Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
um yes mr chair um a couple of things um first um a letter of opposition from the coordinating
rco the 12th democratic board um was just forwarded to me um brandon i just forwarded that to you as
well um so they so they did submit well we have now received a letter of opposition um i've also
received a uh email from charles richardson and councilman bass's office who indicated that while
the councilman is in is not opposed to the project she is leaving the decision to the board
um so we have those two letters of the other thing um in and brandon in listening to your
testimony about the refusal and reviewing the refusal on my own um i think um i think the board
should have the uh have you request that the refusal be amended because i think there's a
number of errors on it and um i think it should have only been one multi-family household living
refusal for all 12 units instead of split 10 and 2 there should be multiple principal buildings
um on there um you mentioned the rear yard being an error and i understand there were some changes
too in the revised plans i think the height was i saw something in one of the rco letters about
the height and the stall number is wrong the number of parking stalls right so um um sorry
first of all hillary i don't want to cut you off do you have any other um no that i think i think
that was it between the things that you mentioned and the things that i had noticed i think there
should be a refusal that's most likely amended since there are revised plans as opposed to just
corrected but it will need to be corrected as part of the amendment process okay okay we can
certainly pursue that um that no change in height by the way not certainly may have commented on
the hype but no change in height um okay thank you hillary we're going to go we'll we'll hear it then
Thank you. Hillary, we're going to go. We'll we'll hear it demo. Yes. Yeah. No, we just I think we need given the number of things that are going to be incorrect on the refusal.
we'll yeah
I think we need something that's corrected slash amended based on changes. We'll open it up to the virtual audience and planning if they want. Right.
Yeah, no, absolutely. Absolutely. I don't think we need to do a resumption. I think it's just, I think it'll be making sure everything that was presented today is accurately represented on the refusal. Brandon, did you, sorry, did you have any other comments?
No, I think that that's probably a wise idea. Frankly, I was hoping that talking through it and presenting a proviso form would solve it, but I definitely respect your desired approach here.
i think thank you i think that would just make it a lot easier for everybody okay
questions or comments from the virtual audience
yes chair i have a caller with the last five numbers five last four numbers five five five five
sure i could you state your name please and spell for the court sonographer
Are they muted?
I allow them to speak.
I don't see them.
And then I have another hand up by the name of Jill Santa McCrary.
All right.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer?
no santa mccrary can you please unmute oh yes can you hear me now okay could you state your name
yes j j o j o s a n n a last name mccray m c c r a y do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed yes i'm i'm um was on all the meetings
that had uh taken place and our biggest concern is the our driveway um which someone just stated
was like an alleyway it's not an alleyway it's our private driveway behind our homes
So our concern is that the 12 houses, it's only going to be one car per house and people have more than one car now.
They have two, three, four. Then they have visitors. We do not want the back of our house.
We don't want people parking in the back of our house.
So all we asked for was either a gate or polls that would say, you know, this is private area, no parking.
So we seem to as neighbors, we were meeting resistance with that proposal.
And I don't really think that's asking too much. We want to see a development there.
Of course, we want to see, you know, something there, but we do not want our driveway compromised because we use our driveway.
So we don't want to come out. There's cars parked back there.
We don't know who they belong to. And that's not going to be good.
So we are really, really that is a major, major concern for our block.
All right. Thank you, Ms. McCray, for calling in and we appreciate your input.
Is there anyone else in the first audience?
yes chair allison weiss has a hand up
miss weiss
yes hello hi miss weiss could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
allison weiss a double l i s o n w e i s s right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
solo germantown civic associate okay do you swear we're firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth please proceed yes yes um we are an affected rco and um we did send in a
letter which you acknowledged and i do uh think that it's a good decision to have an amended uh
refusal and at the meeting there was indication that in the third meeting that the height was
reduced the overall height was reduced by one foot so i'm a little concerned that now we're hearing
The height is not altered, since that was a major issue, was the height of the buildings.
the height is not altered since that was a major issue
When this was first acquired through the land bank, it was for two-story buildings.
Then it somehow changed to three-story buildings, and many of the neighbors at the meetings were concerned,
especially with the twins on logan street that the height would interfere with their
light and quality of life so there was concern over the height of the buildings
okay which is why they reduced it to one foot um i mr chairman would you like me to have our
architect confirm whether why don't why don't we why don't we see who else has something to say
Okay. Ms. Weiss, thank you. And I also noticed that you sent in provisos. Am I right?
Yes, we did. In case the board.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much for calling in. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands here.
Okay. Brandon, do you want to respond before?
Yeah, sure. So the buildings are certainly of a by-right height. There's no variances requested with regard to height.
My understanding is that the concept of three-story buildings was presented to the land bank, but it's important to note that we have not actually acquired the property.
That's at the land bank's discretion after obtaining permits. And then, Jimmy, if you're still available, please do share with the board if we agree to reduce the height by a foot, because, you know, I may have misspoken if that's the case.
Yes, we did discuss at the last RCO meeting to reduce the height by a foot.
I was under the impression when we discussed the height changes that we were talking about the full level change that was discussed.
As mentioned, originally being two stories up to three stories, and it's been three stories since it's been in front of the RCO.
So, I mean, they're all three-story buildings.
And I think, Mr. Chairman, what we'll do is, as part of obtaining an amended refusal, we're going to submit our latest and greatest plans back to L&I, and that'll sort of finalize the height of each building.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The City Planning Commission has no objection to the use and yard variances.
However, we strongly object to the granting of the variance for parking lot landscaping. Relief from the parking lot landscaping requirements is available with an administrative waiver by the City Planning Commission.
The applicant refuses the opportunity to apply for the City Planning Commission's administrative waiver.
Therefore, we believe that the planning, the parking lot landscape requirements fail the minimum necessary variance test, which is essential test for all variances.
The applicant failed to pursue an available administrative waiver in order to sidestep the waiver and payment in lieu process.
Granting the variance will deprive the city of funds used for plant replacement trees in areas where they are most needed.
In summary, we recommend the board grant the multifamily use and dimensional variances, but deny the parking lot landscape waivers, variances.
Could I offer a quick response, Mr. Chairman?
Please.
What we'll do is, as part of obtaining the amended refusal, confirm whether or not the property is subject to any landscaping requirements.
I was not under the impression that it is. Therefore, I was not under the impression that we could obtain a waiver. If we determined that we can obtain a waiver, we will discuss that with the Planning Commission. It was not our intent to essentially sidestep payments to the city. That was an accident if it did occur, and we will correct it.
All right. Thank you. So, Hillary, once this is all corrected, we'll bring this back, right?
yeah so we'll just we will bring it back just for a vote um the record will be closed
right i did want to except for receipt of the amended refusal um mr saverne i just want to
ask one other question um you saw the provisos um suggested by solo germantown does your client
um suggested by solo germantown does your client have a position on those um i'm pulling it up as
and have a position
we speak interior trash storage interior mailbox and mail storage no we would not object to those
thank you thank you thank you number three mi 2023 004 324 414 to 16 south 20 street stephanie
box magna is the attorney uh letter of non-opposition from the center city
residents association petition of support signed by numerous neighbors
counsel? Stephanie Magna has been promoted. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Michael Phillips
from my office is actually going to be presenting this case. Okay. Thank you.
invite him to join as a panelist. Mr. Phillips.
Michael Phillips has also been promoted.
Hi, Mr. Phillips, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon. Michael Phillips, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S, Claire Harrison Harvey Bransburg, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia PA, 19103, here on behalf of RLDL 20th Street, LLC, the owner of 414-18 South 20th Street.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
our vice chair has a few questions for you sir
yes i do mr uh vice chair and uh i will just note that uh we have proviso plans that were
provided to board council uh that actually eliminate one of the refusals however as stated
the refusal was accurate yes thank you thank you may i share my screen please
Okay. So, good afternoon. I am here on behalf of RLDL 20th Street, LLC,
to present a three-unit planned unit development at the southwest corner of 20th and Waverly
streets. This case has a very long and drawn-out backstory. Board members Holloman and Snell may
recall a series of hearings two years ago on an appeal of a by-right permit that was obtained
for this property, which has culminated in years of litigation and disputes with the near
neighbors. The plan that's being presented today was a result of a lot of hard work and compromise
with the community to find a development that works in the context of this neighborhood.
You will note within the packet, we have a letter of support from CCRA,
as well as petitions of support that are signed by 45 near neighbors, all strongly supporting this project.
I will quickly just go through the refusal.
We are proposing, as I noted, three single-family townhomes.
However, similar to the prior case, we have not effectuated a formal subdivision,
So there is a refusal for multifamily, as it's noted and viewed prior to the subdivision as a three-unit multifamily.
However, these do function as three single-family townhomes.
The refusals that were issued are for parking.
There is parking that is along Waverly Street, but there's also a proposed curb cut on 20th Street.
Waverly Street, but there's also a proposed curve cut on 20th Street, and since 20th Street
is not a rear street, a refusal was issued on that ground.
And lastly, there were some dimensional variances sought.
For height, we are seeking 42 feet.
We're 38 feet is allowed.
We are not proposing a rear yard, and initially, the refusal was issued for open area, 20% required
11.5% provided. However, the proviso plans that we'll go through actually eliminate this refusal
by changing balconies to a deck and decks are not included for purposes of open area. So it
brings it down just a shade above that 20% threshold. I have with me here as well, Ryan
Lobauer with High Top Real Estate and Development, who was the project architect. I will quickly
run through the plans and open it up to questions. But just for context, this is the site. It's the
former Kim's Dry Cleaners, as well as a single family home, were located on this site.
Way back in 2019, a permit was pulled for a 60-foot structure with a ground floor fresh food bonus,
a fresh food market and four residential units above, and that utilized at the time the fresh
food bonus for a 15-foot height bonus as well as a payment in lieu to the city in the amount of
$60,000 to receive an additional seven feet. That permit has been under appeal, although it has
been upheld by both the Zoning Board and the Court of Common Pleas. It remains on appeal to
the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. In an effort to resolve that appeal, we actually had a variance
plan that was scheduled to go before the board around the time of the pandemic. And that plan
reduced the height to 45 feet and eliminated the fresh food market. Now, despite having the
overwhelming support of the community, there was a near neighbor at the time who appealed,
and I apologize that my computer is running slowly. I'm going to close out of an application
and hopefully that'll speed things up, but I'll keep going. And so as a result of that, neighbors
appeal, we were not able, or that neighbor's opposition, we did not pursue that original
variance plan. That neighbor recently sold their house, and
that created the opportunity here to try to think of a new way to end this litigation with the
community and to find the project that works for everybody. And that's the plan that I will
be showing you today. It provides three townhomes. Here's the perspective. So there are three townhomes
all fronting Waverly Street. There is a curb cut here on Waverly that allows two-car parking for
this most interior home. And then we have a curb cut along 20th Street, which is not totally out
of context. You'll note right here, the property right across the street also has a front-loaded
garage along 20th Street. This was one thing that was important to the community was to not
inundate Waverly Street with more than one curb cut and to still maintain that walkability.
Uh, the height was dropped to 42 feet, which matches and is consistent with the property directly across at 2001 Waverly. So contextually, we are in line.
Here are elevations showing the roof deck, pilothouse, and the facade.
These are the original zoning plans, and you will see the two-car parking here, and then the other units access the parking along 20th Street.
The change that was made as a result of the proviso plans is initially we had two balconies coming off, and you'll see, click over to the proviso plans.
And now it is one consistent deck that goes across.
and now it is one consistent deck that goes across. That was the only change that was made,
That was the only change.
but as I noted, that did actually eliminate the occupied area variant. And then continuing on,
you've seen the revised zoning plan,
and there's our proviso plan form this is actually the the prior variant that we were seeking uh that
was ultimately withdrawn and you'll note this is you know way back in in um 2019 at the time we
were proposing 45 feet nine inches um there was only three percent uh open area um we had you
know an oversized pilot house and you know this did have the community support here here are the
visual and renderings here. But like I mentioned, due to the objections of one near neighbor who
this would affect, we did not proceed with it, however, that neighbor has sold, which created
this opportunity. This is a project that has the strong support of the community and is
the unique situation where the community prefers this as opposed to strongly the plan and permit
that was pulled in 2019. So this was a true compromise. It took a lot of negotiation,
a lot of fighting back and forth over this litigation. But ultimately, what has come from
that is a plan that everyone can be happy with
and that actually fits and works in today's market.
So I would like to have Ryan Lobauer
be promoted as panelist to adopt my testimony
and provide any additional context
that the board may require.
hi sir could you state your name and spell please for the court stenographer
yes my name is ryan loebauer it's spelled r-y-a-n l-o-h-b-a-u-e-r right do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel
Ryan, have you heard my testimony in this matter?