They asked us then.
They didn't take a vote.
They asked us to meet again with them this past Monday.
They didn't take a vote.
informally, not in a certified meeting. We agreed to present and hold for vote so we can have
another meeting with them. The only objection I would have is they sent a letter to the ZBA,
I believe, this afternoon. I believe they're asking for more than what is required of us
as an applicant. They're asking us to notify SEPTA, the school district of Philadelphia,
as the tangle title representative of the city
and making sure that all of them are notified
of our meeting and are present at our meeting.
They're also asking us,
and then that letter also includes a proviso,
where they're asking us to replace
an entire city block of sidewalk as a proviso,
but that goes to the merits of it.
So, I mean, there's a lot of interesting requests of us.
We will meet with them. We want to meet with them in another meeting, but we would ask that, you know, we would be able to respond to whatever letter they provide us, but we would ask that they take a vote.
And we would ask that the board give us a date certain for a resumption hearing to respond in contact.
So the next.
Mr. Nockamson, this is Hillary. I just want to clarify because we did receive a request to amend the refusal in this case from your office.
So we thought that this would need to be held for an amended refusal.
Are you saying now that you want to do, that you would like this considered via revised plans?
Yeah, that was my understanding.
From the beginning, we indicated that this should have been for four units rather than three.
And it was our understanding that we could do this by way of revised plans.
Okay, because we did receive a request for an amended refusal.
so that's why i was for this so that's why i was a little confused no i actually we can look at it
that way yeah i looked at i talked to mr goldberg from our office i i indicated to him that you know
given that we spoke previously of what the proper solution to this would be simply revised plans by
indicating on the plans themselves that this is a quadplex that would be sufficient okay that that
is fine okay and i assume that was what was presented to the community then right it is for
units that is correct okay all right thank you you're welcome yeah so we provided them whatever
the board's seeing now we we showed uh the community as well so we have the revised plans
that we showed the community uh this you know we have nearby properties with a multi-family history
maps of the area photographs of the property or plans and drawings or rco meeting notice for the
certified meeting. There was no notice for the meeting that took place a few days thereafter.
Our application for appeal, our deed to the property, showing that HHS Realty LLC is the
owner of the property and our certificate of tax plans. Again, in the virtual audience is Hussain
Hussain, its member. So the notice refusal is this. This is an RSA 5 property. It's a rather
large property it's 1565 square feet and you'll see from the zoning map um there is a diversity of
of multi-family use um in or zoning in the area and multi-family use in particular
we're on the commercial corridor um and given the large size a lot we think it is in character to
ask for this to be a quadplex uh and you'll see from the refusal there was a mistake saying that
we were seeking a triplex, but we're seeking to amend or to rectify the situation by way of
revised plans. We did meet with the Hestonville Civic Association at a certified meeting on
March 14th. Again, they didn't take a vote. You know, they were asked to meet informally with the
group again. They didn't take a vote. They asked us to hold, you know, to present and to hold this
matter so they can we can meet again and we hope that they will take a vote um this is our
they can we can meet again and we hope that they will take a vote um this is our uh revised proviso
plan again all we're saying is we wanted an additional dwelling unit to four units
and this is the revised site plan where on the site plan is set itself says four units that's
the only change that we made everything else from a dimensional standpoint is the same and then this
is nearby properties with a multi-family history so this is our property and these are all these
other properties close by, which have a history of multifamily use. And you'll see from the
pictures that we're in the middle of pretty much a vacant city block. And then this is the
zoning map for close by in the area. So while we're RSA 5, you know, there's RM1, there's CMX 2,
there's purple. I don't remember if it's IRMX, but it's definitely not RSA 5. So again,
And what we're asking for is not out of character.
And you can see we're on a commercial corridor where there are,
we're close by to a commercial corridor where there's commercial use,
which we're hoping to help support that commercial use by the increased density.
And this is photographs of the property.
As you can see, we're in the middle of a city block that is vacant.
And, you know, again, this is proof of our notice posting.
But what has been asked of us from the community by way of the recent letter we received from them, they want us completely re-sidewalk an entire city block, which we can't do for multiple reasons, including the fact that, you know, it's not on our property, most of it.
And then they're also asking us to clear all the trees within this vacant city block as well, which we have no problems, obviously, removing the trees on our block, our portion of the block, but we can't remove trees from, you know, land that we don't own.
And then this property has been vacant, and this block has been vacant for a significant period of time.
Google Earth goes as far back as 2007.
So we found a picture in July of 2007, which shows that this has been a vacant land for some time.
And then this is North 54th Street to the right of the property, North 54th Street to the left of the property.
And then these are our plans and drawings.
Of particular note, we're not seeking any dimensional variances.
This is a 1565 square foot lot, significant in size, and, you know, we're falling well within the parameters of dimensional requirements of the zoning code.
All we're trying to do is put a three-story brick flat facade quadplex in the middle of this log.
and then you know simple floor plans we have four units but first unit is in the unit one's in the
front unit two's in the back then we have uh and those are by levels and then unit three is in the
front on the second floor unit four is in the back on the second floor and they're also by
units and units three and four have access to the roof as well through a roof deck access structure
and then we met with the community on march 14 2023 72 addresses were notified of this meeting
list of the addresses proof of mailing those addresses our application for appeal showing
HHS Realty LLC is the applicant's notice of refusal project information form or deeds of
property showing the HHS is the owner of the property and our certificate of tax clearance
while it says $111.98 is due that's for 2023 taxes which are not due until later this month
with that being said I would ask that Mr. Hussain virtually raise his hand be sworn in and then he
can adopt my testimony as its own and we'll be more than happy to take any questions from the
board thereafter. Do we see a hand raised? No, Chair. Okay. Mr. Nockamson, you're an officer
of the court we can take your testimony thank you questions from the board from the board
no mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no handshare planning commission thank you chair bergman david vecto city planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends a change in the zoning to residential multifamily at this location
under the proposed zoning
pardon me under the proposed zoning uh three between three and four dwelling units would be
between three
allowed by right so the city planning commission recommends the board grant the use variants okay
so hillary we'll we'll close this just for information from the board from from the rco
yeah alan um would i'm not sure how soon you are you and hestonville are planning to meet again but
Should we hold this for maybe 30 days for another meeting and a letter?
Can we put a specific date?
So let's say, do you have availability the April 26th meeting just to hopefully just have a letter?
Yeah, that's fine.
We can hold it until April 26th at 2 p.m.
And we will vote it at that time based on the information that we received from the RCO and any response from yourself.
the record otherwise is closed. Thank you. Okay, thank you.
So number seven is next, and we're going to also combine that with number 10. So seven is MI 2022
006692-150 South Independence Mall. And number 10,
Number 10 is MI-2022-006-507-150-South-Independence-Mall.
Number W, Ronald Patterson is the attorney.
We have support.
a letter of non-oppositions from Council Member Scuola,
and we also have non-opposition from Society Hill Civic Association with Proviso.
Mr. Patterson is for joining us, the panelist.
Good afternoon, Mr. Patterson.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Sure. Good afternoon.
Ronald Patterson, P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N.
Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Sure. I represent the owner, operator, and developer of the property, which is 150 Philly LLC.
And principal here today is Peter Dolbermont.
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
do you agree to waive the reading of the of the refusal and stipulate to his actions yes i do
have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits into our offices
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes i have
thank you please proceed and share your screen thank you
you can see my screen we can great thank you so this case or case as you mentioned regards 150
south independent small west it's actually the public ledger building as you see here which
spans 6th street to 7th street and chestnut street 10 sampson street it's a 10 and 13 story building
having a mix of residential
dwelling units, commercial
on the first floor, restaurant
to downtown reception room,
club, we'll call it, hotel.
The cases, there's two cases
consolidated briefly. One is
for a small addition on top of the roof area
here, and the second is to
reapprove an underground
parking garage that would be
accessed off of Sampson Street, as I'm
denoting, and then exiting
on 7th Street.
I think we know
what the building looks like, and just to give you some kind of context here.
Samson Street, this is important because you'll see this is where we enter for the garage.
So as I mentioned, two-story addition atop the 13th floor and to re-approve in an underground parking garage.
It's located in the CMX 5 zoning district along with eight special control overlays.
I'm going to start with the roof addition, which is 006868 zoning application.
On the 13th floor portion of the building, we're proposing to construct a three-story addition,
two of the stories which are occupiable with the third being a roof deck element.
The purpose is to create 48 additional single-family residential dwelling units.
The purpose is to create 48 additional single-family residential dwelling units.
The building is designated as an historical building, and the addition and its design were vetted, added, and approved by the Philadelphia Historical Commission.
As you'll see and hear shortly from architect Plato Maranakos, great detail was exerted
in a design to match the height of the cornice and height of the Curtis building which is
adjacent.
It's a similar building and the design has turned out to be consistent with the character
and context of the area.
Second here, and we'll go through to some more detail, but this is the idea, this is
our building, this is the Curtis building.
The refusal letter for this edition regards dimensional issues.
Really it's what I call, it's the sky plane or bulk rule, let me pull up the refusal.
The building code calls it lock covers, but in general, as you increase the height of the building, you need to step back the building.
As you get into taller buildings, it creates a wedding cake effect.
The rule is that you can occupy the ground floor and 100% of the lot up to 85 feet, and between 85 feet and 100 feet, then you can only occupy 50% of that foot plate.
The current building conditions, because the building was built in 1927, the coverage is 76%.
It's an existing condition, which is an existing but legal non-conforming structure, thereby creating a hardship to develop any addition to the property or update the property.
Secondly, there's the Independence Hall overlay, which applies, which states that no building in the hall area can be constructed, altered, erected, etc., if it will exceed 45 feet in height.
The building is already at 270 feet.
The new addition is only two stories on the existing roof,
but it clearly exceeds this as we are adding a small addition.
But the hardships do exist that prevent any addition with respect to this overlay
that would allow us to viably expand and use the property.
The current FAR is 881%.
Our 27,900-square-foot addition would increase it to 928%, and under CMX-5, we're allowed 1,200%, so we're way below the allowable.
The applicable code provisions stunt any possible expansion to use the available FAR, and that's kind of why we're here.
Not being able to utilize its FAR and its potential is a hardship created by the zoning designation, the code, the location of the building, its prior use, and its existing conditions.
Yet, we believe the addition, as you'll see, complies with the spirit and the intent of the overlay, as you will see how it is designed and was approved by the Historical Commission, so it creates no visual impacts at all on the Independence Hall area.
And with that said, as for this and for the parking requirement, which we'll do after this, there's no objection from the Society Hill Pacific Association.
And with that said, if you could promote Plato Maranakis, who's our architect, we'll take you through some of these plans briefly.
He's been allowed to speak, sir.
Hey, sir, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court reporter?
Yes, Plato Maranakis, Jr.
I'm at 107 South 2nd Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19106.
Just for the record, could you spell your name, please?
I'm sorry, P-L-A-T-O-M-A-R-I-N-A-K-O-S.
Sorry about that.
No, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
yes i do proceed counsel thank you um what's your connection with uh the project or the architect
yes i am and uh so obviously you're familiar with the property and you've drawn and designed
these plans correct that's correct and you've taken them through and obtained the approval
from the philadelphia historical commission with respect to the addition and the parking
yes with respect yeah i'm i'm i'm trying i'm having technical problems with my screen right
now i'm trying all right i can go back and no no it's all right let me i apologize uh
All right, I can go back and...