We all oppose that development, this zoning variance.
And this time, Spruce Hill held another RCO meeting, and three RCOs were there.
We all oppose that.
Besides Spruce Hill, my RCO also sent a letter against this zoning variance.
So that should be in the file.
also my RCO held another RCO meeting just two days ago I want to just mention for the record
that we were not notified of that meeting or included in that meeting so I don't know anything
that happened at that meeting okay so noted thank you all right so our RCO had our monthly meeting
so uh you are not a member so we didn't invite you okay uh so it's just for our members um so
for like so what what would be the relevance i'm just going to object on relevance because
we're talking about yeah yeah i'm talking about the relevance because uh most of the members
attend the meeting are near neighbors and uh and all those near neighbors oppose this
environments and they are in the audience they have they raise their hands i i hope uh the chair
we'll wait we'll hear from them mr sun if you can summarize and uh so basically is that i
don't think i don't think there is a hardship for this like providing this uh two parking space
Okay, not the stacked ones. Okay, so after the first CBA meeting, we, in the second RCO meeting, we actually, we proposed to the developer that either we can help him to find tennis if he would keep, keep this like a structurally sound property over there, don't demolish it.
we can help him to find tenants. Or if he wants to demolish it and erect a high-rise four-story
with seven units there, he needs to provide two accessory parking, not a second one.
And there could be a solution that he reduce the unit number to three or four that
But then he only needed to provide only one off-street parking.
But he denied all those kind of solutions.
And we have those like the next door neighbor also is in the audience.
And he is Bangladesh.
We'll hear from the next door neighbor.
We'll hear from him.
Okay, right.
So I don't think there is hardship for providing this two accessory parking spaces.
Okay. Second point is that- Chairman, for a point of clarification, we are providing two
accessory parking spaces. But that's the second one. And the second one means it's just like
one real parking space. That's not accurate. Mr. Eng, are you an architect or a traffic engineer?
I'm not. Okay. So I'm going to object to any of your testimony as you're not an expert on
parking or architecture. Objection is sustained. Mr. Sung, please summarize.
Sure. Okay. So there is no hardship for providing this to accessory parking.
And also... I'm going to object to that again as you're not an expert.
You're repeating, Mr. Sun, please. Okay. And all those properties on our block
are two-story single-family townhome. Okay. I'm also going to... This is not... He's provided no
evidence for that. The first DA meeting is a narrow street and the city council person's office
is trying to remapping this block. And this was wrongly mapped as CMX 3. It's single family
townhome, two-story townhomes. Chairman, I'm going to object to that. In addition, I want to mention
for the record that CMX 3 does not allow for single family use without a variance.
Previously, all those, I mean, currently on this block, all the homes are single-family.
homes are single family i'm gonna i'm gonna also get to that mr sun mr sun mr sun we're talking
I'm going to also get to that.
over each other miss pritzker raised an objection she's allowed to raise an objection we need to
hear what her objection objection is so thank you i'm gonna be objecting to the characterization
that the properties on the block are all single family as mr sung provides no evidence city
records of that and makes a generalization. I also want to point out this is on Ludlow Street
as well and any remapping that is potentially going to happen or has happened has nothing to
do with this case at hand. Mr. Sun, please summarize. We have other witnesses who would like to speak.
Please unmute yourself, sir.
all right so uh in summary our rco is in strongly a position of this zoning variance and hopes the
chair and zoning members will consider the the city of the the community of the senior neighbors
thank you anyone else to testify please raise your hand chairman am i able to bring the owner
of the property on i was not at the most recent rco meeting my colleague brandon savern who's on
was there and so was the client in addition to the fact that uh you'll hear testimony from my
client that he actually tried to convene a meeting with the adjacent near neighbors to which only one
person showed up um so i just want to allow him to be able to speak to some of the comments that
mr ang made about these meetings that we we weren't privy to uh please um is there a travis seal
can you raise his hand
to seal it's been about to talk thank you please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
travis seal t-r-a-v-i-s-s-e-a-l you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do thank you ms pritzker uh thanks travis so i just want you to share briefly with the board
um just sort of the efforts that went into both the first project and more importantly the revisions
that were made in the second meeting um you heard from mr ang and i had mentioned to the board i was
not at the rco meeting but uh you were and so was uh my colleague brandon saverance if you could just
address some of those comments uh specifically around what the concerns were and and keep it to
obviously the issue at hand which is this which is the stack parking yes yeah we uh our initial
proposal was for the eight units without providing any parking um neighbors expressed concerns about
density demolished on the existing structure and also parking
considerations relating to that density upon our refusal in February and also
the recommendation of the Planning Commission that front-loaded parking is
well suited to this site we went back to the drawing board and reduced density
from eight units down to seven so a little over 12% reduction in density we
provided the two parking spaces required in cmx3 for the corresponding unit count and
revised our design accordingly we reached out a number of times to various neighbors both on the
block directly by hand in person i walked the block and also by the conventional outreach
methods that are required by the code in order to have a productive discussion about what we could
possibly do here and some other ideas um we did not receive any productive suggestions back really
just uh no opposition and so just opposition period and uh that that seemed to be the the
position of um of the various rcos we spoke with um regarding the spruce hill meeting that we had
i believe last month that i attended with brandon saverin and rich villa um i don't recall hearing
any specific opposition from the people in attendance aside from the demolition of the
existing structure issue and i would also note that that's as rachel mentioned that's not an
issue here since we were previously issued a permit for the demolition and that's a done deal
as it were um so our revised plan here in summary is to reduce density to try to accommodate the
neighbors to provide parking to try to accommodate the code and just put forth our best foot forward
with this project. Rachel do you have anything else before I go to the next witness? No. Thank
you. Anyone else to testify in this case please raise your hand. Is Mr. Goodman out there by any
chance? Yes, Mr. Chair, I will allow him to speak at this time. Good morning. Mr. Goodman,
mr goodman please identify yourself and i'll swear you win andrew goodman g-o-o-d-m-a-n
please identify yourself and I'll swear you win. Andrew Goodman.
here representing the office of third district council member jamie gaudier room 586 city hall
or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do thank you please
thank you mr chair members of the board council member gaudier stands with the community in
opposition of the requested variants um as we were with the previous application at this at this
address last year um we were i was in attendance at the most recent um rco meeting convened by
spruce health community association um and you know i think a lot of the a lot of the concerns
have already been expressed and we would express them as well um this is a structurally sound house
on an intact row in a neighborhood that is generating very handsome economic returns.
So we see no further justification for the granting of this variance, and we would ask
that the board deny.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I just would like an opportunity to respond to that.
I know that the applicants are not allowed to speak about financial considerations, so
I would ask that any testimony from any non-experts related to economic considerations be
stricken from the record. In addition, I would also just add that, just reiterate that the
opposition to the project has nothing to do with the parking variance. And also there's been
comments made about whether the building is structurally or not structurally sound. None
of the individuals who have given testimony as to their perceived structural integrity of this
building are experts or structural engineers. So I think a lot of that's just hearsay as I'm not
aware of them conducting any investigation or look into the property as far as just their eyes
on it so i just don't want the board to take that without noting that that's not expert testimony
there's also the lack of lni you know lack of lni um you know uh violations or notices related to
any structural uh deficiencies in the building so i appreciate that but as i'm sure you know we have
over half a million individual properties land in the city of philadelphia alone and lni does not
always have an opportunity to review every single one unless something falls or someone calls and
things like that. So while I appreciate that, I just don't think that the absence of it necessarily
means that the building does not have any structural issues. Thank you. Anyone else
to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand and please provide us with something new and
different. I have a Ms. Armeen Smith here with her hand to speak at this time, sir.
Good morning, Ms. Smith. Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
did you hear me i can hear you now oh okay i'm sorry arlene smith a-r-l-e-n-e s-m-i-t-h
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes uh but you did just ask that we don't um
reiterate what had already been said and i'm a committee member of the west philly united
neighbors rco and i was basically um along the same lines as uh mr ang to talk about your
structure so you asked that we not do that but i am and i was in opposition or am in opposition to
we do appreciate that okay anyone else
yes chair we have a mr uh md lytton with the hand raised i will allow them to speak at this time
hello hi please spell your full name uh yes sir my full name is my first name is m d
last name is l-i-t-o-n i'm is the property owner of 43 15 larry street
you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes sir before you proceed just one minute did the court reporter get that spelling
uh my father's name and no no no i'm asking the court reporter if he was able to get you
the spelling of your name yes chair and as well he is appearing on my screen with that spelling
thank you very good thank you okay sir mr mr linton please please uh yes sir i have the uh
Yes, sir. I have the objection about this project. I mean, the next door, I don't know anything how they're doing at this structure.
objection about this project.
So my first objection is I don't allow to do that as a structure because I don't I have a problem about the safety reason.
I don't know what kind of safety demolition they are using.
I just want to object to that concern as we're just dealing with zoning here, sir.
This is a matter regarding zoning as to whether or not this use would be permitted.
If the board were to support this or not.
Anyone else to testify in this case?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I have, but I think they just lowered their hand, sir.
There was another person, but they lowered their hand.
I'm sorry.
oh wait i'm sorry they put it back up uh mr sheikershan with the hand raised
good morning sir good morning please spell your full name my name is sheikershan s-h-e-i-k-h
last name is kershan k-h-u-r-s-h-n i'm the editor of bangla news in philadelphia
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes, I do.
And you identified yourself as what?
I missed that.
I am the editor in one of the newspapers called Bangla News.
Okay, I'm going to object to standing.
I don't know what's relevant.
Are you a neighbor?
Can you put your address on the record, please?
4302 Market Street.
Okay, so you're not on this block.
Yes, behind the building is my building.
Behind their building.
you said 40 what 03? I see 4302 Market Street what and what where's your prop is that your
residence that's my yeah and where is that relationship to 4317 Ludlow we are looking
same block there for this is that you're back to back okay yes sir so please proceed
a good good morning everybody my question is that you know this area is the like
if you build up new house or something we appreciate that the problem is for parking
so my request to keep the parking first floor if you keep the first floor for parking
then i think it will be a little bit helpful for the community so we excuse me this is something
a hard pardon me this is the court reporter yeah that broke up you're breaking up you're having a
hard time hearing you sir okay my request is to keep the parking so if they keep the first floor
for the parking it will be good for the community if they don't keep the parking like we cannot
still we have a problem to parking around surrounding the area okay thank you anyone else
just for clarification sir we we are providing parking uh maybe you have not been able to see
the plans but we are proposing two parking spaces anyone else
no further answer this time mr chair thank you planning commission
good morning chair peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for a lower density commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan
We feel this proposal represents an overuse of the property and is not in keeping with either the district plan or the comprehensive plan.
We recognize that the applicant has brought the proposal more in keeping with the existing zoning than the previous proposal.
With respect to this property, the Planning Commission opposes the granting of the variance.
Can I just, I guess, rebut Planning Commission?
The last time you testified, you had asked for accessory off-street parking access by a front street.
We have now added that, and the property is on CMX 3, and we don't have any refusals for density.
So I'm just confused how you can oppose parking now that we've provided it, which was a direct request on the record,
and then previously have asked for it, and we've now provided it.
I'm just a little confused there at that testimony.
I guess it's more of a statement than a question.
Thank you. All right. MI 2021, that's 002-379-4317 Ludlow. My vote is no.
Carol Tenere, my vote is no. Professor Plaza, my vote is no. James Snell, my vote is no.
Thank you. Miss Walls, are we able to go back to Miss
Thank you. Ms. Walls, are we able to go back to Ms. Walls?
We are ready to give it a try, sir.
Let's give it a try.
I'll go ahead and promote Ms. Walls to panelists now, if that is okay, sir.
Thank you.