that is correct and is it true and correct of what i stated correct yes it is and do you adopt
that testimony as your own i do thank you questions from the board no mr chairman
that was jim stillton ish
questions or comments from the virtual audience
no chair i see no further answer okay planning commission thank you chair bergman david facto
city planning commission mr chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends a
change in zoning at this location to residential multifamily the applicant could use the mixed
income housing bonus under the current zoning to achieve an additional unit that they are
requesting. Since balconies are not a required feature for any building, there would be no
economic detriment to the applicant if they were to eliminate them. City Planning Commission
recommends that the board deny the requested variances. MI 2022-007-046-2978 Richmond Street.
I vote yes with proviso. Use registration required prior to occupancy for vacant commercial space.
James Snell, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number seven, MI-2022-007-303-1637 South 49th Street.
Neil Sklaroff is the attorney.
It was a meeting held on 330-23 at the Southwest Philadelphia District Services.
Council Member Gauthier strongly supports the requested special exception.
Mr. Sklaroff.
Hi, counsel. How are you, sir? Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Neil Sklaroff, N-E-I-L-S-K-L-A-R-O-F-F.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in the relationship to the property?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
we're pleased
We're pleased to represent today Bartram's Garden and the John Bartram Association.
The property is owned by the City of Philadelphia, and we bring this application on behalf of and in cooperation of the city.
Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Sir, good afternoon, Counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did, with the exception of an authorization letter from the city
clarifying the relationship between
the John Bartram
Association and the property.
That should have been sent directly.
I have shared it. Can you see
the first?
We don't see it, no.
I'm sorry. Would you please hold on
as I try to make this...
The green button at the bottom?
Yeah, I did.
And something's come up that maybe
wasn't
Give me a moment, please.
I'll take your time.
Don't quite know why this is not coming up as I expected.
Try this.
Here you go.
It's coming up.
now you're going to hit your exhibits open your exhibits am i into it now do you see it well
you're i we don't see it yet your your your files are there now you got to tap in
the bartram exhibits for not final i thought i just did that sorry why am i back to zoom
now do you see it
let me do it a different way
I'm sorry to
hold everybody up
it doesn't seem like it wants to open
could you go on to the next I apologize we'll go on Sharon we'll we'll we'll double we'll be
back to you in about a half hour. Thank you. Sorry for the delay. No, no, no, it's fine.
Number nine, MI 2022, 007-003-2144 East Norris Street. David Orfanides is the attorney.
Recommendation of support from East Kensington Neighbors Association.
letter of non-opposition from Council Member Lozada.
Neil, could you go out, please?
Mr. Sklaroff?
okay i think he's off right now sorry okay
all right mr can we get mr orphanetes in mr orphanetes has been promoted he'll be good great
hello hi mr orphanetes could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
certainly my name is david orphanetes the last name is spelled o-r-p-h-a-n-i-d-e-s
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do sir could you identify your client in relationship to this property
Certainly. My client is the owner of the subject property, LK Investments, LLC.
Okay. And our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I waive the reading. I do not stipulate to its accuracy. There's one refusal that I believe should not have been issued, but...
Understood.
Understood. Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits?
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
I forwarded everything except for the letter of support from the coordinating RCO
and the letter of non-opposition from Councilwoman Lozada,
which I believe the board received separately, but I've incorporated into my exhibit materials.
Okay, no problem.
Thank you.
Please proceed to the screen.
Thank you.
firming you can see my screen we're fine great okay so uh good afternoon uh chairman bergman
and members of the board again my name is david orphanetes with orphanetes and toner llp
and again i am here this afternoon on behalf of the owner of the property lk investments llc
the property is 2144 east norris street it's located at the southeast corner of norris and
Trenton Avenue. Here I have an aerial image of the subject property. You can see it here clouded.
As I scroll in, you can see that East Norris Street, as I toggle back and forth, you can see
that East Norris runs between Front Street and Frankfurt Avenue. I mean, it extends further to
the west and east of that, but for our purposes, that's what we want to focus on. You can see
Trenton Avenue. It's very wide to the northwest of us until it reaches Norris Street at the south
end. And then it becomes a very, you'll see a very narrow street with no parking on either side that
then goes around, swings around to East Houston. And then it connects with Blair Street that can
either come out to Norris or swing back around out to Frankfurt Avenue. Oops. As you can see,
our property from the aerial as a vacant lot. You'll see from the pictures that I've provided
at tab nine that the property is, in fact, a vacant lot. Per the documentation that I have
pulled from Atlas, it looks like the subject property, excuse me one minute,
was the last Sanborn we have is from 2002,
and it shows the property being used for non-residential purposes.
You can see here from Atlas, shows in 2004.
You can see up in the upper right-hand corner,
and this is included at tab 10.
There was a building located at our property.
And then as of 2008, it was vacant.
So the property has been vacant for approximately 15 years.
Again, going back through the years, the Sanborn maps, you can see that it's been this property along with the property abutting it to the, I guess, to the east, which is now utilized for residential purposes, were both utilized for commercial purposes or non-residential purposes.
Here it shows the storage and then other warehousing and other uses going all the way back, repair shop all the way back to 1917.
You can see from the photographs, and right here you can see on the left, the upper image here on page one of Exhibit 9, the buildings that have a history of non-residential use that are being utilized, our understanding for residential uses now.
You can also see the remainder of the block is a mix of converted non-residential structures, non-residential structures that have been converted to residential use.
Here you can see at 2162, a multifamily dwelling.
I believe there are four units there,
total four units that were approved.
Multifamily down at, I'm sorry, I'm scrolling too fast.
Down at Blair and Norris.
Other post in commercial use of properties in the area
and some residential developments
that have come in over the years.
I think I actually came to the zoning board for the one that's at the top of here, page 7.
You can see at the bottom of page 7, that's the wide Trenton Avenue, parking on both sides, perpendicular to the curb.
And then views back to the west, looking towards the L and Front Street.
And then the very large multifamily structure that's located on the other side, the west side of the park.
and the park you can see here you saw in the aerials to the west of us so that park is elevated
that green space is elevated without access from our property and you can see there's about a 20
foot wall masonry wall somewhat deteriorating with chain link fence and overgrowth above it
which is directly across from our property so it creates and you can see this is the monolithic wall
So it creates, and you can see this is the monolithic wall that faces the long portion of our property.
that faces the lawn.
We believe that the longstanding baking condition of the lot creates a hardship here.
We believe that hardship may have been in part created by the intersection of Trenton Avenue and East Norris and how they interact with one another,
as well as this very large looming wall directly across the street from it.
And here's another view of that as it swings around.
And here you can see the park where it drops in elevation ball fields off of Houston.
There is a mix of multifamily use and parking off of Houston just to the west, I mean to the east of our property.
Our application is for a three-family dwelling.
It's presently zoned RSA5.
We believe that this use, even though this property is zoned RSA 5, more than likely part of just an overall blanket remapping,
probably didn't take into account, may not have taken into account the past non-residential use,
as well as the other uses on the property and directly across the street from it.
The refusal, four refusals were issued in addition to the three-family dwelling that we're proposing,
which creates the refusal at the bottom, the use for refusal.
We are proposing two off-street parking spaces. Again, there's no parking on our side of Trenton Avenue where it narrows down. So we're not taking any cars on-street parking off-street.
I disagree with this refusal. If you take a look at tab 12, technically, when you have two frontages, by definition in the zoning code, the side street where one is deemed to be a front, which our property was deemed to be a front at East North Street,
that that side street is actually technically a rear street.
And since there is no parking on that side of the street,
we believe that that refusal should not have been issued
and that parking should be permitted
as to respects of how it's being accessed,
that it's not in violation of 148031C.1
about attached buildings only being accessed
by a shared drive alley or rear street.
Again, if you go through those provisions at tab 12, you'll see that by code, we are parking from a rear street.
It doesn't seem to be a rear, but by definition it is.
We are providing two off-street parking spaces.
When you do not have a one or two family dwelling and you're providing parking with this number of units, we're provided to have one ADA van space.
We discussed that with the neighborhood.
We said we could have one van space or two without.
This is a building that does not have an elevator.
It is not because it's fewer than four units.
It's not required to have a type B ADA unit.
And so given the fact that the buildings, because of the number of units and because
of the smaller lot size, which you will see with the zoning drawings, isn't laid out
to accommodate that. We did not provide the van space. And the main reason for that is a van could
park in one of the parking spaces, but with the ADA van space for parking requirement, there's a
loading space that needs to be next to the parking space, which is basically the size of another
parking space, a regular eight and a half by 18 parking space. And then the other thing is that
are um and you can see this in our zoning drawings is that um that we are just parking in what rear
yard open area that we have and you can see that right here um that rear yard area is along and
you can see again from the photos that i showed you um is we'll be back in this area to the rear
looking at tab 9 page 1 and that rear yard area is to the east is a solid wall the abutting
property to the east of us. And then there is a alley to the south of us, across from which is
the rear of the properties on Houston Street. So the cars will be parking with their headlights
facing into the sidewall of the abutting property. So there shouldn't, and there is an existing, as
you can see, there's an existing fence that separates the properties behind us or abutting
us on Houston Street from our property. So they should be shielded from any headlights for cars
coming in and out. Could you do me a favor? Could you explain the parking again?
Sure. Look at three in the refusal. It's talking about rear yards. Explain why that's not a rear
yard. This is a rear yard. What I was saying is we are parking in the rear yard.
this is a rear yard. So we are, what I was saying is we are parking in the rear yard.
Okay. So that, that refusal, I'm not disputing. It was the fact that they're saying we're not
parking from a rear street. I think rear, you think opposite the front, but the way the code
is written. And again, if we go through that provision, it was that, that one that I was
objecting. Okay. That's fine. Okay. So, so, but so you understand, and as I believe, you know,
in RSA 5, off-street parking is not required. We have two more units than our residential
dwelling units that are technically permitted here. So the idea was for those two additional
units to get two cars that they might generate off-street. So in the end, you're kind of left
with one unit not having off-street parking, which would be the same if we just did an RSA 5
single family without off-street parking. So the reason we did this is for that
to maintain a net impact that would be similar to a bi-rate building without off-street parking.
And again, the rear yard, you know, it's not, and this also serves as our open area,