There are no other heads up at this time, Chair.
All right.
Carol, correct me if I'm wrong.
I think that's the first case, right?
MI 2020-003159, 2535 West Lehigh Avenue.
Mr. Notkinson.
He's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Thank you.
so this case was resumed on uh from april 28th till today and i believe the board was uh
did a resumption hearing only to hear feedback from the rco
is that accurate mr notkinson that is correct uh mr chair please proceed
Yes, again, my name is Alan Ockamson, PC, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19109.
We did have a...
Alan, I'm going to swear you in only because it's a new date.
You swear our firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
May I share my screen?
so as I indicated we previously had a hearing on this matter the board heard the merits of
the appeal and actually the city planning commission recommended the approving of the
approval of the variance request and I'll just quickly go through the material so you'll get
familiar again with you know what we're trying to do here we're 2535 Wesley High Street so
So in my packet of materials, it's the deed to the property, certificate of tax clearance,
notice refusal, application for appeal, maps of the area, photographs of the property and
the surrounding area, plans and drawings, and we do not have correspondence from Strawberry
Mansion Community Concern, but we did meet with them.
D to the property, showing that All A's Investments LLC owns the property, showing that we owe
no money as to the property.
The notice of refusal, we're a CMX1 property.
All we're trying to do is keep the existing barbershop on the first floor and to have
two residential units above.
Again, this is a CMX1 property.
essentially we're asking for one additional residential unit. It's not uncommon for most
of these properties on a 2500 block to have multiple residential units as you can see from
2500, 06, 28, 32, 34, 40, 41, 42, 46, and 48. Here's our application for appeal. One with the
project information form. Maps of the area. Again, we're on a commercial corridor. We're
trying to appropriately increase the density to help support that commercial corridor.
Pictures of the property. Again, you see it's a pre-existing structure. To the right of
the property, to the left of the property, and then plans and drawings. Let's go. Reduce
size a little bit. Again, as you know, there is no like basement living here because obviously
you have the commercial component on the first floor and then the residential on the second
and third floors, which each unit having its own floor. And again, we did meet with the
Strawberry Mansion organization. We met with them a few days ago. My understanding, and Clementa
Amazon's on the line as well, but she's the one to make the presentation. They had no concerns
about the proposed usage. The only concern that they had was non-zoning related matters, like
what the facade may look like and if there would be any improvements, which my client plans to do.
And just during the construction or the renovation of the upper floors, which needs substantial renovation because it's going to be a gut job, like just about structural integrity and things like that.
like just about structural integrity and things like that and we stated obviously
And we stated obviously that.
that's the next phase of the process where assuming we do get a zoning permit we would
have to apply for a building permit and there would be certain requirements of LNI and otherwise
so with that being said I would feel free to take any questions from the board
thank you any questions from the board for mr knockinson no no
oh one thing and the reason why we didn't post is because we didn't get any orange posters
because this was a reception hearing
anyone would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
only if you're testifying on 2535 West Allegheny here we have somebody from the
Strawberry Mansion community with their hand up you representative from Strawberry Mansion
please identify yourself Bonita Cummings director Strawberry Mansion hello hello can you hear me
now I can please identify yourself spell your first and last name is Bonita B-O-N-I-T-A
cummings c-u-m-m-i-n-g-s okay i swore you in earlier yes please proceed
this this property was i'm not really sure how we got to a resumption hearing to my knowledge
there was a request for continuance we were told that the continuance um was for um june the 9th
which is today from the attorney and then it never made the calendar so I'm not I'm not really
understanding how we got to a resumption here we were on the call on the 28th that decision was
made on the 28th yeah but I'm not I don't remember being I don't remember that but either way the
property was we have been out to this property as store-based mansion community concerned
on several visits one being uh tuesday and then the other one being prior to even the 28th where
the property has really never been posted for the uh for the zoning matter so our visit on tuesday
um was concerning what we thought was an excessive use um of trying to put a second and third floor
use in that property. So the use is excessive. You would have to create a pathway for the
third floor resident, which would decrease the space for the second floor resident. And
it's just an overuse of the property. I believe it's a buy right that's being proposed. If
anybody has any disagreement with that please speak up. Well it's multi-family RSA to my
understanding. This is a CMX1 property. This is not an RSA5. The first floor may have that use
but the multi-family use is for the second and third floor. We understand that ma'am but again
And it's a by right, meaning it's not an RSA 5, which would be single family.
Zoning classification allows for what is being proposed.
I mean, multifamily is what I meant.
You're right.
They're trying to utilize multifamily.
And what we're saying is that the multifamily aspect of this property is for a second floor and a third floor.
And that use would be excessive for that property.
If they wanted to use it as a one apartment, maybe with a bi-level for that second floor unit, that is more useful than trying to put two families on top of each other in that space.
Bi-level would probably provide the same number of bedrooms that you would have if you just did one apartment on the second and one on the third.
But you have to make way for the families to get to the third floor.
Well, that's up to the owner of the property.
We'll have to make those interior improvements to allow that to happen.
Again, it is a buy right for multifamily.
Anyone else would like to testify?
Please raise your hand.
Here, we have Clemente Amazon.
Ms. Amazon, you can unmute yourself and speak.
Good afternoon, Ms. Amazon.
Please spell your first and last name and I'll swear you in.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the board. Clementa Amazon. First name is C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A. Last name Amazon, A-M-A-Z-A-N. And the address is 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600.
I'm sorry.
The address is 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, 19109.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
I would just like to highlight that I did present this project during the community meeting,
and based off of my conversation with Ms. Cummings, her concern was primarily with the
facade of the building and the renovations that would be done. It was not my understanding as
she had concerns regarding the use. I would also like to point out that the third floor
is a studio unit and it is shorter than the rest of the property so we are using it responsibly.
Thank you. Anyone else?
Here we have a call-in user with their hand up. Caller please unmute yourself and speak now.
hello hello can you hear me yes we can adrian yes we can okay you've been sworn in so please
proceed okay i'll put my name on the record it's adrian fernandez f-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z
you're breaking up you're breaking up
Adrian's having some technical issues is there anyone else
there are no other hands at this time chair
we'll just give Adrian one more shot and see if we can get her on
If not, we'll have to move on.
Adrienne, are you there?
Okay, sure, you can continue.
Yes, thank you.
Planning Commissioner.
good afternoon mr chairman david fecto f-e-c-t-e-a-u with the city planning commission
you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir i do mr chairman members of the board i believe we already did give our testimony but
we will give it again. So the comprehensive plan recommends this property for residential
multifamily use. We recommend that the board support the requested variance.
Thank you. MI 2020-0031592535 West Allegheny Avenue. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Excuse me. It is, I believe, Lehigh Avenue.
What did I say?
it's two o'clock all right mi2020-0031592535 west lehigh avenue my vote is yes
my vote is yes also my vote is my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you
Thank you. MI 2021-000-592-900 Greenwood Street. This is a resumption hearing.
Councilman Squilla remains strongly opposed. However, if there is a vote of yes,
with proviso, maximum six units. I'm only putting that on the record. And there's also a letter of
opposition from passing square civic association excuse me chair i'm sorry to interrupt but after
you have heard this case there is an additional add-on that is not on your list i will send that
okay mr pertell he's coming back in as a panelist chair
good afternoon mr chair members of the board how are you this afternoon
Well, please identify yourself, and I'll square you in.
Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L,
Claire Harrison, Harvey in Brandsburg, 1835 Market Street,
Suite 1400, Philadelphia PA, 19103.
We're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you very much. I'll just start sharing my screen.
Okay, as was stated, my name is Steve Bertil. I'm here on behalf of the owners and applicants
of 900 Greenwich Avenue. This is a resumption hearing just to
This is a resumption hearing, just to refresh the board's memory, I'll give a brief procedural
background. We appeared before the board on April 21st. Prior to that, we had a community
meeting with Pass Young Civic on March 9th. At that meeting, the opposition that we heard
to the property the overwhelming concern um was the amount of density we were proposing um and
then the issues the sort of uh branch issues offer that which is traffic trash um and parking that
sort of comes along with any concern with density um at that time um we believed and we were
proposing to the group and then subsequently to the board that although um we are seeking to
increase the density that we believe that the buy right option on the property was actually a higher
impact than the proposed variance of the eight units. Originally, we were seeking a variance
for eight units to remove the commercial space on the existing structure and to house within that
envelope and the two-story addition. But this on the screen here, as you can see, this is the
existing building. It's currently an auto body shop, one story, or I guess one and a half stories
auto body shop. And we were seeking to put a two-story addition on there and to reuse the
first floor as residential in conjunction with the residential that would be in the additional
stores. At that time, when we reached the board, we made that presentation. As expected, the community
group voiced their opposition regarding their density, and there was a discussion regarding
alternative schemes, and essentially the community group didn't agree with our perception of the
type of impact that would have versus the by right use. So at that time, the board agreed to
allow us to go back and see if we can change the scheme of our proposed plan in conjunction with
the fact that the Planning Commission did testify at that time that they didn't have a problem with
removing the commercial space on the ground floor, but they did have think that the eight units was
too much. So we went back to the drone board and we were able to come up with a scheme that reduced
the proposed units by 25% to six units and also include interior trash storage, which we would
agree to do both as provisos today as a maximum of six units and to maintain interior trash storage
space, designated interior trash storage space. And we believe that this scheme addresses
the issues that were, at least at the time, were told to us was the most important issue,
which was density. So in addition to those two changes, there was another change that was made
to the zoning code that actually changed our buy-write amount from three units above the
garage to four units. So the zoning bill 2100, I guess I should say 21007-A, which was passed
at the end of April, changed section 146024A2, which determines the calculation restrictions
for the density on CMX2 lots, essentially simplifying it to 480 square feet per unit.
In this designation, Mr. Chair, as I'm sure you're aware, on the proposed bills, anything
within the curve brackets is being deleted. Just for those who might not be aware, anything
within the curve brackets are being deleted, is being deleted, and everything that's italicized
is being added. So per the change of the code, the new language of the section states in the CMX2
district, and you have to jump down to the other side of the bracket, a minimum of 480 square feet
of lot area is required per dwelling unit, provided that whenever the calculation of a
permitted number of dwelling units results in a fraction, you round down, basically. So in our case,
our property is 1,954.88 square feet.
um square feet if you apply this um this this new calculation under the code or by right
If you apply this new calculation.
um unit count is four units um above the in above the existing auto body garage now um
we in conjunction with this and in conjunction with the reduction of our density
actually let me so you can see the the calculation was made in the zoning plan before that law change
You can see here in our zoning plan, this is the calculation I just stated, 1,954 square
feet, 0.88, but round down to just 1,954.
In conjunction with this new allowable by right density and our reduction to six units,
essentially what we're asking the board at this time is to allow us to swap out the ground floor
commercial garage for two one-bedroom units on the ground floor. As you can see, this is the new
sort of floor plan that we put together for the six units, where it's essentially two units per