meeting I believe and this is their letter in any event what what I have
is a memorandum in our exhibit packet from the civil engineer, which is a gentleman named Anthony
Caponegro and the engineering firm Kimley Horn. Because we have this memo and it's in our exhibit
packet, I'm not going to call Mr. Caponegro to walk through the zoning plans. I will be legally
compelled to do so if somebody asserts that the plan is not safe for any reason, and he'll be
available for rebuttal for that purpose. But Mr. Caponegro's firm created the zoning plans for each
parcel. This is the plan for what will be the enlarged 2628 North Broad property, showing the
A new Starbucks building, a drive-through with ample, what they call stacking spaces in the code.
So a lot of room for cars to wait for food pickup if it's busy.
25 parking spaces towards the rear of the property in two different areas shown here.
And a vast improvement in terms of the manner of automobile access to this property versus what exists right now.
So there's going to be two curb cuts of only 12 feet along Broad Street, along with a secondary egress to Lehigh and a secondary ingress and egress from 15th.
If you look at the situation now, just to go back to this image, what this shopping center has that's being replaced by the Starbucks is just a massive, about 100-foot curb depression that allows cars to come on and off of Broad Street in a very haphazard manner.
So we feel this is a really big safety enhancement.
So that, again, was the site plan for 2628 North Broad.
This is the site plan for 1412-22 West Lehigh. This will likely be separated from the Starbucks portion of the site, and it's just a small parking lot with two curb cuts onto Lehigh Avenue.
One of the code standards for non-accessory parking use is that you have to obtain a professional traffic study by a traffic engineer showing that your non-accessory parking use will not degrade the level of service on the affected street here, Lehigh Avenue.
And again, I'm not going to bring this gentleman on. This is a separate engineer, Mr. DiMartino. This is his report with regard to that non-accessory parking use. It's also in our exhibit packet. It demonstrates that the level of traffic service on Lehigh Avenue will not be degraded and that the geometry and sight lines for cars coming and leaving from the parking lot is safe.
The code asks us to make those demonstrations, and we've done it through this report.
Beyond that, I just want to call a representative from Starbucks to talk about some very limited facts about the proposed restaurant.
His name is Joseph Gibbs.
joseph gibbs if you are in the audience please raise your virtual hand at this time
been allowed to speak hello hi could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter
Yes, my name is Joseph Gibbs, J-O-S-E-P-H.
Yes, my name is Joseph Gibbs, J-O-S-E-P-H, G-I-B-B-S.
Great. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Mr. Gibbs, hi. So, firstly, what's your position within Starbucks?
I am the store development manager for a Starbucks coffee company.
Okay, thank you. And do you know the proposed hours of operation of this restaurant?
Yes, the proposed hours are seven days a week. It will be 530 a.m. opening and closing at 8 p.m.
Okay, thank you. One other line of questions for you. So you just saw a moment ago the zoning site
plan on my screen. What I have up here now is a litter cleanup plan. Are you familiar with this
document? I am. And did you and I collaborate on the creation of this litter cleanup plan?
Yes, we did. Okay. So I'm just going to ask you to affirm what this says. It provides that
Starbucks will place outdoor trash receptacles at the two entrances to the building.
and those are shown at the red dots is that correct that is correct um does this plan also
provide that at once an hour a starbucks partner as you call it or staff member will um patrol the
perimeter of the building and pick up any trash in the outdoor seating area in the drive-through
lane in the landscaping in the front of the building and along north broad street even
outside of the property boundaries on North Broad Street? That is correct. And is that a
segment of the North Broad Street sidewalk in front of the proposed restaurant shown in red
here? Yes, it is. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm just going to make a couple very brief
additional comments that go to the special exception standards, and then I'll bring on
the property owner to adopt my testimony. The block in which the proposed parking lot and
Starbucks sit lacks any residential use. There are commercial and industrial uses such as what
appears to be a warehouse and a Sunoco gas station. This proposed use will not harm those properties.
The Starbucks building will occupy less than 10 percent of the lot area of the 2628 North Broad
lot. And as such, it conforms to all dimensional requirements. It will not have negative impacts
on the light or air servicing surrounding properties. The existing strip mall has been
safely and successfully served by local utilities. And as such, we believe that the Starbucks
restaurant that will replace the strip mall will not have any negative impacts on those public
utilities. The Starbucks will provide ample parking and ample space for the safe function
of the drive-through and safe methods for cars and pedestrians to enter and exit the property
with that i'd like to bring on mr nicoletti to adopt my testimony and ask if the board has any
questions mark nicoletti would be the owner representative's name
you sold
okay who was the individual again sir mark nicoletti or it may be philadelphia suburban
development corporation okay mr nicoletti if you're in the audience please raise your virtual
hand and wait to be sworn in mr sabrin you're an officer of the court we can take we'll take your
okay thank you very much mr chair questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chair oh mr chairman
no mr chair uh questions or comments from the virtual audience mr chair mr mickland let his
hand to some uh i think we're okay we're okay we got another one it's from a number ending in
at 3-5-5-2.
I'd love them to speak.
Hello?
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
Adrian Fernandez.
A-D-R-I-E-N-N-E
F-E-R-N-A-N-D-E-Z
Swampo Alto Neighborhood
Parsons Association.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? Yes. Proceed. Okay. We support this special exception.
Proceed. Okay. We support this special exception or special referral as stated or detailed in our written testimony. And also, we are happy that this project fits in with the huge amount of work we did for our Philly 2035 plan.
And we hope the board will vote to approve the special referral.
And lastly, our testimony is given equally with Uptown.
There are probably about six affected RCOs for this address.
All RCOs are equal.
There is no hierarchy.
The RCO coordinator, the difference, as stated in the zoning code,
is for the purpose of setting the date, time, and location for the public meeting.
So are all testimonies equal?
There's no secondary or hierarchy of RCOs, which we strive to get all parties to understand.
Thank you very much.
All right, thank you.
Any other questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no further answer this time, sir.
Planning Commission?
good afternoon chairman members of the board ian litwin planning commission staff
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed-use zoning and dislocation
the applicant has shown that the proposed takeout restaurant and non-accessory parking lot
will have no more of an impact than these activities would normally be expected to have
therefore the city planning commission recommends the board grant the special exceptions
MI 2021-005-027-2628-North Broad, I vote yes.
Harold Sanerian, my vote is no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes.
James Snell, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
next case
let me see here
MI 2021
005025
North 36th Street
Mantua Civic Association
24th Democratic Ward Letter
support. Alan Nockamson. Mr. Nockamson, you should have already be a panelist.
Uh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you kept me as a panelist.
Well, you've been on quite a few times today. I mean, it's like you work here.
I feel like I'm part of the team.
But you do.
Can you get us a raise maybe, Alan?
What are you saying?
Can you get us a raise?
You're here a lot.
I'm just a humble zoning attorney.
State your name.
You've already been sworn.
Alan, A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N, 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1600, Philadelphia
UPA 19109. But could you identify your client and the relationship they have with the property?
Yes. My client is 1712-14N36 LLC. And my client's representative is Alan Rubinovich.
Okay. And our vice chair has a few questions. Okay. Do you swear or affirm? No, you've already
sworn in 17 times. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its
accuracy? I do. It appears that you've submitted everything required. Is that correct? Yes,
including one letter of support. It sounds like a second letter of support came in. I don't have
a copy of that in my presentation package, but I do have letters of support. Okay, you may proceed
and yes you may share the screen thank you sure hi uh so i'm here for this full screen
here to present 712-14 north 36th street uh in my table of contents is the notice of refusal the
letter of support from antwa civic association my understanding again uh is that there is a second
a letter of support from an associated RCO, a petition, maps of the area, photographs of the
property, our plans and drawings, our meeting notice for the community meeting, as well as
mailing of that notice, our deed to the property showing that 1712-14 and 36th, LLC is the owner
So 36th, LLC is the owner of the property, our application for appeal, along with the corresponding notice of refusal, as well as our project information form, our application for appeal that we filed with CDA, and our certificates of tax clearances for these separate parcels.
of the property.
I may be incorrect.
I believe maybe it's Natalie Obrowicz is the owner's representative.
Either way, someone will have got my testimony, and I also have Scott Murphy in the audience who's the architect that can answer any questions you have.
All right, so the nose refusal.
These are two RSA-3 properties, significant in size.
In total, it's over 3,200 square feet.
And we're looking to put a nine-unit apartment building with five off-street parking spots in the lower level with one curb cut.
And our refusals are as follows.
First, what's it called?
The attached structures are especially prohibiting an RSA 3 residential zoning district.
So essentially, the reason why we're being refused is that we're combining these lots and putting one structure there.
So that's a de minimis refusal.
Whereas the proposed use for multifamily household living is expressly prohibited in RSA 3 residential zoning district, I would like to point out that this zoning board, three years ago, almost exactly to the date, on March 13th of 2019, approved a fireplace for 3606 Olive Street and 3608 Olive Street separately.
a lot that was half the size of ours, under respectively calendar numbers 35902 and 36,
excuse me, 35901. So it's not out of character to have multifamily living with RSA 3. And that's
just one of two examples. I was in front of this board recently as well on a property on the 600
block of north shedwick again a significantly less lot and this board this board equally granted
of zoning barriers for multi-family use uh then we have some dimensional refusals here uh there's
a requirement for an eight foot uh front uh setback um that's required under the zony district
again not out of character not to have a setback um additionally the reason why we're not having
this setback is to accommodate the parking that has been requested by the community uh mantua is
the type of community that would look that does like off-street parking and providing that with
five uh parking spaces and just a particular note for 3606 and 3608 olive street uh which was
granted by the zba uh three years ago there was no off-street parking so our project is stronger
in that respect that we are providing our street work uh that's the uh second refusal dimensional
refusal has to do with the open area where 50 is required where we're not providing 50 but
again if you went on atlas right now on the 700 block of north 36th street you would see that
none of the properties fulfill the requirements of open area for rsa3 so we're not out of
average in that respect either. And then the rear yard depth where 20 feet is required, where 12 feet
is proposed. Again, if you look at the similarly situated properties on the 700 block,
again, they run afoul of that as well. And the reason why we're having a larger building structure
is to accommodate the off-street parking with the parking garage. So at the behest of the community.
And then finally, technically, we're required to provide nine off-street parking spots, but we're providing five. We do have limitations given the dimensions of the property. We're providing as many parking spots as reasonably allowable under the circumstances.
So we have a lot of support from the Manitra Civic Association. Very well attended meeting. 21 people voted, and we got 20 votes. So, you know, again, it's really tough, you know, a lot of community meetings to get that type of support.
we really did a lot of community outreach as you can see we particularly focused on you know
olive street which is the coordinating or side block of ours and you can see that we made great
outreach to people on olive street and they're in support of this project and then just maps of the
area where corner property on olive and 36 you'll see from the drawings that are off street parking
and the one curb cut is coming off of Oliver Street.
And then this is 712-14 North 36th Street
from a Google Maps perspective.
And then photographs of the property.
As you can see, it's a rather challenging property
to begin with because where we are elevated,
Because where we are elevated, this is a vacant lot. But you can see the slope issue. But we actually took advantage of the fact that we do have a slope by allowing us to have essentially, for all intents and purposes, underground parking, which the community, especially the individuals on Olive Street appreciated.
this is a vacant lot, but you can see the slope.
And that's why we had support. So this is Olive Street from, oh, well, this is the property from 36th Street. This is the property from Olive Street. Again, elevated, so we have some challenges in terms of that.
We took advantage of that by actually providing parking to allow for the residents.
North 36th Street to the right of the property, North 30th Street to the left of the property, Olive Street to the right of the property, Olive Street to the left of the property.
And then just floor plans from our clients.
Our clients, like the parent companies, Liberty Bell Management, they self-manage their own properties.
they you know they also uh develop these properties and they try to do a really good job
with respect to that and as you can see from just a sample interior photos and then our plans and
drawings um as you can see uh from here this is the lower level for the parking which will allow
for five uh for five uh parking spaces we try to keep a traditional brick facade and in order to
meet the like the you know the feel of the community we put a mansard roof there to give
some architectural interest as well and here's a greater look of the schematic for the parking