COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:10 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER BILLS 060205, 060263, 060288, 060312, 060313, 050268 and 060285 - - - 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 Committee on Rules. I would like the record to reflect that Bill No. 060312 is being held at the request of the sponsor. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read Bill No. 060205. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 11 amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new section, entitled "Off-Street Parking Control District," all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the 3 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 060205. This bill 5 was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco and Council President Verna March 16th of 2006. This bill amends Section 9 14-1632 of the Zoning Code by establishing parking controls in three separate areas of the City. The first is the area bounded by Spruce Street, both sides of the street, Oregon Avenue, both sides of the street, the Delaware River and the east side of Broad Street. The second area is an area bounded by the south side of Chestnut Street, Washington Avenue, the west side of Broad Street and the Schuylkill River. The third area is bounded by Spring Garden Street, Girard Avenue, the Delaware River and 6th Street. In these areas, off-street parking shall not be required or provided for any one or two-family dwellings, except for parking accessed by a common 4 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. driveway easement that serves three or more abutting properties. A Zoning Board of Adjustment certificate will be required for parking as a main or principal use in the case where off-street parking is serving either a single or two-family dwelling unit. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 18, 2006 considered Bill 12 No. 060205 and recommended its approval. The Commission noted that it would have preferred to have a City-wide application for this issue, but understands the position of the bill sponsors. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee. And I have also an amendment to the bill to be introduced as well that modifies some language with regard to the third area bounded by Spring Garden Street, Girard Avenue, Frankford Avenue, the Delaware River and 6th Street.
5 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. Mr. Kramer, was it your office that prepared the amendment?
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, I thank you. I would like the record to reflect that to my extreme right Councilwoman Miller is present. Next to her is Councilman Kenney and we also have Councilman Clarke, which gives us a quorum. 6 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. I believe we have a number of people here regarding Bill No. 060285, so I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of that bill. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by I-75 Schuylkill Expressway, a Railroad right-of-way and Penrose Ferry Road.
Madam Chairman, members of the Committee, my apologies. I did forget this particular bill was on this agenda and did not prepare testimony for it. However, I do have this item and I am prepared to testify. I just don't have prepared testimony for you. If you'd like me to proceed, I shall do so.
This bill, Bill 25 060285, is a zoning change bill changing 7 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. the designation of land located in an area bounded by the I-76 Schuylkill Expressway, a Railroad right-of-way and the Penrose Ferry Road. This bill was introduced by Councilwoman Blackwell April 20, 2006. It is a rezoning of land that is currently partly zoned R-10A, partly R-12 and partly G-2 General Industrial to a classification of R-10A Residential and partly L-4 Industrial in order to develop a residential subdivision of 313 residential lots and the remaining area to be zoned to L-4 Limited Industrial, permitting industrial uses and providing open space. The purpose of the industrial classification is to provide a central warehouse building for the Philadelphia Housing Authority supplies. Primarily the uses on the property is vacant land, with a few industrial uses and even one commercial use along Penrose Ferry Road. The Penrose Park Associates LP 8 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. is proposing this project as well as the warehouse building for the Philadelphia Housing Authority. The Planning Commission considered and approved this bill at its meeting of May 18, 2006. I do recognize that Mr. Mattioni, the attorney representing the partnership, is here today and they do have further information should you need it.
And do we have a chart showing the parcels in question?
I would defer to Mr. Mattioni. He brought the exhibits with him.
All right. Before Mr. Mattioni comes up, I just have a couple of questions that I would like to refer to you, Mr. Kramer.
For the record, can you share with us why an L-4 classification was chosen for this 9 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. site since the surrounding neighborhood is predominantly residential?
There's two reasons for it. Primarily the reason that you choose an L-4 --
I'm having a second thought. Mr. Mattioni, if you have the chart, I would ask that you put it on the easel so that members of the Committee can understand what is being said and perhaps you can point out the areas in question. All right. Mr. Kramer, if you would proceed.
I'm sorry. Can you bring it a little closer? Thank you. Can you see it now? 10 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
The portion of the site that's going to be zoned L-4 is along the I-76 portion of the site, and we're proposing it to be L-4 because its proposed use is for a warehouse building, which is by its nature an industrial classification. While it would be permissible in a G-2 classification, the G-2 would also permit many activities and uses that are not permitted in L-4 which would be, shall we say, detrimental to the residential components that are proposed immediately adjacent to the warehouse site. The L-4 classification is a classification as limited industrial. You're not working with natural products. You're working with a product from Mr. Smith and a product from Mr. Jones and basically compiling them at this location. It also permits the warehousing, which is what the proposed use is on the site. Additionally, if in the future 11 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. some commercial aspect were to be required or needed at this site, it would permit a commercial use under an L-4 classification. And those were the two reasons that we were utilizing the L-4 here as opposed to a different classification.
Okay. Mr. Kramer, I was distracted. Maybe you responded to this question and I just didn't hear it. What about the two other pieces for which an L-4 classification is recommended? And I'm talking specifically about the recreation facility and the triangular piece of vacant land. It was my understanding that City Planning made that recommendation, and I would like you to indicate why.
We made that original recommendation because this was going to be, while utilized as open space and utilized as a recreation facility, it is under the ownership of the limited 12 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. partnership, and as such, under the Zoning Code in order to rezone it to recreational, it has to be taken ownership by the city, state or federal government. And that's why we were recommending the L-4. Again, the L-4 was because we -- the more pressure we felt would have been develop it residentially, and as a result, we didn't want a residential component to be going in this there as a matter of right leaving it zoned limited L-4.
With that being said, Mr. Kramer, given the commercial nature of the Penrose Avenue strip right across the street from these two facilities, wouldn't it be appropriate to rezone these two out parcels to C-2 or C-3, if the parties have no objection?
You certainly could do that, and in this instance, C-2 would probably be more appropriate than C-3, but the L-4 classification also 13 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. allows the commercial uses in C-2.
Okay. Would you point out the recreation facility, please?
It originally was a recreation center and, of course, when PHA had to demolish, they kept that building and they housed their police there. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you. 14 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. This is the former Passyunk Homes site?
Mr. Mattioni, I guess you could answer this question while you're up there, because I'm being asked up here. Actually, the location where PHA is proposing to erect their building, isn't that the area where the plume is located?
And that having been said, did in fact certain precautionary measures have to be made before they decided to build the building?
Yes. Council 15 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. President, this large storefront -- and I do have the environmental engineer here as well, so if you need a little further explanation, he can provide it. But what we've done is, it basically segregates the parcel and it comes down like this, and that kept the vast majority of the oil plume on this side. So you have less restrictive building codes when you go to build an industrial office-type building than residences. So what we proposed then is to build the PHA building on this side where the oil plume is, because it's much easier to do an office/commercial-type building, and to keep the residences separate. There will be a ten-foot berm here as well which will separate the building from the residential community, vegetation on top of that. It's a one-story building. I believe it's 18 feet high at its tallest point, so you're really not even going to see it unless you're maybe standing on top of the roof 16 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. trying to see it. You're just not going to see it when you're in the street here in the back driveway. So, yes, this site is chosen for a specific reason.
All right. And I think the members of the Committee have to be given a better explanation. How many residential properties will be erected?
It's the market rate. When I looked last, The Reserve, which is comparable, I looked on their website last week. They were anywhere from $350,000 to about $600,000. So it will be comparable in price to those houses.
Are there any questions from members of the Committee? Councilman Clarke. 17 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I just had one question. This used to be the former Passyunk Homes public housing development?
And it was owned by the federal government or should it be categorized as being owned by the local Philadelphia Housing Authority?
We're buying it from the Philadelphia Housing Authority. I believe at one time it was owned by the federal government. They transferred title to PHA. I'm not exactly sure. There are PHA representatives here if you want to know the exact dates, but PHA presently owns the site. It's about a 54-acre site.
I don't know. It was subject to an RFP. It's public record. I just don't know off the top of 18 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. my head the number.
Yes, Mr. DePaul is here. I was not part of that negotiation. I apologize.
Thank you. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Madam Chair and Chairmembers. Michael Johns, General Manager, Philadelphia Housing Authority, Planning and Design. It was $4.2 million. 19 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
4.2 million. Does that money get recycled back into the local Housing Authority?
Yes, it does, to be used for more affordable housing throughout the City.
Okay. And it cannot be used for staff? Is it designated solely for the purposes of housing?
Mr. Johns, you might as well stay where you are, and, Mr. Mattioni, just make yourself available. You can sit there, if you will. Mr. Johns, when the request for proposals on the former Passyunk Homes property was let, can you tell us how many responses there were?
I believe we had 20 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. two responses.
Yes. And we selected the most favorable response in terms of what we would get from the proposal. That was the $4.2 million, along with at that time was a 40,000 square foot facility.
Okay. I'm going to get to that, too. And in that RFP, was there a section that called for the construction of a PHA maintenance warehouse facility on the site?
There was? So it came as no surprise to anybody?
And 21 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. did all of the respondents or the two respondents of the RFP include that building in their proposals?
I know that the respondent that we chose did. I can't remember whether the other respondent did.
And it has been suggested or proposed that PHA could lease office space at the old Defense Center at 20th and Oregon rather than go through the expense of building this building and facility at this location. Can you tell us what your response to that proposal was?
Well, the Philadelphia Housing Authority has no 20 desire to lease additional office space. The reason why we need the 40,000, now 80,000 square foot office space building here, is because we currently have leases at other facilities throughout the City of Philadelphia that are coming to an end 22 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. and the fact of the matter is that these leases are costing us mega dollars every year and it only makes sense for the Housing Authority to own its own building.
And I certainly would think that HUD would have a little problem with PHA going out leasing --
-- when in fact they do have property of their own.
And for the sake of the record, I believe when the RFP was let, it called for a 40,000 square foot building to be erected.
It was later changed to an 80,000 square 23 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. foot building. Can you please give us the reasoning for that?
The reason, as I sort of alluded to a minute ago, we have several leases throughout the City and each one of those leases are about to terminate. We have a lease on Arch Street, which houses some of our management offices. We have a lease on Broad Street, which houses more of our offices, and we have a lease on Broad and Lehigh. That is where we have our major systems department. So this new facility, this 80,000 square foot facility, would include our ISM department, the executive offices for our police, along with some other general office space, because of the leases that are terminating this year. We do not have space.
I have a letter from Carl Greene dated March 16, 2006 outlining very specific uses for the office building maintenance 24 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. facility. Would PHA be willing to stipulate in a deed restriction that it is willing to confine itself or its activities solely to those uses?
I'm not prepared to answer that directly at this time. I don't have the authority to say that the PHA would do a deed restriction, but, clearly, what was stated in the letter is what we intend to use the building for.
And how many parking spaces are currently anticipated at the site for use by PHA?
I thought that was reduced. 25 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
I thought it was reduced because you're making a building erection.
You're exactly right. What happened was, when we started the planning of the building and we had 40,000 square feet, there was 900 parking spaces and then we reduced to about 600 parking spaces, is our intent.
I'm just curious as to why you need less parking with a bigger building.
Well, because if you look at the plan, the plan actually -- the building takes up more square footage now. So although we do need the amount of parking that we originally decided that we needed, because the building is twice as large, we won't be able to put that amount of 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. parking on the parcel.
We're going to have to find some off-site parking somewhere in the City.
Thank you. Madam President, we're both familiar with this particular area. I just wanted to make sure the record was clear. The location of the office facility, maintenance facility, police office facility is not really in a residential neighborhood per se. I mean, as I look at the map, it's Interstate 76 and I believe there's some commercial uses, I think a hotel and some other things there, but there's no real residential neighborhood that's in that 27 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. vicinity. Is that fair to say?
And I will also assume that the developer and PHA have had discussions as to the fact that this particular building and its configuration and some of the things done to improve its look would not hurt the sale prices of houses that are three to six hundred thousand dollars. I mean, I suspect that the developer --
I suspect that the developer would never go forward with this if he thought for a fraction of a minute that it was going to affect the sale of the residential properties because of what PHA was proposing. If anybody is taking a risk, it's the developer.
Also, is PHA paying for the building or is it part of the development deal?
It's part of the development deal. 28 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
So basically you're getting a building gratis as a result of that?
Had you estimated what the cost to PHA would be to build something, if you had to build it yourself? How much per square feet is the going rate right now?
So you're consolidating leases, saving money and getting a new building.
You're welcome. Mr. Mattioni, would you come up to the chart again, please. I just want the record to be eminently clear. Where 29 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. is the berm going to be? How high will the berm be? And certainly it will separate --
It will separate PHA's facility from the residential?
Correct. It's approximately a six to eight foot berm and it will run directly between the parking lot of the PHA facility and the residences.
And can we talk about -- and as I said, all of this I want for the record, please. Can we talk about the mode of traffic for PHA and also the residential?
You keep looking at somebody. Do you want somebody else to come up?
Well, the traffic engineer I'd like to come up. 30 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
The traffic engineer can come up. I just want the record to be very clear.
I understand. You're the lawyer; he's the traffic engineer.
But what we're going to do is isolate as best we can the residential community from the PHA facility. We're going to have an exit road coming out this way with a right turn only going under the bridge and onto the extension that goes to the Schuylkill Expressway. You also have another exit facility, a Schuylkill Expressway ramp here. Now, he can explain better the exact traffic patterns. He studied them.
I'll turn it 31 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. over to Frank Montgomery.
My name is Frank Montgomery from Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. Good morning, Madam President, Councilmembers.
We were hired by Judd Builders to take a look at this site and prepare a traffic impact study, and we had done that. The main points of ingress and egress were studied, as well as some of the adjacent intersections in the area. As you can tell, the PHA building is backed up against the Schuylkill and then you have the residential component here. It was brought out very early on to try and segregate the traffic from both the Housing Authority's from the residential component, and that was done to have all 32 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. of the office traffic come up Penrose Ferry as well as a back access road out to Hartranft. Residential will take access to Hartranft at two locations and then will also take access down to Penrose at the existing traffic light. So residential folks essentially have a couple ways of getting out of the site, whether it's down towards the south at the traffic signal there, out to Hartranft and ultimately out to Penrose, and then also you can take the back way out of Hartranft out to Route 291, which essentially gets you to Route 76 westbound and points west. So I think overall we're looking at -- the residential is really not the main focus here. I think they're going to have no trouble getting out. With the PHA, the reason that you have so many parking spaces is that some of their fleet is going to be here. So when folks come in, they need to park 33 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. their car and then they pick up a car that's already parked. So that kind of double loads your parking for a good portion of this. That also will increase some of the amount of traffic you're going to see during rush hour, both in the morning and in the afternoon. However, I think when we took a look at the intersections, there's really some good capacity out there. Although I wouldn't say there's not a lot of traffic, there's capacity for this additional traffic, and we took a look at those. The one recommendation we made in order to accommodate this additional traffic is, there's currently a traffic light. It's essentially a blinking red light or an all-way stop at the bottom of the ramp, and as many all-way stops in Philadelphia, and I live in Roxborough, not many folks stop at them, especially when you're coming off an interstate. So what we're looking to do is to propose a 34 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. traffic light, actually turn the light back on and utilize it as a full traffic signal. One thing we wanted to ensure is that we don't back the traffic down the ramp, because as folks come around the curve, we want to ensure that that traffic is moving. And we looked at it, and essentially we showed that it can work with the additional traffic load and, again, not being your standard office where everyone is going to come in in the morning and then they're going to leave in the afternoon. You have that additional folks going out in the morning and then coming back early in the afternoon. We accommodated for that in our numbers to ensure that we are taking a very conservative approach. That being said, we do want to work with the Streets Department, Mr. Charlie Denny. The study will be submitted to the Streets Department. We'll work with them to ensure that 35 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. whatever happens here, they're satisfied with it and that it's going to work fine.
And you can assure us as you're standing there that PHA's trucks and vehicles will not have to go through the residential areas?
Just one. How does the number of exit and entrance points in the residential facility area compare with recent development to the east, which I think is The Reserve? Is there a similar pattern, both kind of a ground pattern and also a road pattern?
I did not work on that project. I have worked with that developer before. I'm currently working with them in Schuylkill Falls project, and that is actually limited to one full 36 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. access point at Schuylkill Falls through an existing PHA site as well as a right in/right out. So when I look at this scenario, where this is more -- it is more homes, the full access down here at the traffic light, another full access here -- and this is sort of restricted to a right in/right out only onto 291, I think that's more than sufficient for this number of residential.
Okay. Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Mr. Kramer, you did indicate that City Planning has no objection --
-- if in fact we did a C-2 for the recreation facility and that triangular piece?
I don't want to do that without Mr. Johns checking and Mr. Mattioni. I'd like all parties to agree. Mr. Mattioni, do you have any objection to that?
We're finally all agreeing on something? I can't believe it. Okay. Do we have anyone else to 38 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. testify? Do we have anyone from the community to testify? (No response.)
No? Very well. Then, Mr. Kramer, would you prepare or have prepared or somebody --
I will prepare that for you this afternoon. The amendment to C-2? Yes, ma'am. I'll have that done this afternoon.
And we can approve it -- can't we do it now? Charlie, would you have one of our attorneys change it. Okay. There's no one else to testify on this bill? Yes.
If I may, Richard Zapelli. I'm Chief of Police for the Philadelphia Housing Authority. I just wanted to make a comment, although it won't add to the testimony. My family and I invested about a half a million dollars in the house at 39 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. The Reserve, and it wasn't until I looked at the deal that DePaul Brothers had done and I felt that as a new resident there and spending all that money, that this deal was acceptable to me as a resident of The Reserve. So I just wanted to add my support to that.
Thank you. Thank you very much. We will now continue on, and I would ask Mr. McPherson to, if he's back, please read the title of Bill No. 060263. 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 Bridge Street, Tacony Street, a line 245 feet north of Sanger Street, the Delaware River and the Frankford Creek.
Good morning, 40 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I'm the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission and I am here today to testify on Bill 060263. This bill was introduced by Councilmember Krajewski April 6, 2006. This bill rezones 1.42 acres of land located within the Frankford Arsenal Business Center from the current zoning designation of G-2 General Industrial to a designation of C-3 Commercial. The purpose of this rezoning is to allow for the commercial development of this property. The Frankford Arsenal property, which was the subject of Bill 19 No. 030068, which rezoned approximately 46 acres of the 83-acre site to a zoning designation of C-3 Commercial. The subject bill would provide additional area in the commercial development in order to provide better loading and circulation within the development. 41 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. The current bill is a reintroduction of Bill No. 050339, which was passed by Council and signed by the Mayor on June 5, 2005. However, the condition of the bill, the paying of $200 into the City Treasury within 60 days, was not met and, therefore, the provisions of the ordinance could not take effect. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 12, 2005 considered and approved Bill No. 050339. Accordingly, Bill No. 060263 is consistent with previous policy of the Planning Commission and we recommend that it be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Mr. Kramer, as I understand it, your testimony is that the current bill is the reintroduction of a previous bill signed into law on June the 5th, 2005 which did not become effective because $200 was not 42 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. paid into the City Treasury within the 60 days of its approval. Does this mean that the first bill was a private interest bill?
Yes, ma'am. It was done at the request of the Frankford Arsenal Business Center. Hankin Management was the private interest and requested that we rezone the original 43 acres to the C-3 Commercial, and the conditions of that bill were in fact met and subsequently that bill was approved and the conditions met and the property was rezoned as C-3. This additional acre and a half, roughly, wanted to be added to the C-3 Commercial to allow for better development, and it was just a -- somebody dropped the ball and the $200 fee was never paid and subsequently we couldn't make it effective.
Is the same party still interested in this project? 43 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
If so, why is it no longer considered as a private interest bill?
This was a meeting that was held between the Executive Director of the Planning Commission and the Law Department. This is just one of, I'm going to say, three or four bills wherein the conditions of the bill were not met, and as a result, it causes a number of items of confusion as to what a property is actually zoned. It provided us with a number of instances where this Council would approve a zoning change for a particular piece of property, people would get permits, then never bother to pay for the bill and then the zoning would revert, which causes all sorts of problems for later homeowners, and the instant developer is long since gone. Subsequently, the Law Department suggested that we simply eliminate the $200 fee on zoning change 44 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. bills. We do have the authority to put them back if the Council should so deem that we need to do so.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060288. 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 Roberts Avenue, Wissahickon Avenue, Hunting Park Avenue, Crowell Street, Ontario Street, 22nd Street, Westmoreland Street, Stokely Street, 25th Street, Fox Street, Hunting Park Avenue and Henry Avenue. 45 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 060288. This bill 11 was introduced by Councilmember Nutter April 20, 2006. This bill rezones approximately 77 acres of land located within an area bounded by Roberts Avenue, Wissahickon Avenue, Hunting Park Avenue, Crowell Street, Ontario Street, 22nd Street, Westmoreland Street, Stokely Street, 25th Street, Fox Street, Hunting Park Avenue and Henry Avenue, also known as the Budd site, from the current zoning designation of G-2 General Industrial to a designation of C-3 Commercial. The purpose of this rezoning is to allow for the development of this 46 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. property with several different uses in several different buildings. This includes a site to be developed by the Salvation Army as a community center, Temple University Center Health offices and a dialysis center. It should be noted that the changing of the zoning designation of this property to a designation of C-3 Commercial does not endorse or permit any form of gaming establishments on any portion of the property. Any such use would still require both state approval as well as a separate rezoning of the property to a designation of CED, or Commercial Entertainment District, a new zoning category that was approved by Council earlier this year. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 18, 2006 considered Bill 22 No. 060288 and recommended it be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee. 47 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. We do have boards up for the Committee to review, and it does indicate that it is just a portion of these blocks are being rezoned from G-2 to C-3, representative of the ownership of the former Budd site currently by Preferred Real Estate, which is the current owner.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Can you tell us of the approximately 77 acres of land to be rezoned how many acres will be used for the projects that you have mentioned in your testimony?
I'm sorry. Mike Lonio with Preferred Real Estate Investments. And the three uses, Fresenius and the Salvation Army and Temple, the Salvation Army is only about 12 acres, Temple sits on about 13 or 14 acres and Fresenius probably with parking 48 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. takes about four or five acres. So you're probably about 30 acres.
Do we know if there are any other further development projects that will be proposed in the near future?
There will be others. There's still buildings on site that are underutilized on the 70 acres.
You state that if this site is to be used for any form of gaming development or any portion of the property, additional zoning would be necessary. Would this rezoning interfere with any proposed gaming menus that you're aware of?
No, ma'am, it would not. Whether it's zoned G-2 or C-3, neither classification would permit any kind of gaming establishment. Therefore, if you were to try to place a gaming establishment anywhere on this property, you'd still have to come back and rezone it to CED. So as a result, 49 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. whether it's going from C-3 or going from G-2 really doesn't make very much difference.
Sir, can you tell us what are the projected costs for the developments that you have mentioned, how many construction and permanent jobs will be created?
The Temple project is about a $50, $60 million project. They will have about a thousand jobs on site. And basically what Temple has done is taken all of their offices and they're consolidating them from all of their hospitals. It in itself would not create new jobs, but what it will do is create more space in all the Temple hospitals to go back and add to their medical facilities, and that will create new jobs by consolidating. So that's about a thousand jobs. The Salvation Army project is about a $40 million project. That project will probably have about 200 jobs 50 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. on site as part of it. And Fresenius is, I'm going to guess, probably about a three and a half or $4 million total project. And there are representatives from Fresenius here, but I'm going to guess you're about 30 jobs or so -- about 45 jobs.
All right. Does the proposed development require the relocation of facilities and personnel from other sites within the City?
Yes. The Temple facility does. They will pull office employees out of current hospitals. They will then grow the hospital on to those what are now administrative floors. So they'll do a consolidation of office people. They will then replace those people in those sites with medical uses.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee? 51 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. One question. The Council President touched on it briefly. The current zoning classification that the City of Philadelphia has created for casino operations, if somehow the state were to preempt our ability to do that, what would happen with this site? If the casino operator was successful in his bid for this site, would the state then come in and classify it a particular zoning category given the fact that what we're currently zoning this site, casino operations would be prohibited? It was a long question, I know.
If they supersede our Zoning Code, it's not going to make a difference what we've zoned the particular property. If the state comes in and supersedes the zoning, there's not much that we can do about it. 52 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. On the other hand, it's currently zoned G-2 and being proposed to go to C-3. Subsequently, if the state doesn't pick this site in the future, we're looking at it and saying the future of this site is not one that's necessarily going to be developed as a G-2 General Industrial site but rather has more potential as a C-3 site, as has been requested by the property owner, and we had no objection to that change, and that's the context in which we've looked at the bill. We understand that it's the 800-pound gorilla in the corner that we really haven't talked about, because the casino isn't a permitted use under the Zoning Code under any classification in the Code, with the exception of the Commercial Entertainment District. But that's not on the table, because that has not been approved by the state in terms of giving a license, and that sort of seems to be the first step 53 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. in order to be able to locate it and then subsequently map those particular sites to the classification that we have put into the Code to establish the guidelines and procedures for that type of a development.
What's the status of the proposed state preemption legislation?
I have no idea. If I could, it was passed by the House, but it's been sitting ever since. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Passed by the House, sitting in the Senate.
Also, just to give you a little perspective on the site, if you look at the pictures, where all the buildings are there's two and a half million square feet on the site right now. None of those are the area where they're proposing to put a casino. The casino is across the street on the area where there are no buildings. So the rezoning is significant 54 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. because there are lots of uses we're talking to continually on this site. Out of the total 77 acres, 60 acres are not impacted at all by the casino, and we continue to work on leasing them, finding users and bringing them in, 30 of which are spoken for, 30 of which continue to be marketed. So there's a lot of uses, and we'll continue to move and we'll continue to try to create and get done here. The acres is sort of across the street and 14 it's clear, and that's why the zoning is 15 so important. 16
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter. Oh, I'm sorry. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's okay.
I'll let 55 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. the Committee members. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Being short, you know. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Could someone just acclimate me with where the proposed casino facility would be?
If you look at the site, you see it here. That's the 13 acres. The casino is here on this 17 14 acres. Temple University's headquarters 15 is over on this site here. The Salvation 16 Army would be located up in here. And 17 then the remaining site that's available for other uses is this building, which is just under a million feet, and this whole center part of the campus, which is about another million feet. Fresenius is in this building right here, this little brick building. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. I think this is a great project from what 56 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. I can see, but I was just curious as in the project scheme or plan is there any consideration anticipating the possibility that the casino may be granted a license on the Budd site, and how would that impact on traffic patterns and parking?
There's been a significant traffic study done on the area. And really our main access here is, you're at Route 1 and the Schuylkill Expressway that comes across. Mainly they exit off at Wissahickon Avenue, which comes right down here across our site. It actually gets off at Fox Street. You continue up currently and you turn right on Wissahickon Avenue. It's a one-way turn. So that intersection right now is a tough intersection for the current uses. What the casino would do is create a fly-over and come down Roberts Avenue, which you can't see on here, but it cuts right through the middle of our 57 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. site and would bring you right into the entrance to the casino. So you'd get off the Boulevard up here, there would be a fly-over, you'd come right down here on Stokely and Roberts and enter here. That would also clean up the access for Temple and the other users that are here, because it's quite a big investment that they would make for that. That would keep the traffic directly off the Boulevard right into the site. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. No further questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, members of the Committee, I just wanted to put on the record a couple items. One, this 58 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. proposed rezoning has been a collaborative effort between Councilwoman Miller and myself, as well as an extensive community process. Originally the proposal for this site was C-5 Commercial. The community groups, in an ongoing process back and forth with the owner and other conversations, finally agreed to C-3. I'd like to put forward, Madam Chair and members of the Committee, letters of support from both the East Falls Community Council on one side of the site and Tioga United on the other side of the site. There is complete community support for this proposed rezoning, and I appreciate the issues that have been raised by Committee members regarding another proposed development. Of course, this rezoning will have no impact, positive or negative, on that particular proposal. We'll wait and see what the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does. 59 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. But it is an exciting opportunity to take a 75-acre site, which you won't find many 75-acre sites in the City, the development that's already been proposed, especially with the Salvation Army having received a national grant from the Kroc Foundation to put a new facility at this location, it will transform the community, notwithstanding some of the other proposals that may be out there. It's an exciting opportunity for a series of neighborhoods that are affected by a 75-acre site, and I'd appreciate the support of my colleagues for this particular bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. I just have one question with respect to the Salvation Army operation. 60 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. Will it in any way impact -- I'll wait until the gentleman comes up. Good morning. COMMISSIONER WATSON: Good morning.
My question is, will it have any impact on any of the additional Salvation Army sites? I have one on North Broad Street. Will there be a consolidation of services at this location; therefore, causing some of the other facilities to close, or will it be in addition to the current operations? COMMISSIONER WATSON: We expect that this operation --
State your name for the record. COMMISSIONER WATSON: I'm sorry. I'm Commissioner Robert Watson. I'm the Chairman of the Kroc project planning team, this particular project, which we envision putting on the 12.4-acre site at 4200 Wissahickon Avenue. 61 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. And thank you, by the way, Madam Chairperson and members of Council, Councilman Nutter, for introducing this proposal. We have just completed an extensive program study for all Salvation Army operations in the City of Philadelphia. This includes ten neighborhood-based core community centers of the type that we envision putting on Wissahickon Avenue, only that will be a much larger and, of course, much more up-to-date facility. In addition, we have ten other institutional-type services in the City of Philadelphia for homeless people, transitional housing and all of the basic services, crisis intervention services, which the Salvation Army has conducted traditionally in the City of Philadelphia. We have tried to be very careful in all of our planning to make sure that this vision will enhance 62 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. existing operations. So you ask a very incisive question. Thank you for raising it. There may be some relocation, some amalgamation in a limited way, but the sum total will be that we will serve more people with more depth and quality and will greatly enhance our service delivery system.
Let me ask you a little more detailed question. Will the site on North Broad Street at Broad and Fairmount be relocated? COMMISSIONER WATSON: No. No. 15 The site at Broad and Fairmount is for our divisional headquarters for the eastern half of the State of Pennsylvania and Delaware and also some basic services on that one square block complex, including the Red Shield residents. We don't envision the relocation of those operations.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. 63 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to state for the record that I agree with Councilman Nutter's assessment of this project. I was involved early on before this site was chosen in looking for sites around the City, and I don't think people recognize or realize yet the significant opportunities in this development, in this project. It's going to be one of the most significant and influential developments that the City has ever seen. The center in San Diego is phenomenal. I mean, all the things that we've seen and researched about, it's just had such a positive impact, and the opportunities and the future there in that neighborhood because of their investment, the Kroc Foundation's 64 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. generosity and the Salvation Army's desire to stay in Philadelphia, I just want to thank them personally. It's just an amazing opportunity to rebuild the neighborhood, and this is going to be one of the main cornerstones of it. So thanks for your faith in Philadelphia and your continued mission. COMMISSIONER WATSON: Thank you, Councilman. If I may respond to that, Madam Chairperson, and to thank Councilman Kenney for his efforts, as we have done a total sweep of all potential sites in the City of Philadelphia over a period of 17 months and we kept coming back to the 18 site on Wissahickon Avenue for a number of reasons, not the least of which the main arteries of transportation, access, public transportation, the demographics of the area, the size of the site. The 12 acres was exactly the range that we were looking for. We've done extensive focus 65 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. groups in the area, and the whole concept has been received with great, great enthusiasm on the part of the community. We're grateful for that. If I may just add a further word to this effect, that the Salvation Army in Philadelphia -- and this is the birth place of the Salvation Army in the United States, right here in the City of Philadelphia at 4th and Oxford Streets in 1879. So we think this has even more significance for us and for the community, and we're delighted because we have been selected to receive a $77 million grant from the estate of the late Joan Kroc, whom I knew personally and knew about her vision for that center, that $93 million center in San Diego. Her vision was that in providing these centers across the United States on the model of the San Diego center, the Army would provide state-of-the-art facilities and services targeting the underserved. Those were 66 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. her restrictions. Another restriction in the gift was that the estate would be divided between capital funding and endowment funding. So as Mike O'Neill has indicated, we expect to raise a facility costing in the range of $40 to $42 million, and we're approved to receive a $41 million endowment grant as part of our grant. That will be the lead gift for a major operating endowment campaign, which we expect to launch this summer so that we can make sure that we're enriching and funding this new center, but also helping to fund the existing operations in response to your incisive question. This will be about a 100,000 square foot facility, to include an aquatic center, full-size gymnasium, fitness center, performing arts center, a child daycare center, a senior citizens adult daycare center, case work services and many different functions for job training and job readiness woven into the 67 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. entire fabric of the program design. We are required, in order to keep the $77 million grant, to submit by May 31st of 2006 our program design. That is completed as of today. It will be presented to our Mission Alignment Council at 2:30 this afternoon. We are required by July 31st, in order to keep the $77 million grant, to submit our sustainability plan. We're well down the road on that. We'll have that in place.
4-acre piece, and that's why I'm so grateful for the opportunity to say these few words before Council today on the zoning change, because as one of the provisions for entering into the settlement on the purchase of the property, we have to demonstrate that the zoning change has taken place. That's why we're so grateful to you for your willingness to hear this request today. 68 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. Thank you very much.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to support Councilman Nutter's request that this Committee support this bill. Just for the Kroc Center alone, this brings the opportunity for an underserved portion of Philadelphia -- and certainly it's in Councilman Nutter's district, but right across in my district it's an area that just doesn't have good recreation, job training. It doesn't have any types of real facilities there. And people in the neighborhoods are really looking forward -- I think people in all Philadelphia actually -- are looking forward to the Kroc Center. The Budd site's development is important to that area as it relates to 69 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. economic development, housing development and the entire neighborhood stabilization. That will certainly happen as a result of the center. The Temple site is currently being developed. It looks to me like it's almost finished, and that's something that we truly supported. And I just can't say enough that what the development of this entire site will mean to that portion of Philadelphia. So I too want to urge our Committee members to support this bill. COMMISSIONER WATSON: Madam Chairperson, if I may just thank Councilwoman Reed for all the help she's given us as well in moving this project forward. Thank you.
Thank you. I just want to applaud you and the Salvation Army for the great work that they're doing at the facility at 33rd and Reed. It's something that was 70 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. sorely needed in the community, and I think it's worked out beautifully. COMMISSIONER WATSON: Thank you very much.
Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, gentlemen, thank you. I would ask Mr. McPherson to kindly read the title of Bill No. 060313. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 16 amending Section 14-1619 of The Philadelphia Zoning Code, entitled "Frankford Avenue Special District Controls," by adding parking requirements for the district, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules 71 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 060313, which was introduced by Councilmember Krajewski April 27, 2006. This bill amends Section 10 14-1619 of the Zoning Code, entitled "Frankford Avenue Special District Controls," by adding a parking requirement for the district. This bill 14 would require any use that is constructed, erected, expanded or extended so that it occupies more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area would be required to provide off-street parking at a ratio of one space per thousand feet of gross floor area. The district affects all commercially zoned properties with frontage along Frankford Avenue between Harbison and Solly Avenues, as well as all commercially zoned properties with 72 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. frontage on Cottman Avenue between Leon Street and Edrick Street. As written, there is a concern that an existing transportation street, Frankford Avenue, would be transformed from an urban setting to a suburban one, undermining the existing urban fabric of the commercial center of the Mayfair and Holmesburg sections of the City. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 18, 2006 considered Bill 13 No. 060288 (sic) and recommended that it be approved with an amendment precluding curb cuts on Frankford Avenue, requiring that parking be provided in the rear of the building and further requiring any new buildings be constructed with no 19 setback from the street line. I have that amendment available if Council would so like to adopt that.
I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee. 73 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
As of o'clock yesterday, we had not received 4 testimony on this bill. However, I would simply like to ask, is the provision of one additional parking space for each additional 1,000 square feet of gross floor area sufficient?
In this particular instance, I believe so. The problem here is, individual owners were going to acquire storefronts, and not just one but several storefronts that are currently zoned C-2 and they were going to then breach the walls and utilize them as one large commercial operation and provide no 17 off-street parking as under the Code. Subsequently, with an existing structure, by having them required to provide one space per thousand square feet of gross floor area, we don't believe that they will be able to meet that requirement and, therefore, send the matter to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, at which point it gives the community an 74 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. opportunity to express its opinions and feelings on a particular project.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 050268. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 16 amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-500, entitled "Industrial Districts," by amending Section 14-504, entitled "L-2 Limited Industrial District," by modifying the conditions under which certain uses are permitted, under certain terms and conditions.
75 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. Mr. Kramer.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 050268, which was introduced by Councilmember O'Neill and Council President Verna April 7, 2005. Bill No. 050268 amends the provisions of the L-2 Limited Industrial section of the Zoning Code by removing a 5,000 square foot limitation on the allowable gross floor area of laboratories and assay offices. This amendment to the Code has been requested by the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation as part of efforts to market the former Philadelphia Naval Base as a location for business and industry. This limitation does not exist in less restrictive classifications in the Zoning Code. 76 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of April 14, 2005 considered Bill No. 050268 and recommended its approval. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you. I would like to ask, are there currently any proposed projects that will benefit from the elimination of this restoration? If so, what are they?
My name is Paul Deegan and I represent PIDC. We are marketing particularly the research park at the Navy Yard for high-tech laboratory-type uses. We don't have any currently lined up. We did have one building, Aptech, which was developed about two years ago when the site was zoned G-2 Industrial. Since then, we've rezoned most of the Navy Yard to L-2. So this restriction now applies to all the land down there. But currently I don't think we 77 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. have any firm agreement or resolution or agreement of sale with any company which would be hampered by this restriction, but we're constantly marketing, and Liberty Property Trust, which is developing much of the yard, is also looking at bringing in high-tech pharmaceutical, research companies to the yard. So we're trying to be a little bit ahead of the curve rather than waiting until we land the company and then find out that we have a restriction there that's going to give them a problem.
Very good. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Deegan, will this action involve any land or have any effect on the food distribution center that's -- 78 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
No, Councilman. In the rezoning we did last year, we did a comprehensive rezoning at the Navy Yard, and the eastern section of the yard does remain G-2 Industrial, which permits large warehouse-type uses.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
We also have written testimony, which Ms. Williams was going to deliver, but if you don't see the need for it, then we're fine with that. We have submitted the testimony for the record, though.
Well, I think you know what the rule is. Testimony should be received 48 hours 79 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. prior to.
We have it? Well, is there additional information?
Why don't you just introduce her and tell us who she is.
It's okay. If you don't need to hear it, that's quite all right.
I'm sorry. My name is Krista Williams and I represent Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation.
We 80 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. welcome you. We wish you every success.
That doesn't happen too frequently around here, I'm afraid.
Thank you, Council President. In the, I guess, almost 30 years I've been coming over here, it's always been a pleasure.
Thank 81 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. you all very much. Is there anyone else to testify? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting, and I recognize Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 11 060205. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I believe that all members of this Committee have received a copy of the amendments, and at this time, I would move for the approval of the amendment to Bill No. 060205. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment as distributed earlier be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Those 82 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. opposed? (No response.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 060205 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 17 060205 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. (Aye.)
Those 83 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. opposed? (No response.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller regarding Bill No. 8 060263.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill 11 No. 060263 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 19 060263 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. Also, a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. 84 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. It was moved and seconded that Bill No. 060288 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation --
That's what happens when you're interrupted. It was moved and seconded that Bill No. 060263 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. 85 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Mr. Kramer, I want to make sure that we're doing the right thing. On Bill No. 060285 we indicated that there would be an amendment. The amendment has been prepared. Do we have to go into our public hearing in order to offer the amendment? Is that very technical?
I guess you -- that would be a rules of Council. I'm not absolutely certain if that --
Okay. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 060288.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 25 060288 be reported out of Committee 86 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. favorably and a request made for rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council session (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 8 060288 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. As indicated earlier, Bill No. 21 060312 has been held at the request of the sponsor. Mr. Kelly, I would like a motion from you regarding Bill No. 25 060313. 87 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 060313 be reported out of this Committee with a --
I move that the amendment submitted to Bill No. 9 060313 be reported with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
All those in favor of adopting the amendment as presented please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Yes. Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 060313 as amended be reported out of this Committee 88 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. with a favorable recommendation and further move for the suspension of the rules in order that this bill may be heard at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 9 060313 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050268, the last one.
Thank you, 89 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. Madam President. I move that Bill 050268 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 10 050268 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. We are going to recess our public meeting, go back into our public hearing, because I don't want to hear any indication that this was done improperly, because we have some people who want to see that happen. So we are now in, as I said, our public hearing, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. As indicated 90 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. in earlier testimony, there is an amendment circulated that will be offered on Bill No. 060285.
Madam Chairman, members of the Rules Committee, my name is William Kramer, City Planning Commission. The amendment reads as follows: To amend Map B Proposed Zoning in Bill 060285 by changing the proposed "L-4" "Limited Industrial Zoning" to "C-2" Commercial within the area bounded by 24th Street, Penrose Ferry Road and the south side of Packer Avenue.
We are now back into our public meeting, and the Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move for the adoption of the amendment to Bill 91 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC. 060285. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment just read be adopted. All in favor will please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, I move for the adoption of Bill 060285 as amended and move that that bill be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) 92 5/23/06 - RULES - BILL 060205, ETC.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 4 060285 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. That concludes our public meeting. Thank you all very much. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 11:35 a.m.) - - - 93 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on May 23, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)