at those meetings about the basis for his opposition is relevant it was it but we didn't
go into we didn't adopt your testimony we but we did not go into any of the facts underlying those
meetings it was simply to establish that he was there excuse me this is sharon again the formal
rules of evidence do not apply in this proceeding all right gentlemen i'll quickly summarize the
basis of what i'm asking mr baruch's uh opposition uh is grounded in the fact that he believes that
an affordable that a multi-family building that has an affordable component will impact negatively
impact his property values whereas Fishtown Neighbor Association has noted the affordable
component is a positive to this development it's something sorely needed within the Fishtown
community I'll also I need to address some of the other points that were made by Mr. Monroe
So with respect to the green roof, we will stipulate as a provisor for providing a green roof in compliance, a 60% green roof in compliance with the Philadelphia Code.
The square foot of the lot size is 4,957 square feet.
However, the Code provides 5,000 square feet of earth disturbance.
Earth disturbance also includes the sidewalks and the surrounding area.
So it's common that projects that are even smaller than this meet that 5,000 square foot requirement.
Clearly, this project would, as it is a corner parcel with frontage on both Belgrade and York Street.
So to do the calculation, as a base level, we would be at 10 units.
We would get two additional units for the green roof to bring to 12.
and then adding the two affordable units would bring this project up to 18. Under an RM1 standard,
that gets increased by ones who are at 19. So issues about and questions regarding density
and whether this is appropriate are unfounded because if this were zoned CMX2 or RM1,
we would be permitted to develop 18 or 19 units, depending on the classification, by right.
Every other property on this block, which is the CMX2 property right here that my cursor is over, that is where Green Egg is, as well as the townhomes, which I'm circling here, are developed under a multifamily standard.
What Mr. Monroe neglected to note is that the townhomes also received a variance to permit multifamily use.
And then as you head north, ICMX, RM1, CMX2, all of the properties are multifamily on this side of York Street, as can be supported by the commercial corridor.
So this is no other home has on this block, nor on the north side going up for five blocks, need to conform to an RSA 5 standard.
We are providing something that the city has placed a benefit and importance on, which is the affordable housing component.
We have stipulated to provide two affordable units within this development, and we address the concerns of height by dropping it to 30 feet and of the commercial usage.
We've compromised at every level and every step of the way, and believe that this is a project that is squarely in line with the neighboring development.
Chairman Tachiko, if I may, just two points.
One is the Fishtown Neighborhood Association letter, just to focus on the key point where we're all in agreement.
uh they say quote um this is too dense for rsa 5 zone lots agreed density is needed but proposals
were excessive uh and uh with respect to the the multi-family use of the townhome development
And with respect to the multifamily use of the townhome development, there are eight units there.
We're talking about the applicant has a proposal on a much smaller parcel that's proposing much more than eight units.
I think it was 18 now. And then finally, with respect to affordable housing or affordable units, there's been no distinction.
the code makes a distinction between low-income units and moderate-income units. There's a
distinction because you get an increase in bonus for moderate-income units versus low-income units.
There's been no distinctions, just affordable. And then again, it would be completely unenforceable
if it was just done by proviso or by a community benefits agreement. The code provides that in
order to do that uh under section 147027b um you have to enter an agreement with the planning
commission have specific conditions and then record that uh agreement like you would indeed so uh so
it's an agreement that runs with the land thank you um one more thing just to point out is uh
Just because I neglected to mention it, it was stated that this 2620, which is right up here, 2636 York Street, I believe someone mentioned it was by right.
It was not.
This was a variant.
There was no affordable component there, and that was 42 units on 10,000 square feet.
Again, we're 5,000 square feet at 18 units, and we are offering to provide the two affordable units.
We have offered this to the community.
we said we would enter into a community benefits agreement to memorialize that, and there was no
response. Also, subsequent to the letter, the letter was reflective of our 21-unit plan. We
have further decreased that to 18 units, so now we are in line with CMX2 or RM1, which again,
if you look up the block, everything's RM1 or CMX2 except for this ICMX.
again I stepped away Sharon I apologize what was the position of the RCO
the RCO Mr. Phillips has said is opposed but let me see if the yes the letter has come in
I will forward you the letter if you'd like or and and the letter is I just put it up on the screen
And again, it notes, agreed density is needed, lack of commercial space and lack of type A
accessible units, which I've addressed that there are type A accessible units that conform
the commercial spacers at the request of the HOA, and they agree density is needed.
The proposals before FNA were for 24 and 21.
We came back with subsequent to that meeting to agree to 18, so we fall in line with the
CMXU standard.
So the RCO did not take a position, correct me if I'm wrong, on the number of units that would be acceptable to them.
Is that correct?
Correct.
That is correct.
And this was based on 21.
You'll also note that they said that we would ask if they would support a fourth version, but we did not provide plans for, and the plans are the same.
We just agreed to reduce the density.
Understood.
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
No. No. Planning Commission. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Fecto, City Planning Commission. The Planning Commission staff worked on these zoning maps with the Fishtown Neighbors Association over three years. The maps date to 2015.
Comprehensive plan recommends these properties for residential single-family use.
Proposed multifamily units are not the minimum required to enable viable use of these properties.
For a proposal that deviates so drastically from the underlying zoning, the correct remedy is a zoning change, not a zoning variance.
We recommend denial of the requested variances.
Thank you. MI 2020-001115, 2504 East York Street. My vote is no.
my vote is yes my vote is yes
can we take it on the advisory can we take can we discuss this can we take it on the advisory
mr chairman okay the record will be closed uh we'll discuss it at our next executive session
next Wednesday. Thank you. Thank you. Before we go any further, I do have, we have to go back to
number 11. Mr. Whalen forgot to ask us, there is a revision. So MI 2021-001223,
623 Shawmont Avenue. My vote is yes with the
623 Shawmont Avenue my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan two pages approved today
my vote is yes with proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
hold on I'm sorry before you go before you go
I need to ask if the court reporter needs a break yes I do okay we'll see you back here
in 10 minutes thank you sir thank you i know it's long but he needs a break
please i remind you always uh remind me or one of us please all right uh i think carol we're
up to number four yes we are calendar number mi 2021 001226 3023 west harper street the attorney
is Rachel Pritzker. I'm still under oath from earlier. Yep. There's also a letter of non-opposition
from Fairmont Civic Association. That's correct. She's coming back in as a panelist. Thank you.
Ms. Pritzker can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Sure. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA-191 of the three.
You're still under oath, but do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Thank you. You may proceed.
and there's a letter of non-opposition from the rco yes chairman members of the board this is
3023 west harper street as you can see in front of you the application is for the erection of a
rear addition and an addition above to an existing attached structure not to exceed 38 feet in height
with a roof deck access from a roof deck access structure for a single family house the only
refusal we have here today is for the eight-foot setback. As the board is well aware, when you have
single family or you have any properties that are directly adjacent to structures, you are
required to do the eight-foot setback. In this proposal, we are proposing for
a flush structure instead on the third floor. There are other properties on the block that have
the same third story flush and the community and those who reside and live on the block believe
that our proposal for a flush third floor instead of the eight-foot setback was more in character
with what's already being provided and is more historically in character with this block and
other three-story structures nearby. We're going to hold the cornice line and also make sure that
um you know the materials that we're using for the structure are in line with what's on the property
this is the zoning map it's rsa5 on west harper street
and this is the property it's currently going to be renovated as a single family home
exterior photos of the property very unattractive picture of the rear of the property
um interior photos so all this will be redone um we met with the fairmount civic association
um back in april um and we have letter of non-opposition from them as well um so again
um we're just asking to not provide the uh eight foot setback and to do flush as per the plans that
we provided i'm happy to go through the plans if the um board would like or um take any questions
and have my uh client um jeff cohen um on here as well to adopt my testimony just give us a
brief description if you could all right yeah sure let me just pull them up if you don't mind
here we go
you see that chairman uh we only see the large print uh anyway you got abbreviations yeah we
could see that now so as you can see we're just proposing this is the existing two-story structure
we're just proposing a flush third story with an addition that mimics the existing, you know,
property lines that we have and just adding on a roof deck and roof deck access structure.
It just allows for a more modern look, again, holding the cornice line
and keeping in character with the other three-story properties on the block.
and keeping in character with the other three story properties on the block.
Very good. Thank you.
You want to get your client to adopt your testimony?
Yes, please.
Do you see a Jeff Cohen?
There's no one with that name that has their hand up.
We'll stipulate that you being an officer of court,
your client would have adopted your testimony.
Thank you.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
There are no hands at this time, Chair.
Thank you. Planning Commission?
Good evening, members of the Board.
David Repto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change from the existing single-family zoning at this location.
This block face contains almost all two-story row homes.
Granting the variance by allowing a third story that is not set back would break that uniformity.
we recommend that the board deny the requested variance just want to comment to the planning
commission that if you look on google maps there's actually a bunch of properties that are three
stories that are flush or provide a mansard roof and not the setback that's correct but i would
note that the majority of the block is two-story homes without setbacks with setbacks right okay
All right. MI 2021-001-226-3023 West Harper Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
Calendar number. You're welcome. Calendar number MI 2021-000379-3338 North Reese Street. The attorney is Alan Nockamson.
And we have a letter of opposition from Hache.
He's coming back in as a panelist, Madam Vice Chair.
Thank you.
Hi, can you put your name and address on the record, please, and spell your last name.
Yes, good afternoon, Madam Vice Chair, members of the Board, Alan Nockamson of Nockamson,
PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia PA 19109.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, we do. Thank you. You may proceed. I'm going to share my screen. Thank you.
All right. So I'm here for 3338 North Street. Whenever a client comes to me with a zoning variance, we talk first about, does it make sense? And my philosophy is this. If you walk by the property built or used as proposed, and it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, then that's obviously the beginning of a conversation.
And this is the beginning of the conversation for 3338 North 3th Street.
As you see the property, the front page of our materials, it's a corner property.
It's a regular shape.
If you looked at it just generally, and by the way, it has a sign.
A church was previously on the first floor.
And on the second floor is residential.
This speaks as a CMX, you know, one or two property.
Unfortunately, it's RM1.
So, you know, that's why we're here today. So in my presentation materials, you'll see a table of contents. There's the deeds of property showing that my client, Syed LLC, owns the property. Second exhibit is the certificate of tax clearance showing that they are a good standing with the city of Philadelphia.
A third exhibit is the notice of refusal, and we'll go over the permits or the history of this property. We're looking to put essentially the quintessential corner store. No on-premises cooking, no, but the grocery store that you can go and get whatever you need the last second.
And you'll see from the permit or the permits that this has a history of commercial usage on the first floor, even though it's a RM1 property.
And we'll go through it as well to show that in 1960, this was a corner store as well.
Fourth exhibit, you'll see our application appeal to the ZBA.
Fifth, you'll see the maps of the area.
And you'll see a mixture in the zoning map between RM1 and CMX2.
We are on Rees Street, which has a lot of commercial designations, but regardless,
it's multi-unit in nature. Exhibit 6 will be photographs of the property in the surrounding
area. Exhibit 7, you'll see the floor plans. Exhibit 8, you'll see correspondence from
Hache CDC, but you'll also see pages of support for this project.
So, first thing is, you'll see the deed to the property, you'll see that it's owned
So first thing is, you'll see the deed to the property.
by Zaid LLC.
You'll then see our certificate of tax clearance showing that we're in good standing.
This is an RM1 property, it's multi-unit.
We're not trying to increase the amount of units, and to be honest, this is over 1124.
We could squeeze in another residential unit. It's going to be owner occupied completely. First floor, you know, run a business owned by the owner. And second floor, he will be living there as well. So we're not trying to overuse this property in any respect. We can actually have three units, two residential or three residential. We just want one commercial, owner occupied, one residential above, owner occupied.
All right. So we'll go through now the different permits that we saw of record.
Again, in 1960, this was retail, grocery, and delicatessen.
Pardon the interruption. Could you enlarge those?
Yeah, sure. Is that better, Mr. Chair?