is that some of the neighbors just seem to feel as though this is a my sign is bigger
than your sign situation. We do appreciate the need to upgrade. We do appreciate the
need for the technology. We also are aware that the technology can be regulated in a
manner that the messages are still. And I think that that would serve the purpose of the school
to get the information out without drawing undue attention to itself and possibly creating hazards
in traffic, which we think that it will if people are trying to read it, depending on what is
actually posted. I think that a still sign with all the technology, the illumination, the colors
and whatever else they want to put up there that's not moving, that's not splashing, that's
not scrolling, would serve the community and the school better.
And we're requesting that a proviso be added that the sign remain still.
So if I hear you correctly, you're not objecting to multiple messages.
It's the manner in which those messages would be delivered, scrolling versus static.
Exactly. Exactly. That's it. That is our only concern. And we would like that in a proviso so nobody forgets in the future that the message or not to scroll. If they scroll, in order to read it, you have to actually turn and wait for the words to pass. If you're in traffic, that is a distraction.
Thank you. Mr. Squiroff, is there an economic component to this as well as it relates to the
school generating any revenues? This is a project that is endorsed
by the principal and the administration and it is at the request of the alumni who are paying for
this. Many of the alumni live in the immediate area and unfortunately the principal isn't here
to discuss the support that this sign has had from alumni. But this is at their suggestion
and at their cost. It's not a matter of creating funds for the school. It is not a matter of
safety. We're not going to discuss the safety protocols that we have in place. But this is
a smaller sign that's already there. And so it's not a question of being larger. We do appreciate
ACCA's concerns. If they think once this is up, there's an issue, the school district's always
interested in talking to the nearby community. But at this point, we think we should have the
full breadth of the technology. As the chairman noted, there is just no evidence that this
creates a hazard. I'm sorry to hear that Broad not only has that many accidents currently and
I would suggest that this couldn't possibly add to the numbers of accidents that have already been
this couldn't possibly add to the numbers of accidents that have already been testified to
in this area. It's an area that I've passed through and had for more years than I'm going
to admit, but I don't think this is going to attract unwanted attention to Girls High, nor do
So I think it should be given any different treatment
than Central or any other school in the district.
Okay, thank you.
Counselor, can I ask you a question?
Is there a similar type sign
at other public schools in Philadelphia?
I don't know the answer to that,
though I was told by someone from ACCA
that there's one at Central,
but I can't confirm that.
I think there is one at Central. I mean, that's at the Alany and Ogons.
Next door, yeah. But we're not basing it necessarily on that.
There are schools all over the region have animated signs in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and much larger than what we're talking about.
Tom, you finished?
yes thank you thank you any other anyone else would like to testify in this case please raise
your hand and if you are testifying please offer something new and different we have Tanisha
Singleton you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in good morning ma'am please identify
yourself with the records spell your first and last name and provide your address hi my name is
Tanisha Singleton, T-A-N-I-S-H-A, Singleton, S-I-N-G-L-E-T-O-N. I am, I live in the neighborhood.
I live at 5602 North Sydenham Street, which is directly across from Philadelphia High School
for Girls, and I am an alumni. Okay, hold on, please. Do you swear in the firm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Please proceed. I believe this time will
be great because it will attract more students to the school. And yes, it's bright, but that's how
our younger people will know what's going on at this school. Girls High has been a great staple
in the community, and a lot of people in the neighborhood need to know. Just like I believe
Ms. Linda Carter said that people don't know about Girls High. It's up on the hill, and she
thinks it's a good thing. I don't think it's a good thing that people don't know what's going on
at this at this school um filled with wonderful women who have contributed greatly to our community
and our world we have so many great alumni that graduated and i think that a lot of people need
to know what they have done and using this sign would be great that's all thank you thank you
okay uh planning commission
Good morning. Greg Waldman, City Planning staff. This property is indicated for residential
single-family use in the City's comprehensive plan. We do not believe that the proposed animated
illuminated sign would have an adverse effect on the block. Accordingly, we have no opposition
to the granting of the variance thank you mi-2020-001087 5400 north broad street my vote is
yes my vote is yes my vote is yes my vote is yes good luck
Next one up. It's MI 2020-001086879 North Orton Street.
This is Sharon Stiletto. The RCO NLNA supports the proposal.
i have a lauren thompson uh lauren are you the attorney or owner for the case
i'm the applicant and design professional okay but there's an attorney there is not this is a
single family home you said you're the owner though no i'm not i'm the design professional
an app yeah you can't present though we need an attorney yep i this is sharon slutt i believe the
um owner is present if he would like to present the owner is present and the name is it ralph
rafloelo i'm sorry rafloelo
Ralph Loyola.
you're going to have to help us
You're going to have to help us with that.
Spell your name, please.
First and last name.
My name or the owner, sir?
The owner's name.
You've got to be present.
Okay, here's the owner coming forward now.
Let's promote it.
Ralph, you can unmute yourself and wait to be sworn in.
Hi, my name is Ralph Loyola.
I spell my name is R-A-L-P-H-L-O-I-E-L-O.
My address is 868 North Lawrence Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19134.
Are you swearing the firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
Mr. Loello, 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 prior to this
hearing? Yes. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter? We did meet with the RCO. We have
an email from them expressing support.
Please proceed, sir, with your testimony.
I'm trying to share my screen.
I'm not sure. Are you able to see my screen?
Not yet. Did you hit on the green share button, then tap on your documents to share?
Are you on a computer?
Okay. So do you see the green button down share screen?
If you click on that once, and then you should see items that come up to select the documents
that you wish to share, you can click on there.
Are you able to see my screen?
So we have your screen up, but your Zoom.
Okay, now we got it.
So this is our refusal.
We were refused for a build by right because we added accessory parking.
And we had a bump out that made the yard depth in the back 5.5 feet.
And the required rear yard depth is 7 feet.
of these two we are still seeking a variance for the accessory parking we are not seeking
a variance for the required rear yard depth we have eliminated the bump out and we are
now in compliance with the seven feet.
This is the deed, proof of ownership. This is the tax clearance. And here is a short
presentation of the project. It's going to be a single family residence. Here is the
site context. It's on the 800 block of North Orkney Street. We're zoned RSA 5. The street
street is very narrow. There is not parking on the street. There is enough to fit a car
through and that's it. Here is the zoning site plan that was submitted and refused.
You can see back here the the bump out has that is has since been removed, but we are
still seeking the parking. This is a rendering of the project in its site context. You can
see there is a northerly adjacent project that has a garage currently. That's a finished
project. The project is applying for a FIAS Plus certification. If you're not familiar
with theus it's a passive house the energy reduction is you know close to 90 percent of a
typical construction this is the grade level there's the garage
second story kitchen living room two bedrooms on the third story and the fourth story
one bedroom one bath
The roof will have a photovoltaic array here.
Here. Here are the elevations. You can see there's the garage. And that's it.
Here are the elevations.
any questions from the board no no anyone else would like to testify in this case if so please
raise your hand no hands at this time thank you planning commission
Greg Waldman, City Planning. This property is indicated for residential single-family
use on the city's comprehensive plan. We do not believe that the addition of accessory parking
would have an adverse impact to the block. Accordingly, we have no objection to the
branding of the variants. Thank you. MI-2020-001086, 879 North Orkney Street, my vote is yes.
My vote is yes. My vote is yes. My vote is yes.
Hello. You, I believe that concludes the morning list. Is that correct? Yes. Tanya, Sharon, any
unfinished business? I do have
Zin Jin with his hand up.
Mr. Zin Jin.
Yes. Good morning. Please
identify yourself with a record.
Zin Jin, Z-H-E-N-J-I-N
1617 John F. Kennedy
Boulevard, Suite 1838
Philadelphia PA 19103.
I'm here for several...
You're swearing for him to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth. I do.
We were advised at my office that 701 West York Street was scheduled for this morning.
That is why I'm present.
I was hoping to be called, but it seems it wasn't on the list.
I don't see it.
Tanya, Sharon?
Mr. Jim, is this a follow-up hearing or an original hearing?
Follow-up hearing.
We had an original hearing about a month ago.
Do you remember the date exactly?
it was three weeks ago
let me give you the exact date
hearing before was
I have October the 13th
if you can hold on for just one minute
I think I'm still muted
Sorry, I'm pulling up my summaries from that day.
I'm sorry, Mr. Zingin. I don't have a note on why you were coming back. Could you?
Yes. At the time of the hearing, we were still in negotiations with the local RCO on a community
benefits agreement uh we have been able to work that out and they actually issued a letter in
support last night which we supplemented um we actually submitted an exhibit package five days
ahead of this hearing date but we supplemented one this morning with that letter attached
and we are making some changes to the total number of units based on our negotiations with the
community. You would have revised plans? I think it can be limited simply by number of units because
we essentially agreed to reduce from 50 units to 40 units which is the original applications for
50. This will reduce it to 40 and that it's a very large building so the layout would change
pretty substantially with 40 units but the community's main concern is they want to limit
it to 40 units with one accessory unit for a community meeting room that we agree to set up
for the community. And this is Sharon Saleta again. I apologize. I pulled up my more recent
pulled up my more recent notes and it does say that Mr. Jinn is returning today at 9 30.
notes and it does say that Mr. Jin is returning today at 9 30.
I know that the planning commission supported it with a proviso that the existing building
not be demolished however that proviso wouldn't be necessary because to demolish the building
they would require another they would have to apply again in any case.
We can go forward with this case? I believe you can vote it yes based on
Ms. Jurgen's representations and
with a proviso as to the number of units.
Do we have an MI number?
Yes. We do. It's... Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Thank you. MI 2020
000162.
And the address again? It is
701 West York Street.