The reason I asked is that there's a bill scheduled and all of a sudden a developer comes in through a messenger and applies for a building permit. Wouldn't you kind of light a light bulb and say, "Maybe this guy is trying to come in and" -- 63 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689
Those are the instances when I take out my big magnifying glass and make sure that the plan has exactly everything that it needs and I'm looking for a reason to slow it down, absolutely. We're not in a vacuum, obviously. But at the same time, the plans were consistent with what I would normally require on any of the plans and subsequently didn't have a chance to slow it down. But I did give a red flag to both my division chief as well as the deputy director of the Commission and they were advised that --
So your testimony is that more than likely your supervisor was aware of the particulars of a bill, the timing of the bill, the specifics of the height controls, and they also were aware of this particular proposal that was submitted to the Planning Commission for a stamp of approval and the fact that it was in this particular location?
And they didn't feel the need to contact the District Councilperson.
Obviously not. I can't speak for him. But obviously you were not contacted 64 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 directly, so I can't say -- it's not a policy that we would normally do that in terms of written policy, no, it's not. We generally try to.
Even if you knew that as recent as a year ago there was very detailed discussion about a proposal two blocks away where there was substantial community opposition to a 10-story building at that location, you didn't feel the need to contact the District Councilperson, thinking that there could potentially be a problem?
I normally wouldn't, no, I would not. Because many times it's not something that I would sit there and say, "Hey, remember that one we did when." No, I don't normally sit there and do that. If the plan has what it has, it's been stamped and it's approved and then I notified my bosses that it was in fact stamped and it was out of there. And if they had said, "Hey, you better call this Councilman or that one or notify so-and-so," yes, then I would have no problem calling and notifying anyone.
Can you do me a favor? When you're finish testifying, call and see if she can come over? There's a certain policy issue. There's the issue with respect to this particular bill and we'll deal with that. There's a policy issue and it sounds like -- it's obviously not a regulatory issue with respect to Planning Commission and their mandates. I'm just concerned that we can have a situation where there was two blocks away -- I mean, this is a 10-year battle on the Rodan Towers and it was solely about height limit issue. Some people had some other issues with respect to the design of the building, but that was the primary issue. And we now have a developer coming in after not talking to the community about 66 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 any level of details proposal for the last five years -- and I may be incorrect. I'm sure we have people to testify about the frustration associated with trying to get some clear-cut understanding of what was being proposed for the site. Coming in now after that all that time to finally ask for a particular sign off by the Planning Commission to get under this particular threshold in terms of the pending legislation issue. I think that that should have sent a signal. And if we need to change some of the policy --
Let me just say that this isn't the only time that this kind of a thing has happened. And sometimes there are plans that don't necessarily have -- don't even come through the Planning Commission. There are many instances where we've had rezoning bills where the rezoning bill was pending, and as a mater of fact, the day of the hearing in this room there were people, while we were sitting here having testimony on the bill, people were in our office getting plans stamped and submitted that day before the bill was reported out of committee. And those permits were in fact issued for sites in other areas of the City. That was the 67 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 same kind of a thing. We don't like it. But it's all part of what happens. Now, I was not aware of it to be honest with you. So I'm the one that was the guy that could have given and red flag and said, "Hey, this should have been." But I'll sit here and tell you flat out, I was not aware of it. I deal with too many other City issues. So the fact that there was a building two, three blocks away, yeah, when I sit here today and you ask me about it, I'll certainly remember it. But when I get the plan that came in on the other one, no, I don't necessarily associate one with the other. And I'll be honest I don't review them from -- the review that we're doing in terms of the Planning Commission's review of the plan, the issue of height isn't a concern. The issue of height on the building is a concern for the Planning Commission when we have to deal with it as a variance. Until it reaches that, when we're doing plan review at my level at what I'm seeing over the counter in terms of does the plan list the elevation? Yes, it has an elevation on it. Is it in conformance with zoning? I'm not the zoning examiner so I'm not doing that kind of a review. It 68 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 may in fact be that when the zoning examiner looks at this that it wouldn't been a matter of right. With experience I've had with the code, I believe that the plan was submitted was in conformance with R15. But I haven't sat down and actually pulled the R15 and done a zoning examination of it. That's not my job. My job is to review it to make sure that plan is consistent with the standards of a plan that's to be submitted; and it was that and I did stamp that and forward it into the system. I did advise my supervisors that I had seen it, and they were aware of it. Okay, maybe we should, in fact, have notified your office sooner. I can't answer for why we weren't told to do that.
Can you see if you can contact Ms. Griffin, please, because I'd like to talk about the policy issues associated with the City Planning Commission.
Thank you very much. Councilman Nutter. 69 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councilman Clarke has raised a number of issues that as I was listening both to the testimony as I read the bill and have conversation with the Councilman, one, he has laid out many of the concerns I would have, not only about this particular site, Councilman Clarke is obviously the District Councilperson and he is more than adequately representing the concerns of his constituents. I did, as I was listening to the question and answer session, getting a little concerned myself about process and procedure, and I'd like to get int some of those issues. But I am slightly intrigued here. Did I understand you to say that the proposed height of the proposed development was 175 feet?
I've had a few buildings built in my district over time, and I don't know the particulars on the plan on this one, but with an average story height of about 12 feet unless they're doing extraordinary, say, on the first floor, I know sometimes first floors can be 70 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 upwards if you're doing a retail development or something like. It seems that 175 feet gets you more than 10 stories unless they're doing extraordinarily unusual per floor heights.
I agree with you. I had 7 many of the same concerns. I was reading the number 8 off of the plan itself and not necessarily sitting 9 here evaluating it, but I have very much the same 10 concerns. If you take an average 10 foot height of 11 a floor, it would take. 12
I agree with you. I don't 14 why it's saying 176 feet unless it has something to 15 do with grade elevations I hadn't evaluated it to 16 tell you exactly why it's that high. But the plan 17 is calling for a 10-story building. There is an 18 attic on top of it and it is to the top of the roof 19 which does has somewhat of a peaked look to it which 20 may accommodate some of the extra height. But as far as telling you exactly, I don't have the plan in front of me to be able to evaluate that.
Well, again, I mean, not saying the plan, I don't know who's involved with this. I just showed up today and this is the 71 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 bill on the Calendar and I'll deal with it as it comes. But there's no normal building standard at least that I'm familiar with that -- again, unless you're talking about some very high ceilings that gets you 176 feet and only a 10-story building. There is some very legitimate concern about the credibility of whatever that plan is. And regardless of what the plan says, I think for the average person knowing that a story is usually somewhere in the 10 to 12-foot range, you're really talking about a building that is upwards somewhere in the neighborhood possibly of 15, 16, or even 17 stories. You can make the stories however big you want to make them, but I think we need to honest with people about what the true height is and how many stories there are and what the simple math is. I mean, this is not tremendously complicated. Let me ask this question with regard to the district boundaries that are in the bill, now, your testimony says much of the area is zoned either R15 or RC4 residential, neither of which have a specific height limitation. For the area in question that's laid out in the district boundaries. Can you tell me what the average heights of the 72 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 buildings are in the boundaries of the district as laid out in Bill 020689.
No, sir, I don't know. I can't tell you what the average height of those buildings are, no. I don't know.
Let me ask this 11 question: The rest of the testimony, and I know 12 this is not your testimony and it was probably -- 13 well, it was prepared by whomever it was prepared 14 by. "However, the Planning Commission is concerned 15 that there may be property owners and redevelopers 16 who have purchased hand in this area, have done so 17 with the reasonable expectation of being able to develop residential buildings in accord with the underlying zoning and URA controls." That's your testimony?
Well, since there are no specific height limitations, what would be their reasonable expectation?
Well, the controls of 73 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 height, if you will, are directly in the R15 based on gross floor area. So it's not directly related to height. It depends on how you lay the site out and how you're developing a particular building. So there are controls. It's just that in most sections of the code you have 3 stories, 35 foot. In these particular sections of the code, you do not. There is no specific building height limit. If you design it, you can go higher, you can have a higher tower with open area which would allow to put a gross floor area tower in that has, you know, a real needle like building. It's not necessarily the most efficacious use of the site. However, that's how the code has been written.
Well, let me ask this question: What's Planning Commission's concern with regard to the property owners who live in the neighborhood who had a reasonable expectation that they would not necessarily have a 15-story building near them when they bought their properties?
I don't know that I would characterize it as such because you have a property that's zoned R15 or RC4. I think this particular site is zoned RC4, but I may be wrong. When you 74 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 have that high of a density designation next to you, I think that the issue needs to be, is it necessarily zoned appropriately, not necessarily would that classification -- should I expect that what I have is what's going to be across the street. I'm not necessarily saying that there's not a concern, but I'm not certain if I have living across the street from a piece of land that zoned either RC4 or R15 that I have an expectation that I'm going to have a three-story building built across the street.
I understand. Again, I have testimony here. I'm trying to deal with the testimony in front of me. If you articulate a particular concern on one side of an argument, I want to know if there's any concern on the other side of the argument unless, I mean, we're kind of starting to pick and choose who we want to be concerned about, and seems to me that if someone buys a piece of property, yes, they of a right under the code to develop it in accordance with whatever they can do as a matter of right. I'm trying to understand as the planning agency for the City who, I think, has a responsibility to all citizens not 75 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 just people who are in the development community, but also to the folks who have put down their money, this is where they're living, this is where they're staying, they're not planning to do anything else, build anything else or hire anybody to add on eight stories to the house. What's the reasonable level of concern that the Planning Commission has for the other side who might be adversely affected?
I will answer that by saying the reasonable concern that the Planning Commission has is represented by the rezoning programs that we have run throughout the City where you have an ability to sit down with community groups, and I have done that many years, and have that same kind of discussion. Here's where you have a concern. Many of them are of much more -- of less density kind of issues. However, that's where the concern as an agency would show is in the fact that we do have a rezoning program that you could in fact make a petition. We would look at the entire area. Now, for many and sundry reasons they either go or don't go. But that would be a way to address that kind of a concern.
Last question for 76 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 the moment. When you talk about the concern about the property owners WHO may have purchased land in the area has done so with reasonable expectation, et cetera, et cetera, does the Planning Commission know of people who have actually done that? Are there others out there who are kind of lurking in the shadows waiting to --
Your testimony says, "However the Planning Commission is concern that there may be property owners and redevelopers who have purchased land in this area have done so with the reasonable expectation of being able to develop residential buildings in accord with the underlying zoning and URA controls." My question is, is the Planning Commission aware of other people who have purchased land with this reasonable expectation to be able to build tall buildings.
I can't say that everyone on staff is not aware of anyone. I can say that I personally am not of aware of anyone. But there may be others on staff who are. And as you pointed out, I was not the author of the testimony so I can't say 77 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 to you, "Oh, well, I remember this one or that one," no. Am I aware of somebody lurking in the woods; no, I'm not.
I don't want to engage in an exercise somewhat similar to the pursuit of who ate the strawberries, but --
You know, I don't want to drag every Planning Commission person in here and ask them, "Do you know? Do you know? Do you know?" I mean, we'll be here all day.
I'll save you a lot time, that no, they probably would have the same answer that no that they don't.
Okay. I'll save the rest of my questions with regard to process and procedure for the secretary or the director.
I have been advised that Mr. Lombardo, the Deputy Director is on his way.
Any other questions for this witness? 78 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 (No response.)
Good morning. My name is Steve Ciceron, and I live in the Hamilton Townhouse development of 82 single-family-type condo homes located between 19th and 20th Streets, Hamilton and Nectarine Streets. I'm also a board member of the Hamilton Townhouse Association and a member of Logan Square Neighborhood Association and also a member of the Friends of Logan Square North of the Parkway. I'd like to say that I love my neighborhood in Logan Square, but I'm concerned for it and for Philadelphia as a whole. Here in Logan Square, we are surrounding by skyscrapers, high-rise apartment buildings, garages, surface parking lots, and empty lots. So then one wonders, so what is to become of these parking lots and empty lots? More high-rise apartment buildings, I fear. Do we really need this type of housing that breeds more traffic congestions and adds to our lack of parking spaces? I think not. Philadelphia needs to encourage the construction of single-family-type homes to anchor 79 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 this neighborhood. The future of our neighborhood and our City depends upon it. Why, you ask. Because Philadelphia is losing its population. It is a shrinking City. The last census told us that households and families are moving out in major numbers. They are moving to South Jersey and our suburbs and they are taking their tax dollars with them. Studies tell us that a very big part of the problem is that young couples do not choose to settle and raise a family in Philadelphia due to the tremendous shortage of single-family-type homes, the very type that families want. If families cannot find them here in Philadelphia, then they will find them in South Jersey, Bucks County, or elsewhere. In the January 22, 2003 edition of the Philadelphia Daily News, it was stated that Mayor Street has already set a goal of moving back 75,000 people into the City by the end of decade. I applaud the Mayor for setting this goal. To meet it, though, we must encourage the new construction of family-type homes. Allow me to give you a small personal example. As a single person, I was happy to live in New York City in a New York City high-rise. But 80 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 when I started a family, I wanted live in a home, not a high-rise. I found this opportunity in Philadelphia and raised two sons who are now both in their 20s. My one son is now in law school in California and wants to return to Philadelphia to start a family but only if he can find suitable housing. Otherwise, he tells me, he will buy a home in the suburbs. My other son is also away at school in Maine and he feels the same way. In closing, let me say that we do not need more high-rise apartments here in this section 13 of Logan Square. Families do not want to move into them. We need to encourage single-family-type homes and a sense of neighborhood. Otherwise, we will fail at our goal to bring residents back into our City and Philadelphia will continue to decline. And my sons and their perspective families will, as well, choose not to return to Philadelphia. Councilman Clarke's bill is sending the right message. I support this bill.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for this witness? (No response.) 81 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812
Thank you. The next witness is Brad Rubin. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Brad Rubins. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee. I guess all of us from our community here feel like we're standing a little bit naked not knowing that this or or or 17-story development has been 10 proposed, so that certainly is going to hang over 11 our heads as we're talking about this. 12 Thanks for the opportunity to testify 13 day. I've lived in the neighborhood for 15 years, 14 most recently in a home on 20th Street. I also own 15 and occupy a commercial billing at 19th and the south side of Spring Garden street which would be affected by this legislation. I certainly do not need to tell any of you about the net loss of City residents which my neighbor just spoke about. What I can tell you is those exiting residents didn't live in the Logan neighborhood recently. In my mind, it's one of the great neighborhoods in Philadelphia, true Philadelphia success story. Basically, an industrial area in years past, it is now one of the 82 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 most vibrant family neighborhoods in the City. Walk around the area and you will see families raising small children. Why? We have a fantastic mix of single-family townhomes, sufficient but not excessive accessory commercial uses, a short walking distance to the central business district, one of the country's great city parks minutes away, a 9 beautiful library, science museums, and some of the 10 world's great art galleries down the block. I've lived in Washington, Manhattan, and Seattle. Those places can only aspire to have as perfect a blend of amenities and quality-of-life factors as we have in Logan Square. Logan Square is a neighborhood whose very essence is its livability. We need Councilman Clarke's bill because this livability is endangered by allowing the neighborhood to become overcrowded, traffic congested, and blocked in by large buildings. We need the legislate to preserve our ability to walk to all of the local attractions and stores without having to wait in line all day, to view our incredible city skyline unobstructed by a 10, 15, 17, or however many story high-rise apartment building, and to be able to get into our 83 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 cars and not have to sit in gridlock for or 30 minutes. The last item is particularly important because traffic already is an issue for the neighborhood. The afternoon rush hour going up 20th Street already is a snarl of traffic. To significantly increase the density of the neighborhood could cause traffic congestion to spiral out of control. Two final points. If possible talk of relocating the Barnes Museum to the Parkway area becomes a reality, we certainly want to preserve Logan Square as a special place that tourists and visitors will take with them as a positive view of Philadelphia. I urge you to vote in favor of the bill. Don't allow this Philadelphia success story to become a disaster.
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? (Applause.)
The next witness is Andrea Korff. Please identify yourself. 84 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812
Hi. My name is Andrea Korff. I am a resident of the Logan Square North area. I am a homeowner, I am also a LSNA board member and I am a member of Friends of Logan Square North of the Parkway. Thank you, Councilmembers, for you allowing us all to testify. Before I read my letter, I would like to read the letter of Mark Perry of the 1800 of Carlton Street. He is a police officer who has lived in the area for over 30 years, and he is unable to be here today. This letter shows the support of the entire block of 18th and Carlton Street, as witnessed by the signatures. And this is his letter. "As a resident of the 1800 block of Carlton Street for over 30 years, I have personally seen how a neighborhood could be unrooted by a developer. In this case, the Franklin Town Corporation of the late 1970s. "This corporation came into the area buying up single-family dwellings and small businesses from 16th and Spring Street to 20th and Spring Garden, raising entire City blocks that remained vacant over 25 years, destroying a 85 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 community and a viable tax base due to vacant land being assessed a much lower rate than developed land. In this year period the primary 5 development of the area has been high-rise 6 apartments such as Museum Towers at 18th and Spring 7 Garden Street, One Buttonwood Square and Korman 8 Suites 20th and Hamilton Streets, Franklin Town 9 Apartments on Franklin Town Boulevard, the Fountain 10 at One Logan Square East, and the Lofts at Logan 11 View. Other development in the an area have been 12 the Community College of Philadelphia with 13 expansions to its main campus along with a 14 gymnasium, a business center, a children's day care, 15 and parking garage. GlaxoSmithKline has added its 16 corporate headquarters and parking garage to the 17 area as well, not to mention the Fresh Fields Whole 18 Food Center at 20th and Callowhill and the new 9th 19 Police District and the Philadelphia Sports Club 20 strip mall. These are just the recent developments 21 to the area the last 10 years. 22 "We still have the Free Library of 23 Philadelphia, Family Court, Hallahan Catholic Girls 24 School, Youth Study Center, Children in Crisis 25 Center that all add up to rush hour gridlock and 86 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 congestion from 16th and Vine Street to 20th and Spring Garden Street on any given night. "I must also mention ever special event held on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway that can bring this entire area to a halt for 4 to 12 hours, depending on its size. "I ask you, along with my fellow neighbors of the 1800 block of Carlton Street who are now virtually boxed in to pass this legislation in order to put some type of control on this area that is already overly developed and congested. "In the City of Philadelphia today, there is an urgent need and demand for single-family dwellings that can only add to a failing tax base as opposed to apartment dwellers who pay no property taxes. "I would like to thank all the Members of City Council for their consideration and cooperation in this matter." That is Mark Perry you lived on Carlton Street, I think, since he was 10 years old. Now, may I quickly now read my letter?
As a homeowner living in the 87 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 neighborhood outlined in Bill 020689, I see numerous undeveloped lots in the area. I would like to address my deep concerns over the way development proceeds here. This neighborhood sits just north of the City's most precious cultural museums and institution which line the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. While the many parades and events on the Parkway enhance our lives, we are also the residents which are most affected by enormous congestion they bring into our neighborhood. Our homes are surrounded by at least five high-rise buildings within a three-block radius. If every undeveloped lot were to develop to their maximum height allowed by the current code, we would be so densely overcrowded that neither the residents living here now nor the many Philadelphians who come to enjoy the cultural area would find this situation manageable. The potential for overdevelopment must also be addressed in order to ensure that the architectural and historical character of our city's most grand avenue, the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, be preserved. While the Parkway sits just to our 88 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 south, the beautiful victorian mansions on Spring Garden Street are immediately to our north. To allow more high-rises and strip malls to be built in the are between the two would be detrimental to everyone. As the zoning stands now, the devoted homeowners who have chosen this beautiful area to live and work could very possibly find their properties devalued and the peaceful quality of life here deteriorate. At a time when all research shows that the City lacks enough housing and especially larger single-family homes, it would be tragic to drive even more people away. You have to look no further than 19th and Fairmount to see the demand for larger townhouses. In a less desirable area than ours, those homes all sold for approximately $400,000 before they were even built. The April issue of Philadelphia Magazine on real estate spoke to the issue of baby-boomers who are looking to resettle back into the City once they no longer have small children to care for. They are faced with a very limited supply of quality housing. The comprehensive plan for this area 89 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 needs to be evaluated, and this bill does just that. This neighborhood has the potential to be one of the most revitalized and prosperous communities in our City if developed properly. We don't lack massive high-rises or littered, empty lots; but we do lack the kind of housing people are fleeing to the suburbs for. With all of the beautiful new venues along Avenue of the Arts, popular restaurants lining Market Street through Old City and world class hotels, it's time to give the people who love this City a reason to move here. Thank you. And thank you, Councilman Clarke, for introducing the legislation.
You're welcome. I've also offered some visuals if you'd like to enter them. These are lot some of the vacate lots in the proposed legislation.
My name is Roseanne Stagno Adams, I live at 1911 Hamilton. I'm a member of the 90 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 Logan Square Neighborhood Association, I'm co-chair of Friends of Logan Square North of the Parkway, and I'm a member of CPNA, Coalition of Philadelphia Neighborhood Associations. Thousands of people choose to leave the City of Philadelphia each year. In the year 2000 alone we had the second worse loss in residence in the entire nation. Why? All the numerous studies tell us the very big part of the problem is that young couples do not choose to settle and raise a family in Philadelphia. The empty-nesters may be coming in, but we are hemorrhaging young families. Barbara Kaplan as head of the Philadelphia Planning Commission spoke before CPNA, the Coalition of Philadelphia Neighborhood Associations in 1998, and she stated that among the City's neighborhoods, South Philadelphia was losing the moist families. The Planning Commission decided to do a survey. While schools and crime were also cited, a lack of larger, suitable housing was also a major part of the problem. People want larger single-family homes. Yet the City of Philadelphia has a tremendous shortage of just such homes. The Spring Garden Community Development 91 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 Corporation took a plunge and decided to build just such larger family homes at 19th and Fairmount Avenue in a blighted area just a few blocks from the special services district Councilman Clarke is proposing. Despite that less-than-desirable location, the demand for these old style stole row homes was enormous. These large three on four-bedroom row homes with a small backyard and garage all sold for about $400,000 before the drywall went up. They're now building still larger row homes three blocks away in an even less desirable location for an asking price of $600,000. That's how short we are of family homes. What Councilman Clarke's bill will do is encourage the construction of family-friendly homes over residential high-rises. We already have our fair share of high-rises in this immediate area. Young families, however, don't choose to raise their children in massive 24-story structures. They want the feel of a family home. They want the sense of a neighborhood. If we're going to stop this exodus of growing families, then we need to build neighborhoods, not just skyscrapers. Nor do we have a need for any additional residential skyscrapers in 92 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 this immediate area. I believe, therefore, that the Councilman's bill echos the sentiments of myself and the majority of all my neighbors when this bill 5 encourages the construction of family-friendly housing over high-rises within this area. I would like to support my testimony by introducing into the record the following six newspaper articles. They are: 1, Philadelphia, The Incredible Shrinking City; 2, Can the Bleeding Stop; 3, The Exit Wound; 4, It's Going on 50 Years; 5, More on Unhappy News; 6, As City Population Falls, Demand for Some House Drives up Prices. Thank you.
Good morning. Thank you very much for this opportunity. My name Jovida Hill and I am Co-Chair Friends of Logan Square North of the Parkway. I'm also a member of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association and I am a homeowner who resides in the proposed Logan Square Special District. I would like to especially thank Councilman Clarke and Rules Committee for this opportunity to contribute to your decision-making 93 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 process. I echo the sentiments of my neighbors. I have the census date just like they do; I won't repeat it in terms of what's needed. But what I am including in my testimony is a report from the Brookins Institution Center on urban and metropolitan policy and it's entitled "10 Steps to a Living Downtown." And what the study does is give 10 steps that cities can follow to make downtowns more livable. Those 10 steps are: Housing must be downtown's political and business priority. The second, downtown must be legible. That's street signs, the streetscape. Downtown must be accessible. Downtown must have new and improved regional amenities. Downtown must be clean and safe. Downtown must preserve and reuse old buildings. Downtown regulations must be streamlined and support residential growth. City resources should be devoted to housing. And the ninth thing of which I am most concerned with and which this bill addresses is that the edge of downtown should be surrounded by viable neighborhoods. My neighborhood is just that viable neighborhood. And in order to keep it viable, we 94 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020811 need to have a height restriction. So I'm not going to continue all the other things that I have. I'll submit this. But I just wanted to make sure that this report, "10 Steps to Living Downtown" will be included as part of the my testimony. And I thank you very much.
Thank you very much for your patience in waiting. Frank Feingold, please.
Good morning, Members of City Council. I want to thank you for this opportunity. I want to say that my statement is much more brief than my neighbors'. For the past five years, my family of three have lived at 20th and Hamilton streets. All of us are in favor of Bill 020689 that was introduced by Councilman Darrell Clarke. Additionally, the neighbors that I have spoken to are also in favor of this bill. We are also members of Friends of Logan Square North of the Parkway. Primarily, this bill would promote the development of residential housing which would strengthen the Logan Square neighborhood and benefit the City as well. We are all aware of the City 95 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020811 losing population. So it becomes important to offer opportunities where families can move into new housing in established neighborhoods. This helps the neighborhood develop a sense of community and pride and helps the City by becoming a more desirable place to live. As I have traveled around the City recently, I have noticed small pockets of new residential dwellings going up all around, most noticeably, driving south on north street from 12 Temple University. This new development will surely 13 bring new people into the City and help keep people within our borders. The spirit of new residential development should be carried over into the areas specified in Bill 020689. This bill is the right thing to do, and it is a step in the right direction. Support from Councilmembers on this bill 19 will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Kenney, Members of the Rules Committee. My name is Tully Speaker, T-U-L-L-Y; Speaker, like Speaker of the House. I served as president of the Logan 96 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 Square Neighborhood Association in the interval between July of 2001 and June 2002. I serve as an ex officio member of the Board of LSNA. The boundaries of that organization are Broad Street, Market Street, Schuylkill, and south edge of Spring Garden Street. I'm here because our president is in Georgia and our vice president had other commitments. As a former president, I hope to speak for the sense of the neighborhood, but I caution that I am not speaking as representing an action of the Board because the Board has not considered, in a formal agenda item, this bill. It is on the agenda for our next meeting the second Tuesday of February. I am in favor of this bill and speak most heartily in favor of it. The bill is consistent with the long-standing LSNA policy. LSNA equals Logan Square Neighborhood Association. That policy has been in existence for 40 or more years. It respects and supports the interests of the immediately involved neighbors when there is any zoning mater to be considered. Some seven to eight years ago, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association entered into an agreement regarding the development of a parcel in 97 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 the area that's under consideration. LSNA entered into that, signed the agreement and has held to that agreement. About two years ago in my presidency, a developer of one of those parcels proposed amending that agreement to allow a multi-story development; initially, a six-story development, and then perhaps with stories or more at the edges of it. At a 10 series of meetings following that proposal, the LSNA Board considered it and heard from their neighbors, groups of 20 to 50 ordinary people who lived immediately near that proposed development. The action of the Board at that time affirmed the existing agreement with a developer but did not accept, did not affirm, did not in any way support the proposed change. Frankly, we thought the matter was dead. We thought that it was going to stay as an open-air parking lot or possibly become a low rise residential area. It was clear that all of the neighbors wanted a height limit that was consistent with the current proposed legislation. Thus, LSNA tacitly agreed to this proposed height limit by affirming its existing agreement but not accepting a revision of it. We 98 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 did that because that is what would be the wishes of the people who were most closely involved, those who would be immediately affected. This is not capricious. In other instances, LSNA has given its blessing to taller structures. For example, the Relan Corporation is proposing multi-story development between the Schuylkill River and 23rd Street. That may go to six and in some instances eight stories. We heard testimony from the immediate neighbors there. They welcomed that change. And under those circumstances, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association, its Board, supported a taller set of structures than those immediately adjacent. Thus, we have been consistent in abiding with the wishes with those who are most closely affected. And so I endorse this bill personally and I expect that in its meting on 11th of February, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association will formally move to support this legislation. Thank you.
Jeff was unable to attend, but I have his testimony and I will read that. My 99 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 name is Loretta Wesler. I am the vice president of the Hamilton Townhouse Association. I am on the Board of the LSNA. Here's his testimony, which I am in agreement with. Our association is in favor of Councilman Clarke's bill. It will help create a balance between both residential and commercial interests which will protect and sustain a vital neighborhood crucial to urban residents. In March of 2002, our association held a special meeting of its members to address the future development of the property at 19th and Hamilton Street. The members of our association in a near unanimous vote supported a position that future development be limited to four stories in order keep to the scale with the existing surrounding residential homes. While we have not had sufficient time to reconvene the board for an official stance on this recent bill, past position as taken by the Hamilton Townhouse Association is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Councilman's bill. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for your testimony. 100 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 Mark Liverant, please.
Good afternoon, Councilman Kenney and Members of the Rules Committee. My name is Mark Liverant. I'm an attorney and a colleague of Bob Lane's over at Morgan Lewis. I'm here to object to Bill No. 020689 on behalf our client Forest City. As I'm sure you know, Forest City is a major property owner with residential and commercial in the City of Philadelphia. The properties owned by Forest City include the historical Drake Tower Spruce Street which was purchased a few years ago and completely refurbished and renovated. It also owns the old Bell building on Arch Street which it converted into luxury loft apartments. Forest City owns Franklin Town and Museum Towers, among other properties. Not only is Forest City a major property owner, but it is a good corporate citizen of the City of Philadelphia. It's committed to having a strong presence in the City and being an active participate and contributor in the continued growth and development of Philadelphia. Forest City is very concerned because of the material adverse impact that the proposed 101 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 ordinance would have on its future expansion. Forest City was only advised of the bill a little over a week by Tom Chapman at the City Planning Commission. Forest City has not had ample time or opportunity to evaluate the impact that such proposed ordinance would have on its future planning. In addition, it is also quite possible that such ordinance would constitute impermissible spot zoning, and more time is needed to evaluate it. Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. Does Forest City own a parcel of land in this proposed area?
I believe the parcel is on Buttonwood Street across from the Museum Towers property. And I believe it's used for surface parking right now.
Buttonwood Street across from the Museum Towers. 102 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
Mr. Chairman, thank you. First of all, I'd like to commend the witnesses. I rarely heard the kind of testimony we've heard today, not just objecting to something not just supporting something else, but stating in 103 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 great detail the human reasons for it. And I would just suggest to Council, and I know there's other property owners involved, that the notes of testimony from this hearing should be shared with all the owners. If they really want to be contributors, they should sit down with these homeowners and try to work out something that's in the best interest of everyone because this is a real effort. And I deal with zoning a lot up in my district, but it's not height related and it has a lot of other issues. But I can very much sympathize and also congratulate so many people who came in, even though they gave separate testimony, it all fit together with a puzzle in terms of what this neighborhood wants and what property owners who are developers or future developers should be dealing with. Thank you.
Now, you said that 104 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 the parcel that your client owns is presently surface parking?
How large is the parcel? MRL LIVERANT: I'm not sure the exact acreage. I think the whole parcel that they own is about four acres.
They own property between 18th and 19th and Buttonwood and Spring Garden. I'm not sure of the -- I guess it's Hamilton below. Between Hamilton and Spring Garden.
I'm not sure of their exact plans, if any, at the present time, but the proposed ordinance would definitely have an impact on any future development that they would be able to do on the parcel.
I believe they purchased 105 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 it within the last five years.
I think right now it's just surface parking. They bought the apartment building Museum Towers from its previous owner.
I was particularly taken by your expression of concern that you had just learned of the legislation, you said, about five days ago?
I would hope that you would, having had that experience, would have somewhat heightened sensitivity and understanding. If you were here for the earlier testimony, I think our colleague Councilman Clarke was only recently informed himself about a developer seeking to build upwards of a, we're not sure, 10 to possibly 17-story building and only learned of that in the relatively near term. And so not in so much in the motion that two wrongs make a right, at least my mother told me that that wasn't the case, but you can certainly appreciate with lack of notice how people may react. And what is perceived by you as 106 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 adverse impact to your client is also taken as potential adverse impact to Councilman Clarke and his constituents. And so all of us, I think, need to have a greater sensitivity with regard to that issue. So you have a client that has a piece of property. You don't have a development proposal presently, but you're concerned about future impact whatever that future may be; is that your testimony?
Do you know if your client has any plans to develop the property in the next five years?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 107 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 Are you familiar with a proposal -- now that you're bringing up the fact that your client owns this parcel around maybe two years ago, it may have just been a conceptual proposal to locate a parking facility and a supermarket on that site.
Because I think at one point there was some discussion about potentially locating a parking facility and a supermarket. And it may not have been more than four stories. As a matter of fact, I think they were asking for some support from the City, some financial incentives such as a TIF. And I don't know if the Planning Commission recalls. Mr. Lombardo, he's shaking his head yes. We'll ask him about that. It was, in fact, a proposal at least made to me early on in the process, which I appreciated the fact that your client came and sat down and talked about it, but was not ready to proceed. So, therefore, there was no need for any discussion with any of the surrounding areas. But I do recall at one point there was some discussion 108 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 about that. All right, thank you.
That brings us to the end of the witness list, but I believe Mr. Lombardo and I think there's a representative from Licenses and Inspections that may want to come forward at this time for some additional questions. Rich, could you identify yourself for the record, and they the Chair will recognize Councilman Clarke for questions.
My name is Richard Lombardo, I'm Deputy Executive Director of Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Lombardo. Mr. Lombardo, earlier thre were a number of questions, not only to speak of the particular development, but about the policy of the Planning Commission, as Councilman Nutter said earlier, I was made aware of the proposed development and we initiated the phone 109 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 call so it wasn't a heads-up from the Planning Commission. I expressed my concern because of that particular area, the history with that area, particularly the Rodan Towers place where you know there was a substantial amount of opposition for, at one point, a proposed 20-story condominium. Well, actually the was a hotel initially, I believe. And subsequently it ended up being a proposal for a 10-story condominium. And there are still some people who have some levels of opposition to that development. My concern that a proposal that ultimately may be of equal height, we're still trying to understand, as Councilman Nutter said earlier, how a 10-story building somehow reaches 176 feet in height, which I'll be asking the L&I representative here about. This whole issue about process and procedure, how we weren't notified. And I understand it's not required, but I would have thought that given the history of that particular hearing, the fact that we had a pending public hearing on that particular parcel, when in the 11th and a half hour a developer runs in and ask for an approval of a plan that, frankly speaking, sounds somewhat questionable at best, and somehow the 110 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 Councilman is not notified of that and the community is obviously not notified. I wanted to talk to you about the policy that's currently in place and the potential of possibly changing the policy. I know that there is this issue that as of right that you are required to give approval. And I'm not sure if that's just an internal policy, if that's a policy relating to the zoning code or if there's some charter mandated policy. Can you kind of talk to me about that?
Sure, I'd be glad to. Part of that is sort of this strange dichotomy we have in Philadelphia is in a lot of places you have a planning department and they are a department just like L&I is a department. We are the Planning Commission, but we also function as a planning department. We sort of have two roles. In our role as a commission, we serve as the commission on all their charter mandated obligations, which is like today, testifying on bills that we're representing the Planning Commission. Under laws that Council passes, the state passes, the federal government passes we act as a planning department, which means we don't go back to the Planning Commission, we do 111 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 what the law says and that's all we're limited to do. And we've been advised by the Law Department on numerous occasions where there's a crossover, we really don't have any flexibility to say, "We're going to hold this plan because it goes against something we know that's in the work or something we're working on or planning study we're doing." We have to look at the law, and if the law says it's permitted me sign off and send it on it's way. We also pride ourselves for years on doing these reviews while people wait. You don't have to call for an appointment, you don't have to take a number, you don't have to wait like at the ground floor of MSB. Someone comes in, someone deals with them while they wait and we get them through our process. To that end, to some degree we almost insisted the planners that do that work don't take into account bills that are pending or things that are pending. And that's the way that works. Practically, if we know that something is coming from our office is going to need a street striking or zoning change or it's going to have to engender some other public review, we try to give Councilpeople a heads-up. We do try to call up and 112 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 say, "This just came through, they're going to see you for an ordinance to close the street, they're going to be going to the zoning board for a variance." That's the way we try to do business. In this case, it obviously was a -- it seems to be an as-of-right development and nobody notified you and no one then did the other step. It should have been the person that stamped for plan. I'm not going to put the blame on Tom since he's not here, but usually that falls upon the division director who sort of knows, has a broader picture of what's going on than the individual planners that are doing it. And I will talk to Tom and apologize that you did not get the heads up that the plan was coming through. And I understand, it just came through in the last week also, last four or five days. But, in fact, we have no leeway other than to do it, to stamp it, send him on his way to L&I and let you know -- there isn't an obligation, it's more of a working relationship. We try to work with everybody here. To inform you that this has happened, that this --
When you say you had no leeway, is that a requirement of what? 113 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
A business friendly department or is it as a result of --
Doing things when people wait ,that's a department choice to try to be friendly to everyone. Actually, it isn't business friendly. Most of the people we're seeing are homeowners that are coming in that want to do an addition on their house, put up a deck, put up a fence, put up a swimming pool. It's not just businesses coming in. I think the majority of a thousand we see a year, probably 900 of them are homeowners doing improvements to their homes, and we don't want to bog them down -- we don't want people walking out, as people talked about their quality of life, feeling that they've waisted the whole day at the Planning Commission or they had to come back three times to get their swimming pool approved. So we try to do things --
It's basically a 114 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 policy and you want to be a user friendly agency. Is it a law that you have to do it at the time when the individual brings in --
But conversely we've been told by the Law Department on numerous occasions when lawsuits have been involved that we can't act -- we just can't act to hold something up for four or five days because we want to hold it up for four or five days if we can do our review and there's no 15 reason for us not to do it the first day or first hour. We can't just take it upon ourselves not to do it. When things become time sensitive, like obviously in the case of something being an ordinance, things become time sensitive of when they got their permit. So we can't -- because we know an ordinance may be coming, we can't hold something up in order to let the ordinance get ahead of it. We have to do what we're being asked of as an administrator.
I think the issue is, 115 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 you inform the develop. Did you have any information from the developer from Forest City Enterprises about any plans that they had that you felt compelled to --
Councilman, the proposed development was by a different developer.
Or any developer. That you felt compelled inform them of this ordinance?
No, I can't speak for Tom, I myself got a call from a law firm asking if we anything about the bill, and I referred him to Tom because I didn't know anything about the bill 15 personally. So I would assume -- I don't know who told who, but I would think that if Tom Chapman who is the Director of Development Planning talking to someone from Forest City, it was probably in response to an inquiry either directly by them or by an attorney who may have said, "Will you call my client and tell them what this bill is about?"
But we don't go out of our way to notify developers of a pending bill. 116 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
At this point, I want to know if you had information, any information from any developer about the planned use of this parcel.
Not until they came through our doors for, at least I know of, to get permit approval.
I have never seen the plan. Let me answer that question a little more and elaborate. The letter we sent asking about a concern about the process, part of that is because this area is urban renewal area. It's a little bit more than a normal homeowner buying a property and being subject to whatever the underlying zoning is. There's deed restrictions that run with the property which basically, as you're buying that property, you're also getting -- you can look at it two ways. You're restricted but you're also getting assurances because the restrictions will say you can only build up to 50 feet or you can only build up to 250 feet. And we raise that concern only because we've been in the past when dealing with land that's subject urban renewal controls, we have been advised by the 117 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 lawyers, both sides of the lawyers, that there's going to be a process to make sure that everybody who's a redeveloper is informed controls. So that's the only reason why we raise that. We didn't go out and notify any redevelopers. We just raise that as a simple flag. Our concern about the process. I'm saying I don't want, after what was said --
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councilman Clarke, I know you're in the middle of a question. Mr. Lombardo, one, you and I have worked very well together over the years and we're maintain that relationship even through the course of this hearing. What I took the Councilman's questioning to be was not only about the larger process, and then he asked you are you prohibited by law and you started talking about, well, the Law Department tells us that we can't hold things up or we can't unnecessarily hold things up or we can't delay things by four or five days. I 118 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 didn't hear the Councilman say anything about that. I don't think he's inferring that or implying that or even necessarily requesting that. I thought what I was hearing, and even from the previous testimony or the Q and A, I think what we're asking for -- and it does sound like a policy issue, if not, kind of a general courtesy between and among all of the public servants at least. If someone could build a nuclear facility out in West Parkside as a matter of right, I'm just asking and I think what I hear the Councilman asking is, even if they have a right to do it, I'd like somebody to give me a call within a half hour, 45 minutes of when any Joe Schmoe Somebody walks in the door and says "I know the zoning allows for nuclear facility in the West Parkside Industrial Park and I want to come in and have my plans reviewed." I'd just like somebody to pick up the phone and say, "By the way, a guy stopped by today and said he'd like to build a nuclear facility in your district. Now you can do it as a matter of right and we sent him on over to L&I. I thought we'd like to let you know." I think that's what we're talking about. 119 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
And I agree with you. And I apologize for going off in a stream of consciousness.
You know, a 10-story building in some neighborhood is a pretty big building. And if the person can't figure out of 175 feet how many stories that is, I'm really concerned about that person trying to go do whatever it is that they want to do because 175 is not 10 stories. So if a person walks in and says, "I want to do this in an area that probably doesn't have any buildings of that height or is probably surrounded by buildings that much smaller, someone should say, and you indicated at a higher level looking at the broader picture, "I think we might want to let the Councilman know that Sam Jones just walked in and would like to build a 15-story building in an area that has duplexes or townhouses or whatever it has. We'd just like to let him know. We're not holding him up, we're not stopping his planning, we're not telling him he can't do it." But at least give us the opportunity to then do something about it from the perspective of what we do for a living.
And I agree with you. 120 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 And I said I can't explain why that didn't happen and I agree it should have happened. I apologize for not answering your question directly. I went off on a stream of consciousness. I was just trying to sort of walk back of how we came to this departmental policy, and it was a result of being told we have to do things administratively. So we said, okay, then we'll do them while people wait. We'll do them as professional and quickly as we can. And that's how we got to why we do it the way we do it.
That leads me to ask you the question. What exactly what type of review does this person with this stamp do?
They are looking at and see if it needs any -- there's several different things. We have throughout the City various zoning overlays that this Council passes. We have requirements for facade review. We have environmental review. And we have a review under the subdivision code. As a fail-safe, in the best of all worlds L&I --
Let's stop there. Environmental review, what does that entail? 121 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
The environmental review usually involves us reviewing things that involve either where you have to comply with some state storm water management procedures during construction or if it involve the disbursement of federal CBDG funds it would have to comply with some federal environmental regulations. They're the type of environmental reviews we do. If it's close to the river, it's going to be in a floodway or a flood plane. You'd have to build above a certain elevation to ensure that all the plans comply with those elevations. They're the reviews the environmental unit does. This property would not have been before us for an environmental review. The working relationship we have with L&I to make sure nobody -- because these things are scattered all over the zoning code, the building code, the code of general ordinances. They're to send everything that involves new construction to us. We see about a thousand a year. Probably on a vast majority of them we put a stamp on it that says for the practical matter "Our review is not necessary," and we stamp it with that and send people out the door. That's basically -- 122 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733
So what you're saying is that it went to L&I first, then came to you; is that what you're saying?
Well, I don't know about that because, again, attorneys who are familiar with the process know they have to come to us eventually. Some of them come to us first automatically before they go to L&I.
Wait a minute now. You said that it goes through an L&I process. This is your recent statement. It goes through an L&I process and then it comes to you and you guys basically look at an as-of-right use, so you assume that the scrutiny happened at the L&I level?
Most people walk in our door say, "I was at L&I, they told us we had to come see you." And we review it while they wait.
So in this case, the suggestion is that maybe they didn't go through the L&I scrutiny, maybe they came directly to you, as you said that happens on numerous occasions.
So then they go to L&I. I mean, is there a policy? Should you go to 123 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 L&I first, then the Planning Commission? Or do you go to the Planning Commission, then L&I? Or do you kind of do whatever you want to do?
I'm not aware of any policy L&I may have. I mean, there are a couple instances where someone going through the L&I process have to go so place else first where they have to go to the Streets Department for curb cut approvals or -- I don't know if they have a policy that they have to come through L&I and checked in first or whether they can go directly to the Streets Department first or the Planning Commission.
I'm talking about the general policy. I'm talking about the process of development. I want to build this 10-story, 17-story, whatever this thing is. Where do I go first? Do I go to the Planning Commission first or do I go to L&I first?
Identify yourself for the record. MR FINK: My name is Michael Fink, I'm Director of Construction Services for Licenses and 124 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 Inspections. Typically, our examiners require that an applicant for projects such as you're describing would go to the Planning Commission first to get their initial review and approval before we will take the application in and begin a full review under the Zoning Code.
I wasn't sure. That makes sense because we're the ones that ask them to send them to us before they get too far in the process so we know what's going on.
So if you just approve the right? It's a building of whatever height, this is zoning classification allows that to happen; you don't really do much more beyond that?
We don't even look -- actually the stamp we put on this particular plan was the one I alluded to which basically says we didn't need to review it because they're not involved in anything that we are responsible for, is 125 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 the stamp we put on. So we didn't even look at it. But these people, they're the same that know zoning. That's where I got to my point if we see something and something pops out at us, this is going to need a variance or it's going to need an ordinance, we clearly right off the bat will contact the various district councilperson.
I'll move this along because I know people have been here a long time. Getting back to the earlier discussion about the process of notification, and trust me, I like the fact that you want to have a user friendly agency. We had a similar situation a couple months ago with the Streets Department where they were issuing over-the-counter permits for street closures and pedestrian footway closures. I introduced a bill. The Department came in and said it could be problematic in terms of their ability to move the process along. We got an agreement that there would be a simple document that would be fore-faxed to Councilperson. The Councilperson signs a signature, particularly when there's going to be a substantial impact. In this particular case, it was a situation where a street or a sidewalk would be closed, I 126 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 think it was beyond six months, which can obviously impact on individual's lives, particularly where there are occupied properties as it was Walnut Street, to give you an example. And we developed a process that they simply sent it over. The Councilman says, "Okay, fine, I know about it. If there's any problem with the community, I'm in the process now, I'll take the weight." Is there a possibility of having a similar type process in the Planning Commission, some kind of a process that allows the person who is ultimately going to have to take the responsibility for things for happening in neighborhood, because at the end of the day if something goes wrong, Councilmembers will get blamed for it, not the Deputy Planning Director, not L&I; Mike, not you, none of you guys are going to get blamed. It's going to be the elected official. And I'm okay with that because I begged for this job. But if I'm going to be responsible for something that ultimately happens in the community, particularly something of the magnitude, I'd like to be in that process.
Well, my answer to that 127 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 is -- and it obviously didn't work this, so I can't answer. I thought we were covering that by matter of sort of in-house procedure of having a District Council contacted when we're aware of something that's a major development in their area. I think, really, in this case it slipped through -- it did not get done that way. I'd rather take a shot of saying we'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again and reinforce to people -- it's only one unit, it's the development planning unit that when things come through there that are not -- maybe back a step up -- that's new development, it's more than somebody building a house, but a new development, a new building.
That we will notify -- as part of the process, we will notify District Council office. That's what I thought we were doing now, and I will commit we'll continue to try to do that. We will do that, not try to do.
I'd like to see something a little -- like Councilman Nutter, I work with you guys --
The problem I have with 128 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 what you're suggesting is, say, the issue that there are things that all they're in our office for is for us to say, "You don't need to be here." And you're asking for us to send -- what, we'd have to go send them over to get some sign-off.
But you're giving them a stamp. You're giving them a stamp. That starts the process. I mean, you're not just simply telling the person, "No, you don't need anything." They get that stamp.
The stamp is for L&I purposes to show that they've been there.
They get that stamp and that's like "Hey, I'm rolling now. I got a stamp. I go over the L&I. You're basically grandfathered in once they start that process, right?
What the stamp says is they've been to our office and the subdivision regulations do not apply to this property. That's what the stamp says, and it's signed by one of the people at the counter who look at it, Bill or one of the other people.
I hear what you're 129 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 saying. I understand that the stamp, it allows that person to go to L&I, which I'm understanding now that this person did the same day so they can be grandfathered into the existing zoning. That's substantial, that's not just some minor little wave-off.
Particularly in this case where we have a pending zoning hearing about this particular issue. I mean, zoning legislation on this particular location. I mean, that's major. So I'd like to see you guys give some serious thought to some kind of process that gets up in the loop since we're going to be responsible. I mean, I trust you, I've worked with you a number of years.
I will go back and sit down with Maxine and we'll discuss it with you, how well we can do to avoid this, setting some kind of a process that satisfies your concern, Council's concern, District Councilman's concern to satisfy -- and you have to bounce it off, satisfies the other concern that we aren't acting in a way that we shouldn't be because we're being told -- I mean, I don't of L&I can do this. I don't want to put them 130 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 on the spot. What you're sort of asking is when an examiner would get a plan, this particular plan, he would say, "Wait a minute. I gotta send this over to the District Councilperson before I can review."
We may set a threshold. We may say something that's so many square feet.
Okay. I'd like to ask Mr. Fink a couple questions with respect to the process now that I understand going to L&I for some type of review. Can you tell me what's going to happen that review process, particularly given the fact that there's some uncertainty about the height of the building.
I'm not familiar with the particular project or the application. But typically an application will come in with a set of plans. Those plans meet some standard level of information. That information typically includes the height of the building, the number of floors, and the square foot of floor area associated with that building. All that information and a lot of 131 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 other information is used to determine whether or not the project meets the requirements of the zoning code and a permit can be issued. If it does not, then a refusal is issued and the person would have to seek a variance.
So if somehow this whole issue about -- and I hate to keep belaboring this point because something's just not right with this 176 feet and the 10 stories. If somehow it comes in and review this proposal that somehow the 10 stories and the 176 feet don't jive, there's extreme inconsistencies in the development plan relating to those floors, then there's a potential that you deny the permit based on the inconsistencies in the development proposal.
The numbers that were presented today do sound inconsistent to me personally, but not having seen the plan, we do not know whether or not that information is correct, whether or not that information was presented legitimately on the plan, whether that plan could indicate everything from towers to different types of grading. There's a lot of different variables that may help to explain difference of our 132 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 understanding.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. That will conclude the testimony on this bill. We will now move to Bill No. 020812, which is an Ordinance approving the redevelopment proposal of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Logan Urban Renewal Area being the area generally bounded by Louden Street on the north; railroad right-of-way on the east; Roosevelt Boulevard and Wingohocking Street on the south; and 11th Street on the west; approving the urban renewal plan and determining that such plan and redevelopment proposal conform to the general locality plan and make adequate provisions for individuals, business concerns and families who are displaced; determining the necessity for changes in and for zoning, streets, alleys, public ways, street patterns, location and relocation of public utilities; determining that the urban renewal plan and redevelopment proposal meet all non-discrimination requirements of Federal, 133 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 State and Local Laws and regulations and policies promulgated with respect thereto; declaring that certain expressly designated and provided for condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project; and declaring the redevelopment undertakings in the project to be an important part of the City's program to remove and prevent the spread of urban blight. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020182, which is the first redevelopment proposal and urban renewal plan for the Logan Redevelopment Area and the Logan Urban Renewal Area. Logan triangle is bounded Louden Street on the north, 11th Street on the West, east to the railroad right-of-way behind Marshall Street and south to Wyoming Avenue. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire properties under Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, a strategy to rebuild Philadelphia's 134 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 neighborhoods as striving communities with clean, secure streets, recreational and cultural outlets and quality housing. Among the central goals of NTI are to eliminate blight caused by dangerous buildings, debris-filled lots, and abandoned cars, litter and gravity, and promote redevelopment through large-scale land assembly. Consistent with the overall NTI goals, the Redevelopment Authority intends to acquire 11 acres encompassing 942 vacant lot, 32 vacant 12 structures, 10 occupied residential structures, and 13 2 commercial businesses for site assemblage in 14 anticipation of future development. 15 Mr. Chairman and Members the Committee, 16 I respectfully request favorable consideration of 17 Bill No. 020812 and would also ask the suspension of 18 Council Rules to allow a first reading on February 19 6, 2003. Thank you. 20
Thank you very much. 21 Mr. Wetzel, at the last hearing in December, we had several individuals testify in situations where homeowners and business owners had not idea their properties were being considered for acquisition. Some had very extensive plans for renovation and 135 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 development or sale, and yet they had never heard from the RDA. At that hearing you promised to review your notification procedures and get back to us with some reforms to provide greater community input and notification. To date, my office at least has not received any of that updated policy.