My final question is, when was the last time there was development of a tall building in that community? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: St. James was done five years roughly, four years. And the St. James is how tall?
A million stories. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 8th and Walnut, which is the western edge of the boundaries for Society Hill, close to the western edge, and that was approved by the community back four, five years ago.
Right. And to show you how pro development we are, we did approve -- I think it's in the corner of one of those drawings -- a 26-story building at 5th and Walnut, and that was zoned -- the zoning variance for that was 33 percent variance. That is zoned on 97 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Walnut. That is on Walnut Street, and that is immediately abutting the Penn Mutual Tower. So it's not a sore thumb. It's another finger to the hand. So we're pro development. We want to see something work here, but we want to see -- speaking for myself, I would like to see something that gains a consensus, because what you have here is something that I think most of the people, as we've learned from our petition drive, most of the people oppose, and the thing they oppose the most, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, is the rezoning. It would be one thing if we all went to the Zoning Board and whatever happened happened, but the rezoning is something that really brings a lot of people here today.
Thank 98 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 you, Mr. Boni. Any further questions or comments of this witness? (No response.)
I have some materials if I can just hand up that I've referred to already.
Thank you. Somebody will get them. Mr. Gallery, welcome.
Mr. Jacovini, please identify yourself for the record. 99 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253
Joseph Jacovini. I am a 40-year resident of Society Hill. I live in the 100 block of Pine Street. We moved there from 3rd and Pine. Richardson Dilworth, who hired me and my law firm, recommended that that was a good place to live and raise children, and we raised three children there, and we've seen the neighborhood progress. First, let me say -- and this may sound a bit strange, but some of the comments that Mr. Boni raised in terms of contributions and things like that, I had no idea were to be said. I truly respect the integrity of the process and the goals of introducing this kind of a bill. The neighborhood has been at loggerheads. There is no clear consensus, but in terms of the bona fides of Councilman DiCicco and members of this Committee and, frankly, my neighbors who would support this, I certainly respect, as I would hope they would respect my views. 100 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 I have never been opposed to progress down there, and I think that's a common theme. You talk about common ground. I think that's a great point. We're not opposed to progress. The question is, how do we get there. And I'm not going to sit here and say it should be stories or stories, but I 10 can tell you as someone who has been on 11 the front lines down there for a long 12 time, that over the years, we have 13 supported development. Five or six years 14 ago when Starwoods first came in, I spent 15 a tremendous amount of time with other 16 neighbors and we negotiated an 17 arrangement that I think permitted 11 or 18 12 stories, but we were very careful in 19 terms of the intrusion on the neighborhood and the close-by neighbors. And, unfortunately -- that was Starwoods -- that fell through. And I think the Society Hill Civic Association was not in favor of that at that time because of the height. I personally was 101 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 in favor of it, because I think we can accommodate height, but I am more concerned with the uses that are to be made there, because I truly believe that the biggest danger and the most pernicious harm to a neighborhood is when you have untoward commercial encroachment and certain types of uses that really destroy the fabric of the neighborhood and the fabric of a home where people like a little peace and quiet. And my biggest concern with this project here, as it was with the other projects, but we approved them as the neighbors because we were able to negotiate protections in terms of outside uses and things like that, as proposed, as I understand it, with outdoor dining -- and I want to tell you, I'm in favor of outdoor dining, but I don't want it right in my backyard, which this would be, and liquor use, which has been a big problem down there. And creating a public thoroughfare right behind 102 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 residential homes to me is a bigger danger to the fabric of the neighborhood and to the well-being of the residents. In terms of the height, we could debate. And I agree with the Councilman, whether it's stories, 8 stories, we can accommodate each other 9 there, but where I think we have to be 10 very careful is in terms of what's being 11 used there and just the impact on the 12 neighbors. 13 I fought these battles for 40 14 years down there, and you just can't have 15 certain uses that are uncontrolled. Open space, open areas are wonderful. People are out there congregating with drinking and so on -- and I love a party like everybody else -- that creates its own set of issues. There was a bar there at one time, Lily's, an open-air, and it was a disaster. People would come from there with drinks in hand, beer bottles. They would urinate on the steps. And there 103 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 were children, my children and a lot of other children, in the neighborhood that were offended by that.
So I think commercial encroachment and the uses there are the biggest concern that I would have, and that's why I would say as drafted, I don't think this bill really protects on that particular issue. And to me, the present system, which has been in place for a long time -- and many of us, including myself, we relied on what was there when we purchased our homes and invested in our homes. And we've been there, I submit, a long time, much longer than the developer. I respect his wishes to put something there, and I'm not in favor of an empty hole there, but you need a balance, and the only way that I've seen over the years that you can accommodate residential with commercial -- because C-2 is more compatible with residential. I mean, in a C-2 district as presently zoned it's 104 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 essentially residential, but you can except out for commercial. When you go to C-4, it's essentially commercial. Frankly, I think you need an exception for residential. And that, to me, really changes the balance of power and the ability to negotiate something fair. I would support something in excess of the current limitations. I would. I'm on record. In fact, other projects after Starwoods, there was someone else that came in with a project about three years ago, which was -- I forget what it was, stories or 16 something, but it was very limited. 17 There were no outside liquor uses and 18 things like that. I supported it. Society Hill Civic Association, I believe, was not in support of that. So I just think that leaving the system as it is gives the neighbors more ability to balance out the residential with commercial uses. I think this kind of bill -- and I 105 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 certainly respect the desired intent -- I think just tips the balance too far the other way. And then, frankly, in terms of uses, you have no ability to negotiate anything, unless those prohibitions are built into the bill. If they're built into the bill, then I would have a different view of it.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. And good afternoon, Mr. Jacovini. Thank you for your testimony. Have you seen the proposed amendment that has been drafted by the Law Department in conjunction with the Planning Commission? It speaks to the project plan and the development and the size, density, character and use of this plan. I'll have a copy --
I have not seen that, Councilman. 106 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'll let you see it. It's going to be for public information, obviously, but I'd like for you to look at it as well.
Does that restrict the kind of uses that I heard earlier in terms of the outdoor activities? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My understanding is that whatever the project plan that is approved must be -- they must abide by that plan. There can't be any adjustments or changes to it. If there is, then there's a violation. And I'm not the attorney here. So there's some ways in which we can control the use in the interest of the community and some of the concerns that you raise. And I'm not sure what the legal remedy for that is, but this document. I'm not sure --
If they were built into it, Councilman, I think I and a number of neighbors would feel a lot 107 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 better on that particular issue. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'll let you see a copy of this. And Mr. Schwartz I believe at the community meeting asked me some similar question about how there will be no -- that this -- when I had that conversation at that meeting that night about the covenant, the deed restriction, you said, Well, how would we know that it's really part of this project plan, and I said that the Law Department would work on that, and that's what we have here today.
I would make one last comment on that. I'm in favor of open spaces. I supported it all my life, but in terms of controlling development in an urban situation, my experience over 40 years -- and I've been involved in any number of zoning battles where everybody wants to bring in selling liquor, because it's the best way of making a lot of money down there. It really hurts a neighborhood, a neighborhood with 108 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 children and other people. You just -- they're just not compatible. Put up a brick wall. If they want to do things enclosed and have all of that and it's not going to be disturbing the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhood and close-by neighbors, that's okay by me. I'm not opposed to that, but just don't, as I should not to my neighbors, go out of my way to impose my having parties and drinking at all hours on anybody else. That, I think, is what kills a neighborhood. And there are dangers. The developer said, Well, if I don't get this approval by a certain time, I'm out of here. Well, I have to tell you, if we lose the vitality and the vigor of a neighborhood like Society Hill because people lose faith, that why am I going to put more money into the -- let me get out because it's going to turn into a disaster, that's not going to be very good for the City. It really is not 109 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 going to be good for the City. And I don't think we should turn the clock back. I think by staying with the balance that we now have in the C-2, I think we're better able to meet that danger. I'm sorry for going on so long.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for your testimony.
In your commentary and presentation then, would you be agreeing with Mr. Paul Boni's assessment that density is an issue with this project? I'm trying to find out where the angst is.
I'm trying to be respectful -- this is where the Councilman is, and I understand the problem. Density is an issue, but if 110 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 properly controlled, under proper controls, I think you can deal with density. I mean, the reality is under the present Zoning Code, you would have to get a variance. You're not going to build something, what is it, three stories high and make it commercially viable. That's not going to happen. I recognize that, and so you do have to go higher and you have to agree with the variance. Under the proper controls and proper design, I think you can deal with the density down there. I mean, it's not perfect, but, frankly, we live in the City with the understanding that you're living in the City and there is -- there are some intrusions there. People are willing to live with that. The question is, how unreasonable does it become, and does it really change the neighborhood and take away its residential flavor. So to me, we should be able to 111 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 negotiate the height of this thing. I really believe that, and I think that's what the Councilman has been trying to do. My problem with the bill -- and I respect the intent of putting it into motion here -- is, I just think it changes the balance of the ability to negotiate that, because they have that right. So what else do you have to -- I don't even know how you control the uses. But if there were some real restrictions built in there, then I would think differently about it. That, to me, is my fundamental problem with this bill. I would urgently ask you to reconsider that.
Well, having outdoor dining there. Two o'clock in the morning people could be outside dining. In the proper circumstance, that's wonderful. If it's in your backyard, I'm 112 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 not so sure you would think it's wonderful. They're the kind of controls that I think need to be built into this if you're going to have something of that size and density in that location. I think you're putting sort of a new street right in the middle of a City block there as a public open thoroughfare, and I know there are many in Society Hill, but not with the kind of commercial things right in the middle there, including an outdoor bar or an outdoor restaurant. That, to me, is not very good for the neighborhood at all.
Lastly, where is the closest bar or restaurant to the neighbors you're talking about?
Well, you have one on, I guess, 2nd and Pine. I mean, they're there. I mean, the reality is, we're sort of saturated with them.
But it does not have outdoor -- 113 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253
Councilman DiCicco is pointing out the various bars.
But not behind the properties in a residential block. If they're on a street, that's one thing. This, as proposed, is much different than that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just was pointing out --
And my concern is, as we should all be concerned, that you get saturated with that. I mean, having height is one thing, but having 58 liquor licenses in a four-block radius I don't think is a healthy thing for any neighborhood.
I'm not saying it's 58, but I guarantee you, I'm not so far off the number. 114 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253
Thank you. Any further questions or comments? (No response.)
Thank you very much, Mr. Jacovini. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes, Madam President. I was prepared to say good morning to the panel, but it's now afternoon. So good afternoon, Madam President. Good afternoon, members of the Committee. My name is Harry Schwartz. I am a resident of Society Hill. I'm a former Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and a 115 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 former Director of Public Policy of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I want to say, with all due respect to Councilman DiCicco, whom I regard as a great friend of our community, that I am here to testify in opposition to this bill. Fifty years ago a plan was conceived for a deteriorating neighborhood by Richardson Dilworth and Ed Bacon to save a body of historic properties near the Delaware River that were in a state of acute disrepair. As you heard from Paul Levy, that was the Food Distribution Center. There were other commercial and industrial uses there. But the plan was a very ingenious one. It was built around the notion that this community should be a community of row houses from the late 18th and early 19th century that would be principally a residential community. In order to cause that 116 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 community to come into being, a number of things had to be done. One of them was the selective demolition of the industrial properties that had been created and then preparation for the very detailed and, I would say, almost exquisite preservation of the houses from the 1700s and early 1800s that made up the bulk of that community. It was intended to be a community of homeowners. The towers, which have been cited before, were an essential part of that plan. They were constructed for a reason and not just economics. They were constructed to be a magnet for young families who would move into the neighborhood, rent the apartments, which were designed to be small, with wonderful views to attract young people and relatively inexpensive to rent, and they worked because young families were attracted to the neighborhood. Then young families did what they tend to do, which is they had 117 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 children. The apartments were too small, and they looked down to street level where the Old Philadelphia Development Corporation was offering the shells of these historic buildings for sale. The towers was an essential part of the plan to save the historic buildings of the neighborhood. What we have now is not an organic neighborhood. It didn't just grow that way. It was created out of the ingenuity of people like Ed Bacon and the confidence and support of people like Richardson Dilworth. It's an artifact. It's artificial. But it is a treasure. Every year it attracts over a million tourists who come not to see the high-rise towers, but to come to see the older houses which comprise the heart of the neighborhood. Now, you have heard a variety of views from this panel on what should be done, but I would say this to you: We believe that the existing zoning for the 118 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 site which is in question today is the correct zoning. We do not believe it should be altered. We believe it is there because it was part of the plan to maintain the neighborhood as a place of residents and a community with commercial properties nearby and convenient. These towers, I submit, constitute an intrusion into that neighborhood and an intrusion which I fear will damage its historic character and damage its ability to attract tourism, which, again, is an economic generator for the City. So I submit to you that what we have before us is a vision of the City encapsulated in this historic neighborhood adjacent to Independence Hall and the National Park associated with it, and that what you're being asked to do is to be good stewards of the character of that neighborhood. What I see this proposal doing is abandoning that vision.
And I say 119 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 that with all respect to Councilman DiCicco, who, as I say, is a friend to that neighborhood. And I would ask you not to abandon that vision. Think again whether you want it to be your legacy, because the issue is now in your hands, not in the hands of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Do you want it to be your legacy to permit the construction of a structure which is way out of scale for that neighborhood and to permit the intrusion in that neighborhood of an inappropriate development or are you prepared to say, no, we don't want that to be our legacy and to say no to this proposed legislation? Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Schwartz, for your testimony. I just want to make a personal observation of some of the concerns that were raised by Mr. Jacovini as it relates to the uses; in particular, a restaurant, which would obviously be looking to apply 120 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 for a liquor license. That is another step in this process, and I think there is an opportunity for the community, especially the immediate neighbors, to work with the developer on whomever the restauranteur will be to work on some sort of a conditional license, which we have been doing in the past in other neighborhoods. And for those of you who aren't familiar with a conditional license, basically it says that the liquor license would be granted for a particular use. If there's an abandonment of that use because -- as an example, if the restaurant does not meet its financial expectations, that they would not be able to just take that liquor license and convert that restaurant into a nightclub. So there are some protections, and they've worked well -- in fact, Carl Englekey is a consultant for the developer, was a former employee of Senator Fumo, and that's how this whole 121 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 concept of conditional license pretty much came about. So I think there is an opportunity for that continuing discussion as the -- so hopefully the project moves forward and as the application for the liquor license becomes the next step in that process. Any questions from this Committee? Councilwoman Brown.
Councilman, can that actually be a stipulation? Opportunity is one -- conveys one thing. Stipulation and requirement certainly conveys something else. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes. And I see the developer -- you want to come up and speak? It might be easier, because I think that may have already been part of our discussion, but I just want to get it on the record. I see we have some visitors. 122 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Hello, kids.
William Martin, Fox Rothschild. Mr. Councilman, as you shared with Mr. Jacovini, the proposed amendment to the ordinance, which was discussed at the very beginning of the hearing, it talks about the submission to the Planning Commission and approval by the Planning Commission of a plan of development. And we have many people in the audience who have been dealing with us for a very long time. That plan of development, which is the technical phrase used here, is something we have talked about as being the neighbors' agreement or the agreement with the neighborhood association. We have already brought to the form of essentially a Letter of Intent a series of agreements with neighbors regarding the project. We expect that to be refined in consultation with the neighbors, with the Planning Commission 123 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 and with the Law Department in a fashion which can be a document which is filed against the records here so that it's enforceable. It's a document of record, and there would be a number of limitations agreeable to the developer and agreeable to the neighbors, such as limitations on the use of a liquor license. To the extent there is outdoor dining, certainly limitations -- Mr. Jacovini referenced 2:00 a.m. There would certainly be an understanding that there's not going to be outside dining after sunset, a variety of things that would provide incremental protections to the neighbors so that the project went forward. Things that had been committed to by the developer would be memorialized and made part of the deal, and this amendment makes sure that the Planning Commission has to sign off on it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Comment. Rude customers who really don't care 124 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 about the property of others is completely unacceptable, and as you walk through the negotiation with the neighbors, I think it's incredibly important that the issue raised by Mr. Jacovini with regards to the type of behavior that comes because someone is intoxicated really needs to be clearly defined and detailed to the nth degree, because there is nothing like having outsiders in your community who have no 13 respect for it at all. I live in a circumstance where a college community -- we need universities and what they bring. We want college students to be a part of our community, but the respect level is zero. So I say that to say, I hear clearly the issues raised by the neighbors when it comes to outside dining, and the preliminary provisions you've discussed I would hope would indeed be memorialized to the nth degree so that neighbors have some recourse when 125 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 it comes to the owners not honoring up to whatever you memorialize.
We -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Marc, identify yourself for the record.
Oh, I'm sorry. Marc Stein. We totally appreciate that scenario of a situation that could happen. A couple things. First of all, we definitely will heed your advice on that and we will make sure it's defined very crystal clear about that. If we have to take it out, the outdoor dining, and do away with -- and enclose it, then we would, if it was that serious of a concern, if the hours at sundown wasn't enough and it was really that upsetting. We don't want to upset -- we really tried as best as we could to make it --
To try to get 126 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 everybody, yeah, as comfortable as possible. I won't say happy, but as comfortable as possible, and considering that they are living through three years of construction, if there's some extra words that have to be dealt with, then we can do that. We have no problem with that.
So just from my own understanding of this model here, the restaurant is on the front and the neighbors' backyards are where?
It's right here. Here's the restaurant, and Mr. Jacovini lives right here.
But there's other neighbors too that are affected by that. So if that is a concern, that's a concern that we don't want to have people upset with. 127 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Jacovini, he's acknowledging what you were just trying to say.
Come on up. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No, no, Marc. He's acknowledging what your concern was. He's showing the other side of the building where the pedestrian walkway is in relationship as well. He's identifying that. He's identifying that.
And one further comment. On the one hand, we tried to emphasize to the community that the target demographic for the hotel is probably in the range of a $400-a-night property, and folks have appropriately responded that rich people can be drunk and obnoxious also. So the hotel investor is going to have a significant interest in controlling the environment there, because if you're expecting people to come and be repeat customers at a hotel of that quality and that price, you 128 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 can't have an environment with either visitors to the site or users of the site who are making an inappropriate atmosphere. So I think that while we understand the neighbors' concerns, we also think that the owner of the property is going to have a significant interest in controlling things.
Well, thank you for acknowledging that income level has absolutely nothing to do with intoxicated misbehavior. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Gallery. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is John Gallery. I'm the Executive Director of the Preservation Alliance. President Verna, members of 129 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 City Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'd first like to say that I'm not here in support of either side of the residents' debate on this project. I have as much respect for the opinions of Paul Levy and the other residents who have spoken in favor of this project as I do for those who have spoken in opposition. When the Preservation Alliance looks at projects like this and sees differences in the community, we try to look at it from a historic preservation point of view and we try to see if there are ways in which we can help to suggest what is the appropriate balance between new development and historic preservation. I think this is one of the most important issues that we are dealing with in Philadelphia right now. There are many vacant lots. There are many parking lots that exist in historic districts of the City. In recent years, quite a few 130 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 of them have been the subject of proposals by developers, and there are others in addition to this one currently being considered. I think that the important thing for this Council is also to consider that issue of the balance between preservation and new development. This project requires the approval of two City agencies. It requires the approval of the Planning Commission, which you've heard, and it requires the approval of the Historical Commission, which has not occurred. I think it is -- I know each and every one of you and other members of City Council are very supportive of historic preservation, but I feel that your demonstration of that support should be shown by not acting on proposals in historic districts until you have before you the recommendations of both of the agencies that approve this. We don't know what the Historical Commission will do. If they 131 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 turn this project down, the bill that you're looking at today is meaningless. If they require changes, the bill may also be meaningless. I think the City Planning Commission's recommendation to attach a specific development proposal to a bill 9 like this is a very appropriate one, but you don't know what those attachments will be. You will not know what the plan of development is for this project until after the Historical Commission has given a final approval, and that will not be for three or four months. I think another reason why it's important to go through that process with the Commission is that the Historical Commission is the only agency that really looks at this project from the point of view of its design quality. The Planning Commission does not. I am trained as an architect. I read plans very easily, but when I look at the renderings the developer submitted 132 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 on this project, I cannot even tell if there are windows on the elevations of some of the elevations of this 15-story tower. I cannot tell what the materials are. And if I, as a fairly sophisticated reader of plans, cannot tell those things, there's something deficient. The value of the Historical Commission process is that through the review of the Architectural Committee and of the Historical Commission itself, those issues are looked at, and I believe that through that process, the quality of this design will improve, and I think City Council should support that process. And so I would suggest, first of all, that this bill is premature, that until you know what the Historical Commission's position is, you shouldn't act. You should hear that, since it is a mandatory requirement for this project. The second thing I'd like to do is, I would like to address Councilman DiCicco's question about is there a way 133 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 of establishing a reasonable standard for the height of buildings in historic districts. I believe the answer to that is yes.
And I want to emphasize that I'm talking here solely about historic districts. There are plenty of places in Philadelphia where a building of 400, a thousand feet, 16th and Vine, 18th and Arch, there are plenty of places where tall buildings are perfectly appropriate because they are not in a historic district and they are not -- they don't have a historic context in which they need to relate. Several years ago through his great concern about the height of new buildings being built in Old City, City Council adopted a height limit of 65 feet recommended by Councilman DiCicco because the 65 feet was the, you might say, average height of buildings in the Old City District, but the understanding of that was that it was a point of reference and that depending on the project, 134 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 buildings within a range of 65 to maybe 100 feet would be acceptable. If you translated that into percentage terms, it basically said that buildings that are about 150 percent of the prevailing height in a historic area are ones that can be compatible with the historic district. Let me give you a second example. Around Rittenhouse Square, Rittenhouse Square is a historic district. There are many high-rise buildings. They average about 280 feet. If you applied this rule of thumb, 150 percent, you would say that buildings in the order of 420 feet would be compatible with that historic district. City Council -- or not City Council. The Zoning Board approved a variance for the 10 Rittenhouse condominium to 390 feet. I think that was entirely appropriate. I think that project is very compatible with the historic district. 135 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 City Council recently approved the Queen Village Conservation District. The Queen Village Conservation District has guidelines about height. If you look to those guidelines, you will see that those too indicate that buildings that are in a range of 150 percent of the existing character of the district are ones that can fit in. So in answer to Councilman DiCicco's question, the fact of the matter is, you yourself have basically helped to support a series of policies which really do indicate -- and I've looked at an enormous number of new buildings in historic districts over recent years -- that this range of 150 percent is in fact a reasonable range. For this project, that would be 100 to 110 feet. And, yes, Councilman Greenlee, there is a very big difference between 110 feet and 165 feet when you're dealing with a historic district where the true 136 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 average height of buildings is 40 feet. Lastly, let me just say that Society Hill is not a neighborhood with high rise scatted throughout it. The high-rise buildings in Society Hill are concentrated around Washington Square, which is where the St. James is, which is where the project next to the Penn Mutual is and the Society Hill Towers, which are deliberately insulated from the lower scale of the surrounding neighborhood by a lot of open space and by new townhouses that were designed at a smaller scale. In fact, when the urban renewal plan for this area was adopted, every other location in this neighborhood, including this site, had a legal restriction of 45 feet, because that was the plan. Two places for high-rise development and low density for the rest of the neighborhood, that is what has made Society Hill a success. So my two recommendations in conclusion are, first of all, you do not 137 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 have before you the full information that you need in order for you to make a determination of how to balance preservation and new development. You need to hear the Historical Commission's view. And, secondly, I think if you are looking for a standard, then I think the standard that is appropriate, has proven to be appropriate in other historic districts, is a standard that is approximately 150 percent of the prevailing height. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Thank you. Mr. Gallery, why would it take three or four months before the Historical Commission would render their opinion?
The developer has -- in a project like this, the normal procedure of the Historical Commission 138 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 has been the developer to submit a plan in concept and then a second final plan when they reach the level of final design. The level of design that's shown in these panels is a level that would be perfectly suitable for an in-concept review by the Planning Commission. It is too late for that to have been submitted for an April meeting of the Architectural Committee, so the earliest that it could be submitted to the Architectural Committee would be May, which would mean that June is when the Historical Commission would vote on the in-concept plan. Normally it takes the architects, I would say, an average of two months to move from a concept to what is enough detail to be constituted a final plan. If that were true and that were submitted in, let's even say, the July hearing, then the August hearing of the Historical Commission would be the 139 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 point at which that would be heard. At the Planning Commission yesterday, the attorney for the developer said that they were thinking of going back to the Historical Commission in the summer. If that were the case, then the schedule I've outlined to you could be a little longer.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel consists of Jim Moss, Richard deWyngaert and Steve Weixler. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your 140 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 testimony.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Council. My name is Jim Moss, M-O-S-S. I have prepared remarks and I have copies, if the Council wishes to have them distributed. I will give my testimony with a view toward passing some of the material that I've provided to you. I'm a Vice-President of both the Society Hill Civic Association and Society Hill Towers. I've become very much aware and involved in this whole process because of those positions, but I want to emphasize that I speak only as an individual and not for either of those organizations. But there has been so much discussion about the votes that were taken in the Civic Association, let me just take 30 seconds to explain, at least my perspective of it. The initial motion considered by the Board of the Civic Association was 141 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 whether it would approve the project. That vote was 12/12. I say to the Council -- and I'd say it with comfort -- that a number of people who voted against that motion did so because they felt that given a lack of acceptance or approval, that the developer would be encouraged to reduce the height. That has not happened, and I, therefore, say that if that vote were taken again -- and I don't wish to go into that and hope that doesn't happen, but if the vote were taken again, I think the project would be approved. The second issue that came before the Board was a week or two ago on a motion to oppose the ordinance, and that opposition carried by a vote of 11 or 12 to 8, with some abstentions. I say with comfort that a number of the people who voted against the ordinance or voted to oppose the proposal before the Council did so because they felt, again, that this would be leverage that would affect 142 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 the height of this project. And I suggest that that is not likely to happen. The opponents to the project have set forth a number of objections, and I'm just going to cover each of them very briefly. First, they say -- and you've heard testimony today -- that the process that this developer should use is to apply for variances instead of seeking rezoning. Now, the reason that our Civic Association and many others in the City far prefer the alternative of variances is because it gives you far greater opportunity, it is felt, to negotiate with the developer. But it's a disingenuous argument in this case, because I submit to the Council that no 21 court in Pennsylvania would approve the grant of variances that would be required under the proposed development that's here. It's just so far beyond what the Code presently provides that I don't 143 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 believe variances would ever be approved if they would be challenged, and they would be. The opponents also have suggested that we should wait until the new Zoning Code is done. Now, that makes sense, except for a couple of things. The Zoning Reform Commission will come out with a new plan and it will go through the Planning Commission and the full process and this Council will make a final decision and you'll lay out a new Zoning Map for the City, but that's going to be four or five years from now. This project is not going to be there for that period of time, and what will be there for that period of time is going to be this hole in the ground unless some other project comes along, which is, I think, unlikely, but it could. What I think is even more unlikely is that any new project would have the quality and the potential for the neighborhood that this one has. 144 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 The opponents to the project -- and you've heard testimony today from some -- have said that this is spot zoning and, therefore, this Council should not approve the proposed ordinance. Now, as you, I'm sure, know -- and I didn't know until I had to go look it up -- spot zoning is a conclusion.
The Court has set out standards which they give to the municipalities, and they say, Your zoning, under the Constitution, your zoning is done after you've done a huge amount of analysis and you have a development plan and a master plan, and you should change that zoning very sparingly, and we're going to set up standards that you should follow. And they've done that, and I think this proposal passes muster. First they say that the proposed ordinance can't be designed for the benefit or the detriment of a developer. There's been no suggestion 145 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 that's going to be the reason here. Naturally, if this is approved and the project is built, it will be expected to be at least helpful to the developer, but it's not your purpose if you change the zoning to benefit that developer. Once you pass that, you go to the question of the public interest. If the Council on hearing all testimony and reflecting and deliberating concludes that the benefit to the community is far greater than the cost to the community, then it is perfectly free and should feel comfortable in rezoning. It's no longer spot zoning, if that's your conclusion. So I go then to the question of what are the costs and benefits to the community. The only cost -- and I am not insensitive to it. The only cost I think has to do with the height. Density really isn't a problem. We're living in a big city and, in fact, increasing density in many areas of the City is a very positive thing. It's the mass and 146 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 height, and essentially the height. This -- and I don't belittle those who feel that this is too high and inappropriate, but I point out to the members of Council that this site is on the periphery of Society Hill and the 8 stories for the condo portion of the 9 facility is on Front Street. 10 Now, the PennPraxis 11 organization, with the advisory group 12 that Mr. DiCicco was very helpful and 13 really inspired, created a plan which is 14 now going to be considered by City 15 Council eventually and by the Zoning Reform Commission. What is planned by the developer here, in my view, is completely consistent with the mission, the vision of the PennPraxis program. I was on that advisory group and I saw it as it came to formation. The additional benefit, the next benefit is, we get rid of a hole in the ground. Once you see it, you 147 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 recognize, especially on the Front Street side, it's very wide and it's desolate. 2nd Street, it's been sitting there for must be at least a decade. It was very dangerous. It's less so now because I think this developer has responsibly tried to clean it up a bit. It certainly depreciates the values of all the properties around. If this Council decides to approve this project and you end up with a five-star Starwood hotel, luxury level I think they call it, or I've also heard a four and a half star, but whatever, which is on the 2nd Street side, which is set back and is height consistent with the other buildings on 2nd Street, and has this greenway, this walkway/greenway that permits the public to walk between Front and 2nd, I think is going to be a very positive addition to the neighborhood. The benefits of the -- the economic benefits, I think, are pretty 148 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 clear, too. You now are going to have a significant tax revenue coming from that eventually. You're going to have, I think, a magnet which will draw businesses to the area. It will probably be helpful for South Street and South Street/2nd Street corridor. So in conclusion -- and I've skipped over some of the material, but it's there for you to read if you were so inclined. It's my sense that this is not spot zoning, it is legal rezoning, and I encourage the Council to approve this bill and forward it to full Council favorably. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record. MR. DeWYNGAERT: Good afternoon. My name is Richard deWyngaert and I am the current President of the 149 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Society Hill Civic Association. I would like to thank President Verna, Councilman DiCicco and other members of Council who sit on this Committee for giving members of our community an opportunity today to express all points of view. Although I'm the current President of the Civic Association, I appear before you today as a resident of Society Hill, a community where my wife and I chose to raise our three daughters and where we have lived for years. 14 The opinions I give today, although 15 informed by virtue of my role within the Civic Association, are my own, and I acknowledge and respect the diversity of opinion you've heard today on this issue. For the past year, I have participated in a deliberative process aiming to monitor and evaluate the development of proposals for Stamper Square. During that time, our committee, the members of which were selected by the Society Hill Zoning and Historic 150 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Preservation Committee and affirmed by the Board of the Society Hill Civic Association, has participated in countless meetings with Bridgeman Development, H2L2 and the near neighbors to ensure that Society Hill played a significant role in safeguarding conditions and principles important to our community while balancing modern urban development and historic preservation. Now if we fast forward one year, we are sitting here today discussing an ordinance to facilitate the development of a project which Inga Saffron recently characterized as a prototype for future urban development, one which has the potential to significantly contribute to Society Hill's growth and continued prosperity. I love Society Hill. So does my family. You would have a difficult time finding someone who loves their community more than my family. I love 151 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Society Hill. I love the architecture. I love its livability. I love its historical significance. We love our beautiful early 19th century home on the 200 block of Pine Street. There's a lot to love. In this respect, however, I am not unique. Many of us here today would have little difficulty putting together a similar list. There are so many wonderful aspects and characteristics that most of us here today love about Society Hill. It is truly a special place. However, the site we are discussing today is probably not on anyone's list. It is not something to love. Rather, it is something that needs to be fixed. The development proposal presented by Bridgeman aims to fix this problem. I think that the project proposed by Bridgeman will remedy a situation that has been problematic for far too long. And I do not think this project will compromise our neighborhood. 152 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Rather, I think it will enhance the Society Hill that we all love. Stamper Square is currently an eyesore. It is an embarrassment. It has been vacant and undeveloped for far too long. When deliberating on the possible courses of action to develop this area and considering the potential outcomes, I believe we have a responsibility to listen to all the voices in the community. I also believe we have a responsibility to assign considerable weight to the neighbors whose properties are contiguous to this site. In the end, they are the ones most profoundly impacted. And to my knowledge, most of the near neighbors support this project. And are they scheduled to receive compensation if the project goes through? Yes, absolutely. However, in the grand scheme, whether you think the near neighbors should receive something in exchange for shouldering significant hardship during construction and 153 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 beyond -- and I happen to believe they do deserve this -- is not really my major concern.
What is important is that they support the project and that they, I'm sure, consider the quality of their life as more important than the parking space they are likely to receive, and they support the project, and they are members of our community and members of the Civic Association. I also believe, contrary to what has been expressed earlier today, that a majority of the community supports this project designed by an architect who lives within our community and whose family is active within our community. In summary, I support this ordinance presented today because we -- most definitively because of my respect and trust for the Councilman, who has assured us with unwavering certainty that any legislation enacted to accommodate this project will be completely limited by the negotiated deed restrictions and 154 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 covenants to which it will be inextricably tied. This ordinance is project specific. Otherwise, I would not be in favor of its support. Two, I believe Society Hill's concerns and rights will be comprehensively protected and addressed through this legislation to a degree that might not otherwise be possible. Three, the ordinance process renders more likely that this project, which we've all identified is desirable, to happen. Were we to subject this project to the lengthy review process and zoning applications that would conceivably tie it up for years, I believe we would lose Starwoods as a tenant. And many residents of our community support this project specifically and primarily because of Starwoods and the prospect of the five-star hotel and the amenities that will accompany it. An anchor tenant like Starwoods would potentially elevate the 155 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 entire commercial corridor along 2nd and South Street to a level more commensurate with the current demographic of Society Hill and Queen Village. I respectfully submit that this may be part of a new vision and tailored to existing circumstances that may not have been the case 50 years ago, given that the initial blueprint that was designed for this site has failed. The changing economic landscape going forward will, I believe, continue to erode and the purchasing power of the demographic that's currently targeted by the commercial mix on South Street will continue to deteriorate. I believe going forward a Starwoods Luxury Collection hotel and condominium is a great opportunity to change this commercial mix. It's a wonderful foundation to build, and it's an opportunity that we are responsible to accept -- we have a responsibility to accept. Again, I thank you for 156 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 providing me this opportunity to speak before the Committee on issues that will dramatically influence the future course of Society Hill development and help shape the nature of our community and its growth for years to come. Thank you.
Thank you. Our next witness. MR. McPHERSON: Fox, Foy and Hammond. Lynn Fox.
Good afternoon, Madam President, members of the Committee. My name is Lynn Fox and I'm the Business Manager of the Philadelphia Joint Board Unite Here, and we represent over 9,000 workers who work in the hospitality industry in this city. 157 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 I'd like to speak to you very briefly this morning about the economic impact that this project will have with particular respect to employment, and even though I'm going to be very brief, I'd like to stress that this is very important and it's important, this piece of it, for you to consider. The City, as many of us in the industry and many of us outside of the industry know, is on the cusp of a hospitality explosion. Philadelphia is set to become very shortly -- actually, it's been projected by 2009 to be one of the top ten destinations in the country. Starwood is an experienced, quality operator. The City is in need of more high-end hotels. I don't think there's much dispute for those of us in our industry about that. We deal with them locally and also on a national basis. This is going to be a luxury hotel, caters to the business traveler but also I would say the discerning 158 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 traveler who wants to stay in a neighborhood environment. It's only going to be 150 rooms. So we call that sort of a boutique hotel. It's not going to be obviously a big box, and you can see that from the design yourself. I especially want you to know that these are going to be good jobs, and the City desperately needs good jobs. There will be community hiring. And unfortunately she's not in the room, but in direct response to Councilwoman Brown's question, you should know that we have an agreement covering the hotel operations workforce, which is, of course, the permanent jobs, and that 85 percent of our hotel workers are racial, ethnic, minority, and they live in the City. We also feel that this will help revitalize the business district. And I would like to say that because of what we do, we have witnessed the process for many of these development projects, 159 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 and as you know, there are a lot of hotels in the pipeline, and so far, I have not seen a developer so concerned with community commentary and has had so many meetings with the community and has made so many accommodations. And I understand that people who live in the district feel passionately about it, but just as an observer, I would like to make that point, that I find this to be very unusual, and I'm sure you'll take note of that. But I also think that certainly speaks as to what kind of neighbor they're going to be. In sum, I just want you to know that our position is, this is a beautiful project. I really don't think there's been too much descension on that. It's good for the hospitality industry. It's good for Philadelphia, and we wholeheartedly support the project. And I thank you.
Thank you very much. 160 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, President Verna and members of the Committee of Rules. For the record, I am John Foy, Chairman of the South Street Headhouse District, a special service district, and owner/operator for 30 years of Bridget Foy's, a full-service restaurant located at 2nd and South Streets in Philadelphia. David Hammond, Executive Director of the South Street Headhouse District, accompanies me today. It is my pleasure to come before you in support of Bill 080253 that will amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Front Street, Lombard Street, 2nd Street and Pine Street. The change in designation would permit the building of Stamper Square, a luxury hotel and condominium project on the site that is currently a large hole in the 161 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 ground, situated in the South Street Headhouse District. This site has been dormant for years. Approximately ten 5 years ago, the structure was raised, 6 thereby creating this hole, a deep 7 blemish on the neighborhood face of 8 Society Hill. 9 The benefits from the addition 10 of the Stamper Square project to the 11 neighborhood are numerous. Financially, 12 Stamper Square will generate a tax 13 assessment payable to the South Street 14 Headhouse District that will be utilized 15 to sustain programs and make improvements 16 to the area that will no doubt improve 17 the quality of life for residents. These 18 enhancements will additionally serve the 19 visitors to the area, whether they are 20 day-trippers from the Delaware Valley region or vacation travelers that can make Stamper Square their home away from home. Yet, this is more than a zoning issue, ladies and gentlemen. This 162 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 project will provide the economic stimulus needed to revitalize the South Street Headhouse District. This District, once occupied with quality retail and sidewalks bursting with shoppers, is now a runway for lower-end shops and vacant storefronts. " The Stamper Square project will reinvigorate the area with a quality product and will bring visitors "on down" with deep pockets. These hotel visitors and condominium residents will shop and dine in the District and will make South Street Headhouse Society Hill area a destination. This infusion will create sales for our local businesses with a trickle-down effect that positively impacts our employees and their families while adding to the tax base in the City. Moreover, South Street is currently doing its part to help in the 163 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 revitalization of the area. You may be aware that the streetscape project is currently underway on South Street. This project spans from Front to 8th Street and includes replacement of sidewalks, pedestrian lights, traffic signalization, installation of bike racks and trees and concludes with street milling and paving. This long overdue facelift to South Street and the addition of Stamper Square will no doubt enhance the South Street Headhouse District. Right now an empty hole in the ground could soon be our field of dreams. If we build it, they will come. It is important to note that in 1999 the W Hotel project was approved for 125 feet or 11 stories and its footprint covered almost 90 percent of this lot. The Stamper Square project has a footprint just over 50 percent and is set at 165 feet or 15 stories at its highest point. Although this project is slightly higher than the previously approved W Hotel, it 164 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 offers close to 40 percent more open green space than the previously approved project. The developers were mindful to proportionately set the Stamper Square project to fit within the landscape of the neighboring residential and commercial properties. And this project clearly beats the alternative whether it remains the current hollow crater or, even worse, it is developed as a by-right commercial box under the current C-2 zoning.
This type of project would be disastrous to the parcel of land, the neighborhood and business community. Additionally, it is important to note that the developer, Bridgeman Development, has been available to residents and businesses at every stage during this process. The development team met frequently at neighborhood association meetings and hosted forums to answer our questions, provided us with information and, most importantly, integrated our feedback into the Stamper 165 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Square plan. Their approach in wanting to achieve the best results for all involved was evident. We worked as a whole and not as a group of fragmented parts. In closing, I would like to report that the Board of Directors of South Street Headhouse District unanimously supports the Stamper Square project in its current form. A few of our members live and/or work within a block of the project and the rest within a few blocks. The members that live within the block realize full well that the construction will be cumbersome, noisy and at times frustrating, but that is progress. We all want to move forward, not be stagnant and to continue to accept this giant hole that stands in the way of economic growth for our district. This project itself will bring jobs to the area and help sustain security for our current employees and their families. Let's again make the 166 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 South Street Headhouse District area the place where all the people meet. I thank you for the opportunity to address you today, and ask for your immediate support of Councilman DiCicco's bill. We would be happy to answer any questions if you have them.
Thank you, Mr. Foy. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Good afternoon. I would just like to address the issue of the conditional licenses for liquor. Every liquor establishment, whether it's a transfer person to person or transfer from one area to another, has to come through the Liquor Advisory Council that Senator Fumo has set up that is made up of a representative of all the 167 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 surrounding communities of the district, Bella Vista, Society Hill, Washington Square West and Queen Village. We all sit down together with each individual operator and hammer out the details of conditional licenses, and there's no 8 reason to think that this could not be handled at that level. So the ideas of keeping the bar or the restaurant, the outdoor seating open until 2:00 in the morning would be addressed then and it would be included right into the liquor license.
Sounds good enough for me. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Gentlemen, thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next two witnesses are Russ Nessevich and Douglas Verney. (Witnesses approached witness 168 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 table.)
I know that you have been extremely patient and I believe that there are a number of more witnesses. MR. McPHERSON: Two more.
Oh, okay. But we do have another hearing, which will go from 2:30 until 7:30 tonight. So if you could possibly be as brief as possible, we would appreciate it. Thank you. Please identify yourself.
Good afternoon, Madam President, members of the Council. My name is Russ Nessevich and I own 113-A Lombard Street. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. I'm here today to represent the Riverview Condominium Association. Our building runs from 101 through 115 Lombard Street and has both upper and 169 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 lower units. Our backyards abut this property and our back windows face it. In addition, we have joined an organization called the NewMarket Neighbors, which consists of almost 30 neighbors whose properties directly touch this lot. Of the owners of our condo 9 unit, 13 have signed a letter of support 10 for this project. 11 We believe that the merits of 12 the project far outweigh its 13 disadvantages. We view this project as 14 an opportunity to turn an eyesore into a 15 high-end place of business and residence 16 for an affluent clientele and homeowner. We believe that this project can begin to turn around a downward spiraling South Street into a retail area we can all be proud of. You will hear opponents of this project tell you that the city planners never intended to have high rises in Society Hill. It is that type of closed-mindedness that has kept this 170 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 piece of premier real estate an eyesore in one of the most historic and beautiful areas of Philadelphia for the last ten years. I may not be an expert in city planning, but I am certain that an eyesore full of graffiti and vagrants is not what was or is planned for this lot. You will hear about petitions signed to oppose this project. The irony is that many of those signatures are from residents of the Society Hill Towers, tall buildings in Society Hill whose condominium owners are concerned that their views to the southeast may be partially obstructed by this development. It is that kind of "not in my backyard" attitude that has kept this piece of premier real estate an eyesore in one of the most historic and beautiful areas of Philadelphia for ten years. You'll hear about bribes, that those of us who support this project will have the opportunity to park in the garage that will be built there. This 171 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 accusation is offensive. Those of us that own property directly abutting this lot had parking privileges associated with the prior NewMarket development, which extended to any project with a garage built on this lot. The developer has agreed to honor those rights. It is insulting and irrational to accuse people with homes that range in value from half a million dollars to $2 million or more of selling out our neighborhood in exchange for parking which can be bought a half a block away for less per month than is spent on lattes and dry cleaning. Opponents of this project and maybe even some supporters would undoubtedly like to see the lot filled with three-story townhomes. In ten years, not a single developer, not one, has come forward with such a plan that would meet the requirements of the existing Zoning Code. Thus, this lovely neighborhood has been hampered with this 172 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 empty lot as a symbol of the fact that a small and vocal minority can prevent development if they yell and scream loudly enough that there should be no 6 tall buildings in Society Hill. We hope that you will support this project. We hope that you don't allow a vocal minority to stall a positive project for the neighborhood. We hope that when there is contention about a project across a neighborhood, you will more heavily weigh the desires of immediate neighbors than those that live several blocks away, keeping in mind that almost 30 neighbors whose properties touch this lot support this project. We hope that you take the necessary steps to allow this project to move forward and to eliminate a blight in this neighborhood that has been present for far, far too long. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 173 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 (Applause.)
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Douglas Verney. My wife and I live at 104 Pine Street. We have lived in Society Hill for over 30 years and in Pine Street for 19. We have seen the decline of the NewMarket venture. We have experienced the noise and dust of its dismantling, and we have suffered the reverberations of drills and jackhammers tearing up the concrete. For some years we have been left with this desolate hole in the ground and have forfeited our parking space that was reserved for us. We have spent thousands of dollars trying to prevent a succession of developers from destroying the special character of the neighborhood. If this proposal goes through, 174 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 we will face many more months of construction activity. Our house will be impacted more than any other on the 100 block of Pine Street. We shall no longer see the early morning sunrise over the Delaware River or catch the late afternoon sun shining on the graceful Walt Whitman Bridge. Indeed, our view from the rear of the house, where my wife works in her study every day, will be completely blocked forever. Why then should we support this project? We're not enamored of a high-rise development for its own sake, but we have to ask ourselves whether there is a better alternative. We don't see one now or in the future. Moreover, the developers have done much better than their predecessors in considering the needs of the neighbors and configuring design elements to blend with the architecture of the adjoining houses. They're providing a bridge to the buildings already conceived up and down 175 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 the waterfront. Stamper Square, like Society Hill Towers, whose outlines were seen from our front windows, is on the periphery of Society Hill. Together these tall buildings are the bookends defining the outer boundaries of the historic area. As residents of Pine Street, we will, of course, be happy to have our parking restored, even if we don't have our own reserved space, but the parking is hardly recompense for what we've been through for the last decade or so. Let us hope that at last action will be taken to present Society Hill with a building of which it can be proud, even if we personally will be too close to appreciate it. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you. Any questions or comments from 176 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 members of the Committee? (No response.)
You've been extremely patient. Thank you for waiting to testify. MR. McPHERSON: Kevin Boylan and --
Excuse me, please. The names that you're calling now, did they call before today's hearing to be placed on the list? MR. McPHERSON: No. 14
Excuse me just a minute. As I said before the previous speakers, we in fact have a 2:30 hearing for public testimony, which should go until about 7:30 tonight. We appreciate your coming in to testify. However, if we thought that there were going to be more witnesses than we have now, we would have started our hearing at 9 o'clock rather than 10 o'clock. 177 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 How many more witnesses would like to testify whose name was not on the list?
Mr. Boylan's and my names are on the list. MR. McPHERSON: No. You -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They're on the list that they just submitted.
No. 15 I think a list was just submitted to Mr. McPherson. MR. McPHERSON: For clarification, we did not have his name prior to today's hearing. He came up on the side and asked to be added.
That's what I just said. MR. McPHERSON: Right. But he was not part of the larger list.
If we 178 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 approve the witnesses coming up, we will allow you each one minute to testify. I think if we gave you more time than that, it's just going to be repetitious.
I don't think Mr. Boylan's testimony and mine would repeat anything of what was said so far.
Have you been sitting here since 10 o'clock? Do you know what was said?
Madam Chair, I think a lot of the people on the list are perfectly fine with a minute, whatever your indulgence will allow. It's important.
Listen, we always like to hear from everyone, but I want you to know the time constraints that we also have. The Chair recognizes Councilman 179 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. And not to be argumentative, I was receiving e-mails over the weekend. I think, Mr. Boni, you e-mailed me either Sunday or Saturday -- I forget what day it was -- to make sure that you were included on the list. So that everyone understands, as the Council President said, had we known in advance, we would have had your names on the list and adjustments would have been made for the other hearings. So I don't want anyone to think that we're not, as the Council President said, not willing to have you participate in this, but it could have been e-mailed, Paul. When you e-mailed me to make sure that you were on the list, you could have added other names as well. I just want that to be on the record.
All right. Those that want to testify, if you will come up to the chairs inside the 180 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 rail so that your names will be on the record as either approving or opposing. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Thank you. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. Again, I'm going to ask you to try to be as brief as possible.
My name is Tania Rorke. I've lived in Society Hill since 1998. I'm a current Board member and the Immediate Past President of the Society Hill Civic Association. I'm here as a resident only, though, today to address a matter that was brought up earlier. I was President of the Society Hill Civic Association when Councilman DiCicco wrote the letter that was described. I worked with Paul Boni on that project, and we specifically asked the Councilman for a letter to address the Sant Property development. Also, I was President when 181 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Bridgeman came to us with their plans that they have proposed for the site today. It's been over meetings since 5 we've met with them. They've continually 6 involved the community and the near 7 neighbors in the entire process. They've 8 reduced the height, they've shifted the 9 mass, and they've redesigned the outdoor 10 space, all to respond to the concerns of 11 the near neighbors in the community. 12 To clarify the information 13 regarding the votes that Society Hill has 14 had, we had a vote last March that was 12 15 to 12 in opposition -- or 12 to 12, I'm sorry, 12 in support, 12 in opposition. At a recent meeting we had, we took a vote based on the ordinance which you have before you. Twelve people voted to support the ordinance; 8 people voted in favor of not supporting it and two people abstained. We still continue to be evenly divided as to the project. A vote to change that was tabled, and also people who strongly 182 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 opposed the opposition said that they would support stories. 4 I personally believe that our 5 community would benefit more from the 6 residents that would live in the 24 feet, 7 the tourists who would stay in the hotels 8 and the people who would eat in the 9 restaurants than it would from 24 feet of 10 open space. 11 Lastly, I would hope that you 12 will do what needs to be done so that 13 Stamper Square can be built. It's a project that's worthy of our community, and it would be a wonderful new day for the old NewMarket site.
Thank you very much. If anyone that wants to testify has written testimony, if they would abbreviate their testimony, we will give the written testimony to the stenographer and it will be transcribed in full. So kindly identify yourself for the record, sir. 183 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253
Kevin Boylan. I own 119 Lombard Street, a historic Society Hill townhome built in 1740. And I ask you to take a close look at the property and design and the fit, and from my perspective, which I think is an important one as a near neighbor as well, there are certainly properties where I feel that the maximum burden of this project is those least benefited. In particular, I believe Councilman Greenlee asked about offset, and I believe it was skipped over, but at least the least thing I have seen from my property line, it's eight feet. And having a 70-foot wall eight feet from our house is something that is concerning. When I bought my house, I knew that there was an open lot there. The current zoning would protect that through offsets, and that's what we're talking about changing. Bill.
My name is William 184 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Ewing. I'm an attorney at law and I represent Mr. Boylan. I'm also a former member of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, Co-Chair of the Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee of the Bar Association and I've taught many continuing legal education courses on zoning and land use. I want to talk about the spot zoning issue which has come up. The U.S. Supreme Court held that municipalities were entitled to take away the property rights of individual homeowners to build on their property whatever they wanted as part of an overall plan for the development of a community. We've heard here today about a number of overall plans. We heard about a plan that historically there were warehouses on Front Street. That was probably built before there was any zoning. As you know, the zoning in Philadelphia was adopted in the early '30s. We've talked about the plan for 185 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Society Hill development in the '50s and the plan that Mr. Gallery talked about, the redevelopment plan, which anticipated nothing over 40 feet in this area. We've talked about the developer's idea of a plan for Society Hill, which is like the inside of a box, that you can put high stuff all around, but it's low in the middle. None of these have been adopted by City Council that apply here. What we have here is an ordinance that's good for this developer and this trip only. By the amendment that the Planning Commission has proposed, it basically says that. By Mr. DiCicco's letter where he two years ago opposed any rezoning of this site and when he was asked about it, he said, Well, did that apply to this developer, and, of course, it did not because this developer wasn't around at the time. But as soon as this developer comes forward, we have an ordinance to make it possible for this developer to do 186 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 what this developer wants. That's spot zoning. That is spot zoning. This developer, if they really have to have a final answer by May of this year, they aren't going to have it, because this case -- you pass this ordinance, that's only the beginning of the litigation. This ordinance will be thrown out if it's passed. And if you don't believe me, I suggest before you pass the ordinance you ask for an opinion from the Law Department and ask the Law Department will this ordinance stand up in court. What we've had here is a common problem that I've seen in zoning over and over and over. Some speculator buys a piece of property for far more than it's worth. They can't develop it, and then they come back and they ask Council or the Zoning Board, Let me out of my problem. I can't afford to develop this property. Why can't they afford to 187 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 develop it? Because they paid too much. It's pure speculation, and they want you to let them off the hook. That's not the way this Council should be exercising its legislative power. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you again. Our next witness, please approach the -- if three of you would come up at the same time, I think it would save a minute or two. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
I'll go first. My name is Benita Fair Langsdorf. I thank you for this opportunity. I'm a new resident of the Society Hill area. I've lived here for 188 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 three years. I'm also a member of the Zoning and Historic Preservation Committee of the Civic Association for the last two years. I think we're faced with two issues, the support or non-support of the project and the rezoning of this property. And I ask you, I urge you to please consider the process that has served this community well in the past, both through the Civic Association making recommendations to you and then coming before the Planning Commission and the Historic Commission before it comes to you. I'd like to just comment on the votes, because there's been a lot of contradiction, I think, in what people have said about the votes. The first process when this project was presented to the Civic Association for approval was, it was presented to the Zoning and Historic Preservation Committee. On two separate instances, the ZHP Committee of 189 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 the Civic Association voted almost unanimously not to approve this project. Both votes we only had one person on the committee that approved the project. Everybody else voted negatively. This has been a committee that has served this community well. When it went to the Civic Association, the Board split 12/12, in 11 favor, 12 opposed. I think it is 12 inappropriate to say what the vote would be today, because nobody really knows until you go before a group and have them vote. We did almost two weeks ago take a vote on the rezoning of the project. At that time, the vote was 12 against rezoning; 8 for. Even people that approved the project, are in favor, were very much against rezoning. They recognize the importance of the process to this community and to this city. There's been some discussion about the near neighbors' view and how 190 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 important it is. Yes, near neighbors' view is very important, and those neighbors whose property abut this project is very important too, but when you live in a community and especially an historic community, you are only one component in that process to determine what happens with that land. And we do know -- we have no way of knowing what the majority actually say. There's been some comments that it's a vocal minority that do not approve this project. What we do know is that we have a petition of almost 250 near neighbors who are specifically opposed to rezoning, specifically opposed, near neighbors in those blocks immediately surrounding this site. Based on the unusual schism in this community, I think it is more important than ever that we abide by the process in place, and I urge you very much so, and reiterate what John Gallery stated, that do not pass this ordinance 191 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 until you have the appropriate input from the Historical Commission, because this is an historic area, and although we need approval from the Planning Commission, we need approval from the Historic Commission as well. Thank you.
Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Carl Mansfield and I live a half block from this project. I'm not a near neighbor. I live on Front Street, but within about 200 feet or so of the property. First, I would like to emphasize that it's not the project that we are against, but it is, one, the height, is one of the arguments. But now their objection here is to the rezoning. 192 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Now, I at first was concerned about having input into what was going on, and so I participated in the petition that was passed around, and we did get 250 and now as of today we have 280-plus signatures. In going over that petition, I found several things. One, on Pine Street, 100 block, and on Lombard Street, 100 block, the majority of the people are against rezoning. And when I went around in the neighborhood, all of us within a few days, we had 230 signatures against changing the zoning. So the majority -- there is no 16 vocal minority. The majority of the people do not want the zoning changed. And as was pointed here also, by changing the zoning, you weaken our position in terms of trying to negotiate a proper project there. We don't have anything against the project itself, but there are components of that project that we want to negotiate that is more acceptable to 193 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 the neighborhood. Thank you.
My name is Norma Van Dyke. I live in the 100 block of Lombard --
My name is Norma Van Dyke. I live in the 100 block of Lombard Street. My home abuts this property, and I'm opposed to the project. I bought my house in Society Hill. It's a historically certified house built in 1830. I decided to move to Society Hill to make my roots there because I was drawn by the reverence that's expressed for the history which made this country what it is today, a land of opportunity. I operate a bed and breakfast in my house for the past 27 years and I have people come from literally all over 194 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 the world to see what we have here in Philadelphia. They are extremely in awe of what we have, of our historic treasure, so much so that within the last few months, I've had three different sets of people who are planning, looking for jobs and housing here because they want to move from the states that they live in to live in the quality of life that we have here. So I think we have to recognize that it's not just the near neighbors or not just people surrounding the property who may well lose out by changing the quality of this neighborhood. Historic tourism is an economic engine for this city and really one of the few major industries that the City has. But, secondly, I would really like to address this hotel, which I think has been much praised but little scrutinized. A representative from Starwoods Hotels came to our Civic Association to show us a PowerPoint 195 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 presentation of the hotels, and this is their luxury line. I believe that thus far there have been nine of these hotels completed. The presentation that the woman gave to us was primarily a series of PowerPoint pictures of resort areas, the Mediterranean, stucco buildings, sunshine. And what she had to say about these hotels were that I think 95 percent or virtually everyone who comes to these hotels are millionaires between the ages of 43 and 47. So I'm wondering, what are these people going to come here to do? Are they coming to look at the Liberty Bell? It sounds to me like it's a hotel that would be built by someone who knows that we're going to have a full-scale Monte Carlo on our waterfront. I'm wondering, who is going to follow behind these millionaires trying to sell them to things that you can't buy in the store? And what if this hotel doesn't succeed? What if these 196 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 millionaires don't come? And I have here the front of the Wall Street Journal, March 25th edition, which speaks about Starwoods' Sheraton line, which is in serious economic trouble. So that I think we really need to examine this fantasy that this Starwoods Hotel is going to be an economic boom which changes South Street, et cetera. So I urge you really to think very carefully and look very closely before just saying, Well, this is going to be a great thing and it's going to change the neighborhood for the better. It may not be for the better. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from members of this Committee?
Just one. I'm sorry. Just respectfully, you 197 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 purchased your home 27 years ago?
It's not across the street. It abuts the street. I bought it as a shell from the Redevelopment Authority.
And when you purchased that house, NewMarket was operating, wasn't it?
No, no. 18 NewMarket was on the drawing boards. And as a matter of fact, they were --
But I'm saying, while your property was there, while you were in your property, NewMarket was in operation?
NewMarket was -- when I bought the property, NewMarket was not being built yet. It was on the drawing boards, but it was not built.
Yes. That's why it was not being advertised and that's why I found it. Had I realized what was going to happen there, I would not have bought it. Now I'm glad I did, because it's quieted down. And I have to tell you that I can live many more years with a hole in the ground rather than the kind of hell we had when NewMarket was there.
I just don't understand the chronology. You knew NewMarket was --
I knew NewMarket was going to be built. 199 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253
I knew it was going to be built. From the time I purchased my home until I moved in -- because my house was a shell. It had no 8 utilities, no bathrooms, no light, no 9 electricity, et cetera. So a lot -- it was months before I moved into my 11 house. By that time, NewMarket was, I 12 think, standing. 13
Thank you very much. Gentlemen, who is going to testify first? Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Tim Krug. 200 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 I live at 109 Naudain Street, which is just on the other side of Lombard Street. I have prepared something written, but in the interest of time, I will summarize and submit it to you. My wife and our two children live less than 150 feet from this site, which has been an ongoing hole in the ground filled with broken glass, litter and surrounded by a barbed wire fence. I can't think of anything better that I would like to see in this site. I recognize that a number of people who live in the neighborhood might object or have their own opposition, and I respect that. I also recognize, as Councilman DiCicco pointed out, that there's not going to be a consensus. We can't go through the proper channels. We can't have the Civic Association make this decision, because there are so many opinions out there. We'll never get a consensus. I think what this boils down to 201 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 is, you as City Council needs to make the decision what is best for this area, what's best for the City, and we'll go from there.
Thank you very much. And if you'll present us with your written testimony, we'll make certain that it's transcribed in full. Thank you.
My name is Elliot Fields. I live at 123 Pine. I've been there for 31 years and a resident of Society Hill since 1972. While I have many reservations regarding this, I will address those concerning parking. During the course of meetings over the last nine months, I have heard numbers quoted in terms of parking spaces from 300 to 400. Of those parking spaces, we now know that 150 are guaranteed for the hotel, 77 guaranteed to the condominiums, and although I have 202 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 no direct number of how many spaces will be deeded to the near neighbors, I assume based on the number of houses, that it's going to be anywhere between 30 and 45. That brings the number of spaces that will be encumbered to approximately 300. My questions are this: With -- and that 300 would also include parking for the restaurant at 50. In light of the fact that you're going to have more people there than the 77 that have two cars, that you have banquet rooms, you have meeting rooms, you have hotel staff, you have various people visiting there on the weekends in an area that already with the amount of public parking is full on the weekends, and the fact that that parking will become less as residents can't find parking spaces and have to have monthly parking and they will fill that up very rapidly, and the fact that we're going to be losing metered spaces along Front Street and according to Mr. Levy's 203 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 project, we'll be losing spaces to the plaza that the City wants to construct in front of Abbott Square, my questions are this, and maybe Councilman DiCicco can answer these: Does his restrictions on the present project or future projects there indicate a number of spaces? And better than a number of spaces, unencumbered spaces? If we are going to find out that there are 350 or 325 encumbered spaces of 400, that would leave the net between 50 and 75. Of course, these are not numbers that I can verify because the developers have not given a final number of the spaces they intend to provide and the encumbered spaces. So Councilman DiCicco, is there anything regarding parking in the legislation, the rider to the legislation, concerning the zoning itself? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If I understand your question, I believe that 204 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 the project plan will identify the number of parking spaces --
No. That's not my question. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, then I didn't understand.
My question is just the opposite. It's ambiguous. We're told that there will be enough spaces there to account for approximately 300, from what I can glean, is about 300 places that are, a minimum, are encumbered. In other words, of whatever parking they provide there, there is going to be 300 of those spaces that they cannot sell to people that are either additional residents or people that go to banquets or people that go into the restaurant in excess of the initial 50. My question is, does the restrictions that you have stated earlier have anything regarding parking? And from my personal point of view, it really should have something regarding 205 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 unencumbered parking. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't have the answer to that question. The developer is here. Maybe they can --
The first question was, is there anything in regard to parking in the rider to the current proposed legislation for rezoning this property? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It speaks to density, and I assume that the density is not only as it relates to the hotel and the number of condominium units, but it would have some relationship to parking.
But it doesn't. In fact -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me. I'm answering you. You're saying it doesn't. I'm saying I believe it does, and it will have to be approved by the Planning Commission as part of the project, the plan of development. And you're going to tell me no. The 206 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 developer is here, and if the developer can speak more specifically to that, I certainly would appreciate it.
I'm sorry. William Martin, Fox Rothschild law firm, attorney for the developer. The one mistaken assumption that is imbedded in the witness's calculation has to do with the hotel rooms, the 150 hotel rooms. It's sort of an implied assumption if you have 150 hotel rooms, you're going to have 150 cars at all times associated with those hotel rooms. As you know in the City, you're going to have visitors of different types, including visitors who are arriving by plane, arriving by rail. So you're not going to have a one-to-one 207 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 correlation between the parking requirements and the rooms. There will be spaces dedicated for each of the condominium units. There will be a specified ratio -- I believe it's 0.5 to one based upon the experience of Starwoods with hotels of this type in an urban setting -- set aside for the hotel. There will be a corresponding number of spaces set aside for the restaurant. Again, probably at a ratio of 0.5 to one. There are a certain number of spaces which are going to be set aside for the neighbors, and that specific calculation is still being worked out. And there will be incremental spaces that are available to the general public to pay and park in the garage. And the development plan -- we are pleased to have the development plan specify what those numbers are. The reason the different numbers were utilized in the various meetings is that 208 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 as the planning for the project was continuing, there was uncertainty whether we were going for four levels below ground or five levels below ground. The one is the utility level that Mr. Templeton referred to. So there was questions whether we'd have three or four levels of parking. We're going to have four levels of parking. The second variable is the extent to which those levels are self-park or valeted. We're going to split it between self-park and valeted. If you have the valeted utilization of the parking garage, you're able to stuff more cars in there. So specific numbers are going to be dictated by the determination made how much is valet, how much is self-park, and we are happy to work with the Planning Commission and also with the Civic Association regarding what correlation makes sense in terms of the number of spaces. There's plenty of 209 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 parking at this project.
And as I indicated, there's a variable based upon how much is self-park and how much is valet. If it was to be all valet, it could be over 500 spaces. We don't want to have it all valet, because there are good operational reasons to have a significant portion of the project remain self-park.
For banquets and such, there would be ample parking --
-- for those customers? 210 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253
Yes. Those customers are going to be valeting their car coming up to the 2nd Street entrance and the car would come around and there will be room in terms of the valet portion of the garage.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
That's actually similar to my question. And what about those convention or conference customers who come, drive and don't want valet? Do they have the option?
No, they probably would not. A hotel customer would have a drop-off there on 2nd Street. They would turn their car over to the valet. The valet would go over to Front Street and park the car.
Not at our 211 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 facility. There's a parking garage across the street at 2nd and Lombard that often has capacity.
What is your accommodation for your conference facility?
There is very limited meeting room space within the hotel. It's not anticipated that it's to be a convention hotel or --
There is a ballroom, a small ballroom, but there's not a lot of meeting -- small, break-out meeting rooms throughout the hotel.
James Templeton, the architect. Your question was what is the 212 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 parking accommodation?
Yes. Examples are very good for me. Penn's Landing Hyatt, when they do conferences and the like there, customers have the option to valet, walk, bus or park their own car. The answer I think I heard is that in this instance customers will not have an option. Valet becomes the practice or they can park across the street at the parking lot.
Yeah. The ballroom is actually a small ballroom. It's only about 3,600 square feet. The meeting rooms, there's only three of them. But if there are people coming for those functions, they can valet park or they can take a taxi or they could walk.
And so, again, to my question, what is the capacity for the ballroom?
The person capacity is approximately 200, 250 people, is anticipated. Based on normal 213 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 parking formulas, that you would need 100 parking spaces for something of that size, and we have provided that.
Thank you very much. Have you finished your testimony, sir?
Okay. Fine. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, ma'am. Richard Lush. I've lived in the neighborhood since '90. I was introduced to the neighborhood in 1972. Edmund Bacon gave me a walking tour of the neighborhood in 1985 when I was a student at Penn. I got Mr. Bacon's perspective on the neighborhood over the last, I guess, five years of his life, and I am compelled by 214 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Edmund Bacon to be here today. There have been some things said that I wanted to bring one last time for review, and the idea is that we're in an historic district. It was a lot of work by many people over 50 years for this to come to fruition. It has been guided by its zoning. We have the highest value of residences in the City, and it was five decades of concerted effort, and today the zoning preserves what we have. You've been told that there's a need for a reinvention of Society Hill and that nothing historic will be demolished. Well, our zoning is under fire here. Our zoning is our historic document that -- sorry. It is our protection and our guidance. I know from my conversations with Edmund Bacon that I'm not as smart as he was. I think Edmund Bacon was very likely close to genius. And that may be hard to take, because he was always two 215 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 or three steps ahead of everybody. And the idea that you are being charged with the responsibility of making a decision about something that he and other really well-informed and insightful people created that has lasted for 50 years and you are being asked to tinker with that is something that I think you should have some reserve about, some concern that you make a very good decision here. It's very important. I'd like very briefly to approach the model and point to something, please. May I? This is a setting, and when this was envisioned by Edmund Bacon, it was full of lots of other big buildings from different eras. It was chock-a-block full. This was the dock district. This old building was a tall building when it was built. This building on the corner here, the Ross house, was another big building. This 216 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 length of street here has just a few contributing structures in it and everything else is in-fill architecture that was very specifically designed within zoning to create this setting. The exact same thing is true on this side of the block, and all of this -- there are three historic structures on this side of the block, and everything else is in-fill, and this is a setting. And what's important to recognize here is that this does not have anything to do with the guidelines that created this setting. This is an absolute antithesis -- you wish to say? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Go ahead, finish.
Okay. And in order that these buildings retain their setting and the value that they represent as conceived by the original master plan, they cannot be pushed up against sky-stealing height so close to them. That's why all of this was the C-2. 217 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 That's the whole point of this being 35 and then 60 with setbacks. The setbacks are to get the edge of the building away from the streetscape so that it doesn't steal the sky.
Thank you. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: In your opinion, what is the maximum height of the building that's being proposed? What do you think it should be?
The issue of height as currently addressed by the C-2 zoning allows for something to be installed that doesn't compete, and the issue of competition in this setting is the sticking point for acceptance of a height. For me to answer that question, I assert that the zoning is so precious that a variance must be the path out of this problem, and that to change zoning with an ordinance is a nuclear bomb. It 218 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 cannot create -- it is such a broad and gross tool that it cannot create the kind of solution that is necessary here. If you're asking me for a height, I can see eight stories. I want you to know that stories can be 8 experienced on the streetscape of 4th and 9 Chestnut where the Omni is. 10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We're 11 talking about this location. 12
Understood. 13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're 14 saying eight stories? 15