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.)