Correct?
That's right.
Okay, on MI 2020-003086
1231. Somebody say something? No. 1231 Federal Street. My vote is yes, but the proviso of the
uses is a legal non-conforming use that does not require a variance.
Next vote. Carol, you're muted. James, I need the board to vote on this.
Yes, for proviso.
Yes, for proviso.
Yes, for proviso.
Yes, for proviso.
Thank you, everyone.
The next add-on, I believe it's just for a vote, is MI2020-001522, 1310 South Broad Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Okay. Thank you. The next case, MI 2021-0009591640-48NorthHancock.
This is a resumption hearing. The letters will be read into the record.
I understand that there's a letter from Councilman's School of Non-Opposition.
But Madam Vice-Chair, if you can read the letters into the record.
uh the letter i have is from councilwoman sanchez and that is a letter my mistake my mistake
yeah and this is a little confusing and you'll hear why dear chairman de chico i am writing
this letter in reference to the zoning appeal for the application which was heard by the zoning
board of adjustment on may 19th 2021 at two o'clock the applicant met with the rco and garnered a
letter of opposition from the coordinating RCO for this variance request. Recognizing the impact
of this project in the South Kensington community and the willingness for both the developer and
the RCO to continue discussions, our office requested that the ZBA hold their decision
for two weeks to allow the applicant and the RCO to find an outside-of-the-box resolution.
At the meeting on Tuesday, June 1st, a consensus was reached between the applicant and the
coordinating RCO, and they will be entering into a memorandum of understanding to that effect.
Therefore, our office has no opposition to this variance request. If you have any questions
or need any further information, please call Sloan Folks in my office. Thank you for your
attention respectfully councilwoman maria canona sanchez the second letter is from the law firm of
clare harrison harvey and bransburg dear chairman de chico this is on 1640-48 north hancock street
this office is counseled to the owner of the property referenced above
the applicant with respect to its pending zoning application as you may recall
with respect to its pending zoning application as you may recall a zoning board of adjustment
hearing was held in this matter on may 19 2021 in peren the hearing at the hearing south kensington
community partners submitted a letter of opposition citing inter alia concerns with the proposed public
open space being located above the first floor councilwoman sanchez's office suggested there may
be a compromise to be reached with a South Kensington community group if the neighbor's
concerns regarding public open space could be addressed at another location. As a result,
the hearing was concluded with the record being left open to reflect letters submitted by the
applicant and the Councilwoman's office. In order to explore this possibility, a meeting with
Councilwoman Sanchez's office, SKCP, and the applicant was convened on June 1, 2021. At this
meeting, SKCP and the applicant reached a consensus pursuant to which the applicant
has agreed to enter into a memorandum of understanding with SKCP with a commitment
to support SKCP's efforts to develop and preserve public open space in the neighborhood.
In connection therewith, SKCP has agreed to withdraw its opposition to the project.
As such, we respectfully request that the board accept this letter as part of the record for the hearing and convene a vote to grant the requested variances.
Should you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully submitted, Hercules Grigos.
The end.
Okay. So for now, it's a straight up and down vote, correct, Shana?
That's right. Yes.
All right. So MI 2021-000959-1640-48 North Hancock, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
MI-2021, that's 000592, 900 Greenwood Street.
This was a resumption hearing.
We were waiting for feedback from the RCL and Councilman Squilla's office.
And I believe it was Mr. Bertil.
Mr. Bertil has been a promoter to Panama, sir.
Good morning.
Good afternoon, sir.
please identify yourself with the record. Spell your name and I'll swear you won't.
Good afternoon.
Hello. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
Yes, please spell your last name. Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L.
Claire Harrison, Harvey and Bransburg, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400.
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yes i do please proceed yes uh just to clarify uh my understanding is that this was actually
moved to next uh next week on the ninth um due to the community group one we made some revisions
and the community group wanted us to come back and present and their meeting is on the eighth
And so my understanding with correspondence with Ms. Sumkin in the administration that this was moved from the 2nd to the 9th.
I apologize, Chair. Yes, Sharon and I conferred.
And because of the ongoing discussion, this was a request to move to the 9th.
So if you would agree to move this to the 9th, I would be so grateful.
Sure. 2 o'clock?
Yes, Chair.
Okay. All right, Mr. Battelle. So MI 2021-000592, 900 Greenwich Street, is continued to June the 9th at 2 p.m.
Thank you very much.
We now go to number six on MI 2021-000467, 3613 North 16th Street.
this is a straight up and down vote again is that correct it is a resumption hearing chair
resumption hearing oh i'm sorry i didn't again i'm working off of a phone i don't
part-time scene all right so uh who's here on this case rachel pritzker
is the attorney
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, Muriel Titus Korn has a hand raised.
Do you wish her to be promoted at this time?
I'm sorry, who has it?
No, we're just looking for Rachel.
Thank you.
Ms. Pritzker, if you're available, please raise your virtual hand.
um if rachel is not here could you move this back and i will try to contact her
okay that will okay that uh completes the add-ons i believe we're gonna go to the regular list
um yes if number four on the regular list is actually a resumption hearing but
yes that's the end of the add-ons. Okay I'll start with two Mr. Chair. Yes. Calendar number
MI-2021-001109 4040 City Avenue. That's Steve Bertil the attorney.
And there are letters of non-opposition from the Winfield Heights Civic Association.
Mr. Bochell has been promoted back to the panelists.
He's already under oath, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Okay, I guess you may proceed.
Do you want to ask me about this?
You've got to ask the question.
I do everything else.
Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Steve Bertil, B-E-R-T-I-L, 1835, excuse me, Claire Harrison, Harvey in Brandsburg.
uh 1835 market street uh suite 14 philadelphia pa 19103 have you emailed the exhibit packet with
proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or referral photos under plans of this
property five days in advance of the hearing and have you met with the rco and do you have a letter
uh yes to all the above thank you you may proceed thank you very much sure
Okay. As I stated, my name is Steve Bertil. I'm here on behalf of the applicant
for 4040 City Avenue. We are seeking our variance relief to allow for the removal of
for the removal and replacement of three existing wall signs with static illumination and the
replacement of face panels of two existing freestanding signs. And so just to orient the
board, the property in question, 4040 City Line Avenue is zoned to CMX3. It's located
on City Line Avenue between Monument Road to the south and Presidential Boulevard to the north.
An aerial. It's part of the large Target Plaza that I think many people are familiar with
along City Line Avenue. And so the refusals that we have
are two-fold. One is just a refusal regarding the accessory wall sign control.
Essentially, one of the signs that is being replaced is going to be slightly above what's
considered the roof line, and I'll show that in a second. And the other refusal is due to the
max area of the aggregate of the wall signs. Now what you'll see is that we're actually reducing
the sign area with the new signs, but it still generates that refusal. In addition to that,
because of the city avenue overlay, we have a refusal for having a wall sign on a wall that's
not considered a frontage of the property because it doesn't front on the street.
So just to give everyone a sense of what we're talking about here, to the left of every slide
that I'm going to show you is the existing signage, and then to the right is going to
be the new proposed signage.
So this frontage here is facing inward towards Target, towards the plaza I should say.
inward, towards Target, towards the plaza, I should say. As you can see, again, same location,
basically reduction of the signage with the new branding for Verizon. The property is currently
utilized as a Verizon store for retail sales of cellular phones and accessories.
This is the frontage that doesn't front on the street, it fronts on the entrance to the
plaza, and this is what generated the refusal regarding a sign that's not on the frontage.
But as you can see, again, we're replacing the existing sign that's in essentially the
same location and we're reducing the size of it with the new design.
And lastly, for the wall signs, this is the frontage that faces on City Line Avenue, replacing this existing signage with this new signage here with the new branding for the company.
As you can see, they're considering this the edge for the roof line, and therefore the location generated a refusal for being above that.
And lastly, what you'll see here is the freestanding, existing freestanding sign where we're removing
or replacing the face panels with the new signage.
There's actually two.
There's one that enters the main entrance off of Monument Road for the plaza.
And then there's a second one that's at the corner of Monument.
in City Line Avenue, they're identical. And so we did meet with the community. We met
with both RCOs, both the Winfield Heights Civic Association and the City Avenue Special Services
District, who was also considered RCO for City Line Avenue sites, and we received no
opposition, unanimous vote to not oppose this project. As such, due to the de minimis nature
of the variance and the fact that we're actually reducing the size of the signs and the unanimous
support, we're asking this board to grant this variance. Mr. Bertil, do you have a witness?
I think Ms. Jessica Woods is on the line, but if she's not, the board will grant me the ability
we'll stipulate
why don't we do that in the interest of time
as an officer of the court will stipulate your client
would adopt your testimony
any questions from the board?
planning commission
I'm sorry anyone else would like to testify
please raise your hand
no answer this time Mr. Chair
thank you planning commission
good afternoon ariel di liberto staff with the philadelphia city planning commission
the proposals for the replacement of existing signs and reduces the non-conformity with the
city avenue overlay district we recommend that the board grant the variance you mi 2021-001109
4040 city line avenue my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes
This is Sharon. Chair, could we have a one-minute conversation offline before the next case
is called, please? May I be excused or should I stick around?
Oh, sorry.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well, Carol, there's another case that should have been on the list.
I'm going to call it up now. Okay. MI 2021-000741-3600 Grant Avenue.
I think Mr. Sean Whalen will be representing the applicant. Okay.
All right, Mr. Chair. Mr. Whalen has been promoted to panelist.
Thank you. Mr. Whalen, please identify yourself, put your name and address on the record and spell your last name.
Certainly. Good afternoon, Sean Whalen, S-E-A-N, last name W-H-A-L-E-N, from Vintage Law, here on behalf of the owner and applicant in this matter.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Can you give me the address of vintage law?
Certainly. 6 Coulter Avenue, Suite 1000, Ardmore, PA, 19003.
Do you also agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, refusal or referral,
photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO? And do you have a letter?
yes yes and yes okay you may proceed proceed proceed thank you very much okay happy to bring
this one before you today um we actually have uh full support from councilman bobby heenan's office
and from the rco uh so if i can share my screen very quickly
i will uh you guys obviously have a long list so i don't want to belabor any points