pavement and we um place grass and there's a subsurface feature there and there's also another
depave area at the back side of the school um that is just for removing of pavement and adding
landscaping shall i move to the next yep and so this is a cross-section of what these systems
look like uh i think i i i think we may not need what i think would be helpful neil is to show us
where you're taking the parking out of and where there's parking left if you can so in other words
where where are you removing parking spaces and what where are the ones that are left that would
be perfect so i'm sorry go ahead you can go through it um the two systems that are along
that access road we're removing parking um and there's a system at the top which is behind the
school where we're removing parking spaces right there right right right um and then the remainder
we have parking on the back of the school that the linear drive on the back side of the school
And we have a parking area on the top, if you're looking at the drawing, and then we have parking all along the access road and right in front of the school.
And then we have a lot of technical information that perhaps you don't want to see.
Not that I don't want to see it.
I'm just not sure that.
okay so so the issue would be is the issue is that you you you're saying you don't need the
parking places places anywhere that you're removing that's correct that 77 is sufficient
would you confirm that emma yeah so we've been working with the principal um to make sure we
can accommodate all her staff her um her non-full-time staff and
And her non full time staff and visitors to the school. So we ensured that we had enough spaces for that.
Right. Right. So I brush the other exhibits. This is a letter from the new 42nd Democratic Board, which was kind enough to host a RCO public meeting.
There is no RCO that claims this area. So they were kind enough to to hold the meeting.
Here's their summary and our letter to the near neighbors, inviting them to the RCO meeting, which included a copy of the refusal.
And our last exhibit is the proofs of mailing.
And on that basis, we ask that the board grant our variance as requested.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
no chair no mr chairman
questions or comments from the virtual audience yes chair i have richard burrell with the hand
up and i will allow him to speak is he the architect of the engineer yes oh okay yeah
Mr. Burrell, will you state your name and spell for the court sonographer?
Mr. Burrell?
Well, Neil, I think you've made your case.
He's our engineer, and he would only confirm everything.
Right. Okay. All right.
So questions from the virtual audience?
no hands chair planning commission
good afternoon chair members of the board my name is greg waldman for the planning commission
staff the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing medium industrial zoning
however at the time of the that the comprehensive plan was adopted the special purpose civic use
or SP-CIV zoning district, which is intended for civic uses, just schools, had not yet
been added to the zoning code. SP-CIV zoning does not have a required parking minimum.
Furthermore, the proposed construction of water management and landscaping improvements
meet the goals of several other adopted city plans, including the building tree plan and
green city clean waters plan. The city planning commission recommends that the zoning board
grant the variance.
Thank you. MI 2023-002-601-201 East Olney Avenue, I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes. James Snell, my vote is yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sklaroff.
Thank you, members of the board. Thank you, members of the board.
Right. Thank you. Number two, MI 2023-002-556-222 Market Street.
Jarrett Klein is the attorney. There's a letter of non-opposition from the Center City Residents Association.
Jarrett Klein has been promoted.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board.
Good afternoon, Mr. Klein.
Could you state your name for the record and spell for the court stenographer?
Certainly.
It's Jared, J-A-R-E-D, last name Klein, K-L-E-I-N, from Blank Rome, 130 North 18th Street in Philadelphia.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to this property?
Certainly. My client is the law firm of Morgan Lewis, and they are the tenant at 2222 Martin Street.
Okay. Our vice chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir, I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share the screen.
Thank you.
So this is, I hope, a relatively simple application.
The building is 2222 Market Street, which is the home of Morgan Lewis.
And what they are seeking approval for today is a flat wall sign that is above the second floor window level.
And so we received a refusal because of that location.
because of that location um just the board has has some contact this is a newly permitted and
the board has
some contacts
and large building um and so we believe that the style of signage is is appropriate in both size
and location for the size of the building that it's it's on uh and the hardship again would would
be the the size of the building that is being erected um i think lends itself to needing
additional identification signage to orient the board this is where we're where we're talking
22nd and market zoning map of the parcel here showing it is the very permissive cmx5 zoning
there are photos of posting the zoning notices at the ongoing construction site here for the board
to see but i'll jump right to the actual sign rendering itself this is the rendering of what
is what is proposed um it would be uh put there it's 59.17 square feet uh at at night it'll just
be a white light it's not uh it's not spreading light out from it it's just a a backlit identification
sign um and then there are additional plans uh that the board can can review just showing the
technical aspects of where the sign is going to be located. The letters itself are going to be
23 inches high to make it visible for passerby. Passersby. I believe as I was coming into the
hearing, I heard the chair mention our meeting with CCRA. Their letter of non-opposition is here.
And I think as we do, they view this as a non-controversial request to blend the signage of this property into the existing aesthetic on that commercial corridor.
I would ask Robert Kurtz to please raise his hand.
His virtual hand.
Ron Hertz is allowed to speak.
Sir, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
If he's not available, if we could unmute Robert Kotzer.
I have two Roberts.
Robert Kotzer could also be unmuted.
That would be fine.
Okay, Robert is back.
He should be allowed to speak now?
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court stenographer?
Robert Kotser from Morgan Lewis, spelled K-O-T-S as in Sam, U-R.
Do you swear or affirm the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, Mr. Klein.
Thank you.
Robert, am I correct that you're the Director of Real Estate and Operations for Morgan Lewis?
Yes, that's correct.
Okay. And did you have a chance to hear my presentation this afternoon? And would you adopt it as true, correct in your own if you've been given the chance to speak more?
Thank you. We don't have anything further, Mr. Chair.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the board. This is Greg Walden.
city affiliate philadelphia city planning commission staff um in 2019 the zoning map was
amended from commercial mixtes 4 to commercial mixtes 5 in accord with recommendations from
the comprehensive plan proposed sign is technically below the second floor windowsill given that the
height of the given the height of the first floor ceiling the city planning commissioner recommends
at the zoning board grant the variance you mi 2023 zero zero two five five six two two two two
market street i vote yes
yes okay james now i vote yes ishmael shaheem my vote is yes thank you all very much enjoy your
Okay. Number three, MI 2023-002-651-1510 West Allegheny Avenue.
Alan Nockamson is the attorney.
Letter of support from Allegheny West.
Letter of opposition from Tioga United.
Mr. Nockamson.
Mr. Nockamson is promoted to panelists.
Great.
Great.
Mr. Nockamson?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board.
Alan Nockamson.
Just for the record, spell your name, Mr. Nockamson, please.
A-L-A-N, last name Nockamson, N-O-C-H-U-M-S-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yeah, my client is 1510 West Allegheny F LLC, and in the virtual audience is one of its members, Irena Savrichny.
Our vice chair has just a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed and required to proceed with this case? Are these in advance of this hearing?
Yes, we have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share the screen.
Thank you.
All right. So I'm here to present 1510 West Allegheny Avenue. And again, in the virtual
audience is Irina, one of its members. At the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask her
to virtually raise her hand, be sworn in, and then I'll have a few questions about my
presentation. So this will be a rather lengthy presentation. It's a very impactful project
to the community, which we believe is positive in nature. So first we'll review the notice of
refusal, then a letter of support from the Allegheny West Civic Association. I think it
was either this morning or early this afternoon. We received a letter from Tioga United, and we'll
review that letter as well. The letter was referenced by the chairman. We also have revised
plans, and that was based on communication with the neighborhood. So if this board feels so inclined
to grant our zoning variance request, we would ask that they would grant it with revised plans,
and we'll review those plans as well. Then we made a concerted effort before and after our
community meeting to meet as many of the surrounding property owners and neighbors.
And we have a lengthy petition that's been signed by a multitude of neighbors, as well
as letters of support from nearby neighbors.
Then we'll review the Philadelphia 2035 plan.
Again, our review of the 2035 plan indicates that this property is designated to be transitioned
over to RMX3. So the density that we're proposing and based on the goals of the 2035 plan fall well
in line with what the 2035 plan proposes. Then we're going to look also at nearby comparable
apartment buildings. So what we're offering is not out of character to what you would see
nearby in the neighborhood. Then we'll review maps of the area, photographs of the property
in the surrounding area, our plans and drawings as well as renderings, and then we'll have our
RCO meeting notice that we'll review, which also shows that not only were all of the property
occupants mailed a notice in accordance with the law, all the RCOs actually received a copy of that
notice via email almost two weeks in advance of the meeting. We'll then review the application
for appeal that we filed on behalf of the applicant, the deed to the property showing
that 1510 West Allegheny Ave LLC is the owner of the property, as well as a certificate of
tax clearance showing that they owe no money to the City of Philadelphia with respect to
this property. Again, at the conclusion of my presentation, we'll have Irina appear as well.
All right, so a notice of refusal. So this is a mixed zoning property of RSA 2 and RSA 5. So as
As the board knows, the zoning examiners require to choose the most restrictive zoning requirements as it reviews or as they review our project.
So right now, there's and we'll see in the drawings and photographs, there is a building structure which has a history and approval for 46 units that we will call Building A.
What we're proposing is to add seven additional units to building A and then to build on this 32,000 square foot lot.
And let me just repeat that. 32,000 square foot lot. We're looking to build another building structure with 40 units.
we're looking to build another building structure with 40 units.
And what we're trying to do is essentially build almost a twin building structure on this 32,000 square foot lot.
Again, if this was an RMX3 property, the density that we are proposing would easily fit within the confines of RMX3.
Also, under RMX3, we would be able to build 160,000 square foot building structure here, which is a lot, well, what we're proposing is a lot less, where we're looking to build a total of 65,000 square feet, where really half of that's already on the building lots.
So just to put that in perspective. So in addition to the 93 total units on this 32,000 square foot lot, we are providing off-street parking of 18 units, plus four accessible parking spaces, plus 32 of those 18, sorry, of those 18 parking spaces, four of them are accessible.
In addition, we're providing 32 Class A, 1A bicycle parking spaces.
So these are our refusals.
The first one is about the fact that we have two principal dwelling structures.
Building A, which is our current building on the lot, which has 46 units configured for that already.
And then we added a second building structure in the rear as well.
Again, what you'll see is, first of all, RMX3 would, I know we're not RMX3 zoning, but this is what's proposed of this property, would allow for such use, proposed use.
Secondarily, it's not out of character to have multiple building structures in the area where these are rather large lots.
Again, our building lot, our lot is 32,000 square feet.
If you look at surrounding properties and we'll look at those, there are multiple properties with with building with multiple building structures on there.