COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 11, 2008 10:10 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILLS 080080, 080251, 080376, 080249, 080250, 080381, 080437, 080469, 080491 and 080527 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Rules Committee. The record will reflect that a quorum is present. To my immediate left is Councilman Greenlee. To my extreme right is Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Goode, and I am appointing Councilman Jones to be on the Committee today. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 080080. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 14 amending Title of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by adding a new Section 14-908, entitled "Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District." (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning, Mr. Kramer. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, 3 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Chairman Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 080080, which was introduced into Council January 31, 2008. The purpose of this bill is to establish the first Neighborhood Conservation District, NCD, in the City. Such a district is created in an effort to create design guidelines for new construction or alterations so that the character of the neighborhood is preserved. The zoning overlay district sets forth certain provisions in order for a developer to obtain a building permit for new construction, alteration or demolition of a property within the district's boundaries. These regulations will take into account pre-existing conditions of the properties and will only come into play if a building permit 4 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. is sought. The boundaries of the new district will be the area generally bounded by the north side of Washington Avenue, the properties on the north side of Bainbridge Street, the east side of 6th Street and the west side of Front Street. I digress because an amendment is being proposed which would also exclude properties covered under the South Street Headhouse District. That amendment is forthcoming. The regulations include restrictions on building setbacks, heights, fenestration requirements, parking, decks, building materials for residential properties, and parking and material guidelines for commercial and industrial properties. These regulations are those suggested by the local community group in conjunction with the Councilman's office and the staff of the Philadelphia City 5 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Planning Commission. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of February 19, 2008 recommended that Bill No. 080080 be approved. In the process of negotiation with the various stakeholders, it has been found that some amendments were necessary in an effort to further refine the bill. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission, in conjunction with Councilman DiCicco's office and the Queen Village Neighborhood Association, has prepared such amendments and will deliver them at this time. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions of the Committee at this time.
Mr. Kramer, can you summarize the type of controls that would be placed upon a property owner within the district?
Yes, ma'am. There are -- in the bill there are height 6 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. regulations, which are dictated by the width of the street. So the smaller the street, the shorter the height. There is a recession on a plane, a 45 degree, so that you can't build straight up the street line, but rather recede back the further up you go. You are also having design guidelines requiring a percentage of fenestration, which is windows, openings in the walls. There are -- you have to have the door at least a foot above the sidewalk. Utility meters need to be hidden from street frontage. Fence walls and fences have to be in compliance with 14-2314 of the Code, which means they can't be of opaque material. The minimum aggregate width of the windows shall be at least 33 percent of the total linear frontage. Those are the types of directives in this particular bill. Roof decks have to be set back eight feet from the property line so that they're not visible from the street line. 7 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Those are the types of things that are directed as part of this legislation.
Also, I know you didn't mention about the garages. If garages are essentially prohibited for certain sized properties, does the Zoning Code provide for adjacent or off-street parking for new residential construction?
The Zoning Code on the issue of parking is a rather confusing issue. There are some areas of the City where new construction would not necessarily require parking. For the most part, as a general rule reading the Code, you would have to have one parking spot per new unit of construction. There are areas where that ratio is less and there are at least three areas of the City that are fairly broad wherein unless you are providing a substantial development, in which case your parking has to be provided by rear garage, there 8 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. is no parking required for in-fill development. So if you put up -- and these are primarily directed at existing structures that would not allow you to change the character of the existing community as opposed to new construction meeting a new standard. This would prohibit somebody that had a storefront window from taking the storefront window and turning it into a garage, is really what this is aimed at.
Thank you. Mr. Kramer, Subsection 8 of Section 14-908, "shall expire one year after the ordinance becomes law," why is this?
Partly because this is a brand new type of regulation and to be frank about it, the City Planning Commission isn't sure exactly how we're going to handle all this. We don't know how many permit applications we're going to be seeing, how we're 9 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. actually going to physically be able to handle everything, and we wanted to be able to revisit it in a year to get an experience and see how this would actually function. If I'm misspeaking, Councilman, correct me, but my colleague has usually been the front man on this and, unfortunately, he's out of the office today, so I'm covering that. But that's the way I understood it.
Very well. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Mr. Kramer on this bill? (No response.)
Mr. Kramer, we haven't received anything from the Historic Commission. Do you know what their disposition is on this?
I was at the Historic Commission meeting when this was presented to them and there was some discussion. I believe that some of the 10 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. comments that I saw and heard indicated that they had a concern about some of the boundaries included a street that had a historic designation already incorporated. It was my understanding that the amendments that you see change some of the boundaries to take those historically certified districts out of this bill, and that's what I understood their comment to be.
Thank you very much. I would like the record to reflect that we have two Councilmembers joining us: Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Miller. At this time, I would ask Mr. McPherson to -- MR. McPHERSON: We have some more witnesses.
Oh, do we have anyone to testify on this bill? MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Cole and a 11 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Mr. Hauptmann. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is Michael Hauptmann. I'm on the Board of the Queen Village Neighbors Association. I am a Co-Chair of the Queen Village Zoning Committee and the Neighborhood Conservation District Committee. I am also an architect and a 30-year resident of Queen Village. The architecture of Queen Village touches five centuries, from Old Swedes Church built in 1699 to a 21st century row house currently under construction. This remarkable mix of architectural styles, perhaps more diverse than any other neighborhood in Philadelphia, has produced a uniquely textured environment in which to live and 12 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. work. Remarkably, it has very little protection. We are not like Society Hill, our neighbor to the north, an historic district. And although we have some of the oldest houses in the City, many of these properties are not even on the Historic Commission's list of historic properties. With the enormous increase in property values over the last decade, Queen Village has been left vulnerable to developers who have found it cost effective to tear down old houses and replace them with larger homes, with garage doors facing the street and unreviewed designs. These alterations are slowly fraying the architectural fabric that makes Queen Village so livable and attractive. The guidelines that we have developed as part of the NCD legislation give us, on a very local level, a means by which we can begin to control the future development of the neighborhood. 13 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. They attempt to identify the essential qualities of the neighborhood and provide the means to preserve them. These include issues of massing, materials, setbacks and parking. They help ensure that the streetscape includes stoops, windows on the street and the proper scale of buildings for our smallest, narrowest streets, all characteristics that are not covered by the current Zoning Code. These guidelines do not in any way regulate style or period. We encourage eclecticism and quirkiness. We are not trying to turn Queen Village into Colonial Williamsburg or Disneyland. Nor do they affect existing buildings or minor renovation projects. We have vetted these guidelines over the past four years before several general membership meetings and they have been published in our local newsletter and on our website. Those present at these meetings were overwhelmingly 14 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. supportive. We have incorporated suggestions and deleted items that were unpopular, and we have the full support of the Queen Village Neighbors Association. We ask for your support and to pass this legislation to make Queen Village Philadelphia's first Neighborhood Conservation District. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. I'm Rick Cole. I'm also Co-Chair of the Queen Village Zoning Committee and the Neighborhood Conservation District and I'm also a 30-year resident. Mr. Hauptmann has actually made testimony for both of us, so I'm here to answer any questions if you have questions. 15 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee of the two witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, I thank you for coming in to testify. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Tim Krug. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Tim Krug. I'm a resident of Queen Village. I have copies of testimony if you guys would like them. Good morning. I'd like to thank you for having me here. I apologize for the length of my comments, but I find so much of this bill to be 16 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. objectionable that I can't be any briefer than this. My first objection is to the legislation on the process of creating the Neighborhood Conservation District. As I understand it, the legislation states that unless 51 percent of all residents oppose this legislation in writing --
I'm sorry, sir. Can you speak into the microphone, please.
Sure. As I understand it, the legislation states that unless 51 percent of all residents oppose this in writing, that it will be passed. First of all, the idea that a majority of residents would have to oppose a bill in writing is outrageous, as it is essentially impossible to get that kind of response. When something as important as a presidential election can only be decided with a voter turnout of 65 percent, I 17 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. can't believe that legislation requiring 51 percent of the total population of the area to oppose it even exists. Furthermore, it is clear to me that many residents never received this mailing. I personally wrote QVNA asking for a copy since I never received the original and wanted to know how to oppose it. Not surprisingly, I never received a second mailing either. I was only sent a copy of the letter and the legislation when I requested it directly from Councilman DiCicco's office. I know I am not alone in this, and it is not a case of a few exceptions. Putting aside the fact that many property owners, myself included, did not receive this notice from Council, the actual legislation was never printed in the Queen Village Crier and was never distributed. People without computers or without some comfort level on the Internet never saw the proposed legislation. Furthermore, different 18 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. versions of this bill are circulating, making it even more confusing. Secondly, Queen Village residents were not given an opportunity to vote for or against any aspect of this proposal. Sure, the basic plans for the NCD were presented by committee members in various forms in meetings and were mentioned a few times in the Queen Village Crier. However, the plans were developed by a select group of people and forwarded to Councilman DiCicco without broad neighborhood consensus. Before City Council votes on it, Queen Village should vote on it. With regard to the actual consent of the legislation, I have numerous objections. First of all, it appears that the primary objective to this legislation is to stop the development of garage-front homes. While I understand the desire to prevent the building of more of these homes, I also recognize that this is a problem that was 19 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. originally created by the City and has since been addressed by Councilman DiCicco. If I am not mistaken -- and someone could correct me -- anyone requesting a curb cut on a street where fewer than 30 percent of the houses already have them would be required to obtain a variance already. Furthermore, any future issues with regard to this matter could and should be handled through the rewriting of our Zoning Code. In addition, I think it is wise to avoid creating redundant legislation, as it only serves to add confusion as to which law applies. The last thing this process needs is more gray areas. Secondly, the idea that a small group of residents have the right to determine what they like and dislike and determine architectural styles and guidelines for an entire neighborhood is outrageous. I find it particularly offensive that many neighbors could dictate the style and design of my home. 20 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. I have no problem with requiring owners of historic properties to maintain those properties in accordance with certain guidelines. However, trying to dictate what property owners do with the facades of their own homes in some attempt to create faux historic character is unacceptable. Had I wanted to live someplace where my neighbors could tell me what my house had to look like, I would have purchased a home in a suburban cookie-cutter development. One of the great things about Philadelphia is the variety of architectural styles and material choices you can see on just one single block. One City block may contain ten different styles of housing.
Trying to make our neighborhood homogenous by requiring all of these houses to mimic colonial styles would be a step in the wrong direction. The entire section on materials and design should be stripped out of this bill. No one should have the right to 21 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. dictate the materials that can be used on another person's private property. I don't like vinyl siding either, but if someone wants to use it, so be it. Banning stucco, cement board, et cetera, is a veiled attempt to require that all houses be constructed of brick. There are numerous examples all over the City of facades made of stucco and other materials that are quite tasteful in their design. Though clearly not everyone's taste is the same. Trying to require the rear of someone's house to match the front facade in certain areas is also ridiculous, if not vaguely written in the legislation, as is dictating materials for the surface of a parking lot. We live in a free market, and that free market will no doubt take care of what our current society deems unappealing houses in a wonderful neighborhood such as Queen Village. We don't need legislation to dictate the 22 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. quality of finishes in our homes. The market does that nicely. There is a reason you don't see much, if any, vinyl siding in Queen Village. People don't like it. People won't pay for that which they don't like. Builders aren't going to put vinyl siding on a home in Queen Village, because they know that brick or stone will get them more money. A rehabber looks at it the same way, so does a homeowner. Society and the free market in particular will dictate style and taste and do so far more effectively than any legislation ever could. This bill is so vague and lacking in detail in some cases that it is hard to even argue against it. While we have been told that the Planning Commission review would occur only if permits are pulled, that is not set forth in the bill. There is no definition in the bill of alterations. In fact, the bill itself does not even reference the Planning Commission or any approval 23 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. process. Things such as "visible from the street" are left wide open to interpretation. " These gray areas will end up causing us the most trouble. Contrary to what a few proponents of this bill may believe, passing this bill would be a detriment to the neighborhood. There is no 12 grandfathering of existing properties. Despite the claims that legislation is designed to protect our neighborhood from someone coming in and building an undesirable home, very few buildable lots actually exist in Queen Village today. That leaves only our existing homes that would be subject to the legislation that is supposed to be protecting us. In reality, that means if I seek to change the style and placement of my current windows, nothing in the legislation allows me to do so in an existing, non-conforming location. The bill 24 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. instead imposes financial hardship on residents who must go through the Planning Commission for an approval that may take months or force them to take on expensive upgrades that they may not be able to afford. If my brick facade is in poor condition and cannot be repaired, I could be forced to spend in excess of $10,000 to replace it rather than have a tastefully done modern stucco facade applied for less than half that cost. Despite personal assurances that have been made at the meeting on 5/15 that special circumstances would be met with leniency and understanding, that's simply not what the law states. Even if those special circumstances were granted variances, the process of getting such an approval would still require the services of an attorney, as well as several months of time to make it through the process. There are numerous scenarios that would burden residents financially simply to comply with the 25 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
individual tastes of a few. Furthermore, the idea that the establishment of a Conservation District would somehow help maintain or increase property values is absurd. As a real estate professional and someone who works with builders, developers and investors, I can assure you that the contrary is true. Putting restrictions on properties and adding additional steps to the building permit process only makes a neighborhood less desirable to builders, developers, investors and residents alike. Why would anyone choose to build or renovate in Queen Village and meet the ridiculous requirements set forth by the NCD and spend several extra months carrying the cost of their property while they wait for these approvals? Why would a current resident choose to update their property if they know that applying for a permit could trigger the requirements of the NCD and force them to spend thousands more dollars to modify their home to meet 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the standards set forth by a few neighbors? This legislation will stifle the growth that has helped make Queen Village what it is today and will instead result in the stagnation of our housing stock and leave many of our once beautiful homes in a state of disrepair. Finally, the sunset clause, which many are trumpeting as our escape should this not work out, is, in my opinion, the biggest threat of all. Why? Because once this legislation is passed, it will have to be revisited within a year. It will not be allowed to expire. When it is revisited, I know what the NCD proponents from QVNA are going to say: It's working well, but we want to add this, that and the other restriction to it. And if you think an addendum to this bill 11 months down the road is going to be broadcast, distributed and put out for public comment or vote, I would like to offer you all a deal on the Ben Franklin 27 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Bridge. The revised version, much like the original, will be authored by certain Board members of QVNA, quietly passed on to Councilman DiCicco's office with assurances that the neighborhood is behind it 100 percent, and once introduced, it will be supported by Council. Please do not pass this legislation. People hear the word "conservation" and assume it is a good thing. In this case, it is the worst thing that could happen to our neighborhood, save for someone building a casino here, that is. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Good morning. Are you going to testify, sir?
Please identify yourself. 28 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
I came up because of affiliation. My name is Noah Webster. I'm the Secretary to the South Street Headhouse District, as well as a resident in Queen Village and a business owner. I guess I'm here for both sides of the fence. I'm here to thank Councilman DiCicco and Queen Village for excluding the South Street Headhouse District in this legislation. As a district, we certainly appreciate and hope that it will help us grow so that we can meet the demands of our customers and residents alike. As a resident, I have to respectfully disagree with this legislation and the way it was brought before us. Each time I've gone to one of these meetings -- and I've attended each one of the meetings, public meetings, for this legislation and for the amendment -- I constantly think about what it was like before I moved to Philadelphia and when I 29 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. first moved here, and I think a lot of us inside the system tend to forget that most of the people out there don't know that we exist as neighborhood groups, as legislators, as organizers of many of the things that go on. Now, each time that I've been to one of these meetings, okay, I've asked very simple questions, because I'm a very simple person. I've asked, how is this vote going to come down? How are the land owners going to be able to effectuate change to make sure this doesn't happen? Well, quite simply, if they do nothing, their vote counts as a yes. Fifty-one percent of people, of land owners, have to oppose this law so that it doesn't become enacted? This is just strange. So then the legislation plainly reads that every homeowner, every land owner, must be notified about this hearing, this hearing going on right now. So I asked the simple question, how many 30 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. mailers were put out? Queen Village in their meetings tell me 2,000. There's some minutes to those meetings that now say 3,000. So I go back and ask Queen Village, how many mailers were put out? Two thousand. At the point of those mailers being put out, there were 3,904 land owners within those boundaries. So I don't really care if it was 2,000 or 3,000. The simple fact is not every land owner was notified. Therefore, that negates the entire auspice of this law, because the law plainly says that every land owner must be notified. Now we go into asking. I'm on the South Street Headhouse District. Like I said, we approve this law. However, I must use the knowledge that I have from that, and each member that -- Tim is on the South Street Headhouse District. He's a resident. He did not get a mailer. I did not get one. John Foy, our President, did not get one. The 31 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. owner of Jim's Steaks didn't get one, on and on. A majority of our businessmen all are residents within the district. We didn't get mailers, plain and simple. We didn't get mailers. Therefore, not every land owner was notified. We go into the businesses, like Triad Realty owns a great amount of our South Street Headhouse District. They were not notified. They were not given a mailer. You cannot selectively send out mailers. Even if you don't have enough time, it's not my fault. Simple fact is, not everyone was notified. Now, besides that issue, when this was originally created, the originating law says that 70 percent of the area must be residential. The original boundaries of the law that were in the original law, it was only 51 percent residential. Why? Because it included the riverfront and it included the South Street Headhouse District. And 32 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. you could say, Well, they changed it and this and that. Well, this goes into Tim's point that this law has been changed so many times and the community at large does not know about the changes. Even if they are knowledgeable, even if they are one of the insiders in Philadelphia, they don't know about the changes and the boundary changes that have happened that exist today.
They don't know about it. They weren't posted on the Queen Village website, this and that. Thirdly, you want to talk about notification. They say that people were properly notified through e-mail. Well, the Sunshine Act doesn't say that people can properly be notified through e-mail. Furthermore, he admits that they only have a few hundred e-mail addresses for QVNA. So only a few hundred people were notified that way. He says they were notified through the Queen Village Crier. Well, 33 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. if half the residents are like my wife, they complain that they're all over the steps and they throw them away before they're even read. Meanwhile, I'm yelling at her saying, Keep it, I want to know what's going on. So right there you got a 50/50 split in our community. And then if you take the simple -- like this is a public policy and, therefore, it should have been dealt with under the Sunshine Act. It should have been in a circulated paper, a properly circulated paper such as the Inquirer or something like that where proper notification was given. That didn't happen. Next, if you look into what is the actual makeup of our district, some people say it's this, some people say it's that. There's really no opinion here. We've got a very large Section 8 community that has setbacks, and the simple fact is, come 10, 15 years, they're going to want to renovate that 34 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. entire area. Are they going to have to get rid of their setback lines and everything? I'm talking about between 4th, 5th, Christian and Washington. Are they going to have to get rid of their setback lines? Are they going to have to become a historic-looking area? The simple fact is that that area is pretty nice now, and there is a lot less crime, there's a lot less violence because of the way that the City of Philadelphia has made that place look. They've cut down the population in half, got rid of two of the problematic buildings that were there, and, quite frankly, they couldn't exist. They couldn't exist under this law. You take a recent coffee shop that opened on 2nd and Christian. Took out what was a dilapidated, condemned building. Used to be an old photo copier guy who didn't care about anything. Turned into a beautiful coffee shop. The way that those renovations are, well, 35 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. since she renovated, her step is higher than a foot. She would have had to do something about that. Her loading zone is in the front. It's not in the back or anything. She would have -- basically she wouldn't have opened up there because of the problems, the problems that would happen if you don't know how to be a part of the inside. And the way the wording reads, even the simplest alteration -- I kindly respectfully disagree with Tim. There is a definition for "alteration" that's in the original law, not this amendment, but the original Neighborhood Conservation District law that occurred a couple years ago. The "alteration" definition states any change that requires a permit by the City of Philadelphia. Well, guess what that could mean? If I want a washer vent for my -- or for my dryer, if I want a dryer vent, I'm going to have to go to the Planning Commission. Why? Because I need a permit to pierce my facade under a 36 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. definition of Philadelphia. That requires a permit. So now I got to go to a Planning Commission just to put in a dryer vent. And they can say, Oh, we won't do that to you. Well, let me tell you something, the Board changes every couple of years. Employees change in the City. People can get very, very nasty in this city, and you know it as well as I do. What could be friendly today doesn't mean it's going to be friendly tomorrow. Finally, simple thing is that the law says that you cannot have any Neighborhood Conservation District that overlays any historic district. Quite frankly, half of this covers a historic district.
In 1979 part of this area became part of the Southwark Historic District. Now, they're going to try to confuse you and say that's a federal thing, yadda, yadda, yadda. This is not true. The Southwark Historic District became a federal district in 1972. Okay? In 1972, it became a federal historic 37 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. district. In 1979, it became a Philadelphia historic district. It is part of our legislation. It is part of our zoning legislation. It was made part of our zoning legislation because us neighbors were afraid that signs were going to pop up everywhere in Queen Village to go for sale for 95. So there are already historic zoning implementations through a Philadelphia historic district, not a national historic district, and, therefore, that negates this entire law. And, lastly, us as a neighborhood, we are so confused right now with boundaries, divisions. When businesses move in, they don't know who to go to for approval. When residents come in, they don't know who to go to for approval. We have no less -- at any given moment there's several overlays that we've got to listen to, different neighborhoods, and the Planning Commission has divided us up even more 38 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. into more neighborhoods. They've divided Queen Village up into Washington Square East and Lombard East and Queen Village. Now from south to Lombard is Lombard East it's called. It's the new trek name. Also Washington East. I'm sure neighborhood groups are going to pop up on those. So as a resident, I'm going to have to now go to Queen Village Neighborhood Association, Lombard East Association, Washington East Association, and then now the Queen Village neighborhood overlay, whatever, Neighborhood Conservation District, and I got to go to Planning to put in a vent to my house or to change the storefront.
Thank you. Just a moment, please. I would like the record to also indicate that Councilmembers Kelly and 39 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Brown are joining us, and at this time, I would like to recognize Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning to both of you. Mr. Krug, just on one thing. Obviously you have a lot of concerns and a lot of opposition to this, I understand, but I have to admit, your last point I really don't follow in your testimony where you talk about the sunset provision being the biggest threat of all. You say in here it will not be allowed to expire. I'm not clear on what you mean by that.
Well, basically what I'm saying is the people that created this district or are attempting to create this district aren't going to simply let it expire. They're going to fight for its existence and they're going to fight for modifications. That's my belief.
But isn't 40 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the other argument -- and other legislation has sunset provisions in it over the years -- that right now you're assuming -- I'm not saying you're right, wrong or indifferent in this -- that there's going to be problems with this. Well, in a year, if that's true, you would have concrete examples of where the problems were. Like somebody applied for permits, couldn't get it, they should have been able to get it, it limited sales, it brought down values. Whatever the case may be, you would have concrete arguments. So I don't see -- and, again, I'm not even going to get into your other arguments where you're right or wrong. You live there. I don't. But I just don't see your argument on the sunset thing. I would think at the very least if we pass this, then at least you can come back in a year, you or maybe some people who support it now can come back in a year and say, Geez, you know what, 41 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. after looking at it, after further review, as they say in the NFL, this doesn't work. So without getting into the other stuff, I don't follow that argument.
I understand where you're coming from, but my fear is that come 10, months from now, the same 10 people that proposed this legislation are 11 going to come back, and I don't feel like this amended version or this secondary review ten months down the line is going to be publicized any better, if not less publicized than the original legislation was. So my fear is that the people that created this proposal are simply going to come back nine, ten months from now and try to make it even more restrictive, being even less public about what they're doing. That's what I'm fearing.
Okay. All right. I hear you. 42 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President, and good morning, gentlemen. I think Councilman Greenlee touched on primarily one of my concerns as it relates to your testimony, Mr. Krug, and you keep implying that there's some sort of a secret agenda here, that in 10 months or 11 months, the revised version would, much like the original, will be authored by certain Board members of QVNA, passed quietly on to Councilman DiCicco. I have been representing Queen Village for over 13 years, almost 13 years now, and I don't know of any time 43 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. that I or any of the Board members, either the present Board members or past Board members, have ever done anything in a quiet fashion. To suggest that a couple of people made up their mind that they want certain things to happen and they want Queen Village to look a certain way and feel a certain way and we're going to go to the Councilman, kind of like the State legislators did two years ago at 2 o'clock in the morning and get some legislation passed, I don't operate that way.
Well, I don't -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I think you were at the last meeting that I attended. I believe you were there. There have been, as Mr. Webster has pointed out, meetings that have been ongoing, many of which he has attended, and as I said at that community meeting, notices are put out by QVNA about a public meeting that they have on a monthly basis. Sometimes people choose 44 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. not to go to meetings, and that's their right to decide whether they want to go or not. But to sit here and suggest that over the last four years that there's not been any public notification or discussion or meetings held regarding this is simply not true, and I just want to put that on the record. We may have our differences on whether we agree with this legislation or not, but this was not done quietly. And I will give you the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Webster and others, that it may not have been -- the notifications that were mailed out maybe could have been done better, but they relied on the Board of Revision of Taxes' information as to who the property owners were. It wasn't mailed out to renters, which is not an unusual way we do things in this manner as property owners. I can tell you that of all the notices that were sent out -- and there's some disagreement somewhere between two 45 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. and four thousand -- I don't know the exact number -- only 200, only 200 people have contacted my office in opposition. So even if you're accurate and the 4,000 notices that should have been sent out were not sent out or not delivered for whatever reason -- and I don't think the QVNA Board sat down and said, Let's not send it to DiCicco or let's not send it to Wilson Goode because we know they're going to be against it, let's send it out to only those folks that we believe would be supportive of it, it didn't happen that way, I can -- let me just finish this point. So even if we use your 2,000 as the number of property owners that were notified, 200 people out of 2,000 have objected to this or sent us any information to the contrary. Excuse me. Thank you. My legislative aide just corrected me. Only 200 envelopes were returned as not having been 46 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. deliverable and only 30 people, 30 people, have objected out of the 2,000. And, again, I'm using your number, not the number that we're being told by QVNA. So that's a significant number of people who either are supportive of this bill or maybe didn't take the time to read it. We can't do it any other way. It's impossible -- and I think I pointed that out -- to physically go around and distribute 4,000 of these letters, unless people from the community want to decide to do that. That's their right. But the Clerk's Office is where those letters were mailed out to the people in Queen Village. That's where they came from. And I know you have a few comments, but, Madam President, what I'd like to do after Mr. Webster is complete is bring the other two witnesses back up from QVNA, because I think they can speak a lot more accurately to the number of mailings that were sent out and the process by which that occurred. 47 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Respectfully, sir, I am not and I would never suggest that anything nefarious occurred between -- that you did anything wrong. I would certainly never suggest that QVNA did anything wrong. And that's the one thing that I think people forget, is that I am a resident too and Queen Village does represent my needs as a resident. So I am certainly not talking down upon them. I'm not talking down upon the people who wish to further this. I just personally don't believe in it and I'm citing reasons why it shouldn't exist. As far as -- the things that concern me was not that some people didn't get things. I know that the BRT is slow in transferring names and everything. The simple fact is that some of the people that I've mentioned quite simply have been residents for over 30 years. They've had the same address for nearly 15, 20 years. And I've looked at their information on the BRT. That's 48 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. where I've got all my facts and figures. And the number of mailings that went out I got from the same exact place you did, from QVNA meetings. That's where I got my information. So whenever someone asks how many mailers were out, I have to rely on what QVNA told me, and that was 2,000 they've told me on a couple different meetings. The meetings in their minutes on their website, one of them says 3,000. So I've got exactly the same information as you, sir, and I certainly would never accuse you of anything. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again, I was just referencing Mr. Krug's comments about somehow this legislation in ten months will be quietly passed on to Councilman DiCicco's office with assurances that the neighborhood is behind it 100 percent, and once introduced, it will be unanimously supported by this Council.
If I may approach 49 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the word "quiet," from dealing with -- you know what I do with the South Street District and whatnot. I firmly believe that we get around any nuance or sake of what's in the shadows and what's out and open by utilizing the Sunshine Act and making sure that meetings and notices are published within 30 days in the newspaper. The simple fact is that these meetings were not published in a circulated newspaper. They were placed in QVNA and a couple hundred e-mails. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I don't know of any civic associations or community associations that do any notification outside of a newsletter, if they happen to have it. There are a number of organizations that I know I represent probably throughout the City that don't even have the ability to put out a newsletter. They rely on volunteers to either put circulars in someone's door or by word of mouth or posters in neighborhood stores. They do 50 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. try their best. I mean, QVNA is one of those civic associations that's fortunate that they have the resources to put out a newsletter, and I don't -- I get a copy of one every month mailed to my office. I don't live in Queen Village. So I have to assume -- and it may be wrong to assume -- that the majority of the people in Queen Village are receiving the Crier, and in the Crier notification of meetings, whether it's for this legislation or any other thing that's happening, in my past experience has been publicized.
But no matter who created this legislation and no matter who is in charge of this legislation, the simple fact is the onus comes down on the City. This becomes a City legislation, and the onus comes on the City, and any legislation that's significant should abide by the Sunshine Act and it should be notified 30 days in advance of a public hearing through a circulated 51 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. paper. This is affecting land owners.
May I address here? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My understanding from my legislative assistant is that the notice was in the Inquirer 60 days prior to.
I was going to say that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And, again, not everybody reads the -- excuse me. Not everyone reads the Inquirer or the Daily News. I guess that's the difficulty in a lot of these things. Some people take the time to read the entire newspaper. I don't. I just read certain portions of a newspaper, and a lot of times I miss things because I don't read the newspaper in its entirety. But there's not much more I think we can do. The process is going through it. You may disagree that the process was not as complete as you would like it to have been. I accept your comments. I disagree with them, but I 52 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. accept those respectfully, and this is that process we're going through. That's why we're here today. And as far as I know, if I remember correctly, the 51 percent was a state statute. I mean, we have to abide by that. We didn't just kind of make that up in Council. To the best of my knowledge, it was a state statute requires when you do these kind of legislation, that 51 percent -- you need 51 percent in opposition. I'm not passing the buck, but it is what it is.
May I comment on your concerns? I didn't mean to imply that any wrongdoing was taking place in your office. Perhaps my use of the term "quietly" brought up some suspicious thoughts. Personally, I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything like that, but it did strike me as odd that so very many of my neighbors who I asked about this mailing didn't receive it and it just struck me as odd, that's all. 53 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. And with regard to quietly being passed along, while the process was publicized at QVNA meetings and through the Crier, the actual legislation was not. It was talked about. It was mentioned, different tenets of it were. But I don't believe the legislation was published. And I believe that even at the last -- at that 5/15 meeting, different variations of the legislation were being passed around. The version on Queen Village's website was not the current version. So unless somebody was Internet savvy and knew where to look for and read the legislation, they didn't receive the notification, let alone the actual legislation.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam President, if I may just point out one more thing. Enabling legislation took place somewhere -- and I was trying to 54 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. get it from Brian -- somewhere between three or four years ago.
Four years ago. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And it was in this Chambers that the enabling legislation was passed. And there were folks from QVNA who were here to talk about it and there was a slide presentation that I believe some of my colleagues -- Councilwoman Reynolds Brown was commenting on some of the homes in Queen Village and I was kind of giving her what I thought those homes were selling for, and she kept -- she was amazed by the sale prices of those homes. So this public process has been going on for at least four years and it began in this very Chambers where we are today. And I didn't take that personal, by the way, but I wanted to establish the record that that's not the way I do business. I think my colleagues understand that. And I won't do that 55 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. going forward. It will be a very public -- as public as I can possibly make it. There's just limitations of what I can do. The rest is left up to the community. And civic associations and people who are involved directly as Board members, my hat goes off to them. It is a very difficult job. It is a thankless job in most cases, and it requires a lot of time and work. And I said this at the last meeting, that maybe more people -- I'm not being disrespectful -- should be attending these meetings, whether it's for this or any other issue, and be more involved, because that's what makes a neighborhood strong. And this legislation came about because people who live in that community care enough about it, and there may be a disagreement, a difference of opinion, on what needs to be done to preserve the integrity of that community, but at least people have taken the time to go out and try to figure out how do we make this 56 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. neighborhood -- preserve what we have and continue to make it a better place going forward. And we may have that -- and that's life, we all disagree on -- some people like vanilla, some people like chocolate, but that's what has taken place here on why we're here today. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Councilman, do you still want the previous witnesses? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes, please. I think I need it for the record on how the mailings were --
Gentlemen, thank you very much. We appreciate your coming in to testify. May we have the previous witnesses approach the witness table, please. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Gentlemen, 57 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. I asked you to come back to the table because you did hear the witnesses, their testimony specifically about the notification, whether it was in the Crier or not, the number of mailings. Could you guys at least for the record tell us what you did and how you did it.
We received the list of property owners from the Tax Bureau. We were assured that that was as accurate a list that we could get our hands on. The City Council, they provided the letter. Queen Village stuffed the envelopes, and I believe that the number was 3,000. They went back to -- and we took the addresses which were printed on labels, put them on the envelopes and sent them back to the Clerk's Office, who actually mailed them. We did find out fairly quickly that a block of -- two blocks of Moyamensing Avenue were missed, and then I personally hand-delivered notices to 58 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. every house along Moyamensing Avenue myself. We heard very little else from anywhere else in Queen Village that there were addresses missed. I'd also like to say that the notification, putting everything in the Queen Village Crier, even though it was published in the Inquirer 60 days earlier, to me we know that every residential property in Queen Village receives a Crier. Whether people read it or throw it out, I can't tell you. But for us -- and, by the way, I want to correct that we have several thousand e-mail addresses that go out. That's our best way of covering the neighborhood. We know that everybody gets a Crier and we know that increasingly everybody gets an e-mail. Not so much, but we do both. I also want to emphasize as strongly as I can that there is nothing in this bill that says what the style of your house has to be. It's not covered at all. We encourage diversity in 59 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. architecture in Queen Village. There's nothing that says it has to be colonial or Georgian or anything. There are some material limitations and that's it. And I also -- I think I need to dispute Mr. Webster's contention that Queen Village is a local historic district. It is not a local historic district. Believe me, if it were, we certainly wouldn't have gone through four years of this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Cole, do you have anything to add?
I just want to add that this was really initiated over four years ago by the Queen Village Neighbors Association Board of Directors, and throughout this process, the whole Board -- we have 12 elected members. They have been in favor of this 100 percent. They've been behind it. It's not a selected group. We and several other members of the community were asked to chair this -- to put this committee 60 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. together to come up with these regulations, but it's been -- it was initiated by the Board, and it's had the support of the neighborhood during this period. The regulations have actually been on our website. Initially what we received from Planning Commission were the draft regulations. Once we received the final regulations, those were also put on our website. So it's been several months now that those have been available on the website.
And I also want to say as far as the Crier goes, I personally wrote at least four articles over the last four years regarding this legislation, and at least once a year there's been an article of why we've been working on this, bringing the neighborhood up to date on it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What list do you use when you mail the Crier? How was that list established? 61 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Well, it's actually distributed by hand by volunteers and block people who pick up the Criers from the main office and then basically put them through every mail slot in the neighborhood. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. So on the letter that was sent out that was returned -- well, actually it was given to the City to mail out through the Chief Clerk's Office. That was First Class mail, right?
As far as I know. You guys mailed it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's why we got the return. I don't have any further questions. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.) 62 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Gentlemen, thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)
My name is Suzanne Schiller. I'm a resident of Queen Village. Most of what I had to say has been said by the other speakers. I'm opposed to this bill. But the one point that I wanted to make is that it was just represented to this Committee that at every Queen Village meeting that was held, the attendees at that meeting were in support of this bill. I personally attended a meeting. Councilman DiCicco was there, other people were here, a few months -- maybe a month ago, and the 63 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. overwhelming view of the people there was not to support the bill. So I just didn't want that misrepresentation to be made in front of this Council. When there have been meetings, it has not been universally supported by the community.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the titles of Bill Nos. 080249 and 080250. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 19 080249, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by County Line, a Railroad right-of-way, Shawmont Avenue and the Schuylkill River, and approving a Master Plan of 64 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Development. Bill No. 080250, an ordinance 4 amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adopting a new Section 14-1635, entitled "River Road District Controls," under certain terms and conditions.
Mr. Kramer, do these Zoning Maps pertain to the same geographic area --
They do? Thank you. Please proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Chairman Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, the Division Director of the Development 65 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill Nos. 080249 and 080250, which were introduced into City Council on March 6, 2008. These bills are part of the City's Act 537 Plan for the River Road area. Under Pennsylvania State law, whenever a change is to occur in the handling of sanitary waste, an Act 537 Plan must be filed. This area of River Road does not currently have a sewer in place. Legislation for the placing of the sewer and modification of the street right-of-way have been considered and approved by City Council. Bill No. 18 080249 and Bill No. 080250 represent the last pieces of the legislative package for that plan and deal with the zoning component. The placing of a new sewer in River Road represents a major investment by the City in new infrastructure. The area is currently zoned R-5 Residential, 66 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. and with the placing of a new sewer and no change in the zoning designation, the concern is that new development would overwhelm the proposed new system and require additional investment by the City. Additionally, the development of this area consistent with the R-5 Residential classification would change the very nature of the community that exists here. These two bills will both protect the investment in this infrastructure and serve to protect the existing community along River Road. The first, Bill No. 080249, will change the zoning designation of River Road to a zoning designation of RC-6 Residential. The RC-6 zoning classification establishes the zoning requirements for an area based upon the adoption of a Master Plan for that area. The Master Plan has been drafted by the staff of the Planning Commission in coordination with the Water Department, the Managing Director's Office, the 67 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. District Councilperson's office and the community. In developing the Master Plan, it became apparent that some residents wanted to be allowed to have some development of their properties permitted. To accomplish this, policies were developed to serve as a guide for such proposals. Because the area is in the 100 year Flood Plain and provides a beautiful setting for this area of the Schuylkill River, the policies have been that no new development would be permitted on the river side of River Road. The only exception to this would be instances where the lot only existed on the river side and no other option was viable. In instances where a parcel existed on both sides of the River Road, any new construction would be required to be located on the land side of the property. The Master Plan was presented to the community and approved in December 2007. 68 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Since the bill was introduced, a homeowner has come forward and presented plans for a new home, which required an amendment to the Master Plan. That plan is here and was considered and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 15, 2008. On behalf of the City Planning Commission, I respectfully request that Bill 080249 be amended to change the exhibit from a map identified as Rev 7 to one identified as Rev 8. Bill No. 080250 establishes a new special controls district section of the Philadelphia Zoning Code. This bill 17 prohibits certain uses in this Master Plan that otherwise would be permitted. These are restaurants and multi-family dwellings. Bill No. 080250 establishes a height limit for the area of 35 feet or three stories measured above the grade of the 100 year Flood Plain. It also establishes the criteria by which the Master Plan can be amended in the future. 69 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
This includes requirements for a topographic study, a hydrological study, a soil study and a requirement to replace trees lost as a result of the development and approvals from both the Department of Public Health and the Philadelphia Water Department. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of April 15, 2008 considered and approved the Act 537 Plan for River Road, a portion of which is the subject of Bill No. 080249 and Bill No. 080250. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Can you explain for the record the differences of what uses are allowed in R-5 Residential and RC-6 Residential?
The R-5 Residential classification in the Zoning 70 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Code primarily permits only single-family dwellings. It also permits certain non-residential uses such as churches, schools, fire stations, police stations, that sort of non-residential use. The RC-6 classification is intended to preserve development or cluster development around certain areas to preserve an environmental or historic site. In this particular instance, we were using it to establish the existing conditions as the baseline. The uses normally permitted would also include multi-family dwellings, would include certain commercial uses would be permitted in RC-6, which have been specifically excluded under the overlay controls of Bill No. 080250.
Thank you. Exhibit A to Section 2 of the bill is impossible to read.
Can you explain what is provided for in the Master Plan so that we are being asked to vote on something that we really --
If I may, that's why the bill also indicates that the plan would be maintained by the Clerk's Office. Owing to the size of the paper -- and this is the Master Plan for River Road as we want to amend it. You see from the size when you try to shoot this down, computer-wise I can make it any size I want, but you can't read it when it gets that low. The Law Department agrees with you, and as long as there is a copy on file in the Clerk's Office, then that is sufficient. This can be examined, and this is the scale at which it was presented to the community, and you're welcome to examine it at this time or whatever is your pleasure.
Anybody want to see it now? Anyone want to see it now? 72 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. (No response.)
We can view it in the Chief Clerk's Office. Is it this exhibit that you reference in your testimony and request that a map be changed from one identified as Rev 7 to Rev 8?
From the map it looks like all of the structures are located on the northeast side of the Schuylkill River. Is the southeast side of the river within Philadelphia? If so, how is it zoned? If not, what are the allowable uses on that side of the river?
The other side of the river is in Montgomery County and I don't know what their Zoning Code allows or does not allow over that side of the river.
Okay. Are all 40 of the existing residential structures within the district going to 73 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. be connected to the new sewer system?
Are there any non-residential structures in the proposed district?
Will existing zoning or the provisions of this bill prevent the construction of any new non-residential uses?
Yes, ma'am. It would require an amendment to the Master Plan to allow that. So it's not a carte blanche denial of anything, but you would have to go through a procedure or policy through the Planning Commission and then through City Council in order for that to happen.
Not 74 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. seeing the Master Plan, it's hard to -- the Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Committee. I want to first acknowledge the hard work done by your department in preparing this. This is not a new endeavor, but one that has transcended years and also administrations.
Just to add some kind of overview, that this area is a phenomena in my district that has grown from almost a non-permitted use to now finally being a part of the infrastructure of the City of Philadelphia, and we were compelled in some instances to do this work because of environmental issues that would not comply with State laws by way of use of septic tanks and others that pose an environmental hazard to not only the residents in that area but to a great number of citizens down river of River 75 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Road. This $4 million infrastructure investment is something that the State wants us to do and I think as a municipality, we should do. Only one amendment, and this is a part of what this hearing and discussion is, that I have another rendition of that Master Plan that would for reasons include several other parcels on the western side of River Road. Am I saying that correctly?
That should, in my opinion, be grandfathered in because they were structures that were there for at least arguably five years and possibly as long as ten years, and these structures -- if you'll bring that up, I want to show this Committee. There are several residents that would like to maintain their right to, based on certain conditions, to use what are existing trailers that have been 76 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. there arguably between a half a decade and a decade to be able to build on the eastern side of River Road, as you can see there. The issue becomes whether or not as you see some of the other buildings on that side that are also being grandfathered in. They went through a permitted process and are allowed to be there under L&I specs. These two parcels that I'm asking for the exception just kind of grandfathered their way in to the process, and the reason that I'm going for this is that this has been -- River Road has been an unconventional planning process and it's probably a case study for urban environmental planning in the future. But I offer that to members of the Committee as the only exception to the plan. Otherwise, I agree with the plan presented by the Department.
If I may, the 77 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. planning question is grandfathering in two buildings which were erected or placed on site without the benefit of permits. For a variety of reasons, that's why they were not included in the original consideration or revision that the Planning Commission considered. If the bill is amended to do that, I am directed to take the matter back up to the Commission for their consideration for the amended Master Plan and it would be going there with a staff recommendation of disapproval, owing in large part because of the policies that we dictated with other development that was proposed for the River Road area. There are representatives here from the community that may be able to address that better than I, but as a procedural matter, I would have to -- because it has not been considered by the Commission, I would have to take that back to their meeting and have them consider that, and it would go back with 78 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. a recommendation from the staff of disapproval.
Mr. Kramer, did you indicate that you had an amendment?
I'm sorry. Thank you. And that will go to the Chief Clerk's Office?
Thank you, Madam President. Acknowledging the fact that this does transcend two administrations, could you provide for the record briefly what the interface with the community has 79 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. been.
This started two years ago in June on a very, very hot day in a very non-air conditioned auditorium. The Councilman at that time, Councilman Nutter, set up the meeting. There were, at my recollection, somewhere about 200 folks that came out to understand and learn what we were trying to do. And it was a presentation by a myriad of agencies, the Health Department, Water Department, Streets, myself, all dealing with how to put a new sewer in to River Road, and the basic premise for the whole thing was the water table is high, as you might imagine given the proximity of the river, and it was making it difficult for the septic systems to function well, and the State was concerned that pollution was running into the river and wanted the City to do something. This was what was done. I have a part in that, and the part that I have was trying to develop 80 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. zoning controls that would then be utilized. We met with the community then. We met with them several times thereafter. I don't have the exact dates. There was a small working group that we met with a couple times to go over the ideas and get questions and feedback, but there have been no less than three different public meetings over the last two years where we have presented the Master Plan to the community in its entirety and asked for feedback and comment from them.
Okay. And the feedback and comment has been in writing or how? Through future meetings or how?
Well, I was there to accept comments and take written notes on plans that are all sitting in this file so that the comments that we would get from people, we would sit after -- we would do an explanation of what we did and then sit at a table with whoever 81 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. wanted to discuss whatever component of the Master Plan and made notes on it as to what changes needed to be made or reflected in the Master Plan, and that's why you have eight revisions to this plan.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Do we have anyone to testify on this bill? MR. McPHERSON: Yeah. Mr. Tom Landsman is the next witness.
Who 82 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. is that, Mr. McPherson? MR. McPHERSON: Tom Landsman.
Please approach the witness table, sir. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. My name is Tom Landsman. I'm not used to speaking in the microphone. I'm here to testify on the history of the process. I'm not going to comment on Rev 7, Rev 8 or Rev 9, because the Planning Commission, or whoever, created them. In June of 2006, I was the Civic President. At that time, we had Michael Nutter as our Councilman. James Donaghy was working with the Managing Director, and Bill Kramer was and still is City Planner. 83 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. As Bill said, we met in a school on a warm day, and the City had a problem. They had to comply with the 537 Act and enact a sewer system, and they wanted a sewer system that would -- they'd only have to build once. They wanted to retain the nature of the community, so they thought outside of the box and they said RC-6, create a Master Plan based on primarily what's there, with some development. The City was concerned. They had Health and Safety there about removal of residents during times of flood. If you're on the river side of the road, the only way to get somebody out is by boat, and one thing that I have seen a few times and it ain't pretty is a fireman in a boat. They're much better in a big red truck. Basically, so they want to limit the development along the river's edge for safety reasons. They wanted to retain the nature of the community. But 84 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. they also said, What do you want? The community will create a Master Plan. So at that time, as I said, I was responsible for the Civic. Me and our Board created a survey basically of what does the community want. Some of the highlights of the survey were no 9 subdivisions, no commercial development, no restaurants, of course, exclusively single-family dwellings, no duplexes, no 12 semi-detached single-family dwellings. There was heights and setbacks and other things. Anything that any community person, whether it was relevant to the survey or not, put down in this survey, we listed and we forwarded it to the Planning Commission, and then the Planning Commission started their process of planning, and that was pretty much the end of the Civic's portion of the planning. From that point on, it was the residents of the community individually 85 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. contacting the Planning Commission or the Council office. We've had Michael Nutter, then Carol Campbell and now Curtis, Mr. Jones, with their individual requests. There's been a number of meetings over the years to amend the process. We're up to a Rev 8 or 9 or whatever. So each Rev came out of a meeting or interaction. I personally was not present for most of the meetings. I travel to earn my living. But it didn't really matter. It's a community input. The Civic's involvement was not to steer the Master Plan. It was basically to inform the community. I will speak on behalf of Rev 8 because I'm very familiar with it. It was, I believe, the City Planning said no 21 new development on the river side of the land. If you have the land and you have land on the road side or the railroad side, your new dwelling had to be on that side. If you didn't have land on the 86 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. road side, you get a new development or a new dwelling on the river side, because you have a piece of dirt and you want to develop it. They've been fair to all. As the Civic liaison, I was to inform the community. I received at least a half a dozen rejection letters sent out to the community residents basically saying it doesn't comply, no new development on the river side. I personally own subdivided lots on the river side of the street that are not -- under this Rev 8 at least can't be developed.
If Rev 8 is enacted, I have spoken to the Preservation Alliance about this open space, the private residents creating open space easements on their now vacant land, and if I'm successful with that, which I would like to be, I would like to come back and revisit the Council Chamber sometime in the future with open space easements to sustain a 87 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. riparian buffer along the river's edge, which is quite a pretty place actually. I live there. I like it. And for doing that, I would ask, since I receive separate tax bills for my river side land and many of my residents do, some property tax relief. I think it would better the community. It would make the City more livable as a whole with some green space. It would make it safer for firemen. Like I said, it's not pretty seeing the fire guys in a boat. And it would retain the character of the street, which is in compliance with the original survey, which was produced back in September of '06 and submitted to City Planning. That's basically it, I think.
Thank you very much. Any comments or questions from the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones. 88 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony, and I'm glad to have been down there and been educated as to the beauty of that area. I understand the strong need, strong need to preserve what you have. There is a knee-jerk reaction whenever you have a beautiful view like that to develop on it and to make it commercial and to change its character, and I understand the strong resistance from the community, not only there, but your neighbors up the hill, to remain as you are and have the open space character that you have. It is a different type of community and requires a special kind of treatment, and I'm honored that you guys took me back there to share that with me. So I just want to say that on the record. Thank you very much, and we're going to work real hard to keep it that way.
I appreciate 89 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. that. One of the things that you have to remember is the people that don't have -- are landlocked want to sustain their view. Some of the people who have open space on the opposite side and considerably more open space on the opposite side on the river side of the road saw the Master Plan as a taking basically, because here I got 75 percent or 80 percent of my land that I should be able to develop under R-5, that the Master Plan is going to create another step. However, by limiting development, the City has met its goal, safety, sustaining the character of the neighborhood and the original goal or the original survey response goals were also met, sustaining the character of the neighborhood. Not everybody is happy. There was, like I said, a half a dozen people who got formalized letters from Planning Commission that said unh-unh, and then there's a few more that have probably 90 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. taken it a whole other step. I'm not here to create an opinion on that. I'm just here to tell you that as far as the Planning Commission, James Dunaghy, the Councilman Nutter when it started, the intentions were pure. They thought outside of the box, and the Council -- the Planning Commission has been very fair. It's either black or white. You're either compliant or you're not. And in fairness to the people that got rejected, when they see they got rejected but their neighbor got rejected for the exact same thing, they all feel fair, and that's all we want, is a fair bill.
Do we have anyone else to testify on the bills before us? (Witness approached witness table.) 91 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
We as members of the Committee are willing to sit here as long as it takes. We do have any number of bills that are scheduled and we would like to hear everybody that's here. So I would just ask if people could be brief in their testimony, it would give us an opportunity to hear everyone that has been here since 10 o'clock this morning. Hello. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Robert Small. I'm a resident of River Road, and I will keep my comments very brief. I basically agree with Mr. Landsman's testimony. This process, as Mr. Kramer has said, has been going on for two years. I feel it's been a fair and open process. As Mr. Landsman had said, the residents were given opportunities to give feedback to the City, especially the Planning Commission, and I have spoke with Mr. Kramer on 92 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. several occasions specifically regarding my property. Property owners were given an opportunity to give feedback on the future development of their individual properties to the City, and in that vein, I submitted a proposal to the Planning Commission, and my proposal was to develop the parcel of property that I own between the river and River Road, and that proposal I made was turned down by the Planning Commission. I had conversations with Mr. Kramer about that, and my concern was that if that was the City's position, that their position be fair and that all residents be treated the same, and if I wasn't going to be given the opportunity to develop my property, that the same applied to the other residents that had property on the river side of River Road. And Mr. Kramer assured me that that was the case, that that was the Planning Commission's position. Under those circumstances, I could accept the decision of the Planning 93 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Commission and the City. I want to maintain what we have in our area on River Road. I don't want to see -- I personally don't want to see overdevelopment. I like the way our community is with single-family dwellings. And I feel that as a result of the process with the Planning Commission, their Revision 8 reflects what Mr. Kramer had told me and the City's position, and I feel that it treats all the community members fairly. My concern with Rev 9 is that if that is adopted, that that would be a problem concerning the fairness issue. So I am in support of the Planning Commission's Rev 8 on this project. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we 94 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. have anyone else to testify on these bills? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 8 080251. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 10 establishing a neighborhood improvement district in an area that generally includes the east and west sides of Aramingo Avenue starting at 2700 Aramingo Avenue to 3995 Aramingo Avenue and the following blocks of streets: 2345 to 2363 East Allegheny Avenue; 3300 to 3700 Gaul Street; 3300 to 3700 East Side Tulip Street; 3300 to 3400 Memphis Street; 2201 to 2270 East Butler Street; 2230 to 2701 Castor Avenue; 2500 East Ontario Street; 3701 to 3801 Sepviva Street; 3740 East Thompson Street; 2400 to 2627 East Tioga Street; 2335 to 2501 East Westmoreland Street; 2415 to 2651 Wheatsheaf Lane; to be known as the Aramingo Avenue Shopping 95 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. District. And the individual that I have to testify on this is Randy Hofer, the Aramingo Business Improvement District. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
-- members of Council. We're just here to take any questions, as we had testimony on April 30th of 2008.
Well, we did have previous testimony on this. If you'll just give me a minute, please. Now, there have been meetings with the affected property owners?
Since the last meeting April 30th, we've had one Business Association Board meeting, and it is part of the minutes and has been discussed currently with everyone. As 96 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. you're aware, the second mailing with the final plan has been mailed out, and we're in the position now, I guess, after final plan for 45 days of review by the land owners, tenants.
No. We're here for the final plan review in front of Committee. (Off-the-record discussion between Councilmembers.)
We just wanted to make certain that we were doing the right thing here. I understand that the bill will be reported out of Committee, but it would have to lay over for 45 days. So this would probably be voted on then in September. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Final passage. For all intents and purposes, 97 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. we could pass it today.
Right. Okay. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Mr. McPherson, would you please read the title of Bill No. 080376. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 18 establishing a neighborhood improvement district in an area that generally includes Cheltenham Avenue with boundaries of Wadsworth Avenue on the west, Broad Street on the east, Ogontz Avenue with boundaries of Cheltenham Avenue on the north, 67th Avenue on the south and Wadsworth Avenue with 98 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. boundaries of Cheltenham Avenue on the northeast and Michener Avenue on the southwest; to be known as the Greater Cheltenham Avenue Business Improvement District. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of City Council. My name is Andrew Frishkoff and I'm the Director of Neighborhood Economic Development for the City of Philadelphia's Commerce Department. I am here today to provide testimony in support of Bill No. 080376. The bill 19 would allow for the approval of the establishment of the Greater Cheltenham Avenue Business Improvement District. The creation of business improvement districts is consistent with the City's Strategic Plan, especially with the core service areas of Jobs and 99 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Economic Development and Healthy and Sustainable Communities. BIDs are also consistent with the goals of the Commerce Department's neighborhood economic development strategies to help re-establish neighborhood commercial corridors as central places to work, shop and meet neighbors. BIDs strengthen local business communities through cleaning, beautification, public safety and marketing activities. The proposed Greater Cheltenham Avenue Business Improvement District is a bi-municipal BID covering areas in Philadelphia and Cheltenham Township. My understanding is that it has the full support of Cheltenham Township. For Philadelphia, using the Board of Revision of Taxes' assessment from 2007, the district's assessment fee will be calculated as 6.3394 percent of the real estate taxes due on Philadelphia commercial properties and 3.1697 percent of real estate taxes due on residential 100 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. properties that contain five or more residential units. The estimated first year budget for the Philadelphia BID area will be $38,000. The proposed revenue and expenditures on the Cheltenham side will be approximately $400,000. The proposed first year services include area cleaning, security ambassadors, and marketing. These activities are consistent with those of other BIDs in the City. The Commerce Department is supportive of these proposed services as long as they have the backing of the affected businesses. The only concern that the Commerce Department has with the proposed Greater Cheltenham Avenue BID is that the annual revenue and expenditures for the Philadelphia portion are lower than those of most successful BIDs in the City. This may necessitate supplemental fundraising on the part of the local business community in order to ensure provision of adequate cleaning and safety 101 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. services. The local business community has a track record of such fundraising and it should be able to supplement the new BID revenues. Several organizers and supporters of the proposed BID are here today to testify on behalf of the bill. While I will be happy to answer any questions you may have, they are the local experts who can best present the vision and the particulars about the proposed BID. Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Thank you. Exhibit A states, as you have indicated, that the proposed budget for the district is $38,033.96 in the first year, with adjustments upwards at the rate of four percent per year. Would the projected budgets contained in Paragraph 5 of the exhibit be consistent or vary in accordance with changes in assessed 102 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. values?
The projections would be that as far as anybody can anticipate, that they would go up with changes in the assessed values. The one universal statement that I will share from the Commerce Department perspective is that the prospect of changes in possible full valuation in future years for real estate taxes make it a little bit difficult for BIDs to project forward what the actual changes would be. But I think I can speak for the proponents that this is the best estimate that we have at this point for the future.
Exhibit A-3 provides for a proposed budget as described in Exhibit A, but also makes reference to a $400,000 budget. What does this amount refer to? Is the remainder of approximately $360,000 per year to come from property owners in Cheltenham?
Yes. The 103 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. answer is yes.
Are there additional sources of funding, to your knowledge?
Additional sources other than the Philadelphia assessed fees and the Cheltenham fees?
I will just add one piece. This is more on the capital improvement, which is the City is looking to make capital improvements to the ReStore Corridors bond proceeds to parts of Cheltenham and Ogontz Avenue on the Philadelphia side. While that will not directly tie the BID services, those improvements should make it easier to clean and maintain public safety in those areas. 104 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Fine. Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Council President Verna, other members of the Rules Committee and members of City Council. My name is Denise Holloway from the Office of State Representative Dwight Evans. I am here today to testify on behalf of Bill No. 080376, which establishes a neighborhood improvement district known as the Greater Cheltenham Avenue Business Improvement District, BID. This district focuses on 105 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. revitalization of portions of the economic corridors of Cheltenham Avenue, Ogontz Avenue and Wadsworth Avenue. With me today is Tyrone Holland, Director of Economic Development for the Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation, OARC, a participating member with this BID. Tyrone will give testimony that represents a broader look into other economic development activities within Northwest Philadelphia that will complement this BID. The Greater Cheltenham Avenue Business Improvement District is the second phase of a larger plan, the Cheltenham/Northwest Philadelphia Inter-municipal Cooperative Planning Initiative. In the past, the commercial areas of Cheltenham, Ogontz and Wadsworth Avenues were vibrant, bustling strips catering to the many needs of those it served. However, in most recent years, these same corridors have been slow to attract high-quality merchants and are 106 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. perceived to be unclean and unsafe. The BID is looking to reverse this trend. Through cooperation with Cheltenham Township, some of the benefits of the BID are: Commercial enterprises within Northwest Philadelphia and the region will increase their market share; BIDs have worked successfully in over a thousand communities, including several in the Philadelphia region and a bi-municipal BID in City Avenue; BIDs keep costs low because all the owners share the cost of security, cleaning and marketing. On average, this BID will cost each property owner approximately $224 per year or about 61 cents per day; BIDs are planned and run by businesspeople, those being assessed; BIDs increase property values for merchants and those in the surrounding residential area; BIDs promote neighborhood beautification; 107 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. BIDs enhance public safety; BIDs improve customer experience; and BIDs improve quality of life. Tyrone Holland, OARC's Director of Economic Development, will now present a broader view of the economic activities in the West Oak Lane area. We will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this day. I also want to include that I do have some proposed amendments after Mr. Holland's testimony.
Mr. Holland, just identify yourself for the record and proceed, please.
Yes. My name is Tyrone Holland, Director of Economic Development at the Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation. Council President Verna, members of the Rules Committee and 108 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. members of City Council, good morning. Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation, or OARC as we're commonly known as, is a non-profit community development corporation whose mission is to create and stimulate economic development and improve the quality of life for the residents of West Oak Lane and other neighborhoods in Northwest Philadelphia. Our approach to community revitalization is based on what we term our five pillars: housing and economic development, business development, education and community relations, cleaning and greening, and arts and culture. In terms of economic development, some of our ongoing initiatives include the ReStore Philadelphia Corridors Program. In May of this year, OARC was awarded a $100,000 contract with the City's Department of Commerce to fund direct grants of up to $10,000 to businesses along Ogontz Avenue 109 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. between Washington Lane and Cheltenham Avenue for facade improvements, including new security gates, awnings, windows, doors and stucco and painting. Under the program, OARC will fund 90 percent of the cost of the improvements, along with a ten percent match from the eligible businesses. These businesses must have been in operation for at least the past months 12 and must be properly licensed. With these grants, we will improve the physical appearance of as many as eight businesses along Ogontz Avenue, which will positively impact the aesthetic value of the commercial corridor. Customers naturally tend to shop at businesses that are appealing to the eye, patronizing establishments that are neat, clean and structurally sound. The goal here, of course, is to increase commercial activity in this target area. OARC recently completed construction of the West Oak Lane Office 110 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Center, near the intersection of Ogontz and Tulpehocken Avenues. The Center houses six office spaces ideally suited for any small business owner. The Center also has a common area conference room. Four of the six spaces have already been leased to a general contractor, a social service agency and an affiliate community-based organization. Just around the corner on the 7300 block to Ogontz Avenue are five newly renovated storefront properties OARC now has available for rent, a total of 5,900 square feet. Since 2004, a total of 14 new businesses have opened along the Ogontz Avenue commercial corridor. The West Oak Lane Business Association, a trade group of close to 50 members, is made up of these and other local business owners, non-profit organizations and churches. The Association's goal is to keep West Oak Lane and Northwest Philadelphia a strong business community through 111 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. marketing, networking and other activities. As the owner of close to 300,000 square feet of commercial space, OARC takes an innovative approach to economic development in West Oak Lane. In the past, we've employed a number of incentives to attract promising entrepreneurs to the area, including using economic development grants to fit out commercial space and even allowing select businesses just getting off the ground to operate rent free for a limited period of time. West Oak Lane, Mount Airy and Chestnut Hill, like other neighborhoods in Philadelphia, are fast becoming communities of choice, where people want to live and raise a family, where people come to simply relax and unwind, where businesses want to set up shop. For anyone interested in starting a business, we encourage you to consider doing so in our part of town. The ethnic and the 112 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. economic diversity of these neighborhoods runs deep, such that anyone who truly wants to start a business should be able to do so.
OARC stands ready to assist them any way we can. Economic development can be described as building an infrastructure to bring resources and capital into the community and recycling those resources where they will do the most good. OARC is working together with other community organizations, with local and state government and with the private sector to bring those resources and that capital to Northwest Philadelphia. We want to create a climate that nurtures entrepreneurship and ultimately that strengthens our economy. In the end, our success will be measured by the degree to which we are able to withstand these changing economic times. In closing, I'd like to take a moment to mention the West Oak Lane Jazz and Arts Festival. This internationally 113 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. known event taking place in a little more than a week will draw more than 400,000 people to Northwest Philadelphia. While the Festival features a world-class lineup of entertainment, it also draws attention to the mix of businesses in the area. On a daily basis, these businesses provide neighborhood residents with a safe place to buy goods and services. During the Festival, these same businesses open their doors to the thousands attending the three-day event, allowing the visitors to the area a chance to take part in the local economy as well. We urge everyone here today to come out and join us as we welcome in the summer of 2008 at the West Oak Lane Jazz and Arts Festival. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. By the way, for the record, you have a lot of fans of the Oak Lane Jazz Festival on Council. 114 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Are there any questions from members of the Committee? Councilwoman Miller.
Good morning. Welcome to City Council. I don't see you guys down here often. I'm just actually -- you know I'm supporting the bill, because these are things that we've talked about in our meetings, but I need information, because people keep calling me. Would you happen to have a schedule with you on the Jazz Festival on who is coming on what day?
Because I keep getting those calls and I don't know. And that is my only question.
I did bring a number of schedules with me, at least ten or 15. I will give them to you gladly.
Okay. Great. Thank you. It will really help. 115 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Thanks.
I do have a few proposed amendments that I would like to give for the BID ordinance, if that's okay. Exhibit A in the heading should change "preliminary" to "final" to indicate that the plan, as amended, will be the final plan for the business improvement district. Exhibit A-1, a color map is to replace the black and white map as Exhibit A-1 of the ordinance.
Excuse me. I'm sorry. Can we have copies of the amendment? One should be given to the stenographer and also one will have to go to the Chief Clerk's Office.
There no 22 boundary changes on this map, though. Exhibit A-3, the proposed budget, add projected revenue from assessments for years two through five. 116 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. And Exhibit A-4 on the next-to-last will change the address of the incorporator, John Ungar. Also, the most recent change that we just received today, due to a residential property that was included incorrectly in the ordinance, Exhibit A-2, Exhibit A-3 must be amended. For the record, this property is 7208 North Broad Street.
Thank you very much. Any questions? (No response.)
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. 117 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Good afternoon. My name is Lee Tabas. I represent a group that owns property on Wadsworth Avenue. Certainly something that beautifies and improves the area without too much cost is a good thing. My understanding is that there would be an assessment on commercial properties, which amounts to a six percent increase of your taxes, and there would be a residential assessment as well. I believe that non-profit organizations should be included in those that pay for this improvement district. Non-profits are growing disproportionally faster to the economy as a whole and are assuming a larger share of the overall economy, says Kirsten Gronbjerg of the Center of Philanthropy at Indiana University. The Pennsylvania Association of Non-Profit Organizations commissioned a study of employment and found over the past eight years, non-profit employment grew by 25 percent, more than three times 118 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the seven percent growth rate achieved by the for-profit sector. And the report states that seven percent -- excuse me. The report states that percent of the 6 salaries in Pennsylvania are paid by 7 non-profits. 8 Some non-profits compete 9 directly with profit-making ventures. We 10 all know Blue Cross, which competes 11 directly with Aetna and United Healthcare. In response to non-profit proliferation, many local governments have become more aggressive in asking for PILOT payments, which is short for payment in lieu of taxes, for non-profit-owned real estate, and I believe there's a good argument that non-profits should pay to support City services and other services. I believe that non-profits should be included in those that pay for the Greater Cheltenham Business Improvement District.
Thank 119 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. you very much. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you again. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 14 080381. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Delaware Avenue, Fairmount Avenue, Front Street and Poplar Street. (Witness approached witness table.)
Mr. Kramer. 120 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Good afternoon, Chairman Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 080381, which was introduced into City Council April 10, 2008. This bill will amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning of a five and one half acre parcel of land bounded by Delaware Avenue, Fairmount Avenue, Front Street and Poplar Street, this land being known as 700 North Delaware Avenue. The zoning will change from the existing designation of C-4 Commercial to a new zoning designation of C-2 Commercial. The zoning change is intended to limit the potential development of this site. This site was the subject of a proposed development that after lengthy negotiations with the community had attained community support. It was the 121 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. subject of Bill No. 050418, which changed the zoning designation of this site from G-2 General Industrial to its current classification of C-4 Commercial. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of May 20, 2008 considered Bill No. 080381 and recommended that it not be approved. The Commission staff is working in connection with the District Councilman's office to develop legislation that will address the community's concerns over the development of the central waterfront area. It is intended to coordinate the efforts of the Planning Commission and others to examine existing and proposed patterns of development in the waterfront area and develop legislation that will be consistent with recent planning efforts. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Kramer, for the record, can you tell 122 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. us what would be allowed under a C-4 designation?
A C-4 designation is an FAR designation, or a floor area ratio. It allows pretty much all commercial uses on site as well as residential, hotels, office -- mixed-use commercial development. The floor area ratio has a base of five FAR, or 500 percent of the area of this site. If you design it, you may be eligible for an additional eight FAR of bonuses, taking you to a total of 13 FAR on the site.
To your knowledge, is there a developer for this site?
And would off-street parking be required to accommodate any development at this site?
It would depend upon the use. Under the Code, the commercial uses under C-4, C-5 do not 123 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. require parking. However, if you were to use a residential use, it would in this area be a one-to-one parking ratio that would be required.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam President, maybe I can answer your question about is there a developer. There was a developer, which caused us to do the original change from G-2 to C-4 two, three years ago. I forget how long it's been. But there was an agreement at the time with that developer and the neighborhood association and that Mr. Ruben is here from Northern Liberties who will testify that if in fact the developer either failed to go forward with his project or another developer who wanted to take over for that developer wanted to change the size and scope and shape of what we all agreed to, "we" meaning the neighborhood association and Planning Commission, if there was any 124 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. change in that, we would revert back to G-2. So basically that's what we're doing today.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, members of the Committee, my name is Matt Ruben, M-A-T-T, R-U-B-E-N. I am President of the Northern Liberties Neighbors 125 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Association, and I also was President of the Association at the time the original bill referred to in Mr. Kramer's testimony was introduced, and I come here today on behalf of the community to testify strongly in favor of an amended version of this bill, which I understand the Councilman is amending, will be amending, to rezone this property from the current C-4 back to its original G-2 Industrial. The Northern Liberties Neighbors Association is not in favor of spot zoning and we are very happy that the Planning Commission, the Councilman, the Administration, the community, everyone is on board with moving forward with remapping and otherwise providing solutions for our neighborhood on the waterfront in general to ensure a more effective and more efficient and better planned riverfront as we move forward. We are in favor of this particular bill, however, for one very 126 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. simple reason, which is that we agreed to the rezoning of this from G-2 to C-4 back in '05 because there was a very particular plan of development in hand. We spent five months hammering out a three-part agreement totalling more than 30 pages that included a development agreement and a restrictive covenant on the land that would prevent someone from developing free and clear C-4, which, as I'm sure you're aware, can allow all manner of large buildings and extremely impactful development, and we have residents nearby we have to be mindful of. The current owner of the property refused to record the deed restriction and the developer could not record the deed restriction until they settled and became the owner. So we were stuck, and the way that we dealt with that problem of not being able to have free and clear C-4 zoning out there was that if the development fell through, 127 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. then Councilman DiCicco would put through the rezoning bill that's before you today. So for us, this is not spot zoning. This is just the falling of the other shoe. This is returning things back to a clean slate so that we can be sure that while we embark this summer on a remapping with the help of the Planning Commission, that during that time, the property does not get sold to another developer, who would then be able to do anything that C-4 allowed, which would include very tall buildings right next to the residential row houses, would include all kinds of problematic parking situations for non-residential uses and generally could create serious problems for the community. So we are simply asking for this bill to be agreed to so that we may be confident while we embark on a better solution for the future that nothing that would be incredibly negatively impactful 128 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. can happen in the meantime. And I believe everyone is on board with that process, and the Planning Commissioners themselves at their last hearing indicated that they understood the urgency and the need to get this back to G-2 if necessary for the time being until we can get the remapping in place.
Thank you very much. You've been extremely patient. We do thank you for coming in to testify. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)