COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:25 a.m. - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - - - BILL NO. 060292 PRESENT: ANNA C. VERNA, Chair DARRELL L. CLARKE, Vice-Chair JACK KELLY BRIAN J. O'NEILL DONNA REED MILLER JAMES F. KENNEY BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. I thank you all for your patience. This is a Public Hearing of the Committee on Rules regarding Bill No. 060292. Before Mr. McPherson reads the title of the bill, I would like the record to indicate that we do have a quorum. To my extreme left is Councilman Kelly, Councilman O'Neill. To my extreme right is Councilwoman Miller and Councilman Clarke. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the bill. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 15 amending Section 14-1611 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Benjamin Franklin Parkway Controls," by providing for additional height controls in the vicinity of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. May we hear from City Planning? Do we have anyone here from City Planning? All right. I don't have a list of witnesses. 3 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Good morning. Councilman Kenney is also present. Senator Fumo, I see you're in the audience, and I don't want to detain you while we wait for someone from City Planning to arrive. So you're certainly more than welcome to testify at this time. Let the record indicate also that Councilwoman Brown has arrived. Good morning and welcome. SENATOR FUMO: Thank you, Madam President for allowing me to testify today. I won't make any more wisecracks about City Planning. But I think if they had been a little more diligent, it would make your life a little bit easier. We have a similar problem, as you're aware, on the waterfront that the Governor and I opposed a moratorium. We're going to have some meetings with the City and hopefully get something going there as well. But what I have found of late -- and it's good and bad -- is that Philadelphia is now besieged by out-of-town developers who have 4 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 looked upon us as a stepchild to be exploited. We have some gorgeous neighborhoods. We have some wonderful focal points. And the people that live here and have lived here for a long time appreciate the aesthetic value that they bring to our city. They're part of the things that make Philadelphia, Philadelphia. We are not New York City. We do not want to be New York City. We are Philadelphia. We are a large city of small neighborhoods that is friendly to live in, easily manageable and very picturesque, as well as being very historic. We now find that as a result of a lot of hard efforts on the part of my office and others, we were able to, among other things, get the Barnes to come to Philadelphia. Because of that, which is I think going to be just spectacular for the city, unscrupulous developers want to come in and make money off of that. They will take their money and run. They will go back to New York City. They will go back to Israel. They will go back to 5 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 wherever they came from and be gone. Donald Trump flies in here the other night, casts aspersions upon the Governor, myself, criticizes us and then gets in his helicopter and flies back to New York. I think Philadelphia ought to be about Philadelphians. While we do want to grow our city, we want to grow it in a responsible way. And we also want to make sure that the people who live here now and the people who have invested their fortunes, their homes or their fortunes, are protected from these people that fly in and fly out and do this. We had a particular problem occur in the area that I live, in the Spring Garden section of the city, where just about unbeknownst to everyone, including I believe District Councilman Darrell Clarke and I have discussed this, someone went in and got an over-the-counter permit to build a 47-story tower of condominiums on a site that is now presently a low-rise motel that is being used basically for student housing for Temple. In addition to that 47-story on the 6 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 drawing board I believe is another -- what was it, Darrell? 30 stories next to it?
Yes. SENATOR FUMO: That kind of impact on that residential neighborhood would be devastating. It not only creates the shadow lines and everything else that's going to affect the neighborhood, but when you think about possibly another -- I'll be conservative -- 500 families, affluent families living in that area -- if they're affluent and they're living in Philadelphia, they're not going to have one car. They're going to have two or three cars. Our code provides one car per unit. That alone, just the cars in the neighborhood, will destroy the neighborhood. It's tough enough as it is to park. You've got older Victorian homes there that are precious. They're masterpieces. They're part of our heritage. You can't start knocking them down and putting holes in them and putting garages in them for the residents to park. In addition, what does that do to the 7 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 traffic flow in the area, and congestion? Eventually, if we allow this to continue, it's going to destroy what we now know as our own Champs Elysees, the Parkway. And that would be devastating. So I would urge that we act immediately. And I thank the Councilman for introducing an overlay, and I understand today as an amendment to make it even a little bit better. And I also understand that because of the quickness that we're going to have a community meeting with the leadership in the next week or two to define it even better. But we have to do something, and we've got to do something quickly to protect our city. In addition -- and not just on that issue or on this bill -- I would urge the Council to take another look at its zoning code. The fact that you can have -- and I don't understand it well enough. But this is what? An R-12 or whatever it is, unlimited height. That's got to be looked at, the fact that you can go in and get an over-the-counter permit for a building monstrosity. I would 8 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 suggest that you limit it to any construction over 50,000 square feet has to go somewhere to tell somebody what they're doing. When you impose a height limit with an overlay, you're not saying we can't build a building any bigger than that. But what you are saying is if you want to exceed that limit, you've got to come to the Zoning Board, you've got to come to the community and justify. In addition, I'd ask you to take another look at your code because these are a new phenomenon for us. I would suggest that any condominium developer where it's selling for 500 dollars a square foot have to have two parking spaces; taking into account that if a person buys a 1,000 square foot apartment, they're going to pay 500,000 dollars. And on average, if you're buying that kind of apartment -- it could be 2,000; you're going to have to spend a million dollars for that -- you've got to believe they have two cars. If it's more than that, if it's 750 a square foot -- and you can let those numbers flow with inflation -- there ought to be three parking 9 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 spaces. It's about time that developers start to respond and be responsible to the needs of the communities in which they develop and also to their own customers. When you do a condo, it's not like an apartment building where the tenant complaints to you every other month that there's a problem. The condo, you're in and out, you're gone, and now it's your problem. But your problem becomes every taxpayer's problem. So I would greatly urge either this committee or whatever the appropriate committee is to take another look at our zoning codes, which I think are vastly, grossly outdated from when they were drawn because we never envisioned this kind of development hitting our city. If we don't do something, we're going to destroy the character of Philadelphia. We're going to make it a mini, if I may, half-ass New York that nobody is going to like. If you want to live in New York, you go to New York. If you want to live in Philadelphia, you live in Philadelphia. No one 10 BILL NO.
060292 - 5/10/06 wants a bastardization between the two because that destroys the fabric and the character of the city. So I would urge you all to support the Councilman's amendment today and hopefully another amendment in the next few weeks when we can refine it. I would also really, really urge you to take another look at the zoning code as it applies to modern Philadelphia. My staff in Harrisburg, which has worked with you before on the budget and other issues, would be more than happy to come down and assist you in any way that we can. I would also ask you to somehow force the Planning Commission of Philadelphia to become more active. Maybe with an ordinance to empower them more. I don't know what the solution is. But it's not this administration's fault. It's been historic now for the last -- I don't know -- 15 or 20 years that that agency, which I understand does have a vast amount of expertise, is not being used, consulted or being effective as it should be. 11 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 It's a shame to beat them up. I think it's a question of you've got this A-team sitting over here and nobody lets them do anything. Unleash them. Let them go out. I mean, we've got to have some effective citywide planning to avoid this kind of stuff and to avoid doing it piecemeal. So that you've got a plan in advance so that when a developer comes, he knows what the rules are. And if he's got to get a minor change, he knows where to go to get that minor change. And he also knows he's not going to destroy the fabric of the city. Thank you. I'll answer any questions.
Thank you very much, Senator. We really appreciate your coming in to testify. You certainly have expressed the importance of this very bill 20 before us. At this time the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, I just want to thank you for 12 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 working with us, getting deeply engaged in the issue. We had fun sitting together at the community meeting. I look forward to having many more. Then we will be reaching out to all of the communities to craft some legislation that will make sense for all of the particular communities, understanding that this is a rather broad area which this legislation currently affects. We understand that the probability that one particular height limit will reasonably address all of the areas encompassed in this legislation is probably limited. So over the next two weeks, like you recommended, we'll be more than willing to sit down and craft something that works for every particular community, and possibly extend it to other parts of the communities that are not included in this particular bill. So thank you for coming. SENATOR FUMO: And I think it should be clear that neither the Councilman nor myself are anti-development. We just want good development done in a proper fashion. 13 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments from members of committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Senator, I'd first like to thank you for your comments on how to try to fix things in the future. Parking, those people that live in the neighborhoods are the ones that understand that the best. One thing we do here in Council is we support each other. I have different issues in the Northeast with zoning. Councilman Clarke and others that don't have those kind of issues are very supportive without even blinking because it's my residents and I represent them and vice versa. The Planning Commission, though, you hit a nerve. I've been hearing for years -- and the Councilwoman was just mentioning to me at side-bar -- it's a repeated story. The Planning Commission has no power. 14 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 But when we ask the Planning Commission just give us the legislation that will give you the power, we want you to have the power, we want somebody besides L & I, who just process permits, to have some influence over larger developments, to be able to break them down, to be able to become planners, we've been very unsuccessful. We have good people over there. I think they're talented. But I'm not sure how much they want it because there's been no 13 evidence that they want to be proactive. SENATOR FUMO: I think part of the problem is that they are part of the executive branch and have to live under that. I don't know. I mean, this goes back -- it predates Ed Rendell, and Ed Rendell did it as well. One of the ironies was when I got them to impose the moratorium, everybody said now all of a sudden he's for a planning commission. But that's why I think Council has to find a way legislatively to carve out a new role for this. Maybe restructure it. Maybe 15 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 have appointees of the City Council. Maybe have other appointees on there. Empower it differently. Give it a different budget, if you will. Maybe when you do that, their rulings would not be binding, but at least you'd be taking advantage of the expertise. Neither you nor I nor Councilman Clarke nor anybody really have the expertise for this. I mean, this height restriction is just an effort to put a cork on the bottle before it overflows. 's in this stuff, whose expertise we'd like to draw upon. So maybe what you've got to do is totally restructure that with Council appointees, Mayoral appointees, other people. Put them over here, give them their separate budget. When you do that, I think you'll probably constitutionally have to take away any power to strictly enforce what they do. But at least you would then have the expertise available so that when somebody comes, they'd like to be able to say to you or the Zoning 16 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Board or somebody, you know, we went to the Planning Commission and it fits. Then you've got that to rely upon. Right now -- I mean, the Councilman and I, make it so many feet. I don't know. Just do it real quick. Delaware Avenue, shut it down. And there we did that because I urged PennDOT and General Services and DEP, and hopefully we're going to involve the city, to give us a plan. I don't know what to do with all those cars. But I do know that casinos are coming. One of them is going to be in my district by definition. One of them is going to be on the waterfront. And for those of you that have driven in that area, if any of you have, and tried to get to Ikea on an average day, forget it. So now the possibility of -- I think the last request we had was for four or five hundred condos. That's another 1,000, 2,000 families who have to use Delaware Avenue. And one or two casinos with another 10,000 people. The street can't handle that. 17 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Look, we have an investment in casinos as well. The city is going to go do very well by that. You're getting a nice piece of change from the money we put in there. And so is the state. So we've got to -- I don't know how to do it. I don't know what the answer is.
But somebody has to have an idea, and that's where I think the Planning Commission comes in, and their expertise. We shouldn't have to be supplanting our authority legislatively and executively helter-skelter without expertise when we've got this whole A-team sitting over here. Now, some of them could be flaky. Some of them could have bizarre ideas. And you take that into consideration as well and get real. I mean, the art of politics is taking the two extremes and bringing them together and making them work. But here we have no extremes except desperation.
Thank you. I think looking at some other cities that have done it already and seeing what kind of 18 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 legislation supports their planning efforts in Boston, Chicago. SENATOR FUMO: No executive branch wants to give up its authority and its power to say to a developer okay. They don't want to do that. And that's understandable. If you were mayor, you wouldn't want to do it. But it's your obligation as the legislative side of this to say, understanding that as a reality, political reality, we've got to have this too. Kind of like the GAO and all that stuff in Washington.
Good morning, Senator. SENATOR FUMO: Good morning, Councilman.
I'm just curious. You're, of course, a member of the community over there. This location is 22nd 19 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 and Spring Garden, if my memory serves me right. SENATOR FUMO: Yes.
What would be your recommendations of how this site could be used that would be acceptable to the community? SENATOR FUMO: I think you've got to take a history of this particular development. The people that own this property, we found out, just didn't buy it. So they spent a lot of money planning on development. They bought it years ago and milked it as the motel that it was. I don't think they -- in fact, the community I think is upset on a number of issues -- invested any money back in it. They put some money in, but nowhere near what they should have to make it a first-class facility. It reminds me of Sam Rappaport when he would buy an historic building and let it fall apart so that he could finally say, well, now I've got to tear it down because it looks like crap. It was almost that bad. They cut a deal with Temple to do 20 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 housing there, and that gave them enough cash flow. Now they come here three, four, five years later and say we want to build this. They could still make a ton of money if they were to demolish that and put luxury townhomes three and four stories high. I mean, make a ton of money on their investment. There's an old saying that I use a lot, and that's that bulls and bears will eat and pigs will choke. On this one they're being more than pigs. A 47-story building and a 30-story building? I don't care if they cut them down to stories. It's still an 15 intrusion on the neighborhood. 16 That neighborhood, if you go look at 17 it, is basically a bunch of Victorian homes. 18 There's no reason why in today's market -- and 19 we can see it all over the city where they're 20 getting a couple million dollars apiece for nice townhomes three and four stories high with parking. They could do that. But why do that if you can really hit a home run and take your money and run? These are not long-term 21 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Philadelphians who live in the area who are going to be affected by that. So there are I think alternative uses, but not alternative uses that would penalize them. Alternative profitable uses that they just don't want to look at because they have the arrogance of saying we don't have to, we've got a permit. Now, I funded the community with state money. They will fight them legally -- and I think we've got some great grounds -- and tie them up forever. But that isn't the way development should have to proceed in Philadelphia.
I agree with you. I'm familiar with that location and familiar with that section. I agree with you. Townhomes would be I think an ideal solution to them. SENATOR FUMO: And they'd sell like that at a really good profit.
Thank you. 22 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Seeing none, Senator, we thank you for coming in today to testify. SENATOR FUMO: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Members of Council.
We appreciate your suggestions. Thank you very much. SENATOR FUMO: Thank you.
It is my understanding that we do have someone from City Planning that has arrived. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President, Members of the Rules Committee.
Before you proceed, do we have copies of your testimony?
You should have a copy. I have a copy here if you do not have one.
Do members 23 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 have copies of the testimony? Very well. Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and Members of the Rules Committee. My name is Martin Gregorski. I am a zoning planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill 11 No. 060292. Bill No. 060292 was introduced by Councilmember Clarke on April 20, 2006. Because this bill was introduced on the date of the Commission's last meeting, this bill has not yet been considered by the Commission. This bill amends Section 14-1611 of the Philadelphia Code by providing additional height controls in the vicinity of Benjamin Franklin Parkway. This ordinance 20 would establish a maximum height of 250 feet for any buildings in an area bounded by Spring Garden Street, North Broad Street, Arch Street, the Ben Franklin Parkway, North 22nd Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. It is important to indicate to the 24 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Council several facts that will have a bearing on this legislation. First, the existing controls for the height of buildings within 200 feet of Benjamin Franklin Parkway range between 200 feet and 268 feet in height between Broad Street and 18th Street and 80 feet to 180 feet in height between Fairmount Park and 18th Street. These controls would be added to the controls that already exist under 14-1618 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code which limit the height of buildings to 185 feet in an area bounded by Arch Street, 23rd Street, Cuthbert Street, 22nd Street, Walden Street, 21st Street and 20th Street. This section of the Code was established as a result of passage of Bill No. 18 990496 on December 30, 1999. Additionally, the buildings along the Parkway are generally between 150 and 200 feet in height. The highest buildings are located between City Hall and 17th Street, with several buildings being over 200 feet in height. Some examples would be the Suburban Station Building is 233 feet in height. The One Parkway 25 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Building is 235 feet in height. At the Art Museum end of the Parkway, there are a few buildings over 150 feet in height. One is the Pennsylvania Apartment Building located on Pennsylvania Avenue at 24th Street, which is 200 feet high. Another is the Park Towne Apartment Building along Park Towne Place at 24th Street, which consists of several buildings over 150 in height. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider this bill at its meeting of May 18, 2006. We will be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you very much. Can you tell us if the Planning Commission itself has any plans or suggestions relating to height limitations for areas generally abutting the Parkway?
We have held with the Benjamin Franklin Parkway Controls for some time. But in light of recent events with the tower that is to be erected, we have started taking a look at the height BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 controls. I think that there is a number of occasions that have arisen that have changed things from what was before. We have a new building code where legally required windows are not -- there are buildings that can be built without them. The site in question that we're talking about was R-15 zoned, which had a height requirement based on legally required windows. There's no 11 legally required windows. So they could go up very tall. Also, the market for sometime wouldn't bear another large building there. But now it has. And I think that it is time that we reconsider height controls along the Parkway to either expand the controls or maybe a rezoning of the areas would be appropriate at this time.
I think as a result of the meeting that we're having on the 18th there will be some recommendations from both the staff and probably from the 27 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Planning Commission proper to get started on working on either -- working to get the height controls set up as they are in the bill, maybe looking to see if the boundaries are correct and the like, or to rezone the areas around there. That will come as a result of the May 18th meeting we're having.
I'm glad to hear that the Planning Commission is looking to possibly change some of the limitations or make some amendments or recommendations. Earlier in the testimony -- I'm not sure if you were here -- it was said that the community groups both on the north and south side of the Parkway will be meeting within the next two weeks to craft some possible amendments to this bill 25 that will work for their individual 28 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 neighborhoods. I would like to ask you if the Planning Commission can be available, if needed, to make sure that we're not working at different ends.
We'll have a consensus at the end of the day, and we would like to have Planning Commission support the ultimate bill that we pass.
Off the top of your head, can you tell me what designations currently don't have height limits? R-13's?
R-15's. Most of the Center City height controls are based on FAR's where you can go very tall but very thin buildings. So you could get tall buildings. Mostly it's the R-15's. There's some industrial districts, which wouldn't be around here, that don't have height limits.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Yes, thank you. Mr. Gregorski, I read all the height limitations that are up and down the Parkway in different areas. I assume this is one that doesn't have height limitations, this area in question.
That meeting of the Planning Commission that's coming up is eight days away. What I didn't see in your testimony is what the staff recommendation is going to be on this bill.
We don't have one yet. There's a meeting this morning 30 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 that I just came from that they're going through it. Basically, our staff recommendation comes as a result of the Executive Director presenting what we have to the staff and getting all the input and making a decision, and that's happening right now. So I can't tell you.
You're part of the staff that's going to have input. What would cause input other than to support this bill? What are the issues on the other side? We know the issues with the community. Senator Fumo spoke eloquently about it. What would drive you in a different direction?
I think what would mainly drive us in a different direction is how to go about it. Is the overlay appropriate or should we just go and rezone everything? It may be that the R-15's aren't appropriate anymore. I don't think anyone envisioned a 500-foot building in R-15. It may be that rezoning may be better. This may be something that we do as a 31 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 stopgap to do a full rezoning because that takes longer, as you well know.
Sounds pretty logical. Stopgap, then do the zoning, because you know the zoning is not going to get done in time to help anybody right now. I think there's a strong feeling among people that have just become involved in this issue through this bill that you have to do something and do it very fast at the Planning Commission to support this community, support the District Councilman and just do what is right. I can't even imagine that at this point there's even hesitancy about doing that. Could you also look at -- I don't know if you were here for the testimony. But the parking situation in this area is like I'm sure many others in densely populated areas that are fairly affluent. People have cars. And in Philadelphia you need a car. I don't care how good public transportation is. You need a car. It's not New York. Recognizing reality and going beyond 32 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 just the one space per unit, regardless of the size of the unit, could you take a good look at that and bring that back from this hearing? We'd rather have you recommending it than us imposing it without your recommendation.
The Planning Commission at the May 18th meeting will be looking at the results of the Center City Parking Study to look to make changes. We had last month put forth some recommendations that the Planning Commission would use as guidelines when developers come in with developments, but they don't have any teeth as yet. This parking study is going to recommend specifics about what some of the zoning code changes may need to be made regarding park. That's also going to be at the May 18th hearing. It will be just for a presentation at this hearing and then next month for adoption.
So you are thinking about adding additional parking requirements? 33 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06
I guess the 64,000 dollar question for many people is I know when we get remapping bills to map certain properties the first thing we have is testimony from the Planning Commission, usually a map. We have a little two-story little motel over there that obviously wants to be a lot more. But at one point in time someone rezoned that area R-15 with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Do you have any knowledge of why the Planning Commission would rezone a two-story property with unlimited height restrictions built into the zoning when there are other zoning classifications that would limit the height?
When it was zoned, it was 30 some years ago, a little bit before my time.
I didn't think you were here for it, believe me. But you keep pretty good records over there. 34 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06
Really, I can't say. In my opinion, the fact that a 500-foot building could be built in R-15 is shocking to me. I don't believe there's not a legally required window on there that doesn't fit the setback requirement that's required. I think that because of the building code changes -- we envisioned maybe a garden apartment building in R-15. But I don't expect to see a 500-foot building. I just think it's just things have changed and it may be time to relook at those classifications.
I think the best thing you can do at the Planning Commission now is take back what you've heard today.
Thank you. I think you must keep in mind about 35 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 the parking requirements. The Senator talked about Barnes coming in. To the best of my knowledge -- and maybe Councilman Clarke could address it -- I don't think that the parking issue has been addressed for Barnes. The expansion of the library, I don't think that the parking issues have been addressed about the expansion. I think we sit here and we react on every one of these issues. We have been asking for I don't know how long that the City Planning Commission really do a study and have strategic plans. We do things piecemeal and sometimes it's not the best thing to do. So I think that all of these issues should be put into consideration when you're talking about parking requirements. Are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee?
Thank you, 36 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Madam Chair. I just have one question here. As far as listening to the testimony this morning, I understand that the developer has a permit to construct a 47-story building. What can be done to prevent this developer from going through with the plans of building this?
I think that's a difficult questions. I think there may be some legal means for it. Once you get a permit, obviously you can appeal that permit. But presuming that L & I issued the permit correctly --
You would first go to the Zoning Board to appeal the issuance of that permit. Then if you didn't get that permit appealed, then you could take it to the Court of Common Pleas.
Any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, I thank you. And I 37 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 would appreciate your remaining for the rest of the hearing just to hear what perhaps the neighbors may have to say.
Thank you. I do not have a list of witnesses who would like to be recognized. Mr. Gallery, I see your hand is up. Would you please approach the witness table, identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you very much, Council President Verna and Members of the Committee. I first of all want to apologize for my voice. I hope that the microphone allows you to hear me. I would also like to apologize that I do not have my comments in writing because I wanted to hear other comments before making my own. But I have some notes and I will try to translate them into something I can submit to you later. I want to first of all say that I completely support all of the comments which 38 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Senator Fumo made. One of the great downsides of the wonderful development of housing that's going on in Philadelphia at the moment is this problem of developers wanting to build projects that are completely out of scale with the neighborhoods in which they're being placed. I see this constantly in working with historic neighborhoods throughout the city, particularly in Center City and adjacent to Center City. The problems that are being raised in this neighborhood by the developments that are just out of scale are not unique here they are broader. And your comments about the need to look for broader ways to address these are entirely appropriate. I also strongly support the comments that Senate Fumo made about the need to really look at the underlying issue, and that is the deficiencies of the zoning code. And I very much the support the efforts that Councilman Clarke, Senator Fumo and the neighborhoods are taking to try to address this problem here and your effort to look at a legislative solution that will help anticipate future problems. 39 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 But I'm here today to basically answer Councilman O'Neill's question: What are the downsides to this particular piece of legislation? And I'm here to caution you that I do not think that amending the Benjamin Franklin Parkway Controls is the appropriate way to achieve the goal that you're trying to achieve; and that it may, in fact, create complications that you have not envisioned, which may be addressed -- and I was pleased to hear Councilman Clarke indicating that there would be further examination and perhaps amendment of this bill. Some of the issues that I'm going to raise may be capable of being addressed in some amendments to the bill. But there are some reasons why the parkway controls may not be the right way to achieve this at all. And there are four reasons that I'd like to put before you. The first is history. You may find it strange for me to say that the Parkway Controls are in fact an historic document. They're an historic object. In many respects, 40 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 they're quite similar to historic buildings. You may not realize how unique these controls are. They were created more than 80 years ago and have never been amended. They were unique in the United States at the time they were created in setting forth from a public perspective a set of design controls to imply meant a long-term vision in the building of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. They have existed and they have been fully functional and important to the city during this entire 80 years. Their purpose is really to carry out the vision of the Parkway. They're not land use controls. They're not zoning controls. They're not height controls. They are design controls. And what you're trying to achieve in this particular situation is not a control of design. It's something else. The fact that they are design controls is reinforced by the way they are implemented. It's been described that this bill is an overlay. It's not an overlay. It 41 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 is an amendment to the boundaries of the district of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway Controls. It will be administered by the Art Commission, not by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Art Commission's function within the Benjamin Franklin Controls jurisdiction is design review, aesthetic considerations of what buildings look like, what they're materials are, what their colors are.
The underlying controls of the Benjamin Franklin District, which it seems to me from reading the existing legislation would be carried into these two boundaries, involve two things. And I'm quoting from the bill, from the Benjamin Franklin legislation. No 19 building permit -- excuse me. No building shall be erected or altered within the boundaries nor shall any permit be issued without the approval of the Art Commission. No permit in these entire boundaries for any alteration of any building without the approval of the Art Commission. 42 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 You want to put a roof deck on the back of your house, you have to go to the Art Commission. You want to tear down a one-story building and put a wing on the back of your house and put on a two-story addition, you have to go to the Art Commission. It doesn't even say exterior. You want to change your kitchen and you need a building permit for it, do you have to go to the Art Commission? The way the legislation reads, I would say yes. Every single property owner requiring a permit for any action would have to go to the Art Commission, not the Zoning Board. The second thing it says is no permit to erect a sign shall be granted unless it's been approved by the Art Commission. Now, this is a smaller thing. But every single business in this entire area would have to go to the Art Commission to get approval for any sign it wanted to put on its building. I don't think you want those administrative complications on property owners. I don't think that's your intention. 43 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 But by changing the boundary you essentially are taking the rules that apply to the existing boundary and you're extending them to the new boundary. And the rules are just what I read: No permit approvals. Not only would this create complication for the residents and property owners, but I don't know whether anyone has asked the Art Commission, which has one staff, whether they would have the ability to implement the implications of this. In addition, look at the height control. It's the Art Commission that has to determine whether or not proposals are above or below 250 feet. How could they do that without examining every permit that's applied for? Because they are the ones, not L & I, that has to exercise the jurisdiction over the Parkway Controls. I think there are some really serious administrative problems. Maybe there are ways to address these. I don't know. But by extending the boundaries, you extend all of these things which are part of the Parkway 44 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Controls. The third point I want to raise and Councilman Clarke has already raised -- and I really appreciate your comments -- 250 feet is not a magic number. As you said, there may be some sections within here where it's too high. There might even be some where it's too low. And again, I think since those decisions would be made by the Art Commission, not a zoning variance, it would be important to really try to tailor something in which height limits reflected the different character of the neighborhoods. And I know you said that as an issue you might be considering in the next couple of weeks. I would like to suggest two things to you. The first is that you look at other alternatives. A height limit was imposed by City Council in the Olde City District, a 60-foot height limit. It was an overlay. It's been in effect for -- I forget what it is now -- three or four years. I don't know why there's a difference here. I don't know why you couldn't use the 45 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 same mechanism that was used in establishing that height limit to do in fact a zoning overlay height limit for this section of the city. That approach would eliminate all the issues that I've raised in terms of the role of the Art Commission, the functions of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway Controls. That seems to me the preferable direction.
But if there is continued consideration of expanding the parkway controls, then I think you really need some -- I don't know if there are any people here. But you really need some opinions from the Law Department as to whether all of these other requirements extend over there and whether you really want the Art Commission to be the administrative body that's making these decisions. I think there are some -- the Art Commission, as we all know, is a funny body. I think there is some downside to the Art Commission having jurisdiction over alterations to individual properties in an area this large, particularly because it has no guidelines. For 46 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 the parkway, it has a clear set of design objectives and guidelines. But beyond that zone, it has none. What's the basis of its decisions? I really don't know. So let me just in closing say I applaud the efforts to deal with this problem. I think it's a serious problem, not just in this neighborhood but in others. I applaud Councilman Clarke and Senator Fumo's support to the neighborhood on this issue. I think it's important to find a solution to it. I'm just trying to caution you that this may not be the right one or this may carry with it issues that have not been thought about, that might need to be considered in looking at how this initial bill might be amended. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Gallery. Are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Seeing none, we thank you for coming in to testify. Do we have anyone else who would like 47 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 to testify? Please approach the witness table. Identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I'm Alan Rubin. I am a resident of Spring Garden and have been for almost 40 years. I have been the chairman of the zoning committee for essentially 40 years as well. I'd like to comment first on Senator Fumo's statements, which I am totally in accord with, and discuss Mr. Gallery's statements. A very interesting academic discussion by Mr. Gallery. But we have a particular emergency essentially. There are, to my knowledge, at least five other buildings that I've heard are about to be proposed at various sites in this area, which basically was the Franklin town area. It's almost all fallow land. There's a park. There are a few other buildings, a granary. There's not a lot of residential there. But it affects our residential area, which is an historic district, significantly. These are mostly out-of-town 48 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 developers. I have no idea how high they plan to go. But they have big tracts of land and they can go very high. I urge that this bill 5 be passed today in spite of the interesting issues that are presented by Mr. Gallery. That does not mean an overlay or some other planning issue should be taken because after this meeting, if there is not a control on the issuance of permits, they will be issued. People will apply for permits on these other sites within days, certainly within weeks. I'm sure their plans have been drawn. I don't want to mention the specific sites. But there are five sites that I'm absolutely familiar with and there are plans to build very large buildings on them, one of which is right behind the proposed Barnes building. It's an out-of-state developer. He's already done something in the neighborhood. And that building, frankly, is a terribly ugly building. It has had no review by the Planning Commission that I know of. And if it did, someone should be ashamed of themselves. 49 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 We do need those kinds of controls. We do need the Planning Commission or some other agency with some aesthetic and some traffic issues to be dealt with. Anyone is able to build anything. You could build a quilted aluminum building. No one is here to stop anything. It's only by luck that you get a good architect, and we have plenty in the city that are doing it. Then you have people that are just putting up anything. I think there's a building going up right behind the Rodan. It's fenced off already. No one has ever seen the building. But I have a very strong feeling that no one is going to want to look at that building once it's done. So I urge this Council Committee to pass this because there is an immediate emergency issue. Thank you.
Thank you very much. One moment, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, 50 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Madam President. I was not going to respond to Mr. Gallery's testimony. But the fact that you have will require that I respond in some way, shape or form. I understand the sensitive nature of individuals who are interested in the Art Commission and the Planning Commission. But at the end of the day, it's my responsibility as a Councilperson representing that area to act. I can't sit around, with all due respect to Mr. Gallery and his concerns about staffing levels at the Art Commission and recommendations by the Planning Commission, I can't sit around and not act while somebody figures out a way to fund additional staff people or not come up with a strategy to delete that particular portion of this legislation that currently lies within the Parkway Controls. We have a serious problem pending. We have a serious problem that could possibly happen as a result of other proposals coming down the pipeline. I think it's prudent for us 51 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 to act now to do something to, as Senator Fumo said, put a cork in the bottle. Then we can intelligently sit down and craft the ultimate legislation that will make sense for all interested parties. So with all due respect to Mr. Gallery and his concern about the Art Commission's role, I think we need to proceed and do what we need to do today. I just want to thank you for having the same mind-set as I do.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Please approach the witness table, kindly identify yourself for the record and then proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Patricia Freeland. I'm from the Spring Garden Neighborhood of Philadelphia. I have here with me Siraik Zakarian, the owner of the Bergdoll Mansion, which is 52 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 located at 22nd and Green Streets, Russell Meddin from the Logan Square Neighbors Association, and Kevin Greenberg from the Fairmount Civic Association. We're all here in support of an ordinance to put strict height controls on the area between the Parkway and Spring Garden Street. We, in Spring Garden, have been spending countless hours, many years over maybe the last 40 years trying to revitalize our community. We got the area turned into an historic district. So we are now under strict oversight. Our community is an area of mostly three- and four-story houses. We recently took on the blighted eastern end of the neighborhood, and we will soon have a true mixed income community of beautiful homes for all residents of all income levels in that area. We work untold hours to accomplish these things. So it was with absolute horror and anxiety that we learned of a 47-story tower that had been given an over-the-counter permit as of right to go in right below Spring Garden 53 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Street at 21st Street. That means that our lives will now be hijacked for many, many hours trying to fight this tower because we will not let it go forward. Siraik Zakarian, who is to my right here, has spent her own monies, countless hours restoring the Bergdoll Mansion, which the Historical Commission considers the most important historical residence in the city. The 47-story tower would literally tower over her home. It would tower over our Victorian neighborhood, and it would make a mockery of our Victorian historic district. We also have with us, I should note, many members of the community who will also dedicate many hours fighting this tower. Would you all please stand up and hold your signs up? Thank you.
Excuse me. The record will reflect that there are approximately 35 or 40 area residents that are here with their signs.
And there are many more that could not come because 54 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 they're at work. I would like to just echo Mr. Rubin's comments. If we do not have this legislation and people go in and put up these towers with no oversight whatsoever, we will literally have a wall between us and Center City. Right now, he have Cityview. That's at and 21 stories. 9 That is a wall between us and Center City. 10 We cannot see things of that height 11 or higher going in. There have to be controls. 12 There has to be oversight. People must be made 13 to go to a zoning hearing. 14 Thank you very much. We appreciate 15 your efforts. 16
Hi, my name 19 is Russell Meddin and I am the vice president 20 of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association. 21 Last night we had a board meeting in which our 22 board unanimously approved to support this bill 23 introduced by Councilman Clarke. 24 The Benjamin Franklin Parkway 25 dissects our neighborhood into a north side and 55 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 a south side. Our neighborhood boundaries are from Broad Street to the river, from Spring Garden down to Market Street. The Benjamin Franklin Parkway is our main street. This type of legislation, which would give us a little more say on what's happening on our main street, is very, very important to us. And I do hope that you can move this along and make it part of the laws of Philadelphia. We really do need help here. Also, I'd like to say one thing that I heard earlier and I just wanted to mention this. The person from the Planning Commission said that that they were surprised or somewhat taken aback by the advent of a 47-story building going in close to the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. In my thoughts, I believe it's called the Planning Commission, not the reacting commission. I think Council needs to take care of that quickly. Thank you very, very much.
Hello, my name is Kevin Greenberg and I'm president of the Fairmount Civic Association. To be 56 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 absolutely clear, I'm off the clock and not wearing my other hat right now. The relevant department will respond accordingly as necessary. I just want to very briefly echo the comments of Senator Fumo, of Mr. Rubin, of Pat and Russell and of the Councilman. Thank you very much for introducing this. This neighborhood is a lovely neighborhood, and it is a neighborhood of scale. What has been proposed and what is being proposed is out of scale, and we are not happy with that. We greatly appreciate the Councilman's efforts to address this. We'd like to have lower height limits. We'd like to expand the area. I know the Councilman is open to working with us on that as well, and we appreciate that. I just want to, for the record, state our position. We concur on everything related to this bill 22 that the Senator, that Pat, that Russell and others have said, and we appreciate Council's consideration and action on this today. Thank you. 57 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06
I'm Siraik Zakarian and I just happen to be the owner of the Bergdoll Mansion. I too would like to echo my colleagues' comments about the neighborhood and personally say that years ago when I 9 came to this neighborhood, our neighborhood was 10 not the most wonderful place to live. But 11 thanks to Pat Freeland and her colleagues and 12 Alan Rubin, the neighborhood has really 13 improved tremendously. It has become a jewel 14 in the city. 15 We have all worked very, very hard to 16 not only improve our own personal residences, 17 but to make sure that the streets and the 18 neighborhoods are safe and a wonderful place 19 for families to live in. Not many other areas 20 in the Center City can boast the number of 21 schools, children and families that live in 22 this area. 23 However, with the advent of these 24 high-rise buildings that are going to block our 25 views of Center City, that are going to 58 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 increase the traffic -- that is the most important thing at the moment for people living in the neighborhood. People park on sidewalks when there is any event on the Parkway. We're not really talking about what happens at times of functions on the Parkway, which is every weekend during the summer months. People have no place to park. They park on sidewalks. They really don't have -- the people living in the neighborhood don't have the peace and quiet that we all strive for. To add a number of high-rise buildings with hundreds more cars floating about, the entire spirit of our neighborhood is going to change. For that reason, I'm very much against any of these high-rise buildings that are proposed in the neighborhood and in favor of height limits, of course. As I said, you know, the Parkway is so beautiful with the original architectural buildings that are there. Why can't we continue that character of building? It's a museum neighborhood. Why should we have 59 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 suddenly at least on the north side of the Parkway these very, very high-rise buildings, modern buildings? Improvements are always welcome. But they have to really -- they have to somehow carry the spirit of the neighborhood and the architecture of the neighborhood. This is going to change if developers from other states come in, from abroad come in, and they start putting their ideas into a neighborhood without discussion with the people who live there. So I thank you.
Thank you. We certainly all agree with you that it is a beautiful neighborhood. Do we have any other witnesses that would like to testify?
You're welcome. Thank you for coming in. Please approach the witness table. Good morning. Welcome.
Good morning. 60 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 Thank you very much for this opportunity. Councilman Clarke, thank you ever so much for introducing this bill.
I am a member of Logan Square Neighbors Association. I am also a member of the Friends of Logan Square North of the parkway. I am also the Democratic committeeperson in the 8th Ward, 24th Division. My house is smack dab in the middle of this proposed district. I live on 20th Street between Callowhill and Hamilton. I appear here today in support of Bill 060292. Like most Philadelphians, I am absolutely thrilled by development the likes of which I have never seen in my entire adult life. All over the city there is new construction that promises to change the future of Philadelphia. But if the future is going to be a right one, it is incumbent on city leaders to not abdicate our futures to developers. Unfortunately, far too much of what happens here is left to developers who lack a 61 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 stewardship vision for our city. The stewardship responsibility falls on your shoulders and on the shoulders of the community representatives that are here today. One of the things that make Philadelphia so unique is our city's rich architectural heritage. This is particularly true of the neighborhoods that surround the city's most beautiful boulevard, the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. I applaud Councilman Clarke's bill because it takes into account that by imposing a height restriction, it offers an element of protection for the Parkway. However, I don't think this bill goes far enough. As proposed, this bill would expand the boundaries of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway Controls and would require a 250-feet height restriction. Actually, it is my belief that the height restriction should be lower. Many urban planners believe that unchecked high-rise development can destroy the streetscape of historical cities like Philadelphia and bring with it associated 62 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 problems of traffic congestion and pollution. This school of thought has a preference for medium density housing that makes better use of public space and offers a better sense of community. Skyscrapers are alienating and they detract from the environment at street level. Furthermore, residential high-rise buildings provide for a level of anonymity that is not conducive to community cohesiveness and safety. I would hate to see my beloved neighborhood turned into a conglomeration of high-rise condominiums. One of the things that I find so attractive about the neighborhood is its social fabric. You have many opportunities to interact with your neighbors when you're sweeping your front or tending to your flowers or shoveling the snow. A neighborhood of high-rises don't allow for this level of social interaction. Furthermore, we must be vigilant about the appropriateness of plopping high-rises in the middle of neighborhoods that are prized for some of the most magnificent 63 BILL NO. 060292 - 5/10/06 examples of 19th century architecture. But if I can leave you with one thought, that would be that the decision you make here today will be one that will shape the future of our city for many generations. Therefore, I urge you to please support this bill. We are the major stakeholders in this community. The vision for our city's future is far too important to leave to developers. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Again, I thank you for coming in to testify.
You're welcome. Do we have any other witnesses that would like to be recognized? Seeing none, this will conclude our Public Hearing. 64 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING of the COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL NO. 060292 - - - PRESENT: ANNA C. VERNA, Chair DARRELL L. CLARKE, Vice-Chair JACK KELLY BRIAN J. O'NEILL DONNA REED MILLER JAMES F. KENNEY BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN - - - 65 PUBLIC MEETING - 5/10/06
We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we circulated an amendment to this bill earlier. This amendment essentially changes the height limitation from 250 feet to 125 feet. There will probably be subsequent amendments after the community has several meetings to discuss the issues relating to their particular area. But at this time we're going to offer one amendment. I would like to propose an amendment to Bill No. 060292. I move for the adoption of the amendment.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will please signify by saying aye. Those opposed? 66 PUBLIC MEETING - 5/10/06 The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 060292 as amended be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for Rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060292 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation as amended, further that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion carries. This concludes our public meeting. Thank you all very much. (Applause.) 67 PUBLIC MEETING - 5/10/06
I would just like to say something in closing. I think it's wonderful to come in, not knowing what this Committee would hold. But I just want you all to know that I think you're extremely fortunate to have Councilman Clarke and certainly Senator Fumo representing you. I know that between the two of them working with the community this will be resolved. So I just wanted to give them recognition and thank you. And as I said, I think you're very fortunate to have both of them representing you. Thank you. (Public Meeting adjourned at 11:33 a.m.) - - - 68 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, May 10, 2006, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES _______________________________________ BRIAN L. RASCO