Proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Azran, you heard everything I had to state today about 1901.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
The question is from the board.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
First name Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
Right.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
This relates to all the projects that are in front of us today.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change in the existing residential multifamily zoning at this location.
Side art variance is supportable in the context of multiple row homes.
However, the other variances are largely self-created.
The open area variances for proposed parcel C through parcel J could be remedied by revising plans to build duplexes instead of triplexes.
And the applicants reconfigurated lots A1 through A2 to bring them closer into clients with their required lot.
to bring them closer into compliance with their requirement required lot size by using parts of
the backyard of the current proposed parcel b therefore we recommend the request advantage not
be granted um i would just comment that i believe that ron's comments have to do with another matter
not this one 1901 which i will obviously address all those concerns but this does not apply to 1901
It applies to, I think it was in 1929.
Yes, 1929.
Ron, were you touched the vinyl, Ron?
We are proposed to, I can do that?
Hold on.
The proposed, the properties indicated for residential use on our adopted district plan,
no change to existing residential zoning at this location,
the applicant's hardship not supported
with evidence of unique physical circumstances
in addition to the property
that would prevent it from being used
formally with the code.
Therefore, we recommend request for granted
to stop the grant.
Mr. Nockms, do you want to respond?
Yeah, I mean, the two refusals
has to do with parking
where there's a curb of the cut
that exists already on the lot
and we're decreasing the size of the curb cut.
We're moving it over a little,
but we're decreasing the size of the curb cut
so it's an existing condition.
that's just that's been historically recognized over time and then the second curb cut with the
roof deck it's not really a roof deck it's just like this little balcony area which again um we
think it's appropriate under circumstances it's going to actually provide eyes on the street
and it's an amenity i think the neighborhood was very appreciative of it mi 2022 004-694-1929
Ridge Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas
Holloman, my vote is yes.
Jane Snell,
my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Go to two.
All right, so this will be 1907-15
Ridge Avenue.
I have this one
as 1901, Ridge.
Oh, I did 1901.
I didn't mean to go out of order.
I apologize. I just went down the numbers.
So if you want me to do
1929 next I can do that
because that was
it sounds like number one on the list
you tell me
do number one
I'll do 1929
Mr. Chair with the last vote
I didn't catch did you read
the MI number and address
so the last vote would have been
MI 2022
983 1901 Ridge Avenue
I voted yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
All right, so this one here we're doing is MI 2022-004-694-1929, Ridge Avenue.
Ishmael Street.
all right so same thing here as we discussed you know previously in terms of just the site
plan from an illustrative point of view it's it's these properties here and i believe also
these two properties here on thompson street so we'll go over the notice refusal we saw the
letter of support from from the community uh we'll go over the site plan and project description
again just to confirm where we are uh our zoning map to show again you know reaffirming where we
are photographs of these properties uh and we'll go through the architectural plans and drawings
we already went through the rco meeting notice i'll skip down to the deed to the property if
if you need it and we also have the certificate of tax clearance and again in the virtual audience
is Mr. Asker. All right, so notice the refusal. Again, no density, you know, requests in terms
of variances. These are RM1 properties. We're taking 12 parcels and making 14. And we are
making such that they will be two single family parcels on A1 and A2, which is on Thompson Street.
And then the remaining parcels are going to be triplexes, which is on Ridge Avenue.
Again, this density that we're creating by way of all these properties within the code is going to allow us to help support the commercial order that currently exists on Ridge Avenue.
So we're right.
What I'm reading is it's 14 existing lots to build 12 attached structures.
to build 12 attached structures that's right i'm sorry i inverse that it's 14 existing lots
That's right.
I'm sorry.
I inverse that.
we're creating 12 so we're actually decreasing the density in here because we're creating less
lots here so yes i did mistake that so we have three refusals right we're the a1 and a2 the
single family houses we're workforce houses the lot size that we're requesting is 542.78
and 1129.17, which again runs afoul technically the Philadelphia zoning code, but it's not out
of character. And the properties we did build on Thompson Street, and these are going to be on
Thompson Street too, are even smaller than what we're proposing for this one. So this is not out
of character to have lot sizes of this size. The open area, because we're basically taking a city
block, which has a corner, and we're subdividing it, we're asking for 25, the Philadelphia zoning
code, technical reading saying 25% open area, really should be 20% open area. But either way,
we have significant backyards for all of these properties. So even though it's less than the 25%,
we're at 20%. These backyards are humongous. And then the third one about the side yard,
we created identical building structures. So one lot's a little wider than the other lot.
So to keep in conformity with the buildings, we created the same width of the building structures
on each lot, which creates a breezeway or a secondary alley of over three feet, which is,
you know, again, from a life safety perspective, it's only more helpful in that respect. So none
of them are unreasonable, out of character, and again, have been vetted through, you know,
the land bank acquisition process, city council ordinance, and the community. So again, the same
lender support. They did it for all the properties. The site plan, as you can, you'll see where these
triplexes here, and then these two single families here. And you'll see that from probably this is
an easier one to see. But again, these, these two single families, and then these triplexes right
here. So again, you'll see is 1913 and 1909, which is technically has a Ridge Avenue address.
It's really West Thompson Street. And you can see just generally, these properties are the lot
sizes proposed are much larger than what's already been built on West Thompson Street for single
family structures so and then you also see that it's tough to meet some of these dimensional
requirements because of the irregular shape of these lots
so um and these from a photograph perspective the this is 1929 street or ridge avenue i'm sorry
and then this will be the other side where the two that's where the triplexes are and this is
where the two single families are and then this is just our hearing notice poster um and then here
are our plans so you're looking from west thompson street this is stuff we already built so all we're
trying to build is exactly what was built before but you see these are single family traditional
original nice brick facade row homes. And then on the other side is you have all these triplexes
here, again, to help support the commercial corridor. And what the community really appreciated
was, you know, the uniformity with some variants of like the materials being used. So again,
we have some brick facades, we have some stucco facades, you know, even the bay windows were
done tastefully and then they want to see a night vision again we're going to activate this corner
by not just building these properties in these buildings or developing these properties but also
having a lot of light you know on this block through these you know building structures
you know again landscaping through tree installation throughout so the community
was very appreciative of that because these properties have been vacant for so long
and then you can just see from the workforce housing these are single-family structures
so you can see that you know we haven't even though we're not meeting the 1440 square foot
block requirements we have an ample rear yard for both of them and then again
We have an ample rear yard for both of them. And then again, it's just a simple floor plan of a living room, kitchen, and dining room. You have three bedrooms, two on the second floor, and then you have the master suite on the third floor.
and the same thing applies
for 1913 West Thompson Street.
Living room, kitchen, dining room,
two bedrooms with a bathroom on the second floor
and then a master suite.
And then these are the properties on Ridge Avenue.
Again, you can even see in 1929 how regular shape that is.
it was very difficult you know again we have 14 lots and we're creating 12 lots so we tried when
we could to consolidate it we didn't go 12 to 14 as i mistakenly stated or even go 14 to 14 we
really try to responsibly fit these triplexes into the neighborhood and then this is just for each one
And then you can see just the rear yards from a site plan perspective for 1913 and 1919 Thompson Street.
We have ample space in the back.
That's Parcelet 1 and Parcelet 2.
And then this is Ridge Avenue.
this is where that we have the open area issues but you can see our rear yard is 1185 square feet
for 1929 for example for um which i don't believe is one of the ones that runs or follow philadelphia
zoning codes it's but even the ones that do our rear yard is 262 square feet where we also have
a four-point alley as well which can't be accounted for for you know open area but just
shows that there's a lot of light and air available to the surrounding properties
now and so everybody so everybody's clear the city council ordinance was for the purchase
of these parcels that's correct okay yeah and then again for parcel e is again 262
in terms of lot size parcel f is also 262 i want to make sure and i think so on and so on
they're basically the same size so i can go through it but like ultimately there are three variances
two single family homes we don't have 440 square feet we have not 942.78 and 1129.17
which which are consistent with the surrounding area the open area again is is ample and well
within the reasonable uh limits uh that the community accepted and then the side yard is
just because we have two building structures that we wanted to have the same built size building
structure. Unfortunately, one of our lots is wider than the other. So we have a little side
dirt of three feet rather than they've required five feet. So with that being said, I would ask
that Mr. Azran virtually raise his hand again. Mr. Azran, you've already been sworn, just state your
name. Jack Azran. That's right. Proceed, Alan. Yes. Mr. Azran, you heard everything I had to
state about your project for 1929 Ridge Avenue. Yes. And is it true and correct? Yes. And do you
doubt this? Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman. No, Chair. No, Chair. Questions or
comments from the virtual audience i think that they're not i see no hands here planning commission
got ron bednar city planning again this is for 1929 ridge avenue right comprehensive plan
recommends no change the residential multi-family zoning at this location the side yard variances
is supportable in the context of multiple row houses however the other variances are largely
self-created. The open area variance for proposed parcel C through J could be remedied by revising
plans to build duplexes instead of triplexes, and the applicant could reconfigure lots A1 and A2 to