I heard that
correctly okay
and we do
have a letter of support from the
RCO which is
um there was there was no opposition to um the application and as i said it's it is
something that the community has been um asking for asking us to provide um
as follow and to follow up on the expansion of the existing uh charter school to add this
elementary school any other questions from the board
no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission good afternoon chair bergman
members of the board david effecto city planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends
a change in the current zoning to industrial and commercial mixed use at this location
the proposal for a school would be allowed in the proposed zoning district however there is no unique
physical condition of the lot that would prevent the applicant from complying with the preferential
parking requirement in the zoning code especially since they are only providing 11 on-site parking
spaces so the city planning commission recommends the board grant variances for an educational
facility, fewer than required number of parking spaces, and fewer than required number of loading
and fewer than required number of loading spaces, but we're going to recommend that the
spaces, but we're going to recommend
board deny the variance for not including preferential parking spaces.
David, do that one more time.
Absolutely, and I apologize for confusing it. So we are going to recommend that the board grant
the variances for the educational use, the fewer than required number of parking spaces,
and fewer than required number of loading spaces, but we recommend that the board
not support the variance for the lack of preferential parking spaces.
mi 2021 003735 201 west honey park avenue i vote yes with the following proviso
yes with educational use yes with fewer the parking places that are needed yes mr chair
this is Hillary um I think so I think it all you need to um proviso is if you're not granting one
of the variants because you don't have to state all the ones you're granting because otherwise
right so so I vote yes and proviso is uh no to the lack of preferential parking
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes with provisos.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
let's see here
let's see here
number 5
MI 2021
003395
2031 to 35
South 60th Street
Alan Nockamson is the attorney
waiting on an RCO letter
coordinating RCO
is the 40th Ward Republicans
Yeah, Mr. Nockamson is coming back in as a panelist.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. We did get a letter from the 40th Ward Republican RCO.
It was in it. It was in opposition and it was attached to the your updated packet.
it okay we also and i also had attached um the plans uh that revised plans that were submitted
by the applicant in response to the letter in opposition thank you
mr knockamson yes uh good afternoon mr chair members of the board alan
knockinson of knockinson pc a-l-a-n last name knockinson n-o-c-h-u-m-s-o-n do you swear
a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do could you identify
your client please uh yes my client is adicum llc and the representative for the client is
Yifan E. Chukwu
our vice chair has a few questions
Hi Mr.
Nakhimson do you
agree to wait 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 and or
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 we do in all respects okay great you may proceed and begin with sharing your screen
all right thank you very much
all right so i'm here to present 2031-35 south 60th street uh this property is owned by edicom
llc mr essay is in the uh audience uh virtual audience and held on my testimony at the conclusion
of my presentation and then we'll be more than happy to take any questions from the boards
uh this project um has been going our presentation to this project to the community has been gone
going on for almost a year we filed this uh you know we received this refusal in july of last year
We've worked diligently in trying to meet the needs of the community.
um so in this presentation we'll go over the notice of refusal the correspondence we received
So in this presentation, we'll go over the notice or refusal, the correspondence we received.
from the 40th ward of republicans our proviso plan form in response uh to the letter we
recently received uh today actually from the 40th ward of republicans uh city of philadelphia
zoning change bill 1904-09 the reason why i bring that up is this property is an rsa5 property now
but when my client purchased this property it was an rm1 property so what we're showing today
is essentially what we should have been around as a right but for the zoning change
the lower southwest southwest district plan will be a 2035 portion of it we're going to show you
an excerpt of it which kind of goes to you know what we're believing is uh furthering the goals
of the southwest district plan um atlas maps and maps of the area photographs of the property in
the surrounding area our plans and drawings um our rco meeting notice of the last one we met
uh at a well-attended meeting months ago we came up with uh revisions to our plans and
in spite of those revisions um unfortunately we did not receive community support but there was
only two members of the community that attended and before RCO records. Our applications for
appeal are due to the property and our tax claim certificate. Again, Mr. Eze is the general manager
of Kumas Homes and he'll adopt my testimony and we can answer any questions the board may have
about this project. So first things first, this is our refusal. As you can see, it's dated July 22nd
2021 uh so almost a year today we received this refusal and you know we understood that
this would be an impactful project for the community um but also knowing that you know
this is an rsa5 property now but when we purchased this property it was an rm1 property and we'll
show the board that um so we try to have meaningful discussions with community over time in addition
to the community meetings, we had several phone calls with community leaders. We actually met
in person with community leaders, tried to lay out what they wanted from this project
and to try to fit their needs. And we actually thought that was the case when we met with the
community on Monday. But unfortunately, in spite of our best efforts and the good faith of the
community leaders, they are declining to support this project. So you'll see that this is for
proposed use of 12 units purposefully we do not cut roof decks here because we understand that
you know this is a community that does not like roof decks um but we did have three refusals the
first of which obviously is because of the use you know we're this is a 4 500 square foot lot
um we proposed 12 units because we thought that maybe there was an opportunity to provide an
affordable housing component of a couple units to make this project work um unfortunately and and
that was asked of us in during the community discussions up until monday when we asked for a
final vote uh where they stated that you know the two community members who did attend stated
essentially they didn't want anything uh due to parking concerns and other concerns with regards
to the neighborhoods um but you know what we're proposing now is a 10 unit building and we would
ask for a proviso maximum 10 units based on the 4 500 square foot lot size that's what we would
be allowed as a right if this remains an RM1 property, the same zoning designation we had
when we purchased the property. The first refusal, as you can see here, has to do with the setback
in the front. Because we're between two two-story buildings, we're required to have a setback
of eight feet. Originally, we wanted to have a flat facade. Architecturally, we thought it was
more interesting but in addition that would have given us two additional units that we could have
given to the community in terms of affordable housing which we understood that was a goal of
some of the community but ultimately was declined so in order to have the least modification
possible under the philadelphia zoning code we're going to meet the zoning requirements as though
this is an rm1 property knowing that right now it's not uh so we provided revised plans showing
the appropriate setback on the third and fourth floors which deleted the two units that was
designated for affordable housing and then the third refusal has to do with open lot
open area requirements where 25 of the of of the lots should be open uh and not covered by
building structure while 15% is proposed. Given the late hour, we were unable to get our architect to change.
Given the late hour, we were unable to get our architect to change that part of our site plan and our revised plan, so we would ask that a proviso be placed if the board is, you know, inclined to grant our variance, where we would have to provide 25% open area in conformance with the code.
So really three provisos, the revised plans, which you have, second one, maximum 10 units, and then third one, 25% open area, if the board is inclined to grant our variance.
So here's the correspondence that we received at 10.19 a.m. from Mr. Melodoshin of the Coordinating RCO, the 40th Ward Republican RCO.
And like I said, he was a gentleman, you know, we talked at length about this project and
the effect it would have on it.
My understanding is that this is a pretty tough area of Philadelphia, has a pretty high
crime rate, in particular this block.
So having a vacant lot, and you'll see from the photographs, that's been in existence
as vacant for well over 15 years and much, much longer.
But all I could do is look at Google Earth, having it built and providing good housing, you know, affordable in a sense, but not under the affordable housing program because, you know, we want to perform the code of 10 units, you know, was a good goal.
And I think, you know, we tried to attain that goal in good faith.
And we believe that the community leaders did try to attain that as well.
but you know they he did say we do appreciate the development team efforts in working with
our multiple rco process so we did work for over a year in this process and it would be a shame if
this you know variance request was not granted um because this is a really difficult neighborhood
to build especially with rising interest rates um you know the cost of labor cost of construction
it would be impossible to perform to the code um in terms of building you know single three
single-family homes. And again, you'll see that up until 2019, this was designated as R-1. We're
not far from a commercial corridor. The 2035 plan actually states that in order to support these
commercial corridors, you should increase density under these types of circumstances. But here's
the votes. There were only, it said one person voted in opposition to this project. Zero people
supported it but only one person not an rco voted against there and i believe that individual is
attended and it's in a virtual audience um it was a husband and wife you know that was there so
i mean granted even both of them voted that would be two votes against it but that was not well
attended um and then there were the four courting um or the four rcos that uh represents that
and then this is just our revised plans what we're stating is we're going to put the you know
the setback on the third and fourth floors to conform to the zoning code to have the lease
modification uh possible under the zoning code uh and here's our revised plans and then just to
you know focus on this again my client purchased this property in april of 2019
in exactly april 12 of 2019 on may 16th of 2019 it was this was introduced of this bill was
introduced to change the zoning classification from rm1 to rsa5 so my client had no knowledge
of this it wasn't like it was introduced and we have the pending ordinance doctrine where okay
well he should have looked up you know the the court the legislative calendar and see if this
was an R01 or at least it was a bill proposed for an R01 property. This bill wasn't proposed
until the following month. So in good faith, he purchased this property expecting to put a
multifamily structure there. Again, he's gone through this process, you know, because he has
no choice. He did ask for 12 units because he thought that would have a nice blend of affordable
housing and monthly rate housing. So June 20th, this bill passed City Council and it was signed
by the mayor in in on july 24th of 2019 all dates after we purchased the property and then here's
just and we have this deed in the back end of our presentation materials but we didn't purchase this
property again until april 12th of 2019 so we were blindsided we're purchasing this property expecting
to build a multi-family structure and as you can see this is straight from the bill this is what
the neighborhood looked like prior to the build, this block, it was R-1 and then it
transitioned into RSA-5. And you'll see from the maps of the area, we're not that
far from the commercial corridor. There's a, you know, there's a wealth of public
transportation in the neighborhood. All characteristics you would think of that
um all all characteristics you would think of that would lend itself to remaining an rm1
would lend itself.
you know property um and then you see the 25 2035 plan as well from the city planning perspective
this makes sense as well and then you can see the housing recommendations uh for the lower
southwest district plan in 2016 says direct new multi-family units to major
arterial and transit nodes and again we are close to both
And then the maps of the area, again, we're on 60th Street between Greenway and Kinsensing, and we back up to Salford.
And then you can see, here's the commercial corridor right here.
Again, we are like essentially a block and a half away from a commercial corridor.
And then you can see, again, much of the public transportation here as well that would support a housing project of this sort.
And then photographs of the property.
So, again, we're in the 2000 block of South 60th Street, and this is the property, according to Google Earth, in 2008.
This is the oldest picture we could find on the Internet on Google, but in 2008, this was a vacant lot.
So, for almost approximately 50 years of record, this has been a vacant lot.
And if this variance is denied, especially given market conditions, it may very well be a vacant lot for years from time,
which would be a shame especially on the block that's in need of eyes on the street. I don't
know if any of the Mr. Maldoshans online but I mean he stated many times to me that you know
there's a there's some disruptors to say the least on this block and having eyes on the street and
we would comply with non-zoning related matters such as you know having cameras there, having
available to the police department having well having well-lit landscapes things like that
would i think be very helpful for this block of the community this is south 60th street to the
right of the property south 60th street to the left of the property and then kumas homes has
been in existence for 15 years they're headquartered in the point three section of philadelphia
they're well known they not only own their properties they are general contractors and
they self-manage their property. So they handle all three phases of ownership and take true