COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, November 1, 2006 10:20 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL BILL 060731 - An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Canal Street, Laurel Street, Delaware Avenue and Lewellen Street. - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Rules Committee regarding Bill No. 060731. I would like the record to reflect that we do have a quorum. To my immediate left is Councilman Kelly. To my immediate right is Councilman Clarke, and I am appointing Councilwoman Blackwell to serve on the Committee today. Is Mr. McPherson here? MR. McPHERSON: Yes.
I would ask you to please read the title of Bill No. 060731. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Canal Street, Laurel Street, Delaware Avenue and Lewellen Street.
Good 3 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill 060731, which was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco on September 28, 2006. 2-acre parcel of land located in an area bounded by Canal Street, Laurel Street, Delaware Avenue and Lewellen Street from a zoning designation of G-2 General Industrial to a zoning designation of C-5 Commercial. This is the second of two rezoning bills introduced to facilitate a development known as Bridgeman's View Tower. The design submitted to the Planning Commission as part of the consideration of this zoning request is a 4 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 revision to the entire proposal. The land that will be dedicated to providing the necessary parking for this development is included in the bill under consideration today. The first parcel was rezoned to C-5 Commercial as the subject of Bill No. 9 060290, approved by Council late last spring. 4 million square feet, including two floors of retail commercial containing 36,000 square feet, three floors of office space producing 66,000 square feet, a ten-story hotel providing 170 units, and 55 stories of condominium space providing 352 units. Additionally, a parking garage was proposed that would have provided 1,100 parking spaces. acres. The proposed zoning change from G-2 Industrial to C-5 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 Commercial would increase the development potential of this parcel by at least 140 percent from an FAR of to a base FAR of 5 12 with no bonus FAR. Under the 1963 comprehensive plan and subsequent updates, the C-5 zoning classification was developed for areas in the commercial core of downtown and represents the highest commercial classification and highest permitted FAR of any zoning classification defined in the Zoning Code. The C-5 Commercial classification is found almost exclusively in the Center City business core, because Center City is the only location with multi-modal transportation, including SEPTA and PATCO subway systems, regional rail, surface buses and trolleys and an established street grid. Since the initial presentation of the proposal and the approval of the first request for rezoning, we have received new information on the proposed design. The developer has indicated that 6 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 the tower will be 970 feet tall and may contain anywhere from 550 to 795 residential units, depending on the size of the units provided. While the initial parking plan indicated a parking garage of 1,100 spaces, the current plan suggests the developer will construct over 1,700 spaces, a minimum of 920 spaces above the required number of spaces under the existing Zoning Code. The parking will be located in a 15-story stand-alone structure. The Planning Commission staff has several concerns. First, the scale of this proposal approaches the height of the tallest downtown towers and is significantly taller than any previous building approved near the waterfront. At 970 feet tall, the tower will be second in height only to the Comcast Tower currently under construction. Second, no traffic study has been done for this project. Under the C-5 classification, a study will be 7 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 required. However, it would be difficult to use the results of a traffic study alone to disapprove the project should this zoning bill be approved. Finally, from a technical standpoint, introducing 1,700 parking spaces at this site with the potential need for adding two to three times that number for future casino sites will have significant impact on the surrounding streets. As currently designed, the garage for this project will have only one entrance and one exit on Delaware Avenue, with a right turn in and right turn out only.
There is no proposal at this time to create a cut in the median of Delaware Avenue to allow for left turns for traffic coming from Center City to and from the garage. The City Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 17, 2006, considered Bill No. 060731 and recommended its approval pending staff review. However, the Commission staff 8 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 believes the approval of this bill is out of sequence. Prior to granting such a high density of development as would be permitted under the C-5 Commercial classification, an impact analysis should be completed, not only in relation to the nearby Northern Liberties neighborhood, but other surrounding communities, with input from other agencies who may need to invest in the supporting infrastructure and expand capacities to support the development. Therefore, we recommend that Bill 060731 be approved provided the developer of this regional attraction join the Planning Commission staff in coordinating this development with an emerging plan for the nearby waterfront areas, and that further, the developer agrees to adjust the plans, including the height, density and arrangement of the uses on this site, to reflect the scale of the surrounding area, the capacity of the surrounding streets and its relation 9 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 to public infrastructure. Please be advised that if this rezoning is enacted and should the developer decide not to proceed with this project, the rezoning of this parcel will be retained with the land and the right to develop transferred to future owners. Rezoning the land now will increase the value of the parcel, a benefit that will be exceedingly difficult to rescind, should future analysis indicate that the density is too great for the City and public infrastructure to bear. Please note also that the Planning Commission, in approving this bill subject to staff approval, recognizes that Philadelphia welcomes development and supports developers who share the vision of this City as a world-class destination. In asking the staff to review and recommend, the Commission staff understands, but cannot control the fact that this bill furthers an incremental approach to zoning changes 10 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 without the benefit of an overall plan to serve as a guide for such revisions. While the City works to develop an overall plan for the waterfront in the near future, the possibility exists to develop design guidelines for this site and an overall plan for the area concurrently. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee. Thank you.
Mr. Kramer, how long do you think it would take to do an impact study?
And would you be kind enough to explain what the acronym FAR stands for and what it means to increase the development potential of this parcel by at least 140 percent from a FAR of 5 to a base FAR of 12 with no bonus FAR? I don't understand that.
Yes, ma'am, I'll 11 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 explain it. An FAR is actually an initial acronym of floor area ratio.
Floor area ratio. It has to do with the gross floor area of a building. So that an FAR of 5, if you were to build from property line to property line on all four sides, you could put a five-story building with 100 percent coverage, and that would give you an FAR of 5, a floor area ratio of a ratio of the gross floor area of the building to a ratio of the area of the lot. That's what that floor area ratio refers to. In C-5, you are allowed to go as a minimum of 12. So that that same lot-to-lot line configuration, you could go 12 stories. Now, most people don't build lot line to lot line, so the stories go significantly higher, but the ratio stays the same, gross floor area to area of the lot. And that's what it 12 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 refers to. When I said in the testimony that it's base FAR, the Zoning Code under C-5 would allow you bonuses based on certain incentives within the Code. So you could in fact go up to as high as 8 under the current C-5 classification of 9 the Code. 10
11 Mr. Kramer, would you please summarize 12 what the project would most likely 13 consist of? 14
It's basically a 15 two-part development. You have on one of 16 the parcels, which was previously zoned 17 C-5, is a significant tower. As I 18 understand it, the developer has been in 19 negotiations with the community and 20 continues to be such. So the exact height of that tower is in flux, and as a matter of fact, the composition of that building is currently in flux, whether it's going to be just commercial office space, a hotel and condominiums or some 13 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 combination thereof. We're not absolutely certain, as the developer is not absolutely certain. Additionally, the largest part of this proposal would be for the development of a parking garage. The parking garage, as I understand it, currently is under negotiation with the neighborhood, and they are indicating a 200-foot height limit or 199 feet. You're talking half of the parking garage would be automated parking, which would be for the residents of the tower that would provide a certain number of parking spaces there, and that would be approximately 10 to 11 levels of parking that were automated. There would be an additional seven levels of self-parking that would essentially be used to provide parking for the commercial establishments and office space located on the site. And all would be entering and exiting off of Delaware Avenue.
We 14 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 noticed on the chart that there is only one entrance and one exit, and that is on Delaware Avenue; is it not?
Where would it be situated in relationship to a proposed riverfront casino location currently under consideration?
There are several casino sites under consideration. Two of them would be within walking distance of this location.
One would be almost just to the south and the other would be somewhat to the north of this site.
I don't have that information right in front of me, but I would -- Mr. DiCicco? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Two blocks. 15 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731
Two blocks away? And can you tell me where the closest residential area is to this proposal?
It's approximately 2,000 or so feet away. It's just on the other side of I-95. Immediately adjacent to this site is a site that was previously zoned C-4 that will have as its components some townhouse development. The current plans call for, I believe it's, eight to ten units along Canal Street -- no; Front Street, a block to the south of this, just one block to the south of this. So residential -- and I have seen several residential proposals come into the Zoning Board of Adjustment that are within two blocks of this site that would also be residential as well.
All right. Mr. Kramer, from your testimony, I think it's quite clear that the Commission staff feels that the 16 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 consideration of this bill is premature since no impact studies have been conducted and that no binding obligation can be placed upon the developer, no 6 matter what he may say his intentions are. Is there any way that you think that we would allow conditional approval? And I think we should have somebody from the Law Department to also be involved in that response.
That would probably be very wise, but I will also allow that the developer has made us aware that there is a deed restriction that he has voluntarily entered into that would in fact tie this project to this zoning classification for this site such that -- and I have not read it, nor have I seen a version from the Law Department to determine whether or not it is binding. It's saying that it would revert -- if this project were not to be done, the zoning would revert back to the 17 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 G-2 Industrial, but I don't know that that deed restriction -- I'm not an attorney, so I can't answer whether that would actually hold or not. I think Mrs. Woodcock would like to make comment.
Good morning. My name is Janice Woodcock. I'm the Executive Director of the Planning Commission. I wanted to answer your question more directly. Certainly there is a possibility of working together, but should this happen, it would be unprecedented in that we would be developing something in concert with a developer based on a trust and shared vision for the waterfront. The schedule for the waterfront planning process includes a civic engagement component that would invite an input from many different sectors of society, in that not only are we asking the public to talk about the future of 18 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 the waterfront as a whole, we are engaging government and we are engaging non-profit organizations in a way that we feel is a "see change" from the kind of incremental work that the City has been asked to do. A developer that came to the table and worked with us and adjusted their plans to a vision that would then coordinate their design with possible other things that will come into light over the next three to four months would be a truly exciting opportunity.
Thank you. Is it feasible for an overall plan to be developed in stages?
Yes. I mean, all plans start by having the general parameters of what you're trying to accomplish established and then an implementation part, which is more detailed.
Thank 19 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
I'd like to follow up on one of the questions that the Council President raised and it's actually in your testimony with respect to rezoning the site, and I've actually asked this question on a couple of other issues in my district about us rezoning a site and all rights as it related to that new classification would essentially transfer to any subsequent property owner.
And you indicated that there was an offer of a deed restriction, and I don't know if you're suggesting or if we need to get a ruling that that deed restriction would 20 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 supersede the zoning classification process.
That's a court issue, that's an attorney issue in this particular instance, and it's actually out of the norm. It's not something that we normally see, but it is a mechanism that they are attempting to use to address the concerns that are consistent with a rezoning such that if I sell you a product and say this is what my proposal is going to be and we rezone it to a certain classification, the City's point of view is, if you rezone a parcel to a classification in the Code, the zoning stays with the land. It is not tied to a project, it is not tied to a developer.
This particular mechanism was tying that via a deed restriction to this particular proposal. I have not had a ruling, nor have I seen it. I just yesterday received a copy of the agreements and 21 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 have not had a chance to review them in detail to see what exactly they would do and how it would transform back. In any case, a transformation of the zoning of any particular property, regardless of deed restrictions, would require an ordinance of City Council. So that in the event that this would go and --
In other words, a deed restriction will not change the zoning of a particular property. The zoning of any property in the City of Philadelphia requires an ordinance of this Council.
So the deed restriction may limit the amount of development, what type of development you could put on there, but it would not necessarily supersede the zoning.
Right. So it doesn't matter if there's a deed restriction. The bottom line is, when we zone the site, we're zoning the site, not the developer.
So that zoning of that site continues regardless as to who the developer is.
But the deed restriction is a private issue with respect to the property owner and any subsequent purchaser, it has nothing to do with the zoning.
And enforceable as a result of someone else bringing action to court, not necessarily the City. It may be that it requires --
So it's extremely speculative that we would be able to have that supersede the zoning 23 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 classification.
All right. You said that an impact study could potentially take three months to get a reasonable analysis on the, I'm assuming, traffic, shadow studies, all the other things relating to such a large development.
I'm sorry, but I can also clarify that. That would be for this project. We know that at least one casino will be going on the waterfront, and this impact study, should we do it on this site, wouldn't necessarily be able to address the overall impact of all of these developments, including the casino development.
I was going to get to that. Because what I want to know, given the uncertainty of what could potentially happen on Columbus Boulevard, we can't really do a reasonable analysis. Maybe by then, in three months, near the 24 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 tail end of that, there will be a site selected in that location, and then you would have to go back and do another analysis based on a casino being put in that particular location. So that time frame could actually be a lot longer than that to get a reasonable analysis of the impact, given the uncertainty of the potential circumstances down the line.
Conceivably, yes, but if you were also doing it, you would anticipate those types of development and have your analysis if this had this, if this had that --
And you would be able to do that within the three-month period possibly? Because I'm hearing a little difference.
It's not difference. We're essentially saying the 25 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 same things. As I understand, a lot of these casino sites have already done traffic studies. So a lot of information and data has already been compiled. Now, that's not necessarily on file in our office, but any traffic engineer could certainly access that as a private contractor working. I mean, if you're smart about it, the guy that did the casino traffic study you would hire to do the traffic study for this one and half the work is already done. Traffic counts have been made, traffic studies, and you're absolutely right --
With all due respect, I've seen studies and I've seen consultants, and they can be kind of guided to come up with a certain conclusion.
So I would be more comfortable with an independent analysis as opposed to simply the 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 developer or the casino operator. Okay. The Council President has asked me to clarify the one entrance and one exit on Delaware Avenue, and you're talking potentially 1,700 vehicles.
That certainly raised concerns from our staff as well. There's actually one large driveway. I believe it's feet. It will have two 12 ramps going in and two coming out. One 13 of the ramps going in will go downstairs 14 that will take the cars for the automated 15 parking to their assigned spaces. The 16 other will go up to go into the 17 self-park. 18 There are approximately ten 19 cuing spaces on each of these lines so 20 that ten cars could be in line to get 21 into the parking facility for both the 22 self-park and the automated parking. 23 Exit is essentially the same 24 way. Everybody is going to come out, two lanes of traffic coming out, two lanes of 27 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 traffic going in. One will be coming from downstairs, one coming from upstairs and going in, one going down and one going up, depending on whether you're going to the automated parking or you're going to the self-park on the middle floors of the building. That's how it's designed at this time. It's my understanding that the reason it's one curb cut on Delaware Avenue is to preserve Canal Street as a more pedestrian-friendly street. It's a cobblestone street, a small street just to the west of the site, on the western side of the site, and they are trying to preserve that as much as possible for a residential component -- or a pedestrian component actually to use it that way and wanted to avoid putting traffic on it. However, if you're going right only coming out of this facility or right in, my take on it is, a lot of traffic is going to be going through the neighborhoods to loop around to come back 28 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 in or go back north the other way. So you're either going to make a U-turn on Delaware Avenue or you're going to be making a right and going through the neighborhood to turn around.
Either way, yeah. Okay. One last question in this round. With respect to the recent announcement of the riverfront plan, a process -- and I guess Councilman DiCicco may have to respond to some degree, because I'm wondering about the community response/input into giving -- I don't know if it was tentative approval or tepid approval. Was that done prior to the announcement of the plan? And I guess the question is, if the community was aware that we were going to finally embark on this very aggressive comprehensive analysis and strategy and plan for the Columbus Boulevard, would that community have taken a different 29 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 position with respect to its tentative sign-off on this project? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I believe that they may have taken a different position on this. This project has been going through that community process for, I guess, the better part of a year, maybe even longer, for that matter, and I will say that the developer has really done his best to address the concerns of the community, Northern Liberties Neighborhood Association. I did meet with them the other night to introduce them to Mr. Steinberg, who is the Executive of the PennPraxis group, as a way of introduction to talk about future of the PennPraxis plan going forward in that process. The community -- and I believe the developer or someone from the developer's staff will speak about their involvement with the neighborhood association. There's a developer's agreement 30 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 that has not yet been finalized. The community believes that they will have it completed within the next week to ten days. I am not aware of all the context of that. I kind of walk away from these things once I do the introduction. Unless they need me, I kind of let these community groups -- allow them to work with the developer on their own. So I think if this was a new project coming today in front of us, without hesitation, I believe that the community would say, We're not ready to move on this. There's a serious concern, if you will, on behalf of the community, even myself included. All parties have actually been working in good faith for a long time, and that's the sad part about it, that we were not able to get this master plan process in place sooner. However, at my suggestion through a consultant for the developer, I 31 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 suggest -- and I think they've already met with the PennPraxis folks. I think that they need to start sitting down together to talk about this, the plan of this site, and see if any adjustments can be made and how that may fit in to what the mission of the PennPraxis process is all about, and Mr. Steinberg will speak to that. He's one of the folks who will be testifying this morning. Long answer to your question. I apologize, but --
It's okay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- the difficulty in this, and I spoke with the community representatives the other night, is, no one wants to look as though they're backing down or backing away from the initial good-faith effort that everyone has placed in each other's jurisdiction. So it is difficult and it's difficult for me as the Councilman who represents the district to say go forward 32 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 and not to go forward, because that's not the way we do business. But I think there's a window of opportunity here, depending on what the Committee decides to do with this bill, for all parties to literally sit in a room and start really hammering out the issues and see if we can address some of those concerns as it relates to the possibility of a casino, either the Riverwalk or the Sugar House casino being built, which is in two, three, four-block area from where this site is, and we need to do that. I think it's actually in the developer's best interest. He may not want to hear that, but I think it's actually in his best interest as well to meet with PennPraxis, the Planning Commission and all the interested parties on this master plan to see what this fit is. It may fit; it may not fit. There may be a better way of fitting it into that master plan. I was going to speak on this a little bit later, but it's all part of 33 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 that answer. Northern Liberties, I don't know if they would lose sleep if this didn't move forward, but they do have agreements and they don't want to be -- for their reputation as a neighborhood association who has worked hard and has been above board in all their negotiations, they don't want to be looked at as an entity that moved away from something that they've already negotiated in good faith on.
Thank you. I would like the record to reflect that Councilman Brian O'Neill has joined the Committee. Can you tell us, are there any permanent jobs that will be created from this project?
I'm sure that there will be, but I do not have a number 34 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 of those. I do not know how many. The developers are here and may have a better answer for that.
I think the testimony that has been presented to us from City Planning is somewhat contradictory. Either you're for this to move forward or you're opposing it. I don't know what it is that you're really asking us to do, if you're asking us to do anything at all.
We are against having a rezone occur prior to proper review of a project. So if you need us to be clear --
I think for the record you should be extremely clear.
Okay. When the Commission asks the staff to review the proposal, we are doing so as professional planners, looking at the potential impact on the public good and health and welfare of the City of Philadelphia, and in doing 35 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 that and in looking at this density, we do not feel at this time that the staff can endorse a project that has not had that thorough review. And I will note, though, that the Commission wanted to send a clear message that we are not as a City opposed to development. They are very clear and they were very clear to us in the Commission meeting. So, yes, it does sound like it's a yes and no, but I think if you listen to what I'm saying, it's very clear as to where the yes's are and why the concerns exist with the staff.
So in fact you will be asking for a continuance?
We would like to continue the -- well, I think we should hear the rest of the testimony, and then could you please ask that question at the end? I think we've been clear that if the developer was insisting to have the 36 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 rezone occur prior to the review, that we would ask you not to allow that, but the developer may have something else to say at this hearing.
Very well. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you, and I would ask you to remain, please.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Sure. Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. I am Harris 37 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 Steinberg. I am the Executive Director of PennPraxis, the clinical arm of the School of Design at the University of Pennsylvania, and I'm also a member of the faculty of the Department of Architecture at Penn. If you'll allow me, I'll deviate from my written testimony and just kind of talk to some of the issues --
-- in the interest of time. I think both the members of the Planning Commission as well as Councilman DiCicco have adequately laid out the issues, at least as I'm kind of being parachuted into it. Three weeks ago tomorrow, Mayor Street, as I'm sure you know, signed an Executive Order asking my office to help lead a planning process for the Central Delaware, as Councilman Clarke has been mentioning, and, in fact, 38 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 Councilman Clarke was at that auspicious occasion when the announcement was made. We're trying to kind of get our heads around it, and so things are happening very quickly and this project has come on to the radar screen in a way that is giving us an opportunity to say, Let's wait a minute, let's look at this project within the context of the greater seven miles of the Delaware. Let's applaud the good-faith efforts that both the community and the developer have made to this point and not hold anything, per se, in terms of stopping development, but hold the passage of this bill so that these developers can work with us and the City Council to understand the ramifications of a project of this scale at this site. The City is embarking on a truly ambitious plan to kind of create a plan for the Central Delaware, and this is a signature and important site that we'd like to fold into the process. 39 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 We've been in close contact with the Councilman's office, as well as with City Planning, coming to some kind of understanding on how we can do this. I've already spoken with the developer at the top of this meeting, who is anxious to meet with us, and so we're just asking for some time. We've barely gotten going. We're organizing an advisory group, which meets on Monday. We're taking walks with citizens. We're meeting community groups. We're out there, and we'd like just some time to help absorb this into the process.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. As I mentioned to you earlier, I think that at some point in time you 40 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 may want to gather our colleagues in the Caucus Room or some other room to talk with Mr. Steinberg about what PennPraxis's mission is and what the role is. Although the seven-mile stretch is within my Councilmanic District, it is something that will impact the entire City, if not in fact the entire region. So I think it's important that all members of Council get an update on what this is really all about.
Would you like me to do that now? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I think if you want for this Committee, but there's actually a much larger group --
Oh, for Council as a whole. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We will have 17 sometime in November, actually.
That's a very good idea. Mr. Steinberg, I would like you to see Mr. McPherson, who is sitting 41 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 here, so that you can give him your card and we can have a mutually convenient time to set up this meeting.
Sure. Are there any questions I can answer about the process now?
Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, I thank you for coming in to testify. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify?
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Mark Stein, one of the development team. We met back in May. And with me is Anthony Argiropoulos, one of our attorneys for this process. 42 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731
Let me just introduce everybody, then we'll get started. I'm Anthony Argiropoulos. I'm the attorney for the developer. I am here, as Mark mentioned, with Mark Stein, who is a member of the developer, and also with James Templeton and Bruce Chamberlain of H2-L2, the architects who have been commissioned to design this garage. I do have with me written testimony that I would like to present to Council.
We will give a copy of your testimony to the stenographer. If you can abbreviate your testimony, we'd be most appreciative.
I will. I will move from those remarks in light of 43 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 the discussion that we've had so far. I think that the first thing that Council needs to consider is the reason why the developer is here today. And the developer is here today to seek approval for the rezoning of the parcel that we're discussing, but I think that we need to consider the history of this process and how it is that we got here. When we were here in the spring, we presented Council with a true master plan for these two sites, a tower, which is 915 feet tall, not 970 -- I want to correct what Mr. Kramer said. It is 915 feet tall -- and a garage situated on the adjacent property. There's some history behind how we got to that point, but I'd like to point out that at that time when Council approved the 915-foot tower, it was presented with the garage design as well. The Planning Commission approved it unanimously, and the Northern Liberty Neighborhood Association approved it as well. 44 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 We were going to come back again at this time, after we obtained the neighborhood association's approval for the garage property. We ended up with the garage property because the neighborhood was uncomfortable with the initial design that was presented to them, which was one tower on top of a pedestal that was a garage. We had been working very diligently with the neighborhood, obtaining not only their non-opposition but their support for the project, and in light of their concerns about the massing and the pedestrian views, the developer took an equitable interest in this property specifically to put a garage for the neighborhood with the amenities that the neighborhood wanted at considerable cost, in the millions of dollars. And I'd like to say up front that the delay that will be posed by this impact study will end this project. There are hard dollars in the range of millions that 45 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 have been invested in this project. The developer has worked with the community unlike any developer that I at least have seen in the City, creating a formal liaison relationship with the community, incorporating the community's concerns into the design of the building. The garage that we are presenting today that will be addressed by the architects more specifically is the product of the synergy between the developer and the neighborhood. And I have with me today a letter that was sent by the neighborhood association's President to Councilman DiCicco indicating that the neighborhood association continues to work with us and expects that a development agreement -- pardon me; a developer-neighborhood association agreement will be reached in the next week. In fact, last night, we received an e-mail of the recent version of that document, and, frankly, I think it will be done before a week. 46 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 We're getting a bit of a mixed message at this point, because you have to recall that the tower has already been approved. We are here today for purposes of the garage. And when I say "approval," I'm talking about City Council's passage of an ordinance to rezone that to C-5. There's been talk of a deed restriction, and the deed restriction is further evidence of the extent to which this developer has worked, doing things the right way. It's been a completely transparent process, with the neighborhood on board. The deed restriction prevents this developer from doing anything more than has been approved. If this property is sold -- and I can say for the record that there is no intent to flip this property. The developer intends to build the project that's been presented -- the zoning will revert to G-2. That is a deed restriction, a covenant that runs 47 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 with the land, and any subsequent purchaser would be subject to that deed restriction. That's the level of commitment that we have here.
I think that the message that we're sending or that, I guess, the Planning Commission, to some extent, is asking to be sent is a bit of a mixed one. This is a developer that, again, has done everything right, that has gone to the neighborhood, has obtained neighborhood approval, obtained the rezoning for the tower and is coming back, just like it promised, with a garage, with other amenities that the neighborhood has specifically approved and asked for. The architects can walk us through the specifics of the garage, and then Mr. Stein and I can answer now or at the end of that presentation any questions that you may have.
Good morning. 48 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 My name is Bruce Chamberlain. I'm an architect with H2-L2 Architect Planners, and I'm joined today with James Templeton, who is Project Architect on the job. As was noted earlier, the project that we're presenting today for the revised garage is very much a development of what you saw last spring. What we're talking about is basically a freestanding structure that's located next to the tower that is set back from Columbus Boulevard and then fronted between the garage itself and Columbus Boulevard, with a retail commercial space. So what we've done is really maintained the life of the street, maintained a very lively presence in terms of pedestrian, vehicular movement along Columbus Boulevard, keeping the mass of the garage away. As what was requested last spring was that the developer, our 49 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 client, come back with more information in terms of the specifics of the garage itself, and that is what you'll see today. In front of each of you we have 11-by-17 handouts of the presentation materials that are in front of you, including the three renderings that are off to your right, and then the typical floor plans that show the basic configuration of the garage. As was noted earlier, the garage is really two structures stacked one atop each other, which is no 16 different than what was presented in May. The lower structure is a self-park garage that will be used for the retail and commercial users of the tower, and the upper part is for the residences, and that's going to be an automated garage where the entrance is going to be through the basement, and all the entrances to the garage will be off of Delaware Avenue or Columbus Boulevard. And this is in 50 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 response to the neighborhood where they did not want traffic to come off some of the smaller streets surrounding the property. So what we've done is to integrate the entrance into the project so it's not a gaping hole in the building and really, again, maintaining the life of the street. The opportunities we have with the automated garage, it allows us to do smaller floor to floor. So we can reduce the overall height of the building. It also gives us a little more freedom in terms of architectural treatments for the building. So at this point, I'd like to turn this over to James Templeton, who will really walk you through some of the specifics of the project.
Thank you. As Bruce described, the garage is really two garages wrapped around each other, with a traditional self-park 51 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 garage on the lower floors. All of the garage components are set back from Delaware Avenue, though, behind the commercial retail component, which is a four-story building here on the front. And the architectural treatment of this building is the same of that of the base of the tower. It's going to be a glass curtain wall. So it will look like it's part of the same architecture. It will not look like a garage. And the garage itself is clad in another glass curtain wall. Because of the automated garage -- and I'll describe some details about the automated garage in a second, but the automated garage will be mechanically ventilated. So it's a solid building and will look like a building. It will not look like a garage. It's intended to really be sort of the little brother of the tower. You can see in the second image here that the self-park garage is a 52 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 traditional garage on the lower floors, but on the ground floor, it's all retail. We'll have awnings. We'll have an intimate scale with the potential future residential development that could happen across the street. And then between the two buildings on the far right, there is a galleria, which is really this beautiful glass atrium which separates the two buildings and all of the retail space. It's envisioned that maybe a larger retail, maybe a supermarket, maybe a restaurant will all open up into that, and that really be a main entrance on Delaware Avenue. So that far right image is really a view from Delaware Avenue. Now, regarding the specifics of the garage itself, I can walk you through some of the floor plans here. As we were saying, this is the ground floor right off of Delaware Avenue. There is one main entrance and exit. And once vehicles pass the sidewalk area, then it splits into two entrances and exits. One 53 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 is for the self-park garage for visitors to the commercial and retail, the other is to the residential component. The rest of the ground floor is all filled with retail, divided into different retail. As I was describing, in the back along Canal Street, it is intended that there would be cafes for any sort of future residential development that would happen over here. There is open space, green space here also with sort of cafe-type atmosphere next to the retail there. And then this is the galleria that I described, which is really a link between the two buildings. So as a resident would enter the property, they would come to the entrance and they would go down their ramp to a lower level, which is this middle image here, and this is where they enter into the automated garage. And what an automated garage is is really a robotic garage. And the images on the 54 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 far right show what happens. You enter into your lower level and there are a series of garage doors. It's as if it's a regular residence. And there will be either a green light or a red light above each garage door, and if it's a green light, that means that that space is open. You pull in, you type in your code or use a key pass. You exit through a secure door. The garage door closes and a mechanical arm will then take your car, bring it to a lift and bring it up to the automated levels and park them in an environment like that. So these are the mechanisms here parking the garages. This is the view of some cars parked. They can park two deep. This is actually the shuffle arm that is the mechanism that actually carries the car. In here you can see how it's lifting the cars. There are many of these around the world. There's several in the United States, and there's already one proposed 55 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 in Philadelphia for another condo project. So that's how the residences will enter their space.
The retrieval time and drop-off time for a car is about 90 seconds to 100 seconds. So it's actually very quick. It's a very quick retrieval time. Certainly quicker than walking to your garage, your parked space. For the self-park garage, which is then one level above the retail -- now, this is a traditional garage. You would come up the ramp and then wrap up around seven levels of traditional parking. Then the highest level is then the automated garage. The automated garage has a lot more density. You can fit 107 cars per level, whereas with the traditional garage, we can fit about 58. So what this all means is, this image here is a section through the entire building. Along Delaware Avenue, we have our four-story retail and 56 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 commercial. We have then retail all along the ground floor from all sides and in the rear. There's a transfer level at the lower level, which is for the residents. That's where they park. And their cars are brought up to the automated garage, which are ten levels, five sedan levels and five SUV levels, and then below that are seven levels of traditional parking. So we have a total of 170 automated spaces and 414 self-park spaces, for a total of 1,484, which is actually less than we had presented to the Planning Commission. Because in the last few weeks, we've heard the Planning Commission's concerns. We know they're concerned about the traffic. We're also trying to balance those issues with the neighborhood's desire to have as much parking as possible. So we eliminated two and a half floors of the garage. So this is where we are right now. Thank you. 57 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731
Can you tell us how much this entire project will be costing?
Thank you. Thank you. It equates to, in construction jobs, around 400 to 500 construction jobs for three years, around 150 to 200 permanent jobs for the neighborhood. And we think this is a signature building, and we believe we can work really well together with everybody, and I think everybody will get what they really want in the end.
That's wonderful. And apparently you have had several meetings with members of the community.
And you will continue to? 58 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731
Yes. We actually made a liaison committee in our deed restriction, that we actually paid for a liaison to sit and crucify us on anything that they don't want. So last year when I was in here, I told you I was 6'2" when this process started. I'm now down to about 5'2". I just want you to know that. I might crawl out of here. But we really have done everything transparently, and we're following it and, you know, we appreciate -- real quick history here. The '70s I did the Bourse building. I'm five decades into City building. Bourse building in the '70s, the piers in the '80s, Liberty in the '80s and then the '90s, and then here we are in 2000. We believe that we will create the development. We think that we're a regional attraction that will bring people to design not around square footage but around architecture. We've 59 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 done our homework and we really think that we're on the right path.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. I just want to clarify this. The height is 915, not 970?
No. We have a neighborhood agreement, though. It's important to know, the neighborhood approved us to 950, but they gave that to us. We were only 915. That's all we are.
And the 915 is what was earlier approved in the prior 60 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 ordinance?
The prior proposal had the parking on the lower floors; am I correct?
No. That was the early part of the process. When we came to you in May, we had already made our option onto the north parcel and pulled the garage out. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Originally.
I don't know if we ever presented that to anybody, except the neighborhood. Maybe they saw it and that's where the criticism came back to us. And we believe that, and that's why we took the extra burden of the finances and went north with this thing.
If I may, Councilman. The project materials that were presented to Council at that time 61 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 showed the parking garage on the separate parcel. I don't remember if it was here last time or it may have been at Planning, someone joked and said, You're not going to come back with Liberty II, are you, on the other parcel, and we said, No, it's purely a parking garage as shown, and that's what we're presenting today.
Okay. The issues with respect to the traffic flow, particularly related to the entrance and exit, is there reasonably an opportunity or a possibility that you can address that? Because I see that as being a problem, having that one entrance and exit.
It is being addressed. In fact, what -- and I hate to beat a dead horse on this, but what I really want everyone to understand is that this has really been a cooperative effort between neighborhood and developer. Northern Liberties 62 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 Neighborhood Association has contracted with its own professionals to create not only studies of the waterfront, but traffic studies, et cetera. This developer is contributing to that study. And in any case, the issues raised by Planning with respect to the ingress and egress are issues that are somewhat premature now. Those are issues that will be addressed as part of permitting. As part of a C-5 zoning designation, before permitting, this developer will have to conduct a traffic study and present it in any case. If a traffic study shows that this method of ingress and egress doesn't work or needs to be changed, it will be changed. This developer has worked with the Planning Commission. It intends to continue to do so. It intends to work with PennPraxis. This has been a cooperative effort, and this is a developer with roots in Philadelphia that wants a building that is not only a 63 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 signature building, but one that works for the City.
With respect to the permitting process, I wouldn't give as much credit to us as you indicated. I have a similar situation at 18th and Sansom where a permit was granted for a high-rise, a tentative permit, and it was subsequently rescinded, and the biggest issue was the closure of Sansom Street, the 1800 of Sansom Street for two years, and there was no traffic analysis done and the community obviously was in an uproar, and we had to actually make the developer go out and get a traffic analysis before we agreed to move ahead on the permit. So you shouldn't assume that once you get zoning, that the permit process wouldn't sail through, assuming we in Council have signed off on it.
Councilman, I'm always accused of giving too much credit, but in this case, because of the 64 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 expenditures that have been made and because of the promises that have been made in the community, all of which have been kept, all of these issues will be addressed. The problem that this developer has is, I don't think that an impact study if it started today would take three months to complete the way that the Planning Commission has suggested. A delay like that will, as I said, spell the doom for this project and end any possibility for this developer to give the City this world-class building. However, if Council were to approve the rezoning, the concerns of the Planning Commission are concerns that will be addressed with respect to traffic later on, because they have to be as part of the process. The question is, from a hard dollars perspective and from an investment perspective, this project can't proceed with the uncertainty as to whether this parcel will be rezoned. If it's not rezoned, this project doesn't 65 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 work and it's over.
Right. Let me ask you a question, and I don't know if you can answer this in this forum. I can't count on one hand the times that developers haven't come before us -- and myself personally representing Center City, half of Center City -- that they said, If you don't pass this right away, I'm going to lose financing, and we went beyond the deadline and ultimately ended up getting financing. Is there any way that in some form of confidentiality -- and I understand that you don't want to put all of your financial issues out on the table -- that you can assure members of the Committee that that deadline is a real deadline, so we can feel confident that if we ask all parties involved to expedite the process to get the appropriate review, that we're doing it in the sense that we really have a deadline? Because I think that it's 66 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 clear that most Councilmembers, and probably all, would love to see a project of this magnitude, particularly given the community sign-on, but I don't know if you can share to some degree --
Councilman and other members, I wouldn't have said that if it weren't the case. This project, you have to remember, originally started as one tower with parking below it. There are separate owners of properties that we've had to deal with. There are transactions and closings that are contingent upon one another. There are millions of hard dollars that have been paid that will not be recovered. The risk of going forward is one that simply can't be borne under these circumstances, and, yes, it will fall apart. There is a real sense of urgency, and in part, this is an urgency that has been created as a result of -- from whatever standpoint you may take, and I talk about in my written 67 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 testimony -- this developer's commitment to giving the community what it needs and giving it what it wants and working with them reasonably. And to the community's credit, they have been very reasonable in working with us. We've worked out our issues. But this is now a real -- it's a real watershed moment for us getting this rezoning.
Okay. This will be my last question. Your earlier statement with respect to G-2 and we need to get -- I'm going to ask the Planning Commission to get some clarity from our Law Department to determine what impact that deed restriction would have and assuming that what you indicated was correct. While it may require subsequent owners to adhere to certain provisions in the G-2 classification, there are other things that I'm assuming the community signed off on relating to aesthetics and certain things that are not necessarily 68 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 spelled out in the classification that would not fall under that deed restriction. Would you be willing to incorporate some other language associated with those things that aren't traditionally in the classification?
The deed restriction actually contains a number of issues besides simply the design. Mark Stein mentioned the liaison committee that was created. There's a 30 percent open area that's given and a number --
And, Councilman, that actually speaks to one of the issues we have with the traffic. Canal Street is architecturally from a design standpoint very interesting. The community did not want to be in a position where it was looking at another gated community that excludes them. Although they're on the other side of 95, they did not want to feel like someone is 69 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 coming in to take over the eastern side of 95 and the waterfront to exclude them. And so that's the reason why we have Canal Street viewed as pedestrian friendly, as a promenade, a metropolitan outdoor seating area. These are all matters that have been discussed, negotiated with the community, in addition to things like the height limitations, the open space maintenance. It's a LEED-certified building. The reason why there are more units, more parking units, on this garage is because the community was concerned about what's going to happen to our off-street parking. We want more spaces in the garage. Now, that came at a cost, a significant cost, but, again, to push this project forward and in light of the urgency, this developer committed to do just that. Would this developer agree to a deed restriction for the north parcel 70 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 as it has for the south? Absolutely. There is a commitment and a drive to put up a true signature building. That's what they want to do. That's their goal. In a softening real estate market, when other projects that may have come before Council have fallen off the mark, are no longer economically viable, people are packing up their bags. The local guys have stuck it out because they believe in the City and they believe in this project, and they will do what it takes to fulfill their promises to the community and the representations made to Council to get this done.
Okay. Last question, and this is truly the last one. Have you selected your general contractor?
Turner Construction. Okay. Is there going to be -- 71 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731
Which is the other problem, too, because as we talk, the construction prices are going up, and we've been wanting to lock in for the last five months and we just can't. We're not allowed to. And as soon as, God willing, something good happens, we can lock in and hold those rates. Because I'm very cognizant of construction costs. And three years from now when this project is ultimately moving people in, then the prices are going to be significantly --
I hear it every time I talk to a developer and a contractor, and it's a legitimate issue, which brings me to the employment issue, ultimately some of the reasons why some of those numbers go up. In the discussions with your contractor and/or the community, was there any language with respect to participation of Philadelphians, minorities, female-owned businesses, 72 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 contracts?
Just for the record, I'm a certified disabled person in the City that have actually -- yeah, I fell four floors in '92 and was out of commission for a couple years, and I'm very cognizant of the MBEC role to play. I've been involved in it for years and years and years. I've often said to our team that I really want to hire from our zip code, that I think that that's really positive for Northern Liberties that we get for construction jobs. And it can be done very simply. We have really great -- no. It's all about the owner.
I represent half of Northern Liberties. I'm not sure the zip code is going to get you --
Maybe a zip code next to it or whatever, but the truth of 73 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 the matter is, though, that it's all up to the owner and developer. I mean, the games are played from the owner in between that and the street. Let's put it where it is. And so if I commit and I tell you that that's something that's a goal of mine, yes, it will.
Can you -- and I know there's no way legally that we can require anything, but can you put some language somewhere in your final documents or the legislation that will ultimately come before a final vote, some language with respect to good-faith efforts --
-- to meet certain goals and things to be consistent with the population of the City of Philadelphia?
That would help. Thank you. 74 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions or comments? Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I know you said when you started out you were 6' something and you're down to whatever your height is now. Just hypothetically, if the bill 14 were voted out of Committee today, I would as the sponsor of the legislation, I would not be asking for a suspension of rules, only because there's not been a finalization of the developer's agreement. I'm not suggesting that you're not going to come to an agreement, because as I said earlier in my testimony -- I think it's worth repeating -- you have been an extremely cooperative developer in terms of community relations, relationship. 75 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 You've done everything that you could humanly and economically in the deal to make it work for you and the community, and I respect that.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But for the timing of the Executive Order, which it's not your fault that the Executive Order came out establishing this PennPraxis process, you happen to be one of a couple of developers that are getting caught in the switches, if you will, of what we would like to see happen, and your project, as I said earlier, may very well fit the model plan for development.
We think so. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I'm sure you do, and maybe you do, maybe you don't. From talking to the Committee members, they had some concerns based on the testimony from the Planning Commission and their own concerns about moving this bill out. I understand that 76 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 there's financial issues at stake here. Your attorney represented that this deal, if it doesn't get done in a certain amount of time, it's done, it's dead. I don't think any of us want to see that happen. None of us want to see that happen. So if, hypothetically, it were voted out today with a suspension, the earliest you'd get a second reading would be the 16th, which brings it to the middle of the month anyway. Without a suspension, it would bring it to the end of the month. So there's going to be, I believe, a recommendation from the Chair of the Committee that they do not vote the bill out today, I think is what the recommendation is going to be, from my sidebar conversations. I don't want you to have a heart attack and fall dead on the spot. We're going to get you to that November 30th deadline date, if you will. Where it winds up between now and then, I 77 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 don't know, but it's certainly an opportunity, I think, for the Planning Commission, yourself and your team and PennPraxis to literally start working on talking about your project and how to maybe find some common ground so you can have support from the Planning Commission and the PennPraxis, which would help getting the support and gain the support that you need from City Council. I mean, I'm just one voice here. Generally, Councilmembers will yield to the desire or the recommendation of the District Councilperson, but, again, in the scheme of things, with the PennPraxis process that is now in place and has been moving forward -- and I've met with several community groups already, with Harris and Mike, and we're going to continue to meet for the next couple of weeks and engage the public process in what we're doing here -- it may actually be a benefit to everybody. But I don't want you to think 78 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 that the action of this Committee today is in any way an indication that your project will not move forward. It's just an indication that they want to have a little bit more time and hopefully give you guys a little more time to go back and meet with the interested parties. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Do we have any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
I would ask the City Planning Commission to try to expedite whatever it is that you need, so that when we come back here -- it's quite apparent to all of us that this is a magnificent project. At the 79 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 same time, there are a lot of unanswered questions that we definitely have to have answers to. So do I have a commitment from City Planning that they will do everything they can to expedite whatever it is that they feel that they need? And I am asking if you could have it ready by the end of the month?
Thank you, Council President. I guess the caveat there is that we don't have the funding to conduct an impact study, if that's what your question was. But as far as working in a cooperative way in clarifying as our waterfront planning process emerges and working with the developer, absolutely. That is what our Commission also asked us to do.
Absolutely not. Generally these impact studies are done by the developer, but we don't know if 80 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 that's what they have in mind.
Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam President, I think it might be appropriate to have Mr. Steinberg also address that same question, because the team would be the Planning Commission, the developer and PennPraxis working to hopefully answer some of those unanswered questions.
Yes. We will do everything we can to work with the development team, the City Planning Commission, the Councilman and whomever else we need to to work this out in a timely fashion.
Thank you. Very well. I've spoken to members of the Committee and we have all agreed that we will continue this hearing until November 81 11/1/06 - RULES - BILL 060731 the 28th at 10:00 a.m., and hopefully by that time, you will be able to provide more information. Thank you very much.
This concludes our public hearing and public meeting. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 11:35 p.m.) - - - 82 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on November 1, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)