- - - COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, May 24, 2005, 10:28 a.m. - - - BILL 050230 - An Ordinance amending Title of The Philadelphia Code, entitled 10 "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-200 entitled "Residential 11 Districts," by amending requirements relating to courts in certain 12 Residential Districts, under certain terms and conditions. 13 BILL 050232 - An Ordinance amending Title 14 of 14 The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by increasing the permissible height for fences located on the front lot line of certain properties in residential districts; and by permitting certain architectural embellishments on fences; all under certain terms and conditions. BILL 050233 - An Ordinance amending Title 14, Entitled "Zoning and Planning," to add definitions for certain architectural features that are commonly located on residential - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 buildings, and to permit said architectural features on residential buildings located in residentially zoned districts, under certain terms and conditions. BILL 050339 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Bridge Street, Tacony Street, a line 245 feet north of Sanger Street, the Delaware River and the Frankford Creek. BILL 050285 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Essington Avenue, 67th Street, the Delaware River and the former Pennypacker Avenue. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS-BROWN 3 Rules - 5/24/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole. I'm sorry. Committee on Rules. I'm very anxious, believe me. I am so anxious for this budget to be behind us. Can we go to the Committee of the Whole and consider the budget? (Laughter.)
Okay. I would ask Tommie Ericson to please read the title of Bill Number 050285. CLERK: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Essington Avenue, 67th Street, the Delaware River and the former Pennypacker Avenue.
Okay. Good morning. Excuse me, please. It has been called to my attention that someone 4 Rules - 5/24/05 would like me to indicate for the record who is present. To my immediate left is Councilman Clarke, to my immediate right Councilman Kenney, Councilman Mariano, Councilwoman Miller and Councilwoman Brown. So, we have a quorum. Okay. Please identify yourself --
-- Council President, members of the committee. Peter Kelsen, on behalf of the O'Neill property group.
Excuse me. You're going to have to pull the microphone closer to you.
Before I begin, let me introduce, Mr. Kevin Silver from O'Neill Property Group, who's with me today. 5 Rules - 5/24/05
Council President, before I begin, I would like to hand up a proposed amendment to this bill that includes an additional parcel in the remapping. This has been discussed with technical staff, the Planning Commission, and if I may, I'd like to hand it up now, Council President.
Members of the committee, we are pleased to present to you a request for rezoning of the property which is bounded by 67th Street, Essington Avenue and the Schuylkill River. It is approximately a 50 acre parcel. We are requesting remapping to C-3 commercial, in order to allow the redevelopment of this blighted site for a 6 Rules - 5/24/05 viable community shopping center. The property, as we will indicate to you in a moment, consists of a vacant, deteriorated and blighted former industrial use. Members of the committee, it is environmentally impaired, having been used as junkyard and salvage yard. And our proposal is to reestablish it for a state of the art retail shopping center, containing approximately half a million square feet. We believe, and in meeting with the community and the Planning Commission and other constituent groups, that this development would not only create a viable shopping center at this location, but maybe more importantly, act as a catalyst to create development along Essington Avenue in areas that are extremely blighted. We would like to suggest to the committee that development of this center would create a minimum of 500 new, permanent jobs; create approximately 150 to 200 construction jobs; and generate fiscal -- 7 Rules - 5/24/05
Approximately 150 to 200, Council President. The net impact to the City would be additional taxes in excess of $2 million a year, even during the tax abatement period. This is contrasted with about... And I know during budget time that's a very important number -- This is contrasted with about $50,000 a year in taxes generated by the existing blighted site. We've met extensively with the community. And I'm pleased to say that the Eastwick PAC and others readily support this application. They see it as we see it, as a gateway to the renaissance of Essington Avenue and the Eastwick area. In terms of our developer, O'Neill Property Group is a premier developer. They are responsible for the renaissance of Conshohocken Waterfront through the Millennium Project, a project that includes probably a half a billion dollars of private 8 Rules - 5/24/05 and government investment to stabilize that area. That was also a former industrial site that is now a mixed use site for residential, retail and commercial. I'm handing out a brochure that details our developer, as well as the proposed use. In addition, they were selected as the master redeveloper of Norristown, in order to reposition that critical hub for renovation and redevelopment. Finally, in Montgomery County, as well as in Bucks County, they have created over half a billion dollars, approximately, of new retail and commercial development in former brownfield sites, adding extensively to the tax base, employment base and overall quality of life of those areas. If the committee has any questions, we would be happy to answer them at this time.
Thank you. I know that there have been numerous 9 Rules - 5/24/05 community meetings, and that the community has given me a letter in writing saying that they fully support this.
Can you tell us if any tenants have been lined up for this project?
I can tell you that no 14 definitive tenants have been lined up at this time. The project is being marketed to a wide variety of tenants. And if I could give the committee an illustration of the types of tenants that we have been seeking and working with: For example, Target, Lowes. We have been working with Circuit City, Best Buy, a number of retail development opportunities such as Starbucks, local banks, et cetera. Council President, no formal tenant has been 10 Rules - 5/24/05 signed at this time. And one of the reasons for that is because until the property is zoned to permit the use, tenants are really reluctant to commit for a letter of intent purpose.
Well, it is my hope that the developer will definitely keep the community involved, and that you have their input because I think they're very concerned as to what would be developed there.
Council President, I have given my word to the community and to staff that during the process we will continue to dialogue and involve the community in our thoughts, as well as our efforts to market the site, as well as to develop the site. So, there will in fact be ongoing community --
I know it was mentioned that the developer was trying to get Bocsov's to locate there. Has there been any movement on that?
Mr. Silver, I'm going 11 Rules - 5/24/05 to ask you if you can answer that.
Council President, no, there hasn't been any further movement on that. We're continuing to pursue that through our retail brokerage company that we've retained. And we're hopeful that in the next six weeks or so we might be able to get some movement on that front.
Do we have any indication as to when we will see something actually starting to get built and just when the completion date you anticipate will be?
Yes. As part of the remediation of the property, we're obligated, as per our consent order with Pennsylvania DEP, to have the site cleaned up within a year from the date of closing for the entirety of the assemblage which is going to be happening within the next week or so. So by a year from today the salvage operations will be completely cleaned off. The car carcasses, if you will, will be gone and the remediation will have been largely 12 Rules - 5/24/05 completed, if not fully completed, with the exception of continuing groundwater monitoring. During that time, simultaneously we're going to be preparing the site for the site development of the premises. And construction, we hope, will be able to commence within around the same time frame. And it should have about a to 11 month construction period, as soon as we get 12 into the ground. So we're hopeful that 13 within two years or so, give or take a couple 14 of months, we ought to have a thriving, 15 vibrant center. 16
Yes, Council President. We retained the services of an independent traffic engineering firm who confirmed that the site would not have any negative traffic impact with this development. We will, of course, continue to meet with the Planning Commission and Streets Department as the site plan evolves, to 13 Rules - 5/24/05 ensure that they're satisfied with our engineering. A copy of the report that I've given you, Council President, as well as to the committee, has been provided to your staff and to the community.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. First of all, I'd like to thank O'Neill Properties for their continued interest in the City. I know it's a very viable and well-known organization. They have done great work in the suburbs and the counties. So we're happy to have you continue to develop here.
And obviously you're professionals at this, so you look at 14 Rules - 5/24/05 that site and you see it; have a vision for what it could be. I just have to ask you as to what potential you think the surrounding activities have, not only on -- Obviously you think that your project will be successful regardless of what's there. But what do you think the future use of those, you know, waste disposal pits and sumps and old decaying industrial equipment, underground storage tanks and the operating junkyard... Do you see the potential for that use to change and improve? And how difficult will it be to get that done?
Well, generally speaking, when we come into a community and invest, particularly in a large-scale brownfields remediation like this one, we oftentimes are successful in creating a new aura for the community, where it chases away a lot of these nuisance uses. And even though we can't control anything outside of our site, we're confident that because we're going -- this is going to 15 Rules - 5/24/05 be a draw for the community where people are going to be coming from all different areas in Philadelphia and in the counties, that it will create a negative incentive for those uses to continue. We're directly attacking, you know, a lot of the salvage operations on the Essington Avenue side. So, we're solving that problem directly within this assemblage. And we're hopeful that our development will be able to have a positive impact on the balance of the block.
Some of the stuff that I see in your handout deals with old industrial sites, so you have experience doing that. So I guess at some point you could possibly have the increased vision or extended vision of seeing those other areas perhaps developed either -- I don't know whether or not residential is doable or light industrial or retail. But I mean, is there a kind of a --
Yeah. We've had a 16 Rules - 5/24/05 history of when we invest in an area, that we usually look at very seriously add-on properties to create an additional critical mass. And we would certainly intend to do so in the future, particularly if any of the other property parcels become available.
Because I know that Southwest Philly has suffered for many years under -- you know, having location -- many locations for these kind of activities. And looking at your proposal for the shopping center, and then knowing your track record, it seems like a really good day, moving forward, for Southwest Philly in that area. So I congratulate you and thank you for your involvement.
Thank you, Councilman. Councilman, just to add one brief word on that, I have found in the land use area that once a use like this goes into 50 acres -- it's a very sizable chunk of property -- the values of properties become impacted in a good way. 17 Rules - 5/24/05 And people come in and they realize that these negative blighted sites are not appropriate. And I think we're excited about the opportunity to sort of anchor that portion of it.
So your development will increase the value of these questionable -- not questionable uses, but not exactly attractive uses for the neighborhood, increase the value to the point where the owners may decide it would be better maybe to sell it and go.
Certainly. And for the benefit of the members of the committee, I would just like to call to your attention that this 50 acre parcel is directly across the street from the Auto Mall. I think you would recognize the Auto Mall area, and that's where it's located. I would like the record to reflect that Councilman O'Neill has joined us. 18 Rules - 5/24/05 And the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
In terms of how far along you are in this project, have you selected the general contractor yet?
We have not. We are in the site engineering phase at the moment.
Right. In your discussions with the local community and other members -- I don't know if you work with any people from the City. Have you talked about the opportunities for Philadelphians on the construction side?
It's a bit premature to get into specifics of that, but we have assured the Eastwick PAC, and any of the other personnel from the City, that we fully intend to employ local personnel as much as we can. That would be also true in our 19 Rules - 5/24/05 selection of the general contractor.
We don't have a formal process, but we made it known and when we put out our RFP for the construction general contractor selection process we have no 9 problem in inputting that because that's our intention anyway.
That as a part of your RFP process you will, although it can't be obviously a requirement, but there will be some language to speak of goals, as it relates to local Philadelphia opportunity, particularly in the local community?
All right. In terms of long-term employment, and traditionally in these types of operations people tend to hire people from the local community. Do you have a component as a part of your development strategy that will ensure that people are job ready? I know one of the 20 Rules - 5/24/05 things that, some instances, we have a development comes up and there are people not in the local community that have not been prepared adequately for the type of opportunities that will arise.
Let me answer that. Councilman Clarke, as part of our discussions with Eastwick PAC, we specifically indicated that we will create a job fair, so to speak.
To advise the community of job opportunities that the retailers will make available. These are post construction jobs. And to allow the community to be involved in a preferential hiring program. As long as the people are qualified, they will be given opportunity. So we, in fact, as part of our initial discussions with Eastwick PAC, discussed this, and we're committed to that process.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 21 Rules - 5/24/05 O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to thank Mr. Kelsen, first of all, for giving me a courtesy call, where he pretty much went through all this. I just want to tell him that had he told me it was O'Neill Properties doing it -- and they're no relation -- but I have high regard for their work and their successes and their turnarounds. I would have even been in more of a hurry to get here for this hearing. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee?
Madam President, I would just request, if I could, a suspension of the rules so that we could move forward on this project.
And we thank you so 22 Rules - 5/24/05 very much for your time and consideration, members of Council.
And I want to thank you for all of your involvement with the community. I think that's extremely important. And I certainly want to wish you well. I think this is going to be a great shot in the arm for the entire City.
May we hear from -- Just a moment, please. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you. One last question. Are you looking for any other opportunities? (Laughter.)
Yes, All of the other property that's adjacent to this. 23 Rules - 5/24/05
After you take care of Council President's project. We have some vacant land up in North Philadelphia.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. May we hear from City Planning, please.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I am the Director of the Development Planning Division for the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill 19 Number 050285. Rather than burden the record with repetitive testimony, Mr. Kelsen has already stated much of what my testimony was about. May I just say that the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 12, 2005, considered this bill and recommended that it 24 Rules - 5/24/05 be approved. One comment, partly in response to Councilman Kenney's question. I would expect that if this property does get developed, that you should see --
When. When this property becomes developed, that there will be an increase in value in adjacent sites, and that there would be renewed interest in various types of development along that stretch of Essington Avenue. I -- I don't -- I don't know that I would say that you'd see interest in residential development, but certainly -- certainly retail, additional retail; perhaps light industrial; possibly even hotel.
Thank you. 25 Rules - 5/24/05 At this time I would ask Mr. Ericson to please read the title of Bill Number 050230. CLERK: An ordinance amending Title of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning 7 and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-200 8 entitled "Residential Districts," by amending 9 requirements relating to courts in certain 10 Residential Districts, under certain terms 11 and conditions. 12
Good morning once again, Madam President, and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I'm the Director of the Development Planning Division for the City Planning Commission. And I'm here today to testify on Bill Number 050230. Council members Mariano and DiCicco introduced this bill on March 31st of this year. This bill amends Section 14-200 of The Philadelphia Zoning Code, by eliminating Rules - 5/24/05 minimum size requirements for courts in the R-1 residential district through the R-10-B residential districts. While the Code does not require courts, when they are used they must be of a certain minimum width. Courts can be created by the simple addition of two bay windows or two dormers for residential property. In both instances, space between is considered a court and must meet minimum dimensional requirements which normally is 12 feet. The interpretation of what constitutes a court is one of the reasons why so many new homes are not able to meet some of the requirements of the zoning code. This slows down the development process, contributes to the backlog of cases at the Zoning Board of Adjustment and delays new development. This is one of the many antiquated provisions of the Zoning Code that serve little purpose today. The elimination of the minimum court 27 Rules - 5/24/05 width requirement was specifically recommended by the Building Industry's Association's report which was issued in 2004. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 14, 2005, recommended that Bill Number 050230 be approved. That concludes my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Does L & I agree with this? Do we have L & I here to testify?
Good morning. Good day, Council President Verna and members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 050230, which, if enacted, will amend 28 Rules - 5/24/05 Chapter 14-200 of the Zoning Code, related to inner courts located on residential properties. The Department of Licenses and Inspections, in its efforts to streamline the regulatory process, to improve the service provided to our stakeholders, from time to time conducts internal reviews of its operations and codes that are enforced by the department, to determine if a certain code requirement or operational function no longer serves its intended purpose. Because of advances in building design, technology, and model code adoptions, certain zoning code requirements or operational functions may no longer be applicable to its intended purpose or it's initial purpose, and in fact, may have become impediments to develop in the City. With regard to the requirement of Section 14-204, subsection 2 of the Zoning Code, related to inner courts and residential occupancies, the initial intent of this provision was to address concerns during a 29 Rules - 5/24/05 period in the early 1900s when tenement housing, having no ventilation or natural lighting, was the norm, and the building codes of that time did not address this type of problem. This condition was highlighted in the October 2004 report of the Building Industry Association of Philadelphia. Through the evolution of building design and code updates, the provision that was first enacted to address concerns related to ventilation and lighting no longer applies to its intended purpose. The inner court requirement, as currently enforced by the department, provides for a distance of at least 12 feet between enclosed spaces on the same building lot. When zoning applications are filed with the department, showing an architectural feature, such as a recessed indentation in the wall, dormer windows for the second floor habitable rooms, as is common in many cape code type homes and some newer homes under 30 Rules - 5/24/05 consideration for development in the City or a recessed garage door that creates an exterior hallway, the applicant is issued a refusal for being in non-compliance with the inner court provision of the Zoning Code. After the refusal has been issued, the applicant's options are either to redesign the building, to eliminate the architectural feature or to seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Either option mentioned above adds delays and costs to the construction project and relates to an issue that is now adequately addressed in the adopted Model Building Code of the City for new construction, alterations and additions. Also due to periodic updates to model building codes, advances in technology and building design are incorporated in the update, to provide for public safety and health concerns of the local authority. The elimination of the inner court requirement for residential occupancies will further aid to streamline the permit 31 Rules - 5/24/05 application process of the department and assisted development community, wishing to commence construction projects in a timely manner in the City. The department thanks the Building Industry Association for highlighting this matter in their report, and will continue to work cooperatively actively with this association to address other shared concerns, in order to improve the service provided to our stakeholders. Thank you for allowing me to provide the department's testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you. You may have said this, and I was distracted. Is it your testimony that the current city building code adequately addresses the issue of necessary ventilation of new construction, alterations and additions?
Yes, ma'am, it does. The model codes take into account when there 32 Rules - 5/24/05 are areas in a building that doesn't have natural lighting or natural ventilation by openable windows. And in those instances, the model codes will require certain mechanical systems to be installed in the building to provide artificial ventilation and light. It's like any office building that does not have openable windows now, MSB, in particular. We have no openable windows there, but we have mechanical systems to address some of the ventilation issues that are necessary to sustain life in that type of environment.
Let me ask: When was the current building code adopted?
Our current building code, we adopted the International Construction Code, and it was recently adopted last year.
Well, I am just thinking of... In my district there are condos being built. They're in the process 33 Rules - 5/24/05 of being built. And I think there's just an atrium that will be provided, without... Doesn't have windows. It will just have the atrium. So, how does this particular bill 6 now address that issue?
With atriums, you still would have to have some sort of lighting. You would have natural lighting from the -- from the -- from the skylight area, and as far as --
As far as ventilation, you would have mechanical ventilation systems.
I'm sorry. I can't hear you. There are conversations going on all over.
With ventilation, you would still have mechanical ventilation 34 Rules - 5/24/05 systems, air conditioning -- heating/air conditioning ventilation systems that are mechanically installed to provide a certain, if I might get technical, certain cubic feet per minute. CFMs. Most mechanical systems provide a certain amount of ventilation, a certain amount of air that's required to sustain life. Generally you need somewhere in the neighborhood of about CFMs to have 11 proper ventilation, proper air. 12
Thank you 13 for your explanation. I just wouldn't know 14 that. Thank you. 15
Is there 17 any request for suspension of the rules on 18 this? 19
Yes, ma'am. We do request a suspension of the rules to permit first reading at the next session of Council.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee or any comments? (No response.) 35 Rules - 5/24/05
Seeing none, I thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
I would like the record to reflect that Councilman Kelly has joined us. And I would ask Tom Ericson to please read the title of the next bill, 050232. CLERK: Bill Number 050232, an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by increasing the permissible height for fences located on the front lot line of certain properties in residential districts; and by permitting certain architectural embellishments on fences; all under certain terms and conditions.
Mr. Ericson, excuse me. I am just being told that we do have witnesses on the last bill 25 that we just heard. 36 Rules - 5/24/05 If they're here, would they please approach the witness table? That's on Bill 4 Number 050230. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President. My name is Lawrence Rust. I'm the President of the Building and Industry Association of Philadelphia, the BIA.
Do you want to proceed with your testimony, sir.
Thank you. I'm a resident of Philadelphia. I live in Councilman Clarke's district at 1119 Green Street. My company is also located in Philadelphia, at 4418 North American Street. I am the current President of the BIA. And in October, the BIA released a report called, If we fix it, they will come, which you all have a copy of. This report was the result of a request from the Managing Director's Office 37 Rules - 5/24/05 to identify key problems with the development process. The report was funded by the BIA and also by the William Penn Foundation. The findings of the report and the recommendations include changes in three bills which we're hearing today. May I testify on all three bills or just the one?
Okay. The report has been endorsed by 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania, the American Institute of Architects, Central Philadelphia Development Corporation, the Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania, LISK, Philadelphia Association of CDCs, Philadelphia Neighborhood Development Collaborative, the Reinvestment Fund, and the Urban Land Institute. In the production of this report, we interviewed over a hundred people. During the preparation, many of them cited three particular provisions, one being this inner court requirement. Bill Number 050230 regarding the 38 Rules - 5/24/05 inner court: A century ago in Philadelphia it was required that a ten-foot wide inner court be provided in tenements, to ensure adequate light and ventilation. Today L & I defines any area with two walls and no roof or a partial roof as a court and requires that that be feet wide. 9 The exhibits that are shown over 10 here... A good example of this is where it 11 says cape code. 12 The two -- The three dormer windows that are installed on the top of that house, this is a typical architectural detail that people use on modern homes. The Zoning Code calls the space between those two windows an inner court. Therefore, that very basic design must go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Your question previously, Council President, regarding the atrium, the ventilation issue is still covered by the Building Code. We're dealing strictly with the zoning issue. So, to further answer your 39 Rules - 5/24/05 question, the ventilation issue would still be dealt with by building, and it would not be disregarded by this change to the Zoning Code. Removal of the requirement would also allow architects to add interesting design elements to residential properties, and not have to square off each building. This home here, the cape code or the Philadelphia twin, both of these buildings, in order to meet Zoning Code and to go through the process without going to the Zoning Board, would be built without anything projecting from the front of the building, not a porch, not a bay window, not a dormer. And what we're asking is simply that the Zoning Code be amended and modernized so that architects and builders can design and build homes that are typically being built in other parts of the United States. Thank you.
Thank you. Gentlemen, are you going to testify? Please identify yourself for the 40 Rules - 5/24/05 record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you, Council President. My name is George Claflin. I'm a resident of the Fifth District. And I've just built a building in the Far Northeast in Councilman O'Neill's district, the Core Services Building. I'm an architect. I was the President of the American Institute of Architects, Philadelphia Chapter, in 1997. And this morning I am representing that organization. I have very little to add. It was very well expressed by my colleague. Our organization has endorsed the report. As you can see, it applies to both suburban type dwellings that are built within the City limits, such as cape code houses. It also applies to twins, and particularly the type of twins that the Philadelphia Housing Authority is building as well. These conditions, that do not really impinge upon the safety and light and ventilation access for the residents, occur. 41 Rules - 5/24/05 And the result is often that the feature is completely eliminated and the building becomes a box, where in the beginning it was no one's intention to make the box. And I would just add to the comments made before, that this is often the case when the developer or owner is willing to spend this money. So there's an economic factor that's positive for the City, to allow these features to be built.
Good morning, Council President. Michael John's. I'm the General Manager of Program Development and Design for the Philadelphia Housing Authority. And I'm here representing the Housing Authority in support of this change to the Zoning Code. The plans that you see that are the renderings of buildings that we've recently completed, the top one on your right is the 42 Rules - 5/24/05 Lucien E. Blackwell Homes site. And those townhomes, the Philadelphia Housing Authority had to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to do the bays, exactly which was explained earlier, that cost us at least two months in our construction time frame. And as you know, with most of our developments, we develop our developments with a series of maybe bonds and tax credits. And they come with strict time limits, in terms of the time that we have to do the construction documents, go through the L & I process, and to complete the project and occupy the buildings. And each time we have to go to the Zoning Board for a hearing that takes a minimum of a month or two months to complete that process. So, we're here supporting the changes.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the committee? 43 Rules - 5/24/05 (No response.)
Gentlemen, thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Again, I would ask Mr. Ericson to please read the title of Bill Number 050232. CLERK: An ordinance amending Title of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning 13 and Planning," by increasing the permissible 14 height for fences located on the front lot line of certain properties in residential districts; and by permitting certain architectural embellishments on fences; all under certain terms and conditions.
Madam President, for the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. Bill Number 050232 amends Section 25 14-231 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code, by 44 Rules - 5/24/05 increasing the permissible height of fences located in the front yard of a property from three feet six inches to four feet. Additionally, this bill would permit certain architectural features on fences to be up to eight feet in height. The architectural features that would be permitted to be up to eight feet in height include fence posts, gate posts and trellises. The increase of fence height to four feet was a recommendation of the Building Industry Association report. This change would make the allowable height of a fence to be consistent with the standard fences offered at many retail home stores. The Planning Commission is supportive of the increase in the allowable fence height, but there were some concerns regarding the permitted architectural features that would be allowed up to eight feet. Having a four feet trellis on top of an already four foot high fence would in 45 Rules - 5/24/05 effect create an eight foot high fence. Additionally, there was a concern that gate posts and fence posts being permitted to double the height of the allowable fence was excessive. The Planning Commission at its meeting of April 14, 2005, recommended that Bill Number 050232 be approved, with the recommendation that the word trellises be removed from the bill, and that the height of fence posts and gate posts be limited to six feet. I have prepared a proposed amendment to this bill and at this time would submit that to the committee. That concludes my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Chapman, would it be necessary to remove the word "trellis" if the overall height of the fence or the architectural features were limited to six feet?
Madam President, it was the recommendation of the commission that 46 Rules - 5/24/05 the height of the fence be limited to four feet. We didn't -- The commission didn't address that particular question. But I suppose that if the combined height of the fence and trellis were limited to four feet, that that would be consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation.
All right. Is there any testimony that you would like to present us?
Yes, ma'am. Good day, Council President Verna and members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 050232 which, if enacted, will amend Chapter 14-200 of the Zoning Code, relating 47 Rules - 5/24/05 to fence height on the front property line of residential properties. The Department of Licenses and Inspections, in its efforts to streamline the regulatory process to improve service provided to our stakeholders from time to time conducts internal reviews of its operations and codes that are enforced by the department, to look for ways to streamline its process and is eliminate requirements which cause undue burden on the citizens we serve. With regard to the requirements of Section 14-231, subsection four of the Zoning Code, related to fence heights on the front property line of residential properties, we have found through experience and review that an amendment of this section is warranted to provide relief for homeowners who find themselves in technical violation of the code when purchasing a fence in the standard four foot heights. The current fence requirements of Section 14-231 prohibits the installation of 48 Rules - 5/24/05 a fence on the front property line in excess of three and a half feet in height. Based on contact with local fence retail outlets, we have been informed that the standard height for fencing is either four feet or six feet. Sizes other than the standard height or stock sizes are considered special orders that generally cost more for the consumer to purchase than the standard stock item. Further, we have found through our experience that the general public is not aware of the three and a half foot fence height requirement and make routine purchases of fencing in the standard heights for installation on their properties. Enforcement of the current three and a half foot fence provision often requires a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for homeowners wishing to install a four foot fence on their front property line. This entails the payment of the $100 fee for the hearing to be scheduled, and could take many weeks before the hearing is 49 Rules - 5/24/05 held. If the homeowner wanted an accelerated hearing before the board, to reduce the time of delay, an additional $500 is needed for this service. Since there has been little to no 8 opposition from the public regarding this matter in the past, the board routinely has granted the variance request. After the variance request is granted, the homeowner can now secure their permit for an additional $25 and install the fence. If a homeowner followed all the outlined steps to comply with the current requirements, it would cost at a minimum $125, excluding the time spent with the department to apply for the permit and the Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing which in many cases, depending on the covered area and type of fence purchased, is more than the cost of the fence. A minor amendment to the fence requirements for installations on the front 50 Rules - 5/24/05 property line will aid to streamline the permit application process and assist homeowners with their efforts to improve the esthetical appearance of their homes. The department thanks the Building Industry Association of Philadelphia for highlighting this matter in their 2004 report on building development in the City, and will continue to work cooperatively with this association to address other shared concerns, in order to improve the service provided to our stakeholders. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the department's testimony on this issue, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. Mr. Chapman, I think we have to clarify the record. I believe when I asked you about removing the trellis, if the overall height of the fence with the architectural features were limited to six feet. You said four feet. 51 Rules - 5/24/05 And yet, in your testimony I believe you say that the commission is recommending that the word "trellis" be removed from the bill, and that the height of the fence posts and gate posts be limited to six feet. Is it four feet or six feet?
The commission's -- The commission's recommendation was that the height of the fence be four feet. They also recommended that the word "trellises" just be removed from the bill 16 completely, and also that gate posts and fence posts be limited to a height of six feet. In response to your question, I said that the commission didn't address the issue of a fence with a two foot high trellis on it that would make the fence and trellis a combined six feet. And I said that but if the combined fence and trellis were limited to four feet, 52 Rules - 5/24/05 I suppose that would be consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation. So, in other words, the Planning Commission is recommending that a fence be limited to four feet and that gate posts and fence posts be limited to six feet.
I'll tell you, it's about as clear as blue mud to me, but I'll check it. I will recognize Councilman O'Neill at this time.
Yes. Thank you. Gentlemen, this is primarily directed to the Planning Commission, but either of you can respond. I don't know if I have 40,000 single family homes in my district or 50, but there's somewhere in that range. Every one of them, I believe, is impacted by this bill. And I'm not necessarily against the idea of changing from three and a half to four to make it easier for people to get their fences from Home 53 Rules - 5/24/05 Depot. But there's an issue here that's not being addressed. I want to know if it was addressed. I can't have this apply to those 40 or 50,000 homes, unless it is addressed. And that is, the front of homes with solid wall fences, I don't care if they're cheap apache fences or the fancy white vinyl fences... are offensive to a community. They actually create a form of blight, visual blight. And many homes, row homes, twin homes, single homes have raised front lawns. They're not the same -- They're not the same height as the sidewalk or the street. So, there's -- there's an incline. And people often put the fence on that incline. Now, were the fence to be slatted, were it to be a picket type fence, rather than a solid fence in the front of the home, air, light, view, it really doesn't have an impact whether it's three and a half or four, even if it is a raised front lawn. But the solid wall, I won't find one 54 Rules - 5/24/05 person in my district, unless they already have this, that thinks it is acceptable. So, I would ask you how you feel, whether there's been any discussions about changing, as we move from three and a half to four, changing the regulation for front of the house fences, to be able to see through them. Some of these are large corner properties that go -- You know, they wrap around. And so, the wall that gets created by this solid fence is enormous. So, I just ask you to... I've talked to the sponsors about this, and we've been in some discussions. Thank you.
Madam President, if I could respond, personally that did not come up in our discussion, but I have to say that I would agree with the sentiments that Councilman O'Neill just expressed. We could -- We could probably amend this bill with some language that would require a certain percentage of the fence to allow the penetration of light and air. I'm 55 Rules - 5/24/05 not exactly sure off the top of my head what those words would be, but --
There are other jurisdictions that have that language, I understand.
We would not be opposed to an amendment to allow certain openable area within the fence on the front property line.
Right, front of the house. Wherever the front of the house is.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President, and I concur with Councilman O'Neill. Myself and Councilman Mariano are 56 Rules - 5/24/05 the other sponsors of the bill. I just placed a call, actually, to Ventnor City, New Jersey, but the surveyor is not available. I know from personal experience, doing the back of my house, that there's a requirement that the fencing from the property line must be a slatted picket type fence at least the minimum of feet back 11 from the property line before you can then 12 erect a solid fence between the party -- 13 which becomes the party wall the property 14 line between the two adjacent properties. 15 So, we're going to ask... I know Councilman Mariano is engaged in a discussion with Mr. McDonald. And that we'll probably vote this bill out as is, but we will have amendments at the next -- for the next Rules Committee meeting that will reflect some of the opinions and recommendations that have been made here. But again, he's right, Councilman, there are other jurisdictions. And I happen to be engaged in doing it. Literally as we 57 Rules - 5/24/05 speak, there's fencing being placed up, and there is a requirement. I'm not sure what the requirement is on the front side of the property, but I have to believe -- would have to believe that it's going to require -- that it would be prohibited from doing a solid fence. If they're saying in the back you have to keep it open from feet from the 11 property line, it just makes sense that it's 12 a slotted picket type fence in front, with a 13 height restriction as well. 14
Yes. Councilman, I just want to ask if those other jurisdictions, are they still -- Those jurisdictions, are they limiting their fences to four feet standard or are they -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. The only jurisdiction I can speak of with some knowledge is in Ventnor City, New Jersey, there's a six foot height limitation, maximum of six foot. 58 Rules - 5/24/05 So it's a ranch type house, big -- similar to properties in Northeast Philadelphia. So you can put a maximum of six feet. And that could be a solid fence. But from the property line back to wherever the house starts, because you usually have a lawn, there's a minimum requirement of feet that the fence has to 10 be open fence, slatted picket type fence. 11
Oh, slatted? 12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Could be six 13 feet, but it's got to be at least open. 14 As to the front -- And what I just 15 said, I have to assume that it's going to be the same requirement in the front. You can't do a solid fence in the front or around the perimeter of the property. What the height limit there is I don't know.
What is the height -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They have different zones in that township or that City of Ventnor. 59 Rules - 5/24/05 Some zones would require... you can actually put an eight foot fence. I guess it's where it's more commercial, as opposed to residential. I don't have the facts. I'm waiting. I'll get those over the next couple weeks, and we can look at that as a template to figure out what we might need to do here.
What is the height restriction in the front? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not sure of that. I would assume... I'm only assuming. It's probably four feet.
Four feet? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because that would match up with the 15 foot setback as you come around to the back of the property, but I could be wrong on that.
My guess is that these fences are being cut at four and six because they're the standards that are out there.
But I think there's another issue here; that's all. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And not only is it a question of esthetics; I think it's a question of safety as well. I mean, people can get behind that fence, and... You know, it's a wall. I mean, you're putting up a wall. I don't care if it's vinyl or masonry; it's a wall. And it does esthetically really lend to the openness of the neighborhood. I mean, we don't have this problem in South Philadelphia, but...
Setting or at least putting this at four feet is going to make a lot of sense because it's going to cut down on the amount of variances that are required in the L & I. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But you're going to want to allow people at least to do six foot in the back where the yards butt up if they want a little bit more privacy.
I would think that most of the fences that are in the City 61 Rules - 5/24/05 are probably four feet anyway.
And you're just making them all legal. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: In the row house neighborhoods they are primarily six foot. In the rowhouse neighborhoods.
The old rowhouse neighborhoods. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right. There's still a lot of --
The new ones have front lawns. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We still have concrete.
Thank you. I believe we have several other people that would like to testify. If you could make your testimony rather brief, we would appreciate it. Again, I would ask you to testify -- give your name, and then proceed with your 62 Rules - 5/24/05 testimony.
Good morning, Madam President, and members of Council. My name is Rick Sauer.
I'm sorry, sir. You're going to have to pull the microphone closer to you.
Sure. Is that better? Good morning, Madam President, and members of Council. My name is Rick Sauer, and I'm the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today, in particular, on Bill 050232. I'm here to actually support the whole package of bills to update the Zoning Code before you today and implement the recommendations that were identified in the BIA report released last year that we endorsed, which makes many constructive recommendations to improve Philadelphia's development process. 63 Rules - 5/24/05 I think what we've seen is that the cumbersome aspects of the development in Philadelphia are barriers for both market rate developers, affordable housing developers and homeowners looking to improve their existing homes, and ultimately increase the cost and the time frame for doing development improvement to homes. And the Zoning Code, in particular, has been long recognized as overly complicated and technical. So, we're glad to see that the City is reviewing the current code, to figure out how we can streamline that. We're certainly supportive of that process because we think it has great potential to facilitate further development and improvement in our neighborhoods. We don't think, though, that we should wait for a comprehensive overview to address some specific short-term issues that we think Council could take action on now. So, in particular, this Bill 050232, as we know, would raise the maximum height of 64 Rules - 5/24/05 front yard fence from three and a half to four feet and permit homeowners to buy retail fences that are commonly available. We want to encourage homeowners to improve the appearance of their properties. And right now I think we're putting some obstacles in their way to doing that. There's an exhibit I think may have been put up over there (Indicating) that lays out some of the cost and time implications for someone who wants to go out. Oh, I'm sorry. Over on this side (Indicating). Didn't see where he put it. So, if you want to put up -- If you don't want to get a custom built fence to meet the three and a half foot requirement, you have to go for the appeal to the Zoning Board. You -- Typically they request that you have representation from a lawyer. There's a series of weeks that it takes to go through this process. And it could end up costing the homeowner more to actually file 25 the paperwork and hire the attorney to 65 Rules - 5/24/05 represent them than to buy the fence itself..
You don't need an attorney unless you're a corporation.
I understand you're not required to have an attorney. My understanding is you're often requested, though, to be represented. In any case, I think what this bill 10 would do would help facilitate more homeowners to be able to go out and buy the standard fence that are available. And we want to provide choice to homeowners to be able to do that. So, we encourage Council to take action and advance this bill, to enable homeowners, as well as others involved in neighborhood revitalization, to improve the appearance of our neighborhoods.
Oh. Good morning. And members of Council. My name is Rose Gray, and I'm Director of Development for Asociacion de Puertorriquenos en Marcha, and I'm here today in support of this bill. Prior to my tenure with -- present tenure with APM I served three mayors as the administrative for the Zoning Board, the Board of Building Standards, and the L & I Review Board. years later this bill is on the 16 table where it was back when I was the 17 administrator. And the thought process at 18 that time why we didn't increase the fence 19 was that they were considered -- four foot 20 was considered a spite fence. 21 I don't think six inches of fencing 22 makes a neighbor in disharmony with his 23 fellow neighbors. It is the neighbors that 24 make the disharmony. 25 So I think this is also a 67 Rules - 5/24/05 constituency issue, as well as a developer issue, and affordable housing in particular because the costs that were reflected by what Mr. Sauer had said previously is evident. The cost of getting a variance is almost the cost of doing a fence. So, I don't think we helped our constituency by continuing to make them get manufactured fencing, especially manufactured to meet the Zoning Code. So today we are in support of a four foot limit. And my... What is it called here? My brief addresses all the three issues before you today. So, I sincerely hope that you consider this. And this is the beginning of a dialog to look at other issues that the Zoning Code misses presently, and to continue with revisions. I think the time is now. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill. 68 Rules - 5/24/05
I just want to bring Mr. Chapman back for a quick question; that's all; clarification.
Tom, you're familiar with the situation I mentioned with the raised lawn, front lawns.
Oftentimes there's a retaining wall that has been built, usually by the homeowner over the years, to make the front lawn level in front of their house.
So you might have two, three, four sometimes five feet of wall, brick or stone wall in front of the house, and then a fence. This has nothing to do with three and a half to four. I'm just pointing out that it's my understanding -- and you can correct me. This is the clarification I'm looking for. 69 Rules - 5/24/05 I come in for a fence on top of that front wall. And this is a wall that's right at the sidewalk. Looks very nice when you drive by. I then put a three and a half or a four foot fence up. I'm not really concerned about that issue. That is legal, right? Under the three -- If it's three and a half on top of that -- on top of that wall? The wall doesn't enter into the height.
Councilman, I think my reading of the code is the opposite. And I think Mr. Haigler would agree with me.
Well, L & I has some work to do, because I can tell you there are...
I think the retaining wall issue is a separate issue. The retaining wall issue is required as a 70 Rules - 5/24/05 building permit or building issue. A fence is a zoning issue.
Let's make sure the record is clear. Is it the retaining wall? Today. I know we haven't changed this yet. So, I don't want to enter into a four foot discussion. But today over-the-counter permit, not zoning variance. I've got a retaining wall at my sidewalk in front of my front lawn. Let's just say for argument it is three feet tall. Can I put more than a half a foot above that as a fence, with a three and a half foot limit or does the point of measurement start with the top of the wall?
Councilman, I can read directly from the Zoning Code on that. And I believe that you count the height of the retaining wall, and then count the height of the fence.
So if the retaining is three, and you want to put a three and a half 71 Rules - 5/24/05 foot fence on top of that, you have six and a half feet of fencing.
Read right from the Zoning Code under retaining walls, it says, retaining walls shall be considered as fences and controlled under this paragraph.
Okay. Great. There's an area -- It's not in my district -- that's actually not too far from an area that we both know down in Mayfair that I have -- that I drive by every so often. And it's pretty -- Right on Cottman Avenue. It's pretty ugly. Okay. I just assumed, since they're so visible, they were legal. Thank you.