planning commission good afternoon board
peter bernard for the planning commission peter please spell your first and last oh peter we know
your last name please barnard b as in boy a as an apple r n a r d you swear to firm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you please proceed this property is
indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan the property was rezoned in
2017 for single family most of the properties on the block were built and have been maintained as
single family homes we feel the proposal represents an overuse of the property
Additionally, we do not feel that vacant land represents a hardship.
Accordingly, we object to the granting of the variance at this location.
Thank you.
MI-2020-000886, 650 North 36th Street.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
Thank you.
Okay. Calendar number MI2020-000095, 6100 Woodland Avenue. The attorney is Sarah Aldafer.
Actually, I think the attorney is now Jared Klein. It's changed since the list was printed.
Okay. Thank you.
Jared, are you out there?
I'm promoting him now.
Okay, thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Good afternoon, Mr. Klein. Please identify yourself with a record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Klein.
Please identify yourself with a record.
Absolutely. Jared Klein. It's K-L-E-I-N from Blank, Rome, 130 North 18th Street, Philadelphia, 19103.
Absolutely.
Jared.
Do you want to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Okay. Mr. Snow?
Jared, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, which are the proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans within five days in
advance of this hearing? Yes, I have. Also, have you met with the RCO and have you happen to have
a letter from them? We have met with the RCO. We did not have a letter, but I understand that
Craig Melodosian from the RCO is on the line and will give his opinion at the end of my presentation.
Okay, may proceed.
Thank you.
Is my screen sharing successfully?
Good, okay.
So this is for 6100 Woodland Avenue, fairly straightforward application.
This is the site here.
It is the existing site of a multi-use shopping center that is directly at the corner of 61st and Woodland.
This is 61st Street here.
61st Street runs right into the shopping center that we're talking about.
The application before the board is to install an ATM machine at this location.
The ATM machine would go in the existing parking lot in an area of the parking lot that is generally depicted here.
And I have a site plan later that will more specifically show that the refusal that we received was due to the existing parking spaces at the shopping center.
As you can see from the refusal, 344 spaces are required to add the use.
The current shopping center has 289 spaces, which we think is an abundance of parking, both to serve the shopping center's needs and the minimal needs of the ATM.
But the zoning code being what it is, we were issued a refusal on that basis.
The ATM to be installed, this is an overview of the site.
The actual ATM itself will be installed here.
This is against the Woodland Avenue street frontage,
and it will be a kiosk style ATM.
It is not inside a structure.
It's designed to be a walk-up ATM
that's gonna be branded by Bank of America.
You can see here, this is the style of the ATM
that will be installed, two ATM machines
and with an overhang to protect against weather
And within this overhang here will also be LED lights and security cameras.
The bank monitors the security cameras 24 hours a day.
At the RCO meeting, we did let them know we would be happy to register our security camera systems with the Philadelphia police,
given this is an area of the city that has some specific concerns about crime that would be
associated with the installation of an ATM. This is another rendering of what it would look like
and to give the board a sense of what an installed ATM would look like. This is an example of one
that was installed at a different location, but very similar in construction and style to what's
being proposed here. We did, as I mentioned, meet with the relevant RCOs over Zoom. That meeting
was last night. The conversation with those RCOs was a positive conversation, and I believe that
Mr. Melodosian will convey their non-opposition. The RCOs did ask that Bank of America agreed to
as much as possible work with the local RCOs on some financial literacy and small business
development and other items of interest to the to the community and we've we've told the RCOs
that we will make some introductions with Bank of America and facilitate that conversation as
much as we can. We do have Paul Much who is our site engineer on the line should the board have
any questions and I will ask Andrea Militello to raise her hand so she can be unmuted and
briefly testify. Andrea, if you're there and can use the virtual raise your hand button,
that would be great. Can anyone hear me? Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself,
spell your first and last name and your address. Andrea Molotillo, A-N-D-R-E-A-M-I-L.
Andrea Militello, A-N-D-R-E-A, M-I-L-I-T-E-L-L-O, 1200 America Boulevard, Pennington, New Jersey.
Are you trying to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Klein.
Andrea, did you have a chance to hear my presentation this afternoon?
Yes, I did.
And do you adopt my statements as true, correct, and your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you very much.
um mr chair with that as i said we do have the engineer on the line if the board has any questions
but that would conclude my presentation questions from the board no no anyone who would uh like to
participate in this uh hearing please uh raise your hand i think mr maladosian i think you said
yes he he informed me that he would be attending
good afternoon wanted to one clear one piece for the record the actual
oh you have to wait excuse me just identify yourself spell your first and last name and
your address please craig c-r-a-i-g last name melidosian m-e-l-i-d-o-s-i-a-n ward 40 republicans
coordinating rco p.o box three three three five five philadelphia one nine one four two thank
you craig and you swear in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth
i do all right please proceed
our original community meeting was held on tuesday 10 7 2020 via zoom
three of the five affected RCOs participated. We've continued to negotiate. Two of the RCOs
are in support of the applicant. A third RCO was not in support of the applicant because that RCO
sought to dictate terms of the ATM provider's costs to users of the machine. We felt that to
be outside the purview of, uh, of what we can do via zoning. Uh, we were hoping to get a
unanimous position as a five up two, but we're unable to do so. Uh, Mr. Klein did indicate that
we are moving towards a memorandum of understanding with a, uh, a gatekeeper at the bank to deal with
issues of financial literacy affecting our housing counseling program out of southwest cdc
also to work with our businesses on the commercial corridor in in southwest as well as other
businesses that are not part of that we also had a concern of and we're asking for help the bank
has a strong relationship with women against abuse we do have a problem with that in in southwest
where we see women bringing their children to daycare
who clearly are showing signs of physical assault.
And we'd like to see if we can extend that
Women Against Abuse programming
into a location such as Southwest CDC.
We're not sure at this point
if the bank has any relationship with food providers
such as Phil Abundance,
but that the lower Southwest Planning District
still has a significant need for food there.
So again, our issues are outside the purview of what would be a proviso.
They're in, I'll call them the realm of community benefits agreement.
Jared has done as much as we can.
We understand council's limitation in this matter, but there's an agreement that they
will find a gatekeeper at the bank and also that we'll start a relationship with the branch
that's in University City, since we feel that we'll have a strong relationship with
community uh banking uh requirements for such an organization so at this point uh two of the
three rcos do support this uh two other rcos do not participate in the process thank you craig
good to hear from you is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case if so please
raise your hand no other hands thank you planning commission good afternoon board this property is
indicated for industrial just you have to identify yourself every time bernard for the planning
commission this property is indicated for the for industrial commercial mixed use and a
comprehensive plan we feel the proposed use will not have a significant impact on the surrounding
community accordingly we have no objection to the granting of the variance thank you
MI-2020-000095, 6100 Woodland Avenue.
6100 Woodland Avenue.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thanks very much.
Have a great afternoon.
Likewise.
Thank you.
Jim, you're muted.
jim might be having technical problems everyone can hear me
yes chair thank you mi-2020-000124 102 west gerard avenue
David Orphanides, I believe, is the attorney.
Hey, David, good afternoon.
Noon, please identify yourself, spell your name for the record, please.
Certainly.
My name is David Orphanides, O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S, the law firm of Orphanides & Toner, LLP,
2 Penn Center, 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
You swear in a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please, I'm going to begin by asking you, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, including proof of ownership, proof of tax clearance, a copy of the refusal or referral, and photos and plans or plans of the property five days in advance of the hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we do.
Thank you.
Please proceed. Thank you.
And I've shared my screen. Can you see that?
Yes. Okay, let me just enlarge that a little bit. Also, with me today are...
Could you enlarge that a little bit, please?
Yeah. How's that?
That's good. Thank you.
So, I'm here today representing S&B Restaurant Group 1, LLC, which are the tenants and sole occupants of the property at 102 West Girard Avenue.
It's property located on the southwest corner of Girard and North Front Street in the shadow of just about under the L, right there at the front in Girard.
I have with me today Brendan Olkus, who is the owner, the proprietor of the establishment, the Saint.
If you could raise his hand in case we need him to testify or adopt my statements.
And also Justin Myers is the architect who prepared the plans that were presented to the coordinating RCO, which was Northern Liberty's Neighborhood Association, Neighbors Association, and which plan is included with our exhibit book and was attached to their position letter.
So if Justin could raise his hand and if he could also be recognized, maybe leave both Brendan and Justin to leave your mics on mute for now until I call on you or the board calls on you, that would be helpful.
Tanya, do you see them?
Chair.
Chair, could we hold on one second?
Sure, sure.
Thank you.
Thank you.
hi chair I'm just trying to get Jim back to ensure we have a quorum yeah I was
thinking that is he on no not yet I'm gonna try to contact him and see yeah
long as he can hear us that'll be helpful
That will be helpful.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
If we could give it two to three more minutes.
He's working on getting back.
He's having technical problems.
If it doesn't work with the device, he's going to call in.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
chair yes we can also as an option have mr snell if he's unable to get back in at the moment
reviewed the recording of this hearing and he can certify he read and vote at a later time
but it's also your call yeah i mean if if all else fails i'd say yes but
uh if we can get him by phone it would save that right we can yes he's gonna he's trying both
if we can get him by phone it would save that right we can
let's work on the phone if not then we'll have to do what you suggested
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
chair yes we have mr. Snell available on via telephone so you can continue as you
wish very good thank you all right Jim we didn't know we were just getting the
introduction so you didn't miss anything mr. Orfanides please proceed for
Sure. Again, I am here representing, for Mr. Snell's Benefit, S&B Restaurant Group 1, LLC, which is the tenant of the building, a three-story building located at the southwest corner of North Front and West Girard Avenue. The establishment is known as The Saint.
Some housekeeping matters at Exhibit 1 of our exhibit book are the postings of the hearing notice for today's hearing along with our notice of refusal and notice of referral dated January 23rd, 2020.
These first photographs that I'm scrolling through right now are from the West Ward Avenue frontage.
You can see the date of today's proceeding reflected.
right here, and then the north front frontage, again, with today's, the date and time of today's proceeding.
Our tax clearances are included at tab two, effective still through, secured today, so effective through today into November.
Our tax clearances are included at tab 2.
Tab three, deed showing JJG Enterprises, Inc. as the owner of the property.
And then we have our lease between my client, S&B Restaurant Group, one LLC,
and the deeded owner of the property, JJG Enterprises, Inc.
And again, my client leases all the building, which is a seller and three stories above.
As I indicated, the property is located on the southwest corner of West Girard and North Front Street, right along the west side of the L.
See, the building occupies 100% of the lot.
There is an alley behind the property on the south side that leads out onto North Front Street.
Exhibit 5, our zoning maps, our property is zoned CMX3.
As you can see, CMX3 on both sides of our block of North Front Street,
as well as both sides of our block of West Reward Avenue.
Caddy cornered from us, as you may know, is the BL stop.
Lots of public transportation up and down West Reward Avenue and then obviously BL.
We are located in the North Delaware Avenue overlay as well, which isn't reflected on the zoning map.
So historically, the property has been utilized as a bar and as a hotel.
You can see from the zoning archives there's a pre-code, pre-existing nonconforming use
that is recognized from October 20th of 1948 as a bar restaurant.
Here's a copy of that permit. It also mentions that it's a hotel, three stories, as it still stands today.
And that use, other than the hotel, has continued on through the present day.
We have historical photographs that my client provided to me showing that it has a bar, floor, bar since way back in 1938.
It's gone through some several different iterations.
Here's a photo of it as the bar, 1941.
When you see photographs, literally the building is exactly the same as it is today.
1948, 1951, 1967, 1969.
I'd like to have that car right now.
1970, 77, 84, 91, 2008, showing DJ, this is prior to my client opening his business and
operating his business, but there is evidence of there being live music assembly and entertainment
at this location prior to my client's ownership, and that's essentially what we are for the board
today. And here you can see as the Wonder Years bar in 2012, live entertainment, again,
unfortunately without permits. And that again is prior to my client. Opening his
business there. Our application is for a sit-down restaurant on the first and
second floor. It's presently a sit-down restaurant on the ground floor. So we
want to expand to the second floor presently as you'll see from the
photographs. The second and third floor is used for storage and for an office for
the business. Seller is also for storage. So you want to expand the sit-down
restaurant up to the second floor the bar and restaurant and then increase the
lawful occupancy and they want to have live music with the DJ and dancing in
in the in the building in the existing but there's no proposed change to the
height or area of the structure and you can see from our we have a refusal and a
referral again issue January 23rd 2020 you can see the reference to the CMX 3
zoning classification, which normally permits these uses. However, given the
location of the property in the North Delaware Avenue NCA, you can see below
that the assembly entertainment is not permitted in the North Delaware Avenue
The assembly entertainment is not permitted in the North Delaware Avenue overlay, and then eating and drinking establishments require special exception approval in the overlay.
overlay, and then
So we have a referral and we have a refusal here.
So we have a special exception and a variance.
Filed our application for appeal and referral in a timely fashion.
back before this was done electronically, back in the good old days of February of 2020.
And we went and we met with the coordinating RCO, which is the Northern Liberty Neighborhood
Neighbors Association. We pulled the list of addresses from the link that the Planning
Commission provides. We did send out the 14303 certified first class at the time
of the mailing of that. We did not know what the Zoning Board hearing date was,
so that meeting with Northern Liberties was August 31st. At 630 it was held
remotely, virtually, and then we just indicated that we would provide notice
subsequently once we had the date and time of the Zoning Board hearing, and then
and we did do that again by certified first class mail.
We did send a copy of the notice of refusal.
Here's the original certification,
and then here's the second notice we send out,
certified first class advising of today's hearing date.
As indicated, we did meet with Northern Liberties.
We do have a letter of support from them,
as you can see at tab 17, October 8th, 2020.
And you can see that it's presented as they support it with the provisos, with the conditions.
Essentially, they wanted to know about our security.
We provided them with information about security, security personnel being ramp certified, the hours of operation, noise control.
Part of the proposal, along with expanding to the second floor, is installing sound dampening.
throughout the property to deal with basically their operational concerns, which to some degree
have to do with the special exception and whether this particular use at this location is worse
than this use would otherwise be. We addressed loitering. We addressed outside promotions,
which there will not be, the presence of management on the property, and then what the
increase in occupancy will be. Right now, we'll go back to the plans. The total occupancy for the
building including the cellar including the storage and offices on the third
floor which are minimal second and two in this cellar and four on the third
floor is 189 we talked about maintaining the sidewalks abutting the sub subject
property if you'd like to hear about that my client can go into great length
about the efforts that he's made to maintain that corner in a respectable
fashion and how basically how since his business has been closed since the
beginning of the pandemic because of the restriction placed by the city in the
state how things have kind of slid a little bit at that corner without their
presence and their eyes on the street and their involvement in maintaining
that corner in an orderly fashion and again cue control on leading up to the
subject property and those were all included with their letter along with
our house alcohol policy and operational policies that we presented to them. And then a copy of the
plans, which I'll go back to now. I'm not sure if we need to go over the plans. I mean, unless the
board members feel that we need to see them. Okay. I mean, essentially, just real quickly,
the cellar on the first floor is going to stay the same. We just have this dance floor that's
being added in this open area, which is where they'll be dancing and live music. And then the
second floor as you see is now going to be utilized for seating bars and
seating and then the third floor renovated bed a little better into
offices and storage you didn't mention something David I don't mean to break
through your presentation but you mentioned something about provides those
hours of operation yeah they wanted to know they they wanted to know in that
letter, Larry Friedman had emailed me with a list of questions. So on the second page
of their letter, let me increase that. This was what came out of the meeting, our meeting
with them. This was an email I received that they sent. Group motion, thank you for your
presentation. Please return with policies related to the following security noise control
order, which is what I went through. It's a seven day a week operation. You know, they close by
operation um you know they they close by two o'clock people are out of the business by 205
um so it's not the situation where people are hanging out either inside or outside the property
okay there was just there weren't any they weren't asking for any specific hours no no okay that's
why i want to make sure okay no security okay okay we also have a letter of support from state
Representative Malcolm Kenyatta, and you can see in his letter he states that
over the past seven years, they, being St. Lazarus Bar, have worked hard to
improve the intersection of Front and Girard, provide a safe and culturally
diverse environment, and actively participate in the well-being of the
neighborhood. They have been exemplary business owners, active in the community
through charity, volunteer work, and civic engagement, and they are a valuable
asset to the area. I mean, I know zoning's not related to the users, but at TAB14,
there's a summary of Brendan Alkus, who's, again, the owner of the business, his longstanding
presence in the community, his family's presence in the community, the current involvement of both
Brendan and his wife in the, his partner in the community, as you can see there at TAB18.
But again, you know, we know that zoning has to do with the land and the building. We feel that given the conditions on North Front Street, given the presence of other bars and restaurants, given the somewhat problematic nature of this corner and the benefit that this business and the hours of operation, particularly into the evening, has for the community and maintaining that corner and that intersection in a better fashion.
and when they're not operating, that serves as a great basis for the granting of the variance
in this situation and the hardship if it's not granted.
Do you have any more photographs? We have photographs of the area. You can see businesses
up and down the block. Some of them are shuttered and closed. Again, this business has been closed
since the pandemic began, but they're optimistic that they'll soon be able to begin. And again,
And you're right next to the L, so you're kind of limited, kind of a noisy area just because of the presence of the L, but you're limited in the ability to attract businesses to this area.
Do you have any witnesses that you need to bring on?
Yeah, I have Brendan and Justin been unmuted.
Ms. Sunkit, I know that you were
working to get Mr. Snow on the line
Yes, they've been unmuted
So Brendan, can you please identify yourself
your name and address for the record
Brendan, maybe you're not unmuted
You have to unmute yourself
Oh, I'm sorry, good afternoon
Your name and address for the record, Brendan
Yeah, my name is Brendan Olkus, B-R-E-N-D-A-N-O-L-K-U-S.
My address is 1405 North 2nd Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19122.
Okay, and are you S-
Do you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Thank you.
Brendan, you are S&B Restaurant Group 1, LLC?
Yes, I am.
Okay, and you're the tenant of the property?
Yes, sir.
And you're the owner of the business?
Okay, and you run the business?
Yes, sir.
And did you hear the statements that I made to the board this afternoon?
I did.
And are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
They are.
Would you adopt them as your own?
I would.
Thank you.
And then Justin Myers.
Justin, are you unmuted?
So, Justin, I don't know.
There's a couple of devices.
Hello, David. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah, I had it on my computer and on my phone. Sorry about that.
Yeah, you can't do that. Yep. Yep. Justin, your name and address for the record.
My name is Justin Myers, J-U-S-T-Y-N-M-Y-E-R-S. My address is 2837 West Oxford Street,
Philadelphia, 19121. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed. And Justin, you prepared the plans that we
presented both to the community, Northern Liberty Neighbors Association, and that I showed to the
board at Exhibit 11? Correct. Okay. And did you hear the statements I made about those plans and
about the building and the property and the operations during today's hearing? Yes, I did.
And are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge? Yes, they are. And do you adopt
them as your own? Yes. And with that, I rest, Mr. Chairman.
And with that, I rest, Mr. Chairman.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
No hands at this time.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, board.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
you're sworn in already peter yep this property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the
comprehensive plan the property has a long history of being used as a bar and nightclub
we do not feel the proposed expansion of the restaurant to the second floor would have a
negative impact on the surrounding community accordingly we have no objection to the granting
of the variance or the special exemption. Thank you. MI-2020-000124-102 West Girard Avenue. My vote
is yes. My vote is yes. Give me one second. Jim, you're going to push star six.
sorry about that guys my vote is yes thank you no problem jim uh i'll call the case
okay yeah i'm sorry about that frank something all of a sudden something happened to my server
the screen went blank that happens to me quite often so no problem all right uh mi-2020-000321
1317 South Broad Street I have Raymond Derizio Raymond you can share your
screen as you need to and unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in by the
you thank you mr dorizio please spell your full name for the stenographer yes good afternoon
chairman and members of the board raymond last name dorizio d-o-r-i-z-i-o addresses to penn
center suite 520 philadelphia pa 19102 and uh here representing i'm sorry okay you swear and
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do okay i'll have some
questions for you now. Sure. Have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
including proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
and photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of the hearing?
Yes, that has been sent. Also, have you met with the RCO? And if so, do you have a letter?
Yes, and I believe that was attached to the packet.
Thank you.
Mr. DeRazio, please proceed.
Thank you.
So I'm also here with Frank Rudy.
He's the, I believe he's on, he's the managing member of the LLC, which is 1317 South Broad, 1319 South Broad.
And I believe Agata Reister is also on.
She is the architect of the LLC.
project. So basically, this was an application, and I'm having a little difficulty getting my
screen. I'm sorry if I can get to that, but this is an application. It's two lots, two properties
on Broad Street, two large properties on the east side of Broad by Wharton Street, and they
basically run through to Jupiter, which is the street towards Juniper, towards the east. I'm
sorry, Juniper Street. I should know that. I'm looking at the screen too. So anyway, what this
application is asking for is to divide this into four parcels. So the Broad Street side with the
frontage on Broad Street, which would be 1317 South Broad and 1319 South Broad, would have
six units each. I'm sorry for interrupting. Do you have any exhibits you could be sharing with
us? Yes, I'm sorry. If I could just have one moment to try to pull those up, and I apologize
for that. No problem. Okay. This isn't the vacant lot, is it? Well, there is a vacant lot, yes.
These properties run through to June. I'm familiar, but the vacant lots, are they still
owned by the uh uh the restaurant folks on dickinson street no i don't believe that they
are they're part of these two properties and basically what if i could believe these are
believe these are the some of the plans about the victor cafe yeah they had owned those two
the some of
there was a hospital here many years ago and then they had owned the lots
raymond did you click on the share screen first uh i'm trying i'm so sorry that i'm
a green button at the bottom before you and then go into your documents i see i see i'm sorry
all right no worries
did that work
oh jeez I'm sorry this is my first time
hit the green button first
and then put your cursor on
the actual documents
I see and then I share
and then
The problem I'm having is I'm trying to get to that document and I don't know why it's not coming up. I apologize that this is the first time I really had to
And did you send your exhibits to us?
Yeah, the exhibits were sent in by Landmark. They sent them in, I believe, at least a week ago. I'm sorry. I will pull those up in one second.
We do have the exhibits. This is Sharon.
Okay, I'm sorry. I will
chairman you want to send it to me and i'll bring it up sure it'll take many minutes i'm sorry
wait a minute no worries raymond oh there you go you're good am i up you're good all right
i'm sorry about that all right so these are the deeds and if you can zoom them in a little bit
we can read them better we'll do we'll do i'm sorry about this chairman is that better
Oh, it's perfect. Thank you.
Okay. So this property, the properties were purchased recently, and the Broad Street properties are, I'd like to mark the D, I guess, as Exhibit 1.
The Broad Street properties have already been granted variances for multifamily, six families on each of them with a professional office on the first floor of each of them.
What my client's application is seeking to do is to have parcels C and D, which is Juniper Street, and they're vacant lots there, as you pointed out, Chairman, to turn those into single family dwellings and also to have parking there, garages.
So that was the basis of the refusal is having the garages, here's the refusal, to have the accessory parking spaces, having them on the front of the street.
Essentially, there would be a roof deck.
There would be properties with parking on Juniper Street.
I'm going to, sorry about that, scroll down here.
If I could just get to, we have met with the South Broad Street Neighborhood Association.
They have no opposition to the plan.
If I can get down to my photos.
We have posted notice.
There's the property.
So this is 1317 and 1319.
Okay, it's not what I was thinking.
Okay, it's next to it.
Okay, good.
and these are the lots in the back so essentially that's what my clients
looking to do is to have two single-family homes in the lots which would
be parcel C and D as you see on the street there are other garages and
parking spaces which I will get to in a second here is a little bit more
photos where you could show the Broad Street here marked as one on the upper left hand photo and
then the other units in the back. Now on Juniper Street there are other properties with garages in
the front where you can just park from the street. Here are some plans that have been put together by
Landmark and drawings detailing how these properties would look. Essentially my client's
not looking to change anything that has been already granted, at least with respect to the
six unit lots. He's merely seeking parking for the units on Juniper Street. And that has been
reviewed. We also have a letter of support from Councilman Squilla. He does not oppose.
um and that is essentially what we're requesting today i believe mr rudy is on with me and
um also miss uh reister if you'd like to hear from them or at least
Also, Ms. Reister, if you'd like to hear from them or at least have them adopt part of what I'm...
I just have a question. What's the square footage? There are going to be two houses, you said?
So, yes, there'd be two properties there, and the square footage of each property, and maybe I could zoom in.
Great, so they're going to be quite large.
Yes, there are going to be two large houses, I believe 2,500 square foot, I believe, for each property.
You can bring up, your other witnesses are?
2,000 foot feet.
Other witness you have, do you need anybody to adopt your testimony?
If they're on, yes, Chairman. I would wish to call Ms. Reister first. She is the architect. She's on.
If she's having a problem, do you have another witness you said?
I'm here. Can you hear me?
Oh, there you go.
Hello.
Hi. Please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name and address.
Agatha Reister, Landmark Architectural Design, 1325 Snyder Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19148.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Thank you, Mr. Dorazio.
can she spell her name for the stenographer we have a new stenographer yes a g a t a r e i s t e r
thank you
sorry I think I lost
thank you so Ms. Reister
did you hear the
statements and testimony that I provided
to the board
yes I did and were they true and correct
there is a slight correction
the homes are slightly larger
they're about 4,500 square feet
other than that it's all been correct
thank you
I thought I saw that
thank you I was going to ask you that
I'm obligated to say the truth
absolutely and I was going to ask you that
because I know I misspoke
and named A and B instead of C and D
I had a figure they'd be
large based on what they're paying per lot
yeah I think I know
what the sale price is going to be
but okay thank you you're welcome
thank you
and I have nothing further
I don't know if Mr. Rudy is on, but...
Yes, he's available.
He just needs to unmute so that he can be sworn in.
I would just call him as well.
Again, Mr. Rudy, you're available.
You just need to unmute.
Sorry about that.
Frank Rudy.
Hi, Mr. Rudy.
Please identify yourself, name and address by your last name.
Frank Rudy, R-U-D-I, 3410 Tuscany Drive,
Philadelphia PA 1945. And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. Mr. Rudy, you are the managing member
of the LLC for the properties? Correct. Okay. And did you hear my testimony and also the
corrected square footage as testified by Ms. Reister? Yes, I did. Okay. And was that testimony
true and correct yes it was and would you adopt those statements as your own i would okay i have
nothing further chairman thank you just curiosity are you the developer who did the other properties
at uh down the other end of the block yeah no i'm not okay all right it's not important i just was
curious all right uh questions from the board no uh anyone else who would like to testify in this
case if so please raise your hand no hands at this time thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
these properties are indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive plan
the addition of two new single family row homes with single uh garages is typical of
the development pattern along Juniper Street and do not feel it will have
negative impacts on the surrounding community. Accordingly, we have no
objection to the granting of the variants. Thank you. MI-2020-000321.
MI-2020-000321, 1317-1319, South Broad Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you, and good luck.
Thank you.
MI-2020-001220.
Oh, this one was continued.
Excuse me.
I believe Dickinson Street is next. MI-2020-001394-2038 Dickinson Street.
And the attorney on this one is Hank Clinton. If you approve it, it would be with revised plans,
three pages. Thank you. You're welcome.
I'm not sure why, but I need people to raise your hands
if you are prepared for the case.
Clinton, are you out there?
Okay, he's been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Mr. Clinton, please identify yourself with a record.
Henry Clinton, 1313 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia PA, 19146, here on behalf of JAG Properties, LLC, and 2038 Dickinson Street.
All right, Mr. Clinton, do you swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Clinton, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance,
copy of the refusal, referral, photos, and plans
five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, I do.
Okay, please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Plaza.
Again, Henry Clinton for the applicant.
I'm at 1313 South 33rd Street,
Florida PPA, 19146.
Just before you begin, just let the record,
you came from nowhere, confessor.
let let the record reflect that confessor plaza is in attendance thank you all right about there
yep okay mr clinton please proceed you want to swear me in
you want to swear me in
i thought i already did but are you swearing for him to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed i want to share my screen
can you see my first page of my presentation yes this is concerning 2038 dickinson street
in south philadelphia at the intersection of dickinson and lambert street this is the table
of contents containing a a exhibit through a tenant a 11 exhibits appearance statement
the deed to the property indicated that my client does own the property
zoning notices submitted to all the adjoining neighbors within 250 feet or so as directed by
the Planning Commission. My proof of mailing, certification of 207 pieces of mail that went
out to the following addresses, all of which are in my exhibit package. The tax certification,
I have a printout from the real estate department indicating that there are no real estate taxes due.
Notice of refusal. The refusal concerns really the use. This is a corner property,
and I'll show you on the zoning map, it has been long vacant. It's a source of trash and debris,
frankly, on the block. And I will show you on the zoning map, there are surrounding two family
homes, all the corners. Back in the day, it's a chairman well knows corner properties would
typically have a store on the first floor and one or two units above. As I'll show you in my
exhibit package this property used to have a barbershop on the first floor and then two units
above so we have a refusal because that that corner property is rsa5 and we also have a refusal
because there is a side fence on lambert street and our fence exceeds the four foot high requirement
in the code and we just thought a higher fence rather than four feet where you can just peer
or over is not a good idea.
This is our application.
This is our application.
Here's the zoning map of Dickinson Street.
Here's the zoning map of Dickinson Street.
Here's 21st Street.
Our property is right here.
You can see CMX1 here.
This is RSA5, which is our property.
Across the street, and I have something in my exhibit package to show that this corner
property was just approved for a duplex.
Across the street, there's also two family here.
This is a salon, which I believe is an apartment above.
and there's another store here a laundromat I believe with the apartment
above my photographs will be able to detail that so here's a zoning file for
this particular property it was able to go back to 1941 and you can see back in
the day it was a barbershop and two-family again historically it's been
vacant for at least 15 to 20 years if not longer this is the zoning file for
the property directly across the street on Lambert Street, which has just been approved
by the board in 2018 for two-family dwelling. We met with the Point Breeze Development Coalition
and we have a letter of support from the organization with the understanding that
we've promised and agreed to do six different items with regard to the property and the lot.
The trees will be removed.
We're going to replace the sidewalks on Lambert Street and Dickinson Street.
We have installed exterior lighting, and that's one of the changes on our proviso sheet.
We removed the parapet wall around the roof, and we added a railing for more visibility.
We removed the side balcony.
Mr. Chairman, there was a side balcony overlooking Lambert Street, which the community group did not think was advantageous for the neighborhood.
That balcony has been moved to the rear of the property.
We've also are installing exterior cameras that will show both Lambert Street and Dickinson Street views.
We've also went around to the neighbors, both on the 200 block of Dickinson Street and the 1500 block of Lambert Street and got letters of non-opposition.
We're careful to put in here that by signing below, there is no opposition.
Some people are reluctant to indicate they support it.
but we have over 25 signatures both on adjoining blocks of Lambert Street as well as Dickinson
Street. On the phone on this call with me is the owner Perry Graboise and the architect
Jimmy Chung. Here's our proviso sheet if the board looks kindly upon this project.
Here is the project itself. Again this is a rather large lot. It's over 17 feet wide which is atypical
and it's also a deep lot, 65 feet deep. This is the side view on Lambert Street,
brick with some metal paneling here. You can see where we removed the parapet wall
and there's railings here. You also can see we have under the bay
lighting as requested by the community group.
this is our floor plan we have basement level and first floor is one unit second floor and third
floor is another unit trash for the first floor will be in the rear yard trash for the second
floor we have a small outside deck where the trash can be stored there and this unit has access to
the rooftop deck with the necessary setbacks along Dickinson Street as well as Lambert Street
and the rear of the property. Just another view of the property. Let me just make this
full screen. So here's the corner property right here. This is Lambert Street. This is Dickinson
Street. You're looking west here on Dickinson Street. Traffic flows east on Dickinson. This is
a home right across the street. It's an existing duplex. This is Dickinson and Woodstock. There's
a business on the first floor and an apartment above. And then further down Dickinson Street,
this is a hair salon or hair shop. And then there's at least one, possibly two apartments
above. I don't want to misstate anything, but I know there's at least one. Here's the lot that's
been now cleared and you can see the frontage will be here on Dickinson Street and the the
balcony was on Lambert Street but it's moved to the back and that back will just be looking at a
blank wall. Here's an aerial view. I know the board is well familiar with this area. 2038 Dickinson
Street here. Here's 21st Street and it's a little bit dated so the the property across the street
is not on it, but this is a long-time vacant lot. Mr. Gervois, are you on the call?
If you could unmute him, Ms. Sunkit.
If you could unmute him, Ms. Sunkit.
I'm not sure who is, what's the name?
Perry Grabois.
He said he was on the call anyway.
I don't know, I have a J-A-R-R-E-D, is that?
Let me text him, no.
All right. No, Mr. Clinton, as an officer, we'll stipulate that your client would adopt your testimony.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Any questions from the board?
Excuse me, Ms. Sunkit, the name is Jarrett.
I'm here.
He's on me.
Mr. Gavoyes, are you on the call?
Did you hear my testimony?
We need to get his full name on it.
Mr. Gavoyes, can you state your full name and address?
We're having problems listening to hearing this.
He's breaking up.
We'll just move on, all right?
Is there anyone, anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Here I have a Petra Gamble.
You can wait to be sworn in.
Thank you.
Ms. Gamble, please identify yourself first and last name.
This is Petra Gamble.
Last name is G-A-M-B-L-E.
Your address?
2305 Federal Street.
Thank you.
Are you swearing a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
You said Federal Street?
And may I just request the first name spelling, please?
P as in Peter, I-E, T as in Tom, R-A.
Thank you.
You're with the Civic?
I'm with the RCO, yes.
Right.
I meant to say the RCO.
I'm sorry.
Please proceed.
I just wanted to go on record saying that we are in support of the project with the proviso stated, and we are happy that they moved the balcony from the side to the back.
We are in total agreement of that.
So for that reason, we are in support completely.
Thank you, Ms. Gamble.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
Planning Commission.
I'm sorry, Tanya, anyone else?
No, Sherry, you can continue.
Okay, Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Board.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan.
We do not feel the proposal will have a negative impact on the surrounding community.
Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the variance at this location.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
I'm sorry.
This is Sharon Saleta.
I just wanted to say that the provisos that the RCO requested are, for the most part, incorporated into the revised plans.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
MI-2020-001394, 2038 Dickinson Street.
My vote is yes with the proviso.
Revised plan, three pages approved today.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Confessor, we got South 3rd Street next.
Thank you very much.
Okay, South 3rd Street.
M-I-2020-00096925 South 3rd Street.
Chair I have Gary Clark been promoted to panelists. Mr. Clark you can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in and share your screen as necessary. All right thank you. Hey Gary you
agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate 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, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
I have. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
I have, and I do.
Thank you, you may proceed.
Please identify yourself for the record.
All right, thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I am Gary Clark. That's G-A-R-Y-C-L-A-R-K-E.
I am Gary Clark, that's G-A-R-Y.
My address is 1140 Mount Vernon Street, Philadelphia, 19123. And I'm here to present
the matter of 925 South Third Street. With me on the line, I have the other members of the
development team, Evan and Leah Litvin. They are co-owners along with me, and they are the project
architects. Also, before I jump into the presentation, I'd like to note we've had
two RCO meetings and two near-neighbor meetings. In response to feedback received at those
meetings, we revised the plans and previously submitted both the revised plans along with
a proviso plans form. And we do have a letter of support from Queen Village Neighborhood
Association. And we have, I believe, 14 individual letters of support from neighbors, along with
a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla. So the property is located at the
corners of 3rd and Montrose Streets. If you look at the picture on the right side of the screen,
that shows the site as it exists today. It's currently comprised, the parcel assemblage
is comprised of two tax parcels. There is one one-story building on each parcel. They face
Third Street. The buildings were previously used as a group housing for individuals with
disabilities. The buildings have been vacant for some time now and have not been used for any
purpose since then. If you look to the image on the right, we have a simplified site plan. The
first thing I'll note, which will come up later as we discuss the refusals and requested variances
is that the parcel is irregular. So at the corner, it's roughly a trapezoidal shape. And then there
is a rectangle that juts out to the east. The intended development is to demolish the two
existing buildings on the site, consolidate the parcel, reorient it to face Montrose Street and
put three houses on the property. One thing I'd like to note about the three houses in this view
is that house number three curves around a portion of it curves around and goes into the I guess the
very irregular section of the parcel that lies in that triangle. So a couple of design notes which
will also come up later when discussing the variances. We've done our best to match the
roofline of the buildings next door so that the, you know, the viewer's eye follows the
cornices of the other buildings. And especially in working with the neighbors, we've done our best
to reduce the visual mass of the buildings. So probably the most dramatic thing we've done
is make major setbacks of the fourth story,
including just really chopping off the corners entirely.
This portion of the fourth floor setback, six feet.
We've also cut out major portions of the buildings,
especially house number one on the corner.
And we've recessed all of the doors and windows.
So we received a few refusals.
to the application. So I'll start with the first, which is for the number of units.
As I alluded to before, the current parcel assemblage is two tax parcels. The zoning
district is RSA 5. So one house is permitted on each parcel. So here we just have a mock-up of
a buy-right scenario where we have two houses on the assemblage. And as you can see, if we were to
do that, the houses would be roughly 28 feet wide. We don't think that this would be appropriate for
the neighborhood or the site because the houses along the block on either side vary in width
between 11 and 16 feet. What we propose is this scenario where we put three houses on the site
so that the widths of the houses we would build would be 20 feet at the corner and then the
interior houses would be 18 feet.
Not only is that in line with sort of a normal,
per se, row house width for the city,
but it would fit in a lot better
with the fabric of the neighborhood.
Next, we'll move to our requested variance
for off-street parking.
We're not permitted off-street parking on the site.
However, we are proposing three houses
and certainly we think it would be better
for the neighborhood and the neighbors agreed
that we should try to get the cars off of the street.
that we should try to get the cars off of the street.
So here's just showing that the proposed parking configuration
So here's just showing that.
is one garage door along Third Street.
And then this is a top down view
to show cars would pull in here into a shared driveway.
House one would have a one car garage,
two car garage at house two.
And then house three would have one two car garage.
And then the portion that curves into the rectangle
to the east, there would be space for one more car.
Again, in a by-right scenario,
we presume that the residences of these houses
would have at least one car each.
If we don't provide parking onsite,
then the cars would just have to compete
with the neighbors for street parking.
We believe it's a much better solution to put one garage,
which would eliminate one space on the street.
However, we would be able to absorb up to six cars
for residents and their visitors on the site next we got a refusal for rear yard depth the minimum
required rear yard depth here is nine feet again the refusal here we in our opinion is really due
to the fact that one the lot is irregular and two because of how rear yards are measured by the code
Montrose Street was declared as the front of the parcel and the rear yard is measured from the opposite property line, and that is the area shaded in green here.
If you look at our proposal, you'll see that behind House 1, House 2, and House 3, we're actually providing in excess of 16 feet of open space behind.
And then even when you look at the portion of House 3 that curves into the rectangular portion, there's 29 feet of open space behind.
So in our opinion, we are complying with the spirit of providing at least a nine-foot rear yard, even though the irregular lot prevents us from complying with the letter of that requirement.
So we also, this item for refusal for roof deck setbacks, we actually comply.
If you look at the left, this is our original proposal when we submitted the zoning permit application.
What we were trying to do is have our roof deck railings follow the line of the setback, our setbacks on the fourth story, which led to a number of varying railing setbacks.
After consulting with the neighbors, we decided to just make a constant five-foot setback along Third Street and an even larger eight-foot setback along Montrose Street.
So we're actually in compliance on that item.
And finally, we're requesting a modest height variance.
As I mentioned before, you know, we've drastically set back the fourth floor and we've cut out several sections of the buildings.
And we've also provided parking on site on the first floor.
And while this all greatly decreases the visual mass of the building, it also reduces the interior volume of the building.
And we found that we require a little bit of extra ceiling height to make the interior spaces work.
However, our proposal to do that would result in a building with a visual sight line that is equal to what we could build by right.
So if we look at this diagram on the left side, we have the by-right scenario where we have a building with a 38-foot roof, and then we're permitted a three-and-a-half-foot parapet, which leads to a total sight line height of 41 feet, 6 inches.
Our proposal is to keep that same sight line height that we would be able to get by right, except just to trade the roof height and parapet height.
So our proposal is a 41-foot roof with a six-inch parapet.
And as you can see from the two diagrams, the building that we're proposing actually is and will look significantly smaller than what you can build by right,
In addition to the up to six-foot setback on the fourth floor, we've also increased the setback of the pilot house dramatically, and we've also pitched the pilot house back away from Montrose Street to make it as impossible to see as we possibly can make it.
And we also have some studies available, if you would like to see them, that demonstrate that the buildings as we propose them actually do have a lesser impact on the neighbors in terms of shadows and light and air.
And so this is just an elevation showing the various level heights of the building as proposed.
And so this is just a...
And finally, we believe this design best balances the hardships caused by the irregular lot configuration, along with our efforts to minimize the visual mass of the building
and minimize the impact to neighbors.
And finally, as I noted before,
the packet we submitted includes a letter of support
from QVNA, 14 letters of support from individual neighbors,
and a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Squilla.
Evan and Leah, could you just raise your hands
so that we can have you sworn in
so that you can adopt this testimony?
Thanks, Gary. We're both here.
okay so uh evan and leah do you uh affirm that my testimony is hold on gary gary just a moment
please i need their full names and addresses for the record spell their names
it's leah litvin l-e-a l-i-t-v-i-n address is 2203 lombard street philadelphia pa 19146
you swear to him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you
so uh leah uh if you heard have you heard my testimony do you affirm that it's true and
correct and do you adopt it as your own yes i do all right thank you thank you uh any questions
from the board no no is there anyone else like anyone else who would like to testify in this
case if so please raise your hand no hands at this time thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single family residential on the comprehensive plan the
applicant is proposing to remove two residential structures and replace them with three units
we do not feel this will have a negative impact on the surrounding community accordingly we have
no objection to the granting of the variances. Thank you. Mr. Clark, you said you had revised
plan. If so, how many pages? One page. One page? Thank you. MI-2020-000096, 925 South
3rd Street. My vote is yes with the proviso. Revised plan, one page approved today. Yes
Yes, with Proviso.
Yes, with Proviso.
Yes, with Proviso.
Thank you.
Good luck to you.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Frank, are we on Washington Avenue?
MI 2020-000094, 2300 Washington Avenue.
that's we get a little bit of an echo when you speak do you have another device on no how about
now perfect thank you all right is anyone here for washington avenue please raise your hand
this is carrie nace proust's case
built martin on there no
no it's carrie oh okay good afternoon carrie please identify yourself full name and address
please good afternoon carrie nace attorney with the law firm of fox rothschild c-a-r-r-i-e-n-a-s-e
hyphen p-o-u-s-t
I'm sorry you finish
oh sure
address 2700
Kelly Road suite 300
Warrington PA 18976
thank you
swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth yes I do
thank you confessor
Carrie have you emailed an exhibit packet
with the required documents
proof of ownership proof of
tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, folders and plans five days prior to this
hearing?
Yes, I did.
All right.
Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we do.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
Great.
Thank you.
Also here with me this afternoon is Danny Morris, who is the program manager of the applicant,
as well as John Harder, who is a traffic consultant from Atlantic Traffic and Design.
I would ask that both of them raise their hand so that Ms. Sunkett could admit them.
this is danny morris with extra space storage uh it is all legal name is daniel d-a-n-i-e-l
This is Danny Morris with Extra Space Storage.
m-o-r-r-i-s i am currently at 2795 east cottonwood parkway suite 400 salt lake city utah
84121 we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir thank you carrie
great can i also have john harder on the line yes i'm here if you can hear me um i'm principal
atlantic traffic and design engineering 1600 manor drive suite 200 chaufant pa 18914
your full name sir spell it john harder h-a-r-t-e-r thank you swear and affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do thank you please proceed
Great, thank you. This application involves property that is located at 2300 Washington Avenue. The property is zoned I-2.
One administrative matter before we get into the testimony, this matter was previously being handled by a former partner of mine, Mr. Martin.
Martin, it has come to my attention as I was preparing for the hearing that this property
is also subject to the West Washington Avenue overlay district and pursuant to section 518.2
of the zoning code, it does reference that non-accessory parking is not permitted within
the overlay. However, this was not identified by L&I in the notice of refusal. However, we don't
believe that this would in any way expand the relief that's being requested. However, I did
want to go on the record in the event that a variance would be required from that section
that we also specifically request that variance. Carrie, excuse me, this is Sharon. Yes. You did
include in the application, it did note that you were, that there were non-accessory parking spaces,
correct it was the it was the examiner's oversight not any failure on your
client's part to include a correct description of what you're doing that is
correct in both the appeal to the zoning board as well as notices to the
surrounding neighbors and our discussions with the community group we
have had discussions that this the application is to provide for non
non-accessory parking. And in that case I would recommend if the board does
approve it that they add a note confirming that they are additionally
granting a variance for non-accessory parking. What was that again? Conditional?
And that if you add you're going to have revised plans but also if you could add
note that the confirming that you are granting a variance for non-accessory
parking. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Paus, please proceed. Thank you.
So as I mentioned the property here it's on the aerial being shown to you. It's
identified as 2300 Washington Avenue. It's bounded to the north by Washington Avenue,
to the south by Alter Street, and to the east by 23rd. The property is zoned by two, as I mentioned,
and previously has received approval to operate as a self-storage business on the property,
which has been in operations for three years now. We do have the photographs of the
property here, you can see this is the existing building looking southwest from 23rd and
Washington. Looking again, this is from 23rd and Washington. This is the rear along Alter Street
and 23rd. Under the zoning code, table 802-3, for this property, we are required to have one
parking space for every 2,000 square feet of space. So as applied to this property, it would
require that we have 49 parking spaces, which we do in fact have located on the property, as well
as five loading spaces in addition to that. However, the zoning code does not make a distinction
between self-storage facilities or other warehouse uses that may be more intense.
We believe that the parking requirements are in fact excessive for a self-storage facility.
I'll pull up our plan here and zoom in so you can see. This is a site plan showing the current
parking on the property. As you can see, we have the 49 spaces. In this area here, it's five
additional loading stalls. And what you'll see here, we have photographs of the existing parking
of the existing parking spaces and this type of use on at any one given time the maximum amount
spaces. And this type of use on
of parking or visitors that you would see would be five to six individuals or cars utilizing the
parking area. So you can see that we have a large vacant space here that is being underutilized
due to the current code requirements.
What the applicant is proposing is to maintain the five loading spaces in this area here,
and then provide six additional accessory parking spaces. We would have three here,
and then we would also have another three in this area close to the leasing office
that would be maintained for use for customers visiting the self-storage.
The remaining 43 spaces within this area here, we're proposing to lease them out to the
surrounding community.
We would not be leasing them on a daily or hourly use, similar to like a typical parking
garage.
Instead, we would be entering into long-term rental agreements that would be subject to
a month-to-month lease, really geared more towards providing residents within that area
with off-street parking spaces. However, the non-accessory parking spaces are not permitted
in the overlay, as we discussed, and in addition, we would then be reducing the number of accessory
parking spaces that are otherwise required for the self-storage facility. We did meet with the
Point Breeze Community Development Coalition. Several concerns were raised by the residents in
this area. Primary concerns related to this access here onto Alter Street and providing safety
features. So it came to our attention that the prior developer had made some agreements not to
use this access onto Alter Street. And as you'll see in the proviso, we have agreed that this
Access will be limited to emergency only. So access will primarily be taken on to Washington Avenue up in here. This will be turned into instead of two one way, we will make it two way.
We also have added here as you'll see one way emergency exit sign in here notifying the patrons that they cannot access this road on to alter except for emergency.
Also, concerns were raised with regard to providing a safety feature to alert either pedestrians or other vehicles on Altra Street if we did need to use this access.
So we are adding some flashing lights and low audible noises that would alert people that a car is coming out.
We did already revise the site plan, which is before you. We are asking that this revised plan be approved by the Zoning Board if you're so inclined to grant the variance. We also did submit the proviso form.
So, subject to those provisos, which the applicant has agreed to, we did in fact receive a letter from Point Breeze in support of this application.
As I indicated, we did engage a traffic consultant, Mr. Harder.
He did prepare a parking study.
Unfortunately, we did not have it in time to submit with the other exhibits.
However, we did submit it earlier today to Ms. Sunkit as well as Ms. Oletta.
But I would ask Mr. Harder just to spend one or two minutes just briefly explaining to the board the findings of his study.
Hopefully everyone can hear me well.
The project as described, we'll have six spaces dedicated to self-storage and then also the five loading.
So in reality, there are 11 spaces because self-storage is unique in that the loading is really for customers.
It's not like a shopping center where there's parking for customers and delivery zones or loading areas for trucks.
So those 11 spaces will serve the needs well for self-storage.
We looked at three means in terms of demonstrating that in the proposed condition.
So extra space is found from their experience at this site and other urban locations, a maximum of six customers parked at one time.
And Atlantic just went out and did our own study this past Friday and Saturday and found the same results.
We found a maximum of five on Friday afternoon into the evening and Saturday in the afternoon evening, six maximum parked vehicles.
So those both, you know, corroborate well with the proposed supply.
ITE is another source, the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Their data is more based on suburban sites, but we also found...
Their data is more based on suburban sites, but we also found that the ITE data would work. The suburban sites indicate about 10 parked cars, which would also work, but I feel that that number is really exaggerated. In urban conditions, you have more walk-up, fewer residents owning cars in the area. So for that reason, I feel that all three sources support the proposal.
So, thank you.
Thank you.
And it should be noted in doing those parking counts that the self-storage facility is currently 96% occupied.
So, we don't anticipate that there would be a need for additional parking, given that the spaces are currently being utilized.
We believe that a hardship does exist due to the unduly burdensome parking requirements that 49 spaces be provided for this type of self-storage facility.
It does create a large vacant area that is being underutilized and which would encourage trespassers, also creates a vision of an unsuccessful business that may otherwise look as though it's a vacant building and drive down values.
We believe that the granting of the variance which created a reuse of this vacant ground, thereby providing a reasonable use of the property.
We also believe that it would be a benefit to the community by creating off-street parking
spaces and thereby reducing traffic on the surrounding streets so that individuals do
not need to circle the streets looking for on-street parking.
I do have Mr. Morris on the line.
I would just like to ask him to adopt my testimony with regard to extra space storage.
Thank you.
Mr. Morris
If you could unmute yourself
Are you on
Can you please unmute yourself
If we're having a problem
As an officer
Okay there we go
Good Mr. Morris
you were present uh this afternoon during the testimony that i have given yes and do you agree
that the statements made regarding the project and the relief being sought are true and accurate
yes and specifically um as the applicant agreed to the provisos that have been requested by the
point breeze community development coalition yes great and would you agree to accept the testimony
given this this afternoon as your own yes great thank you therefore I have no further questions
at this time and I would respectfully request that the board grant the variance being requested
this afternoon excuse me this is Sharon Saleta again I um I spoke with someone with the zoning
supervisor at LNI and she suggested that the proviso read so long as the access non-accessory
spaces are identified on the revised plans which they are
that the proviso be per revised plans one page approved today
including non-accessory parking great thank you
you're welcome questions from the board no no
anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
Chair we have a
Petra Gamble
Good afternoon again
Good afternoon again
Ms. Gamble you are still under oath
Please identify
yourself for the record
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman this is Petra Gamble
again I'm the coordinating
one of the members of coordinating RCL
for this property
and I just
wanted to go on record saying that we support
this property with provisos
thank you again appreciate your time thank you anyone else
no you can proceed thank you planning commission
good afternoon board peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for industrial mixed use in the comprehensive plan the proposal opens
existing underutilized parking to shared use accordingly we have no objection to the granting
of the variance. Thank you. MI-2020-000094. 2300 Washington Avenue. My vote is yes with the
following provisos. Revised plan one page approved today, including the granting of
non-accessory parking is that correct yes that's good and also uh ingress and egress on the altar
street side of the property to be used for emergency purposes only an installation of
installation of flashing and or low audible warning warning system is that
flashing and or low audible warning light.
it yes yes can I ask are those the additional provisors are they already
noted on the revised plans I don't know I don't I know there's an ingress and
egress on altar Street and I believe council said that they agreed it would
only be used for emergency purposes only? That is correct and we also do have a
note here that emergency exit sign and light with audible indicator to be
installed at emergency exit note number two so that is in fact on the plan. So
it may not be necessary to have the additional provisos is that correct
Carrie? That is correct. Thank you. Okay so just the proviso with the one page
correct correct correct okay all right again mi-2020-000094-2300 washington avenue
my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan one page approved today yes with proviso yes with
proviso yes with proviso thank you thank you and i believe that concludes the two o'clock list
thank you any unfinished business for the two o'clock list
no not for me okay uh it is now 403 we'll return give us 15 minutes everybody a break
we'll get back here by 4 18 okay okay okay
thank you and good afternoon and tanya we'll give you a few minutes
No, Chair, you can go forward.
Oh, we're ready to roll.
Okay, thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone.
My name is Frank DiCicco.
I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with Vice, excuse me, along with our secretary, Mr. Confessor Plaza, and board members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
Board Administrator Tanya Sunkett and board attorney Sharon Saleta are also in attendance.
For those of you who have not yet participated in our virtual hearings, I will go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, for the benefit of anyone participating by phone, we ask that attorneys and witnesses identify themselves prior to speaking or testifying.
Third, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
Fourth, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
I'll repeat, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself.
Finally, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I'll repeat that also.
to enter an appearance statement call google 267-270-5548 and leave your email address
and the address of the property at issue with that said we can begin but before mr plaza calls
our first case we'd like to ask if anyone is requesting a continuance and or an appeal
listed for this afternoon's 3 30 session if so please raise your hand
no hands at this time thank you
I'm just reading a text excuse me Sharon did you
Yes, I ask that number two on your list, Diamond Street, be heard last.
Confessor, number two on our list will be heard last.
That's 919 Diamond.
So we can go ahead with 1630 Rumfort Road.
MI 2020-001049, 1630 Rumfort Road.
Ms. Slay, you've been promoted to a panelist.
You can share your screen as you need to and unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
All right.
Sounds good.
Ms. Slay, do you affirm, do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, for nothing
but the truth?
And do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Are you an attorney?
Oh, I apologize.
Oh, okay.
I shouldn't say yes there?
I mean, it's okay.
This application is for multifamily, three-family dwelling, unit, household living, and an existing structure.
No signs on this application.
The permit for the above location cannot be issued because the proposal does not comply with the following provisions of the Philadelphia Zoning Code.
Okay, household living.
Household living is prohibited in the zoning district.
One refusal.
So that was that.
Ma'am, 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?
And have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Thank you.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Hi, everyone.
My name is Jasmine Schley, and I live at 1630 Rumford Road.
I'm also the owner and I'm looking to get the property zoned for a triplex for rental income
purposes. The current layout is like a duplex and it's like nearly all of the houses on my street
and the surrounding streets. Are you able to see my screen? I think I'm sharing it.
We see you, but we don't see your exhibits. Okay, let me share. Do I need permission to
share my screen? Let's see. No, you have a third. Do you just have to hit the green share button at
the bottom? Sorry about that. I have it up now. And then once you get hit that, click on your documents.
Got it. Okay. Perfect. Perfect. So this is the property right here on the corner. Like I was
saying, the current layout, and I'll show you this in one of my exhibits, is set up like a duplex,
like nearly all of the houses on my block and the several of the adjacent blocks.
And I did meet with the RCO and have the letter of support that is right here.
Yep, have a letter of support from the RCO.
And I can also show you what the existing layout looks like
and what the layout, excuse me, for the first floor will look like.
So I am showing you my, okay, so this is the current first, this is the first floor or the
basement. Right now there's this utility area, which is going to stay the same. And then there's
also this empty space right now that's cleared out, save for the bathroom. And it's going to be
set up as a one bedroom apartment with the kitchen over here. As you see, this is a door that goes
out to the outside of the house. And then this is going to be the one bedroom area. This person
will have access to the utility room, but they'll also have their own designated separate entrance
to the property. Here is what the second floor layout currently is, a one bedroom. So you have
your entrance right here to Rumford Road. You have your living space and then your one bedroom.
set up right here. This is the current layout. Then on the third floor, two-bedroom layout,
you have the master bedroom over here with a smaller bedroom, living room, and kitchen. And
again, like I was saying, most of the houses on my street and the current streets are set up as
duplexes, and there are some triplexes also. Are there any questions?
The properties that are set up as triplexes, are they the same footprint that you have?
Yes. And I can show you if it helps on Google Maps.
so this isn't so all of these so all of these properties along here this is rumper road
they all either rent out the upstairs in the first floor and some of them also rent out the
basements as well. And then the same on the other side of the street too.
and then the same on the other side of the street, too.
I'm just looking at the corner.
Okay, that's got four meters, that one, right?
This corner, yeah.
So that's set up as a triplex, correct?
Correct.
The other one next to it is a duplex.
Okay, all right.
All right, any questions from the board?
Anyone else who would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
Sure, we have Hillary from the council person's office.
Hello, Hillary, which one is that?
This is Ellie.
All right, Ellie.
Ellie, do you swear to the phone?
good afternoon mr chair members of the board hillary emerson on behalf of councilwoman
sherelle parker um hillary h-a-l-a-r-y emerson e-m-e-r-s-o-n
we're going to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i i do yes we can read that in a minute i'll be i'll be brief um the councilwoman um is
is not opposed to this application for a triplex with the proviso that a specific occupancy
be obtained prior to the basement being occupied. I believe there's renovations that need to be done,
so I don't know if the normal nine months would be sufficient or not. I'm not sure about timeline.
We know this is a corner property that has an above-grade basement that has a separate entrance.
um it isn't out of character with the surrounding neighborhood which does have other
multi-family including the triplex directly across the street which is a legal triplex
i did look that up um and this property has been multi-family um for quite some time from
what we can tell so it was already multi-family and um as the applicant noted the community is
not opposed to this application thank you anyone else who would like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand no other hands chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon um chair my name is greg waldman with the planning commission
Frank, spell your last name, please.
That's W-A-L-D as in door, M-A-N as in man.
We're confirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Please proceed.
This property is indicated for residential single-family use on the comprehensive plan.
and however the proposed triplex does not have a, we do not believe that the
proposed triplex will have an adverse impact to the block. Accordingly we do
not object to the branding of the variants. Thank you very much. Calendar number
For MI-2020-001049, 1630 Rumfort, ROUM, FORT Street, my vote is yes with the proviso, a certificate of occupancy to be obtained within six months.
Yes for proviso.
Yes for proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Good luck.
MI 2020-000551
I believe the next one
Next one as well
That's 3649 North 15th Street
And also MI 2020-000686
3651 North 15th Street
Leo, you start on the roof
Do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required document, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans, five days in
event prior to this hearing?
I have.
Awesome.
Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We had a RCO meeting that was scheduled for October 1.
I attended.
It was an hour-long meeting.
I was allotted 10 minutes to present, the community group then stopped my presentation five minutes through and is requesting we come back on the 28th.
So my request today is going to be that we hear this case and that the board is so inclined to hold or they can vote today in the discretion of the board.
or they can vote today in the discretion of the board.
All right.
All right.
Please identify yourself for the record,
and careful, there's a cat in your head, all right?
Oh, no, actually, I'm a possum, see?
I've been wearing a different costume every hearing so far this month,
and nobody's said anything yet, so I decided to ramp it up a little bit.
This is the first time I noticed.
I was wearing a Star Trek costume the first time,
and this morning I was dressed like a vampire.
No one said a thing, so I figured the fuzzy,
vest nepal and the ears would do that it gave you what you got our attention now that's for sure
all right so members of the board leo mulvihill here on behalf of k and k 3649 north 15th llc
we're here for two properties today 3649 3651 north 15th street that's on 15th just
south of erie avenue on the screen right now i have my exhibit packet the refusals appeals and
project information forms are at page 1. Area zoning maps are at page 12. The deeds are at page
13. Commercial activity license is at page 26. Tax clearances are at 27. Zoning notification letter
is 29. The property history for each parcel from Philadelphia Atlas is at 32. As noted, I have no
RCO letter. I have photos of the properties beginning at page 56 and plans of the properties
beginning at 76 and proceeding through the end. So members of the board, what we're here for today
is pretty straightforward. I'll pull up the refusal. I'm sorry to interrupt. Could you just
speak a little bit louder? Certainly. Thank you. So we're here today for a pretty straightforward
proposal. We have two parcels that are zoned CMX3. My clients buy right with height, open air,
number of units that can be provided, and everything else. These lots are located on a
block that is essentially full of older style row homes that are set back from the street
and are huge. But because these lots are zoned CMX3, we are required for each parcel
to provide one off-street parking space. In order for us to do that, we would have to delete
two or more current legal on-street parking spaces and somehow try to put off-street parking
into the proposed building. Frankly, I don't believe that benefits the neighborhood.
My client believes it doesn't benefit the neighborhood since we've been taking away legal on street parking and privatizing it and removing one space to add one space doesn't make a lot of sense. That's a hardship in this circumstance members of the board.
So those are refusals. They're identical for each property.
What I'm showing now is page 12 of my zoning packet members of the board. This is the overhead zoning map of these properties, as you can see, indicated in that blue is our parcel zone CMX3. The other parcel at 51 is located directly next to that. We're just a block shy, or half a block shy of Erie Avenue.
I'm going to proceed past the deeds.
I'm going to proceed just to the photographs of the property members of the board.
I'd just like you to all take judicial notice based on the zoning records that are obtainable
from the Philadelphia Atlas, that 3649 had previously been both a six-family dwelling
and then a three-family dwelling, 3651 had previously been both a six-family dwelling
and then thereafter a four-family dwelling.
All right, to my photographs,
we're at page 56 of my packet members of the board.
These are the parcels as they currently exist
as of the date that I posted the zoning signs.
I'll just scroll through those
so we have an idea of what we're looking at here.
If you look to the left members of the board,
that's a previously approved rooming house.
I believe it has eight units in it.
This is looking northbound from the parcel
towards Erie Avenue to the right.
You see that rooming house.
And we're just rotating down the block looking southbound.
Here are the homes as I previously discussed.
You can see newer constructed homes further down the block and many of the homes on this
block have already received variances for two, three, four family dwellings and are
currently being used as such today.
Across the street we do have shorter homes that are two stories, but then on the corner
again at Erie and 15th. We have this larger structure which I believe is being used currently
as a multi-family dwelling. And there's another photograph of the parcel itself.
I'm showing now page 76 of the packet members of the board. This is a rendering as we proposed.
The rendering does not indicate the height. I have those later on the plans, but
Within the guidelines for CMX3, we're 48 feet, six inches in height, with a four-story, four-family dwelling on each lot.
with a four-story, four-family dwelling on each lot. Moving now to the actual floor plans for
the property, they're essentially identical for each unit members of the board. They're just
kind of butterflied. Can you blow the plans up a little? Absolutely. So I'll start with the
basement plan, and I'll kind of scroll through that. So here's our basement plan. We have a
bedroom in the front, family room to the middle, storage and a bathroom, another bedroom in the
rear, full set of egress, walk out stairs. The rear yard is 12 foot 8 inches deep and it spans
the width of the lot, which I believe is 16 feet. Oh, going back to my previous page, got a little
too eager there. So here's the first floor. It is four bedrooms, 1,866 square feet, bedroom in the
front, kitchen, dining towards the middle, larger bedrooms to the rear, again with a set of stairs
that allows access to the rear yard. There's an alleyway that leads out to Pacific Street as well.
We're going to be going to the next page now.
So we're here in the second story. Unit B is 945 square feet.
Bedroom in the front, bedroom in the rear, living and dining, and a kitchen area.
What is the trash access for the second floor?
We have trash storage units on the second floor located here, kind of a kitty corner
with the mechanical closets.
We have the same thing for units C, bedroom in the front, bedroom in the back, trash storage
unit by the stairs and in the kitchen, we have bathrooms both in the front and back
as well. Unit C and unit D are both bi-level. So unit D itself is 924 square feet. Unit C is about
1,010 square feet. As we go up to the next story, we can see where that breaks off. So to the front,
we have unit D's living space with the second bedroom and living space. To the back, we have
additional living space for unit C, the larger bedroom, bathroom, and living space as well.
What I have here now are just the initial zoning submissions that were provided to the city.
There is a front yard. There's decks on the front of the property. The entrance is kind of set back
off the street a little bit to allow for some more open space towards the front. This is the
36-51 development. I can show you the 36-49 in a second as well if you dare to see that.
And here's the overall elevation.
So again, 48 foot six overall height with the parapet. The roof itself is only 45 feet. We have balconies on each story to allow for additional outdoor space for the people who live in the units themselves.
This is just the other site plan. It's just a basically a reversal of the previous site plan.
So members of the board, we'd ask that you grant this variance in that we face a hardship
in developing this lot by right, namely that we can't really fit sufficient all street parking
here because of the size dimension of the lots themselves. They exist as they are. We'd be taking
away legal on-street parking. And even if we were to add a curb cut, the best we could do is stack
maybe one, two cars, one right in front of the other, which isn't terribly conducive to
accessibility for parking purposes. It leads to people potentially parking on the sidewalk itself,
which I know continues to be a problem with the City Planning Commission's concerns with open
parking like that. And it's taking away legal on-street parking that the neighbors have enjoyed
three years. So essentially, based on this parcel zoning, our proposal, the zoning of adjacent
properties with multifamily use that's been in use for decades on that block, we'd ask you to
consider granting the variance or at least holding your vote until we were able to have our second
community meeting on the 28th, where we expect to have a well-attended meeting and be able to
actually present the project this time to the members of the community. We're happy to take
any questions you have at this time go back and show us the uh the rent artist rendition of the
property that one yeah so the grassy area to the right here yeah that's not our property
not your property correct let me ask you the front
My concern is that the facade of that building is way out, right up to the sidewalk, I guess, where the sidewalk begins and ends.
right up to the sidewalk i guess where the sidewalk begins and ends yes the property line
that was microsoft someone builds next to it they're going to want the same i think depth
of the footprint the same depth which would block that porch to to the existing house the two houses
over they may they may or may they may not and i think if this will set precedent for to say why
not us. But having said that, are they four bedroom units each? No, they're not all four
bedroom units. So I'll go back. How many were four bedrooms? So we have the four bedroom unit
is on the basement and the ground floor. That's unit A, which is the largest unit at
about 1,860 square feet. And then we have unit B, which is a two bedroom unit. It's just labeled
incorrectly by the architect where it says three and four. And then units C and D, so D is to the
front here, C is to the rear. Those are each also two bedroom units. I didn't mean that, Tom. I'm
sorry. You're correct, Mr. Chairman. My concern was the front facade doesn't line up with the
adjacent buildings. Well, the property directly next to us, which is the rooming home, does go
all the way out to the street, so we are in line with that. It doesn't line up to the property
two doors down, that's true, but we didn't receive a refusal for that at all. In theory,
could the building be pushed back? Yes, but then what we end up with is an open area issue
and rear yard issue with respect to what we're required to provide in this zoning district as
well. If that's a concern about what the zoning board has, what I can do is consult with my
client and suggest see whether a potential revision is possible however that's going to trigger
more likely than not a new refusal for us in this instance and it would deprive the people in the
rear units uh from any rear yard space whatsoever for trash storage etc for the ground story unit
or it may be less units yeah that's exactly yeah it would be less less units or smaller units well
the units are by right the only issue that we have here with respect to the variances requested are
the all street parking word that we're suggesting are in line with both the
historical use of this property as indicated in the exhibits that I've
included in my packet and the other parcels in the block which are largely
three and four and five unit buildings even though they are zoned I believe RSA
five at this point this building is historic this block rather is
historically multi-family
all right we still got the issue with the bedrooms in the basement okay
uh tom chair to that end we do have the full set of egress stairs that leaves out to
i saw that in an attempt to assuage your concerns about that understood understood tom
yes mr chairman any more and any more questions no i'm sorry any other board member have a question
no no is there anyone else who would like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
here we have charles richardson from the council person's office
thank you good afternoon mr richardson you know the drill please identify yourself
good afternoon mr chair this is charles richardson from the office of councilwoman cindy bass
uh you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I am in receipt of emails this morning that have been exchanged between Mr.
Mulvihill and Charles Kahn, who is the head of the 13th Ward RCO.
I'm going to read into the record.
Good morning, Mr. Leo Mulvihill.
This is from Mr. Kahn this morning at 7.37 a.m.
You guys were very, very busy this morning.
very early. Per our previous conversation, please note a requested RCO community meeting
has been rescheduled for 3649 and 51 North 15th Street. Please confirm your applicant's
attendance with an email to the undersigned. Please note this meeting location is close
proximity to the directly affected residents and business owners. Please ensure your office
informs the directly affected residents and business owners as required by mailing a
notification goes on to note that it's going to take place at the Hero Center and the date the
day being the 28th of this month at 5 30 p.m. in closing please forward a copy of the forwarded
meeting notification to the coordinating RCO mailing address which is the post office box for
the RCO if you have any questions please can or concerns please contact me directly in response
Mr. Mulvihill responded thank you Mr. Karn and this was 10 minutes later uh thank you Mr. Karn
Thank you, Mr. Karn. And this was 10 minutes later. Thank you, Mr. Karn. I respectfully request that we be allowed to present first this evening, as I have another RCO meeting to attend at 730 p.m. Best Leo and Mulvihill Jr.
I respectfully
With this, the Councilwoman is asking that you guys hold any vote, although it was requested that you possibly vote or hold.
She's requesting that you hold because we're waiting to see what the response is going to be from the community to the variance requested for the RCO.
I'm not quite sure that Mr. Karn wasn't aware that Mr. Mulvihill was going to be presenting today other than actually requesting a continuance.
So, you know, based on their exchanges this morning, we're going to ask that you hold, even though you've heard, we ask that you hold until after the RCO meeting, and then the councilwoman will weigh in based on what the response will be.
That was mentioned in the earlier testimony of Mr. Mollerville as well.
Anyone else who would like to testify in this case?
No, Chair, you can proceed.
Thank you.
Planning Commission?
Chair and members of the board, this is Greg Waldman from the Planning Commission.
Should I go ahead?
Yes, please.
This property is indicated for commercial mixed use on the comprehensive plan.
It's located one block from the Erie Broad Street Line station.
Accordingly, we have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
okay at the request of the councilwoman's office the rco and mr mobile hill this hearing will be
resumed tanya i need a date and time um are we talking about the date what's the date for the
meeting october 28th the after the 28th so we can do the third
okay does that work yes i'll be on hearings anyway so i'll be okay so we can do november 3rd
at um 9 30. okay this uh let me start this again
calendar numbers am i i'm sorry tanya i just wanted to put on the record that it's a resumption
hearing so um all involved there's no posting requirements thank you mi-2020-000551
3649 north 15th street and mi-2020-0006863651 north 15th street this hearing will be resumed
on november the 3rd at 9 30 a.m at which time we will consider any feedback related to the rco's
position and the councilwoman's position great thank you members of the board and
keep an eye out for my next halloween costume appearance
I don't want to worry, we'll be watching.
I will.
Have a good afternoon.
MI2020-000684801 East Willard Street.
I don't have hands up. Is anybody here from Willard Street?
801 East Willard Street.
No hands, Chief.
Thank you. MI-2020-000684801 East Willard Street is continued.
Okay. Next one up is MI-2020-000162701 West York Street.
The attorney is in June.
good afternoon good afternoon zengine you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do do you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate 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 photos and plans five days
prior to this hearing? I have. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We do not have a letter from the RCO. I will explain to the board.
We do not have a letter from the RCO. I will explain to the board as part of the presentation why that is the situation.
Okay, please identify yourself for the record.
Xenjin, Z-H-E-N, J-I-N, here on behalf of the applicant, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia EPA 19103.
I'm sorry, may I proceed?
Yes, please proceed.
Okay, thank you.
My client is Mr. Naritan Kanoli.
He is the owner of 701.
I'm going to go ahead and share our presentation package with the board.
board. We have submitted to the board the following exhibits, a copy of the refusal,
our email records for request of the community letter, certificate of tax clearance, deed,
ZBA application, project information sheet, photos and plans. I will first address the
RCO situation. We met with APM but this project being the size that it is also drew in the
other RCOs that were in the area including Zulu as well as 37th Ward. So what we ended
up with is a request from the community to work out a community benefits agreement which
which the latest draft was sent over to Mary Jones at the councilman's office this morning.
So she asked that I would present the case but ask the board to hold the case for a week
because we're trying to finalize the community benefits agreement.
There's a little bit of disagreement as to the amount of the benefits between my client
and what the community is asking for, which we're trying to hammer out with the community.
We had two meetings with the RCO. At the second meeting, it was generally not opposed so long as a CBA was worked out between my client and the community.
That was the agreement at the end of the second meeting. However, APM indicated they may have lost the voting sheet, which also is part of the reason why we don't have any letters as of today.
This refusal is relating to minimum lot area for the proposal.
To understand why we face such a large lot area difference for the number of units,
we really have to look at the actual building, which is shown here in the photos.
So this used to be a Catholic school at the corner of York Street, 7th and York.
the footprint of this building is about 8,900 square foot. The building itself is currently
shown as four floors total, but the first floor actually is about 20 foot high. So the proposal
is actually to divide the first floor into two so that there are 10 feet floors rather than a 20
foot first floor because to heat and manage heating of such a high roof is really not
viable with the building of this age. My clients have repaired the exterior facade and we do plan
to keep it but the work will be done on the interior to essentially separate this into
five floors. What that does is not counting the basement which will be left for storage
mechanicals only. Not counting the basement, we're talking about 45,000 or so square foot of
space that is being filled up with residential units. The lot size by right would give us about
29 units, and this is an RM1 zone district. So we are given about 29 units by right,
But with 40-some thousand square foot, that would average each unit out to be almost 1,500 plus square foot, which would mean that these are going to be large units and higher price units if rental, which is the ultimate goal, is considered.
So the proposal is to take the interior and divide it into smaller units, which is where the 50
count came from. The plans shown here is the best way to understand kind of how
we're trying to divide up the space. Each floor will be divided almost essentially the same,
we're trying to divide up the space.
which is why this is the floor option B design. And each floor would contain three two-bedroom
units, including one in the corner, one here, and one here, and the rest will be one-bedroom units.
That'll be a total of about 10 units per floor, five floors, with a total of 50 units.
My client is flexible on the idea of unit total, but if we were to do 29 units with three bedrooms,
it comes out to be about 87 bedrooms versus this layout, even though it's 50 units,
actually comes out with about 75 bedrooms in total. So it's actually a reduction in bedroom
density versus larger units. The other piece is that of course parking, because it's RM1,
is not officially a refusal. However, we are converting based on our site plan,
we do have a space here as part of my client's lot. And I'll try to zoom into that again
to give a better idea. This is about 4,900 square foot of open area, and we are looking into
requesting the city to allow this to be used as additional parking spaces or off-street parking
spaces. The street parking will be maintained. My client agreed to talk to the street department
the city again about permitted parking for the street parking around the building. In addition,
we're proposing lighting around the building as well that would help keep the corner lit up
at night, security cameras and other things added for security of the building. The community of
course is very concerned with the construction process. That is part of the community benefits
agreement along with possible local hiring and as well as some kind of use program assistance
from my client. So that is the primary reason we're asking for this variance with the total
number of units. Again, the floor, each floor as set up is about 63 and this is the existing
16 footprint I'm sorry 61 feet width and 143 almost 144 foot in depth and that is why this building
when you really consider the overall footprint is much larger than your typical construction that
would be on a lot of this size which only permits the 29 units and that is why we're asking the
board's consideration for the additional units. Again the refusal is for
specifically the lot size as per the units requested so it is a dimensional
variance only that is before the board and this is again an RM1 residential
district. I'm happy to answer any questions or redirect the presentation
towards any page the board is interested in looking at.
When is that next community meeting?
So we're not having another community meeting.
We have already had two.
What we're really doing is now emailing back and forth with the help of the
councilman's office, actually, a draft of a community benefits agreement.
And we're trying to finalize that hopefully within the week through the
help of Mary Jones from council president's office.
She may be on actually.
Do you have anyone else?
do you have anyone to bring on? I believe my client is here. That is Mr. Naritan Kanoe.
I don't see anyone with that name. If you're here for 701, can you raise your hand? I don't know.
He also had the project manager, so I'm not sure if he's the one that's here today. I have someone
with the hand up named Kripa?
Yes, yes.
Yeah, Besmir, that's the manager.
Besmir, excuse me, sir, is that a man or what?
Besmir?
Yes, good afternoon.
Please identify yourself with a record.
Spell your first and last name.
Sure, first name is Besmir, B-E-S-M-I-R.
Last name is Kripa, K-R-I-P-A.
I'm a partner
You're swearing for him to tell the truth
The whole truth and nothing but the truth
Thank you
Mr. Mayor, you heard my factual presentation to the zoning board as well as the representations
You heard my factual presentation
To the zoning board
I made.
Can you verify that they are true and correct and adopted as your own testimony?
Yes, they are.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
Anyone else would like to testify in this case, if so, please raise your hand.
no hands oh here's mary jones mary jones yeah good afternoon ms jones identify yourself you're
still on the roof from earlier today hi good afternoon mary jones from council president
daryl clark's office city hall room 496 um yes uh i just wanted to confirm that i have been
assisting the community and um misters in with uh uh their talks and negotiations around the city
excuse me around the community benefits agreement and yes uh our office is um an agreement that this
the vote should be held uh for a week so we can um so the community has time and the community and
the the applicant have time to uh finalize the agreement excuse me thank you um sharon and or
tom do you think we'd be better off doing attorney moving party uh no because we heard the case
already so um we can do the same a resumption hearing to allow input from the community
okay thank you all right anyone else um can i ask do we have a specific date for that
sorry yeah okay let me get the planning commission we'll get the date all right
planning commission good afternoon this is Greg Waldman from the planning
commission this property is indicated for residential multifamily use on the
comprehensive plan. The building is the old St. Edward the Confessor's School. While not listed
on the local register, the church complex has cultural value for the neighborhood. The proposed
conversion to multifamily is a viable reuse for the property. Accordingly, we have no objection
to the granting of the requested variance with the proviso that the existing structure may not
be demolished. Understood. Thank you. Anyone else who would like to testify in this case,
please raise your hand no hang do we have a date tanya and time uh well it's
i don't know do you think in a week is enough time yes i believe uh a week um yeah that's
why i was saying i know you can't do attorney moving party but i don't know if your week's
going to be enough so what we can do to let's do the tour about the 28th as in at 9 30 28th and 9 30
before the board so that is a good day sounds good thank you thank you thank you tanya mi-2020-000162
701 west york street this hearing will be resumed on october the 28th at 9 30 a.m
At which time
We will consider any feedback
Related to the RCO's position
Thank you
Thank you
Next one up is
That's
000719
Diamond Street
sharon earlier i think you asked us to hold this to the end um was that we do have any update on
that um i can check it was michael i'm sorry he's here i i just need abby i'm sorry pauline
could you promote him to panelists I'm unable to do it for some reason no
problem no worries thank you
okay he should be promoted to panelist
good afternoon good afternoon sir you swore in a firm to tell the truth the
whole truth for nothing but the truth I do do you agree to waive the reading of
I do. Do you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy.
I do. Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copies of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this
hearing? Yes, I have. Awesome. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, multiple times, and a letter came over yesterday afternoon, which I emailed to the board this afternoon, and I do have a copy that I can present on the screen if necessary.
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
Michael McElhenney, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, M-C-I-L-H-I-N-N-E-Y, Law Office of Orphanities and Toner, 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 800.
Thank you.
And I'm here today. I'm here on behalf of the equitable owner, Mazel Tov Development LLC, whose main member, sole member is Gary Murray, so he should be on the line as well. And I believe the architect was going to join us, Kevin O'Neill.
And if I may share my screen to present the exhibits.
What is the name of the entity again?
Mazel Tov, Development, LLC. Thank you.
I guess it's a matter of some housekeeping, attached on the screen right now is the exhibit index for today's hearing.
We have properly posted the property with the ZBA hearing notice. Those photos are at Exhibit 1. Tax clearances are at Exhibit 2. The current deed for the property is at Exhibit 3. And as I mentioned, my client's the equitable owner. So at Exhibit 4, we do have the agreement of sale through which he's going to purchase the property.
we met with the community uh registered community organizations it was a longer path for the past
year a little over a year to come to this point the original rco that was the coordinating rco
was the village arts and humanities group we met with them in january we had a positive
meeting result but they requested not to suspend the vote and to redesignate a different rco
APM to be the coordinating RCO because the project that issue is closer to APM's territory.
We then coordinated with Mary Jones of Councilman Clark's office, the Planning Commission, and APM
to change coordinating RCOs. We have met with APM. We met with them in August and had a positive
meeting, and we met again with them last week with immediate near neighbors so they could have a
stronger voice and ask more questions. That meeting was very positive. We do have a letter of support
now, which I emailed to the board just this afternoon. What do we have? I believe it was 14
attendees and the end of the letter just states that they're in full support of the variances
is requested for this project. So if I can orient the board to the subject property,
an aerial view of the property. We are dealing with a property at 919 Diamond Street and the
property to the north, which is 2107 North 10th Street. It's at 10th and Diamond. 10th and Diamond
is the Diamond Street to the south, 10 streets to the west. And as you can see, the train tracks for
the regional rail line and Amtrak run right through the property and slice it on an angle.
To the north, we have Edgley Street, which is mainly vacant lots. There are two houses on Edgley
Street, and to the east is Delhi Street. The property is currently used, as you can see, for
auto use, storage, junkyard. It has several industrial buildings on the lot that our
Our proposal is going to be to tear those buildings down as part of the proposal.
And the proposal here is for a commercial mixed-use building, ground floor commercial
residential above.
Let me zoom out a little bit.
So the subject property is in the center of your screen, and it is zoned I2 Industrial
hearkening back to this auto use that you saw in the prior photo, the
neighborhood, the characteristics of the neighborhood and the hardship that's
being presented to the board today is that the characteristics of this
neighborhood and the stretch along the train tracks, the I2 portion, has really
has really transitioned to a commercial residential sector.
transitioned to a commercial residential sector.
To the southwest of the property at 10th and Diamond
is another I-2 property that was granted a use variance
to do a ground floor commercial,
a five-story building with ground floor commercial
and residential above.
And we're proposing a comparable project
at 9th and Diamond.
and what i'd like to do is bring the board down to site photos of the property as you can see that
these are the industrial buildings that are currently on the property a little deteriorated
there is a curb cut on diamond street that we will be moving to the west as part of the project
when you go up delhi street which is the property the the street to the east it's kind of a vacant
stretch a desolate stretch with not much lighting it leads to some dumping as you can see a camper
on the side of the road right now there's actually a boat on the side of the road that came up with
a community meeting the other night the industrial buildings themselves are are out of date and need
serious repair but as we're proposing it's going to be demolition and I would
like to show there are some new construction properties on Delhi and
Percy to the east and importantly similar properties along the this train
corridor are comparable to what we're proposing at 9th and Norris is a mixed
use commercial residential development and the property I referenced just a
minute ago at 10th and Diamond is this five-story commercial mixed-use building
that's very comparable to what we're looking to do at the subject property.
So the reason we're here today obviously is it's an I-2 property and in I-2 properties if you're
doing commercial and residential you're going to get two refusals because those uses are
prohibited in the I-2 zoning district. The proposal here is to demolish all the existing
structures, consolidate the lot at 919 Diamond and 2109 North 10th Street into one lot,
erect a five-story building not to exceed 60 feet with the ground floor commercial and some
commercial on the second floor. We will have 99 dwelling units are proposed and as part of the
project we do have off-street parking but the third refusal is actually for we were only able
to fit 30 spaces under the building, whereas 45 spaces
technically would be required.
There we go.
So on the screen right now, page 73 of the exhibit packet
is the current lot plan showing the two separate parcels
at issue.
And we're proposing to consolidate those
into one large parcel that'll create 35,000 square feet of land area for the erection of this five-story building.
Now, we do have a, this is our zoning plans on the screen in Exhibit 12, and I want to make a note to the board that there is a proviso that was sent over as part of this to correct some typographical errors,
Scrivener's errors and also to account for changes that were presented at the
Civic Design Review and let me pull up the proviso form just so I don't miss
speak on the exact language. We added projections and balconies to a portion
of the Diamond Street front edge of the building and the other items are just
for correcting Scrivener's errors on the zoning table. This is Sharon Slitta. I'm
sorry but even if it was presented to the community any addition of balconies
at the front of the building would have to be reviewed by Ellen I that's a good
Good point, because that's not on the original zoning plan.
No, and they would have to review that in case it generates any additional refusals.
You could, if you were to remove the balconies and come back in a week with the plans as revised without the balconies, the board could vote it, and you could maybe then try to add them by administrative review.
But otherwise, you're going to have to file an amended application to LNI, which could take a while.
Understood. I think it would be best if we could then continue the hearing to make those corrections or to remove the balconies if feasible.
Understood. I think it would be best if we could then continue the hearing.
Okay, so we can schedule a date, Tanya, if in two weeks.
Should we go on with the rest of it and just leave that?
Oh, sure. Yes, I'm sorry, of course.
Yeah, that'll be the outstanding item, right? We can hear everything else and we'll address that in two weeks or whatever date we come up with, right?
Exactly. Yes. Thank you.
And I'll run through the rest of the plans, the floor plans and the renderings.
One thing I wanted to note on the zoning data.
It's an I2 zone property, so technically you can have 100% of lot coverage.
we're proposing 27,000 square feet as being covering the building and we
created some open space in the the center of the property to increase the
light and air for the residential units that are being developed. The rear yard
as part of the project has an eight-foot minimum. Due to the size of the
building we did increase that to a 10-foot rear yard to create an increased
buffer with the neighbors to the north. I think it would best we go to the CDR
floor plans to see the actual renderings. So, we're looking at page 89 of the exhibit
packet that's presented to the board, which is the ground floor site plan for the project.
the ground floor would can consist of a 12 450 square foot commercial area the main commercial
stretch would be fronting on diamond street the lob the the residential section the lobby is at
the corner of delhi and diamond street which would also allow for provide for the leasing office
elevators a commercial elevator to the second floor commercial space that i'll show you in a second
and as i mentioned a second ago we do have a buffer between the neighbors to the north with
a 10-foot rear yard and a six-foot privacy fence there's also a three-foot alley between
our property and the properties of north that gives it an extra buffer
so parking was one of the issues that came up as it does in many of these projects
in the city so we do have as i mentioned 30 off street parking spaces as part of the project
the parking is in the northern section of the proper of the project of the building it's one
building that's connected in the middle so it creates this courtyard open space between kind
of as if it was two separate structures the parking comes down 10th street runs north to south
The cars would enter in from 10th Street and go east and exit onto Delhi.
We were able to get 30 off-street parking spaces, two of which are accessible and two of which would be electric vehicles.
And as part of our application, we did have 30 bike spaces required.
We were able to get, actually, based off the dimensions and size, we could fit up to 90 parking spaces inside the structure,
which would be located behind the lobby at the rear of the rear of the lobby and also at the
rear of the the main the front building outdoor and in communication with the planning commission
we did had as many bike racks as we could around the property on diamond street and delhi and right
now we have about 18 outside bike racks also a big issue is what about the trash the project itself
has a refuse location in the middle of the building, which would have a trash chute for
the floors two through five that the residents could access, and also the commercial space on
the Delhi Street would have access to. The main commercial space has its own refuse location
on the southwest corner behind the loading zone. And I should mention, the commercial space,
The photo I showed earlier had a curb cut closer to Delhi Street. The curb cut has been moved over to abut the train tracks, which is where the loading zone for the big commercial space would take place.
That would create the buffer between the train tracks and the structure, which is good for the residences above.
One of the other comments from the community meetings was what about roof decks on this
From the community meetings was what about roof decks on this big on the five story structure. This property has no roof decks. This is a green roof is planned as part of the project. So there'll be nobody on the fifth floor, fifth floor level.
based on the five-story structure.
and looking at the aerial view as i mentioned before the res there's a residential court
between the two structures and on the west side there is a proposal for a second and third floor
deck area which would house a a deck at the second floor level and a pool at the third floor
the building itself was pulled back to the east to create a buffer from the train tracks and in
that, what would have been dead space, my client's proposing to add an amenity like the outside space
for the decking and the pool area. And here at page 92 of the exhibit packet is the view, the
rendering of the property from the corner of 9th from Diamond and Delhi. As you can see, the big
glass facade is the lobby, the main entrance to the building for the residences and for the
elevator for the commercial space. The stairs on the right of the of the screen
lead up to the outdoor commercial space and one of the comments from planning was
Delhi Street's not a huge street and pulling the building back to create to provide for more light
and air would be a good idea and that that was taken into account and it benefits the project
by creating some outdoor commercial space which in this day and age is an amenity.
Looking at the screen right now, page 93, is the view of the project from Diamond Street
looking north. As I mentioned, the main ground floor will be the commercial tenant. To the
west is the loading zone to service the commercial space, and to the right is the lobby entrance.
And on the second floor level, going up those steps that we just looked at, creates is this
second floor commercial deck area. The commercial space on the second floor is approximately 3,200
square feet, and which could be divided up to suit various tenants, one, two, or three, depending on
the needs and likes of the community. And we have various ideas and feedback from the community of
what would be a good tenant for that location. But with the outdoor commercial space, which is
accessible to the public, to the tenants, to anyone, it does provide some variety of services
that these tenants could use in terms of servicing customers outside, which is very beneficial to
commercial businesses in this current health environment. And taking the view from the north
looking south, the building, we do have that privacy fence. It's just a six-foot standard fence
to separate the subject property from the neighbors to the north, which are mainly vacant lots with
exception of two residences. On the screen currently is that two-story public space for a deck at the
second floor and a pool at the third floor. We do have a barrier that's proposed to create some
privacy between the pool area and also create a sound barrier between the trains and the building.
One of the comments at Civic Design, Civic Design went very well. It was very positively received. They did ask us to consider a material that might allow light to come through, but also provide privacy. And that's something the client and the architect are working through.
and looking at an aerial shot of the proposed rendering one thing I would like to call out is
the commercial space as I mentioned is about 12,500 square feet and it does go through to
Delhi Street the architect did build in windows at the ground floor level to provide light and air
into the commercial space to make it more attractive and as part of the rendering and
as far as the project, one of the things the community asked about was public safety.
Delhi Street, as I showed on the site photos, is a pretty desolate stretch right now that's
subject to tons of dumping, and it's not a pleasant place to be walking in the middle
of the night.
It's dark.
It's not very comfortable.
So they have requested lighting on this side, which my client is already intending to do,
and also security cameras, whether they would be positioned on the various corners around
building that is is part of the proposal as well as hiring um security staff to be a part of the
project going forward and i'd like to pull up some of the floor plans so as we went through the the
So, as we went through the ground floor plan previously, there is also a cell or a basement
space attached to the building that's divided between the commercial area and the residential.
So it's about 60% commercial and maybe 30% residential and the rest is mechanicals to
service the building. And the plan as of now, as the layout is set up, we do have, I'm going to
zoom in just so you can see a little better. There is a mix of apartments proposed for this
development. We have 56 studios proposed, 24 one-bedroom units, and 19 two-bedroom units that
will range from various sizes to try to give a good mix of tenants that would be able to
live at the building, not pure students. We want members from the community to also be able to
see this as a place to live long-term, and that's why there's a decent number of two-bedroom units
with two bedrooms, two baths. And the floor plans basically mirror each other as we go
up over the five stories. So on the screen, members of the board currently at page 112
are just typical studios, one bedroom, two bedroom units that would populate the various
spaces throughout the building. And for the most part, they're really good sized units.
The studios start at 475 and go up to 575, and the one bedrooms are between 750 up to
950, and the two bedrooms are around 1,000, 1050 at this point on the models at this point.
And we did have a truck of rendering of the turning plan just to make sure the turning radius to service the commercial space would be accessible and safe.
And if Diamond Street is wide enough, large enough that that should be easily accessible to service the building.
So, those are the main points of the project. As I've mentioned previously, the hardship
here really is the characteristics of this neighborhood and specifically along the I2
train track corridor has transitioned into this commercial residential mixed-use development,
And this is in keeping with the neighborhood where this property is currently located.
The auto use is kind of outdated.
And if you look at the surrounding properties, it's mainly we're dealing with RM1 properties all around us, residential over here and Temple's campus is to the west.
So it makes sense.
It's a logical spot to bring in commercial mixed use.
one of the big feedbacks from the community was what type of commercial tenant would service that
main commercial space and we do not have a tenant my clients has different tenants in mind like a
target express and one of the comments from the community was to try to focus on fresh food type
options a giant heirloom store we discussed like a river words produce type idea something that
um brings fresh food to that as they reference on the call like that side of the tracks um
so that is something we're definitely looking into and on the second floor commercial space
there was discussions about coffee shops um maybe like a fedex kinko's type store like a
post post depot that's low impact but would service the members of the community
um close by not having to walk up get all over to broad street but we're in communications and
will be on gun with the near neighbors to get further impact or further input on those commercial
tenants. All right, you summarize? Yeah, so in summary, we have a full letter of support from
the registered community groups. I believe Councilman Clark's office is either not taking
a position or hopefully supports. My client feels that this is a great use for this location and
would be a benefit to the community,
and the community seems to support that idea as well.
The hardship here is that the community has transitioned,
the neighborhood has transitioned from this I2 use,
and that creates a hardship for the subject property.
And we would request that the board grant this use variance
so that the property can be developed
and better the community.
Thank you.
Thank you. Do you have anyone to bring on as a witness?
Do you have anyone to bring on as a witness?
I would, yes and no.
I would. Yes, Mr. Chair. I would like to call Gary Murray to raise his hand to see if we can bring him on.
You can unmute, Gary.
Can you hear me?
Yes, sir. Please identify yourself for the record. Spell your first and last name.
Good evening. I'm Gary Murray, the owner of Mazel Tov Development.
Mr. Murray. Oh, sorry. What about your last name, please?
M-U-R-R-A-Y.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Mr. Murray, did you hear the factual presentation that I just presented to the board?
I did. I did.
and were my statements true and correct uh to the best of your your knowledge uh yes they were
and would you adopt those statements that were put on the record as your own
yes i would thank you sorry i'm trying to get my uh my video together for some reason i can't
that's okay we can hear you that's fine all right uh any questions from the board no
no anyone else wish to testify in this case if so please raise your hand um i would like to
who i just wanted to let everybody know and put on record it was definitely because i know that
there are some members of the community that are on here today um i definitely want to i'm sorry
Who's speaking?
Is that who you're speaking?
Oh, okay.
I'm sorry.
I just wanted to put it on record that we've worked with the community for some time.
After multiple meetings with the community, we've met three times with APM as well as
another RCO intern.
In turn, it's been a pleasure to work with the community and putting together the best use for this site.
We have definitely taken into consideration a lot of the different requests that were made of us, including a parking resolution community benefits package
that would include some support for parking for some residents that are near and that are
in need of assistance. But it's definitely been a pleasure. We're looking forward to being able to
bring something fresh to the community there. We just actually had a cleanup benefit in the area,
which is something that we're looking to continue on as well as this property is going to be
managed and have its own maintenance and cleaning detail, which will keep the area and location at
all times at its best shape as possible, to keep it as clean as possible. And we're just looking
forward to being a part of the community. We have gotten some input in regards to the commercial
spaces. We have plans to try to get a UPS store in there where members of the community can go
there to get copies made, use computers, have P.O. boxes, etc. It's a great type of business for
people that have small businesses in the area or looking to create small businesses where they can
have access to it um as well we're looking to put in a uh i have a friend who has um a very popular
um breakfast brunch uh company it's called green eggs we're looking to bring him to the location
as well um so we're definitely looking to have a number of things that would definitely benefit
the community in a number of ways um so we're really excited about this um i did earlier um kind
to miss the point on the balconies. So if I could get some clarity on what the discrepancy
was with that, that would be helpful. The project as it's being viewed and the renderings
is exactly the way that we presented it to the CDR committee. And it was very, very,
very well received as is. So I guess, you know, whatever we need to do to kind of keep
things the way that they are definitely open for discussions on that I'm not sure if there is some
type of a proviso but we've we've definitely been at this for a very long time like I said we've met
But we've definitely been at this for a very long time.
Like I said, we've met with community groups multiple times.
And Mr. Murray, Mr. Murray, with all due respect, we appreciate your comments.
But I think most of everything you have stated has already been covered by your counsel.
All right.
Thank you.
Any questions from the board?
no no no okay i'll try again anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please raise
your hand no hey thank you planning commission good afternoon this is greg waldman from the
planning commission this property is indicated for um oh sorry she is
This property is indicated for residential multifamily in the comprehensive plan and
has not yet been remapped.
The proposal was reviewed by the Civic Design Review on March 3 of 2020 and had support
from the committee.
While we have concerns that the proposed commercial space is larger than can reasonably be supported
in this area, we have no objection to the granting of the variance.
Thank you. Sharon, I'm going to read this off. And what was it we agreed to do regarding the balconies?
I believe that you're going to hold it for a week or two weeks, and he will come back and make a decision on whether to remove the balconies or to perhaps submit a revised application to L&I.
We'll have to check with Tanya.
Tanya, do you have a date?
Oh, that's perfectly fine because we're just going to have a resumption hearing with revised plans, if I'm understanding correctly.
So he can come back the 27th, October 27th.
That works fine.
930 works well.
Thank you.
mi-2020-000719 919 diamond street this hearing will be resumed on october the 27th at 9 30 a.m
at which time we will know whether there's any revision as it relates to
the balconies that have been presented in today's plan does that make sense
yes yes and i would recommend mr mckelhanie that you um email or call me in the meantime
yes i will do thank you okay uh i think that concludes the 3 30 session
yes chair it does any unfinished business tanya sharon anyone no chair
we're all good
okay everyone have a safe night
likewise
send all your
thank yous to Rudy Giuliani
thank you
thanks Frank