not it's infeasible not only because you lost all the visitor parking which
obviously has impact on the surrounding neighborhood in terms of people coming
and going to the site but also it lacks adequate access to some of the homes. You
So in that sense, I think it's infeasible from both.
And it also would have negative impacts on the neighborhood.
The lack of parking on this site forces people to go out onto Ridge Avenue and into the residential neighborhoods if visitors come and want to park.
It's clearly a less desirable plan than the plan that is before the board that provides adequate parking and overflow for visitors.
Mr. Ritter, is it your position that it's not feasible to access a unit if one has to walk to it?
No, I'm referring to the fact that there would be insufficient parking for them.
They would have to park either within.
The code requires one parking space per unit.
So if those units were built in the back with no access to parking, they would have to park within another.
they would have to have a space assigned within another unit or they would physically have to go
out on Ridge Avenue or into the neighborhood and park and walk back. So it's your position that
feasibility is entirely tied to park access to a parking spot right? I don't I don't quite follow
the question there but. It's your position that two units are not feasible because there's not
parking spot right in front of those two units and that a prospective buyer would have to walk
somewhere else well i'm saying that it's not it's not that it's infeasible to have someone walk to
a unit clearly they can do that uh but it's not desirable i think is what i'm saying and if you're
selling single-family homes most people would expect to have parking in relatively close
proximity to their home. Mr. Ritter, you're aware that probably a vast majority of people
sitting in this room live in homes in Philadelphia without parking spaces right in front of their
house. Yes, and as I have for years, I park in my neighborhood and walk blocks at times to get to
my house. I'm very familiar with it. I can move on. I want to touch on the line markings, the
separation between the category 4 45 percent impervious limitation and the no limitation
if we could put up the uh fourth proposal can you see it now no the fourth proposal is
the first plan that was shown with the stamp from the planning commission
is that it mr ritter the the line demarcates
Is that it?
Mr. Ritter, the line demarcating the two zones is not actually on this plan, is it?
Not on the plan that's up for exhibit, no.
So exactly where does that line come from?
How did you get the information needed to think that there was a line on this plan?
well as far it's my understanding that this line came from the planning commission's
mapping of the watershed i did not personally get this line
have you ever personally seen a map with the line on it that's at the planning commission or a formal
city document only i'm only objecting because that's probably a question for david or ronda
rather than george i can ask david too but i'd like to hear from mr ritter since he's the latest
plan here i i i have not seen a map with the actual outline of the district on it other than
what's in the code and the stormwater features on this fourth plan is there a store pre and post
development stormwater management study that's been prepared for this plan the fourth plan
Yes, the firm has done pre and post stormwater analysis on the plan and has submitted it to the water department and has received approval for it.
Is that plan here today?
Or is that approval here today?
I'm not sure it's an exhibit.
no there's no I haven't there's no exhibit my exhibits are are what they are we can certainly
provide if the board wants it of course and Mr. Ritter on this plan aside from the the poorest
pavers what other stormwater uh facilities are there well they have the rain garden they also
have designed the the yes that's the rain garden that's being pointed to uh to help
There's a single rain garden on this plant, right? Just one?
Yes, that's correct.
And also they've designed the system so that the vast majority of the water, the stormwater that normally ran off this site onto the backs of the residential homes has now been pitched back toward Ridge Avenue so that it no longer goes there.
So that not only have they done the rain garden for water quality, they've also substantially reduced the amount of water that drains toward the residential neighborhoods.
And they've designed it so that there are reductions in the various storm water runoffs as per the water department's requirements.
In other words, there's actually going to be a reduction of the amount of runoff that goes on to the neighboring properties.
In your testimony, I wasn't sure if you mentioned that there was a retention basin here.
Is there a retention basin?
A retention basin.
I'll object because that's a question for David, but if he can answer it.
Yeah, I think it's best.
Normally, there is a stormwater system designed into these to retain the various storms that are required under the city code.
does anybody mind if david answers that question i mean he's on the call he's on the call
he's our engineer i don't mind if i could um the stormwater management system consists of
regrading of the site to direct water back out toward ridge avenue rather than toward the back
of the site the permeable pavement which you've seen which we've discussed all of the ground level
pavement is proposed to be pervious, pervious asphalt and permeable pavers. There is the
rain garden that was just pointed out, and there is also the subsurface stormwater infiltration
basin, which is just behind the first three buildings in the driveway. It's being pointed
to now. And I think all of that goes to the robust stormwater management design that Ms. Brumbelow
talked about originally. And that's why the Planning Commission believed that this project
met the requirements of the Wased-Hicken watershed, and even regardless of the
condition of the permeable paver, determination on the permeable paver, met
the requirements to allow additional impervious cover in the Wased-Hicken
to allow additional impervious cover in the West African watershed.
Thank you.
So she talked about that directly, and that's right in the code, and that's a 2015 code.
Mr. Plant, in terms of the permeable pavement, what exact type of material will the pavement be made out of?
Well, the driveway portion is proposed to be permeable asphalt pavement, and all of the walkways are proposed to be permeable brick pavers.
So, Mr. DeMarco had testified that there is a spectrum of permeable surfaces. Even ground is impermeable to a certain degree. Have specific materials been selected for the pavement and the asphalt?
Well, the asphalt meets the specific water department requirement for permeable asphalt.
There's a specification for that.
And basically, the fine material is left out of the asphalt so that there are more pores in the surface for water to run through.
And so, Mr. Plante, for the water department's regulations, what's the rate of infiltration for the porous asphalt?
you just referenced they do not uh specify that by rate they specify it by the asphalt mix
and what type of asphalt mix is being proposed here well it's a permeable asphalt mix uh i don't
have the the exact percentages of materials in front of me but as i described effectively
most of the fine material is left out and that is what leaves the pores making the material
And Mr. Plante, do you have spec sheets for the type of materials that would
identify the perk rates and the various qualities for stormwater management?
If you're talking about the permeable asphalt, as I just described, there isn't a set
permeability rate. It's specified by the mix and that mix is stated on the final stormwater
management plan was approved by the water department and as mr demarcus said there's a
there's a spectrum it could be have very little porous elements to it and it could be very porous
depending upon the specifications the manufacturer the type of materials right it's the same it's the
same mix that is specified across the city for permeable asphalt meeting the water department
requirements but you don't know exactly what those requirements are well uh i can't tell you
the exact percent passing each sieve size if that's what you're asking i'm trying to understand what
was shown to the water department what was shown to the planning commission and they supposedly
gave their approval well the permeable pavement meets the the water department standards for
permeable pavement. I understand you've said that many times now, but what exactly was
shown, Sam? What type of material? Permeable asphalt for the driveway and permeable brick
pavers for the walkways. But you're not able to identify? We haven't selected a manufacturer
because there are many manufacturers but they must meet the water department standards for example
the um the permeable pavers the brick pavers have to have a 10 opening in the surface area of the
covered paved area that those voids or gaps are filled with a permeable gravel mix so that the
water can run through off of the surface of the brick into the gaps between the
brick and through the gravel into the 8 to 10 inch deep storage bed of stone
that's beneath the brick. So let me add it just a different way. Did you did you
show the Planning Commission or identify a specific type of material or did you
just agree that you would comply with whatever regulations they had?
an objection but go ahead if you can answer yeah we specified permeable pavement permeable asphalt
permeable pavers and without a detail we would never provide a um a construction detail for
that to the planning commission i'm not sure that they have the expertise to review that
so essentially you told them that you would use permeable pavers and you would comply with
whatever regulations they provided well that we would comply with the the water
department requirements permeable material and that was included because
we had the even at the time the Planning Commission reviewed the zoning plan
Even at the time the Planning Commission reviewed the zoning plan, they had an approved conceptual stormwater management plan specifying that.
Gentlemen, can you hear me now?
I can.
Okay, I'm sorry.
I had to leave and come back in.
We are way over time.
So what we'd like to do, we can resume this hearing next week.
Tanya, I believe you said Tuesday?
That is correct, Chair.
at what time 2 p.m 2 p.m gentlemen is at work that works for me i have two other cases but okay
well you'll be here anyway okay good yeah all right so uh mi 2020 that's 001458
519 ridge avenue will resume next tuesday which is november the 9th i believe at 2 p.m
that would be the 10th chair 10th oh that's right i'm thinking today i'm sorry november the 10th
at 2 p.m thank you thank you very much for your time sorry fellas but we got just so many cases
left to hear okay thank you thank you thank you for your number mi 2020-001516 2000-24 market
i'm promoting stephanie boggs
good afternoon ms boggs you're still under oath i am thank you just please identify yourself
Yes. Stephanie Boggs, 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103.
Professor?
Yes. Stephanie, you agree to waive the reading of his refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Also, have you emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership,
proof of tax compliance, copy of the refusal, or referral, photos and plans, five days in advance
of this area? Yes, I have. Also, have you met with the RCA and have a letter? Yes, I did. It's
included in your packet at tab two. Thank you. Please proceed. Sure. So this is for the property
at 2000 Market Street at the corner of Market and 20th. It's an existing office building with
ground floor retail, and we are proposing one freestanding sign in the front of the building
to identify the address of the building within an existing landscaping berm. Let me interrupt you
if I may. We do have a letter from the RCO? Yes, I do. Their letter of non-opposition is in your
packet, the tab two. Do you know of any opposition from anyone? No, I do not. Okay, so you can give
us a brief statement, and then I'll ask if anyone in the audience has anything to comment on, all
right? Absolutely. So this sign is a freestanding sign to advertise the address of the building.
The plans and the dimensions of that sign are included within your packet. We are requesting
a variance for the area of the sign. This is in the CMX4 district, where a sign, the freestanding
sign is permitted to have up to four faces, each with a frontage of 50 square feet, and we are
proposing a one-face sign with an area of 96, a little over 96 square feet. So it's designed to
be consistent with other signage that's located along Market Street, and particularly designed
with this area so that it's visible along Market Street to passengers and pedestrians who are
traveling along there. It's consistent in size and scope, particularly with signs like it could be a
convention center and 30th Street Station. So, you know, it complements and is consistent with the
character of the existing building, won't have any detriment to the public welfare, and won't affect
the character of the neighborhood. So, we are asking for approval, and as I noted, the letter
of non-opposition from CCRA, the coordinating RCO is in your packet, the tab two. I do have
representatives from the owner and from the sign company here if there are any questions hold on
please any questions from the board no all right do you want to miss boggs you want to get one of
your witnesses on well to accept you adopt your testimony and then we'll move on to the sure if
i could have um dominic urbani from urban neon raise his hand
and be made and able to testify.
Mr. Urbani, please identify yourself in the record.
Spell your first and last name.
Hello, this is Dominic Urbani, D-O-M-E-N-I-C, Urbani, U-R-B-A-N-I,
and I am a project manager here at Urban Neon Sign Lighting and Graphics,
and we were contracted through Nala Capital to manufacture and install the proposed signage.
proposed signage. Thank you. Swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the
Thank you.
You swear in the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
truth? I do. Ms. Boggs? Hi, Dominic. Have you heard my testimony this afternoon? Yes. Do you believe
it to be true and correct? Absolutely. Would you adopt it as your own, given the opportunity?
Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anyone who'd like to testify in this case, if so, please raise your
hand. No hand. Thank you. Planning Commission. Peter, please identify
yourselves by your full name. My name is Peter Bernard. B as in boy, A as in
Apple, R as in Roger, N as in Nancy, A as in Apple, R as in Roger, D as in dog. Planning
Commission staff. This property is indicated for commercial mixed use on
the comprehensive plan we have no objection to the granting of the variance all right i'll swear
you in now though i'm sorry swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do no problem no problem all right you were sworn in uh no other questions mi 2020-0015
excuse me, MI 2020-001516, 2000-2024 Market Street. My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Thank you.
MI 2020-001561, 905 South Shell Street.
Chair, I have promoted Steve Masters for you to swear in.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Masters.
Please identify yourself with a record.
Let me change my virtual background here.
I look familiar we're standing next to.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.