COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:25 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO BILL 051144 - An ordinance amending Title 13 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-104... 14 BILL 051176 - An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps, by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Mount Pleasant Avenue, Chew Avenue... BILL 051198 - An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded generally by Butler Street, Sepviva Street... BILL 051200 - An ordinance amending Section 21 14-1610 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Old City Residential Area Special District Controls"... V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. May I have your attention, please. Thank you. I apologize for the delay. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules, and at this time, I would note that we do have a quorum present. To my extreme right is Councilwoman Miller, Councilman Clarke. To my extreme left, we have Councilwoman Brown and Councilman Kelly. I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of the first bill, Bill No. 051144.
Bill No. 051144, amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-104, entitled "Non-Conforming Structures and Uses," by amending provisions relating to the reconstruction of non-conforming structures, all under certain terms and conditions.
I 3 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. understand the sponsor of this bill would like to be present when we hear it. Apparently, he is on his way, so I would ask that we hold that bill, and I'd ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 051176.
Bill No. 051176, to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Mount Pleasant Avenue, Chew Avenue, Sedgwick Street and Germantown Avenue.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would request that this bill be put on hold.
Thank you. At the request of the sponsor, this bill will be held. I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 051198.
Bill No. 051198, 4 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded generally by Butler Street, Sepviva Street, Wheatsheaf Lane and Aramingo Avenue.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Martin Gregorski. I'm a Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 051198. Bill No. 051198 was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco on December 15, 2005. This bill rezones an area of land bounded by Butler Street, Sepviva Street, Wheatsheaf Lane and Aramingo Avenue, the former site of Tioga Pipe Company, from a zoning designation of G-2 5 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. General Industrial to a designation ASC Area Shopping Center. This is being done to allow for the commercial development of this approximately 21-acre site. The Planning Commission at its meeting of February 16, 2006 considered this bill and recommended Bill No. 051198 be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you. To the best of your knowledge, has the developer of the site signed tenants to come into this shopping center?
I'm aware that there is going to be a Lowe's proposed, but I'm not aware any further than that. I do believe there are representatives of the developer here today.
Who is the developer? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam 6 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. President.
Is the developer here? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes, the developer is here, Madam President, as are other members of his development team, and they will be more than happy to answer any questions from the Committee.
Well, I think it would be nice if they approach the witness table, identify themselves and perhaps they could tell us the type of commercial shops who have signed on. Thank you.
Carl Primavera. With me to my left is Mr. Steve Wolfson from Wolfson Verecchia. Just by way of background, this property is currently owned by the Kaiser family, and Andrew and his brother David 7 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. are here. It's zoned industrial. They were approached by Mr. Wolfson, who is a very well-established developer, to take this brownfield industrial site and turn it into hopefully a beautiful shopping center. They will stay in the deal, so that Kaisers will be part of the development team. And what I would like to do is just have Steve talk a little bit about what his plans are for the development and some of the discussions we've had under the direction of Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If I may, Madam President.
Yes. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. Just to put this into some sort of perspective, Mr. Wolfson is the same gentleman, you may recall, a couple of years ago when he was proposing to do a 8 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. Wal-Mart on Allegheny Avenue, and literally at the last minute when the vote was being taken on that rezoning, I held the bill. There was a lot of controversy. The community in Port Richmond had serious concerns about traffic and other quality of life issues as it related to the Allegheny Avenue site. As a result of my holding the bill and subsequent meetings with the folks of Northeast Hospital, whose property is adjacent to the former Wal-Mart site on Allegheny Avenue, Mr. Wolfson, at the suggestion of my office, State Representative Taylor and others, sought out another site in the Port Richmond community where he may be able to move forward with his project. The site that is before you today is that alternative site. There will not be a Wal-Mart, which was part of one of the issues that was swirling around at the time, and he will go into 9 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. further detail. But I just wanted to let you know he's not new to this development in Port Richmond. He was the original developer on Allegheny Avenue. He subsequently has made a decision to hopefully develop on the site at Aramingo and Wheatsheaf Lane.
Thank you. Good morning. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you. Mr. Wolfson, can you tell us the type of commercial shops that have signed on at this location?
At this time, Madam Chair, we do not have a written document that has been signed by both parties at this site. We do have a verbal commitment from Lowe's. Other than Lowe's, we have no other commitment verbally. We have discussions with 10 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. regional and national and local tenants at this time.
I think you'd better identify yourself so the stenographer knows who is speaking.
Carl Primavera. We understand that Council has always been interested in looking at the whole policy of the big box Wal-Mart issues. So Councilman DiCicco referred to a deed restriction, which we're going to have, which will preclude certain big boxes for five years, one being Wal-Mart, Target and K-Mart, and that will allow this hopefully project to go forward. And then during that interim period of time, Council can decide how to handle those issues, but, in effect, it will allow us not to be, in effect, on the sidelines while that bigger issue is being discussed. So we think it's a very fair 11 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. way for us to make a commitment not only to the community and other people in City Council who do have issues with those other operators, but still allow us to make what I believe is a $50 million investment in this community. And we also have some site plans and some other things to show the concept layout, but we think it's going to be a very, very successful shopping center. It's well serviced. We have a planning study that we've done. We have a traffic study. It's really something that's going to take this, in effect, abandoned industrial property and turn it into something that's going to be a positive. The property was on the market for years. Nobody was interested. The industrial world is changing, and this was an opportunity for us, in effect, to go from the site that the Councilman talked about that was controversial to hopefully this site which won't be. 12 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC.
Fine. And I'm sure that you have had a number of community meetings and the community --
-- is apparently supporting this project or the Councilman would not have introduced it.
And we have more meetings scheduled. This has been easily a year in the making in terms of trying to address everybody's concerns.
Councilman DiCicco, did you want to add something to that? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I was just responding to your comments about having community meetings. We did have one community meeting, which the community representatives and the elected officials and the political folks were involved in, which basically gave them an overview of what you're going to be hearing testimony on today. 13 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. What I would ask this Committee to do is, at the end of the testimony today, if it's your desire and you choose to vote this bill favorably, that I will guarantee to hold the bill until such time the bigger community meeting is held within the next few weeks. We have tried to do some meetings since December when I first met with the leadership of Port Richmond, but because of the holidays and other issues, we were never able to really put all those meetings together. But we will have those meetings and come to hopefully some finalization on this whole project. As you know, no matter what you do, there's always going to be some opposition, but I believe this is in the best interest of all folks concerned, that this will have the least amount of any negative impact, if there is any, to any nearby residential communities.
Very well. In view of your statement, there 14 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. is no need then for the suspension of the rules. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's correct.
I guess maybe the Councilman may have to answer this. Will there be any additional legislation required for this development down the line, such as street strikes or TIF legislation, or will this essentially be an unassisted development?
That's correct. This is a market-driven development. 15 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. Mr. Wolfson has been involved in, I don't know, I'm going to say countless typical developments and he has a great relationship with the types of tenants and the financing that would make this happen.
Okay. Mr. Primavera, your explanation on this issue around the big box I didn't quite understand. Can you clarify that for me again?
Well, it's interesting, you talk about timing. At the time we approached the Councilman about rezoning it to Area Shopping Center, there was a bill introduced by, I guess, some Councilmembers at the request of former Councilman Cohen to have the hearings on the whole big box issue, what they call them predator retailers, and because they came up at the same time, there was a sensitivity to maybe dealing with that issue before dealing with this rezoning. So we had to find a strategy 16 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. that would allow this development to go forward. So that's why we came up with this agreement that, in effect, for the specifically listed big boxes, which are the Wal-Mart, Target and K-Mart, that we would not be -- we would commit by deed restriction not to go forward with them as tenants, and in the meantime, if Council wants to pass that larger type of restriction, then they can do that. But we don't intend to proceed with a Wal-Mart at this site, Lowe's and some other retailers --
I'm sorry. Lowe's is what we're looking to do, but not the Wal-Mart. I think Wal-Mart generated a lot of other issues that we didn't need to deal with since we weren't going to have them at this site.
Right. Your proposed deed restriction prohibits 17 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. your ability to develop the site with a Wal-Mart or similar type of development at all?
It's five years, Councilman, from the issuance of the first building permit on the project. So it could, from a practical perspective, be longer than five years from when City Council enacts -- if City Council was to legislate this, and that was with discussions with --
So you're talking about maybe three and a half years, in reality?
No. If a building permit gets issued, from a 18 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. theoretical perspective, in December of 2006, the five years would start December of 2006. If we were to get a building permit December of 2007, the five years would start from December of 2007.
Right, but I'm saying that construction time traditionally for major projects is around months. 11
So 14 realistically your deed restriction would 15 be from time of operation, I guess I'm 16 saying. If you build the Lowe's and you 17 start the Lowe's in '06 and you finish in 18 18 months later, so then you're looking at a restriction of three and a half years in terms of actual operation of the site.
Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to get a little 19 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. clarity on that. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table, sir. Thank you, gentlemen.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you. Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Barry Cohen. I'm an attorney with Thorp, Reed & Armstrong in Philadelphia. I've been asked today to speak on behalf of the Port Richmond Community Group and their opposition to this bill; more in particular, their opposition to this bill 20 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. being passed at this particular time. They may be for the bill; they may not be for the bill, but at this time, they have not met with anyone from the developer. I understand there was a meeting with Councilman DiCicco, the developer and two of the members of some of the groups for Port Richmond, and one of those members is the woman who asked me to appear today to oppose this. The neighborhood has presented me with over 1,500 signatures against the big box retailer. They're concerned that once this zoning change is in an area that is predominantly G-2 Industrial with now a spot zoning of shopping, nothing will stop any development going in there. This is particularly the same group that was upset over Wal-Mart. I understand there is going to be a five-year --
Excuse me. Isn't this a 21-acre parcel of ground? 21 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC.
The neighbors at this point, Madam President, are concerned that they have not been given an opportunity to meet with the developer. There is a meeting set for next Monday. We objected at the Planning Commission and asked for them to hold off, and they refused. We're simply asking that this be pushed off. There's no reason for this to go forward with the developer that has not had one signed lease yet. So one developer can change the zoning in an area that is predominantly industrial despite the size of the lot, so he can move forward with potential contracts that he doesn't have at this time. The neighbors have not seen a site plan. They have not seen a traffic study. They haven't been given an 22 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. opportunity to go get their own traffic study. There's no doubt that this is going to increase the traffic in the area. Many of the residents are not actually in Councilman DiCicco's district but in Councilwoman Krazenski, if I'm pronouncing her name correctly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Krajewski.
I apologize to her. And that is their concern, that this is being pushed through without the neighbors, a large number of neighbors, being given an opportunity to meet with the developer. It's been going on for months. There's no reason the developer cannot meet with them before anything is done. And they're looking forward to the meeting on the 27th and looking forward to talking to the developer and looking forward to working with him. I'd be happy to answer any 23 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. questions that I can.
Are there any questions from members of the Committee?
Sir, you mentioned a lady gave you 1,500 signatures and asked you to come here today, but you didn't identify her. Is there a reason?
I do have a copy of the signatures I'd be happy to present. I'll leave that up to you.
If they're given to anyone, I think they should be given to the sponsor of the bill. The Chair recognizes 24 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. Councilwoman Brown.
Good morning. My question was very much related to Council President's recommendation. Has this information been walked through or talked through with the sponsor of the bill, the leadership of that councilmanic district?
I have only been retained as of last week. I have forwarded a letter to Councilman DiCicco. My understanding is that Ms. Costello and other members of the Port Richmond community have reached out to Councilman DiCicco. They were told exactly what he said today, that he would hold off the final vote until they met. However, Port Richmond Community Group is still upset and they would like nothing to happen until they've been given a chance to meet with the developer.
Has it been shared with you what the troubling aspects of this proposal are, since you 25 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. are the legal counsel?
My understanding of the concern of the neighbors is going to be increased crime, increased traffic, increased trash and, more importantly, the fact that they've been kept out of the loop from talking to the developer. It's my understanding that developers usually will reach out and meet with the community, especially a community that wants to meet and especially a community that did voice its opinion two years ago over a proposed Wal-Mart, that this particular developer knows the community has a stake and is concerned about what goes there. There's no reason not to meet with that community.
Then what is your prognosis as the District Councilperson and the community group and the developers go down this road? What expectations might you have, or is it premature to even suggest that? 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC.
I believe it's premature. I believe the community is going to go into this with an open mind, and possibly and hopefully they can work everything out and everyone is happy to help an area that could use some help. There's no doubt the area could use help, and the community certainly wants to improve their community where they have a stake hold in. That's why they're simply asking that this be tabled until they've had a chance to meet with the developer, and that meeting is scheduled for next Monday.
Curiosity is speaking now. Do you have a practice of participating in these kind of deliberations between elected leadership and community organizations who care about development of any type in the world where they live? Is this a first for you or do you have a track record in this area?
No, this is not a 27 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. first for me. I represented, if you're familiar with -- there was a proposed Walgreens at 19th and Chestnut last year. I represented the community, and many of the residents of the Ben Franklin House had retained me, and we were successful in stopping that development to the benefit of the community and to the benefit of the overlay on Chestnut Street.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Cohen, I just want to know, I want to clear something that you just mentioned. This community group, were 28 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. they the same community group that was against Wal-Mart?
I do not know that. I know there were numerous, if not hundreds, of residents against Wal-Mart, and there are numerous residents here. Is there an overlap? I'm sure. I can't sit here today and say --
You mentioned that they have taken no 12 position on this as far as supporting it or not supporting it, or are they absolutely against it?
No. It's twofold. They have taken the position via the petitions that they are against a big box type retail. They are against increased traffic, increased crime.
Are they against any retail or is it just the big box that they're concerned about?
No. I believe it's the big box and, more importantly, right now they're concerned that they haven't 29 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. been given a chance to meet. And they may be swayed that they will be for it. They certainly want to increase the livelihood of their neighborhood.
Have they expressed an interest in being for any type of development?
Yes. They're not against any development. They certainly don't want to see this as an empty site. They would just like a chance to meet with the developer.
Follow-up, Madam President. They've indicated that they care very much that development happens in this blighted vacant community. Have they said what type of development? Have they provided some guidance, instruction or whatever? 30 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC.
They have provided me with some alternatives, but, again, that's speculation. I mean, the alternatives include other retail, mixed use, residential, but at this point, I think they're really just speculating as to what could be in their neighborhood and they want to meet with other members of their community to discuss what the neighborhood as a whole would like to see there.
Mr. Cohen, I believe you indicated that the community would be meeting on the 27th of February?
And under the normal procedure, this bill 25 would come up for a Second Reading and 31 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. Final Passage Calendar on March the 9th. You have heard the sponsor of the bill 4 say that he would hold it until such time that he felt that the community and the developer were all on the same page, so to speak. What is your feeling about our reporting it out today in view of what I've just said?
Yes, Madam President, I do understand that. I think the community's concern is, that will put a tight timetable. I don't know what will happen at that meeting on the 27th.
There is no timetable. There would be no 18 timetable. It may be on the Calendar for second reading and final passage on the 9th of March, but the sponsor of the bill 21 could hold it on the Second Reading and Final Passage Calendar from now until next year.
And I do appreciate that and I think the community 32 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. appreciates that it could be held forever. I think the question is, should something be put forward that the community hasn't met with, for a developer that doesn't have any signed leases, that there's no rush to move forward on.
I just have a question, Mr. Cohen. When this matter came up in Councilman DiCicco's district involving a Wal-Mart on Allegheny Avenue, most of us, I remember, were pointing to this site as a potential Wal-Mart site and a couple of others further north, but not only was it contentious within the Council, and very unusually so among District Members, but the community was out in force. In fact, there were two women, I think, that had a fist fight on the way out of the room, it was that contentious. Are any of them here today? 33 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC.
I mean, they know how we work and they know the system. And I just want to recognize that it's like going to the Zoning Board. You can have a thousand petitions, but if two people show up, the Zoning Board can talk to them, can question them, can get a better feel for their position. And I can tell you, I'm supporting Councilman DiCicco, and he knows what's best for his district, as far as I'm concerned. And so I just want to note for the record that no one is here from the community and it's a community that knows that showing up matters if they're deeply concerned. I think they trust Councilman DiCicco. While there may be some disagreements, they can be worked out. I like the process that Council President has followed. We've done that many, many times. It's ultimately the District 34 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. Councilperson's call as to whether to hold the bill if they think there's a reason to, and we generally defer to that. Thank you.
Good morning. Thank you, Madam President. Can you tell me why the neighbors are opposed to a big box store?
As I understand it, they are opposed to a big box store due to the increase in traffic, the potential for increase in crime. They have concerns over the number of cars that will be drawn to the big box store from around the area, coupled with the fact that I-95 right there is about to be fixed, which is going to increase the traffic in their small streets in their neighborhood. That is the main concern, or one of the main concerns, as I understand it. I do apologize. I've 35 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. only been retained recently.
So if some of those issues are addressed, then there's no opposition to the big box store?
There may be opposition; there may not be opposition. All we're asking for at this point in time is, we're asking for this process to be held off, because there's no urgency in this, until the community has had a chance to be heard. That's what they want. They want to be heard.
And I don't think that we can speak for the community. I think there has been an indication that a traffic study has been conducted, and I'm sure that at the meeting on February 27th, all of these issues will come up and the community may very well be happy with what's being proposed. 36 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. So at this time, I'd like to recognize Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman O'Neill, for your comments. Mr. Cohen, in your opening remarks you indicated, unless I heard you wrong, that there was a meeting, but there wasn't a meeting. I mean, you said there was no community meeting. There was a community meeting, but the residents feel as though there needs to be a community meeting. Do you know that there was a community meeting?
As I understand, sir, from your statements, there was a community meeting in which you indicated it was yourself and two leaders from the community. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. 24
The community was not there, as I understand it. The 37 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. public was not invited and the public was not there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: As is typical the way I conduct business, I believe other District Councilpeople do the same thing, generally when a development is proposed, whether it's big box, residential, what-have-you, I typically meet with the developer and the leadership of the community. And the meeting that I'm referring to that took place in Room 319 in this building included both the Republican and Democratic Ward Leaders of the 45th and 25th Wards; Ms. Costello, who represents the Port Richmond Neighborhood Association; Patty-Pat, who works for Councilwoman Krajewski, who also represents another community in the Port Richmond neighborhood; the developer, Mr. Wolfson, and one or two of his attorneys, and I may have left someone else out. It was probably an hour and a 38 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. half meeting, maybe two hours. A site plan was presented. Traffic issues were spoken of, and I believe there may have also been a traffic study that was put forward. We had a lot of questions. It was my recommendation that since that meeting took place, that the leadership would then go out to the community and schedule community meetings for the larger community to be part of that process. For whatever reason, those meetings have not yet taken place. And I think I stated earlier when I gave the Council President and this Committee some of my thoughts, a lot of it may have had to do with the holidays, et cetera. But there was a meeting. Ms. Costello is familiar with that process. I believe she's had other -- since that meeting, she has had her community meetings where this issue has been discussed. Maybe not in the detail that she would like it to be discussed, but it 39 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. has been. I made the recommendation that I ask this Committee to vote this bill 5 out favorably, and I will hold it until such time that the 27th meeting and any other subsequent meetings will be held. You indicate that there's a petition. I've not seen a petition. I didn't get a letter until this morning that there was opposition. And I think it was either the Council President or Councilman O'Neill who mentioned that he's familiar with the Allegheny Avenue issue. It is the same group, Councilman, that opposed the Wal-Mart. And Wal-Mart was one of the sticky points of that, in addition to other quality of life and traffic concerns, and Tioga was the site that everybody was pointing to, why don't they go to the Tioga site. So the same people who were suggesting that this developer go to the Tioga site are now saying they're opposed to it. 40 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. This developer has been put through the wringer, and that's okay because that's what he has to do and he understands that. He has met every request that he's been asked to do for the last couple of years, and I think in fairness to the developer, this should not be held any longer until such time those community meetings are held. One final question, Mr. Cohen. You said you were recently retained?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you know if she has any involvement with the owner of the Shop Rite on Aramingo Avenue?
I do not know. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you know where these petitions were being 41 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. circulated? Were they being circulated outside the Shop Rite on Aramingo Avenue?
I do not know. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you don't know if the owner of the Shop Rite is opposed to this development?
I do not know. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Would it surprise you if I told you that the owner of the Shop Rite on Aramingo Avenue has been the person really behind the circulation of these petitions?
It would not surprise me if many of the businesses in the area are opposed to the increased traffic that they're going to see. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And would it surprise you to know that the owner of the Shop Rite on Aramingo Avenue is tentatively in negotiations to open up a Shop Rite at the site of the former Frankford Arsenal right next door to a Wal-Mart?
I would not know. 42 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. I don't think I have anything else at this time.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Have I seen the site? Not recently. I saw it about a year ago.
Was the interchange of 95 at Aramingo Avenue existing when you saw it last?
The Chair again recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. One other question. Directly across the street from 43 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. Wheatsheaf Lane on the same side of Aramingo Avenue, the west side, behind the -- there's a storage facility company there. There's a 21-acre site that is currently being used by a company known as Home Line Industries. They're a furniture distribution company. Are you aware about two years ago that I did a similar zoning change legislation for that site?
No, sir, I'm not. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That would allow for a big box there?
No, I'm not aware. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And there was no opposition to that, directly across the street?
Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
44 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. Mr. Cohen, thank you.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 051200.
Bill No. 051200, an ordinance amending Section 14-1610 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Old City Residential Area Special District Controls," extending the boundaries of the District to include the area generally bounded by Spring Garden Street, Seventh Street, Wood Street and Christopher Columbus Boulevard, all under certain terms and conditions.
Again, I would ask you to please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Martin Gregorski. 45 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. I'm a Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 051200. Bill No. 051200 was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco on December 15, 2005. This bill amends Section 9 14-1610 of the Zoning Code by extending the boundaries of the Old City Residential Area Special District Controls to include an area bounded by Spring Garden Street, Seventh Street, Wood Street and Christopher Columbus Boulevard. This bill would extend height and width controls for the new area, as well as prohibiting the following uses: Amusement arcades, dance halls and entertainment of guests and patrons as a main use, automobile repair shops, bodily and/or distribution of liquids for human consumption, central heating plants, courtrooms and courthouse buildings, garages as a main use, penal and correctional institutions, theatres and 46 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. live stage performances and motion picture auditoriums, fortune teller establishments, take-out restaurants and telemarketing. The Planning Commission at its meeting of February 16, 2006 considered this bill and recommended that Bill No. 9 051200 be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you. Do you have a map showing the area that would be affected by the expansion of the Special Control District?
I do not have a map with me, but I could forward that to your office before the end of the day.
All right. I note that take-out restaurants would be prohibited.
Are there any existing restaurants that would be affected, or would they become non-conforming uses?
Any restaurants that are currently existing would still be able to have the uses that they have now. If they were an eat-in restaurant and requested take-out after this bill 11 would take effect, then they would have to go to the Zoning Board for a certificate.
I assume that the Old City Civic Association is in support of the bill?
I have not been to a meeting with them themselves, but as 48 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. I understand it, Rich Thom is sitting right next to me and I've spoken to him.
That's very good. Thank you. Then Mr. Thom can speak for himself and the community. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Madam President. Richard Thom, Chair of the Developments Committee and Vice-President of Old City Civic Association. As the Council is well aware, and Councilman DiCicco has certainly been very supportive of our efforts in ensuring the residential quality of the growth of our neighborhood, we've been concerned about incompatible commercial uses going north of our district and impacting the rapidly also growing district of Northern Liberties to our north. This is an overlapping district area that includes these two 49 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. neighborhoods. It borders two neighborhoods. Old City Civic's boundaries have included north of Spring Garden Street for over years, and we 6 are very supportive of this legislation 7 or effort to ensure that high-quality 8 development only occurs north of Old 9 City's core area, which is south of 10 Callowhill. 11
Thank 12 you very much. 13 Do we have anyone on the 14 Committee that would like to be 15 recognized? 16 (No response.) 17
Do we 18 have anyone that would like to testify? 19 (No response.) 20
Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? (No response.)
Seeing no one, the Chair recognizes 50 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. There will be an amendment offered to this bill. I believe members of your Committee have received copies.
Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. I would ask Ms. Murray to read the title of Bill No. 051144 again, please.
Bill No. 051144, an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-104, entitled "Non-Conforming Structures and Uses," by amending provisions relating to the reconstruction of non-conforming structures, all under certain terms and conditions. 51 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC.
Again, I would ask you to identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Martin Gregorski. I'm a Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 051144. Bill No. 051144 was introduced by Councilmember O'Neill on December 1, 2005. This bill amends Section 14-104 of the Zoning Code to allow properties zoned R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-3, R-4 or R-5 Residential in the Tenth Councilmanic District to be reconstructed where any structure containing a non-conforming use or being non-conforming as to area, height, floor area or bulk, in whole or in part, is devoid by fire or act of God or is legally condemned. The Planning Commission at its 52 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. meeting of December 15, 2005 considered this bill and recommended that Bill No. 4 051144 be approved. The Commission believes that these amendments are positive changes to the Zoning Code and would support action by City Council that would result in these provisions being applicable City-wide. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you. Has there been any legal definition applied in the past by the courts as to what constitutes, quote, an act of God, end of quote?
I am not aware of any. I'm not an attorney, so I have not done the research.
I'm not an attorney. I have not done the kind of research that would include court 53 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. research on what is an act of God. Generally from the zoning point of view, it would be wind destruction, hurricane destruction, flooding and the like.
Your testimony, as far as I'm concerned, is somewhat confusing. It states that the Commission would, quote, support action by City Council that would result in these provisions being applicable City-wide, end of quote.
I want to know yes or no, does the Commission support this particular bill 21 or not?
We are in favor 54 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. of this bill, correct.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee?
Madam Chair, I have no questions, but Mr. Dominic Ragucci from the Somerton Civic Association has come all the way down about miles from Somerton for -- 12
Well, 13 he certainly deserves to be recognized. 14
He goes to 15 the Zoning Board all the time for his 16 community. 17
Thank you, Madam 22 President, members of the Board. My name 23 is Dominic Ragucci, R-A-G-U-C-C-I. I'm 24 Assistant to the President of the 25 Somerton Civic Association, and on behalf 55 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. of our Association's Executive Committee, I would like to state that Councilman O'Neill's bill clearly protects those single-family owners of non-conforming structures that sustain substantial loss resulting from fire and certain other perils. Requiring a one-family structure to conform at reconstruction could cause hardship to the owner and a potential costly delay in reconstruction and present a scenario for possible abandonment. Thank you.
You're welcome, sir. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee?
I don't have any questions. I have a little explanation on the bill. I just wanted to let the Committee know what the genesis was.
I think if you were to give your 56 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. explanation, maybe we wouldn't have any questions from members of the Committee.
First, I'd like to thank Mr. Ragucci for coming down. I know we have a couple of letters from two other civic associations, for the record, West Torresdale Civic Association and also Bustleton Civic Association.
Excuse me, Councilman. I think we ought to give copies of the letters to the stenographer so that they will be made part of the record.
We have a letter en route from our President, but it hasn't arrived by fax. It's on its way.
We got the best thing, we got personal testimony from her representative.
Madam Chair and members of the Committee and members of the Council who are here, I've 57 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. been doing, as some members of the Rules Committee particularly know, along with the Planning Commission and some neighborhood civic associations, remappings of certain areas in my district that have been experiencing a lot of what the community calls tear-downs. A house built in the 1950s or '40s, modest home on a fairly wide lot, and because the zoning is such that allows three or four three-story structures, very narrow, without any community input, people really feel their neighborhood is being degraded, and the one solution is to do a community remapping, a comprehensive remapping of the community, and trying to make each parcel have as large a lot as possible. In doing that, in order to do it in a way that is done with proper planning principles and constitutionally correct to offset any challenge by a developer, often times a person in a particular lot may not be exactly 58 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. conforming to the new dimensions of that lot, and that's called non-conforming. It happens quite a bit, actually. I live in a non-conforming structure myself, and many of my neighbors do. But I was not aware until recently that there was this Code provision that if more than two-thirds of the home -- I'm sorry. If more than two-thirds of the home were destroyed, that you would not be able to build where you were the same house that you were living in. You would have to go to the Zoning Board and ask for special permission. And that's exactly what this bill is, it deals with single-family structures, because that's the only structures we're making non-conforming in these remappings, single-family structures, to allow people clearly to go to L&I and get an over-the-counter permit to rebuild their house and not have them say, Oh, there's this provision in the Code that you're non-conforming and now 59 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. you have to start all over again and go to your neighbors and ask for permission and go to the civic association. The Planning Commission, the Commission itself, not only supported the bill and a very similar bill in, I believe, Councilwoman Miller's district but suggested they would support it City-wide. And I don't have the luxury of time because of how many of these are out there and the issue being such a burning issue. I wanted to get my district covered as quickly as possible with this, because it's predominantly as a result in my district of the remappings. But I would ask the Chair to ask the Planning Commission -- I think the Chair is, particularly Council President, is the one to do it, if they could present a bill to us in the near future that would cover City-wide and everybody be in the same position with their constituents if they get asked this question. 60 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. And I'd like to thank the Planning Commission and License and Inspection. License and Inspection, the whole team met on this a few weeks ago and signed off. They said it was fine. They have no problem enforcing it, and they would understand it and make sure everybody over there did. It's a very rare occurrence, but it's nice to be able to tell people that you don't have to worry. When you help your community by doing the remapping, you don't wind up being hurt possibly if there is a fire or something very catastrophic. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. 61 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. As Councilman O'Neill mentioned, there is a bill similar as it relates to the Eighth Council District. We are having and have run into some barriers when we have developers that are building in-fill housing where homes have pretty much been demolished or it fits in the other category, destroyed by fire or act of God. We just had a developer have a hard time getting a building permit and all kinds of things to rebuild and fill in some of those lots. So I just wanted to make clear what some of our issues are in the Eighth District.
Madam President, I know other members have asked to speak, but I do have an amendment to the bill that the Law Department gave me, and it basically just makes the bill clearer and clarifies the language. It doesn't change anything from the original bill.
The amendment has been circulated? 62 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC.
I believe everyone has a copy of it. I'll ask that the bill be amended at the proper time.
Thank you, Madam President. So not having had the benefit of reading this, does the bill also then protect a new buyer or purchaser of that lot should the zoning be different?
If they happen to be in a non-conforming house, structure, and that can happen in a new home, they would be protected as well. All the single-family designations in my district are covered in here.
Okay. And would you say that another goal would be 63 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. to provide for maybe continuity and community anesthetic of housing?
Councilman O'Neill, I'm just rather curious, how about the insurance issue?
I have not gotten into that, but I don't think it's an issue.
Good. Because I know we had great problems with a storm, told it was an act of God, and there was a problem, believe me.
That is a separate issue, but we can't deal with it in this.
Okay. 64 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. I thought perhaps you have looked into it and knew the answer. Are there any other questions? (No response.)
We're only laughing because the Councilman said we always have FEMA. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify? Sir, I certainly want to thank you for coming in, presenting your testimony and for showing so much interest in your community.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
65 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. Seeing no one, this will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Madam President, I'd like to offer an amendment to Bill No. 051144. It's been circulated among the Committee. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment as proposed be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The Chair again recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 051144 as 66 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to allow first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 10 051144 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 051198.
Madam 67 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. President, I move that Bill 051198 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 12 051198 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 23 051200.
Madam President, I move for the adoption of an 68 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. amendment to Bill No. 051200. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment as proposed be reported out with a favorable recommendation and adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
All those in favor of the adoption of the amendment will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 051200 as amended be reported out of Committee with 69 2/21/06 - RULES - BILL 051144, ETC. a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the rules as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 8 051200 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. This concludes the public meeting of the Rules Committee. I thank you all very much for your patience. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 11:15 a.m.) - - - 70 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on February 21, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)