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?
A lot of damage could happen in five years, in another five years. 77 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 Also, in that same -- under that same concern -- I'm sorry, I did ask that question. Do you know how many districts or how many neighborhoods are on that list?
To be designated or that the Preservation Alliance would like to see designated. (Addressing Ms. Soeffing.) And under number 2 of your testimony of concerns, the paragraph before the last on , it says, "Eligibility criteria does not address the issue of commercial properties. Many neighborhoods have commercial districts intermingled with residential areas. Should districts require different types of design guidelines..." Do you have any comments on that, do you have any suggestions?
Again, I think that this testimony is really an overview, and just I'm reading it on behalf of John Gallery, who would be more than happy to work directly with you.
All right. I 78 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 understand that you're only here in place of someone else who might have been able to answer those questions a lot more accurately, and I appreciate that. But do you have any idea, if we hold this bill, when you think that the issues that the Preservation Alliance has the concerns will be ready for Council to review?
It's my understanding that we would be willing to start working with you right away. I would also refer back to the Design Collaborative and ask their opinion.
Three to six months to -- I think there's a lot of interested parties that heretofore haven't necessarily participated in the process and are willing to do so with new 79 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 enthusiasm.
Well, I'd like to set a target date. Given that it's summertime and a lot of people will be away, if we did the 90 days, it would bring us to Labor Day, and I suspect that there still will be some unfinished business, but I'd like to set the date at least to no later than the last day of September so that the first week in October, we'll be ready to run this bill. And I'm only trying to do this in the interest of cooperation honestly, but every day, I watch what goes on out there, and another building gets lost. But my colleague Councilman Cohen and others would like to have a little more time, and as a courtesy to them and to all of you folks, I would say let's put a target date to have all of the recommendations in by no later than the last week of September.
Mr. O'Donnell, would you like to testify, please, on this bill. And can I see a raise of hands of anyone else who's testifying on this bill. One, two, okay, I see. 80 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm David O'Donnell, and I'm on the Board of Directors of Queen Village Neighborhood Association.
Basically, Queen Village was settled in the 1640s, and only about percent 9 of our properties are on the Philadelphia Register 10 of Historic Places, so they are protected. However, 11 80 percent of the buildings are not. 12
What does that 13 number equate to, 20 percent of how many building; 14 do you know approximately? 15
The area goes from 18 Lombard Street to Washington Avenue, from the 19 Delaware River to Sixth Street. 20 So what we have now is, if you're not on the register, you can do pretty much whatever you want to to the facade of your building. And, as Councilman DiCicco said, you can have a beautiful 18th century block of brick homes and cover your house with purple stucco, pop out all of the 81 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 windows, do whatever you want, and just put a huge eyesore in the middle of the block. We do get that. People can buy houses built in the 1700s and cover 'em because they just aren't on the register. The register, which was created in the 1950s, was basically a walk through by a new employee of a new Historic Commission, and it was like, "We'll take that house, that house," and half-blocks were missed, a lot of properties were missed. We don't want to be taste police. Right now, the Zoning Code protects us a certain amount, and we are not -- and the years will be many to become a historic district. So we just need something in between. We wouldn't go crazy and say, You have to do this, that, and the other thing. We would certainly work with the Planning Commission and the Historic Commission on just some basic guidelines as to not disrupt the flow of an attractive block. That's pretty much it.
Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell, for your testimony, and thank you for your patience in waiting. 82 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424
We are worried about the timeframe. We really approve of this bill as it is. We feel that -- trust the neighborhood associations; we're not going to become crazy with guidelines and this and that. We just need a little extra protection right now that the Zoning Commission can't give us. Thank you.
Thank you. My wife grew up in Queen Village when it was called "Second and South," before it became Queen Village, actually. Please come forward. And, sir, if you also want to take the witness table. (Witnesses come forward.)
I don't see no women today, but I was here yesterday. My name is Florence Mason, and I'm a member of the community. I'm not really truly affiliated with any organization. I was here yesterday and I made a testimony, but a lot of you guys were not here.
We're in the Rules Committee hearing now on a number of different zoning issues. That committee will be queening in about another 40 minutes, so you're early, and we'll be interested in hearing you in about 40 minutes from now.
That's all right. Sometimes we're confused on what hearing we're in ourselves. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Adam 84 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 010424 Schneider, and I'm here on behalf of the Board of the Center City Residents Association. I am a board member. And I do -- you have been presented with testimony representing the position of the Center City Residents Association on the RPROD bill, and I do wish to express our opposition to the bill as it currently stands. We have a number of concerns, which are outlined in the letter that we presented, and I don't think it's necessary at this point to repeat those. But we would request, you know, that our testimony be entered into the record in terms of our position on the current version of the RPROD bill.
That will be done, and also, I suggest that you contact Councilman DiCicco's office and Councilmember Clarke's office because I think you're west of Broad?
Yeah. We're basically the southwest quadrant of Center City.
Maybe even Council President Verna may have a piece of your area, but I assume that Councilman DiCicco will be coordinating most of the discussion on this bill for the summer, 85 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 so I suggest you hook up with them.
None? We're going to move quickly to Bill No. 11 020166, which is an ordinance establishing a Neighborhood Improvement District in the area bounded generally by the eastern side of Tulip Street, the northern side of Allegheny Avenue, the western side of Amber Street, the northern side of Venango Street, to be known as the Port Richmond Industrial Development Enterprise (PRIDE) Neighborhood Improvement District, designating PRIDE, Incorporated, a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation as the Neighborhood Improvement District Management Association for the district; approving a final plan for the district, including a list of proposed improvements and their estimated costs; and providing for assessment fees to be levied on property owners within the district; authorizing the 86 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 Director of Commerce, on behalf of the City, to execute an agreement with PRIDE, Inc. relating to the district and authorizing PRIDE, Inc. to assess property owners within the district a special property-assessment fee to be used in accordance with the approved final plan, all in accordance with the provisions of the Community and Economic Improvement Act, under certain terms and conditions. Who do we have to testify? Please come forward. (Witnesses come forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and please pull the microphone closer to you. Thank you.
My name is Allen Woodruff, and I represent Haskell-Dawes Corporation and PRIDE, Port Richmond Industrial Development Enterprise. I am here to testify in support of Bill 23 No. 020166. Four years ago, a group of ten local industrial businesses met to discuss what we could 87 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 do as a group to create a better business environment. We recognize that our neighborhood employed approximately 1,000 people and 40 industrial businesses and that working together, we could make it worthwhile to expand our businesses in this neighborhood. That initial meeting led to the creation of PRIDE, an incorporated nonprofit with a five-member steering committee that meets every month. Our first activity was to survey area businesses about the needs of the business community. We then used this information to develop a five-year neighborhood improvement agenda. That document is available if you wish a copy. Our improvement plan identified security and cleanliness as top priorities, and we put a great deal of effort into developing activities to keep the neighborhood safe and clean. We currently have a private security firm that controls the district from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. every night. We also helped create the Richmond-Kensington-Fishtown Clean And Green Corp., which cleans our neighborhood three days a week. These services have significantly improved the appearance and safety of our 88 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 neighborhood. This bill to designate PRIDE as a neighborhood improvement district will assist PRIDE in sustaining these services. In addition to security and cleaning services, PRIDE's steering committee has worked with many partners to install gateway signs on the four railroad bridges in the district to remediate very soon-to-be-demolished blighted and dangerous buildings, and to begin a construction project this summer, which will result in improved streets, sidewalks, better lighting and signs, and easier access for trucks. PRIDE has also recently offered a 75 percent rebate to businesses and business property owners for improvements to sidewalks, fencing, lighting and signage. Our neighborhood will be dramatically changed by these improvements, and we need a neighborhood improvement district to sustain our improvement efforts into the future. I ask that the committee positively consider Bill No. 020166. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding PRIDE. 89 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166
Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Would you like to offer any testimony? MS FEGELY: I'm Karen Fegely with PIDC, and I am in here support of Bill No. 020166. This bill designates PRIDE, defined by the boundaries of Allegheny Avenue on the south, Venango Street on the north, Tulip Street on the east, and Amber Street on the west, as a Neighborhood Improvement District. This designation will add a percent surcharge to the real-estate 16 taxes of commercial and industrial property owners 17 within the boundaries to provide ongoing funds to 18 support the district's improvement activities, 19 specifically security and cleaning services. 20 PIDC is committed to PRIDE as a strategy and model for retaining industrial businesses and jobs in Philadelphia. In March of 1998, PIDC and the PRIDE businesses began meeting and working together to revitalize the neighborhood. Since that time, PRIDE's accomplishments include: 90 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 The creation of a five-year improvement plan and a neighborhood development plan; Implementation of a nightly security patrol and regular sidewalk-cleaning; Upgrading of area electrical and phone lines; Plans for redevelopment of a vacant lot into a shared truck parking lot; and Plans for a wide range of other public and private improvements, which will begin implementation this summer. PRIDE has raised both public and private funds to implement its improvement activities. However, the NID is necessary in order to ensure that PRIDE has resources to continue its cloning and security activities. The NID will not only support these services that directly benefit the business and residential community, it will also help to leverage additional funds for future improvements to the area. I ask that the committee consider this bill favorably. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this ordinance. 91 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses?
Mr. Woodruff and madam, I thank all of you. I can't believe it's four years, Allen, already?
Wow, my first tour four years ago. Remarkable job, and I really appreciate the commitment to Philadelphia. And I know a lot of you and the businesses there were considering moving at that time, and you've turned a corner and really made it a much more pleasurable place to do business, and the community is very grateful for that, as is this City Council. Thank you, I thank both of you and all of the members of PIDC and the Commerce Department.
Please. You have to come forward. We're through with these witnesses and you can sit down and identify yourself and then give your testimony. 92 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 Thank you. (Witness comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Art Dejart (ph), and I represent Active Radiator, one of the businesses that's on the borderline of this district that they're proposing, and the major concern that we have is the percent tax increase to fund 12 something that sort of doesn't seem to really affect 13 us because we police our own property as far as 14 keeping it clean. 15 And we seem to end up being, according 16 to the map that they've provided with this, on the 17 borderline. Our property is located on the northern 18 side of Venango Street at Amber, which happens to be 19 on the drawn borderline of the map of the district 20 that you're talking about here in the bill. Basically, you cover our sidewalk, and you want to increase our taxes 20 percent to cover something that runs south of us. And the owner of the company doesn't really feel that it's a justifiable levy of taxes on our business since it 93 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 doesn't really seem to benefit us any, and since basically, it says in the paperwork here that the City services and so on won't be impacted by this, that this is someone extra. We don't see that we're getting any benefit from anything extra out of this. We see that we're getting a percent increase in the tax 9 levy, without any benefit to our business or to 10 where we're located, because we happen to be across 11 the street from where this all supposedly goes on. 12 But they use the northern boundary of 13 Allegheny Avenue and the northern boundary of 14 Venango Street as the borderline from it. When I 15 look at the drawing, it basically covers not our 16 business but still levies us taxes on it. That 17 doesn't seem justified, and that was the major 18 concern we had. 19 We pay for our own trash removal because 20 the City doesn't provide trash removal for businesses in the area. And we have our own people cut the lawn in the area by the sidewalks, we have them clean graffiti. We have basically stayed in the City of Philadelphia to be able to employ people in the 94 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 neighborhood, so we're contributing to the neighborhood by having an increased number of jobs. When I started with the company years ago, we had 5 8 employees; we have over 80 now. When we moved to 6 the current location at Amber and Venango, we had 35 7 employees. So we've grown in the past eight years. 8 But until we received this stuff in the 9 mail, we hadn't been contacted by PRIDE or by 10 anybody else, and it just doesn't seem like it's a 11 justifiable levy to look for a 20 percent increase 12 in anybody's taxes at any time. I mean, look at the percentage rate of taxation in the City anyway; it has driven businesses away. This isn't going to necessarily keep businesses there by increasing their property taxes percent. The boss had a choice: He Could 18 have moved out of the City or he could have stayed 19 in the City. He decided that he would rather try 20 and stay in the City and to try and help the community by providing jobs, and the City gets wage tax monies out of every employee that we employ. It just doesn't seem like it's a justifiable levy to us, and it doesn't seem like it benefits us as members of the Port Richmond 95 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 community. Does that make sense?
Your argument is well-taken and it's not unusual. Anytime a Special Services District or a neighborhood improvement district is being proposed, there is always a certain number of people who are opposed to that. And we understand your concern. I heard you mention a couple of times in your statement that you don't see where you would benefit by it. I can only tell you, in the seven years or six-and-a-half, seven years that I've been in Council the number of neighborhood improvement districts, or Special Services Districts, that I've been involved in, the folks who were opposed to it initially eventually have all come around to say that it was worth the investment. A quick glance at the numbers that your company would be responsible for is something about 40, $42 a week, it seems to be, that you will be additionally taxed with. Again, I think it's something that you may not appreciate and understand today, but I think in a very short time, you will see a greater 96 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 interest in other development and other businesses coming to your community, which, I think, will benefit you and your community as a whole. You know, we just can't carve out and select and enforce properties; we have to go by a geographical map that is prepared through PIDC, the Commerce Department, and the Department of Revenue. And, again, you're not unlike some other folks who felt as though they were being penalized and didn't believe that it was in their best interest to be a part of the NID. I wish there was another way to do this, but there isn't. The only way that these things are successful is when you get enough critical mass that will generate the revenue to do the things that are necessary to do all which -- by the way, all this money that gets collected goes back to you 100 percent, "back to you" meaning your community. The City doesn't take any fee, the fee doesn't keep any of the revenue, and 100 percent of it goes back to that NID to do what you think is best. And there may be some things that you may not be thinking of today that you may want to bring up to the board going forward that you might 97 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 feel as though would be beneficial to your business. I don't know if you ever will, but there could be in terms of lighting, in terms of streetscape improvements, in terms of some of the things that they do in terms of advertising what your community and what your business industrial park is all about. There are a whole host of things. And you can draw from the experiences of other community groups or other NIDs that have been in existence in the City of Philadelphia and learn from them and maybe use it to your advantage.
Well, one of the other things that the owner of the company and I were discussing about this is that it goes on for ten years. He said, you know, if it was something that was going on for one or two years to initially see if it would have any impact, he'd be a whole lot less opposed to an increase in taxation, but when you consider that an increase in taxation of 20 percent is required and that we're basically on the outside border of the area that they're talking about, as opposed to actually in the middle of it, and that basically the expenditures, according to the document here, state that it's basically going 98 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 for street-cleaning three days a week and the rest for security, somebody additional besides the police patrolling the neighborhood, it somehow doesn't seem so to -- since that's what they say they're going to spend it on with an assessment contingency of about $5695.70 left over for whatever else they decide to use it for, it doesn't look like it's really all that cost-effective for us, being that we're basically on the outside border of the district you're talking about.
Well, again -- and we can go back and forth on this all day. Street-cleaning and security are the priorities today going forward; that may change, and you may, I would suggest, with all due respect, you may want to get involved in that process. There may be something when this shock of paying this additional percent, you know, settles in, really become a 20 part of the community. Even though you say you're across the street or outside, you're not outside; you're a part of it. I mean, what affects the people on the north side of the street will certainly have an impact on the people on the south side. 99 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 So I would suggest that you get involved with the folks that are running the NID and make recommendations that may actually benefit you. I mean, today it's security and cleaning; tomorrow it could be something different. And I certainly appreciate the fact that your company decided to stay here and that you employ people from the community, and I would hope that they continue to do so and not look at this as something that is being regressive but something that is more progressive to make it a better environment for everyone. Thank you for your testimony.
Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (Person in audience raises hand.)
My name is William Scheck (ph), and I'm from the general area near Allegheny. I would like to know, when you create this district basically, are you going to be 100 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 utilizing all of the federal and state monies that you have available to you under law before you levy this tax against these businesses; or you never bothered looking for all the federal and state monies that are available for improvement districts, per se, with the Department of Commerce as well as with HUD to basically look for federal monies before you have to levy a tax towards these businesses for that activity?
This will in no way impede on the ability for the business, or businesses, to apply for any state, federal, local grants, contributions, what have you. This in no 15 way restricts that; that continues to go on. And when you say that we are imposing the tax; what we are doing here as a legislative body is responding to the majority of the people that have businesses in that community in passing this legislation, which enables them to tax themselves.
Well, why are you doing it in the first place when you might be able to get state and federal monies from the state and federal government, like I said, from Housing and Urban 101 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 Development or from the Department of Commerce basically to fund this special improvement district without having to levy the taxes in the first place?
Because this is the decision of the majority of the people in the business community.
I saw another hand. Please come forward. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Joan Samp, and I'm a business owner of Tioga Fuel Company, which is in the area for PRIDE. I concur wholeheartedly with the gentleman from Active Radiator, which is up the street from us. I, too -- as far as the border, they have us cut in the middle of the bloke. I am involved with it, and my neighbor Pathmark is not. The proposal of the improvements and 102 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 their estimated costs have not been given to us; they're just estimated costs -- not costs, just estimates -- not even estimates, I'm sorry. There are just improvements that are listed that have been given to us, with no cost at all as to what is it going to do for my business. And I just wanted to go on the record to say that I also oppose it because, as the gentleman before me also said, there are federal monies, which, I believe, there's been $1.4 million given to this for the banners that we have on the bridges and the cleanup. I don't think that's a cost-effective procedure for me.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, ma'am. I know a little bit about some of the money that was invested in that community three four years ago or so. Under the Rendell Administration, we were able, I think, to get a quarter of a million dollars -- a $250,000 grant to get this whole thing started to maintain the businesses, to keep them in the City of Philadelphia 'cause some of those businesses were looking elsewhere. 103 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 It's not a perfect world we live in. If it was, maybe we wouldn't have to do any taxes, but unfortunately, it's one of those things that, you know, taxes will always be there. And I would suggest to you, as I did to the other gentleman, that you get involved with the people in the district, attend their meetings, talk to them about what your concerns issue are, and I think --
How do we find out about the meetings? We're Not privy to that information either.
Mr. Woodruff, the gentleman in the back, you should meet with him, you know, and exchange phone numbers and start to sit down and talk as a business community. And, again, as I said, not to be redundant, but I think you will see in a very short time some benefits that could come out of this.
Well, I hope for my business because the business up the street, which is involved in this, it's just covered with PVCs, and the City owns that building now. Does that mean my money will be going to clean up that building? 104 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166
That would be federal money, state monies coming out of the DEA, or the Department of -- the DAR, EPA, ER, ERA, whatever they are --
EPA, we'll get it right. No, this is primarily to enrich and enhance the business communities and make it more attractive and hopefully to attract more businesses, which may --
Well, I'm for that, and that's what it said initially, but show me why I need a percent increase for the trash pickup and, 19 you know, I don't think on paper, it's good. 20
Those are initial recommendations from the NID, which can, and will, be changed, I suspect, going forward. But I would suggest that you meet with Mr. Woodruff in the back and exchange telephone numbers. Folks are here from Commerce, PIDC, and 105 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 really come together as a community. And I'll be there with you; I'm in office at least for another months or so and -- 5
Yes, absolutely. 8 Thank you. Thank you for your time. 9
Thank you. 10 Is there anyone else to testify on this 11 bill? 12 (No response.) 13
Could I ask a question? And I don't know if the representative from PRIDE would be the one that would answer, but it's with respects to the process and notification. It was indicated in earlier testimony that the majority of the businesses in this Special Services District are supportive of that. And I was wondering what the process is. I have some concerns about this whole Special 106 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 Services District and the process, the 51 percent requirement, to oppose it. I don't, frankly speaking, feel very comfortable with that, and I'd just like to know what the process is in terms of notification and solicitation of support and non-support.
Allen Woodruff, Chairman of PRIDE. You know, initially, when we started this about four years ago, there were about ten businesses, you know, who, through various other meetings and facilitations, knew each other, who actually comprised the majority of the employees and the employers in the area. We sent out notices to every -- we sent out a letter to every business in it, inviting them to a meeting a couple years ago. As a matter of fact, there were about two or three meetings. Then, you know, we've had our newsletter, etc. going out on a regular basis. And we've, you know, had several public events where, you know, we've gotten the big cardboard check, etc. And then, you know, this improvement district, which even though we have raised close to 107 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020166 $3 million, what the state and federal don't give us is the ongoing support to pay for the cleaning and the security.
And, you know, unfortunately, I felt in the very beginning, that you know, Hey, why do we have to pay for any more security, don't we have a police department? But in fact, to get what we need -- in fact, we've had no 11 burglaries in the neighborhood in industrial and commercial properties within the district in over a year.
Yeah, I'm not questioning the need for the service; I think, you know, it's clear that -- I mean, I have the Center City District in my district and it's a very good organization. The question is the process that designates that as a district, therefore, requiring the additional levy of taxes, and I'm just trying to get a sense of -- you know, you said you sent out letters to the businesses in that particular district.
The response -- when you determined that the majority of the individuals or the businesses in that district are supportive of this effort, do you simply take a majority of the respondents or a majority of the total businesses in that district? I mean, how is it --
Well, you know, I have personally talked to over a majority. You know there are some, especially the smaller ones, that I have not, you know, talked to at one time or another.
The majority, I would say, and especially if you look in terms of the majority of the taxes, we have had exceptional -- where one company has gone out of business, which took a chunk out.
But People like Philadelphia Tram Rail, etc., Mike Savage, the general manager, is in Atlanta today, so he's not here, but I think he'd testify. He says, Look, I have to -- you know, take a look at Philadelphia Tram Rail on the list and you'll see how large they 109 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020283 are, and you'll see how, you know, other people...
I would like to announce, at the request of the sponsor of Bill No. 14 020283, that it will be held until June the 5th, at 10 a.m. to a date certain, and that's already been advertised, but by virtue of this announcement today, we are moving that bill at the request of the sponsor to that date. So if there's anyone here to testify on that bill, please come back June 5th at 10 a.m. The final bill on the calendar today is Bill No. 020278, 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 the Tacony Creek, I-95 Delaware 110 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 Expressway, Rhawn Street, and the Delaware River. Mr. Chapman, please identify yourself.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman and I am the Director of Development Planning of the City Planning Commission, and I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 020278. This bill was introduced by Councilmember Krajewski on May 2, 2002. This bill 11 rezones an area bounded by Rhawn Street on the north, the Delaware River on the east, Tacony Creek on the south, and the I-95 expressway. This area is predominantly zoned either G-2 general industrial or LR least restricted. This bill proposes to change most of the existing G-2 and LR to a designation of L-3 limited industrial. There are two other changes that I would point out to. We are -- this bill does propose to change the property of St. Vincent home and the Quaker Yacht Club to a residential classification R-5 and also proposes a property that's being taken over by the Fish and Game Commission to recreational. There also is some publicly-owned ground near and under the Tacony Bridge that's being 111 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 changed to recreational. This zoning change is an initial interim step in the implementation of the recommendations set forth in the North Delaware River Front Plan, which ultimately envisions this area as a residential and mixed-use community in future years. The existing zoning designations in this area allowed for heavy industrial use, including the outdoor storage of material as well as the outdoor processing of materials. The change in the designations would require that all work and storage be in an enclosed structure. It would also prevent the existing vacant land from being developed with more intense uses permitted under the G-2 general industrial and LR least restricted zoning designations. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 17, 2002, considered this bill and recommended that it be approved. There are two amendments that I would like to offer. The first would replace the proposed Zoning Map B, and the second would be to replace the proposed Zoning Map B3. Both of these amendments merely include the addition of additional detail, 112 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 some more dimensions on the maps. We would offer those as amendments, at the suggestion of the Law Department. Also at the suggestion of the Law Department, another map of the proposed zoning at a larger scale, we are going to add that as an attachment to be kept on file in the City Clerk's Office. The purpose of this is to have maps on this bill -- well, it's somewhat difficult to read because of the size of the parcels involved, so the Law Department suggested that we have this second map kept on file in the Clerk's Office.
Thank you. Are there specific projects planned for these parcels that we're changing the zoning? I mean, are there specific requests as a result of a development proposal?
This is more like a community remapping proposal than a rezoning that's being proposed for specific parcels. This was done at the request of Councilwoman Krajewski to, like I 113 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 said --
Have we done large parcels of industrial land like this without specific projects? My experience has been that if, you know, someone comes -- say, Northern Shipping, for example, which I believe is in that zone --
-- would like to do a residential development there, then we -- the community, along with the District Councilperson, would review the proposal, and then the request would be made for the appropriate change in the zoning as opposed to doing such a large swath of land. Is there some advantage to doing it prior to the proposal being put forward? 'Cause one of the things I did do as a result of this because of my interest in the Port -- I used to be a member of the Regional Port Authority, and I called the Regional Port Authority and they were unaware of this request and didn't have a position against or for it but were unaware of it and would like an opportunity to review how it would impact their mission, which is the commerce part of the port. 114 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 Now, this area may be ineffective for that any longer, but they were not aware of this kind of sweeping change.
Councilman, the purpose of doing it this way that was articulated to us was that this is an interim step. It's not going to promote residential development because it's proposing to change it to L-3.
What this does is it prevents certain uses that have been identified to the Planning Commission by the Councilperson's office as being uses that they'd like not to see, additional ones in this area of the City, uses that include outdoor storage and uses that are --
For the record, an industrial zoning designation would not preclude a residential, recreational, or other type of lower-density, lower-scale --
In rezoning this to L-3, you still couldn't do residential development without either going before the board for a variance 115 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 or coming back to City Council to rezone it to a residential classification that would fit the proposal.
All right. Okay. Any questions for the this witness? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? Gentlemen, please come forward. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Henry Portner, Counsel on behalf of Hanavarian (ph) Corporation. We are the owners 4301 North Delaware and 4101 Corbin Street. On a very personal note, my father was a paint manufacturer in the City of Philadelphia. He required least restrictive zoning -- I'll make this story very quick. He had a plant at Hancock and Berks Street, and I grew up as a youngster in his factory. A fire started across the adjacent plant, tire remanufacturing, recapping. He had to move. We were able to find least restricted ground in Port Richmond, near Castor Avenue, off of Wheat Chief Lane. Along came the Betsy Ross Bridge, 116 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 and they condemned for eminent domain my father's factory. Unfortunately, the lawyer then representing him was not able to get him enough money to be able to afford least restricted zoning in the City of Philadelphia, and he moved his plant and his employees and the tax ratable over to the City of Camden. I have a client here that has least restricted ground. It serves a very valuable purpose. We're not exactly in a residential neighbor, my client will explain. We have highly intensive least restricted uses all around us. We would respectfully request you to either table this or to reconsider this. I don't know whether the appropriate authorities have looked at how valuable continuing least restricted zoning is to maintaining certain types of businesses in this city and how valuable and how costly that becomes. With that in mind, I'd like to introduce Donald Metzger, who's a representative of Hanavarian. Thank you.
Please identify 117 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 yourself for the record.
My name is Donald Metzger. I'm a representative of Hanavarian Corporation. We own the old A.P. green-brick plant, which is at the north side of the Betsy Ross Bridge, and it also fronts on the Delaware River. In the past five years, a group, which was a part of the original Quickway Transfer, the old Hawthorne Construction, there was actually an effort made to extend Delaware Avenue. Our address is 4101 Delaware, and our intention is to revitalize the 180,000 square foot of buildings that are there. We already have some existing tenants that are all using L-3 type uses. What we need to do is get more tenants, and by zoning this to light industrial, what would happen there is, it would impede the process of bringing in new tenants, because it would prolong the process of getting permitting, and there would be a lot of uses in the L-3 zone that would not be allowed in the L-1. The big important thing here that I see 118 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 is -- may I get up and point to the map?
We'll bring the map to you because the problem is the microphone and you can't --
You can just stay in your seat. You may have to cover up your lawyer, but sorry.
Basically, this is Delaware Avenue right here (indicating). Basically what they did is, the City, in conjunction with a few of the other adjoining property owners -- this is Quickway Transfer (indicating), okay? There was a major problem with truck traffic on Orthodox Street here (indicating) going through the community.
And the City actually was proactive in creating a -- they made a deal with the -- I forget the name of the -- I think it was Conrail. They actually took over the Conrail bridge right there (indicating) over the Frankford and Tacony Creek, and made it so that all of the garbage trucks coming out of the transfer station no longer 119 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 go through the community. They actually come out here on Casper Street, down the extension of Hedley, and then they go across the railroad bridge. So this parcel all the way up here at Orthodox is now actually a part of the Delaware Avenue port area between Allegheny and -- and now it comes up as far as Hedley at -- the terminus of Delaware Avenue is at Hedley, and then it goes north on our property. Now, to the south, you're question about rezoning, is that okay?
Your question about rezoning blocks, the carbon railroad, the old carbon railroad is what they've used as a line. Actually, towards to east, towards 95, the Sewer Authority, the old Franklin Smelting, were all rezoned. They're light industrial like this proposal. But our property is on this side of that same railroad track, so that railroad track comes up here and goes right across here (indicating). They allowed everything from the railroad to the River to maintain least restricted. Our goal is to be able to use the marine 120 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 facility and to be able to do all of the heavy industrial uses, which there's a dire need for in the City. And they're not making any more waterfront ground to be able to create the industry base that we so badly need. So what I'm asking is if the Council would consider -- to just consider this property here (indicating) as being an extension of Delaware Avenue -- our address is 4101 Delaware Avenue -- and if they would consider just basically using that same railroad line and then come right down on the -- it would be on the north side of Hedley Street is our property line to the river.
I understand. Thank you. I just had a question about -- not for you gentlemen but for the Planning Commission. And perhaps you know and perhaps you don't, but I want to make the question for the record. Have we had -- well, obviously, we haven't had any input from the Philadelphia Regional 121 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 Port Authority because they've told me that they haven't been able to think about this or analyze this. How about the Commerce Department, have they considered, looked at it, or have any opinion upon it?
Councilman, all I can tell you about the Commerce Department is that Duane Bumb sits on the Planning Commission, and when this was considered at the Planning Commission last week, he didn't have an issue with that, at least at that point.
Also I would -- and, again, for the record, the question is -- and you can't answer it, but I'd like to get an answer at some point. What's the status -- what is the right of the property owner when it comes to a unilateral change in their zoning? I mean, do we have anything from the Law Department that indicates that we can basically change someone's zoning without their permission? When it comes to property that's owned by the City or by City agencies, certainly it's within our right. If it's privately-owned property, 122 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 do we have the ability or right to change that zoning without -- against their will, I guess? 'Cause it seems to be this is against their will. I don't know whether we can or we can't do it, but I would like to get some guidance from the Law Department treading in an area that's going to wind us up in court in some way.
I don't know that that question has ever been answered directly by the Law Department, but I can tell you in my 20-whatever-it-is-4 years of working with the City dealing and dealing with communitywide remapping proposals, which, as I stated earlier, this is more similar to that --
That's a little different because it's really not a community; it's a --
Oh, yeah. Absolutely, absolutely. I just meant in terms of acreage, we -- City Council has rezoned property without the --
And, again, I may have voted on that kind of stuff before, but I don't remember anybody coming in and saying, "Don't rezone my property," and we went ahead and did it anyway. 123 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 Let me make a suggestion, 'cause I do have another letter from a gentleman by the name of Sidney Gable, who apparently owns, or represents owners of 7777 State Road, and has concerns and opposition to the move. Why don't I suggest we do what we did with Councilman O'Neill's bill. We'll hold this to June 5th, and I'd like the following information available to us at that time, and that is: Something from the Regional Port Authority on their position on the disposition of the property involved; Something from the Law Department telling us it's okay for us to do it; And also something from the Commerce Department telling us that they, in fact, are also supportive of what we're being asked to do. So rather than step wrongly, we have June 5th as an open advertised date. Councilmember O'Neill's bill is being reheard on that date, and hopefully get all the information we will need in the interim prior to making a decision on June 5th. Yes, sir. You need the microphone.
Councilman, may I continue 124 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 to testify?
Thank you. Basically on this particular site, what we're looking at is 180,000 square foot of buildings that are usable buildings. And under this proposed rezoning, these buildings would probably have to be razed. And we have no use for -- in other words, we bought the property with the least restricted zoning to be able to develop it into a business park. And with this zoning, you know, I don't -- what I'm praying for here is that Council will see that this is actually a piece of the southern -- the complete part of Delaware Avenue, because if this was to be rezoned light industrial, some of the uses we already would not comply, and a lot of the proposed uses that we have would not be allowed. So, therefore, we would actually have to demolish 180,000 square foot of heavy industrial buildings to accommodate this zoning change, and we feel that would be an extreme hardship on a property owner.
My other suggestion 125 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 would be for you to contact Councilmember Krajewski's office and articulate that directly to them, and perhaps there's something that could be accommodated -- some accommodation that could be made as a result of your concerns and your situation. So -- but we have between now and June 5th to at least talk about that.
It's better for us just to be safe than sorry, and we'll see what happens.
You're welcome. Anyone else to testify on this bill? Come on up. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is William Scheck again, and I'd like to know, with this zoning basically, is this going to affect the existing properties along Delaware Avenue as well as other 126 5/29/02 RULES - BILL 020278 parts of the waterfront? When you do this rezoning, is this going to mess up all of the properties that are already existing along Delaware Avenue and the areas that are stated for the rezoning?
My understanding is that the properties that are operating there now, the current use would be allowed until the property changes hands or another use -- even if the property changes hands, as long as the use is still the same. If the use changes, then it would trigger a need to go before the Zoning Board to be approved.
So basically, everything that's there now is protected, and there's not going to be any problems with the existing businesses?
Seeing none, that will conclude our public hearing of the Rules Committee. - - - 127 5/29/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now convene a public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion on Bill 020166, and I would suggest that all of them be suspended, a request for a suspension. Bill No. 010424 will be held and Bill 8 No. 020166, we'll wait for a motion from Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020166 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 020166 will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 020183. 128 5/29/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020183 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 020183 will be reported out of this committee favorably and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter on a motion to approve Resolution 020205.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution 020205 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. 129 5/29/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Resolution No. 020205 will be reported out of this committee favorably. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion to approve Resolution No. 6 020206.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 020206 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Resolution No. 020206 will be reported out of this committee favorably. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter on a motion to approve Bill No. 020225.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 020225 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the Rules Committee be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) 130 5/29/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 020225 is reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 020226.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 020226 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 020226 will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. Bill No. 020278 will be held until June 131 5/29/02 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING the 5th at a.m. in this room. Bill No. 020283 will be held until June the 5th at 10 a.m. in this room. Bill No. 010424 will be held to the call of the sponsor. And that concludes the business of Rules the Committee. Thank you very much. (Committee proceedings end at 12:49 p.m.) - - - 132 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia's meeting of the Committee on Rules of Wednesday, May 29, 2002, are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _______________________________, Josephine Cardillo Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)