CHAIR, WE HAVE 12 ATTENDEES.
YOU CAN PROCEED AS YOU WISH.
BILL BERGMAN, I WILL BE CHAIRING THIS MORNING'S EBA HEARINGS.
Before we start, we want to take just a moment of silence for Joanne Epps, Temple's great president and former dean of the law school.
She's just affected so many people in the city, suddenly died yesterday.
So we're going to just take 60 seconds of a moment of silence.
Thank you.
Thank you.
With me today is our Vice Chair, Ismail Shaheed.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also here is Hillary Emerson, our Attorney, and our Executive Director, Tanya Sunkit.
Here's our virtual format.
Be advised, the proceedings are being recorded.
a 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.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen
is not for comments or testimony.
All comments are directed to our Executive Director,
Tanya Sunder.
Let's look at today's schedule for continuances.
MI 2023-001-348-4704 Wayne Avenue.
That case is continued.
Number eight, MI 2021-004-387-6809 Woodland Avenue. That case is continued. Mark must be tried.
Number nine, MI 2023-001-349-4706 Wayne Avenue. That case is continued.
And number 12, MI-2023-001-368-1623, North 33rd Street.
That case is continued.
Are there any comments relative to the four cases that have been continued?
Good morning, Chair.
This is Doreen Blakey, and I will be your co-host today.
Thank you, Doreen.
You're welcome.
I see no hands.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
I have a hand up from Scott Miller. I will allow him to speak.
Can you please unmute?
Yes. And following the chairman's kind remembrance, I actually knew Joanne Epps and had a lot of conversations.
she's the same age as i am so yeah i'm just kind of on shaky grounds here but i'm sure for the
benefit of everybody that may be listening in little known fact that joanne when she was in
high school was voted the i guess it's still okay to say that the most attractive uh lady in the
class so i used to kid her about that she she i think you could say that could you state your
name, please, and spell for the court stenographer. My name is Scott Miller. I'm an attorney in the
county. Mr. Miller, just for the record, could you spell your name for the court stenographer?
Well, M-I-L-L-E-R. All right. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? I so affirm and swear. All right. What case? I'm appearing on the
council for the applicant on the property at 33rd street it's uh calendar number mi 2023 dash
00 1368 right and uh my the property is owned by two clients one of them is a very confident
architect the other one was supposed to have uh taken care of some of the preliminary matters
here today and i can unfortunately state that neither the community group outreach the
uh stirbury mansion development group nor the posting are compliant from my point of view
and i would respectfully request that we yeah that's right that case that that case has already
been continued mr miller let's continue all right thank you well thank you for my business thank you
All right. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. We appreciate it.
for your comments we appreciate my business
And my business here is finished. Thank you, sirs.
Is there anyone else with a request for continuance?
Yes, Chair. I have Vern Anastasio with the hand up, and I will allow him to speak.
Good morning, Vern.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. It's Vern Anastasio, V-E-R-N, last name A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Case number?
I'm looking at 4825A Street, A as in apple.
Right.
I'd like to withdraw the case.
Oh, okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So number five, MI 2022-007-572-4825A Street.
That case has been withdrawn.
Any other requests for continuances or withdrawals?
Yes, Christopher Brown has a hand up and Charles Richardson.
I will give Christopher Brown, allow him to speak.
Mr. Brown, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court?
My name is Christopher Brown, C-H-R-I-S-T-O-P-H-E-R-B-R-O-W-N.
I would like to withdraw my application.
Hold on.
Hold on one minute.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
In your case, it's 7030 North Broad Street?
And you're going to withdraw?
Yes, sir.
Thank you for taking the time to call us.
We appreciate it.
So, number four, MI-2022-005-929-7030 North Broad Street, that case has been withdrawn. Thank you, sir.
Okay, I have just a few cases here.
Excuse me, Chair. I have Charles Richardson with a hand up.
Oh, sure.
He's been allowed to speak.
Morning, Mr. Richardson. Could you state your name, please, for the record?
All right, now I'm unmuted. Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, R-I-C-H-A-R-D-S-O-N, Room 508 City Hall.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, sir.
Please proceed.
Had a question with regard to 547 High Street, and I don't know whether you might have gotten any materials. There's no meeting that has taken place as yet with the RCO.
I didn't have all those yet. Let me see here.
What number is that? Number two. Number two on the list, Mr. Chair.
So. So I have that listed as no exhibit second listing. I'm going to call that shortly.
Great. OK, thank you, Mr. Chair. Sure, sure.
Okay. Let's go to number two. MI 2022-005-923-547 High Street. Listing owner is Anthony Green. No exhibits. This is the second listing. No one's appeared at the first listing. Mark must be heard. Mr. Green.
Anthony green if you're in the audience can you please raise your hand
no handshare thank you so MI 2022 005 923 547 high street
second list and no one's appeared at the first we have no exhibits I vote to dismiss
Thomas Holloman, I vote to dismiss.
Ishmael Shaheem, my vote is to dismiss.
Thank you.
And number 11, MI 2023 001 369 1432 Sterling Street, no exhibits first listing.
Owner is Maria Palantino
Maria Palantino
Palantino
Okay, thank you
We don't see her?
No, she's not in the audience
Okay, thank you
So MI 2023
001 369 1432 Sterling Street
This case is continued
mark must be tried.
And number one, MI 2022-006-112-4226.
0 0 6 1 1 2 42 26 otter street this case has been withdrawn it's a withdrawal
all right we're going to go to our add-on case mi 2022 003 075 2050 welsh road i vote no
Thomas Holloman
my vote is no
Ishmael Shaheed
my vote is no
thank you
we're going to go to our regular list
we're going to hear two cases together
number 3 and number 13
number 3 is
MI 2023
001 377
1829 Diamond Street
and number 13
MI 2023-001-370-1825 Diamond Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney for both these cases.
There is a letter of strong support from the 32nd Ward RCO for both cases.
Mr. Clinton.
Morning, Mr. Chairman.
Henry Clinton is promoted.
Thank you.
Mr. Clinton, could you, and you're okay with hearing both these at the same time, right?
Absolutely.
Could you state your name for the record, please?
Henry Clinton, H-E-N-R-Y, Clinton, C-L-I-N-T-O-N.
Right.
You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you please identify your client, the relationship to the both properties?
My client is Jerry Boyce and Pete McElholt.
And Pete McElholt is not on the call, but Jerry Boyce is.
B-O-Y-C-E.
Right.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I did for the majority of the documents. Within the last couple of days, I sent in the tax compliance documentation.
and today I also have historical commission approval documents included in the package
that were not there five days ago. Thank you Mr. Clinton. Please proceed and share your screen.
Mr. Clinton this is Hillary. Is the owner the your client that you reference is that the same
for both properties because each of them has a different listed owner on the deed? Yes. Okay so
the same principle for both of the llc's right it would be jerry boyce v-o-y-c-e and pete mckelhill
m-c-e-l-h-i-l-l okay thank you thank you miss emerson
Mr. Chairman, can you see my coverage?
We can, sir.
So as Chairman suggested, we're going to hear both cases together, and I'm going to do the presentation for 1825 Diamond, Mr. Chairman.
And then after that, I'll just ask that that be adopted as the same testimony for 1829.
Would that be acceptable?
It would be.
Good morning again, Mr. Chairman.
Henry Clinton, on behalf of 1825 Diamond, R-E-L-L-C, principal of which is Gerald Boyce, who is on the call, as well as Pete McElhill, whose name I just spelled.
This is my table of contents for the presentation today, containing Exhibits A1 through A11, as well as the Historical Commission approval, which I ask to be admitted into the record for 1825 as well as 1829.
The refusal for both properties, and when I reference both properties, I do mean 1825 and 1829 Diamond Street.
Refusals are the same.
The request is for six dwelling units in an existing structure.
And the refusal is one for lot area because it is zoned RM1.
The multifamily is permitted.
And we're a mere 80 feet or so off the require for a buy-right project.
And the other refusal is for parking spaces.
And as I'll show the board, there are other multifamily properties on this block with units in excess of six.
none of which have off-street parking.
We do have a letter, and Mr. Chairman, you mentioned at the outset,
it is one of strong support from the neighborhood community group.
And again, not reading into it, but I think one of the reasons was
The reasons were, was because of the facades that these both buildings have.
because of the facades that...
I mean, it's pretty detailed.
It was run through a historical commission with a lot of back and forth because this
is an historic corridor.
And if you've read the Inquirer recently, Ms. Judith Robinson is very prominent in that
neighborhood, trying to save as many historical properties, many owned by Black professionals
on Diamond Street and in the surrounding area.
and she was very, very supportive.
And that's why she said her letter of support
would indicate that it was a strong letter of support
and it is quoted in the letter itself
being as the chairman described it,
where the asterisk is a strong vote of support.
These are photographs.
This is an existing property in the middle.
My client's properties are to the left
and right of this structure.
You can see they're under construction.
But we have not started the front facade.
And the reason we started the building is because it is a by right five unit project.
But as the floor plan was laid out, it became obvious that the building was so large that another unit really would make sense.
And it would make it compatible with the other buildings that are on the block.
Again, just another photograph of 1825 to the left, 1829 to the right.
and in the middle is 1827 these are photographs of the posting of the
notices you can see the orange placard in the front of the building and these
are the plans as I said this is a rather large lot we don't have any issues with
height open space or rear yard basically we have six apartments we have one
apartment on the basement and first floor front basement and first floor rear third is on the
second floor front third floor second floor rear then the fifth and sixth is on the third floor
front and third floor rear we have no roof deck and what you'll be able to see from the plans is
while we have access from the front door we also have an alleyway leading down to basically the
middle of the building. And these switchback steps help the tenants or future tenants
to gain access to the upper units. And you can see the stairwell is repeated at first floor,
second floor, and third floor. This is a site plan indicating we have approval from the water
department. Again, it is a rather large lot in terms of depth, over 100 feet. And we also have
a wide area in the front, over 20 feet.
I just want to spend a few moments, if I can, here, Chairman, on the facade.
I don't usually do this, but because of the support of the community group
and the historical commission, I think it's pretty significant to show the board the detail
that is going to be part of the facade of both of these structures.
Again, this was an historic area.
My clients took photographs of what the buildings used to look like, met with the Historical Commission virtually through a number of email exchanges.
And over time, the Historical Commission was accepting the design as proposed, actually proposed by them in terms of the windows and the pediment heads, as well as the facade at the lower level.
detail above the windows. Again, some cast stone would be here to mimic the brownstone of years
past. We also have cast stone windowsills. And what was raised at one of the community meetings
is, you know, why do you have pediment heads over all three windows and, excuse me, two windows and
the one door on the first floor and on the second floor, but nothing over the window to the left?
The answer is that's what the photograph depicted.
So we basically mimic the photographs from yesteryear.
And basically you're gonna have a facade
that was in place in the 20s and 30s.
And both buildings again, are gonna have the same facade.
They're gonna have the same floor plan layout
and the same side alley access
to get to the switchback stairs that lead to the upper units.
again this is just a site plan uh but i wanted to show you this because we have approval from
the streets department because again there's a window well in the front of the house
that imposes upon the sidewalk it doesn't extend beyond where the stairs project from the front
first floor elevation but we need a streets department approval from that for that we also
First floor elevation, but we need a streets department approval for that.
We also have L&I approval for the entire project.
The remaining documents are the typical documents you would see in an application.
Henry, just out of curiosity, L&I's approval is for the six units?
No, no, their approval is for the floor plans, the elevations.
Okay, all right, okay.
That there's no open space issues, height issues.
Okay, all right. Fine. Thank you.
I didn't mean to infer that, so thank you for that question.
This is the tax certification that we do have.
The zoning map indicating that this entire row is RM1.
The deed.
Our notice letter.
And then these are the documents.
It's a zoning record.
I just wanted to point out to the chairman that 1827,
which is the property between our property, is zoned for seven units.
That was the one existing brownstone.
This is the property down the street.
This is also 1827, excuse me, again, indicating seven units.
This is 1821, 1823.
This has eight units, eight family dwelling.
And these are the historical commission approvals.
Again, very detailed requirements for windows.
And the green stamp is typical of the stamps issued by the historical commission.
And we have the same approvals for 1829.
so even the moldings that surround the windows
have to be approved by the historical commission
the details
even the hardware the latches on the window
we had to run that by the historical commission that had to be approved
So, there are the approvals for both projects, and I think that's why, in part, why the neighborhood group, Ms. Robinson, strolling supported this application.
So, in summary, this is a situation where we have existing structures, which the floor plan easily would accommodate a sixth unit.
We're coming to the board asking for that sixth unit.
We have all the necessary approvals in place, streets, L&I, as well as historical.
We have a unique circumstance here on Diamond Street, which was a historical corridor.
It's multifamily in between these two buildings in excess of what we're asking for,
as well as adjacent to this property on the east side with units in two more units than what we
have. We're not altering the essential character of the neighborhood. We're actually bringing
back an historical facade that is in harmony with what the neighborhood wants. It's in harmony with
the code. And we're not really affecting any latent error or development of any adjacent
and properties. And with that, I ask that all my submissions be admitted, and that I'd be
permitted to have my client adopt my testimony. Yes, you can, and please bring your client on.
Mr. Boyce, can you unmute yourself?
Jerry, can you raise your hand and unmute yourself?
i know he's on the call mr chairman yeah he's there he just needs to unmute
jerry please unmute yourself can you hear me now yes we can sir could you state your name
please and spell for the court stenographer sure gerald boyce g-e-r-a-l-d last name boyce b-o-y-c-e
right do you swear or affirm tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
I do. Proceed, counsel. Mr. Boyce, you heard my presentation concerning 1825 diamond in conjunction with 1829 diamond. Is that correct? Yes. And you were on the entire call? Correct. And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Boyce.
Hi, questions from the board.
no chair no mr chairman thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
no hands chair planning commission morning chair bergman this is ian hegarty
Good morning, Chair Bergman. This is Ian Hegarty, appearing on behalf of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Last name spelled H-E-G-A-R-T-Y.
appearing on behalf of the philadelphia city planning
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, I do.
Please proceed.
All right. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Board members.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RM1 multifamily zoning at the location of either of these appeals.
The proposed use variances for a dwelling unit count are minimal and do not conflict with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code.
And the proposed parking variance is supported by a hardship stemming from the size and shape of the existing buildings.
City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the variances for 1825 and 1829 Diamond Street.
Thank you.
MI 2023-001-377-1829 Diamond Street.
And MI 2023-001-370-1825 Diamond Street, I vote yes to both.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes to both.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes to both.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Consul.
he has been promoted it looks like he dropped off
can you hear me good morning Mr. Consul please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
Joseph J-O-S-E-P-H last name Consul C-O-N-S-O-L-E right do you swear a firm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth I do could you identify your client in relationship to this
property. Yes, my client is Kurt Breisheis. He is the tenant of one of the units in the property
that we're here to discuss. Okay, our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to
exact accuracy? I do. Have you emailed all the required documents and exhibits that are needed
and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes. Thank you. Please
proceed and share your screen okay my packet come up
all right good morning everyone uh we're here on 1241 east erie avenue uh kurt my client is
a tenant of this large um sort of industrial warehousey space uh that um he is seeking to
have approval to use as a body art studio that's his profession and we are in a icmx zoned property
so we're here for a special exception we met with the juniata park civic association
on september 11th they wrote us a letter of support it was a good meeting uh i believe
kurt's gonna be a good member of their community everyone seemed excited to have him proof of
mailing here's the space as i said it's an industrial space uh it's got uh some hairdresser
type places in there um you know kind of like just different mixed commercial uses in there
and um the spot he's using which we highlighted on the attached site plan is going to be uh a
tattoo body art space so there's no outward facing spot no nothing that faces the street
it's all inside that building and it will be an appointment-based space as he has a following
of folks that um are eager to make appointments with him and he's eager to help him out so
So he's got a lease, which the first year is up in December, and then he's got another year through the following December.
So he's got a lease, which the first year is up in December.
And here are some examples of his art.
So he's been under a lease for a while now while we've been going through this process.
I'll leave it at that. I'll call Kurt to raise his virtual hand.
are they allowed to speak i'm here all right sir could you state your name please and spell
for the court stenographer my name is kurt breysheis my first name is k-u-r-t and b-r-e-c-h-e-i-s
right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Please proceed.
Good morning, Kurt.
Did you hear my presentation just now about your proposed special exception?
Do you agree with what I said and do you adopt it as your own?
All right.
I have nothing further.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
commission board members the proposed use is not likely to have impact impacts beyond what would
reasonably be expected from this use at this location and so the city planning commission
recommends that the board grant the special exception thank you mi 2023 zero zero one
excuse me mr mr chair i just had a quick question for um mr consul
yes so um should there if the board grants mr consul should there be a proviso limiting this
to the specific unit that the tenant is is um is leasing yes yes i would agree with that yeah
okay and is is that unit 211 do i have that correct uh kurt are you still on the call
i believe you're correct uh from what i saw on the site plan i just wanted to confirm
he's still there is he still here up here yep there he is
kirk could you confirm the unit number it's on 211 thank you sorry thank you so mi 2023
001-347, 1241 East Erie Avenue, I vote yes. Proviso, limiting use to the specific unit,
unit number 211. Thomas Holliman, my vote is yes with proviso. Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes
with proviso. Thank you. Thank you. Number 10. MI 2023-001-373-210 East Gerrard Avenue.
Letter of support from the Fishtown Neighbors Association.
Letter of support from Fishtown Kensington Area Business Improvement District.
Good morning, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Clinton.
You've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record, please.
Sure, Henry Clinton.
Could you identify your clients and their relationship to this property?
My client is William Zhu, Z as in zebra, H-U.
He is both the applicant and the owner of the property, and he is on the call.
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to
his accuracy? I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required
to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you, Mr. Shahid.
is the cover sheet visible mr chairman yeah we see mr clinton okay uh again good morning mr
chairman members of the board uh henry clinton on behalf of the applicant william zoo zhu
This concerns 210 East Gerard Avenue.
This is my table of contents containing exhibits A1 through A10, which I ask to be admitted into evidence.
This is the refusal.
This is a request for a special exception because we're in the North Delaware Avenue overlay district.
This request is for a prepared food shop, seating no more than 20, no commercial cooking.
uh seating no more than 20 no commercial cooking uh and it's going to be a franchise called mr
wish and i'll explain to you what that is we are in the cmx zoning district uh this property was
formerly used as a law office as the photographs will will depict and there is one apartment above
which will stay in place uh we do have overwhelming support from the fish town neighborhood association
42 supporters, two oppositions.
And we also have, as Chairman mentioned, a letter of support from the Fishtown, Kensington
Area Business Improvement District.
They welcome another business on the commercial corridor.
So this is the existing building right here in the middle.
It was a law office.
Teresa Brady was there for a number of years.
She sold the property to my client.
And the idea is the first floor will be the Mr. Wish franchise.
The door to the left, first door to the left, will lead to the apartment upstairs.
And then the other door to the left is a Baker's Alley, which leads to the rear yard, which will store trash in the rear yard and bring it out front for commercial trash pickup.
You can see there's commercial establishments on both sides of this commercial property.
An aerial view, again, just depicting the former law office here, one in off the corner, and then to the right, additional commercial corridors, excuse me, additional commercial buildings.
Close-up view, depicting our zoning notices, and these are the plans.
So this is the front elevation. It'll be Mr. Wish with his small awning and the entrance.
I mistakenly said the entrance was on the right. The entrance is here on the left in between the two doors.
This is the floor plan.
Enter through the front door is the point of service counter.
There's a handicapped restroom.
The seating will be for less than 20 in the open area in front of the point of service counter.
In the rear, five or six sinks, prep stations, ice machine, tea cooker.
And there is a rear door leading out from the storage room into the rear yard, but it's not depicted on this floor plan.
But there is a rear door in the building.
this is just another cutaway to show the layout customer area in the front counter area point of
service work area handicap restroom the sinks will be in this area and storage in the rear
just an overhead view of the layout and then these are some of the offerings that Mr. Wish
will be providing smoothies, teas, special drinks, and there are already 14 locations
of Mr. Wish in the city of Philadelphia.
They're in South Philadelphia, Northeast Philly, Fishtown, Mattyonk, North Philly, really
all over the city, and they'll still be in this neighborhood.
This is the interior layout of the building, the front counter, have a drink, make a wish
is the theme. Television's mounted on the wall for menus, seating, and this is what the front
counter will look like. Again, it's a franchise, so everything is really regimented by the
franchisor. This is a typical front of what a Mr. Wish would look like. Obviously, our facade is
not this. I only show this to the board for demonstration purposes only. This is a tax
certification, zoning map indicating the CMX2 zoning district, the deed indicating ownership,
and Mr. Zhu will be the witness. And this is our letter of notice. Just a few other things,
Mr. Chairman. The hours of operation will be from 10 to 10. It's approximately 1,000 square feet.
We're going to store trash in the rear yard, bring it out toward the front for commercial
trash pickup. Another thing we're working on, as suggested by the community groups, is we're
working on a loading zone in the front, so that if people do happen to come to the restaurant,
there's a little bit of an area that they can come in, grab a drink. It's not really a takeout
because we have so many seats, about 18 seats or so, but just in case the community group was
concerned that people on their way to work are coming home, might want to stop and grab something,
We're working on the loading zone in the front of the building.
We're also working with the City of Philadelphia.
There's a grant program available for businesses in Fishtown to upgrade their front elevation on the first floor.
So we've begun that process also.
So we've begun that process also.
So in conclusion, we're looking.
So in conclusion, we're looking for a special exception, not necessarily a variance for the refusal.
We're not altering the essential character of the neighborhood.
This commercial use is in line with what is already on the block and with what is already on the commercial corridor known as Drouard Avenue.
We're not overcrowding the space.
There's no congestion.
We're not impacting the light and air of any adjacent properties.
We're not overtaxing the public facilities or public transportation.
And we're in compliance, I believe, with the overlay plan and the comprehensive plan.
And with that, I would like to rest and ask my client to unmute himself.
And I'll ask him to adopt my testimony, Mr. Chairman.
Sure, please.
Mr. Zhu, can you unmute yourself, please?
He's allowed to speak.
Hi, sir.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, first name William, W-I-L-L-I-A-M, last name Zhu, Z-H-H-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Hello, Mr. Zhu.
Were you on the call when I presented your project for your Mr. Wish franchise?
And if you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Thank you, Mr. Zou.
Hi, questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have Robert Everett with his hand up. I will give him permission to speak.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
yes good morning uh first name robert last name everett e-v-e-r-e-t-t you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor sir i'm a resident
of fishtown but i'm also on the zoning committee um the rco fishtown neighbors association please
please proceed i just want to confirm uh mr clinton's statements and our community support
was in fact 42 in support to oppose thank we like that's opening up the avenue to businesses
great mr ever thank you very much for taking the time to call us we appreciate it is there
anyone else in the virtual audience i see no hands chair planning commission
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Board members, this is a special exception. The proposed use is not likely to have impacts beyond what would reasonably be expected from the use of this location, so the City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant this special exception.
Thank you. MI 2023-001-373-210 East Rod Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you thank you have a great day right number 14 mi 2023
zero zero one three one four 1809 west thompson street joseph consul is the attorney
letter of strong support from the united neighbors alliance civic association
good morning again hi mr consul just for the record could you state your name
yes joseph consul right you've already been sworn could you identify your client
the relationship to this property yeah my client is mr duane gantt and he's the owner
okay and our our vice chair has just a few questions
so do you agree to be the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy
i do i've emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing yes um if you have a support letter
from united neighbors do you share your screen okay
okay sharing my screen now okay so i'm here on 1809 west thompson street uh if you're looking
at the properties here we're the one on the right the one in the middle uh was um rehabbed and
approved using the same architect and the same floor plan of of the property on the right which
is our property here uh that property was approved in the middle as a two unit um two years ago and
um is fully rehabbed now just to say that um this what we're asking for is not out of context
the same footprint and we use the same architect for a similar sort of design so
And we use the same architect for a similar sort of design.
So it's 1809 West Thompson Street.
We have a refusal because it's RSA 5.
My client is seeking to use the property as a two unit.
Additionally, there are several other multifamilies on the block, including 1813, which is to the left of the rehab property in the middle there.
We have, as mentioned, a strong letter of support.
They, being the RCO, are looking for properties to be rehabilitated on this block.
And so they were in support of this presentation.
We had a nicely attended meeting, and they sent the letter in a couple of days ago.
Proof of mailing.
Postage outside.
and included in the packet are all of the drawings completed and submitted as part of the building
plan. And then all the other required documents are submitted at the end there. It's going to be
two bedroom units as indicated on the plan. And it's not going to be any taller than the property
next door um although it won't have kind of that funky um funky layout with the with the bump out
there and just to show you guys um this was approved in 2021 as a two-unit uh property
and we're seeking um a similar variance i will call my client to adopt my testimony
Dwayne, could you raise your virtual hand, please?
Dwayne Grant has been allowed to speak.
Grant, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, my name is Dwayne Grant. The spelling is D-W-A-Y-N-E-G-H-A-N-T.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
proceed counsel good morning mr gant did you hear my testimony just now about 1809 west thompson
street yes i did do you adopt it as your own yes i do okay nothing further questions from the board
no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands here planning commission thank you chair bergman board members ian hegerty for
the philadelphia city planning commission in 2017 the zoning map was amended on this block
from rm1 multifamily to rsa5 single family however this proposed two-family use is consistent
with the existing multifamily use contained in many buildings on this block as the council has
pointed out, including 1811, 1813, and 1819 West Thompson Street. City Planning Commission
recommends that the board grant the variance. Thank you. MI 2023-001-314-1809 West Thompson
Street. I vote yes. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you.
Thank you, Council. Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 930 a.m. case has not been called?
There are no hands here. Thank you everyone. See everyone at 2 p.m.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bergman and I will be chairing this afternoon's EBA
hearings. With me is our Vice Chair Ismail Shahid.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Okay, and our board member, James Snell.
Present, Chair.
Thank you.
Also here is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sunkett.
Here's a virtual format.
The advised 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 are participating by phone, if you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
Press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter an appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comment or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sullivan.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Number 5, MI-2023-001-265-2203, North Natrona Street.
This case is continued.
Mark must be tried.
Is there anyone else requesting a continuance for the 2 o'clock schedule?
good afternoon chair i see no hands thank you we're going to go to our add-on
mr shaheed will not testify on this he's recused himself
MI-2022-006-210-4619-21 Lancaster Avenue.
I vote yes with proviso.
Temporary variance to expire on December 31, 2027, an interior storage of tires.
James Snell, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you.
My vote is Thomas Holloman.
My vote is yes with Proviso.
Number one, MI2023-002-601-201-East House.
Can we start with number nine, please?
Oh, sure.
Thank you.
MI 2023-002-585-612 Catherine Street, Elaine and Joseph Cahill are the owners.
Letter of non-opposition from Bella Vista Neighbors Association and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squilla.
Excuse me, Chair, who am I looking for?
Hold on.
Elaine and Joseph Cahill.
Thank you.
Elaine and Joseph Cahill, if you're in the audience, please raise your hand.
All I see is Jeffrey Lauffer with a hand raised.
Let's see. Let's see who they are.
Jeffrey Lauffer, you're allowed to speak.
Hello.
Hello. Elaine Cahill's here too.
Okay. Okay. Could you both state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
It's Elaine Cahill, E-L-A-I-N-E-C-A-H-I-L-L.
Mr. Cahill, are you going to testify too?
Mr. Cahill's not here.
My name is Jeff Walker.
Okay, that's fine.
That's fine.
Elaine, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
And you're the only one who's going to be allowed to testify, okay?
And could you turn your video on?
We would need to see you.
This application is for the partial demolition at the third floor level of an existing attached structure and for additions at the third floor level with roof deck access by roof deck access structure for use as a single family household living.
Size and location as shown in the plans.
The property lacks the required rear yard and vertical extension of the existing nonconformity requires a variance.
Property lacks the required open air and vertical extension of that existing nonconformity requires a variance.
And the roof deck access structure lacks the required setbacks at the front 10 foot, 4 foot, 2 inches proposed, and rear 5 foot proposed of the property.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you.
Good afternoon.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Thank you.
Please proceed and you can share your screen.
do you see us we're sharing a partial screen we can but elaine's going to be the one to testify
am I right? Okay. Why don't we start the screen? Okay. So we, we see, we see everything that
you've submitted okay why don't we start going through it um as okay so could did you're not an
attorney are you jeffrey i'm sorry what you're not an attorney no i'm not an attorney he's our
architect and he can answer more technical questions uh who who just said that i that's
elaine hi hi elaine you're the ones going to testify he can ask your testicle questions if
we have them okay okay all right start going down the screen
what do we got to do read all this no i um list of exhibits exhibit one copy no no start rolling
through the screen i see all that i'm fine i'm gonna i'm gonna move it quick for you okay okay
we appreciate that so that's your refusal uh-huh okay proceed
miss cahill this is hillary um can you just explain what what you're trying to do with this
project we are putting a roof deck on we are realigning the interior of the property it's
a really small trinity and we wanted to move the staircase over to the opposite side of the house
so it's not a tight spiral anymore um that's pretty much it why don't why don't you do this
why don't you show photos of the house and then show your plans okay
that's the exterior of the house there okay yep
that's the rear that's the rear of the property okay
the neighbor's rear yard though that's the directly is the neighbor's rear yard there's no
no space between ours and theirs that's your neighbor's um oh that's the terrace next door
to us okay that's my husband on the roof oh okay
that's the location of the property yes okay
Thank you.
This is the existing structure.
This is the proposed structure.
what's a side view
why don't you show the letter you have from the uh the rco
OK, thank you.
The purpose you're doing this is because of the small size of the house?
Yes, correct.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the board.
My name is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff.
Greg, just for the record, could you spell your name for the court reporter?
Absolutely.
Greg or Gregory, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y, last name Waldman, W-A-L-D-M-A-M.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair.
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning.
The appellant's property is on a very small lot, which presents a hardship for complying to the roof deck setback.
The applicant's proposed expansion of the existing rear yard and occupied area non-conformities is de minimis.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance.
Thank you.
MI 2023-002-585-612.
Catherine Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you. You have your votes.
Thank you.
We're going to go to number one.
MI-2023-002-601-201, East Alany Avenue.
Neil Sklaroff is the attorney.
Letter of support from the new 42nd Democratic Board Executive Committee, RCO.
Neil Sklaroff has been promoted to panelist.
Hi, Mr. Sklaroff. Good afternoon.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Hi, Mr. Sklaroff.
Good morning.
Hi, just for the record, could you state?
Well, could you state your name and spell, please, for the court stenographer?
Neil Sklaroff, N-E-I-L-S-K-L-A-R-O-F-F, with an office at 1500 Market Street Suite, 3500 E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
For the record, do you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, I'm pleased to represent the School District of Philadelphia, which owns the property.
Okay, and our Vice Chair, Mr. Sklaroff, has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you. Please proceed, and you have Barbara to share your screen.
Thank you. Please proceed. And you have Barbara to share your screen.
Great. With me today to answer any questions are Emma Lynn Melvin, Dan Mullen, and Ben Oates of the school district's capital programs.
And engineer Richard Burrell, who is an engineer and manager of the Philadelphia office of KS Engineers.
This appeal has little to do with uses or the structure as there's no change.
This appeal is for the installation of stormwater management facilities at the Grover Washington Middle School at 201 East Olney Avenue.
Again, there's no change in use for expansion of the existing building.
What we have here is a project to install stormwater management facilities and landscaping to disguise those facilities.
However, this results in taking parking spaces in order to install the stormwater management facilities.
We reduced the number of parking spaces to 77.
There is little in the archives about this property, but Ellen and I determined that it needed 148 parking spaces.
77 are quite sufficient for our needs, and I'll go through the exhibits at this point.
If I can get it to work.
There's a listing of our exhibits.
Cibit 1 is the record at the Office of Property Assessment of the current no balance due.
We were unable to pull up the certificate and offer that in substitute.
Next are the deeds.
There are two deeds to the property.
The original deed is from 1931, and there was a second deed in lieu of foreclosure in 1998 with a proviso that the property be used for a school.
Rolling through those, we get to Exhibit 3, which is a copy of the zoning notice that was posted, a key plan showing where those were posted, and then photographs of the postings and the surroundings.
So we'll go through these quickly.
There are a number of postings.
and the lesser questions about those we'll go to um exhibit four which are some aerials
of the uh of the facility uh in the middle here is the uh is the school let's see if this is a
little uh larger well let me make some comments on this the school and the railroad that goes
through the area, which is on, I'll call it the north side of the property, are in an I-2 zoning
district. Across the tracks in a CA-1 district is actually a shopping center. At this point,
there is a window manufacturer also in the industrial area. Then we have this industrial
area, which is used for that purpose. We have a park, a playground, a public playground just
across the street. This area here where I have the cursor, you will see on a close-up has a road,
which is part of the school district's property, and then a buffer before we get to residential
properties. That is, here we show the buffer, which is owned by the city, as we understand it.
Again, a picture of the school showing it's very large. There's almost 500 students in the school
at this time. There's some more photographs of the school. This is on Olney Avenue facade.
And this is a picture of that road that I said that went through the property. And you'll see
that the parking here of vehicles and some of those are going to have to be removed
in order to put in the stormwater facilities. This is a copy of the site plan that was submitted
with the application and now I'm going to go to exhibit six which is a series of plans and ask
Emma Lynn Melvin to be made a panelist so she can show you where these stormwater facilities will go.
So she can show you where these stormwater facilities will go.
Emma, please.
I want to promote Emma right now here.
Emma Malvin is promoted to panelists.
Good afternoon, Emma.
Are you with us?
Can you hear me?
Hi. Yes. Emma, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. My name is Emma Lynn Melvin. It's E-M-M-A-L-Y-N-N.
My last name is Melvin, M-E-L-V-I-N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
I should have introduced Emma as the project manager for green infrastructure. Do I have that correct?
i'm the green infrastructure program manager
would you please explain the um exhibit six um so this project seeks to manage
all the surface level runoff coming from the school so you will see the shaded in areas
there are um the one in the lower right corner which is um both a surface feature
for stormwater management and a subsurface feature. There are two systems as you drive
up the road, which would be the wrong direction, but in this map I'll talk to you about that. So
there's two surface features on the road in a row. There is a subsurface stormwater feature at the
back of the school. And then a linear stormwater feature, both surface and a subsurface feature
on that long, narrow road. And then right at the left corner is another surface feature and a
subsurface feature. So the surface feature, what we call rain gardens, they're that expression
that has vegetation and plants that manage stormwater.
The subsurface feature is a stone basin,
usually with a series of pipes that is below grade
that you don't see that manages stormwater,
all managed stormwater.
Shall I move the diagram?
Yeah, right.
So you'll now see the surface expression
of most of these features.
They are landscape features.
We have also de-pave areas coming in the front of the school to have better walking access to the front doors of the school.
You'll see, oh, one, two, three, four, three, four, five.
There's five rain gardens that are surface stormwater features.
um in the top of the school or the back side of the school um we have a area that we remove
pavement and we um place grass and there's a subsurface feature there and there's also another
depave area at the back side of the school um that is just for removing of pavement and adding
landscaping shall i move to the next yep and so this is a cross-section of what these systems
look like uh i think i i i think we may not need what i think would be helpful neil is to show us
where you're taking the parking out of and where there's parking left if you can so in other words
where where are you removing parking spaces and what where are the ones that are left that would
be perfect so i'm sorry go ahead you can go through it um the two systems that are along
that access road we're removing parking um and there's a system at the top which is behind the
school where we're removing parking spaces right there right right right um and then the remainder
we have parking on the back of the school that the linear drive on the back side of the school
And we have a parking area on the top, if you're looking at the drawing, and then we have parking all along the access road and right in front of the school.
And then we have a lot of technical information that perhaps you don't want to see.
Not that I don't want to see it.
I'm just not sure that.
okay so so the issue would be is the issue is that you you you're saying you don't need the
parking places places anywhere that you're removing that's correct that 77 is sufficient
would you confirm that emma yeah so we've been working with the principal um to make sure we
can accommodate all her staff her um her non-full-time staff and
And her non full time staff and visitors to the school. So we ensured that we had enough spaces for that.
Right. Right. So I brush the other exhibits. This is a letter from the new 42nd Democratic Board, which was kind enough to host a RCO public meeting.
There is no RCO that claims this area. So they were kind enough to to hold the meeting.
Here's their summary and our letter to the near neighbors, inviting them to the RCO meeting, which included a copy of the refusal.
And our last exhibit is the proofs of mailing.
And on that basis, we ask that the board grant our variance as requested.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
no chair no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience yes chair i have richard burrell with the hand
up and i will allow him to speak is he the architect of the engineer yes oh okay yeah
Mr. Burrell, will you state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Mr. Burrell?
Well, Neil, I think you've made your case.
He's our engineer, and he would only confirm everything.
Right. Okay. All right.
So questions from the virtual audience?
no hands chair planning commission
good afternoon chair members of the board my name is greg waldman for the planning commission
staff the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing medium industrial zoning
however at the time of the that the comprehensive plan was adopted the special purpose civic use
or SP-CIV zoning district, which is intended for civic uses, just schools, had not yet
been added to the zoning code. SP-CIV zoning does not have a required parking minimum.
Furthermore, the proposed construction of water management and landscaping improvements
meet the goals of several other adopted city plans, including the building tree plan and
green city clean waters plan. The city planning commission recommends that the zoning board
grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2023-002-601-201 East Olney Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sklaroff.
Thank you, members of the board. Thank you, members of the board.
Right. Thank you. Number two, MI 2023-002-556-222 Market Street.
Jarrett Klein is the attorney. There's a letter of non-opposition from the Center City Residents Association.
Jarrett Klein has been promoted.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Good afternoon, Mr. Klein.
Could you state your name for the record and spell for the court stenographer?
Certainly.
It's Jared, J-A-R-E-D, last name Klein, K-L-E-I-N, from Blank Rome, 130 North 18th Street in Philadelphia.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to this property?
Certainly. My client is the law firm of Morgan Lewis, and they are the tenant at 2222 Martin Street.
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir, I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share the screen.
Thank you.
So this is, I hope, a relatively simple application.
The building is 2222 Market Street, which is the home of Morgan Lewis.
And what they are seeking approval for today is a flat wall sign that is above the second floor window level.
And so we received a refusal because of that location.
because of that location um just the board has has some contact this is a newly permitted and
the board has
some contacts
and large building um and so we believe that the style of signage is is appropriate in both size
and location for the size of the building that it's it's on uh and the hardship again would would
be the the size of the building that is being erected um i think lends itself to needing
additional identification signage to orient the board this is where we're where we're talking
22nd and market zoning map of the parcel here showing it is the very permissive cmx5 zoning
there are photos of posting the zoning notices at the ongoing construction site here for the board
to see but i'll jump right to the actual sign rendering itself this is the rendering of what
is what is proposed um it would be uh put there it's 59.17 square feet uh at at night it'll just
be a white light it's not uh it's not spreading light out from it it's just a a backlit identification
sign um and then there are additional plans uh that the board can can review just showing the
technical aspects of where the sign is going to be located. The letters itself are going to be
23 inches high to make it visible for passerby. Passersby. I believe as I was coming into the
hearing, I heard the chair mention our meeting with CCRA. Their letter of non-opposition is here.
And I think as we do, they view this as a non-controversial request to blend the signage of this property into the existing aesthetic on that commercial corridor.
I would ask Robert Kurtz to please raise his hand.
His virtual hand.
Ron Hertz is allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
If he's not available, if we could unmute Robert Kotzer.
I have two Roberts.
Robert Kotzer could also be unmuted.
That would be fine.
Okay, Robert is back.
He should be allowed to speak now?
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Robert Kotser from Morgan Lewis, spelled K-O-T-S as in Sam, U-R.
Do you swear or affirm the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Klein.
Thank you.
Robert, am I correct that you're the Director of Real Estate and Operations for Morgan Lewis?
Yes, that's correct.
Okay. And did you have a chance to hear my presentation this afternoon? And would you adopt it as true, correct in your own if you've been given the chance to speak more?
Thank you. We don't have anything further, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the board. This is Greg Walden.
city affiliate philadelphia city planning commission staff um in 2019 the zoning map was
amended from commercial mixtes 4 to commercial mixtes 5 in accord with recommendations from
the comprehensive plan proposed sign is technically below the second floor windowsill given that the
height of the given the height of the first floor ceiling the city planning commissioner recommends
at the zoning board grant the variance you mi 2023 zero zero two five five six two two two two
market street i vote yes
yes okay james now i vote yes ishmael shaheem my vote is yes thank you all very much enjoy your
Okay. Number three, MI 2023-002-651-1510 West Allegheny Avenue.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Letter of support from Allegheny West.
Letter of opposition from Tioga United.
Mr. Nockamson.
Mr. Nockamson is promoted to panelists.
Great.
Great.
Mr. Nockamson?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Alan Nockamson.
Just for the record, spell your name, Mr. Nockamson, please.
A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is 1510 West Allegheny F LLC, and in the virtual audience is one of its members, Irena Savrichny.
Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case? Are these in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share the screen.
Thank you.
All right. So I'm here to present 1510 West Allegheny Avenue. And again, in the virtual
audience is Irina, one of its members. At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask her
to virtually raise her hand, be sworn in, and then I'll have a few questions about my
presentation. So this will be a rather lengthy presentation. It's a very impactful project
to the community, which we believe is positive in nature. So first we'll review the notice of
refusal, then a letter of support from the Allegheny West Civic Association. I think it
was either this morning or early this afternoon. We received a letter from Tioga United, and we'll
review that letter as well. The letter was referenced by the chairman. We also have revised
plans, and that was based on communication with the neighborhood. So if this board feels so inclined
to grant our zoning variance request, we would ask that they would grant it with revised plans,
and we'll review those plans as well. Then we made a concerted effort before and after our
community meeting to meet as many of the surrounding property owners and neighbors.
And we have a lengthy petition that's been signed by a multitude of neighbors, as well
as letters of support from nearby neighbors.
Then we'll review the Philadelphia 2035 plan.
Again, our review of the 2035 plan indicates that this property is designated to be transitioned
over to RMX3. So the density that we're proposing and based on the goals of the 2035 plan fall well
in line with what the 2035 plan proposes. Then we're going to look also at nearby comparable
apartment buildings. So what we're offering is not out of character to what you would see
nearby in the neighborhood. Then we'll review maps of the area, photographs of the property
in the surrounding area, our plans and drawings as well as renderings, and then we'll have our
RCO meeting notice that we'll review, which also shows that not only were all of the property
occupants mailed a notice in accordance with the law, all the RCOs actually received a copy of that
notice via email almost two weeks in advance of the meeting. We'll then review the application
for appeal that we filed on behalf of the applicant, the deed to the property showing
that 1510 West Allegheny Ave LLC is the owner of the property, as well as a certificate of
tax clearance showing that they owe no money to the City of Philadelphia with respect to
this property. Again, at the conclusion of my presentation, we'll have Irina appear as well.
All right, so a notice of refusal. So this is a mixed zoning property of RSA 2 and RSA 5. So as
As the board knows, the zoning examiners require to choose the most restrictive zoning requirements as it reviews or as they review our project.
So right now, there's and we'll see in the drawings and photographs, there is a building structure which has a history and approval for 46 units that we will call Building A.
What we're proposing is to add seven additional units to building A and then to build on this 32,000 square foot lot.
And let me just repeat that. 32,000 square foot lot. We're looking to build another building structure with 40 units.
we're looking to build another building structure with 40 units.
And what we're trying to do is essentially build almost a twin building structure on this 32,000 square foot lot.
Again, if this was an RMX3 property, the density that we are proposing would easily fit within the confines of RMX3.
Also, under RMX3, we would be able to build 160,000 square foot building structure here, which is a lot, well, what we're proposing is a lot less, where we're looking to build a total of 65,000 square feet, where really half of that's already on the building lots.
So just to put that in perspective. So in addition to the 93 total units on this 32,000 square foot lot, we are providing off-street parking of 18 units, plus four accessible parking spaces, plus 32 of those 18, sorry, of those 18 parking spaces, four of them are accessible.
In addition, we're providing 32 Class A, 1A bicycle parking spaces.
So these are our refusals.
The first one is about the fact that we have two principal dwelling structures.
Building A, which is our current building on the lot, which has 46 units configured for that already.
And then we added a second building structure in the rear as well.
Again, what you'll see is, first of all, RMX3 would, I know we're not RMX3 zoning, but this is what's proposed of this property, would allow for such use, proposed use.
Secondarily, it's not out of character to have multiple building structures in the area where these are rather large lots.
Again, our building lot, our lot is 32,000 square feet.
If you look at surrounding properties and we'll look at those, there are multiple properties with with building with multiple building structures on there.
The second refusal has to do with the proposed multifamily use of 93 units.
So, first of all, it's not like we're adding 93 units out in there.
You know, there's there there has been a history, a long history of this being an apartment building lot.
And you'll see that apartment building. And when we purchased a property like it was in a desperate state of disrepair and we're trying to fix that property up.
But given the current market conditions of increasing interest rates, high cost of construction and just general delays in permitting, it's necessary for us to have this additional use of another building structure there.
Plus, and I know this is not zoning related, in order to keep these units affordable within the confines of this community, that was something else that was thought of and appreciated by the community.
But we're asking for 93 units. If the zoning changes to RMX3, which we anticipate, this use would be allowed as a right. But given the history of the property, given its proposed change in zoning, and given the fact that the surrounding neighborhood, there's apartment building after apartment building, we think that this project is reasonable under the circumstances.
The third refusal is actually broken down into multiple parts. Again, the zoning examiner chose the most restrictive zoning between RSA 2 and RSA 5. So under RSA 2 zoning, the occupied area in RSA 2 is limited to 40%, which would make it rather difficult under any circumstances, typically, to develop that process.
property. But based on even adding another building structure in there, our occupied area
is just falls slightly short of the 40% requirement where it's basically we have an occupied area of
less than 50% a lot. On the flip side, if you think about it, our open area is over 50%. And
one of the things what we try to do was develop a sense of community by mimicking the current
building structure in the front by building another building structure in the back and to
have like uh like almost created like a little park area for the for the residents um in this
community which you'll see in the renderings the second refusal has to do with the minimum side
yard where eight where it's eight feet is required and five feet is proposed uh the reason um you
though we don't believe that this is as much of an issue, is that the individuals who would be most directly impacted,
there are light and air with regards to this slight request in the modification of the zone.
With regards to this slight request in the modification of the zoning requirements, 1508 Allegheny Avenue and 3121 North 16th Street, we specifically reached out to.
We knew that, you know, this is something that would directly impact them, and we received support from them, and that's in our packet of materials as well.
And then if you will also review the plans of or the or the outline of other surrounding properties, which also run afoul of these requirements, both from occupied areas perspective and a side yard perspective.
The next refusal has to do with the minimum rear yard depth in RSA to residential district where 20 feet is required and zero and five feet are proposed.
Again, we looked at the situation with the zero feet rear yard.
We eliminated, we believe, that refusal by way of our proviso where we eliminated the zero foot setback.
And now we're creating, I believe, an eight foot setback in that one section, which goes more in line with what you would see from an RSA 5 perspective.
and then as far as the five foot in the the other five foot in the rear which will review those
drawings um that you know we are in the rear there's no one behind us other than a park and
that park if you will look at review the site plan there's a 12 foot alley between our property and
the park so first of all it's not going to impact a park right second second there's a 12 foot buffer
already created between our property and and depart and the five foot you know setback so
in actuality if you add the 15 foot or i think it's a 12 foot alley um and the and the five feet
we're already providing we're almost near that 20 foot requirement and then the final refusal
has to do with the height of the property um our roof we are first of all the front building
structure, it already has a roof line of 42 feet. So it's an existing structure, which goes beyond
the 38 feet requirement for RSA 2 or RSA 5. That's building A. Building B, we actually try to mimic
as much as possible, where we have a roof line at 40 feet, which is actually less than the 42 feet
for building A. So building B is at 40 feet. We thought it was in character with the surrounding
area as well as the property that we are on with our building structure. So that's the minimus.
But again, if we were RMX3, we wouldn't have this issue as well. But regardless, like we are getting
a technical refusal for the 49 feet because of where our pilot houses are. And again, we are
required to have two sets of pilot houses where the pilot houses hug the building facade. So that's
where we get that refusal. But again, not out of character to the neighborhood, not out of character
to our property to have building structures above 38 feet. And then the final refusal has to do with
parking, where again, they're using the most restrictive zoning of RSA too, where we're
proposing 18 parking spots and essentially the the zoning code based on the rsa2 is required to
one-to-one ratio no one in the neighborhood has a one-to-one ratio or anywhere close to it we found
three instances in within a one block radius where there's no parking whatsoever and one of the
reasons why we selected this location and why many of the apartment buildings in this area
either does not have parking or has very few parking spots is because we're near a commercial
corridor and as well as public transportation, the Allegheny Station on Broad Street. So to
encourage public transportation, we are providing 18 parking spots, which is well above what many
of the apartment buildings in the neighborhood have. So we met with the community many months
ago, and it was a very good meeting. Honestly, again, when you usually have a project of this
size, usually there's more of a back and forth, but we made inroads and we reached out to the
community well before that meeting. We actually met with the block captain who helped us
meet the surrounding neighboring owners and occupants, which was helpful where we were able
to modify our project. And you'll see that by way of revised plans. But there was overwhelming
support within that room. Also, we provided letters of support.
within that room um also we provided letters of support from nearby property owners now one of
the things that was mentioned especially by uh tayoga united was well you have a lot of the
property owners of the big apartment buildings nearby which are support of this project you know
what about the surrounding occupants like of the of within this neighborhood so we made a concerted
effort, even after receiving this letter of support from the coordinating RCO on behalf
of the community, we made a concerted effort for my client to petition nearby property
occupants.
Now, it's hard to get within that 250 square foot radius of the occupants because of the
largeness of the surrounding lots.
Most of them are apartment buildings.
But we really made an effort, and I believe we got 32 signatures of surrounding property
occupants who are in support of this project um so that's something that we made a really good
effort in um and you know through you know through our efforts pre-meeting and post-meeting you know
we believe that you know this is you know we've we've received overwhelming support um and and
you can see that from the letter now to not to this afternoon or i think either late morning
or early afternoon we received this letter from tayoga united just so you understand one of the
other individuals associated with this project has been in direct communication with this
representative of Togo United, even after the meeting. He had some concerns during the meeting
about the process, about who was supporting this project and life. So we've been in direct
communication with him throughout. So in his letter that which we just received, he said,
you know, indicated the RCO in support was, you know, the coordinating RCO on behalf of the
community. He indicates that his group is in opposition to it. He acknowledged that there is
neighborhood support with regards to this project. And he actually even indicated that
the neighboring church at 1508 West Allegheny is supporting, I believe that may be an apartment
building. But these are some of his issues in the bullet points. And I want to address each one of
them. He said that no proof of mailings was presented to affected RCOs prior to or during
the community meeting coordinated by AWCA, which is the coordinating RCO. I don't believe that was
correct. So during our community meetings, we have a more scaled down version of our presentation.
You know, we show the plans, the notice of refusal, like everything you would see here today,
hey, we show the community, but what we don't show them is the application for appeal,
the deed, the notice that went out to the community, and the proof of mailing, because
we waste enough paper as part of our practice. What we do do is twofold. Two weeks before the
community meeting, we email the notice that we sent to the community along with the proof of
mailing of that notice. So they know first that there's a meeting, and then we mailed it out to
those individuals that live within a 250 square foot radius. But secondarily, what we do is during
that meeting, I have an expanded packet that I give to the coordinating RCO, which is available
and I have an extra copy for myself. So if anyone wanted to see the deed, if anyone wanted to see the
application for appeal, or if anyone wanted to see the notice or proof of mail that went out to the
community, they always have the right to see it. I just don't want to waste paper. But we gave that
information to Tioka United. And you'll see that at the tail end of our presentation with the email
I attached. Second bullet point, 14 addresses shown at community meeting and support were from
all potential developers and current multi-unit property owners, none from a single resident
homeowner. So again, we reached out to the individuals that we knew. We also met with
the block captain, who walked us around the neighborhood, who wasn't really trying to get
signatures, but more to make an introduction of our team to those property owners who'd be most
directly impacted, and in particular, the ones on North 16th Street. Those individuals knew of
our community meeting. No one from North 16th Street, other than one individual who signed
our petition and who attended the community meeting, making sure that we made the modifications
that North 16th Street required showed up.
So no one showed up in opposition,
and the one individual that did voted for the project,
which is in your presentation materials.
Then they said,
Tioga United also questions the validity of the signatures
that will be presented at the CBA hearing.
These signatures were not present during or prior to the community meeting.
These signatures were not present during or prior to the community meeting.
So I admit those signatures, some of those signatures for that petition of 32 extra individuals were not provided to the community at the time of the community meeting.
So I admit those signatures
We had a number of individuals we met with who felt comfortable with the project who didn't show up because we agreed to make certain modifications for the project.
And the, you know, the individuals we did have signed, we thought that was sufficient based on the credibility of the project.
After we heard from Utah United, they wanted more individuals who lived in those properties to be to show their support.
That's why we reached out and got a petition and we circulated that petition.
And you'll see that we have contact for those individuals and they can be verified.
my understanding is that there may even be some individuals here who may be in support of the
project but we had the block we had the block captain again circulate the petition who his
name is philip lockett who we worked with so we've made really great inroads with the community and
we've made great effort in making sure that the community felt comfortable about this project
and we'll talk about the merits of that project and what the community thought of as well
And it said some support signatures addresses are out of the 250 feet directly affected area.
This also did not exist during the community meeting.
Again, it's really hard to get into a lot of these apartment buildings because they're secure apartment buildings.
So we really focus on the individuals with the single family homes and like as much as possible.
But again, these properties that are surrounding us are rather large in nature.
From our lot size, 32,000 square feet for a lot. So, you know, did we go outside a 250 square foot
feet radius? Yeah, we did. But we tried our best to make to me to show that this overall community,
the people who'd be impacted from about this project would support this project.
And, you know, that's, you know, he gives a summary also of why they're against it,
you know, indicating that there's a high school nearby and there's a daycare nearby and
the increased density is going to cause more havoc to them as well. Again, if you look at the
2035 plan, they want to encourage this density where density exists. Again, we're not taking
like a lot that's a 1,440 square foot lot or a thousand square foot lot and trying to put
multifamily in here. What we're trying to do is take a 32,000 square foot lot and again,
which has a significant history of multifamily use. But unfortunately, the building structure
is in desperate state of disrepair, trying to fix up that building structure, and for that to make
financial sense, and to keep the rents down, we needed to build that other building structure,
which the community is in support of, and they're talking about parking, where parking is typically
not around there, you know, we're providing parking of a limited nature, because we're next
to the Broad Street line, which again, which the 2035 plan actually encourages that public
transportation use. So here are revised plans, and you'll see it, but we added an eight-foot
setback to the proposed Building B to provide an opportunity for more light and air for the
individuals on um north 16th street you know here are oops here's the change originally this was all
boxed in right here and and we took away that we added eight foot setback here which also really
I believe reduced the rear yard issue as well um but that's the one change that we did make
Just make sure.
And then, so we created a map of the individuals who signed our petitions and letters to support.
So we're here between 15th Street and 16th Street on West Allegheny Avenue.
We're between West Westmoreland and West Clearfield Street.
So you can see most of the signatures are within that one block radius.
Do we have some stragglers here?
Yes, we do.
And I think my client even got some more signatures, which we don't even recognize on this map, but are on the petition.
He really did try to make a conservative effort with the help of the block captain to reach as many of the surrounding property owners as possible.
And then these are just the list of addresses.
Again, one of them is the individual on North 16th Street, which is directly behind our property.
And these materials were shared with the board, you know, five days before the meeting, and then we have additional signatures, which I think were more recent in nature.
And this petition is the petition that they circulated after the meeting, after there was some concern that there weren't enough signatures of occupants.
after the meeting, after there was some concern that there weren't enough signatures of occupants
who lived in the neighborhood. And then the 2035 plan is this. As you can see from the 2035 plan,
talks about Allegheny Avenue, and this is our property right here. You know, they want to make
that RMX3, and the reason for the rezoning is to promote the development of large apartment
buildings, preferably for senior housing, which is our goal too. Like, our goal is to have
You know, these units, because they're ADA compliant, for the elder section of this neighborhood. And, you know, again, to reactivate this property that has not had any type of usage for some time. So we're going to take building A, we're going to renovate it. In order to make this economic sense, we're building building B.
Alan, have you shown photos yet of the property?
No, I will. I will. Yeah, I will. Again, this is a very impactful project. And I want the board to completely understand, you know, this matter, especially since, again, out of left field, we got this letter of opposition about Tioga United.
So I just want to show the board, you know, the substantial, you know, what's it called, merits of what we're looking to do here.
But, you know, if you look at also the 2035 plan, it talks about concentrating new housing development adjacent to existing transit resources.
And it specifically references the Allegheny Station.
It says increase the allowable density near major transit stations, such as Allegheny, by changing base zoning.
Again, that's why they're looking to do this as RMX3.
So I think, you know, and again, going to the variance, you know, as well, and we'll get to the pictures, Mr. Chair.
But, you know, we're looking at some of these, you know, variance requests regarding side, rear yard, and open area.
And so I looked at the public record, and if you look, you know, nearby 1605 West Allegheny, they would run afoul of all these issues that we're currently running afoul of as well.
And the same thing with 1419 West Allegheny, a nearby apartment building with minimum side, rear yard, and open area as well.
As you can see right here, like, you know, there's, you know, there's basically no sided rear yard in some of these.
And the same thing with 1508 West Allegheny as well.
There's issues with the open area requirements, rear yard, side yard.
A lot of these properties are RSA2, which, you know, make it almost impossible to develop from scratch.
And then, you know, one of the things I wanted to put out here is that 1508 West Allegheny Avenue, there's no parking.
3136 and 3127-27 North 16th Street, there's no parking.
We're actually providing parking.
These are apartment buildings with no parking whatsoever.
And then if you can see here, this is where we are in the neighborhood.
Again, this mixed zoning at 1510 West Allegheny.
And then this is from a Google Maps perspective. Again, we're like a block and a half away from a commercial corridor on Broad Street with a subway system.
And then photographs of the property. So, Mr. Chair, this is what you're asking for.
Again, we didn't do this, but this property has been in disrepair for some time.
And, you know, there's a pre-existing building structure in the front that is, you know, four stories over the 38 foot height limit from the roof line.
And, you know, during the community and it's fenced off and we keep trying to keep the fence on.
But, you know, this neighborhood is, you know, was really begging for development of this building because it's not just our property, it's the surrounding properties as well, where there's a significant crime and, you know, issue here.
And they want, they're hoping that this project will encourage the other landlords in the neighborhood to do better in terms of finding, you know, good tenants, activating this property, which has been a nuisance for some time prior to our ownership.
Like, we've actually secured the site with a fence.
But even every few weeks, that fence gets knocked down.
Oops, I'm just trying to get to the next page.
uh and then here's our hearing notice proof of notice of uh of posting of that notice
in front of the property and then here's allegheny to the right of the property
like as you can see there's apartment buildings on both sides and then
Like, as you can see, there's apartment buildings on both sides.
And then West Allegheny to the left of the property, you can see there's a humongous apartment building here and there's an apartment building here.
You know, my research that I did, we looked at it.
You know, there's apartment buildings at 3136 North 16th, 3127-27 North 16th, 1508 West Allegheny, 1419 West Allegheny, 1605 West Allegheny.
And 1584, West Allegheny. All would require variances if they had to strictly comply with the current zoning of this neighborhood.
And then I also want to point out, again, one of our refusals has to do with the lack of compliance with the rear yard.
So you can see here, this is our property. Here is the actual park. We're going to have a five-foot setback.
But again, you'll see from our site plan, there's a significant buffer, I think, of 12 feet, maybe 15 feet up an alley.
So even though we don't comply completely, we're not taking anyone's light in there by not complying with the 20-foot rear yard setback requirement, which is out of character for, you know, for, you know, RSA 5 if they had to comply with RSA 5.
Just make sure I didn't miss anything.
All right. So technical issues here.
All right. So these are our plans and drawings, our site plan.
So I want you to go over each of the refusals one by one.
So the dimensional refusals.
So these are all because these are RSA 2 zoning requirements.
So first is the maximum occupied area, where 40%, which is 12,800 square feet, is required, while we're providing occupied area of 49.3%, we're posing 15,768 square feet.
Again, de minimis under the circumstances and in line, much better than the surrounding properties.
The second refusal has to do with the minimum side yard is eight feet and five feet is proposed.
So these are where the minimum side yard, where we run a foul of this is, let me just decrease this, but like it's right here, board and right here, right?
So 1508 West Allegheny, which would be most directly impacted by that, is an apartment building, and we received their support.
They have no issue with that, and they shouldn't because if you look at their building footprint just on their site plan, they don't have any side yard on a portion of it.
And then the individuals on North 16th Street, we received the support of 3121 North 16th Street.
We met with all of the neighbors on this street.
I think there may be a couple of vacant lots here.
First of all, they're big trees that separate us from them, so they won't even see our property.
But we actually decreased the size.
This originally was zero over here.
We made that equal as eight feet here and then five feet over here, which the neighbors had no issue with after we showed those revised plans.
and the next oops
the next refusal has to do with the uh 20 foot uh rear yard setback again as you can as everyone
can see over here if i can move this thing no i can't stop sharing my screen
I'm trying to stop.
Let's see.
Just trying to get to the other pages.
All right.
So here, regarding the rear yard,
Here, regarding the rear yards here, I keep expanding and I keep losing the screen, but like there's the five foot setback in the rear.
Again, we have an alley, which is 12 feet wide in nature.
which is 12 feet wide in nature.
So we have a, what's it called,
So we have a, what's it called?
an artificial buffer of 12 feet there.
And behind us there is a park,
which there'll be no direct impact of light and air
under the circumstances.
And then the last refusal, dimensional refusal,
has to do with the height of the property,
where we're looking to go above the 38 feet requirements.
Again, the preexisting building structure is 42 feet high.
We're not changing the height of that.
and the other building structure is actually lower at 40 feet high right here.
The only reason why we get the height variances of 49 feet is because our pilot house hugs the rear of that building structure.
All right. So as you can see from our rendering, what we're trying to do is repurpose the four-story building that's in the front that you saw that had a ton of graffiti on it that's been dilapidated.
and we're repurposing that, we're refinishing it, and you'll see in the rear what we're trying to
do is build a building structure that mimics that. So this is the building A perspective
from the parking portion of the property, and then this is building B perspective. Again,
what we try to do is mimic that building as much as possible. And then this is building B. What
you can also see is there's two trash enclosures on each part of the property for trash storage
outside of the structure. And you can also see that we created a parking effect right here as
well. But it was also important for the neighborhood of having a responsible trash storage
maintenance and removal plan. And that's why we put two separate enclosures like this outside
where individuals could store the trash until pickup day.
And then this is an aerial view of the building structure.
So this is the current building structure.
And then, as you can see, a little smaller version is, and that's building A, and this is building B.
And as you can see, we really try to buffer as much as possible our building A, which is existing,
but we try to put as much landscaping as possible around the residential portion of the neighborhood.
And you can also see here, and here is outdoor trash.
And then for the Building A, that's 53 units.
On the first floor are nine one-bedrooms, a two-bedroom, and a studio.
And then on the second through fourth floors, each floor has 12 one-bedrooms, one, two-bedrooms, and a studio.
And then here you would see for building B, the first floor is, well, the whole building is one-bedrooms.
But you'll see here there's a mail room, there's a bike room.
Even though we're not required to do this, each of the buildings will have elevators.
You know, there's actually even a shared space for the community that we are also putting in here.
And again, most importantly, these are ADA compliant units.
Now, we did meet with the community, and here's our proof of mailing of that notice.
We met July 25th at 6 p.m.
80 notices, 80 properties were notified of the meeting, proof of the addresses to those properties, proof of mailing to those addresses, and then again, we always do this.
When we send our notice out, we also send the notice out to all of the RCOs, not just the coordinating RCOs, all the RCOs, as well as the council members zoning aides.
But you can see here that Tioga United did receive notification, at least it was emailed to them.
I can't speak to whether they received it, but we did send it to them.
So when they told us they didn't get it, I was a little bit surprised that they didn't get it.
But at that moment, I didn't have the email, but, you know, we did look through our records, and that email does exist.
And then here's our application for appeal.
Jeez, today is just our application for appeal that we filed, along with the notice of refusal, our project information form,
Our project information form.
or deeds of property showing the 15
Our deed said property showing the 1510 West Allegheny
F LLC is the owner of the property.
And our certificate of tax clearance.
With that being said, I will ask that Irina
virtually raise her hand.
Irina?
Yes. Hello. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, absolutely. My name is Dr. Irina Zerichny. That's Irina, I-R-I-N-A. And last name is Zerichny, Z-E-L-E-G-Z-E-B-R-A-A-R-I-C-H-N-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed, counsel.
Yes. Irina, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Yes, I did.
And is it true and correct?
Yes, it is.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Oh, yeah, Chair, I see you.
Hands are going up.
The first one is the phone number ending in 9176.
I will allow them to speak.
Hi, good afternoon.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
I'm sorry, Chair.
That seems to me Mr. Holloman.
Do you have anybody else there?
Yes, Chair.
There are six hands up now. The next one is a phone number ending in 0601, and I will allow them to speak.
Please.
Hi, could you state your name, please?
Did the hand go up?
Hi, could you state your name and spell it, please, for the court's sonographer?
sure it's uh ben weinstein b-e-n last name w-e-i-n-s-t-e-i-n right do you swear
a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes are you a neighbor
yes proceed
so we are uh the owners of uh hedgerow apartments which is uh a neighbor to uh this uh proposed
project and uh we are uh offering our uh full support for the project and uh endorse it okay
thank you for taking the time yeah i'm sorry no we feel it's going to add a lot uh to uh
the neighborhood and uh okay well well thank you very much for taking the time to call in
i appreciate it is there anyone else in the audience yes chair the next one is the phone
number ending in 3552 and i will allow them to speak hi could you please state your name
it's spelled for the court stenographer hello hi could you state your name for the court
stenographer um yes my name is adrian fernandez i'm just asking that i can testify last because
i'm on the other line is that okay you will we'll try to get you in a little bit okay thank you
who else is who else is next the next the next person is it phone number ending four three three
six is allowed to speak hi could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
hi my name is philip balderson p-h-i-l-i-p balderson b-a-l-d-e-r-s-t-o-n right do you
swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am.
I'm the principal of a company called Edgewood Apartments, LP, that is the owner of the
immediately adjacent property on Allegheny Avenue.
right um i feel that uh this project is reasonable in scope and scale given you know what is existing
with the four-story structure and uh as the board may or may not know the property next door
As the board may or may not know, the property next door is an affordable housing property.
is an affordable housing.
And the city, as far as we're concerned, is in need of additional affordable units.
And we believe that adding housing stock at this location is certainly a positive.
And we are in support of the project.
Thank you.
We appreciate you calling in.
Other hands up.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Yes, Chair.
Sorry, there's four more hands up.
all right proceed the next one is harold harold hawkins
hi could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer
harold h-a-r-o-l-d hawkins h-a-w-k-i-n-s right do you swear on the firm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do are you a neighbor yes a neighbor on 16th street
um as though it's been stated that i received mailings i have not received the mailings i'm at
3109 16th street um my concern is the parking already congested area with parking as we speak
before this project is beginning and now okay that's my concern no no but thank and we appreciate
you calling in and having your input. Who else is there on the list? Charles Richardson is next.
Hi, Mr. Richardson. How are you? I'm well, Mr. Chair. Did I swear you once today? You did. Okay.
Just state your name for the record, please, and proceed. Charles Richardson, Office of
Councilwoman Cindy Bass, room 508 City Hall.
Based on the coordinating RCO support,
the Councilwoman has no opposition to granting the variance.
Thank you for taking the time to call in.
We appreciate it.
Who else is on the list?
I have a caller with a phone number ending 5904.
We'll be allowed to speak.
Please.
good afternoon i could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
hi my name is scott simmons s-c-o-t-t-s-i-m-m-e-n-s right do you swear or affirm tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes i do please proceed all right so i i own a property
in the area under the uh entity strategic equity group and united phl um i've had exposure to this
area for dozens of years this particular property is set in disrepair and the area needs density
the area is not going to suffer i don't in my personal opinion especially with the unit mix
the small units, and this is going to make many elderly people and affordable housing participants
access the nice brand new housing, and I absolutely fully support it, and I've met these people
before, and I've met other developers, and these people shine heads and way above. Hopefully,
everything's going to go, and hopefully, you're going to approve it. The density is going to be
a major benefit for the area. Thank you for taking the time to call us and offering your
insight. Who's next?
The phone number ending in 1853
will be allowed to speak. How many more do you have after that?
One more. Okay, thank you.
I proceed. State your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer.
are they on yes person person with the phone number ending in one eight five three can speak
now yes can you hear me yeah please state your name and spell for the court sonographer
Hi, my name is Nate Tolchinski, N-A-T-E. Last name is T-U-L-C-H-I-N-S-K-Y.
You swear a firm will tell the truth, told the truth, nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am, yeah. I own multiple single-family affordable rentals in the neighborhood.
I own properties on 3100 block of North 15th and North 15th Street.
all right sir sir are you in favor of the project we are yeah okay thank you very much
for taking the time to call and we appreciate it the last phone call please
here we have don stevenson okay proceed mr stevenson
state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
State your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer.
Thank you.
He's unmuted, Chair, but lastly, we have Adrienne Fernandez, if I can allow her to speak.
Okay, let's bring Adrienne on.
Adrienne?
Adrienne Fernandez, I'm sorry, state chair. Please unmute yourself, Ms. Fernandez.
Hello. Adrienne, please state your name spelled for the court stenographer.
Yes, Adrienne. My last name is Fernandez spelled F-E-R-N-E-N-D-E-Z.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth? Yep. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Okay. Please proceed. Okay. Our affected RCO is
Swampoodle Neighborhood Partners Association RCO. And we are opposed to this development
for several reasons. There was a lengthy presentation that was revised several times
with the last revision just sent this afternoon.
Many volunteer RCOs have jobs and we were not able to review
that second revised presentation.
We have several issues with 1510 West Allegheny Avenue
while we are opposed to 93 units.
At this RSA 2, RSA 5 split property
where the most restrictive zoning has to be applied.
First, we're having a continuing problem with the affected RCO serving as coordinator,
which was Allegheny West Foundation.
They're not holding compliant meetings that match the code section.
I don't think that's it, but Adrian, Adrian, the problem that you're having with that RCO,
I want to concentrate on the property.
Tell me why you're against this property being variance.
All right. The reason why I have to put that on the record, because that is the ongoing problem and I need it to be on the record.
But I mean, we're aware of that. We're aware of that.
OK, but when it happens, there's a scheduling problem because we have other addresses and therefore we were not at this meeting for that reason.
Also, Tug United stated that they barely got to the meeting for the same reason.
We don't even know these meetings are being planned.
Yeah, but listen, Adrian, listen, tell me why you're against the property, not what happened with that. Tell me what are the issues you have against this property.
Okay. First is the number of units. 90 units is the overuse of the variance. On the refusal, they stated that I believe it was in 1963 that this single family property with split zoning should be maximized at 46 units with 46 parking spaces on the site.
We agree with that. If it's going to be approved as multifamily, that there should be 46 units with 46 parking spaces on site and all bike parking also within the property lines on the site.
Also, the neighbors kind of already mentioned that the congestion, they're already suffering a lot of congestion because they do share their parking at their homes with Temple Medical.
the you know the business of Temple Medical and there's just not any more space for parking in
this area and that would be parking traffic utilities and other other things that have to
be shared amongst all neighbors. For the Philly 2035 changes or planning that Mr. Knopson mentioned
that's not consistent with our comments participating in Philly 2035 which all those
meetings were done in Tioga. Also, it's not consistent with corrective zoning that's been
implemented, being implemented now slowly, which is a big job by the council office,
where neighbors have complained about too many multifamily properties, and they have been
being corrected to RSA properties, even when they have limited multifamily at those locations.
Also, we want no roof decks, no rooftop occupancies, only mechanical use of the roofs behind this property.
There are single-family homes, mostly RSA 3 lots, and this would impair their privacy and peaceful use of their homes
because they'd be allowed to have parties and other activities that are not there.
because they'd be allowed to have parties and other activities that are not there now.
Also, the petitions that were signed and letters and also the supportive comments by apartment owners,
many of them are corporations, LLCs, and I believe those comments need to be given by lawyers
and not by persons saying they are apartment owners.
I'm familiar with none of those persons.
We have had extensive meetings in this neighborhood about the large increase in multifamily units, and none of those neighbors have come, although some owners of large properties have come, but they were not the people who testified today who should have been represented by lawyers because they are all probably corporations.
The petitions have some signatures that are on multiple properties, and basically, we need to review them because we don't believe that they can all be verified, especially for the multifamily buildings.
We're saying that additional, we're asking the zoning board to not vote on this until additional compliant public meetings are held, not privately on the block.
um we petitioned in this area for other addresses and we asked many many many many neighbors if they
knew about the 93 units proposed at 1510 west allegheny they all told us they did not the other
thing they told us was that um with a few multi-family units that have been approved
that the rental prices that were reported the affected rcos at the public meetings that those
rents have not been offered to them. Therefore, many of these new proposed units are apartments
that are not available to them. So if they live in a neighborhood and these apartments are being
built and imposing on their lifestyle, why is it that the young adults and young families
cannot afford to move there? Why should they have this in their neighborhood if they can't
afford to live there? There's no reason for it to be in their neighborhood. If this was senior
housing exclusively or veteran's housing in those two cases we wouldn't really have a problem with
the 93 units because the neighbors would approve of that but as the type of housing that's being
proposed we don't agree with that we're basically asking if the zva can hold this vote until
additional compliant meetings are held about this property where neighbors are speaking together and
and in a public meeting and voting in a public meeting where all voting results are reported
at the public meeting with the participation of all affected RCOs because we are all equal
in one of our hierarchy, which Alligating Left Foundation does not understand, although
we've explained it many times.
I'm not going to go back to this argument.
We're not going to talk about this battle you're having with that.
Thank you for your help.
We appreciate it.
Hold the vote.
Mr. Chair, can I just respond to some of the points made by Ms.
Yeah, so in terms of the roof deck, it is only for mechanical use only.
And I think it's referenced in the drawings, but if the board feels so inclined to also put a proviso for the roof deck on building B to be for mechanical use only, we have no objection to that, Mr. Chair.
I was going to indicate that, you know, part of our marketing for this property was for senior living, not exclusively, but a good part of it was for senior living, given the configuration of those units.
We canvassed the neighborhood with the block captain, Phillip Lockett, so we did make significant outreach.
I think there was some issue that we didn't.
And in terms of notice, we gave notice even to Ms. Fernandez by way of that email attaching our notice for the meeting.
And in terms of community support, not only does the coordinating RCO support our project, but also the district council member is in non-opposition to this project as well, besides the merits of the actual zoning appeal.
okay and if i remember correctly tayoga united was opposed but did admit there was
neighborhood support that's right that's right and we we've been in direct communication with
tayoga united even after the meeting we we want to we want to have everyone involved so all right
thank you uh planning commission excuse me chair there's a don stevenson with a hand up okay all
All right. Mr. Stevenson, please proceed. State your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer.
Yes, Donald Stevenson, D-O-N-A-L-D, last name Stevenson, S-T-E-V-E-N-S-O-N.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Are you a neighbor? No, I'm Tioga United chair, RCO.
Are you a neighbor?
No, I'm Tioga United Chair.
Please proceed. Okay, so I'm not going to repeat much of what Ms. Adrienne Fernandez has said. I agree with much of what she said. I will touch on, we were not properly invited to the hearing, so a lot of RCOs did not know. I just happened to come.
also these blueprints that we're seeing now when i was there and i asked alan what does the inside
look like there was no 3d there was no blueprints of what the inside of these buildings were
there was just a number of units and outside of these buildings i also asked one of the owners
could we push this down the line and have another community meeting because there was not a big
community turnout. They got a church next door for them to come. They got one neighbor that's
on a side street, and that was it. Only two to three people showed up. They had a property
manager from an apartment building that I think showed up. Only three people showed up out of 80
addresses. I asked for the mailings. The mailings were not provided. He did not have them at the
time. They were not provided before the meeting or during the meeting. So this is why I asked if
they could try to have another community meeting. I was told by one of the property owners that
That's something he wasn't interested in doing. It's costing him too much money. So this is why
Tioga United opposes this project. I do ask if you could put this on hold. This is a large
project. We're talking 93 units. The community does need more involvement. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Chair, I just would just directly respond if I can.
Please. Yes. We did have the renderings there. So the meeting was some time ago. Mr. Stevenson,
is an upstanding citizen and a great chair of his organization. And he fights hard for his
community. But, you know, with all due respect, those renderings were there. I always show my
renderings as part of that. And again, I did not have the email where to show that the notice was
emailed to Mr. Stevenson's group. And I confirmed that email address is the same one that's on
Atlas. And I do
believe that I gave the
RCO my proof of mailing
as well, which I think Mr.
Stevenson could have had, but I can't remember if I
showed it to him, but it was
available.
And in terms of the, I thought
that was a pretty packed room in there.
And I think the
letter of support speaks
for itself and the petition speaks for
itself. Thank you. Thank you. Planning commission.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board.
This is Greg Waldman, Philadelphia City Planning Commission staff.
The comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change from residential single-family
to residential mixed-use.
Variances for two principal uses and proposed occupied area and building height conform
to the recommended RMX-3 zoning district in the comprehensive plan.
The proposed side yard, rear yard, and parking variances are consistent with nearby properties.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variances.
Thank you.
MI 2023-002-651-1510 West Allegheny.
I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plans, one page, stamp by CBA, September 20, 2023.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
Proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Thomas.
You've been tough, Mr. Halliman.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Nockamson, you have your votes.
Thank you.
Number four, MI 2023-000781-6123 East Worcester.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from FACE CDC with unenforceable provisos.
Vern Anastasio has been promoted.
Mr. Anastasio, I think I've already sworn you in once today.
Just state your name, please, for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Vern Anastasio, 2016 Spruce Street, on behalf of Yves Belazier.
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Okay. Our Vice Chair has just a few questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate by this accuracy?
Yes, sir.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Chair, 6123 East Worcester is legalizing a pre-existing two-family dwelling.
The first floor is a two-bedroom apartment. Bedroom one is 140 square feet. Bedroom two is
180. Living dining is 225. We have a kitchen and a bath square foot as well. Second floor
as a one-bedroom apartment is also ample size. It has been a physical two-family dwelling with all
proper two-family zoning since 1947. 1974 alterations permit was pulled and it incorrectly
identified the duplex as a single-family home. However, the interior never has presented itself
as a single-family. It's always been a two-family. It remains a duplex today. Separate entrances,
separate utilities, and of course, two separate units. It is underlying zoning RSA 5, which is
why we're here. We need to get a variance for the pre-existing non-conforming use.
Let's take a look at the, briefly, let's take a look at the layout.
out. We have a first floor unit and a second floor unit. We have interior photos,
exterior photos the rco was concerned about exterior lighting we made sure that not only
are there ones there but there will be additionals provided they were concerned about trash storage
we have dedicated trash storage space on the side of the property and the rear
And, of course, there is already two electric meters, two gas meters, and, as I said, two entrances.
I've also submit into evidence the property history showing 70 some odd years of two family use.
75 to be exact, and also three pages of signatures of support from folks all within the 300 feet radius.
Most of them, at least.
Here's the letter that went out to all the individual households.
We have 150 households were mailed.
We actually attempted to meet with folks twice.
We actually also have a tax cert.
We have an updated tax cert that was sent to you under separate cover, as was the non-opposition of the RCO.
But we did, in fact, meet with the RCO twice.
Very limited immediate neighbor response.
But luckily, the leadership was able to hear us, and that's where we are.
Because of the property's unique physical condition and its very long history, as the use of a two-family dwelling,
we ask respectfully that the board grant the variance to legalize the preexisting use.
Thank you.
Vern, is your client here?
Eve, can you please raise your virtual hand?
I hope she's still here.
The last one was a long one.
I have a hand up by Evelyn Belisere.
Okay, I will allow her to speak.
Thank you.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer?
Hi, my name is Evelyn Belisere, Y-V-E-L-I-N-E, last name B-E-L-I-Z-A-I-R-E.
Right.
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth?
nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel thank you miss bella's ear did you hear my
presentation to the board yes i did it's a true and accurate to the best of your knowledge
yes and do you adopt it as your own testimony yes thank you i have nothing further questions from
Yes. Thank you. I have nothing further.
Questions from the board? No, Mr. Chairman.
the board
No, Mr. Chairman. No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience? Yes, Chair. I have Charles Richardson with the stand up. I will allow him to speak.
Mr. Richardson, you've already been sworn. Just state your name and please testify.
Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass.
From 508 City Hall, the Councilwoman has no objection to granting the variance.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No more hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board.
This is Greg Waldman, Philadelphia City Planning Commission staff.
This property is indicated for residential use on the city plan.
Given its documented use history and physical condition of the site, we recommended the requested variances be granted.
Thank you. MI 2023-000781-6123 East Worcester Street, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Thank you. Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes. Thank you.
We'll have your votes, counsel.
Thanks.
Number six, MI 2023-002-686-3700 Lancaster Avenue.
Brett Feldman is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from Pound and Village Civic Association based on revised plans.
Sorry. Oh, you said Brett Feldman? Here he is. I'm going to promote him now.
Hi, Mr. Feldman. Could you please state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Hi, Mr. Feldman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Scherzer and the board.
Yeah, please state your name and spell please for the court stenographer.
Yes, Brett Feldman, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Do you swear or affirm the total truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
Yes. I'm on here on behalf of the owner, GMH and 3,700 Lancaster property owner.
Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you. I see you shared your screen. Please proceed.
Great. Again, good afternoon, Brett Feldman.
In the virtual universe should be Charles Artilio on behalf of the owner, as well as Danielle Amund, who is on behalf of the sign company.
I'll get right to it. Exhibits 1 through 13, which I'd ask to be incorporated into the record.
3700 Lancaster Avenue is a large apartment building as part of the U-City Square mixed-use large redevelopment plan project in University City.
And let me just give you a sense of the context here of why we need this sign.
This is the apartment complex. It's actually on multiple streets. It's on Powhatan. It's on Lancaster. It's on, I think it's Walton in the back, excuse me, Warren in the back.
And not all these buildings are there, but some of them are there now and some, many are on the way.
This is an accessory sign for the apartment building. We are already having significant problems with people knowing that our building is residential versus the significant Penn-Presbyterian medical complex that's all around us, the different U Penn medical buildings around us, the Drexel buildings around us, the lab space that's around us.
So what we came up with this sign package was it's CMX4.
It's, you know, high density commercial.
You know, here's the buildings that are going in.
Most of these already have many of these buildings, the ones that exist already have these large signs on.
Many of these buildings, the ones that exist, already have these large signs on top that are building identification signs.
Ours is actually much smaller than those.
We came up with this fairly moderate sign package in order to, for wayfinding, for the deliveries that we receive,
and to make sure that folks know that we're not residential, that we are residential.
We're not the school down the street, the new school, because there's a lot of confusion.
So here is the building. There's actually buildings that have went up since these pictures went up. Here's the building. That's 38th Street here. Again, on Lancaster and on. Here's the building here. And there's a street back here now, Warren, Powleton and Lancaster.
The original proposal, and you'll see, was we have a sign in the rear that faces south,
and then we had a sign on Powhatan near the top of the building.
We met with the RCO, and you'll see at Exhibit Top 3, the Powhatan Village Civic Association.
They completely understood the wayfinding issue and the confusion with all the different frontages we have here
trying to figure out that our building is residential.
But what they asked us to do was, they had no problem with the sign that faces south,
that I'll show you. But their concern was the sign facing north, because that faced more into
the Palatine Village residential. And they said, if you could just take the sign, and if you can
see my cursor here on Palatine, and just slightly move it to this just around the corner facing
north on towards 38th Street and on Palatine, we have no objection. So we relocated the sign.
That's what the revised proviso plans are. And we had to actually, I think, slash the size of the sign in half because the frontage on this on the corner here is significantly smaller than on pallet.
And so we couldn't you couldn't put the same size, the same size sign on that.
So let me just go through these quickly here. This picture probably captured, right? The sign is now at this corner, not so facing east, facing west, not straight here on the street here.
So I'll show you. Let me just go through this as quickly as possible. The refusal, the sizes, the size of the signs are completely below what's allowed.
And this would be allowed as a building identification sign in CMX4, which is the district we're in.
However, our building is not tall enough to be allowed to have a building identification sign, unlike the other buildings in the area here.
Because for the original approvals, we need to make our building smaller because of its location.
So that's that's kind of the zoning challenge that we have here.
This is the letter of non-opposition from the Civic, talking about that change of plans.
Here's some more pictures of our, and this was the original, the original application
was these two red, one faces south and then one face north. The sign that faces north has now
just been moved around the corner to face west here, and I'll show you that.
That was the sign facing north and it's just been moved and made smaller onto this corner that faces west.
Those were all the original plans. And that's the sign in the back facing south.
And here's the revised plans.
Now showing the red facing west and then the same sign facing south here, instead of facing north.
And here's the renderings. That's that small relocated sign now that I believe went from, it was 62 square feet.
It's now down, I think, to about half of that size.
that's the relocated
and that's the sign in the back
facing south
and there's a rendering of it facing south
those are the changes that we made
just showing the context here in this area
area. These are all within a block or two blocks, similar signs all throughout this
area. Again, this is CMX4, so this is not out of context. And these are right in our
immediate neighborhood. And again, there's this concentration of mixed-use buildings
It's important for wayfinding that we're trying to deal with as well here.
uh as well here here's other signs right in this immediate area that's across the street at the
There's other signs right in this immediate area.
pen presbyterian medical complex uh which again we're we're getting deliveries for them too
uh because of our location here's other here's the other pen medicine buildings right in our
immediate area so the zoning map showing the cmx4 these were the zoning notices that we put on i
think we have four frontages all over the different frontages of our building
the proof of mailing
And then at the back here was our change of proviso, change for tax certification, and then our proviso plan, which explains exactly what I did.
went from
16, 137 down to
13. And we
have revised plans and revised
renderings attached here.
So with
that, I would ask if there's
any questions, and then
I can ask... Do you have a client?
Do you have your client here? Yes.
Mr. Artilio, can you
raise your hand?
Hello, Mr. Artilio speaking.
I could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer.
Name is Charles Artilio,
last name is spelled A-R-T-I-L-L-I-O.
I swear affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Yes, Chairman.
Please proceed.
right can you uh provide for the board your uh uh title uh and position with uh gmh uh project
manager for the project great and uh you were at the community meetings and uh heard the request
of the community group to make that sign smaller relocated from the facing north uh to facing west
correct that is correct uh and we went ahead and made that change yes sir yes and did you explain
to explain to the community group, these signs are important for wayfinding and in order to
resolve some of the confusion that's increasingly happening with this location and folks not
knowing whether we're part of Drexel, part of Penn, part of the lab space, but we're in fact
residential and mixed use, correct? That is correct. Great. Mr. Chairman of the Board, I would
I'll stop there with my testimony and presentation, unless there's anything further.
Questions from the board.
No, Chair.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Right.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I have a person named Natal, last name beginning with an L. I shall allow them to speak.
Okay, sure.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yeah, hi.
Yeah, my name is Ms. Loda, and my lawyer is on the phone, Augusta O'Neill.
Ms. Loda, this is, excuse me, Ms. Loda, this is Hillary Emerson, board counsel.
Your case will be called shortly.
We are just running a little bit behind on the 2 p.m. list.
Okay, because you guys called me, that's right.
Thank you so much.
Yeah, sure, you can unmute.
No problem.
Thank you, thank you.
All righty.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No hands, Cher.
planning commission good afternoon chair members of the board this is greg walton from the city
planning commission staff the comprehensive plan recommends a zoning map change from commercial
mixed use four to commercial mixed use three of this location the dimensional requirements
of the zoning code do not create an economic detriment for the appellant that would necessitate
the variance from the maximum height requirement for accessory wall signs
the city planning commission recommends that the zoning board deny the variance
MI 2023, 002-686-3700 Lancaster Avenue, I vote yes.
With revised plans, three pages, stamp by ZBA, September 20th, 2023.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shahi, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you. Thank you, counsel.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Be well.
Number 7, MI-2023-002-598-2236 North 16th Street.
Augusta O'Neill is the attorney.
Letter of support from the Uptown Entertainment and Development Corporation.
And the 16th Ward, RCO voted an opportunity.
And the 16th Ward, RCO voted in opposition to the project.
Augusta O'Neill has been promoted.
Good afternoon.
Hi. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. My name is Augusta O'Neill, A-U-G-U-S-T-A. Last name is spelled O-N-E-I-L-L.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to this property?
My client is N.M. Rahil Properties, LLC.
They are the owner of the property and the representative, Nital Loda, I believe, just raised her hand and spoke briefly.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
have you emailed in all the required documents that are needed and required to proceed with
this case probably in advance of this hearing i did and i also wanted to just let the board
know um i had sent in a copy of the tax clearance certificate this morning understood thank you
you've already shared your screen please proceed thank you so much uh good afternoon members of
the board i'm here this afternoon representing the owner of the property at 2236 north 16th street
This is an application for a change of use to permit multifamily living at this location.
Specifically, we're going to be changing this property to allow for three units.
This property is zoned RSA 5.
So as you can see from the refusal that's up on my screen, we received a refusal for
the multifamily household living at this location.
Just by way of brief background, the board understands the reason that we're here today.
My client purchased this property in January of 2021.
At that time, the property was being used as group living, a group living house with five different units.
My client purchased the property from a seller who told her that he had a license for the group living.
So you can imagine my client's surprise when she received notices of violation from L&I.
So this is a copy of the rental license that she had been provided, and being somewhat
new to the area, she didn't realize that this only permitted one unit, so essentially she
sold the building and was not told the truth about the permissible use by the prior seller.
So we filed an application to legalize that group living and met with the RCO in September of 2022.
And unfortunately, the RCO made clear at that time that they would not support group living at the location, but they would be amenable, they told us, to multifamily use.
So as you can see from the zoning map that I included in my exhibit package, we're right.
So our property is right here. We're right across from RM1.
So there are a number of multifamily buildings in the location, and on my client's block as well, there are a number of multifamily units, as you can see from the rental licenses that I provided with my exhibit package.
So the multifamily use that my client is proposing is therefore contextual with the multifamily uses that are around her property.
We filed a new application, like I said, to permit the multifamily use once the RCO made clear that they didn't want to see a group living at this location.
So we abandoned the group living and single room residence application that was filed in 2022.
In April of 23, we filed our application for the multifamily use, and we met with the RCO for the property, the Uptown Entertainment Development Corporation, in June of 2023.
At the time that we met with the RCO, they did express some concerns just related to the trash.
It's my understanding that the other multifamily uses that are in the location are generating quite a bit of trash.
It's been a concern for the community. So we responded to the RCO's concerns.
I had numerous conversations with the coordinating RCO, and we now have a letter of support, as you can see from page six of the exhibit package.
I do understand that there is someone from the community that's representing themselves as an RCO that is taking a position of opposition.
It's by understanding that it's not an RCO that's recognized by the city, certainly not one that's listed as an RCO on Atlas for this property,
and that RCO did not participate in any of the negotiations we've had.
And that RCO did not participate in any of the negotiations we had after our RCO meeting in 2023.
And again, I just want to emphasize the RCO that is selected as the coordinating RCO by the city.
They are in support. The vote is seven to zero in support of our application.
So with that being said, I would like to call forward Nitalota to adopt my testimony.
could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
no one with their hand raised
she was just on a couple of minutes back oh yeah here she is okay hi could you state your name
please and spell for the court stenographer. Yeah. Hi, my name is Nipta Loda. Could you spell it
please? Yeah, sure. It's N-I-T-T-A-L. And my last name is L-O-D-H-A. Do you swear or firm to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Receive counsel. Thank you.
Ms. Loda, did you have a chance to hear my testimony this afternoon? Yes, I did. And did
everything that I say, was it all true and accurate? Yes. Okay. Would you like to adopt my
testimony as your own? Yes. Thank you so much. Mr. Chair, I have no other questions for my
witness. I'm happy to answer any questions that the board has, but... Questions from the board.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
there are no hands chair planning commission
good afternoon chair and members of the board my name is greg walton philadelphia city planning
commission staff in 2014 the zoning map was amended from residential multifamily to residential
single family attached in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan
while the proposed multifamily use is consistent with nearby properties on the block base planning
Commission request that the proposal be limited to two units as would be allowed under allowed
my right under the north central Philadelphia overlay if the property were zoned RM1. So
the city planning commission recommends that the zoning board grant the variance with the
condition that it be limited to a maximum of two units.
MI 2023 002 590 2236 North 16th Street. I vote yes proviso maximum
of two units thomas holliman my vote is yes with proviso
thank you number eight mi 2023 002 624 1924 east clearfield street brandon sabrin is the attorney
There's a recommendation of support from Somerset Neighbors for Better Living.
Letter of non-opposition with Council Member Squilla.
Brandon Saverin is promoted.
Council, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Brandon Saverin.
That's spelled B-R-A-N-D-O-N.
S as in Sam, A as in Victor, R, A, N as in Nancy.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client and a relationship to this property?
My client is the property owner, 1924 East Clearfield, LLC.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
So do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to as accurate?
Yes, I do, Mr. Vice Chairman.
Have you emailed all the documents five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you very much.
I'm going to try to keep my presentation short because I would actually like the owner to give some substantive testimony, which should only take a few minutes in and of itself.
but here we go. Let's see here. Okay. So the property I'm here on today is 1924 East Clearfield
Street. The notice of refusal is in front of you. I've submitted exhibits to the board
in advance of this hearing. I believe that would be 13 exhibits in exact and would ask
them to be included in the record. So exhibit two is the notice of refusal. And this property
and this property is a church. I'll tell you a little bit about the history of the church in
is a church.
a moment, but it's a church that's been here for almost 90 years. The church building occupies the
vast majority of the site. You'll see there's very little open space on the site, and what we're
proposing to do is to convert it to residential use. We're not proposing any expansion to the
building, which is reflected in the omission of any mention of that in the notice of refusal.
This is purely a change of use application. We're actually applying for 20 dwelling units,
not 22. So we have no problem if the board enters a proviso limiting us to 20 dwelling units. I'll
speak about that number a little bit more in a moment as well. And we have one use refusal,
which is that this is a single family district. Currently, the church is rented out to the
congregation that sold it to the company, which is headed by my client, Tim. But they did not want
to care for the building anymore. So this is a planned move out. The only uses that are permitted
under the zoning code would be, practically speaking, continued religious use. And as my
client will testify to in a moment, there were no other buyers in the market as far as he's aware
that wanted to keep this building. The interest was in demoing it and turning it into a bunch of
subdivided lots for row homes. I believe that the case law out there recognizes that the preservation
of a building of civic importance is the basis of a valid hardship. And I've offered a memorandum
of law at Exhibit 1 to the board, which I won't go through orally today, but that memo
spells out why we have a hardship in greater detail and how our proposal satisfies the criteria
for a use variance under the Philadelphia Code. Just to keep moving on here, in Exhibit 5,
because it's a requirement, I did include the zoning map as it appears on Atlas,
But the shapes of the parcels on this block on Atlas are incorrect. So again, here's the zoning map. But here at exhibit six is like the aerial photo from Atlas. And, you know, that's how it looks. It's oriented on like a northeast-southwest axis, not the shape that the zoning map shows, just as an FYI.
So here again is the church. And in this slightly more zoomed in photo in Exhibit 6, this is the parcel line to the southeast of it. So like I said, the building occupies the vast, vast majority of the site. We're not changing the size of the building.
I'm just continuing through my exhibits here. Exhibit 7, the purpose of Exhibit 7 is to show
you our notice posters in orange that are posted on the two adjacent streets, but it's actually
a good opportunity to show you what the building currently looks like. So this is the front on
Clearfield Street. This, to keep going here, excuse me, this is the other side of the building,
pretty large building on Helen Street is the side street. And you can see it's basically three
stories if you count the partially above ground basement as a story. Here's a view of the building
that's like head on onto the corner of Helen and Clearfield Street. Exhibit eight, I'll skip
through. Those are just copies of tables in the zoning code. Exhibit nine is the notice that we
mailed to near neighbors for the RCO meeting that was held by Somerset Neighbors for Better Living,
which I attended with Tim. So here's the mailer. Here's our proof of mailing still in exhibit nine
per planning commission regulations. We sent this to a hundred nearby properties.
um here is a flyer about the project that tim handed out at the meeting it actually is nice
because it contains a rendering of what the building will look like when he rehabilitates
it inside and out it does need some exterior work um and these are this is on the bottom right
corner a computer rendering of a potential unit some of the units will have sort of like a like
a mini loft layout. Here's a photo of the interior of the church, which as Tim will tell you in a
moment, because of its disrepair, that the congregation currently operates out of the
basement. It's unable to use the chapel, which is a shame, and it doesn't have the means to
means to rehabilitate the chapel space.
rehabilitate the chapel space. This is the coordinating article.
This is the coordinating RCO's decision letter.
It voices support for the project, speaks to the fact that there were 17
persons in attendance at the meeting that I attended.
We also briefly have a letter from Councilman Squillow that,
you know, copies the fact that we have support from the participating
and coordinating RCO and that his office is in non-opposition to our application.
I'll just real, real briefly, you know, speak about the hardship again.
You know, we have to make a proposal that has enough projected revenue to attract financing
to repair this structure and then maintain it on an ongoing basis to save it from demolition,
as has tragically occurred to so many churches like this across the city.
20 units is what Tim and his architectural team felt like is the minimum number of units
that can attract that financing.
and I will, we do have floor plans in here, although I think I'll skip going through them
at the moment, but the units are a nice size. The last thing I'll say is that, you know,
this building per the OPA, the Office of Property Assessments Records has been here since 1935. So
it's almost 90 years old. And there is data on Atlas that indicates that there was another church
building, probably belonging to the same congregation before that building. So there
have been church uses here since at least 1910. The property in this location is something that
the neighborhood is used to. And, you know, the people that were in support of this at the RCO
meeting, they wanted to see it stay there rather than, you know, have it be leveled and turned
into a bunch of new row homes. So with that, I'll, you know, ask Tim to adopt my testimony
and ask if he has any additional comments. And his name is Tim Rosenblum. And maybe while he's
doing that, I'm going to bring up the site plan we prepared. Hi, sir. Could you state your name,
police and spell for a court stenographer sorry hi uh yes my name is tim rosenblum r-o-s-e-n-b-l-u-m
right you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do proceed counsel him um first of all are you authorized to speak on behalf of 1924
Fort East Clearfield LLC? Yes. Are you the principal of that company? Yes, I am.
Were you able to hear my testimony in your zoning case today? Yes, I did. Was it true and accurate
to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief? Yes. And would you therefore adopt it as
if it were your own testimony? Yes. Okay. I'm just going to, just since I have it up and you can use
it as an aid or not, but what I have on the screen right now, which is exhibit 10, is this a copy of
of the zoning plan, which you did not have to submit for purposes of this zoning phase,
but that you prepared with an eye towards the future construction work?
Yes, correct.
Okay. I know you wanted to make a few comments about, you know, sort of your background and
your ability to tackle a project like this. Feel free to do so.
Okay. Hi. Thank you guys for hearing me. My name is Tim Rosenblum. I bought
uh this church the the pastor uh put the church up for sale the top floor um the photo that you
guys saw was actually a kind of the better angle the the other side is in pretty bad disrepair
and so he moved his congregation downstairs um and then put it up for sale i have a pretty extensive
uh background or relatively extensive background with um kind of historic uh existing buildings
and adaptive reuse and i've gotten a bunch of buildings listed on the national register
um i like doing it i if i'm here because my goal is not to tear the building down i
enjoy that um this building is is not like a historic listed building um but i do have a lot
of experience doing those types of renovations and so i wanted to do that here um i met with
the pastor, almost a couple of years of us, there was some really pretty crazy title issues
really pretty crazy title issues on this project that I worked through with him over a handshake
on this project that I worked through with him over a hand.
over it took almost two years and then I I rented it when I I asked him where he was going with his
congregation and he said he wasn't sure yet and so I rented it back to him uh for a dollar a month
until I figure out what I'm doing with this building and that's sort of the history of how
I got here today. And Tim, can you just confirm that in the process of purchasing the building
from the congregation, is it correct that you weren't aware of any parties that had plans for
this property that didn't involve demoing it? Yeah, that is correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you
very much well happy to take your questions um members of the board brandon brandon real quick
you you started requested 22 and after meeting with the neighbors you moved to 20 that that mr
chairman was less of a function of request from the neighbors and more just that we felt that uh
that was the better plan from a design standpoint and trying to be truthful to the minimum variance
requirement. Okay. Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Chair. No, Mr.
Chairman.
No, Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. I have
Ben and Naomi Wildflower with their hand up. Okay.
They will be allowed to speak. Hi. Could you state your
name please and spelled for the court stenographer hi my name is naomi wildflower that's n-a-o-m-i
last name w-i-l-d-f-l-o-w-e-r right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth yes are you a neighbor yes i live about 500 feet away okay please proceed
um i'm actually very excited about this project we need more housing in the neighborhood my
concern. And perhaps you can clarify for me. I thought the church also owned the yard with the
eight or nine old growth trees on it as well. And I was wondering if there was any plans to
demolish those trees or anything like that. So I'm not quite sure what property, but what I can
tell you is that Tim does own some other land in the area. If it includes those trees, there are
no plans to demolish them at this time. Tim has no other development plans in this area at this
time. Okay. It's directly adjacent to the lot. Right. Okay. Okay. The church sign, there was
always a church sign on that lot. Yes. So, so Tim also purchased that from the congregation and is
not planning to develop it at this time. So, you know, we're not, we're not paving it. We're not
building anything on it um um i mean that both in the technical sense of what this application
covers and in the more sort of truthful worldly sense of he just doesn't have any plans for that
parcel so it's going to remain as is at least for now okay thanks thank you everyone else
thank you for calling in we appreciate your input is there anyone else in the virtual audience
there are no hands here cleaning commission
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board. This is Greg Walden from City Planning Commission staff. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential single-family zoning. The appellant proposes to convert an existing church structure into 20 residential units. Given the proposed adaptive reuse, the City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2023-002-624-1924-East Clearfield Street. I vote yes, proviso. Maximum 20 dwelling units.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Hill, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you. Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number 10, MI-2022-004-478-716 North 40th Street.
Michael Mattione is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from the Belmont Alliance Civic Association with provisos.
Michael Mattione has been promoted.
Good afternoon, Mr. Mattione.
Please state your name as spelled for the court stenographer.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
I would state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer, sir.
State your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer, sir.
Sure. Michael Mattione, M-A-T-T-I-O-N-I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, tell the truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client and relationship to this property?
Sure. It's 41 Development LLC, and they're the owner of the property and developer of the property.
And our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I did.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Oh, sorry.
Again, I represent 41 Development LLC and they're the owner of the property. We have the principal, Eugene Nidovich, on as well. And as we said, we presented the tax clearance, a revised refusal, letter of support, 15 to 1 vote from the RCO, a revised zoning site plan, revised plans form, floor plans, renderings, some neighboring permits.
photographs, the deed, et cetera. Originally, when this project, the application was filed,
this property had split zoning RSA3 and RM1, and RSA3 zoning complied. That's still the case
because this application started under that. However, subsequently, the zoning is now RM1
for this property. But because this application was ongoing, we continued on. And when we come
down to the refusal, you will see that there are several refusals that would not come up if this
were under the RM1 zoning. The first being the proposed multifamily housing. Again, this is
an RM1 zone property now, but when filed, it was not, so we got a refusal. We also received a
refusal for not having parking spaces, which would have been required if this were RSA3,
but it is now RM1. So again, the coverage issue is still there because even at RM1,
you have to have no more than 75% and we're at 79%. As we said, the RCO supported us 15 in
support, one in opposition. It did have a few provisos, all of which are fine because the
building is 37 feet. The changes that we made with respect to the revised plans were to comply
with their requests that we have a front setback at the front of the house 15 feet and to have a
front porch like the other properties on the street. So we are working in compliance with their
requests. The change that we made was to, originally the house was up and only eight
feet off of the curb. Now it's 15 feet and that matches the setback. So that's what we did.
And that's why the RCO supported us because we made the changes that they requested us to make.
And as you can see, the property does have a handicapped elevator on the front of 40th Street.
and that's our revised plans form the floor plans show that the typical floor has a one-bedroom
unit a one-bedroom unit and two-bedroom unit there's some slight variations going from floor
to floor in terms of unit sizes because like on the first floor you have to have the hallway go
all the way down the building and again you have ada accessible units with the elevator lift on
the front. The big concern by the RCO and the community was making sure that we had the front
porch and that we had the 15-foot setback. As you can see from the rendering, we have that.
We have a red brick front facade that they also requested. And this shows, I'm sorry,
We'll go back to seven.
Again, the neighboring properties having front porches, we have a front porch.
This is a rendering so it doesn't show the elevator lift, but the elevator lift will be there.
There are other properties granted in 2021, 12 units just like this.
And this was back when it was RSA 3 zoning.
Um, so we're similar to them, but the problem, and here's the property.
Um, so we're similar to them, but the problem, and here's the property, you can see it's
a vacant lot up on North 40th street, a vacant lot, and it goes through to, um, Wiotta street
behind it.
And that's from the back on Wiotta street, but Wiotta street is not really a, uh, usable
street. And these are the properties and why they requested that we move back. These were the ones
down the street at 746 and 748 North 40th that were approved. And again, they didn't respect the
front porch and the setback. So that's why they requested our property be moved back. Other than
that it was um supported by the uh by the group um and again if this were now it's now rm1 so
we the multifamily would be permitted so you know we we followed and met with the rco we did what
they wanted us to do um and we would have filed a new application but this is already pending there
are also five bicycle parking spaces on the front floor. Again, the first floor is fully ADA
accessible with a wheelchair lift out front. And this developer also is developing a building at
892 North 41st that has 30 units that are all affordable. And the community also supported
that as well. So that's the application. Given the input from the community and the work we did
with the community and the fact that now the multifamily units are permitted, we believe
that the coverage issue is a de minimis variance.
And with that, I would like to call on my client, Eugene Nidovich.
Eugene Nidovich is allowed to speak.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
My name is Eugene Nidovich. That's E-U-G-E-N-E. Last name is N as in Nancy, A-Y-D-O-V-I-C-H.
Do you swear to ORFIRM, tell the truth, tell the truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Eugene, did you hear my statements?
Yes, I did.
Are they true and correct?
They are correct.
Do you have any additional comments?
uh no nothing specific um you know we met with the community about this case a couple several
times i think it was we have three community meetings um and you know we adhere to every
single thing that the community wanted on this project and do you adopt my statements as your
testimony i do i have no further questions mr chairman or questions from the board no chair
no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
Yes, Chair, I have a hand by the name of Diane W.S.
I will allow her to speak.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
hi my name is diane wadley smith d-i-a-n-n-e wadley w-a-d-l-e-y dash smith right um we
hold on hold on hold on do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes sir are you from the neighborhood yes i am and i live a few blocks from that site
I am the captain. We are in support of what Mr. Eugene would like to do. But the wheelchair elevator, I don't recall that. Did we discuss that, Mr. Mariani?
We presented it at the RCO meeting when we were there.
We did talk about it.
Now, I'm not sure that it was a big focus of the meeting, but it's the same exact plans.
And I know I mentioned it because I have it in my notes and we talked about it, but the bigger focus was making sure that the building moved back in the 15 feet and had the front porch in the proper place.
Right.
I mentioned it.
I mean, it wasn't a big focus.
I just did not recall that.
And just to correct you once again, you said that Wyota is unusable, but I want to correct you once again.
Although you have a barrier there, it is, that's the old picture.
I keep saying that.
I just took pictures the other day before this meeting just to show that the barrier is still there.
But I'm not complaining.
I just want to correct the record saying that it is unusable because two neighbors have driveways in the back.
they use it, and also the community uses it to go to and from the bus routes.
And also the community uses it to go to and from the bus routes.
So I just wanted to make that correction on the record.
Everything else is fine.
And we do appreciate everything that you've done.
You've complied with just about everything that we wanted.
So we do thank you and we do appreciate you.
Thank you.
Thank you for calling in and giving us your input.
Is there anyone else in a virtual audience?
yes chair cordelia bathik has a hand up hi could you state your name please and spell
for the court stenographer hello
cordelia bathik okay spell it please for the court stenographer
cordelia spell your name for the court reporter
Cordelia Bafik, C-O-R-D-E-L-I-A, Bafik, B-A-F-F-I-C.
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
I also would like to thank Mr. Idovich for complying with their request from our community.
The only comment I have, and I would like to confirm what Ms. Diane Wadia said,
I also was part of every one of the meetings where the community discussed this project, and I do not remember at all, and I took notes as well, the elevator in the front, because our concern would be that there is, that would be an eyesore, so we would have definitely mentioned it.
Okay, we appreciate your input.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
planning commission good afternoon chair members of the board this is greg waldman city planning
commission staff the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location to residential
residential multi-family one under the proposed zoning three dwelling units would be allowed by
right 12 12 units not the minimum needed for the applicant to derive value from the lot the city
planning commission recommends that the board grant a variance for multiple units but limited
to three units. Thank you. Mr. Chairman I believe that's an incorrect statement and I believe that
we would have a minimum of eight units permitted by right and if we added a bonus we could get up
to 12 units as well. Again this is what we propose is what the community also asked us to do. Right
and and you're uh you're comfortable with all of their uh yes right yes okay okay thank you
mi 2022 004 478 17 716 north 40 street i vote yes roof deck for provisos roof deck for
mechanical only front building line must align with adjacent structures trash stored in the rear yard
and also commercial trash pickup and mr chairman we had revised plans as well i'm sorry about that
right hold on hold on one one second um so i believe the revised plans were considered under
the amended refusal is that correct that is correct we just okay so then we just need to
note her amended refusal dated 7 2023 by granting this appeal the board is also approving additional
variances for rear yard and rear yard area is that right correct open area open area okay
jim james snell my vote is yes with proviso thank you it's this mail shaheed my vote is yes with
proviso. Thomas, you have your three votes, counsel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All right. MI 2023-002-586-2100 to 12 East Rush Street. Bryn Saverin is the attorney.
Hello. Hold on one minute here. Sure. Recommendation of support from Somerset
Neighbors for Better Living, letter of non-opposition from Councilmember
Squilla, and 17 form letters of support signed by neighbors.
Counsel, you've already been sworn, just state your name for the record.
Brandon Saverin of Pritzker Law Group.
Okay. And could you identify your client and your relationship to the property?
Okay, and could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes. My client is 2100-12 Rush Street, LLC, the owner of the property.
Our place here has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents that were needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
yes thank you please proceed and share your screen okay
all right good afternoon members of the board so on your screen is exhibit 10 from our exhibit
binder i would ask that all of our exhibits be included in the record which i submitted
last week by email to the board this exhibit 10 is a google maps aerial image of the property
The property is shown in red.
I'll zoom out a little bit here.
So we're in like the southeast sort of corner of Kensington, near-ish Port Richmond.
And the property is a property of just under 10,000 square feet that is at the corner, most of it, of Amber and Rush streets with sort of like a dog leg that extends to Somerset Street.
and most of the property used to be a metal foundry. In fact, this was the first foundry
in the United States that produced aluminum at the turn of the last century. So this is a parcel,
most of which has a history of heavy industrial use. We are proposing to develop it as a mixed
use building and a smaller residential building, which I'll show you in a minute.
You know, essentially the development team had to figure out a use of this property,
which can support the fact and attract financing, despite that it has been vacant with no built
structures since 2004, and that per a phase one environmental study that we obtained,
Um, there is likely, um, some degree of, uh, contamination of the soil. Um, the, uh, environmental consultant believed there were, uh, underground storage tanks on the site and that there might be additional, uh, pollution that was caused by the metals foundry.
Um, so that all being said, you know, that that's sort of the basis of the hardship of
how we got to where we got, we needed to propose something, um, that, um, was substantial enough
to, to sort of overcome those obstacles. Um, and I'll just scroll up. That again was from
Google. Um, here are the city's official images from Atlas at exhibit nine. That's the parcel map.
And then these are particularly useful. I'll zoom in a little bit. These are sort of street level photos that the city had taken. So here's the main part of the property at the corner of Amber and Rush behind this fence. We actually replaced this fence, which I'll show you in a moment.
But, you know, it's it's a big vacant lot has been for almost two decades on Rush Street, which is the largest frontage to this property across the street.
There is only, to our knowledge, one occupied built structure, which used to be a paper manufacturer, but is a mechanic.
now. This is an indoor car garage that works on cars. So not residential on that side of the
street, despite our zoning being residential. And then the other two frontages are Amber and
Somerset, which do have residential uses. This is that dogleg that comes out to sort of the middle
of the block of Somerset Street. And we are proposing a small secondary building to fill
this gap rather than sort of gash this block with a driveway or leaving it vacant, which would sort
of be unsafe and bizarre. I'll show you in a moment what we're going to do with it. So here we
go. In exhibit three, I have renderings of what we're proposing to build that the architect
prepared. The architect is with us in case you have any questions for him. So this is the chief
of the two buildings that we're proposing for this site.
This one is on the corner of Amber and Rush.
It would have a cafe on the first floor,
sort of here where my cursor is,
as well as a rentable office space next to it.
So two commercial uses on the first floor,
as well as nine parking spaces,
as well as nine parking spaces, which you can see are accessed off of Amber Street into the rear of
which you can see are accessed off.
the first floor. There's nine of these proposed. And then there'd be 24 dwelling units above in
this building, many of which have balconies shown in this rendering and a green roof proposed.
And then in so far as that gap on Somerset Street, here's how we're proposing to fill it.
This is a four-unit building that would have substantial green space in the rear, which I'll show you in a moment.
I do want to address just real quickly, a different attorney in a year prior took a different iteration of this project through the board
and did not succeed to get variances because there was not support from the RCO, which we do have for this proposal.
I just want to mention that so you don't think I'm hiding the ball on that.
It was a little while ago. It also is a different project in that it had more dwelling units and lesser commercial space.
So I bring that up because I'm going to jump into the notice of refusal.
like here. Sorry. So the notice of refusal is, I'm sorry, my computer. Oh boy. Here we go. One
more time. Okay. So the notice of refusal has a lot on it. The top part is just the description
of the project, which is lengthy because it includes multiple buildings. In the recent past,
This parcel had multiple addresses, some other sort of technical info.
But some of these refusals are for the commercial uses that the community in that last process requested.
So despite the fact that they triggered additional variances, we included them this time.
And so the other thing I want to mention, and I'll tick through the refusals quickly, is that most of the other large parcels in this neighborhood, particularly on the end of blocks like ours, which is on the end of a block, are zoned IRMX.
That's mixed use industrial residential. And to my knowledge, we would have only triggered two of the eight refusals that we triggered if we likewise were zoned IRMX.
The problem is that we're zoned RSA 5. So that's, as you know, a single family designation, the most common one in the city. And it's just not designed for anything but row homes, essentially.
And, you know, because of the size of the site, the shape of the site and the likely likelihood of some degree of environmental cleanup work needed, we cannot develop single family homes here.
So just to tick through these, I did offer a memo to the board at Exhibit 1 that gives the fuller description of why I believe we meet the zoning code's requirements for a variance for each of these refusals, but I'll give you a brief recap, very brief here.
So the first refusal is for the fact that we have multiple principal uses, as is the fifth refusal is also a used refusal, and so is the seventh refusal.
So those refusals, numbers one, five, and seven, are all because we included those commercial uses in the project.
The second refusal is for multiple principal buildings. That's because we aim to do something productive and aesthetically pleasing with the building on Somerset Street.
the balcony refusal, I would consider a refusal that is de minimis in nature and does not even
require the showing of a hardship. This pertains to balconies only on the southeast side of the
site, which encroach not over the property line, but into the side yard setback area.
There are no buildings beyond our property line on that side of the property. It is and has been for a long time an outdoor car storage yard.
So we are, as I detailed in my memo, not negatively affecting any particular people. I don't think we're sort of violating the policy concerns of the code by having balconies on that side of the main building.
But we did draw a refusal for it. The balconies on the other sides of the building did not draw refusals.
Because we're RSA 5 and because there's no alley servicing the building, we have no legal means to have parking on this site.
We have no legal means to have parking on this site for this refusal, the fourth refusal, but the community wanted us to have some parking.
We have nine parking spots.
I believe if we were zoned IRMX, like the other large parcels in this area, we would not have drawn that refusal because we would have legal access to parking.
um and um the sixth refusal is for multi-family use because what the code wants us to do is carve
this up and again develop single family homes um but we're not doing that and then the final
refusal is for height um that the height of the main building um is uh almost 53 feet that is
necessitated by having parking on the ground level as opposed to underground, which we didn't want to
develop because of cost and potential environmental factors. So we raised the building in order to fit
that parking there. And that also provided space for the commercial units. If we had a 38 foot
tall building there with all that other stuff, we couldn't develop enough units to attract the
financing necessary to build anything. So that's enough on the refusal. I'll show you the zoning
plan quickly at exhibit two. So this is one page of the zoning plan, Z3. You do have the entire
zoning plan in the pack that I submitted, but this one's probably the most interesting one because
it's the ground floor level zoning plan. So what we have here is an illustration of how the main
building has the cafe here in the corner and then the rentable office space facing Rush Street. Each
has its independent entrance and windows onto Rush Street. And then the residential portion
of the building has a really nice lobby with a seating area that has large doors off of Rush
Street. And then in the rear of that main building is a drive aisle that serves the nine
car parking spaces, one of which is ADA accessible. There is sort of non-paved or sorry,
non-drivable walking space between the two buildings on the, I believe it would be the
southeastern edge. And what that leads to is a green space. And again, you can walk from building
to building and to the green space without any danger of interacting with cars. And this green
space is going to sit basically as a buffer between that small four-unit building that I
showed you on Somerset Street. On Exhibit 13, we have our notice posters for this hearing.
And actually, it's just a useful opportunity to show you that my client has attempted to make
the site, since they purchased it, a little bit more attractive from the street than shows on
atlas so there's new screening on this fence um on all sides it's kind of the only point i'm trying
to make with this exhibit but it does happen to feature our notice posters um and then we have our
rco materials at exhibit 15. so um here is the um mailer that was sent to near neighbors concerning
the rco meeting which was held by somerset neighbors for better living here's the proof
of mailing showing that we sent 116, sorry, 166 copies of that notice to nearby properties as
directed by the planning commission. Here is an email that we sent about the project to
affected RCOs, the other RCOs. And then here is the coordinating RCOs decision letter.
So express the support for the project. I really enjoyed working with this group and give them a
lot of credit for the way they conducted themselves on this project. If you look at the vote count,
the folks who supported the project were the attendees who do not work for or volunteer
for the RCO. That's the 16 folks who voted in support of the project. They want to see this
site developed. As I mentioned, it's been vacant for a very long time with a chain link fence
around it. The board itself of the RCO had mixed feelings, which is also reflected here. But the
total vote, you know, was more pro than con. And the board respected the fact that outside of
themselves, the folks at that meeting really voted in favor of this. So they offered us a letter of
support. And I'm very thankful for that. We also have a letter of non-opposition. Oh, sorry, here
it is, as the council mentioned from, as the chairman mentioned from the councilman, and
as the chairman mentioned from the councilman, and my clients did in this whole process gather
my clients did.
17 form letters of support signed by neighbors who, according to my client, live within about
a two block radius of the property. They did not gather letters further away from the property than
that. As I mentioned, I'm not going to go through it, but my exhibit packet does contain
the phase one environmental report. It contains an assessment of the property and sort of what
development options are available under the circumstances that was authored by a professional
planner, Nancy Templeton, who is an American Institute of Certified Planner. And both of
those documents factor into the memo that I wrote. And again, the memo attempts to explain why I think
we meet the standards for the variances we're requesting under the code. So I have my client
here to adopt my testimony. I have the architect available for questions. I want to do your
architect first. I mean, I'm sorry, not your architect, your client. Yes. So it's Andrew
Friedman who's here to testify on their behalf. Mr. Friedman, could you state your name, please,
and spell it for the court stenographer. Good evening, Mr. Chair. My name is Andrew Friedman,
A-N-D-R-E-W, Friedman, F-R-I-E-D-M-A-N. Right. Do you swear or affirm and tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do, Mr. Chair. We'll see you, counsel.
Thank you. Andrew, are you authorized to speak on behalf of 2100-12 Rush Street, LLC?
I am. Did you hear my testimony in your zoning case today? I did. Was it true and accurate to
the best of your knowledge, information, and belief? Yes, it was. Would you therefore adopt
it as if it had been your own testimony? I will. Thank you. Thanks.
Questions from the board? No, Chair. No, Mr. Chairman. No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
there are no hands chair planning commission good afternoon chair members of the board
my name is greg walton wealthy city planning commission staff in 2017 the zoning map was
amended for medium industrial to residential single family accord with recommendations from
the comprehensive plan there are no unique physical circumstances to the existing vacant
lot that present a hardship for meeting code requirements. Furthermore, the proposed variance
would significantly alter the character of the block by introducing dozens of new residents
much more than what would be allowed under the single-family zoning, substantially or permanently
injuring the long-term viability of adjacent conforming industrial properties. City Planning
Commission recommends that the zoning board denied the variances. Can I just offer a very quick
rebuttal to that mr chairman please okay you may be on mute mr chairman i couldn't hear you
um you hear me now yes yes sure okay um yeah i mean i i think that i i respect the fact that
the property was remapped at some point from industrial to residential use but the the
century-long heavy industrial use of this property means that that history is not behind it. And
that's what the phase one environmental study indicated. You know, that means that there's
a hardship here and we can't proceed with this property and treat it as though it's just any old
RSA 5 zone lot. And I think the neighbors at the RCO meeting would like the area to transition more
to residential use and away from industrial use, and therefore, I don't think they would describe
what we're doing as injurious to them. I think that they genuinely view this as beneficial.
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Saverin, we've heard some testimony. What I want to do with this
is take this back to the executive committee, and we're going to vote on this next Wednesday
at 2 p.m. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kelly, how are you holding up there?
Mr. Chairman, I'm fine. Well, what I want to do is one more case, then we'll take a break. Okay.
Thank you, Chair.
MI 2022-007-281-430 West Burke Street.
David Orfinides is the attorney.
Um, letter of no position from South Kensington and community partners, community vote in favor of a project with unenforceable provisions, but the RCO decided not to take a position.
Letter of no position from South...
David Arfanides has been promoted.
Thank you.
Welcome.
Mr. Arfanides, please state your name and spell for the court stenographer.
Certainly. My name is David Orphanides. O-R-P-H-A-N-I-D-E-S.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes. My client is Gladwell Properties, LLC, and they are the owner of the property.
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
I did. Thank you.
Thank you. Please proceed. Share your screen.
You'll see my screen now.
Great.
Just reduce that.
Again, my name is David Orphanides from the law firm of Orphanides & Toner here in Philadelphia.
On behalf of Gladwell Properties, LLC, the owner of the subject property, 430 West Burke Street.
What you have up on your screen right now is an arrow image showing the property in question.
As you can see, it's a largely vacant, non-residential industrial lot.
It was a former, it was formerly zoned G2 industrial, dating back to the 1930s.
It was used for industrial use, kind of carrying on from the last application.
The Billy Pencorp actually utilized the property for years.
And you can see here at Tabby T in the Sanborns, you can show, it shows back in the early 1900s, how the property was utilized by the Billy Pencorp.
through the 70s, the 80s, into the 90s, and then sometime between 90 and 2000, the buildings were
demolished and remained vacant until my client purchased the property. The Sanborns show a
larger parcel. This parcel has been split up into two different parcels and three phases of this
project um the two prior phases one on north this street which i'll show you in a minute
um which is right here was previously presented to the zoning board by me
um and that was presented back in 2019 um is there were four buildings that are identical to
the building eight that we are presently proposing um each of those it was uh they were four eight
unit buildings and we have one eight unit building being proposed here at building eight but again
this project was approved with a height and a lot area uh variance um the uh required lot area for
the number of units that were proposed at that time was uh 14,888 we had 12,158 uh available so
um there was quite a bit of difference there and uh but the zoning board did grant the variance
particularly given what you had going on in the area at the time and still have going on.
You can see here there's a lot of vacant land still in the immediate area.
If I go to the aerials here and you back up, you can see that the property here, right below Burke Street,
we have a Burke Street frontage, Cadwell Otter frontage, and then a small North 5th Street frontage for this particular parcel.
But you can see here in this photo where the phase one has started under construction.
And you'll see photos that that is actually almost completed.
But to the south of us, you have what was the Honor Foods facility or operation, a large vacant industrial, I mean, large, very large industrial property that's with a vacant parking lot right now.
You have very large former industrial buildings that have been converted to lofts or apartments down here on the west side of Fifth Street below West Montgomery Avenue.
and then a lot of other vacant land in the area, too.
And as I scroll in again, you can see our property right here.
This is a view from Cadwell Otter, from Berks.
This is a view from Cadwell Otter, from Berks, from the south from Honor Foods, and then
from the east from North 5th Street.
You have non-residential properties of a gym over here to the left of us, and then a non-residential
property that's to the north on the 5th Street side of the project, and then a non-residential
to the south between us and Honor Foods in this little portion here.
uh the property well like i mentioned was previously zoned uh g2 industrial remap to rm1
and you can see in the zoning map down here in the bottom left hand quarter and again you can
see that that singular property that i showed you back with the sanborn maps um has been separated
off into two parcels um phase one here on north history and then there were two phases here on
And the remaining lot, 430 West Burks.
And so as I started to say, you had these projects here, the eight four-unit buildings.
And then you had by right buildings here, which was phase two.
And that was six buildings, eight dwellings each.
So you have 48 units there.
And that was all by right, meaning the RM1 requirements.
So what we came back to do, and those were built without parking at the time, and as you know, there's no parking requirements in RM1.
So this project involves two buildings and the completion, the third phase of the project, and that is proposed building seven, which was a 72 – it's a 72-foot-tall building that was proposed initially for residential use only.
There were 35 units proposed in that building.
And then, again, similar to the other buildings on North 5th Street that were part of Phase 1 that are almost completed with construction now, we have the last fill-in building down there, which, again, is eight units.
So a total of 43 units, in addition to the units that were already, the 48 units that were already permitted for this lot, 430 West Berks, brings a total to 91 units total.
So 43 parking spaces are proposed, as you can see, if you add them up with the required ADA and EB units.
Our notice of refusal, and while I did not have any, I did not waive the reading and stipulated to its accuracy, it's not a particularly well-written notice of refusal.
But essentially, we have two refusals. And one is that we don't quite have the lot area on this parcel for the 91 units. We have the lot area for 88. That's without any bonuses.
If we were to do a green roof bonus, for instance, we'd have 110 that would be permitted.
So we're a couple of units short or a couple, a little bit of square footage short of the required, not very similar to the difference for the units that were originally built with Phase 1 on North 5th Street.
And then the other is we have a height refusal for both the building, Building 7 and Building 8.
And again, building seven or building eight is exactly like the buildings that were built in phase one and that were granted a height variance by the zoning board back in 2018 and 2019.
So for the same reasons that we feel that the board granted the variances for phase one in terms of the height and the lot area, we feel those conditions still exist.
And particularly now, I mean, at that time, Honor Foods was still in operation, and now it's laying fallow.
So in terms of Building 8, we feel that the same basis for the grant of the variance exists in this situation.
As far as proposed Building 7, again, it's largely residential.
It's all residential.
We are providing about, for the total project between phase two, which was done by Wright, and now this phase three building at the corner, we're providing pretty close to one to two parking.
We provided a dog run, green space, and interior area.
One of the main reasons for our height variance, aside from the fact that Burke Street is an extremely wide right-of-way, it's 70 feet wide.
so 70 feet wide. And the fact that I can show you photographs of, as you may know, if you drive up
and down Burke Street, coming off of, let's say, Temple's Campus, that there are a lot of tall
buildings on Burke Street. And from a zoning map standpoint, there are a lot of other properties
that extend. You can see here, this is our parcel over here, but you can see there's ICMX.
here. This is our parcel over here, but you can see there's ICMX parcels that extend to the east
of us, and then there's some to the west of us. And in that zoning district, our height is
comparable to the height that's permitted. And that's just literally like a half a block away
where these start and some of the tall buildings either exist or can be built as a matter of right
to similar heights. But going back to the design, aside from the fact that you have a very wide
burke street you have zoning classifications up and down burke that also permit for tall buildings
as a matter of right um the the our open area we chose instead of covering the lot that 75 percent
of the structure we're we're we are proposing far less uh occupied area our open area actually
exceeds 50 percent it's 52.76 percent so we kind of what i like to call a squeeze the we took the
balloon and we squeezed it um closed it anyway so instead of spreading it out the units 88 units
99 91 units over the lot that's 41,789 square feet in size we took we took the building we took
the gfa and there's no gfa criteria in rm1 but we located it at the corner and created an impressive
building there at the corner to house the residential units while allowing the parking
and allowing more open space for the use of all of the residents of the overall project,
the wall three phases, one, two, and three. Here's a watercolor rendering of the building
from Burke Street, the corner of Burke Street and Cadwell Otter.
Here is a color elevation. You can see the building, the taller building at the corner of
Cadwell, Lotter, and Burks.
And then that's here on the right, Phase 3.
And then Phase 2, you can see the by-right buildings extending to the left.
Here is a view from Brook Street of the proposed building here for Phase 3
with the 35 residential units.
And then the buildings that were the first phase
and were done with variance from the zoning board for lot area
and for height you can see the first four buildings and then the fifth going in here
and you can see here from the photographs if I can go real quickly I'm just going to scroll I'm
going to show you the buildings that have been built thus far so these are the buildings that
have built thus far part of the phase on North 5th Street and the proposed building as was shown in
the rendering will be very will be the same type of building they're really beautiful buildings
um the so for given this given the history of the property given how long it laid fallow laid
vacant for well over 20 years um given the prior variances that were granted for north 5th street
given burke street the width of burke street the other tall buildings that exist on burke street
You can see here, I took photographs within a couple blocks, up and down, but buildings all of similar heights.
See here, heading over, you know, getting as far, I mean, getting to Temple is pretty far east, but you can see that Brook Street does have, bumping right into Temple's campus, has a lot of buildings on it, and others that can be built as a matter of right, as you can see from the zoning map.
i do have floor plans at tab 9 and again zoning archives at tab 10 that do show the history of
the property dating back to the 30s of commercial use copy of our zba appeal to the board and project
information form are at tab 12. copy of the notice of today's hearing that we posted at
the property in conformance with the requirements of the zoning code you can see those photographs
at tab 14. tab 15 is the deed for the property showing my client owns the property tax clearance
at time 16 and then the 14 303 notices are at tab 17. south kensington community partners because
this was viewed either individually for this phase three or in its totality as a larger project they
required us to have two meetings with their zoning committee and two meetings with the full community
So it was zoning committee, full community, zoning committee, full community.
We, Mr. Chairman, you referenced the letter from the community group.
There were three provisos that were referenced.
There were things in the letter that unfortunately weren't accurate.
They mentioned how we refused or would not accept the request for a commercial space.
actually at the second community group meeting
Actually, at the second community group meeting, well, the second zoning committee meeting and the second community group meeting, we did submit and provide revised plans that did show commercial use at the ground floor.
or the second zoning committee meeting
and the second community group
And I have those. Let me see where those floor plans are.
And here's the floor plans that we presented.
Now, there was a little bit of a back and forth.
Fourth, they asked us at the zoning committee meeting to provide that commercial unit at a discounted rent.
We came back to the community meeting and said, sure, we'll give it for this period of whatever period of time we had discussed.
I think it was a couple of years for free rent.
We were chastised for giving too much discount, I guess.
You see in their letter that it's not free rent.
It's something less than free rent.
But there was a lot.
I'll be honest with you.
I mean, I've dealt with this group a lot.
I like dealing with this group.
But like the people who are involved, they do a great job. But the letter threw me off, threw my client off, between being non-opposed, having no position, making statements about not refusing to put in the commercial space when we designed it and presented it.
Um, there was, uh, in the proviso, there was a request for the, that there be some type of cooperation with whoever buys the honor food slot to the south of us or owns it for some type of walkway to go between Cadwell Otter and North 5th.
I mean, you can see from Cadwell Otter, I mean, there's not a lot going on in Cadwell Otter.
But with that being said, there was just no specifics to it.
This is all Brook Street.
Let me swing around to Cadwell Otter here.
I mean, you can see, I mean, this is Cadwell Otter Street.
I don't know that there are that many people walking up and down Cadwell Otter.
But there just weren't any specifics to it.
It was involving a third party that wasn't part of the discussion at this point.
Um, we didn't know what was being requested. So we would have cooperated if we knew what was going
on or would have tried to cooperate, but, uh, it was just, there wasn't enough specifics. And then
in terms of the affordable units, we had actually discussed providing them. We ultimately didn't
finish the conversation necessarily about what the AMI would be, but to be honest with you,
with the way things are going right now in the development industry, you've heard it time and
time again throughout the day today. You have projects that have been approved by the zoning
board or by right over the last several years with affordable units, without affordable units
that just don't pencil out right now. So we will try to do that. We would continue to work with
the community group and try to work something out in that respect. But again, I'm really unclear
with their letter because they gave a letter of non-opposition, I think, without the provisos.
I did ask them in an email, a couple emails, whether they had taken the vote without the provisos.
They wouldn't give me an answer.
And things kind of broke down.
So I'm a little confused about their position and what it is.
We attempted, we made every attempt to cooperate when we came back to them.
And so the representation that we refused is just not correct.
You want to bring your client on?
Sean, are you still on?
I'm sorry he may have
had to jump off
but if not I could have Eric
quick because I think Eric's on
was on originally but had to jump off
and if Eric can raise his hand
at least he can adopt
I think he can adopt my statements
and if Sean is on
then he can raise his hand
as well and be sworn in
Is there anybody raising their hand?
Yes I'm
allowing them to speak now Chair
okay so that was rustin oler eric quick yeah eric or sean franklin
they've been allowed to speak hi rustin oler here i could please state your name and spell
for the court stenographer sure rustin oler uh r-u-s-t-i-n last name o-h-l-e-r right do you
swear or affirm tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel yeah
rustin um did you hear the statements that i made to the board today i did and are they true and
correct to the best of your knowledge yes and would you adopt them as your own yes and i don't
know if rustin is or um that's fine questions from the board and mr chairman i just might say
if we were to add and i discussed this with the zoning board's attorney if we were to add the
commercial unit, we could not vote that case today.
We would have to amend the application because that would generate another refusal.
Questions from the board?
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Wait a minute.
You have hands up?
Sean Frankel, hand is up.
But I mean, I think we have to.
Yeah, but the testimony has been adopted.
I think we're fine with that.
How about Sloan, folks?
He's from Councilwoman Lozada's office.
But I'll get to Sloan once I do the board, right?
So the board's okay?
I'm sorry, Chair.
All good, Chair.
Yes, Chair.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
You're muted, Bill.
Mr. Chairman, you're muted.
Is Sloan Folks on?
yes sloan folks is gonna be allowed to speak
hi mr folks how are you sir good afternoon chairman bergman
could you sure could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer
yes sir my name is sloan folks f as in fire o l k s uh also representing the office of
council member ketsi lazada room 316 city hall do you swear for him tell truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth. Yes, sir, I do. And I'll try to be brief because I know it is late.
This property, 430 Westbrook Street, we received a letter from the coordinating RCO. I'm not going
to belabor that because their issues were outlined. There were a number of provisos that
they requested from the developer that we aren't sure whether the ZBA could even
make the developer conform to, they may have been better served, some of them may have been
better served in a community benefits agreement. But there is something I'd like to read
from the letter that we had that they sent. It says a total of 23, not quoted, a total of 23
eligible votes were cast, 20 in favor of granting the variance with the list of proviso and three
against. After the meeting, it says SKCP, South Kensington Community Partnership,
contacted the applicants to convey the three provisos. The applicants indicated they had
concerns with the process and the provisos and would not meet them. While the failure to meet
the provisos means the SKCP will not support the project, a position of opposition is also not in
keeping with the community vote. The letter goes on to say, at the same time, we respect the desire
of near neighbors to see the site developed by the applicant. As a result, SKCP does not take a
position on granting the variance. Now, this variance request, this property development
does fall within the mixed income neighborhood overlay district, which was approved back in
2022. And this overlay district does require that all new developments
of at least 10 dwelling units or 25% residential usage provide affordable income of up to 40%
of the area median income in that area. So while we understand that South Kensington Community
partnership and the group was looking for a higher ami for affordability we do believe that the um
the the project as it sits is going to is by law by code has to provide some affordability
that being said um we're not going to take a position um we would like uh we're not going to
take a position uh our office will continue to discuss um affordability um opportunities
or with this project, with the developer, in hopes of coming to something closer to what the community would like,
but we're not going to stand in the way of what the near residents' desires are.
Mr. Chairman, just to be clear, with all due respect to Mr. Folks, because we had talked about this before,
that requirement that is referenced took effect after a certain date.
and was not in effect at the time that this application was put in um so it's not a requirement
for this project it's a requirement for projects were submitted after the date of its effective
after its effective date and i but i do agree that after the effective date that is the requirement
but this refusal is not incorrect in that respect that it's it doesn't question
this refusal is not incorrect in that respect that it's it doesn't question additional anybody
else in the virtual audience there are no hands chair planning commission
good afternoon chair and members of the board my name is greg baldwin planning commission staff
the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning to commercial mixed use at this location
whereas allowed um sorry whereas the proposal would exceed height requirements of the proposed
commercial mixed use commercial district um the proposed commercial space would be required under
that district the city planning commission recommends that the board deny the requested
variances for height and unit count but grant the variance for commercial use well well right now
there is no variance for commercial use but i mean i guess if there were to be but because that's not
part of the application right now. We're kind of sticking with
our original proposal. All right. We've had a lot of testimony here.
We're going to take this to the executive session. We'll vote
on it next Tuesday at 2 p.m. And Mr. Chairman
and members of the board, I just want to say I do agree with Mr. Folks. We will continue
to work on the question of affordability because my client is committed to that.
All right. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, I just want to know
the record the record is closed on this case as well as the prior case where we're holding
for executive session discussion all right we're going to take a five minute break uh we'll come
back and we'll get to the three theory list thank you thank you chair okay
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm back, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are we ready to go?
Looks like we're all ready, Chair.
Okay, thank you.
You want to start recording?
Nikki from IT?
The recording is going.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the ZBA hearing from 3.30.
With me is our vice chair, Ismail Shahid.
He's here.
Our board member, Thomas Holloman.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
And our board member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is Hillary Emerson, our attorney, and our executive director, Tanya Sunken.
Here's our 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 participate by phone and you wish to testify, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter the appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question and answer box on the screen is not for comments or testimony.
All comments should be directed to our Executive Director, Tanya Sunken.
Let's look at our schedule for this afternoon.
Let's see here.
Number seven.
Number seven, MI 2023-001-428-636 Christian Street. That case is continued. Is there any
other requests for continuance? I see no hands, Chair. Also, number six, this is the first
First listing, MI-2023-001-417-2602 North 30th Street.
We have no exhibits first listing.
We believe there's also an attorney needed.
The listed owner is AEB Holdings LLC.
I have a hand up.
It just says caller and use number three.
Can I allow them to speak?
Please.
Caller in use number three, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court stenographer, please?
Yes, Adrian Hernandez, RCO. My last name is spelled F-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z.
Yes, Adrian Hernandez, RCO.
My last name is spelled F-E-R-L.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you have information about 2602 North 30th?
We had no information other than the RCO notice. No meeting was scheduled yet.
in this area.
Yeah, I'm waiting to see if the owner's here first.
And then I'll take the appropriate action once I find out where the owner is, because we have no exhibits for this.
Yeah, we don't.
Okay, thank you.
Is AEB Holdings LLC listed, owner or Joseph Patton in the audience?
I don't see them there, Chair.
Okay, thank you.
MI 2023-001-417-2602 North 30th Street.
First listing, no exhibits.
Case is continued.
Mark must be tried.
We're going to go out of order here a minute.
We have a few pro says.
Number eight, MI 2023-004-664-4830 B Street.
Haeyoung Bak is the attorney for the owner.
hey young bop if you're in the audience please raise your hand
mr chair i believe david chandler is the attorney in this matter who is present
okay okay i do see them in the audience i see david chandler um i will promote
Promote David Chandler.
He has been promoted to panelists.
Thank you.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Hello, counsel.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court sonographer?
My name is David Chandler, C-H-A-N-D-L-E-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
We understand that the interpreter that we had for this case is no longer available.
If you think it's appropriate to have that, then we will continue the case and give you a quick turnaround.
We believe we can proceed.
Mr. Castillo does speak English somewhat.
So since I guess I'll be doing most of speaking, we would like to proceed.
All right.
This is a reconsideration here.
Am I correct?
Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.
There was a previous attorney representing the applicant, but he's no longer with the case, and we took it over in May.
Okay, okay, fine.
Prashid, we have all your documents.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this is the property at 4830 B Street in the Fairhill section of the city, and the owner is Mr. Jesus Castillo.
That's C-A-S-T-I-L-L-O.
and he has owned the property
since 2016
and he would like
he's applying for a variance to
counsel could you share
your screen and put your documents up please
oh sure
are the
oh here it is
share screen
select the window
it's coming up
we see the zoom screen
that's all we see
see our screen sharing
new share
do you have your documents pulled up on the screen uh no i i don't see them
No, I don't see them.
Oh, okay. So you just want to just, I'm going to help you stop share. So just pull your documents up first when you're screening your exhibits that you would like to share.
and once that's open just click that uh share screen button at the bottom of zoom
the green button okay and then it will ask you what documents you would like to share
just click on the uh tab where your documents are
i'm sorry okay it's coming up now it goes to zoom yeah okay
so just try to minimize that screen
minimize it yes that's zoom oh here's a zoom
can you hear me yeah we can but we don't see anything mr chandler oh geez uh mr mr chandler
let me tell you what i'm going to do sure i have several other cases i'm going to move on and i'll
come back to you. Okay. And by that time, see if you can find your documents. Okay. Okay.
Thank you. Okay. We're going to move to number three.
MI 2023 001 386 1532 West Nidro Street,
Jose Warren Gillis, Jr. is the owner applicant.
Mr. Gillis.
Mr. Gillis is coming back in as a panelist chair.
can you hear me mr gills i can could you state your name and spell please for the court stenographer
uh my name is warren gillis w-a-r-r-e-n-g-i-l-l-i-s right do you swear or firm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes um azure you one
tom could you do the follow-up question with him please
can you hear me yes we can okay uh good afternoon sir do you email all of the exhibits and documents
as required five days in advance to this hearing yes thank you please proceed and share your screen
just so you know sir yes this application is for multi-family household living free
dwelling units on the same lot with all other uses as previously approved the proposed unit
multi-family household living is prohibited in the rsa 5 zoning district i would also mention that
the oak lane rco is in opposition the current concerned citizens association is in opposition
and council person bass is in opposition of your proposal please share your screen and start
oh screen screen on the bottom share off the screen
i think i got it i'm trying to learn this ears
no nothing yet okay wow we're just looking at an empty screen all right i think that
we're sharing screen wait a minute
here's your presentation okay okay so um so tell us what you want to do and what you're trying to
well i already have a multi uh my property is approved as a multi-family property that's being
used as a duplex and what i would like to do is make in a stand not a standalone but make an
apartment unit in the basement okay a a one-bayroom apartment and i do know that the uh
And I do know that the RCOs were against it.
that the rcos were against it under one
And one of their concerns was trash and parking.
But, you know, I have a parking space in the rear and I'm going to install trash bins.
And currently the residents that live there, they bring their trash out from the front and bring it back because we get our trash picked up in the rear.
Right.
So, you know, I didn't think that that was much of an issue, but I know that was one of their concerns.
And then also with the parking, like I said, there is a parking space in the rear and.
You have photos for inside.
Oh, you know what? Yes, I do.
But I didn't. Let me see if I can get to it quickly.
Oh, this is the.
You're mailing, you're mailing.
right the mailings yes yeah um here we have all your documents right so this is the picture uh
here okay they are moving oh i didn't think they were going to show like this perfect
so this is the uh where it would lead from the um current uh first floor unit down to the basement
unit which would all be blocked off obviously and uh this is you know the basement unit i just kept
the pictures as they were it's not cleaned out but all that's going to be cleaned out
this would be part of the living area here and uh let's see this area is being proposed as the
bedroom area with a uh egress window uh placed in the you know towards the rear of the property
there and obviously this is the back door that leads outside where there will be another egress
and this area here is a closet now but that will be the proposed kitchen area
and this will be the utility areas where the gas meter is and the water meters stuff that's
towards the front of the house and there's already a bathroom down there um so that was
basically the extent of the pictures and this is the clearance uh letter and this is the letter
that was sent to the um to the residents in the neighborhood for the um for the neighborhood
meeting uh so i'll go back to the plans oh this is where i posted my uh zoning notices
for the property
I think this is the refusal letter
here for
saying it doesn't meet the zoning
requirements
and these are the drawings
for the property
and this is the basement
unit and what what it would look like um if it was done like i said the bathroom would be towards
the front of the uh property where it already is the the mechanicals are listed there i don't have
a mouse to point to them um and then this would be a living area in the kitchen and then the bedroom
towards the uh back of the property with right now you have a duplex and you want to make it
a triplex
a triplex into the basement
questions from the board
no chair
no Mr. Chairman
questions or comments
from the virtual audience
yes Chair
Charles Richardson has a hand up
I will allow him to speak
thank you Mr. Richardson
just state your name and please proceed
Charles Richardson, Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass, Room 508, City Hall.
Councilwoman and the RCOs are against this basement apartment.
It's very small.
Even in Mr. Gillis' own estimation, it's only 800 square feet for two individuals in there.
There's only one egress.
He keeps saying egress as a window.
It's not an egress.
That is a window.
And it's just not good for a basement apartment in that location with only an entrance from the back, from the driveway, essentially.
So the councilwoman is against granting this variance.
Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to call in.
Is there anyone else in the first audience?
Planning Commission.
Yes, Chair. I'm sorry, Chair. Robert Young, excuse me, has a hand up.
okay hi mr young could you state your name please and spell for the court stenographer
hi Mr. Young could you state your name please
and spell
mr young mr young please unmute yourself
he's still muted can you hear me now yeah could you state your name please
a spell for the court reporter? Yes, Robert, R-O-B-E-R-T, Young, Y-O-U-N-G. Do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed.
Yes, I was in attendance with the ACCA meeting prior to this, and my conviction is this proposal
proposal is not a good idea. The apartment would be too small. The point of egress is a point of
concern, not to mention cooking. It looks like a bad safety hazard, and I would say no to this
proposal. We appreciate your taking the time to call in. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Planning.
The first name Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
Do you swear a firm that told you nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
This property is indicated for residential use on a city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing zoning at this location.
the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or
condition of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the use
requirements of the code. Therefore, we recommend that the request of variance not be granted.
Thank you. MI 2023-001-386-1532 West Negro, I vote no. Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
James Snell my vote is no. Thank you.
Number four MI 2023-001-426-2566 Carl. Angela Romero Monsalva is the applicant.
This application is for a visitor accommodation in existing structure. No sign on this application.
RECOMMENDATION OF SUPPORT FROM EAST KENSINGTON NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION AND LETTER OF NON-OPPOSITION FROM COUNCILMEMBER
SQUILA.
APPLICATE PROVIDED MULTIPLE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
ANGELA?
ANGELA RAMIRA IS PROMOTED, CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
YOU'RE WELCOME.
HI, GOOD EVENING.
Hi, good evening. Good afternoon. Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Sure. My name is Angela Romero. That is A-N-G-E-L-A-R-O-M-E-R-O.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yep, that's correct.
Our board member, Mr. Holloman, has a few questions.
good afternoon madam good afternoon madam did you email all of the exhibits and documents as
required five days in advance to this hearing that's correct thank you please proceed and
share your screen as you are uh okay yeah i just wanted to confirm that i'm sharing my screen
yes we see it thank you okay thank you i know we're running a little bit late so um i'm not
going to excuse me mr chair did you read the refusal into the record uh i thought i did but
i'll do it again okay this application is from uses of visitor accommodation in an existing
structure no sign on this application yeah that's the second time yeah that's okay sorry mr chair
No, that's fine. Proceed.
So here's what I think.
We have all your documents.
First of all, tell us what you want to do.
And then I think what you could do is then show us the photos of your property
and how you're using it, okay?
So tell us what you want to do.
Yeah, sure.
So I would like a visitor accommodation variance for my property.
I've been operating this property for about three years.
I can show you the pictures of it. This is the property as a triplex. I live in the property, so I live in the top unit. I have been operating the bottom two units as a short-term rental for the last three years.
I can show you the pictures of it.
This is the...
They have been a very successful long-term rentals in the sense that the community really supports the project.
And I will explain a little bit more why the community supports the project.
So before I bought the property, the property was unhabitable.
It was deemed structurally unsafe and it was abandoned by the landlord.
And as a result of that, there was a lot of crime, drug consumption, and unfortunately, prostitution in the corner.
Because the property had so much deferred maintenance, the landlord didn't want to do anything and it was abandoned.
It was very expensive to do all the redevelopment of the property because it was abandoned for so long.
So here I have some pictures of the basement and the middle of the first unit.
there was no first unit it was just this the main issue was that the plumbing was essentially very
old so it was a column like kind of like a colander and the basement was flooded and that
had made that the joist brought it and now the foundation was kind of caving in like a like a v
and so the house was just kind of falling into itself like a v that was very expensive and the
reason why the landlord didn't want to do it was because with the income that a long-term rental
they would make it's not financially viable to make all this remodeling so I kind of figured
out that with a short-term rental business in addition to my home I would be able to you know
do all the necessary fixes for the property after I can show you this is the second unit again this
had live wires it didn't have any electricity the third unit didn't have a bathroom or the
kitchen wasn't working as well so I did the remodelings and again and that's tied to my
hardship the remodeling were very expensive and I only did them because I knew I could operate
them as a short-term rental before the zoning changed a little bit more about the kind of the
it's a neighborhood serving business. It's operationally excellent. I've served over
a thousand days of people that I hosted with over 336 days, almost a perfect rating. And I've never,
ever, ever had a party, a police incident, a trash complaint, or a neighbor complaint. In fact,
again, as I mentioned, as a neighborhood serving business, most of the people that I host
are relatives of people in the community. And as you can see, I have some examples of the guests,
Jane Ann is visiting her daughter who lives around the corner and infecting.
And she's had stayed with me for several times.
She sent a letter of accommodation talking about why this is important to her.
David, his parents-in-law and his parents are also has also stayed with me.
And then Jennifer, for example, is a grandmother who has stayed with me several times because she visits her grandbaby.
um and this is to show the pictures now after the remodeling um to show that i really focus on
providing um affordable quality accommodations into the community i don't run like you know a
city operation i really took care of you know building an exceptional business that serves
the neighborhood um and i also want to bring in high quality visitors that contribute to the local
economy. So again, this is, you know, the remodel unit number one. This is the remodel unit number
two. And this actually for this unit, we also had to bring in some jacks and pull up the foundation
for this because it was a scan caving into itself and it needed retrofitting.
And then the third unit as well, as you can see, they didn't have a kitchen or a bathroom.
now it's operational and this is actually um at this unit also had a lot of issues and with the
roof of the roof just had a lot of holes and it was damaging the property in terms of the safety
measure that I put in for my property um this there's a lot I know we're kind of sharing out
of time so I don't want to cover too many um being respectful of people's time the most important
thing is that I do a background check on all the guests that stay through a platform called
Hospitable. I have four cameras in the property that have now become a beacon of safety. Every
time there's an issue not related to my property, but a car and things, I always get asked to share
things I always get asked to share the recordings because my property has the best lights
the recordings because my property has the best lights.
and camera I also have an alarm and noise monitoring that is just things I put in place
so that you know there's no issues with the property but again there hasn't been issued
with the property a little bit more about like what people think about the place is comfortable
spacious it's cozy and a lot of the kind of interesting benefits that the neighborhood
gets and that's why the neighborhood supports this business is that you do get patrons for
neighborhood businesses. So restaurants, cafes, you know, parks, etc. My guests come and visit
those and you can see here from examples of actual guests that I've had. I looked at the
Kensington Development Goals, and their goals as a neighborhood have been to reduce the vacancy of
abandoned properties, improve the maintenance of the properties and the safety of the street,
and to focus on commercial options for neighborhood-serving businesses. And I just
wanted to demonstrate through my presentation that my property does kind of support the
neighborhood in a sense that I rehabilitated a city corner into a beautiful and clean space.
I provide affordable accommodations for the community. I'm promoting a positive image
for East Kensington. I also used to employ five people before the change in zoning.
And then a little bit more about the criteria for granting a special permit use, which is what I'm
trying to do um in the three years of operation i've never had an issue with any of this but i
just wanted to put it on the record that you know having a short-term rental business um in my home
doesn't really impact um you know the congestion concentration of population public transportation
and actually release the use of schools and parks because guests my guests don't really use those
facilities it reduces the probability of fire because most guests don't cook again they patron
in a lot of local restaurants, and it really doesn't impair the light air of or use of the
adjacent properties. And I think in my view, it helped increase the public health of the area
because there's no open drug consumption. And lastly, it aligns with the East Kensington
Development Plan. And there is the extra benefit of tax revenue for the city and tourism dollars.
And in terms of the hardship that this has caused me, you know, the reason that I can't conform with the permitted use or the zoning change, you know, for me, it is prohibitively expensive because, you know, I, when this was allowed, I invested all my life savings into the business.
And I also went into $75,000 in debt to be able to launch this high quality business.
and while I was operating my small business I was able to repay my debts on time make a modest
living and provide you know a home for myself um now with the changes and ordinances um I won't be
able to continue to operate and I won't be able to you know I only were able to make around like
200 per month of my property which would result in me not being able to pay my debts which I
I inquired to go into business, the business that I showed you guys.
And that would incur, you know, personal bankruptcy and the foreclosure of my home.
I am also an immigrant, so I support my mom.
So I don't really have somebody who can support me and help me pay my dad and things like that.
I do believe that the purpose of this ordinance is to crack down on bad actors and not bankrupt a well-run minority.
I think we understand that.
okay okay so that's all i have to say thank you are shy so questions from the board
no chair no mr chair no mr chairman thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
mr chair this is hillary i just i just had a quick question for ms romero um ms romero
the the refusal indicates that you would like the variance for the entire property
Is that what you're seeking or only for two of the units?
I'm seeking it for the entire property just because I might move down once I start a family.
So I might need that.
Not a problem.
I just wanted to make sure that the refusal was reflecting what you wanted.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair Dr. James McGlinch has a hand up.
I will allow him to speak.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
Hi, yes. James McGlinch, J-A-M-E-S, last name M-C-G-L-I-N-C-H.
Hi, yes, James McGlinch, J-A-M-E-L.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, sir.
Hi, yes. I just wanted to affirm my support for Angela's project here.
As a neighbor who lives in the neighborhood, it has not only provided accommodation for my family on a regular basis, which is not easy to find in this area, but also it has definitely made it, you know, safer, nicer.
And she has also just been an excellent neighbor overall.
Thank you for taking the time to call us in and share your thoughts.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
Any commission?
Ron Bednar, City Planning. Properties indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopted
district plan recommends no change. Existing zoning at this location, the applicant's hardship
not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of the property that
would prevent it from being used, conforming with the code. Therefore, we recommend the request of
variance not the right. MI 2023-001-426-2566 Carl Street. I vote yes with proviso. Temporary
variance expires 9-21-26. Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes with proviso. James Snell, my vote is yes
with Proviso. Thank you. Ms. Romero, you have your votes. Thank you so much, Chairman of the
Board and Chair. I appreciate it. Thank you. Number five, MI 2023-001-382, 1919 West Hunting
Park Avenue. Tiona Sutton, Derek Sutton, and Walada MacArthur are the owner occupants.
There's no RCO letter, but there was a meeting held 9-12-23 by the 13th Ward RCO.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I understand we'll bring the applicants on, but I understand there's also a request for continuance, I believe, from the council office and possibly the RCO.
So we can address that matter first.
All right.
why don't we bring the RCO on
and the
owners too please
I have the
owners here
Charles Richardson come back
who should I bring on first
I would bring in first
one of the Suttons or
MacArthur they're the owner applicants
okay thanks
hi I'm here
okay fine
And then I would have somebody from the 13th Ward RCO if they're present.
Charles Richardson.
And Charles Richardson.
Can you hear her?
Yeah, I can. One minute.
Who's going to testify?
Waleedah MacArthur.
Okay. Could you state your name, please, and spell it for the court stenographer?
Yes. How you doing? My name is Waleedah McArthur. First name is W-A-L-I-D-A-H. Last name is M-C-A-R-T-H-U-R.
Like you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Okay. Is Mr. Richardson here?
I am here, Mr. Chair.
You know, Mr. Richardson, you've already been sworn. And is the 13th Ward RCO here?
he is on the phone so he would likely be at number uh trying to find his telephone number
here but he he should if charles as i say his his hand is raised he is under his name
very good hi sir could you state your name please and spell for the court sonographer
Mr. Karn, can you unmute yourself?
He's back muted again.
There he is.
It looks like he's having a problem with his audio, Chair.
I'll pull him up on the phone if you need me to.
Can you give us your comments about where they are with this?
Certainly. I received an email from an email chain, basically, for Mr. Karn, from Mr. Karn, where he had communicated with whoever was doing, I guess, facilitation for them.
Certainly.
I received an email from an email chain.
Looks like it's, oh, it was a different name than the folks that are on here at the moment.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, Mr. Kahn, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
I'm sorry, Charles Kahn, 3853 North 19th Street, 13th Ward, RCO, chairperson.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir.
Let me ask you this. Why would you have, why do you want a continuance?
Based on what happened was when we had the meeting last Tuesday, there was no participation from the community at all.
The RCO community was there.
At that time, we agreed with the expediter to have a continuance.
I sent them an email.
They confirmed it.
And that's where we stood until I just recently got a phone call.
All right, so let me, Walada?
Do you want a continuance?
No, I don't want a continuance.
What happened was the meeting was there, the community meeting was there,
and we mailed out all the paperwork for everything.
I had everything ready to go to present and everything.
What happened was three people didn't show up from his board.
so I guess
wait, let me stop
let her finish
let me finish
it was only a couple people that showed up
for the community meeting
so I said to him, he said we have to come back
for a continuum, so I told him
that it was costly for the
mailings, and if I did it again
and they didn't show up again, then what would I
do, and that's when he said he will
handle it, so I said okay
for the contingency of the
neighborhood meeting
can they hear our case and then hear our case and hold the position
until they get the yes so the rco letter all right so here's what we're going to do
we're going to hear the case we're going to hold it we won't vote on it we'll close until we hear
from the rco okay and the council office and the council office oh wow absolutely absolutely
Absolutely. Absolutely. We'll let you respond to the RCO letter.
Okay. So why don't we start?
Wailada, could you, you've sent all your documents in, and this application is for a sit-down restaurant in an existing structure with other existing uses in the same structure as previously approved.
The proposed use to sit down this time is prohibited in the RM1 zoning district.
So why don't you present your case?
Can I please allow my exhibitor to share a screen?
She can put the documents up, but you'll testify.
So start the documents.
Starting the documents.
you have to let them
let her
you guys have to allow her to
come on and share the paperwork
yeah she's being promoted
Maziza has been promoted
she's going to be here
and excuse me Mr. Chair
can I just ask as a preliminary matter
Ms. MacArthur
there are two other people
listed on the deed.
Who are they?
Tiana Sutton and Derek Sutton?
Yes, that is my
brother-in-law and my stepdaughter.
I thank you.
I'm sharing the screen.
Please proceed.
We know about your application. Go ahead.
Okay. Yes.
The life of the building
has always been used for a C2 when they'll purchase it.
It's nothing different that I want to change.
It has been used since 2011.
After the building was purchased,
it has been well kept and different uses
as Garrison Lime, Private Club,
and now I want to use it as a cafe breakfast spot
where you can come in and eat a nice clean area
with good breakfast.
You will also find in my package
Copies of applications, appeals, deeds, project information, floor plan
Pictures, posting of zoning, certified melon
pictures, posting of zoning, certified mail-in to neighborhood, and tax clearance.
Love Cafe hours of operation Monday through Saturday, 7 a.m. to 2 p.m., employee 4.
We will have cameras and lighting on premises and buildings.
We have an alarm system, dumpster on the front, secure for commercial pickup.
commercial pickup weekly at first and then change to two times a week as business grow
and one employee will clean surrounding area attached is a health department committed issue
in 2021 for the cafe building is consistent with neighborhood changes year built 1930 estimate
building description row typical number of stories two stories commercial first floor
and residential on second floor future basement for utility base i'm sorry basement for utilities
is zoned as a rm1 residential motor family one
and this is what brings me here okay so you want to open up a cafe there right yes okay questions
on the board no chair no mr chairman questions or comments from the brussel audience
no hands chair planning commission this is uh ron bednar city planning the property is indicated for
um currently indicated for residential use in the city plan but given the use history and physical
So conditions of the site, we recommend the request of answer to be granted.
We will hold this case.
It is closed except for information from the RCO and also the council person.
Thank you so much.
Hillary, is that okay?
Yes, that is fine, Mr. Chair.
I'd also say if the applicant wishes to respond to the information submitted.
Yeah, the applicant, you'll have an opportunity.
It's cases basically closed, but you'll have an opportunity to respond to the RCO and or the council person.
OK. OK. Thank you so much.
Well, I appreciate it. Thank you for your time.
OK. Thanks a lot.
All right. We're going to go back to.
Number eight.
We do that one.
That's one the council had a hard time with, right?
Yes, that's one where there was technical difficulties.
We can go back to that one.
4830 B Street.
Council, are you ready to go?
Who was that person, Chair?
Well, it was a different council came in.
Remember, we originally had...
David Chandler.
David Chandler
David Chandler has been promoted to panelists
Thank you
Mr. Chandler
Okay, can you hear me?
I can, could you show us your screen
I want to see your screen
Did you get your computer working?
Yes. Okay. You've already been sworn. Start presenting your case.
Okay. I will just have to call up the exhibits right now.
Yeah, open, I don't want to, say open that.
Yeah, open.
It's open.
I don't know.
What would I do?
Oh, where did I go?
Yeah, that's something.
Is that fancy?
Do you want to hit me again?
I'm going to do anything else.
No, of course.
we make an answer uh well okay we'll just try to this at work is that no no it's still loading
it's still okay loading and just make sure the documents are open first before you hit the green
share button. Okay, um, okay.
Is that the one? Yeah. Okay.
Yeah. Okay.
You got it?
You got it?
Where? That one?
And you're going to hit the green button.
Green button. Share screen.
Yeah. Okay.
Exhibit. Exhibit what?
Click the first one, whichever one.
Click the first one, whichever one.
Exhibit one.
Whichever, yeah.
Okay, do you see?
This is Exhibit one.
This is the notice of...
Thank you.
Yep, we're aware.
And basically, Mr. Castillo is requesting a...
He's applying for a variance.
It's a two-story corner building, as I said, in the Perihill section of the city.
and the first floor he wants to use as a commercial uh area he uh basically he bought
the property in 2016 2010 2010 i'm sorry 2010 and uh it has not been used as as commercial
property since then uh but then he wants basically it's a zoned rsa-5 and um as a
And RSA-5 allows commercial property if he obtains a variance.
Basically, he wants to use the first floor as a multi-services commercial store by appointment only.
Basically, he would have several things he would offer.
One is he would sell athletic apparel to local schools, to local students at schools who need athletic apparel.
In addition, he also would like to have an area where he could send money to people overseas.
As you know, the area is heavily Spanish-speaking, a lot of relatives in Latin America, and he would like to have a place where they could send money to their relatives in Latin America.
Also, he'd provide translation services from Spanish and English and vice versa.
And basically, because he's concerned with possible parking problems on the weekends, he will open his store as a multi-service store by appointment only.
Could you go through your document and show us a picture of the property, please?
picture of property where is it look at that one
that's number one now where's number two okay i don't know hit this hit that okay
number two yeah that's the application for the peel okay let's go there number three
that's the um project information form number four i need the photos need the photos right okay
yeah okay uh try six six six is this is is a architect drawing those are the the uh
drawing the drawings and you put the drawing put the drawings up then okay yeah we have the drawings
here okay
exhibit six
okay here you see the drawings
blow that up just a little bit then we can see the photo there too oh and the
close it no you want photo photo yeah good okay
where is it the other one david
zoom zoom
go back to the files
okay okay seven those are the photos where they're posting on them on the on the building
oh you have to upload that I'm sorry share screen and here yeah here okay can you can you see it
Yeah. Okay. Can you, can you see it?
Yeah. I mean, could you, yeah, it's okay.
So it's a corner property you have, right? Yes.
And he wants to open this up. Now let me ask you this.
When he went to the RCO, what happened at the RCO?
Well, we weren't representing him at the time, but his pre,
but as I understand it, there was no opposition at the RCO.
There was an opposition? There was no opposition. Is that correct?
so yes he says that that is correct i i think we show the letter there's a letter of opposition
from the rco hillary am i right yes mr chair there's a letter of opposition from the rco
there's a letter of opposition from the council member oh is there
not anymore not anymore well according to miss castillo uh any opposition has been has been dropped
um excuse me mr chandler this is hillary um we received uh the letter and i don't know if the
council office is on um yeah i think mr mr folks has has left but we were resent the letter from
the rco as well as a letter of opposition a current letter of opposition from the council
office just this week so we we are not aware of any change in the position of the rco or the
council office at this time okay question questions from the board hold on a minute
you want to bring your client on and adopt your testimony
okay yes mr castillo is here jesus castillo c-a-s-t-i-l-l-o right you you swear or affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth sir yes i do okay um proceed counsel
excuse me can we see mr castillo please oh sure
okay okay uh mr mr castillo do you own the property at um 4830 b street yes and uh what
would you like to um do with the first floor okay i'm gonna
hold on we can't remember council we we asked before we he he we can't have somebody interpret
for him we needed an interpreter and that's what i'm gonna i'm gonna do by myself okay
speak english the best you can okay okay so i try to do the multi-service like he said
Send me money, do copy, say sport stuff, you know, baseball stuff.
Because people ask me because I got a field close to my corner, you know.
So, and do something out like Pennsylvania lottery.
Maybe, you know, somebody hit the number right there, the power board.
So, you know, it's multi-service.
It's a lot of stuff coming to multi-service.
But it's good for the neighborhood, not something bad for the neighborhood.
That's what I want to do.
Mr. Castillo, are you aware of opposition from the residents?
Did you ever receive any notice of opposition from the council person's office?
No, I don't receive that.
um basically previously uh people who opposed it now they changed their were there people
who previously opposed it who changed their mind and are now supported yes yes and did you talk to
them yes okay do you know of anyone right now who is opposed to your project no
council what you can call the office later and our our council will make sure you get copies of
letters that we have questions from the board no chair no mr chairman questions or comments from
the virtual audience um chair no hands chair okay planning commission ron bednar city planning
while this property is currently indicated for residential use on the city plan given the
cites physical circumstances.
We recommend the request of advance be granted.
Thank you.
MI 2023-004-664-4830 B Street.
664-4830 B Street, I vote yes.
I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is yes.
You have your vote, sir.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
God bless you.
Thank you.
And may we be excused?
Yes, you can.
Yes, you can.
Thank you.
All right.
Number one, MI-2022-005-922-1719 North 2nd Street.
Dawn Tangrady is the attorney.
Letter of opposition from South Kensington Community Partners.
Letter of opposition from Council Member Lozada.
don tangrady has been promoted
good evening mr and grady
good evening chair and members of the board right um could you just state your name for
the record and spell for this court sonographer sure it's dawn tancredi t-a-n-c-r-e-d-i
right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Mr. Holloman has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
I would just like to say that we did come here today with revised plans.
So the plans that we're seeking approval for today, it's not for 10 units.
it's only for five units and also as a result the parking requirement would be eight spaces instead
of ten so it was accurate at the time it was issued okay did you email all of the exhibits
and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing yes my office did that thank you
please proceed and share you oh you're sharing the screen now thank you thank you so good afternoon
everyone. My name is Dawn Tancredi, and I represent Joseph Walker in reference to this
application for a mixed-use project at 1719 North 2nd Street. And just to
bring you up to speed here, I will show you a photo of the property in its current condition,
which is on my screen right now. And here is a rendering of the proposed project.
So the original application, as I mentioned, was for 10 residential units with an eating and
drinking establishment on the ground floor. After a meeting with the community, the plans were
revised the number of dwelling units was reduced to five dwelling units and the parking refusal
is reduced the owner has a parking agreement for five parking spaces nearby a copy of the cube
smart parking memo is included in the packet you can see here it says find the attached reservations
for five parking spaces from CubeSmart, and it has the fees for the spaces as well.
So just before I have the architect talk about the plans, I'd like to just give you some background.
The property itself is shown here on the zoning map on the screen. It's zoned ICMX. It's surrounded by other properties that are zoned ICMX. There is some property on the block that's zoned RM1 for multifamily.
but the property the property itself is just over 22 feet wide in the front
it's 73 feet in depth on one side of the property and a little over 85 feet on the
in depth on one side of the property and a little over 85 feet on the other side of the property.
So you can see here from the zoning plan that it's an irregularly shaped lot. It's about 1700
square feet so it's small for a commercial or industrial space and you can see that just even
you would never be able to include a loading zone here. And even if you look at the
picture of the property in front, you can see here and my client can testify that the garage
door poses challenges because it does not allow for a box truck to fit through it.
The history of the property shows it's been used for food distribution and storage.
It's been vacant for about a year and a half now.
Prior to that, the property was used for auto repairs, including body and fender work, and painting and spraying cars.
The neighborhood has changed, and these uses have become obsolete and undesirable here.
In particular, I'll show you photos showing the surrounding area.
The property is surrounded by extensive mixed use, which makes uses other than mixed use nearly impossible.
You can see here, here's our client's property.
The property in the middle here at the triangle has been built with multifamily.
You'll see other photos showing that.
You've got a property adjacent to our property, which is mixed use.
There are properties across the street as well.
Here's a property across the street. Just to give you an idea of these surrounding
properties with their addresses, the mixed use properties vary in height ranging from 60 feet
to 91 feet. For example, at 1701 North 2nd Street, the property adjacent to us or nearby,
it says the height is 86 feet. And at the front level, it's 69 feet. It matches our
client's property. And you can see that in the renderings.
Is this going to have a restaurant on the first floor and a drinking establishment?
Yes, the proposal is to have a restaurant here on the ground floor. And in response to the
community's concerns, there were changes to the floor plan on the first floor level because the
commercial space was located more in the rear of the property because of the elevator. And
And the owner made changes to have more of that commercial space up front.
Right.
And the council, have they ever changed their positions as a result of the changes the owner made?
They really did not.
Thank you.
But we did show them that their concerns have been addressed.
The one concern was density.
The number of units was changed from 10.
it was reduced to five units the building was made smaller it was pulled back above the first
word level and i can have the architect talk about that if david whipple could be promoted to a
panelist all right could you state your name sir and spell for the court stenographer he's coming
back in as a panelist here sir could you state your name
I don't
there he is
Mr. Whipple
please
sorry about that
I'm sorry
he can send you
himself
my name is
could you state
your name
and spell for
the court
sonographer
last name is
W-H-I-P-E-P-L-E
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do
david could you please describe the plans and in doing so in particular i'd like you to
address the refusals of the height and and the parking
of the height and and the parking. Sure um the and the use um with the lot being narrow uh with the
red the irregular shape um finding like a a allowable uses were challenging um
So we thought that a more open commercial use on the first floor, mainly for a restaurant that would allow for the tenants above and also adjacent property tenants to have access to that space.
The first floor does take up the entire lot to allow for a larger commercial space that could be more usable.
And then as we go up to the second floor and above, we did reduce the building back from the rear lot line more.
One of the concerns that the RCO had was just the overall mass of the structure.
So we thought by doing that, it would have to address that concern.
And is that shown here on the plans with the balcony?
Correct.
So there are exterior balconies that are going off the rear.
We thought giving each tenant some exterior space would be a nice feature to have.
And then the rear wall was pushed in more.
And why couldn't you do that on the first floor level?
Really to allow for a large enough commercial space that could be used.
The size of the commercial space that we have now is only about 1,200 square feet.
So it's not a super large space.
And can you talk about the height of the building?
We really just wanted to match the height of the adjacent structure next to us.
There are mainly two reasons.
One, we felt that if our building was smaller, that it would lose some presence on the street.
And in addition to that, one of the partners of the project is also a solar panel installer.
So the intention was to have as large of a roof area as we could in order to install solar panels up there,
and trying to maximize the amount of renewable energy
that we could generate for the apartments.
Thank you.
Does the board have any questions for the architect?
No, we're fine with the architect, I believe.
Is the owner here that you can adopt your,
you can adopt, have your testimony adopted with the owner?
Joseph Walker.
Joseph Walker has been promoted Mr. Walker, could you say your name is spelled please
for the court stenographer.
Mr. Walker, he's unmuted chair and he's been allowed to speak.
i don't know if he's having audio trouble okay um counsel you're an officer the court will
will gladly accept your testimony um thank you questions from the board no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience
no hands chair planning commission
ron yeah ron bednar city planning this property is currently indicated for neighborhood commercial
mixed use on the city plan 2016 the zoning map was amended from i2 to cmx2 but
recent construction supports the proposed revised plans therefore we we have no objection to the
granular variance. Council, we're going to hold this until next week. Is that okay, Hillary?
Yes, Mr. Chair. Ms. Tancredi, some of the changes that you mentioned aren't listed on
the proviso form, so I need to go over some of that with you and make sure that everything
So I need to go over some of that with you and make sure that everything, all the changes are reflected and listed and in the plans as well before the board can vote on this matter.
Hillary, can we look to do this by next week?
That should be fine, Mr. Chair.
How about next Wednesday at 2 p.m. we'll vote.
Okay, that sounds good.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Kathleen.
Thank you all.
Have a good evening.
All right.
Okay. Number two, MI 2023-001-423-2246 North 16th Street, Vern Anastasio.
Mr. Anastasio is coming back in as a panelist.
I can't so good evening I'm sure I swore you sometime today yes early this morning you just
state your name for the record please yeah Vern Anastasio A-N-A-S-T-A-S-I-O 2016 Spruce Street
representing the owner Mr. Durant of the subject property
um mr hallman has just a few questions for you sir thank you good evening counselor do you agree
to waive the reading of the refusal and stimulate to its accuracy i do did you email all the exhibits
and documents as required five days in advance to this hearing yes sir thank you please proceed
and share your screen thank you mr chair it's my understanding you have a letter of support
i do from the uptown entertainment and development corporation so we'll make this quick uh basically
it's uh we're trying to get a use for a four-family dwelling and a 16 structure
structure already is a four-family dwelling um i have plans here that i will share with you
There's a first floor plan. I'm trying to get this bar out of the way. Okay. First floor plan of one unit, second floor plan of two mirror units, both of ample size, and then the top floor, one unit.
We have evidence of a long-standing use as a multifamily.
I'm moving into evidence, all 33 pages of exhibits, including all the photos, the most important of which, as you can see, each unit has its own water heater.
Each unit has its own electric meter plus a house meter.
And my client didn't put any of these there.
My client inherited this property and it was already subdivided up as a four-family dwelling.
This is the letter that went out to over 200 households.
There's the proof of mailing 234.
And after meeting with them, it was voted by the neighbors to support the project.
This is the exterior.
There's a vacant lot right adjacent to it.
There's lots of vacant lots on this block.
It could use a little bit of density.
Again, it's already been there, but it could, I guess, use compliant density so that the
the owner could you know make sure that folks who are occupying it are doing so responsibly
and as you know with a rental license there can be an eviction if they're not good neighbors so
this is the property in question and because you know this is a long-standing
pre-existing use because there's evidence of multiple utilities being installed decades ago
And I have history of the property that supports all of that.
And because the RCO supports this application, not just offers non-opposition, but truly supports it, we're respectfully asking granting of the variance.
You want to bring your client on?
Yes, Gregory Durant, if he happens to still be here, if he could raise his virtual hand.
Gregory Durant.
yes can you hear me yes we can sir could you state your name and spell for the court
stenographer yes gregory durant last name spelled d-u-r-a-n-t right do you swear
Right. Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes sir i do
Yes, sir, I do.
Is he counsel?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Durant, did you hear my presentation to the board this evening?
Yes, I did.
True and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it is.
And do you adopt it as your own testimony?
I do. Yes, I do.
Thank you. Mr. Chair, I rest.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
mr anastasio this is hillary just a quick question um uh who how is um gregory durant
related to the individuals on the deed melvin and diane durant that's his parents okay all right so
are they they are they still the owners of the property i think he he's now the owner of the
property. Greg, do you want to clarify? They are officially the owners. They've recently,
not recently, maybe the last four or five years have come under some health issues and I'm helping
them out. And at some point until they're unable to, I'll continue to help them out. And when
they're not i'll probably inherit it thank you greg yep are we okay with that
that is fine thank you for the clarification thank you ms emerson um questions or comments
from the virtual audience no answer when any commission stop ron bednar city planning the
property is indicated for residential use on the city plan given the documented use history
recommend that the request of variance be granted maximum of three units to match the 1949 cba
approval mr chair there's four already there so just and four remember there's there's actually
five electric meters so it was all dedicated and approved all right thank you MI 2023 001 423 2246
North 16th Street I vote yes James Snell my vote is yes
Thomas Holloman
my vote is yes
thank you you have your three votes
have a good evening
is there anyone in the virtual audience
whose 330 case
has not been called
there are no hands here
very sorry
everybody we went this late you know i don't usually try to go this late so uh i appreciate
everybody hanging in there and staying with us and i think we accomplished a lot so thank you
very much and sorry to hear it so late no problem mr chairman