required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance
of this hearing? I did. I also sent some supplemental information this morning just
I did. I also sent some supplemental information this morning just for the record that I'll be presenting.
for the record that I'll be presenting.
Okay, thank you. Please proceed. I'll share your screen.
Okay. Let me just get this in a position. Okay.
So, as I said, my name is Jennifer Bazitlow.
I'm here today representing Nan Nguyen, who's a property owner, and also his wife, Kathy Lee.
who is the proposed owner and operator of the business.
So in the packet, I just wanted to briefly go through
and then we'll revisit some important exhibits here.
So our refusal is for the use and also for a sign.
This is the deed showing Mr. Wynn's ownership of the property.
And here we have the tax compliance.
for the property. This was the letter I received. I will mention I am taking over this case from Mr. Young, who went to go work for the DA's office.
So this is the only letter I have in my record. And this was the notice that was sent out to all of the affected neighbors.
and this is our petition of support. There are 34 signatures, all within a few blocks of the
property, 15 of which are on Englewood, which is the affected street here. We're going to come
revisit this, but there is a documented commercial use of this property dating back to 1948,
And these are the exhibits. I also submitted the entire, this is the most recent one, but I submitted an exhibit with all of the records.
Here we have the OPA records, which show that OPA currently is taxing this as a mixed use commercial and residential property.
here we have the listing of when Mr. Wynn bought the property in 2021
showing that it was advertised as a mixed-use commercial property
this is the licenses of Mr. Wynn's wife Kathy Lee who is a licensed nail technician and
esthetician sorry that's a hard word for me to say here are photos of the property of our posting
front, side, and then from the rear, this is the interior of the first floor commercial space.
As you can see, we have separate water heaters, separate electric meters.
This is the property across the street that's also a mixed-use commercial property. We'll return to
this. Just orienting where we are, some photos, and our plans for the ground floor space. As you
see there's three means of exit so I know that's always a concern and the proposed signs on the
second on the on the both sides of the building. So let me just go back to the photos and I'll start
the core of my presentation. So here we have 1400 Anglewood Street. This is at the corner of Anglewood
and Loretto and it's across from Castor Gardens Middle School. The property itself is approximately
1800 square feet. And as you can see we have two units right here. Upstairs is the residential unit
on the second and third floor and that's where Mr. Wynn and his wife both live. And then downstairs
you can see you have a separate entrance for a commercial space. That commercial space is about
785 square feet and does have a documented use as a commercial as a commercial unit dating back to
1948. So let's just go back to these pictures just so you can see the interior again. You can
see that this is a separate unit set up downstairs. So let's just go back to the listing information.
So Mr. Wynn purchased this property in 2021 with the intention to live upstairs and have his wife have a nail salon on the ground floor, as that's what she is licensed to do, and that is her profession.
However, when he purchased this, as you can see, it was advertised as a mixed-use commercial building.
And more importantly, it was also documented with OPA as a mixed use commercial, which is this is then what the city cert came back as when he went to go purchase this property.
And he later discovered that this was not a by right use of the property and in fact was zoned RSA three, which is only for single family residential use.
Our proposal here is to use that ground floor commercial space to keep, they will keep living on the second and third floor and use that ground floor commercial space for a nail salon.
Our proposal here is to use that ground for commercial space.
Let's just go to Ms. Lee's licenses here. So she will be the owner. There will be at most one other employee there with her and the hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday, 930 to 630 p.m.
and it will be by appointment only, no walk-ins. Let's just go to, as I mentioned before,
why this property is zoned for single-family residential use. We have a long history of
commercial use on this property, dating back to the late 1940s, early 1950s is when this property
was approximately when this property was built. Most recently, it was a physical therapist office
with similar signs on the outside. Before that, it was a plumbing office with supply storage,
print shop, candy store, and luncheonette. And 1948, we just have a documentation of Abbott's
dairy. So I'm not really sure what that is, but that's definitely not a residential property.
um if you can see this is this is the entire zoning record here if you wanted to go through
it i did email this to the um to uh the the board this morning um so like i said it's
been commercial for a really long time um we also have 1401 sorry i'm having technical issues getting
to the right tab. One second. 1401 Englewood, let's actually look at the pictures first.
Sorry, one second. Which is also directly across the street, corner of Loretto and Englewood. As
you can see, this is another property at the end of the same development that was set up as a
mixed-use commercial property, as we see a lot of properties like this in the northeast where we
have corner commercial. And this has documentation back to, if you look at the zoning archive,
back to 1935 as a grocery store and continues to the current day as a deli. So again, you have
these corner units that are, have been built, set up and continuously used in a commercial fashion
since at least the 1950s, maybe earlier. So, but they are not zoned for that. And it kind of
appears that they've never been correctly zoned. If they were correctly zoned, you would have some
sort of corner commercial mixed use zoning, like CMX1 or CMX2. And in that zoning district,
a nail salon personal services would be a by right use. And in CMX2, our proposed signs would
also be by right, they're flat wall signs under 25 square feet, one on the side and one on the
front. Admittedly, if it was CMX1, we would be allowed one 15 square foot sign. But so we're not
asking for anything radically out of character with this building and its historic use.
I would argue that having one employee and possibly two clients, in addition to the owner
in this business at one time for limited hours during the day is a much less intensive use than
previous approved uses, such as a physical therapist's office that had multiple employees
and multiple patients, certainly a plumbing office and supply storage where you would have truck
traffic, print shops, same with truck traffic, and going back further, luncheonette and candy store,
that was a constant flow of multiple, many patrons. So we're looking for, you know, to keep in
character with not necessarily what is currently zoned, but the historic use of this property,
and with limited hours and limited number of patrons at a time. The biggest concerns brought
up by the RCO resolve around parking and congestion. And especially parking for the faculty and staff
of the school across the street. So I just wanted to address some of those issues. If we can go back
to my photos. One second here. So if you look at this building here, and particularly if we look
at, I'm sorry, I want to get to the correct photo here, over here, because of the length of this
Over here, because of the length of this building, we have adjacent to this property approximately five parking spaces, four along Loretto and one in front of the property.
building. We have
If we say that the owner is already there, that's one car, and then a potential employee, and maybe two guests, we have four people at this property maximum that need to be parked.
I would argue that this is servicing the community and not everyone might park, but let's assume they do.
This building provides enough parking around it in order to provide those parking spaces.
We also are, if we go to the aerial photos, very close to, sorry, one second.
This is Cotman Avenue right here, one block away, which has additional metered parking for businesses.
I understand that not everyone would want to walk, but we have just presenting all the parking options available.
So, like I said, and as far as providing parking for the school, the school does have a small parking lot.
I also will add if it's a concern for parking for teachers, this business is not opening until 930.
It's middle school. Teachers arrive well before that. They won't be competing with our clients
for parking. They would already be there. I also wanted to say that we do have this documented
second space. So if it wasn't a commercial space, what would it be? Well, on this block alone,
there are four duplexes that have been there since the 1940s and 50s. They are the adjacent
property at 1402. We also have 1411, 1414, excuse me, 1430. And then the property to the rear
on 7221 Loretto is also a duplex. So we have a lot of non-conforming properties here.
So if it wasn't commercial space, it would likely be applied to be maybe a second residential unit, probably two bedrooms, and we would wind up with the same three cars, possibly, but 24 hours a day, not leaving in the evening for people when they come home to work.
For the parking issue, too, I do want to point out that we are in an area with rear drive aisles, and so many of the residents in the area have off-street parking towards the rear, which also relieves some of the parking needs for the residential properties.
And when we go further away from this exact block, you start to see that the block behind is a little less dense and has more parking available to meet needs of the residents.
but basically what this comes down to is that we have a property that is a mixed-use commercial
property. It has been so since it was built in the 1940s and 50s, right, and it is set up in a
fashion that is more conducive to a CMX1 or a CMX2 zoning, and we are asking to use it in that
fashion. And we have limited hours and limited employees. And I really don't think that this
would have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as shown by our petition on letter of support
from 34 of the near neighbors here. I do want to mention that, you know, there was concern about
the school. The school is also zoned RSA 3. It is a pre-existing use, I'm going to assume.
But in RSA 3, a school is not a by right use. So we also have a use that is not a by right use, greatly impacting traffic and congestion in the area.
But that doesn't mean that that prohibits my client from having a small business that they live above and work below.
So, again, just want to reiterate, this has been a mixed-use commercial property since the 40s, and we would like to-
Can you show me where the sign's going to go?
There is-
If we approve it, where would the sign go?
There's one sign in the front that's two by six, and one on the side that's two by 12.
Both are under the 25 square foot, which would be allowed in CMX2, and one is allowed on each side also in CMX2.
Could you bring your client on, please?
Mr. Nguyen, can you raise your hand?
Mr. Nguyen, please unmute yourself.
Yes, I'm here.
You hear me?
Sir, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Yeah, my name is Yang Nguyen, N-H-A-N, and last name N-G-U-Y-E-N.
Yeah, my name is Nguyen, N-H-A-N, and last name N-G-U.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
We'll see you, counsel.
Mr. Nguyen, did you hear my testimony here today and believe it to be truthful and accurate?
And would you adopt it as your own?
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia
city planning commission board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the existing rsa3 single family zoning here however the proposed use is consistent with
both the prior documented legal use and with the physical configuration of the building
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variances.
Thank you. MI 2022-002-945-1400 Englewood. I vote yes and I guess we'll use it as a
proviso to note a variance is also being granted to required parking space for personal services use.
is that correct ryan yes that's correct thank you i'm sorry i'm just a little confused what
that means well my understanding is you were supposed there should have been another refusal
okay for a parking space for service all right thank you so what we're doing is we're taking
note. We're adding that in. Great. Thank you. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel. Thank you so much. All right. Number two, MI 2022-005-716-1027-29
Spring Street. Zen Jin is the attorney. Letter of opposition from the coordinating RCO,
Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation. Also, they are still in opposition after viewing
revised plans. There's a letter of support from the Asian American Federation of the United States,
And there's a letter of opposition from Council Member Squillip.
Mr. Jin, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Zen Jin, Z-H-Y-N, last name J-I-N, 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1838, Philadelphia PA 19103, here on behalf of the applicant.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Our vice chair, could you, first of all, identify your client?
Yes, my client is 1027 to 29 Spring LLC.
Mr. Jin Shui-Lin is here on behalf of the LLC.
Okay, our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good morning, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Good morning, and I do waive and stipulate.
Thank you.
Have you emailed them all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you.
I'm going to share with the board what was submitted on behalf of my client for this application.
Can the board see my exhibit?
Thank you. So we submitted a series of documentation in anticipation of this hearing, a copy of the refusal, various letters, a petition of support, our notification and proof of notification, photos, plans, and related documentation.
This application is in a RM1 district.
The application itself is 1027 to 29 Spring Street, which is actually a double width lot.
consisting of approximately 3,100 square feet.
The proposal was brought before L&I
because my client is next door to
the previous proposal that was actually approved
through the zoning board some years ago
that contains a similar size building
with about 18 units within.
My client originally wanted a little bit bigger building
than what was already next door and proposed for 20 units, triggering the various refusals
that the board has before the board today.
When we met with the PCDC, Philadelphia Times,
When we met with the PCDC, Philadelphia Chinown Development Corporation, originally,
it came to our attention that many of the board members actually either live or own properties
right next to our proposed lot, and there were extensive concerns about this lot being
developed.
Primarily, there were various discussions of construction-related concerns because the
buildings next to us, not towards the 11th Street, but towards 10th Street, is there are older
buildings and there are smaller buildings, and there was concern that the construction would
possibly cause damage or trigger other issues such as light and air for the existing building.
We went back, based on that feedback, and made changes to the plan to reduce the structure
what i'm going to show the board now is the original rendering and plan and then i'll show
the revised plan which shows the reduction so originally my client was envisioning a building
much like the one next to his towards 11th street but based on the overall height and design