shopping center is that correct
yes sir
okay and that's
the second billboard that we see
with the white sort of white face that's the one
right at Spring Garden Street
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
And then there's, I guess it looks like almost like a third one, but that's not on Delilah's Den's property, correct?
And then there's, I guess it looks like almost like a third one, but that's not on.
That is correct.
It is not on Delilah's Den property.
Go to, you have that, what do you have next?
We'll go to the next one that you have in your sequence.
You've done a location map.
I don't know if we can blow it up just a little bit or if the board can see it.
so um our location is clearly up marked as this location correct that is correct it's on the left
hand side i'm indicating left hand side and that's about you've pinpointed where this our roofs our
existing roof sign is and where the uh proposed modernization sign will be correct yes sir okay
How did you, what does this show? It shows you have a 06, go back up, go back up. You have a 060405, I-95, MM-22, Lamar reading, two faces back to back, HAGL-70. Can you tell us where that's located and what those different terms mean?
This exhibit shows, the blue dots show permitted PennDOT non-accessory permit numbers and locations.
So the first line, 06-0405, is a PennDOT non-accessory permit number.
06 is PennDOT District 6, which Philadelphia is within.
The next line is an approximate location to where the sign advertises to.
So this is along I-95, mile marker 22. The third line is the owner, Lamar. The fourth line is just the general configuration, how many faces, and these signs in question are back-to-back, so they're double-faced.
I mentioned previously they're 20 by 60 each face. That's 1,200 square feet back to back. And the HAGLE stands for height above grade line. So from the grade to the bottom edge of their faces is 70 feet in each case. So they're approximately the same height relative to their respective grades.
Okay, and so from what your markings mean, and you're saying that this is intended to be principally visible to the I-95 cartway, is that correct?
That's correct, and by virtue of being double-faced, they advertise to northbound and southbound.
Okay, now the one below that is marked as 06-0396. Is that the one that had the Dunkin' Donuts and the check cashing on the two sides?
Yes, sir. That's correct.
Okay. And I guess just for purposes, it's a Lamar sign.
It's back-to-back has been shown, and it is also about 70 feet above grade at that point.
To the bottom of face, yes, sir.
To the bottom of face.
And then there appears to be another one down below that we haven't shown as being in the vicinity of Delilah's.
But as I said, we were we were countering the issues that was raised, that it didn't appear like that there were non-accessory signs across the way at 100 to 30 Spring Garden Street.
So but across the way, so across the way you have a red X demo is has there been a removal of an existing billboard sign by Clear Channel?
Yes, that's a clear channel sign. It was a rooftop sign. Approximately 720 feet south of our location. And that was its permit number. It was a single face that just advertised the southbound traffic on I-95.
Okay. Can you go to your next slide, which I believe would be the zoning application for 412 North Front?
Yes, second.
Now that I believe we've marking is a 22 this map of showing the locations of different signs in the area a 23 will call zoning application for one two oh four four four four 12 North Front Street, and this shows, I guess it's hard and may be hard to read unless we can blow it up a little bit.
But the description of the work was that there was a previously approved billboard sign at permit number, you had it for a second, there you go, 225356, and that is that billboard that we've seen, that is the Dunkin' Donuts and check cashing billboard, correct?
Michael?
Hello, Michael?
Michael, you're muted.
Michael, you're muted.
Michael, you're muted or I can't hear you.
Michael, you're muted or can't hear you.
Oh, you're muted.
Mute now.
Okay, now.
Can you talk?
Oh, we can't hear him.
Michael, we can't hear you.
Somehow we can't hear you.
We lost you.
Can you hear us?
Michael, can you hear us?
We had him.
Okay, so I think what he has to do
is go out and come back in
and see if that works.
Maybe go back and come back in, Michael.
We were just going to.
OK, so, Mr. Powell, it seems to me that you pretty much know his testimony pretty well.
So would you want to finish?
Well, in a way, Mr. Chairman, we were going to get into with Michael and just roll through again that our refusals are for the bottom edge.
of the you know we were going to get into that we're visible really the targeted area is coming
off the ramp of cattle hill right not the main cartway of i-95 and so therefore i don't know if
michael's trying to get back in and therefore um one of the refusals was that we're at 28 feet above
the roadway to be intended and it was interpreted that the roadway to be visible from was uh second
street whereas we're saying is from the pictures that michael's put on we would have gone through
the pictures to show you the off ramp that's right alongside where our building is um that
we believe that we're well within the 25 feet that's allowed and that the hardship would be if
we had to comply we'd have to tear down part of our building since it's sitting right at the rooftop
um to even comply with the 28 feet uh michael's already testified to where we showed where the
different residential districts and commercial districts are um or the residential districts
are on like second and brown up up the way and how the limitation of visibility also we presented
the last hearing we're just going to have michael go through it again that right at spring garden
street is 200 spring garden street right at front in spring garden a new high rise has been built
but, and they're sort of creating a cove effect for us that blocks even more
the visibility of the sign.
I think we had a lot of testimony the last time relative to that.
So, so that, you know, that would, that would be it.
The only other thing I was going to get into with Michael.
Michael, can you hear?
Michael, can you testify?
Michael?
It has to be something with his audio, I believe.
I agree.
I'm texting him right now because that's worked.
Let's see how fast that goes.
So the biggest thing that we were, one of the things we were just going to go through is, you know, Mr. Reuters here.
He's been for the city.
And we'll just lay it out with regard to the fact that we want to suggest that the city could be looking at this in the way of a business competitor.
The city has the ability of 1490515 of the zoning code to have on municipal properties, billboards, digital signs on municipal properties, regardless of any restrictions.
So it's at 1590515. And in fact, any revenue that the city of Philadelphia gets, it is allowed, the director of finance, 1490515G, is authorized to create a special separate fund held by the city of Philadelphia to deposit in such fund any revenue collected by the city with respect to advertising signs erected on municipal property
erected on municipal property and to provide for the disposition of such funds to the school
and to provide for the disposition of such funds.
district of philadelphia very laudable goal but it does put the city potentially in the business
of advertising outdoor advertising without the same restrictions that were being imposed on us
and i was just going to ask michael i have to right behind us
let's let's try it let's try to get like i think right behind us is the fire administration i know
But listen to me. Listen to me. I think that issue you raised, maybe you could talk about that because we have a point here where you're going to have a chance for closing statements.
Yeah. OK. I guess the question is, are you comfortable?
What Michael Michael's testimony or are you are you solid?
The only other thing was about modernization, that this is a sign that is limited in terms of lumens and everything like that, that was going to comply with all the digital requirements and lumens and nits that was allowed under the code, and it would be less of a distraction to anybody, and as I said, since its principal viewing point would be the off-ramps, that we don't feel would be detrimental health, safety, and welfare.
So that would have been what we would have tried to get out of him.
So, Leonard, are you comfortable not crossing with him?
Yeah, I mean, we'll accept that as an offer of proof.
Michael may be back.
Michael, can you?
Yep, I'm here.
He's back.
Sorry about that.
What, Mr. Popp, do me a favor.
Try to move.
I mean, just don't repeat again everything we said.
Why don't we see if we can move him along a little bit?
Yeah, yeah.
Yes, no problem, Mr. Chairman.
So, Michael, I think we got cut off just on that. We want to just make the point with the 412 North Front Street that that was in the application, but there was the permit refusal that was issued and written by Gene Klinger, who was one of the more knowledgeable examiners back in the day.
right here clearly acknowledged that it's on the if you look at it it says it's clearly on the lot
with an existing non-accessory outdoor advertising sign so just to prove that that sign is there
legally on it 412 north front street unfortunately mr chairman we were michael it's true but you
weren't when looking at the file at least it's online in city atlas for 100 to north to 30th
spring garden we couldn't find anything about signage or the advertising outdoor advertising
signs for that property correct that's correct okay so michael real quick because while you
were going i tried to summarize what where we were headed with you um we were talking about
one uh the modernization of the sign and the intended viewing point that it's the ramps and
what the modernization impact will have on that? Yes. So just summarize, you know, where we would
go with that. So, you know, this sign is a modernization of an existing sign. The face is
set to be replaced. It's a, with the modernization, it's still going to be the same
sign orientation, same location and plan. It's intended to advertise strictly to primarily first
the I-95 Spring Garden pedestrians that wait along there, but also to the lower speed
Callahill Street exit ramp, two-lane exit ramp along there. And with this modernization,
There are a number of advantages that come with this, better control of brightness, improved clarity, and at the same time, with the increase in size, it'll provide better readability from that Cal Hill Street exit ramp,
and also better readability to the nearest point and to the pedestrians along Spring Garden
SEPTA station. So a little bit increase in size provides better read along the ramp
and better read from the distance in Spring Garden. It's a single face, it's in the shadow
of a party wall. It's directly oriented towards those areas to see. It's relatively low and small
compared to other non-accessory signs along the area. And as an engineer, in my professional
opinion, it's appropriate to ask for the size of the sign for the speeds on the ramp and the
distance to Spring Garden Street Station. So Michael, real quick, what you said about the
So, Michael, real quick, what you said about the other signs directly across the street, they're 70 feet high.
other signs directly across the street, there's
They're all 20 by 60s.
We're not asking for anything like that at this location, correct?
That's correct.
In fact, we're not asking for even a 14 by 48, which is even another standard size, correct, of a billboard?
That's correct.
So we're asking for 12.33 by 31 is the minimum variance to allow us to be able to modernize this sign.
Is that correct?
In my opinion, yes, sir.
Nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple quick follow-up questions.
Mr. Tintala, would you agree that none of the other non-accessory signs that you were just talking about are digital?
Yes, sir. That is correct.
Those two Lamar across the way are conventional, albeit larger and taller.
They're vinyl signs.
And with respect to the proposed sign here.
I would add that the existing sign is digital.
just clarifying the one we're talking about sure but the you would agree that the existing digital
sign um is is for lack of a better way of putting it sort of a um a very old-fashioned type of
lighted sign it's it's kind of like a glorified light right set right i mean it has the little
it's it's not like it's not like a i mean the proposed digital sign is more like a like almost
It's a giant flat screen monitor type sign, right?
I mean, to be clear, both this technology doesn't just display text.
The existing sign can display photos and images and has the newer face that they would propose would have a tighter pixel spacing.
But it's not text only imagery.
they can have photos on there just like the bigger signs across the way.
And how often, if you know, and you might not be privy to this,
how often would the images on the proposed sign change?
We call that dwell time.
It's proposed to have an eight-second dwell time.
That's consistent with city requirements and also PennDOT requirements,
which PennDOT actually permits a little bit less five-second dwell time, this would be in excess of that.
Now, you are in the course and scope of your engineering research, but in particular with respect to digital signage.
Have you worked on other digital sign applications or proposals in the past?
Yes, I have many in my career in many municipalities, in many states.
You've also alluded to, I've done research concerning traffic safety throughout the country, and I've testified throughout the country as well, specific to signage and digital signage.
Okay. All right. And I think if I see if I have anything else further.
And I prepared this subject site plan.
which is Exhibit A6. Okay, thank you. I have, oh, well, just, and again, this isn't really so
much of a question, but to, just to clarify the record, to the best of my understanding,
and this is pretty typical of a lot of properties as you get closer to the river,
there's multiple addresses for 100. It's 100 Spring Garden, 100 to, I think, 138 Spring Garden,
and 412 North Front Street are all the same property, but there's different sets of zoning
files under different addresses, which again happens quite frequently. So that was part of
our confusion in determining who had what signs, but to the best of our knowledge, the entire
parcel or the entire piece of land where the Delilahs and the Enterprise are and where
apparently two signs are is is one property it has multiple addresses depending on the time when
people submitted things uh and uh it looks like they were originally multiple parcels through