Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
And Melanie, I'm going to add these other two cases, okay? You'll do all three at once?
Thank you.
Okay, so number 11, MI 2022, 001-571-1300 North 24th Street, and number 16, MI 2022, 002-204-1317 North 25th Street.
uh could you identify your client and the relationship to the property please yes i'm
accompanied by zach frankel who represents the equitable owner frankel enterprises inc okay and
our board uh secretary has a few questions for you sure good afternoon council good afternoon
do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy
i do did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required such as proof of ownership
text clearance copy of refusal or referrals pictures or drones of the property five days in
advance to this hearing yes and did you leave it with rco if you have a letter yes to all of the
above sure please proceed to show your screen okay are you able to see my screen i'm currently
yes it's up yeah okay great um so this as mentioned is a consolidation hearing of three
separate applications brought by the same equitable owner and they all relate to the same relief
so the applicant is proposing for sale townhouses in collaboration with the philadelphia housing
authority as part of the choice neighborhoods development initiative for workforce housing
And the Blumberg-Scharswood neighborhood was identified as one of three territories where the city seeks to reduce the concentration of vacant and blighted buildings and lots and to increase the number of for sale affordable homes.
So these projects relate to that initiative, as mentioned, and we do have the support of both Councilman Clark, as well as the RCL Brewery-Scharswood Community Civic Association, which I'm showing you here.
We met with the Civic Association back on May 19th, so it's been quite some time, but we did have great attendance and overwhelming support.
The letters were submitted to the ZBA on Monday, and they are included in the exhibit package, as you can see here.
So the subject properties are located on 24th and 25th Street between Ciber Street and West Thompson Street, as you can see here.
And I'll summarize each application briefly.
As mentioned, they're all very similar.
So for 1300 North 24th, the application entails a lot line adjustment to create one lot from four existing lots and new construction of four single family townhouses.
For 1312 to 18 North 24th Street, the application entails a lot line adjustment to create one lot from four existing lots and new construction of four single family townhouses.
And for 1317 to 19 North 25th Street, the application entails new construction of two townhouses with.
North 25th Street, the application entails new construction of two townhouses with, and this
one already has a consolidated lot. So the property is zoned RSA 5, and we're here because we're
proposing three planned unit developments, also known as PUDs, which are a type of ownership
construct. And as you're aware, a PUD relates or results in one zoning lot with two or more
single-family homes that share common elements. Since the zoning code does not recognize PUDs,
which are created under state statute, LNI treats multiple dwelling units on the same lot
as a multi-family use. So because we are in RSA 5, which I'll go back to, we're here because
a technical variance for multi-family use is required.
However, the spirit of the zoning code is met because these units constitute single-family
homes as contemplated by the RSA 5 zoning district for fee simple sale. And I'll show you the
elevation so you can see exactly what it looks like. So that summarizes the presentation. As you
can see these applications meet the standards for variance relief because they won't cause
congestion. They won't overcrowd or overburden the land. They won't cause any negative impacts
and they'll conform with the spirit of RSA-5 and the character of the surrounding area.
So I'll have my client adopt my testimony unless you have any questions at this time.
Mr. Frankel has been allowed to speak. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the
court reporter, please. Zachary Frankel, Z-A-C-H-A-R-Y, F-R-A-N-K-E-L. All right. Do you swear
affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Proceed, counsel.
All right, Zach. Did you hear the testimony that I provided to the board this afternoon? I did.
And do you affirm that my presentation was accurate? I do. And do you adopt the testimony
it's your own yes i do thank you okay questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman
no mr jerry and melanie melanie so everybody's clear these are single properties correct right
so it's essentially technical yep okay questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no further answers chair planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing rsa 5 single family zoning at this
location the current zoning was enacted in 2020 with community support by consolidating single
family lots into three clusters of lots. The applicant's clean hardship for building units
is self-created. The applicant would be permitted to build the same number of units by right
if the lots were not consolidated. Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends the board
variance. MI 2022-001-091-1312 North 24th Street. Number 11, MI 2022-001-571.
and number 16 mi 2022 002 204 i vote yes to all three thomas hollum my vote is yes to all three
james snell my vote is yes to all three ishmael shaheed my vote is yes to all three
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number six, MI 2022, 003-148-1513-17 Pine Street.
David Orfanides is the attorney.
Letter of opposition from the Center City Residents Association.
you've already been sworn could you just state your name for the record certainly david orphan
eds o-r-p-h-a-m-i-d-e-m could you identify for us your client and their relationship to the property
Certainly. My client is Z11513Pine, LLC, the owner of the subject property.
Our board secretary, Ishmael Shaheed, has a few questions.
Our board secretary, Ishmael Shahid, has a few questions.
Yes, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Good afternoon, sir.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Did you email all the exhibits and documents as required, such as proof of ownership, tax clearance, copy of refusal or referral, pictures or drawings of the property within five days of this hearing?
and did you meet with the RCO and did you have a letter? We met with the RCO twice. We have
two letters and I didn't submit everything five days in advance except for the position letters
because we thought another one might be coming out between last week and today but one wasn't
so I emailed an updated package with the letters that we had included in that this week but
everything else was sent on Friday and you should have already had those letters in any event but
wanted to include them in my package okay great uh please proceed and share your screen thank you
and also um i have with me uh tom familletti who's one of the members of z1 1513 pine llc
representing the owner and derek spencer from gnome architecture who are the architects for
the project so at some point i'd like to have them um promoted to panelists so that they can
either adopt my statements and or provide their own testimony.
Why don't you start? Okay. Can you see my screen? We can. Great. All right. So we're here today for
1513 Pine Street. It's also known as 1513 to 17 Pine Street. The property is located on the
northwest corner of Pine Street and South Hicks Street. Here you can see an aerial image. It's
right here. And here you can see an image on the zoning map. The property is an RM1, which allows
for multifamily dwellings. The property is 6,006 square feet in size, which by right without
bonuses would permit 13 units with the green roof bonus would allow additional four, which gets you
to 17. And then with the mixed income housing bonus, there'd be an additional at low income
levels, there'd be an additional six, which would get you to 23 units. So it could, and that could
all be developed without parking. The property is presently utilized as a parking lot.
Here you can see some images. This is a tab 13. It's been utilized as a parking lot
pretty far back in time. Sanborns have the property being a parking lot back to 1946,
which is the earliest that we could get for this property and then every map that came out since
then shows the parking as well and it continues to this day as a public parking lot. Historically
at least in terms of the zoning archives the zoning archives for the property only go back
to 1961 and again show that the present use is a parking lot and a proposed use so that's
consistent with what's shown on the Sanborn maps. The property is in the Rittenhouse Square
residential or historic district. It is not contributing. So we did go to the historical
commission. And that's kind of part of the reason why we're here. When we presented the project
to the historical commission, as is required, because it's in the district, even though it's
not contributing. What came out of that was that, and you can see here,
our property, again, is on the northwest corner of Hicks and Pine. This is the facade or the face
of the north side of Pine Street between Hicks and 16th Street. All of the buildings are
uh non-conforming with the current um uh height limitations for rm1 uh two of them have these
little bump ups you know mansard roof here and a faux um peak here there's there's nothing behind
it it's a flat roof behind it but they have been pretty consistent as you can see cornice line
It is also a series of four-story buildings with a very common cornice line.
So what happened is we went to the Historical Commission and if I can show.
Right here.
This is what happened is this is a Bywright building.
And so we went, we showed this historic.
Well, this is what a Bywright building looks like in context of the buildings on Pine Street.
and those existing structures to the west of us.
Behind us, we have the Drake, which is, I don't know, about 30, 33 stories,
over 290 to 330 feet tall.
So we're bookend at the north end with the Drake.
And then obviously at the other end, at the east end of Pine Street,
you have that 1011-story UARC building.
But the common thread you have to the west,
And then you have our building dropping down at the by right height. And you can see, again, here's the Drake towering above us, that it creates this kind of awkward visual effect.
Our application is for five single family dwellings with we're going to be eliminating all the existing curb cuts, except for reducing one on Pine Street that will access two car parking for each of the units.
So a total of 10 car off-street parking through a single curb cut.
Again, reducing the size of one of the existing curb cut on Pine Street.
But you can see here, like, the visual issues with it.
And then we presented to them, because when the design team and Tom and Derek can speak to this, not really liking that, we just happened to throw out at the meeting, hey, what do you all think about this?
And of matching the Pine Street elevations.
And what came out of that was a general consensus that with some other design feature changes that we made with the nice suggestions, good suggestions of the Philadelphia Historic Commission, was to undertake this process of going for a height variance.
And that's what we're here for today.
We're here for just a single height variance.
That's the only – we don't have a used variance.
We don't have a parking variance.
again it's a lot less dense of a proposal than in terms of the number of units than what there
could be as a matter of right less of an impact in terms of on-street parking than what there
could be or would be as a matter of light right and we end up being a little bit taller we did
have two meetings with CCRA following the first meeting at the end of June they tabled our request
for us to come back we did come back in July at that first meeting there were two neighbors
There were two or three neighbors on South Hick Street that wondered about what the shadowing and what the impact would be regarding our proposed development, given that it's taller than what the by-rate development would be.
We came back in July for a second meeting, and what we presented was not only massing comparisons, which we also presented at the first meeting, but in conjunction with these massing comparisons that show effectively that when you add in how tall, how high a pilot house could be by right on a 38-foot tall building with parapets,
that the height difference was very de minimis and that the, and then, you know, we can take
some time to go through these. I can go through these with Derek, but you see that there really
isn't, you know, our proposed pilot house is at 56. A by right pilot house would actually be taller
at 58.6. Our guardrail would be at 50 for the roof deck. By right would be at 52. The roof deck
surface would be essentially at the same height. So what we did, though, is we went and we did
shadow studies. And we studied at different times of day, spring, summer, winter. And what we did
So you could see, I'll show you in the photographs, that that is a very low three-story building with a very short third floor.
It's contributing in the district.
The chances of them ever getting a roof deck on that building is slim to none.
But that's the only shadowing.
And then here you have, at the summer solstice, it's just this little teeny bit right here.
So it's the shadowing.
We came back in July.
We showed the shadowing.
What came out of that meeting was there was a request about the Pine Street facade, the idea that even though we had these windows here and the doors were all facing on Hick Street, that this was somehow a bit of a blank wall.
And so what that came out of the July meeting, we said that we would dress up the Pine Street
facade.
We were supposed to go back to see them in August.
There was something came up with a meeting.
There was a miscommunication.
CCRA didn't actually have an August meeting.
Unfortunately, their next meeting is not until the end of September.
But we did forward to the co-chairs or to the chairs or the co-chairs of the zoning
Committee for CCRA, this rendering, which shows an additional door, the same as the Hick Street
doors on Pine Street. So that we're not, it's always a problem with corner properties. Somebody,
one street's going to get a shoulder. And by doing this, we feel that we complied and addressed the
non-zoning related request, the design request or concern of CCRA. And again, this was provided to
them over the last several weeks. We did revise our zoning drawings accordingly. And you can see
here, we're calling out the step. You can see here, we're calling out the additional entrance.
And we've included that with the revised proviso plan form. Presently, unfortunately, given the
timing, the fact that we couldn't get back to CCRA with the meeting at the end of August in
advance of this meeting. We only were left with the letter that came out of the meeting in July,
which was one to oppose the proposal. We thought that that was a little odd because during the
meeting, there were no neighbors on this call, whether voicing a concern or otherwise. And we
really didn't hear any concerns or objections from the zoning committee for CCRA other than
the pine street facade after we went through the revised presentation materials what we had
presented to ccra in advance of our first meeting ccra has a request requirement that you contact
the properties located next to or across the street from the property we have a pretty long
frontage on hick street we sent either my client tom famuletti went out in person and got individuals
to sign the letters, or we did the mailing, and they didn't come back one way or the other. We
provided them with return envelopes, and you can see here's the result. These are the properties
that are located across from us or abutting us. You can see that the abutting property to the
west of us, which is this property, 1519 Pine Street, which is nine condos,
everybody who responded was either in support or not opposed.
and then the uh the two letters we got we actually got a response on for 341 and 343
hick street um they were they were uh in support and i have their letters included here's the
letter kind of with everybody's uh docusigning it for 1519 pine street
and then here's the letter for 341 South Hicks. We have a practice here of our firm that we don't
just give them a letter, that we give them a copy of the refusal, we give them a copy of the plans.
Now, this was an approval before we dressed up Pine Street. I would imagine that nobody would
have an issue with that change. And then here's 343 South Hicks. And then just as an example,
these are the letters that went out to the other owners of the other properties that we didn't
have. We sent it certified return receipt and we haven't heard back. And these are just examples
and that everybody that was on that original list that I showed to you got here, got the mailing,
and we just haven't heard back. So I would take that, that if people were really concerned,
we would have heard from them. I mean, possibly they're here on this call. I don't know. We'll