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