now well you heard the mr rowley's testimony uh the original objections and correct me from wrong
had to do basically with the garage uh the height of the balcony and i believe there was a third
issue um mr rowley maybe you can so it was the the garage uh the height of the building and then
we eliminated the the balcony height variance when we all of those issues that apparently were
leading to the objection from your community have been taken off the table if you will
Is there still opposition?
is there still opposition there the opposition came from
The opposition came from that, but the opposition also came from the fact that some of the neighbors feel like that these developers, they buy properties, they know the size of the properties that they buy, and then they want variances because of the size of the property that they buy when they buy it.
On top of that, the community members, they're just tired of being inundated with development that the average person in the neighborhood can't afford.
The question was asked, was the owner going to live there, or were they going to sell it, or were they going to rent it?
And the owner couldn't answer that question.
that's that's really not an issue for the board um so again they the height limit is 38 feet which
they can do by right they've eliminated the garage and they removed the balcony again which seemed to
be aside from the other issues you just raised uh the main issues for the opposition those have been
removed all right um all right anyone else to testify in this case
Mr. Frantz-Pierre, please identify yourself, you know the drill, and I'll swear you in.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, fellow board members.
Frantz-Pierre, Council Member Johnson's office.
That's F-R-A-N-T-Z, last name Pierre, that's P-I-E-R-R-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
i certainly do thank you please proceed yes and before i do i must say you are looking very
spiffy today mr truden i love the glasses um they're right they're al rooker glasses
very very nice i gotta get myself prepared um at this time uh because the rco and the community
i guess they didn't have an opportunity to review these revised plans
at this time the council member does join uh the RCO in their opposition to the appeal
and you know we respect the council council person's office but it seems to me based on
the testimony that the issues that were of concern to the community have been eliminated
or removed from the plan so we'll make a decision shortly on that vote anyone else to testify in
this case. No more here, Chair. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Morning, Chair. Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for industrial residential mixed use
in the comprehensive plan and has not yet been remapped. We
recognize a hardship for intended use based on the unusual size and shape of the property.
Accordingly, we support the granting of the variance. Thank you. MI 2021, that's 002319.
2729 Federal Street. My vote is yes. Two pages, Mr. Rowley? Revised plans, correct. My vote is yes
with revised excuse me proviso revised plans two pages approved today. Carol Tenere my vote is yes
with proviso. Confessor Plaza yes with proviso. James Snell yes with proviso. Thank you um where
are we with Ms. Walzer's case? Sir whenever Ms. Sunkit believes it's best for them to retry we can
have them retry. Yes, we can try to promote them, Jason, and see if she can present.
If she's unable to present chair by recommendation would be a short continuance.
Ms. Walls are you out there? Are you able to share your exhibits?
hello hello miss walsh are you able to share your exhibits with us um ambrose the engineer
he's online he's on the phone he has the exhibit exhibits to share with you he can do it now okay
okay let's give it a try everybody's been sworn in okay so it's two devices that we have for ambrose
let's give it a try everybody's been sworn in okay so it's
we're going to be able to do this tanya or i don't know i'm hesitant um let me try promoting both
i'm sorry about this the last meeting we had we didn't have to share exhibits they had everything
so i didn't know we had to do this and i wasn't on my computer i met on my cell phone understood no
worries. Jason, can Mr. Ambrose, could you raise your hand? And Jason, could you try promoting him?
Yes, ma'am. He's declining to be promoted, so I'm not sure what's going on. All right, why don't we
do this? Ms. Walz, we're having some technical difficulties, as you well know. We're going to
go, you can go offline and speak with Ms. Sunkett, or you want me to put that on the record, Tanya,
about continuing this. Could you just hold it for one more after your next case and then we can I'll
talk to him real fast. All right give it a try we'll go to the next case and we'll come back to
one more time. Thank you. Number 13 I believe we're up to on our list. Yes. MI 2021 that's 002
4317 Ludlow Street
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney
of record
Spruce Hill RCO send a letter of opposition
as did Councilwoman
Gautier
and she's coming in now
as a panelist
thank you Keith
good morning
good morning please identify yourself spell your name and i'll swear you won't
rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r 1635 market street suite 1600 philadelphia pa
you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth
yes thank you ms tenere has some questions for you
Okay. You agreed to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes. 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? Yes. Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you. Sure. I'm going to share my screen.
So, the board may remember they've actually already heard this matter once before.
This is a resubmission.
This is the second time we've been in front of the board for the same project.
4317 Ludlow.
The only refusal we have for this project relates to the parking.
Sorry, just very slow to load.
um so this is an application this property zone cmx3 is for the erection of an attached structure
for multi-family household living seven dwelling units with two stacked parking spaces including
one accessory parking space um including with one accessory parking space it's actually two spaces
And the only refusal we have is for the stacked parking spaces. Although I will say if you look at 14800, there's nothing in the code related to stacked parking.
So we weren't exactly sure where this refusal came from. The first time we went around, we proposed a project that was also CMX3 on the same site with eight units and no parking and had a refusal for parking, not providing parking.
At that hearing, as you may remember, the community was still in opposition to the project,
stated they wanted to have parking. The Planning Commission, Mr. Fecto, had said that although
typically Planning Commission doesn't support accessory parking access by a front street,
that at this location they were, you know, supporting the request for parking, and so the
board subsequently denied the variance. We decided we would take it back through, add
parking, and now we're running into the same issue where the community is still in opposition
of the project, even though if you review their letter, I can get to it. It mostly is
I can get to it. It mostly is related to the not using the existing structure that's there.
related to the
The existing structure, whether we keep it or demo it, has nothing to do with this application
or any of the refusals. This existing structure is not in good shape internally, and regardless,
we don't have a refusal for the demolition of this structure. As the board can see from the
photos, the reason we didn't want to provide parking at first is because there's no, on this
side of the block, there's no accessory off-street parking access by a front street. There's no rear
street or real alleyway here in which to use. And there was a tree in the center of the sidewalk in
which we wanted to keep. However, when we went through the first time and we got opposition
and pushback about parking, we decided we had to add parking. We also subsequently reduced it by
one unit um so uh we trying to keep in mind of some of the community's concerns around density
um we met with the rco twice those letters are here um and here's the rco decision letter
it basically says spruce hill met once again with the applicant on 8 19 21 to consider a
revised solution to the parking issue that this is the only question before you the stack parking
solution is not central to our primary objection as stated in my letter 12521 of the zba we are
opposed to the demolition of an intact and habitable property on a row of modest and
attached townhouses um frankly we're mystified by the presence of the applicant in face of united
community opposition and they want you to vote in uh rejection however i just want to most
importantly highlight that uh the the stack parking is not central to their object the primary
objection. And all we're here for is for parking. So we were in a little bit of a conundrum going
in front of the board and getting denied to not have parking and then now we're providing parking
and otherwise we can't do much with this site. It's a CMX3 site that requires parking but doesn't
allow for this type of parking. And I think we were also just trying to account for the testimony
provided by the planning commission which was that they supported front-loaded parking at this
location. Again, I'll just reiterate that I don't see anywhere in section 14 in chapter 800
that mentions anything about stacked parking. So I'm not exactly even sure where that refusal
came for. Nonetheless, we're asking for the board to grant the variance so that we can
utilize this property. And again, the issue of whether we demo an existing structure or not
has nothing to do with this application. I have the architect on as well, Rich Villa,
who can go through the plans. Again, it's probably just worth noting the review of the plans for
stacked parking. If Rich can be promoted, just to look at the design. And then again,
we did reduce the original proposal from eight units to seven units, just in an effort to
work with the community in some of the concerns they had around density, although this is a CMX
three site that permits more than seven units. However, again, trying to be considerate there.
And then we have the owner, Travis Seale, who I'd like to bring on just to testify
about my testimony that I gave today.
So if Rich could raise his hand.
yeah it's been a lot to speak the fellow please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
richard r-i-c-h-a-r-d villa v-i-l-l-a we're affirmed to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do please proceed ms pritzker uh rich are you able to share your
screen and just go through the plans um for the board uh yes but my oh here is
I think he's coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
all right can everyone hear me yes and see me or not see me see my drawings
your drawings yes uh the building is a four-story building the front loaded access
to the parking and a front door. There are seven one-bedroom units, all of them in the same vein
as what you see in the rear of the first floor. They are stacked front and back. We are on an
So we are on an alley, not an alley, sorry, an easement on the left-hand side, on the west side, an easement on the rear side.
alley, not an alley, sorry, an easement on the left-hand side on the west side.
Pretty much, it's not much more interesting than that.
It's seven one-bedroom units, and they all pretty much stack on top of each other.
And then we have the parking access from the street.
and rich can you confirm the original proposal that we had um that it was no parking and eight
units so yes the original proposal showed uh all one bedroom units four in the front four in the
back with the stair in the center uh with no parking um and we revised it to show the parking
as uh rachel discussed thank you how do you handle trash for this number of units
As far as where would it be located in the building?
Rich, do you have the floor plans up? We have an area inside the front door that
the ADA landing space is adjacent to an area where we would put
a couple of bins for trash. So it would be inside the building.
and there is no garage door on this so trash can come in and grab whatever they need and then get
out questions from the board no anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
Okay, Mr. Chair, we have the Spruce Hill Community Association with their hand raised.
I will allow them to speak at this time.
Thank you.
Hello.
Hi, please identify yourself, spell your name, and I'll swear you in.
My name is Justin Kaplan, J-U-S-T-I-N-K-A-P-L-A-N, from the Spruce Hill Community Association.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. Please proceed.
I'm just reiterating the letter that we are in opposition to this project.
Parking is somewhat relevant, but more relevant is as stated that they're taking down an intact and essentially habitable structure.
You know, they're not utilizing CMX3 is a high density zoning district, certainly.
But, you know, the lot itself is not built as a high density lot.
We have a number of bi-right projects going on with multiple hundreds of units around,
so it's hard to understand that this is a hardship.
What else to testify in this case?
We have an Aung San with a hand raised. I will welcome you to speak at this time.
Hi. Can you hear me?
Yes, please spell your full name.
Sure. This is Aung San. I'm the president of West Philly United Neighbors. We are an RCO.
Please spell your name.
Oh, yeah. Yes. A-N-G-S-U-N.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed.
Yes. I'm the president of an RCO, West Philly United Neighbors.
this project property is within our boundaries. I'm also a near neighbor,
resides on the same block of this project property and as Rachel has mentioned that this
their second time tried to get the same zoning variance on parking. So
So these same developers seeking this parking variance after their first appeal was denied by the zoning board.
The first time all four RCO, including my RCO, Spruce Hill Community Association, which is a coordinating RCO and another two RCO,
We all sent a letter to oppose this development, to oppose this zoning variance.
And also, Andrew Goodman on behalf of Councilwoman Gautier opposed that at the zoning meeting.
And David from City Planning Commission opposed that.
I'm going to object to that statement because it's on the record that the planning commission
objected to the first variance, which was not providing parking, stating that they would
support parking at this location.
So I just point a clarification.
The only variance on the table prior was that we were trying to have no parking.
The only variance on the table prior was that we were trying to have no parking.
So that was all that was on the table for that.
Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Sun.
All right. So before the first CBA meeting, Spruce Hill held a community meeting, RCO meeting.
More than 20 members from my RCO attended the meeting and including 16 near neighbors.