the fourth floor of the highest level, which is the fourth level of the building. And the
residential units right across the street from it are two-story units. So having the sign at that
height actually is less in their face if you want to call it that as if we had installed
it on the second floor which would technically be allowed to be installed on the second floor
yes thank you joanne thank you questions from the board
no chair no mr chairman no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary anderson
um you just wanted to clarify um mr console so it was just it was the one sign i was having a
hard time telling which was the residential side of the building or side that the rco was
referencing um in their letter because it does seem like there's main street what what street
was that one sign i'm trying i'm going to show you so here i'm going to pull it up right now
so here's it's roberts ave yeah so there's the residential and there's the side of the building
got it got it all right thank you um i mean mr chair if you if you were inclined to do any
provide those related to um the sign you could reference the sign face the sign that's facing
roberts avenue okay um but that's only if you're inclined thank you questions or comments uh from
the virtual audience yes chair we had charles richardson good afternoon again mr mr richardson
mr richardson you've already been sworn just state your name for the record charles richardson
Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass from 508 City Hall. Okay. I have a question for Mr. Council and
has there been a lumen study because that's our office is right our district office is right
around the corner from there and I'm very familiar with the building and the and the sign and all of
that. There's an older sign that's up there that's illuminated that you had mentioned but is there
Will this be a brighter sign that we're talking about? Has there been any lumen study that's been done with regard to the brightness of this new sign versus the old sign?
I'm certain that Joanne has some feedback on that because her and I spoke to that as well.
Joanne?
I think she logged off.
She's coming back in. Here she is.
All right, I'm back.
Hi, Joey. Could you respond to that comment?
Yes, actually, I can. So if you look at the image that's currently on the screen, you will see that the extra space section of the sign is white faced.
It's clearly seen there. So a white face sign because of the there's no obstruction between the clear, the white acrylic face and the LEDs is definitely a much brighter sign than our sign, which is currently shown as navy blue, as you can tell.
and what happens with a navy blue sign is the only way to get that illuminated at night is that we
do some pinholes in the blue vinyl so that the light that comes through at the face at night
is a lot dimmer than a white face sign because all that is coming through
is the lighting that can come through the pinholes in the blue vinyl that we
is the lighting that can come through the pin holes in the blue vinyl that we put on top of
the face does that clarify that it would be less bright than it used to be for that reason i i i'm
i'm understanding what you're saying okay perfect um with that uh we have no opposition thank you
thank you mr richardson uh anyone else in the virtual audience yes chair we have a calling user
Phone number ending in 3503.
Hello?
Calling user, please unmute.
Try one more time.
Good afternoon.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Yes, Mr. Chairperson, Charles Karn, C-A-R-N.
Oh, okay, sure, sure, sure.
I want to repeat my name, make sure you didn't, make sure to say,
you got it right.
All right, do you swear, you've already been sworn, Mr. Karn.
Yes, sir.
Please.
Two questions, sir.
Two things that were voiced from the attorney and the architect.
on on on berkeley street and roberts street there are two-story um residential properties
but on the corner there there's a three-story property sitting right on the corner so um
when they stated it wouldn't be high enough now currently right now it's illuminated on the roof
itself right okay but most buildings that i know are four-sided we're asking and we have we support
businesses but responsible businesses if the illuminated signs are appointed towards
new customers which meaning 76 and the train station on those two sides of the building
we have no no problems with right they're going to put them on the residential side because there
are there are two sides there are four sides but the main side off of berkeley and the small street
Roberts those are residential properties and if you put signs in it it shines right into the
windows of people who are trying to go to sleep prior to 10 o'clock I just didn't understand the
timer but the whole thing comes down is that we support and start installation but only on the
two sides on the expressway side and the train side only on the non-residential side we have
problem with. Thank you. Thank you very much for taking this time. Is there anyone
else in the virtual audience? I see no other hands, Chair. Planning Commission.
Sarah unmute. Thank you, sir.
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no
change to the existing commercial mixed-use zoning. The appellant has not supported a hardship claim
with evidence of unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property. The City Planning
Commission recommends that the zoning board deny the variance. Thank you, Asar. Hillary, can I put
it up for that Roberts Avenue side? Can we put the timer on, a set of time for that?
um we we can set um an hour do a proviso for hours of illumination
so and they can do that either by timer or manually or however
they decide that they wish to do it so we go 10p to 6a is that okay
mr console that be acceptable yes okay okay all right so mi 2023 so mr chair just to clarify
If I, so you might want to, if, if I think you were saying the hours that it wouldn't
be illuminated.
No, I'll, I'll, I'll do the time that they're going to be eliminated.
Thank you.
Thank you.
MI 2023-005-997-4433 Wayne Avenue.
I vote yes with proviso.
Signed to be eliminated 6A to 10P on the Robert Street side, Roberts Avenue side.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, with proviso.
James Snell, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, counsel.
Number seven, MI 2023-006-087, 1017-21 Palmer Street.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from Fishtown Neighbors.
there's a letter of opposition from council member
There's a letter of opposition from Councilmember Scuola, and there's a letter of opposition from a neighbor on Palmer Street.
Squilla and there's a letter of opposition
The applicant has provided 21 neighbors based on 10 dwelling units.
Mr. Nockamson.
Board of Allyn Nockamson.
Thank you, Mr. Nockamson.
As you know, you've already been sworn.
Could you identify your client?
Yes, my client is Palmer Street is Neat, LLC. In the virtual audience, I have several members of the development team. I have Kerry Borish and Bob Shaw, who are members of the corporate property owner. I also have Kerry Jackson-Yontz, who is the architect of record for this project.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate towards accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed.
So I'm here to present 1017-21 East Palmer Street.
We'll go through this project.
it has we have dramatically through community input reduced the density of the project going
from 19 units to 10 we've reduced the height of the project by going from 51 and a half feet to
40 feet eight inches we've done changes in terms of increasing the size in the mail room increase
doubling the bike, uh, storage, the lobby, um, and the trash room. Uh, and we've increased
landscaping this project. I, you know, again, the elephant in the room is this, the community is,
you know, has, has issued or FNA has issued a letter of opposition. And that was based on
13 units where we went down from 19 units. Um, now we're at a one-to-one ratio, 10 to 10,
10 residential units and 10 parking spaces. And you'll see through the project that, you know,
based on where we're located in the neighborhood, you know, it would be very challenging,
if not impossible, for us to build a by-ride project. And, you know, again, we're trying to
work with the neighborhood and have a responsible project. And I do believe that, you know,
sometimes you got to look at where we started and how we got there. And I think where we
have landed is a responsible project that we hope the ZBA will approve by way of variance.
So first, we'll review the notice of refusal, and then we'll do the correspondence from the
Fishtown Neighbors Association, and we're going to direct and we're going to respond to every one
of their points, the good, the bad, and the ugly. And, you know, through that, you'll get a flavor
of why we think that this is a responsible project that the city's zoning board of
adjustments should grant. And then we have revised plans based on those modifications we made based
on community input. And then we have a petition that we circulated of neighbors who are in support
of this project, as well as maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and
drawings, our RCO meeting notice, our application for appeal, our deeds of property, and our
certificate of tax clearance showing that this property owner is in good standing with respect
to real estate taxes. Again, in the virtual audience, I have Kerry Borish, who's going to
read a statement. This has been a long project in terms of us, where we started and where we have
ended up. And he wants to kind of explain his thoughts as well. I have Bob Shaw, his business
partner. He may or may not be necessary. We'll see what community input we have as well. And then
And same thing with Carrie Jackson-Yonce, the architect for the project, who's with Cano Architects, who can give some flavor and input about some technical matters if necessary.
So our notice refusal.
So this is an RSA 5 property, but you'll see in the area of Fishtown where we're at, that is probably not the correct zoning classification.
If you go to the right of where we are, same type of configuration, that's an RM1 property.
Given our significant lot size, we would be allowed 11 units as of right.
So what we were originally offering of 19 units, you know, we admittedly was a little aggressive, but we thought that that, given where we're located in the neighborhood, we thought that that was an appropriate.
But we thought that that, given where we're located in the neighborhood, we thought that that was an appropriate use, especially since we're providing off-street parking, which is not required in R&1.
But given the 19 units, we thought, and given that we're right off of 95, you can almost leap off of 95, we thought that that was appropriate under circumstances.
But, you know, based on several community meetings, input generally in the neighborhood, we have now reduced the amount of dwelling units from 19 to 10.
We've kept to 10 parking spots.
So now we have a one-to-one ratio.
We have a bigger trash room.
We have additional bike storage for, you know, or storage for bike bicycles.
We have a more pronounced lobby area.
We have additional landscaping.
So we have tried to meet as many of the needs of the community that we can, obviously, other than trying to do a buy-write project with an irregular-shaped lot, which goes to our undue hardship.
So we have several refusals, the first of which is, in a way, almost self-inflicted.
We want to provide parking.
We think that's the responsible thing to do.
That's why we have 10 parking spots, you know, with dedicated to these 10 units.
So, again, in a way self-inflicted, but we're trying to be responsible.
Where we're putting the curb cuts on Salmon Street is there is no public parking in front of us on Salmon Street.
So by creating those curb cuts, it's actually a positive impact to the community.
And you'll see also that across the street from us
is additional public parking.
So we don't need the parking,
but we thought that that was a responsible thing to do
as the community grows.
You don't look at just today,
you look at 10 years from then.
Second refusal has to do with the amount of dwelling units.
We proposed 19 dwelling units.
Again, looking at the situation,
hearing from the neighborhood,
we went down to 10 dwelling units.
There reaches a point where we have to be able to
build responsibly and we think we have with those 10 dwelling units and we have an economically
feasible project with 10 dwelling units anything less than that we could not build in this
environment of rising interest rates and you know the rise of construction materials it would be
impossible for us to build three single family homes here in addition to the fact of where we're
located in the neighborhood and you'll see right we're right off with 95 and you know you'll also
see as part of our presentation there was an article recently by the philadelphia inquirer
saying that 95 and the whining in 95 is is is causing a lot of issues with row homes in philadelphia
like ours that that that that the community is dictating that we create there it would not
survive there it would not be economically viable no one would purchase this property because if
you'll see the bend of 95 we're right against 95 they the third refusal has to do about the height
of their property again you know we're providing parking on their ground floor um which also by
the way the reason is is because you'll see this like almost like strobe light like you know you
know structured that's across the street from us to provide really really really bright lighting
because this has been you know they've had some crime issues around here so for safety purposes
they've created this extreme lighting that you would know you would kind of see almost like
i'm a adjunct professor at the fox business school and so i teach at temple and so you know
i visit the temple campus once in a while well every monday unless i'm virtually teaching classes
but you see that same type of lighting at temple and it's it's it's good for safety purposes but
can you imagine living across the street from like where you're going to see the lighting that
we have it's not viable that's why we created parking on the first floor so the people on the
upper floors wouldn't have to deal with it great for safety not for living so that's why we're
asking for the height variance is to create parking on the first floor so they won't be
disturbed by the lighting. The next refusal has to do with maximum occupied area of 100%.
Yes, we have maximum occupied area of 100%, but you'll see where we're located in relation to 95.