parcel it actually includes this little bit here as well which was part of the lot line relocation
it was actually owned by the adjacent HOA that is in support of the project I believe that's some
of the letters that you received but this parcel is an ICMX parcel located mostly in a residential
area, around other multifamily and residential properties.
I'll just show the aerial.
As you can see, the property that was there was, I think, last there prior to 2007.
This property has been at least vacant since then.
It was recently demolished, just given its bad condition.
And the last use on record was in 1958 for an auto body shop.
the refusal that i mentioned is just due to the icmx zoning this is just the photos of the
property um although it's zoned icmx there's a lot of residential multifamily nearby um 1743
tillman street is a three unit building 1741 is a three unit building 1706 north second street
is 7 units, 1701 North 2nd is 88 units, and 1801-05 North 2nd Street is 20 units.
Just some aerial, sorry, some street photos of the property and the zoning posters.
Just some aerial, sorry, some street photos of the property and the zoning posters.
As mentioned, we had a meeting with South Cousin Community Partners.
We actually met with them, I think, two times, and we had unanimous support for the project.
We believe that granting of this variance will be in harmony with the purpose and spirit of the zoning code and Philadelphia's 2035 plan.
It will add new housing to an existing residential neighborhood without negatively affecting the existing residents.
Given the longstanding vacancy of the property since at least 2007, the existing ICMX zoning presents a hardship and is out of character for the block and the surrounding area and is unlikely to be feasible given the longstanding vacancy.
The comprehensive plan states the market for purely commercial industrial sites in the immediate lower north Philadelphia neighborhood is very limited.
This reality and the fact that the current zoning in Lower North Philadelphia does not always reflect some of these uses, it sort of adds to this additional hardship.
And it further states that a goal of the city should be to allow vacant industrial zone parcels off American Street, which it says, to transition to other uses, something like high-density residential or other residential uses.
Again, this project does still consider the ground floor commercial, so it's the minimum variance required.
We're just asking for use for residential for the nine residential units, but we are leaving a vacant commercial space on the property as well.
Again, this is the meeting summary. Five votes, yes. Five votes total for you, S1, no.
And we do have support from the directly adjacent near neighbors. This is the letter from the RCO.
Supporting the variants.
And these are letters of support from the adjacent neighbors, 1840 North Hancock Street, 1842 North Hancock.
There's property fronts on both Hancock and Tillman, so that's why you're seeing the Hancock addresses as well.
1846, 1815, and they go on as you have seen.
I'd like to bring on our architect, Mark Wallace.
to go through the plans for the board and then have my client adopt my testimony and happy to
answer any questions. Wallace. We see his hand.
Mark Wallace has been allowed to speak to you.
Hi. Mr. Wallace, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Mark Wallace, M-A-R-K-W-A-L-L-A-C-E, Core Design Architecture, 1829, Cardinal Lake Drive, Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Where or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Does he have the ability to share his screen so he can present the plans?
oh forgive me i won't i won't promote him thank you
mark wallace has been promoted
mark are you able to share your screen and go through the plans for the board
hello everybody um can everyone see my screen
yet no not yet
I don't know why.
Good to see you.
Hello, everyone.
Sorry, I don't know why it's not letting me do it.
It just showed up.
all right does everyone see it now i apologize for the delay we do okay so excellent so so as
rachel said our only refusal here is use we are within the envelope um guidelines for icmx
um we have two frontages one along tillman street where we are five stories and one along hancock
street where we are three stories at the right of way and then we set back the fourth and fifth
floor at the upper floors. This was so that we could align with the adjacent neighbor and fit
in with the context of the block while allowing us to extend higher to achieve the density we were
looking for. Quick overview of the plans. Our main residential entrance is on the Hancock side.
Our commercial space is accessed off the Tillman side, along with the...
Our commercial space is accessed off the Tillman side, along with a second means of egress that is open to the sky along the property line.
Our cellar floor will be used just for storage and utilities.
We have our bike room down there.
We have our Pico vault and tenant storage.
There's no living space at the cellar whatsoever.
The lighter gray areas are slab on grades.
We're only in partial basement.
Coming back up to the main floor, the main residential entrance, again, is off Hancock.
When we come in, we have two units of floor on every floor.
On the first floor, we have a two-bedroom unit and the commercial unit, which is vacant at this time.
We do not have a tenant yet.
And then as we move up, we have a three-bedroom unit that fronts on the Tillman side and a one-bedroom unit that fronts on the Tillman side.
And we have a trash room on each floor that will be picked up commercially.
And as we go up to we get to the setback areas, the unit at the fourth floor becomes a two bedroom unit that has access to that that third three story portion as a roof deck private to their unit.
And then the unit above that at the fifth floor has two separate balconies to themselves.
And then the roof deck is common for the entire building, only for the residential use.
No commercial uses will be at the roof.
And that's basically all I have.
Any questions?
We did submit a proviso plan form as well.
I just want to make sure that Hillary, the board's attorney, is aware of that.
Questions from the board.
There's a question for you.
On the rendering that's on the right, with the tan building with the balconies, is that part of your development?
It's hard to tell.
No, it's just this narrow strip.
The lot is kind of a weird flag shape. So we're wider on the second or Hancock side than we are on the Tillman side.
We're only like 19 feet wide. And then we have that yard space that we egress out of.
You can see the gates right here. So that is our only frontage on Tillman.
And on the left hand rendering, is that the front side of the tan building or?
There are two separate buildings, but they look like they were developed at the same time.
okay okay and so you you kept consistency with the elevation um uh roof level height on that
at that street frontage i see and then set back the third and was that the fourth is it the fourth
and the fourth and fifth floors the fourth okay all right thank you the question is from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair
questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chairman and good afternoon david
vecta with the city planning commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends
no change to the ICMX, Industrial and Commercial Mixed-Use Zoning at this location. During our
last zoning map changes in 2016 in South Kensington, ICMX was used as a placeholder
because the civics were unsure which zoning they preferred in this part of their neighborhood.
At that time, this block and adjacent blocks were a mix of residential and light industrial activity.
Since that time, this block has continued to transition into primarily multifamily use.
The proposed multifamily use matches the evolving character of this and adjacent blocks.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant our proposed use variants for multifamily use.
Chairman, do you mind if I have my client adopt my testimony?
Sure, go ahead.
Thank you.
Is there an Aaron Jones in the audience?
Aaron Jones, please raise your virtual hand.
Chair, the only person we have with their hand up is Matthew Feldman.
That's fine.
That's one of the other owners.
Could you please state your name and spell for the course photographer?
yeah my name is matthew feldman m-a-t-t-h-e-w f-e-l-d-m-a-n right you swear affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you uh matthew
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Matthew, you heard my testimony today.
you heard my
Perfect.
Do you believe it to be true and accurate, and do you adopt it as your own?
Yes, I heard it.
I believe it to be true and accurate, and I adopt it as my own.
Thank you.
Sorry about that, Chairman.
Thank you.
That's okay.
So MI 2024-004-240-1751, Tillman Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Revised plans, two pages, stamped by ZBA on October 2nd, 2024.
Use registration for vacant commercial space required prior to occupancy.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.
Interesting and thoughtful design.
Thank you.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
Anyone, my vote is yes with proviso.
Ismael Shahid, my vote is yes, we're proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, everyone.
Number eight, MI 2024-004-670-1312 North 22nd Street.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
Ismael Shahid has recused himself from this vote.
Joseph Consul, come back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Hello.
Mr. Consul, you have already been sworn. Just state your name for the record, please.
Joseph Consul.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Patrick Campbell, the owner of the property.
Do you stipulate to the reading of the refusal, and do you agree with its accuracy?
Please proceed.
Okay, hold on one second.
Let me share my story.
There's still a letter of support here from Brewery Town Shardsman Community Civic Association, 16 to 3, in favor.
All right. So this is a weird one. I'll give you the timeline. In February of 2020, Patrick
purchased his property, regular arm's length transaction with title insurance. He applied
for a demo permit that same month. It was approved by the city. He then had a zoning
permit for the build approved for a three-family dwelling. He then pulled the building permit
in December of 2020. In 2021, the first half of the year, all mechanical permits and the tax
abatement were approved by the city. In 2021, he built the property as a three-unit building.
So let's see if I can find.
So here's the plan that we're submitted.
And I'll scan down.
That's the one.
Scan down to the property that he built.
There it is.
It's this property here, the three-story with the bump out.
And so he built that property in 2021.
However, in September of 2021, the RDA, so the city itself, reached out to him and said
that unbeknownst to him, this lot was part of a condemnation process that the city was
going through, which was happening simultaneously to my client purchasing the property.
So in the background, while he was getting all these approvals to build this three-unit
property the city uh took the lot themselves combined it with another lot and um took it
through the process of condemnation well but it was already built it was already approved zoning
building everything it was inspected got the co everything but then suddenly he was told that he
no longer owned it from 2021 to 2022 into 2023 he went back and forth with the um with the city to
trying to figure out what to do, they initially were going to purchase it from him to be part of
this program because it was condemned for affordable housing, but they realized that it was worth too
much in its current state, so they weren't able to offer him the fair market value. So they
eventually said to him, you could have it back, but you have to go through the process of
subdividing it off of the lot that we um connected it to as part of the condemnation process
so that's really confusing but it leads us to the request today which is the subdivision
of this lot
This lot labeled 1313 North 22nd Street, and the refusal is that the resulting lot is only 1306 square feet, whereas 1440 square feet is required.
labeled 1313 North 22nd
Street
So, you know, outside of the extenuating circumstances that I just mentioned, this lot for a three-unit multifamily is only slightly smaller than would be required anyway.
um so again it was some kind of a mix-up uh that happened in the background he lost a lot
and now he's seeking to to get it back again through the the proper channels here uh and
we're hoping that uh based on our explanation our packet and the support of the community group that
were able to get the board's approval for him to retake ownership of this property which he will
once he gets the property back from the city and um can go on with the three unit building that
already exists and that we you know paid to build um council you want to bring your client on and
maybe he could yeah uh patrick campbell could you raise your virtual hand
Patrick Campbell, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
Yes, I'm here.
Could you please state your name and spell for the course.
Patrick Campbell, P.A.T.
R-I-C-K.