number of large projects going in here. So we attempted to scale down. I think this project
gives you a good idea. These are the homes across the street on West Pollard. This is an apartment.
Both of those are taller than our buildings. And these are the other single family homes here
along West Allen. Notably, there are homes that are our height. There are homes in the middle
that are shorter than us. And actually, every home that is shorter than us on West Allen Street
signed that letter of petition that was submitted so that we do have support of everyone from that
end. This project, it's highlighted in purple, but it should be read CMX2 for the entire project.
so we did receive a number of refusals and i will go through them quickly the first one being that
for any cmx2 project you have to have 100 of your street frontage must have commercial use for the
first 30 feet in depth we are not providing commercial use on most of the project however
part of the support from NLNA required some corner use of commercial at the corner of Germantown and
West Allen. And I will point that out where we added that instead of just a single family house
there. This second refusal, while not incorrect, is actually premature. It says the proposed
parking is not accessed from a shared driveway alley or rear street this project will be a
planned unit development so while it is not yet a planned unit development because that has not
been recorded and cannot be recorded until after this board approves the variance this refusal
would go away because we would have a shared driveway servicing all 20 homes and so in that
instance, you would actually have a shared driveway. We also received refusals for where
required to have electric vehicle parking spaces and handicap accessible spaces. As I will show,
every single house has, every single house will have an EV charger placed into it. That's not
shown now, but it is part of the development plan. Each home proposed of the 20, 19 of the 20 homes
proposed. We'll have two-car parking, and each house is individually ADA accessible with an
elevator, and therefore every single home has the ability to have an ADA accessible or van
accessible space in its garage should that need arise. Then we have maximum height allowed is 38
feet. We do go up to 45 feet. However, what we've done with the community, and I'll show you
in these renderings, with NLNA is we actually squeezed the height on every block frontage
in working with NLNA to get their support. The reason why we go up is down here on West,
this is West Allen and this is Germantown. Down here on West Allen is the access, two-way access
to underground parking. The addition of underground parking based on the site and everything actually
pushes the whole property up. So we actually need that extra height in order to provide the
underground parking, which of course everyone knows the tenor of parking in this neighborhood
and in the city in general. We had resounding support for the implementation of sufficient
underground parking. That should be noted and it's specifically laid out in the revised plans
that we are actually on West Allen Street here. We are not exceeding 42.83 feet so we actually
shaved off about three feet of height on this street frontage. Each there's significant
topography changes all up and down West Allen and Germantown and so each house is individually
no taller than that 42.83 feet and in general is even shorter than that. Along Germantown
is, is even shorter than that. Along Germantown, there was no issue. All of the buildings near us
there was no issue.
and across the street were actually taller than us. So we did remain not to exceed 45 feet. Again,
each house is different. And then along Pollard Street, we're actually even just a little bit
lower at 42.042 feet. And I just call that out specifically because I know NLNA really keyed on
height and wanted us to make sure that that we limited that height. This corner right here is
where the commercial space will be. That will be a vacant commercial space to be filled in later.
What you see here is kind of a public access along this corner. You saw that this is a triangular
shaped parcel kind of awkwardly shaped so the triangular corner is carved out for public use.
One of the special aspects of this project, and certainly noticed by CDR, was the amount of public access space.
So these stairs would go up to the commercial space, but this whole area is public access and for public use.
And actually, so is this whole interior section.
So there's a full walking zone.
This is all right above the underground parking.
So over the underground parking is essentially all public walking zone. We have these large kind
of pedestal stairs going up into it. On the other side there's an ADA ramp for everyone to be able
to go ahead and walk. So here's the ADA accessibility. This is the ramp going down.
It's actually at the lowest point so that we could minimize the height and did everything
we could with the community to minimize that height for them and they were very happy with that.
So again, here's just a rendering of the interior. This is all public space, will be landscaped and established for public use and public walking.
And I think I just have one more kind of a nighttime scene.
so um you know not to uh not to belabor any issues and certainly we have uh you know overwhelming
support for the project um you know for a hardship or for a variance we need to show hardship uh that
it's not detrimental to the health safety and welfare and that it's the least minimum variance
i think i've already explained why we need that extra height and why that's the least variance
that we need in order to add that underground parking. Again, this is a changing neighborhood,
but we are trying to put in these townhomes, which will buffer the existing townhomes that
are across the street from us. We have EV chargers in every home. And it was specifically
noted by the Planning Commission yesterday at CDR that this project will be beneficial to
the individual neighbors. Now, the last piece of hardship that you see is we do have that one
refusal for CMX2 use. This is the one corner, right, where we added commercial use of the
community, thought it appropriate. Everything becomes residential as you go sort of east from
this project and this direction to the west, and north is more commercial. So that's where the
commercial space is. It was also presented to the community that essentially what you see here,
these three fingers right here and this large box have also been purchased by or will be purchased
by the same buyer but from a different seller. This piece will be consolidated with this larger
piece. When that is done, all of the project will be subject to the RSA 5 single-family
residential zoning, and therefore that would certainly take away the commercial impacts.
So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have or just have my
clients adopt my testimony. Why don't you have your client adopt a testimony, Mr. Whelman?
Certainly. Ori Feibush should be on the call.
Mr. Feibush, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Mr. Feibush, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Yes, sir. Ori Feibush, first name O-R-I, last name F as in Frank, E-I-B-U-S-H.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Feibusch, you are here on behalf of 1031 Germantown Avenue OCF LLC, correct?
Yes, sir.
And that's the equitable owner of the property?
Yes, that's correct.
And you heard all of the testimony already presented in this case, correct?
And you heard all of the testimony already presented in this case, correct?
And do you believe it to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
And would you adopt it as your own?
I would.
Is there anything additional, not to be duplicative, but additional that you believe is relevant for this board to hear?
Not unless the board has specific questions for me.
Certainly. With that board, I would just offer Mr. Feibusch for any questions that you may have.
all right questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chair question or comments
from the virtual audience
here i see no heads at this time planning commission good afternoon mr chairman david
fecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board this proposal completed
CIVIC DESIGN REVIEW IN MAY 2022, THE CIVIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS
ARE NOT AN EXPRESSION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OR OPINION REGARDING
ZONING VARIANCES, SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OR OTHER DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS PROPOSAL. THIS PROPERTY'S ZONING WAS CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL MIXED USE 2 AND A NEIGHBORHOOD
ZONING MAP CHANGE IN 2014. THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT REFLECT THE MINIMUM VARIANCES NEEDED
to allow the applicant to derive value from the land the applicant has failed to prove that a
hardship exists that will prevent the property from being used in conformance with the zoning
code the city planning commission recommends the board deny the use in dimensional variances
thank you um council is there your revised plans how many pages uh board it is uh one page proviso
with proviso form one page
zoning plan, revised
plan. Thank you.
000651
1031 Germantown Avenue.
I vote yes with
revised plan one page.
Stamp rate
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes
with provisos.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
We'll provide those.
My vote is yes.
We'll provide those.
Thank you, Mr. Whalen.
All right.
Thank you very much.
I hope you have a great day.
You too.
MI 2022.
005028, 224-30 West Topahokin Street.
attorney steve masters michael phillips leonard reuter
they're all coming back in this panelist chair thank you
mr masters spell your name for the court reporter please state it spell your name please
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
My name is Steve Masters, S-T-E-V-E, M-A-S-T-E-R-S, from the law firm of JustLaws.
I'm here on behalf of the objectors who filed an appeal against the Department of License and Inspections.
Thank you.
Mr. Reuter, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Thank you.
may it please the board, Leonard F. Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R.
First name is L-E-O-N-A-R-D, Senior Attorney
for the City of Philadelphia. Right. And Mr. Phillips, could you
do the same? Sure. Michael Phillips, P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S
with Claire Harrison Harvey Bransburg, 1835 Market Street,
Suite 1400, Philadelphia PA 19103.
Here on behalf of the property owner, Topohokin Mansion, LLC.
Okay, for all three, do you swear for them to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yeah, I do.
So, I think we want to start to see where we stand.
So, Mr. Masters, we'll start with you.
Give me a sense of where this process is.
Sure, Mr. Chair, we are here to present our appeal against L&I.
we're focusing on some narrow issues that we've outlined in our response to the motion to limit
evidence and exclude irrelevant testimony that Mr. Bilby's counsel filed. And we are prepared to
proceed with the appeal before you today. Mr. Phillips, could you give me a sense of where
you are? Certainly. Right now, as detailed in my letter objecting to the evidence that was
proposed by Mr. Masters. We're here on one very narrow issue, whether or not the zoning permit that
Whether or not the zoning permit that was issued in the revised plan comply with the Commonwealth Court's order, which was to eliminate the parking on Pastorius and no additional curb cuts.
Those are the two issues.
One, there's no contention that there is any parking proposed in the zoning plan.
So this all becomes a matter of the language, no additional curb cuts.
and there's an existing driveway that's been there. It's not subject of the appeal.
And as we sit here today, there is one means of access to that driveway through a curb cut.
Now, there were additional curb cuts that were made during the period of time when the provisos
were not in effect. There are barriers up, blocking those. That's an enforcement issue
with L&I, as I'm sure Mr. Reuter will note. And we presently have a zoning application in right now
for the legalization of these parking spaces and to speak to the changes that have taken place over
the last five years in the neighborhood that we believe necessitates the hardship in legalizing
these parking spaces. It is our contention that the parking spaces are not part of the plan.
They're not permitted to be used right now. And for that reason, we will need relief from the
zoning board. So the sole matter that we're here for today is the location of the one curb cut
that provides ingress and egress to the property. There were two curb cuts at the time of the
application. There's one curb cut right now. Therefore, there's no additional curb cuts.
And this really just becomes a matter of enforcement. And this can all be gleaned from
the plan. And this is legal argument. There really is no need for testimony of fact witnesses as to
what the plan holds and whether it complies with the provisors that were reinstated by the
Commonwealth Court. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Just one minute. Mr. Reuter, could you give me a sense
of where you think we are? Sure. Generally, we agree with Mr. Phillips' rendition of what's
happening here uh we do believe that uh and we agree that the parking spaces that have curb cuts
along pastorius uh not the not the what we'll just call in shorthand the driveway but the the
parking spaces uh that as a result of the commonwealth court's opinion those are not lawful
i mean he says they have barricades i don't myself know that although i do have a couple
witnesses here that maybe could talk to that um so we we agree that those are in violation we don't
we don't have any disagreement with um uh mr master's clients about those spaces uh that is
our understanding and based upon what i get from the department of licenses and inspections is that
those are not currently being used for parking so i mean technically they can be you know you can
pave your front yard uh in some at least at this location there wouldn't be a prohibition on that
But the curb cuts will either have to be removed or legalized, which sounds like Mr. Phillips' client is going to attempt to legalize that, meaning this matter is going to go on for another seven years.
But that's a whole other issue.