We do not have any opposition to the dimensional variances,
as the new lots are in keeping with the pattern on the block.
However, notwithstanding the existing garages,
the proposed front-loaded garages will exacerbate a poor pedestrian experience and are out of
character with the rest of the block. There is no hardship preventing this development from
occurring without front-loaded garages. New row homes without front-loaded garages would improve
the pedestrian safety and increase on-street parking. Accordingly, we oppose the variance
for parking access from the front street. Thank you. Yes, sir. I'm just going to address,
but you could go first obviously go ahead i'll listen to you again yeah at the community meeting
uh not to diminish what folks have already said the rco asked about the parking indicated that the
the two spaces would be an overuse uh they didn't even mention it as an opposition in their letter
and we backed off and had one car since my client has owned it within the last year he has used it
And he's going in and out of there with his truck. He's a hardwood flooring store. And so recently, as in the past, this garage has been used. And we think that since it's been historically a garage and has been used as a garage, that it continue as such.
Thank you. I know there was a number of provisos, not to belabor this case. I would like to close
the record and allow for the board to render the decision at next Wednesday morning's executive
session. That'd be November the 4th at 9 30. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is that board okay
with that any objections okay thank you thank you mr chairman uh mi 2020-001488 774 south cleveland
Street. Number four on our sheet. Ellen Notchamson. I have promoted Attorney Notchamson to as a
panelists. Mr. Notkinson, you have already been sworn in, correct? Yes, I believe so, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Please proceed. You agree to wait to read in of its refusal and stipulate to attack
your seat? I do. Also, 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? I have. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
I have. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
We have, and yes, you do have a letter. Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Again, my name is Alan Nockamson of Nockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
And I'm here to present 774 South Cleveland Street. I'm going to share my screen.
And in front of you is a packet of exhibits which include eight exhibits.
The first exhibit is the deed to the property showing that Mark Abend owns the property
of 774 South Cleveland Street.
This property is located in the Graduate Hospital section of Philadelphia.
After this is a certificate of tax compliance showing that he is in good standing with the
City of Philadelphia.
After this is the notice of refusal.
This is an RSA 5 property.
We are located to the left and to the right of us are two-story houses.
We are currently a two-story house.
All we are looking to do is renovate this house and add a third-story straight up.
This is where Mr. Abend is going to live.
He's not a developer.
He is from the area and he wants to move to the graduate hospital area by renovating this
house.
The fourth exhibit is the application for appeal that we followed with the zoning board
of adjustment.
After that is the project information form.
And here is the zoning map.
Again, we're on South Cleveland Street, which is between Dorrance and South 18th Street between
Catherine and Fitzwater.
And after that is the photograph at the front of the property as well as to the left and
to the right. While the pictures don't indicate very well, this is a mix between two and three
story houses on this block of South Cleveland Street. We did meet with South of South Neighborhood
Association and we came to an understanding in terms of making slight alterations to our
drawings and receive their support as a result of that.
So some of the things are non-zoning related by adding flower boxes in the front, changing
some of the materials for the drawings.
I would defer to Ms. Saleta, but the only real change that we made here was we changed
the configuration of the pilot house, not the location, but just to have it slope in
the rear to kind of diffuse the height of the actual pilot house but it's the same height it's
just like sloped like this I don't believe that that would require a proviso but I would defer
to Ms. Saleta there's one other thing and the architect did point this out to me on the original
site plan it said roof mean height on the original one that we followed with L&I it said 33 feet
which was a draftsman error it's actually 30 feet I don't know if that would also require a proviso
But I would defer to Ms. Saleta as respect to that.
So, and again, we met.
Excuse me, are you submitting revised plans?
I don't think it is necessary, but I would defer to you, Ms. Saleta.
Like, again, the only thing we're changing, instead of having it straight like this, like, you know, square, we're just sloping this.
So, I don't think that would require a proviso, but I would defer to you.
and again it um i understand that i agree that it should not require a proviso i'm
but i imagine if you have any issues with lni you could always come back to us
well should we just do this in the form of proviso because it is stamped these plans
they are stamped yes why don't we do that then yeah let's just do it that way we you know you
don't have to come back all right okay and then the only other thing is what about this the site
plan where there was a draftsman error where it said the roof mean height it originally said 33
feet but now we changed it to 30 feet would that require could the notation be put on the plan or
something if you could just include that on the proviso plans form okay can i can i submit those
after the hearing today um yes would you want to if you can do it quickly they don't sound like
major changes perhaps we could vote it during the board could vote it during the 3 30 session would
that work for you that would work perfectly I have uh one other matter so I'll have after dealing
with that matter I'll work on the proviso plan form and um submit it to you uh as well would
that work for the board members yeah yeah let's let's do it that way sure thank you okay thank
you so we'll hold off on a vote until that's uh and Alan gets back to us correct yes um and again
we met with the you know they support this based on us making some minor changes and here's their
zoning committee applicant pledge that we signed uh and some again just you know these are not
And some, again, just, you know, these are not zoning related, but third floor will be a thin brick material above cornice and some other zoning, unzoning related matters.
Sony related, but third floor will be a
That's it.
Thank you.
Okay, next up, number five on our list, MI 2020, that's 001177.
Can we get planning?
We're going to wait till we vote or no?
Well, why don't we do that?
Let's get planning.
okay in case they change uh staff people okay good idea thank you that's fine uh once again
this is ian litwin planning commission staff uh this property is indicated for single family
residential use in the city's comprehensive plan and zoned accordingly the eight foot setback in
the zoning code exists to protect neighborhood character seeing as the rco is not in opposition
we do not oppose granting the dimensional variance thank you and uh we'll get back to voting on this
in the 3.30 session.
Did you want to know
if there was anybody who was interested
in testifying? I told you I'm having
a rough day today. Thank you.
I got you back, Chair.
Cloudy days in me don't work.
We have a Marcus.
Marcus,
I apologize for bypassing you.
If you're here on
the South Cleveland case,
please identify yourself, spell your
first and last name.
hello this is well this is marcus ferrera m-a-r-c-u-s and then last name f as in frank
e-r-r-e-i-r-a i'm a resident of 1620 south street and a member of the sasna zoning committee
we're in a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I do. Please proceed. So we voted to approve this application in part to give a little
background about our neighborhood philosophy about these three-story buildings on two
otherwise mostly two-story blocks. We generally prefer a mansard roof
vis-a-vis the setback however the neighbor across the street said wait a minute that's
going to look a little silly because the other buildings have three stories without a mansard
on the block so why don't we just continue with that then there was a discussion via zoom
And what ended up happening was there was a seeming consensus that there would be a three story, but the continued the cornice line above the second story.
I wanted to jump in and say, hey, wait, maybe we can rethink this.
How about we put the cornice on the third above the third story to match the cornice lines of the other properties?
and that discussion didn't really happen so I ended up voting no personally as a member of the
zoning committee I think the vote came out to four to two and then there was some internal
discussion with us and I don't know if the neighbor across the street is here to voice his
preference but I think that this is a last chance to reconsider. Hey Charlie good good evening
so buddy how you doing confessor you got your uh confessor you have to mute yep the um so this is
the last chance to reconsider put the cornice at the top of the third story and um have a
a uniform brick all the way up otherwise we're going to have this weird situation where some
of the cornices are at the third some are mid block or mid mid facade and then here we're
potentially going to have or we're definitely going to have if it goes as planned um a different
type of brick above the second floor cornice from below which may be a frankenstein look if not done
very very artfully that's all thank you anyone else care to testify on this matter please raise
your hand that's all chair okay thank you we'll vote on this at the three o'clock session thank
Thank you for reminding me, Tanya.
All right.
If I could just interject a correction, the 3.30 session.
What did I say?
Three o'clock.
Okay, 3.30 session.
Oh, God.
MI-2020-001177, 865 North 50th Street, 50th Street.
anyone here for eight six seven north
Anyone here for 867 North 50th Street?
We have Michael Lambert coming forth as the attorney.
However, there are some concerns about his exhibit submission.
Lambert, please identify yourself with a record, name and address, spell your name.
Yes, good afternoon.
My name is Michael Lambert.
i represent uh 867 north 50th street um we are here hold on please hold on hold on
lambert l-a-m-b-e-r-t you swear to the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do your answer please proceed thank you mr chairman uh again my name is michael lambert
and I'm here with the glass of 1867 North 50th Street.
We're asking this board to...
I'm sorry.
We have a series of questions that need to be asked
by a professor.
Because we have some concerns about your exhibit submission.
Yes, ma'am.
Professor?
Or Jim?
Apologize, man.
It was acting up.
I couldn't hit that.
Sorry about that.
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, sir. We did it twice.
Awesome. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter?
Yes, sir. I have a copy of that right here.
Do you agree to wait the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Absolutely, sir.
You may proceed.
And I'm sorry, we never received the exhibit package.
It looked like it went to planning, but not to the ZBA or here in Saleta.
We sent it twice, sent it on Friday, and then we sent it again today.
I did not receive it until today. There was a supplemental package that I received today, but I did not receive the basic exhibit packet until this afternoon.
Was that the exhibit?
Are you referring to me?
Yes, we sent the exhibit on Friday
and then we sent it again today.
We apologize if it did not reach you, ma'am.
However, we did send it twice.
We sent it again today
just in case you didn't receive it.
I'm glad you have it now.
If you could confirm that you have everything.
Okay, you sent it.
However, when I review what you sent today,
It was a submission to the Planning Commission.
Who should we be sending?
The requirement is to the RCO, ZBA box, and to Sharon Salata.
So that's the concern.
We didn't receive it ahead of time.
We did send it to Sharon Salata.
Did I spell her name right?