good evening mr chair uh good evening whoever you are please
jared klein jared klein from blank rome it's k-l-e-i-n the address is 130 north 18th street
in philadelphia hi jared you swear to firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do please proceed thank you uh good good evening again everybody um i am here on behalf
of three near neighbors, Alexander Vecher at 2108 Cherry, Daniel Gerson at 2114 Cherry,
and William Boone, who's at 2113. And we have some additional concerns about these variances
that I will briefly describe for the board. I know it's been a long day and I'll try and be
as quick as possible. The first item is with regard to the parking, which has been referenced
a few times. I was originally brought into this matter to look at the parking issue and I can tell
you that we disagree with the developer that there's any confusion here. There is no access
behind 2108 to 2100 CHERRY that is on behalf of or for the benefit of 2110 to 2112 CHERRY.
The 1980 declaration of easement was very clear that any expansion of the easement had to be
confirmed in writing by every owner and that did not happen here. I do understand that's not
specifically a zoning issue. However, because the original plans showed parking in the rear
and the revised plan still refers to an access aisle, we are asking the board that to the extent
the board is inclined to grant the variances to include a proviso that specifically says no parking
in the rear um and while we have no reason to think that this developer uh would do anything
mischievous um this property will likely be sold and with the access aisle noted on the plans
it leaves the opportunity open for a a less um for threat developer in the future to simply add
parking back there and not tell anybody about it and so we'd like to have our clients have recourse
through L&I through a specific proviso to any approval that the board issues.
Second brief matter is the revised plans that you calculated were not provided to me or to LS&A
until yesterday afternoon. So my three clients have had very limited time to review them.
And also I wanted to note that the plans do not include any elevations which show how this
property is going to sit with the immediately adjacent properties on either side. Our presumption
is that those weren't provided because it would show the odd nature of this dual pilot house
configuration. But the point is, we haven't seen it. We haven't seen any elevations that would
reflect how this actual design will sit with the properties on either side. And the last comment
I wanted to make is with regard to this two-pilot house setup, I have not heard anything mentioned
thus far in terms of a hardship that would justify the variance that he's asking for.
We certainly don't object to the use of the property as two families. As Mr. Ward pointed
out, there would be two single-family lots. Each could have a single-family house. But I haven't
heard anything that explains why an elevator is required and why a second pilot house is required
for a residential row home type structure. There are thousands of properties throughout the city
that have roof decks that are simply accessed by a stairwell. And I haven't heard any justification
as to why this property is so unique that it needs to have both an elevator and stair access
to the roof so we we think that the dual pilot homes is excessive uh and out of character with
the rest of the block as no other property on the block will have either an elevator or a dual
dual pilot house set up uh and so there are also our houses in the city that do have elevators
there are but all right so it's not it's not that it's that unique right but those properties
presumably could do it without asking for a variance and and here they do need a variance
for the extra space and we don't see a justification for it and with that I would just like the board
or to have my one client unmuted so he can adopt what I've said and I will let other folks speak
for themselves Alex Veccher can you raise your hand please virtually
Mr. Vekker has been unmuted. He's free to speak.
Good evening, Mr. Vekker. Please identify yourself with the record. Spell your name
and give us your address, please. Alexander Vekker, A-L-E-X-A-N-D-E-R.
Alexander Vekker, A-L-E-X-A-N-D-E-R, V-E-K-K-E-R.
I'm sorry, could you say that again, your last name?
Vilek and Victor, E-K-K-E-R.
Thank you. And your address?
2108, Charest.
Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Alex, did you hear my statements a few moments ago?
Do you adopt them as true and correct in your own?
And was there a brief additional amount of information
you wanted to share with the board at this time?
First, I just confirm what you said
that we just looked at the plans yesterday.
We, for example, did not see it further set back
for the deck, but Mr. Ward is saying
there is an additional one.
Maybe we did need to take some more time
to look at this new plans.
We didn't have a chance to do so.
Also, I should add that my understanding that one of the developer's recent projects involved the construction of a townhouse two blocks from us at 2106 Spring Street.
I'm going to object.
What's the relevance of that?
There are multiple failed inspections and multiple code violations.
Irrelevant, not germane to this application, Mr. Chairman.
You're sustained.
that this is not relevant to this case and finally uh we're confused about some design elements
besides the roof uh front steps design um i do not see a reason for current design given the steps
are not consistent with the overall street scope uh i think a much better solution would be
to have the steps in the middle of the property rather than on the side
again mr chairman that the streets department has reviewed these plans
and has approved the front steps uh the the sidewalk is consistent with
the requirements of the streets department
we provide the five foot minimum walk zone along with the two foot minimum
furnishing zone for a seven-foot-wide sidewalk beyond the proposed steps.
I want to go back to Mr. Klein, one of his, I think it was his first question.
Is there any objection to the proviso regarding no parking in rear?
Yes, we would, because if that issue is resolved in the favor of my client through some other
proceeding which is not before the board today um then he would have every right to use the
easement area in the back to access um that that is that is for it that is for a different forum
these five structures all have parking in the rear right and and if and if for some reason
the easement is determined to to carry through to 2110 and 12 then then why should he be uh restricted
from using it if he if he's rightfully entitled to it understood thank you mr mr chairman what
what i'm trying to avoid here is any confusion about what is ultimately approved uh because
the original application referenced parking and the only removal of that was it was a revised
planned so perhaps the board would consider a proviso that said no parking approved in this
application the zoning board doesn't have to approve parking in this application it's
it's i i don't know beyond my pay grade all right when your client takes the fence down
starts parking back there we should call you sure okay okay all right we got that worked out thank
you uh anyone else anyone else uh we got one more person william boone
am i unmuted now yes you are please identify yourself yes yes yep i am william boone b-o-o-n-e
and i live at 2113 2115 cherry street which is directly across the street from the proposed
development we're in the firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do mr chairman thank you so we're in the south side of cherry street directly across from
this this development and it will substantially affect our home by decreasing the sunlight on our
house creating an odd view of pilot houses directly in our line of sight and changing the character of
neighborhood. We understand that the developer wants to add two residential homes on a lot after
demolishing the existing 2112 Cherry Street, the home of the late Tully Speaker, and we have no objection to
2112 Cherry Street, the home of the late Tully Speaker, and we have no objection to two new
residences being added to the neighborhood on these lots. However, most of the residences on
this street, for example 2112 through 2130 Cherry, have a 38-foot cornice line with flat roofs hidden
behind. The developer apparently intends to adhere to the 38-foot cornice line for a portion of his
project but we'll add another 10 feet of height with the addition of a roof deck parapet and
various pilot houses for elevators and stairwells. It is these pilot houses that we most object to
since they are too high directly in our line of sight blocking light and view and are atypical
for this neighborhood and unusual and completely out of character for this street. We hope some
accommodation can be made to eliminate these extensions above the 38 foot level thank you for
your time thank you anyone else yes i would like to add something your name i just i just wanted
to clarify and uh mr ward spoke about it but kind of around the building height will not exist 38
feet that is allowing by the zoning code it's only we're talking about the pilot houses and the pilot
houses they step back 12 feet and they're approximately on about three and a half to four
feet wide so it's really not going to impact anything and most of the people probably under
any angle unless you may be on the third floor of the house across you probably barely be able to
see them so they're really not doing any impact the building itself will not be 48 feet i'll agree
from the street line i don't know how you it may be from the upper floor of right right
from the houses on the third floor you'll be able to see but from the street you will not
okay all right that's correct okay what else do we have
okay questions from the board no
planning commission uh hello mr chairman and members of the board this is mason austin
representing the planning commission mason do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do and i would also let uh requested the host allow me to start my video
um to give my testimony um
um we've gone through three planning committee three folks yeah we're working maybe we'll get
a couple more before we wind up tonight you know what if we maybe give it a few more hours we'll
get there um so um this property is indicated for single family residential in the comprehensive
plan and zone for that use while the new well two units are not permitted by right on this parcel
because the parcel could be subdivided into two lots that largely match the dimensions of the
adjacent lots. Planning Commission staff has no objection to the granting of the variances
requested. Thank you. MI 2020-001531 2110-2112 Cherry Street. My vote is yes with the following
proviso revised plan two pages approved today i think that was the only one am i right that's
correct i leave anything out okay yeah and again i will all do respect to the gentleman i don't
think you're going to see that unless you get to your top floor but roof decks are all over
the neighborhood now please thank you okay yes proviso proviso yes with proviso yes with proviso
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, thank you very much. That concludes my business and
I have the excuse. Yes, you may have a good evening. Are we back on Howard or are they
we get any resolution yet? I'm ready to speak to that, Mr. Chairman. Okay, Mr. Laver, let's go back.
We're back on to 1700-06 North Howard Street. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
We appreciate the board's thoughtful consideration of this matter.
Urban conversions is the equitable owner of the property.
The extensive cost of renovation of the historic building, engineering challenges, and environmental remediation of a 150-year-old industrial site pose great costs to this potential development.
We have submitted revised proviso plans in line with more appropriate RM1 standards, not to mention IRMX and ICMX.
The revised plans show a good faith proposal which is responsive to the demands of the historic designation and certain concerns from the community,
out of respect for the board and all parties involved, considering the amount of time that has been spent.
out of respect for the board and all parties involved considering the amount of time that has
been spent in good faith discussions today we respectfully ask the board to please uh
vote on this case uh this evening okay thank you uh i don't remember in the last round if
i asked if there's any questions from the board no i no wow uh planning commit anyone else we
already got the testimony uh planning commission i'm sorry chair yes if i could state that we
halted the hearing for mr labor to discuss and there is two people who have waited all evening
to speak if you don't mind i apologize i thought we were thrilled thank you thank you kindly
patina you can call the next person kristin menzies you've been unmuted thank you hi
Good evening, ma'am. Please identify yourself with the records, spell your last name, and give us your address.
Yes, this is Kristen Menzies. Last name is spelled M-E-N-Z-I-E-S, and my address is 1725 North Howard Street.
Thank you. Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
Thank you. So as a first grade teacher, I have grave concerns about our local elementary school
with the increased traffic. I just know from personal experience that increased traffic
ultimately has an impact on community. And I worry, you know, what kind of retail is going
to be put into those spaces as well, and what kind of impact that will have on the school community.
um also as a teacher i have my summers off and looking at the renderings of the current
um apartments and single family homes that will be going in my roof deck will be completely
shaded by 12 o'clock noon um which is very disheartening so i just want to voice that
and hope that that makes an impact upon your decision thank you thank you thank you for your
patience now is that your dog it's not my dog no it was kristin's anyone else to testify
it's always me frank anupa you can go forward okay thank you my name is anupa dalal last name
is d-a-l-a-l i live on seven hello we just lost you hello
but it looks like she's gone anupa yep she's gone okay moving on we have gavami ruzba
yes good evening um um my name is ruzba last name is gavami that is g-h-a-v-a-m-i i'm actually
right next door to anupa we are a community of i need you to spell your first name as well
i'm sorry first name is roozbeh r-o-o-z-b-e-h and i reside at 1724 north hope street but we
are a community of eight units with an entrance from howard street directly excuse me sorry sorry
i just need to swear you in i know it's new nobody heard me say this yet you swear to firm
to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth absolutely do yes sir
all right please proceed yes so we're a community of eight buildings uh our height we're directly
in front of the this proposed project our height our maximum height and the time to the top of our
roof is 35 feet and looking from our roof uh the height of this proposed well the current height
of this building is definitely not 40 feet it's less than ours it's probably about 32 to 35 feet
um this building going up at 65 feet it practically you know engulfs us completely
um by you know by by by twice as much doubles the size another issue as a couple of our other
residents mentioned is really just the increased traffic that is going to be on howard street
uh mr chairman you yourself said that both howard street uh hope street uh these are all
very tiny streets coming off of Cecil B,
even the Cecil B at that intersection
coming off of Front and Frankfurt.
These are very, very tiny streets.
Adding 100 units is, you know,
the amount of the traffic that is just gonna increase
in that street is just gonna be,
it's gonna be too much for that street.
Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony and your patience.