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.