The Lower Northeast District Plan recommendation 11 calls for a plan for the reuse of larger homes no longer suitable for single-family owner occupancy in Frankfurt.
The Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the requested variance for two-family.
Thank you. MI 2025-000473-4830 Hawthorne Street.
I vote yes with Proviso. Maximum two units. Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso. Another Graham, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Tywin, my vote is yes with Proviso. Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming in.
number seven
MI2025
000475
5017 Woodland Avenue
Zen Jin is the attorney
good morning good morning counsel could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes my name is zen jen z-h-e-n last name j-i-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Could you identify your client
in relationship to the property? Yes, my client is
Paschal Holdings, LLC, the owner of the property.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the
refusal, and do you agree with its accuracy? I do. Why don't you start
your presentation, Mr. Izzy? Thank you.
Should I be sworn in, Chairman? I'm sorry, did I do that? Do you swear
or affirm the whole truth, nothing
but the truth. I do. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm
going to share with the board documents
we previously submitted. Let me
go ahead and get that
onto the screen.
Can the board see my exhibit
on their screen? Yes, we do.
Thank you. So this is an
application for a
new construction at the property address
of 5017 Woodland Avenue.
The application
is refused because the area was rezoned in 2019 to RSA 5. However, due to the unique location of
this property and its surrounding uses, and with the support of the community, we're asking the
board to consider a variance for this property to be permitted to be built as a three-family
dwelling. We met with Southwest Philadelphia District Services. My client has other properties
in the area. They've been revitalizing some of the properties other developers started,
as well as building properties and managing them in the area. And they've done very well.
as well as building properties and managing them in the area.
And they've done very well in making sure these properties fit what the neighborhood needs.
And therefore, with that and other things that they've done with the neighborhood,
we have supported the neighborhood.
The neighbors of the property actually also would not have any objection,
partly because the property to our left is legally a three-family dwelling,
but it's basically abandoned. There's a make-save permit on it. The property to our other side,
facing the property to the right, actually are three or four combined properties. Now,
the permits are not clear what they're used for now. It seemed to have been either some kind of
commercial use or soup kitchen use at one point, but those permits are also expired,
and there are make-save permits on that property as well. This entire block is rather different
than other parts of the area behind us, which are residential single-family.
This block here either had commercial, multifamily, or a combined commercial-ish use of the entire
block properties, and some are also still abandoned.
And then we have immediately across the street, actually, a commercial medical center as well.
So a single-family house to be placed here, it would be very difficult to market it as
such. Now, in addition, these are very large lots for the area, relatively speaking, and
there's substantial size to the property. And this will be a, to put a property here will be
a pretty substantial size building. As far as the actual design itself, the proposal is a new
construction, three-story structure to fill the space that is currently there. There is a small
roof deck proposed for the unit on the third floor. The first floor unit has access to the rear yard
and the second floor unit does not have direct access to the rear yard or to the roof deck.
However, in our design for the property, the plans calls for trash rooms in each unit. So I'm going
to shrink it down first to get to the right page here. This is a side elevation view, and
this is the overall layout. The basement is above grade. It is, I know that it is five foot,
three inch above grade as far as the basement level now the interior layout would be one unit
on each of the upper floors with the first unit also having access to the basement the basement
will have the water meter washer dryer utilities and basically will be a open space flex space
whether they want to put an office down there or work with that, but the bedroom and living would
be on the first floor. The second floor unit is a two-bedroom and the third floor unit is a two-bedroom
as well. Now, trash rooms are actually designed into each floor. I'm going to zoom in a little
bit here. You can see that we actually put in a vented trash closet into each unit, but the first
floor and also the upper floor also have some outspace options, outdoor options for temporary
trash storage, with the second floor primarily relying on garbage disposal as well as the trash
room until trash is picked up. My client manages similar properties in the area. They have no
issue making sure the tenants have maintained these properties well and making sure the trash
is not left out onto the street prior to proper pickup times.
This, again, will be a new construction.
The community also is aware that with this setup, with their existing management in the
area, that these will likely be rentals.
They are also aware that a single-family house of this size really isn't feasible given
the circumstances of the community and the circumstances of the block.
And therefore, we actually had unanimous support on our letter, including the members of the community that did show up.
I think Southwest also mentioned within their letter that my client has been committed to supporting and helping this community develop and has been in the community for some time.
So that is the gist of the application.
I'm happy to try to answer any questions.
And I believe my client, one of the representatives from my client's company is here to verify my testimony.
One of the representatives from my client's company
is here to verify my testimony.
Would the board like me to go back to the plans or?
Why don't you go back to the plans as he talks
and what the board gets on?
You zoom out so we can see that all three of the floors
or four of the floors together.
Oh, sure.
This way?
I'll zoom in slightly to...
So then is there a rendering on how that's going to look with Nextdoor?
I do not believe that.
I mean, there's a drawing, but there isn't a rendering.
While we understand that it doesn't quite look the same,
this block has very different looks throughout the block.
What we do know is that there are other filler new constructions like this
in the area built in similar to the more there will be a brick facade at least to kind of fit
the the brick but there's no uh but it won't be well will it be set back like um i know it doesn't
have a porch um and it is set back yes it is set back so that front yard will remain yes yes you
can see on the site plan here uh we're actually set back 16 feet front yard is the face of that
facade the same plane as the face of the facades adjacent yes you can see in the in the site plan
here there's a there's existing porch on those we're actually going to be facing we'll be lined
up with the front facade of the buildings itself and the porches would be in front of our our
building in this in the past we've had community basically ask that we put porches in in this
situation the community actually did not request that we add a porch they they simply uh prefer to
have the proper setback is sufficient in this case and can you go back to the plans again sure
okay still trying to see all of them together you can't sure let me let me zoom it i just
didn't want to make them too small for it.
I can.
Yeah, I just want to see how they're laid out.
So this first floor unit is by level first floor and second
or first floor and basement.
Where unit is just a one floor unit
with two baths, kitchen, living in the middle.
So there's no windows in the living area.
um and then the third floor is similarly laid out where there's no natural light within that
living room space and then that has then that's the only one that has access to the deck
correct um there will be there will be uh lighting obviously uh lots of recess and other type of
lighting for the living and kitchen area that was part of the consideration to design but there's
no natural lighting that's correct no natural light and then no natural ventilation to the
living spaces the what i said all right all the questions
do all units have access to the rear yard or just the first i know the the first floor unit
has access to the rear yard third floor unit has access to the roof deck but the second floor does
not have direct access to the rear yard.
Any other questions?
Questions or comments from our attorney?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the current zoning of RSA 5
as an adult single family.
There are no unique physical conditions or circumstances of the property that would prevent it from being used in conformance of the zoning code.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested variance for multifamily.
Let's see here.
MI 2025-000475-5017 Woodland Avenue, I vote no.
Michael Johns, my vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanita Graham, my vote is no.
Thywin, my vote is no.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is no.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number eight, MI 2025-000476, 1625 North Marshall Street.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
there's a letter of support from the association of uh puerto ricans on the move vote was eight in
There's a letter of support from the Association of Puerto Ricans on...
support two of no opinion and a letter of non-opposition from council member young
good morning good morning council could you please state your name and spell for this
stenographer? Sure. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R. You swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. You identify your client in
relationship to the property? Yes. My client is Alina Kupa and her husband, Chaz Kupa. They own
the property. Do you waive the reading of the refusals and agree with this accuracy? Yes.
Why don't you start your presentation? Thanks.
can you see my screen we can oh okay this is 1625 north marshall street
first we have the refusal this property is zoned rsa 5 and we're proposing the erection of an
attached structure roof dwelling and roof deck access structure for multi-family household living
three dwelling units as per the plans this project generated two refusals one for front facades that
shall be no less than the distance between the front facade and the front lot line for the
principal building on the immediate adjacent lot and then for the three units as mentioned
just wanted to provide to the board related to the use refusal that there are the majority
of the properties on this block are two and three unit structures which is why this has been a
vacant lot for about 20 years and no single family proposal has been submitted for this
a lot of the other properties on the block as you can see from the screen are two and three units
which is why the community had no issue with our proposal for three units given this is a new
construction parcel the dimensional refusal related to the front setbacks a little bit
confusing to understand, but you'll see from the design that what we provided is in line with the
context and the setbacks of the building adjacent to it. We went back and forth with the architect
on this and just given the language, it was just confusing to understand exactly where the lining
up, what the facade needed to be, but ultimately we proposed something that's adjacent, like
completely aligned with what's adjacent and we also included porches in a feature that was in
line with the directly adjacent structures as well so we provided something that we believe
was consistent with the established streetscape on the block and that the variance that we're
requesting would be in harmony with surrounding properties given there's a mix on that block
project information form, property taxes, the deed.
Again, this is the aerial view of the site.
It's also worth noting that there's M1 surrounding the site as well and IRMX,
so the multifamily is not out of character for this neighborhood.
Aerial photos, as you can see, this vacant lot.
Again, zoning posters, as you can see, the adjacent structures do have porches.
Zoning chart with the code provisions as we went through on the refusal.
As mentioned, we met with 8 p.m. back Thursday, May 22 at the community meeting.
This is the required mailings that we sent.
And there were, I think, eight people at this meeting.
Six people at the meeting voted in support of this project.
Two had no opinion, so they authored a letter of support for this project.