And this is the multifamily, three-family dwelling.
So, Mr. Chairman, that is the presentation.
I'm looking for relief for this long, abandoned and vacant lot that my client purchased recently.
Again, the adjacent lot next to him has also been vacant for at least 20 years.
There were suggestions that Mr. McCarran had purchased that lot because they'd rather see.
One of the comments from the near neighbors, actually, I almost quoted was they would rather see a two-family dwelling on this lot
than see it go vacant and empty
for the remainder of how many more decades?
I really don't know.
There's other existing multifamily on the block.
We're not impacting any adjacent properties later here.
We're in harmony with the uses on the block.
We're not overusing the property.
It's not detrimental to the block.
And it's surrounded by a commercial across the street,
commercial at the corner,
industrial slash commercial behind it.
and two other multifamily properties on the block.
And with that, if I could have my client unmute it
to adopt my testimony.
Yes, sir.
And then entertain any questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCurney, can you unmute yourself, please?
Good afternoon, sir.
Good afternoon, sir.
Mr. McKernan?
I know he's on the call.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Yeah, my name is Brian McKernan.
B-R-I-A-N-M-C-K-E-R-N-A-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Mr. McCarronin, were you on the call when I presented your project to the board?
Yes, I was.
And were you also at the community meeting?
And at the community meeting, did I quote properly the neighbors on the block who expressed some desire for you to acquire the other adjacent vacant lot?
Yes, 100%.
Okay. And what was their reason for saying that, Mr. McCarronin?
Well, they're just saying how the lot is like vacant and it's just a plight in the area.
And they would be so happy to have something built there.
And like you stated, they actually would like me to try and get the one next door, which I've been looking for the past year.
And I can't, I can't require that one, unfortunately.
And Mr. McKiernan, if you had the opportunity to testify today, would you adopt my testimony as your own?
And that's true and correct.
I would, yes.
Thank you, Mr. McCarronin.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
From Bednar City Planning.
The property is currently split zoned on the city plan.
the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or
condition of the property would prevent it from being used in conformity with the code therefore
we recommend the quest of variance not be granted my 2023 003 470 1214 south 31st street i vote yes
thomas holliman my vote is yes dame snell my vote is yes
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, in arms of the board.
He has support with provisors from an RCO, the RCO.
Chair, I have Augusta O'Neill with her hand up.
Should I promote?
Thank you.
Augusta O'Neill has been promoted.
Good afternoon.
Hi, counsel. Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Sure. My name is Augusta O'Neill. That's spelled A-U-G-U-S-T-A. My last name is O-N-E-I-L-L.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is Scott Scuderi. He's the principal of Scuderi RE 5900-02 Germantown Avenue, LLC, and he's the owner of the property.
our vice chair has just a few questions sure good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive
the reading of the refusal is signaling to attack her i do have you emailed in all the required
documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with the case of these in advance of this hearing
i did thank you thank you so much
Thank you, members of the board. As I stated earlier, my client is the owner of the property at 5900 Germantown Avenue, as well as the property that's located at 11 West Rittenhouse Street.
The property is zoned CMX2. This application is to adjust two lots, the lots at 5900 Germantown Avenue and 11 West Rittenhouse Street, so that we can add accessory parking to 11 West Rittenhouse Street.
The property that's at 5900 Germantown Avenue is the property that I have a picture of up on my
screen. This is a multi-family building with 20 dwelling units inside of it. We are using the lot
that's at 11 West Rittenhouse Street, which you can see here, and we're going to be proposing an
application. The application before you today is to put parking accessory to those multi-family
the application before you today is to put parking accessory to those multifamily units in this location.
So my client could have used the property at 11 Western House in order to add more units,
but instead we wanted to add some parking as an amenity to all the tenants that are in the building at 5900 Germantown.
Just by way of background, when my client began construction on this multifamily building that you can see at page 59, my exhibit package, there were less stringent landscaping requirements in the code.
But by the time that he purchased the slot, the code did change so that there's more stringent landscaping requirements.
And so the change in the code generated two of the refusals, which we're seeking relief from today.
The first refusal relates to section 14-7051E of the code with the requirement that there be a yard
tree, but as you can see from the site plan that I've included at page 59, I'm sorry, page 13 of
my exhibit package, we are proposing a tree that's in the landscape buffer off of West Rittenhouse
street that's buffering the parking from the street, but we didn't comply to the letter
of the code to have that tree in the parking area just because we want to maximize the
area that cars have to circulate and to park, because as you can see, this is pretty tight,
which is what's creating the hardship here.
The other refusal that was generated, which we are asking for relief from, which relates to the parking, or I'm sorry, the landscaping, is relief from section 14-8035E, which requires that the interior landscaped area be calculated as a minimum of 10% of the total area of the parking spaces.
Again, as you can see, we aren't providing any interior landscaping, but that is, again,
a function of the fact that we are so limited in space where we're proposing the accessory parking.
According to OPA records, that parcel at 11 West Rittenhouse is only slightly over 2,000 square feet.
I'd also like to submit to the board just that my read of the code is that those landscaping
requirements are really intended for much larger parking areas like you would see in a shopping
center. I don't think it's appropriate to require, or I would submit to you that's appropriate to
require the amount of landscaping that we'd be required to live up to the letter of the code
when we're working with such small space and the parking is so desperately needed in this neighborhood.
The last two refusals that were generated by this application just relate to the location of the
parking. There's a refusal because the parking is in the proposed rear yard, as well as the
fact that it's not accessible from a shared driveway or alley. But again, due to the size of
the lot, I can't stress this enough, due to the size of the lot, and given that the alternative
would have been for my client to add more units, we feel that this is the most appropriate submission
for the neighborhood, and that this is something that is more beneficial than adding more units
would have been. Just to ride the board with some context for the location of this property,
we are located in a very busy commercial corridor. This is where the property is at.
We're located at the intersection of Germantown Avenue and West Rittenhouse Street.
Parking is always an issue. And as you can see from the other pictures that I provided
in my exhibit package, these were pictures that were taken, you know, during the daytime. And as
you can see, there isn't a single parking spot to be had either on Germantown Avenue
or on West Rittenhouse Street. West Rittenhouse Street only provides one lane of parking. So
So we did meet with the affected RCO for the property, the West Central Germantown neighbors.
A letter of support was provided with my exhibit package.
They were in support of the application, and we met with them back in August, I believe.
And what we heard from them at the meeting was that they were generally in support of an application that was going to provide parking.
again, because they voice their frustration with the number of multifamily buildings that go up in
their area that are just compounding the parking problem that's happening in Germantown. In the
addendum to the letter of support that we received, just wanted to flag for the board,
there was a request for a proviso that the parking lot be created to be made available
to be made available at no charge, and that it be made available on a first-come, first-served
at no charge and that it be made available on a first-come, first-served basis.
basis. I did speak with your solicitor about this, and I don't believe that that's enforceable,
and it's my understanding that the board solicitor feels the same way. That's really more of a
private agreement kind of an issue. I don't think that's something that LNI would be interested in
enforcing. I would also submit that perhaps number two of the provisos is going to be an issue from
an L&I enforcement standpoint. But again, overall, the community was supportive, as I said,
of this because of the parking situation and the fact that my client is working to alleviate that.
We also have a letter of support from the Mount Zion Baptist Church of Germantown.
I provided that at page 11 of my exhibit package. I just wanted to call out something that was
noted in the letter, which is that parking is very limited and oftentimes non-existent
when apartment complexes are built in this section of our city.
Therefore the Baptist church was in support of a variance being granted for the parking.
It's my understanding that the church also reached out to my client and is on the line
today so that they can voice their support.
Also with me this afternoon is our project architect, Logan Dry, to the extent that the
board has any questions about the plan that was submitted. But with that, I would like to call
forward my client, Mr. Scuderi, just to adopt my testimony. Thank you.
Excuse me. Mr. Scuderi, if you're in the audience, raise your hand, please.
He's been allowed to speak. Could you state your name and spell, please,
for the court stenographer? Yes. Scott Scuderi, S-C-O-T-T, S-C-U-D-E-R-I. Do you swear for him
to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed, counsel.
Mr. Scuderi, did you have a chance to hear my testimony this afternoon? I did. And was everything
that I said true and accurate? Yes. Okay. And would you like to adopt my testimony as your own?
i will thank you questions from the board no chair no mr chairman chair
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair
um sorry i just wanted to um ask what was i correct with my summation about the issues with
this proviso yes that that is correct okay thank you so much um questions or comments from the
virtual audience no handshare planning commission they're on bednar city planning the property is
indicated for neighborhood commercial mixed use on the city plan the applicant's hardship is not
supported with evidence of conditions of the property what prevented from being used in
conformity with the interior landscaping and yard tree requirements of the code therefore we
recommend request for variance not be granted um mi 2023-003-502-5900 germantown avenue i vote yes
thomas holloman my vote is yes king snell my vote is yes
thank you council thank you so much appreciate your time so number 11 mi 2023-003-490-7218
Edmond Street, this is a pro se, who have a non-opposition from the RCO.
Hillary, what's the owner's name?
I see his hand raised, Oscar Ventura Penalo.
He'll be joining us as a panelist.
Oscar?
can you hear me now yes we can i yes i can sir could you state your name please and spell for
the court stenographer okay good afternoon mr chairman and uh members of the board my name is
uh oscar ventura penalo right so please yes o-s-c-a-r ventura vs and victor e
N-T-U-R-A
Penalo
P-E-N-A-L-O
Square or firm
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Could you turn your video on, please?
Could you turn your video on, please?
Yeah, that's what I was looking for.
Yeah, I was looking forward to saying that.
Thank you, thank you, Sean.
Thank you, thank you, sir.
All right, our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Mr. Chair, would you like me to read the refusal into the record first?
That would be great.
Thank you.
This application is for the erection of an addition above an existing one-story
semi-detached structure and the erection of a detached structure for use as two-family
household living in the semi-detached structure for use as accessory off-street surface parking
and a business and professional office in the detached structure. There are three use refusals
and two zoning refusals. Parking in the RSA 5 zoning district is prohibited unless it can be