COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, May 31, 2000 2:25 p.m. - - - BILL 000081 - Amending Title of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," 12 by amending Chapter 14-200, entitled "Residential Districts," by amending Section 14-226, entitled 13 "RC-6 Residential Districts," and adding new requirements to allow for the preservation of 14 historically significant buildings and structures and for the establishment and amendment of the District, under certain terms and conditions. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 I N D E X * Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission Chief of Project Planning Terry Gillen, Ward Leader, 30th Ward. . . . . 21 Andrew Terhune, Project Manager Toll Brothers 25 (* - Also provided attached written testimony.) Attached Letters in Support of Bill 000081 By: - Robert Gittler, Zoning Chairperson, SOSNA - Alex Soroka, Democratic Committee Person 30th Ward, 16th Division - Barbara Failer, 30th Ward, 16th Division 3 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 81.
Bill No. 000081, amending Title of the Philadelphia Code, 9 entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending 10 Chapter 14-200, entitled "Residential Districts," 11 by amending Section 14-226, entitled "RC-6 12 Residential Districts," and adding new 13 requirements to allow for the preservation of 14 historically significant buildings and structures and for the establishment and amendment of the District, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, Chief of Project Planning. I'm here to testify in support of Bill No. 81. As the clerk read, this bill indicates -- it amends the RC-6 residential district by 4 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 allowing some changes. These changes are basically geared towards making it a more usable tool for preserving historical properties and historically significant and culturally significant institutions within the community. This bill came about through the desire of Toll Brothers, who are the owners and developers of the former Naval Home on Grays Ferry Avenue, at Bainbridge Street through to Schuylkill Avenue, to revise their latest master plan to respond to community comments and issues regarding the height and magnitude of their earlier proposed development, and they came in to lower the height and scale of those buildings because they ran afoul of the underlying requirements of the RC-6 district, and asked us to assist them in resolving that, because, in fact, they could not meet the Zoning Code and meet the desires of the community to have lower-scale development. We took the opportunity at that time not only to revise the district to comply with their needs, but also to make it, as I said, a more usable tool to use in other communities as a way of allowing properties to be developed or 5 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 redeveloped while still encouraging the retention of existing buildings or existing structures. The changes in this bill are the following: That it proposes to reduce the minimum lot size for an RC-6 district from 5 acres to 2 acres, and I'll point out that that has nothing to do with the Toll Brothers project because their project is more than 5 acres, but more driven by the desire to make it more usable in other places. It no longer would require -- the current provisions of RC-6 require not more than percent of the district be occupied by 16 buildings or structures, and not more than 50 17 percent of the district be occupied by building 18 structures and parking. We're proposing to allow 19 that to increase to 50 percent coverage of 20 buildings and 75 percent coverage of buildings and 21 parking when the plan encompasses the retention of 22 significant historic buildings or structures or 23 significant neighbor cultural resources. 24 One of the reasons why Toll Brothers 25 can't meet the underlying requirements of RC-6 now 6 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 is because of their desire to retain the existing historic structures on the lot, which is the former Naval Home and the former Surgeon General's mansion and the former Commanding Officer's mansion, as well as the parade ground and formal setting along Grays Ferry Avenue, but this would only be applicable when someone has an RC-6 project that would be rezoned by City Council, so it wouldn't apply to any -- there are no other RC-6 districts in the City that have historically significant buildings right now, except for the Naval Home, so this is only for the future, and they would have to come through Council at that time. The bill would also amend the parking requirements to allow parking to be located within 1,000 feet, as opposed to the current 550 feet, of the building it serves. And this, again, is driven by this particular plan, but also a desire just to give more flexibility in building structured parking, for sort of the whole complex rather than have a bunch of surface parking lots. It will allow more flexibility in designing the layout. 7 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 It also would allow parking in the future to be located outside the district, and that is just to bring it in conformance with the other master plan district we have, an institutional development district, which does allow parking to be outside of the district itself, as long as it's within the spatial requirements of 550 feet or 1,000 feet from the existing buildings.
These amendments all were requested as a result of the Toll Brothers request. I want to point out one other series of amendments that are in here that were suggested to us by the Law Department. There's a series of amendments that would give the Planning Commission some flexibility in finding plans to be in compliance with the master plan of record. The reason for it is -- we have always adopted this policy, and it really generally comes into play when someone comes in with a master plan that says we need to put in handicapped ramps, or we need to -- that we decided to put decks instead of patios, and it changes their numbers, it changes the amount of coverage, it changes the 8 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 location of buildings. And we've done that administratively rather than kick that back to City Council to see a new set of steps, or a new driveway, or whatever changes those numbers. We've always held that it has to be less than a 1 percent change to the plan. We ran afoul of this, an appeal was taken to court, and Commonwealth Court said that since Council never gave us the authority to approve anything but the plan of record, that we can't approve any kind of modification unless we come back to City Council. And the Law Department said that could be an unworkable thing if, in fact, we wind up coming back to City Council for every time a fire tower or air-conditioning or anything that's not on the original plan you approve. And so we were trying to come up with a -- to codify what we've been doing as policy for about 20 years. I'm pointing that out because I know that some people may have a problem with that, and I'm explaining why it's there. Toll Brothers didn't ask for that. You know, doesn't have to be in there to help the Toll Brothers plan; I'm just 9 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 explaining to you how it got into this particular ordinance and why it's there. And for the record, the Planning Commission, at it meetings of March 9, 2000, recommend approval of Bill No. 000081. Also, I guess, for the record, as you know this is a master plan district, so we, the Planning Commission, and the Council have to approve the master plan once we make this change to the RC-6. And I just want to put on the record that at the time we approved this bill, we did have before us their new master plan. It is our intention that as soon as Council approves this bill to take the master plan and approve it as a previous policy item, I'm putting that out to you because you will also have to, under the RC-6 law, approve the master plan, and I know you're running up against the end of the Council session, so I wanted to give you a heads up that in the next week or two, we will be sending you letter saying we've approved the master plan.
Yes, by a -- you've 10 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 taken -- since you've been Council President, you've taken the policy of doing the approvals by resolution, yeah.
Mm-hmm. Thank you. Are you finished with your testimony?
Yes. I believe my staff previously discussed with you, Mr. Lombardo, that perhaps you would think of deleting Section 14-226, Subsection (2)( b) on of the pink copy of the bill, as it does not pertain to the Naval Hospital site -- the Naval Home site, rather.
Yeah. That was the -- that was -- you're talking about giving us the authority -- I'm sorry, the paragraph number was what?
That's what I testified 11 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 to. I explained to you that it was in there not because of Toll Brothers and the Naval Homes project, but it was suggested to us by the Law Department, and it was just that we were amending this.
Well, did you check with the District Councilperson?
I'm explaining to you that if you have a problem with us deleting it, I'm not germane to -- yeah, we did discuss it with your staff and we don't have a problem with you deleting it because it's not germane to --
Thank you. Can you please explain the changes in this bill and what impact they have on the proposed Naval Home development? 12 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081
The changes of this bill, in terms of the impact on the Naval Home development, would allow them to cover more of the site with buildings and parking than the original RC-6 district allowed. This becomes an issue when you go from building 20-story building to building 4-story building. As you recall, the last plan they had called for a number of high-rise and mid-rise buildings as a result of the community comments and comments at this Council hearing, and it became clear to them -- and also because of their marketing, I believe it became clear to them that it would be more prudent to do three four-story buildings. That means you spread out more of the site. They couldn't do that under the present RC-6 district, so they need to amend it to allow them have more lot coverage.
Are there any other properties in the City that will be affected by the passage of this bill once it is amended?
There are other RC-6's in the City. They theoretically -- well, no, no. 25 Because there are other RC-6 districts in the 13 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 City, but from my recollection, none of them involved historically significant buildings, and allowance to cover more of a site only kicks in when you're preserving historically significant buildings. And so it would not affect any other RC-6's in the City. If, however, somebody came back and said, Well, we have this little whatever that's historical and that applies to us, they still would have to come back to both us and the Council to amend their master plan to change it. So there is -- this doesn't result in anybody being able walk over to L&I and get a permit across the counter to change their plan.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? No? Yes? Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. There no other RC-6's that apply to this particular change as a result of the historical buildings, is what you're 14 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 saying?
That's right. There are none that I'm aware of. I can -- there are none that have historical significance.
Okay. Are there any other areas that are zoned where we're doing, or planning to do, substantial development that may not have an RC-6 zoning classification but obviously has a different classification, but what presented a problem for this particular location could also be presented in another area where we have historical buildings? As an example, such as up in the Cecil B. Moore area, where we continue to have problems with historical buildings and the Commission, both City and State, as it relates to our building to do development.
Yeah. Well, what we're trying to do is make something you could use as this carrot to get developers to preserve historic building by saying that you can -- you know, if you preserve historic building, you could -- then the site will have more land, that you could develop up to 75 percent of that site with buildings and parking in order to preserve the 15 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 building. What we're looking at is that we always base the fact that someone comes in and they got some nice old house sitting in the middle of a site, and the first thing they want to do is clear it and put in a street and re-subdivide or redevelop it with new buildings, but they say, Well, there's no reason for us to preserve the existing building. This at least is an option we can offer them and say, Well, you can go to Council and rezone it to RC-6 and, you know, it would transfer the development rights to other places on the site.
Are there any other questions? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Could you explain in very simple language what the amendments do? I don't mean in great detail. I just wonder, what's basic purpose? Because I don't hear from you anything about anything historically significant 16 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 that they're dealing with. What are these amendments intended to do? There was some reference made to comments made by the public at one point; what were the public comments that these amendments were intended to assure would be all right?
These amendments are -- I said there was sort of a twofold -- there was amendments that basically -- amendments that say that the land containing historically significant structures, buildings, or amenities, not more than 50 percent of the development plan should be occupied by buildings or 75 percent occupied by buildings and structures. That's the new paragraph that would make this thing applicable, not only to Toll Brothers, but the desire to preserve historic buildings or community resources, using the RC-6 as a tool. That's what this bill does specifically related to historic structures and the Toll Brothers. The only thing that the district -- that these amendments do do is, they allow us to use it on smaller properties, properties of 2 acres, where the current ordinance requires a 17 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 minimum lot size of acres. And we see that as a mechanism of preserving, you know, basically larger older homes in neighborhoods that people like the looks of it and like to see retained, but right now, when market forces come along, it makes more sense for someone to tear that down and replace it with two or three buildings.
And these amendments make more people happy about what's happening?
Well, the people can speak for -- I think there's someone here from the community, but I think at least in the case of the Toll Brothers Naval Home project, people want to see something happen down there after all these years, and will enable something to happen.
Councilman, I believe that this has been in process for about 14, 15 years, to my memory.
And for the record -- and I have given copies to the stenographer -- we have any number of letters from area residents who are strongly in favor of this. 18 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 So the community has had meeting after meeting. I think the greater majority of the people living in that community are extremely, extremely anxious to see construction happen. And I hope to see it while we're still all here. (Laughter.)
I mean, I hope it's not going to take another years. 10 Councilman Kenney? 11
Thank you. Whose 12 idea was this to deal with the historic 13 preservation issue and the issue of height in this 14 way?
Well, it was Toll Brothers argued it as an issue, that because they had to preserve so much of the site and meet the community desire that they come down, they couldn't meet --
But I think it's a terrific idea, whose ever idea it was because what I think you do is from what I understand you're telling us is that for their giving up the height and them taking on the responsibility of historic preservation of the building and parade grounds, 19 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 they're being given more space on the lot to make their numbers work.
Which accommodates the community's concerns about historic preservation and density -- or height, at least -- and deals with their concerns about making this project economically feasible. So it seems that both parties have been served, and whoever's idea it was, it was a terrific idea.
And like I said, the decision to make it more applicable by reducing the size really was our idea because, you know, we've seen what's been unworkable is that is a district that doesn't have the yard requirements, the setback requirements, and it's geared towards preserving thing.
So we get the preservation, we get the development, and both sides work.
And you don't tear down the sort of things the community's value, whether it's an old library or an old firehouse that you may be able to work that into your plan, rather 20 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 than have to tear it down.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I appreciate your raising the issue of the concern in Section 14-226, No. 13 (2)(b)(.2). That is an issue that I was confronted with in a project in my district, and I appreciate the record being made clear that this provision -- there will be a request to delete this particular provision as this bill moves forward. As you have well pointed out, it apparently does not directly, or may not directly, affect this particular project; it does, though, potentially have an effect on other projects in other RC-6 districts, of which I would be affected, so I do appreciate that and hope that the appropriate amendment is made at the appropriate time. 21 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Mr. Lombardo, would you just stay till the conclusion of the hearing. Does the representative from Toll Brothers wish to testify or be heard?
If you want me to respond to any questions, I will, but I don't think at this point it's necessary for me to comment, if that's okay.
It's fine with me. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (Witness comes forward.)
The Chair recognizes Miss Gillen. And, again, I don't know whether everybody got copies, but we do have copies of letters from area residents who are strongly 22 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 supporting this proposal. Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Sure. My name is Terry Gillen, and I'm the Ward Leader of the 30th Ward, which is the ward in which the Naval Home property located. I'm here to testify on behalf of this bill and this zoning change and the change to the master plan. In doing so I'm relying on two letters that I have received from Toll Brothers addressing a variety of issues that we have worked on in the past months, the most recent letter being from today, in which Toll Brothers agrees that they will put a deed restriction in the deed prohibiting their residents from applying for permit parking in the neighborhood as a way of alleviating what many residents were concerned would be a parking problem in the neighborhood. So I want to thank Council President Verna and Kathy Murray for helping us to reach agreement on that issue. The other issue that was raised at our 23 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 most recent neighborhood -- we have had now close to a half a dozen meetings on this topic -- was the neighborhood concern about taxes, and I have assurance from SOSNA (The South of South Neighborhood Association) that they will work with us on that going forward. And we may have to work with Council President Verna on that issue as well, because if taxes go up in the neighborhood, we'll have to work with residents to try to minimize the impact on that. But with those issues having been taken care of, I want to say that we're all delighted to welcome Toll Brothers to the neighborhood, and I hope that we can have ground breaking this year. Thanks.
Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Anyone in the audience who is in favor of the bill, if they would stand so that we could recognize you. (Audience members stand.)
I want to 24 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 thank you for coming in. I know that your neighbors and you live directly behind this facility across the street from it, and I know how anxious you are to have something constructed. And we're equally pleased, as I said, after all of these years to see something happening there. And to think that Toll Brothers is not asking the City for one dime or one dollar to do what they are contemplating, I think, is just wonderful. And we welcome you into our neighborhood, and I know it's going to be a huge success. Mr. Lombardo, I want to thank you for attending all of the meetings that you have, not only in recent months, but throughout the years. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Does anyone else want to be recognized at this point in time? (No response.)
Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee. (No questions.) 25 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081
One last thing for this record. For the record, I placed before you the new site plan for the Naval Home project, and that will be the plan we will be forwarding to you.
How many units are we talking about that you're going to --
Madam Chair, what is the -- I'm sorry, gentleman, could you just come forward for a moment.
Do you mind coming to the witness table. (Witness comes forward.)
Yes. I'm Andrew Terhune. I'm the Project Manager with Toll Brothers.
I'm curious as to 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 what the average rental is, the monthly rental you anticipate for the 1200 units on average.
Roughly for the one-bedroom unit, it's about $1100; for the two-bedroom unit, probably in the range of $14-1500.
And do you have your -- I'm sure you've done your demographic studies. What type of income level are we talking about, minimum income level, to be able to afford an apartment of that cost?
Probably looking at somewhere in the order of $50,000, high 40s.
And all of those people would be paying wage taxes, I would assume.
While you're at the table, I think we always like to ensure that the neighborhood residents receive an equal 27 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 piece of the pie, so to speak, in terms of employment opportunities. What steps will Toll Brothers take to ensure that neighborhood people are considered for positions with your subcontractors?
Well, we've already agreed with the neighborhood that we would hire at least a few people ourselves -- undoubtedly, we're going to have some of our own people on the site. With respect to how we're going to hire the subcontractors, we have not worked with the union trades in the City before. So I'm going to be frank with you: I don't know what arrangements made certainly we would or could make, but we're certainly not averse to doing so. We just have not had that experience before.
Madam President, I think it's good that the process is beginning.
Can I just ask one more question. Once all of the historic agencies have signed off on this plan and the master plan 28 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 revisions have been approved for Phase I, when do you anticipate construction beginning?
I guess I'd like -- all I can say is, as soon as possible. I don't have a date when this is going to happen with all the historic agencies. Unfortunately, it's a little bit outside of our control because, you know, like Council, they have their own schedules but I would say within --
You know, we sit here not realizing what you have to go through. For the record, would you just state what historic agencies you have to get approval from.
Sure, I'd be happy to. First of all, there's the City's Historical Commission that we're working with. Also, there's the State Historic and Museum Commission, the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and finally, the National Park Service that also has jurisdiction. And all of them have it independently. There's not a -- they're not tied to each other in any particular way. We are pursuing this diligently, 29 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 Councilwoman but, you know, they work at their own speed to some degree, and we're doing everything that we can to move it. If we could, we would start this tomorrow.
Oh, I wish you could. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I think you covered the question I was going to ask. When do they anticipate that this will really get underway? What was your reference that this was a new beginning for you in dealing with the labor unions; was that what you were saying?
Yes. We have not built downtown before, and the employment situation here is different than it is in the suburbs and the other states and municipalities where we work, so I can't tell you with any great depth of knowledge how exactly that would be structured, but we're certainly very willing to work with people to, you know, get neighborhood people involved, and we're not averse to dealing with that in any way, shape, or form, but I just can't give you the specifics of that today. 30 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081
Well, how does your company build? Do you hire other contractors or subcontractors, or do you remain in charge of the building yourselves?
We manage, but we do hire other contractors and subcontractors. That's the way it's normally done in this business.
Yes. We oversee the whole thing and make sure it all comes together.
All right. We wish you well, and we're glad you're coming into the City.
And I think all members of the committee -- it's -- sometimes there are new experiences for folks who have not worked within the City, and I think the whole Council will be available to be -- you know, in the event you find there are problems that you want to discuss with us. We'd like to learn from experiences that people have in the City. Maybe there are things we have to do to change laws to 31 05/31/00 - RULES - BILL 000081 make certain accommodations. We're always prepared to hear and we're also prepared to try to help every side to move this project forward. I know I was at one of the earliest meetings in the Caucus Room that went on for endless hours between the community -- I don't remember the gentleman who then represented Toll Brothers, I don't know whether he's still with you or not now, but I know he worked very hard in trying to put this together, and so we're all delighted that this is all coming together under the leadership of the President.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from other members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you very much. We have no one else who's interested in testifying? (No response.) 32 05/31/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Okay. At this time, we will conclude our public hearing and go into our public meeting. And the Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Madam Chair, I move to accept the amendment to Bill No. 81 removing Section 14-226(2)(b)(.2). (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the amendment has been adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 000081, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and an additional request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been 33 05/31/00 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 000081 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion is carried. Thank you very much. (Adjourned at 3:10 p.m.) - - - 34 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, May 31, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO. 000081 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter