direct sign facing north, and then this is the parking garage entrance sign for Cherry Street.
Now, this is the south elevation facing arch. Again, here, this is the giant direct sign
at this parking garage entrance, and then this is the main entrance of the store,
and this is the south facing giant sign. Again, this is 44 square feet, approximately reduced
from the originally proposed 80 square feet and then this is the east elevation facing 23rd street
again the entrance and this is the identification sign facing east again 44 square feet reduced from
80 and this is a starbucks sign here and then finally this is the west elevation facing the
river and this sign is approximately 80 square feet and uh 44 feet in elevation and just one final note
and 44 feet in elevation. And just one final note about the identification signs here. Not only do
we reduce the square footage, they were originally proposed to be 14 feet high and we've reduced
the height to 11 feet. So we've gotten three variances, sorry, three refusals to this application.
We're in zoning district RMX3. So the first refusal was for the maximum sign area along the
west and south frontages. Again, this is west facing the river, south facing where Art Street
would be. Because there are no streets on those property lines, we're not permitted any sign area
there. What we're proposing to the west is just under 80 square feet, and that's for the large
giant sign. And what we're proposing facing Art Street is 60 square feet. We were originally
proposing 95 our second refusal is for sign area on the east and north frontages rmx3 permits 24
square feet per street frontage and what we're proposing to face 23rd street is 57 square feet
and we're proposing 76 square feet to face cherry street and we were originally proposing 92 and 111
respectively. And the final refusal is for the height of the large giant sign. We're permitted
to place it at the second floor windowsill. We're proposing to place it at 44 feet above grid.
Now, we think these variances are appropriate for a number of reasons. First, whether it's 24 square
feet or zero square feet per frontage, it would really be insufficient to properly identify a
store that's 65,000 square feet, and we'll be attracting the number of customers that it will.
Specifically, if we had to eliminate the signage facing west and the signage facing south,
folks approaching from those areas simply couldn't identify where the store was. We believe that's
obviously an issue. And further, if we had to reduce to 24 square feet the total signage facing
23rd Street and facing Cherry Street. Arguably, there isn't really a difference between not having
any. It would be very hard to see. As we've seen with the renderings, the size of the building and
those facades would simply dwarf signage that's 24 square feet facing those areas. We believe it
would at least lead to confusion as to where the store is, as you wouldn't be able to see the signs
until you're essentially at the store already, and it could potentially lead to traffic congestion.
For example, if folks had to suddenly break in order to turn into the parking garage when they finally saw the sign.
And we require the additional height on the west elevation to provide visibility and wayfinding for motorists along the expressways.
Again, the proposed sign areas have been revised in response to community input, and we believe that these really are the minimum necessary signs in order to provide enough support for the retail operations there.
So as I alluded to before, because of the size of the buildings, again, 400,000 square feet for our building and 65,000 square feet for the store, we believe the signs are of an appropriate scale for their context.
And further, I'd like to point out that the entire Riverwalk project, the building's approval was obtained by Wright because in 2017,
council approved some amendments to the zoning code to allow for our building to be built without variances on an RMX3 lot,
which indicates that, you know, the council has deemed that entire site appropriate for CMX size type development.
And the signage we're proposing is well below what is permitted in CMX 5.
And in fact, if the giant store were in the South Tower, we would only need a variance for the height of the sign facing the river and not any for the area.
Further, we think that we've reduced the impact to neighbors as much as we possibly can by almost having the size of the lower giant signs,
moving them closer to the sidewalk and closer to the corners where we can.
And as noted in the letter of non-opposition, the RCO does not object to the sizes or locations of the revised signs.
However, the letter does contain a request for a proviso that none of the signs facing Arch, 23rd Street, or Cherry Street be illuminated.
However, the applicant respectfully requests that the board grant the variances without
that proviso in place because for the purposes of the store, we really do need the illumination
for the purposes of the store we really do need the illumination and further the illumination
and further the illumination.
is permitted by right and we think that for a number of reasons the illumination of these signs
will not have adverse impacts on the neighbors first these are red internally illuminated channel
letters and generally red light is less impactful than white and perceived as less bright if there
are more questions related to that we can have the architect jump in because he's more knowledgeable
about those particular issues than I am. Further, the small giant signs, again, the ones facing
Arch 23rd and Cherry Street, are each less bright than a standard HDTV. So their light emission is
290 lumens, whereas a standard television is in excess of 1,700 lumens, meaning that if a neighbor,
if instead of that sign being across the street, there was a neighbor who kept their television on,
the television would probably be brighter than the sign. Further, the white store lights coming
from the storefront itself would probably be brighter, will almost certainly be brighter than
the sign, which is another reason why we need the signs to have at least a little illumination so
they're not watched out by any background. And finally, the illuminated signs will be turned off
when the store closes. And right now that's contemplated to be 11 p.m. So even if someone
were bothered by what we feel is a very small amount of light emission from these signs,
they wouldn't have to see it after the store closes. And so we believe that it's not really
a material issue. Now, could Howard and Joe please raise your hands so I can have you sworn in
to affirm my testimony and offer any additional if you have.
We have both Howard and Joe available to be sworn in cheer.
Thank you.
Gentlemen, whoever goes first, both of you, please identify yourself for the record.
Spell your full name.
Yep. My name is Joe Lacadina, J-O-E, last name L-A, capital C-A-G-N-I-N-A.
You swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Clark?
No, my name is...
Oh, okay.
My name is Howard Liebold, H-O-W-A-R-D, L-E-B as in boy, O-L-D as in David.
Thank you.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Thank you, Mr. Clark.
All right.
Thank you.
And I'll start with Howard, who is our project architect.
Howard, do you affirm that my testimony has been true and correct, and do you adopt it as your own?
Thank you.
And do you have any additional testimony to offer?
I don't think at this time.
All right.
Thank you.
And Joe, do you affirm my testimony as true and accurate?
And do you affirm it as you're adopted as your own?
All right.
Thank you.
And do you have any additional testimony?
No, thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Clark, you mentioned Arch Street, 21st Street, and I missed, I think, one or two of the others where there was concern about the illumination.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
So that was Arch Street, 23rd Street, and Cherry Street.
third street and cherry and what are the hours of operation uh so uh joe can you uh please tell
the chair the hours of operation hours of operation are contemplated to be 6 a.m to 11 p.m
okay thank you all right uh any questions from the board no
no in this case if so please raise your hand are you hearing me yes yes okay no the reason is it
just said I was muted but I'm not okay I have Dennis Boylan you can unmute yourself and wait
to be sworn in i'm unmuted it's dennis boylan d-e-n-n-i-s b-o-y-l-a-n i'm the president of
the logan square neighborhood association which was the coordinating rco for this zba issue and
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you please
proceed uh thank you mr chairman uh as councillor clark uh mentioned in his review um there's an
important proviso in the letter we submitted which regarded the illumination and the times
uh it was felt very strongly by the two uh of the immediate near neighbor buildings uh one immediately
Two of the immediate near neighbor buildings, one immediately to the north, which is the Riverview, and immediately to the east, which is the Westminster Arch, that the illumination would cause problems for the residents there, even with the limited hours.
to the North.
The Riverview building is approximately 19 feet across the Cherry Street from the proposed sign,
so it's very close to it. So with the near neighbors along with the full presentation to
our board, the vote was 24 to 1 to come up with a non-opposition to the signs as presented in
their reduced size, and I'm specifically talking about signs Foxtrot, Charlie, Bravo, and Echo.
we have no issue with the alpha sign facing west for illumination but the other signs it was it
was deemed that not to have them illuminated because it would cause undue disturbance to
the adjacent neighbors and that's all I have to say. Those signs you're referring to about causing
issues for the neighbors are Arch Street 23rd and Cherry? That's correct sir. And even with
the limited hours there's still opposition that is correct sir thank you anyone else who would
like to testify in this case please raise your hand yes we have stephen you can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in
stephen state your name and spell it please
Stephen are you there okay chair we're going to move on I have Michael Michael you can unmute
yourself and wait to be sworn in I'm here yes please identify yourself first and last name
and your address michael ekstein 2301 cherry street you swear to firm to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir thank you please proceed thank you mr chairman
and members of the board um i am a member of the lsna board of directors and i am also a resident
of 2301 Cherry Street, which is River's Edge. As Chairman Dennis Boylan said, we are a grand total
of 19 feet across the alley. And I do say alley because quite honestly, Cherry Street is only 19
feet wide. And many people on this presentation, your driveways and bedrooms are bigger than 19
feet. But basically what we are contesting are these signs on the north side as well as the east
side having to do with illuminations. So we have no problems with the presentation that Mr. Clark
said and his design and his dimensions and his presentation today regarding the south and the
west side. But regarding the north and the east side, we actually have residents that are facing
directly into those areas. And we feel very strongly that there should be absolutely no
illumination whatsoever regarding those signs. This is not a suburban mall. This is not a large
expansive area. We have a 65,000 square foot supermarket being built in a very compact
neighborhood setting and any type of illumination facing residential areas will in fact detract
and in fact minimize and in fact decorate the quality of life and the profile of the character
of the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Chair, we have Daniel. Daniel, you can unmute yourself
and wait to be sworn in. Daniel, give us your first and last name. Spell your first and last
name and your address. My name is Daniel McElhatton. My address is 2000 Market Street,
suite 1400 philadelphia 19103 my last name is spelled m small c capital e l h a t t o n
and you're testifying mr chair pardon me i have not been sworn i am going to swear you now you
swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes sir i do
And you're in the office building? What is your involvement with this?
I represent Stephen and Elizabeth Rain.
Okay, that's where I was getting at.
Stephen is trying to get on, but he's been unable to unmute himself.
They are the owners of the building directly across the street, 23rd Street.
They are the owners of the building directly across the street, 23rd Street, from the giant store in their entrance.
It is a 90-unit apartment complex known as the Westminster Arch, approximately 100 residents there.
The compromise that was made in reducing the size of the signs and permitting the signage agreement to the signage on the west and south sides were part of the compromise that Logan Square Neighbors Association has made and proposed.
We think it is reasonable. To have signage on 23rd Street, which is probably 40 feet wide at most, and it only has traffic southbound, two lanes of traffic southbound, to say that a sign on, an illuminated sign on 23rd Street would help people understand where the Giant is, is, you know, defies belief.
Everyone's going to know where the giant store is.
It's a giant store.
And the west-facing signage will show people where it is.
And the signs that are being proposed, being illuminated, would not go into the new residences that will be above that.
They will be out on the neighbors.
This is a residential area.
It is essentially these apartments and then up the street there are residences.
And it's out of character for the neighbor.
It's out of character in Center City. If you look at what Whole Foods did north of the parkway and what Giant has done on their stores on 23rd and Bainbridge and out in West Philadelphia, they've got small signs. People know where they are. Trader Joe's doesn't have an illuminated sign out on Market Street and on 22nd Street.
So it's really inconsistent with the residential area.
The renderings that were shown were very nice, but it shows 23rd Street as being really pretty wide.
I live right around the corner.
I'm not here as a resident objecting and protesting, but as council.
But I know the area, and I know that 23rd Street is not nearly as wide as the rendering showed.
We compromised.
We could have opposed and could still oppose all of the requested variances, but we felt it was fair to compromise because I've been before the board before, and I know that the chair has suggested parties try to come to some accommodation.
And what the LSNA has done is provide what we believe is a reasonable accommodation, particularly for the 23rd Street facade and the Cherry Street facade.
It would be unfair. And one of the witnesses testified that, you know, the hours, they're contemplating 6 to 11.
Well, that doesn't mean that they're 6 to 11, but even that, if a resident is in their house at this time of the year, it's getting dark now.
And, you know, so they're going to have a red light right outside their apartment.
That's unfair. 6 o'clock in the morning, that's unfair.
So, we would ask the Board to approve the variances as LS&A has articulated them and do so with the proviso that we agreed to.
And I hope that Mr. Reins can join in. Technical issues may have prohibited him doing so, but I really have nothing else to add.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
You're welcome, sir.
Is there anyone else who would like to testify in something new and different?
That's all we have, Chair.
Mr. Clark.
Yes, Mr. Chair, may I ask one question each of the applicant and the architect, and may
I offer one more remark?
Thank you.
Howard, we've heard some testimony regarding the distance of the signs from residences.
I believe I stated before, and you adopted this as true, that the brightness, the actual
brightness of the signs is not very much and will almost certainly and will not almost but
it'll be dwarfed by just the ambient light coming out of the store so and you know in our opinion
the signs themselves won't pose their own independent issue uh howard can you just give
us a few uh data points as to the brightness of the sign at various distances from the sign