Specifically worth noting on this block is 3625 North 16th Street which is an 1833 square foot
lot. Again, ours is 2,500 square feet. That property has been permitted for six dwelling
units. Additionally, 3623 North 16th Street is three dwelling units. That property, however,
is 1,541 square feet. And there are, let's pull up the list.
there are several others that are uh smaller in size or if you look at them the unit to land
density for these properties um does exceeds what we're what we're proposing um we looked at the
classification of rm1 um 2500 square feet gets you six units by right for rm1 with obviously
no bonuses. We also wanted to take into consideration the demographics of this
neighborhood and the need for more price-conscious housing. Anytime that you go down in units on a lot
this big, obviously, if you try to provide larger units, the price goes up as far as rentals. We
also wanted to, you know, be considerate that we wanted to leave enough rear yard space and open
space. So we're not infringing on any of the dimensional considerations of this lot or the
near neighbors. The other thing I think worth mentioning before I bring up our architect to
just go through the plans is that it's very clear in the city's 2035 comprehensive plan that this
area has not been remapped recently. I'm sure it's in the goals of the planning commission as
they're busy doing a lot of this type of work. I just thought it would be important to note that
specifically in the city's comprehensive plan in Tioga in their north plan it says to encourage the
formation of new commercial corridor on 17th street which we're not far from obviously this
is on 16th street and redevelopment of vacant properties with multi-family uses. So I don't
believe that we are providing an overuse with the six units as it is less dense than what we're
with the six units as it is less dense than what we're seeing on other properties that are have
seeing on other practices.
been previously zoned rsa5 but obtained either variances or had uses for multi-family before
assuming that maybe the block was remapped at some point to rsa5 down the line additionally
it's important to note that the comprehensive plan also mentions that 12 of the north district
zoning is really inconsistent with underlining or desired land use. Additionally, specifically
in Tioga, it talks about having multifamily density around areas closest to single family
homes, especially revitalizing existing single family homes. Again, this is a vacant lot
and also making sure that new and affordable housing is located near 17th and Tioga. This is
right down the street. And this, again, we border Erie Avenue as well and North Broad Street,
which obviously I had mentioned were some, a lot of talk about that in the comprehensive plan.
We met with the community on, let me just bring it up in the packet.
On March of the 3rd.
They're changed forward to RCO. Yep. And their meeting summary is a little confusing. As the
board can see, it said 16 in opposition that are on the RCO board slash committee. All meeting
attendees was five. So that's those who are not comprised of, I guess, the RCO board and committee
in non-opposition. And then two affected RCO members also in non-opposition. We also have a
letter from a affected RCO, Upper North Neighbors Association, that was submitted to the board
evidencing that they are in non-opposition of the project based on the fact that the stated
intention of the project is to help eliminate vacancy and blight and to provide more affordable
housing units. Obviously, they also mentioned that their knowledge of the 3600 block of North 16th
Street and neighboring Venango and Erie Ave all consist of both rental household and single
family dwellings. So this is not inconsistent with what's already there. And they also acknowledge
that the developer is a community partner who has demonstrated a commitment to revitalization.
This developer in particular owns a number of properties and the neighborhood has worked hand
in hand with the community for cleanups to work through some of their goals as far as the 17th
Street corridor is concerned. And that was also one of the reasons that they felt it was important
to send, you know, non-opposition. In addition, because there was 16 people from the RCO board
slash committee that voted in opposition, we actually wanted to get a better sampling of
near neighbors. So we spoke with a number of them on the block and we have submitted letters of
support 3637 North 16th Street, 3617 North 16th Street, 3619 North 16th Street, 3620 North 16th
Street, 3323 North 16th Street. And then also, as the board may be aware, there is a school
nearby, it's called Cristo Rey. It's a school that takes in a lot of individual students in
Philadelphia and helps sponsor programs where they get involved with businesses. Long story short,
the CEO, the founder of Christo Ray, submitted a letter of non-opposition specifically stating
that he believes that responsible investment by responsible developers is essential for
restoring the vitality of Tioga. As the board may be familiar, Christo's Ray is located at 1717 West
Allegheny, so not very far from this site. They believe that responsible development should
impact respective preferences of the homeowners and complement the unique architecture. They
believe that this could meet that criteria and that the principles of the organization, because
they're involved with the neighborhood, you know, should be encouraged to continue to invest in
Tioga. So I wanted to just bring that to the board's attention as well. John McConnell is the
founder and president of Christo, right? He was on the call earlier, but given how long today went
for everyone he had to jump off. So I would at this time like to have Scott Woodruff from
Design Blends Architecture jump on and share the plans and then happy to take any questions
that the board may have. Great. Hello. Hello. Can you put your name and address on the record
and spell your last name? Scott Woodruff, W-O-O-D-R-U-F-F. Design Bonds Architecture, 4001 Main
Street, Suite 203, Philadelphia PA 19127. Do you swear a firm to tell the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay, you may proceed. I can just get out.
Okay, you may proceed.
I can just get promoted to panelists.
I can share screen.
I'm sorry, Scott.
What did you need to do?
He needs to be promoted to panelists.
i've just promoted scott woodruff to panelists thank you
thank you
um as rachel went over uh this is our property 25 by 100 um
proposing a three-story uh it's a little hard to hear you
Sorry about that. It's a six-story, I mean, six-unit, three-story building.
Some of the main things that we wanted to make sure that we did was taking some of the existing
contexts of the surrounding area. A lot of that is red brick facade, which was important that we
keep, as well as a structure that wasn't extremely tall, as a lot of the surrounding context is not
super tall in height. So we're right around 30 feet in total height. As you look at this,
as well as trying to take a few of the other cues, the curved kind of front entry window,
as well as not building to full lot coverage. As you see, we have an alleyway here to allow
light and air and also just not build full width on the site itself. This alleyway would
also be used for um trash which will be located in the rear of the property um as well as access
for tenants to the rear yard so there are two units per floor there are two units per floor
um you're coming in a little muffled again scott i'm sorry uh yes two units per floor uh two bedroom
one bathroom units on floors two and three on both and then there is like a one bedroom plus
kind of like an office work from home uh it's set up on the first floor it's in the front
of the building uh but yes the units are uh you know small two bedrooms around 800 square feet
um primarily for all of the all of the units with this this one bedroom being
a little bit smaller around 600. Thank you. Tom any questions? No. Just the board have any questions? No.
Planning Commission?
Good afternoon board. I will specify that there is no proposed restriction to affordable housing
as part of this project so that point should be moot. This property is indicated for single
family residential in the comprehensive plan. The neighborhood was built and has been largely
maintained as single family residential. We feel the proposal represents an overuse of the property.
Additionally there is no hardship to regularly shape vacant lots. Accordingly we object to the
granting of the variance. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Yes. Would it be okay to get the community's
input? Oh, sure. I sometimes do that backwards. Is there anyone in the virtual audience
who would like to speak? If so, please raise your hand. Now, just to note, Madam Chair,
we do have quite a few people so it's your call as to when say when when that's nine people that's
far before we open it up i just want to comment i'm a little confused by the planning commission's
uh comment given their own comprehensive plan but i'll uh already kind of shared what i've
pulled from that and it's in the packet as well for the board um the other thing too
and I just want to add this to your tool belt, Madam Chairwoman, we would be willing to knock
it down a unit if given the Planning Commission's comment of overuse, although I will state that
it's 2,500 square feet. And so that is more than, that is exactly what's allowed by right if this
was R1, like the similar properties. And there's a host of properties in the area that are allowed
additional units despite having smaller lots than we do. So I just wanted to mention that on the
record. Okay, Ms. Sunfit, there's nine people who are willing to testify? Yes, if allowable,
Yes, if allowable, can we have Charles Richardson go forward first?
can we have Charles Richardson go forward first? Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Mr. Richardson?
Yes, Madam Vice Chair.
Hi, can you put your name and address?
Well, I know what your address is.
Put your name on the record.
It's been one of those days.
I was the first case at 2 o'clock, and I'm the last case today.
So Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass Room 312.
Well, I was going to cede to Charles Karn first, because he is the chair of the 13th Ward RCO, and I know that he's on the line, and he can lay out what, you know, their thoughts were about that.
And then I can come back at whatever point that you feel that the community has, that you've had too much in this time, you know, to wrap it up, and I can, you know, give the Councilwoman's opinion at that time.
Okay, and based on everything you've just said, do you swear or affirm the talk?
that you did tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yeah, sure. I'm still under oath
though. Okay. Okay. We'll listen to the, whoever is going to testify. Can we pick a couple of
people who can testify? Can they do that amongst themselves? I'm sorry. If I could assist Charles
karn you can go forward next i'm here okay hi mr karn name and name and address please
and spell your last name charles karn 3853 charles karn 3853 north 19th street i am the 13th ward
rco chair okay do you swear if i'm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
nothing but the truth nothing but the truth okay you may proceed madam vice chair i've been on this
call since two o'clock also first of all i know you have i'm sorry i'm sorry the package i sent
in i actually wrote the summary but but it's also was five pages that um actually detailed
the community and stakeholders concerns about putting this unit on the block there um first of
all um when did they purchase the property um vice chair um i i don't know when was the property
purchased rachel do you know i believe it's on the city records um within probably the last year or
so i can look okay 2020 i got it okay but again right what i wanted to say um madam vice chair
um when they purchased the property they knew it was rsa5 now um so the hardship right they're
saying is here's what we want to put there but i'm like um council person i'm brian o'neill
right we can't go chasing everybody on the block about what they've done in their house and look
at the mailboxes like i just can't do that however i've been listening to and um at the rco zoom
meeting um the owner and his representative said right they couldn't build a single family property
on a block that is 90 legally legally single family dwellings and that's what the other eight
people that you're going to see or hear from that's what they're going to tell you the block
itself the 3600 block has parking on two sides of the street if we don't argue about parking we do
understand we do understand that right but um when i was reading the appeal for the refusal
it was saying well um it was a couple of questions about parking but it said
it wouldn't apply to the density of the block however during during the meeting um
the proposal was for five two bedroom one one bedroom so so six units and i'm adding
that up pretty much you're talking about 20 folks um in that house but if you go up and down that
block and i don't know where the letters came from from support i've walked through that block
to six um the 3600 block i've walked through venango street everything around it is single
family and that's what you're going to hear from the folks and that's what they're trying
And we're trying to stay consistent with the RSA-5 single family.
Thank you.
Ma'am, you know what?
I don't want to...
Are you ready for the next one, Chair?
Yes, I am.
We have Evanya Stevenson.
Good evening.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name, please?
Yes, my name is Ivana Stevenson, E-V-Y-O-N-N-A-S-T-E-V-E-N-S-O-N. I am a member.
s-t-e-v-e-n-s-o-n. I am a member of the 13th Ward and was in attendance at the March 23rd
meeting that was telling us about the proposed building that we see here. I am so confused.
May I interrupt you? Do you swear to affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
I sure will. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. So I'm confused as to know who this
Dwayne Lilly is, who is a part of the Upper North Neighborhood Association. This person was not a
part of our meeting, so I'm unclear as to how he was able to present a letter to this organization
saying that he's all up and have the community's consent. I was also confused as to why
Crystal Ray the school that's on Allegheny Avenue how come that became so important to this
neighborhood when Allegheny Avenue is five blocks away from 17th and Erie and then two blocks over
so I'm really confused as to how they had a voice in this decision when they don't even live in the
neighborhood um I'm confused also as when the person purchased the property they knew it was
an RSA5 property, but you're going to change it to suit yourself? I don't think so. This
neighborhood, and I'm still a part of this neighborhood, has been my neighborhood for
over 50 years. I feel this an insult to the neighbors for people to come into the neighborhood
to say, well, we're going to change it just because of you. And also, the attorney never
showed the letter um that showed the oh she had the purple paper there that was not brought up
when she was making a presentation to us that said um that the variances hadn't been changed
for over semi for a number of years again that was not a part of the original conversation
and that's all i have to say miss stevenson okay thank you do you know what we're going to do um
This is going to be a resumption hearing
because everybody doesn't have enough information.
Tanya, can you give me a date for a resumption hearing?
June 2nd at 2 p.m.
Okay, calendar number 0467-3613, Road 16th Street.
We'll have a resumption hearing June 2nd at 2 p.m.
Thank you.
if i could just mention um that uh rachel no posting would typically be required um however
based on um what's going on with this particular case you can reach out to us and we'll give you
posters so everybody involved will know when it's scheduled okay thanks i appreciate that
Okay, calendar number 0424-626-30 by Burry-Rood.
Sean Ward is the attorney.
Mr. Ward has been promoted to panelists.