Up at the American Heritage Building community room at 2060 Red Lion Road.
And as the chairman indicated, we do have support from the Greater Boston Civic League with a proviso.
And I'll go through that in a little bit.
We also, as mentioned, have the letter of non-objection or non-opposition from Councilman O'Neill, again, with further provisos that were submitted, and I will go through that.
The subject property is one of two parcels that make up the Camelot Shopping Center that's located on the southwest, approximately southwest corner of Varee and Red Lion Road.
And you can see right here, I've clouded the portion of the shopping center that is 720 Red Lion Road.
The other portion that extends down to the corner of Varee and Red Lion is 730 to 46 Red Lion Road.
They're owned by different entities, but by this, the same people are involved in both entities.
There was a question why we weren't able to submit the whole shopping center as one, and the unity of use application wouldn't have worked in this circumstance.
So we're doing this one separately, and we're successful today.
We'll come back.
This application is motivated by the need to or desire to expand one of the tenants in 720.
The rest of the property, there isn't any change in the unit use, but we would like to come back in the future for the same type of revisors that we're going to have in this case.
And again, I'll go through that in a minute.
So you'll see here at this end, the end furthest away of the shopping center is 720.
There is an exit in front of our portion of the shopping center where cars can come in and out.
There is parking on our portion. And then there's parking, obviously, the remainder of the shopping center.
A little bit more of a close up of the property to the to the to the west of us, approximately to the west of us.
Even though it says Arts and Music Center, it's an adult daycare.
And you'll see if I back up a little bit. There is an existing shopping center directly across the street.
There's a gas station down at the corner on the northwest corner.
There's another shopping center, Caddy Corner, across on the northeast corner.
Here's another aerial view.
And here you can see the end of the shopping center that is before the board today.
And as we spin around, you can see different three-dimensional views.
There is a paved area behind the strip of...
There is a paved area behind the strip of stores or commercial units where there are trashes stored and picked up, and there's a separate drive to access that.
So right now, the shopping center is utilized as follows, and here's an overall site plan.
720 has a restaurant located all the way at the West End, a nail salon, and then a butcher store, grocery store.
And then you can see the other uses extending down the Varee on the abutting property, 730 to 46 Red Lion.
The application today, and that's before you, and it was, again, motivated by the desire to expand the use of the sit-down restaurant that was approved in, I believe it was in 2005.
yes, it was approved in 2005 into the abutting unit that's presently utilized as a nail salon.
All the other uses will remain. And the reason why we're here today is because this property
is presently zoned CMX1. And you can see here, there's a map. This property and the properties
down to the south-southwest on Berea are zoned CMX1. The shopping center across the street and
gas station or CMX1. Then we have CA1, Caddy Corner, the shopping center across the way.
When the sit-down restaurant was permitted back in 2005, this property, both properties, 720
and then 730 to 46, were zone C2. And in fact, back in 1982, when 730 to 46 was permitted,
And 1985, when 720 was permitted, the property was zoned C2 commercial. C2 commercial allows for uses such as sit-down restaurants, which is the use that we're looking to apply.
However, in 2022, there was a remapping of a lot of properties up in this northeast section of Philadelphia that you can see here. Let me just zoom this out for a second.
and you can see here that there were 23 cmx2 properties that were remapped and they were
largely remapped to cmx1 and here you can see arpo in the key map number 16 is included included
our property which was down here in this corner down over to here and here's a blow up and you
can see here the existing CMX2 and then going to CMX1. So the issue that we have is that my client
desires to change the, expand the use of the sit-down restaurant. And you can see here the
existing. And what he wants to do is now have both units utilize as a sit-down restaurant.
The existing restaurant just wants to reach the demising wall between the two units and add
additional seats, has a good business. And with reasonable hours, generally it's a lunch crowd
and they're generally closed by five or six o'clock, open seven days a week. There's no proposed
live music or entertainment. It's simply to expand the use of the restaurant. That's again,
what motivated this. However, this application, however, in order to avoid needing to come back
for certain additional CMX2 permitted uses in the future,
uses that were permitted when the shopping center
was first authorized and permitted.
And up until 2022, similar to what we did on another project
up in this neighborhood, 1170 to 90 Surrey Road,
where we applied for uses that were permitted
in the CMX2 zoning district for a property
that was commercial in nature,
was an apartment building complex
with a commercial on the ground floor of one of the buildings.
We ultimately went to the zoning board, and you can see we went before the same group, and we kind of had two options.
One was to say, give us CMX2 with these certain uses cut out, and the other one was to say, let us keep it as CMX1 or have it with CMX1 permitted uses with a couple additional.
And you can see here, this was a letter from Greater Busselton, and actually, that's the language that the zoning board utilized in their decision a little over, well, about a year ago, actually, where they granted the CMX1 uses, and here they'd be confirming the CMX1 uses, they lifted or granted a variance for the 2,000 square foot occupied area limit for CMX1 uses.
So commercial uses in CMX1 are permitted only to occupy 2,000 square feet per use.
So, again, this is a strip shopping center.
Having the restriction of not allowing a sit-down restaurant, not allowing a prepared food shop like a coffee shop or an ice cream store.
Not allowing a prepared food shop like a coffee shop or an ice cream store or a commissary and catering service and or allowing those but then restricting them to 2000 square feet is a hardship meets the criteria for the granting of the variance, both in this situation and even more so in the present situation where you have a commercial shopping center.
So this was the language that was discussed between me, the Greater Busselton Civic League, and Councilman O'Neill's office, and this is the language we came up with and then made it into the zoning board's notice of decision, and then again was copied right into the permit.
So this is the language. I basically cut and pasted that language, even though I requested CMX2 uses. I actually, if I went through and showed you my zoning permit application, I tried to do this with my application to kind of save everybody some hassle and aggravation of needing to do a proviso.
but LNI wasn't able to either get their head around it or weren't able to process it through
Eclipse and so I had to take a notice of refusal that was oops let me go to my notice of refusal
not the prior one here you can see my notice of refusal that other one was for Surrey Road
where I applied for the CMX2 uses and CMX2 signage and I got the refusals for both in the
provides a language that we utilized for Surrey Road, and then I presented to the community at
our community group meeting on the 24th. Again, it was a CMX1 uses with the variance for the
square footage limitation, adding the three additional uses that we did, the CMX2 permitted
uses that we did with Surrey Road, and then adding CMX2 signage. The reason I do the CMX2
signage is CMX1 has extremely limited signage rights. Here's CMX1. It doesn't allow freestanding
signs at all. It allows one square foot of wall signage on the short side, 0.5 square footage on
the long side. I mean, it's already obviously in non-conformance the way it is as a regular
shopping center, where CMX2 allows for typical type of commercial signage. So the application
and the proviso that we put to the community group allowed for, again, CMX1 uses with a couple
additional CMX2, including the one that we're actually at issue here, which is expanding the
sit-down restaurant, along with the CMX2 signage. And those are the provisos that are referenced
in the, if I scroll back up, in the Greater Busselton Civic League, you can see here they
reference the expansion of the existing restaurant. They say with no other change of use,
signs or off-street parking for the restaurant. Again, no live entertainment, no dancing,
no assembly and entertainment, nothing along those lines. And then they utilize the same language
that I just provided to you that I presented to the community. And then that language is
referencing councilman o'neill's uh and councilman o'neill's letter um you can see here let's go
so just a little little bit some visuals for you here's 720 here's the existing restaurant registron
here's the existing nail salon that we want to expand into breach the wall and then here's the
existing butcher shop grocery store. And then here's again the existing restaurant. Interior
photos, you can see this is what it looks like right now. There are about 40 seats in there right
now. The idea is either have a single opening or a larger opening, remove these banquettes and
these tables and chairs, and then have more seating on the other side. And again, this all
This all comes about because of the remapping of this property, which then changes certain uses, like the sit-down restaurant, from a permitted use to a non-conforming use under 14305 of the zoning code.
We did, again, we had the community meeting on September 24th.
We sent out our 14303 to a pretty limited list of addresses.
weren't a lot of properties because of the commercial nature surrounding the property.
Again, to answer your question, here is the deed for the current property. It's a general
partner. Here it references Red Lion Central Management, which is the general partner of
JB&C, which is a limited partnership. So that's, I think, how the OPA got the Red Lion Central
management co inc as the owner but again they're just a general partner we have our tax clearance
certificate here's a copy of the hearing notice for today's hearing and then the posting photos
Here's a copy of the hearing notice for today's hearing, and then the posting photos at the property, which you can see here.
So, again, we feel that there is a true hardship here.
It's clearly a commercial property.
It's a property that a use such as a sit-down restaurant would be what was appropriate, still is appropriate.
It's not going to impact the roadways.
There was no proposed change to the height or area of the existing structure, so no impact on air and light to surrounding properties, and that we otherwise meet the criteria for the granting of the variance under 14303, 8E, 0.1, and 0.2 for the use variances.
And with that, I'd ask that hopefully my client is still with us.
It's getting a little late in the day.
Try to make this as brief as possible.
If Jack Bienenfeld can raise his hand, I would have him adopt my statements that I made to the board.
Jack Bienenfeld, unmute yourself or wait for the chair.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Jack Bienenfeld, B as in boy, I-E-N-E-N-F-E-L-D.
You're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Please proceed, counsel.
Hey, Jack.
Welcome.
Did you hear the statements that I made to the board today?
Yes, I did.
And are they correct to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, they were.
And would you adopt them as your own?
I would.
And just to be clear, J.B. and C. is the owner of the property, correct?
Correct.
And then Red Lion is the general partner, as I indicated, and as shown in the deed, correct?
Correct.
Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Just briefly, Mr. Chair.
um uh mr vanities that the proviso that was suggested um i think it needs to be adapted
a little bit because the other situation didn't have cmx1 zoning it was already cmx1 zoning at
this property so i just just to clarify what what is what has been agreed to i guess by all the
parties is a variance for the 2 000 square foot occupied area requirement um allowing a sit-down
restaurant prepared food shop and commissary and catering services as well as accessory signage
cmx2 signage correct yeah sorry cmx2 signage okay because i don't think we need the cmx
i i wouldn't party like the uses because it's already done cmx1 you you are you are correct
But for purposes of going to the community, I did that because there were concerns about the way the wording of the application was and what have you.
So I'm fine with that not being that way because it is already zoned CMX1, but I was trying to keep it apples to apples for purposes of the presentation and to keep it simple.
But I don't think that what you've suggested would negatively impact what we're talking about.
So, although the refusal does say for all uses permitted in CMX2, so that's not what you're asking for now. It's just those three additional uses.
Yeah, I tried doing it this way with my application and they wouldn't take it. So I had to, I had to settle for that, which caused some concerns with some, some interested parties, but I had to explain to them that we were going to be doing the same thing we did on Surrey Road by, you know, obviously that was not a CMX1 property.
So this might be a little simpler, but by adding certain things to the CMX1 permitted uses and then removing the certain uses to the CMX1 permitted uses and then adding the CMX2 signage.
Okay. All right. Well, since the refusal specifically references CMX2 uses and we'll just use the same language, I just wanted to clarify that all the additional uses were the same that you were requesting.
the sit-down restaurant prepared food shop commissary and catering services those are the
additional cmx2 uses you're requesting okay we can work it out if you know yeah no i think i think
the proviso is fine as as is just the clear since the refusal specifically references all cmx2 uses
and that's not what is now that what has now been agreed to it's cmx1 which is what it is
plus those three additional uses and the only reason i put again is to keep apples to apples
but again to keep that proviso because it was intentionally these properties for reasons that
if you know alice is on udavich can speak to if anybody really wanted to know but because of
their wanting to be nothing to do with like a general cmx2 right here that's why i reiterated
Right. That's why I reiterated CMX1 because of the refusal was to really drive home. There's nothing about what's going to happen here. That's CMX2. Everything's CMX1 except for these additional uses. So we might want to still keep it in just even as a-
CMX1 because of the
review.
Yes. No, I think that's fine. Yeah. No, I think that's fine. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Hillary, I think we went full circle there. Are we going to use the CMX1?
Yes, yes.
We'll keep the CMX1 language in there, even though the property is known CMX1.
But we do need a variance for the square footage limitations in CMX1.
Any other three users?
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
No, hold on a moment, Chair.
Alice should be on.
Alice Udovich just had her hand up, but she put it back down.
Ms. Udovich, can you raise your hand?
She didn't put her hand back up, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman, and good afternoon.
David Vecto, City Planning Commission, Chairman and Board members.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from CMX1 commercial mixed use to CMX2 commercial mixed use.
This property has a documented history as a sit-down restaurant, which is allowed in the proposed zoning.
So the City Planning Commission recommends the board grant the proposed uses as permitted in the CMX2 commercial zoning district
and sign types as permitted in the CMX-2 Commercial Zoning District.
MI 2024-004-766-720 Red Lion Road.
I vote yes with proviso.
This approval is for all uses permitted in the CMX-1 Zoning District
with a variance for 2,000 square feet foot occupied area limit.
The following additional uses are also approved, sit-down restaurant, prepared food shop, commissaries, and catering, along with accessory signage as permitted in the CMX2 zoning district.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Provisos.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with Provisos.
Ayewan, my vote is yes with Provisos.
ishmael shaheed my vote is just with provisos thank you counsel thank you all right number 15
mi 2024 004 870 2051 walnuts joseph consul is the attorney um excuse me mr chair i just i just
wanted to interject briefly i think there were some people waiting for the clearfield street case
That case was continued at the start of this list because it has not undergone civic design review yet.
So if you're waiting for the Clearfield case, I apologize that you've been waiting, but that case has been continued by the board.
Thank you.