Developments Committee Meeting of August 3, 2010

The first item on our agenda was One Bank Street. However, the property owner, Richard Moore was late, so we began with the Rasa Vella's presentation of her new business at 22 N. Third Street, De Tours. www.detourstouring.com

Rasa came to our meeting, riding tall, on a Segway. She enthusiastically, informed us of her business plan which includes, not only the Segway excursions, but biking and running tours. She seems happy to have committed to setting up her business in Old City since the tours that she organizes are intended to take her customers to many of Philadelphia's historic sites. The groups are usually composed of about 8 people, and Rasa and her staff of five are knowledgeable guides.

There has been some concern about the fact that part of the Segway tour will be on sidewalks, as well as the street. Rasa assured us that the Philadelphia Zoning Code does permit Segways on the sidewalks, and that only a portion of the tour is in Old City. There have been no pedestrian incidents or problems to date. Top speed of the Segway is about 12 miles per hour.

After she spoke with us, she quickly demonstrated the flexibility of this amazing piece of equipment and smoothly Segway-ed away.

The next discussion was with Richard Moore, owner of the parking lot at One Bank Street. Richard had previously been represented by Vern Anastasio at a Developments Committee meeting on January 20, 2009. The original plan was that the parking lot would be a temporary use, (four years); then a charter school for the culinary arts would be built.

Surface parking lots are a prohibited use in the district. When they are permitted by variance, there are specific lighting, drainage, and landscaping requirements that apply. When the application for the variance was granted, there was an agreement that he would meet the requirements. The variance for the lot will expire in March, 2013. To date, the requirements set by the ZBA and Planning Commission have not been met. There is a pervious surface on the lot, according to Mr. Moore, but it is not the surface that was specified. He presented his rationale for not meeting the other requirements: lighting, landscaping and fencing. Those extenuating circumstances cited have passed, and he agreed to have the other requirements, including a water source for maintaining the plant materials, in place within a month.

Further, Mr. Moore asked the Committee to support changes to the previously approved plan: increase the parking space count from 11 to 13, accept the existing pervious surface, shift the lot entrance to the north edge of the property, shift the fencing and landscaping south in response to the change in location of the entrance. The Committee voted to support this plan, but Mr. Moore must have the proposed changes approved by the ZBA and/or L&I.

Time was running short at our meeting, so we moved on to the topic of 401 Race Street, the former Pincus Brothers Maxwell site. The discussion was handicapped by the fact that we have not received the drawings for the details of the first floor commercial space of the building which is one of the main areas of concern.

Other major areas of concern are the LED billboard; another is the fact that Mr. Ambrosi will be working with Councilman DiCicco's office to sponsor a bill to City Council, that if passed by Council, becomes an ordinance providing zoning approval of his project. This would allow a free hand, to some degree, for the project and could set a precedent for future projects, which causes us concern.

The Developments Committee's four-person sub-committee, working with Mr. Ambrosi over the past eighteen months to make the project as friendly to the neighborhood as possible, has created a list of protective conditions to be included in the bill. They have presented this list to both Mr. Ambrosi and to Councilman DiCicco.

Concerned as we are about the possibility of an ordinance approving this project, some of us feel that the current disposition of the Zoning Board of Adjustments leaves us very little hope of getting their support for these same protective conditions. We are very unhappy with the disregard and dismissive attitude toward our community at ZBA hearings we attend, leaving the outcome of ZBA hearings very unpredictable for us. Having the protective conditions written into the ordinance would give us more assurance of a predictable outcome and enforceable conditions.

Depending on with which member of the Zoning Board you might have a discussion regarding enforcement, you will hear that the Zoning Board has no intention of participating in enforcement, or they are indignant that you would suggest that they do not participate in enforcement. Whatever they say, we have no experience of a recognizable level of enforcement of provisos they connect to variances granted.

Discussion on this project became heated, as you might expect. We have a long way to go on this topic. There was discussion of having a public meeting to try to make sure that Old City residents and businesses are well-informed on the topic.

Representatives from the three churches near the project had been invited to the meeting and were in attendance. They expressed their concerns about parking and increased traffic.