[summersm343]

Jeffrey Braff of the CCRA was extremely kind enough to respond to an email I sent him regarding this tower.

His response:

Mr. Summers:

First of all, I apologize for not earlier replying to your email. The Association is a volunteer organization and I am chief volunteer among equals so sometimes CCRA projects fall lower on the to do list than they should.

Second, thanks for your interest in the Association and the neighborhood.

Now onto the hard stuff – responding to the queries raised in your email.

This proposal raised at least three issues, each of which was difficult:

• A procedural question – Should the Association encourage developers to bypass the City Zoning Code by requesting that City Council rezone properties they purchased knowing its current zoning?

• A land use question – Is a 25 + story building, whose loading and unloading would be on an already jammed 19th street, appropriate for this particular corner?

• A recurrent near neighbors question – How much credence should the Association pay to the concerns of near neighbors?

The background to the procedural question is that a group of CCRA volunteers spent four years attending more than 40 meetings at the Zoning Code Commission and at City Council as part of the procedure leading up to the new zoning code. That Code was enacted in August of 2012, so that the ink is hardly dry on the new law and its regulations. Under the Code, the developer could have sought CCRA’s support for a variance at the Zoning Board. Instead, the developer requested that CCRA endorse his request to sidestep the Code by having City Council rezone the property, a property that the developer purchased knowing that it was zoned CMX-4. Concern for making a precedent was troubling because the zoning process has safeguards for citizens and civics not built into City Hall’s legislative process including, most notably, the requirement that the developer appear at a community meeting. Another safeguard of the Zoning Code is its provision of the Civic Design Review process, a procedure that proved invaluable in another recent high rise project, One Riverside.

On the land use question, the developer claimed that its project qualified for CMX-5 zoning. However, in order to so comply, the zoning code would require off-site parking within 1,000 feet of the building for 30% of the units and public art. If the developer had sought a zoning variance rather than a City Council ordinance, the details of the parking and the art would have been detailed in the zoning application. As it developed, the developer admitted at our April 29 public meeting that it had no details as to the public art and had no arrangements in place for the off-site parking.

As for your observation that “I would rather a 26 story building adding residents and a new retail spot to this area than the three dumpy low rise vacant buildings and the empty lot that is there now,” you should note that the current CMX-4 zoning would permit the developer to erect a high rise, albeit a less dense one.

Finally, the Rittenhouse Plaza and William Penn House, two high rise communities closest to the site, had density and traffic concerns.

Even given these considerations, the Board only reached its decision with difficulty and there were opinions expressed pro and con. I hope that this explanation is helpful, if not satisfying.

Jeffrey L. Braff | President
Center City Residents’ Association

My response back to him:

Hey Jeffrey,

Thank you so much for your response!

On the procedural question- agreed, no developers should bypass the CDR, ZBA or Planning Commission. I have no issue with this.

On the land use question- a 25+ story building is absolutely appropriate for this location if anywhere in the city. This is the heart of Center City, and there are plenty of buildings near by which are taller than the 26 floor, 295 foot proposed building. This building should be allowed to be built by right in this location. Anything shorter would be a serious waste of opportunity in my opinion, and I think the developers are being extremely reasonable with their proposal. As for the loading dock, would a truck coming in once a day to back into a loading dock seriously cause that much of an issue? As far as what the code calls for, why does it REQUIRE parking in the heart of Center City a hop, skip and a jump away from so many forms of public transportation? Should the code not be encouraging this sort of development? Lastly, what entails a “less dense” highrise? Less units? Shorter tower?

As for the recurrent near neighbors question- isn't it pretty much a given that people in the area are going to complain about a new building no matter what? Someone asked if the developer did a wind study for crying out loud. These people live in highrises, yet they are complaining about a proposed highrise. How could they have traffic concerns when there is no onsite parking? Is it the trucks that will be backing into the loading dock once a day, or is this really an issue of parking, and the worry that a new building with no onsite parking will put a strain on the available parking in the area?

In reality, a 26 story tower with street level retail and no parking is the type of building CCRA, CDR, ZBA and the Planning Commission should be welcoming to the heart of Center City.

What is the result of this project now? Is the CCRA denying it out right, or can the developers still go before the ZBA to get a variance?

Thanks for your time!