Okay, Counselor, you have four use zoning. You're down to what? You have four use refusals. So you're down to how many? Two? One?
Yes. As far as, yeah, the multifamily in the RTA1 district, that remains, but we've come closer into compliance with the reduction in the number of units.
okay so you're down to how many
we're down to 76
apartments versus 83
no I'm not referring to
how you did it
just how many refusal
for use do you have remaining
we just
have the one for use
okay one for use
and how many for zoning
one for zoning two two three three so you still have three for zoning and you just reduced
to one for use correct is that correct correct all right thank you correct okay any other
questions from the board no no all right again i apologize on behalf of the board um for those of
you have been waiting to testify as i said at the outset there are some apparently there's still
some uh opportunities uh for the developer and the communities the different rcos i have a further
conversation at literally as it relates to the community benefits agreement uh and the council
woman's office agreed that a resumption hearing would be appropriate i'll say it again i apologize
if you had to wait all this time but we are required to uh take at least a minimum break
so for staff uh to have a break this afternoon before we go into our two o'clock session
so tanya do you have a date for his resumption june 2nd at 2 p.m june 2nd at 2 p.m okay so thank
you mr chairman mr chairman i just have to ask is there i i know you know i know there's so many
people on the line um both pro and con who are tremendously disappointed right now that they
can't speak and i'm trying to speak up for everyone who's on the line pro and con right now
i just want to make sure that i don't know if it's a special listing or we're first um because
there's people who just put so much time today it's now one o'clock and and you know i'm concerned
about that happening again um on june 1st june 2nd excuse me well i think that'll depend a lot on
what council for the applicant has to say in addition to any feedback from the community
there's no way of predicting it uh we'll do our best to get you on first and again i apologize
for probably the fourth or fifth time yeah those who are waiting on the line it's just beyond our
control we are required to take a break i'm sorry it's not necessarily for the board but
it's for staff yes tanya i'm sorry chair and this would be a resumption so i would request
if this would go last on the two o'clock list okay so on june the 2nd at two o'clock
is that correct yes at the end of the two o'clock listing okay so mr mi 2020-003
4701-15
King Sessing Avenue
this hearing will be resumed
on June the 2nd
at 2 o'clock p.m.
at which time it will
be heard last on that agenda
and at which time
we will consider any feedback related
to the RCO
RCO's plural
and the Councilwoman's position
Councilwoman singular
Thank you and again one more apology but it's out of our control. Thank you.
We all good?
Yes, Chair. Thank you for your time and consideration.
All right see the board and staff back at two o'clock. Thank you.
Thank you and we'll wait for the go ahead.
We're all ready, Chair. Thank you.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our Vice Chair, Ms. Carol Tenere, Board Secretary, Confessor Plaza, and Board Members, Mr. Thomas Holloman and Mr. James Snell.
I'll be participating in today's hearing along with our vice chair, Ms. Carol Tenere.
Our Board Administrator, Fatina L., and our Board Attorney, Rebecca Cole, are also in attendance.
For those of you who haven't yet participated in one of our virtual hearings, I'll go through some of the basics of what you can expect.
First, we will be administering oaths to individual participants prior to their testimony.
Second, we'd like to advise everyone that this proceeding is being recorded and that
by participating, you acknowledge your agreement to be recorded and that the recording will
be available to the public on the web or otherwise.
Third, for anyone participating by phone, if you wish to testify, you must raise your
hand by hitting star nine and then star six to unmute yourself. I'll repeat for excuse me for
anyone participating by phone if you wish to testify you must raise your hand by hitting star
nine and then star six to unmute yourself. Finally to enter an appearance statement call google
267-270-5548 and leave your email address and the address of the property at issue.
I will repeat, to enter an appearance statement, call Google 267-270-5548 and leave your email
address and the address of the property at issue. I would also like to take this time to advise
everyone. Please do not attempt to testify in the chat. All comments should be directed to
our board administrator Ms. Fatina L. With that I will read off the case that is being
the cases that are being requested to be continued
um from the add-on list uh reconsideration granted to councilman johnson's case
mi 2020-002-118-2105 ellsworth street attorney moving party
MI 2020-002-116-2107 Ellsworth Street, Attorney Moving Party.
also on the 330 list uh mi 2021-000460441 brown street is continued if anyone has any objection
uh or comments regarding the cases i've just read in to be continued
or for attorney moving party, please raise your hand at this time.
Chair, we have Rachel Pritzker.
Ms. Pritzker, you've been unmuted.
Please wait for the chair.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Ms. Pritzker.
Please identify yourself for the record.
You were still under oath from earlier this morning.
Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia, PA, 19103.
I just wanted to confirm, Chairman, that 441 Brown Street is on the continuance list, if not, like...
I just called that on. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else have any comments or
concerns about the cases we're ready for the record to be continued? Please raise your hand.
I see no more hands, Chair. At this time I will ask if anyone
is requesting a continuance or withdrawal to please raise your hand.
I see no hands. Oh, wait a minute. We have Antoinette Phillips. You've been unmuted.
Please wait for the chair.
Good afternoon, Ms. Phillips. Please identify your name, self of the record, spell your
first and last name.
Yes, Antoinette Phillips, A-N-T-O-N-I-E-T-T-E-P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S.
Yes, Antoinette Phillips, A-N-T-O-N-I-E-T-T-E.
You're swearing a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, sir, but I just want to make sure I have the right property, 3613 North 16th Street.
asking for third that case is uh going forward okay i'll stay on thank you that's what i'm
concerned about that property it's rather late in the uh on the list so hang in there thank you
okay thank you so much hey anyone else request for continuance or withdrawal
i see no more handshare thank you uh with that i already read the add-ons
so carol i believe mr patterson has a conflict today he's number three on our list and he's
asking to go first if you're there is that is that is that what your request is
Hi, Mr. Hi, Ron. Can you put your name and address? Wait one second. Where are we? Calendar
number 0468 15 West Rittenhouse Street. Ron, can you put your name and address on the record
and spell your last name? Sure. Good afternoon. Ronald Patterson, P-A-T-T-E-R-S-O-N. Claire Harrison
Law Firm, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103. Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal
and stipulate to its accuracy? Yes, I do. Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of
ownership tax compliance refusal referral photos plans five days in advance of this hearing and
have you met with the rco and do you have a letter yes to all the above thank you you may
proceed ron before you before you begin ron just uh for the purposes of the record um initially
uh our notes were that um we the board had not yet received a letter from the rco but as of 9 21
this morning. Ms. Saletas sent me, sent the board a copy of an RCO letter stating
significant opposition to this application. I'm not sure if you're aware of that.
It spells out 51 opposed, 51 opposed, five in support. I'm aware and I will clarify
the inaccuracies in that letter. Okay, just want to make sure we're on the same page. Thank you.
Okay, great. Okay, well, first, thank you for the accommodation. So this is an application
regarding 15 West Rittenhouse Street. You'll see on the screen, I take it, it's being shared.
Not Rittenhouse Square, but Germantown. It's a, you'll see it's this street here. It's designated
with the arrow. It's surrounded on one side of Rittenhouse Street. This is Germantown Avenue
with large buildings. And as you'll see on the photographs here, predominantly
not residential. The church here owns this and a parking lot next door.
Here's a different view. Rittenhouse Street. Here's the parcel here.
Another view.
the written house is germantown avenue and as you follow down turn on the written house street
it's across the street this is the property
second one here not the grassy one this is next door by the church
so uh it's a vacant uh irregularly shaped parcel 115 feet from germantown
Avenue. It's narrow but deep in a trapezoidal configuration. Ron, excuse me, you broke up there.
Oh, sorry. As I was saying, it's a vacant, irregularly shaped parcel, 115 feet from
Germantown Avenue. It is narrow but deep in a trapezoidal configuration in this respect,
meaning that it's very wide in the back narrow in the front um it uh it behind it
it is about the deep depth of the property is about two-thirds of what it would be if
of what it would be if it were on Germantown Avenue, so it goes behind two-thirds of Germantown
it were on germantown avenue so it goes behind two-thirds of germantown avenue
Avenue buildings under their property lines. It's surrounded by CMX 2.5 on one side and
And RSA 5 on the other, and I'll show you the zoning map.
This is our property here, Germantown Avenue, 2.5, 2.5 over here, and then RSA 1, RSA 5.
As I mentioned and as you picture show, it's a vacant parcel.
It's cemented over.
it's been used for parking it's surrounded by a parking lot and we have a list of
small multi-family buildings that are surrounding it as i mentioned and i'll go to the site plan
in house street see how it widens as it goes to the rear it's owned in rsa5 but as i mentioned
it's surrounded by cmx 2.5 but in fact the planning commission's 2035 plan identifies this property
for remapping to better conform with its conditions its past uses and its surrounding uses that is
it's proposed to be remapped to rm1 which allows multi-family residential hence we have designed
the building taking into account the rm1 as well as the cmx 2.5 uses and buildings
that surround that in the context and character of the area so what's proposed is a five-story building
with a compliant open space
the first floor is pretty much a drive through underneath so that you can access
the 11 parking spaces that are partially open and also enclosed underneath the building
with a proposed 32 residential units above the refusals of course are based on RSA 5
but with regards to this first of all multiple units of course are in one we're actually
out 26 units and uh we're proposing 32 and just kind of jumping out of order i would tell you
that we did meet and had discussions with the planning commission which they'll relay but i'll
explain further in detail but we've agreed to reduce the number of units to 26 which would be
which would be compliant um so that's one refusal the other refusal is off street parking of course
it's not permitted unless you can access the parking by a rear driveway or a rear yard in fact
as the pictures had shown this curb cut exists there's a curb cut that exists next door which
is the parking lot for the church so we don't see that there's any adverse impact by leaving
the curb cut there i believe there is no parking along that side of the street anyway but i'm not
sure. The height proposed is 53 feet. 38 feet is the limit under RM1. Our architect, Logan
Dry, will explain that further. There's a refusal for a roof deck saying it's not set
back five feet from this front, but in fact it is. So I will call that out as an inconsistency
or not an inaccuracy so we did uh present the case to the west central germantown neighborhood
association and i have to say that was a it was probably an hour meeting but i have to say you
know from the beginning uh you could tell we were getting nowhere and i think a lot of the concern
was not regarding this property but as to the wave of development that surrounded the area all
is a matter of right. Complaints about the buy right projects, why are 60 feet and multiple
family units being allowed on Germantown Avenue and the like. So, you know, not clear who voted.
I see that there was a lot of opposition. So we took it upon ourselves to scour the neighborhood
and get petitions. And we did submit as part of my exhibit package, which I'll briefly show you.
but we have about 60 signatures then most within about 250 feet of the
property some outside of there but we did our best
here's examples of the letters we receive they're part of our package some
Some are property owners, some are business owners, some are investment companies that
are property owners, some are business owners, some are investment companies.
own multiple properties, but that's what we were able to secure.
But we leave there just as relevant.
As I mentioned about the Planning Commission, we worked with them.
We agreed to reduce the number of units.
And in fact, as part of my package, I did submit an application for a revised site plan
approval should the board decide to grant the variance relief in this case proposed reduction
in unit count proposed addition of a green roof which was a condition of planning commission
support and per the plans that i submitted with this application
lastly we also have a report from our professional land planner
Nancy Templeton which goes and discusses the hardship and the no adverse impact and why this
fits within the character and the context in the surrounding area which we can get to. So we believe
there is hardship to the property based on the existing condition, the existing uses, the prior
uses, the surrounding uses, the surrounding nature of the zoning districts around there and
we believe that it creates an unnecessary hardship to violently develop this property.
No one here would develop this for one single family dwelling unit, and there would be no way to subdivide it into multiple units, despite what is alluded to in the RCO's letter, because you need street frontage to create lots that are conforming.