from prior industrial uses and they have met the requirements for steep slope variances
in 14 303 8 i however the additional height would not fit the character of the surrounding area and
there is not sufficient evidence to support the additional 30 feet requested finally the proposal
only includes a single off-street loading space the appellant requested a waiver for the reduction
of the number of off-street loading spaces which the planning staff denied the city planning
commission recommends that the board deny the proposed variances for off-street loading and
additional height, but grant other proposed variances. Thank you. If I may, just a question.
Good afternoon, sir. Were you present at the March 19th hearing in which testimony and
reports were put into the record in this matter? No, I was not. And did you have, thank you,
did you have the opportunity to review any of the reports that have been submitted?
No, I am here representing the Planning Commission's staff's recommendation.
Understood. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We still need to adopt and affirm at the appropriate time.
Is your client here?
Why don't we do, can you do that?
Oh, we'll take one moment.
Yeah, good. Thank you.
Mr. Zakroff, would you, there you are, his hand is raised.
Andrew Zakroff.
Mr. Zakroff has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Hi, Mr. Zakroff. Would you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Andrew Zakroff, A-N-D-R-E-W-Z-A-K-R-O-F-F.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Andrew. Thank you for being here.
Am I correct that you have been present during both the March 19th, 2025 hearing in this matter, as well as this afternoon's hearing?
2025 uh hearing in this matter as well as this afternoon's hearing yes and have you been able to
clearly hear uh the testimony and uh discussion uh over these two hearings yes and would you
adopt and affirm the testimony that i've offered as your own i do thank you mr zakroff thank you
We're going to vote on this, Hillary, next Wednesday at 2 p.m.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
And thank you for everyone else who took the time to testify today.
We appreciate it.
Very grateful for your pay.
Hillary, do we want to handle that one case now and then we'll take a quick break?
Yes, please, Mr.
All right.
So we have a timing issue with the case on the 330 list.
And we're going to hear that now.
And then we'll come back and take a little five-minute break.
So MI 2024-007-443-2104 South 7th Street, Zen Jin is the attorney.
Zen Jin is coming back as a plan list now, Chair.
good afternoon
hi counsel could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
uh yes zenjin z-h-e-n last name j-i-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do um could you identify your client in relationship to the property
Yes, my client is 2531DK Realty.
I'll see they're the owner of the property.
Okay, and I'll note that we have the East Point Breeze Neighbors RCO vote with seven in support, two in opposition, one abstained.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case?
Five things in advance of this hearing.
we have thank you council please proceed and share your screen
thank you i'm going to share with the board what was previously submitted as exhibits
can the board see uh my information on their screen we can thank you yes thank you
this application is for the use of this property at uh 2104 south 17th street it is zone cmx2
my client is proposing a use of the property as a three residential unit. The property is
originally and currently zoned for two units, two residential unit and a required commercial unit
on the first floor. However, the property has been vacant for some time. It is in the process
of being worked on. Part of the reason we received the support of East Point Breeze Neighbors is
because of the way the property is situated and its location in the corridor, making it
not the most effective building when it comes to a commercial use. So here's the photo of the front
of the property. And as you can see, the property is really a roll home style property. Not only
that, it has an elevated first floor, making it basically unable to comply with any kind of ADA
requirements for commercial space. The property itself is also neighbored on both sides by what
are multifamily residential units. It's kind of located on the offside of a street. Both West
Pashionk and Snyder are more commercial in nature, but this property actually faces 17th Street away
from the main commercial corridor. This is some other pictures, including the posting. This is
the rear side alley that is available to the property in the back basement. This is partially
framed out first floor, the existing second floor. The property does need renovation, and that is
part of the plan with the property is to fix it up. The original plans, and you can see members
aboard from the plans here that my client before making an application actually was trying to
figure out a whether an office space or something could be worked out for the commercial compliance
the the issue here is that this property is really not that wide and there are existing
steps leading up to the upper floors that really eats up about half of the space that's available
really eats up about half of the space that's available in the front, making it basically a
in the front, making it
super long, and even if we were to take the back area, super long and narrow space, that doesn't
make a lot of sense for even an office space use. Whereas if it's laid out as more of a
one-bedroom apartment use, similar to the second floor, but with the lost space,
there would be no front bedroom. It would just be living room, dining, and one bedroom in the back.
That would make almost more sense with the layout for this property. With the elevator front,
it also really cannot be used for any kind of storefront and really restricts commercial use
intent in the CMX2 district. Because of the existing residentials next door,
and because of the way the property is laid out, when we present it to the community,
we generally received favorable feedback in that they feel that this property does make more sense
as a residential property. I believe that actually that comment was also mentioned
in the letter from the community. The community did point out that generally speaking,
except circumstances like this, they would not normally prefer to have conversions. But in this
situation, this is a rather unique building. And there are some physical restrictions that lead to
support in this case. And that's really the reason we're asking for a waiver of the commercial space
requirement. The lot size requirement that kicked in is partly because at CMX2 with two units,
the lot size was perfectly fine. But when we asked for the third unit to convert the commercial
unit, that triggered the additional refusal on the refusal letter itself for the lot size for
three units, but I think they're related in the sense that it is because we cannot use the first
floor effectively as a commercial that that particular refusal is triggered in the first
place. So given the circumstances, we would request the board's favorable review in our
request to permit this building to be used fully as a residential property. Then did you go to the
rco meeting did i go to the rco meeting yeah yes yeah okay and and it was in your favor correct
yes so the rco issued their letter i i was at the meeting um i i didn't i wasn't privy to the vote
that came after i left the meeting itself uh so as you can see most of the members were in support
there there were two people who was in opposition and one abstained the the rco pointed out that
you know there's there's very little foot traffic there it's not a real commercial area through
the the two corner properties of course because they're next to Snyder and Pash Young they have
commercial but we are actually stuck as a property in the middle of a short block and on both sides
of our property are also residential properties do you want to bring your client on sure I leave
Ms. Lee should be here.
Can you, Ms. Lee, can you raise your hand virtually to be identified?
It's Ms. or Mr. Lee.
It's allowed to speak.
Thank you.
Hi, Ms. Lee.
This is Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee.
Hi, Mr. Lee, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi, my name is Kawhi Lee.
First name is Felkawai, K-A-W-A-I, and last name is Lee, L-I.
Do you swear or affirm the tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Why don't you proceed, counsel?
Thank you.
Mr. Lee, did you hear my presentation and also see my presentation before the ZBA?
I did.
Can you verify what I have represented to the zoning board is true and correct and adopt my testimony as your own?
I do. It is true and correct.
Thank you.
Zen, was there ever a commercial business in there?
From the history of the property, I am not.
If the board can bear with me one second.
I don't believe, when my client acquired the property, it was already kind of, Mr. Lee, are you aware if there was an existing commercial space in, use in there when you acquired the property?
Kawhi Lee, please raise your hand.
Kawhi Lee has been unmuted.
uh no we were all unaware when we bought purchased a property it was already vacant
it was unlivable okay so it was a vacant property was the first floor
it was unlivable okay so it was a vacant property was the first floor structurally
set up as some kind of commercial space to your knowledge not that i was aware of thank you okay
questions from the board questions or comments from our attorney
not at this time questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission
good afternoon chair the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the cmx2 commercial
mixed-use zoning at this location however this property has no documented history of commercial
use on the ground floor and the physical circumstances of this property are not conductive
conducive to ground floor commercial use the planning commission recommends the board grant
the requested variance for no ground floor commercial and grant a requested variance
for dwelling units, but with a proviso
for maximum two units.
Thank you. MI 2024
007 443
South 17th Street, I vote yes.
Michael
Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanada Graham, my vote is yes.
Siowen, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes.
Okay, we're going to take a five-minute break,
and before I break, let me just say
The next case is going to be number two, 2307 Nordane Street.
Vernon Anastasio is the attorney.
We'll be back in five minutes.
MI 2024-005-489-2307 Nordane Street.
Vernon Anastasio is the attorney.
Vernon Anastasio will be coming back in as a panelist here.
Hello, Mr. Chair, again.
How are you, Vern?
You've already been sworn.
I'm sorry we kept you a little waiting a little longer here.
Could you identify your client, the relationship to the property?
For the record, Vern Anastasio on behalf of Marisa Porges and Scott Moore, the owners of the subject property.
Right. And we have a letter of non-opposition received from the Center City Residents Association.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
see uh well uh to the extent that it exists uh i stipulate that it's accurate i do not believe
it should even exist and we'll get into that it's the zoning board it's the zoning board
uh i know i know but i gotta put it on the record come on i got it i got it have you
emailed in all the required documents you got hillary holding her head i want you to know right
I'm sorry, Hill.
Have you emailed in all the required documents that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thanks. I'll be as quick as I can, I promise.
Okay, so we're talking about 2307 on Dane Street, beautiful little townhome in Center City West.
and uh it's a very it's a little peculiar uh because what we're trying to do is legalize
something that's already been legalized um 10 or so years ago over the course of 10 years
the owner at the time put an addition on the property they went through this process the
zoning board approved it they built the addition they had a series of visits with lni they got all
their proper permits. Everything was built with the benefit of the permit. However,