COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, September 14, 20117 10:25 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA10 COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE11 COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR.12 COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE13 COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY14 COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL15 COUNCILWOMAN MARIA D. QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN16 COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO, JR. COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO17 RESOLUTION 110459 - Resolution authorizing the Committee of the Whole to hold public hearings19 to review the Zoning Code Proposals of the Zoning Code Commission.20 - - -22 2
Good2 morning, everyone. This is a public3 hearing on Resolution No. 110459.4 I would ask Mr. McPherson to5 please read the title of the resolution.6 MR. McPHERSON: Resolution7 authorizing the Committee of the Whole to8 hold public hearings to review the Zoning9 Code Proposals of the Zoning Code10 Commission.11
Thank12 you.13 We have more than 40 witnesses14 to testify, and I'm sure as the day goes15 on, we're going to have a lot more. So16 what I would like to do is at least try17 to have a limited period for testimony so18 that we can hear everybody that is19 present. My suggestion is that we will20 give each person testifying three minutes21 to do so.22 We do have a timer up here, so23 when you hear a bell, you know that your24 time is up, and at that point in time, I25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 would ask you please to try to abbreviate2 and conclude your remarks.3 Thank you very much.4 MR. McPHERSON: Our first panel5 consists of Alan Greenberger, Eva6 Gladstein and Don Elliot.7 (Witnesses approached witness8 table.)9
Thank you,12 Madam President. It won't be much more.13 Good morning.14
Good15 morning. Do we have copies of your16 testimony?17
Before I4 start, if I could just ask members of the5 Zoning Code Commission to stand for a6 moment, I'd like to recognize them.7 Thank you all for being here.8 (Applause.)9
11 I'm Alan Greenberger, Deputy12 Mayor for Economic Development, and for13 the last several years, I've had the14 honor of chairing the Zoning Code15 Commission. 24 Last week we had the25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 opportunity to brief members of City2 Council for the fourth time, and that3 briefing was very helpful in providing us4 with a greater understanding of your5 concerns. 14 Before I discuss these issues,15 I would like to focus briefly on the16 reason that we as a city have endeavored17 to reform the Zoning Code. The current18 Zoning Code is so broken that none of us19 trust it to provide predictable and20 appropriate development. All of us -21 residents, developers, elected officials22 and administrators - are used to23 workarounds. These workarounds are24 sometimes in the form of use variances or25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 drastic dimensional variances or2 negotiated agreements with community3 organizations or targeted text changes to4 the Zoning Code. 9 The Zoning Board of Adjustment10 is burdened by approximately 1,700 cases11 a year, far more than any city of our12 size. For example, a review of Zoning13 Board cases in 2009 found that Chicago14 had approximately 700 cases, a city15 almost twice our size, and New York City16 had less than 1,000 cases, a city five17 times our size. The current Code often18 pits homeowners against developers in19 piecemeal battles that are costly and20 time consuming. The Code is so out of21 date that it lists where a milliner can22 do business or where tanneries can23 operate, but does not recognize a24 computer store or a community garden. We25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 believe that the document transmitted to2 Council is a tremendous start in fixing3 the Code and will go a long way in4 providing predictable and appropriate5 development. 20 One of the concerns Council has21 expressed is that a small number of22 permitted uses will change citywide when23 the new text is adopted and that certain24 of these uses would have negative impacts25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2 Example of such uses as identified in3 Councilman Green's proposal include4 schools, libraries and cultural exhibits,5 bed and breakfasts, religious assembly6 and active recreation. The proposals7 also recommend regulating home-based8 businesses based on whether the9 client/customer is served remotely or the10 service is provided in person. 16 We've heard concerns that17 certain changes in permitted uses in18 commercial areas could have a negative19 impact in some areas. Examples of such20 uses as identified by Councilman Green's21 proposals include assembly and22 entertainment, nightclubs, including23 sit-down restaurants, variety stores and24 hotels. At the same time, Councilwoman25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 19 All told, we're committed to20 working through these specific proposals21 with Councilmembers beginning22 immediately. We're confident that we'll23 be able to have a constructive24 conversation about these uses while25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 considering the impact on neighborhoods2 as well as the ability to enforce and3 legally defend these regulations. Our4 goal will be to improve upon the current5 Zoning Code Proposals to produce revised6 text that can be applied citywide and7 reduce the number of neighborhood8 specific overlays. 15 After I close, Eva Gladstein,16 our Executive Director of the Zoning Code17 Commission, will discuss several18 additional issues that have come up in19 conversations with City Council, as well20 as our timeline. 25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 I was pleased to hear from2 Councilmembers at our briefing last week3 that we share the goals of being able to4 complete the process so that we can all5 celebrate the approval of a new Zoning6 Code hopefully before this Council7 session is over. 11
15 My name is Eva Gladstein. 19 I understand that20 Councilmembers are interested in new Code21 provisions relating to Registered22 Community Organizations and how community23 input will be provided where there are no24 organized groups. The Zoning Code25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Commission has been working for over two2 years to clarify the role of citizens,3 not just Registered Community4 Organizations, in the zoning process. 10 First, I would like to focus on11 how the new Code will improve the ability12 for individuals to participate in future13 zoning approvals. The new Code requires14 earlier notice and better notice to15 citizens of Zoning Board of Adjustment16 cases, or ZBA cases. The period of time17 for posting a notice has been increased18 from the current 12-day requirement to a19 21-day requirement. 24 The contents of the posted sign25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 11 For ZBA hearings, new language12 clarifies the right of any member of the13 public to appear before the ZBA to14 testify and for that person to be15 represented by an attorney, translator or16 family member. An individual citizen17 will have the same right as a member of a18 Registered Community Organization to19 present testimony. 23 As you know, the new Code also24 creates additional opportunities for25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 public input. Currently, a large project2 can proceed without any community3 involvement if it is by right. The new4 Code creates a Civic Design Review5 process to consider the impact of large6 projects on the public realm, even those7 that are by right. When a project8 affects a lower-density residential9 district such as a single-family or10 two-family district, the triggers for11 Civic Design Review are lower. The Civic12 Design Review Committee will be required13 to hold regularly scheduled meetings for14 which agendas are posted online before15 its meetings. 20 The ZCC also understood early21 in its work that community organizations22 in Philly play a uniquely active role in23 the zoning process. The new Code24 proposes that Registered Community25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Organization system to preserve and2 create a set of ground rules for3 organized community participation. 14 The Philadelphia City Planning15 Commission, which will administer the16 registration of community organizations,17 is drafting regulations that will be18 posted shortly. 19 Those regulations -- they'll be in draft20 form and be available for comment. They21 will require RCOs to meet regularly, to22 publicize their meetings and open their23 meetings to the public. Similar to24 Councilman Green's proposal, the25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 4 Councilmembers have asked what5 will happen when there is a project in6 the neighborhood that does not fall7 within the boundaries of an RCO. 14 Before I close, I would like to15 share with you some of the time16 constraints that we are under. 21 I have spoken with many members22 of Council who share our goal of passage23 of a new Zoning Code prior to the end of24 this Council session. The goal is25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 5 For example, the Home Rule6 Charter gives Council 30 days after the7 close of hearings to issue a resolution8 with its recommendations. 12 The Charter gives the ZCC 6013 days after the close of the hearings to14 provide a final report to Council. 18 We've already scheduled ZCC meetings on19 October 12th and November 9th, and we20 will schedule special meetings if21 necessary. We are fully committed to22 ensuring that Council has the23 opportunity, if it so chooses, to adopt24 the proposals prior to the end of25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 4 I would like to offer a draft5 timeline that would enable us to meet6 this goal.
10 The timeline would have Council11 closing the hearings on the Zoning Code12 Proposals September 26th or earlier;13 Council sending a resolution with final14 recommendations to the ZCC by October15 20th; the ZCC sending its final report to16 City Council with an ordinance to be17 introduced that day, that Council18 session, on November 17th. 25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 7 Again, I want to emphasize this8 is a draft, but I wanted to give you a9 sense of our time constraints. Thank you10 for the opportunity to testify today. 16
Hello. 24 In the summer of 2008, the Zoning Code25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Commission selected our firm to lead a2 highly qualified team to assist the City3 in preparation of a new Zoning Code. ; Wallace8 Roberts & Todd; Portfolio Associates;9 Claflen Associates; CHPlanning; Dyett &10 Bhatia; Hurley-Franks Associates; and the11 VIC Group. S. and Canada,18 and Duncan Associates has also completed19 80 or more. 25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 From 2008 until the present2 time, I have served as Clarion3 Associate's Project Manager for the new4 Zoning Code project. 18 Focus: Almost all large cities19 that engage in zoning reform want the new20 code to be simpler and clearer than the21 old one. Nobody wants a more complex22 code. This was true in Philadelphia,23 where the need to simplify the menu of24 zone districts, overlay districts and25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 12 The work on preliminary drafts was done13 in three installments between the fall of14 2009 and the spring of 2010. For the15 consolidated draft, the consultant16 combined all of the pieces, integrating17 as many public and stakeholder comments18 as possible. It is never possible to19 include all of the requested changes,20 because some of the comments are21 inconsistent with others, because some22 cannot be administered by the City with23 its available staffing or budget, or24 because they would reinsert some of the25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 uncertainty and complexity that the2 Commission intended to remove from the3 Code. Philadelphia's consolidated draft4 was issued in the fall of 2009. Many5 large city zoning efforts, including6 Denver, Miami, Detroit and Winnipeg,7 produced additional drafts of the new8 code before it was adopted to better9 integrate public, stakeholder and10 administrative comments. 17 Conversion to the new code:18 Most large cities decide to revise and19 improve the text and usability of the20 zoning code without trying to revise the21 zoning map at the same time. This is22 because combining the two steps can shift23 the focus from policy-level discussions24 about what is best for the city as a25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 whole to micro-level discussions about a2 specific property or block. 9 Instead of combining texts and10 mapping changes, most cities develop a11 conversion zoning map that shows both the12 old and new names for zone districts, but13 does not shift zoning boundary lines14 gratuitously. 518 district in this case, their boundaries19 need to be added, but the goal is to20 create a map that will apply the revised21 code to the existing city, without22 getting bogged down over redrawing23 individual district lines. Most cities24 intend to follow up a zoning code reform25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 effort with the remapping effort that2 revisits whether some areas are properly3 zoned, but they do that while the new4 code is in effect, so the vast majority5 of properties that do not need or want to6 be rezoned get the benefit of the clarity7 and predictability of the new code from8 day one. 12 Over the past year, both Denver and Miami13 finished radical revisions of the current14 codes into form-based codes. The role15 and structure of zone districts in16 form-based codes is so different from17 traditional codes that citywide efforts18 usually replace every district and a new19 map is needed to reflect that new20 district vocabulary. 24 Now the differences. While the25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 basic structure of the Philadelphia2 Zoning Code work has been very similar to3 other large cities, there have been4 differences, and they include the5 following:6 Public involvement: The level7 of effort Philadelphia has invested in8 public and stakeholder input has been9 greater than that used in many large10 cities.
The public input process11 conducted by our subcontractor, Portfolio12 Associates, was more extensive, which13 means more meetings and open houses, more14 online surveys and more analysis of the15 results than any other large city in16 which I have worked. 23 Based on early public comments, it became24 clear that many frustrations with the old25 27 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Zoning Code centered on zoning procedures2 and administration. Philadelphia3 residents and builders were both confused4 and very unhappy about how zoning5 decisions were made, procedures for6 citizen involvement and very heavy use of7 the Zoning Board of Adjustment hearings8 on matters that do not require hearings9 in other large cities. In fact,10 Philadelphia's ZBA is more involved in11 what should be routine zoning matters12 than any other large city where the13 consulting team has worked. 19 Specific permitted uses:20 Decisions about which land uses should be21 permitted or conditional or prohibited in22 specific zone districts were based on23 detailed discussions by the Zoning Code24 Commission Work Plan Committee, then25 28 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 presented for discussion by the full2 Commission. 14 Specific dimensional standards:15 When it comes to which land uses should16 be allowed in which zoning district and17 how wide and tall and long buildings can18 be in each district, every city is19 different. Philadelphia has lots of row20 houses, while Chicago has fewer and21 Denver has almost none. Philadelphia's22 row house patterns differ from those in23 Baltimore and Washington. In24 Philadelphia, various working groups25 29 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 spent hours poring over the details of2 required heights, setbacks, yards and3 courts to remove regulations that were4 difficult or impossible to administer5 while still protecting neighborhood6 character. We included the changes they7 recommended. S. 13 Throughout this process, the14 Zoning Code Commission has revised drafts15 and incorporated new provisions to better16 reflect stakeholder and public input, and17 I hope you will do the same. While18 continued changes to the draft Code can19 and will occur not only now but in the20 formal adoption process, it's important21 to keep the process moving. If you have22 specific changes to any aspect of the23 draft, I hope you will express them24 clearly to the ZCC, but I also urge you25 30 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 to do that promptly so that the2 Commission can consider them, make3 changes to the Code and begin the formal4 adoption process. I urge you to focus on5 the big picture, which is that you have6 in your hands a much shorter, clearer,7 more efficient, more predictable and more8 user-friendly document that reflects four9 years of work by 31 individuals chosen to10 reflect and balance their best judgments11 about how to fix Philadelphia's zoning12 system. 15
Thank16 you very much.17 Are there any questions from18 members of the Committee?19 The Chair recognizes20 Councilwoman Tasco.21
Thank you22 very much.23 Thank you all for your24 testimony. Mr. Green -- no. This is25 31 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Eva. You talk about the RCOs, Registered2 Community Organizations, and I understand3 that developers have to meet with the4 Registered Community Organization if5 they're proposing something in a6 community. And we talked about this the7 other day in terms of where you may have8 a community that does not have a9 Registered Community Organization. Is it10 the responsibility of the developer to11 seek community input or is it up to the12 community to respond to the developer13 once they see the orange sign go up?14
We have not --15 this is an area where I think we need16 improvement based upon our conversations.17 What we state right now are the18 requirements that -- enhanced19 requirements for notice of ZBA hearing,20 the same way we have today with the21 orange posters, but we have not put in a22 requirement for a developer to notify the23 community in general beyond that posting24 if there's not a Registered Community25 32 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Organization.2 I think the conversation we had3 at the Council briefing with regard to4 potentially the District Councilperson5 being able to step in and play that role6 is a notion that we want to consider with7 you. But if you look at the current8 provisions, they relate to posting of9 notices that everybody in the community10 will see, but the specific targeted11 notice and requirement of a meeting right12 now relates only where there's a13 Registered Community Organization. So I14 think that's a gap that we need to fill.15
Outside of I16 think our natural instinct, in the17 absence of a Registered Community18 Organization, would be to turn to the19 District Councilperson to seek some20 guidance, but I think as Councilman21 Green's proposal suggests, that ought to22 be formalized in the language, and we23 support that.24
Because as25 33 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 we talk about all of this, we talk2 about -- I was reading the paper where it3 said New York has fewer variances than we4 have in Philadelphia, but Philadelphia is5 basically a row house neighborhood6 community and New York is mostly7 brownstones. The houses are pretty much8 uniform, and some of the issues they may9 experience, we don't experience here. We10 have different issues. And certainly my11 district is residential and the issues we12 face are basically conversions from13 single-family properties to multi-family14 properties. And so you may not have a15 zoning committee because we're not doing16 development. Really there is very little17 development in the district, but18 certainly these issues of the conversions19 or some other issue that just may be20 related to a neighborhood community21 doesn't -- would need -- the voters, the22 residents, need to have a vehicle where23 they have to be heard and that whoever is24 doing it has to listen to that community.25 34 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Let me see if I had another2 question. I think that was my issue on3 this issue on your testimony.4
Thank6 you.7 The Chair recognizes Councilman8 DiCicco.9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,10 Madam President.11 Good morning. And let me again12 thank you and the Commissioners for the13 work and time that you've put into this14 process. It's approximately four years,15 and I think it's important for everyone16 to know that the folks who are sitting on17 this Commission were in many cases18 appointees of members of City Council and19 others were appointed by the20 Administration, all of whom have worked21 very hard over the last four years, with22 no compensation. They were all in it to23 help make the City of Philadelphia a24 better place to do business, and that was25 35 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 obviously the motivation behind the2 original resolution that we passed four3 years ago, which ultimately was voted on4 unanimously by some 80 percent or some5 high number favorably by the citizens of6 Philadelphia. So thank you again to you7 and all of the Commissioners.8 My question is -- and we've9 discussed this a little bit earlier this10 morning -- in my district, the 1st11 Councilmanic District, there's been a12 flurry, if you will, of e-mails and13 letters over the last few days related to14 the issue of the overlay or removing15 overlays and the protections that those16 overlays have given to those communities.17 And I've been, as you know, for 16 years18 grappling with that issue. Every time a19 developer comes that wanted to do20 something in those overlay districts that21 was not permitted, we went through a long22 arduous public process, and ultimately23 the decision was my decision as the24 Councilperson whether to move legislation25 36 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that would permit that development from2 happening even though it was not3 permitted in the overlay.4 So could you just explain, as5 briefly as you can, what is in the new6 Code preliminary recommendations and how7 we can give those protections in areas8 where there is currently an overlay. And9 the reason I'm asking you now is the10 extensive witness list, many people in11 this room, I suspect, will not be here12 towards the end of the day who are very13 interested in that one particular issue14 in my district. Thank you.15
I think I'm16 going to tackle this to start. But I'd17 like to start by saying what we did for18 areas that do not currently have19 overlays, because there were a number of20 communities with and without overlays21 that have a concern about restaurants22 turning into nightclubs or private clubs23 when they can go to the state, not the24 City, and get a liquor license, and we25 37 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 worked closely with not just the2 Commission but L&I and our city Law3 Department, because we are preempted from4 regulating alcohol sales, because that's5 the state's business.6 What we did is to create a7 system that says that once an8 establishment meets the criteria and has9 to obtain a special assembly occupancy10 license, because it's cleared away the11 floor, it has music, it's doing dancing,12 it's a club, it will be defined as a13 nightclub. So it will no longer be14 defined under the Zoning Code as a15 sit-down restaurant, and that means that16 that institution would be out of17 compliance, because it has a use permit18 for a sit-down restaurant and not a use19 permit for nightclub. So that L&I and20 our Law Department could take enforcement21 actions around that use. So that would22 apply citywide and it's in the23 definitions. You'll find that in the24 definitions for nightclub in the new Code25 38 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 in Chapter 600. So that is what we did2 with regard to that.3 Then, secondly, with regard to4 areas that currently have overlays5 prohibiting restaurants or nightclubs,6 there are several areas that have7 existing overlays, and those overlays8 have been maintained. And that is in9 particular in the Old City area, which10 has -- I'll let somebody from Old City11 testify as to this, but a very, very high12 percentage of existing liquor licenses in13 that area.14 So there were some existing15 overlays where we left those use controls16 in place, and either those uses are17 prohibited or in one or two cases might18 be a special exception depending upon the19 location of the use.20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.21 I appreciate that. Thank you.22
Can I25 39 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 follow up with that?2 What impact would that have --3 how would that impact the neighborhood's4 business strip relative to the same5 issues, a club coming into a6 neighborhood, if we don't have an7 overlay?8
Clubs are9 prohibited in many of the commercial10 districts. I'm just looking for our11 chart to see, and I'll get to it in one12 second. And I will tell you that13 nightclubs are prohibited in C-1, which14 is neighborhood commercial, like a corner15 grocery. They're a special exception in16 C-2, so it would require a trip to the17 Zoning Board of Adjustment. They're18 prohibited in this new district we19 created for neighborhood commercial areas20 called CMX-2.5. They are permitted by21 right in the higher density commercial22 district, C-3, C-4 and C-5. C-3 you23 might find on Market or Broad. C-4 and24 C-5 are pretty much Center City. And25 40 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 they would be permitted in auto-oriented2 kind of shopping strips, but they would3 not be permitted C-1. They would be a4 special exception in C-2 and it would be5 prohibited in CMX-2.5.6
Thank you,11 Madam Chair. Is this my point of order12 or am I next on the list?13
Okay.16 With respect to my point of17 order, the recommendations sent over to18 City Council that are presently before us19 do not include maintaining some of the20 overlays that you just discussed; is that21 not correct? And after the Majority22 Report and Minority Report, which you23 have not testified about, came over to24 City Council, there have then been25 41 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 requests by neighborhoods for overlays2 that are not currently recommended to3 City Council; is that correct?4
The overlay5 that I just discussed in terms of Old6 City with prohibitions of restaurants and7 nightclubs is carried over. It's in the8 Center City District overlay. It's on9 -27.10
But there11 are other overlays that the Work Plan12 group and others have suggested be added13 that are not part of the current14 recommendations. In other words, certain15 neighborhoods have said, Wait a minute,16 we don't want CMX-3 to allow nightclubs17 of right in our neighborhood, and have18 spoken up since the initial19 recommendations.20
And you've23 heard this from more than one24 neighborhood?25 42 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
We heard it2 from a number of neighborhoods early on,3 which is why they're prohibited in4 CMX-2.5.5
But CMX-2.5,6 where is that going to happen by7 automatic conversion?8
Our draft9 legislation that we sent to City Council10 in May would convert areas that currently11 have overlays for neighborhood commercial12 areas, would convert the C-2 properties13 in those areas to CMX-2.5. So by14 example, that would include East Falls,15 it would include Chestnut Hill, it would16 include Germantown, it would include17 Ridge Avenue in Roxborough, a number of18 neighborhoods that already --19 neighborhoods that have commercial area20 overlays.21
So is there22 CMX-3 on Germantown Avenue, for example?23
I think there24 are two spots where there are. I don't25 43 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 know the exact boundaries, but I think2 that one of them is the intersection of3 Chelten and Germantown and I think4 there's one other spot.5
Yeah. It11 would be at the corner of Chelten and12 Germantown. So it's on both streets.13
But then up14 and down Germantown Avenue beyond that15 also --16
It's not.19 And then what about, say,20 Castor Avenue?21
That's all24 C-2; there's no CMX-3 there?25 44 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
There's C-32 on -- tends to be more C-3 on Broad3 Street at key intersections, along Market4 Street at key intersections. I'm not5 saying there's not other C-3. I know Old6 City has C-3. But that's where it tends7 to be.8
Yeah. I13 don't know it well enough either. I14 suspect --15
I suspect18 there's some C-3, but I have a feeling19 it's mostly G-2 Industrial still.20
Okay. So in21 other words, since the Majority Report,22 people have been objecting to some of the23 use things that would happen of right24 automatically, and the response sometimes25 45 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 has been to agree at least at the Work2 Group level with those communities.3
There's one --4 I know that there are groups who will5 testify today that they want further6 changes. There's one group where we7 discussed an overlay that is in8 existence, was removed and then the group9 asked us if part of it could be10 reinstated, and the Work Plan Committee11 agreed to recommend that to the full12 Commission, but the Commission hasn't13 taken it up.14
Right. But15 a lot of -- you'd also agree that a lot16 of neighborhoods have not paid attention17 to the application of this on the ground18 in their particular neighborhoods?19
Okay. I22 have a question -- I'm sorry. That was23 my point of order. I don't know if I'm24 next.25 46 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:2 You're going to have to wait. Thank you.3
Can5 you tell me how are the reentry6 facilities addressed in the new Code?7
We did -- this8 had come up in several Council briefings.9 We did create a new use category for10 reentry facilities so they are defined,11 and then we have them in the use chart I12 believe as a permitted use only in --13 I'll have to look, but I believe it's14 only in industrial areas as a by-right15 use, but they are separated out now so16 that they are a distinct use from a17 prison or correctional facility.18
I'm19 sorry. Did you say in a commercial20 district they would be --21
No. I said22 that I believe they're only permitted by23 right in industrial districts. And I'll24 confirm that in one second as I get to25 47 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that map, that chart.2
If I could3 add both on this topic and, Councilman,4 on the topic that you brought up a moment5 ago, I think our sense here -- and this6 came somewhat, I think, from your7 proposal -- is that if there's a body of8 uses that are particularly troublesome --9 and there are, they're the ones that come10 up again and again -- our instinct is to11 recommend that we be more restrictive12 across the board, across the board if we13 have to rather than try to figure out14 exactly where an individual thing is okay15 or an individual neighborhood where it16 might be okay, which is going to be very17 hard to get consensus on as well as18 manage. Our feeling is, let's just make19 them more restrictive if we have to and20 let's see how -- that will force things21 into ZBA and let's see how that goes, and22 if we don't like how it's going; i.e.,23 it's too much burden, then we come back24 and revisit it. But that would be our25 48 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 instinct, to keep this thing at a fairly2 simple plane and be able to move ahead.3
With regard to4 reentry facilities, they are only5 permitted by right in basically what's6 least restricted now and in the new Code7 would be called I-3. It's heavy8 industry. They are prohibited in the new9 district we're creating to help10 neighborhoods that are transitioning from11 a manufacturing base, the IRMX we're12 calling it, industrial/residential/mixed13 use. They are special exceptions in the14 other industrial districts. So a special15 exception is similar to the current16 certificated use and would require a ZBA17 hearing, but it's not the same standard18 as a variance.19
Thank20 you.21 The Chair recognizes Councilman22 Clarke.23
Thank you,24 Madam President.25 49 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Good morning.2
I got a4 couple, maybe actually more than a5 couple. I'll try to spread them out over6 two sessions.7 Let me start here. This is8 probably a little premature in terms of9 the analysis, but in your recommendation10 it looks like there may be additional11 regulatory processes that will change in12 terms of signage, in terms of some of the13 other things and monitoring.14 Have you determined if there15 will be an additional cost to the City or16 there is an additional cost in terms of17 the government monitoring some of these18 activities? Could it conceivably be19 offset by the lower amount of Zoning20 Board hearings? And I say this21 premature. If you don't have that22 answer, I understand that, but if not --23
We haven't24 conducted an analysis that's convincing25 50 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 one way or the other about it. Obviously2 our hope is that we've tried to unburden3 the system and we've tried to be fairly4 careful, and this is -- I think you're5 bringing up an interesting point where6 we've often made judgment calls about7 some particular decision trying to weigh8 in the enforceability of it and the9 burden on agencies to do it versus the10 need to do it.11
Right. I12 understand, it's really early in the13 process.14 RCOs, and it's an interesting15 concept. In the Council district I16 represent, along with Councilman17 Greenlee, we're co-Councilpeople for the18 5th District, we have an interesting19 environment. It's a pretty diverse20 district. So as a result of that, we'll21 have sections where you'll have as much22 as ten community organizations in a23 four-block area, because a lot of people24 think if there's more than one person,25 51 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 sometimes even one person, they start2 their community group. Then we have3 other areas as referenced where they4 don't have a community or recognized5 community organization.6 How will we determine who is7 going to be that RCO recognized by the8 government in this particular process?9
This is10 something we've struggled with. We11 decided that we were not in a position to12 anoint one group or another group.13
No.16 Absolutely. We also were smart enough17 not to do that.18
We decided that21 groups would register with their22 boundaries, and there would be situations23 where there would be overlapping24 boundaries, and so multiple groups would25 52 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 coordinate in a decision on a project2 where their boundaries overlapped.3 What we did do, though, which4 you'll see as we post the draft5 regulations, is try to make sure that6 these were groups that advertise their7 membership, advertise their meeting. It8 wasn't one person sitting in their own9 living room, that they articulated their10 boundaries in some document so that the11 boundaries were known and they didn't12 change every day. So we did want to make13 sure that they were a group that would be14 accountable back to the community and the15 residents, but we did not try to limit it16 to one group per area, because we did not17 think we could do that.18
But to the19 extent that there are, let's say,20 multiple groups that have overlapping21 coverage -- and there are several22 neighborhoods in the City where that's23 true -- what we would do is invest -- and24 this will probably be through the25 53 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Community Planning group in the Planning2 Commission. We would invest the time to3 try to get them all to organize the4 required meeting together so that we're5 not subjecting people to three and four6 different ones of these on slightly7 different timeframes.8
All right.9 Who is going to oversee the10 implementation of that process? Because11 I hear you, but the reality is, there's12 probably a reason why there are like six,13 seven groups, because they can't get14 along, so they form their own group. So15 it's suggested now they're going to --16
Eva, you18 worked out -- you know. You know what19 it's like.20
I know. We put21 a lot of effort into this and we're going22 to learn a lot by doing it. What's in23 the regulations right now has the24 registration being managed by the25 54 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Planning Commission. So they would be2 intaking applications for registration,3 reviewing them, looking to see if the4 kinds of requirements that I mentioned5 previously were adhered to. The6 community planners work closely in the7 communities and know a lot of the groups,8 and, frankly, we've also established the9 Citizens Planning Institute in the last10 year to help neighborhoods that have not11 been well represented to help leadership12 in neighborhoods organize and organize13 better as well. So that's coming out of14 the Planning Commission. So that's our15 goal and that's how the regulations read16 now.17
Okay. With18 respect to the change in the Zoning Code,19 correct me if I'm wrong, is it likely20 that in short order we'll have to do a21 remapping of the entire City to actually22 make this work? Because the reality23 is -- as an example, we talked about --24 and I know this conversation started25 55 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 actually, Alan, before you got here, when2 we did the Parkway overlay and it was a3 height overlay and basically was as4 concern of a building that was proposed5 and then it grew to a relatively large6 size. And there was a conversation and7 there continues to be, Councilman, once8 we do the Zoning Code Commission changes9 and once we talk about remapping, will10 you withdraw the overlay? And I've11 always said that makes sense, but how12 quickly will we look at remapping as it13 relates to something like that, which the14 Code, to a large degree, won't15 necessarily affect because it's a height16 overlay?17
Right. So18 let me start out with the piece about the19 timing. What we have proposed through20 the Planning Commission is what we've21 defined as we think a five-year process22 to do district planning throughout the23 City, 18 different districts that we've24 divided the City up into that are sort of25 56 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 multi neighborhoods at a time as opposed2 to one small neighborhood at a time; a3 replanning process to identify the4 places, land uses within those districts5 that need to change, because that's at6 the essence of remapping, is a district7 needs to change its land use, identify8 those districts; get as much consensus as9 we can around those changes and then10 engage in a process of remapping, which11 is, as you know, the actual writing of12 ordinances to do that. We have a plan13 that basically does these -- is it two14 a --15
It's four a16 year, except for Center City, which will17 be one.18
Do these at19 four a year. And our general approach to20 this is to try to take on the districts21 that have been subject to the most change22 and pressure first. An example that came23 up earlier as a result of Councilman24 Green's question about Northern25 57 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Liberties, great example of an area that2 was heavily industrial at a moment in3 time, an immense amount of industrial4 zoning sprinkled around that's not5 industrial anymore. And some of that6 actually is in your district as well.7
Those are the9 kind of places where there's more urgency10 about the remapping, because it's just11 wrong. Other places are probably not12 going to be subject to much remapping and13 the conversion map itself will cover any14 new regulatory issues.15
The two plans17 that are underway right now are Lower18 South around the Navy Yard and the port19 and what we're calling West Park,20 Overbrook and parts of West Philadelphia21 in the 4th Council District. The plans22 that are scheduled to start in January23 would include Center City and would24 include Lower North, both of which are25 58 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 areas of great change.2
Yeah -- no, no.5 Let me restate that. Lower North Philly6 is the next one. Lower Northeast. So7 Center City and Lower Northeast would8 start in January and about six months9 later Lower North Philly.10
Okay. Let11 me ask one more question. I know a12 number of members have questions.13 Another challenging issue in at14 least my district, probably some place in15 West Philly, student housing. As you16 know, we have one ordinance near Temple,17 one pending and one possible NID pending.18 The issue is small residential homes get19 turned into student housing. There's20 these challenges between the long-term21 residents and the students, because one22 of the groups wants to stay up to 3:00 in23 the morning, the other group has to go to24 work in the morning. So you know the25 59 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 story.2 Is there a possibility to3 create some sort of a category for4 student housing that puts us in a better5 position to regulate that? Because we6 did in the Yorktown overlay, we imposed a7 prohibition on student housing unless8 it's owner occupied. The challenge9 becomes how can you enforce it. As you10 know, we're in court now.11 So if there was a way both to12 support that and if we end up doing the13 NID, if there was a way to create a14 category that dealt with student housing15 that would allow us to be more diligent16 and probably within the bounds of the law17 as it relates to enforcing some of these18 challenging problems we're having out in19 these neighborhoods.20
I'm not sure we21 have a perfect answer to this. We looked22 at it. The overlay for the Yorktown area23 is in our proposals that we sent to you,24 and we're waiting to see how the25 60 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 litigation results to see if there are2 going to be any legal issues with having3 such a regulation identifying students4 per se.5 We did identify and define6 students in the new Code, because it7 wasn't identified in that overlay, and we8 did look to an existing -- and I'm going9 to get the name wrong, but there's an10 existing part of, I think it's, Title 1011 that's in the 8th and 4th Councilmanic12 Districts, and I think Councilman Jones13 just recently introduced legislation to14 revise around educational housing15 districts. And so we did define students16 in the Zoning Code and make that17 definition consistent with the definition18 for students in educational housing19 districts.20 The problem we encountered is21 that a lot of the problem is really22 having too many people in the unit, and23 it's more building code than a zoning24 code issue. What the Zoning Code can do25 61 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 is to say this is a one-family district2 and, therefore, that's it, you can't do a3 conversion, and then you can look to the4 building code to say there are too many5 unrelated adults living there.6 Having said all of that, we did7 try to think it through, and if you have8 other suggestions, we'd be happy to hear9 them.10
That's a11 significant challenge, and obviously12 around Temple and I suspect LaSalle and13 Saint Joe and some of the other14 universities, out in University of15 Pennsylvania.16
And I just want17 to add that I don't know how well the18 educational housing district formulation19 is working, because that was originally20 created around Saint Joe's primarily,21 because it's in the 4th and the 8th22 Districts. I don't think -- if it's23 working well, it may be that another24 opportunity would be to see if it could25 62 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 be expanded to other districts.2
My3 understanding is the issue has to do with4 the ability for the City to enforce.5
The educational9 housing district put more of a burden on10 the university or institution.11
Okay.15 Thank you.16 Thank you, Madam President.17 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:18 You're welcome.19 The Chair recognizes20 Councilwoman Tasco.21
Are there22 any special requirements for automobile23 sales lots in residential areas?24
They're not a25 63 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 permitted use.2
Beg your3 pardon? Okay. Well, what about Broad4 Street?5
Depending on6 the zoning, because Broad Street has7 different zoning, let me just tell you8 where they would be permitted in the9 commercial district. Would that be10 helpful?11 The sale and rental of12 commercial vehicles is not permitted,13 except when you get to what we called14 CA-1, which is the automobile-oriented15 commercial; in other words, like a16 shopping district or a strip shopping17 mall or a shopping center. So it's18 prohibited. Broad Street is probably19 mostly C-2 and C-3. It's prohibited20 there.21 With regard to personal --22
It's not the4 current Code. Are you asking about the5 current Code? I'm not an expert on that.6 We can look it up, though. We have it7 with us.8 Should I go through the new9 Code or do you just want to understand10 about the current Code?11
Repair vehicles13 is -- an automobile repair shop that you14 would bring your car to would be15 permitted in C-2, not in C-1 and not in16 CMX-2.5. It would be permitted in most17 commercial districts, but outlawed in18 C-1, which is more neighborhood based,19 and outlawed in neighborhood commercial20 areas or prohibited. And you would be21 able to sell cars or car supplies in the22 current C-3, C-4 and in the Shopping23 Center. You'd be able to have gas24 stations and be able to sell supplies,25 65 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 but, again, all of those would be2 prohibited in C-1 and in the CMX-2.5.3 But it would not be permitted in any4 residentially zoned district.5
One of the6 other issues that I raised is that --7 well, one is the delay in the8 conversions, multi-family dwellings,9 until you do the remapping. It seems10 that if we pass this zoning change, that11 residential areas until they're remapped,12 individuals by right would have the13 ability to convert single-family to14 multi-family homes.15
That's not16 correct. At one point in an earlier17 draft there was one current single-family18 district, R5-A, which would have been19 able to be converted to multi-family.20 That's actually single and two-family21 district. We've changed that in the22 version that we gave you. So every23 district that's now a single-family24 residential district in the new Code25 66 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 would be single-family residential.2 Every district that now permits single3 and two-family would permit only single4 and two-family. Every district that's5 now multi-family would be multi-family in6 the new Code and in some cases would be7 somewhat more restricted, because the8 number of units that would be permitted9 would be limited by the lot size.10 But there's no district that's11 now single-family that in the new Code12 would permit two-family or multi-family.13 You're correct that an earlier version14 would have permitted that, but the15 version that we gave you in May does not16 permit that.17
Does not.20 And could I raise one other21 related question that you had asked22 about? We also have a use in here called23 accessory dwelling units, which it's a24 mother-in-law suite or a mother-in-law25 67 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 apartment. At one point earlier we were2 permitting those in certain housing types3 irregardless of what zoning district it4 was. They're now defined as a use in the5 Code, but they are not permitted by right6 any place. And so the only way that an7 accessory dwelling unit would be8 permitted is if there was a City Council9 ordinance explicitly saying for that area10 they would be a permitted by-right use.11 So they're defined in here so that we12 have the notion that they could be a use,13 but they're not mapped any place now, and14 require an ordinance to map them. So I15 felt like we weren't clear about that16 last week and I wanted to be clear about17 that today. Thank you.18
Okay. Let19 me just get all of my questions out of20 here and then I'll be done.21 The day care in the shopping22 centers, I support day care, but I've23 gotten some pushback from some community24 residents about too many of them in one25 68 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 commercial area. Is there anything there2 to sort of provide some control in terms3 of not having the entire business strip4 be day cares?5
We do not have6 limits on the number or spacing of day7 care centers or --8
In a business11 strip. So we don't have spacing12 requirements in the Code in general,13 because that's one of those issues that14 becomes very difficult to enforce and15 so -- and in some cases can raise issues16 around -- some legal issues. So if it's17 permitted by right, any number are18 permitted. If it's not permitted, it's19 not permitted.20
So we have not23 addressed that.24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:25 69 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Excuse me. The Chair recognizes2 Councilwoman Sanchez for a point of3 information.4
Thank5 you.6 Is there anything in this7 process that prohibits a Councilperson8 from limiting or creating an overlay9 where we've seen those situations?10
Only related11 to federally protected uses. Otherwise,12 no, there's nothing that stops further13 amendment.14
And the17 other question in terms of bed and18 breakfasts, I notice that you are going19 to allow some of those. Will there be20 any effort to try to limit the number in21 a specific neighborhood or could you end22 up with a whole neighborhood with bed and23 breakfasts?24
The same25 70 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 answer, in that we have not put in2 spacing requirements for any uses.3 Again, it could be subject to an overlay.4 What we have done is put in standards.5 So in certain districts, you could only6 have up to four rooms. In other7 districts, up to eight rooms. And I8 think most cases they require a hearing9 at the Zoning Board of Adjustment.10 They're not by right. And I'll look that11 up in one second for you.12
But I do13 think there is an example -- and there14 are several more, but this is an example15 of what I was referring to before, that16 as we've tried to strike what we thought17 were reasonable balances here about where18 certain things are not permitted, where19 they're permitted by special exception or20 where they are permitted. And typically21 without spacing requirements, if you feel22 that we've gone too far, we want to hear23 that, and our instinct is to be further24 restrictive of them across the board25 71 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 rather than try to say it's not so2 restrictive over here and it is3 restrictive over there, which is going to4 create -- we worry about sort of layers5 of complexity that will be extremely hard6 to enforce and ultimately will probably7 get out of control. We just would rather8 be more restrictive about the whole thing9 and say that if all these things have to10 go to Zoning Board, then so be it.11
And with regard12 to B&Bs, they are special exceptions of13 the current certificated use until you14 get to what's current R-11, R11-A, R-12,15 R-13. So it's basically higher density,16 multi-family residential districts and17 residential mixed-use districts where18 they would be permitted by right, but R-119 through R-10 and some others, it would20 require a trip to the Zoning Board of21 Adjustment for a B&B.22
Okay.23 Thank you.24 Thank you, Madam President.25 72 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Thank2 you.3 The Chair recognizes Councilman4 Green.5
Thank you,6 Madam Chair.7 During this discussion, people8 have talked about, Well, it's not9 permitted in residential areas, but it's10 permitted in C-2. It's not permitted in11 residential areas, but it's permitted in12 industrial. Could you just -- I mean, in13 a city like Philadelphia, as I think was14 mentioned with respect to certain15 neighborhoods, industrial can be zoning16 right in the middle of two residential17 districts. Industrial can be on a block18 that is next to the row homes.19
So 2.0, for21 example, in the new Code, CMX-2.0, is22 often right on a larger street that is23 surrounded by row homes in a very24 residential area. So I just want to -- I25 73 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 don't want that lost on people. When2 somebody says that's not permitted in3 residential areas, well, it is. It's4 right around your corner. And I just5 wanted to clarify that for the record.6
Yeah. I7 think there's -- it's obviously not true8 everywhere in the City, but there are9 neighborhoods, particularly the ones that10 came from a more sort of 19th century11 industrial base, where you see that.12
The ones in18 question, I mean, places like Lower19 Kensington, Northern Liberties, parts of20 Germantown --21
Yeah.24 Particularly going up the rivers is where25 74 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 you see it most clearly.2
So what3 percentage of the City in industrial like4 that could you have an adult use?5
Yeah. I guess8 I just want to distinguish there's9 industrial and industrial, and a lot of10 the industrial or most of the industrial11 that you see mixed in neighborhoods is12 currently G-2, which is the predominant13 industrial zoning. I don't have the14 percentages, but we can pull it out15 before the end of --16
The LR tends to23 be in the Council President's district,24 as you know, and Councilman DiCicco's25 75 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 along the rivers. South Philly tends --2 the LR tends not to be in neighborhoods,3 which is not to say there are not a few4 spots where this is.5
Right. And6 so where they are in neighborhoods, would7 it make sense to restrict that up front,8 either through what Mr. Greenberger is9 suggesting, which is just restricted10 everywhere and then allow it later11 through ZBA, or -- in other words, aren't12 we creating a situation where an adult13 use can go into a neighborhood that we14 cannot later remove without a taking as a15 result of automatic conversion?16
I actually17 don't think that -- I'm not believing18 that that's a huge problem out there,19 because where these regulated -- first of20 all, there's tremendous limitations on21 regulated uses, like adult bookstores.22
I didn't say23 it's a huge problem, but it's a problem24 if it's your neighborhood.25 76 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
There is a2 spacing requirement for regulated uses,3 that they have to be spaced from4 residentially zoned areas and they also5 have to be spaced from each other. I6 just do want to point out we are not7 making that any more possible under the8 new Code than it is under the current9 Code. We haven't changed the ability to10 locate one of those uses near11 residential. We have kept those12 standards in place.13
Don, could14 you describe the zoning reform effort15 that happened in Chicago and where they16 applied sort of their new zoning and17 where they didn't apply their new zoning?18
Well, we were on19 the team in Chicago, but our consulting20 colleague here, Kirk Bishop, was the21 Project Manager, so I did not do that22 project and --23
But you're24 generally familiar with it?25 77 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Generally familiar2 with it. But I know people have been3 calling Chicago and other cities to4 compare this process, so please feel free5 to add to what I say or correct me.6 My understanding is that7 Chicago, under the leadership of Duncan8 Associates, came up with a set of zoning9 recommendations, got them applied, and it10 did apply citywide when the new text was11 adopted, but that they carved out some12 particular areas that they needed to look13 at more carefully. And I can't tell you14 if that was 2 percent or 10 percent of15 the city. When I've asked Kirk about16 this, Kirk's answer was, No, Don, it was17 like the other projects you and I do, we18 drafted a code, it was adopted, there was19 a conversion map and it went into date on20 X date.21 But they had, as many cities22 do, a follow-on process to look at this23 area or this area or this area to try to24 see what's needed.25 78 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Now, if I've misspoken and you2 know better, please correct me.3
I thought it4 generally applied around the core and did5 not apply in the outer areas of Chicago.6
Okay. So in9 Miami, how long did it take them to do10 the mapping process?11
In Miami and12 Denver, as I mentioned in my testimony,13 were different because they were --14
Each city took17 five years and they started the mapping18 discussion at the same time they started19 the text discussion.20
So from the21 time the text passed, how long did it22 take Miami to map the city?23
Well, no. Both24 Denver and Miami did a different process.25 79 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 The same time that they hired a2 consultant as we were to redraft the3 text, they said you redraft the maps at4 the same time. And it took five years5 from the time that process started to the6 date they adopted the map and the text7 together. When they adopted the map and8 the text together, it was in effect that9 day.10
The14 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez for15 a point of information.16
In light17 of what Councilman Green has just pointed18 out -- and this is one of those areas19 we've talked a little bit about, can we20 create a shelf where there's some things21 that are unresolved -- would the22 Administration be willing on a23 Council-by-Council district look at24 carving out some of those exceptions and25 80 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 saying this has to be worked out? Has2 that happened in the past, in light of3 the fact that we know there are certain4 areas, and particularly the ones in5 transition, where we may want to hold up6 on some of this stuff? Has that been7 done, and how would you suggest we do8 that?9
Sort of10 without knowing the details, it's a bit11 hard to answer, but I would say are we12 open to the conversation? Of course13 we're open to the conversation. It14 depends on the amount of carve-out and15 the nature of the carve-out we're talking16 about, because this then gets into the17 question of what are we ultimately trying18 to administer here. And this is why I19 said -- and I apologize for repeating20 myself -- in general we'd rather be more21 restrictive and not have to deal with22 this sort of bit by bit. But I think if23 there are specific ideas, we'd rather24 they be put on the table and we can25 81 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 respond to them specifically.2
If I could add to5 that. What most cities conclude along6 the way is that what you do not want to7 have is two maps and two codes in use at8 the same time. So if you create a hole9 in the doughnut, you've got a new map,10 but this is a hole in the doughnut. The11 legal question is what law applies on12 that hole in the doughnut. And what you13 really don't want to have is to have the14 City attorneys have to go back and the15 citizens have to know two codes. They16 have to know this code for the City and17 they have to remember that code for the18 hole in the doughnut.19 So I would endorse what Alan20 has said. In general, cities try to aim21 for having a new map, which is a22 conversion map, a new text, and if you've23 got areas you want to look at more24 carefully, adopt the new code so that25 82 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 you're not concerned about what's going2 to happen in the interim and put them on3 the agenda of things to revisit as you go4 along rather than saying we have a land5 here where the old law still applies,6 which I think most citizens and City7 attorneys would say is not where you want8 to be administratively. It's really9 confusing to the citizens to have two10 sets of laws.11
But12 wouldn't that be a scenario where we may13 want to say we're going to hold that for14 remapping because of the complexities of15 some of those things? I'm not suggesting16 that we do 100 of those, but we want to17 get through this, and if there's one or18 two of these, it may be Mantua Farms in19 the 4th Councilmanic District or some20 other stuff that we're going to hear some21 testimony about, I just think -- I don't22 want to be in a situation where we're23 held at bat, because some of this stuff24 needs to be flushed out and it should be25 83 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 okay to put on a burner. This is a new2 process for us in the City of3 Philadelphia and one that we could4 establish new processes nationally by5 saying some of this stuff has to go on6 the shelf.7
Number of8 such districts, size of such districts,9 complexity of such districts are very10 germane to this conversation. A couple11 of them may not be such a big problem and12 particularly if they're not very big.13 Lots of them, I think to Don's point,14 will be a problem, and that's where we15 would opt to be more restrictive more16 generally.17
That's okay.20 Thank you. Don, when we began21 the Zoning Code Commission process, we22 really were very focused at the beginning23 and had a lot of sessions on form-based24 codes and not the text of our Code, which25 84 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 is what Miami and Denver opted to do, go2 with form-based.3 Have you ever seen a city --4 and I'm not suggesting this. I'm just5 really curious based on the discussion we6 had about neighborhoods where -- and I've7 received a number of comments, I think8 from East Falls, I think from Manayunk9 Development Corporation and other people,10 that basically say it's not a particular11 use that harms value in a neighborhood or12 converts a neighborhood. It is the13 aggregation of that use that destroys the14 quality of life in a neighborhood,15 whether it be ten group homes on the same16 block shut out the rest of the17 neighborhood and eliminate the18 neighborhood feel or it be a bar on every19 single corner for a ten-block radius, or20 whatever it is. It's that sort of21 aggregation.22 Have you seen a city rather23 than do overlays, which this Code24 proposes and which creates the doughnut25 85 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 hole problem you're talking about, each2 overlay is its own rules and is separate3 from the Zoning Code and you have to go4 to that and look at it, have you ever5 seen a city combine a textural code like6 we have but with some form-based general7 guidelines that say -- and we do it sort8 of in -- restricted uses can't be within9 so many feet of each other, but I mean10 like you have to get a variance if there11 are more than two bars on that block or12 some more general form-based things that13 could be applicable on a citywide basis14 on things that we agree on that even15 apply to a textural code based on what's16 on the ground?17
Well, the issue18 comes up in a lot of cities. It's really19 unrelated to whether it's a form-based20 code or not. It really -- yes, a number21 of cities have a list of uses that they22 space either from residential or from23 each other. Detroit came up with a24 little elaborate table of this can't be25 86 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 too close to another one of it and it2 can't be too close to a different type of3 thing.4
But that's5 not really what -- and I may be6 misremembering this because it was three7 years ago, what I think of as form-based,8 it was, Okay, within this area, there can9 be 25 percent commercial. Once that 2510 percent commercial is filled up, there11 can't be more, because that's all the12 commercial that the residents in this13 area can support, and that's kind of what14 I'm talking about, more of that kind of15 approach.16
The short answer17 is no, and neither Denver nor Miami's18 form-based code do that. They define the19 types of buildings very specifically, the20 types of uses flexibly, but they don't21 have a kind of when it's full, it's full22 scenario. Most cities have a hard time23 with that, because it makes it a first24 come, first served basis, and they are25 87 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 not comfortable telling the third guy in2 that he can't do what his neighbor could3 be. They try to figure out, get a plan4 and get a zone that allows some of it,5 but not --6
The thing9 that sort of comes up inevitably in that10 kind of discussion is what about -- just11 use your example for a second. So if12 there was a restriction, for instance, on13 the amount of commercial, but people are14 unhappy with the commercial, we have15 places where we get a lot of pushback16 over the type of commercial that goes in,17 and suddenly the limits hit and the next18 one that wants to come is actually19 something people would really like to20 have, then we just get into another set21 of problems.22
Okay. So23 what percentage -- I know Eva did a study24 on this or the Administration did a study25 88 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that Eva has shared. What percentage of2 the cases that come before the ZBA for3 variances are residential and related to4 non-conforming uses?5
Actually, I6 think that information came maybe from7 Councilman O'Neill --8
Details from11 Green. Okay. So I'm pointing right back12 to you.13 We have not studied that14 recently. We looked at the number of15 cases that are not granted by right, and16 I think in the last few years it was 3517 percent of cases -- permit requests18 cannot be granted by right and require a19 trip to the ZBA. We've known informally20 that the number of cases that the ZBA,21 half or more than half are around use22 variances rather than dimensional23 variances, but I don't know the24 residential split. I'm sorry.25 89 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
I have a2 number in my head that it's like 903 percent.4
Just for15 everybody else's sake or at least for my16 sake, I just want to be clear. The 8017 percent -- Stacy, the 80 percent18 represents what again?19