exception in your mind for the above ground spaces within the building cause or create
any greater impacts than would having the seven spaces below grade no i believe if anything it
reduces the impact of additional apartments without additional parking the fact was you
were going to have to, I guess, valet eight cars to 4415 for compliance for offsite within a thousand
feet of that property, correct? Correct. Okay. Anything else you'd like to add? No. Okay. Thank
you. That's all I have. Question. Questions from the board? I guess my question would be, all right,
So you're providing spaces for an adjacent property and for this property?
Is that what I'm hearing?
Well, so initially, we only had seven spaces on this property, and the additional eight were going to be provided off-site at 4415 Chestnut.
So now we don't have to do that.
so those spaces are available and now we would have 13 more spaces available here
which actually would be used for non-accessory purposes for the neighborhood is that correct
so it was kind of a strategy to get the buy right permit and then we found we were able to put
additional levels of parking here okay okay was this is part of the affordable housing overlay
correct uh it is correct and you're how many units are you providing not moderate
nine moderate units
nine in lieu of right correct
you said how many
nine nine okay yes
and what were the
you said there were minor corrections or
changes that the
RCO wanted to the building
what do you remember what they were
yes they
wanted a different look on the facade
that was on Market Street
and a slightly different design
on the facade
that is on 44th Street
they were changes that i didn't think were i mean they're going to cost us a little bit more money
but i think that uh um it's worth it for this their support and does this rendering reflect
this rendering does reflect that the the facade on marketry right now is very similar to the facade
that they uh liked and approved for 4415 chestnut street so kind of carries the the motif that we're
doing with regard to facades uh also all of the units all the one bedroom units of which there'll
be 78 in this building they will all have uh balconies uh which is actually kind of unique
for the area so uh the the balcony design the the uh was changed somewhat based upon their
confidence and scott looking at this photograph this area when i'm touching that's the entrance
to the garage that's where the entrance was previously so nothing has changed okay and the
landscaping plan that we see here that was recommended by the RCO as well and
that was okay for you okay questions or comments from our attorney Hillary
Okay, questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Emerson
Just a clarification, because it says on the refusal,
accessory parking, not non-accessory parking.
Yeah, so
yeah, it'll stay accessory. We had a discussion with the examiner who said
we'll change it as a matter of right, if this gets approved.
Okay, all right, thank you. Thank you. I wasn't asking for that now, I was explaining what was going to happen.
Good catch. Thank you. She always gets good. He's got it.
So questions or comments from the audience or the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair. No hands? Chair. No hands. All right. Thank you. Planning Commission.
Ron Bednar, City Planning. First name Ron, R-O-N. Last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, Ron.
Property is indicated for commercial use on the city plan.
The proposal should have no detrimental impact beyond what might be expected given its location.
Therefore, we recommend that the Ford grant the special exception provided adoption of revised plan that included van accessible parking as required.
And what I'm showing you now is my amended application.
Okay, thank you.
And the plan.
So, NY 2025, 00471, 4400 Market Street.
I vote yes with proviso.
Revives plans, three pages,
sent by ZBA on March 12th, 2025.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.
I win. My vote is yes with provisor. Thank you very much. Thank you, counsel.
Thank you. So number two, MI 2024-000237, 1939-31 North Hancock Street. David Shafkowitz is the attorney.
David Shafkowitz is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
I do not see a letter or a summary at this point, but neighbors were sent with proof of mailing attached.
Sorry, Mr. Chair, I was joining in as you were mentioning that I missed part of it.
Hi, could you, well, first of all, could you state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. My name is David Shafkowitz. First name, David, D-A-V-I-D. Shafkowitz is S-H-A-F as in Frank, K-O-W-I-T-Z.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Oh, I do.
Could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
uh yes um i'm here on behalf of the impact group which is the owner and applicant of
actually two parcels of property that are on the board's agenda for today all right thank you so
and when you were coming in i said there's we do not have an rco letter at this point or a summary
but notice was sent to neighbors with proof of a mailing on october 23rd 2024 before south
Kensington Community Partners?
That is correct, Mr. Chair.
We were in touch with the RCO a few times.
The position that was taken following the meeting was no opposition,
or they were going to file a letter of opposition,
but we will happily supply that if post-hearing as necessary.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal,
and do you agree with its accuracy?
Why don't you share your screen and start your presentation?
Thank you. If I may, before I share, I'll just introduce myself and my client. And I know this is something a little unusual as a request, but I wanted to, as the board may know, there's a second application on the agenda with the same owner applicant under 1345 North 2nd Street.
what it is is both that both pieces of property are owned by the impact group if the board's
familiar with impact group they are a not-for-profit affordable housing entity that
its sole purpose is to do their best to provide affordable units within the city of philadelphia
they happen to own both parcels both parcels were conveyed to them by the rda and both parcels do
have deed restrictions for affordable affordability on them the only reason i asked the board and i
present it kind of jointly is the applicant does look at both these pieces as one kind of project
the way it's set up between the two parcels there's going to be a total of eight units proposed
six of which are going to be or i'm sorry five of which are proposed to be affordable three of which
six of which are going to be, or I'm sorry, five of which are proposed to be affordable,
three of which are market rate.
The concept that the market rate units help support the construction of the affordable.
So, you know, I see my attorney reaching for her microphone.
I'm sure.
Apparently she has something to say to you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Shafkowitz.
So because the properties are on different blocks and the projects are a little bit different,
one being two units, one being six. We do want to hear them separately. However, if there are
remarks that are including background about your client that are applicable to both,
you can just state them once and indicate they're incorporated into the record for your other
hearing. I figured as much and I just, I appreciate that. And I just wanted to provide the board some
background. I kind of find it unique that I was, I have the pleasure of representing this group and
what they're trying to do in the community. So I appreciate that. But starting with,
I'll share my screen, and I'll start with 1529.
Let's see.
So I hope the board can see the attached, can see my screen.
We do.
Yeah. And what I'm showing is just a copy of the tax map that has our property located in gray, outlined in blue, located at 152931 North Hancock Street. As the board is well aware, it's in the RSA zoning district. The RSA 5, I apologize.
um the parcel consists of about 3100 there are 3110 square feet currently vacant obviously takes
access directly to north hancock street it's in in a mixed zone as you can see it has rm1 zoning
across the street which is a permits multifamily this particular um unit that's being proposed here
There is going to be a six-unit building that was presented to the RCO, and the RCO, I believe, for this particular one, did make—oh, maybe I misspoke because I was confusing it with 2nd Street, Mr. Chairman.
Was this one, if they did not file their report, this one was a support from the board, so we'll make sure we get that submitted as well.
But as noted, and what I'll do is let me go back to get some more information because this, for some reason, doesn't look right.
I'm in trouble with my share screen figures.
ah can the board see this one we can all right but i'm going to take you over to
yeah okay we're on the right one i apologize so um what's being proposed as i said is a six unit
three-story building um as you can see this is a rendering that was prepared by cicadia
architects that shows the building proposed from an elevation standpoint and remarkably how it fits
into the street or the block that it's located. As we stated, right directly across the street
is a large parcel zone multifamily. As you can see from this particular elevation, there is a
first floor unit that will take direct access from the street. The area that's located to the right
of the photo is an alcove to which will lead to a shared walkway or staircase, which will have
each three units on each side of the building and i'll show you a little bit more what that looks
like um so here's here's a statement or an elevation of what the property would look like
what's showing here in 1529 is where our access would be and this would be a point where there'd
be the shared um uh stairway to all to the three to the three units on each side of the building
the part that's interesting about this particular project like we noted
Of the six units being proposed, four units are proposed to be affordable.
Two units are proposed to be market rate.
All the units will be for sale.
And all the units range in size, or all three bedrooms, they range in size from 980 square feet to just over, or 927 square feet to about 1,020 square feet.
And I could show you that here.
Hopefully this is something that would be visible or easily read.
But as you can see, there's the shared centered stairway. There's three units on either side of the building. Each building would be three bedrooms, family room, kitchen. The second and third floor would be the same. And as you can see, as it compares to the properties in the area, it's of the same similar size look.
and as you can see as it compares to um the properties in the area it's of the same similar
size look shape etc um the refusal was based on the zoning being it being uh rsa5 multi-family
is not permitted but we believe that this would be suitable as it relates to the um
fit in with the with everything else that's in this vicinity and mostly as indicated on our
rendering here that shows how it exactly fits in to our adjoining properties, maintaining that
same look as the properties adjacent to with the three stories, the windows, and creating some
architectural interest. As we stated, Mr. Chairman, if the RCO did not submit it, this one, they were
in favor, expressed to us that they were in favor of the application. With me also, should the
board have any questions is darren edwards from cicadia architects who can offer some more details
about the building as necessary and casey o'donnell from impact should the board have any questions
about how that procedure works and uh their intent in terms of how they operate and their proposals
for this property and what will ultimately be second street as well okay so so why don't you
bring your client on and have your testimony adopted and then we can start there okay darren
Can you join in?
What's your client's name, Mr. Shavkowitz?
We're looking for Darren Edwards first.
Is she the architect?
He's the architect.
Why don't we start with the owner?
I can always bring the architect on you.
My apologies.
You have your owner, come on.
It'd be Casey O'Donnell.
Casey O'Donnell is coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for that.
Mr. Chair, would it be okay if I stop sharing, or should I leave this up?
I'd leave it on there in case there's some questions.
Okay, appreciate that. Mr. O'Donnell, can you hear us?
I can. Good afternoon.
Hi. Casey, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. Casey O'Donnell, C-A-S-E-Y-O-D-O-N-N-E-L-L.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Casey, you were present during the course of my presentation?
And if you were going to testify today, would you adopt my presentation as if it were your own?
Yes, with the exception of it's not Impact Group, it's Impact Services Corp.
My apologies for that. Casey, if you could just take a few minutes, maybe tell the board a little
about what you do. I'm sure they may already be familiar with you guys.
Sure. Impact is a community action organization mobilizing people and resources to create
connected, resilient, thriving communities. From a place-based perspective, we focus largely on
Kensington, although our workforce development strategies are throughout the city, mostly in
North Philadelphia. Our work in the 10 years that I've been in this role has really been north of
Lehigh, although these parcels were part of an acquisition from RDA years prior. And now that
we've stabilized both kind of work and properties north of Lehigh. We finally were able to focus
on these. Impact exclusively builds affordable housing. As Dave mentioned, the reason for the