003 210
20 Jackson Street
Meredith Ferliger is the attorney
A letter of support from
Whitman Council Incorporated
And a letter of non-opposition from Council Member
Squalor
Meredith has been promoted.
Counsel, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Mr. Chairman.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Meredith Ferleger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
i do could you identify your client a relationship to this property my client is a sherwin williams
company which is a tenant of this property our vice chair has a few questions for you
good afternoon council do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
i do 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 i did thank you council please
proceed. You have power to share your screen. Wonderful. Thank you. Good afternoon, almost
evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, Meredith Furliger of Dilworth-Paxson.
My client this afternoon is the Sherwin-Williams Company, a tenant of the property at 20 Jackson
Street. Sherwin-Williams, as you know, is an infamous company that provides all kinds of
services in paint. So you should know this particular tenant quite well. As you know,
As you know, the property before the board today is 20 Jackson Street in South Philadelphia.
the property before the board today is 20 Jackson Street in South Philadelphia.
Today's request exclusively concerns signage and requests a minor variance concerning the location of the proposed signs on the building.
With me, I have Bob White from Sherwin-Williams, Danielle Mannion, and Katie Allenson from Accent Graphics, who designed the proposed signs, as well as Dan Johnson from Easy Signs, which is the local installer.
They'll certainly be available in case the board has any questions.
The exhibit packet submitted to the board contains 13 exhibits, including tax clearance at Exhibit 2,
zoom out a little bit, tax clearance at Exhibit 2, and a redacted lease at Exhibit 3.
We do request that these exhibits be moved into evidence following the conclusion of our presentation.
As the board knows, Sherwin-Williams is a global leader in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of paint and paint-related products.
They're excited to be opening a new store at 20 Jackson Street, which will provide services to contractors and individual consumers in the first floor space that is 16,452 square feet.
As is clearly shown on the zoning map I have up on the screen at Exhibit 7, the property at 20 Jackson Street is located at the corner of Jackson Street, which is up here to the north, and South Swanson Street, which is along the side but is unlabeled.
labeled. The property zoned I-2 industrial. Importantly, as it relates to signage, this
property and its surrounding industrial properties are separated from the residential areas to the
west by I-95, which is immediately to the east of this property. Aerial views are included at
Exhibit 9. The aerials show that the building at 20 Jackson Street is sandwiched between
surrounding industrial buildings and set back from the I-95 roadway by about 200 feet.
From this east view, the board can see the main frontage of this building along South
Swanson Street. In these views, the former retailer, which was a Joe Mar clothing store,
was still in the space, where you can see quite a significant number of wall signs that they had on
this property. From this particular view, the separation of the building from any residential
areas is quite clear, with the building being surrounded exclusively by other industrial
or large-scale commercial uses. From the south view, the board can see the frontage of the
property along Jackson Street. And again, you can clearly see the distance here from the residential
areas on the other side of 95. And finally, from the west, the board will notice the two small
extensions above the building which are relevant to today's case. Looking at the street level
photographs at Exhibit 13. This first view shows the property again from South Swanson Street
when Joe Marr was in the process of closing down its operations.
This next photograph is looking towards Jackson Avenue, where the board will clearly see the
building extensions above the roof. The tenant is anticipating that the upper level windows
that are currently obscured here in this image will be restored.
The next photograph shows a view standing up towards Jackson Street looking south.
This next view is from the Jackson Street-South Swanson Street intersection
and is also helpful in terms of establishing context of the property as well as its proximity to I-95.
And again, just by way of context, the residences are on the other side of I-95, which is pretty far off in this image.
Given the industrial nature of this area, the roadways surrounding the property are quite wide, and I believe are also slated for upcoming city-led improvements.
The next view is from Wolf Street, where again the board will see the prominence of the aforementioned building extensions above the roof.
From this view, roughly 230 feet away, you can clearly discern the most prominent point of this building in terms of identification.
The next photograph shows that the building is minimally visible from Snyder Avenue, which is all the way north of the property.
Finally, the exhibits include a photograph from the I-95 roadway, where again the board may note the building is over 200 feet away.
where again the board may note the building is over 200 feet away and is tucked behind another
building which inhibits visibility of the building for those that might be traveling down I-95
preparing to exit at Columbus Boulevard to travel to the Sherwin-Williams store.
Photographs of the zoning posters that were timely posted on each frontage are also in the packet.
it. With this instant application, the applicant is proposing the erection of four total wall signs,
only three of which generated today's appeal for a variance. Looking at the signage plans at
Exhibit 5, I'm going to flip to the last page here first. Only the signs marked in this image
with a B require a variance. The sign A is considered by Wright. Scrolling up one page,
the board will see a rendered view of the proposed signs. As you can likely tell,
these are brand standard in terms of color, overall design, and of course, Sherwin-Williams logo.
Sign A, which is the wall sign above the door, is 99 square feet and does not require relief.
The three other wall signs are each 79.33 square feet, measuring 14 feet long and 68 inches high.
They are proposed to be erected on these building extensions, which are each 15 feet long and 12 feet high.
The extensions themselves start roughly 30 feet from ground level.
The signs will be illuminated with LED lighting from behind the signs, but the signs themselves are, of course, static.
The exhibit packet does also, at Exhibit 6, include a floor plan of the Sherwin-Williams interior, but that is not subject to today's application, so I will skip over the floor plans unless the board has any particular questions about the interior layout.
As I noted earlier on, the application before the board today only concerns the location of the signs that were presented.
The number of signs and the size of the signs not only complies with the provisions of the code, but is actually substantially less than the code would allow.
As established in earlier evidence, this property suffers from a unique hardship
entitling the applicant to a variance to permit the erection of three wall signs above the second
floor windowsill. As shown in the photographs and clearly established on this particular rendering,
the building is subject to various obscurements given the heavily industrial and commercial
surroundings. Since Sherwin-Williams is intended to cater in this case both to commercial and
residential customers, it is critically important that the building be quickly and easily identifiable
from a distance, particularly since there is no signage proposed at all for the north face of the
building. This further supports the necessity of all three signs, with the westernmost sign being
visible from I-95 and allowing travelers to identify the building before taking their required
exit. Additionally, this section of the code referenced in the refusal that only allows
signage at the lower of the roof line or the second floor windowsill is really intended to
prevent against the erection of roof signage. While the building extensions in this case do
sit above the roof level, technically speaking, the proposed signs do not constitute roof signage,
but are instead common wall signs that just happen to sit slightly higher on this particular
building. They unfortunately cannot be treated as building identification signs, which do have more
of an allowance in terms of height, because the building itself is too low for them to qualify.
The building itself also has unique features that make locating wall signage difficult.
As shown in earlier photographs and renderings, the building benefits from significant windows,
both existing and anticipated to be restored. As you can see, it's nearly impossible to identify
a spot below the roofline where the applicant can actually locate viable signage here,
other than the proposed wall sign above the door.
These challenges are presumably why the former retailer felt it necessary to erect such colorful signage
nearly every couple of feet along the entire building.
The proposed Sherwin-Williams signs are significantly more modest than what was there in the past,
while still providing minimal signage necessary to support a nearly 17,000-square-foot commercial and retail operation.
There are other similar signs in the immediate area as these building extensions appear.
There are other similar signs in the immediate area, as these building extensions above the roof are quite common in this area for industrial buildings of this nature.
The applicant further submits the proposal as the least minimum variance and is limited just to the necessary relief to ensure the new tenant space is sufficiently identifiable.
The I-2 district would permit an unlimited number of wall signs.
On this frontage of the building, over 900 square feet of signage would be permitted.
This entire application only encompasses roughly one-third of the total permitted signage square
footage for this frontage of the building. Additionally, the signs are only a few feet
above where they'd be permitted by right, below the second floor windowsill. As shown,
there is simply no feasible location on the building to locate code-compliant signs.
We submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties, or impair light and
air. The building is amongst other commercial or industrial uses, and the signs cannot be
visible from any residents. The applicant further submits the proposed signs will facilitate a
reduction in congestion that might be caused by insufficient signage, particularly drivers
traveling down the highway seeking to visit this store. In terms of impact on surrounding
properties, the evidence established this property is in an area that can accommodate
these minimal signs without impact. Full analysis is provided in the memo of law submitted to the
board at Exhibit 10. With respect to the community, as you noted earlier on, we did meet with Whitman
Council, and their support was unanimous for this proposal. So at this point, I would call
up my client, Bob White, if you're in the virtual audience, if you can raise your hand.
Mr. White.
Bob White has been allowed to speak.
Mr. White, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, thank you very much. It is Bob, B-O-B, White, W-H-I-T-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. White, could you identify your position with Sherwin-Williams, the tenant of this space?
Yes, I am a senior project engineer in the real estate department for the Sherwin-Williams company.
And as a senior project engineer, have you been granted authority by Sherwin-Williams to speak on their behalf today?
And have you heard all of the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board during the presentation?
And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt that testimony as if you had given it yourself?
Yes. The only thing that I would clarify is that the second story windows are still subject to review with the landlord and their ultimate building plans that they have to submit before the town.
Thank you. We're happy to answer any questions. And again, we do have the architect as well as the installer on the line.
Questions from the board?
I have no questions.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
there are no hands chair planning commission
thank you chair uh this is keith davis filled up the city planning commission
uh the planning commission recommends no change to this property's i2 zoning
the proposed signs in question are effectively shielded from nearby residents by the elevated
i-95 and will therefore have little to no impact in that regard the planning commission has no
objection to the granting of this variance but we suggest a provisor that the signs uh self-identify
um number 12 mi 2024 003 210 20 jackson street i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes
Taya Nguyen, my vote is yes
James Snell, my vote is yes
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes
Thank you, counsel
Thank you, everyone
Number 14, MI 2024-003-2372 Franklin Town Boulevard
Joseph Vaccaro is the attorney
There is a letter of unanimous opposition, 16 to 0, from the Logan Square Neighbors Association, and also a letter of opposition from Council Member Young's office.
Mr. Vaccaro.
Mr. Vaccaro.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. Can you hear me?
I can, Mr. Vaccaro. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Certainly. My name is Joseph Vaccaro, V-A-C-C-A-R-O, and I'm here on behalf of Logan Wheel Property, Logan Operator, the applicant.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Our vice chair has a few questions, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its
accuracy? Yes, I do. 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, I did, with the exception of
the tax clearance documents, which I was able to finally send either yesterday or Monday.
Understood. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen. Thank you very much. If I may start
sharing my screen okay can you see can you see this says fountain view yep yes okay great so
we're on the same page um and for the record i do have tom kilcourse on the call as well as
Dennis O'Hara from the Compass Sign Company on behalf of this application. So at the conclusion
of my presentation, I'd like to call Mr. O'Hara next with any additional technical information
regarding the signs. As indicated, this is an application for two signs to this building,
which is used for senior living, as well as medical officers. The medical officers are on
the first floor, senior living in the rest of the building. I'm starting on page one of my exhibit
packet. I don't want to belabor or waste the board's time with the deed and the other items
which the board already has had. I'm moving along to page 18. Yes, there were a series of signs
which were already installed and approved as of right. This specific application relates to
sign 3, where my cursor is hovering. Do you see that? As well as sign 5, where my cursor is
hovering. The building is taking up the whole block. The block is bordered by Franklin Town
Boulevard, then Callow Hill Street on the north side, 18th Street on the west side, and the former
Wood Street on the south side. The next property over further south across the street from Wood
Street is parking for the Mormon Temple in Center City, Philadelphia. Going further down, I have
another view. Again, sign five and sign three of the ones that are part of this application.
And I could show you a street view. I could stop sharing this for now. I could go to
actually better yet, I'll go to
this one here. This is a screenshot of the building.
In question, this is Wood Street, where my mouse is hovering over.
Franklin Town Boulevard is here, where you see my mouse hovering, 18th Street.
So one sign would be here, and the other sign would be here, right where the batter is.
The batter is just temporary.
This is the Mormon Temple, on the very bottom of the screen.