So it's definitely under the 70% AMI.
We're trying to push towards 50% as close as possible, but we're not quite there.
Regardless, this is a non-subsidized project, and we hope that it does provide more housing at a reasonable price point in the area in keeping with the greater intention of the CMX3 zoning and being able to build what we can there.
Another question. If you had less units, would you still need two-car all-street parking?
I'm sorry, say that again? If we had what?
Less units.
No. Per what Rachel mentioned, it's not a function of the units here. It's a function
of the curb cuts and uh of the lot width and everything and you just it's just very difficult
from a dimensional and um technical standpoint to put in parking whether it's tandem or side by side
oh that wasn't my question that wasn't yeah i was gonna say oh i'm sorry i almost missed her
look uh mr hallman's asking that if we were to do less units like reduce it to seven units or six
units would that take away our need for for off-street parking and i had asked rich that and
he had said no with seven units because we looked at that we would like if we got rid of that 400
square foot unit um we would still need two parking spaces um if rich is still on he can
corroborate that my my uh dealings with l and i with zoning is that if we hit three we're going
need one parking space so it's usually three for ten but in for some reason in the every time i put
it in in cmx two or sorry cmx three the third unit uh triggers the first parking space
okay thank you and mr hallman we did look at that um in order to do the seven units and that's what
originally got rejected after our first iteration because again we would need tandem which would
still generate another refusal um and also i don't i don't know that that's the best way to
lay out parking on a lot like this but i leave that to the architects um that's sort of our our
proposal and um again um it's just a it's just a variance for accessory off-street parking to be
waived um and happy to take any any other questions that anyone has
any questions from the board no no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand we have a ang sun
hi good evening uh please identify yourself for the record name and address
Hi. Good evening, Chairman. My name is Aung San. Last name is spelled as S-U-N. My address is 10
South 43rd Street on the same block as this project property. Do you swear and affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Please proceed. Sure.
I'm the president of this West Philly United Neighbors RCO.
This project property is within the boundary of my RCO.
The coordinating RCO's Cruz Hill Community Association hosted this virtual meeting
on December 16th, 2020 at 7.30.
Besides the coordinating RCO,
there were three other RCOs presented.
And also we have about 20 community members and neighbors,
including 10 members from my RCO attending that meeting.
During this virtual public meeting,
all the community members,
including those near neighbors who reside within 250 feet of this project property,
strongly opposed the above reference zoning proposal.
We didn't find any hardship for the owner to provide at least two accessory parking space.
Certainly, the owner can provide a minimum of two accessory parking spaces.
Certainly, the owner can provide a minimum of two accessory parking space if he wishes to have eight dwelling units on the block.
He can either do this underground garage or put those parking on the first floor.
Or he could reduce the number of those units to like three or four, which only requires
him to provide just one parking space.
And I have to point out that almost every house on the same block was two-story row
homes, including this existing real home, this existing property. It's a single-family,
structurally sound single-family home. We didn't find there would be any reason
besides the developer want to make profits by demolishing this property to erect eight units
over there that doesn't fit the character of this block and also this property share a party wall
with the next door neighbor the next door neighbor they are immigrants from Bangladesh
they couldn't attend today's meeting because they don't speak good English so the demolition
of this property may cause safety concerns to the near neighbors.
So with all the community members attending that RCO meeting do not think the erecting
of these eight units there fit in the neighborhood.
And we do think it is a disrespect to our community.
I'm sorry, we say that, repeat that, reduce it?
We think it is disrespect to our community.
So all the near neighbors attending this, attending that RCO meeting, including neighbors lived at 4307 Nautilus Street,
including the neighbor who lived at 4309 Lugano Street, including me who live on the same block,
and also including another near neighbor who resides at 11 South 43rd Street strongly oppose
this proposal. All the four RCO presidents who attended that meeting strongly oppose this
proposal and every for every RCO attending that meeting all the four we send a letter to ZBA
to oppose this so we have four letters sent to ZBA to oppose this strongly oppose this proposal
to summary that I just want to point that point out that there is no necessary hardship for
providing those two accessory parking spaces all those hardship was created was self-created
by the developer and he should know he should anticipate the self-directed hardship before
he purchased that lot before he purchased acquired that property from a city it was a
for closed property. This basically is kind of a typical very classical gentrification case.
So as an RCO who represents our community, we support our community and the neighbors who will
adversely impacted by these wearerings sought by this owner. So we strongly request all the board
members and Mr. Chairman to deny, to reject this application. Thank you so much.
Your testimony. Anyone else wants to testify?
If so, please raise your hand and provide us with something new and different.
we have a justin kaplan hi this is justin kaplan i recommend representing the convening rco the
spritile community association my name is justin kaplan j-u-s-t-i-n kaplan k-a-p-l-a-n
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes sir, I do. Mr. Kaplan, please proceed. This variance is a request to over-utilize a parcel
This variance is a request to over-utilize a parcel and undermine the intent of the zoning district.
and undermine
An 18-foot wide lot is difficult to conform to CMX3 standards.
Additionally, and even more importantly, this is going to destroy an intact row of houses intact on both sides, primarily single families, no multifamily occupations on the block.
And additionally, I don't want to be too redundant as Mr. Ang was pretty concise.
So we'll just say that we strongly oppose on those grounds.
Thank you.
What else?
Mr. Lewis, you can unmute yourself.
Yes, good afternoon.
my name is Louis Baum, L-E-W-I-S-B-A-U-M as in Mike. Your address, sir? 4724 Hazel Avenue.
I'm a member of the West Philadelphia United Neighbors.
You're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir. Please proceed. I would like to
to confirm and underscore what Dr. Fung had said in his testimony.
When we look at the picture of that street, we see a number of two-story row homes.
And you have to ask yourself, how could this possibly be CMX3?
But due to the way the city did zoning, I believe in 2012 or thereabouts, that's what we wound up with.
So the people who bought this property knew darn well that they would have to deal with the requirements of CMX-3, which would include those two parking lots.
it is not a uh an unnecessary hardship to have an expense
and plus this is a uh a hardship that's been brought on by themselves but um we have to ask
what use could this property be made if it were being used uh by right and i guess the answer is
a three uh a three family apartment building is the most that you can build or maybe a two
um so that's that's getting closer to what should be there anyway the eight family is
ridiculous in that lot uh i thank you very much for the opportunity to speak
thank you is anyone else something new and different please
we have a Seth
my name is Seth Zeginger
S-E-T-H-D-E-G-G-I-N-G-E-R
4316 Ludlow Street
do you swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth
please proceed
I don't have a whole lot to add
as you can tell by my address
I'm directly across the street
um the character of the block has been i mean i moved there in 2004 it's a single family
two-story intact 19th century row homes and it seems like a shame to just uh destroy intact
blocks of fully utilized homes just to you know honestly to line somebody's pocket um
in addition there's obviously parking concerns parking's already tight in the neighborhood
I understand development will move forward, but that's why we have zoning rules about parking, not to mention other things such as, you know, trash and just density in general on a block that has, as far as my memory goes, just been families.
That's all I have. Thank you.
Can I ask Seth a question?
Seth, you know your property's on CMX4, correct?
And you have a rental license at your property that's been active since 2019?
yes i do okay so you rent it out to someone or you rent that house i rent that out to someone
i also live in the neighborhood i lived there for 14 years okay just as related to 4316 you
don't actually live at that address currently but you rent it out to someone else that is correct
yes okay i lived there from 2014 to 2019 understood understood just wanted to is this
Is this Councilwoman Gauthier's district?
councilwoman got the age district yes chairman is there anyone
Yes, Chairman.
Is there anyone from her office?
Is Mr. Goodman on?
Yes, I'll allow him to speak now.
Please.
Good evening, Mr. Goodman.
You're still under oath.
chair you're muted
is mr goodman there
doesn't seem hello yeah andy hello mr goodman apologies for that i was having some microphone
issues. No, I'm always having those. No problem. You're still under oath. Just identify yourself
directly, please. Yes. Andrew Goodman, G-O-O-D-M-A-N, Office of Third District Councilmember Jamie
Gaudier. Councilmember Gaudier stands with community organizations and near neighbors in
opposition to the variance being requested this evening. In the interest of brevity, we certainly
affirm the testimony as given previously, and we'll skip over those portions of our testimony.
Our only additional point, since the applicant referenced it, is we do want to address the topic of the affordability of the housing units.
We wholly acknowledge that the applicant is under no obligation to, you know, provide affordability of a certain level.
But we request that because some of this data was not accurate, we ask that, you know, we be reflected into the record as correcting this.
The rent tables presented and published by the City of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency
will refute that this is within the 60% AMI range.
And in fact, in the 3rd District, what is truly affordable is closer to 40% AMI.
Again, the applicant is under no obligation to set their rents in a certain way,
and it's not enforceable at the moment anyway,
so we just ask that our correction be reflected into the record.
And that concludes our testimony.
yeah i don't believe he said 60 i think he was giving a range and i think i had more so said
moderate to workforce housing so um i don't want the us there to be an assumption that we were at
the 60 i was giving averages okay i thought i thought i saw that in the letter and i thought
i heard that in testimony i appreciate i appreciate that no worries thank you that concludes our
testimony thank you for your consideration the last the last point mr chair if i could just
address some of the comments that were being made as to the hardship created it's a cmx3 lot that's
how the city has it designated that's um there's a ton of properties zoned a certain way that are
unable to comply with the code regardless and so that's why we have this forum additionally um
single family homes are not permitted in cmx3 so if we were to demolish this structure this structure
which by the way does have structural issues um because it's been uninhabited for quite some time
as it went through foreclosure, which as this body knows is a very long-winded procedure.
You know, the ability to demo it is, you know, the right of the developer, and he wouldn't be
able to construct a single-family home as it's not permitted in CMX 3. In addition to the fact
that if he was required to do parking there, again, it would still be out of character
with everything else on the block. So I just wanted to mention that.
Understood. I mean, obviously, well, not for you to decide, but the zoning should have been
corrected a while back um yep understood all right yes i also just want to add that there is
in the city atlas database at least there's no reference of any l and i code violations on the
property that might you know that might indicate structural uh structural hazards so just well
whatever the point is you guys have your work cut out for you on remapping that's for sure
indeed we do yes sir good luck all right anyone else uh planning commission
good evening david effecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board
the comprehensive plan recommends commercial mixed use for this property however we have
recommended a lower density zoning district we're going to support the civic on this one
and request opposition to this variance um and this this is somewhat you know kind of like a
catch 22 for me you got you can't you can't do address the parking though not the density because
we don't have a refusal for for density we just have a refusal for parking so that would be
helpful for them because typically what i've heard is the planning commission is not supportive of
front-loaded parking um and so i would be curious to hear the perspective just specifically related
to the parking refusal.
You know, we, I'm sorry, go ahead.
Go ahead, David.
All right. So, you know, we typically are, but, you know, there's no parking on the side of the street.
All right, so, you know, we typically are,
but, you know, there's no parking
on the side of this.
And so, you know, I don't have an issue with with a couple of parking spaces here.
That's news to me. Thanks.
Every case is different, Rachel. Yep.
Anyway, you guys are this is for me, it's very interesting.
I think I want to take a little more time on this because you can't build the way it's zoned.