same. They are all for a two-family dwelling with one accessory parking space. So I guess
the board's call if you want to separate this one out what's what's yeah well that's why i was
asking you could explain it better than i could what's the rationale for continuing this when
it's basically the same as the other cases my clients my clients asked me to continue it um so i
My clients asked me to continue it, so I am doing my job as counsel to my clients.
As Ms. Saleta said, it's the board's call. We're prepared to go forward if we need to. If not,
we'll go forward next week. If we need to go forward today, we'll go forward today.
What's the reason for continuing it?
We think, we had some confusion with the RCO, to put it delicately, and we also want to possibly have an opportunity on, specifically on 2011 North Randolph,
We want to go back and review our plan with the RCO one more time to see if we might reach a consensus with them.
Thank you.
All right. Thank you.
I prefer that we go forward with the case.
And if there's anything that comes up during your testimony, we can always make a decision at that point.
But as of now.
Can I have one more thing?
In the letters that I sent to the board this afternoon, the earlier letter from the RCO, they did, they sent in a letter of opposition on 2011, but they then sent a memo stating their non-opposition to the Randolph Street properties.
My assumption was that that superseded the earlier objection to 2011, since they did not single that out as having opposition remaining to that.
Thank you. Any comment, Mr. Slepner?
We don't know when this case gets continued to.
This is true. There was some confusion between me and the leadership of the RCO. I think there was a little bit of confusion between the various individuals who are running the RCO, were running the RCO, and are running the RCO, and will continue to run the RCO in the future.
So I think that there may have been a lot of moving parts. And I'm certainly not trying to pin any sort of blame or responsibility on anybody in particular. But there was a letter, Ms. Saleta, it did relate the facts correctly.
There was a letter from the RCO in opposition to 2011 North Randolph.
The RCO then subsequently issued, we never had a meeting, well, we never had a meeting
on the other properties that I'm going to be presenting on Randolph with the RCO.
They canceled a meeting on us at the last minute last week.
And then, you know, they issued us another letter early this week that stated that they had no position one way or the other, but they didn't want to block us from going forward.
My reading of it may have been different from Ms. Saleda's reading of it.
But in any event, you know, that was my – I could see how that interpretation could be correct as well.
All right. I don't want to belabor this, but I also believe that there were letters from the district council person. I've not been able to, for whatever reason, print those out. But I think there was, and correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon, there was originally letters of opposition from the councilwoman. And then subsequent, there was letters of non-opposition. Is that an accurate statement?
that's correct in that there was an original um letter of opposition strictly to um 2011
randolph street the later letter applied to the other um cases but it was based on the same
memorandum from the rcos that actually requested that you go forward with today's hearing
and stated that they were not opposed to the development on the randolph street properties
without singling out any single property.
With that, Mr. Schlepler, I think you're ahead of the game
if we proceed with that case today.
Then that sounds okay to me.
All right.
Anyone else out there who has any concern
about the continuance we read off
or do anyone out there wish to enter in
a request of continuance or withdrawal?
no hands up chair thank you tanya again carol calendar number 37519 4727 north front street
the attorney is zen jin
good afternoon mr jen can you put your name and address on the record please yes xin jen z h e
n j i n 1617 john f candy boulevard suite 1838 philadelphia pa 19103 here on behalf of the
applicant. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
I do. And do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do. Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm going to go ahead and
information. So this is an application for a change of use of this property for
the creation of a individual lot that will be used for a auto repair business.
The refusal indicates that one this is a CMX2 zoning district and two parking
spaces are required and none are provided however the best way to see this property is through the
photographs what this property is it was a former essentially a warehouse building that has two
large doors that allows access by vehicles right next door is also owned by my client the the
there's a beer distributor next door but this particular building has always been kind of a
warehouse industrial type use and was at one point a auto repair business. In addition
there's still actually an existing lift left in the space from the prior occupant but again that
was not zoned properly even when it was used years ago for that. And now it's been vacated
and empty, but my client wants to make sure zoning is in place before allowing another
tenant in. The space itself is really not conducive to CMX2 type retail uses. It is
really designed more for this kind of proposal. And quite frankly, having spent about two
years trying to rent the space, my client has reflected to the RCO and to myself that the only
applicants for leasing the space that has come to his premises were pretty much all asking for
some kind of automotive repair use. In addition, the next door property is used as a beer distributor
And other parts of the block, including across the street, has also auto repair use and similar type uses.
I want to point out that we actually spent a lot of time working with the neighborhood on this because we had multiple meetings with them due to concerns of existing auto shops, parking cars on the street, and those kind of negative impacts.
But ultimately, my client, having met with the community multiple times and agreeing to certain conditions that they've asked for, we did obtain their support in this matter.
One of the main issues is the parking.
As you can see earlier from the pictures, the space actually has its own fenced-off lot in the front that is private.
and that space can actually hold easily five to ten cars if not more depending on how the space
is filled up. My client agrees to make sure that whoever uses the space will maintain the parking
inside of that lot rather than having overflow going onto the street. The interior space of the
building is over 3,000 square feet. They can easily put four or five cars inside this building
itself as well. So for the most part, we can guarantee the community that no cars will be
left out on the street, whether it's during repair or while customers are visiting the location.
So that is something we agree to. And also the beer distributor would not block the street to
cause a bottleneck effect. And that's certainly agreeable too, as my client is the owner of the
beer distributor and also the building. So finally, the community requested a
proviso with a limitation on the total years of the variance. We have no
objection to that. Again, we understand that they wanted to observe for a
number of years whether this space will be used according to how we said we
would do it. I'm going to jump now to the plans itself.
I'm going to jump now to the plans itself so it can better show the way this space is laid out.
So from the view of this space itself, this is a lot.
There's a 2,765 square foot lot in front of the space.
And this is the building, which itself is 3,400 square feet.
So it's two large spaces.
This is where parking, while it's not designated specifically as parking, cars can be parked here and allowing the space to keep cars off of the street.
So as a result, and due to the fact this building is more of an industrial style building rather than a commercial style building as it exists, we would submit there is a hardship to meeting all the use requirements of CMX2 in this case without having to fundamentally restructure the building altogether.
So we would ask for the board's favorable ruling on this variance request. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions.
Do you have any witnesses?
My client is here with us.
Les, I don't want to mispronounce his last name.
So I would ask he'd spell his name and pronounce it for the board.
We also have here a petition in support.
Many of the immediate neighbors, including across the street and down the street,
have no objections to the proposal itself.
Les, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Good afternoon, sir.
Please identify yourself, name and address, and spell your name for the stenographer.
My name is Les Grycevic, L-E-S.
My name is Grycevic, G-R-Y-C-E-W-I-C-Z.
I am the owner of the property.
les can you also uh give the board your address 4731 north front street philadelphia pennsylvania
i'm sorry i meant to swear you in do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes i swear thank you thank you um les you heard my testimony to the board
can you verify that it is true and correct and adopt it as your own yes
it's true thank you
excuse me looks like the community is asking for a two-year temporary
proviso on their letter yes they are we have we have no problem with that as it
So what we'll do, because of the pandemic and all, we'll start it off.
All right, let me ask you if there's any questions from the board.
No, no.
Anyone else wish to testify in this matter, please raise your hand.
No hands up, Chair.
Thank you again.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board.
David Fecto with the city planning commission. Uh, this property is zoned commercial mixed use
too. The city's comprehensive plan recommends commercial mixed use too. Um, and auto use has
a longstanding history at this location. While we have no objection to the granting of the variance,
we would ask that there be no exterior work or parking on the sidewalk. And we'd also ask that
a landscape buffer be installed at the front of the property to screen the lot from neighboring
properties. Thank you. Mr. Jin, you have any problem, do your client have any problem with
landscaping? If it's similar to what we've seen before in other properties where they can put
planters with tree, some kind of greenery to block the fence, I don't see that as being a problem.
May I interrupt here? If that is such a vague requirement, it would be very difficult for
lni to enforce perhaps okay mr jen's client could just commit to doing land okay all right
we'll give an extra six months on the on the temporary lease okay uh calendar number
three seven five one nine four seven two seven north front street my vote is yes with the following
proviso
somebody's trying to get my attention or is that
with the following proviso parking no parking on sidewalk no exterior construction without proper permitting
No exterior construction without proper permitting and the temporary variance to expire January the 1st, 2023.
Thank you.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Good luck.
Calendar number, calendars number 39959-2021-North Randolph Street, calendar number 39870-2025-North Randolph Street, calendar number 39871-2037-North Randolph Street,
calendar number 39522-2011 North Randolph Street and calendar number 39964-2039 North Randolph
Street. The attorney is Isaac Slepner. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members of the board
Isaac Slepner of Mattione Limited, 100 North Independence Mall West, Suite 5A Northwest,
Philadelphia, PA, 19106, here representing the owners of the aforementioned properties.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Thank you.
You may proceed.
So as Ms. Tenere described, my clients and I are here on five different properties this afternoon.
There are a few different owners of these properties, but all of the owners are LLCs whose primary members are the same individuals.
uh simon shane and david bedar and they are here with me today um i believe that the uh my clients
also have some neighbors of the projects who um are here in support of the projects but i will
just jump in uh on i'll go through 20 uh 2 0 1 1 north randolph first and then through 2 0 2 5
North Randolph, and I'll try to keep this as streamlined as I can with given what we
had discussed earlier.
Let's jump in.
I'm going to start with our printed materials for 2011 North Randolph Street.
So this is our table of contents.
I'm just going to scroll through.
Here we go.
All right.
Exhibit one is our notice of refusal for 2011 North Randolph.
The refusal was issued on 12-2 of 2019. The application is for a two-family dwelling,
three stories, a basement and roof deck. It would be two apartments. Well, we'll go through the
plans, but the refusal is only for use. So that's exhibit one. Exhibit two, I will flip these so
everybody can see them. These are our floor plans and floor plans and elevation. The top here is
the site plan and you can see at 2011 North Randolph is mid block. The front elevation and
rear elevation, it's a pretty standard looking new construction row. And as you look at the plans for
the apartments you've got uh one apartment is um the first floor and basement with the basement
being general living room type area with a powder room actually that's a full bathroom uh closet for
the mechanicals and uh stairs up with an egress obviously at the rear your first floor has a
bedroom and another bath, kitchen, and has access to the rear yard space. Your second and third
floor unit is similar in layout, except it has access to the roof deck, which is right there at
the far right. So we're going to continue to scroll down here. Exhibit, that was exhibit two. Exhibit
three are our site photos and neighborhood photos. And let me take you through these.
Exhibit three. So if you can see this wooden fence where this white car is parked,
that's 2011 North Randolph. Right now it is vacant and abandoned and flat. Empty lot.
There's a fence in front of it. The house you see there is 2013 North Randolph.
There's a fence in front of it. The house you see there is 2013 North Randolph, and at some point, the property line is through the middle of that fence, and the other vacant flat lot to the other side is 2009 North Randolph, roughly where that Mercedes is sitting.
All right, we're going to take you through this. The fenced portion, that's our property, 2011 North Randolph. These are houses, that's 2013 and 2015 North Randolph. I believe those are occupied, although I've never seen any people there, but I haven't been there too frequently. I've been there a few times to take photos.
again that's 2011 with a view of 2009 and a view of 2013 and if you look behind that's new
construction on Reese Street because these lots this lot of 2011 North Randolph it actually is
a street-to-street lot it is it runs through from Randolph to Reese Street and behind it you can see
there's some new multifamily construction being put up there on Reese. When this picture was
taken, I want to say this was taken in January of this year. They've gotten further along on
that construction. But in any event, we're not here for them. We're here for my guys.
This is more of the surroundings. So here's a walk down the block, shall we say, of this block
of North Randolph. So there you see two houses, 2013 and 2015 North Randolph. As you go forward,
you see there's a junked car with some busted tires, there's a driveway, and then there's a