You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth
I do. May I share my screen?
Yes. Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Certainly. My client is 1525 North Stillman Street, LLC, and they are the owner of the subject property.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal, referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
And yes, you may proceed and your screen's up.
So go ahead.
Thank you.
Again, David Orphanides from Orphanides and Turner here in Philadelphia.
Again, I'm representing 1525 North Stillman Street, LLC.
see the this is a photograph just real quickly of the existing property you're going to hear
me go through a little bit of history of the property but it's presently a vacant and blighted
lot it's presently being squatted upon by the person who is not by my client but by somebody
else who's using it to store broken down vehicles and here's a rendering of what we we propose to
erect in its place um we do as mentioned we do have a letter of non-opposition from the coordinating
rco or the rco that was designated as a coordinating rco by the planning commission which is a brewery
town shardswood community civic association and i think that that letter was just forwarded uh
just recently i'm just going to kind of move this to there you go so you can see that
we do have revised zoning drawings there were some minor modifications made to the design
minor in the sense that there were some physical bump outs to the side property lines that were
reduced and modified some fencing was modified as well and those were things that we've included
with the revised proviso plan form that's been submitted and here you can see the original zoning
drawings that showed the bump outs a little further to either side. You'll see in a minute
the photographs of what's to either side of us. There's a one-story industrial commercial building
to the north of us up here, and to the south of us there's a multifamily dwelling.
Here you can see the subject property on North Stillman Street located between
Jefferson Street and West Oxford Street. Here you can see the vehicles that are presently
being stored on the property, again, not by my client. Here's the abutting residential multifamily
that's been completed and constructed to the south of us, the commercial industrial building
to the north of us. Even though the properties, we have RSA 5 zoned properties, as you can see
right here, to the ends, to either ends, you can see it's a very mixed block of industrial
um icmx rm1 rsa5 our property is zoned uh rm1 uh there are five single families down here
and one here there's a multi-family that since this aerial was taken has been constructed here
and then there is a large as you'll see in the photographs in a minute there's a large
uh electrical um supply i think i think it was called eastern electrical liquidators
that takes up, that goes from 26th Street to Stillman Street, located directly across from
our property. And real quickly, just to show you some images, here's the existing property. Again,
as you can see, the cars that are being stored there, not by my client. The multifamily residential
property to the south, right abutting us to the south, similar to what we're proposing,
multi-family view down the street parking on either side one of the advantages to what we're
doing here as the board well knows rm1 does not require off-street parking um for uh for residential
use um one of the reasons or the main reason for our height variance is that we because as you can
see parking is pretty tight up in this area and that was conveyed to us in uh in our community
meetings uh that we wanted to provide off-street parking and that necessitated pushing the building
up an additional floor um here you can see the uh and you can see a little bit of it here over
to the right oops and then down here that's the uh the electrical eastern electric liquidators
building that goes through to south 26th street and then you can see the view to the north of us
on stillman street and here oops one second there you can see the building to the north of us
uh historically and um
Historically, and you can see that the property was utilized as a garage dating back to 1918.
Approximately in 1951, sometime between 1951 and 1985, came a vacant building.
So that's what, over 40 years ago.
and then you can see sometime between 92 and 94 came a vacant lot so that's been it's been a
vacant lot for over 30 years the property is 80 feet wide by 78 feet deep it's a fairly large
property as I indicated there are other multi-family residential properties located
on the block the one that I indicated that goes through from 26 to Stillman is 28 units
uh with nine cars um given given the the nature of the block um given the the mixed the mixed use
of the block given the other residential uses on the block um given the fact that we wanted to
provide parking um which created our height refusal and generated some of the other refusals
that we have here you can see here down at the bottom because we're an attached structure uh we
get a refusal in rm1 but the benefit here was to get cars off the street and that was something
that was well received by the community. Our open area refusal is a relatively de minimis one,
particularly given the large buildings that occupy 100% or close to 100% of the lot up there.
And then while we do exceed the unit count for lot area, we are for 16 units, obviously you could
have no more than three unrelated people per unit, which would be 45 bedrooms. With our 24 units,
We're only doing a mix of about six, not about, but 16 two bedrooms and eight one bedrooms.
So we're only doing 40 bedrooms.
So it's not a particularly dense development, even though you look at the number of new units and you would think that we're not shoehorning in or cramming in a lot of a lot of residents into the property.
The archives for the property, you can see going back in time, copy of our zoning and board appeal is at tab 13, along with our project information form.
copy of the deed at 14a showing my clients are the owner of the property as well confirmed with
the office of property assessment a copy of our tax compliance is at tab 15 a copy of the hearing
notice for today's hearing which was posted at the property along with the copy of the notice
of refusal and compliance with the requirements of the zoning code and then our 14 303 notices
this is the email from the planning commission designating brewery town shardswood community
civic association as the coordinating rco and um and again uh we uh properly notified to the list
of addresses which you have here uh both the uh the date and the time and the zoom link for the
community group meeting as well as for the zoning board hearing and again uh as indicated by the
chairman as i indicated as well we do have a letter of non-opposition from the brewery town
Charswood Community Civic Association. We met with them last Thursday. And with that, I would
just like to have my client, and then if he's on the architect, adopt my statements. My client
representing the ownership LLC is Josh Matthews. If he could be identified. And just to be clear,
one thing I did want to point out in their letter from, while we're having them promoted to a
panelists, we did agree to provide, as indicated in the letter, one affordable unit as part
of our proposal, which we're not going in for the mixed income housing bonus, but in
this way, we were able to provide an affordable unit directly to the community through the
Civic Association.
And then if I could have Mr. Matthews identified or promoted to a panelist so I could have
him adopt my statements and then ian smith if at all possible mr matthew you're free to speak
mr matthew could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
joshua matthew j-o-s-h-u-a-m-a-t-h-e-w that's right do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth yes proceed mr orphanetes hey josh um can you state your
position with the LLC? I'm an owner. Okay, thank you. And did you hear the statements that I made
to the board today? Yes. And they true or correct to the best of your knowledge? Yes. Would you
adopt them as your own? Yes. And is there anything you would like to add? That's everything. Okay,
thank you. Mr. Peetor, I need you to question. The large property next to you, how many units?
mr question the large property next to how many units uh the large property just to the
south just to the south of us right um i believe that's 16 units okay thank you and one other one
in your package there was a buy right permit originally issued for this property for 18 units
correct okay and that's just the problem with that is that is that as time has gone on since
the issue of that that's not a viable um plan and the other thing is is that that plan um didn't
have any parking whatsoever it was just straight residential okay thank you so one again when we
went to the committee we've had a couple projects up in this neighborhood and and on street parking
is is a huge issue for them and how many unit how many parking spaces you're providing so we we have
we have a total of uh we have a total of eight eight car parking along with um one a handicap
spot that's included there all right thank you questions from the board no mr chairman no mr
chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission all right good morning uh thank you chair bergman
ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning commission uh board members in 2014 the zoning
maps were amended in this area in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan
this block face was intentionally left as rm1 um with regard to the dimensional variances we feel
the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the additional height and lot coverage are consistent
with the neighborhood character and are necessary to avoid some kind of economic detriment to the
applicant. With regard to the use variance for dwelling unit count, the applicant's hardship
claim is not supported with evidence of any kind of unique physical circumstances on this lot. This
is a flat square lot. And with regard to the variances for parking access, the applicant
has also failed to demonstrate unique physical conditions, and we feel the proposal would
negatively affect pedestrian safety on this street, which is the reason for the requirement that
parking be accessed by a shared or rear street. We also submit that the hardship for building height
and for parking access that have been put forward by the applicant are self-created
by the applicant by choosing their agreement with the neighborhood to include non-required
off-street parking on the plan. We would note that the adjoining properties at 1517 through 23
North Stillman Street have been recently redeveloped with fully compliant structures,
and we would cite that as evidence that variances are not necessary for development on this block.
And then finally, just a reminder for the board that community benefits agreements related to
housing affordability are not reviewed or enforceable by the city and are essentially
meaningless in the long term should the building be sold or whatever so the city planning commission
recommends that the board deny all these variances may i respond okay so so first of all the project
that was didn't show up and that's been developed right here is does have parking as i indicated
that's uh 20 28 units with nine car parking and that building is 53 feet six inches tall
that building is taller than our building that we're presently proposing um there has been as
you can see there it's like you know even as i scroll out there are a number of vacant lots in
the area but these are all starting to be developed now and what the neighborhood is experiences and
what is what we've often seen is there's not a parking problem until the development comes in
and then there's an on-street parking problem it was made very clear to us that having off-street
parking was an important element of what we of a development project of course when you go in by
right they the community has no say in it you can build it by right without it so pointing to the
project to the south and saying that that doesn't have parking and that somehow that is something
that's appropriate for the neighborhood while the zoning code would say it is it is as a matter of
law i guess you have to take a look at the individual properties and look at the circumstances
in the community was willing to have the additional height, particularly when you have
the large structure located directly across the street that clearly occupies the non-residential
use and structure that occupies 100% of the lot, as well as the property just to the north of us
across the street. So providing off-street parking was something that was deemed to be
beneficial. You have the, I mean, you can look at the aerial and you can see, I disagree with
Mr. Haggerty, if you take a look at the aerial, you can see that there are an abundance. In fact,
the aerial you can see that there are an abundance in fact the majority even the residential
the majority, even the residents.
structures on the block but let's let's look at the non-residential structures occupy over a hundred
percent you know over the over 75 percent some up to a hundred percent a lot you can see down here
you can see across the street you can see all these even the residential here's a residential
property that clearly extends almost to the rear yard um so and you have some other ones over here
as well on the next street over on north 25th so this this building occupies 100 of the lot
so the condition on this block is clearly one and you can see it also if you review the Sanborns
this is all documented as well that the existing conditions on the block aren't necessarily as
Mr. Haggerty would describe them with all due respect in terms of the the community benefit
agreement. To say that they're worthless, I think is a little heavy handed. There's a reason for
them. They are binding contracts. They're enforceable in the court of law. And one of
the things that we were able to see here is that, unfortunately, if you go through the mixed income
housing bonus, you do a payment in lieu, the money goes into a fund and we don't know where that
money what neighborhood that money is applied in the same thing goes for the not for providing the
units it could be anybody coming from any neighborhood anywhere not necessarily serving
the people in the neighborhood so by what we are finding is that by entering into a direct agreement
with the community we're better better able to provide benefits directly to the community
that this building is located the property is located in again in terms of the height yes there
is a by right structure there but you know we've a couple projects up in this neighborhood and
the general consensus is that you do need off-street parking to provide for the units
we have a lower bedroom count than would be in that by right structure again um you know indicating
it that it could be um more than 45 unit 45 bedrooms or we're only at 40 so for those reasons
you know you can say that we've created mr aggie can say that we've created our hardships or
created the conditions but we don't believe that's the case we believe it's the neighborhood
that we're adapting to we're listening to the community and that there's a result we have the
project with the community benefit agreement um that we'll be entering into with the community
group so um for those reasons and the reasons that i've stated previously i asked the board
We feel that there's the basis for the granting of all the variances in this particular situation.
I think I might have to have my client adopt my statements again, just because I've added some additional information.
Mr. Matthew?
He's already been sworn.
Josh, you heard the additional statements I made in response to the Planning Commission statement.
Are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt them as your own?
And I'll just ask you a couple quick questions.
This is the second project you've done up in this neighborhood, the other one, having been supported also by the neighborhood.
Tell the zoning board a little bit about your involvement and your participation in the neighborhood.
Sure. So we've worked closely with the Brewery Town Civic Association here initially on a project about a block or two away at 26th and Jefferson.
and that was kind of our first engagement with the Civic. We had a community meeting with them
where we heard a lot of the concerns of the neighbors, and we decided to spend the next,
you know, 120 days canvassing the neighborhood, meeting with neighbors, meeting with stakeholders
and other constituents, and kind of understanding what the concerns are in the neighborhood and