And could, I know we talked, I talked about it, but could you basically describe again
what it is and why it's needed?
what it is and why it's needed yes um the the only uh egress to the basement is through the restaurant
The only...
um in the basement all the utilities are there um and the basement serves as storage
for the residential units above the restaurant. And it has been problematic for years
to access while the restaurant is operating to get in and out. And so COVID occurred and
And the restaurant has closed.
And while I'm in this closed period of time, I thought best was to create a access for the basement so that the residential units above can store their personal belongings.
and that access to utilities can occur without going through the restaurant during, you know,
when the restaurant comes back in operation during its hours of operation.
Joe, in the back there, it's a no outlet kind of driveway access, correct?
And it faces, I guess, a rear-over building that's buffered by landscaping that fronts on 4th Street.
So there's really no adverse impact, we would say, by creating this little enclosure so you could access your building.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
Okay, thanks.
And Mr. Chair, as you mentioned, yes, we did meet with the old city district.
And there is a letter to that effect in my package.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Anyone else like to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
I see no further hands at this time, sir. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Good morning, Chair. Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan.
While the proposal increases an existing non-conformity, we feel that it is de minimis and increases safety in the event of an emergency.
Accordingly, we support the granting of the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2021-002417.
26 North 3rd Street, my vote is yes.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes.
Confessor Plaza, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Number nine on our list.
Thank you.
MI 2021-002-319, 2729 Federal Street.
Daniel Rowley is the attorney of record.
There was an RCO meeting.
I'm going to need some clarification.
My notes say the applicant requested second meeting to present the revised plans.
So when Mr. Rowley gets on, you'll be able to explain what is going on here.
he's been promoted to panelists sir thank you mr rowley please spell your full name and i'll
swear you win sure my name is daniel d-a-n-i-e-l rally r-o-w-l-e-y the rally do you swear a firm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you ms canary has some
questions for you good morning do you agree to wave 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 or 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? I have emailed
the exhibits that you listed. We did meet with the RCO. We about at 1032, so a little less than 10
minutes ago. I just received an email with the RCO letter, but it is not in our packet as we
just received it less than 10 minutes ago. Okay, thank you. You may proceed. Okay, so good morning.
My name is Dan Raleigh. As I said, I'm the attorney representing the applicant and the owner of the
property located at 2729 Federal Street in Philadelphia. We are seeking relief to four
items of relief. One is to build a single-family home in the I-2 district. And as I list these,
uh i2 district and as i list these i'm going to start sharing my screen as well
I'm going to start sharing my screen.
the second item of relief is to allow a balcony in the i2 district three is to allow a roof deck
deck setback of 1.5 feet where five feet is required and uh four is to permit a roof deck
access structure with a setback of zero feet where five feet is required we previously had
requested a variance to allow the balcony to be located less than 10 feet above the ground but
we've eliminated that item of relief as I'll discuss in my presentation. So moving through
the exhibits, Exhibit A1 is a copy of our deed showing standing to bring the application. Number
2, Exhibit A2, I should say, is an agreement with the City of Philadelphia for the payment
of our real estate taxes, showing that we're currently in compliance. It's dated September
22nd. Moving to Exhibit A3, these are some aerial photos of the property. The property
is currently a vacant lot along Federal Street located near the intersection of Federal and
Gray's Ferry. You can note it by the pin here. As you can see in this aerial, there's a lot of
unused land in the area immediately surrounding the property. So it's a little difficult
to show in this aerial, but we'll get to it. But the property is actually quite small and
it's triangular and shaped right here. As far as we know, the property has been vacant since
the late 1930s, 1940s. We're not exactly sure, but that's what the records seem to indicate.
You can see in this slide here that despite the I-2 zoning, many of the properties in the area
are residential uses. The northern side of Federal Street here, the 2700 block of Federal Street,
where the property is located, consists solely of residential buildings. And although at the
corner here that you can see, there's a billboard here, that billboard's been torn down, and there's
an approved building permit issued for the construction of a four-story building with
commercial office space on the first floor and six residential units on the remaining three floors.
so there will be some you know commercial office space there uh the southern side of the block is
is a mix of uh some warehouse uses residential buildings as well as at least one commercial
building so the the proposed single family dwelling is not out of character for the
surrounding area there's also some street view photos so exhibit a4 is the zoning map of the
property. And this really gives you kind of the properties outlined in blue here. And this gives
you the best idea of the size and shape of the property. It's really a small triangular piece
right here. And you can see the property is zoned I-2 or industrial 2. You'll also notice that the
property is included in a three-block area that's zoned I-2, but that the majority of the surrounding
neighborhood is zoned RM1 with pockets of CMX2. Single-family dwellings are not permitted in the
I-2 district, and we're seeking relief from that provision. Additionally, because single-family
dwellings are not permitted in the I-2 district, balconies are not permitted. So we're seeking
relief to construct a balcony for the proposed home. Moving to A5, this is a refusal, the refusal
for the application i noted the relief we're seeking and as i said the second item here for
balcony height we have um eliminated with some revised plans that we submitted and we'll discuss
um so this is exhibit a6 this is our application as well as the original plans for the property
um these plans include a site plan as well as elevations that was submitted with our application
we're proposing a single family home um this site plan on the bottom right here you can see the
constraints for the property uh and for development there's really limited area to
build on the property which is really the basis for you know really all of our requested relief
and industrial use does not work here and really it can only be used for a single family home.
The proposed floor plans here for the home again this illustrates how confined we are by the lot.
You can see that because of the size and the orientation of the lot there's simply
not a lot of places to place the stairwell here and the pilot house and it really has to
to place the stairwell here and the pilot house and it really has to be cited you know where
we're showing it. Also I'll note that if you look at the floor plan for the roof deck
right here we are showing a five foot setback from the front of the building however there is
some overhang over the sidewalk so the setback from the building line is smaller it's five
feet at its largest, but it goes down to 1.5 feet right about here. Excuse me. I'll also point out
that our original plans we submitted, we were proposing a garage on the first floor and a
building height of 40 feet. So as we was noted, we did not have an RCO letter. We recently received
These are the PIF and the zoning posting notices, as well as the notices of the meeting.
We contacted, a little history on the background here, we contacted the RCO after the filing of the application.
And the RCO requested that we meet with their board members for what they called an RCO pre-meeting, which we did on June 9th.
At the pre-meeting, we heard from the board members that it was their opinion that some of the neighbors and public may object to the proposed height, as well as the garage on the first floor.
The RCO board didn't take a vote or have a stance one way or the other, but they just wanted to, you know, give us some warning on some potential issues.
So we scheduled our RCO meeting for August 4th.
At the RCO meeting on the 4th, we presented our plans.
Some members of the public objected to the height.
There was a mixed reaction to the inclusion of the garage.
Some of the public spoke forcefully in favor of the garage.
Some were opposed.
They asked us to wait in the Zoom waiting room while we discussed the application.
When they let us back in, they told us that they had voted to oppose the application.
but when we asked for follow-up reasons for the opposition, they did not give us any stated
reasons. So we went back to the drawing board. I'll skip Exhibit A10 for the moment and go to
Exhibit A11. And we decided to revise our plans to address what we think the community's issues
were or would be excuse me i'm getting over a cold um we eliminated the garage uh we lowered
the height to 38 feet and we eliminated that that variance for the balcony height uh the 38 foot
height is within the characteristics of the block 2721 federal street is a triplex with a height of
38 feet and as i mentioned the neighboring lot is uh it was recently approved for a four-story
building with first floor commercial six dwelling units and i spoke to the attorney for that
property and that building height will be uh 44 feet so it will be um significantly taller than
ours uh it's also should be noted we're not asking relief for the height here or or the garage did
not require any relief, although by eliminating it, we did manage to move the height of the
balcony up. So I'll go back to Exhibit A-10 now. And when we made the revisions and shortly after
the August 4th RCO meeting, we attempted on multiple occasions to schedule an RCO meeting,
a follow-up to present our revised plans. We received no response to our efforts.
So we're here today requesting a decision on the ZBA application. Again, we're open to working with
our neighbors and the RCO, but we can't seem to get any response from them. I mean, we did get a
response I guess 10 minutes ago with the letter of opposition but to the extent we the the issues
they raised we believe we've addressed them so we'd ask for a decision because we're facing
uncertainty and can't seem to get a response from them. Let me ask you this that the letter you
received from the RCO recently in the last few minutes, they're basing their decision
not knowing what the revisions are. Is that correct? That is correct because we haven't
been able to get a response from them one way or the other. What's the name of the RCO?
It is Residents Organized for Advocacy and Direction. And this is the letter we just
received it you know a few moments ago you enlarge that a little bit please yeah sure it's
can you enlarge that a little bit please yeah sure it's uh again it doesn't
necessarily state a reason um they just you know okay so they're not aware of any of the revisions
all right um well we did reach out and tell them that you know well i mean but you hadn't had an
official meeting with them okay that is correct um all right do you have a client to to adopt
Yes, Arthur Morton, if you can raise your hand.
Excuse me, I have a Mika Outlaw with their hand raised?
Mika is from the RCO.
I don't know.
Right.
Also, Mr. Rowley.
Or someone else with a hand raised, but they got a Mr. Rowley on there.
I don't know.
I want this person to speak.
Okay, that other person put your hands, put your hand down.
Do I not miss out more to speak?
You don't see an Arthur Morton?
Mr. Raleigh, if your client is here, they would have to raise their hand.
Otherwise, the chair would have to give you another option for your client.
I would represent that Arthur.
Yeah, I was just going to say, if you don't mind,
you being an officer of court will stipulate your client would have adopted your testimony
okay thank you with that i will ask does the board have any questions mr chair no mr chairman
now jason i missed that what was it i think mr author is our president are you yes i'm here
okay please spell your full name sir arthur a-r-t-h-u-r morton m-o-r-t-o-n
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Mr. Raleigh, please proceed.
Arthur, did you hear my testimony to the board?
Was it true to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt that testimony as your own?
Thank you. That's all I have.
Thank you. No questions from the board.
Anyone else would like to testify in this case?
If so, please raise your hand.
We have Mika Outlaw.
Jason, can you allow her to speak?
Ms. Outlaw, please raise your hand again.
But I'm going to have to speak, ma'am.
Oh, hi.
ma'am please spell your spell your full name and i'll swear you in okay m-e-e-k-a-o-u-t-l-a-w
mika outlaw i swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes thank you please proceed okay so i am the president of the rco that um met with mr raleigh
and his client um and the original presentation the community did vote a letter of no support
I do apologize that the letter just got there this morning, but I've had a lot of personal things going on.
As far as them reaching out to us again with revised plans, I never received the email, nor did I receive a phone call.
Now, unless that email went into my junk mail, which originally happened with the first lawyer, Ms. Arbuckle, when she had reached out, I found that the emails was going to my junk mail.
But, as far as I know, I never received an email, nor did I receive a phone call, and they had my phone number, so that if they had sent something out to me again, and I didn't respond, nobody ever called me about having another community meeting.