said is that he didn't get any support from anyone on the back side of those properties
where he's already built a big giant half of a garage and had to be stopped because he didn't
it oh wait wait no no no no no no no no let him testify you'll have a chance at the end to respond
okay sorry and uh you know there's been body work being done in the yard openly and that's been
turned in so he's left the whole exposed side of this cinder block half wall with this giant
industrial gate that looks like something out of a warehouse on what was a residential street
that's being slowly turned into a host of auto repair businesses
that shouldn't even be there,
as well as a construction business that shouldn't be there.
And those have all been turned in as well.
So he's a little misrepresentation going on there.
And whatever he builds, if you give him the okay,
which I hope you don't,
I sure as heck hope that they do a finished side to that building
so we don't have to look at this big gobs of cement
hanging off the cinder block that's there now.
Thank you.
Thank you for taking the time to call in.
I appreciate it.
I'm going to see if there's anybody else
who has something to say.
You'll have the last word, okay?
Is there anyone else in the audience
who wants to make a comment?
No more hands here.
Oscar, do you want to comment?
Yeah, so it seems like he's confusing me
with the neighbor on the other side of the street,
which he was going through something as well.
I don't have a body shop in here.
I don't have a gate.
like he's saying um so it seems like he's confusing me with the the uh i don't know the
the number on the house but i think it's um somewhere closer to the corner here on edmond
so he must be confused as okay all right thank you planning commission from bednar city planning
the property is indicated for residential use on the city plan are adopted district plan recommends
no change to the existing zoning at this location the applicant's hardship is not supported with
Zoning at this location, the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that prevented from being used in conformity with the minimum requirements in the code.
evidence of unique
The plan represents an overuse of the site, therefore we recommend the request for variance not be granted.
MI 2023-003-490-7218, Edmond Street, I vote no.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Thank you, sir.
Can I have some words?
It's over now, sir.
All right.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Why don't we take a five-minute break?
We'll come back.
We'll go through the list.
We only have one case to hear, okay?
So let's get our court reporter to get a break.
Five minutes.
We'll be right back, all right?
Mr. Chair, can we make sure there's no one else on the 2 p.m. list that we've missed?
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 2 p.m. case has not been heard?
No hands, Chair.
Okay. Five minutes.
Thank you, Chair.
My name is Bill Bergman.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the ZBA 330 hearing list.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid. He's here.
He's present, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Chair.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken.
Here's our virtual format. Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at phil.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkin.
Let's take a look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number one, 2023-001-904-1201-203 Princeton Avenue cases continued.
Number two, MI 2023-000084-2007 South 10th Street, Cases Continued, Attorney Moving Party.
Number four, let me get to that. Number four, MI 2023-000072-6400 Harbison Avenue. Cases
continued. Attorney moving party. Number five, MI 2021-005-123-931 South 18th Street. Case
is continued mark must be tried number six mi 2022 006 279 52 46 to 50 bellfield cases continued
and number seven excuse me mr chair um with number six we don't have any exhibits it was
previously continued in march this is the second listing we have no exhibits this time and no
continuance request. Okay. I thought you listed. All right. Here we go. All right. So MI 2022-006-279-5246-50
Belfield Avenue. No exhibits. What is it? The fifth listing? It's the second listing, Mr. Chair.
Previously, we had a request for continuance, but we received no correspondence this time.
Okay. Is there anyone in the audience for that case?
no hands chair
MI 2022
5246 to 50
Belfield Avenue
I vote to dismiss
second listing
Thomas Holloman
my vote is to dismiss
my vote is to dismiss
my vote is to dismiss
number seven
MI 2023-001-885-2248 North 2nd Street.
That case is continued.
That case is continued.
We'll go to case number three.
We'll go to case number three.
MI 2023-001-888-2219-421, North 4th Street.
Meredith Verlager is the attorney.
Meredith Verlager has been promoted.
Evening.
Good afternoon, counsel. Could you state your name and spell, please, for the court sonographer?
Sure. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R of Dilworth Paxson, 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
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?
Certainly. My client here today is 2219 LTD Philly LLC, which is the owner of the property and is represented here today by either Ben Reese or Adam Feinstone.
We have a letter of support from NARS Square. Did council person send the letter?
No, not to my knowledge.
okay Hilary where do we have our information from so we received a letter in opposition from
the council office but um I maybe Sloan folks um from council member Lozada's office can comment
on this but it may have been an error it referenced um it referenced the RCO letter in opposition but
the RCO letter was in support so that's why I think there may there may have been an error
Yeah, Mr. Chairman, believe it or not, I actually have another case with the same address that's scheduled to be heard next week. It's on 2nd Street instead of 4th Street, and that one does have a letter of opposition, so I'm guessing that what Hillary is saying is probably correct.
Our Vice Chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, Counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents? Of course you did. That is five days in advance of this hearing.
I certainly did.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right. All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the proposal before the board today concerns a new seven unit multifamily dwelling
in the NARS Square section of North Philadelphia. In your packet at tab 14, you will note a letter
of a unanimous letter of support from the RCO NARS Square Community Alliance. The board has
all of my exhibits which contain 15 sets of documents. Starting first with the zoning map
at Exhibit 7. This shows the property at 2219-21 North 4th Street is roughly mid-block between West
Susquehanna Avenue to the south and West Nevada Street to the north. The property is currently
zoned RSA 5. As I will touch on a bit more later, the property was previously zoned RM 1.
In the aerials up on the screen at Exhibit 8, the board will begin to get an understanding of the relatively unique character of this block, which is largely comprised of a mix of multifamily residential structures, with some commercial and even automotive industrial uses.
If I flip to the next page, which is the east-looking view, you'll see that the opposing side of this street still has some fairly intrusive automotive and commercial uses.
The remapping that I referenced a moment ago will be particularly relevant to this unique condition that now exists on this small block.
At Exhibit 15, I'll briefly walk you through some photos to provide additional context.
The property in front of you today is currently a vacant lot, which has been vacant for many
decades. Historic maps and permits suggest that this lot was last used as a multifamily dwelling
with a minimum of four units as early as the 1940s and continuing at least until the maps
and permits end around 1962. It is not clear when the prior structure was demolished.
If I walk through the photos, you'll notice that this side of the street is predominantly residential structures with quite a few vacant lots still interspersed.
And again, this just gives you a view towards West Nevada Street, where you'll see some existing residential structures.
And again, this just gives you a view towards West Nevada Street where you'll see.
Now, if we turn across the street, you'll see that this first photo shows a currently vacant lot directly across the street, which was just approved for a significant multifamily proposal, which I will address.
On either side, you'll notice the warehouse and automotive facilities.
And again, this just gives a better view of the somewhat strange conditions of this block.
You'll note that the commercial uses still occupy a significant portion of the block.
In addition to some vacant lots, there are still some dilapidated structures with no active use whatsoever.
And again, just looking down towards West Nevada Street.
So if we turn to the zoning site plan, which I've included at Exhibit 5, my client is proposing to erect a new three-story building that will contain seven dwelling units.
From a zoning compliance standpoint, the board should note that this building not only fully complies with the dimensional restrictions of the code, but is in fact significantly underbuilt.
specifically the building is only three stories and 33 feet three inches high where 38 feet would
be allowed the building leaves about three percent more open space than is required
and accommodates a 50 15 foot rear yard instead of the minimum nine feet in addition and i'll
flip to a rendering so you can see this better the building provides a unique three foot wide
passageway from the rear yard out to the street in terms of open space for residents there are
balconies on the front of the building to contribute to the activation of the street
there is a roof deck that will be exclusively used by the upper floor units
the floor plans are shown at exhibit six no basement is proposed for this building
Four of the units will be two-bedroom units of around 840 square feet.
There are then also two one-bedroom units that range from 462 to 575 square feet.
There is also one studio on the first floor.
If you refer specifically to the first floor, you'll note that one of the benefits of designing this building without a basement
is that the design is able to accommodate the first floor units being designed as type B ADA
adaptable units, meaning that they can be easily converted to accommodate the needs of a disabled
tenant. You'll also notice on the first floor that there is a small mechanical room in the front,
which will allow the utility meters to be shielded, which is something that
is so desired with new construction these days. And again, you can see that mechanical room with
access from the front here. The rear yard will be reserved with trash storage and bike storage
areas. And again, this was something that the community really liked to see with the bike
storage in the back in light of that three-foot passageway that really will accommodate active
bicycle use for these tenants. As you saw, the artistic rendering is included in the packet
and you'll note that the building was designed to resemble two adjoining structures instead
of one larger building. Now regarding the refusal, because the property is currently zoned RSA 5,
we are required to seek a variance for the multi-family use. The applicant submits to
several hardships in erecting new single family homes on this lot for a variety of reasons. First
and most basically, this lot is nearly double the size of most of the lots on this block,
totaling around 2,700 square feet, instead of other comparable lots that are between 900 square
feet and 1,200 square feet. And the zoning map can give you a sense of the scale of this lot
in comparison to others. Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, this property was previously
zoned RM1. Although the rezoning alone might not support a hardship, absent other compelling
evidence, the rezoning of this block is unique as it relates to the hardship. At tab 10, I've
included a copy of the remapping ordinance bill number 170516 from 2017. What the board should
take notice of is the map of the then existing zoning that existed prior to the rezoning effort.
You'll notice that this block of 4th Street between Susquehanna Avenue and Nevada at one time had zoning that included RM1 multifamily, I2 industrial, and CMX2 mixed commercial, all on this one block.
You'll notice that this block of 4th Street between Susquehanna
Upon the rezoning, everything was rezoned to single-family.
Despite the rezoning, as I'll show, the block still has considerable mixed uses, which logically stems from the way it was zoned in the past.
at exhibit nine and i've included a an easy reference map here uh i've included the zoning