COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, November 16, 2009 10:15 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER BILLS 090471, 090472, 090517 and 090571 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would ask Tom to please read the title of Bill No. 090471.
Bill 090471, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within area bounded by Ridge Avenue, Sedgley Avenue, Diamond Street and Glennwood Avenue. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 25 090471, which was introduced by 3 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. Councilmember Clarke June 4th of 2009. Bill No. 090471 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps for an area bounded by Ridge Avenue, Sedgley Avenue, Diamond Street and Glennwood Avenue. The bill will rezone a parcel from a zoning designation of "R-10" Residential to a designation of "L-4" Limited Industrial. The purpose is to permit commercial development at this location. The "L-4" Limited Industrial designation does allow for commercial use, but also allows for a light industrial use for the property in the event the proposed commercial development is not completed for any reason. The proposed development is for a strip-style retail development containing 22,000 square feet and providing parking for approximately 64 cars. At its meeting of October 20th, 2009, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill No. 090471 and recommended that it be approved. 4 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear and will answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Do we have any indication as to when the development is scheduled to begin and when is it expected to be completed?
I have not been given that information. I believe this was done in the hope that this will go forward, but I have not had any specific plans submitted to our office at this time.
You can answer that, sir? Thank you. I see Councilman Clarke is here.
Good morning, Madam President. Madam President, we actually 5 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. just met with the proposed developer about two weeks ago, and as a number of developers are experiencing some financial difficulties. During the course of the discussion about the purchase of this land -- this land was actually purchased from the City of Philadelphia. Because of the City's financial situation, we, frankly speaking, requested that the developer expedite the purchase. He was not necessarily ready, because he didn't have tenants lined up, but we insisted on an acquisition strategy that called for him to acquire it this year. But we have actually arranged to have him sit down with Commerce to see if they can get any financing as a result of the stimulus dollars that were made available. But they had anticipated within the next two, three months that they would hopefully have some lead tenants.
Great. Thank you. 6 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. Mr. Kramer, what types of limited industrial uses might be allowed if the proposed commercial use is not completed for any reason?
The "L-4" Limited Industrial designation would allow warehousing, storage. It would allow you to take Part A and Part B and put them together. What it doesn't allow is manufacture from raw materials, outdoor storage, those kinds of more impactful actions.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you. I would like the record to 7 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. reflect that we indeed have a quorum. To my extreme right is Councilwoman Miller. Next to her is Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Kenney. To my extreme left, Councilman Kelly, Councilman Goode, Councilman Clarke and Councilman Greenlee. I would ask that Bill No. 10 090472 be read, please.
Bill 090472, an ordinance amending Bill No. 080588 (approved December 22, 2008), entitled "An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Arch Street, 18th Street, Cuthbert Street and 19th Street, by amending Section 14-305 of the Zoning Code, entitled 'C-4' Commercial and 'C-5' Commercial District and by amending Section 14-1611 of the Zoning Code, entitled 'Benjamin Franklin Parkway Controls,' under certain terms and conditions," by amending the 8 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. conditions set forth in that ordinance 3 for the issuance of zoning permits with respect to any property rezoned by that ordinance, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 17 090472, which was introduced by Councilmember Clarke June 4th of 2009. Bill No. 090472 amends Section 20 14-305 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code, which is entitled "C-4" Commercial and "C-5" Commercial by adding a provision requiring that City Council approve a plan of development for the proposed development located on the block bounded 9 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. by 18th Street, Arch Street, 19th Street and Cuthbert Street. The proposed development was the subject of Bill No. 5 080588, which contained both Zoning Code amendments and amendments of the Zoning Maps. It is my understanding that the Law Department has recommended certain technical language amendments to this bill. I have read them and believe they are appropriate and have no objection to making the requested amendment to this piece of legislation. At its meeting on July 21st, 2009, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill No. 090472 and recommended that it be approved. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and will answer any questions you may have.
I assume that you would know how close the developer is to finalizing the details of this project. 10 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc.
The best I can tell you is I have talked to their counsel and asked about it, and I was told that the project has not died at this point, but with this economy, getting tenants is obviously a little more difficult than they had originally anticipated.
Councilman Clarke, it is my understanding that you may be offering amendments?
Yes, Madam President, but one of these amendments, frankly, is from the Law Department and I'd like to ask Mr. Kramer to explain, I guess that would be, B.
I believe what the Law Department is requiring is that they are setting up a -- making sure that if you have a plan, that the Planning Commission needs to certify that it is consistent with the plan of development that was approved both by the Planning Commission and City Council. And I think 11 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. that's all he's trying to do here, is making sure that somebody doesn't come in with an approval or say that it's approved, but that the plan of development has to be consistent, both what's approved by City Council and what's approved by the Planning Commission. It would be my understanding --
-- that if there was a difference between the two plans -- for example, the Planning Commission in this instance has already approved a plan of development. If a plan of development subsequently approved by City Council would be different, the differences would have to be taken back to the Planning Commission for their approval, not to make a difference --
It sounds like it's getting back to the Planning Commission having final approval, which this bill was -- 12 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc.
No. The purpose is to make sure that the plans are consistent and that somebody doesn't take a plan that they had approval just from the Planning Commission and take it to L&I to have approval. What they're trying to do is make sure that the plan of development approved by City Council and the plan of development approved by the Planning Commission are indeed one and the same. It is then my responsibility, my office's responsibility, to make sure that when we stamp the plans, that they are consistent with the plan of development that would be approved by both City Council and the Planning Commission.
That's inconsistent with what we were proposing, because under this scenario, there's a 13 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. potential that City Council will have approved the plan of approval, then City Planning decides, Well, you know what, we don't agree with that, we don't think it's consistent with the earlier agreed-upon proposal. So they're ultimately the final determining entity.
I think what they're driving at here is no plan can be stamped unless it's got approval from both City Council and City Planning.
Yeah, but the purpose of the bill -- you do recall the history of the bill?
And as a result of the need to expedite this particular project, I put language in the original bill that essentially allowed Planning Commission to have the final approval.
We then introduced a bill that required that that 14 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. come back to City Council for final approval. It sounds like to me you're saying that after that final approval by Council, there is another process where the Planning Commission must review and determine that --
I don't believe that that's what they're intending it to be. I think what they're intending it to be is to make certain that when my office looks at the plans as part of the permitting process, not the approval process but the permitting process, that the plans that are submitted for permitting are indeed consistent with the plans approved by the Council as well as by City Planning. It should in fact be -- both should be the same, and that's what we're looking to do. Now, of course, if City Council approves a plan of development that is different than the Planning Commission, then --
I don't 15 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. understand why we would do that.
That's why I don't understand the need for such language. I mean, why would we --
That's a question we'd have to ask Mr. Feder in the Law Department. I did not author this, so I really don't know.
Thank you, Madam Chair. If Council approves the plan and the plan comes to you for permits, do you have to issue the permits? What would happen if you refused to issue the permit, stamp the plan for the permits?
The only thing I would correct is, my office simply doesn't issue permits. That's the department -- 16 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc.
I'm saying there's a need for your office to do something in order for an applicant to get a permit, correct?
Now, if you don't stamp your approval, does it get a permit?
That would be at the discretion of L&I. I would imagine that they have the opportunity to send it forward if they so desire.
I think my point is, I understand what the language of the amendment says, but, in effect, if you don't stamp them, whether we approve it or not, they're not getting the permit, right, unless a commissioner decides or the Administration decides to issue the permit anyway? 17 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc.
That's my point. So what's the need for the language? If what already exists gives the Planning Commission in an extreme circumstance that disagrees with Council's plan of approval and fails to put their stamp of approval on it, the odds are the permits aren't being gotten anyway, correct?
Again, you don't know the answer to the question because you didn't write the amendment.
But then why the need for the amendment? I guess that's the question.
That would be a question we'd have to ask the Law Department.
Because you 18 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. have that safety valve as it is, right?
I believe so, yes, sir. I mean, the system works that the plan of development that we have already approved as the Planning Commission, that any plan coming in has to be consistent with that plan. That's the process.
And your ultimate recourse is not to stamp them approved?
And then there creates a controversy as to whether or not the permit gets issued or not?
But you would think that the Administration, who appoints the Planning Commission, would not issue a permit around the Planning Commission if they don't approve the plan.
Okay. So, again, what is the need for the language? 19 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. I guess that's --
I would question that as well. I would also say to you that a project of this size and this scope is very unlikely to move forward without the final approval of either the Planning Commission or City Council.
Madam President, what I would actually like to do, I'm going to strike B, that portion of the amendment, and maintain the other amendment on , Section 3 (a) and No. 3.
So we're proposing the deletion of? 20 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc.
Okay. Are there any further questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. You might as well stay where you are. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)
21 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. Kindly state your name for the record.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Tully Speaker. I'm a private citizen who came because I had difficulty understanding what this bill intended, and now I hear and was completely in agreement with Councilman Clarke's earlier statements. But he has now stricken B and I'm not sure which other section he struck. Could that be clarified for me at this time?
I believe that's to the amendments that were being proposed. You probably don't have a copy of them?
Bear with me a 22 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. moment while I get my other glasses on.
I believe that I heard a few moments ago this gentleman say that if the Planning Commission does not certify, the developer might take the plans to L&I, and whether L&I issued permits or not was essentially at L&I's discretion. Did I hear that correctly, sir?
You have the option in the development process to specifically waive Planning Commission approval if you do so in writing, and if you don't have it before actual building permits are issued, you'll have to obtain that. People will do that occasionally to go to the Zoning Board prior to. And 23 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. in this instance, it really is a moot point, because the scale and scope of a project of this size is such that it would not -- no one would be willing to take that level of risk on the dollars that would be involved in such a project. I've also spoken with counsel for the applicant in this matter. I know that that's not in their -- it's procedural what you could do. You can always walk in and say to L&I that we know we need Planning Commission approval, we want to waive that in order to have the matter considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustment and we'll go get it later, is really what happens. That you can do.
That certainly seems evasive and I would be much happier if this were in conformity with Councilman Clarke's wishes, and I'm certainly happy to endorse and support most vigorously what Councilman Clarke has proposed. 24 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, first, thank you for your endorsement of this particular process. As you know, we worked very closely with the Logan Square Community Association and all of the other neighbors.
And one of the things, as you know, this bill was put in place because of the process established by the various local communities, and as a result of our relationship, we don't proceed with an ordinance until we made sure that everybody -- there's a significant consensus. So my concern about this 25 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. particular bill, that it seems to add an additional process beyond the traditional Council approval. So what we're doing, Mr. Speaker, we're taking out that portion of the amendment recommended by the Administration that requires additional process with either Planning Commission or L&I. So as we agreed upon in our earlier discussion, the Council ordinance will be the final determining factor on this particular development.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this bill? (No response.)
11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. Seeing no one, we will now consider Bill 3 No. 090517.
Bill 090517, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Walnut Street, 42nd Street, Locust Street and 43rd Street.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 20 090517, which was introduced by Councilmember Blackwell June 18th, 2009. Bill No. 090517 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps for an area bounded by Walnut Street, 42nd Street, Locust Street and 43rd Street. The bill 27 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. will rezone properties along St. Marks Square from a zoning designation of "R-9" Residential to a designation of "R-9A" Residential. This is being done at the request of the residents of this block and the Spruce Hill Community Association in order to preserve the historic single-family character of this block. The properties included in this bill are all on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. At its meeting of July 21st, 2009, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill No. 090517 and recommended that it approved. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Kramer, to the best of your knowledge, are there any objections to the rezoning?
To the best of my 28 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. knowledge, no. There were no objections raised at our meeting in July.
Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you. Do we have anyone to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, we will now consider Bill 14 No. 090571.
Bill No. 090571, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Market Street, Farragut Street, Chestnut Street and 49th Street.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of 29 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 7 090571, which was introduced by Councilmember Blackwell on September 17th, 2009. Bill No. 090571 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps for an area bounded by Market Street, Farragut Street, Chestnut Street and 49th Street. The bill will rezone properties from a zoning designation of either "G-2" General Industrial or "C-2" Commercial to a zoning designation of "C-3" Commercial. The portions of the area currently zoned "R-9" Residential will retain that designation, as they represent existing residential properties. The purpose of the bill is to rezone the area in accordance with the recommendations of the "Walnut Hill Transit Oriented Development Planning Study." The 30 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. rezoning of the existing industrially and low-density commercial zoning to a designation of "C-3" Commercial will be consistent with the higher-density mixed-use development that is to be encouraged in the vicinity of mass transit hubs. There is a significant amount of either vacant land or vacant buildings in the area, as well as some low-density commercial uses, which it is hoped will be redeveloped at a more appropriate level of development given the proximity of mass transit. At its meeting of October 20th, 2009, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill No. 090571 and recommended that it be approved. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Kramer, are you aware of any plans to have this area designated as a 31 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. Transit-Oriented Development District in accordance with provisions of Bill No. 4 080130, which I understand is scheduled for a final passage this Thursday?
I have heard nothing along those lines at this time. It is possible in the future, but right now there has not been any indication that that's going to happen. This was a study that was done by the Planning Commission for a number of blocks in that area. There are a couple of -- across the street, across Market Street, the Kirkbride Center is currently also the subject of a rezoning bill that will also change the zoning designations along Market Street to "C-3," as well as changing the zoning designation of the Kirkbride Center to IDD. They were not made part of this bill because they were being handled separately. But there has been no discussion that I'm aware of to create an overlay district for this specific area. 32 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 090471.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 090471 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 25 090471 be reported out of committee with 33 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. a favorable recommendation; 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 and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 090472.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I would like to offer an amendment to Bill No. 090472. As earlier stated in the public hearing, Section B of that amendment shall be deleted. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. 34 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 13 090472, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for rules suspension to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 21 090472 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. 35 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 090517.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 090517 be reported out of this committee favorably and a request made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 20 090517 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; 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. 36 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 090571 be reported out of this committee favorably and a request made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 19 090571 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; 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.) 37 11/16/09 - RULES - BILL 090471, etc.
The ayes have it, the motion carries, and this concludes our public meeting. Thank you all very much. (Committee on Rules concluded at 10:45 a.m.) - - - 38 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on November 16, 2009, 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.)