but first as as chris pointed out this was not a parking lot this was a grassy lot until about
two years ago they're claiming it's a prior uh non-conforming use but frankly they've just been
building their lot without permit um there are some other things though so i'm also on the zoning
committee for the walnut hill community association that overlaps this property but
was not the RCO that this was brought to.
I did attend the meeting before the Garden Court Community Association, though,
and one thing that we stress in Walnut Hill is that when apartment buildings,
when neighbors have parking concerns, we urge them to look into permit parking as a first option.
This property, Terrace Apartments, is the main property owner along the 4900 block of Spruce Street
and could get permit parking on the block if they so choose.
At that meeting, they had expressed some openness to this and to some other issues that we had brought up, but ultimately ignored us and didn't respond.
So there are some good faith issues here that are of concern.
And I understand that Mr. Whelan, as he said, only recently entered onto this case, so we may not be aware of that.
But this is not, in fact, the long-standing use of this property.
Honestly, that was it.
I just wanted to reiterate that this curb cut is an issue for the same reasons that person.
All right.
Thank you for calling in.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Mr. Chairman, this is Tanya.
Would it be okay to acknowledge Mr. Andrew Goodman from the council person's office?
Could you put him first, Jason?
Thank you kindly, sir.
Good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Goodman.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Andrew Goodman, G-O-O-D-M-A-N, here representing the Office of Third District Councilmember
Jamie Gaudier, Room 586, City Hall.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
I won't duplicate testimony that's already been given.
Our office would just like to be on the record as opposing the variance presented here today
as well.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Mr. Chair and Ms. Tanya Pendleton with her hand raised, I will allow her to speak at this time, sir.
Could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter?
My name is Tanya Pendleton, T-O-N-Y-A. Pendleton, P as in Paul, E-N-D as in David, L-E-T-O-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Absolutely. Thank you so much.
Proceed.
There are also, my other neighbors are also waiting in line to speak as well, if they can be acknowledged.
I am a resident of the 200 block of South St. Bernard Street.
Mr. Whalen showed you pictures of this backyard area, but did not acknowledge the 10 or 11, I believe, houses and a new multi-unit that was recently built that are on this side of South St. Bernard Street in the 200 block.
This project would be extremely deleterious to the homeowners and renters on this block. That particular parking lot was never used or particular backyard grassy area is used primarily as a maintenance area for cars and vehicles to come in to do maintenance work on the building.
It has never, and I have been a resident here for 12 plus years, ever been used as a tenant parking lot.
There are issues that we discussed in the last meeting with trash access, with parking lot access, that curb cut is one way.
and as Mr. Mejia Smith said, those parking yellow barriers were put in recently. They have not
existed the entire time. This building has had a history of violations with trash and other things.
We don't necessarily believe, in fact, we are absolutely sure that it would be deleterious
for the multiple reasons that Mr. Mejia Smith suggested, including the traffic patterns on
that block. I was actually here the day that the child was killed in a hit and run, which is why
that block was turned from a east-west block, I believe it was, to a, they changed the one-way
pattern on that block of Irving Street. It should also be acknowledged that Philadelphia Water
Department has been on Irving Street at least 10 times in the last 12 years for potential
in the last 12 years for potential infrastructure issues on that block, which is directly adjacent
infrastructure issues on.
to this proposed parking lot. For what reason, I don't know if they've done any ground or water
studies. I think grounds water was an issue that was raised in the meeting where they were denied
or this variance was discussed because there are some issues with parking lots apparently
and flooding if they're not done right that would directly affect the homeowners that are on the
South St. Bernard Street side. We have not had a voice in terms of the impact that this would have
on us as residents of this community. It seems as though everyone is being considered except for
those of us that would be the most directly impacted, not to mention that would be the fifth
construction project within the confines of just these two blocks from the apartment building up
the street to the two multi-units constructed on the block at St. Bernard and Locust and a
construction project that is going on right now on South St. Bernard Street. So I don't believe
that this is a project that will enhance the neighborhood. I believe that it is part of
some attempt to gain some additional revenue from the building when they have not figured out
simple things that need to be figured out, like access, the sustainability survey,
the impact on the residents of the block, and how they are going to figure out trash disposal,
security, lighting, and so forth. There is also a loading zone that if you can, if Mr. Whalen has
those pictures that leads into our driveway that the building right now doesn't even have a great
plan for because their tenants constantly are blocking and using that as a loading zone.
So it's keeping us from even being able to go in and out. With the addition of a parking lot,
I'm not sure that people won't confuse if they're not going to do anything about how people are
entering or exiting, how people are going to potentially confuse this as another entrance
for that parking lot. So, sorry if that sounded a little jumbled up.
No, thank you for calling in. We appreciate your concerns.
Anyone else in the virtual audience who has something different than what's already been said?
you have three two hands still up chair okay mr jonas macku
mackunas with his hand raised i can allow him to speak this time sir sure
could you say could you state your name and spell for the court reporter please
Sure thing.
Jonas, J-O-N-A-S,
M is Michael, A-C-I-U,
N is Nancy, A-S.
Do you swear or affirm,
wait a minute, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you possibly try to
concentrate on a testimony that's not been heard?
Absolutely.
Just for reference,
I live in Forty-Eath and Larchwood
and chair the zoning committee for the Garden Court Community Association.
that's the coordinating rco um uh i first want to say that i don't believe that the applicant has
in any way uh made a hardship case for uh for for for the property uh we often hear uh cases
like this and are you know frequently you know support projects uh and their variances that are
either uh consistent with vision for the neighborhood or um uh uh or or demonstrating
on hardship uh specifically there are three issues that we found um in addition to the unanimous you
know community opinion that we heard in our meeting uh as to why a hardship uh shouldn't be granted
here one uh is a public safety concern about uh crossing the street i'm not sure um where uh the
applicant's attorney has has has found a sort of secondary definition of what makes this not a
principal street but the streets department right now defines it as principal street and that makes
it explicitly prohibited to have a parking lot on it.
The district plan was published in 2013
and the zoning code, the zoning update was made in 2019
to reflect that plan.
And this was on RM1 in the process.
So granting of a variance in this case
would adversely affect the implementation of the plan.
And finally, with regard to the central character
of the neighborhood, this property itself
didn't include the parcel in question
up until at least 1967.
when it was bought from the church on the corner.
So this grassy lot used as a parking lot supposedly wasn't even originally built as part of the building.
So this grassy lot used as a parking lot, supposedly.
But more importantly, within our boundaries of RCO, there isn't a single apartment building that has a parking lot use attached to it.
So we think it's fair to say that granting a variance would certainly negatively alter the essential character of Garden Court.
And we ask that you refuse a variance.
Thank you very much for calling in.
Thanks.
We have one more.
Miss Erin Hanson or Mr. Hanson.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning.
My name is Erin, A-R-I-N, Hanson, H-A-N-S-O-N.
I am also a resident of the 200 South of St. Bernard Block.
Wait, wait, one minute.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
Could you concentrate your testimony on what's something that's not been heard before?
Yes, I would like to just raise the issue of water runoff from parking lots.
We know that parking lots drastically impact the ability of the ground to absorb rainwater.
My house in particular is the lowest house on the South St. Bernard block,
and I get all of the water that is already collecting from the joint alleyway and this
this parking lot would significantly impact the the flooding that we're already seeing in my
garage and other impacts on my property um so I just wanted to share that thank you so much
thank you for no thank you for calling in thank you um you can move on chair so Mr. Whalen do you
want to take a minute to respond? I don't want to let you sit there. I certainly understand the
overwhelming nature of the opposition here, Chairman. I would, instead of asking each
individual questions, I would just like to point out the parking lot use and essentially what we've
heard to this point is all about the use of that area as a parking lot. That's actually permitted
by right. That's not the subject of today's hearing. It's not the subject of the application
or the refusal. It's only the access to that parking that is in question. Now, you know,
there's testimony, and I certainly find it credible, as I'm sure you do, as to when the
bollards went in, but that curb cut significantly predates any of the bollards or the 2020s.
There is some portion of that back area that is grassed.
I'm sure that at various points in time in history that has been used as a backyard for either the church when they owned it, you know, through the 50s or this property when they owned it from the 60s going forward.
however we still believe that the curb cut and the access to this rear area is a prior
non-conforming use and is worthy of actually in and of that in and of itself substantiates
the granting of the variance thank you thank you mr whalen excuse me mr chairman i have a quick
question yes the council do you have a site plan a proposed site plan uh mr holliman i showed and
i can pull it back up give me two seconds um hopefully you're seeing right now i have zoomed
in on the relevant portion but this is the site plan uh showing this is 50th street and this is
showing the rear portion of the property that we're talking about. Okay. Is that a rear yard
or inner court? It is not an inner court. Is it a rear yard? It is not, according to my client,
a rear yard, nor is it advertised or allowed to the residents as a rear yard. I can't say that
you know certain residents from the neighborhood don't go back there and throw a football around
or do whatever they might do um but it is not intended as a a rear yard nor provided as one
thank you planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city
planning commission comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing residential multi-family
zoning at this location. As we've established, this refusal is for parking lot access since it's
from a street that is not classified as a rear street in the zoning code technical definition.
The intent of this provision of the zoning code is to limit conflict between pedestrians and
vehicles. We believe the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. Accessory parking is
we believe the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship accessory parking is permitted but not
It's permitted.
required for the existing use and the uh existing building has been here for roughly a century
without accessory parking city planning commission recommends that the board deny the variance
Thank you. MI 2021-00-2203-4931-59 Spruce Street, I vote no.
Harold Tenneri, my vote is no.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is no.
Thank you, counsel.
All right, thank you very much.
All right, sure.
Chair Berkman, this is Tanya.
would it be allowable to go back to number seven most certainly um i reached out to mr
movahill and the case was already voted so it was listed in error so the case
does not need to be considered it was voted already oh that's very good thank you thank you
Let's see here
MI 2021
002288
6226 Calahill Street
No RCO letter