Back to All Events

March Zoning Meeting

Click here to join meeting.

March Zoning Meeting Cases

803 S. 4TH ST

VARIANCE REQUESTED TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE FIRST FLOOR IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE

Applicant (Richard Van Duesen DBA OCF Realty) is asking for a zoning variance to allow for residential use on the first floor in an existing structure.

The Reason for Refusal states:  In  the CMX-2 and CMX-2.5 districts, in order to promote active uses at the street level, building must contain a use other than residential and other than parking along one hundred percent (100%) of ground floor frontage and within the first 30 ft. of building depth, measured from the building line.  Whereas the proposed plan is for residential within first 30 feet of building depth and is prohibited. 

 

775 S CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS BOULEVARD

VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ONE (1) FLAT WALL SIGN WITH STATIC ILLUMINATION ACCESSORY TO WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE

The applicant (Dorann Matthews DBA Forman Sign Company) is asking for a variance for the installation of one (1) flat wall sign with static illumination accessory to wholesale distribution and storage - moving and storage facilities, size and location as shown on plans.

The Reason for Refusal states: Maximum height of flat wall signs should be the lower of the

roof line or second floor window sill whereas the height of the proposed wall sign is above the second floor window sill.

626 S FRONT ST

VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR INTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND THE ERECTION OF A (1) STORY REAR ADDITION WITH A ROOF DECK AND OFF-STREET PARKING AND A (2) STORY REAR ADDITION FOR USE AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSEHOLD LIVING

The applicant (Carl Massara) is requesting a variance for interior alterations to an existing structure and the erection of a (1) story rear addition with a roof deck and off-street parking and a (2) story rear addition for use as a single family household living, size and location as per plan application.

The permit cannot be issued because the proposal is not in compliance with the following provisions of the Philadelphia Code:

Required open area,  20%; Proposed - none

Required roof setback, 5 feet; Proposed - none

Proposed accessory parking: 2 spaces; none allowable

Previous
Previous
March 13

Traveling Museum Exhibit at Gloria Dei Church

Next
Next
March 14

Simple Estate Planning is Not So Simple