It says, "Conditions of approval imposed by City Council. . . " --
Okay, their original agreement was 180, was it not, Herb?
I don't think we ever talked about height; we talked about how many stories.
Yeah, and it was going to be 4 stories of parking and 14 stories of 71 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 floors.
And, again, there's some question whether they're going to get it from 6 floors -- from 14 to 12 or to 10. 7
So at this point 8 in time, Toll Brothers really doesn't know what 9 the height would be. 10
Well, unless Andy knows 11 what 14 or 12 stories -- it's 12 stories and 4, 12 right? That's where we are now, Andrew? 13 (Andrew Terhune responds inaudibly 14 off-mike.)
Yeah, it's 12 stories of apartments, 4 stories of parking. Now somebody has to figure out how high that becomes.
Right. Let's -- Miss McLaughlin, could you identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony, and then we'll have Mr. Terhune come up.
Okay. My name is Tara Grunde-McLaughlin. I'm a member of the community. I'm going to speak briefly, as there's nothing new that I have to say. 72 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 But I want to reiterate the position, particularly around this subject area about which we are talking right now, which is the height of the building at 24th and Bainbridge. As everybody said before, I think that the fact that the development is going forward is fantastic for the community and the City as a whole. I'm very pleased to see it coming forth. But as people have spoke to the residential aspect of this neighborhood, you've got a community of two- and three-story buildings, with a couple exceptions -- the redone warehouse, the parking garage that's now run by Graduate Hospital and so on. But on the whole, it's a very residential community, and I want to speak strongly in favor on the cap of the height of the building at 24th and Bainbridge. I think that's very important for the esthetic and the living quality of that neighborhood. And I do understand that Toll Brothers does need to get a certain number of units in to make this economically feasible, and I was wondering if was possible for them to add more 73 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 units to the rear and maintain the cap on that building on the corner. That's all. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Terhune. (Andrew Terhune comes forward.)
Would you like that displayed? (Referring to large diagram held by Mr. Terhune.)
Andrew Terhune, Project Manager for Toll Brothers, the developer. If I could, I'd just like to make a brief statement on a couple of items to bring the Members of this Council and this Committee up to speed with some of the history of this, that I know Councilwoman Verna is intimately familiar with. 74 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 First of all like, I'd to say we're very encouraged to hear everybody from the neighborhood come here today, as they have at the meetings, and say, We are in favor of this, we want this to go forward, and I think that's the best thing coming out of this, is that there seems to be unanimity from all parts, that development is the correct thing to do for this property. That may not have always been the case. It was referred to earlier by the Mayor that we had had approvals for this back in 1984, and the reason I want to bring this up is timing is extremely important with this project. At the time we had all the approvals, we could have gone forward, but due to some events that were out of our control, some litigation that was instituted by people not affiliated with the City or with any of the people here today, that held us up. And by the time that was resolved, around 1990, well, we all know what happened with the real estate at the end of the 1980s. And we were sitting there with an approved plan, and there was absolutely nothing we could do with it. 75 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 The reason we feel it's very important to go forward today is that, as the Mayor again mentioned, the rental market is extremely favorable in the City right now. The real estate market in general is very, very strong. Interest rates are very favorable, which certainly is going to help us from a development point of view as well as selling or renting out properties. And for that reason, we feel very strongly that the time is now and that it is time to, you know, to go forward and get onto the next step, which will be actually doing our design development and engineering so that we can construct new homes on the site. It is has been brought up an awful lot about feasibility for this site. What I want to add is -- it's essential -- as the Mayor, again said, we are not asking for a dime of City or State money but the fact that, you know, interest rates are good, the fact that the market is strong now does not make this an economic slam-dunk. There are an awful lot of constraints on this above and beyond the normal that make this a difficult project to develop. 76 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 First of all is those three historic buildings. Biddle Hall, everybody knows that's the large one you see from Grays Ferry Avenue. It's certainly going to be a landmark and it's certainly going to add a lot of attraction to the site. However, the location of it, and probably one of the most desirable places on the site as well is the parade ground, which, for the most part, will remain undeveloped. It limits an awful lot of the good land -- it actually puts it off limits; and, consequently, we have to put most of the development in areas that might not be quite as preferable. , it's not Rittenhouse House Square, and we can't expect to get the kind of demand and the kind of prices that you could get if you were able to put this building right on Rittenhouse Square. And, finally, I would just like to address people's concerns about, you know, what's 77 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 going to happen going forward. And there seems to be a little bit of, you know, issue about that, the historical buildings.
I want to mention that when we start going forward with this, although we will not have to come back to City Council unless we're going to request some sort of change to the zoning, we will need to go back to the Planning Commission for them to review all of our plans to make sure that they do conform with the zoning as it is approved here today; as well as to the Historical Commission and the State Historic Preservation Officer whenever we pull a permit to do absolutely anything on the site. And this is above and beyond the normal reviews that would take place for any site to be developed in the City. So I just want to assure the public here as well as the Members of the Committee that there will be plenty of opportunity for reviewing the details of this as we progress with them. If you'd allow me, I'd like to just talk a little bit about the two issues that seem to be of concern: the height of the building and 78 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 the curt-cuts on Bainbridge. If I could address myself to that.
First of all, you cannot get an appreciation for the technical and engineering reasons of why we laid it out this way. The site has always been surrounded by a 10-foot wall here, so, again, even those of you who may have driven by this, you know, your entire lives, you may not appreciate fact that there's about a 15-foot grade differential between here, where my pen is, and between the street level at Bainbridge Street.
Down, yeah. It's higher in here, and Bainbridge Street is lower. And it's pretty consistent. The differential starts around here and it builds up to about 15 feet here and continues right around 15 feet, all the way till you get here, when it drops off in the interior and flattens out again to meet down at Schuylkill Avenue. The reason we have laid it out this way 79 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 is to try and take advantages of that grade differential and -- as well as do something, which was brought up in many of the earlier meetings we had was, Hey, you're doing something, you know, that's going to be apart from the community. Why aren't you going to be making something that's going to be in the community. People had suggested even cutting the streets that were existing through -- although that was determined not to be practical. And what we've tried to do is solve that problem. But it seems that in doing so, we've caused another one that, frankly, took us totally by surprise. We had no idea that these curb-cuts would end up being such an issue. The reason they are there is our intention is that the lower level of parking in these buildings here fronting Bainbridge Street be accessed from Bainbridge Street itself. These people -- and that level -- that parking on the lower level would be for people living in the lower levels of these buildings. Now, that's really not any different than what you would expect in most buildings and 80 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 row houses that you see throughout the City. As an example, right here is a new community of homes called Dane Court that is 5 under construction right. And now from what I 6 understand, they're selling very successfully. 7 They're homes in about the 260 - $275,000 range. 8 Every single one of those has parking right on 9 South Street, right where people might have parked 10 in the past but now are not going to be able to, 11 but it's considered normal. In fact, I think it's 12 a requirement, actually, that they actually have 13 access to a garage, and they have done so. 14 We thought that we were actually being 15 a little bit better here by limiting it to just a 16 limited number of curb-cuts to access the parking; 17 while, at the same time, we're going to have people living here much as people live here on Bainbridge Street right now. There are going to be neighbors and their, you know, fellow members of the community once get in there. And the advantage of that is it's going to mean more street traffic, it's going to mean more street life here. And it's -- again, I think it's going to help integrate this community with 81 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 the rest of the neighborhood.
We're down, though, however, to basically two issues on the curb-cut.
The issue left on egress and ingress, from what I understand it --
You have to do it on the microphone, and identify yourself for the record.
Herb Vederman, Deputy Mayor of Economic Development. When Toll Brothers agreed to change 82 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 these curb-cuts, it just wasn't an easy thing to say, Well, let's put them here, let's put them there. It all had to do with parking and grades. And here is a schematic, if you're interested.
No, I think Andrew did it. (Andrew Terhune responds inaudibly off-mike.)
Instead of doing it that way, where, I assume, you could have gone from one building to the other, now you're going to have to start building ramps. (Andrew Terhune comments inaudibly off-mike.)
But it's costing a lot of money to make these changes going.
But let's get -- we want to get to get to the last couple of issues that are still in discussion. 83 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
Let the record indicate -- at great expense. Thank you, Herb. The issue that I understand that is left is in addition to the width issue, but we'll get to that in a minute, is that the community would rather have the entrance or the curb-cut closer to the high-rise as exit-only.
And the curb-cut to the further end, what direction is that?
They seem to indicate they would be willing to have both an exit and entrance at that westerly part if the easterly part was limited to exit-only.
That's what I understand, yes. 84 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
And what is the problems related to that? And is that correct?
We have no problem with the two-way here; we think that's essential.
Okay. How many feet wide? Why do you have to make it wider to have it both --
Whatever would be normal in the City. I mean, we don't want anything excessive. Whatever the Streets Department would determine as normal is fine with us for a two-way.
And we would request the same thing here as well. The reason, again, being, we want to be able to take advantage of this grade and be able to access the lower level of the parking here directly off the street, and then the other level would be direct access from the inside. The people here who's parking's on the bottom level will not have the alternative of going around, as someone suggested, coming here, coming into Grays Ferry, and then going around and 85 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 getting to it. Again, as Herb said, there's a lot of economic reasons for not doing that.
The distance between the entrance on Grays Ferry Avenue and the proposed entrance-exit on Bainbridge Street east, is that a large difference of space?
Well, I'm saying as far as the way it cuts across. I mean, you're cutting -- you're cutting a corner.
There's an entrance -- it is my understanding that there's a vehicular entrance on Grays Ferry Avenue.
And then there's also another curb-cut which could be both entrance or exit on Bainbridge Street.
The people who are living in Building -- I'm sorry -- in Building B -- further east, Building B.
They could not access, in your opinion, their parking spot from one of those exits on Grays Ferry Avenue?
Because they're going to be at different levels. There are going to be two levels of parking in those buildings. And because of the difference in grade, they're going to access the upper level of the parking through the interior and the lower level of parking through here. That is the reason.
The second thing I'd like to point out too is we thought by doing this that we were actually helping the parking situation. And it's sort of puzzling to us how it's sort of gotten stood on its head here. Imagine yourself, you're a resident 87 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 here, Councilman, and you live in one of these homes here that is fronting here. Now, the fact is, being a taxpayer of Philadelphia, you have a right to park on a public street as much as anybody else does. And you come in with a bag of groceries, say, or something. Now, I think most people are going to want -- and your home's here, here, in any of these buildings. You're going to want to unload them quickly and get out and go on about your business. You're going to go here, and you're going to way, Wow, there's a parking space. And you're going to park here. Or if it's just as easy to go in here, whip right around and go right in your parking space, a secured, locked parking space, another 30 seconds, sure, you'll do that. If, instead, I'm saying, somebody's here's got to go all the way around, all the way around here, and all the way around here to get in there, they're going to say the heck with it, I'm going to park out on the street. And I think the concern we've heard expressed from the residents around here is 88 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 they're concerned about the loss of street parking. And I think the best way to address that is to make it easy and convenient for the people who are living in these homes to park in their secured parking so that they have no incentive to want to park on the streets. Because once they're there and once they're living there, we can pass all the ordinances we want. But, as citizens of Philadelphia, they're going to want the right to park on the street.
In reality, if I'm living in the middle building and there's no 15 curb-cut in the middle, I'm not going to park on the street and climb a ten-foot wall to take my groceries in.
I'll be honest, that -- we don't know what we're going to do with the middle building right now, Councilman. We had planned to have an access by -- we would rather have had the curb-cut here so it could have accessed both of these buildings. With great reluctance, we have agreed to put it over here in, you know, meeting with the neighborhood's 89 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 concerns. But I'll tell you right now, I cannot give you the answer of what we're going to do with this building. We may have to -- it may be a total redesign, it may end up being something totally different, but we are acceding to the community's desires, and we're going to live with that. And, as I said, I can't give you the answer on how we're going to solve that problem today.
All right. But an exit-only on the eastern end is unworkable?
These entrances and exits will not be accessible to the other people living in here. They will be entrances and exits accessible only to the people here on Bainbridge Street. Somebody living here, somebody living here, somebody living here is not going to be able to use those. They're going to have very, very 90 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 limited traffic, I want to emphasize, very limited traffic. (Herb Vederman comments inaudibly off-mike.)
Herb, unless you use the microphone, the stenographer can't hear you.
We anticipate these will be about 50 units each, so 150 units. We'd be talking, you know, about 200, 300 people, something like that.
Okay. Excuse me one second. (Committee Members confer off the record.)
In the meantime, how many actual buildings are there? This high-rise building whether it's 14 stories or more, is that -- now, are there other buildings as part of the development?
This is a schematic 91 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 showing what it could be. The plan that's actually being approved and is being reviewed by the Planning Commission is here. And what it shows is buildable areas, okay. Each one of these areas has its own limits in terms of square footage, height, coverage area, things like that. You know, you can look at it -- I don't know whether you'd count, you know, a whole row of town homes like this as one building or as 12 separate buildings. We've divided it up into 13 different areas, though, and each area has its own 14 limitations as to what it can be. It's -- 15
And every one of 16 these designs indicates a building in which there 17 are going to be housing units? 18
Yes, yes, that is 19 correct. And it limits the number of the square 20 footage and things like that that can be accommodated in these -- in one of these areas.
We're going take a five-minute recess and go off the record and have a side-bar discussion on this particular issue and then come back on. 92 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
Okay. (Committee confers off the record.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
The Committee has ended its recess and is back in session. Prior to Mr. Terhune continuing his testimony, what I'd like to do is ask the members of the building trades that are here to come up and give their testimony relative to this, and then we'll come back do Mr. Terhune. So all those who here representing the building trades, please present yourselves to the witness table. (Members of Building trades panel come forward.)
I'm sorry. I really appreciate your patience in waiting. You gentlemen can have a seat. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is John McGrath, I'm from the Carpenters Union. 93 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 The first thing I'd like to do is I'd like to thank the Councilmembers present for their courtesy in letting us speak here today.
I'm here with a few of the members of a few of the other trades in the Building Trades. First I'd like to announce everyone's here. From the Electricians, we have Harry Foy, Jim Fera, and Tom Nealson. From the Operating Engineers, you have Cecil Preston. From the Laborers, you have Nate Sabir. From the Carpenters Union, you have John McGrath and Len Lombardo. And from the Building Trades is Jim Little. We have many members in this neighborhood and many more members in the City of Philadelphia. Our concerns about this project are focussed around one question -- whether it's going to be a union project or not. And depending on the answer to that, that would determine how we would feel about the project. I'm happy to say that right before the 94 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 beginning of this session, Mr. Terhune, from Toll Brothers, gave me and a few other members of the Building Trades a verbal commitment that it would be a union project. On that condition that it would be a union project and that he's good to that commitment, we happily support the project.
Harry Foy, I'm the President of the Electricians Union of Philadelphia. And I appreciate the opportunity to testify in front of you here this afternoon. And first, this gives me great pleasure to actually testify on this matter because the project in question -- and as I had just got done speaking to Mrs. Lawless, I was born and raised in this neighborhood, okay? I've come up in this neighborhood. And, as Mrs. Lawless knows, on one side of that Naval Home, it's always been known as 95 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 "Schuykill." And on the other side of that Naval Home, it's always been known as the "Devil's Pocket." And being a lifelong resident, with parents of 82 years of age that live within four walking blocks of this particular project, it gives me great pleasure to see something finally happening to a very historic site that really was a landmark for the City of Philadelphia. And I'm really thrilled to see this happen. And just as in any other project that takes place in this City, as the University House was there for years and it was the quote/unquote basketball capital for Schuylkill at 26th and Lombard, it always seemed like a very drastic thing to have that removed from you. But in reality, it turned out that it provided for a lot of quality housing for Philadelphia residents that generated City wage tax, property tax, and an environment to be able to walk to Center City for their employment. This project -- this project, or this particular piece of property, even going back when I was a kid down in that area, and that's roughly 96 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 43, 42 years ago, it was vacated at that point in time, and it has sat in that vacated state for this length of time. It sits in a prime location to be able to really turn the City and turn that area into a real strong community. Along with that and the idea that we have a tremendous number of working building- trades people in that vicinity that will be put to work through these projects, and the further comment on what was stated earlier in regards to hiring neighborhood involvement in communities, which we've already proven that to be a success on this Council floor, through the Temple projects, through the University of Penns projects, I'm thrilled to be able to see this go forward, and I hope that the City supports this project in its entirety. I, as former member of that community and still having parents and having relatives in that community, support this project. And I would hope that all the little variances that need to make this thing filter out and have the community involvement satisfied, I hope we can get them resolved, and I'd like to see this moved forward. 97 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 I thank you.
Is it possible to have it put on the record or introduced as one of your amendments that it would be a union project?
If I could legally do it, I'd do it in a minute, but we are precluded from insisting and requiring that type of involvement. I would like, and I'm sure Councilman Cohen would concur that there's nothing we would like better than to insist on every project in this City is done union. However, federal law has prohibited us from doing that. What we can insist upon and what we will insist upon is prevailing wage issues and prevailing wage be paid, and I think that that has protected most of the qualified union people in this town and in the state, when prevailing wage is put in place. But we agree in spirit; we just can't legally do it. 98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
I appreciate that. And just to reiterate, we do like it on record that we have gotten a verbal commitment from Toll Brothers that it would be a union project. And on that commitment, we support the project.
I think Toll Brothers is wise to make that commitment if they want the development built right and safe. The most qualified people in the region are those people carrying union cards. Thank you very, very much.
Thank you for coming in and testifying. There's one person left on the list, Patricia Wilson Aden, from the Preservation Alliance. She had to leave. Okay, Mr. Terhune, could you come back, and we'll continue your testimony. Mr. Terhune, could you please, if possible, go through the issues relative to the height of Building A-1, I guess it is, as it relates to this project on the height issues.
Sure, I'd be happy to, 99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 Councilman. Really, what it boils down to is Councilman, as I said back earlier, we have to come up with something that is going to make this project economically doable. And one of the things that was brought up earlier that this has a lot more density than the original approval from back in 1984. That is true, but it is still within the parameters allowed by the zoning that was passed back prior to the original plan. So one thing I would like to point out is that we have said from the beginning that we were not asking for any variances and that the plan, as submitted, will conform with the zoning as passed back in the 1980s, although denser than what the original man was. The reason we need the height -- the only way to take advantage of the zoning, as it is, it allows for an overall site FAR -- floor area ratio -- of 1.5 for the entire site. Now, since it's more than one, the only way you can get that is to go up. The zoning also requires a certain 100 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 amount of open space on which the parade ground is part of that, you've got a certain amount of roads and things like that. The only way to be able to take advantage of all of the density that's allowed by the zoning board is to have some high-rises somewhere on the site. So it came down to a choice of where we put the high-rises. And we try to be very sensitive to the neighbors' concerns while, at the same time, also being sensitive to our need to make them developable. If you wouldn't mind, could I get up and address the board over there again?
Good. In looking at this, two locations immediately came to mind as -- taking into account the neighborhood issues, because we knew there would be some concerns in the neighborhood about something going high. I've never heard of a high-rise built anywhere that didn't have neighborhood concerns about it. And also the economic concerns. And they are as follows: First of all, this location was chosen 101 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 for two reasons. One, this is the location of a site that is closest right now to the existing services. If you go down here, I think I mentioned before, at 23rd and South and that whole block there, you've go the supermarket, drugstore, various restaurants, things like that, the services that people want. This is going to be an area that's desirable because you don't need to wait for service to be developed down here. You can come out of your, you know, door in the building and walk a block, and you can get all the things that Center City people like to walk to. So we feel that it's important to have a good chunk of the density here probably to sort of, you know, to help develop a critical mass on the site, to make this a destination, to make it a place where people are going to want to come. When they see a number of people living there, it's going to become a place people want to live. The other thing that was attractive this, though, is directly across the street here is a parking garage. This is the site where virtually all of the shadowing from, you know, the 102 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 height is going to fall, on the parking garage. There's an empty parking lot over here, some commercial buildings over here. The residential doesn't start till over here, and there's a tiny bit over here, but much of this is St. Anthony's Church over there. So we've picked an area that would have minimal impact on the residents of the area. And that, again, was not accidental; it was intentional. The same over here. And, again, a couple of good reasons for picking it here. One, again, you've got an abandoned industrial building over here, an empty lot over here. I don't know if you've ever seen it in the wintertime; they're always selling Christmas trees right here from across the South Street Bridge. You've got the JFK Voc Tech over here. The Schuylkill Avenue's a very industrial boulevard, you know, providing access down to the thermal energy plant down here. So, again, we thought, by locating it down here, it would have the same effect. It's also -- the other thing good about this location, 103 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 again, it's got the best access to the highways. So, again, it's another very a highly desirable location that people want to be close to because -- as opposed to being somewhere like here or here. You're going to have much quicker access in and out and you're going to be able to get to the Expressway if that's your desire. So because of the attractiveness of these locations and the fact that they also had other features which made their impact on the residential neighborhood the least, we concentrated our density in those two regions. That's really about all I can say. We want to get the maximum density here and here for those reasons.
All right. When it comes to the issues of numbers of the floors --
-- you need 4 levels of parking and 12 levels of residential use?
Roughly up or 104 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 roughly down?
Well, roughly, it's going to depend on the mix. And let me explain, Councilman. Not having, you know, gone out and actually marketed this and trying to look for the residents, I can't say. If this becomes something that's -- who knows, this could be a continuing- care community type or an elderly type facility, in which case, they're going to require a lot less parking than they would if it was something that I'm designing for people who are going to be having two cars, in which case, I'll plan a lot more parking.
See, but that example confuses me. And the reason that example confuses me is my understanding of this project, from the Mayor's testimony and everything that I've known and learned and by talking to Councilwoman Verna and by reading, is that the benefit of doing this project is to have higher-end rental units, with more productive, taxpaying citizens -- not necessarily a continuing-care facility. I mean, are we talking 105 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 about the potential of it being a continuing-care facility?
I'm saying -- I'm saying it's the potential. Listen, there are over a thousand units' potential on this site. I'm not saying that they're going to be here or here or here. And I'm not saying they wouldn't be here or here.
Parcel A-1, on that location, is there any doubt that if this is approved, is there any doubt that that's going to be a higher-end, luxury residential facility?
Well, see, that -- I'm -- you see, that's just totally confusing to me.
Councilman, I can't sit here I -- don't have a crystal ball. I can't sit here and tell you at this point in time or a year from now, when we finally get the plans ready, what is the best purpose for this. They're all residential. We will stick within the zoning, and this will be a residential use. 106 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
But that's different from -- but a residential use also falls into the category of a continuing-care facility. Here's my point. The Mayor -- and please don't misunderstand me, but somehow, by the force of the Mayor's personality, he decides to come and attend this and convince us that this is the right thing to do based on the fact that of $6 million in real estate taxes and the other ancillary multiplier benefits of spending and young people staying in the community, that's not a continuing care facility. And what you're telling me is that there's still a potential of it being something other than what the Mayor gave us the impression it was going to be?
The Mayor gave us a distinct impression of what this project is going to be, and a continuing-care facility is certainly not the impression I had.
Okay. I think, most likely, it will not be. I think, most likely, I 107 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 see rental apartments here. But within the scope of what the zoning permits, it could be another -- it could be, you know -- it could be a lot of people that want to buy studios, in which case it will be studios.
Well, we're not having a debate on what the zoning allows, you know.
And that's the concern is that if we're being asked to dedicate ourselves or to give our vote for project that's going to do what the Mayor has given us the vision of it going to be, that vision certainly is distinctly different from what you're saying there's a possibility it could be.
I'm just having great difficulty. I never recollect having sat as a member of the Rules Committee and being asked for approval of a plan so vague. I don't know what we would be approving. 108 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 You're telling us that you could do anything; you'll just stay within the zoning. You know, you won't ask for variances, though I assume that would be as subject to change as other things if, down the road, you decided you needed variances. Because we've heard that before. Folks have told us that, and then they come back with changed stories. But, really, I just never heard of anything as vague as this. If somebody were to ask me what -- if I voted for approval, what I voted to approve. I'd have to tell them I voted to approve to give Toll Brothers the right to build whatever it is they will choose to build as long as it's generally within the zoning. And I just don't see how we can do that.
Well, Councilman, it's no 19 different than approving residential zoning anyplace else. When you -- when we get an approval to put single-family homes on a community, they don't sit and tell us, Well, these have to be three-bedroom or four-bedroom or five-bedroom homes, or what is the age of people who's going to live in them. None of those 109 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 questions come up as a matter of zoning. What we're approving is that there's going to be a certain --
But we know they're going to be rental homes, we have a pretty good idea of what they're going to be. The builders tell us, you know, there may be an exception of one or two, but we know what it is we've approved, but I don't see how we know anything here.
In the last two years, working with the Mayor and (unintelligible) who owns the company, and --
Mr. Vederman, I've worked with Toll Brothers. And I'm sure Councilwoman Verna will remember, back in 1984, I spent many, many hours in the caucus room, many meetings between this fellow Zvi Barzilay, 'cause I recognize the name. We spent an awful lot of time on what was happening then. And I'm just confounded to get these vague answers.
Well, I'm confounded too, and I just want to ask, you know, one question. You know, unless Toll Brothers and you 110 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 have talked about other uses, the only use that you've talked about in the Administration has been for market rentals, period, end of sentence. Is that correct or not correct? (Mr. Terhune responds inaudibly off-mike.)
Wait, wait. Forget what you expect to happen. I mean, in the two years that we've been discussing it with you Zvi, with Bob Toll, the only thing that was ever discussed for it to be used for ever in those two years was market rentals. Is that true or not? (Mr. Terhune responds inaudibly off-mike.)
But it seems as if the gentleman is asking to have an awful lot of leeway --
-- to have us approve anything that fits the zoning. And, as 111 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 Councilman Kenney indicated, it's a broad list of groups. (Applause.)
Well, that's not true because, as I mentioned earlier, anything we do, I'm going to come back with this, it's going to have to go to the Planning Commission. When I come back with the building that is going to be here, I'm going to have to go back to the Planning Commission, I'm going to have to go back to the Historical Commission. There will be plenty of commissions, there will be plenty of public hearings, and there will be an awful lot of opportunity for the members of the public, as well as any of you all, to give input on it. It's not -- this is not --
What you're asking us to do is to exercise the one power that City Council has in this whole development. If we approve this, we're out of the picture. Just like you said, we can become a part of the general public and voice our views. And I don't -- it seems to me that in a development of this importance, City Council, 112 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 based upon what I'm hearing today, I don't know how you can ask us to exercise the one power we have over this development to protect the people of Philadelphia.
I was answering your question about parking, and that's what brought all this up, was getting back to parking. And the parking was merely saying -- your saying four levels will be enough, you know, based on it being a residential -- a typical residential use, our people tell us that four levels of parking will be just fine. Now, I'll leave it at that.
Let me just go ask one other question while we're on the subject.
A lot of commitments, a lot of work has been obviously done by Councilwoman Verna, the Mayor's office, the community people. There have been commitments, verbal commitments made that was testified to the Building Trades and others that this is going to be a union project, a high-level residential project. Is Toll Brothers committed to being the 113 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 developer of this project through the life of this facility? And the reason I ask this question is that all of the commitments that Toll Brothers is making come with Toll Brothers' credibility.
And I feel better when I hear a company like Toll tell me they're going to do X, Y, or Z. Is there any danger that this project -- or property is going to be sold to somebody and be developed by somebody other than Toll?
I suppose there's a chance, but I'll tell you that our plan is to be the developer. I've asked this question myself a hundred times, and --
But is the Toll -- on the record, for our purposes, is the Toll company and all their credibility and wherewithal committed to being into this decade of this property? Or is this some other potential that it will be sold or acquired by some other company, where all the commitments that Toll is making now, we'd have to -- we would be out of the -- for 114 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 example, theoretically -- and I'm not saying this is going to happen, but let's say, theoretically, we approve everything that you're asking for today.
And six months from now, Toll sells the property to another developer, to Joe --
Where are we legally as a council with all the commitments that have been made both in the private meetings and then now in this public session, where are those commitments then? Do we have to go back and renegotiate all these commitments with another company?
I think Mr. Lombardo is here, and that was one question I was 115 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 going to ask him. He hasn't had an opportunity to testify as yet.
I think he's more qualified to answer that question as far as. . .
The question is if, theoretically, we approve this project today, and six months from now, Toll decides to sell the property to another company --
-- what are the guarantees, the commitments that have been made to the community, to the Building Trades, to the Council and to others? Would they be required to be upheld by the new owner?
I would say all that -- well, there's two -- there's different levels. Obviously things that are part of the Council approval, like where the curb-cuts are, how wide they are, that runs with the land. To the degree the Master Plan shows that the building will only be 140, 160, that goes 116 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 with the plan. To the degree that they show that these are going to be three-story town houses. But to the degree that --
Will that also go with the historic preservation issues?
Right. And historic preservation pieces and the wall and the gate and the fences and the parade ground and what happens is that is all under their covenants with the historic people. And that would get done. To the degree that a particular type of housing would get done, unless that's in writing, no, that would not be guaranteed. Because, basically, what we've approved and what you're being asked to approve is what the zoning allows, what an RC-6 allows, all types of residential units. You've been asked and we've approved basically the flexibility that within these zones that there will be so many buildings not to exceed so many feet. To that degree, unless it's tied down more, they or any other heirs or assignees will have the flexibility to do what they can do under the zoning within those areas. 117 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 In terms of anything else that sort of side bar to the degree that it's not a written agreement -- I mean, it's like any other verbal commitment. You know, like they say, a verbal agreement is worth the paper it's written on. You know I can't -- to be honest with you, the degree that you have conditions under zoning that you could put on it, they would become enforceable and whatever the covenants for the historical people would be.
Councilwoman, do you have any questions for Mr. Lombardo??
All right. What I'd like to do is if you have additional testimony you'd like to offer on the issue of height, to do that now. And what the intention of the Committee is to recess till Tuesday, the 21st of April, at 10 a.m., in this room, to continue this discussion. So if there's something else you want to offer, please offer it now for the record. If not, we will recess to Tuesday, April 21st, at 10 a.m. We'll just a take a moment. 118 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 (Committee confers off the record.) (Proceedings resume.) - - -
The Council Committee on Rules is now resumed. We had originally announced there was going to be a recess till the 21st of April, at 9 a.m. That's not the case now. We will continue 10 on with this hearing. And what the Chair would like to do now is to recognize Mr. Lombardo from the Planning Commission to read formally into the record conditions of approval imposed by City Council to the Naval Home RC-6 Master Plan Amendment, which has been thoroughly discussed with the developer, with the community, and with all interested parties. Mr. Lombardo has consented to read that the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Richard Lombardo, Project Planner, Philadelphia Planning Commission. Just before I get into these 119 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 amendments, I wanted to clarify, we approved this and it was recommended in our letter dated March 10, 1998 a list of amendments. That is formally Commission adopted. What I'm about to read into the record is to by at side bar to the degree that it amends or changes the Commission's recommendations, so be it. To the degree it doesn't affect any recommendation, our recommendations to you would remain the same or would be on top of these recommendations.
Okay, so just so we make it even clearer than you've made it, anything that we do today with Council approval, that changes what the Planning Commission has already approved would need to be, I assume, reapproved by the Planning Commission?
You have the final approval. Saying to you is in our letter we also recommended four conditions. To the degree that 120 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 -- I guess the only one that wasn't -- that was not part of this agreement is the issue about permit parking, which the Mayor talked about, the issue about public parking.
Right. But the key is that what we approve here today is what goes.
The other condition is that they come back to us for further approval of erosion control. We would still like that to be in your approval.
I just wanted to say that whatever amendments are approved today will be approved by the entire Council in the resolution form. And the President of City Council will then notify Barbara Kaplan of all of the amendments that are being proposed today and have them passed by Council. 121 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
Now, for what was agreed to on side bar: Additional conditions upon approval. Curb-cuts for vehicular ingress and egress along Bainbridge Street frontage shall be limited as follows: No more than two curb-cuts shall be permitted along the southerly side of Bainbridge Street between 24th Street and Schuykill Avenue. The easterly-most curb-cut shall not exceed feet in width and shall be located no 14 more than 336 feet west of 24th Street extended. 15 Furthermore, this curb-cut shall be 16 restricted for the B-Building garage access and 17 egress. 18 The westerly-most curb-cuts shall not 19 exceed 34 feet in width and shall be located no 20 more than 214 feet east of Schuykill Avenue. 21 Furthermore, no right turn shall be 22 permitted -- this is not written here, but I would 23 assume you want to say -- from this curb-cut. 24 You're talking about a right turn, I guess, going east on Bainbridge Street, right? 122 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
Number two, one additional curb-cut for vehicular ingress and egress along Grays Ferry Avenue shall be limited as follows: This curb-cut shall extend no more than 244 feet southwesterly from the corner of 24th and Grays Ferry Avenue. Number three, the maximum allowable height of the multistory building proposed for the corner formed by Grays Ferry Avenue, 24th Street and Bainbridge Street, known as "Area A-1" on the amended Master Plan shall not exceed 140 feet in height above the ground level of 24th Street and Grays Ferry Avenue. Number four, Toll Brothers shall include in its historic covenant with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer language to ensure that the restoration of the exterior of all the historic buildings shall take place at the same time construction is begun on the multistory building proposed for the corner formed by Grays Ferry, 24th Street, and Bainbridge Street, parenthesis, known as "Area A-1" on the amended Master Plan, closed parenthesis. 123 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182