COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:20 a.m. - - - BILL 020495 - An Ordinance amending Title of The 10 Philadelphia Code... BILL 020649 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia 11 Zoning Maps... BILL 020689 - An Ordinance amending Title 14 of The 12 Philadelphia Code... BILL 020733 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia 13 Zoning Maps... BILL 020760 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 14-1600 14 of The Philadelphia Code... BILL 020811 - An Ordinance approving the redevelopment proposal... BILL 020812 - An Ordinance approving the redevelopment proposal... - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chairman COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER
COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ - - - V A R A L L O, INCORPORATED Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X BILL 020760 PAGE EDWARD CORYELL, Carpenters Union ............ WILLIAM KRAMER, Planning Commission ......... RICHARD THOM, Old City Civic Assoc. ......... GREGORY HILL, Jeffrey M. Brown Associates.... DANIEL REISMAN, Esq., Jeffrey M. Brown Assoc. 37 BILL 020689 WILLIAM KRAMER, Planning Commission ......... 51 STEVE CICERON, Hamilton Townhouses .......... 78 BRAD RUBINS, Friends of Logan Square ........ 81 ANDREA KORFF, Logan Square Neighbors Assoc... 84 ROSEANNE STAGNO ADAMS, Friends of Logan Sq. .. 90 JOVIDA HILL, Friends of Logan Square ......... 93 FRANK FEINGOLD, Friends of Logan Square ...... 94 TULLY SPEAKER, Logan Square Neighbors Assoc... 96 LORETTA WESLER, Logan Square Neighbors Assoc.. 99 MARK LIVERANT, ESQ, Forest City ............. 100 RICHARD LOMBARDO, Planning Commission ....... 108 MICHAEL FINK, Licenses and Inspections ...... 124 BILL 020812 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 133 RICHARD REDDING, Planning Commission ........ 163 NIANE CATIA O'LEARY (ph) .................... 164 HARRY T. LIPSHULTZ .......................... 165 DON TURNER .................................. 175 BILL 020811 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 183 KATHLEEN MURRAY, Staff ...................... 186 BILL 020495 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I ...................... 187 BILLS 020495, 020649, 020733 WILLIAM KRAMER, Planning Commission ........ 188 3 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for waiting. We appreciate you being here despite the weather. We have a quorum present for the Rules Committee and we'd like to begin our business taking testimony on a number of different bills. The first bill being Bill No. 020760, which is an ordinance amending Chapter 14-1600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new section prohibiting the demolition of buildings or other structures located within the area bounded on the north by the south side of Callowhill Street, on the west by the west side of Fifth Street, on the south by the north side of Walnut Street, and on the east by the Delaware River, and within the area bounded on the north by the north side of Wood Street, on the east by Fifth Street, on the south by the south side of Vine street, and on the east by the west side of Randolph Street, and providing that such prohibition shall expire after a specified period of time, all under certain terms and conditions. We have a list of six witnesses. We'd like to ask Mr. Ed Coryell to come up first because he has another engagement to give his testimony, and 4 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 we appreciate him coming here today. I want to apologize to anyone who has to sit at that table because it remind you of kindergarten. I'm sure to cooperatives could provide us with a better table.
Good morning. My name is Edward Coryell, I'm the Executive Secretary Treasurer and Business Manager of the Carpenters Union. I thank you for the opportunity to address the distinguished Committee on Rules regarding Bill 16 020670. I represent 12,300 carpenters. And over 3,000 of them live in the City of Philadelphia and several specifically live in the Old City section of Philadelphia. And many members of the Carpenters Union are unemployed right now. There's been a definite slow down of construction projects, both new and renovation, particularly in the past eight months. We estimate we have between 850 and 900 carpenters unemployed. 5 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 It's important that developers be able to go forward with projects already on the books, already planned, which will create construction jobs for members that I represent. Now, at the same time, I have a great appreciation for saving historical buildings and the value that they contribute to our great City. In fact, our union hall located at 18th and Spring Garden Street is in a designated historical district. Our union has been growing in size and expending its operations in the City. We just recently purchased the old McAllister's Catering Hall building located at 1811 to 1817 Spring Garden Street. It has approximately 30,000 square feet, and we're currently in the process of renovating that building under the historical guidelines. In conclusion, I'm just asking you to approve the amendment that's being offered to Bill 20 020760 that if you have a zoning permit now in hand, don't let the bill without the amendment stop a project from going forward. And I thank you for listening.
Thank you for coming in. 6 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 Are there any questions for Mr. Coryell? (No response.)
There's going to be some testimony about recommendations to an amendment. There is no amendment.
I want to thank you for coming in. I know you have a number of your members here today. I want that thank you for their fine behavior, too. The next person to testify is the Planning Commissioner. Is L&I here? Will you be testifying?
That's fine. I just wanted to know if you needed to testify or not. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am in the Development Planning Division of City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill 020760. Councilman DiCicco 7 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 introduced this bill on December 5th of 2002. This bill amends the zoning code by establishing a demolition moratorium for the area bounded by Callowhill Street, Fifth Street, Walnut Street, and the Delaware River and the area bounded by Wood Street, Fifth Street, Vine Street, and Randolph Street. For a period of six months no buildings in this area could be demolished unless the building is declared imminently dangerous by the Department of Licenses and Inspections. We understand that this restriction is being proposed in anticipation of the enactment of a historic for the Old City section of the City. The Planning Commission staff believes that amending the miscellaneous section of the Zoning Code is the wrong place for such a restriction. We believe that this restriction should be placed in either the Building Code or Section 14-2000 of the Philadelphia Code which deals with historic buildings. We also believe that the Zoning Board of Adjustment is not the appropriate board to hear appeals for the denial of a demolition permit. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear this amendment to the Zoning Code at its 8 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 meeting of February 18, 2003. I will be happy to answer any questions from the committee.
Does the staff of the Planning Commission have any recommendations or is this a matter which is going to go directly to the Planning Commission for its first recommendation.
Our recommendation -- I'm not certain exactly what the recommendation is going to be with regard to the bill. Our only concern with it is that it's located in the wrong place within the code. It's not a principle objection to the bill itself. We just think it would be better served in another section of the code.
So there's no 20 position as yet by either the staff or Planning Commission as to the substance of the bill.
Thank you very much. Anymore questions for the Planning 9 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 Commission? Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you. Good morning. Are you aware of some of the meetings that have taken place between my office and the Historic Commission and the Planning Commission to come up with a way in which we can, hopefully, make this process where we have situations that are very similar to what we're talking about, as far as this property is concerned, to make that transition a lot smoother? I apologize. My legislative assistant is correcting me. It wasn't the Historical Commission, it was the Planning Commission and L&I. Are you familiar with any of those conversations?
I was not at those meetings, but I am aware that they happened.
Are you familiar with the meeting I had sometime in -- I think it was in December subsequent to the introduction of the bill I did of December the 5th which basically put a moratorium on any new demolition permits within the Old City's soon-to-be historical designated area?
I was not. I'm here in 10 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 place of Mr. Chapman who is out ill today. I'm certain he was involved in those, but I was not.
May I ask the chairman a question or Councilman DiCicco? I wanted to know is there a present rating of this building in historical terms? Has there been any description of the current problem with respect to the building or its current designation of the problem? What's the current designation of this particular property that's under dispute?
But the request is being made by an individual developer for relief?
No, it's the community. The community has requested that the area known as Old City, the boundaries have changed little bit, but basically they're asking for historical designation -- become a historical 11 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 district. Maybe your question might be, Councilman, if I may, is what's the Planning Commission's position on the building if they have any as to whether or not it has any historical significance.
Well, apparently what's indicated, they haven't taken any position on the subject. Thank you. I have no further questions of this particular witness.
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. Richard Thom please come forward.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Richard Thom, Chair Developments Committee, Old City Civic Association.
I'M here today to speak in support of Bill 020760 which would serve to stem the 12 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 recent tide of demolition of historically significant properties in Old City. As Chair of the Old City Civic Associations Developments Committee, I am speaking on behalf of my civic group and its long recognized efforts to promote the redevelopment of our historic neighborhood. Since the mid-1980s, Old City has battled to maintain our stock of buildings worthy of rehabilitation and re-use. These efforts have, for the most part, been to no avail. Beginning with the McCrea houses in 1986, our historical registered district has suffered the loss of over a dozen structures with not a single redevelopment project resulting. In the past year alone we have seen the demolition of four additional buildings and the prospect for four more despite our direct involvement in court hearings and hearings before City bodies. As a result of this ongoing threat, the Old City Civic Association raised substantial dollars to retain a historical consultant to document and re-nominate Old City as a Local Historic District under the auspices of the Philadelphia Historic Commission. We are in the 13 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 midst of that process and awaiting the final determination of eligibility by the commission staff prior to consideration by the PHC nominations committee. This documentation review is anticipated to be completed in the coming weeks and notification letters sent to affected property owners in the early spring. However, in the interim, several owners of buildings not presently protected under the 1976 Old City National Register District designation have sought out demolition permits from L&I as a matter of right in order to ensure the redevelopment of their properties would in no way come under the watchful eyes of the PHC and the community. This represents a blatant attempt to circumvent the will of the Old City community and the intent of the City's preservation ordinance. We have lost four buildings to such precipitous demolition. And pressure is currently being placed on members of this very body to permit the loss of another locally nominated building despite our ongoing desire to preserve it. Our First District Councilman Frank DiCicco has stepped forward to introduce the pending 14 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 legislation that would have the effect of halting this race for demolition in advance of the official local district nomination process. L&I Commissioner Edward McLaughlin has also cooperated generously in holding applications in light of this current bill 7 making the Street administration the first City government in 18 years to actively support conservation in our National Register District. Some 27 years ago, Old City was designated as one of the first national urban historic enclaves, recognizing its significant and eclectic stock of 18th and 19th and 20th century architectural building resources. Since then, more than two dozen buildings have been lost with the overwhelming majority becoming long-term surface parking lots. Please review the attached photos of just a few representative examples of the ongoing demolition efforts. OCCA urges Council to stem the tide of this irresponsible owners seeking demolition of our building stock so that both tourists and residents alike may enjoy the unique architectural heritage. Please approve Bill 020760, as attached, 15 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 with no further amendments that would weaken the intent and serve special interests. Thank you very much. With that, I'd like to have members of my civic association who are both residents and property owners stand up in support of the bill. We're here in support of the bill. We represent owners and residents and property owners, many of whom, the great majority live in historically disinterested properties. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. And thank you for the members of the community coming in today. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and good morning, Mr. Thom. In your testimony you mention that there were, I think, four buildings that have recently been demolished. Over what period of time were those buildings demolished?
Have those buildings receive the proper demolition permits? 16 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760
Is the issue as it relates to those four buildings or any of those four buildings, is the greater concern for the fact that they were demolished and there's not been any redevelopment? Or is it in any case or all of the cases a question of demolishing buildings that the community may, in their opinion, deem to be historical?
It's the case that we believe that they were either -- in two of the cases they were already historical designated under the 76 Act. The other two cases they were both nominated as part of our new district. So in both cases they were nominated as part of our new district.
Of the district, but not necessarily -- and I'm not putting words in your mouth -- not necessarily because of historical significance other than the fact that they would be in the district?
So correct me if I'm wrong, because I've had some meetings, as you know, with you and the Planning Commission and Historical Commission and L&I and I've also had meetings with the developer of the building at -- I think the correct address now is 200 North Second Street which really fronts Race Street. If there was a way of getting assurances from a developer -- let's talk about the 200 North Second Street as an example of that. A real development were to occur, not a surface parking lot, although there are probably people from the Old City Special Services District that would welcome a surface parking lot or any kind of a parking lot because we know the pressure that we are experiencing over the last several years as a result of the renewed interest in Old City and its growth. In fact, we almost the parking under the bridge until 911 happen. But that being said, I had a meeting yesterday with the developer. So there aren't any secrets here, which is not unusual. Developers come to my office all the time. And the developer had some unique things to say, and they will put their comments on the record sometime after 18 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 our discussion has ended. My point is, as it relates to this building, if there is a true development plan for this site, notwithstanding any issues that the community may have with the size and the appearance of the building and we can work through those things, would the community's position still be opposed to the demolition to this particular building? And let me add one other thing. I'm looking at your testimony here, and the first thing that jumped at me and I'm by no means an authority on historical buildings, especially having been to Italy. Everything we have is new compared to what Italy has. It's kind of interesting what we think as being old, but old is not always the issue. And I understand that. The entrance to this building was the thing that attracted my attention. And I asked the developer, not understanding because he didn't have a plan in front of me, if there was a way in which we can -- when you demolish the building, save that stone work and possibly incorporate that into the new building facade. And it's something that he was extremely amenable to. We can always work out the language how we ensure 19 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 that that happens. So again, it's the long way around -- what would the position of the community be? Again, not giving your stamp of approval today on the project itself, but the concept that some development would happen there and hopefully would meet with the approval of the community.
Given the fact that the community has never seen the project, the developer has never come to my committee --
Given the fact that the developer has never appeared before my committee, parenthetically because he obtained permits as a matter of right and didn't need to, but did appear before the Planning Commission to discuss the project. We've never seen the project. We would like to see the project. And I believe as an architect and a preservation consultant that we can in fact work out an incorporation of a facade into a new project. I don't see any reason why that can't happen. 20 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760
Not unlike the national building code, because one of the comments I had with them -- and I met privately with them -- was if there's a way of incorporating the existing facade or a portion of the existing facade into their new development, I think that the community would feel a lot more comfortable with the development. So if I hear you correctly --
It has not been our policy though, Mr. Councilman, to support what are called facade-omies or facade-ectomies in which you simply strip the facade off. However, in this case we recognize that the Historic Commission is currently reviewing the documentation on this and feels that while it's an okay example of more daring design, it's not a top-flight example.
This building has extensions. I think the original building was built in the '40s and then there was an extension built in the '60s. And, again, the age may not only -- that may not be the only criteria that we're going to use, but --
But we would like the opportunity to discuss that with the applicant. 21 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760
And it's going to be on the record, obviously, as a result of my statement and I believe that the developer will testify as well as a result of the meeting yesterday that they want to move forward. And I think you have a meeting scheduled for sometime in the March, the Civic Association or the Development Committee with the developer. I mean, if you guys want to move that up to get a meeting sooner, feel free to do it. The quicker the better. As Mr. Coryell testified to, obviously, he has an obligation to his members, as we do as elected officials to keep projects moving and to get construction going and to provide for the demand, especially in housing. And we did a lot of legislation in this Council over the last several years that encourages that and gives the incentives. So on one side I want to see this vacant building basically developed. Obviously, I'm very sensitive to the community. I do get involved, as you know, in the community issues. I would like to kind of on this particular issue, at least, since the permits I think were already issued, I don't want it to be demolished and sit there, neither does the 22 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 developer.
We would like to see the issuance of a building permit as a condition of this negotiation that if the building is torn down that there be a valid building permit obtained.
We can work that into possibly an amendment or something to the legislation today. Thank you.
I'm troubled by the fact that there's been no meeting between the developer and the community. Is that a fact?
That's a fact. We've had discussions on the telephone. We've never seen the project. And the reason is that there are no zoning exceptions needed from the zoning code. So they obtained as a matter of right over the counter a zoning permit for the project. And so therefore, there was no reason for them to come to us. However, many developers come to us well in advance, as the Matrix Group recently did on National Products.
Well, I want to say I 23 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 cannot understand the policy of any developer who doesn't go first to the community with the project to give the community at least the knowledge of its intentions and to give the community an opportunity to express their opinion. I question the good faith of a developer who proceeds merely as a matter of right -- believes he's proceeding as a matter of right and, therefore, ignores the community. There ought not to be any such policy by an developer in the City of Philadelphia because I think it makes the work -- (Applause.)
It just makes the work of this Committee and the Council and the City much more difficult if people are ignored. We hope these developments can go forward in a way that meet everybody's support and their needs. But if there are problems with the development, the best way to cure it is by having discussions between the people. So I applaud what the community organization is doing by insisting on having the developers respect the community because the community lives there 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. The developer may or may not be somebody from within the City or may be 24 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 outside the City and, therefore, may not be directly affected by the conditions he creates. But in interest of everyone, fair play requires full disclosure of everything and the full opportunity that enables us in City Council also to do our work more effectively. Thank you.
Thank you. I think part of the other role that we play as a committee and as elected officials is to make people who don't do the right thing initially do the right thing in the end. So I think that's part of this whole process. So hopefully, that will happen.
Do me a favor, just kind of pull the microphone close to you and speak directly into it. MR. HILL, Chairman Kenney and Members of the Rules Committee, I appreciate you hearing my 25 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 testimony today. My name is Greg Hill, I'm the President of Jeffrey Brown Associates. We're a construction and management firm building primarily commercial and residential structures in the Philadelphia region and up and down the east coast. We strive to be a leader in our industry, setting the highest standards for quality, timeliness and safety. Some of our more prominent projects in the Philadelphia region include the Target store at Snyder Plaza in South Philadelphia, the historic restoration of 1500 Chestnut Street into luxury apartments, the conversion of the Hawthorn Suites Hotel at 11th and Vine Streets, and the Borders book store that we are currently completing at Broad and chestnut Streets.
I have provided you with a brochure that presents some of our work both within and outside the Philadelphia region. In addition to construction management, we perform development projects on a very selective 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 basis. And having worked in the Philadelphia area for the past years, we've decided to invest our 4 development funds here in the City. In 2001 our 5 affiliate purchased 205 Race Street, which is the 6 project being discussed, which is an unoccupied 7 industrial building constructed in the '40s with an 8 addition added in the 1960s. The 205 Race Street 9 property occupies the northwest corner of the 10 intersection. And I have included some photographs 11 for reference. 12 After putting the property under 13 agreement, we studied the development options 14 permitted under the Zoning Code. And as part of our 15 due diligence, we submitted plans to the City and 16 based upon those plans we were granted a zoning and 17 use permit from Department of Licenses and 18 Inspections approving the demolition of the existing 19 vacant structure and the construction of a 7-story, 20 95,000 square foot apartment building with 21 underground parking. 22 Based upon the issuance of our original 23 zoning permit, we incurred substantial costs both in 24 purchasing the property and the moving ahead with 25 our plans for construction. 27 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 On December 6, 2002, we attempted to submit our application for a demolition permit at the Department of Licenses and Inspections. And that was based upon the zoning and use permit we had received in January of 2002. L&I refused to accept the application on the ground that the demolition permit applications were currently not being accepted under an informal moratorium imposed by L&I. We purchased this property in good faith and we have since incurred significant expenses relying upon the permits issued by the City of Philadelphia. We believe that our plan to demolish this abandoned and deteriorating structure to construct a new, high-quality residential apartment building will be a benefit to the City. The project can create approximately 200 job opportunities for the union trades people, will attract new residents to the City of Philadelphia. Finally, I would like to note that we are aware that the Civic Association has concerns with both the proposed demolition and the nature of the new development. While we believe that the development will result in a much better use of the 28 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 property, we're certainly very agreeable to meeting with Richard Thom and the Development Association to discuss the particulars of the project and certainly to explore ways that the historic elements of the building could be incorporated into the new development. And we have previously expressed that to Richard and we're, I guess, tentatively on the agenda for March the 4th. So in closing, we respectfully request that the legislation before you include a provision allowing for the development of a project such as ours for which a zoning and use permit has previously been issued.
Thank you very much for your testimony. It's going to be raised. I guess the question is why wasn't the contact made prior with the community? Have you done much work in Philadelphia in neighborhoods where there are active civic associations?
The majority of our projects in Philadelphia has been in the capacity of a construction manager. We've not done a tremendous amount of development work on our own in the City. And it has been somewhat of a learning experience to 29 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 recognize the sensitivity in the community. One thing I'll say is that in the development of the zoning and use plan, we do not have detailed architectural drawings that, I think, would serve as the forum for a good discussion. We're currently in the process of developing those, and I do fully plan on sitting down with Richard and his group to explore those plans and try to understand the concerns of the community.
The other thing, you brought a number of at packets of information with you. I think there's some extras. Would you mind if the Sergeant at Arms gave the packets to Mr. Thom so some of his people could get an idea of some of the work you've done in the region? Because I think as you go through the material, there's some really significant buildings that you guys have done and they're really attractive stuff so people can get an idea type of work where you've done in the past.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Brown. I think one of the 30 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 questions has already been asked, but you mentioned that you have plans or some sort of set of plans but were not of the detail that was ready for public and, in this case, Old City Civic Association review. Where are you now with those plans and how soon do you think, if they're not ready yet, prior to March 4th may those plans be available at least to give the community -- my suggestion, having been doing this for a while and working with community groups, if you can actually give them even a preliminary idea of what the concept is, the size, the height, the depth and general idea before the March 4th meeting, I think that would be very helpful for them as well because if there's something that raises a red flag, all of you collectively will be ahead of the game because you'll know what is acceptable or isn't acceptable and maybe you can me adjustments even before that.
I think that's a good recommendation. The zoning plan that we have shows the basic geometry of the building. And I had suggested to Richard in a recent phone conversation that we would like to better understand the community's desires relative to the aesthetics of a 31 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 building in terms of the extremes of replicating historic architecture versus modern design and getting a little bit of guidance and input on that ahead of time would really help us in the development of this.
I think guidance is the key word here. It would help you. I mean I've seen developers come in with plans and eventually will go through that process, it's a completely different plan. The port side Peter DePaul's high-rise originally was a rectangular building. By the time we got done with it, it kind of looks like a ship. And now worked better even for the developer. But he had spent a lot of time and energy to build the rectangular building or at least have the plan for it and wind up getting changed with some brick work on the bottom. And if you work with the community, I think you'll have a better product, not only for the community, but also for yourself. They understand what the community needs and what is the most attractive and amenities for bringing people into the community. So I'd strongly suggest that. Maybe at the end of today's meeting or maybe at the very 32 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 least tomorrow you place a phone call and start at least doing some of that preliminary work prior to March 4th.
How long has this building been vacant? You've owned it since 2001?
How long has it been vacant? Was it vacant when you purchased it?
It was vacant when we purchased it. It had been vacant for some time. I'm not sure of the exact period of time.
Have you incurred any problems with the building in terms of maintaining it? I see there's some gravity on -- well, that's not gravity. Philly Fringe is not gravity. I apologize for that.
We have had some problems with people breaking in and some homeless people living in there. We're able to let the Fringe Festival make use of the building for four weeks through the end of August and September so that activity, I think, helped to --
You haven't had any 33 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 fire or damage or anything like that or required City services?
Fortunately. Thank you. I don't have any further questions.
Just one second. Just for the record, so we don't make any mistakes, Philly Fringe is a terrific event.
It's a terrific event, great people, they bring a lot of people to the City.
You were distracted when I said I looked at what I thought was graffiti at first and I realized. And that's actually Mr. Brown's attorney will testify about some of the issues about Philly Fringe because we had a long conversation about that yesterday. They've used this building for a short period of time. They're looking for a more permanent location. There's some interesting things that we may be able to develop or incorporate into this issue.
Thank you. Frank, is 34 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 this the building in question?
What is this, an example of historical, old, ugly warehouses? I mean, sorry. I had not seen it. I thought we were dealing with some sort of really historical aspect, the property. This is an eyesore.
From a layman's perspective, we did not think that we were going to be destroying a valuable landmark in Philadelphia. To the contrary, we thought it would be an enhancement to the block.
I think if you look at it -- well, it might have a certain style, but I think it's, within styles, it's really an ugly warehouse. I'm not an architect; I'm an attorney.
I think the issue too is, so the record is clear, I don't think it's about this building, per se. I think it's kind of about the district and the issues surrounding the 35 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 district and the community's desire to kind of maintain or at least have a structure to maintain the reason they move into the neighborhood in the first place.
Well, I think that's reasonable. I agree with that concept and purpose. And I think if I were living there, and I live right up the block not too far away from here. I live on Fourth and Brown, so it's not that far up. And I would like to see buildings there that really adapt to the neighborhood and bring in some sort of much more aesthetic look other than this and bring in people into the area.
I think in the end, though, a good process creates good policy and good development. So I think we can all get where we need to be within the framework. Councilman Cohen.
Further in support of the statements made my Councilmembers Kenney and DiCicco, the time to meet with the community is long before the plans are final because the community feels that it's been there, it's had experiences over many years, it may have something to offer, and 36 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 you get a much better crack as the developer, Mr. Brown, to influence the community about the good faith rather than to create the opinion you're hiding something by staying away from a meeting. And the good thing is the ideas you get from the community, which generally are very excellent ideas, you don't even have to pay a fee for incorporating those ideas in your plans. So it's good for everybody. So I urge you, don't wait until your plans are final, because if you do, you're excluding the community from participating in the plan making. It may be that their ideas won't be worth anything, but my experience has been that most developers learn that their experiences with the community are very helpful to them as developers. And if a project fails to succeed after that kind of relationship, it's probably good reason and the community was right originally in its concerns. But communities want to be cooperative if you let them, if you understand the role that communities play in Philadelphia. So we urge you to meet with the community as soon as the community makes the request and to not feel embarrassed by the fact that you don't have the final plans. You're better off for 37 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 not quite having the final plans yet when you first meet with the community. Thank you very much.
Daniel Reisman. I represent Jeffrey M. Brown Associates, and you just heard from Mr. Hill who is the President of Jeffrey M. Brown. Chairman Kenney, Members of the Rules Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I've prepared testimony, but I think we've covered a lot of ground in Mr. Hill's testimony so I really would like to summarize the proposed amendment that we're asking be adopted and the reason for it. The bill that has been introduced follows on the heels of moratorium that was imposed by L&I, both with the clear intent to stem the rush 38 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 to demolition; and we certainly have no problem with the intent of the bill. That's a problem that is constantly dealt with in land use law, which is when new ordinances are announced or new policies or designations, where's the cutoff point between who comes under the new law and who comes under the old law? The problem and what we've been trying to address is that my client has a zoning permit from the City of Philadelphia that approved the demolition back in early 2002, acted in good faith on that permit as of right under the Code duly issued by the City of Philadelphia and thereafter has incurred substantial expenditures in reliance on that permit. That was all before, certainly, we knew about the pending proposed historic designation, months before it. I don't know when the Civic Association submitted that. So the question here is, how do you deal with the people who, such as my client, already acted in good faith, followed the rules, were careful about complying with the law as it existed and cut them off and going forward apply the new law? And that's simply what the amendment would do. The law is clear, that municipalities 39 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 cannot enact legislation that essentially reaches back and in a sense divest the rights that prior property owners have from prior permits that they lawfully obtained. And the amendment that we would propose and we're asking that you consider will simply do that. It will be small carve out, it will leave the intent of the bill intact, but it will simply say it would not apply to anybody who had a demolition permit or a zoning permit approving the demolition prior to when, in this case, the legislation was introduced in December of 2002. We think with that fine tuning of the bill, it will strike the right balance between what the community obviously wants, the historic preserve desires, but also what developers such as my client, what they've relied on and the reasonable expectations that they have moving forward. Just as a side note, I have spoken with Mr. Thom. We are meeting with the Civic Association. I believe we said, "Get us on calendar as soon as possible." I believe early March was the one that they put us on, and we would like to come to an agreement with them on the proposal as we move forward. 40 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689
Thank you, Mr. Reisman. My question goes to Mr. Thom first. Based on some of the conversations you had with David Fitz and earlier comments, do you have any recommendations as to what we might want to do in terms of the amendment of this bill and how we can move forward? I think, again, without putting words in your mouth, correct me if I'm wrong, that you need some guarantees, you want to make sure the developer comes to you to work on the plan, the final plan, for the developing this site, how we can get this thing at least on a not a very fast track but a much quicker track than it's been on today.
Mr. DiCicco, Councilman, I'm little disconcerted that the process that we are in now, the developer does not adequate drawings to obtain a building permit. Now, that then gives an opportunity to discuss the project some more and maybe re-craft it. But I think that the community's position is that no more demolition until you have a 41 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 building permit. And I recognize, actually recognize, I want on the record that there are clearly Mr. Reisman's correct, he has legal rights to certain pieces of paper, permits from the City. But we feel that building should no be demolished unless we know that there's a reuse. It's happened to us too much.
My only concern is that if we get in -- I think we're finally getting to an understanding of each other's needs, and I think that both sides want to work together. I sense that and I think the community has a sense of that as well. I don't want that to deteriorate. I don't even know, and you may be able to answer me, Mr. Reisman, I think we had a conversation yesterday that you're not that anxious to do the demolition; is that correct?
My client is here to answer this answer this question, of course. My understanding is he certainly did not purchase this building with the intent of demolishing it and using it as a parking lot. It's part of a project. Now, I will say the normal procedure is you file for your permits as you're ready to prepare the plans. The 42 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 demolition plans are -- they were, in fact, filed back in December and we feel the permit should have been issued over-the-counter by L&I at time. We would like to continue this in stages. They're now working on the building plans. Foundation permit plans have been filed, so those are done. And the building plans are now being completed and we want to continue to file as we get it done. And, of course, we're going to be meeting with the civic in that process, too.
As you know, Rich, if it gets litigated, I think the chances are the developer wins. And we don't want it to be "they win, you loses." We want this to be a cooperative effort. So we'll discuss this with the committee and either of you have some recommendations as to some language to an amendment or something that will protect the community's interest as well as allow this project to move forward, we'll certainly entertain that.
In the next day or so, I'll commit myself to meeting with Mr. Reisman and Greg Hill and see if we can work out an understanding about a demolition time table that would also 43 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 include the application for the full permits.
One of the things the Committee might consider is a very short delay to see what happens in the course of the next week or two in the relationship between the community and the developer. To me, the project sounds like a good project for the neighborhood, but I can understand the neighborhood's concerns in having been left out of all of the planning and not getting the information. Once that situation can really be cleared up to the satisfaction to the community, then I think we're in the better position to make decisions. So I would like to propose that one of the matters we consider, and I raise it publicly to get the thoughts of both the developers and the community representatives here, would a short delay to see what happens in meetings between the two groups be a good idea? We can convene very quickly. We would like to see this matter not end in court because the both community and the developer would suffer from that kind of result. So it's in 44 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 everybody's interest to see whether there's a good possibility for a resolution.
Councilman, one of the things we've done in the past is with the District Councilperson's assurance that any bill 7 that gets out of this Committee that winds up on the Calendar would be held until resolutions have come. As opposed reconvening the Committee and doing the bill over again, the bill gets out. You can re-amend the bill, if needed, on the floor, but the process continues to move forward. And I think considering Councilman DiCicco's history of sensitivity to community concerns that he would, I'm sure, hold the bill as long as necessary in order to get a resolution.
Councilman Cohen, that would be acceptable to us. If we can get the bill out of committee and then amended subsequent to our meetings and discussions, I'll keep Councilman DiCicco informed. I'd rather that the process move forward.
We do have some other amendments to the bill that were just distributed to the Members of this Committee that 45 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 basically speak to the process, not necessarily the process as it relates to this particular property which we're going to take into consideration today anyway. Mr. Brown, you can just nod your head to me, what we talked about doing the bill, any amendments and holding it, does that seem to work with you?
The concern I have is there is legal significance to this bill being reported from the Rules Committee. At that point it becomes what's called a pending ordinance under the practice of the City of Philadelphia and it's treated as law and should be treated as law by L&I.
Not exactly a strong real precedent for that. I think we kind of created that little situation. It's applicable, but I think it's kind of our own --
I used that when I was trying to stop a church at Ninth and Wharton from being demolished many years ago and a rush on demolition and use changes as a result of legislation that I asked the councilperson at that 46 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 time to introduce on behalf of my civic association.
I think that Councilman DiCicco's history has been to make sure the community is happy as possible, and I think his assurance that the bill be held until he calls it up on the Calendar I think would be relatively sufficient security for both sides.
My only concern is there is no one here from the Historic Commission today. I just want to make sure that what we're saying here in good faith we, all of us collectively and are agreeing to does not get somehow overruled by the Planning Commission because I don't want anyone to leave here -- I mean, Historic Commission, excuse me. Well, they're supposed to be here.
The concern I have is, again, legally I feel the bill is legally deficient even in this amended form. And what's happens is if it's reported from the Rules Committee, there's now a live bill that's due deference that creates some 47 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 serious problems.
In my opinion -- and again, it's not my district, but in my opinion I think the continuation of moving this thing forward with the security of having the district councilperson call up the bill when appropriate on the Calendar, I think, is a sufficient way to go and the best way to go, unless anyone feels differently, but it seems to make most sense.
Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) Then we'll move to the next bill on the Calendar which is Bill No. 020689, which is an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section 14-1626, entitled "Logan Square Special District Controls"; all under certain terms and conditions. 48 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 Planning Commission, please.
Again, I want thank the members of the carpenters union for paying attention and going through this process with us in a very nice way. Thank you. You've helped the process along.
Mr. Thom, I have before me -- and I don't know whose exhibit it is, maybe the Chairman can help me -- two-page proposed amendment to this No. 020760. The second page has a lot underlined parts of what's underlined says when the Philadelphia Historic Commission has pursuant to certain section Philadelphia Code sent notice to own pro historic district that includes at least 50 percent. With respect to that language, the precise word, it seems to me that that gives real cause for concern that Councilman DiCicco raised before about the role of the Historic Commission whether they would have the power to ignore us in City Council because this language, seems to me, gives the 49 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 Historic Commission a role in decision-making process greater than anybody else's role. If that's the case, how does the community feel about that because I would not want to see any other group other than the community developer and the Council in making the ultimate decision. I think Councilman DiCicco is right expressing concern what would the Historic Commission do. How would you that language.
This amendment was worked out between my office the Planning Commission and the Historic Commission.
I would not feel comfortable in language that gives the Historic Commission the right to override the decision that this Council Committee has made. I want to preserve the good faith of the community. When you deal with us, nobody from behind can pull any special button and reverse our decision. Do you have any concern about that language particularly?
Councilman Cohen, if I could address your a concern and maybe clarify it. What this provision does is it codifies a process that's 50 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 already under way with the review of our district nomination. What it says -- it's basically saying that the Historic Commission wants it, has notified 50 percent of the affected property owners in the district, there's no longer reason for this bill to be enforced because once that happens the issuance of demolition permits is in fact frozen. I have no 9 problem with the language. In fact, it affirms this very process. This is in our favor for the community. And I don't see a problem with the Historic Commission -- there's a potential for delay, but that's not been our agreement with the staff. We understand the review of our historic district nomination is imminent in its completion and will be sent to the Nominations Committee of the Historic Commission. Once that is done, the letters go out. So this is all been discussed in the Councilman's offices. This is simply a codification of already-established procedure within the Historic Commission. I don't have a problem with it.
Thank you very much. Thank you. 51 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 We're going to move to the next Bill 3 020689, which is an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section 14-1626, entitled "Logan Square Special District Controls"; all under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself and proceed.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am a member of the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill 020689. Councilman Clarke introduced this bill October 31 of 2002. The bill amends the zoning code by establishing a height limitation for the area bounded by Spring Garden Street, 18th Street, Callowhill Street, and 20th Street. All residentially zoned properties in this area would be subject to a 50-foot height limit. The staff of the Planning Commission has concerns about imposing a height limitation on residential properties in this area. Currently, much of the area is zoned either R15 Residential or 52 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 RC4 Residential, neither of which have a specific height limitation. Additionally, this area is located within the Franklintown Urban Renewal Area and, therefore, also subject to urban renewal controls. It is my understanding the sponsor of this bill, Councilman Clarke, introduced the bill 9 because of concern for the residents and local community as well as an interest in maintaining the character and integrity of the neighborhood. However, the Planning Commission is concerned that there may be property owners and redevelopers who have purchased land in this area having done so with a reasonable expectation of being able to develop residential buildings in accord with both the underlining zoning and the urban renewal area controls. The Planning Commission would like to work the Councilman and his staff to better understand the legal and practical impact of this change. This bill is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting of February 18th of this year. I will be happy to answer any questions 53 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 of the Committee.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for the Planning Commission? Councilman Clarke.
Could you drive there if I asked you to drive there right now?
You're familiar then. Do you recall earlier in close proximity to this particular site, actually behind the Rodan Museum when there was a proposal to build a 20-story building?
Yes, I remember seeing 54 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 that. It was considered at our Commission meeting, yes.
What was the position of the Commission at the time in the earlier proposal?
That was sometime ago, and I frankly don't remember exactly what our position was. I remember -- I was not making a presentation at that time and so it was not something that's right in the back of my head. I remember that there was a lot of discussion with regard to the height of the building and its impact on the parkway. I do remember that as one of the discussions. But I don't remember what we finally determined with that.
But you do recall that at the time there was substantial opposition from the community because of the proximity to the parkway?
So in this particular site that we're discussing today is approximately how far from that location?
I'd say two or three 55 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 blocks.
So if there was opposition from the staff people at the Planning Commission at the time of the proposal of the Rodan Place Towers, why would there not be similar opposition or concern?
The concerns may have been different. With each individual plan, there may have been architectural concerns, there may have been massing problems within the plan itself. And they are somewhat individual. The simple height of the building is not necessarily the concern or was not necessarily a concern of the staff at that time. When you have a structure, any structure, that comes in and meets the requirements of the code, "like it, not like it," isn't important. It becomes then an issue it's permitted or it's not. And I think that our concerns with regard to this bill have to do not necessarily with any individual site plan, but rather with the fact that by putting a change into the code, the changes creates a second limit on heights within a 56 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 particular area. They may be better served by putting them in maybe the urban renewal area controls, which would also control this kind of a thing. But we're really establishing a change in height controls or establishing a height controls under the R15 section of the code which heretofore hadn't existed. And as we discussed yesterday, this plan had in fact come in, and I was the individual who did stamp it and send it through with -- providing due process. So I do know the site plan in question.
So when you say not necessarily opposed to the height issue on the Rodan Building, you're not saying that nobody --
I didn't say there weren't objections, but it may have been more concerned with massing. It may have had to do with the impact that that building would have had on the Parkway as opposed to necessarily having an objection to the height because it's high. Again, I don't have all the particulars in the back of my head to say, "Oh, yeah, we did this." 57 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689
So it could have very easily have been a concern. I was in a lot of discussion. I know that there were some people who were concerned about the height because we talked about the view plane, the shadow line of the building at the time.
Which is something caused by height, certainly. But it's not solely because of the height. As I remember, the one behind Rodan Museum, it was much more of a massive building. And in the entire structure was a certain height. And I forget exactly what that height was. But the entire building was that. And I think some of the concerns that we had at that time was the fact that the entire structure was as high as it is. The particular site plan in question does have a significant high end to the building. And I'm not saying that it doesn't have impacts; it may. That's another -- 58 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689
Unfortunately, I'm not privy to the particular development that you approved the other day. I just not privy to that.
Unfortunately the District Councilperson nor the community has had an opportunity to see that particular proposal. I did talk to you yesterday, and I understand the proposal in question is approximately 176 feet tall?
Yes, sir. Ten stories. In fairness, it is not the entire structure that is that 10 stories, but rather a portion of it is that 10 stories. Now, I'm not saying that it's good or that it's bad. All I'm saying is that it met the requirements of the code in terms of allowing my office allow it to go forward for a zoning review at the Department of Licenses and Inspections, which is what we have to do to provide due process. 59 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 There may, in fact, be other impacts, and frankly they should have taken it to the community. And when I do get people we do tell them on a routine basis that they should run these things by the different communities, whether it be through the District Councilperson or through an active civic association, whichever is easier for them.
Let me talk to you about the process. A developer comes in, it traditionally it is as right development. The Planning Commission has no language or no policy to contact the community or the Councilperson or the state rep or whoever the elected official should be prior to stamping?
No, sir. We do not as a policy -- you have to use a certain amount of discretion when you're doing this because if we sent every single plan that we saw, neither you nor your staff would have the time to do anything other than look at what we keep sending you. So when we have something that is significant, A, I make an assumption because these are people that can come in off the street, they're not coming in with appointments. We get them as they come in. And as 60 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 such, we review the plan and, okay, it's either going to meet that or it's not. And if the plan has all the indicators that we need, all the subject material, whether it's got storm water, does it show all the metes and bounds, does it meet standards? If it has all the standards, we don't have an option; we have to stamp it and give it approval. Now, I subsequently went to the area planner for that area and advised him that I've had this, and in our office procedure that's what I'm supposed to do because I'm in the end of the agency that does the due process that deals the interaction with the public if terms of the developer end of it, the people that are coming in, whether it's a citizen putting on an addition to the home or whether it's somebody that's putting up a 10-story building, they're all going to be filtered right through my unit, the 10 of us that are there. But I did make mention to the area planner that this had come in and advised him that this was such. We also -- I had made the assumption, and maybe I am wrong, but I had made the assumption that the individual bringing this in was also a 61 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 messenger. It wasn't as if I was talking to the developer. Subsequently, I also assumed that he had in fact brought it to the attention of the District Councilman or in the process would in fact be doing that. I was not aware that.
I would assume that everybody's going to do that. You've got a building of this height, even if you -- and that's my advice when I do talk to people. I can't say to you that I spoke to this developer on this project, but when I do talk people as a general rule I tell them that, "You've got something this big, you'd better talk to somebody."
At the time the messenger, as you referred to the person, came in for approval from the Planning Commission, were you aware that this bill was scheduled for a hearing.
I knew that this bill had a hearing, but I was not aware -- I had not seen this bill. I knew this bill had a hearing because I was advised that I would have to be taking this bill to the Commission in the February hearing, but I had not had a chance to review the bill at all so I had 62 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 not seen it.
I knew that there was a Logan Special District controls bill. That's how it was handed to me. I did not know what the aspects --
But you knew this proposal that was submitted to you was in this area? Did you know that?
I hadn't reviewed it so, no, I really didn't. That was tomorrow's job, to do the fact sheets for the Commission. I would imagine that my boss knew what was in the bill because I hadn't been involved.