COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Monday, April 24, 2006 12:01 p.m. - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - - - BILLS NO. 060088, 050341, 060260, 051062, 060140, 060142, 060162, 060115, 060182 - - - PRESENT: ANNA C. VERNA, Chair DARRELL L. CLARKE, Vice-Chair JACK KELLY JAMES F. KENNEY FRANK DiCICCO DONNA REED MILLER BRIAN J. O'NEILL - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2
Good morning, everyone. I do sincerely apologize for the delay. This is the Public Hearing of the Committee on Rules, and I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 8 050341. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 10 amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code entitled, "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600 entitled, "Miscellaneous," by adding a new section entitled "Lower and Central Germantown Special District Controls," all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself, for the record, and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the city Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill 3 BILL NO. 050341 - 4/24/06 No. 050341, which was introduced by Councilwoman Miller on April 28, 2005. Bill No. 050341 is a bill which creates another zoning overlay in the Zoning Code. This area would be bounded by Morris Street, Berkley Street, Baynton Street, and High Street. The following uses would be prohibited in all commercially zoned districts: Barber and beauty shops, check-cashing establishments, manicure/nail salons, retail sale of beauty products and/or wigs, sale of electronic equipment, retail sales of variety store merchandise, and take-out restaurants. The Planning Commission at its meeting of May 12, 2005, recommended that Bill 19 No. 050341 be tabled so that discussions could be held with the District Council member to obtain a better solution to the issues raised in the ordinance. The Planning Commission staff has met with Council member Miller and her staff several times to determine the most efficient 4 BILL NO. 050341 - 4/24/06 way to address the district's concerns. It was determined that the creation of an overlay may be the only way to address those concerns. As a product of the discussions, it was recommended that the ordinance be amended with a refinement of some of the language used in the creation of this overlay district. I submit the amendments at this time for consideration. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Okay. Any questions or comments from members of the committee regarding this bill and/or the amendment? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. The Planning Commission and my staff and the local CDC that has oversight in the Central Germantown business area have been meeting and talking for a number of months regarding what would best suit the needs of 5 BILL NO. 050341 - 4/24/06 this district. And they went out, the Planning Commission went out, did a survey, and was trying to look for other avenues or other things that we could do. We all agreed -- I mean, I knew it simply because I was born and raised in Germantown, seen how the district has changed over the years, have constantly complained about the large number of dollar stores and general merchandizing stores. And I always felt that the only thing that we could do to help revive this district was to do an overlay. And the Planning Commission actually agrees, after going out and looking around. We looked at remapping, looked at a couple of different avenues. So this is a bill that I support. I support the amendments. And I think it will just bring good things for the Germantown and Chelten business area. Thank you.
Okay. Any other comments or questions regarding this bill? 6 BILL NO. 060260 - 4/24/06 Seeing none, I thank you, Mr. Kramer. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060260. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 7 amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code entitled, "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-104 entitled, "Nonconforming Structures and Uses," by amending provisions relating to the reconstruction of nonconforming structures, all under certain terms and conditions.
Madam President, I would like to withdraw this bill. Councilman O'Neill has a bill that, actually, would basically do the same thing citywide. So we are going to withdraw this bill.
Okay. Thank you. It is my understanding, Councilwoman Miller -- wait a minute.
Make sure we have the right bill being withdrawn. 7 BILL NO. 060260 - 4/24/06
262, I have a note here that the bill is going to be held at the request of the sponsor. 260 is -- (Discussion off the record.)
Okay. Councilwoman, would you withdraw your motion, please.
Madam President, withdraw my motion to withdraw Bill 11 No. 060260.
Thank you. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of that Bill. MR. McPHERSON: 260?
260, yes. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 18 amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code entitled, "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-104 entitled, "Nonconforming Structures and Uses," by amending provisions relating to the reconstruction of nonconforming structures, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on 060260, which was introduced by Council Members O'Neill, Miller, Blackwell, Kelly, Tasco, Kenney, DiCicco, Rizzo, and Clarke, on April 6, 2006. This bill amends Section 104 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code by allowing for the reconstruction of nonconforming structures when they are less than two-thirds destroyed by fire or act of God or legally condemned, or in the case of single-family, duplex, or multiple-family dwellings where at 75 percent of the structures are in place on the block, regardless of the amount of the structure destroyed. The bill would also allow for the reconstruction without need to comply with 9 BILL NO. 051062 - 4/24/06 parking requirements, to the extent that such requirements did not previously apply to this structure prior to its destruction. The Planning Commission at its meeting of April 20, 2006, considered this bill and recommended its approval. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee regarding this bill? Okay. Seeing none. We will then go back to Bill No. 051062. Councilwoman Miller, I believe that's your bill.
Thank you, Madam President. I move to withdraw Bill No. 051062. It is similar to the bill that we just heard that Councilman Brian O'Neill introduced.
Thank you very much. We will now consider Bill No. 10 BILL NO. 060088 - 4/24/06 060088. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Broad Street, Lehigh Avenue, 24th Street, Fox Street, Hunting Park Avenue, and Erie Avenue.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill 17 060088, which was introduced by Council Member Reed Miller on February 9, 2006. This bill is a zone remapping bill 20 for the Tioga area of the city. It affects an area bounded by Broad Street, Lehigh Avenue, 24th Street, Fox Street, Hunting Park Avenue, and Erie Avenue. It covers approximately 655 acres that contain a large percentage of 11 BILL NO. 060088 - 4/24/06 industrially zoned properties surrounded by properties zoned either residentially ally or commercially. The primary industrial classification of this area is G-2 general industrial, and we would be recommending that that be rezoned to an L-3 limited industrial one. This is being done because of the proximity of the residential properties in the area. The bill also changes the residential zoning designations to better reflect the existing housing stock and the single-family nature of much of the area. Several large institutions currently zoned C-3 commercial are currently located in the boundaries of this bill and will retain the C-3 commercial classification. This bill is as a result of a collaborative effort between the Tioga United Community, Councilwoman Miller's staff, and the Planning Commission staff, who have worked together on this project since June of 2005. It has been presented to the Tioga 12 BILL NO. 060088 - 4/24/06 Neighborhood Civic Association at their meeting of February 23, 2006. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 30, 2006, considered and recommended approval of this bill. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. As your testimony states, the primary change reflected in the ordinance is the conversion of the G-2 general industrial classification to an L-3 limited industrial one. Are these changes related to any actual proposed development or are they simply what the Planning Commission believes should be the proper use, if there is any future developments?
The reason that we made or recommended the change to L3 was largely -- and most of the ones that we changed to L-3 were either vacant land or vacant industrial buildings. 13 BILL NO. 060088 - 4/24/06 The concerns the community had was the reuse of those properties. And with a G-2 general industrial classification, you would be allowed to do rather extensive industrial uses that permit the outdoor use -- or an outdoor changing of natural materials. Blast furnaces and the like are permitted in G-2. The L-3 classification is more of a classification that requires that you put two parts together, kind of a thing, where I buy one part from Company A, and Company B supplies another part, and I manufacture them in an L-3 setting. And that was the nature of why we were requesting or recommending that change. And the community wanted it, so that they did not want to see commercial development permitted as a matter of right. And that was the recommendation that we made.
Thank you. Is this area contiguous to or does it overlap any proposed site for casino gambling? If so, to what extent?
The Budd site, which is 14 BILL NO. 060088 - 4/24/06 immediately adjacent, and one block of which comes into this area, is being considered, as I understand it, one of the casino sites, amongst other development proposals for the Budd site. It is my understanding, as well, that Councilman Nutter has introduced a rezoning bill for that particular property. I believe he just introduced that last week. And that's going to be considered separately. This is adjacent. And the block of that particular -- the Budd site that, as an overall thing, could be considered part of the casino, is -- one block of that is in. But the portion of that Budd site that's within this area is to be used as part of a Temple University facility.
Does this present any problem regarding the Commonwealth's continuing attempts to preclude the city from having any zoning control over the site of a casino?
This would have no 25 bearing on it, in that the casino site is not 15 BILL NO. 060088 - 4/24/06 included in this bill at all.
Very good. Questions, comments? And I would like the record to reflect that we indeed have a quorum. To my immediate left, Councilman Kelly, Councilman Brian O'Neill; to my extreme right is Councilman Kenney, Councilwoman Miller, and Councilman Clarke. At this time the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you. Actually, the remapping in this part of Philadelphia is something that generated out of the community's interests. This is, evidently, prior to me becoming Council member. Years ago this was a heavily industrial area, lots of manufacturing plants that are now closed and vacant. And even though we have used Keystone Opportunity Zones and other kinds of state or city programs, we have had some manufacturers come, and there has been some development. But this is an 16 BILL NO. 060088 - 4/24/06 effort by the community. And, actually, they were not thinking about the casinos at all; they just wanting to make sure that, if development happens in their neighborhood, people just can't come in and use G-2 and do anything, just as a matter of right. So this is just part of our ongoing work with the Tioga United Community to revitalize that entire area. And, again, it has nothing to do with the Budd site and the casino that's been proposed. Thank you.
Glad you put that on the record. Thank you. No one indicated whether a -- the Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Mr. Kramer, I just want to note, what are the institutions, or the large institutions, that are currently zoned C-3 in that area?
There, essentially, are two. One is a shopping center that was at Broad and -- just a little north of or a 17 BILL NO. 060088 - 4/24/06 little -- excuse me, west of Lehigh Avenue, a major shopping center for the community. That's currently zoned C-3, and will remain that. Additionally, further north on -- further west on Broad Street is -- on one side of the Broad Street is Temple University, and it extends onto the other side of Broad Street. And it is those institutional uses that are going to be -- remain C-3, having to do all in connection with Temple University Hospital. Mostly parking garages at the moment; but there are also medical offices within those structures, I believe.
Okay. So that would probably remain C-3, then, with Temple. Okay. Thank you
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Kramer, did you say on both 18 BILL NO. 060115 - 4/24/06 sides of Broad Street?
The bill does not affect both sides of Broad Street. The institution exists on both sides of Broad Street.
Is there any need for a suspension of the Rules on this bill?
There is? I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060115. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 19 approving the third amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal for the Convention Center Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Market Street, Juniper Street, Commerce Street, 13th Street, Race Street, 12th Street, and Vine Street, including the third amendment to the renewal plan and the 19 BILL NO. 060115 - 4/24/06 second amendment to the relocation plan which provides for certain changes in the renewal plan; namely, a change in the permitted permanent land use, accessory uses, urban design, and architectural controls for the parcel located on the south side of Broad Street and the west side of 12th Street, the provision of certain relocation services as required by law and certain other minor revisions.
I have to say good afternoon. I am sorry you were kept waiting so long. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Herbert Wetzel. I am Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Madam President and members of the committee, I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 060115, which is the third amendment to the Redevelopment Proposal and Urban Renewal Plan for the Convention Center 20 BILL NO. 060115 - 4/24/06 Redevelopment Area and the Convention Center Renewal Area. There are no acquisitions included in this bill. However, the bill will amend the Urban Renewal Plan to allow for certain land use changes for the parcel located at the southwest corner of 12th and Arch Streets. The City Planning Commission on October 18, 2005, approved these changes. The bill will bring a proposal for a mixed-use development into conformity with the renewal plan. The development includes the construction of 65,000 square feet; about 135 parking spaces in a multi-story garage; 10,000 square feet of retail space; and approximately 150,000 square feet, one-hundred-unit high-rise residential building. Total development costs is approximately $34 million. No families or individuals will be displaced or relocated as part of this development plan. Madam President, the members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable 21 BILL NO. 060115 - 4/24/06 consideration of Bill No. 060115, and would ask for the suspension of Council Rules to allow first reading on April 27, 2006. Madam President, could I add something to this testimony?
When a redevelopment proposal is adopted by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Authority, sometimes it contains controls in that for the specific site or sometimes it contains controls for the whole urban renewal area. In this case this project initially started out being a site that was desirable for a Convention Center hotel. Over the years, it has become very clear that no more hotels, at least in the foreseeable future, are going to be built at this location. When it was initially leased to -- it was part of a two-part project there. One is the multi-story parking garage right behind the Marriott Hotel, and then this is the surface lot at the southwest corner of 12th and Arch. 22 BILL NO. 060115 - 4/24/06 An option was given to the Parkway Corporation initially to develop both sites. And they developed the parking, which is in use, and been in use for a number of years now. They came back to us and had an option to exercise acquisition of the surface lot because we leased it to them, we didn't sell it to them. However, their belief is, they could not build or get any interest in financing of a hotel, but they could get financing for a residential structure at that site, including parking and retail space. So what this essentially did, the initial proposal that was approved by ordinance of this Council, restricted the use of this site to commercial or hotel use. And this amendment now would allow for residential, as well as commercial use, including a multi-story parking garage. So it is not to acquire -- it is not an amendment of a redevelopment proposal to acquire anything; we are just amending the controls and the use at that particular 23 BILL NO. 060115 - 4/24/06 location.
All right. Mr. Wetzel, Section 7 in parens C of the bill 5 states that NTI funds can be used to forward this project. Are they being used? And, if so, in what amount?
No, they are not being used. It is not necessary to use them.
Can you briefly explain what the changes in the permitted permanent land use, accessory uses, urban design, and architectural controls are? You state the total project cost is $34 million. Can you please state how much goes to the parking garage, residential development, et cetera.
Let me answer the second part of your question first. I will get that information to you from the developer. I do not have it with me. The first thing is to change the land use from -- essentially from commercial, which would have limited it to hotel use, to 24 BILL NO. 060115 - 4/24/06 allow for commercial and residential. This would allow for the construction of residential units and allow for the developer to construct the parking garage and the retail space at the site. The second thing was that, we revised the land-use controls amending the setbacks, for example. The setbacks now will be 34 and four-fifths of a foot from 12th Street and 15.7 inches from the Arch Street curb line. Probably the key one to their ability to build this was, there was a height limitation of 120 feet that we're amending that you can build beyond 120 feet, but not exceed 380 feet. And, if you do that, you will have a 15 foot setback from the next building on 12th Street. There is a building with a ramp that goes up right next to that into the existing parking garage. And this requires that the new building continue to allow for a 12-foot separation between those two buildings on 12th Street. 25 BILL NO. 060115 - 4/24/06 Building materials and other things are always and have been subject to the Advisory Board of Review of the Redevelopment Authority, and they will continue to do so, reviewing the kinds of materials that are used in this particular area. And then there is a maximum of 9 foot width for any particular retail store 10 that would be built at that site. 11 So those are the changes in the 12 controls. And those would be subject to -- 13 the last two would be subject to the 14 Authority's Advisory Board of Design. 15
Mr. Wetzel, 16 currently what is the anticipated cost for the 17 Convention Center expansion, do you know? 18
I know that we will 19 know soon what the land cost is going to be. 20
It would be interesting to know what the sources of funding will be. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 700 million and rising.
I know that we are probably at the peak of the land value. One of the business owners, when we had meetings with the business owners, was very excited, believe it or not, that it was happening now, simply because he probably -- he said there probably isn't a better time, for the purposes of his real estate being acquired, than it would be now. So, it is not going to be inexpensive.
I guess not. 700 million. But does anybody know what the sources of funding will be? Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. That is part of the ongoing debate. It is primarily going to be, the funding primarily will come from the state, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. There is some discussion that has 27 BILL NO. 060115 - 4/24/06 been going on, and will continue to go on, as to what the city's portion may be required. There is a matching grant requirement. That is still being negotiated. I suspect that probably in the next two months, a more definitive breakout of where that money will be coming from should be known to all of us. But, it goes back and forth. But we are talking about $700 million. We originally started, I think, around 620 million, whatever. I don't know if we ever built it at $700 dollars. It may be something that has to get scaled back and be built for less. It is very fluid at this time, the whole discussion on the actual cost. They are looking at redesigning and other facets of the development to see exactly if they can nail down a specific number once and for all.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? 28 BILL NO. 060182 - 4/24/06 Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this bill? I don't think so. Okay. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060182. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of the following area of the city: An area generally bounded by Verree Road, Charette Road, Alicia Street, Alicia Street extended, and Marchman Road.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 060182, which was introduced by Councilman O'Neill March 9 of 2006. This bill is a zoning change bill 25 for the Bustleton area of the city. This is a 29 BILL NO. 060182 - 4/24/06 request to have the zoning designation for a property changed to reflect the development proposal for that property. The subject property is a 4-acre parcel of land that's being subdivided to allow for the construction of single-family 8 dwellings. 9 This bill would change the zoning 10 classification from a current R-2 11 classification, to an R-1 classification. The Planning Commission in its meeting of April 20, 2006, considered Bill No. 14 060182, and recommended approval. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Mr. Kramer, I believe you stated that the subject property would be subdivided for the construction of 11 single-family dwellings. Just out of curiosity, how many single-family dwellings could be constructed without the zoning change?
The R-2 to the R-1 classification, just based on area, would 30 BILL NO. 060182 - 4/24/06 allow you to probably double the amount of buildings you could build on this particular site; however, site constraints having to do with storm water management and placing on the street bills would make it a little more difficult to get an exact doubling of the number. So it would be -- there would be a number of additional units allowed to be constructed under the R-2 classification. An exact number, I don't know.
Can you tell us who the developer for the 11 single-family dwellings is?
The party at interest is an Amity Builders. Amity Builders, Inc. They are under the direction of an Andrew Kaye, K-A-Y-E.
What is the projected market cost for each of the dwellings?
Any questions or 31 BILL NO. 060140 - 4/24/06 comments from members of the committee? Is there any need for a suspension, to your knowledge?
To my knowledge, no, ma'am. Mr. McPherson, please read the title of Bill No. 060140. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 10 amending Section 14-305 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "'C-4' Commercial, and 'C-5' Commercial Districts," by deleting the provision that increased the permitted floor area of lots designated C-4 in the area bounded by Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Vine Street, Water Street, and Summer Street.
We do not have any testimony with regard to this bill. The Planning Commission did not consider it.
February 23. Councilman DiCicco's office and I have discussed this, and we had told him that we were not going to consider this. And they 32 BILL NO. 060142 - 4/24/06 were aware of that at this point.
While we are waiting, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060142. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Southampton Road, a railroad right-of-way, Hornig Road, and the Roosevelt Boulevard.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planning in the Development Planning Division of the city Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill 19 060142, which was introduced by Councilman O'Neill February 23, 2006. This bill is a zoning remapping bill 22 for the Somerton area of the city. It affects an area bounded by Southampton Road, a railroad right-of-way, Hornig Road, and the Roosevelt Boulevard. 33 BILL NO. 060142 - 4/24/06 It covers approximately 102 acres that are currently zoned R-5 residential, which will be changed to a designation of R-1 residential in an attempt to guide future development at this location. Currently the site is vacant land and recreational fields. The Planning Commission at its meeting of March 30, 2006, considered this bill and recommended approval. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Thank you. To the best of your knowledge, is there any developer who wishes to build here based on the proposed zoning changes? If so, do you know who that would be and for what purpose?
To the best of my knowledge, I have seen no plans for development for this site.
When it was zoned R-5? 34 BILL NO. 060162 - 4/24/06 I'm not certain. I would have to look that up. I can tell you, if you need to know.
Yes, if you can let me know. I know it hasn't been done since I was here. Okay.
All right. Any other questions or comments on this bill from members of the committee? I, therefore, would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 12 060162. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Worthington Road, the Poquessing Creek Park, Carter Road, and Southampton Road.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on 35 BILL NO. 060162 - 4/24/06 Bill No. 060162, which was introduced by Councilman O'Neill March 2, 2006. This bill is a zoning remapping bill 5 for the Somerton area of the city. It affects an area bounded by Worthington Road, the Poquessing Creek, Carter Road, and Southampton Road. This bill is rezoning a portion of the Somerton area in an attempt to maintain the existing character of the existing community in both density and in the quality of housing stock. The Planning Commission at its meeting of April 20, 2006, considered this bill and recommended approval. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Are there any development proposals for this area, to your knowledge?
This area has been developed; it is a well-established residential community. Part of the concerns in this area 36 BILL NO. 060162 - 4/24/06 have been individuals who have purchased individual lots, torn down the buildings, and rebuilt with two or more structures in their place. And this bill is an attempt to address that concern. I. Don't know of any specific ones in this particular bill, but there are -- that was the general concern in the area. This is part of a consideration of the entire Somerton area, as well. So this is probably one of a series of bills that will address those concerns.
So no one will be adversely affected by this zoning change?
Except maybe a developer. A developer might be, who wanted to buy a house and tear it down, and build three in its place that don't match anything in the neighborhood. Mr. Kramer, how much of Somerton is still left? And will it be done in more than 37 BILL NO. 060140 - 4/24/06 one bill; for remapping purposes, that is?
It is my understanding from my staff that there are probably four or five bills at least that will then be considered for this. It depends on how much of an area at one time that's going to be done, and that I don't have specifics on.
Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Councilman DiCicco, Mr. Kramer. We called up Bill No. 060140, and Mr. Kramer indicated that he had been discussing this matter with you. It is your desire, we are told, and I would like you to let us know, if you want this held or -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No, we are not asking it to be held. If you recall, Madam President, a 38 BILL NO. 060140 - 4/24/06 few months ago there was a bill that related to the same site, where representatives of Old City and the Franklin Bridge Neighborhood Association came in in opposition to this project, which is just north of the Ben Franklin Bridge, almost up against the abutment. And their concern was that bill 10 would have, in their opinion, set precedent for three or four other sites that would allow for a greater amount of floor-to-area ratio being built on. We have since worked out the details with the community. So we are repealing that bill and moving forward with this bill, which will allow the project to go forward with full support from the community. Does that make sense?
No. 21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you remember that? We had a scale model up here, and they were concerned about the view of the abutment of the bridge, et cetera. And it really had to do more with 39 BILL NO. 060140 - 4/24/06 setting precedent than their opposition to the project itself.
Mr. Kramer, in view of what the Councilman has just said, do you have a statement to make?
We have no objection to the passage of the bill, if that would assist Council.
Okay. Very well. Any questions from members of the committee? Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We would ask for a suspension.
I believe that's it. This will conclude the Public Hearing of the Rules Committee. - - - 40 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING of the COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Monday, April 25, 2006 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 060088, 050341, 060260, 060140, 060142, 060162, 060115, 060182 - - - PRESENT: ANNA C. VERNA, Chair DARRELL L. CLARKE, Vice-Chair JACK KELLY JAMES F. KENNEY DONNA REED MILLER BRIAN J. O'NEILL - - - 41 PUBLIC MEETING - 4/26/06
We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 050341.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move for the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 050341. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
I move that Bill 20 No. 050341, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for Rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved 42 PUBLIC MEETING - 4/26/06 and seconded that Bill No. 050341 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation as amended and 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. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
I move that Bill 14 No. 060260 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for Rules suspension as to allow first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060260 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, further a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to allow first reading at our next session of Council. 43 PUBLIC MEETING - 4/26/06 All in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 051062.
At the request of the sponsor, that bill has been withdrawn. Councilman Clarke, again I recognize you regarding Bill No. 060088.
I move that Bill 15 No. 060088 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for Rules suspension so as to allow first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060088 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. 44 PUBLIC MEETING - 4/26/06 All in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060115.
I move that Bill 9 No. 060115 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for Rules suspension as to allow first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060115 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, further a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. Those opposed?
The record will indicate that Councilman Kenney is abstaining. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060182.
I move that Bill 12 No. 060182 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for Rules suspension so as to allow first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060182 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. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion 46 PUBLIC MEETING - 4/26/06 carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060140.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 060140 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request for Rules suspension so as to allow first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060140 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. Those opposed? The ayes have it, the motion carries. We will now consider Bill No. 22 060142, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
I move that Bill 25 No. 060142 be reported out of committee with a 47 PUBLIC MEETING - 4/26/06 favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060142 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060162.
I move that Bill 15 No. 060162 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 060162 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. 48 PUBLIC MEETING - 4/26/06 Thank you all very much. (Public Meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m.) - - - 49 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Monday, April 24, 2006, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES _________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD