Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 24 990725: This is not an administration ordinance 101 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990725 but an ordinance requested by Mr. G. Ross Wilson, Senior Vice President or Presidential Real Estate and Development Parkway Corporation, 150 North Broad Street, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to reduce the south sidewalk width to accommodate deliveries for proposed retail stores fronting on Filbert Street to be built in conjunction with the 12th and Filbert Street Convention Center garage. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Marty Soffer, from the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the revision of the lines and grades of a minor street in the Convention Center section of Center City. The purpose of this ordinance is to improve service access to the rear of a proposed parking garage retail development. Therefore, by action at its meeting on November 4, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990725 be approved. 102 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990725 Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Lonie, this will not have any effect on the garage that is being built by Parkway, would it?
Yeah. What they wanted was, they were concerned -- their plan is to have retail stores on the first floor fronting on Filbert Street, and they needed to widen Cuthbert Street in the back to have --
Thank you. Are there any questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the 103 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990756 clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990756, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 194 by striking from the City Plan Hope Street from York Street to Cumberland Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 14 990756: This is not an administration ordinance 16 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Matthew Walker, of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority. The purpose of this ordinance is to close Hope Street for the new Hunter Elementary School. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to the committee for favorable action.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? 104 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990756 (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
-- and members of the committee, the proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City of a minor unneeded street in the Huntington section of North Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to assemble a property for the construction of the new Hunter Elementary School. Development costs for this kindergarten-through-8th-grade school are between 16 and 18 million, with an enrollment of between 8 to 900 students. Therefore, by action at its meeting on November 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990756 be approved. Thank you.
Now, are there any other questions for these witness from the 105 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990765 committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990765, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 97 by relocating a portion of the southerly curb line of Pemberton Street, between Seventh Street and Eighth Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 21 990765: This is an administration ordinance 23 requested by the Streets Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to widen the street in front of City property to alleviate neighborhood 106 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990765 congestion. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the proposed ordinance 7 authorizes the relocation of a portion of a southerly curb line of a minor street in the Bella Vista section in South Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to improve the street parking adjacent to (unintelligible) by permitting a one-and-a-half-foot widening of a cartway. Therefore, by action at its meeting on November 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990765 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the 107 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990811 clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990811, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 97 by striking from the City Plan and vacating a three-foot wide portion of Passyunk Avenue from Sixth Street to Catharine Street and a three-foot wide portion of Sixth Street from Passyunk Avenue to Catharine Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. The Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 990811: This is not an administration ordinance 18 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Louis Arkowsky (ph.), 830 South Street, Philadelphia, PA. The purpose of this ordinance is to build a single-family dwelling on this site. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and members 108 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990811 of the committee, I'm Martin Soffer, from the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes reducing the sidewalk way of two minor streets in the Bella Vista section of South Philadelphia. This ordinance would able the party of interest to build a house on the vacant property adjacent to these streets. Therefore, by action at it meeting on November 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990811 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990816, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and 109 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990816 grades on a portion of City Plan No.'s 319 and 347 by striking from the City Plan Stanwood Street from Verree Road to Rising Sun Avenue, and by striking from the City Plan and vacating the legally open portion of Rising Sun Avenue from Rhawn Street to Solly Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 14 990816: This is not an administration ordinance 16 but an ordinance requested by Mr. John Conroy, President of Conroy Catering, Bensalem, Pennsylvania. The purpose of this ordinance is to strike and vacate the legally open portions of these streets and remove title and zoning issues within the Nollton (ph.) Estate. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and members 110 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990816 of the committee, my name is Martin Soffer, from the Philadelphia Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of two paper streets in the Fox Chase section of Northeast Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to remove the legal encumbrance of certain street areas to permit the future expansion of a catering business. Therefore, by action at its meeting on November 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990816 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Richard Bruno. And I'm here today representing Councilman O'Neill. I'd like to propose an amendment to this, which I have copies for all of the members. It would be amending Subsection e. of this bill. It's my understanding that the payment of those amounts to the City treasury are for streets that 111 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990816 have improvements. In this situation, they're just paper streets, and it's my understanding that that clause is not necessary for this ordinance.
Well, that's basically a legal issue. But the Streets Department -- this does not change the ordinance, and we still recommend it.
Okay, all right. And we will make that amendment at the time of the public meeting. If you would leave us a copy with the clerk, please.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the committee to act favorably upon this. If you have any questions, also, Mr. Conroy is also here to answer.
We're getting to him next. Mr. Conroy, please state your name for the record if you wish to testify.
Good afternoon. My name is John Conroy, Jr., and I own Conroy Catering, 112 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990816 Inc., in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.
Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the committee? Richard, did you read the amendment in? Why don't you just do that again and we'll make sure we have it in there. Please.
The payment into the City treasury of the sum of $300, $1,081, and $1,441 for the respective cost of water pipe, sewer pipe, and paving constructed in the beds of Stanwood Street and Rising Sun Avenue, abutting the beds of Verree Road, Rhawn Street, and Solly Avenue, and not previously assessed.
-- that portion of the ordinance. Thank you. And thank you for your patience, Mr. Conroy. 113 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990834 Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990834, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 246 by striking from the City Plan and vacating the legally open portions of 46th Street, Saybrook Street and Melville Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. The Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 990834: This is not an administration ordinance 20 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Gary Riser (ph.), Vice President for Finance and Administration, University of the Sciences, in Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to construct a campus Plaza walkway and consolidate 114 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990834 noncontiguous parcels. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer, from the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of two minor unneeded streets in the University section of West Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to permit the consolidation on the University of the Sciences Philadelphia campus and enable the construction of a campus plaza walkway and a new academic building. Therefore, by action at its meeting on December 2, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990834 be approved. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Elizabeth Bresse-Stoppe. I'm Vice President for Executive Affairs at the University of the Sciences, in Philadelphia. 115 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990834 We would like to request passage of this proposed ordinance, which will allow us to continue our expansion plans for the University onto the abandoned Breyer's Ice Cream plant site, which we acquired from Unilever a number of years ago, and the striking of these streets will allow us to continue the expansion. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Could we go to Bill No. 17 990754 next? Because that's a companion ordinance.
Certainly. The clerk will read the title of the bill.
One moment. Bill No. 990754, an ordinance 23 authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 246 by striking from the City Plan and vacating 42nd Street, from Woodland 116 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990754 Avenue to 43rd Street; striking from the City Plan and vacating 43rd Street, from Woodland Avenue to 42nd Street; and by reserving and placing on the City Plan certain rights-of-way for drainage purposes, water main purposes, and gas main purposes, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager of the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to give the following testimony on Bill No. 13 990754: This is not an administration ordinance 15 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Gary Riser, Vice President for Finance and Administration, University of the Sciences. The purpose of this ordinance is to construct a campus plaza walkway and to consolidate nine contiguous parcels. This ordinance is supported by the Department of supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is 117 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990754 Martin Soffer, from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of two minor unneeded streets in the University City section of West Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to permit the consolidation of the University of the Sciences Philadelphia campus and the enable the construction of a campus plaza, walkway, and a new academic building. Therefore, by action at its meeting on November 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990754 be approved. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Elizabeth Bresse-Stoppe, Vice President for Executive Affairs, University of the Sciences, in Philadelphia. We would like to request passage of these propose ordinances to allow us to continue with our expansion plans for the University and to construct new facilities on the site of the former Breyer's Ice Cream plant. The University acquired 118 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990754 this parcel from Unilever a number of years ago, and it is our intention to continue to upgrade our facilities. We would like to construct a new academic building for technology programs and to construct some open green space, a quadrangle, which would be an extension of the neighborhood Clark Park. We have met with neighbors and members of the community, and they have no 10 opposition. The streets in question traverse no 12 property other than the University's, with the exception of the pumping station for the Water Department. We have met with all of the utilities involved and have received the tentative approval of the Planning Commission. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee for these witnesses?
I have one 119 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990754 question. The expansion of the sciences service center, you said?
It's the University of Sciences in Philadelphia, not the University City Science Center.
We were formerly the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science.
All right, okay. I just wanted to mistake sure. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you for your patience. The clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990837, an ordinance authorizing the revision lines and grades on portions of City Plan No. 194 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Bodine Street from Cumberland Street to Huntington 120 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990837 Street, under certain circumstances.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager of the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to give the following testimony on Bill No. 8 990837: This is not an administration ordinance 10 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Anthony Fellini (ph.), 207 Hanover Street, Pemberton, New Jersey. The purpose of this ordinance is to expand his business, creating new jobs and investment in the American Street Corridor and Empowerment Enterprise Zone. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and it's recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, members of the committee. The Planning Commission supports this ordinance. At the meeting -- I believe it was in November? We do support it; I just can't find it.
Next witness, please. Thank you. 121 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990837
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Vincent Dougherty, and I'm the Enterprise Zone Manager for the Department of Commerce, assigned to the American Street Corridor. I'm here today to testify on -- I'm here on behalf of the Commerce Department to testify in support of Bill 990837. This bill, which authorizes the striking and vacating of Bodine Street between Cumberland and Huntington Streets in the American Street Corridor, will allow the owner of the abutting properties to consolidate the four parcels that make up this block between American and Third Street into one contiguous parcel. Once this site is consolidated, the property owner, who operates a cheese-making business on this block, will rehab a long-vacant building next to his existing business that he recently acquired. He will also build an 8,000-square-foot expansion onto that building. Upon the completion, he will move his cheese-aging operations into the rehabbed facility. In addition, a tenant in his present 122 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990837 building, H&R Foods, will expand into the face being vacated by the cheese company. In all, it's expected, between the two companies, that much 5 needed jobs will be created in American Street, 6 and 35 jobs will be retained. 7 The striking of Bodine, a narrow, 8 generally unused street, is critical to the 9 success of this project. For this reason, I 10 respectfully request your favorable consideration 11 of this bill. 12 Thank you. 13
Thank you, Mr. 14 Dougherty. 15 Are there any questions for these 16 witnesses from the committee? 17 (No questions.) 18
Is there anyone 19 else here who wishes to testify for or against 20 this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990839, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and 123 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990839 grades on a portion of City Plan 152 by placing Yokum Street on the City Plan in the vicinity of 68th Street and Greenway Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Manager of the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 11 990839: This is an administration ordinance 13 requested by the Streets Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to place Yokum Street on the City Plan and legally open the street. This will more closely conform to existing physical conditions. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Marty Soffer, from the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the placing on the City Plan of a 40-foot-wide and 124 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990839 200-foot-long street in the Elmwood section of Southwest Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to legally open an existing street that is currently in disrepair and in need of repaving. Therefore, by action of its meeting on December 2, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990839 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990672, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 163 of the area bounded by Ridge Avenue, Calumet Street, the Philadelphia Germantown and Norristown Railroad 125 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 (SEPTA), and the existing lines of Schoolhouse Lane, by striking from the City Plan and vacating Merrick Road, Creswell Street, Earlham Street, Winona Street, and Arlen Street, by placing on the City Plan Heritage Drive, Palisades Drive, Merrick Road, East Falls Lane, Capital View Drive, Gustine Lake Drive, Schuykill Falls Circle, Genesis Terrace, Hilltop Lane, Falling Water Lane, and Founders Place, under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City free and clear of all encumbrances of the beds of Heritage Drive, Palisades Drive, Merrick Road East Falls Lane, Capital View Drive, Gustine Lake Drive, Schuylkill Falls Circle, Genesis Terrace, Hilltop Lane, Falling Water Lane, and Founders Place.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager of the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 23 990672: This is not an administration ordinance 25 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Cordell Blue, of 126 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 the Philadelphia Housing Authority, 12 South 23rd Street. The purpose of this ordinance is to allow for an infrastructure for the Schuylkill Falls Housing Development Project. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended your committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Martin Soffer, from the City Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City Plan and vacating five streets and placing on the City Plan eleven streets in the East Falls sections of northwest Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to assist the Philadelphia Housing Authority with the implementation of the Schuylkill Falls Hope Four Revitalization plan. This $55 million subdivision proposal includes the construction of 300 housing units and 17,000 square feet of retail commercial space. Therefore, by action at its meeting of November 4, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990672 be approved. Thank you. 127 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
Are there any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (Unidentified person respond off mike.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lonie, let's go through a couple of the elements of this plan just for the record. And let me say first to Mr. Soffer, who I do respect greatly, we will get over to the Planning Commission a full chart of all of the Roman numeral designations and the numbers underneath of it. This is not Hope IV; it is Hope VI. The I is on the other side of the V.
Yeah, it's three years of Latin in high school that will get that you. Can you talk, Mr. Lonie, a little bit 128 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 into the record on the size of this development, the number of units, and some of the planning process.
Yes, Councilman Nutter. There's approximately 300 units that will be going in here. From what I gather from some meetings that I attended on this project, they are mixed units, a lot of single-family homes. I believe there also is some apartments. Mr. Soffer can also address that fact of the demographics of this site. Marty?
Approximately half of those 300 units, I don't have the final subdivision preliminary plat with me. Approximately half will be sales, and a half will be rentals.
The two apartment structures will face the main street -- excuse me, Ridge Avenue frontage. The interior, that which backs up to the railroad, will be market rate homes. And that's the long-range proposal. 129 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
And there are a number of new streets on that plan as compared to the way the original Schuylkill Falls looked, and that's to accommodate a larger level of residential units as compared to how the development had been situated before with the high-rise towers; is that correct?
Okay. There's been a fair amount of discussion with regard to the plan about some of the streets, how they come off of Ridge Avenue. Can you give us some description about what has been Merrick Road and what the new Merrick Road will be and also, at least on the plan, Heritage Drive. Where are these streets in comparison to the present streets and can you tell us what they may line up with on the other side of the street?
I'd be glad, to Councilman. Merrick Drive is substantially in the same place that it exists today. It's going to be the main entrance and exist from this; as a matter of fact, its going to be the main entrance, but it's going to be the only exist onto Ridge 130 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Avenue. Heritage Drive is proposed to be a one-way street coming in, because it was felt that we didn't want to increase congestion down at Calumet Street and the Falls Bridge. So Heritage Drive will be one way coming in, and Merrick Road will be two ways in and out. The newer street configurations deal with the philosophy of this being more of a suburban-type housing development rather than an inner city structure, and we wanted that to conform to a lot of those design criteria. One of the difficult things is that there's a tremendous elevation difference between this development and down onto Ridge Avenue, which would make it virtually impossible to build a road coming straight down to Ridge Avenue any other place except in the far easterly section of this development.
Now, there's been a fair amount of discussion, to say the least, about some access points to the site. Obviously Merrick Road is the main entrance, I think, as laid out in the plan, what the Streets people might refer to as almost a boulevard style. Merrick Road is -- 131 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 you're going to have these islands in the middle of Merrick as you enter off of Ridge Avenue; is that correct?
And Merrick Road then goes up to a certain point and begins to turn, as you're looking at the plan to the left, in an ark, or what I've often referred to as a horse shoe; is that correct?
And looking at the plan, if you go right at the point where the word where "ark" is written equals 190 feet plus or minus.
If there were an accident, a fire, a tree fall, serious ice, or anything else in that ark, in that roadway, the people who live on Genesis, Gustine Lake Falling Water, and Hilltop Lane, how would they get off the site?
They would not be able to get off the site, except through Founders Place, which is -- 132 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
Well, according to our plan, they would be able to exit at Founders Place.
Okay. If Founders Place wasn't on the plan, how would they get off the site.
They could not. The grades are too steep coming down to Ridge Avenue, and there's a railroad bordering it on the north. There would be no access out of there.
Now, in one of the designs of this development, it seems like many years ago, there was a proposal before the street had a name, but for the moment this Genesis Terrace, I seem to recall a proposal that had that road coming down and not turning as sharply into Gustine Lane, but coming down and angled parallel to Schoolhouse Lane down to Ridge Avenue. Are you familiar with that?
And why was that street taken off the plan? 133 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
It was taken off the plan basically for the reason that when we went out there, that is a solid rock shelf. And from an engineering standpoint, it was virtually impossible to build that road coming down there. It would have been -- everything would have had to have been blasted through there to cut a road through that rock. You could not go over the top of it so it was just felt that it was just an impractical solution.
It's my understanding that there were estimates of upwards of $6 million may have been the cost of just putting in that one street?
If Founders Place did not exist and you couldn't put a $6 million road in and justify the cost of a $6 million road, and there was no other way to get off the site if something happened between Gustine Lake Drive and Merrick Road, is that the genesis of the idea for emergency ingress-egress at a point that is now presently called Founders Lane?
That is correct. We just 134 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 felt from a safety and a quality-of-life issue, that these folks needed to have either an emergency or a real access out to another place, and the only place that seemed logical and doable was Schoolhouse Lane.
Now, at the point where it comes out, and I'm certainly not an engineer so I'll need to rely on your expertise and training, do you have any estimate as to the distance between Founders Place, the road, and the railroad tracks where they cross Schoolhouse Lane? How much distance is there between that road and where the railroad tracks are?
50 feet. And is there any other point off of either Genesis Terrace or Gustine Lake Drive that you might be able to move Founders Place further down, if you will, or I don't know what the direction is, but away from the railroad tracks and closer to Ridge Avenue in that direction?
Well, as you can see by the drawing, as Schoolhouse Lane angles away, that's where it becomes a very, very steep cliff. And as 135 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 you move it, probably for every foot you would move it towards Ridge Avenue, the cost would go up about $10,000 for that one street.
Let me ask this question: what's the grade from Genesis Terrace to Schoolhouse Lane at the point where you propose to put Founders Place?
And have you explored the possibility of -- again, if you will, in my inarticulate engineering language, have you explored any other rational possibilities of moving Founders Place as far away from the railroad tracks and closer to Ridge Avenue at a point that, for the moment, putting the money aside, would have engineering viability and vehicular safety?
Well, again, as that begins to slope, you're talking about building up the road on one side and basically building a wall to support it and cutting into the side of the hill on the other side. And as you move further down 136 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 there, the cost is going to go up. Like anything else, you know, if you wanted to spend $20 million, you could build anything you wanted to. You have to look and see where exactly that break-even point is. And I think from an engineering standpoint, which is how we had done this, where we placed the road there, was probably the best. We felt that it was far enough away from the railroad to be a safe distance; yet it was still much easier to build the road in that place than it was to build it in another position.
Well, I understand that you don't control the financing on this particular development, but if either PHA or the developer said to you that some additional funding might possibly be available for that road, would you be able to go back to the drawing board and make any adjustments? Is there any, as they often call it, "wiggle room" with this from an engineering and safety standpoint, putting costs aside?
Not from an engineering and safety standpoint. There is some wiggle room as 137 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 long as we connect basically across to Schoolhouse Lane. If you can picture the side of the hill, which is what that is out there, and the land goes down like this, very sharply, where it becomes expensive is in connecting a higher elevation to a lower elevation.
If we move it down parallel, then, yeah, I think we could probably do that -- if the additional funds are made available.
Okay. Let's talk about Founders Place for a second. On the plan I have, Founders Place -- and you'll correct me if I use the wrong terminology -- has a 34-foot wide cartway.
And the cartway, as I best understand it, is for the regular person. That's the roadway and that's where the cars are, right?
Is it possible, 138 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 based on the safety concerns that have been articulated by either current Schuykill Falls residents or East Falls residents who live around the site and have lived in the neighborhood a long time and have safety concerns as well, is it possible to accomplish essentially the mutual goal of having an emergency-only ingress-egress road at that point of a width that is less than the 34-foot wide cartway that is listed on this plan?
I'm not sure about the emergency part of that, but I think we could probably -- there's a little, again, like you said, and I'm quoting you, "wiggle room" in there to narrow that cartway down slightly. However, the Planning Commission would be, I'm sure, opposed because the Philadelphia Code states that the minimum cartway width for that is 34 feet.
In the subdivision code for a standard Philadelphia street, 34 feet is the minimum standard for a cartway.
Well, Mr. Soffer, Mr. Soffer, talk to me about Hilltop Lane and 139 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Falling Water Lane, which, I believe, are streets that abut homes that would be on the site. And again, if I'm reading the plan correctly, those streets are listed as having a cartway of 28 feet, right?
Again, you're right. The subdivision code is meant to be the design guide for everything, but that's why we have a commission. We can look into a narrower cartway, and I think that would be acceptable during a lot of these things since this is not necessarily a residential street, and I don't think it was ever designed to be.
The primary purpose of the street, Mr. Lonie and Mr. Soffer, was for emergency ingress-egress in case something would ever happen in, again, what I would call "the horse shoe area." Because of my concern and the concern of others, both on-site and I believe off-site, that if something happened in that area, 100 homeowners would not be able to get off the 140 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 site if there were no other point like a Founders Place to get off of this property. What I would like to ask is whatever that wiggle room may be, if the purpose of this road is for emergency use, and I don't know how wide a fire truck is, I don't know how wide a medic unit is or a car. But it would seem to me that for those purposes, you don't necessarily need 34 feet for the cartway to accomplish the primary purpose of why this road exists in the first, place which is for public safety use. What, in your engineering opinion, would be the minimum width to accomplish that particular purpose of a car or a truck, a Philadelphia fire truck being able to access and use that road in either direction at the same time? Because the scenario would be, something's happened on the site, the residents need to get off, they're in their cars, the fire trucks or medic units need to come in at the same time. What's the minimum width you would need in the road to accomplish that purpose?
I would not feel comfortable with anything less than 18 feet; you 141 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 would need 9 feet for ingress and egress in either direction.
So, based on your engineering opinion, Founders Place could, in fact, have an 18-foot-wide cartway, as it will primarily be used only for emergency ingress-egress. Whether you like the word "emergency" or not, its for ingress-egress. It's propose that it be a bollard road that can be accessed by the Police Department, Fire Department, or any security service that may or may not function on the site as the appropriate protocols as to how to use that device in an emergency situation. But you're saying that an 18-foot-wide cartway would accomplish that particular goal?
An 18-foot cartway would logistically allow two vehicles to pass each other there. Again, you would not allow parking in that street, you would not allow any activity in there. And you would need that because other than that, you could not get a fire engine in there if it became necessary to do so.
How can -- go 142 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 ahead.
I was going to say, one of the other problems we have to be aware of -- and, again, that's just one, which is driving. There are also utility easements that need to go through there, again, for economic reasons that we would not be comfortable having less than that 54-foot- wide right-of-way. Whether we constructed a narrower cartway is something that we could discuss and probably, you know, work on. But again, because of the Water Department with the sewer tie-in and different things like that, it would be necessary to maintain that right-of-way area.
Well, you need the right-of-way because if we had utilities in there, we had to essentially have the right to get to them and work on them.
Okay. For the plan that's in front of us today, if, as indicated, has 143 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 a 34-foot cartway, how do we get it down to 18?
I -- I -- I'd really like to sit down with some of the folks and deal with some of our actual transportation design engineers and see if we could come up with that. Now, whether this cartway at this point in time is 34 feet or 64 feet or feet, it does 9 not change this ordinance. This ordinance does 10 not say how wide that has to be. The only time 11 that is finally decided is when the City Plan is 12 could be firmed by the Board of Surveyors. That's 13 when that final determination will be made. 14 If this ordinance passes -- which I 15 hope it does -- we can sit down and negotiate, and 16 that will not change that at all. We can still do 17 that and make that cartway what we feel is 18 necessary.
Well, when you say what you feel is necessary, that means that you've also taken into consideration the issues as articulated either by the East Falls residents around the site or even the on-site residents who have as well expressed the same concern of wanting to have emergency ingress-egress, but also not 144 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 wanting to have a full drive-through street.
That's correct. And, again, that will still -- may -- will not be finalized until this plan is confirmed by the Board of Surveyors. And, again, that will not affect this ordinance one way or the other, because the ordinance does not -- it authorizes us to place a street; it does not necessarily say where; it does not necessarily, except in the code, say how wide it must be; it only authorizes us, as the Board of Surveyors, to place it. If we place that street and this ordinance passes, then be we can sit down and deal with those issues at a later time, without taking up Council's ideas. I mean, that's something, I suppose, that, you know, your office and the engineering people and the community should kind of work out together. And I think we can do that.
Well, let me just -- I mean, you'll hear a fair amount about this, but maybe I should prepare you for it. This has been an ongoing discussion for a long time, and I will diplomatically say that there has not been a significant amount of 145 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 openness about this particular issue. And the conflict here is, we're faced with a bill, we need to put streets on, the project needs to get started, it can't get started without its financing, the financing people want to see that they've got their proper zoning and they've got streets that they can go ahead and build. So there's a little bit of pressure on one side of this. That's compounded by a lack of compromise at times on the Streets Department's side of this in understanding what the real needs and issues are for the people on-site and off-site. The primary purpose of this road and the concept of this road was for emergency use. The railroad people understand, or are certainly aware, that at some point in time, the 300-plus people who have who will live at this site may want to talk to the community about this issue again, and you can't certainly stop people from wanting to have a discussion about something that now affects them as homeowners, renters on a brand-new development, but that really is another issue for another day. My goal here today is to make sure that 146 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 not only we get an ordinance done and get streets on the plan, but that we have a clear record about what the purpose of this street, what the legislative intent is, and what the commitments are that have been made, both from a zoning standpoint where, the developer agreed to own and build this road for emergency ingress-egress purposes, that is the same level of agreement that the developer has made with the off-site East Falls residents. So there is a conflict but at least the record should be clear that I support those agreements that have been made, we need to get along with this process, but we need a lot more openness on the Streets side, the Streets Department side on this particular issue. And your testimony, I believe, has been helpful in clarifying what can and cannot be done, what the needs are, and what the issues are at this particular point. Are you -- this is my last question, and then the community people wish to testify. Are you in a position to -- strike that. I don't have any more questions for Mr. 147 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Lonie and Mr. Soffer, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lonie, in the event that there was a quote/unquote emergency road, how would that operate? I mean, is it a turnstile? I mean, how do you determine when it can be used and when it cannot be used?
Well, I believe Councilman Nutter's referring to bollards that basically have locks in them, and what you can do is, certain people -- the Fire Department, the Police Department, and in certain cases, I'm sure, members of the community -- would have a key that they could simply turn and knock them over. You wouldn't want to have anything temporary. I believe that's what you're referring to, Councilman?
Yes. Councilman, in another part of my district, which my constituents have heard too much about over the past couple years, there was a similar situation. 148 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 A development was built with 300-plus units, and there was only one way in and one way out. The residents on that particular sites, for years, prior to my even getting in office, complained that they were literally hostage if something ever happened out on (unintelligible) Avenue, in Roxborough. They eventually, through a driveway concept, were able to access another street. There is a device that is called a "collapsible bollard" that goes up about four feet high, kind of stands right in front of you, and if you have a couple of them across the road, cars can't go through, but people can walk in between them, bikes can go through, carriages; just about everything can go through except a car. Down at the bottom -- police and fire carry them in their vehicles. It's something similar to the key that you use for fire hydrants. You turn it and it goes down, and then the vehicle can go over it. And in that particular case, only police fire or security service would be able to operate it in an emergency situation. So it's a way of preventing 149 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 the back and forth of vehicular traffic, and that's what we proposed at that location. Generally the way it works is, certainly police and fire -- there have been discussions at Schuylkill Falls that eventually, there will be some kind of -- I mean, there will certainly will be a management company on-site, and there's been talk of a security service, potentially resident-owned on-site. Out of those discussions have come, if this were to happen, the security service would have a protocol to deal with the bollard, anticipating that they would be on-site, and if something happened, they would have quicker access to it maybe than the Police or Fire Department because of, you know, response time and that kind of stuff. We have not gotten to the point, quite honestly, of the larger discussion about, you know, is Miss Jones, a block away, is she going to have a key? Or Mr. Williams, who lives on-site and is the closest house to it, is he going to have a key? I mean, we haven't gotten to that level of detail yet. 150 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
Mr. Chairman, I think you can call the residents up. I want to read one letter into the record. Then I will be done.
While Councilman Nutter is reading that letter, the witnesses can come forward and have a seat at the table, please. (Witnesses come forward.)
Mr. Chairman, this is a letter from Mr. Matthew J. McCrory, Jr., Deputy Commissioner, Technical Services, Philadelphia Fire Department, to Joseph Syrnick, Chief Engineer and Surveyor, Department of Streets. The memo's dated March 5, 1999. The subject is Schuylkill Falls Housing Development. The memo reads: "The Fire Department has reviewed the Perks-Reutter plans for the Schuykill Falls Housing Development. We agree with the Streets Department that the temporary street, highlighted and labeled as 'Z' on the plan, should be a permanent street. 151 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 "Many times during Fire Department operations at emergency scenes, fire apparatus and police vehicles block each other in. This is especially critical when medic units must transport patients from a scene to a hospital. "Having a second way into and out of this 300-unit development will benefit the Fire Department, and more importantly, the people that live there. "If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 686-1304." Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Are you the only one testifying from the community? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. 18
All four of you will be? Well, whoever else is testifying, you can come up and sit at the table and pull up a chair and get around the table now if you're going to testify now to make it easier. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She's going to wait to hear what we have to say. 152 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
Oh, okay, sure. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If we miss anything, she's going to do cleanup.
My name is Marjorie E. Greenfield, and I have had the pleasure of testifying before you before. I am the Vice President of the East Falls Community Council. I chair its zoning and land use committee. And I have worked long and hard with other people in the community on this development, which we think will benefit everybody in the community. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, and I want to tell you that I've lived in East Falls for 15 years. I think you know East Falls is a neighborhood which runs approximately from Wissahickon Avenue to the river, and from the park, west to Schoolhouse Lane to the Boulevard. Now, I'm appearing before you today because the community at large has a grave concern about the course taken in the planning of the new Schuylkill 153 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Falls Development and the attitude and actions to date -- and I begin to hear a glimmer of hope, but I'll withhold judgment -- of the Streets Department with regard to the community's concerns about safety. By way of background, over the last two or three years, I've been personally involved in community attempts to have the Streets Department address in a constructive manner our concerns about traffic, which is overwhelming parts of our neighborhood, about speeding and about congestion and parking problems. While part of the problem is due to lack of enforcement by the Police Department, much is due to the Streets Department's approach, which we have found to be basically inflexible in the interpretation of what it says are applicable regulations. And I believe that Council is not unfamiliar with this kind of approach. We're now faced with a new problem. We have the imposition on the community of a new hazard, and I'm talking about Founders Lane, an unwanted road from the new Schuylkill Falls Development onto Schoolhouse Lane at a point just 154 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 below the railroad crossing of the R6 line. We've tried to resolve this dispute for more than two years. The Streets Department, until today, has been unyielding. I hope that our future discussions will be more fruitful. In the meantime, I think it is important to make a record. For those of you who are not familiar with this road -- and Mr. Markovitz has pictures -- Schoolhouse Lane at that point is quite steep and narrow. The site lines are poor. The road is heavily traveled at rush hour and whenever there's a tie-up on the Lincoln Drive or East River Drive. And while the developer and the Streets Department say that this location is a good one for access to Schoolhouse Lane because the grade at the site is just about level with Schoolhouse Lane, if you were to visit the site, you'd find that is simply not the case. The only place it approaches being level is at the railroad grade crossing. Below that there's a significant drop -- I'd say six to ten, twenty feet in various place -- off the site, to Schoolhouse Lane. This means that Founders Lane is going to have to be 155 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 built at a considerable pitch. And into this problem area, the site of numerous accident, the Streets Department proposes to dump more traffic. Now I understand that now they're willing to consider making this an access road only; we're delighted to hear that, but we want to make sure that that happens. We think that it's necessary not only to avoid increasing the traffic on Schoolhouse Lane, but also, if we limit the access on this road to emergency purposes, it will prevent people from cutting through this new residential development to avoid the light at the bottom of the hill. And I can tell that you the East Falls community is at one on this opposition to a road in any way functioning as a regular traffic passage at the site they're talking about.
While Councilman Nutter has discussed his concerns about emergency egress and ingress, and we respect those concerns, we don't all agree with him but we're willing to accept its use as an emergency access. If this, quote, road is blocked by collapsible bollards, which he has described, and if there is an ordinance in place which will 156 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 prevent the opening of that road to regular traffic without an act of Council -- and I don't hear that yet, I'm hoping that it will come -- it is subject to these conditions, among others, that the East Falls Community Council, which represents the entire neighborhood and which is open to all residents of the community, agreed to support the developer's requests for variances at the Zoning Board of Adjustment yesterday, variances which the developer needed to move this project ahead. The variances were granted, subjected to this use limitation and other provisos. We're all working to build a new desirable community at the site of the old Schuylkill Falls project. And if this Founders Lane is left open to traffic, it's going to become a cut-through, which is going to make that community less desirable. The solution, of course, is not to build this road. It should not be a road at all. It should not be built to the specifications on the plan, it should be no wider than necessary to accommodate emergency vehicles. It should be an easement properly built to accommodate emergency 157 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 use and, properly described, an easement which would have to be granted by PHA. It should be a paved dedicated opening designated as a walkway and emergency access. We implore you to take this opportunity to direct the Streets Department, which has been willing up to now to hold up the entire development, from what we're told, because we're told that they simply said to the developer, Put it in or we won't approve your plan unless it gets its way. This has been a streets department which has been unable or unwilling in the past to respond particularly constructively to our community's concerns. We ask you to put in place some constraints and some requirements which will protect us from a road -- an open-access road being in that place at any time now or in the future. We need these restrictions to avoid creating a new hazard on Schoolhouse Lane. It's already too dangerous. Thank you for your attention, and we'd be happy to answer your questions.
Thank you. 158 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Next witness, please. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Michael Markovitz. I'm a resident of East Falls. I live a little bit up on Apalogen Road. I've resided in the area for almost 38 years. I welcome the access to the development that is to be put in. I am, however, very unhappy and dismayed that the Streets Department feels it needs to be done through a street and that a walkway or an easement is not adequate enough. If this development does not find a way to be integrated with the rest of East Falls, it will fail just as Schuylkill Falls failed over the last 30 years. It is important that access, foot traffic and pedestrian traffic and vehicular to the extent of bicycles and strollers and other things, go through this new development up to Henry Avenue and down to Ridge Avenue. It is important that the people and students at Philadelphia University be able to get to Ridge Avenue and to the commercial development that is contemplated by the this development. 159 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 A street doesn't do it. A walkway that has benches alongside of it and other decorative features would greatly enhance the access to this pathway. I am principally concerned about the safety issue with the area below the railroad tracks. For the period ending in June of 1998, there were 36 accidents on the stretch of Schoolhouse Lane between Ridge Avenue and Henry Avenue. The bulk of them were on this part of the road where the Streets Department is proposing to provide an additional access or dumping street into. I have pictures here, which are labeled A to F, which I'd like to submit. And I'll explain the views to you as the committee has them. Unfortunately, I only have two sets. (Pictures are distributed.)
The first picture is labeled A, and I'll share it with the Streets Department since they're here, 'cause if they want to disagree with the pictures, they can. This pictures shows the -- I believe it's the eastward approach looking up Schoolhouse 160 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Lane. You'll see the set of steep steps there that provide access. This picture is taken from the railroad tracks. The second picture, B, shows the steps that I just described.
Picture C shows the railroad tracks that presently abut or form the eastern border of the current Schuylkill Falls Development. And you can see the berm at minimum, and for want of a better word, that is there. And you will also start to see on the edge the project itself. Next is E -- I'm sorry. D is taken looking over the railroad tracks at a field. That field is going to disappear under the plans that have been submitted, and houses will be -- the street, I believe it's called Genesis Drive, that circles the whole thing will go where the field is. Houses will be building up to that and, therefore, the residents will have closer access to Schoolhouse Lane as well as to the railroad tracks. E is a better picture from the railroad 161 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 tracks showing the outline of the building that is presently there. And F, perhaps the most telling of all the pictures, represents the drop-off. This was taken from the railroad tracks, and you can see the crossing sign off to the upper left-hand corner. And it shows how dramatically the road drops off 'cause you don't see it continue. It curves to the right and is very steep. I believe that what I heard from Mr. Lonie's testimony is such that the 50-foot distance is somewhere within this black piece, but it angles up at some kind of significant pitch. So that's the pictures. They speak for themselves. We need curbs along Schoolhouse Lane; they're not there, as you can see. The safety issue really isn't being addressed by putting onto a plan a street that isn't needed. I believe the access issue which we're talking about is one of emergency and, therefore, could easily be handled by way of an easement and not something that's a dedicated street, as on the City Plan. Thank you for your time. 162 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
Good evening. My name is Antoinette Stone. I am a resident of East Falls and I have lived in the neighborhood for almost 9 years. 10 I second the comments made by Miss 11 Greenfield and Mr. Markovitz, and I would also 12 like to mention to Council that for the past two 13 or three years, the neighborhood has been begging 14 and pleading with the Streets Department to listen 15 to us with respect to our concerns about this 16 access road. 17 I can honestly say that now that we're 18 here at the eleventh hour, we still haven't gotten 19 cooperation from the Streets Department. And I 20 would like to ask the representative of the Streets Department who's here today to state on the record his department's intention with respect to the use of Founders Lane, and whether he can commit to the use of that road for emergency purposes only. And if not, why he cannot do that. 163 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Thank you.
Yes, I did. Actually, there's certain things the Streets Department can do and there's certain things the Streets Department can't do, and the only body that can designate something, a street, for whatever reason is this Council. They can authorize us to do things, they can pass ordinances and not call it a street or call it a street. But the original City Charter has given this City Council that authority over us. I don't know anything in the Charter that called the or in the Philadelphia Code that mentions emergency streets. But, again, I think that that's something that this Council can definitely address. I mean, it's not something that's within the power of the Streets Department to do. There are areas of the City, for safety reasons, that temporarily will be closed off. Anytime there's construction, we have to close off a street. But as far as a designating street an 164 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 emergency street, really it's something that would probably require an ordinance of Council. I don't know of any statute or anything that we could do that. I asked Marty, and he --
This witness had asked, you know, if the Streets Department could designate that as an emergency street. And my knowledge of the Code does not allow us -- I mean, I don't know of any -- I don't know how to do that. That's something that, in the original City Charter, was given to -- that power was given to Council, and I'm sure Council can do it somehow or another, but I'm not sure how the Streets Department could accomplish that. (Unidentified person responds off mike.)
Excuse me, ma'am. If you have a question you need to come to the table and identify yourself. And address your question to the Chair, please.
My name is Susan Rubinovitch (ph.), and I am a resident of this 165 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 neighborhood. And from what you just said, since there is no way to call it an emergency egress and ingress, then you're saying it has to be a full street or it is nothing; is that what you're telling us now? A full street, whatever that means in terms of --