eight. That's fine. Yep. Well, wait a minute. Okay. Just put it back up again. I'm allowing
them to talk right now. Okay. Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter,
please. Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Sure. My name is Frida Williams.
I am the. Could you spell it please for the court reporter? Certainly. Frida. F-R-E-I-D-A
Williams. W-I-L-L-I-A-M-S. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth.
Proceed.
Oh, okay, sorry.
I am the chair of the Housing and Zoning Committee
of the RCO, OCA,
and I'm the author,
in addition to the president of OCA,
to the letter, the report, RCO,
and the proviso.
And I simply want to make it clear that,
Although Mr. Ward is correct that the alcohol statement of prohibition or desire for prohibition was not discussed in the meeting, there are ballots that were received upon the vote regarding this matter, and individual residents indicated those items that were important to them.
This is a second RCO, and therefore it is quite possible that concerns of the second group that attended is in some way slightly different from those concerns that were versed from the first group that met.
So I just want to make that clear, that there's no date and switch.
We're simply reflecting what the residents at this second meeting said.
And then the other thing is, and I'm not sure that it's necessarily a point, but I just want to make it known that in some of the conversations that we had back and forth, when we asked for things, the response that we got in some instances was that there was a need to consult with a co-owner.
however and also a second party attended this second rco meeting who was identified as
a co-owner of the property i don't have the name in front of me because i of the attendant
I don't have the name in front of me because the attendance list I do have, and if you needed it, I could provide it.
But I'm simply stating for the record that although it is identified today that Mr. Henry Lee is the sole owner, that is not what was presented to us as a community, and that in some instances, Mr. Lee had to consult with a co-owner.
So I just want to make that clear.
All right.
thank you very much for your call are there any other comments for the virtual audience
I see no further answer Mr. Chair Planning Commission good afternoon Mr. Chairman David
Fecto City Planning Commission Mr. Chairman and members of the board comprehensive plan
recommends no change to the commercial mixed use zoning at this location the applicant having shown
that the lack of a rear yard is an existing non-conformity and the addition is unlikely
to impact adjacent properties the city planning commission recommends the zoning board grant the
variance thank you amy there's a note here may not be necessary to stamp plans are you aware of that
uh yes um i believe however mr ward has um indicated that he his client will be willing
to stamp the plans is that correct okay all right good uh mr chairman just to address that uh the
You know, we took painstaking efforts with the RCO to discuss the trash storage room, the surveillance cameras, the rear partition fence.
So in order to provide some confidence in them that we're doing what we agreed to do, I have no objection to the stamping of those plans.
And because I think that provides additional comfort and security and confidence with.
Thank you. All right. So am I twenty twenty two zero zero one one two two sixty eight fourteen old York Road.
I vote yes with proviso. Revive plans. Three pages. Stand by ZBA. October 5th, 2022.
Can we refer to them as supplemental plans because it doesn't revise the application plan, but they're supplemental to the application.
I vote yes. Supplemental plans, three pages, stamped by ZBA, October 5th, 2022.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with provisos.
James Snell. My vote is yes. We'll provide those.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Amy.
All right. Go to our regular list. MI 2022-003-275-1314 North Carlisle Street.
Meredith Furlegger is the attorney.
I believe, hold here, wait one minute, I'll be right with you one minute.
I believe we do have a letter from the RCO, correct?
Yes, Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
We did receive a letter from the RCO today indicating their support.
Counsel, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Certainly, Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Certainly.
My client is Temple Properties LLC, and that entity is the owner of the property.
Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do agree to waive the reading. I do not stipulate to the accuracy. The description
has the wrong number of units. It lists 16 units. It's actually 14. Otherwise, yes.
Okay. 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 yes to all of the above
thank you you may proceed and your screen's up perfect thank you good afternoon uh mr chairman
members of the board again meredith ferlger with delworth paxton uh my client today is temple
Properties LLC, the owner of the property that is represented here today by partners Rick Biddle
that is represented here today by partners Rick Biddle and Michael Alton. We do also have
and Michael Alton.
representatives from Gnome Architecture if there are any questions that I am not able to answer
for you. The property before the board today is located at 1314 North Carlisle Street. As always,
our exhibit packet includes at Exhibit 4 a copy of the deed as well as tax clearance at Exhibit 3.
The exhibit packet includes a total of 19 exhibits, some of which I will walk you through.
At Exhibit 2, just received this morning, you do now have a copy of a letter of support
from the newly formed United Neighbors Alliance Civic Association, which the developer worked
with for the last several months on this proposal. As a brief overview, this proposal is for a new
luxury multifamily building with 14 units. The board has seen significant proposals come before
it in recent years for developments in this immediate area, which you will see throughout
the presentation. By way of overview, this proposal includes the consolidation of three lots
into one new lot, totaling around 3,100 square feet. The consolidation plan at Exhibit 6
shows that one of the lots is just slightly deeper than the others, creating a new lot
that has an ever so slight L shape to it. An existing, I'm sorry, there's somebody not on mute.
Some feedback in the background. I think somebody from planning, maybe.
Thank you. An existing alley that exists between two of the lots will be relocated
to the south of the property line. This alley benefits the adjoining property to the rear
here on 15th Street. You can also see
at Exhibit 12 site maps and a zoning map which shows that the properties are zoned RM1 multifamily
and sit roughly between West Thompson Street to the south and Master Street to the north.
Now, turning to the aerials at Exhibit 13 for a little bit more context, you will note that North Carlisle Street is just one block west of North Broad Street.
Now, as I scroll through some of these aerial views here, you will notice that this property sits directly behind the historic Blue Verizon Boxing Road building, which is immediately next to a new apartment complex known as the Nest, and you'll see that in the photograph here.
Now, looking at the property from the west, you'll see a useful view that shows the continually evolving skyline of this particular area.
Now, at the photographs at Exhibit 19, you'll see that this is an existing vacant lot.
But Carlisle Street is quite narrow and predominantly services the rear of these structures that front on Broad Street.
Parking is only permitted on one side of the street.
Now, I'll first explain the proposal and then we'll turn to the particulars of the variances requested.
As mentioned, this proposal requests a new six-story structure for a 14-unit luxury multifamily project.
I'll zoom in for a moment on the original zoning plan chart.
Just so that you can get a sense of some of the modifications that were made throughout the community process to the exterior envelope of the building.
Now, as originally proposed, the height was slated to be just over 76 feet and included two pilot houses with a common roof deck for resident use.
The open area was just over 8%.
Now, in looking at the zoning plan, you will notice that the south side of the building ran parallel to the property line along this new common alley.
On the rear of the building, you'll notice that the original design hugged that L shape and included a small rear bump out.
At the top of the building, the building came to a straight right angle at the highest point of the elevation.
Now, as I turn to the revised plan, you will see when it loads that the rear bump out.
you will see when it loads that the rear bump out has now been removed.
Just bear with me for one moment.
So you'll see that that rear bump out has now been removed.
Now on the south face of the building,
you'll also notice that the side of the building has been pulled in slightly from that side
property line, with only a very small bump-out portion remaining, which I will explain momentarily.
Most significantly, the height has been modified in two ways. From a code calculation standpoint,
the height has been reduced to 72 feet 6 inches. However, from a visual standpoint,
the top elevation of the building has now also been slanted.
In addition, in response to discussions with the community,
the entire usable roof deck has been eliminated,
leaving only one pilot house for mechanical access only.
Exhibit 8A provides an excellent visual representation of these modifications,
just so that you get a sense of exactly how this project was changed during the community process.
Now, the units themselves include four one-bedroom, one-bath units of roughly 730 square feet,
as well as 10 two-bedroom, two-bath units, ranging from 1,100 square feet to just under 1,400 square feet.
Several of the units are bi-level units.
The project includes a fitness center in the basement, as well as an on-site management
office on the first floor, which is consistent with its goal of bringing a luxury, non-student
oriented project to this area.
As I alluded to a moment ago, the south face of the building was pulled in slightly.
As you can see on the first floor plan here, which is at Exhibit 10, this trash management
room is slated to occupy that small bump out area. The building was pulled in here to further
ensure that a commercial trash disposal company can easily access the trash area in the rear
and will further ensure trash is stored and disposed of efficiently and with no impact to
the surrounding area. The building will have an elevator. As the renderings reflected Exhibit 9,
This building is beautifully designed
to engender a dominant street frontage.
I'll just scroll through here briefly
so that you can get a sense of what the building
is slated to look like.
Now, with respect to the refusals,
allow me first to address some of the minor
dimensional refusals that stem from
our unique hardships here.
I'll start first with the rear yard refusal.
If you refer to the revised zoning plan at Exhibit 8, you will notice that the rear yard varies quite a bit in its depth, and that stems from that L shape.
So at the widest point here, the rear yard is actually 13 feet, which is far more than the zoning code would require, which is 9 feet.
It then narrows sort of in the middle to 5 feet.
However, because of the presence of this alley, L&I measures the rear yard at the narrowest point to the alley, which is why that refusal shows that the rear yard is only two feet, despite the large portion of the rear yard measuring much larger than would be required by code.
Regarding the open area, open area is required at 25%.
As originally designed, the open area was proposed at eight feet, but was revised to increase to 15%.
So we do submit that this is a de minimis request and will ensure a structure that has maximum efficiency and functionality.
We also received a refusal for failure to provide parking on site.
Now, this parking requirement stems from the North Central Philadelphia overlay.
not the rm1 zoning which would not require parking this lot has several factors that
lead to a hardship in providing parking on site first as you can see in these photos
the site is mid-block with no rear access scroll up real quickly so you can see that
this property is significantly too small to accommodate the drive aisles and circulation
that would be necessary to safely accommodate for vehicles on site.
that would be necessary to safely accommodate four vehicles on site.
Furthermore, when you consider that North Carlisle Street is only 20 feet wide
and allows for parking on the opposite side of the street, the usable amount of the street is
only about 12 feet, sometimes potentially even less. So not only would several on-street parking,
not only would several on-street parking spaces have to be eliminated if parking were provided
on our site, but it would also create quite an unsafe ingress and egress condition given the
narrowness of the street and the potential conflict with these back-of-house functions
for the structures on North Broad. Alternatively, the owner is working to arrange parking for
residents in one of the area parking garages. And fortunately, this property benefits from
incredible access to public transportation in the immediate area. I'll turn now to the height
and density refusals, which I can address together. Now, broadly speaking, this property
is located in an extremely dense area, the character of which has been significantly
altered over the course of the last several years. Accordingly, we submit that it would
represent a significant hardship for the owner to erect a code-compliant structure on this lot
which would be inharmonious with other surrounding projects and units, many of which have received
similar variances to that requested here, including for height, unit density, open space,
yard measurements, and parking. At Exhibit 16, I do have copies of many of the permits
and corresponding refusals that I will reference on the next two maps.
If you refer to Exhibit 11 here, you will first see a map reflecting the comparable densities in
the immediate area. Those marked in the darker reddish-orange color are examples of cases where
the board has recently granted a variance for additional density. You will see that the
density of many surrounding structures is considerably higher than the 14 units proposed
with this application. And just to give you a sense of that, 193, 208, 63, 12, 30.
so many of these comparable cases were granted variances for similar increases in density
some for even more such as 1324 north broad street which was granted a variance for 180 units
where only 40 would have been permitted similarly with regard to height the next
map shows a comparison of buildings in the area whose height exceeds 38 feet. Properties that
received height variances are also marked, and the board will note that these variances were not
exclusively for broad street-facing properties. On this same block of North Carlisle Street
were two buildings granted variances for far exceeding the 38-foot height minimum
in just the last several years. Again, referencing 1324 North Broad, that newly constructed project
was approved for 188 feet, where 55 feet was the limit. It's also relevant to note that many of
these new developments were approved without parking. I will not drone on with a property
by property analysis unless the board so desires it. However, the proposed height and density here
are consistent with the shift in the project character in the area, which is exclusively
multifamily. The rendering showed that this property was designed to blend to the maximum
extent possible with the evolving North Broad Street corridor. The proposal here is also
consistent with the comprehensive plan for the Lower North District, which expressly supports
density around commercial corridors, such as the North Broad Street one, as well as supporting
density near public transit locations that can provide quick access into Center City.
This project achieves both of those goals, and I did include just snapshots of that plan at Exhibit 15.