COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:25 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILLS 060637, 060732, 060740, 060743, 060762 and 060797 - - - 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
Could I have your attention, please. Thank you. This is a public hearing of the Committee on Rules, and I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060740. 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 Tacony Creek, Rising Sun Avenue, Adams Avenue, West Hill Creek Drive, Hill Creek Circle, South Hill Creek Drive, Adams Avenue and Bingham Street.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Kramer. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I 3 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 060740, which was introduced by Councilmember Tasco on October 5th of this year. This bill rezones a 2.1-acre parcel of land located in an area adjacent to the Tacony Creek and Rising Sun Avenue from a zoning designation of R-9 Residential to a zoning designation of C-3 Commercial. It is a response to the continued growth of an industrial use within the City. This bill rezones a portion of land to allow for the construction of a surface parking lot containing 258 spaces for use by employees of Cardone Industries. Cardone Industries has a plant located on the opposite side of Rising Sun Avenue from this site and has insufficient parking for all its employees. This leads to many employees parking in the surrounding densely 4 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. populated residential community, which not only adds to the parking congestion for the existing residents but also represents a significant safety risk for the Cardone employees as they then must walk in the street to get to work. A surface parking lot on this parcel that is designated C-3 Commercial will require a certificate from the Zoning Board of Adjustment at a minimum. This classification was used in this matter because currently the Zoning Code contains no zoning classification that permits a parking lot as a matter of right. The proposal calls for the use of a porous parking surface to be used at this site and will be designed so as to limit the environmental impact of the lot and work in harmony with the natural environment in order to enhance the surrounding public areas. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of November 14, 2006 5 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. considered Bill No. 060740 and recommended that it be approved. The Commission believes that this proposal will improve the quality of life for the existing residential community, as well as affording an opportunity for growth for one of the City's major industrial companies. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Can you tell us for the record how many off-street parking spaces will be available as a result of this rezoning?
The plans currently call for 258 parking spaces to be created.
And do I understand that all of these spaces will be for the exclusive use for employees from the Cardone Industries?
Yes, ma'am, that is correct. 6 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC.
Thank you. Do we have any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call our next witness. MR. McPHERSON: Vincent Dougherty.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
And members of the Committee on Rules. My name is Vincent Dougherty. I'm the Assistant Director of Commerce and the Director of the Mayor's Business Action Team for the City of Philadelphia. 7 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. I'm here today to express the Commerce Department's strong support of Bill No. 060740, a bill which will change the zoning of an area generally bounded by Rising Sun Avenue, Adams Avenue, Tacony Creek and Bingham Street. This rezoning will allow Cardone Industries, the City's largest and arguably the fastest growing manufacturing firm, to acquire the property across from the company's Rising Sun facility in order to build a much-needed secure parking lot for its employees. The proposed site for this parking lot is a vacant lot owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. The property, while part of the Hill Creek Development, sits well below the development itself and is effectively a separate parcel from the development. The site has been unused for years and has been a maintenance and security property for PHA. Cardone Industries is in great 8 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. need of secure off-street parking. Presently most of Cardone's employees are forced to park along a mile-long stretch of busy Rising Sun Avenue or in spaces leased by Cardone at shopping centers a block away. This situation not only creates a very dangerous traffic problem along this section of highway, but also puts Cardone employees at risk as they walk up to a half a mile to their cars. The Commerce Department, in conjunction with the Mayor's Office of Transportation, Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation, the Streets Department and Councilwoman Tasco's office, have worked with Cardone over the last ten years to resolve this parking problem. Many options to alleviate this problem have been tried during that time. These include carpooling, shuttle service from other Cardone sites. We have searched for alternate sites within the vicinity that may be acquired and developed for parking. They looked into 9 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. building a multi-story parking lot, parking garage, on site, and also leasing, as I mentioned before, spaces at local shopping centers. Unfortunately, none of these options satisfactorily and permanently resolved the problem. The parking facility at this site is a major step in permanently resolving this parking problem and is extremely important to Cardone and its employees. Resolving Cardone's parking problem at that plant is a critical piece of the Commerce Department's ongoing efforts to assure Cardone Industries remains and grows here in the City. It is for this reason that the Commerce Department strongly supports this project and this legislation. This concludes my prepared testimony and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Dougherty. Your testimony is that this will become a, quote, secure 10 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. parking lot, end of quote. What security is proposed to be provided?
From my understanding, it will be fenced and they will have a security gate at the front, a security guard positioned right on Rising Sun at the front of the parking lot.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Our next witness, Mr. McPherson. MR. McPHERSON: Philip Grutzmacher.
Good afternoon. I do have copies of my testimony, if you would care to have them. 11 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Good afternoon. My name is Philip Grutzmacher. I'm a Democratic Committeeman in the 35th Ward, an officer and member of the Zoning Committee of the Lawncrest Community Association, a member of the Friends of Pennypack Park, a member of the Friends of Tacony Creek Park and a volunteer for the Natural Lands Restoration Trust. Today I speak as an interested citizen only. I have come to testify in opposition to Bill No. 060740 that changes the zoning designation in the area boarded by Rising Sun Avenue and Tacony Creek from an R-9 designation to a C-3 designation. My objections to the bill can be summarized as concerns that the bill constitutes bad land use planning and raises serious environmental issues. First, this bill is bad land use planning. This bill constitutes spot zoning which is of questionable legality. Any comprehensive remapping of this area 12 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. would find two area shopping centers at Rising Sun and Adams Avenue, both with current vacancies. More commercially zoned land is not needed in this area. In addition, the area being rezoned is surrounded by residential and park uses, so the C-3 designation is inconsistent with the surrounding uses. Furthermore, the reclassification from R-9 to C-3 designation reduces the protections afforded the neighbors of this property in the future. Any commercial use proposed for this property can be handled as a variance to the R-9 zoning through normal Zoning Board of Adjustment procedures. This process would protect the neighbors in the future from a whole list of potential uses permitted as a matter of right in the C-3 district, including gas stations and fast-food restaurants, which are certificated uses in the C-3 district. As you know, under the certification process, the legal 13 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. burden shifts from the applicant to those who would protest the granting of the certificate. Second, the development allowed by this bill raises serious environmental concerns. This proposed change to the Zoning Map would allow development to the edge of Tacony Creek with limited setback requirements. The setbacks required by the Zoning Code are much smaller than those suggested by current best practices to limit storm water runoff. Building upon this or paving this area would exacerbate storm water runoff problems in the Tacony Watershed and increase non-point source pollution, a problem where the Water Department already struggles to meet federal standards. Additionally, building upon or paving this lot reduces the City's open space, a valuable asset in limited supply. The Managing Director's Office is currently in the process of preparing a comprehensive plan for green space in 14 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. the City in recognition of its contribution to the quality of life in the City and the increased property values directly linked to open space. The loss of open space contiguous to a park in this context is unforgivable. It demonstrates a continued attitude on the part of decision-makers who view open space only as a land bank until a better future use comes along. The construction of the High School of the Future on Fairmount Park ground and the current attempt to expand Fox Chase Cancer Center into Burholme Park are two recent examples of this shortsighted view. A superior plan for this plot is its integration into Tacony Creek Park. Finally, while the construction of a parking lot on this plot appears to address a parking problem in the area, that outcome is far from certain. As long as parking on surrounding streets is legal, it will continue. It is a short-term solution at best. Many 15 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. businesses in the City thrive without providing any parking for their employees. I urge the Committee to reject this bill. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the Committee for this witness? (No response.)
Thank you very much, sir. Our next witness. MR. McPHERSON: George Zauflik.
And after George is? MR. McPHERSON: Fred Maurer. Mr. Maurer, if you're here, come to the witness table, please. Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. 16 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. My name is George Zauflik. , and Gary Adams, our Director of Government Relations, who is here with me today, and over 4,000 employees here in Philadelphia, we thank you for this opportunity. Our purpose today is to request the City rezone a vacant parcel of land across the street from one of our main facilities on Rising Sun Avenue in Northeast Philadelphia. This will allow us to expand by providing us with additional area for employees to park. This will improve our ability to hire more employees, and this property is not a part of Fairmount Park. As you will hear today, this land is near a creek, and we are proud to be able to describe for you how our project with this cutting-edge design will enhance and benefit the creek and the environment. We will be including an 17 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. 80-foot setback for our project, and in that setback we will be planting an 80-foot environmental buffer area. I would like to emphasize some overall themes on the outset. This is not a project that will save us money. This is something that we will do at great expense. This is not a project that we want to do, but this is a project that we need to do. This is not a project for management. It's a project for our employees. Cardone Industries is committed to the City of Philadelphia. We started here in 1970 with five employees. We continue to grow and now have over 4,000 employees working here in the City. Over 70 percent of our employees live here in Philadelphia, and our workforce represents over 50 nationalities, speaking over 30 languages. We are under strong pressure to export jobs out of the country. We do have two facilities in Mexico and 18 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Belgium, but Philadelphia is our home and we want to stay. More than that, we want to grow here in Philadelphia. As a result of the change in the industry, our business now has an opportunity to grow substantially, and we need your help. Our employees, especially at our Rising Sun facility, have a shortage of safe parking spaces. We have over 1,600 employees there working two shifts a day. We have tried everything to find parking for them. We have provided incentives to use mass transit, we have leased off-site remote parking in area shopping centers and have run shuttle services, but we still have a shortage of parking. You can see this in the aerial photograph contained in Tab B of your materials. Our people have to park along Rising Sun, which is not safe. They have to park in the residential streets in the area, which is not fair to the community. We have employees that arrive at 4:30 in 19 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. the morning and sleep in their cars until their start time just to get a parking space. Other employees park and then walk through the streets to get to work. Not long ago one of our employees parked his car and while walking to work was struck and killed by a motorist. For our solution, I'd like to direct you to Tab C in your materials. This is a parking area we would like to construct. It will be located on vacant land currently owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. PHA has classified this land as excess land and have agreed to sell it to us. On the plan, please notice the large 80-foot-wide planted environmental buffer indicated in green. We recognize that the parking area is near Tacony Creek. We do not take this lightly. Due to our commitment to environmental stewardship, plus the requirements of ISO 1401 and in 2003, Cardone received the Governor's Award for Environmental Excellence, for this 20 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. particular project, we have hired the best environmental consultants in the field. We've asked them to make sure that we don't harm the environment at all. And we are pleased, and we think you will be, too, because what we now have is a design that will enhance and benefit the creek and the environment.
Cahill Associates, one of the country's leading firms in water resource management, designed for us a state-of-the-art, environmentally friendly parking area comprised of a pervious surface that will allow rainwater to soak through the parking lot into the ground below, where there will be a specially constructed subsurface area. Mr. Dan Wible, a professional engineer from Cahill, is here today and will testify as a part of our second panel. The environmental aspects of the design have been reviewed and approved by the Integrated Watershed 21 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Management Program of the Philadelphia Water Department. A letter of approval from the Water Department is attached in your materials at Tab D. As you can see, the Water Department acknowledges that the proposed design will exceed the requirements contained in the City's new storm water regulations, which became effective earlier this year. Because we are adjacent to Fairmount Park, we have provided our plans to the Fairmount Park Commission and asked for their comment. The Commission has confirmed that the land is not Fairmount Park property and it would, therefore, not result in the loss of any parkland. The Commission acknowledged our company in using an environmentally sensitive design for this project and a letter from the Commission is included in your materials at Tab E. We have also hired Dick Orth of the traffic consulting firm of Orth Rogers & Associates here in Philadelphia. 22 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Mr. Orth analyzed both the internal circulation of our proposed parking lot and the flow of traffic signalization and parking capacity along Rising Sun Avenue. He has worked with the Streets Department on this project. Mr. Orth is here today and will be a part of our second panel. Before I close, I would like to give you a road map of other witnesses we have here today. As I mentioned, our second panel will consist of Dan Wible of Cahill Associates and also Dick Orth. Our third panel will consist of Ms. Fatima Carreira, the Vice-President of Service Employees International Union, SEIU, Local 252, as well as Mr. Jesse Dawkins, an employee and Shop Steward. And on our fourth and final panel, we will have Mr. Ray Will, a neighbor and Assistant Block Coordinator, who will present a petition from the neighborhood, and Ms. Jackie Olbrich, a Block Coordinator. Before I hand off the 23 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. microphone, I would like to again thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to continuing to play a leadership role as a part of Philadelphia's manufacturing base, and with your help, we look forward to providing additional jobs. I am pleased to introduce Mr. Paul Deegan of PIDC. Thank you for your time.
You're welcome. Are there any questions from the members of the Committee? (No response.)
You're not next. Mr. Deegan. 24 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Paul Deegan. I represent PIDC. And briefly, I'm here to express the support of our President, Peter Longstreth, and PIDC for this project. I don't think I can improve on Vince Dougherty's testimony. The Commerce Department has been working years and years on this project. But we are particularly pleased to support the rezoning on behalf of Cardone Industries. Cardone is a long-time PIDC client that has met or exceeded -- and usually exceeded -- all our expectations in terms of job growth, economic development and commitment to the community. The property is adjacent or down the street from the company's facility at Rising Sun and Adams and is considered excess by PHA. Cardone's purchase and reuse of the property will benefit the company, the Housing Authority and the surrounding area. For 25 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. all of these reasons, PIDC wholeheartedly supports this bill. Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deegan. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
I do have some written testimony for the Clerk's use. It looks to me like I have to modify a lot of it because of what's happening presently. Before I begin my written part of it, let me point out that I came here in response to the legal notice and the bill that's before us. I did not come here to talk about Cardone. And I see 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Cardone came here with all their big guns, with all their friendships to overwhelm us at this hearing. This is not a hearing about Cardone. This is a zoning hearing about zoning, is it a permissible zoning item for this thing. I think the zoning committee of the Rules Committee is supposed to hear zoning, not whine for Cardone and their pleasures. If we want to talk environment and parking and Cardone, I think it should be done in a forum that's before. Since this was not in the bill, in the heading of the bill about Cardone, we came totally unprepared to talk about Cardone. I came here to talk about zoning, and I think, in essence, that's what I want. I have to modify a little bit, because now I see my friend here from the license commission came here. I may have to modify a little bit. However, if I drift away, it's because my testimony is 27 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. designed to handle the question that you presented before me, what is the zoning for this area. My name is Fred Maurer. I recall my Councilwoman Tasco said to me once that if you see a zoning notice, then immediately appear, because once the deal is done, the community damage is permanent. So I am using her advice. This proposed ordinance, zoning plan, is to change public housing uses of green space, open space into a private commercial use that will harm the surrounding residential communities and a public park. This is a gross example of spot zoning, and I'm sure it looks like a pay-to-play motive with all these people that are attesting on their behalf. It is presented as a bland trivial fact in the record, but I think it represents the worst failings of good government intentions for land zoning philosophy. The short bill text reveals 28 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. nothing about the need or purpose for any zoning change and what will it do after the present zoning is changed from Code R-9 to C-3 and the subtitle use. Now, what you've heard here is an aside to these Cardone things. I didn't come here to talk about Cardone. I ask the Committee, what is the legal reason to merit any changes by this bill? I ask, where is the supporting testimony in the Planning Commission? I think what this man presented today may be acceptable, but it should have come before testimony as a document and part of the bill, not to come later on, sneak it in as evidence after the fact. So I don't respect that man for the way he produced that. The Planning Commission is supposed to plan and manage all zoning laws, and their photographers made this exhibit that's in the bill. They are responsible to apply the laws, and the 29 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Rules Committee needs their testimony. What they presented today may be their testimony. I'll read it later whenever I get the transcript made available to me. No one has claimed that this is an ancillary use for Hill Creek's own public housing residents. I question the validity of this zoning. I note there is no real true evidence, findings of fact, to merit this change. What you've heard here was a proposal from the advocates, not from the independent finders. I think Exhibit A, which is part of the bill, exhibits a false picture of the lot that is being zoned before you. It is shown as a horseshoe to connect C-2 zone plots with an inconsistent zone of C-3. In my testimony, I want to use copies of the City Planning Commission maps, and in the back of my testimony for the Clerk, I did provide the maps that are here that are in the order of C, D 30 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. and E.
Instead of a horseshoe that's on the map, the plot is square, with two special wings of only partial zones on its wings. One side is Adams Avenue two blocks long. The other fourth side is Tacony Creek. The whole plot is a single integrated Hill Creek housing project. The two land zonings of R-9 and C-2 that are on the plot were a compromise in an after-the-fact assessment by the Planning Commission, because the project was built with federal funds and well before The Philadelphia Code existed. Now this R-9 zone is dense with cellblock houses. The special C-2 zone wings on there only relate to the support buildings and they are not true commercial zonings on the map. The east wing that's on the map once had a steam generator and incinerator buildings. It is now the rubbish point. So the east wing is not true commercial zoning. 31 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. The west wing C-2 zone was service buildings that was modified for LaSalle University, their medical nursing center for the Hill Creek Project and local residents. It is funded as a charity service now called Rising Sun Medical Service under the Philadelphia Medical Health Corporation, a federally funded non-profit agency. So these west wing buildings are not true commercial zoning. Exhibit A omits a major space. When you look at that map, you'll see there's a hole, the major space that fronts Adams Avenue in a horseshoe crest. I would ask you, how can you determine what are the adjacent zones if you omit the major use that's on the plot? In my testimony I submit three exhibits, C, D and E to show my exhibits. Exhibit C and D demonstrate the whole existing plot. They're the maps that I got from the City. I note that the major land use 32 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. is residential. The official record for 500 Adams Avenue plot at the ZBA says 55 buildings, housing units 335, including a medical center converted from six residential units. I observe that there are no true commercial zones inside this zone plot, and the outside infills are zoned R-9. The real commercial zones are across Adams Avenue in Forman Mills and Rising Sun Plaza where they are truly zoned C-2. I ask, has our City Planning Commission requested more commercial zones are needed in this area? Was there a demographic study of commercial needs? I don't know. It has not been presented in any forum, and I'd like to see those materials, put it in now. I have not been privy to anything that the other departments are doing, but I do know what you put in the bill and I can only talk about that. This bill assigns zoning C-3 to an isolated land island inside of an R-9 33 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. plot with only one slot entrance onto Rising Sun Avenue. When I read the Zoning Code Book for Code C-3, which is a commercial district, its features are, A, self-service laundry; B, self-serve dry cleaning; C, things that are in zone C-2; and, D, a car wash; and, E, a heliport. Now, this reference to a C-3 which refers back to Code C-2, those features are for, one -- Feature is an enclosed building with a roof. Feature is for sales of good at retail. Feature is a rendering of services to the ultimate customer. The text in this bill does not include commercial features such as this Zoning Code mandates. The bill merely gives a code number for non-land use space, not for a commercial retail service in an unclosed building with a roof. If there is no retail or wholesale, commercial ultimate customer, then it is not commercial district C-3 and this bill needs to be denied. 34 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. I present in my Exhibit C a section of the City Planning Commission Zoning Map. The whole plot, excluding C-2, is all R-9 inside the loop that's inside Hill Creek. Outside the loop, Code is on the outside of the Hill Creek loop. It's a large area that needs to be understood.
This Zoning Map has only one fault, because that it connects into Fairmount Park Commission lands and that -- there is a portion of Fairmount Park land that's there that was not coded REC. I don't know why that Zoning Map was not included in Fairmount Park lands. That's part of this boundary. On Exhibit A, it does not show the code REC that I've just talked about. It only shows R-9. But on Exhibit B, that slot that I'm talking about is shown as a vacant slot with no zoning. But I tell you, it is not vacant land, because that slot is Fairmount Park land. Exhibit A and B show the east side is Bingham Street as a borderline. 35 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. That is misleading, because the borderline is the rear property line of private houses facing Bingham Street and a church, and that's zoned R-9. Exhibits A and B do not show the adjacent lands or codes for your study when you examine the bill that was given to you. For clarification, I submit Exhibit D, a section of the City Planning 1973 Land Use Map. This older map gives more accurate boundary lines and shows the structures around the loop, the road loop that's inside Hill Creek. It is very complex, with buildings on both sides of the road loop. It even has cul-de-sac buildings. The boundary lines of Fairmount Park REC is shown as the inlet to the square base. The reason for the large R-9 area outside the loop is clear, that it is adjacent to Tacony Creek Park in the middle and between valley hills. The reason why it was not 36 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. filled up with housing is that the space is unbuildable lands. It is a bottom of a hill slope as riparian lands. The rest of the plot, including Adams Avenue, is the plateau and a portion of the valley slope. The hilly topography of our City decided where to build these houses, and non-buildable riparian lands are supposed to be preserved in watershed parks since the City Planning of 1907. When we looked at the City Planning Commission 1973 Land Use Map, we see the R use is R. That's back to Hill Creek. The R is for recreation use and also a playground. So we have R-9 zoning district located with a recreation use and open space, playground. The plot is not V, vacant lands. This R zone land is the location that the bill proposes to take and convert into a commercial C-3 use. If you study this map, you'll see the Hill Creek landowner is the 37 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. United States Housing Administration. It is federal property. The R use was a federal mandate of open space dedicated and held as recreation open space for its Hill Creek residents. It is a private park. It does not need interior survey lines because it has a natural grade over ten percent to define a building boundary, with a great sledding winter use. The outline of the rectangles that are on the map and closest to the creek is a tennis backboard and a basketball court as recreation fixtures, not buildings. There is one designated residents parking place marked P in an R-9 zone for the residents' needs. If this bill is passed, the tenants R-9 parking needs are displaced. I believe this bill proposes to take the United States Housing Administration's federal lands and convert a portion into a commercial 38 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. district C-3 for a private party user. I question if City Council can pass a zoning bill that mandates the United States to concede or encumber lands by local rezoning. It seems to me that when the City sold this land to the United States Housing Administration with a fee simple deed, that you first have to declare eminent domain and make partitions. I present also my Exhibit D, a 1991 Philadelphia Water Department plan map. It presents the sanitary and storm water infrastructure that is affected in this land change. I think the Water Department has utility rights that this bill hampers.
What is not shown on this map is a very recent ordinance that the City passed to enlarge and replace and improve the Rising Sun Avenue storm water system because of complaints from Cardone Industries. The Exhibit D shows the old 39 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Water Department right-of-way before it was enlarged. It cost the City about a quarter million dollars to replace a small sewer system with more capacity and a new outflow chamber and a new surface right-of-way that was developed with a maintenance gravel path and landscaped with mature trees and half fenced and gated along Rising Sun Avenue. If this bill is adopted, the PWD treasury was wasted, and this violates an existing ordinance and Philadelphia Water Department zone right-of-way improvements. I think this bill takes right-of-way land in conflict with Philadelphia Water Department's superior rights. Now, the material that they presented about the Water Department's letter, I'd like to see that letter, because no one has told me and that's not in the bill, that the Water Department has been consulted, but I'll hold that as 40 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. an aside. We will certainly look at that and see just what the Water Department has committed. Now, I think this bill has major defects. These were not cured --
Okay. As you can see, we have a number of cases scheduled today, and we have --
May I finish, please? And we do have a number of witnesses that want to be heard. We want to hear as many witnesses as possible, not only on this bill but all of the other bills, and I have somewhat of a major concern, in that the weather forecast is that we have a tornado watch. So I would like us all to do whatever we have to do at this hearing, and hopefully 41 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. we'll all get home safely. So if you will simply conclude --
-- I would appreciate it. And the stenographer has a copy of your testimony.
Thank you. Thank you very much. And that would go for all witnesses, please. Try to make it as brief as possible. You can get your point over very clearly and be brief. Thank you.
Thank you, Council President. My name is Paul Bonnie and 42 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. I'm counsel to Cardone Industries. My purpose here is to try and save the Committee's time just to give you a brief overview of the witnesses that we have, what they would say in one sentence if they were here -- if they had time to testify, and also just to address a couple of comments that were already made by critics of the bill. The first is that this is not spot zoning. There's commercial patches of property all around here. This is something that was carefully considered by the Planning Commission. It was reviewed by the Water Department, by the Fairmount Park Commission. All have provided letters that are in your package, and none of those folks have any problem with this project whatsoever. The other point I'd like to mention is that one of the other speakers said, Well, gee, if we zone this C-3, then Cardone in five, ten years or whenever can put in any C-3 use, a gas 43 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. station or a convenience store or something like that. That is not our intent. That is not our desire. We won't do that. We have worked with the Friends of Tacony Creek and will continue to work with them to put together whatever sort of assurances they need that the only use of this lot would be for a parking lot and that we would have no problem waiving away our rights to any other use that would be allowed by C-3. I wanted to sort of go down the row of our witnesses so that you can see who is here and what they would testify about if they had the time. We would have testify Mr. Daniel Wible. Dan, just raise your hand. Dan is a professional engineer and he is all about the environmental aspects of this project, could talk about the buffer zone, could talk about the under drain system. We also have Mr. Dick Orth, who 44 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. is here, back there, who could talk about all the traffic engineering analysis and review, and indeed the meetings he's had with people from the Streets Department in order to make sure that this is synthesized with Rising Sun Avenue and that there's no problem on that regard. Both of those folks have technical reports that are in your materials and they have testimonies, which I believe we had handed up a few minutes ago. We have two people from our local union. That's SEIU Local 252. Fatima Carreira right here and also Jesse Dawkins. And those folks would tell you how much of a need there is for this parking lot. And indeed this is a project that's very expensive to the company and is not for management.
Sir, may I interrupt for a minute? I just want to ask you, how many employees will be using this parking lot? How many employees do 45 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. you have right now that will be using this parking lot; do you know?
I can get you that answer. If someone can come up and give me that answer, I will be able to provide that to you.
At this facility. I know you have 4,000 employees, but I just wanted to know how many were going to be using --
Well, we have multiple shifts at our plant across the street. There's 258 spots in this lot, but I would think more people would be using it because they'd be using it at different times of day.
Yeah. It's owned by the Housing Authority and it's 46 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. considered excess, and they've agreed to sell it to us for this purpose.
What would you say, I guess, how it's being maintained? Is it being maintained or used in any recreational way?
Sure. And the last two people that we would have testify is Mr. Ray Will and also Ms. Jackie Olbrich, and they're a Block Coordinator and Assistant Block Coordinator from the immediate surrounding residential area, and they would testify about how Cardone employees at present somewhat have to park in the residential streets and that this would be able to, in effect, give the 47 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. neighborhood back the spots in front of their homes, to a certain degree. So all these folks are available for testimony, if you would like, Council President. I understand the demands on time. If you have any questions about any of it.
Thank you very much. We appreciate you coming in. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 22 060637. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 24 amending Chapter 14-1400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking and 48 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Loading Facilities," by exempting mechanical access parking garages from certain requirements, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, 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 No. 060673, which was introduced by Councilmember Kelly on September 14th of this year. Bill No. 060637 amends Section 19 1402(9)(a)(.1) and 14-1403(6)(a)(.1) which refer to Driveway and Aisles in both the Residential and Commercial sections of the Zoning Code. The bill 23 removes the requirement that percent 24 of the lot or garage be provided for 25 access drives and aisles in connection 49 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. with a mechanical access parking garage as defined in Section 406.3.2 of the Philadelphia Building Code. These proposed changes to the Code are consistent with parking policies of the Planning Commission. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of October 17, 2006 considered Bill No. 060637 and recommends that it be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee of Mr. Kramer? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to go on record of why I introduced this legislation. I think, number one, it's 50 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. to bring the parking systems into the 21st century rather than the systems that we use today are from the 19th century. I think that this is not a new system by any means. It's been used extensively throughout Europe and Asia for over to 8 20 years, and I think it's about time 9 that Philadelphia -- it's going to be the 10 first-class city, as what everyone 11 believes, that we're going to be on top 12 of this problem. 13 I think there's many, many good 14 points about this mechanical parking. 15 It's environmentally friendly. I think it increases safety throughout, and I think that what we're going to find is that the parking systems that will have this, it will give the developers a matter of right to put the systems into their plans, and I think this is really a win-win-win situation for Philadelphia. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. 51 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Mr. Kramer, as a practical matter, is there some minimum amount of space that should be required to be reserved for access to mechanical parking garages?
Not within the parking lot itself. The aisles and driveways are superfluous when you have a machine that's basically taking the cars and putting them into cubicles. There's no need for driveways and aisles. The cars are off, which is the benefit of these. They save on pollution in that regard. You don't have running cars. That's why you don't need the driveways or aisles.
Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Kramer from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you. Our next witness? 52 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC.
Good afternoon. My name is James Rappaport. I'm an architect and I'm licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and 32 other states in the United States, and I practice as an urban planner and urban designer, and I'm here in support of this bill. In my practice, working with the Philadelphia zoning ordinance, there is some frustration because the Building Code, the Philadelphia Building Code, allows mechanical parking and the zoning ordinance requires these aisles and access that isn't required for mechanical parking. In terms of raw numbers, you can install a mechanical parking garage in about a third of the cubic volume of space, mostly below-grade parking, as required by the zoning ordinance, when compared to a park-and-lock garage with ramps, and you can do so without the need for mechanical ventilation or elevators or fire stairs, because as it says in the 53 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Building Code, a mechanical parking garage is one where patrons are not allowed in the place where the parked cars are located. And for that reason, the engines are not on and so the ventilation is not required. I did a quick calculation a couple of weeks ago. A 300-car parking garage in mechanical parking would save 80,000 gallons of gasoline a year. So in terms of architect speak, it's a very green design idea. And in terms of construction costs, perhaps a third of the cost of the current ramped park-and-lock kind of parking garage. Additionally, in the post 9/11 era, the mechanical parking garages have algorithms built into them to make them safer. There is a technology for making sure that if you leave your dog or your baby in the back seat, it doesn't take the car. And as you know, every year, unfortunately, here in Philadelphia we read some terrible God forbid story about 54 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. a baby being left in a parking car. So that technology is there. The technology of sniffing for other God forbids is also part of this algorithm, and since no people are in the parking garage, nobody is tinkering with the cars or doing other God forbids. So three God forbids in one sentence I'm sorry for, but safe, secure, energy efficient, cost effective, it is, as the Councilman said, a win-win situation.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee of this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Lee Lazarus and I represent an automated parking manufacturer that has numerous installations around the world. These 55 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. worked sufficiently well for many, many years. In addition, I'm also Vice-President of the Automated and Mechanical Parking Trade Association, and we also lend our support behind this bill.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Max Wieseff for Parkmatic, and we also represent a number of manufacturers, with systems in South Korea and throughout Asia. And some of the things I'd like to discuss about this proven technology, these systems have been around since the early 1950s and it has been widely used in Europe and Asia where land is at a premium. And there are over 5,000 of these systems operational worldwide. And basically some of the things that we talked about was the security. Since no one enters 56 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. the garage other than vehicles, it virtually eliminates vandalism or theft, and there is also no personal danger of having to walk down dark aisles while looking for your car.
Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Just one quick question. With respect to the mechanicals on the units, what's the sound? What happened maybe a couple years ago in part of my district, an operator was proposing to do a mechanical parking garage and it was in proximity to a residential community, actually adjacent to the residential community, and when they tried the systems out, you could actually hear the motors in the 57 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. residential unit next door.
Right. The older systems that were constructed in the '60s and '70s, yes, used roller bearings, but now the new technologies, they use like a polyurethane material. So there's virtually --
This was a couple years ago. It wasn't a long time ago. This is a couple of years ago.
Yes. Councilman Clarke, I just want to inform you that I saw this operation in Washington, DC about a month ago, and it's similar to hitting a button for an elevator. You don't hear anything. There was no noise whatsoever in this building. The people just come in and they swipe a card and the doors go up. They get in their car and drive away. It's similar to just a regular elevator. There's no noise whatsoever that I -- 58 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC.
Well, I guess my question would be, are there going to be certain standards that are required for any of these mechanical systems? Because the one that I looked at, I mean, I stood in the resident's house and I could hear the motor, errr, errr, errr.
If I may, I think what you were talking about is mechanical parking systems. These are a little beyond that. These are automated parking systems. So these are fully enclosed inside buildings. They're more analogous to more mature handling, warehouses.
I understand. This was a fully enclosed parking system. You drive the car in, it lifts it up, places it in a parking space. I'm telling you, the noise you 59 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. can hear next door, and I'm just asking you, are they --
Those are operated hydraulically, though mechanical lifts that you see in New York and such, and those operate by this motor with a pump assembly. These systems are not hydraulically operated. These are similar to elevator motors that are in the buildings. That's how these -- so they're quiet. They're quiet systems. They're not noisy like a hydraulic system would be where you're running a pump and feeding oil into these hydraulic systems.
All right. I hear you. You're not answering my question.
We haven't had any issue with decibel levels outside of our structures, inside the structures also. We've been regulated most jurisdictions as it is. I'm sure the building department of Philadelphia would also be curious, so on a 60 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. project-by-project basis, I'm sure they'll raise the same issue, and if they felt the noise issue has been resolved, I'm sure they would approve a project at that time.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee of these witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would suggest that Mr. McPherson please read the title of Bill No. 060743. MR. McPHERSON: Bill 060743, an 61 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Master Street, Second Street, Thompson Street and American Street.
Good afternoon, 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 No. 060743, which was introduced by Councilmember Clarke October 5th of this year. This bill rezones a two-acre parcel of land located at an area bounded by Master Street, Second Street, Thompson Street and American Street from a zoning designation of G-2 General Industrial to a zoning designation of partly G-2 General Industrial and partly C-3 62 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Commercial. This bill rezones a portion of land to allow for the construction of a residential development consisting of 151 one and two-bedroom apartment condominium units with parking for 155 spaces. The U-shaped building will be a four-story structure along Second and Thompson Streets, with a seven-story wing parallel to Master Street. For the frontage on American Street, two one-story industrial buildings will offer commercial artist/craftsperson studio space with dedicated parking. This site was formerly the ABSCO Steel site, which was a scrap metal recycling facility. The use resulted in major contamination of this site, which the current owners are in the process of mitigating under Pennsylvania Act 2 provisions. The proposed cleanup of the site will greatly enhance the surrounding neighborhood and the existing storm water conditions. Additionally, the proposed 63 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. building will be a green LEED-certified structure. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of November 14, 2006 considered Bill No. 060743 and recommended that it be approved to allow for an appropriate residential reuse of former industrial land in this block. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Who are the current owners of the property and can you tell us if they're also going to be the developers, and, if not, who is?
The current owners is a Canus Corporation -- no. I stand corrected. It's still ABSCO Steel at this point, but this development proposal came in from Canus Corporation. So that deal must be in the works. They are the proposed owners.
Could you tell us what the overall cost of the 64 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. project is?
So I'm sure you don't know the source of funding either, do you?
I know that the only portion of the funding I'm aware of is, they have requested money from the PENNVEST Corporation in order to help with the remediation costs, somewhere in the vicinity of $7 million in cleanup costs. I was just by the site this particular week and I know that the site is currently covered with tarps over most of it, but there are still fairly large piles of scrap steel left on the site. And it's basically surrounded by, I'm going to say, eight-foot-high steel fencing around the entire site.
Do you have any indication as to what the dwelling units will cost upon completion?
I do not know, but 65 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. I know the architect for the project is in the room.
Okay. Any questions of Mr. Kramer from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. Ronald Patterson with the law firm of Klehr Harrison, 260 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102, on behalf of Canus Corporation, which is the equitable owner of the property, meaning that they have it under agreement of sale. I have some boards I would like to show you just to get you acclimated. The first board is a picture of the existing condition. It was a steel 66 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. salvage yard. It is contaminated with PCBs, and as Mr. Kramer said, it will be undergoing an environmental cleanup beyond what is required by the PADEP and EPA for residential standards. The property is located along the American Street corridor. It's currently zoned G-2. The southern portion, though, fronts on residential. The northern portion, of course, fronts on American, which is industrial. And this zoning request would split the property into two, allowing for the southern portion to be residential and the northern portion to be industrial. What we're showing here is the site plan showing the layout of the building and also showing that there is a significant buffer between the buildings and the American Street corridor. Our next exhibit shows what we had initially proposed, and after meeting probably nine or ten times with Kensington South NAC, we were able to 67 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. massage the building into a form which is the next exhibit of what we're really proposing to do, which keeps with the streetscape on Second Street a four-story building with condominium flats and also with a seven-story building set more towards Martin Street -- Master. I'm sorry. Proposed now is 160 units and 160 parking spaces on site.
We've also offered up to the Committee my letter dated November 16th. If you'd like another copy, I'd be happy to approach the bench. This letter we promise -- and I would ask the Committee to make part of the record -- is our representation to address the community group's concerns, one being that the project will be built as condominium and will remain owner occupied. And so we're offering for the record that we will create residential 68 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. units as a condominium unit as opposed to an apartment complex, and that we will put a restriction in our condominium association documents to limit any rental by an owner to nothing less than one year. In addition, because this bill 9 was really meant specifically for this project and to avoid any possibility that if we happen to walk away, it would remain C-3 and another development would go in here, we're asking that Council take action to invalidate the ordinance 15 by whatever means, putting it back to G-2 should this project or a version materially different not be developed, which would protect development of that project on the property.
Are there any questions from members of the Committee? 69 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. (No response.)
Do you have anyone else to testify on this bill?
Madam President, Councilman Clarke, members of the Rules Committee, thank you. I'm Sharon Barr with Canus Corporation, the equitable owners of the property. I don't have a lot to add from what's already been stated by Mr. Kramer and Mr. Patterson. We're very excited about this opportunity to reclaim a contaminated site, clean it up and create a vibrant new residential complex, together with industrial units at such time as that is possible. I wanted to respond to your question about the funding, just the cost and the funding. We currently estimate 70 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. that the overall project will be approximately $50 million. We have not finalized the construction financing yet, but as Mr. Patterson pointed out, we have applied for -- I'm sorry; it was Mr. Kramer -- to the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority for funding for the remediation, the cleanup of the site, basically removal of PCBs. And we've received the support of PIDC for that application, and we're very pleased with that support.
That's on the PENNVEST loan. We haven't finalized the financing for the construction yet.
Yes. Approximately how much would the units be marketed for?
They are almost all between $230,000 and $370,000. We're 71 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. really trying to target the middle range market in Philadelphia, not the luxury market, trying to make it as consistent as we can with the community. And by the way, we have, as Ron mentioned, we've been meeting since November of last year with the Kensington South Community and have received their enthusiastic support. We're very proud of that. And, in fact, we've refined the design to both meet the needs of the residents as well as a result of meetings with the Commerce Department and the American Street business owners.
Mr. Patterson mentioned an agreement not to go forward with the zoning change if this project doesn't happen.
There was a project in Councilman DiCicco's district before us about two weeks ago that's been continued to later in November, but there was a deed 72 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. restriction in that case that pretty much did the same thing. Is there a deed restriction involved in this?
No, there isn't, but we're happy to entertain any agreement.
That's up to the community and you. It just was the first time I had heard it and I thought it was really --
That's frankly where I got the idea, was from Councilman DiCicco.
So it just protects the neighborhood in case the project doesn't go forward.
Right. Thank you. 73 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table, identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Tom Forkin. I'm the President of the American Street Erie Avenue Business Association. I'm here today, along with several business owners and concerned citizens, to testify against the proposed rezoning ordinance 23 for the parcel of land bounded by Master Street, Second Street, Thompson Street and American Street. 74 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Now, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that just a few minutes ago I was talking to Mr. Patterson. We're attempting to work out some details. So I want to be fair and say that we do share the common goal of eliminating the ABSCO Steel scrap yard site. It's a blight on the community. It's a blight with the area businesses. We applaud redoing this site in some form or fashion. We do have serious concerns about some of the details of this project, but I want to be clear and say that it sounds like the developers and their attorney are willing to try to work some things out with us, which I was just made aware of. So I want to temper my remarks by saying that. We want to be fair. We want to meet them halfway, but we still have some philosophical concerns about the project, and I'd just like to quickly enumerate them, because I know you've been through a long day. 75 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Number one, the rezoning does run contrary to a number of previous studies and recommendations, including the 2002 American Street Industrial Urban Renewal Plan and the American Street Industrial Urban Renewal Area Plan, both of which Kensington South participated in. Number two, the rezoning eliminates valuable job-producing industrial land, for the most part. I mean, there's a dearth of industrial land in the City of Philadelphia right now and we're losing more of it. Number three, unlike the variance process, we really have not had an opportunity to vet this project. I commend the developers for meeting with Kensington South. However, we're not Kensington South. We're the business association. I'll take my share of the blame if there hasn't been adequate communication, but there hasn't been adequate communication. So the 76 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. agreements that Ron Patterson talked about were not hammered out with this business association. They were hammered out with the community group. And I'm not sure the Councilman was fully aware of that until today. So I will take my share of responsibility for that to be fair, but we are not Kensington South. There's a very active business association in that corridor that dates back to the mid 1960s. There are business owners here today with me that represent several hundred neighborhood jobs, and they're concerned about this development. I think their concerns are legitimate. They may have gotten a little emotional at times. Maybe we didn't phrase things the way we should have, but there are legitimate concerns about changing a gateway parcel into the American Street industrial area to a C-3 commercially zoned site. Ron Ramstead, who runs EG Emil's, which is a turkey processing 77 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. plant directly across the street, really fears that he may have to relocate once this project is up. You heard Sharon say that these condo units are going to go for $300,000 or more. If someone buys a condo for $300,000, are they going to want to be across the street from Ron's plant? I think the answer is no. 10 So, I mean, these are fair concerns that the business association has that we have not really had an opportunity to vet, and we would like that opportunity to vet, and I applaud Mr. Patterson for indicating he'd be willing to do that half an hour or 17 minutes ago. 18 Just to continue very quickly, 19 we believe the rezoning could create a 20 myriad of traffic, safety, parking issues with adjacent and heavy industrial businesses. Once rezoned, although I just saw Mr.
Patterson's letter, if this developer doesn't proceed, you have a C-3 commercially zoned site. Who is to say 78 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. what may go in C-3? C-3 is a very broad category, including penal institutions, dance halls and amusement arcades. There needs to be a recapture provision. And, again, I did not see that until approximately ten minutes ago, so I'm trying to be fair here, but that to us is critical. That's a critical element. Number seven, a precedent will be established whether we like it or not. We know there's a 26-foot buffer, but a precedent will be established on a parcel of ground between Girard and Lehigh, which has been for the last 30-plus years industrial solely. Who is to say, again, we may not creep northward on American Street and say, Oh, there's a parcel at Susquehanna, there's a parcel at Diamond that would be a perfect residential or commercial development? Where do we draw the line? So I just ask you not to rush to judgment. I'd ask this Committee not to rush to judgment. 79 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Would we be similarly comfortable with rezoning PIDC industrial parkland in the Northeast, Councilman O'Neill, or in Eastwick? Would we be similarly comfortable if we were rezoning a two-acre parcel of PIDC and Red Lion South or Byberry East or Byberry West? Because essentially that's the way the business owners feel about this corridor. It's an urban, urban industrial park. It may be a little chaotic. It may be a little dirty, but they see it just as much as PIDC sees their industrial parkland, as there for businesses. So I ask you please not to rush to judgment. We're always willing to meet. I would make myself available to Mr. Patterson at any time to meet with him to try to flesh these concerns out. I thank you for your time.
If I may rebut 80 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. briefly. We have taken into account the fact that the property lies between two zoning classifications. Again, the southern portion is along R-9; the northern portion is along G-2. So in our plan, we have looked into the fact that we do have a 25-foot buffer along with another 30 feet between that buffer and the nearest building. That's kind of one of the issues that we need to talk to Mr. Forkin about. But we did take that into account. We left the corridor for residential -- I'm sorry; for industrial. And, John, if you could show the little plan at the bottom. If the street ever gets widened, we have proposed to put a series of buildings that would be used for light industrial use along American Street to keep that use along that corridor.
Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Mr. Forkin, I see you want to 81 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. be recognized.
We're going to try to talk. Twenty-five in a two-acre parcel -- and we've talked to Ron about this -- is not sufficient. These seven or eight vanilla boxes are very speculative. They may become storage.
They may become commercial. I mean, they may or may not ever happen. So, I mean, I didn't want to get into this today, but I guess since Ron wants to rebut what I have to say, we're going to get into it. We don't think that's sufficient.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you all for coming today. 82 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Over the last couple of weeks it has become clear to me that there hasn't been adequate communication between the business association and the developer, and I don't know who is at blame or if anyone is at blame, but the reality is that there are some legitimate issues on the table from both sides, and what I'm going to ask today for the Council President to do is to vote the bill out, but I will hold the bill on the Calendar without a rules suspension to allow, at a minimum, a month to resolve those issues. I do have some concerns about a recapture provision, with the understanding that this development may not in fact happen. Unfortunately, that happens more often than not. I'm concerned about the broad level of this particular classification. So I'm not going to move this bill. I'm going to leave it on the Calendar until something adequately can be worked out. I'm going to ask the 83 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Planning Commission and the Commerce Department to be a part of that discussion from the City and someone from my office.
Thank you, Mr. Forkin. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. MS. DiDOMENICO: I'm Lois DiDomenico. I'm the Zoning Chair for Kensington South Neighborhood Advisory Council, and I came today on behalf of the organization to voice support for the rezoning of this parcel identified as 060743. As it's been alluded to, this would permit largely residential, with the exception of the strip on American Street. We take our positions from the residents within a two-block area, and we have been working over the past year between design review committee meetings, general community meetings, and the 84 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. residents themselves voted positively on this rezoning bill. And I have had actually some discussions with Mr. Forkin, and it's unfortunate that there seems to have been an animosity developing, but our feeling is, we have nothing against businesses. The residents were very, very well aware that this strip on American Street would be left to accommodate businesses on American Street and that it would be kind of viewed as a transitional block. It's sort of a gateway to the solely industrial parcels which are on American and it would still accommodate the desires of the residents on Second Street, who have lived for many, many years with a hideous scrap yard with all of the dust and mess and environmental concerns. And not to be argumentative, but at that point, I didn't see any business people coming to help out with the residents' concerns, which have been numerous. 85 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. So this was -- you can be sure that this is a bill that was community-based support and we've worked very closely with the developers, and they have come from two large rather unattractive buildings to what you saw today as a result of the residents spending all volunteer time, myself included. So I hope you will view it favorably, and I thank you for the opportunity to support it.
Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee of this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
I would now ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060762. 86 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of the following area of the City: area generally bounded by Tomlinson Road extended, a Railroad Right-of-Way, Bennett Road extended to a Railroad Right-of-Way and Roosevelt Boulevard.
Good afternoon, 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 060762, which was introduced by Councilmember O'Neill October 19th of this year. This bill rezones 9.7 acres of land located in the Somerton section of the City on the northerly side of the intersection of Tomlinson Street and Hoff Street from a zoning designation of G-2 87 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. General Industrial to a zoning designation of R-1A Residential. This bill rezones a parcel of land to allow for the construction of 42 detached single-family dwellings on large lots. The lots will exceed the requirements of the R-1A Residential district and are part of a new subdivision that will require the placing of a new City street on the City Plan. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of September 19, 2006 considered and approved a preliminary plat for this site. Accordingly, Bill 16 No. 060762 is consistent with previous policy of the Planning Commission and we recommend that it be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. What is the anticipated market price for these homes?
I heard numbers in the area of $400,000. 88 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC.
Do we have any indication as to when the development would be completed?
I have no idea when they will actually complete that, no, ma'am.
Yes. Madam Chair, for the record, I'd like to mention that the developer met extensively with the Somerton Civic Association, the area residents and worked out a proposal, along with my office, in terms of density, type of housing. And this is a blighted industrial site that no one seems interested in. Maybe not quite what the last project was, but one where the area neighbors have spoken, and I think it will work out well for everybody, and I'd like to thank the Planning Commission for helping.
Thank 89 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. you. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on Bill 13 060762? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060797. 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 Thompson Street, Alresford Street, Salmon Street and Juniata Street.
90 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Mr. Kramer.
Good afternoon, Madam President, 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 No. 060797, which was introduced by Councilmember Krajewski October 20th of this year. This bill rezones a 5,300-square-foot parcel of land located in an area bounded by Thompson Street, Alresford Street, Salmon Street and Juniata Street from a zoning designation of L-4 Limited Industrial to a zoning designation of R-10A Residential. This bill rezones a portion of land to allow for the development of three additional single-family residential units fronting on Juniata Street. These will be in addition to the 20 units of single-family residential development under construction in this 91 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. block. The rezoning is consistent with Bill No. 050463, which was previously approved on July 8th of 2005. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of November 14, 2006 considered Bill No. 060797 and recommended that it be approved in order to allow for continued single-family residential development in this block. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Mr. Kramer, the surrounding property is zoned L-4; is it not?
Yes, ma'am. It's actually -- the bill has a slight error in it, in that the initial bill had not been updated on some of our maps. The actual zoning classification is R-10A in the northerly portion of this block. The southerly -- or I should say the westerly portion of the block, the portion that is -- let me make sure I have the street right. 92 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. The portion of this block at Thompson Street is currently R-10A Residential, and this would just continue that 10A Residential for a parking lot, actually. It has been sold to the developer, who is BK Enterprises, and it has been sold to them, and so they've requested that this additional 5,300 square feet be rezoned R-10A so that they can add three more units into their development.
Okay. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060732. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 25 amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia 93 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by adding a new Chapter establishing inclusionary affordable housing, by requiring that certain developments consisting of a certain number of dwelling units, provide a certain percentage of those units for affordable housing or provide other options for affordable housing, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: And the first panel consists of the Administration and PHA.
We're going to recess and go into a public meeting and then we will come back to the public hearing again regarding this bill. That being said, this will conclude our public hearing and go into our public meeting, and the Chair at this time recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060637. 94 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 060637 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
Madam President, I move that Bill 060673 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 18 060673 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Those 95 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. opposed? (No response.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060740.
Madam President, I move that Bill 060740 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 17 060740 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? 96 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. (No response.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 060743.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 060743 be reported out of Committee, without rules suspension. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 14 060743 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill 060762.
Madam 97 11/16/06 - RULES - BILL 060637, ETC. President, I move that Bill 060762 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 10 060762 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in flavor will indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)