and accommodations by which families,
again with children with very substantial challenges
could visit Philadelphia and take full advantage of the tourism and tourist attractions that exist here.
Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. Excuse me. You have any architectural drawings?
I can have Jeffrey Peters jump on. The architectural drawings weren't included since they're not subject to the proposed use of variants.
I can provide those separately if that's requested.
provide them how i can send them uh via email to the rco and to uh sharon as well
so you have no floor plans
jeff if you could invite jeff and let him speak jeff peters he's with the architects
do you have pictures of the proposal yeah jeff if you're if you're on
great good afternoon sir please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
spell jeffrey peters j-e-f-f-r-e-y peters p-e-t-e-r-s do you swear a firm to tell
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please proceed tom mr holliman had a
question yes um we didn't include the architectural drawings inside this submission because we were
submitting for the use change before we developed the four plans
Tom you're breaking up would not the use change reflect in the floor plans
it would but um we can provide a set of schematic design plans that we developed for the school
to submit to the committee if that's required yeah and it was our understanding that we would
just be submitting for the proposed
use variance and then that the school would proceed
forward to more fully
develop the exact
floor plans after
hopefully obtaining the proposed
variance.
Correct.
You have interior pictures?
Correct.
No interior photos,
but we do have exterior
photos that
Ruben is showing on the screen right now.
So this is currently the
um the exterior view of the house um and the school is uh yeah these are the exterior views
of the house and as jeff or can todd can discuss more fully what the intended renovation of the
interior will look like uh in concept um and if the schematic designs will be helpful jeff i can
stop sharing my screen um and you can share those designs um yes um i could bring that up um so
the actual um interior renov well the renovations would include an exterior ramp which would be a
concrete ramp um and then the interior renovations uh todd described them as extensively but
But in VMA's opinion, it wouldn't be removing any structural walls or any kind of that type of work.
It would be adding the lift for the bed, changing some door openings.
for the bed, changing some door openings, enlarging some doors to 36 inches,
and renovating a kitchen, not moving around any fixtures, but updating cabinetry and whatnot.
Any proposed living space below grade?
No. No. And our work would be limited to the first and second floor.
Thank you.
And this, the second floor work would include finish upgrades, which is painting, plaster,
and then maybe new carpeting and items like that.
Are you subject to any ADA requirements or others, do you have to be inspected and approved?
um i know we're we're subject to um historic commission approval for any exterior renovations
the ada improvements would be um i think todd would know if he's getting any grant funding from
uh the pennsylvania then we would be under requirements to uh have ada on the first
and ground floor but not to the second floor. We'll be providing that restroom and bedroom
on the first floor as our ADA items. Thank you. Tom Holloman, do you have any other questions?
No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Asia, I think you could summarize.
yeah so um i basically just to summarize quickly as well the um the school has always had a very
good working relationship with the community of the overbrook farms club they've broached this
topic with the farms club over overbrook farms club uh over over two years ago when initially
presented the the ofc was concerned about the school potentially selling this property off at
later date with this variance that would then run with the land. The parties agreed that the school
would consolidate this parcel along with the adjacent parcel to the right into the remainder
of the campus which is currently in process. And then recently during the RCO meeting we were
requested where we were asked if we would include a deed restriction which would limit the use of
this variance to the school and anyone who used the remainder of the school campus
for a for a the education of children who are visually impaired with or without additional
disabilities um that was agreed to um the parties have agreed to the language so set forth in the
letter from the rco which has been provided to you and that is a short synopsis of the discussions
and how we got to today before you thank you all right if i could just have a todd also adopt
todd do you agree with the accuracy of what i presented i do for today yes great and you would
adopt you would adopt it as your own yes i would great thank you sorry mr chairman nope thank you
any other questions from the board no no anyone else to testify in this case if so please raise
raise your hand. Yes, we have a Mr. Henry. Mr. Henry, you can unmute yourself and wait for the
chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Henry. Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in. Oh, good
morning. For some reason didn't come through. Hal Shermer, actually. S-C-H-I-R-M-E-R. Just want
to follow up with what Ruben said. You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing about the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. I just want to verify that Ruben's
discussion of the communications back and forth between the RCO and the owners have been going
on for a while. Everybody seems to be okay. The only complication is that this parcel is being
consolidated, so you've got three different parcels all getting jammed into one. Aside from that,
uh my clients are fine and they support the project thank you thank you very much anyone else to testify
no more hands on the doctor thank you planning commission thank you chair
nicole ozdemir staff for the city planning commission
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single-family detached residential zoning at this location.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single family detached
The proposed personal care home complements the existing functions of the educational campus
and does not present any negative impacts on the surrounding properties.
Accordingly, we recommend that the requested variance be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2021-001-713-6398 Woodbine Avenue.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Next case, number 12, MI 2021-001-725.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be dropping off now.
Thank you, John.
Appreciate your help.
Thank you.
Have a good one.
All right, let me rewrite. Let me read that back in. MI 2021-001-725-6830 Ridge Avenue.
There is a letter of support from the Ridge Park Civic Association. Mr. O'Brien is the attorney of rec.
uh good afternoon mr chairman uh william o'brien w-i-l-l-i-a-m o'brien o-b-r-i-e-n
uh attorney for uh 60 30 68 30-32 ridge partners llc you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole
truth nothing but the truth i do you agree to waive and stipulate to his accuracy of this
application i do have you read an email then have you read any excuse me have you emailed an exhibit
packet with the required documents including proof of ownership proof of tax compliance a copy of
the refusal or referral and photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing
yes all information's been also have you met with the rca and do you have a letter yes rco and do
you have a letter i apologize yes thank you please proceed thank you uh with uh us on this hearing
is Steve Oshetsky, who's going to my right. He's managing member of the LLC. And also on this
hearing is Chris Karakoff, the project architect. There is a preliminary matter, Mr. Chairman.
This is one of two companion cases. They were both filed at the same time. The other case is 6832
Two Ridge Avenue. That required an in-depth review by the Water Department, and the refusal was
delayed as a result of that review for weeks. When the refusal was promptly, when the refusal
was issued, an appeal was promptly filed, and the board was put on notice confirming prior notices
sent in March and April, that this was a companion case. As of right now, however, the board has
decided not to hear them together. I understand that Councilman Jones has asked on behalf of my
clients, as well as the RCO, which supports it, to hear both cases and vote on both cases today.
It would be efficient, but if the board chooses to hear them separately, that is, of course,
your decision excuse me mr o'brien this is sharon slett if i could just correct you on one thing
the refusal for the second just may finish please um if the board decides not to hear them together
i would ask that the hearing date for 6832 ridge avenue be scheduled it's been it was appealed as
i said over a month ago uh a separate appeal fee has been sent to the board on july 9th
$750, but there's been no scheduling of that case. And I'm sorry, now I'm finished. Please,
Sharon, go forward. Just let me correct you. The board was, the board administrator was willing to
schedule these together, and I believe told you that she would at the time you first approached
her after you'd filed the first appeal. You said that it would be a matter of a week or so before
you filed the second. That was in February. The first refusal was issued on February 16th.
The second refusal was issued not weeks later, but four months later. It was issued on 6-18-21.
These can't be heard together today. They are not on the list for today. They are not on the
online calendar. I don't believe you received posters for the second property. And as far as
the hearing date. Ms. Sunkit is away on vacation. I'm sure that she will sign a date when she
returns. We'll ask Ms. Sunkit to find you a date as soon as possible.
If I may share my screen.
Please.
So the documents, as I said, it's a companion case, so all the documents have both properties.
I will focus the testimony on 6830 Ridge Avenue.
The exhibit binder that was sent to the board includes copies of the refusals on pages two and three,
The RCO support ladder, pages four and five.
Site photographs, page six, is the site photograph of 6830 Ridge Avenue.
Prior approvals have been issued for the project, including historic streets, water.
Pages 13 through 23 show surrounding uses, and that the zoning for this property,
residential single-family attached, has nothing to do, and nothing in common,
with this block of Ridge Avenue in Philadelphia.
Let me skip to page eight.
Oh, page six, right?
So this is 6830 Ridge Avenue.
It is a one-story block building,
currently uses a nail salon,
again, which is non-conforming.
This structure is not considered contributing to the Ridge Avenue Historic District,
and the Historic Commission has approved both the demolition of the structure
and the proposed structure that you'll see in a moment.
Going through pages 13 to 23 real quick,
um this is uh the building uh one to the right of these two properties as you can see it is a
historic building it is considered contributing uh this is the building to the left of 6830 again
it is historic is considered contributing which is why the two properties that we're talking about
6830 and 32 uh receive such attention from the neighborhood and from the from the historic
Commission to make sure that this was treated properly. In terms of the surrounding uses,
these sets of twins, which are a little bit to the north in the same block,
are proposed to be demolished for a by right 77 unit structure, which is currently before the
Civic Association one design review. A little bit next to that is a Wells Fargo branch.
across the street is a shop right across the street from that is a funeral home
there's an insurance company office a little bit south of that the same block
a law office and another cpa office a real estate office
a bar and barber shop and another dental office
um so in this block there really aren't any there's there's i think one there'll be one
single family but it's not it's a it's a it's not a detached structure there's will be one single
family uh left in the block but these are not um uh the the res the the this block is not
residential single family. If I can get to page 25, and the subject of this appeal 6830
is the building on the left. This is the building that is proposed to replace the
one-story nail salon. It is a commercial use on the first floor. Café is represented in the
renderings with three dwelling units. That is a closer view of that building.
and there's even a better view that shows the porch
and it is set back the same distance
as the existing structure next to a 6832
which was a request from the Historic Commission
and this building on the left is the 6832
property. I'd ask Chris Karakoff to raise his hand and be acknowledged.
Please spell your full name and I'll swear you in.
Yes, my name is Chris Karakoff.
Yes, my name is Chris Karakoff, C-H-R-I-S-C-A-R-I-C-K-H-O-F-F.
Do you swear for me to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. Karakoff, if you could focus your comments on 6830.
I brought up, I believe, what is the first floor plan.
Could you describe what that represents?
Sure. What we're looking at is a proposed three-unit and one commercial unit detached structure.
We are aligning the front facade with the historic neighboring building, as well as the building to the south of our project as well, which is consistent with this street on Ridge Avenue.
We're proposing a commercial tenant to the front of the building and a unit on the ground
floor and basement level toward the rear, along with a porch on the front facade that
would serve the commercial tenant.
Second floor is the second unit.
It's a single bedroom.
It occupies the entire second floor of the building, and then the third floor is a similar
layout which has a third unit.
In terms of elevations, how is the elevation of this structure compared with the surrounding
structures?