No, Mr. Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
chair i see no hands at this time by planning commission
thank you sir good good morning david effecto city planning commission in 2014 the zoning map
was amended from residential multi-family to residential single family in accord with
recommendations from the comprehensive plan there is no unique physical condition of this lot that
prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code the majority of the block is
single family the city planning commission recommends the board deny the use variants
mi 2021-004-828-2514 north 17th street i vote yes carol tenary my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes James Snell my vote is yes
thank you counsel thank you man be excused yes thank you all right let's go back uh Mr. Mulvihill
Mr. Mulvihill, please unmute yourself.
All right, here I am.
Hi, Mr. Mulvihill.
How do we look?
I think everything's good for a second.
Hopefully it doesn't...
All right, okay.
So you've been sworn, if I remember correctly, right?
And I believe our vice chair spoke to you?
Correct.
Yes, I did.
So why don't we start, Mr. Mulvihill?
Explain what you're doing here.
So members of the board, this is for three separate parcels.
1911 Watkins, 1913 Watkins, and 1915.
1911 Watkins, 1913 Watkins, and 1915 Watkins.
There currently exists on 1911 and 1913, two-story structures that are in really bad shape.
My client tried to look into saving the structures, but the cost to do so is significant.
So what we're proposing instead is the demolition of those two structures.
Then on the three lots, we're looking to construct one single-family home on 1911,
And then two duplexes, I believe, in 1913 and 1915.
Originally, we had suggested that each of them would be duplexes, but based to initial community feedback, we scaled that back for a total of five units across the three properties.
So for all the properties, we received a refusal, as we're seeing now on page one of my packet, for two family living in a single family district, that would be removed for one of the parcels.
And then 1911 has a slightly then smaller rear yard, just based on the size of the lot and the location and dimensions of the lot.
So there's not a whole lot that we can do with that, unfortunately.
Here's our project information form at page four.
Our area zoning maps are here at page seven and eight.
To the left, we see the Philadelphia Atlas zoning map.
This is largely zoned RSA 5, although you will see in the photos that there's new construction, multifamily here on the corner of 19th and Watkins, and again at the other corner of 19th and Watkins.
There's other multifamily up and down 19th Street.
There's new construction and older homes all along Watkins Street itself.
This is the deed for the property in 1911, and instead of going through both other packets, which have been submitted as an officer of the court,
I can tell you my client has the needs for the other two as well.
It's my client's tax certificate for each of the properties.
And this is the tax clearance showing no balance owed.
Each of the properties has that as well.
This is our initial notice of community meeting.
We initially sent that back in February and had a meeting in March.
We just had a second meeting last week with the initial notice.
And as part of that initial meeting, at least,
going to page 21 of my packet dated March 21,
We have a letter showing that ultimately there is a opposition to the proposal of six units in the block, due to the fact that the neighbors didn't want more multifamily there.
At the second meeting, there was another vote held on the reduced number of units.
We never received a copy of the overall vote from that meeting.
I'm unsure whether it's the same different or something else.
I imagine somebody from point breeze is going to tell me on the line.
So while we did have 10 people at this meeting in opposition,
my client then went around the neighbors and I have many,
many pages of support signatures from neighbors in the immediate area.
I'm going to continue the page through those.
So members of the board, we can see we have a number of signatures for each of the properties.
As I continue to go through the number of signatures and support, it's plain that there's
more people in support of this project who live in the immediate area than overall attendees
at the community meeting.
So I understand that these community meetings are an important process.
RCOs are an important part of the process as well, but unfortunately, we all know that they don't always reflect the feelings of the immediate neighbors,
which, as you review the number of signatures that we have in support of each of the projects, even as duplexes,
we can see that this clearly overshadows the opposition at the RCO.
We see at page 48 my initial posting of the property.
To the right, we can see the two properties that are currently existing in poor shape
on the interior, and then the empty lot, which we propose to construct a new single family,
or pardon me, a new two family home on.
On page 49 off to the right, we can see this quarter property.
I believe it's a three or four unit building directly next to where we're proposing to build.
This is looking down towards the block.
Again, we have a multifamily structure that's been existing for a while.
This is directly across the street, two-story single families.
And there's a mix as you go down the block, as we can see the more traditional two-story row homes
with the larger new construction, single family.
Down towards the end of the block, there is more multifamily as well.
My understanding is that these new structures here are all single family, however.
My understanding is that these new structures here are all single family, however.
And this is the photos of our repost of the property
beginning at page 75. And at page 78, what I'll do now is just do one page up so we can take
a look at our plans so members of the board this is now our site plan pardon me this is now our
site plan for the property at 1911 and all the properties are exactly the same in terms of
site and floor plans with the exception of 1911 being slightly smaller than 1913 and 1915
just due to the lot size leading to a minor variance request for open area.
So members of the board, we can see our three lots, 11, 13, 15.
The lots themselves, 15, 15, 14 feet wide.
We're proposing significant size rear yards if we zoom in on the plans.
It's a nine-foot rear yard.
There's going to be a four-foot alley behind that.
So it's significant space behind the structures as well.
It's not as if we're going to be directly up behind our neighbors.
What's the proposed floor plan for the two-unit building?
More or less, we have unit one, which spans the basement and the ground level.
Unit two would be the second and third floor.
In the case of the single-family home, there would be no deviation between the two, no delineation between the units.
the floor plan would more or less remain the same though so essentially they're one bedroom unit to
the downstairs unit so you'd come in the front stairs head to the right go downstairs to get
in the basement where you have bedroom or office space to the rear with egress access
full bath and significant other space down here for flex living kitchen dining to the rear with
a built-in washer dryer and to get up to the next unit you go up the stairs you'd be in your living
room to the front, again, kitchen to the middle, probably dining in the middle, kitchen to the
rear with a bathroom off to the side. Then going up the stairs, you'd have another two bedrooms up
there. So one one-bedroom unit, one two-bedroom unit, or for the single-family home, we're going
to do a three-bedroom unit. So overall, there's not going to be really any change in the overall
numbers of beds between the two-bedroom units and the single-family home that we're looking to
build here. So I know there were concerns that were brought up in the community meeting about
density and things like that. The density of this project will not be any greater
than a single family home of the same size, specifically because it's the same floor plan,
same number of bedrooms. It's just a matter of taking these properties and looking at
price conscious consumers now, with rates being what they have been, with rents being what they've
been, we were looking to take this, build new properties and have somebody be able to
move in there for a slightly less cost than perhaps brand new new construction home, which
is going to be a rent of $2,500 a month, or a mortgage of gosh knows how much based on
the sales price of the property. Ultimately, the hardship with dimensional variances just
comes through the size of that one lot. For the use variances, it comes down to the sizes
of the lot and the costs inherent to new construction simply that new construction homes here
are going to have to be priced somewhere between four and five hundred dollars thousand dollars
versus a lower price more affordable to existing neighbors we're happy to take any questions that
the board may have at this time but first i'd like elson to please raise his hand to be unmuted
and I'll ask him a few questions.
Elson, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
I believe I did just unmute myself.
Okay, could you state your name and spell it please for the court reporter?
Name is Elson, E-L-S-O-N, last name Joji, X-H-O-X-H-I.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Mulvihill.
Okay, Allison, you've heard my presentation today through the zoning board.
And this involves what was initially two, pardon me, three two-family dwellings, which at the insistence of the community group, we changed to a single-family dwelling and the two two-family dwellings.
Is that correct?
Yes, correct.
All right. Do you have anything else you'd like to add to my presentation with respect to the meetings, your involvement in the community or anything else?
Yes. Just a quick note, Leo. I know there was three duplexes. I think you said 1911 was a single family, but I think we're going for 1915.
i think you said 1911 was a single family but i think we're going for 1915 the single family
and 11 duplexes but that's fine thank you so as you can as the board can see we did
before the first meeting we reached out we went around the neighborhood we got signatures from
you know whatever neighbors that we can find in the area which was the immediate blocks
surrounding our areas i think it totaled to somewhere around 40 or something signatures
that's each for each of the properties and then when when we went to the RCO meeting
I was not aware that we actually had to had some of these neighbors show up to the RCO meeting for
support so that's why the vote went 10-0 against so when we requested to come back around for the
five units instead we went back around to the neighbors and you know we've we were able to
knock on some doors and get some people to actually show up to the RCO meeting. So I don't
know. We don't have the vote yet, but I believe we do. We should have some support for this
duplex construction for 1911 and 1913, not including 1915. That's because we're deciding
to go single family on that one. And Allison, you're based in the area, correct?
Do I personally live in the area or?
your work your work is based in the area you've done a lot of work in the area okay yeah so we're
south philly residents um we do a lot of work in point breeze grace ferry uh whitman plaza so
everything's south of center city okay and with respect to seeking to build the two units rather
than single family homes the reasoning for that largely has to do with the price for the ultimate
consumer in the neighborhood is that fair to say yes all right i don't have any other questions for
you at this time.
Board, we're happy to take any questions today.
Mr. Movahill, the 1,900 block of Watkins, predominantly single-family?
It is predominantly single-family, although towards the end of the blocks, both to the
east and the west, there are multifamilies on those ends of the block.
And Mr. Movahill, the RCO never changed their vote?
We never received a second letter.
I'm uncertain what the results of the second vote were.
So if somebody from the RCO is on the line and would be willing to share that information, we'd appreciate that just because we've never received that before this and today.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have a call-in user.
Call-in user, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning.
uh tiffany green concerned citizens appointment hi hi tiffany could you state your name and spell
for the court reporter please or uh t-i-f-f-a-n-y g-r-e-e-n right do you swear a firm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir um i'm yes am i able to speak yes i said
proceed please great um i attended both meetings um at the first meeting it was more of we had
quite a few attendees at that point, and the, as the Robert said, or the lawyer said, that
there was quite a bit of opposing to what he was proposing, which is putting in the
turning into R&1 multifamily. He never talked about in terms of any physical unique issues
regarding the project that would be substantial to him making those changes. Mostly, people
talked about asking to do two-story single-family homes, which they were not really opposed to.
They want to take full advantage of their zoning code at this point to do three-story. So most of
us stated that we would like to continue with the single-family homes on the block. At the second
meeting, there was some people on the Zoom, but no one clicked over. And the young Lee Haley from
Point B-CDC stayed on to see if anybody would talk, but no one spoke up.
I never saw the petition, so I don't know.
I don't even know our petitions.
We put the actual description of the zoning code from the zoning board on there.
So I can't say to the validity of his petitions, although I know at the second meeting,
no one from the community spoke up at the meeting or anything like that.
And so I say we oppose.
We would like, we would ask the board to maintain the zoning in this area as RSA 5.
there's no real