off-street parking because this L&I recognized the curb cut. For whatever reason, what is now
known as 240 Kalo Street, they did not recognize that. But it does have a long documented history
for the property itself. And then you can see in the neighborhood itself, on that side of the
street, there's at least like four or five houses to the left of us, which also has off-street
parking. This is probably what was probably there previous to the demolition. So we're
not doing anything that's also out of character in the neighborhood. We did make substantial
changes to our presentation to the community at their behest or request. We provided a
porch. We got rid of the front-loading garages. We made it to seem more so like it was a property
that fit within the fabric of this community. And it was a close vote, although I don't know,
I don't remember having that many people attend the meeting. It was a vote of 15 in support and
24 opposed. So it was a somewhat split vote of the overall community. And in their letter,
they referenced the fact that they proposed front-loading garages under that front-loading
garages. But off-street parking in the past, those are different blocks. Those blocks don't
have the type of off-street parking that you're seeing here. So for those reasons, we would request
to allow us to continue that long-documented use of off-street parking for this property.
Is there a representative from the RCO there, here, in the virtual audience?
Yes, Daniel Flesher is in the audience with his hand raised. I've allowed him to speak this time, sir.
Mr. Pressure, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yep, it's Daniel Flesher, D-A-N-I-E-L-F-L-E-S-H-E-R.
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you from the RCO, sir?
Yes, I am.
Okay, proceed.
Yes, so the developer did meet with us twice, which we appreciate, and they made adjustments to their proposal.
Many of their refusals are related to the neighborhood conservation overlay,
And that also accounts for why the parking was allowed in the first proposal, which had a front loading garage and was denied in the second refusal because they switched that out for surface parking and front surface parking at the front of our RSA five housing is prohibited per the neighborhood conservation overlay.
So that's why that showed up in the second refusal. The neighborhood's main opposition to this is the front loading parking and the curb cut. We are strongly opposed to surface parking and removing street parking and effectively privatizing it.
uh surface parking and removing street parking and private effectively privatizing it you know
one car from the street for one privatized parking space in the front we also feel that
having a parking buffer along the street is safe for pedestrians as it provides safety a you know
two-ton vehicle is very good protection for people on the sidewalk and we feel that removing
cars and having them drive through the sidewalk is inherently more dangerous than that
So we feel that overall, many of these refusals are due to design decisions made by the development team, and they do not represent a true hardship in terms of, you know, of needing this.
It's more of an investment want.
So we're happy to recognize the existing curb cut for one of the properties, but just also recognize that the surface parking at the front of the house is prohibited per the NCO.
and we are strongly opposed to granting a second curb cut for the second property.
Mr. Pessler, quick question. The property is on the other side of the street. Are there garages there?
Or is that just surface parking too?
It's all surface parking. There are no garages.
Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
And Mr. Chair, before you take any more inquiries, we are providing surface parking in the front
to mimic these other properties
to the left of us. We got rid of the garage
for loading garages.
Is there anyone else
in the virtual audience?
No, sir.
I see no hand. Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
Okay, two hands went up.
Carlos Ritado.
Sir, could you please state
your name and spell for the court reporter?
good day sir if you're still available please
unmute and wait to be sworn in
Jason is there anyone else there
I'm Mr. Veronica Montez with her hand raised
I have an author to speak. Sure. Hi. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court
reporter? Yes. My name is Veronica Montes. V-E-R-O-N-I-C-A. Montes is M-O-N-A-S-A-N-C-T-E-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I am. Are you a neighbor? Yes. I am the next door neighbor of this.
Okay. All right. So proceed, please.
Yes. We appreciate, first of all, for the developer, so they have been training to accommodate to the request that we have been doing in the association.
But since we are the next door neighbor, so we are going to be the most affected in terms of what they are proposing, particularly in terms of the way in which they are planning in terms of, for example, the front door that is going to be very next to our.
So right now, for example, first of all, when they put down the wall that was next to our property,
so they never, never, never sent any noticing.
And also we would like to request if they can move the entrance and the stairs,
to the main door so at least one and a half feet from our um you know our property because it's
going to be very close to according to the plans so it's going to be very close to our uh um
property and we wanted to i mean the right now so the the property our property so doesn't have
any fans so we were wondering what they are planning to do in terms of uh the diminution
of our property so and we appreciate that four fits in the front is is what they have been you
know like uh moving uh but we were wondering what is going to be in the back part of the property
um thank you for your comments um
let me listen and let me go to let's see if there's anyone else in the audience
then i'm going to go to planning and then if you would i'll give you a chance to
comment on that, okay? Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Carlos Surtado had his hand raised again. I've allowed him to speak.
Okay. Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Thank you. My name is Carlos Hurtado. Can you hear me?
Thank you. My name is Carlos Surtado. Can you hear me?
Yes, I can.
Yes, I can.
Thank you.
Thank you. Carlos, C-A-R-L-O-S, last name Hurtado, H-U-R-T-A-D-O.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am one of the owners of the house next to this 242 and 246.
That's similar to the person who just testified?
Yes, that's right.
Okay. Do you have the same feelings?
Yes, what happened last week when they meet with the association is that there was a
misunderstanding about when is really that their house is going to start in relation with our
house. Because our house has a 28 front setback and theirs has 24 feet front setback. So that
means that their house is going to start four feet ahead of our house. But they were showing
drawing saying that it was going to start one feet behind our house so we want to clarify that
so because it got confused for everybody uh so i don't know if they want to share that because
they showed a drawing showing that our house the size is more than 36 feet and our house the
building is only 28 feet so i want to get confirmation if the house is going to start
four feet ahead of ours
or one feet
behind the beginning of our building.
Mr. Nackamson is going to have
a chance to respond in a couple of minutes
to that, okay?
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Mr. Nackamson,
do you want to say something?
No, I'm trying to look at the drawings, so I figured
while you're taking questions, I'm trying to figure
it out myself. Is there anyone else
in the virtual audience?
I see no one else, Mr. Chair.
Okay, Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman and Board Members, David Effecto, City Planning Commission.
We'll testify on both properties at once.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
Planning staff believes the applicant has met their burden of proof, showing that the required front setback prevents viable economic use of the property.
We recommend that the Board grant this variance with a condition that matches the setback of 238 Kalos Street.
However, there is no unique physical condition or circumstance of the lot that would justify the applicant's height variance.
So the Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny that variance, and we also recommend that the Board deny the parking variance.
Mr. Nagamson, you want to respond?
Yes, let me take a look at the refusals again.
i don't believe we have a height variance but i could be wrong i i i didn't i didn't see that
that's why i was like um yeah so i don't believe we have a height variance here david could you
check that again i see a front setback and i see stairs to the ground level to the deck
yep you're absolutely right i apologize i'll withdraw that part of my recommendation thank
And thank you, Mr. Dawkinson, for pointing that out.
Oh, of course.
No worries.
In terms of the property that's closest to 238, again, previously, L&I, when we proposed
a front-loading garage, did not issue a refusal, and good for a reason, it has a long-documented
– that property has a long-documented history of off-street parking.
The same can be said to the property to the left of us if we're facing Calo Street, which would be considered 242 Calo Streets.
Also has a long documented history.
I do not understand why we are getting a refusal for that, because as you can see from the field conditions, there's a curb cut there.
And then those curb cuts continue to extend along that block as you go further and further down the block.
So what we're offering is not out of character to the neighborhoods.
But, you know, the individuals who own 238 Kalo Street, it sounds like they don't have any issue with respect to the off-street parking, which is the crust of our request.
I think it has more to do with construction-related materials or matters.
And, you know, we can obviously, you know, if they don't have our information, I, you know, I can share my information.
They can go on my website, knockamson.com, and I can put them in touch with the owner of the property.
but none of their issues are zoning related they're all building related uh you know and
you know for the reasons that we stated previously we would ask uh that this board uh grant our zoning
request thank you um number two mi 2022 006184 242 calo street i vote no
I vote no.
Thomas
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Number 13, MI 2022-006-182-242, Tallah Street, I vote no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell, my vote is no
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no
Thank you, Mr. Nakamson
Thank you
Here we go, let's go to
Number
I'll be right with you
I'll go to list
Nakamson
MI number three
MI 2022-007
067 707 North 2nd Street. Justin Crick is the attorney for the tenant. Letter of support from
Northern Liberties Neighbors Association. Letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Mr. Crick will be joining as a panelist.
Good morning, members of the board.
Hi, Mr. Crick, could you please state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Yes, Justin Crick, J-U-S-T-I-N-K-R-I-K.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and your relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is Waggy Camp Limited Partnership.
They are the proposed tenant of the property, and I have its principals, Agnes and Oriana, on the line to confirm testimony.
All right, and our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, council. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his ex?
Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits to prove five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have, with the exception that the tax clearance was recently, but everything has been provided.
Understood. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you very much.
Members of the Board, thank you for hearing the matter today. We are here for the property located
at 707 North 2nd Street in Philadelphia. The applicant is seeking to lease the property
to open up a doggy daycare and provide animal services at the location. This is an allowed use
but for requiring a special exception and has been brought before the Board for a referral
for the animal services in the existing structure.
Geographically, as you can see, it's a referral and it's just the special exception for animal services.
Geographically, the property is located at the corner of North 2nd and Fairmount.
And as you'll see in a little bit, this alley of North Hancock Street behind plays a key role in some of the operations that are intended.
from an aerial point of view you can see we're kind of off the highway and the
intersection shows that the street is quite wide with ample parking on both