It's really hard to visualize, I would say yes.
It certainly isn't improving our view of the sign.
If anything, it's limiting it.
now joe um so what we've got that out uh let's let's go back to um either a3b a3b would be
great if you could get that um where the hand is right now that's the l that's the station for
spring garden street isn't that correct on the yes sir that's correct frank market frankford l
yes sir okay and i think we've mentioned it before when you were testifying but
that actually acts as a block visually so that if you were northbound on the northbound side
of I-95, you can't really see your sign. Isn't that correct? You can't see it at all. Right. So
we're not going to be visually impacting any northbound traffic with regard with the sign.
is that correct that's correct okay and um
where i think i think we will have a map that shows it but um we're not supposed to be within
500 or 500 face 500 feet of any residential district or face any residential district
within a thousand feet and we showed on the zoning map before then you have to go all the
way up to like second and brown i think it is i recall that yes yeah to be able to get
to get to uh or fair for second and fair amount i'm sorry uh to be able to get to where its own
residential uh that's correct okay so even from there right now they can't and you've walked that
second street corridor i'm sure uh and looked over can you see your your your sign from there
No, in fact, I frequently walk that area, whether it's to the restaurant or to the bank or to the state rep's office or to any number of the businesses that I do business with in there, including the notary and some others.
okay and so whatever the current sign and even the uh proposed sign um really uh won't be able
to be seen from in your opinion right from from like if you were second and green or second and
fair amount. No, not at all. Okay. And the you have engaged you engaged engineers and they have
told you that this sign will be a stable insert and sturdy and
This sign will be a stable and sturdy and we'll be able to withstand any winds and everything, so it's not going to be a hazard or a danger to the public health and safety.
Well, safety has always been paramount for us, and that was always our number one concern, even with the initial construction.
So we definitely had all eyes on that.
Okay. And Joe, do you believe that you've existed all these years and you've said there's never
been a complaint about your existing sign? Not one. Okay. And so doing what you're, go ahead.
The only correspondence I ever got was when Ms. Parkins called me.
Now, if this sign gets changed into where it can have a component of accessory plus non-accessory,
you will still continue to use it for the union and get your message out, correct?
Oh, absolutely.
We have to.
and was there a sign was there another sign of outdoor advertising sign that's actually
been taken down that was in the neighborhood recently yes a little closer to the bridge
so if we headed towards callahill street uh yes so so downward like a little bit down towards
Callahill Street. There was a sign sort of right at that little triangle right below little Callahill
Street. And that's been taken down. Isn't that correct? Yes, that's that's that's gone. That's
gone. Okay. So there's actually been at least somebody removed the sign in the area, right?
Yes, sir. So Joe, why why are we asking for this sign now? You gave an opening in the beginning,
But just reiterate why, again, we're looking for this sign now.
Well, for a lot of good reasons, steady income, I would be lying if I didn't say that that is certainly part of this.
Like all nonprofits, you know, we have bills to pay.
We struggle to make ends meet.
We have 5,000 frontline workers that need a lot of support.
The pandemic hit us very hard, very hard in so many ways.
And we look at this as a possible steady source and the ability to keep the lights on and, you know, the building up and running in the worst of times.
And to continue to provide the support, stay in the neighborhood, afford to survive and continue what we've been doing for the last 80 years.
for another 80 years. It's an expensive business we're in. And needless to say,
getting the message out to the members is always important. And we have multiple ways of doing it.
This has been a very effective tool. But also, you know, to have this tool, to have this sign
and to keep this sign up and running, even that costs money. So once we found out through PennDOT
that there really was no reason from their end, as you'll see in those emails, that they would deny us the right,
then we seized on the opportunity to try to get this done.
Somebody's going to have a sign there. I don't see why it wouldn't have been us.
Okay. And Joe, from what you understand with the proposed modernization of your existing sign, that you'll be able to control and enhance visibility.
Those are just some of the benefits, you know, longer lasting.
And you will be able to control the illumination so it doesn't spill out onto the other adjacent properties, correct?
It's a lot more manageable.
All right.
With that, I would conclude my direct of Mr. Coccio.
And I'll be moving all our exhibits into the record.
Anything that we've used so far, I'll move into the record.
And Mr. Chair, I'll be moving all our exhibits, which have been pre-marked A13, through our new supplementals to get us up to A17.
Thank you.
Mr. Reuter, do you have any comments about this?
I don't have objections to moving the exhibits into the record, with the exception, again, that we, you know, I don't, you know, just to preserve my objection on the relevance of 200-3-Dart.
And you have no cross-examination?
I do have a couple cross questions on cross.
i do have a couple cross questions on cross well i let them just let the record show you said you
Well, just let the record show.
were not going to become a party to this and participant you were just wanted to get the
position of the planning commission out now you're acting as an attorney by asking questions so i just
want the record to reflect that okay all right and you're representing the city of philadelphia
correct correct yeah okay all right mr rudard and again the question was right so right mr
karchia um again you you just testified uh uh that um with respect to uh the sign that uh you
are proposing that uh you believe that it will not be visible or will not leak out onto adjoining
properties is that right yes sir okay uh and but the whole purpose of the sign is to be seen
uh isn't that right yes sir and it will be primarily seen by uh persons driving vehicles
on southbound 95 isn't that right we'll basically be reaching the same audience for the most part
that we have uh been reaching only we'll be reaching them better more effectively clearer
and uh with the tree lines growing and everything else there on that the on that off ramp uh you
don't change a sign without going with an improvement no different than if you bought
a tv you're going to buy what's available and it's usually better technology okay it's typically
bigger. Okay. And this is a lot bigger, isn't it? I mean, this is more than twice as large. It's
probably about three or five times larger than the existing size. Objection. I think the size
speaks for itself. We've said what it is. It's 142 to 383. Okay. And it's not even close to full
size billboard size either it's a it's about halfway uh now you also mentioned the sign uh
across on the other side of the highway um where there's the little strip mall uh do you know
what's on that particular sign well it's actually a double sign and honestly i couldn't tell you
what ads are running if that's which if that's what you're asking okay uh if would you all right
So if that sign were advertising businesses located at that strip mall, would would you know whether or not that was true?
I could honestly say that I have not seen ads that were specific to that.
No, I'm not going to say I'm not going to say that they have not maybe for a period of time in time snapshot in time where they may have.
Okay. So you're saying that the large billboard is not a large billboard for Delilah's Den, which operates at that location?
Oh, no, it's definitely a commercial billboard, not owned by Delilah's, so to speak.
For Delilah's, right.
Right. It's one of the big advertiser signs. I don't recall whose.
Okay. Now, with respect to what your intended content for the proposed sign is, you said that you would continue to broadcast messages on behalf of the transit workers, but you've also testified that your intention is to generate income from the sign.
And wouldn't that actually require you to have other types of advertisements for other, you know, whether it's other businesses or other things that are not related to what's happening at 500 to 508 North 2nd Street?
well in order to generate income we would have to open the door to other sorts of advertising
yet maintaining yet maintaining control by owning the sign right but it's still i mean you applied
for a non-accessory sign isn't that correct that's correct sir and you agree that the existing sign
leaving aside uh what may have been advertised for pond lahaki uh that existing sign is permitted as
an accessory sign on the building right uh yes you didn't need a variance for that sign or did
you well we had to we we had to jump through a lot of hoops and we did have to get a variance
and and all these issues that you you mentioned about the the visibility in the homes and the
blocks we've but you you know that's been satisfied you needed the various because it
was digital right uh say repeat that please but again you needed the variance because it was
digital right it was an accessory sign but you needed the variance because it
But you needed the variance because it was a digital sign. Isn't that right?
was a digital sign isn't that right I believe that's correct
I believe that's correct.
Okay. You've also said that you and Citi doesn't dispute that you don't you don't run a sign business, right?
That's correct.
Okay. And you were aware and your attorney pointed out that you did not, that you don't have other digital, other billboards that you could take down, which is one of the requirements to get a digital billboard. Isn't that right?
Yeah. Well, as we found out, that is a requirement that no, we do not have any other digital signs.
Did you ever reach out to any owners or operators of other billboards to see if you could get an agreement for them to take down their sign?
No, I wouldn't even begin to know how to ask them.
And who would give up that income for somebody they don't even know?
But were you not made aware that that is what has commonly been done?
in order to meet the requirement
that certain billboards would have to be taken down?
Objection outside the scope,
but I'm not going to present as an expert
in how to comply with the code.
So, Mr. Kaccia, other than
your property is
a CMX3 property, is that right?
I mean, if you don't know what that is, that's fine. Okay. So have you explored other types
of uses that are available at that property? For our property? Yeah. No, we want it for what
it is. We have no reason to look into anything else. We don't plan on doing anything else with
it. So, but you would agree then there's nothing particular about the property itself that would
prohibit it being used for other purposes that would be permitted under the zoning classification,
right? Objection, Joe, if you understand the question. Have you sought any other tenants
for the property? Oh, absolutely not, no. Right, okay, so have you sought any other types of uses
for the property? Just our general office use that we currently use it for. Okay, so there's
nothing preventing you to continue using that property for the purpose that you have it,
Right. Well, it's it's getting harder and harder to afford. Real estate taxes go up every year. I have a Northern Liberties business tax I have to pay now. I mean, every time we turn around, it's getting harder and harder to afford to stay in the area. Right. But there's nothing to sign would definitely help.
OK, so, again, the sign you want to sign primarily for the additional income that it would provide to you, to your transit union.
In addition to getting our message out to our members, which was the original intended purpose, as well as the intended purpose going forward, with the added hopeful possibility of bringing in additional income, enable us to stay here indefinitely.
I don't have any further questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Park, you want to move on?
Do you have another witness?
Yes, I have two more witnesses, two more experts.
This time I'd like to call.
Well, if I might, the city has another agency which is going to be meeting at 1.15 to 1.30, Board of L&I Review, so I will have to have a hard stop in at a quarter after.
Well, then we'll, let me ask you this, Mr. Powell, your next witness, can you get it on in 15 minutes?
Probably not.
He's an engineer, and we're going to go through a lot of the criteria, a lot of the distances, a lot of the spillage.
how long how much visibility issues i think i've still got wait wait listen to me listen to me
how much more time do you need probably an hour because i'm trying to plan for the next time too
an hour and a half at the most okay and leonard how much more time would you need
um you know again what we're just trying to get into the record here uh to make sure that uh that
all of the requirements for obtaining a variance are discussed. I don't have any witnesses to
present myself. Obviously, the city planning rep, as required, will be presenting their
recommendation. Okay. So let me say this. Yes. I'm going to say this. Leonard's got to leave at
1.15. It's a little after
1 now. I think
we should break, you know,
Mr. Powell needs another hour and a
half. At Tanya, we're just going to have to
plan the time for in the future. There's no sense
starting another witness, and then
the next time you've got to go back, and
what did he say, and things like that.
So I think we need to break now.
Chair, we cannot accommodate
Chair, we cannot accommodate another hour and a half until maybe well into March or April.
another hour and a half
until...
We don't have that kind of leave.
I think the issue is this, Tanya.
I mean, he says he needs another an hour and a half.
There's nothing else we can do.
I mean, unless you can shorten it up, can you make it an hour?
At the most, an hour.
You know, at the least an hour.
I mean, we can probably get it done in an hour.
I do apologize, but we were we were informed that that the zoning board had a hard break at 1230.
We did. We did. And here's the issue. I'm I'm I'm the attorney for my client, but the solicitor's office.
In fact, I saw there was a young solicitor who was on with Leonard earlier this morning, as many people that could be here to fill the role for the city, at least, especially given the nature of this case,
because we'd like to get it on and like to be able to so mr mr park let me say this much i think
i think you had mr coachy on for quite a bit today and i think his testimony was was good
testimony i think i would appreciate i think we have to put an hour limit on the next meeting
okay i as long as as long as it's here as long as i get an hour of my my
questioning, because Mr. Rudder did take a few extra moments with a cross-examination.
He only did a few, but I think we've got to bring this to closure. I don't think we should
wait to April, May. So I think, Tanya, what can we do if it's an hour?
It still will have to be next year. I'm looking for a date now.
okay i mean i um just so we clear we never give this much time for cases i don't know where that's
why it's been becoming a hardship so i can put it in february um the third tuesday in february
okay you want to give me now you want to give us a half hour somewhere i mean but i think there