All of the other homes are single families.
The house is on a 3,688-square-foot lot, which is larger than required by the zoning code for
a single-family home. Since there is no unique physical characteristic of the lot that would
prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code, and since a three-unit or a
four-unit building is out of character with the block, we recommend that the Board deny their use
variance. MI 2021 001430 1905 orthodox street I vote yes to three units as a proviso.
Carol Tenere yes to three units.
Thomas Holliman yes to proviso.
thank you thank you very much have a great day
all right number nine mi 2021 003725 2117 east york street
katherine misner is the attorney fishtown area improvement district letter of support
councilman squilla letter in non-opposition there are revised plans there miss misner
is coming back in as a panelist now thank you good afternoon hi could you state your
name and spell for a court reporter, please? Yes, sir. It's Catherine Missimer, M-I-S-S-I-M-E-R,
1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, 19103. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Vice Chair, do you have some questions?
Yes, I do. Do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with all of the required documents?
I have. You may proceed. Thank you. As mentioned, my name is Kathryn Missimer. I'm here on behalf of
Oak Ray LLC, owner of the property at 2117 East York Street. With me today is owner's rep Josh
Alivo and project architect Rustin Ohler. We're here today with an application for the new
construction of a mixed-use building for use as ground floor commercial space and three residential
units above you have a letter of support you can see on my screen now hopefully of non-opposition
from councilman's school's office as well as letters of support from both east kensington
neighborhood association as well as fishtown bid this property is located on the corner of
york and martha streets in east kensington and is currently zoned rsa5 as you can see from this
zoning map the bulk of the corners in this neighborhood you'll note are all mixed use
They're all zoned mixed use. This is our corner here which is currently zoned RSA 5.
We also developed a surrounding area map which you can see here are properties in pink.
All of the purple properties shown here are existing commercial mixed-use buildings.
The blue are multi-family buildings.
The former warehouse buildings to the rear of this site on Martha Street, you can see here,
are currently also under redevelopment.
As a result, we think it makes more sense for this corner property to serve as the gateway down Martha Street to provide a commercial and mixed-use atmosphere that already exists in the neighborhood.
This proposal generates two use refusals and two minor dimensional variances.
As discussed, this site is still zoned RSA 5.
As a result, the proposed multifamily as well as the ground commercial uses are not permitted as of right.
However, as you can see, the bulk of the properties on corners in this neighborhood
are devoted to mixed uses. This would be inconsistent with these existing buildings
in the neighborhood. There is also a dimensional variance for open area here. Corner properties in
RSA 5 are required to provide 20% open area. We are currently showing 10.3%. The reason for that
is the design was based on matching the rear of the neighboring structure.
So we have aligned our building with those directly adjacent to ours,
and that's why we have the shorter rear yard as well as less open area. I do want to point out a
and that's why we have the shorter rear yard as well as less open area. I do want to point out
a unique design feature here that will increase the feel of open area on the site. These large
garage doors front along Martha Street, and the intention is that they would be open air
to allow for sort of indoor outdoor dining and some flexible space there. So it would feel that
there's more open area on the site. And as noted, the additional rear yard dimensional variance is
again generated by our intention to align the rear of our building with the attached existing
structure. So a nine-foot rear yard is required in RSA 5, and we're showing five feet, eight inches.
Again, these are both minor dimensional variances. As the board is aware, the standard for these
dimensional variances is lower under the Hertzberg case as a reasonable adjustment of the code to
utilize the property in conformity with neighboring parcels. As a result, those variances represent
the least modification of the code necessary. As you can see, these are some of the surrounding
area photos. This is commercial use directly across Martha Street from us, and there is
commercial use to the rear of us in these warehouses that are being redeveloped, as
well as across the street. We would contend that based on the letters of support we've
received and the overwhelming support of near neighbors, that this proposal will not be
detrimental to the public welfare. Additionally, we request the board grant the requested variances
with the proviso of one-page revised plans that were submitted in advance. I would just
ask my client josh alivo to raise his hand and be recognized
the alivo you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair
i'm here mr chairman would you uh please state your name and spell for the court reporter
Joshua, J-O-S-H-U-A, Olivo, O-L-I-V-O.
Right. Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Counselor, go ahead.
Mr. Olivo, have you heard my testimony today?
I have.
Would you agree that it's true and correct?
And adopt it as your own?
We are open for the board if there are any additional questions.
Again, are Architect Rustin Rollers available as well, should there be any design-related questions?
Questions from the board?
Questions from the virtual audience?
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon.
David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the single-family
zoning at 2117 East York Parcel A. There are other multifamily units anti-commercial use
in this block. However, most of the other row home lots on this block are single-family.
This is an approximately 800 square foot lot. There is no unique physical circumstance
that would prevent this lot from being used in conformance with the zoning code. We recommend
that the board denied the use in dimensional variances um we'll just remind the board of
the existing condition in the neighborhood based on the survey so mi 2021 003725
2117 east york street i vote yes with provisos
Harold Tineri, my vote is yes, we're provisors.
James Snell, yes, we're provisors.
Thomas Holliman, yes, we're provisors.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So our court reporter need a break, or we've been going pretty long here.
Why don't we take five minutes?
Thank you, Chair.
Five minutes, we'll be back.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Tonya, how are we doing?
Great, Chair.
Are we back?
We can go forward.
Pauline, are we still recording?
Maybe give her one or two more minutes, Chair.
Our IT person.
Thank you.
Sorry, Tonya.
I'm back.
No worries, Pauline.
Are we ready?
Yes, sir.
Okay, here we go.
Number 10.
MI 2021-003713-3351 Grand Avenue, Jared Klein, RCO, West Tarsdale Memorial Park Association,
letter of support. Counselor O'Neill's letter says he has no objection. He's coming back in as a
panelist now, Chair. Okay. Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair. Jared Klein. That's right. You already
sworn in, sir. Yes, I was. All right. Proceed. Oh, wait a minute. Carol, do you have a couple
questions or vice chair? I'm here. I have a couple questions. Do you agree to wave the reading of the
refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. And I assume you've emailed the exhibit packet
with all the required documents yes I have okay you may proceed and as you heard Tarsdale and
Morrell Park support this and Councilman O'Neill has no objection that is correct and in light of
that support and the board's long agenda I will endeavor to be brief thank you so good afternoon
again but once again I'm here on behalf of the union league though this application is for their
Northeast Philadelphia facility. And the refusal that we have is for 3351 Grant Avenue, which is
a parcel that is adjacent to the golf course that is located there and run by the Union League.
This parcel was long used as an auto dealer and has since been converted to sort of a storage
and maintenance area. But the league wanted to expand the size of the structures that were on
this lot and make it a more comprehensive maintenance facility for the golf course.
We're dual zoned, RSA 1 and CA 1, and that created some development challenges in terms of the way that the zoning districts fell within the lot.
And so to do what we're proposing, we received three refusals, multiple uses on the same lot because of the split zoning,
multiple buildings because we're building three storage structures, and the use of wholesale distribution and storage is also not permitted in the RSA 1.
Just to give the board a sense of where this property is, this is the zoning map. This is the property that's outlying there. This really is a better aerial to orient the board. This is the golf course here. And so there is an existing access route between this lot here where the storage shed would be and the golf course area.
The idea is for maintenance staff to access this area through golf carts and pickup trucks and to use the parking that's going to be located on site for their actual daily parking needs.
This is what the area looks like now.
Front's right onto Grand Avenue.
There's a Wawa at this corner, and then the lot in question is there.
Across the street, there are a variety of commercial uses, and then some residential as you go down Grand Avenue.
This is the site plan, which doesn't tell you much, but for more context, these are the style of buildings that the Union League is intending to put up here.
There's modular storage structures that would be used, as I said, to house items that are needed for the golf course.
house items that are needed for the golf course, so mulch, extra sand, some of the fertilizers
So mulch, extra...
and pesticides that they would use on the golf course, but the facility would be limited
just to that golf course maintenance.
We did meet with the West Toursdale Morrell Park Civic Association.
Their letter of support is up on the screen.
they did ask for two provisos. I'm not sure the board can impose them, but we have agreed to both
of them, and that is confirming that the 65 parking spaces will only be used for maintenance
and employee parking. This is not intended to be overflow parking for any union league events,
and we were fine making that commitment, and that we will only use the site for maintenance and
storage, not for wholesale distribution and retail. Again, it's because of the way the zoning
categories are created that we don't fit into a specific box, but we assured the community
and I can assure the board that we're not intending to use it for any wholesale or retail
purposes.
And as was noted, there's also a letter of non-opposition from Councilman Brian O'Neill
along with his agreement with the provisos that I mentioned previously, and again, we
have no issue with.
Once again, I'm going to ask Scott Lutie to raise his virtual hand so he may adopt my
testimony.
Scott.
Mr. Lutie, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Would you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Scott Lutie, S-C-O-T, last name Lutie, L-U-T-T-E.
I think I swore you in a little early today.
Yes, you did.
Continue, sir.
Thank you very much.
Scott, did you have a chance to hear my presentation this afternoon?
Yes, I did.
And do you adopt my testimony as true, correct, and your own if you've been given the chance to testify?
Yes, correct.
Thank you very much.
We're available for any questions the board may have.
Questions from the board.
No, we're not.
Questions from the virtual audience.
Excuse me, this is Sharon. May I ask one question?
Could you please repeat the proviso that is to be used for maintenance and storage only? Is that correct?
Yes, it was that the parking spaces will be used for maintenance and employee parking only,