And then there are applications for a special exception.
The only, I'm going to stop sharing my screen.
The only other thing I can show is the tax clearance certificates.
And I, you know, we presented those documents to the ZBA beforehand,
but if the board is so inclined and they want me to show that,
I can also show that.
That's fine.
With that being said, I would ask that either Mr. Mahdi or Mr. Shami,
who are representatives from Temple Villa virtually raised a hand so they can adopt my testimony.
Do you state your name, please, sir, and spell it for the court reporter?
Currently, Chair, there's no hands up. All right, Mr. Nockamson, you're an officer of the court.
Your testimony is fine. All right, and then again, Ms. Robinson, I did talk to her earlier
from the 32nd democratic board she didn't indicate there may be a possibility that she
can show up but that she had other meetings as well so i don't know she's virtual audience sure
so let me let me do the board first members of the board questions from the board uh yes
should we hold it for a letter well they did give mr holliman they did give a letter it's just that
they took no position they took a no position yeah and she may be in the audience thomas
thank you yeah and then um members of the board if if this board is so inclined to
to grant these special exceptions um there is language and i just took it from a notice of
decision that the board uh gave us uh last year for a similar type of project and it provides
or would read as follows approved use is group living comma not rooming house with all other
uses as previously approved to remain thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission
hi mr chair and members of the board this is mason austin representing the planning commission
Mason, spell your name for the court reporter.
Sure, no problems.
M-A-S-O-N-A-U-S-T-I-N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Appreciate.
Sure, and my recommendation, the Planning Commission's recommendation is the same for all of the properties except for one.
So this does not apply to 2015 North 17th.
So that recommendation is this lot is designated for residential multifamily use in the comprehensive plan and it's RM1 zoning matches that designation.
Because single room residents would not have the impact at this location greater than that one would normally expect from that use, PCPC staff support the granting of this special exception.
The difference for 2015 North 17th where there's also a request for a variance about an additional dwelling unit, this lot is designated for residential multifamily use in the comprehensive plan and it's RM1 zoning matches that designation.
Because single room residents would not have an impact at this location greater than that one would normally expect from this use, PCPC staff support granting that special exception.
um further because the parking requirement is pursuant to an overlay that was opposed by the
planning commission pcpc staff support the granting of that variance however there are no features
unique to this site that present a hardship that would necessitate the addition of another dwelling
unit and as such pcpc staff recommend denial of that use variance thank you um mr knockamson we're
going to take all the cases under consideration uh hillary's going to look at the uh uh your
your statement and the next time we come back will be two weeks am i right two weeks from today
yes approximately two weeks from today for the two o'clock hearing we we will we will consider
an executive session after talking to hillary and then we will vote that that day okay all right
thank you very much. Sure. Thank you. And I think you have another case here.
sure thank you and i i think you have an another case here before we go on i think you have a few
by the way but number eight n i 2022 001 781 1944 wolder street um let's see here
uh point breeze community
community it's corporation development corporation
has a proviso in favor of the project
with the proviso.
Do we hear that with 13?
It's number eight.
So we're hearing eight alone.
Number eight, 1944,
Walder was in the middle of that stuff.
So Mr. Nockmson,
could you identify your client
and their relationship to the property?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
It's Vincent and Teresa Manzo.
I believe that at least Mr. Manzo is in the virtual audience.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, again.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance,
a copy of the refusal or referral,
voters under 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, in all respects.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Hi, so I'm here to present 1944 Wilder Street.
This property is the Point Breeze section of Philadelphia.
In my presentation, we'll go over the notice of refusal, the letter of support from the Point Breeze CDC.
see letters of support from nearby neighbors. And when I say nearby, 1942 and 1427 South 20th
Street, both properties directly touch our property and would be most impacted by this
project. We'll go over maps of the area, photographs of the property in the surrounding
area, our plans and drawings, proof that we met with the community by way of a RCO meeting notice
as well as proof of mailing of that notice to the affected properties, our deed to the property
showing that Vincent and Teresa Manto are the owners of the property, our application for
appeal to the ZBA, and our certificate of tax clearance. So notice refusal, this is an RSA 5
property. You'll see from the pictures, it has not been an RSA 5 type of property for some time.
there's a one-story garage there. All we're trying to do is add on to that first story for all
intents and purposes and put living above. So we're repurposing an existing curb cut and now
actually going closer to what is the true intention of RSA 5 by allowing for single
family dwelling. And the only reason why we're here today is because by putting that addition
onto this, you know, the second and third stories, we need approval to then use that as accessory
parking for that single family residence. There's an existing curb cut there. There's no parking
allowed on that side of the street. And there's other examples in Point Breeze close by where
there's similar type of use. So we did meet with the Point Breeze CDC. As you can see, we did get
support. There were two provisos as part of that letter. One was remove the parapet wall to reduce
massing. And I'll leave it to Mr. Manzo, who's also a contractor, to discuss that. Our concern
with getting rid of the parapet wall and putting some type of railing there is that we're just
afraid of having some stormwater issues um we met with 1942 wilder we actually have a separate
agreement with them um in terms of our construction they were on board i didn't share that agreement
but we do have a separate agreement with them uh for 1427 south 20th which included to have like
you know the parapet wall um and 1427 south 20th street you'll see two touches our property had no
issues with the actual parapet wall. That's not an actual zoning manner in the sense of
we're not creating a variance by having a parapet wall there. So we would request not
to have a proviso in that respect. And then the second proviso, we'll talk to Block about safety
And then the second proviso, we'll talk to Block about safety measures for cars entering and exiting, sound light, et cetera.
measures for cars entering.
Again, we worked closely with the nearby neighbors, including 1942 Wilder Street, and we gained her specific support, and you'll see that in our presentation materials.
So the letter of support, first, the owner of 1427 South 20th Street, you know, sent us a letter or signed a letter supporting our project.
And then 1942, Wilder Street, again, immediately next to us, the one who would probably be most impacted by anything, including the parapet wall, because there is a side alley for 1427 and they wouldn't be impacted by the parapet wall.
but 1942 which would be impacted has no objection to you know how this project is being laid out
and are actually in support of this project and then maps of the area as you can see we're at the
corner of uh wilder here so that this is us this is 1942 and this is 20 uh this is 1427 south 20th
so we're at the corner essentially of 20th street and wilder and then you can see the street names
more definitively in this google map photo and then photographs of the property this is our
property it's a one-story garage and all we're trying to do is go closer and perform any with
the code by making it into a single-family dwelling with accessory garage front-loading
garage on the first floor and then this is 1944 wilder street to the right of their property
as you can see there's no parking allowed on our side of the street so we're not taking a curb cut
our curb cuts not taking parking away from any potential residents who have cars 1944 street to
the left of the property and this is actually the neighbor who's in support of our project
And for good reason, they also have off-street parking at 1427 South 20th Street.
And 1428 South 19th Street, also similar type of off-street parking.
And then our plans and drawings.
Again, we're not seeking any dimensional variances or use variances here.
And then you can see, you know, our parking spot.
Again, we're just repurposing the garage.
and you can see from the floor plans that all we're trying to do is repurpose the garage to have
one spot in there. You go up a flight of steps. It's a very humble floor plan. There's an open
floor plan on the second floor of a living room and a kitchen and a half bath and then you go to
the third floor and it's two bedrooms and one bath and then our meeting notice we met with the
community on april 25th at 6 p.m there are 185 addresses that were notified at that meeting
the list of the addresses proof of mailing to those addresses our deed to the property showing
that Vincent and Teresa Manzo are the owners of the property
in our application for appeal to the ZPA
and our tax clearance certificate.
With that being said, I'll stop sharing my screen.
I'll ask that Mr. Manzo, as the owner of the property
and also someone who has experience as a contractor,
virtually raise his hand about my testimony.
And then he can, you know, if he wants to state
the reason why he has concerns about eliminating
into the parapet wall, I would ask him to testify in that respect.
Mr. Monzo, please state your name and spell for the court reporter.
Mr. Monzo?
Hi, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court reporter?
he's here i'm not sure what's going on he don't no hands are up no i've already allowed him
permission he's unmuted but he's we can't hear anything okay mr manzo could you spell your name
please yeah i see mr manzo muted himself mr manzo he can unmute yourself again
so knock them send you we'll take your testimony that's fine
mr chair the most important thing is he is a general contractor when i mentioned the fact
about eliminating the massey on the parapet wall which again it's not zoning related we're not
eliminating the massey on the parapet wall which again it's not zoney related we're not
so his concerns honestly were storm water management okay okay questions from the board
no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission i'm mr chair and members of the board this is mason
in Austin, representing the Planning Commission, the lot is designated for single-family residential
use in the comprehensive plan, and its RSA 5 zoning matches that designation. While there are no
features unique to this lot that present a hardship, given the existing use and support of the RCO,
staff of the Planning Commission have no objection to the grantor of this variance.
Thank you. MI 2022-001-781-1944, Wilder Street, I vote yes.
Harold Teneri, my vote is yes.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, number 11, MI 2022-001-772-2112 North Front Street.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
We don't see a letter yet from NARA Square Civic Alliance.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
We did just get that letter early this morning.
So, yes.
In favor?
Yes, it was a letter in support pursuant to the signing of a community benefits agreement,
which I'm sure Ms. Pritzker will discuss.
Great. Thank you.
Ms. Pritzker, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1521 Locust Street, Suite 605, Philadelphia, PA, 19102.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
Sure. My client is Front Street Lofts, LLC, who is the owner of the properties.
Right. And our vice chair has a few questions.
Ms. Pritzker, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral,
photos under 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. You may proceed and please share your screen. Thank you.
Okay. Okay. Can you see the hearing packet?
yes or no yes okay great so this is 2112 uh through 16 north front street um these are
two separate tax ids parcels that are going to be consolidated pursuant to our application
um and this project proposes to construct a mixed use building on the consolidated lot to feature
one commercial space on the ground floor, running on the street. Could you make it larger, please?
Yeah, maximize, please. Is that better?
Yes. That's it. That's good. Great, thanks. Okay, awesome. So again, it's going to feature one,
it's a consolidated lot with uh going to feature one commercial space running front street on the
ground level as well as 31 dwelling units residential dwelling units above it also will
have 11 bicycle parking spaces um this project is a bit unique in that it was designed to conform to
all the zoning requirements of cmx two and a half which was the designation of the property when the
applicant and the design firm first were engaged back in June or before June. The property was
then down-zoned to CMX2, which can be seen on the zoning maps provided in the packet.