property highlighted here in blue. The property is currently zoned RSA 5. However, not only was
it previously zoned CMX 2, but it was recommended to remain with CMX 2 zoning in the district plan
for this area. You'll notice on this map that the lot is roughly three times larger than the
standard lots on this block coming in at 3,286 square feet. Most of the lots adjoining this
property are roughly about 1,000 square feet. You may also take note that the zoning of this
block is split with RSA 5, some CMX 2 that remained, as well as a few special purpose
parks zoning areas. As the evidence will show today, this RSA 5 zoning is contrary
to the predominant commercial and multifamily residential use of this block,
stemming, of course, from the prior CMX2 zoning
that was more reflective of the current use of properties on this street.
In the aerials at Exhibit 8,
the board will begin to get an understanding of the unique character of this block,
which is largely comprised of a mix of multifamily residential structures
with some commercial and automotive industrial-type uses.
Starting from the west view that I have up on the screen, and I do have an arrow pointing at the lot, you'll notice that this is a large vacant lot, roughly mid-block.
Immediately to the right of the property in this view is a portion of a community garden that you can see also exists further down the block as well.
If we flip to the east-looking view, you'll see that the opposing side of the street has quite a few newly constructed buildings that sit among an auto repair garage, as well as several bars and restaurants.
I do have a map that shows all of these uses more clearly, and I will bring that up in a bit.
At Exhibit 16, zoom out a little bit, I will walk you through some photographs so you can get a sense of the property and the block a little bit better than the aerials would show.
The property in front of you today is currently a vacant lot, with the former commercial building on this lot having been demolished in 2022 due to its deteriorated and unsafe condition.
I'll switch momentarily to exhibit nine, where I have included the history of this particular lot and the building that used to sit on the lot.
This property and building previously were used exclusively.
This property and building previously were used exclusively for commercial purposes, including warehousing, storage, office, and most recently, the retail sale of brakes and brake supplies with a two-family dwelling above.
And the cursive writing is a little bit hard to see on this permit. This one was from 1965. But if I scroll down a little bit, you can see that a little bit better here from 1963, automotive, brake supplies, and two-family dwelling.
This history that I have included also shows that the three lots that comprise 2219, 21, and 23 North 2nd Street have always existed in their consolidated condition and even requested a variance for the commercial use back in the 1940s.
I'll show you that right here.
You can see that a variance was granted back in 1948 for the display and assembly of brake parts use of this lot.
Back then, the lot was zoned A, commercial, and you can see that on the refusal back in the 1940s.
While the available zoning history does not go farther back than the 40s, there is no evidence to suggest that this lot has ever had a history of any single family use.
If I flip back to the photographs, turning towards the northeast, the board will see in these photographs that the adjacent structures are a mix of residential and commercial uses.
And you can see the sign here right up the block for a restaurant.
You can see the garage next door or the rolling doors blocking the commercial use.
And then there are also some residential uses as well.
Flipping in the opposite direction here towards the southeast, the board will see the garden that's immediately next door that I pointed out in the aerials a little bit earlier.
My client has been in constant communication with the operators of this garden, including as recently as this morning, and as the evidence will clearly establish, he had their use in mind when designing a proposal for this lot.
You'll also notice in this photograph another restaurant just a few doors away.
We turn to the southeast, which is now across the street, and this is now looking up towards West Susquehanna Avenue.
you'll see the current quite intensive industrial use,
the automotive use that's directly across the street.
As I'll show you momentarily,
this auto repair lot that you see in this photograph
was recently permitted for the construction of 12 dwelling units.
Towards the northwest,
you'll notice quite a bit of new construction on this block
that has been built by variants, all for multifamily uses.
We have also, of course, included photographs of the zoning posters, which were timely posted.
This point, I will bring up the zoning site plan.
Our project architect is Logan Dry with KCA, and he is here today if the board has any questions for him.
Looking at the zoning site plan at Exhibit 5, my client is proposing to erect a new three-story building to contain seven dwelling units.
From a zoning compliance standpoint, the board should note that this building not only fully
complies with the dimensional restrictions of the code, but is in fact quite underbuilt for this
large lot. For example, this building will have 67.2% coverage, while 75% would have been permitted.
No side yard setback is required where this project includes a five foot or greater side
yard setback on each side of the structure. And you can see that very clearly here on the zoning
site plan. You can see the side yard setback that is on both sides of this building, which is really
kind of an unusual thing to see nowadays. In addition, the building is only three stories
and 33 feet, three inches high, where 38 feet would be allowed. As I pointed out, this building
provides a unique five foot passageway on either side of the building, which not only provides an
additional buffer from the garden next door, but it also allows for significantly more light and
air for the tenants of this building than you would normally have in an attached building.
In looking at the floor plans at exhibit six, I'll zoom in a little bit on that,
you'll see here that the cellar level is for mechanical and storage use only.
There are seven total residential units containing a mix of one- and two-bedroom units.
There are seven total residential units containing a mix of one and two bedroom
On the first floor, there are three one-bedroom units ranging from 540 square feet to 642 square feet.
You may also notice that the first floor units are designed to contain type B ADA adaptable units,
meaning that they can be easily converted to accommodate the needs of a disabled tenant.
All of the units in the building will have in-unit washers and dryers and ventilated trash storage areas.
On the second and third floor, the layout is identical.
Each of these floors contains two two-bedroom, two-bathroom units of 919 square feet.
Each of these upper-level units has a private exterior terrace facing North 2nd Street to better activate the street.
no roof deck is proposed for this building the number of units proposed is truly dictated by the
layout that this particular building design allows with a mix of unit types sizes and accessibility
in light of the significant open space around and in the back of this building a common shielded
trash storage area can be created commercial trash pickup will be required for seven units
We've also included an artistic rendering of this particular building.
You'll notice that the building was intentionally designed to resemble two adjoining structures instead of one larger building.
Regarding the refusal, because the property is currently zoned RSA 5, we are required to seek a variance for the multifamily use.
The applicant submits to several hardships in erecting new single-family homes on this lot for several reasons.
This particular application has the rare distinction of suffering hardships on nearly every basis warranting of this board granting relief.
First and most basic, as we showed, this lot is nearly triple the size of most of the lots on this block, totaling 3,286 square feet compared to other lots that are roughly 1,000 square feet.
As the permit history that I showed you at Exhibit 9 shows, this lot has existed in this consolidated condition since the 1940s and did not result from any action of this or even a recent former owner.
Additionally, as I alluded to earlier, this block is comprised of significantly diverse uses, most of which are not RSA 5 compliant or single family uses.
At Exhibit 17, you will see why this block exists in this condition.
When the Planning Commission prepared the district plan for this area, the suggested rezoning maps included showed that this block was recommended to remain with CMX zoning that would have allowed for the multifamily proposal today.
However, as you have now learned, at some point in time, and I was not able to find when this
occurred, this block was rezoned contrary to the stated goals of the district plan
and contrary to the uses that exist on this block.
At tab 10, I've included a map showing the use of most of the immediately adjacent structures
surrounding this property. This was created from public information that was pulled directly from
Atlas. Anything you see here marked with an R is a restaurant. Anything marked with a C
is another general type of commercial use. And on this side of the street, you will see
many duplexes, which are either standalone or are operated with some form of a commercial use.
You can see here, immediately next door is a duplex, two doors down is a restaurant, immediately on the other side of this property is also a duplex.
This side of the street, as you can see, also has a variety of garden uses.
There is not a solitary single-family use adjoining this property at 2219 North 2nd Street.
Across the street, multifamily uses include duplexes, multiple new triplexes, which you can see here,
and even a 12-family project approved where there currently exists the auto repair lot.
That 12-family approval is on a lot just slightly larger than this one.
That lot is 4,800 square feet.
So the 12 units that were approved for that lot would be a density of 400 square feet.
So the 12 units that were approved for that lot would be a density of 400 square feet of lot area
per unit. In comparison, the proposal before the board today for 2,219 North 2nd Street would
equate to 469 square feet of lot area per unit, so less dense than what was just approved across
the street. At the end of the block and right across Susquehanna, which you can sort of see
the beginning of in this photograph, a new 31 dwelling unit project was just completed.
As the board can see from this map, nearly every single property surrounding this one is either
multifamily or commercial. Many were granted by variance. The board can see that this block has
become quite a melting pot of variance-based uses. Of all the uses contained in this one block,
block, the only new residential uses have been multi-family structures, similar to the
one proposed today.
This combination of factors, including the unique size, historical use, and diverse makeup
of this block, establishes it would be a hardship to use this property in compliance with its
single-family zoning.
We also submit that the requested variance is the least minimum.
There are no dimensional refusals associated with this request.
By comparison, the proposed density is just a few square feet short of being entirely consistent with the allowances of the former CMX2 zoning,
and as I previously described, is consistent with the density of the multifamily uses of surrounding structures based on the lot size of this particular lot.
The first floor units were designed to meet type B ADA adaptability.
Given the diverse uses on this block, and further considering the commercial use history of the property,
it is the least deviation from the code to propose a use that is most consistent with the existing and changing character of this particular block of 2nd Street.
There is no evidence that new single-family development is viable on this street,
especially not considering the unique factors of this lot.
This proposal will not increase congestion.
Although parking is not a requirement, the applicant submits it would be extremely challenging
to provide parking for this development as a result of the property's location mid-block
with no other access point other than North 2nd Street.
The board may note that the RCO's opposition to this proposal was not predicated on an
opposition to multifamily or even the proposed density, as their letter makes clear, but instead
was based on the lack of parking, which is not required. While this lot is oversized for this
block, it is certainly not large enough to accommodate any parking. Furthermore, this block
of North 2nd Street, as you can see in this aerial view, is fortunate enough to have designated
parking lanes on both sides of the street, on either side of the two-lane drive aisle that is
one way headed towards Susquehanna. There are no residential uses on this block with any parking,
and the only automotive on this block are the automotive repair uses. Furthermore,
public transit abounds this neighborhood with a bus stop at nearly every corner.
The proposal will not impair light and air, as it is designed to be three stories and underbuilt from a height perspective, much like the other residential structures that have been built on this block.
The board has seen that this design includes significant open space for residents,
and by creating side yards around the building, it essentially creates a detached building which
will allow for these units to have far more windows than would be typical for a development
of this type. By comparison, at Exhibit 11, which I'll bring up here on the screen,
We'll start first with the plan.
We've included a basic representation of what a by-right building would look like on this lot based on the allowances of the zoning code.
The red line shows the by-right dimensions, and you can see that red line here in comparison to the black line that shows what is actually proposed.
you can see that a by right design of this lot would extend to the full width of the lot
which would be to the significant detriment of the residents of the building who would be
lacking in windows on the side as well as to the detriment of the surrounding lots
particularly the garden next door on the left you can see a visualization of a by right height
which would which could also include pilot houses that are not included with this
which could also include pilot houses that are not included with this instant design.
Unmistakably, a by-right single-family home of these dimensions would be entirely out of character with this block,
as would a smaller single-family home with a large yard.
Now, regarding the community and the councilwoman, we are aware of the letter of opposition that the community sent for this proposal quite a while ago.
However, as we noted earlier, the letter was clear that the opposition was not based on
the details of the project, but were instead based on general concerns surrounding multifamily
development that is lacking in on-site parking.
They also expressed concern over the impact to the adjacent garden.
But as we mentioned earlier, this proposal will have far less impact on the adjacent
garden than would a by-right design.
And my client has been in constant communication with the adjacent garden to ensure that anything that is built on this lot is done so with maximum respect to that garden to ensure it does not impact them.
Furthermore, my client has spent significant time connecting with neighbors who actually live on this street.
And we did include a petition and several letters of support in the packet as well.
And I can bring up the petition.
We do submit that the proposal and the requested variance is compliant full with the requirements of Code Section 3038E.2.
We have included a full analysis in the Memorandum of Law submitted to the board at Exhibit 12.
At this point, I'd like to bring up my client to answer a few quick questions, and then we're happy to take any questions from the board.
If the administrator could look for Jeffrey Marmer.
Jeffrey Marmer, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
or could you please state your name is spelled for the stenographer
hey good morning uh jeffrey marmer j-e-f-f-r-e-y
where are firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counsel thank you jeff can you just very briefly in a few sentences
explain to the board how it was that you even came to own this property
sure so brief synopsis uh jeffrey marmer uh my family is my family and now me is in the
commercial elevator business we are the oldest elevator company in philadelphia established in
1908 right there in north philadelphia on master street itself um the we have a long history with
davis break who was the last occupant um and owners patricia and bill knoll who owned the
building and operated the business. Over the years, we have used Davis Brake to reline older
elevator brakes. As much as the system doesn't exist super modernly anymore, Philadelphia is
still full of those types of elevator traction machines. As Bill Knoll, who was operating the
business and owned the building prior to us, was declining in health, we made an agreement to
purchased his business along with the building and our goal was to continue the use of the
break shop unfortunately right before settlement uh bill passed away from cancer so we were already
so deep into it and there was an employee in the business that was there um we did continue the
purchased with patricia which was bill's wife and unfortunately the employee disappeared with
the sale of the business so we ended up having we we tried to do the break business we ended up
liquidating whatever was there um the building was in distress the bill was in poor health and
the building deteriorated with it uh we tried multiple ideas of what to do with the building
but unfortunately um we began to get some i don't want to use bad not bad terms but we began to have
break-ins we began to have some problems um the roof began to leak and we decided and make it made
an executive decision between the two of us that it was time to get rid of the pro or get rid of
knock down the property in which in turn we were left with the vacant lot um once we had the vacant
lot there was some concern in the neighborhood that there was some activity constantly going
on in the lot i had some neighbors contact me as well as the garden directly next door
and we immediately put up a fence cleaned up the lot and have been monitoring it to
keep any issues off the lot itself that's how we came with the lot currently we do own the lot
free and clear we don't have any type of commercial use to put on the lot we were attempting to think
of some commercial use for the building since the use was still there and the business was active
um but there was simply we did not have a commercial
um but there was simply we did not have a commercial use and the building was in