We notified 164 neighbors about the community meeting.
And the coordinating RCO was a brewery town charge for the Civic Association.
So first thing you're going to see on your screen is the notice of refusal for 1622 North 25th Street. This is an RSA 5 property. We are looking to have two-family household living, and as I'll show further in the presentation, it's not out of character. We are not seeking any dimensional refusals.
Same thing goes with 1624 North 25th Street.
This is an RSA 5 property, but both of them are rather large in nature in terms of lot size.
Also, we're seeking two-family household living, and there are no dimensional refusals.
Also, we're seeking two-family household living, and there are no dimensions.
A particular note for both properties, we omitted any roof deck from our use for recreational purposes of any roof deck for each presentation.
We know it's really important to the individuals in the brewery town Shardswood neighborhood not to have that, and we omitted that from the beginning, and I think they're appreciative of that.
So we did meet with the community. It was a well-attended community meeting.
We did get a majority of the individuals who attended the community meeting in support.
Of particular note, the Brewery Town Shardswood Civic Association is a very well-known, organized, respected, and sophisticated group.
Their entire zoning committee voted in support of this project.
We also did a CBA with them, and the CBA includes, and you'll read this in a letter of support,
But we have a CBA with a trash plan, a construction plan, and about property management.
Particularly, what's important to note is that they held the zoning committee for Brewery Townshards, which is a community civic association, withheld their vote until my client could provide references of other projects they've done in the city of Philadelphia.
And after receiving those references, I assume that they call those individuals.
They provided unanimous support for this project.
And that's the same letter that was both for 1622 and 1624.
Property history.
So 1622 actually has a history of multifamily use.
And it's also not out of characters to other properties nearby.
And you'll see that on my screen.
But just my notes, 1638 North 26th Street is an RSA 5 property with three units in it.
1644 North 26th Street is a RSA 5 property with three units in it.
And there are multiple instances on, at least I'm looking at five instances on the 1700 block of North 25th Street,
which have three or more units in each of those, on each of those properties.
We are merely asking for two residential dwelling units for each of these properties.
And here's a backup data to show that there are active rental licenses for the properties I
discussed. And in an aerial view of the block, as you can see, this block, other than the references
to some of those multifamily units or properties, is kind of like mostly empty, vacant lots. And
we're trying to redevelop this part of Philadelphia through these two duplexes. And again,
while our properties is an RSA-5 property, we are surrounded by RM1 use. So again,
from a zoning classification perspective, we are not out of character to what's nearby to us,
in addition to all those other RSA-5 properties we discussed. We're also close to Ridge Avenue,
Cecil B. Moore, which are commercial corridors. Typically, from a planning perspective, it's
important to create that density near those commercial corridors to help support those
commercial corridors, and that's what we're hoping to do. Photographs of these properties,
they are vacant lots. They have been vacant lots for some time. As you can see, we got this off
of Google Street View. It's been a vacant lot basically as far back as Google Street View goes
since 2009. This is proof of our posting for today's hearing. Again, we put an orange-nosed
poster for each property, for each separate zoning matter. This is North 25th Street to the right of
the property, to the left of the property. Our plans and drawings, what we try to do, you know,
is not just mimic the uses of these properties, which actually are more dense than the use that
we're proposing. We also try to mimic the architecture from a massing standpoint
and a stylistic standpoint. So you'll see a cornice line, lentils, flat building facades
that are brick, kind of a stoop mentality. We're also not going deeper than in each of these
properties than the properties tell left and right of us. So we're not affecting anyone's light in
there. And then just our floor plans are pretty straightforward. You walk through a common
vegetable area this is unit make a right this is unit number one that's a one bedroom one bath
with a lower level as well that's open uh you instead of going to unit number one which is a
one bedroom one bath and which will have access to a rear yard where the trash would be stored
for unit number one you go to the unit number two which is a three bedroom one bath uh there's a
trash, ventilated trash closet here, but it's a well thought out laid out floor plan. There's a
living room, kitchen, bathroom, one bedroom on the on the second floor and on the third floor
one bedroom on the on the second floor and on the third floor are two other bedrooms
are two other bedrooms.
and two baths there as well and then there's roof deck access merely for mechanical access only
and that's both properties kind of mimic that same thing again these are proof of our mailings
for our community meetings which took place on June 19th 2025 at 6 30 pm and again we notified
164 addresses for each property we sent out separate notices and these are the proof of
mailing to those addresses again the other notice that we sent along with the address that we mailed
it to along with proof of mailing to those addresses our applications for appeal that we
filed on behalf of the owner. And then finally, our tax, excuse me, finally, our tax clearance,
or sorry, our deeds, which is A to Z real estate transaction LLC for the properties.
And then finally, our tax clearance certificate is showing that no money is owed to the city of
Philadelphia with respect to real estate taxes. I'm going to unshare my screen. I would ask that
Mr. out of seven virtually raise his hand.
I have a few questions for him, for him.
And then obviously we'll be more than happy to answer any questions the board may have.
And he's coming in now as a panelist.
Yes, thank you.
alan that was no basement living in either one was it there was these are bi-level units we
have an open floor plan down there um from our experience many individuals like to have
like additional living so secondary living areas again today we're virtual we're not always virtual
but there are a lot of individuals in the city of philadelphia who do work from home and they
want that extra space and you know that's what we're providing through the that lower level
on for unit number one there was no egress well well obviously you know as part of our construction
drawings we would have to provide egress wells in order to get those drawings approved from a
building permit perspective as well as getting a co so i believe that's the intention so this
this is no household living in a basement well so we did present to the board to the community
that there would uh be household living um and just you know so you understand we are three
feet above grade and six feet below grade uh for each building but we did present to the community
um even though i guess there was no mission not intentional that there would be basement living
down there. Not bedrooms in the basement, but living down there.
But I obviously defer
to the board. For what they decided to do
only with the basement, I think it's a good use of space. And it's not out of character
to many parts of Philadelphia, including Brewery Town,
to have basement living.
Is your client on? Yes, he is.
Would he be agreeable to no basement living?
I would defer to him.
I think he would prefer.
I think you just said you would defer to the board.
Well, I defer to him to answer that question.
Ultimately, you know, I haven't been in front of you guys in a while.
I feel a little rusty here.
So, but I defer to the board to make the ultimate decision.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi, my name is Kazi Ataseven, A-T-A-S-E-V-E-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, Mr. Ataseven.
Please proceed counsel.
Mr. Ataseven, you heard everything I had to state today about this zoning matter.
Yes, I did.
Zoning matters.
And is it true and correct as to both properties?
Yes, correct.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Yes, I will.
And specifically, just to reaffirm, we did present to the community that there would be living in the basement as to both properties.
Yes, I agree.
Yes. And to answer, I believe it's the chairman's, I'm sorry, board member Graham's question, I believe.
I don't remember who asked the question.
Would you have any objection to no living in the basement?
Not the objection, but otherwise the basement is going to be useless.
which uh well storage yeah so we don't i mean tech
which uh well storage yeah so we don't i mean technically we're going to lose a lot of space
for the first unit uh we can just keep it open uh as a recreation and area
that will be much for efficiency for the unit one all right so you would have no objection let me
just get you know because i know it's been a long day for the board you would have no objection to
no bedrooms in the basement but you would prefer not to have no living in the basement exactly
then if that's the case i have an issue with the depth
because you're six feet below grade and going like three feet above grade so you've got you've
got half of the egress window will be will be below grade so if you do an egress window which
not shown so i have a i have a concern with the depth of the basement below grade
so i would say that there's household living in the basement that's my concern that's right
that's right there's no household living in the basement that's a different story
right i will say that we're 37 feet high high um our cornice line mimics the cornice line to
left and right of us um you know we're trying to keep in character with architecturally the block
as a whole, and
again, from my experience
presenting in front of
Brewery Town Charswood
and living close by in
Fairmont, it's not uncommon for people
to have some living in the basement.
All right, so I'm going to move on.
Questions or comments from
our attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
This way is Mr. Chair.
No hands?
No, sir.
Planning Commission?
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The testimony is for ZP 2025-000755 and for ZP 2025-000752.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing zoning of RSA 5 residential single family.
This is a vacant lot and two other structures are on this block, both of which are single family.
The appellant has not demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance of the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends the Board deny the requested variance for two-family.
Okay, thank you.
So just reaffirm 1638 North, excuse me, 1638 North 26, next block over is three family dwelling, as well as 1644 North 26.
There's not, there's only two structures. I apologize. I thought I read 25th, but there's only two structures on our side of the block.
The rest are vacant lots. But if you go further down the block, 1700, 1702, 1716, 1717, and 1719.
We're all multifamily structures with three or more units.
We're only asking for two.
So it is in character with the neighborhoods.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So I'm going to vote for both.
MI 2025 001 091 1622 North 25th and MI 2025 001 092 1624 North 25th.
I vote yes with proviso.
No household living in basement.
Michael Johnson, my vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Mr. Chair, could you just clarify it's yes to both with proviso since you're voting on both?
I said, okay, I'll go back.
Yes for both, with proviso for both, no household living in basement.
Thank you.
My vote is yes to both, with proviso to both.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes to both, with proviso for both.
to nethergram my vote is yes to both with provisos for both
brian mcadams my vote is yes to both with provisos for both
my vote is yes to both with provisos for both alan could you stay there why don't we just
handle this last one you have i appreciate messenger so mi 2025 001 261 4167 manchua avenue
So unanimous support from West Belmont Civic Association.
We have a proof of posting.
Yes, it should be in the packet.
Yes, we did receive it, Mr. Chair.
We received it today.
All right.
Thank you.
Mr. Nockmson, just state your name.
You've already been sworn.
Alan Nockmson.
And could you identify your client in a relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is Lapstone Capital LLC.
the owner of the property in the virtual audience should be jacob catra catra one of its members
and the architect on this project is a 24 7 design group
and the architect on this project is uh 24 7 design group and it's uh representative
chris johnson should be in the virtual audience as well
may present i guess yeah well sure sure just hold on i think i'm jumping again out of the
practice here i i should probably re there should be a reading of the and of the refusal right i
to waive it do you want to do you waive the reading of the refusal and do you agree with
its accuracy i do all right go ahead i think you got it all back go ahead all right let's see
hopefully god you take a couple weeks off and nothing you can't do anything all right let's see