All right.
And this was not presented.
and the last one was not presented
okay so
so the rco didn't see everything that we're seeing
correct not not in its completeness correct okay
correct not not in its completeness correct okay so um the question is um was there any
um discussion of going back to the rco when you had a more complete package to show them
well because portions of it was and it was discussed they had an idea as to what it was
It's just we were able to augment that with additional information.
It's not different from what they had.
Well, let me ask this.
After the meeting, you did send a letter to the RCO as a follow-up, right?
Why don't you talk about the letter that was sent to the RCO?
So there was a letter sent to the RCO that essentially addressed things that came up by virtue of what was discussed in the meeting, what the signage would be, information that we were able to gather regarding the software that would control the signage.
And so this is what I'm showing now is a copy of the follow-up letter that was essentially sent to the RCO.
And that's just so that there is continuous discussion between the community and the church so that everyone is kind of on the same page in terms of the goal and the final objective.
did the one of the that came up was the length of time that it would take to actually construct
the fence which you know it's kind of hard to gauge right now so as of as of right now there's
no construction that has taken place as of yet we're waiting for the approval in order to go
into that next phase we'll have to get a more um detailed um identification as to the construction
concerns once we kind of get to that but it's a necessary thing we have to have contractors come
out and actually do the work and it's going to take time to do that but the finalization of it
um will result in something that's more beneficial than not to the community as a whole
That's not my question. My question is, you had a meeting with the RCO. You didn't have all the information that they asked about or that you were ready to present to them at the time of this meeting.
so then there's a letter that was sent with that when you sent this letter was there an
understanding that there would be a letter and that there would be more information or did the
RCO vote um after this the the meeting so the RCO when they sent their information they essentially
voted to allow for the board to make the ultimate determination as to whether it was approved or not
so that's what the RCO responded with that would have been after they received the letter yes and
after the initial RCO hearing on August 27th so on August 27th the they didn't vote is that what
you're saying well yes additional information correct there was a preliminary and I can
actually present Michael Spain who can speak more to that if you'd like to hear from someone else
he's actually here yeah my only concern is that um if you know you're you're presenting us with
information that the rco didn't see i mean we you know that their their decision may have been
different or they may have voted differently if they had all of the information and i'm just
trying to make sure that there's not a notice problem here okay that's that's my concern about
If you can show us whatever, but if the RCO who is supposed to at least give a recommendation as to their view of a proposal and they don't have all the information about the proposal when they take a vote, it's a little problematic.
And then we would be filling in gaps where that's not really what we're saying.
you know supposed to do i mean so there had been no um material modifications to what had been
um material modifications to what had been presented it was information to clarify
um based on information related during the presentation and during the meeting so
clarification not necessarily modification is what um okay is the essence of what we're talking
Yeah, but sometimes, you know, when there's that kind of, there's an issue with respect to the information that has been provided or that there's extra information that maybe the RCO might be influenced by, then there's arrangements made for another meeting.
I mean, this didn't, you know, so you're, there was no subsequent meeting.
So there was no subsequent meeting.
The meeting that was conducted on August 27th was the only meeting that we had where we present some of the schematics.
As I had indicated, the top view, as Mr. Smith indicated, had not been available at that time.
So at this time, it is available.
Also, the rendering here that shows the view from Sheltonham Avenue, looking onto the 2800 block of Sheltonham, where Enoch is, had not been presented.
But what had been presented is the photograph here and the photograph here that shows the fencing in substance.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
so then i think it would should be mentioned that the board was at a split they were tied
seven seven with two people abstaining and that's when they wrote we we recommend that
we leave this decision to the board right that makes yeah that's what i understood so
So it seems to me the one issue that the community didn't get a chance to fully, I guess, opine on is the projection that the sign would provide.
And they provided to us this rendering that shows at a 45 degree angle where the projection would sort of extend in terms of the brightness for the sign.
And it shows that it really won't have an impact on the surrounding, you know, residential properties.
And it's visible from Sheldon Ham Avenue.
That's kind of what I got from your presentation.
Yes, that's what I'm going to inspire on.
So I don't have an issue.
Okay, any other questions from the board?
Yeah, I have two questions.
One, if we go back to the literal specific use denial,
One of them is because of the illumination, and the other is because of the fence being in the required setback.
So I guess a question I have, and perhaps either Ms. McCoy or Mr. Smith can answer this, is was there a consideration of not having an illuminated sign?
And if not, then why is the illumination important?
And then two, what's the prohibition of having the fence on the property line to avoid the denial or the refusal?
So, and I want to answer to that, essentially.
A part of the reason for the positioning is that it is still on the grassy area.
It's not on the curb where the variance had previously been approved for the temporary fencing.
So it would essentially occupy a similar location along that fence line.
With regard to the use of the signage, it's actually just bringing us into the millennium.
It's allowing...
Can I speak to that a little bit?
Because I filed the application.
The application is not for illumination.
It's actually for a dynamic sign.
So generally, dynamic signs could be some type of illumination.
But the goal was to provide updates to the constituency and whatnot.
It is set back within the property line a little bit,
simply because we were concerned about it fronting one street or another directly.
And the goal was to try to mitigate as much as possible conflicts
with regard to a dynamic sign affecting traffic and whatnot it would be on the oblique
um a dynamic sign affecting traffic and whatnot um it would be on the oblique it's not a direct
facing condition that would um you know fully distract but at the same time the oblique
definitely would um sort of reduce the amount of glare that would come off of the sign simply
because it is an led sign and they do operate in that way and can be attenuated further
and part of the goal was that the um the owners you know proposed that i know um there are some
expectations of putting it further deep in the site um at this time it wasn't considered but
i know that it's something that is possible thank you thank you
and currently there's no signs at all there am i correct correct any other questions from the board
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
i just wanted to clarify in the discussions was the location of the sign changed at all
since the original plans were reviewed by l and i no they have not okay all right thank you okay
thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience
no questions at this time chair
planning commission uh ron bednar city planning your property is indicated for residential use
on a city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change to the existing zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or
condition of the property that would prevent it from being used in conforming with the code.
The relief requested does not represent the minimum necessary. We recommend the request
Surveillance not be granted.
MI 2024-004-404-2800 West Cheltenham Avenue.
I vote yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
Tywin, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Thank you, counsel.
You have your votes.
Thank you very much. Have a good day, everyone.
Hillary, do we have any word from Sklaroff?
He was raising his hand, so I think we could try again.
Let's take a look. Number 7, MI 2024-004-388-1601-49-North 28th Street.
Neil Sklaroff, please.
Is this hand raised?
Chair?
Hold on, Chair.
I do see a hand raised.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I think maybe I got clicked on incorrectly, similar last name.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah, we're looking for Neil Sklaroff.
All right, let's move on.
We'll check one more time before we leave.
His hand is raised now, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Panelists, once again, please excuse the malfunction.
I think I have now areas. Here he is. My great apologies to the chairman and the board,
but also to my witnesses. Time is very precious. Unfortunately, I installed a new mask that's
supposed to help my carpal syndrome and it didn't do that. So I'd like to start. Why don't you
state your name and spell it for the sonographer. My name is Neil Sklaroff, N-E-I-L-S-K-L-A-R-O-F-F.
I'm an attorney with Dilworth Paxson at 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E.
at 1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, and I also ask that in accordance with, I think it's Section 14-30313F,
if I remember correctly, that my testimony be that of the client.
Could you identify your client and the relationship to the property?
Right. My client is the school district of Philadelphia, which owns the property.
Now, hold on one minute. Our vice chair has a few questions for you, Mr.
I'm sorry.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you, Counselor. You can proceed and share your screen.
I'd like to be able to share my screen.
I don't see the icon for that.
It could be a green button on the bottom of the share screen.
Yes, I now have it.
You open your documents first, then push that.
They were loaded.
You're coming up now.
We have it.
I did something right.
You're doing a lot right.
This project for the school district is to install a digital message board at the William D. Kelly School.
Joining me this afternoon is Dr. Crystal Edwards, the principal of William D. Kelly Elementary School, and Mr. Steve Talbot, the executive program director of the school district's Office of Capital Programs.
I'd like to begin by thanking the Brewery Town, Sharswood Community Civic Association for hosting our public meeting.
And I believe they have submitted to the board its letter of support for this project.
Again, the project is to install a digital sign measuring approximately four feet by eight foot on the 28th Street side of the school.
In our cover sheet, you will see a mural on the building depicting the likenesses of President Obama, Maya Angelou, Louis Armstrong and Harriet Tubman.
You'll see an area of brick to the right, which is not part of the mural.
We contacted the Mural Arts Philadelphia, as well as the principal artist on this,
Mr. David Michene, who is also the Director of Residential Artists at the Mural Arts Philadelphia.
And they have no objection and have approved the installation of the sign.
Obviously, we have a list of exhibits.
The first exhibit is our Certificate of Tax Clearance.
The second is our deed.
The city of Philadelphia conveyed this property to the school district of Philadelphia in September of 1964,
famous for the fact that the Phillies began September 11 games up and ended one game behind
St. Louis, for those of you who care about such things. Our third exhibit is an aerial view.
As you can see from this, the school property is bounded by Cecil B. Moore Avenue and West
Oxford Street and in between 28th Street and North Marston Avenue. And you'll see in the
lower right across Marston Avenue is a parking lot for Kelly Staff Parking.
This is a view going north on 28th Street. The mural is to your right. Right past the mural
Right past the mural is the entrance to the school and then additional school building.
is the entrance to the school and then additional school building.
As you will see from our postings that I'll show you in a moment, this is mostly a residential area.
This is looking up Oxford Street right across from where the mural, the digital sign will be placed.
This is looking down 28th Street across from the intersection.
We posted a number of our notices and our notices of refusal. And again, these pictures include not only the posting, but what's directly across the street.
So you'll see there is some non-residential uses going on.
This is likely the parking lot I pointed out before.
And it's school in the background.
In addition to what I think is more residential construction ongoing on Marston Street.
And again, the parking lot.
We posted a lot of summons.
The next exhibit is the refusal.
We have been refused.
We are located in our M1 district, and therefore the size of our sign exceeds that allowable
in the zoning district.
In addition, as you will hear in a moment, the proposed sign is not only accessory, but
also for non-accessory use.
Our application for appeal is included in our exhibits, as well as the project information form.