the proposed placement of the signage, which is between... I'll show you with my cursor also.
So here we go, 24 feet, five inches off the ground and 44 feet, six inches off of the
and 44 feet, six inches off of the ground.
ground.
That's the area where the signage is proposed.
This is above the lobby
and along the exterior of what is existing parking levels.
So Altera had retained parking
that had been there with the office building.
And you saw how they have upgraded the overall property.
But just to give you board members a sense
as to what is there, you have levels of parking.
And then it's also, just to contextually show you how this is envisioned, where my cursor
is at the sixth level above the parking is where residential living begins.
And this is actually where we see, after the lobby level, the first sign of windows.
Um, once again, the code speaks to window sills, but just, just putting it into context.
And, uh, here you can see some, uh, closeups of the signage, uh, which in terms of the,
the size, the spacing, uh, I'm not aware of any, uh, issues or anyone contesting it.
the only issue is whether the table referenced in the refusal applies or not
and some additional detail
and and bringing you back to the photograph with the conceptual renderings if you will
we're asking the board mr chairman members to interpret the zoning code in line with the plain
meaning of the code language and as always to do so with the principle that the code should be
interpreted in favor of the applicant we're prepared if the board would like to ask some
questions of mr culp the representative of the department at the appropriate time
but that in a nutshell is uh is our case respectfully before you okay do you want to
ask your questions now if i may thank you i'd like to please call mr andrew colp of the city
of philadelphia department of licenses and inspections
could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer
andrew culp and d-r-e-w-k-u-l-p you swear our firm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes mr labor good morning mr culp sorry to uh pull you up here today thank
you for being here i have on the screen uh a um copy of table 14901-1 of the philadelphia zoning code
i it provides that um
the maximum height for wall signs in the cmx5 zoning district is quote the lower of the roof
line or second floor windowsill end quote do you agree that this is the uh sole provision
in the code that regulates height of accessory building identification signage in the cmx 5
zoning district no because what's that building oh sorry towards you sorry sure uh you're referring
to something different building identification signs are a completely different code provision
this is for regular accessory signage there's a separate section for building identification
signage and which section is that it's later i don't have it it's 14904 something
there's separate provisions in cmx 4 and 5 for building identification signs on high rises but
they have to be above 150 feet that's the general gist of the requirement why sir is that not
referenced then in the notice of refusal that was issued because these were applied for as
accessory signs and not a building identification sign you would have to specifically identify that
you are seeking approval as a building identification sign to apply that section
Okay, so what's before the board is an application for accessory building identification signage. Are there any provisions in the code that would be relevant to accessory signage, sir?
Which one? You referenced two different things. Building identification signage?
Accessory signage.
Okay, so then, yes, the table applies for regular accessory signage.
applies for regular accessory signage. Thank you. Are you aware, Mr. Culp, of the provision
Thank you.
Are you aware, Mr. Cole,
in the zoning code that distinguishes buildings with curtain wall facades vis-a-vis the cited
provision in table 14901-1? Not that I'm aware of. So there's not a more restrictive measure
in signage height for curtain wall facade buildings such as this, correct? Not that I know of. Thank
Thank you.
Prior to submitting this application, ZP2025-005142, an application was submitted to the department
which is actually referenced in Mr. Reuter's submission of last evening, and it was reviewed
by Richard Chen of your department, as you know, Mr. Colt.
I'm bringing up on the screen an exchange that I had as counsel for the applicant,
counsel for Altera Property Group with Mr. Chen.
And then in reviewing the initial substantially same application for accessory signage at the property,
Zoning examiner Richard X. Chen commented that the proposal would appear to, quote, be a by-right approval if updated elevation plans, reference floor plans and notes could be included in the sign drawings to clarify the situation with the new application, end quote.
Mr. Culp, do you believe that Mr. Chen was mistaken in his comment?
uh he was asking for updated drawings so we wouldn't be able to make a formal determination
without a new application with updated drawings so it could be correct or it could not be correct
based on the revised drawings that he was requesting you to submit a new application
we can't make a formal interpretation without an application submitted with plans and required
details. I agree. And in fact, that's exactly what was done at this point. And a new application
was submitted with the same plans with clarificatory comments. And this was reviewed by
Harry Wilson. Are you familiar with that review? Yes.
and this resulted in the subject notice of refusal on the screen correct yes
departmental eclipse records will reveal that mr wilson noted in his review that quote no sign may
be erected or maintained in the center city commercial area unless approved by the art
commission end quote however mr wilson realized on this point that he was mistaken and did not
include this refusal in the subject notice of refusal that was issued correct can you please
repeat that sure so here we go on page three of the eclipse uh comments that mr wilson created
associated with the application before the board he noted as i've highlighted in yellow this is my
highlight not his no sign may be erected or maintained in the center city commercial area
unless approved by the art commission however this did not end up on the notice of refusal
that was generated correct okay correct yes so a mistake was made on that point right
uh not necessarily the the examiners use atlas and atlas has gis which probably flagged the
property as in the commercial area and then we have to we have to receive information to confirm
whether that overlay actually applies depending on the location so was it a mistake or not ultimately
I mean, he didn't issue a refusal for it, so I don't know where the mistake would be.
Okay, we can move on. Mr. Culp, in your role as engineering supervisor, I had reached out to you
this past June to review the two applications that I've mentioned, the original application
that Mr. Chen reviewed, and then the subsequent application that Mr. Chen had guided us or
advised us we would have to file in order to proceed with L&I, and that was the one
and that was the one reviewed by mr wilson which is specifically referenced in this appeal
reviewed by Mr. Wilson, which is specifically referenced.
can you please read the highlighted language at the top of this page which is your
response to me that begins the sign goes above the fourth floor level
okay the sign goes above the fourth floor level i think you're trying to make an argument that
since there are no windows at the second floor then it couldn't be above that but then based
on that logic you could put the sign wherever you want up to the roof which would not be allowed
the refusal stands you can argue with the zoning board thank you why does the code language
reference the second floor windowsill. Can you repeat that, please? Sure. This is the
hyper-technical legal issue that's before the board. It's a very unusual issue for the board
to have to consider, I recognize. Mr. Culp, why does the code language in the table that we've
looked at, which I can bring up if you wish. Why does the code language reference the second floor
windowsill? I don't know. I didn't write the code. I don't know. I didn't write the code.
What is the purpose of specifically including windowsill? I don't know.
thank you in light of the specific inclusion of the words windowsill in the zoning code
mr culp how do you abide by section 14 201 14 concerning rules of interpretation
and construe the code in favor of the landowner of this matter so um while i don't know why
the specific language was used when the code was written logic would state that the second floor
windowsill would be somewhere between the second and third floor or ceiling of the second floor
so on a regular building there would be a second floor window with the windowsill it would be
somewhere in that area so ruling in favor of the applicant we would have to say that the highest it
could possibly be and still be on the second floor would be at the ceiling of the second floor so
that's where we would have to limit it if we received an application that didn't have windows
sills or windows at all because that's the highest that a windowsill on the second floor could
possibly be i mean that wouldn't physically work but in theory that's the highest the second floor
windowsill could be i think i understand so to use your words
logic you used your logic to determine the presumptive intent of this provision correct
i guess thank you it's a difficult task i i i understand
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, a windowsill is generally defined.
Are you done with the window?
Thank you, Mr. Cole.
Do you want a couple questions?
I do have a couple questions.
Do you want me to take the screen sharing off?
Could you go back to the email that you exchanged you had with Andrew?
So, Mr. Kolb, in preparing for the hearing today, did you go through the emails and other materials that you had in relation to this matter?
Sorry.
And with respect to that, did you come across the particular email that Mr. Labor has just referenced here?
Yes. Okay. And again, I want to be careful how I broach this, but is there, is, so, and today,
did you bring a printout of that email? Yes. Okay. And I apologize. I don't, because I didn't
personally know that the specific thing would come up. I don't have a copy of it. I have a paper
copy. Is there a difference between the email that you received and the one that's being shown
on the screen yes the second floor level was removed somehow from this drawing okay i'm going
to show a copy and this is a i'm going to show you a piece of paper this is a copy a printout of an
email that you printed out today yes okay and uh in that does it show that there is a level two
marked out yes that diagram okay i'm going to show that and i'm going to pass that on to the board
and i'm going to pass that off to the board excuse me this is the reporter could i ask
Excuse me, this is the reporter.
mr reuter and the witness to share the microphone thank you
he just wants you when you testify oh yes sorry that's all okay so in fact uh in in the email
that you received there is a level level two that is uh marked out is that correct
Actually, I sent this email and I pulled the plans from Eclipse on the application that was filed.
So the image that's on the printed out copy, which was what I sent to Mr. Laver, had the second floor level shown, and that is what we received in Eclipse.
And in the actual application that was reviewed, the second application that was reviewed, that also indicates a level two?
yes and that's where you got this from yes okay all right so again we would just ask the board
to accept the complete uh version the non-redacted version of the of the email for purposes of the
record um now i'm gonna go to uh i'm gonna probably need to share my screen here
i'll stop sharing
i gotta find where's my shares i will have some redirect at the appropriate time oh you know what
i don't think i'm actually yeah that's right i will thank you yeah sorry i didn't even notice that
Yep. Thank you very much.
All right.
Trying to.
All right. Can you see that on your screen?
I'm sorry. It looks a little bit jumbled right now.
but um what am i uh this is a section of the philadelphia zoning code uh
okay title 14 section 14-202 rules of measurement
can you read what it has under 21.1 windowsill and calculating sign height
Yeah, if you're able to move the zoom bar, just drag it to the top.
It should go horizontal, and then we can see the whole code provision better.
Oh, yeah.
It's just, see, it's not showing up on my screen.
Oh, okay.
All right.
can you collapse the the index then on the side and maybe we can see the whole thing better
yeah more or less yeah that's that's better thanks all right can everybody see that now
okay and again what does that say uh window sill and calculating sign height this measurement
shall be based on the floor of a building with which the window is associated which is fully
above grade plane not measured as including basement cellar or other space below grade plane
okay i'm going to stop well i'll wait that up for the for a moment and um what is your
understanding of what that provision means i'm fairly certain that the intent of that is to
delineate where this which floor we would consider the second floor when determining
where the second floor windowsill is okay and is that due to the fact that in many buildings there
are in fact no windows for the second third floor or maybe no windowsills at all for a curtain wall
construction building I believe so one or just for a point this Gaston has it has a I guess
that's my question is there a definition for windowsill in here there is no specific definition
for windowsill um but it's the city's position that this provision in effect tells you where
the windowsill is regard regardless of whether there are any windows it's this is literally
the how you determine where the windowsill is in calculating cyanide but okay if there's no
definition right then you have to use ordinary meaning of a windowsill and a windowsill is a
ordinary meaning of a windowsill and the windowsill is attached it's it's with a window not just any
height wouldn't it be i'm sorry i'm not trying to make a case for you i'm just asking the question
that this is calculating it the windowsill at sign height right but
there has to without the definition of windowsill i mean how do we you're saying that regardless of
whether there is a window or not that this applies is that what you're saying i i in a in a fact yes
that that you know again and this will be more the city's argument for closing there's more argument
But the city's position is that the interpretation that the appellant seeks would allow an accessory sign anywhere on curtain wall construction, because there are no window sills as commonly understood for most curtain wall buildings, whether you're talking Liberty One or you're talking 1701 Market or so many of these other places.
there are no window sills per se here in fact they've indicated that they do have levels
and there is a second level and there is in fact glass on that second level
so because i believe if i understood correctly the interior lobby goes up to the bottom or the