okay all right thank you all the questions
questions from our attorney delirium not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the
virtual one again no hands planning commission michael gall with the philadelphia city planning
commission the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning from cmx to commercial mixed
use to icmx industrial commercial mixed use of this location the city rezoned this neighborhood
in 1982 in a council supported map change in 2012 the city issued a permit for an auto repair shop
and equipment and material storage in a building at this location the city planning commission
therefore recommends that the board grant the proposed use variances for equipment and material
storage yards and building and via personal vehicle repair and maintenance mi 2025 007
118 4634 north front street i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes cheryl gaston my vote is yes
tennetta graham my vote is yes ryan mcadams my vote is yes kaya win my vote is yes thank you
thank you you have your votes thank you
moving on to number 13 mi 2026 001 099 4204 parkside avenue merler meredith verlicher is the attorney
i think we have a letter of opposition from the council person a letter of opposition from the
local R. C. O. Council, could you please state your name as spell for the stenographer?
Meredith Ferliger, F. E. R. L. E. G. E. R. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth?
Nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. You identify your client, the relationship to this property.
My client is 4204 Parkside Development LLC, and that LLC is represented today by German Yakubov, who is sitting to my left.
uh and that llc is represented today by german yakubov who is sitting to my left
the vice chair has a few questions good afternoon have you submitted your documents and exhibits
five days in advance of this hearing yes i did and do you waive the read and other refusal and
stipulate to his accuracy yes i do all right thank you can show your screen to proceed with the case
All right. Good afternoon, Mr chairman members of the board.
The request before you this afternoon concerns 4204 Parkside Avenue, which is a parcel that results from a prior consolidation of 2 parcels that were formerly known as 4204 and 4206 Parkside Avenue.
you do have an exhibit packet in front of you that contains 23 exhibits which includes a
petition of support signed by voluminous residents in particular 16 immediate neighbors
and many other interested parties and residents who took an interest in this project
to summarize the basis for today's request this application requests the renovation and
reuse of a historically designated building in the parkside neighborhood although the board is aware
that the zoning code recognizes a fairly broad exception to zoning use restrictions to encourage
and support the renovation of historically designated buildings that exception does not
extend to buildings with a solely residential history while the application of the historic
EXCEPTION UNDER THE CODE WOULD NOT IMPOSE A LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT'S ALLOWED, THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY AND THE APPLICATION THAT HAS NOW BEEN MADE TO THE BOARD TWO PRIOR TIMES HAS CONSISTENTLY PRESENTED EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER STRUCTURE OR A TOTAL OF 16 UNITS AS THE ABSOLUTE LEAST MINIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS THAT MAKE THIS RENOVATION EFFORT POSSIBLE.
Previously, the board granted 12 units, but that zoning permit has since expired.
As you'll hear from German today, these are incredibly complicated and deteriorated structures, and no less than 16 units will create the conditions that are necessary for this renovation.
As shown at exhibit 25, the project did receive wide support from many near neighbors, some who we hope believe are in the zoom audience today to speak.
In the interest of time, and despite the letter of opposition from the RCO, I'm going to proceed under an assumption that there is not significant opposition in the audience waiting to testify.
Of course, if that proves not to be the case, then I would respectfully reserve the right to introduce any additional evidence that is necessary during a resumption hearing.
Tax clearance is shown at Exhibit 2, and the deed is shown at Exhibit 3, showing that the property was consolidated for tax and other purposes that you'll hear today back in 2024.
By way of background, as you can see on the zoning map at Exhibit 5, the property sits on Parkside Avenue, just a few lots in from north, the north 42nd Street intersection.
As you can see here, the entire swath of land between Belmont Avenue to the left of this image and Girard Avenue to the right of the image is zoned RM1 multifamily.
Oddly, the over half mile stretch that I just mentioned was bisected here by a portion of RSA 3 zoning, which might have borne some justification if it matched the use of properties in that area.
As it stands, that classification is entirely inconsistent with the use of the structures that are in that RSA 3 zoned area.
As you can see here at exhibit seven, nearly every single property in the RSA three portion and beyond is dense multifamily.
That density is heightened even further to the east of this property on the 4100 block.
exhibit six up on the screen here is just a snapshot of the city's land use map which
again supports the dominantly multifamily character of this area
now looking at exhibit 10 to start i've shown some aerials of the property this is a view of
tend to start i've shown some aerials of the property this is a view of the property that's
in question from the rear just for context directly across the street is fairmount park
you zoom in a little bit further you can start to glean the mass of these historical properties
that line this stretch of parkside avenue from the south looking view you can see the front of
structures which are entirely uniform in historical character uh basically the entire rest of this block
uh exterior photos of the property are shown at exhibit 11 where again you'll see the
deteriorated condition of these structures that have not been occupied in well over a decade
and have continued to deteriorate due to natural conditions over the course of many years
you can see from the exterior of these uh extensive structures the historically sensitive
renovation that is going to be needed to ensure that the structure is revitalized
in harmony with the other buildings on the block
in this next photograph here you can see that the property itself has a very large side yard
that leads into the back the next couple of photographs further illustrate the condition
of the structure that has been diminished over the years by conditions such as fire
vagrants and just the passage of time
from this image here I will point out the lower level of this building which you can see here
does sit predominantly above grade from the back you'll see the unusual detached stair tower
that is a historical aspect of the structure but is ultimately going to be sealed off from use
and left as a monument intended to retain the historical conditions this was incorporated into
a prior variance case but did ultimately trigger additional variances so the decision was made to
just seal that off and not trigger additional variances with this application moving into the
next photograph you can see here the volume of windows that benefit these properties
which must all be replaced in kind in consistency with the historical standards
the windows themselves are all large and on the lower level you can see the unique arched
historical condition that must be retained
and then just another image here from the side
now in terms of general context as i mentioned previously fairmont park is directly across the
street and then looking to the east here across north 42nd street you can see here the denser
structures that range anywhere from around seven units all the way up to 43 units just depending
on which of these buildings they sit in flipping to the west this is a view looking now towards
belmont avenue and then the view here is a bit further west down parkside avenue where again
you can see here the unique and defendable late victorian historical character of the block
that all have uniform three-story structures that were designed by the late he flower
and then we did of course include photographs of the zoning posters
from the interior I have shown some photographs at exhibit 14
there are only a few photographs of the interior as they are so deteriorated that it is quite
unsafe and not possible to travel beyond the first level of these structures anymore
the first photograph here is shown as you enter the front doors one on either side
and then as we move further to the interior you can see that the structures exist in an entirely
gutted condition requiring a complete and total renovation just scrolling through here you can
see there is essentially nothing that is reusable either from a structural or cosmetic position
i will spare the board the long history for now but at exhibit 18 i did also include the history
of the violations that this property has received showing that the dilapidated and unsafe conditions
that you can see here today started long before my client's ownership dating all the way back to
at least 2008 and you can see that first one here violations have continued over the years due to
the continued vandalism and targeted theft but since my client purchased the property in 2015
he has persistently addressed all the violations promptly while seeking
he has persistently addressed all the violations promptly while seeking approvals to hopefully
commence the intended project and then at exhibit 15 you'll see again the property here was built
in 1895 and was added to the historic register as a part of the parkside historic district in 2009.
the historical nomination itself notes these structures as significantly contributing to the
district as i mentioned the proposal here seeks to renovate and restore the structures to each
contain a total of eight dwelling units or a total of 16 as you'll see there is intended to now be a
breach as you can further see at exhibit 18 prior to the demise of the structures each of these
structures contained six dwelling units and there this is 4204 and then you can see here the rental
license for 4206. furthermore when the property owner last sought relief from the board in 2021
seeking eight dwelling units per property the board did grant relief but issued a proviso
for a maximum of six dwelling units i would like to correct a significant misstatement in the rco's
letter that does represent that permits still remain in place for a 12 unit renovation
that is not accurate as there is no current unexpired zoning approval that covers these
this building just for reference and again for purposes of the record i did include the transcript
from the hearing in 2021 at exhibit 23 as well as the board's findings and conclusions that were
issued as a result of a subsequent appeal where the board did at that time determine that the
properties did suffer an unnecessary hardship warranting relief but then concluding based on
the evidence that was at the board at that time that it did not have sufficient evidence to
establish the need for eight units per building we believe that we will remedy that evidentiary
deficiency today the floor plans are shown at exhibit 13 i'll zoom out a little bit here
and again you can see here that the layouts will essentially mirror each other
with a central breach in the middle of the building which will accommodate the stairwell
and provide two means of egress for the entire building the property as i mentioned was
consolidated for building code review efficiency as a one lot condition will reduce unnecessary
duplication of utility systems fire suppression systems and other similar features that can be
made more efficient with a combined building as you can see here units one through eight are by
level one bedroom one and a half bath units that occupy a portion of the first floor and the lower
And they range from around 471 square feet to 686 square feet.
You will note here you can see the vast windows that line all of these units at both of the levels that will all be restored and brought up to modern code standards.
On the second and third floors are units 9 through 16, which are each two-bedroom, two-bath units, which range from 572 square feet to 720 square feet.
you can also see on the floor plan the location of the dumpster that's indicated in the rear
which can be collected via a very large shared alley that all of these properties share in the
back and of course with 16 units that would be via a commercial hauler i did just for reference
these site plans were from the prior request so there they are somewhat out of date in terms of
the site plan itself but just for reference purposes i did want to show the elevation of the
existing building here where you can see the lower level is predominantly more than half above grade
now regarding the refusal you can see here at exhibit one
that the application was refused because the multi-family use is proposed in the rsa3 zoning
district we submit the application relies on a multitude of hardships that the board can find
to entitle the applicant to relief first as i alluded to earlier the code already contains
a mechanism to permit the use of a historical building such as this one where the underlying
zoning may not already allow for multi-family use the section of code i'm referencing is found at
The section of code I'm referencing is found at 146028 and allows the use of a building as if it were zone CMX3, as long as it meets certain size and historical use conditions.
146028
Unfortunately, that section of code limits the exception to properties where there was a historical, non-residential use of at least 2,000 square feet.
so while this building would would fulfill the spirit of that section of code
it is deprived of relief under that section furthermore even absent the code historical
exception courts have recognized that zoning boards are given latitude in applying a lesser
standard of relief to a historically designated building given the inherent challenges and cost
considerations that go into a historic renovation german will briefly explain some of those cost
considerations which he is considerably qualified to present as he has just on this very block and
in the adjoining neighborhood renovated four other historical structures i did just for reference
again include those examples at exhibit 21. similarly the board did see that the rsa rsa
3 zoning classification of half the block is entirely inconsistent with the zoning of all
of parkside avenue which becomes even more dense with cmx 3 zoning once you get further west past
belmont avenue if the property were zoned rm1 it would be eligible for up to 18 units with bonuses
for affordable housing that my client already routinely provides in virtually all of his
properties dense multi-family uses of historical buildings are also well within the character of
the neighborhood as you could see from earlier evidence we would submit that the question before
the board today is not whether relief is warranted for multi-family but whether there is any evidence
that less than eight units per building would support the necessary renovation expense
following the board's 2021 relief granting six units per property my client did proceed to
secure building permit hoping to start the renovation however it quickly became clear
that the costs involved could not be supported at the previously grant granted density nor could he
secure financing to proceed with the project as a result the permits have all since expired
again for purposes of the record i have included a case in your exhibit at exhibit 17
that was recently decided by the pennsylvania commonwealth court which did deal with a
renovation project not too dissimilar from the one that's before the board today the inray 3401 sky
properties case squarely supports the notion that the dominantly multi-family surroundings support
grant of relief in that case the court specifically found that the redevelopment of blighted and
abandoned buildings by their very nature fits a hardship analysis we do also submit that the
relief salt is the least minimum as the proposed use here is most similar to the character of
surrounding the surrounding neighborhood the neighborhood here is dominantly dense
multi-family residential with a few single-family homes throughout and this proposal will bring the
building into more harmony with surrounding uses the sky case i mentioned shows that the applicant
the least minimum standard by showing that the density is necessary to permit the reasonable proposed use of the property for all of its decades long recent history.
The properties here each contain six dwelling units, which is a small deviation from that which is proposed before the board today.
furthermore before i conclude german will very briefly walk you through the financial analysis
that shows why eight units per building 16 units total is the absolute least minimum necessary to
support relief if necessary and as mentioned earlier we can go into considerable detail on
this point however even the base rm1 allowance is evidence that this density is no more than
the minimum necessary to bring these structures back to life. It is simply impossible to compare
the density of this structure to any other on this block as these buildings are uniquely situated
and conditioned in terms of the investment that is needed to bring it back to active use.
in terms of the investment that is needed to bring it back to active use we do submit the
proposal will not increase congestion harm neighbors properties or impair light and air
the proposal will ensure the preservation and renovation of a historic structure
with minimal impact to the neighborhood as i did include at exhibit six here
you can see that this particular area of the city still suffers from some degree of vacancy
which the aerials at Exhibit 9 show have really progressed in time over the years and you can see here starting in 1996 and then, as you continue to scroll, you can really get a sense of the loss of buildings and density that have occurred in this area.
At this point, I would, could you please state your name is spelled for the stenographer.
Chairman Yakubov, G-E-R-M-A-N, Y-A-K-U-B-O-V.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Counsel?
Thank you.
Chairman, can you just confirm you're authorized to speak on behalf of 4204 Parkside, LLC?
So you've owned this property for the last about 11 years.
From your perspective and experience with the property, what has caused the property to fall
into further disrepair than you found it in? Sure. When we first purchased the property,
it was already in disrepair, but it still retained a lot of its historic features.
Over the years, people have broken in, started fires, squatted, stole the front doors,
stole the spindles from the porches. So we effectively boarded off the front, sealed it
off. So, um, you couldn't get into the property at all. Um, but that was one of the biggest things