I sent the exhibit package in with the exception of the community letter, which I received after
but I did send the community letter to the RCOZ. Okay, thank you. You may proceed.
Excuse me, this is Sharon. I can confirm that we did receive the RCO letter. Thank you.
Thank you, Sharon.
And excuse me if I may, Ms. Street, you keep getting a little feedback.
If you want to maybe stop showing your video, maybe that can help with your audio.
Okay, I'll stop the video.
Thank you.
Hold on one second.
Is that any better?
May I share my screen?
Can you see my screen?
Let me try it again.
about now yes we see your yes we see we see through your name and
okay commissioners 2351 to 2353 on north reese street this page of my presentation package
we had the refusal the appeal the pif form tax information the d zoning history plans
community letter of mailing commissioners we apply permit to have a six family dwelling at
this location uh we use because uh it's uh prohibited in the rsa 5 district
commissioners i want to just give you a little history this is the application for
Thank you.
Tax information.
And then I have some information concerning the prior commissioners this building was
last had a last official use in 1981 factory for furniture refinishing and metal of cleaning
and refinishing. That's the last act of use that I had been able to do. In talking to the community,
it was not related that there had been any after that 1981 use. This is a picture of the building
as it exists. You can see it's a large double property. It's boarded up. It's an eyesore to
the community. It's been in disrepair for many years now. We propose to develop this
structure, and here's the zoning poster that I posted in connection. We propose to develop
this property into a dwelling. We would like to have, here's an overall picture of the
and this is the structure that we have planned to place here on the. We would like to develop
this structure into a six-family dwelling, three one-bedroom apartments, and there will be
three two-bedroom apartments. Some additional pictures to show you the condition of the
building, the length of the building. We do not intend to disrupt the footprint of the building,
only renovation on the interior of the building here are some you can see it's a pretty large
structure the structure and there are new residential development being built on the
side of this abandoned here's a little closer look at it here's a look at the building
a poster that are posted in connection with this
for the board. Here are the plans
for the building, Commissioner.
The basement for any real living. We're going to have two apartments
on the second floor and two apartments on the third floor.
Basically, the one-bedroom square feet, the two-bedroom
apartments are about 800 feet. Here is a side elevation of the building.
Further down is just the site plan and a little rendering of how we proposed that
the final project would look. Pictures so you just could see how the street is,
how the area is, and I've attached some, I believe I attached, here we go, in here just
to show you the neighborhood and the condition that is in need of some new development.
We did meet with the community.
This is a proposed, a little rendering of how the building would look when it's finished.
You'll see we have some little decking on the side here.
You can see we'll have some metal paneling on the front.
Probably this is a stucco type area.
Attached as a community letter.
it. We did have a pre-meeting, but they did have some concerns. Their concerns were, number
one, there are raccoons in that building, and they wanted to be sure that the developer
would have a pest plan before development. Here's the certificate of service. Pest plan
before development. They also had issues in regard to the small, a number of new residents.
they had issues uh in regard to parking we excuse me miss threet um if you can
if you can just clarify that the um the letter that you're showing on the screen
The letter that you're showing on the screen is not the letter for this property.
is not the letter for this property
The actual RCO for this property is APM.
Is that correct?
Oh, yeah.
I can for it.
I apologize.
Oh, no, no problem.
Just to just to make things clear.
We do have the letter from APM.
Thank you.
Okay. Their concerns were to provide the organization with the information so they could get parking, residential parking from the PPA.
We also did before construction.
Our commissioner's thing is older. It's been in disrepair for many years.
Actually, before my client bought it, it was the previous owner fixed it, but wasn't able to repair it.
The use we're proposing is a good use.
The community didn't really have any opposition.
We did try to address the concerns that they have.
I would ask that the board grant to us the right to develop this property.
I do have a check on the line if anyone has any question, as well as my client.
Why don't you have your client and adopt the testimony that you just gave?
On the line? Can you raise your hand, please?
Tanya, I can't really see if you...
There are no hands raised at this time. What's the name of your client?
Aliba.
Aliba.
no hands raised i have a representative of his organization also
no chair there's no hands at this time okay all right well you're you're an officer of the court
will take your testimony thank you thank you commissioner questions from the board no mr
chairman no no uh questions in the virtual audience anybody in the virtual audience have
comments or questions? I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Board members, in 2017, the zoning map
was amended at this location from I-2 industrial to RSA-5 single family in accord with recommendations
from the comprehensive plan. The prior use of this existing structure, as has been demonstrated by
council was the manufacturing use. The existing structure is a unique physical circumstance and
we believe it does support hardship. However, our problem with this application is we don't think
the applicant has substantiated as is required by the code that the proposed variance is the
minimum variance that will afford relief. We believe the dwelling unit count is excessive
given the size of the lot. For example, even if this were zoned RM1, only four dwelling units
would be allowed. And we would also like to point out for the board that two of the proposed
dwelling units would be below grade in the basement. And so our recommendation for this
case would be that the board grant the variance with the condition, no more than four dwelling
units permitted for this structure.
Sharon, does council have the ability to comment on that?
it is the board's call but of course you can limit the number of units okay good okay if if i just
may speak sure in light of the community and the need for a resident and smaller units that would
be affordable to the community i think the one bed units would provide a good resource for
are individuals in that community that would like to stay in the community. If in fact the
units were limited, they would be much, much larger and garner a higher rental rate. And I
believe it would price most of the community of being able to be or have their own place in that
community respectfully request that we be granted the number of six units. MI 2021-003-094-2351-53
North Free Street. I vote yes but a proviso of four units. Carl Tenere my vote is yes with proviso.
james snell yes for proviso thomas solomon yes
James Snell, yes, with proviso.
Thomas Holloman, yes, with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Number 12, MI 2021-003092, 41 North Robinson Street, Larry Hawkins, no exhibits, first listing.
Mr. Hawkins.
I see no hands, Chair.
We continue this case, must be tried.
Chair, this is Sharon.
Before you go on to the next case,
I believe that you announced number 13
has continued at the start of the session.
We have confirmed that that has, in fact, been withdrawn,
so if you could make that announcement.
okay good so this is number still 12 so we continue this must be tried
number 13 2020 0 0 2 2 0 0 45 13 pakawana has been withdrawn by uh the appellate
And number 15, MI 2021, 003067, 700 North 23rd Street, no RCO letter, Fairmount Civic Association, Henry Clinton.
Mr. Clinton is coming back in as a panelist.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Henry Clinton.
Good morning.
The applicant.
Good. Could you spell your name for the court reporter, please, Mr. Clinton?
Sure. Henry H-E-N-R-Y Clinton. C-L-I-N-T-O-N. Queen Memorial Building, 1313 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia PA, 19146.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good morning, Mr. Clinton.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
And have you sent the exhibit packet in with all the required documents?
Yes, I have.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
And we do have a letter of support from the Fairmount Civic, and it is in my package.
We do have that here, too.
I will check for that, Mr. Clinton.
As of Friday, we had a note that you had not yet received it.
It's actually a letter of non-opposition, but it is in my package that I'll present to the board.
Thank you.
This is my presentation binder. It contains exhibits AA through ATEM, which I'll ask to be admitted.
This is my appearance statement, the refusal.
So this is currently an approved project under construction with four residential units and one commercial unit on the first floor.
It's in the CMX2 zoning district, and the request today is to have the commercial unit on the first floor basically switch to residential because the residential, the commercial corridor, rather, is on Fairmount Avenue, a quarter block away.
And this particular part of 23rd Street, although the CMX2, I'll show you from an aerial view,
the three properties that are between the two small streets on this block are all residential.
So I'm going to go through briefly the history of the project, which really has not much bearing on what the board is considering,
but I think it's important to understand it so that we can go forward.
So this is a letter of support from Fairmount Civic Association.
And I keep saying support, it's non-opposition.
But if you look at the total vote tally over the course of the questions that were asked,
you can see that support 11 and then five non-oppositions, that's really 16 versus four opposed.
And then on the issue of a hardship, there was a vote of 26 in favor and only seven opposed.
And then on the issue with switching from commercial to residential, we had 27 supporters and nine opposition.
Photographs, this is the property here before it was demolished and rebuilt.
And this corridor here, these three or four properties are all in the CMX2 zoning area, but they're all used for residential purposes.
This is Fairmont Avenue here, and the art museum is down over here.
and this is a commercial bar restaurant and as we know Fairmont Avenue is
and this is a commercial bar restaurant and as we know fairmont avenue is really the commercial
corridor in this neighborhood and as my client will testify he has spoken to a preeminent
realtor in the neighborhood who basically agrees that the commercial on the first floor
in this location would not be a viable concept these are just photographs of the existing
structure which is under construction and by the way on the call with me is the client michael
Lundstein, as well as the architect, Derek Spencer. This is what the property will look like when it's
completed. Again, it was approved for commercial on the first and then for residential above.
And we're asking that this elevation here on the first floor be commercial rather than residential.
Here is the zoning map. You can see this is CMX2. This is Fairmont Avenue here. And I did show you
from the aerial photograph that the three properties on this block here are all residential.
This is what the property looked like before it was demolished. This is just by way of background
and for the edification of the board. We originally had this project approved for a single family home
and the board did approve that and the community supported it, but there was an appeal file and
because of the lengthy process that one would have to undertake for an appeal, my client decided to
switch gears and get a buy right approved zoning project, which led to granting the four units
above and one commercial below. So we believe that the use is not viable on the first floor.
We believe that the requested variance is in harmony with the code. It doesn't really alter
the essential character of the neighborhood because the two properties to the north of it
are residential. We have the support of the community, so it's in harmony with what the
community wants and will not adversely affect the development of any other projects or properties
in this particular locale. So with that, I would rest and I would ask if the board has any questions