mr bouvier can you hear me now we can so please identify yeah carol please yeah name and address
for the record and then i have two other things to ask you please spell your name as well well
can we also add meredith i'm here i'm here oh okay i am here let me let me it was just
restarting everything good afternoon everybody meredith ferlinger uh attorney for 1408 reed
llc and darwin if you want to go ahead as well i can't i don't know what's going on here your name
is bovier thank you darwin for at dilworth paxton uh for the applicant hey there we
go. How are you? Fine. How are you? My address is 1500 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
19102. Thank you. It's always special. Same address for me as well.
Did he put the address, his address on the record? Yes. Yeah. You did. Okay. Do you swear or affirm,
both of you to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? We sure do. Yes. And do you both agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? We do. We do. Great. So you may
continue. Thank you. And forgive me in advance if there's a noise of a four-year-old and a two-month
old in the background. I sent my husband away with them, but I can't guarantee anything.
and i'm in the middle of broad street so just uh-huh yeah i like that uh zoom uh outfit you have on
today it's a whole suit all right let's begin all right good let me i guess let me share my screen
uh okay all right i assume you can all see this now yes we can fabulous all right so uh again
meredith ferliger uh attorney on behalf of 1408 reed llc i believe and hope that our clients
should be also on the Zoom, Kalfani, Leslie, and Hal Lobson on behalf of 1408 Reed, LLC.
We would also have the architect, Kenneth Johnson, and the editor, Henry.
We would also have the architect Kenneth Johnson and the
The proposal for today is a proposal for a new multifamily development, 1408 Reed, LLC.
You should have your exhibit packet with 14 exhibits that I'll refer to throughout the presentation.
Now, if we start with Exhibit 9, you'll see an aerial of this property, which sits between South Carl Street and 15th Street, right along Reed Street.
So what you'll see here is this property is sandwiched right in between the back of the structures on each of the two opposing streets.
Is that currently the auto body shop?
That is correct.
That is correct.
It's just off broad stretches about a block and a half to the west.
If you refer to the zoning map, which is at exhibit 8, the property is zoned CMX2,
but it is surrounded by prominently residential zoning.
Photos of the property begin at Exhibit 13. As the chairman mentioned, this is a former auto body
shop which is now closed down. Now there is an exit curb cut that is in front of the garage
and which of course historically provided access to the auto shop and as you can see in the photos
and the aerials to the west of the property is a what I believe to be a rehab and recovery center
which you can see
is this larger structure here along South Carlisle Street. So this the structure here on South
Carlisle runs beyond the rear of our property at 1408 Reed. Now if you go farther west towards
South Broad, there is a parking lot and fairly dense commercial uses that front on South Broad
Street. The only other commercial use on on this block of Reed Street is a small corner bakery
which is right at the corner of Reed and South Carlisle Street. Otherwise, the properties that
surround this are a mix of single-family and multi-family homes. Now, if the Border First
plans at Exhibit 5 through 7, to summarize the proposal today, the development is proposing to
renovate the existing structure and to build an additional three stories on top for a total of a
four-story structure. On the second through fourth floors, the proposal includes two dwellings per
floor for a total of six. These are intended to be conveyed as condominiums. Now on the first floor,
the proposal includes six parking spaces. The existing curb cut will be shifted slightly east
and reduced in size to provide access to that parking. There will be no roof deck. Now as you
can see in the floor plans, each of the dwellings is just over a thousand square feet, contains two
bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms. Trash will be stored in each unit as well as in the designated
trash storage area in the garage, which you can see is just towards the rear of the garage.
they will have commercial trash pickup for this condominium building.
If you refer to the renderings at Exhibit 7, this proposal does contemplate several unique
facade treatments to liven the block. When we had some very early discussions with both the
Planning Commission and the community, they expressed the desire to maybe do something
unique here. Given some of the challenges of this building, they really didn't want to see a blank
facade on Reed Street. So, of course, you know, they haven't picked one of these designs. These
are really just for example purposes, but the developer is committed to, you know, doing
something really unique for that facade. Now, as you'll see, with respect to the application,
we did receive several or several refusals. So I'll address the dimensional ones first.
At the most basic, we received a refusal for failure to provide 25% open space and a nine-foot rear yard.
for failure to provide 25% open space and a nine-foot rear yard.
Now, this is somewhat unique, and we do submit to a hardship here,
because this variance, it essentially results from the coverage of the existing building.
And our proposal is not serving to increase the degree of the nonconformity here.
So if you look at the existing building, you'll see that it occupies 100% of the law.
So in order to comply with this provision of the code, on the second story through the fourth story,
they would have to step the building in by nine feet and or enough to provide that 25% open space.
However, or of course, option two would be to demolish the rear of the existing building.
So, of course, option two would be quite costly and a very ineffective use of the existing building.
Now, if you again refer back to the aerials, and I did touch on this very briefly when I started,
you'll see that the rear of this structure is sandwiched right in between the back of the structures on Carlisle and Reed Street.
So by stepping in that second, third, and fourth floor by nine feet, or to provide that 25% open space, you effectively only serve to reduce the dwelling units and provide no additional light, air, or usable space for the residents of this building or the adjacent surrounding structures.
um you know as i mentioned to the along south carlisle is this recovery center that has
absolutely no use of the back of their building and then on the other side you have the back of
the homes on on 15th street and by stepping in our second third and fourth floor you're not
providing anything additional to those homes so you're really only serving to to shrink the units
in our building. Now, we did also receive a refusal for the proposed height. The proposed
height of the building is 44 feet, where 38 feet would be allowed. Now, again, we do submit to a
hardship here because the height is not resulting from, say, the number of units that we're
requesting. We're not requesting this height to accommodate, you know, any additional units in
this building. However, it is due to the layout of this existing structure. As you can see in the
plans, the existing cornice line of the existing building is at 14 feet. And although the additional
three stories have traditional ceiling heights, due to the existing building conditions, the
developer is requesting a slight height variance to accommodate how the existing building is
already constructed constructed as well as to provide some additional
accessibility to accommodate that first floor parking. No roof deck is proposed
so you know in addition to the height we're not adding a roof deck on top that
would of course add some additional use up there. We do submit that the height
will not measurably impair light and air to the surrounding structures again
because of the uniqueness of how this building is situated. Because it sits mid-block to the rear of
other structures, there would be no perceptible difference in the height from 38 feet to 44 feet.
And we would also argue that if we were to provide the roof deck on top of a 38-foot structure,
in theory that might impose more of an impact to these neighbors than no roof deck on top of the
44 foot structure. Now we also received a refusal for the proposed number of dwelling units.
Five units would be permitted where we are proposing six. As previously described,
this proposal calls for two units per floor. No additional dimensional variances are requested
specifically as a result of this sixth unit. The applicant does submit to a hardship because the
lot size is only a few hundred feet short of allowing for that six unit, which does naturally
fit within the proposed structure of two units per floor. The Planning Commission District Plan
did contemplate this lot as being RM1, which would have actually allowed for seven units,
and we are only proposing six. Now, with regard to the refusal for parking, this lot would not
be permitted to provide parking unless it could be accessed from a shared driveway,
rear alley, you know, a condition like that. However, as I described earlier,
However, as I described earlier, the property has long been served by an existing curb cut,
the property has long been served by an existing curb cut.
and that has historically provided vehicular access to this property.
The existing building is uniquely designed to accommodate ground floor parking,
as it historically has served a vehicle type of use.
And in providing that parking, the design ensures one-for-one parking for residents
and does not remove any on-street parking that has already historically been blocked by the curb cut.
Finally, we do submit to a hardship in regards to the last refusal,
which is the failure to provide a ground floor commercial use.
Again, as the board knows, this property was historically used as an auto repair garage,
which is an intensive, loud, unneighborly vehicular use that's not even currently allowed by the provisions of CMX2.
As I described earlier, the only commercial use on this block of Reed Street that is the type contemplated by CMX 2 is a small bakery at the corner of Reed and Carlisle Street.
It would be extremely difficult to support a small CMX type commercial use mid-block in this location, especially given how close it is to South Broad Street, where most of the dense commercial uses are found.
As I mentioned, the Planning Commission District Plan did specifically call for this lot to be RM1, which would not have required commercial use.
So we do submit that the variances are the least minimum variance that result either from the existing building layout or the uniqueness of this property.
The units provided are large, and the lack of commercial space is instead replaced by one-for-one parking that is so desperately needed in this area.
The parking will contribute towards the reduction of congestion and will not remove
any existing on-street parking due to the long-standing existing curb cut.
As it is located quite close to South Broad Street, the property has considerable access
to public transportation. We submit that we comply with each section of 143038E of the Code and that
we do not alter the character of the neighborhood, nor do we impair development of the surrounding
area, nor do we tax any resources. Now, with respect to the community, we met with East Point
Breeze neighbors via Zoom sometime last month. There was a fairly split difference of opinion
on what the community wanted to see for this property, which is why you see their letter
that reflects that no consensus was reached. Half the folks in the room were supportive of this,
the other half were not. There was, you know, we had a really great discussion with the community
and ultimately folks were so split on what they wanted that really there was no consensus to be
reached. Now to supplement that letter, we did send our client out and they were able to obtain
several pages worth of petitions of support which you'll see starting at
exhibit 13. Now confusingly we did also receive a letter of opposition from South
Broad Street Neighbors. We'd submit that this letter was submitted improperly as
no representative from this group announced themselves at the community
meeting nor does the letter make it reasonably apparent that anyone from the
group even attended the meeting due to some significant inaccuracies that they put in the
letter. I'm not sure if anyone was even in the meeting or if they looked at plans and
didn't have a proper understanding of what was being proposed. I'm really not sure, quite frankly.
I would be happy to go through it point by point, you know, if the board desires.
So that's all I have. I would, of course, like our client to adopt my testimony at some point
if the board has questions i'd be happy to address them as well and and if i may i just want to make
some clarification i think at one point uh we were saying that broad street was to the west
it's actually to the east as well as so just just to make that clarification why don't we
do this bring on the your clients and to adopt your testimony then we'll open it up for questions
Okay. Cal, if you can hit the raise hand button so they can unmute you.
When you unmute, would you please identify yourself, spell your name for the
sonographer, and then I'll square you in.
how lesbian you can yeah how or kalfani leslie either one is fine you can unmute yourself and
How? Yes. Okay, good. Can you identify yourself for the record? My name is Henry A. Lubson, Jr.,
known as Hal Lubson, and I'm the partner with Mr. Califani on this project.
Lubson, you swear to the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Hal, you heard all of our testimony here today?
I did, yes. And would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would
you adopt that testimony as if it were your own? With a correction on the east, Broad Street being
to the east and not to the west, that description, everything else was perfect, yes. Thank you.
Do you have anyone else?
Cal Leslie's name as well.
Can you identify yourself for the record again?
Cal Fonny Leslie.
Can you spell your first name?
K-H-A-L-F-A-N-I.
Last name is Leslie, L-E-S-L-I-E.
Great.
Swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
And, Cal, did you hear all of our testimony here today?
Yes, I did.
And with the correction of Broad Street's location,
would you adopt our testimony as if it were your own?
Yes, I would, and I do.
Okay, questions from the board?
no not for me okay anyone else here who wishes to testify in this matter please raise your hand
and when you're called upon would you please spell your name for the stenographer and then
I will swear you in we have Peter Zutter you can okay can you hear me yes Peter hi uh my name is
Peter Zutter, Z-U-T-T-E-R, 1440 South Broad Street, also president of the South Broad Street
Neighborhood Association. So the first thing I'd like to clarify is that we did have two of our
board members. I just need to swear you in. Oh, I'm sorry. Technically. You swear a firm to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Peter. Please proceed.
so um to clarify there were two of our our members um i was at the zoom meeting and we
also had jed labin one of our board members who was uh at the meeting um i don't recall whether
or not people introduced themselves but we did have two uh two board members there um
there might be some small inaccuracies uh in in what is in our letter um we did try you know
it's difficult when you see these presentations flash by on the screen and
to try and remember it we did try to reach out to the applicants through
East Point Breeze but we were not able to get copies of the documents to review
any further I think I would just like to make a few points if this is the
appropriate time um so to start with the extra the extra height that they're asking for um there was
somebody there from uh 15th street one of the properties that would be uh right i guess it's
behind if you're on 15th street next to if you're on reed street and and she did mention that you
know the six feet additional height since these these this property is rather large and very close
to the property line would block a lot of light and air from those properties on 15th street that
are adjacent to it um you know they keep saying that it's only six feet and you know six feet when
you're when you have a situation like that it's really it's really quite a bit they're very close
by and I it seems like it would make quite a bit of difference to go to the