COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, November 2, 2005 10:10 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY BILL 050797 - An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Grant Avenue, Bustleton Avenue, Bowler Street... BILL 050831 - An ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1100, entitled "Institutional Development District," by modifying the conditions under which... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee on Rules, and before we commence with the hearing, I would like the record to reflect that we do have a quorum. To my immediate left is Councilman O'Neill. To my immediate right is Councilman Clarke. Next to Councilman Clarke is Councilwoman Miller, and we also have Councilman Kenney, and that gives us a quorum. Thank you. I would ask Mr. McPherson at this time to please read the title of Bill No. 050797. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Grant Avenue, Bustleton Avenue, Bowler Street and the Roosevelt Boulevard.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your 3 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill 050797. Bill 050797 was introduced by Councilmember O'Neill September 22nd of 2005. This bill is a zoning remapping bill for the Bustleton area of the City. It covers approximately 158 acres of land bounded by Bustleton Avenue, Bowler Street, the Roosevelt Boulevard and Grant Avenue. The area is primarily zoned R-4 residential, with certain properties maintaining a commercial designation along the major streets in the area. The commercial designations will remain the same under the provisions of this ordinance. This bill will rezone a majority of the residential properties to a designation of R-1, R-1A or R-2 in 4 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 order to restrict their ability to be subdivided as a matter of right. At the request of the community, this bill was not considered at the Planning Commission's most recent meeting of October 17, 2005. We have agreed to meet with community representatives in an attempt to address any concerns they may have with this legislation. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you very much. I would ask Councilman O'Neill if in fact there was a community meeting since our last public hearing, and what was the outcome of the meeting.
There was a meeting last week, last Wednesday night. Was that the 26th?
I believe 5 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 it was October 26th. And at the conclusion of the meeting, it was agreed that the bill would be reported out today, but we would still work with the community before final passage. And, in fact, the November 16th meeting, I was hoping Mr. Kramer could come to answer any further questions people had. And we'll refine it in detail until we get it in a satisfactory position. But it was a full community meeting. And Ms. Greene is here from Bustleton, and she may be here to testify. I'm certainly willing to hear from her. Thank you, Mr. Kramer.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee of Mr. Kramer? (No response.)
Good morning. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Maureen Greene. I am the corresponding Secretary for the Greater Bustleton Civic League, and I am a resident of the affected remapped area. I would like to thank Madam President and City Councilmembers for letting us express our concerns today, have them on a matter of record, and I would also like to thank Councilman O'Neill for delaying two weeks ago, which was what our original request was, that this bill be delayed. So we are happy that he has delayed it, and while we are not completely happy that -- it was not quite a full meeting of the Civic League. Unfortunately, we had a problem with our mailing, and most of the people in the affected area got their letters on Monday. So they weren't all necessarily 7 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 out, but I have heard from many of them. We really do trust that this bill will go no further than today until the community has had a chance to go over in exquisite detail the many ramifications of the bill. I want to go on the record as being extremely upset at the fact that the community was shut out of the planning process for this and that both City Councilman Brian O'Neill and City Planner Bill Kramer sat in our September meeting of the Greater Bustleton Civic League and failed to even mention it. The Councilman at the October meeting reiterated that this was his plan and that the only reason he was there was because he heard that Kramer would be there and he didn't want the beans to be spilled. Ironically, it wasn't even Kramer who had asked to come to our meeting, but new Area Planner Michael Thompson. This was emblematic of the 8 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 covert nature of the activity, and this is what produced the rifle upset among the neighbors that all of you City Councilmen sitting here heard from over the last month. In particular, that I should be vilified for letting tax-paying citizens of Philadelphia know about a bill before their City Council is absurd. I was, on my own time, doing the work that should have been done by people paid by our tax dollars; that the volunteer Civic League Board should be castigated for not showing up at the last hearing, a meeting which they had little notice of and, in fact, were rather specifically not invited to if the plan of not notifying people had worked, when they had work commitments and two were actually being treated for life-threatening diseases, is a measure of the disconnect between City Hall and my specific neighborhood. And it is disingenuous at best. Lastly, the notion that I spent 9 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 my Columbus Day holiday weekend researching, writing, compiling, copying and distributing on foot the only notice that these neighbors ever got because I was looking for personal gain because I live on a 100-foot-wide lot is beneath contempt. Had I wanted to excessively profit from my home, I could have more productively spent my time getting my realtor on the phone and my subdivision application in. In the years that I have 14 worked for the community, there has never 15 been the slightest hint that I would 16 personally profit from my activities 17 beyond the personal benefits that a solid residential neighborhood provides. Mr. O'Neill has made much of a previous 1994 remapping in which I participated and which he called in public an utter failure. First, his office was surely involved in that remapping. Second, we did not do it in secret. Third, it did precisely what it 10 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 was supposed to do. The problem in that neighborhood was one of encroaching commercial activity and side yards that were being sold off for massive twins. Since that remapping, neither has occurred and the area was not subject to massive non-conformance.
My issues with this bill are the normalization of non-conformance, the appearance of spot zoning where three different classifications grace the same small block and where within one block identically situated lots of identical size can be zoned R-1 or R-4. I researched over 200 addresses so far and have massive numbers of identical lots with up to five different classifications. This is a recipe for confusion and acrimony and will result in problems throughout the oncoming years. I am also very concerned with the one-size-fits-all nature of the remapping solution to any of our 11 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 problems; in this case, tear-downs resulting in matter-of-right construction. This neighborhood is far more divergent than other Bustleton neighborhoods to our west or selected Somerton neighborhoods or Normandy neighborhoods. The commercial concern is far more potent in these blocks. There is far more owner-built housing stock dating back to the late '40s and far more houses sliding past shabby chic. I am intensely fearful of the unintended consequences of this upgrade, which may well include far more disreputable housing lingering for far longer as it becomes economically unfeasible to replace it. Further, I believe that this puts us at additional risk of commercial incursion as the properties become hardships. We cannot trust to presumably good intentions, but must have law that 12 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 can be plainly read by future Councilmen, Planners and Zoning Boards of Adjustment, to say nothing of the actual owners. These are issues we should have had the opportunity to discuss as a community. We didn't. At the meeting, and it was a fairly short meeting with a lot of details, the Councilman agreed that this bill will not be put before the full Council until the community's issues are resolved, and I do want that agreement on the record, and I thank the Councilman for saying it earlier. We are already gathering a committee and will be scheduling a meeting with Mr. Chapman, the acting head of the Planning Commission. I am perhaps an idealist, but I think that a few squeaky wheels should not dictate the property rights of homeowners on 35 square blocks. While I'm not thrilled at some of the new homes myself, there is not a universal disdain 13 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 for these that a few callers might indicate. There is a widespread fear of hasty action. Homeowners have lived in these houses, paid taxes on these houses and had plans for these houses. To plunge virtually all into non-conformance with little gain, because, frankly, most of these houses could never have been built with the larger houses anyway, is really not a reasonable solution. We look forward to a better solution than the current mapping. Thank you.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming in to testify, and I assure you that Councilman O'Neill is very eager to work very closely with the community. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to kindly read the title of Bill No. 050831. 14 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 3 amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1100, entitled "Institutional Development District," by modifying the conditions under which amendments to an Industrial Development District are approved by City Council, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill 050831. This bill was introduced by Councilmember O'Neill September 29th of 2005. This bill modifies the process of approving an amendment to a Master Plan of an Institutional Development District by removing the presumption of 15 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 approval by City Council. Under current provisions of the Zoning Code, if Council does not reply in writing to the notification of the Commission approval after 45 days, Council approval is assumed. This bill would require any amendment to have approval by "Council, by ordinance." This bill was considered at the Planning Commission meeting of October 17, 2005. The Commission approved the bill, with the recommendation that the word "ordinance" be changed to the word "resolution." I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee. And I took the liberty of drafting such an amendment to the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. At this time, the Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President, and I'd like to thank 16 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 the Planning Commission for being in agreement with me on about 90 percent of this bill anyway. Where the disagreement occurs is whether Council would approve a change by resolution or by ordinance. This is a change to the Institutional Development District. And let me start out by saying that any change, which could change the entire plan -- every piece of that plan could change, there's no limitation on modest changes to total changes -- would have to go to the Zoning Board if there was an Institutional District. In fact, it's still an option, although it's not one that I think any institution ever wants to take if they don't have to to do that. But the plan is set up with Planning Commission recommendation first, and this is a plan as if a college or a hospital primarily would want to establish an Institutional Development District. It requires a City Council 17 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 ordinance, and prior to that, it requires Planning Commission approval and, therefore, it's inherent in that there would be contact with the community, there would be meetings, there would be a buy-in by the community. What this bill does, it makes the change require the exact same procedure, and I don't think it's too much of a burden to go out, advertise, have a community meeting, as opposed to a Thursday morning change with a resolution 14 that doesn't require any advertising. And this is something that I have found that -- I've been resistant to doing IDDs in my district. I would not be resistant with the ordinance for amendment applying, and that's what this is. I understand where the Planning Commission is. But the reason being, I got some e-mail from the Mayor's office that basically said they agreed with the Planning Commission's approach to a 18 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 resolution, because otherwise it would slow down the development. I don't understand how it slows down anything. People know well in advance when they're going to make a change. They have plenty of time to let the Planning Commission, the community and the Council office know. And this is the process that saves them from going to the Zoning Board. That's a huge benefit that an IDD ordinance gives to a large institution, and I think the trade-off to have the same provisions in place for a change as there was for the original district is not asking too much, and I don't think it will slow down anything. I think what it does, it requires more, but I don't think it's something that does anything but protect the community. We're all sitting here and we say, Well, we're not going to introduce a resolution unless the community has a buy-in, but people are going to be here after us that may feel differently. 19 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 An ordinance gives the community absolute protection that they need, and it requires, more than any other thing we have in our toolkit, the institution working with the community, preferably through City Council office, to make sure that that change is something that everybody agrees on. So I would ask for the Planning Commission's support to be accepted, but their idea of resolution versus ordinance 13 be our choice, and I believe that the choice is clear, that ordinance gives everyone the most protection in this regard. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. 20 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 I'm not sure who I can ask this question of. What is the issue with respect to the Planning Commission's concern resolution versus ordinance? The current process essentially sets up a timeline of 45 days, putting the onus on the Councilmember to write its disapproval of that IDD, correct?
Is there a reason why the 45-day process was put in place? Has it been shown that in terms of the ability of the institution to do some procedural development?
Well, let me address that by saying that as part of the Commission's approval of these IDD Master Plan amendments, and I have been doing the presentations for those to the Commission for the last 15 years, every time that I've made any presentation of the Commission, at a minimum, the Commission is asking for community input or has the community been informed, what 21 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 is the community's position on any of them. I would also add that many of the times that we're dealing with an IDD amendment, it is just that, an amendment. It has to do with more structures than it has to do with the uses within the structures. It's locating where the buildings are going to be, how much of an addition or not, or a new building going up and an old one coming down, that kind of a thing.
So we do make sure -- and as a matter of fact, this past couple of months, Drexel University has gone through probably less than its best times, as it were, dealing with our office to have a dormitory approved for their campus, and it's been three months and aggravation or meetings dealing with contentious matters within the community, and we have made certain that the community certainly was known and three 22 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 months of meetings with them to resolve the issues. As of right now, that issue has not been like I's dotted and T's crossed, but the Commission did approve the Master Plan amendment. It currently is residing here in Council, and the 45-day clock is running on that amendment approval.
So I'm trying to get a sense of the 45-day time period, because I guess best case scenario in City Council, if we were interested in moving legislation, we can do it within three weeks.
Obviously falling short of the 45-day time frame. So if we were to get the ordinance 21 immediately after the action taken by the Planning Commission, we would have more than enough time to move it through Council. So I'm trying to understand, why is there an issue with respect to 23 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 time, ordinance versus resolution?
I don't have an adequate answer to that, and the reason that I don't is, most of the time -- actually, I've researched back on this, and in all the amendments that we have approved, fully half of the amendments to any institutional Master Plan have been approved using the 45-day clock. There are instances -- primarily our policy, it's not written anywhere, but the policy of the Planning Commission is that when Council is out of session, whether it be the holiday session in December-January or whether it's over the summer, we do not run that 45-day clock while Council is not in session. So it's not like you could come in and get an approval by the Commission in June and then, without Council having an opportunity, it would be approved by September before Council came back. We do not do that.
We run the 45-day clock. So subsequently a lot of things had come in my office in May or get approved in May. The individual institutions are contacting their District Councilperson to get an approval through City Council before Council goes out of session so they can build in the summer.
So that kind of supports my issue. I mean, in terms of the timing, it's not going to be a situation where we're up against the clock in Council, it's June 12th, whatever, and we don't have the ability to have a hearing over the summer, because that's not the traditional process as we speak. And you said you can't answer the question. I understand. If we got a 45-day timeline in the current process, then we can obviously pass an ordinance 24 within 45 days.
The other aspect of it is, currently the method of approval by Council has been resolution. The ones that have had Council action for approval, it has been by resolution.
It could be; it could not be. What it does is, it puts Council in a position where it has to take a position on every one of these, and sometimes these additions can be something as minor as a thousand square foot addition on the side of a building, and it's sort of like beneath notice, in a way, but it does require Council approval before we can actually -- so in a sense, we don't have the authority to simply do it on our own, and that's okay, but that was sort of the basis, I understand, of the amendments to the IDD. Many of these are institutions 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 that the initial institution of these Master Plans is actually done by ordinance, because in order to have that happen, it requires a zoning change, and a zoning change requires a bill of Council and an ordinance. So subsequently initial Master Plans are all approved by Council as part of an ordinance process. Subsequent amendments, which is what this is addressing, have been done either way, either with a 45-day clock or currently with a resolution. This would change that to make it an ordinance. I'm not professing to be an expert on the way Council does its business in terms of the ordinance. Obviously we would have to be drafting those ordinances, and there's questions I have as to the mechanics of that, but we can certainly address those. That's not --
So it's more work, not an issue with respect to 27 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 time?
Is it going to be an ordinance that requires it to be also a Map A to Map B, because these are many times instances where it's a small addition, or is it something that we can verbally do it via written ordinance or not. I mean, it also becomes formatting issues. But those are minor concerns that we'll have to deal with based on whether or not procedurally we want to go one or the other. I also don't know what your advertising requirements are and what timing you need for you to schedule a hearing or not. That's something you would know better than I.
Thank you, Councilman. 28 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Despite the fact that all of our institutions that are under this requirement are good institutions, they contribute greatly to the City, and 95 percent of the time everything is okay, but isn't it good from time to time to have them come in and engage us again based on their activity and operation of the community and have to come in here through an ordinance just to have kind of contact with us so that we can, with our constituents' input, get back to them some feedback on what may be a little rough around the edges in that institution or what could be improved or what we could do together? I think the contact may seem burdensome. I don't think the institutions in the City who have to abide by it will think it's all that 29 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 burdensome as opposed to a resolution. But isn't it just kind of practically a good thing to have them come in every now and then? And the other issue is is that we have to approve by ordinance when a hospital wants to borrow money to build an addition. I mean, we're not even on the hook for the money and we make them come in here or a Rules Committee hearing and tell us what they're borrowing the money for. And even though we have no 14 requirement to back up that bond issue, they're borrowing the money privately, but we require them to come in here and have a conversation with us. So even though there may be some paperwork issues, maybe some appearance of delay, I don't think it's that burdensome, and I also think it has a good outcome, because it requires interface with the government, the legislative body and the community with the institutions that are looking to 30 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 expand or do something differently. So I think an ordinance is not inappropriate and not that much of a burden. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Kramer, is it a written rule that City Planning wants to know the opinion whether of support or not support from the community, or is this just --
It is not written in the Code. It is not required under the Code for us to require community opinion, but in the 15 years that I've been doing this, I've not seen one that has just gone through without a minimum of a contact with the community to make sure that they're okay with what's being proposed. 31 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831
So under these IDDs then, in the past if an institution was making a change, then they do have a requirement to reach out to the community to let them know?
Yes, ma'am. And many of the institutions that I've dealt with have ongoing relationships with the different communities in which they reside or in which they're located, both in terms of ongoing community meetings and they're all part of the community. I know that for a fact with Frankford Hospital. I know that they've met with their surrounding neighbors on a number of occasions. I've been in a few of those meetings, but to a different degree. They all do different things, and there are certain times where the institutions, based on the way the Code is written, certainly do have to take certain applications to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, in particular signage. The signage requirements under the Code 32 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 only allow you a ten-square-foot sign within an Institutional Development District. Any time that the institutions want to put up major signage within the district, they always wind up in front of the Zoning Board. No matter what process the Planning Commission would approve or not, signage is something that always sends them to the ZBA.
You're welcome. Councilwoman Brown has joined the Committee and does have a question of Mr. Kramer.
Thank you, Madam President. As a follow-up to Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller's question, is it fair to say that it's actually optional for institutions around the City to come to the City Planning Commission on matters, 33 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 with the exception of zoning?
The ordinance will essentially add another, some might say, layer, but then it will require institutions to do the check-off, if you will, with Council and with the City Planning Commission.
They already are required to come through the Planning Commission for approval for any kind of addition. Any kind of amendment to the Master Plans already have to come through my office.
Okay. Restate for me, then, the extra work product, the extra tasks that are placed on the Planning Commission by adopting an ordinance.
I don't know so much that it's a concern about the extra tasks. It's more a question of exactly what format they need to be taken. The 34 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 question that I would have as the guy that's probably going to do most of the work is what format the ordinance itself needs to be placed in, whether the Council wants to see it as a new map or whether they want to see it as a written ordinance in terms of language or just -- but that's just a question of mechanics, not a concern about what will happen or what won't happen. In terms of procedure, what we do now, they would come in. Whether it's an addition to a building, whether it's a whole new building, the same procedure follows. We see them. We review the plans. We ask what questions that we have to ask. We make sure that they've touched base with the community with regard to it.
How do you do that? What assurances do you have that that step is indeed covered?
I make sure. I'll ask them. And then we have a Community 35 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 Planning Division in my agency, and I'll touch base with the Community Planner so that we ask both the institution to provide us if there's a letter or an indication or a newspaper article or whatever that they were -- for example, Holy Family went to an East Torresdale Civic Association meeting. The applicant gave me a copy of a Northeast Times article indicating that they were there and that they presented this plan at that Civic Association meeting. In other instances, I've been in touch with the Area Planner for the area, who then contacts directly the Civic Association to be certain that there is or there has been contact with the area.
And does that happen by conversation, discussion or is there a follow-up letter or some type of documentation that is an insurance that the connection has taken place? 36 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831
Currently it's usually done via e-mail. The Area Planner has a contact within the community group, and they'll contact them via e-mail and usually get a response back.
And for my own understanding, how many Community Planners do you have? Are they by Councilmanic District? What's the structure?
We have them by planning area section, and so there may be -- the number keeps changing. There's usually about eight to ten Area Planners.
And they all have different areas of expertise or different areas of concern. There's one gentleman in the Northeast. There's another one that deals -- a couple deal with Center City issues. And they've been working lately in terms of teams, so that there's a number of different faces and bodies 37 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 that cover the entire City. And I will go to the team players or the Division Director, if I am not certain who is the one to contact.
Okay. My reservation rests with experiences in circumstances where mixed messages are sent by institutions, and typically what's said at one point, when you get to the end point, it's a totally different outcome, and that then causes angst for District Councilpersons, I would presume, and certainly for the community where that institution sits. So that's why I raised the question on how you document that what is indeed stated at one juncture is indeed the reality at a separate juncture or at the end of that process.
Usually if it's at all possible, our Area Planner will be attending the particular meeting in question, and if the community -- I've had many meetings with community groups 38 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 wherein the plan that was submitted to me, I've gone over and reviewed with the individuals from the community and showed them exactly what's going on. That normally doesn't happen with minor, small things, but certainly the major items. If somebody is putting up a new building or tearing down a substantial amount of stuff to replace with new or modern structures, we will show them whatever we have. It's a public record. And we invite the community in and let them look at it and show them, and I'll answer whatever questions they have, to the best of my ability, and what I don't know, I will refer to the individual institution.
Mr. Kramer, I want the record to be crystal clear. When you spoke about the 45 days Council would have, I understood 39 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 you to say that the 45 days would be excluded from the summer months when Council would not be in session or during a holiday season. Am I correct?
Okay. I just wanted to make sure the record clearly reflected that. Thank you. Any other questions? Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, your reference to that 45-day timeline leads me to ask the question about if we proceed with this bill and we change the process, will we keep a similar approach as it relates to an ordinance introduced during the course of or just prior to a holiday or prior to a recess from Council? Meaning that are you saying that currently there would not be any referrals from Planning Commission to Council in the event that we change this process to an ordinance? It would 40 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 keep that same timeline, there would not be anything coming over to us in the month of May, late May, understanding that we would not be able to pass an ordinance until September?
If Council were to -- if this bill were to pass the way this is, if an individual institution were to come to my office in May or even June and be approved for an amendment to an Institutional Development District, before that could be approved, the ordinance would have to be submitted to City Council for its approval, which means essentially that in the course of the summer recess, the Council could not introduce that bill until it came back in session until September. So there would not be final approval of any IDD amendments until after that ordinance was approved. There would be no 45 days to be considered one way or the other.
The question was, would the Planning 41 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 Commission similarly, as is the current process, tell them that we cannot act upon a request for an IDD at the Planning Commission's level prior to it being referred to Council?
Procedurally when we get an IDD amendment, we don't have an option to say, We're not going to consider it until Council has received it or been approved of it, with the exception that when we did not take -- for example, Drexel University this past summer wanted us to approve an amendment to amend the Master Plan to have an 11-story dormitory placed on the campus Master Plan. We did not take that to our July meeting, and the sole reason that we did not take it to that meeting was the fact that they had not had an opportunity to meet with the Powelton Village Civic Association. We didn't consider it a major problem because we knew that subsequently it could not be approved because the 42 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 45-day clock wouldn't have started whether it started in -- whether we approved it in July or August made no 5 difference because of the 45-day clock not starting until Council came back into session. So that was not any kind of a problem, other than the fact that the institution did want us to take it in July and we did not. We did take it in August, and at the community's insistence, they did not approve it, but requested they continue to meet with the institution and the community, which did happen, and subsequently it was approved at our September meeting in front of the -- with the community, with the understanding that the 45-day clock would run, and if in fact there was no final agreement between the parties, Councilwoman Blackwell would be bringing the matter before this Committee for a recommendation that the matter not be approved or be tabled, which would then 43 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831 notify us, at which time the approval process would stop until Council told us to otherwise.
Okay. I don't think you understand my question, but I'm not going to belabor it. I'll talk to you after the hearing.
Are there any other questions of members of the Committee? (No response.)
I would also like the record to reflect that Councilman Kelly has joined us. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this will conclude the public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 25 050797. 44 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill 050797 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 9 050797 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050831.
Madam President, I move that Bill 050831 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.) 45 11/2/05 - RULES - BILLS 050797 AND 050831
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 4 050831 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the bill is reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. I thank you all for your patience, and this concludes our public meeting. Thank you again. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 10:50 a.m.) - - - 46 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on November 2, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)