is assuming the proviso can be granted. I think there will be, you know, an increased number of
people coming to the neighborhood, to this facility, maybe looking for parking, which is
always tough in our neighborhood. And there may be, you know, more activity, which is sometimes
unsettling to people. But on the pro side, you know, this is going to expand the St. Peter's
church campus and operations. And, you know, we really have, you know, there are no better
neighbors for the community than St. Peter's Church in all the things that they do. Also,
I think on actually the parking issue, it removes a surface parking lot, which, you know, isn't
really the best thing to have in the middle of our neighborhood. And of course, I think the design,
the architectural design of this building is really fantastic, something that we look forward
to. So that's why we really come out in support of this. As far as our proposal, I think we look
at it at this. If a New York City catering and event company would come to our neighborhood and
want to put this sort of in our neighborhood, you know, for private purposes and corporate
events and things, you know, we would have much more concern. But given that this is, you know,
affiliated with St. Peter's Church and is going to, everything's going to occur under their sort
of umbrella, that's why this, that's why we're supportive. And also that's why this proviso is
here it in in theory the church could sell off this property in you know 30 years um to a new
york city um you know to to that other scenario and that's what um you know we want to make sure
this stays with the church in terms of their approval and um you know and is related to their
operation so that's the purpose of the uh that's the purpose of the proviso so thank you very much
i'm happy to answer any questions thank you uh board have any questions no mr chairman thank you
uh anyone else to testify in this case chairman we have someone with a hand up by the name of
albert albert you can unmute yourself and speak now
i believe i'm trying to unmute am i being yes you are you are unmuted spell your full name
please uh thank you mr chairman uh my name is albert meinster common spelling albert last name
is M as in Mary, E-I, N as in Nancy, S-T-E-R. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole
truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. I'm a Society Hill resident
and a member of the Society Hill Civic Association, and I've been elected to the board of directors
of that association, representing the neighbors who live in the area of the proposed parish
campus.
I think Mr. Bonney has expressed fairly well some of the attitudes that we have toward
the project.
However, in speaking with neighbors, there is a major concern about the increase in traffic,
parking availability and noise and as Mr. Bonnie pointed out you know there is a trade-off
we're receiving an improvement in the area however there there are some negatives
and I think those negatives have to be looked at and minimized as much as possible
My concern is that the large great hall that the drawing seems to specify can be used for affairs, drawing large numbers.
my concern is that the large grade hall that the drawing
One would assume that those affairs would be held by parish members, although there's no guarantee of that.
And that's where my fear and the fear of some of the neighbors that I've spoken to.
And by the way, as a representative, I have made it a point to speak to neighbors in that area.
And so the concern I'm expressing is not only my own, but with that hall being made available to non-church members,
there exists the possibility of a more frequent use than one would anticipate if confined to church members.
Now, reading through the proposal, I see nothing that does confine the church members.
And there is a fear that in order to raise funds for the operation of the church, use of the hall may be extended, may be extended to non-members.
And what we may have in our neighborhood is a venue, is a venue for affairs.
We're very concerned about that.
And so I asked the board to go back to the applicants to rewrite their proposal to provide guarantees that use of the hall will be confined to Bonafide Church members.
Thank you.
you uh mr klein um i don't recall the exact application but i remember having something
the board having a case similar to this where the uses were restricted to the
uh to the applicant or and or his or her use as a put they don't want it to turn out to a catering
hall that's going to be rented out to parties that are not affiliated with the church i think
is what I'm trying to say. Is there a language in there that we could inject that would protect that?
So I think, Mr. Chair, that's what we were trying to achieve with the provisional language.
Let me interrupt if I could. I'm looking at it and it says authorized shall be related to the
operations of St. Peter's Church. Yeah, I guess that would be sufficient. Yeah. Right. I mean,
we, I think having the language that, you know, the uses will be conducted with the church's
approval, I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that the church, which has been a good
neighbor for over 100 years, would be sensitive in the types of events that they would allow to
take place there. So if there's a concern that there's going to be, you know, a New York City
style club rave taking place there, that would be as objectionable to the church as it would be
to the immediate neighbors.
Anyone else that testify in this case?
If I may respond to that.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Albert?
You have muted yourself.
You need to unmute.
Mr. Albert?
I believe I am unmuted now.
yes you are if the uh if that is the attitude of the church certainly the community would assure
the reassurance that placing it in writing uh would provide and that language is not really
quite specific you know with the perhaps for the wording was authorization of the church
i mean the church can simply authorize the use of that to well whoever so i would like to see
the language tightened up to provide the community with the assurance that indeed it is not going to
become a venue for well god god knows what simply with the okay of the church
i'm not a lawyer as you guys know i'm just looking at this i don't know i understand with
what that gentleman just uh is referring to i i tend to think that the variance
it looks to me as though it will satisfy those concerns correct me if i'm wrong mr client unless
you have some uh suggestions uh we'll move on no i i i think we can we can move on mr chair the only
other thing i'll point out is that the actual application did uh specify that the you know
parish hall meeting room and uses will be accessory to the religious assembly so even our our uh
application was intended to tie these tie these uses together we're not looking to create some
We're not looking to create some sort of crazy event venue.
sort of crazy event event venue it'll yeah yeah i i know
Yeah, and I don't think the gentleman meant that, but I guess they're looking down the road if things change that they don't want it to turn into a commercial venue outside of what the church's purpose is.
All right.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Chair, we have Ms. DeMonte with her hand up.
So, Ms. DeMonte, you can unmute yourself and speak now.
Good morning, Chairperson and all that are listening.
Ma'am, please spell your first and last name.
I'm sorry, Doreen, D-O-R-E-E-N, last name DeMonte, D-I-M as in Mary, O-N as in Nancy, T-E.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
hello hi yes i was listening to um mr bonnie's concerns and just had a couple of comments i live
at 304 lombard street i own three properties there so i'm directly across the street from
the um what will be the egress entrance exit um which um the attorney for the for the church
Mr. Klein has assured me would only be used for staff and not as a public entrance, which is
definitely reassuring. My concern is when we're talking about events at this property, which
could possibly be a wedding, for example, for church members, what would be done in terms of
soundproofing I mean weddings often reception would include a band people may want to gather
outside depending on the time of year so what would be in the plans to control noise whether
it's inside outside for an event like that which may impact the neighborhood
I'm a little bit familiar with St. Peter's and I know part of the curriculum and I think it may
have been mentioned in the testimony they have music programs I know they have school events in
the school hall music playing singing and stuff like that and with the elimination of the parking
lot I think that is also has been used in the past for a play area for for students so there's
a noise level that has always been there I just don't I can't imagine it being any greater than
what you're already in fact that may be better because the existing school is very old and i
think the acoustics and they're you know are being that old may not i don't mute the sound if you
will emanate sound from coming out of the building i i hear what you're saying man but i i don't i
don't know if there's any they're going to build this thing and i'm sure they're going to build it
just the standards and it may not um i don't think you want to have that kind of a problem
there but uh anyway anyone else to testify in this case
no chair there are no other hands at this time thank you planning commission thank you chair
chico ian hegarty for the city planning commission uh comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
The RM1 zoning, the proposed use variance is reasonable given the existing buildings on the block, and the proposed dimensional variances are minimal and do not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variances.
Thank you.
So let the record reflect that a board member, Mr. James Snell, is also in attendance.
So MI-2021-003058, 307 Lombard Street.
My vote is yes.
With the proviso revised plan, three pages approved today, and that all uses authorized by this variant shall be related to the operations of St. Peter's Church located at 313 Pine Street and all major events occurring pursuant to such uses shall be conducted with St. Peter's Church approval.
Confessor Plaza, yes, with proviso.
James Snell, yes, with proviso.
Thomas Holliman, yes, with proviso.
Thank you all very much.
Thank you.
Number nine on our list, MI 2021-003060, 4601-25 North 4th Street.
Mr. Steve Bertel is the attorney of record.
Esperanza Housing and Economic Development, RCO, sent a letter of support with provisos if approved.
RCO sent a letter of support with provisos if approved.
Mr. Battelle, please identify yourself.
You're still under oath.
After that, Mr. Plaza will have some questions for you.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Good morning again, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
You're still under oath, so Mr. Plaza has some questions for you.
Mr. Bertil, you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
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, totally.
Okay. Have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, we do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Okay. Thank you.
I'll just share my screen here.
Okay. Good morning again.
As stated, my name is Steve Bertil.
I represent the applicant,
the Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
or SEPTA.
as the applicants and owners of the site.
The property in question is 4601 North 4th Street.
As you can see, the property is currently
an existing parking lot utilized for SEFTA's employees
for the facility across the street,
which I believe is 200 West Wyoming
as the official address.
the property is about 70,000 square feet, and it's zoned as ICMX2. We're here requesting a special
exception to allow for safety and stormwater improvements to the existing site and overall
sort of sprucing up of the parking lot, which I'll get into in a second. So we have a referral
from the Department of License and Inspections
for the proposed use as non-accessory parking.
Now, the site was previously and has been a parking lot.
The cause of the referral here is that there was a structure
on the site, on the 4601 North 4th Street site
at one particular time that was demolished and removed.
And so the removal of that structure changed under the code
what was, I guess, generally considered accessory to that structure
because it was on the same parcel and is now considered non-accessory.
And so now that we're trying to do improvements to the site,
we required a special exception to memorialize that use.
Now, that said, the site in actuality is accessory to the 200 West Wyoming Avenue facility across the street.
But again, as you saw in a previous application earlier today, that is a different tax parcel.
And as such, it doesn't meet the requirements to be determined as accessory to that.
And so that's why we're here today seeking a special exception to approve the retrofit that we're trying to do to the site and the use.
And so what we're trying to do here, let me zoom out so that's the entire screen, is, as I stated, is a stormwater retrofit,
It was essentially where making changes to the site to mitigate some of the stormwater issues that exist on some of these older parking lots and also to mitigate the heat island effect of these older parking lots.
So things such as adding green spaces, trees, water detention basins, updating curb cuts, and the overall, as I stated, sprucing up of the lot, the changes and updates that we're making in this vein will require us to lose a few spaces.
I think in total at the end of the sort of rehabilitation of the parking lot will have 176 spaces.
And again, as I stated, this lot is being used by SEPTA employees for the facility that's across
the street. The applicants did meet with the Registered Community Organization,
who's Esperanza Housing and Economic Development, as you'll see by their letter of support here.
As you'll see by their letter of support here, we received no opposition.
I believe there was a, there was discussion of, you know, possible additional trees and the maintenance of those trees being done by a program that is ran by Esperanza.
maybe that's the proviso that was referenced earlier. I wasn't aware. I don't believe it's
actually an official proviso. It was just a discussion of that. But as you can see, there was
no opposition to the project at the meeting. And as such, because there's a special exception,
there is no hardship requirement. But I will say that overall, the changes
in terms of a net benefit to the community with any density like throughout Philadelphia
that's surrounding parking lot. Stormwater management is important and vital to maintaining
the proper infrastructure in the city, and this project will help to do that. And so
unless the board has any questions, I have a representative from SEPTA,
um Mr. Malik Bates if he can raise his hand um to affirm and adopt my testimony let's get your
client on and then I'll ask the board if they have questions okay Mr. Bates you can unmute yourself