After leading Philadelphia through is zoning reform process, Gladstein will head the Mayor’s Office of Community Empowerment and Opportunity. Read PlanPhilly’s exit interview with Eva Gladstein by Jared Brey.

See also Councilwoman Blackwell calls for hearings on Registered Community Organizations by Jared Brey for PlanPhilly.

• PCPC regulations adopted April 17, 2012
• Second draft of the Zoning Administration Manual
• Draft Central Delaware Overlay
• Second Draft of Revised Sign Controls

City Council President Anna Verna presided over the last session of 2011 as councilmembers voted to modernize the city’s outdated zoning code. City Council voted 17-0 to replace the current code with the Zoning Code Commission’s Final Report after a four-year public process. The Final Report ( Bill 110845) was approved by the ZCC on November 9 and amended by Zoning Bills 110844 and 110835-A, which also passed unanimously. The new code will become effective in eight months. Between now and then, work on sign controls and new regulations for PCPC and the ZBA will continue. PCPC must also adopt the map revision plan and initiate training programs. One year after the code is in effect, PCPC is required to report back to the city so that any issues related to the new code can be addressed.

The Committee of the Whole Council gave favorable recommendations to Bill 110845 and Bills 110835 and 110844 as amended, voting unanimously to suspend the rules so that a first reading of the zoning code bills can take place at City Council’s next session. Final action on the bills is expected on December 15. Public testimony at the committee hearing was largely in support of the new code, although some speakers requested last minute amendments to address particular concerns.

The committee heard about two and a half hours of testimony from development industry professionals, civic groups, and individual residents. Most spoke favorably of the zoning reform process, as well as the final product, thanking the ZCC, City Council, and staff and consultants for their efforts. Speaking on behalf of the Development Workshop, Craig Schelter congratulated those involved. “Forty years in Philadelphia and I have never seen such collaboration take place,” he said. “I strongly encourage City Council to approve these bills.” James White of the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations said the new code would “balance competing interests and enhance revitalization efforts.”

Some speakers expressed support of the new code, but said they still had concerns. Representatives of the Crosstown Coalition said they believed the new zoning code presented fundamental benefits to neighborhoods, but that they would continue to observe the process and provide input during the eight-month transition period should the new code be adopted.

The greatest opposition came from residents of traditional two-story rowhome neighborhoods. Representatives from the Concerned Citizens of Point Breeze requested amendments to address building height and rooftop decks and gardens. The issue resonated with several councilmembers who asked how the issue is dealt with in the new code. ZCC Chairman Alan Greenberger explained proposed height and setback requirements that are designed to minimize impacts on neighboring properties and encouraged the use of conservation districts to apply greater controls in particular areas. Council President Anna Verna acknowledged that height limits have been an on-going problem and asked Mr. Greenberger to continue working with neighborhoods to explain the new code and address their concerns.

With testimony completed, the Committee of the Whole voted favorably to move all three zoning code bills to City Council for final action. Bill 110845 would replace the current zoning code with the Zoning Code Commission’s Final Report, which was approved by the ZCC on November 9. Bill 110835 would make L&I decisions for conditional permits appealable to the ZBA and would require public notice of such permits. Bill 110844 would transfer the current schedule of fees relating to zoning matters from the zoning code to the administrative code. The first reading of the zoning code bills can take place December 8, allowing for a final vote by City Council December 15.

Bill 110845 was introduced into City Council this morning to replace the current zoning code as per the Zoning Code Commission’s Final Report approved on November 9. Bill 110835 was also introduced, containing an amendment to the new zoning code that would make conditional approvals by L&I appealable to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. A hearing of the Committee of the Whole on both bills is scheduled for December 7 at 10 am.

View the Final Report at http://zoningmatters.org/commission/publications/final_report_zoning_code_commission

The Philadelphia City Planning Commission voted unanimously today to recommend approval of bill 110766, provided Appendices A and B of the bill are replaced with the ZCC’s Final Report. The ZCC will submit that report on or before November 17.

The bill would repeal the city’s existing zoning code and replace it with a new code. It would also give City Council an alternate vehicle for amending the ZCC’s final proposal. According to the 2007 charter amendment, City Council may vote yes or no or table the Final Report; it may not make any revisions. Bill 110766 proposed a change to that process that allows councilmembers to amend the code as they see fit. The bill’s Appendix A is the draft code as submitted to City Council by the ZCC in May. Appendix B includes revisions that reflect Council’s resolution of 40 recommended changes.

The ZCC has worked closely with Council over the past weeks, however, to draft a Final Report that honors all of councilmembers’ concerns and addresses issues raised by other stakeholders as well. PCPC staff recommended that the Commission approve the bill on the condition that Appendices A and B are removed and replaced with the Final Report that is issued by the ZCC on November 17.

Stacey Graham, legislative assistant to Councilman Bill Green, acknowledged that the ZCC has worked hard to make the changes that were discussed. “City Council is completely satisfied,” Ms. Graham said, “and urges you to recommend approval of the bill.” The Commission voted all in favor.

At the final meeting of the Zoning Code Commission, members reviewed last-minute changes to the draft zoning code and voted to send the Final Report to City Council. Any corrections, edits, and revisions approved today by the ZCC must be made and the completed Final Report must be delivered to City Council on or before November 17, when the legislation can be formally introduced. In order for the new zoning code to be adopted this year, Council must hold a public hearing and conduct first and second readings of the bill by December 15.

The ZCC Work Plan Committee and staff worked closely with the City Council sub-committee the last two weeks to address a handful of unresolved issues related to Council’s resolution of 40 recommended changes. The discussion today focused on those recommendations that the ZCC was not in full agreement with City Council, including proposals for parks and open space, solo and group medical practices, community homes, home occupations, Community Benefit Agreements, sky plane controls, standards for Registered Community Organizations, institutional districts, and the Zoning Administrative Manual. Final agreement was reached on these and additional issues raised by groups other than City Council. View PowerPoint presentation of final discussion and a guide to Council amendments.

With no further comments from the ZCC and just a few from the public, ZCC Chairman Alan Greenberger asked Commissioner Greg Pastore to read the resolution that would allow the Final Report to be sent to City Council and permit Executive Director Eva Gladstein to make approved revisions. Since vote on the Final Report must be the last action of the Zoning Code Commission, the resolution also calls on PCPC to make additional changes to the code as needed. Just before 10 AM, the ZCC voted unanimously to approve the Final Report and deliver it to City Council next week.

View resolution and master ordinance. The Interim Draft of the Final Report is available at http://zoningmatters.org/.

At a special session of the Zoning Code Commission, chairman Alan Greenberger led a discussion about City Council Resolution No. 110741, which recommends 40 amendments to the draft zoning code. The commission focused on responses to 21 recommendations that had not been previously considered by the full group. The goal was to gain acceptance for as many responses as possible in order to prepare a final report by November 9 and keep the code on target for adoption in 2011. The ZCC was able to narrow the list of unresolved issues to six. The ZCC Work Plan Committee and the City Council zoning subcommittee will continue to work together to address concerns related to home occupations, group medical practices, existing overlay districts, group living, sky plane provisions, and uses in parks and open space. 

Commission members are confident that none of the remaining issues will prevent the code from being approved by City Council. ZCC member and Councilman Bill Green agreed. “Council has had a very good working relationship with the Work Plan Committee this past month and we’ve made tremendous progress,” Green said. “We are hard-pressed to find any recommendation that gets in the way of the broader mission of the ZCC – producing a clear, transparent, predictable code that allows development.” Councilman Frank DiCicco added that although the resolution passed Council with a unanimous vote, some issues may need to be re-explained if the ZCC proposes a different change or remedy.

The ZCC could not reach immediate consensus on the remaining six issues, which will be discussed in further detail over than next two weeks. The commission wants to avoid the unintended consequence of regulating methadone clinics that could put up barriers to community wellness centers and clinics, for example, so did not fully accept Council’s recommendation. In the case of sky plane, some ZCC members agree with Council that the economic impacts of the provisions have not been fully tested, while others think the new massing requirements are a powerful and well-reasoned tool that will increase design opportunity. And existing safeguards against oversaturation of uses and uses that may be deemed a nuisance must be maintained in a way that does not discriminate or undermine revitalization efforts.

The timeframe for resolving these issues is tight. The ZCC must take a final vote on the amended draft of the code at its next regularly scheduled meeting on November 9. City Council must then introduce the code and master ordinance on November 17 so that a public hearing on the final report can be held December 5 and a final action by City Council can take place on December 15, the last session in 2011.

To view the October 26 PowerPoint presentation on changes, click here.

City Councilmembers reviewed the draft zoning code and quickly came to consensus about what they want to see changed. City Council voted unanimously today to pass a resolution of 40 recommendations. Now the ZCC must evaluate those recommendations and make decisions about how the code should be modified. A special meeting of the ZCC has been scheduled for Wednesday, October 26 at 8 AM, 1515 Arch Street, to address these and other proposed changes. The ZCC has 30 days to submit a final report, but must respond sooner if final action by City Council is to take place this year. The ZCC plans to issue a final draft in early November. Visit http://legislation.phila.gov/detailreport/?key=11681 to view the recommended changes.

The Zoning Code Commission met today to learn more about what City Council has said it would like to see changed in the draft zoning code so far and consider the ZCC Work Plan Committee’s preliminary response to those requests. Although the deadline for Council to provide a resolution of recommended changes is October 27, ZCC staff and consultants have been working closely with Council to resolve outstanding issues. The ZCC will make final decisions about how to modify the draft code once the resolution is formally introduced in Council, perhaps as early as October 20. The ZCC will need to react quickly to keep the new zoning code on track for a 2011 vote. The commission plans to submit its final report to Council in early November.

Today’s presentation highlighted 15 recommendations from City Council and 10 from community and business stakeholders. Proposed changes addressed a range of issues, including nonconforming and regulated uses, standards for use variances and special exceptions, sky plane controls, parking, and more. (Click here to view the ZCC presentation on changes.) Much of the discussion focused on disclosure requirements for Community Benefits Agreements and what uses should be permitted in residential districts and public open space.

Council recommended that the draft code be changed to prohibit or permit by special exception any use that currently requires a variance in residential districts or is deemed potentially harmful to residential neighborhoods. In response, the ZCC must consider whether to prohibit group living, assisted living, group community homes, active recreation, educational facilities, libraries and cultural exhibits, basic utilities and services, wireless facilities, B&Bs, and home occupations in single family residential districts and permit them by special exception in all other residential districts. Commissioner John Westrum asked how assisted living facilities could be deemed a nuisance use when they allow people to age in place. And Commissioner Greg Pastore addressed home occupations, which are typically considered accessory uses. “How are we going to have an accessory use that is a special exception?” Pastore asked. Mr. Pastore also questioned proposed restrictions on retail uses in recreational districts. “What is a bike rental?” he asked. Public participants addressed the need to provide for group homes and methadone clinics in residential settings and suggested that what Council is proposing is illegal according to federal law.

The pros and cons of Community Benefits Agreements were also debated. City Council wants to eliminate mandatory submission requirements and penalties related to such private agreements to clarify that the city is not responsible for their enforcement. Neighborhood representatives argued that knowledge and enforcement are separate issues and that disclosure is necessary to ensure all stakeholders are aware of any negotiations that have taken place.

ZCC member and Councilman Bill Green addressed the commission as a member of the Council subcommittee preparing the resolution of changes. “At this point, there is no sense of what exactly City Council will send back to you,” he said. “But what is on the table is not standing in the way of creating predictability and certainty.” Green asked the ZCC to think about separating out certain issues for future discussion. ZCC Chairman Alan Greenberger agreed that there may be issues that cannot be immediately resolved and should not hold back the entire code, but he wants advice from the Law Department. “If we decide to park an issue,” Greenberger said, “how do we embed that in the draft code?”

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the ZCC is November 9, although a tentative date was set for an earlier meeting on October 26 if needed.

City Council President and Committee Chair Anna Verna closed public hearings on the draft zoning code today, moving the process required by the Charter Amendment forward and making adoption in this calendar year a strong possibility. Additional testimony was provided by the administration and community and industry representatives. Most testifiers supported the zoning overhaul and spoke favorably of the work of the ZCC, but drew Council’s attention to detailed concerns they still want addressed. At-large Councilman James Kenney urged final action this term. “I know district councilmembers have a more intense relationship with the zoning code,” he said, “but we will never come up with a document that can address all the different needs that arise. The way to go now is to make any changes Council recommends this session and take a leap of faith.”

Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Alan Greenberger and Executive Director of the Zoning Code Commission Eva Gladstein provided preliminary responses to changes to the May 2011 draft code proposed by City Council members. The document contains responses prepared by the ZCC’s Work Plan Committee, which will present its recommendations to the full commission for official action. (Click here to view the recommendations.) Councilman Bill Green said the ZCC had made significant progress toward eliminating issues that may prevent the code from being adopted this year. “I think we can get 99.5% there,” he said, but asked Mr. Greenberger to go on the record about what will happen if there are one or two outstanding items. “For example,” Green said, “we don’t expect much development in parks right now, so maybe we can deal with that issue later.” Greenberger was quick to reply. “We will try and resolve that .5% in the next 20 to 30 days,” he said, “if not, we will put it aside.” The implication is that some final issues will be discussed and resolved later, so that they do not stall progress on the whole code.

After about an hour and a half of testimony addressing a range of issues – modernization of the Historical Commission, rules for registered community organizations, parking regulations, spacing requirements for regulated uses, and more – Council President Verna thanked participants for their interest and closed the hearings. According to the Charter Amendment, City Council now has 30 days to make written recommendations to the ZCC.

PennPraxis, PlanPhilly and the Daily News hosted a public forum last night that brought decision-makers together to talk about why zoning reform is so important and what is needed for City Council to support a new code and vote to adopt it this year. PennPraxis director Harris Steinberg moderated a panel discussion with Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Alan Greenberger and Councilmen Frank DiCicco, Bill Green, and Darrell Clarke. The Councilmen agreed that the draft code is about 99 percent ready and getting closer. At issue is the code’s ground-level application and when and how remapping is carried out.

Alan Greenberger provided background on the history of zoning in Philadelphia and the status of the current reform effort. Mr. Greenberger emphasized that much of the new code is designed to clean up and simplify the regulations and establish a consistent and predictable process for all neighborhoods. “Still,” Greenberger said, “there are a bunch of issues that remain controversial. We’ve had to strike as careful a balance as possible between the desire for growth and the desire to preserve neighborhoods.”

The Councilmen were asked to talk about their own perspectives on zoning and what should happen next. Frank DiCicco said he initiated the zoning reform effort out of frustration with the current code’s complexity and what he described as the constant “banging of heads” between developers and community groups over proposed projects. “We have to be partners,” DiCicco said. “We need this code and we need to get it passed this session or it may not happen for another decade,” he continued. “If it is not satisfactory, we can amend it; it is not set in stone.”

Councilman Green focused on what he is calling automatic conversions – changes in permitted uses that would result if the code is adopted before remapping takes place. Green explained the difference between the Majority and Minority Reports issued by the ZCC on May 11, 2011. Under the Majority Report, the code takes effect citywide after a six-month transition period. Remapping will occur as the Philadelphia City Planning Commission completes its district planning process, which will be used to identify land that should be rezoned. Green essentially said in the Minority Report, “Let’s adopt the code as we map the city, so we have community input on the ground.” Since then, Green has acknowledged that having more than one code in force at any given time is problematic and has proposed changes to the code language that could narrow the gap between the two reports. “I fully expect and hope myself to pass the new zoning code this session,” Green said.

Councilman Clarke approached the topic by describing specific zoning issues in his district. “I represent the most diverse district in the city, perhaps the state,” Clarke said, “and we experience all types of challenging zoning issues.” The Councilman highlighted problems associated with student housing around Temple University and high-rise development along the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. “We developed overlay districts because people wanted some say-so,” he said. “I commend the work done so far and it is important to move this code along, but I am not comfortable moving forward without remapping. We need a ground-level conversation with these residents.”

The discussion clarified details about registered community organizations and the role of the community groups and individuals under the proposed new code. Questions about institutional development districts and existing overlay and historic districts were addressed.  But issues related to remapping and when the code would become effective went unresolved and there are still a few critical details to work out before the end of this Council session and six new councilmembers are introduced. “As with any complicated piece of legislation,” Harris Steinberg said, “there are unintended consequences that are impossible to predict.” He said that Philadelphians have lived with the uncertainty of an untenable zoning code for so long and asked the panel if the unintended consequences in this case are too dire. “Can we get there?” Steinberg asked.

Both Green and Clarke replied that they support the code and want to see it get done. But Clarke added, “It is more important to get it right than in a timely fashion and the freshmen councilmembers can adequately deal with this and make the appropriate decision.”  Frank DiCicco agreed about the next council, but said, “What is ‘right’? It will never be perfect so that everyone will accept it without criticism. We should do the heavy lifting as incumbents and move forward.”

About 40 community and business leaders registered to testify today when the Committee of the Whole Council reconvened hearings on the proposed new zoning code. Council chambers were full as representatives from civic groups, for-profit and non-profit development corporations, the design industry, and other organizations and individuals provided more than six hours of testimony. Most said they want to see a new zoning code adopted by City Council this session, but made detailed recommendations on how the draft code could be further changed and improved before final action is taken. Councilmembers raised their own concerns, asking questions about how the code deals with existing overlay districts, student housing, nightclubs, registered community organizations, and more. 

The hearing began with testimony by the administration that generated nearly two hours of discussion. Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Alan Greenberger, Executive Director of the Zoning Code Commission Eva Gladstein, and Senior Consultant Don Elliott of Clarion Associates focused on aspects of the proposed zoning code that have engendered questions from City Council. The panel provided clarification on a range of issues, including where certain uses are prohibited or permitted by special exception, whether the new code provides the same level of protections as current overlay districts, how much remapping is likely to be required as a result of the code, and limitations on the number and spacing of uses in any given area.

Additional panels testified about the benefits of the new code for economic development, neighborhood growth, sustainability, and quality of life. Others addressed the code’s clarity and ease of use. Although many speakers requested further discussion on a number of issues and recommended specific changes, there seemed to be consensus that resolution could be achieved and a commitment to see the zoning reform effort through in 2011.

Shortly after 5 PM, City Council President Anna Verna announced that the Committee of the Whole will stand in recess until September 27 at 10 AM.

This afternoon, Deputy Mayor Alan Greenberger and Zoning Code Commission Executive Director Eva Gladstein briefed Council as a whole on the draft Zoning Code for the fourth time. Councilmembers asked about the Zoning Code’s treatment of mother-in-law suites, conversions of single family to multi-family homes, the extent of community input and other important topics.

Councilman DiCicco started off the session by reminding members why zoning reform is needed – to create predictable rules up front, to limit the need for variances that currently must be obtained in 40% of cases, and to attract investment from outside of Philadelphia. Deputy Mayor Greenberger acknowledged that the draft Code isn’t perfect but it is the product of four years of hard work and it strikes a balance between different positions. He thanked Councilman Green and Reynolds Brown for providing feedback and comments in written form before the September 14th hearing and said that the ZCC will make all changes to the Code within a single timeframe after the hearing is complete.

Councilwoman Tasco asked whether single family homes could be converted into two family homes under the draft Code. Eva Gladstein answered no. All existing single family districts will remain single family under the new Code. Councilwoman Tasco also sought to understand whether there will be any limitations placed on the community’s access to information about development or their right to voice their opinions when the new Code is adopted. Greenberger assured her that there is no change to access or input. Anyone with an interest can still speak at the ZBA. The new rules however require that developers provide Registered Community Organizations with additional early notice.

A broad discussion then took place around features of the Code designed to allow residents to age in place such as transit oriented development, adult day care and mother-in-law suites. Several Councilmembers and staff voiced their concerns about the lack of enforcement to ensure that mother-in-law suites do not become apartments occupied by non-families.

Click here to view the ZCC presentation to City Council.

The Next Great City is circulating an action alert to thousands of community groups and individuals, urging them to sign a petition in favor of passing the draft zoning code in 2011. They are seeking 1,000 signatures. The e-Petition will be delivered to City Council prior to the scheduled vote in the fall.

Citizens can sign the petition online at the Next Great City website by clicking here or use their smart phones to take a picture of the special QR code embedded here and in the press release. The picture of the QR code will take them directly to the electronic petition. (Note: Smart phones must be equipped with QR application software.)

View the Next Great City Press Release

Click to view Residents Fact Sheet, Businesses Fact Sheet, Sustainability Fact Sheet, Community Input Fact Sheet.

The Committee of the Whole began discussions on zoning reform today, meeting the Charter Amendment requirement that City Council commence public hearings within 45 days of when the Zoning Code Commission submits its Preliminary Report. Chaired by Councilwoman Marian Tasco, the Committee heard nearly two and a half hours of testimony. While some speakers said the code is not yet perfect, most agreed the ZCC’s proposal reflects broad-based stakeholder involvement and compromise. Speakers representing local business, community organizations, and individual interests spoke in favor of keeping the process on track for adoption in this calendar year. Although substantive discussions on the Preliminary Report will not take place until the fall, many view the summer as an opportunity to review the code in detail and educate Councilmembers on specific issues they want resolved. 

ZCC members and staff described the contents of the Preliminary Report and provided an overview of the reform process, which included an extensive public outreach effort. ZCC testimony highlighted how the new code meets the Charter mandates to make zoning consistent and easy to understand, improve the city’s development process, and protect the character of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods. The restructured code is simplified with maps, charts, and tables; the number of base and overlay districts are reduced; and new strategies for uses and dimensional standards are intended to reduce the number of cases before the ZBA, while providing a system of checks and balances that will protect neighborhoods. Several ZCC members spoke about how public input has been significantly enhanced in the new code with a system for registering community organizations, improved public notice, neighborhood meeting requirements and Civic Design Review. New form and design controls, contextual zoning requirements, and sustainability features were also highlighted.

Councilwoman Tasco asked speakers to expound on a few points, including incentives for transit-oriented development, setbacks in rowhome neighborhoods, and details about registered community organizations. None of the other Councilmembers in attendance had any questions or comments.

About 19 speakers submitted public testimony. Representatives from the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations, AIA Philadelphia, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Philadelphia Corporation for Aging, Community Legal Services’ Child Care Law Project, and individual developers, architects, land use attorneys, business-owners, and residents urged City Council to move the process forward this year, even though they think the code may have flaws or they did not get everything they wanted. “The ZCC created a delicately balanced document; it is not flawed,” resident Brian McHale said. “It represents detailed discussion, compromise, and good faith effort.” He asked City Council to move forward as “expeditiously and judiciously as possible.” Former ZCC members Richard DeMarco and Andy Toy agreed. “Everyone had to give up some small piece of the pie,” Mr. DeMarco said. “Now it is up to City Council to give Philadelphia a world-class zoning code.”

Representatives from several community associations, including the Crosstown Coalition, East Falls Community Council, Concerned Citizens of Point Breeze, and the Germantown Community Connection acknowledged the effort by the ZCC and support zoning reform overall, but still have specific issues they want to address before City Council takes final action. Neighborhood groups want Council to allow time to review and fully understand the impacts of the new code and not to rush to final action. Cheryl Gaston of the Real Property Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association agreed. Ms. Gaston said that throughout the process, there was never enough time to adequately absorb and comment on changes to the numerous drafts of the code.

Click here to view a transcript of the hearing. The next hearing held by the Committee of the Whole on the Preliminary Report will be scheduled for the fall.

On June 2, City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the Committee of the Whole to hold public hearings on the Zoning Code Commission’s Preliminary Report. The Charter Amendment requires hearings to begin within 45 days, although ZCC Chairman Alan Greenberger does not expect any substantive Council discussion until the fall. In the interim, Councilman Bill Green requested a zoning analysis service that would allow residents, business-owners, and community development representatives to request information on a specific property. “Letting people see what is permitted under current zoning and how new zoning would change that for a particular address will take away the mystery,” Green said. Director Eva Gladstein agreed. “The tools are available to do it now, but we will add this service to make it more accessible,” she said. ZCC staff, working groups, and consultants will also continue work this summer on sign controls, aiming to have draft regulations available in September.

The ZCC internal working group on signs has been meeting twice a month for about nine months to strengthen understanding of existing controls and develop a framework for consultants to draft new regulations. The current sign regulations are complicated and scattered throughout the zoning code, so for the Preliminary Report, consultants pulled them together into a single chapter without proposing any changes to allow time for the working group to make recommendations. The working group consists of ZCC members and staff, and representatives from L&I, the Planning and Arts Commissions, Law, Commerce, and Streets. Other stakeholders have been invited to the group to provide input as well, including representatives from SCRUB, the sign manufacturing industry, the outdoor advertising community, and CDCs. The ZCC Civic Engagement Committee is planning two rounds of public outreach on signs, starting once draft regulations are available in the fall. The ZCC would like to submit a revised chapter on signs to City Council in the spring of 2012.

Public participants questioned why the Historical Commission was not part of the sign working group and requested earlier community input, noting that existing regulations are complex and controversial and that three bills related to signs are currently before City Council. A representative from the Crosstown Coalition wants the ZCC to ask City Council for a moratorium on signs until the benefit of the working group’s analysis is available.

Irv Ackelsberg from the Germantown Community Coalition supported Councilman Green’s suggestion for an address-by-address zoning information service. Mr. Ackelsberg spoke about what he called the “unintended consequences” of the new zoning code on a property in his community that is currently protected from an unwanted concentration of certain retail uses by an overlay district. ZCC Chairman Greenberger reiterated that ZCC staff will provide a zoning analysis service so that such cases are brought to light, but cautioned that the Commission has to consider questions about how zoning is used in general. “We have to be sure zoning is the right method for achieving an end,” he said.

Questions about the transition from the old code to the new were also clarified. Eva Gladstein explained that the transition period will last six months. During the first three months, the old code will still be effective. In the next three months applicants will have a choice of using either all old or all new regulations. On the 180th day, the new code only will be in effect.

Mr. Greenberger adjourned the meeting, stating that the ZCC will announce the date of the public hearing of the Committee of the Whole as soon as it is scheduled. The next meeting of the ZCC will be held September 14.

Zoning CodeCommission members voted 22 to 0 to send the Preliminary Report to City Council. Seven commission members abstained, including Councilmen Bill Green and Brian O’Neill. Green and O’Neill petitioned fellow commissioners last week to include an amendment that would delay the effective date of the new code until zoning map revisions are completed in each planning district– a process that may take another 5 to 10 years. The proposal generated a heated debate at today’s meeting, but the required two-thirds vote was reached by a majority of members who believe the draft codeis ready for City Council. The threat to delay the code’s effective date remains, however. Bill Green quickly introduced a motion to include a minority report in the package that is transmitted to Council and make councilmembers aware of the proposed amendment. That motion passed with 9 votes.

The debate about effective date centers on what Councilmen Green and O’Neill are calling “de facto” or “back door” remapping. They believe the adoption of the draft code will result in automatic changes to existing districts and that these changes are essentially a rezoning of property. “The expansion of permitted uses and changes to dimensional standards embed remapping into the text,” O’Neill said. Councilman Green agreed and described how the consolidation and renaming of districts could impact neighborhoods. He said the conversion from R-4 to RSA-2, for example, would allow a block of five single family houses to transition into11 dwelling units by right. Green added that newly permitted home occupations could exacerbate that density further with traffic and noise, changing the quiet character of the neighborhood. (View the Councilmen’s May 5, 2011 Letter to Commissioners  and proposed amendment.)

Not all ZCC members were convinced. Emanuel Kelly said the draft code is a framework of words and ingredients, not a remapping. Greg Pastore disputed Green’s R-4 example more directly, stating that the same number of homes could be built under the current code. More importantly, Pastore emphasized that the issues Green and O’Neill raise will not be solved through remapping. He explained that the commission made decisions on uses and dimensional standards that some may think need to be revisited, but any concerns must be addressed with the text. “The code will be the tool PCPC hasto work with during remapping,” Pastore said. Commissioners Daniela Voith and Peter Kelsen raised concerns about enforcing two codes at the same time, which would be necessary if the new code comes into effect as each district is remapped. They both urged the ZCC to send the code to City Council and let it do what it needs to do.

Commissioner Eleanor Sharpe wanted a professional opinion. She asked consultant Kirk Bishop if he thought Philadelphia was heading down the wrong path. Mr. Bishop replied that the consultant team recommended this course to begin with and that he believes it is the right one: write the code first and address the zoning map second. “I have been a zoning consultant for 25 years,” Bishop said, “and this is the preferred approach.” He explained that this debate occurs in every jurisdiction and it is always a difficult discussion. “I was project director for Chicago and they have done exactly as recommended here,” Bishop added. “Broader uses, new setbacks and standards became effective the day the code was adopted. But this approach allows everyone to be treated equally. The basic rules need to apply universally or the project can get derailed.” He stressed that it is nearly impossible to create a zoning code that doesn’t trip the wire for someone. “There is always someone who is going to perceive a change as a rezoning.”

While there are some unresolved issues that remain, most ZCC members agreed the draft code achieves the primary objectives of making the zoning process more predictable and transparent. Any flaws, they said, can be discussed with the benefit of City Council input. But Commissioner Stella Tsai cautioned fellow ZCC members about characterizing code language that way. “Much of what we are calling flaws are policy decisions where we drew the line as a commission,” Tsai said. “We are using the word “flaw” to describe what we would prefer if we had our way. To me, this code does what the charter wanted us to do and it is ready to roll.” Bill Green agreed that the ZCC has done a lot of good work, but he doesn’t believe the Commission is meeting the charge to protect existing neighborhoods. “That is why I am recommending this one small amendment,” he said.

Before Chairman Alan Greenberger called for the final vote, the public had an opportunity to weigh in. Kiki Bolender, an architect that led workshops associated with the ZCC civic engagement process, said she was disappointed. “During the Common Ground workshops we heard people say over and over again that there is a lack of leadership in City Council. This is the most craven example,” Bolender said. Speaking directly to Brian O’Neill and Bill Green, she said she was disappointed in their fear-mongering and inaccuracies. “How can you call this proposal a small amendment when it will delay the process 5 to 10 years and probably kill it?”

Mr. Greenberger called for a vote on the motion, stating that it required a two-thirds vote or 21 of 31 members. The vote to send the Preliminary Report to City Council passed 22 to 0 with 7 abstentions. (View the Resolution.)

Bill Green immediately called for a motion to provide a minority report, which would be transmitted along with the majority Preliminary Report to City Council. The minority report would be the Preliminary Report with his amendment as the only change. Mr. Greenberger clarified exactly what the vote meant and that it needed just seven positive votes. The minority vote passed with 9 votes.

The zoning code now goes to City Council, which is required to convene a public hearing within 45 days.

After four years of hard work and a civic engagement process that is unparalleled in other cities, the Zoning Code Commission is scheduled to send the draft code to City Council this Wednesday, May 11. Yet Councilmen Green and O’Neill seek to delay progress further. They propose in a letter to fellow ZCC members to amend the effective date of the draft zoning code so that it does not apply to some districts until the remapping is complete – a process that is estimated to take 10 years. The new zoning code would replace outdated regulations that are more than 50 years old. Can we afford to wait another 10 years to enforce it?  Click here to view the Green-O’Neill May 5, 2011 Letter to Commissioners. Read proposed amendment.

ZCC Director Eva Gladstein described new parking requirements in the draft zoning code that were developed with input from the Streets Department and professional experts. The new code establishes parking maximums in an effort to bring down the overall amount of parking provided and encourage transit use, walking, and cycling. New design standards will ensure parking lots are adequately landscaped and screened and curb cuts across sidewalks are limited.

The current zoning code sets parking minimums, which may reduce competition for available on-street parking but can increase traffic congestion, pollution, and energy consumption. New zoning generally lowers the minimum number of spaces required and sets a maximum calculated as a percentage of the minimum or as a ratio based on gross floor area. Other smart parking strategies proposed in the draft code encourage the use of shared parking, auto-share vehicles, and bicycles. A few stakeholders expressed concern that proposed parking caps may be too restrictive and may even discourage development in certain cases. “Big industrial users with 1,000 to 1,200 employees should not have to go to the ZBA or get a special exception,” said Craig Schelter of the Development Workshop. “It will become a disincentive for businesses looking at Philadelphia.”

ZCC member Greg Pastore wanted more clarity on how parking nonconformities are addressed in the new code. The language currently proposed would allow the nonconforming amounts and/or locations of spaces to remain, even if a new use is proposed. The parking would need to be improved only if a new principle structure is built or the existing floor area is significantly altered or expanded. Mr. Pastore wants to be sure that is the intent of the Commission and asked whether the issue could be revisited by the Work Plan Committee.

Eva Gladstein reminded the group that new sign controls will be proposed next fall and are not part of the draft code. Existing regulations are being carried over as is while an internal working group on signs gathers input from community and industry stakeholders.

The next ZCC meeting will be May 11 at 8:00 AM, when the Commission will vote to send the draft code – the Preliminary Report – to City Council. A new version of the code will be posted Wednesday, May 4, and any comments submitted after that draft is released will be documented for review by the ZCC and City Council.

Read about all seven Stakeholder X-Changes by clicking on the links below.

The April 27 X-Change focused on new development standards, including citywide form and design controls and provisions for natural resources. The biggest issue was whether the zoning code is the place to try to encourage good design and how far such controls should go.

The draft zoning code includes baseline form and design standards for different building types in all zoning districts. Philadelphia’s current code does not have design controls for base zoning districts; overlay districts for Center City and neighborhood commercial areas have been created over time to address such issues. The Zoning Code Commission considers the new standards necessary to promote higher quality design. “This is the bare minimum,” ZCC member Graciela Cavicchia said. While most neighborhood representatives agreed, Craig Schelter of the Development Workshop said that most developers would like to see design guidelines in the administrative manual. “Developers will want variances from these standards,” he said. “We don’t have that level of design information at the zoning permit stage. It is unrealistic and will discourage investment in this city.” Design professionals at the X-Change challenged that position, questioning whether such minimum standards would really thwart projects. “Making the design standards ‘guidelines’ will essentially kill them,” said architect Tim Kerner of the Center City Residents Association.

ZCC director Eva Gladstein added that this section of the code has changed a great deal in response to stakeholder input and that the goal of the new code is to have a submission process that is no more burdensome than the current system. Ms. Gladstein described new provisions for a two-stage permitting process and self-certification, which are intended to address both neighborhood and developer concerns. Mr. Schelter acknowledged ZCC progress, but pointed out that the new code requires a signed and sealed statement and then gives L&I discretion on whether or not it will accept it. “If you require professionals to certify the submission, then you have to accept that certification,” he said. Mr. Schelter added that he will press the issue about form and design controls with the Chamber of Commerce and City Council. “Arbitrary standards coupled with new provisions for how the ZBA will review projects will create problems,” he said.

Other concerns raised at the X-Change focused on new open space and natural resource standards. Participants questioned language related to previously developed land, which they say may actually allow development on steep slopes. Eva Gladstein replied that the ZCC agrees the wording is problematic and is working with the Philadelphia Water Department and Planning Commission to refine the standards. “We were attempting to distinguish between man-made slopes and natural conditions,” she said.

Stephanie Kindt, staff attorney for the Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight (SCRUB) raised the final issue addressed at the meeting. The draft code has been recently changed to prevent citywide associations from registering as a community organization for a particular neighborhood. Ms. Kindt wanted to know why the ZCC made this revision. “What about areas of the city that have no other representation?” she asked. ZCC Program Coordinator Natalie Shieh replied that the purpose of the new RCO process is to incentivize community participation and stressed that this specialized neighborhood process does not trump the public hearing process where citywide groups will continue to have an opportunity to be heard.

The last X-Change on parking and signs is scheduled for Tuesday, May 3 at 8 AM, 1515 Arch Street, 18th floor. A revised draft code will be available at http://www.zoningmatters.org/ next week.

ZCC Program Coordinator Natalie Shieh provided an overview of new dimensional standards in the draft code and fielded questions focused mainly on building mass and access to light and air. Other issues of concern included the overlap between zoning provisions and Streets Department regulations and the impact of the Conversion Map, which will automatically replace Philadelphia’s current zoning map when City Council adopts the new zoning code.

The discussion began with proposed “sky plane” regulations, which would control massing on lots zoned CMX-4 and CMX-5 that front on east-west streets in the densest areas of Center City. These regulations govern building mass in relation to the visibility of sky from the sidewalk level. No such controls would apply to CMX-4 and CMX-5 lots outside of the designated areas. Community groups are concerned that the code does not consider other places in the city where density and height are an issue now or could be in the future. These areas, they said, should have some sort of form and design controls in place.

Community stakeholders also wanted to know how access to light and sky would be addressed in dense residential areas where sky plane regulations do not apply. They recommended that the definitions for terms such as occupied area, open area, and yard be revisited to clarify how new zoning provisions would apply to decks and canopies or to parts of a building that are cantilevered out on upper floors. These features may impact a neighbor’s visibility along a street or in a rear yard. “We want to get the definitions right and avoid inconsistent application of the rules,” one participant said.

Others questioned how zoning interfaces with current Streets Department regulations that control encroachments into public streets and sidewalk areas. Natalie Shieh said the ZCC pulls in the Streets Department and other agencies as needed and will take the lead role on determining whether the new zoning code conflicts with other codes. “That is why there needs to be a transition period,” she said. While some questioned whether a proposed six-month transition was enough and how implementation will be monitored, Ms. Shieh assured the group that background training is already underway and a mechanism will be put in place to track progress.

The biggest issue related to the transition, however, was the impact of the Conversion Map, which will go into effect immediately when the new zoning code is adopted by City Council. The official remapping process will be conducted by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission once the district comprehensive plans are complete. Although the primary purpose of the Conversion Map is to address the renaming and consolidation of current zoning districts, some consider it a de facto remapping because any changes to dimensional standards or uses in the new code will be automatically put in place. “What if it is considered down-zoning or a taking?” Sam Little of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association asked. “If the budget isn’t there to pursue the remapping phase or a new mayor has different policy priorities, the changes and process are over with the conversion map,” Little continued. “I can see a lot of heartburn coming with this map if communities do not have a full understanding of what it does.”

The next X-Change is scheduled for Wednesday April 27 at 5 PM. All meetings are being held at 1515 Arch Street on the 18th floor. Visit http://www.zoningmatters.org/for the complete schedule of meeting times and topics and the latest updates on the draft code and related documents, including two new tools for analyzing the code: A Review of Use Changes in the New Zoning Code and the Top Ten Things You Should Know About Philadelphia’s New Zoning Code.

See reports on all the Stakeholder X-Changes at the links below.

ZCC Chair Alan Greenberger said the Commission will vote to send the draft zoning code – the Draft Preliminary Report – to City Council on May 11. A new draft will be posted on May 1, although refinements continue to be made based on public comments and input from internal committees. At today’s meeting, lead consultant Don Elliott highlighted the differences in uses between the current and draft codes, as well as any changes that have been made to the Draft Preliminary Report since March 2.

Mr. Elliott emphasized that in the new code uses are regulated by category, not by individual uses. In order to determine which uses will be permitted in a particular zoning district, staff and consultants looked at whether a use is appropriate for the intended character of an area, not just what uses are there now. The new use regulations are designed to support the overall purposes of the code by applying sound planning principles citywide, locating appropriate businesses and services near residents, and promoting sustainability. The Draft Preliminary Report introduces new, modern uses into the code and may be more permissive or restrictive in relation to existing uses, depending on the character of the neighborhood. The code is more permissive to accommodate uses that have evolved over time to have fewer impacts or to reduce conflicts with state and federal laws. Use-specific standards are incorporated where needed to improve predictability and preserve neighborhood character. The code is more restrictive for uses that are no longer compatible with the district or where a highly specific use exists that is prohibited in the new code. ZCC staff prepared A Review of Use Changes in the New Zoning Code to help residents understand the new regulations. Click here to review today’s presentation on uses.

Significant changes to the Draft Preliminary Report are mostly related to Chapter 14-300, Administration and Procedures, and involve language refinements to clarify ZCC intentions, eliminate redundancies, and avoid legal challenges. Click here to view Mr. Elliott’s presentation on recent changes.

As the ZCC prepares to send the draft code to City Council, the Commission’s staff and Work Plan and Civic Engagement Committees are maintaining an intense schedule of meetings to gather and process last-minute feedback. Community groups and industry stakeholders are also working hard to analyze the impacts of the code and make recommendations before the time for changes runs out.

Comments at today’s meeting were initiated by ZCC member and Councilman Brian O’Neill. Mr. O’Neill asked about two-family homes and the number of units that will now be permitted in neighborhoods traditionally comprised of twins and duplexes. The new code does not distinguish between two-family and multi-family dwellings and ties density to lot size. Instead of permitting a maximum number of units per lot, the code requires a minimum lot area per unit, so that the total permitted is based on the overall size of the lot. Councilman O’Neill said he posed the question in response to resident concerns and to see if this is an issue that will make the code “dead on arrival” to City Council. Councilman Bill Green agreed that the issue should be addressed. “There are large lots in Roxborough and Germantown that could now add more units,” he said. Mr. Green also expressed concern about the changes that will be imposed on neighborhoods immediately following the code’s adoption, when district names are converted and the new use categories are put in place. Although Alan Greenberger said the ZCC needs to ensure the transition does not fundamentally change a neighborhood, Councilman Green was quick to point out that any development rights that are granted when the code is passed cannot be taken back when the remapping occurs. “It may be considered a regulatory taking,” he said. “You don’t get a do-over.”

Visit http://www.zoningmatters.org/ to track changes to the code and related documents. The next ZCC meeting and scheduled vote on the code will be held May 11 at 8:00 AM, 1515 Arch Street, 18th Floor.

Executive Director Eva Gladstein started the April 5 X-Change by describing the ZCC’s organizing principles for how uses will be addressed in the new zoning code. “It is not about maintaining the status quo or what uses are there now,” Gladstein said. “We looked at whether a use would make sense in a particular district or not.” In order to create zoning that is predictable and easier to understand, Ms. Gladstein said the draft code introduces a new structure of use categories, recognizes modern uses, and clarifies what is permitted or not with new use tables.

Under the current code, any use that is not specifically named requires a variance approved by the ZBA. Now there are 10 main use categories and 40 subcategories intended to accommodate a broader range of possible uses and build flexibility into the system for the future. For example, instead of listing “book store” or “fabric shop” as separate permitted uses in a district, such uses will permitted under the category “retail sales” and subcategory “consumer goods.” Some uses with additional applicable standards are specifically called out, such as night clubs, take-out restaurants, and day care. The use tables identify which uses are permitted by right, permitted by special exception, or expressly prohibited.

Feedback on the new approach focused on the aggregation of special exception uses. Community representatives seemed to agree that such uses should be limited to a certain number per block or designated area. The concern is that an over-saturation of a particular use could be detrimental to a neighborhood. Examples ranged from permitted billiards rooms that lead to an “arcade district” to allowing group homes that burden an area with providing social services that are needed citywide. Although questions were raised about the legality of spacing requirements, civic groups want special exception standards to better address the impacts of these uses on neighborhoods. The proposed standards were described as “too subjective.”

Still, many participants would like to see more special exception uses. “The liberalization of uses is a critical point,” Joe Schiavo of the Crosstown Coalition said. “The Coalition asked that many uses now permitted by-right be changed to permitted by special exception. There are observable issues already with these uses that we don’t want to persist.”

Problems with religious institutions, for example, generated a heated debate. While questions were raised about what should be deemed a “real” or “traditional” neighborhood church, the biggest issue seemed to be with the accessory uses and social services that are often provided at these institutions. “We think religious institutions should be a special exception across the board,” Meg Greenfield of the East Falls Community Council said. “It’s not just a church; it’s a school, a day care, a shelter. These uses are being permitted by-right in religious institutions; where otherwise they would be special exceptions.” Some disagreed. Kiki Bolender of Schade and Bolender Architects LLP said she welcomed the services that churches provide. “These are real life needs – day care, help for alcoholics and ex-offenders,” Bolender said. “I don’t like the idea that neighbors would be able to say no.”

Other uses identified as problems for neighborhoods included wireless facilities, take-out restaurants, catering halls, and eating establishments with “occasional” entertainment. Although no resolutions were made today, ZCC member Greg Pastore acknowledged that many valid points were made and that the Commission would reconsider certain uses and how and where they are allowed under the new code.

Ms. Gladstein noted that the next X-Change is not until Tuesday April 19 at 8:00 AM, since a full meeting of the ZCC will be held next Wednesday April 13. All meetings are being held at 1515 Arch Street on the 18th floor. Visit http://www.zoningmatters.org/ for the complete schedule of meeting times and topics and the latest updates on the draft code and related documents. Also available are two new tools for analyzing the code: A Review of Use Changes in the New Zoning Code and the Top Ten Things You Should Know About Philadelphia’s New Zoning Code.

See the links below for additional reports on the X-Changes.

Neighborhood representatives, developers, professional consultants, and interested residents are meeting at ZCC Stakeholder X-Changes to weigh in on proposed zoning regulations before the draft code is sent to City Council in May. The X-Changes were designed as informal opportunities for residents to learn more about the new code, but participants are using the time to provide additional comments and request more changes. The ZCC will make improvements to the code as appropriate.

Each X-Change has a focus area for discussion, although time is allowed for participants to raise concerns about other aspects of the draft zoning code. The first X-Change drew an unexpectedly large number interested in proposed public notice requirements, neighborhood meetings, and Civic Design review. The crowd was mostly made up of representatives from organized neighborhood groups, but a few voices from the development community were also heard, along with individuals not associated with any one civic association. Comments focused on new requirements for Registered Community Organizations (RCOs) and the number of required CDR meetings. See ZCC “Stakeholder X-Change” draws crowd.

At the second X-Change, the discussion focused on actions by the ZBA, including new standards for granting use and dimensional variances. While the ZBA must still take into account the impact on health, safety, and public welfare when granting variances under the draft code, some participants wanted to see the specific language for criteria in the current code maintained. Civic associations base their objections on those criteria when reviewing proposed projects in their neighborhoods. Developers, on the other hand, consider the new regulations too strict. The ZBA is required to just “consider” the criteria in the existing code, but the draft code requires the ZBA to make specific findings for each of the new criteria.

Stakeholders on all sides of the development issue want to see the ZBA held to a better standard, however. “The Board needs more guidance on how they run their meetings,” one participant said, “and it needs to be in the code.” Andrew Ross, Chief Deputy Solicitor for Housing and Code Enforcement at the city Law Department, said that there is an attempt in the draft code to address this issue, but some do not think it goes far enough. Although the ZBA may update its regulations when the new code is adopted, many want the zoning code to clarify exactly what the Board must do at a hearing in order to improve predictability. And a suggestion was made to require the ZBA to meet when it is easier for the public to participate.

Questions were also raised about how L&I permits are issued on the spot, so that neighbors are unaware. The current code allows “a reasonable time” for appeals, which some participants think is lost in the draft code. They want the code to address the fact that only the applicant knows about a permit until that information is released by L&I.

New regulations for dimensional variances were also under fire. Developers and their consultants think limiting any requested variance to a 25 percent increase over the applicable standard is unreasonable. “You don’t know what you are going to find on site,” Craig Schelter of the Development Workshop said. “You don’t know that 25 percent will be enough relief.” Developer and ZCC member John Westrum agreed. “The ZBA can make a decision whether 25 percent or 200 percent is appropriate,” he said. “It is a potential disinvestment.”

Districts and overlays were the topic at the third X-Change, held March 30 at 5:00 PM. Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts (NCOs) generated the most discussion. There was a high level of interest in the purpose and scope of such districts, which require City Council approval. Community representatives wanted to know if an NCO could include both residential and commercial areas and if the code allows an NCO to address permitted uses. Others were concerned that multiple overlays and districts would create jurisdictional problems.

ZCC Director Eva Gladstein noted that the next X-Change is Tuesday April 5 at 8:00 AM and announced two new tools available on the commission’s website: A Review of Use Changes in the New Zoning Code and the Top Ten Things You Should Know About Philadelphia’s New Zoning Code.

All meetings are being held at 1515 Arch Street on the 18th floor. Visit http://www.zoningmatters.org/ for the complete schedule of meeting times and topics and the latest updates on the draft code and related documents.

At the Academy of Natural Sciences Thursday night, City Council candidates were given an opportunity to state their positions on key environmental and community and economic development issues facing Philadelphia. When asked if they would support the city’s new zoning code, all 17 at-large candidates responded positively. Candidates and former Zoning Code Commission members Andy Toy and Al Taubenberger spoke about their work on the draft code and described it as a good and open process. Councilman and ZCC member Bill Green said he supported the new code as well, provided a few agreed-to changes are incorporated into the final draft.

The forum was part of the Next Great City coalition’s official launch of Next Great City 2, a policy agenda for the next City Council. Recommendations focus on the disposition of vacant properties, safer streets, energy efficiency, food access, and recycling. Philadelphia’s new zoning code is critical to achieving these goals. Proposed regulations in the draft code promote sustainable development, improve access to local food, provide for urban agriculture and alternative energy systems, enhance open space and landscape requirements, and encourage reinvestment in blighted and abandoned areas of the city. Review the Draft Preliminary Code at http://www.zoningmatters.org/. For more information on Next Great City 2, visit http://www.nextgreatcity.com/.

The first of seven Stakeholder X-Changes was held March 16 and more than 50 people came to weigh in on proposed zoning regulations on public notice, neighborhood meetings, and Civic Design Review. The X-Changes are designed as informal opportunities for residents to learn more about how the new code will work for their neighborhood. But on Wednesday evening, participants wanted to use the time to provide additional comments on the Draft Preliminary Code and request more changes.

The crowd was mostly made up of representatives from organized neighborhood groups, but a few voices from the development community were also heard, along with individuals not associated with any one civic association. Many raised concerns about new requirements for Registered Community Organizations (RCOs). Participants wanted to know how RCOs will be defined and how to make them truly representative of a neighborhood. They questioned how conflicts between RCOs in the same neighborhood will be resolved, whether all RCOs will be properly notified, what the expectations and responsibilities of the RCO are exactly, and if the ZBA is required to take the opinion of the RCO into account. One resident expressed concern that the RCO requirements, along with the new “Citizen Planner” certification from PCPC, are intended to exclude individual residents from having a say about what happens in their neighborhoods.

ZCC Director Eva Gladstein explained that many of the issues related to RCOs will be addressed in the Zoning Administrative Manual (ZAM) and that the commission welcomes recommendations on specific language, since the draft ZAM has not yet reached that level of detail. Ms. Gladstein ensured residents that nothing in the code is designed to restrict input from individuals and that the ZBA has historically paid attention to neighborhood opinion about development projects, although it may not agree. Ms. Gladstein made it clear that the ZBA’s job is to exercise judgment based on the law. “Community input and Civic Design Review (CDR) recommendations are not requirements,” she said. “The ZBA will consider them, but they are not determinants.”

The number of required CDR meetings was an issue that generated a heated debate between community representatives and building industry stakeholders. Currently, the new code requires just one CDR meeting, but neighborhood groups think that will limit the kind of back-and-forth that generally leads to a better project and community support. “We want involvement that is meaningful,” a representative from Northern Liberties said. “One meeting will eliminate the process and follow-through that will help create the best project and the ZBA appreciates having that negotiating done beforehand.” Developers don’t disagree about the benefits of meeting with neighbors; they just don’t want it codified in law. “It is totally unacceptable to be held hostage by the time it takes for a second meeting of the CDR for by-right projects,” Craig Schelter of the Development Workshop said. “It will send investment to other cities.”

Although the citizen comment period on the draft zoning code officially ended, issues related to public notice, neighborhood meetings, and CDR continue to be raised and the discussion is likely to continue. Wednesday’s meeting extended beyond the 1.5-hour timeframe and the expectation is that subsequent Stakeholder X-Changes will be equally well-attended. Click here to view the schedule of meetings and topics. No RSVP is necessary.

The sole item on the Zoning Code Commission’s agenda today was to vote on a resolution to delay sending the draft zoning code to City Council. ZCC Chair Alan Greenberger said that leadership at Council and the Commission mutually agreed to the delay to allow Councilmembers to focus on the budget process and provide additional opportunity for the ZCC to resolve remaining issues in the code. Although the legal significance of the vote was questioned, a resolution passed unanimously to adopt the most recent version of the code as the “Draft Preliminary Report,” continue to meet with stakeholders and make revisions to that draft, and send a final “Preliminary Report” to City Council in about two and a half months. ZCC member and Councilman Brian O’Neill continued to voice objections, however. “Ten weeks is a mighty challenge,” he said. “More than 90 percent of the civics in this city does not understand the changes this code will bring.”

Brian O’Neill repeated concerns that ZCC staff and consultants do not understand the full impacts of the draft zoning code. “My argument is that there is a whole lot of de facto remapping going on here that needs to be clarified,” O’Neill said. “We need to reach out to the little groups that have not been part of the process and clear up extraneous issues.” Councilman O’Neill did not initially want to specify what issues he thinks will weigh the process down, but suggested that there are about 25 of what he calls “dead on arrival issues.” When pressed, O’Neill named bed and breakfasts and home occupations as examples that may make sense in some areas, but allowing them citywide is “like throwing dynamite into the room.” ZCC member and Councilman Bill Green agreed. “If people come to testify against the things in the code at Council hearings, there will be no dialogue or problem solving,” he said. “It would not pass as it exists.” Green voiced concern that the draft code distributed to the Commission today did not fully reflect the changes the ZCC agreed to make in the two special public sessions held on February 18 and 28, but seemed satisfied that staff and the Work Plan Committee have committed to doing so over the next two and a half months.

Although Councilman O’Neill wants ZCC and Planning Commission staff to work harder to communicate code changes out in the neighborhoods, some think that is the responsibility of City Council. David Feldman of Right-Sized Homes said that it is time for Councilmembers to have the meetings they think are needed to get the word out to people that haven’t understood what’s been going on for three years. “Today’s vote gives City Council a breather,” Feldman said, “before the code falls like a hot potato in its lap.”

ZCC Director Eva Gladstein added that staff is preparing a packet of information for each District Councilmember that will explain the code’s impacts in that particular area. The ZCC also plans to organize a series of bi-weekly meetings that will be open to the public and provide opportunities to ask questions and discuss concerns.

While some expressed disappointment with the delay, most Commission members agreed that an additional 10 weeks will only serve to enhance the code. Alan Greenberger stressed, though, that there will still be differences of opinion about what is good public policy. “I want it on the record that you are not going to get a document that is universally agreed to,” he said. A motion was then put forward to vote on a resolution to delay transmission of the draft code to City Council. The ZCC passed the resolution with a unanimous vote. The next meeting of the ZCC is scheduled for April 13.

Click here to view the resolution. The latest green-lined draft of the code is available at www.zoningmatters.org/.

The ZCC’s Work Plan and Civic Engagement Committees hosted the second of two special public meetings today to review input on the draft zoning code and provide the rationale behind ZCC decisions. Community and development industry stakeholders were able to ask why some of their recommendations were accepted for the draft code and others were not. Many took the opportunity to restate comments and request additional changes. Although several issues remain unresolved, a vote to send the draft code to City Council is scheduled for this Wednesday, March 2.

Work Plan Committee Chair Peter Kelsen led the meeting along with Director Eva Gladstein and focused on comments related to development standards, parking requirements, general provisions, the Art and Historical Commissions, and non-conformities. Mr. Kelsen identified several recommendations that have been reconsidered and accepted since the last meeting, such as expanding the timeframe for public meetings with Registered Community Organizations to 45 days and deleting requirements for landscape buffers between multi-family and single-family residential uses in districts with attached buildings.

The debate continued on development standards, however. Mr. Kelsen explained that the ZCC attempted to strike a balance between having design controls in the code to help preserve neighborhood character and providing more certainty for investors. “Several recommendations were made to pull the design standards out of the code,” Kelsen said, “but we left in what we consider the bare minimum.” Architect Jerry Roller disagreed with having any such controls in the code, suggesting they trip up the review process and scare off potential investors. “The zoning code is never the repository for design standards,” Roller said. “The same objectives can be accomplished by other means.” Community representatives argued that form and design controls are increasingly made part of zoning codes and that removing the few standards that remain would be a mistake. Peter Kelsen stressed that Philadelphia’s current zoning code includes some design controls and that the ZCC established a two-step permitting process in the new code to address timing and investment issues. ZCC staff agreed to arrange a special meeting to bring community groups and developers together to refine some of the standards.

Building height in two-story neighborhoods, minimum lot area, and nonconformities also generated a great deal of discussion. Reductions in lot size in certain districts were made to accommodate the city’s existing non-conforming lots, but concerns were raised about preserving dimensions that have become outdated and allowing nonconformities to expand 25 percent without going to the ZBA. And the issue of building height continues to be a point of contention in many two-story areas of the city. Representatives from the Point Breeze neighborhood accused the ZCC of disregarding the concerns of long-term residents in mostly low-income areas. Peter Kelsen explained that three stories homes are already permitted by-right in the current code and that the ZCC would be at risk for “takings” challenges if it took that right away. While these and other key issues continue to generate comments, the ZCC is moving ahead with a vote to send the draft code to City Council on Wednesday March 2.

The next meeting of the ZCC will be on March 2, 2011. The sole item on the agenda will be a vote on a resolution to send the draft zoning code – the Preliminary Report – to City Council. The meeting will be held in Room 1450, 1401 JFK Boulevard at 8:00 AM.

The Work Plan and Civic Engagement Committees hosted a special public meeting today to review input on the draft zoning code and provide the rationale behind ZCC decisions. Community representatives and development industry consultants sat with ZCC staff and committee members and discussed how specific comments were evaluated and why recommendations were incorporated into the code or not. It was the kind of forum stakeholders have been waiting for all along. “This is really meaningful dialogue,” Joe Schiavo of the Crosstown Coalition said. “We haven’t had enough of this.” Others agreed. ZCC member and Councilman Bill Green added that the time here is well-spent. “City Council is not the place for this kind of dialogue,” he said.

Work Plan Committee Chair Peter Kelsen led the meeting along with Director Eva Gladstein. ZCC staff organized comments into larger topic areas for the purpose of discussion, including:

• Civic Design Review, Neighborhood Meetings, and Notice
• L&I Powers and Duties
• ZBA Hearings and Appeals
• Other Administrative and Procedural Issues
• Base Districts and Overlays
• Center City Overlay

The first half of the two and a half hour meeting focused on issues related to Civic Design Review (CDR). To start, Mr. Kelsen explained that the CDR triggers were based on a review of the type and volume of L&I permits, which helped identify the kinds of projects that impact the public realm. While the ZCC aimed to set triggers that balance the need for public discourse with the need to protect a property-owner’s fundamental rights, community groups would like to see the development triggers lowered and developers want them raised. Both sides had an opportunity to restate their position, but in this case, the ZCC stood behind its decision and the triggers will remain “as is” for now. The required timeframe for convening a neighborhood meeting will be reconsidered, however. Based on input from the Crosstown Coalition, the ZCC may extend the amount of time available from 21 days to 30 days.

Comments related to L&I, the ZBA, and form and design controls for Center City were discussed in the same manner. Land use/development attorneys and representatives from the Real Property Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association, including Chair Cheryl Gaston, have provided detailed comments on issues they view as “sea changes” and those they think will provoke future litigation because of arbitrary decision-making or code language that is too vague or attempts to fix a problem that doesn’t currently exist. Several issues were referred to the Law Department for further consideration and Mr. Kelsen asked the participating attorneys to provide specific language in some cases.

Another meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 28 to discuss comments related to use categories, development standards, and new subdivision regulations. Most participants wanted more time and more meetings, however. Developers and community groups, for example, want to convene a special meeting with ZCC staff to work on Center City form and design controls together. That meeting is likely to happen, but no date was set.

The next full meeting of the ZCC is March 2. The sole item currently on the agenda is a vote to send a draft code to City Council.

In response to requests from the Crosstown Coalition and Councilman Bill Green, the ZCC has delayed the vote to send the draft zoning code to City Council for at least two weeks. While some ZCC members and public stakeholders think it’s time to debate controversial issues in front of City Council, others want an opportunity to work directly with the Commission to resolve concerns and improve the draft code beforehand. “City Council is not the better forum for this dialogue,” Michael Sklaroff said, speaking on behalf of the Development Workshop. Although ZCC Chair Alan Greenberger argued that there has been ample time for input and that it’s time to move ahead, the public wants assurance that all feedback was considered first.

Speaking for the Crosstown Coalition and the Old City Civic Association, Joe Schiavo said that he has received very little response to particular comments and has a responsibility to his constituents to explain what resulted from particular points. “We are left hanging,” Schiavo said. “We understand we are not going to win every point, but we need resolution on every one.” Others agreed. Representatives from Concerned Citizens of Point Breeze and the East Passyunk Crossing Civic Association spoke out on proposed standards they believe will have adverse impacts on their neighborhoods and asked the ZCC if it fully considered all the issues. “Most people in the neighborhoods don’t even know about zoning reform,” a representative from Point Breeze said. “Everybody doesn’t have access to the internet and ZoningMatters.org. We think there needs to be another round of community meetings.”

Apart from public stakeholder issues, City Council voiced concerns about the draft code as well. At a special briefing on February 3, councilmembers reminded the ZCC that they were entering the budget process and asked when they thought City Council would have time to convene hearings and focus on the zoning code. They also wanted to know how the ZCC would respond to their feedback, since the Charter Amendment requires City Council to approve, reject, or table the zoning code in whole. Council may not adopt parts or impose conditions of approval, once the ZCC submits its Final Report. As ZCC member and Councilman Brian O’Neill said, “We are not used to that.”

Other comments at today’s meeting focused on unresolved issues and changes to the draft code that were made since the last ZCC meeting. Input on minimum lot size and building height in traditional rowhome neighborhoods, the timing and number of meetings required for Civic Design Review, and whether certain design standards belong in the zoning code continues to be evaluated by the Work Plan Committee. Although a number of comments addressed signage controls, new zoning regulations for signs will not be part of the draft code sent to City Council. A subcommittee was formed to work on new signage controls and has been meeting regularly, but the ZCC and its consultants thought it best to take on signs as a separate project because if the topic’s complexity.

The debate about whether the code is ready to be sent to City Council and when a vote should take place continued until the end of the meeting without resolution. Representatives from the Development Workshop, the Philadelphia Bar Association, and a group of ad hoc attorneys reviewing the code requested the ZCC wait another three months before it sends the code to City Council and allow for more direct input and discussion. Other stakeholders urged the ZCC to move the process forward and allow the remaining issues to be raised with City Council. “Councilmembers need this interaction,” Penelope Giles of the Francisville Neighborhood Development Corporation said. “They need to understand what will happen in their districts.”

The ZCC will decide whether to vote on the draft code at its next meeting. The date of that meeting has not been confirmed.

Click here to view PowerPoint of recent changes.

The Zoning Code Commission held a special briefing with City Council to familiarize Councilmembers with the process for adopting the new zoning code established by the Home Rule Charter Amendment. ZCC Executive Director Eva Gladstein presented an overview of the timeline and key benchmarks that will be put in motion once the Commission votes to send the draft code to City Council. The ZCC planned to hold such a vote on February 9, but requests by Commission members and community stakeholders may delay the action. City Council also voiced concerns about the timing, as well as the code’s impact on Council authority. 

Eva Gladstein explained that the Charter Amendment requires that the ZCC approve to send the draft zoning code to City Council with a two-thirds vote. That draft will then be sent to Council as the “Preliminary Report.” The Preliminary Report has two required components: draft code language and a zoning map revision plan. In order to provide City Council with a complete picture of the code and how it will be administered, the ZCC intends to include in the package draft regulations and the Zoning Administrative Manual. City Council must convene public hearings on the Preliminary Report within 45 days; however, the schedule and duration of those hearings is determined by Council. Within 30 days of the close of the hearings, City Council may adopt a resolution of recommendations to send back to the ZCC. Whether or not City Council adopts a resolution, the ZCC must issue a Final Report within 60 days of the close of the hearings, whenever that turns out to be. City Council then has 60 days or five sessions, whichever is greater, to approve, reject, or table the Final Report.

Several ZCC members were on hand to speak at the briefing and support efforts to move the code over to City Council as soon as possible. Both Anne Papageorge and Greg Pastore suggested that it is time for Council to start debating the remaining issues. “We have a good solid draft and there has been a lot of time for people to submit comments,” Papageorge said. “We need to move on to the next phase.”

ZCC member and Councilman Bill Green was the first to raise issues with the timing. “I don’t think we should force a vote on February 9,” Green said. “We have had a very open and transparent process so far and I am going to suggest we continue that way and allow the public to review the latest draft before we vote.” Green would like the February 9 meeting to be used as an opportunity for final public comment and plans to send a communication to that effect out to all ZCC members.

Councilwoman Marian Tasco noted that City Council will soon be entering the budget process. “When do you think we will have time to do this?” Tasco asked. Gladstein explained that the ZCC had hoped to vote on the draft code last fall, but that the Commission has been reacting to continual requests for more time and reiterated that Council has the prerogative to decide how the hearings will be managed. “We hope that by having the document in front of City Council, we will get the feedback from you that is necessary,” she said. Councilman Frank DiCicco agreed. “I see the value in what Eva is saying,” DiCicco said. “Introducing legislation gets the process going. At some point we have to move the ball forward.”

Councilmembers are not just concerned about the timing, however. Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell is focused on the impact of the new code on Council authority over zoning matters. “I never like to vote for anything that undermines our authority,” Blackwell said. “Sometimes we have to do that, but in specific areas like zoning, as long as our district voters and businesses come to us, we need to have the authority to deal with it.” Councilman DiCicco was quick to respond. “You raise an important point,” he said, “but some people think we have too much power and that power belongs to the community or the developer. We will never satisfy everyone.”

Councilmembers Marian Tasco and Brian O’Neill requested the ZCC provide more clarity about what the zoning is now, what it will be, and exactly what the differences are, including what things L&I will now have discretion over. As a member of the ZCC, Brian O’Neill spoke favorably about the Commission’s efforts to reduce cases at the ZBA by carefully considering how to address use variances and nonconforming properties, but agreed with Tasco that more detailed information is needed. “There are changes that won’t take effect until the remapping is done,” O’Neill said, “but other changes will occur immediately as result of new use categories and definitions. As District Councilmembers, it is critical that we have that information.” Ms. Gladstein replied that staff continues to work on a document that will highlight changes between old and new zoning regulations, but that it is still in progress due to changes to the draft zoning code that are ongoing.

Councilman James Kenny focused on Charter Amendment language that implies the ZCC is not required to incorporate City Council recommendations and requires Council to approve or reject the code in whole. Eva Gladstein assured councilmembers that it is incumbent upon the ZCC to listen to City Council. “The Commission is anticipating a lot of discussion with Council about the issues, not simply a resolution of stated recommendations,” Gladstein said. The ZCC will meet on Wednesday, February 9 and decide whether it will move forward with a vote.

The Zoning Code Commission released a change memo today detailing the latest revisions to the December 2010 referral draft of the zoning code, but ZCC members also received a packet of comments from more than 35 groups and individuals that are still being evaluated. Although changes are ongoing, ZCC chair Alan Greenberger will ask the Commission to vote to send the draft code to City Council on February 9. “We are not sending forward a perfect document,” Greenberger said, “but we are moving on so that Council has enough time to do what it needs to do.” ZCC member and Councilman Bill Green was quick to raise concerns about process and timing. “City Council will not focus on zoning until after the elections,” Green said. “We have taken great care to provide an open and transparent process and I don’t want in the end for the public or the Commission not to have time to truly reflect on what is being put forth.”

Consultant Don Elliott of Clarion Associates presented the most significant changes made to the draft code since December and encouraged ZCC members and the public to read the change memo thoroughly for details on all revisions. “A lot of changes have been made to development standards and form and design controls,” Elliott said. More revisions are likely to be made over the next week in response to public comments that are still being evaluated and internal reviews by the Law Department.

While some ZCC members and public participants asked for clarification on particular changes, most comments focused on process and next steps. Commissioner John Westrum asked when the final referral draft would be available for review and Craig Schelter of the Development Workshop requested information on the effective date of the new code and a schedule for remapping. Director Eva Gladstein explained that staff and the Work Plan Committee will be dealing with unresolved issues over the next week and will post a revised draft on February 2. A City Council briefing on process and timeline is scheduled for February 3. Before the next meeting on February 9, staff will provide an outline of the adoption process, including key dates and deadlines. Alan Greenberger added that staff will do their best to lay out a plan for remapping, but that it is too early to set a schedule for each district.

Mr. Greenberger reminded attendees that the next meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 9, and that the ZCC will need to decide then if it is time to move forward with a vote. Commissioners Greg Pastore and Emanuel Kelly stressed the need to focus on substantive changes at this stage and Councilman Green reiterated that he would like the public to have time to comment on the draft before the ZCC votes. Greenberger added that once the draft code is sent to City Council, the Commission will continue to meet monthly during Council deliberations. The schedule may be relaxed to quarterly meetings after that. Mr. Greenberger anticipates another 10 months to a year of work left for the ZCC, as sign regulations are addressed and code language is refined.

View January 26, 2011 Change Memo and Powerpoint Presentation.

The Building Industry Association reviewed the December 2010 referral draft of the consolidated code for impacts on residential development. The submitted comments address several major issues, which the BIA would like to see modified if the new zoning code is to promote more home building in Philadelphia. Recommendations include moving development standards from the zoning ordinance to the administrative manual, reducing minimum lot area, increasing building height, and modifying specific setback and buffer requirements, parking restrictions, and ground floor commercial requirements. Click here to review the full document.

The Zoning Code Commission released a change memo today detailing the latest revisions to the December 2010 referral draft of the zoning code, but ZCC members also received a packet of comments from more than 35 groups and individuals that are still being evaluated. Although changes are ongoing, ZCC chair Alan Greenberger will ask the Commission to vote to send the draft code to City Council on February 9. “We are not sending forward a perfect document,” Greenberger said, “but we are moving on so that Council has enough time to do what it needs to do.” ZCC member and Councilman Bill Green was quick to raise concerns about process and timing. “City Council will not focus on zoning until after the elections,” Green said. “We have taken great care to provide an open and transparent process and I don’t want in the end for the public or the Commission not to have time to truly reflect on what is being put forth.”

Consultant Don Elliott of Clarion Associates presented the most significant changes made to the draft code since December and encouraged ZCC members and the public to read the change memo thoroughly for details on all revisions. “A lot of changes have been made to development standards and form and design controls,” Elliott said. More revisions are likely to be made over the next week in response to public comments that are still being evaluated and internal reviews by the Law Department.

While some ZCC members and public participants asked for clarification on particular changes, most comments focused on process and next steps. Commissioner John Westrum asked when the final referral draft would be available for review and Craig Schelter of the Development Workshop requested information on the effective date of the new code and a schedule for remapping. Director Eva Gladstein explained that staff and the Work Plan Committee will be dealing with unresolved issues over the next week and will post a revised draft on February 2. A City Council briefing on process and timeline is scheduled for February 3. Before the next meeting on February 9, staff will provide an outline of the adoption process, including key dates and deadlines. Alan Greenberger added that staff will do their best to lay out a plan for remapping, but that it is too early to set a schedule for each district.

Mr. Greenberger reminded attendees that the next meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 9, and that the ZCC will need to decide then if it is time to move forward with a vote. Commissioners Greg Pastore and Emanuel Kelly stressed the need to focus on substantive changes at this stage and Councilman Green reiterated that he would like the public to have time to comment on the draft before the ZCC votes. Greenberger added that once the draft code is sent to City Council, the Commission will continue to meet monthly during Council deliberations. The schedule may be relaxed to quarterly meetings after that. Mr. Greenberger anticipates another 10 months to a year of work left for the ZCC, as sign regulations are addressed and code language is refined.

View January 26, 2011 Change Memo and PowerPoint Presentation.

The Building Industry Association reviewed the December 2010 referral draft of the consolidated code for impacts on residential development. The submitted comments address several major issues, which the BIA would like to see modified if the new zoning code is to promote more home building in Philadelphia. Recommendations include moving development standards from the zoning ordinance to the administrative manual, reducing minimum lot area, increasing building height, and modifying specific setback and buffer requirements, parking restrictions, and ground floor commercial requirements. Click here to review the full document.

Based on the request of several stakeholder groups, the Zoning Code Commission has extended the deadline for comments on the Consolidated Code – Referral Draft until the close of business on Friday, January 21st.  At this stage, the ZCC is looking for short, targeted comments and recommendations. The ZCC will meet on Wednesday, January 26th and again on Wednesday, February 9th. Visit www.zoningmatters.org to view the referral draft and related documents.

On December 10, the Zoning Code Commission posted what they are calling the “referral draft” of the consolidated code – the zoning code that ZCC members will vote to send to City Council. Consultant Don Elliott of Clarion Associates highlighted major changes to the September draft and identified open issues that are still being discussed. Director Eva Gladstein announced that comments on the referral draft will be accepted until January 5, 2011, giving commission members and the public just three weeks to review the most recent changes. A vote to refer the draft code to City Council is planned to take place January 26, but concerns about the timing and review process expressed by members of the ZCC and the public will likely delay the vote.

Representatives from the Crosstown Coalition, Development Workshop, and Philadelphia Bar Association told the ZCC that three weeks was not enough time to review the latest draft and provide valuable feedback. Commission member and Councilman Brian O’Neill agreed and wanted assurance that the Work Plan Committee has recommended all proposed changes by vote or consensus. “The more time the better,” he said. “People will want to know the methodology and City Council will expect that these changes have been fully communicated and vetted.”

Representing the investment community, Commissioner John Westrum also requested more time to test some of the changes and raised concerns about process. “Are we going to vote on something next month that will change again?” Westrum asked. “We need a mechanism that allows the code to be tested and refined over time without going back to City Council for every change.” ZCC chair Alan Greenberger said staff is considering a proposal to set an “effective date,” which will not be the same date City Council approves the code. A delayed effective date would establish a transition period when applicants could choose to be reviewed under either the old or the new code and allow time for training at L&I, public outreach and education, and testing by investors. Don Elliott added that any problems identified during the transition period could be amended right away, so that when City Council adopts the code, amendments can be approved at the same time. Mr. Elliott also recommended that the ZCC set a periodic review schedule to revisit the code over time.

Although some commissioners and public participants encouraged the ZCC to move forward with the vote as planned, Mr. Greenberger said that staff will have a discussion about the impacts of extending the review period 30 days and email ZCC members a proposal for their consideration. Any changes to the timeline will be posted at www.zoningmatters.org. Eva Gladstein reiterated that all comments are taken into account by staff and the Work Plan Committee and that proposed changes to the draft code reflect the results of vigorous debate. The same process will be applied to the final review period, although submitted comments will not be posted.

In addition to presenting a summary of major changes to the zoning code, Don Elliott directed attention to the code’s supporting documents: the Zoning Regulations, which will be adopted by decision-making bodies including L&I, PCPC, and ZBA; and the Zoning Administrative Manual, which addresses administrative matters. These documents contain important content that is not in the zoning code because: it is only relevant to a limited audience; contains a high level of detail and would add significant length to the code; or it may need to be changed more frequently than the code. Mr. Elliott encouraged the ZCC and the public to review these documents and provide feedback to the staff.

Click here to view a summary of major changes and open issues. Visit www.zoningmatters.org to review the Referral Draft, Zoning Regulations, and Zoning Administration Manual.

ZCC chair Alan Greenberger explained today why form and design controls are still considered an open issue and recommendations for green building incentives were not accepted by the commission.

Form and design standards have generated a significant amount of feedback. Comments suggest that they may be too difficult to administer, that such design considerations will need to be made too early in the process, and that design guidelines would be more workable. In order to ensure the city has enforceable standards, the work plan committee is continuing to look at the form and design controls and how they can be applied. However, the referral draft of the consolidated code does clarify that the form and design standards shall govern if conflicts arise with recommendations made by the Civic Design Review committee.

Mr. Greenberger acknowledged recommendations made by the Delaware Valley Green Building Council (DVGBC) related to floor area ratio bonuses for green building. The recommendations address concerns about buildings that don’t actually achieve the intended level of LEED certification and the long-term standing of LEED. DVGBC recommended requiring a percentage of construction costs as escrow and reducing the amount of the bonus tied to LEED. The ZCC did not accept either recommendation. Greenberger said the ZCC recognizes that there is a possibility that some developers may get an incentive without achieving gold or platinum certification in the end, but that the recommendations are inconsistent with the goals of the commission. He said n escrow fee would be difficult to administer and come across as an obstacle to what is likely to be a good development and that the current bonuses were analyzed by consultants for their viability and the ZCC does not want to make an arbitrary reduction. However, the ZCC may consider linking failure to reach appropriate green building standards to a certificate of occupancy or even a legal suit on a case by case basis.

ZCC Work Plan Committee chair Peter Kelsen and executive director Eva Gladstein attended the coalition’s monthly meeting to address concerns about the draft zoning code’s proposed Civic Design Review (CDR). Peter Kelsen reiterated that CDR is advisory only and explained that development thresholds that trigger CDR are set intentionally high. A sample timeline was distributed to illustrate how CDR would play out for a by-right project. Review and reporting time is now limited to 60 days for two meetings and the ZCC is talking about introducing a two-stage permitting process.

Peter Kelsen explained each step of the timeline, starting when an applicant submits a proposal to L&I. L&I staff will determine if CDR is required based on development thresholds outlined in the zoning code and notify the applicant. Once the application is turned over to the CDR committee, a maximum of 60 days is allowed to conduct and document two meetings. If the process is not concluded within 60 days, the project is deemed acceptable. At 60 days in any case, the applicant can go to L&I and get a permit whether or not the proposal is changed in response to CDR review, as long as the application is complete. Overall, CDR may add another 20 days to the process; more if applying for an accelerated review at L&I. (Click here to view the timeline.)

In order to give applicants the level of certainty needed to move forward, the ZCC is considering offering a preliminary permit for by-right projects that would confirm compliance with uses, dimensions, FAR bonuses, TODs, open space and natural resource requirements, subdivision regulations, and amount of parking. The preliminary permit would be issued before CDR begins. After the 60 day process for CDR, final permit would be issued based on compliance with form and design controls and standards for parking design, connectivity, landscaping, fencing, lighting, and signs.

Mr. Kelsen noted that very little by-right development gets a permit in less than a month and most applications currently go to the ZBA, which adds another six to eight weeks. In his experience with large projects, even by-right proposals take 90 days from pre-application to permit in pocket. Eva Gladstein added that for larger projects that need ZBA or City Council approval, CDR would take the place of the first information only meeting at PCPC.

While coalition members were initially concerned about CDR expanding the approval timeline overall, some consider the new form and design standards in the code a more significant change. Craig Schelter of the Development Workshop described the new controls. “These are ideal standards which are now codified,” he said. “If you don’t meet them – no final permit.” Mr. Schelter believes a more workable model would address such design issues at a meeting of experts where the standards the city wants to uphold serve as guidelines for the discussion.  In response, Peter Kelsen explained that the form and design controls are still an open issue at the ZCC, but stressed that it is necessary to make CDR meaningful to communities, especially since more projects will be by-right under the new zoning code. “We cannot create a process that is so abbreviated that the community is not meaningfully engaged,” he said.

At a special meeting of the ZCC, consultants focused attention on select changes to the draft zoning code. The December 1 presentation addressed only issues raised by a significant number of groups or individuals, although all comments are being considered by the Work Plan Committee as it prepares a final draft for City Council. Consultants described how some conflicts were resolved and others are still being hashed out. Comments from developers and neighborhood groups about Civic Design Review (CDR), for example, had mixed results – the maximum timeline for CDR was reduced from 90 to 60 days for up to two meetings, but the development thresholds that trigger CDR remain the same. The changes to CDR, a new two-stage permitting process, and minimum lot area generated the most discussion.

Throughout the zoning code reform process, public involvement in the development review process was raised as a primary concern. Developers and civic organizations alike have submitted comments related to proposed public notice requirements and the CDR process. Community groups generally want more opportunities to review projects in their neighborhoods, while developers want to make the approval process more efficient and timely. Although the ZCC believes the public should be engaged in a meaningful way, requests for additional time to review projects were denied and the timeline for CDR was shortened to 60 days. The ZCC did not raise development thresholds that trigger CDR as recommended by some developers, or lower them as requested by community groups. And requests to make the findings of CDR a factor in permit decisions was also denied – Civic Design Review remains advisory.

In response to comments about the extended CDR timeline and new form and design controls in the code, consultants introduced a new two-stage permitting process that is available at the applicant’s option. The process is intended to give applicants a reasonable degree of comfort about a site’s development potential before substantial investment is made in project design. A preliminary permit would confirm compliance with uses, dimensions, FAR bonuses, TODs, open space and natural resource requirements, subdivision regulations, and amount of parking. A final permit would confirm compliance with form and design controls and standards for parking design, connectivity, landscaping, fencing, lighting, and signs. CDR would take place before a final permit is issued. Reaction from ZCC members, however, raised concerns about giving a false sense of security at the preliminary permit stage that a final approval is guaranteed. Consultants suggested that language may be needed to clarify that the preliminary permit has no weight in final decisions by the ZBA or L&I.

Other changes and on-going issues were noted, but remain unresolved. Examples include sky plane controls that are currently being tested and refined, regulations for Bed and Breakfasts that are still under consideration, and visitability requirements that may be increased. Commission members Richard Demarco and Greg Pastore added topics to that list. They want the ZCC to look more carefully at minimum lot area, lot width, height, and setbacks for small rowhome neighborhoods. Mr. Pastore would also like the ZCC to consider minimum lot area per dwelling unit for multi-family developments.

Comments from the public included requests to make inclusionary housing programs mandatory, to clarify the amount of occupied areas permitted on residential lots, consider the impacts of new height limits on certain neighborhoods, to map historic districts, and to raise standards for use variances and visitability. In addition, the remapping needed to implement the new code remains a concern. “Remapping is going to be the biggest issue,” David Feldman of Right-Sized Homes said. Craig Schelter of the Development Workshop agreed. “Remapping will determine how people feel about this code.”

View the December 1 PowerPoint presentation.

Visit PlanPhilly.com to view comments about the new zoning code by city groups and residents.

The Zoning Code Commission announced today that it now plans to transmit a draft code to City Council next month. A full redlined draft will be released the week of December 6. The next ZCC meeting will now be December 15 at 8:00 AM, 1515 Arch Street, where the Commission will review the most recent changes and discuss on-going issues. ZCC members will have approximately one month to hash out final details before the group meets in January to vote to approve a final draft for City Council. The January meeting date is not yet determined.

ZCC members, staff, and consultants are working hard to get a final draft of the zoning code to City Council before the end of the year. Revisions to the September 2010 draft are being posted on www.zoningmatters.org as feedback is reviewed and discussed by the ZCC work plan committee. The most recent changes were presented by consultants today, which raised concerns about the November 12 deadline for comments. The public wants time to analyze what they consider to be major revisions. “It’s a fast moving train,” ZCC chair Alan Greenberger said, “The deadline is fixed, but we may decide that particular issues are still open.”

One of the biggest changes presented today is a revised structure for floor area ratio (FAR) bonuses. In the three Center City districts, base densities and the maximums permitted using bonuses were adjusted to better accommodate transitions between zones, expand capacity around major transit hubs, and avoid speculative property investments based on unrealistic demand. The maximum FAR possible is now 2400 percent of the area of the lot in specifically mapped areas around the three major stations – Market East, Suburban, and 30th Street. Prior drafts of the bonus provisions allowed unlimited FAR within 1,200 feet of those stations. Recent changes to the menu of bonus categories are based on an economic analysis by Michael Samuels of Clarion/Samuel Associates (click here to review memo).

Other revisions were also highlighted in today’s presentation. New standards for use variances are now better aligned with Pennsylvania law and make the criteria for such variances more restrictive. But ZCC member Richard DeMarco suggested that the city may not want to limit the ability of obtaining use variances in transitioning areas – places that have totally lost their viability as residential neighborhoods, for example. Other sections of the code were deleted, such as the provision that permitted minor adjustments to dimensional standards by L&I. The standards themselves were adjusted to capture the majority of dimensional inconsistencies, so that such permit adjustments will not be necessary.

The next full draft will be released at a special meeting of the ZCC on December 1. This draft will include footnotes about how the draft has been reorganized, if entire sections have been moved for example, and redlines where specific language has changed. Minor grammatical corrections will not be highlighted.

View the PowerPoint presentation of all recent changes. Track the latest revisions at www.zoningmatters.org.

Consultant Owen Franklin of Portfolio Associates presented the results of the most recent public outreach meetings and an overall summary of civic engagement activities since the start of the zoning reform project. The latest series of open houses was designed to seek feedback from the public on major changes and link those changes to particular outcomes. Throughout the project, reaction has been more positive than negative to every question, whether asking participants to help set priorities and values, draft recommendations, or comment on specific language. And participation in the process has been significant. Lead consultant Don Elliott of Clarion Associates has worked in numerous cities throughout the country and is impressed by the level of public outreach in Philadelphia. “I continue to be inspired by the number of people engaged in the process and the quality of the discussion,” Elliott said. “This is not the norm.”

While efforts to involve as many stakeholders as possible in the process have been deemed successful and overall response to new zoning has been favorable, Mr. Franklin was quick to explain that not all reaction was positive. “The key points of the civic engagement in this case,” he said, “are that there was quite a bit of input and that input led to a better product.” Franklin used the rating of the proposed Civic Design Review as an example. The initial rating was 2.7 when CDR was introduced in Module 2. After comments were received and changes were made in the draft consolidated code, the rating increased to 3.4. Click here to review the final report on civic engagement.

In all, the ZCC and its consultants conducted five rounds of public meetings, posted five online surveys, and conducted 125 interviews with code users and professional stakeholders. There have also been two public hearings at City Hall and numerous presentations to community groups and professional associations. ZCC member and chair of the Civic Engagement Committee Stella Tsai thanked Owen Franklin and the team at Portfolio Associates for a unique and impressive process. “The civic engagement committee will continue to communicate our goals to the public,” Tsai said. “We want to make sure we end up with a code that works for everyone.”

ZCC member and Councilman Brian O’Neill reiterated the need for a summary that explains what uses the new code allows in each district. “I am hearing that the code is replete with new uses that weren’t allowed before,” O’Neill said. “If accessory dwelling units are permitted citywide, for example, this code could be dead on arrival.” The councilman wants to see a chart of new and old uses so that everyone understands what has changed. “I don’t want to see this rushing through,” he said.

ZCC Executive Director Eva Gladstein explained that staff has been working on the summary document, but that it is complicated by on-going changes to the requirements. Commission member Greg Pastore suggested that it is time for the public to speak out about concerns. “Isn’t it better to have people come forward about a particular use being permitted and help us along?” Mr. Pastore asked. In response to Councilman O’Neill, Commissioner Andrew Toy said that in some areas of the city “there is a groundswell of support for things like accessory dwelling units.”

ZCC chair Alan Greenberger reminded the group that some issues are still being looked at by the work plan committee, but stood by the effort to get the new code approved. “There is no way we are letting this code go down over a handful of issues,” he said. “We’ll figure it out.”

The ZCC hosted its final open house today at the Independence Visitors Center – one of the last opportunities for public review and comment on the draft code before it is sent to City Council in December. The citizen comment period closes this Friday, November 12. Attendees at the ten open houses have weighed in on key changes to the code – from how new form and design controls will impact their neighborhoods to concerns about new decision-making authority at L&I. “It’s been an open process,” said Betty Turner of Germantown Community Connection, Inc., “now it’s time for a new code.”

The open house format represents the culmination of three years of work by the Zoning Code Commission to evaluate the existing code, gather input on what the priorities for new zoning regulations should be, and draft a new code. Many of those who attended the open houses have followed zoning reform from the beginning, such as Ms. Turner. Germantown Community Connection brings all of Germantown’s community groups together to discuss common concerns and speak with a collective voice on issues that impact their neighborhoods. For Ms. Turner, the new code is an opportunity for zoning to match reality. “The current code is outdated,” she said.

While specific comments varied from district to district, the main themes were consistent. Most residents want new development to be in context with the rest of the neighborhood and they want to be involved in development decisions that impact their communities. In the 2nd Councilmanic District, for example, the focus was on dimensional standards. They want building setbacks and height limits to be related to existing buildings on adjacent properties so the character of a block is maintained. “It would be better if minor dimensional exceptions allowed are contextual (within 10% e.g.) rather than a specific number of feet,” one attendee suggested. Residents in the 4th District expressed concern that the triggers for Civic Design Review (CDR) might be set too high. “One size does not fit all,” the comment said. “Places smaller than Center City should have triggers that are scaled accordingly.” In all districts, response to the registry for community organizations and improved public notice requirements was mostly positive. Some comments from all of the open houses are featured below.

Enhancing city and neighborhoods. The new code is intended to clarify the rules and establish objective criteria so that fewer cases will be sent to the ZBA. New requirements aim to improve the quality of development and encourage the reuse of vacant properties. Reaction to the proposed changes in the code was generally positive, but the following suggestions and concerns were noted.

• Vacant industrial land should be rezoned to promote more neighborhood-compatible reuse.
• Zoning should protect two-story residential blocks from a character change resulting from three-story infill.
• Height limits should include the maximum number of stories, not just feet.
• Allow full range of FAR bonus categories in other areas, not just Center City.
• Overbuilding has led to sewage/drainage problems and water main breaks. More weight should be placed on what infrastructure can support.
• Does the new code provide for quality standards for modular housing as well as traditional brick and mortar homes?
• Some of the language is vague, such as “if new use is similar or has fewer impacts.” Less specific zoning language will result in less community notification and input.
• How much can neighbors weigh in on new uses for vacant properties that are rezoned? Does reuse of abandoned buildings no longer trigger review and public comment?

Preserving and enriching the environment. New requirements to make the city greener, protect sensitive natural resources, and improve access to local food and alternate energy sources were widely supported, although some issues related to maintenance and property rights were raised.

• Who is responsible for street tree maintenance? Tree maintenance may be a burden for some property-owners.
• Heritage trees should be preserved at all costs.
• Gardening on vacant property should be encouraged through zoning.
• Expand the protected steep slopes restrictions to include first order streams in the Schuylkill River Watershed.
• Open space is good where there is low demand for other uses. Some areas need development.
• Does the code provide for a property-owner’s rights to sun and wind? For example, does the code address a situation where new or expanded building blocks sunlight to a neighbor’s solar panel or wind to a turbine?
• Will landscaping be too cost-prohibitive for lot owners?

Improving connections. Most participants agreed that promoting public transit, making development more pedestrian-friendly, implementing parking management strategies, and providing for the care of young and old residents are good, progressive strategies, but offered the following comments. Reaction to new accessory dwelling unit and day care regulations varied significantly from district to district.

• A balance between TOD and SEPTA service capability is needed.
• Require sheltered enclosures for transit improvements.
• Dedicated parking areas should be available for motorcycles, mopeds, scooters, and perhaps ultra compact cars.
• Dedicated parking for hybrids will only benefit the affluent and will not encourage purchase of efficient cars significantly.
• Make sure dedicated parking spaces don’t take precedence over people with other needs.
• Parking maximums may create spillover demand in neighborhoods.
• Accessory dwelling units should be limited to three unrelated individuals on a single property.
• Accessory dwelling units should be allowed by variance or special exception only.
• Perhaps neighborhoods could choose to opt in or out of accessory dwelling unit requirements.
• Rather than permitting accessory dwelling units based on dwelling type, base it on total gross floor area.
• Expand accessory dwelling unit provisions to permit them in existing rowhomes in southwest Philadelphia.
• Would like to see accessory dwelling units allowed in rowhomes where rear garages could accommodate a unit above.
• Enforcement of ADU will be hard. Are they inspected by L&I?
• All day care uses require safe vehicular drop-off/pick-up areas so there is no interruption to neighborhood residential traffic. The same should apply to churches, libraries.
• Day care should be located in places such as shopping malls and shopping centers where parking is available.
• Day care should be permitted in more locations, so that children are in a “home” environment.
• Limit the number of daycare facilities that can be in any one neighborhood or geographic area.
• Giving opportunities for adult day care is a positive change.

Engaging the public. The process for registering community organizations, improved public notice and meeting requirements, and the proposed Civic Design Review (CDR) have been generally well-received. Suggestions and concerns include:

• The first public notice must provide enough information to adequately inform community organizations prior to the required neighborhood meeting. Maybe include plan.
• More than one community meeting is necessary in some cases to ensure an informed decision is made.
• Make sure notice is early and distribute notices more widely in newspapers.
• Require all ZBA and L&I use permits, special exceptions, and variances to be posted online and searchable by address.
• Will any group be allowed to register even if it is comprised of just a few people without regular meetings?
• What if the Registered Community Organizations (RCO) do not follow through as required?
• What do you do when RCO boundaries overlap?
• Including only RCOs is too limiting; everyone should be able to participate.
• How is the legitimacy of RCOs determined? Criteria needed for neighborhood groups to prevent ghost organizations from acting for political fronts.
• Can the RCO register primary and secondary areas, if interested in projects outside of primary area?
• Could an RCO claim the whole city as its area, such as SCRUB, so it is notified about every development?
• The CDR should include all civic organizations that abut the development, as well as the committee person in some areas. What about development at boundaries of city?
• Triggers for CDR are too high. In today’s economy more small developments are proposed and public input should be provided.
• One size does not fit all. Triggers for CDR should be based on the scale of the project as located in the community. Places smaller than CC should have triggers that are scaled accordingly.
• Does CDR apply to public developments?
• Cannot leave rotating seat disputes on CDR to political appointments. Can we depend on councilperson to make rational decisions?

Administration. Many comments were related to how the new code will be administered and enforced and making it easy to use and understand.

• New code language requires more judgment by L&I staff at counter. Need proper training. Applies to whole code.
• A summary of the zoning code is needed that explains how it works.
• Put glossary in code.
• Where will administrative manual be accessed?
• Is code integrated with streets department regulations that govern some aspects of development?
• Should have evening ZBA meetings. Currently not fair to general public.
• A lot of changes will require more enforcement by L&I. This is a problem.

Visit PlanPhilly to review comments submitted to the ZCC by city groups and oranizations.

The ZCC will host a final open house on the draft consolidated code Tuesday, November 9, at 10 AM at the Independence Visitors Center. The open house format was designed to provide opportunity for more focused public discussion on specific topics. The self-guided presentation is organized into four themes: enhancing city and neighborhoods, preserving and enriching the environment, improving connections, and engaging the public. Representatives from Portfolio Associates, the Planning Commission, and the ZCC are available at each station to answer questions and gather feedback. A virtual open house is available online at http://www.zoningcodeopenhouse.com/ for those unable to attend the meeting. Results from all ten open houses will be presented at the November 10 regular meeting of the ZCC.

Zoning Code Commission members met a second time this month to discuss unresolved issues in the draft zoning code. ZCC staff and consultants have been sifting through comments submitted by commission members, civic groups, and industry associations, as well as public input from neighborhood meetings and online surveys. While many comments highlight the need for clarification and result in minor changes to the draft code, some raise more difficult questions that must be reviewed by the ZCC work plan committee and brought to the full commission for approval. Today, consultant Don Elliott of Clarion Associates focused attention on recent edits, new form and design controls, and density bonuses.

Mr. Elliott quickly described some general revisions, including new language for abutting properties, nonconforming uses, and limits on the amount of retail and commercial uses in mixed buildings (click here to view full presentation). However, reaction to proposed center city form controls and FAR bonuses prompted additional work by consultants and volunteers to test the viability of the new requirements and issues related to Neighborhood Conservation Districts remain unresolved.

Elliott explained that a new “sky plane” section would replace three existing sets of regulations designed to control building bulk and mass. Consultant George Claflen of Claflen Associates developed the new regulations, which are being reviewed and tested by other city architects. Response has been positive, but the consultant team is struggling to make the rules less complicated, since they will apply more broadly to center city and more property-owners may be affected. Members of the public requested the commission provide some sort of graphic explanation of the sky plane controls that can be more easily understood and to consider the collective nature of the controls, not just individual buildings.

Proposed FAR bonuses have been analyzed in detail by Michael Samuels, principal in Clarion’s Philadelphia office. Mr. Samuels was asked to test the proposed bonus options for a 20 percent return on investment for each district where bonuses are allowed. Seven bonus categories remain on the list and the amount of floor area bonus associated with each has been adjusted based on Samuels’ report (click here to review bonuses). Consultants raised a general question about center city districts and whether proposed base densities and bonuses are in line with realistic demand or encourage unrealistic expectations. No recommendation was made to better align permitted densities in the new code with the realities of the Philadelphia market.

The question of whether or not the Philadelphia City Planning Commission should issue Certificates of Compliance for projects in Neighborhood Conservation Districts generated much discussion, but remains unanswered. There is currently just one such district established, but members of the Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District want language related to PCPC certificates to remain in the new code. Consultants recommend that only appealable L&I permits be included. ZCC member Emanuel Kelly noted, “A lot of effort went into developing this plan in lieu of the more stringent historic district standards. How do you protect neighborhood character without some sort of approval? Otherwise, it is meaningless.” David Schaaf of PCPC’s Urban Design group added that providing the certificates is not onerous and asked what would be proposed in its place.

The citizen comment period is open until November 12, 2010. The ZCC will meet once in November and twice in December in order to send the draft code to City Council before the end of the year as planned.

The ZCC is meeting twice this month, once in November, and perhaps twice in December as the group continues to hash out details in the draft zoning code and approve revisions. Although the citizen comment period was extended to November 12, the ZCC must work hard to get a final draft to City Council by the end of the year – before budget season and before election year issues can be mixed in. Today’s meeting was focused on recent edits and emerging changes (click here to view the PowerPoint presentation). As a final vote on the code fast approaches, however, ZCC members must be able to defend the work of the past three years. They wanted to know how submitted comments are being tracked and if the new standards can be tested using sample projects. “People want to know which comments have been addressed,” ZCC member John Westrum said, “and if there are plans to test the districts and determine how the old code compares with the new.”

While consultant Don Elliott of Clarion Associates acknowledged that accounting for input is important, he has never been involved in a process where each comment was tracked and explained. “I am confident that every comment here was looked at by staff and the work plan committee,” Elliott said. “If the recommendation is not in the draft code, assume it didn’t make the cut.” ZCC Vice Chair Peter Kelsen reiterated that the work plan committee has developed a substantial list of issues based on a review of all submitted comments to date. The committee will continue to evaluate input and make recommendations for consideration and approval by the full commission. In response to questions about whether the draft code will be tested, newly appointed director of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission Gary Jastrzab said that he is talking internally with the urban design staff about applying the code to sample projects. ZCC executive director Eva Gladstein added that staff is also looking at testing a subset of typical ZBA cases.

As a ZCC member and City Councilman who will have to vote on the code next spring, Brian O’Neill is concerned about what he calls “distractions,” issues that have the potential to derail the good work that has been done overall. He notes accessory dwelling units, tattoo parlors, and night clubs as examples. “Permitting some of these uses citywide is not going to happen.” Councilman O’Neill also wants the differences between the new and current codes to be spelled out in summary form for each district. “We may be able to identify some problem areas now and address them,” he said. O’Neill also reminded the commission about the need to reduce the amount of cases at the ZBA. “Some people think what we propose in the draft code will create more use variances,” O’Neill said. “We need to flush this out in relation to Pennsylvania state law.”

Although the earliest the new zoning code can be adopted is next May, some ZCC members were concerned about how to transition from the old to the new code. Don Elliott explained that other cities choose to (1) delay the effective date of the new code or (2) establish a three to six month period where applicants can opt to have projects reviewed under either code. Since administration of the new code will rely more on L&I staff, adequate training was another concern. L&I Commissioner Fran Burns explained that planning and training for a new code is not new for her department. “The city adopts a new building code every three years,” she said. “We are looking for key dates in terms of preparing for the new zoning code.”

The ZCC has extended the citizen comment period for the draft zoning code to November 12, 2010. Consultants will then prepare a final draft for the December 8 ZCC meeting where members will vote to approve the code and send the final draft to City Council. Public outreach on the code is on-going, with open houses scheduled in each councilmanic district and an online survey posted at http://www.zoningcodeopenhouse.com/ to gather as much feedback as possible by the November deadline.

Over the next few weeks, the ZCC is hosting an open house in each councilmanic district to provide another opportunity for public review and comment on the draft consolidated code. Attendees are self-guided through a presentation of boards that highlight proposed key changes between the old and the new codes. The boards are organized into four themes: enhancing city and neighborhoods, preserving and enriching the environment, improving connections, and engaging the public. Representatives from Portfolio Associates, the Planning Commission, and the ZCC are available to answer questions, discuss issues, and gather feedback.

The first of ten open houses was held at Holy Family University on September 22. The meeting drew individuals who have tracked Philadelphia’s zoning reform project from start to finish, as well as some newcomers. Marion Brown of the Neighborhood Interfaith Movement, for example, has been following the zoning code project from the beginning, in order to encourage zoning regulations that support better child care. As the NIM Early Learning Alliance Coordinator, Ms. Brown provides resources on child care regulations, including zoning. She came to comment on specific sections of the draft code. Brown reacted positively to new definitions related to day care, but doesn’t like that the code rules such facilities out in certain locations, rather than allowing for the possibility of special permission. In general, she thought the open house was a well done presentation, but was not sure that it met her idea of public input.

The ZCC and Portfolio Associates said they thought long and hard about the format. They wanted to engage the public in a new way, since this series of meetings is about presenting the results of prior public participation. The ZCC and its consultants have completed the major work of restructuring and rewriting the code based on that feedback. The next two months before a final draft is submitted to City Council are about getting the details right. In addition to the presentation boards, full drafts of the code are available to review at the open house and attendees are encouraged to comment on the impacts of specific changes. Comments on the draft code will be accepted until October 12.

The next open house is scheduled for 6 PM Monday, September 27, at Roxborough Memorial Hospital. Click here for a complete list of times and locations. Vist a virtual open house at http://www.zoningcodeopenhouse.com/.

ZCC consultant Don Elliott of Clarion Associates provided City Council with an overview of the draft code’s new structure, highlighting important changes and focusing attention on potential flash point issues. Mr. Elliott emphasized that now is the time for input. “We really need your comments at this point. We want to know if we got the details right,” he said. While most councilmembers sent staff to learn more about the 438-page document, ZCC member and City Councilman Brian O’Neill was there to ensure proposed changes to the code are clearly understood. “When this comes over to Council, we don’t want to vote on something we don’t understand,” O’Neill said. “We are going to be held accountable.”

Councilman O’Neill would like to see a detailed analysis that would indicate what the differences are between the current and proposed codes and what the impacts of those changes are. He also cautioned the ZCC about zoning in a city with localized issues. “Using a broad brush approach doesn’t always work in Philadelphia,” O’Neill said. For example, the draft code would allow the creation of accessory dwelling units in existing residential neighborhoods, a situation that O’Neill describes as a source of complaint in his district. “I don’t want this issue to kill an otherwise good effort,” he said. In other districts, council staff indicated that the sticking point may be the location of methadone clinics.

Additional questions were related to proposed administrative decision-making and the consolidation of zoning districts. Council technical staff wanted to know how L&I will make judgments on cases that were once sent to the ZBA. Mr. Elliott explained that objective criteria were created for each decision that has to be made and that there are limits to the relief that can be granted. Others wanted to know the difference between consolidating districts for the new zoning code and the remapping of districts that will occur later. Elliott acknowledged that in order to simplify the code and reduce the number of base zoning districts and overlays, some “blurring of distinctions” had to happen. “New zoning districts incorporate some of the old, even if they were not identical,” he said. “The ZCC decided which distinctions the city could not live without and which could be discarded in that process, but the actual zoning lines did not change.”

ZCC chair Alan Greenberger described the amount of public outreach related to this effort as “impressive,” but acknowledged that new zoning regulations will still come as a surprise to many residents. “There will be lots of people who say they didn’t know this was coming,” Greenberger said. But he reiterated that when the final draft is presented to City Council this November, councilmembers will still have an opportunity to develop a list of issues to send back to the ZCC for consideration.

On September 15, 2010, Zoning Code Commission member and Councilman Brian O’Neill explained to a crowd at the Building Industry Association annual housing conference that he is very positive about the new draft zoning code. Councilman O’Neill told the group that he did not spend three years on the ZCC as an exercise and that he wants to get the new code passed. O’Neill said the goal of the code is to help areas of change by making development more predictable.

O’Neill reminded the group that the ZCC needs comments about the draft Code by October 12, 2010 if they are going to impact the final code language.  The ZCC has set a tough timeframe with the goal of sending the final language to City Council in November.

Zoning commission members received a 438-page draft of the new zoning code, described as “lean and mean” by consultant Don Elliott. “It’s about half as long as Denver’s new code,” he said. The release marks the first time the three draft modules have been fully integrated into a single document. All written comments are due by October 12, so that a final draft is ready for a vote at the November 10 meeting of the ZCC and the preliminary report of recommendations for the city’s zoning code can then be submitted to City Council. Although there are still details to hash out over the next 2 months, ZCC chair Alan Greenberger believes the code will get passed by Council next spring. “It’s not perfect,” he said, “but we got it largely right.”

Mr. Elliott highlighted the following substantive changes to the text and encouraged each member to read the full draft carefully. The consultants want feedback on parts of the code that are new or still evolving.

• A new commercial mixed-use base district CMX-2.5, intended to reduce the number of neighborhood commercial special districts.
• Proposed sky plane form controls that replace current bulk plane restrictions and increase design flexibility.
• Specific standards for controversial uses, such as communication antennas, junk/salvage yards, roof decks, and satellite dishes.
• Changes to dimensional standards in rowhome districts.
• FAR bonuses, which are currently being tested for economic viability.
• Evolving form and design controls that are intended to be objective standards applied by L&I in routine reviews. Compliance to these standards is mandatory.
• Proposed TOD standards that replace the concept of an overlay district. TOD areas will be mapped by the Planning Commission, not City Council, and proposed projects will be approved by L&I.

Comments on the presentation focused on how user-friendly the new code will be, testing how it will be applied, ensuring L&I has capacity and training, and improving customer service and access to information.

The ZCC’s Work Plan Committee will create an agenda of critical issues to be discussed at the next two scheduled meetings – October 6 and October 27. The Civic Engagement Committee, now led by Commissioner Stella Tsai, is organizing 10 neighborhood “open houses” for late September and early October and an online survey to allow the public to comment on how the new code is structured. The committee is also working with Sage Communications with a grant from the William Penn Foundation to develop a strategy for introducing the final draft to the public and building support for its approval.

Chairman Alan Greenberger reminded ZCC members that they are now going to be defenders of the work that has been done over the past three years. He emphasized that much of what City Council gets asked to fix with zoning are behavior and enforcement problems, which a new code cannot address. Mr. Greenberger wants members to stand by the decisions that they made. “The document is worthy of being defended – we worked hard and tried to be reasonable,” he said. “I think it’s going to pass City Council.”

View Don Elliott’s consolidated draft presentation.
To view the Consolidated Draft Code, visit http://www.zoningmatters.org/files/Draft%20Consolidated%20Code%20(Sep%208%202010)_0.pdf.

Members of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission were briefed on the consolidated draft of the new zoning code at a special meeting held September 7. ZCC consultant Don Elliott presented an overview of the code’s new structure and how it addresses goals to make the zoning code more consistent and understandable; ensure development is more predictable; encourage high quality development; protect the character of existing neighborhoods; and involve the public in development decisions. (Click here to view PowerPoint presentation.) While most members seemed impressed with the code’s progress, the Commission asked an important question: why is this going to work?

Planning Commission executive director and ZCC chair Alan Greenberger acknowledged that introducing new rules and processes to a city like Philadelphia is challenging, but he does not think the code will be defeated by cynicism. “We worked really hard on it, it’s going to be good, and we will defend it,” he said. ZCC member and City Councilman Brian O’Neill agreed that it was a good process, but warned that community buy-in is critical. “If it gets through this Council in an election year, it must be pretty good,” he said.

At a rare August meeting of the ZCC, commission members were alerted to important dates and deadlines for the coming fall. The goal is that the ZCC will be ready to vote on the preliminary report of recommendations for Philadelphia’s Zoning Code on November 10, 2010. Briefings and public meetings will start immediately after Labor Day with a special meeting of the PCPC on September 7 at 2:00 PM. A fully integrated draft of the new zoning code will be released September 8 at the ZCC’s regular monthly meeting. The final deadline for all written comments is October 10.

Once the draft code is released, a formal public briefing with City Council will be scheduled along with 10 neighborhood meetings, one in each councilmanic district. In anticipation of needed discussions, the ZCC plans to meet twice in October – October 6 and 27 – to prepare for a vote in November. Any delay will force zoning code discussions into a timeframe when Council must be focused on city budget issues.

The Charter Amendment requires the ZCC to adopt by two-thirds vote a preliminary report proposing specific changes to the Philadelphia Zoning Code, including draft legislation required to implement the recommendations. The report must be submitted to City Council, which has 45 days to convene public hearings on the proposed changes. Council has 30 days after the close of hearings to send recommendations back to the ZCC. The ZCC must submit a final report no later than 30 days after it receives such recommendations. City Council must then enact into law, reject, or table the final report within 60 days. The ZCC hopes to have a new zoning code by early 2011.

Draft 3 of the change memo was presented by consultant Don Elliott of Clarion Associates. “This is the last change memo you will see,” Mr. Elliott said. “Future edits will be made to the fully integrated draft of the code.” Consultants are working now to bring the three modules together into a single document and to resolve outstanding issues by September 8, when the draft code will be released. The change memo highlights specific revisions for all three modules that will be reflected in the full draft. Comments on proposed changes to-date focused on nonconformities, affordable housing, off-street parking, and height limits in a transit-oriented development district.

ZCC members raised concerns about how proposed development standards create nonconformities in existing structures and lots and how that should be addressed. Most members agreed that they do no want to create additional zoning districts to address nonconformities and that perhaps nonconformities are best addressed as a separate issue. However, minimum lot size remained an issue. Lot sizes need to be adjusted to accommodate new home building, especially in infill situations. Consultants will review the dimensional tables again to see if nonconformities can be reduced and consider options that will keep cases away from the ZBA.

A comment from the public suggested that proposed floor area bonuses related to affordable housing may undermine existing programs that require a percentage of affordable units in certain types of developments. Don Elliott responded that a number of cities have both requirements and incentives related to affordable housing and that one does not preclude the other. Additional concerns were raised about where off-street parking should be allowed and height increases in areas designated for TOD, since so much of the city has access to public transit.  

The work plan committee continues to review and consider proposed changes to modules 1, 2 and 3, and will meet on August 27 to preview the integrated draft of the code. Special working groups are also in progress to develop sign controls and center city overlay standards.

View change memo presentation.

Owen Franklin of Portfolio Associates presented a report of the civic engagement activities related to Module 3 – Development Standards. The findings are based on responses at four neighborhoods meetings, an online survey, and written testimony. Participants were asked if they think particular changes will improve the code and whether the changes support overall goals to make the code easy to understand, improve development processes, encourage high-quality development, protect existing neighborhoods, and involve the public in development decisions. In general, proposed development standards received more positive than negative feedback. New form and design controls, open space requirements, and floor area bonuses generated the most comments.

Based on community feedback, the biggest issue for the public is the need for contextual zoning. Commissioner Greg Pastore agreed. “The draft code is insufficient in addressing infill issues,” he said. “We need more contextual zoning or we will continue to send cases to the ZBA.” Lead consultant Don Elliott of Clarion Associates explained that there is an inherent tension in developing such form and design regulations. “Too little means you don’t care about design,” he said, “and too much may not fit each case.” ZCC chairman Alan Greenberger cautioned that design controls can limit creativity and add points of review. He reminded members that opportunities to address context currently exist in the form of neighborhood conservation districts and historic districts. Mr. Elliott reiterated that there are no easy answers. “Height is controversial across the country, for example” he said. “The law says the limit is 35 feet, but because none of the neighbors ever bothered to build a third story, nobody can.” Consultants plan to continue discussing this topic with the work plan committee and consider how some contextuality requirements could be incorporated into the new code.

Public reaction to new open space requirements included recommendations for stronger design guidelines to reduce the risk of creating uninviting or underused plazas and a fee-in-lieu if open space option. Public input over open space design and issues related to public access were also raised. ZCC members want the code to clarify that the new open space requirements address the private needs of residents/users of that particular development. Public open space is addressed as an amenity eligible for floor area bonuses, which also triggered a fair amount of public discussion at neighborhood meetings. Comments ranged from suggestions for additional amenities to allowing amenities to be provided off-site and providing bonuses in areas outside Center City. The current list of bonuses is being evaluated for feasibility, aiming for a 20 percent return on the investment. Two bonuses are being considered for areas outside downtown.

Comments on Module 3 – Development Standards may still be submitted by taking an online survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/zcc_module3

View presentation on civic engagement.

The ZCC brought the third and final module of the draft zoning code to the neighborhoods to get feedback on key changes. Module 3 includes chapters on development standards, parking and loading, signs, and definitions. New form and design controls, parking maximums, floor area bonuses, and provisions intended to make the city more “green” – requirements for open space, landscaping, trees, and other sustainable features – drew the most attention.  

At each meeting, ZCC executive director Eva Gladstein presented what consultants and staff consider to be the most significant changes in the draft zoning code (see below). Participants are then split into groups to discuss particular topics.

Most participants welcomed the new form and design standards, which are intended to control a building’s impact on the public realm with requirements for building shape, façade treatments, and entrances. However, concerns were raised about existing nonconforming uses and structures and how the new requirements will be applied in those cases. Although specific dimensional standards for each proposed zoning district were not presented, some participants were most concerned about how different new area and bulk requirements are from the current code. They don’t want the consolidated zoning districts to result in a loss of neighborhood distinction.

Reaction to new open space, tree, and landscaping requirements was generally positive; however, many want to see maintenance issues addressed and more sustainability requirements added. But some questioned whether such requirements will use up valuable, marketable land. “We need development,” one participant added, while another suggested that deed-restricting open space on private land could limit redevelopment potential in the future. “Can the required open space be moved around later to accommodate new uses?” Many participants wanted clarification on whether required buffers and setbacks are counted toward the minimum open space requirement. “If yards and buffers are not included in open space, that 10 percent requirement turns into 15 or 20 percent of the lot and that will limit development.” The biggest debate focused on whether all required open space should be provided with unlimited public access. “What is the point of open space if it is not available to the public?” one participant asked. Others disagreed, suggesting that it is appropriate for a green space or courtyard provided as part of an apartment complex to be for the private use of residents of that development. A fee-in-lieu of open space option was recommended to address situations where open space already exists nearby and other areas of the city are in need. Participants also suggested that the protection of “heritage” trees be revisited, since some large trees are hazardous and not always a desirable species.

The issue of floor area bonuses generated much discussion and a mixed response. Some groups supported the new “a la carte” system and recommended additional public amenities for consideration, such as food access, affordable parking, and pet facilities. Others considered the list of eligible amenities too generous. They questioned who would be benefiting the most – the neighborhood or the developer – and want an opportunity to comment on projects that use the bonuses. They also thought that perhaps an overall height limit should be applied downtown. Participants suggested the ZCC consider ways to value and/or weight particular amenities and aggregate benefits, perhaps incorporating a fee-in-lieu system and permitting amenities to be provided off-site. Some also wanted the ZCC to consider that other areas of the city may benefit from such incentives. But one participant asked whether the whole premise of floor area bonuses is ill-conceived. “Why don’t we just zone for what we want?”

Comments on maximum parking standards were also mixed. Participants did not all agree that public transit should always be promoted over automobile use or that across-the-board reductions in parking should be granted in every case. The use must be considered when establishing parking requirements. “No one is going to shop at Ikea and take the bus home,” one participant said. The group recommended allowing developers to provide reserve parking areas, which can be landscaped and paved for parking or developed later depending on actual need. Another group suggested that an unintended consequence of reduced parking at some stations may be less transit use. There are “park and ride” issues that need to be considered on a case by case basis.

Although the final neighborhood meeting on Module 3 was held July 29, the public can still provide input on all three modules by taking the ZCC’s online survey. Visit www.zoningmatters.org .

Key Changes:

Form and Design Controls. In addition to dimensional standards that determine the size and placement of a building through controls on height, setback, and bulk, new baseline form and design standards are established to control a building’s impact on the public realm with requirements for building shape, façade treatments, and entrances.
Form and Design Controls for Large Retail. New standards created specifically for retail buildings more than 65,000 square feet in size to provide a more positive impact on public realm.
Maximum Parking Limits. The new code will establish both minimum and maximum surface parking standards to promote the more efficient use of land, encourage transit use, reduce congestion, and improve air quality. Maximum standards are calculated as a percentage of minimum standards.
“Smart” Parking. Tools are introduced in the new code to reduce use of single-occupancy vehicles including bike parking and auto-share spaces.
Open Space Requirements. For large projects, the new code will require at least 10 percent of the lot or parcel area to be preserved as open space.
Landscaping. New requirements require landscaping in parking lot interiors and in places where a buffer is needed to help separate different uses.
Trees. New standards have been added to preserve existing trees and plant new street trees in many types of developments.
Floor Area Bonuses. A new “a la carte” system will replace the current “tiered” structure of bonuses that is problematic for smaller sites to use. New and modified amenities are established that applicants can provide in exchange for the ability to develop additional floor space, including affordable housing, transit facilities, and sustainable building practices.

Download a copy of Module 3 – Development Standards.

Online surveys are available for each module of the draft zoning code. Tell the ZCC what you think about proposed changes by clicking on the links below.

Module 1 – Administration and Procedures: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZCC_Module1

Module 2 – Zoning Districts and Uses: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/zcc_districts_uses

Module 3 – Development Standards: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/zcc_module3

Mayor Nutter took time today to thank ZCC members, staff, and consultants for their work on zoning reform, which he considers “critically important to the future of this city.” The mayor’s speech marks an important milestone – the third and final module of the draft code has been released and public outreach on the latest chapters begins July 20. Over the next six to eight weeks, the ZCC must consider all submitted comments and proposed changes, so that a complete and final draft of the code can be presented to city council this fall. Although the mayor said people are excited about the new code and want clear and understandable rules for neighborhoods and developers alike, he expects there to be a lot of pushback. “Keep working hard,” Mayor Nutter said. “Be bold and straightforward. Your work is inspiring Philadelphians.”

After the mayor’s visit, ZCC members received an overview of Module 3. The 190-page document includes development standards, parking and loading requirements, signage provisions, and definitions. Consultants aimed to keep these sections simple, less detailed, and easy to administer. Significant differences from the current code were highlighted:

• FAR bonuses were simplified into a single list, including new incentives for sustainable building practices;
• New standards for connectivity and circulation were introduced;
• Open space and natural resource protection standards were added; and
• New landscaping and tree requirements were incorporated.

The consultants noted that the chapter on signs is not complete, due to the topic’s complexity. A working group on signage will be formed this summer to develop a plan for accomplishing a full rewrite of current regulations in the near future. The strategy will be presented to city council along with the final draft of the new code.

ZCC members raised questions related to the new bonus provisions, considering where the incentives could be used beyond center city and how to test them for viability and reasonableness. Additional comments addressed whether minimum parking requirements are necessary in high density areas, how affordable housing is encouraged in different census tracts, and if transit-oriented development should be regulated with standards applicable citywide, rather than as a mapped overlay district. The ZCC will meet again August 11 to discuss Module 3 in more detail and review proposed changes to Modules 1 and 2.

Next steps include a series of four public meetings on Module 3 starting Tuesday, July 20. Click here for times and locations. You may also provide input on Module 3 by taking this survey. Also this summer, ZCC will begin work on the Zoning Administration Manual and will conduct informal briefings on the code with individual councilmembers.

Module 3 – Development Standards 

Module 3 PowerPoint Presentation

The Philadelphia Zoning Code Commission has organized another series of public outreach meetings to gather input on module 3, which includes proposed development standards for the draft zoning code. The third and final module was released Wednesday, July 14, 2010, at the ZCC’s regular monthly meeting. Four community meetings will be held the last two weeks of July, starting Tuesday, July 20. Click here to view current meeting times and locations.

Take survey on Module 3.

ZCC consultants highlighted key changes to modules 1 and 2 of the draft zoning code, which are proposed in response to feedback provided by the public, commission members, civic groups, and other stakeholders. Not all issues are resolved at the time a change memo is released, however. Special working groups have been formed to discuss some topics in greater detail, such as daycare facilities, regulated uses, and the center city overlay district. These discussions allow the consultants to propose better and more focused changes to the code. ZCC chairman Alan Greenberger reiterated that the draft code is a work in progress and that changes are expected up until the point when a final draft must be presented to city council this fall. Module 3 on development standards will be released July 14, 2010 and a series of public outreach meetings will be scheduled between July 15 and July 29. View the draft change memo and PowerPoint Presentation.

John Grady of the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation provided ZCC members with an overview of the Industrial Market Analysis and Land Use Strategy, which it plans to release later this month. PIDC worked collaboratively with the Commerce Department, PCPC, and the ZCC to identify industrial land use policies that will strengthen existing industrial areas and attract modern users to Philadelphia. Over the last 10 years, the city has lost out to the regional industrial economy, but that decline is stabilizing. PIDC wants the new zoning code to protect the strong industrial areas that already exist, provide new opportunities for transitioning industrial areas, and repurpose underperforming lands.

According to Mr. Grady, the keys to attracting new industry are the ability to cluster users, the availability of large parcels with good topography, flexible buildings, and access to infrastructure and a skilled workforce. By upgrading and modernizing the city’s current inventory of industrial lands, PIDC believes there is opportunity for growth in traditional manufacturing (apparel, food-processing, printing, building fixtures, etc.), advanced manufacturing (medical devices, biopharmaceutical, energy), and transportation (wholesaling, distribution, logistics). The study will recommend new zoning that consolidates nine existing industrial zoning districts into six: heavy industrial, general industrial, light industrial, commercial mixed-use, residential mixed use, and utilities and transportation. PIDC will continue to work with the ZCC and its consultants to establish permitted uses and development standards for each proposed district to ensure new zoning regulations support future industrial development and the reuse of vacant facilities.

Click here to view the PIDC PowerPoint Presentation.

On May 6, 2010, City Council passed a resolution approving a one-year extension until June 30, 2011 for work on zoning reform. Nevertheless, the ZCC and its consultants are on track to release a final draft of the new zoning code this fall. Commission members are in the process of reviewing feedback on Modules 1 and 2, including draft provisions for general administration and procedures, zoning districts, and use categories. Module 3 on development standards will be available July 14, 2010. Based on responses gathered from online surveys, neighborhood meetings, written testimony, and ongoing discussions of the commission and its work groups, the ZCC must recommend changes and guide the consultants in producing a final draft for presentation to City Council. “It’s a lot of information to absorb,” chairman Alan Greenberger said, “but we need to get clarity about what is allowed where.”

Consultants described changes proposed to date for Module 1 – Administration and Procedures (see Change Memo PowerPoint) and opened the floor to questions and comments on Module 2 – Zoning Districts and Uses. To initiate the discussion, Owen Franklin of Portfolio Associates presented a civic engagement report (see PowerPoint presentation), which highlighted what the public thinks needs more attention by the ZCC, based on the latest round of public outreach:

• Development thresholds that trigger a neighborhood review and the weight of that community input on the decision process
• The potential for consolidated Neighborhood Commercial Corridor Overlay Districts to create generic corridors and put unique community characteristics at risk
• The preparedness of L&I staff to make use determinations under the new classification system and how transparent that process will be
• Proposed criteria for accessory dwellings that is considered too stringent

ZCC members and public attendees raised additional concerns:

• Limiting development thresholds that trigger neighborhood review to abutting parcels may be too narrow; perhaps consider impacts on blocks and adjacent blocks
• Identifying reform elements that belong in an administrative manual, rather than in the zoning code, to avoid the need for city council approval for minor changes
• Understanding neighborhood background before adjustments to districts and permitted uses are made in the new code
• PCPC notification when neighborhood project review meetings are triggered
• Ensuring new procedures are not too complicated or cumbersome
• How local neighborhood participation on the proposed Civic Design Review Committee is determined when multiple groups claim to represent a particular area
• Whether use variances will be more difficult to get under the new code and the criteria for establishing a reasonable economic use of a property

As the ZCC begins to analyze proposed new districts, Mr. Greenberger asked commission members to think about what uses should be specifically allowed or not allowed based on the impacts of that use, whether initial concerns can be addressed by development standards, and if some use-specific development standards are needed. “Module 2 is the backbone of the code,” Greenberger said. “The goal is to reduce the number of districts and overlays and take what makes sense from the overlay districts and apply it citywide.” Lead consultant Don Elliot of Clarion Associates added, “We attempted to create a simple foundation, but there is still a lot of district and use-specific stuff we’d like to slash. We are relying on you to cut what is no longer necessary.” The Work Plan Committee is preparing to form sub-groups and conduct more research on difficult issues, such as group living, eating/dining/entertainment uses, daycare facilities, and regulated uses.

To learn more about Module 2, see “New zoning districts and uses proposed” and “Public reaction to Module 2 – Zoning Districts and Uses” in the links below.

The ZCC hosted four community outreach meetings to gather feedback on the latest chapters of the draft zoning code. Key changes related to zoning districts, use categories, and public notice provisions were introduced. Participants at each session were asked whether they think the changes would improve the code and if there are issues that still need attention. Community input on neighborhood projects remains the number one concern.   

While participants at all four sessions considered the proposal for a Civic Design Review (CDR) committee a big improvement, some think the process will remain politicized. “What sort of teeth does the CDR give the community? As a practical matter, you are still asking the ZBA to decide on design.” Others expressed concern that the development thresholds that trigger a review are too high. “Big changes can come from small projects,” they said, “even just 3,000 to 4,000 square feet.” Many suspected developers will “slide in just under the thresholds.” Depending on the location of the project, by-right development will be subject to review if it is more than 100,000 square feet or 100 dwelling units; 50,000 square feet or 50 dwelling units, if adjacent to a multi-family residential district; and 25,000 square feet or 25 dwelling units, if adjacent to a single family residential district. Any proposed building on a parcel abutting a residential district boundary that exceeds the maximum height in that residential district by more than 20 ft is also subject to the CDR; however, many would like this trigger lowered. “Twenty feet is another two stories,” they said. “Perhaps a more contextual-based standard is appropriate.”

Reaction to the proposed reorganization of uses into 10 broad categories and 65 subcategories was mixed. Participants liked the simplification and thought it might facilitate the reuse of vacant properties, but were concerned that under the new system, some community groups and the average citizen may miss an opportunity to weigh in on proposed uses that will impact the neighborhood. Public education about the new use categories was recommended. The biggest concerns were raised about giving L&I staff the discretion to classify a proposed use appropriately. “That’s the loophole right there,” one participant explained. “Builders currently exploit our code and they will continue to do so. Staff decision at the L&I counter is an avenue that can be corrupted.” Moving the decision process to higher administrative level was suggested, but some participants were still concerned about how to appeal. “What happens if we don’t agree with L&I’s decision? What recourse is there?” Others tied the new use classification system directly to the issue of public notice. “If there are fewer variances with this new system, how does a community get notified?”
The most positive feedback on the draft code was related to the expansion of existing Wissahickon Watershed Overlay District protection standards citywide, so that steep slope and riparian buffer controls are applied to other environmentally sensitive areas. Most participants considered this the most meaningful change the city could make. “This is huge,” they said, “but we would love to see impervious surface controls become part of it.” They encouraged the ZCC to expedite the work of the Philadelphia Water Department, which is analyzing other watersheds in the city in order to make recommendations for impervious coverage in those areas.

The public was puzzled by proposed accessory dwelling provisions that limit units to 650 square feet in the primary building footprint of single family detached homes. “These are a great form of flexible housing that allows aging in place,” participants said. “If you don’t include rowhomes, you are cutting out most of the city.” A recommendation was also made to make the size restriction a percentage of the primary residence, rather than a specific square foot.

Comments related to the proposed consolidation of commercial corridor overlay districts focused on the need to protect neighborhood-specific characteristics, address the over-saturation of particular uses in any given area, and accommodate innovation. Participants disagreed on whether or not daycare uses should be permitted by right in more residential and commercial districts, but agreed that some location criteria may be needed to avoid situations where daycares and bars or other uses are next to each other. Clarification was requested for the proposed Transit Oriented Development Overlay District, since almost every block in Philadelphia is essentially a transit stop. Participants expressed concern about the potential for higher buildings and densities everywhere and want the hierarchy of transit nodes, stations, and stops better defined. Comments related to urban agriculture were mostly positive; however, there seemed to be consensus that existing wildlife habitat areas should not be traded off for urban agriculture purposes.

Discussions at each meeting were focused on the following key changes.  To review the full draft, click  Module 2 – Zoning Districts and Uses. To take a survey on Module 2, click http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=hsa%2b1tAkgOvYX9JcKvezvAdU6rdQw3iuAG3hzuxDSCw%3d&.
 

• Public Notice and Meetings. Proposed language in the draft code requires community groups to register their organization in order to receive early notification for projects that need ZBA approval or meet certain development thresholds and location criteria. A CDR process is initiated for such projects. The review is limited to two public meetings of the CDR Committee, which includes two architects, one landscape architect, one transportation/urban planner, one real estate development professional, one person with civic association review experience, and one rotating seat from the project area. Both applicants and registered community organizations must attend the meeting and document results.
• Industrial Mixed-Use District. A new district designed to accommodate a mix of residential, commercial and low-impact industrial uses.
• Center City Overlay District. This district attempts to consolidate regulations from 14 existing code sections in order to eliminate redundancies, inconsistencies, and outmoded provisions. The new overlay district will include special form and use controls accompanied by maps, which indicate where each control applies.
• Neighborhood Commercial Corridor Overlay District. The new overlay district brings special dimensional and use controls from 13 existing commercial corridor overlay districts together to reduce redundancies and make the code easier to use and administer.
• Transit Oriented Development Overlay District. This district controls uses, height, parking, and design features around transit stations.
• Wissahickon Watershed Overlay District. Riparian setbacks and steep slope controls were removed from this existing overlay district and are proposed for citywide application.
• Use Categories. Permitted uses in the new code are reorganized into 10 broad categories and 65 subcategories.
• Daycare Use Regulations. Adult and child daycare facilities will be allowed in more residential and commercial districts.
• Urban Agriculture. A new use category created to accommodate community supported agriculture, market farms, animal husbandry, etc.
• Renewable Energy Production. New provisions to permit energy collector and conversion systems as accessory structures in all districts when certain criteria are met.
• Accessory Dwellings. Dwelling units limited to a certain size would be allowed within single-family detached homes.

Consultant Don Elliott of Clarion Associates described work on the issue of civic engagement as “walking on a tight-rope with at least three people trying to pull us off.” Mr. Elliott presented a revised approach to public involvement that strikes a balance between civic groups that want to have a say about any project proposed and investors that need to have a more predictable process. The recommended Civic Design Review (CDR) process requires neighborhood groups to register up front; focuses attention on the public realm; limits the number of CDR meetings to two; and is advisory only. By-right projects meeting specific development thresholds and location criteria are subject to the CDR.

The proposed design review process was developed with input from the final report of the Common Ground for Building Our Cityworkshops and public outreach conducted by the ZCC. Communities are concerned with protecting neighborhood character and getting sufficient notice about proposed projects. Developers want predictability and a set time frame. The consultants recommended the following requirements in response to the input.

1. Registration of community organizations. Groups must identify a contact person, establish boundaries (can overlap), name CDR Committee participant, and agree to conduct meetings within X days and document them.
2. Public notice. Notification is required when ZBA approval is needed or CDR thresholds are met.
3. Public meetings. Applicants and registered community organizations must attend and document results.

Guidelines for the proposed CDR Committee:

• Advisory
• Focused on public realm
• Each project limited to two meetings of the CDR Committee
• Design guidelines in administrative manual
• Committee may incorporate recommendations from other review groups (Art Commission, Historical Commission, RDA, or PIDC)
• CDR Committee will include 2 architects, 1 landscape architect, 1 transportation/urban planner, 1 real estate development professional, 1 person with civic association review experience, and 1 rotating seat from project area
• Member of PCPC chairs CDR Committee
• Registered community organizations name rotating seat within 1 week before first CDR meeting –or District Councilperson names it.

The thresholds for by-right projects are proposed as follows:

1. IF, the project is located in any district [Exception –a solely industrial use building located within an industrial district] AND the project parcel abuts any district, THEN the project will be subject to review if it meets the following thresholds: any building containing more than 100,000 sq ft of gross floor area in new construction OR more than 100 new dwelling units.
2. IF, the project is located in any commercial, industrial, or special purpose district AND the project parcel abuts any residential multi-family district, THEN the project will be subject to review if it meets the following thresholds: any building containing more than 50,000sq ft of gross floor area in new construction or more than 50 new dwelling units OR any building on a parcel abutting the R district boundary that exceeds the maximum height in an adjacent R district by more than 20 ft.
3. IF, the project is located in any commercial, industrial, special purpose, or residential multi-family district AND the project parcel abuts any residential single family detached or attached district, THEN the project will be subject to review if it meets the following thresholds: any building containing more than 25,000 sq ft of gross floor area in new construction or more than 25 new dwelling units OR any building on a parcel abutting the R district boundary that exceeds the maximum height in an adjacent R district by more than 20 ft.

After Don Elliott presented the basics of the proposed CDR, he reiterated that that the process may need to be refined. “Although developers may think the concept of ‘by right’ is being eroded,” Elliott said, “most cities do something like this for projects of a certain size.” ZCC member John Westrum responded that his initial reaction was that another level is just being added to the process. “But in reality,” he said, “developers will do this anyway.” His biggest concern was the types of plans and studies required for the meeting. “Onerous presentation requirements will lead to disinvestment.” Public reaction focused on specific threshold requirements and the need to remove the district councilperson from the process.

View PowerPoint on the CDR.

ZCC members learned today how consultants propose to structure zoning districts and regulate uses in the new code. Kirk Bishop of Duncan Associates presented Module 2 – Zoning Districts and Uses, which includes draft chapters 3, 4 and 5. The proposed language reduces the total number of base and overlay districts by more than 50 percent and creates a system of use categories and subcategories to replace a long list of 200-300 very specific use types.

The consultant team consolidated 52 existing base and special purpose districts into 31 new districts and reduced 36 overlays to 11. Six current districts are proposed for elimination and three new districts are introduced. The goals for this phase of the project were to reduce confusion, employ a more intuitive naming system, eliminate redundancies, provide greater consistency, and make the new code easier to administer. The draft Module 2 represents an initial attempt at bringing regulations from numerous code sections together into one place.

Proposed uses in the new code are organized into 10 broad categories intended to guide the user where to look first. The 65 subcategories are meant to capture the important use-related distinctions and are key to the future regulation of Philadelphia. The subcategories retain a fair amount of detail, but do not attempt to identify every possible use. A system of use tables will be incorporated into the code that indicates whether a use is prohibited or permitted by right or conditional use, and where special requirements apply.

Consultants highlighted other proposed changes, including the introduction of new uses and accessory uses, modifications to regulated uses, and amendments to the Wissahickon Watershed provisions, where riparian setbacks and steep slope controls were removed. They will recommend citywide application of such environmental protection standards in Module 3.

ZCC reaction to the Module 2 presentation was mixed. While most members agree that the changes will make the code easier to use and understand, others expressed concern that the consolidation of districts and use categories may do neighborhoods harm. “We need to know exactly how different the proposed changes are. It needs to be crystal clear,” Councilman O’Neill said. “The only difference between districts G-1 and G-2 is billboards, but this was not based on a whim. It can take a lot of thought and compromise on the part of the neighborhood.” ZCC chair Alan Greenberger noted that zoning can be an easy attack point for bad behavior, which is often the source of use-related problems that Councilman O’Neill is talking about. “We have to come to terms with what we want this zoning code to do,” Greenberger said.

The consultants are asking the ZCC to take a long, hard look at Module 2. They want members to think about what is right for Philadelphia’s future as they review the document, not just look for what has been removed from the existing code. Detailed discussions on Module 2 will take place at the ZCC’s May and June sessions. Civic engagement begins April 27.

Download a copy of Module 2 – Zoning Districts and Uses. Draft definitions are also available.
View the PowerPoint presentation on Module 2.
Change Memo for Module 1.
Module 1 survey.
Module 2 survey.

Four community meetings have been scheduled to gather feedback on Module 2 – Zoning Districts and Uses. The agenda for each meeting is the same, so please attend the meeting that is most convenient. All meetings are from 6:00 to 8:00 PM: Tuesday, April 27, Gesu School, 1700 W. Thompson Street, 19121; Wednesday, April 28, Holy Family University, 9801 Frankford Avenue, 19114; Tuesday, May 4, Roxborough Hospital, 5800 Ridge Avenue, 19128; and Wednesday, May 5, Mastery Charter School – Thomas Campus, 927 Johnston Street, 19148.

The topic at this month’s Urban Sustainability Forum at the Academy of Natural Sciences was the role of zoning and building codes in making Philadelphia a more sustainable city. Speakers included a local practitioner, city and state officials, and a national zoning expert. The message from builders is that “green is logical” and new zoning and building regulations are needed to remove barriers and create incentives.

The program was moderated by Frances Burns, commissioner at L&I, and included presentations by Don Elliot, FAICP, senior consultant with Clarion Associates and project manager for Philadelphia’s new zoning code project; Maureen Gutman, AIA, executive director of the Pennsylvania’s Green Government Council and currently engaged in developing the International Green Construction Code; and Patrick McDonald, founding partner of Onion Flats LLC, a local design/build/development firm that focuses on sustainable modes of building and living.

Don Elliot stressed the importance of narrowing the scope of sustainability goals for zoning. “Sustainability is a broad topic,” he said. “If it means everything, your city government will find it difficult to do anything at all.” In Philadelphia, new zoning regulations will focus on the following five objectives:

• Reducing vehicle miles traveled
• Encouraging renewable energy and energy conservation
• Encouraging water conservation
• Allowing urban food production
• Promoting walking and community health

Draft zoning code language addressing sustainability issues will be available in July 2010.

Maureen Gutman presented green building initiatives at the state level. Pennsylvania House Bill 444 would “require the design, construction and renovation of buildings that receive a state appropriation to comply with specified energy and environmental building standards.” Known as “green strings,” the bill passed the House and is currently in the Senate Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy. Ms. Gutman emphasized that the proposed legislation is not a code. “It puts the state in the position to say we walk the walk,” she said. A draft green code is in the works, however. In her work with the International Code Council, Ms. Gutman is part of a group developing the International Green Construction Code (IgCC), a model green design and performance code for new and existing commercial buildings. The code is designed to be flexible, since each municipality’s goals for sustainability and green building may vary. The main objectives for the new code are that it is adoptable, enforceable, and usable nationwide. When Pennsylvania adopted the International Building Codes in 1999, the stated intent and purpose of the act included “the protection of life, health, property and environment,” [emphasis added] which, in Ms. Gutman’s opinion, opened the door for a green building code in the Commonwealth. To review and comment on the draft IgCC, visit http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/igcc/Pages/default.aspx.

Patrick McDonald described a number of Philadelphia projects where his firm had to push the envelope beyond what was permitted by code. At his Rag Flats job, Mr. McDonald wanted to collect 100% of water for use in a community garden, but he was told no such permit existed. He built a 6,000 gallon collection tank anyway and later won an award from the Philadelphia Water Department. The Thin Flats project includes the first LEED-H platinum duplexes in the country, which also alleviated a 25-year flood problem in the community. Mr. McDonald challenged the audience and city and state governments to think radically. “New zoning and building codes should aim for net zero energy and carbon neutrality,” he said. Visit http://www.onionflats.com/ to learn more about successful green projects in Philadelphia.

Consultants summarized the results of recent civic engagement meetings and directed ZCC attention to specific topics related to the draft provisions and administrative procedures of the new code (Module 1). The public was asked to react to 11 proposed changes and provide feedback on whether or not those changes improve the code and meet stakeholder goals for predictability, quality, neighborhood character, etc. ZCC members must now hash out the details based on all submitted comments and prepare a list of changes for the final draft.

The community outreach workshops and online survey direct attention to the following key changes in the draft code:

• Who can testify at the ZBA
• Conditional uses
• Relationship to adopted plans
• Replacement of discontinued uses in nonconforming properties
• Project review
• Administrative decisions
• Dimensional variances
• Minor amendments to plans of development
• Use variances
• Conforming adjustments to nonconforming properties
• Public notice requirements

While reaction was described as more positive than negative overall, respondents still expressed concern about proposed new language and procedures. Changes related to public notice, project review, and use variances generated the most feedback. Overall, the public recognizes that improvements are needed, but is keenly aware that proposals to change and streamline the code will likely limit opportunities for neighborhood involvement. Many want assurance that a concrete role for the public will be clearly laid out in the new code, but details about public participation have been left out of the Module 1 draft while the ZCC reviews stakeholder input on the issue.

The ZCC work plan and civic engagement committees met to identify topics for more detailed discussion based on the results of the survey, community meetings, and all submitted comments from commission members and interested parties. The ZCC revisited five issues – the relationship of adopted plans, referrals from L&I to the ZBA, public notice, who can testify at public hearings, and project review.

Commission members were asked to confirm how the code should distinguish between formally “adopted” comprehensive plans and “accepted” neighborhood plans. Reaction to this issue indicated that the public is uncomfortable with the proposed distinction. The ZCC acknowledged that much effort can go into developing neighborhood plans, but that the city must address a broader range of interests that individual neighborhoods often overlook. The commission reiterated that the adopted comprehensive plan and amendments to that plan will serve as policy guidance for discretionary decisions, while accepted plans will be used to inform city agencies, although they are not bound by its contents. Consultants will refine and add language to clarify this issue.

Response to proposed language that allows L&I to send projects that meet certain size and location criteria to the ZBA resulted in a recommendation that the new procedure be dropped from the code. The intention was to provide an opportunity for public input on developments with significant neighborhood impacts, even if by-right. The ZCC and other stakeholders, however, deemed it confusing.

Discussions related to public notice focused on how to expand current requirements. The intention of the new code is to improve public access to information, not cut it back. Consultants will revise and clarify the language in this section of the code to ensure citizens perceive the notification changes as a gain.

The ZCC directed consultants to clarify the language related to who can testify at public hearings as well. But members cautioned that although anyone will be allowed to testify, the code must make clear that that testimony alone does not give them standing to appeal later on. In addition, the code should not give the impression that anyone can speak for anyone else – if an aggrieved party does not testify, he or she will not have standing at the appeal. And new language needs to explain what types of corporations must have attorneys testify on their behalf.

Finally, the issue of project review was addressed. Based on feedback to date, consultants plan to clarify how size triggers are measured, determine if size triggers should be reduced, identify when in the process referrals to a project review committee are made, connect accepted neighborhood plans to the project review process, and give neighborhoods a way to request a review. This section is likely to change further, however, as the results to the Common Ground workshops are evaluated and discussed.

See also Public reacts to key changes in the draft zoning code and ZCC responds favorably to principles for involving the public in project review.

Download a copy of  Module 1 – Administration and Procedures.
View the PowerPoint presentation on Module 1 discussion topics.
To take survey on Module 1, visit www.zoningmatters.org . 
The results of public outreach related to Module 1 are summarized here.

The final report from the Common Ground for Building Our City workshops put forth eight principles for the ZCC to consider as it determines how the public fits into the project review process for the new zoning code. The commission agreed to consider the report’s findings and explain whether or not any of its recommendations will be incorporated into the code and why. The ZCC agreed with six of the eight principles, but was quick to emphasize that it was not on board with every recommended action and that additional stakeholder comments will be considered as the code language related to public participation is drafted.

The series of three workshops was designed to coordinate a dialogue between developers and community groups about the role the public should play in the development review process. Each group met separately before joining to find areas of agreement. Based on a detailed accounting of the activities at each meeting, the workshop organizers were able to identify eight principles. Each principle reflects the points of common ground that emerged from discussions on key topics, along with an account of where tensions remain and recommended actions to put the principles into practice.

1. Every neighborhood should have a similar, widely known way to convene civic groups and concerned individuals for input into project review.
2. All projects of a certain level of impact, whether as-of-right or requiring variances, would benefit from public input.
3. When assessing a project’s impact, go beyond size to look at how a project impacts or fits into its surroundings.
4. Issues of design and aesthetics should be reviewed, but on a basis separate from the parameters of zoning.
5. Early and effective notification about project proposals helps improve outcomes both for the neighborhood and the developer.
6. The project review process should be more transparent and predictable, in ways that inform, invite and engage constructive participation.
7. Clear review timelines should be set as part of a predictable public input process. This would reduce uncertainty and cost for the developer while ensuring the community gets sufficient time to assess, discuss and comment.
8. The role of City Council members in zoning and project review should be made explicit and transparent.

The ZCC’s work plan and civic engagement committees met to evaluate the report and formulate a response, which was presented by chair Alan Greenberger. The group fundamentally agreed with all but two of the principles – number 4 related to issues of design and aesthetics and number 8 on the role of City Council. The commission acknowledged that it is not appropriate for a project review process to mediate issues that are purely aesthetic, but notes that aesthetics can have significant impacts on a neighborhood. “Good design matters,” Greenberger said. “It is our job to articulate standards that get to the issue of impacts as much as possible.” In reference to City Council, the group determined that any recommended changes or actions are not within the purview of the ZCC.

Reaction from a member of the development community who participated in the workshops suggested that the principles do not represent the common ground and questioned whether any follow-up was planned. The ZCC explained that the Common Ground report is just one aspect of public comment being considered. Although it is a meaningful document, valuable for the level of detail and strong participation, all submitted comments will be reflected in future drafts of the code.

Click here to view the Common Ground report.

The ZCC organized four community outreach sessions to gather feedback on proposed administrative procedures in draft chapters 1 and 2 of the new zoning. Eleven key changes were presented for discussion. Participants were asked whether they think the changes would improve the code and if there are issues that still need attention. New requirements for use variances, design review, non-conforming uses, and public notice generated the most interest.

ZCC executive director Eva Gladstein described how the draft zoning code differs from the existing code in the following areas:

1. Who can testify at ZBA hearings. New language in the draft code states that any individual or organization is permitted to offer testimony, even if that individual or organization would not have standing to appeal a decision by the ZBA following that testimony.
2. How does the code relate to adopted plans. The draft code makes a distinction between formally “adopted” plans, which serve as a policy guide for the administration of the code, and “accepted” plans, which would be used to inform further city planning activities. 
3. Requirements for public notice. The draft code includes new language related to notification with requirements for the content, number, location, type, and duration of public notices for each application process.
4. Design review. The draft code includes a proposal for a design review committee and procedures with an advisory role, although the language may be refined based on the results of the facilitated dialogue workshops between neighborhood and development interests.
5. Variances for dimensions. New language limits dimensional variances to 25%.
6. Administrative decision-making. The draft code proposes that minor adjustments to specific dimensional standards under certain conditions be approved by L&I staff.
7. Conditional uses. The new code proposes to merge certificated and special uses into “conditional uses,” which would require a planning department judgment.
8. Use variances. New language limits the granting of use variances to properties where no other reasonable economic use is possible.
9. Minor amendments in planned development districts. The draft code proposes new language that allows the planning commission to approve minor amendments to plans of development, provided the proposed amendment meets specific criteria.
10. Replacement of discontinued uses in nonconforming properties. New language states that nonconforming uses discontinued less than 3 years can be restarted, or can be replaced with another nonconforming use with no greater adverse impacts on the surrounding area without a hearing before the ZBA.
11. Conforming adjustments on nonconforming properties. The draft code would allow nonconforming buildings to be expanded or extended under certain conditions, provided that the extended or expanded area complies with all applicable dimensional standards and does not increase the nonconformity.

Participants at each meeting were divided into groups to select and discuss two or three of the changes in more detail. The importance of more timely and effective public notification was a primary concern at every session. Participants want the new code to ensure notices will be more widely dispersed, easier to read and understand, provide more details about the project, and allow more time for the community to get informed and organized. They think the city should make information readily available on a website using zip codes or a geographic sort, so that communities do not have to rely on third-party providers to learn more about proposed projects in their neighborhoods. Recommendations included thoughts on how to provide access to project plans and images, provisions requiring the submission of contextual/neighborhood information, improvements to notification on continuances, and an extension to the 12-day notice requirement currently in place. Most thought 30 days notice is more reasonable, while some want information on a development proposal available on a city website as soon as the application is submitted. Prompt, adequate notice and easily accessible information was described as “a no-brainer request.”

Draft provisions governing use variances raised concern about how “reasonable economic use” is defined and who makes that determination. Although some participants acknowledged that the draft language may make the process more predictable and limit councilmanic privilege, they emphasized that the remapping is central to this issue. Evaluating the usefulness of administrative changes without knowing the new zoning classifications was described as “academic.”

Reaction to the proposed design review committee was generally positive, but participants expressed concern that an external group would be making decisions for a neighborhood. They want the code to ensure local groups are included in the process before it is a “fait accompli.” And they want design review to address the concentration of uses in any given area and to include smaller development proposals. “Even small projects can impact the neighborhood,” they said.

Discussions related to non-conforming uses and how and when they should be replaced, if at all, were complicated. The new code would allow a discontinued non-conforming use to be replaced, provided there is no greater adverse impact on the surrounding area. Participants were concerned about that determination and want the language related to impacts clarified. Although many were uncertain about how this change would really work on the ground, there seemed to be consensus that L&I staff should not be alone in making the decisions. Participants want the public to have an opportunity to weigh in on how the new use would impact a neighborhood.

Download Module 1 – Administration and Procedures.
View the PowerPoint presentation.

Take ZCC survey on module 1.

The final report from the Common Ground for Building Our City workshops puts forth eight principles for the ZCC to consider as it determines how the public fits into the project review process. Details about public participation were left out of the draft administrative procedures released February 17, so that the ZCC could review the report. The commission agreed to explain whether or not any recommendations are incorporated into the new zoning code and why. Each principle reflects the points of common ground that emerged from discussions on key topics, along with an account of where tensions remain and recommended actions to put the principles into practice.

The series of three workshops was designed to coordinate a dialogue between developers and community groups about the role the public should play in the development review process. Each group met separately before joining to find areas of agreement. Based on a detailed accounting of the discussions at each meeting (available for review as an appendix to the report), the workshop organizers were able to identify the following common ground principles:

1. Every neighborhood should have a similar, widely known way to convene civic groups and concerned individuals for input into project review.
2. All projects of a certain level of impact, whether as-of-right or requiring variances, would benefit from public input.
3. When assessing a project’s impact, go beyond size to look at how a project impacts or fits into its surroundings.
4. Issues of design and aesthetics should be reviewed, but on a basis separate from the parameters of zoning.
5. Early and effective notification about project proposals helps improve outcomes both for the neighborhood and the developer.
6. The project review process should be more transparent and predictable, in ways that inform, invite and engage constructive participation.
7. Clear review timelines should be set as part of a predictable public input process. This would reduce uncertainty and cost for the developer while ensuring the community gets sufficient time to assess, discuss and comment.
8. The role of City Council members in zoning and project review should be made explicit and transparent.

Click here to review the full report. Common Ground for Building Our City: Developers, the Public and the Zoning Code was a joint effort of the Penn Project for Civic Engagement and the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. The project was made possible by a grant from the William Penn Foundation.

Consultants presented an overview of draft chapters 1 and 2 of the new code (module 1 on general provisions and administration) and highlighted key changes to existing procedures. Community outreach conducted last year showed that what the public wants most from zoning reform is for the ZCC to fix the process. While most cities tackle administration last, providing a fair and efficient zoning approval process is fundamental to reform in Philadelphia. By releasing these sections first, consultants are allowing time for ZCC discussion and public feedback on the most critical issues. Civic engagement on these chapters begins February 23 in West Philadelphia. Comments from commission members are due February 26.

Although ZCC members will review and comment on Module 1 in detail over the next week, reaction to the draft chapters as presented was generally positive. Some immediate concerns were raised about language that would allow L&I to refer applications to the ZBA, in order to provide an opportunity for the public to weigh in on projects of a certain size. The action would not change the approval criteria or make the approval a discretionary decision, but members cautioned that it may create an expectation in the community that the application is no longer by-right. Other concerns were related to how the draft code addresses use variances and whether the proposed text is adequate to avoid unconstitutional takings of property. While the new chapters do much to help simplify the code and make the information easier to understand, ZCC members noted where additional clarification is necessary – additions to the list of reviewers and decision-makers, more explanation on who has the right to file for approvals, and the types of applications each agency or entity reviews, for example.

Public comments focused on the neighborhood’s role in project review and the need for individuals and/or civic groups to participate as a “party” at public hearings in order to ensure the right to cross-examine. Details about public participation were left out of the draft chapters until the ZCC has the chance to review the results of Common Ground for Building Our City, a series of workshops held last month to identify areas of agreement between neighborhood groups and developers about how to improve public involvement. The final report from the workshops will be submitted February 18. The ZCC’s response to the report will help shape the project review portions of the new code.

The Zoning Code Commission will be hosting four community-based meetings over the next several weeks to share information on Module1 and gain feedback:

Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2010
The Enterprise Center, 4548 Market Street, 19139, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010
Northeast High School, 1601 Cottman Avenue, 19111, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Tuesday, Mar. 2, 2010
Central High School, 1700 W. Olney Avenue, 19141, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Thursday, Mar. 4, 2010
Fels Community Center, 2407 S. Broad Street, 19148, 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm

Take ZCC survey on module 1.

To download a copy of  Module 1 – Administration and Procedures, click here.
View the PowerPoint presentation.

Zoning Code Commission chair Alan Greenberger announced that the Philadelphia City Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt a set of guidelines for formally accepting community-based plans as a point of reference for city planning work. The guidelines seek to improve coordination between community-based plans and city plans and policies and ensure neighborhood residents are included in the planning process. Mr. Greenberger emphasized that “accepting” the plans as a guidance document is not the same as “adopting” the plans. The guidelines state that a letter of acceptance does not obligate the commission “to support each and every recommendation.” Click here to view the guidelines.

Neighborhood leaders and members of the development community met last night to find areas of agreement about how and when the public should be involved in development review. The final in a series of three workshops was designed to focus attention on the toughest issues – who speaks for the neighborhood, which projects are reviewed, how to differentiate zoning review from design review, and the role of city council. Results from the workshops will be summarized in the form of common ground principles and action steps. The ZCC will consider whether any of the recommendations should be incorporated into the new zoning code.

The topics covered in this last workshop were based on discussions at the first two sessions. On January 19 developers met to identify the positives and negatives of the city’s current project review process and to consider new options. Community leaders did the same on January 23. Eight areas of common ground emerged for a combined group to hash out in more detail. Workshop organizers distinguished between topics where they saw significant agreement and those that required considerably more attention.

Ideas about how to improve notification practices, adjust timeline, and make the process more transparent were areas where developers and neighborhoods could agree. The most tension stemmed from discussions about whether the public should provide input on by-right projects, who is recognized as the legitimate voice of a neighborhood, what features of a project should be up for public debate, and the tradition of councilmanic privilege (the ability of council members to control any development-related legislation impacting his or her district). For example, developers tended to link more input to more time and more costs and to suggest that only projects in need of a zoning adjustment be subjected to public review. While some neighborhood leaders agreed to a point, most wanted an opportunity to weigh in on projects of a certain size or level of impact. Others cited instances where even a by-right project was improved because the public inserted itself into the process.

Ultimately, participants were asked to look beyond personal interests and the interests of the stakeholder group they represent to identify points of agreement about public involvement and develop some principles rooted in common ground:

• Community education/capacity building related to zoning issues is needed
• Code must protect developer rights and neighborhood interests at the same time
• Meeting with the community early and addressing concerns is good policy
• Development with significant impacts should trigger community involvement
• Triggers for public review must be clearly defined in the new zoning code
• By-right projects can benefit from neighborhood input
• Zoning review and design review should be separated
• Neighborhood plans and design guidelines should be honored
• Design review board should include objective professionals
• Local/neighborhood representative should have a place on citywide design review board
• Criteria/standards for establishing legitimate community groups is needed
• City council members should demonstrate contact with the community when supporting/opposing a development project in his or her district

All ideas on the form, structure, and content of a public participation process for project review in the new code will be summarized in a report. Recommendations to the ZCC will consist of common ground principles and specific steps for achieving each principle. The ZCC is set to release the general provisions and administrative procedures of chapters 1 and 2 of the draft code next month. The Commission has agreed to consider workshop recommendations as it finalizes procedures in these chapters and to explain which will and will not be incorporated into the code and why. Once the draft chapters are released, there will be opportunity for the public to provide comment at a series of public meetings tentatively scheduled for the end of February and the beginning of March.

To review the results of all three workshops and the final recommendations that will be submitted to the ZCC for consideration, visit http://www.gse.upenn.edu/pcel/programs/ppce/current.

“Common Ground for Building Our City: Developers, the Public and the Zoning Code” is a joint effort of the Penn Project for Civic Engagement and the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. The project is made possible by a grant from the William Penn Foundation.

Representatives from community groups, civic associations, and other neighborhood-based organizations met on Saturday to help define their role in the development review process that will become part of the city’s new zoning code. The six-hour workshop was one of three designed to identify areas of agreement between neighborhoods and developers about how to improve public involvement. Members from the development community met January 19 and a combined session is scheduled for January 27. To protect neighborhood interests, community organizations said they want a more equitable role in project review.

Participants began by discussing what they valued most about their neighborhoods. Maintaining diversity, access to open space and public transit, the affordability of homes and taxes, strong business corridors, job opportunities, and neighborhood character were common themes. They then shared stories about their efforts to protect these neighborhoods from the impacts of new development. Experiences were described as positive when developers were encouraged to meet with the community early in the process and neighbors understood their rights. A developer’s need for a variance from existing zoning regulations was viewed as key. Requests for variances are made at a hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and public notification is required. Neighbors then have an opportunity to testify at the hearing and provide input on the project. When a proposed development is “by-right,” the community is not engaged in the process. Although sometimes described as a messy system, participants credited the variance process with saving historic buildings from demolition, for example, or preventing incompatible uses and architecture. So city plans to fast-track minor applications and reduce the number of variances were raised as issues of concern.

When asked what else about the project review process worked well, participants spoke of the benefits of prior planning and knowing in advance what the community wants in terms of development and growth. Access to reliable information, sufficient notice, and persistence were also helpful. The process failed them when existing rules were not followed or enforced, politics interfered, or any one stakeholder had undue influence over the decision.

The workshop initiated discussion about where tensions exist as well. Participants questioned what actually constitutes “community.” They discussed what happens when a community group does not represent the interests of the entire neighborhood or when a small group is able to derail a project. They noted that citywide interests sometimes conflict with those of neighborhoods and that a project may be good for the neighborhood in general, but have negative impacts on individual property owners.

Finally, the group developed principles to help define how and when the public is involved in the development review process. The list included:

• Broader and timelier notification
• Improved access to information and procedures throughout the process and for all residents
• Standards and ground rules for how community groups are defined, operate, and interact with other neighborhood organizations
• Standards for how the ZBA makes decisions and the qualifications of its members
• More balanced standing of stakeholders
• Early and on-going involvement with the community
• Objective standards for what types of projects trigger public input
• Transparency of all negotiations
• More convenient hearing times and locations
• Less politics
• The right to a neutral arbiter or fact finder
• A codified role for the public
• Zoning that is linked to neighborhood and city planning documents

On Wednesday, January 27, participants from this workshop and the development community workshop held January 19 will meet to identify areas of common ground. A report on the workshops will be posted at http://www.gse.upenn.edu/pcel, www.zoningmatters.org and the AIA and WHYY websites. The ZCC has agreed to review the report and respond to the results.

“Common Ground for Building Our City: Developers, the Public and the Zoning Code” is a joint effort of the Penn Project for Civic Engagement and the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. The project is made possible by a grant from the William Penn Foundation.

The first in a series of three workshops called “Common Ground for Building Our City: Developers, the Public and the Zoning Code” was held at the Union League January 19. The workshops are a joint effort of the Penn Project for Civic Engagement and the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. The groups stepped forward to coordinate a dialogue between developers and community groups about one of the biggest challenges to zoning reform in Philadelphia – the role the public should play in the development review process. Developers, design professionals, and community/neighborhood corporations with development arms were first to identify the positives and negatives of current city practices and to explore new options. Neighborhood groups will meet Saturday, January 23.

Participants at Tuesday’s development community workshop shared stories about their experiences with neighborhood groups in order to initiate a discussion about what may be wrong with the project review process and what works well. For example, some credited positive results to situations where the public was engaged early, the neighborhood spoke with a unified voice, an openness to discourse and change existed on both sides, and a clear process for engaging the community was in place. Negative results were tied to a lack of neighborhood leadership, insufficient information about the project, and misunderstandings about the character of the community and its philosophy on development. The discussion raised some important questions about how information is disseminated, the role and standing of each stakeholder, the interests of near neighbors versus those of the broader community, which elements of a project should be up for discussion, the time and expense of getting public input, and the level of expertise of those making decisions.

Project review practices in Chicago, Boston, New York, and Seattle were summarized for participants to consider in developing a set of “common ground” principles for establishing an effective process for public involvement. Participants were asked to go beyond individual interests and acknowledge multiple points of view, consider how the free exchange of information can build trust, think about regulation and how the law can help refine the development review process, and be open to the notion that things can get better.

Ideas for best practices and guiding principles included:

• A definite, predictable timeline
• Uniformity of process across city neighborhoods
• Standards for identifying which stakeholders have standing
• Consensus among competing community groups
• Reasonably defined parameters to guide negotiations
• Planning documents that define neighborhood values and goals
• Zoning that reflects identified planning documents
• Clear thresholds for what triggers neighborhood review
• Objective standards on what and how to review

Some participants cautioned that “institutionalizing” the process could discourage innovation, however, and suggested that the process needs to balance the need for flexibility with the need for structure. The lack of objective standards can lead to some really bad things and also to some really great things.

The next workshop is scheduled for January 23 and will include invited representatives from neighborhood groups and civic associations. On January 27, participants from the first two workshops will meet to identify areas of common ground. The results of all three workshops will be posted at http://www.gse.upenn.edu/pcel, www.zoningmatters.org and the AIA and WHYY websites. An overall report will be produced after the final workshop. The ZCC has agreed to consider the results of the workshops as it works to define a public review process as part of the new zoning code.

Draft administrative procedures and general provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the new code were delivered on time and on budget to the ZCC December 29. Commission members and the city law department are already in the process of reviewing the draft in preparation for a detailed discussion at the ZCC’s next regular session, February 10. Consultants specifically asked the ZCC to think about four key issues that require feedback: planning commission approval of minor amendments to plans of development; the amount of time development permits and approvals should be valid; L&I approval of permits previously approved by the ZBA; and whether L&I should be granted authority to approve minor adjustments from standards.

Consultants identified these four issues as potential opportunities to reduce the work load at the ZBA, make approval processes more predictable and efficient, and ensure development is carried out in a timely manner. Philadelphia’s system relies on L&I and the ZBA to make all decisions, while other cities use their planning departments to make planning judgments as well. Consultants recommend the city establish approaches that distinguish between “fundamental changes,” requiring a decision by the ZBA or city council, and “detail changes,” which staff at L&I or the planning commission could approve based on objective criteria.

For example, after city council has approved a rezoning with a plan of development, the consultants recommend minor amendments to the plans be approved by the planning commission, rather than returning to council, provided the proposed changes are consistent with the stated purpose of the plan and comply with all applicable dimensional requirements. And consultants think L&I should approve development permits for properties that are already approved by the ZBA, as long as the application is consistent with the prior ZBA decision. L&I could also be authorized to approve permits with minor adjustments from standards without requiring a ZBA hearing.
  
Once development permits and zoning approvals are obtained, the city must make sure building is started within a reasonable timeframe. Approvals must lapse, but consultants recommend the city increase the timeframe from one year with an extension to three years with an extension and a requirement that applicants start construction within that time period.

ZCC members will consider these and other administrative procedures in the draft code and provide feedback. Comments on chapters 1 and 2 will be discussed in detail at the next regular meeting of the commission on February 10. The work plan group will form sub-committees to focus on specific issues as needed.

Click here to view a presentation on the four key issues.

Draft administrative procedures and general provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the new code were delivered on time and on budget to the ZCC December 29. Commission members and the city law department are already in the process of reviewing the draft in preparation for a detailed discussion at the ZCC’s next regular session, February 10. Consultants specifically asked the ZCC to think about four key issues that require feedback: planning commission approval of minor amendments to plans of development; the amount of time development permits and approvals should be valid; L&I approval of permits previously approved by the ZBA; and whether L&I should be granted authority to approve minor adjustments from standards.

Consultants identified these four issues as potential opportunities to reduce the work load at the ZBA, make approval processes more predictable and efficient, and ensure development is carried out in a timely manner. Philadelphia’s system relies on L&I and the ZBA to make all decisions, while other cities use their planning departments to make planning judgments as well. Consultants recommend the city establish approaches that distinguish between “fundamental changes,” requiring a decision by the ZBA or city council, and “detail changes,” which staff at L&I or the planning commission could approve based on objective criteria.

For example, after city council has approved a rezoning with a plan of development, the consultants recommend minor amendments to the plans be approved by the planning commission, rather than returning to council, provided the proposed changes are consistent with the stated purpose of the plan and comply with all applicable dimensional requirements. And consultants think L&I should approve development permits for properties that are already approved by the ZBA, as long as the application is consistent with the prior ZBA decision. L&I could also be authorized to approve permits with minor adjustments from standards without requiring a ZBA hearing.

Once development permits and zoning approvals are obtained, the city must make sure building is started within a reasonable timeframe. Approvals must lapse, but consultants recommend the city increase the timeframe from one year with an extension to three years with an extension and a requirement that applicants start construction within that time period.

ZCC members will consider these and other administrative procedures in the draft code and provide feedback. Comments on chapters 1 and 2 will be discussed in detail at the next regular meeting of the commission on February 10. The work plan group will form sub-committees to focus on specific issues as needed.

Click here to view a presentation on the four key issues.

A sub-committee of the Zoning Code Commission’s work plan group is taking a detailed look at issues related to non-conforming uses, structures, and lots. A large number of properties in Philadelphia do not fully comply with existing zoning regulations, since much of the city was built before the code was enacted. Adopted standards had the unavoidable consequence of making some properties non-conforming. The majority of rowhomes in many residential districts, for example, are currently non-conforming because the lots are too small or the buildings do not meet setback requirements.

The purpose of this sub-committee is to determine how to accommodate these non-conforming uses, structures, and lots, and review the need for variances for such properties. The group will consider how the new zoning code should protect the rights of owners of non-conforming properties and to what degree. Recommendations will be reflected in the work plan group’s overall comments on Module 1, the administrative procedures and general provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the new code.

ZCC technical consultant Don Elliott reported that his team is hard at work on Module 1, which includes general provisions and administrative procedures for chapters 1 and 2 of the new code. These chapters must address the biggest concern for developers and community groups alike – how the new code will deal with neighborhood meetings regarding proposed development, especially for by-right projects. Facilitated discussions on this topic will be held in January, so that the full range of stakeholders can hash out potential solutions. While consultants plan to deliver a Module 1 draft to ZCC staff by the end of the year as required by contract, they will incorporate results from these discussions later, provided they are narrowly focused on this particular issue.

The ZCC was pleased when a third party stepped forward to coordinate a dialogue between developers and community groups about public input on development and when neighborhood meetings should be required. Kiki Bolender from the AIA Urban Design Committee is leading the effort and applied for funding from the William Penn Foundation. An advisory committee comprised of representatives from the ZCC, city planning commission, developer organizations, civic associations, neighborhood groups, and community development corporations will guide the process. Harris Sokoloff and the Penn Center for Civic Engagement will conduct three sessions: one for developers only January 19; another for community groups on January 23; and a combined session on January 27. The goal of the project is to find common ground, identify tensions and trade-offs, and discuss possible resolutions. A report summarizing the results of the meetings will be available by the end of January. ZCC chair Alan Greenberger reiterated, though, that the commission is responsible for writing the code. ZCC members will participate on the advisory committee, observe the meetings, and process the findings. How the results are incorporated into the new code will be discussed by the commission with the help of its consultant team. “Successful resolution of this problem will bode well for the project,” Greenberger said. “If there is real a problem on any critical issue, it can stop this thing dead in its tracks.”

Don Elliot stressed that most of the new code is not up for discussion at this stage, however. “I have received my marching orders,” Elliott said. “People want predictable and efficient procedures, more by-right development, and less reliance on the ZBA.” Mr. Elliott supports the developer/community group dialogue project, but cautions that it will be difficult to keep discussions from moving onto broader issues. The submitted draft for Module 1 will have just one missing piece related to neighborhood meetings. The consultant team is under contract to get a final, complete version of the new code done by next summer. Elliott wants to keep putting drafts on the table and focus discussions on just the two or three key issues that are really worthy of attention.

To suggest developers or civic leaders for the developer/community group dialogue project contact Linda Breitstein, Project Manager, Penn Project for Civic Engagement, 215-898-1112 or lindabre@gse.upenn.edu.

To discuss the project in general contact Kiki Bolender, Project Co-Chair, AIA Philadelphia, Urban Design Committee, 215-731-0390 or kiki@schadeandbolender.com or Harris Sokoloff, Project Co-Chair, Faculty Director, PPCE, 215-898-8426 or harriss@gse.upenn.edu.

Click here to view a PowerPoint presentation on the project.

The raw data from about 335 responses to the ZCC’s online survey were released December 9. Click here to view the report of raw data and individual comments about the recommendations. Key points are summarized in the Summary of Civic Engagement report.  To take the survey on draft recommendations, visit www.zoningmatters.org.

Send FixItPhilly your questions about the zoning reform process. If we do not know the answer, we will forward it to the person who does to get a response. Just email info@fixitphilly.org. Select questions and answers will be featured here.

Q:  In order to give the ZBA guidance as they make their decisions, the zoning code should have a statement of goals that the code is trying to achieve – the overall purpose of zoning and a guide for development. Any chance of getting this added? Rob

FixItPhilly asked Eva Gladstein, executive director of the ZCC, to respond to Rob’s question. 

A.  The Zoning Code Commission (ZCC) recently approved a set of revisions (Change Memo) to its Detailed Recommendations for a New Zoning Code.  With this action, the ZCC gave a green light to its consultant team to begin drafting the new zoning code, using the Detailed Recommendations and the Change Memo as the foundation for their writing.  You will be pleased to know that these documents emphasize the value of a purpose statement as “an important way to connect planning policy to regulatory interpretation and application.” Furthermore, the Detailed Recommendations state “…we will enhance [the purpose] section to reflect the City’s adopted plans, the larger objectives endorsed by the ZCC and will provide individual purpose statements throughout the New Zoning Code as appropriate.  You will also be pleased to know that the ZCC intends to provide a purpose statement for each district.  The ZCC intends to have the first draft of its Administration and Procedures section, which will include the general purpose statement, available for comment in early winter.  That will provide a good opportunity for you to review the statement and provide your feedback.

Follow-up Q:  Thanks for getting the response. However, it does seem strange that the statement of goals and objectives of the zoning code are being done at the end of the project, not at the beginning. Rob

A.  The purpose statement will be based upon the direction that the Zoning Code Commission has already set, which builds upon the fundamental guiding principles articulated in the Home Rule Charter that the new code “should be consistent and easy to understand, should help shape future construction and development, and should enhance and improve Philadelphia’s development approval process while encouraging positive development and protecting the character of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods.”  The ZCC began to further refine its direction in 2009 by creating a set of objectives that are designed to advance these principles, and are articulated in its key documents and presentations.  They are to:

• Facilitate public involvement
• Simplify approvals
• Protect neighborhoods
• Simplify base districts
• Simplify overlay districts
• Promote quality and design
• Promote sustainability
• Improve readability and organization.

Send FixItPhilly your questions about the zoning reform process. If we do not know the answer, we will forward it to the person who does to get a response. Just email info@fixitphilly.org. Select questions and answers will be featured here.

Q:  In order to give the ZBA guidance as they make their decisions, the zoning code should have a statement of goals that the code is trying to achieve – the overall purpose of zoning and a guide for development. Any chance of getting this added? Rob

FixItPhilly asked Eva Gladstein, executive director of the ZCC, to respond to Rob’s question. 

A.  The Zoning Code Commission (ZCC) recently approved a set of revisions (Change Memo) to its Detailed Recommendations for a New Zoning Code.  With this action, the ZCC gave a green light to its consultant team to begin drafting the new zoning code, using the Detailed Recommendations and the Change Memo as the foundation for their writing.  You will be pleased to know that these documents emphasize the value of a purpose statement as “an important way to connect planning policy to regulatory interpretation and application.” Furthermore, the Detailed Recommendations state “…we will enhance [the purpose] section to reflect the City’s adopted plans, the larger objectives endorsed by the ZCC and will provide individual purpose statements throughout the New Zoning Code as appropriate.  You will also be pleased to know that the ZCC intends to provide a purpose statement for each district.  The ZCC intends to have the first draft of its Administration and Procedures section, which will include the general purpose statement, available for comment in early winter.  That will provide a good opportunity for you to review the statement and provide your feedback.

Follow-up Q:  Thanks for getting the response. However, it does seem strange that the statement of goals and objectives of the zoning code are being done at the end of the project, not at the beginning. Rob

A.  The purpose statement will be based upon the direction that the Zoning Code Commission has already set, which builds upon the fundamental guiding principles articulated in the Home Rule Charter that the new code “should be consistent and easy to understand, should help shape future construction and development, and should enhance and improve Philadelphia’s development approval process while encouraging positive development and protecting the character of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods.”  The ZCC began to further refine its direction in 2009 by creating a set of objectives that are designed to advance these principles, and are articulated in its key documents and presentations.  They are to:

• Facilitate public involvement
• Simplify approvals
• Protect neighborhoods
• Simplify base districts
• Simplify overlay districts
• Promote quality and design
• Promote sustainability
• Improve readability and organization.

The Zoning Code Commission took action today to adopt a change memo, which modifies the detailed recommendations for a new zoning code released in September 2009 based on public feedback. The approved recommendations will guide the consultants as they start writing the new code; however, additional changes are expected as key issues are hashed out in more detail. The biggest problem for the ZCC is to figure out how to streamline the zoning approval process without undermining community involvement.

The recommendations for the new code were presented at a citywide hearing and four community outreach meetings held in October to gather public comments and concerns. Feedback was also provided by written testimony, an online survey, a design industry workshop, and ongoing discussions with ZCC members, planning commission and L&I staff, developers, neighborhood associations, and other stakeholders. The civic engagement activities were designed to focus attention on recommendations with the most dramatic impact on the zoning approval process. The results were used to identify recommendations that “need work,” meaning the ZCC and its consultants should spend more time discussing certain issues. At the top of the list is a recommendation to “clarify which applications require neighborhood meetings.” See the links below to view the full report on civic engagement.

A six-page change memo was produced in response to this feedback that included specific modifications and/or methods to resolve conflicts. For example, the recommendation to consolidate residential districts includes the following modifications, among others:

• The R-1 and R-1A districts will not be consolidated due to significant differences in minimum lot size and character.
• The R-2 and R-3 districts will not be consolidated because of differences in types of low-density housing permitted.

Changes related to administration and procedures include:

• Pre-applications and Neighborhood Meetings: The Zoning Code Commission understands that this recommendation has raised significant concerns on the part of many stakeholders. It is the intent of the ZCC to establish working groups with representatives of community organizations, developers, and code professionals to determine if we can achieve agreement on the appropriate timing, scope, and management of neighborhood meetings regarding particular development projects. The intent is to include the agreed-upon language in the draft code language in the spring.
• Call-ups and Bump-ups. The Zoning Code Commission understands that this recommendation has raised significant concerns on the part of many stakeholders. Module 1 of the New Zoning Code will contain specific language on this topic that attempts to address concerns, and a decision on whether to include or exclude these provisions will be made following discussion on that draft.

ZCC members raised concerns about inconsistencies in the feedback and how to address them. For example, results indicated public support for development in transit areas and commercial corridors, but opposition to increasing building heights and density in general. Support for a more efficient process conflicts with a desire to increase community involvement, which can put a major drag on development in the city. Other concerns were related to code interpretations, non-conforming uses, incentives, industrial uses, and neighborhood planning documents. The ZCC acknowledged that universal approval on some issues is unlikely and that it must be prepared to move forward regardless. The commission unanimously approved the change memo with the understanding that discussions will continue on certain topics and changes are expected as consultants begin writing the code and implementing the recommendations. Working groups are being formed around several key issues, including non-conforming lots and structures, signs, and neighborhood meetings. The Zoning Code Commission has asked the AIA to manage a process to engage developers and civic associations in discussions to address the concern about clarifying which applications will require neighborhood meetings.  A local foundation has been approached to support this work.

Click on the links below to view referenced documents and presentations.

Detailed Recommendations for a New Zoning Code

Report on Civic Engagement and Presentation on Civic Engagement

Change Memo on Recommendations and Presentation on Change Memo

Draft recommendations for Philadelphia’s new zoning code were presented to community leaders and residents at Temple University Student Faculty Center, the last of four neighborhood meetings held this fall on the proposed zoning changes. Participants wanted to know how the new code will help them protect their neighborhoods from unwanted or incompatible development. While most agreed that reform is needed, they viewed plans to simplify approvals in conflict with goals to facilitate public involvement. “We want a say on every project,” participants said, “permitted or not.”

Preserving community character was the biggest concern and participants want new zoning to help them fight buildings and uses that are out of context with existing neighborhoods. They want zoning to control the types of uses permitted and address the 35-foot height allowance, which often makes new buildings higher then others on the block. They want rules that promote good design, so that neighborhoods are not transformed with unadorned “box” houses or suburban-style commercial development. And they want better regulations on noise and signage, especially in relation to how signs are lighted and when they should be turned off.

Most importantly, participants want an opportunity to get involved and have more control. They don’t like the idea that someone unfamiliar with the community can decide whether or not neighbors should know about a proposed development project. They think all residents should be educated to have a better understanding of the zoning approval process. “Neighbors should be involved in decisions,” they said, “not just input.”

The Zoning Code Commission will consider changes to the draft recommendations at its next meeting, Wednesday, November 18, 8:00 AM, 1515 Arch Street.  Go to www.zoningmatters.org to take a survey on the recommendations.

In October 2009, FixItPhilly posted a survey and asked for input on how the ZCC should handle the important issue of parking. Eighty percent of those surveyed about parking in new commercial construction want new zoning to provide incentives for shared parking arrangements and 68.5 percent want more bicycle parking. Requirements for new garages to be built underground or wrapped with other uses ranked as the third best solution and requirements for new parking lots to be hidden behind the building or landscaped ranked fourth.

1. Provide incentives for new businesses and institutions to share parking: 80%
2. Require businesses to provide bicycle parking: 68.5%
3. Require new garages to be below ground or built with stores and other uses at the street level: 65.7%
4. Require new parking lots to be hidden behind the building or landscaped to make them less visible: 62.8%

Other suggestions noted by respondents include the following comments:

Limit curb cuts to commercial parking.

Parking in Center City is a key economic development problem – it is too expensive to park to shop and got to restaurants. We go to malls when we would rather go downtown. Street level parking lots are ugly and unsafe for pedestrians and should be eliminated. They should be underground or above street level with shops in front.

If you improve public transportation and limit available parking, you will reduce the perceived need of having your car parked in the city. The bones are here – don’t screw up the city streetscape by allowing for more parking or garages on the street – require below grade parking.

Bike lanes add to traffic. Where are cabs supposed to pull over? How are you supposed to get around a garbage truck? If someone is trying to park, everyone is stopped in their tracks.

Parking is too cheap. Improve the transit system.

See all survey results at the links below.

Residents and community leaders met in South Philadelphia and the Northeast to speak out on draft recommendations for the city’s new zoning code. Participants at both meetings liked the idea of having clear and more stringent rules about what can happen in their neighborhoods, but are concerned about potential loopholes and whether the ZBA will stick to the new code. “We need to know exactly what the code says and how it will be enforced,” they said. “The details can help or hurt us.” Those that read the full 92-page report on recommendations described ”reducing community involvement as a theme throughout the document.”

The meetings were structured to get public feedback on specific recommendations. Participants at these two sessions chose to focus on when and how neighborhood meetings should be called, improving public notification requirements, standards designed to protect neighborhoods, and simplifying the approval process for all. In general, the public wants zoning to preserve community character, address conflicts between uses, improve access to information, and ensure meaningful community input. Many participants think the city should take on the responsibility of notifying neighbors about proposed projects, but want the developer to foot the costs as part of the application process. They want a uniform set of rules for conducting public meetings in all neighborhoods, so that both community leaders and developers can be prepared to discuss the “nitty-gritty.” Although most would like to have an opportunity to comment on any project in their neighborhood if they want, one participant reminded the group about the limit of public influence on development decisions. “A community meeting is not a democratic process. There are rights to be protected on both sides and we need to remember that.”

Other items on participants’ wish lists: a better and timelier online notification system for applications, perhaps posting by zip code; updated notices on second hearings; zoning that encourages sustainability; regulations on how landscape maintenance issues will be enforced; limitations on street-front garages; more open space designations; and stricter rules about how illegal development is handled.

The last in this series of public outreach meetings will be held Thursday at the Temple University Student Faculty Center, 3340 N. Broad Street, from 6 to 8 PM. Click here to review the draft recommendations and go to www.zoningmatters.org to take a survey and provide additional comments.

In October 2009, FixItPhilly posted a survey and asked for input on how the ZCC should handle the important issue of parking. Eighty percent of survey respondents think zoning should prohibit garages that front on streets in new residential construction. Respondents overwhelmingly prefer parking to be located off alleys to preserve neighborhood character and want to limit the number of driveways crossing sidewalks. About 66% want maximum parking requirements and 46% want parking requirements based upon the availability of public transit and on-street spaces.

1. Prohibit homes from garages that front on streets and require rear alley or courtyard access parking, so that driveways do not reduce the number of on-street spaces: 80%
2. Limit curb cuts for access to apartments and condominium parking to reduce sidewalk crossings and maintain the streetscape: 77.1%
3. Limit the number of parking spaces required for apartments and condominiums built in high density neighborhoods: 65.7%
4. Require parking minimums for apartments and condominiums to be based on an analysis of available on-street and residential permit parking and access to public transit: 45.7%

Other suggestions noted by respondents include the following comments:

• Create parking for student housing at a ratio of 1 space for every 3 units.
• Parking minimums should be tied to public transit access but not to on-street parking.
• No reason to have high parking requirements, community and market will demand it.
• Improve public transit to remove the need for cars in the city.
• Shared community parking lots.

Friday: parking for new commercial construction. See more survey results at the links below.

In October 2009, a survey was posted on this website and e-mailed to subscribers asking for their input on how the Zoning Code Commission should handle parking. Responses will be posted over the next week.

Respondents to the parking survey favored the ZCC taking action to amend the city’s zoning regulations to address the issue of parking in neighborhoods. Respondents overwhelmingly supported measures that encourage walking, bicycling, and the use of public transit. They also want less surface parking lots and more opportunities to share parking and cars.

1. Improve sidewalks and crosswalks to encourage more people to walk: 74.2%
2. Provide more bicycle lanes/parking to give people an alternative to car use: 68.5%
3. Improve access to public transit to give people and alternative to driving: 65.7%
4. Limit number of new surface parking lots: 54.2%
5. Provide incentives for businesses and residents to share parking: 51.4%
6. Require lots/garages to reserve spaces for shared car services, i.e. Zipcar and PhillyCarShare: 48.5%

Other suggestions noted by respondents include the following comments:

• Allow resident only reserved parking.
• Reduce the price; make it more attractive for the city.
• More consistent regulations.
• Update standards for ground level parking lots for trees, green.
• Fix the streets so cars can drive, add loading zones so trucks don’t block street.
• Eliminate lane-parking for religious institutions on weekends.
• Bicycle lanes add to traffic. Where are cabs supposed to pull over???

Thursday: Need to change parking requirements for new residential construction. See more survey results at the links below.

In October 2009, a survey was posted on this website and e-mailed to subscribers asking for their input on how the Zoning Code Commission should handle parking. Responses will be posted over the next week.

Nearly 75 percent of respondents work in Center City and described circling for parking as the biggest problem. Tied for second are illegal parking and how parking lots and garages fit into the streetscape.

1. Circling for parking is common: 36%
2. Illegal parking is common (double parking, blocking sidewalks/driveways): 24%
3. Parking lots and garages are unattractive or reduce neighborhood character: 24%

Other problems noted by respondents include the following comments:

TOO EXPENSIVE!
Parking regulations encourage commuters instead of visitors.
One hour parking is not enough for visitors.
Length of parking time, parking hours, and days apply vary from block to block.

Short-term parking costs way too much; 90 minutes costs as much as all day.
Parking management could be better (better signage, etc).
There are no good affordable short-term (3-4 hrs) parking options in garages.
Parking place size varies from district to district and are often too big
Ground level parking lots have no tree cover – heat traps!

‘Tomorrow: neighborhood parking solutions. See Monday’s survey results under ”Parking problems hit home” below.

In October 2009, a survey was posted on this website and e-mailed to subscribers asking for their input on how the Zoning Code Commission should handle the important issue of parking. Responses are posted below.

I.     When asked what the most important parking problems are in the neighborhood where you live, those surveyed stated that their biggest concern was about design – how parking lots and garages look and how they fit into the neighborhood context. Illegal parking ranked second and an overall lack of parking was third.

1. Parking lots and garages are unattractive or reduce neighborhood character: 34.2%
2. Illegal parking is common (double parking, blocking sidewalks/driveways): 28.5%
3. Not enough parking for residents or workers/visitors: both 25.7%

Other problems noted by respondents include the following comments:

Invasion of ugly front garages that take away public on-street parking spaces
Street parking is sometimes difficult 9-5, but the retail surface lots are ugly
Valets use on street parking, should use garages
Parking by nonresident commuters
Developers arrogantly plan for “no parking required” for new student housing
No parking near public transit
Public parking is too far
Length of parking time, parking hours, and days apply vary from block to block
Parking during snow
Abandoned cars taking up spaces – 30 days to remove the cars

II.     Nearly 75 percent of respondents work in Center City and described circling for parking as the biggest problem. Tied for second are illegal parking and how parking lots and garages fit into the streetscape.

1. Circling for parking is common: 36%
2. Illegal parking is common (double parking, blocking sidewalks/driveways): 24%
3. Parking lots and garages are unattractive or reduce neighborhood character: 24%

Other problems noted by respondents include the following comments:

TOO EXPENSIVE!
Parking regulations encourage commuters instead of visitors.
One hour parking is not enough for visitors.
Length of parking time, parking hours, and days apply vary from block to block.

Short-term parking costs way too much; 90 minutes costs as much as all day.
Parking management could be better (better signage, etc).
There are no good affordable short-term (3-4 hrs) parking options in garages.
Parking place size varies from district to district and are often too big
Ground level parking lots have no tree cover – heat traps!

III.     Respondents to the parking survey favored the ZCC taking action to amend the city’s zoning regulations to address the issue of parking in neighborhoods. Respondents overwhelmingly supported measures that encourage walking, bicycling, and the use of public transit. They also want less surface parking lots and more opportunities to share parking and cars.

1. Improve sidewalks and crosswalks to encourage more people to walk: 74.2%
2. Provide more bicycle lanes/parking to give people an alternative to car use: 68.5%
3. Improve access to public transit to give people and alternative to driving: 65.7%
4. Limit number of new surface parking lots: 54.2%
5. Provide incentives for businesses and residents to share parking: 51.4%
6. Require lots/garages to reserve spaces for shared car services, i.e. Zipcar and PhillyCarShare: 48.5%

Other suggestions noted by respondents include the following comments:

Allow resident only reserved parking.

Reduce the price; make it more attractive for the city.

More consistent regulations.

Update standards for ground level parking lots for trees, green.

Fix the streets so cars can drive, add loading zones so trucks don’t block street.

Eliminate lane-parking for religious institutions on weekends.

Bicycle lanes add to traffic. Where are cabs supposed to pull over???

IV.     Eighty percent of survey respondents think zoning should prohibit garages that front on streets in new residential construction. Respondents overwhelmingly prefer parking to be located off alleys to preserve neighborhood character and want to limit the number of driveways crossing sidewalks. About 66% want maximum parking requirements and 46% want parking requirements based upon the availability of public transit and on-street spaces.

1. Prohibit homes from garages that front on streets and require rear alley or courtyard access parking, so that driveways do not reduce the number of on-street spaces: 80%
2. Limit curb cuts for access to apartments and condominium parking to reduce sidewalk crossings and maintain the streetscape: 77.1%
3. Limit the number of parking spaces required for apartments and condominiums built in high density neighborhoods: 65.7%
4. Require parking minimums for apartments and condominiums to be based on an analysis of available on-street and residential permit parking and access to public transit: 45.7%

Other suggestions noted by respondents include the following comments:

Create parking for student housing at a ratio of 1 space for every 3 units.

Parking minimums should be tied to public transit access but not to on-street parking.

No reason to have high parking requirements, community and market will demand it.

Improve public transit to remove the need for cars in the city.

Shared community parking lots.

V.     Eighty percent of those surveyed about parking in new commercial construction want new zoning to provide incentives for shared parking arrangements and 68.5 percent want more bicycle parking. Requirements for new garages to be built underground or wrapped with other uses ranked as the third best solution and requirements for new parking lots to be hidden behind the building or landscaped ranked fourth.

1. Provide incentives for new businesses and institutions to share parking: 80%
2. Require businesses to provide bicycle parking: 68.5%
3. Require new garages to be below ground or built with stores and other uses at the street level: 65.7%
4. Require new parking lots to be hidden behind the building or landscaped to make them less visible: 62.8%

Other suggestions noted by respondents include the following comments:

Limit curb cuts to commercial parking.

Parking in Center City is a key economic development problem – it is too expensive to park to shop and got to restaurants. We go to malls when we would rather go downtown. Street level parking lots are ugly and unsafe for pedestrians and should be eliminated. They should be underground or above street level with shops in front.

If you improve public transportation and limit available parking, you will reduce the perceived need of having your car parked in the city. The bones are here – don’t screw up the city streetscape by allowing for more parking or garages on the street – require below grade parking.

Bike lanes add to traffic. Where are cabs supposed to pull over? How are you supposed to get around a garbage truck? If someone is trying to park, everyone is stopped in their tracks.

Parking is too cheap. Improve the transit system.

The first of four community meetings about draft recommendations for the new zoning code was held Thursday evening at University Square. The crowd of about 80 participants was divided into eight groups to review the key changes proposed for the code. Every group ranked protecting neighborhoods and facilitating public involvement as the top two issues for discussion. “We want more input, not less,” they said.

Participants expressed concern that some of the changes would impede public input or interfere with established processes in areas where there is a long history of community involvement. When asked to help the ZCC define what kinds of development applications should require a neighborhood meeting, they said “most.” Although some groups agreed that minor proposals for fences or decks, for example, or applications that are fully compliant with zoning do not warrant a public meeting or hearing, the general consensus was that developers would benefit from meeting with the neighbors first. “Save money and ask us,” was the motto of one group.

Most participants were not comfortable with the recommendation that developers should be responsible for coordinating neighborhood meetings and recording results. They want PCPC or another public entity to serve as liaison, so that even residents in areas where there is no organized group can be heard. Community organizations, they said, do not always represent all of the people in a neighborhood and developers sometimes cater to certain groups to get approvals. 

ZCC recommendations to improve public notice requirements generated much discussion. Again, many participants do not want the developer to be responsible for public notice. Suggestions included a web-based notification system, postcard mailings to all neighbors, required signatures, more time, and more details. “Notices should be posted at least 12 days in advance and specify exactly what is proposed,” they said, “so that we can be prepared for the meeting.”

Participants want new neighborhood design standards to limit how different a new development can be from what is already there, especially in terms of height restrictions. The would like to see buffers between residential and nonresidential uses, limitations on the types of use permitted, noise regulations, traffic calming measures, green space, and more parking controls. Parking was a big topic, including concerns over a lack of parking, poor lighting, lots that exit onto residential streets, landscaping needs, and private parking that takes away street spaces.

Reaction to recommendations for transit-oriented development (TOD) was mixed. Some participants didn’t see how it related to the idea of protecting neighborhoods and thought it could add pressure to a community. Others liked the idea of directing density to commercial corridors and transit hubs, but were concerned about the compatibility of uses and the impact on traffic and parking. “A lot of funding is available for transit-related projects,” one group cautioned, “and development can make or break a neighborhood.”

Click here  to see the schedule of public meetings and go to www.zoningmatters.org to take a survey on the recommendations.

Describing it as an “integrated planning and zoning process,” the PCPC and ZCC propose a way to connect work on Philadelphia’s first comprehensive plan in nearly 50 years to the writing of a new zoning code. The process is designed to coordinate activities that are already underway and prepare for implementation. The three main components are the comprehensive plan, a citizens planning institute, and new zoning code and remapping. The planning commission hopes to wrap up work this fall on Imagine Philadelphia, the data-gathering and public outreach phase providing background for the comprehensive plan.  A citywide plan will be prepared over the next 15 to 18 months, about the same timeframe as the rewrite of the new zoning code. Nineteen strategic district plans will follow, to be prepared over a five-year period and intended to be consistent with new zoning regulations. The proposed Citizens Planning Institute is designed to engage the public and inform them about planning and zoning, especially in preparation for the remapping. Additional support and resources will be needed to carry out the program. Click here to view a PCPC information sheet on the process.

The Zoning Code Commission took on the biggest challenge to zoning reform in Philadelphia – the role the community plays in the development process. The ZCC is charged with updating the zoning code and streamlining approvals. The new code must be fair, easy to understand, and simple to use. Yet the main issue that bogs down Philadelphia’s system – the number and variety of cases that must be heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment – is considered an indispensable opportunity for input by the community.

ZCC consultants found no other city that relies so heavily on case-by-case review and recommended reducing the number of zoning variances by establishing clear, objective standards and then allowing more development by-right. However, community groups have expressed serious concern that less variances means less public involvement and a diminished ability to protect neighborhood interests. The ZCC must balance the rights of property-owners and developers with the rights of all stakeholders to participate in a fair process.

ZCC members discussed when a neighborhood meeting should be required, establishing a clear set of rules about what can take place at the meeting, providing sufficient notice, and defining the roles of the applicant, community groups, and other participants. They want to provide a neutral forum and set up a process that will create the same opportunity for input in every district, whether or not the neighborhood is organized around these issues or is dominated by a group that does not necessarily represent the entire community. Commission members emphasized the need to codify the role of the community, but to communicate clearly about how and when public input can be used.

The ZCC discussed when, if ever, the community should be able to comment on by-right development proposals. While some commission members cautioned that inviting public input on by-right projects can create problems, others viewed it as an opportunity for real collaboration on projects of a certain size or level of impact. Although decisions on by-right projects can be appealed, the ZCC will need to have public buy-in for the new rules, i.e. by-right uses and design standards in the new code must truly reflect community interests and character.

Most ZCC members agreed that any new procedure for community involvement must be thoroughly vetted and introduced carefully. A work group will be set up to review best practices and engage investors, neighborhood groups, and other stakeholders in developing a new process.

Other recommendations will be discussed by the ZCC over the coming months and are organized into the following topic areas: common procedures and requirements; non-conforming structures, uses and lots; design review committee; overlay districts; development standards and floor area bonuses; relationship to plan documents; and interpretation.

Thursday, October 22
University Square
3901 Market St., 19104
6-8 pm

Tuesday, October 27
The Philadelphia High School for Creative and Performing Arts
901 S. Broad St. at Christian, 19147
6-8 pm

Wednesday, October 28
Lincoln High School
3201 Ryan Avenue, 19136
6-8 pm

Thursday, October 29
Temple University Student Faculty Center
3340 N. Broad St.
Southwest corner of Broad & Ontario Streets, 19140
6-8pm

Review the full 92-page Detailed Recommendations for the New Zoning Code, a PowerPoint presentation of the key points, and take a survey on the draft recommendations at www.zoningmatters.org .

The Zoning Code Commission announced its recommendations to amend the zoning code and a timeline for doing so at a public hearing Wednesday. Leadership from neighborhoods and non-profit organizations attended the hearing to voice their concerns. Community groups asserted that allowing more development to occur by-right would prevent the neighborhoods from playing a meaningful role in their own destiny. A coalition of Hispanic organizations emphasized the need to include provisions for language access to facilitate public participation. Several speakers expressed concern about height limits, suggesting more gradual increases between low and high-rise neighborhoods and prohibiting three-story rowhouses in predominantly two-story blocks. The Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations called for PCPC staff to attend community meetings regarding development to improve communications and called for the new code and all hearing notifications to be made available online.

About 100 gathered in City Council chambers for the Zoning Code Commission’s (ZCC) public hearing to present a summary of work to date, review draft recommendations for the new zoning code, take public testimony, and discuss next steps. Acting Deputy Mayor Alan Greenberger opened the meeting with a statement that the hearing marks the completion of the first phase of the ZCC’s work: a set of written recommendations or “a working table of contents” and the launch of phase 2, the actual rewrite of the code. Phase 3 will include the re-mapping of zoning districts where necessary. The ZCC will manage phase 2; however, the phase 3 remapping will be the responsibility of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC). Greenberger emphasized that the goal is not to remap every corner of the city, since there is much that works as is. But there are also issues such as abandoned property, obsolete uses, commercial corridor upgrades, the introduction of transit-oriented development, and sustainability practices that are relevant to many locations.

Phase 1, which began in earnest in June 2008 and has since been completed by the consulting team led by Clarion Associates and Duncan Associates, included: an assessment of the existing code, a best practices report, and public outreach, involving a citywide public hearing, 10 community-based meetings with  550 attendees, 24 ZCC meetings (open to the public), interviews with 125 professional code users, and 1260 citizen survey responses.

The Phase 2 timeline will involve about 12-15 months for the code rewrite and approval by City Council. Simultaneously, PCPC will be working on district plans on a rolling basis. Necessary remapping will be completed in about 5 years.

PCPC also plans to establish a citizens planning institute, a permanent, educational arm which will provide training and assistance to the public on zoning and planning issues. 

Don Elliott of Clarion Associates presented the draft recommendations for the new zoning code, emphasizing that public comments and feedback are welcome at any time in the process and are essential to save time and money in achieving a workable code. His summary of the draft included these points:

• Based on public outreach, the top citizen priorities involve process. “It appears that what is most broken in Philadelphia is the process by which people are informed and decisions are made,” he said. The consultants identified these four “top tier” concerns:
    
  1. Providing a clear, fair and efficient zoning approval process
  2. Involving the public in development decisions
  3. Protecting existing neighborhoods from development impacts
  4. Encouraging redevelopment of existing buildings and sites
• In order to facilitate public involvement, the draft code proposes to improve the notification process, clarify which projects demand neighborhood input, and streamline the process to send fewer cases to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) by allowing for more staff approvals. The draft would allow for discretionary “call ups” of individual applications by higher-level decision makers, such as the ZBA, and “bump ups” in which lower-level decision makers such as Licenses & Inspections (L&I) would request the ZBA to consider an application. Elliott said that with clear rules, there would only be a small number of these exceptional cases and that overall, the process would be much faster.
• Although most cities have done away with use variances, in Philadelphia these applications are another reason for backlogs at the ZBA. Instead, an application for non-compliant use should be grounds for consideration of rezoning the parcel and objective standards should be applied, he said.
• The recommendations call for simplifying base districts from 55 to 32 by consolidating many residential zones. Similarly, the recommendations call for reducing overlay districts from 33 to 11 and 14 Center City overlays into one with individual rules as appropriate. Ten neighborhood commercial corridor overlays would be consolidated into one.
• To meet the goal of protecting neighborhoods, new development standards would be established for landscaping and natural areas, for the buffer zones between commercial and residential areas (especially regarding parking) and for transit-oriented development overlay districts. Design standards would address commercial corridors, transit-oriented development, and parking lots. To promote sustainability, the new code would encourage energy and water conservation, renewable energy and, significantly, urban agriculture and would support public health by promoting walking.
• The code itself would be reorganized and simplified – from 21 current chapters to six. Information on uses would be consolidated into four tables and other sections of the code, such as off-street parking requirements and signage controls. The new code would be amply illustrated.

In November, the consultants will issue a change memo to the draft, based on public feedback. The actual draft work will occur from February to July 2010 and will be released in three “modules:” administrative and procedural (the most controversial), zone districts and use regulations, and development standards.

Click here to view the full, 92-page Detailed Recommendations for the New Zoning Code. Click here for a PowerPoint presentation from the meeting.

Take a survey on the draft reccomendations at www.zoningmatters.org .

Interested individuals should email a cover letter, resume, and short (2-3 page) writing sample to: eva.gladstein@phila.gov. NO TELEPHONE CALLS, PLEASE!

View job description.

A city-wide public hearing on the draft recommendations for Philadelphia’s new zoning code will be held Wednesday, October 7, 2009, from 6:00 to 8:00 PM in City Council chambers, Room 400, City Hall. Neighborhood outreach meetings on the recommendations are yet to be scheduled. Click here to view the draft recommendations.

The Zoning Code Commission was briefed today on the major changes consultants are proposing to update Philadelphia’s zoning system. The 90-page report of detailed recommendations is organized to serve as an outline for the new code. Consultants call for big reforms, reducing the number of base districts from 55 to 32 and consolidating 33 overlay districts into 11. They want to introduce graphics and tables to make development standards clear and simplify use regulations. The most radical changes are related to approval procedures. The consultants asked the ZCC if there is support for reducing variances by making more uses by-right, based on stronger and more objective standards.

The recommendations are grounded in a detailed assessment of the existing code, an analysis of best practices from other cities, and input gathered from code user interviews, public outreach meetings, an online survey, and ZCC feedback. Proposed changes reflect the ZCC’s overarching goals to simplify the code and streamline approval processes. The new code would be reorganized from 21 chapters down to six and significant changes related to each chapter as presented in the report are identified below:

1. General Provisions
   All provisions addressing authority, interpretation, and relationship to other regulations located in one place.
   New section clarifying the role of adopted plans in zoning administration.
   Transitional provisions to explain how the city will manage the transition from the old code to the new code.
2. Administration and Procedures
   All decision-makers, approval procedures, decision criteria, and procedural requirements consolidated into one chapter.
   Review bodies, decision-makers, and appeal bodies for each type of approval summarized in one table.
   Notice requirements refined and summarized in one table.
   Variance procedures narrowed and criteria strengthened.
   More decisions made at staff level based on more objective standards.
3. Zone Districts
   All zone districts grouped into residential, commercial/mixed use, industrial/special purpose, and overlay zones.
   Base districts reduced from 55 to 32.
   Overlay districts reduced from 33 to 11.
   New consolidated Center City Overlay district.
   Each zone organized to include a purpose statement and district-specific standards, if any.
4. Use Regulations
   All permitted, certificated, special, and regulated uses consolidated into four use tables – one for each group of zone districts.
   All use-specific standards consolidated in one place and cross-referenced to the uses they affect.
   Certificated uses changed to by-right subject to objective standards where possible.
   Accessory uses and structures listed and clarified to reduce needs for variances or interpretations on decks, porches, etc.
   New temporary uses section.
5. Development Standards
   All regulations on how land and buildings are developed consolidated in one chapter.
   All dimensional standards consolidated into five tables.
   New standards on sustainability, circulation and mobility, landscaping, natural areas, and lighting.
   Form and design standards expanded to address residential/commercial boundaries and commercial corridors.
   More objective and enforceable standards to support administrative decision-making.
   Sign provisions consolidated into one section based on a permitted sign table.
   All off-street parking requirements consolidated into one table.
6. Definitions
   All definitions consolidated into one chapter.
   Rules of grammar and text construction defined to support more predictable administrative decision-making.
   Rules of construction for key parameters – building heights, setbacks, build-to lines, and open space – defined to support more predictable administrative decision-making.
   Appendices
   Index

Initial comments from the ZCC focused on public reaction to consolidating residential and neighborhood corridor districts and reducing the number of variances – the same issues consultants need to know the ZCC supports in order to move forward with the code rewrite. Members discussed how best to communicate proposed zoning changes to the general public, especially when many recommendations still require debate and the commission is on a fast track to get the new code completed.

Each ZCC member will have about two weeks to review the recommendations and identify critical issues before comments are compiled in advance of the briefing to City Council on September 24. A city-wide public hearing is tentatively planned for October 7. Issues raised by the commission, members of council, and the general public will be discussed at the next regular meeting of the ZCC on October 14 at 8AM, 1515 Arch Street, 18th floor.

Click here to view today’s PowerPoint presentation on the recommendations. Click here to view the full 90-page report.

ZCC consultants have just two months before work drafting the new code must begin. Detailed recommendations were presented to the ZCC today. City Council and the public will be briefed over the next few weeks. The goal is to confirm that the recommendations will put the code on the right track. Although some issues will continue to be discussed during the year-long process of writing the code, all comments must be compiled and incorporated into a revised list of recommendations as soon as possible, so that the ZCC can sign off on the list at its November meeting. The approved recommendations will serve as a guide for the work ahead.

September:

• Receive and compile ZCC comments on the draft recommendations
• Revise online survey to gather public response to recommendations
• Brief City Council on the status of the recommendations

October:

• Hold city-wide public hearing on draft recommendations
• Conduct four neighborhood outreach meetings

November:

• ZCC to approve change list revising the recommendations based on October meetings and stakeholder input
• Consultants begin drafting the new code

The ZCC reacted to the best practices report, which summarizes successful zoning options from other cities in key areas of concern: approval procedures, sustainability, downtown zoning, form controls, parking, modular zoning, and web-based codes. The report was designed to help the ZCC evaluate alternatives for Philadelphia. Members reiterated to consultants that the overarching goal of any changes to the code is to make zoning in Philadelphia more efficient. Commission members generally agreed with the proposed strategy identified in the report for each topic, although modular zoning was removed from consideration for its complexity. The ZCC also wants consultants to:

• Remove ambiguity in the regulations
• Consider incentives with caution
• Provide regulations that enhance accessibility to open space, community gardens, and urban agriculture.
• Relate sustainable practices to issues residents care about – traffic congestion, parking, etc.
• Consider reducing parking requirements to support the extensive and valuable public transit system in place.
• Evaluate the impacts of curb cut restrictions for on and off-street parking.
• Think about tax incentives to buy cars that may increase parking needs.
• Discourage large surface parking lots.
• Protect neighborhood character with form controls and contextual zoning measures.
• Address the opportunities corners present.
• Consider reutilizing the system developed for the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative that identified areas as stable, transitional, or distressed, in order to establish criteria for zoning.
• Work hard on developing the objective criteria; effective regulations will reduce the need for variances.
• Spend the most time and effort on reforming review and approval procedures – a fair and more efficient zoning system is the primary aim of the ZCC.
• Develop a structure for the new code that is compatible with web-based zoning.

Public observers reminded consultants that the bulk of variance requests are not for downtown development and to think about opportunities for form controls and contextual zoning in other areas of the city. They also asked if zoning could help make urban agriculture, community gardening, and green space more permanent. And they want the ZCC to address illegal building, look for opportunities to obviate corruption, and create a system with accountability.

Based on this input, the consultants will develop specific recommendations for the new zoning code, which will be presented to the ZCC at its September meeting. The final product is due August 2010.

Click here to view a PowerPoint presentation that summarizes key issues and solutions.

ZCC technical consultants presented a best practices report designed to help members evaluate options on seven key topics of Philadelphia’s new zoning code: approval procedures, sustainability, downtown zoning, form controls, parking, modular zoning, and web-based codes. Click here to view the PowerPoint presentation that summarizes the issues and potential solutions. Click here to view the full report. The ZCC plans to discuss the report in detail at its July 8 meeting.

The ZCC invited the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) to present the findings of its ongoing industrial land use and market study, which addresses the mismatch between the city’s 17,805-acre supply of industrially-zoned land and the demands of modern industrial users. The final report is likely to make recommendations that are relevant to the work of the ZCC, such as the rezoning and redistribution of industrial lands and the reclassification of uses to suit modern industries.

The study focuses on 15,433 acres of industrially-zoned land that is concentrated in 15 areas of the city. The remaining lands are comprised of isolated parcels that once had a historical manufacturing significance, but now are in areas that have transitioned into residential or other uses. Every parcel in the study area has been surveyed and mapped to show lands that are actively used for industry and those that are vacant or used for other purposes and to demonstrate the intensity of industrial jobs and where employment concentrations are located in relation to other city uses and activities. Although the overall number of industrial jobs is declining as in other cities in the country, one out of every five jobs in Philadelphia is classified as industrial. This is still a significant number of jobs that require a wide range of skill level, offer higher than average wages, and provide better opportunity for advancement. The industrial sector in Philadelphia currently provides about $5 billion in payroll and generates about $323 million in taxes.

The goals of the study are to retain and optimize use of the city’s industrial land, expand industrial activity in the city, encourage a balanced and diverse city economy, increase the number and quality of jobs available to city residents, and raise revenues. The final report is expected to be released in the fall of 2009.

Click here to view the PowerPoint presentation of the report.

The ZCC Work Plan Committee recommended that Phase I technical consultants led by Clarion/Duncan Associates be selected to continue work on Phase II of the zoning reform process. The team was unanimously approved by the full commission. Some of the sub-consultants on the team may change, however, depending on the final scope of services that is negotiated with the contract in July. In the next phase of work, the team will begin to draft the new code, including administration procedures, zoning districts and uses, and development standards. Consultants will also develop a comprehensive strategy for civic engagement and assist the ZCC with code adoption and implementation. In addition, the Work Plan Committee asked the team to provide cost estimates for optional services, such as preparing a training manual and user’s handbook, developing a web-based code, and organizing additional public outreach meetings. The final scope of work will determine what extra services, if any, are included in the contract, which is expected to be signed by September.

Zoning experts used lessons from other cities to show the ZCC how Philadelphia’s code and district classifications might be simplified. Consultants recommended consolidating and/or eliminating districts and overlays, establishing more by-right opportunities, and reducing case-by-case review by the ZBA. They suggest map-based designations for FAR, height limitations, building form, and other performance standards and “the fewest number of rules needed to get the job done.”

Zoning reform efforts in Chicago, Portland, San Diego, and San Francisco provided useful examples of “downtown” zoning, which is used to carry out specific goals for each city. In Chicago, for example, building height controls and base FAR are clearly mapped. FAR bonuses are by-right and tied to the provision of affordable housing, public open space, and other desired amenities. San Diego includes maps for street-level active frontage requirements and sun access. In Portland, FAR bonuses are granted for added residential development, day care, public art, and bicycle lockers, among others and FAR may be transferred to targeted areas where reinvestment is needed. In each case, there is a clear set of community development priorities established and zoning works to achieve those goals in a very positive and proactive way. The consultants emphasized that zoning is not just a “thou shalt not” tool.

ZCC members discussed how these ideas could be applied to Philadelphia’s downtown, as well as other neighborhoods of the city. Although inspired by the lessons of these cities, members cautioned that these tools must be carefully evaluated in relation to the local real estate economy and building costs to be effective. Specific questions and concerns included the following:

• Consider how incentives for affordable housing are implemented in a city like Philadelphia, where so much available housing stock is currently vacant.
• How do map-based designations for FAR impact land values?
• Will these tools reduce the need for variances?
• How do FAR transfers work with historic preservation goals?
• Does the FAR map raise the threat of spot zoning or takings challenges?

To view the PowerPoint presentation, visit http://zoningmatters.org/files/CenterCityZoningLessonsFromOtherCities_0.pdf. To view video coverage of the presentation and the full discussion, visit http://www.planphilly.com/node/8912

At the June 10 ZCC meeting, consultants will present a report on best practices, covering approval procedures, sustainability, downtown zoning, form controls, parking, modular zoning, and web-based zoning. ZCC members will discuss the findings of the report at the July 8 meeting. Specific zoning recommendations, including a detailed outline of the structure and content of the new code are planned for release in September.

The ZCC posted a Request for Proposals for the second phase of work on the new code, now available for review at https://ework.phila.gov/econtractphilly/ under contract opportunities for city planning. Phase II work includes a document of proposed revisions to Philadelphia’s existing zoning code and draft legislation needed to carry out those changes. Recommendations on how the city should proceed with a comprehensive revision to the zoning map are also required. A mandatory pre-bid meeting is scheduled for May 6, 2009. Proposals are due by 5:00 PM on May 26, 2009.

ZCC consultants have completed an interim assessment of Philadelphia’s existing zoning code, including a summary on each of the 10 council district meetings organized to gather input from the public on zoning issues and priorities. Click here to view the full Interim Report: Assessment of Existing Code dated April 2009. Click here to view the six-page executive summary. Comments on the report are welcome and may be submitted to zoning.commission@phila.gov.

Now that the consultants have painstakingly identified issues and inefficiencies in Philadelphia’s existing zoning code, the ZCC must establish the values that will guide the next phase of work. Reaction to the assessment raised some key questions about what the new code should try to achieve and what zoning can and cannot do.

Over the next six months, the ZCC will decide how to address primary concerns and answer important questions that will help the consultants as they update the zoning code, remap districts, and revamp administrative procedures. Initial discussions raised the following questions:

• Will the new code and map be consistent with on-going comprehensive planning efforts?
• Can the ZCC clarify which issues need to be solved with zoning and which are fundamentally an enforcement problem?
• Should the new code reduce the number of cases before the ZBA when the public views the hearings as a critical opportunity to voice concerns about neighborhood development projects?
• To what extent should the new code incentivize sustainable design when market forces and building codes will likely make it the norm?
• How is new legislation crafted to deal with a myriad of uses that may not fit existing and future definitions?
• When should site-specific solutions be considered for citywide application?
• Should the new code address the over-saturation of a particular use in any given area?
• Should a use variance be transferred with the sale of property?

As the ZCC debates these and other questions over the coming months, members agreed that they should remain focused on the primary goal – to produce a code that is clear and predictable for all stakeholders.

The ZCC Work Plan Committee prepared a draft RFP for the second phase of work on the new code. Requested services focus on three main areas of work: (1) administration procedures; (2) zoning districts and permitted uses; and (3) development standards. The RFP will require consultants to develop a comprehensive strategy for civic engagement and to assist the ZCC with code adoption and implementation. The ZCC hopes to release the RFP in April, select a consultant in June, and finalize a contract by September.

Ten meetings were held from January 14 to March 12 to gather public insight on how zoning currently works in Philadelphia and what can be done to improve it. Participants spoke out on zoning issues that impact their neighborhoods and provided a wealth of ideas on how to make the code easier to understand and use for everyone, not just developers. Several consistent themes emerged from district to district:

• Provide for contemporary needs and uses.
• Balance the type, quantity, and compatibility of uses in each district.
• Tailor sections of the new code to suit distinct areas and neighborhoods.
• Provide local satellite offices and use technology to make obtaining information, submitting applications, and participating in the process easier.
• Make community notification a priority.
• Codify a design review process and provide contextual guidelines.
• Make the process more transparent and increase public understanding.
• Improve coordination among city agencies.
• Enforce the rules consistently and equitably.

To view a summary of each district meeting, see the links below. To follow how community input from the district meetings is compiled and track progress as the zoning reform process continues, visit www.zoningmatters.org .

Zoning experts hired to evaluate Philadelphia’s zoning code found the 650-page code to be outdated, difficult to understand, and complicated to navigate. The current code was adopted in 1962 and amended more than a 1,000 times since then. In a report to the ZCC, the consultants described zoning in Philadelphia as “a regulatory patchwork that does not efficiently address the contemporary needs of a modern city.” Based on the consultants’ experience in similar-sized cities, the need to consolidate districts, fit standards to neighborhood context, and incorporate “place-making” regulations stood out for Philadelphia.

While much of the experts’ assessment aligned with public opinion and code user views on zoning in Philadelphia, the consultants identified specific parts of the code that are too complex or create barriers to development. The consultants carefully analyzed the regulations in relation to the zoning map and statistics on the current workload at the ZBA, so that their observations and findings began to provide a framework for reform:

• Consolidation. Nearly half of the 31 residential districts apply to less than one percent of the total land zoned for residential uses.
• Balance. Twenty percent of  land in Philadelphia falls within two industrial zoning districts. In other cities, about 20 percent is residential and another 30 percent covers everything else.
• Fit. Existing standards make most lots nonconforming. For example, in the R10A District, 90 percent of lots are nonconforming. From 2001 to 2007, the same district generated 1,636 applications to the ZBA, representing 13 percent of all cases brought before the board.
• Incentives. High commercial vacancy rates indicate a need to consider incentives and less regulation to promote reuse. In 2003, the retail vacancy rate was 23 percent.
• Simplicity. Regulations are overly complex; users are uncertain about what is required. For example, side yards are based on the height of legally required windows and special requirements apply to courts with legally required windows, without required windows, for inner courts, outer courts, narrow streets, etc.

The consultants identified other key areas of reform, including the importance addressing place-making controls and urban design, sustainability, parking and other modes of access, and process. In Duncan’s view, the fact that variances can be requested and obtained for nearly any regulation in any district is the number one cause for concern.

Next steps include a report on zoning best practices, a report on alternative code structures, and a final recommendations report. Based on the interim assessment, the consultants recommended the following target areas for research on best practices and code structures: techniques for streamlining approval procedures, while providing effective public involvement; appropriate sustainability regulations; parking provisions; historic preservation and building form controls; modular zoning; and web-based codes.

Click here to view the full Interim Assessment. Comments on the report are welcome and may be submitted to zoning.commission@phila.gov.

To view the consultant PowerPoint presentation and other handouts from the ZCC’s March 11 meeting, visit http://www.zoningmatters.org/commission/meetings. For video coverage of the presentation and ZCC reaction, visit http://www.planphilly.com/node/8455 .

ZCC consultants make recommendations to improve the existing zoning code’s organization and format, modernize its substantive regulations, and make administration and procedures more efficient. The consultants evaluated the code on how easily it can be understood and used; how and where its regulations are applied; whether it implements the city’s policies for economic growth, development, the reuse of existing structures, sustainability, urban design, and parking and transportation; and how current development review and approval processes are carried out. Click here to review a summary of key recommendations presented in the report. Click here to view the full assessment.

The last of 10 council district meetings was held Thursday evening at South Philadelphia High School. Participants in the 2nd Councilmanic District ranked public involvement, protecting existing neighborhoods, and an efficient zoning approval process as the top priorities for zoning reform in Philadelphia. Community input from all districts will be used to inform ZCC consultants as they complete an evaluation of the existing code, begin to research best practices from other cities, and develop recommendations for the new code.

As the zoning reform process moves forward, stakeholders in the 2nd District want the ZCC to consider how to give communities more say over development in their neighborhoods. Participants suggested encouraging more productive interaction between developers and neighbors up front, improving notification systems to keep the public informed about the process from start to finish, and explaining how and why decisions are made in layman’s terms. Neighborhoods should not only be protected, they said, but strengthened with development that reflects community character and promotes a better balance and integration of uses, even recommending a permit that specifically addresses the mix of uses in a particular area. Some participants want the city to offer more incentives for sustainable types of development and to encourage the reuse of buildings over demolition. They want the new code to be simple, clear, and context-sensitive. They want the new rules to be applied consistently, making variances more difficult to obtain, and a new process that is fair, depoliticized, and fully engaged with the public.

To follow how community input from the district meetings is compiled and track progress as the zoning reform process continues, visit www.zoningmatters.org .

Encouraging redevelopment of existing buildings and sites is a top zoning concern for residents, business-owners, and community leaders in the 4th and 9th Councilmanic Districts. They want the new code to support reuse over demolition, promote sustainable communities, and help preserve neighborhood character. Participants also spoke out about the current level of community say over development and want to increase opportunities for real public involvement.

Zoning discussions at the 4th and 9th district meetings centered around sustaining existing community context. “Each neighborhood has an identity,” one resident and business-owner said, “and zoning should be more sensitive to it.” Participants want the city to encourage redevelopment by making requirements for adaptive reuse less onerous. Regulations for new construction should be stricter and include requirements that ensure buildings fit the character of the neighborhood and give advantage to sustainable urban models.

Underlying all discussions about zoning were concerns about process, lack of enforcement, and public awareness. In general, zoning in Philadelphia was described as difficult to understand, time-consuming, and costly. Participants said it puts the brakes on development by default, whether good or bad, and does nothing to promote the kind of neighborhood growth and revitalization the city needs. Participants described community involvement in the zoning approval process as “swimming up hill over and over again.” They believe the process favors developers and places the public in a reactive position. They want a more effective strategy for bringing the public in and making information accessible – better notification systems, community education programs, improved online services. While some communities are better organized and able to wield a degree of influence, they want the new code to make sure public involvement is more equitable. In the end, they want a code that respects the characteristics of each neighborhood, balances uses fairly across the city, ensures the public has say, is designed so that “no can mean no” with respect to variances, and all regulations are effectively enforced.

he final public outreach meeting of the code evaluation phase is scheduled for the 2nd District on Thursday, March 12, 6:00-8:00 PM at South Philadelphia High School, 2101 South Broad Street. For the most up-to-date information, visit www.zoningmatters.org .

Discussions on zoning reform in the 3rd Councilmanic District focused on how to provide a fair and efficient zoning approval process. About 100 participants at University City Square ranked “process” as the number one priority for zoning reform in Philadelphia. Protecting neighborhoods and public involvement were also raised as top concerns.

The group of residents, business-owners, and community organizers described the current process as confusing, inaccessible, and political. “Citizen input is tolerated,” one participant said, “not welcomed.” The lack of clarity in the code, inconsistent information from L&I, the length of the process and number of continuances, and uncoordinated activities among city agencies were all noted as obstacles to meaningful public involvement.

The group thinks the code should be clear on how the rights of property-owners/developers are balanced with the rights of the community overall. The code should be clear and the process transparent. Specific recommendations included:

• Providing a forum for public input up front
• Establishing a lower level arbitration system for mediating disputes
• Creating a zoning “ombudsman” with real influence
• Developing a zoning training program for the public
• Ensuring staff at L&I are knowledgeable and can provide correct and consistent information
• Establishing an online central clearinghouse where reliable information and services are available, including a property database, public notification system, and project updates.
• Providing regulations that maintain neighborhood context, balance the type and quantity of uses in an area, encourage rehabilitation over demolition, and promote the reuse of vacant upper floors and abandoned properties.

The next public outreach meeting is scheduled for the 4th District on Tuesday, March 3, 7:00-9:00 PM at Roxborough Memorial Hospital, 5800 Ridge Avenue. For the most up-to-date information, visit www.zoningmatters.org .

ZCC consultants asked residents, business-owners, and community leaders of the 5th Councilmanic District about their views on zoning in Philadelphia and what the most important considerations should be for reform. Protecting existing neighborhoods from development impacts, encouraging redevelopment of existing buildings and sites, and providing a clear, fair, and efficient zoning approval process were ranked the top three priorities.

Participants said they want the zoning code to create self-contained neighborhoods, balance the type and quantity of uses, and promote economic diversity. They want zoning to respond to the specific needs of each neighborhood, not apply a “one size fits all” standard. Like stakeholders in other districts throughout the city, they want a code that is clear and easy to interpret; improved access to information; more disclosure; better coordination among city agencies; opportunities for community involvement; and adequate enforcement.

The next public outreach meeting is scheduled for the 3rd District on Tuesday, February 24, 6:00-8:00 PM at University City Square, 3901 Market Street. For the most up-to-date information, visit www.zoningmatters.org .

Responses from 1,200 online surveys, more than 200 participants at community outreach meetings, and 20 groups of professionals that use the code on a regular basis suggest that the main problem with zoning in Philadelphia is the process. Developers, residents, business-owners, and community associations want the priorities for zoning reform to include a clear, fair, and efficient process and an opportunity for civic input. The Phase I Code Evaluation process is on-going, but the results to date show that all code users (meaning any citizen that needs to reference the code for any reason) are frustrated by an incoherent, complicated code and a confusing process.

At the 10th Councilmanic District meeting Wednesday evening, more than 50 lively participants agreed. Comprised mostly of civic association members, the group described protecting existing neighborhoods is the most important thing zoning can do. They want clear, concise rules; more transparent and accessible information; better customer service; convenient offices; and more community involvement. Since each city neighborhood is different, they want the government to think local – local input, local access, and local decision-making.

As experts continue to review the code in relation to best practices from other major cities, additional input from the online survey, another set of code user interviews, and five more council district meetings will be used to inform the ZCC in guiding the consultants’ work on the new code. The ZCC Work Plan Committee will identify key issues raised throughout the code evaluation process and put questions before the full commission that are intended to provoke discussion and give direction to the consultants. The newly formed Civic Engagement Committee, chaired by Natalia Olson de Savyckyj, will ensure all community voices are heard and that the ZCC is responsive.

To participate in the online survey and code user interviews or to learn more about the council district meetings, visit http://www.zoningmatters.org/ .

Code evaluation consultants asked the ZCC to weigh in on two big issues related to zoning reform in Philadelphia – use variances and how and when to engage the public in the process. Commission members discussed reducing the need for variances and developing a process that is meaningful to all parties.

The ZCC view on eliminating use variances was mixed. Some members expressed concerns about exchanging the variance process for the more political rezoning process and short circuiting community groups that have learned to use the variance process to voice their opinions and gain influence over development in their neighborhoods. Other members focused on the “customer” or code user and the ZCC mandate to create a document that is clear and predictable. The current practice of “zoning by variance” on a parcel by parcel basis was described as taking too much time and effort with no assurance of success, something investors are unlikely to do. ZCC members are aware, however, that if variance hearings are eliminated as part of a comprehensive rezoning and remapping effort, the question of how community voices get heard must be addressed. Again, ZCC opinion was mixed. While some members recommended encouraging citizen input on standards not on projects, others are willing to consider how to build community input into the review process. All seemed to agree that matching the code to community expectations and educating the public on the process early on are key elements. The ZCC will have the opportunity to review best practices from other major cities as the Phase I Code Evaluation moves forward, but will focus mainly on setting priorities and a broad outline for the new code, leaving the details to the consultants.

For video coverage of the discussion, visit http://www.planphilly.com/node/8244 .

Community stakeholders of the 1st Councilmanic District gathered at the Independence Visitors Center on Thursday to voice their concerns about zoning. Protecting existing neighborhoods, a fair zoning approval process, and the size and design of new buildings were ranked as the top three priorities for zoning reform. Suggestions on how to improve zoning in Philadelphia and minimize negative impacts on existing neighborhoods were consistent with those described in other districts. In general, community members want to be informed; they want to have influence over proposed development in their neighborhoods and to be formally engaged in the process; they want a zoning code that is easy for everyone to understand and use; and they want the rules to be enforced. Specific recommendations included:

• Increase capacity at L&I and improve the level of customer service.
• Expand online services.
• Make the process more transparent. Explain what factors are used in decision-making and how they are weighted.
• Establish district-level “governmental organizations” to improve cooperation between applicants and neighbors and to mediate disputes.
• Codify a design review process and provide contextual guidelines.
• Create a code that speaks to the 21st century, anticipates the needs of redevelopment, and is tailored to each district or neighborhood.
• Require out-of-state landowners to have a local agent.
• Make tax abatement programs more useful to all landowners.
• Permit variances for true hardships only.
• Limit the number of continuances more strictly.

For information on the next community meeting, visit www.zoningmatters.org .

At the Holmesburg Recreation Center Tuesday evening, residents and community organization leaders focused on what the priorities for zoning reform should be in Philadelphia. For the 6th Councilmanic District, a more efficient approval process and sustaining the character of existing neighborhoods are primary concerns. Participants made the following points and recommendations:

• Make community awareness the first step in the approval process. The current zoning code allows the applicant to drive the process.
• Think local. Provide satellite locations for obtaining information, submitting applications, and holding ZBA hearings.
• Use technology. Make the system more efficient and easier to use by expanding online services. Include a “zoning alert system” and post the status of projects online.
• Expand notification requirements to ensure all stakeholders are adequately informed.
• Balance the type, quantity, and compatibility of uses in a neighborhood.
• Define new uses and services.
• One size doesn’t fit all. Consult the community and tailor sections of the new code to suit each district.

For information on the next community meeting, visit http://www.zoningmatters.org/ .

The second community outreach meeting on Philadelphia’s zoning reform process was held January 26 at the First United Methodist Church in Germantown. Again, the zoning approval process and public involvement are raised as priority concerns. About 40 residents, business-owners, and community organization leaders spoke out on zoning issues that impact their neighborhoods.

Like stakeholders of the 7th District, their number one concern is the efficiency and fairness of the approval process. “There is a disconnect between the zoning code, the hearings, and enforcement,” one participant stated. The community wants a more transparent, equitable system that is accessible to all – large developers, as well as small land and business owners. Suggestions included building capacity at city agencies, creating a better-trained staff, providing more technical assistance, improving how public notice is carried out, increasing the frequency of hearings, and instituting enforcement and follow up activities that would deter illegal actions.

Second on the list of priority concerns is public involvement. The people that live and work in the community want to be considered the “experts” on their neighborhood and they want that community voice to carry weight in the decision process.

Other recommendations for zoning reform included:

• Providing for contemporary needs and uses;
• Distributing uses more equitably; and
• Ensuring projects are adequately funded before approvals are granted, especially in cases where demolition is proposed.

For the most up-to-date schedule of public meetings, visit www.zoningmatters.org .

The preliminary assessment of the city’s zoning regulations confirms what the ZCC already knows – the Philadelphia Zoning Code is difficult to use and understand. As an example, the consultants mapped all of the special districts to illustrate what a code user is up against when trying to determine what rules apply to a particular property. Main areas of concern include:

• The organization of the code, which lacks a coherent framework
• The complexity of district regulations that sometimes apply to block frontages or portions of streets
• The number of districts and the overuse of special districts
• The absence of regulations that address urban design and form in most districts
• Uncodified rules, such as PCPC policies and L&I interpretations
• The use of variances as a “de facto development review process”

Findings from the code user interviews are consistent with the preliminary assessment, but with added emphasis on process and procedures. The public is concerned about losing influence over what happens in their neighborhoods and would like a more predictable and less political process.

Moving forward, the consultants will identify opportunities for improvement, such as consolidating districts and using tables, charts, and illustrations to clarify regulations. They specifically asked ZCC members to consider whether the new code should permit more by-right uses and how to address community concerns over such action. ZCC chair Alan Greenberger recommended members prepare to discuss these issues at the next monthly meeting on February 11. 

The ZCC approved the formation of a “Civic Engagement Committee” to ensure public outreach efforts for zoning reform are meaningful. The new group will function as a steering committee and supplement the work of the consultants. Public support for what the ZCC is doing is essential, so the outreach process must be effective. The committee will ensure ZCC members are actively engaged with the public and that community views on zoning and development review are heard. The chairs of the new Civic Engagement Committee and existing Work Plan Committee will serve as vice-chairs of the ZCC. 

New ZCC director Eva Gladstein began work January 5. She spent her first week meeting with ZCC members, observing code user interviews, and working with the consultant team to set up community outreach meetings. The first of 10 district meetings was held January 14 at the Community Academy Charter School in the 7^th Councilmanic District. To read more about public outreach CLICK HERE.

Currently Director of Special Projects for the Philadelphia Commerce Department, Eva Gladstein will make the transition to the ZCC starting January 5. “I’ve spent a lot of years working in Philly trying to improve the city and its neighborhoods, and yet I don’t think I’ve ever had an opportunity as great as this one,” Gladstein said. “We can really help change the face of the city, its communities, and as importantly, the development processes.”

Eva Gladstein has more than 25 years experience promoting community revitalization and implementing economic development projects. She is the co-founder of the Tenants’ Action Group of Philadelphia and former director of the Pennsylvania Low-Income Housing Coalition. She joined the city in 1998 to run the American Street Empowerment Zone and became the director of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative in 2005. NTI activities were absorbed by the Commerce Department earlier this year. As director of the ZCC, Ms. Gladstein will work closely with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission to ensure on-going planning efforts inform the zoning code reform process. The director’s office will be located at the PCPC, where current staff can assist Gladstein as well.

Don Elliott of Clarion Associates reported that the consultant team is currently evaluating the existing zoning code, conducting code user interviews, and setting up district meetings. ZCC members and consultants decided to plan all 10 public outreach sessions for January and February of next year. Two are already scheduled: January 27 in the 9th District and February 5 in the 1st. Details on the time and location of each meeting will be posted at www.zoningmatters.org. Consultants reported that the on-line survey, also posted on the Zoning Matters website, has generated about 600 responses to date and that the code user interviews are providing valuable insight as well. Interviews are generally grouped by profession – architects, developers, planners, etc – although some meetings are mixed. To participate in the interview process, you may contact the ZCC or the PCPC at 215-683-4600. The interview process will continue through the end of January. A report evaluating the existing code from the perspective of both code users and technical consultants will be delayed until March.

ZCC consultant Don Elliott of Clarion Associates presented an overview of the zoning code update process to a full house at City Council Chambers Wednesday evening. The citywide kick-off meeting was the first in a series of public outreach events organized to ask Philadelphia residents directly how zoning could be changed to make the city a better place, how the code can be made simpler and easier to use, and to describe the impacts of zoning in specific neighborhoods. Mr. Elliott began with a brief description of the project and timeline, provided general background on zoning and the need for reform, and opened the meeting up to the public for questions and comments. A few responses focused on specifics – the need for zoning provisions to promote neighborhood childcare and make affordable housing a reality, for example. But the ability for residents and community groups to weigh in on development in their neighborhoods was raised as a fundamental concern. Residents want the ZCC to rely on their community experience and knowledge in developing the new code, to ensure new zoning regulations include a vehicle for civic engagement in the development review process, and to make the rules for hearings at the ZBA more equitable for residents or community groups without legal representation. Follow-up meetings in each city council district are currently being planned, but are not yet scheduled. For more on this event and to listen to all public comment, visit http://www.planphilly.com/node/4286 .

Mayor Nutter announced his selection for executive director at the ZCC’s first public outreach session at City Hall Wednesday night. Eva Gladstein was the founding director of the Tenants Action Group of Philadelphia and joined the city to run the American Street Empowerment Zone. Most recently, Ms. Gladstein served as director of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, now under the Department of Commerce. Mayor Nutter described Gladstein as “experienced” with a “broad array of contacts and relationships,” qualities he believes are needed for such a process-driven exercise. A two-thirds majority vote by the full commission is needed to confirm the mayor’s recommendation. The ZCC is scheduled to meet on December 10. As an employee of the current administration, Ms. Gladstein would be transferred to this new position if approved.

ZCC Regular Session

In response to a recommendation by the ZCC Work Plan Committee to maximize opportunities for civic engagement, the consultant team layed out a plan for 11 public outreach sessions. A citywide kick-off meeting, tentatively scheduled for November 12, will serve to introduce the ZCC and consultant team to the public, provide background on zoning, explain the need for reform, and engage the media. Ten neighborhood meetings, one for each city council district, will take place over the next four months and will be designed to get comments on five or six of the most critical issues. All meetings are open to the public and an online survey will be available to elicit input throughout the entire process. ZCC members were encouraged to participate in the meetings as much as possible, promote attendance, and strengthen public understanding. PCPC and ZCC staff will coordinate with the consultants on logistics and help facilitate meetings.

In the meantime, consultants distributed the ZCC follow-on survey and will start conducting code user interviews and evaluating existing regulations. The purpose of these efforts is to identify issues and priorities. Stakeholders will be asked to comment on the code’s user-friendliness, consistency with city plans, classification of uses, approval procedures, and other concerns. Consultants will evaluate the capacity of existing regulations to implement city plans and policies, enhance urban design, produce public benefits, preserve historic resources, and streamline processes.

Deputy Mayor Andy Altman delayed the selection process for a ZCC director to allow Alan Greenberger to weigh in on the candidates. As the new head of the city planning commission and chair of the Zoning Code Commission, Greenberger will be working closely with ZCC staff to ensure the goals of zoning reform are coordinated with those of the city’s comprehensive plan, Imagine Philadelphia. Greenberger reviewed the resumes of four candidates passed onto Mayor Nutter for consideration and met with each on Monday. He will prepare a report for the mayor by next week and expects Nutter to work quickly to finalize the decision.

Alan Greenberger’s new role as city planning director and chair of the ZCC officially starts November 3, but he addressed commission members Wednesday morning to introduce himself and share his views on zoning reform in Philadelphia. “Simplification, clarification, and illustration are the base minimum of where we need to go,” Greenberger said. But beyond making the new code more accessible, Mr. Greenberger suggested that zoning must address two key elements of urban life to be successful: the interface between different uses and how open, unbuilt spaces are shared in a community or carved into public, private, and semi-private areas. Greenberger also made clear what he thinks zoning cannot do. “It does not manufacture good design,” he said. “It is not a substitute for talent.” Zoning should establish a level of harm that must be prevented, set a framework for garnering a good result, strive to reduce a “culture of variances,” and allow flexibility to adapt to changing opinions and trends over time. “It’s a tall order,” Greenberger said.

Dr. Mark Alan Hughes, Philadelphia’s first director of sustainability, presented an early agenda for the new department to the ZCC Wednesday. Responding to the Mayor’s challenge to be the greenest city in America, Hughes will coordinate sustainability efforts across city agencies and develop a plan for sustainability based on a template from New York City. Philadelphia’s plan will include policy strategies for green building, energy, recycling, and sewer overflows, among others. Hughes will have help from the planning commission’s Sustainability Working Group and a newly-formed Sustainability Advisory Board, including environmental advocates, representatives from public agencies, and corporate partners. To illustrate the importance of the ZCC, Dr. Hughes cited two examples: the opportunity to meet EPA requirements with green infrastructure and the promotion of urban agriculture. No workable agricultural classification exists in the current zoning code and new zoning could encourage the use of open space for stormwater management – rain gardens, vegetated swales, etc. Dr. Hughes hopes to build a partnership with the ZCC and work together to implement sustainable policies through zoning. For video coverage of Dr. Hughes’ presentation, visit http://www.planphilly.com/node/3864.

The ZCC mourned the loss of one of its members last week. “Judith Eden was a valued member of this Commission and the two subcommittees on which she served,” Chairman Gary Jastrzab said. “We will miss her greatly.” Members described Eden as a prominent Philadelphian and a long-time neighborhood activist concerned with community outreach and public input. Eden served as the chairwoman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment for four years and was appointed to the ZCC by Mayor Nutter in January.

More about Judith Eden at:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/obituaries/20080810_Judith_Eden__activist_zoning_lawyer.html 

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/obituaries/26467199.html

http://www.planphilly.com/node/3674

The first phase of Philadelphia’s zoning code reform is about to get underway. The ZCC invited the technical services team to its meeting on Wednesday to learn more about the consultants and next steps. Matt Goebel of Clarion Associates led introductions and summarized a 12-month work plan. The goal of this phase is to produce a detailed plan of action for drafting the new code. The focus of the next six months is to identify issues. The team will evaluate the city’s current zoning policies, review best practices from other cities, and build stakeholder interest in the project. Once the substantive work is complete, the consultants will develop code options and make recommendations that reflect citywide input and fit Philadelphia’s unique social and political framework. The team and ZCC members say they are eager to get started.

In response to the consultant overview, the ZCC discussed Philadelphia’s need for an up-to-date and forward-looking code and stressed its commitment to a community process. All stakeholders, including the public at large, must be engaged and informed. “It is extremely important,” Marion Johnson said. “[Stakeholders] are looking forward to a great change coming out of this Commission.” The ZCC asked the team to rethink its approach to community outreach and the number and size of meetings that are needed to generate the right feedback. The ZCC encouraged the consultants to set up a formal structure for interacting with the Commission as soon as possible. Members suggested the team work with them to engage City Council and monitor current activities – waterfront development, the city’s vision plan, pending legislation – in order to minimize conflicts with the long-term goals of the Commission. Finally, the ZCC emphasized the importance of completing this diagnostic phase on time, but noted that an executive director is needed to manage the project efficiently. 

 For video coverage of the consultant overview, visit http://www.planphilly.com/node/3682

The Hiring Subcommittee reported on Wednesday that it interviewed seven candidates for the executive director position and passed four names onto Mayor Nutter for consideration. Deputy Mayor Andy Altman told the subcommittee that interviews are underway and a decision is expected in early September. Nutter’s selection must be sent back to the ZCC for a two-thirds vote of approval.

Video coverage of the Hiring Subcommittee report is available at

http://www.planphilly.com/node/3682

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/obituaries/26467199.html

http://www.planphilly.com/node/3674

ZCC Imagines Philadelphia

Alan Urek of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) updated the ZCC on the citywide comprehensive planning effort. “Imagine Philadelphia: Laying the Foundation” is a visioning process designed to inspire public involvement in developing a plan for the city’s future – the first such plan in 50 years. Urek said that the main goal of community focus groups held earlier this year was “to encourage citizens to weigh in on big ideas.” Participants envisioned a car-free Center City, public access along the waterfront, “complete” neighborhoods with schools and shops nearby, buried highways, “greener” industries, and other concepts. The PCPC will follow up the community vision effort by preparing eight policy papers, pulling together information and best practices on urban design, parks and open space, economic development, neighborhoods, housing, transportation, public facilities, and preservation. Imagine Philadelphia is critical to the work of the ZCC. The results will yield a vision plan for Philadelphia that will feed into zoning reform and the remapping of districts. Briefing books on Imagine Philadelphia will be completed in mid-July and made available to the ZCC Executive Director, expected to be named on June 25th.

For more on Imagine Philadelphia visit http://www.imaginephiladelphia.org/index.html .

Philadelphia got another step closer to zoning code reform on Wednesday as the ZCC selected a team of consultants to provide technical services. The Work Plan Subcommittee received five submissions by the RFQ deadline on May 23rd. Subcommittee members reviewed and ranked the submissions, selecting two for interviews and deciding unanimously to recommend a team led by Clarion Associates for a vote by the full Commission on June 11th. The group was pleased with the quality of the submissions; however, the Clarion team stood out for its experience working on similar efforts in Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh and other cities. 

There are two phases to the ZCC reform effort. Phase I is a year-long evaluation process to identify problems and solutions through civic engagement, a review of existing policies, and the research and analysis of best practices from other great cities. The Clarion team will lead the first phase of work, resulting in a report of recommended actions and key decisions for zoning in Philadelphia. The production of the new code will take place in Phase II and may involve new or additional consultants. To complete the process, a draft resolution for extending the life of the ZCC for two years will be introduced to City Council as early as June 12th.

ZCC TECHNICAL SERVICES TEAM

Core Consultant Team (including principals and work areas of concentration)

• Clarion Associates: Don Elliot; project management, research and code drafting
• Duncan Associates: Kirk Bishop; research and code drafting
• Claflen Associates: George Claflen; urban design
• WRT: David Rouse; sustainability
• Portfolio Associates: Beverly Harper; outreach
• CHPlanning: Charnelle Hicks; outreach

Resource Consultants on Team (including resource area)

• Dyett & Bhatia: downtowns
• Hurley-Franks: form-based zoning
• Montgomery McCracken: legal
• VIC Group: web tools

Mayor Nutter addressed the ZCC Wednesday and assured members that the administration is serious about zoning code reform. “The work of the ZCC will impact the future of this city for the next 40 or 50 years,” Nutter said. The Mayor described Philadelphia as having all the assets developers want and need –waterfront access, parks, infrastructure – and “a zoning code that no one can understand.” He wants the Commission to:

• Make the zoning code easy to read and easy to use.
• Set up a clear, cost-effective path to improve the development process.

The mayor emphasized the connection of the ZCC to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission and the important role these groups serve together in shaping our city. Nutter explained that appointed members were therefore selected with “continuity and overlap” in mind. The Mayor acknowledged the difficulty of the Commission’s job ahead and the need for staff support to maintain direction, focus, and an aggressive timeline. He pressed the Commission to expedite the hiring process for staff and consultants. Mayor Nutter expects to name the ZCC executive director by the end of June. The technical services consultant will be selected by the ZCC on June 11^th. 

In response to questions about proposed development and zoning bills that impact neighborhoods now, the Mayor encouraged the ZCC to weigh in on critical issues as long as the group is not distracted from its main mission. “Opinions of the ZCC will be taken seriously,” Nutter said, but he cannot predict how City Council or the ZBA will react. 

Full coverage of the Mayor’s visit to the ZCC is available at http://www.planphilly.com/node/3157 . Proposed timelines for hiring the executive director and planning services consultant are below.

ZCC Executive Director

• Approved job description to be posted May 15
• Application process open through May 30 (12 resumes received to date)
• Three candidates presented to Mayor Nutter by mid-June
• Mayor to nominate director June 25

ZCC Technical Services Consultant

• RFQ available online through May 23
• 18 firms attended mandatory pre-submission meeting May 6
• Follow-up questions due May 8; answers to be posted online
• Qualification packages due COB May 23
• Submissions to be reviewed at Work Plan Committee session May 30
• June 6 reserved for interviews
• Consultant to be recommended at June 11 business meeting.

GreenPlan Philadelphia is a citywide open space and greening plan involving 14 city departments. Director Bob Allen presented the project to the ZCC so the plan’s recommendations can be integrated into new zoning code initiatives. The plan is designed to improve the sustainability of the city’s environment, economy, and quality of life by managing green space neighborhood by neighborhood. Their strategy tackles the tremendous amount of disparity that currently exists, targeting underserved areas to start. GreenPlan wants all residents to have access to parks and trails and to reap the economic benefits of more green space – higher property values, lower energy costs, less crime. The project is ambitious. Over the next 20 years, the group envisions planting nearly a million trees, adding 4,000 acres of parkland, and greening 1,300 miles of streets. Long-term maintenance, lack of funding, and community resistance were raised as issues of concern. GreenPlan Philadelphia needs the ZCC’s support. The right zoning regulations and incentives can encourage residents and developers to help create a more sustainable future.

For more on GreenPlan Philadelphia visit GreenPlan Philadelphia and PlanPhilly.

Executive Director:  A job description has been issued by the Hiring Subcommittee. All interested candidates must apply by May 30th.  Interviews of candidates will be scheduled the following week.  The Hiring Subcommittee will recommend a candidate for the Executive Director at the June 25th ZCC meeting.  The ZCC Board will have an opportunity to elect the Executive Director at this meeting with a 2/3rds vote.  

Consultant:  An RFQ has been issued for a consultant team to rewrite the city’s zoning code.  The deadline for submitting qualification in response to the RFQ is May 23rd.  The Work Plan Subcommittee will recommend the most qualified consultant to the ZCC on June 11th.  The consultant selected will be asked to provide the ZCC with action steps for moving forward shortly after the date of selection.

Extend time for ZCC to complete rewrite:  Before City Council recesses for the summer break, the ZCC will request that Council extend the time for the zoning code rewrite by two years.

ZCC will also ask for briefings on all bills that will impact the current and future zoning code. Amendments to the zoning code can not be placed on hold for the next two years, but it is important that the ZCC understand proposed legislation that will impact their final product.