for the court reporter charles richardson office of councilwoman cindy bass room 312
city hall do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed sir okay i do have a statement from the councilwoman and do need to clear up one thing
that mr laver did did mention a little earlier uh the councilwoman and i did meet with the uh
owners of the property back at the end of april last year and um they came in with a five-story
building with 64 units and she actually stated at the time that she thought it was way too big
and that, you know, she didn't think that it would be accepted by the near neighbors
and that they needed to go back and rethink it so that they came back.
We actually hadn't seen anything about this until they filed for the variance.
And, you know, we moved forward with the RCO process.
So let me read the Councilwoman's statement.
And I also have on the phone Connie Swenson, who's just called me because she said she's got her hand raised,
but nobody's able to see her or to recognize her but let me finish with the councilwoman's
statement at this point dear chairman bergman and board members my thoughts on this development are
very mixed i definitely believe there are too many new rental units being developed in the 61
to 6300 blocks germantown avenue all of these developments have been done by right and required
no community input this proposed proposed development requires a variance so the near
neighbors needed to weigh in. I am concerned because in the future, this development, as well
as the other new developments, may likely have unforeseen impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
That being said, I acknowledge the fact that the neighbors nearest to the project are now supportive
of the development and have worked out a community benefits agreement with the developers. I have been
informed that the majority of those near neighbors originally voting in opposition have reversed
their votes. I also acknowledge that a number of the unaffected community members in the greater
Germantown and Mount Airy area have expressed opposition to this development, but unfortunately
they lack standing regarding this site and this case. Although I still have concerns regarding
Although I still have concerns regarding the potential impacts the new units may cause
the potential impacts the new units may cause in this
in this four-block span, I will not stand in the way of the desires of the nearest neighbors
in light of their support of the project.
I would request that if the variance is granted, that the number of units be reduced to equal
or below the number of proposed parking spaces.
And she signs it sincerely, Councilwoman Cindy Bass.
Thank you.
And what's the name of the woman that you said has her hand up and nobody's calling on her?
Connie Swenson, hold on one second. Connie, what is your, what is your, what are you listed under?
Okay, so we have her listed. Her hand is not raised.
And I, put your, put your, put whatever you're listening to on mute so I can have you on, on a speaker.
Okay, you there?
No, it's not, you know, you still have something going. You have two devices going.
Yeah, I don't think you can use a laptop and a phone at the same time.
Turn your volume down. Just turn the volume down on the laptop.
It will be helpful to have Ms. Winston testify as she was the party that we were trying to bring on earlier. I don't know if that's possible.
yeah she just she she she she uh lost it when she uh disconnected her laptop so i don't have
her on any longer but um no other hands at this time thank you thank you charles okay so
planning commission thank you chair bergman and members of the board david fecto city planning
commission uh board members the comprehensive plan recommends this property for commercial
mixed use 2 zoning. Commission staff conducted a public neighborhood process in 2021 with
the goal of changing the zoning maps in this part of the city. The final recommendation
with community input was commercial mixed use 2. That input included nearly 180 discrete
comments on an online zoning map that we asked for input on and that does not count the public
meetings that were held. So there was more public input than that as well. The proposed
CMX2 zoning is reflected in the maps that we sent over to the council office. The proposal for 6237
Germantown Avenue is broadly consistent with the recommended zoning. However, the applicant
proposes 47 dwelling units. Well, by our calculation, CMX2 would allow only 40. Bringing the unit
count down to what is allowed in CMX2 would alleviate some of the concerns of their neighbors
and still satisfy the goals of the comprehensive plan. We also wanted to note that the proposed
affordable dwelling units cannot be enforced by the city uh the city planning commission therefore
recommends that the board grant the variances with the condition that the unit count be limited
to 40 40 units thank you very much um both what we're going to do is we're going to take this
to our executive session then we meet next week and we'll get back to you um chair yeah
yeah leonard reuter hand is up okay i i didn't say i don't say leonard go ahead uh hi uh thanks
again uh members of the board leonard reuter senior attorney for the city philadelphia i just
wanted to address uh the two refusals uh that were being challenged um you know again i think
we're challenging a couple refusals out of several is arguably a moot point but to the extent that
it might not be considered moot. We do agree that with respect to the setback that
CA1 does not require setback. The reason why that refusal was given is that the plans that were
presented themselves indicated that an eight-foot setback was required, which I think that just led
to some confusion. And because they were proposing zero setback, the current building has no setback,
But, of course, they don't get the benefit of a nonconformity since they're demolishing that and building a new building.
So typically what would happen is that they should submit a revised plan to just fix that calculation on what was submitted.
But, again, to the extent that, you know, if the board were inclined to grant a variance as to all things, it really doesn't make that much difference.
In other words, I think if the variants were denied and they get zero setback for a building
that doesn't exist, I'm not sure what purpose that serves.
With respect to the issue that was raised about the parking, again, it's sort of the
same thing.
I mean, I think, you know, they're essentially asking the board to conclude that there is
no parking requirement in CA1 with for this building and the relevant code provision.
for this building and the relevant code provision uh does calculate uh the number of spaces
required for ca or one or ca2 based upon what's known as the net leasable area
but net leaseable area is defined in 14202 rules of measurement sub 11 and it just simply says
and the board i think can take judicial notice of it since it's a code provision that the total of
all gross floor area the total of all gross floor area of a building within interior walls excluding
areas devoted to rubbish rooms custodian closets vestibule stairways escalators and elevators
areas used for electrical telephone computer or mechanical equipment loading docks receiving areas
non-occupied areas devoted to building structure support aesthetics etc mall and concourse areas
not occupied by retail kiosks, public walkways, public restaurants. I believe now Mr. Laver
had said previously that he had received a communication from L&I indicating that residential
spaces would not be considered net leasable area. I think where there's confusion about it is
net leasable area is essentially a term that's used pretty much exclusively with
CA1 and CA2 type structures. So if you were building a CA1 or CA2 type structure,
how many parking spaces you would require are going to be based upon those calculations.
Unfortunately, the definition and the rules of measurement section is broader than that. In
other words, it doesn't say if it is going to be a mall that you're building or if it is a car
oriented structure that you're building then you use this it says any building uh that may be
needed to be tweaked in the future so again it is a it is i would call it a a technical refusal
because we understand that that usable area typically conceptually really only applies to
a car orient or an auto car oriented um project but because the the way it's written it applies
to any building it will apply to any building that happens to be in a ca1 uh parcel so um
based upon that the net leasable area of the prop of the property uh is i think uh 50 000
just under 50 000 square feet which would result if so for you get you need four spaces for every
thousand uh square feet of net leaseable area which would uh which would then require you to
have the 200 spaces. But again, we're not taking any position with respect to the variants. I think
the Planning Commission representative has already stated what the city's position would be and what
planning's position is on the variants. I just wanted to address the technical aspects of the
refusal. I'm not sure it's particularly important to get further into that dispute because, again,
And if you grant the variance, the variance is granted as to all aspects of the application, leaving aside any provisos.
And if you deny the variance, it really doesn't make any difference if they get the no setback or the parking space issue.
So it's kind of a moot point, but I understand why Mr. Labor has raised it, but I don't think the board needs to directly address it.
Thank you, Mr.
mr chairman i i have one small nuance to leave you with and i will not address what mr reuter
said he's correct the hour is too late but there's a very important nuance which goes to the planning
commission's comments the proposed density is in line with cmx2 with the affordability that
we are committed to and we are not seeking to maximize the density we are i just want to leave
the board with we are seeking cmx2 with the affordability that we are proposing thank you
mr chairman and members thank you sir thank you mr shirmer so next week in our executive session
you do you have something to say mr shirmer go ahead oh yes sir uh really brief uh since there
were people who attended the meeting but were asked not to add additional items if they've
already been brought up but did not have a chance to then adopt them and inform the board i'd ask
that the board would hold the record open
for like two or three days
so that the people who did come up
but already had their issues raised
could email the board
so they actually get a chance
to quickly let the board know
what their issues are.
Sure, that's fine.
We're going to bring this up
at our executive session next Tuesday morning
and then we'll get back to you.
If I could just, I'm sorry,
and I apologize,
but just to follow up on what Mr. Laver said again,
Leonard Reuter again,
And Mr. Laver, I believe, understands this, but just to make it clear, the affordable housing...
But just to make it clear, the affordable housing that they are intending to provide, which presumably is within the CBA that they've drafted, that is not enforceable by the city.
It is privately enforceable.
The zoning code recognizes private agreements that do not conflict with the zoning code.
We don't get involved.
L&I is not going to enforce it.
they can have a private agreement that's fine but i just want to make it clear the board
and i think the board's been maybe separately advised the board cannot
cannot make a proviso requiring the cba or requiring affordable housing
this is but i mean it's simply part of the record and mr labor has said and people have
you know there's foreign essentially sworn testimony that's been adopted that they will
do that, that's fine. But beyond that, the city can't enforce private agreements. So I just want
to make that clear. And I understand Mr. Laver's point about if it were CMX2, they would be able to
get theoretically the MIHB. And in that context, the agreement would be with planning. It would
be with the city and therefore we would be able to enforce it. But because it's not CMX2 and
Because MIHB is not available, that's why they're doing it as a private agreement.
So the difference is that that would have to be privately enforced.
So I just want to make that clear just so that's understood.
Thank you.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
Hi, Mr. Chair.
This is Tanya.
If I could just interject, if we could, on the record, agree that we would only hold
it open until friday for input for the individuals requested by mr sherman that's fine friday by
close of business i i would ask mr bergman uh chairman bergman that if uh that courtesy is
being extended uh as the hour is late and it seems like some confusion has come up that i'd be
permitted the opportunity to submit uh some documentation concerning the proposed density
any affordability. Thank you. Sure. Sure. Okay. Thank you, everyone. Okay.
All right. Moving on to our 3.30.
well um sharon told me this was going to be long so all right so i'll start the preamble again tanya
yes yes okay all right my name is bill bergman and i will be chairing this
late afternoon meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. With me is
Carol Tenere, our Vice Chair.
Present.
Okay, all right. Ismael
Ismael Shaheed, our Board Secretary.
Here. And James Snell, our Board Member.
Present. Also with us is Tanya Sunkit, our Board Administrator,
and Rebecca Call, our Attorney.
before we begin here's our virtual format be advised proceedings are being recorded
by participating you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded a video will be available by
contacting the board administrator tanya sunkett tanya sunkett at philadelphia gov
two for the benefit of our court sonographer we ask that our attorneys and witnesses id
themselves before testifying. Three, if you're participating by phone, if you wish to testify,
press star nine to raise your hand, star six to unmute. To enter an appearance statement,
call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and address of the property in question.
lastly please note that the question answer box on the screen is not intended for comments any
comments should be directed to tanya sunkett our board member and now as we look at our case
case this afternoon i do not see any continuances is there anyone who has a
continues they want to bring to our attention. Chair, we have someone by the name of Haki Mana,
Mr. or Ms. Mana. You can unmute yourself and wait for the chair's instructions.
Good afternoon. This is Haki Mana. Could you do me a favor? Could you spell your name for
the court reporter. My name is Haki, H-A-K-I. My last name is Haki.
My name is Haki, H-A-K-I.
My last name is M-A-N-A, Manna.
Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
What case do you want to talk about?
It's my property located at 1624 South 20th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 1915.
That's number three on our list.