Thank you. Now, addressing the last refusal on this lot, which is one of the errors that I did
reference at the beginning of the presentation, we do submit that this refusal is an error,
claiming that off-street parking would be prohibited here. Harlan Street is not the
primary frontage for this lot. The primary frontage was designated as Master Street.
Harlan Street is also classified as a small local street, so we submit it should have been treated
as a rear street for purposes of providing the parking access, and therefore we would submit
this parking location should be considered by right.
Moving on to 2421 Ingersoll St. As the board can see some photos up on the screen here,
you'll see some vehicles parked on the sidewalks. Chris, how many spaces are proposed for this
parking lot? So this parcel is proposed to be parking for 14 spaces. And who will be using
these spaces? The spaces are intended to be used by the residents of the development,
the associated development. As we know, all these lots are being heard together even though they
were submitted as separate parcels. So there's actually three immediately adjacent parcels to the
So there's actually three immediately adjacent parcels to the north, plan north of this site, just on the other side, the alley, that are part of the development and are also being heard today, as well as all of the other associated units in the vicinity.
So really, the only reason that we have this refusal is because it's not formally connected to any of the other lots that it's serving. Is that generally true?
That's correct. As I mentioned, there's that alleyway bisecting the block there that the three
lots that are, or actually we have one large parcel that we're subdividing into five
on that area where the mouse is pointing right now. They are contiguous to this lot with the
exception of that alleyway. Now we don't have a refusal for this landscaping, but I do just
to briefly have you address what what kind of landscaping is proposed for this lot as I do know
this was a particular community concern on this lot. Yes this lot is landscaped with the required
buffer landscaping and you can see in the rendering that's provided there that the buffer landscaping
will extend along the adjacent residential edges as well as the sidewalk edge. Thank you. Now this
be the second lot that we would submit the refusal was issued in error. Based on a strict
interpretation of the code, this parking is considered non-accessory. However, we submit
this parking is, based on the language of the code, accessory parking. Non-accessory parking
is defined as parking that is not provided exclusively to serve occupants of or visitors
to a particular use but is rather available to the public at large. This parking conversely
is only to serve PHA residents so in conjunction with the fact that this parking is truly accessory
parking but for the fact that it is not formally connected to other lots we would submit that this
refusal is truly in error. In practice, we understand that L&I tends to issue this refusal
anytime the parking is provided on a separate lot, but we would submit that this parking refusal
would be in error. Okay, which one are we moving on to next? 2453 Ingersoll Street. Chris, can you
briefly describe this proposal? Sure, this property is designed to include a two-family duplex style
building. The ground floor unit is fully accessible and each unit is approximately 900 square feet,
two-bedroom units. And there's no dimensional refusals on this one? Not that I'm aware of,
correct. The only refusal we received here is failure to provide the ground floor commercial
space. I will hold the argument on that as we do have a few that received that. Chris, moving on,
if you could describe 2448 master? Sure. This is a single unit, a single family attached dwelling.
It will be a three-story, close to 1,900 square foot, four-bedroom unit.
Okay. And again, the only refusal we have here is for lack of commercial space. So
would your understanding be that if we applied for this one today, that it would be entirely by right?
Yes, that refusal is based on the CMX 2 zoning, and if it were reviewed as an RSA 5,
that requirement would no longer apply. Thank you. All right, moving along to 2450 Ingersoll Street.
Chris, if you can just briefly describe this proposal. Yes, this is essentially a mirror of
what we just spoke about across the street at 2453. It's a two-family duplex dwelling with the
accessible unit on the ground floor, approximately 900 square foot, two-bedroom units.
And is it accurate that based on the zoning code, because Ingersoll Street here in the front is
designated as the primary frontage, the way that L&I reviews this is as if the rear yard is along
North 25th Street, as I'm pointing to with my cursor here. Is that how L&I would review this?
I believe that is how they reviewed it.
But if the rear yard were considered opposite of North 25th Street in the grassy area here, this development would actually fully comply with the rear yard requirements.
It would far exceed the requirements, yes.
In fact, the entrances to the building and therefore the frontage of the building is actually facing 25th Street.
Thank you.
Moving along to 2411 and 2415 Master Street.
The board will note that these lots do involve a subdivision, as I referenced earlier.
As you can see, when the condemnations occurred, both of these lots actually ended up consolidated with parcels on Harlan Street.
parcels on Harlan Street. So you'll see I have those outlined in black. What is outlined in red
So you'll see I have those outlined in black.
are the existing lots on Master Street. So we're just looking to break up that connection that
occurred during the condemnation. Chris, what are proposed on these two lots?
Yeah, these properties are single-family infill buildings, and I would refer to these as filling
in the missing teeth in an otherwise intact row of houses along Master Street. The houses are each
three stories, 1,875 square foot, four-bedroom, single-family, semi-attached building.
And can you just briefly touch on the rear yard and the side yard refusals we received here
that are really de minimis? Yes, the side yard refusal is, I believe, there was a requirement
for five feet, and we're providing four foot one. This side yard is actually adjacent to the
alleyway of the building next door. As I mentioned, these are semi-attached, so they're basically
twins. Each along the block, there's alleyways along the property line on the sides.
The existing alleyways are about three feet. We're actually making that a little bit wider
with our construction by going to four foot one. That is adjacent to a property line, but is also
adjacent to the three-foot alley next door. So there's actually a seven-foot space between the
two structures. At the rear, I believe that the refusal was generated because of the
actual storage unit that sticks out past the main building. You can see where Meredith's
cursor is pointing right now. That small little one-story storage area is approximately four and
a half feet past the face of the building. And if you do not count that structure, we are actually
sitting back just slightly behind the adjacent buildings there with I believe it's about an 11
and a half foot rear yard. And the bump out is actually a requirement in conjunction with the
tax credit application. Is that right? Yes, those storage areas. We're required to have storage
areas for each of the units. Thank you. All right, moving along. 2401 Ingersoll Street,
if you could briefly describe what is proposed here. Yes. So 24 Ingersoll, 2401 Ingersoll is a
parcel. It was originally eight separate parcels. What we're proposing to construct are seven units.
At the corner will be a two-family duplex unit, similar to the ones I referred to at 2450 and 2453
Ingersoll, which is at the other end of this block. The ground floor unit is again fully
accessible, about 900 square foot two-bedroom units. The next units along Ingersoll, which you
see in the center there, are also duplex units. They'll provide four one-bedroom units over two
stories. They're slightly smaller, about 650 to 710 square foot each. And then adjacent to that,
further up Ingersoll adjacent to the existing building at 2417 is a two-story, two-bedroom
rowhouse style unit, approximately 1,250 square feet in total. We've spaced that one from the
existing building in order to minimize impact during construction. And regarding the rear yard,
similar to some of the prior proposals, is it generally accurate that the frontages of the
actual entrances to these buildings are both on North 24th and along Ingersoll Street?
That is correct. You can see those gray-shaded boxes there are the actual entryways
to the buildings, and you can see that there's two entries to that duplex along
24th Street, and then there's multiple entrances along Ingersoll Street to the adjacent units as
well. We treated both of those as frontages in the design, with the rear yard being that space
in the middle. Thank you. Is that it? Have you, I think you've addressed all
Madam, except for 2301 master. Is that correct? There's two more, two more. I'll have him go
quickly. 2400 Ingersoll Street. Chris, if you could just very briefly. Yeah, this is very
similar to what we were proposing across the street, the duplex unit at the corner of 24th
and Ingersoll, and the duplex units in between with the single row house at the end. Same square
footages as across the street. And you would submit that your testimony as far as the hardships
faced concerning the rear yard and side yard refusals would similarly apply to these lots as
well? Yes. And you would also agree that your testimony concerning the bicycle spaces would
also apply to this a lot as well? That is correct. Thank you. All right. 24-18, 24-24, 24-34.
Thank you. All right. 2418, 2424, 2434, and 2440 Master Street. Again, if you could just briefly.
Yeah, I mentioned this when I was discussing the parking lot behind them. This is one larger
parcel that's being subdivided into five, three of which are being developed on our end, or four
of which is actually an extra parcel included there. Two of the parcels are existing houses
that are going to be retained, and the other three that are not included as this development.
The other three parcels include seven row house style units. Six of them are three stories,
approximately 1,700 square feet, three bedroom units, and the other one will be a five bedroom
unit, and it's approximately 2,100 square feet in size. Thank you, and you would also agree that
your testimony concerning side yard variances would apply to these lots as well? Yes, it's
actually the one lot in the middle there that has the side yard issue and I would note that the
side yard the small side yard three foot one is being designed and treated up more as an alley
that is serving as access convenience access to get to the parking that is associated on the
Ingersoll street lot behind these this parcel and provides a through way to the for the residents to
get to the parking without having to go around the block the the alleyway as it were will be
fenced separately from the yard of the building adjacent to it. Thank you. Meredith, you have
addressed 2301 master, right? I did. That was the first one. Okay. I thought so. There's some,
they're scattered all over. It's a little bit difficult. Yeah. Is, is there anybody on the
board that has any questions? I do have one more witness for purposes of the record. We do have
okay i'm sorry that's okay i'm leaving anyway no i i'll be here darwin don't worry um yes
are there any virtual witnesses
can i bring up my my one more witness absolutely thank you uh if you can unmute ken granderson
Mr. Granderson, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Hello, this is Ken. Hi, Mr. Granderson. Can you put your name on the record and please spell your
last name? Ken Granderson. G-R-A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
whole truth and nothing about the truth? Yes. Okay, you may proceed. Ken, can you just share
with the board your title with PHA and the length of time you've been with PHA? I'm a project
architect within the design development department and I've been with PHA for 11 years. And you've
been involved with this project since its inception? Yes, I have. Can you just very,
very briefly describe how will PHA manage this development? Please touch on trash and security
specifically. PHA will manage this property through our internal resources and coupled with
that in regards to trash, because we're integrating the putting back the missing teeth of the
development, the trash will be handled through the regular city trash pickup, so will be handled
just like a regular resident that lives on the block. In regards to security, PHA, as was
reiterated by Nick Dima, because our headquarters is located within walking distance and we have
Valk School, which is located directly across the street, all of our sites currently have
what's defined as CCTV access on them and that that access is patrolled not only by our PHA police
which is within close proximity but because we do the CCTV it is manned by our 24-hour police
department that's that watches it constantly. Thank you and and based on the due diligence
that you've done to date the neighborhood infrastructure is capable of supporting all
of the proposed additional units here, correct? Yes, as you reiterated earlier because we're
just putting back the city scape of what was previously there, our current development is
less than what was already there and the current city infrastructure can handle it adequately.
And none of the properties that are to be demolished during this construction are
designated as historic, correct? Correct. Per the PHA's historic survey with the State Historic
Preservation Office, no residential structures in our project boundary area are defined as historic.
Thank you, Ken. Madam Vice-Chairwoman, I did have a somewhat of a
Thank you, Ken. Madam Vice Chairwoman, I did have a somewhat of a closing argument,
but I'd be happy to hold that if you want to take any form of neighborhood comments. I can
certainly hold it to the end if you'd like. I do. I would like to take neighborhood comments. I would
also like to know where will the trash be stored? Ken, if you could address that. So in regards to
the trash being stored, because the lots have rear access and the rear storage shed and rear
patios, there is ample area in the rear of all the properties to store the trash. And in regards
to bringing the trash to the front, the trash can also always be brought to the front for trash
pickup. Okay, thank you. Is there anybody in the virtual audience who would like to testify? If so,
please raise your hand. Madam Vice Chair, we have Gabriel. Please unmute yourself and wait
for the Vice Chair. Hello. Hi, Gabriel. Can you put your name on the record and spell your last
name? Yes, it's Gabriel Taju, last name T as in Thomas, A-J-E-U, and I'm at 2518 Ingersoll Street.
Okay, do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay, please proceed.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
There are several members of the community that are here, so I'm going to kind of set the stage for our discussion.
One of the things that we wanted to discuss is that, or excuse me, let me speak for myself.
one thing in the earlier testimony that was fairly misleading is that nothing in this
development is actually mixed income that's one of the biggest
issues that I have with this is that from a from a from a social justice perspective
we feel I feel as though the amount of density of these properties which could be anywhere
from 150 to 250 added people in uh two square blocks um this is going to be all low-income
housing studies suggest that a woman i want to object to this testimony this is not relevant
to any of the refusals received it's really not even an appropriate line of testimony concerning
the the form of housing here the misleading um there's there's two bedrooms four bedrooms
single family there is a diverse type of housing here but go ahead with whatever you were saying
type of housing yes and i will get get to more serious points but um again there the infrastructure
is a big issue and there had there was a shooting that occurred last summer um last fall four people
were shot on the corner of this street. There's gatherings that take place all the time. The
neighborhood just cannot support this at this time. And so I do want to let the record reflect
that although the council does suggest that my line of discussion is non-relevant, I think that
her misleading of that this is not mixed income housing is also very relevant to this. So with
that I will allow what what does what does this mean to you that all of these homes will come in
here with different people I don't understand this means that in terms of opportunities
for individuals to improve their socioeconomic status that there's no option here it's going
to be all low-income individuals and the fact that this is essentially putting a vertical version of
Bloomberg Towers in this area is of considerable concern given how much money the city has invested
in this area, the great resources of having the Vox School and Temple University present. This
could be a way to improve the quality of life for individuals who have low socioeconomic status
as long as there was a mix of individuals right now in terms of socioeconomic status, in terms of
being able to buy, being able to have a mix of market rate and low income. And so it's a
missed opportunity for the city. And it also speaks to the structural issues that are outlined
in the actual refusals in terms of the size of the areas, in terms of the parking lot being a
refusal these are not just um refusals based on uh what do you call it just based on um
what do you call it, just based on not crossing a T or dotting an I. These are real
density issues. And so that's where I'm coming from with this argument. If the city wants to
use the money to improve the quality of life for low-income individuals, you cannot place them all
in one place, especially in a neighborhood that is already struggling to have a safe