World RCO, photos, plans, tax clearance deed, application, project information, and hearing
notice. The refusal in this matter, this is a consolidation of lots application. There are four
individual lots all owned by my client running from basically 924 all the way through 930
Wesley High Avenue, they're all zoned CMX2. What the proposal is and what led to the various
refusals really is the idea here is to build one single building encompassing all four lots rather
than doing four individual CMX2 units by right. Now the refusal indicates here that 10 units is
permitted by right under the zoning code,
zoning code, but based on the actual lot size and the north central overlay at 425 per unit,
but based on the actual lot size and the
we should actually be able to get 12 units by right. Whether we subdivide or not subdivide
and build four individual buildings, 12 units would be by right rather than 10. So the 15 unit
is proposed and it is indicated that only 10 units are allowed. I believe that is incorrect.
That being said, we met with the RCO and they were in opposition despite a few concessions we
offered. And I want to explain to the board their opposition versus what we have agreed to try to
do for them. If you read their letter, it seems the primary concern is the size of the commercial
space and parking. What I want to point out to the board, though, is that the only reason we have
parking variance is because under the North Central Part C, if you have more than three
residential units in one building, you trigger the parking requirements. Whereas if we were
building these four separately, we would not be required to put any off-street parking.
The total residential units will be 12 residential units and four commercial on the four lots,
no off-street parking. What we did is we have a single unit, single building,
putting all the residential units together in one building. That's what triggered the parking.
so the parking isn't something that would normally be triggered if we didn't put the
buildings to put the lots together now that being said they said they don't like the idea of one new
commercial one new first floor commercial space because it'll be too large and would necessitate
a larger chain store and they would prefer four separate commercial spaces there that is
understandable, and it's actually addressed on our presentation and in our plans now.
The thing here is we're asking for what is a vacant commercial space.
Even if we were to build a building, and I'm going to zoom in here for the board because
I know it's hard to see what the plans look like.
Let's go talk about the commercial space first.
So the commercial space that the community had issue with is because they feel that this one large commercial space, which is 3,300 square foot, would not be beneficial to local residents who would possibly want to rent the commercial space.
but part of the advantage of combining this into one structure design is that we can actually
provide a few things that if four individual buildings are built we cannot provide one of
which is internal trash storage on every floor we have a trash room on every floor elevator
bike parking none of this will be available if you are building by right because you're working
with narrow individual lots instead of one bigger space. What we did in the design is to allow
essentially trash storage bike to compensate for the lack of off-street parking. And the commercial
space in this case can be subdivided in various ways. Right now it's vacant. So it depends on
what the tenant wants to do. If a tenant comes in and says, I only need 800 or 1,000 square foot,
it can be divided into this now in all fairness we did not have this design piece when we presented
to the RCO so we verbally explained that it can be done but the community members I'm not sure if
they necessarily understood how this can be done but a dividing of the commercial space can happen
very easily whether it's one big building or four separate buildings by right each with its own
limited small commercial spaces the other disadvantage of subdividing and I mean not
subdividing and having four units is that the spaces will be forced into a particular footprint
and there's nothing we can do to change that versus the flexibility right now of having
dividable space that can be arranged in various ways depending on tenant needs so while I
understand the community's opposition to the idea of a large commercial space I think they're kind
losing sight of the fact that this is essentially going to end up being kind of the same availability,
whether it's four buildings or one building. Now with regard to the residential space,
knowing that, and I explained this again at the community meeting, knowing that we could
build 12 by right, we actually reduce the total unit count
build 12 by right, we actually reduce the total unit count both offered verbally as well as
by the plans before the board now to 12 units from 15. The only difference is that the original
design had these units separated into two units and they're all one bedroom units. So you have
two two bedrooms, three one bedrooms on every floor, three floors. So what you end up with is
that's four plus three so you have seven seven times four it's you know you have about 28
bedrooms total in 12 units if we do 12 units with basically three bedrooms or
something along those lines because there'll be longer buildings they would necessitate
the layout to be different it would end up being about 36 bedrooms anyway so from a density
standpoint, the one building layout really is better. Now, by combining the two, we ended up
with three bedrooms rather than two. Again, even with this layout, it still comes out overall to be
a little bit less than three row homes, each with three three-bedroom apartments. Another point to
note is at one point, one of the property was actually granted for six-family dwelling, another
one for three-family dwelling. And we have four of these properties here. The other two, each can
have three by right as well. So really having four separate buildings isn't necessarily less
density. Again, all this was explained. I understand the community's point is that they
feel that something like this would not be low-income housing. It would be more expensive
and that the commercial space may be too large for local business to afford to rent. But again,
we can easily divide up the space. And that is something that we did discuss at the presentation
at the RCO, but it was not overall accepted. I think one of the main things that was a hangup
for the community was the idea of off-the-street parking. We cannot provide it. I don't think
anybody wants a curb cut on Lehigh Avenue and then have no commercial space just to put a few
parking spaces in. That was not something the community actually wanted either. And they do
understand that if we build four buildings individually, as the lots are divided now,
there will be no off-street parking required, nor would there be possibility of any off-street
parking anyway, with possibly more bedrooms and more density. But again, their opposition,
for the most part, came from members who felt that it's not low-income enough, it's something
that would have too big a commercial space and the unit counts are too high. Again, we dropped
the unit count of what would otherwise be the same as the buy right. We are showing the capability
to divide the commercial space as needed. And again, you're losing some benefits here when you
take the one large building concept away in that trash would no longer be able to be stored
indoors it would be in the backyard area you can see that we don't actually have the corner lot
it's owned by a church so we're landlocked in the middle four lots so it's not possible for us to
put off street parking in any case because the corner lot really can't be leveraged for for our
use there is an existing garage right here that is owned by the church they have plans for that lot
lot, so they don't want anybody touching anything there. You also have lots back here, so again,
the rear here is almost 100% built with existing buildings. We are going to actually provide
some open space, although it will be less than code required percentage. This is what
it looks like currently. Two of the buildings exist, two of the lots are vacant. If we were
to build, what would happen is that's the church across the street that owns the corner
lot. And this is what's across the street from us presently, which is a daycare commercial
mixed use. This building here has an office. I believe it's a doctor's office of some sort
with residents above. And again, the block, Lehigh Avenue has pretty extensive commercial
uses up and down the block and it is zoned for commercial use. So once again, what would happen
is if we design it this way, we can provide elevator trash rooms. I just want to point out
the trash and mechanical rooms are on every floor. This is floor two to four design.
They're duplicated on every floor. There's a trash room right here and the mechanical rooms
and the mechanical rooms here with so all units accessible double exits for both sides for the
here with so all units accessible double exits
stairs and an elevator available to all residents so again we understand the opposition from the
community we are willing to take a proviso that any commercial use would have to come back to the
board as a way to kind of make sure that we don't sneak something in with the community that is too
large for them to accept. But at this point, that is the proposal that we would like the board to
entertain, which is a single building with bike storage, internal trash storage, and double
entryways. If my client cannot obtain a variance in this form, he would be forced to build four
individual buildings, and each of them would have their own commercial space and residential above.
So it will be set up a little differently than what is being proposed here.
And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions from the Board.
Thank you. Questions from the Board? No. No. Would I like to testify in this case? If so,
please raise your hand. Here we have Mary Jones. Ms. Jones, you have to unmute yourself and you can
Good morning, Ms. Jones. Please identify yourself and I'll swear you in.
Good morning. Mary Jones representing Council President Darrell Clark, City Hall, room 494.
Are you swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed.
Today the Council President has submitted a letter to oppose the granting of this variance.
The community meeting was, excuse me, well attended and the members understood the project and what was being proposed and they felt that the added density and not including parking would be undesirable and out of contact with their neighborhood.
And further, the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship as to why they cannot build these buildings by right.
Thus, we ask that you deny this variance.
Thank you.
Anyone else like to testify in this case?
Please raise your hand.
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
Mr. Jen, I may have missed this in your presentation, so I apologize in advance.
A buy right, that doesn't require parking, is that correct?
It does not.
The NCP overlay Part C says that there are one building with more than three residential
units, then the parking kicks in. It's three per 10 rule. So because if we did these as four
individual buildings with three units each, there'll be no parking refusal at all. Because
we're combining them into, say, 12 units, we now are required to have under the NCP overlay
four parking spaces, five for 15, but we actually reduced the count to 12, which is the same as
what would be residential units if we did it for individual buildings all right um miss Jones are
you still there yes I am uh in your experience uh I believe you attended the meeting I did attend
do you think there's any uh makes any sense to continue this for further conversation
um because I'm looking at the buy right versus what is proposed and
I don't know. I mean, there may be some advantages to the proposal as it relates to what the buy
right is. There may be. Like I said, the community heard this out, heard the presentation at the
time. And they, I mean, I think they're one of their main concerns. I don't know if I just
mentioned it in my um statement but you know also this large um commercial space that at this point
you know they don't know what's going to be put there and there are there were some you know
big promises about maybe uh you know subdividing it but you know he won't the applicant won't be
held to that uh at this at this point i don't i think that the community well from my understanding
of what happened the community didn't was just unclear as to why this didn't couldn't be just
built by right okay all right anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
we have someone with the last name looks like
Tanner we have someone with the last name looks like Wang. Wang you be unmuted and
you're allowed to speak. Okay you're going to ask him to adopt your testimony correct?
Yes. Please identify yourself with the record first name and first and last name spell your
name. Yao Huang. Last name Huang. H-U-A-N-G. I'm an architect for this project.
you're not the owner i know the eric wong is the owner this is uh mr i haven't said last name yeah
i'm sorry is that is the owner on mr jin the owner should be here as well well yeah we want
to hear from the owner the owner will adopt your testimony unless the board has questions for the
You want to get your client to adopt your testimony?
Yes. Eric, if you can raise your hand virtually so you can be promoted.
I'm looking, Chair. I don't see any hands at the side.
Okay, Mr. Jinn, as an officer of the court, we'll stipulate that your client would have adopted your testimony.
Anyone else would like to testify?
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair DiTico, members of the board, Ian Hegarty, on behalf of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
This property is within a CMX2 zoning district and no changes proposed in the comprehensive plan.
We find no evidence of unique physical circumstances
or characteristics that would support
a hardship claim in this case.
And we believe the applicant has not demonstrated
that the variance is necessary
to enable viable economic use of the property.
We would further note that if the applicant
had endeavored to provide bonuses,
such as the green roof bonus
or the mixed income housing bonus,
they could have achieved the approximate height
and density being sought in this case.
And so we would therefore characterize this application as an increase in the scale of the development without a basis in hardship.
And so we would recommend that the board deny the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2020-002418, 924 West Lehigh Avenue.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
My vote is no.
I think we got ready for Mr. Mulvihill is he ready
number 12 on our list calendar number 2446 428-30 West Thompson Street
chairman members of the board um and I are you able to hear me at this point I don't know whether
I'm still a panelist is this you Leo yes you're still a panelist Leo okay great oh there you are
Yeah, thank you, everybody. Good morning, still, everybody. For whatever reason, there's a confluence of events today that is making my life extremely difficult. My computer is very slow today. My architect, who is going to testify as to the plans which we have revised, his wife has unexpectedly called into the office, and he is not able to get me what I need to do this presentation.
So my request would be, if possible, is it possible we could bump this into two so I can get everybody what they need rather than scrambling to piecemeal this and wasting everybody's time?
We have an extensive list, not a long list, but we have a case that's going to take up a lot of time.
Well, then, members of the board, if you would so indulge me to have my presentation be not as smooth and precise as they normally are just so I can get this done for my client.
Let's do that. Normally, I'd say yes, but there's one case in particular at 2 o'clock that's going to take a lot of time.
Okay, so just allow me to try to open my files up.
As I said, my computer is being extremely slow today, and I have been trying without avail to make this work.
Name and address, please.
Yes, certainly. Members of the board, my name is Leo, L-E-O.
Last name is Mulvihill, M-U-L.
V as in Victor, I-H-I-L-L.