And our certificates of mailing, which for some listeners are also not voting.
The application for appeal that you see here.
And the project information form, as well as our certificate of tax clearance here.
um so with that if i can have joe out of seven raise his hand so that he can adopt my testimony
that would be great
if not i can stipulate as an officer of the court yeah we'll stipulate you being an officer court
your client would have adopted your testimony any questions from the board no mr jim
Anyone else to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
There are no hands at this time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair.
Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
The property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan.
We feel the applicant has demonstrated a sufficient hardship for the commercial use.
accordingly the planning commission recommends the board approve the variance thank you mi 2021-002
9-1-1 2601 reed street my vote is yes professor plaza yes james snell yes thomas holliman my vote
is yes to the court reporter we have four more cases uh do you need a break chair i would
appreciate one thank you okay it's four o'clock we'll be back in 10 minutes 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.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
okay good afternoon everyone again it's 4 10. um mr kelly you're back
I am chair. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we're ready to proceed. Uh,
um, yes, Mr. Case is nine and 10. I think we're going to be hearing them together.
MI 2021-002901 3623 Fairmount Avenue. Meredith Ferliger is the attorney of record,
mantua civic association sent a letter of support and mi 2021-003026 3801 fairmount avenue
um miss ferlinger ferlinger and uh the match was civic did send a letter of support
do you want to hear these both together yes please okay please identify yourselves by your
name and i'll swear you in sure meredith ferlinger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r of the law firm
delworth paxton 1500 market street suite 3500 e philadelphia pennsylvania for a firm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i certainly do thank you mr plaza has a few
questions for you yes miss farlinger you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate
to attack RCA? Yes. And have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents,
proof of ownership, proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five
days prior to this hearing? Yes, to all the above, for both. Okay, and have you met with the
RCO and have a letter? Yep, the letter is in the packet. Thank you, please proceed. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. As I mentioned, my name is Meredith
Verlager, and I have with me here today my client, Rami Schrein, the owner of both of
these properties. The request before the board today concerns two properties in Mantua, located
at 3623 Fairmount Avenue and 3801 Fairmount Avenue, both which receive support from Mantua
Civic Association. Now, the reason that we are presenting these cases together, and to give the
board a very broad overview of why we're here, both of these projects had permits prior to Mantua
being rezoned. Due to COVID-related issues with L&I and the timing of the building permit
submissions, the zoning permits expired. And so we were forced to reapply. Of course, the lots are
now zoned RSA 5 as a result of the Mantua rezoning. So what were the previously approved
by-right multifamily projects are no longer by-right. So let me walk you through these in a
little bit more detail now that you have the broad context of why we are here. To orient you to these
two particular properties, you can refer to the zoning map I have up on the screen at Exhibit 7.
3623 Fairmount Avenue is just off the corner of North 37th Street and 3801 Fairmount is right at
the corner of North 38th Street. Both lots are between 1300 and 1500 square feet. Now regarding
the specific proposals and let me just bring up some renderings for you. For 3623 Fairmount Avenue
The proposal is for a three-story structure for a four-family dwelling, so four units.
3801 Fairmount is also a three-story structure, but this one will have three units.
All of the units average around 800 square feet or greater.
The units are intended to be for sale units at below market prices at around $250,000 per condominium.
My client has also been working with the councilwoman regarding his intent to work with the local housing agencies in the area when it comes time to.
his intent to work with the local housing agencies in the area when it comes time to sell these
proposed condominiums. He's been working with Andrew Budman in her office not just on these
projects but on other projects he has in the area as well. The design of the structures is intended
to match the surrounding neighborhood including the front setbacks, porches, and the brick facades.
Trash for both of these is stored in the rear and is collected by a commercial hauler several times
a week. So now turning to the refusals themselves, as I mentioned, both of these projects were
previously approved. So as you can see in Exhibit 8 that I'll bring up on the screen here,
3623 Fairmount Avenue was permitted on July 7, 2016. 3801 Fairmount Avenue was issued a permit
on August 23rd, 2016. As you can see on the top of both of these permits, the properties were zoned
RM1. Now, it took some time to secure financing for the projects and get the construction drawings
drawn up. So, the specific timeline of what happened here is reflected in my email that I
sent to Curtis Daniel, who's the development director over at L&I. Rami and his design team
attempted several times during 2019 to secure the one-year permit extension that's permitted
by the zoning code at section 1430310d. L&I was unresponsive. As you're likely aware,
when COVID then started in March of 2020, L&I issued a subsequent extension to all permits.
With the one-year code extension plus the COVID extension, both of these permits would have
remained valid until January 2020 and February of 2021. Having still received no response from
L&I, they submitted for their building permits. At that point is when I reached out to Curtis
to resolve the timing issue. Again, even I received no reply. So after many attempts,
we ultimately determined that we had no choice but to submit for new zoning permits and get the
process started again. So, of course, as you're aware, Mantua was rezoned about a year after the
permits were first issued, as is shown in Exhibit 10 at the remapping bill. The properties were
rezoned to RSA 5, so the previously approved projects now generated use variances for the
proposed multifamily use. As the refusals reflect, the sole refusal here is for the use, which is as
a direct result of the rezoning. Nothing else about the projects has changed from the way that
they were originally approved. Not only did Rami purchase the properties as RM1 properties,
but he invested significant time and resources into securing permits and preparing detailed
construction drawings for these exact projects. Now, despite the rezoning, the proposals are
consistent with the character of the immediate area. The blocks contain a mix of multifamily
uses mixed with some remaining single family, as well as some vacant land. This is precisely the
reason why Mantua Civic felt that a condominium proposal would be ideal for these blocks.
There is a large 10-unit complex directly next door to 3623 Fairmount, as well as a four-unit
proposal recently approved by this board at 3605 Fairmount and 3606 Olive Street. There are several
other examples of the mixed multifamily character of the blocks at Exhibit 14. The density proposed
here is less than many of the surrounding structures, and the multifamily condominiums
will represent a nice blend to the mixed character of the street. As always, we do submit these are
the least minimum variances, and the proposal will not increase any congestion, harm neighbors'
properties or impair light and air. Full analysis is included in the memo of law at tab 10.
Now, also, as an aside, should the board require any further authority to grant these variances,
we do also submit that this particular situation meets the legal standard to grant my client these
variances on the basis of having a vested right to these proposals. Should the board require it,
I would be happy to walk you through the specific elements that would entitle them to a variance
based on the vested rights theory here. With respect to the community, as you know,
Mantua Civic did issue a letter of support at Tab 16. And aside from formal Mantua,
the formal Mantua meeting, Rami did also meet and discuss the project with several other
your neighbor separately shortly after Mantua's meeting. So at this time, I will call up Rami
So at this time, I will call up Rami to adopt my testimony, and then we'd be happy to take any questions.
to adopt my testimony, and then we'd be happy to take.
Rami Shreim, please.
Mr. Shreim, when you get on, please spell your full name, and I'll swear you in.
Mr. Shreim, you've been unmuted. Please wait for the chair.
hello this is rami shrine spelled r-a-m-y s-h-r-a-i-m 433 north 32nd street
Philadelphia Pennsylvania you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth I do please proceed uh rami have you heard all of my testimony given at the board today
yes and would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would you adopt that
testimony as if it were your own i do thank you any questions questions from the board
no mr chairman no no anyone else like to testify in this case please raise your hand
there are no hands at this time chair thank you uh planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan and was
recently remapped we recognize the project was previously approved under the previous rm1 zoning
and has only returned due to expired permits accordingly the planning commission has no
objection to the board granting the variance variance that were both uh peter 3801 and 3623
Fairmount? Correct. Thank you. MI 2021-0029013623 Fairmount Avenue and MI 2021-0030263801
Fairmount Avenue. My vote is yes to both. Professor Plaza, yes to both. James Snell,
yes to both thomas holliman yes to both thank you number 13 thank you number 13 on our list
mi 2021-002-908-5115-39 bellfield avenue according to my notes penn area neighborhood
association was not able to reach an agreement regarding this application but further note says
if the board were to approve this they would ask that it would be approved with revised plan two
pages miss pritzker is the attorney of record good afternoon chairman members of the board
afternoon please identify yourself and i swear you in yep rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r
1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa 19103 you were sworn in earlier today you're still
under oath i was not sworn in chairman no i'm sorry uh do you swear affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes that's right your case was continued uh mr uh plaza has
some questions for you yes miss prisker you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate
of its accuracy yes and have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents
proof of ownership proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or referral photos and plans five
days prior to this hearing yes and have you met with the rco and have a letter yes thank you please
for a seat. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen. This is our application for 5-1-1-5
Belfield. I'm going to bring up the refusal. This is a large 116,398 square foot I-2 existing
industrial structure. It was previously designated as historic by the Historic Commission with
support by the owners. It was the previous site of a storage facility for LaSalle, although there's
no records of that besides just knowing that LaSalle had ownership, but more important than
that, before it was a light industrial use by Dittmart-Penn, but has not had any viable
productive use since its donation to LaSalle University. My clients purchased the property
in 2020. Our proposal here is for the erection of basically just an addition connecting the
two existing structures. There's a two-story and three-story existing buildings that we're
buildings that we're going to be adaptively reusing as per our proposal for 77 units with
going to be adaptively reusing as per proposal.
67 parking spaces, including three accessible spaces, four electric parking spaces, and 30
bike spaces. The only variance, as you can see, is just for use as multifamily or any residential
use is not permitted in I-2. As I mentioned, the previous use of the property dates back to the
80s and had since been vacated for a long time and just used for short storage although there
was no use permit that I could find to that effect. Again it's a 116,398 square foot building
literal enforcement of I2. It presents a hardship. I'm going to just show the site quickly so you
can see. The layout is quite unique compared to most other industrial sites. It's kind of oddly
shaped. And so as you can see, it's sort of like in an island of itself, Armstrong, Bellfield,
and Worcester streets. It is surrounded completely by, this is, although to the right here is RSD,
it is just vacant parkland there's parks here and then green space here and then as you can see a
lot of residential single family this ICMX property behind I'll go into in a little bit
that was actually it actually obtained zoning relief for a variance for I believe it's 30
residential units so really there's no industrial uses that are being utilized over here and mostly
residential uses. And as you can see from this aerial, again, we're kind of in an island on our
own. This is an aerial view of the site. As you can see, it's a pretty dilapidated industrial
structure. Again, it's two two and three story structures. And the only addition we're making
to it is just to help connect the two buildings so that individuals can walk in between them
and just sort of come with a little bit of a better layout. There's a mixture of landscaping
and graded area. One of the hardships that we found, besides the fact that obviously it sat
vacant for quite some time with no viable industrial use, is that the property is really
ill-equipped for sale or rental for uses that are permitted in I-2. The property's multi-story
structures, uneven terrain, single vehicular access point, and chopped up parking arrangement,
half a dozen small parking lots are scattered across the site rather than one large lot,
makes it an extremely poor candidate for modern-day industrial use, as does the fact that it's in a
district not near highways, freight trains, and is surrounded by residences. The city's 2035
Upper Northwest District Plan states only one percent of the district land is currently zoned
for industrial uses, which sort of highlights the past and present ill-fitting nature of industrial
use on this property. It doesn't really feature, the plan doesn't really feature an extensive
discussion of the private market's appetite for industrial properties, but several of the other
district plans do. And we find that in alignment with those plans and just industrial uses across
the city, the comprehensive plan strongly recommends allowing for vacant industrial
zone parcels to transition into other uses. So we find that, you know, given the hardship of the
site, its location next to residential, the fact that it's in incredibly poor condition and sort