This discussion19 ongoing about the garages is very20 entertaining, so, A, for the record, is21 it better to have the car garage than the22 truck access on Rodman Street? Of course23 it is. However, that being said, I would24 hope that this Committee would pay25 98 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 attention to the much more fundamental2 issue of what is the justification for3 the proposed rezoning, what community4 need is served by this proposed spot5 rezoning.6
Okay. I7 hear you, except I was addressing what8 Ms. Fitzpatrick, what she brought up. So9 thank you.10
Any other11 questions?12 Councilwoman Reynolds Brown.13
Point of14 information, Mr. Chairman, to the sponsor15 of the bill. The proposed site --16
Excuse me.17 Hold on one second.18 Councilman DiCicco,19 Councilwoman Reynolds Brown has a20 question for you.21
Just22 clarification around this parking issue.23 The proposed development calls for how24 many apartments?25 99 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thirty.2
Seventy.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thirty4 parking spaces. What was the number --5
Okay.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And the12 parking spaces are only for the tenants,13 not public parking. So it wasn't like14 the tenants may have to go look for a15 space in the neighborhood. It's16 dedicated to the development.17
Thank you20 very much for your testimony. Thank you.21 David Fante, Angela Fante. Is22 Stanley Krakower here?23 I see him. I see you.24 (Witnesses approached witness25 100 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 table.)2
Whoever3 would like to start, please identify4 yourself for the record and proceed.5
My name is David9 Fante. 11 I'm a homeowner of 1332 Rodman12 Street, directly behind the proposed13 development. I am a licensed architect,14 a member of the American Institute of15 Architects, and I work for a large16 architectural and engineering firm in17 Center City. I am a member of the18 Washington Square West Civic Association19 and serve on the Board of Directors and20 the Zoning and Governmental Affairs21 Committee. 16 We have seen this proposal17 transform from the original six-story18 scheme to the seven-four split scheme,19 but it does not go far enough to maintain20 the scale and historic character of our21 neighborhood. 1 asked that the South Street portion of2 the building be reduced from four stories3 to three stories. To make up for the4 loss on South Street, we have suggested5 building taller on Broad Street. The6 only reason given thus far as to why the7 South Street portion of this building8 cannot go lower than four stories is the9 financial hardship for the developer to10 build taller on Broad Street. 15 In addition, how can anyone16 claim financial hardship when the17 ordinance they themselves drafted for18 City Council increases the building area19 of the lot from the allowed 500 percent20 to 575 percent? 4 And who benefits? We certainly5 do not. The City does not benefit from6 four stories on South Street. PIDC, the7 Planning Commission and the Commerce8 Department do not benefit from four9 stories on South Street. 13 My neighbors and I are not opposed to14 development. However, we are prepared to15 pursue whatever means necessary to16 protect our well-being, our investments,17 our quality of life and our rights under18 the zoning laws of this city. We support19 smart development which conforms to20 current zoning and is mutually beneficial21 to all parties. 7
Thank you8 for your testimony.9 Whoever is next, please10 identify yourself.11
Angela Fante,12 homeowner of 1332 Rodman Street and a13 structural engineer here in town.14 We, the residents of the 130015 block of Rodman Street, urge that City16 Council oppose this ordinance. We ask17 nothing more than for City Council to18 maintain current zoning on the lot behind19 our properties, 35 foot high20 residential-only development along South21 Street with 9 foot setbacks between our22 properties and "C-4" zoning along Broad23 Street.24 This ordinance would not only25 106 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 permit development directly behind our2 properties over 14 feet higher than our3 homes, but would change the function and4 density of these spaces from the intended5 residential zoning to a commercial usage.6 While a 9 foot setback is proposed, this7 space would be occupied by an enclosed8 shed-like structure for a loading zone9 corridor and not the open or green space,10 individual patio spaces intended by the11 current Zoning Code.12 The bottom line is that the13 rezoning contained in this ordinance is14 harmful to us, the homeowners of Rodman15 Street, and the canyon effect that would16 be created in our backyards by this17 building looming over our homes would18 have a significant negative impact on our19 sense of space, quality of life and20 property values and would also negatively21 impact our well-being due to diminished22 sunlight and air. It is simply unfair to23 impose this change in zoning on us, the24 neighbors, all in the name of25 107 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 guaranteeing a developer's financial2 gain. We will be punished physically and3 financially while he reaps the benefits.4 What sense does it make to injure a5 neighborhood in the name of developer6 profit?7 My neighbors and I have been8 involved in this process for several9 months. We have testified before the10 Planning Commission, we have attended11 several presentations to the Wash West12 Civic Association, and we have discussed13 this project with Councilman DiCicco.14 The question we keep asking amongst15 ourselves is, why must we fight so hard16 just to have the law be upheld?17 The Zoning Code was written to18 protect us against this exact situation,19 and we ask that City Council seriously20 consider the adverse effects that the21 changes this ordinance would impose on22 our neighborhood would have and to simply23 uphold the law.24 We are unyielding in resisting25 108 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 development higher than 35 feet behind2 our homes, and although it is not our3 preference, we are united as a block in4 our commitment to taking this to the5 highest levels necessary to maintain the6 well-being and character of our7 neighborhood. We are, of course, willing8 to negotiate with the developer, but as9 of yet, have not been formally invited to10 do so.11 Thank you for your time and12 attention. We do appreciate the13 thoughtful consideration you will give14 towards the implications this ordinance15 would have on our community.16
Thank you17 for your testimony.18 Mr. Krakower, please identify19 yourself for the record. Please pull the20 microphone close to you.21
Thank you very22 much, Councilman Kenney, members of the23 Rules Committee. My name is Stanley24 Krakower. I'm a land use and zoning25 109 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 lawyer, and I'm representing these2 residents on Rodman Street, some of which3 could not be here today, and I wonder if4 the Committee would just permit me to ask5 the people who are here from Rodman6 Street who support this position and7 opposition to this bill would just stand8 up.9
So they could be11 observed.12 Those of you stand up.13 (Some audience members14 standing.)15
As you can see,16 there are almost a dozen, maybe seven or17 eight people. 2 First thing I want to say is,3 as all of them have indicated to you,4 there is certainly a willingness to5 continue discussions and negotiations6 with the developer and his counsel, and7 that we look forward to an opportunity to8 do that. However, it must be recognized9 that the primary issue, the most10 difficult issue, is the one of the11 height, the size, the density of the uses12 on South Street, because this ordinance13 would do two things. First of all, it14 would change the use from an "R-10"15 residential use to allowing commercial16 uses. It would also significantly17 increase the size. We're not talking18 about a size addition of five or six19 feet. We're talking about, as it stands20 now with the recent reduction, of a size21 addition increase of something like 1422 feet, from 35 feet up to 49 feet. 1 allow. 5 We're talking about a total6 area of zoning change of approximately7 10,000 square feet. 14 It's a little less. That's about the15 size of a baseball infield, a baseball16 infield, 90 feet by 90 feet, 8,100 square17 feet. 21 This really should have been22 brought to the Zoning Board of Adjustment23 on the basis for a variance. 1 hardship and need, of minimum variance2 requirements, that were they satisfied or3 not, that could have been presented. 19 The other question that's20 involved is the question of who is the21 community. We know that the developers22 have been talking to members of the23 Zoning Committee of the Wash West Civic24 Association. 1 really the relevant community. The2 people who are affected are these people,3 the dozen people that you saw stand up4 here and the people sitting next to me,5 who live right on Rodman Street, whose6 properties actually are contiguous to and7 touch the South Street properties that8 would be rezoned. And in going through9 to the Washington Square West Civic10 Association, no member of the Zoning11 Committee of the Washington Square West12 Civic Association lives on Rodman Street,13 except, except for Mr. 2 Now, there have been3 modifications and we've heard about4 those, particularly the truck versus car5 modifications, but the problem is, that6 alone, though it's important, is not what7 the neighbors, at least the ones I've8 talked to and the ones who are here9 today, have indicated is the most10 substantial. 13 The density is important too,14 because what you're going to have there15 are instead of "R-10," which would allow16 approximately 10 or 11 houses, row17 houses, you're going to have 75 to 8018 apartments. That is a tremendous19 difference in density. And, again, I'm20 not talking about the car parking. 23 Now you also have the height --24
Can I just25 115 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 ask a question just from a generic2 perspective? I understand their3 testimony relative to the density of the4 building and the height of the building,5 but why having 75 units occupied as6 opposed to 10 row houses occupied, why is7 that a detriment to the community? Why8 is more people living in the neighborhood9 a detriment?10
More people11 living there brings the added noise,12 size, trash, all of the things that go on13 in that block. You're also going to14 have --15
This is an16 urban setting. I'm not arguing their17 point. The two witnesses made the point18 about cavern and air and light, and I19 understand that, but you can't -- I20 reject the argument that we want less21 people living in Center City. I mean, I22 don't understand that part of the23 argument. I mean, whether they're living24 in a structure that these folks are25 116 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 willing to accept or not, but the mere2 fact of having more people living3 downtown, where's the problem?4
Let me respond,5 if I can, Councilman. The Zoning Code6 itself -- by the way, this is also true7 in the new proposed Zoning Code -- often8 relates with density to the number of9 people who live in a given area, in a10 given block, in terms of the services11 that those people require and the12 services that those people generate in13 terms of just having that many more14 people there. The code in every city, by15 the way --16
But that17 doesn't seem to have a big problem in New18 York. I mean, the density in New York is19 vibrant and phenomenal. I mean, I would20 love to see a similar human density, not21 necessarily structural density, but a22 human density on South Broad Street in a23 residential setting. I think that's what24 makes a city terrific. I mean, I will25 117 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 reject or disagree with your assertion2 that we don't want more people living3 downtown. I mean, that's --4
It's not a5 question of downtown. It's within one6 small block, a block that -- the area7 that's been changed is the size of a8 baseball infield. Remember that. That's9 what we're talking about.10
Again, we're not15 necessarily saying that it has to be only16 the 11. We're asking, isn't there some17 number -- even the 75 or 80, the question18 then becomes because you want 80 people19 in there, you're building the places up20 higher. You now have 59 feet of height21 instead of 35 feet. That creates a22 difference in light, air, ambient light23 and the whole --24
How high25 118 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 did you say it was?2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's 48.3
I understand4 from Mr. Kelsen's testimony it's 59 feet.5 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:6 Forty-eight.7
Oh, 48 feet.8 I'm sorry. Yes. I had the wrong number,9 48 feet. So from 35 to 48, that's 1310 feet. I was thinking 14. I thought it11 was 59.12
But, again, even15 at 48 feet -- and this, we are told, is a16 great concession, when it was originally17 produced in development I think then18 called for 50-something feet. So the 4819 feet or the 38 feet is a concession, and20 we'll acknowledge that it's a concession,21 but the question is, is it nearly enough?22 Because the other problem you have is the23 distance between the backs of those24 properties and the backs of these folks'25 119 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 properties, they're going to be cheek to2 cheek. They're going right up against3 each other. There's supposed to be a 94 foot setback, but that 9 foot setback is5 going to be covered and used for some6 sort of transformation of goods or7 properties or something. It's going to8 be utilized. It's not going to be like a9 garden like these people have now. They10 have gardens for 9 feet. This is going11 to be used for partially to assist the12 commercial uses, as I understand it.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No.14
I'm sorry.15 As you make assertions, Councilman wants16 the record to be clear that there may be17 some misunderstanding on your part what's18 going on on Rodman Street.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I20 would ask, Mr. Chairman, maybe Mr. Kelsen21 could respond to that use of that setback22 area. If you don't mind, why doesn't23 Mr. Kelsen come up.24
Yeah.25 120 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Sir, could you please take that2 seat there so we can --3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If I can,4 Mr. Chairman, I just want to --5
You're not6 going to have a microphone.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What we're8 talking about residential development on9 South Street, are we talking about on the10 intersection or is he talking about this11 area?12
The "R-10" area.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just14 want to make sure.15
And Mr. Roller is16 coming up as well.17 As a result of the relocation18 of the loading from Rodman to South19 Street, it is necessary to have a20 corridor created so that the goods and21 trash can be moved to that area and from22 that area, and in recognition of the fact23 that the neighbors are behind it, we've24 enclosed that area. So there is a 9 foot25 121 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 privacy wall. It's actually lower and2 it's right up against -- exactly.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This one4 here.5
Mr. Roller can6 show it in a little bit more detail.7 So what we've done is, we have8 created a corridor that allows us to move9 the trash and goods through the building10 without being disruptive of the11 community. The wall that has been12 proposed that abuts the Rodman Street13 side of the property, members of Council,14 is a masonry wall that will be greened15 like we've done at 24th and Locust with a16 living wall. It's actually been17 redesigned to step down in slope so that18 it is lower as it's up against the19 property line on Rodman. I think it's,20 Jerry, and a half feet and then slopes21 up to feet and is roofed over.22 I have to correct my good23 friend Mr. Krakower's concept. We've24 designed this in recognition of the25 122 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 potential new Zoning Code, which allows2 for "R-10" structures to be 42 feet, as I3 mentioned earlier. We're at 48 feet4 approximately, 48, 10. I'll stipulate5 that it's 48, 10.6 In recognition of the Code, I7 would also point out that "R-10"8 currently allows for multi-family use if9 you meet the bulking area. So this is10 not a single-family residential zone11 along this portion of the property.12 "R-10" does allow multi-family and could13 allow a density that's fairly14 significant.15
Let me just16 ask another -- can I just ask another17 question for my illumination. How many18 houses are on Rodman Street?19
This would24 be on the north side of Rodman facing the25 123 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 proposed development?2
Well, their rear3 yards face the proposed development.4 They front on Rodman.5
So it's the6 south side properties that get the most7 impact?8
Of the10 south side properties, if you look -- and11 try to follow me. If you look down South12 Street and you go -- Mr. Roller, could13 you just go down South Street to where14 the lower structure starts, the roof of15 the lower structure. How many houses,16 how many yards are impacted from the17 corner of South Street -- Broad Street18 going down South to where the building19 then lowers?20
I'm trying23 to determine how many properties are24 impacted by the lower-rise structure as25 124 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 compared to the higher-rise structure.2 That's what I'm trying to find out.3
None are affected4 by the high-rise structure behind us. We5 are specifically talking about the "R-10"6 area.7
So I8 mentally get an idea of what the impact9 is, you're telling me that the10 seven-story structure does not abut any11 of the properties on Rodman Street?12
And the14 only impact from a height issue is the15 lower-rise structure going east?16
Because,18 honestly, I'm thinking your yard is right19 up against the seven-story building.20
I mean, for22 me, that's a totally different view of23 what --24
Councilman Kenney,25 125 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 this is the plan that shows there are2 seven properties which abut the3 four-story piece, plus one vacant lot.4 Four of those are fairly short properties5 which have a substantial yard and three6 of them are longer properties that have7 smaller yards. They go down to the 98 foot required, but the four properties9 have a yard that's about 18 feet.10
And how11 high are the lower-rise structure12 properties proposed, how high are they?13
Thirty-five.17 Current code is 35 maximum height in18 "R-10."19
All right.20 I'm just trying to get my head around the21 whole thing. All right. Thank you.22
Thank you very23 much.24 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:25 126 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Mr. Krakower, you need to take the2 microphone.3
Talking about4 multi-family dwellings on the "R-10,"5 Peter, wasn't it true that would only be6 available depending on the yard lot7 space? You'd need 144 square feet, plus8 100 feet for each family use. So if you9 were going to have two families in there,10 you'd need 244 square feet of yard space.11
Anyway, I'll20 wrap up, because I think the point and21 the issues have been made relatively22 clear by all sides. Our request candidly23 is that this Rules Committee at this24 point table for further consideration and25 127 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 discussion a number of the matters that2 have been presented. Both sides have3 indicated a willingness to conduct4 further talks. And on our side, we only5 ask that the talks be conducted with the6 people who are involved, the Rodman7 Street residents, the some seven or eight8 families that are involved, rather than9 with Washington Square West. We would10 ask that we engage in those conversations11 without necessarily having a time12 pressure of a Rules Committee vote and13 then full Council vote coming up on us in14 a hurry. We would rather do this. It's15 an important project. It's a project16 that we all know has been sitting for ten17 years since the PIDC got involved. We18 would like the vote of the Rules19 Committee at this point to be tabled for20 some future date that the Rules Committee21 can select. We would think maybe a22 couple more weeks. And then we can get23 back to you and see, without any24 additional pressure, if we can come up25 128 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 with something that everybody can live2 with.3
Thank you.4 Just one final question. In some5 testimony of this panel, someone said6 that a financial hardship is not a reason7 for a variance. Isn't it? Isn't that8 one of the reasons given when you go to9 the Zoning Board?10
It is if it's a11 dimensional variance. It is not for a12 use variance. In this case, you have13 both. You have a use variance for14 commercial and a dimensional variance for15 the size of the building.16
But,17 hypothetically, if the developer had to18 go to the Zoning Board for a variance,19 one of the arguments they would make20 would be a financial hardship.21
And they would22 have to show it. They can't just claim23 it.24
My point25 129 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 is, that is one of the reasons that they2 grant one.3
Mr. Chair,8 my question may actually be for members9 of the Administration, not these10 gentlemen, these individuals here. So it11 can wait. I can wait if they come back12 up.13
I think we21 have two more witnesses, residential22 witnesses, and then --23
If the Council24 wishes, we'll leave and give the table25 130 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 back to Mr. Greenberger or anybody else.2
To clarify the7 setback that is part of this development8 here, whether it was covered or not, it9 was always presented as a service alley10 to service the spaces on the ground11 floor. Just for clarity.12
Alexandra15 Fazio and Brian Morris, please. They're16 the last two I think are going to17 testify, and then we'll bring back the18 Administration.19 (Witnesses approached witness20 table.)21
Good23 morning. Please identify yourself for24 the record.25 131 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1
My name is Brian2 Morris. I'm a homeowner at 1315 South3 Street.4 I'm here today to voice my5 concern about the proposed development6 for the northeast corner of Broad and7 South. Having been to the Wash West8 Zoning Committee meetings regarding9 proposed development, it's clear to me10 that the concerns of the adjacent11 property owners are, for the most part,12 being disregarded in the development13 plan.14 While I myself am not directly15 affected, as I live a half block east on16 South Street, as a concerned citizen I17 strongly believe that certain morals18 should be upheld. Longtime neighborhood19 residents who have strived to improve the20 quality of the community, and21 specifically the adjacent property22 owners, should not have to endure a23 change to the current zoning which would24 benefit the developer at their expense,25 132 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 especially in regard to the proposed2 building height.3 I would hope that the Committee4 here today would take into consideration5 what I believe is basic human fairness6 and concern for your fellow woman and man7 when making any decision.8 Thank you.9
Good morning. My12 name is Alexandra Fazio. I'm a resident13 of Washington Square West, current member14 and previous Co-Chair of the Washington15 Square West Zoning Committee. 21 I'd like to thank the Rules22 Committee for allowing us time to speak23 today. 1 Properties and JK Roller Architects for2 working with our community towards a3 resolution to this development. 20 Design changes and negotiations21 are still in progress involving our22 community group and the developer,23 Dranoff Properties. 8 But most notably, the decrease in height9 from six to four stories on the South10 Street parcel now standing at 48 foot,11 10. 16 Setbacks from the side --17 excuse me; north side neighbors are18 included in the design. All trash and19 loading access has been relocated to20 South Street. 23 And I just wanted to clarify as24 well. 6 The low north setback wall7 along Rodman Street properties will8 decrease in height to six foot, eight9 foot -- excuse me; six foot, eight inches10 maximum, a sloped roof of standing seam11 metal or approved alternate will cover12 the trash and loading rear corridor. 15 Modifications to the South16 Street parcels' main north wall will be17 made in order to decrease the perceived18 scale of the overall building. One19 current suggestion under review by the20 Washington Square West Civic Association21 and the developer is to change the facade22 material at the fourth floor to glass in23 lieu of brick and to step that portion of24 the facade back. I believe Mr. 8 The installation and9 maintenance of street trees along all10 three property lines, the overall use of11 high-quality, aesthetically pleasing12 materials. Currently the proposal13 includes brick in two colors, metal14 panels, stone and glass. 18 Restrictions to the retail19 uses, sensitivity to neighbors regarding20 cleanliness of site, noise and staging21 logistics both before and during22 construction. 8
Thank you9 for your testimony. Just personally, I10 think Dryvit ought to be banned. I hate11 Dryvit.12 Thank you. Any questions for13 these witnesses?14 (No response.)15
Seeing16 none, thank you for your testimony.17 Mr. Greenberger, callback.18 DEPUTY
Alan23 Greenberger, Deputy Mayor for Economic24 Development.25 138 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1
Thank you,4 Mr. Chairman.5 This is actually not related to6 this project specific, but more in terms7 of process. Mr. Greenberger, you may or8 may not know the answer to this question.9 In terms of RFPs, is there any10 consistency in the various government11 entities in terms of RFPs, the language,12 the timing, the notification from a13 public perspective? And the reason I ask14 you this question is that, having been15 here for it feels like a hundred years16 right now --17 MR. DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:18 Me, too.19
-- every20 now and then we have these -- you, too,21 right? You've only been here for two22 years. Imagine how I feel.23 You have these developments24 that basically we go through our process25 139 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 and Council, we authorize PIDC to dispose2 of property. They do what they do, and3 traditionally do a pretty good job, but4 they don't really come back to us. And5 then a project developer is selected and6 we find out about it in this particular7 case in a public hearing.8 What's the public notification9 beyond, I guess, something on the10 Internet or what's the process? Can you11 just tell me, just generally.12 DEPUTY
To13 answer that question, why don't I have14 Tom Dalfo from PIDC --15
The18 first question is, while there's not a19 single template that all agencies use to20 put a property up for RFP, there's a21 great deal of overlap and consistency in22 the language, but it's not to the letter.23 And different agencies have somewhat24 different rules depending on what the25 140 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 property is and what kind of property it2 is, industrial versus commercial,3 residential.4
Good afternoon.6 I'm Tom Dalfo with PIDC.7 Councilman, to try to answer8 your question specifically on this site,9 let me give you a little bit of10 background on the level of engagement11 that PIDC --12
I understand. The15 level of engagement that PIDC conducted16 as part of this particular project.17 As was noted earlier, the RFP18 was issued in November of last year to19 solicit development proposals for this as20 a mixed-use site, taking advantage of its21 location on South Broad Street, its22 proximity to the Broad Street subway23 line. And as part of that process, we24 generated the RFP working in conjunction25 141 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 with the Planning Commission and the2 Commerce Department. We did a series of3 sort of informal outreach efforts, one of4 which was to the --5
Partly. To the8 Councilman's office, and at their9 direction and the recommendation, we10 reached out to the Washington West Civic11 Association, some members of the12 Washington Square Civic Association, and13 had a draft of the RFP reviewed at that14 time. So before it went out to the15 market, we got some level of feedback and16 input as to this is where we were17 thinking in terms of the type of18 development that would occur on the site.19 Once we then --20
Let me jump21 in there. Sorry to interrupt you. So at22 the time, what's the -- is there public23 notification of the actual RFP beyond --24 I'm assuming the developers, they look at25 142 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 this on a frequent basis, but how would a2 person in the community, just Josephine3 Blow, know that there's this particular4 parcel?5
For this RFP and6 what PIDC will do for our traditional7 development RFPs, we do two things. We8 issue a legal advertisement in both the9 Inquirer and the Tribune, as required.10 We also post it on our website to make11 available and let people know about it.12 We also then have an extensive list of13 development companies and people who work14 with developers we've assembled over the15 years and we'll send out what we16 essentially call a blast e-mail to let17 people know this opportunity exists.18 So that's what we did last19 November. So it was publicly advertised20 on our website and within the newspapers21 of record in the City of Philadelphia.22
But if I'm23 not a developer or have no development24 interest, I wouldn't look at any of that25 143 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 realistically.2 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:3 Well, I can't answer it on this specific4 instance. I'd have to go back and ask5 within the Planning Commission, but our6 community planners in Planning will also7 reach out to community groups and8 development groups that are within their9 planning responsibility to let them know10 of significant events.11
Thank you,16 Mr. Chairman.17 Mr. Greenberger, I think18 Councilman Clarke's original question was19 whether there are different processes for20 RFPs.21 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:22 Right.23
And there is24 a different process between governmental25 144 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 RFPs and quasi-governmental RFPs. In2 terms of City RFPs, the whole process is3 posted online; is that correct?4 DEPUTY
I'm5 not sure what you mean by the "whole6 process." Could you just explain a7 little further.8
There is a9 contracts online portion on phila.gov and10 the whole process from beginning to end11 you can track.12 DEPUTY
But that is15 not true for this process?16 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:17 Well, that's probably right.18
Thank you,24 Councilman.25 145 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 You were -- let me cut to the2 chase. I'm not going to take you through3 this. You know I'm a4 development-friendly Councilperson. You5 walk in my office, you see the shovels,6 the whole nine yards.7 DEPUTY
And this10 came up in different iterations before11 about public notification for a12 particular parcel. Would there be an13 issue -- and that's why I asked about the14 consistency in all the different15 agencies, because everybody has their16 own.17 If there was a parcel, 50,000,18 significantly sized, so -- you don't want19 to nickel and dime the process -- that a20 property is going to be sold or there's21 an RFP issued, to post it on the site22 say, for instance, similar to a zoning23 notice. Once there's a zoning -- the24 development is going to be done in terms25 146 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 of variance. So the person who lives in2 the neighborhood is not going to access3 all these various developer-interest4 websites and other activities, would know5 that this parcel is going to be sold,6 these are the parameters of the RFP and,7 at a minimum, they would know what8 potentially is happening in the9 neighborhood.10 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:11 Yeah, I would support that.12
You can13 support something like that?14 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:15 Absolutely. I don't think there's any16 harm in putting that kind of information17 out there in addition to all the other18 pieces that we do. Absolutely.19
Okay. I'm20 just saying, because a lot of times21 people -- we're sitting here and some22 people, they probably knew about it, and23 I know Councilman DiCicco does a great24 job with the community meetings. We25 147 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 probably have more community people in2 the public hearings relating to things in3 the district than any other Council4 district. So it's clear that he does5 significant outreach. But I was thinking6 of early on in the process if there's7 some way that we can let people know --8 DEPUTY
I'd9 be happy to discuss that further with10 you, but I think that's something we11 could just effect. That's a reasonable12 request.13
If I could just18 sort of note the additional outreach we19 did, because I think at some level,20 Councilman, we did that.21
I don't --22 don't feel defensive. I'm just trying to23 figure out a way to improve a process.24
No, and I25 148 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 appreciate that, and I think that we're2 always looking for ways to improve the3 process as well, but I think just for the4 Committee's sort of own information, I5 think it's worthwhile to note the amount6 of engagement that we attempted to do as7 part of this process. And I noted before8 we issued the RFP, drafts were reviewed9 by members of the community.10 Secondly, when we solicited11 proposals and we got to the interview12 stage, members of the Washington West13 Civic Association were present at part of14 that interview process. Subsequently, we15 formed a Design Review Advisory16 Committee. Once again, members of the17 Washington West Civic Association were18 members of that committee, some of which19 were present here today, for at least20 three of the meetings that we've had.21 And related to that, the developer has22 had at least three communications and23 presentations before the Washington West24 either the Zoning Committee or the25 149 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 general membership committee.2 So this is a project that we3 tried to let people know about ahead of4 time. We want to make sure people are5 engaged. We want to make sure that6 they're not surprised by significant7 development of any scale in their8 community.9 My point here is, there was a10 request for a continuance and further11 discussion. I'm not sure what that's12 going to yield at this point. There's13 been extensive amount of discussion on14 there. We would ask that the Committee15 consider the bill, consider it favorably.16 And I think the developer has made17 significant concessions to the community,18 and obviously that's somewhat of some19 debate from some members of the20 community, but I'm not sure at this point21 what additional engagement and22 communication and talk is really going to23 yield.24 Thank you for your time.25 150 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1
Thank you.3 Councilman DiCicco.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just a5 point of information. In this particular6 case and other matters where I had7 dealings with PIDC, once PIDC -- and8 correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Dalfo -- has9 done its due diligence on a particular10 parcel, they contacted my office to let11 me know that this is something that they12 were thinking of doing, would I have any13 support or objection to this type of14 proposed development occurring at this15 site, and I basically would sign off on16 that, with the understanding that they17 begin that process of meeting with the18 community groups. So it starts at my19 level, a district Council level, way20 before it gets to this, and then a21 developer is selected and then the rest22 of the process, which we are facilitating23 today.24
I25 151 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 understand that, but that's why I asked2 the initial question about consistency in3 the RFP process. Where PIDC might do4 that, another agency may not. Some5 people just simply post it online. I've6 gotten people come to me -- and I'm not7 going to say the agency -- said, Well, I8 gave a deposit on a parcel of X agency to9 buy it. And then I'm forced to have to10 either deny introducing the ordinance to11 dispose of it or accept it without having12 appropriate community intervention. So13 that's why I'm just trying to get some14 kind of consistency in some way, shape or15 form; that's all.16
Thank you17 very much.18 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:19 Mr. Chairman, if I could add one comment.20
Always quit24 when you're ahead.25 152 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 I'm just kidding. Please.2 DEPUTY
I3 just want to further Mr. Dalfo's point.4 I think it's more than just no purpose5 served by delaying this. I don't know6 what's in the developer's head in terms7 of their own timing, but delaying has a8 huge negative impact on development in9 the City. For private sector, time is10 money, and it's important to move on with11 this. A lot of concessions have been12 made, and I think this is a very strong13 project.14
Okay.15 Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.16 That should conclude -- we've17 had -- we could go on obviously forever18 if we wanted to go back and forth, so19 we're going to have to end it at some20 point.21 Anybody who hasn't testified22 would like to testify on this bill?23 (No response.)24
Seeing25 153 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 none, we will now move to Bill No.2 110563, an ordinance amending Title 14 of3 The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning4 and Planning," by amending Section5 14-1604, entitled "Outdoor Advertising6 and Non-Accessory Advertising Controls,"7 by permitting certain non-accessory8 outdoor advertising signs within the area9 bounded by 7th Street, Spring Garden10 Street, 6th Street, and Willow Street,11 under certain terms and conditions.12 Mr. Greenberger, please13 identify yourself for the record.14 DEPUTY
Alan15 Greenberger, Deputy Mayor for Economic16 Development and Chairman of the17 Philadelphia City Planning Commission.18 Good morning, Mr. -- or good afternoon --19
--22 Mr. Chairman. Got it right.23 I'm here to testify on Bill No.24 110563, which was introduced into City25 154 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Council on September 8th, 2011.2 This bill amends Section3 14-1604 of a section called "Outdoor4 Advertising and Non-Accessory Advertising5 Controls." The bill would permit one6 static or digital mesh wall wrap7 non-accessory outdoor advertising sign8 per building in an area bounded by 7th9 Street, Spring Garden Street, 6th Street10 and Willow Street. The conditions of the11 bill require the sign face to contain an12 area no less than 7,000 square feet and13 no more than 10,000 square feet.14 Additionally, the bottom of the sign15 shall be at least 30 feet above grade and16 the top of the sign no more than 110 feet17 above grade. The bill also proposes the18 building on which the sign would be19 placed would need to be at least 70 feet20 in height, with a minimum floor area of21 100,000 square feet, as well as a minimum22 public street frontage of 150 feet.23 Additionally, the building may not be in24 an historic building listed as such on25 155 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 the National Register of Historic Places2 or on the Philadelphia Register of3 Historic Places. Lastly, the building4 may not be a parking garage or a building5 where more than 50 percent of the floor6 area of its above-ground structure is a7 parking garage.8 The Planning Commission at its9 meeting of October 18th, 2011 recommended10 that this bill not be approved. The11 Commission expressed several reasons for12 their recommendation. Among them, unlike13 the granting of large format signs for14 Market Street East for which developers15 are required to make a substantial16 investment in the public character of a17 property, this entitlement requires18 nothing of a property owner. The19 Commission believes that the use of large20 format signs or building wraps in any21 area of the City should be strategic and22 always tied to larger development goals.23 Secondly, an excessive number24 of outdoor non-accessory signs in the25 156 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 City, without careful regulation, can2 contribute to the appearance of3 deterioration of commercial and4 industrial areas, negatively impacting5 the economic viability of these areas.6 And, third, by allowing7 buildings to become sign platforms8 without other development requirements,9 property owners will lose incentive to10 appropriately reuse, develop or maintain11 their structures.12 Furthermore, application to the13 Zoning Board of Adjustment for a wall14 wrap that had existed for some time at15 this location was rejected by the Board16 and their decision was subsequently17 affirmed by both the Common Pleas and18 Commonwealth Courts.19 Lastly, speaking as Deputy20 Mayor on behalf of the Administration, we21 feel strongly that large format signs or22 building wraps should only be considered23 in conjunction with broader development24 goals and should not be granted to25 157 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 building owners on a case-by-case basis2 absent those development goals.3 That's the conclusion of my4 testimony. I'd be happy to answer5 questions.6
Thank you.7 Councilman DiCicco.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,9 Mr. Chairman.10 Good afternoon,11 Mr. Greenberger. I was looking for your12 testimony. I don't see it. You13 reference the recent sign legislation we14 did for Market Street.15 DEPUTY
Yes.16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And there17 was some obviously requirement from those18 building owners to reinvest. Do you --19 and if you don't have the answer, it's20 not a leading question. It's a21 straight-out question.22 The area where this wall wrap23 is being proposed, number of vacant24 former industrial buildings, factories,25 158 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 could you envision a similar model for2 this area that we did on Market Street3 where building owners would be required4 to do some reinvestment in their5 properties and/or the community in which6 they're located?7 DEPUTY
I8 think there's probably a number of areas9 in the City where the model could be10 considered. Right now I don't have a11 strong feeling that this is one of them.12 When the Market Street sign bill came up,13 I think, Councilman Clarke, you asked me14 a similar question about North Broad15 Street, and I think we'd want to look at16 this on a very case-by-case basis in17 terms of an area and measure the value of18 the tool against the likely results and19 kind of redevelopment that we're looking20 for.21 So should it be on the table as22 a tool? Yes, I think so, but I think you23 want to look at it area by area and24 understand what you get for that.25 159 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you2 have not looked at it as that type of an3 area?4 DEPUTY
No.5 We've certainly not looked at this area,6 no.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So you8 could be for it; you could be against it9 even after you looked at it, correct?10 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:11 Right. But we haven't looked at this.12 It never came up as a consideration.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.14 No further questions.15
Thank you.16 Any more questions for17 Mr. Greenberger?18 (No response.)19
Thank you20 very much.21 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:22 Thank you.23
Mike24 Berman, Terry Graboyes, Steve Christini25 160 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 and Mike Lemon.2 (Witnesses approached witness3 table.)4
Whoever5 would like to begin, please identify6 yourself for the record.7
My name is Myron,11 known as "Mike," Berman and I am the12 Managing Partner of Callowhill Center13 Associates. 16 I have with me today Terry17 Graboyes, Graboyes Commercial Window18 Company, who has been a tenant in the19 building that we own from prior to the20 sign going up many years ago, and Mike21 Lemon with Mike Lemon Casting, who22 likewise has been a tenant in the23 building and was a tenant at the time the24 sign was up. 2 I am a native Philadelphian, a3 graduate of Kirkbride School, Furness4 Junior High, Southern High and Temple. I5 organize real estate investments. 11 The subject legislation12 concerns the block between 6th Street and13 7th Street and Willow Street and Spring14 Garden Streets. My partnership acquired15 what is the largest property on this16 block in 1986. The building had been the17 School District warehouse. 19 The building systems were not20 operational. The Vine Street Expressway21 was still a dream. Many surrounding22 buildings were in a similar state of23 blight. 1 Following the redevelopment of2 our building, other buildings in the area3 were renovated. 17 This legislation will allow the18 placement of a wall wrap sign in this19 entertainment district. Such larger20 signs are appropriate and frequently21 found in large urban centers. They22 complement the vibrancy and activity in23 these districts. 1 allow for buildings to be renovated,2 maintain underperforming buildings. 7 The sign came down, was removed8 after a prolonged battle with SCRUB, who9 sought to reverse and successfully10 reverse a ZBA variance that had been11 obtained. A second application to the12 ZBA was filed, was denied and denied by13 the appellate courts. During the five14 years that the sign was up, there was15 never an allegation that it caused any16 traffic accidents or endangered the17 public in any way. 19 A little bit about myself and20 my partnerships in the communities. My21 affiliates and I have supported many22 community organizations with four- and23 five-figure donations totalling more than24 $200,000. 1 classroom libraries to the School2 District of Philadelphia. Through the3 Children's Literacy Initiative, we4 donated over 1,600 books to the Fell5 Elementary School. 15 If this legislation is passed,16 Callowhill Center intends to put up a17 wall wrap non-accessory advertising sign18 and contribute 20 percent of the revenue19 to the City of Philadelphia Recreation20 Advisory Council earmarked for the21 program for teen camps. That is what we22 suggest. 4 Currently, there is only one5 rec center that has a teen camp and there6 is a need for 11 more. The cost of7 creating teen camps is $9,000 each per8 year. The projected cash revenue of a9 hundred thousand dollars can support 1110 more teen camps. Teen camps enroll 4011 teenagers each. 20 I would like to note that in21 2005 we were the first corporate22 contributor to the Vare Recreation23 Center. Our contributions were used to24 sponsor night basketball. 1 the longest and one of the largest2 contributors to Vare. The program had3 220 participants this year, and over the4 course of the program has benefited 6505 young people. 9 A sign pursuant to this10 legislation would have revenue of11 $500,000 a year, which would generate12 City sales taxes and also would enhance13 the value of the property for real estate14 tax assessment. 18
Thank you,19 Mr. Chairman.20 Mr. Berman, thank you for your21 philanthropic interest in the City of22 Philadelphia. Did you receive any tax23 benefits for your charitable donations?24
You do receive tax25 167 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 benefits, yes, sir.2
Councilman4 Greenlee.5 COUNCILMAN GREENLEE:6 Mr. Berman, real quickly, do you plan on7 having any kind of lighting or digital,8 or what's your plan, other than how it9 looks now?10
We will do what is11 commercially viable at the time. At this12 time, what's viable is the static sign,13 but if there's a time when the electronic14 becomes viable, that has many advantages.15
Councilman18 DiCicco.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good20 afternoon, Mr. Berman. You mention the21 revenue stream of a hundred thousand22 dollars, but when we met, did we not talk23 about a 20 percent of whatever the24 revenue was as that contribution?25 168 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1
Yes, sir,2 Councilman, and that's what it would be.3 But we estimate it to be initially about4 a hundred thousand dollars.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But it6 could be --7
Certainly if8 digital became viable, that could9 increase it dramatically.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So if it11 was a million dollars a year of revenue,12 it would be 20 percent of the million?13
Thank you.16 Anyone else at the table like17 to offer anything, or no? You don't have18 to. If you want to. You have to pull19 the microphone and identify yourself.20
Well, you23 have to identify yourself for the record.24
Terry, you2 have to formally identify yourself for3 the record.4
I'm Terry5 Graboyes. I own Graboyes Commercial6 Window Company, and we have been in the7 Callowhill Center for just about 208 years, and I think we've got another 1209 on our lease. But it's clearly our home10 and we love the building. We love the11 location, and, quite frankly, the wall12 wrap was fun. We loved it. We thought13 it added to the excitement in the area14 and that it not took away from the fabric15 of the funky neighborhood that we're in,16 but it actually added to it. And I think17 I speak for all of the tenants that --18 none of the tenants had any objections to19 it. I mean, it does cover some of my20 beautiful windows, but, you know, you got21 to have a give and take.22 But truly, I just can't even23 imagine anybody being opposed to it. The24 advertising was never shlocky. It was25 170 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 always professional. It wasn't, you2 know, magic marker kind of take to the3 Phillies kind of sign. And I think4 speaking for the tenants and the folks in5 that area and now with McGillicuddy's in6 there and a lot of activity at night,7 it's a much safer neighborhood. I8 certainly feel safer working at night in9 that building than I ever did before, and10 I think the wall wrap just adds to the11 excitement of both the building and the12 neighborhood.13
Good16 morning. Are there any vacancies17 currently in your building?18
Yes, there are.19 We have -- we, frankly, always had a20 significant vacancy. Vacancy is about 3021 percent. And we cater to businesses,22 small businesses. I guess we could have23 converted to condos, but businesses need24 a place to operate, too, and we provide a25 171 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 good home to businesses. We continually2 try to keep the occupancy higher, but3 that's about what we have now.4
What I was5 struck by is the -- I don't know what the6 percentage is, but the number of emerging7 and/or small arts and cultural8 organizations. And what I know was9 discussed ad nauseam under the former10 Administration was talking with11 interested developers who would -- this12 is something that's in practice in13 Atlanta, where there is a confluence of14 arts and cultural organizations, both15 performers and those who provide16 services, and they actually operate much17 like the Enterprise Center in West18 Philadelphia where you share the admin19 costs and you have them all hubbed in one20 place and they get a chance to feed off21 of each other. So I raise that purely as22 an idea that was explored during the last23 Administration, but we couldn't get24 anchored to it.25 172 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1
Well, let me2 respond, Councilwoman. In a sense, we3 have a critical mass of arts and cultural4 people in the building, and that happened5 just in the natural course of things.6 First the Electric Factory, and Mike7 Lemon goes way back in that, and we've8 had acting schools. We have a theatre9 group, 1812. Those organizations that I10 named are mostly in our building. And I11 think when Mike Lemon testifies, he would12 have something to say about bringing13 together, because that's something that14 he does, brings together various people15 as kind of an incubator.16
That's the17 word I was searching for, incubator. And18 so let me suggest, purely as a19 suggestion, to reach to the Greater20 Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, which is21 looking for a developer or an interested22 party who gets it in terms of what that23 kind of critical mass means for a24 community and explore with them that25 173 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 possibility, especially or at least2 acknowledging that there are vacancies.3
Lastly,6 how did those X number of civic7 organizations get so lucky to be8 considered for your hit list?9
We're out there10 every day talking to people, meeting11 people. And in the Grays Ferry area, we12 have a major property there. That's the13 Campus Park and Ride and the Pennsy Flea14 Market, but I have ties to lots of15 neighborhoods. I was born and raised at16 7th and Morris. The property in Grays17 Ferry, Morris Street goes right through18 it, and this property is on 7th Street.19 So I'm connected.20
Got it.21 Okay. Thank you for your testimony.22 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.23
You're24 welcome.25 174 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Councilmember Goode.2
Thank you,3 Mr. Chairman.4 Just very briefly, Mr. Berman.5 Following up on Councilman DiCicco's6 question about whether it is in fact 207 percent or a hundred thousand dollars a8 year, I understand the projected revenue9 is $500,000. That's why you used a10 hundred thousand dollar figure. I guess11 my question really is, how is the 2012 percent memorialized with respect to this13 legislation?14
Well, I don't15 believe it's in the -- I don't think it16 was appropriate -- I was told it was not17 appropriate to put directly in the18 legislation, but we will memorialize it19 any way that you would wish. We have a20 long track record, so it's something we21 want to do, and we're happy to22 memorialize it in any way that's23 appropriate, if that's what the Council24 wishes.25 175 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1
I guess the2 second question is, when will the 203 percent be memorialized?4