These are CMX2 properties.
Correspondents from the Spruce Hill Community Association, again, we met with them, and they are in support of these variance requests.
maps of the area, photographs of the property in the surrounding area, our plans and drawings,
merely our floor plans for these properties, proof that we had a community meeting and proof
of familiarity of that community meeting, notice applications for appeal that we filed with the
CBA or deed to the property showing that KMR-1 LLC is the owner of the property, and they have
been the owner of the property since 2014. Unfortunately, due to the pandemic and the
change in the composition of neighborhoods, this CMX, these CMX2 properties have been vacant for a significant period of time.
These CMX2 properties have been vacant for a significant period of time, as noted in the letter of support for both zoning matters, and the community wishes to have active eyes on the streets on these first floor properties, the first floor peach property, and thus using them as residential units.
the last exhibit certificates of tax clearance showing that KMR-1 LLC is in good standing
with the city of Philadelphia as to these properties with regards to real estate taxes.
All right, the notices of refusal. Again, both of these are CMX2 properties. Both are looking to
make them six-family dwellings. We're being refused because of CMX2, we're required to put
a commercial storefront there. As you see, there is a commercial storefront that is vacant,
And that has been vacant for some time, even beyond the pandemic.
And what we're proposing is not out of character to how this property has been used.
It's currently being used as a five-unit plus commercial.
So we're asking the board to merely take the commercial component and swap it in with the residential.
our our um you know our letter of support from the uh coordinating rco uh uh let's see
i'll read it um you know uh both both you know they talk about the the two properties both have
the same issue and that involve failure to provide ground floor commercial as required at cmx2 in
In both instances, given the configurations of the buildings and the current local commercial
well-saving market, we felt that insisting on ground floor commercial was problematic.
In no way should our non-opposition to this application be interpreted as indifference
to ground floor commercial uses.
On the contrary, we consider ground floor commercial activity essential to neighborhood
street life and a necessary amenity for local residents.
In the future, if economic fortunes change and more commercial activities seem viable,
the property owners might decide to reconfigure these buildings for commercial activity that
zoning already permits. So the problem in this part of Chestnut Street, there's a lot of
vacant commercial units, not just in our property, but throughout that block. And again, we're trying
to create eyes on the street and create activity on the ground floor. And that's why the coordinating
the rco is a non-opposition to our request maps of the area again we are on chestnut street
we are these two cmx2 properties and here's from a google maps perspective there is limited
commercial use but very sporadic give even given the cmx2 zoning here again it's been problematic
throughout the pandemic and beyond and then photographs of the property as you can see
These are the units. So none of our units will be below grade. Each of these units are above grade
and have a separate entrance. And we're merely trying to repurpose these spaces for residential
purposes. And there's already two, five unit dwelling units in each of these other parts of
these other structures. And we're just trying to keep that use intact as well. Chestnut Street to
right of the property chestnut street to the left of the property um our plans and drawings and
again we have the other units so if for your if you want to see it but there would be a there's
right now a total of six bedrooms in each of these uh building structures uh with with five units
we're merely trying to have one bedroom one bath unit on the ground floor as to each so there'll
be a total of 14 bedrooms over the two building structures seven in each there's definitely a
need in this community for these one bedroom and studio units for you know our clientele
happens to be people whether it's doctors professionals at Penn and Drexel as well
as graduate students and that's our clientele there's a need within the community for these
type of structures and the the added unit in each will help towards that goal and then this is 445
chestnut street uh same type of configuration one bedroom one bath everything above great
and then uh you know our meeting notices we met with community february 16 2022 at 6 30 pm and
this is the meeting notice for 4443 chestnut street 91 uh individuals were notified or
properties were notified of that community meeting addresses proof of mailing same thing
for four four four five chestnut street 89 addresses were deemed within the affected area
89 addresses were deemed within the affected area these are the addresses this is the proof
These are the addresses.
mailing or applications for appeal to the cba with regards to each property there were separate
appeals along with the notice of refusal project information form and then our deed to the property
showing that kmr-1 llc is the owner of the property or properties and our certificates
of tax clearance showing that they're in good standing with the city of Philadelphia.
With that being said, I would like to unshare my screen, introduce Mr. Goldberg Hahn M.
to the board, have him be sworn in, and then he can adopt my testimony, and then he'd be
more than happy to take any questions from the board.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Siri, you need to unmute yourself.
Adam left, microphone.
Could you state your name, please, and spell it?
Mr. Goldberg, you have to hit the mute button, okay?
you'll have her along the bottom it'll pop up on the far left
um if he's having difficulties i can also you know as an officer of the court i state that's
fine that's fine the testimony um and you know just again if the board wants us to go through
it to go through the floor plans i didn't mean to go through it quickly but um you know there
or five units above, I can also go through those four plans
if the board seems to be inclined to look at those again.
That's fine.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
members of the board for both of these appeals 4445 and 4443 chestnut street the comprehensive
plan recommends no change to the existing commercial mixed use toning the conditions
of the commercial corridor we agree present a hardship to requiring commercial use on the lowest
level and the proposed use is a six unit building on each property is consistent with the configuration
of the existing buildings the city planning commission recommends that the board grant
these variances in each case. Thank you. MI 2021-004-654-4445 Chestnut Street, and MI 2021-004-653-4443
Chestnut Street, I vote yes to both. Harold Tenere, my vote is yes to both. Thomas
Howland my vote is yes to vote. Sorry uh James Snell yes to both. Ishmael Shaheed yes to both.
Thank you. Mr. Nakelson could you stay on please? Yes uh MI 2021 002913 5024 Ray Street.
uh yes no rco letters of yet uh no i actually did forward the uh letter to uh emerson earlier today
uh unfortunately it is a letter in opposition but i think we have addressed their concerns by
way of proviso hopefully okay could you uh could you identify your client in relationship to the
property? Yes. So this is owned by two corporate entities, IRA, Development, LLC, and Meek Coast
Enterprises, LLC. I have the corporate representative for the property owners,
Ify, on a Chukwu Eze, who will be adopting my testimony at the conclusion of my presentation.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you. Hi, Mr. Mockerson. Excuse me. Do you agree to
the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do. Have you emailed the exhibit
packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under
plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing? And have you met with the RCO and
do you have a letter? Yes, we met with the coordinating RCO last night and I did slip
in the letter into my presentation materials, which I'll present to the board, as well as I
gave it separately to Ms. Emerson earlier this morning. Thank you. You may proceed and please
share your screen. Thank you. Sure. All right. So I'm here to present 5024 Ray Street. There are
There are two corporate entities, IRA Development LLC and Minkos Enterprises LLC, which are the joint owners of this property.
two corporate entities, IRA Development LLC and Minkos Enterprises LLC.
This is a Kumas Homes development. Kumas Homes has been in existence for over 15 years.
They're headquartered in the Point Breeze section of Philadelphia, so they're locally owned and operated.
And they've developed well over 100 properties over the course of those years.
and we're looking to put originally we're looking to put a triplex on the on this corner property at
5024 Ray Street as you can see from the rendering there's a separate entrance on Ray Street and
Farson is the other corner where there's a separate entrance and we'll go through the
letter of opposition but I think we have addressed their concerns regarding the basement living
situation. So we'll go through the notice refusal corresponds from the 44th Democratic Ward which
was the coordinating RCO maps of the area photographs of the property in the surrounding
area nearby RSA 5 multifamily properties our properties are RSA 5 but this is this does have
a significant multifamily presence in this part of town and in addition to our size of 1265 feet
And the fact that we're situated on the corner property with separate entrances, we believe that having maximum two units with no basement living as provisos would fulfill the needs of a vacant lot, which has been vacant as far back as 2007, based on evidence from Google Earth.
We'll go through the plans and drawings.
Our meeting notice, we met again with the community late last night.
That is why we didn't have a letter from them until last night, which we forwarded over
to the CBA Council this morning, and it's including our presentation packet.
Deeds of the property showing that IRA Development LLC and MECOS Enterprises LLC are the joint
owners of this property, our application for appeal that we filed at CBA, and our certificate
of tax clearance showing that there are no real estate taxes owed on this property. Mr. Eze is
online, who I would ask be sworn in and can adopt my testimony, and then we can take questions
from the court. All right, so our notice refusal is this is an RSA 5 property. Its significant
size is 1,265 square feet. Originally, we're proposing a triplex, but after hearing from the
community uh their opposition significant opposition to basement living we wish and you
know given it's a corner property with where we have separate entrances for two of the units we
asked to eliminate the third unit maximum two units uh with no basement living so that we cannot
have basement living for this building and i think that that would address their concerns there are
no dimensional variances uh with regards to this project and when we'll go through the rendering
And we really did try to mimic the architecture in the neighborhood.
This neighborhood is a porch neighborhood, as well as the fact, which we have, and as well as like mansard roofs, which we included as part of our proposal.
All right. So our letter from the 44th Democratic Board, the second paragraph states it all,
after fully discussing on to allow for a new construction three uh dwelling units uh the
neighbor neighbors had many concerns with the overall design of proposed building as well as
parking space other concerns one of the units utilized in the basement for living with lack
of good lighting and safe ingress we agreed not to support this project at this time i i think that
the parking we can't do anything about and i indicated to them the lot while significant in
size is not big enough to accommodate a parking spot and would increase the variances that we
requested. In addition, it would put a curb cut there, which would take one public parking spot
off of the street. Thus, it would be a one-to-one ratio. And we indicated that this board and the
city planning commission typically disfavor such uses of the property. But more of a concern was
the basement living, the lack of good light and safety grass. Now we did elevate the building
structure to provide, you know, adequate lighting in our opinion, but the biggest factor was just
the safety about individuals getting out of the basement. So with that being said, we would
request that the board, given the significant size of this lot, agree to maximum two units
with no basement living as a proviso if this board should feel inclined to grant
our zoning appeal. All right, deeds of the property, again, we're at the corner of Race
and Farson. And you can see here where we are in the neighborhood. Typically,
Typically, these corner properties tend to be multi-unit in nature. So we would ask to fulfill that goal as well and to help support the commercial quarter on Haverford that we increase the density to two units.
these corner properties tend to be multi-unit in nature. So we
Photographs of the property. So this is the property from Ray Street. And this is the property from Ray Street showing that as of 2007 and as far back as Google Earth goes, and it sounds like it may have had a history even beyond that of vacant land.
So this property has been vacant for almost 15 years of record on the Internet. So we're asking that this is the opportunity to develop that land.
Unfortunately, given the market conditions, supply chain issues, interest rates, it's not feasible to build a single family structure here at all.
So we're asking that the board allow us to build a two-story, a two-family structure here.
Side of the property from Farson Street, again, because it's a corner property, not only will we have a separate entrance for each of the units,
It's one on Farson and one on Reece Street, but also we will be able to responsibly store and manage the trash in the rear by like having every unit owner or, excuse me, resident be able to store their trash outside, you know, in this enclosed container.
And we would, you know, we would also agree to improvise on that respect to this trash be stored in the rear and the outside.
uh ray street to the right of the property race street to the left of the property
forest to the right of the property forest until left of the property and then again examples of
the type of work product that kumas homes puts out there uh they they have a mix between for sale and
um you know for rent properties they not only own their properties they're the general contractor
for these properties, as well as they self-manage these properties. But here's just examples of the
open floor plans, hardwood floors, kitchens with granite countertops, stainless steel appliances.
There are, again, examples of their bathrooms, subway tiles, nice fixtures, large bedrooms.
That's an example of a bedroom with nice light and air. Again, another bedroom, light and air,
another bathroom. And then multifamily properties that are, you know, within close proximity to
this property. Across the street from us is a 30-unit building at 5031 Ray Street. Then there's
a whole slew of properties on the 100 block and the 200 block of Farson. Again, we intersect with
Farson. 153 Farson Street is a multifamily structure. As you can see, they do not have a
proper garbage plan. They store their garbage in the front. We'll be able to store our garbage
enclosed in the rear 154 uh forest industry uh is also nearby rsa five five unit building ours
is much bigger in size um and we're only asking for two units and we're in the corner property
and we have two separate entrances
uh 215 forest and street again uh there's nine corner property there's not two separate entrances
231 forest and street again no lack of no two separate entrances lack of the garbage
maintenance plan and storage plan as you can see from that picture and then just our plans and
drawings again the biggest thing is we try to mimic the porch the mansard roof and we have a separate
entrance for each of the units given that we're going to go down to two units originally we had
three units and two of the units was we're going to use the ray street side now only one of the
units is going to use the ray street side and the other unit's going to use the barson street side
like before all right and then this is just our elevations everything is within the zoning code
from a dimensional standpoint brick facade you know we have the porch we have a man's
route which mimics what's in the neighborhood. I'm just having some technical issues with my
computer and things are going rather slow now.
So Mr. Nakamson, this is Polly from IT. If you want to turn off your video
and just show your screen, that might help speed it up.
Okay, I'll do that. Let's do that. Oops.
Okay, I'll do that.
Let's do that.
No promises, though, but it's worth the try.
No promises, though.