front of the building I mean you saw the elevations it's really well not very
attractive and the screening and some of the things that they've proposed you
know it's still kind of a blank faceless wall you know I've seen screening like
that in the past it's usually put there to cover up something that's unattractive and my thought
is instead of covering up something that's unattractive why don't we just build something
that's a little bit better um it just doesn't it just doesn't
better um it just doesn't it just doesn't seem to work um it looks like the apartments there
there seem to be very few windows in the apartments and there there's just a lot of
a lot of areas where there there could be more windows they look like they're kind of um i know
this the square footage is not bad but they look like they would be sort of dark apartments you
have a small window if i recall and again i you know these these plans flash by and and my
photographic memory is not working as well as it used to um you have it looks like one or two
windows that face south and then the rest of them are are facing west basically at the 15th street
properties um you know there are no windows on reed street um i'm not sure how the elevation
fits in with the um catch offices that are on the corner there um but it just seems like there's
a lot of this that could be done much better this is already it's it's a very tall building
when you compare it to even the three-story buildings uh next to it you know the faceless
facade on reed street um those are all things that are just really not very good and caused us
to oppose it um just a few of the things that were um that were attractive about the project
I think it's great that they're trying to include parking.
They had mentioned at one point that there were some structural limitations because of – and there's a very high ceiling height, apparently, where the parking is.
That might be something they could take another look at to lower the whole building so that it's not blocking the light and air.
But in a neighborhood like this, including parking in a development like this is very good.
They also have, it's probably one of the few times that I've seen a property that has a realistic trash program.
You know, they have a, what I guess would be a dumpster or a compactor that's there in the parking that would be accessible to all of the apartments.
You know, we don't usually see that in these multifamily projects.
And we found that when they don't have trash disposal on site in a central location like that, that's when the trash ends up out on Broad Street in front of the Big Bellies there.
And as you know, that's been a problem for years with a lot of these apartments.
So we could not support it for those reasons.
Anthony outlines a lot of that in the letter.
It's said much better there.
So I think that's going to be it for me.
Thank you.
if we may mr chairman yes if we may uh just a quick response you know i i appreciate the their
their comments but um i i believe um one of the issues with respects to the height is that uh in
the rear there there that we have every right and and are entitled to build at minimum 38 feet so
So I appreciate him advocating for the woman on 15th Street, but even at the meeting, she concluded that even if we were to build as of right, the light and air would be impacted.
So she understood that, hey, 38 feet is still what it is, and she concluded that she would live with that.
Second, he mentioned that about the facade and about the windows.
I'm sorry, those aren't refusals.
The developer, the applicant, has suggested several different facades, and we're still up in the air as to what those facades should look like.
They were actually offered in our presentation as part of the plans submitted to L&I.
So given that, we still submit that we have the least amount of variances
or we're responding to the refusal by providing the least amount of variances in this.
And the impact is actually pretty positive because we're taking away this harsh garage that had cars parked in the street, that dealt with all kinds of business hours, if you will, that conflicted with home life there.
And what we're proposing, we're not proposing that these are rentals.
These are going to be home ownership, condominiums, right, that actual individuals who are going to become part of the neighborhood and even part of the RCOs that are listed and actually contribute to that block in the overall neighborhood.
thank you any other witnesses anyone else wish to testify please raise your hand
Thank you.
Any other witnesses?
Anyone else?
and spell your name for the stenographer and then i will swear you in
no hands up at this time chair okay thank you um
planning commission hey members of the board uh i'm mason austin representing the planning
Commission. While the lot is currently zoned for CMX2 mixed-use commercial, it is indicated
on the comprehensive plan for RM1 multifamily residential. Due to that indication, the planning
commission has no objection to the number of units or lack of commercial space. Likewise,
because the parking proposed does not exacerbate the existing conditions, we do not object
that variance however the combination of additional height and lack of open space on
floors above the additional the existing structure would have a detrimental impact on the adjacent
properties on 15th street further the proposed height could otherwise be earned uh by right by
meeting the requirements of bonuses already available on this site to the within the zoning
code consequently the planning commission recommends against approving these two-dimensional variances
well that leaves us perplexed yes please no i'm just saying that leaves us perplexed right
i have a question about this height issue sure it's it appears to me that the height of the
existing garage you're building it you're going to build above that right you're not
is there a way of compressing that down because what's the height inside that garage
it's it's about 14 feet um and and really mr chairman i mean sure could could could it be
compressed in theory yes but you know to the the cost involved in doing that instead of working
within the confines of the existing building it's it's really an ineffective use of of what's
already there um what i'm getting at what i'm getting and that they're up the roof of the
building currently is that going to be the flooring of the first level of residence
or are you putting more joist in and if you are could that roof be lowered which would give you
a little bit you know you can push it down whatever it is six feet or whatever you still
have enough room height in the garage. Cal, are you still unmuted? Can you just briefly explain
to Mr. Chairman and the board, when you took a look at this building, why you ultimately decided
in working with your architect that this additional six feet in height was necessary?
hi mr chairman yes please so to answer your question specific to the
existing roof that's on the building uh we will incorporate new floor joists and that ceiling
height will no longer be at the existing height of 14 feet we actually have it at nine feet
as which would be the ceiling height for the garage space so that we're coming down you're
taking up um five feet or five feet of that height you're actually pushing it down correct
okay that that was where i was going i didn't realize you did that okay okay all right uh i
know i raised some questions the board again anybody on the board have any other questions
no no okay calendar number three nine nine five one 1408 reed street my vote is yes
my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
thank you thank you mr chairman members of the board all right i appreciate everyone thanks
i don't know what do we do now now you take your bow tile go play in traffic
there is no traffic intel that's the problem that's true
heredith i told him that for years i'm still trying sharon one of these days
all right we're ready for uh we sure are calendar number 38817
221 pine street this is an appeal against lni filed by society hill civic association
i believe the attorneys are vernon astasio and paul bonnie
miss miss uh madam vice chair my associate attorney is also with us attorney
Madam Vice Chair, my Associate Attorney is also with us, Attorney Harry Cook, and we
ask that he be allowed to join in as well.
He's just sitting second, Chair.
I am unmuted.
Hello, everyone.
Can everyone state their name and address for the record and spell their last name?
And then I have two other things to ask you.
Also, Leonard Reuter here for the City of Philadelphia.
So I'll just introduce myself then first.
leonard f reuter r-e-u-t-e-r for the city of philadelphia address would be 1515 arch street
15th floor philadelphia pa 19102 i think thank you mr reuter burn yes anastasio anastasio law firm
1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1006, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107.
And Harry?
Harry B. Cook, C-O-O-K, 1315 Walnut, Suite 1006, Philadelphia, PA, 19107.
And Paul?
Paul Bonney, representing Society Hill Civic Association.
My office address is 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 1109, Philadelphia, PA, 19106.
Thank you. And do all of you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
I'd like that for it once.
Okay, Mr. Chairman.
Who's going to begin?
I'll be happy to begin. Thank you.
On behalf of the board, we thought you guys resolved this a year ago, but apparently not.
Well, we'll get into that.
that sarcastically i meant that seriously because i thought there was an agreement but obviously
there is well i i have some opening remarks um before i dive into the matter and i want to give
uh mr anastasio an opportunity to make an opening he may have an objection to some letters that came
in um that's already on i think that's already on the record of just just to make clear this is not
an evidentiary hearing. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? Yeah, I was going to explain. This is
just oral arguments. We've already submitted our briefs. They're part of the record. So this is
merely just oral arguments and then adjournment. Is that correct? Do you agree on that? Correct. I
agree. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Well, members of the board, just to start off and clarify that,
you know, we all reached agreement that the facts in this matter are largely agreed to.
And so, therefore, rather than present evidence to the board, we would just submit letter briefs, which both private counsel have done, and argue the matter to you today, and then ask you, you know, for your decision.
So, you know, we worked hard together to streamline this so that we could be as quick as possible.
This matter involves a challenge. We are challenging the issuance of two building permits.
Those two building permits were issued, one in 2017 and the other in 2019.
The legal reason that we're challenging these building permits is that we don't believe that there was an existing zoning permit in place at the time.
And as I'm sure you know, before you can do any new construction or alteration in the city, first you need a zoning permit, and then you need a building permit.
And if your zoning permit, as we believe in this case, expires, then you need to get a new one before you go ahead and get the building permit.
But I wanted to just jump somewhat to the chase, cut to the chase for a second so that the board can understand exactly what we're asking for, so that you can sort of see what this case is all about in the real world.
we're asking for one of two things and we would greatly prefer the second of the two
the first would be that the board simply invalidate both building permits which we think would send
the property owner all the way back to square one and he would have to get new zoning variances all
over again and we think that would take a lot of time and is really not is really not in the
interest of anybody to go ahead and do that. And so that's why we greatly prefer the second thing.
And so what we're asking for and we're hoping for is that the board can approve or reaffirm
the issuances of these building permits, but with one, what we believe is a minor modification.
But with one, what we believe is a minor modification.
And if I could, I don't know how to share the screen, but do I have the ability to share my screen?
I guess if I click this screen.
Let's try this.
Can everybody see this drawing?
so this is the rear of the house at 221 Pine Street and I'll show you a little
bit more about where we are in the neighborhood but as you can see at the
rear of the house is where I'm putting the cursor these drawings show a patio
or a rear deck above the first floor in the rear and right behind that railing
you see a sliding glass door. And what we're asking for is the board to modify the building
permit to show that this sliding glass door would actually be a window. And that would
make it unable for the property owner to use this as a recreation space and that
is what we're seeking. Now up here on the third floor as you can see and
actually here's a side view so here's a side view of that rear deck area there
is a rather large deck up here on the third floor so it's not like there's no
deck there's actually two decks a very large one and a very and a very very large one on the third
floor and a very small one here off the second floor and it's only this second one this small
one that we would want to be made inaccessible and of course this is what we had agreed to
as the chairman alluded to we can get into more details but you know at a certain time this was
agreeable to the homeowner and all we're trying to do is um get to that agree you know effectuate
that agreement um so i'm now i'm gonna uh sort of go through uh our our case if you will but i
wanted to just sort of cut to the cut to the chase to show you what this matter is all about
and i'll go through the chronology very quickly but uh 10 years ago um 2010 um the applicant
the owner came to this uh board to seek uh variances and um it took a took a couple years
i think that the board may have issued a denial and then it went up to the common police court
and then back down again, but ultimately those variances were granted, and those variances were
to allow a rear L, a rear addition to the property, and there were some significant
dimensional variances that were needed and that were granted by the board, and so after the board
granted those variances, the applicant, of course, obtained a zoning permit, and that is the, in
January of 2013. That is the one and only zoning permit that exists in this matter and that's the
one that we contend has expired and I think Mr. Anastasio is going to argue that it has not expired.
So it's that January 2013 zoning permit and that's attached to our letter brief.
that permit is only good for three years in fact it says on the permit quote a building permit
must be obtained within three years from the date of the issuance of this zoning permit so it's
only good for three years now let me go through a little bit more of the history after that you
know what happened after that after that there was I guess a series of stops and starts a little
bit of construction. Well, of course, the building permit was obtained after that. So
the, and after that, a series of stops and starts and long periods of cessation where no work had
been done. And indeed, work that was outside the boundaries of the approved drawing. So illegal
work was done. And in fact, illegal work was done intentionally. The property owner intentionally
built out a certain number of square feet larger of a footprint.
a certain number of square feet larger of the footprint than was allowed and there was also
a series of violations a wall that was collapsed and at some point the applicant wanted to try and
legalize the illegal work and he went to the historical commission in 2016. This is now
three years after the zoning permit.
Again, the zoning permit was January 2013,
and the Historical Commission meeting was in March of 2016,
so more than three years later.
Can I interrupt you, Paul?
Paul, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I don't want to get too far ahead.
But 2013 was the date that the zoning expired, correct?
well january 2013 was the zoning permit so you have a permit i'm sorry right so you have three
all right and you mentioned something about work began off and on about and they built beyond