I don't think they street stamps the plans at their preliminary or their prerequisite review at the zoning stage.
So just to clarify.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, we have one hand by Robert Everett, and they have been allowed to speak.
Mr. Everett, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Yeah, good afternoon and welcome to all the new board members.
His first name is Robert, R-O-V-E-R-T, last name Everett, E-V-E-R-E-T-T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Absolutely.
And Mr. Everett, you represent the RCO, am I correct?
I am on the zoning committee.
Yes, I am.
Please proceed, sir.
Just want to verify what Alan has presented.
It was exactly what he showed us, and the community vote the same.
I did notice in his presentation, some of the people that sent in the support letters actually voted during our case and probably hit the wrong button for abstain during the meeting, which would explain why we had a higher number than usual.
At nine.
Yeah, I saw at least two of them that showed up that way, but they've now sent letters of support.
We're running into that with Zoom meetings that big fingers sometimes hit the wrong button and they don't realize it.
Thank you, Mr. Everett. Thanks for taking the time to call. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon. David Vecta with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman and board members, the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
There is no unique physical condition of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board deny the proposed use variance for an accessory off-street parking space, access from a primary street.
We also note for the board that if a space is approved, there is no mechanism that the city can use which can limit an owner to only parking a compact vehicle in this location.
Thank you.
MI 2024-001853, 516 East Cabot Street, I vote yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Tanada Graham, my vote is yes.
Kaia Nguyen, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Mr. Nockmson, I think there's one more.
It may be even later today
You might have something, I don't know
But number 13
MI 2024
002036
Gall Street
There's a recommendation of support
No explanation from the old
Richmond Civic Association
Vote of 6-0
And there's a letter of non-opposition
From Council Member Squilla
my name is alan occamson and i'm here to represent thomas collins the uh owner of the property
and in the virtual audience uh is his son patrick collins who will be my factual witness and our
vice chair has a few questions for you sir good afternoon council do you agree to wave the read
or refuse or stipulate to his accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this
and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case.
case five days in advance at this hearing oh yes we have thank you council please proceed and show
your screen thank you all right so i'm here to present uh 2436 gulf street uh this property
is in the old Richmond section, excuse me, section of Philadelphia. It's at the corner of Gall and
Haggard Street. And you'll see through the history of this property and just the photographs of this
property, what we're proposing is not out of character to this property itself. First, we'll
review the notice of refusal, did a letter of support from the old Richmond Civic Association.
I also believe there's a letter of non-opposition from the district council member. We did update
our drawings to take into account reorienting the pilehouse in a way that's more conducive
to neighborhoods. The history of the property, this is a CMX-1 property. It has a long history
of having a bar on the ground floor and residences above. That's all we're looking to do. The only
difference is we're adding a third-story addition, which we're increasing some non-conforming uses
from a dimensional standpoint we'll review that uh by way of the of a zoning permit uh that we have
which is exhibit four as well as aerial views of the property which are exhibit five then we'll
review maps of the area which will confirm this is a cmx one property where it's located in the
neighborhood photographs of the property in the surrounding area our plans and drawings or rco
meeting notice along with proof of mailing that notice our application for appeal that we filed
of, you know, before the ZBA, our deed to the property showing that Mr. Collins is the owner
of the property, and our certificate of tax clearance. At the conclusion of my presentation,
I'll ask Patrick Collins, his son, to testify just because he's the one who's going to be the
operator of the business on the ground floor. So our noser refusal is this. We're a CMX1 property.
We're looking to put a bar establishment on the ground floor. So we're having it as a sit-down
restaurant, and we're going to have a one-unit dwelling on the third floor. So, you know,
the refusals are as follows. The roof deck access structure may not exceed 125 square feet in the
area, because we do. You know, that access structure is considered as part of the height
of the building. In order to accommodate the community, we reoriented the access structure
towards the middle of the property.
And then we also talked to the neighbor to the left of us
who would be impacted by, you know,
this heavy roof deck access structure.
And, you know, he was in support of it.
And actually that was mentioned during the community meeting
of how my client personally visited
all those properties nearby,
spoke to them, showed the plans,
and they were supportive of that.
The community members who were at the meeting
verbalized that, that, you know,
they talked to their neighbors
and who didn't show up and they were appreciative of the fact that my client did made an effort
outside the community meeting to like beforehand reach out to those members the second refusal has
to do with the sit-down restaurant which is you know not allowed under cmx1 zoning this has been
a bar for the longest period of time that use was discontinued my client is trying to reinvigorate
this property both from a brick and mortar perspective as well as a use perspective so
it's not out of character to have a bar establishment at this location. Third refusal has to do with
the maximum occupied area, where 80% is allowed as of right, while we are requesting 96% occupied
area. We're just increasing a non-conforming use. Part of that is we're taking an interior
staircase that is an eyesore, which is also represented at the community meeting, and putting
it inside, essentially. And then we're just building up, which is also increasing that
non-conforming use as well. And then the fourth refusal kind of goes hand in hand with the
occupied area refusal. So rear yard setback, nine feet's required while we're at two feet,
three inches. Again, it's already a non-conforming building. We're extending that non-conformity
to place our staircase instead of like on the side of the building, which is an eyesore to
the community, inside the building structure itself. And then we're building up as well,
which increases that non-conforming use. So letter support, you know, I think we just got
this letter like this afternoon. So I don't know. And we obviously updated our materials and sent
it in. But there was commentary. It stated a handful of neighbors came out to ask questions
and everyone was satisfied. The building used to be a restaurant and we're happy to see it come
The building used to be a restaurant, and we're happy to see it come back to active use.
back to active use.
So everyone who showed up to the meeting, and again, it wasn't a well-attended meeting, but there were six people, and they were all enthusiastic about, you know, the use.
And there was commentary about my client meeting with other neighbors nearby.
And, you know, from my experience is if there's an issue, people will show up.
And here it was relayed that there was no issue by the people who attended the community meeting.
And then along with that, Council Member Squill also gave a letter of non-opposition,
given the support from the neighborhood for this project.
And then again, if this board feels so inclined to grant this zoning variance request,
we would ask that they do it by way of proviso.
We reduce the size, I don't believe it's less than 125 square feet, but closer to conforming
with the code.
and we reoriented the location of the roof deck access structure to put it more towards the middle
of the property so we're not affecting people's light and air as much. And then this is just a
site plan here. You can see there's no basement living. You have a bar restaurant which is
essentially the first floor and second floor and you have apartment on the third floor and you have
a pilot house here. This is the stairwell that we created because you'll see from the pictures
The staircase currently for the unit on the second floor is accessed through an external staircase, which the community even stated was an eyesore.
And they're appreciative of the fact that we're putting the staircase in the building in the rear.
And again, some of this nonconformity in terms of occupied area and rear yard setback already exists because this is a nonconforming building.
And in the property history, again, we saw that on Atlas, which was confirmed by the community, that this has always been a one-on-one, one restaurant, a bar, and one residence above.
And that's what we're trying to do here.
We're just trying to have a little bit larger bar establishment, a lot nicer than what was there, and we're keeping the residence.
But now instead of the second story, we want it on the third story.
and then aerial views of the property this is current aerial views as you can see
our property goes rather deep right now it's a non-conforming property from a occupied area
and rear yard setback perspective and then this is the aerial view 2 in 1996 as well just showing
that it's been like that for some time uh maps of the area we're a cmx1 property so we're not
trying to put commercial use in a residential zoning classification. It's just the sit-down
restaurant part of it requires a variance, but again, not out of character to its previous use.
And then this is a map of the area from a Google perspective. And then photographs of the property,
as you can see, the old remnants of what the restaurant signage used to be like.
And then this is the exterior staircase. It was an eyesore to the community. This is how
how people got into the second to the unit upstairs we took we're proposing to take this
away and make it an interior staircase uh these are matt these are the zoning posters for today's
hearing we posted those uh in excess of 21 days from the date of today's hearing giving
the public notice of the hearing uh this is gall street to the right of the property
this is gall street to the left of the property this is east haggard street to the right of the
property you can see the remnants of the staircase here this is east haggard street to the left of
the property our plans and drawings this is the what we envision the property is going to look
like which is completely different than what it is today having the commercial space with having
windows for you know just light and air purposes getting rid of that ugly stucco facade you know
adding wood features or some type of non-brick material but then like getting rid of that
stucco and then adding brick to match up there and as you can see we set back the roof deck access
structure um let's see and then the bar area you can see in the basements the kitchen area
um and you know the first floor you have which is not any typical for a lot of bars and
you know in in like communities like this um and then the first floor you'll have a bar and a
little seating area and then we have the major seating area on the second floor and then the
third floor is just the residence uh which mr collins may may live there for some time to get
the bar up and running so he's going to live where he works and then this is the roof deck
And then this is the roof deck access structure here, which is the subject of the variance request.
access structure here, which is the subject of the variant.
You know, given that he didn't want to go four stories and like, again, he's within the height limit, but he didn't want to go.
He wanted high ceilings from where he was at on the third story, which makes it a nicer building structure.
He needed some area to like kind of stretch his legs.
And that's where the roof deck access structure comes into play.
We met with the community on June 11th at 730 p.m.
We emailed this notice to the community with the proof of mailing on May 31st.
161 addresses were notified by mail of that community meeting.
Here are the addresses that were mailed that notice.
Proof of mailing of that notice.
The applications for appeal that we filed on Mr. Collins' behalf,
along with the notice of refusal
and the project information form.
And then the deed to the property
showing that Mr. Collins owns it.
And the certificate of tax clearance.
Just a little background about Patrick.
Patrick has been in the restaurant business
for over 10 years.
He's been a manager
and he's looking forward to this
as his first restaurant.
And he's hoping that the board
will grant this variance request with that being said i would ask that uh patrick uh virtually
raise his hand mr gallagher patrick if you're in the audience please raise your virtual hand
i see no hands i'm sorry their hand has been raised and they haven't allowed to speak
Mr. Gallagher could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer
sorry can you guys hear me
speak up just a little bit please
my name is Patrick Collins
do you have Mr. Collins
you probably have two devices on
that is correct
mr collins they seem to have disconnected okay sure
There are no longer
in attendance in the audience.