truth yes i do um before we start you identify your client and the relationship 3500 civic
center boulevard mr chair yes if you if the uh board could also promote peter kelson to
panelists he's going to make the presentation i'm just going to provide some exhibits sure
mr kelson is coming back in as a panelist
Mr. Kelsen, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Peter Kelsen, K-E-L-S-E-N, blank Rome.
I am counsel to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, which is the applicant in this
thank you do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do sir mr hallman has a few questions for you good morning council
I do, sir. Mr. Holman has a few questions for you.
Good morning, counselor. Do you agree to do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
I do. According to our records, you have submitted all of the required documents. Is that correct?
That is correct. Please proceed. Thank you. And Jared will assist in providing the exhibits, which are now before your screen.
Um, we'll start with the refusal, um, by way of context, members of the board, um, the subject
property is zone CMX five commercial. Um, Jared, if we could skip down to the overall, um, um, area
site photographs, the property, which is located at 3,500 civic center Boulevard is also bounded
by Health Center, Health Services Drive and East Services Drive. The property is currently
utilized by CHOP for clinical and support services. The application before the board,
pretty straightforward, requests permission to erect three accessory identification signs
for Children's Hospital upon these, it's really one structure upon the buildings.
Now we're removing three signs and Jared, if we could just go into the rendering plans,
I think that would be easiest. So if the board please, these signs are required to afford visual
identification of the property to visitors, patients, and others. You know the area is
extremely dense. It is the health center complex with the University of Pennsylvania Hospital,
Children's Hospital, the VA Hospital, etc. And the signage that we're proposing
is the minimal amount needed to afford that identification and location.
As I indicated, it is all accessory.
So let me be very careful and describe the signage that's at issue.
We are proposing, and we're identifying this as sign number two.
We call it the skyline sign.
It's located on the parapet of the structure. It is approximately 19 by 200, and that's including the entire box members of the board, not the individual letters.
L&I counts the entire sign face. Internally illuminated, it has a total square footage
from tip to tip and all dimension of about 4,084 square feet. It will be internally illuminated
and will certainly be consistent with existing signage immediately adjacent to it and in the
area. Sign number three, which we'll refer to as the roof sign, basically consists of pinned letters
that will be about one and a half feet by 36 feet in approximate length. Again, that's not
the individual letters, that's going to be the collective. And that sign will consist of about
462 square feet of area. And you can see that on the screen before you. And the last sign,
members of the board, is a sign which we'll refer to as sign number four. We call it the
staff canopy sign. It's a sign that will be located on the existing canopy, as you can see
indicated in the cursor. Also pinned letters, about two and a half feet by 36 and a half feet,
a total amount of signage equating to 94 square feet. As I indicated earlier, these signs are
lit either internally or minimally. There will be no glare. There will be no light spillage.
there will be no intermittent or flashing lights at all. The variants we request members of the
board are for the size, overall dimension of the signage proposed, as well as because we're in CMX5,
any signage that is located above the second floor level requires Zoning Board of Adjustment
requires Zoning Board of Adjustment Variance approval. I would point out to the board that
variance approval.
the ARC Commission has reviewed all of the signage proposed, and the commission has approved the
signage that is before you, as well as all existing signage. And lastly, we have a very brief but
but a very supportive email from the 27th board Republican RCO.
That was the convening RCO indicating their support for the variants that is dated 2-14-2022.
At this point, members of the board, I welcome any questions that you may have.
Mr. Kelson, do you want to have your, do you have a representative from the hospital here?
Why don't you have your testimony adopted by that person?
Let me have Brian Hardner join as a panelist, please.
There's no hands at this time.
What's the last name again?
Should be Hardner.
Brian.
we would ask that they raise their hand to be allowed to speak.
There's no one listed underneath that name.
Mr. Kelson, you're a member of the court.
We'll take it.
Your testimony's fine.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands, Chair.
planning commission thank you chair bergman ian hegarty for the philadelphia city planning
commission members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing cmx5
zoning at this location we believe these proposed signs are substantially similar to existing signs
and consistent with other signs in the area city planning commission recommends that the board
grant the variances thank you mi 2021 005093 3500 civic center boulevard i vote yes thomas
halliman my vote is yes james snell my vote is yes yes my vote is yes thank you sir thank you so
much for your congratulations have a good day good mi 2021 005085 4700 city line avenue the rco
windfield residence association letter support support with provisos we also have several
letters of people for at least four letters of people objecting to the project stephanie boggs
Magna is the attorney. Yes, good morning. Stephanie Magana. Could you state your name
and spell for the court report? I'm sorry. That's okay. Stephanie Magana, M-A-G-A-G-N-A,
Claire Harrison, Harvey Bransburg, 1835 Market Street, Philadelphia, P-A-1-9-1-0-3. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Could you
identify your client and relationship to the property? Sure. So my client is in the mansion
at bala lp they are the fee owner of the property all right mr hollman has a few questions good
morning counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy
yes i do according to our records you have submitted all of the required documents is
that correct that is correct please proceed
so can you see my screen we can great um so this application is in reference to 4700 city avenue
it's the property that encompasses city avenue conchahokan boulevard and north 47th street
it's an existing multi-family apartment complex um with on-site accessory parking it was originally
approved as a multi-phase development so there is an undeveloped portion of the site
because that secondary phase was never constructed.
This application seeks approval to relocate lot lines in one part
to create two lots from the one existing parcel.
The one lot that's proposed will include the existing multifamily apartment complex,
and the second property will include the undeveloped portion of the lot.
No new construction is being proposed in connection with this subdivision,
but we are seeking variances in connection with the subdivision,
specifically to allow a maximum occupied area of 61.5%, which is a function of
reducing the lot size that will occupy the existing multifamily apartment complex.
reducing the lot size that will occupy the existing multifamily apartment complex.
And the second is a regular depth variance, which I'll note is going to be internal to the site
and a function of the distance that will be created between the leasing office that's existing
and the property line of the new lot. So it will be internal to the site. The second phase of this
application, which we're not seeking approval for, but I'd like to mention is a reconfiguration of
the existing parking lot. So as I said, there is on-site accessory parking provided to the
residents of the mansion at Bala. This application will restripe the parking lot and reduce that
count by 38 spaces to remove spaces that will be on the new lot that's proposed to avoid a
variance there. I'll note that we have an existing greater than one-to-one ratio for existing
apartment units, and that ratio will be maintained as we go forward with the lot subdivision and the
reconfiguration of parking and we are not seeking variance approval in connection with the
reconfiguration of parking just simply the subdivision excuse me miss um could you tell me
are these the changes that you just described are they on revised plans did you submit revised
plans to show those changes no so sharon they're not they're not any revised plans that need to be
submitted this is simply not a refusal the parking reconfiguration so it is on our existing zoning
plan. Okay, thank you. So we did meet with the co-coordinating RCOs on January 18th, and their
letter of support is included within the packet. I'll note that at the meeting, they requested that
certain repairs be made to the fence that's in front of the Vista apartments that's on our
property, and those repairs have since been made. I do have a property manager for the site as well
as representatives for the owner available to answer any questions about that, but given that
those repairs have been made. We don't feel that that proviso is necessary, but we're happy to
answer any questions if anybody has it. And with that, I'll ask Tyler Updegrave to sign on and adopt
my testimony. He is the project engineer with Pannoni. Tyler, can you please raise your hand
and identify yourself for the board? Hello, this is Tyler from Pannoni. Hi, could you state your
name is spelled for the court reporter? Yes, it's Tyler from Pannoni. It's T-Y-L-E-R space U-P-D-E-G-R-A-V-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Proceed.
Tyler, have you heard my statements this morning? Yes. Do you believe them to be true and accurate?
Yes, I do. Would you adopt them as your own? Yes, I will. Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Sandra Lawrence.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Sandra Lawrence, S-A-N-D-R-A, Lawrence, L-A-W-R-E-N-C-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
I'm very concerned as a resident.
I've been here for several years.
I relocated from my home here because of the fact that it was all one level for me and very convenient for me in my aging stance as a senior.
I am really concerned about the parking and the fact that if they go ahead with this, it will eliminate a lot of the green space and the greenery and some of the other issues or beautification that really appealed to me when I moved here.
I am especially concerned about the elimination or how they would space our current dumpster area and our trash area.
I am totally petrified of critters of any sort, and I know that if they move that dumpster and trash, if it's something they move closer to the property, or if it's not maintained as it is in the size that it is, that we could possibly begin to have infestations of various sorts to accommodate all the members that are, or residents that are here.
I am also concerned about, I was thinking of getting a pet, and that was one of my concerns was I liked having the dog park here because I've had a pet for many, many years.
And I was thinking eventually if I ever again got a pet, I would be able to have the convenience of the dog park.
got a pet, I would be able to have the convenience of the dog park because I had anticipated when I
moved here, based on the structure of the existing facility, that it would be ideally suited to meet
my needs for while I'm earthly, basically. Ms. Lawrence. Yes. I'm sorry, if I may. I just want
to clarify what the scope of this application is. First, I'm a dog lover, so I always recommend you
good pet. But this application is not proposing any new development with the project. There will
be no physical improvements or reconfigurations made except for the restriping of the parking,
which again, as I said, we're maintaining a one-for-one parking ratio, so you will still
have a space for your unit. I know there's not assigned parking, is my understanding,
but there will still be a greater than one-to-one ratio provided at the site. There is no
improvements and physical improvements proposed with this application so none of the issues around
trash relocation or critters or development or removal of the green space is proposed at all
with this application so it is simply a legal let's listen up one minute do you want to finish
is there anything else you want to add to your testimony yes and i heard everything you said
okay so i can go forward yeah is there anything else you want to add yes to my understanding the
information that we received about um what this purpose how it would eliminate or restructure
the facility as it is now that the gazebo and the dog park or the trash area would possibly be
um eventually at risk and i'm also concerned if they begin to build a building or any structure
in the future on that additional lot if they separate it traffic will be horrendous what
But listen one minute. So the issue is, are you for the project or against what they want?
I'm against the project. Totally. Thank you. And I heard counsel, you'll get a chance to respond.
And excuse me, chair. This is Sharon. If I could just clarify one thing.
Once this is developed as a separate lot, you would be able to develop that lot as something other than what it is now.
Is that correct? Well, it's currently vacant, so it could be approved if there was new development proposed.
But certainly that would either need to comply with the zoning code or they would need to go back to the RCOs and back to the community and to this board to seek relief should any be required.
But there is no development proposed at this time.
But compliance with the zoning code would not require you to continue the conditions that are currently on the lot.
So they could be eliminated, correct?
Correct.
This is an RSA-3 lot, though, so we would be very limited as far as what a by-right development on the site would be.
The purpose of this application is to secure appropriate financing for the existing multifamily
development complex. That is why the owner is submitting this application. We are not proposing
any new development on the new lot at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for calling in.
Anyone else in the virtual audience who wants to make comment? Yes, Chair. We have
someone with the last name
please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
could you state your name
it's spelled for the court reporter
yes my name is Limunga
L-I-M-U-N-G-A
last name Musonge
M-U-S-O-N-G-E
do you swear for him to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth
Good morning. Thank you for letting me, giving me time to make a comment. I just wanted to piggyback off of Ms. Lawrence in reference to the concerns about parking. The parking garage that we have here at Mansion at Bala at 4700 City Avenue is already extremely crowded with the outside parking.
so the elimination of those parking spaces outside would mean that many of us who work at night