COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 8, 2005, 10:35 a.m. - - - 050300 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Columbia Avenue, the Delaware River and Marlborough Street. 050418 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Fairmount Avenue, Front Street, Brown Street, I-95, Poplar Street, Front Street, Laurel Street, Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Canal Street and Poplar Street. 050419 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Penn Street, Laurel Street, the Delaware River and the former Fairmount Avenue. V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 050459 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded generally by Oregon Avenue, 20th Street, the Walt Whitman Bridge Approach and I-76. 050462 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by the Delaware River, the Tacony Bridge, Eldridge Street, New State Road and Unruh Avenue. 050463 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Thompson Street, Alresford Street, Edgemont Street, Juanita Street, Salmon Street, Berkshire Street, Richmond Street and the Betsy Ross Bridge. 050464 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by State Road, former Rhawn Street, the Delaware River and Bleigh Avenue. 050465 - An Ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-200 entitled "Residential Districts" by adopting a new Section 14-216 entitled "Waterfront Redevelopment District," under certain terms and conditions. 3 050466 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by New State Road, Milnor Street, Princeton Avenue, the Delaware River and Unruh Avenue. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS-BROWN 4 Rules - 6/8/05
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would ask Mr. Ericson to please read the title of Bill No. 050459.
Bill No. 050459, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations in certain areas of land located within an area bounded generally by Oregon Avenue, 20th Street, the Walt Whitman Bridge approach, and I-76.
Before we start the hearings, I would note that a quorum is present. To my left we have Councilman Kelly, Councilman O'Neill, Councilwoman Miller; to my right Councilman Clarke and Councilman Kenney. Mr. Chapman, please proceed. Identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I 5 Rules - 6/8/05 am the director of the Development Planning Division for the City Planning Commission and I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 050459. This bill was introduced by Councilmember Blackwell on behalf of Council President Verna on May of this year. 9 This bill would amend the 10 Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the 11 zoning designation of certain areas of 12 land located within the area generally 13 bounded by Oregon Avenue, 20th Street, 14 Walt Whitman Bridge approach, and I-76. 15 As introduced, this bill would rezone 16 approximately 22.6 acres of land on part 17 of the former quartermaster site from the 18 current zoning designation of G-2 general 19 industrial to designation of C-3 commercial. This rezoning would permit the reuse of this site as a mixed use residential commercial development. Many of the existing buildings will be reused and improved for residential use, thus preserving a number of significant 6 Rules - 6/8/05 structures. The remainder of the site will be developed to provide neighborhood and commercial uses. Subsequent to the introduction of this bill, we were informed by the representatives of the proponent of this legislation that there was a desire to amend the bill so that the area to be rezoned would be changed to C-2 commercial instead of C-3 commercial. With that, the planning commission at its meeting --
Mr. Chapman, I was distracted. Did you say you had an amendment?
Yes, Madam President. The planning commission at its meeting of May 31, 2005, recommended that Bill No. 050459 be approved. The only change that you're going to see on that amendment, Madam President, is that the bill as introduced indicated the site was going to be rezoned to C-3 commercial and now it's proposed to be rezoned to 7 Rules - 6/8/05 C-2 commercial.
Thank you. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council president, members of the committee. Peter Kelsen on behalf of the applicant developer. We are pleased to present this ordinance as amended, Council president, members of the committee. This would allow conversion of the former defense center site -- as Mr. Chapman indicated, it is currently zoned G2 industrial -- to a designation of C2 commercial. This would allow for a vibrant retail complex compatible with the community and consistent with uses 8 Rules - 6/8/05 surrounding this site. I am pleased to tell you that the discussions with the community have been very favorable, very positive, and that in return for creating this zoning classification, which again was originally contemplated to be C-3, we're then amending it to C-2, we will agree to enter into a deed restriction with the community for a period of years. That 12 deed restriction is intended to assure 13 both the developer and the community that 14 the uses that are proposed will not only 15 be compatible with the community's 16 desires and proper retailing and 17 residential development but also will be 18 complimentary to uses surrounding it and 19 community-based facilities. There will 20 also be a defined letter agreement that 21 sets forth additional uses and 22 relationships that will be established 23 between the community and the owner 24 developer over the course of time. 25 We're delighted that we're able 9 Rules - 6/8/05 to reposition this 20-acre site, which as the Council well knows really cannot be used properly under the industrial setting. Interestingly enough, members of the committee, if the rezoning were to be retained as G-2, you would get uses in there that would be clearly inconsistent with proper community development. We thank you. We would ask for the rules to be suspended and also that the amendment be acted upon. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Thank you. For the record, can you tell us who the proposed developer is?
The developer is Defense Realty. They have owned the property for approximately four years, Council President. And they would work with national and local retailers to reposition the property.
How much of the property will be used for 10 Rules - 6/8/05 residential and how much will be used for commercial?
At this time we do not have a defined percentage for residential reuse. I would imagine that depending on market conditions you would get single family owned properties either as new construction or within the existing buildings. Some of the buildings are very significant and very beautiful.
To your knowledge, is there any indication as to what the commercial use will be?
Well, there will be a number of commercial uses. By way of example, there will be retail users that would fit within some of the buildings. We are contemplating perhaps a farmers market which would be internal to the building and have cafes as well as sale of fresh produce and product. We will also look to have a neighborhood retailer such as a department store chain 11 Rules - 6/8/05 coming in there and developing one that is complementary to the community. We have committed to keep the community and the Council President's office apprised as to our retailing efforts and we will continue to dialogue as to who is contemplated to be in the center. There is 20-plus acres so there is ample opportunity for a good mix of retail and residential.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the committee of the witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you. I note we do have some community people present. I understand they have to get back to work. So if we have someone that would like to testify on behalf of the community, please approach the table, identify yourself for 12 Rules - 6/8/05 the record, and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and distinguished members of the Rules Committee. My name is Jody Della Barba. I am the president of Girard Estate Area Residents. We are an area just north of the property. I have a brief statement that I'd like to read.
On behalf of the 1,500 families GEAR represents, we ask you to support the change of the 23-acre property at 20th and Oregon formerly known as the Defense Supply Center to C-2 commercial. The area has changed drastically since the manufacturing boom days in Philadelphia. The industrial designation no longer is feasible in this area nor is it feasible for the owners. We believe that mixed use of both retail and eventually some residential is necessary for the survival 13 Rules - 6/8/05 of our area. We have drafted both a deed restriction and a letter agreement which in addition to the C-2 designation is a win-win situation for us and the owners. We believe this conversion to C-2 will further delay residents from leaving the confines of Philadelphia to shop or live in New Jersey or other counties outside our area.
Thank you. And I assume that you've had more than one community meeting.
Yes. And the community is 100 percent in favor of the change to C-2 commercial.
Yes, Madam President. My name is John Furey, president of Broad Street West Civic Association. We represent about 5,000 households from Snyder Avenue to the 14 Rules - 6/8/05 bridge and from Broad Street over to about 20th Street. And our community wholly supports this application. We have a lot of development going on in the area. We have high-end housing in Packer Park. We have the historical certified area of Girard Estate. So this is a prime piece of real estate and this type of development, especially with the residence aspect involved, will be a very good plus for the neighborhood.
Fine. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill?
You're welcome. I would ask Mr. Ericson to please read the title of Bill No. 050300.
Bill No. 050300, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of certain areas of lands located in an area bounded by Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Columbia Avenue, the Delaware River, and Marlborough Street.
Good morning, once again, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. This bill was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco on April of 20 this year. Bill No. 050300 would amend 21 the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of certain areas of land located within the area bounded by Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Columbia Avenue, the Delaware River, and 16 Rules - 6/8/05 Marlborough Street. This saves approximately 1.5 acres of land that's located along the Delaware River waterfront. If enacted, the zoning of this property would be changed from the current zoning designation of G-2 general industrial to the proposed designation of C-3 commercial. Immediately adjacent to this property on both sides, the land is zoned G-2 general industrial. The developer has indicated a desire to improve the property for residential use. However, development plans for site are in the concept stage. And without a specific plan of development, we are presented with a proposal that does not specifically address the issue of public access to the waterfront nor are we presented with any specific plans. For these reasons, the planning commission at its meeting of May 31, 2005, recommended that Bill No. 050300 be tabled to give the developer additional time to prepare complete plans for the development of 17 Rules - 6/8/05 this site. At the request of the law department, I would ask the committee's indulgence to submit an amendment to this bill. We are asked to replace map B again with a new map B to address some concerns with dimensions. That concludes my testimony.
In your testimony, you indicate that the developer wants to put in residential housing. Why is the rezoning for commercial C-3?
C-3 is zoning classification that has been mapped extensively along the waterfront. Although it is a commercial designation, it is a classification that also allows residential development. The Waterfront Square property that's under development right now, that property is zoned C-3 commercial as is the site immediately adjacent to that. Both of these sites are proposed for residential development 18 Rules - 6/8/05 even though the zoning designation is C-3 commercial.
Well, I was just conversing with my colleague here. What type of housing would be permissible under C-3?
Typically, Madam President, under C-3 you're going to see high-rise buildings, mid-rise buildings, condominiums, apartments, that kind of development. And C-3 is a classification that allows -- depending on the size of the site, it allows fairly tall buildings.
For the record, can you tell us who the developer is?
Thank you, Madam President. You say C-3 allows certain 19 Rules - 6/8/05 types of residential development. Does it prohibit certain types?
Generally, no. 5 You could build three-story row homes C-3 if that's what you wanted to do. I doubt that that's the kind of development that we'd see here. It probably wouldn't be enough return on the investment.
So it's a less restrictive residential zoning basically?
Particular type of development. By going C-3 route, you virtually authorize any type of residential development?
That's the intent of the developer because he or she has not finalized their plans so they want flexibility of developing any type of residential housing based on the market? 20 Rules - 6/8/05
Well, my understanding is they are proposing to build a mid-rise type of building but they just have not had the time to have final plans prepared yet. But, again, it's my understanding that the type of development that is being proposed for this site is consistent with other residential developments that have been taking place along the waterfront.
This is not in my Council district, but I think it abuts my district. I don't know if you can answer. Maybe Councilman DiCicco can answer. In terms of discussion with community residents, have there been discussions with residents above I guess it would be west of -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me give you the information as I have it to date. The developers came to see me several weeks ago, maybe three months ago. I lose track of time as I'm sure we all do in this job. But I had suggested 21 Rules - 6/8/05 to them as I always do that they meet with the community group first. There is not the communication that I particularly was satisfied with between the developer and the community group. Since then a followup meeting was in my office, held in my office last week with the developer and the attorneys who represent them, the law firm of Mattioni, Mattioni, and Mattioni. I believe there's a meeting scheduled tonight with the Fishtown Neighbors Association. As you know, Councilman Clarke, I have only one division left in Fishtown and fortunately or unfortunately that division --
I have you to thank for that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We can get into that discussion after this Rules Committee meeting. Fortunately or unfortunately, this development is part of that one division. So, in general, your constituents in Fishtown, which you have more than I do, would be somewhat 22 Rules - 6/8/05 impacted, but the majority of the impact would be with that one division directly on the west side of Delaware Avenue. What I'm going to be asking the committee to do with this bill as with one or two other bills is vote these bills out favorably, we will do a first reading, and I will hold on second and final reading until all the issues between the community and the developer have been addressed. And I have told this to the attorneys that if it takes all summer, that's what it will take. If they can come to a resolution between now and June 16, that's fine, but if they can't come to any resolution, the developer and his attorneys agreed we will revisit this on second and final meeting when we come back into session sometime in September or October. I just want to keep all of these projects going forward because many of them have financial issues with lenders that they need to have a clear signal that 23 Rules - 6/8/05 development will take place. What shape and form, we're not there yet, but at least the message to the lenders for the developer says we are in the process going forward to have a development plan in place that will be approved at some point in time.
The Fishtown Neighbors Association, do you know if Ms. Kate is -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Kate Chomentowski I believe is involved. She has called my office. And Brian Abernathy, my legislative aide sitting behind me at the moment, has ensured the Fishtown neighbors I would not move on second and final passage until they come to an agreement.
Councilman, are you suggesting we suspend the rules today? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes. Again, I will not move on this unless 24 Rules - 6/8/05 there's an agreement tonight, we will move next week. If not, it will be September at the earliest.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. Ericson -- oh, I'm sorry. Did you want to testify, sir? Please approach the witness table. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's his first time here.
Good morning, sir. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
Charles Bross, 242 Richmond Street. No. All I want to do is -- that's my area. I was with Councilman Clarke last week and he had a rough time. And so my thinking is -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Not on this bill. 25 Rules - 6/8/05
No. You're all right, pal. You're all all right. What I'm going to say is I'm going to the meeting tonight. And this is the first time I've been here and I'm seeing a little bit of, well, I guess you could say action, what goes on in here. And it's pretty damn nice. But I'll tell you that part of Columbia Ave is Delaware Ave. From Spring Garden Street up north is not Columbia Ave -- I mean is not Columbus Boulevard. It is still Delaware Ave. That's all I want to tell you.
Thank you. Thank you for coming in, taking the time to express your views. We really appreciate it. Mr. Ericson, please read the title of Bill No. 050418.
Bill No. 050418, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas located within an area bounded by Christopher Rules - 6/8/05 Columbus Boulevard, Fairmount Avenue, Front Street, Brown Street, I-95, Poplar Street, Front Street, Laurel Street, Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Canal Street, and Poplar Street.
We're on Bill No. 050418. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Same area, is that your question, Councilman Clarke? Generally, it's Delaware Avenue. This is a property that's just north of Spring Garden on the west side of Delaware Avenue. Two former vacant -- former industrial buildings. There was a Club Gotham in one building and Eighth Floor in the adjacent building. The developer here is not a local developer, a developer from Hoboken, New Jersey. He's here to answer any questions. But, similarly, since this is primarily all in my district, a meeting -- number of meetings have taken 27 Rules - 6/8/05 place between the Northern Liberties Neighborhood Association and the developer. One such meeting was last week that I attended that lasted for at least three hours. Agreements were made and commitments were made by me at that meeting that we would move forward on asking this committee to report these bills out favorably with the suspension, and if we can't come to a resolution on the issues that are still outstanding between the developer and the community, I would hold on second and final reading until the fall. And it is an extensive development and if the developer would like to come up and just give us a brief overview.
Well, I think we should hear from Mr. Chapman first. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The developer is here to answer any questions and give you an overview of what the project entails. 28 Rules - 6/8/05
That's fine. That would be wonderful. Mr. Chapman?
Thank you. Once again, good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. This bill will amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain lands located within the area of Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Fairmount Avenue, Front Street, Brown Street, I-95, Poplar Street, Front Street, Laurel Street, Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Canal Street, and Poplar Street. Currently this area is zoned G-2 general industrial. This bill 18 would change most of the area to a designation of C-4 commercial with two adjacent block faces being rezoned to the R-10B residential classification. This rezoning would allow the site to be developed with a proposal that includes two 40-story condominium towers. An accessory parking garage is also part of 29 Rules - 6/8/05 this proposal and that garage would be fronted by townhomes. Current plans also include a supermarket located at the ground floor of the one of the towers. Currently the site contains a number of vacant lots and some active uses including a nightclub and a bus parking lot. The Commission was made aware of the fact that the developers have had a number of meetings with representatives of the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association as well as Councilman DiCicco's office. And as of the date of the Planning Commission's consideration of this request, all the issues with the community had not been worked out. Representatives of the developer acknowledged this fact and stated that they hoped to resolve these issues by the end of the summer. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 31, 2005, recommended that Bill No. 050418 be approved. 30 Rules - 6/8/05
Thank you very much. Would the developer please approach the witness table. And I would like the record to reflect that Councilwoman Brown and Councilman Cohen have joined us. Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. My name is George Vallone and my firm is the Hoboken Brownstone Company. We're located in Hoboken, New Jersey.
Mr. Vallone, how many housing units do you anticipate constructing at the site?
May I ask what the projected development cost 31 Rules - 6/8/05 will be?
How many parking spaces would the garage supply?
We're proposing 1,100 parking spaces, one for each residential unit, and an additional 150 for the commercial space, a total of 1,250.
What, if any, outstanding issues are there with the neighbors?
Well, we've had five meetings with the neighborhood 32 Rules - 6/8/05 association in addition to five or six meetings with individual members of the association and probably ten phone calls with individual neighbors too just one on one. And we've worked up requests or 7 modifications to the project which the 8 community group has requested and we've 9 agreed to do. And the issue right now is 10 sort of a technical issue. And I'm not 11 an attorney, but I can explain it to you 12 in businessman's terms. They would like 13 some assurance that the promises we've 14 made are going to get built. And they're 15 concerned that since we're in an option 16 period on the land right now that if the 17 C-4 zoning gets adopted and this document 18 isn't recorded in some fashion to make 19 sure that it goes along with the rezoning 20 that there's a possibility that they 21 might not get what they think they're going to get. So they hired an attorney, Shawn Ward, and we have meetings set up with him starting next week. We're going to put a little task force together and 33 Rules - 6/8/05 try to figure out how to get them comfortable with the fact. The Councilman has been fantastic. He attended the meeting. It must have lasted four hours last week in front of about 250 people from the community. And he's assured them that he will not allow the zoning to remain C-4 unless our proposal is the proposal that's going forward with those conditions we have agreed to. So I think with his assurance and now that they've hired an attorney we're going to be able to craft an agreement that will get everybody comfortable with that fact that we're going to deliver what we said we're going to. Then there may be a few other ideas people come up with. Somebody recently suggested they wanted a Post Office. Apparently there's not a Post Office in their district. I happen to think that's a great amenity for the building so we're not against that. If other ideas come up along the way, it's 34 Rules - 6/8/05 not an all-inclusive list at this point. We're still open to other ideas that make the project better and make the neighborhood better. So it's a process. We're working our way through it. I have every confidence that we're going to be able to get to the finish line.
Wonderful. I'm sure you will. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
A couple questions. This is a relatively massive development that you're proposing and I'm happy to see that you're interested in doing this in the wonderful city of Philadelphia.
I'm assuming you've developed in Hoboken and 35 Rules - 6/8/05 other parts of New Jersey or New York. How many units have you developed so far?
Well, we've been headquartered in Hoboken for years. 6 Since my partner and I graduated 7 Gettysburg College, we've been partners 8 and together for 25 years. I've only 9 been married for 19 but partners with him 10 for 25, so we must be doing something 11 right. We've been in Hoboken, Jersey 12 City, Patterson, Newark, and Trenton. 13 Number of units altogether, I don't have 14 the figure at the tip of my tongue. It's 15 a couple thousand. I would say it's 16 probably 2,000, 3,000 units all together. 17 We built affordable housing under the HUD 18 home program and market rate housing. 19 Our last project, if I could 20 just elaborate one more second to answer 21 your question more fully, we purchased 22 the old Maxwell House Coffee factory in 23 Hoboken. It's 24 acres on the waterfront 24 and we're right now in the process of 25 constructing 1.1 million feet of 36 Rules - 6/8/05 residential space, 250,000 feet of office and retail, 1,500 parking spaces, and we're also going to be building the largest park in the city, a 6-acre waterfront park. When the park is completed, we're going to donate it to the city. We've arranged through the condominium operating budget to have a 50-year annuity to pay for the operation and maintenance of the park. It works out to about 35 cents a square foot. It's not a lot. It's only about a another $20 a month to each unit owner but works out to about $400,000 a year for operation and maintenance of the park for the next 50 years. So that was our last project.
You know, there's a park in proximity to your proposed development.
There's a park in proximity to your proposed development. 37 Rules - 6/8/05
Well, we're actually opening up -- about an acre and a quarter of the property is going to be opened up and made public, landscaped, and two streets that were vacated when the Greyhound Bus Terminal came in, we're reopening Beach and Brown. Brown will be the main entrance to the project off of north Delaware. There's a traffic light right there. And Beach, we're going to keep that as a pedestrian accessway although it will be facilitated for emergency vehicle access also. But it will be primarily just a pedestrian accessway to the green open space. The whole middle of the block essentially is going to be opened up to the public.
There's two 38 Rules - 6/8/05 towers. Under one of them, we're hoping to have a supermarket, hoping to get an upscale supermarket. And then the garage, which runs the entire length of the site along Front Street between Fairmount and Poplar, is going to be a five-story garage structure, but you're not going to see the garage because on three sides we're going to build townhouses that are going to be up four stories plus a penthouse. So that will cover the garage. On the Fairmount side of the property, there's a series of row houses I understand were built in the 1700s. And we were requested -- and we were thinking about doing it anyway. We're going to restore those row houses and use them as part of the townhouses. Then we're going to try to replicate the architectural designs of that row to design the row houses that go around the block on -- go around the garage on the other three sides. It should look contextual. It should fit in with the 39 Rules - 6/8/05 neighborhood. We put the high-rises right up against the Delaware. Many of you probably know there's a high-rise project right across the street called Waterfront Square. So our towers are pushed up against the Delaware side of the property where there's towers right across the Street. And we kept the five-story garage and townhouses on the west side of the property closest to the Northern Liberties neighborhood.
We proposed two 40-story towers. I think in the end the south tower is going to come down a few floors, though. There are some neighbors on Fairmount that asked us if we'd consider reducing the south tower in height and width. We originally proposed 1,500 units and by agreeing to a density reduction of 400 units we should be able to bring the tower down and also narrow it a little bit. It's a little wide 40 Rules - 6/8/05 right now so coming down to 1,100 gives us the opportunity to make it a narrower tower and also shorten it a little bit. I'm going to guess it's probably going to come down to 37 floors, which happens to be the height of the tallest tower across the street.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
I'd just like to congratulate the sponsor and say welcome to Philadelphia. Gettysburg College. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: People in the audience complain about the ten-year tax abatement, that that is basically subsidizing these developments. There's no public dollars in this development. But Mr. Vallone -- and I'll speak on his 41 Rules - 6/8/05 behalf if it's okay -- when he came down to look at Delaware Avenue, south Philadelphia, started getting excited about it. He said but for the ten-year tax abatement, they probably wouldn't be doing this project. When I made it known to people in the audience about the transfer taxes we will get from the sale of each unit, wage taxes, sales taxes that the ten-year abatement is a benefit for us to keep in place as opposed to repealing it at this particular time. And I think I speak on behalf of Mr. Vallone that that was a major incentive for him to come to Philadelphia.
That was absolutely one of the top two considerations was the abatement. The other thing is Philadelphia itself. We have not had a lot of experience here. We have been in New Jersey for years. 24 And when we came down to investigate the 25 property, the city is alive right now. 42 Rules - 6/8/05 There's a lot of construction going on. The culture, it fits right in with the latest demographic trend, which is the baby boom generation is moving back to the cities. And it's clear across the country. It's particularly clear here in Philadelphia. And we're just very excited to be here. One other issues about the taxes that I think is noteworthy is that we agreed with your tax assessors department on four years of increases to the assessed value. So that by the time the tax abatement kicks in, the assessed value will have risen from the current assessed value, which is $4 million, to $18 million. So I know the seller of the property told us that every year he hires his lawyer and they file a tax appeal and fight like heck to not have their assessments go up, but what we said was we need predictability more important than dollar savings and so we made a deal with the assessors office that taxes are 43 Rules - 6/8/05 going to rise, as I said, from about to 18 million dollars and then they'll be 4 abated for ten years. So I think it's a fair deal for everybody.
Wonderful. We certainly wish you well and we welcome you to Philadelphia.
Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? (No response.)
Thank you very much, sir. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. Ericson to please read the title of Bill No. -- 44 Rules - 6/8/05 Councilman, are you requesting a suspension of the rules on this bill 4 also? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes, Madam President.
Thank you. Mr. Ericson, would you please read the title of Bill 050419.
Bill 050419, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Penn Street, Laurel Street, the Delaware River, and the former Fairmount Avenue.
Good morning once again, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. Tom Chapman for the City Planning Commission. This rezoning bill was introduced on May 12 of this year by Councilman DiCicco. If enacted, 45 Rules - 6/8/05 the zoning of the property subject to the legislation would be changed from the current zoning designation of G-2 general industrial to the proposed designation of C-3 commercial. This property is also known as Pier 40 north and the site is located immediately to the north of the Waterfront Square development which is currently under construction. The developers indicated a desire to improve the property for residential use. However, development plans for site are still in the concept stage. And without a specific plan of development, we are presented with a proposal that does not specifically address the issue of public access to the waterfront. For these reasons, the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 31, 2005, requested that Bill No. 050419 be tabled to give the developer additional time to prepare complete plans for the development of this site. That concludes my testimony. Thank you. 46 Rules - 6/8/05
Thank you, Mr. Chapman. For the record, can you tell us who the developer is?
Once again, Madam President, I'm sorry, I don't have the name.
Do we know what the tentative plans for the development -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam President, there are people here who will be testifying on behalf of the developer, the law firm of Klehr, Harrison.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the committee. My name is Sharon Suleta. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Klehr, Harrison.
And with Ms. Suleta, Carl Primavera of the same law firm. And we also have material to hand 47 Rules - 6/8/05 out which will be hopefully interesting. This is a much smaller project than we just heard about, but it shows you the interest in Philadelphia. I will hand that to the clerk and Sharon will give you some brief background on the project. We also have Mr. Lou Sicalese, who is a representative of the developer, here today.
This is a former industrial property requesting zoning to C-3. It is Pier 40 and the proposal is for a residential development that will be 32 stories, 226 units with over 300 parking spaces. It will be 345 spaces.
You'll probably recall this site. I know Mr. Katz is here. This is immediately to the north of Waterfront Square, which I think we all realize has probably been the most exciting thing to happen on the waterfront. He's actually -- no matter what he builds, he can't seem to provide enough product. This is immediately to 48 Rules - 6/8/05 the north. It's unfortunately a trash-strewn industrial site that's been abandoned. The hope is by changing the zoning to C-3, one, it will prevent an industrial user coming in -- it would be a heartbreak to see next to Waterfront Square, you know, a trash facility come in to G-2, but more importantly, as I think it's been mentioned by Councilman DiCicco, to encourage development people need to look around and say, well, gee, it's happening in Philadelphia. We need to have these sites which are zoned industrial upgraded. The concept plan is just that. It's a concept. And we're going to continue to work with the Planning Commission, the community, and the Councilman, but again on the doorstep of Waterfront Square for the people who have been shut out because there's too much demand and not enough product, they can come next door to our site and we'll gladly entertain their offers. I gave Mr. Katz some cards and said for the 49 Rules - 6/8/05 people who aren't able to buy at your job, send them next door and hopefully we'll accommodate them.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Councilman DiCicco, did you want to add anything to what has been said? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again, Madam President, this is consistent with my comments on the previous two bills about engaging the community and I will be asking for a suspension of rules.
Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Ericson, would you please read the title of Bill No. 050462.
Bill No. 050462, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by the 50 Rules - 6/8/05 Delaware River, the Tacony Bridge, Eldridge Street, New State Road, and Unruh Avenue.
Good morning once again, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. For the City Planning Commission, I'm Tom Chapman. Bill No. 11 050462 was introduced by Councilman Kelly on behalf of Councilwoman Krajewski on May 19 of this year. This bill is an amendment to the Philadelphia Zoning Maps. It proposes to change the zoning designation of the area bounded by the Delaware River, Tacony-Palmyra Bridge, Elbridge Street, New State Road, and Unruh Avenue existing R-5 residential to RC-6 residential. This site is a former location of the Dodge Steel plant. It will allow for redevelopment of this property with several high-rise and mid-rise residential buildings with off-street parking. It's one of four 51 Rules - 6/8/05 sites currently proposed for residential redevelopment along the north Delaware River waterfront. The Rules Committee will also consider two additional rezoning requests for other north Delaware sites today. Councilwoman Krajewski has long been an advocate for residential development in this area of the City's waterfront and today we are at a point where that will finally begin to take place. The Commission believes this proposal is consistent with the Mayor's vision of Philadelphia as the New River City and will only serve to create more interest in development of additional residential and mixed use communities in this area of the City. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 31, 2005, recommended that Bill No. 050462 be approved. Once again, Madam President, at the request of the law department, I would ask the committee's indulgence to 52 Rules - 6/8/05 submit an amendment to this bill. It's just a minor change indicating a different dimension than was shown on the bill as introduced. Thank you.
Okay. We have it. Mr. Chapman, is there a developer for this site, to your knowledge? And, if so, may we ask who it is?
Yes, there is, Madam President, and seated to my immediate right is Mr. David Fineman, who is a representative of that developer.
Madam President, the developer for this site is First Philadelphia Holdings, LLC, represented by George Diemer, who is a long-time developer in the New Jersey area, who's seated behind me. We're happy to answer any questions. I do want to take this 53 Rules - 6/8/05 opportunity to thank Councilwoman Krajewski for her support in lending her office to meet with community groups, et cetera, during the time that we've explored the development of this project.
Are these the project plans that are being put up on the easel?
What are the project plans? How many housing units will be built? Give us some indication as to what is going to go there, please.
The site as fully developed will consist of six residential buildings and a two-story clubhouse. The residential buildings will vary in size from 56 units to 142 units. Each building will have on grade parking in a garage style structure under the residential units as well as surface parking. There are proposed to be 653 units together with a 12 to 20,000 square 54 Rules - 6/8/05 clubhouse. Parking is accounted for by parking spaces in the garage style structures, additional surface parking lots surrounding the building.
Sir, could you tell me, are they condominiums or rental apartments?
656 units. 653, I'm sorry. You were correct. I was wrong. 653.
Thank you. Will environmental remediation be required?
Remediation has already taken place. We have already 55 Rules - 6/8/05 remediated the property previously. The developer has spent the money to do that previously.
The project -- we assume that the total cost of the project as sold will be someplace in the neighborhood of $300 million.
Sounds very nice. Any questions from members of the committee? Councilman O'Neill.
I don't question the development. That's the Councilwoman and civic association's job and I'll support it. But I just am not familiar -- I'm familiar with RC-6 being in the zoning code, but I don't think I've ever had it in 25 years come before 56 Rules - 6/8/05 us. It seems with a fairly homogenous development, everything being buildings, condominiums, that there would be a straighter zoning designation. The only thing I remember about RC-6 is the commercials involved, Planning Commission gets it, comes back to Council to either approve or it becomes -- the change becomes effective without -- if Council doesn't disapprove. There's always been a question as to -- we've had some conversations on another matter involving a different RC designation. But can you tell me, Mr. Chapman, one, when the last time we've done an RC anything in Council?
I believe that the most recent RC designation was used at the Naval home property in Councilwoman Verna's district.
How about before that? I remember one in Roxborough from the late '70s I think before I got here I always heard was 57 Rules - 6/8/05 the -- so there's been one since then?
I believe that's correct. We don't have more than ten in the entire city, I think.
What is the reason for doing RC-6 as opposed to, say, I'm just looking at this R-12, say. I'm not sure exactly what would fit these buildings, but it would be something in the area of R-12. What is the reason for the RC-6?
Actually, the RC-6, the City and the Council get a better deal with the RC-6 in my opinion because the developer must build the plan that's shown to the Planning Commission and the City Council. It's not a blanket kind of a rezoning that we get when, you know, for example, we change a property to C-2 or G-2, you can build anything that's permitted in C-2 or G-2 district. With the RC-6, though, that requires submission of a specific plan of development. 58 Rules - 6/8/05
You asked why did they choose this. I would assume that -- we did speak with the developer and his representative about other zoning classifications here and I have to assume that their architects concluded that RC-6 was the best fit for what they wanted to do at this site.
I can just say in conjunction with our architects, we obviously -- we're farther along I think than some of the other developments. We assume we will be breaking ground building within some short period of time. And when we started to look at this, we started to determine that RC-6 best fit the needs of the development with our architects and we wanted to get this project moved as quickly as we could.
I don't want to debate. I'll support RC-6 on 59 Rules - 6/8/05 this. It's not an issue. I'm just trying to learn from it. I don't agree with anything you said, but I understand that RC-6 allows this development. I think there's other ways of doing it. You chose this because you're moving and that's fine. I'm just trying to learn because it hasn't been a designation that's been used very often. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
I just wanted to know, Mr. Fineman, would the public have access to the waterfront?
Absolutely. They will have access over Magee Street. And the developer, in fact, is going to pay for those roads to go in and over Delaware Avenue.
Mr. Chapman, is anybody requesting a 60 Rules - 6/8/05 suspension of the rules?
Councilwoman Krajewski is here and is requesting a suspension of the rules. The Chair at this time recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Actually, Councilman Kelly brought up a question and I didn't think about it when I was talking about the prior developments that are along the waterfront, I guess proposed three possibly. Do any of those developments potentially prohibit access to the waterfront?
That was a concern of the Planning Commission and that's why we had recommended that a 61 Rules - 6/8/05 couple of the bills that Councilmember DiCicco had introduced be tabled today. And I understand that the discussions are going to continue with that. But with this proposal as well as the two proposals that have yet to be heard today that are also in Councilwoman Krajewski's district, the issue of access to the waterfront has been resolved with those plans. It's been addressed in those plans.
My question is actually about the prior proposals that we heard because that question didn't come up. And I'm glad that Councilman Kelly brought it up on this one. So we're not sure?
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? (No response.) 62 Rules - 6/8/05
Seeing none, do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Ericson, would you please read the title of Bill No. 050463.
Bill No. 050463, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations in certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Thompson Street, Alresford Street, Edgemont Street, Juanita Street, Salmon Street, Berkshire Street, Richmond Street, and the Betsy Ross Bridge.
Good morning, once again, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. For the City Planning Commission, Tom Chapman. 63 Rules - 6/8/05 Councilman Kelly introduced this bill on behalf of Councilwoman Krajewski on May of this year. This bill is an 5 amendment that would change the zoning 6 designations of certain areas of land 7 located within the area bounded by 8 Thompson Street, Alresford Street, 9 Edgemont Street, Juniata Street, Salmon 10 Street, Berkshire Street, Richmond 11 Street, and the Betsy Ross Bridge. This 12 property is in the Bridesburg section of 13 the city of Philadelphia. This bill 14 would change the zoning in the area from 15 existing L-4 limited industrial to partly 16 R-10A residential and partly R-4 17 residential to allow for the residential 18 development of these properties in 19 accordance with those designations. The developer proposes to construct four single family detached homes as well as 40 attached homes in that area that is subject to this legislation. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 31, 2005, considered this bill and 64 Rules - 6/8/05 recommended that it be approved. Thank you.
BK Enterprises. William Kehoe and Keith Charleton, principals.
In your testimony, you stated that the Planning Commission staff has been negotiating with the developer concerning the design facades. Have negotiations been completed and, if so, what have the 65 Rules - 6/8/05 results been?
There was a meeting just yesterday afternoon with representatives of the developer as well as Commission staff. We suggested a number of changes to the facades of the buildings. The developer seemed to be more than willing to adopt those changes and it was a very satisfactory meeting.
Mr. Chapman, would you mind repeating how many housing units are going to be constructed?
Sure. There's going to be four single family detached homes and 40 attached homes for a total of 44 units.
Is there any indication of when construction will begin and when it will be completed?
I understand that they don't have a time table specifically, but they would like to get in as soon as possible. 66 Rules - 6/8/05
Thank you. Are there any members from members of the Committee on this bill? (No response.)
Is Councilwoman Krajewski in the room? Councilwoman, are you asking for a suspension of the rules on this?
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. Ericson to please read the title of Bill No. 050464.
Bill No. 050464, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by State 67 Rules - 6/8/05 Road, former Rhawn Street, the Delaware River, and Bleigh Avenue.
Once again, Madam President, good morning. Good morning, members of the Rules Committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Tom Chapman. Councilmember Kelly introduced this bill on behalf of Councilwoman Krajewski on May of this year. Bill 13 No. 050464 is an amendment to the 14 Philadelphia Zoning Maps. It proposes to 15 change the zoning designation of the area 16 bounded by State Road, the former Rhawn 17 Street, the Delaware River, and Bleigh 18 Avenue from the existing partly L-3 19 limited industrial and partly L-R leased restricted industrial to a new designation of waterfront redevelopment district. This site is the former location of a business known as Northern Shipping and is about 71 acres in size. Rezoning will allow for the redevelopment 68 Rules - 6/8/05 of this property with a mixed use residential and service commercial community. This property is one of four sites currently proposed for residential development along the north Delaware River waterfront. And Independence Point, as it is to be known, will include about 1,700 new dwelling units in the form of mid-rise buildings, duplex style buildings, townhomes, and even a hotel. The development will also include a wellness center, a marina, and recreational office and service retail uses. An amphitheater and pedestrian promenade are to be located along the site's water frontage. A total of approximately 3,100 parking spaces are to be provided. Open space including a generous setback from the river meeting the requirements of the waterfront redevelopment district will account for about 40 percent of the area of the property. The Rules Committee is also 69 Rules - 6/8/05 considering two additional rezoning requests for mixed use development along the north Delaware waterfront today, and Councilwoman Krajewski has long been an advocate for residential redevelopment in this area of the City. The Planning Commission believes this is consistent with the Mayor's vision of Philadelphia as the New River City and will only serve to create more interest in development of additional residential and mixed use communities in these areas of the City. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 31, 2005, recommended that Bill No. 17 050464 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Chapman, it sounds like a very ambitious project. Do we know when it will be started, when it will be completed? How many housing units did you indicate?
I think maybe I'll defer that question to representatives of the developer who have approached the table.
Please. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the committee. My name is Sharon Suleta. I'm here with Scott Blow from Transactionable Property Solutions. Transactionable is the developer of the site and he's here to answer questions. We also have for the committee master plan narratives that are required under the new waterfront development district and site plans that we can hand out.
I had 71 Rules - 6/8/05 asked a question. I don't think it was answered. Are the 1,700 units going to be condominiums?
Yes. Good morning, Madam President, members of the Committee. My name is Scott Blow. I'm managing director of TPS, the developer of the property. 1,764 units is approximately and, yes, they will be condominium.
Mr. Blow, how many parking spaces are you going to have?
Would that be -- would there be buildings? In other words, there would be construction of parking buildings or is it just ground level?
There are two types that have parking structures underneath the building. 72 Rules - 6/8/05
There are two types that have actual structures underneath the buildings.
Underneath each building, they're going to have parking?
Underneath the buildings. There aren't separate parking structures, no. Of those, about 2,200 of them will be structured spaces and 860 of them will be open air spaces. As to starting construction, I believe you asked the question. We believe that next summer we anticipate beginning construction.
And when do you anticipate that the project would be completed?
That would be depending upon the market. We believe that a five-year -- five to six years is probably an aggressive buildout. 73 Rules - 6/8/05
Yes. For this project, it's approximately three quarters of a billion dollars.
The source of financing, development costs are being funded by TPS and our investors. For construction financing, we have numerous financial companies that are interested in providing funds for the construction. We haven't secured one yet because we don't need it at this point, but many are interested.
Thank you. Mr. Chapman, is this part of the comprehensive waterfront development plan? If so, would you describe that, please?
Well, Madam President, I would say that this proposal 74 Rules - 6/8/05 certainly is consistent with the objectives of the North Delaware Riverfront Plan, yes, it is. The North Delaware Riverfront Plan recommends development in the area north of the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge to be an area for new residential development, new mixed use communities.
I would like to ask the same question I did the previous developer. Would the public have access to the waterfront?
Absolutely. I'm not sure if you can see it on there, but we've designed into this a generous 50-foot wide waterfront promenade which is consistent with the riverway plans that extend a connecting trail across the waterfront, which will be complete public access.
That is a requirement of the ordinance that will be considered after this bill.
Are 75 Rules - 6/8/05 there any other questions from members of the committee on this bill? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you. Good afternoon -- morning, still morning. Quick question. You may not be able to answer this, but we're actually sitting here, we're somewhat amazed at the number of condominiums that are being proposed. And we're excited about it, but there's this question about who's going to buy these units and where will these people come from. We get a sense that the current population in the city of Philadelphia will not rush to purchase these units and abandon their current residence. Do you have a sense that you will be attracting people from outside the city and, if so, geographically where would you anticipate people moving from? I know this particular development site is a little closer to New York than some of the prior proposals. 76 Rules - 6/8/05
Yes. We actually anticipate that we will have many purchasers from the city of Philadelphia as well as from New Jersey and surrounding communities.
I think that what we're trying to focus on here is providing what we're calling a market rate affordable price range, which right now we're anticipating will be in the 300 to $500,000 range. I think that many of the developments you're seeing are priced considerably higher than that. So for that reason, we think it will be very attractive. In addition to just being a centrally located area with accessibility, you're one block off of the SEPTA station, right off of 95, we're providing a different product type. One of our main goals was to provide low to mid-rise product and not to compete with the many high-rise projects that are 77 Rules - 6/8/05 being developed. So I think for those reasons that this will be particularly attractive.
Across the river in Palmyra, over the last several years, there's been numerous phases of development, essentially townhouses. Do you think that this will -- that will enable you to build on the synergy associated with what's happened over on that side of the river?
Absolutely. And directly across from our site in Cinnaminson, there's another project being developed that's about 900 units. The more market activity I find to be the better for us.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? 78 Rules - 6/8/05
Madam President, we are requesting a suspension of the rules.
We will certainly consider it. Thank you. Mr. Ericson, would you be kind enough to please read the title of Bill 9 No. 050465.
Bill No. 050465, an ordinance amending Title of the 12 Philadelphia Code entitled "Zoning and 13 Planning" by amending Chapter 14-200 14 entitled "Residential District" by adopting a new Section 14-216 entitled "Waterfront Redevelopment District" under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning once again, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. Councilmembers Krajewski and O'Neill cosponsored this bill, which was 79 Rules - 6/8/05 introduced on May of this year. This bill amends the Philadelphia Zoning Code by adding a new district to the code entitled "Waterfront Redevelopment District." This district is intended to permit the redevelopment --
I would 13 like to take credit for it, but I can't. 14
This district is 15 intended to permit the redevelopment of 16 large formerly industrial parcels into 17 new mixed use communities. All types of 18 housing as well as retail commercial uses 19 to support these new communities would be permitted in this district. Under the provisions of this district, redevelopment is permitted in accordance with a plan of development approved by both the City Council and the Planning Commission. The following uses are 80 Rules - 6/8/05 permitted in this district: Single family dwellings, two-family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, hotels, places of worship, hospitals, nursing homes, age restricted housing, child care facilities, schools, museums, community facilities, home occupations, and retail commercial uses for the sales of goods and provision of services to the ultimate consumer. The minimum lot area for a waterfront redevelopment district is 1 acre of land and boundaries between the site and any adjacent property must provide a reasonable line of division between the district and adjacent properties. Master plan must provide for reasonable spatial relationships between adjacent buildings and buildings within the district. The gross floor area of all buildings in the district may not exceed 250 percent of the total area of the district. And the open area for the district may not be less than 40 percent of the site. At least 50 percent of the 81 Rules - 6/8/05 required open area must be used to provide private open areas and remaining open area must be used to provide public open areas. All lots must provide a minimum of 50 feet setback from any river to allow for unrestricted public access to the river's edge, including land use or open space for pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular traffic. Any requests to rezone a property to the waterfront redevelopment district must be accompanied by an illustrious site plan of the proposed district as well as a master plan narrative detailing the proposal. Any subsequent submission for redevelopment that is not in accord with the approved master plan must be submitted to both City Council and the Planning Commission for consideration. The department of streets as well as the water department also must review any developmental plans prior to the issuance of any zoning or building permits. The Planning Commission at its meeting of 82 Rules - 6/8/05 May 31, 2005, recommended that Bill No. 3 050465 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chapman. Am I correct in understanding that this bill, which authorizes the creation of a waterfront development district or districts, require the adoption by City Council and the Planning Commission of a master plan or plans that are prepared in conformity with this bill?
How long has the Planning Commission been working on this bill and a master plan?
Well, I guess we began to discuss this type of district maybe six months ago, but it wasn't until the past several weeks that we really got into what I would call even a rough draft. We didn't expect we would need to have this district ready prior to the summer of this year, but then a number of 83 Rules - 6/8/05 development proposals seemed to accelerate and it seemed necessary for us to accelerate our work.
I was just looking for the councilman. Thank you.
Madam President, as a result of the discussions that we had late yesterday afternoon, I prepared an amendment. I neglected to mention that as part of my presentation and my testimony. I would like to offer an amendment to this bill. And this amendment would add a new Section 2 and that Section 2 would read: The Chief Clerk of City Council shall keep and make available to the public for inspection during regular business hours the illustrious site plan referred to in Section 14-216(2)(a) of this ordinance.
Is a copy of the plan attached to the bill and wouldn't you have to do that or submit it to the Chief Clerk? 84 Rules - 6/8/05
A copy of the plan is not specifically attached to the bill, but it would be submitted to the Chief Clerk, yes.
Definitely. Is the approval of Bill Nos. 050464 and 050466 contingent on the approval of this bill and a master plan or plans?
Can you estimate how many plans for waterfront redevelopment districts that Council will be requested to approve? If so, where are they?
At this point we only have the two requests that are before you today. There are no other requests in the pipeline that I'm aware of.
Thank you. 85 Rules - 6/8/05 Any questions from members of the committee? Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Madam President, if I may, we'd obviously need a suspension of the rules on this bill.
We'll consider that. Thank you. I would ask Mr. Ericson to please read the title of Bill No. 050466.
Bill No. 050466, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by New State Road, Milnor Street, Princeton Avenue, the Delaware River, and Unruh Avenue.
Thank you, Madam President. Once again -- actually, it's good afternoon now. For the City 86 Rules - 6/8/05 Planning Commission, my name is Tom Chapman here to testify on Bill No. 4 050466. Councilmember Kelly introduced this bill on behalf of Councilwoman Krajewski on May 19 of this year. This bill is an amendment to the Philadelphia Zoning Map. It proposes to change the zoning designation of the area bounded by New State Road, Milnor Street, Princeton Avenue, the Delaware River, and Unruh Avenue from existing R-5 residential to the new proposed waterfront redevelopment district. This site is the former location of the Tacony Army warehouse and is about 13 acres in size. It's located immediately south of St. Vincent's Home. This rezoning will allow for the redevelopment of this property with a mixed use residential and service community. The property is one of four sites currently proposed for residential development along the north Delaware River waterfront and three of those proposals were considered by this 87 Rules - 6/8/05 committee this morning. Tacony Point, as it is to be known, will include approximately 533 new dwelling units comprised of mid-rise dwellings and townhomes. A total of 860 parking spaces are to be provided. Open area including a generous setback from the river will account for about 40 percent of the area of the lot and two parks are also included in plans of which you can see to your left. The Rules Committee is also considering two other rezoning requests for mixed use development along the north Delaware waterfront today and Councilwoman Krajewski has long been an advocate for this to take place in this area of the City. The Commission believes this proposal is consistent with the Mayor's vision of Philadelphia as the New River City and will only serve to create new interest in the development of residential and mixed use communities in this area of the City. The Planning 88 Rules - 6/8/05 Commission at its meeting of May 31, 2005, recommended that Bill No. 050466 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Chapman, will the housing units be owner-occupied or will they be for rental?
Madam President, if I may, I'd like to defer that question to representatives of the developer.
Sure. Good morning again, Madam President and members of the Committee. My name is Scott Blow. I'm the managing member for Transactionable Property Solutions, the developer of the project.
My question was, will the housing units be owner-occupied or will they be for rental?
Madam President, there are 117 townhouses, 37 duplex structures.
My name is Sharon Suleta. There are 117 townhouses, 37 duplex structures, and there are two mid-rise buildings, one ten stories with 299 units, the other five stories with 43 units.
Assuming Council approves this bill, when will construction commence?
We believe the construction will begin in about ten 90 Rules - 6/8/05 months.
And when do you expect the completion date to be?
Are there any questions from members of the committee? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam President, I have a question for Mr. Chapman on the previous bill, Bill 18 465. Thank you. The development --
Excuse me, Councilman. Before you ask the question, is there anyone else to testify on the last bill that we just heard? (No response.)
No. 91 Rules - 6/8/05 Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The development or the bills we heard earlier today, specifically the three in my district, 300, 418, and 419, will probably more than likely not be read on second and final passage until the fall. How does the waterfront district impact those developments or does it?
It does not, Councilman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So I would have to make a request as the district councilperson to create a waterfront district? I thought the waterfront district was a requirement for all development along any of our waterways?
No, Councilman. This district would have to be enacted just as any other rezoning request is enacted on a case by case basis. So if you wanted to use this district on any of those sites, I think we should probably be able to amend those bills because I 92 Rules - 6/8/05 don't think that the zoning designation is mentioned. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: One or two of those proposals it's pretty much physically impossible to provide public access because of the way they're situated. But I was under the impression when I cosponsored this -- and I apologize for not following up on it -- that waterfront district meant any development along the river would require a certain setback to provide for public access.
No, no, that's not the case, not unless we would take this district and map it from one end of the river to the other and -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is there a reason why we decided not to do that? Sharon's ready to jump in.
It's not an overlay. It's an actual district. It's not an overlay district. It's an actual zoning district. It's compatible with 93 Rules - 6/8/05 the kind of development that we're proposing but might not be for some of the other waterfront development. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But some of those developments that may not be compatible, we can always amend those to be excluded. My hope was we would have legislation that would as a template provide for public access along all of our waterways, whether it be the Delaware River or the Schuylkill River, and as each project develops, to see if we can incorporate that legislation for the 50-foot setback from the bulkhead or whatever into the project. And where we can't, we would obviously have to make adjustments because I understand some of them are not physically capable of providing public access from one development to the adjacent development, et cetera. So, I mean, I'm in favor of this. I don't want to hurt it, but I really thought when we say master plan, 94 Rules - 6/8/05 for me it was a master plan that would address riverfront, waterfront development throughout the city of Philadelphia.
Councilman, can I say we share your concern with that, with any development proposal that is of a sufficient size should be providing some kind of 50-foot access to the waterfront. And, you know, perhaps it's something that we could deal with in a separate bill much like you told me about in the state of New Jersey. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'll support this bill, obviously, I'm a cosponsor, and vote it out. Again, not to prevent development, but to address some of the -- the development issues I have, one of the big issues is those projects is public access. So I'm dealing with it anyway. And if we make it part of a master plan, developers know coming in what the requirements are. Again, we're not going to be whetted to 95 Rules - 6/8/05 that that you can't develop if you don't provide space. Where we can, obviously we would want that incorporated. And where we can't, we would make certain adjustments because I think it enhances the project. I think it adds an amenity to the project if we have these setbacks similar to what Mr. Vallone from Hoboken, New Jersey, spoke about. It's unfortunate he didn't bring the Maxwell House Coffee project. There's some state dollars in Jersey available and I think maybe even some federal dollars that developers can use if they're giving up a portion of their land to offset some of the costs by providing great public space, you know, going forward. So I would ask that over the summer if you can work with my staff in developing something that is more broad in that regard, I'd appreciate it.
It would be my pleasure. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. 96 Rules - 6/8/05 Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. Any questions or comments from members of the committee? Do we have anyone else that would like to testify or be recognized?
Thank you very much. This will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 050300.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill 050300 be reported out of the committee with a favorable recommendation and request for rules suspension as to allow for reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It 97 Rules - 6/8/05 has been moved and seconded Bill No. 3 050300 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 Council session. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 17 050418.
I move that Bill 050418 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for Rules suspension. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded Bill No. 25 050418 be reported out of committee with 98 Rules - 6/8/05 a favorable recommendation, further a recommendation rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it. The motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly regarding Bill No. 050419.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 050419 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended in order that this bill may have first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded Bill No. 25 050419 be reported out of committee with 99 Rules - 6/8/05 a favorable recommendation, further that a recommendation of 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. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050459.
Madam President, I move for the adoption of the amendment to Bill 050459. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment as submitted earlier in testimony be adopted. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Those 100 Rules - 6/8/05 opposed? (No response.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Again the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam Chair, I move that 050459 as amended be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for rules suspension. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 17 050459 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 Council session. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Those 101 Rules - 6/8/05 opposed? (No response.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam Chair, I move for the adoption to amendments to Bill 050462.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments as proposed be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. 102 Rules - 6/8/05
Madam Chair, I move that 050462 as amended be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for rules suspension. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 10 050462 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. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller regarding Bill No. 24 050463.
Thank 103 Rules - 6/8/05 you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 3 050463 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and further request that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill 11 050463 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, further that a recommendation of 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. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown regarding Bill No. 25 050464. 104 Rules - 6/8/05
Madam President, I moved that Bill No. 4 050464 be reported out of 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. 11 050464 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 indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050465.
Madam 105 Rules - 6/8/05 President, I move for the adoption of the amendments to Bill 050465. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments as proposed earlier to Bill 8 No. 050465 be adopted. All in favor please say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and motion carries. Again the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
I move that Bill 050465 as amended be reported out of the committee with a favorable recommendation and request for a suspension of the rules that allow reading at next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It 106 Rules - 6/8/05 has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 3 050465 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 Council session. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050466.
I move Bill 18 050466 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for suspension of the rules to allow reading at next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill 25 050466 be reported out of committee with 107 Rules - 6/8/05 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 say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it. The motion carries. And this concludes our public meeting of the Committee on Rules. Thank you all very much. (Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12:25 p.m.) - - - 108 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence, and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the hearing taken on June 8, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ Kimberly A. Overwise Certified Realtime Reporter 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.)