councilman squilla also sent a letter of non-opposition so you may proceed terrific so
yeah i'll try to be brief in light of those facts i'll share my screen right um i do want to just
house housekeeping madam chair we do not need any stamps we were going to ask the board to stamp um
the overall site plan. This is lot F of, let me show you the old plan. This is basically the last
lot to be developed of a townhome development lot that this board actually approved the same
variances in the fall. This is the remaining lot that we did not propose a development for. When
I show you the plan, you'll understand what I mean. We're asking for the same variances for
of this particular property.
It's lot F, it's the corner property of Moore
Moore and Moyamensing excuse me. I'm sorry Oriana it's front zone Oriana.
and Moyamensing, excuse me.
I'm sorry.
You see the red. This is the plan that you approved last year and this is the lot right
here. We're doing the same duplex development. This is Moyamensing. This is the eModa building
which is a non-conforming structure which is currently being demolished in light of what the
before granted last year. The hardship that we articulated in that case was basically the
building is no longer usable. There is no interest in reusing the building. So the only viable use
was multifamily residential townhomes. We initially proposed a large apartment building,
which we, after complaints from the neighbors, we abandoned and we are moving forward with
these townhomes. Again, that's the plan that shows the easement. We are going to ask you to stamp.
we no longer need you to stamp because the refusal is accurate and the plan is accurate for this
particular lot which is lot f so you can disregard that i'll show you the site plan so you can see
what we're dealing with and i'll ask we have a gada on the line and a developer matt milano
this uh these curb cuts front on ariana along with other curb cuts that the board already approved
on the neighboring lots, with trash storage in the basement.
Oriana is a non-parking street,
so we are not displaced in any parking.
And we are maintaining the sidewalks
on the other side on Moia-Mensing.
And this board approved the same variances.
This is the E-Moda building that is dilapidated
and unusual that's being demolished.
I can have Matt Milano promoted to a panelist to accept my testimony.
And trash storage in the basement, duplex dwelling, homeowners association.
We have Matt Milano authorized, please, without my testimony.
Hello, this is Matthew Milano.
Hi, can you put your name and address on the record?
Spell your last name and I'll swear you in.
M-I-L-A-N-O.
My address is 246 Pierce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19148.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Thank you. You may proceed, Rich.
Matt, good morning.
Did you hear all my factual testimony that I offered to the board today?
I did.
you adopt it as your own testimony and as true and accurate yes i do and this is the final lot
of your townhome development proposal uh for the old e-motor site in pensport correct yes it is
and the main development was approved uh last last fall by this board but this is the remainder
lot that you uh are finalizing the entire plan yes yes it is you met with the neighbors
of non-opposition. Correct. All right. I don't have any questions, Madam Chair. That's all I have.
Thank you. Does the Board have any questions? No, Chair. I would only note for the Planning
Commission that this was a non-conforming structure that was a dilapidated warehouse
that was vacant for many years and no longer viable at that location. The only interest was
to do multifamily and contextually the block is a mix of commercial uses there's a few single
family but there's also multifamily and commercial is there anyone in the virtual audience who has
any questions or testimony i see no hands madam chair thank you planning commission
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. For the record, we were on the record for opposition of the original variance granted by the board last year.
And the comprehensive plan recommends no change in the existing single-family zoning for this entire property. With regard to the use refusals, the applicant's hardship claim is not supported by evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property.
and with regard to the dimensional refusals we believe the dimensional requirements of the code
do not impose a financial burden on the applicant accordingly we sustain our opposition to the
development of two family buildings here including on the subject parcel and that is the subject of
this hearing today city planning commission recommends that the board deny all variances on
this application just just for the record madam chair brief response there is a hardship caused
by the existing dilapidated, unusable, and unviable structure that has created additional
dilapidated an unusable and unviable structure that has created additional development costs
and single-family use is not viable in light of the fact that the developer must do all sorts of
demolition and redevelopment of the site and the non-conforming structure has to be replaced and
there's simply no demand for a single family. Thank you. Calendar number 1784, 1810 East
Moyamensing Avenue. My vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
confessors off now okay um good luck uh mr demarco
thank you for your time madam chair have a good evening thank you calendar number
0979 2003 north 9th street dan our back is the attorney
he's coming in as a pattern move thank you
good morning madam chair good morning can you put your name and address on the record spell
your last name and i'll swear you in and auerbach a-u-e-r-b-a-c-h 1500 john f kennedy boulevard
suite 1203 Philadelphia PA 19102. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing
about the truth? I do. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet consisting of proof of ownership, tax
compliance, refusal, 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 to everything with the caveat
that uh we are here today for a realistment hearing or resumption hearing uh because the rco
did not provide a letter we repost the property i've tried to reach out to the rco which is 8pm
i have not been able to get a final position from them the only issue they ever raised during the
meeting or by email with us was a small issue with the trash which i believe we resolved so
i'm not aware of of opposition but they have not provided a letter and to my knowledge we do not
have an RCO letter, Ms. Saleta, you would know best. I have not received one either, but given
the opponent's efforts to obtain one, I think the board can vote this today. Okay, sir, you can continue.
We've made a presentation last time. My client adopted my testimony. Should we
go over everything again? I believe the only purpose of today's hearing was to ensure that the
community members had an opportunity to weigh in, but I'm also happy to go over the presentation
again. Are there community members here in the virtual audience who would like to testify?
I see no hands, Madam Chair. Ms. Saleta, is it okay to go to a straight vote?
Yes, Mr. Obrecht, just to confirm again, your client met with the RCO.
You did not receive a letter since the last hearing. You've made several attempts to obtain
the letter, is that correct? Yes, I've made any number of emails and phone calls to my contact
at the RCO without success over several months. Okay, I think it's fine to vote this thing.
Thank you. Calendar number, no, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Madam Chair. No problem. Ian Hegarty with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
This property is indicated for multifamily residential in the comprehensive plan.
This lot, however, is only 930 square feet, and we feel the proposal represents an overuse of the property.
Accordingly, we recommend against the granting of the variance.
Thank you, Mr. Hegarty.
calendar number 0979 2003 north 9th street my vote is yes
jane snell my vote is yes thomas holloman my vote is yes
good luck thank you very much madam chair calendar number 1828 2203 jackson street
the attorney is faith comes
if that's i hope i'm not ruining that last name
ruining that last name.
Excuse me, Madam Chair, I'm not sure if I missed this, but did you call both cases?
No, I did not. I called one. The second case would be calendar number 1827-2201 Jackson Street.
Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Faith Hammes. I'm here for the applicant.
Okay, can you please spell your last name? Sorry for the mispronunciation that I gave you.
That's quite all right.
And give us your address, please, and I'll swear you in.
Sure. Faith Hammes, H-A-M-M-E-S. Address is 10 East 6th Avenue, Suite 300,
Conchahokan, PA, 19428. Do you swear if I'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do. Do you greet away the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance,
copy of the refusal or referral, photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of
this hearing, and do you have a letter from the RCO and have you met with the RCO?
yes to all of those things okay we have letters from the rco which is east passion of neighbors
association and their letters of support for both uh cases so you may continue that's correct
i'm going to share my screen here
hopefully that worked it did okay okay um yeah so this application is through two properties
2201 and 2203 Jackson. 2201 is on the corner. It is zoned CMX2. The next is 2203. It's a residential
property next door, and that is zoned RM1. These properties were in joint ownership. My client,
2201-03 Jackson, LLC, through John Tripodi as the sole member, acquired them in 2020.
For many years, these properties have been essentially abandoned and boarded up.
Taxes hadn't been paid in 20 years.
I'm not sure how it didn't go to tax sale, but somehow it survived.
So my client now proposes to rehab these buildings, reuse them.
And with that, we need some fairly modest zoning relief.
I'm going to have Richard Miller, the architect, go through in a little bit more detail briefly the proposed plan.
But what we wanted to show is, you know, what's happening now on this site where it's been abandoned, it's been boarded up, it was a nuisance bar.
We're now proposing to change the first floor of the corner property into a cafe, coffee shop type use and residential above, which it is currently residential above, and then just have a residential unit at 2203 as the inner building.
um i think what i'll do is if we can have um richard miller who should be on with us if he can
go through in a little bit more detail the plans we did go through this with the rco and they
they you know we're very much in support of the project
mr miller is coming back in as a panel
I believe I'm on.
Hi, Mr. Miller. Put your name and address on the record and I'll swear you in.
My name is Richard Miller. I'm with RKM Architects at 1230 Marlboro Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19125.
five. Can you spell your last name for the court stenographer? M-I-L-L-E-R. Thank you. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. You may proceed. Good morning,
Richard. Can you just take us through, we can go through it briefly and then maybe open it up for
questions. We know we see what's existing. If you can just briefly explain what's existing,
what the proposal is, and what zoning relief is required?
Certainly. The existing building is a two-story structure on the corner, which is 2201,
and a two-story single-family residence, 2203, directly decided.
When a two-story single-family residence, 2203, directly decided, they were illegally
joined as a part of, there was a pass-through, and they were basically functioning as an
illegal kind of bar nightclub for many years.
But originally, the residence at 2203 was a single-family residence, and our proposal
is to return it to that use.
And in that case, what we would like to do is add a third floor, renovate the base, and that's what's currently being shown in the plans.
And then for the corner property, we have a referral for use because what we would like to do is propose a cafe there, which would allow for takeout food.
it's a very small space about 575 square feet so it's not going to be uh we don't think it's
going to have a huge impact on the neighborhood uh what we're going to do is add a new stair
at the rear of the structure because currently the only access to the second floor is via an
exterior stair that's illegal so we're providing a new stair inboard uh that will serve two
apartments above uh so the the fact that we're doing a rear stair is somewhat complicated uh
but because the the original lot is 100 lot coverage so there is no rear yard which is
required uh by code but because it's an existing condition um we are allowed to do that the
problem is we're looking to do a third floor addition and we're looking to build that out
to the full footprint of the building because that's the logical location for the stair
in order to allow for the retail space to function so that's the that's the hardship that is that
we're facing in terms of uh of that variance uh for the rear yard setback the other issue with
this property is that it is um we we need we need permission or have a referral for takeout food
which we hope is not a concern because there are other uses like that in the neighborhood.
With the house next door, the refusal is based on not having a front setback at the third floor
when it's adjacent to two two-story residents or two two-story structures.
In our case, because we are legally building up the third floor of the corner,
we believe that it it's a perfectly rational extension to go ahead and do it here as well
for the residents and the biggest reason that we are trying to do that is that the floor plate
of this of the original residence is quite small and we're trying to work with the existing
structure of that residence and the location of the existing stair and in order to do that
in order to get a usable bedroom space at the third floor, it really is much better for us to
not have the eight foot set back here. We also believe that architecturally it makes a lot of
sense to do it design-wise because we think it works well with the overall massing of the building.
That's basically the extent of the design. I don't know if I need to get into much more detail,
but if there are questions we'd be happy to answer them for the most part we would see where is
i'm sorry where is the trash stored the trash would be inside the building for the uh for the
commercial space at the first floor there is a basement
okay sorry for interrupting you but i had that on my mind
the support of any questions yeah sir no no vice chair we also have uh john trapodi who is the
owner of of the buildings and who will operate the cafe uh john hopefully is on somewhere
here and can accept the testimony that was presented
john are you out there in the virtual audience
yes can you hear me yes there he is yes can you put your name and address on the record
please and spell your last name sure uh john propote uh 901 north penn street
philadelphia pa last name is spelled t-r-i-p-o-d-i
Do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
do you swear for him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes
Okay. He's all yours.
John, you heard the testimony that Richard and I both presented today?
And do you accept that as fact and accept it as your own testimony?