Here are two more things to consider as the list debates the 40th & Pine/Baltimore location for a restored Italianate building and an extended stay hotel. As I understand it, when the property was purchased in 2004, no one involved knew that the building was on the local register, so they weren't anticipating renovation costs for the Italianate house. And I've been told that they paid "roughly $1.8 million" for it, and that renovation costs for the house are expected to be over $3 million. So I think we can take "restore it as a single family house" off of the list of possible options for it. As I said at yesterday's meeting, it's beyond the abilities of local homeowners to handle this property.
Can anyone suggest other possible uses for it? Or make a good case for it to continue to sit vacant and deteriorated? Please be practical; we all know that Penn has an endowment and a lot of money, but they also have Trustees to answer to, and a mission of education. They don't do projects that don't make financial sense. Also, here's a note about how community association zoning committees work. Karen Allen and I both know this, since we work together on the Cedar Park Neighbors zoning committee: When a change is being proposed, or even thought about, it is best if the developer/property owner consults the community association's zoning committee right away to make them aware of the possibility. The zoning committee may meet with the owner informally, ask questions and/or make some suggestions about the project as a start, or may just get enough information to schedule a meeting with the nearby neighbors. The neighbors would always include the folks on the block, and might also include neighbors further away, depending on the type of proposal. Sometimes early on, and sometimes not till after the orange zoning alert flyers go up, the community association's zoning committee sets up the neighbors' meeting, notifies the neighbors (CPN leaflets), and lets the applicant make a presentation to them. Then the neighbors weigh in, and the zoning committee works with them - the neighbors - to accomplish the goals the neighbors want. It's not about the zoning committee's wants, or the whole area's wants; it's about the neighbors' wants - because they are the ones faced with the change. If the neighbors don't agree, then it's harder for the zoning committee; they need to either go with the majority or tell the zoning board that they can't take a side in the matter. I remember going to a CPN zoning committee meeting for a conversion of a property to multifamily on Cedar Ave. where I personally didn't like the proposal, and the other CPN folks at the meeting expected the neighbors to be against it. But the neighbors liked the applicant and were in favor of the change. We reminded them that it would be permanent, even if the building was later sold to someone they didn't like. They said that was okay with them. So, CPN supported the conversion. That's how zoning committees function. They support the neighbors. Does someone have better suggestions for how zoning committees should operate? Again, keeping the suggestions practical - and doable for local community volunteers? - Melani Lamond In a message dated 10/24/07 10:51:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation were referred > to a > few times in the review meeting. I was surprised to see that they're > actually > quite concise, though obviously open to interpretation. Standard 9 was the > source for John Gallery's objections: > > http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/rhb/stand.htm > > The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation > > The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to > historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and > occupancy > and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and > the > building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related > new > construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation > projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and > technical feasibility. > > 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new > use > that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building > and its site and environment. > > 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The > removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that > characterize a property shall be avoided. > > 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, > place, > and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such > as > adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, > shall not be undertaken. > > 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired > historic > significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. > > 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples > of > craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. > > 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. > Where > the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, > the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other > visual > qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features > shall > be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. > > 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage > to > historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if > appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. > > 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be > protected > and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures > shall > be undertaken. > > 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall > not > destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work > shall > be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, > size, > scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the > property and its environment. > > 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be > undertaken > in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and > integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. > > > Melani Lamond, Associate Broker Urban & Bye, Realtor 3529 Lancaster Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19104 cell phone 215-356-7266 office phone 215-222-4800, ext. 113 office fax 215-222-1101 2006 recipient of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors awards: - Diamond award for over $8 million in sales, and ALL SIX of the West Philadelphia awards: - Top Lister - Top Seller - Top Overall Combined Volume - Top Listing Units by Area - Top Selling Units by Area - Top Overall Combined Units by Area ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
