So when the change to the use multifamily was requested, the roof top deck was already there, and it was there legally, and neighbors are very concerned.
The way the block is laid out, that particular 100 block on the south side of the street, the house is a three-story.
Across the street, the house is a two-story.
Behind it, which we had done a public meeting for, there's one three-story house on an entire two-story block.
It was like that always on Bailey Street.
And the neighbors have had a lot of problems out of the three-story multifamily dwelling,
even though when we had the public meeting, the new owner promised to comply with certain conditions.
So the neighbors did not even want to think about parties or, you know, even permitting something like that
because there's none of that going on on the other houses.
There's about two houses that are rented as apartments.
All the rest are either owned, used single-family, or they're rented in single-family, which is pretty common in this neighborhood.
There's more single-family rentals than multifamily on streets like that.
So that's what's going on with the rooftop deck, and the four providers that we requested are as described already.
And otherwise, we support the multifamily use.
Thank you, Adrian.
Thank you for calling in.
We appreciate it.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No, I do not see anyone.
Planning commissions.
Yeah. Planning Commission.
Amy Board with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 5 residential single family zoning at this location.
The appellant appears to have a previous appellant.
Sorry.
Take your time.
The second dwelling unit appears to have been built without the benefit of permits.
There are no unique physical conditions or circumstances of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the requested variance for a second dwelling unit.
Thank you.
MI 2023-002-778-2848 North 26th Street.
I vote yes with provisives.
Maximum two dwelling units.
Interior storage of trash and recycling.
Use of roof deck limited to the mechanical access only and no household living in the basement.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with provisos.
Senator Graham, my vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you. Thank you all.
Ishmael Shaheen, my vote is yes with provisos.
I win. My vote is yes with Proviso. Is my sound better, by the way?
That's better now. You're good now. Thank you.
All right. Number three, MI 2024-003-002, 3612 North 16th Street. Olaf Sokoloff is the attorney.
3612 North 16th Street.
Olaf Sokolov is the attorney.
Letter of unanimous opposition from the 13th Ward RCO.
They'll be coming back in as a panelist.
Good afternoon, Chair Bergman, members of the board.
Oleg Sokolov here on behalf of the applicant, Gordon R.A.I.
Inc. Just for the record, could you spell your name for the? Sure. Oleg, O-L-E-G, Sokolov, S-O-K-O-L-O-V.
Where are a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair. Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is Gordon, RAI, Inc., Augustus Gordon, managing member of the, or pardon me, a director of the corporation, which should be on the line with us today.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, Councilor. Do you agree with the reading of the refusal or stipulate to exact receipt?
Good afternoon, Mr. Shahid. Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed and required to proceed with this case five days and I've added to this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you, Counsel. Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, once again, members of the Board.
What we are here seeking is a variance in order to erect a new structure to be used as a three-family dwelling located in an RSA3 district.
There are a number of refusals that have been generated as part of this request, one of them being a use refusal and one being a side yard, as well as a parking refusal.
We are, as the board is well aware, RSA 3 requires one parking spot per unit.
And unfortunately, we are unable to provide on this site any parking for a three family.
We met with the RCO twice in an attempt to try to garner feedback and understand what kind of concessions or what kind of ways we could change the project in order to have some support from the RCO, but unfortunately we were unable to obtain it.
What I will go over is the fact that this neighborhood is ripe with variances granting multifamily use in RSA 3 and RSA 5 district.
And as part of the exhibit packet, a list of about 10 properties was submitted.
We did notice 124 nearby neighbors and five RCOs as well as the council person's office as part of our meetings.
You can see this property was just purchased in July of last year.
Are you showing your presentation?
You don't have anything up yet.
I'll show some photos.
Can you share the screen?
That's okay.
Apologies, Boarder.
We have all that. Why don't you go right there,
photos and also their plans?
Everybody can see that now, correct?
We're good.
Let me just go to some photos of the site first.
So you can see this is currently an empty lot. We're just looking to erect this structure here.
It's been an empty vacant lot for quite some time, as far back as I could see in the history. So
we really think that bringing this lovely new construction to the area, an area that, as I
said, already has a number of granted variances for multifamily use, will be in conformity with
neighborhood and would add a nice amount of dwelling units that would be affordable for
for the neighborhood let me just go to the plans
all right so here here's what we're looking to build um the the front setback would be in line
with the porch so hence no no refusal issued on the front setback of any kind and the property
itself is has a large separation from the property behind it despite the the issuance of a refusal
for the rear yard because the property back there is also set back pretty far so and and the board
can see that while the two structures directly adjacent to this property are two-story there
are a number of three-story properties further down the block as well as across the street
This is just the sitemap.
and here we are with the floor plans this would be the the first floor and basement unit there we
are requesting basement living here it would just be a bedroom and a bonus room as well as storage
for the first floor as as the board can see the property is set plan to be set above grade so
So there will be windows in the basement unit, as well as an exit well in the rear.
And that, again, would be in conformity with the remainder of the block, where they have elevated porches and first floor is set about four feet above ground.
This would be a continuation of the first unit.
This would be the first floor.
So the first floor unit and basement unit would be a three-bedroom, two-bath.
The second floor unit would be a two-bedroom, one-bath, and the same for the third-story unit.
You can see that we've put a number of windows to make sure that light is entering the property from all different sides.
the the property adjacent to it and the other direction is also a vacant lot.
And then what I'd really like to turn the board's attention to is our list of
previously granted variances for multi-family use in the neighborhood.
You can see that these 16th Street properties are just a block away,
A number of properties already on the block granted up to six unit multifamily designations in an RSA 5, as well as in an RSA 3 for a two unit, one block away, four unit.
The properties within the RSA 5 or RSA 3 that have previously been granted variances go as high as a 12-unit dwelling at 1536 West Erie, which is just a couple blocks away from the subject property.
And that one is, in fact, a four-story dwelling, so even taller than we're requesting here.
We're not requesting any kind of height variance or anything.
All we're talking about is the use, the rear yard setback, and the parking issue.
Here are our posters hung at the property.
We had a little bit of an issue with getting the tax clearance.
There was a small balance, but that was paid, so the best we could do is generate the receipt
that payment for the board to review today would be happy to answer any why don't you uh
oh why don't you show us the letter from the rco sure and try to give us an idea what happened with
the rco um were you at the meeting i was at the meeting yes i i am hesitant to give you the board
the full description. There was some personal back and forth as my client resides in New York
and is looking to invest in some real estate and build some real estate here in the city of
Philadelphia. My belief is that the RCO kind of took issue with, I'll say, an out-of-towner being
involved in a development in this particular neighborhood. And also, they certainly were
pushing for the idea of single family use and conformity with the code without kind of
understanding that that is not economically feasible at this site nor would a property
of that size be able to be put for sale or rent and that is the reason that a number of other
pardon me, a number of other variances for multifamily use have been granted. It also
was not a very well attended meeting. There were only 10 of us total at the meeting with
mostly the board and the board being the members of the 13th Democratic Board, as well as the four
other RCOs that are involved in this. Those RCOs are composed of one or two people at the most.
In terms of neighbors that are directly affected that voted, it is only two.
So we really think that this is a project that would benefit the neighborhood despite the RCO's, I'll say, somewhat irrational objections to it and a bit of a lack of understanding of what is feasible on this site and in this neighborhood, especially in today's economic climate.
Olak, the two properties next to it, are they multiple family?
They are single family.
The two directly next to it that you saw in the picture that are.
No, they are single family properties. And then the property on the other side of Jason is vacant.
No, they are.
They are single family properties.
And then the property on the other side of Jason is.
Move up the thing a little bit. I'm going to see their letter. I can't see their letter from there. I see that the next one underneath.
there was also some discussion of this the idea that there are going to be seven bedrooms in total
and that each bedroom could in theory house two people so the concern was the the um
overcrowding of the property or just the density while in theory yes any bedroom can house
two people, I suppose. My bedroom at home houses two people. However, in these multifamily units,
especially in the location that, you know, fairly close to Temple Hospital area is mostly for
student or used by employees of the hospital or Temple. So we really don't see, we'd be happy to
have a proviso that we would never have 14 people at this location. It's certainly the density is
way too high. They complained about the trash plan, am I right in saying that? Yes, there was
some complaint about the trash plan, and as we discussed, each unit does have a mechanical room
to store trash until pickup day. We also proposed doing an additional private trash pickup day with
the RCO, but that was not, I'll say, not really considered in their analysis of whether or not to
to support this variance. But as I can show, each unit has a separate mechanical room that's fairly
large and would allow for storage of trash for at least a few days, if not a full week. The
basement unit, in fact, has a mechanical room and then a large storage room in the front as well.
questions from the board question do any of the properties on the block they all have porches
it seems do any of them or any structures go out to the face of the abutting porches
so it is kind of a the rendering is not very good they don't the property is set do you mean
set to the porch itself to the end of the porch as opposed to the the right so your your building
appears from your rendering and also from your site plan that the face of your facade is aligned
with the face of the of the porches so i'm asking are there any other uh houses on that block or
properties on the multi-family properties on that block that uh have their front facade in line with
the porches of the other houses. So the the block is a little disparate if I could just bring up a
Google image and show the board.
So, because of the way the block is set up, some of them have a front lawn, and then the porch that start, some of them begin, this is an old picture, but some of them, these are set back a little further, but go back farther.
And then this way, we start getting into some multifamily dwellings that are set right to the sidewalk that are not exactly the same in terms of the porch structure.
they don't front this street though
I'm sorry
the ones that you just showed at the corner
they don't front 16th street
they front
yeah correct they don't front 16th street
the entrance is not on 16th street
that's correct
so I couldn't see the actual
in the RCO letter but did
that letter contain anything
about just the rendering
that you all showed
at the RCO meeting because it looks nothing
like the current housing stock there now? There was some discussion about building materials. We
were not at all married to any kind of building materials and we're happy to make it a brick
facade to be more in line with the neighboring properties. If I could just go back to the
previous question and show that you'll see that some of these properties begin a little further
out and then the porch goes a little further. It just depends on how much of a front yard is allowed
And these are the three-story properties here at the end.
There's also just a number of vacant lots along 16th Street on this block.
And then there's another that, once again, doesn't front 16th Street, but another multifamily.
and then there's another that once again doesn't front 16th street but another
multi-family dwelling in terms of materials once again you can see the the block wall the color may
look similar is kind of disparate in the types of bricks that are used but we would be happy to
accept the board proviso that a similar material to the the neighboring properties be used in terms
of this brick color or anything of that nature and this is the site itself this is not the total site
These are two parcels here. Yeah, I think by one of my concerns in terms of bulk and mass is that the the bulk of your building, because you placed it at the edge of the face of the the the porches that are adjacent, it just seems overwhelming.
um but if it was it was set back to the face of the the facade of the buildings it may not
be so apparent that and the fact that it's so different from all the rest of the houses which
have porches um so that's that's something also in terms of in terms of consider allowing us
a proviso for a smaller setback in the back
in order to move the building further back?