This is just to provide some context.
There's a number of awnings, other projecting signs, and this, again, just simply maintains
the status quo.
We have full support of the RCO and near neighbors, as well as the bid, the East Pasadena Avenue Business Improvement District.
Those are those letters are included in the package. And here's the tax clearance.
With that, I know that a lot of these presentations can be generated more by questions, but we're happy to answer any questions.
and Mr. Feer is on the line and can adopt.
Why don't we bring in one and adopt your testimony?
Mr. Feer, could you raise your virtual hand?
Sir, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Good morning.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
yes it's christopher fear that's c-h-r-i-s-t-o-p-h-e-r last name f as in frank e-h-e-r
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes sir proceed counsel okay uh mr fear did you hear the factual statements that i made for the
record yes sir were they accurate yes sir you adopt them as your testimony i do thank you
questions from the board no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no handshare planning commission thank you sir good morning chair bergman
and David Fecteau, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
This is a request to legalize an existing non-conforming sign.
Legalizing this sign will not impair the use of adjacent properties.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board
grant the use and dimensional variances.
Thank you.
MI 2022-006-538-1941, East Pashonk Avenue, I vote yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thomas?
Counselor, you have your three votes.
Thank you, Chairman. I have no further business.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I want to go back to number four.
MI 2022.
0-0-6-5-3-6-8-hundred North Carlisle Street, number T1-1-4-3-7-6-4.
Brandon Saverin is the attorney.
Recommendation of support from United Francis Civic Association Streets Department.
Pre-requisite approval is received.
that we had support of the RCO. Sure, sure. I saw
the streets department prerequisite approval has been received. Okay, thank you very much.
I'll share my screen. Firstly, let me say thank you to the board this morning. When the case was
called, moments before, as I was watching Mr. Harris's presentation, I lost power at my house.
So that was the delay. That's fine. That's fine. Thank you. So this is the subject property. It will be known simply as 800 North Carlisle Street. The T dash number, number, number that you read, Mr. Chairman, is just a result of a recent consolidation still being completed with the Office of Property Assessment.
and I'll show you what was consolidated in a moment. So the subject property has been owned
by the church, who is my client, since 2003. And you see it here, both in an aerial photograph
and on the Atlas parcel map. It is just off of Broad Street between the following four public
streets, Brown, Burns, Parrish, and Carlisle streets. And we believe that it has been a
surface parking lot since at least 1985, as confirmed by aerial images that don't go quite
that far back, but go to 1996 on Atlas and show it as a parking lot back to 1996. And here is our
notice of refusal, which has some interesting information on it. I'll actually start at the
bottom. So it says in the notes to the ZBA that the examiner drafted, firstly, that last year,
at the end of last year, that we consolidated some lots to create this lot, as I mentioned.
And then the second note is that in 1985, a three-year temporary variance or certificate
was granted to allow a public parking lot here. So my suspicion is that that three-year
variance or certificate simply was not renewed, but the owner continued to use it as a parking
lot, eventually came into the ownership of the church in 2003. So why are we here today? It is
to legalize that use. But in the process of doing so, we're going to make some improvements
that are going to benefit the community, which I'll detail in a moment. We're also going to
formally obtain permission from the city to allow the public to use the lot. And we plan to do that.
It's not as though the church is going to sit on this as a private parking lot. It's going to be
open for public use as well at reasonable charged rates. So if I can just show you the zoning map,
here's the zoning map. And this is interesting for a couple reasons. One is it just shows you
in the portion not highlighted where my cursor is, these were small lots that the church also owned
and that last year it consolidated into the main property. So this should give the board some
reassurance that without further variances, my client is not going to chop off those former
lots and develop them and result in a different parking lot that you didn't approve. What you see
today is what you're going to get. And the consolidation sort of backs that because we
can't just unwind that consolidation very easily. I'm going to go quickly into the letter of support
that we received from United Francisville Civic Association. There were actually two meetings with
UFCA. There was a preliminary meeting with their zoning committee that I attended online. And then
there was an in-person meeting with the public that my colleague Rachel Pritzker attended at the
local recreation center. And there was, at the second meeting, unanimous public support for the
project. I have to say, I think the neighbors were thrilled that given the RM1 zoning, we are not
developing an apartment building on this site, which we probably could under the zoning, and that
we're going to formally open the parking on this large lot for their use. There's not a neighbor in
world that wouldn't like that. So let me show you the plans. This is the zoning site plan.
I'm gonna zoom out a little bit here. Okay, so basically what this shows you is a couple things.
Here's the lot turned horizontally. The layout's pretty simple. There's going to be a curb cut
In the middle of each end, one on Brown Street and one over here on Parrish Street, two-way, I believe it's a 20-foot curb cut that will meet streets department with requirements.
in the middle of each end, one on Brown Street and one over here.
And we're also showing landscaping here on the perimeter that is to code and doesn't currently exist.
that landscaping allowed us to get the planning commission's approval for landscaping specifically
and let me go back to the refusal for one moment that landscaping and the other features of the
lot meant that the only refusal we had was for the parking use there are no other refusals for
the form or the layout of the parking lot being improper for it not having adequate landscaping
or fencing. We have met all of those requirements with the help of our engineering firm. The only
thing we're here before you today in terms of relief is just the use of parking. And really
quickly further to that point. Okay. I'm just going to show you some additional plans and then
I'll wrap up. This is a lighting plan. We're going to be adding lighting to the site. The lighting is
designed so that it does not cast the light beyond the property boundaries in the sidewalk. That's
what these bars show you here is the extent to which the light will reach from each light pole.
And then I'll also show you, as the chairman mentioned, we have streets approval for this lot for the zoning phase.
When you develop a parking lot or legalize a parking lot, you then go back to streets when you get your building permit, which we're also going to get in order to install those features I showed you.
And streets will have another look at it then.
But insofar as this phase of the project goes, streets has given their approval.
I'll also say that those rebuilt curb cuts are going to be a big benefit to the community
because right now they're smaller and they're on the corners of the nearby intersection.
So we're putting them in better locations.
That is the extent of my testimony.
Ah, sorry.
One last thing.
I'll also just mention to you that if you look at the zoning map, because I want to
speak to hardship for one moment. You know, these surrounding districts are some commercial,
that's the pink and the dark red. And then you have residential, the yellow and the orange.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because none of these districts permit surface parking lots
for non-accessory uses by right. And by non-accessory, I mean, it's not like literally
attached to the church. So the reason that poses a hardship is because my client can't go out and
say, well, we don't want to get a variance for this site, so we're going to buy another parking
lot. Because unless that parking lot already has a variance, it's not going to be legal in any
nearby location. So in order to have parking for its congregants, this is at least equal to the
least offensive thing we could do in terms of complying with the law. We can't go out and get
another lot that doesn't require a variance. Okay. So with that, I'll ask you to accept my
exhibits into the record. I'll stop sharing my screen and I'll ask that Robin Eaglin raise his
hand, um, to adopt my testimony. Brandon, I'm going to, I'm going to recuse myself from this
Board. No, Vice Chair.
Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I have a little trouble there with the button. No question.
Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commissioner.
Thank you, sir. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from residential
multifamily to industrial and residential mixed use non-accessory parking would be allowed with
a special exception under the proposed irmx zoning the city planning commission recommends
the board grant the proposed variances okay thank you one second is pulling it all the way up
that's number five right chair four four m i m i dash two zero two two dash zero zero six five
three six eight hundred north carolina street my vote is yes thomas holliman my vote is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called from the 930 list?
I see no hands, chair.
Thanks, everyone.
See you at 2 p.m.
See you, chair.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman. I will be chairing the 2 p.m. hearing for the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holliman.
Thomas Holliman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also here is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sundar.
Here's a virtual format. Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded. The video will
be available by contacting tanyasunkett at phila.gov. For the benefit of our court stenographer,
we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying. If you're
participating by phone and you wish to testify, press star nine to raise your hand and star six
to unmute. To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548. Leave your email and the address
of the property in question. Lastly, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comment
or testimony. Any comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sumpkin.
Let's look at our continuations for this afternoon.
Number six, MI 2022-006-900-9100-Frankford Avenue.
That case is continued.
Thank you. Number two, MI 2022, 006-335-3848-Frankford Avenue.
I vote yes, proviso. Use of rear addition limited to personal storage accessories to single family dwelling.
Thomas Tollman, my vote is yes, proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, proviso.
If you know, Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Number three, MI 2022, 005-915-90 Red Lion Road.
I vote yes to consideration and rehearing.
Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes to rehearing and reconsideration.
James Snell. My vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Ishmael Shaheed. My vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Number four, MI 2022-004-466-1401-South 13th Street. My vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing.
Thomas Holloman my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing
James Snell my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing
Ishmael Shaheed my vote is yes to reconsideration and rehearing
we're going to move to our regular issue we're going to start with number 13 which is a pro se
MI 2022-002-349-1129 South 51st Street. Kong Fon is the applicant. This application is for a
multifamily household living, three dwelling units, in an existing structure. The proposed
multifamily housing living, three dwelling units, is prohibited in the RSA-3 zoning, whereas the
The RSC3 zoning district requires three accessory parking spaces and zero spaces are proposed.
There is a letter of support from the Southwest District Services.
Mr. Pham has joined us as the panelist.
Please unmute yourself, sir.
Sir, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court reporter?
My name is Kwong Dinh Pham, C-U-O-N-G, middle initial is D, last name is P-X-A-M.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, sir. Have you emailed all the documents and exhibits that are required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir.
Please proceed and share your screen and please turn the camera on as well.
Yes, sir.
so how many bedrooms on each on each location on the first floor is only one bedroom
uh second floor is one bedroom the third floor is also one bedroom is this is this building
three stories high? Three plus the attic, sir. Okay. And the rest of the block, are there other
multiple units, houses on this block? Yes, sir. I own the one next door to this. I bought them
maybe 10 years ago. That's what three apartment. And then the one right next to that is also a
three apartments. There are
three,
four houses in the block that
had three apartments