Thank you.
Chair, we have 17 attendees and we can start as you wish.
Thank you.
Good morning.
My name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing this morning CBA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere, our Vice Chair.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Ishmael Shaheed, our Board Secretary.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And James Snell, our Board Member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also here is our Board Attorney, Hillary Emerson, and our ZBA Hearing Supervisor, Lakeisha Dandy.
Before we start, here is our virtual format.
Be advised if proceedings are being recorded. By participating, you acknowledge agreement to be recorded. A video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phila.gov.
For the benefit of our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you are participating in my phone, if 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. Any comments should be referred for our Executive Director,
Tanya Sunken. So let's look at our continuances for this morning's list. Number one, MI 2021
002-020-2601 Huntington Street. That case is continued. Number seven,
Mi 2021-005-117-534 South 4th Street. That case is continued. And number eight, Mi 2021-004-659-2126
East Lehigh Avenue. That case is also continued. Those three cases are continued. Are there any
comments relative to those three continuances? Good morning, Chair. This is Fatina L. I see no
hands. Thank you. Are there any other requests for continuances? Chair, we have David Orfanides.
please. Sure. Morning, Mr. Orphanides. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. How are you?
Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Certainly. My name is David Orphanides, O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S. Do you swear,
Fern, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed, sir.
I am here this morning on case MI 2021-003189, 813 South 17th Street.
It was an application to legalize a roll-up gate that was installed, unfortunately, well, installed by my client's contractors, despite them relying on the contractors to take care of all permitting without permitting.
And I'm working with L&I to try to resolve this issue and have a buy-right permit issued, the buy-right height fence and gate.
And we've just kind of been working through some of the details of the property, and I'd request a continuance.
So MI 2021-003-189-813 South 17th Street, that case is continued.
Chair, we have Strawberry Mansion, community, concerns.
Okay, thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bonita Cummings, and I was calling in reference to 23.
Could you please spell your name for the court reporter, please?
It's Bonita, as in B, B as in boy, O-N-I-T-A.
Right. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Right, and do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but...
And this case is 3424 North 22nd Street?
No, this case is 2351 North 31st Street.
2351 North 31st Street. Hold on. Okay.
Right. We were expecting some updated drawings from the attorney, which the RCO has not received.
So I don't know. So so so here's what we're going to do. I'm going to call that case.
We're going to hear the case. We won't vote on that case until that's done.
Thank you. OK, thank you for calling in. I appreciate it.
Any other requests for continuances?
Yes, Chair.
We have Liam Sullivan.
Yeah, so this is in regards to case MI 2021-003189.
What's the location, sir?
That is 813 South 17th Street.
Number 10.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, sir. Liam Sullivan, L-I-A-M, Sullivan, S-U-L-L-I-V-A-N.
Okay. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Okay. You said exhibits in of opposition?
I have.
Okay. Let me see here. So this case has been continued?
It has. And I just heard that. And I understood that there was only three continuances that would be granted.
I think we we don't have a set rule. And what we're trying to do with this one is I understand that the attorney is working with L&I.
So I'm going to give it another case that was continued.
OK. And is that is that something that it should is there a time limit on this only?
I think what we'll make sure is that you know when that case is re-put back in, okay?
All right.
And thank you, by the way, for calling in.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
I see no other hints here.
So I have several cases with no exhibits.
Number two, MI 2021-005-034-169 West Spencer Avenue. Tameka Pearson is the owner applicant. I have no exhibits for this case.
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, so MI 2021-005-034-169 West Spencer Avenue, this case is continued, marked must be tried.
Number six, MI 2021-004-975-5840 Willows Avenue, Olivia Manuel is the owner.
We have no exhibits.
I see no hands, Chair.
So MI 2021-004-975-5840 Willows Avenue.
That case is continued.
Mark must be tried.
Number 11.
MI 2021-003-788-5951-Kemble.
um property care business is the listed owner um we have letters of opposition
from councilwoman bass but we have no exhibits this is the fourth listing
i see no hands chair mi 2021 003 788 5951 temble avenue this case is dismissed
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Dismissed.
Thank you.
Number 12.
MI 2021-005-118, 426-28 Centner Street.
Leo Mulvihill is the attorney. No exhibits, second listing. Ryan McSherry is our attorney
filling in on this case. I see no hands, Chair. Okay. MI 2021, 005-118-426-28 Centner Street.
005-118-426-28 Centner Street. This case is marked must be tried. It's continued.
And number 13, MI 2021-005-193-2068 East Somerset Street. Pedro Nunez is the owner.
This is marked must be heard. No exhibits.
I see no handshare. MI 2021-005-193-2068 East Somerset Street. I vote to dismiss this case.
Carol Tenere, dismiss. James Stout, dismiss.
it smells like he dismissed okay and and finally we have a withdrawal number 14
mi 2021 005 417 1400 30 to 38 north howard street this case has been withdrawn
okay we're going to go to our regular list to start
number two mr mr share um this is hillary can we give me one second here um can we just call up
number four there is no exhibits okay there was no exhibits but we may have had a request for
continuance it was a little unclear okay thank you so mi 2021 005 130 3424 north
22nd Street, attorney may be Roderick Foxworth, and the Swamp Poodle RCO.
I see no hands, Chair.
Wait a minute, we have Charles Richardson.
Good morning, Mr. Richardson.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and board.
can you state your name for us please and spell for the court reporter yes charles richardson
r-i-c-h-a-r-d-s-o-n office of councilwoman bass room 503 city hall do you swear a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed sir uh saw emails from uh
both parties yesterday from swamp poodle requesting a continuance but she was requesting that it must
be heard and saw something come from Mr. Foxworth confirming that he agreed with a continuance
but not with must be heard.
So that's up to the board to make that decision.
But I wanted to make sure that that was conveyed.
Yeah, we thank you so much.
We have that.
Is Mr. Foxworth on anywhere?
I searched for his name and he's no one with that last name.
Anyone from Swampoodle?
Let me check you.
i see no hands okay so mi 2021 005 130 this case is continued and will be marked must be tried
all right so number two number three start our list mi 2022 003 265 40 87
to one half Lancaster Avenue, Henry Clinton is the attorney. We're waiting on an RCO letter.
We have a letter of support from State Representative Eamon Brown, and we also have
a petition assigned by approximately 114 people in non-opposition to this project.
Mr. Chairman, I'm here for the applicant. I understand that a representative from the RCO
is on the call. Okay, thank you. Mr. Clinton, could you state your name for the record and
spell for the court reporter? Sure, Henry Clinton, Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N. Right. Do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify
your client, the relationship to this property? Sure. My client is Akia, A-K-I-A Phillips,
P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S. She is the owner and the applicant on this project, and she is on the call.
Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions. Good morning, Mr. Clinton. Do you agree to
waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the
exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, or referral? Photos under
plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met with the RCO and do you
have a letter? Yes, all of the above except the letter. I understand the RCO will give a verbal
consent during this call. Okay, great. You may proceed and begin sharing your screen.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin sharing your screen.
Thank you, Mr. Henry.
Is that visible enough, Mr. Chairman?
It is.
All right. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
Henry Clinton for the applicant, Akia Phillips,
whose name is here on my presentation package,
and I submit this package to the board containing exhibits
AA through A10
and ask they be admitted into evidence.
I'll walk through each one as needed.
Here in a statement, here's the key document.
For any zoning hearing, this is a refusal,
but it's really a referral.
So we're asking, this is a special exception case,
not a variance case.
The zoning district is CMX2.
And the ground floor is obviously commercial.
And my client wants to use the ground floor
as a venue location. A venue location for baby and bridal showers, birthday parties, conferences
in the neighborhood, meeting rooms, and any type of organization that may want to use the facilities
on an ongoing basis. It's a ground floor, as you'll see from the photographs, can accommodate
approximately 50 individuals. And I'll get to that photograph and the interior layout
in a bit. This is our first letter of support from an elected official.
House of Representative Eamon Brown writes a very glowing letter and a letter of support
on behalf of my client, Ms. Phillips. And as the chairman mentioned at the outset,
this is rather a staggering number of signatures and support. And he is correct.
There's about 115 signatures from all over the neighborhood.
Obviously, I'm not going to go through each signature, but the number that the chairman mentioned is correct.
This is a photograph of Lancaster Avenue.
The property is right in this area.
You can see it's a commercial district and getting stronger as West Philadelphia continues to thrive in this situation.
This is actually the entrance to the door right here.
It's an odd address.
it's 4087 and a half. This is the front of the building. The venue will be known as plush events
venue. Some photographs of the interior is already in good shape. It's been drywall,
new flooring, new lighting. The plans are pretty straightforward. You can accommodate approximately
50 people or so. There's a main entrance in the front. We'll have tables set up on the inside or
as needed. Some events may not want tables. They may want rows of chairs for presentations. There's
also an ADA, handicap accessible bathroom. There's a large rear yard, and there's also a large alley.
The trash will be kept in the rear yard, be taken out through the alley, and then commercial trash
pickup at the end of the block. There's two apartments above, but that's really not an issue
before the board today. It's simply whether or not my client can use the first floor as a special
assembly in this CMX zoning district. Here's a larger blow up of the floor plan. Again,
showing the floors, the handicapped bathroom, the accessibility from the front entrance.
We were not able to actually get the tax certification, but this is the printout from
the real estate tax office department of revenue. My client actually has a credit of over $1,000
And despite that, for whatever reason, we can't formally give you the tax certification, but this is proof that the taxes are paid, and in fact, they're overpaid.
The remaining documents are appeal, all the other pro forma documents you would typically see in a ZVA presentation, including the zoning map showing the CMX2 designation.
So I'm just going to submit to the board that this application does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, has no impact on light and air of any adjacent properties, is not detrimental to the public welfare, is in conformance and in harmony with the code, and certainly in harmony with the neighborhood, with the state representative, and with the 115 neighbors who support the project.
We did meet with People's Emergency Community Center back in July.
It was a very good and productive meeting, and I believe there's a representative of that organization.
It was a very good and productive meeting, and I believe there's a representative of
that organization on the call, and I'll entertain any questions from the board and also have
my client adopt my testimony, Mr. Chairman.
Why don't we have your testimony adopted?
Ms. Phillips, can you raise your hand?
Mr. Phillips, you've been allowed to speak.
good morning could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
good morning akia phillip a-k-i-a-p-h-i-l-l-i-p right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes proceed counsel uh good morning miss phillips
have you heard my testimony today yes and you were on the entire call during my presentation
yes and if you had the opportunity to testify would you adopt my testimony as your own and
as true and correct yes thank you mr officer appreciate it all right questions from the board
no mr chairman no mr chairman
no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you good morning chair bergman this is ian hegerty
on behalf of the philadelphia city planning commission last name spelled h-e-g-a-r-t-y
right do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir proceed thank you good morning board members this proposed special exception will
not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what normally might be expected. And so
the city planning commission recommends that the board grant the special exception. Thank you.
MI 2022-003-265-4087-1.5 Lancaster Avenue. There's no RCO letter on record,
but because of the overwhelming support, I vote yes. Carol Tannery, my vote is yes.
James Snow, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Number five, MI 2021-005-162-1007 Brandywine Street,
Jessica Diaz.
Ms. Diaz is coming back in as a panel.
Good morning, Ms. Diaz.
Good morning, Ms. Diaz.
Ms. Diaz, please unmute yourself.
Ms. Diaz?
Yes, sir.
All right, good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Yes, sir.
My name is Jessica Diaz, D-I-A-Z.
I am the owner, occupier, and applicant for 1007 Brandywine Street.
With me today is my architect.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
So your architect could advise you, but you have to testify.
Now, you had communications with us yesterday.
did you send in a letter requesting a vote this morning yes sir you did yes sir okay hillary
miss diaz we we received the letter requesting reconsideration and i sent you a lengthy email
in response that that was not the appropriate request in this case and um advised you once
again, that you could request a non-protunk hearing to be able to file a late appeal of
your new refusal. So far, we have not received that request. That's what I would like.
Okay. So what we need is a letter from you. So what I want you to do is if you would
do a letter now email to our attorney and i'll come back to you in a little bit i'll hear another
case and i'll come back to you but we need that letter right away is that right hillary
yes that is that is correct and um we could even if we need to um address it at um an afternoon
session we can because it's a non-protongue request this is not a hearing on the case
So here's what we'll do is, Ms. Diaz, send a letter, and we'll do that when we do the first three cases on the two o'clock, okay?
the first three cases on the two o'clock okay yes we'll address the request at two o'clock
Yes, we'll address the request.
and mr chair i i think um uh mr rudder from the law department i just wanted to weigh in briefly
on this matter sure good morning mr rudder and mr rudder we cannot hear you oh sorry i keep
forgetting i have a switch state your name and spell for the court reporter sure uh leonard f
reuter uh last name is r-e-u-t-e-r um senior attorney for the city of philadelphia i just
want to let you know that do you wait one minute do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do proceed uh yeah i just want to let you know that ms emerson
reached out to me about this matter um i guess just to get an indication of what the city's
position would be and we uh then because it took so long for me to uh to log on our network's not
really working well today um uh i guess i missed it but it sounds like uh we've already it's
already been explained about doing a non-protunk appeal and i just want to let i don't know that
i'll be able to to put this on the record at two o'clock but um if i can't i would just let
the board know that the city has no objection uh to a non-protunk appeal in this matter given the
fact that it was uh you know just kind of a administrative you know technical uh mistakes
that were made that were we don't believe were the applicant's fault so thank you very much so
miss diaz we'll be back with you at two o'clock okay yes sir thank you thank you for uh your
patience, though. Okay, so case number nine, MI 2021-002-835-2351 North 31st Street. Leo Movihill
is the attorney. The RCO letter has not been received yet and needs more information from
the attorney but we're going to go on with the case chair i don't see mr mulvihill in the audience
okay uh there's no hands okay um so mi 2021 002 835 2351 north 31st street this case is continued
Mark must be tried.
Is there anyone on the morning schedule whose case has not been called in the virtual audience?
I see no hand.
I'm sorry, we're here.
We have Diane Monroe now.
Ms. Monroe, please unmute yourself.
hi could you state your name please hi diane monroe could you spell for the court reporter
yes d-i-a-n-e monroe m-o-n-r-o-e do you swear or firm do you swear or firm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i i yes i will tell you tell me what case you you have an
interest in 1007 brandywine street uh you just spoke on it yeah and i'm i'm about to go out of
town and uh you continuing to two o'clock i just want to make sure we did submit letters of support
for this yeah so so so ma'am that we're going to we're going to we're continuing after two o'clock
to just to take a vote on the fact that the person can present the case at a later date
so we're not going to have the case at a later date okay okay okay i just want to make sure you
guys got our oh good good and and by the way thanks for calling in we really appreciate that
thank you miss monroe this is hillary we we did receive your letters of support so there's just
there's just an issue and I believe you've been on some of the emails between myself and Ms. Diaz
there's just been an issue with the new refusal and an appeal being filed so we just we need to
have that all sorted out before we can have the actual hearing on this case. Okay great thank you
so much. You're welcome. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience whose case has not
been heard. I see no hands, Chair. Okay. She ever wanted two o'clock? Oh my god. Okay. Chair,
oh my god okay chair just went up i'm sorry wait a minute there's somebody yes there's one hand up
a hand just went up. I'm sorry.
i think mr alia please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
my name is paul p-a-u-l alia e-l-i-a do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do could you tell me what case you're interested in yes it's the pen charter
three thousand that case is at two o'clock sir yes should i um i'm the coordinating rco uh
acting chair so do i do i have to register for the two o'clock or can i do that now
um two o'clock you just come in using the same login that you did for this one i see
okay so i'll go back thank you thank you for checking is there anyone else in the virtual
audience that's it chair i don't see anybody two o'clock thank you everyone all right bye-bye
thank you too wow
And everyone's already here, Chair, so you can begin with as you can do it.
I'll be ready in one minute.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be sharing this afternoon's ZBA hearings.
With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair.
Present, Mr. Chair.
Thomas Holliman, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And James Snell, our board member.
Okay, he should be on very shortly.
Also, here is our board attorney, Hillary Emerson.
and our ZBA hearing supervisor, Lakeisha Dandy.
Before we begin, here is our virtual format.
Be advised that proceedings are being recorded.
By participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded.
The video will be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phila.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 address and the address of the property in question.
And lastly, the question answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
Any comments should be directed to our executive director, Tanya Sumpit.
So let's look at continuances for this afternoon's list.
Number two, MI 2022-004-231-4501 Woodhaven Road.
That case is continued.
Number three.
What number was that?
That was, what number?
Number two.
I'm sorry.
Yep. Number three, MI 2022 001 770 5021 Aspen Street. That's a joint request between the
attorney and the RCO. That case is continued. Number four, MI 2022 004 229 3301 Emerald Street.
That case is continued. Number six, MI 2022-001-768-1625 North 18th Street. That case is continued.
you. Number 10, MI-2022-003-586-1409 North Bouvier Street. That case is continued along with
the other, the case number 15, which is next door. MI-2022-003-590-1411 North Bouvier Street.
that case is also continued. And number 14, MI 2021-002-115-4112.
That case is also continued. Does anyone have any comments about the continuances that I just read out?
Mr. Chairman, Jim Spell here.
Thank you, Jim.
Thank you, Jim.
Good afternoon, Chair. This is Fatina L.
We have Sherman Toppin.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Sherman Toppin, S-H-E-R-M-A-N, T-O-P-P-I-N.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
All right, what case do you want to talk about?
And I'm...
You're breaking up, sir.
The address is 1625 North 18th Street. It is scheduled at 2 o'clock today. This is really a joint request for continuance between our applicant and the lead RCO, William Howard.
we've been exchanging emails to have a second RCO meeting and we're in the process of in that
in the course of that meeting working out a community benefits agreement and I've sent a
letter to this I'll be right with you that's number six on the list Mr. Chair it's already
been continued I called that for a continuance and I'll make note that that is a joint request
that's mi202 001 768 1625 north 18 street thank you for calling in sir thank you all right any
other requests for continuances i see no hands chair i also have two cases
i'm sorry chair a hand just went up okay
okay. Andrea, last name beginning with F. Please ask. Hi, could you state your name and spell for
the court reporter? Of course. My name is Andrea, A-N-D-R-E-A. My last name is Formosa, F as in
Frank, O-R-M as in Mary, O-S-A. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth. Yes, sir. What case do you want to talk about? Um, it's 8200 Ridge
Avenue. There was supposed to be October 26th at 2 PM. Yes. You're, you're not the attorney,
right? I'm not, no, I'm the tenant that lives there. Okay. So that case is going to be called.
That's the last one on the list at two o'clock. Okay. So do I just stay here and wait? I would,
stay on the list and when i call you can come on thank you okay sure all right there are no more
hands here okay all right thank you uh number 11 mi 2022 003 308 5774 north 20th street
there are no exhibits for this and we believe there's also um an attorney may be needed
The owner is 20th LLC.
I see no hands, Chair.
Okay, so number 11, MI 2022-003-308-5774 North 20th Street.
This case is continued.
And also, number 16, MI 2022-001-804-4430 Pine Street.
Dorothy Ann Hamill is the attorney.
We have no exhibits.
This is the second listing.
Ms. Hamill is not in attendance, and there's no hands here.
Okay, thank you.
So MI 2022-001-804-4430 Pine Street, this case is continued, marked must be tried.
Okay, we're going to go to our add-on list.
So our first case on the add-on list.
I'll be right with you.
Okay, our first case on the atom list, MI 2021-005-162-1007-Brandy1.
0-0-5-1-6-2-10-0-7 Brandywine Street.
Jessica Diaz, please.
Ms. Diaz is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Hi, Ms. Diaz, just state your name for the record, please.
Hi, yes, my name is Jessica Diaz, D-J-E-S-S-I-C-A, D-I-A-Z.
Okay, and you've already been sworn, as you remember from this morning, right?
Yes, sir.
So this is a request for a non-frotant hearing.
Yes, sir.
This is the result of an L&I refusal that was issued on 6-14-22.
I will note that Leonard Reuter has no objection to this.
He's the senior attorney for the city.
And I would, any questions from board members?
No, Mr. Chairman.
all right carol no i'm confused this is the two o'clock add-on number one no no we we issued
another one this is from earlier today this is the non-proton caring this goes back to number five
on the 9 30 list carol oh okay i have no i have no questions okay jim thank you
mr chair we can we can um have just miss diaz give a brief uh description of her request and
then yes just state briefly why you want this continue this uh hearing uh well um we discovered
i guess the day before my first hearing back in april that there that the initial plans examiner
made an error in the notice of refusal he only had a change in use as the basis for the refusal
and did not have the proposed additions and construction that I had included in both my
preliminary plans my zoning application my community meetings my notice my my near neighbor
letter that was mailed out and so we saw the continuance back in April so that we can secure
a corrected notice of refusal historically you go back to the original plans examiner at least
that's what i was told so that they can correct it however we tried to do that the plan initial
plans examiner was out on some medical leave or out on leave and then retired
we secured the corrected notice of refusal by filing a new permit application that's what we
we were advised to do by L&I and had it merged with the original, my original appeal package.
But on Monday, Ms. Emerson called me and said that the ZBA could not proceed without a new
application for appeal to coincide or to reflect or to accompany the corrected notice of refusal.
we are beyond the 30 days to appeal that corrected notice of refusal so I'm respectfully requesting
leave to file a late appeal application and I am asking because now this has been over
a year that I've been trying to get before you so I can present my proposal my proposed project to
you i'm asking for an expedited hearing within 14 days i already have a i went online i did the
application um i just have to print out that project information form and i have an appointment
with um to file in person on thursday at 2 15. perfect thank you very much um am i is there any
other questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. So MI 2021-005-162. Mr. Chair,
there's no MI number for this case because the appeal has not yet been filed, so you could just
use the address. Okay, so 1007 Brandywine Street. I agree with the request to proceed with the
don't pro-tompe.
Carol?
I agree. Thomas Holloman, I agree. Thank you. James Snow, I also agree.
I agree.
Thomas Holliman, I agree.
Thank you, Jessica. Thank you, sir. Okay. All right, so we're going to go back to our original
add-on list. Number one is MI 2022 003170 2300 North 18th Street.
this is a
resumptive hearing
and would
would Alan
Nockamson please come on please the attorney
Mr. Nockamson is coming back in as a
panelist thank you
good afternoon Mr. Chair
members of the board
Could you state your name and spell it for us, please?
Yes, Alan.
A-L-A-N, last name Nockmson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So we're going to have a representative from the 16th Democratic Award present.
Is there anyone in the audience
from the 16th Democratic Ward?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Mr. Chair, can we ask
Mary Jones?
Is she here?
Yes, she is here.
If she could just come and maybe identify
who the representative
is supposed to be or if for some reason
they weren't able to attend thank you mary
ms jones you will have to unmute yourself please um yes mary just state your name and spell for
the court reporter um yes mary jones uh m-a-r-y-j-o-n-e-s um just representing council president
derek clark's office do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
um yes i do you know you know who the 16th democratic board's going to come come forward
um i'm not sure i have been in communication with her but i haven't heard from her um so
at this point you know she they had an opportunity to thank you do it thank you very much you're
welcome and mr chair can i just give a quick summary of of this matter um yeah sure
Yes. So again, this is a property on the 2300 North 18th Street, the corner of Dolphin and 18th Streets.
We're proposing two residential units and one commercial unit.
The most previous use for this property was two residential units and one commercial unit.
Previously, this property had a bar on the ground floor, which is more akin to a CMX 2 zone.
This property is zoned CMX1. If this property was CMX2, which was essentially its previous use,
this project would be allowed as a right given the lot square footage.
We agreed to certain provisos at the community meeting, and we would agree to those today as well.
Commercial trash pickup as one, trash stored in the rear of the property as two,
uh and they asked us a third proviso which we don't think is appropriate but we would you know
agree if if that's the case no rooming units in the building given that we're not asking for
rooming units um we don't think it's appropriate but we would if the board feels so inclined if
they grant this uh variance request and they want that proviso we have no objection to that
Thank you.
MI 2022, 003-170-2300 North 18th Street, I vote yes with Proviso. Commercial trash pickup and trash stored in rear.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with Proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you, Mr. Nockmson.
Thank you. Have a great day.
Let's see here now.
So, MI 2022, 001-396-5813 East Worcester Street, Vern Anastasio is the attorney. This is a resumptive hearing.
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist.
So we have a letter of support with provisos from the Coordinating RCO, Faith Community Development Corporation.
so we have letter of support
We have a letter from the affected RCO, Concerned Community Association, requesting a maximum of four business offices, along with other provisos.
And a letter of non-opposition from the affected RCO, Belfair Area Neighbors Association, with provisos.
including a reduction of four businesses offices. Councilwoman Bass has no opposition
in granting of the variances with the provisos requested by the coordinating RCO.
Is there anyone present who wants to give testimony? Anyone in the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I just wanted to make a quick note. I had originally suggested
reading the letters into the record, but it appears that representatives from all of the RCOs
as well as the council office are here to speak, so I think they can just speak their testimony
into the record. Sure. Great. Chair, we have Sandra Broadus. Excuse me. Okay.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Sandra, S-A-N-D-R-A, Broadus, B-R-O-A-D-U-S. Can you hear me?
Yes, I can. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And what RCO are you with?
A Concerned Community Association.
Okay. Proceed.
We actually attended the original hearing and heard the attorney's presentation.
We did take that information back to community members, and those community members from our organization were at the hearing.
As stated in our letter, we are very well with the idea that that property become commercial.
but we would like to note for the record that the property is located in a very, very delicate
location that balances the LaSalle University, Ogonzari, and Belfield neighbors community.
And it is felt that the property does not support eight commercial units. The location of the
exit of the vital community negotiated LaSalle shops that is very busy, has a supermarket,
a Dunkin Donuts that's used every morning, a Rite Aid that many of the neighbors get their
prescriptions from. And the exit to that property onto Worcester Street is exactly in front of
this commercial building. Worcester Street is a vital commercial artery for the entire community
that impacts the Broughton Olney corridor ultimately, and this community has been before
this board on numerous occasions for the past 30 years trying to maintain a comfortable balance
of activity, specifically traffic interruption, because they, on the avenue turns into Chew
Avenue at Worcester Street, the corner, the next corner is the location of this property,
the college, elementary school students, and all the communities in the area have to submerge
onto Worcester Street to get to Alney Avenue that ultimately takes them to I-76 and the
Broad and Alney corridor. The property is located at Nidro and Worcester, a bus that
takes most busing commuters from the neighborhood to the Broad and Alney corridor, turns onto
to that street. There is only parking on one side of the street. And the building just does not
support eight business units. So we're asking that the applicant reduce the number of units to four.
There are two commercial spaces on the ground floor. And then we're asking that there be one
each on the second and third floor.
We are hoping that the applicant will engage
four strong units opposed to the model being proposed,
which is incubator for in and out small business.
which is an incubator for in-and-out small businesses.
She says that she has about 32 applicants,
so there would be no hardship in finding four of them
that represent a more stable model
that would not have eight potential businesses
running in and out of that location.
And so that is what the community members all felt.
The building would not support that. We're concerned about deliveries. Eight businesses trying to operate in that location would have mail trucks, FedEx trucks, UPX trucks literally stopping in the middle of this corridor.
And it would just be an interruption that would be felt all the way to Broad and Alany, certainly to LaSalle and Central students and people coming in and out of that location.
But this community cannot afford to have that location imbalanced with activity that really is not supported by the location.
so we're asking for a reduction to four units all right thank you mr anastasio are you available
yes i'm right here mr chair um could you state your name for the court reporter i don't think
i swore you sure it's verne v-e-r-n anastasio a-n-a-s-t-a-s-i-o 2016 spruce philadelphia
one nine one zero three do you swear affirm to tell the truth told truth nothing but the truth
I do. What if I what if I see who else wants to testify and then you respond when people are done?
I would prefer that. There are three RCOs that we heard from.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience who wants to have comment?
Yes, Chair, we have Charles Richardson. Good morning. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Your name, you've already been sworn, sir. Yes, sir. Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 503 City Hall.
I will wait until after the two other individuals do speak.
Just want to let it be known that BANA is not an RCO.
They are a community organization and, you know, they are not an RCO.
So just to make that clear.
Right. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience who wants to testify?
Yes, Chair. We have Inez Love.
Okay. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
inez love i n e z l o v e i'm the you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth i do what group are you with we i am with faith community development corporation
thank you proceed okay the the number of units didn't seem to be problematic for for us the two
two that are on the first floor are supposed to be working uh they're supposed to have offices
in there where people might be coming in and out but the three the other two floors that we were
told that those floors would be for people who just used it as a mail drop what they call a
virtual yes that's correct we didn't see anything in terms of it being congested area mr anastasia
told us that the deliveries would be done in the back of the building and the people, there would
not be traffic coming in and out there. If that is the case, and that's true, then Faith doesn't
have a problem with the staying as the way it is. Thank you very much for your testimony and
calling in. Who else in the virtual audience? We have Vanna Civic. Okay.
and a civic please unmute yourself okay i unmuted hi could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter please okay my name is deanna cardwell d-e-a-n-n-a cardwell c-a-r-d-w-e-l-l
do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
And you're with the community organization BANA Civic, which is not an RCO, right?
Right.
We're an RCO before the pandemic.
Right.
Well, proceed with your testimony, please.
And so BANA is an organization that has been in this area over 50 years.
We're not a fly-by-night, so we know the area.
And we have been in negotiations with LaSalle University.
They bought up a lot of properties and there is just a lot of saturation right at the corner
of Worcester and Chu.
There were apartments that were purchased and made into dorms and underneath there is
a nurse's station that is used for the community and the students.
There is a lot of activity at that corner.
There is a lot of activity at that corner.
If you don't live there.
If you don't live there, you don't know.
You have 18 wheelers that are coming up and down the street now because 20th Street was closed.
And Worcester Street has now become a parking lot.
If you look at the building, they're talking about deliveries in the building, in the rear of the building, where?
Because that's on Nidro Avenue.
And so we we really are happy that this building is being, you know, made alive again.
But we just feel also that the number of offices should be reduced along with the other provisos.
Thank you very much for your for your phone call and your interest. Mr. Richardson, do you want to come on now?
Yes, sir, I am here.
Okay. So just to be plain, there were agreements that were made and provisos that were offered
that were accepted during the meeting by the developer. And that's how it stood at the very
end of the meeting. These new provisos that had been offered by ACCA and by BANA were put together
after the fact, and they were not agreed to by the developer in any shape, form, or fashion.
And the councilwoman's office, you know, it looks for fairness in these proceedings.
Both of the RCOs are situated a half mile away, and all the people that actually attended the
meeting, because we had no near neighbors that attended. And I actually did a major flyering of
that neighborhood specific within the 250 foot range and no one attended. The folks that did
attend are also a half a mile away. So we're just trying to be fair and make sure that everything
goes as it should go within these proceedings. Councilwoman has no opposition to granting the
variance with the original two provisos. And anything that you might see on the ACCAs, you
can you know most definitely uh implement that but uh she has no opposition to granting it as
as as stood at the end of the meeting thank you very much is there anyone else in the virtual
audience other than me no mr chair okay i've seen only this year um mr anastasia you want to
quick yes mr chair yeah first i'd like to thank the coordinating rco uh for hosting us and for
Council Member Bass for supporting our appeal for six offices. These are not open to the public.
These are nine to five operations. The only deliveries would be paper. You know, these are
spaces large enough for a desk, a chair, a filing cabinet, and maybe a copier, a tabletop copier.
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding, at least with two of the groups, as to what the new gig economy and post-pandemic situation is as it relates to office space.
There are lots of folks in that immediate area who are working from home, who have reached out and communicated with my client, who's not a developer, just a woman who owns a piece of property, and who said that they would love to be able to have an office where they can go.
And so their mail goes there, not their home.
My clients are going to furnish each space, and they're very small, just enough for a desk and a chair and a copier and a filing cabinet.
There is no in and out. There's nothing open to the public.
We agree to that as part of the proviso, as well as the hours of operation.
And I believe that's why Faith CDC, Ms. Love, the coordinating RCO, and the council member support our request for the six spaces.
It is the least impactful, least impactful commercial use we could put on a corner that everyone agrees should be commercial. So that's, that's all I have to say.
Thank you very much.
MI-2022.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
Can I just ask a question?
Vern, as I read the refusal, it says two offices on the first floor and six above for a total of eight.
Was there a change down to six?
I'm sorry.
There's eight total.
That's correct.
I just wanted to make sure that anything hadn't changed.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I have a question for a counselor.
Counselor, can you tell me how many square feet the building is total?
Counselor, can you tell me how many square feet the building is total?
I can.
I did end my presentation, so if you just give me a moment, I'll be able to get that again.
16 the building itself is approximately 2500 square feet thank you yep first floor is a little
longer than the top two? No, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you. So MI 2022, 001-396-5813 East
Worcester Street, I vote yes with proviso that was agreed upon by all RCOs and the
Council's Office. Hours of operation Monday to Friday, 9A to 5P. Thank you.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you.
Thank you all.
Number three on the original list of add ones.
MI 2022, 001, 057, 3215 Fox Street.
This case is continued one week till next Wednesday at 2 p.m.
Am I right?
Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chair. We will vote on the case at that time. This is a request from a council for the applicant to hold the vote one more week, and that request is not opposed by Councilwoman Bass.
Thank you. Cases continued. Okay, we go to our regular list. MI 2022-003-670-2337-41 Pennsylvania Avenue. Sean Ward is the attorney. Letter of non-opposition from the Spring Garden Civic Association based on revised plan.
Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward is coming back in as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Sean Ward, S-H-A-W-N-W-A-R-D, attorney for applicant.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I certainly do.
Do you identify your applicant and the relationship to the property?
My applicant is Reuven Mosheyev, R-E-U-V-A-N, Mosheyev, M-O-S-H-E-Y-E-V, doing business as MMR Investments, and they are the owner of the subject premises.
And our vice chair has a few questions, Mr. Board.
Hi, good afternoon. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I most certainly do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with
the RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes, to all of the above. That's great. Can you proceed, and
the screen's up, so that's good. Very good. Thank you, Carol. Mr. Chair, I've submitted my typical
exhibit packet. I represent MMR Investments, Inc. They are the owner of the subject property.
2337-41 Pennsylvania Avenue. Today's calendar number, MI-2022-003670.
A1 is the notice of refusal. It was amended on 9-22-2022. The application calls for the
complete demolition of an existing and the erection of a new attached structure. The
property has already been demolished. It will include roof decks for two family dwelling and
six off-street parking spaces. I would just point out that the two-family dwelling is basically two
single-family homes that are attached, and it would be a planned unit development. Resulted in
five refusals. The original refusal had nine refusals. The amended refusal reduced that down
to five, two of which deal with the vehicular ingress access for the off-street parking. Each
each unit has a three-car garage. The two-family use is prohibited in the district. However,
we submit that these are actually two single-family homes. There is a fourth floor setback,
7.5 feet required, whereas five is proposed. And the height, 38 feet is allowed, whereas 39.11
is proposed, which is pretty much identical, if not similar, if not identical to the existing
properties to the left. So we seek use and dimensional variances to date. A2 is the ZBA
A2 is the ZBA application of appeal, A3 project information form, A4 proof of ownership, A5 proof of tax clearance, A6 is the site and elevation plans, A7 are revised proviso plan form, A8 are the renderings.
application of appeal.
With regard to the revised plans, we had much back and forth discussion with Spring Garden Civic, and I believe Justino Navarro was present today on the call to speak to that.
So the plans have been revised somewhat from the time of the amendment on 922, pursuant to our discussions with Spring Garden.
A8 are the renderings. A9 are photographs, the posting, the subject property, aerial views, and street views.
A9 is the letter of support from Spring Garden.
If Councilman Clark's, President Clark's office has submitted a letter, I would ask that that be marked as A10.
Again, A-11, the relevant zoning history, again, in 2022, actually, complete demolition of the existing structure.
1974, it was a law office and two dwellings with two vacant lots next door.
And back in 1965, the property of 2337 was demolished.
It was a vacant house.
So A-12 is the zoning map.
A-13 is the aerial photograph.
So very quickly, again, we've reduced the number of variance requests to five, the first and second being egress and ingress is prohibited on on the parkway, despite the fact that this really isn't on the parkway.
It's on Pennsylvania Avenue. However, it falls in that district and loading from the front street is prohibited to family.
again, we submit that these are two single family homes. And then we have the dimensional
requests. Again, five variance requests. So we have our application of appeal, our project
information form, the original refusal. Again, you'll see we had nine refusals on that one.
We've reduced those. My transmittal letter to the board, a copy of the deed from January of this year.
Moving right along. Proof of tax clearance. We actually have a credit of $53.69.
With regard to the actual site plan.
So basically what you have here is running up and down the page on the left would be Pennsylvania Avenue.
we propose an 18-foot depressed curb for access to the interior parking. Each unit would have
three parking spaces interior to the structure at the rear. There would be a first floor space
in front of that garage, and then access would be provided to the backyard from the ground floor.
With regard to the elevation, again, Pennsylvania Avenue would be out here to the left.
First floor, there is some interior living space, the garage to the rear, second, third, and fourth floors, a roof deck with a pilot house atop that, and a small deck at the second floor rear for some outside recreation.
And they do have a finished basement.
Looking at it from the front, again, we have the renderings.
I'll show you those in a second, but it will be a mixed masonry facade.
It would have a common driveway gated for access to the interior parking spaces.
Again, from the rear, a small deck at the second floor of what is presumably the kitchen with some access doors to the garage area and access doors to the first floor garage.
So, with regard to the site itself, previously existing on site was an existing two-story
office building, and it was a law office and a residence.
Here's an aerial view of the property included on the plans.
As you can see, it's the two vacant lots and the former structure there.
This would be a street view.
the structure was the law office and residence which has since been demolished and here's
another photo that's on the plan. As far as the renderings go again we're proposing a mixed
masonry facade on the front with some light gray metal siding at the fourth floor level.
The siding was designed specifically in that shade to blend in with the sky. It kind of fades away
and it's not pronounced as much as other materials would be.
There's just another rendering of the streetscape.
This would be from the rear.
This would be from the rear. There is a mature tree located in the rear of the property for
There is a mature tree located in the rear of the property.
buffering from the adjoining neighbors. And we would propose also the fencing for privacy and
safety. This rendering just shows a cloud image of the tree in front of the rear facade.
again another we have brick brick all around
this gives you a dimensional scope of the size of the structures to the left
so we are pretty much identical if not extremely similar to the height of those buildings again
that discussion went back and forth with many iterations I think there was eight different
plan iterations until we came to the agreement with Spring Garden. Copy of our posting
on the front of the lot. Aerial view, as you can see, the property. The parkway is down here. We
are closer to Eakins Oval. It's in the Spring Garden section of the city. Again, just another
Google angle shot of the property. These are the structures to the left that I said that we would
match the height. There we go. Again, just another Google Earth street view of the subject
property now vacant lot. And here's your street views. At the other end of this block, there
are numerous garage and curb cuts. So it's not something new on this block. Again, just
another shot facing towards the Art Museum of Pennsylvania Avenue. This is the letter
of support from Spring Garden Civic Association. As you can see, they clearly indicate the
support for the application pursuant to the revised plans. I'll let Justino discuss that
in more detail if need be. This is the zoning permit for the complete demolition, again
issued in 2022. Pardon my typo on the summary. Again, this was the demo plan showing the
location of the demolition. The zoning permit from 1974 for the residents and the law office.
The 1965 permit for the vacant land at 2337.
and the zoning primer from 1965 for the vacant house at 2337 and again our zoning map I've
already showed you the aerial photo so that is the sum and substance of the application
I do have Matt Milan who is our project architect on the line as well as Reuven Mishayev
so if the board has any questions why don't you have the owner adopt your testimony all right
Reuven, if you could raise your virtual hand so that they can allow you to speak.
There he is.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court recorder, please?
Reuven Moshev, can you hear me?
No, speak up a little bit.
Can you hear me now?
A little louder, just a little bit more.
Can you hear me now?
Okay. Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Sure. My name is Ruben Mosheyev. It's R-E-U-V, like a Victor, A-N. My last name, M-O-S, like a Sam, H-E-Y-E-V, like a Victor.
Do you swear, affirm, to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Affirm.
Proceed, Sean.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Reuven, you've heard my representations to the board today?
I did. Are they true and correct? Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge,
information, and beliefs? Yes, they are. And do you adopt them as your own testimony?
Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Questions from the board? No,
Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
we have justino navarro okay
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter yes good afternoon members
of the board mr chair my name is justino navarro j-u-s-t-i-n-o-n-a-v-a-r-r-o and i am the
representative of the spring garden civic association thank you do you swear or firm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed mr ward
I have no questions. Just so you know, I was going to just comment on the position of Spring Garden.
I have no questions
Justino is going to just comment on the
Yeah, I just want to represent, we sent the letter accordingly, as Mr. Ward indicated, but I want to indicate that the Spring Garden Civic Association and its only committee met with the developer, Mr. Ward, and the developer's architect, and 25 nearby neighbors attended the meeting as well.
And after many discussions, after a high degree of cooperation with the developer, we finally were able to reach an agreement in terms of a CBA.
And I think in the eighth iteration of plans, we finally reached a final agreement on elevations and construction plans for the project.
So we are quite pleased to support the project.
I want to commend Mr. Mosheyev for his cooperation during this entire process, something that's
rarely seen in these types of negotiations, but we were pleasantly surprised with this
developer.
So the Spring Garden Civic Association fully supports this project as presented, and we
would ask that the board approve such requests for appearances.
Thank you, Mr. Navarro, and thank you for calling in your interest.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the board.
This is Greg Waldman from Planning Commission staff.
Greg, for the court reporter, could you spell your name, please?
Certainly.
My first name is Gregory Gregory, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y, last name Waldman, W-A-L-D,
as in David, M-A-N as in man. Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
existing residential single-family zoning at this location. The appellant's property is an
irregularly shaped 4,798 square foot vacant lot, creating a hardship for complying to some
dimensional requirements in the code the proposed height which is a foot higher than is what what
is permitted is the minimus as well as ingress and egress provisions since they are accessed
from Pennsylvania Avenue and not the parkway if subdivided the 4,798 square foot lot will permit
more than the proposed two units however front-loaded parking does not currently exist on
the block northwest of Judson Street and there is no hardship for providing it on an existing vacant
lot the city planning commission recommends the zoning board with granted variances with the
following for um i'm sorry the following condition no front loaded parking okay thank you
is there anyone else in the virtual audience
mr ward do you want to respond at all well uh mr chair uh the the uh the the scale and scope of
these residences, again, we could have shoehorned more units in there by right, but we want to
build a quality product. And in order to attract the right buyer for this quality product,
they expect off-street parking spaces. Given the fact that Spring Garden Street and the 25
near neighbors that attended the meetings have no objection to the off-street parking,
we would ask that the board approve it. And again, even the Planning Commission acknowledges
that it's not on the parkway and that, you know, there is parking on the other side of Judson
Street that is off-street parking. All right. All right. Thank you. MI 2022-003-670-2337-41
Pennsylvania Avenue. I vote yes with the following provisos. One, per amended refusal dated 9-22-22
and two, revised plans, two pages, stamped by ZBA, October 26, 2022.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, yes with provisos.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you very much. I'll see you at 3.30.
Number five, MI-2022-004-232-510-North Broad Street.
Adam Laver is the attorney.
There is a letter of support from Spring Garden Civic Association.
Mr. Laver is coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
Hi, Mr. Laver, could you identify yourself and spell your name for the court reporter, please?
Yes, sir.
Adam Laver, L-A-V as in Victor, E-R, blank Rome, 1 Logan Square, Philadelphia, 19103.
Blank Rome, 1 Logan Square, Philadelphia, 19103.
Right.
Right. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in the relationship to the property?
Yes. Blank Rome represents 510 Broad Partners, LLC, an Altera property group company,
owner of the subject property at Broad and Spring Garden Street.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi. Good afternoon, Mr. Labor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate
to its accuracy? Good afternoon, Mrs. Tenere. Yes, I do. Have you emailed proof of ownership
tax compliance, refusal referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing? And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter? Yes. Okay, great. You may
proceed and begin sharing your screen. Thank you very much. As I mentioned, we are looking here at
the relatively new development located at the northwest corner of Broad and Spring Garden
streets in the Spring Garden neighborhood. In addition to representatives of the ownership,
Nate Kranz, K-R-A-N-Z, of Planet Fitness is present for this hearing, as the hearing concerns
the use registration of a second floor tenant space within the existing new building.
The development itself, which is existing, as the board I'm sure is aware, is a full city block
fronting on Spring Garden Street, which we can see at the forefront of this photo, running through
or north towards Brandywine Street bounded by Broad and 15th Streets. In the photo up on the
screen, we are looking along Broad Street facing southwardly. We have the residential entrance here
before you. The zoning for the property is CMX4 zoning. However, the property is located within
the broad street area north control district overlay which brings us before the board today
the development that exists is seven stories it's mixed use there's a 50 000 square foot giant
supermarket at the ground floor 410 residential apartments ample underground parking with
a couple levels underground and other commercial uses the notice of refusal is up on the screen
there's one use refusal. A Planet Fitness gym is proposed in a space on the second floor,
and the Broad Street Area North controls prohibit personal services, of which a gym or a fitness
center would be included, without zoning boy variance relief. We are very pleased that the
coordinating RCO, the Spring Garden Civic Association, supports the new tenant use,
noting in their letter we believe the fitness studio will be an attractive amenity for the
residents of the new building and for the broader community as well with no potential adverse effects
here mr chairman and members of the board are a couple interior photos
to the left of the screen would be looking out along spring garden and the right in the distance
15th Street. The proposed planet fitness would be located within an approximately 21,000 square
foot space on the second floor. It's raw space, as you can see. It's the northeast corner of 15th
and Spring Garden. One of the nice features of this space are the light-filled windows along
both Spring Garden and 15th Street. Although this floor plan is a bit difficult to see because it
has so much in it. The fitness facility may be entered through the underground parking garage
or from the Spring Garden street pedestrian entrance by both residents, neighbors, and
members of the general public alike. The gym would be proposed to be open seven days per week,
which is a nice thing to have life as part of this new development and part of the community.
It would employ 10 to 12 individuals with four to six employees present at any one time.
And a nice feature from a traffic perspective is that validated complementary underground parking is included with the membership.
The proposal fits into the surrounding neighborhood as evidenced by the support of the coordinating RCO.
The variance would represent the minimum variance to afford relief and represent least modification
possible of the regulation at issue with the overlay. The variance would not substantially
increase congestion in the public streets, danger of fire, or otherwise endanger the
or otherwise endanger the public health safety or general welfare with the new development already
public health safety or general welfare with the new development
in place this fits in and it fills a need that is uh anticipated this will not uh adversely affect
transportation on dually bird and water sewer school park or other public facilities there are
no environmental issues at the appropriate time mr kranz nate kranz of planet fitness the proposed
tenant is here to adopt and affirm as our members of the Alterra Property Group team if there are
questions. Thank you. Why don't we have the person for Planet Fitness adopt your testimony?
Thank you. Mr. Kranz, would you kindly raise your virtual hand? There he is.
I'm here. Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. Nate Kranz, N-A-T-E-K-R-A-N-Z.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Kranz. Could you kindly state your position with Planet Fitness?
Sure. I'm the vice president of real estate for the third largest franchisee in the Planet Fitness system.
Thank you. And have you been present for the entirety of this virtual hearing this afternoon?
I have. Would you adopt and affirm the testimony that I've offered as your own?
I do. Thank you, sir. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair, Planning Commission. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the board. This is
Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
existing commercial mixed-use zoning and dislocation.
The refusal for the proposed second floor conversion
to a gym in a mixed-use building
is triggered by the Broad Street area,
North section within the central district overlay.
The proposed second floor gym
will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood,
does not conflict with the purpose
and spirit of the zoning code.
The city planning commission recommends
of the Zodiac Board grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2022-004-232-510-North Broad Street,
I vote yes. Harold Teneri, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes. Thank you, Counsel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board.
Number seven, MI 2022-003-649, 3000 West Schoolhouse Lane. Peter Kelson is the attorney. There are letter of support from Coordinating RCO East Falls Zoning Committee, letter of non-opposition from Fox Lane RCO, and a letter of non-opposition from Curtis Jones.
We also have four letters of opposition from neighbors, and we also have Mr. Charles Miller, who is an attorney who's representing property owners who live near adjacent.
So could Mr. Kelson and Mr. Miller both come forward?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Peter Kelson, K-E-L-S-E-N, counsel to the William Penn Charter School.
Thank you.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Miller?
Yes, I'm here.
Can you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
It's Charles Miller, C-H-A-R-L-E-S-M-I-L-L-E-R.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Would you identify your clients, please?
My clients are Slobodan and Zhivana Bucetic. They reside at 3817 The Oak Road.
Thank you very much. Mr. Kelson, you start your case, please.
Thank you. If I could, I'd like to promote Jared Klein to share his screen, please.
Sure. Thank you.
Mr. Klein is coming back in as a panelist.
okay so well excuse me excuse me carol go through her uh vice chair go through her question i'm
sorry i'm sorry carol can i do can i do both lawyers at the same time or do they have to
be individually done it's just mr kelson he's just mr kelson yeah okay mr kelson where are you
do you agree with reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i can stipulate to
all of the refusals, with one exception, Ms. Fanari, the slope refusals,
With one exception, Ms. Tenere, the slope refusal, and this is the refusal that is noted at Exhibit No. 1, 921-2022.
It was added post our appeal.
It deals with a refusal that you will see steep slope protection restrictions on disturbance.
I would point out to the board, and there will be testimony later, we are not disturbing any natural slope. These are existing conditions, and therefore man-made conditions, and therefore do not fit into that refusal category. Other than that, I stipulate to the accuracy of the other refusals.
Okay, great, and thank you.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, or referral,
voters under plans of the property, five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all of those.
In fact, there are a number of letters from two of the RCOs shown in the exhibit packet,
East Falls Community, as well as Fox Lane RCO,
And I believe that there is an email from Councilman Jones's office in non-opposition as well.
Okay, great. You may proceed and your screen is up.
Great. Thank you so much, members of the board.
Once again, Peter Kelsen, on behalf of Penn Charter, I would indicate that we will present our case today on the basis of the proviso plans, revised plans that reflect changes made throughout the community process.
They can be found at Exhibit 6 in the package.
Members of the board, the site is the campus of the William Penn Charter School.
It is zoned RSD1.
The site has been existing as the campus of the school for quite some time, as you'll see from the deed, 1903.
It has been the subject of numerous zoning board hearings.
Ms. Tenere will remember most recently in 2019, the board granted approval to erect an athletic and wellness center at this location.
Because we're zoned residential, any new development or use requires zoning board variance approval, variance approval.
So let me describe simply the site area dimensionally, what exists on the site, and then we'll talk about what we propose to do today.
The total site area for the campus is 1,327,935 square feet.
The total occupied area is 230,000 square feet, and the total amount of floor area ratio, gross floor area, existing on site is 483,250 approximately.
It is subject to the Wissahick and Watershed overlay, and you can see a demarcation line. That regulates our impervious coverage, which is one of the refusals before you today.
Okay. What is our proposed project? Well, if you will note, we are proposing to demolish existing structures. They include the Dooley Fieldhouse and portion of what was the current lower school.
and what we're proposing to do is to erect a state-of-the-art new lower school and reallocate
and actually add additional parking within the campus. Mr. Kelson excuse me but could you show
on the map where that is? Absolutely if you can see the cursor right this is this is the area of
the new lower school, and if we move the cursor up to the top of the plan, you will see that there's
additional area proposed adjacent to what we call the Timmins House for enhanced parking
that we're creating. But does that help, Mr. Chair? It does. And just out of curiosity,
Could you let me could you say what streets we're talking about here?
So I go by a lot, but I'm not sure where.
Could you just give me an idea where that new building is?
Absolutely. So the primary streets are there is Schoolhouse Lane.
The primary streets are, there is Schoolhouse Lane, as indicated here.
There is Fox Street.
There is, and this will be part of the discussion you'll hear in a little while, the Oak Road off of the site at the very top of the plan.
If we move to the left, we have Stokely Street, Coulter Street, as I said, Fox Street previously, and then we end.
Immediately adjacent to us, Mr. Chairman, you'll remember or note that the Philadelphia University abuts us.
Right.
And that property is zoned Spins District.
The plan that you're seeing before you, which is one of the revised plans, I have to tell you is part of an extensive and very productive community engagement process that has spanned quite some time.
The master plan process has gone on with community engagement for several years, frankly, if not more.
The lower school project has been the subject of community engagement for over a year.
And we're really proud of the fact that we've reached consensus and have a plan before you that is supported by East Falls, is not opposed by the Fox Lane RCO.
Let me describe a little bit about the square footage, and then I'm going to ask to promote our architect, traffic planner, and civil engineer to provide additional testimony, if that's okay, Mr. Chairman.
members. And maybe too, Mr. Kelson, could you show photos that would give us an idea of where it is?
Why don't we do that first? In fact, I think that's a good point. Yeah.
Jared, if you could take us through actually the full exhibit package, let's do it that way.
Starting, there we go. So members of the board, here's an overhead view of the existing campus
bounded by the streets I refer to, our posting photographs.
Exhibit four will show you the existing conditions of the Timmins House property.
Again, a historic property that will review our application for parking.
You can see the Timmins House, which is located at the upper portion of the campus.
the new lower school existing conditions
quickly our zoning map showing the zoning designation this is a helpful exhibit i
believe members of the board it shows the campus um with the existing buildings
that's the main campus strawbridge is on the opposite side of schoolhouse lane we're giving
that to you for context, pretty much our athletic facilities. But you can see the existing campus
in red to the top of the screen is Timmins and the parking improvements I spoke about in a moment.
And you'll hear a bit more from Mr. Talley when he testifies. In the red area to the bottom of
the screen is the area where the lower school will be created, the new lower school, and
parking area. Jared, let's keep going. This is a more detailed rendered view of the Timmins
Garden, Timmins House, and parking. Here are photographs before and after,
existing condition of the house, proposed conditions after hopefully the grant of approval,
extensive landscaping, and buffering. Next, here's the new lower school we're drilling in now,
and you can see its footprint. It's 80,000 square feet of floor area. It has a footprint itself
of about 45,000 square feet.
Here's some rendered elevations
of the proposed new lower school.
Its scale, its scope,
the materials are of the highest caliber and quality.
This will be a LEED gold proposed development.
Our front entrance to the new school, view from Coulter Street neighbors, extensive landscaping, sustainability is prominent.
our front entrance to the new school.
This is a view from next door Thomas Jefferson, known as Philadelphia University, from their parking lot.
And now you'll begin to see elevations of the new lower school in context.
An important slide in terms of compatibility with the existing campus in terms of massing, height, and floor area.
It's great for you to show you the new lower school in context with other buildings on the campus.
And it also gives you a good feel for our adjacent property owners, Philadelphia University, as well as a number of our residential neighbors.
You can begin to see Strawbridge across the way and some of the athletic fields from this view.
Now you're beginning to see our revised plans, our proviso plans, starting at Exhibit 6.
Let's keep going.
And let's hold here.
This is a fundamental point I need to make and want to make to the board and to the community.
As a result of concerns and comments raised during our community engagement process, the school has decided to retain the existing driveway that accesses the main campus from Schoolhouse Lane, but we are modifying the driveway in a manner to facilitate traffic flow in a more efficient way.
That will be more further described by Mr. Talley, but what you can see here is we're adding, in essence, an additional lane and affording a lane for queuing.
I should point out to the board that one of the reasons that the impervious coverage variance is needed, we are currently allowed 20% impervious coverage.
The campus currently has 20.3%. We are proposing 21.7%, a de minimis increase, but that increase is being generated by the reconfiguration of the driveway to facilitate traffic flow, as I just mentioned.
okay keep going thank you uh illustrations of connectivity another important point for the
board to be aware of currently at the top of the property where it um intersects with the oak road
or touches the oak road there is an access point where there's a curb where individuals can
access the campus from the Oak Road. That curb cut will now be completely closed off. There will be
no direct access to the campus from the Oak Road in an effort to minimize traffic flow and
inconvenience to those individuals residing on the Oak Road. This plan shows you not only that,
but also the connectivity that's a sidewalk that is moving from the upper portion of the campus to the Timmins parking area.
And then as we go further down to the next slide, please, you will start to see how the connectivity spans the campus and leads to the new lower school, reconfigured parking areas, etc.
I won't spend a great deal of time on these slides. These are stick elevations showing massing of the new lower school. You'll hear testimony from our traffic engineer.
This is his report is contained on Exhibit 7. That's parking sufficiency analysis. Our parking study is Exhibit 8. And Exhibit 9 details the current situation regarding the steep slope issue we spoke about.
These aerials clearly show that there is structure and has been structure created in the area LNI considers to be disturbed slope, natural slope.
L&I considers to be disturbed slope, natural slope.
Next one.
These were taken, by the way, in 1996.
If we now move on to this plan, what this is showing as part of the revised plan set,
the areas in pink toward the bottom of the plan show areas of slope disturbance.
But again, these are man-made conditions. There's structures there now. Jared, let's keep going. And just to reiterate the comment I made about the percentage of impervious coverage, 20% is permitted by code in the Wissigan Watershed Overlay, Category Area 1.
The existing is 20.3.
Yes, I'm sorry, 20.3.
And we're proposing 21.7 and change.
De minimis, again, I repeat.
We now move to the exhibit package that details the East Falls Community Council letter of support.
I believe that is in the zoning board file.
It's dated October 24th.
I will not read it, but certainly it reflects the significant amount of time and attention all parties have devoted to this project.
It was unanimous in its decision to support the proposal before you today, members of the board.
letter dated October 25th, 2022, addressed to the chairman. This is from the Fox Lane RCO,
a newly formed RCO that consists of residents that are located on Fox. That's with two X's
lane, which is on the opposite side of Schoolhouse Lane from the campus.
And you can see no objection. And primarily, their no objection letter was issued as a result of the traffic impact study. But also, I think, equally, probably more importantly, our commitment to keep the existing drive and make modifications to it.
I don't want to speak for the RCO. I don't know if Wendella Fox is present, but that's the sum and substance about that RCO letter.
And lastly, this is the email I referred to sent by Joshua Cohen, Chief of Staff, to Council Member Curtis Jones, indicating no opposition to this application.
uh keep let's keep going just to fill out the package
thought you i thought the board might get a kick out of this here's our deed dated june 5th 20
1903 um handwriting was a lot better in those days
we've been here a long time
and then Jared let's just end
on the
tax clearance
this is civic design review
we've completed that process
and then finally
our letters of, we've sent notifications, as I indicated previously, based on the revised refusal
and the last hearing of the East Falls Community Association was October 19th, 2022.
Mr. Chairman, I'll pause for a bit, and then we can call our first witness, or if the board pleases, we can have all the witnesses promoted.
Mr. Kelson, how many witnesses do you have?
I have three expert witnesses.
Relative to what?
One's a traffic, what else?
Traffic, civil engineering with regard to the impervious coverage and slopes, yes, and the driveway configuration, if there's a question.
And then lastly, Conrad Talley, who was our project architect, will give an overview of the project, should the board wish.
I think the key would be, let's have your traffic person.
OK, and then maybe the civil engineer. I don't know that we need to. I think you did a pretty good job of covering most of the other issues. So why don't we go with the traffic engineer?
And then maybe the civil engineer.
I don't know that we need to, I think.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And please indulge me because we do have opposition, so I do need to make more of a record. But I'd like to, I also will offer to affirm my testimony when appropriate, Mr. Hal David Al, and I'll introduce him later on. I'm not going to introduce him again.
All right. Can we promote Andy Heimrich, please, our traffic engineer? We'll start with him.
sir please unmute yourself
hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
andreas heinrich a-n-d-r-e-a-s-h-e-i-n-r-i-c-h right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do proceed mr kelson thank you very much um mr heinrich
are you a traffic engineering expert? Yeah, I'm a licensed civil engineer and certified as
professional traffic operations engineer. Have you testified at zoning hearing boards and other
bodies as a professional traffic engineering expert? Yes, I have. And have you participated
in zoning board hearings or other hearings in the city of Philadelphia? Yes, I have.
Members of the board, you'll note at Exhibits 7 and 8, you'll see Mr. Hendrick's reports.
I would ask to have him certified as an expert traffic engineering witness.
We'll certify that his main field is traffic engineering. I hear you.
Thank you very much.
So, Heinrich, I'm going to ask you to start with a document that you prepared dated October 14th, 2022. That's on the screen right now. Do you see that document, sir?
Yes, I do.
Did you personally prepare that document?
Yes, I did.
And what was the purpose of preparing that document, sir?
The document is entitled Parking Assessment, and we just reviewed the parking situation for William Penn Charter School.
And can you just tell the board briefly how many parking spaces will be provided to support the campus development?
There will be a total of 319 parking spaces on campus, plus an additional 32 parking spaces that will be leased from a church across Schoolhouse Lane from the campus for a total of 351 parking spaces.
Has the parking ratio been increased, Mr. Hyland?
I believe it's been increased for the 32 leased parking spaces, but I think the 319 parking spaces has more or less remained constant.
Right. Thank you. And did you make a determination about the adequacy of those, that amount of parking to support the proposed development that's before the board today?
And what were your conclusions, sir?
I believe the numbers are, bear with me a second, 215 parking spaces will be needed for staff and
teachers, 15 parking spaces for visitor guest parking, and 75 parking spaces for student
parking for a total of 315 parking spaces based on the results of the traffic study that we will
get into next we have reviewed in and out traffic movements based on cars accumulating on site if
you will and we find that when you deduct cars in line for parent drop-off and pickup that
as little as 235 parking spaces are needed on a typical day for the peak parking demand of the
day. So in our opinion, there's the number of parking spaces I listed, 351 total parking spaces
represents an adequate parking supply for the William Penn Charter School. And that also takes
into account a slight increase in enrollment from 947 students in 2017 to 2018 prior to COVID.
to, in 2017 to 2018 prior to COVID, 970 students during the COVID period 20 to 21, and then a
projection to 1,001 students in 2025 to 2026 academic year. Is that correct? Yes, that is
correct. Thank you. Members of the board, if there are any questions on the parking assessment,
I'm happy to take those and answer those. Otherwise, we'll move to the power of the traffic assessment.
Okay, hearing none. Mr. Heinrich, before you is a report titled updated traffic access study.
October 14, 2022. Do you see that? Yes, I do. Did you prepare that report yourself?
Yes, I did.
Was the report a revision or an update to previous traffic access studies that you did on behalf of the William Penn Charter School?
Yes, it was.
And did you take actual traffic counts as part of what I'll call the October 14, 2022 analysis?
Yes, all new traffic count data was taken in the last week of September of 2022, with two additional intersections added to the study area from previous versions of the traffic study.
And do you identify the various intersections at which those counts were taken in your report?
Yes, I do. And there are a number of or a series of figures attached to the report that outline or summarize the traffic volumes and the levels of service for the updated traffic counts and analysis completed as part of this study.
Based on these counts, based on your understanding of the proposed development of the site, and by the way, Mr. Heinrich, did you, as part of the traffic analysis, utilize the proposed reconfigured schoolhouse lane driveway as part of it?
That was part of our analysis of future conditions, yes.
Great. So did you reach a conclusion as to what impact, if any, the proposed development would have on traffic generation in the immediate area?
Yes, we did. Basically, if I could oversimplify a little bit, the master plan has effectively already been implemented insofar as traffic patterns in the area of the campus are concerned.
because the parent drop-off and pickup effectively blocks traffic from conveniently being able to cross campus from the Coulter-Stokely side of the campus to the schoolhouse lane side of the campus.
What remains to happen is that the dually parking lot will be eliminated in favor of the new lower school building and pretty much be replaced by the new Timmons School, I mean the Timmons House parking lot off the bus lane.
So bearing that difference in mind, once you redistribute traffic for the before and after cases of implementing the final versions of the master plan, in traffic engineering parlance, we deal with what's called levels of service, levels of service A through F.
And without getting into a whole lot of detail, most movements today work at level of service B with a handful of C's and one D. After the implementation of the master plan, there will be relatively no change in levels of service as a result of the redistribution of traffic.
What will change is you'll see traffic delay diminish a little bit on the Stokely-Coulter side of the campus, and you'll see delay increase a little bit on the Schoolhouse Lane side of the campus.
But as I said, levels of service will not change.
The changes in delay, vehicular delay, will remain within the levels of service category we currently see.
So for most motorists traveling in the vicinity of the campus, you won't notice a change in traffic patterns as a result of implementation of the master plan.
as a result of implementation of the master plan.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
So let me ask you this question.
Will the proposed development, including the Timmins parking
area, as well as the new lower school,
have a negative impact on traffic utilizing the Oak Road?
In my opinion, there'll be a positive impact because currently the smaller Timmins House parking lot has its access via the Oak Road that will be closed off in favor of new access to the enlarged Timmins House parking lot, which will have access from the bus lane.
So the traffic that is currently using the Oak Road to access the existing parking lot will be eliminated from using the Oak Road and will transfer to the bus service lane in large measure.
So I foresee a somewhat slight decrease in traffic along the Oak Road, which will reduce traffic delay for users of the Oak Road.
In conclusion, is it your expert opinion that the levels of service that are currently being experienced and anticipated to be experienced in an urban setting such as this are acceptable?
Yes, they are. They are currently acceptable and will continue to be so.
great i have no further questions mr miller
yes uh you want to cross uh yeah just very briefly uh proceed if i may sir uh i noticed
in the uh your traffic study and in your calculations that you uh presented to the
board uh you talked about a total of 305 parking spaces using the low end of the students
vehicles that you projected being 75. Your report indicates 75 to 125 in that there's the 50
student difference. If you add those additional 50 students, that puts you somewhere up in 350.
Is that correct? Could you go over those numbers again? I don't understand what you're referring to.
Your parking study indicates... Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought you were...
Highside traffic study, I apologize.
Sorry.
The parking study estimates 305 parking spaces.
What that accounts for are 215 employees, 15 spots for guests and visitors, and 75 for students.
Your study itself, if you read the details, say 75 to 125 for students, given that that's a pretty large variance for 50 students.
If you add those 50 students in, you're now talking about a need for 350-some parking spaces, which exceeds what is being proposed. Is that correct?
I agree with the numbers you've quoted, but I don't necessarily agree with the way you categorize it.
That's the way you categorized it.
Well, as I said, the numbers are correct. But we're talking about on campus versus surrounding areas. There's additional parking in the leased lot of 32 spaces, which does bring us to 351.
And there's also fluctuations throughout the school year as as the upper school students, the 12th grade students, if you will, beginning of the year, not as many of them are eligible to be driving cars.
and throughout the course of the school year that number increases from so that at the beginning of
the school year you're down around the 75 and then by the end of the school year you get up to around
125 so this is not something that is constant throughout the entire school year for number one
but also there in addition to the 351 off-street parking spaces there is also on-street parking
on the surrounding roads so the remaining uh student drivers who cannot find a space
on campus will be be looking for spaces on street correct so uh you would agree with me
given the fact that the proposal has uh for the timmons lot which is all my client is interested
in just the timmons lot the proposed timmons lot um that because it's would be essentially
cut off from the lower school, students or faculty, whoever may be parking in that lot,
if the lot is full, the traffic flow pattern would put them back on the Oak Road to find
a parking spot and use the pedestrian access way that's being proposed, correct?
And use the access, the pedestrian access way that's being proposed, correct?
No, not necessarily. Why? I don't understand how you describe that.
Well, I'll tell you what.
If I could, sorry to interrupt.
Go ahead. That's fine.
These are users that will be coming to and from the school day to day throughout the school year, wherever they are.
Obviously, schools and staff and teachers are probably parking in the same parking space throughout the school year. Visitors, that's an on-again, off-a-can type of thing. And the students, the ones that start the school year eligible to drive, they know where they're parking right off the bat.
They've got a large surplus generally to be able to find parking spaces. And then as the remaining students come online through eligibility, as they grow older and get their driver's license, they will find a parking space and then tend to park in that space throughout the remainder of the school year.
So I don't see how you get to the point where these drivers, these motorists, will be circulating around the school looking for a parking space.
Once they determine where is a good parking space the first couple of times they drive, they're going to go to that area the next time, and that's where they're going to park throughout the rest of the school year.
Are you aware of whether or not that lot will be restricted or designated for certain types of individuals, meaning either guests, employees, students? Is there any designation for this particular lot that you're aware of?
I'm not aware of any specific designation.
Okay. And once you leave...
Just to clarify, if I could clarify, we're talking about the Timmons lot?
Only the Timmons lot, correct.
Okay. Just wanted to make sure.
Yeah, no problem. You would agree with me if when you leave the bus lane, which is what's connected to the Timmins lot, you cannot turn right off Stokely. In fact, it requires you to turn left off Stokely, which would then have you flow through the Oak Road if you're circling around, correct?
Well, there's a restriction at Stokely and Coulter to send you out Stokely to Midvale, but that doesn't require you to go to the Oak Road. That is one path you could choose.
Would you agree with me that the fastest path would be to turn left on Midvale in order to find off-street parking that would be on the Oak Road, as opposed to circling back around on Midvale and going all the way around to the lower school parking lot?
That is one path that you can choose.
Is that the fastest path, would you say, if you're searching for a parking spot as school's beginning to start?
to where? I guess I fail to understand why somebody has to recirculate to a specific
location. If you're coming out of there, you could park on street at Stokely or Coulter.
You could go around the block on the Oak Road, as you suggest. You could also go the other
direction on Midvale. Perhaps there are spaces in the middle school lot, which is much closer
to the south. There are other opportunities out there for parking. Right. But the Timmons parking
lot is essentially cut off or it doesn't circulate too naturally to the lower school parking lot,
correct? They're not connected is what I'm getting at. That's correct. There is no connection between
the Timmons lot and the lower school lot. And just the final question is you had mentioned that
there's a access point currently off the Oak Road, which leads to the current Timmons lot.
Now, is the access that flows from that lot, does it flow to the lower school currently?
No, it accesses the Oak Road.
Correct. So in other words, vehicles are not accessing the school, the lower school through
the Oak Road and down
through the existing Timmins lot. Is that correct?
There's no connection between
the Oak Road
and the bus service lane
through the Timmins house lot,
if that's what you're asking.
That's all I have.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Kelsey, you want to
call your next witness, please?
I will, and thank you,
Mr. Heinrich. I'm going to call
Brian Spray, please.
Okay. If he could be promoted. Thank you. Brian, I think you have to raise your virtual hand.
I'm in. Thank you. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
My name is Brian Spray, B-R-I-A-N-S-P-R-A-Y.
My name is Brian Spray, B-R-I-A-N-S-P.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do so swear.
Proceed.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Spray.
What is your professional designation?
Are you a civil engineer?
I hold a license in professional engineering, and I practice...
I've been practicing site civil engineering since 1998.
Since 1998.
Are you actively involved in the preparation of plans and the development of the Lower School and Timmons project that is before the Zoning Board today?
Yes, I am.
And how long have you been, have you or your firm been involved in the development of the master plan, including today's proceedings, on behalf of William Penn Charter, approximately?
Well, I have been working off and on on the William Penn site since January 2020.
That's also about the same time that CEC required Palron and Kalp.
And Butch Kalp has been working with William Penn for a very long time.
Are you actively familiar with the revised site plans and illustrations that have been presented to the Zoning Board today?
They're at Exhibit 6?
Yes, I am.
Were you personally involved with some aspects of the preparation of those plans?
Yes, I was.
Okay. So I want to focus your attention right now to Exhibit 9, which is on the screen. And I believe you prepared these documents. Is that correct?
That is correct.
And could you tell the board succinctly, what are we looking at here at Exhibit 9?
So what we did is we wanted to look back through historical aerial photography to see what the use of this area has been, you know, throughout the decades.
And what we pulled together here is you see what you're looking at, the sheet here is two aerial photographs, one from 1971 and one from 1973.
that shows the area of the proposed lower school being a I'll call it a soccer field because it
looks like there's soccer on either end but it could it's it's a play field it could be football
but it but you also see parking there off to the side so the area has been previously worked as
far back as the early 70s. As a note, we did download these from historical areas. There's
a reference down there at the bottom. Thank you. So these areas, just to sum up those pictures from
the 70s, indicate that there was disturbance affecting those portions of the property
going back to that time frame. Is that correct? That is correct. All right. Now on the screen
you'll see it's labeled 1996 aerial photograph. Briefly describe to the board what they're
looking at. So this is the first year that the Doody Fieldhouse, which is the building that we
are taking down to construct lower school appears on the historical photographs so you can see that
the play field soccer football field has been removed and it was replaced with this duny
field house it looks like the parking field it has been expanded from what you saw in the 70s
But it's still there. I would note, too, that just on the north part of that photo, that's where the Kirk Center is currently. And the parking, the play area, and the access drive is not there in 1996.
again is this evidence of uh disturbance of slope conditions based on a madman made man-made
condition um so what this shows is that this corner of the property in my opinion has been
worked and reworked over the over the decades um and uh so that uh the any slopes in this area
appear to be man-made or at least previously destroyed.
Thank you.
Let's go to the next slide, please.
Let's go to the next slide, please.
Mr. Spray, very quickly, I want to describe what this plan is showing.
So this is an existing features plan with the Dooney Fieldhouse highlighted in blue.
And no, that's the new AFC.
There you go.
There you go.
And so if you zoom in there a little bit, you can see that you have two shades.
One is a pink hatch and the other is called a peach hatch.
The pink hatch is our slopes that are 25% and greater.
And the peach hatch are 15 to 25% in working with the planning commission.
They asked for both of those to be designated.
um so what's interesting you know i can block these into three different areas very quickly
if you're looking at the duny field house um going from from easy to hard um you have the low
on the lower left uh you have um what looks like a bathtub uh that's that's it it's a stormwater
basin um stormwater basins don't occur naturally you know that was obviously man-made um going
straight up from there, you can see the Kurtz Center and back to the right of the Kurtz Center
is a play area, play equipment for swings and that sort of thing. And that represents some of
the other steep slopes would be disturbing. Those slopes start at the play field and go straight to
the road. If you go back to the 1996 aerial, you see none of that existed previously. So that all
had to be disturbed in order to construct the Kurtz Center and an access room. And then we go
to the right-hand side of the Duny Fieldhouse and you can see how the pink area there is triangular.
That kind of shape is not normally found in nature and piqued my interest when we first looked at it,
but then again you go back to the aerial photographs from the 70s and you realize that
that shape matches up to a rectangular field
that would have been in this area
and that would have been the fill slope.
No, Peter, Peter, Peter.
Mr. Kelson.
I think it'd be helpful if he would say where this border
so we know where he's at on the campus.
Is this the Jefferson University apartments border here?
Immediately below, on the bottom of the screen, yes.
Yeah, right.
Is that where the Jefferson apartments are?
immediately below the duty field house right is a property line what's on the opposite side of
that property to the best of your knowledge that is Jeff a property uh owned by Jeff person okay
fine okay I just wanted to make sure we know where we are that's all the right hand side
of the screen you'll see a roadway that is Coulter Street. Right okay and just to sum up Mr.
Spray if I could so Duny comes down other structural elements are removed and the lower
school is placed approximately in the location that we're looking at on this plan is that correct?
That is correct.
With no further disturbance of naturally occurring slope area, to the best of your knowledge?
Correct. As I mentioned, this whole area has been worked and reworked at least since the 70s.
Okay. Members of the board, if there are any questions about the slope condition, happy to answer them.
Otherwise, I have two quick questions about coverage, impervious, and code compliance.
With the same witness, Mr. Kelson?
Same witness, yes.
Mr. Miller, do you have any questions?
Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Kelson.
Very quickly. So, Mr. Spray, you notice that we're adding about 1.7% of impervious coverage as part of the application that is before the board today. Is that right?
That is correct.
And we currently have about 20.3% impervious coverage. Is that correct?
Correct.
So where is the additional, primarily, where is the additional impervious coverage coming from, that 1.7%?
So a significant portion of that is coming from the modifications to the insurance.
a significant portion of that is coming from the modifications to the entrance drive the
existing interest drive that to your screen here is off to the left
it has you can see three lanes where it comes into the site but it only has two as it exits on
the schoolhouse lane and so that needed to be widened and need to be widened per current code
which puts it as far as a 40-foot line.
And those modifications are reflected
in the proviso plans at Exhibit 6.
Is that right?
Let's go up to that for one second.
I want the board to be very clear
as to what we're doing
and what impact that has
with regard to the impervious.
You can go to the next sheet.
It shows it.
There we go.
So, you can see there the increase in the width of the incoming drive. There's also some parking improvements. That turnabout is already there, but you can see a significant chunk of the additional impervious surface goes to that roadway.
And in your opinion, the redesign of the roadway or the driveway off of Schoolhouse Lane will serve to improve traffic flow through the campus and to Schoolhouse Lane?
The intent of it is to assist with queuing. So that would, providing additional lanes for cars to queue, depending on which directions they want to go, will improve traffic flow.
Thank you. So in order to secure building permits and other related permits from the City of Philadelphia's Water Department, for example, do they have to agree and support the plan and the calculations that you're showing today in order to build it?
Yes, they will need, they have our approvals that we will need to get from them before we can move into construction.
And have you been involved with the water department as part of this project review at the city level?
Yes, I have.
And has the water department issued concept approval for the proposed development?
We're still working through concept approval, but they have issued approvals for the field house demolition.
Thank you. And in terms of the streets department, very simply, same situation.
They have to get their approval, both concept and technical, in order to secure building permits for the proposed development?
Correct.
In your expert opinion, will ultimately the design create any negative impact with regard to stormwater management?
No, it won't.
Will it create any negative impact from a civil engineering standpoint as a result of the reconfiguration of the driveway?
I do not believe so, no.
And lastly, will the modification of the property as it currently exists to develop the new lower school create any negative impact as a result of building in areas that had previously been disturbed from a Wissick and Watershed standpoint?
No, it will not.
I have nothing further of this witness.
Mr. Miller.
Miller.
I just have one brief question, if I may. Do your impervious coverage calculations include the Timmons School in the overall concept, or is it reviewed separately?
No, it does include the Timmons. The parking field up there does fall within the WW01 area, and so that is included within our impervious coverage.
Okay, that's all I had.
Thank you.
Mr. Kelson, do you have enough witness?
I can do the following.
I don't believe you need to hear from Mr. Talley.
I think that's clear in terms of the architectural and design.
Do you want me to call Mr. David Al forward to affirm my testimony now?
Why don't we do that?
Why don't we do that now?
Can we promote Mr. Hal David Al, please?
mr david al please unmute yourself you're free to speak okay can you hear me i can could you
Mr. David Al, please unmute yourself.
You're free to speak.
please state your name and spell for the court reporter yes my name is hal david al h-a-l-d-a-v-i-d-o-w
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do mr kelson thank you good afternoon mr david al um mr david al what's your position with
the William Penn Charter School? I'm the Chief Financial Officer. How long have you been there?
27 years. Are you familiar with the project that's before the Zoning Board today? Yes, I am.
Have you been actively involved in previous projects that went to the Zoning Board,
maybe a different Zoning Board, with regard to developments on the campus, such as
the Performing Arts Center, the Wellness Center? Yes, I was. As part of the current
application that's before the board, did you interface with the community organizations
that surround the site? Yes, I did. And approximately how many years or so have you
been engaged in public discourse about the master plan and specifically the lower school and Timmins
project? So the master plan goes back about eight years and I've been involved from the beginning
of that plan and more recently with of course this project including Timmins. As part of the
discussions that you've had with your neighbors, both on the organized community association level
as well as individual neighbor level, did you have the opportunity to meet and discuss
concerns that were raised by residents living on the Oak Road? Yes, I did.
and um were any modifications made to the original plans uh as a result of of concerns
or comments raised by such individuals uh yes we did we um moved the we removed approximately 30
spaces and moved the parking area further back from the oak road and created a park for the
neighborhood and created birming to to basically hide the parking lot um is there currently access
directly off of the oak road into the um william penn charter campus uh yes into the parking lot
okay and is that intended to be closed off as part of this proposed development yes it is okay
Have you also had discussions with the with individuals on the Oak Road with regard to Timmins House lighting and site features.
Yes, we discussed the down lighting that would not create an additional lighting issue for the neighbors.
OK, I have nothing further. But now, Mr. David, now you got some real work to do.
You've heard me make numerous statements regarding the proposed development of the new lower school and Timmins parking at today's hearing. Is that correct?
Correct.
And have you been part of the virtual hearing from the inception of this application?
Yes, I have. Yes, I have been.
to the best of your knowledge and information the statements that i've made are they true and
correct yes they are if you were to make those statements yourself would you adopt them
and consider them to be accurate and correct yes i would and finally the revised plans that we've
submitted uh to the zoning board um you are actively involved and know these plans from
firsthand knowledge yes i do okay mr chairman i have nothing more for mr david how i don't know
if mr miller wants to mr miller uh yeah just very briefly uh mr david good afternoon uh could you
tell the board how the timmons house property is used by the school currently um yes it's uh it's
It's used by our development office and our business office, and we occasionally have events at the property.
And when you say events, what kind of events are you talking about?
Uh, faculty, uh, uh, faculty meetings, faculty gatherings, uh, parent gatherings, alumni
Faculty meetings, faculty gatherings.
gatherings.
And, uh, you know, uh, can you, what's the intensity of that use as it currently is?
How often is it used for those types of events?
Uh, well, COVID has changed things, but I would say between, uh, five and 10 times a
I have nothing further.
Um, further. Thank you. You're done. You're done with your case, right? Yes. Subject to cross
examination. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Miller. Chair, if I may, um, we are coming, um, close.
I want to, I want to, I want to get Mr. Miller on to see how long his case is going to be.
And then we'll make a decision after we do that, Lakeisha.
Mr. Miller. Yes. How many witnesses do you think you have?
It would just be two. It would be the two residents, the owners of the property that I represent. And it depends how you would like to do it. I can run through a summary of the slides were prepared by my client. I would share those and go over those. My client can be better able as the resident to try to discuss those, or I could summarize them and then have them speak to any additional comments that they may have.
well i i think we're in a position now that you know we have numerous cases left
sure and i think what we're looking at we're going to have to have a resumptive hearing
uh we just we just can't get it because i think there are people in the audience too
that i want to have some things to say etc so uh peter i think there's no there's no way we can get
go much longer with this you're basically your case as a whole is done we'll come back
Mr. Miller will do his case whenever we resume and then we'll take it off to the audience for
people to say what they have to say and then we'll go to planning all right Mr. Chairman
Lakeisha we're going to have a resumptive hearing for this yes is that okay Hillary
yes that is totally fine Mr. Chair okay all right and and thanks both you for your time I mean I
think we made a lot of gains with this and hopefully when we come back we'll be resumptive
here and there we can finish up okay great and we'll get a date uh from that's right well we'll
we'll i'll talk to them about a date for both of you okay and we uh do have a date available um
no november 30th oh that's that's good that's um let me just uh get the time for you guys one
second that would be great now hillary do we have to repost since it's resumptive
um because we're so in some cases we do when there is a lot of interest from the community
so the board may be sending you um additional posters to put up with the new hearing date
um but part of the reason we announced it on the record is so that um those who are here for this
hearing are already aware of it um but i will discuss with the staff but we may be sending
additional um posters for the for the next hearing thank you mr kelson and mr miller thank both you
okay thank you and the time will be 2 p.m 2 p.m i'm sorry 2 p.m november 30th correct thank you so
much thank you case number eight mi 2022 003584 704 pine street adam labor is the attorney
LETTER OF NON OPPOSITION WITH PROVISORS FROM WASHINGTON SQUARE CIVIC ASSOCIATION
COORDINATING RCO LETTER OF NON OPPOSITION WITH PROVISORS FROM THE AFFECTED RCO SOCIETY HILL
ASSOCIATION LETTER OF NON OPPOSITION FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS SQUILA
good afternoon hi Mr. Laver you've already been sworn to state your name for the record
Adam Laver L-A-V-E-R right could you identify your client and the relationship to the property
certainly Blank Rome represents Lisa and Greg Milhauser M-I-L-H-A-U-S-E-R they are the owners
of 704 pine street the subject property thank you and our vice chair has a few questions
thank you mr laver do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
yes if we are uh referring to the corrected refusal of august 3rd 2022
August 3rd, does everybody have that, I have.
It was submitted to Ms. Emerson and.
It was submitted to Ms. Emerson and to the board. It's a corrected refusal.
Mr. Laver, I do have that refusal. I did not realize it was corrected from a prior refusal
for this case. So if the board grants, we should note that as a proviso that it is per the August
3rd refusal. Thank you for letting us know. Absolutely. It just reduced the number of
refusals by one. Okay. All right. Sounds good. We'll make sure we have that one on record.
Thank you. Adam, have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
refusal, referral, voters under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes, we have, and the coordinating RCO,
as well as the other impacted RCO have submitted letters of non-opposition,
which have been confirmed also by Council Member Squilla's office. So non-opposition from all
official parties. Okay, thank you so much. You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you. Hopefully up on the screen before you, you see an aerial photograph of the Society Hill section showing the subject property. We're looking at Pine Street running back from there.
The property is located sort of in the border. It's within the Washington Square West and
Society Hill sections of the city. Here's another aerial photograph looking at the property from
the rear where the hand icon is. On the screen now is a zoning map. The existing Pine Street
property appears very elegant from the outside. Here we are on Pine Street. But inside, it's
become quite deteriorated, unfortunately. When Greg and Lisa Milhauser purchased it this past
February, quite recently, they found sagging floors, holes in the walls, broken systems.
The property itself is zoned RM1. It could accommodate multiple dwellings, six or more on
the lot. The lot runs from Pine through to Addison. It's large. However, the Millhousers,
a young family with children, are in the process of restoring this once grand home to raise their
family and to live in it as a single family residence. The existing property, as you can
see on the screen, is four stories high, just under 51 feet tall. It's an existing non-conforming
structure, which as a matter of law is burdened through its historical designation on the
register. Lisa Gregg and their two young children currently live around the corner. They love the
neighborhood. Their new home on Pine Street presents an opportunity to stay in the neighborhood,
to restore a historic home for long-term use, and as Gregg has said, to bring it up to a condition
befitting the neighborhood. You can see in the photographs on the screen some existing conditions
along the beautiful Pine Street block.
And now moving to the next set of photos
to the rear along Addison Street.
The subject property can be seen
in the lower left-hand corner,
identified by the blue door set into a concrete wall.
It is dissimilar to many of the other properties
that have had more buildup conditions
that you can see along the block.
And that's what we're going to be proposing and discussing. In sum, the proposal is to erect
a rear detached garage at the rear of the property along Addison Street with accessory only
a dwelling unit above it, an au pair suite, grandparents, et cetera, right above it,
accessory to the Pine Street property. And in addition, there are some small additions to the
Pine Street property, which I'll show you in a moment, not visible from Pine Street. The entire
proposal, and just some more photographs along Addison, the entire proposal has been approved
by the Philadelphia Historical Commission. I have that up on the screen for you at the moment.
This is the site plan. I'll show you more specific drawings in a moment, but this is showing
the property running from Pine Street through to Addison. Here are some conceptual renderings
beginning at the back along Addison Street. So you'll recall I had shown you the blue doors
the blue doors and the concrete wall. The proposed addition, this is to show you massing,
and the concrete wall. The proposed addition, this is, this is
not details. This is what it will look like, very similar to the scope and scale of what is along
Addison Street currently. And again, another view along Addison with that massing in there,
providing a sense of scope, scale, sizing, context, context. Getting to the refusal,
the heart of the case. Refusal number one, for an extension of the non-conforming building height
along Pine Street. Well, this is technical in nature because there's an existing non-conforming
structure. This presents a de minimis variance. Refusal two, for the proposed accessory dwelling
unit along Addison at the rear. As proposed, this would be prohibited under the zoning code.
However, the specific nature of the proposed accessory dwelling unit better meets the scope
and spirit of the code than the much more significant density that would be permitted
as a matter of right if the property were to be carved up into multiple residences instead
of a single family use.
Furthermore, if the Addison Street portion of the property were treated as an independent
parcel, which it recently was, this refusal and the proposed height refusal would go away.
Refusal three, a minor technicality. A garage depth along Addison Street is proposed at 27 feet. 25 feet is the code maximum. This will have no impact whatsoever on neighbors or the surrounding community.
The deep depth of the parcel itself that runs from Pine to Addison allows for this minor deviation from the code in a way that's different from the more standard-sized parcels perhaps contemplated under this code provision.
Similarly, refusal four pertains to the proposed 20 feet garage height, which is necessary to allow adequate living space, the one floor above the garage, comparable to the photos that I showed you along Addison Street, in particular to 706 Pine Street property that runs through, meeting the scope and scale of the block, and as recognized by the Philadelphia Historical Commission.
This exhibit, I think, is really very helpful in a nutshell in showing you what I've just described.
The green is what's new.
So on the left is the existing structure in gray on Pine Street.
To the right would be, again, that blue wall along Addison.
The green is what's proposed.
So you see to the right the garage with the one-story accessory dwelling unit above it, rising 20 feet in height comparable to what's there.
In between the garage and the existing historic structure on Pine Street is a garden area.
and at the back of the pine street in green are some proposed additions to the existing historic
house as approved by the historical commission to allow for this family to live in this home
for many years to come this is an interesting slide as well also showing in green the uh if
you go to the right just for the interest of time what we're proposing addition wise the garage and
additions at the back none of this can be seen from from pine street minimal impact from addison
street here is an addison street elevation so uh the middle elevation is showing what you would see
off of addison entrance to the garage the brick uh accessory dwelling unit above and then in the
background uh the existing pine street property with the additions to the right is as if you're
standing in that garden courtyard very close looking at the back of pine street and to the
left if you were walking out of the pine street property through the garden and up into the
dwelling unit the accessory dwelling unit that is floor plans uh at the bottom uh the basement is
not worth going over, standard rec room, et cetera. To the top is the first floor showing
the two-car garage, the garden area, and the first floor layout of the home. Second floor
layout here at the bottom. Second floor above the garage is the accessory dwelling unit that
I had mentioned, specifically accessory, third floor plan at the top, and the fourth floor plan
is the last. There is, as we mentioned, extensive support documentation beginning with the non-opposition
unanimous from the coordinating RCO, Washington Square West Civic Association.
from the coordinating rco washington square west civic association
with proposed provisos i should note that washington square west civic association
society health civic association council members will have all submitted the same
request for provisos which we have no objection to in the washington square west letter they note
the concern of the proposed visibility of the addition was alleviated by visiting the site.
In other words, once they were there and saw it, they understood why the Historical Commission
voted to approve this. The two provisos speak for themselves. Here is Society Hill Civic
Association's letter of non-opposition. Also, Council Member Squilla's letter of non-opposition,
A letter of support from a near neighbor at 712 Pine Street, recognizing that he is in support.
The unanimous non-opposition from the coordinating RCO with provisos, the non-opposition from Society Hill Civic Association with the same provisos and Council Member Squilla's confirmation of same definitely speak to the granting of variance being appropriate for this historic property, this non-conforming existing property.
This fits into the surrounding neighborhood. This would represent minimum variance to afford relief.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, I have submitted a revised proviso plans, which, for those who are tuning in, is exactly the same as it's been shared with the entire community.
It shows a slight decrease in height in line with what the Philadelphia Historical Commission had approved.
In the interest of time, I'll rest at the moment.
We do have Greg Milhauser available to adopt and affirm at the appropriate time, and we have Gabrielle Cano of Cano if there are architectural questions.
Why don't we have your testimony adopted, Adam?
Thank you. Mr. Milhauser, would you please raise your virtual hand? There you are. And unmute so that the chair can speak to you. He's available, Mr. Chairman.
Okay, could you say your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
Sure. It's Greg Milhauser, G-R-E-G, last name M-I-L-L-H-A-U-S-E-R.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Milhauser. Have you been present for the entirety of the
virtual hearing this afternoon?
Yes, I have.
And would you adopt and affirm the testimony that I've offered as your own?
yes i will thank you questions from the board no mr chairman mr chair questions or comments
from the virtual audience chair we have paul bon excuse me bonnie okay
hi mr bonnie could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
My name is Paul Boni, B-O-N-I, and I'm the chair of the Zoning and Historic Preservation Committee of Society of Cedric Assistance.
All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, sir.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
This was not an easy case for us.
We don't usually warm up to variances of this degree and type, but we worked very hard with the applicant.
I want to thank the applicant, the Millhausers, for working with us and their attorney, Mr. Labor.
And we worked hard with Wash West. And also, we were, you know, had some nice, good discussions with Ms. Emerson, which we really appreciate.
And so it's very important to us that if the board is inclined to grant these variances, that the provisos that we all work so hard on be adopted as part of the decision.
So I want to thank you and again, thank the Millhausers and wish them luck.
Thank you. Thank you for calling in and thank you for your input.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair, members of the board.
This is Greg Walden from Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential multifamily zoning at this location.
The proposed height of the building and its garage are consistent with nearby properties.
The variance for garage depth is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
The variance for garage depth is minimal and does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
Proposed accessory dwelling unit also does not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variances with the negotiated provisos.
Thank you very much.
MI 2022-003-584-704 Pine Street, I vote yes with provisos.
no roof deck above the accessory dwelling unit at the rear of the property along addison street
the accessory dwelling unit at the rear of the property along addison street may not be used
for limited lodging as that phrase is used in the zoney code and and three revised plan one page
stamped by zba on october 26 2022 hillary and mr chief yes those are all fine and then a fourth
refusal I mean fourth proviso per amended refusal dated 8-3-22. Per amended refusal dated 8-23 you
said? 8-3-22. 8-3-20-22. Thank you. Carol Tenere my vote is yes with provisos. Thomas Holloman my vote
is yes, with provisos. James Snell, yes, with provisos. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Thank
you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Have a good afternoon. MI 2022-003-662, 817-23 Aramingo
Avenue. Jared Klein is the attorney. Letter of Opposition from the Fishtown Neighbors Association.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Jared Klein from Blank Rome. It's J-A-R-E-D-K-L-E-I-N, 130 North 18th Street in Philadelphia.
Hi, do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Certainly. I'm representing 817 Aramingo LLC, represented here by Adam Lysoski, and he's the owner of the property.
Okay, our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do, Madam Vice Chair.
Have you emailed Daisy Bipaka with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal referral,
voters under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above.
Okay, great. Proceed and start with your screen.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I know the board has had a long agenda, so I will endeavor to be as brief as I can.
We have a dual zone property.
It's a CMX2 RSA 5 at 817 to 23 Aramingo.
The property is currently permitted by right for 45 dwelling units and a commercial unit on the ground floor.
This application is seeking to remove the commercial unit on the ground floor as required by CMX2
and to replace that with two additional residential dwelling units.
So it will be a total of 47.
This application seeks only two above the 45 that were approved with the initial zoning permit.
The reason for this is, as the board can probably assume,
a challenge in the ability to rent this commercial space in this area.
This section of Aramingo is not part of the commercial corridor,
and there's a high level of vacancy in commercial properties that surround us.
So we think that the most effective use for this property in the surrounding area is by having an active residential use on that ground floor, as opposed to what we fear would be a vacant commercial space.
There's already enough of those in this immediate area.
Just to orient the board, this is the property here.
Zoning map shows sort of the split nature of the sites, the CMX2 and RSA5 portion.
and these are some photos that were taken before the the current permit was issued that is now
under construction. Photos of the zoning notices that are posted at at the property
and these slides give the board a sense of the current vacant commercial that exists in this
area. As you can see these are all in the packet that was that was sent in but we've linked by
number on this map, the various vacant commercial spaces that currently exist in the immediate
surrounding area. This is Aramingo Avenue here. And you can see a lot of the uses are vacant
commercial spaces and then residential auto garages and a lot of vacant commercial residential
uses in the immediate area. This again continues with this slide here, again, showing the board a
number of vacant commercial properties that exist along Girard Avenue also. So it's not just the
that exist along gerard avenue also so it's not just the aramingo avenue that's experiencing
Aramingo Avenue.
vacancy there's there's significant vacancy along the gerard avenue piece as well
these are the zoning plans the building is not changing there's no change to the envelope of
the structure that was originally improved we're just seeking to convert that ground floor
residential space into our ground floor commercial space into the residential a rendering of what
the building as currently approved looks like. And here are some very basic floor plans showing
you the layout of the building generally. As I referred to earlier, there is a zoning permit
that is currently out there. This is the zoning permit that is being built. As you can see, this
approves the 45 dwelling units in the single vacant commercial space as previously referred to.
As the chair noted, we did meet with the Fishtown Neighbors Association, and their letter is here.
I thought that their letter of opposition was actually interesting for one key point.
And that is, if you look here, members of the board, the letter notes that the community members were receptive to or supportive of the fact that the applicant's not been able to fill the commercial space and that nearby Girard Avenue commercial spaces are vacant.
their opposition really focused on their desire to have retail there and a comment about unit
accessibility. While we certainly respect the vote, I think the most important information
for the board is actually this sentence here, where they're essentially acknowledging the
hardship that we have, and that's we are not been able to fill the commercial space and that the
nearby Girard Avenue commercial spaces are vacant. That is essentially the hardship that we're
talking about the inability to rent the space as commercial as required by the code. With that,
I'm going to ask Adam Lysuski to raise his virtual hand so that he might adopt my testimony
and answer any questions the board may have. Could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter? Yes, Adam Lysuski, L-I-S-A-U-S-K-Y. Do you swear for him to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed, counsel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Adam,
can you very, very briefly give the board context on your efforts to rent the space for commercial
purposes? Sure. I think you summed it up quite nicely in the fact that, you know, this location
isn't on necessarily the Aramingo Commercial Corridor or the Girard Commercial Corridor.
And even if it was, there were, you know, is an abundance of vacant storefront space
in a similar situation in terms of square footage that I have, but in a slightly better
location and even those are not being rented up.
So we've, you know, we've gone out to market with the brokers and have gotten very little
feedback or interest in any uh operations taking over the space in a lease situation
thank you uh and did you have the opportunity to listen to the remainder of the presentation that
i gave i did and would you adopt uh my statements as true correct and your own had you had the
ability to more fully testify i do thank you very much uh mr chair adam is here to answer any
further questions the board might have but at this point we would rest questions from the board
no mr chairman
um council are the same um uh previously by right permit issues still intact
yes yeah the green roof bonus low income height and density bonuses correct mr chair none of that
has has changed there's been no alteration other than the request for the ground floor change right
thank you any questions from the board besides that no mr chairman no mr chairman questions
or comments from the virtual audience i see no hands chair planning
good afternoon um members of the board this is greg walton from planning commission staff
In 2015, the zoning map was amended from medium industrial to commercial mixed use at this location.
The request of the council member, district plan, which was published subsequent to that zoning bill, recommended no change from the commercial mixed use designation.
This property previously received a zoning permit for a 45-unit building with ground floor commercial in 2021.
The appellant now seeks to replace the approved commercial space with a residential unit.
While this segment of Aramingo Avenue is part of the Planning Commission's defined lower
While this segment of Aramingo Avenue is part of the Planning Commission's defined Lower Aramingo Avenue commercial area,
the stretch where this property is is not walkable.
It abuts the I-95 on-ramp and a storefront,
and we believe that the storefront is not likely to succeed at this location.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2022-003-662-817-23, Iron Mango Avenue, I vote yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thanks, counsel.
Thank you all very much. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.
Right. Planning court reporter, Mr. Kelly?
Yes, chair.
Why don't we take a five minute break? We have a couple more here and then a couple at the end and we're going to go right through it. OK, so everybody take a five minute break and we'll be right back.
Much appreciated, Chair. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
how are we looking
mr kelly are you back yes i am thank you very much okay and uh we're good to go chair okay thank
you um number 12. number 12 mi 2022 003 641 433 fairmount avenue roger purry is the attorney um
And we have a letter of support from Northern Liberty's Neighbors Association with Provisos.
Mr. Perry.
Hey, good morning or good afternoon. I'm sorry. It's been a long day.
It is a little afternoon. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Roger Perry, P-E-R-R-Y, first name R-O-G-E-R. I represent, I am the applicant and represent the parties interested in this matter.
Okay. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify the parties and who, the relationship to this property?
Thank you. The party of interest is called Future Days Beer Company, LLC. They are a lessee of the property at 433 Fairmont, and they're pursuant to that lease. They're seeking the variance in use applied for today.
Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Mr. Perry, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, we do.
Yes, we do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO?
And do you have a letter?
Yes, we do.
Can you proceed then and share your screen?
Thank you.
Thank you. The initial, as noted, is probably the most important document, and I'll try to go through as equiditiously as possible.
Hillary has a summary of the meeting from the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association.
my clients I and a number of the members from the community all met with Northern Liberties
several times for detailed discussions and the provisos that were reached and agreed to by all
the parties should be incorporated into any approvals by the zoning board in terms of
And that's an exhibit package. Here's a summary of the exhibit package that has been submitted. It's the proposals or the exhibits that the Mr. Mary has noted. The refusal is document three. This is a copy of the lease.
here's the refusal the refusal as noted is both a special exception because of eating and drinking
and assembly and entertainment is the variance requested just briefly what is going on here is
this is an existing warehouse set back from the street at 433 Fairmont my clients have leased it
with the intention of opening a craft brewery two young entrepreneurs involved in the brewing
business. And in conjunction with opening this craft brewery at this location, they seek to set
up a testing center and a venue where small receptions and parties can be held in conjunction
with beer tastings and so forth. So that's what generated the refusals and the special receptions
in terms of having beer served on premises and also beer that can be taken away from the premises
as retail sales.
In conjunction with that application,
we've given the notices as usual.
And the more important document is probably,
let me see if I can rotate this.
Okay, this is the,
I'm going to roll it up a little bit.
This is a two-story existing warehouse,
which is going to be renovated
and converted by my clients.
You can see that the major meeting is on the second floor.
The primary use in terms of the second floor in terms of the function, and I've got it upside down.
I'm sorry.
What we've got is the primary meeting area on the second floor.
the first floor is where the brewing function is going to take place with a small bar area.
In addition, they've, we'll see in the photographs that, see if I can find the photos here.
Well, that's a tax bill. Okay, here are the photographs.
This is the parking lot off the rear. We're not using that. This is the rear of the property
on olive street this is the adjacent property rear 433 fairmont
across the street across the street this is the posting of the property notice it's at the
street and this was a fee level and this is the actual front of the property posting is out here
on the street the actual front of the property is a warehouse property and this will all be fixed up
and so forth. And part of the request for the variance is to use this, which is part of the
proviso stipulations with several picnic tables during appropriate weather outside. So we got a
little use outside. We got two floors inside. Second floor is a major get together. The ground
floor is going to be the brewing area. Brewing, this is an ICMX district. The actual craft brewery
itself is legal. The issue is because you're going to have people in here tasting beer and or taking
away beer and so forth, then you need both the variants and the special exception. So it's not
the brewery that's at issue. It's bringing in people to do retail sales. Let's see what else.
to do retail sales. Let me see what else. I can stop there for now and see if there are any
questions. Why don't we, is your client here, sir? Yes. Why don't we have your testimony adopted?
Okay. Sean, are you here and can you raise your hand and then be added? Sean McGuire?
Hi, I'm here. Hi, Sean. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Yep. My name is Sean McGuire, S-E-A-N-M-C-G-U-I-R-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Sean. You've heard my testimony with regard to the presentation of your
desire to get a variance and the use refusal approved here by the Zoning Board.
You've seen the plans and so forth. Can you adopt my representations to the board as true
and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?
I do adopt Roger's representations. Thank you. Okay. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience? Chair, we have Larry Friedman. Okay.
Good afternoon, Mr. Friedman. Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
yes can you hear me i can sir okay larry friedman l-a-r-r-y-f-r-e-e-d-m-a-n
um right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do proceed uh i'm just here to i mean basically we haven't a uh provisos that we
we work very hard with uh you know uh with their at our couple public meetings with sean and
Oh, my goodness. Is it Nikki and Roger? And they gave us a little bit.
We gave them a little bit. And we would like to commend them on working with the community.
And we feel that we're going to have a nice operation here and we're looking forward to it.
Thank you for calling in and your input, Mr. Friedman.
Thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
i see no hands here planning commission
mr plan planning commission
it's uh ron bednar city the first name ron r-o-n last name bednar b-e-d-e-n-a-r
Mike, do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
You see.
In 2016, a zoning map was amended in this area in accordance with the recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan.
The parcel-zoned industrial-commercial mixed-use was intentionally not changed.
Both the refusal and the special exception in this case are triggered by the North Delaware Avenue overlay.
The proposed variance for the assembly and entertainment special exception for eating and drinking establishments will not cause detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might normally be expected for this use.
The City Planning Commission therefore recommends that the requested zoning for this property be approved for both the variance and special exception.
Thank you. MI 2022-003-641-433, Fairmont Avenue. I vote yes with following provisos. Hours of operation, Sunday to Thursday, close at 10 p.m. Friday and Saturday, close at 11 p.m.
Two, no deliveries or trash pickup before 9 a.m.
Three, music on second floor only.
Four, no roof deck.
Five, no cooking on the premises.
And six, outdoor dining only as per site plan,
stamped by ZBA on October 26, 2022.
One page.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Thank you, counsel.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman and the board.
Number 13, MI-2022-001-709-1746 Lombard Street.
Alfred Fiscaldo is the attorney.
Letter of opposition from Center City Residence.
No explanation.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I just want to note that this afternoon we did receive an email from Councilman Johnson's office indicating his opposition as well.
indicating his opposition as well. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Fiscaldo. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Could you state your name and spell for the court
reporter, please? Of course. Alfred Fiscaldo, F as in Frank, U, S as in Sam, C, A, L, D as in David O.
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?
I represent Harry Dillon Madonna, the owner of the property, and it's also his personal residence.
Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance refusal referral
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
i do yes to all okay great you may proceed and start with sharing your screen i think it's
over to you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I will also endeavor to be efficient this
afternoon. I represent Harry Madonna, as I said, the owner of the property. The property is at
1746 Lombard, the southeast corner of 18th and Lombard, across the street from the Penn Medicine
Rittenhouse facility. We're seeking dimensional variance relief in conjunction with a fourth
floor addition and roof deck proposed by Mr. McDonough. This is a single family dwelling
purchased by Mr. McDonough in 2012. It's a unique property in that it's an assemblage of two
buildings that were combined prior to Mr. McDonough's acquisition of the residence.
It's a three-story building with no basement, more of a crawl space. The property is built out to
the lot lines in each direction. So there is no outside yard or outside space. There is an
existing roof deck, which is in poor condition and needs to be replaced, which prompted Mr.
Madonna's application to the board. And as part of that roof deck replacement, Mr. Madonna wanted to
add a fourth floor living space to the property to give himself some additional living space. As
you'll hear from our sole witness, Ian Toner, the project architect, the combination of the
properties left behind a structural wall that supports the building. And that structural wall
really cannot be moved, cannot be relocated without great expense. And it really prevents
the reorientation and frankly, the use of a lot of the interior of the property for living space.
um we went to uh the ccra uh and met with them on two occasions um the original application
requested uh height relief uh 53 feet six inches um owing mostly to the fact that the original
application proposed a a wall on the roof deck uh which which uh raised the the height relief
required um the it was a solid wall uh we went back to ccra after they expressed some concern
about the wall and the height and reduced the uh overall height of the building to to 43 feet
just five feet above the um uh 38 foot height limitation in the district um the rco saw that
mr fish they they they did um and they and they they all they you know they still opposed the
application all right thank you yeah um so um again mr mr madonna spent a great deal of time
canvassing the neighborhood um and and speaking to his neighbors uh there were at least 18 neighbors
who signed a petition in support of the project or non-opposition we have an exhibit here today
that will show where those properties are located
and in relation to his property.
And a 43-foot height limit for this structure
is not an outlier in the general vicinity of his property.
There's a number of properties in and around his neighborhood
that are 43 feet or taller.
And we have an exhibit to show that as well.
And Mr. Madonna, in his desire for this approval, is also willing to the board desire to grant relief today to remove his variance request for the height, I'm sorry, for the distance from the roof deck from the front yard.
this is a copy of the refusal you'll see three refusals here listed the first one uh is a uh
This is a copy of the refusal.
they're all dimensional the first one relates to uh the rear yard setback again the property is
built out to the all in all directions so any any height addition to the building is going to result
in an additional variance there um so that's nothing we can do to change that again with a
The second variance request for height, Mr. Benon has agreed to reduce that request to 43 feet.
And then, again, should the board be willing to grant the application, he's willing to redesign the project to comply with the third variance request and remove that from the application.
I'm going to ask Mr. Ian Toner, a project architect, to raise his hand and be admitted to the meeting.
I'd like him to explain to the board in greater detail the constraints inherent to Mr. Madonna's property, if I could.
Could you have him raise his hand?
Ian, could you raise his hand?
I'm here.
All right.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Ian Toner from Toner Architects.
I-A-N-T-O-N-E-R.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you.
Ian, you are the project architect on this application?
And you prepare all of the slides and plans that are part of this application packet?
Yes, they're all prepared in our office.
And you're a licensed architect in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware?
And you've testified as an expert in the field of architecture before this board and other zoning boards in the past?
If I could, Mr. Chair, I'd like to have Mr. Toner admitted as an expert in the field of architecture for his testimony.
Yes, go ahead. Proceed.
Thank you. Ian, would you like me to just page through this, or would you like me to have you share your screen, whatever is easier?
You can go through it, sure.
Okay. So I'm going to, I'm going to page through the project information sheet and the refusal, which we've talked about.
These are copies of these pictures of the postings of the property tab for this tab and tab five.
And this is a copy of the original application, the zoning plan.
If you can explain to the board, what we can, not to be repetitive, but what we're proposing and what we are proposing.
Sure. So we are proposing a fourth floor addition. If you look at the site plan there to the right, you'll see the extent of it.
It's Lombard Street's on the left. It's set back from Lombard Street and then is the full width of the property in the rear portion of the building.
um we are uh we are not proposing uh any kind of um pilot house structure above that so we're
going to have a spiral stair leading from the third floor roof uh up to the roof of the fourth
floor um we were proposing a solid wall above on the upper roof to provide structure for a
retractable canopy as well as a surface to mount a television. In our meeting with CCRA, we agreed
to change that to just a metal frame, sort of the outline of that wall so that we would be able to
mount the retractable awning to it, but the wall would no longer be solid and block anyone's view
and there would not be a TV mounted to that. And we also lowered the total height of the addition
between the first meeting and the second with CCRA. And Ian, I think this exhibit, I think,
at tab five also shows the interior layout of the property. Can you describe
this in a little bit more detail to the board? Because I think it's important for them to
understand the constraints that are created by the structural wall? Sure. So as best we can tell,
this was originally two separate buildings, and you can see a masonry wall that runs through the
center of the building. So at some point in the past, these two buildings were joined.
On the right side of the first floor, you'll see there's a one-car garage. On the left side is a
living space that living space is pretty small it has high windows so it's fairly and they face
north so it's fairly dark and it's separated from well it's the only living space there is so
uh from well it's the only living space there is so when you go up the stairs you'll see that on
when you go up the stairs
the other two existing floors the second and third floor where we're not proposing any additional work
because of that wall being there we're left with sort of 25 percent of the plan being sort of useless
it's it's basically a big hallway there's a stair there there's a door into the bathroom there's a
door into the one bedroom there's a door into the other bedroom and there's another stair so it's
just, there's nothing you can do in there, but put a nice table with a statue on it in the center of
the space and try not to knock it over. Similarly on the third floor, it's a similar setup. You get
to the top and there isn't really much you can do in that remaining space because you have to pass
through it to get to the bedroom and you have to, you know, get to the stair. So it's not very useful
space. So, the goal of the project was to provide a decent-sized living space to take advantage of
the fact that the footprint of the building isn't super tiny by Philadelphia standards.
So, we're just proposing a living room, a sink and counter space, a powder room, a little bit
of storage, and then a door out onto the front roof deck, which is mostly there just to get us
up to the main roof deck above and that follows the footprint of the addition up there um minus
our you know we're going to be now setting what's not shown in these plans is that we're going to
be setting the railing back five feet on the street face so that we the deck's going to be
a little smaller than than what's shown there right and this is this is the uh revised plans
at tab seven and and this and this is this shows that what the current condition of the property
right this is the current condition of the property um and this is the uh proposed um
renovations um without without the without the deck uh pulled back
correct yes yeah and we're proposing glass railings up there to minimize the visibility
of them anyway but once they're pulled back five more feet i think you're going to see
just maybe a little bit at the top of them and not much more and this and what is this view again
so this view is from a neighbor's roof deck and you can see where we're pointing to our building
And you can see that frame, the metal steel frame poking up above the top of the roof.
And that's where that awning will be mounted.
So you can still see right through it from this other deck and from presumably other decks nearby.
And then, Ian, we're going to turn to tab nine in the exhibit.
Can you talk a little bit about the height of this building proposed in relation to other buildings in the neighborhood?
So we're the blue square in the center, and so what I did was try to find zoning permits nearby.
So any number, so for example, to the northwest of us that just has a straight dimension, this 42 feet 6 inches, that's the approved height of that development there.
Most of the other numbers on here I had to estimate by counting bricks.
It was a long afternoon. So these numbers are all estimates. I'm doing my best, but suffice it to say that there are plenty of buildings nearby that exceed the existing height limit of 38 feet, including two very tall buildings just to the west of us, one very tall building on this same block, and then some taller buildings to the south on South Street.
i also uh took a look and tried to count up how many roof decks there are within the bounds of
this map um and i counted uh between roof decks and and rear decks on some of these smaller streets
a lot of the houses have rear decks as well there's 181 decks within the boundaries of this
map that's in front of you so again a roof deck is not out of place here either thank you and
again in relation and we're focusing on the height you know the request that we're making
the modified request is a 43 foot height as opposed to 38 and again it seems commensurate
with many of the heights of the buildings in the vicinity do you agree yes i agree
and then at exhibit exhibit 10 this is an exhibit again correct me if i'm wrong of
all of the locations of the properties of neighbors who signed the signature sheet in
support of or not opposing the application, correct? Yes, that's correct. And I think you
Yes, that's correct. And I think you have that list somewhere in here as well.
have that list somewhere in here as well.
It's a supplemental exhibit. But yeah, so again, this is the cursors on our property and these are all the neighbors.
Again, the Penn Medicine and all these other grade out properties who support the application.
um and then um again going back to the constraints of the property in terms of livable space
can you discuss the you know the um whether there is uh any functional basement space or
and the cost of if there's not the cost of trying to create one to create living space by going down
we know we can't reorient the entire interior of the space can we go down or is the only
alternative to go up uh so there's a partial low basement under the the original corner building
the building uh next to that the southern half of this property is a slab on grave garage so there's
not basement space underneath it um technically it is possible to carve out a deeper basement
to do the underpinning work to gain basement space.
But because the first floor is so close to the ground,
the basement will be more or less completely below grade.
So we're talking about excavating on the crawl space side,
probably another five or six feet.
And on the garage side, maybe 10 feet of underpinning,
which would, in a confined space, be extremely expensive
and potentially hazardous to the neighboring buildings to be underpinning at that depth.
Also disruptive to traffic with all the equipment that would be needed to haul the dirt away.
So yes, we could make a livable space in the basement, but it would be just barely livable,
and it would be probably at least as expensive as building an addition, if not more expensive,
and pose some risk to the neighboring buildings,
which would not be posed by building above the existing building.
Thank you.
Is your client here?
He is.
Why don't we adopt your testimony?
Sure. Harry, can you raise your hand, please?
Hi, could you state your name?
sorry i apparently was muted yes hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
please harry madonna h-a-r-r-y last name m-a-d-o-n-n-a do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do harry harry were you were you present for
uh all of the testimony that uh both ian and myself are presented today in this virtual hearing
yes and uh would you agree that it was true and accurate yes i would and would you adopt that as
your own testimony yes and and here just just for the um for the board's edification i know
were there any other um uh neighbors who uh wanted to speak today but were unable to you know hang on
the line because of the length of today's hearing um and and and would you would you want to uh you
know to have the board hold the vote on this matter to allow that person to testify or are
you okay with uh the testimony as it's been presented today uh yes uh my neighbor uh located
a few few doors down his name is leonard hill uh he was he stayed for about a few hours but he had
a prior engagement he had to leave he didn't want to speak on my behalf but unfortunately he could
not would you would you want to have the board hold the vote to allow for mr hill to testify at
a later date or are you comfortable with uh the testimony as it's been provided today uh if they
could withhold the decision until he has a chance to say something i would i would appreciate that
Okay, thank you. Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Wade Albert.
Good afternoon.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Wade, W-A-D-E.
My last name is Albert, A-L-B-E-R-T.
Right, you swear a firm to tell the truth.
The whole truth is nothing but the truth.
Proceed, sir.
So thank you.
So I am with the law firm of Stevens and Lee,
and I am counsel to the coordinating RCO,
the Center City Residence Association.
So we saw this project on two occasions, and I believe the last one was June 28th of this year.
So we saw this project on two occasions,
and I believe the last one was...
With regard to both presentations that were made, CCRI had a number of concerns regarding this.
Number one is, you know, we are talking about the principal request by this for the variants today is essentially for a two-story roof deck, which is out of context with character of the neighborhood.
There was some discussion about height, but this is, to my knowledge, the only two-story roof deck that would be proposed for anything in this area.
Number two is that we are talking about both times that the plans were presented to CCRA, the applicant showed plans to install a large screen TV on the second part of the roof deck.
And given the unique nature of this property, we thought that it was going to be a particular nuisance.
This property is right across the street from a large parking lot for Penn Medicine Rittenhouse, which makes it open to the neighborhood.
The large screen TV would create a situation where it would become almost like a drive-in movie theater for the community, which we thought that was completely unfair and, again, completely out of context with the character of the neighborhood.
On top of that, we believe that there's absolutely no hardship that the applicant has demonstrated.
To the extent there is any hardship, it is completely self-created.
There's, again, no need to build a two-story roof deck on this property.
If he had come to us with plans to build a one-story roof deck, I would imagine that
we probably would not have had those concerns, but that is not what's going on here.
And a number of neighbors came to CCRA both times to express their opposition, and so
for all of those reasons, we voted to oppose it, and I would respectfully ask that the
ZBA also deny this request.
Thank you.
If I could, Mr. Chair, address those concerns.
Do you want to talk to him or do you want to just address it?
I'll address them, one through each of my...
Thank you, sir, for your input.
Proceed.
Mr. Toner, with respect to the assertion about a two-story roof deck, could you address that?
I mean, is the, how is the roof, how is the roof deck accessed and what is the purpose of, or is there a second, is there a second roof deck?
Ian, are you still on?
Well, I don't know that he's still on council.
Ian, could you raise your hand and be re-recognized?
Hi, I'm back.
Sorry, I didn't realize I got removed.
So to the letter of the zoning code, there are two roof decks here.
The lower deck is intended to simply serve as a way to, we're going to have some large glass doors that can open to allow a lot of fresh air and, you know, the weather into the addition.
and then to be able to step out and get to that spiral stair to get to the upper roof.
So I'm not, I mean, I don't know if there's really a way to define a two-story roof deck,
but it is, there are roof decks on two of the stories.
That's not totally uncommon in this neighborhood.
Part of the reason we wanted to do the spiral rather than another method
was to avoid having to build a pilot house on top of this addition which would be another 10 feet
high and block views for you know for another 10 feet above so that's something you know that's
it was a point well taken when we came with the solid wall on the upper floor that okay you know
the neighbors are right there's an easier way to do this that won't block anyone's view which is
why we modified that wall so putting up a pilot house to get to the upper roof deck i think would
be would would kind of negate having done that. And I do know there's there's a TV on the roof
now and it's been there. Mr. Madonna said he's had it up there for several years and hasn't had
any complaints about the TV. So I'm not sure if people are aware that there's a TV and that it
hasn't been an issue so far. So I'm not sure that it would become one. I don't think the intent is
to broadcast the TV to the neighbors,
but it is there now.
Ms. Harry, could you unmute yourself
and address that point as well,
whether you've received any complaints from any neighbors?
I think his testimony is enough, counsel.
I think, right.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have Elizabeth Lundy.
Hi, could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Elizabeth Lundy, E-L-I-Z-A-B-E-T-H.
My name is Elizabeth Lundy, E-L-I-Z-A-B-E-T-H, last name L-U-N-D-Y.
Right.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Do you live in the area?
Proceed.
I live at 1742 Lombard Street.
Could you just speak up a little bit?
We're having a hard time hearing you.
I live at 1742 Lombard Street, which is just two doors away from 1746.
and I am asking you to reject the granting of this variance because of the negative impact
it will have on my block and specifically my property. I believe that the zoning laws need
to mean something and people shouldn't be allowed to get around these laws simply because they have
the money and power to argue. Well, let me just say this much. You're against the prop. You're
against the project, right? Okay. So I can further tell you why I'm very much against it and I'm not
alone in the neighborhood. I was never contacted by Mr. Madonna to see whether or not I wanted to
sign anything. Something was put through the door a long time ago that asked you to agree, but that
was it. I'm worried about the precedent that it sets. We buy houses because we believe that the
zoning protects both our neighborhood and our investment in them. And 1746 already has a roof
deck with skyline views which are published in their like zillow account and construction of
another level would block the views from anyone else in the immediate neighborhood you know if
you're right next door from ever putting their own roof decks up there it would completely block
my western view as only two properties down um and it would forever alter the value of my property
as a result and not to mention that if i are the next owner wanted to install a roof deck
solar panels it would be casting them in shade and diminish the effectiveness of those panels
the suggestion that there's a hardship he bought the house as is there should not be an expectation
that you're allowed to build up because you don't like your living room i would also like a bigger
house but that is simply ridiculous considering his house has 2 550 square feet and most of the
houses on our block from about 1730 to 1744 are all 1,942 square feet and are much shorter. We're
even shorter than the house as it is there. So another story up is completely out of context
with that house. The buildings at the other end of the block and across the street and the new
houses on the 1800 block don't have the same impact because they are not immediately adjacent
to our properties.
All right.
So thank you for calling in, and we appreciate your input.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
We have Jim Richardson.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is Jim, J-I-M, Richardson, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do. Proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, like Liz, am a neighbor just down the street
from this corner property. We live at 1728 Lombard Street. I have to concur wholeheartedly
with everything that the gentleman from CCRA said with respect to this project. And also,
So I think Elizabeth did a terrific job.
I am very much against this project.
One of the exhibits that was shown showed my address as a person who approved the project.
I did speak with Mr. Madonna.
I was in agreement with him before I saw the rendering.
And once I saw the rendering, the fourth floor stands out like a terrible sore thumb.
You know, number one, our block does not reach above his current rooftop.
So everybody down that block through the middle is the same height as what he's got now.
This represents a big change to the skyline of our area.
The TV on the so-called roof deck is not where he wants to put it.
It's down on the current roof deck.
He wants to put it on top of the new roof deck, which puts it way above everything else in the immediate neighborhood.
it um let's see if i had anything it was an addition um okay sir we appreciate your input we understand
Okay, sir, we appreciate your input. We understand where you stand on the project.
Okay, thank you, sir.
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, we have James Schlatter.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Hello?
Sir, you have to unmute yourself. James, last name beginning with an S.
Yeah, my name is James Schlatter. I'm here with my wife, Amy Hodgson.
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Spell your name for the court reporter.
J-A-M-E-S-S-C-H-L-A-T-T-E-R.
You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I do, absolutely.
I would appreciate if you could give us your opinion on it right away and try not to repeat anything that's been said already.
uh i well if you can is it possible to put the photograph up of the of the um the 18th street
side of the building um because we are right next door we live in i don't have i don't have the
photograph okay um i i concur absolutely with what my neighbors have said so far and i don't
to prolong the discussion. But I just wanted to say that even before, as the house was originally
built, it was absolutely out of context for the neighborhood. If you look at the building,
it looks more like an office building or administration building than a home.
And it dwarfs our house right next door. We have a trinity. The houses that Mr. Toner mentioned,
going up Lombard and further down 18th Street. Yes, they are above the height limit, but they
at least are in some character of the traditional houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Madonna's house
would only add in scale what is already there, which is this big blank anonymous building that
does take up two lots the uh the roof deck and the addition again I agree with Jim and and Beth
it just looks and if you can see our what we have a beautiful nice tall three-story house and next
to that building we are absolutely dwarfed all right Mr. Schlatter we appreciate we understand
where you stand with the project we really do may I add I am Jim no no no no listen me
Yes. I think your testimony we understand completely.
OK, is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning. While the lot is designated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan,
it was rezoned to RSA 5 in 2017 to match community led remapping effort.
Whereas the requested request for variance for the setback may be justified by the dimensions of this corner property. There's no features unique to this lot that would present a hardship that would require the building 15 feet above the maximum height in this district. Consequently, the planning commission recommends denial of the variance.
Thank you. Mr. Fiscaldo, we're going to close the record on this case. We're going to look at this
in our executive session next week, and we will vote on it next Wednesday at two o'clock. We do
want to see you in your presentation, you talked about revising a plan. We want to see what that
plan looks like council i apologize i was muted there there is a there is a plan at tab at tab
no no no you talked about yeah doing away with decks or something something that i guess right
what you want to do is listen to me listen to me it's cases closed we don't need your client we
heard your client talk about the neighbor down the street we understand that what we want is
before we vote for executive session we would want to see what that plan is you talked about
okay and all you have to do is get a hold of our attorney and she'll straighten you out and figure
how to do it thank you very much and thank thank you to you and thank you to all the neighbors
who spent a lot of time thinking about this and we'll we'll bring this to a head next week thank
you okay number 17 mi 2022 003 580 8200 ridge avenue joseph consul is the attorney
letter of non-opposition from the upper roxburgh civic association
A letter of non-opposition from the Upper Roxburgh Civic Association.
Mr. Consul.
Good afternoon, evening.
There you go.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yeah, it's Joseph, J-O-S-E-P-H, Consul, C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yeah, Mr. John Summers, and he's representative of Mr. Jack McDavid, who's the owner of the property.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Consul.
Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, Tal.
Okay, you may proceed and share your screen.
I believe I already shared. Is it up?
It's up.
All right. 8200 Ridge Avenue, Philadelphia, PA. This is a 143,808 square foot property, zoned RSD3, which is for a single family home.
Obviously, this is not a single-family home.
This property is huge.
It goes all the way back and encompasses the large tower you see in the distance there.
This is on Ridge Avenue next to the Roxborough Church in Upper Roxborough.
uh in 1973 the we believe the building that you see in the foreground here was built uh and we
have a certificate of occupancy in our project in our packet which shows the city approved that
building for one office use and two uh residential units uh in addition to the office
they were not um the licensing was not properly kept up for those uses so the co expired and
we're here trying to re-establish those uses um the antenna itself has uh a bunch of different
leases attached to it the that that is properly licensed and approved by zoning um just by virtue
of the fact that so many different um uh tenants have been involved with that with that building
forever but i mean the tower forever but the the building that we're here today the one on the
foreground here um has not had its co or anything um re-approved so i'm going to show you some
photos of the outside of the building this is the office space i included a floor plan
just to show you both an old floor plan from the original construction and also the just kind of a
mock-up it's two two-bedroom units that have existed here since 1973 these units are on top
of the office space on in this building here they have a private entrance which despite there being
a large tower as you saw in the photo is actually feels pretty secluded um and
it's kind of it there's a parking spot on the right there also part of this property
uh there you can see it's another angle that's the building here's the water heaters that have
been around for the first floor there's the two electrical meters there's the common space meter
here's another shot from across the street we also included all of our necessary deeds and
tax clearances and then finally this is the 1973 co approving for the offices and two um
two single family units our refusal is uh which i actually didn't put up on the screen but um our
refusal is for both the office use and for the two-family uses. Because it's zoned residential
single-family, neither the office is approved by right nor is the two-family living approved
by right. We went in front of the Upper Roxborough Civic Association. They did not oppose what we
were trying to do. There was lots of old folks from the neighborhood who said that this has
been operating as far back as they can remember and we would submit that that was 1973 when this
And we would submit that that was 1973 when this was originally approved for the use that we're seeking today.
Obviously, residential single-family detached is not appropriate for this humongous lot.
And so we're hoping the board can approve the variance to re-legalize the use as it's been operating.
And there's a functioning business in the office space, and there are tenants in the units.
And I will call Mr. John Summers to adopt my testimony.
Mr. Summers, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
John Summers?
Spell your name for the court reporter, please.
j-o-h-n-s-u-m-m-e-r-s right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel good evening john uh did you hear my testimony today
regarding 8200 ridge avenue yes i did do you adopt it as your own and on behalf of uh on behalf of
Mr. Jack McDavid. Yes, I do. Is there anything you'd like to add to my presentation?
No. Okay. Thank you, John. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Andrea, last name ending in the F. Okay.
hi sir hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
sure it's andrea a-n-d-r-e-a last name is formosa f as in frank o-r m as in mary o-s-a
i think i swore swore you in earlier didn't i yes sir you did it was a long time ago
so yeah i think you're right it was a long time ago please proceed um i'm actually one of the
tenants that live above that commercial building um with my two kids so we were trying to get this
zone for a while now so i'm just hoping you guys can all come to an agreement on it okay well well
thank you for uh calling in and and thank you for hanging in here as long as you did thank you thank
you is there anyone is there anyone else in the virtual audience yes chair we have tina last name
in the NW.
Hi, Tina. Could you state your name
and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Tina T-I-N-A
Waddell W-E-D-U-L.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Proceed.
Okay, hi. I'm a tenant in
Unit B, where my daughter resides
with my two grandkids. And like she
said, we're trying to get this in
the green too.
Thank you very much for calling
in and we appreciate your input anyone else in the first audience i see no more hands here
planning commission this is ron bednar city planning comprehensive plan recommended a
zoning map change to industrial commercial mixed use at this location proposed use is consistent
with the documented previous uses on this property and would conform with the zoning proposal and
the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the City Planning Commission recommends the granting
of the variance. Thank you, Ron. MI-2022-003-588-8200 Ridge Avenue, I vote yes.
Harold Tenneri, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
That's three votes. That's enough. Thank you.
Thank you.
All right. We're going to move right into the 330 list.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing this 330 ZBA hearing list.
With me is Carol Tenere, our vice chair.
Present, Mr. Chair.
Thomas Holliman, our board member.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
James Snell, our board member.
Mr. Snell should be back shortly.
Also is our board attorney, Hillary Emerson.
and Lakeisha Dandy is our ZBA hearing supervisor. Before we begin, here's our virtual format.
Be advised the proceedings are being recorded. By participating, you acknowledge your agreement
to be recorded. The video will be available by contacting tonyasunkett at phil.gov. For the
benefit of our court sonographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before
testifying. If you're participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your
If you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
hand and star six to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the property in question.
And lastly, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
Any comments have to be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sumpit.
Let's take a look at the continuances on this list.
Number one, number six, MI 2022, 003199, 7050 Woodland Avenue, this case is continued.
Number eight, MI 2021, 005, 011, 2018 East Ontario Avenue, this case is continued.
um that's the second listing this one should be marked must be tried
is there anyone has comments relative to the two cases i just continued
i see no hands chair are there any other requests for continuance
i see no hands chair i also have case number three mi 2021 005 014
42 34 germantown avenue greg glennon is the owner no exhibits this is the second listing
i see no handshare so mi 2021 005 014 42 34 germantown avenue this case is continued
mark must be tried and I also have case number four MI 2022 002 569 10 to dash 18
Callahill Street this case has been withdrawn
we're going to go to our number one case MI 2021 003 192 66 excuse me Mr. Chair I'm sorry number
number five, Marshall Street. That case is withdrawn as well. Okay.
MI number five, MI 2022, 001-370-3019 Marshall Street. This case has been withdrawn.
So back to number one, Sean Ward is the attorney. It's MI 2021-003-192,
6610 Hasbrook Avenue.
Our attorney for this case is Ryan McSherry.
Letter of opposition from the Long Cross Civic Association.
Mr. Ward.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
Sean Ward, S-H-A-W-N, last name W-A-R-D, attorney for the applicant.
My address is 331 East Street Road, Trevos, Pennsylvania, 19053.
I represent the owner of the property, Universal Building and Construction, as well as the applicant, Lorenzo Woods, trading as Capara Auto Body.
Mr. Ward, you've already been sworn, but our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Hi, Sean. Do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Most certainly.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, refusal referral,
voters under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with
your RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes, I do, to all of the above. Okay, great. You may proceed,
and your screen's up. Great. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I've submitted my typical exhibit packet.
I represent Universal Building and Construction, which is the owner, Joe Smith, the principal of
that company is present. Lorenzo Woods, unfortunately, hung in there as long as he could,
but he had to leave to pick up his son from an after-school program and therefore is not
available. However, I have reviewed the exhibit packet with him, and I can certainly verify to
the board that he would verify and adopt those representations as his own, and yet we have
Mr. Smith present on the call who can also verify and adopt. So this is the property located at
6610 Hasbrook with today's calendar number ending in 3192. This is an application for a permit for
use as personal vehicle repair and maintenance and vehicle paint finishing shop. It's an auto body
show. It resulted in two refusals, personal vehicle repair, not
It resulted in two refusals, personal vehicle repair not permitted, and neither is paint finishing shop, despite the fact that it's an I-2 district.
It is a split district, which includes RSA-3.
So we need use variances approved by the board today.
A2 is the ZBA application of appeal. A3, project information form. A4, proof of ownership. A5, proof of tax clearance. A6 is the site location map. A7 is a site and key plan. A8 are the photographs. A9 is Long Crest Civics RCO letter in opposition, but I will address that.
If there is a district council letter, I would ask that that be marked A-10.
With regard to the relevant zoning history, I'm going to work backwards.
In November of 2010, a wireless telecommunications facility was approved by the zoning board on this parcel that was prior to my client's ownership.
Again, in April 2016, variance was granted for a subdivision, three lots from one, and part of that included sales of musical equipment on lot B, which is not germane to the application, but I'll just mention it.
In May of 2016, variances were either granted or confirmed for the following uses in the various spaces in the subject building, space one and two being wholesale sale and distribution, space three a daycare center, space four and five, which is the subject of this application, back then was wholesale sale and distribution, spaces six, seven and eight artisan studios and nine, again, I mean, was the equipment
materials, storage yard, and buildings. And then in December of 2016, an Act 87 extension of the
permit, which was for the wireless telecommunications facility, was granted. Again, not really germane
to this application. A-12 is the zoning map. A-13 is the aerial photograph. And then I'm going to
address the board's attention to A-14, which are sections from the zoning code dealing with
section 14107, multiple districts, and the uses as per table 6021 and 6031, 6021 being residential
and 6031 being industrial uses. So not to belabor, we have our copy of the refusal,
copy of the application of appeal, copy of our project information form,
uh mr smith's deed uh transferring the property to universal building in july of 2019
um quickly uh showing that taxes are all paid on the property here is a site location map
showing the property uh it it's at the terminus of unruh avenue uh on the border of cheltenham
This is Tookany Creek Park across the railroad tracks, and this tan shaded area is the subject
building. This is the site plan key map. As you can see, we have a large industrial complex building
stretching along the train tracks at the end of Unruh Street, this being Hasbrook Avenue here.
Hasbrook Avenue, past this point, indicated by the cursor, it was stricken from the city records.
It is basically the driveway taking you back to the rear of the property.
However, it is part of the site, and the two shaded yellow areas are buildings, you know, Space 5 and Space 4, which is, there's a cutout here, you know, right around where it says Parcel A, which is not part of our space that we're talking about today, but in general, Space 4 and Space 5 are the subject of the application.
We have our copy of our initial posting, which is still on the fence, the most recent posting
on top of it. Again, it's on the fence at the entrance to the property.
This is looking on Hasbrook Avenue at the subject space. This is the bay door into the
body shop. We have a gated entry. You can see here where the posters are hung on the fence.
And this is the roadway, which used to be Hasbrook Avenue, which is now nothing but a driveway,
which takes you to the rear of the property. This is a photo representing the bay door
which takes you to the rear of the property.
on the outside of the fence. This would be the entrance to the office. Again,
another shot to the entrance of the office, which is on the interior of the fenced-in property.
This is the aforementioned driveway leading back to the cell tower
with the extension of the building heading to the rear. As you can see, it is clearly an industrial
type building, warehouse, facility, manufacturing. Up here, I have another photo of this. This is
an external exterior parking area for vehicles, which is utilized by the body shop.
Again, this is the gated entry. This is the parking lot that I mentioned off to the back
and to the right where shop vehicles can be parked and maintained out of view from the neighborhood.
This is the building extending towards the northwest.
Again, an extension of that. As you can see, this is clearly an industrial manufacturing
or warehousing type facility. With regard to the interior, it is your typical body shop.
This is a vehicle that was returned after being painted. It's covered in plastic.
They do not paint on site at this time because they do not have the permit for the paint booth.
All vehicles are sent out for painting at this time.
Again, just another photo of the interior of the shop.
Another one, this is that bay door that we witnessed in the photographs from the exterior.
Again, cars that are pending repair.
More cars pending repair.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that none of the photos, you won't see any paint booth,
you won't see any spray guns, any evidence of any painting despite the protestations of residents
raised at the RCO meeting, which we will address. So pursuant to the RCO meeting, which was held
last week, Thursday evening, I believe, they voted 50 to nothing in opposition to the application.
for various reasons. The discussion focused on the detrimental impacts of the operation as
previously approved, because there's a daycare next door. The daycare, I would point out, is
there for a variance. And therefore, there should be no other approved uses that affect that use,
which I find striking. So these were the minutes that were submitted to the board.
Again, I presented the plan. Again, Mr. Woods, he's a single father, a single parent.
He hung out as long as he could that evening at the meeting, but he could not stick around to
join me with the presentation because he had to pick up his son.
but again it's it's for auto repair with body work and paint booth uh the hours are 8 a.m to
5 p.m you know he's generally there till 6 after the employees leave he closes up shop and buttons
everything up uh all of his business is uh you know obtained through referrals and insurance claims
uh it's a mixed use industrial building you know etc etc uh we went through all that with the rco
We have in the packet the various, I apologize for the blurriness, but all of the permits, as mentioned, were attached to the packet.
Now, when you look at the property, you'll see the blue indicates the I2 portion of this parcel, and this shaded area here represents.
Excuse me, counsel.
and we can't see what just what you're illustrating oh i'm sorry can you see now
yes sir okay thanks tom i wasn't aware um all right so with regard to the zoning map you'll
see that i2 is the uh dark blue or purple uh area of the parcel and the shaded gray area here is
a portion of the parcel, but it's zoned RSA3. When you look at the parcel, the Atlas map has
this nice little feature down here in the corner where you can click on that and you can plot
where you can click on that and you can plot different points to gain what is the basic square footage of that area.
different points.
And on this particular sliver of the parcel, you'll see that it's approximately, I'll call it 27,800 square feet, give or take.
And then when you look at the next slide, I plotted using that, you know, measurement tool, all the points on this I2 portion of the parcel as best I could, and I think it's pretty accurate.
It comes up, I would estimate it as about 156,000 square feet.
So on this on this diagram or slide, it shows 155,938,000 square feet.
So basically, that is an 85 percent to 15 percent ratio between I-2 and RSA-3.
And mind you, the RSA-3 portion is nothing more than.
Let me go back.
And the driveway heading back to the rear, all of the building is contained in the I2 portion of the zoning map.
So let me go back up here. Hold on. So, again, you know, you'll see the entire I2 building structure with a driveway portion here that is zoned RSA3 because it is adjacent to an RSA3 zoned parcel.
Now, when we talk about determination of boundaries under 14107 of the code, when a street is stricken from the plan, the boundaries of the abutting land shall extend to the center line of the vacated street or the right-of-way unless otherwise provided by city council.
So in this particular case, I submit that because this portion of the property after Hasbrook Avenue was stricken, this side of the property was zoned RSA 3 or during remapping after 2012.
I can't go that far back.
I don't have access to those records or why that was done.
However, given the fact that this property is an I-2 property,
but it is split zoned, and because of the striking of Hasbrook Avenue,
I believe and therefore submit that this particular sliver was zoned RSA3.
And going back to the code, when you have multiple districts,
the general rule is that
So if the zoning district covers at least 75% of the parcel, then that zoning district regulations apply. However, you know, there's a but in this, and that's conditions of Section B.
If the zoning district covers a parcel that is equal or greater to than the most restrictive provisions of the code that cover at least 10% of the lot, this shall apply.
And here's where the rub comes in, the minimum lot area for that district.
In our case, it's 2,250 square feet.
That is the minimum lot size in an RSA 3 zoning district. So, if the contiguous area exceeds
220 square feet, then the more restrictive zoning regulations apply. So, therefore,
we're bound by RSA 3 use regulations in what is an 85% I2 zoning property, okay?
So what I did was I compared uses allowed in residential districts, and we're looking at RSA3.
The uses that are permitted in RSA3 would be the uses that are permitted for this particular property, even though it's 85% I-2.
So going down the table, we have single family permitted in RSA3.
group living special exception in RSA three active and passive recreation family daycare
which is four to six children depending on which district you're in that's permitted by right
and then all of these are special exceptions educational facilities
And then all of these are special exceptions, educational facilities, fraternal organizations, hospitals, libraries, religious assembly, safety services, a transit station, utilities and wireless services, which has already been approved on the site.
um the next one would be a community garden or a market or supported farm
uh when you compare those uses that are permitted in rsa3 with what is permitted or not permitted
in i2 uh which is you know 85 percent you can see
you know, household living, multifamily not permitted. We could have a caretaker's quarters,
which is, you know, the security guards, you know, facilities. Group living not permitted.
Of course, passive recreation is permitted. Ironically, active recreation is not.
And then all the special exceptions, but for wireless service facilities, educational facilities, not permitted. Fraternal organization, not permitted. Libraries, not permitted. Religious assembly, not permitted. However, safety services and transit stations are permitted.
And. And then last but not least, community garden would be permitted in I-2 and a market supported farm would be permitted in I-2.
So we are here today. Just to sum up, Lorenzo Woods operates an auto body shop in an I-2 district.
However, part of it is zoned RSA3 residential. So, 85% of the lot is I2. 15% of the lot is RSA3.
Again, when the street is stricken, it's extended to the center line of the vacated street, and because the general rule, 75% of the lot would apply, and it would be I-2.
However, because the more restrictive district applies if the contiguous area of that portion, at least 10% of the lot is equal to or greater than the minimum lot size of 2,250 square feet, despite the fact that we're 85% industrial, 15% contiguous.
So what we have here is RSA3 zoning applies to the whole lot.
So, to sum up, the RSA3 permitted uses that are permitted are designated by Y, and those not permitted in I2 are N.
No. So, as this site sits today, passive recreation is a permitted use. Safety services is a permitted use. A transit station is a permitted use. The wireless communications facility is permitted by special exception, which has already been granted.
a community garden or a market-supported farm. So what we have here is
there's unique physical circumstances on this property. It's the striking of Hasbrook Avenue,
which extended the RSA3 into this portion of the property. Clearly, we've demonstrated that
no reasonable uses are permitted as just listed. This is an existing mixed-use industrial building
adjacent to an RSA3, and it's been an industrial site for generations. So we are here today to ask
the board to approve Lorenzo Wood's application for his body shop in order to get his paint booth
in order to be able to spray paint cars in there.
The paint booth would be licensed by zoning.
He would need an air management permit.
He would need a building permit, electrical permit,
fire suppression permits to install that.
And that is closely monitored by L&I,
the health department, et cetera.
And that's why we are here today.
So you've already, your testimony is adopted
because you're an officer of the court.
Questions from the board?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Counselor.
Yes, sir.
You mentioned the daycare.
Is that existing?
So it's been operating while the auto repair shop.
So it's been operating while the auto repair shop was existing also.
Yeah, Tom, the auto repair shop, I mean, the auto body shop has been there for approximately two years.
He's got a five-year lease. He's two years into the lease.
A routine, you know, I mean, you know, believing that it was I2, you know, he believed it was a permitted use.
Pursuant to a routine L&I inspection, it was not a complaint or a 311 notice.
just a routine inspection. They indicated that he needs a use permit for auto body. And if he
intends to paint, he should add that to the application. Do you think the painting will
affect the daycare? You know, Tom, I've done quite a few paint shop applications in my day,
you know, with or without variances. In this present day and age, most of the paints they
use are water-based soluble paints. They are much safer than, you know, back in the day when
he's lacquer and things like that. These new paint booths are quite equipped to monitor and filter
any, any, you know, you know, contaminants that may or may not, you know, be generated from these
paint booths. And they are, you know, quite actively monitored by air management services.
And, you know, I've had quite a good experience with those.
Thank you.
Other questions from the board?
Other questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the or comments from the virtual audience?
Planning Commission.
Sorry, Chair.
It was a delay when I clicked on.
Okay, sure.
All right.
We have Philip, last name ending with G.
All right.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
My name is Philip Gritzmacher, P-H-I-L-I-P-G-R-U-T-Z-M-A-C-H-E-R.
I am the secretary and zoning chair for the Lawn Crest Community Association.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. I'm just here to reiterate the information that we put into our letter and our RCO meeting minutes that I forwarded to the board already.
We feel that the use of a paint shop and body shop next door to an already approved daycare is incompatible and that we would oppose it for that reason.
Also, there have been issues with vehicles being left outside of the shop, off hours and also traffic.
Both Unruh Street and Hasbrook Avenue are one way in that area, and there's been several cases when tow trucks and other vehicles are going wrong way on those streets.
I would also have to add that the off-site parking that Mr. Ward points to, that's not a piece of this property that is seeking the variance, and actually that property is owned RSA-3, so a parking lot is not permitted use there either.
Thank you for your time and your input. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
i see no hands chair any commission this is ron bednar city planning while this property is
currently split zone for both industrial and residential on the city plan given the physical
site conditions and its documented existing use we recommend that the aggressive variance be permitted
MI 2021 003192 6610 Hasbrook Avenue. I vote yes to the refusal for personal vehicle repair
maintenance with a proviso no-vehicle paint shop.
Carol?
Thomas? Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso. Sorry about that. That's fine.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso. Thank you, counsel.
snell james snell yes with proviso thank you thank you mr chair have a good evening thanks
you too number two mi 2021 005020
Number two, MI 2021-005-020, 1714 Washington Avenue.
Number B, Joseph Consul is the attorney.
Support from the East Point Breeze neighbors.
Mr. Consul is coming in as a panelist.
Mr. Consul is here.
Mr. Consul, you've already been sworn to state your name.
and identify your client in relationship to the property. Joseph Consul, and my client is Mia
Mitchell, representative of the owner and tenants of the property. Okay. Our vice chair has a few
questions. Hi, Mr. Consul. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes to all. Okay, great. You
may proceed, and the screen's up. All right. Hey, everyone. Joe Consul here again, 1714 Washington
Avenue. My client owns the building and is also, well, and is here today seeking to lease the lower
western half of the building as a sit-down restaurant with takeout capabilities and
that is what our refusal is for so we have two refusals here sit-down restaurant prohibited in
i2 this is a light to medium industrial zone district and also takeout restaurant prohibited
in in i2 um so this property as you can see is between an auto zone and a family dollar
there is a martial arts studio um up up above it uh um this area is uh has a uh distinctive
thai influence and the restaurant that the folks are seeking to open here is going to be a thai
restaurant, as I said, in the lower piece of the property here. Some of my photos actually
show the space a little better. Let me pull them up.
The outside of the space that we'd be occupying. Shopping across the street.
It's all our documents. So I think importantly,
the back of the property has two loading docks for each of the two lower units as well as
space for commercial dumpsters that was important to the RCO this is kind of the back alley behind
the auto zone behind our property and behind the family dollar and again there's there's the front
um we met with uh the east point break east point breeze neighbors association june 15th
uh we got their vote in support um they believed as we believe that uh medium industrial use uh on
this piece of washington avenue washington avenue between 17th and 18th doesn't really make sense
And that the neighbors behind the property and those kind of the neighborhood surrounding it wanted to see this property be something that actually engages the community and a restaurant run by a well-known person in this community, they believed would be a good choice here.
So we think that the proposed use is incongruent with what the neighborhood wants to see here and also sort of speaks to how Washington Avenue generally is is trending, at least at this piece of Washington Avenue, where there's increased walkability and and that sort of thing.
So I have your testimony adopted, please.
I would. Mia Mitchell, could you raise your hand?
hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
my name is mia mitchell spell it for the court reporter mia mia m-i-a last name mitchell
m-i-t-c-h-e-l-l right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth yes sir okay proceed mr council good evening miss mitchell did you hear my testimony
just now regarding 1714 washington avenue yes i did do you uh agree with what i said and do you
adopt it as your own yes i do i adopt all right is there anything you'd like to add regarding uh
this particular space not at the time okay questions from the board no mr chairman no mr
Okay. Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
your chair.
I see no handshare. Planning Commission? I run Bednar City Planning. While this property is currently indicated for industrial use on the city plan,
our proposed district plan remapping for this site recommended ICMX, which permits sit-down restaurants by right.
therefore we recommend the request for advance be granted. Thank you. MI 2021-005-020-1714
Washington Avenue, numbered B. I vote yes. Carol Tenere, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman,
my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Have a good evening.
Number seven, MI 2021, 005019, 1750 South 60 Street. Brandon Savron is the attorney, letter of non-opposition from the third ward executive RCO. Applicant also provided eight form letters of support from the neighbors.
Mr. Savron is coming back in as a panelist.
Good evening, Mr. Chair.
Good evening, I should say.
Yes, good evening.
Could you identify your, oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry.
State your name, spell for the court reporter.
Brandon Saverin, so that's B-R-A-N-D-O-N, S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R-A-N.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
So my client is the property owner, Two Diamond Estates, LLC.
The LLC's principal, Shonda Slocum, is here tonight to adopt my testimony.
Right.
And our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Savron.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal referral,
photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with
the RCO, and do you have a letter? Yes to all those questions, Madam Vice Chair. Okay, great. You may
proceed and begin by sharing your screen. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I do apologize. I sort of cut
out while I was being promoted, so I don't know. I thought you said something about our letter of
non-opposition. Is there anything else that I missed there? It says letter of non-opposition
from the third ward executive RCO. And the applicant also provided eight form letters
of support from neighbors. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. So, and that's all
correct. This is the refusal. Shonda applied to rehabilitate an existing structure that has been
vacant for over a decade. And in doing so, as I'll explain, she would like to
make the structure into a duplex, a two-dwelling home. So I'm going to show you some exhibits.
These images are either directly from our exhibit packet, or if not, they are sort of blow-ups of
images that have counterparts in the exhibit packet. So this is the aerial parcel map
from atlas.phila.gov, just to give you a sense of where we are. We're on 60th Street off of
Cobbs Creek Parkway in Southwest Philadelphia. As you can see here on the left-hand side,
our indication is that the property has been vacant since at least 2009. Now, Shonda's LLC
bought the property in March of 2020, but it sat in a very poor state for over a decade,
we believe, before that. You can see a violation issued related to the vacant status of the
property by L&I in 2009. You can see another one issued in 2012, and then you can see that
a vacant structure license was pulled on the property in 2014. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman,
we have a letter of non-opposition from the Third Ward, who served as the coordinating RCO for this
matter. Shonda and I both attended this virtual meeting. I have no problem with the characterization
as non-opposition, but I have to say I think the sentiments of the attendees was unanimously
supportive. I'll say as an officer of the court, we answered some questions and folks were very
happy to see this property rehabilitated and wished Shonda well in her mission to do that.
I have some photos of the property from a few months prior to Shonda's purchase of it. These are from August 2019. This on the screen right now is the rear of the building at that time. You can see the severely deteriorated condition of the rear exterior.
I have some photos of the property from a few months prior.
rear. This is 60th Street in the front. So from that front 60th Street, here is the front of the
subject property at that time. Another view of the front. This is the rear alley. To go back up to
that rear photo for one second, we are not proposing any living space whatsoever, bedrooms or
otherwise, no living space in the basement. This is a basement level garage that is above ground
in the rear and is served by that rear alley. It will be either used for storage, either of a car
or other goods. So just to flip through a couple other items on our exhibit packet here,
I showed you the RCO's decision letter. Here's our certificate of mailing. Mr. Chairman,
you mentioned the eight letters of support that Shonda gathered from walking the community.
Those are shown here. I'm going to show you the planned floor plans for the building in one
moment. And beyond that, I just wanted to point out, and I did this in a very lawyerly fashion,
whereas a map probably would have been more useful, but what I do have in here at the end
of the exhibit packet is zoning permits on seven properties on this block. Those properties are
1726, 1730, 1732, 1740 South 60th Street, and then on the other side of the street where the
properties carry different address names, 5961 Windsor Street, 5961 Belmar Street, and 5969
Springfield Avenue. Those are all buildings that carry active zoning permits, to the best of my
knowledge, according to the zoning archive, for two or three unit residential use. So the two unit
use that we're applying for before you today is very in context with this block. And the hardship
here essentially is that these are fairly large homes. These properties are typically 1,400 square
feet or thereabout. That's also, I think, approximately our lot size. As you very well
may know, the minimum lot area in the RSA 5 district is either 960 or 800 square feet,
depending on your surrounding conditions. So this lot is significantly larger than the zoning
district's minimum. The building is essentially a shell. I mean, it is a severe state of disrepair
inside. So, Brandon, what you're saying is there's approximately 12 properties in the area that are
already two to three units? I counted seven, Mr. Chair, on this block. I didn't look further than
that. Okay. All right. And I guess that would add up to over 12 units. And, you know, basically the
hardship here in a nutshell is because of the size of the property and the poor condition,
And Shonda explored, but cannot obtain financing to rehabilitate this property as a single family home.
So we're really going for the minimum number of units that would allow a lending institution to get behind this.
And that's two. I think you have your test. Why don't you have your testimony at that?
Sure. OK. And I do have floor plans if you want me to walk through them and I'll pause there for now.
So if she's out there, Shonda, could you please raise your hand?
Yes. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter? Shonda Slocum, S-H-O-N-D-A-S-L-O-C-U-M.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Proceed, Brandon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shonda, are you authorized to speak for the
owning LLC of this property? Yes. Okay. And were you able to hear the full extent of my testimony
in this zoning case today?
Yes, I have.
And to the best of your knowledge,
was my testimony true and accurate?
And therefore, would you be willing to adopt it
as if it were your own testimony?
Yes, absolutely.
Okay, thank you very much, Sean.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
I play any commission.
This is Ron Bednar, city planning. The property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
Our adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing residential single family.
Our adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning dislocation.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent it from being used and conforming with the code.
There's no past history of being used for multifamily, therefore we recommend the request for variance not be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2021-005-019-1750-South 60th Street, I vote yes.
Carol Tenera, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Brandon.
Thank you very much.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called from the 330 list?
I see no hands, Chair.
I want to thank everybody for working so late.
Sorry it went this late.
We don't usually do this, but we probably got punished because we had so much free time this morning.
So we had to make up for it tonight.
So thank you all.
You did a lot of nice work today, and I really appreciate what everybody's doing.
Great job, Mr. Chairman.
Great job, John.
Great job, everybody.
Pauline had to leave a little bit early.
Where are you?
Have a good night, everyone.