jared good morning you agree to waive the reading of its refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
yes i do uh you still under oath from this uh from earlier have you emailed an exhibit packet
with the required documents proof of ownership proof of tax compliance copy of the refusal or
referral folders and plans five days in advance of this hearing yes i have and uh have you met
with the rco and have a letter yes thank you please identify yourself for the record thank
you uh good morning again mr chair members of the board jared klein it's k-l-e-i-n from black
rome 130 north 18th street philadelphia 19103 uh here for 4401 mcgargie street and i'll spell
that for the stenographer it's m-e-g-a-r-g-e-e as with my presentation earlier this morning
this is an addition to a project that previously went through the zoning process the site you can
see on your screen is still a vacant parcel that is under development back in 2018 the property
was zoned to be the the board approved the the life center at penny pack which is a medical office
and daycare center for seniors, and the project was to have 83 parking spaces and the construction
of two structures. This application is a follow-up to that in that we're now seeking approval for
signage to be installed at the property for the to-be-constructed life center. There's a collection
of signage that we're seeking approval for. As you can see on the refusal, there are several
monument signs that are being erected a canopy sign and several freestanding signs all of which
require some zoning relief both for the inclusion of a logo to identify the operator innovative
and because of the overall size of the signage itself i'm showing the board on my screen now
the prior zoning approval that was issued in august of 2018 and that project remains under
under development. Here you can see the site plans showing the location of the
signage. As the board will note only one sign is going to be directly street
fronting and that is that sign down here. The remainder of the signage is
signage that is interior on the property that's going to be used for
identification of entrances and exits, parking locations and things of that
nature uh interior to to the to the property um this is an example here uh rendering of what the
signage would look like um this is the canopy sign that will be uh constructed on the building
again not visible um or not adjacent to any street frontage this is on the interior of that of that
property uh again signs that are going to be used for directing traffic uh you know identifying
visitors parking employee entrances and things of that nature within within the site
um and that is the scope of uh the signed package that will be installed at the property
um we did meet with uh the rco uh and as you can see i'm scrolling through our mailing
uh and certificate of mailing uh as you can see uh the rco is in non-opposition
they actually met at the location um with uh representatives from the development team
walked through all the signings and then followed that up with a zoom meeting um and the result of
that uh was a vote of uh it was a unanimous vote not to object uh i'll also show the board a copy
of a letter uh that we received from uh councilman heenan uh can we uh unmute mr john unger please
John, if you can raise your hand.
Can you hear now?
Hello?
Hi, John.
Mr. Chair, could you swear Mr. Unger in?
Doug, spell your full name, please, for the record.
Sure. First name is John, J-O-H-N. Last name is Unger, U-N-G-A-R.
Sure. First name is John, J-O-H-N.
Last name is Unger, U-N-G-N.
Very firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you. John, did you have an opportunity to hear my brief presentation this morning?
Yes, I did.
Do you adopt my statements as true, correct, in your own testimony?
Yes, I do.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I can go into more detail on the signage if the board wishes, but at this point, I'll turn the floor back over to the board.
i'll ask the board if they have any questions no
anyone else wish to testify in this case please raise your hand
no hands chair thank you planning commission good morning david effectos city planning commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, this property is indicated for residential, single-family use in the city's comprehensive plan.
We do not believe the proposed signs will have an adverse impact on this area.
Accordingly, we have no objection to granting these variances.
Thank you.
MI-2020-001234, 4401 McGargy Street, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
my vote is yes my vote is yes thank you confessor before we call the next case
a sonographer do you need a break because this might be a little bit long
yes if i can have just two minutes pardon me if i can have just two minutes five minutes
five minutes okay we'll take a five minute recess thank you you got it thank you mr chair have a
good afternoon
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
we'll give it a couple more minutes uh we'll start at 11 10. it's now 11 0
almost 11 08 so 11 10.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
okay um we're back on is everyone ready
yes okay yes all right very good confessor please call the next case
Okay. Meeting item MI 2020-000695, 2000 Spring Garden Street. Appointment 2R.
Is this a case that we heard already? Yeah, this is a continuing case. We couldn't get all the
testimony in. Gotcha. So this will be... I'm sorry, I just need for my records. What happened to number
eight? We didn't have number eight. What was that number? What's the street number? Oh, I'm sorry.
go ahead you can continue okay all right all right anyone here on 2000
Spring Garden Street yes attorneys good morning this is Andrew Miller I
represent the appellant
hey mr. Miller
Okay, Mr. Miller, can I suggest Mr. DeMarco, I believe, is also here on this case?
yes um where how do we begin this uh i know we left off we needed a little bit more time i
believe or we didn't have enough time that day uh i don't remember the attorneys who was the last one
to uh to speak um if i'm not sure that i'm correct on this but i think the applicant had not
quite finished presenting their case and then the other side was going to present you're probably
correct because the other side had two attorneys right and mr bolan and mr demarco i believe
yes okay okay mr miller good morning may it please the board my name is andrew miller i
represent the appellant 2000 spring garden llc if i may and do you swear and affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you and confessor we can forgo all the
other issues because the we this is a continued continued case okay thank you thank you Mr.
Chairman if I may share my screen just to refresh everyone's recollection of where we are
and then I'll launch into my into my case
Thank you.
Please recall that this is a historic photo of the corner of 20th and Spring
Garden Street. These are the plans that have been approved by the Historic Commission after
months of hearings, meetings with committees of the Historical Commission and community
involvement. This is the view from 20th Street. This is a historical map showing the original
arrangement of properties and on the right of your screen is the corner of 20th and Spring Garden
streets. You'll see that the property on the corner of 20th and Spring Garden streets
was slightly longer than the property next door.
This is the current photo from 20th Street. You'll see that the existing building is a two-story
building. It's nondescript. It's approximately 40 to 50 years old. It replaced the original
structure that was on site and parking for this property is loaded from the street and
there's quite a long curb cut along this along 20th street.
Miller, the historical presentation you just gave us was that for a three or four story building
originally? Let me take you back there.
Right, so it's three stories with a pilot house.
That's what's being proposed. I'm asking the slide before that where you have those purple
the slide before that where you have those purple uh footprint yes okay was that a three-story
building uh no it was a 50-foot building that matched the building next door okay 50 foot
three or four stories where it was 50 foot okay that's correct but currently that back end at
least is is a two-story building the current that's correct okay thank you that's correct
now these are the current conditions and you'll see
the rear of the property next door and the owner of the property next door is represented by Mr.
DeMarco and that's a property that's been enveloped in scaffolding for at least the last
three years. And you'll see the back of our property there.
Now this photograph shows the evolution of the project as it progressed. Let me see if I can
make it a little larger. As it progressed through the historical commission process
with involvement of the neighbors and the RCO. Originally, it was a building that was
rectangular. If you see the rear, there was no stepping of the rear. So the mass of the building
was much larger than the final approved plan. Through that process, the number of units were
reduced from seven to five. The height of the overall structure was reduced. The setbacks in
the rear and to the right is the final approved plan the plan before you today and so you'll see
the massing is substantially reduced to the right now we spent a good deal of time talking about
the bird's eye views from the various perspectives. And Valeska Stanky, our architect, one of our
architects, gave testimony. And you'll see that in this bird's eye view, the outline of the new
proposed structure is superimposed on the photo. And this is the view looking east.
And you'll see the parking garage of city view that runs behind all the houses on this block.
This is a view looking southeast, and you'll see there's been suggestion
by the opponents to this project that the light and air is reduced, and you'll see the
space between the building behind and the new proposed structure, and you'll hear further testimony from our architect today about the impact.
This is another view looking east, and what we showed here, and we spent a great deal
of time demonstrating at the last hearing, on the left is the presentation of the opponents,
where they exaggerated the impact and the board concluded that this was an exaggeration
where the length of the pilot house was exaggerated against the actual plans to the right
and the length of the building was also exaggerated
This is a bird's eye view looking west.
this is a photo of
This is a photo of the existing conditions.
We have a two-story building at 2000 Spring Garden Street.
We have a 50-foot apartment building owned by the primary opponent to this project.
And they're opposing the restoration of a building of equal height to theirs.
This is another front view of existing conditions.
This is a side view showing the parking area behind and the curb cut that runs
approximately 50 or 60 feet from the rear of the building.
this is the building directly opposite this building on 20th street this is an existing
structure that faces our building and as you'll see the entire lot is filled with structure
And it's quite a large massed structure.
This is a side view of the existing structure.
This is a view from across the street, looking across 20th Street, and the subject property
is here and finally this is a view looking at the subject property and viewing across
seeing the front of the building across 20th street
now a great deal of time was spent talking and hearing the objections
that were raised by the opponents to this project concerning light and air.
There was a suggestion that the grant of a variance in this case will create a shadow on the objector's property.
We've provided to opposing counsel and to the board light studies that demonstrate that that's not the case.
But I want to point out to the board that in the Liberty Lofts case versus this zoning board,
the Commonwealth Court said that shadow light impact is not relevant unless it's created by the grant of the variance.
And the testimony that you'll hear today demonstrates conclusively that the same shadow will be created by the erection of a 38-foot building as would be created by a 50-foot building as it impacts the next-door neighbor.
So, with that introduction, I'd like to ask Valeska Stanke to raise her hand, and she'll testify.
Good morning, Ms. Stanke. Would you please spell your first and last name for the record?
Yes, Valeska Stanke, W-A-L-E-S-K-A-S-T-A-N-D-K-E.
We're in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Miller.
Thank you. Can Ms. Stanke please share her screen?
You are sharing yours.
I think the administrator
has to
has to enable you
okay great are you seeing my screen now yes yes okay now miss stankey
do you recall all your testimony at the last hearing i do
okay and do you recall the claims made by mr demarco concerning the shadows
And do you recall the claims made by Mr. DeMarco concerning the shadows cast upon 2002 Spring
Garden Street?
By the proposed structure?
Yes, I do.
Now, following that dialogue, did you do anything to study this issue?
yes i try to to watch and see what is the real impact on the the structure the neighbors
structure and how did you do that um i designed the the building on in a software that i use to
do my designs and this software allows me to include the geolocation so when i did that i
could create all the shadows that the building the proposal is doing over the the neighbor's
property. Okay and so just so that everybody's clear what you said was the geolocation is that
correct? Yes, yes. Okay so your software
understands the location of the property
and its position with regard to the rotation of the earth and the sun. Is that correct?