You may have seen the movie about the concrete cowboys from Philadelphia, widely acclaimed.
The city of Philadelphia will enter into an agreement with concrete cowboys of southwest Philadelphia to operate a stable at this location.
The John Bartram Association operates Bartram's Garden in association with the city of Philadelphia.
On behalf of the city, as the owner, Bartram's Garden makes this application.
This application seeks a special exception to allow animal services, including boarding, and other services at the stable.
The stable is located in I-2 General Industrial District.
With me to answer any questions, Trey Roy, the Executive Director of Bartram's Garden and the Landscape Architect of Summer Now, as well as Leroy Divers, the Director of Concrete Cowboys.
Could we go to the next slide? I'm sorry, I have to do that.
Why is it not doing it now?
we have a list of exhibits yep why it's being slow
exhibit one is our tax certification exhibit two is just a portion of the agreement that
the city will enter into when it's revised with concrete cowboys
exhibit three is a copy of the zoning notice as received exhibit four gives us some context
as you'll see from this overhead map the area in green is Bartram's garden approximately 50 acres
it dates to 1728 and is the oldest botanical garden in the United States you'll note here
there is an orange line that goes from Bartram Gardens proper along Botanic Avenue, and then
this place with the star begins the 1637 South 49th Street property.
begins the 1637 South 49th Street property.
And that orange line is part of Bartram's Mile Trail.
And about halfway up, parallel to the Schuylkill, is the proposed site for Concrete Cowboy Southwest Stable, Southwest Philadelphia Stable.
uh we posted the property there's only one street frontage so you'll see here the posting of the
notice as well as the required notice of referral is posted
uh this is a photograph uh looking south from the posted notices i believe that's botanic street
and uh most of this area is owned by the city uh this is a photograph within the area near the
Bartram's Mile Trail, and it is one of the sites proposed for the placement of the stable.
This photograph illustrates the Bartram Mile Trail.
This is the zoning site plan.
this kind of pale pink here. The rectangle to your right is a 20 by 50 stable. The rectangle
to the left will be a 20 by 50 roof. These are shown here. Here's the five stalls for the stable
and you see here is the roof overhang.
That's the stable.
And I think this is being delivered.
And the next photograph is of the stable
as it waits to be moved to Bartram's Mile Trail.
This is our notice of referral.
As likely noted the first time we tried today, we need a special exception because this is for animal services, which includes the boarding and care of the horses.
Our application for special exception, along with our project information form, our accelerated review form, and our notice of referral was there.
This is a copy of our letter to the Identified Coordinating Registered Community Organization, the Southwest Philadelphia District Services. It held a meeting. And well, first of all, here's the letter that went to the addresses shown on the Planning Commission's website.
And we have the proof, along with the notice of referral, and the proof of mailing, and a resume of Executive Director Roy.
And then what I don't have here, but the board has received, is the letter from the Commissioner of Parks and Rec explaining the relationship between Parks and Rec and their support for this application.
Also, the board should have received a letter of support from the RCO, Southwest Philadelphia District Services, as well as a report on the meeting at which there were 19 attendees and three RCO board committee members, all of whom voted in favor of our application.
We'd be glad to answer any questions. I'm trying to shorten this by invoking section 14303-14F without any objection from any other parties. I ask that the statements I've made be attributed to our client, Bartram Spartan.
That's fine.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is Hillary.
Mr. Schler, the board did not receive the letter from the RCO,
so if you could please forward that after the hearing,
that would be greatly appreciated.
I certainly will do that.
I will do that within the hour.
Question, comments from the Planning Commission?
i'm excuse me mr chair mr craig maladosian has his hand raised do i allow him to speak
yes understood sir could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
Craig, C-R-A-I-G, last name Melidosian, M-E-L-I-D-O-S-I-A-N.
craig c-r-a-i-g last name maladosian
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, sir.
Speaking on behalf of Award 27 Republican RCO, which supports this application, you may also be familiar with me as the leader of Award 40 Republican RCO.
So we have a significant problem with stabling of horses throughout Southwest Philadelphia.
This opportunity would be extraordinarily beneficial to all of Southwest and the university area to be able to move some of these horses into this outstanding location.
Thank you.
Thank you for taking the time to call into your input.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No one else, Mr. Chair.
All right, planning commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman. David Fecto, City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning in this location to light industrial. The applicant has shown that the proposed animal services will have no detrimental impacts to the neighborhood beyond what might be expected. The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the special exception for animal services.
Thank you. MI 2022-007-303-1637 South 49th Street. I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheen, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Mr. Sklaroff.
Thank you.
Listen, before we start our case, we're going to take a five-minute break.
We'll come back, we'll do the case, and then we'll just – I don't think we have as many things left on the 3.30 list, and we'll get to the 3.30 list.
Well, let's take a five-minute break, give our court reporter a chance to get ready for the next case.
Thank you, Chair.
Case number one from, we're going to go to case number one.
That was on the 2 p.m. list.
MI 2022-006-988-1124-28 Dickinson Street.
David Orfanides is the attorney.
Also, Joel Rosen represents the Protestants.
um we have a letter of non-opposition from the passion square civic association
and a letter of non-opposition from council member squiller
Mr. Orphanitis
excuse me sir
Mr. Orphanitis will be coming back in as a panelist
and how about Joel Robbins
Mr. Rosen
if you're in the virtual audience please
raise your hand
Okay. All right. So Mr. Rosen has also been promoted to panelists and will be rejoining us shortly.
Mr. Orphanides, you've already been sworn. Could you just state your name for the record, please?
Certainly. Again, my name is David Orphanides, O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Mr. Rosen, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Joel Rosen, R-O-S-E-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And you represent the Protestants in this case?
Leslie Elder, Dave Fortino, Kevin Rosen, and Anya Rosen.
All right.
Mr. Orphanides, could you identify your client and relationship to this property, please?
Certainly.
My client is Dickinson Partners LLC, that's D-I-C-K-I-N-S-O-N Partners LLC, and the owner at LLC is the owner of the subject property.
All right, and our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
If you are referencing the refusal dated October 25th, 2022, I stipulate to its accuracy and waive the reading.
Yes. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I submitted all the required documents five days in advance. I do have some additional exhibits in anticipation that I've added to my that I will may use and present today that I've added to my exhibit book in response to the email that I just received.
that i've added to my exhibit book uh in response to the email that i just received i think it was
yesterday um from where former toning board solicitor sharon saleta had forwarded an email
that she received from mr rosen with his exhibits um and so i um added some exhibits to possibly
address those but the required ones that you are referencing the lion's share of my exhibit book
was submitted five days in advance if you're going to if you're going to share any of those
additional videos please share those with our attorney yes i will yes i can send those yes
and david if you don't mind could you if i give you my email could you shoot them over to me too
please yeah i can send you a link dropbox link it's a huge file so i hear you uh yeah i'm at
jrosen at cprlaw.com so okay and just so so we start mr orphanages mr rosen we're going to go
to 5 15 at 5 15 we're going to if we're not done we're going to order a resumptive hearing okay
understood i got it all right can i can i just ask ahead of time because i we have been waiting a lot
of the afternoon david do you think you're going to be going that long because if that's the case
I would release my well they probably want to watch it anyhow that's fine let's just go let's
just go I mean I I don't believe I'll need to go that long I think part of but it'll depend on how
long you go and what your clients get I mean I think my presentation is relatively straightforward
okay well that'll be interesting okay why don't we uh why don't we share your screen sir and we'll
start? Sure. Can you see my screen? I can. Okay, great. So again, my name is David Orfanides. I'm
with the law firm of Orfanides & Toner, LLP, and I'm here this afternoon on behalf of Dickinson
Partners, LLC, the owner of the subject properties 1124 to 26 and 1128 Dickinson Street.
I have a photo, which is a cover photo for my exhibit books, showing on my screen right now.
You can see the subject property is an existing two-story structure.
It has a history of, a long history of non-residential use.
It is presently zoning classified RSA 5.
In this photo, and I'll get into a little bit more, you can see a three-story building to the right.
If this looks a little bit familiar to you, it's because back in the fall, we were in front of you for 1122 Dickinson Street, which is the abiding property just to the left of this photograph.
And with that case, we were calling for the demolition of an existing two-story structure and to rebuild that.
um the zoning board did approve issue um it approved to draw the revised drawings for that
and um i just want to go to the zoom so it's down at page level okay you can see here um
on october 19th they approved the drawings approved the revised proviso plan form
uh and the zoning permit was issued uh here's the renderings for that project that were presented
To the left of, so this is also owned by my client. And like I said, we came through for a variance for that, that was supported by the community and supported by the zoning board.
You can see to the left of our building, 118 to 20 Dickinson Street, two-story existing structure in this rendering that I believe that one of Mr. Rosen's clients, Leslie Elder, owns.
You will see in my exhibit book, the additional exhibits, that that property was granted a variance for use as a two-family dwelling some time ago.
So it's a two-unit building that was granted a variance by the zoning board.
So if any of this looks familiar, these photographs, you've seen this block and you've seen this property just a little under six months ago.
The proposal is to demolish this existing structure and in its place to construct a dimensionally compliant.
And it's a dimensionally compliant, not as in if it's maxed out to what could be built here,
but something less than what could be built on this property, and to utilize that as a three-family dwelling with two-car accessory parking, utilizing the existing curb cut.
You can see there's an existing curb cut and a garage door, relocating the existing curb cut.
Our only refusal, and I flipped this, I think, accidentally in the exhibits.
What I asked is we had an original refusal that was issued.
What I asked is, we had an original refusal that was issued, there was some back and forth with the examiner, and he issued a revised or updated notice of refusal on October 25th, and the only refusal is for the three-family use on this RSA-5, these RSA-5s and properties.
There was some back and forth.
um the two properties in question and let me just go to that are you can see here on the survey plan
as part of the application um the the architect or the project had to uh originally uh submit an
application and a permit to consolidate the lots in order to proceed with this current application
But you can see, and that's not been acted upon other than in context of this current application and matter before the zoning board.
But you can see that there are two existing lots, or were, and would be if this were not to be approved.
One is 1124 to 26 Dickinson Street, which is a very oddly shaped, obviously, triangle, 538.1 square foot lot.
The other parcel is 1128 Dickinson, and as you can see, also extremely irregularly shaped in the sense that the front portion is angled, it's not at right angles, and that it extends extremely deep.
It's only 14 feet at the rear across, so even though it's 20 feet of frontage on Dickinson Street, if you cut perpendicular across that, it's approximately 14 feet wide, and you can see that it's very long.
It's 2,290 square feet.
So the one, it's kind of like Goldilocks and the Three Bears.
2, 2, 11, 24 to 26 is way too small as far as RSA 5 properties or surrounding parcels.
It's smaller than anything else around in the area.
And it's obviously regularly shaped when you're looking at the minimum lot area.
We used to be 1440.
It's now, I think, 960 or 980.
So much smaller than that.
And then you have 1128, which is much larger at over almost 2,300 square feet.
I would say that 1118 to 20 Dickinson Street is a lot that is similar in size.
I have some OPA information in my exhibit book that I've added, a little bit smaller than 1128.
and that, as I indicated, has already been granted a variance for a two-family dwelling.
My clients evaluated whether or not they could construct a single-family dwelling on each of
the parcels. Under current building codes, 1124 to 26 is virtually impossible. You end up with
a trinity with all kinds of strange angles. It just isn't constructible. It's not marketable.
And then 1128 Dickinson, because of its long shape, its large size, also has construction issues and marketability issues. And my client will testify as to the performance he ran regarding the use of them and the architect as well, Rick Miller, regarding developing them for single family, each of them for single family use.
And then the ability to either sell them as well for a single family use or to combine the lots for a two family use.
So we've spent a lot of time, my client and the architect, I think my client first came to me with these properties, I don't know, four years ago, maybe longer, five years ago.
There's been a lot of work that's been done with engineers, with architects to try to figure out if it could be done as two single family dwellings.
And we're here rather than having two single family dwellings, having two separate parcels, two separate structures, having a consolidated lot with one additional unit, and that would be three units.
You'll see from our floor plans, which I can go to, that the square footage of each of the units is what the OPA indicates to be the size or the amount of the improvements for the properties that abut our property on either side on Greenwich, Greenwich Street, and on Cross Street, Greenwich Street.
of these properties over here and cross these properties back here and we'll go through that
as indicated earlier um we did meet with uh passing passing square civic association um they
did issue a letter of non-opposition they did reflect that the community straw poll was seven
and one in opposition and that the committee there's only committee voted in favor of it
five to four and then we have the letter of non-opposition from councilman's school's office
We do have revised zoning drawings at tab two. Those letters, the position letters, are at tab three of my exhibits.