I vote yes for a temporary variance
which expires 10-26-2026.
Thomas Holloman,
my vote is yes with proviso.
So, Ishmael Shaheen, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you.
Mr. Clinton, could you stay on, please?
We're going to do number six and number 10.
So, number six is MI-2023-001-979, 753-55 North Taylor Street,
number TA415131, and number 10, which is MI2023-001-977-753-55
North Taylor Street. We have no RCO letter, but there was a meeting held on 92823.
Mr. Chair we yeah we just Mr. Clinton just sent me the RCO letter this morning it was it was in
support although it was a little unclear to me and Mr. Clinton maybe you could clarify this
if they were asking for a proviso related to the rear balcony and spiral staircase or they just
wanted it to stay as it was presented didn't want to see any changes so maybe you can clarify that
when you get to there. Sure, will do. Mr. Clinton, can you identify
your clients and the relationship to the property? Sure, my client is
David Jeffries, J-E-F-F-R-E-Y-S
and he is on the call. Okay. Our vice chair has a few
questions for you, sir. Counselor, do you
agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy? I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Have you emailed in all the required documents that is needed and required to
PERCEIVED.
I do, except as Ms. Emerson just said, we just received the letter of support last night about 8 o'clock.
Yep, understood. Please proceed.
So, Mr. Chairman, there are two properties.
It was one property, but they're basically mirror images of each other.
Do you want me to do one and just incorporate the second one?
One and incorporate, okay?
Revisible, Mr. Chairman?
It is, sir.
All right.
Good morning again, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
I'm here on behalf of David Jeffries and Ronald Hayes, the owners of this property.
We're requesting basically two single-family homes, and I'll explain the history as I walk
through the presentation.
This is my table of contents containing Exhibits A1 through A11, which I ask to be admitted
into evidence.
And as you can see here by the zoning records at the bottom, which I'll go through, this
property used to be basically a storage and kind of an industrial location, as were probably
four or five other properties on that block.
And it's one lot at this point. We're asking that the property be approved for two single-family homes because we basically subdivided the one large lot, 32 feet wide, into two 16-foot wide lots. And I'll show you that as we walk through.
It is an RSA 5 zoning district, and we have several refusals. One is concerning a balcony, one is concerning parking, and one is concerning open space.
This is 100% lock coverage right now, Mr. Chairman. We are demolishing the interior part of the building, keeping the front facade, and creating a rear yard, which there is no rear yard right now.
So the last refusal is, besides being de minimis, it's only 56 feet.
We're actually increasing the open space and providing some light and air to the rear of the property.
And as far as the parking, they've been parking in front of this building for decades,
and there are actually no parking signs on the front of both buildings.
And you can see there's garage doors already in place.
The RCO letter, I will show you that as a separate attachment.
This is a photograph of the property right now. It's a 100% lock coverage, a double wide property. We had it subdivided, and I have the permit at the end of the presentation to show the board that that, in fact, was done.
This is an aerial view, again, just showing 100% black coverage.
I don't know why the photographs are not moving through here.
Bear with me for a minute, Mr. Chairman.
There we go.
So this is the view looking north.
The property is to the right-hand side.
You can see there's garage doors colored green.
The idea is we're going to keep the facade.
My neighbors on the block like the facade.
My clients like the facade.
And we're going to build two stories above.
There is no basement since these are existing garages right now.
And you can see there are other garages on the block on the west side of Taylor Street,
as well as further north on Taylor Street.
And this sign where my cursor is and this sign where my cursor is now basically say no parking.
So basically three frontages have no parking.
and historically has been that situation for a number of decades.
Again, this is looking south towards Center City.
Properties on the left-hand side.
Some more perspective shots, 753, 755.
Just a close-up of the facade.
Again, we're going to keep that in place.
And these are photographs of the postage of the posters on the property.
The remaining documents are pro forma documents, tax clearance, zoning map, the deed indicating ownership, our certificate of mailing.
or a certificate of mailing.
And these are just some zoning records
And these are just some.
to show the board historically,
1961, this was storage of janitorial supplies.
It's a garage-type building,
which was used back from 1925 to 1960
as a carpenter machine shop.
More recently, my client has used it
as an office on the first floor,
and there's a living unit above.
This is the zoning permit indicating that we did get a lot line relocation, subdividing this one lot, which was known as 753 to 755, into two separate addresses, 753 and 755.
So I'm going to stop sharing this document and then move on to the plans because I was not able to include that all in one package.
Is that visible now, Mr. Chairman?
we don't see anything right now let me go back
now the plans are visible no
yes all right beautiful thank you for your patience but chairman
So this is the Z1 zoning plan. And the idea is, as I said before, we're keeping the facade with some minor adjustments because we have to put another door in. And we're going to add two stories above since there's no basement. We're under 38 feet. We have a de minimis issue with open space.
As I said, we've now opened up the rear yard area right here where we have more than a nine foot rear yard, which is providing open space and air to not only the two single family homes, but also to the neighbors on either side.
And Hillary, one of the questions that you raised, and it's in the letter from the community group, is the neighbors were concerned that the pilot houses be in the middle of the property rather than to the edge.
And that's the way it's presented here at 755, and it will also be the same on 753.
And I'll show you the other plan.
So this is 753. So the spiral staircase is going to be back to back from 753 to 755.
So you don't have someone walking up a spiral staircase and overlooking the yard of the adjacent neighbor.
So we're in full conformance with that and we agree with that.
This is the floor plan starting from right to left. First floor plan, parking, second floor, living, dining, third floor, two bedrooms.
fourth floor, one bedroom with a rooftop deck. And Mr. Chairman, this floor plan and the
statements that I've made with regard to 753 are equally applicable to 755,
which is the other project that is before the board today. So I can walk through that project,
but it's basically a reiteration of what I just presented to the board.
uh so mr clinton yeah can you just do the plans for the other one just so it's
on the record that the the balconies and the staircases are where the rco has requested that
they be thank you i think too miss emerson if mr chairman can you see this letter now
Yeah, so this is the letter from Fairmount Civic Association indicating that it is one
of support.
Again, we just got this letter last night.
You can see there's overwhelming support for the project, and the issue was at the end
of the letter that the spiral staircases are supposed to be back-to-back on the project,
and we've agreed with that.
So now I'm going to move on to 755.
This is 755, again, the same table of contents, A1 through A11 as 753.
I incorporate all my comments from 753 to 755.
Same photographs, same analysis.
and I'm just going to have to go to another attachment to show the plans.
so this is uh seven not up yet henry i'm sorry
it's coming up
Good. Yep. So this is the this is the plan for 755. And you can see where the spiral staircase is in the middle.
And then 753.
really i might have to send you that because it is it is part of this
i have i have both i have both sets of plans and on the i think it's on 753 it shows
the staircase for 755 on on the other side of the yard but when you look when you have
the plans for 755 do show it immediately adjacent to the property line with 753 right so the 755
and it's crossed out so the 755 only applies to 755 and even though 753 is depicted
that is not incorporated in the 755 so the 753 that you have that is the correct one for 753
great thank you so then both so we're in conformance with what the community wants and what
miss hoberg's letter indicates that the spiral staircases have to be back to back
mr chairman with that uh just in conclusion again we don't have any issues with height
The open space is des minimis.
We're including a rear yard.
This is a single family district.
This was formerly a storage area office with living quarters above.
We're basically returning the property to conform with the existing zoning code, which is RSA 5.
Parking has been in existence in front of the properties for decades.
There's two no parking signs there, not only for these two garages, but for the property owner to the north.
We're in harmony, basically, then with the code, and we're in harmony with the community wishes, and we have the support of the RCO.
With that, I ask my client to unmute himself.
Mr. Jeffries, can you unmute yourself and adopt my testimony?
Please unmute and wait to be sworn in.
Morning, sir.
Could you state your name and spell, please, for the course sonography?
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I still would not see any hands raised for the matter to speak.
Mr. Jeffries?
Mr. Jeffries, are you on the call?
There are no hands raised, and I do not see any hands raised.
Mr. Clinton, you're an officer of the court. We will take your testimony.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I do not tune in.
Planning Commission?
Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Chair, this recommendation will apply to both MI-2023-001979 and 001977.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing RSA-5 single-family zoning at these locations.
With regard to the variances for rear-yard balcony and lot coverage, the small lot size, we agree, makes strict compliance with the requirements of the zoning code impractical.
And with regard to the variance for garage access, the garage access is an existing condition. It's also typical for this block. City Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the variances on both cases.
Thank you. Number six, I'll do them both together. MI 2023-001-979-753-55 North Taylor Street, number TA415131, and number 10, MI 2023-001-9779.
MI-2023-001-977-753-55 North Taylor Street, I vote yes to both.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes to both.
Oh, I thought I was off mute.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes to both.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy of taking these together.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Great.
Hillary, was number seven, did we handle that?
Is that the one Vern called in for?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, that case was continued.
All right, good.
Thank you.
Number 11.
mi-2023-003-050-2940 east tayova street richard de marco is the attorney's appeal against l and i
um renter reuter should also be on the call um mr chair um mr reuter um is not able to attend
this morning but we did receive written correspondence previously that he is not
in opposition or the city is not in opposition to the non-protunk request that mr demarco is going
to be presenting morning mr demarco could you state your name please and spell for the court
stenographer good morning mr chairman richard demarco last name d-e-m-a-r-c-o right do you
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So we could, no pro-tunk, do you have comments relative to that, sir?
Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, so I just want to let you know I didn't know about this hearing.
I didn't get notice until I happened to check the dockets on my own and found out.
That's okay, that's okay.
All right. So our appeal was timely to the original violation. What happened was the city reissued the same identical violations with a new date. And the board wanted me to file another appeal and withdraw the earlier appeal. I mean, whenever Hillary and the board want me to do something, I do it.
I asked that the fee be waived in light of the fact that there was nothing wrong with the earlier appeal.
But, I mean, I guess in terms of I certainly do not want to withdraw the earlier appeal until the NUNC-Protonc is granted.
I do see that Len does not object to it.