COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, 1/30/02 10:30 a.m. - - - BILL 010125 Passyunk Ave. Special Dist. Controls BILL 010126 Old City Res. Area Spec. Dist. Controls BILL 010305 Held. BILL 010392 Withdrawn at request of sponsor. BILL 010560 Philadelphia Zoning Map Change BILL 010617, 010666 Re Oversight of Phila. Schools BILL 010632 Philadelphia Zoning Map Change BILL 010660 Held. BILL 010718 Philadelphia Zoning Map Change BILL 010745 Philadelphia Zoning Map Change (Full text of all bills attached hereto.) PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 1/30/02 RULES COMMITTEE MEETING - INDEX WITNESS Bill 010745 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission.... Jeff Rush, Chair, Community Council for....... 8 Interstate Land Management David O'Donnell, Queen Village Neighbors Assoc. 10 Carl Primavera, Esq., for Asbell & Associates 13 Steve Pollack, for Marvin Robb, owner......... 27 836 to 844 Swanson Street M. Robb, owner of 836 to 844 Swanson Street... 42 Fred Levin, Counsel, Swanson Enterprises...... 55 Bill 010125 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission.... 66 Passyunk Avenue Business Owners............... 72 Bill 010126 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission.... 74 Old City Residents............................ 76 Bill 010718 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission.... 79 L. Halliman, Penn Area Neighborhood Assoc..... 82 BILLS 010617, 010666 Ted Kirsch, President, PFT.................... 88 Jerry Mondesire, President, Philadelphia NAACP 97 Tom Doyle, Pres. Local 1201 School Employees 101 Wendell Harris, Phila. Home & School Council 109 Aldutus Jordan, PCCY.......................... 112 V. Joyner, Parents United for Better Schools 116 R. Lentz, Area Academic Rep for the Northeast 117 Dolores Shaw, EPOP............................ 121 Cecilia James, Alliance Organizing Project.... 123 Dane Harris, ACORN............................ 125 S. Gilliam, Parents Union for Public Schools 127 Debra Zubow, Public Schools Coalition......... 131 Phyllis Gilbert, Peace Action Delaware Valley 135 Alice Sharboro, Parents Union and NOW......... 141 R. Spigel, Coalition to Keep Schools Public 145 Kati Sipp, Jobs With Justice.................. 148 Pat Raymond, Phila. Home and School Council... 151 Debra Kahn, Phila. Sec'y of Education......... 156 3 1/30/01 RULES MEETING INDEX - cont'd. WITNESS Bill 010560 Cardell Blue, Philadelphia Housing Authority 193 T. Chapman, Philadelphia Planning Commission 193 Bill 010632 T. Chapman, Philadelphia Planning Commission 203 - - - PUBLIC MEETING............................... 207 - - - 4 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the Committee on Rules. We appreciate your patience in waiting for a quorum. The quorum exists in the form of Councilmembers Longstreth, Nutter, Kenney, Clarke, and DiCicco. The first bill we'll hear testimony on today is Bill No. 010745, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Christian Street, Christopher Columbus Boulevard, a line 143 feet north of Fitzwater Street, and the I-95 Expressway. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning, members of the Rules Committee. I'm Richard Lombardo, Deputy executive Director of the Philadelphia Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill 21 010745. This bill was introduced by Councilmember Kenny for Councilmember DiCicco on December 20, 2001. The bill amends the zoning maps by rezoning a certain area bounded by Christian 5 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 Street, Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Catharine Street, I-95 right-of-way from existing G-2 industrial, partly R10-B residential, partly R10-A residential. The Planning Commission has yet to reconsider this bill, and this bill includes the area that is the subject of another bill before the committee, Bill No. 010392. Since both bills cover the same area -- or the material covered in Bill No. 010392 is the same as contained in the subject bill, parenthetically, you only need to pass one of those two bills. In closing, as I said, we haven't considered it' we're scheduled to consider it at our next Commission meeting. However, I don't think we'd have any -- the staff would have any objection to this. As a matter of fact, over the years, we've worked with the Queen Village Neighbors and this whole zoning issue of going from industrial to residential. The industrial was left down there as a remnant of when this area was industrial; now it's promptly a residential area. I think the last of the industrial uses have left the area, and it would be appropriate to make it 6 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 residential.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lombardo, are you suggesting, then, that we just withdraw one of the two bills?
Yeah. We're suggesting that you withdraw 392 and go with this bill.
392, okay. So noted. Councilman, I'm going to withdraw Bill 14 No. 010392.
The Chair notes that the Councilman's request will be -- a request will be made to withdraw Bill 010392.
Yeah, and just to clarify, we have not considered this particular bill over the years. In other venues, we have considered --
I'm sorry, hold on, hold on. Let's just take a slight recess till we fix this mess (referring to sound-system malfunctioning).
I was saying, just to clarify the record, though we have not considered Bill No. 010745, over the years, on other issues in the Queen Village areas, we have considered it and concurred with the community's desire to make this area residential rather than industrial, and I would anticipate that the Commission would recommend approval of this bill when it considers it later this month.
Does anyone have any further questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
Hearing none, we now call as a panel: David O'Donnell, Jeff Rush, Reverend David Rivers -- is Mr. Pollack and/or Primavera going to testify? Please come forward. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
And I'm David O'Donnell, 8 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 and I'm on the Executive Board of Directors for Queen Village Neighbors Association.
I spoke with Reverend Rivers and he was unable to make it today. My name is Jeff Rush, and my wife, Kathy mand I are City lifers and 22-year residents of the Court at Old Swedes, and I'm past president of Queen Village Neighbors and currently chair of the Community Council for Interstate Land Management. I spoke with Reverend Rivers, and he had a prior commitment and he was desperate to be here but he wished me to express a strong support for this bill. We're here today in support of rezoning the last remaining industrial zone acreage in Queen Village. It's in the middle of what has become a viable tax-paying residential community, a gateway to Penn's Landing. And I don't have to go over how much change there's been between Society Hill and 9 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 Queen Village in that part of the City ever since the '60s. We ended years of bitter wrangling when the City and State permitted the completion of the highway project, and that included four access ramps, which are all within walking distance of Swedes Court. We lived through the reconstruction of Delaware Avenue, now proudly called "Christopher Columbus Boulevard." We completed the construction of the Southwark housing project, and next spring, 240 apartment rental units will be on line. A lot is left to be done. The pace of development in the Penn's Landing area needs to quicken. And that is undeniable and indisputably vital to the City's long-term interest. Even if we disregard the long suffering of neighbors in the area, rezoning to R10-A will stabilize and strengthen current efforts to achieve balanced development by creating a process that's sensitive to all development interests, including commercial developers, who will then have the opportunity to present their ideas to the communities in partnership. This will ensure the legitimate interests of all parties, while protecting the neighborhood against inappropriate 10 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 or unwanted uses, as well as unreasonable density. Before I conclude my remarks, I'd like to take a moment to thank Colleen Puckett, President of Queen Village Neighbors, Reverend Rivers of old Swedes Church, and especially Councilman DiCicco for their efforts in getting this bill front and center. Finally, on behalf of my local homeowners association, representing 50 families and all of the families living in and around Swedes Court, I respectfully ask for your support and strongly urge you to pass this Bill 010745.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Please identify yourself for the record. and proceed with your testimony.
Okay, I'm David O'Donnell, and I've been asked by the Board of Directors of Queen Village Neighborhood Association to testify in favor of these zoning changes. This tract of industrial lands puts a wedge through and separates our residential community. It is not attractive, not well-maintained, and greatly diminishes the 11 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 historical importance of this area. After being founded by the Swedes in the 1600s, Old Swedes Church and the beautiful land around it is a national landmark and a Philadelphia treasure, and yet directly across the street, our tourists and our residents look at empty lots with chain-linked fences, topped with barbed wire, deteriorated, boarded-up buildings, and a towing garage with a large side lot filled with wrecked cars which spill onto the sidewalk and the street. All this is wedged between the beautiful Old Swedes Court residences and the rest of Queen Village. We feel that the highest and best use of this land would be residential. Instead of severing the neighborhood, residences here would cement the continuity and flow of the community. It is vital to the restoration of the area. For years Queen Village Neighbors 20 Association has worked tirelessly to restore and 21 revitalize this historic neighborhood. We've 22 accomplished a great deal but we have a lot more to 23 do. We are reversing the old trend of families 24 leaving the City and eroding the middle-class 25 taxpayers by doing that. 12 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 We need the City's help to continue to accomplish this goal. We need this zoning change. Block by block, we are creating lovely, liveable streets in which to raise our families. We have an opportunity here to push development in a very positive way. If Swanson and Christian Streets are restored and stabilized, the revitalization will then continue to the streets south and to the west. We recently received a grant from PennDOT for a pedestrian improvement project just a few doors away from this industrial tract. Further up on Christian, between Front and Third, many homes are currently being built or restored. A small park is proposed for an open space at second and Christian. We're asking you to help us bring back the great old residential neighborhoods of Philadelphia. Reconstructing Queen Village will also aid the neighborhoods of Pennsport and Jefferson Square to our south and Bella Vista and Hawthorne to our west. Thank you for your consideration.
Thank you very much for your testimony. 13 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 Are there any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Mr. Pollack, please. (Witnesses come forward.)
My name is Steven Pollack. I have with me today Mr. Marvin Robb, who is the owner of the property known as 836 to 844 Swanson Street. And also with me is Mr. Fred Levin, who is an attorney who represents the Van Deeben ph) family, which is the owner of the property known as "Philly Ship," which is just to the south along Swanson Street. And Mr. Primavera?
Yes. Carl Primavera. I'm actually here on behalf of Asbell and Associates. They're the people who have the property to the north. And we're here really in our separate capacities.
Whoever would like to go first, please proceed. 14 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745
First of all, thank you for allowing me to make these remarks. The property which is really the unimproved tract north of Catharine Street is something that's really been the topic of a lot of conversations for a long period of time with the community, I guess, and with the Planning Commission. The one thing we agree with is that it's no longer appropriate for G-2 industrial. So in that regard, we agree with what we've heard, that the tract that we're talking about is really not something that we would like to see developed on an industrial scope or scale. The concern that we have is that we've been looking to develop this in a more, I think, creative, high-end fashion, which would be consistent with RC-4 or C3-C4, and there are ordinances that were crafted by the Planning Commission, and I know we've given them to the Councilman for the district. We are now looking for the first time, quite frankly, at a traditional townhouse development. The concerns we have about the reality of that are, it's in a flood plain, we have 15 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 limited access on Columbus Boulevard, we have 95 on two sides of us. So at this point, we don't know if in fact it could be developed for townhouses. Now, I did hear from the neighborhood something that was very encouraging. What they've said is that, you know, they haven't said categorically that that's all they're willing to listen to, and that's important because at some point in time, if townhouses don't make sense because of the topography or the market, then, quite frankly, the other plan, which I can share with you today, which is actually far more expensive to build, might be the only way to develop the property, and this would be for like a 35-story apartment building with a garage and other amenities, which obviously would continue to bring in people and taxes and jobs. So I'm glad to hear that I'm a little more in agreement with the community than maybe the ordinance first suggested, and really what I want to say to the Councilman and to the committee and to the community is that the developer, who has substantial experience in this neighborhood, doesn't want to be seen as a part of the threat. 16 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 We think the G-2 industrial is part of the threat, but I don't want anyone to have the expectation that because a zoning ordinance says "single-family dwellings," that that can make it happen. It may and it may not. But I would like for the community to keep an open mind and for the Council to keep an open mind and really to see this process through in a more expanded dialogue so that maybe we could do something really exciting. Right now, this property that my client has is a across from the DePaul project, which is, I guess, dockside. Our project is called "port side." There's a heliport there. So there are a lot of features that are lacking for a single-family-dwelling neighborhood, but those features may actually support a high-rise apartment.
Many, many years, as I 17 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 understand it.
Did this bill prompt 8 new consideration of the land use? 9
Well, it prompted for the 10 first time a serious look at townhouses. I can 11 tell you, he spent substantial dollars on design 12 for the project. I mean, the architects, Bower, 13 Lewis, the engineers, the hours of time with the 14 Planning Commission. 15 So what has prevented that project from 16 moving forward has been the financing impediment, 17 but now that we're seeing these high-rise 18 apartments in Philadelphia, this may be the closest 19 that this vision has come to reality. I'm not 20 going to say here today that they have the financing and ability to do this, but I'm also not here to say that we know for certain that townhouses work. So I guess what we're really saying is, keep the door open, we want to protect the 18 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 community from industrial, and we're about that as well. But I don't want anyone to think that the site is either appropriate or available for townhouses -- we just don't know. And if everyone can keep their minds open, there may be something much more exciting and much more valuable to the whole community than just laying out some townhouses.
All right. Councilman DiCicco has some questions but, I mean, I guess, just in general, I guess it would apply to most of the parcels we're taking about, but it seems that these parcels, despite their zoning designation, have been in somewhat deteriorated condition for quite some time, and I'm sure you can understand, well, at least this property's been undeveloped, and you can talk about the condition of the other properties, but I guess after years and years and years of continued condition, people get frustrated as to what's ever going to happen with them, and I'm sure you can understand from their perspective, they have an investment also in their residence.
And, you know, the continued status quo probably isn't acceptable to anyone.
No, and we are not here to say that we want G-2. I mean, every plan that we've looked at has been residential, but we think that the site -- our site is really more adaptable to a more creative type of zoning, more density. You know, the noise from the highway is less a factor in apartments that go up. The view from the waterfront can't be appreciated from the townhouses. So my plea today is that as you go forward with the community that you include us, and hopefully whatever you do, if it doesn't work for my client as an R10-A project, you'll remember what we said today and you you'll be willing to be flexible. I know the Councilman for the district has always been accommodating, but I don't want anyone to have the expectation that because the bill says "R10-A," that that means someone can build it and, you know, do it and do it profitably. So that's the caveat. But I didn't hear the community say they 20 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 were wedded to anyone project, so hopefully, they'll keep an open mind.
Thank you, Mr. Primavera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Primavera, we had a couple of conversations, I think, on this and one as recent as yesterday. And I fully appreciate your concern for the remapping becoming an R10-A, and possibly by doing that, restricting the type of development that may go there, in particular residential development. And you may be right that that parcel -- those parcels may not be conducive to residential townhouses. The community and I met with the developer -- I guess it's a couple of years ago, I lose track of time -- to discuss the development of a high-rise, a luxury high-rise apartment building. And in your comments, I think you mentioned something around 35 stories. Please don't be misled by the generosity of the community as that's something that they would accept; I don't think they would. We had a little bit difficult time convincing the community 21 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 that maybe a 10-story building would be appropriate. And after going through the process, which is what I would normally do in any development, the community agreed that stories 6 was something that they could live with. 7 And that's not to suggest that should 8 your client or some other developer come along and 9 want to propose something of a greater height than 10 ten stories that they would not at least listen to it; and I'm certain that they would, and we would go through that same process. That being said, a history of what I've done since I've been the Councilperson for this district, and even before that when I was involved in my community, I always took the position that when you had buildings or parcels that were zoned G-2 -- and many of those parcels in my immediate neighborhood, 11th and federal had been zoned G-2 for a number of years -- that the best way to approach it was really go to R10-A and work from that point up or down, whatever way you want to look at it, so that the community was really and truly a part of the process. We did it in my immediate neighborhood 22 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 primarily because we were concerned with the over-saturation of what were formerly single-family homes being converted into multifamily dwellings -- duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes, what you have, because mostly all of the properties were either zoned in G-2 industrial or multifamily. So we took the position -- I think Jimmy Tayoun was still the Councilperson when they first started that and then completed it when I got elected -- that everything east of Broad from Washington Avenue to Oregon would be zoned R10-A, with the exception of some corner properties, which were left as C-1 or C-2. And with that, I was under a lot of criticism initially by Realtors who said I was going to destroy development. Well, as it turned out, it actually has improved residential development and some light commercial because we maintained the residential fabric of that community. And I'm really proud to say that it's worked to our advantage: Property values are going up, it's a much more desirable neighborhood. But had we not taken the position at the time to do the reclassification and left it as G-2 23 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 and C-4 and C-3, I don't think we could be proud of what -- we would not be talking about that today, because we would be either overrun with multifamily dwellings without the proper amount of parking or other types of businesses that were no longer acceptable or fit into what residential communities are in Philadelphia today -- auto body shops and things like that.
So I've taken that position in the past, and I think that, you know, I hear what you're saying, you and I have had a great relationship, I know the owner of the property, he wants to do something obviously that will make money for him, and he's entitled to do that, but I'm concerned that if we don't do this now, 'cause we've been doing this for a while, at least four, five years, and I see Jeff shaking his head, that I've been around, that enough time has passed for us to say, Well, you've had enough time to do so something. Let us do this: As long as I'm around -- and I'll be around for at least another year and a half -- there's some people who would hope that I won't be around after that, but whoever the Councilperson is, if there's no plan on the table 24 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 in the next year and a half, we will work, I will work to find some commonality so that we can get something done there. I was the guy who brought it to the table initially about the high-rise, and people said, Why are you doing this to us? Because I believe in a process. And some people may disagree with that and criticize me through reporters who take the advantage of the ability to be able to write stories that I don't pay attention, but I do. It takes me a lot more time to do my job, but the community is always going to be a part of the process. I don't take the position of a knee-jerk reaction. If the community doesn't want it, that means you're not going to get it. I bring the parties together, and I think we'll be able to, going forward, come up with a reasonable plan that may not be a hundred percent what the community wants and it may not be a hundred percent what the developer wants, but something good will be developed there. So I wanted to express that to you 'cause I do have a lot of respect for you.
And I know your client, you know, he's been a friend of mine, he's been a supporter of mine in the past, and I know he has other things going on in his life now, so it's not this thing that we don't want it; it's just a question of, what do we now to protect the integrity and work toward a better development going forward?
Well, I appreciate that. And, you know, I, for one, think that you are going to be around, and I also know that the community's going to be around. So what I would like to see, you know, maybe as early as --
I will not accept a contribution from you because after that endorsement, they will suggest that I'm doing this on your behalf. (Laughter.)
But maybe within, you know, 30 days or so, we can have some workshop with the community and start the process. It may well be that townhouses -- and Mr. Asbell's working with some of the best Realtors in town -- may under some circumstance work. So 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 we're not shutting the door on that, but quite frankly, the issues to date have been problematic. Now, some of them, you may be able to help with -- curb cuts on Columbus Boulevard striking some of Fitzwater Street. So some of the things may actually work for everyone's best interest, but we just didn't want people to think that this closed the door for further discussion. So with that offer of further discussion, I --
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't close the door; it's on the record.
I mean, I will never close the door. And I've been (indiscernible) to those enhancements obviously.
But I think the workshop idea is a good idea, and I'm getting some nods from the back -- I think we should start that immediately. So let's start exploring some possibilities.
All right. Well, thank 27 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 you. We appreciate that.
Chairman Kenney, Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Clarke, Steve Pollack on behalf of Marvin Robb, who is the owner of 836 to 844 Swanson Street. And I think there has been a discussion -- we have to discuss history, and I guess what happened in 1978, precursor, you known, destined that we would be sitting here today. 'Cause in 1978, when this property was zoned G-2 industrial, developers by the name of Levitt and Heller had a plan to develop this property with townhouses, which became Old Swedes Court. And as part of the zoning process, I haven't been able to get the official paper, but I had it confirmed through the attorney who is of record at the time, that the Zoning Board, Mr. Carl Zucker, that there was discussions and there was 28 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 some letter that was put into the record that the people were going to have to be told who bought at Old Swedes Court that they had to realize that they were, in essence, moving to a nuisance; they were moving to an industrial area. So that's in 1978. And we all know that at one time, there was a Front Street and a Dock Street and that they were vibrant communities serving the port. This is an area that was part of that area; it's still zoned G-2 industrial. Mr. Robb has been, you know -- the first Councilmatic District's representative over the years has had this probably on his plate, you know, Councilman DiCicco's predecessors have had this on their plate before. No one can ask for a better friend than Councilman DiCicco in terms of, you know, trying to balance everybody's interest and working together for the public good. And I know that, you know, he's given that consideration today. But we have an existing business. Back in 1988, when the City tried to do something to Mr. Robb and his business, he had 65, 70 employees. There were numerous health inspections, code-violation inspections of that nature that came 29 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 down, and the message was clear. So instead of growing his business here, he, unfortunately, moved most of his business to where there are about 280 jobs now in New Jersey that could have been here in Philadelphia. Why couldn't it be in Philadelphia? Because -- it should be in Philadelphia because we have a business now that's to 30 people, and I 10 have pictures and I want to show you, that, 11 Councilman Kenney, the facility that we run is a 12 USDA, United States Department of 13 Agriculturally-run facility. What we do is we 14 process chickens for Chinatown and for the Muslim 15 religion. 16 And why is that? Well, because you have 17 a special thing, and you'll see, the chickens are 18 allowed to be processed with their heads and their 19 legs still intact, as opposed to having them 20 chopped off. So that's the special way, just like 21 where we have kosher where you can kill kosher for 22 the people that maintain the kosherness of the 23 chicken, there's also this. 24 And that -- you only get that -- you 25 don't get that by being a business asking you for 30 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 that; you get it from the community asking that they would like to have this kind of facility. So we have a special facility that serves Chinatown, and we know the proximity of Chinatown to where we are, at basically Christopher Columbus Boulevard and Washington Avenue. We also have -- and I'll hand up the pictures, and you can see, one of the things that wasn't also said -- it was said that this is a vibrant residential communities and this portion cuts it off -- cuts that development off. Queen Village is one of the finest neighborhoods in the area, but one of the things that insulate us is I-95; I-95 is right behind us. And if I may approach, I would like to hand up these photos for you. And I also took the time to take photos of copies of the Sanborn Atlas, which shows you the land use, and I've circled in green where we are on the pages. You'll see that we have -- and we beside -- we do -- we also do free-range chickens also.
So besides the employees, the thing that we do have is that these are people who live in Philadelphia. These are people who, when they were 31 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 told to go out and get a job by the federal government and the state government because their government assistance may not be there, that social network might not be there unless they get a job, these are those people. But Philadelphia provides a pool of labor that you can't get anywhere else. So what we're saying is that we are in a situation where, through modernization, through technological change, if that were to happen and we were to be zoned from G-2 to R10-A, we are in a predicament where we would have to go always for a zoning variance. And the reason -- one of the probably motivations and reasons why we are still here today and you're here today with this bill is because of the, as I said, the battle that's been raged over the years of what do you do with this -- with our business that's been there -- and this business in some ways has been there since the 1920s and has developed, as I said, at a time when this was industrial. I was at a meeting last night up in my neighborhood where they were fighting over Woodhaven Road expansion, and one gentleman got up 32 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 and said that at MIT what they tell the engineers is that you're not necessarily drawing lines on a plan, but what you're dealing with is change. We understand there's change, we understand that, you know, this area has changed in terms of what is going on around it. There's commercial development, but right across the street, obviously, there are still piers that are vibrant and used as the part of the Port Authority, and adjacent property would become nonconforming immediately, and that's -- I think it's the stevedores' union that just had a beautiful new union hall built.
The Pilots' Association had a beautiful new office building, you know, built right between Mr. Primavera's property and basically the Penn's Landing -- I think it's called the Penn's Landing Condominium at Old Swedes Court near us, and they would become nonconforming. One of the other thoughts had always been that when you deal with land use, City Planning and this Council has always looked at what is the existing uses on a property as opposed to -- and 33 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 where you have existing uses, you try and rezone or remap so that you conform with that. So nobody's saying to you today, Don't consider what Mr. Primavera's discussed with you, don't consider the cry of Old Swedes Court and other residential in this pocket to be remapped to R10-A. What we're saying to you is that this is a piece of industrial ground, again in the City of Philadelphia, we are losing our industrial ground. And City Council years and years ago -- not years ago, but in the late '80, I think, enacted something that tried to preserve industrial ground, G-2, by taking commercial uses out of the zoning code just so that -- because we were finding that a lot of our commercial districts were getting eaten up -- I mean, our industrial districts were getting eaten up by proposals for commercial uses. So we're asking you to look at this. We're an existing use. This will severely limit our ability to be able to grow and modernize, even within the confines of our building possibly, and we are saying to you that it's an economic- development issue. We don't want to stand in the way of progress. There probably will come a time 34 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 where, you know, maybe there will be somebody that will want to develop us as R10-A. There may -- there probably will come a time of that, and we will not want to stand in the way of that either, because we do realize that what we're asking you is for the survival of our use. As you can see, we have spent money, we do employ people. We ask you to consider allowing our area to -- the block between Swanson and I-95 and Queen and Christian to remain G-2. Mr. Levin -- I will yield some time to Mr. Levin, who is here on behalf of the Van Deeben family who own Philly Ship. They have a little slightly different area consideration 'cause they do have vacant buildings; whereas we are an existing vibrant business.
Doesn't it at some point make sense for a client like yours to sit down with the Commerce Department and try to find a location, an industrial location in Philadelphia, whether it's the Food Distribution Center, which you can't actually doing at, I understand, but an area which is more conducive to transportation, upgraded facility to keep the industrial jobs but 35 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 to do it in an area within the confines of Philadelphia that makes more sense than a rapidly changing residential area? I mean, isn't that what the Commerce Department is for? I understand that there was a -- wasn't there a slaughterhouse that -- I believe there was a -- wasn't that a slaughterhouse (to Councilman DiCicco)?
I believe, for example, at Front and Wash, Washington Avenue, there was a slaughterhouse that backed up against residential property, and there was concerns about the --
That was Dominic Venuto years ago 'cause I represented Dominic many years ago.
Yeah, and I may be mistaken, they may have left the City, but I don't think they did.
And Dominic also had one at Sixth and Federal, right behind Federal Pretzels, that was like a notorious zoning battle I had years and years ago because the neighborhood didn't want 36 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 him to grow and expand, so now he's gone, he's out of the City.
But, I mean, when you have an older building -- is Venuto out altogether from -- is the Washington Avenue thing out?
But, Councilman Kenney, to answer your question, first of all, we would -- we did see Mr. -- the Commerce Director here, Mr. Cuorato, just outside before this session was called, and we mentioned it to him and we discussed it. I think at one point in time, Councilman DiCicco may have at least brought him around to look at the area. But the thing is this: Here we are, before this bill was called for this, Mr. Robb's experience had been in New Jersey, they came knocking to him. They said, What can we do for you to try to get you into a building and do something? So the onus should be, maybe if it's a business -- if we're trying to have an environment where we're trying to improve a neighborhood that has residential desires but also retain business, that if we're trying to reach out like that, then before a bill like this finally becomes a law, maybe that 37 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 kind of economic-development homework should be done so that instead of us showing up here today and saying, Hey, save us, hold us, or hold back a little bit until we can have this kind of dialogue and maybe locate something, that maybe should have gone -- hopefully could have happened beforehand. So, yes, we are open to that; yes, we had hoped that that had happened before. You know, and I hate to bring up what his experience has been with New Jersey 'cause I'm a -- I love Philadelphia and I think, you know, we should --
Well, I think Philadelphia has a lot to be criticized about regarding its economic development and commerce policies, no doubt about it. I think that we have been taking for granted businesses for a long time. But the question I have is, is the value of the property in a rapidly changing residential area that's getting and commanding pretty decent prices for the property there, if an arrangement could be made to move the company to another more suitable location, why does that diminish the value of the property because the obvious residential development that's going on there has improved the 38 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 value of the land for residential use? I mean, you may not be killing chickens there, but you may be developing residential property that will make you -- would make the property continue to hold its value. I don't understand -- I understand the removal of the G-2 designation to a residential designation is certainly a big jump; however, it doesn't necessarily mean that the land is valueless and of future use. Now, would the changing of the G-2 to R-10 stop you from doing business?
Well, not only that, but its future considerations of, you know, technological --
Just technological advancement of our business or, you know, changing -- if we have changing in processing or 39 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 something like that, we could have an interpretation that would throw us in front of -- that we are, you know, exceeding what our use is and that we've exceeded the nonconforming use of the --
What I don't want the record -- (Unintelligible; parties talking over each other.)
What I don't understand is -- (Unintelligible; parties talking over each other.)
-- the concern about preserving the rights of the owner. I also don't accept the argument that the property is decreased substantially in value because of the potential development abilities that are there now. If the company decided that they didn't want to do this business anymore, the property is not without value because the property values of the residential properties there are substantial and increasing. So, I mean, while you may not want us to do this, on the other hand, the property still has 40 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 value, and it has value for other uses that aren't really, you know, low-end.
But in essence, then what you're saying is that you want to take through ordinance the development rights or the rights that they have with regard to their business, put a limitation on their business, and use it for a purpose, use it for a purpose --
There's no limitation on their business, the current operation of their business. In the event that the business is no 13 longer there or the owner decides they want to do something different with the property, then it would be conducive with what's going on in that neighborhood to either be a developer and develop residential there or to sell it to a developer who's doing residential there, and I would suspect that the property is still of pretty high value. So, I mean, as far as the diminishing of the value of the property, no one's going to pass a bill and tell you to go out of business tomorrow. You may want to go out of business 10, 15, 20 years from now; at that point in time, I would suspect that all of the residential development that's 41 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 happening there would continue to increase the value of that property.
But what we're saying to you is that you could be chasing us out a lot sooner than you think because of the very nature of -- if there is a determination -- if we had to do something and we had to modernize or we had to put in new equipment or something -- I know you're shaking your head, Councilman, but there is that potential, because this has been on the radar screens, as I've said, for a lot of years, for a lot of your predecessors in the 1st Councilmatic District and, you know, you've introduced something that will change, you know, the underlying district that will, you know, make it a non-conforming use. So what -- this is also sending a message, especially without the component that Councilman Kenney said about economic development with the Commerce Department reaching out to us, to my client, you know, the message is getting sent very clear again, you know, that we're going to chase away another business that has to 30 24 people. 25 Nobody will tell you that there isn't 42 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 some value of this land and then the problem might be that if it's not valueless, I would have a hard time proving the hardship I would need to go to the Zoning Board if I'm stuck making any kind of changes. So, I mean, what we're saying is that I understand the long range of that, but what I'm saying is, we're here because in 1978, the industrial neighbors were willing to allow some residential use to come in, and the minute, I guess, that came in, the seeds were planted over the years that now we're sitting here and we're the ones that fighting for our, you know, industrial survival. Mr. Robb would like to speak.
Marvin Robb. My only concern is -- my major concern is that in '78, you know, we allowed the construction of these new buildings, and all through the years, we've been harassed, and so we've been forced to move our business out to New Jersey, which my lawyer explained, and our business has grown. 43 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 We're 250 employees outside of Philadelphia. But at the same token, all this transpired, no one contacted us, no one brought the Commerce Department, no one came, no one discussed anything with us, you know, to try to make this some type of relationship that was discussed before between commercial and residential uses. None of this was done. And I don't think it's appropriate. And then the other issue is that, you know, we have a thriving business there. You know, the other people have their own considerations. We have people that we employ that necessarily would be on the welfare. And we are providing a service for the community. And, basically, we are granted by the federal government to operate this facility, as well as they have the grants from the Chinese and the Muslim communities, came from the federal government. So we're the only plant in the State of Pennsylvania that does this type of slaughtering. So, consequently, you know, the whole thing was not handled correctly. And, you know, the first step should have been -- you know, I 44 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 think we need to take a couple steps back, we need to sit down with the industrial users and tell us what your game plan is, and then we will then, you know, sit down and work together. I mean, if someone came and offered me a price that was, you know, reasonable, I'd be an idiot to say that, you know, I wouldn't leave. I mean, I would rather be in a -- but right now, no 10 one's come, okay? And all this is talk. They're building new houses down the street, I just found out. There's five holes in the ground, there's going to continue to be five holes, 'cause the guy who built it passed away, and that's going to remain. So you're going to have four or five holes in the ground, which is not very appropriate. So, you know, there has been to be a little bit more planning, there has to be work with industry as well to come to a common goal.
I agree with you. The only thing I would take exception with is the fact that I did personally take the Commerce Director, Jim Cuorato, down through the neighborhood maybe a year or so ago. And my only 45 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 contact -- and maybe it's my mistake and I will take responsibility for it -- is that I didn't speak to you, but I've had some informal conversations with a mutual friend, Howard Lander.
And I even spoke to Howard, I think, back in October -- again, I lose track of dates -- that I had someone who might be interested in the building. And he said, Hold off, we'll get back to you, Marv may have a buyer. And, I mean, he's not here obviously, and I held off, but going forward, I certainly would have no 14 problem establishing a meeting, setting up a meeting with you and the Commerce Department and see if we can't accommodate some relocation needs for you. That being said, my concern is for -- Mr. Pollack, if this ordinance is passed, it doesn't limit your ability to continue to operate there. It would only -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- it would only limit your ability if you wanted to expand beyond the legal description of the boundaries of your property. Is that not correct? Unless you were to change the use. 46 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 I mean, if it is poultry factory today, and Mr. Robb were to sell it to me tomorrow, even with the change, if I want to continue a poultry factory, I still would be able to continue to do that. Is that correct?
Well, Councilman, I'll harken to the battles that you have -- not in a -- just as a perspective, not any commentary. But you do have other considerations like this going on in your district, and that would be the corner of 13th and Locust, where there are battles over whether only a portion of the building was used or whether, you know, it could expand. So you might -- or you also have on 13th Street whether the first floor would be allowed to -- you could expand the use from the first floor into the second floor. So I'm just saying to you, Councilman DiCicco, that through, you know, the needs to upgrade the make of this, to continue our certification as a USDA-run facility, we may need to do certain processes that, you know, that somebody could interpret at L&I as being an expansion beyond our non-conforming use, 'cause I always say you take a picture and you take 47 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 snapshots. (Unintelligible; parties talking over each other.)
Well, there's always possibilities but, I mean, 13th and Locust, the issue there, as far as I'm concerned -- and we're not going to belabor the record with it -- is the fact that there's a gentleman's club that occupies a portion of the building. The rest of the building could, I think, by right, be used as a bar/restaurant, but there's a special license for a gentleman's club if they want to expand. The license that allows you to do poultry business, if you put another story on it, provided there's no height restrictions, I don't think that would restrict you from doing that. I mean, is it not true that if --
If we increased our floor area more than a certain percentage, it would, 'cause we, you know --
But I think the argument -- it would work in your favor that you've 48 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 been an existing business and you're only expanding it another floor. But let me ask you this question: If tomorrow you sold the business to someone and this change does not occur and you were selling that business to somebody who was going to use that building where the poultry factory is now for some other use other than poultry factory, would they not have to go to the Zoning Board?
No, no, forget this bill. If this bill didn't exist, if this bill 15 doesn't get reported out, tomorrow --
If it fits within the G-2, they would be okay; they wouldn't have to --
But if it doesn't fit within the G-2, they'd have to move --
They would still have to go -- I mean, you know, they would have to go the Zoning Board if it doesn't fit within the G-2. I mean, if somebody wanted to make this a commercial 49 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 office building, they would have to go to the Zoning Board because, you know, you're not allowed to have commercial use. If somebody wants to turn this into some sort of retail commercial, they'd have to go to the Zoning Board. If somebody wanted to do something and turn it into a bank, they would have to go to the Zoning Board
I guess I'm missing something as to what harm, what is the damage done to your client as a result of this change that's being proposed today, going forward?
With the exception of the fact that you might not be to sell it to someone for another use other than a poultry factory?
Well, again, the first problem is that we're always the -- we're at the end of the process, and we always seem to be waiting -- you know, through the years I've been at this property, we always seem to be the person that everybody comes to when, you know, well, how come you didn't come talk to us? You know, no one's done that. 50 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 And the other problem is, I don't see what benefit -- if you wanted to rezone the whole area except my property, that's fine. I don't see why my property has to be rezoned. Why can't you just leave it under G -- whatever --
G-2 and leave -- do everybody else's property, you know, the empty lots that are there, so people can build, and let me have the flexibility to utilize my property wherever I see fit.
Councilman DiCicco, 1404-7-A of the Zoning Board says that any structure, once it becomes nonconforming, cannot increase its gross floor area, add extensions or additions. So if we wanted to go up more than 10 percent if the gross floor area, then it becomes nonconforming. If we needed to add something up above because of some requirements, you would be putting a limitation. And, Councilman DiCicco, you know, I was the President of the South Street neighborhood association years ago, and I represented the Somerton Civic and a lot of other civic groups in 51 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 my day and have been a civic leader, but, I mean, it's -- but I've represented Mr. Robb over the years, and it's clear that this development has always been on the radar screen as something that, you know, was an act -- a use that the neighborhood has never wanted. If we had been forced to go to the Zoning Board, you're pushing us up probably to the Common Pleas Court and maybe up to the Commonwealth Court or Supreme Court before we could maybe vindicate ourselves.
You know, when those decisions had to be made about whether to stay in Philadelphia or move to Jersey, why wasn't consideration being made then to expand the building at that time so that you didn't have to move the jobs to Jersey?
The political force at that time basically was just harassing us so much that we had no choice and we decided, why invest more of 52 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 our money here and --
So you reduced your work staff from 250 to under duress? 5
Well, whatever it 10 was. You reduced the workforce -- 11
So you reduced your 14 workforce by three-quarters because of harassment 15 but you choose to stay there. I'm a little 16 confused about that. 17
Well, let me tell you what we 18 did. I mean, when we -- last time we met with the 19 neighbors, or the City got involved, they said do 20 not use the front of your building. So the whole 21 front of the building is just used for some minor 22 storage. We only use the back of the building. 23 So we've tried to accommodate whatever is 24 necessary to satisfy the neighbors. The problem is 25 that they moved into an industrial area and they 53 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 wanted to be like South Street -- I mean like, you know, from the other areas and just, you know --
Development occurred, people chose to live there, understanding that you were there. I mean, I don't know what took place with L&I; I certainly never put L&I on you.
And, you know, whatever happened, I apologize if you were being targeted that way. I'm just trying to figure out a way in which we can continue with the residential development. You know, as we've tried to continue to keep businesses here and to attract more, we're also trying to figure out ways in which we can repopulate our neighborhoods with residents, and it's not always easy to do because we have residential and industrial communities that are always competing. And things have changed. You know, there were factories all around 11th and Federal, where I live. Where I live now was a factory; it is now a 54 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 townhouse, a row of townhouses. Things change. And I try to figure out a way in which you have less harm done to you. But to spot-zone it, I don't think, is the answer here. I think what the answer is for me to meet with you and not our mutual friend -- and I apologize for that.
And set up a meeting with the Commerce Department and see if there's some way in which we can find a way in which you can either relocate, if you still choose to stay in Philadelphia, and come up with a way that's economically feasible to you and continue with the residential development of the Old Swedes/Penn's Landing condo community. I mean, that's what I think is the best for all of us. Because to not to at least explore that is an injustice to everybody -- you and the residents. And I think we need to do that.
All right? Okay. And, Steve, you can call me up and we'll set up a meeting and we'll get started. 55 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745
Chair and members of the Council, Fred Levin, with (inaudible), counsel for Swanson Enterprises.
You need to speak directly into the microphone. Thank you.
Fred Levin, counsel for Swanson Enterprises. We appreciate this opportunity to address you, particularly since the proposed zoning change will have a very significant impact on my client. It's somewhat different than the perspective that has been presented by Mr. Pollack's client, Mr. Robb. Just to identify the property, my client owns what could be characterized as three parcels that are bordered by Christian Street and Swanson Street, approximately 65 percent of that block. Originally, two of those parcels and part of the other were used as Philly Ship. There are structures on the property, there was ship building and ship repair that went on. Swanson Enterprises is now -- the 56 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 principal of Swanson Enterprises is the widow of Mr. Van Deeben, who operated Philly Ship. Philly Ship ceased operation in 1997, I believe, and there are now some uses on the property. One of the structures is occupied as a tow-truck facility. There's a machine shop in one of the buildings, which, I understand, may be leaving. And one of the other structures is empty. There is always a residence that was converted to a restaurant a number of years ago, which is also not being utilized at this time. Now, the devastating impact that would occur to my client -- it's not from the sense that Councilman Kenney referred to, that the property would not have some value, even as residential property, but my client would effectively be rendered -- it would effectively be rendered impossible for my client to lease these properties at this time because none of these properties today are conducive or feasible for residential use. So it would require in every instance -- and we're talking about 65 percent of this block, three separate parcels -- to seek a variance for use of the property. The G-2 is very encompassing, 57 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 almost includes anything. But just to illustrate, my client on one of the properties, sought to have a dog-grooming facility operate, which was one of those unique uses that was not included in the G-2 zone, and it was rejected. Well, if a dog-grooming use is going to be rejected, I think we have to assume almost anything else on that property would probably be rejected if the zone was changed. And the widow, of course, relies on these rentals for her income and her livelihood, and this would have a devastating impact. Granted, there may be a value in the property for residential purposes, and at some point in time -- we don't know when -- a developer may present him or herself and make an offer, but that is not the case at the moment. My client needs to have these properties rented at least from time to time. And this clearly --
What are the -- could you give me some idea of what the rentals are or what the uses are of the people who lease the property, or what they do? What's conducted there?
Well, as I indicated, one of 58 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 the buildings had been converted to a restaurant. It is not being occupied at this time, but that could conceivably still be used as a restaurant.
Excuse me, how long ago was that, sir? How long ago was that renovated; do you know?
Yeah, I think it was -- it was an industrial-type of cooking; it wasn't a restaurant like -- it was like a commissary, where you would --
Mr. Robb may be a little more familiar with it because he's obviously --
As I indicated, one of the properties that's being utilized is a machine shop because that was conducive to the former use of the 59 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 ship-building. That tenant may also be leaving shortly. From what I understand, this tenant manufactures or assembles the metal parts that the vendors use on the street that you may see out here in front of City Hall at times. And, apparently, there's been a significant decline and demand for that for certain reasons. But those are the type of operations. These are very, you know, obsolete buildings in the sense that they were, you know, for manufacturing, for assembly, for repair business. It's not conducive or feasible to modify these buildings for other types of use -- well, certainly not residential, and my client isn't in a position to develop it for residential purposes.
Thank you. Did your client ever try to market that property for sale?
In fact, everybody's joined 60 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 together, we joined together.
And we're marketing the property as a whole. We're not trying to say, you know, take our piece and --
There's been an interest but you're not getting your price?
There was an interest, but then 9/11 came and the deal went south.
Do you know if the interest was for residential? Or you're not -- did you say that it's not?
Yeah, I think it was for some type of residential, yes. The property -- if you go to the property now, there is a sign put up by the broker saying that all three properties are up for sale.
It may actually be shown in one of the shots I took along Christian Street.
That's surprising because, I mean, that is a hot real-estate market, 61 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 and there's just not enough land. I get calls from Realtors all the time asking if I know of any land in my district because they want to develop.
I mean, I don't think any of us sitting at this table would object if after there's an agreement of sale and if we've got it and if there's somebody who wants to develop this as residential that you would come back here and rezone this, whatever would fit that residential classification, that, you know, Queen Village would want it and that developer would want it. I don't think any of us sitting here would fight that bill 14 at all. You know --
Councilman DiCicco, if I could address that. Certainly if an offer was made and it was acceptable, my client would probably be inclined to accept it, certainly in conjunction, maybe even with Mr. Robb's. But on the other hand, there seems to be something inherently unfair that somebody would be compelled to sell their property or almost forced to sell their property just to, you know, be able to continue to --
See, I guess I get 62 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 hung up on that statement that they would be compelled -- I get hung up on the statement that they would be compelled to sell. The mapping we did in 1989, most of the business people were of the opinion that the sky was falling and that the properties weren't going to be worth anything and they were going to be forced out of business, and those business folks who chose to stay since 1989 and conduct their normal business are still there today. I mean, I didn't see this, you know, dramatic effect on the ability to continue to operate, I just didn't see it. It has not occurred. And then when I got elected in 1996, with the help of Councilman Kenney, we did a whole remapping, as I said earlier, of everything from Oregon Avenue to Washington and found auto body shops in places I wish they were not, but they were pre-existing and they are still there today.
Well, that may be the case and this property in the future may have significantly more value than it does today, and hopefully that will be the case, but in the 63 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 meantime, my client has to rent out space and would be --
Apparently, you're client is not having success in renting it now and we haven't even done the bill.
Well, there is interest and, I mean, it's something that has to be pursued but --
Well, we have someone who may be interested in using it for a limo -- there's parking as well but --
And I do pass there 64 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 often and I'm not going to suggest I'm an expert, but I don't know if those buildings have been occupied all that much for the past five years anyway. So where is the harm here? I mean, it's not as though this is a thriving real-estate property, where you have tenants and when you lose tenant, there's one waiting in line. The building is basically vacant most of the time anyway -- if I'm correct. And, again, I don't live there; I just drive through there. And maybe I pay too much attention to what I do on my job because I don't sleep at night, but I don't think those buildings are occupied anyway.
Well, there have been tenants off and on over the past few years; they have come and gone.
And if the manufacturer or fabricator of hot dog carts moves, you're really down to one anyway.
I mean, I heard you and I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but in your 65 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 statement, if I heard you correctly, your client is relying on the income from this property and there's one or two tenants? I mean, is that a life-and-death thing? I mean I don't understand that.
Well, you know, I can't address her finances, but she does rely on income from that it, but beyond that, whether it's rented fully or not, it becomes impossible --
It becomes impossible to market it or use it for any income-producing basis if the ordinance is passed.
What's the rental coming out of those two rented places now; do you know?
Any more questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Thank you. 66 1/30/01 RULES - BILL 010745 Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you. I want to have a couple of announcements. Bill No. 010305 will be held; that's dealing with an ordinance amending a zoning area between Snyder Avenue, Columbus Boulevard, Porter Street, and Weccacoe Avenue and Vandalia. So if there's anyone here for that bill, that will not be heard today. Bill No. 010392 will be withdrawn at the request of the sponsor, and that's also dealing with zoning maps between Columbus Boulevard, Catharine Street, I-95 and Delaware Expressway. And Bill No. 010660, which is an ordinance to amend the zoning maps on areas of the City of Bartram Avenue, west of 84th Street, will also be held. So if there is anyone here to give testimony or listen to testimony on those bills, they will not be heard today. The next bill on our calendar -- oh, and by the way, we have a number of also zoning issues: Councilmember Clarke's bill, Verna's bill, and 67 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 Miller's bill, Bills No. 010560, 010632 and 010718. Is there anyone here from the public to testify on those bills just so I can try to coordinate this better? I'll tell you where they are: It's Poplar Street, Ninth Street, Percy Street, or Meadowlark, Lapwing Place, Longspur, or Chelten Avenue... The next bill for consideration is Bill 9 No. 010125, an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section 14-1621, entitled "Passyunk Avenue Special District Controls," under certain terms and conditions. We also have witnesses from the public on that. If they could just come forward and take those chairs inside the rail. The Planning Commission will give quick testimony after identifying themselves. Thank you.
Good morning, members of the Rules Committee. I'm Richard Lombardo, Deputy Executive Director of the Philadelphia Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 24 01025. This bill was introduced by Councilman DiCicco and Council President Verna on March 1, 68 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 2001. This bill amends the zoning code by adding a new Section 14-1621, entitled "Passyunk Avenue Special District Controls," to the zoning code. This section of the zoning code would establish a certain use in zoning controls for commercially-zoned properties fronting on Passyunk Avenue between Wharton Street and 25th Street. This is a list of zoning overlays. Section 14-1600 of the zoning codes are special controls for various areas of the City and this would establish a new area. The following uses would now be prohibited if this ordinance is enacted in the commercial properties fronting on Passyunk Avenue: athletic and drill hall, dance hall, automobile repair shop, service station, installation of automobile parts, sale of automobile parts and car washes, fortune teller establishment, tattoo and body-piercing establishments, outdoor advertising signs, outdoor sales or storage, drive-through restaurants or take-out restaurants, private clubs, beer distributors and sale of malt beverages as 69 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 accessory use, trolley and bus terminals. The following use controls will also be established: Newly erected building would be required to construct to the street line of Passyunk Avenue. That basically means that new buildings would not be permitted to set back from the sidewalk with parking or whatever between the building and the sidewalk. Only flat wall signs would be permitted; you would no longer be permitted to have projecting signs perpendicular to the front of the property. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of November 15, 2001, considered this bill and amendments and recommended that Bill 01025 be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions I also understand we've been asked to address a couple of amendments.
Okay. There are a couple of amendments that proceed from issues raised either by either by the Law Department or by interest groups. One is a correction. I'll do the correction first. 70 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 On of the ordinance, paragraph 2, district boundaries, on the last line: Frontage on Passyunk Avenue between... That should be Washington Avenue, not Wharton Street, and 25th Street. That's one correction. On the same page, under Paragraph 3, sub B, automobile repair shops, automobile service stations or retail sale of automobile fuel, lubricants and accessories, retail sales, installation of automobile parts, tires, audio equipment, automobile truck or sales lots. What the committee has been doing recently in these commercial strips is not making it clear that this is not prohibiting uses that are a part of a larger new-car dealership. So we want to insert the language "except as part of a franchised new-car facility." The last amendment is on at the top of the page, subparagraph H. It currently reads, "Private clubs with a license from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for after-hour sale of alcoholic beverages." The Law Department has informed Council and us, the Planning Commission, that based on recent court decisions 71 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 that they no longer have the authority to preempt the Liquor Control Board in establishing land-use controls based on the sale of alcoholic beverages, and they suggest that we drop the language about alcoholic beverages and just leave it as "private clubs." And I believe that's going to be given to the Chief Clerk's office if they're not adopted by the committee.
Are there any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. Please come forward. (Witnesses come forward.)
Are you going to have generally one spokesperson? Please, you can ail 72 1/30/02 RULES - BILL 010125 identify yourselves for the record, but if one person would go last who's going to speak for the record.
Just kidding. Talk about your business and your location, that's fine.