It’s not that 9 units is bad.  It’s that they have no hardship to justify a variance.  The ZBA isn’t there to give variances for good projects–it’s there to follow the zoning code and only provide variances when necessary.  What’s the point of a zoning code if we’re going to have development by consensus and negotiation.  Property owners have limited rights.  You can’t arbitrarily let Columbus Hall build beyond the zoning code because you like the building and then deny that right to all of the neighbors.

“One possibility that wasn’t discussed at the meeting- the building,
while beautiful, is not designated historic. The developers could, if
they wished, demolish the building and start from scratch. With the new
zoning code, they could ostensibly build a four story building by right,
and stuff as many units as they wished onto the site, provided they had
enough open space in the rear. Not to say that this would even be
financially feasible, but it’s definitely possible.

Kind of makes nine apartments in the existing building sound pretty good, no?”

Christ on a bike you have no soul.
 

“With the new zoning code, they could ostensibly build a four story building by right, and stuff as many units as they wished onto the site, provided they had enough open space in the rear.”
Virtually everything in this sentence is wrong. For CMX-2, the height restriction is 35 feet in the new code, and the number of dwelling units allowed by right is controlled by the lot size. Even if the lot is 3000 square feet, the max allowed would be six or seven. But yes, you’re right about one thing: open space in the rear would _also_ limit the number of units allowed by right.

But hey, why bother knowing about the zoning code when you can just make stuff up?

Do you really think Bella Vista’s problem is a lack of density?

According to the code, the max for new construction here would be six units, in a building up to 38′ (table 14-701-3). The developer could do four stories, all two-bedroom units with contemporary finishes. Building new, the costs would be controlled, compared to an adaptive reuse where plenty of unexpected challenges could come up. And the rents would be higher, as well.

That being said, it would be absolutely terrible to see that building demolished. It would be the worst outcome for everybody (except maybe the developer, can’t say for sure without seeing a pro forma)

The point wasn’t at all that the developer should do this- merely that they could if they so desired.

And thanks for the additional info on lot size controlling number of units allowed. Did not know that til now…

Part of the reason Columbus Hall is such a charming building is because it is so definitively complete: an engraving of the name and years of construction capped off with one of the most majestic cornices in the neighborhood. Full stop. I presume renderings of the proposed addition haven’t been published yet, but is there any way to build on top of that cornice without compromising the exterior of the hall? Harman Deutsch has a history of going with aluminum exteriors to top off historic stone and granite buildings (correct me if I have the wrong materials in mind); do we want to imagine how aluminum would look going up here as well?

The silver lining is that this should get the word out on the vulnerability of Bella Vista’s buildings and the need to nominate more properties for historical protection, now that the neighborhood is becoming over-saturated with my-way-or-the-highway developers.

 Correction: The addition would supposedly be set back twenty feet, so it wouldn’t be the most horrific thing to happen to this building. I would still like to see renderings for the addition, however, especially to see how the roof deck would turn out. And my point about historical protection stands.

My bad on the typo on the 38. Meant to type that… old code is 35. Old habits die hard.

But the point is that they couldn’t do “as many as they wished.” They could do six if it were only up to lot size (I’ll take your word on the lot size), which is just one more than  the neighbors wanted. But they could they realistically  do six with enough open space to meet the open space requirements (they can only occupy 75% of the lot, not to mention the rear setback)? And four floors at 38 feet? Really? 

Also, there’s a requirement for _some_ commercial use on the ground floor for CMX2, table (Table 14-602-2, note 3). 

I’m not even going to get into whether the lot consolidation was zoned or if it’s just a grandfathered nonconforming, which would mean that ANYTHING would require a variance.And most importantly: I’m sure they’re also paying way too much for the building itself to consider a complete rebuild.

Bottom line: your statement was senseless alarmism in an attempt to counter the neighbor’s concerns. 

To be clear: I have no issue with this project. I just don’t like misinformation about what the zoning allows.

Oh but you can, and that’s what almost always happens.  The large majority of variances that are granted are not justified by a true hardship.  Remember that hardships cannot be self imposed either.  The way the system works is that good projects are granted variances with the support of neighbors and a wink and nod about the hardship requirement.

The whole point of zoning codes is to limit uses in a particular area and only allow nonconforming uses with neighborhood approval.

I’m all for preservation and restoration that is faithful to the original building design, but historic designation isn’t a preservation panacea.  While it often ensures that a desirable, marketable property is preserved, it can also make the restoration or reuse of a less marketable property prohibitively expensive, dooming any chance of preservation.  

Well, I know you’re right but I hope for a ZBA that tries to create legal regularities rather than rewards specific property owners. Zoning codes exist both to regulate uses and building envelopes.  I’m perfectly happy with adding more density but I think it should be done in the code–not by variance.  People complain about NIMBYs and neighborhood groups power.  It’s allowing variances only with neighborhood consent that gives these groups power.  I want to take the power away from these groups and the way to do that isn’t to grant variances when they support a project.  It’s to oppose almost all variances and then to liberalize the code.

Yes.  It would benefit from more residents per acre without decreasing the average square footage per resident.

 As Italians arrived in Philadelphia in large numbers
beginning in the late 19th century, mutual aid societies such as the
Societa Italiana Di Mutuo Soccorso e Beneficenza (1883) and the Societa
Italiana Di Mutuo Soccorso S. Antonio Di Padua (1899), and Columbus Hall were established to
assist newcomers.  They provided
financial aid along with friendly encouragement in adjusting to life in
Philadelphia.  These and other
societies
met in fraternal halls and local churches.  You can find old pictures of
Columbus Hall in books about the history of Bella Vista/Italian South
Philadelphia.

Frequently, neighbors and civic zoning committees lose sight of the big picture and focus on minor details. Owners and neighbors both have rights and are often willing to negotiate to get a viable project.