[UC] The cost increases of HD

[Anthony West]

Jim wrote:
> To what do you attribute the statement, 
"Complying with Historical
> Commission requirements triples that cost, as 
a rule."

That was our experience when we priced windows, the 
summer that the HD proposal surfaced. My wife works for an institution that 
owns enormous amounts of real estate, including real estate in existing HDs. She 
deals directly with the contractors who do its jobs. They are the ones we use 
for our house. She had them make estimates for standard, high-quality 
conventional windows -- the ones we eventually chose -- and then for 
HD-conforming windows. Their cost was triple.
 
Other jobs, perhaps double. That institution may 
pay twice as much for its HD roof jobs as for its non-HD roof jobs. Every job is 
a special case. But its wise and experienced real estate managers advise us that 
historic designation, in the long run, guarantees massive unnecessary cost 
increases that do major damage to anyone who owns property for any 
other purpose beyond sheer preservation. Every family's capital is 
finite. Money you spend on unnecessary building work is money that won't be 
there for a tuition bill or a medical expense or a bout of unemployment or 
retirement.
 
> Also, assuming that the intent of Jannie's bill is to prevent 
historic
> designation ... most people would not be able 
to take advantage of
> the tax credits as I stated earlier.
 
That's right. But if if the unnecessary extra costs 
of historic designation are *larger* than the tax credit, then the 
homeowner remains a net loser. Besides, the gain from the tax credit is 
hypothetical -- they may not come to pass -- while the loss from historic 
designation is already quite real in the HDs that now exist. HDs make money 
for contractors, take money from homeowners. That's how they work.
 
-- Tony West
 
 

[UC] Hack Filming Schedule

[Jon P. Mourar]

The Hack Location Dept. has asked 
that I pass this along:
HACK will be returning for the last time this season to 44th & 
Larchwood Ave & surrounding streets on Thursday, February 19th. We will 
begin taking parking on Wednesday, February 18th at 7pm.Further 
notice with the specific streets that will be affected will be posted on 
Tuesday, February 17th .Please look for these signs.We have arranged 
with The City of Philadelphia for  residents of these neighborhoods to 
park their cars at the Philadelphia Parking Authority lot located on 
Baltimore Ave between 47th & 48th St . Any cars we might tow will be 
relocated to this lot .Please call the HACK Location Dept (215) 568-5505 
with any questions. Thank you all again for your cooperation making this a 
great second season for HACK. We look forward to return to your 
neighborhood.
Posted by:
Jon Mourar
Spruce Hill Community 
Association

[UC] Fwd: The Hospital Bed

[BAShowell]

 
--- Begin Message ---


 
Nice story.  Good to keep in mindTHE HOSPITAL WINDOW 
A great note for all to read it will take just 37 seconds to read this and change your thinking. 
Two men, both seriously ill, occupied the same hospital room. One man was allowed to sit up in his bed for an hour each afternoon to help drain the fluid from his lungs. His bed was next to the room's only window. The other man had to spend all his time flat on his back. The men talked for hours on end. They spoke of their wives and families, their homes, their jobs, their involvement in the military service, where they had been on vacation. 
Every afternoon when the man in the bed by the window could sit up, he would pass the time by describing to his roommate all the things he could see outside the window. 
The man in the other bed began to live for those one hour periods where his world would be broadened and enlivened by all the activity and color of the world outside. 
The window overlooked a park with a lovely lake. Ducks and swans played on the water while children sailed their model boats. Young lovers walked arm in arm amidst flowers of every color and a fine view of the city skyline could be seen in the distance. 
As the man by the window described all this in exquisite detail, the man on the other side of the room would close his eyes and imagine the picturesque scene. 
One warm afternoon the man by the window described a parade passing by. 
Although the other man couldn't hear the band - he could see it. In his mind's eye as the gentleman by the window portrayed it with descriptive words. 
Days and weeks passed. 
One morning, the day nurse arrived to bring water for their baths only to find the lifeless body of the man by the window, who had died peacefully in his sleep. She was saddened and called the hospital attendants to take the body away. 
As soon as it seemed appropriate, the other man asked if he could be moved next to the window. The nurse was happy to make the switch, and after making sure he was comfortable, she left him alone. 
Slowly, painfully, he propped himself up on one elbow to take his first look at the real world outside. 
He strained to slowly turn to look out the window beside the bed. 
It faced a blank wall. The man asked the nurse what could have compelled his deceased roommate who had described such wonderful things outside this window. 
The nurse responded that the man was blind and could not even see the wall. 
She said, "Perhaps he just wanted to encourage you." 
Epilogue: 
There is tremendous happiness in making others happy, despite our own situations. 
Shared grief is half the sorrow, but happiness when shared, is doubled. 
If you want to feel rich, just count all the things you have that money can't buy. 
"Today is a gift, that's why it is called the present." 
The origin of this letter is unknown, but it brings good luck to everyone who passes it on. 
Do not keep this letter. 
Just forward it to your friends to whom you wish good luck. You will see that something good will happen to you 
--- End Message ---

[UC] Fwd: Fashion Advice

[BAShowell]

 
--- Begin Message ---


I'm sending this to keep all of my senior friends (and not
so senior ones) from making a fashion mistake. Despite
what you may have seen on  the streets, the following
combinations DO NOT go together:
   A nose ring and bifocals
   Spiked hair and bald spots
   A pierced tongue and dentures
   Miniskirts and support hose
   Ankle bracelets and corn pads
   Speedos and cellulite
   A belly button ring and a gall bladder surgery scar
   Unbuttoned disco shirts and a heart monitor
   Midriff shirts and a midriff bulge
   Bikinis and liver spots
   Short shorts and varicose veins
   In-line skates and a walker
   But, otherwise, YOU'RE LOOKIN' GOOD!

 
<>--- End Message ---

[UC] babysitter wanted

[Frishkoff, Andrew]

My wife and I would like to go out for dinner and a movie on occasion, but alas, our 
babysitter has graduated and we are stuck at home.  We would be grateful for any 
referrals for a babysitter for our two sons, ages 8 and 5.  We promise not to hog; we 
just need a couple of nights a month. 
 
Our alternative is to let them hang out for a few hours at the new restaurant at 46th 
and Cedar.
 
Thanks.
 
Andy Frishkoff

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Upsettingly biased article about Bill 040003

[Krfapt]

In a message dated 2/17/2004 5:43:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
assuming that the intent of Jane's bill is to prevent historic designation, which I think is a fair assumption otherwise she wouldn't be lobbying to take control of the process as she proposes
I don't see this as the purpose at all. If she wanted to prevent historic designation, she'd have introduced a bill to rescind Section 14-2007 of the Philadelphia Code entirely ... and been done with it.
 
My "take" on this bill is as a way to provide some sorely needed oversight on district designation. If the PHC's decisions were recommendations to City Council rather than the last word on the topic, the Commission would have to be far less cavalier about things like defining "periods of significance" (Old City -- from Colonial times to 1929 -- what a joke!) and about including structures that have nothing to do with the visual "fabric of the community" because of their style or modifications made over the years as "contributing" and therefore subject to all manner of punctilious and silly requirements. Further, factors such as the economic and social impact of designation on the stakeholders in a neighborhood would be on the table. I've attended meetings of the PHC's Designation Committee and hearings of the Commission -- and these were never considered.
 
Personally, I support Bill 040003 because of the oversight it provides and wouldn't support rescinding of the Preservation Ordinance altogether. I'd even support holding Bill 040003 in abeyance if the Commission took some time out from designation and did a thorough revision of its "Rules and Regulations" so its decisions were truly a means of preserving our architectural heritage and not of social engineering.
 
Al Krigman

Re: [UC] Upsettingly biased article about Bill 040003

[Brian Siano]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Tony,

To what do you attribute the statement, "Complying with Historical 
Commission requirements triples that cost, as a rule."

Dunno if it's true "as a rule," but I can offer some supporting data 
from my own experience. About two or three Januarys ago, I had to get 
the three windows in my second-floor bay replaced. (The existing windows 
were shoddy aluminum-frame paste-ups which bled heat and groaned like 
banshees when opened.)  My budget wasn't terrifically large at the time, 
but I decided to get some bids on some really nice-looking wood-clad 
windows from Marvin and Andersen. Those prices were in the range of $700 
to $1200 _per window_, with a low-end estimate of $2100 for the whole 
job.. But, the vinyl-clad windows I eventually did get were between 
$250-300 each, with a grand total of about $700.

Now, these figures are not precisely indicative of historic restoration 
work. For one thing, the choices of high-end windows weren't dictated by 
the PHC, which meant that I could select cheaper models. And this 
happened before I'd even _heard_ of the HD proposal, so I didn't try 
pricing the costs of architctural consutation, nor did I factor in the 
time and effort that'd be required to deal with the PHC's review 
process. So one could make a good case that the deluxe job I'd priced-- 
$2100-- may actually be a tot _low_.

So I'd say that, in this particular example, Tony's triple-the-cost 
figure isn't to far off the mark.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Upsettingly biased article about Bill 040003

[Lillja]

Tony,

To what do you attribute the statement, "Complying with Historical Commission requirements triples that cost, as a rule."

Also, assuming that the intent of Jannie's bill is to prevent historic designation, which I think is a fair assumption otherwise she wouldn't be lobbying to take control of the process as she proposes, most people would not be able to take advantage of the tax credits as I stated earlier.

Jim

Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled

[Richard Hotchkiss]

Title: Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled



Let's see how well my memory serves me. The property in question was previously, a failed dollar store, a slip shod video place, a west coast video, a convenience store (maybe even a stop and go), and a gas station. I even thought of opening a take out type establishment there but didn't jump on the opportunity when I had the chance. Now that I know the neighbors don't want anything there (all business attracts people or it goes out of business) I wouldn't invest in this area (please remember the never opened dentist on this block). If an upscale restaurant decided to invest in this address, would the neighbors oppose that too? Lots of traffic, smelly garbage, kitchen vents, nice yuppies, nice cars? 

Like it or not, this area of Baltimore Ave has become a haven for recent emigrants from the Ivory Coast who are in the want for their American Dream. Right now this population is in the Taxi business (a very dangerous business) and would like some choice in food and social options. 

I live right behind some of the establishments that are used by these folks and even though I don't understand a word they are speaking I have never felt threatened. I just wish they had a place to park.
 
Richard Hotchkiss
http://www.hotstrings-inc.com

Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled

[Marielena Mata]

I am not sure what you mean by the "usual suspects" as the CPPNA, which 
truly refers to the neighbors who live in the 4600 block of Cedar doesn't 
really have much power in the neighborhood.  I am sorry to see that you have 
been so jaded by the "usual suspects" that you are not listening to what a 
group of neighbors, particularly those most directly affected by this 
property, are saying.  We want revitalization and we have been trying to 
work with both the owners and the tenants from the very beginning (when it 
was only going to be a dollar store).
As for Starbucks, Ben & Jerry's or Metropolitan Bakery, I DOUBT the CPPNA 
would be particularly interested in any of them as similar issues of trash, 
pests and traffic would arise.  The truth is who wants Starbucks when we 
have the Green Line Cafe and the Metropolitan Bakery doesn't have much 
appeal compared to the Sugar Hill Bakery on Baltimore.

Maty

http://groups.msn.com/krystaswebsite





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:14:26 EST
In a message dated 2/17/2004 2:43:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I getting very tired of the community
organizations in this area opposing growth.
Isn't it just the "usual suspects" opposing, not exactly growth, but
revitalization of a type that doesn't fit their suburb-in-the-city notion 
of what the
neighborhood wants or needs? I wonder whether they'd be representing
themselves as the voice of the community to the Zoning Board in opposition 
to
Starbucks, Ben & Jerry's, or even the home-grown Metropolitan Bakery if any 
of them
wanted to locate at that corner and keep the same kind of "take-out" hours.

Al Krigman

PS -- The "community meeting" about the 40th Street revitalization 
proposals
is tonight at the Rotunda (nee the Christian Science Church) at 40th & 
Walnut.
(put on by "Penn Praxis," whatever that is.) This affords us all an
opportunity to discuss these ideas in principle with one another, without 
getting down
to the specifics of one particular person and what some folks like or don't
like about his or her business practices. UC is evolving -- we ought to be
airing our thoughts about revitalization, gentrification, and equitable
development. And, now, before someone comes up with a Program and says the 
community is
behind it.

Of course, it's easier to post thoughts on the Internet than to show up at 
a
meeting and engage in a productive discussion. And the notice of the 
meeting
wasn't exactly distributed widely or in a timely manner. But those of us 
who
consider these things important enough for action as opposed to mere words 
will
find a way to be there.
_
Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free! 
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200365ave/direct/01/


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled

[Marielena Mata]

A quick clarification with regards to traffic concerns.  This particular lot 
has access to both Baltimore and Cedar Avenue.  We have already had 
accidents on Cedar Avenue as a result of drivers coming out of the parking 
lot into Cedar Avenue and not paying attention (and ending up in a 
resident's front yard, almost reaching the newly restored porch).  We are 
not concerned about traffic increase in Baltimore, which wouldn't be much of 
a difference, but we are concerned about increased traffic on Cedar Avenue 
which is already pretty busy thanks to the number of drivers who think this 
is a great way to get ahead of the trolleys and drive thru this street at 55 
mph.

Maty

http://groups.msn.com/krystaswebsite





From: "Dan Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Dan Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Marielena Mata" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,   
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:16:35 -0500

Extra trash? Is that the reason? You have got to be joking! I would think
that a restaurant would have less trash because of take out-- all of the
bags, boxes, and plastic forks that would be used at the restaurant would 
be
sent to the person's home instead of at the restaurant, hence less people
eating there too.

Ok, traffic may be an issue if it was a Hard Rock cafe or McDonalds. But Le
Mandingue Restaurant is a little less known. And I don't think the traffic
is really an issue, nor is parking, as they DO have a parking lot 
equateable
to what the size of the restaurant is. Heck, I don't think Abbraccio has
enough parking spots to accommodate the size of the restaurant, but no one
opposes them (including me).

So what's the real issue? Change? I think most people are afraid of change.

Dan Myers
- Original Message -
From: "Marielena Mata" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled
> It seems that a number of people have questions with regards to the
> opposition to a take-out business.  For that purpose, I am pasting the
test
> of the petition that CPPNA is submitting at the time of the hearing.  It
> lays out a number of reasons for the opposition.
>
> Maty
>
>
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> We, the neighbors request that a zoning variance for a take-out 
operation
> NOT be granted for the property located on 4610 Cedar Avenue.  4610 
Cedar
> Avenue is an attractive location for a business given its direct access 
to
> both a commercial corridor and a residential neighborhood.  But it is 
this
> proximity to a residential neighborhood that makes a take-out business 
an
> inappropriate use of the space for the following reasons:
>
> 1. Trash:  Normally, trash generated by a take-out business is greater
than
> that generated by a regular eat-in operation both from the business side
and
> the patron side.  As it is, trash management for an eat-in operation in
this
> location is not sufficient at this time.  We, the neighbors, have been
> trying to work with the current tenants to address the issue of garbage
> management before they open an eat-in restaurant  (Please refer to
> "Neighborhood Development and Operating Agreement" document). We, the
> neighbors, are concerned that a take-out operation will result in
increased
> trash in the neighborhood with its accompanying consequences, increased
> pests (rodents and insects), refuse smells and blight.
>
> 2. Traffic:  A take -out business will have a direct impact on traffic 
in
> the neighborhood.  The parking lot of this property accesses Cedar 
Avenue
> directly, increasing traffic.  This is particularly true if, as stated 
by
> the tenants, they aim to attract the taxi driver population.  An 
increase
in
> traffic will increase the incidence of noise, traffic violations and
> accidents. In addition, loitering and cars parked on the lot, two
activities
> that tend to attract crime and blight, will also increase.
>
> 3. Parking:  Although this property has a parking lot, this lot does not
> have the capacity to support a take-out operation, particularly at peak
> hours. This is a concern as parking is already limited in the 
neighborhood
> and cannot accommodate the increased demand set by a take-out operation.
As
> a consequence, we would see an increase in parking violations with
resulting
> increased risks to both drivers and pedestrians.
>
> 4. Noise levels and operating hours: In previous discussions with the
> property tenants, they have talked about possible hours of operations
being
> 12 noon to 12 am, 7 days/week.   Such hours will result in heavy traffic
and
> increased noise levels until the early hours of the morning throughout 
the
> week in a peaceful residential neighborhood where children and working
> adults need to get adequate rest.
>
> 5. The tenants: West 

Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled

[Dan Myers]

Extra trash? Is that the reason? You have got to be joking! I would think
that a restaurant would have less trash because of take out-- all of the
bags, boxes, and plastic forks that would be used at the restaurant would be
sent to the person's home instead of at the restaurant, hence less people
eating there too.

Ok, traffic may be an issue if it was a Hard Rock cafe or McDonalds. But Le
Mandingue Restaurant is a little less known. And I don't think the traffic
is really an issue, nor is parking, as they DO have a parking lot equateable
to what the size of the restaurant is. Heck, I don't think Abbraccio has
enough parking spots to accommodate the size of the restaurant, but no one
opposes them (including me).

So what's the real issue? Change? I think most people are afraid of change.

Dan Myers
- Original Message -
From: "Marielena Mata" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled


> It seems that a number of people have questions with regards to the
> opposition to a take-out business.  For that purpose, I am pasting the
test
> of the petition that CPPNA is submitting at the time of the hearing.  It
> lays out a number of reasons for the opposition.
>
> Maty
>
>
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> We, the neighbors request that a zoning variance for a take-out operation
> NOT be granted for the property located on 4610 Cedar Avenue.  4610 Cedar
> Avenue is an attractive location for a business given its direct access to
> both a commercial corridor and a residential neighborhood.  But it is this
> proximity to a residential neighborhood that makes a take-out business an
> inappropriate use of the space for the following reasons:
>
> 1. Trash:  Normally, trash generated by a take-out business is greater
than
> that generated by a regular eat-in operation both from the business side
and
> the patron side.  As it is, trash management for an eat-in operation in
this
> location is not sufficient at this time.  We, the neighbors, have been
> trying to work with the current tenants to address the issue of garbage
> management before they open an eat-in restaurant  (Please refer to
> "Neighborhood Development and Operating Agreement" document). We, the
> neighbors, are concerned that a take-out operation will result in
increased
> trash in the neighborhood with its accompanying consequences, increased
> pests (rodents and insects), refuse smells and blight.
>
> 2. Traffic:  A take -out business will have a direct impact on traffic in
> the neighborhood.  The parking lot of this property accesses Cedar Avenue
> directly, increasing traffic.  This is particularly true if, as stated by
> the tenants, they aim to attract the taxi driver population.  An increase
in
> traffic will increase the incidence of noise, traffic violations and
> accidents. In addition, loitering and cars parked on the lot, two
activities
> that tend to attract crime and blight, will also increase.
>
> 3. Parking:  Although this property has a parking lot, this lot does not
> have the capacity to support a take-out operation, particularly at peak
> hours. This is a concern as parking is already limited in the neighborhood
> and cannot accommodate the increased demand set by a take-out operation.
As
> a consequence, we would see an increase in parking violations with
resulting
> increased risks to both drivers and pedestrians.
>
> 4. Noise levels and operating hours: In previous discussions with the
> property tenants, they have talked about possible hours of operations
being
> 12 noon to 12 am, 7 days/week.   Such hours will result in heavy traffic
and
> increased noise levels until the early hours of the morning throughout the
> week in a peaceful residential neighborhood where children and working
> adults need to get adequate rest.
>
> 5. The tenants: West Philadelphia, and in particular, the Baltimore
Corridor
> have been great examples of the fight against blight as a result of the
> collaborations between neighbors and business owners willing to work
> together for the betterment of the community.  It has been our experience
> that the current tenants are not willing to work  with us and have been
> deceitful to the local government, the property owners and the community
at
> large (please, refer to attached documentation).  The current tenants
> falsified documents to acquire permits illegally and have failed to follow
> L&I and other governmental agencies' instructions over and over again.
The
> tenants also failed to notify the property owners that they intended to
open
> a restaurant and that they would carry on remodeling projects to add a
> kitchen to the property.  Finally, the tenants have made promises to the
> community and failed to keep them, knowing very well that the community
> would fight them if they pursued certain types of businesses, s

Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled

[Krfapt]

In a message dated 2/17/2004 2:43:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I getting very tired of the communityorganizations in this area opposing growth.
Isn't it just the "usual suspects" opposing, not exactly growth, but revitalization of a type that doesn't fit their suburb-in-the-city notion of what the neighborhood wants or needs? I wonder whether they'd be representing themselves as the voice of the community to the Zoning Board in opposition to Starbucks, Ben & Jerry's, or even the home-grown Metropolitan Bakery if any of them wanted to locate at that corner and keep the same kind of "take-out" hours.
 
Al Krigman
 
PS -- The "community meeting" about the 40th Street revitalization proposals is tonight at the Rotunda (nee the Christian Science Church) at 40th & Walnut. (put on by "Penn Praxis," whatever that is.) This affords us all an opportunity to discuss these ideas in principle with one another, without getting down to the specifics of one particular person and what some folks like or don't like about his or her business practices. UC is evolving -- we ought to be airing our thoughts about revitalization, gentrification, and equitable development. And, now, before someone comes up with a Program and says the community is behind it.
 
Of course, it's easier to post thoughts on the Internet than to show up at a meeting and engage in a productive discussion. And the notice of the meeting wasn't exactly distributed widely or in a timely manner. But those of us who consider these things important enough for action as opposed to mere words will find a way to be there.

Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled

[DUBUS Jesse]

Okay, I don't mean to be impolite, but this to me seems just silly.  I live
two blocks away and would be glad to have another take-out option open until
midnight.  But that's besides the point.  What's silly is the stated
objections.

Doesn't Gojjo offer take-out until midnight already?  A half block away.
What about the 24 hour gas station/convenience store a block away.  You
would want that to be closed?  There are already about a dozen
bars/restaurants that operate at similar hours already within a block of the
location.  It's not as if baltimore ave is a raucous place late at night or
that one more restaurant is going to change that.

I'm relatively new to the list so hopefully I'm not beating a dead horse but
I was too incredulous not to say anything.

-Jesse


On 2/17/04 1:49 PM, "Marielena Mata" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It seems that a number of people have questions with regards to the
> opposition to a take-out business.  For that purpose, I am pasting the test
> of the petition that CPPNA is submitting at the time of the hearing.  It
> lays out a number of reasons for the opposition.
> 
> Maty
> 
> 
> To Whom It May Concern:
> 
> We, the neighbors request that a zoning variance for a take-out operation
> NOT be granted for the property located on 4610 Cedar Avenue.  4610 Cedar
> Avenue is an attractive location for a business given its direct access to
> both a commercial corridor and a residential neighborhood.  But it is this
> proximity to a residential neighborhood that makes a take-out business an
> inappropriate use of the space for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. Trash:  Normally, trash generated by a take-out business is greater than
> that generated by a regular eat-in operation both from the business side and
> the patron side.  As it is, trash management for an eat-in operation in this
> location is not sufficient at this time.  We, the neighbors, have been
> trying to work with the current tenants to address the issue of garbage
> management before they open an eat-in restaurant  (Please refer to
> "Neighborhood Development and Operating Agreement" document). We, the
> neighbors, are concerned that a take-out operation will result in increased
> trash in the neighborhood with its accompanying consequences, increased
> pests (rodents and insects), refuse smells and blight.
> 
> 2. Traffic:  A take –out business will have a direct impact on traffic in
> the neighborhood.  The parking lot of this property accesses Cedar Avenue
> directly, increasing traffic.  This is particularly true if, as stated by
> the tenants, they aim to attract the taxi driver population.  An increase in
> traffic will increase the incidence of noise, traffic violations and
> accidents. In addition, loitering and cars parked on the lot, two activities
> that tend to attract crime and blight, will also increase.
> 
> 3. Parking:  Although this property has a parking lot, this lot does not
> have the capacity to support a take-out operation, particularly at peak
> hours. This is a concern as parking is already limited in the neighborhood
> and cannot accommodate the increased demand set by a take-out operation.  As
> a consequence, we would see an increase in parking violations with resulting
> increased risks to both drivers and pedestrians.
> 
> 4. Noise levels and operating hours: In previous discussions with the
> property tenants, they have talked about possible hours of operations being
> 12 noon to 12 am, 7 days/week.   Such hours will result in heavy traffic and
> increased noise levels until the early hours of the morning throughout the
> week in a peaceful residential neighborhood where children and working
> adults need to get adequate rest.
> 
> 5. The tenants: West Philadelphia, and in particular, the Baltimore Corridor
> have been great examples of the fight against blight as a result of the
> collaborations between neighbors and business owners willing to work
> together for the betterment of the community.  It has been our experience
> that the current tenants are not willing to work  with us and have been
> deceitful to the local government, the property owners and the community at
> large (please, refer to attached documentation).  The current tenants
> falsified documents to acquire permits illegally and have failed to follow
> L&I and other governmental agencies’ instructions over and over again.  The
> tenants also failed to notify the property owners that they intended to open
> a restaurant and that they would carry on remodeling projects to add a
> kitchen to the property.  Finally, the tenants have made promises to the
> community and failed to keep them, knowing very well that the community
> would fight them if they pursued certain types of businesses, such as a
> restaurant.  The most relevant of these empty promises was the one of not
> opening a take-out business in this property.
> Based on the aforesaid information and attached documentation, the residents
> of the 46th and Cedar

Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled

[Andrew C. Diller]

I am opposed. Its already a nightmare with idiots using the laundrymat. I do not want 
them offering carryout. 



--
Andy Diller

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Gerardo Razumney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tue Feb 17 13:45:28 2004
Subject: Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled

I live right around the corner from this property and I am NOT opposed to
the restaurant at that location. I getting very tired of the community
organizations in this area opposing growth.

Please forward me the emails.

Richard Hotchkiss
http://www.hotstrings-inc.com



> From: Gerardo Razumney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Gerardo Razumney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:37:33 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled
> 
> I cannot understand why the neighbors are opposed.  Baltimore Ave. is a
> commercial corridor; that corner is heavily commercial, with a gas
> station and a used furniture store across the street, and several other
> stores nearby.  The site has a parking area, which is a guarantee
> against double parking, so prevalent and annoying at other take out
> places.  Attempts to develop other uses have failed; clearly it is not
> good to have an empty site.  Can someone explain why it is a bad idea?
> Is there another viable plan for the site?  Or is it just a desire to
> transform the entire area back into an isolated residential dream land?
> I hope not!
> 
> Gerardo Razumney
> 
> 
> Marielena Mata wrote:
> 
>> hello all,
>> 
>> A Zoning Hearing has been rescheduled for the property on 46th, Cedar
>> Avenue and Baltimore Avenue (Le Mandingue Restaurant, which has not
>> opened).  As mentioned before in these listservs, the neighbors of the
>> Cedar Park Point Neighborhood Association (CPPNA) are opposed to a
>> take-out restaurant in this location.  If you would like to show your
>> support, the hearing is scheduled for wednesday, February 18, 2004 at
>> 3:30 pm.  The location is 1515 Arch Street, 18th floor, Philadelphia.
>> 
>> If you need a recap of this situation, let me know and I will forward to
>> you previous e-mails.
>> 
>> 
>> Maty
>> 
>> _
>> Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage ­ 4 plans to choose
>> from! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
> .
> 


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Re: 4610 Cedar Avenue Take out Zoning Hearing rescheduled

[Daniel Widyono]

Disclaimer: I am at this point neither speaking for nor against any proposal.

> > I cannot understand why the neighbors are opposed.

> I agree. Why is it bad to have take out there?
> Why is the general public opposed to it?

Have either of you read the thread posted here previously regarding this?  I
believe your questions are partially answered.  The archives are searchable
at:

http://www.purple.com/list.html

I state this because I'd rather not have people rehash the same arguments
when one can simply read through past postings.

Regards,
Dan W.

P.S.  Dead roosters, Dogs gone wild, Contractor recommendations

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.