that's all thank you mr bonnie is that it thank you all right any other comments from the virtual
audience yes i have a handle from bernardino allegretti okay i'll promote them
hi i'm uh bernardino allegretti it's uh b-e-r-n-a-r-d-i-n-o allegretti is a-l-l-e-g-r-e-t-t-i
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor, sir?
I'm a neighbor at 110 Rochelle Ave.
I'm a near neighbor.
I share about 127 feet of fence line.
Okay, please proceed.
I'm also a developer and a project manager.
I haven't worked on the development of hundreds of homes across the city and over 1,000 up and down the East Coast.
I just wanted to make a few points.
I'll try to be brief and concise.
there's an existing variance as was previously discussed for the animal boarding and other
services for the doggy daycare that the variance was granted in 2019 and it was renewed in 2023
it was largely supported by the neighborhood at the time during both of those hearings the
applicant's argument was that that was the least modification necessary to relieve hardship
associated with the property so if that was true how can it also be true that 10 homes now is the
least modification necessary. Nani Rochelle's tenant, the Little Dog Daycare, is a well-established
business and has a firmly established client base. There is no undue hardship. This RSA3 zoning
comports with the 17 continuous properties in the same block face. The 20 properties in the opposite
block face of 100 block of Rochelle are also all RSA3. That zoning doesn't detract from the value
of the property uh it appears that the desire to maintain the doggy daycare commercial business
in the front of the property um creates this need to develop the rear of the property
which would be a self-imposed hardship um again there's no special conditions of this property
that guarantee that the 10 units is the um the the quick makes the enforcement um the current
zoning a hardship thank you mr bowen do you have any questions if i could just make one one last
point here so that it appears that even if the board was to agree that there was a hardship
that uh the variant the dimensions between the buildings in the rear don't comport with rsa
three dimensions the side yards for each house are required to be eight feet they're shown to
yards for each house are required to be eight feet. They're shown to be six feet,
be six feet a 12 total between
12 total between. So if three twins, three sets of twins or four sets of twins could fit in there,
Thank you.
I'm not sure that five sets for a total of 10 units is the minimum necessary. And just to speak
on the letter that Wicca has provided, I just want to remind the board that the majority of the votes
the last time the vote was taken was opposed to this project 30 of the 32 near neighbors opposed
the project the project hasn't changed substantially in size or location of the
building since the vote was conducted one unit was reduced the agreement that wicca entered into
with the developers not been presented to the members of the rcl i'm a near neighbor i have
over 200 feet of fence line shared with this property i'm a long-time member of the organization
and i was a former member of the zoning committee and i haven't seen the agreement so it's hard to
say that the near neighbors or the neighborhood at large has approved this agreement when nobody
has seen it. Thank you. Mr. Bolin, do you have any questions? Yeah, I just, I'll be really brief.
Mr. Allegretti, just to orient the board, you can still see my screen, right? Yes. So you're in
this, the property that has a very long rear that goes here along the northeast side, is that right?
And do you agree that then in order to accommodate your interest in your request that we pushed back the fence line and the plantings that were along the rear of your property so that we could accommodate your existing fence line?
I would prefer that the existing fence line be respected and maintained.
And that's what we show here on these plans, right?
you showed yes you showed that on on these plans um but there's no binding commitment to do so
all right thank you one other thing and one other thing we also push back units um seven and eight
that used to be much closer to the back of your property do you agree that we push those back
there used to be parking in front we move those further away from your property the unit just to
the northeast northwest of that um is in the same place and that is closer to my home
that's all i have thank you thank you is there anyone else in a virtual audience
yes sir i have a sarah fmook how many more hands do you have up there jace just this one and that's
it all right thank you hi could you state your name and spell for the stenographer
hi can you hear me this is okay hi could you please state your name and spell for the
sonographer sarah fluke s-a-r-a-h-f-l-o-o-k miss fluke could you please turn on your video
and uh do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Please, Rashid.
I just had a couple of quick questions that I wanted to ask.
I'm a near neighbor.
It's actually the deeds are incorrect on here.
I'm at 102 Rochelle Avenue.
A couple of quick questions.
I would really like to keep the existing fence line,
and I know that that has verbally been agreed to on this call,
but I'm not sure what that looks like,
as in when somebody then ultimately buys one of these properties,
if that remains a legal requirement.
So that's something I wanted a bit of clarification on
if this moves forwards.
If you'd like me to, if you want to talk offline,
but there was an agreement that was signed yesterday
between the legal owner, the equitable owner,
who's my client, as well as Wicca,
which doesn't allow us to change these plans.
So we are in essence locked in at these plans.
And as you see the plans here,
we move the fence line that we're going to put well off of your property line so that we keep
the existing fence line and that we're going to have all the plantings even further on our side
of the fence line so i'm not sure if you're the one that had the garden but we heard someone had
a garden and they didn't want the fence moved back so we accommodated yeah thank you we all
have gardens and one of my neighbors has a garage and so yeah i will talk with david holler about
that um the other question i just had was there was a mention so the doggy daycare is a much
beloved community resource my own dog goes there pretty much every every house or every other house
in this neighborhood has a dog and many of my neighbors also use the doggy daycare there was a
comment made earlier that when that hardship is variance is up in 2026 the lease is no longer
lease no longer reasonable there's no longer reasonable use for the property so I'm just
curious um if this building complex goes on behind whether the community and the business
of the doggy daycare gets to stay as well the hope is that the doggy daycare stays um but the
The hope is that the doggy daycare stays, but the tenant of the doggy daycare will be back just like we are today in 2026.
I believe June 1st, their temporary variance expires. So there's no guarantee they have to come back and try and get another variance.
But there is no other use. There is no other use under RSA for that building once if the doggy daycare has to move out.
so are we saying i'm just trying to understand if a variance is given for this it might null and void
a future variance for the doggy daycare because i think the community would rather have a doggy
daycare than a real estate development behind us i'm just i just don't understand no no and i'm
happy to talk you offline but mr bolin yeah i'll jump in um this this is hillary emerson
board council so that what's before the board today is is is what you're seeing it's very
specific that there are a couple buildings that are coming down the existing building where the
doggy daycare is is remaining that is not part of this application and while it's all part of the
same property it is a separate application and this variance wouldn't void what's already been
approved and active and what's there and as as previously indicated in order to keep that use
going at the property at the location it's been approved for in the existing building,
they will need to return and request an extension of that variance.
Okay. Thank you for clarifying.
Thank you very much for calling. We appreciate it.
Thank you.
All right. Questions or comments from the Planning Commission?
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission, A-M-Y-B-O-Y-D.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 3 residential single-family zoning at this location.
The city changed the zoning maps from I-2 medium industrial to RSA 3, which is single-family residential, in 2016.
This parcel is uniquely shaped, making a by-right subdivision difficult.
It also contains a second principal building at the front of the lot on Rochelle Avenue that contains a doggy daycare business.
On December 9, 2024, the Planning Commission staff met with the appellant's attorney for a zoning appeal preliminary review.
In a memo, staff concluded that the proposed development is unlikely to cause specific detrimental impacts described in 14-303-AE criteria for approval.
This deep slope of the refusal is due to disturbance of the earth moving along Manion-Morristown's septal line.
The appellant submitted an earth-moving plan to PCPC, and it appears the development meets the conditions of 14-3038I, additional criteria for steep slope variances.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant their proposed variances for multiple principal uses, multiple principal buildings, earth-moving, and multifamily.
Thank you.
MI 2024-006-243-90 Rochelle Avenue. I vote yes with proviso. Per amended refusal dated 6-3-25.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tana Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Hey, Wynn, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Sorry, I was on mute.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
All right.
Number six, MI 2025-001-087-5590.
Oh, and there was a brief error are we? Okay. Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. Yeah. With that,
with that last, um, with Rochelle Avenue, there was also revised plans requested as
proviso that addressed the defense issue um so can we please revote revote that with the revised
plans what what did i say amended what i think there's so is there's an amended refusal but
there's also one page of revised plans okay
okay mi 2024 006 243 90 rochelle avenue i vote yes proviso per amended refusal dated
proviso per mender refusal dated 6-3-25 one page of revised plans michael johnson my vote is yes
It's 6325, one page.
with proviso carol gaston my booty chest with proviso tanetta graham my vote is yes with proviso
brian mcadams my vote is yes with proviso hey my vote is yes with proviso thank you
Thank you. So MI-2025-001087-5597-99 Tulip Street, Ronald Patterson.
Hillary, can we hear these two together or hear it after?
We can hear them together, Mr. Chair. One is the use and one is the accessory signage for the use.
Number 15 is MI-2025-002-693-5597-99 Tulip Street.
There's unanimous support from the Wissahickon Civic Association for both projects.
mr patterson yes sir good afternoon can you hear me yeah i can could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer sure ronald r-o-n-a-l-d patterson claire harrison law firm
1835 market street philadelphia 19103 do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth uh yes i do could you identify your client a relationship
to the property? Sure. I represent the tenant, flagship, car wash, and the owner,
developer, Philadelphia Dash Harvest and LP. Do you waive the reading of the refusal? Do you
agree with its accuracy? Yes, I do. You'll present for both projects at the same time.
Yes, thank you. I can share my screen. Yep.
you can see my screen
oh yeah okay
it's very small here okay so
this project regards 5597-99 Tulb Street. It's a shopping center located on Harveston Avenue
on Tulb Street. And I'll show you some. Can you see me scrolling? I can't see.
Okay, thank you. Shopping center is about 13 acres. We're here today for this area here
outlined in red it's formerly known as building c and harbison tool and railroad tracks behind
here's a enlarged aerial uh here's just some uh property photos this is harbison this is the
main entrance the building is location is back here where the red arrow is moving further
I think you get the general idea.
So the shopping center is mostly occupied except for this Building C area.
There are several buildings and many uses here.
It includes Wawa with a gasoline dispensing activity, a ShopRite, AT&T store, Popeyes, and many other retails.
As I mentioned in regards to Building C area, it's an existing vacant building.
will be demolished and constructing a similar building in its place approximately 14 517 square
feet with a width of 100 105 feet it's our zoning map we're in this icmx mixed commercial
industrial zoning district here's a site plan it's actually flipped from the aerial photograph
Harbison, Tulip, and here's the area of concern right here.
I'll give you an enlarged area.
So it was last used as a sole one tenant, Blink Fitness.
It was vacant for some time.
It was marketed for lease.
There were medical use interests, fitness use, just a partial use of the building, and a few car washes.
So we're here today for a car wash to be developed as a flagship car wash.
there's no specific use category in the zoning code for car wash so you have to fit it under
the category of personal vehicle sales and maintenance which is permitted primarily in
industrial zoning districts but here in the ICMX even though it's partial industrial it requires
a special exception so that's the first part of the case which is the special exception for the use
So that's the first part of the case, which is the special accession for the use.
The second part of this case is for the accessory signage, and there's variance required for freestanding sign.
What's proposed is a typical flagship corporate branding with directional signs.
ICMX permits one freestanding sign per street frontage.
We have two street frontages.
There's a current large pylon sign at this location and the entrance of the facility.
And so that's what our second part of the case is.
One variance, so I believe it's one sign.
So we are proposing actually seven freestanding signs.
Three of them are directional, so they're not considered freestanding signs for this purpose.
Two of the signs have rules and regulations, but because it has these two have an icon and copy to say flagship, which is greater than 10% of the sign area, they're considered freestanding signs.