This is for the properties at 5143 and 5145 Irving Street,
located only a few blocks away from the previous properties that we discussed on Randstead Street,
right off of the 52nd Street corridor, commercial corridor, that is.
What I have up on the screen right now, and I hope you all can see,
is the table of contents for the previously submitted packets.
with all the requisite materials, including the refusal appeal and project information forms at
page one, area zoning maps at page five. When we filed this application, members of the board,
this area was zoned CMX3. It's my understanding that as of today, one of the parcels is zoned
RSA5, while the other is zoned CMX2.5. I don't think that affects really our proposal for today,
but I think it's important for the board to be aware of that change in the underlying months.
The deeds for the properties are at page six.
Commercial activity license is at page 15.
Tax clearance at page 16.
Zoning notification letter is at page 19.
And again, we handed out several hundred copies to Walnut Hill at their request so they could
personally flyer the neighborhood in addition to the letters that went out.
As you'll notice, there's no RCO letter attached.
I'll address that.
Although this was presented to the community at the same time as the previous projects
for Ranstead Street.
there remains one underlying issue which is not related to zoning but I'll get
into that with the board in the moment see photos of the property begin at
page 22 members of the board what I'll do now is I will change my view I'll get
to the zoning area map first so members of the board you can see this is the
block that we're discussing. These two lots right here, the lots at issue, the one that is
these two lots right here the lots at issue the one that is highlighted here
is 43 this is 45 as I said when we initially submitted the application this
was also in CMX 3 you can see that underlying zoning has now changed this
is an overhead shop of an area 52nd Street corridor is right here it's at
page five of the zoning packet members the board I'm just moving forward to the photographs of
the property itself so members of the board what I'm showing you now is page 22 of my packet showing
the building at issue and the lot directly next to it. The upper left hand side, this is a view
looking westbound at 52nd Street. The photograph on the upper right hand side is another view
looking westbound. The picture to the bottom left is the structure as it currently exists
and the zoning signs that I posted are also on the property. Moving to page 23, we just see
additional photos of the lot and the surrounding area. The photo of the upper right is directly
across the street. The photo to the bottom left is also directly across the street looking slightly
eastbound. You see there are garages here. My understanding from speaking with neighbors is
that these two windows above the garage are currently occupied as apartments. And then this
photograph to the bottom right, members of the board on page 23, is looking eastbound. You see
the residences here with porches off to the north side of the street. These commercial garages with
potential apartments above them and then other residences further down. I'm now
showing you the next page of my packet members of the board. This is a proposed
rendering for the two properties. What we're essentially asking to do is take
the two lots, consolidate them into one, and build a total of nine units plus a
roof deck. The building itself is four stories and will be about 42 feet, four
inches tall. We received variances for not providing all street parking and for
the side yard. We'll get into that in a minute. The reason we didn't want to provide all street
parking is that the lot size and shape isn't really conducive to doing so, especially for
this number of units. In addition, we're located so close to the 52nd Street L-stop that it didn't
make a ton of sense to take curb cuts and privatize parking when residents on the street
are already enjoying parking on the street. The side yards itself, when we get to the overall
plans we'll see we have a side yard here so that we are giving space to the property that is facing
52nd street we also have an area to the east of the property so we're not tying into the houses
that are directly next to it as well i'm showing you the zoning plan at this point members of the
board you can see on the upper left hand side this was the previous zoning for the property itself
I'll just zoom in to the elevation and give it a minute to load.
So we can see here's the four story proposal, it's about 42 feet 4 inches tall as I previously
discussed and we do have balconies for each of the units to allow for some outdoor space.
The reason that we did this, in addition to allowing for outdoor space, is that the other homes on the block all have front porches, and we wanted to kind of provide that sort of outdoor feeling for these units, just as all the other houses on the block already enjoy.
This is the rear, with the additional balconies that are available to the rear-facing units.
And this is a side elevation of the property as well.
Going to the bottom of the page, members of the board, we see the actual zoning overhead map showing the site plan.
To the front, off to the left of the street is Randstead Street.
This is the alley that I was discussing previously, rear yard area.
And we have this secondary alley, so we're not tying into the property to the east, which is to the south, pardon me, to the bottom of this drawing.
So members of the board, this is the floor plan showing the cellar first and second floors.
I'll zoom in on each of those independently so that we all have the opportunity to review.
Maybe, okay.
So what I'm showing now, members of the board, off to the left of that page is the cellar
plan where we have mechanical, trash, and bike storage for each of the units.
towards the middle we have dining living and kitchen space and dining living
We have dining, living, and kitchen space, and dining, living, and kitchen space for two bi-level units.
Go into the first floor plan.
To the front, we have unit number one, which is about 650 square feet.
The proposed rent for that unit is the same as what we proposed for Ranstead Street,
so around, give or take, $1,150, $1,200 per month, one bedroom, one bath.
Units two and three, as I discussed previously, are bi-level. Unit two is 1,261 square feet,
two bedroom, one and a half bath. And unit three, about 1,905 square feet, two bedroom, one and a
half bath. Moving up now to the second story, we have units four and units five. Unit four is 1,000
square feet, two-bedroom, two-bath. Unit 5 is 950 square feet, two-bedroom, two-bath.
To the bottom of the plan, you can see the balconies, as previously discussed,
then also the balconies to the rear. Zooming out and moving to the next page,
members of the board, we have the third and fourth floor plans. These plans are essentially
identical to what we had on the lower floor on the second floor unit six thousand square feet
unit seven a thousand square feet unit eight a thousand square feet unit nine thousand square
feet and each of those are two bed two baths we do have roof deck as well which would be accessible
to the top two units it's set back sufficiently from the street so that there's privacy
for the neighbors and it's set back from the rear yard area as well to allow for privacy from the
rear. That'll be for the use of Units 8 and 9 on the top.
Members of the board, as I discussed before with the previous properties on Randstead,
my client looked specifically to HUD data and trying to price these units because it is new
construction and we aim to have these units be at 80% AMI for affordability. The biggest issue
that we had with the community group was the issue of rents. And the last conversation we
had with them was the community group basically not giving us an approval letter because what
they wanted us to do is make two of these units affordable in their minds, which is essentially
half of what we were looking to offer these units for. And frankly, if we were to offer these units
at half of two of the units, rather, at half of what the proposed rents would be, this project
simply doesn't work, and we're not able to do what we want to do with the project.
that's the only reason at this point that as far as i understand that we don't have
a letter of support from walnut hill we had a meeting with them in person i had a pre-meet
with them months ago we've had continuing conversations with the community group
since the actual meeting itself we spoke with their board my client lavar has been in contact
with them but with if we try to make these units any less expensive with new construction prices
is what they are right now. And the cost of simply building the building, we just can't make this
work. Logan, are you still on the line? Yep. Logan, now you did the design for this property?
Correct. Can you tell me specifically, when looking to this parcel, when you were doing
the consolidation plan, what were your considerations when designing this property
to be in line with what at the time was CMX3 zoning?
I mean, just kind of speaking briefly without, you know, repeating too much of what you said,
one of the first things we tried to do was see what made the most sense with multifamily and providing parking.
So, you know, our first sort of step was to see if we can do any sort of on-site parking to facilitate, you know, the number of units.
And what we found was that the width of the property in order to do parking spaces that were, let's say, on the ground floor level, where you'd essentially have a garage that faces the street.
The two problems that we had was basically there wasn't enough width in the lot to do parking spaces inside the building and have the required drive aisles that are needed for clearances to actually get into those spots.
And then we kind of looked back and said, all right, well, what if we just had cars pulling into the front?
And what we didn't like about that was, you know, generally you don't like to look at the back end of cars that are lining the whole front side of the property.
Not only that, the streets department wouldn't give us a curb cut that large.
So what we did is we said, you know, hey, let's design something that's more in keeping with RM1 versus CMX3, since at the time the other properties in the block were RM1.
So, again, we tried to keep the massing to four stories, whereas CMX3 would let us go probably up to about five or six stories.
We didn't think that was appropriate.
We didn't think that was appropriate.
So, again, what we did was, you know, kept everything close to that.
So again, what we did was kept everything close to that 38-foot height that's cohesive
with RM1.
We did keep the existing alley between this property and the other houses in doing so
and not doing the parking.
That curb cut gets closed up, so there's about two street spaces now added to the street.
And then the only other thing we did that we got a refusal for, but we felt it was in
the better interest of not only our building but the adjacent buildings that are fronting
the other street leo i don't i don't what street is that but it basically the backyards that back
up onto the left side of our property where we're creating that three foot side yard
yeah so the houses that front 52nd street their rear yards back up onto our property so again
rather than building our building right up against and having to deal with fence lines
and things like that you know we wanted to create a little bit more breathing room there so we
created the side yard on our property and the other side sort of again twofold for additional
egress from the back but also just to give a little bit more breathing room from you know the
existing homes property lines and fences and rear yards that exist back there. Other than that we
just sort of look to some of the context in the area in terms of the front porches we you know
I wanted to integrate some eyes and ears on the street.
So we integrated some small balconies into our design as well.
And then again,
another thing with RCO groups and neighborhoods that we typically do
developments in is, you know, the roof deck,
we didn't feel a need to make it a community roof deck for all,
all of the units to use.
We kind of gave everybody their own individual outdoor spaces,
whether it be through a balcony, the rear yard,
or in the case of the upper two units, their own private roof decks.
So we really tried to design something that was more in keeping with an RM1 zoning, which at the time is what was, you know, attached to us, as opposed to kind of going off for CMX3 zoning and putting something there that really, you know, wasn't appropriately sized.
Thank you, Logan. LeVar, are you still on the line?
Yes, I am. Can you hear me?
Yes, LeVar. LeVar, you've been previously sworn. Do you have anything you'd like to add at this point?
No, I do not.
And you've heard my testimony?
Yes, I have.
And it's been accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
And for the purpose of today's hearing, you adopt my testimony as your own?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
Members of the board, the last thing I'd like to add that if we were even looking at today's
underlying zoning for these lots is CMX 2.5 and RSA 5.
had we were to build a single family home
and a CMX 2.5 compliant property
that also wouldn't address the issues of affordability
with the neighborhood
considering the cost to build a new single family home
which would put a price point of around $400,000.
For a CMX 2.5,
there's a little bit more flexibility with that
but the rents would still essentially be the same
for similar size units
only because construction costs are basically the same
if not more expensive if you were building two buildings
rather than just one building like this in addition that would require some sort
of commercial use on the street and given the fact that this is a
residential street for the most part and we're right off of the 52nd Street
commercial corridor it simply doesn't make sense from our perspective in
context so for purposes of this application my testimony is complete
we're happy to take any questions you have thank you
questions from the board no no no no anyone else who wishes to testify in this matter please raise
your hand chair we have katherine katherine you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in
Hello, can you hear me?
Hi, my name is Katherine Kaplan and I live at 5137 Irving Street, apartment number two, Philadelphia, PA, 19139.
Hello, can you hear me?
now we can okay um i hit mute by mistake do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed ma'am i live a few houses down from the proposed
development at 5143 5145 irving street the 5100 block of irving street is a small one-way street
The 5100 block of Irving Street is a small, one-way street where you can only park on
where you
one side.
Parking is a huge issue for residents.
There is already significant congestion on the street every day, with people parking on
the sidewalks, double parking, and delivery vehicles blocking the street.
The proposed development is nine units and will offer no parking for those nine units.
There will be an undue burden on many longtime residents who live here.
some of which who are elders or differently abled people who need to park close to their house.
The developers offered no solutions for the issue of parking during a community meeting with the
Walnut Hill Community Association, only stating that it would be possible that some residents
might not have vehicles, when in fact it is also possible that the addition of nine units could