View Single Post
  #36  
Old Posted May 9, 2014, 12:55 PM
br323206 br323206 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philly Fan View Post
I don't view it that way at all. First, it's clear that CCRA opposed the procedure of circumventing the newly adopted zoning code with special legislation, and not the building design itself:



[From the CCRA newsletter quoted by sayitaintso and summersm343]



http://hiddencityphila.org/2014/05/p...1900-chestnut/

Also, I don't interpret the comments of Pearl Properties as necessarily meaning that they are abandoning this design:



http://hiddencityphila.org/2014/05/p...1900-chestnut/

This could mean that they'll merely decide to proceed with seeking a zoning variance. I really hope that they do, especially given this from the same article:



As an attorney, that's how I interpret the CCRA's position, i.e., as an objection to the proposed process (avoiding the zoning code procedures), and not an overall objection to the building design itself. Hopefully, Pearl's attorneys will verify this interpretation with the CCRA, and advise their client to seek a variance for the current design.
As a practicing planner, I 100% agree with your interpretation. The CCRA doesn't want to establish a precedent of circumventing the established procedures.

I personally think this should be CMX-5 anyway, but they have a very good case for a variance. They're really not asking for that much more FAR and the tract is right next to CMX-5 zoning. If they attempt to get a variance I don't think they'll have an issue.