COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, 5/29/02, 10:31 a.m. - - - BILL 010424 - Held to call of sponsor. BILL 020166 - Establishing PRIDE NID. BILL 020183 - Re. Manayunk Special Services Dist. BILL 020225 - RC-3 Residential Districts. BILL 020226 - Amending Philadelphia Zoning Maps... BILL 020278 - Recessed to 6/5/02 hearing. BILL 020283 - " " " " RES. 020205 - Appoint Robert Zuritsky Philadelphia Municipal Authority Board. RES. 020206 - Appoint James Baker to Hospitals and Higher Ed. Facilities Authority Board of Phila. (Complete text of all bills and resolutions attached hereto.) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 5/29/02 RULES COMMITTEE MEETING - INDEX WITNESS RES. 020205, 020206 Augusta Clark, Secretary, AABC............... BILL 010424 Thomas Chapman, City Planning................ 15 Dan Garofalo, Community Design Collaborative 58 Kim Soeffing, Preservation Alliance.......... 72 D. O'Donnell, Queen Village Neighbors Assoc. 76 Beth Miller, Community Design Collaborative 78 Adam Schneider, Center City Residents Assoc. 83 Allen Woodruff, Haskell-Dawes Corporation 86 Karen Fegely, PIDC........................... 89 Art Dejart, Active Radiator Company.......... 92 William Scheck, Concerned Citizen............ 98 Joan Samp, Tioga Fuel Company................ 108 BILL 020183 K. Smith, Manayunk Special Services District 28 BILL 020225 Thomas Chapman, City Planning................ 30 BILL 020226 Thomas Chapman, City Planning................ 32 James Tollett, Winter Investment............. 34 C. Primavera, Esq., Counsel, Winter Investment 34 M. Greenfield, East Falls Community Council 39 BILL 020278 Thomas Chapman, City Planning................ 110 H. Portner, Esq., Counsel, Hanavarian Corp. 116 D. Metzger, Representative, " " 117 3 5/29/02 RULES - RES. 020205, 020206
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the Council Committee on Rules. The quorum consists of Councilmember Cohen, Councilmember Clarke, Councilmember DiCicco, Councilmember Nutter, and myself as vice chairman, Councilman Kenney. First we will deal with two resolutions. The first one is Resolution No. 020205, a resolution 10 appointing Robert Zuritsky to the Board of Directors of the Philadelphia Municipal Authority; and Resolution No. 020206, a resolution 13 appointing James P. Baker to the Board of Directors of the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia. And we ask that the Administration witnesses to please come forward. (Witness comes forward.)
I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome back Secretary Clark -- not to the best chambers in the building, but it will serve the purpose nonetheless. Welcome back and thank you for testifying today. SECRETARY CLARK: Oh, Thank you so much. 4 5/29/02 RULES - RES. 020205, 020206 I feel comfortable here too.
Good. Thank you. SECRETARY CLARK: Although the room is cramped. SECRETARY CLARK: It is my pleasure, sir, to testify. My name is Augusta Clark, and I'm Secretary of Agencies, Authorities, Boards, and Commissions. I'm pleased to present before this honorable body the name and qualifications of Robert A. Zuritsky, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Parkway Corporation, for appointment to the Philadelphia Municipal Authorities Board. Mr. Zuritsky is the third generation of an outstanding family tradition of providing parking facilities and services in Philadelphia. He began working around the lots at age 10 and has since progressed through the ranks to his present leadership position where he oversees every aspect of company operations from accounting and personnel to business development. His background, training, and experience have prepared him well to promote Parkway's growth through the creation and 5 5/29/02 RULES - RES. 020205, 020206 implementation of the company's strategic plan. Robert Zuritsky earned a bachelor's of science degree from the University of Maryland and an MBA from Temple. He keeps himself abreast of current developments and parking and real estate by his personal involvement in the affairs and projects of the NPA and the Urban Land Institute. His civic and charitable contributions are wide and varied and include the Jewish National Fund. The Perlman Jewish Day School, and chairmanship of Parkway Corporation's United Way campaign annually. By nurture and by nature -- I like that, Mr. Kenney --
I always admired your delivery. SECRETARY CLARK: Thank you. By nurture and by nature, Mr. Zuritsky is well prepared to make significant contributions to the Municipal Authority Board. He is keenly aware that as a member of this five-member board, he would serve a five-year turn, beginning in 2002 and ending in 2007, if and when he is confirmed by City Council. The Municipal Authority was incorporated 6 5/29/02 RULES - RES. 020205, 020206 in 1975 as the Equipment Leasing Corporation of Philadelphia, pursuant to the Municipal Authority's Act of 1945, and renamed by Council ordinance of 1983. Its business is leasing equipment to the City of Philadelphia, managing disposable refuse, and managing facilities and equipment for the Criminal Justice Center system. Thank you for this opportunity to share the interests and experience of a man who would enhance the Municipal Authority. I am personally pleased to present his qualifications to you and hope that you will concur and confirm him for membership on the Philadelphia Municipal Authority.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Is Mr. Zuritsky here? SECRETARY CLARK: Yes, he is here.
(Addressing Mr. Zuritsky.) Would you like to present yourself, or do you have anything to say? It's not necessary; only if you'd like to. (Mr. Zuritsky indicates no 24 desire to add to record.)
Okay. 7 5/29/02 RULES - RES. 020205, 020206 SECRETARY CLARK: For the sake of members of City Council, this is Bob Zuritsky; you know that name from his (indiscernible).
Yes, sir. SECRETARY CLARK: And he will be certainly willing to answer any questions about his qualifications and willingness to serve in this important spot.
Are there any questions for this witness about Mr. Zuritsky? (No questions.)
Seeing none, we thank you. And we will be happy to hear testimony on Mr. Baker now. SECRETARY CLARK: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Kenney.
Good morning. SECRETARY CLARK: My name is still Augusta Clark, and I'm still Secretary of AABC -- Agencies, Authorities, Boards, and Commission. I'm happy to appear before this honorable body to support the appointment and confirmation of James P. Baker, Jr. to a five-year 8 5/29/02 RULES - RES. 020205, 020206 term beginning 2002 and ending 2007 on the Board of Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority. This authority is a body which was incorporated under the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Act of 1945, PL 382 as amended and supplemented, and by an ordinance of Philadelphia City Council approved on January 28, 1974. The purpose of the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority is to acquire, hold, construct, finance, improve, maintain, and lease in the capacity of either lessor or lessee projects including hospitals, certain not-for-profit subacute health-care facilities and certain higher-education institutions. Its role is to issue tax-exempt bonds on behalf of such 501(c)(3) institutions. Mr. Baker is, by training, experience, and interest, an excellent candidate for board membership to join Chairman Bob Vogel, a newspaper publisher, physicians Maurice Clifford and Theodore Burden, and Manuel Stamitakis, business and civic leader. He's well educated, has received his MBA degree from Wharton School University of Pennsylvania, and his BS in electrical engineering with high honors from Drexel. 9 5/29/02 RULES - RES. 020205, 020206 He held responsible positions in the medical supplies and equipment industry, working his way up to leadership of one of the giants in the field, Johnson and Johnson. Since 1988, Jim Baker has been the principal at James P. Baker & Associates, a management-consulting firm which specializes business development, start-up, and problem-solving for a wide range of clients, from government agencies, not-for-profit organizations, and political campaigns. His civic involvement includes leadership and causes to fight drug addiction and promoting programs for the improvement of children's services. A hard-working, thinking man, James P. Baker would be an asset to this board, and I am personally pleased to present his qualifications to you in the hope that you would concur and confirm him for the Board of Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities. Thank you.
Thank you very much. SECRETARY CLARK: I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for your 10 5/29/02 RULES - RES. 020205, 020206 testimony. Mr. Baker, if there's anything you would like to add? I think it's all been said.
Hello. We all know you. Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Seeing none, we thank you for coming in and for your testimony. SECRETARY CLARK: Thank you. And thank you for your courtesies.
You're welcome. Our pleasure. SECRETARY CLARK: All right. Let's get out of here. (Laughter.)
While the getting's good. SECRETARY CLARK: While the getting's good -- I know what happens at this table.
We will now hear testimony on proposed Ordinance 020424, which is an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code 11 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 entitled "Zoning and Planning." Let me ask a question. On 424, how many people are here to testify?
And how about on 020166, anybody? I'd rather take the public first. This is 010424, an ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning 10 and Planning," by adding a new chapter providing for 11 the creation of neighborhood residential 12 preservation and revitalization overlay districts, 13 providing for the adoption of design guidelines for 14 properties within such districts, and requiring special permits to alter the exterior of a building within such a district or to construct a building within such a district so as to ensure compliance with the design guidelines, all under certain terms and conditions. Could we please have the Administration testimony. Thank you. (Witness comes forward.)
Mr. Chairman, I 12 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 just would like to read into the record a brief statement as to the intent of the RPROD bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The residential preservation and revitalization district, known as "RPROD ordinance," creates a critical link between the efforts to develop, revitalize, preserve and conserve the many diverse and historic neighborhoods in the City. I believe that this will go a long way in enhancing opportunities to attract and retain residents, employers, and employees, and to inspire civic pride. RPRODs, I believe, fit within the goals of the Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, NTI. NTI shows how the public and private sector can work together to offset decades of decline and neglect. The City of Philadelphia, as we know, is a city of neighborhoods -- it probably is the city of neighborhoods. It also is a city of homeowners, and the homeowners, I believe, have a right to protect their investment and engage in whatever happens beyond their front steps -- or stoops, depending on what neighborhood you live in. 13 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 It is incumbent, I believe, upon the City to encourage multi-individual acts of reinvestment, maintenance, and improvements to maintain our neighborhoods and sustain the transformation efforts. I believe that RPRODs will strengthen local resources, civic engagement, and overall neighborhood commitment through community participation and organization. The underlying principle of NTI is neighborhood preservation and restoration. RPRODs provide an important tool for neighborhood groups and civic associations to sustain these preservation efforts. Residents can take matters into their own hands to protect their investments and stimulate the local investment. Those dedicated to improving quality of place can now strengthen their commitment to appreciating housing markets and personal investments. NTI describes a continuum of housing market types ranging from regional choice to reclamation. There has been much speculation regarding the blight-reduction component of the process. However, demolition, encapsulation, and stabilization are strategies for more than 14 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 reclamation of neighborhoods. At the other end of the housing-market spectrum are neighborhoods of regional choice. Such neighborhoods are likely to be well-organized and have established civic associations. And I believe, in some instances, these neighborhoods have already taken advantage of their local historical resources and established historical districts to preserve and protect local identity. But not all neighborhoods are eligible for historical district status. RPRODs offer an alternative for newly emerging and established residents associations. In many instances, throughout the City's 64 neighborhoods, housing market type falls somewhere in between regional choice and reclamation. Promoting civic engagement, individual residents and business owners will be encouraged to lend themselves to local associations in order to take a stake in decisions regarding demolition, encapsulation, and stabilization of their neighborhoods. I believe that overall, RPROD's complement renewed dedication to neighborhoods revitalization and the vision of neighborhood 15 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 transformation. This new tool will join local residents, City agencies, and other community-based stakeholders in neighborhood reinvestment and revitalization.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules Committee.
My name is Thomas Chapman and I am the Director of the Development and Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 010424. This bill establishes a new Chapter 18 14-1200, entitled "Residential Preservation and Revitalization Districts," also know known as "RPROD." This new section of the Zoning Code would establish a process whereby community would be able to codify community design guidelines through the enactment of an overlay by ordinance of City Council. All new construction and all facade alterations would be the subject of a review for 16 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 compliance under the desired guideline requirements. This bill does not establish any individual RPROD; it establishes the procedure to create individual districts. A community interested in establishing an RPROD would initiate the process by filing a petition to City Council signed by representatives of at least percent of the dwelling units in the 10 proposed RPROD area and 10 percent of all the owner-occupied dwelling units. A petition of 51 percent of the dwelling units or owner-occupied units of those living in a proposed RPROD would be required to defeat a proposal. Additional minimum requirements to establish an RPROD include: A minimum proposed district area of two blocks by two blocks; At least 60 percent of the residential buildings within the proposed RPROD must be at least 30 years old; At least 60 percent of the residential buildings within a proposed RPROD must be occupied. The Planning Commission and the Historical Commission are required to make staff available to assist community groups in developing 17 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 design guidelines. The Planning Commission and the Historical Commission are given 30 days to review and comment on the proposed guidelines. Upon the enactment of an RPROD, the City Planning Commission serves as the agency that determines whether design guidelines have been complied with when applications for new construction or facade alterations are submitted to Licenses and Inspections. After careful consideration and discussion, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 22, 2002, recommended that this bill be disapproved for the following reasons: The Commission views this as another barrier to development in the City and believes it could lead to process that would result in no 18 as-of-right development.
Mr. Chairman, could I ask that that sentence be reread -- the one you're reading now, the beginning of it.
Could you just go back to the last sentence and please reread it.
Sure. After careful consideration and 18 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 discussion, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 22, 2002, recommended that this bill be disapproved for the following reasons: The Commission views this as another barrier to development in the City and believes that it could lead to a process that would result in no 8 as-of-right development within a particular community. The Commission believes that an RPROD could be written so as to override the provisions of the Zoning Code in that if the standards of an RPROD are more restrictive than the requirements of the underlying zoning, the RPROD restrictions would be applicable. For example, an RPROD could require a 20-foot setback when the underlying zoning designation of the property requires only an 8-foot setback. It could require a two-story building, when the designation of the property allows a 3-story building. We believe that a process such as this is contrary to our goal of making the development process in the City easier. It adds another step in this process. Where you once might have been able to 19 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 go to an L&I district office for a building permit, at a minimum, you will also now have to come into Center City for a review by the Planning Commission. We believe that we are being asked to approve a framework here without knowing exactly what it will entail. It's impossible to tell the impact that that legislation will have on the Planning Commission's staff time in terms of reviewing RPROD proposals, assisting communities in drafting RPROD proposals, and reviewing submissions upon the enactment of an RPROD. There are no standards for those who write the design guidelines for a community. While the legislation does require the assistance of the Planning Commission and the Historical Commission in the drafting of an RPROD district, it does not require that design standards be written by design professionals. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Thank you, 20 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 Mr. Chairman. Typically, if an individual wants to change the use of a building, they're know required to apply for a variance, in most cases; I mean, generally speaking; is that correct?
They are required. They would be required to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and seek a variance. If the size -- you mentioned in your testimony that if someone wants to put a two-story building on a block where there are three-story buildings or vice versa, that the RPROD could be somewhat cumbersome or can prevent or slow down the process for development.
So if I have a building that is 35-foot in South Philadelphia, and I want to put a deck on it -- which I did on my house and had to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustments. And there's a public notice and the public is involved in that process.
Correct, I would agree with that. 21 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424
All right. What RPROD to me says is that it just might add to the public process, which, I think, is more important here than anything else to say, Well, it's one thing if you want to change the size and/or use of the property, but in doing so, we expect that you do it manner that is complementary, if you will, to the other properties in the immediate vicinity. And I'll use South Broad Street, south of Washington Avenue, in South Philadelphia as an example, and there are many examples throughout the City -- you could take Strawberry Mansion, Girard Estates, Northeast Philadelphia. Every neighborhood has its own unique characteristic, in most cases, in the facade treatment of that neighborhood. There are many, many brownstone buildings on South Broad Street in South Philadelphia south of Washington Avenue, which is probably one of the bigger reasons that I decided to do this bill was, I have watched the decimation, if you will, for lack of a better word, of these beautiful brownstone when people who may not even be residing there but bought these properties as investment properties, made conversations to 22 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 multi-family dwellings, and wanted to do it "on the cheap," as I refer to it, and not have to deal with restoring or repairing the brownstone which, I will admit, can be expensive, and I'm picking probably the most expensive restoration that you have to do, so they decided to cover the brownstone facade with aluminum siding. And on a block that has maybe 60 properties, 30 on each side, on the east side and west side, so it's a community of 60 properties, and you now have one or two properties that are kind of like right in the middle of the block with aluminum siding. And it just really detracts, I think, from not only the style of the facades but the character of the community. And in doing so, I believe it has -- it causes devaluation of the properties, not only of the property that has the aluminum siding, but of the properties as well. And what I'm getting at is, we go through these processes all the time, where someone wants to build a new home on a block, and a notice gets posted. The community, if there's a community association, and in most neighborhoods, there are in the City of Philadelphia, and we're fortunate to 23 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 have that. People are involved in the process. And I see David O'Donnell from Queen Village is here. I know that there's a gentleman who lives in Queen Village, has lived there for a number of years, has done a lot of great work, but he wants to take a building and tear it down because he says he can't save the building, and there's a conflict between the people in the community as to whether it should remain because it has historical significance, even though, according to the developer, he can't save the building in its present form, and it needs to be demolished. So what I'm saying is, I don't think that this is something that is -- that would in any way be impeding development. I think, if anything, this could enhance it by maintaining the integrity of what that community people find attractive about that community. Some people find rowhouses with red brick, pointed brick attractive, and I was telling my colleague Councilman Clarke yesterday that at the corner of 12th and Titan in South Philadelphia, there was this beautiful red-brick building with these kind of arch-shaped brownstone headers. The 24 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 owner of the building decided to paint the building gray. And the entire block of Titan Street, the 1100 block, a lot of new young people have moved in and they like the character of the neighborhood and the facades and the kind of -- it almost looks historical, the street, and the man comes along and decides to paint the building gray. Well, under RPROD, I don't think he would be able to do that as quickly and as easily as he.
And it's not because we're trying the take away the rights of people who own their properties to do things that they may want to do with their property, but really was it does is, it sets some guidelines and says, Well, if you're going to paint the building, maybe you can't do it gray, but you have to do something that is complementary to the rest of the building. And if you're going to change the windows, replace the windows, you know, you can't take the five-foot high window and replace it with a two-and-a-half-foot or three-foot high window and cinder-block up the bottom and paint the cinder block or just put a coat of cement across it because it does something that I think is almost criminal 25 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 when you see what some people do to these buildings. We have historical preservation, we have historical districts, which we encourage. Why not for those neighborhoods and those communities that don't qualify, or can't qualify, as historical neighborhoods, to give them some ability to maintain and protect the investment that they have and to continue to keep that community as a unique community. And I know that some people have found some problems with this, and we have been working for a long time with the Planning Commission, the Preservation Alliance. And community groups, and we've got a whole boatload of amendments that we're preparing to do. But I just want everybody to know that my intention was really to continue to maintain what I think is really neat about Philadelphia. And, again, I look at South Broad Street, and signage was the other reason. In some areas of South Broad Street, as in many other neighborhoods, you have the mixed use of single-family residential or multi-family residential with some commercial retail, and the signage along Broad Street next to a beautiful 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 brownstone -- again, I'm using this as an example -- for a tax return business at Broad and Moore is --
The banners that go up. And it's criminal. So, really, the signage was the first thing that attracted my attention to the problem, and then as I continue to look -- and, you know, I was born and raised down there, and I remember all the changes that have been made, and I thought that we needed to do something to empower people within the boundaries of their community to do some of the things that you're able to do by way of historical preservation districts, because, again, not every community qualifies for that. And we don't want to cut the Planning Commission out, and I'm not suggesting that you're suggesting that, but we don't want to cut anybody out of it, but we want to include, if anything, I 27 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 010424 think is the word here, to include the community organizations into maintaining the integrity of their community. And I guess it sounds more like an opening speech than a -- but I just wanted to respond that we want to continue to work with the Planning Commission. It will take some time for these RPRODs to develop. I don't expect every neighborhood is going to do it. In my district, I think there will be quite a few because I happen to represent the district that's probably -- cumulatively probably one of the -- has some of the oldest neighborhoods in the City of Philadelphia because it boarders the Delaware River, where the colony first started. So, you know, outside of Society Hill, which now has a historical status, I want to help Queen Village, I want to help the Ninth Street market neighborhoods and the other neighborhoods around there in order to protect and preserve, again, the integrity of their communities.
I'm going to ask for your indulgence for one moment. It was brought to my attention that we 28 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020183 have three bills that are not controversial, that are very quick-hitters. And in deference to the people who are here, I just want to run right through them if we possibly can. So we're going to suspend the testimony on this bill for a moment, and we're going to move very quickly to Bill No. 020183, which is an ordinance approving a new plan, estimated costs, and proposed method of charges of the Manayunk Special Services District for and concerning business improvements and the administrative services to the Manayunk Business District of the City of Philadelphia. So please come forward to testify. (Witnesses come forward.)
My name is Kay Smith, and I represent the Manayunk Special Services District and the Manayunk Development Corporation. I'll just read into -- my testimony.
Why don't you -- we can read that and make sure it's in the record. Why 29 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020183 don't you just, you know, quickly run through it.
Oh, okay. We're authorizing a new plan and budget for the next five years for the Manayunk Special Services District to operate under. And, I mean, I -- basically what the testimony talks about is what it's going to cover. It covers the clean and the safe and the marketing and a lot of the pieces of what we do. And then this also documents the public process we went through.
Okay. Are there any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 020225. 30 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020225 Thank you.
Bill 020225 is an ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia 6 Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending 7 Chapter 14-200,entitled "Residential Districts," by 8 amending Section 14-223, entitled "RC-3 Residential 9 District," by making certain technical amendments 10 under certain terms and conditions. 11 Please identify yourself for the record. 12
Good morning, Mr. Chairman 13 and members of the Rules Committee. My name is 14 Thomas Chapman, and I am the Director of the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 17 020225. This bill was introduced by Councilmember Nutter on April 11, 2002. This bill 20 amends the provisions of the RC-3 Residential section of the Zoning Code. The main purpose of this bill is to remove the requirements for yards and courts in buildings and in additions to buildings when the lot coverage is less than 60 percent. This change in 31 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020225 the code would allow for a more effective use of open space in developments where lot coverage is less than 60 percent of the lot. It would allow for greater flexibility in the design of the open space since the larger portion of the site is devoted to open space. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 17, 2002 reviewed, this bill and recommends that had it be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions from the committee.
Thank you very much. Councilman, do you have any comment?
Next is Bill No. 3 020226, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Roosevelt Boulevard, a railroad right-of-way, Scotts Lane, and Ridge Avenue. Please identify yourself for the record.
Once again, Mr. Chairman and members of Rules Committee, good morning. My name is Thomas Chapman, and I am the Director of the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify today on Bill No. 14 020226. This bill was introduced by Councilmember Nutter on April 11, 2002. This bill 17 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of a 12.9-acre parcel of ground from RC-6 residential to RC-3 residential. The purpose of this bill is to allow for the further residential development of this site. This site will be developed with 283 new residential units, off-street parking, and retail commercial space along the Ridge Avenue frontage of the property. 33 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020226 Members of the committee might recall this is known as the Chelsea or Dobson Mills site, and it's right along Ridge Avenue, immediately adjacent to the Schuylkill Expressway. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 17, 2002, reviewed this bill and recommended that it be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee of this witness? Councilmember Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question. Will this new development require any demolition of the existing buildings?
Yes, it will. There are a number of buildings on the site that will be demolished.
Is that on the backside or the side closest towards the expressway? You said the side closest to Scotts Lane.
I might defer this question to the representatives of the developer 34 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020226 here, but I believe that demolition is scheduled and buildings kind of scattered through the site.
Is there someone from the company that can please come forward? (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. My name is James Tollett. I'm with Winter Investment and represent the developer. I'm here with Carl Primavera from Klehr Harrison, who's our representative.
Yes. If I may, I'll let James speak as to the details. We also have Meg Greenfield who's here as a representative of the community. We've worked very closely with the East Falls Community Council. But, James, if you could just briefly describe the plan, and I know Bill Kramer has the drawings, and talk about the existing units that were developed by Rouse and then the buildings which had fallen fallow for the last 20 years, which are in dangerous neglect and what you plan to do to bring 300 units of new construction residential into 35 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020226 the City. And I'll pass out a plan as we do that.
Sure. It might be best if I go to the plan and show you -- or, better yet, Bill can show you that we have three buildings on site that currently contain 131 rental lofts, and they are positioned here (indicating). There is also an existing structured parking here (indicating). There are buildings scattered around; some of them are collapsed, some of them are already gone. We will be removing any foundation or other buildings that are along Ridge Avenue and along the former Crawford Street, which has been abandoned and stricken.
Councilmember Clarke's question had to do with demolition.
Yeah, maybe you could point to the buildings that are currently vacant. There was one building that, I guess, a year ago fell into the street just through its own 36 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020226 lack of support. So, quite frankly, we have a purchase agreement with the seller, but we're anxious to complete that before the other buildings collapse. We have photographs showing when you walk in -- well, you wouldn't walk in, but when you look in, you see the sky; there's no roof.
The buildings are scattered around the site. And the idea is to remove those buildings and replace them, not with identical buildings, but with sympathetic buildings. And we're going to try to reincorporate a lot of the same design elements, the stone. We're going to hold that Ridge Avenue wall, as you see in the drawing, so that it --
Yeah, I was going to ask this. Is this Ridge Avenue as it exists?
Yes. And as you'll hear from Ms. Greenfield, the community has been adamant, and we have acquiesced that they want to maintain the commercial on the ground level so you will be able to have this environment where you can walk up and down Ridge Avenue and shop. And yet, with the development, as planned, you'll have residential 37 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020226 above so that you'll have people there all the time. And what we think it's really going to do is accelerate the development of East Falls in a very positive way. So, you know, there is the demolition, which we look at as a positive thing. There is going to be cleanup of the site, which we also look at as a positive thing. Originally this was done as a historic rehab. The cost of that caused Mr. Rouse to go into default. And with all respect to him, if he couldn't do it, nobody in the City could.
So it was left for 16 years with a power company as a real-estate asset, 17 and it's been a hundred percent occupied, which is 18 amazing to show the demand for housing in this 19 neighborhood. Yet the cost of doing the historic 20 rehab was prohibitive. So the plan that we envision, with the community's support, is to take what's left of the abandoned buildings and allow them to be removed and replace them with new buildings. It's going to be, I think, a real feather in the community's cap to 38 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020226 have this type of development.
Well, if there's going to be retail along Ridge Avenue, will the sidewalk be widened? It's kind of narrow at that location.
It's set right at the curb, right? When you go past the bridge and it's at the curb when you're coming down Ridge Avenue?
That's correct. That's the Roosevelt -- that's the twin bridges up here.
The sidewalk -- I couldn't tell you, honestly, if it's being widened or not. It will certainly be improved. I believe there's an eight-foot walk there now. We are setting the buildings slightly back to create a little more open space and to provide some streetscape, which we are actively participating in with the East Falls community.
One thing. I forgot to 39 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020226 mention Councilman Nutter, who's been unusually quiet, but we've been working with his office, and he's been a pleasure and a delight. I want to say that just because it may have been the first time I've had the chance to publicly say it.
Yeah. We had a deal: I'd ask the questions and he'd just kind of sit back and listen. It's a very exciting proposal.
Could we have Meg join us? It's really in appreciation. I don't want to say the countless hours that she and her group put towards collaborative effort, but, you know, I get paid for what I do, but Meg, in doing this, is a volunteer, and I can tell you that in addition to working long and hard with the community, she's just been there for us every step of the way. (Addressing Ms. Greenfield.) So James wanted to make sure I thanked you publicly for that.
Thank you. My name is -- I'm really Marjorie; I go by "Meg." I am the 40 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020226 newly-elected president of East Falls Community Council and have been chairing its Zoning and Land Use Committee. This project was brought to us -- and I guess they found out about Community Council from Councilman Nutter's office, but they did come to us, Mr. Tollett, and the owner of the company came to us, brought us their plans. Originally, they didn't plan to have any commercial along Ridge Avenue. We told them we really needed it. It's in the zoning now as a result of some changes that were made a couple of years ago, and it's really critical to our development of that area of Ridge Avenue. They said they would keep it. We also raised the question of the historical significance of the buildings, and they agreed to incorporate the stone either from the buildings they're tearing down or the same type of stone in the new building. We have gone over the design plans with them, we've discussed what kinds of tenants we want, and we have also discussed with them use of the corner property at Scotts between the railroad bridge and Scotts Lane and Ridge Avenue. And we've 41 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020226 been negotiating at length a detailed agreement between the community and Winter Investments. We believe we are 95 percent there, and we approved these -- both bills, subject to that agreement being signed. And we expect that that will happen very promptly. So we think this will be great for the community. It's certainly great for the tax ratables and everything else. If you have any questions.
Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for this witness? Councilman Nutter?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Ms. Greenfield, thank you for coming in today, and we welcome to have your testimony as the recently-elected president of the East Falls Community Council. We'll be seeing more of you under these circumstances. Secondly, Mr. Primavera, let me also say for the record that I like you... ... today. 42 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020226 (Laughter.)
And I look forward to other opportunities to work with you. Just one quick question. Given what you laid out in terms of the history of the site, excessive costs to develop, and obviously leading to a long period of time where there was no activity there, this is all being privately financed?
Yes, that's correct. Frederick Gautier, who Marjorie referred to, is the principal. He came up in the series of meetings and explained that he has private financing. He has similar projects in Cleveland, Columbus, and Houston, and he's strictly a conventional developer that borrows money, pays it back, and the banks are happy to lend. The pro forma on this project is very strong because, as I said before, I think there's a waiting list to get into these units, and people realize that this neighborhood has just so much going for it. So we're excited about it and, you know, we're hoping to conclude our deal with the seller and get moving on it very quickly. And that's why 43 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020226 we appreciate being able to be here today.
Two last questions. One, you anticipate that these are going to be market-rate apartments?
That's correct. That's the only type of development that this company does.
And do you have, within a range, any general anticipation of what you think the rents will be?
James, what do you think the average unit would be? Expensive. We have a lot of athletes, you know, currently staying, things like that -- Eagles, Sixers. I mean, it's students, medical students. But what do you think the average rents will be, God willing, and the river don't rise?
Well, on the new construction, our average size is roughly a thousand square feet. We think that that will rent somewhere in the 18- to $1900-a-month range, which would, of course, include parking. On the existing loft units, we plan to renovate those. The average size there is about 720 44 5/30/02 RULES - BILL 020226 feet, square feet. And we anticipate those rents being somewhere around $1.50 a square foot. So 1100, $1200 a month.
Okay. Lastly, let me -- Ms. Greenfield indicated that you're working on the agreement with the neighborhood, and if you're about 95 percent there, let me strongly encourage you, and I'd be glad to participate, certainly for that last 5 percent, why don't we see if we can get that agreement wrapped up and move the project forward.
I actually don't have any issues -- let me put you on the spot -- other than the -- all right, there's a sublease being prepared, but we should be in a position to execute the --
I don't necessarily know -- I'd be the last to give a former chancellor of the bar any legal advice, but I doubt that you want to do that right now.
All's I'm saying is that when Meg says we're close, I think it's probably by-the-end-of-this-week close.
The answer is no. 5 I will say in this process that Miss Greenfield has been a pleasure to work with. As a developer working in other cities around the country, rarely do you meet a nonpaid volunteer that puts in the hours that she does. She's escorted me everywhere I've gone in the public arena, and I very much appreciate her support. And the development agreement will be done. It's a tough time to do it because we don't own the property.
But we're trying to craft it in such a way that it doesn't do some harm to the ability to finance the project.
Thank you. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Anyone else to testify on this bill? 46 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 (No response.)
Thank you very much. We'll now go back to accepting testimony on Bill No. 010424, which is the RPROD discussion. The Planning Commission, I think, is finished?
Oh, the Planning Commission is not finished. Come on back. (Mr. Chapman returns to the witness table.)
Mr. Chapman, are you familiar with the booklet -- I believe it's put out by the Planning Commission and correct me if I'm wrong -- New Century Neighborhoods?
Could you briefly tell me what is in that booklet in terms of conservation.
Well, Let me ask you this question; it might make it easier. Does it call for the development of design guidelines to help maintain neighborhoods in a marketable 47 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 condition?
And I also understand from my notes that they also recommend the development of conservation districts, where historical district status has not been established. And would they not require design guidelines that go beyond the typical zoning standards but less than historical designation?
Councilman, if I may distinguish here, I think the main distinguishing point there -- I hear ya -- is that RPROD proposes design requirements; you know what I'm saying? In an RPROD, as it's currently drafted, we could have a district that requires brick facades, for example, design guidelines. I would distinguish from that in that, you know, we would use every effort we could to encourage or force someone to do a brick facade, but --
But under RPROD, more than likely, that person would have to do it in 48 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 brick or whatever other materials. I mean, we're not going to -- the way I understand it is -- or the way my intention was that RPROD would offer alternatives. It would say -- and I'm using aluminum siding as an example, and if anybody's in the aluminum siding business in this room, please don't think I'm picking on you. But it would say that you can't use aluminum siding, but if you're going to put up a new front facade to your property, it could be in brick, and the brick could be red, gray, yellow, purple, or whatever it is, or it could be Drivit -- I mean, God forbid, but it could be Drivit, it could be a lot of things, but it will tell you what it couldn't be. And I don't understand the problem in doing that because, how else do you maintain marketable conditions for a community unless you maintain some of the contiguous appearance on a particular block? And, look, I mean, we get along well, we work together, so I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just trying to find out -- and my staff person, my legislative assistant, David Fitz, met with the Planning Commission a couple of times 49 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 over the last six months. And, with all due respect, the Planning Commission has yet to offer any suggestions. They have told us what they thought was wrong with the bill, and that's okay, but it would be nice if they would tell us what they think would be appropriate or some changes that may be palatable to the Planning Commission.
I think that's a fair criticism. You know, we could certainly do that. If the bill is held, we could certainly do that.
Well, you know, I mean, we worked with L&I, the Historic Commission, the Preservation Alliance. L&I and the Historic Commission, I think we've answered most of their questions. We've made a number of changes and amendments to the bill, but I've yet to hear any constructive recommendations or suggestions from the Planning Commission.
I think the problem that we're facing here, Councilman, is that the Planning Commission in general recently has had difficulties with overlays, in general, and I think we've testified to that fact at the past couple of Rules 50 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 Committee hearings. And that's -- admittedly, that's a new position for us to be stating to you. This is the first time that we've come out and outright opposed one, though, I'll say that also. And, you know, we hear your concerns and you know, we know exactly what you're referring to. I talked to David Fitz that exact situation that you've described with the aluminum siding. It happened on a street that I used to live on. So I know exactly what you're talking about. But I just think that under -- the way that the bill is written right now, I think that we believe that it can be abused and that, you know, we are, in a sense, trying to legislate taste here, and it --
Well, but that's not unusual. I know in a lot of communities, especially in the newer communities in the suburbs and in South Jersey, guidelines, standards on fencing, as an example, are used. You can't put up a stockade fence that has the four-by-four posts that are the foundation or the mainstays of the fencing facing your neighbor; it has to face inside 51 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 your yard. I have a friend of mine that put up about 200 foot of fence up, only to find out when the inspector came along, Oh-oh, the posts belong inside as opposed to outside. And there's a reason for that, and there's a good reason for that. It's not because government -- and, look, I'm for people having the right and opportunity to make changes and do things. I mean, I'm all for that, but I think that sometimes government's role should be to help those communities be able to protect themselves better. And we do that with zoning when we go for a zoning variance, we do that with a lot of different things. And government sets those standards and it helps communities maintain, you know, their uniqueness, if you will. So, again, you know, I don't want to be argumentative with you. I just -- we have not yet, over the course of six months, with all due respect, received anything from the Planning Commission by way of recommendations -- at least not to my knowledge. And if you did, I apologize, I'd stand corrected, but I haven't seen anything come across our desk yet. 52 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424
Mr. Chapman, this bill seems to me to deal for the first time with what always concerns me, and that is somebody in a rowhouse situation doing something that -- usually you have all open porches and everybody likes it, it seems to serve a certain interest of the community so that a person at one end can look all the way down to the other end, and you can have a conversation. And then suddenly, somebody decides to enclose the porch in the middle, and that creates -- the owner maybe has the right to do it. Is there anything in this bill or in any zoning law that would give the other neighbors a chance to say something? It's always seemed to me to be a problem that has never before been dealt with; this is the first time I -- and I'm not making any statement on my position on the bill, but I'm interested in seeing something raised, because I think homeowners do have the ability to hurt their neighbors or to help their neighbors, as well as to hurt or help themselves. 53 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 And I was wondering, is there any provision of the Zoning Code that deals with that that kind of situation? Take the porch. Suppose a neighbor in the middle of the block did that; would any of the other neighbors have any recourse under the zoning laws? Let's say it changed the whole quality, and maybe I moved into this block because I liked this openness and everybody being able to communicate freely with each other. And then somebody, with no 12 ill intent, just decides that I'd rather have a closed porch. And the view, as I've understood it, is that under the zoning laws in Philadelphia, nobody could do anything about it; the owner had the right to close up the porch, even though it affected the whole community. Am I wrong? Is there something that somebody could do?
No, you're correct. There's nothing that's currently in the Zoning Code that would prevent you from doing that.
Now, as I see it, for the first time, begins to deal with that kind of 54 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 situation.
Councilman Cohen, if I may, I think in some cases, the Zoning Board may have standing. If the porch were to be permanently enclosed with brick, or was considered to be an extension of the existing property line.
Yeah, they could have. But let's assume, for the moment, that it doesn't require a variance. What this bill would say is that, okay, if you want to enclose it, you would have to go through a process with the community, and it may be enclosed with certain types of materials, certain sized windows that would not detract from the uniqueness of that block or the continuity of the way the block looks, but -- 'cause you want it enclosed for whatever reason is fine, but you would have to follow certain guidelines. And this is not unlike historical districts that say that if you're going to replace a window, it has to be a window of the same size and 55 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 material that exists, if it needs to be replaced. Or if you're going to add another story onto the building, the brick has to be the same color brick, same shape brick that the existing facade is. And that's what this does. It's in lieu of those districts -- of those neighborhoods that don't qualify for historical districts, to give them some ability to maintain that uniqueness.
Nobody would be authorized to have wraparounds or advertising?
No, no, no, not unless we go back to Bill 629, but at the moment, no. 15
Well, what is your, Mr. Chapman, with respect to that concept? Should zoning laws cover the interests of people other than the homeowner? Or is it your feeling and people in zoning that the homeowner's interest is so clearly superior to all others that it ought not to be tampered with?
I'd like to know philosophically from an analytical point of view what should be the rights of a homeowner as against 56 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 the neighbors, who are clearly, I think, affected. Does it apply in the suburban area, for example, where a homeowner wants to put up a basketball court because they have an adult son, or at least a teenage son, that would like to shoot a basketball if the neighbor next door finds that very disconcerting and maybe harmful? What are the important considerations from the Planning Commission's point of view with respect to the relative rights of neighbors and homeowners? And has there been any change in recent years of the development of the rights of either one of the two parties?
Councilman Cohen, I believe that zoning laws, by their very nature, are intended to look out for the rights of the greater community. I think that's one of the main purposes of zoning.
Yes, but I think that you also can go too far with zoning controls, and that's what I believe we are saying here.
Mm-hmm. And was your office consulted during the -- yeah, you did say 57 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 that you --
Oh, absolutely. We've had a number of conversations with members of Councilman DiCicco's staff, and I know that Councilman DiCicco has discussed this bill with Rich Lombardo. Yeah, there's been discussions.
All right, well, I certainly encourage the continued discussions that I understood the two of you were talking about in the question-and-answer period just before. I would like to get much greater clarity. I think maybe you stated it accurately that it's a delicate balance to draw, and we have to make sure that when we attempt to draw the balance of interest between the homeowner and neighbors, that we really protect everybody's rights. And it's really a question of how we do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for Mr. Chapman? (No further questions.)
On my list is the Community Design Collaborative and the Preservation 58 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 Alliance. Will the representatives please come forward. (Witnesses come forward.)
My name is Dan Garofalo (ph), and I'm the co-chair of the Community Design Collaborative. Sitting to my left is Beth Miller, Executive Director of the Community Design Collaborative.
I'm Kim Soeffing from the Preservation Alliance, and I'm here on behalf of John Gallery, the Executive Director.
Whoever would like to give the initial testimony, please proceed, and please speak directly into the microphone.
The Community Design Collaborative is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that connects communities with design professionals for the purpose of planning and neighborhood physical improvements. Because we're architects, planners, 59 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 landscape architects, engineers, construction professionals, we have the knowledge and ability to assist community-based nonprofits with their goals. Because we're residents of Philadelphia and the surrounding town, we have a steak in this City. And because we're volunteers who care what happens to our physical environment, we have the commitment and the passion to dedicate to this work. We were asked today to come and speak on behalf of the proposed residential preservation and revitalization overlay district initiative, but first I'd like to take a minute to explain the work of the Collaborative and who we are. For over ten years, while the debate and excitement of neighborhood revitalization has grown, the Collaborative has been turning neighborhood visions into reality. Often behind the scenes, sometimes at the slow pace required by community groups as they build consensus and develop capacity, and almost always without a great deal of publicity, the Collaborative has been working in Philadelphia's neighborhoods. We've completed almost 200 projects in the City. The way the organization works is best 60 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 shown by example. Let's say a community group identifies a need or an opportunity in their neighborhood, let's say an abandoned building. They want to raise money and convert it to, let's say, an after-school center, but without an architect's plans or a feasibility study, they can't go to a funding agency, and the funding agency won't grant them money without some type of feasibility study or a sketch design. The Community Design Collaborative can step into that gap and solve that dilemma. The way it works is, our professional staff -- we've just added a fourth member this year -- reviews applications from community groups, we assemble a team of volunteers -- we have over 300 volunteers on our roster -- and get to work on behalf of the community group. When the work is completed, we can take that feasibility study or sketch design to a funding agency and move the project forward: Hire an architect, hire the engineers. My example was an abandoned building, but the Collaborative, over the last ten years, has completed almost 200 projects: Playgrounds, parks, 61 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 even neighborhood master plans of a small scale, and that sort of thing. So our experience working with community groups is why we feel like we have a stake and something to add in this particular initiative. The bulk of my testimony reiterates what Councilman DiCicco said earlier in describing it, so I'll just skip to why we endorse the idea, but also some of our caveats and why we -- just to express some of our concerns. The Residential -- the RPROD idea is an opportunity for communities to come together to create a shared vision for their neighborhood. The goal of community organization is to enhance opportunities to attract and retain residents, employers, employees, and inspire civic pride. In these aims, the RPROD fits with the goals of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, which has become a model almost nationwide for public-private partnership. Although the staff and the board of the Collaborative have not had the opportunity to thoroughly review the mechanisms in working on the RPROD initiative, we feel it could contribute to 62 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 improving our city in the following ways: It would engage civic associations in neighborhood transformation. In developing design guidelines, it would help homeowners as a resource to what they should be doing. This could encourage homeowners to be more thoughtful about the role they have in neighborhood improvement and provide instruction on better ways to add or change their properties.
And Councilman Cohen's example of the closed-in porch was an excellent example, because if something is in place beforehand, people would be aware of the expectations of their neighborhoods. Any sort of community involvement like this, the act of creating the RPROD would foster community vitality. And the RPROD could be a resource for residents, as a guideline, to maintain the unique character of their properties, make repairs where needed, and add to the neighborhood character. We share some of the concerns that were expressed earlier by the representative from the Planning Commission. The strongest aspect of the initiative 63 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 is its capacity to build community cohesion and to empower residents in their neighborhoods less, but we're less sanguine about the requirements and strictures that could result from a poorly-handled process. The first concern is money. Creating an RPROD would take a great deal of effort, a great deal of time and work, because neighborhood residents often lack the expertise to write good design guidelines. We feel that professionals -- a professional planner may be required to be hired, and we don't see in this initiative particular funding dedicated to such services. And given the type budgeting requirements of the City, we would not expect to. Nevertheless, the lack of funding may slow the process in some neighborhoods and prevent others entirely from moving forward. The RPROD could create neighborhood dissension. We all live in Philadelphia's neighborhoods, and the next time you hear about a neighborhood totally behind a new initiative will be the first time I ever hear about it. There will always be dissension and disagreement in 64 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 neighborhood planning initiatives. We feel that skillful guidance, provided by members of the Planning Commission perhaps, could smooth over disagreements and come closer to achieving consensus. This is one of the reasons we feel that the involvement of the Planning Commission is required. Another issue is that it creates a burden of sorts. One of the worrisome issues is that it does create another layer of approval for residents looking to make improvement. Although we recognize that creation of enforceable standards may be key to their success, this is one aspect of the initiative that would be most contentious. And, finally, there's an opportunity for, for lack of a better word, opportunism. Neighborhood residents are not all equal; some have more money, some have more influence, some are politically connected, some know how to work the system. Like any well-meaning effort, the Council should be aware that an opportunity exists for some to use an RPROD designation to enhance the value of their personal investment. We should be wary of those who would use the initiative in this way. 65 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 Although the ordinance does require a fair degree of community buy-in, we must acknowledge that many residents will not participate. There is a danger that a faction could push through an initiative with apparent support, only to find later that the community support was shallow and that the initiative was really the effort of a small group for whom the benefits would be great. Again, reviews by the Planning Commission and by this body would help safeguard against that possibility. Beth and I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on this issue. Although we're inclined to support the initiatives -- support any initiatives that empower communities and this initiative in particular. We have not presented this initiative to our board and cannot endorse it as an organization at this time. We feel this type of discussion and a broader discussion among government and non-government agencies would only help in strengthening the implementation of this important idea.
Simply, what is your 66 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 recommendation we do with the bill today? I mean, I sensed through your whole testimony that you were supportive, but at the end, I sense that it was a little lukewarm, at least.
Well, I feel that the bill, as it stands, should be further reviewed, and probably work on those aspects that do create strictures and a burden to neighbors. That's the key element, I think, that would be most contentious.
Thank you. And thank you for your testimony. And I want to also thank both you and Beth. I understand from my legislative assistant, Mr. Fitz, that you've been very, very helpful through this whole process. I understand that there's some tentative understanding between my legislative assistant and the Preservation Alliance that we hold this bill. My only concern is that every day -- literally every day -- that we wait, another property, in my opinion, becomes destroyed, or begins to -- that process, as Councilman Cohen says, deteriorate from what we're trying to do here and protect. 67 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 I don't like to rush into things; we've been working on this for a number of months now. You were here and you heard my testimony. And with all due respect to the Planning Commission, no 6 recommendations from them, but we do have a list of recommendations I believe you will be testifying to from the Preservation Alliance, and I'll ask questions when we get into that. But I generally wait. I just try to make things work out, and I give everybody an opportunity, but I think at the end of the day, if we hold off till September, fine, but I got a feeling that in September, we're still not going to be where everyone wants us to be, and you're never going to have a perfect bill. So I'll make a decision before the end of this hearing on whether I'm going to ask to hold it or not, but at some point, I think we need to do something. I mean, I mentioned that one building that was painted gray -- it actually like a gray enamel, not even like a dull gray. The brother-in- law painted his building a half a block away some sort of an orange-yellow mixture. It's right at the 68 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 corner, it's a big corner property as well. And I see this happening day in and day out, and I think we need to do something. And if we have to come back later come back -- we may have to come back at another time if we see that there are some problems and make some amendments to whatever the final bill that we pass here is all about. And that's okay. It will be a learning process for all of us. But, again, I wanted to publicly thank you for your cooperation and help in this matter.
Is the Preservation Alliance going to offer testimony? Please. Did you have a question, Councilman Cohen?
I just had a comment. I think it's interesting that in this discussion, someone who is more identified with the rights of homeowners, Councilman DiCicco, is advocating a position that's more inclusive of community and those of us who work with communities all the time and put forward -- I've also learned of some pitfalls. And so we want to both work -- we want 69 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 to enlarge the role of communities, but at the same time, we want to make sure that basic rights are maintained. So, therefore, Councilman DiCicco, I would appreciate -- I know sometimes we feel that a delay proves nothing, but this was the first time I was aware of this bill, and I commend you for raising the issue, because it's been one that's concerned me, but I just think all of us have to get a little more used to the idea before we're comfortable with it. And I want to commend the group that testified. I think they are adding to the understanding of this. I would like to see how other people feel as well, but that will be Councilman DiCicco's decision as to whether he pushes for a vote on this today or not. But I'm interested in the fact that you, who exist to empower communities, do have some hesitations. It doesn't mean the idea is a bad one or that it can't work out, because I think those of us who work with communities are aware of this conflict that always exists between an individual homeowner and the views of the neighbors. And we've 70 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 been struggling in our own way -- and I congratulate Councilman DiCicco for being the first one that ever put it into legislative form -- an effort to address this situation. I just wanted to make that comment. I find it a very interesting issue and don't have a position on it at this time, except I think that you're dealing with a very important issue here.
Yeah, thank you. Councilman Cohen, just for the record, we introduced the bill actually almost a year ago May 31, 2001. And we had supplied -- and I know, Councilman, like you, we do get a lot of material and we can't to read it all, but we did supply staff with our basic premise behind the bill, a lot of information that we had ongoing, but --
Actually, what I did was -- going back to your first comment about delaying things, I learned the hard way last May, or last June, when I gave consideration for a public debate on another bill I introduced. What it did to 71 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 me over the summer -- I got destroyed on the bill 3 come five, six months later. And we know what bill 4 we're talking about.
Yes. And also, just in case you don't recall, I've been accused of --
I've been a community activist my whole life. I was the founder and president of two community associations, so I'm not new to community involvement, and I always wish for protecting communities, although I'm sure sometimes we differ on what we believe is protecting the community. But I said at the onset, we're a city of neighborhoods, and that's what's really great about Philadelphia. And in my opinion, this is just another attempt to empower communities, to protect their individuality. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. 72 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Kim Soeffing, and I'm here on behalf of John Gallery, the Executive Director of the Preservation Alliance. The Preservation Alliance for a Greater Philadelphia is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to develop programs and advocacy to help preserve and protect historic resources in the Philadelphia region. The Alliance has approximately 1,000 members, a significant percentage of whom live within the City of Philadelphia. For many years, the Alliance and its predecessor organization, the Preservation Coalition, have been interested in the creation of an alternative form of neighborhood district designation that would complement historic district designation. In 1992, the Preservation Coalition advanced the concept of conservation districts in a report entitled "The Philadelphia Neighborhood Conservation District, a Model Program." We are, therefore, very supportive of the concept of creating another form of neighborhood 73 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 preservation district that would enable the character of neighborhoods in Philadelphia to be protected when designation as a historic district is not appropriate. We commend Councilman DiCicco and his staff for developing this idea and for taking the time to consult with us and with other organizations in preparing this bill. Although the Alliance is concerned about many aspects of the current bill and feel that we cannot support it in its current form, we believe that the concept is an important one and one that is particularly relevant to the neighborhood preservation concepts that have been advanced as part of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. While most attention has been focused on the demolition aspects of NTI, the underlying principle of NTI is neighborhood preservation and restoration. Some of the NTI funding will include programs designed to encourage preservation and reinvestment, and a new form of preservation district could be supportive of those initiatives. Because of its relevance to the current interest in neighborhood preservation, we would like to see more time taken to refine this bill rather 74 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 than pass it in its current form. We are prepared to work actively with Councilman DiCicco's office and others to assist in such further refinement. The Alliance has information on conservation districts and other locations, including similar districts in the Philadelphia region. We are also prepared to undertake discussions with relevant neighborhood organizations to test out ideas and develop support for the creation of a new form of neighborhood preservation district. And in the interest of time, you do have a copy of the testimony, which includes the full list of our concerns for the present bill. And, finally, it is our belief that appropriate solutions can be found to address all of these concerns. As previously indicated, we think that the concept of some type of conservation district is appropriate and a logical component of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. We encourage further refinement of this bill before passage, and we are prepared to assist City Council and Councilman DiCicco in the further development of this approach, if that would be 75 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 appropriate. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, ma'am, for your testimony. Going back to the first -- you have four or five concerns. Concern number one, you're concerned about the relationship of the proposed RPROD districts to the creation of historic districts. In your opinion, there are a number of neighborhoods in the City that have not yet been designated as an historic district that merit. Do you know how many of those neighborhoods?
Do you know how long it takes on average for a neighborhood to be designated as an historic district?
I -- again, I don't have the specific information behind the report.
Ballpark figure, 76 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 from the date of inception. Mr. O'Donnell from Queen Village, if you'd like to come up and answer that --
You have to come forward and identify yourself for the record anyway.
I'm David O'Donnell from Queen Village Neighbors Association.
We are now looking into historic designation, and with the staffing we have at the Historic Commission, the amount of neighborhoods that are still under review and have applied, we're looking at now over $50,000 and five years.
Five years on average from the date of its inception to the date of approval?